I wrote another poem. This one has a title.
(If you want to join in the comment discussion, go here.)
There’s A Theist On My Doorstep
There’s a theist on my doorstep,
And he’s asking me to look
At some godly threats and promises
Inside some holy book.
I’ve no time for fairy stories,
And I’ve heard this one before,
So I think I’ll tell him “Thank you, no,”
And simply shut the door.
For he seems a pleasant fellow,
Trying to do what he deems right,
And while his fantasies harm no-one,
There’s no need to start a fight.
There’s a theist in my village
Who’s a preacher, I’ve heard tell,
And he speaks in fiery rhetoric
Of sinners and of hell.
His dogma is offensive,
And there’s cruelty in his words,
But his congregation’s smaller
Than his shoe size by a third.
So I mostly leave him to it.
After all, it’s his free choice,
And I think he mostly talks to hear
The sound of his own voice.
There’s a theist on the internet
Whose blog is read worldwide.
He has thousands of supporters
At his feet and by his side.
But his logic is as flimsy
As his “tolerant” veneer,
So I’ve started up my own blog
Just to make a few things clear.
I doubt there’ll be much of a chance
That his mind will be changed,
But I’ll make sure only one of us
Sounds angry and deranged.
There’s a theist in my classroom
Who says Darwin got it wrong,
And we all should read the Bible,
And our faith we must keep strong.
Well I won’t sit here in silence
While the science gets distorted.
It’s the school board’s job to make sure
His indoctrination’s thwarted.
He might cry discrimination,
Though his free speech is intact,
But we won’t respect religion
When it masquerades as fact.
There’s a theist in my government
Whose deity’s expected
To provide her moral guidance,
And to get her re-elected.
Her faith, of course, is personal,
And merits little note.
But if this is how she’ll run things,
Then she’s not getting my vote.
Who knows what God will order her
On any given date?
I’d rather not entrust him with
Our economic fate.
There’s a theist on my TV
Telling gays they’re less than whole,
And unless they plead forgiveness
God will damn their evil soul.
Now I’m starting to get angry,
And I’m going to speak out.
I don’t care if it’s uncivil;
This is hatred with some clout.
Don’t you dare tell us that love’s a sin,
You smug, self-righteous twat.
No, I won’t be fucking tactful
When you’re saying shit like that.
There are theists on my planet
Who are murdering their friends,
And who torture their own children
For insane religious ends.
People die because of witchcraft,
Maybe thousands every day -
And it’s this same kind of “faith”
That makes your neighbours kneel and pray.
Mankind has done much good which had
Religious thoughts behind it.
But sometimes there’s no harm
In calling bullshit as you find it.
Update 28/10/10: Uh. Wow. I’ve closed comments on this thread for now, because I was getting really bored with them. And by bored I actually mean fantastically entertained, but I don’t get the sense it’s going anywhere useful. I’ll post something else either tomorrow or at the weekend recapping the action so far, with a completely fair and unbiased summary of why David is completely detached from reality. You can all carry on with the back-and-forth from there if you like.
Update 30/10/10: The new discussion post, with my reply to some of David’s more entertaining comments, is now up! Have at it!












For the most part, this is a mischaracterization. Most ‘theists’ believe that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. Most ‘theist preachers’ tell you that if you do wrong you will go to hell, but you leave out the loving God part. God loves so much that he’s willing to let you do what you want, even though you couldn’t breathe your next breath without him. Most ‘theists in the classroom’ do not teach or believe (though there are some, admittedly) that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive. This is the primary mischaracterization in your ‘poem’. Again, the Bible is not a scientific textbook, and the original church, the Catholic church, has never held that the Bible holds science. The only request we have is that when teaching science, that God is not ignored totally. That doesn’t mean you have to proclaim God every day, it doesn’t even mean you must mention God. We only ask that you not shove him in a closet and pretend he doesn’t exist, in whatever form you find him in-Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or whatever. Regarding theists in government, every politician votes based on his own convictions coupled with those of whoever is paying him off. So whether the theist’s personal convictions agree with yours is your only litmus test. Regarding a theist on TV saying homosexuality is wrong-he’s not saying love’s a sin, he’s explaining what love is. If you want to know what love is, look up there on the crucifix. Love is sacrifice, it’s not what you do in your bedroom. Homosexual sex is wrong because it takes something pure and corrupts it. This doesn’t make the person wrong, it is the action that’s wrong. Men are created by God and are good by nature.
