Exodus 22:21 “You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Leviticus 19:33-34 – “And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”

How’s that for some Old Testament righteous anger grace? According to Strong’s that word stranger can also be translated alien, sojourner, or stranger. Now of course it might be making a mistake to apply this to the current problems we’re having with immigration (illegal or otherwise). It might be falling into the same trap that I often accuse my brethren on the right of, when it comes to cherry picking verses and applying them to pet beliefs. But in this case I’m willing to take that risk. If cherry picking leads us to be better human beings and to loving those around us, it’s a good risk.

Christians living out the Gospel are strangers in a strange land. We are oppressed (to varying degrees) and should be more understanding of those who live in a more real sort of physical oppression. Yes, some of them are breaking the law, but even legal immigrants are oppressed by those of us who see only their skin color and hear only their accents.

Children that are born here are legal citizens and I think that’s the way it should be. If that means it brings people here to have their babies that should be a source of pride for us. Yes, it means we need to decide what to do with their parents. I’m not sure that chucking them back to their countries of origin is the answer. But this is really less about what the government should do and more about what we should be doing.

If we know of a stranger among us, how should we love them? What steps do we take? Take the legality of their presence off of the table for the moment. Remove even the question of immigrants and just think about the last person you looked at with an eyebrow lifted in judgment. Someone who didn’t dress like you or talk like you, what did you do to love them?

Strangers Among Us is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Student claims nose stud is religious symbol | abc11.com.

Have a look at this video.  The young lady has a sincerely held “religious” belief.  I’m not asking if you think there’s any truth inherent in her religion, but I’m curious to know a few things.  What, in your mind, constitutes a religion?  Does she have a valid point legally in your opinion?  Does the state have the right to decide what a valid religion is or is not?

Personally I think the school should waive the suspension.  This doesn’t seem to be a rebellious teen using a loophole.  This seems to be a young lady who is getting  some comfort from a belief.  If it helps her in the short term I don’t see the harm.

While I’m no legal expert it does seem to me that the school has no grounds to deny her this expression.  If tey do then they should be denying other religions their expression as well.  This sort of zero tolerance policy is never a good idea.

What Constitutes a Religion? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Well maybe you heard about what Glen Beck said:

I’m begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them…are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.

Now if you’re like me, you probably don’t much care what Mr. Beck says so I don’t want to make this about him. What I do want to do is take this and unpack it. I know the term gets used in both political and religious circles and means different things to different people. Apparently it was coined by A Jesuit priest name Luigi Taparelly. There wasn’t a great deal of explanation as to what he meant by it (at least not that I could understand), but I think it’s important to note that at its origins it wasn’t a liberal political/communist/socialist issue.

In our church it seems to be used in circumstances where we as believers are called to act in our community to see the needs of the poor and disadvantaged met. It’s not a call to influence the government or to seek solutions from them. As frequent commenter on this blog Chris Walker said, that just sounds like charity. I suppose he’s right, depending on how you define charity. With a broad definition that would fit. But is that all there is to it?

Jason Rennie points us to Leviticus 19:15 – “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” What does showing partiality to the poor look like?

I’m not sure. It seems like there’s more. What do you think? What are our responsibilities as believers in this arena? Is there anything that goes beyond charity that we’re called to do in the community?

Social Justice is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

He says that the concept of Non-overlapping Magesteria, which is similar to what I’m proposing, isn’t historically representative of the relationship between science and religion. That may very well be true, in fact I guess based on his examples I know it to be true. I suppose when I think of religion I’m thinking of it as a tool though. Not how that tool has been used, but how it should be used. Again, just trying to think this through and I could well be wrong, but here goes.

Let’s go back, let’s go way back. Religion was a tool that man used historically to explain things going on around them and more than likely they didn’t make a clear cut distinction between the natural and the supernatural. if it rained, a natural phenomenon, they may come up with a supernatural cause. Let me pause here and say that I think all religions (even my own) were sort of manufactured by men. I think that Christians/Jews had the advantage of the basis of their religion, their relationship with God, being true. So, man historically used religion as a tool for everything from examining the natural universe, to making laws, to relating to their god(s).

Along comes science. Science as earlier defined is based on observation and reproducible test results and not on superstition or mythology. I think that gives us better results where the tool is appropriately used. Currently science does have a lot of useful things to tell us about human nature, consciousness, the ultimate nature of reality, origins, endings, and morality. I think religion certainly has things to say about those topics too. So I suppose making a stark contrast between the natural and the supernatural and thus making a stark contrast between science and religion may be a mistake.

It seems that the magesteria do overlap to a degree, whether its simply bumping up against one another or getting thoroughly muddled. It doesn’t surprise me. There’s nothing magical about either “magesteria” after all. They are tools and like any tools they can be misused. If the only tool you have is hammer then everything you encounter may look like a nail. Sometimes, just like physical tools, science and religion can be misused by themselves to answer questions they aren’t best suited for and sometimes they can be used in tandem for a better result.

Stephen Jay Gould, advocate of the NOMA view seems to indicate this in this quote:

[E]ach subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority … This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man’s land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer—and the sorting of legitimate domains can become quite complex and difficult.

Dan goes on to say that religions’ focus is “on securing and/or maintaining power” and is “concerned with controlling the behavior of beings in the temporal world”. Again I can’t argue that this hasn’t pretty consistently been the case. I would argue that this is not the fault of the tool or in fact its actual purpose. People have used science and philosophy and probably another thing or two lying about for the exact same purposes. That is a people problem.

He closes by saying:

Besides, I daresay that a religion which made no claims about reality, made no demands on its patrons, promised no rewards (temporal, eternal, or existential), and said nothing substantive about human nature would maintain a hold on parishioners for very long. Don’t believe me? Look at the thin attendance of liberal protestant churches compared to moderate and conservative ones.

All religions I’m aware of do all of these things. My original definition said that religion was “to put us in touch with whatever we believe to be true about something that exists outside of the natural realm”. There will be claims about where reality meets god. There will be demands made on how we are to relate to the supernatural and the natural. There will be rewards, though in Christianity most of those rewards are rightly laid up in Heaven and thus supernatural, not all of them are. They do say something about human nature and since there is something of the divine in us it is right for religion to speak to those areas. So religion is not purely supernatural, but it is that which allows us to examine where the supernatural and the natural collide and influence one another, something science can’t do.

If I Had a Hammer is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

During the discussion the question was asked, “Is science diametrically opposed to religion?” Both Zach Ricks and I agreed that that wasn’t the case. He said, “Some people believe that science destroys faith, I don’t agree with that stance at all.” To which I replied, in agreement, the “the two are examining different things.” Writer, philosopher, and all around cool guy J. Daniel Sawyer tagged me on Skype and asked me if I’d like to flesh out and debate that point on our respective blogs. Always ready to cross swords, I agreed. We put it up to age before beauty and since we’re both pretty grizzly looking (in the bear sense) age won out so I get to fire the first volley.

