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?

[marco]

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".

Yes, it is hard to read about Yahweh and not smile. All the same, while playwrights would pay attention if their work was mocked, it is a different situation when we direct ridicule at what's in the Bible. The writers are presumably singing Hallelujahs in perpetuity and goodness knows what Yahweh's been up to since he shouted from the sky at his boy and then knocked Saul from his horse with an invisible pinkie.

Perhaps mockery is a hopeful attempt to administer some divine heart massage, to revive the old temper and have him threaten some city with destruction if we don't find 57 good men (women don't count.). Laugh, they say, and the world laughs with you. I hope so, and maybe God does as well.

[Mithrae]

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?"

I've replied (repeatedly) to the question in the opening post - "Does [mockery of Yahweh] serve any useful purpose" - noting that it, like any other efforts to ridicule folks' treasured beliefs, is likely in most cases to be sub-optimal at best or even entirely counter-productive. If the goal was productive communication, that is, since that's ostensibly the main focus of this forum; I admit I didn't really say much about the various other reasons people might malign each others' beliefs.

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

First you suggest I didn't answer your question - which I did - but then you put in my mouth an answer I genuinely never gave. I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it is morally right or wrong, and it wouldn't be a binary approach if I did.

[marco]

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. [/color]

Well obviously we don't mock Yahweh directly, which would mean we take him as real and nonetheless mock him. "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" - I should imagine, if Yahweh were real, madness might be the least affliction meted out to the mocker.

Opinions are the stuff of discussions. Of course some of us are possessed of many facts which we can slip into a discussion, but if we are simply selling facts then we might as well set up a school. We can quote passages, but I find this useless unless there is some explanatory statement beside them, for interpretation is important.

Anyway, I think it's good to ridicule a badly presented character. If the starting assumption is Yahweh somehow made himself, then everything else, including wasps,
and then stepped down on to a mountain and chatted to one of his products it is hard to see how reason has a place here.

[marco]

First you suggest I didn't answer your question - which I did - but then you put in my mouth an answer I genuinely never gave. I haven't expressed an opinion on whether it is morally right or wrong, and it wouldn't be a binary approach if I did.

That is what comes of consulting various dictionaries to support some sort of reply. The reader is left to extract the nearest estimate to a reply based on what has been attempted. You appeared to oppose my suggestion that mockery is good. It is reasonable to suppose, then, that you think it bad. I'm not sure what "a bit good" might be.

But if the confusion in your replies was caused by your desire to say that mockery might be good on Monday, but not Friday; mockery might be good if it is clever satire but not if it attacks desert tribesmen…. then you have converted what seemed a simple question into one that might silence Aristotle. I suppose minds of the past, using such an approach to questions, pondered how many angels might be positioned on the point of a needle.

Perhaps if we concentrate on the question posed, rather than on the mind that composed it, we will get even further into useful discussion. Just a thought.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 54 by marco]

Rather than introducing some irrelevant tangent about Aristotle and angels, you could just come to terms with the answer to the concluding question of the OP which I've explained - with varying degrees of detail or emphasis - in literally every single post these last three pages of discussion. That you have chosen to quote and mock only the 1/3 of my last post which doesn't answer the question (and avoided responding to that ongoing discussion in my preceding post also) perhaps tells us something about how earnestly you want to "concentrate on the question posed."

In case you've forgotten, I had noted in post #46 that even now - after a couple of paragraphs pondering it and a couple of paragraphs of your response - it remains unclear what if anything was meant to be communicated by the example of parody which caps off the OP's first paragraph, the assertion that Yahweh "showed his hind quarters as he raced through the sky." Was it, as I'd initially thought and hoped, intended to use humour as a means to encourage general caution against putting too much stock in the divine anthropomorphisms of less sophisticated ancient writers? Was it merely intended by the misrepresentation of exaggeration and double entendre to portray that part of Exodus as just a dumb story? Or was there some other, as-yet unknown reason for it?

In case you forgot why that came up, or simply don't want to talk about it, it was because you'd suggested that there's an important distinction between ridiculing the material which constitutes people's beliefs, and ridiculing the believers themselves: And while I agreed that is indeed an important distinction (albeit at times quite a blurred one when those beliefs are particularly treasured as in the case of religion), I noted that the potential problems of sub-optimal communication are inherent to the imprecision introduced by exaggeration, ambiguity etc. which largely constitute the humourists' and satirists' toolbox, and require the right circumstances or frame of mind to be effective. Your interest in Yahweh's hind quarters was one such confusing example, clearly not directed at any person yet still not clear in its intent or meaning; still of rather dubious communicative value. While you partially quoted some of what I said on that subject, you didn't really respond to that either.

