Tag: culture

Posted on

sigh…

Yup, they’ve done it…the conservatives are at it again… This time, they’re in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), of which I am a member, and they are approving a measure to continue supporting a ban on homosexual clergy members…

Here’s the quote that really got me out of this whole article:

“Louis Hesse of the Eastern Washington-Idaho Synod said those arguing for gay ordination had not made a convincing theological or scientific argument on why they were right. ‘The case has not been made. I’ve heard a lot of talk about the Gospel here today and I’m beginning to wonder if I’m in the right church,’ Hesse said. ‘A Gospel of full acceptance, accepting everyone the way they are, what does that say about sinfulness?'”

…an intriguing question, actually… What does it say about sinfulness? What does one classify as a “sin?” How far are we, as Christians, supposed to allow folks to go as far as what is considered “acceptable?” What is “acceptable,” anyway? And who decided this?

Personally, I’m somewhat ashamed of this, being a member of the ELCA, although unfortunately this seems to be the direction of many “liberal” churches and denominations in today’s world. I don’t really see why, though… The Bible doesn’t really say anything about gays, unless you’re speaking completely literally…and we all know that taking the Bible completely literally is somewhat dangerous (i.e. Adam was made of mud…seriously, people…or that women should be submissive to their husbands…or that women shouldn’t be leaders in the church…). Here is one link (quite biased, I realize, but brings up a few verses that seem to mention homosexuality). …and as that article points out, the word “homosexual” is a combination of Greek and Latin, therefore meaning that the original Bible translation could not have possibly used that word…as there was no such word in the original language of the Bible (i.e. Greek).

Sooooooooooooooo…what the heck… There are Catholic priests who have done way worse than many homosexuals… Why are we worried about them leading our churches? Because they have different values than “the rest of us?” Because they don’t believe in God the same way?” Nope. Because they’re different. Because they can’t be understood by those who have been attending church for years. Because the same people who oppose homosexuality as being “abnormal” also think that contemporary Christian music is just as “abnormal.” Because the people filling the coffers every Sunday morning won’t tolerate it, therefore we can’t minister to them the same way as everyone else.

Know what? I’m just as worthy to go to Heaven as any of them. Honestly, there are many of them who live better, less sinful lives than I ever will. But that doesn’t matter for many, unfortunately. But…”we just want to set a good example for the church-goers and their children!” How about setting a better example: one of tolerance. One of having people to live their lives without murder, stealing, adultery, idolotry…and the other Ten Commandments…the ones that don’t say anything at all about homosexuality. How about setting an example instead of telling everyone else how to live their lives, since telling them doesn’t work as well… Living by example works quite a bit better, and this intolerance of people who are “different” from those in control sends a message to young people that it’s okay to segregate, to say that it’s alright to say that some people are more worthy than others to act in certain capacities in our churches, governments, etc.

Sure, homosexuals are allowed and “welcomed” in the church, according to the Presiding Bishop. Doesn’t sound like they’re very welcomed to me, though… Sounds like their presence is allowed, but not necessarily “welcomed.”

Depressing, indeed…

Posted on

Fascinating…

So yeah, as a few of you have noticed, there’s actually been a good and lengthy discussion on my “Lee Strobel is an Idiot” posting on August 3rd, which I find rather fascinating. I’m very much enjoying the stimulating conversation that’s going on there between very diverse people with different backgrounds and understanding. I hope it continues since I’m learning a decent amount from it!

…which brings me to another subject… I’ve been thinking recently about why all these articles and such are coming up about Intelligent Design Theory versus Evolution, or more importantly, why I seem to be making a relatively big deal about it. Yesterday, I noticed that this week’s Time Magazine is publishing a few articles on the subject and even has it on the cover for the week. I guess it represents a crossroads in my life, perhaps. I’ve been going to church for many years; I’m already entrenched at one in St. Louis where I get to play drums every week (score… ;-)). But at the same time, I’m continuing with my graduate school education. I now have a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry and in Biology, so I’ve lived and breathed science for the past 5 years (if not longer), while at the same time attending the Wesley House regularly and hearing the “other side” of the story. I don’t know that I’m making decisions or life plans or anything around this “crossroads,” yet I think I am making progress toward the “truth,” or however close to it one can get.

