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?

[ttruscott]

Fomenting an attitude of ridicule does NOT meet the qualifications the masthead:

[center]Debating Christianity and Religion
The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate[/center]

[marco]

Fomenting an attitude of ridicule does NOT meet the qualifications the masthead:

[center]Debating Christianity and Religion
The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate[/center]

If the aim is "the pursuit of God" what on earth is the point of pursuing an imposter? If we are seeking knowledge and truth then if ridicule is made against tales, it can be shown these tales are truthful or reasonable or inspired. I've not seen this.

On the other hand if one sees falsehood it would be wrong to patronise it, to support it, to pretend to go along with it. In any event when one repeats what the Bible has said, where is the wrong? Is it feasible that God flew through the air, put his hand over his back or his face and allowed some desert nomad to look at him in flight?

That is exactly as I read the text? If there is parody, the bible parodies itself in this instance. As for civility, one can surely point out absurdities in some religion without abusing the adherents. How else is discussion to continue?

But I did ask: Is it right to mock Yahweh and you have correctly expressed your opinion. You are entitled to hold that view. I think I have an entitlement to accept Yahweh is false and he betrays his fictional side through what can be seen as amusing adventures. Should we close our eyes?

[SallyF]

Fomenting an attitude of ridicule does NOT meet the qualifications the masthead:

[center]Debating Christianity and Religion
The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate[/center]

If the aim is "the pursuit of God" what on earth is the point of pursuing an imposter? If we are seeking knowledge and truth then if ridicule is made against tales, it can be shown these tales are truthful or reasonable or inspired. I've not seen this.

On the other hand if one sees falsehood it would be wrong to patronise it, to support it, to pretend to go along with it. In any event when one repeats what the Bible has said, where is the wrong? Is it feasible that God flew through the air, put his hand over his back or his face and allowed some desert nomad to look at him in flight?

That is exactly as I read the text? If there is parody, the bible parodies itself in this instance. As for civility, one can surely point out absurdities in some religion without abusing the adherents. How else is discussion to continue?

But I did ask: Is it right to mock Yahweh and you have correctly expressed your opinion. You are entitled to hold that view. I think I have an entitlement to accept Yahweh is false and he betrays his fictional side through what can be seen as amusing adventures. Should we close our eyes?

Well yes …

Here we have a bare-arsed "God" flying through the air in a painting by Michelangelo, commissioned and sanctioned by one of the Vicars of Christ



This imagining (and Christianity is FULL of imaginings) can be seen by those of us who recognise make-believe when see see it, as unintended self-mockery by Christians.



Some isn't ….

[William]

William: YHWH is real in my estimate - so therefore I would say the mocker is ignored by YHWH because the mocker isn't really mocking the real, but the strawman effigy.

marco: It is rather unfair that when I give my opinion, it is dismissed as unsupported opinion. When you state that you think YHWH is real, you need not prove your assertion.

William: What tactic is this from you dear marco!
Did I not agree with you that you were mocking an imaginary image!

It is not up to me to prove to you that YHWH is real.

If one is ignored by YHWH, whist mocking an unreal strawman... because one feels it is 'good' for one to do so - my point was adequate to that situation.

I have not asked you to prove the focus of your mockery actually exists!

Please desist with this sad attempt at diversion...

marco: But a teacher imparts learned opinions as well as facts. Opinions are the distillate of learning. When Plato tells his pupils: "Give to every man according to his due," he is expressing an opinion. Of course he then ties his students up when they agree with his opinion.

William: when I wrote "A Teacher cannot LEARN for a Student." that was in answer to your bringing the subject into the argument.
If the teacher say's "Do this and you will learn that" and the student declines to do so, how can the student then declare the teacher has taught a falsehood?

marco: You presumably mean, by your circumlocution

William: Whoa there! Your judgmental algorithm is doing overtime! There has been no deliberate attempt by me, to being vague or evasive.
Desist from such accusations!
Opinions do have to be subjected to some reasoning process, backed up with supporting facts.

marco: It is particularly ironic that the materials I am criticising are stories that are impossible and ludicrous, judged by any standards we know.