Thanks to Sid I’ve learned that defining my terms is pretty important in these sorts of situations. The definition of science to which I refer is “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method” aka natural science. That is defined as “any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena”. Science deals with the natural world. It tells us things like how and at what temperature water freezes. It tells us how species adapt to their surroundings and pass that on to their young. It describes the processes of the universe, at least so far as we are currently able to measure and observe them.

Religion on the other hand serves a very different purpose. Again, referring to Webster, religion is “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”. The purpose of such a system is to put us in touch with whatever we believe to be true about something that exists outside of the natural realm, at least that’s how I see it. There exist things that do not belong to the natural world. God, angels, and demons, belong to this class of things. There may well be other things that are supernatural, but that’s a different topic. The point is that these things are not objectively measurable.

So, when I say that science and religion are not diametrically opposed, by that I mean one can be both scientific and religious when it comes to your world view. Science is used to look at and interact with our physical world and religion is used to look at and interact with the spiritual and supernatural world. In that sense science and religion seem to me to be dramatically different in terms of their purpose. The opposition, the downright animosity, that often exists between representatives of the “two worlds” is one that I frankly don’t get. Too often it looks like people who each believe that their particular way of looking at everything in creation can eventually answer the prevailing questions without any help from the other. That hardly seems necessary or productive.

Dan says that “science and religion can not meaningfully be said to be examining different things.” I’m not sure if we’re using different definitions for the terms or if our respective world views are different. Whatever the case I look forward to what he has to say.

His response.

Science vs. Religion is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There have been a couple of people in the last few days that have used a disaster for personal gain. Though this gain may or may not be expressly monetary, to profit in any way from the suffering of others and to not even bat an eye is not inhuman, but it is at the very least callous and in my opinion unforgivable. I wish I could expect different words from either man in question, particularly the one that calls himself a man of God, but I don’t.

Now would be the point where I would usually say something like, “We’re all sinners and none of us are beyond salvation.” I believe that to be true, no matter the person in question. The most “sainted” person isn’t perfect and the most evil could be forgiven if they would but ask. Still I find myself unable to generate any sense of Christian charity for these two men.

My preference would be that their respective audiences would turn off the devices that they consume the words of these men on, that they would write letters, make calls, and bring torches and pitchforks to the very doors of the institutions responsible for bringing not only these particular examples of hate filled speech but many other instances besides into the homes of people around the world. That part of me would be satisfied to see their careers fall into ruin and for them to be unable to earn a single cent or a shred of their credibility back for the rest of their natural lives.

I wouldn’t, as some have, wish them harm, whether here or in the after life. I would want them to have the health and opportunity so that they could eventually come to realize just what they’ve said and to sorrow for it. I don’t honestly believe that that would ever happen, any more than I really think that what audience they do have would be offended and then take action. Still, there is a part of me that holds out some hope in that direction.

The problem with all of this of course is that my own continued hatred of them would be no more healthy or righteous than their own misguided hatred. It feels good in the moment and I can see some of you shaking your head and thinking how right this anger of mine (and perhaps yours) is, but it’s not. I don’t think holding hatred in your hearts even for the most despicable of men is a healthy way to live. Feeling it in the moment is perhaps completely natural, but to dwell on it, to hold on to it isn’t.

These men deserve pity. Their lives have become something worse than anything I could wish on another human being. They have held on to their hate. It has born fruit and has poisoned not only their lives but the lives of those that idolize them. I don’t want that for you or for me. So, in honor of the man whose birthday this is, I’ll close with a Martin Luther King Jr. quote from Strength to Love, “Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.” and by saying donate what you can to the folks down in Haiti and pray for them if you’re so inclined.

Leave Hate Behind is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The definition of it is a bit tricky since there are apparently “hard” dominionists and “soft” dominionists and like any other political/theological belief system quite often the people who are called by the name don’t particularly like it and have adopted their own terms. Then there are those on the opposite end of the spectrum who (as often also happens) have developed a conspiracy theory about the hardliners. Because this represents a spectrum of beliefs, I will try and be fair to this view and make only a couple of (hopefully charitable) assumptions, if any.

According to this belief, generally, the dominion mentioned in Genesis extends not only to our biosphere, but also to people relationally. The thought being that we have some sort of responsibility to ensure that men either return to or come under the Law of God as the basis of our rule of law. The end result of this being that all men, Christians and non-Christians, would benefit from what is, arguably, the way God would have all men live. Often the Decalogue is portrayed as directly or indirectly being the basis of our laws specifically or all modern laws generally.

Because of this notion, at least it seems causal to me, and in no small part due to the belief that our founding fathers were at least in some large part Christian, this dominion has also come to include America specifically. This view holds that we were either at one point a Christian nation and need to return to that, or we need to become one in order to fulfill a particular eschatological view. I have also heard it said many times that if we would as a nation turn to God and repent for our sins (as a nation) that we would benefit (as a nation). So the view of America as some sort of body founded by God and beholden to Him also seems core to this point of view.

I have serious problems with both of conclusions. I know that this will not come as a shock to any of you. My problems are’t even mostly political, though I would like to start there. First, I have no problem with the notion that an uncertain percentage of the Founders were Christians. That many of them would have been burned at the stake had they been born in earlier centuries or disfellowshipped/excommunicated in many of our modern churches if born today seems more certain than their number. Let’s assume just for fun though, that a large percentage of them were Christians and that a percentage of that percentage possessed a theology that the Dominionists would be happy with. They simply didn’t seem interested in making this a Christian nation.

“Wait, wait,” I hear you say, “what about the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence?”

Well as I said, I don’t have a problem with the notion that these men believed in a Creator or sorts, even one that was or looked like the Christian God. But the Establishment Clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” seems to shoot the idea that we need to make laws establishing religious ideas… as law right in the foot.

“But what about Patrick Henry who siad ‘It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!’?”

He didn’t actually say that. He did say several great things that I agree with regarding Christianity and the Bible, but nothing indicating that we should be a “Christian nation”. One interesting thing did turn up in my research in this regard. One of the very first treaties we entered into as a country (The Treaty of Tripoli), ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams, said the following:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That seems pretty clear to me. But you know what? This whole argument isn’t even the biggest part of where my problem lies. Let’s say that I give you everything that you believe that applies to our founding and the people involved. Suppose we were a Christian Nation in our history. Suppose that all of our laws and core beliefs once upon a time lined up with the Ten Commandments. So what? That doesn’t make it right or biblical.

I’m not trying to be flip here, but nearly everything I read in the Bible indicates that God doesn’t want us as his nation to be ruled by Kings. In 1 Samuel chapter eight the people of Israel asked for a king and God didn’t like it. He granted it though, making sure to have Samuel warn them. God wanted Israel to be ruled by Him, not be a monarchy or even presumably a democracy (though it’s somewhat ironic that apparently the need for a human king was arrived at by the people, the first democratic monarchy?).

Fast forward to Christianity. Paul in Galatians 3 says

“26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

That to me says that our national identity as Christians should be of no importance. Some take that to the place where they don’t even self identify as Americans, at least when it comes to things like politics. Perhaps that’s taking it too far, perhaps not, but at the very least it sticks a thumb in the eye of some Dominionists, or should. We aren’t, at our core as Christians, to put the importance on our gender, our freedom, or our nationality. Those are three pretty important things to most folk, but in Christ we are none of these things. So why should we be pushing to make our leadership consist solely of Christians? It just makes no sense.

