The Religious Right is lying to you about gay marriage
So let's debunk some of the lies...
(For a partial list of references, go to the bottom of the page.)
Just because I'm a straight man doesn't mean I'm not concerned about equal rights for gays, and I am sick of the Religious Right's campaign of lies (Apparently they haven't read the commandment about bearing false witness.) to try to keep gays second-class citizens.
I actually corresponded with one bigot who compared homosexuals to rapists and murderers, saying that since we don't tolerate rapists and murderers even though there may be a "violence gene," that we shouldn't tolerate gays whether they are born gay or not. She believed that the Bible supported her views.
This is more extreme than most of these hate-mongers are willing to go, but is merely a different degree of the bigotry endemic to the Religious Right. And no, although I'm not a Christian, I'm not "anti-Christian" in any sense--Although I apparently know more about their religion than most of the Religious Right seem to.
Interestingly enough, some of the arguments given below were the same ones that were (and sometimes still are) given by opponents of interracial marriage. Also interestingly enough, the Religious Right (although they were not called that at the time) were among the loudest voices protesting interracial marriage, too.
I could have written more on this topic (much, much more), but in the interest of brevity, I'll just briefly hit on some of the main points, and touch on how the campaign against gay marriage has nothing to do with Christ's teachings.
Lets start debunking the lies.
I. The scriptural basis for the fight against gay marriage is a lie.
Their supposed scriptural basis for opposing gay marriage does not, in fact, exist. Yes, there are prohibitions against homosexuality for believers, but even Paul states that the only action that should be taken against any homosexual is that, if they are a member of the church, that they should be thrown out. He clearly states that Christians have no business judging anyone outside the church.
And there is no commandment anywhere in there that "thou shalt impose thy interpretation of My will for My followers upon non-believers." Even Paul never suggested that believers should try to force non-believers into following Christian teachings.
This argument is also a clear case of cherry-picking scripture. In the same passage in which Paul talks about homosexuality, he says that women should keep their hair long, cover their heads when praying, and should not be allowed to teach in church nor have any authority over a man. In fact, women are not even to speak in church unless they are prophesying. If a woman has a question, she should keep silent and ask her husband to explain when she gets home.
This is not merely a suggestion, either. Paul states that anyone--even an angel--who teaches anything different shall be eternally condemned. Note that this also comes shortly after the bit about not judging those outside the church.
So which is it, Religious Right? If homosexuals are biblically ordered to be second-class citizens, then so are women. Maybe it's time to reconsider whether you are followers of Paul or of Jesus.
As for the Old Testament argument, it's another case of cherry-picking to justify bigotry. Read the whole thing. I have. For one thing, it was written as law for the ancient Hebrews. For another, if you want to live by it completely, you'll be executing a lot of your family, friends, and neighbors--possibly even being stoned yourself.
II. The "traditional marriage" argument is a lie.
The Religious Right claims that "traditional marriage" has always been between one man and one woman.
Wrong. And even if they were right, we've gotten rid of a lot of traditions, like slavery. I suppose we should bring back slavery because it is "traditional?" It is a much longer-running tradition than what they call traditional marriage. Various cultures around the world have had (and still have) long-running marriage traditions of polygamy, polyandry, and other forms of marriage.
Many cultures around the world have allowed for alternate forms of marriage, including same-sex marriage and various forms of group marriage. Even in the Old Testament, many of the patriarchs had more than one wife, and the only prohibition against such thing is directed toward kings, of whom it is said they should not have too many wives on the grounds that this would be a distraction.
What the Religious Right claims as traditional marriage is a recent development. The clergy didn't even get involved in weddings until pretty late in the game, in order to legitimize financially and politically motivated unions. Marriages were financial and political arrangements in which the bride-to-be had no say. Even in the United States, marriage "for love" was not the norm until the nineteenth century. Marriages among the poor were generally "common law" in nature, while those among the upper classes were generally for financial reasons.
Dubya, has publically proclaimed that what the RR calls traditional marriage is "based on the Bible," which is most certainly not the case--Marriage is older than the Bible. And besides, throughout most of the Bible women are the property of their fathers until they are sold to a husband, and men are allowed multiple wives and concubines. Wives are to submit totally to their husbands without question or hesitation. If a man's brother dies and leaves a widow, the surviving brother is required to take her as a wife and have children with her. Hey, I love my sister-in-law, but not quite in that way, you know?
Oh, yes... According to traditional (as in Biblical) Judeo-Christian marriage practices, it is perfectly normal and acceptable for a girl in her early teens to marry her middle-aged uncle.
III. The "destruction of the sanctity of marriage" argument is a lie.
First off, that argument doesn't make sense to anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with logic. That's like saying that allowing Protestants to practice their religion destroys the sanctity of Catholicism. Or that letting your neighbor eat junk food threatens your family's health. If allowing same-sex marriage threatens your own marriage, your marriage has some serious problems, my friend.
Interestingly enough, those U.S. states that are most against same-sex marriage and scream loudest about the sanctity of marriage are, by and large, those states with the highest divorce rates.
IV. The "weakening of culture and of the family" argument is a lie.
The Religious Right has traditionally been against any science that conflicts with their preconceived notions, including, for a time, the heliocentric model of the solar system. (According to the Bible, the Sun revolves around the Earth. Of course, according to the Bible, rabbits are cud-chewing animals.)
In this case they, predictably, choose to ignore the science once again. According to the Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association (you know--the people who actually study cultures for a living), allowing for alternative forms of marriage has been found to be a stabilizing influence in every culture in which they are found.
V. The "homosexuality isn't natural" argument is a lie.
Homosexual and bisexual behavior has been observed throughout the animal kingdom. The usual RR argument in response to this datum is, "So you're saying we're no better than animals!" No, I'm refuting the erroneous statement that homosexuality is not natural.
VI. "If everyone were gay, the human race would die out."
Yes, but not everyone is. If we apply the RR's "logic" to society at large, everyone should be required to have sex and make babies, and it is immoral to be sterile or to choose not to reproduce--just as, according to them, it is immoral to be gay. After all, if everyone were sterile or chose to not have children, the human race would die out.
VII. "The gays have an agenda."
This one is true. The gay agenda is equality--Nothing more, and nothing less. And "separate but equal," is not true equality now any more than it was during the black civil rights movement.
As for those groups who shout these lies so loudly, well... They're in violation of their own scriptures. They're just publicans standing out on the street corners trying to get attention and prove how "holy" they are. They're not bringing anyone into their religion except other homophobic nutcases. They preach a message of hatred and intolerance, as opposed to Jesus's message of love, tolerance, and peace, and are much of why Christianity has a bad name in these parts.
Want to see what the experts have to say?
Thanks, bro.
And yeah--If it were a simple matter of making a choice, why would anyone choose ostracism by selecting an unpopular sexual orientation during a time of intolerance? Would you, if given a choice, choose to be black in the southern U.S. during the days of slavery?
And on the male homophobes who dig girl-on-girl stuff, that is indeed hypocrisy. Seeing two guys together doesn't do anything for me, but neither do I have a problem with it. I've known a lot of guys, though, who think two guys kissing is gross, but whose fantasy is to be with two bi women. WTF, over?
(Of course, knowing me in real life as you do, you know, the latter is the norm for me--although it's back down to just Shan and me for now, we'll eventually be a triad again, when we find the right girl. Just goes to show that if you're open-minded you have a better chance of living your fantasy.)
I live in Sweden, so i don't know who these RR guys are, but i recognize nutjobs when i see them. I'm against all kinds of bigotry, especially now since a racist party is trying to make their way into the Swedish government. (they got 3.5% of the votes this year, 4% is required to get into the government)
And i say aye on the hypocrisy. Large amounts of WTF on that one.
