Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2002 18:52:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1926 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> 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.
Well, therein lies part of your problem-- you cannot ever really assert this.
> Would it
> then be worthwhile to help show them 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 think that they would be asking if they realized that your real
intention of the BT was to discredit their religion?
> 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?
Don't you see the arrogance of this? Everyone is wrong, but *I* am correct? I
realize that you grew up in a Christian environment and have concluded that
Christianity is silly, and that's fine. Why then try and convince everyone
else that it is silly? Did someone tell *you* that it was silly? What you are
failing to realize is that the most powerful galvanizing forces to beliefs are
persecution and mockery. You may actually be accomplishing exactly opposite of
what you intend.
But if you *really* want to indict a religion, don't attack its beliefs, attack
the *actions* of its followers; how the religion's ideals are manifested.
There really is no traction in attacking that which cannot be proven one way or
the other.
<snip>
> (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.)
Brendan, I am a Christian and even *I* think that some beliefs held by *my
fellow Christians* are bizarre and silly. But I am not concerned about
convincing them to believe exactly as I do; as long as we can agree on the big
picture, I am fine with that. And for some Christians (I included), the
picture can get pretty big. It's about respect.
> > 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.
Very well may be. What if you linked the BT off of your home page? Do you
think that that would affect your statistics?
> > 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?
Well, *I* could:-)
>
> > 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.
I think it is because your motives are unclear. People (Christians) assume you
are doing it in good faith, as it were, and not as a form of criticism. Look
at poor Scott-- he felt ambushed. I'll bet that reaction would be common.
> 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.
Speaking for me, I would say that, in general, you are trivializing something
that I find sacred, which is basically displaying a lack of respect for my
beliefs. But I, OTOH, must respect your decision to create the BT, but I don't
have to particularily like it.
-John
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) John, Brendan isn't criticizing beliefs. He's criticizing the Bible, a book which has some rather bizzare things in it, and a lot of inconsistencies. (...) So it's wrong to point out inconsistencies in books? The same book that some people in (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) A lot of what I wrote in my last post was aimed at getting you to look at this situation from my prespective. In essence, the question was, what would you do if it was *you* who were convinced that the religion of everyone around you was (...) (22 years ago, 29-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