One final point and I think that this is my main beef. All of the people I talk to who I would put (correctly or incorrectly) in the Dominionist camp are concerned about the laws of God being followed, not just by Christians, but by everyone. There should be no gay marriage because the Bible says it’s bad. We should have laws against abortion because murder is a sin. We should put the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and leave “In God We Trust” everywhere we can get away with it. Why? Why is putting the Law up front and center and making everyone toe that line so important? Well, why does the Bible say that the law is important?

Paul again in Galatians chapter three:

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

He goes on and on from there. The law is important, yes, but it is not of ultimate importance by itself. It is meant to drive us to Christ. Making those laws into the law of the land does not drive people to Christ. What does it do instead? It controls. That, in a nutshell seems to be what Dominionism is about. I don’t think that’s what God intended.

In the Genesis quote, Adam and Eve are given dominion over all the earth. They are to be its caretakers, its stewards. The Earth is to provide us all food and shelter, but only if we care for it. To take that notion and twist it to say that we should exercise some level of control over every human being so that they must fall into line with our interpretation of the Law seems adversarial to the Gospel to say the very least. If that’s not what Dominionism is saying then I would love for someone to tell me what it is all about. If it is as I suspect though, it’s hardly new. The Pharisees exercised a similar amount of control over their people. They too wanted every aspect of life to be controlled by the Law and we see where that put them in God’s sight.

Control is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

My answer to Sid’s comment is going to be a very qualified yes. A good part of that is because human sexuality is an incredibly broad spectrum and the, imo, large slice that the Bible is in favor of is therefore narrow in comparison. I would say that most worldviews have their own narrowly prescribed range of acceptable sexuality, again in comparison. Are their people that think that “anything goes” when it comes to that emotionally charged topic? I’m sure that there are some that think they are and perhaps there are even some that are. But this isn’t about them. This is about the Bible’s own “narrow” point of view.

One of the things that I’ve been giving quite a lot of thought to recently is the concept of polygamy. Oh don’t worry, I have no intention of ever practicing it. One wife is just plenty for me. But it’s something that the Bible doesn’t seem to be against. A number of the patriarchs in the Bible practiced it. It was and remains a common custom in that part of the world. The rare places that it’s spoken against that I’m aware of seem to nail the badness down in the area of marrying people who have radically different religious views than you. There’s also the admonition that elders should be the husband of only one wife, but it’s not (too my knowledge) listed anywhere as being a sin. Certainly you could say, as some have, that since Adam and Eve were apparently “married” and monogamous that this is God’s intention for all of us. I’m not so sure about that since Adam and Eve, to my knowledge never actually had a ceremony and were what I’d call common law spouses.

That leads to the topic of sex outside of marriage. The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, never says what the act of getting married is actually like. There is no Biblically prescribed ceremony. It seems, getting back to Adam and Eve, that all that is required is for two people to pledge themselves to one another, and in the case of believers, to God. No need for a ring, a dress, or even a church and pastor. So, would it be accurate to say that in order to have sex “appropriately” all two people have to do is make such a pledge to one another? It certainly seems so. Granted there does seem to be some procedure for divorcing in the Old Testament and therefore it’s likely that there’s also a procedure for getting married, but I’m unaware of either.

The big buggaboo, and I suspect one of the things to which Sid was referring, would be homosexuality. I can’t argue there. The Bible does seem to be pretty clearly against it, both male and female. There aren’t exactly scores of verses pointing to it, but a few in the Old Testament and a few in the new are pretty clear. One of the passages that I don’t think is so completely clearly anti-gay sex is the whole Sodom incident. Those people weren’t so much homosexual as they were sexual predators. Otherwise though it is certainly clear that God designed man to be with woman and vice versa and doesn’t want it any other way. My question there is though, what percentage of human sexuality is of the homo- variety? If it’s the minority, as I understand it to be, and if it’s a large part of what people point to when it comes to God being anti-some aspect of human sex, then there’s a problem there.

Masturbation is also pointed to pretty frequently as being a no-no. The Bible doesn’t really touch on that though. Onan is the only one who is listed as performing that particular act (if that was indeed what he was doing) and he gets killed by God. What gets glossed over there is that Onan was commanded by God to get his brother’s widow pregnant and he didn’t do it. That was the real issue.

So all of this to say, are their things the Bible seems to be against when it comes to sex? Sure. A lot of what Christians say the Bible/God is against is tied up in two thousand years of tradition and our own (at least as far as Western Christians are concerned) cultural baggage. I think the Bible is certainly pro-heterosexuality and that sexuality taking place in a mutually respectful, loving, committed relationship. What that sex looks like, whether it involves something you, I, or the fly on the wall might think of as “kink”, or the granular details aren’t really touched on. I think that the Bible shows clearly that bad things can come from anything else and often does. So with that I guess I’ll don my flame retardant suit, open up the floor, and ask what you think of this. Am I way off the mark here?

How Narrow Is That Gate? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

“The Bible is anti-human sexuality outside a very narrowly prescribed range.”

Not at all. How can I say that? Let’s recontextualize.

“The Bible has one monolithic message on absolutely anything at all.”

See what I mean?

What does the Bible say about sex? Lots of things. There are the rules in Leviticus that we’re all familiar with, which instruct an ancient tribe of Hebrews to get a wife or two, boink them as appropriate, not to boink them when it’s, yanno, that time, what to do when your wife bears your kid, and what to do when your slave bears your kid. Roughly. And it’s couched in the highly ritualized, black-and-white, OCD language and tradition that comes out of having a long-standing and very powerful priest class in control.

Up over in the New Testament, there’s Paul. Paul takes an entirely different tack, being quite certain that nobody should have sex at all, because it’s gross. Old definition. At best, Paul’s whole message is muddled, but he’s very well-known for at least being attributed with encouraging asceticism in the church. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that he was certain Jesus would return in his lifetime, combined with the firm possibility that he was also the world’s first armchair theologian. He was certain they were living in unique and urgent times. The result is that he picked weird priorities.

What does Jesus say about sex? Not a whole lot, especially if you don’t spend a lot of time deconstructing the implications of his big anti-legalism shtick.

Let’s see, what else? The parts of the old testament that aren’t made entirely of “begats” and “thou shalt nots” are mostly made up of good old-fashioned bronze and iron age myths and legends, and like any good set of ancient religious myths and legends, they’re full of rum, buggery and the lash. Taken on the whole, it shows a very human sexuality – kind of lusty, kind of confused, kind of not stopped by all the rules present over sexual behavior. It’s also worth mentioning that, as far as I’ve ever found, there’s no story in the old testament of anyone being smote by god for sexual misdeeds. Folks are smote for a lack of faith, a lack of ritual cleanliness, a lack of cooperation, or out of sheer bloody-mindedness, but not for having naughty sex. (No, I’m not convinced that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homosexuality, either. If you ignore the analysis of the passage later in the bible and just read the story, it seems quite clear that those cities were destroyed because they were populated entirely by assholes. And, as the currently totally trendy Book of Job shows, God does not abide assholes.)