William: I do not vouch for the validity of the stories others claim to have experienced, or indeed how said stories are then interpreted.
In regard to stories specific to YHWH on occasion taking off his cloak of invisibility and presenting himself in one form or another to individuals, even those forms remain unspecified - we are not informed.
All I have is my own experience to go by, and so what appears to be impossible and ludicrous to you, is proven otherwise to me.
What standards the unacquainted judge by, are redundant as useful device to convince the acquainted to mock their own experience.
The acquainted cannot learn for the unacquainted. the best we can do is find opportunity to share our stories.

marco: So laughing at silly tales that are taken seriously might make those who take them seriously submit them to your "judgmental algorithm."

William: The point of my continuing with this discussion is that it does not. That is wishful thinking on your part.
If you discover one who would accept your mocking as evidence for YHWH not existing, it is more likely that one already possessed doubt to begin with. Even so, it is not great evidence that the use of mockery is a 'good' thing, so would not constitute evidence in support of that assertion anyway.

marco: If I had evidence that using ridicule against Yahweh was an effective means of dismissing him, then we would be seeing fewer bibles. A thousand mile journey begins with the first step - and in this case it might start with laughter, albeit it that it ends in tears.

William: Well I suppose that how you choose to use what life you have left in you, to Tilt At Windmills in an effort to assist in the eradication of perceived silliness through the device of mockery, on the grounds that it is a 'good' thing to be doing and might accomplish a great thing one day, is something to fill up your remaining days with...perhaps such will be mentioned in your eulogy...

marco: The God you believe in is not the humanoid creature of the Old Testament, known as YHWH.

William: Why? Because he showed me his front? By what I have shared of this already marco, how is it you make the claim, and do so without providing examples. in which I - your student - can evaluate.

marco: YHWH is a peculiar production of old minds, old men with nomadic ways. He is the equivalent of a totem pole; he is an invisible creature who now and then interferes with Earth and causes destruction.

William: Oh the imbalance! Why the doomy-gloomy marco!
Why should I care to be told by old men with nomadic ways how I should relate with YHWH and YHWH with me?
What use are the words even, of a mocker attempting to do the same?

marco: Given we are short of knowledge on how we arrived on our planet, the creation of a maker God is not a bad idea. When we wind him up and make him talk, we move to the ludicrous - and here humour is used at least to control some of the wildest bits of God's characterisation. If people think it is okay to murder one's child because their God told them to, I think ANY means of countering that horrible belief should be tried.

William: I do not wind up an idea of GOD and set him on others marco. What is it to me that men of old have done so? Should I mock their efforts at the risk of losing any chance to connect with The Creator...because of stories circulating which have The Creator forcing the creations to abide in malpractice!

Such stories serve to occult The Creator, in scary monster costumes, yet mocking said stories does not help me with the fun involved in uncovering what has been hidden, as far as I can ascertain.

marco: If the starting assumption is Yahweh somehow made himself, ...

William: I interrupt this broadcast to remind the viewer that it is not written that YHWH made himself...

marco: So "it is written" serves us as fact, does it?

William: No. What serves as fact that it is not written that YHWH 'somehow made himself'. As such, your statement is misleading and thus requires rectifying.

marco: It is assumed in theology that God alone exists of himself, but we allow our logic to tell us that all things that exist had to have a creator. We illogically break this rule when it comes to God.

