Groper Poll #2. How Would You Finish This Sentence?

Having been encouraged by the response last week's reader poll generated, I decided to post another. This is a chance for my readers to speak their minds, without editorial comment from me. My only comment is going to be the posting of my own answer.

Now for today's poll question.

How would you complete this sentence: "According to my way of thinking, God is _____"?

I will go first this time and provide my answer in the comments section.

Looking back at last week's poll question - Do you feel "In God We Trust" should be removed from our currency, and why or why not? - the overwhelming sentiment was, "yes, it should," mixed in a with a little bit of apathy. Some of the highlights of my esteemed reader's comments were:

Eruesso: "Why worry what's on our currency when the value of it is swirling down the toilet?"

Diane: "...what does God have to do with MONEY? God is more into riches of the soul than pocket, right?"

Don Rogers: "I think the motto is superfluous."

MS Day Dreamer: "Actually I really don't care whether the money says it on it or not. I also doubt "god" really cares either."

Erika: "Removing it might make a statement that we really are a country that separates church and state, or at least it might make us start moving more in that direction."

Doug Indeap: "Under our Constitution, the government has no business proclaiming that 'we trust" "In God.'"

Rainlillie: "As long as I can use it to buy goods and services, they can put Mickey Mouse on it for all I care."

Shannon: "Currency is for everyone and not everyone believes in God."

Thanks to everyone who participated and I invite everyone to sound off again this time.

The Antichrist Is Gay

I've studied Bible prophecy for more than thirty years now. It was a habit I developed in my youth, the result of hearing so many sermons and Bible studies about the "end of the world" and related subjects, and reading popular books which discussed these topics. I have lived and studied long enough to see trends in that field come and then pass out of fashion. One example being when the Soviet Union - what was once deemed by Bible prophecy "experts" as the nation that would trigger Armageddon by attacking Israel - literally fell apart, only to be replaced in the minds of the speculators by the now popular "Muslim threat." And my historical studies have confirmed that this type of thing has ever been the case.

Rapture Ready is a Christian website geared to keep rapture believers (which is to say Fundamentalist Christians) informed about trends and indicators regarding the "End Times." The article from that site which I am going to examine today is one that seems to me so patently silly and ill-founded that no serious Bible student could possibility take it seriously. But I know that isn't the case. It will be taken seriously and no doubt e-mailed from Xian to Xian and discussed and spread about like the droppings which spill from the birds which dot our skies. Unfortunately, this silliness will strike many more heads than bird droppings usually do.

The author, Joseph Chambers, states his thesis thusly:

The unclean life of homosexuality and lesbianism has never been as vile or as threatening as it is at this present time. The Bible speaks with clear warnings about this effeminate spirit that will possess the last generation before the Rapture and the judgment of this earth. The accepted lifestyle during the seven years of the Great Tribulation will be homosexuality, lesbianism, sadomasochism, transvestitism, and many other actions that are even viler. Also, the Bible is extremely clear that the nature of the Antichrist and his false prophet (false anointing) will be a sodomy spirit. It would be wrong to prophesy this if it was not evident in the Holy Scripture.

This is a teaching, I confess, that in all the years I've studied the Bible I have never come across. I am painfully aware of the negative views about homosexuality that the Bible expresses - a relic of the barbaric mindset of some (but not all) of our ancient ancestors. But it seems as if rampant homophobia within some quarters of the conservative Christian community is literally running over for this idea to be put forward in a serious manner.

The problem I have with the majority of popular preachers and Bible teachers is just this: they are either ignorant or dishonest, and oftentimes both. Even back in my younger days when I still thought of the Bible as God's revelation to man, I would have rejected Mr. Chambers' theory as being against the plain meaning of the texts he uses to support it. Let's take a look.

First he goes to the ancient book of Daniel and takes a passage from chapter 11 that speaks of a person, he says, "whom we call the Antichrist."

"We" who, I would ask?

The preponderance of serious biblical scholarship recognizes that the person under discussion is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a tyrannical Selucid ruler who lived some two centuries prior to the Christian Era, and was a subject of ancient Jewish religious lore for the simple reason that he persecuted observant Jews and their temple cult. Any good commentary on the book of Daniel or Study Bible with scholarly notes will shed light on this if you are interested.

But those who use the Bible to control and manipulate others, to enrich themselves financially with sensationalistic ideas, will naturally enough ignore the historical setting of this very ancient book. If they can convince people that these moldy ideas are relevant for today, heck, according to them, actually forecasting the events of our age, they will be successful.

I didn't bring up Antiochus Epiphanes to bore anyone. But if we find that what Chambers is dealing with is an ancient scenario then we obviously are justified in dismissing his theory as just another crackpot theory, which I believe is the case.

Now notice the verses he quotes, which he attempts to apply to some future Antichrist:

“And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things” (Daniel 11:36-38).

From this he gathers that the Antichrist will display a "complete disregard for the normal desire of the opposite sex" based on the words, "nor the desire of women."

But notice how this misapplication evaporates when we look at a more accurate translation of the relevant passage (New International Version):

"He will show no regard for the gods of his ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all."

So much for the homosexual theory, and, I might add, the above (correctly translated) fits the character and deeds of Antiochus Epiphanes perfectly.

Next Chambers goes hop-scotching over to the book of Revelation to grab his next prooftext:

“And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon” (Revelation 13:11).

His commentary on that verse is:

That is pictorial language of the highest order. It shows his very strong effeminate and soft nature that is angry, bitter, and loud. A sodomite creature could not be described more adequately.

Sure it could. He could be described as not regarding the desire of women - in the literal sense, not as Antiochus Epiphanes was accused of via a faulty translation. And while I find offensive Chambers' stereotype of the effeminate gay male, even if one believed that it would still seem strange, I would think, to describe an "effeminate" person as speaking like a dragon! Oh, well, idiocy has no logic.

There is one more verse that Chambers believes establishes his "sodomy spirit" in the last days theory, also from the Revelation:

The Lord showed John a picture of the invasion of unclean spirits on the earth and these dark spirits had hair like women. “And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions” (Revelation 9:8)...This is much bigger than the long hair on these masculine creatures. It is the spirit behind it. The Bible was exposing the effeminate nature of the end.

Since Mr. Chambers didn't take the time, I will go on and explain that what John said he saw were locusts being released from the Abyss onto the earth. Yes, the above is part of John's description of demonic locusts. But since Chambers is determined to view them as homosexual males, I can only imagine how he interprets the part that says they "had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months" (verse 10)!

Towards the end of his exposé (chuckle, chuckle) Mr. Chambers writes:

You will never face a more vile spirit than is manifest in the nature of sodomy. It is invading our world and it is the manifestation of spirits from Satan.

Yes, I think we do face a vile spirit: It is the nature of the blind, hate-filled bigot.

The One Commandment

The so-called Ten Commandments are still a hot topic in the news because someone somewhere is always trying to post these in inappropriate places, i.e., on government property. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" is, most thinking people should agree, a bit restrictive for a pluralistic society. And when we get down to the part about not coveting our neighbor's manservant, well, that brings up a very shameful part of our heritage (not that the lumping together of wives with a man's other possessions isn't offensive in itself).

When people ask me about my religious beliefs I'm quick to contrast the Ten Commandments with the main tenet of my religion, what I call the One Commandment. Believe me, I get some funny looks with that one. But my spiritual belief system can basically be summed up with the following words: You should not treat other people in ways you do not wish to be treated.

Now how is that for simplicity? No long list of dos and don'ts, no tithing, no mandatory church attendance, no boring sermons from religious "leaders," no arcane rituals, just a simple, matter-of-fact principle that if followed religiously would solve the majority of the world's problems and make the rest easier to work at because we all would be together in the effort.