You know what’s really terrible, though? The bible has a dirty book. Song of Songs. You could say that it’s a love letter to god using the metaphor of sexual lust. Or it’s just a marvelous letter of longing between lovers. Doesn’t matter. It’s a celebration of beautiful bodies, wonderful scents, textures, tastes, soaring feelings and all of the other wonderful stuff that goes with that intense first blush of love. It’s all the best things sex can do for us. Right there. In the bible.

So, no. The bible is prescriptive about sex, it’s against sex entirely, it’s got an unknown position, it accepts sex as a part of life, and it’s totally into it, and those are just the big swipes. It’s all these all at the same time, plus more.

All These Things and More is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

This statement seems designed to provoke a reaction without speaking to the real issue at hand. Let us examine that instead.

The Bible certainly condemns specific behavior. In addition to specific sexual acts and relationships, the Bible also condemns: lying, murder, tax evasion, slander, disobeying one’s parents, idol worship, eating pork, and a whole host of other things. The Bible insists that it is the actual words of God, and that it is to be taken as a whole or rejected as a whole. Any other practice is not consistent with Biblical text.

When applying Biblical teaching to human sexuality, as to any aspect of life, one must first accept the authority and legitimacy of the Bible to govern that aspect of life. If one is to accept that the Bible has this authority, no issue may then be taken against whatever statements may be found therein – whether they condemn us for a sexual act, a malicious act, or even a well-intentioned act.

We may be thankful that the Bible does not teach perfect adherence to Biblical Law as the only means of salvation, but that salvation instead is the free gift of God to all who ask. It further /describes/ the practices of those who are saved, rather than attempting to /proscribe/ the actions of those who have no interest in the teachings of the Bible.

In the act of maintaining citizenship within a country, one agree to the legitimacy of the government to set whatever laws it deems necessary, with or without explaining the necessity of those laws. Only once one has agreed to accept Biblical salvation does any other practice described therein become necessary or prohibited. A salvation which attempts to add to or leave behind any portion of the Bible is inconsistent with Biblical text, and comes from human invention rather than divine revelation.

Many world religions use the Christian Bible as their primary sacred text, but reject the divine authorship and complete nature of the manuscript. These religions, which include the Mormons, the Emerging Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and certain movements within multiple Protestant denominations, are legitimately free to change the nature of salvation doctrine and prohibited human behavior to match their own desires. These religions should not be mistaken for, and often do not claim to be, Biblical Christianity.

Should one find oneself in conflict with any portion of the Biblical text, one may adopt a completely legitimate response in rejecting the text in part or in whole and seeking their own religious path. One who does so must understand without error that the freely-given salvation described in the Bible and internally consistent therin applies only to those who accept the authority of Biblical teaching as a whole.

To sum this argument in modern parlance: “If you want to play the game, you have to abide by the rules. If you change the rules, you’re playing a different game.”

Rules of the Game is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Ever since the 60′s, there’s been much change afoot when it comes to perspectives on human sexual flourishing. In the past, the Bible’s prescribed sexual mores were accepted with greater frequency and ease. The sexual revolution changed all that. Some even go so far as to ascribe to what I call the “no limits” philosophy: anything two adults consent to is within bounds, as long as it doesn’t harm the parties involved (harm is usually defined in very minimal physical terms), and the “as long as it doesn’t harm” bit is negotiable. Even where that extreme isn’t proclaimed, many hold that the sexual boundaries in the Bible are quite narrow, and therefore anti-human.

So that’s the popular view, but we should pause and ask, “is the popular view wise?” If lived out, will rejecting the Bible’s sexual boundaries really lead to human flourishing?

The short answer is “no.”

There’s no doubt that God’s prescriptions in the Bible are, in some sense, narrow, but suggesting that it’s therefore anti-human is a non sequitur. Afterall, no one would accuse my mom of being “anti-child” because she had restrictive rules about what belongs in an electrical socket (NOT my fingers!) or about what goes on top of a hot burning stove (NOT my hand, knees, or bum!). Get over the fact that the illustration is a cliche’, because the point applies perfectly in the realm of sexuality. The mere fact of “narrowness” isn’t good enough to prove “anti-humanness,” especially when we have good reason to think there’s a protection behind the boundary.

Well,are the boundaries protective? Yes. Most take it for granted that our physical bodies are like machines; they require the right food, rest, and exercise to run right. If you are one of the few that are skeptical of this, one look at Keith Richards will cure you of that skepticism.

What many miss, though, is that we have various non-physical parts to us that operate by the same design principle. It is very possible and easy to deaden your emotions, warp your reasoning skills, and tear your soul to shreds. Perhaps the quickest way to do all that at once is through fast sexual living. J.I Packer put it well:

“Nowadays some will maintain, in the name of humanism, that the ‘Puritan’ sexual morality of the Bible is inimical to the attainment of true human maturity, and that a little more license makes for richer living. Of this ideology…the proper name for it is not humanism but brutism. Sexual laxity does not make you more human, but less so; it brutalizes you and tears your soul to pieces. The same is true wherever any of God’s commandments are disregarded.”

Moreover, behind every “thou shalt not,” lies a “thou shalt;” behind every boundary is a provision. God’s prescriptions in the Bible are meant to save you not only from something, but towards something greater. His commands provide for us relationships where true commitment, trust, and agape (sacrificial, giving) love–the greatest love–can flourish. This is true humanity, for those things that are so necessary for our full well being are not found in the slightest in any of the temporary sexual arrangements that we contrive up. Fun–yes. “The thrill”–yes. A thin sort of happiness?–kinda. But you will also find suspicion, envy, competition and worry…trust and commitment are nowhere to be found.

There’s also a sense in which the “prevailing wisdom” is just plain morally wrong. Ever heard the following: “We need to find out if we are sexually compatible before we are married. You wouldn’t buy a car without test driving it first, would you?”

Isn’t that every woman’s dream–to be compared to a car. How much more degrading can you get?

In case any are wondering, this is a life I’ve lived–on both sides of the equation. For a number of years, I attended a 12 step group for sexual addicts. I lost count of the number of men (myself included) who started out with what most would consider “trivial” things, but lost control and ended up in the gutter. The pain, loss, and grief I saw in the faces of men in that group was quite enough to get me to question the standard line I led with above. What’s more, in most cases, the biggest grief was not from any physical ailments the men (and I) contracted but from the hurt we caused loved ones in our pursuit of self-fulfillment.

As UCLA psychiatrist Miriam Grossman states, “you cannot live the life of *Friends* and *Sex in the City* and not pay dues.” (Check out the link. It offers a psychiatrist’s perspective on this subject.

Though I have experienced addiction in the past, that’s not the end of the story! God is a God of resurrection and healing. I am currently experiencing the flip side. Due to heeding God’s commands in Scripture while we were single, there’s a lot my wife and I don’t have to deal with in our marriage. In turn, that gives us a freedom that words cannot capture.

As designer of human nature, God knows what He’s talking about. Perhaps a little trust on our part would go a long way.