William: This way of thinking you adhere to marco, has been debunked.
Those of us experiencing a beginning naturally see the logic in exploring the idea that we are therefore in a creation situation so it is reasonable to think that there is a Creator.
Theology tells it that GOD has never experienced a beginning, therefore has no need to apply the same logic to himself that we - in our position apply to ourselves.
No rule in that regard is being broken.

marco: I'm sure if I outlined my pet theory of how somebody "died" in dimension 50, and appeared in dimension 4 to do some practical adjustments; then he "unzeroed" his 46 coordinates to vanish in 4D and appear in the heaven that is 50D. I find this reasonable; it has mathematical sense; it explains some ideas in Christianity. But it is just an idea, an opinion, as is yours.

William: I am unaware of your pet theory, but if the math works it is likely more probably factual - opinion based upon facts.
Now gather together those types of ideas of opinion, and I have found how wonderfully a bigger picture emerges.

marco: Sometimes when things "fit" perfectly and our mind says "snap!" we are seduced into accepting false as true. A good example was when Newton through observation made his rules and on testing them, they worked perfectly. Therefore they were correct. However they did not explain the "eccentric" orbit of Mercury. Eventually Einstein's revision of Newton's work did explain Mercury's movements and it was seen that Newton's laws worked in areas where speeds were not astronomically high. Theories and ideas about God are similar: they seem to explain but this very explanation is just seductive.

In this area of theorizing about God, mockery is inappropriate. We would then be mocking what seems to be a good reasoned explanation.

William: Fortunately my arguments do not include the discourage of folk from testing the evidence I bring with those arguments, to see for themselves what can be explained therein.
One could say that those men of old represent Newton while my adjusting according to the facts I have that they did not have access to, is Einstein.
The important thing being, are the shadows they cast over YHWH's image damaging ones understanding of the better image which casts shadows of its own, and if so, how is mockery helpful in determining such.

[marco]

[Replying to post 64 by William]

I think if you have adopted a modern God, with the name Yahweh, and you object to mockery of Yahweh, it is somewhat unfair to say people are mocking your adopted God. If your God has done what Yahweh is reported to have done, then it is fair enough to object to any ridicule directed at him. I see no great purpose in being told that you have made a correction factor, like Einstein, on a Newtonian imperfection and somehow conclude your version is the right one. I dare say a billion others think their version is the correct one.


When people say that they have a personal line to God, one can just listen politely. There is no argument, no discussion. In these circumstances I accept mockery is useless. The position of one who has personal experience of some sort of God, presumably dressed in a modern suit, is impervious to anything other than perhaps flattery. The OP is about the being who built the Garden of Eden, conducted an operation on Adam to produce a woman, killed Lot's wife, sent she bears to eat boys and advised murdering babies and animals. If your God hasn't done these things, he's not Yahweh and he's not being mocked.

Here endeth this discussion. Go well.

[William]

marco: I think if you have adopted a modern God, with the name Yahweh, and you object to mockery of Yahweh, it is somewhat unfair to say people are mocking your adopted God.

William: Sherlock!
I am not saying this, and have not consciously implied it either.
Rather what I am eluding to - marco - is that no matter how terrible the old ideas of GOD have been, they can not fit in relation to what we know about this Creation we are experiencing - what I call "Simulated Realities"...although I have heard them referred to as "Event Strings"... but *whatever* - the point being - the more we know, the less likely it is that the Old Timers GOD Stories are true and accurate in all regards...I hold no doubt they guessed some things correctly...but again *whatever*.

How I understand it, is we as this species going through this event-string are the one's who need to catch up. I am attempting to help that process by flinging my Sensibility into the fray.

But again, no. You are not mocking my adopted GOD, heavens sake man! Put that to bed shall we?

marco: If your God has done what Yahweh is reported to have done, then it is fair enough to object to any ridicule directed at him.

William: My GOD Created all The Realms, either directly and indirectly as the need arose. My point is that I see no reason to be judgmental about it, especially when we hold the lower ground in that we know not all the facts.

Or, perhaps while we wait for the end, we can continue to do the 'BraveHeart Thing' and show him our rear ends altogether.

marco: I see no great purpose in being told that you have made a correction factor, like Einstein, on a Newtonian imperfection and somehow conclude your version is the right one. I dare say a billion others think their version is the correct one.