But should it be called a commandment? Well, to the truly spiritual heart and mind, the heart and mind that loves humanity because we all are part of it, I believe a clear conscious does command it.

You will notice also, I hope, that rather than dividing us into camps of chosen peoples and non-elects, the above truth unites us as equals. To be opposed to the One Commandment is to be opposed to civilization itself. Non-practitioners haven't fully evolved and are in denial of their own humanity. Those who do a poor job of obeying the One Commandment stand convicted by their own consciences.

Satanic Abortions

I've written a number of posts about Satan, expressing my opinion that he a myth, a theodicy for why bad things happen in world created by a supposedly good God. Of course the majority of the American people believe in a literal God, so it isn't surprising that even today they still believe in a literal person known as Satan.

I was reading an article observing the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and as is almost always the case I found the reader's comments the most interesting part. I don't recommend the article as very useful, but the comments section is good for a chuckle.

Abortions we are assured are evil and, I suppose, are another of Satan's little tricks for making this world a bit more hellish. One commenter on that article asks:

Oh for jesus sake. If abortion is evil, why did God Almighty create Satan?

Now many of us wonder why - if you are going to take this whole Satan thing seriously - God turned the Devil loose on humankind in the first place, and why, if God is all-powerful, he allows him to wreak havoc as he has allegedly done down through the centuries.

Another commenter responded to the above comment with this one:

You asked why did God create satan? Satan was not bad at the beginning. He became bad in the pre-existence which is scantily mentioned in the book of Revelation ( the war in heaven). There is a much longer explanation...but this is not the place or time.

Actually, that seemed to me as good a place as any to discuss this question. Nevertheless, unless the believer is willing to concede that God is not all-knowing, that "explanation" is hardly to the point. Did he not know Satan would turn bad? Even conceding that point, one must also be willing to jettison either God's power (because he is unable to terminate Satan?), or God's basic goodness for allowing him to continue.

But there is another basic problem I see with the theory that Satan was created good and then later turned against God. That problem is this: who tempted Satan into becoming THE deceiver? Doesn't that argument suggest that evil is itself a naturally occurring element in the universe? In fact, this is exactly what I believe the case is, and the fairy tale silliness about a fallen angel becoming Satan is totally unnecessary to account for anything.

Church Crunch

Wow, whom shall we blame for this one? The Great Recession is taking its toll on God's people. The so-called "next wave" of the economic crisis is the increasing number of foreclosures of churches, nearly 200 since 2008, we are told, with more to come a certainty.

Shall we blame the greedy bankers who evidently have no respect for anything sacred (unless it be mammon itself), or Christian leaders who have made their religion a business? Or is God merely acting like the modern CEO and downisizing his operations?

I polled my readers the other day about our national motto, "In God We Trust." I guess the motto isn't applicable to money lenders. The story I linked to quotes a senior real-estate strategist: "Religious organizations may be subject to the laws of God but they are also subject to the laws of economics."

Seems to me that many of these organizations are no better obeying the one than the other.

Thoughts On Fast Food

When I was a kid we had very few options for fast food around here. In the mid to late 60s we finally got a Kentucky Fried Chicken, which was franchised to a restaurateur who had been in business for years in a family style eatery. We had a few pizzerias, lots of mom and pop burger joints that served burgers the old fashioned way, but just not many drive-thru fast food places. Young people now wonder how we managed to eat and stay alive way back then.

Why, we mostly just ate at home, with eating out only an occasional thing. We actually cooked real food on real stoves, as opposed to microwave ovens. And if we did buy junk food at the grocery store in that ever-growing "freezer section," it had to be cooked in a conventional oven. And it tasted like crap compared to the real food, just as it still does today when compared to an honest-to-goodness home-cooked meal. That microwave introduced us to a new world of rubbery digestibles that conventional ovens, thankfully, can't duplicate.

I said all that to say this: Somehow, without really trying, I find I have almost entirely kicked the fast-food habit. Oh, I still like the occasional burrito or taco salad, hamburger, fish and chips, or delicious, cheesy pizza. But I make this stuff for myself now. Even though it takes a bit longer, I think my meals taste better and are not really that expensive. Through careful shopping and keeping a keen eye out for sales, I always have on hand a good selection of meal possibilities. Best of all, I know what I'm eating: no strange hands that might have just squeezed a zit or dug out a wedgie handling my food; no strange germs from coughers and hackers and people who can't seem to talk without spraying spittle all over the place; no pranksters who think adding their own "special sauce" to an unsuspecting customer's meal is funny. Oh, did I mention that I never screw up my own meal order?

I didn't start out with kicking fast-food as an objective, but that stuff has just lost its appeal. Anyway, I just don't think you can get real food for those ridiculously low prices. Certainly that old adage "you get what you pay for" really applies to the fast food industry. A menu of items for a buck? What kind of muck are we placing in our bodies for that low price? Best not to do that too often.

People laugh at me, especially the young ones, and I laugh right back at the fact that for most of them the art of cooking is an esoteric subject. Want some fast food? I can whip up a fluffy omelet, throw together a healthy salad, or dress up some noodles with veggies, seasonings, and olive oil, almost as fast as they can say "where d'ya wanna go for eats?"

Perhaps our modern love affair with fast food says some troubling things about us as a people. We have a growing tendency to believe life in general should be quick, easy, and supersizeable. What a skewed outlook.

Death Claims Fitness Icon Jack LaLanne

It happens to the best of us: we all have an unbreakable appointment with death. Now death has claimed "ageless" fitness guru Francois Henri "Jack" LaLanne at the ripe old age of 96. Pneumonia, "the old person's friend," apparently did the trick after a week of illness. He often joked, "I can't afford to die, it will ruin my image"

Ah, the memories. I watched his excercise program on television when I was a child. I read a couple of his books. Alas, I never could bring myself to espouse his lifestyle of "if it tastes good, spit it out" and working out two hours everyday. He lived his philosophy and had a good run at it. Not only living long, but apparently living well, too.

But, life has instilled in me a suspicion that genes have the biggest say in how long one lives. I'm not discounting good habits (for me that means a modest effort to be moderate in my ways). I just think it's fair to point out that cigar chomping comedian George Burns lived longer. He and his pudgy buddy funnyman Bob Hope both lived to one hundred years of age. (Who knows, maybe laughter is the best medicine.) Another fact: Jack's brother lived to be 97, suggesting to me that the LaLanne's had "good" genes. And a personal observation: most of the centenarians I see with increasing frequency in the news aren't fitness fanatics.

At any rate, so long, Jack, and thanks for the memories and the inspiration.

Note: While usually I only post once a day I am trying something new and starting something that may become a regular feature (if it flops, it won't). Please check out the first of my Groper Polls found below this post and join the fun.

Groper Poll #1

Dear esteemed readers - or fellow Elephant Gropers, as I think of you - I am trying something new with this post. Just for fun I thought I'd poll as many of you are as inclined to give your opinion on what I hope is a topic of general interest. I have an eclectic group of readers so this should be fun. I've even titled this Groper Poll #1, in the hope it proves interesting enough to try again in the future. (Dare I hope regularly, maybe weekly?)

Okay, to the subject at hand:

Atheist attorney Michael Newdow is trying again, with another petition to the Supreme Court, to have the national motto "In God We Trust" removed from our currency. His feeling is that the motto violates our Constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

My question is: Do you feel "In God We Trust" should be removed from our currency, and why or why not?

My opinion - and don't I have one on just about everything? - will be attached later in the comments section along with those of you who choose to participate.

Apocalypse Signs On The Moon?

In the twelfth chapter of the book of the Revelation there is found this passage (verses 1-5, taken from the ASV of the Bible):

And a great sign was seen in heaven: a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she crieth out, travailing in birth, and in pain to be delivered.

