Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Click here now!

Do you find me to be a smart-ass? A bit hysterical? Or do you think, as one high-school genius stated, "the show has gone to your head!" Well then, click here! (Fans can just play along.)

Go ahead.

I'll wait.

If you're back, now you must click here.



breakerslion said...

You a big smart ass, but yuh can't fool me with your so-called science, cuz I am a moron!

Thomas said...

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Ah, the Bible. A Holy Book indeed. Just when I'm about to be seduced over to the dark side by semi-sensible Christians like C.S. Lewis, G.K Chesterton, or the cuties who write for "Eternal Revolution," I dip my toe back in to the fetid sewage water of Scripture, and recover my atheist senses. Thank you for directing me to this excellent site, Ms. Alleee. I commend you also for your fabulous blog.

Hellbound Alleee said...

Don't be fooled by CS Lewis. He still said that we cannot have any morality without God. If you're still saying simplistic, preschool stuff like that, you can't be called "sensible."

Thomas said...

Don't worry dear; I shan't be fooled. It's only a contemptible Anglophilia on my part that allows me to give him as much credit as I do. I recently read Mere Christianity out of a vague desire to see if Christians had any respectable arguments at all, and I was not altogether surprised to discover that they do not. I was appalled to discover that the best Lewis had was some silly rot about the "Law of Nature," which is just the Divine Command Theory presented for simpletons. Lewis later goes on to claim that God's will is not arbitrary, but that there are laws of morality that are co-eternal with God. This rather takes the wind out the sails of his entire book.

I personally do believe that there are reasonable and objective standards of morality, though I'm not prepared to say exactly what those standards might look like. All I know is that they would bear no resemblance to awful Oriental despotism endorsed the Old Testamenteers, nor to the neurotic "I love you, but I'll destroy you" ramblings of Jesus.

I note in my defense that I described Lewis as merely "semi-sensible," and not "sensible." By this I mean to say he could tie his shoes, write grammatical and occasionally eloquent English, and even evade detection as a complete retard, at least on the first reading. This is more than you could say for most of the other Christian apologists. Still, he believed in an imaginary triumvirate of friendly genocidal dictators, and that's not to sensible, innit?

Hellbound Alleee said...

Yeah. What's with CS Lewis, anyway?

I had to endure a Christmas season as my theatre performed Lion/W/Wardrobe. The audience looooooved it so. It was such a big moneymaker for our theatre that we performed it again the next year. I have to think of it as good business.

I read the books as a child, and enjoyed them very much indeed. My mother was a big fan, as was my Grandmother. They were liberal christians.

But when I saw the play over and over again (I was a house manager, usher, Concessions manager, receptionist, executive assistant--we were very frugal but looked rich) I noticed the reality of the allegory being presented. People brush this fact off first of all. However, it only takes watching a lion be taunted in song, covered in purple robes and sacrificed, only to be resurrected and followed around by the two girls for one to understand exactly what's going on. ("No, that's no Christian story. COme on. It's just fantasy.")

The problem is not that: it's the fact that the play/book promotes the teachings of christianity in such a readers-digest manner. I read that CS Lewis intended it to be just that: a user-friendly way of promoting his beliefs to children. We sit back and think, what a great educational tool. What a great way to teach Christian morality. That's evil. If anything obfuscated the full meaning and value (antivalues) of the bible, this is it. And this is the "bible" most people believe in. The CS Lewis stories are what people think the bible is all about. In a way, CS Lewis has made a better bible. Yet the "value" of sacrifice and the beliefs in afterlife and the existence of personified evil--a "dark side" still persists. The idea that pursuing your own values will always lead you down a sinful, destructive path. That's nothing I would want my child exposed to. If I had one, I'm sure he would be exposed to that every day. But at least I could try to keep him from believing moral autonomy leads to a loss of immortality/pain and suffering of loves ones.

Thomas said...

I agree with you that Lewis has significantly improved upon the Bible. You only need to look at how so many of the Christian bloggers refer to Aslan more often than Jesus. The question I would like to pose to the Gospel-mongers is why, if God is so great, does His own book make such a lousy case for Him, thereby requiring the efforts of Lewis, Chesterton, and the charming Paul Manata to make up for His slack PR? I highly recommend the Bible to all believers, most of whom never crack it open. Isaac Asimov once said, "Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." I tend to agree. Especially the Precious Moments edition. It's camp-tastic!

My own favorite book in the Bible is the Book of Job, wherein God admits straight-up that He's just a bad-ass motherfucka. I can get behind that! Were it not for the lack of the compelling evidence in favor of omnipotent monsters from Beyond the Stars playing us all like puppets, I could easily adopt the stance of pessimistic Judaism. That would be a more sensible approach than believing is Lewis's much-loved lion.