Is it right to mock Yahweh?

[marco]

Obviously Yahweh is painted as a powerful sky lord, capable of causing catastrophic rainstorms and making all manner of manna for men he has rescued from bad Pharaoh. Some people actually believe that a powerful being appeared to somebody who may have been Malcolm Moses and not only donated rocks with writing on them, but showed his hind quarters as he raced through the sky.

So we can smirk. But is mockery or satire a useful instrument for having a folly dismissed? Why should we earnestly try to unmask Yahweh as a fraud or fiction? Is there the remotest of remote possibilities we are maligning an actual being, capable of turning us into pillars of butter or some such thing? Is there a smidgen of truth in Greek tales of Arachne, made into a spider for her presumption or Marsyas, whipped to death for his challenge to the god, Apollo? Do we mock Yahweh at our own peril?

Is mockery of Yahweh good or bad? Does it serve any useful purpose?

[JJ50]

One can mock a character in a book, which has probably never existed.

[marco]

Mocking statements would seem to be a loophole, a work around the reasons for these rules...not strictly against a rule but certainly against the flavour, the aroma, the rules are trying to establish.

I think we should not mock fellow posters. That is uncivil. But we do no service to intelligent debate if we are all forced to accept the notion that certain characters are divine, even though we do not for a moment accept they are. Is it offensive to laugh at Zeus when his lover Io was changed into a cow?

Since we are often looking for proofs that God exists, it would be silly to condemn those who think he most certainly does not, especially in his biblical clothing.

The rules are an excellent way of protecting posters. If and when Yahweh decides to post here, he too will benefit from our rules. Of course if he has posted incognito, he already enjoys such benefits.

[1213]

...
Is mockery of Yahweh good or bad? Does it serve any useful purpose?

If I would think atheists are evil and utterly stupid, would it be good, if I would mock them? If not, why would it be good in any case?

[marco]

...
Is mockery of Yahweh good or bad? Does it serve any useful purpose?

If I would think atheists are evil and utterly stupid, would it be good, if I would mock them? If not, why would it be good in any case?

Excellent question. Before you laugh you could point out some of the absurdities atheists believe. Possibly it's best to mock the absurdities rather than the atheist.

I would mock biblical absurdities such as good-hearted corpses getting out of their graves and walking to Jerusalem or a man called Methuselah living until he was 969 years old. Did he have a birth certificate to prove it?

Mockery can be unkind. If people have problems with mathematics it would be unkind to mock and good to help. Mockery can be instructive: it can make people question what they take as fact. They may continue to regard the absurd as fact, but mockery has at least stopped them for a moment.

The being popularly called Yahweh or Jehovah, for me is a fictional character and some of his adventures are funny. I think it's hilarious that the maker of galaxies played hide and seek with Adam, even shouting: "Where are you!" Is it possible to read this and not laugh?

[William]

marco: I think Yahweh, or the underlying supremacy on which he is roughly and brutally modelled, would welcome human correction of human imperfection.

William: Perhaps your opinion on the matter is imperfect...from my own interactions what is welcomed is any state of improvement the individual deems appropriate to their experience.
YHWH is not overly involved on a scale one would expect to see if one were looking for only that kind of evidence. His preference is to allow the individual to determine through their own intelligence, how to proceed, and the perfection The Elohim see, is not the same thing as what some humans are looking for.

marco: If there is an all-pervading presence falsely depicted in absurd tales, then somehow, somewhere that force might use the unlikeliest of instruments to correct what is false.

William: Perhaps so. There is no hurry but it appears that the Algorithms running this Reality Simulation are set to respond to personal preference and any connection an individual might establish appears to be based in some type of 'you reach out for me and I will reach out for you " Algorithm - as if somehow this act alone triggers codes within the program through the unlikeliest instruments and the false is corrected within the individuals perceptions through participation, as natural enough consequence.

The Mockery Algorithm, on the other hand, bears little if anything which could be considered fruitful to that end.

marco: It is said that he works in wondrous ways, his wonders to perform, and if, as I want to believe, his eyes twinkle with amusement over man's silliness, then mockery, irony, satire, ridicule are the dust sprinkled by his benign fingers..... with miraculous, transforming effect, perhaps.

William: Whatever bakes your cake marco - if the path of mockery helps you connect, then who would argue for its invalidity?
Perhaps YHWH is more grown-up about it...having put such things aside?
I think so.

marco: You are right about effigies. But sometimes they induce pity: the pieta, where mother holds her dead son; Christ crucified, his arms open invitingly for the whole of humanity; Saint Sebastian, cruelly pierced with arrows …. When people have a portrait in their heads of a God demanding justice, denouncing sin in whatever form, testing a father by requiring him to sacrifice his son then hearts harden, as "they did at Meribah".