The ID vs Evolution debate is a difficult one that will never be fully completed. I posted an article yesterday that is written by a proponent of the ID side of things. I don’t agree with a few things out of his article, but I do agree that the problem needs to be resolved with healthy debate, much like we are doing in the “Lee Strobel” posting. There are severe problems with the way ID is presented to young school kids. On the other hand, Evolution is still a theory (although, a very well-supported one…) and should be treated as such. Neither is truly “right” as they are being taught today. I guess more time is needed to come to a clear consensus. The issue needs good, healthy discussion before anyone will waver and listen to the other side’s argument…and I certainly find myself leaning toward one side, unable to listen to the other.

The problem is: which one?

Posted on

Lee Strobel is an idiot

So, I mentioned awhile back that I’m reading “The Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel, who also wrote such books as “The Case for Faith” and “The Case for Christ,” two very popular books on the college scene in such “black and white” groups as CCF and Campus Crusade…

Anyway, so I saw this book at Barnes and Noble and couldn’t help but buy it since it was that trendy author writing about two things I’m interested in: God and science. Thus far (and, granted, I’m only 80 pgs into it…), the book is worthless. Strobel uses “evidence” out of non-evidence. For example:

“The problem with irreducibly complex systems is that they perform no function until all the parts are present and working together in close coordination with one another. So natural selection cannot help you build such systems; it can only preserve them once they’ve been built. And it’s virtually impossible for evolution to take such a huge leap by mere chance to create the whole system at once.” — pg 79

Why not?! The chances of being struck by lightening once, surviving, and then getting struck again in the exact same location as before isn’t likely, but it’s still possible. How do you know it isn’t possible? And now to the whole “evidence by non-evidence” point:

“This is not an argument from ignorance…we’re not inferring design just because the naturalistic evolutionary theories all fail to explain information. We infer design because all those theories fail and we know of another causal entity that is capable of producing information – namely, intelligence. Personally, I find this to be a very strong argument indeed.” — pg 78

Oh really! All those theories fail? Do you know how science works, Mr. Strobel? You know there is no such thing as “proof” in science? That’s because any evidence can come along and change the way we we all see the world. You assume that since we don’t understand a few facets of the world around us, we must assume that “intelligence” as we know it must be involved. We thought the world was flat until we found evidence to support that it’s round. We thought the universe revolved around Earth until we found that Earth revolves around a star…that is one of infinite stars in the rest of the universe. The “intelligence” you’re talking about is human intelligence. God is all-knowing, thereby presenting an entirely different type of intelligence from what we have experienced. Frankly, Mr. Strobel, you don’t know anything about science if this is the “evidence” you’re presenting. You shouldn’t be writing books about things you apparently know nothing about.

The point of all this is: humans understand absolutely nothing about the “known” universe. We don’t know how God works. We don’t know how it was all done. To quote the common phrase, “we don’t know jack.” How can we assume to know how it all works? Isn’t it possible that there are other universes parallel to our own that have completely different physics to our own? How about another planet out there that has beings built out of neon rather than carbon? Or perhaps even that on some planet on some distant galaxy, a milk cow won an election against someone looking strangely like George W. Bush. Frankly, we don’t know. I can’t prove that these things aren’t happening because, well, because it can’t be proven.

Much like Strobel can’t prove anything he’s putting forth in his book. Know why? Well, because “evidence by non-evidence” isn’t evidence at all. It’s ignorance.

Posted on

God vs Evolution

“There are gaps in science everywhere. Are we to fill them all with divinity? There were gaps in Newton’s universe. They were ultimately filled by Einstein’s revisions. There are gaps in Einstein’s universe, great chasms between it and quantum theory. Perhaps they are filled by God. Perhaps not. But it is certainly not science to merely declare it so.”
— Charles Krauthammer, Time Magazine, August 8, 2005

I posted another essay posted in the “Articles” section above…check it out…

There seem to have been more than a few articles about this subject over the past few weeks. There’s a show that’s going to be on the History Channel on August 7th called “Ape to Man: The Evolution of Evolution,” indicating that interest in the subject is still as strong as ever.

We talked about teaching intelligent design (……creationism…) in our public schools in my Evolutionary Thought class this past semester and came to the conclusion, much like anyone who knows anything about science, that it’s a dumb idea. It’s one thing to teach it in a Catholic high school, but to teach it in our public schools is entirely wrong. What happened to a separation of church and state?

