Remembering the Blasphmey Challenge
In this fast paced Web 2.0 universe with real time updates, it seems like bringing up something that was a buzz a few years ago seems clueless. Sort of like finding out the cloths one wears have been out of style for the last two decades. Yet, lessons can still be learned about the hype of yesteryear, since time has a way of weeding out pop-culture novelties from the ideas that are really shaping the world.
All this came to mind when I got an email inquiry about the Blasphemy Challenge on YouTube. So I checked out video, and there was this young fellow named Chandler who said, “Three months ago I was a Christian. Through basic observation of the world around me and logical thinking I’ve come to the conclusion that alongside the fact that there is no Santa Clause, there is no Easter Bunny, there’s also no God. So without further ado, my name is Chandler and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit.” [1] Come to find out that this was part of a Rational Response Squad (RRS) and the Beyond Belief Media Company (BBMC) promotional video in 2006 for an Internet campaign called The Blasphemy Challenge (BC). The deal that RRS and BBMC offered to give away 1001 free copies of The God Who Wasn’t There DVD to participants whom would video record themselves to making a short message that would damn them to hell, and specifically to verbalize, “I deny the Holy Spirit,” then upload the presentation to YouTube.[2]
More than just a group of angry atheist, the BC indicated its actions to be sociologically beneficial and necessary. They asserted,
It isn’t just adult Christians who are indoctrinated with the frightening ideology of Christian belief. In fact, most Christians are indoctrinated as children. These children are told that they must believe the following: That 2000 years ago a man died, stayed dead three days, rose from the dead and then flew into the air above the clouds—and right now this man is with them as their invisible companion and savior from Hell, if only they will submit to him. If this bizarre theory were not religious in nature, teaching it to children would probably be considered child abuse.[3]
The BC also pontificated, “Religious dogma has one chief means of support: Our unwillingness to criticize it in public. If we talked about religion the same way we talk about science, history or other fields involving truth claims, dogma would wither in the light.”[4] The radical rejection of the Christian message, therefore, would invoke a conversation about truth, and for BC that means atheism would prevail.
The campaign received a little news coverage (Nightline, Fox News, Newsweek, the New York Times and local news affiliates), and according to the YouTube response page, 1469 videos were uploaded of people accepting the blasphemy challenge.[5] The video responses varied, many were short blurbs like “My Name is Patrick Hugo Fagan and I deny the Holy Spirit along with everything and anything that is supernatural.”[6] Some participants made more formalized appeals, like Jeffrey Johnson, a medical student at Dartmouth, who said, “Belief in God has several negative psychological consequences including: irrationality, wishful thinking, and delusional behavior” and “severe social consequences, which may manifest in sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and in sever cases, violent intolerance,” and recommendation that one “study science and philosophy, and place your view of God where it belongs, right besides Zeus, Thor, and the Easter Bunny,” before declaring “I deny the Holy Spirit.”[7] A few BC responses could be considered tongue-in-cheek. One young girl being the screen name “AngryLittleGirl” responded, “Hey guys, this is Jessica and I just want to say that I deny the Holy Spirit, God, Jesus, Zeus whatever else you can come up with so see you Hell and I know that I will go to Hell because Jesus has a YouTube account and he checks often just to see if this very thing happens. So be careful.”[8] A notable participant was atheist Daniel Dennett who simply affirmed “yes” to the question of whether or not he denied the Holy Spirit.[9]
The BC campaign’s strategy to get people to verbally deny the Holy Spirit demonstrates their misunderstanding of Scripture. First, a good case can be made for the fact that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Gospels was referring to the Pharisees and other religious leaders who willfully, knowingly, and continuously rejected of Jesus’ claim and proofs of his to be a divine messiah, and the fact that modern folks don’t interact face to face with the very incarnation of God, such a sin could not occur. Yet even if one were to dismiss this as some form of exegetical gymnastics to weasel one’s way out of the plain straightforward meaning of the text, it still stands that the nature of this sin would be a willful, informed, and continuous rejection of, the Gospel (cf. Matt 12:27-37; Mark 3:20-30; Luke 12:10; 1 John 5:16). Such a type of person would have no regrets for rejecting God and Christ. However, BC errors fails to realize that even persecutors of the church like Saul of Tarsus can be saved by God’s grace, and the converted Paul can demonstrate through his words and deeds the charisma, the power of the Holy Spirit, which transforms lives and gives meat to the preaching of the Gospel. No matter how silly one can get with their Web cam, that silliness cannot bar them from the grace of God. If they have genuine repentance, they can receive absolution. This is the concept of salvation by grace, which the BC clearly dies not understand.
