Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[triadboy]

And because of that, wouldn't you agree that a general guide would be appropriate?

I agree with Randfan on this issue. A book written by people to morally guide other people is suspicious. It is biased toward their own agenda.

People are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them. To write it down in a book and claim that's where the idea came from is ridiculous.

The same bible that says "Do not murder", also rejoices in the thought of bashing small childrens heads against rocks. What kind of moral instruction book is that?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
So why doesn't that also apply to morality, especially for those who struggle with it?

Lots of mechanics don't need the manuals. Your average shadetree mechanic needs them.

Such a guide would not and could not tell us what is right and wrong only what society believes to be right and wrong.

Don't some in every society need such guidance?

Such a guide would only enable you to peaceably co-exist in a society. Cannibals would have a different guide than others. But these aren't really moral guides these are ethics and laws.

So should I accept the morals of cannibals?

Are you qualifying lawbooks as sufficient moral guides?

Quote:
Yes. Some of us call it "sin."

Can you demonstrate that "sin" is intrinsic?

Can you cite someone who is/was exempt from evil?

Why is "sin" so arbitrary? Why do so many cultures have different taboos and sins?

For the same reason they have different diets, habits, understandings, educations, etc.

They are different in environment, history, politics, etc.

Quote:
No, however I'm culturally, intellectually, psychologically, religiously, politcally, economically, and attitudinally different than many. My life experiences, education, and age all play a factor in my moral journey.

The same is true of all of us.

That IS my point. Laws define what is right and wrong for society. They evolve and are notoriously incompatible between cultures. If laws are so arbitrary how can they be said to be "right"?

Yet we all have laws, don't we?

We can no more expect laws to be universal among humanity than we can expect religion, politics, diet, etc. to be universal.

So your opinion of the Bible is yours, and my opinion is mine.

Quote:
How is that different than morality, especially since law is commonly believed to be rooted in morality?

Morality is that which is right.

How can that be? "Right" is an absolute. You've already stated that morals differ among humans.

Are you now stating that your morality (that which is "right") is what the rest of us must conform to?

Quote:
Sorry. I responded. It is not "non-responsive."

Non-responsive does not mean "didn't respond". It means that your response did not address the issue.

Non-responsive does mean "didn't respond." I responded.

You just didn't like it.

Quote:
It's just a response that you don't like.

No, it was a weaselly way to avoid the question. It was, quite simply, non-responsive. If I ask you if you are hungry and you say the sky is blue that is non-responsive.

It means that I gave you an inappropriate response.

Quote:
How do you know that the Bible shouldn't be used as a moral guide, like you have been propounding on this thread?

If I don't know why it is then at best it is arbitrary. If it is full of barbaric and violent prescriptions for what is considered immoral based on 2,000 year old world views (slavery was acceptable then) then why should it be a moral guide?

Obviously, those passages/books shouldn't be viewed as a moral guide. They should be viewed as historical accounts.

Sort of like blue sky vrs. hunger, right?

These are important and fundamental questions and that I don't know does not render the bible a moral guide. That is argument from ignorance.

Sort of like calling a history book a moral guide?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And because of that, wouldn't you agree that a general guide would be appropriate?

On the contrary, no. I would think that societies should establish laws for the betterment of society and social cohesion. If you want to use that as a moral guide that is fine so long as it does not infringe on me and my personal views of what is and is not moral that does not effect society. Take Sharia for instance, it is far too punitive, authoritarian and oppressive to me and I would hate for my morals to be dictated by the perverse beliefs of a few. Let me decide what is moral and immoral and let society tell me what I can and can't do legally.

Isn't that what we have in American society?

 

[Huntster]

I agree with Randfan on this issue. A book written by people to morally guide other people is suspicious. It is biased toward their own agenda.

People are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them.

Of course, you have some evidence of that claim?

The same bible that says "Do not murder", also rejoices in the thought of bashing small childrens heads against rocks.

Please provide evidence of that, too.

What kind of moral instruction book is that?

Aren't you referring to Mosaic law? Are we confusing morality and law again?

 

[RandFan]

Don't some in every society need such guidance?