Are Boundaries On Sexual Morality Good? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

To which I had some replies:

Odin1Eye – no.. good is subjective. I know many people that I don’t consider good. Selfish, spiteful, mean spirited, lazy etc. however, I think everyone, or almost everyone, sees themselves as good… one reason I don’t like villains to always be evil and the ones I don’t think are necessarily good, probably see me in a less positive light than I see myself. and of course, I am speaking in humanistic terms, as we know that according to scripture, none of us are good. Truth.

Alethe – If everyone was good all people would be treated with dignity and not abused. Don’t see that starting any time soon!

So we have a nice (dare I say good?) spectrum of answers to the query. And yes it’s a loaded question, but as I replied to Scott those are often the best kinds.

So what’s my take? No, everyone I know is not “good” or at least not good enough. How do I determine that? Aren’t there some people that I know that are “good”? Sure, I know plenty of people that I think are good folk, depending on the day or on my mood. They’re kind to others, frequently generous, don’t kick any puppies, that sort of thing. However, the intrinsic goodness of a person is difficult to measure meaningfully by my own personal standards, which are ultimately meaningless for most people and are far from fair or impartial. So what do I use?

Judging by a society’s standards is tricky. They change over time or by location. A good person two hundred years ago may have been a slave owner. A person in another country (or certain parts of this one) may marry their twelve year old cousin. Those acts wouldn’t be looked upon kindly in modern Western society. If I used that as my measuring stick there would be a flux, not helped by the fact that even within my own society there is a broad range of cultures that I identify with. Granted the change in what’s perceived as moral may change less frequently, but rather than being truly objective it’s still subject to the whims of large groups of people.

Using a religious standard is also an option and it’s the one I choose. Even here I run into some problems, though they are problems of a different sort. There is a large section of the Old Testament that is dedicated to laws and their punishment. One traditional argument is that some of those laws are intended just for Israel and that others are more universal. The difficulty there would be, which is which? If one picks and chooses then the label hypocrite or accusations of cherry picking come flying out of the woodwork.

Then in the New Testament we have Jesus expanding the Old Testament’s laws with statements like

21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5)

So, now simply avoiding killing or murder is not enough. We risk judgment in simply being angry or calling names. That really gets to the heart of the matter and raises the bar beyond where some people would feel is “fair”. I mean, is merely having a bad thought enough to be considered a bad act? If you consider another human being inferior or plot to murder your neighbor even if you never have the chance to act on it, have you done something morally wrong? In some cases man’s law would say yes, though usually only if there’s another conspirator. According to the Christian God’s law there is no question. Even if an act is not illegal, seriously contemplating committing an immoral act is immoral in itself.

Based on all of this, I agree with John, to a degree. By my own (again admittedly mercurial) and by God’s standards I am not a “good person”. I lack the scale or the formula necessary to tell me if my good acts outweigh my bad, but I suspect that if I had one that the scales would touch the floor on the bad side. That’s certainly what Christianity teaches. According to my culture and perhaps even to some of my friends I’m a good man, but those people haven’t seen in to my heart. They don’t know the interior Scott. When it comes to that interior life I don’t think I’m alone though, none of us are pretty on the inside. Morality is more than just what you do that your friends and neighbors to see. Whether you are good or not gets to your core and what’s in there.

So what do we do with that? The knowledge that I’m not good enough to measure up to the standards that I believe God has laid out is hard. I want to be good enough. I want my friends to be able to be good enough under their own power. Occasionally I’ve been known to whine and pout along with the best of them that it’s not fair that we can’t be. God’s standards seem too high even to me, from time to time. The good news is that we don’t have to be good enough (nice especially since we can’t be). Though God still wants us to strive and I believe that he has instilled in all of us the desire to love one another and to fulfill his commands, there is no ultimate pressure to do so. We can strive to be good not so that we measure up, to meet the bare minimum, but so we can bless those around us. The motive shouldn’t be fear of retribution or condemnation. We’ve received much grace and need to turn that around to our friends and neighbors.

So are you good enough, my friends? No. The good news is that Jesus was, freeing you to be as good as you can be.

Good Enough is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Now I know a little about human nature or so I like to think. A good deal of that comes from just watching myself interact with others. So when I read a reaction to the interview by PZ Myers (one of the people interviewed) where he said that that was not the message he gave when he talked to her, I wasn’t surprised. What wasn’t surprising exactly? Well I’m not surprised when someone hears an interview that they took part in and regrets the way they come across (a little of what happened here) and I’m not surprised (though I am saddened)when a reporter actually does “quote mine” looking for nuggets of gold that match up with their agenda (apparently much of what happened here).

I don’t dispute that there is some matter of disagreement in the atheist/agnostic community on how they should treat us and on how they view religion. I know first hand that there are non-believers that think we are sheep-le. I might even be so bold as to say that most of them think that. Some decide to sugar coat the message. Some don’t. There are atheists who believe on some level, based on evidence and rationality naturally, that religion serves some evolutionary good or is at least a by-product of an evolutionary process where the process itself does good and the religion part is a side-effect not unlike bad gas or possibly toxic shock syndrome. Then there are those that believe there is nothing good in religion, not even a little. PZ doesn’t dispute that any of those differences exist. He argues that this is actually a strength. They are free to question one another freely.

Getting back to the NPR story, it’s fun to paint atheism as a sort of religion. Ask Sid, I do it all the time. I argue that some of them meet regularly, have “saints”, merchandise,read from the same books. I mean all they’re lacking is a belief in a supernatural being. That’s pretty important though. So my comparison is tongue in cheek. For some it’s not though and the NPR story plays to that. They tout it as some sort of argument against atheism, saying that if we can just point out how close atheism is to being a religion we can… what exactly? Accuse them of being hypocrites? I don’t think that’s right. It’s not fun when they do it to us and it’s not fun when we do it to them.

The one unifying belief that they do have is a non-belief and one that they view as positive. Based on that, expecting them to be some sort of monolithic organization is silly. They do have organizations of course, but even those can’t agree on what being an atheist means exactly, much less agree on how they should treat us. In order to have a schism I think you need something like a central statement of belief. They simply don’t have that.

So, what we have here at most is a difference of opinion. Should atheists be “accomadationists” or hard core “evangelicals”? There are heated debates and arguments, but no one I’m aware of is getting ostracized (or at least not burned at the stake). That some of us feel this is similar to a religion is telling since our in family squabbles can get far more ugly. As for the question itself, if it’s only one way or the other naturally I’d say that I prefer they choose the former.

Whatever they “should” be though and whether or not they are like a religion, all that really matters is what they are. They are human beings trying to deal with the universe and what they are handed as best they can. They’re missing a piece that I believe is vital, but even with that piece I don’t always deal with life in the most Christ-like manner. How can I expect any more from them? So when we are dealing with one another I would hope that we can be respectful, but that hope is tempered with understanding that there is a lot of baggage that we all carry as a result of what we believe on this one issue.

A Difference of Opinion is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I wonder who my own theological equivalent rock star would be. I’m not sure. CS Lewis if he were still alive. Maybe N. T. Wright.