William: YHWH works with what is available. Do the arrows of Warfare still fly? If so, then YHWH works with what is available.

Must one assume and then mock around within the assumption that things should have been 'created perfect' in the first place and therefore it is best to have unbelief about the likelihood of a Creator being responsible for this experience we call "Reality" simply because it feels nice, like balm and bandages upon a soldiers hurt. Or is mockery more like exposing those wounds to the likelihood of festering.

[William]

marco: I think it's hilarious that the maker of galaxies played hide and seek with Adam, even shouting: "Where are you!" Is it possible to read this and not laugh?

William: I would not myself speak to that example as being 'mockery'. There are lots of things to giggle about within the stories, but how is that mockery?

Perhaps it is response to the observation that a vital thing which appears to be present in The Human also appears to be lacking in this Creator Story. Where in that, can we find YHWH cracking a joke?
The stories are best to be taken as a thin veneer occulting the deeper reality. That is where the big laughs are revealed, if one can stomach laughing along with ones...deeper.... self... - continue mocking ones shallower aspects - and what is found there?

[marco]

Perhaps your opinion on the matter is imperfect...from my own interactions what is welcomed is any state of improvement the individual deems appropriate to their experience.

More likely both our opinions are "imperfect" given we are born with imperfection and it attends us till we die.

The Mockery Algorithm, on the other hand, bears little if anything which could be considered fruitful to that end.

I think if you call it an algorithm, it ceases to be anything. Being human, I view things from a human perspective and I am dealing not with celestial mechanics but a book written by humans that purports to penetrate the mind and ways of a deity. Occasionally it blunders and irony or satire are fit instruments of comment. I leave algorithms to such as Euclid.

Whatever bakes your cake marco - if the path of mockery helps you connect, then who would argue for its invalidity?
Perhaps YHWH is more grown-up about it...having put such things aside?
I think so.

I wasn't baking anything, William nor using mockery to move me further towards truth. I was using it to indicate flaws in the portrayal of a character for whom almighty status is claimed.

My semi-facetious suggestion was that if a real deity exists, indignant at his biblical portrayal, he might cause us to laugh at what the bible says about him and in so doing he adjusts his picture. I have absolutely no doubt that Yahweh is fictional. Were it not so, it would be like discovering Charlie Chaplin was actually God.

Or is mockery more like exposing those wounds to the likelihood of festering.

When Life of Brian came out people laughed but on reflection they thought that stoning people for perceived blasphemy is ridiculous. I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention wounds (whose?) and things "festering"? I don't care what is written in the bible, unless people take it so seriously that they will harm others. I don't think it's a good book and one way to reduce its seriousness is by laughter. It contains enough absurdities to render it worthy of derision. God has nothing to do with it, except as a fictional character in the narrative.

[marco]

marco: I think it's hilarious that the maker of galaxies played hide and seek with Adam, even shouting: "Where are you!" Is it possible to read this and not laugh?

William: I would not myself speak to that example as being 'mockery'. There are lots of things to giggle about within the stories, but how is that mockery?

Mockery is the reaction to the tale, not the tale itself. If in all seriousness we have a situation where a being has just brought matter into circulation and formed somebody we must call Adam from dust then performed a surgical operation on him to utilise a rib with which to form a woman, then he issues a test prohibition which the creature fails - we are in deep fiction. It becomes humorous fiction when Deity chases the pair around, and stupidly asks "Where are you?", though he knows perfectly well, being omniscient, and daft Neanderthal, who has tasted deep knowledge, grunts that he's shy because he's got no clothes on.....

Yes, I suppose it could have been written better but I don't think some divine hand directed the pen. Do you?

[William]

William: Perhaps your opinion on the matter is imperfect...from my own interactions what is welcomed is any state of improvement the individual deems appropriate to their experience.

marco: More likely both our opinions are "imperfect" given we are born with imperfection and it attends us till we die.


William: My point being that we do not know. If ignorance is something one chooses to define as an "imperfection" then yes, we are all "imperfect".
How can we mock something we are ignorant of.
The Mockery Algorithm, bears little resemblance, if any, which could be considered fruitful to finding sensible answers.

marco: I think if you call it an algorithm, it ceases to be anything.

William: Why would you think that?
Place data through an algorithm, and depending on the algorithm, the data is filtered accordingly.

marco: Being human, I view things from a human perspective

William: Too sweeping. The best you can really say along those lines is that the human being you are, determines how you choose to view things.
Otherwise your argument assumes that all humans need be like the human you are, which is a whole other cake to bake.

marco: I am dealing not with celestial mechanics but a book written by humans that purports to penetrate the mind and ways of a deity.

