June 4th, 2009
Let’s clarify a few crucial things:
We (Husband and I) think Christians are good people. We do not advocate infanticide. We’re also not picking on Christians, nor are we mocking them. In fact we think Christians are, overwhelmingly, much better than their theology.
The previous posts have simply been efforts at offering formal arguments, using widely held Christian doctrines, to demonstrate inconsistencies in the structure of Christian theology. Either these inconsistencies are real, or we have misunderstood. Unfortunately, none of the replies so far really gets to the core problem, as we see it.
The doctrine of Natural Grace just does mean that dead innocents go to Heaven. The manner of their death is not relevant and so could very well include murder. A total nutjob who killed babies in the name of God would be sending them to Heaven.
The only way to defeat the argument is to defeat Natural Grace.
However, if you defeat Natural Grace, then God damns babies to eternal torment. That’s not a very attractive alternative.
“We’re also not picking on Christians, nor are we mocking them.”
I dunno, maybe you can play the “we’re mocking the belief, not the believers” card, but it’s pretty disingenuous. I mean, aren’t you the bloggers who do a Bible reading in jest for Christmas? Wish your readers a “Happy Zombie Jesus Day” when Easter rolls around?
I mean, generally speaking, when you make sport of the most deeply held beliefs of a group of people, you can rightly said to be mocking the people. If there is a central tenet of Christianity, it’s probably the resurrection of Christ.
It would be like going to a Native celebration and going “Woooo wooo wooo, Great Spirit!” and doing some sort of ridiculous mocking dance.
But I suppose, if you’re logically consistent, you wouldn’t have a problem doing that either, right?
They are both woo… aren’t they?
~I.
Hey, did you even read my xmas scriptural post this year? All I did was reproduce, verbatim with citations, a quotation from the Bible.
I’m not really sure how to answer a charge of mocking when the basis is my presenting material from the Bible. Absolutely, the Bible is absurd when you try to use it as anything other than literature. If you can’t see that you are not your bible I don’t know what else to say.
I imagine it is not comfortable having some of the odd bits in the bible pointed out, but in that case target your unpleasant feelings at the book, not me. Everything I say is backed with scripture. We are serious about scholarship in this house – just last night we were sitting on the patio with our King James and a concordance, looking up the test for an adulteress to see how God helps jealous husbands perform an airtight test for fidelity.
Feeling mocked over what’s written in Num 5:11-31? Take it up with the book.
I think the point is that the Bible mocks itself.
Man, that’s got to suck considering it’s the inerrant word of God.
Incognito,
What’s so disingenuous about attacking ridiculous truth-claims while also genuinely harbouring no ill will toward those making the claims?
Bill O’Reilly of Fox News constantly makes ludicrous statements, but I suspect he’d be a fantastic party guest.
Vex,
What, deftly sliding by the Zombie Jesus day comments?
If you point out a passage, and say “we don’t find this to be defensible” that’s one thing. When you deliberately take a deeply held doctrine such as the resurrection, misrepresent the belief to suggest that Christians worship a mindless, brain eating, animate corpse, and you do it in sport, that’s mockery.
So then answer the “Zombie Jesus Day” mockery charge, if you’re “not really sure how to answer a charge of mocking when the basis is my presenting material from the Bible.”
Surely the resurrection isn’t presented as zombification in Scripture.
~I.
Of course the Bible doesn’t mock itself. You could try to demonstrate that it has internal inconsistencies, but that’s certainly not “mocking itself.”
Perhaps if you posted the comment on some freshman’s philosophy/atheism blog though, you might get a “LOL” or something.
~I.
H,
I’m suggestion that using the “beliefs not believers” card is a disingenuous move, because it lacks candor. You present the beliefs to an audience in a mocking way (not always, probably not even the majority of the time) and so engage in mockery. It seems like there has been an effort to disavow or disconnect with the methods of Puck’s crowd, which tend to be more theatrical or juvenile, and less about solid scholarly inquiry, and honest questioning.
All I’m suggesting is that your comments (H & B.V.) when taken together, haven’t been without some Christian mockery. I suspect the idea that she might be like Hitchens, and those types rankles Vex a little. Vex seems like a very nice person, concerned with how people feel. So I don’t think she wants to have to think of herself as someone who mocks others. Again, I’m just suggesting that if that is the goal, (not to be a mocker) and somehow more upstanding that a mock-based campaign against Christianity, then she’s failed to meet her goal on occasion.
We’ll have to see how Zombie Jesus Day is explained.
~I.
Zombie Jesus day has two roots. One, the claim is that Jesus rose from the dead (though the scriptural evidence for this is far from definitive) – what do we call things that raise from the dead? Zombies! It is true, I was making some sport of this. You are right. But I again turn to the bible as the root of the real problem – in addition to Jesus himself, apparently a bunch of saints rose from their grave too and walked into the city. There were actually a whole bunch of zombies!
Again, I mean my “sport” to be directed at the book itself, which is patently absurd. I notice we hear a lot about Jesus at easter but no one talks about the other walking dead… maybe because no one will buy it? Are the other walking dead a shameful secret? But I want to acknowledge that you are right, I have used “happy zombie jesus day” as a joke. Come on… don’t you think it’s got at least a little ha-ha in it?
Moving on to reading your other comments now…
“We’ll have to see how Zombie Jesus Day is explained.” Hey… I’m not answerable to you. I put a lot on the line when I go public, in hard copy (well, digital copy) with my thoughts and opinions. I think this shows a hell of a lot more candor than anyone else in the conversation. The fact that I *always* respond to comments and criticisms, including offering apologies/retractions/explanations whenever I feel it is right, is above and beyond what I need to do. Shit, I could close comments outright and just preach. I’m as open as I can be and I make my mistakes in full view of everyone who cares to read them. If that doesn’t show good faith, I don’t know what does!
And, I might I add, it’s a lot easier to sit on the other side of the conversation and pick at my point of view than it is to offer one of your own. (Using the royal “you” here, to include all commenters.) I choose to be in a dialogue with commenters.
If you don’t like it here, you don’t have to come back. (Though I think the conversation would be greatly impoverished as a result.)
All it takes is adding on “The Bible is the inerrant word of God” to make the mockery complete. So in one sense you’re right but in another, LOL, Jehovah can’t get his “begats” straight.
No wonder he’s got problem with premarital sex. He has a hard enough time keeping track of the genealogy of people who are married!