@David, if you re-read the poem he said “a theist” not all theists.
Homosexually is natural, assuming God created all, he created gay men.
This is one of many places where religion steps in in place of science. Science will tell you about evolution, and how your sexuality is decided in the womb.
Religion and science can only be separate if the religious stop jumping in saying something can’t possibly be true because the Bible (etc) say otherwise.
@james
Awesome poem.
People may be born with same-sex attraction, but by acting on that attraction, they subvert the will of God. People who have same sex attraction are not a problem, it’s their disordered actions that are. Homosexual sex is not natural because it doesn’t exist for any reason. Otherwise you could just have sex with a hole in the ground. God made man and woman, God created sex for unitive and procreative means. To leave out either one (unitive or procreative) is to misuse God’s gift.
For what it’s worth, most Christians do not say that something can’t be true because it’s not in the Bible, so that’s a straw man arguement.
So let me get this strait. God made people that are only attracted to other men, but then expects them to ignore that… sex being the strongest drive we have?
Your god sounds like a prick I wouldn’t worship even if he was real.
Absolutely. Man has other purposes than sex. If man existed just to have sex, he’d be like other animals. And actually, survival is a stronger natural drive than sex.
David, that hardly chances the fact that god created people with needs and urges and then punishes them for the sin of being human.
You can justify it by saying “We have other purposes” but it’s still an inhumanly cruel act. To curse someone to be unable to live a normal life just because of their love is beyond my ability to comprehend.
God made people with differing tolerances to alcohol. Some can drink it like a fish sucks water, some can’t even smell it. So do you give an alcoholic another drink or do you advise him to stay away from the stuff?
My point is that man has the possibility to control himself, to abstain from urges for his own good. I’m not saying it’s easy. I’m saying it’s right.
Its probably much more likely that a god would use christianity as an idiot filter.
Think about it. If god would want to inspire a religion for people to follow he could have made a much better job so that it actually stands out enough for all the people of the “wrong religions”
He actually did just that. He sent his son to be sacrificed. I think that stands out well enough.
Carumba… There is so much here that frustrates me. Are you saying that for homosexuals their sexuality does NOT have a unitive purpose? Sex is extremely powerful people (both gay and straight) use sex in the bonds that they make with their spouses. As for the purpose being procreation… obviously tons of straight people have a lot more sex then they do children. While we have very strong sexual drives (which is way better explained via evolution then that god willed it. The drive influences nearly everything that human beings do and directly in some cases or indirectly in others, motivates them to do most of the things they do.) that help us continue and grow our species, the vast majority of sex that is happening is not involved with creating children.
God seriously is a weirdo if he creates men and women with a sexual preference that is against what he would like them to have. If you feel that people are just horrible people for trying to justify their homosexuality then think for a moment if you were told that your straight sexual preference was evil and against got. That you needed to start practicing homosexuality from this day forward because straight sex was a damning action. I’d imagine (if you are honest) that this would be very offensive to you. It should be offensive to you in all honesty because it’s a pretty ugly thing to tell someone. The honest truth is that gay people are JUST LIKE YOU except that they are attracted to the same gender. They aren’t the evil horrible disobedient perverts that the bible claims they are. They’re warm, happy people in many cases that simpy have a different sexual preference. If I’m capable of being close friends with a gay person and it never having an effect on our relationship I don’t understand what the heck is wrong with god. Why are all the portrayals of god showing such petty and childish behavior?
Anyways, that’s enough of a rant. You’ll continue being a homophobe that fashions themself as being tolerant (even though tolerance does NOT fit with the paragraph you just wrote.) and assuming that society is evil for accepting people regardless of their sexuality.
No, I’m saying that God made sex for two purposes-unitive and procreative. To ignore either one makes that sex act a sin. (PSSST! MOST CHRISTIANS DON’T THINK THAT EVOLUTION AND CREATION ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC TEXTBOOK.) So even a married couple using either the pill or barrier contraception is engaging in sinful activity.
