Yes. Cross is a comedian, not a Biblical scholar. He’s going for laughs, not accuracy.
Or atheist trying to convert the religious, well, Christians at least.
David Cross is hilarious. I love his work. This isn’t about David Cross. It’s about the OP thinking she had a real zinger and when someone refused to act like they’ve been zinged she came here to find a way to verbally put them over a barrel and submit to their zinging. In the parlance of the time it’s #HelpMeCreateMoreFacebookDrama.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/talent
And when you say “God designed everything for our modern meaning”, what do you mean by that? Are previous and future generations screwed theologically, with only our generation able to wholly understand the bible?
I am not an atheist, but it seems to me like there’s an excluded middle here. On the part of the quote of David Cross, he has a point to issues with translations and editing, but I think it’s WAY overstated. Sometimes examples of much older versions, the most famous of those being the Dead Sea Scrolls, show up and the information in those are used for future translations, commentaries, etc. Now, obviously, none of the Gospels were written during the life of Jesus, and certainly there are comments, good and bad, about which books were included in the canon and which were not, but there is definitely a vested interest in at least getting as accurate as possible to the original writings.
For the response, I also think it’s unreasonable to expect atheists not to comment on religion. After all, religion is one of, if not THE, most influential aspects on our culture, particularly in the US; it’s influence cannot be overstated, particularly as we look at how it Western culture developed and the spread of Christianity through Europe and the Americas. That said, I do find it frustrating, not just from Atheists, but from anyone commenting on a religion they don’t believe in, to focus heavily on what they perceive as negative aspects or inaccuracies; this is just as true of many Christians commenting on Islam. In this case, it’s not only unhelpful, but probably furthers the rift, by exaggerating inaccuracies in the Bible. Sure, his fellow atheists get a giggle out of it, but it’s not going to convince anyone that doesn’t already agree with him, and people will end up quoting it and start discussions between atheists and theists that will likely be counterproductive.
Ultimately, the point is, it doesn’t matter. Obviously, atheists think it’s all nonsense, some largely harmlessly nonsense, some not so much. For theists, some may argue that the divine inspiration has made it so any changes actually are intended by God, others may argue that even if some small details change, the essential elements to salvation, faith, and the teachings remain intact. But given these positions, where is any traction going to be gained discussing the nature of scripture? There’s no proof either side can present that can meaningfully demonstrate the divine aspect, or lack thereof, to those holding the contrary position.
Instead, I would propose using this as an opportunity to open a dialogue about how we can work through the differences to find meaningful common ground. I don’t see how antagonizing people with different beliefs can help us reach that sort of goal. So, sure, I do think a response should include an idea that, regardless of the fact that an atheist obviously doesn’t believe in the Bible, he does still have a vested interest in understanding because of it’s cultural influence. But instead, I think the discussion should be redirected toward an understanding of how it’s influenced our culture, and where these influences belong in our culture.
All of that said, in general, I’ve found that any almost every discussion on Facebook regarding religion ends up messy unless everyone involved agrees. And even if everyone agrees I tend to see either “Wow, God is awesome!” or “Christians are so silly”. So, I almost always just stay out of them.
My response would be “Kim Davis”.
If Christians feel they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on other people, then they open those religious beliefs up for public debate.
Atheists don’t believe in God, but religion is a different thing. It’s not something you “believe in,” it’s something that clearly factually exists. And since some of those who do believe in God use their religion to affect (often negatively) the lives of atheists, how can someone be surprised that atheists will comment on it? Said friend is not thinking this through, and simply appears defensive about something that questions some aspects of her religion.
This. To put it simply, just because I don’t believe in your god doesn’t meant I don’t get to complain when you effect my life through the beliefs of the religion surrounding your god.
I would delete her response. If, by some wildly optimistic happenstance you were actually talking to another human being in person, I’d probably say, “Well bless your heart!”.
Your post reminds me that Steve Martin felt obligated to tell people that he knew King Tut was not born in Arizona. Typically, jokes do not require cites.
The first thing I’d say is “lighten up, Louise.”
The second thing I’d say is to ask if she was a literalist. If not, then she should agree that there is a nugget of truth in the joke.
The third thing I’d say is to ask her to consider how often the religious try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, from trying to put Creationism in schools to attacks on SSM to attacks on abortion rights.
As for me, I’m fascinated at how so many people can be so deluded in this day and age. 1,000 years ago when Goddidit was as good as explanation as any is one thing, but now we pretty much know how much of it happened, and how wrong the Bible is.
You should agree with her, and tell her how sick and tired you are of your long, cross-country drives where you can get nothing on your AM radio except atheists trying to raise money by assuring donors that through their generosity, they will not get to heaven.
Of course atheists and nonbelievers spend time on something they don’t believe in…because many of the people that do believe in it want to base laws on it, start wars over it, and kill people in the name of it.
If this lady woke up one day and lawmakers were trying to make things legal or illegal based on what a giant purple tiger that created us all (but was invisible to most) would think, I’m guessing she would get the picture.
Oh, nobody in your state can buy juice on Thursdays, tiger says so. And you can’t get heart surgery, because the tiger says your soul lives in your heart, so if you get heart disease you will just need to go ahead and die. And some tiger-believers might bomb your place of business for your anti-tiger beliefs, or kill cardiologists that found a heart surgery loophole in the new law. And redheaded people can’t get married, because the tiger says they were born evil and we don’t want any more of them around.
That’s why nonbelievers “care so much about something they don’t believe in.”
“Aww, fuck off, [Your Name Here]!”
I guess not so very; I had thought the existence of a “Kingdom of David” had been established, but that its extent was still not completely established. If the very existence is still debated, that’s okay too.
My fault: I didn’t catch that from the quote. I thought it was meant to be a (semi) serious criticism of Biblical origins.
(But, then, if it’s just a comedy routine…why start the thread at all?)
What do you mean by “just a comedy routine?” Some of the best, smartest social commentary is achieved through comedy. Although I don’t share the many of the same viewpoints as David Cross, he is wickedly intelligent and extremely knowledgeable. It’s just that he reaches his truth using the tools of the stand up comedian which include purposeful exaggeration for effect and sarcasm. He was not giving a college lecture. Every word can not be picked apart for accuracy. But that does not mean his overall message in false.
From the OP:
Oh… Well, in that case…
That’s really dumb. We all spend a lot of time discussing things that don’t exist: we discuss fictional characters from books, TV, and movies. We have debates over the Star Trek Transporter. (And whether .999… = 1) We play poker and bridge – for money! We scan online porn.
WTF? Are we supposed to talk about our jobs and our children, our health, and our groceries, and nothing else? The universe is chock-full of fascinating abstract things to jaw about, and jawing what we humans do best!
Atheists talk about religion for the same reason people talk about the Presidential race. Even if we aren’t running for the office, we’re still going to be effected by the event.
Someday, in the fullness of time, people will laugh at one of yours. I remain your advocate and defender in this matter despite the multitude of naysayers.
I’m a positive atheist and I wonder this same thing myself sometimes. I know a lot of us are bitter but some are downright obsessed.