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?

[otseng]

His sycophants lick his rear end giving him the impression he is the best thing that has ever happened to his country, when in my opinion he is the worst!

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making comments about others, even those not on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Mithrae]

Of course there are some lovely passages in the Bible, which we can treat in the way we would regard a poem by Keats. It is when people are asked to BELIEVE the stuff, and act according to its edicts that we have a duty to mock.

If that's what you think then perhaps it would be appropriate to mock the people who ask you to believe it, rather than mocking the bronze age literature itself?

It is kinder to present tales as absurdities. Conclusions about those who accept them need not then be spoken. One is advised to condemn the sin and not the sinner and so by extension one condemns the tales rather than those who ingest them. It may be that ridicule has the positive effect of causing the tales to lose their didactic appeal.

You're going from a professed "duty to mock," all the way round to what "may be" positive consequences of ridicule and the kindest way to perhaps achieve them. If you're worried about kindness and positive outcomes, I imagine you'd find that mockery and ridicule are the wrong tools for the job to begin with 99 times in a hundred.

Of course there's the question of what actually counts as mockery. You've mentioned Life of Brian a few times, which I don't see as being mockery at all. Similarly with some of the stuff that SallyF occasionally posts like 'Jehovah and the Magic Box' or stuff from AwkwardMomentsBible.com:

Maybe the magic shield and Moses' smug look are borderline mockery, but essentially that's just the biblical story, with only the slightest shift in wording or presentation to invite some second thoughts on whether we modern folk can really consider it worthwhile. The creators of such gentle parodies may be intending to encourage a hard look at the stories, but do so in a way where the silliness is (mostly) very much a part of the original stories themselves.

Conversely stuff like Good Omens or certain South Park episodes don't really have anything to do with the biblical material they occasionally draw on; their focus is their own comedic stories and for the most part any perceived offensiveness or blasphemy is incidental. The creators may not be too worried about causing inevitable offense to some readers/viewers, but it's not their intention to do so, nor even primarily to provoke thoughtfulness on the ancient source material - it's just to make something funny and enjoyable.

Mockery and ridicule to my mind are distinguished by being primarily or apparently intended in a belittling, mean-spirited way: For mockery, "teasing and contemptuous language or behaviour directed at a particular person or thing" and for ridicule "the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behaviour."

If mockery is appropriate, then surely it would be appropriate to direct it where it belongs: Mock those who take all these ancient stories seriously because they haven't received as much education as you; mock the people born with average or below average intelligence who simply don't realize many of them can't make literal sense; mock the people trapped in a sub-culture which constantly bends their minds back towards a narrow bibliolatry. Mind you - again speaking only for myself - I often don't see much accomplishment in mocking those people either, but at least that would be focusing one's laughter and great wit in the actual direction where it presently belongs.

Our noxious attitudes towards ordinary people, over the centuries, have been shaped by biblical prejudice. So wicked is adultery that it must be condemned even in its imaginative form. Men were taken and sentenced to death for private acts that were the business of nobody but themselves. Today young girls in God-fearing countries are stoned with stones not too big that they die too fast. If you think that we should dutifully and respectfully preserve these pages and spare them our condemnation, then that is an original and interesting thought.

If you think that the appropriate response to people throwing stones at a young girl until she dies is simply to poke fun at them, that too would be an interesting thought and - unlike the view you're imputing to me - seems to be actually implied in your post, though I'm guessing inadvertently. Beyond direct (albeit probably ineffective) condemnation, the main responses I would suggest are pretty obviously implied in the parts of my paragraph you chose to snip out, and though I was commenting more along the lines of bible-belters they are largely applicable to any other circumstance too: Support better and more widespread education; support economic improvement so poor nutrition and unstimulating environments don't stunt intellectual development; and perhaps above all support communication and cultural diversity so that folk more aware of the smorgasbord of beliefs and values out there can hopefully find and emphasize the best parts, likely shared by their traditional religion with many others around the world.

Mockery does almost exactly the opposite of that latter suggestion: It doesn't offer anything new or better, it doesn't try to highlight the worthy or progressive aspects of the victim's worldview, and it doesn't try to build common ground. Your stated hope is that ridiculing folks' most treasured beliefs may, perhaps, cause them to rethink their viability, but what I've seen suggests that a far more common outcome when people feel attacked and belittled is that they either aggressively fight back or defensively clam up... in either case far more likely to emotionally double down on the beliefs you're mocking than to calmly reappraise them.

[marco]

My point was that you mock a caricature...would you stand in a filed and do the same to a Scarecrow?

