Who Is IOZ?: Sir, Sir, Slow Down. Can You Describe the Balrog that Attacked You?

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Sir, Sir, Slow Down. Can You Describe the Balrog that Attacked You?

Doc Dobson apparently went after Barry O for his "fruitcake" interpretation of the Bible. It seems that Obama said that some of the revelations in Season 4 blantantly contradict things we learned in Season 1, and they could really use a dedicated continuity guy on the writing staff, whereas Doc Dobs is totally like, it's all part of a prescripted reveal, and it all makes sense, you asshole, why don't you go back to jerking off to Lazarus Long fucking his own mother, you dweeb. Religion is so charming. The Bible is evil, and it's also crazy! I mean, shee-it, even if you toss out the apocryha and the Gnostic texts and the recently rediscovered "lost" gospels, you still have a crazed, monomaniacal, diet-freak, genocidal sky-god sending his whacked-out millennarian offspring to rock the world with a series of formidably nonsensical babblings, puntuated by an occasional injunction to be nice to poor folks and lepers, and to give all your shit away, tune in, and drop out. The Hindus at least look at the world on a longish timeframe. How far are we into the Kali Yuga right now?--a hundred million years? Jesus and the rest of the Western dudes were the Weekly World News of their time. The world was always ending just . . . about . . . NOW!, which is why they were all so hep to casting off their wordly possessions, etc. The Apocalypse of John, which Ingersoll called the "insanest" book, is so kooky that it even offended Martin Luther, and he was the kind of guy who used to say that the Jewish house of worship was a whore and a slut, so you know he had a pretty high bar for offense. Read the Book of Job some time and tell me that the god it evisages isn't nuttier than a late-summer squirrel. Ask yourself what that soft-focus porno is doing in the middle of the Good Book. Watching politicians fight over the correct interpretation is like listening to my old college roommate and his buddy debate the nature of Tom Bombadil--sort of endearing, but mostly embarrassing.

45 comments:

The Promiscuous Reader said...: "Martin Luther ... was the kind of guy who used to say that the Jewish house of worship was a whore and a slut ..."

Um, wasn't that the Roman Catholic Church he was talking about? Of course it could have been both. I'll have to reread the chapter on Luther in Norman O. Brown's "Life Against Death."

Luther just wanted the synagogues to be torched and the Jews driven to the countryside to till the fields, as I recall.

I found a couple of links to Dobson's rant. Pretty funny. He's saying a) what many liberal Christians say about Christians like Dobson, and b) what many liberal Christians say about atheists like me. Obama actually seems to have made sense for once, but it would be nice if he said similar things about Donnie McClurkin.; 1:57 PM
IOZ said...: The synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut."

That's from On the Jews and Their Lies, a nice little beach read.; 3:15 PM
Abidemi said...: The nature of Tom Bombadil is that he is goddamned hilarious.; 3:15 PM
erin4iraq said...: OK I'll take the bait.

Something about your continual attacks on the Bible tells me that the "hound of heaven" is after you, IOZ.

Here's my thoughts on your question, "Ask yourself what that soft-focus porno is doing in the middle of the Good Book."

The Song of Solomon is amazing because it portrays a God who loves us personally and intimately. The overall picture the Bible paints of God reflects the truth of the statement early on that he created human beings in his own image. I take that to mean that we are like him to some extent - for example, besides being "creative", he can be angry and jealous, he can find things amusing and irritating, he can be troubled, he can be both tender and harsh, and at times, he is willing to negotiate. The essential and obvious difference, however, is that he is God and we are not. This truly pisses us off and causes us to fling all kinds of shit at him and blame him for everything that goes wrong in our lives.

In many ways, that is what makes Judeo-Christian beliefs distinct from other attempts to understand who "God" is. If we were going to make up a way to think about such a being or beings, it would be much easier and comfortable to conceptualize an impersonal god who is predictable.

I was reminded of this by the recent Narnia movie in which Aslan responds to Lucy's question why he didn't swoop in and save them from the Telmarines like he had before with the inscrutable, yet true answer that "things never happen the same way twice."

