Shocking People

This reminds me of an old headline from The Onion: "Marilyn Manson Out of Ideas: Going Door to Door Trying to Shock People."

Christians against shock value? Whoda thunk it.

X: I'm not sure how you intend that to be taken.

Sarcastically, of course. The whole hell thing is based on shock value / scare tactics. I don't think Christianity would have nearly as many adherents today as it does, if the prescribed penalty for not being a Christian were simply that you might be "darned to heck" (i.e., forced to endure just enough unpleasantries to make it clear that in retrospect, being a good Christian would have been the better option).

As to the guy in the news, most (all?) Christians agree that Christ's crucifixion was a fundamental event in his life, which most (all?) Christians would agree merits calling attention to. The only thing that's unusual about this guy is how he's going about it.

X: Hm, I think there's a difference between telling someone something unpleasant and simply trying to shock them.

X: The "whole hell thing," as you put it, is millenia old and hardly unique to Christianity. It is certainly a scary idea, but the exact opposite of "shock value." If you find the idea of hell shocking, then I've got some exciting news for you about who won the Trojan War.

Seriously, X: If you're going to randomly bash Christians as your all-purpose bogeymen, then at least take the time to think through the details.

Michael: I'm talking more about the guys who originally cooked up the hell story, not to those who repeat the rumor today because they believe it to be true. I know, I know, "they" didn't cook it up, God did; it's just that God didn't bother to tell anyone else that he was talking to them. Fine. Assume that for argument's sake, and apply my analysis to any other religion - Islam, for example - which also teaches that there is a hell, but whose teachings you'll have to concede were not divinely inspired. The issue is the same: fear/horror/shock as a tool to cajole people into joining quickly and rashly ("What if I get run over on a bus on the way home?!") rather than taking the time to think the issue through.

Whether you are telling someone they're going to burn in hell or telling them Christ died for their sins (non-controversial views among Christians), or depicting hell or crucifixion (as this guy was doing), the underlying idea is the same. This guy wasn't just trying to shock people for shocking's sake; he was trying to shock people into becoming better Christians, or maybe into becoming Christians, period. You can complain that his tactics were in poor taste (definitely), ineffective (probably), or that he tried a little too hard to be creative, but objecting to the shock element as such strikes me as a bit of stretch. We've already established that; now, we're just haggling over the price.

Ben: I'm not sure I understand your points about the Trojan war, the antiquity of Christian dogma, or the fact that other religions also rely on shock value to promote their ideas. Mr. Conaty re-enacted Jesus's crucifixion to promote Christianity, not Judaism, Taoism, Islam, or anything else. The appropriateness (or lack thereof) of Conaty's stunt as a tool for promoting Christianity can only be judged against the precepts of Christianity itself. If his pro-Christian display were un-Christian, it wouldn't do him much good that it was consistent with the teachings of Islam.

X: Again, I think there's a big difference between telling something scary and trying to shock them. "Shock" is in the method of presentation, whereas "scary" is in the content.

I believe Marilyn Manson shocks people to get there attention, then, when he does, he spreads his ideas.