Religious Bigotry
I have tried to fight a fight that I’m not destined to win with skeptics of Christianity. None of them are ever going to see the grounds for homosexuality being a sin since they do not accept the authority of Scripture. It’s the same with the clearly defined roles of gender in the church.
Women have achieved a measure of equality within secular society. This isn’t a bad thing. It’s very good. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes a woman selecting and purchasing property, managing the household, running the family finances, and bringing in a second income through work. But, the apostle Paul precludes the possibility of women serving in church leadership roles. Of women in general:
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Tim 2:12-14)
He clearly defines that church leadership will be male. He says of bishops:
If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive. . . . He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim 3:1-4, 6-7)
Of deacons:
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (1 Tim 3:8-12)
But notice why Paul forbids the woman from teaching authority: it goes back to the Fall. God’s pre-Fall intention was for the woman to be a helper and a companion. But, what ended up happening? Eve first ate of the forbidden fruit, and then Adam because of her. God then decreed:
I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. (Gen 3:16)
But that wasn’t the original intent. The woman being submissive to the man is punishment because of sin. Once sin entered the world, it corrupted everything, including the intended relationship dynamic between a man and his wife.
So what we see today is a corruption of the pure and good intent of the original created order. Despite this, it is still God’s command that the woman remain subservient to the man, since it was first the woman who was deceived by the Enemy and by the woman the man fell into transgression.
Call it religiously-motivated bigotry if you want, but the intended order of creation will be restored after the Final Judgment, and in eternity we will exist as equals, in perfect fellowship with the Creator. The woman will not remain subservient to the man forever, but for now it must be.
This Hurt My Feelings
I scanned my blog stats for yesterday (July 14, 2010) and found out that someone located me by a very unflattering search:
Yes, that’s right: look at the last line. Someone located this blog by searching on the phrase “dumb things on the internet.”
Go ahead, make fun of me. Take your best shot.
New Atheist Graphic
I just saw the following graphic on Common Sense Atheism. It’s new to me, so forgive me if it’s really old:
This, of course, has it completely wrong. God always was, there was never a time when he didn’t exist. He has existed in eternity before time, before anything else ever was, and that renders the facetious argument of this graphic invalid. He didn’t come from nothing, he never “sprang into being.” He simply existed, always.
Luke (of CSA) on Kent Hovind
While I disagree ideologically with Luke of Common Sense Atheism on the problem of evil, he does raise some good points on that post that I probably should address at some point. Specifically, he points out an interesting double standard that Christians have for God’s plan:
In a world so obviously indifferent to our pain or pleasure, Christians must embrace an incredible double standard to believe a God of the universe is perfectly good. They must say that many good things happen because they understand God’s ways and he wanted those things to happen, but they must also say that all bad things happen for reasons we can’t know because we don’t understand God’s ways.
It’s pretty late here, so I’m not going to try to think through Luke’s proposed quandary tonight. Instead, I wanted to agree with Luke on this post about Kent Hovind. Hovind represents the worst of creationist arguments. Even other creationists agree with that. And any academic institution that accepts a Ph.D dissertation with the opening sentence of “Hello, my name is Kent Hovind” should not only be shut down, but burned to the ground.
I Love Irony
I recently began following a new blog, Atheist Camel. I generally find it pretty inflammatory and I was going to unsubscribe, until I stumbled on this post. That made me decide to keep following, at least for the time being. The reason why is the irony that said post brings to the forefront. Read the rest of this entry
Mark Shea Has It Right
For someone who disagrees with much doctrine and practice within the Catholic Church, I’m starting to find some common ground with its apologists. Dave Armstrong’s recent critique of the atheist interpretation of Scripture (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5), for example. I’ve found another one that I agree with over at Mark Shea’s blog.
Steve Wohlberg, one of the leading proponents of the eschatological interpretation known as historicism, has written a book called The Trouble with Twilight, and launched a website to promote the material. Mark Shea talks about how both Stephanie Meyer and J.K. Rowling received ideas for their respective fiction from “visions.” Then the novels basically wrote themselves. Wohlberg continues:
When those mesmerizing tales first burst into the brains of these two women, neither was an established writer. Both were novices. They weren’t rich either. Now they are millionaires many times over. Their experiences are similar, with common threads. Both of their novels are permeated with occultism. Based on this, it’s appropriate to wonder, is there a supernatural source behind these revelations? If so, what is it?
