The Chocolate On Top of Shit Argument for God

sundaeI once asked a friend if he’d like to go bowling with my family. He said, “No thanks. I hate bowling”.

I tried again. “It’s not just bowling – it’s neon bowling“.

My friend: “Mark, do you like eating shit?”.

“Uh, no”.

“If I put chocolate on some shit, do you think you’d eat it”?

I laughed and dropped the subject.

I’m weary of the chocolate-on-top-of-shit argument for god.

Even people with a belief in god see the ridiculousness of fundamentalist Christianity. A 6000 year old earth, hatred of homosexuals and the jealous, vengeful god of the Old Testament do not ring true in 21st century society.

Common sense leads moderate, liberal Christians to focus on the kinder, gentler aspects of the New Testament. Only problem is, in doing so, they conveniently leave out two important parts:

  1. If you reject the god of the New Testament, not only are you denied entry to heaven, but you are also condemned to eternal hell. Note: Eternity is a helluva long time.
  2. Jesus Christ endorsed the Old Testament. How do you resolve this little problem? If it was good enough for him, why isn’t it good enough for you?

So much for the kinder, gentler version of Christianity the moderates and liberals want us to believe their religion is about.

But, hold on – there’s more. The cherry-picking of moderates doesn’t end there. As each year passes, we get even kinder and gentler versions of Christianity where believers try to convince us that we are to pay attention to even less of the Bible (e.g. let’s try not to talk about eternal damnation part). Does Rick Warren ring a bell for anyone?

This, is what I will henceforth call the Chocolate on Top of Shit Argument for God – the idea that, if we ignore enough of the Bible, and put a coat of chocolate on top of the crap underneath, it will magically become palatable.

Attention new-age Christians: No matter how much chocolate you put on your religion, it’s still based on some pretty mean, awful torturous ideas. Ideas based on virtually no evidence. Ideas that don’t jive with hundreds of other religions (they don’t like the taste of your chocolate shit any more than you like the taste of theirs).

All this to say that I don’t care how much you tell me “Jesus loves you” – I just can’t buy it. I can’t buy a sales-pitch that has all these shortcomings and that ultimately ends with the threat of eternal damnation.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon
  • email

Tags: •

October 13, 2008 · Filed Under Atheism, religion

Comments

17 Responses to “The Chocolate On Top of Shit Argument for God”

  1. GentlePath on October 14th, 2008 at 8:50 am

    “They don’t like the taste of your chocolate shit any more than you line the taste of theirs.”

    roflolsc

    I needed that laugh this morning!

  2. Candace on October 14th, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    This is a MOST EXCELLENT blogpost – I love it! It put into words a bunch of vague, grayish thoughts that had been rolling around in the dustbin of my brain. I used to BE one of those Christians who put chocolate on top of the shit, until I just couldn’t do it any more. Thanks for this.

    I just got on the Atheist Blogroll and I’m trying to get around to all the *new* ones.

  3. Frodo Saves on October 18th, 2008 at 7:21 am

    You have an excellent skill for ‘cutting through the shit’ and getting to the meat of the problem.

    I like to think about it this way: if Christians keep watering down their religion, taking away the embarrassing and socially inexcusable bits, so that it’s streamlined for the 21st Century, all they’ll be asking for in a few years time is for us to just believe in God. Forget about the other bits – just believe!

    Rings a bit hollow, doesn’t it?

  4. Paul Maurice Martin on October 26th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    “If you reject the god of the New Testament, not only are you denied entry to heaven, but you are also condemned to eternal hell. Note: Eternity is a helluva long time.”
    Progressives have an understanding of how the New Testament came to be written – the process – and may not accept aspects of it.
    “Jesus Christ endorsed the Old Testament. How do you resolve this little problem? If it was good enough for him, why isn’t it good enough for you?”

    We have no factual, historical information about Jesus other than extremely general – he was Jewish, for example.  And he’s often portrayed in the NT as rejecting aspects of Jewish law. We don’t know what he endorsed or didn’t.  The New Testament is basically a faith document written by anonymous members of the first century Christian church who were not even contemporaries of Jesus.

    Btw, “Christ” is a title meaning Messiah, so unless you’re a believing Christian you may want to refer to him simply as Jesus.

  5. Paul Maurice Martin on October 26th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    PS, Frodo: There are aspects of spirituality and religion that have nothing to do with dogma. To focus on these aspects isn’t to water down religion but to get to the heart of it – that would be my opinion.

  6. 40 Year Old Atheist on October 26th, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    Paul,

    Thanks for showing us the perfect example of what I was talking about.

    Btw, I didn’t call him “Christ”. I called him Jesus Christ. I think that’s as specific as you’re going to get.

  7. postsimian on November 26th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

    As opposed to Jesus who works in the building next door answering phone calls for a telecommunications firm.  That bastard always forgets his LAN password.

    Good post, by the way.