And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his heads seven diadems. And his tail draweth the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon standeth before the woman that is about to be delivered, that when she is delivered he may devour her child.

And she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and unto his throne.

Perhaps that passage was in the minds of some believers and awaiters of the Apocalypse in India who reportedly have seen the Virgin Mary and infant Jesus on the moon. Some of the eyewitnesses to this heavenly spectacle believe it is an indication that the "kingdom of god is near."

Another eyewitness said:

In the cities, people do not take such things seriously. But there is a lot of fear in the villages. People think that the world will end in a few years and that the image is a message to prepare for the event.

If I'm reading between the lines properly there, I take it this means those in cities for the most part are better educated and less superstitious.

The local priests are urging people to disregard this event and remain calm. Father Tony Charanghat offered this: "We do not react to such reports and in cases like this. Our advice is not to see anything." In other words, not to attach any special religious significance to it.

Astronomer Dr. J. J. Rawal gives the naturalistic interpretation:

The moon’s atmosphere is almost airless and meteors crash into its surface creating craters. Sunlight falling on the depressions creates shades. Even Galileo mistook these shaded areas and named them the Sea of Tranquility, and so on. Similarly, other shaded areas could look like images of humans or animals.

Inasmuch as frenzied religious believers tend to see what they want to see in these kinds of events - heck, I'm still hearing from my friends about how the recent mass bird death incidents are evidence that "God is trying to tell us something" - I doubt the wise words of Father Charanghat and Dr. Rawal will do much to calm the excitement.

The World's First Recorded Freethought Discussion

[Please take note that I'm writing this one strictly tongue in cheek and dedicating it to all my friends and loved ones who believe the Bible is a true record of God's revelation to man, and that the opening chapters of Genesis, the first book of that record, is intended as history. Personally, I don't believe the evidence warrants such beliefs, but I'll play along here. The dialogue and details are taken directly from Genesis chapter 3.]

A Little Morality Play Concerning Ignorance

The players:

The Serpent, sharpest of all the animals.

Eve, mother of humankind.

Adam, dull-witted companion of Eve and, unfortunately, the father of humankind.

God, creator and ruler of all that exists. (By the way, God is plural in this account, but I will go ahead and gloss over that because most folks aren't aware of it anyway.)

Setting: The beautiful Garden of Eden, where all is beautiful, all is play and no work, and ignorance is bliss.


Act 1: A Freethought Discussion

The Serpent ("more subtle than any beast of the field" approaches Eve for the purpose of initiating a little chat): "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

Eve: "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

The Serpent: "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."


Act 2: Try It, You'll Like It

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Act 3: The Fickle Finger Of Blame

God (calling for Adam): "Adam, where art thou?"

Adam: "I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself."

God: "Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

Adam: "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

God (now turning toward Eve): "What is this that thou hast done?"

Eve: "The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

Act 4: God Blows His Stack

God (speaking to the Serpent): Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God (speaking to Eve): "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

God (speaking to Adam): "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Epilogue: God Fixes Everything

God (speaking, evidently, to the other gods): "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: [Therfore, I will send] him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Questions for discussion:

1. Who was telling the truth according to this account, God or the Serpent?

2. Is it fair to infer from this account that the Bible God is against learning?

3. Does the Serpent's punishment seem just for his actions?

4. Is it fair for God to use our first parents as representatives for the rest of us?

Of course, I could go on. But my point is not to mock so much as to highlight the difficulties involved in taking religious mythology literally. Even as mythology I think this story displays a bit of immature thinking, especially regarding the woman's punishment. For many years it was common for women to refer to their monthly menstrual cycle as "the curse." (As I get older I'm tempted to think that God must have thrown a little curse towards us men in the form of prostate problems due to hardening and enlargement with age and that maybe the editor inadvertently omitted that from this account.) My biggest beef with ol' Adam is that he wasn't as eager as his helper to gain knowledge. The moral of this story seems to me to be that it is better to live one's life in an immature state of mind rather than to learn and grow intellectually. And lastly, the Bible God here comes across as petty and overly emotional. Not good traits for a deity, in my humble opinion.

The Spirit Of Antichrist Is Everywhere

So says Franklin Graham.

Is this man serious? Franklin Graham was speaking at John Brown University earlier this week and proclaimed: "The spirit of anti-Christ is everywhere. We're being secularized so quickly. Anything that has to do with Christian faith is slowly being taken out of society."

I just haven't noticed that. For example, in the recently elected 112th Congress I find that 460 members are of the Christian faith, 475 including Mormon Christians. There are also 39 Jews, three Buddhists, two Muslims, and one Quaker. Not a bad representation of the followers of Jesus. I don't see much of a threat being posed there by, say, atheists or secular humanists.

Graham went on in his talk to express dissatisfaction with the memorial service that was held for the victims of the tragic shooting in Arizona, saying: "There was no call for God to put His loving arms around those who were hurting. Why did they leave him out? They scoff at the name of Jesus Christ."

Who? Who was doing this alleged "scoffing," this alleged mocking or scorning of the name of Jesus? No one I'm aware of. Can a Christian minister not be relied upon to tell the truth?

Franklin Graham would have us believe that Christians are facing persecution here in the United States: "We know that we are going to be persecuted for standing up for the name of Christ."

Get over it, Franklin. In some places around the globe Christians are being persecuted, even unto death. But not here. And the fact that Graham's asinine ramblings are widely reported as newsworthy instead of being given the widespread scoffing they truly deserve is proof of that.

A Confusing Apology

Following up yesterday's post, I'm taking note of Gov. Bentley's apology for having expressed the orthodox Christian belief about God's relationship to humankind as expressed almost verbatim by Jesus.

No doubt it was the expedient thing to do from a political point of view. From a faith perspective, I'm not sure it amounts to anything more than an accommodation of general unbelief.

According to this news report concerning the apology, held with a group of reporters and Alabama's Jewish leaders, Bentley, when asked if he considered these folks who attended to be brothers, he said: "Yes, yes, I do."

How do you perform a complete reversal like that in so short amount of time?

The report also states that when the governor made his earleir remarks he "assumed he was speaking as a private citizen and not as the Governor of Alabama."

Okay, I'm confused. How can you distinguish the beliefs a politician like Bentley holds as a private person from those he holds as an office holder? Is he a Christian only in his private life and then a believer in religious pluralism when acting as governor? I'm not sure I understand this type of doublethink.

Bentley said:

It was never my intention to disenfranchise anyone. If I did make anyone of any faith feel disenfranchised, let me say I am sorry.

Well, what, then, was the intention of his crystal clear earlier remarks?

This incident at best shows a serious lack of sound judgment on Bentley's part. At worst it displays his troubling double-mindedness. As a Christian and Baptist Deacon, surely Bentley is aware of what the Bible says about a double-minded man: "A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways" (James 1:8).

This story underscores the problem with the mixing of religion and politics. In theory the rendering of that which is Caesar's to Caesar and that which is God's to God sounds easy. In practice it often proves much more problematic.

In my opinion, Bentley is the typical Bible Belt politician, and I'm not impressed with him.

Who's Your Daddy?

In my opinion, politicians rarely look sillier than when they are attempting to articulate their personal religious philosophy. It just shouldn't be an issue and they shouldn't make it an issue.

Alabama's new governor, Robert Bentley, did this recently. On the very day of his swearing-in to office Bentley spoke before a crowd of folks at MLK Jr.'s former church, Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, where he made some comments that have been picked up and reported widely by news agencies across the nation. In a not very savvy or politically correct expression of his personal faith, Bentley opined that

"if you're a Christian and you're saved ... it makes you and me brother and sister ... Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters... So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

I guess American Atheists' president, David Silverman, had the best response: "He is a governor, not a mullah."