If you'd rather disinter your argument with the dictionary I suppose we could go back to that, tedious though it had become, but for my part I thought these more relevant points of discussion you overlooked were considerably more interesting.

[William]

[Replying to post 53 by ]

marco: Well obviously we don't mock Yahweh directly, which would mean we take him as real and nonetheless mock him.

William: The reason I think "Mocking YHWH" is really not a thing one does directly, but rather indirectly, was to underline that point.
What is it that the mocker is thus mocking?

marco: I should imagine, if Yahweh were real, madness might be the least affliction meted out to the mocker.

William: Why should you imagine such? Because of the stories?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: Opinions are the stuff of discussions. Of course some of us are possessed of many facts which we can slip into a discussion, but if we are simply selling facts then we might as well set up a school. We can quote passages, but I find this useless unless there is some explanatory statement beside them, for interpretation is important.

William: Interpretation too, is simply opinion. A Message is still a Message, no matter how one chooses to interpret it.
A Teacher cannot LEARN for a Student.

marco: Anyway, I think it's good to ridicule a badly presented character.

William: Is that an opinion filtered through a judgmental algorithm...There still has been no explanatory statement accompanying the opinion in which I can gauge validity by. Perhaps if you explain to me exactly how you would have done things, I might have a better bead on the reasons for your opinion.

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: ...then everything else, including wasps,
and then stepped down on to a mountain and chatted to one of his products it is hard to see how reason has a place here.

William: While I understand one's vigor, if one is to occult certain facts from the argument, one runs the risk of wandering down straw paths...as one's argument is missing said facts.
YHWH chooses the way in which he visits, and has a deep understanding of The Holographic Universes - of which our universe is an aspect of - so it is not really an issue for him to do as he pleases in that regard.
Having myself been a recipient, I understand the experience within the framework of merged realities - although admittedly I didn't at the time, I persevered with wanting to find out and experience more, and so did.

[marco]

Rather than introducing some irrelevant tangent about Aristotle and angels, you could just come to terms with the answer to the concluding question of the OP which I've explained - with varying degrees of detail or emphasis - in literally every single post these last three pages of discussion.

'Aristotle and angels' is an alliterative insertion to indicate we can use humour without hurt and it is not, as you pleonastically put it, "some irrelevant tangent."

you have chosen to quote and mock only the 1/3 of my last post

Would quoting and mocking three quarters make a more satisfactory response?

In case you've forgotten, I had noted in post #46 that even now - after a couple of paragraphs pondering it and a couple of paragraphs of your response - it remains unclear what if anything was meant to be communicated by the example of parody which caps off the OP's first paragraph, the assertion that Yahweh "showed his hind quarters as he raced through the sky." Was it, as I'd initially thought and hoped, intended to use humour as a means to encourage general caution against putting too much stock in the divine anthropomorphisms of less sophisticated ancient writers? Was it merely intended by the misrepresentation of exaggeration and double entendre to portray that part of Exodus as just a dumb story? Or was there some other, as-yet unknown reason for it?

The KJV says: "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." I think one can accept "hindquarters" as a reasonable rendering of "back parts". God has a large hand, it seems.

My intention? To use humour meaningfully. You put it quite succinctly by saying it illustrates a "dumb story." So it does. Intention, as it happens, doesn't fill every phrase I write, at least not in my posts here.

I noted that the potential problems of sub-optimal communication are inherent to the imprecision introduced by exaggeration, ambiguity etc. which largely constitute the humourists' and satirists' toolbox, and require the right circumstances or frame of mind to be effective.

I would guess that all communication here falls into the "sub-optimal" category. I don't aim for the impossible but I like to think my words are chosen with human, rather than divine, care. Methinks you maketh of a molehill a mountain.

Your interest in Yahweh's hind quarters was one such confusing example, clearly not directed at any person yet still not clear in its intent or meaning; still of rather dubious communicative value. While you partially quoted some of what I said on that subject, you didn't really respond to that either.

I see no great difference between "back parts" and "hindquarters" when they are applied to a normally invisible being, transformed into perhaps beastly shape. I think there's a tad more fun in employing "hindquarters" rather than spine, say. I am sorry you got confused about this word but confusion wasn't my goal and I take no responsibility for the chaos my words might cause in the minds of my readers. Would that the magical "fiat lux" brought elucidation, when uttered from human lips!

