Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:48:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1736 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I'm curious as to how you think the BT is worthwhile to a Christian by showing
> that what they believe in is silly.
Let's say for a moment that what Christians believe in *is* silly. Would it
then be worthwhile to help show them this? Is it worthwhile in general to
discredit other people's silly beliefs, even when they are very much
convinced of these silly beliefs, and even if they are perfectly happy
believing these silly beliefs? I think you could argue this either way, but
I would at least venture that there are some situations in which it is
worthwhile to show the silliniess of some peoples silly beliefs.
> I would say that it makes little sense to point out the flaws in someone else's
> religion, unless you were trying to discredit that religion.
I agree. The Brick Testament can be seen as an attempt to discredit Judaism
and Christianity, although not in a particularly mocking fashion. For the
most part, people already have their minds made up about Judaism,
Christianity, and the Bible before reading The Brick Testament. At its
best, the website illustrates parts of the Bible that people were not aware
of, or stories that they were so familiar with that the disturbing nature of
the story was totally lost on them. It kind of says, "Here's something you
may not have realized was in the foundational book of your religion. From
an outsider's perspective, it's very disturbing. You make of it what you will."
> And if that is
> your intent, than a frosty reaction to the BT by Christians could be understood. • <snip>
> here's my point. Religion is a pretty
> personal issue, and some take it more personally than others. When you (as an
> outsider) decide to take it upon yourself to criticize Christianity, your
> motivation comes into question. It's not your religion, so why criticize it?
> I can see why other Christians might look at Christianity in a critical light
> (to better understand their own religion), but not so easily an outsider, and
> that type of criticism can easily be construed as being mockery and as an
> attempt to discredit it as being silly.
Imagine for a moment that you were born in a country where 90% of the people
were of a religion that you considered silly. You didn't dismiss the
religion out of hand -- in fact, you yourself believed in it for quite some
time, but after a deeper inspection, you found that its basic precepts just
didn't make any sense, and the morals it promoted were highly questionable.
What would you do in this sort of situation? Your parents, your close
friends, your teachers -- all of them are believers in this religion you
find ridiculous, and yet they take it very seriously. So seriously that it
affects their whole lives. And so many people are of this religion that it
affects society in general. Would you never attempt to show these people,
even people you care about, your outsider's perspective on their religious
beliefs with a glimmer of hope that they could see how silly they really are?
Imagine the religion in question is 'Rooism'. Rooism is based on the belief
that Maury the Kangaroo came to Earth 3,000 years ago in a magical spaceship
made by his father, the almighty Lob. Lob, although he loved mankind, was
constantly sending plagues and destrcution upon humankind because they were
not showing their adoring love of Lob in exactly the right way. When Maury
came to earth, he was captured and eaten by his enemies, and through this
act, he forgave all mankind for being so horrible. Rooists insist that you
are still horrible unless you accept Maury the Kangaroo as your personal
lover, and you will be judged by Lob when you die.
(Please don't take the above paragraph to be merely a mocking of
Christianity. My goal in writing it was to give you some idea of how
bizarre the basic precepts of Christianity or any other religion can look
like to an outsider -- even one who was raised as an insider.)
> And why not? Yeah, Christians aren't perfect, but there is no "faith without
> works", to quote from the book of James. I would have a tough time believing
> someone if they told me that they were a Christian and that they issued death
> threats. There is a serious disconnect there.
OK, but I think you'd be left with a very small amount of Christians in this
world and throughout history if you were dismissing all the ones who fail to
practise non-violence, especially if even mere threats of greivous violence
count as violence. But if that's your take on Christianity, it's cool with
me. I like non-violence.
> I don't think that you had any particular malice in your intent with the Brick
> Testament; all I am saying is that it is certainly conceivable to me to see why
> someone might think you did. But certainly you must have realized that,
> generally speaking, non-Christians would find your work a lot more humorous
> than Christians, and that some of those Christians would probably be pretty
> offended by it as well. One doesn't get the sense that you are laughing *with*
> Christians or Jews, but *at* them.
Out of the hundreds of e-mails I've received over the past year concerning
The Brick Testament, I would estimate that about 49% is fan mail from
non-Christians, another 49% is fan mail from Christians, and 2% is from
Christians who were offended by the site. What I also get a lot of is
e-mails from ministers and other church members asking me for permission to
use my illustrated stories in their services and Sunday School classes. Is
the wool pulled over their eyes? Or do they appreciate my outsider's view
on these Bible stories? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess it's a mix of
both.
> You really could have done the BT in a
> non-offensive way, steering clear of the "controversial" stories, but it
> appears that that wasn't really a concern of yours.
I consider so much of the Bible "controversial", that there wouldn't be much
left to illustrate if I skipped over those parts.
> If I were to accuse you of
> anything, it would be of being insensitive to those who take those stories very
> seriously.
Could you really resist illustrating the story of Maury the Kangaroo getting
pantsed by the ancient French? Even if 90% of the population considered the
story extremely sacred?
> But as I said before, it is certainly your perogative, but just
> don't be surprised that some may find your work offensive.
To be honest, I'm surprised at how relatively few negative reactions I've
received about The Brick Testament. But when people are offended, I am
curious to hear just what it is about the way I've illustrated these Bible
stories that is offensive to them.
-Rev. Smith
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Well, therein lies part of your problem-- you cannot ever really assert this. (...) Perhaps, but in the guise of holding them yourself? You mention Ministers contacting you about wanting to use the BT for Sunday school, etc. Do you really (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I'm curious as to how you think the BT is worthwhile to a Christian by showing that what they believe in is silly (I can see why is it useful to *you*-- a "creative" expression of your rejection of your perceived silliness of Christianity, and (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