Well, as I said, this is getting a lot of attention. Our supposed Christian Nation as a whole doesn't like that kind of talk. Too restrictive and divisive. Our nation's version of the Christian God is that he is a God of love. A God who loves everyone equally and willingly shares his throne with the various Gods of all the other religions, who are, after all in their view, really just misunderstandings about him.

I hasten to point out, however, that what Governor Bentley said was thoroughly biblically based. In fact, he was echoing the teachings of Jesus, who in Matthew 12:46-50 said:

While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Which just goes to show, I believe, that Jesus would have made a lousy politician, despite the fact his followers consider him a king. However, Jesus was a theocrat and not a believer in democracy.

You see, politicians just can't say things like that. Well, not in a democracy such as ours. And that's the trouble with mixing religion and politics. You can govern according to our nation's Constitution or the constitutions of the various states, or you can govern according to your understanding of the Laws of God. But you can't do both.

Now, in fairness, Bentley is also reported to have said that he wanted to be "governor of all of Alabama — Democrat, Republican and independent, young and old, black and white, rich and poor." That isn't necessarily inconsistent with his comments at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Baptist Church, because Christians are numbered among all the groups mentioned.

But what about everyone else?

Nothing Stays The Same

Well, a while back they changed the retirement age on me, while I wasn't looking, from 65 to 67. (If some lawmakers have their way, that might change yet again.) And country music - what happened to that? I hate what passes for country music today. It just sounds like pop music sung with a drawl. I can't remember the last time I heard a steel guitar. So I mostly don't listen to the radio anymore. I'm just saying I guess I'm beginning to show my age. I feel more and more like a dinosaur as I'm constantly discovering more and more things that have changed or are just not the way they used to be (what is worse, the way I think they should be).

And then today as I was reading the newspaper over lunch I discovered I'm no longer a Pisces, but am now an Aquarius. Yes, someone finally got around to noticing that "the moon's gravitational pull has slowly moved the Earth in its axis, creating about a one-month bump in the stars' alignment."

In case you missed that, you can read more about it here and see the revised dates for your sign.

Now I don't take that astrology stuff seriously and hope you don't either. But in case you do, you might want to call your astrologer, because your readings may have been a tad off lately.

I guess these things happen if you stay alive long enough.

A Silly Anti-Abortion Argument

I did a lot of reading this past week of various opinions and perspectives concerning the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona. One of the oddest came from a letter-to-the-editor in my local newspaper:

According to the Gutt-macher Institute, there were 1,212,350 infants killed in the womb by abortion in 2009, which is an average of 3,322 per day.

We rightfully mourned the death of six defenseless people in Arizona this past weekend at the hands of a deranged killer; but have we mourned the deaths of 3,322 defenseless infants that died on the same day at the hands of intelligent abortion providers?

Could one of those aborted infants discovered a cure for cancer, become president, or become a child of a loving adoptive parent?

Aside from the very questionable use of "infant" in this manner, this writer's argument has got to be one of the silliest arguments against abortion I can imagine.

Forgive me, but since the writer brought it up I couldn't help wondering: What if Jared Loughner's parents had decided to terminate that pregnancy?

Now don't get me wrong. Abortion is a serious, difficult issue. It shouldn't be taken lightly, and I'm certain most women who have chosen that route have suffered mental anguish or unease because of the ordeal, and that can continue for a very long time.

But having gone through the process of soul-searching necessary to make their decision, would a woman's a final thought be: "Hey, wait; maybe I will give birth to a scientist who will cure cancer, a future president, etc."

If this thinking were part of the decision, surely it would be just as sensible for her to ponder whether the offspring might be a future serial killer, the next Hitler, a pedophile, or who knows what?

So why not just leave this difficult and very personal decision in the hands of the women facing it and let the rest of us mind our own business?

My Mom Is Scared

This really, really bothers me. My mom, has been a dedicated Christian (of the fundamentalist variety) all of my life and then some. So to her, preachers represent perhaps the most valuable source of knowledge - apart from THE Book itself - one can consult. She works part-time at a religious radio station (truly a labor of love, and at nearly 78 years of age she has absolutely no plans of hanging up her microphone).

Each weekend she listens to hours and hours of religious programming, mostly from fundamentalist and conservative Christians. The church she attends is a subsidiary of the radio station, or maybe it's vice versa, and has a live broadcast every Sunday. I've heard her pastor preach over the radio. He is of the typical "the Bible is as up-to-date as tomorrow's newspaper" school of theology. Unfortunately, as is typical with this type of preaching, the Bible seems to dovetail nicely with the agenda of the extreme right-wing of the political spectrum.

Therefore, my mom is convinced - beyond anything I have been able to undo with all the facts and reasoning at my disposal - that President Obama, the accused closet-Muslim, is attempting with his healthcare reform efforts to bring into existence death tribunals, for the purpose of getting rid of the elderly among us.
Actually, I think the seeds for this was planted long ago, perhaps as far back as the 1960s, as I recall certain childhood memories. I remember a preacher at the church we attended when I was kid cautioning us in a sermon that "a Congressman" had already introduced a bill in favor of "mercy killing." As usual with rumors of this sort (today we would call them Urban Legends), the details are at best sketchy if existent at all. I heard Mom repeat this story a number of times over the years.

Well, as I've written before, I was weaned on Apocalyptic preaching. Chilling tales of how millions would be left behind at "the rapture" to face "The Great Tribulation" that would be ushered in by the Antichrist, were a staple of sermons at our church. This fit very well with their idea of legislated mass killings. All the pieces seemed to be coming together.

As always, the end is near in their thinking, so now, through the outright lies being told about our president and other non-conservative members of our Congress, it seems more than ever as if the end of civilization as we know it is at hand.

My mom is scared, and I can do nothing to reassure her. I don't believe the Bible is an oracle for modern times. What is more, I pretty much divide the so-called "gospel preachers" into three categories: those who are sincere but woefully ignorant; those who are intelligent, well informed and also devious manipulators; those who are mentally unstable and spend their free time building delusional fantasies around the Bible. Consequently, she thinks there is no way I can see the truth about things.

We are very close and love each other dearly. She prays daily for the scales to fall from my eyes. I tiptoe daily around the faith that has sustained her for so many years. She can't understand what happened to me over the years, why I lost my faith. I can't understand how she or anyone can walk backwards for years upon years.

My mom is scared about the future. But she has her faith. Mostly Mom is scared about what will happen to her two remaining sons and other loved ones who surely (in her mind) will shortly face the wrath of an angry God. And I daily live at the intersection of two opposing worldviews.

Channeling Davy Crockett

Sarah Palin wants to be president someday (soon). Towards that end, Palin has been working carefully and determinedly at crafting an image that she hopes will instill confidence in people; confidence that she is one tough cookie who can handle anything that could conceivably be thrown her way in dealing with a dangerous world as leader of the Free World.

Her rhetoric has been getting a lot of attention lately. Absolutely I think that such incendiary talk and sh*t stirring is irresponsible, potentially dangerous, and unworthy of serious consideration. I also believe the things she says are protected by the First Amendment. Tampering with that would be more dangerous, I believe.

Perhaps some of my reader friends think I'm not taking this thing seriously enough. But, honestly, I just see it as if Sarah Palin (and other pols who talk like her) is trying to channel the for real cut-and-shoot politicians of olden days. David "Davy" Crockett, for example. That's not him in the picture I selected, by the way. It's the late actor Fess Parker, who played the frontiersman/politician in the popular 1950s Disney movie. Yeah, the picture is not the real thing; but, then, neither is Sarah Palin. Every one can see she is a girly girl, not at all cut from the same cloth as Crockett, Andy Jackson, Old Rough and Ready Zachary Tayor or others of that heroic breed. She most often ends up looking ridiculous, in my opinion.