That's a God who is at least interesting.

p.s. I know I am going to regret responding, but what the hell; 4:47 PM
Jeremy said...: l o fucking l, seriously top notch stuff. i do feel bad tom bombadil had to get dragged into this mess though.; 4:49 PM
Jeremy said...: its always amazes me how christians seem to believe in things, in spite of, rather than because of what is written in the bible.; 4:50 PM
Rachel said...: The Song of Solomon is amazing because it portrays a God who loves us personally and intimately.

The great big father in the sky touched my bathing-suit place.; 4:56 PM
IOZ said...: In many ways, that is what makes Judeo-Christian beliefs distinct from other attempts to understand who "God" is. If we were going to make up a way to think about such a being or beings, it would be much easier and comfortable to conceptualize an impersonal god who is predictable.

You may want to bone up on your comparative religion, or at least pick up the fucking Aeneid or something.; 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...: The hound of heaven is humping IOZ's leg? Turn the hose on 'im!

Why couldn't it just simply be that it's endlessly amusing to poke fun at this retarded hodgegpodge of fantastical stories and wishful thinking for still exerting such control over so much of the planet in the 21st century?; 5:40 PM
MandT said...: Q----"Ask yourself what that soft-focus porno is doing in the middle of the Good Book."

A.---So that every cheap motel in America has some reading material.; 7:40 PM
Brian said...: Ah...the loving personal God who slaughtered every child in Egypt after "hardening the Pharoah's heart." Not to lose sight of the various petulant smitings and slaughterings and damnings throughout both Testaments.

I feel so warm and fuzzy, now, Erin4TheDemiurge! Which I guess is appropriate, as your oh so kind and personal Lord is planning to roast my soul for eternity.

Bleh. No wonder 1/3 of the Angels purportedly rebelled.; 9:49 PM
Christopher said...: Has anybody ever come up with a good answer to the Epicurean paradox?

Actually, the way I ask it is not quite traditional. Like Epicurus, I say that (Assuming God exists) either God can prevent bad things from happening to me, and chooses not to, or bad things happen to me because God can't actually do anything to stop them.

People seem to want to respond with complicated theories about how we need free will or we don't properly understand what good and bad is or blah blah blah.

My question is this: Why should I worship somebody who doesn't do anything for me in return?

I've yet to hear a reason.; 3:54 AM
Joe Max said...: You want me to believe that the entire 80 billion light-year wide Universe was popped into existence in one long weekend by the petulant penis-god of a prehistoric tribe of Levantine goatherds who had never traveled more than ten miles in any direction from the place they were born. Is that it?; 7:10 AM
Anonymous said...: No, no, no Erin4iraq - can't you seeee. God IS you! That's the M Night Shamal-whatever ending.
YOU are God. That's why he/she is so fickle, maddening, incoherent, but sometimes nice, fun to be around, etc.
It all makes SENSE if you smoke a bowl and think about it, man.; 7:23 AM
Anonymous said...: "erin4iraq":
keep posting.
there aren't enough contrarian voices cookin' on this here webber; not enough brave souls willing to "take the bait" - and the hits - as you so often are.
though i do think your alluding to the most recent "Chronicles..." film release undermines your argument somewhat. just one dewd's two cents.
there is so much beautiful writing in the bibble, SOS being one of them. lots of blood and gore for the youngins, too.
i should know, the kind white jesuit fathers made me read enough of them when i was a wee one.

micmac son; 9:13 AM
The Promiscuous Reader said...: Thanks, IOZ. So Luther viewed the synagogue and Rome in similar terms.

"The Song of Solomon is amazing because it portrays a God who loves us personally and intimately."

It does no such thing. The notion that the Song of Solomon is an allegory of Yahweh's boner for Israel or Christ's for the Church is not supported by anything in the text. Of course, if you want to see Yahweh as loving "us" personally and intimately, read some of the classical Hebrew prophets, like Ezekiel and Hosea. They portray Yahweh as a violently abusive husband, beating the shit out of his bride if he suspects her of looking cross-eyed at another man. According to Ezekiel, Yahweh also has a tiny dick (he says so himself) and severe performance anxiety -- he's sure that Egypt and Assyria are hung like donkeys.