I think this adequately summarises your post so I shall comment. A scarecrow is not set up as dispenser of laws, as judge of sin, as punisher of transgression. If you think Yahweh is a scarecrow, that's your own form of mockery not mine.

Ridicule is not being poured on a strawman but on the activities of what is taken by billions to be a force that moves humanity.

The allocation to Yahweh of intellectual gravity is itself a mockery of man and what man has achieved. No, to ridicule the representation of Yahweh not as a scarecrow, but as a thing that judges, rages, growls, flies and destroys … is a fit use of ridicule.

Your dissertation involves a being who has no resemblance to Yahweh. If we wish to term the sum total of everything, dust and detail, God, let's not pretend we are dealing with Yahweh. To deal with that idea one would simply employ a question mark, not ridicule.

[marco]

Mockery and ridicule to my mind are distinguished by being primarily or apparently intended in a belittling, mean-spirited way:

And on that interpretation one should, obviously, avoid being mean-spirited. Let's not mock then, lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad.

I wonder in what spirit of generosity we might comment on the apparent deficiencies in the Old Testament. Perhaps all we can do is content ourselves with quoting absurdities without comment. Mention Methuselah and add, 969 years of age. Would that be "mean-spirited"?

[Mithrae]

And on that interpretation one should, obviously, avoid being mean-spirited. Let's not mock then, lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad.

Curse those Philistinas! Are you saying that this whole thread was simply a poor choice of words; that you meant good humour and gentle parody rather than mockery and ridicule?

I wonder in what spirit of generosity we might comment on the apparent deficiencies in the Old Testament. Perhaps all we can do is content ourselves with quoting absurdities without comment. Mention Methuselah and add, 969 years of age. Would that be "mean-spirited"?

There's hundreds if not thousands of threads on the forum criticizing both the ancient stories and the modern believers without mockery in the opening posts. Surely it's not that difficult to work out how to do? It mustn't be, because you've started some of them yourself. There's also some threads in which mockery is a part or the whole focus of the opening posts. You seem to have started one or two of those too Though admittedly it is to some extent in the eye of the beholder and perhaps you would insist that there's nothing mean-spirited in "the insufferable Paul, inflicting himself on the Romans . . . . just rambled on, making things up as he saw fit for the sheep whom he addressed." I've used mockery often enough myself, sometimes regrettably out of frustration after other efforts prove fruitless; never with any detectable positive results that I can recall. There's some particular cases/individuals in which I would stoop to mockery without regret, particularly some of the contrarians back in my climate discussion days, but those are mainly because I really don't expect any positive outcome at any time and making fun of them might give me a bit of a trip.

If we're looking for short- or long-term positive outcomes, I reckon mockery is likely to be the wrong tool for the job almost every time.

[marco]

Are you saying that this whole thread was simply a poor choice of words; that you meant good humour and gentle parody rather than mockery and ridicule?

I'm all for being self-critical, Mithrae, but not to the degree that I confess to "a poor choice of words." My devoted English teacher would rock uncomfortably in her grave were this so. In fact she might even get up and walk to Jerusalem or London. (That's the light sort of mockery I intended.) The problem appears to be that you have given "mockery" some iron-soled boots, and associated it essentially with thuggish behaviour with intent to wound. My mockery is more of the mock-turtle soup type, the goodness-gracious there's Alice in Wonderland.

Perhaps you would insist that there's nothing mean-spirited in "the insufferable Paul, inflicting himself on the Romans . . . . just rambled on, making things up as he saw fit for the sheep whom he addressed."

Paul was a writer. I think it is fair enough to comment on his style and on the underlying attitude that might have formed his style. My dislike for him springs from my forced incarcerations in church hearing him declaim. If the idea is simply to find instances where I have been less than kind, you will find them, and find them abundantly. But let me repeat, there are many rooms in the mockery mansion; I like the ones with the soft furnishings.

If we're looking for short- or long-term positive outcomes, I reckon mockery is likely to be the wrong tool for the job almost every time.

Had our correspondence started with: "Excuse me Marco, but I think you're using the wrong tool for your messages I might have replied, "How so, my friend?" And lo, we would move amicably through the various tones and colours of what constitutes mockery.

But yes, having said all the above, I can see that mockery presents ready material for a lesson in loving one's neighbour, even long dead epistle writers. My warm gratitude accompanies this response. Go well.

[Mithrae]

Are you saying that this whole thread was simply a poor choice of words; that you meant good humour and gentle parody rather than mockery and ridicule?