What I am saying about people in general, not just homosexuals, is that our sexuality is not our primary identifier. I could care less if you’re gay or she’s gay. I might make some mental snicker, but it’s ok with me, especially if they don’t shove my face in it. I know lots of people at work who have same-sex attraction. But I know them primarily by their work and home life.
God is unchanging, so the example you cite is moot, but gay people are called to be celibate. Some “straight” people are, too.
I fully recognize that same-sex attracted people are fully human, like me (but nobody is ‘just like me’). They deserve the same dignity I have, through God’s grace.
I also have friends that have this difference. They know exactly what I think of it, exactly what the Church thinks of it, and I don’t question what they do with it-that’s between them and God.
Oh, there’s the’homophobe’ word. Great-resort to name calling, that’s really productive. I am absolutely tolerant of all people to the best of my human ability. I look at the person, and try not to judge what that person does. That person and I am same in one respect-we’re both sinners in one way or another. And in that we’re brothers.
“The only request we have is that when teaching science, that God is not ignored totally. ”
Sorry, but until god is demonstrably involved in science and the scientific method, god should be ignored as irrelevant to the science at hand, in the same way the auto shop teacher doesn’t concern herself with the implications of crunchy vs. creamy peanut butter on whole wheat bread: sandwiches are simply and completely irrelevant to making an auto engine work.
Elected officials in government are not supposed to legislate by their religion, but are supposed to represent the will of the people who elected them, in accordance with the guidance of the Constitution, which applies to all citizens equally. Religion does not concern itself with equality and justice, so the legislator or other official carrying out the function of the office according to how they personal interpret a religious text should be voted out of office.
God is manifestly involved in science, he’s the reason for science.
Elected officials are to legislate by the law, which, in this country, is based on Judeo-Christian rules. Our government promises equal dignity, it does not promise equality, whether you know it or not. By your ideas, then, Obama should be ousted because he subverted the law and the will of the people because he carried out a function of his office according to his own personal interpretation…Hey, I like that.
@David
You’re an idiot. Don’t force your magical beliefs on me. There is no god. So don’t try to spoil my science facts with your ridiculous fantasies.
Science is real. You have your freedom and right to believe in magic, but as soon as you try to force those magical beliefs into the real world then you get stopped.
Now stfu and sit down.
First of all, you’re the idiot. I never said science wasn’t real. And for the record, I believe evolution, but not Darwinism.
I say science and religion are not mutually exclusive, as do most Christians. It’s you trying to force your beliefs on us. And on unsuspecting people. It’s our duty when teaching others to give both sides of the argument. You folks want to exclude half of the subject.
There is science and there is not-science. Only one has a place in a science classroom.
Then you should make sure that any science you teach is taught correctly. God is the author of science. Darwinism, by the way, is not science. It’s conjecture. Incorrect conjecture.
David: Darwinism is testable, falsifiable, and predictable. Creationism is not testable, not falsifiable, and provides no predictions.
Only one of these is science.
Science shuns confirmation bias, which is fancy science talk for letting positive evidence support your position while completely discounting evidence to the contrary. Theists preach either ” means God is Great!” or ” means god has a plan…”. You never hear a theist exclaim ” means god is a dick” or ” is due exclusively to human intervention”. Science however strives to attribute correct cause and effect.
Faith therefore contradicts logic and science.
OP: awesome awesome poem :D
Actually, Darwin had to change the rules of science in order to fashion his theory. He changed the rules of scientific proof.
Darwinism has been exposed for what it is, whether you believe it or not. This sort of proves that you’re religion is Darwinism.
Creationism is not science, most Christians don’t even believe that.
Faith without reason leads to superstition, while reason without faith leads to nihilism and relativism, which is exactly where you are.
No. He is not “manifestly” involved. When you can show how he is “manifestly” involved then the rest of us will be happy to let you talk about it during a scientific class.
I get that people cannot ‘disprove’ god as this is an impossibility. Nor can they ‘prove’ that throughout time there was not a supernatural unobservable or verifiable force that was turning the cogs. That does NOT however mean that such an idea belongs in a scientific discussion. It isn’t just an attack on christianity. I’m equally against claims of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being used in the discussion (of which there is an equal number of arguments with creationism. In fact it IS creationism.)
Matt, actually, we can prove that God exists (whatever you might call him). The laws of thermodynamics alone prove it without ever cracking open a Bible.