Maybe this is the kind of god you want an intimate, personal relationship with. That's your call. But even if Yahweh existed, he'd be a better candidate for the rubber room than a golden throne.; 10:35 AM
Brian said...: Damn. This blog has the best commentors. Promiscuous, that was just beautiful!; 11:35 AM
Mr.Fundamental said...: belief without reason. heh. there's something to that. I don't know why, really, but I guess it's just my overall wonder with human conceptualization in general.

Erin, would you be surprised to meet God? would God surprise you?; 11:36 AM
erin4iraq said...: Mr. Fun - I think we are all going to be surprised.

Micmac son - Thank you. And yeah I know it's weenie to cite to movie dialogue, but since Aslan is supposed to symbolize a Christ-figure, it seemed appropriate.

Prom reader - What's the cite on that tiny dick comment in Ezekiel? And Hosea's whole premise is God's faithful love to an unfaithful people, so I think you might have missed the point there.

And Rachel - I got news: God made your bathing suit place.; 12:02 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: I won't be surprised, just disappointed.; 12:10 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: it'd be like: yeah, sure "hi God." nice to meet you and all that. yadda yadda.

are you going to finish eating that? thanks.

God is definitely a let down.; 12:21 PM
erin4iraq said...: I think the only thing you may be disappointed in is your miscalculation.; 12:36 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1:23 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: Yeah well, ya know, that's just,
like uh, your opinion, man.

well just because I didn't type that specifically doesn't mean that I don't or can't see that I'd be wrong. I think I'd be cool with God yo, because I mean, God seems pretty chill an shit. but yeah I'm not really concerned about it.; 1:24 PM
Thomas Daulton said...: I only hope that God exists, so that someday after I die, I can sit down and have a nice long chat with Him about whether sex drive and intelligence are really compatible in the same animal or not. What was He thinking?; 2:32 PM
Brian said...: How, erin4thor, are you so sure it won't be Mictlantecutli, who will happily gnaw on your still-beating heart as you approach death's door? Or, Allah for that matter, smacking your infidel ass around for not praying five times a day?

We may not be the only ones who are "surprised."; 5:56 PM
erin4iraq said...: I said "I think we are all going to be surprised." And that clearly includes me. But I like that "infidel ass" comment. I may change my license plate...; 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: There won't be any "you" to be surprised, Erin dear. Sorta like how you don't realize you fell asleep until you wake up - only this time there won't be a waking up.

There's no "soul", because there is no quality, physical or mental, that you can point to as being entirely and purely "you", that doesn't depend on something else for its existence. Everything from the sperm and egg that made you to the thoughts you think and the language you think them in to the air, water and food you need to exist is inextricably interwined with everything else, and it was all there before you hatched. "All is one" isn't just a hippie slogan.

Really, the notion that your thoughts and feelings are going to exist independently of a mind or body is one of the looniest ideas ever, even though some have done a good job explaining how we started to think that way.; 6:24 PM
erin4iraq said...: Anon 6:24
I just have one question for you - how do you do the thing where you embed a link? I cannot figure that out. And since we are "one" and all, I thought you wouldn't mind explaining that to me.; 8:42 PM
The Promiscuous Reader said...: Dear erin, the passage in question is Ezekiel 23:19-20. From the Revised Standard Version:

"Yet she increased her harlotry, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt and doted upon her paramours there, whose members were like those of asses, and whose issue was like that of horses."

"She" here refers to Jerusalem. I admit I extrapolate here, since Yahweh doesn't explicitly say that his dick is tiny. He is, however, obsessed with the size of his competitors' members. Why should a god, let alone the Creator of the Universe, harbor such insecurity?

As for Hosea, that plays the same basic tune: Israel has played the harlot, and if s/he repents I'll take her back, but if not I'll strip her naked before her lovers, etc. etc. It's worth noting too, that while Israel is supposed to be faithful to Yahweh, he's under no such restriction: he can go out with Samaria and who knows who else. "Adultery" in the Hebrew Bible almost always means a married woman who takes a lover; her husband can have all the wives and concubines and roadside quickies (see Genesis 38) he can afford, including women taken captive in war.

Your 'personal' 'intimate' divine love founders on the problem of Evil, too. Yahweh may love you personally and intimately, but he won't stop the cancer from eating out your innards.; 9:30 PM
erin4iraq said...: Thanks for the cite and your analysis of the theologic import of God being jealous of Isreal's obsession with donkey dongs. Interesting - seriously - I will have to give that some thought.

