Found on the webWednesday, January 10th, 2007, (12:00 pm)
Back in 2004 I wrote a Meanwhile article entitled ‘Save me from the saved.’ In it I poked fun at an under-funded and out of touch heaven that, in my opinion, mirrored much of todays church (especially here in the UK). Now, running along similar lines, a film-maker by the name of Francis Stokes is making a ‘behind the scenes’ documantary style series of short films about God Inc.
![Global Vision - [Unpaid ad]](http://www.beforeiforget.co.uk/images/elements/ads/globalvision.gif "Volunteer abroad with GVI")
![Idealist.org - [Unpaid ad]](http://www.beforeiforget.co.uk/images/elements/ads/idealist.jpg "Volunteer, work, intern, organize, hire and connect. Change the world - idealist.org")
![Global Giving - [Unpaid ad]](http://www.beforeiforget.co.uk/images/elements/ads/globalgiving.png "GlobalGiving connects donors with projects around the world to make a high impact.")
![End Water Poverty - [Unpaid ad]](http://www.beforeiforget.co.uk/images/elements/ads/ewp_logo.gif "End the global injustice that causes millions to live without access to clean water and sanitation."){kind=logo}
![UNICEF - [Unpaid ad]](http://www.beforeiforget.co.uk/images/elements/ads/unicef.gif "UNICEF works for children's rights, their survival, development and protection.")
![Im a Photographer, Not a Terrorist - [Unpaid ad]](http://www.beforeiforget.co.uk/images/elements/ads/phnat-white.gif "Mapping, reporting and fighting back against restrictions on photography in the UK")
Wrote the following comment on Jan 10, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Predictable. Yet more unfortunate dribble from artists who are misread, misinformed and ill educated on history and scripture. The writer must have a bee in his bonnet, and needs to point the finger at someone. Typical Nietzschisms in art (and this a bad one at that…probably doesn’t know he’s a Nietzschite).
Yes, yes, we deserve it. If for no other reason than always being able to recite what we believe, but never why we believe it. This is exactly the church’s shortcoming at the turn of the 19th century when art began to inform theology, rather than theology informing art.
From Nietzsche (Wikipedia)”‘God is dead’ is not meant literally, as in “God is now physically dead”; rather, it is Nietzsche’s way of saying that the idea of God is no longer capable of acting as a source of any moral code or teleology. Nietzsche recognises the crisis which the death of God represents for existing moral considerations, because “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident…. By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands.”[1] This is why in “The Madman”, the madman addresses not believers, but atheists — the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order.
The death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than the Christian values beyond which most Christians refuse to look.”
So upon what foundations do you build your morals (as you define right and wrong, since you are insistent upon trashing mine?
Wrote the following comment on Jan 10, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Crikey! That’s a very big response. Nothing wrong with big responses of course, but do you think maybe, just maybe, the people involved in that sketch might have just done it because it was funny? The same reason why I wrote that ‘Meanwhile.’
I think perhaps the reason why ‘you deserve it’ is not because of the reason you suggest, but because you don’t get why this sketch can be funny. It’s throw away humor like The Office (upon which is is surely based). I don’t think it’s meant to offend, I think it’s meant to be ridiculous and funny. I doubt that it’s meant to portray anyone’s serious thoughts about what heaven might actually be like.
One thing you seem to be suggesting though David, is that people who have (choose to have) no God, therefore have no morals? Surely you cannot believe this? God is not the moral calculator, God is A moral calculator. Those who do not believe in God are not simply devoid of morals and if anyone suggested such needs to watch less Pat Robertson on TV!
Wrote the following comment on Jan 10, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I didn’t say it wasn’t funny…only predictable. Nor was it offensive, precisely BECAUSE it was predictable.
And I am not suggesting that those who have chosen to do life sans God have no morals, only that as Nitzsche puts it, your morals are arbitrary, being based upon your subjective personal interpretation of civil and social need, i.e. therefore “…the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law…”
The film short, though light in nature, implies the naivity of those putting faith in God, and the impotence and irrelevance of God himself.