Anyway, the two of us met for a beer with some of the folks from the Skeptical Society (might not be the actual group name) and the Charlotte Atheists and Agnostics. I got to meet some nice gents and pimp Archangel. We talked briefly about religion in general, music, and idle chit chat. Time was short so we didn’t get into much trouble.

The talk itself was good. We got front row seats which was truly awesome. Dawkins mostly used his time as an opportunity to do some readings from The Greatest Show on Earth. Can’t blame him for that and they were good, informative, and relatively free of cringe-worthy moments. Perhaps the biggest problem I had with what he said was the notion that evolution is as factual as the earth being round. To a point I would agree with that. Evolution as a process happens. I don’t think that can be disputed or at least hasn’t been falsified (yet) and he doesn’t think it ever will be (but he does say it could be which is splitting hairs juuuuust a little I think). What I do take issue with is the notion that that process is what took single celled organisms and made them into people. That’s nowhere near as certain as a round earth in my opinion.

He also made a few statements about religion and indoctrination. He spoke of a geologist that he knows. The man is well educated, apparently highly thought of in his field, and yet he remains a Young Earth Creationist (no I didn’t catch the gents name). According to Dawkins the man even said that even if all of the evidence in the universe pointed to an old Earth (apparently he doesn’t think any of it does) he would still remain a YEC because in his opinion that is what the scripture plainly taught. Dawkins said (and I can’t quote him directly) something like that proved how dangerous indoctrination was. I suppose it’s not possible that the man decided for himself, for good reasons, that scripture was true. I don’t know what those reasons are and I don’t agree with Young Earth folks, but I’m not going to wag the indoctrination finger.

There was a Q&A afterward that wasn’t exactly inspiring. There were a few softballs like “Where do you find the patience to deal with believers?” and the couple of adversarial questions he got were fairly weak. I would have liked to see some folks who really disagreed with him and had what they felt were good reasons to step up. That or a debate would have been feistier.

The true high point of the evening was when we went to a pub after it was all over. I sat and talked with a few of the CAA people about morality, the Decalogue, the Fall, and a brief skim around the problem of evil. There was a moment there when my snark kicked in. A guy sat beside me and once he knew I was a Christian he asked me why I believed in Christ. It’s not a question that I could do justice to quickly, but I figured I would give it a shot.

Before I could get so much as a half dozen words out he started trotting out the whole notion that the Gospels weren’t written until much later and everything was filled in so that he could fulfill prophecies after the fact and oh my gosh if you’d just read this book and be rational and reasonable. Well I slapped my hands on the table and said, “All I have to do is read a BOOK? Why didn’t someone tell me?” Perhaps not my proudest moment. It did give me pause to think about all the times atheists/agnostics have probably been treated the same way, “If you’d only read the Bible/CS Lewis/A Case For Christ you’d see the light!” So that helped me some with perspective.

He didn’t stay much longer but the two folks I did finish out the evening talking to were quite lovely and we had an actual conversation. It was cut short by the lateness of the hour, but I do hope that through the magic of the internets we’ll be able to pick it up again. It was nice sharing a table with a group of people I couldn’t disagree with more on religion (one guy said that “it’s all BS” and he realized this at the age of 14 after preaching in a charismatic church for a year) and for it to remain civil (for the most part) and fascinating. I’m eager to repeat the experience. I think it would be ultra-cool if we could get some of the more even tempered folks from the CAA and the more even tempered folks in my Christian circles and do a pub crawl with a Zoom H4 recorder.

We’ll see if we can make that happen.

Off to See the Wizard is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There are so many problems here that it might be easier to just start with what they have right. I will agree that there are certainly issues with the most popular translation, the NIV.  The primary issue, as I understand it, comes from the effort on the part of the translators to make it easier to understand and in trying to communicate what they believe that the original authors intended they did what is commonly called a “thought for thought” translation.  Other translations including the English Standard Version use a “word for word” approach.

A thought for thought approach, while commendable, has resulted in what many people consider to be a weaker translation theologiclaly speaking.  That by no means indicates that it is insufficient or unusable, but if what you’re looking for is something closer to the oldest manuscripts we have then you want to look elsewhere.  So if their goal is to make a more accurate translation (which doesn’t seem to be the case) then that’s commendable.  It’s already been done, but hey what’s one more translation, right?  Wrong.

If I were to take what they wrote at face value then it seems that they don’t want to do a translation at all.  If they are indeed “retranslating the KJV into modern English” then it’s really more of a paraphrase since translation implies moving from the original language into a different language.  Besides, if they just want that then there’s always the New King James Version which is essentially the KJV updated to modern English.  It uses the same manuscripts as the KJV but notes where other manuscripts differ.

But no, what they want to do here is take their political agenda and use “translation” to hammer God’s word into a shape that they find acceptable.  I’m really not okay with that.  Now I recognize that everyone on God’s green Earth has an agenda and that anyone who enters the field of translation is going to carry with them some sort of baggage.  We’re all human beings here.  The problem I have with this particular agenda is that it’s got nothing to do with trying to mine the word of God and divine what he is trying to say to us and everything to do with shaping the word of God to make something politically acceptable.

Let’s look at this point by point:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias - No what they want is a paraphrase of a translation acceptable to their constituents that’s corrupted by conservative bias.  That’s better somehow?  Oh and they admit that newer translations use more accurate manuscripts.
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, “gender inclusive” language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity - I’d need some clarification here.  I’m aware of some translations that use more gender neutral terms to refer to God.  If that’s what they’re referring to then I might be okay with sticking strictly to the original language.  However, that’s got nothing to do with thinking that God is some big dude in the sky.  God is a spirit and possesses no gender, but chose to reveal himself in the masculine for specific reasons and hey why not stick with that?
   
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV^[3] is written at only the 7th grade level - So tempted to make a comment here about their target audience, but it’s not nice and not entirely true.  Instead I’ll just say that the NIV isn’t “written” at a certain grade level it’s translated and tool might place it at a certain grade level.  So what?  The KJV uses fewer English words and is only more challenging to read due to archaic language.
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;^[4] defective translations use the word “comrade” three times as often as “volunteer”; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as “word”, “peace”, and “miracle”. – Language certainly evolves over  time.  Both the left and the right have “co-opted” language for their own arguments.  Still I’d like to know what the old meaning of peace is and what new “conservative” word they would use in its place.  This has got 1984 written all over it.
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as “gamble” rather than “cast lots”;^[5] using modern political terms, such as “register” rather than “enroll” for the census- In the OT casting lots wasn’t gambling, it was used as a divining tool by prophets.  Non-believers may still believe that it works out to be the same, but these guys don’t know what they’re talking about.
   
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. - It’s nice of them to admit that conservatives are more interested in using guilt to push our buttons and get us in line.  The focus of the Bible is and always has been more about communion with God and what that means that about what being cast out is like.  The NT mentions Heaven ten times more often than Hell.  Hell should not be our focus.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning- Honestly, I don’t know what to even say here except that these people, the ones who were living during biblical times didn’t have a free market as we understand it.  Jesus wasn’t teaching an economic model and if he were?  Our current model wouldn’t be it.
   