Again, creationism does not exclude evolution, and evolution does nothing to disprove creationism. Creationism is not science, least not in the mainstream Christian world.
I do dispute Darwinism, there were more correct evolution hypothesis before him, including his own grandfather’s.
The belief that this country is founded on Judeo-Christian values is a myth perpetrated by the religious right’s fantastic misinformation machine. The founding fathers of this country were largely Deists who rejected the idea of a supernatural authority in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, though acknowledged him as a fantastic philosopher (love towards all). Jefferson himself put out a book containing the lessons of Jesus of Nazareth with every supernatural occurrence or mention of his divinity removed as “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth.”
There seems to be a large part of the, specifically Republican party (and to a lesser extent, Conservatives as a whole), to “return” to a point in time in America that never actually existed. The words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were put into the Pledge in the 1950s in an attempt to fight those goddamn Communist heathens. It is not our original Pledge.
The words God, Jesus, Creator or Abraham do NOT occur ONCE in the United States Constitution, which is the founding document of our nation. The Declaration of Independence does use religious words, but it is not our founding document. It is a part of our history, of our past, but it is not our law. The Constitution is. This country was not founded on Christianity, it was founded on the ideas included in the Constitution, which includes the freedom to choose your own religion.
Perhaps David is going back to the original European settlers for his claim that the country was founded on Christian principles. We could go back even further and claim that the country was founded on the ancient religions of the people who were already here.
Also true, the Christian idea of “Hell” is ripped bloodily form the mythology of Ancient Rome, which in turn was ripped bloodily from Ancient Greece, which in turn was probably ripped off from somewhere else.
Horse manure. Prove it.
Actually, since we formed a coherent nation here, yes, I am. You could go further back, but there was no nation. I’m not debating whether or not European conquest of America was done right or wrong. I didn’t have anything to do with it. For what it’s worth, Columbus, and the Catholics who came to America, in acting as Catholics, treated the natives they came across with dignity. Those who explored here as secularists treated the natives inhumanely at times.
“Those who explored here as secularists treated the natives inhumanely at times.”
What What WHAT??
I’m sorry, but what secularists are you speaking of?
It can’t be the Catholic conquistadors that wiped out the entire Aztec civilization.
It can’t be Jeffrey Amherst, the devout Anglican soldier who approved the order to provide Native American’s with smallpox infected blankets, hoping and succeeding in killing as many of them as possible through false charity.
It can’t be the westerward spreading American pioneers, who were by and large European immigrants of various Christian backgrounds. The same pioneers who, when the natives would no longer sell their land because they themselves would soon be homeless, resorted to murder and relentless terrorism to drive those natives away from their ancestral homes.
Frankly, what secularists were there in those times? Please name a few for me so I can look them up and have as ‘open’ a mind as you.
Nancy Pelosi claims Catholicism, too, but most Catholics know she doesn’t represent Catholicism. While the Conquistadors were Catholic, they explored at the behest of the King and Queen of Spain. Certainly, those expeditions included priests who came along to evangelize the natives, but for the most part, when abuses were happening, the priests did all they could to stop it. Amherst, you say yourself, wasn’t a Catholic. He was a secular humanist. You are aware that the Catholic population at the time of the American Revolution was 25,000? Most Protestants are among the ‘secular humanists’ I was referring to. Catholics were generally more interested in the humans than they were in acquiring the land. Look up ‘secular humanism’ and you will see that, when Luther broke off from the Church, the time of the Protestant Reformation, the schism between Henry VIII and Rome, and the French Revolution, all was entailed in the humanist era.
Ah yes, the old “they weren’t real Christian’s” argument. Sorry David, but you don’t get to decide who’s a Christian any more than you get to decide who’s gay.
You’re an idiot. People can claim a religion and never practice it. That’s sorta what the Inquisition was all about. You can go to Mass ever day, receive Eucharist every day, and say all you want about how Catholic you are. But actions speak louder than words. To be Catholic, you must ACT Catholic. At any rate, what the Conquistidors did was not sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Amherst was an Anglican, not a Catholic. The overwhelming majority of America for the first half of American history were not Catholic. Certainly, Protestants are Christians. But their brand of Christianity at that time did not coincide with what Catholics believed. The Protestant view was that humans know what’s good for humans. Catholics generally looked to God for what was good for them.
