You place a lot of value in the predictive value, knowing what someone is about
based on subscription to a school of thought.  There is little predictive value
for example, in knowing someone's worldview when they say they are a fan of
Martin Luther King, Jr.. Over the past decade or two, you had everyone from
Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott to Reverend Wright paying him some sort of lip
service or using his words to advance an end.  But is there "no right way" of
looking at King's legacy?  Does that mean that King's legacy has no specific
meaning to the informed person if Poe's law applies to his followers as well?
Come to think of it, Poe's law could also apply to descriptions of the working
of the internal combustion engine!

I never said the view of the cartoon wasn't a real or popular viewpoint. I'll go
out on a limb and say it could be a fairly accurate assessment of too many of
those who have cash to spend on TV shows.   But realize that a sarcastic
student of the Theology of the Cross could make the same cartoon, just with
labels other than "Christian" and "Atheist".

Suppose you're driving down a road and see, at the same time, a speed limit sign
saying "40 MPH", a family of ducks, and a bunch of first-graders crossing the
road. Do you say, "I know that this sign is the accurate portrayal of the will
of the Mayor, therefore I can be assured he wants me to drive under 40 MPH
whenever I wish."  You plow through the ducks and kids at 39.99 MPH.  You only
looked at the law as an excuse to be an a-- and advance your own self
interests. You didn't turn over a few pages in the handbook and see the law
that says, "Oh yeah, don't run over kids and ducks, either."   THAT is how the
Religious Right misuses the law of God.


Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> gregjohn wrote:
> > The cartoon mocks a Theology of Glory, a self-centered, Antinomian one.
> >
>




> Perhaps. But, the reason it is pertinent is that while "some" may not
> see it as the "correct" theology, its really hard to find many that
> don't, on some level. There is even a concept dubbed, "Poe's Law", which
> basically states that it is fundamentally impossible to make up
> something absurd to mock religion, which some religious person, or often
> group of people, don't **already** believe. F

Post a reply to this message