I've met my fair share of bigots, and the one common thing they share is stubbornness. They simply refuse every single argument you throw at them, and would they not be able to counter, they would just walk off. Hopefully they'll make up their minds soon enough
Anyways, +10 Blog of Awesome. Do want!
First off...
Welcome to that little thing called teh blogospherez, Rob. And if you thought drawing 'toons was a time-consuming habit that could eat up your entire existence, you haven't seen anything yet. I have yet to kick this particular jones, and I've been tossing thoughts into the digital wind for 29 months now.
And enjoying every minute of my peculiar addiction.
Now, as to a substantive comment re: the RR response in Point V.
I have never found it useful to deny the fact that, in the end, we really are animals. By doing so, one grants reinforcement to the Garden of Eden creation myth where, among other concepts, humanity was created separately and specially from the rest of the known universe and, therefore, cedes the basic foundation of the argument to the Mosaic-literalist worldview. (Let us not enter into the realm of whether the Mosaic books were even written by Moses, or even a near contemporary of Moses. That gets too far afield for this comment.) Therefore, you place the fundamentalist on firmer theological footing for the remainder of the discussion.
Only by maintaining an argument separate from Judeo-Christian theology, while simultaneously assaulting their own theology-derived datum points, have I had any fortune in causing a fundamentalist Christian to back away. I do not claim that it is the perfect solution, but only what works well for me.
Oh, and this was so much better than my own third entry into the blog world, which was about the local kerfluffle regarding a work of art. So welcome to the grind. I'll leave a pot of coffee on for you.
Considering how many couples end up in marriage counseling or even skip that and just get divorced i don't think many people should be talking about who can and cant get married when it comes to gays.
*nods*
Yeah, what I was trying to say was that I wasn't addressing the "we're no better than animals" argument at all, but I guess it doesn't come across that way.
Incidentally, although I'm so busy right now I barely have time to breathe, I checked out your blog and linked to you. Good stuff there, man.
(This is a thread ported over from the old site. Since the original responder wasn't registered at the site, and I wasn't going to log out and back in repeatedly, I just posted it all in one big chunk.)
I'll likely regret this.
what I find interesting is the way that folks tend not to differentiate the faith from the fundamentalist fringe.
it is my belief, and my experience, that the bible, when taken in context is the inspired word of God. the key words here are IN CONTEXT,
I am not an idiot, I know full well that many of the Christianized holidays were once pagan in origin, and why not? god accepts people just as they are, if a pagan comes to Christ and still wants to have a celebration in winter, by all means do! but celebrate the importance of Christ in our world. Smiling
I'm a libertarian, i know this may sound contrary, but I believe firmly that it is more important for people to make moral decisions on their own than to be forced into a theorized " morality " by any government structure.
Unfortunately my thoughts are not pouring out entirely coherently, but the gist of it is this, Marriage has come to signify, generally speaking the union of a man and a woman in the english language, gay union between two men should have a different word to describe that, and gay union between two women should have a different word from the previous two. while the dedication and the feelings maybe similar or the same, the fact remains that each of these situations is a seperate entity entirely.
that being said, this should be regulated by the greater common sense of humanity not by the government. as I inferred earlier, the government has no business legislating morality to anyone.
it just strikes me as odd, that the moment someone starts talking bad about the "religious right" people start attacking he Christian faith as a whole, rather than just the hypocrisy mentioned. "the garden of Eden myth" ? there is as much evidence pointing toward intelligent design as toward glorious accident if not more. the truth of the matter is that NONE of us is entirely certain how the world was created, a belief in evolution is just that, a faith based religion of its own, whether those who proscribe to its beliefs admit this or not. We are not all so very different, each of us protecting his or her beliefs so fiercely and with such tenacity that it becomes acceptable in our own mind to attack the beliefs of others.
* By Danial Porter (not verified) at 01/18/2008 - 15:40
__________________________________________________________________
First, I agree that all of
First, I agree that all of Christianity should not be slammed for the foibles of the Religious Right. I also don't mind the idea of religions borrowing from each other. The thing is, the Religious Wrong tries to claim that Christianity doesn't take anything from other religions, and in fact demonizes other religions to the point at which the model for Lucifer is Pan, and the pentagram is called a satanic symbol.
I don't see your other points, though.
The reason the word marriage has such a restrictive connotation these days is because of bigotry, plain and simple. It harms no one to re-expand the term.
The word, "negro," was once synonymous with "slave," in this country. The word "voter," used to mean a white man of legal age. It did not include African-Americans or women. Should we go back to that? How about we call them something different? Let's go back to that "separate but equal" thing that worked so well in the past, and let our culture be completely defined by white heterosexual anglo-saxon protestant males.
And as for ID versus evolution? There is not one shred of evidence for ID. Zip. Zero. Nada. ID essentially consists of the following argument: "We don't fully understand this, therefore, God."
I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, because absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. The thing is, though, evolution is a scientific fact, not a belief system. The two don't even contradict each other--The Catholic Church has announced that its official position is that evolution is the means God used to create the various species. I'm an agnostic myself, but if I did believe in a god like the Christian one, who would I be to limit the methods through which he can work?
Evolution is defined as the changing of a species over time, and we have direct evidence of this. We actually see this happening in real-time, and have confirmed it with the fossil record and genetic testing. As for human evolution, we have traced human mitochondrial DNA back to older hominids. This is fact.
I challenge you to present even one piece of hard scientific evidence of Intelligent Design. (ID is actually merely a repackaging of Creationism. The "find and replace" in the documents that introduced ID didn't work entirely well.)
Many people get confused when they hear evolution described as a theory; what they don't understand is that, in science terms, a theory has to be testable and have evidence to support it. Gravity is a theory. The general and special theories of relativity are just that--theories. The heliocentric model of the solar system is a theory.
A theory isn't just someone saying, "Well... It could be this way." If it were, we'd be obligated to teach the racial superiority beliefs of the KKK and the Nazis, and that having one's picture taken steals one's soul. Teach all of it. Let the kids decide.
ID proponents like to point out that evolutionary theory isn't complete--that there are gaps in our understanding. Well, duh. There are gaps in our understanding of every field. Physics. Chemistry. Mathematics. Shall I go on? We don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of its workings, but we know it is there.
Let's apply this same "logic" to Creationism (which is the same as ID--and I can prove that) with which creationists try to discredit science. By creationist logic, unless you can tell me what kind of clay God used to make Adam, your entire belief system is invalid.
ID is a belief system. I have no problem with people who believe in ID, until they try to call it science and start saying things like, "Well, teach both theories and let the kids decide."
Um, no. Because ID is not a theory. It's not science. Saying it should be taught in science classes is like saying that we have to teach astrology in addition to astronomy, and teach the "evil spirit" explanation of disease alongside germ theory.
If religion must be taught in schools, then I demand that it be mandated that evolutionary biology be taught in church. If we must have stickers on textbooks that state that evolution is "just a theory," then we also need to make certain the kids know what actually constitutes a scientific theory. I suppose we'd also have to put stickers on every other textbook, as well, including physics, astronomy, and algebra.
And don't forget--In the interest of fairness, we get to have stickers on all religious texts explaining that whatever religion they represent is "just a belief system, for which there is no evidence."
Look, science and religion do not have to be at odds, but much of religion chooses to fight science and reality in an attempt to preserve its preconceived notions of how things work. It has always lost. Gallileo is one famous example of someone whose science was unpopular with the church because his findings didn't match a literal interpretation of the Bible--which clearly presents the Sun as revolving around the Earth.