I don’t know where the gay remark came from…left field, no doubt.
So the laws against stealing, adultery, murder, and so on aren’t based on Judeo-Christian law? Deists = people who believe in a God. I can show you more that the founding fathers were Christian in both upbringing and independent thought. Jefferson wasn’t the only founding father, but he is certainly the most cited. Also, Jefferson is the only one who ever, only once, put the words “separation of church and state” together. By today’s standards, Jefferson would be considered a member of the far right wing.
Judeo-christian morality is strikingly similar to morality found in other religious beliefs. Seems most likely that these are traits that produce strong societies and as such have been selected for over time. With very core morals like “not murdering one’s children” there is a very strong argument to be made that such morality comes on a biological basis.
Great poem I loved how it built up to a state of
“I’m mad and I’m not going to take it anymore” I admire the skill in putting it altogether and making sense as my poetry skills are well below par. Hey you will give the ‘Digital Cuttlefish’ a run for his money!!
David, I’m going to tell you something now which people may have been keeping a secret from you, so you might want to sit down or something.
God doesn’t exist.
Hokay?
Gosh it’s always super annoying when someone opines ‘god is the reason…’ for anything as if it’s true and therefore we ought to rest our heads on pillows of anti-logic and take a nap. David, there is no evidence for a god or gods, but plenty of evidence for gay people, I know whose needs and wants I would consider more relevant. Also if your sex is that pure you’re doing it wrong.
Actually, belief in nothing is illogical. Belief in something is logical. By the way, there is no evidence for gay people, there is only evidence for people who are attracted to the same sex and acting on that attraction. The evidence that it is the weaker of the two possibilities is that copulation between a man and a woman produces something while copulation between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman produces nothing.
Also, I can tell you that, before I came to understand about God and Catholicism, my sex life was nothing, meant nothing, only providing temporary pleasure. Since I came to understand about God and Catholicism, my sex life is fantastic, because I give myself completely to my spouse and to God. When(if) you experience giving yourself completely to someone, you might understand.
So is it sinful for people past child bearing age to act on sexual impulses? What about those who are barren? Do you sin every time your wife does not happen to become pregnant? Would you feel it was OK to expect you to resist your heterosexual impulses if suddenly your god said only same sex unions are allowed?
No, it’s not sinful. It’s the purpose that’s important. Putting a barrier or any birth control hinders the purpose of sex. If you have sex and egg and sperm don’t connect, but could if they were present, it’s permissible. The act of contracepting is what’s sinful and makes sex sinful. God has already spoken on the issue, and is unchangeable. If God were to change, he wouldn’t be God.
Ah! You’re a hardcore catholic. This all makes more sense now. :) Do you have any idea how ridiculous what you just said sounds to anyone outside of a religious upbringing? Also you are incorrect I’m afraid. Sex IS inherently evil from a catholic perspective. That is why their clergy remain absitinent (or say that they do and take out their sexual frustration on young children) because the whole idea stems from Paul’s admonition that sex should be avoided as it is sinful and a result of the fall, but if a person is not capable of being abstinent then they should only use it for procreation. It’s all part and parcel with the same crap that lead to self flaggeration. Since Adam fell then human kind (and all that is human like) is to some degree evil. The less human we can be and the more disdain we show towards these bodies as being evil and disgusting the more we become the way god wanted us to be. I’m speaking generally of the catholic doctrine that I’ve come in contact with. I realize that most people apply their own innate sense of right and wrong to their religion so your views may be a bit different. :)
Matt, Matt, Matt-
If sex is not evil to Catholics. Priests and clergy give up their sexuality to God in order to serve him better. But in reality, there are priests all over the world who are married with children. Paul never said sex should be avoided. He said that there are those who are called not to have sex.
You don’t know a thing about what self-flagellation is all about (a desire to be more like Christ). Actually, what you describe is more Gnosticism, rather than Catholicism.
I bet if you met someone who believed in Satanism you wouldn’t think it was so logical.
As for evidence for or against homosexual instincts, I find it hilariously ignorant that you would simply brush aside the plethora of both psychological as well as physical and pharmacological (brain chemistry) evidence in existence today. Do you also attribute schizophrenia to God and think that schizophrenics should just deny their schizophrenic nature and be ‘normal’ just like you and your good buddies? Honestly, you are too much.