The underlying ideology of the BC is also deeply flawed. Although they suggest logic and reason will enlighten individual minds to atheism, their argumentation is nothing but illogical. To say the Christian belief in Christ death, burial, and resurrection is “bizarre” does not mean it is untrue. The idea that Japanese Americans men served in the United States army infantry during World War II while their family members were confined to American internment camps might seem “bizarre” to modern readers unaccustomed to the nuances to the Nisei cultural mindset; however, that does not mean it never happened. In the same, some might think it “bizarre” to see Christians declaring, “He is risen; He is risen indeed,” but that’s not to say it never happened. And how would teaching these things to our children be considered “child abuse.” I’d like to see the psychological studies on that.
The accusations of Christians being sexists, xenophobes, homophobes, etc. is just name calling, and does not disprove the reality of God. The math teachers I had in school just may have been sexist, xenophobes, homophobes, or whatever, but even if my suspicions are correct (I hope not), the fact remains that what they taught about 1+1=2 is still true. So one can probably find a good handful of sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, professing Christians, but it does not mean their claim that God exist, and Christ is the incarnation of God who died and rose again is false. It might mean that the professing Christian doesn’t put too much stock in what he is preaching, bit it does mean the content of his message is wrong.
The very idea of “sexist,” “xenophobe,” and “homophobe,” moreover, are concepts that can only be formed in a Christian worldview. Or the remnants of a Christian worldview must be there in order for one to form these concepts. They cannot be found in an atheistic, Darwinian naturalistic worldview. If naturalism is true, inequality is what must be affirmed, for all life is premised on the survival of the fittest. There is a evolutionary superior sex (for men it is the male for women it is the female). There is an evolutionary superior race (For Japanese, it is the Japanese). When it comes to sexual orientation, come on who are you kidding, everyone knows that we are all just evolved animals, and our sex drive is just there to keep the species going, so love and togetherness is just some stuff our higher brain makes up to allow us to think couples experience something more when they are just “doing like they do on the Discovery channel.” It is only when one can consider the idea that man is created in the image of God, and as divine image bearers each person has inherent worth, then you can say people, no matter who they are, should be treated equally, respectfully, and fairly.
BC was some old hype that fizzled out a long time ago. It might have gotten a few people to do some silly things with their Web cam, but it did not really have a lasting impact. It also goes to show, no matter that atheism may pride itself on being enlightened with reason, it is ultimately a belief without reason.
1. YouTube, “The Blasphemy Challenge” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE&feature=PlayList&p=C19FC8576065C836&index=0
2. The Blasphemy Challenge, ”Home “ http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/
3. The Blasphemy Challenge, “Frequently Asked Questions” http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/faq.html