Science needs to keep its nose out of religion, and religion needs to keep its nose out of science. If the real world challenges your religious beliefs, your beliefs are a lot easier to change than reality. The sun does not revolve around the Earth, and rabbits are not cud-chewing animals. Likewise, evolution is real, and doesn't invalidate religion any more than Gallileo. Get over it.
One final point--Enemies of evolution are, in effect, saying that their god planted overwhelming evidence for evolution, let us witness it in real-time and in person, gave us intellect to figure it out, and expected us not to use that intellect to understand the evidence that he planted. In other words, if evolution isn't real, and there is a god, he's pretty much a dick.
__________________
test sig
* By D. Robert Hamm at 01/18/2008 - 16:50
_____________________________________________________________________
Interesting reply
you make a couple of interesting points, there are a couple of things I would comment on.
first off comparing schools to churches is ridiculous, schools are publicly funded entities, churches are privately funded religious groups, to apply the same rules to one as the other would be incorrect.
now I do owe an apology, I am not saying that I strictly disbelieve evolution in the strictest sense of the word, but rather that our theory of evolution is the best we can manage to come up with without a belief in an intelligent designer, and it is, at best, incomplete.
the big bang, DOES NOT follow any of our current understanding of physics. if you gather all of the mass in the universe in one place, and the universe is infinitely large, then it would be quite literally impossible according to physics to surpass the draw of that gravity, it would be a black hole greater than any we currently experience, and not even energy can escape the ones that we view in our night sky.
what bothers me most is that I obviously was not articulate enough in my last post, I'm not saying creation science, or intelligent design, or evolution is best/write/prefect. in fact I would call it safe to say that NONE of us have it completely right, and that is my point. we all draw conclusions from what we know and understand, and believe to be true. Is it more difficult to find scientific evidence supporting intelligent design or creationism? of course, it is very unpopular in the scientific community to believe in God, because at that point we are no longer the end all authority in our universe, and we are just playing in someone else's sandbox.
now, do people and animals and all the living creatures of the earth change over time? OF COURSE they do! There is even biblical evidence to support this. Evolution is not a farse, darwinism as an origin science does require a belief in it, because it is not complete. that is what faith is. Giraffes and frogs make little sense evolutionarily speaking, but people don't stop believing that evolution is real because of that. they believe there is a rational explanation that they just do not yet understand, and that is faith.
I'm not a bigot or a hatemonger, I am a protestant Christian, of non denominational origin, because when I look out at the beauty of the world, I find it difficult to believe that it was an accident. I honestly believe that mankind is more than the sum of our successes and mistakes, and that a living God designed us, knowing that we would make those mistakes, because he was alone, and needed companions.
Now I know that I sound like a nut to the folks that post here, but the truth of the matter is that if you continually try and find holes in an argument you will, evolution, creation, theistic evolution, but none of us know the complete truth, thats the big point I wanted to make there. I believe in Jesus, because the prophecies concerning him were numerous and true, but even more than that, because if everyone upheld his ideas then the world would be a much nicer place to live.
as far as the religious symbols stuff, yeah that's just horrible, it is an example of the larger religious entity ignoring the belief that it claims to cling to. in more recent times there are more reasons to avoid such symbols because of what they have come to represent, but to claim that pagans were worshiping satan directly would be a incorrect. that being said, Christianity is mutually exclusive with most of the other religions in the world(which also mutually exclude themselves) but that is no excuse not to show love to one another. I don't believe gay marriage is right or acceptable, but as I mentioned before I ALSO don't believe that the government should make laws concerning it, or any other marriage for that matter. I personally would like much smaller governments around the world that interfered with the daily life of individuals much less. but more than anything else I believe it is important to show love to those I don't agree with, no matter how infuriating I find their beliefs, because I'm not perfect, God is, I'm not, and so I can still learn from everyone I encounter, Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, or otherwise.
I would much rather have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with me, than a discussion with some of the "so called" christians, notice the little c, who cause true Christian faith to be so unbelievable to those in the world who would most benefit from Jesus' teachings.
I like you, I like your comic, you seem honest and I have a lot of respect for that. but even more I have respect for you approving my previous comment even though you don't agree. its a discourse like this that breads understanding between two different viewpoints instead of anger.
* By Anonymous (not verified) at 01/18/2008 - 21:06
___________________________________________________________________
You don't sound like a nut
You don't sound like a nut to me. We disagree on some issues, but the important thing is that we agree that it's okay if other people don't share our beliefs.
I still have a fever, so I won't be tackling all this in order. Forgive me.
Sorry, though--Whether you like it or not, insisting that gay couples not call their unions marriages is every bit as bigoted as insisting that blacks and whites have separate drinking fountains. They had their fountains, and we had ours, so wasn't that "equal but different?" No, it wasn't equality to say, "You can't use this because it's for white people." To say that the right to use the word marriage should be exclusively for heterosexual couples is exactly the same sort of thing. "This is ours, and we won't have you fouling it."
If gay couples are not allowed to marry, then neither should heterosexual couples be allowed to.
Now before I get into this next part--I agree that if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus the world would be a better place. But the whole gay marriage thing has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. (In fact, as we'll see later, the formation of and purpose behind the formation of the New Testament was in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus.)
Saying it's wrong because the Bible says so doesn't wash. You can try to justify bigotry with passages from the Bible all you want, but if you want to talk about context, do some research into attitudes toward anything (like homosexuality) associated with Greece in Paul's day. Anything Greek was "bad." Homosexuality was considered Greek. Haven't you ever wondered why "Greek sex" is a euphemism for anal sex?
There is very little room for interpretation when he writes that anyone who teaches that a woman should be allowed to cut her hair is eternally damned--UNLESS we look for a social context. This was actually a cultural thing, as well, referring to women considered to be, shall we say, "loose."
The point is that times change. If homosexuality still isn't okay, then neither is it okay for a woman to cut her hair. Well, the other point is that Paul was a bigoted asshole who should have been lion food. He, with the help of the Nicean Council, pretty much took Christianity down an entirely different path from the one Jesus laid out.
While we're on passages of the New Testament, its very origins disqualify it as any sort of moral authority.
Were you aware that the canon of the New Testament was codified by a committee called the Nicean Council under the Emperor Constantine because he felt that having so many different versions of Christianity was disruptive? Once they put it together, it was illegal to practice any other form of Christianity. Those caught with other Christian writings--those that the Nicean Council did not want in the canon--were arrested and their books burned.
Yes, the New Testament was put together for the sole purpose of having a set of justifications for persecuting those of differing religious beliefs. So you'll pardon me if I don't buy hook, line, and sinker into a book created by evil men for the purpose of ostracism and persecution.
And by the way--They left out some of the teachings of Jesus to make more room for Paul. And burned copies of those teachings when they found them. Does that tell you anything? The modern church is not the church of Jesus; it is the church of Paul, and of Constantine.
Haven't you ever wondered why, if the things Paul was talking about were such a big deal, that Jesus never mentioned them that we know of?
On the church/school thing, that was my point. They are two different things. School is not for teaching religion, and church is not for teaching science. If a church wants to bring religion into schools, then we should have a right to bring science into churches.
I apologize for making assumptions about your belief, or lack thereof, in evolution. At the same time, though, you discount parts of it.
And yes, evolution, like all theories, is incomplete. We know for a fact that it is real--it's just the details we're working on now. (Talk to me sometime about Punctuated Equilibrium and "junk" DNA. Fascinating stuff.) The thing is, yes, frogs and giraffes do make sense in evolutionary terms. Faith is not a requirement. Unless you call it faith when I assume that the sun will come up tomorrow because it has done so every other day I've been alive. I say that when you observe something happen in the same way over and over again, that expecting it to happen the same way next time is not faith, but reasoned belief. When you keep approaching problems in a particular way that ends up yielding answers, it does not require faith to believe that the same approach will, eventually, work again.