Only as it relates to social cohesion and order. If that is what you mean by a moral guide then I will agree with you but I'm not at all certain how the bible would fill this role.

So should I accept the morals of cannibals?

For the life of me I can't see how this would follow from anything that I have written. It is a non-sequitur. The answer is a resounding no.

Are you qualifying lawbooks as sufficient moral guides?

I believe that law-books are appropriate guides for living in a society. Sufficient? In an ever evolving society I would have to say no.

Can you cite someone who is/was exempt from evil?

I'm not sure what this means? I know that sociopaths are individuals who have have little to no regard for the feeling and welfare of others. They only know right and wrong as it is told them by society. Right and wrong does not spring from within. So, based on my initial reading of your question I would have to say that socio-paths are exempt from what you and I would consider immoral. They are by definition amoral.

For the same reason they have different diets, habits, understandings, educations, etc.

They are different in environment, history, politics, etc.

I agree 100%. This raises some question, why should we see morals as absolute?

Yet we all have laws, don't we?

Yes, because humans are a social animal. We understand the need for laws from an evolutionary stand point. If we take this view point it makes sense that laws are somewhat arbitrary.

We can no more expect laws to be universal among humanity than we can expect religion, politics, diet, etc. to be universal.

So your opinion of the Bible is yours, and my opinion is mine.

Which is why morals of personal behavior should be left up to the individual and laws should be based on community standards and legal philosophy.

How can that be?

I'm simply stating the definition. What is moral to me is that which is right to me.

Are you now stating that your morality (that which is "right") is what the rest of us must conform to?

Of course not. On the contrary that is 180 degrees from my view point. I just don't want to conform to what others view as right and wrong unless it is in regards to compelling societal interest which is another tricky thing altogether but at least in a democracy I have some say so.

Non-responsive does mean "didn't respond."

It really doesn't but I hardly see the need to argue over a term. Isn't what important what I meant? I meant that you did not substantively respond.

You just didn't like it.

There was nothing to like or dislike. I am only frustrated that you won't respond in a meaningful manner.

It means that I gave you an inappropriate response.

It means that you gave an answer that did not communicate any information that would help advance your argument, rebut mine or provide any insight. In short, it was "non-responsive".

Obviously, those passages/books shouldn't be viewed as a moral guide. They should be viewed as historical accounts.

Obviously we must first decide what is right and wrong before we decide to use it as a guide. Do you honestly not see the problem inherent in such a proposition?

Sort of like blue sky vrs. hunger, right?

I don't understand?

Sort of like calling a history book a moral guide?

You've lost me. Do you believe the bible to be an appropriate moral guide?

 

[RandFan]

Isn't that what we have in American society?

Yes, and to get back to the start of this particular thread I don't see the bible as having any use as a moral guide. I don't need it, thankfully, because if I did I would find it confusing, arbitrary and capricious.

 

[RandFan]

Aren't you referring to Mosaic law? Are we confusing morality and law again?

I thought Mosaic law was handed down by god and dictated what is moral and what is not moral. How do you know when the bible is a moral guide and when it is simply a set of rules for people living thousands of years ago?

 

[stillthinkin]

There does not seem to be anything natural or absolute about morals.

What is the origin of "morals" or "moral ideas" or "morality" if it is not natural? Aren't human beings a natural species like any other? Gophers live in holes, grizzlies are territorial, humans have morality. Actually the same could be said more completely about "religious and mythic ideation"... it is universal across the human species.

There does seem to be a near universal desire to live, be free of pain, to seek happiness and to feel empathy for others as well other emotions and desires.

I agree that these are great goods, but very far from universal. Many cultures, including early Semitic cultures, evidence child sacrifice -- from a species survival standpoint this opposes the "desire to live". Admittedly this is not a common practice anymore, unless we include the phenomeon of abortion. "The pursuit of happiness" is an American phrase, drummed into children of the 50 states -- no one else seems to have picked up much on it. Regarding empathy, we feel it for some others, but mostly we feel indifference or even hatred when we look across tribal boundaries.

What we have figured out is that humans sense of right and wrong is based on two primary factors. Genetic predisposition and enviornmental conditioning.