I'm all for being self-critical, Mithrae, but not to the degree that I confess to "a poor choice of words." My devoted English teacher would rock uncomfortably in her grave were this so. In fact she might even get up and walk to Jerusalem or London. (That's the light sort of mockery I intended.) The problem appears to be that you have given "mockery" some iron-soled boots, and associated it essentially with thuggish behaviour with intent to wound. My mockery is more of the mock-turtle soup type, the goodness-gracious there's Alice in Wonderland.

Perhaps you would insist that there's nothing mean-spirited in "the insufferable Paul, inflicting himself on the Romans . . . . just rambled on, making things up as he saw fit for the sheep whom he addressed."

Paul was a writer. I think it is fair enough to comment on his style and on the underlying attitude that might have formed his style. My dislike for him springs from my forced incarcerations in church hearing him declaim. If the idea is simply to find instances where I have been less than kind, you will find them, and find them abundantly. But let me repeat, there are many rooms in the mockery mansion; I like the ones with the soft furnishings.

The primary definition of 'mockery' from Google is "teasing and contemptuous language or behaviour..," from dictionary.com "ridicule, contempt, or derision," from Merriam-Webster "insulting or contemptuous action or speech" and from the always-accurate Cambridge dictionary "the act of mocking someone or something." These most obvious meanings of the word seemed consistent with some examples from your other recent threads that I've enjoyed; your opening post appeared to hint at malignancy ("Is there the remotest of remote possibilities we are maligning an actual being"); and while I introduced the word 'ridicule,' rather than taking the chance to offer clarification you instead used it yourself in multiple subsequent posts to describe your intentions.

Thankyou for now clarifying that this is not what you meant. As stated, I have no particular concerns about good humour and gentle parody so it seems we're in agreement on that score.

Would you also agree that when coming from an attitude of condemnation or derision, straightforward discussion sticking to facts and reason without emotion is almost always going to be more effective and have a better chance of positive communication with the hearer than introducing the vague and emotive aspects of attempted witticism, satire or mockery?

[marco]

and from the always-accurate Cambridge dictionary "the act of mocking someone or something."

I use Chambers if the occasion arises. You've been kind enough to list some of the meanings of mockery, coincidentally supporting the meaning you prefer. My Chambers gives a few more.

You say
"so it seems we're in agreement ... " I never doubted it.

Would you also agree that when coming from an attitude of condemnation or derision, straightforward discussion sticking to facts and reason without emotion is almost always going to be more effective and have a better chance of positive communication with the hearer than introducing the vague and emotive aspects of attempted witticism, satire or mockery?

Well if Paul was listening, that might be useful advice. I'm sure he wasn't. The effect depends on the listener. The other object of my much maligned mirth is Yahweh, a lumbering god, not perhaps as lame as Vulcan, but limited in powers of communication. I have no idea where gods get their schooling but I think Yahweh's elementary provisions were deficient.

As an alternative to mockery, one might say: The portrayal of Yahweh smacks suspiciously of human painters. Is it wise to believe he's real? On other occasions I've used this approach but variety is the spice of life. So despite your wise, concerned advice I think I shall continue to fill my imperfect sentences with distracting humour. Go well.

[Mithrae]

The primary definition of 'mockery' from Google is "teasing and contemptuous language or behaviour..," from dictionary.com "ridicule, contempt, or derision," from Merriam-Webster "insulting or contemptuous action or speech"

I use Chambers if the occasion arises. You've been kind enough to list some of the meanings of mockery, coincidentally supporting the meaning you prefer. My Chambers gives a few more.

Indeed:

• https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=mockery&title=21st
  mockery noun (mockeries) 1 an imitation, especially a contemptible or insulting one. 2 a any ridiculously inadequate person, action or thing; b the subject of ridicule or contempt • make a mockery of someone. 3 ridicule; contempt.

It is not - as I suggested in the spirit of charity - merely the primary/first meaning listed in virtually all dictionaries (Collins, Oxford, Webster etc. etc.), but almost every definition available which indicates that mockery is an expression of derision or ridicule at best and, more commonly, insult and contempt. An effort to pass this off as some mere "coincidence" - with the not-so-subtle implication that I'm just cherry-picking a definition to suit how I understood the word (which several other features of your posts independently supported) - does not come across as very persuasive, to my mind.

You may mean whatever you intended your posts to mean, of course, and it's understandable if for the sake of your devoted English teacher you would rather not acknowledge any shortcoming in your choice of words: But I trust you understand that it is both inaccurate and insulting to claim that I am the one who has "given 'mockery' some iron-soled boots," that this is simply something I "prefer" and it's merely by "coincidence" that I found the dictionaries confirming how I understand the word.