Faith is faith and science is science. The only conflict is when religious kooks like the RR decide that reality threatens their religion and must be stopped. Then they cry persecution because we refuse to spend taxpayer dollars to teach that black is white and up is down. When faith takes on science, it has and will always lose, because it is fighting against reality itself. Science is smart enough not to tackle faith, because it already knows that they're too different things. It's like, "Which is true--Apples or purple?" That's how much sense the whole thing makes.
It sounds like you've been fed a lot of horse-shit, buddy. I was a divinity student for a while and got fed the same lines of garbage. Believe it or not, a LOT of scientists believe in god, and many of them are Christians. Yes, despite what you've been taught about scientists being against god, many of them believe BECAUSE of the wonders and elegance they discover through science. Including human evolution, the mysteries of the big bang, and the tantalizing idea of the quantum foam with all of these unique bubble universes (This ties into the big band thing.).
My friend, I'm sorry--it isn't just harder to find evidence for ID than for actual scientific theories--So far it has proven undoable. No one has ever found a single piece of evidence for ID. As I said, though, that doesn't mean ID is wrong, just that it has nothing to do with science.
Religion is a matter of faith, as it should be. If humans evolved from older classes of hominids--which we've pretty much proven--that doesn't disprove ID; it would simply mean that your god chose a method of creation that was not yet understood by the people writing. All religious texts are attempts by humans to come to grips with the ineffable. As such, they are all flawed.
(Oh, another line of bull you were fed is the bit about other religions being exclusive--some are, but many allow that other religions are just as "right" as theirs.)
As for the Big Bang, I'm afraid you're in error there, too, or rather, in possession of only the factoid that opponents of the Big Bang theory want known, without the context. One of the conclusions come to using mathematical formulae that heve been tested over and over again is that when things are compressed to a singularity, physics as we know it breaks down, so we cannot say, "this can't happen," or, "this would have to happen," because of the laws of physics. Just like Newtonian physics breaks down at the subatomic level and we have to use quantum physics instead, we are now seeking what laws of physics may apply to singularities. Oh, and by the way, the background microwave radiation of the universe is about what was predicted by Big Bang proponents.
There are some exciting theories now that may help us gain an understanding of just what happens to physics as we know it at the point of singularity. The math of it all would make my head explode.
The difference between science and non-rational belief systems (That is not a pejorative term--a non-rational belief system is any system that does not rely upon proof.) is that science keeps trying to understand, and pushing the boundaries further and further back. Religion says, "Science cannot yet give a perfect explanation of things, therefore God."
Many ID proponents want taxpayer dollars to fund the teaching of religion in our public schools, and that is a bad idea for several reasons. One of the things the more extreme RR people don't seem to get is that when you start mixing government and religion, it may start out with religion ruling the government and the people, but it ends with the government running religion. And that, my friend, is a scary thought.
Fever's getting worse, so I'm going to lie down. Let me leave you with a snippet from a Sherri Tepper book, though. In the book, God is speaking, and says (I may not get this word for word),
"I have created a universe based on change, and a Very Small Being speaks to me of eternal verities? Listen, what is true is what is written. In every rock, in every star, and in every blade of grass. Problems arise when Very Small Beings write books, then claim that I wrote the books, and the rocks and stars are lies."
Cheers, bud. TTYL.
__________________
test sig
* By D. Robert Hamm at 01/18/2008 - 22:56
______________________________________________________
Oh, and dude--If I came off
Oh, and dude--If I came off as caustic or condescending here, that wasn't my intent, and I assure you that if we were face to face that my tone and expression would show that.
__________________
test sig
* By D. Robert Hamm at 01/18/2008 - 23:08
__________________________________________________________________
And Deepoer we go.
I suppose my biggest issue with regarding Evolution as truth is that our understanding of it is constantly changing.
the math behind a million years old world, and the math behind say a 20,000 year old world, can both work out given the correct context. but the fact remains that truth is truth. and we haven't found it yet, frogs have a sticky goo on the tongue, and another enzyme in their mouth that makes it non-sticky. (notice my mind dazzling technical terms =D) natural selection does not account well for this sort of mutation, pointing toward a creative designer. Similarly giraffes have a sponge in their brain so they don't pass out when getting a drink of water.
Paul was indeed, much like all of us, an imperfect man. and I would agree that the extreme right takes too much stock in his teachings over those of Jesus. It seems pretty obvious that something happened, to the disciples after the death of Christ, they were a leaderless, pathetic group, who by all accounts were defeated(not just biblical accounts but also secular Greek contemporaries wrote of the radical change in this group of ineloquent people during that time) this is the basis for which I believe in Christ as savior. Paul did say some very important things in his writings (after he stopped killing and persecuting Christians from a Jewish perspective) the most important of which was that it the salvations was a gift of god and not something we earn.
random side note, I know. but I just thought it would be good for you to know where I'm coming from in my faith. now as for the teaching against homosexuality, even discounting pauls teaching, it doesn't take much looking to find the old testament teachings on it. Now, in regards to the law, the purpose of the law was essentially to illustrate the need for Jesus, and Jesus himself said he was there to fulfill the law not to abolish it.
However that being said, I can agree with you that the government should not be making laws regarding marriage, banning it or allowing it for any type of couple gay straight or otherwise. Now, the severe right wing folks would chastise me for this, but in my opinion it isn't the Job of the government to make rules like that. and there should be no special benefit alloted to those married or not married via taxation or otherwise.
It bothers me on a fundamental level that marriage has in some context, grown to no longer imply what it is I share with my wife. we hold ourselves to a different moral standard than some other folks do. Note I'm not judging anybody here, I said DIFFERENT for a reason, biblically speaking I see nothing wrong with Alcohol, or even getting drunk on occasion which would certainly ruffle some church tail feathers, but I really don't mind letting the feathers ruffle. In the same way our beliefs about marriage and sex as proscribed as we understand it by God, have been very beneficial in our relationship. largely because it has helped us to be less selfish, and to put each other before ourselves. if nothing else that is the key teaching that drives my faith, and the reason I try to be open minded. from all evidence I can see, Jesus was telling the truth. If I am to believe that, then through faith in his sacrifice is the only method of entry into a relationship with God, which is something that I desire not just for myself but to share with everyone around me. and really, Paul and everyone else can bugger off as long as that goal remains intact.
* By Danial Porter (not verified) at 01/21/2008 - 16:39
________________________________________________________
"the math behind a million
"the math behind a million years old world, and the math behind say a 20,000 year old world, can both work out given the correct context. but the fact remains that truth is truth. and we haven't found it yet, frogs have a sticky goo on the tongue, and another enzyme in their mouth that makes it non-sticky. (notice my mind dazzling technical terms =D) natural selection does not account well for this sort of mutation, pointing toward a creative designer. Similarly giraffes have a sponge in their brain so they don't pass out when getting a drink of water."
Dude, the math is called physics, and no, it doesn't work out for a 20,000 year old world OR a million year old world. The universe itself is around 14.7 billion years old, and the earth is NOT roughly the same age as the rest of the universe, although the Bible claims it is. The sun does not revolve around the earth. Rabbits are not cud-chewing animals. Evolution (and from your above comment it is apparent that you know nothing about evolutionary biology except what you've heard second-hand from crackpots) is real. And yes, these are all about the same--They are all cases in which the Bible is verifiably wrong.
And yet when I point out one of these cases, your response is along the lines that of course you know better than that, but on your NEXT point, the Bible is a science authority! This is the position of a crazy person.