Human behaviour can be based significantly on these things. Morality and behaviour are two very different things.

 

[RandFan]

What is the origin of "morals" or "moral ideas" or "morality" if it is not natural? Aren't human beings a natural species like any other? Gophers live in holes, grizzlies are territorial, humans have morality. Actually the same could be said more completely about "religious and mythic ideation"... it is universal across the human species.

I apologize for the confusion. Yes, morals are natural just not natural outside of a few and perhaps a handful of animal species. What I mean by "not natural" is that we will not find morals in the periodic chart of elements or anything fundamental. Morals are an emergent phenomenon of higher brain functions found only in those animals with an orbitofrontal cortex and a corpus collusum. Morals are not to be found anywhere else.

I agree that these are great goods, but very far from universal.

Oh, I disagree profoundly.

Many cultures, including early Semitic cultures, evidence child sacrifice -- from a species survival standpoint this opposes the "desire to live".

Was child sacrifice 100%? There is no question that there are a good many exceptions to all of the elements on my list and it is why I said "near universal".

Admittedly this is not a common practice anymore, unless we include the phenomeon of abortion. "The pursuit of happiness" is an American phrase, drummed into children of the 50 states -- no one else seems to have picked up much on it. Regarding empathy, we feel it for some others, but mostly we feel indifference or even hatred when we look across tribal boundaries.

Happiness is a blanket term and I will concede that it is poorly chosen by me. Humans seek a sense of well being. This is often achieved after one has been sufficently nourished or had sex. Their are many times in a human's life when the body releases significant quantaties of endorphins and dopamine to give provide a feeling that some would call hapiness and others a sense of well being. I'm not really interested in a semnatical argument but I don't think that is your gist. If not then cool. Can you understand the role of elevated brain chemestry such as dopamine and endorphins in the evolution of morality?

As to empathy and tribalism, humans have many competing systems that control behavior. These are two classics. Tribalism is still strong among humans but we are breaking down many of those barriers. I hardly see tribalism as counter to anything that I have said. Humans are capable of self interest and empathy (which can be traced back to self interest).

Randfan

What we have figured out is that humans sense of right and wrong is based on two primary factors. Genetic predisposition and enviornmental conditioning.

stillthinkin
Human behaviour can be based significantly on these things. Morality and behaviour are two very different things.

I don't see that at all. But even if we assume this to be true what does that have to do with the proposition?

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
Are you qualifying lawbooks as sufficient moral guides?

I believe that law-books are appropriate guides for living in a society. Sufficient? In an ever evolving society I would have to say no.

So, I can safely and morally decide right from wrong with lawbooks, right? Is that what you're saying?

And if they are not sufficient, where else can I go to establish right from wrong, either in a moral sense, or from the standpoint of society?

Quote:
Can you cite someone who is/was exempt from evil?

I'm not sure what this means? I know that sociopaths are individuals who have have little to no regard for the feeling and welfare of others. They only know right and wrong as it is told them by society. Right and wrong does not spring from within. So, based on my initial reading of your question I would have to say that socio-paths are exempt from what you and I would consider immoral. They are by definition amoral.

Yet you have problems with a person like Mother Teresa.

Do you equate her with sociopaths?

Quote:
For the same reason they have different diets, habits, understandings, educations, etc.

They are different in environment, history, politics, etc.

I agree 100%. This raises some question, why should we see morals as absolute?

Yet you seem to demand absolutes. Since there are cases of warfare, murder, captital punishment, etc in the Bible, you feel justified in condemning the collection as a whole, even though others see the New Testament as a basic guide on morals or values.

So which is it? Do you want absolutes, or not?

Quote:
Yet we all have laws, don't we?

Yes, because humans are a social animal. We understand the need for laws from an evolutionary stand point. If we take this view point it makes sense that laws are somewhat arbitrary.

So, therefore, morals are the same. They vary among people and societies.

Quote:
We can no more expect laws to be universal among humanity than we can expect religion, politics, diet, etc. to be universal.

So your opinion of the Bible is yours, and my opinion is mine.

