Bible Pretzel Logic

Here’s a conundrum from Scripture:

Titus 1:12-“One of their own prophets has said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.”

This raises several interesting points.

All people from Crete lied, every time ? This strikes me as a bit of a prejudiced statement. Not to mention that a society comprised entirely of liars would not be able to operate. The best part, though, is the classic logic conundrum that’s created by this verse. Paul is saying that all Cretans are liars. Furthermore, he says that even a Cretan will admit this. So, if all Cretans are always liars, then their prophet would be lying about that, as well, and would never say the words that Paul said. Which means Paul is lying???


“‘Oh dear, I hadn’t thought of that,” God replied, and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.”-Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.


Maybe we should start looking to some other authority besides the Book to learn what God is about. What authority? Stay tuned.


God & Gays, Part 2

This will be the post wherein I lose all 5 of my fans/followers. But I’m not trolling. It’s a serious attempt to understand something.

In the last post, I talked about homosexuality as a sin, and of course there are many people who question how someone can believe such a thing when “everybody knows” being gay is natural, because “science has proved it.”

What science has proved is that the brains of gay people are chemically different than straight people. They have not found a “gay gene,” nor have they conclusively demonstrated that people are born gay or straight. You can look this up. Google “gay gene myth.”

Do I believe that being gay is natural? Yes, but not in the way that you think. I think it is a often a social and behavioral phenomenon rather than a genetic one. People’s brain chemistry can change if the circumstances force them.

Now I have a theory, but I do not have the science to back this up yet, because no one, to my knowledge, has done a study about it. Here’s the theory: homosexuality is 1.)  a behavior response to extremes of population density (either the presence too many or too few females of breeding age,) and 2.)  a failure to adapt to the constantly changing social criteria that mark shifts in the evolution of the human animal.

I believe in evolution. I thnk God used it to create the world over a period of four and a half billion years.  Evolution is life’s struggle to perpetuate itself in changing circumstances. Homosexuality does not make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Why have 10% of your breeding stock-in many cases, healthy, smart and attractive individuals-unable or unwillling to breed? It’s suicidal. Nature doesn’t do that.

What nature does do is shut off the drive to reproduce when the circumstances aren’t right. When there isn’t enough food, for example, or when the population is too great. When people are gathered into cities, for example, it fools the animal mind into thinking, “I don’t need to make as many babies. There are already too many of us around.” This is why homosexuality skyrockets in the biggest cities. It’s not something that is a conscious choice; the body just decides, and the mind goes along with it.

The same thing can happen in the opposite circumstances, with too few opportunities to breed. Where groups of the same sex are confined for extended periods of time, homosexuality is often the inevitable result. Think of the 3P’s-prisoners, priests and pirates. The rates of homosexuality among these groups of men are dispropotionately high, and it is because they are isolated from females. Now perhaps gay men go into the priesthood in order to hide thier gayness, but that doesn’t account for the criminal element. Either you have to suggest that gay men are drawn to lives of violent crime more than straight men, or you’re left with the theory that if you isolate men from women, thier “biological switch” turns off, but the desire for companionship, release and dominance/submission will still be there.

Evolution also explains why there is constantly changing social criteria for reproduction. Women are always looking for ways to obtain the most desireable mates for themselves for the best offspring. As a result, they continuously change thier requirements for what they find attractive and what a man has to do to gain access. This is not something they do consciously; it just happens. When men find a way in, women change the requirements, because the women have to continue to insure that only the men with the traits they want continue to bed them. (See Matt Ridley’s Red Queen for a far better explination than I can give.) Of course, there will always be men who cannot adapt to the changes. They do not have the traits that enable them to give the women what they want. So thier switch turns off, and again, they seek comfort in members of the same sex.

To put it another way, “Men are gay because its eaiser to put on a pair of tight jeans and go hang around with the boys instead of trying to figure out women.” Who said that? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? No. It was Howard Stern. Intelligent and liberal, with a keen understanding of human nature. I don’t rememeber which of his books he said this in-Miss America, maybe? It’s been a few years. I just recall being kind of blown away at the time that someone would buck the party line, especially someone llike Howard Stern.

God and Gays (Part 1)

Probably the most polarizing political issue of our day is gay marriage. As a Christian, I am expected to be against it, at least according to the church. This is a political stance which turns people off from the faith probably more than any other, except for perhaps abortion.