The Bible fails as a science textbook--Utterly and completely. Get over it. The church typically resists reality as long as it possibly can, which is one reason people like me lose patience with people like you, who think that if it comes down to what a book says and what rocks and stars say, the book is true and the rocks and stars must be lies--but selectively, of course. If your faith depends upon the accuracy of a literal interpretation of the Bible in explaining the physical world, and convoluted explanations and disinformation campaigns to get around the places where it is absolutely proven wrong, then you have a real problem.
Every time the Bible and science conflict, the Bible loses. Use it for matters of spirituality, but take some science and history classes, and try to get over your delusion that the Bible can also function as a science textbook--Because it is just that; a delusion. You want to debate things based on fact? Cool. But I'm getting a bit tired of people who haven't the first clue claiming that because their favorite book says something, all of science must be wrong if it disagrees.
By the way, the terracentric model of the universe is inconsistent with the general and special theories of relativity, which are required for lasers, etc. Your postulated age of the Earth contradicts pretty much everything we know about physics and astronomy. According to the physics of the Bible, there can be no internet--in fact, according to the Bible, most of what we consider modern technology cannot exist.
__________________
test sig
* By D. Robert Hamm at 05/12/2008 - 00:52
_____________________________________________________________
Sorry if that sounded harsh...
Dude, sorry if that sounded harsh, but I've had way too many people conflate science and religion who simply don't know the first thing about the science with which their disagreeing. They are two different things, and they conflict only because religion refuses to accept anything that might interfere with its preconceived notions, then tries to use spurious logic to confuse the issue.
For example: "I suppose my biggest issue with regarding Evolution as truth is that our understanding of it is constantly changing."
Um... Dude, that's the entire point of science--To gain a better and better understanding of how things work. Our understanding of every field keeps changing. Look at physics. We've gone from the Greek philosophers to Newton to Maxwell's wave theories to Einstein to quantum physics to M theory. But since out understanding of physics is always changing, should we just say, "Well, no--If we don't have a perfect understanding of it and keep making new discoveries, let's forget it and say that gravity is little invisible angels pushing everything down to the ground?"
There is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for ID (which is actually creationism repackaged--it was introduced with the exact same documents as creationism after a "search and replace"). This is not to say that ID can't be correct--It just isn't science, and there isn't a shred of evidence for it. It is a belief system. If there IS an intelligent designer (which I'm not ruling out), that intelligent designer apparently used evolution to create life forms. (This is the official stance of the Catholic church.) If there is an intelligent designer, who the hell are any of us to limit his, her, or its methods?
Again, if reality screws up your belief system, you're best off changing your belief system instead of trying to make reality conform.
__________________
test sig
* By D. Robert Hamm at 05/12/2008 - 20:23
(This is a thread ported over from the old site. Since the original responder wasn't registered at the site, and I wasn't going to log out and back in repeatedly, I just posted it all in one big chunk.)
I'll likely regret this.
what I find interesting is the way that folks tend not to differentiate the faith from the fundamentalist fringe.
it is my belief, and my experience, that the bible, when taken in context is the inspired word of God. the key words here are IN CONTEXT,
I am not an idiot, I know full well that many of the Christianized holidays were once pagan in origin, and why not? god accepts people just as they are, if a pagan comes to Christ and still wants to have a celebration in winter, by all means do! but celebrate the importance of Christ in our world. Smiling
I'm a libertarian, i know this may sound contrary, but I believe firmly that it is more important for people to make moral decisions on their own than to be forced into a theorized " morality " by any government structure.
Unfortunately my thoughts are not pouring out entirely coherently, but the gist of it is this, Marriage has come to signify, generally speaking the union of a man and a woman in the english language, gay union between two men should have a different word to describe that, and gay union between two women should have a different word from the previous two. while the dedication and the feelings maybe similar or the same, the fact remains that each of these situations is a seperate entity entirely.
that being said, this should be regulated by the greater common sense of humanity not by the government. as I inferred earlier, the government has no business legislating morality to anyone.
it just strikes me as odd, that the moment someone starts talking bad about the "religious right" people start attacking he Christian faith as a whole, rather than just the hypocrisy mentioned. "the garden of Eden myth" ? there is as much evidence pointing toward intelligent design as toward glorious accident if not more. the truth of the matter is that NONE of us is entirely certain how the world was created, a belief in evolution is just that, a faith based religion of its own, whether those who proscribe to its beliefs admit this or not. We are not all so very different, each of us protecting his or her beliefs so fiercely and with such tenacity that it becomes acceptable in our own mind to attack the beliefs of others.
* By Danial Porter (not verified) at 01/18/2008 - 15:40
__________________________________________________________________
First, I agree that all of
First, I agree that all of Christianity should not be slammed for the foibles of the Religious Right. I also don't mind the idea of religions borrowing from each other. The thing is, the Religious Wrong tries to claim that Christianity doesn't take anything from other religions, and in fact demonizes other religions to the point at which the model for Lucifer is Pan, and the pentagram is called a satanic symbol.
I don't see your other points, though.
The reason the word marriage has such a restrictive connotation these days is because of bigotry, plain and simple. It harms no one to re-expand the term.
The word, "negro," was once synonymous with "slave," in this country. The word "voter," used to mean a white man of legal age. It did not include African-Americans or women. Should we go back to that? How about we call them something different? Let's go back to that "separate but equal" thing that worked so well in the past, and let our culture be completely defined by white heterosexual anglo-saxon protestant males.
And as for ID versus evolution? There is not one shred of evidence for ID. Zip. Zero. Nada. ID essentially consists of the following argument: "We don't fully understand this, therefore, God."
I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, because absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. The thing is, though, evolution is a scientific fact, not a belief system. The two don't even contradict each other--The Catholic Church has announced that its official position is that evolution is the means God used to create the various species. I'm an agnostic myself, but if I did believe in a god like the Christian one, who would I be to limit the methods through which he can work?
Evolution is defined as the changing of a species over time, and we have direct evidence of this. We actually see this happening in real-time, and have confirmed it with the fossil record and genetic testing. As for human evolution, we have traced human mitochondrial DNA back to older hominids. This is fact.
I challenge you to present even one piece of hard scientific evidence of Intelligent Design. (ID is actually merely a repackaging of Creationism. The "find and replace" in the documents that introduced ID didn't work entirely well.)
Many people get confused when they hear evolution described as a theory; what they don't understand is that, in science terms, a theory has to be testable and have evidence to support it. Gravity is a theory. The general and special theories of relativity are just that--theories. The heliocentric model of the solar system is a theory.
A theory isn't just someone saying, "Well... It could be this way." If it were, we'd be obligated to teach the racial superiority beliefs of the KKK and the Nazis, and that having one's picture taken steals one's soul. Teach all of it. Let the kids decide.
ID proponents like to point out that evolutionary theory isn't complete--that there are gaps in our understanding. Well, duh. There are gaps in our understanding of every field. Physics. Chemistry. Mathematics. Shall I go on? We don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of its workings, but we know it is there.
Let's apply this same "logic" to Creationism (which is the same as ID--and I can prove that) with which creationists try to discredit science. By creationist logic, unless you can tell me what kind of clay God used to make Adam, your entire belief system is invalid.
ID is a belief system. I have no problem with people who believe in ID, until they try to call it science and start saying things like, "Well, teach both theories and let the kids decide."
Um, no. Because ID is not a theory. It's not science. Saying it should be taught in science classes is like saying that we have to teach astrology in addition to astronomy, and teach the "evil spirit" explanation of disease alongside germ theory.