Which is why morals of personal behavior should be left up to the individual and laws should be based on community standards and legal philosophy.

Okay then. The morals of my personal behavior is mine to decide, yours are yours to decide, and we both are subject to communal law.

Correct?

Therefore, you have no right or standing to call me amoral, and vice versa, because that's a personal thing?

Quote:
How can that be?

I'm simply stating the definition. What is moral to me is that which is right to me.

But not necessarily to me. Correct?

Quote:
Are you now stating that your morality (that which is "right") is what the rest of us must conform to?

Of course not. On the contrary that is 180 degrees from my view point. I just don't want to conform to what others view as right and wrong unless it is in regards to compelling societal interest which is another tricky thing altogether but at least in a democracy I have some say so.

Gee. I feel the same way.

Quote:
Non-responsive does mean "didn't respond."

It really doesn't but I hardly see the need to argue over a term. Isn't what important what I meant? I meant that you did not substantively respond.

I'm often taken to task on this forum for "semantics." I've learned to be very careful. Correct use of the language is a basic survival skill here.

Quote:
Obviously, those passages/books shouldn't be viewed as a moral guide. They should be viewed as historical accounts.

Obviously we must first decide what is right and wrong before we decide to use it as a guide. Do you honestly not see the problem inherent in such a proposition?

Obviously, as you have posted above, we must do so on an individual basis. Further, when one arrives at an answer, one might be interested enough to see why the moral/amoral action occurred.

Of course, one can decide an action was amoral, disregard the fact that it was a legal action, or an action of warfare, then throw the entire collection of different books in the fire, labelling the entire affair "immoral."

But I don't have to do so.

Quote:
Sort of like blue sky vrs. hunger, right?

I don't understand?

Non responsive.

Quote:
Sort of like calling a history book a moral guide?

You've lost me. Do you believe the bible to be an appropriate moral guide?

I believe portions of it to be, yes.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Isn't that what we have in American society?

Yes, and to get back to the start of this particular thread I don't see the bible as having any use as a moral guide. I don't need it, thankfully, because if I did I would find it confusing, arbitrary and capricious.

But others might see portions of the Bible as a moral guide, and as they participate in this democracy with you, they have every right to do so.

Right?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Aren't you referring to Mosaic law? Are we confusing morality and law again?

I thought Mosaic law was handed down by god and dictated what is moral and what is not moral.

That is correct, however (like you have pointed out elsewhere) laws evolve with the society.

Further, the Ten Commandments stated what the Hebrews were to do and not to do. Penalties for violations weren't included.

How do you know when the bible is a moral guide and when it is simply a set of rules for people living thousands of years ago?

Primarily by reviewing what scholars have opined and debated upon for the past couple of thousand years.

 

[stillthinkin]

Penn's job is to provide entertainment for a wide audience. Anger and outrage work well. It worked for Dennis Miller and Andy Rooney.

Mockery of others sells and can even be quite funny. Unless I am the target of course. Either way, mockery makes for poor argument, and can also appeal in its grosser forms to something quite undesirable: hatred and contempt. Either way, the discussion with RandFan about this was because the standards of "respect, dignity, and compassion" were proposed as a basis for moral living, or words to that effect. So I had to ask whether Penn was being respectful in this video.

Have you ever complained about this with a fire and brimstone preacher?

Yes I have had to do this. My preferred response is to quote Jesus: "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same?" I personally find this quite brilliant: to take the "horrific indifference" of the natural world, and turn it into an argument for fairness and love of those who hate us! Christians should be held up to this standard.

So now the skeptic movement has its own fire and brimstone. Religious people can see how annoying they have been for the past 2000 years.

But are preachers of this sort to be emulated? In fairness to Penn, from what I know of those "suddern preacher folk", I can understand the rage they provoke. The phenomenon is much less common up here in Soviet Kanuckistan. But the issue under discussion was: is this respectful.

The implicit syllogism runs like this:
Respect, Dignity, and Compassion are the basis of morality.
Penn was disrespectful.
Penn's actions were not moral.