The short answer I have heard to the much theorized about yet never fully resolved "problem of evil" is that if God removed all evil from the world, that would include us. He does not do this because his patience and kindness restrains him. He is waiting for to repent. From a human perspective, honestly, that's not that satisfying of an answer, but then again, He is the potter, we are the clay.

What is more perplexing to me is why He intervenes and works the miraculous in some situations but not in others. I guess the clay thing still applies there.; 10:28 PM
Brian said...: But the problem is, God created that evil. We are in his image. That implies to me, and far greater thinkers than I, that God is evil, also. I am no Bible scholar, but the Bible is full of examples in which God admits that he is doing evil things. How can one apologize for Job, to take an easy example that has been beaten to death?

Plus...why can't the unlimited, omniscient creator of the Universe, who purportedly made every atom, every quark, every photon, act in a "surgical" manner and just remove, for instance, Cancer? Especially when the evil in the world outside of us makes it more difficult, even impossible, for us to repent. There seems to be a contradiction here.

The Gnostic heresy (which good Christians wiped out through genocide) of a damaged, fallen Creator of the physical univese is a far more convincing explanation than the standard Biblical one. But then, I am just a too proud and "angry" agnostic. I just can't buy your god as even worthy of worship. Sorry.; 2:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Erin:

(a href="http://www.google.com/")Google(/a)

Now just replace the parentheses with < > and you get: Google

And don't forget to enclose the URL within quotation marks.; 8:10 AM
Anonymous said...: And actually, Brian, you can't beat polytheism as far as that goes - evil is easily attributed to whichever god has it in for you, while the one who loves you would surely have protected you if he hadn't been busy turning into a walrus in order to rape some fisherman's daughter, etc.; 8:15 AM
Brian said...: anonymous 8:15: But Christian theology and apologetics is just so much more "sophisticated," don't you know? Rather than positing said enemy God, we just pretend the question of evil doesn't exist, or bable incoherently about free will...; 2:12 PM
erin4iraq said...: Of course, orthodox Christianity posits that evil is a function of the rejection of God. We are made in his image, but we like the fallen angels and Satan himself, fell. Christianity further prostulates that God made a way for us to be reconciled to him. Through Christ he sacrificed himself to save us from this condition. And that, in a nutshell, is what orthodox Christianity teaches.

Brian - I don't imagine that anything I say here will make you believe in what I say. Nor do I want to make you. What you believe is your call. I respect that you evidently think about these things quite a lot.; 11:29 AM
erin4iraq said...: anon 6:24 & 8:10 - thank you; 11:30 AM
Brian said...: But the problem, erin, is that the God described in your Bible is so petty, so mean, so vindictive, etc. that any thinking, independent being would fall away from him and "reject him." How did Lot, who lost his wife to a petty vindictive act, deserve to lose her? What evil rejection of God did Job do to warrant his petty treatment at the hands of God? Why are we supposed to worship a God who deliberately "hardened the heart" of Pharaoh, and then slaughtered the children of Egypt? How can any thinking, feeling being not propagandized NOT reject such a god?; 11:42 AM
erin4iraq said...: Brian, I guess I would respond that how you evaluate events recorded in the Bible depends entirely on your perspective.

Whether an action is petty or vindictive or justified depends on the intention of the actor. If one posits a God who knows and sees all and who claims to be "righteous and holy" then, by definition, his actions cannot be petty and vindictive, no matter what they look like from our perspective. I come back to the potter and clay example. If a potter decides to make a pot a certain way, it's her pot, she can do with it as she pleases. We may deem some pots more useful or beautiful than others, but ultimately, it's the potter's to decide on the type and design.

As for Job, I think most Jews and Christians view that book with a perplexed curiosity. Like - wow - how little consideration God gave to Job or his family, and I hope I never have to face such a horrible test. But in actuality we all face tests of lesser or greater degrees than Job. In the end though, the point of the test is the same. To bring us to the place where we can say, the Lord gives, the Lord takes away. Blessed be the name of the Lord. (BTW, it's fascinating how similar all Job's friends explantions and theories about God are to discussions that take place here, but I digress. There is nothing new under the sun.)