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story- This is wrong on a number of levels.  I mean okay let’s assume that Jesus didn’t say “Let He who is without sin cast the first stone”, the idea of forgiveness and grace and that we are ALL sinners is pretty…. clear given the rest of God’s word.  They’re annoyed that “liberals” are using this as an anti-death penalty screed.  Guess what?  They’re wrong too.  Not the point of this passage.
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels - No idea what to say here that wouldn’t be ad hominem.
   
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word “Lord” rather than “Jehovah” or “Yahweh” or “Lord God.” – Okay so first they say that the liberal version is dumbed down.  Then this.  Make up your friggin’ mind people.

The rest of that page frankly just pisses me off. The whole idea is ridiculous on its face and does NOTHING, accomplishes NOTHING more than adding fuel to the notion that Christians are just a bunch of morons that want to use the Bible to accomplish some right-wing agenda. Are their Christians like that? Sure. Not all, or I hope and pray even most.

Okay that’s enough for now. I need to take my blood pressure meds.

Conservative Bible Project is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

For instance, if a political figure has a policy that you don’t like it’s not enough to disagree with the policy. You have to engage in scare tactics and name calling to get your point across. Assigning them an unpopular political ideology or juxtaposing their name or image with that of a well known dictator is a hot trend (though again nothing new). Coming up with not so clever nick names for these groups is also de rigueur.

It’s not just about politics though. I mean that’s too easy. The term originated with religion. If someone is a member of a religion that we don’t understand or agree with then it’s so easy to call them names or ascribe attributes to them that simply do not apply to the religion as a whole or to most adherents. It’s not even just about other religions though. The flame wars between conservative evangelicals and those in the emergent movement can get messy. Then of course there are those non-religious who believe that all religions are a destructive force.

Social issues are also common fodder for painting in an evil light. We’ve got those evil secular humanists that want to brainwash our children into the cult of Darwin. Homosexuals have an “agenda” that wants to… what, make us all gay? Illegal immigrants want to destroy our way of life and take our jobs. Granted most of these instances exist thanks to either the political and/or religious demagogues.

It’s even stretched to inanimate objects. High Fructose Corn Syrup? Evil. We’re blaming a thing for making our kids fat and now we’re going to tax the heck out of soda (more than likely).

I’m sure I’m leaving out some great examples, but I think my point has been made. So why do we do this? I think a lot of it comes down to desiring a scapegoat. “Why does my life suck? It can’t be anything I’m doing. Who can I blame then?” It’s also easy shorthand in debates. Rather than talk about the issues and heaven forbid find a compromise we just take out our favorite charged phrases, dust them off and apply (heh) liberally.

I think that there are certainly things and people in this world that are evil/wrong. I’m also fully willing to admit that I’ve fallen prey to this unfortunate tendency, so that the people I’m certain are “evil” are perhaps no more than my own personal whipping boys. the questions I have are two fold. Is there a place for this demonization? How can it be avoided where it is unnecessary (assuming that the answer to question one tells us it’s ever necessary)?

And just for a little self reflection, what have you demonized?

Demonize-Nation is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

For non-religious: If you had a 8-10 yo child and they expressed an interest in religion would you encourage or discourage it? (Or neither?)

For religious: If you had a 8-10 yo child and they expressed an interest in a different religion would you en/discourage it? (Or neither?)

Follow up question if they began practicing this (non)religious belief into the teen years how would you treat it?

I felt pretty sure about the sorts of answers I would get from my religious friends. I was more interested in the sorts of answers I would get from my non-religious ones. Needless to say (and yet here he is, saying it anyway) the answers were interesting, diverse, and surprising in a few cases.

Most folks said they would encourage exploration and respect their children’s seeking even if it disagreed with their own beliefs. Since I don’t know the precise religious beliefs of everyone who follows me I can’t say with absolute certainty if there’s a clear dividing line between the two groups (really a spectrum of beliefs). Though I can say that there were Christians as well as non-Christians in the respect/trust group. There were certainly exceptions though.

salguod_net said “We’d research the other religion together and talk about the diff btw it and ours, & I’d point out why ours is sup. Teen: I think I’d put my foot down. My hse, my God. She’s gone, nothing I cn do, but I won’t have other God wor in my home.”

This is a view shared by my wife and a number of other Christians I’m sure. She and I talked about this and while she would not go so far as to kick the child out, there would be no overt worship involving a non-Christian religion tolerated. Personally, while I see where she is coming from, I disagree. If the child is mature enough to have found their own path, even if it’s one I disagree with and ultimately would lead to spiritual destruction, I don’t think anything would be served by cutting them off. The only end I could see coming from this approach is a door that is not only closed but nailed shut. Neither the relationship nor the parental religion would likely survive the encounter in the mind or life of the child.

Sidfaiwu had this to say. “RE earlier question: Both – I would educate about the religion and all the others…Combined with the critical thinking skills I hope I’ve instilled by then, the problem should work itself out.

I asked him if the education would be slanted in any way and he replied:

Yes it would – slanted towards doubt. Teaching doubt is part of critical thinking.

I didn’t get a real clear answer from him on what he would do if the “problem” (religion) wasn’t “taken care of” (rejected). I’m sure he’ll let us know in the comments. It does seem though at least on the surface that religion would be at the very least discouraged by Sid. It’s clear from what I know of him that he believes just as strongly as I do that there is a right and a wrong here, when it comes to the religious question. I am curious to know if he views this slanted education as being in the same vein as the indoctrination children in religious families go through. If so or even if not is one positive and one negative?

I suspect that the answer coming from any skeptic will involve the notion that as skeptics they would encourage their children to be skeptical even of skepticism. That is if that doesn’t cause some sort of weird infinite feedback loop. Teaching skepticism, the skeptic would likely argue, can’t be indoctrination by its very nature, can it? Or can’t it?

For me what it gets down to when it come to my kids and my religious beliefs is this. I teach them what I believe and that what I believe is the truth as far as I am capable of understanding it. As children their inclination is to do what we do. So, for now at least, they want to be Christians. They want to go to Sunday School and take communion and pray and read the Bible. I would be fooling myself if I though there was no chance for at least one of them to “go astray”. That sort of thing is a natural part of growing up, or at least it should be. One eventually comes to question many things they took for granted in the maturation process.

When that day comes, much like Doug I will share with them why I believe the way they’re going is bad. If they persist then they are certainly welcome to believe as they wish. I will love them no less. There would be fervent prayer and the hope that they would return to the faith of their father and mother. I wouldn’t deny them their right to worship (or not worship) however they chose. I wouldn’t make them come to church with me if they had no desire to. Eventually you have to go because you want to, not because I want you to.

I would strive though, as I do here, to keep the lines of communication open. I would try to be like the father of the prodigal son, on the look out for their return, preparing for that day.

Wandering Children is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Most of our lives are spent in pursuit of meeting the biological need. We eat, we sleep, we copulate, we defecate, all things that other animals do no differently, no better. You could argue I suppose that we create these wonderful culinary experiences and that when we have sex it can be emotional and earth moving. Frankly though I’m willing to bet that when most people eat or lay down with one another they do so more out of a perceived need. (In most cases I would argue, when it comes to food anyway, that that need is definitely perceived and in no way a true need.)