Obviously people have already disagreed about both the premises. RandFan modified her claim to be "respect is only the basis of morality insofar as the individual has earned respect" or words to that effect.

 

[triadboy]

Of course, you have some evidence of that claim?

Primitive societies without written guides survived. The concept of "treat others as you want to be treated" is an obvious human imprint because all people have a degree of dignity they wish to uphold. It certainly doesn't need to be written down for it to be real.

Please provide evidence of that, too.

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

Aren't you referring to Mosaic law? Are we confusing morality and law again?

I just mean - a book that contradicts itself as frequently as the Bible cannot be seen as a focused book to guide your actions.

I'm fairly certain that if you provide an example of a moral imperative from the Bible - I will be able to direct you to a passage that contradicts that imperative.

 

[RandFan]

So, I can safely and morally decide right from wrong with lawbooks, right? Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that you can safely decide what society has ruled as right and wrong as far as social behavior goes.

And if they are not sufficient, where else can I go to establish right from wrong, either in a moral sense, or from the standpoint of society?

I would look to societal norms, customs and laws for society and look inward to your own sense of right and wrong for everything else.

Yet you have problems with a person like Mother Teresa.

Yes, for the abundant reasons stated.

Do you equate her with sociopaths?

I'm not qualified to make such a diagnosis. If I had to venture a guess based on my limited knowledge I would have to say no. Just very misguided.

Yet you seem to demand absolutes.

Could you give me an example?

Since there are cases of warfare, murder, captital punishment, etc in the Bible, you feel justified in condemning the collection as a whole, even though others see the New Testament as a basic guide on morals or values.

I feel justified in finding it barbaric, capricious and arbitrary and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would use it as a moral guide.

So which is it? Do you want absolutes, or not?

Again, can you show me where I ask for absolutes.

So, therefore, morals are the same. They vary among people and societies.

Yes, I agree with this.

Okay then. The morals of my personal behavior is mine to decide, yours are yours to decide, and we both are subject to communal law.

Correct?

Yes, agreed.

Therefore, you have no right or standing to call me amoral, and vice versa, because that's a personal thing?

I have never called you amoral. If you acted contrary to social norms that are deemed immoral and it was determined by a qualified physician that you had a mental defect then I would call you amoral. Otherwise I would likely call you immoral. Since AFAIK you haven't acted in such a way then there is no reason for me to so find.

But not necessarily to me. Correct?

Again, yes, that is my point. Morals are relative.

Gee. I feel the same way.

Cool, then we are in agreement though I hardly see the relevance.

I'm often taken to task on this forum for "semantics." I've learned to be very careful. Correct use of the language is a basic survival skill here.

Perhaps the term is a bit esoteric. My usage of "non-responsive" is correct though. And for the record your response is still not a meaningful response.

Obviously, as you have posted above, we must do so on an individual basis.

If you must first decide what is right to decide what is right in the bible then what is the point? Just decide what is right and skip the bible. To what end does the bible serve? At best you are cherry picking your data. It's conformation bias. That which supports what you already believe to be right is accepted and that which you already believe to be wrong is rejected.

Further, when one arrives at an answer, one might be interested enough to see why the moral/amoral action occurred.

Interesting but hardly of any significance. There simply not enough examples to form any meaningful conclusions.

Of course, one can decide an action was amoral, disregard the fact that it was a legal action, or an action of warfare, then throw the entire collection of different books in the fire, labeling the entire affair "immoral."

I have another option. We can look at the entire work as a collection of mythology, allegory, history and evolution of philosophy helping us to understand a small part of the underpinnings of our moral thought.

But I don't have to do so.

I really wish you would stop with this tired straw man. I have stated over and over that you are free to do as you want as far as I'm concerned, so long as you don't hurt someone or break the law. I would gladly come to your defense to live as your conscious dictates. If anyone gives you a hard time about your rights to live the way you believe is correct then please tell me and I will join the argument on your side. Until then could you please stop assuming that I don't believe you have the right to live, think and behave according to your own conscious?

Non responsive.

No, this is an inappropriate use of the term. I honestly don't understand what you meant.

I believe portions of it to be, yes.

I'm sorry that the irony of that is lost on you.