Another impression I have of her is that she just isn't that intelligent. Does she not know that silence is sometimes golden? Trying to defend herself against suggestions that her crosshairs ad might have played some part in last Saturday's Tucson tragedy, she stepped into another public relations dung pile with her attempted use of a "blood libel" defense. (At least in that silly video she was obviously reading from a teleprompter, rather than from notes scrawled on her hand.)

I guess intelligence isn't something the voting public insists on in their presidents. Presidents Reagan and Bush 43 are recent proofs of that. Reagan was an example of how a phony image is sometimes enough. Bush was just lucky. Don't forget he lost the popular vote by half a million votes the first time. He had the advantage of incumbency second time around. That and the apparent assistance of a well-timed Osama Bin Laden video. "Okay, sheep, let's not change horses in midstream."

So I guess what troubles me most about a potential Sarah Palin presidential candidacy is the way the majority of folks are so willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Now that's scary.

The Preacher And The Prima Donna

Zsa Zsa Gabor the well known ... uh, how should I describe her? ... Celebrity, actress, professional wife (okay that wasn't very nice, but she's joked about it herself) has certainly lived a long and very interesting life. From just about everything I've ever read about her, she doesn't seem to be a very nice person (check out this for one example). But I don't know her personally, so it's not for me to say. Perhaps she's just misunderstood (snicker).

One thing I can say for sure, the legendary celebrity is in rapidly declining health and at 93 (94, if she survives her current health crisis and lives until February 6) is surely near the end. I'm wishing her well. I'm not a big fan, but greatly enjoyed her performance in the old, old move Lili. As a teenager I thought she was hot, hot, hot in that movie. In fact, as a more-than-middle-aged man I can say I still think she looks nice for her age. (At least from the distance I am viewing her.)

However, of all the things I could say about Ms. Gabor, I've never thought of her as being a person of religious faith. Yet, I've been hearing that well-known faith healer and millionaire Benny Hinn (of all people!) has gone to her sick bed in order to lay hands on her ... for the purpose of prayer, I mean!

And here let me pause to interject something about faith healers. Once I got a certain age (about fourteen or fifteen, I think) I began to wonder in earnest why these folks who claimed to have "the gift of healing" always spent their time in tents (well, that was back in the old days), auditoriums, and coliseums plying their trade ... er, I mean, sharing their (purported) God-given gift. I mean, why not go to the hospitals and nursing homes and just empty those places out? Honestly, I began to think that it might have something to do with those not being good places to pass around an offering plate. But my readers know how cynical I can be about some of these things.

Benny Hinn has had an interesting life as well. He has been the subject of financial investigations, he is something of a theological pariah among serious Bible students, his wife recently bailed on him ... I mean this guy is interesting in his own right. Why, he even claims that people have been healed and even raised from the dead under his ministry. And did I say that he has done rather well for himself financially? He is loaded and as famous as a movie star.

So perhaps he and Gabor are a good fit. At first I thought she and her family might just be grasping at straws. You do that sometimes in dire situations. That cynical side of me wondered if Hinn might have been the one to offer his services. What a coup this is publicity-wise.

So I guess we will get to see how divinely gifted Mr. Hinn is. Or maybe how good Gabor's doctors are.

Now We Know What Happened To The Birds

Remember my post about the Bird Apocalypse? Well, now we can stop wondering and guessing. God is back of it. God is angry with us, and so is venting his wrath against nature. (Talk about misplaced anger.)

Cindy Jacobs, who with her husband Mike runs the Christian ministry Generals International, and bills herself at their website as "a respected prophet," has explained everything for us in detail. Now I'm going to quote from her sermon, but words alone are hardly enough with this. To get the full impact you really need to view the YouTube video. I could hardly stop laughing watching her deliver this nonsense.

Okay, let's get to her explanation for Birdageddon:

According to biblical principles, marriage is between a man and a woman, so we have to say “what happens when a nation makes a decision that’s against God’s principles?” Well, often what happens is that nature itself will begin to talk to us – for instance, violent storms, flooding. And you know there are actually some patterns that you can see where a nation will make a decision that is contrary to the principles of God and after that there is some kind of answer that God gives - being the God of creation, the God who created nature - but we don’t always understand what He’s saying.

A more primitive view of nature and God, I can hardly imagine. Dare we hope it one day will completely die? But she's just warming to her task:

Well, there’s something interesting we have been watching – let’s talk about this Arkansas pattern and say, could it be a pattern? We’re going to watch and see. But the blackbirds fell to the ground in Beebe, Arkansas. Well the Governor of Arkansas’ name is Beebe. And also, there was something put out of Arkansas called "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" by a former Governor, this was proposed, Bill Clinton. As so, could there be a connection between this passage [here she is referencing the Old Testament prophet Hosea, chapter 4] and now that we’ve had the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, where people now legally in the United States have broken restraints with the Scripture because the Scripture says in Romans 1 that homosexuality is not allowed.

Now I have to give her an "A" for creativity here, but - as my teachers used to say - a big, fat "F" for biblical exegesis.

She has these verses (Hosea 4: 3, 4) in mind:


Therefore the land will mourn;
And everyone who dwells there will waste away
With the beasts of the field
And the birds of the air;
Even the fish of the sea will be taken away.

I would just suggest my friends who are tempted to see some connection here to back up to the start of Hosea chapter 4, which begins: "Hear the word of the LORD, You children of Israel, For the LORD brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land...."

Well, that ought to be clear enough. Israel - ancient Israel, I might add - is the subject here. This has absolutely nothing to do with the United States, much less Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

You see, that's one way the Bible has become such a bone of contention: grab a passage here or there, ignore its context, and just read into it whatever point you want to make.

Mrs Jacobs contiues:

It could be because we have said it’s okay for people who commit these kinds of acts to be recognized in our military for the first time in our history, there is a potential that there is something that actually happened in the land where a hundred thousand drum fish died and also where these birds just fell out of the air.

Or it could just be that this "respected prophet" is sensationalizing the Bible in order to make a buck. Okay, maybe I'm being overly cynical there, but either this woman is grossly ignorant or grossly dishonest.

I honestly wish I could say that this is so patently absurd that it will fall harmlessly on nothing but deaf ears. But that would be offering false hope. I personally know many people who would give this a hearty "Amen!"

That troubles me.

Are We A Nation Of Knee-Jerkers Who Too Often Miss The Point?

That's really scary. That is the face of a man who was just arrested for trying to assassinate a United States Congressperson and for shooting indiscriminately into a crowd of people, young and old, injuring some while killing others. Gee, he looks quite self-satisfied.
Mentally ill people can do crazy things, and mentally ill people with guns can kill and maim people.

Many of us remember that terrible day almost thirty years ago when another unhinged person, John W. Hinkley Jr., fired into a crowd with idea of assassinating newly minted President Ronald Reagan. This was part of a hair-brained effort to impress actress Jodie Foster. Reagan, of course, wasn't assassinated, but was seriously injured by a ricocheting bullet. Three others were wounded, including Reagan's press secretary, James Brady. Brady survived a gunshot to the head, although largely disabled, and went on to found the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which lobbies for more responsible gun legislation.

Looking at statistics from Brady's website I was astonished to find that every day 300 people are "shot in murders, assaults, suicides, accidents, and police intervention." Also this: "Every day 85 people die from gun violence, 35 of them murdered." Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. According to this page from Just Facts: "Based on production data from firearm manufacturers, there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns." Friends, that's a lot of guns. Without doubt, Americans love their guns.

