Runtu's parody from "What the crap, Farms?" thread

[cacheman]

FARMS Review of Books

"The New Testament"

Reviewed by Daniel Midgley-Welch

"The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day" (Isaiah 2:11).

Every generation has its rebels, who seek to overthrow the previous generation's values and traditions, often resulting in great upheaval and destruction. Ironically, the cycles of history usually mean that a newer generation will react against the original rebels and begin the cycle again. Such is the case with the ironically titled "New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

In a sense, this title tells us all we need to know about this upstart volume. Given the bold proclamation of a new testament, one wonders what was wrong with the old one? And the brazen attempt to associate the book with the Savior is astounding; someone apparently has an inflated sense of self-worth.

The book purports to recount the life and ministry of one Jesus of Nazareth (also referred to as "the Savior" and the "Son of God"--make up your mind, already) and then the later work of his disciples. If this is so, why the disjointed nature of the book? Couldn't the authors have come up with a compelling yet cohesive narrative? The first four books (pretentiously called "gospels") repeat the same story, as if the authors are so insecure that they need to repeat themselves; or perhaps they disdain their readers, whom they believe incapable of basic reading comprehension after only one pass through the story. The remainder of the book is a hodgepodge of travel narrative, standard-issue victimology, and "epistles" (why can't they just be straightforward and call them letters?). The number of increasingly smaller letters betrays a need to substitute volume for substance, as if ten verbose letters are better than one concise one. And the final book is so bizarre that it's worth recounting only for comic relief; one imagines that hallucinogenic drugs were involved (which shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with the anti-Mormon crowd).

The first book (the "Gospel of Matthew") begins with a tedious recitation of Jesus' alleged genealogy, a clear appeal to authority. Obviously the authors believe that Jesus would not be worthy of consideration were he the descendant of goatherds; no, he must be the progeny of kings. What follows is a story so preposterous that only the most credulous would believe it; of course, it goes without saying that these are precisely the sorts of people at which anti-Mormon literature is aimed. But virgins being overshadowed by spirits? Angelic visitors? Dumbstruck priests? Please. Even the Tanners have more credibility than that.

The child Jesus is then born, and we are expected to believe that he lived a perfect, sinless life. The unwritten comparison, of course, is to a supposedly debauched and fraudulent Joseph Smith (they can't leave the prophet alone, can they?). So Jesus goes through his life, doing a little miracle here (water into wine, again a natural for the crowd that hangs out on exmormon.org) and spouting the most vacuous platitudes: "Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted." One wonders what intellectual giant came up with that one? What's next: "Blessed are the Norwegians, for they shall eat lutefisk"?

The authors then recount the last days of the aforementioned Jesus. His empty-headed pronouncements, we are told, result in his execution at the hands of the Roman authorities. Nevermind the clear anachronisms in the book; this part simply requires a massive suspension of disbelief. After being nailed to a cross for "blasphemy" (couldn't they have come up with something more original?), Jesus is buried and--wonder of wonders!--rises from the tomb on the third day. But who saw him? That's right; only his followers. There's some real evidence for you. Their testimony might have had some credibility if any of them had renounced his discipleship yet refused to deny the testimony. Then we could put these witnesses on par with the more reliable Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris.

What follows is a repetitive recitation of cheerless sermons, executions by various means, and nearly incomprehensible letters to several churches. Why the authors think we're interested in interoffice mail is beyond me. The result is gray and boring; this is the one book that even manages to make a shipwreck seem uninteresting and dull.

Such is the state of anti-Mormon literature. To quote this pathetic tome, it's all "sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[_Bond...James Bond]

OMG RUNTU!!! LOL!!!

Can I break this off as it's own topic?

[_Runtu]

OMG RUNTU!!! LOL!!!

Can I break this off as it's own topic?

Well, I just copied and pasted it from an old thread wherein I was responding to Pahoran's hack job on JP Holding. Do what you want with it. Pahoran pronounced it "ho-hum" and unfunny. I suppose ho-hum is in the eye of the beholder. :)

[_Yoda]

OMG RUNTU!!! LOL!!!

Can I break this off as it's own topic?

Well, I just copied and pasted it from an old thread wherein I was responding to Pahoran's hack job on JP Holding. Do what you want with it. Pahoran pronounced it "ho-hum" and unfunny. I suppose ho-hum is in the eye of the beholder. :)

This is too cute!

I love it!

:)

[_Zoidberg]

ROFL. This is great. Can we try the Book of Mormon next?

[_Blixa]

"Why the authors think we're interested in interoffice mail is beyond me."

Genius comedy gold...

[_KimberlyAnn]

It's fantastic, Runtu!

You are a genius.

KA

[_Doctor Steuss]

I want to grow up to be just like Runtu.

[_Runtu]

I want to grow up to be just like Runtu.

No you don't. Believe me.

[_beastie]

standard-issue victimology

ROFLMAO!