William: Please, leave you judgments at the door dear fellow.
I am not your enemy.
Like Einstein, I only have what I have to show, and am fine with anyone showing me the error of my calculations.
The hard part is to get them to pay attention and be interested. But I sleep well at night anyway.

marco: When people say that they have a personal line to God, one can just listen politely.

William: As one really should about many things, but yes - the subject at least deserves politeness.

marco: There is no argument, no discussion.

William: No need for argument, as in debate, sure. Discussion is appropriate.
Having a direct line to GOD is EZPZ enough for anyone to achieve. Why, it would be rude not to at least make the grand effort.

marco: In these circumstances I accept mockery is useless.

William: Is that good or bad or just useless.

marco: The position of one who has personal experience of some sort of God, presumably dressed in a modern suit, is impervious to anything other than perhaps flattery.

William: If this somehow prevents others from wanting to encourage me in communion, "in case they flatter me" then their doing so only serves to occult the information they are struggling not to know.

I - like YHWH - am not easily flattered. Like you, I am only human, so if you were to interact with me on those levels, best assume any kind words from you will be received warmly.

marco: The OP is about the being who built the Garden of Eden, conducted an operation on Adam to produce a woman, killed Lot's wife, sent she bears to eat boys and advised murdering babies and animals. If your God hasn't done these things, he's not Yahweh and he's not being mocked.

William: You mock one GOD you mock them all. That has been my point throughout...if you cannot indulge in conversation with a theist without mocking the theism as you understand it, why would the theist care whether you mock your own interpretation of their idea of GOD.

And yes - My GOD is behind many of those stories, even that they are for the most part, metaphorical in the telling.
I mean, isn't the underlying argument presented by those against theistic notions, that IF a GOD who Created the Physical Universe exists, THEN he must be evil?
Isn't that the whole point of 'The Problem of Evil' argument?

marco: Here endeth this discussion. Go well.

William: Fob me off why don'tcha. Nice and polite-like...

[Mithrae]

Maybe I didn't express that very clearly. I mean that a post which studiously avoids addressing the bulk of multiple consecutive replies which deal with the question posed, and instead spends several paragraphs speculating on what I might think and drawing comparisons with minds of the past, but then concludes by advising that "we concentrate on the question posed, rather than on the mind that composed it" would - seemingly - be rather hypocritical and shortsighted.

I am required, it seems, fully to address your posts however much they trail into irrelevance, else I am accused of wilful avoidance. Can I win? Having dutifully paid service to your treatment of the question, I felt it correct to bring us back to relevance. Thank goodness you said "seemingly" but you are surely alert to the fact that you do make errors. You may blame my meandering style for getting you lost but surely one should make a small effort to follow what is being said, without calling the poor adversary a myopic hypocrite. That seems rather unkind, even though I can understand your frustration.

You're not required to address my answer to your question, and you're not required to refrain from calling for attention to that question even as you studiously ignore my response and instead speculate on Aristotle's mental faculties. Just don't be surprised if I comment on the discrepancy.

I would say that misrepresenting the story does not illustrate anything much; mocking a strawman might show that the mockery is dumb, but that's about it.

I am trying to be as understanding as your sentences permit but when I mention that God showed his back parts or his hindquarters I fail to see how I have misrepresented the story. Did he show his tongue? Many people like to use the word "strawman" - I sometimes think it is considered de rigueur to employ it somewhere, even when it least applies. I think I get the idea you are not a fan of irony.

The story says that Moses saw the back of God; it doesn't say that God was "racing through the sky" at the time and it doesn't say that God appeared as a quadruped (or any particular form for that matter, beyond having a 'hand'). These are two points on which you've unequivocally misrepresented the story in scarcely half a dozen words.

