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?

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by marco]

marco: Your dissertation involves a being who has no resemblance to Yahweh.

William: Then is your quibble simply who named who? Did The Creator label himself or did others choose labels for him, or perhaps a mixture of both?

My point throughout is that one can mock a straw-stuffed effigy and that is the extent of the relationship.
Or one can walk from those fields and form a relationship with the real.
Or one can mock both the effigy or the idea of relationship with an invisible entity, as equally daft.

Or one can refrain from mockery because it is identified as an exercise in pointlessness.

marco: 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.

William: What does it matter what name it is given? What is really being mocked?

The Idea of there being a Creator, is what is mocked.

YHWH becomes the scapegoat, but why?

marco: 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.

William: So one resorts to mocking billions of humans 'just because.'

I find myself -naturally - wondering why it matters to anyone who believes that there is no Creator. The argument seems redundant at that rate.

marco: The allocation to Yahweh of intellectual gravity is itself a mockery of man and what man has achieved.

William: What Humans are you speaking about, and what of their achievements.
Why would including the idea of a Creator into the equation, make a mockery of said men and achievements.

marco: 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.

William: You just described America. Do you think YHWH is behind that...like a GOD of WAR perpetrating atrocities on humans achieving whatever it is that humans are achieving...

marco: Your dissertation involves a being who has no resemblance to Yahweh.

William: I wouldn't say 'no resemblance' - or even 'little resemblance'
Rather I would say that my dissertation expands on the idea of GOD/Creator/simulation programmer...

marco: If we wish to term the sum total of everything, dust and detail, God, let's not pretend we are dealing with Yahweh.

William: Its a start, but really, it isn't about pretending anything.
It is about understanding the dust and detail are possibly created through intelligent process rather than by random chance.
There are no particular details YHWH himself has clarified which ultimately cause one to think a Creator is not behind this Reality Simulation.


marco: To deal with that idea one would simply employ a question mark, not ridicule.

William: Neither are useful nor necessary, even that the former presumes an answer is being investigated. If not, then the question mark belongs to the latter.

[Mithrae]

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.

My confusion lies in the fact that in the OP you had suggested that mockery involves maligning ("speak about (someone) in a spitefully critical manner") the subject
...then at some later point you agreed that one should obviously avoid being mean-spirited
...and now you're back to saying that the attitude you favour is one of "ridicule, a subject of ridicule, mimicry, imitation, esp. a contemptible or insulting imitation" with an emphasis on ridicule
...which as I highlighted earlier means "the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behaviour."

Maybe you chose the word 'mock' for your thread title as a rejoinder to the bible's insistence that "God is not mocked"? But inasmuch as you credit your readers with knowing how words are most commonly used, mockery, maligning and ridicule quite obviously seem to be misleading ones to use here if you weren't referring to attitudes of insult and contempt. That one might find some gentler definition for all such words buried in one dictionary or another would hardly make them optimal for what you wanted to convey. And while there's nothing actually wrong with sub-optimal communication, the efforts to spin this miscommunication as merely a selective preference on my part which happens "coincidentally" to be borne out again and again and again by every dictionary out there, including your own, are simply inaccurate and insulting. Even so normally I mightn't give it a second thought, but in this case the issue of misleading communication is pretty closely relevant to why I think that witticisms, flowery rhetoric, humour and so on are often less than ideal in serious discussion. (Your earlier profession of a positive "duty" to mock, to which I first responded, keeps springing to mind in this context.)

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.

There is a difference, though when contemplating whether to ridicule others' most treasured beliefs I suspect that most effective communicators will recognize the likelihood of that bifurcation between belief and believer becoming blurred. That's not really the point I was getting at though: Exaggeration, ambiguity etc. are inherently poorer types of communication than straightforward sticking to the facts and it is only when the attempted humour or witticism hits the right spot that they can possibly accomplish more than clearer and more accurate wording would.

To use an example from the OP, the claim that Yahweh "showed his hind quarters as he raced through the sky" might conjure up images of a celestial streaker that humorously urge us to caution in approaching the various anthropomorphisms used by the biblical authors, to a reader in the right frame of mind. But by contrast a reader steeped in the difficulties and pitfalls of trying to communicate about 'god' in our meagre human language (even for educated modern folk, let alone the far more limited vocabulary of under-educated bronze-age Hebrews) and not inclined to generously accept the intended humour of the phrase, would likely find a modern writer's vulgar amplification of that unsophisticated description nothing more than inaccurate and ignorant at best or potentially outright offensive. Do we have any kind of effective communication, in the latter case, or would it in that case have been much more effective to simply say "We should be wary of the anthropomorphisms occasionally used by unsophisticated ancient authors, such as in this story"?

The fact that the parody is directed towards the ancient text rather than any living person doesn't automatically mean that it will be effective communication, by any stretch of the imagination. The potential problem lies in the exaggeration and double entendre itself, which requires an exchange in the right spirit to be understood as it was intended and potentially effective. (Really, how I'm only hoping it was intended; given the mockery of comparatively sophisticated Paul, this may indeed have been intended for no other purpose than to suggest a dumb story!)