Now in fairness, all mentally ill individuals are not violent. Yet clearly many are or have a very real potential to be violent, if for no other reason than that their reasoning faculties are defective. Lots of sane or so-called "normal people" can become violent when they are unable to control their tempers. Others are reared from their youth in violent homes and streets, hardly knowing any other way of life. In this connection I have to wholeheartedly agree with the Brady Campaign slogan: "There are too many victims of gun violence because we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons in America."

Having said all that, I add that I'm very concerned about our national propensity to overreact to things. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, being a recent and classic example. Before the dust of those horrific attacks had even settled we united as a people on the proposition that something had to be done, someone had to pay. Before too long our national hysteria led us into invading a sovereign nation that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack against us. Our efforts to "prevent another 9/11" have led to an unreasonable erosion of our rights, and also to sometimes ridiculous spectacles, as exampled by the ever increasing and intrusive security measures in our airports.

I can understand the desire for greater security. But shouldn't it be balanced with a little common sense? Is it possible to live our lives totally free of risk?

In the wake of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' shooting there is already a tightening of security in the nation's Capital. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. There is a copycat phenomenon - again, a product of sick minds - that should be factored in. But there is a larger debate emerging about whether this should change the way our representatives interact with us. I think that is premature and extreme. Reasonable caution, certainly. But isolated representatives is unacceptable. Most appropriate were Rep. Emanuel Cleaver's words: "If we're going to be a representative government, and we are in the House of Representatives, we've got to put anything in the back of our minds that would prevent us from interacting with our constituents." After all, if the Giffords shooting was a lone-nut incident rather than a growing campaign to remove undesirable officials, we are in danger of overreacting here. Take this seriously, certainly. But don't go overboard.

Rep. Robert Brady of Pennsylvania has been reported to be desirous of introducing legislation that would make it a federal crime to use symbols or language that are threatening or have the potential to incite violence against "a United States congressman or a federal official." Well intentioned, certainly. I'm not sure I understand why threats are to be deemed more troublesome when aimed at federal employees than the average John or Jane Doe, but as I've suggested, logic often gives way to hysteria.

Evidence is beginning to suggest that Jared Loughner had Congresswoman Giffords "in his crosshairs" since at least 2007, before Sarah Palin had become a national political phenomenon. While I agree with the usefulness of the debate over extreme rhetoric in politics, it hasn't been proved that Loughner was a Tea Party member or motivated by Sarah Palin or any other conservative's invective.

My approach to this type of thing was best illustrated by my former political blog, which I called Right-wing Dumbth. That is about what I think about a lot of the rhetoric coming from today's political conservatives: it is extreme illogic, or dumbth. It is silly, swaggering, tough-guy political posturing. Both parties are guilty of it (though conservatives do seem to manufacture more of it), and it is a reflection, I believe, of a country whose history was birthed by violent, bloody, gun-toting revolution. (What, should we purge that from our history books?) This tough rhetoric is really silly theatrics. Unwholesome and unhealthy, it can be argued. But are we really going to make such exaggeration a matter of federal legislation?

What if such legislation had been in effect in 1963 when another mentally unbalanced person shot a politician in the head? The Dallas Morning News ran a full page ad that featured a Wanted poster for our president. President Kennedy wasn't especially popular there and wanted to do some fence-mending with an eye on the 1964 election. Despite this, he was well received by the enthusiastic crowds that greeted him there. In fact, probably the last words President Kennedy heard were from Governor Connally's wife, Nellie, who said to him, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you." Not all of them of course. But the forces who placed the hatefully offensive ad didn't represent most people. My question is, would legislation such as Rep. Robert Brady is now proposing have made a difference? I'm certain Lee Oswald had his own agenda, totally separate from the group that placed the ad. Such legislation would not prevent such tragedies, anymore than laws prohibiting murders prevent murders from taking place.

Now nothing I am saying here should be construed as a defense for crazy talk. But in a free society, the market place of ideas is going to be filled with some very odious, even dangerous ideas. The weapon I choose to use against bad ideas is reason, head-thinking over gut-thinking. What is it, after all, that separates Homo Sapiens from the other animals? Passing laws will do little to change human nature. We can't simply refuse to listen to bad ideas and bad ideology. They won't just go away. Better to examine them and expose them and hopefully outgrow them.

The Crazies Among Us

This weekend's tragedy in Arizona, courtesy, apparently, of a deranged young man named Jared Loughner, has created something of a controversy regarding whether he is a left-wing or a right-wing nut. That hardly matters to me. He is a nut, a dangerous nut, and that is THE issue as far as I'm concerned. From the news reports attempting to piece together something of a profile of Loughner that I have read, the picture that emerges is incoherent.

Loughner listed the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf among his favorite books. Yes, and John Wilkes Booth (President Lincoln's assassin) was an ardent confederate sympathizer, Leon Czolgosz (President McKinley's assassin) was an anarchist, Lee Oswald (President Kennedy's assassin) was a communist. The shooter of President Garfield, Charles Guiteau, claimed he acted on God's command. Nutjobs tried to take out presidents Ford and Reagan. Nutjobs make death threats against presidents and other public figures all the time. Because they are unhinged.

Jesus said "you have the poor with you always," and I suggest the same is true about the crazy.

Two things are especially troubling to me about life in this modern age. One is the lack of basic civility. The idea that we can no longer disagree without being disagreeable, that we must forever have an "in your face" attitude, that our opponents are really are enemies, is bleeding all the rationality out of intelligent discussion in this country.

The second thing is the level of violence we have come to accept as normal. I've mentioned before that I collect classic television shows on DVD. One thing I miss is the way the lines between good and evil were clearly drawn back in the "old days." Heroes acted like heroes as opposed to today's typical anti-hero. I guess this is a simplistic view of things, but hey, I'm a simple guy.

I deplore our modern gun culture and the entire notion of "Second Amendment solutions." Violent rhetoric, violent sports, violent games, violent entertainment. Where will it end? And I'm not talking about censorship, but good taste. Why have we tolerated this disintegration of our values for so long?

Are we not slowly blurring the line between crazy and enthusiastic? I fear this may be so. A left-wing nut or a right-wing nut is still a nut. A sick society only exacerbates a perennial human problem.

Did You Know All Religions Are Scams?

I didn't either. The American Atheists have set up the billboard above in my beloved Bible Belt, just down the road south of me in Huntsville, Alabama, where they will be holding a convention January 29-30.

According to this report the Director of Communication of the before mentioned American Atheists organization had this to say about the controversial billboard:

The billboard is working. We've gotten hundreds of emails from closeted Atheists, who are our real target audience. These are people that go to church still, who are afraid to come out of the closet because, 'my wife will leave me if she finds out I'm an Atheist, or my kids will hate me, or my boss will fire me.

While I have only a few out-and-out atheist friends, there is a good bit of common ground I share with them. Well, before I expand on that I need to emphasize that there is quite a bit of disagreement among atheists themselves, with so-called strong atheists, who take the position that no supreme deity exists, period, and the more common type of atheist, who simply maintains that due to the insufficiency of solid evidence the God hypothesis is unproved, commonly called weak atheists or agnostic atheists.

I consider myself a pantheist of sorts - something the atheist apologist Richard Dawkins snidely calls "sexed-up atheism" - mainly because I find the concept of a personal deity difficult to make sense of. Dawkins' description doesn't apply to me, at least in my opinion, for the simple reason that I consider myself a spiritual person and a bit of a mystic regarding the divinity of the cosmos. At the very least I consider God a metaphor for the orderly principles which underlie our universe. Whatever else God may be, I'm just not certain about.

Do I consider all religions scams? Not at all. I do think, and have stated on this blog, that I believe certain unscrupulous would-be holy men (and women) have used their various religious traditions to control people. Moreover, I consider the average religious organizations, and this would include a great many churches, to be nothing more than businesses, designed to enrich the leadership at the expense of a gullible laity.