  8. Ed on December 9th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    I’ve gone the other way – questioned God’s existence until one day when I fully realized that I wasn’t livin’ right and that there had to be more to life than 70 years and a black box.
    Jesus said He came that we might have Abundant Life.
    You don’t know what you’re missing.  You should try The Adventure, it’s awesome.

  9. Mark on December 9th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    @Ed: So, you were not happy with how YOU were leading YOUR life and were scared about the fact that it will end and THAT’S your justification for choosing to believe?

    No thanks – I like living my life based on truth and logic rather than fear and regret.

  10. Ed on December 9th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Mark,
    If you like your life now, based on the truth as you perceive it, you would love your life if you really understood God’s Word, the Ultimate Truth.  His Life is a blast.

    It’s true I had fear and regret, but they’re gone now.  Like Rafiki said in The Lion King, “It’s in the past.”

  11. Mark on December 9th, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    Ed,

    I’m not afraid nor do I have regret. I also enjoy my life immensely. I have those things without the carrot and stick that belief provides to others.

    I’m glad you are happy.

  12. Ed on December 9th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

    Mark,

    Good news on the medical front for type 1 diabetes.

    Here’s the link to a recent MSNBC report.  They’re talking about starting clinical trials within a year.

    http://whatwehavehereis.blogspot.com/2008/11/possible-type-1-diabetes-cure.html

    I found it on a Christian site (sorry).

    Peace.

  13. Ed on December 11th, 2008 at 10:02 am

    Mark,

    I just wanted to say that I had made my earlier posts after skimming just a few pages of your website.  I am really impressed by the detail and candor.

    I really didn’t intend to come off so “Pollyannaish”.

    My oldest son was diagnosed with Graves disease when he was 13.  Fortunately, it is not too difficult to manage medically.

    Finding satisfying answers to life’s difficult questions is not easy and while I respectfully disagree with many of your conclusions, the comprehensiveness of your work is impressive.  At least you’ve given it some thought, right?  Unlike someone who argues that the earth is 6000 years old.  (Unless they just don’t have the scientific aptitude to understand basic chemistry which they should at least have the courtesy to admit.)

    Trying to make sense of tough concepts like eternal torment and the tremendous amount of pain and suffering in our present world is no easy task.  Frankly, when you couple that with the hypocrisy which is so prevalent in today’s Christian Church, it’s easy to see how prevalent atheism has become.

    I’ve got to get back to work but if it’s all right, in a future post I’d like to toss out a couple of ideas for your consideration.  I’d be curious to see what you and / or others think.

    Those medicines look promising, especially since they’re already in use by cancer patients with minimal side effects.  Perhaps in Canada you’ll be able to move faster toward clinical trials than down in the States.

    Respectfully,

    Ed

  14. Mark on December 11th, 2008 at 10:55 pm

    Thanks Ed. And thanks for the link to the diabetes piece. Yes, there are hopeful treatments on the horizon. Good news.

  15. the rebel teapot on March 8th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    Hi — this is such an old post, but I got the link to your blog via Friendly Atheist and wanted to read what you’ve got up here. 

    And this argument is exactly what I’ve been thinking of — I’m currently in a class that I’ll describe as “early history of the Bible” and, this being my first real introduction to anything not all love and Christ, I’m coming across this really, really unfamiliar characterization of God and yeah, that’s what I’ve been thinking. Cherrypicking. Cherrypick from Leviticus to condemn gays but ignore all those strict rules about diet and things. 

    So I guess what I’m trying to say is, you’re so right, and you’ve put it really well, and I’ll try to use your term whenever I can remember because it’s very apt. 

  16. dom on May 29th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    hey dude i woke up today with a revelation from the big G … that is that most people in the church cant tell shit from chocolate .. this includes me … I am a believer .. I reckon that most believers turn to a belief in a higher power due to eating shit throughout their lives and being told it is chocolate … eventually this gets the upper hand … if you eat shit thinking its chocolate its not the nicest experience … however if you are too scared to eat the chocolate in your life thinking it might be shit … you also lose out … so i think it is necessary to maintain discernment between shit and chocolate .. for example church structures are shit … but relationship with a higher power some call god is chocolate … just ask anyone who has been through the AA twelve steps the necessity of turning over our shortcomings to a higher power …, anyway dude … it takes a higher power sometimes to tell those of us that have been screwed over in life the difference between shit and chocolate … NOT THE CHURCH … GOD himself …  I am for one so thick that I needed to hear it from the big G himself … so dont condemn us for at least trying not to eat the societal shit that life dishes out … thanks for your time … GOD bless dom

  17. dom on May 29th, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    oh by the way dude …. one form of chocolate coated shit is the fundamentalist belief in the rational … the scientific argument … this is another form of fundamentalism … see thomas kuhns argument on paradigm shifts .. look im not saying the church is perfect … I dont think it is at all… just that we need to embrace diversity and be open to new understandings to tell shit from chocolate ok enough !!

Leave a Reply




Subscribe without commenting