William: And I am saying that it is not in 'the book' where relationship is established between the human individual and any deity.

marco: I leave algorithms to such as Euclid.

William: The evidence is there whether you leave it to someone else to find interest in it, or not.

marco: I was using it to indicate flaws in the portrayal of a character for whom almighty status is claimed.

William: There are other ways in which to point out the flaws, of course.
Perhaps resorting to mockery is simply a desperate attempt to see if anything can be found therein.

marco: My semi-facetious suggestion was that if a real deity exists, indignant at his biblical portrayal, he might cause us to laugh at what the bible says about him and in so doing he adjusts his picture.

William: How will he do that with you marco....come and tickle your funny bone perhaps.
Perhaps a real diety knows you have it in you to work it out for yourself.

marco: I have absolutely no doubt that Yahweh is fictional. Were it not so, it would be like discovering Charlie Chaplin was actually God.

William: I suggest that where you have no doubt is that the biblical portrayal of YHWH is fictional. You want to know if it is 'alright' to make fun of the fictional character as portrayed.
You don't need anyone's permission...

marco: When Life of Brian came out people laughed but on reflection they thought that stoning people for perceived blasphemy is ridiculous.

William: It is the nature of the Reality Simulation we are experiencing which gives us this to reflect upon.
I have no doubt that scientific methods of the future will look back at our current was of doing things, and wonder that we ever made it through at all. I would also think that the idea of mocking a more ignorant time in humanities history would be seen as a gross waste of time and of intelligence.

marco: I have no idea what you are talking about when you mention wounds (whose?)

William: I was being poetic. I am surprised that you didn't notice that...
Perhaps it is just ennui on your part, rather than anything more militant, which has you taking the path of the mocker.

marco: I don't care what is written in the bible, unless people take it so seriously that they will harm others.

William: Harm comes in all sorts of flavors and wrappings marco.
Scientific process and discovery might be regarded as the number one contributor, but you don't see a lot of non-theists raising their voices in protest about that...
Until then, I see no practical reason in the position of non-theist as opposed to theist.

marco: I don't think it's a good book and one way to reduce its seriousness is by laughter.

William: My point was that you mock a caricature...would you stand in a filed and do the same to a Scarecrow?
Sure you might, but if so , you would be prepared to be mocked.
I think it humorous that you do so to a character in a story. as if that somehow makes more difference.

marco: It contains enough absurdities to render it worthy of derision. God has nothing to do with it, except as a fictional character in the narrative.

William: I myself think that just because YHWH might be portrayed as a fictional character in books, does not mean that YHWH is fictional.


marco: Mockery is the reaction to the tale, not the tale itself. If in all seriousness we have a situation where a being has just brought matter into circulation and formed somebody we must call Adam from dust then performed a surgical operation on him to utilise a rib with which to form a woman, then he issues a test prohibition which the creature fails - we are in deep fiction. It becomes humorous fiction when Deity chases the pair around, and stupidly asks "Where are you?", though he knows perfectly well, being omniscient, and daft Neanderthal, who has tasted deep knowledge, grunts that he's shy because he's got no clothes on.....

William: Well that is one persons interpretation of the story.I prefer the symbolism myself, as YHWH uses symbolism as a device of instruction.
One example can be found in the words "Who Told You That You Were Naked?"
That is a clever question and the answer is a lot more obvious than shallow surface scratching can uncover...as in - one has to dig a bit deeper to find the answer to that question.

marco: Yes, I suppose it could have been written better but I don't think some divine hand directed the pen. Do you?

William: I think there was some influence on occasion, sure.Understanding the idea of the theory of simulation helps in that. If I allowed my mind to simply run judgmental algorithms and eat the filtered results of that, I doubt that I would make any serious effort to dig deeper, and be pretentiously content with scratching the surface - while giggling about how cleverly I can mock things.

But that is not the kind of Human Being I Am.

[SallyF]

The end is obviously nigh …!!!

The mocking of the absurd mud-man-making, planet-flooding, backside-baring fantasy figure known as Yahweh (and passed off as "God" by those with nothing more than human-written "scriptures" and their imaginations to back it up) is increasing.

But the reality of mockery inherent in satire has been with us for longer than the fictional Yahweh, and, as Member Marco so rightly tells us, one of its useful functions is to illuminate absurdities, injustices and falsehoods.

The "Bible" of the fantastical jester-in-the-sky, Yahweh/Jehovah, is crammed with absurdities, injustices and falsehoods.

To mock the human-invented Yahweh is a community service …

Which …

Thankfully …

Is having greater and greater effect.

But I doubt that my following after my lusts for coffee and camembert cheese while I satirise the absurdities of Yahweh belief is truly bringing about the End of Days.