What amuses me about the creation/evolution debate is that those are not the only two options.

Someone once asked me "Do you believe in Creation or Evolution?" and the only honest answer I could give was, "No."

To say that "God created the Universe" is to posit a God who is separate, and outside of it. This Deity would then either use something existing outside Itself, or part of its own self, to make a universe.

If it used something outside itself, this would imply that the God and the Universe are still separate things. As if a man were to build a house. He could live in it, but not BE it.

If the Deity used its own self for this creation, then it would BE the creation. The act of creation would be shaping itself. This would be something more like body building.

The idea of the Omniscient Being who knows every detail of every atom would require that the Deity BE the universe, not be outside it somewhere.

In that case, the fossil record would be signs of what the Deity has been in the past. What we see now is the Deity. So, what are we doing when we breed animals for specific traits?

No, we are not doing anything unholy. If the Deity is the universe, it is also us.

So, what we do every day is an act of God. What kind of life you have depends on that kind of God to decide to be.

----------------------------

Intelligent design thought exercize, part 2

We have a drinking glass. "Obviously" created by a deliberate act of an intelligence, namely, Man. I take this glass to the top of high building, hold it out over the edge, and let it go.

Does the theory of Intelligent Design make any predictions about what will happen?

Does anyone reading this doubt that the glass will shatter to bits? How do you know this? Will the pieces be in any kind of order?

Who is responsible for the resulting arrangement of shards, glass powder, and concrete chips?

I'll drop the watch from Part One over the edge, too.

Now what do we have? "Natural Forces" which, according to Intelligent Design, were ordained by God, have been allowed to act freely on these objects.

Is God's design to reduce everything to Chaos?

Dropping these objects from a height was a deliberate act of Man. To what degree is the chaotic result of the action God's work, and to what degree it is Man's?

Intelligent design thought exercize.

Let's take a look at the concept.

There are formal logical flaws all through it, but let's play on their level.

Part 1:

The idea is that, if one looks at the workings of a watch, the complexity and inter-connectedness of it leads one to conclude that it "obviously" was man-made, or created by an intelligence. Then, one looks around at the universe, and sees complexity, and inter-connectedness, and concludes that it too, was made by an intelligence.

Okay.

What about a drinking glass? Surely, this is just as "obviously" man-made. Yet, it has no complexity or inter-connectedness. What do the watch and the glass have in common that we see as evidence of their intelligent origins?


The quality is orderliness. The glass is smooth, clear, homogeneous, and has a regular shape.
The watch parts fit together neatly. The gear teeth are evenly spaced, the metal is smooth, and also homogeneous. THESE are the qualities that cause us to conclude that they are man-made.

Why do we see these qualities as evidence of intelligent origin? Our perceptions of man-made versus natural (God-made) are based on our accumulated experience moving through the world.
Man made things have order and purpose, naturally occurring things do not. (or if they do, we can't perceive it)

So, using the same sloppy logic as the original premise, it falls apart. Our perception of intelligent creation is based on how things are NOT like the universe at large.


-

Atheism

Someone once called me "an Atheist and a Satanist". I had to point out to them that it is not possible to be both. Satanists believe in God. They're against him, but they believe in him.

Since then I paid more attention to Atheism, and have noticed that there are three different types.



Political-Atheists: The most visible type. They are the ones who campaign to have slogans changed and signs taken down. They are in it for the reaction value. To them, it is not so much a religion, as a way to be a royal pain in the ass. The advantage of this approach is that, if you get beat up, you can claim to be a victim of religious intolerance.

If people quit getting upset about Atheism, Political-atheists would give it up and do something else for attention, like try to legalize marijuana or ban abortion.

Arguing with a Political-Atheist is like wrestling with a pig. You get tired and filthy, and the pig likes it.

Rational-Atheists: I can respect these people. They have simply thought about it, and don't see any reason to believe in any kind of Deity. It is possible to discuss religion and cosmology with them, without things degrading into chaos. (I did once convince one to allow for the existence of Chi. ) You hardly ever know about these people, because they really don't care one way or another about other people's superstitions.