 

[stillthinkin]

So, you know that the scriptures are wrong but you don't think anyone should say anything for fear that some people might be offended? Does that about cover it?

In the video, Shermer does not say that the Jewish/Christian scriptures are "wrong", he says that much of the writings are mythic and not to be taken literally. The major issue seems to be with thinking that the bible should be taken literally and can be substantiated scientifically. This seems to be the view held up as wrong, and which Penn holds up to mockery.

For example, Shermer says: "these [the two creation stories, Noah, Moses] are not factual stories to be taken as historical events, they are really stories about how we should live our lives, they're moral homilies, what can i personally get out of the bible for me today - thats what these stories are about... to try to think literally about them is, you are missing the point of the bible". I agree with Shermer.

Penn might not go that far in his "appreciation" for the stories, since his approach is more based on mockery.

 

[RandFan]

But others might see portions of the Bible as a moral guide, and as they participate in this democracy with you, they have every right to do so.

Right?

Sure, but then they are simply cherry picking those portions that fit with what they already decided was right and wrong. They're reasoning is post-hoc.

 

[RandFan]

That is correct, however (like you have pointed out elsewhere) laws evolve with the society.

Couldn't god figure out from the beginning what was right and wrong and tell the people? If I view the evolution of moral philosophy from a parsimonious view point I can't find god. Why did Hebrew moral philosophy greatly advance subsequent to Greek advancements in philosophy?

Further, the Ten Commandments stated what the Hebrews were to do and not to do. Penalties for violations weren't included.

Could you expand?

 

[Huntster]

I agree with Randfan on this issue. A book written by people to morally guide other people is suspicious. It is biased toward their own agenda.

People are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Of course, you have some evidence of that claim?

Primitive societies without written guides survived. The concept of "treat others as you want to be treated" is an obvious human imprint because all people have a degree of dignity they wish to uphold. It certainly doesn't need to be written down for it to be real.

That is an interesting opinion. Of course, it is opinion, because you have still not provided any evidence that "people are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them."

The same bible that says "Do not murder", also rejoices in the thought of bashing small childrens heads against rocks.

Quote:
Please provide evidence of that, too.

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

Can I provide a bit of context (in other words, the rest of the Psalm)?:

By the rivers of Babylon we sat mourning and weeping when we remembered Zion. On the poplars of that land we hung up our harps. There our captors asked us for the words of a song; Our tormentors, for a joyful song: "Sing for us a song of Zion!"

But how could we sing a song of the LORD in a foreign land? If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand wither. May my tongue stick to my palate if I do not remember you, If I do not exalt Jerusalem beyond all my delights. Remember, LORD, against Edom that day at Jerusalem. They said: "Level it, level it down to its foundations!"

Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us! Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.

Quote:
Aren't you referring to Mosaic law? Are we confusing morality and law again?

I just mean - a book that contradicts itself as frequently as the Bible cannot be seen as a focused book to guide your actions.

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

Moral?

Like RandFan has noted, that's an individual thing.

 

[RandFan]

In the video, Shermer does not say that the Jewish/Christian scriptures are "wrong", he says that much of the writings are mythic and not to be taken literally. The major issue seems to be with thinking that the bible should be taken literally and can be substantiated scientifically. This seems to be the view held up as wrong, and which Penn holds up to mockery.

For example, Shermer says: "these [the two creation stories, Noah, Moses] are not factual stories to be taken as historical events, they are really stories about how we should live our lives, they're moral homilies, what can i personally get out of the bible for me today - thats what these stories are about... to try to think literally about them is, you are missing the point of the bible". I agree with Shermer.

Penn might not go that far in his "appreciation" for the stories, since his approach is more based on mockery.

I am willing to come to the defense of Christians where I think it warranted. I don't think that it is warranted in this instance. I think the bible worthy of mockery because quaint allegories and ancient mythology have come to be taken to be scripture. I guess its not the bible that is being mocked but rather the spiritual ardor or reverence given the bible. Such views are simply not deserved, IMO. Mockery is all but useless to those who already view the bible with such passion and commitment but to those who are on the fence it can be profound.