I cannot conceive that middlemen are a necessity for connection to the divine. Only natural born followers need a leader; dumb sheep require a shepherd. But the free thinker is ever eager to launch his own investigation into things.

Humans seem to poses a natural spiritual instinct that causes them to look for connections and view things in a manner which suggests an ultimate "big picture." The most difficult thing for most of us to swallow is the notion that reality is merely a happy accident or amazing coincidence.

Humans, in coming to recognize their own intelligence, naturally sought intelligence in nature itself. The idea of gods that controlled various aspects of nature (just as their human counterparts controlled various villages and tribes) came before the idea of monotheism, the idea of a single supreme deity. Nations that were ruled by kings naturally imagined their god to be kings and personal beings.

Earthly rulers were quick to recognize the value and power of religion in controlling their subjects. Then as now religion was the handmaiden of politics. Sad but true. And this is the scam aspect of religion. This, I believe, is the danger organized religion poses.

I can agree with the atheists who attack this aspect of religion. But I can't agree that the search for spirituality is a bad thing.

Did God Really Stop The Sun For Joshua?

When I was a child attending Sunday School every Sunday we had the cutest little leaflets that contained simple Bible stories about great Bible characters. These were published by our denomination (Church of God, Cleveland, TN) and always featured a beautiful illustrative painting on the front. For many years my mom saved in her old cedar chest a stack of these, along with other personal effects from my childhood. Sadly, I believe these things are now lost to time.

Anyway, of these stories from my childhood I well remember the story of Joshua's Long Day. If your memory is a bit rusty you can refresh it by reading Joshua chapter 10, where the great biblical warrior was fighting an alliance of Amorite kings who had gathered to make war against the people of God under Joshua's charge. The battle was long, bloody, and very hard fought. And the punchline can be found in verses 12 and 13 (quoted from the King James version):

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

The thing that brought this old story up in my mind is a conversation I had with Mom while I was off work for the holidays, week before last. She had brought up how the days were growing longer. Then we went on to discuss the Winter Solstice. I explained how that word came about, a combination of the Latin words sol, meaning sun, and sistere, which means to stand still. I told her what l know about the way ancient peoples thought about these things and then slipped up and referred to what I called the Legend of Joshua's Long Day. There was an awkward silence at that point because my mom believes in the literal truth and accuracy of all things written in the Bible.

But I am a man who if no longer is able to hold the Fundamentalist views of his youth, still takes the Bible seriously as a collection of writings about certain religious traditions. I still enjoy studying the Bible, enjoy it as literature. Some folks seem to think there are only two positions. One being that of the literalist who believes it is God's very word. The other being that of the raving, sneering skeptic. My position falls between those two poles. I believe it is possible to read the Bible with modern eyes, and learn a great deal about the development of man's thinking about God in the process. The history of tradition and customs must be borne in mind. As we read the Scriptures the question must constantly be asked: what would the original reader and hearer of these words have understood them to mean?

We can forgive the author of the story of Joshua for not knowing all that we know today about the heavens. However, it is harder to overlook supposedly educated preachers and Bible teachers of today who should know that it is the earth which moves relative to the sun, giving us night and day. That the earth's rotation, revolving at about 1,000 miles per hour would, if brought to a sudden halt would be the cause of catastrophes beyond description. I actually read a Baptist fundamentalist preacher, who, in defending the literal account of Joshua's Long Day, while acknowledging that the biblical author used the "language of appearance" in describing the stopping of the sun and moon, asked in all seriousness: how do we know it would cause tidal waves and other catastrophic phenomena if the earth were to be suddenly stopped? Yes, in case you are wondering, this man had a college education.

How much saner is the view expressed by Bible scholar Julius A. Brewer in his book The Literature of the Old Testament (page 5) where he explains the poetic influence in biblical literature:

The Book of the Upright contained also Joshua's famous prayer during the battle of Gibeon in which he begged that the day might be long enough for a complete rout of the enemies,

O Sun stand thou still over Gibeon, and Moon, over the vale of Aijalon!

And similarly the answer,

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, till the people were avenged on their foes.

This was expressed poetically by the author who lived some time after the conquest had been completed. But the narrator, who quoted it, interpreted it prosaically: a stupendous miracle was the result!

The Book of the Upright to which Brewer refers is one of the so-called Lost books of the Old Testament that biblical authors often quote, and the author of the book of Joshua referred to it in 10:13 as the Book of Jasher. Book of the Upright is a literal translation of the original Hebrew. The point being, what was originally understood as a poetic expression became a historical narrative in the book of Joshua.

Understood in this way, what was being expressed was that Joshua and his followers gave credit for this victory to their God. No sun and moon literally standing still in the heavens, but that time seemed to actually stand still as they fought their enemies. Remember, this was the days prior to mechanical clocks and the sundial was the measure of time. It was a long, hard fought battle, but God delivered their enemies into their hands.

I'm just suggesting that it is possible to read the Bible with common sense and still get the message being conveyed. People today still find God's hand in different events. I have questioned in this blog some of these interpretations, such as God sending earthquakes and falling rocks in order to make points. But the "eye of faith" will forever see things differently. I would point out, however, that the Amorites no doubt had a different interpretation about what happened in that famous battle. One reality: many interpretations.

Mark Your Calendars For May 21

Had enough of snowmageddons, floods of biblical proportion, and bird apocalypses? Do you not want to wait around to 2012 for the end of the world? Consider the elderly former civil engineer turned theologian Harold Camping, who has calculated (actually recalculated, as he wrote a book, 1994?, that predicted Jesus' return for that year) that Jesus will come back for believers early in this current year. That's right. So mark your calendars for May 21.

I got really interested in predictions for Jesus' second coming when I was a teenager. I had heard so many warnings, so many flawed predictions that I decided to go for myself to the source. Not Jesus, the Bible. Many hours were spent going over Jesus' predictions of the end of the world as contained in the gospels. I read the book of Revelation so many times that I could almost quote it in its entirety from memory. I started accumulating as many books as I could on prophetic themes. My library on the subject is still rather large, although I have given most of it away now.

Then in my early twenties I discovered Jewish apocalyptic literature. That's when I noticed that most of the popular prophecy preachers were ignorant of the roots of apocalyptic teaching and were simply engaging in sensationalism. A good fund raising ploy. It sells many a book. Even today, after centuries of blown predictions, the writing of books concerning the "end times" is a booming industry. Check out this bookstore that deals in books on biblical prophecy: Armageddon Books.

As a child I was terrified by this nonsense. I vividly recall clutching my parents during these horrifying sermons about the second coming. My thinking was that if I gripped them tightly enough, I wouldn't be "left behind" if the rapture took place. If my parents were late getting home from work, I began to fret that the rapture had taken place and I had been passed upon.

After much study it became clear to me that Jesus was primarily a Jewish peacher/teacher who was steeped in the popular Jewish apocalypticism of his age. In his day the Holy City of Jerusalem was controlled by the iron grip of the Roman empire. The people were eager to be delivered, and Jesus preached about a coming kingdom of God that would overthrow the Roman beast (see the book of Revelation) and establish that blessed kingdom that was the subject of the Old Testament prophets, as well writers of ancient books expounding these themes.

Any honest reading of Jesus' words as contained in the gospels, as well as the earliest writings of his followers (the rest of the New Testament) clearly show that these early expectations were simply wrong. It could never had entered Jesus' mind that centuries later religious hucksters would come in his name to make a cottage industry out of reviving these old ideas.

I do believe Jesus was a historical person. I believe the Jesus movement was a historical movement, albeit very small. Jesus doesn't seem to have generated very much of a following, and was executed with only a handful of friends and family in attendence.