4. Ibid.
5. YouTube, “The Blasphemy Challenge: Video Responses” http://www.youtube.com/video_response_view_all?v=i7QVbJnSPQE
6. YouTube, Re: The Blasphemy Challenge” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJoA1xGr9Kk&feature=PlayList&p=C19FC8576065C836&index=9
7. YouTiube, “Re: The Blasphemy Challenge” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4iK4aBAK50&feature=channel_page
8. YouTube, “God.Is.Imginary.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ6nW3O6oqY&feature=PlayList&p=C19FC8576065C836&index=2
9. YouTube, “Daniel Dannett takes the Blasphemy Challenge,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjL48QUA0aM&feature=channel_page
All this came to mind when I got an email inquiry about the Blasphemy Challenge on YouTube. So I checked out video, and there was this young fellow named Chandler who said, “Three months ago I was a Christian. Through basic observation of the world around me and logical thinking I’ve come to the conclusion that alongside the fact that there is no Santa Clause, there is no Easter Bunny, there’s also no God. So without further ado, my name is Chandler and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit.” [1] Come to find out that this was part of a Rational Response Squad (RRS) and the Beyond Belief Media Company (BBMC) promotional video in 2006 for an Internet campaign called The Blasphemy Challenge (BC). The deal that RRS and BBMC offered to give away 1001 free copies of The God Who Wasn’t There DVD to participants whom would video record themselves to making a short message that would damn them to hell, and specifically to verbalize, “I deny the Holy Spirit,” then upload the presentation to YouTube.[2]
More than just a group of angry atheist, the BC indicated its actions to be sociologically beneficial and necessary. They asserted,
It isn’t just adult Christians who are indoctrinated with the frightening ideology of Christian belief. In fact, most Christians are indoctrinated as children. These children are told that they must believe the following: That 2000 years ago a man died, stayed dead three days, rose from the dead and then flew into the air above the clouds—and right now this man is with them as their invisible companion and savior from Hell, if only they will submit to him. If this bizarre theory were not religious in nature, teaching it to children would probably be considered child abuse.[3]
The BC also pontificated, “Religious dogma has one chief means of support: Our unwillingness to criticize it in public. If we talked about religion the same way we talk about science, history or other fields involving truth claims, dogma would wither in the light.”[4] The radical rejection of the Christian message, therefore, would invoke a conversation about truth, and for BC that means atheism would prevail.
The campaign received a little news coverage (Nightline, Fox News, Newsweek, the New York Times and local news affiliates), and according to the YouTube response page, 1469 videos were uploaded of people accepting the blasphemy challenge.[5] The video responses varied, many were short blurbs like “My Name is Patrick Hugo Fagan and I deny the Holy Spirit along with everything and anything that is supernatural.”[6] Some participants made more formalized appeals, like Jeffrey Johnson, a medical student at Dartmouth, who said, “Belief in God has several negative psychological consequences including: irrationality, wishful thinking, and delusional behavior” and “severe social consequences, which may manifest in sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and in sever cases, violent intolerance,” and recommendation that one “study science and philosophy, and place your view of God where it belongs, right besides Zeus, Thor, and the Easter Bunny,” before declaring “I deny the Holy Spirit.”[7] A few BC responses could be considered tongue-in-cheek. One young girl being the screen name “AngryLittleGirl” responded, “Hey guys, this is Jessica and I just want to say that I deny the Holy Spirit, God, Jesus, Zeus whatever else you can come up with so see you Hell and I know that I will go to Hell because Jesus has a YouTube account and he checks often just to see if this very thing happens. So be careful.”[8] A notable participant was atheist Daniel Dennett who simply affirmed “yes” to the question of whether or not he denied the Holy Spirit.[9]
The BC campaign’s strategy to get people to verbally deny the Holy Spirit demonstrates their misunderstanding of Scripture. First, a good case can be made for the fact that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Gospels was referring to the Pharisees and other religious leaders who willfully, knowingly, and continuously rejected of Jesus’ claim and proofs of his to be a divine messiah, and the fact that modern folks don’t interact face to face with the very incarnation of God, such a sin could not occur. Yet even if one were to dismiss this as some form of exegetical gymnastics to weasel one’s way out of the plain straightforward meaning of the text, it still stands that the nature of this sin would be a willful, informed, and continuous rejection of, the Gospel (cf. Matt 12:27-37; Mark 3:20-30; Luke 12:10; 1 John 5:16). Such a type of person would have no regrets for rejecting God and Christ. However, BC errors fails to realize that even persecutors of the church like Saul of Tarsus can be saved by God’s grace, and the converted Paul can demonstrate through his words and deeds the charisma, the power of the Holy Spirit, which transforms lives and gives meat to the preaching of the Gospel. No matter how silly one can get with their Web cam, that silliness cannot bar them from the grace of God. If they have genuine repentance, they can receive absolution. This is the concept of salvation by grace, which the BC clearly dies not understand.
