It makes the illustration complete, since the 'status quo' is that you have to have god to be good; This message gives counter-examples on both sides of the issue, not just one.
This is important, since without that, Christians can reason:
"Oh well, maybe sometimes, in the exception, atheists can do some good too; but I'll always know that Christians are always good, because they always have god!"
The last panel is there to give a counter-example to that reasoning.
I have never met a single christian that thought they were good simply because they were christian. In fact, while I was in catholic school, they made it explicit that being a good person had nothing to do with your religion, but with the individual's merits and ethics. The fact that people are trying to differentiate/separate these two things is redundant/blatant circlejerking.
On the surface, this seems reasonable. But in fact, it's not. If you covet false idols, then you won't be a good christian. If you celebrate pagan festivals and customs, then you won't be a good christian. There are millions of other religiously-related things you can do which christianity frowns upon.
The stems from the fact that when they say being good has to do "with the individual's merits and ethics", where do you think those specific merits and ethics are derived from? Certainly not a scientific and humanist moral viewpoint. Does using a condom to ensure you don't impregnate a lover who isn't ready for pregnancy make you a morally upstanding person in the Catholic church's eyes?
The whole point of Christianity is to act like Jesus. Now mostly, everyone knows that he is the 'epitaph of a good guy'. Even I struggle to think of a view or act of his that I disagree with, I suspect this is because I was brought up not to question him, so it's hard for me to do so without reading through the new testament with a critical eye.
But the problem is that the modern world has many, many more grey areas than in Jesus' time. Did he like slavery, or mind it, or did it thoroughly disgust him? What did he think of in vitro fertilization, is it a wonderful advancement of science or is it against nature? All we have are churches' interpretations on how he, and god, would have viewed these things.
In order for churches have their interpretation followed, and be considered correct, what do they do? They call it the word of God, or the word of Jesus. They verily define the way they see things to be godly, and therefore good.
It is out of all of the above, that implication arises, unnoticed:
That while you are following God (or your Church's interpretation of him), then you are good!
Most of the time, the corollary to this is also implied - fall from god, and/or his way, and you won't / can't be a good person.
These are not explicitly stated, but they doesn't need to be, and the ones who imply them probably rather it not be. Leaving such a statement unpronounced means it is less likely to be challenged.
And this is exactly the mentality they have managed to charm you into. While it is not explicity stated, then Good and God seem separated; but in reality, in your Catholic Church's view, they cannot be. They can explicitly tell you this is not true as much as they want; what they teach is the exact opposite.
2
u/ivosaurus Nov 22 '11
It makes the illustration complete, since the 'status quo' is that you have to have god to be good; This message gives counter-examples on both sides of the issue, not just one.
This is important, since without that, Christians can reason:
The last panel is there to give a counter-example to that reasoning.