In reading such a story the first and most obvious question is "Did it happen?" etc. etc. etc. ……

It is futile to dissect humour. You either smile or walk away. There's no "obvious question" of: Did it happen? We're dealing with the use of ridicule, not the psychology or the esoteric messages or the leitmotifs in biblical tales. Let's talk about that fascinating "obvious question" elsewhere.

Mockery does not even attempt to address that question, unless by the most irrational of all approaches that because you feel it's untrue it should be disbelieved. If it did happen, then suggesting it to be a dumb story again says a lot more about that assertion than it does about the story!

O dear - more invective against ridicule. The mocker mocked section. God forbid we demonstrate a sense of humour! Do you really think that "because I believe it is untrue," I mock it. Incidentally I wouldn't use the word "dumb" (which seems a favourite) in the slang way you do, so please don't give me credit for its use. Please enjoy all the credit.

Apologies; you seemed to accept that guess at your meaning without further clarification, but I'll use another word if you prefer. In any case unless I'm misreading this you seem to be suggesting that once you've stepped into the realm of ridicule the usual rational considerations like "Is the story true" or "How should it be understood" are perceived as irrelevant. I agree that's often the case, though it goes beyond even the point I was making.

But your personal preference in that regard doesn't change the fact that mockery - and to a lesser extent humour or other witticisms - is in most cases less useful in discussion of serious topics than more straightforward, factual talk.

I think Calvin would have agreed with you. Just asserting that mockery in any of its forms is not as effective as the serious method you would employ is ...er … interesting?

I've explained several times why the imprecisions of exaggeration, ambiguity, double entendre, caricaturing and so on create potential problems in communication. You have not refuted that. I've highlighted the point with examples such as the parody in the OP and the fact that on a semi-regular basis we see people on the forum failing to 'get' a joke or ironic quip, often even when they otherwise might be expected to largely agree with and extend to each other the benefit of the doubt. You haven't refuted those examples; if anything your line in the OP has proven to be an even better example of the potential pitfalls of attempted witticism than I'd first guessed. You can, of course, characterize all this as me "just asserting" my position, but it would hardly be honest to do so.

Your worthy contributions to the discussion, far from falsifying what I've presented have mainly expanded on the caveats I'd already noted; the fact that while mockery and humour are mostly less likely to be effective for communication, there are other times not included in that 'mostly' when good humour or gentle parody in particular can be more effective. I haven't followed your discussion with William too closely, but you also seem to be advocating for mockery as part of some kind of vast propaganda campaign which - however ineffective it may be in terms of communicating with immediate recipients - potentially may in the long term put the Torah back in its place alongside if not behind the Odyssey or Aeneid; some hoped-for effects "If Yahweh is frequently shown to be a figure of fun," in contrast to likely effects from maligning the character any single time.

The halibut sketch in Life of Brian featured the mockery of absurd penalties for trivialities in the reverence paid to Jehovah. You possibly didn't laugh, since a more serious treatment would have been more effective, but you know, I think they did awfully well with the medium you discredit.

I probably did laugh, though their more absurd material occasionally misses the mark to my mind. But if you think they successfully showed that it was absurd for bronze age societies to reinforce social cohesion and thereby improve national survival/success by the use of selected cultural and religious norms - enforced in the absence of professional policing and sophisticated social and justice systems by much harsher penalties than is normal for modern developed countries - I would say that you're very much mistaken.

In another, arguably more humorous scene of the movie they "mock" ethnic cuisine, but I would hope that no-one is basing their worldview on that bit of mirth either. As I noted in my second post of the thread, some humour/parody drawing on religious themes is used to directly question or poke fun at those elements, while on other occasions the religious themes merely provide incidental material for humour for its own sake. I would say that in its treatment of religious factionism, herd mentality and development of legendary material Life of Brian falls very much into the first category, and excellently so, but we are not therefore obliged to suppose that every scene is meant to be making some coherent statement beneath the humour. So far as I've yet discerned from a dozen-odd viewings, Biggus Dickus is just a gag.

