1. I only like things that are awesome.
2. Beer is awesome.
3. I have no interest in a god that is not awesome.
4. Forbidding things that are awesome is not awesome.
5. Therefore no awesome god would forbid beer.
6. Therefore, a god that forbids beer is a god that is not worth bothering with.
A Fundamental Piece Of Theological Reasoning
May 11, 2010 by Kullervo
9 Responses
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
Archives
Meta
I am in awe of your mad theological skillz.
Srsly. I came up with that all by myself btw.
The same basic principle applies to all intoxicants, as well as to sex and rocknroll, of course.
I’m not sold re: all intoxicants, as I think some of them are probably a lot less awesome (like crack cocaine, or Zima). But other intoxicants get scooped up by my general “no arbitrary commandments” rule.
Although to be fair, I am unaware of any god that allows beer but forbids other intoxicants.
LOL
In the words of that eminent theologian, L. Sprague deCamp – “Beer, beer, beautiful beer! Fill me up with it, clear up to here.”
What if this god only allowed light beer? Still awesome?
Does god have to allow stout and porter in order to be awesome, what if he is a straight pilsner man?
I put on 20 pounds since I started drinking beer and I worry that its a divine punishment for not drinking the light variety. . . I or maybe its just the added contentment in my life. . . .
Your reasoning may raise more questions that it answers. . . .
Allowing some kinds of beer and not others would be decidedly not-awesome. But like I said to Apuleius, the no-arbitrary-commandments clause picks up the slack here.
Also, variety in beer is awesome, so you could construct a complementary argument with that one.
However, in my experience light beer is not really awesome, or at least far less awesome by comparison. You are nearly always left with an acute awareness of something lacking.
Light beer is still beer, which means it is awesome. It might be less awesome than the good stuff, but it’s still awesome.