Would you also agree that when coming from an attitude of condemnation or derision, straightforward discussion sticking to facts and reason without emotion is almost always going to be more effective and have a better chance of positive communication with the hearer than introducing the vague and emotive aspects of attempted witticism, satire or mockery?

Well if Paul was listening, that might be useful advice. I'm sure he wasn't. The effect depends on the listener. The other object of my much maligned mirth is Yahweh, a lumbering god, not perhaps as lame as Vulcan, but limited in powers of communication. I have no idea where gods get their schooling but I think Yahweh's elementary provisions were deficient.

As an alternative to mockery, one might say: The portrayal of Yahweh smacks suspiciously of human painters. Is it wise to believe he's real? On other occasions I've used this approach but variety is the spice of life. So despite your wise, concerned advice I think I shall continue to fill my imperfect sentences with distracting humour. Go well.

I'm not dispensing advice to you, I'm answering a question for open debate. If you disagree with my assessment, you're certainly welcome to say so and explain why. Of course if you agree, but nevertheless feel you will personally enjoy discussions more by including some less effective forms of communication in your style, you're obviously welcome to do that also: As I said I've been known to stoop to mockery often enough myself, sometimes without regret.

But that the use of satirists' and humourists' tools like exaggeration, puns, double entendre, ambiguity, over-simplification, vague or misleading descriptions, caricaturing and so on are likely to reduce the effectiveness of communication - at least when not exchanged in the right spirit - compared to more straightforward, factual and less emotionally-oriented forms of communication, seems fairly uncontroversial as far as I can tell. We see more than enough occasions of folk even from the same general 'side' calling each other out because they don't get the intended joke or irony in a post to make that clear, let alone when one or both participants in an exchange view the subject or each other in a negative light with less benefit of the doubt!

[marco]

Indeed:

• https://chambers.co.uk/search/?query=mockery&title=21st
  mockery noun (mockeries) 1 an imitation, especially a contemptible or insulting one. 2 a any ridiculously inadequate person, action or thing; b the subject of ridicule or contempt • make a mockery of someone. 3 ridicule; contempt.

I am not sure why your copy of Chambers is being brought into this discussion, as though the word "mockery" were just beyond the limit of understanding. As it happens my normally reliable copy offers: ridicule, a subject of ridicule, mimicry, imitation, esp. a contemptible or insulting imitation; false show; insulting or ludicrous futility.

So there we have quite a choice before us. I have never found this celebration of the dictionary useful to discussion; I credit my readers with the ability to know what a word means.

But I trust you understand that it is both inaccurate and insulting to claim that I am the one who has "given 'mockery' some iron-soled boots," that this is simply something I "prefer" and it's merely by "coincidence" that I found the dictionaries confirming how I understand the word.

Ah, perhaps your motivation was to teach poor Marco that mockery allows a variety of meanings, and the one you have chosen is the one where mockery is a spiteful device aimed at hurting people, and you were generously cautioning me against its usage. I think I thanked you for this concern. Mockery, as the Chambers definition allows us to gather, can be mere ridicule, and we can ridicule some absurd picture without encroaching on the tender feelings of those who like the picture. When we mimic what Yahweh says we are perhaps, as Chambers tells us, mocking the character. And yes, we are making Yahweh and his adventures the subject of ridicule. But I thought we had agreed to agree on this, and yet you have reprinted Chambers for me, as if the page were missing from my dictionary. I am quite lost for an explanation.

I'm not dispensing advice to you, I'm answering a question for open debate. If you disagree with my assessment, you're certainly welcome to say so and explain why.

I did, but apparently inadequately. I felt that mockery can be mild, but you insist on the darker regions of the definition.

But that the use of satirists' and humourists' tools like exaggeration, puns, double entendre, ambiguity, over-simplification, vague or misleading descriptions, caricaturing and so on are likely to reduce the effectiveness of communication - at least when not exchanged in the right spirit - compared to more straightforward, factual and less emotionally-oriented forms of communication, seems fairly uncontroversial as far as I can tell.

Well I am not qualified to estimate the latitude of your ability to "tell" but a dip into Juvenal or Horace might change your mind. Or if we take a character like Akaky Akakievich Bashmachkin in Gogol's "Greatcoat" we see that he is mercilessly mocked and the mockery captures the pity of the reader -or at least it did mine, when my adolescence studied him.

There's a difference between using some sort of mockery in criticising literature or its figures and mocking other living people. Your caveats would be in their proper place were I guilty of the latter. Go well.