[marco]

"Simulated Realities"... "Event Strings"... "algorithms"

I'm not sure that I am comfortable with placing these borrowings from mathematics into a religious context. Chaos theory might similarly be used. But I suppose there is no single highway that leads to truth, though how we know when we reach our destination is a mystery.

I am attempting to help that process by flinging my Sensibility into the fray.

It may not be as helpful as you suppose.

You mock one GOD you mock them all. That has been my point throughout...if you cannot indulge in conversation with a theist without mocking the theism as you understand it, why would the theist care whether you mock your own interpretation of their idea of GOD.

If people mock Thor and Jupiter, Yahweh remains respected. You think that when one sees some of God's biblical adventures as ludicrous one is challenging theology. That is not so. One may well challenge theology, without ridicule. The object of ridicule is the set of silly stories around Yahweh: the concept of an infinite power is up for serious discussion.

[marco]

The story says that Moses saw the back of God; it doesn't say that God was "racing through the sky" at the time and it doesn't say that God appeared as a quadruped (or any particular form for that matter, beyond having a 'hand'). These are two points on which you've unequivocally misrepresented the story in scarcely half a dozen words.

The story says that, does it? You do know that the substance of satire or caricature is to enlarge or exaggerate some feature. Caricature distorts so that certain features are seen in a funny, yet surprisingly true light. It is amusing that we can take a story about God covering a bit of his presumably false body with what he calls his hand, then revealing his "back parts" (which I see Michelangelo understood to be human pudenda) and from this you comment that God is not said to have raced through the sky. Well observed! Nor did he use a helicopter. How silly is satire!

I've explained several times why the imprecisions of exaggeration, ambiguity, double entendre, caricaturing and so on create potential problems in communication. You have not refuted that.

Your statement is completely wrong, as instanced by the top literary magazines that make effective use of caricature to get a point across. I'm glancing at one just now. But if you have "explained" that the use of this type of mockery is problematic, perhaps someone should tell the editors to stop doing what they have been doing (successfully). Do you suppose that because Mithrae declares something, it is "an explanation"? You are wrong in what you say about various styles of mockery. I mentioned Gogol, Juvenal and Horace in refutation but of course I didn't expect you to read them.

But if you think they successfully showed that it was absurd for bronze age societies to reinforce social cohesion and thereby improve national survival/success by the use of selected cultural and religious norms - enforced in the absence of professional policing and sophisticated social and justice systems by much harsher penalties than is normal for modern developed countries - I would say that you're very much mistaken.

Well thankfully such thoughts never entered my brain, so on this point I am not in error.

It is interesting to see where the human mind can probe when faced with a simple question: "Is it right to mock Yahweh?" We must first investigate the Tigris and Euphrates, the metaphoric significance of a naked Noah, the form of transport used when Yahweh moved in front of Moses and the identity of angels scattered liberally through bible pages. And once we uncover an apparent absurdity, we must do all in our power to study Bronze Age societies and their modus vivendi. Next, before we question God's back parts, we must look for correlatives that would give some divine explanation. A simple question, a labyrinth of deviations.


To do an Alexander with this Gordian knot, there are dozens of questions we could ask - and you have asked - that would make fine debating points, but if we are restricted to the question I presented it is clear that I have shown places where various types of mockery are effective. We may quibble with the term "mockery" but we have a rough idea that it means something involving fun and laughter and in the broad, literary world around us it is used well. I can do no more to assist here. I trust this terminates the rambling discussion.

[marco]

[Replying to post 67 by Mithrae]


By coincidence I have just read an article about the powerful effect that Life of Brian had. It was banned in Norway and Ireland. The writer of the article thinks it contributed towards the decline of Christianity in that a younger generation laughed at what had previously been sacrosanct territory.

So mockery can be effective, it would seem.