When you say that homosexual relations serve no purpose, from whence do you derive your proof? You’ve made a statement of belief, not stated a fact. The natural world around you abounds with examples of homosexual relationships in the animal world, surely then I could assume there must be some benefit to those species? However, again that would be belief since I have no proof either way. In any case, your argument is built on a foundation of sand. I believe your book has something to say about that.
To your sex life, I find it disturbing that you cannot find meaning in your relationships without the idea that a greater power has somehow blessed it. I think it speaks to the emptyness that exists in your heart which you have simply filled with fantasy because you know something is wrong with you.
I love the love of my life because I trust her, because I know that I can depend on her, because she has stood by me before and I have stood by her. We are a couple, and we choose to live as one, just as many homosexuals choose to do. Not because there’s something special about us, or because we were told to by some book, but because it works for us. It doesn’t work for everyone, but that’s life and that’s part of being an evolved animal.
I also acknowledge that this love pairing can be broken, and replaced in time if necessary. I don’t pretend like it’s magical or ‘meant to be’ as though I’m the first man who has ever loved a woman with all his heart or that there is some magical place in the afterlife where we’ll be (forced) to be together to eternity and where nothing bad ever happens to make that the horrible creepy disturbing thought that it really is.
I know that despite there being lots of other women out there I can have the one and only ‘her’ and be happy inside. I don’t need some imaginary blessing to give my love purpose, mine comes from within, from me because I choose it.
So, to conclude, I do not profess a belief in anything in particular. Perhaps God exists, perhaps he does not. However, neither his existence nor his absence is an excuse for Theist’s to make up bullshit and spread it like it’s truth.
Where did I ever say they should deny anything. It is what it is, but you have to deal with it.
Regarding the act of homosexual sex, I say it subverts the purpose for which God created sex. Which is unitive and procreative. Homosexual sex may be one but not the other. So it does not serve the will of God.
But let’s look at homosexual sex from an evolutionary point of view. Sex is meant to further along a species. So, while homosexual sex may happen, it is species ending if it is the majority.
“So, while homosexual sex may happen, it is species ending if it is the majority.”
So, a little homosexuality is ok? Lol, look at yourself David, you have to bend your own beliefs so far over you’re practically humping their big sweaty asses.
Who are you to say a little or a lot, or at all? You know nothing of biology or anything of depth about evolution, yet you claim to know what’s best for a species.
The truth, David, is simply that you had this idea that homosexuality is bad drilled into your head and now it’s stuck there like a hooked needle that just won’t come free. You twist and turn your arguments in every direction except the truth, and then you call it Truth.
I didn’t say it was ok, either. I said it is self-defeating. So full of Myself, you don’t know what I know of biology, or evolution. I know that if a species spends all it’s time practicing recreational sex which doesn’t produce offspring, the species will die.
By the way, did you realize that I believe evolution to be true, just not Darwin’s view of it?
Homosexuality is not bad, it’s 100% wrong. No good can come from it. It may be neutral but then pow! There comes HIV/AIDS…
Here’s THE Truth. GOD is the truth. God shows us that homosexuality is wrong, because logically, the reason for sex is procreative and unitive. Any detraction from both purposes is wrong. So if the sex act is not open to procreation and bonding together, it is sinful. So contraception renders the sex act as sinful. Any sex act can nurture bonding. But since men don’t have ovaries and women don’t have testicles, same-sex sex is wrong. By the same token, IVF is wrong because it is never unitive. Same for surrogate motherhood, etc.
I read this to the tune of “Hey There Delilah”. Anyone got a guitar who’s willing to sing this?
Beautiful poem. I’m sharing it with everyone I know.
David, don’t let them “bait” you. There are some people who’ll never believe.
God bless
First of all, great poem, love it.
@ David, the closed-minded arrogant twit.
I didn’t have the patients to read all the comments, but I got a couple things to say.
First, on the topic of Science vs Religion. You said “God is the author of science.” That is completely 100% your belief, so you can’t teach that in a classroom. You have no proof or evidence that “God” is the author of Science. Science has is based on logic and proof. Granted, some of it is based on theories, but those theories have a reasonable amount of logic and evidence to back them up, if they didn’t they would just be Hypotheses. I however, am not against teachers mentioning that “God” COULD be the author, but with no reasonable proof, but should not be spoken of beyond that.