If religion must be taught in schools, then I demand that it be mandated that evolutionary biology be taught in church. If we must have stickers on textbooks that state that evolution is "just a theory," then we also need to make certain the kids know what actually constitutes a scientific theory. I suppose we'd also have to put stickers on every other textbook, as well, including physics, astronomy, and algebra.
And don't forget--In the interest of fairness, we get to have stickers on all religious texts explaining that whatever religion they represent is "just a belief system, for which there is no evidence."
Look, science and religion do not have to be at odds, but much of religion chooses to fight science and reality in an attempt to preserve its preconceived notions of how things work. It has always lost. Gallileo is one famous example of someone whose science was unpopular with the church because his findings didn't match a literal interpretation of the Bible--which clearly presents the Sun as revolving around the Earth.
Science needs to keep its nose out of religion, and religion needs to keep its nose out of science. If the real world challenges your religious beliefs, your beliefs are a lot easier to change than reality. The sun does not revolve around the Earth, and rabbits are not cud-chewing animals. Likewise, evolution is real, and doesn't invalidate religion any more than Gallileo. Get over it.
One final point--Enemies of evolution are, in effect, saying that their god planted overwhelming evidence for evolution, let us witness it in real-time and in person, gave us intellect to figure it out, and expected us not to use that intellect to understand the evidence that he planted. In other words, if evolution isn't real, and there is a god, he's pretty much a dick.
__________________
test sig
* By D. Robert Hamm at 01/18/2008 - 16:50
_____________________________________________________________________
Interesting reply
you make a couple of interesting points, there are a couple of things I would comment on.
first off comparing schools to churches is ridiculous, schools are publicly funded entities, churches are privately funded religious groups, to apply the same rules to one as the other would be incorrect.
now I do owe an apology, I am not saying that I strictly disbelieve evolution in the strictest sense of the word, but rather that our theory of evolution is the best we can manage to come up with without a belief in an intelligent designer, and it is, at best, incomplete.
the big bang, DOES NOT follow any of our current understanding of physics. if you gather all of the mass in the universe in one place, and the universe is infinitely large, then it would be quite literally impossible according to physics to surpass the draw of that gravity, it would be a black hole greater than any we currently experience, and not even energy can escape the ones that we view in our night sky.
what bothers me most is that I obviously was not articulate enough in my last post, I'm not saying creation science, or intelligent design, or evolution is best/write/prefect. in fact I would call it safe to say that NONE of us have it completely right, and that is my point. we all draw conclusions from what we know and understand, and believe to be true. Is it more difficult to find scientific evidence supporting intelligent design or creationism? of course, it is very unpopular in the scientific community to believe in God, because at that point we are no longer the end all authority in our universe, and we are just playing in someone else's sandbox.
now, do people and animals and all the living creatures of the earth change over time? OF COURSE they do! There is even biblical evidence to support this. Evolution is not a farse, darwinism as an origin science does require a belief in it, because it is not complete. that is what faith is. Giraffes and frogs make little sense evolutionarily speaking, but people don't stop believing that evolution is real because of that. they believe there is a rational explanation that they just do not yet understand, and that is faith.
I'm not a bigot or a hatemonger, I am a protestant Christian, of non denominational origin, because when I look out at the beauty of the world, I find it difficult to believe that it was an accident. I honestly believe that mankind is more than the sum of our successes and mistakes, and that a living God designed us, knowing that we would make those mistakes, because he was alone, and needed companions.
Now I know that I sound like a nut to the folks that post here, but the truth of the matter is that if you continually try and find holes in an argument you will, evolution, creation, theistic evolution, but none of us know the complete truth, thats the big point I wanted to make there. I believe in Jesus, because the prophecies concerning him were numerous and true, but even more than that, because if everyone upheld his ideas then the world would be a much nicer place to live.
as far as the religious symbols stuff, yeah that's just horrible, it is an example of the larger religious entity ignoring the belief that it claims to cling to. in more recent times there are more reasons to avoid such symbols because of what they have come to represent, but to claim that pagans were worshiping satan directly would be a incorrect. that being said, Christianity is mutually exclusive with most of the other religions in the world(which also mutually exclude themselves) but that is no excuse not to show love to one another. I don't believe gay marriage is right or acceptable, but as I mentioned before I ALSO don't believe that the government should make laws concerning it, or any other marriage for that matter. I personally would like much smaller governments around the world that interfered with the daily life of individuals much less. but more than anything else I believe it is important to show love to those I don't agree with, no matter how infuriating I find their beliefs, because I'm not perfect, God is, I'm not, and so I can still learn from everyone I encounter, Christian, Buddhist, Pagan, or otherwise.
I would much rather have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with me, than a discussion with some of the "so called" christians, notice the little c, who cause true Christian faith to be so unbelievable to those in the world who would most benefit from Jesus' teachings.
I like you, I like your comic, you seem honest and I have a lot of respect for that. but even more I have respect for you approving my previous comment even though you don't agree. its a discourse like this that breads understanding between two different viewpoints instead of anger.
* By Anonymous (not verified) at 01/18/2008 - 21:06
___________________________________________________________________
You don't sound like a nut
You don't sound like a nut to me. We disagree on some issues, but the important thing is that we agree that it's okay if other people don't share our beliefs.
I still have a fever, so I won't be tackling all this in order. Forgive me.
Sorry, though--Whether you like it or not, insisting that gay couples not call their unions marriages is every bit as bigoted as insisting that blacks and whites have separate drinking fountains. They had their fountains, and we had ours, so wasn't that "equal but different?" No, it wasn't equality to say, "You can't use this because it's for white people." To say that the right to use the word marriage should be exclusively for heterosexual couples is exactly the same sort of thing. "This is ours, and we won't have you fouling it."
If gay couples are not allowed to marry, then neither should heterosexual couples be allowed to.
Now before I get into this next part--I agree that if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus the world would be a better place. But the whole gay marriage thing has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. (In fact, as we'll see later, the formation of and purpose behind the formation of the New Testament was in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus.)
Saying it's wrong because the Bible says so doesn't wash. You can try to justify bigotry with passages from the Bible all you want, but if you want to talk about context, do some research into attitudes toward anything (like homosexuality) associated with Greece in Paul's day. Anything Greek was "bad." Homosexuality was considered Greek. Haven't you ever wondered why "Greek sex" is a euphemism for anal sex?
There is very little room for interpretation when he writes that anyone who teaches that a woman should be allowed to cut her hair is eternally damned--UNLESS we look for a social context. This was actually a cultural thing, as well, referring to women considered to be, shall we say, "loose."
The point is that times change. If homosexuality still isn't okay, then neither is it okay for a woman to cut her hair. Well, the other point is that Paul was a bigoted asshole who should have been lion food. He, with the help of the Nicean Council, pretty much took Christianity down an entirely different path from the one Jesus laid out.
While we're on passages of the New Testament, its very origins disqualify it as any sort of moral authority.
Were you aware that the canon of the New Testament was codified by a committee called the Nicean Council under the Emperor Constantine because he felt that having so many different versions of Christianity was disruptive? Once they put it together, it was illegal to practice any other form of Christianity. Those caught with other Christian writings--those that the Nicean Council did not want in the canon--were arrested and their books burned.
Yes, the New Testament was put together for the sole purpose of having a set of justifications for persecuting those of differing religious beliefs. So you'll pardon me if I don't buy hook, line, and sinker into a book created by evil men for the purpose of ostracism and persecution.
And by the way--They left out some of the teachings of Jesus to make more room for Paul. And burned copies of those teachings when they found them. Does that tell you anything? The modern church is not the church of Jesus; it is the church of Paul, and of Constantine.
Haven't you ever wondered why, if the things Paul was talking about were such a big deal, that Jesus never mentioned them that we know of?