Christianity will judge itself by it’s own laws, for they are written, and not arbitrary. The rest of the world already judges Christians by the scriptures, because our moral law is published, and able to be interpreted by the common man. But if moral law is relative, not being founded upon absolute values, then how are we to judge whether the law be arbitrary or not? To what are we to refer to for the foundations for our argument?
So it stands. Upon what relevant foundations do you build your standards of morality, having rejected faith in, or “belief of any cosmic or physical order”, which by necessity requires “a rejection of absolute values” themselves — “to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law”? Upon what evidence do you call upon to purport your morals more valid or acceptable than those stemming from faith in God, and therefore absolute values?
Wrote the following comment on Jan 11, 2007 at 1:28 am
ROFLMAO
Okay….
confession! I’m a “paid up” member of the Universal Christian Church (and for the picky types…I’m a Lutheran).
I BELIEVE in all of it! That christian ethos and credo etc.
But I also believe that most of it is about JOY, LOVE, HOPE and PEACE.
This IS funny and I do not find it offensive> I, (I hope), can tell the difference between what is outright heinous blasphemy and what is just pure good fun.
This might be having a gentle dig at God, Heaven or Christians… but its also a clever, funny and ironic perspective on the nature of an afterlife using what we know and already understand! Thank God HE made humour in the first place huh? :)
It does not tell me what to believe and it does not mean that the God I believe in isn’t having a chuckle over it either. I don’t know!
The problem with us Christians is our Sanctimonious Cringe-iosity! For The Lord’s Sake…. Lighten UP dear ones!!!! You’ll be a whole lot more attractive which also makes our Creator look good too! :)
Thanks Simon.
Mitch
Wrote the following comment on Jan 11, 2007 at 3:59 am
I said:
“I didn’t say it wasn’t funny…only predictable. Nor was it offensive.”
Simon digs my blogs on faith all the time, throwing up his objections, faithfully pointing out where my logic wears thin, or where my attitudes are inconsistent with my faith.
I guess it’s illegal or something when a Christian digs back. Could someone please post the stinkin’ rules. I haven’t figured them out yet.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 11, 2007 at 4:32 am
Hey David, wait a second, I can’t see where I have said anything that constitutes any kind of swipe/dig/attack at you or your faith in anything I have said above.
I’m not taking it that the comment “So upon what foundations do you build your morals (as you define right and wrong, since you are insistent upon trashing mine?” was directed at me personally? In which case perhaps you could point me in the direction of where I have ‘trashed’ you morals.
I’m all for having a good discussion here mate, but if there are any rules they are simply this… play nice. Simple as that.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 12, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Simon, you’ve not trashed my morals, only the basis for them (faith in God, adherence to the scriptures to define our moral behavior, and involvement in the church community).
But I’m serious when I say you’ve been faithful to point out mine and other’s inconsistencies in how we live out our faith, and I am grateful for that. I am acutely aware of my shortcomings, and any help I can get to become more consistent in living out my beliefs is truly appreciated. Thanks for the help.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 12, 2007 at 6:58 pm
And as I’ve said to you personally:
“So continue to challenge us toward mature, well thought out, honest consistency with our beliefs, including loving those with whom we disagree; but also expect to always be discovering where we fall short, for we will always be somewhere between the values of our bible and the values of our culture.”
Wrote the following comment on Jan 12, 2007 at 9:21 pm
In my defemse, I don’t think there is any evidence to prove beyond a doubt that I have “trashed” your faith in God, or any faith in any God. I am entirely open to peoples faith in God, however I collide heavily with them when their faith is in religion. God and religion are like tractors and trucks. They share similarities on paper, but in reality they are entirely different machines.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 12, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Good point. Let me know if I’m driving a truck instead of a tractor.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 13, 2007 at 12:30 am
You’re driving one of them David. The point being that they’re different, that’s all. But just so as you know, you’re the real deal (which you didn’t need me to tell you). I can spot the fakers real easy most of the time.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 14, 2007 at 12:18 am
I must say mate, you play much nicer than me!
Wrote the following comment on Jan 15, 2007 at 5:22 am
Interesting
Wrote the following comment on Jan 15, 2007 at 9:31 am
I think the conversation about the clip was much more interesting that the clip.
Wrote the following comment on Jan 16, 2007 at 5:09 am
wow… how did i miss this conversation….