Second, on the topic of homosexuality. According to you, acting upon homosexuality is a sin. You said “People may be born with same-sex attraction, but by acting on that attraction, they subvert the will of God.” Why would “God” create homosexuals if he didn’t want them to act on it? I don’t know about you, but to me, that would seem mean, cruel even, to make men/women have the attraction towards their own sex, but tell them it’s wrong to do so. What kind of a “God” would do that?
Third, somewhat on the topic of religion in our government, along with other beliefs I want to share. All I’m going to say is my beliefs here. Yes our government was based on christian values, but we should let any religious beliefs effect our rep’s decisions. My thoughts on how the Bible could have come to be is this: The Bible COULD have been written by god, but honestly, that’s not what I believe. I believe that MAN authored the Bible completely. I believe that ordinary men, but thinkers of their time, decided to create something for everyone to believe in, answers to why we are here, and how we got here. Would that be so hard to believe? In today’s society, as a whole, people are less and less concerned about “God” and more and more people think similar to me. It’s been 2000 years since Jesus, the supposid “son of God” walked on this earth. That’s a long time, I think “God” ought to prove himself again if he want’s man to keep his belief alive. Until then, I remain Agnostic, for you cannot prove that God is real or that God doesn’t exist.
Great. Didn’t read the comments but you have an opinion.
On your first point, it’s not just MY opinion, but the opinion of a plurality of America, in fact, the world. Actually, I don’t care to hear a teacher naming God every sentence he/she speaks. But if the question pops up in class, the teacher should know how to address it.
Regarding point two, if you accidentally leave your bottle of Jack Daniels on the counter, are you honestly saying it’s ok for your children to partake of it? Just because you’re in a store with loads of chocolate, do you think it’s ok to buy it and eat it? God made people, each unique in their own way. God made alcoholics, drug addicts, homosexuals, and people without those problems. God expects each to deal with their problems. Some succeed, some don’t. Some are sorry for it, some aren’t. What God expects is obedience, but he also knows that we’re not God, not perfect. God also made some people who have attraction to animals. Do you think it’s ok for a man to have sex with an animal?
On your third point, let’s look at a specific individual. Bart Stupak. Everyone knows he was a pro-life democrat, that he held out his vote on the health care bill because of his pro-life beliefs. I am sure his belief was his personal belief. People put him in office knowing his personal belief. He went against that personal belief, and now he’s a lame-duck. Why? Because he went against the beliefs he had when people voted for him.
Regarding authorship of the Bible, God did not directly author the Bible. Men did, with guidance and inspiration from God.
As for your belief, or lack of belief, why should God jump through hoops for you? He already suffered and died for you. If that’s not enough, I don’t know what is. Good luck.
First off, I think you took my statement “I didn’t have the patients to read all the comments” in a way I didn’t intend. If you took it out of context, it meant I didn’t read every single comment. I did read most, and all of yours. But anyways.
On point one, we have an agreement there. (Although I’m sure we have different view on how a teacher should address it)
On point two, if “God created man in his own image” why are there so many people with so many problems? Now, I have not read the Bible, but from what I’ve gathered, the Bible somehow states that God is perfect. So if we were created in his image, why aren’t we perfect? Or even if I’m mistaken, and he isn’t perfect, if he is so good, why are there so many bad people in this world? Why is there war, poverty, starvation, etc.?
On point three, I should have chosen my words a little more carefully, and I see the point you intended to make on this, and I agree with your point. For lack of words of what I really meant, I’ll drop it.
Again, I should have chosen my words more carefully here, but my point should have been the same none the less. Point being, ordinary men could have written the Bible without any guidance or inspiration from “God.”
And as for my belief, your right, “God” shouldn’t jump through hoops for me as an individual, but he should for the non-believers as a whole group, since the size of that group, seems to be growing. If he wants our obedience, he ought to show us that he actually exists first.
Actually, if a child asks a religion question of a science teacher, and she’s not comfortable answering, I wouldn’t expect her to answer, but possibly to defer the question to the child’s parents. My only point would be for the teacher to not deny the existence of God.