Again, turning to history, we find that it was the Roman empire, that dreaded best of the book of Revelation and enemy of the early Christians, that in the end rescued the fledgling movement from what would surely have been the dustbin of history and transformed it into the great worldwide tradition it is today. Thanks (or blame) for this can be laid at the feet of the Roman Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church that came into power under the new Roman acceptance.

And the better I came to understand these things, the less attention I paid to religious nuts and prophecy hucksters. A little understanding of history goes a long, long way. But, please, don't take my word for it. Delve into the facts of the case for yourself. And notice that May 21 will come and go as normal.

Gadzooks! Now A Bird Apocalypse

Not meaning to "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel," as Jesus put it, but again I find myself amused at the misuse of biblical concepts because of general ignorance about the subject.

Birds have been dropping from the skies in Arkansas and Louisiana, and now we learn that in far away Sweden a hundred jackdaw birds were found in the road, dead. It is being referred to by some news sources as a bird apocalypse.

Actually, the Greek word apocalypse means an unveiling or revealing of something previously hidden. That is why the last book of the Bible is called the Revelation. Therein is John's story of an angel that came to him to reveal, to show him things that "must shortly come to pass." Among these things were the second coming of Jesus, the passing away of this world, the ushering in of a new Heaven and New Earth, the resurrection and judgment of the dead, in short, the ushering in of the Kingdom of God, which was the subject of the gospel that Jesus preached.

This bird thing might have been the end of the world for these birds, but hardly the subject of the biblical book of Revelation. This is no part of the scenario laid out in the biblical apocalypse.

A couple of my apocalyptic minded friends what asked me what this bird thing means. "Surely it must mean something." I'm sure when the facts are all in we will find a very earthly rather than heavenly meaning for it all. There's no need to worry about an imminent ending of the world.

It's interesting, but astounding to most Christians I talk to about it, that Jesus, his disciples, the author of the book of Revelation all expected the end of the world to come two millennia ago. None gave a hint they thought these events would be in the far off future. When Jesus gave his great discourse about the end of the age and accompanying events, he said, "this generation shall not pass away til all these things be fulfilled" (Matt. 24:34).

So let us live and make the most of the day we have. No one knows when or how the world will end. And these weird "Fortean" things happen. But if you look into nature, you will eventually find the explanation.

And Now We Get Our Crack At Austerity. Oh, Boy!

We Americans never learn. So pompous. So full ourselves. So unwilling to learn from past mistakes. The majority of voters thought it would be a good thing to bring back to power the party whose irresponsible economic policies brought us the two worst depressions in recent history.

We are a religious people. A God-fearing country. Unfortunately, the majority worships Mammon, the Lord of riches. We work hard for our money (those of us, that is, whose jobs have not yet been shipped overseas where the labor is cheap, allowing for even higher corporate profits). We should keep more of it. And those who are in need? Let 'em die and decrease the surplus population.

We think of ourselves as the "leader of the free world." Yet we are the only modern industrial nation that doesn't have a national health care program. What's worse, we cling tenaciously to our sorry excuse for a health care system. Wanna talk about death panels? Don't forget that insurance providers make bigger profits by denying benefits. Should major illness be yet another business scheme?

So now the budget ax is poised to drop. The GOPers are now budget hawks. Deficits didn't use to matter to them. There is always money for military aggression, but caring for the folks at home, well....

Those who decry what they call Nanny Government should well consider that the only thing that kept this depression we are just now slowly emerging from (alas, with little job recovery so far) from being as severe as the one in the last century was heavy government intervention.

And I should add, it's not just the Republicans. There are way more than a few Democrats who are tightfisted conservatives. But whatever happened to that liberal Rockefeller-wing of the GOP? I'm really not getting all political here. This is a matter of morality in my opinion.

There is strength in numbers, and together we can accomplish more than we can with an "every man for himself" attitude. If we worry more about accumulating riches for ourselves than we do giving a damn about the poor people all around us, we are being shallow and immoral.

Do I think taxes are too high? Relative to what? Will a few bucks more in my pay envelope buy my conscience? Can I forget about those who go hungry and without medical care and medicine? When a natural disaster strikes some portion of our country, can I shrug and just thank Mammon it didn't happen where I live? Besides all that, many never take the time to consider how much they use government funded facilities and services. I do. And I'm willing to pay my fair share.

Those shouting austerity the loudest are the politicians who have crammed into their hungry mouths as many of the teats of the government cash cow as can possibly fit. And we should take them seriously? We pay their salaries and they in turn exploit as many of us as cannot think for ourselves.

Ignorance is not bliss. Selfishness is not morality. Austerity is not the mark of a great nation.

Of Snowmageddons And Floods Of Biblical Proportion

That the Bible has had an impact on modern Western culture is undeniable. We are constantly being reminded of this fact, and of the common view that God is sovereign over nature. Case in point, or perhaps I should say cases in point:

The heavy snowfalls and blizzards that recently bedeviled much of the eastern portion of our nation has been dubbed Snowmageddon, or Snowmageddon 2010 by many. Certainly this was a really big storm, but hardly did it signal the end of the world.

The name of the battlefield for the final battle between good and evil (according to the Bible's book of Revelation) has become a synonym for "the end of the world." Through overuse it seems to have been downgraded to mean "something really devastating." Not a respectful handling of biblical imagery, I suggest.

Then there is the terrible flood that much of Australia is enduring right now, with its heartbreaking scenes of devastation for many there. Lives have been turned upside down, human suffering is on every hand affecting 200,000 or so people.

It is being called a "flood of Biblical Proportions" by many. While not for a moment downplaying the horribleness of this weather event, it is an extreme exaggeration to suggest it is of biblical proportions. We are told that the area flooded is equal in size to the countries of France and Germany. Truly hard to imagine. Yet the biblical flood, known as Noah's Flood, covered the mountains of all the earth. That is what necessitated Noah's gathering of the animals into the ark. In the biblical flood, only Noah and his immediate family survived. We can expect a better outcome from Australia's flood, but my heart is with everyone being affected.

This whole thing just reaffirms something I have come to believe: For all of its influence, more people talk about the Bible than actually read it.

Tornado Outbreak Part Of God's Building Program, Says One Pastor

New Year's Eve brought a tornado outbreak to several states in the South and Midwest that was responsible for seven deaths, scores of injuries, damage to hundreds of homes and buildings, and countless power outages.

One of the buildings damaged was Robertsville, Missouri's Shiloh Baptist Church, pastored by Rev. George Fulgham. Offering such questionable nuggets of comfort as "Nothing is a surprise to God" and "He knew all about these events," the good reverend was quite philosophical through the whole thing, noting that the church had been discussing tearing down and rebuilding anyway: "God has accelerated our building program." Well, hallelujah! (My source for Fulgham is this story.)

Rev, Fulgham says he wouldn't have to change his planned sermon topic, "New Beginnings." I'm sure that will bring comfort to every family who lost loved ones in these storms, whose "new beginning" will be starting the New Year off grieving over lost loved ones.

It's times like these that I'm especially glad I'm not a Christian minister. To accept the biblical proposition that God is sovereign over his creation - or as preachers like to put it in times of distress, "God is still on his throne!" - is to invite the question, "why?"

I wouldn't want to try to answer this from a biblical perspective.

The why for me is simple enough to understand on a strictly natural basis. This is what often happens when warm air collides with cold air. When it happens over populated areas, human injury and death are possibilities. If it happens where you live, you are at risk. I don't think we add anything to the picture by bringing in God's special providence.

But interviews with survivors, I'm certain, will reveal examples of those who believe their lives were spared by such divine providence. It always happens. And what, those who were killed were greater sinners than the survivors, or just somehow expendable in God's overall plan?

Truly these disasters bring out the very worst in theology.