I looked through a lot of online material about Steve Wohlberg. I can find no evidence that he’s ever wrote fiction. I have. I’ve written fiction for classwork in high school (which always received high marks). Out of high school I wrote two unpublished stories and started (but never finished) two others centering on a high school freshman who becomes a vigilante hero in the tradition of Batman. I tried my hand (but never finished) fan fiction, an untitled crossover between the TV shows Quantum Leap and Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Maybe one day I’ll finish that story. Prior to my conversion to Christianity, I wrote three erotic stories under two different pseudonyms (I’m not linking to them, but you can find them if you know what to search on; I won’t deny authorship if you come up with the right stories).
My point is that I have written, and can write, fiction. I’m familiar with the process. Wohlberg obviously is not.
When writing fiction, if the characters are well-defined, the story shapes itself. It’s like I become a reporter, merely relaying the actions of my characters to the audience through words on a page. For all the fiction I’ve written (yes, even the erotic fiction), the action took place almost before my eyes, and I just wrote what I saw. Characters have a way of taking on a life of their very own, whether they are occultic or normal, whether they are integral to the story or just a side character that appears in a single scene.
For this reason, most of the fiction workshops found in Writer’s Digest magazine focus on developing compelling characters. Once the characters have been developed, the rest usually takes care of itself.
Satanism Wrongly Used at Trial?
This is an interesting article. Apparently, the defendant is arguing that his religion, Satanism, shouldn’t be used against him during the sentencing phase of his capital murder trial.
That amuses me. If he had converted to Christianity, he would have been trumpeting it from the mountaintops for everyone to hear, and acting pious and prayerful. But, since he converted to Satanism, he wants it hidden so as not to prejudice the jurors.
And, the judge, the prosecutors, and the defense attorney are all ignorant. LeVey Satanists practice individuality and hedonistic sex, not human sacrifice. That, and they’re atheists! They don’t worship Satan because they don’t think he exists.
DISCLAIMER: All LeVey Satanists are atheists, but not all atheists are LeVey Satanists. I am not saying that all atheists practice individuality and hedonistic sex. Comments suggesting I have said this will be deleted. You’ve been warned.
New TLD a Reality?
ICANN, the independent agency that maintains the database of registered domain names, recently approved a resolution to add .xxx as a top level domain (TLD) exclusively for porn sites.
As a person who has struggled for many years (sometimes unsuccessfully) with porn addiction, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, filtering will be a breeze–but only if existing porn sites are required to move their activities to a .xxx domain. That’s not likely to happen.
On the other hand, it could end up costing big bucks in trade name protection. Existing companies will be forced to purchase the .xxx version of their name so that porn dealers can’t. Cybersquatters will likely move in and purchase .xxx versions of popular porn and legitimate business sites quickly, and then resell them at huge profits. This could be a bigger headache than it’s worth.
From what I’ve read on this, the porn industry opposes this because they feel it will lead to censorship. The church opposes this because they feel it legitimizes smut. I’m not sure about big business, but I’m sure that they oppose this due to the potential high cost of maintaining another domain name version of their trademark.
All of this begs the question: Why do this if everyone is against it?
But there’s an unexplored side to this. It is only 89 cents plus ICANN registry to purchase a .info domain name from GoDaddy.com. That’s how I happen to own three (now two): christiandelusion.info, godisnotimaginary.info, and the recently expired fastfoodmanagement.info. Active-domain.com prices .info domains at $2.89 for the first year. Domain.com sells them for as low as $9.29 in bulk registration, up to $10.29 for single names. If the .xxx domain becomes like the .info domain–that is, very cheap; given the ease of setting up a free website hosted by Google Sites with a custom domain; and given the fact that even the most technologically impaired can upload pictures directly from their cellphones to sites like Facebook; isn’t this just going to exponentially increase the amount of porn–especially amateur porn–available online? And is that a good thing for anyone concerned?
Revelation 3:16 Illustrated
I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (Rev 3:15-22)
Back Rome Again 