[marco]

Or one can refrain from mockery because it is identified as an exercise in pointlessness.[/color]

It is perhaps "identified" as such by you. It is not "identified" as pointless, since it has been used for centuries in literature most effectively.

The Idea of there being a Creator, is what is mocked.

It isn't.

YHWH becomes the scapegoat, but why?

Yahweh or as some say Jehovah is not a scapegoat but a funny fiction. The nonsense in his creation has to be illustrated.

I find myself -naturally - wondering why it matters to anyone who believes that there is no Creator. The argument seems redundant at that rate.

You are compounding several errors in one sentence here. The idea of God is not something I would mock; the devotion of people predisposed to honour some greater entity is not subject of ridicule. To repeat: Yahweh the ogre of the Bible pages requires to be dealt with in some way. It would seem that to say simply: "He's a fiction" breaks no ice. As for the beliefs of others having an effect on me, Donne puts it well:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.

There are in literature answers to many of your questions - including the use of irony, satire, ridicule.

Why would including the idea of a Creator into the equation, make a mockery of said men and achievements.

I will correct your mistake for one final time. Yahweh is a fictional character, composed by some anonymous writers, and he is NOT the concept of creator that perhaps you abide by. The suggestion he IS the creator is to be ridiculed. Clowns are to be laughed at; there's no animosity behind the fun.

Rather I would say that my dissertation expands on the idea of GOD/Creator/simulation programmer...

Therefore it trails into irrelevance because that is not subject of ridicule in this OP.

To steer us back to the question: one might wonder whether in Roman times a citizen should just have accepted the follies of the gods or spoken out satirically against them. The gods may have inspired some fine marble but did not advance civilisation. Similarly Yahweh and his relatives have given us some fine art - the Creation of Adam - but they have held us back from higher considerations as we looked for witches and bad girls to kill. It is amazing that in the 21st century we still use "sacrifice", as if there was a point in killing the best bull for the thunder god. And when I say this I am accused of being unkind to "Yahweh."

[marco]

[quote="Mithrae"]


My confusion lies in the fact that in the OP you had suggested that mockery involves maligning ….. "

Perhaps we should stop the discussion there, for you seem to think that the OP was an invitation to mock. The closing questions are:

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

Your reply might properly have been "It serves no useful purpose," and you could then add something about the hurt feelings of devout readers. It is reasonable - I think - for me to have exemplified mild mockery of the character Yahweh, and then invited comments on whether such mockery is good or purposeful. We seem to have fallen by the wayside into a rut where we need to define 'malign' and 'mock'.

You conclude your advisory post with the suggestion:

" would it in that case have been much more effective to simply say "We should be wary of the anthropomorphisms occasionally used by unsophisticated ancient authors, such as in this story"? ….."

It is many a year since my writing has been subject to such editing and I am not sure whether I have the right words to express gratitude. I think your suggestion would be much, much less effective than parody or ridicule. It would elicit silence. If the point is to encourage discussion, then one does not do so with platitudes and pacific pieces of prose.

In any event I offered a couple of questions regarding mockery of Yahweh. My view is that it has its place, but in asking " Is mockery of Yahweh good or bad? Does it serve any useful purpose?" I have adopted a neutral stance in the OP.

I think had we kept to those questions there would have been a more interesting discussion.

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by]

marco: Yahweh or as some say Jehovah is not a scapegoat but a funny fiction. The nonsense in his creation has to be illustrated.

William: You ask " Is mockery of Yahweh good or bad? Does it serve any useful purpose?" and argue that it does.
You claim that mans achievements cannot be seen for what they are if YHWH is not mocked.
But when pushed for details you swerve away from that direction, so it is difficult to get a bead on what you are trying to argue.

It appears now that you are saying something along the lines of "A gentle mocking is appropriate in regard to how an old race of nomads presented their idea of a creator" so I suppose in that light that, the answer is something along the lines of "Mockery of YHWH is neither 'good' nor 'bad', any more than standing in a field mocking a strawman is either 'good' or 'bad'.

If there is some 'good' point to doing so, you have yet to show that.

[Mithrae]

My confusion lies in the fact that in the OP you had suggested that mockery involves maligning ….. "

Perhaps we should stop the discussion there, for you seem to think that the OP was an invitation to mock. The closing questions are:

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

Your reply might properly have been "It serves no useful purpose," and you could then add something about the hurt feelings of devout readers.

My position is and has been all along that mockery is usually a less effective form of communication than more factually- and less emotionally-oriented approaches. Perhaps you haven't understood that, or have some other unknown reason for suggesting that a different reply would have been proper?

It is reasonable - I think - for me to have exemplified mild mockery of the character Yahweh, and then invited comments on whether such mockery is good or purposeful. We seem to have fallen by the wayside into a rut where we need to define 'malign' and 'mock'.

You conclude your advisory post with the suggestion:

" would it in that case have been much more effective to simply say "We should be wary of the anthropomorphisms occasionally used by unsophisticated ancient authors, such as in this story"? ….."