My moving finger wrote, and having writ, moved on - and I pondered whether the use of mockery against Yahweh is correct. Was I right to talk of the poor thing's hindquarters and reduce him to a fleeting stag, perhaps? And like you I wondered what positive purpose my mockery might serve. This indicates that Marco was circumspect; he was alert to criticism of the use of mockery. All the same I thought, and think, that it is appropriate to use it..... even sub-optimally.

May we now lower our lances, good Mithrae, and return to our seats and drink each other's health, in mead maybe? Go well.

[marco]

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.

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.

A Teacher cannot LEARN for a Student.

No one suggested otherwise. 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.

Is that an opinion filtered through a judgmental algorithm...There still has been no explanatory statement accompanying the opinion in which I can gauge validity by.

You presumably mean, by your circumlocution, that opinions have to be subjected to some reasoning process, backed up with supporting facts. It is particularly ironic that the materials I am criticising are stories that are impossible and ludicrous, judged by any standards we know. So laughing at silly tales that are taken seriously might make those who take them seriously submit them to your "judgmental algorithm." 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.

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

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

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

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

YHWH chooses the way in which he visits, and has a deep understanding of The Holographic Universes - of which our universe is an aspect of - so it is not really an issue for him to do as he pleases in that regard.
Having myself been a recipient, I understand the experience within the framework of merged realities - although admittedly I didn't at the time, I persevered with wanting to find out and experience more, and so did.

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. 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.

[Mithrae]

Rather than introducing some irrelevant tangent about Aristotle and angels, you could just come to terms with the answer to the concluding question of the OP which I've explained - with varying degrees of detail or emphasis - in literally every single post these last three pages of discussion.

'Aristotle and angels' is an alliterative insertion to indicate we can use humour without hurt and it is not, as you pleonastically put it, "some irrelevant tangent."

That might make sense if the alliteration had been yours; or if it had been humorous; or if angels on a pin were not a proverbial insult suggesting absurdity.

Would quoting and mocking three quarters make a more satisfactory response?

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.

In case you've forgotten, I had noted in post #46 that even now - after a couple of paragraphs pondering it and a couple of paragraphs of your response - it remains unclear what if anything was meant to be communicated by the example of parody which caps off the OP's first paragraph, the assertion that Yahweh "showed his hind quarters as he raced through the sky." Was it, as I'd initially thought and hoped, intended to use humour as a means to encourage general caution against putting too much stock in the divine anthropomorphisms of less sophisticated ancient writers? Was it merely intended by the misrepresentation of exaggeration and double entendre to portray that part of Exodus as just a dumb story? Or was there some other, as-yet unknown reason for it?

The KJV says: "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." I think one can accept "hindquarters" as a reasonable rendering of "back parts". God has a large hand, it seems.

My intention? To use humour meaningfully. You put it quite succinctly by saying it illustrates a "dumb story." So it does.

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.

In reading such a story the first and most obvious question is "Did it happen?" 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! But even granting a reasonable probability that it didn't happen, the next most obvious questions are "Then what does it mean? How should we take it?" No doubt there's folk who imagine themselves tremendously witty for pointing out that biologically the Little Red Hen simply couldn't have sown, harvested, ground and baked her grain - what a stupid story, hah!

I noted that the potential problems of sub-optimal communication are inherent to the imprecision introduced by exaggeration, ambiguity etc. which largely constitute the humourists' and satirists' toolbox, and require the right circumstances or frame of mind to be effective.

I would guess that all communication here falls into the "sub-optimal" category. I don't aim for the impossible but I like to think my words are chosen with human, rather than divine, care. Methinks you maketh of a molehill a mountain.

If you're going to assume that any answer which doesn't match your own is a 'mountain,' then it might be wiser not to ask questions about a molehill. As I've already noted (more than once, I believe), if you want to use a communication style which is even more susceptible to misunderstanding and emotional involvement on your own or others' part, you are certainly welcome to do that. 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.

[marco]

That might make sense if the alliteration had been yours;

I didn't invent the words "angels and Aristotle" but their alliterative juxtaposition is certainly mine.

or if it had been humorous;

Well every word in an expression doesn't carry laughter, certainly, but one can usually distinguish frivolity from seriousness.

or if angels on a pin were not a proverbial insult suggesting absurdity.

Angels on a pin has theological - therefore relevant -significance. The later dismissive use is derived from the older debate.

Would quoting and mocking three quarters make a more satisfactory response?

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.

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.

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.

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 think that a post that speaks of Yahweh's exposed back parts would attract more attention than one that seeks to find what mystical meaning there might be in Yahweh's temporary concealment of his body. But I wouldn't want to be as dogmatic as to say mockery is certainly more effective.

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.