The Dumplin' Dumbash Page

Former fundies like Dumplin' Dumbash have a serious problem with laziness. In their understanding of the "real world" God is (read: should have been, darn it) a dumbwaiter who catered to their every need and concern while they sat around sucking their thumb (or else inserted it somewhere else while seated). It is therefore no surprise that Dumplin' takes the approach that lack of education is not the church's problem (naturally, since it isn't HIS fault he is stupid, or that being stupid causes him problems), but rather, that the church has "no real-world center of reference for their notions of what God ought to be like or how He wants us to relate to Him."

Pffffft.

News flash, Dumplin': That's the answer from postmodern morons like Brian McLaren already. All we need is better "relationships" and more ooey-gooey god-i-ness, they say. Not.

As already noted in another entry, the modern idea of God as a buddy is a contrivance of modern sentiments. Biblically, God is like an ancient patron: Remote, distant, not someone you sit down and watch sports with. Those of us who live with this expectation have no problems with "how does God relate to us" issues as Dumplin' did.

Of course, Dumplin' prefers the easy way out, to say that God is "a figment of human imagination," and actually, we agree -- the kissy-kissy God of many modern Christians IS a figment. So likewise is Dumplin's vision of a God who, as he puts it so self-centeredly, "shows up in real life."

Dumplin', as we say, is still a fundy at heart, as he seems to think it worth something to say inane things like this to my article:

Yes, yes, more human scholars are what the rank-and-file Christian needs. More study, more academics. Christians, and their everyday interests, are not intellectual enough, and Christians aren’t spending enough time familiarizing themselves with what uninspired men say about God. Christians need to be more thoroughly grounded in the works of men in order to meet today’s challenges. After all, isn’t that the approach we take to determining whether or not our spouses really exist? If that’s how we deal with our spouses, then we ought to deal with God in the same way, because God loves us even more than our spouses do.

But sorry, that's the same erroneous view of God as a kissy-kissy friend, in which "love" is gross sentimentality (wrong) and we should ignore what "uninspired men" say (another stupid view). Despite himself, Dumplin' is still a bibliolater, and a worse one than most.

To an extent, Dumplin' has it correct that manifest Biblical idiots like Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett are successful because people have a view of God as kissy-kissy. I know this full well, despite Dumplin'; probably far better than he does. That's why I know what Dumplin' calls "the basics" is simply nonsense, a chimera created by modern misconceptions that remake God into the image of Ward Cleaver. If the expectations were correct, the experience of mankind WOULD be consistent with the Gospel story. As it is, we are left with ignoramuses so ignorant that they think, as Dumplin' does, that:

All that human scholarship and apologetics does is to refine the art of denial and rationalization. You can study all you want, and think up the most sophisticated apologia, and fill your mind so full of bibliographies and footnotes that there isn't time to consider the real-life fact of God's absence.

Well, Dumplin', our reply is simple:

Put the pacifier back in your mouth and shut up.