On the church/school thing, that was my point. They are two different things. School is not for teaching religion, and church is not for teaching science. If a church wants to bring religion into schools, then we should have a right to bring science into churches.
I apologize for making assumptions about your belief, or lack thereof, in evolution. At the same time, though, you discount parts of it.
And yes, evolution, like all theories, is incomplete. We know for a fact that it is real--it's just the details we're working on now. (Talk to me sometime about Punctuated Equilibrium and "junk" DNA. Fascinating stuff.) The thing is, yes, frogs and giraffes do make sense in evolutionary terms. Faith is not a requirement. Unless you call it faith when I assume that the sun will come up tomorrow because it has done so every other day I've been alive. I say that when you observe something happen in the same way over and over again, that expecting it to happen the same way next time is not faith, but reasoned belief. When you keep approaching problems in a particular way that ends up yielding answers, it does not require faith to believe that the same approach will, eventually, work again.
Faith is faith and science is science. The only conflict is when religious kooks like the RR decide that reality threatens their religion and must be stopped. Then they cry persecution because we refuse to spend taxpayer dollars to teach that black is white and up is down. When faith takes on science, it has and will always lose, because it is fighting against reality itself. Science is smart enough not to tackle faith, because it already knows that they're too different things. It's like, "Which is true--Apples or purple?" That's how much sense the whole thing makes.
It sounds like you've been fed a lot of horse-shit, buddy. I was a divinity student for a while and got fed the same lines of garbage. Believe it or not, a LOT of scientists believe in god, and many of them are Christians. Yes, despite what you've been taught about scientists being against god, many of them believe BECAUSE of the wonders and elegance they discover through science. Including human evolution, the mysteries of the big bang, and the tantalizing idea of the quantum foam with all of these unique bubble universes (This ties into the big band thing.).
My friend, I'm sorry--it isn't just harder to find evidence for ID than for actual scientific theories--So far it has proven undoable. No one has ever found a single piece of evidence for ID. As I said, though, that doesn't mean ID is wrong, just that it has nothing to do with science.
Religion is a matter of faith, as it should be. If humans evolved from older classes of hominids--which we've pretty much proven--that doesn't disprove ID; it would simply mean that your god chose a method of creation that was not yet understood by the people writing. All religious texts are attempts by humans to come to grips with the ineffable. As such, they are all flawed.
(Oh, another line of bull you were fed is the bit about other religions being exclusive--some are, but many allow that other religions are just as "right" as theirs.)
As for the Big Bang, I'm afraid you're in error there, too, or rather, in possession of only the factoid that opponents of the Big Bang theory want known, without the context. One of the conclusions come to using mathematical formulae that heve been tested over and over again is that when things are compressed to a singularity, physics as we know it breaks down, so we cannot say, "this can't happen," or, "this would have to happen," because of the laws of physics. Just like Newtonian physics breaks down at the subatomic level and we have to use quantum physics instead, we are now seeking what laws of physics may apply to singularities. Oh, and by the way, the background microwave radiation of the universe is about what was predicted by Big Bang proponents.
There are some exciting theories now that may help us gain an understanding of just what happens to physics as we know it at the point of singularity. The math of it all would make my head explode.
The difference between science and non-rational belief systems (That is not a pejorative term--a non-rational belief system is any system that does not rely upon proof.) is that science keeps trying to understand, and pushing the boundaries further and further back. Religion says, "Science cannot yet give a perfect explanation of things, therefore God."
Many ID proponents want taxpayer dollars to fund the teaching of religion in our public schools, and that is a bad idea for several reasons. One of the things the more extreme RR people don't seem to get is that when you start mixing government and religion, it may start out with religion ruling the government and the people, but it ends with the government running religion. And that, my friend, is a scary thought.
Fever's getting worse, so I'm going to lie down. Let me leave you with a snippet from a Sherri Tepper book, though. In the book, God is speaking, and says (I may not get this word for word),
"I have created a universe based on change, and a Very Small Being speaks to me of eternal verities? Listen, what is true is what is written. In every rock, in every star, and in every blade of grass. Problems arise when Very Small Beings write books, then claim that I wrote the books, and the rocks and stars are lies."
Cheers, bud. TTYL.
__________________
test sig
* By D. Robert Hamm at 01/18/2008 - 22:56
______________________________________________________
Oh, and dude--If I came off
Oh, and dude--If I came off as caustic or condescending here, that wasn't my intent, and I assure you that if we were face to face that my tone and expression would show that.
__________________
test sig
* By D. Robert Hamm at 01/18/2008 - 23:08
__________________________________________________________________
And Deepoer we go.
I suppose my biggest issue with regarding Evolution as truth is that our understanding of it is constantly changing.
the math behind a million years old world, and the math behind say a 20,000 year old world, can both work out given the correct context. but the fact remains that truth is truth. and we haven't found it yet, frogs have a sticky goo on the tongue, and another enzyme in their mouth that makes it non-sticky. (notice my mind dazzling technical terms =D) natural selection does not account well for this sort of mutation, pointing toward a creative designer. Similarly giraffes have a sponge in their brain so they don't pass out when getting a drink of water.
Paul was indeed, much like all of us, an imperfect man. and I would agree that the extreme right takes too much stock in his teachings over those of Jesus. It seems pretty obvious that something happened, to the disciples after the death of Christ, they were a leaderless, pathetic group, who by all accounts were defeated(not just biblical accounts but also secular Greek contemporaries wrote of the radical change in this group of ineloquent people during that time) this is the basis for which I believe in Christ as savior. Paul did say some very important things in his writings (after he stopped killing and persecuting Christians from a Jewish perspective) the most important of which was that it the salvations was a gift of god and not something we earn.
random side note, I know. but I just thought it would be good for you to know where I'm coming from in my faith. now as for the teaching against homosexuality, even discounting pauls teaching, it doesn't take much looking to find the old testament teachings on it. Now, in regards to the law, the purpose of the law was essentially to illustrate the need for Jesus, and Jesus himself said he was there to fulfill the law not to abolish it.
However that being said, I can agree with you that the government should not be making laws regarding marriage, banning it or allowing it for any type of couple gay straight or otherwise. Now, the severe right wing folks would chastise me for this, but in my opinion it isn't the Job of the government to make rules like that. and there should be no special benefit alloted to those married or not married via taxation or otherwise.
It bothers me on a fundamental level that marriage has in some context, grown to no longer imply what it is I share with my wife. we hold ourselves to a different moral standard than some other folks do. Note I'm not judging anybody here, I said DIFFERENT for a reason, biblically speaking I see nothing wrong with Alcohol, or even getting drunk on occasion which would certainly ruffle some church tail feathers, but I really don't mind letting the feathers ruffle. In the same way our beliefs about marriage and sex as proscribed as we understand it by God, have been very beneficial in our relationship. largely because it has helped us to be less selfish, and to put each other before ourselves. if nothing else that is the key teaching that drives my faith, and the reason I try to be open minded. from all evidence I can see, Jesus was telling the truth. If I am to believe that, then through faith in his sacrifice is the only method of entry into a relationship with God, which is something that I desire not just for myself but to share with everyone around me. and really, Paul and everyone else can bugger off as long as that goal remains intact.
* By Danial Porter (not verified) at 01/21/2008 - 16:39
________________________________________________________
"the math behind a million
"the math behind a million years old world, and the math behind say a 20,000 year old world, can both work out given the correct context. but the fact remains that truth is truth. and we haven't found it yet, frogs have a sticky goo on the tongue, and another enzyme in their mouth that makes it non-sticky. (notice my mind dazzling technical terms =D) natural selection does not account well for this sort of mutation, pointing toward a creative designer. Similarly giraffes have a sponge in their brain so they don't pass out when getting a drink of water."