The underlying ideology of the BC is also deeply flawed. Although they suggest logic and reason will enlighten individual minds to atheism, their argumentation is nothing but illogical. To say the Christian belief in Christ death, burial, and resurrection is “bizarre” does not mean it is untrue. The idea that Japanese Americans men served in the United States army infantry during World War II while their family members were confined to American internment camps might seem “bizarre” to modern readers unaccustomed to the nuances to the Nisei cultural mindset; however, that does not mean it never happened. In the same, some might think it “bizarre” to see Christians declaring, “He is risen; He is risen indeed,” but that’s not to say it never happened. And how would teaching these things to our children be considered “child abuse.” I’d like to see the psychological studies on that.
The accusations of Christians being sexists, xenophobes, homophobes, etc. is just name calling, and does not disprove the reality of God. The math teachers I had in school just may have been sexist, xenophobes, homophobes, or whatever, but even if my suspicions are correct (I hope not), the fact remains that what they taught about 1+1=2 is still true. So one can probably find a good handful of sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, professing Christians, but it does not mean their claim that God exist, and Christ is the incarnation of God who died and rose again is false. It might mean that the professing Christian doesn’t put too much stock in what he is preaching, bit it does mean the content of his message is wrong.
The very idea of “sexist,” “xenophobe,” and “homophobe,” moreover, are concepts that can only be formed in a Christian worldview. Or the remnants of a Christian worldview must be there in order for one to form these concepts. They cannot be found in an atheistic, Darwinian naturalistic worldview. If naturalism is true, inequality is what must be affirmed, for all life is premised on the survival of the fittest. There is a evolutionary superior sex (for men it is the male for women it is the female). There is an evolutionary superior race (For Japanese, it is the Japanese). When it comes to sexual orientation, come on who are you kidding, everyone knows that we are all just evolved animals, and our sex drive is just there to keep the species going, so love and togetherness is just some stuff our higher brain makes up to allow us to think couples experience something more when they are just “doing like they do on the Discovery channel.” It is only when one can consider the idea that man is created in the image of God, and as divine image bearers each person has inherent worth, then you can say people, no matter who they are, should be treated equally, respectfully, and fairly.
BC was some old hype that fizzled out a long time ago. It might have gotten a few people to do some silly things with their Web cam, but it did not really have a lasting impact. It also goes to show, no matter that atheism may pride itself on being enlightened with reason, it is ultimately a belief without reason.
1. YouTube, “The Blasphemy Challenge” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE&feature=PlayList&p=C19FC8576065C836&index=0
2. The Blasphemy Challenge, ”Home “ http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/
3. The Blasphemy Challenge, “Frequently Asked Questions” http://www.blasphemychallenge.com/faq.html
4. Ibid.
5. YouTube, “The Blasphemy Challenge: Video Responses” http://www.youtube.com/video_response_view_all?v=i7QVbJnSPQE
6. YouTube, Re: The Blasphemy Challenge” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJoA1xGr9Kk&feature=PlayList&p=C19FC8576065C836&index=9
7. YouTiube, “Re: The Blasphemy Challenge” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4iK4aBAK50&feature=channel_page
8. YouTube, “God.Is.Imginary.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ6nW3O6oqY&feature=PlayList&p=C19FC8576065C836&index=2
9. YouTube, “Daniel Dannett takes the Blasphemy Challenge,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjL48QUA0aM&feature=channel_page
Comments
Post a Comment