It is many a year since my writing has been subject to such editing and I am not sure whether I have the right words to express gratitude. I think your suggestion would be much, much less effective than parody or ridicule. It would elicit silence. If the point is to encourage discussion, then one does not do so with platitudes and pacific pieces of prose.

Sure, if you want to inflame an argument mockery is often an effective tool. If you want to constructively communicate with someone, mocking or ridiculing them or their most treasured beliefs will - usually - be a poor if not thoroughly counter-productive approach. If you instead choose gentle parody or well-intentioned humour as a vehicle of communication, it may in the right circumstances have more impact than more straightforward discussion, but that's by no means assured.

The case in point being that even after spending a couple of paragraphs pondering it and your couple of paragraphs in response, I'm still unclear on whether that interest in Yahweh's hind quarters from the OP was intended to encourage general caution against putting too much stock in the divine anthropomorphisms of less sophisticated ancient writers, or simply as a way of suggesting it's a dumb story (or something else entirely for that matter).

In any event I offered a couple of questions regarding mockery of Yahweh. My view is that it has its place, but in asking " Is mockery of Yahweh good or bad? Does it serve any useful purpose?" I have adopted a neutral stance in the OP. 

I think had we kept to those questions there would have been a more interesting discussion.

Personally I found the tangent trying to paint mockery, maligning and ridicule as merely neutral terms from which one might selectively prefer the more mean-spirited meanings quite amusing, if rather longer than might have been expected. Noting that not all humour and parodies are done in a mocking manner is a rather important point, I would have thought!

[marco]

You claim that man's achievements cannot be seen for what they are if YHWH is not mocked.
But when pushed for details you swerve away from that direction, so it is difficult to get a bead on what you are trying to argue.

It isn't really all that hard. For a start I am saying that mockery is ONE possible way of reducing Yahweh's influence, not the only way. Making him a folly drives him out of fashion. But of course as Mithrae has indicated there are more serious ways if one wants to be more serious.

You wonder what degree of mockery is appropriate. I suppose it depends on the mocker. I think mockery has its place as I have suggested in many replies. If Yahweh is frequently shown to be a figure of fun, perhaps he will be replaced by a more serious contender for maker of the Milky Way. Perhaps you can help here with your all-embracing factotum.

[marco]

Noting that not all humour and parodies are done in a mocking manner is a rather important point, I would have thought!

And it's a point I made with which you seemed to disagree. You appear to be replying to a question such as: "Is it nice to be brutal about other people's cherished views?"

Your approach is to push me to where this becomes the question I asked. In fact I asked whether it is right to mock Yahweh. It right to accept that "mock" covers a variety of approaches, involving parody, ridicule, fun, jest, double entendre, imitation, misquotation, irony, sarcasm, word-play, or even humorous poetic forms such as limerick of clerihew.

You have wisely said that one should be serious when talking about the God people honour, else we offend by our speech. You might also have said, in Christ-like fashion, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I have accorded you praise and thanks for your sapient suggestions, your revised questions and your reasoned, didactic replies. Short of penning a canticle in Latin with appropriate music, I can do no more.

Is it right to mock Yahweh? Marco: yes. Mithrae: no.

That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know. My best wishes.

[SallyF]

And having a chuckle at the servants of Yahweh is also a community service.

If we point out what a farcical nonsense the whole Yahweh and his breeding with a human virgin to make himself into a human sacrifice called Jesus, and leaving behind the Holy Ghost to monitor the autoerotic habits of teenagers and other such sins, we may just help folks either escape or avoid this trap of "faith".

[William]

marco: It isn't really all that hard.

William: To deduce?

marco: For a start I am saying that mockery is ONE possible way of reducing Yahweh's influence, not the only way.

William: That seems besides the point and only tempts a tangent

marco: Making him a folly drives him out of fashion.

William: I see no evidence of that. Perhaps what you mean is that giving it a go might produce fruit from wishful thinking.

marco: But of course as Mithrae has indicated there are more serious ways if one wants to be more serious.

William: So is the question being asked really then "Is mocking anything 'serious' or 'not serious'?" ...

marco: You wonder what degree of mockery is appropriate. I suppose it depends on the mocker. I think mockery has its place as I have suggested in many replies.

William: It is written that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
You appear to be suggesting that the place mockery is categorized is under "humor" and barely funny for that.
But your question had to do with 'good' or 'bad' and 'YHWH'.

marco: If Yahweh is frequently shown to be a figure of fun, perhaps he will be replaced by a more serious contender for maker of the Milky Way.

William: Is mockery fun. Is fun good or bad. Answer the former and the latter takes on form.
But it appears the issue of good and bad are opinions...

marco: Perhaps you can help here with your all-embracing factotum.

William: I have added the word "Factotum"to my Word-String List.
And yes, it is my intention to help here as I am enabled.

I think "Mocking YHWH" is really not a thing one does directly, but rather indirectly.
One is mocking the stories believed of YHWH and - Be That As It May - I understand that it is far better to simply engage critical thinking and evaluate accordingly. Therein, the requirement to engage in mockery becomes surplus to the requirements of critical thinking...and thus - the question you asked - is answered. It is not a case of good or bad, for those are simply opinion based judgments.