In all events, I encourage you to ask God your questions. I am no great or even mediocre theologian (that's quite obvious I am sure) and he does not need me to answer for him.

But don't be surprised if this is the answer you get:

"Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.

Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself? Do you have an arm like God's, and can your voice thunder like his?

Then adorn yourself with glory and splendor, and clothe yourself in honor and majesty.
. . . .

Then I myself will admit to you that your own right hand can save you."

Job 40: 7-10, 14

Good luck.; 3:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Erin, Bart Ehrman just wrote a book called God's Problem, where he goes into why the biblical answers to why we suffer are so inadequate, especially in the case of Job. You seem open enough that you might want to check it out.; 4:04 PM
erin4iraq said...: Will do. Thanks.; 4:39 PM
Brian said...: "Whether an action is petty or vindictive or justified depends on the intention of the actor. If one posits a God who knows and sees all and who claims to be "righteous and holy""

And I think that is the Problem, Erin. Much of what He does apopears to my inferior moral sense as so utterly vile. I cannot buy, either, the argument that seeing the evil of Jehovah implies that I or other skeptics are trying to claim the glory of God for ourselves, either. I have no interest in such power, but just as those who oppose a human dictator don't always wan't to be tyrants themselves, those of us who see the Jehovah of the Bible as evil are not claiming his glory for ourselves. We are only using our (God-given) moral sense. I'm sorry, the Jehovah of Job is not only imposing horrible things on Job, but he is doing it for utterly trivial ways. We are not mere playthings for the deity. Or, at least should not be for any deity worthy of worship.

I think it is almost evil to try and justify it in the way you do. I have to defer to the Gnostic heresy-the Jehovah of the Bible is not the pure, loving, perfect being he claims to be.

Thus...Jehovah, and the physical world, can only be inherently flawed, even evil, in themselves. Gnosticism has its flaws, but it answers the BIG QUESTION in a more satisfactory way than I do this because I am God.; 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: What did Bob Odenkirk's God-as-Robert-Evans say about the Bible? "You call it the Bible, I call it "Too Many Cooks."

As much as I'd like to be a prick and shit all over erin's beliefs, she's entitled to them, and unlike our host, I don't think it's so insane for certain Christians to pick and choose parts of the bible they like and parts they don't like, within reason, considering that it was written and re-written and translated and re-translated and futzed with by kings and other power hungry types over the centuries, there's bound to be some shit in there that just doesn't compute and should have been edited out a long time ago, or just ignored entirely by people who actually want to follow Christ's teachings.

The shift in tone from Old to New Testament has always struck me as a huge PR success: The old, angry John McCain-esque fusspot God just wasn't testing well anymore, so it was time for a new and improved Yahweh, and wouldn't you know it, this little rabble rouser named Jesus came along and inspired someone to use him as the basis for a reboot of sorts.; 4:14 PM
The Promiscuous Reader said...: anon, "I don't think it's so insane for certain Christians to pick and choose parts of the bible they like and parts they don't like, within reason ..." And who gets to decide what's reasonable here? Certainly they don't.

I don't think it's "insane" for any Christians to pick and choose from the Bibie; it's perfectly sane, given the material they are working with. But 1) it's hypocritical for a Christian to do so while attacking other Christians for doing it too because they pick and choose different parts; and 2) it's dishonest to do so and then claim that the parts you've picked are the real message of the Bible.

The rest of your comment indicates that you don't know anything about the history of the Bible. And Yahweh didn't change his spots between the Testaments: in the Old, he says to watch your ass or he'll lay the land to waste, while in the New he says to watch your ass or he'll throw you into eternal fire. If anything, eternal fire seems to me worse, but YMMV. I don't see either approach as more or less McCain-esque. The notion that Yahweh is all sweetness and light in the New Testament is sheer blithering ignorance.; 5:07 PM
The Promiscuous Reader said...: Brian, you might also mention that Job's suffering is the result of a bet between Yahweh and Satan, to the effect of "Let's torment him and see what he does."

And erin, if you can't say that Yahweh is evil then you can't say he's good either. Both are judgments.; 5:10 PM

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Sir, Sir, Slow Down. Can You Describe the Balrog that Attacked You?

45 comments:

Axis Mundi

About Me

Hypocrites Lecteurs, Semblables, et Frères

Archive