Dude, the math is called physics, and no, it doesn't work out for a 20,000 year old world OR a million year old world. The universe itself is around 14.7 billion years old, and the earth is NOT roughly the same age as the rest of the universe, although the Bible claims it is. The sun does not revolve around the earth. Rabbits are not cud-chewing animals. Evolution (and from your above comment it is apparent that you know nothing about evolutionary biology except what you've heard second-hand from crackpots) is real. And yes, these are all about the same--They are all cases in which the Bible is verifiably wrong.
And yet when I point out one of these cases, your response is along the lines that of course you know better than that, but on your NEXT point, the Bible is a science authority! This is the position of a crazy person.
The Bible fails as a science textbook--Utterly and completely. Get over it. The church typically resists reality as long as it possibly can, which is one reason people like me lose patience with people like you, who think that if it comes down to what a book says and what rocks and stars say, the book is true and the rocks and stars must be lies--but selectively, of course. If your faith depends upon the accuracy of a literal interpretation of the Bible in explaining the physical world, and convoluted explanations and disinformation campaigns to get around the places where it is absolutely proven wrong, then you have a real problem.
Every time the Bible and science conflict, the Bible loses. Use it for matters of spirituality, but take some science and history classes, and try to get over your delusion that the Bible can also function as a science textbook--Because it is just that; a delusion. You want to debate things based on fact? Cool. But I'm getting a bit tired of people who haven't the first clue claiming that because their favorite book says something, all of science must be wrong if it disagrees.
By the way, the terracentric model of the universe is inconsistent with the general and special theories of relativity, which are required for lasers, etc. Your postulated age of the Earth contradicts pretty much everything we know about physics and astronomy. According to the physics of the Bible, there can be no internet--in fact, according to the Bible, most of what we consider modern technology cannot exist.
__________________
test sig
* By D. Robert Hamm at 05/12/2008 - 00:52
_____________________________________________________________
Sorry if that sounded harsh...
Dude, sorry if that sounded harsh, but I've had way too many people conflate science and religion who simply don't know the first thing about the science with which their disagreeing. They are two different things, and they conflict only because religion refuses to accept anything that might interfere with its preconceived notions, then tries to use spurious logic to confuse the issue.
For example: "I suppose my biggest issue with regarding Evolution as truth is that our understanding of it is constantly changing."
Um... Dude, that's the entire point of science--To gain a better and better understanding of how things work. Our understanding of every field keeps changing. Look at physics. We've gone from the Greek philosophers to Newton to Maxwell's wave theories to Einstein to quantum physics to M theory. But since out understanding of physics is always changing, should we just say, "Well, no--If we don't have a perfect understanding of it and keep making new discoveries, let's forget it and say that gravity is little invisible angels pushing everything down to the ground?"
There is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for ID (which is actually creationism repackaged--it was introduced with the exact same documents as creationism after a "search and replace"). This is not to say that ID can't be correct--It just isn't science, and there isn't a shred of evidence for it. It is a belief system. If there IS an intelligent designer (which I'm not ruling out), that intelligent designer apparently used evolution to create life forms. (This is the official stance of the Catholic church.) If there is an intelligent designer, who the hell are any of us to limit his, her, or its methods?
Again, if reality screws up your belief system, you're best off changing your belief system instead of trying to make reality conform.
__________________
test sig
* By D. Robert Hamm at 05/12/2008 - 20:23
God I love it when a bigot's argument crashes and burns. I know I shouldn't, but it makes me feel fulfilled. I'm a Catholic, but only in baptised religion. I believe much of what is said in the Bible (at least about gay marriage and the role of women) is a load of bull. After all, it was written by the hand of man, not of God. Gay marriage is, in my own opinion, a great thing to allow. Rather than alienate a good chunk of the population by outlawing it, welcome them by saying "Gay is OK". And they say homosexuality is not natural? One day I was watching a news report from some zoo or another. They had gay penguins that truly didn't want to go straight. God I laughed when I thought about all those imbeciles who say "gay is unnatural". Lookit that, ya homophobes! Keep the faith, my friend. Sooner or later, the idjit wall will give, and people can truly be free.
This blog made me so happy. I've been a BCK reader for a few years now and I'm a long-time supporter of gay marraige. Just today I was reading my college's paper and the weekly article by the resident lesbian (yes, she calls herself that ^__^). The comments, as happens regularly, were Christians using these exact arguements because Miss Morgan is a lesbian as well as a Christian and considering where we are (south Mississippi), she gets alot of bashing. I'm actually going to post a link to this blog, if that's okay with you, in response to her usual bashers.
Rob, you're my hero, and I love you more than cheese!
A wonderful blog, and personally, from my understanding of christianity, the only parts of the bible a Christian should listen to is Mathew Mark Luke and John (the words of Jesus himself) and the rest of the letters afterwards are just ummmmmmmmmm well I don't hold with them at all. and Jesus himself said nuffin about homosexuality, except to say that those who believe in him are no longer required to follow the rules of the old testament (after all if we want to follow them well I don't want to toss my bathroom tiles out the city limits just cos of mildew I can easy treat with bleach). SO in actual fact, from my understanding, Homosexuality is OK in Gods eyes.
Yes, I find it telling that Jesus hadn't a word to say on the topic of homosexuality despite its widespread practice at the time. Since Jewish men of the time were supposed to marry and reproduce, any man who did not risked a whispering campaign accusing him of being a homosexual.
Besides the religious implications in light of the Torah, homosexuality was frowned upon as being "too Greek." (Why do you think anal sex is sometimes referred to as "Greek sex?")
Paul, was a Roman citizen, and just who do you think had the biggest interest in distancing themselves from Greek culture? You got it--The Romans.
The Romans felt the same way about Greek civilization (upon which their culture was based) as modern mainstream Christians do about the older religions from whence their religion(along with their jealously guarded "Christian" holidays) came. The idea in both cases is to take all you can from it, then demonize it, lie about it, and pretend that everything you stole from it was yours all along.
(Incidentally, on the topic of not having to follow the old law, Jesus said he had come , "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." This passage is frequently used by victims of the opt-in mental illness known as fundamentalism to justify adherence to the parts of the Old Testament that serve their particular forms of bigotry. To be fair, it is worth noting, that Jesus himself adhered to Jewish law except for in certain circumstances--But still, when asked about what sorts of things were important, although he mentioned other points from the Old Law, he is never once recorded as saying anything about homosexuality.)
WARNING: The old bluecrashkit.com domain now belongs to a scam artist. Not sure what he's up to, but I'm pretty sure it's no good. Otherwise, why would he be trying to fool fans into thinking he's me?
Site news
Most recent BCK
We're our own host now!
Free 3D stuff
No strings attached.
Blue Crash Kit is proudly produced in Lawrence, Kansas, USA, using only the finest 100% free-range, fair-trade certified, grain-fed, recycled pixels, and is hosted at LawrenceHost.
Well done on this Rob, it's a very comprehensive essay.
From my estimation, this issue remains because it's a nice wedge. It's really the only "trendy" way of bigotry that can remain (although anti-immigrant hysteria never goes out of style).
But the best part about it is twofold: first it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of orientation, in that people erroneously believe orientation is a choice.
The other is actually a preference issue, and at its base is why many people (not all) gravitate to certain religious sects. These ideas conform with the sect founders' own personal preferences. So for example, you may have some people that say, "Ewwwww! Two guys kissing? That's bloody gross!" So why not codify this into divine law and therefore you don't look like an asshole? Bingo, problem solved.
Interestingly, do note that one of the most commonly sold types of porn is lesbian porn. Hmmmm.
-Seth