We get up, go to work, come home, have social time with our family units, eat, mindlessly entertain ourselves, go to bed and repeat the whole thing ad nauseum. I think that’s wrong at best and an abomination at worst. I’ll grant you that we do need to do most of those things. We are biological beings. We do have needs. But even the Naturalists I know and love though say that we have the potential to elevate ourselves (to a degree) making the difference significant. So this is what this post is about.

Find the elevator! No I’m not necessarily talking about God here (though he, of course, is the ultimate way up and out). We have other drives instilled in us. We create amazing stories. We can think about life, the universe, and everything. We can control our surroundings in ways that other creatures could never aspire to (especially because they don’t aspire to anything). I firmly believe that we can love and nurture one another like no other animal. All of these things put us at the upper end of the spectrum.

“But Scott,” you might well say, “I’m not an artist or a deep thinker.”

Perhaps not, though you’ll never catch me saying that you should only create if you’re a Michelangelo or think if you’re a Descartes. Think anyway. Create anyway. Love anyway. That last one, for me, is the real clincher. Humans have love.

I’m not up on the latest research here, bur I’d lay my ducats down on the notion that other animals don’t love like we do. Sure there are species that mate for life and there are plenty of fancy-dancy mating rituals that would put most weddings to shame, but that ain’t love. Unfortunately a lot of what we humans do with and to our family units ain’t love either.

I told my daughter last night that I didn’t always like her or what she did. That’s pretty tough right there and it was hard to say. I followed it up though, with the statement that regardless of what she does, what she believes, or how she acts I will always love her. She will always have a place in my home, at my table, and in my heart. I will always strive to support her, admonish her, and respect her. That, more than any cathedral or poem or philosophy, is what sets us apart from the animals.

So I challenge you (as I hope I always do) to love one another.

I Am Not an Animal… is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Always up for a good argument I said sure. He pointed me to a post he made on Orkut and since I can’t reply there for some reason I figured I’d do it here. I’ll incorporate some of what he said and hopefully he’ll pop in and reply at length.

He liked that it was self paced and customized to him. He also said “My parents (probably wisely) decided to do very little of the actual instruction themselves, so I wound up studying with some very knowledgeable people in their fields.”

There are several things he didn’t like then or doesn’t like now. The first, and this shows up fairly frequently in these discussions is “the whole issue of socialization”. Marnen had neither siblings nor a home school association and feels that his social skills didn’t kick in until he was in college. That’s a fair point. We have three kids, ages nine, six, and four. In addition to playing with one another, which they do somewhat well, they also have their home school group kids and kids from church and the neighborhood that they hang out with on a regular basis. Their friends are a mix of home school, private school, and public school kids so they get the advantage of a range of backgrounds. If you’re thinking of homeschooling this is a vital part of what you need to consider.

Another thing he addresses are his own “poor work habits and lack of discipline”. He, rightly, isn’t blaming anyone for that, but goes on to say, again rightly, that his experience in home school formed the basis of it more than likely. To that I would say in our case we strive to set a schedule and stick to that. Proper behavior during school time is expected and there is structure. It’s not as rigid as public school, but there are good reasons for a more rigid setting when you have the sort of student/teacher ratio that public schools do. I can say for my part I am a product of public school and also have poor work habits and a lack of discipline. Again when you make the decision to home school, flexibility of schedule is touted as one of the big advantages and it is, but you must have some structure and discipline in order to be successful.

In the same vein he says, “The fact that it was self-paced often meant that I didn’t have to deal with deadlines or curricula.” Again, just speaking for us, we use a curriculum called Classical Conversations and their material is very structured. Being self paced to a point is good, but if that becomes “Hmmm what shall we do today?” you’re in a troublesome place. Our nine year old has projects and deadlines, just like she would in public school (perhaps more so). When they are older they will likely take advantage of duel enrollment in Community College and will definitely need to be prepared for the deadlines and curricula they have there.

To that level of structure Marnen says “if you’re going to be that regimented, you might as well just send the kids to school”. I’m not so sure I agree with that. Structure is a good thing. Regimentation is a good thing. Still as I said, we are flexible and Leigh does take advantage of that. Sometimes during the week most work gets set aside and the group will go berry picking or have a play date or just go swim. That’s the exception and not the rule, but the ability is there. So again, if you home school you can have as much or as little structure as you like, but knowing what I do of developmental psychology a good amount of structure is healthy.

In closing he says “I know a number of other folks who were homeschooled, and in my opinion, just about none of them got a decent education in the process — I know I didn’t.” To that I would say that I can say the same thing about public school kids and I have gotten to know a group of home school kids that are in early adulthood and are getting in to some fine schools. All of that is anecdotal on both sides of course. What that boils down to is this, your education is likely to be only as good as your teachers and your materials. That’s why when you decide to home school your children you need to ask yourself if you have what it takes.

Homeschooling is not for everyone. You don’t have to be the best teacher in the world. Good curriculum can take you a long way. You do need to be willing to be a teacher though. Being your child’s buddy or social director isn’t going to cut it. My wife is one of the best teachers I know mainly because she is passionate when it comes to learning. Your primary purpose in home schooling has to be the drive to give your children the best education you can. Part of that will eventually mean acknowledging that you can’t do it all. That’s why you should be part of a coop of some sort. Find other parents who have strengths you don’t. Work together and have a good foundation with the materials you’re using and you can give your child at least as good an education as the public school system can (that bar is not very high believe me).

Okay that was a passionate rant, at least for me, and I’m done for now. So class, any questions?

Home Schooling is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with sharing your beliefs with others. I mean heck if you’re dead certain that Obama is the anti-Christ or that if non-Christians don’t start believing that they’re screwed then you’d being doing folks a disservice by not doing so. What I’m speaking about here are those instances where you’re talking so loud that you can’t even hear yourself think, much less hear any opposing viewpoints.

This is a blog so mostly I’m talking to those in the blog-o-sphere. I read Christian blogs who are so busy berating other Christians that they don’t have time or column space for spreading the Gospel to non-believers. I read atheist blogs that spend gigabytes of bandwidth talking about how completely stupid religious folk are (stupid but not dumb) and somehow this is supposed to turn us into “free thinkers”? I read blogs on the right and the left that attack the content of a person’s character rather than the substance of their argument. What’s the point?

I mean, I understand having an audience, a point of view, a central purpose to your own space on the net. I’m still looking for one myself, but I know that if you want readers you should be pretty focused. I also understand that being “controversial” is one way to drive traffic. However, remember that if you (and your audience) become so convinced of your rightness, you have nothing left but an echo chamber.

If that’s what you want then well, it’s your time and your money. And maybe how you look to others isn’t really all that important to you. If someone thinks you’re arrogant then hey isn’t that the price of being right sometimes? But if you really want to bring someone around to your way of thinking then encourage discussion and discourage flame wars. Invite folks to participate in your space, in an active way, that you don’t agree with.

Odds are neither of you is going to convince the other, but maybe in the process you’ll learn to see each other as human beings. Am I right?

Right Thinking is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.