Emotional-Atheists: You've met them. They really do, deep down, believe in God. But, they are mad at Him for some reason, and are trying to get back at Him by refusing to believe in Him! They are the ones who argue doctrine. "If God is Love, why does Hell exist?" is one of their favorite complaints.

I just want to shake them and tell them to stop blaming God for all their problems, and start solving them.



-

This was necessarily a quick sketch. A dog wandered into the studio while I was working with a model, and seemed to like her.

Jesus Had a Penis

Somehow, the idea that Jesus was asexual has really taken root in the Christian world.

Ask around. Jesus died a virgin! He never even masturbated!

I have a little trouble with that. Part of the sacrifice of Jesus was that he had a very Human and mortal life. He was scared spitless of what he had to do, because his Life was good. Jesus was not some emotionally untouchable Holy Being, he was a Man, and subject to the entire range of human suffering and desire.

I've read the Bible. I've read different translations of it. Nowhere can I find any reference at all to Jesus' sexuality. The Bible says nothing about whether or not He ever had sex.

I think there is a very important reason for that.

I think it is because IT DOES NOT MATTER!

There are many years of Jesus' life that are not mentioned in the Bible. What was he doing then? Probably just being a Man. Earning a living, learning about life. Experiencing what we all experience. If any of those details were important, they would be included in the Bible.

Normal human beings have sex, at least with themselves.

If we are to follow the teachings of Christ, his lesson is not that "sex is bad". His lesson is that in all things, including our sexual behavior, we should take care not to hurt anyone. If we do hurt someone, we should do what we can to repair that harm.

The Woman taken in adultery committed a crime according to her culture, but Jesus overrode her punishment. He tells her, "Go, and sin no more." Where is she going to go? Back to her husband, of course. She would go back to her husband to repair the emotional damage she had done. Killing her may have satisfied her husband's immediate anger and frustration, but would not have restored his faith in women or love. For her to go back to her husband, and the two of them, keeping in mind that neither was perfect, to work things out, was a better spiritual solution.

Jesus really understood the weakness of the flesh. Being the Son of God, he had the spiritual strength to resist all temptation. But he certainly felt the desires. There would have been no point in his sacrifice if he did not. He knew the desire to live. He knew the desire to have a family. I believe he did not have children, because he knew what he had to do with his life, and would not want to have to abandon an Earthly family to grief. That's just my belief, though, I have no evidence to support it, and I am not going to argue with anyone who disagrees with me.

But I will argue with people who say that sexuality in and of itself is a sin. If that was so, Jesus would have made a point of saying something about it.

In every action, in every Parable, in every speech, Jesus reinforces the idea that the spirit is more important than the flesh. He repeats often that it is more important to treat each other with love and respect, than to perform or refrain from performing certain acts.

So, according to the Bible, there is nothing wrong with sexuality in and of itself. The sin lies in satisfying oneself to another's detriment. That's right, practice safe sex.


-

Bible literalism

There are many debates based on the concept that the Bible is literally true, in every respect.

The Bible says that God created Man out of the clay of the earth, and evolutionary theory says that Man developed from other, earlier forms of life.

There are places in the Bible that refer to the Earth as flat, and the night sky as a tent roof with holes in it. Literalists have come up with complicated explanations of how that isn't really so.

There are many trivial passages in the Bible that seem to contradict each other, and Literalists have come up with flimsy explanations of those as well.

Then there is the book of Revelations....

Every Bible believer that I have ever encountered says that it is metaphorical. The ten-headed beast is really the government, or science, or the Roman Empire. We are not really going to see these monsters, they all represent something else.

Interesting. The Bible is literally true in every respect, except that the book of Revelations is metaphoric?

How about this. Other parts of the Bible are metaphoric as well.

The Bible really does refer to the Earth as flat, and the sky as a tent as a metaphoric way of describing the unimportance of physical settings when dealing with the spirit.

One of the Gospels says that Jesus and his followers were on their way into Jerusalem, and another says they were on their way out of Jerusalem, when Jesus cursed the fig tree. Maybe that contradictory detail is still in there because it does not matter whether they were going into town or out of town, just what happened as they passed by.

And, perhaps, the description of God creating Man from the clay of the Earth is a more elegant and poetic say of saying that he made Man through a long complicated process that involved shaping other creatures first, and then refining them over eons.


-