The Dumplin' Dumbash Page

On "Apologetics vs. Bible-based faith"

When people can't get yoor basic stance on things right, you know you're dealing with some stupid. Guess what that makes poor Dumplin' Dumbash.

His address to my material on the atonement begs to assume that I hold a view of hell as "eternal torment." Not quite -- if by that Dumpy means literal fire and brimstone. I don't buy that, nor his obvious understanding of "love" as smarmy sentimentality. Dumpy might have learned this had he not thought my Nutshell series was the be-all and end-all. Why he is this lazy I don't know, but I suspect he was afraid he'd miss Sesame Street if he read something longer.

Anyway, Dumpy spends a few weeks preaching about "backwards thinking" before he finally gets to to my nutshell explanation about atonement, which as readers will know is explained within the paradigm of honor and shame that reigned in the Biblical world. You can tell this is waaay above Dumpy's head, as he resorts to the fundy retort that, Holding is bolting on an entirely extra-biblical framework for interpreting the Bible. There’s nothing in the Bible about 'honor' being more important to God than the eternal salvation of His own children, nor does the Bible say anything about sin being an insult to God’s 'honor.' Well isn't that just too bad for Dumpy. Despite his protestations, honor and shame were the spoke upon which Biblical society revolved. It was as important to them as paying the bills is to us. I'd recommend that Dumpy read some works by credible scholars on this subject (like Malina and Rohrbaugh), but since he is still a fundy at heart, still reading "death" in the Bible in terms of nothing other than physical death (rather than wholesale separation from God), I may as well ask him to tie his own liver in a knot while wing-walking on an SR-71. The chances are better he can do that than grasp Biblical scholarship.

It is because Dumpy has no grasp on the meaning of "honor" in this context that he makes the inane statement that:

Now, if God truly were an immortal, omniscient, and omnipotent being, His status would be unassailable and invulnerable. It would not be possible for us to diminish His status as Lord God Almighty by any effort of our own, sinful or not. In fact, if He would only show up in the real world, we would not even be able to be a bad influence on others, at least as far as God’s honor were concerned.

Beg pardon, but Dumpy needs an education here. He doesn't understand that there are two types of honor in this ancient paradigm: Inherent (what you get by virtue of being you, like being in a rich family) and ascribed (what comes as a result of what you do and what others do respecting you). The former God has in spades, and that, truly, can NOT be taken away. On the other hand, the latter can be, and no omni-ness will change that. Nesws flash, Dumpy: You don't get "forward thinking" by doing "bassackwards research" into your subject matter.

Whiner Dumpy goes on to say, it would be easy for [God] to offer us choices between multiple good alternatives, allowing us to develop our free will without ever impugning His honor. Like He didn't? Is poor Dumpy that far out of self-control mode? Or He could behave like any responsible parent, and intervene whenever He sees us about to do something that will ultimately cause us (eternal) harm, and thus prevent the insult to His honor from happening in the first place. God did intervene -- that's what the Bible is here for. That spoiled kids like Dumpy still want to go their own way and cry is not God's fault. How ironic that Dumpy says, When you complain about a real God... it does not diminish the God, it merely exposes you as a whiner. He sure got THAT right.