Point two, the answer is the love of God. God’s love is perfect. God didn’t want robots, or zombies, who would do everything he wanted. God realized that love without free will is slavery. He freely gave man free will. The free will to choose God or to reject God. Man chose to reject God, with the help of Satan.
God now uses the evil in the world to help those who try to love him. Catastrophe tends to bring people together to work to dig out of said catastrophe. Look at what happened in America after 9/11. We actually worked together for a time. That’s not to say God willed 9/11. But He took the evil action and made it into a postive.
My point at the last is that God did jump through hoops for mankind, and mankind repeatedly rejected him. I consider myself a good person and a good Christian, but every so often I call someone an idiot (see above) or do something that is a rejection of God. We are all imperfect, except for God. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
“the opinion of a plurality of America, in fact, the world”
Once upon a time the world thought the Sun revolved around the Earth.
“if you accidentally leave your bottle of Jack Daniels on the counter, are you honestly saying it’s ok for your children to partake of it?”
Are you comparing the entirety of a person’s life on this planet, from birth to pimply teenager to parent to grandparent to dust with a bottle of Jack Daniel’s? Really? That’s pretty arrogant, don’t you think? It’s that kind of Theist thinking that made the world better with the Inquisition.
“God expects each to deal with their problems. ”
What makes you believe that what was written in the Bible is Truth (with a capital T) and not the result of poor translation, or one of those human author’s straying a little from the path? Your belief could be based on nothing more than human error, you’ve admitted as much yourself when you said “Regarding authorship of the Bible, God did not directly author the Bible. Men did, with guidance and inspiration from God.”
So, if your belief’s *can be* in error, then what right do you have to tell someone that is homosexual that the way (s)he deals with their sexuality is wrong? If they decide to find love with another like themselves, who are you to say that is the wrong way to deal with it?
“He went against that personal belief, and now he’s a lame-duck. Why? Because he went against the beliefs he had when people voted for him.”
Again you make the mistake of assuming that because many people believe it, that it is right. Many a Christian has told me that might does not make right, and yet you all subscribe to this very principle as though it never occurred to you that maybe you’re the hypocrite Jesus meant to condemn.
David, your arguments are based on non-facts, personal biases, and arrogance on a grand scale. I’d say “I’ll see you hell” but thankfully, that’s not where I believe I’m going.
Scientific equipment at the time showed that that was true. Religion should stay out of science, but science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
My Jack Daniels example, you’ve missed the point. If you’re a child or an alcoholic, and you see that bottle of whiskey, you have a choice-to drink a little or a lot of it, or to control yourself and not drink. Your analogy suggested that a person with same sex attraction should be allowed to fall to that attraction. Yet you expect the alcoholic to control himself. My point is that we always face points in our lives that require us to exert self-control. Single men and women, included. God expects us to control our urges and use them for what they were intended. There is nothing wrong with having a drink. It should be used as intended though. Same with sex.
What makes me believe the Bible is Truth? Because we have manuscripts that are within 100 years of when they were written. If you believe the accuracy of the translations we have of theworks of Plato, or Virgil, with are as recent as 500 years or in Plato’s case 1500 years after they were written, you can apply the same standard. Regarding Jesus Himself, what we see in the gospels, he’s either what he said he was, or he’s crazy. Crazy people aren’t remembered 2000 years after they died, and people don’t allow themselves to die for crazy people. As for human error, Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to protect the Church from teaching errors. Since he’s not crazy, we believe him. My telling someone what’s right or wrong does nothing to stop them from doing it anyway. Even God doesn’t subvert free will.
It’s not that “many people believe it” as in now. It’s that many people have believed, suffered and died for their beliefs and have borne witness to the truth. Might doesn’t make right. Jesus proved that when he was incarnated on earth, not as some king or scholar, or muscle man, but as a baby in a cave, born of a poor little virgin. Jews thought that the Messiah would come and make them the most powerful nation on earth. Jesus showed that they had the wrong idea.
That you don’t accept the facts of the Bible, even though many are corrorborated elsewhere, is very selective of you. My job is to present the truth, whether it’s convenient or inconvenient. It doesn’t matter if I succeed here or now.
Ode to David:
There’s a theist in the blog comments
And he’s stinking up the place
With his illogic and his crazy
He’s a case study in faith
[...] another poem from James at Cubik’s Rube — and wow, there’s quite an exciting comment thread [...]