Anyway, it’s a good essay…check it out…

Posted on

Politics = Dumb

So yeah, as Mike has similar posting on his blog today, but there are some real shenanigans going on over “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” recently… Essentially, there are a bunch of folks (mainly Republicans and old people…but not entirely…) getting pissed off about “GTA” and its violent content, not to mention the sexually explicit material that’s also included. Mike cites an article at ABC News mentioning how a grandmother is suing Rockstar Games (the publisher) because she bought “GTA” for her 14-year-old grandson without knowing about the violent/sexual material portrayed within. In a second article, which I posted in my “Articles” section, Steven Johnson has an editorial about how dumb Hillary Clinton’s attack on video game manufacturers is equally as stupid…this one was published by the LA Times. In that one, he discusses how activities like football are arguably more dangerous and violent than video games, which can instead be therapeutic for youngsters.

First of all, Johnson is entirely correct: video games today are helping develop cognitive skills, strategy and hand-eye coordination much more than the games of old (i.e. Monopoly, Cutes and Ladders, etc.). A parent today can play a board game against their child relatively easily, but if you drop them into “Halo 2,” they’ll get schooled quickly. Secondly, these games all have ratings on their packaging. A kid can’t just go into a store and buy the games rated “Mature;” a parent/adult has to do it. “Oh, I didn’t know it would have that terrible material in it,” the parents say… Well, maybe they could have read the packaging, researched the game on the internet, asked other parents, etc. before purchasing the game for their child and then complaining about it. Thirdly, these parents that are complaining are the ones who are already relying on video games and TV to babysit their kids. Maybe if they’d actually spend some time with them…you know…go to a park and throw a baseball or something…they wouldn’t spend all their time playing video games…or perhaps they could play some of these games with the kids so they know you’re taking an interest in their lives, rather than just assuming that the TV is cheaper than paying someone else to watch your kids while you avoid taking responsibility for their lives and how they’re raised… Why not stop blaming the media/TV/video games for your screwed up kids and try making a difference yourself in their lives, eh?

Just a thought…

Posted on

The Gap is stoopid

So yeah, I’m going to rant about the stupidity of the teeny-bopper generation… I was at the Columbia Mall three times today, for various reasons, but I only shopped for clothes the first time. I bought a pair of khaki pants at JC Penney for $15 (on sale…w00t…)…which was a great deal, of course…but they all had this rip along the left ankle cuff of the pant leg. Now…I looked at another of the same type of pants…had a rip in the same place… I tried another…same place… I even looked at American Eagle at similar pants…they all had a small rip right below the left-hand pocket. All of them.

Now, this brings up a few points… First of all, aren’t these pants supposed to be “cool” because they look more worn? Well…wouldn’t they look more authentic if the rips and tears were at more randomized locations? Is it really that difficult to accomplish? How is it a “style” thing if they’re all the same? Is anyone “cool” if everyone wears the same style? I thought the whole point of being “cool” was to be different, yet if you wear the same clothes as everyone else, then you are the same as everyone else, therefore, not allowing for the capacity to be “cool.” It all seems counter-productive.

The more important point, however, is how absolutely stupid the American consumer is. We, the consumers, listen to what we are told looks good. If someone told us 20 years ago that, “hey, wearing pants with holes all over them looks cool,” we’d say, “damn, you’re stupid.” Now, though, Tommy Hilfiger tells us it’s cool…so everyone should wear clothes that have holes. We, the American consumer, have been told by Cosmo and Seventeen and GQ what looks good…and we believed it…and now we buy our clothes, etc. based on their “recommendations”…when these “recommendations” are surely “suggested” by every name-brand retailer and clothing designer in the world. And how are we propagating this? By shopping at Abercrombie and Gap Kids. Let’s have our kids wear their clothes from Day One…then, when they’re old enough to complain about clothes from Target saying that they’re not “cool” enough…since “cool” can only be found at Gap and Abercrombie…

Our culture is entirely programmable by commercials, TV, and celebrity (and this all explains why the hell over 50% of our country voted for quite possibly the dumbest person ever to walk the earth in the last election). We have no minds of our own, no individuality, and cannot think for ourselves. We have to look to our neighbor to see what is acceptable in the eyes of everyone else. Those who get tattoos and piercings try to evade our consumer culture by going against the grain of everyone else, and yet they have even formed their own groups who shop at certain stores and buy certain things like everyone else they know… No one is safe.

Indeed, humans are social creatures who like to fit into the crowd…but that doesn’t mean we have to be lemmings…

P.S. Happy Birthday to me… 😛