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.


Tags: •

October 13, 2008 · Filed Under Atheism, religion

Comments

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

  1. GentlePath on October 14th, 2008 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 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 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 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 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 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.

Leave a Reply