I think it’s a wrong approach on the part of Christians. For one, it’s not consistent. Yes, homosexuality is considered an abomination in the Bible. So is lying. We let liars get married, so why not gays? They’re already sinning, according to us, so how is getting married going to make a difference? Why not let them? They will discover that marriage will let them get some financial benefits, but its not going to automatically make thier relationship any more or less meaningful than the marriage of two straight people. The wedding ring isn some magical talisman that straight people have been hoarding to themselves this entire time. It’s not gong to guarantee deeper love, more happiness or more feelings of acceptance, normalcy, or legitimacy. It might, but there’s no guarantee.

I think we should open it up and legalize it in all 50 states, and watch what happens. In a population of 300 million, there are supposedly 30 million gays. If we figure that 1/3 of these are of marrying age, and if the rates of marriage mirror those of the straight world (95%,) then we should see nearly 5 million gay marriages. I bet it won’t happen.

How  do I know? You see, I’m not just some redneck bigot from the Midwest who’s never spent time around gays and lesbians. I lived in West Hollywood for 7 years. West Hollywood’s population was, at that time, 30% gay. I had gay friends. I worked with gay people. I had a gay room mate. (Not once did I do anything gay, by the way. I was living with a bunch of actors trying to break into Hollywood, and West Hollywood was clean and safe.)

What I noticed is that the gays, at least in West Hollywood, did not want to get married. It was a party lifestyle. The average gay man in Los Angeles had a thousand partners in a lifetime. Now, do I think this is indicative of the entire gay population? Of course not. But it can’t be the only city like that. There’s San Fransisco and Miami and lots of other places. Both the Christian who thinks that America will be swamped with wedded gay couples and the gay activist who is quite sure that its only legislation that is keeping millions of couples from the altar might be quite surprised to see the results.

Legalize it, and see what happens. Even among those who do get married, there will be no guarantees. We debate about gay marriage, but never discuss gay divorce, gay spouse abuse or gay custody battles. Let’s have gays experience all of the ugliness of bad marriage choices and see if they are still keen for matrimony.

This is part of my new-found philosphy on faith and morality: don’t tell people what to do when it comes to consensual acts that don’t harm other people. Wait for people to figure out that it’s not for them, and then offer Christ as the solution rather than bludgeoning people who don’t do what I personally like. Christ preached relief to the weary and the burdened, and only when He had relieved thier suffering did He say “Go and sin no more.”

Did Adam and Eve Poop Before The Fall?

I’m thinking about the Garden of Eden.

Here’s what seems like a gross and silly discussion, but it carries some heavy theological implications.

Were Adam and Eve fully human?

In other words, did they poop? Before the Fall, I mean.

A garden means fruit, fruit means eating, and eating means taking a dump. This creates problems.

Did the poops stink? If so, how could this be part of Paradise? Did Adam and Eve poop in front of each other, since they had no shame?

Poop is decaying organic matter. There was no death or decay before The Fall. All bad things from weeds to labor pains to war came from The Fall.

If Adam and Eve’s poop did not stink, then it meant that Eden was comprised of some miraculous plants that produced no waste products.

It meant Adam and Eve did not have digestive systems, stomachs, or even butt holes-because they did not need them.

And that meant they weren’t human.

The need for pooping had to come after The Fall, which means Adam and Eve had no butt holes, therefore, they were not human when they sinned.

Unless God KNEW they would sin and designed them with butt holes ahead of time.

God puts Adam in the garden to “tend” it. A gardener prunes and cuts, in order to maintain healthy and attractive plants. Now, this is before The Fall, so there is no death and no imperfection. So a gardener would be unnecessary.

Adam and Eve are told not to eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, or else they would die. How would they know what death was? There were no examples of death before they ate the fruit.

We’re told God banishes Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden lest they eat of the tree of life and live forever. Don’t people live forever anyway, whether in Heaven or Hell? Wouldn’t Adam and Eve live forever, regardless of whether they ate of the tree of life? Did an afterlife not exist in the Old Testament?


Name That Religion

Pop Quiz

1.) Name the religion whose founder sought to establish their religion “by the sword, if we are molested,” and whose followers slaughtered Americans on September 11th.

2.) Name the religion whose founder died in battle and who preached that his followers could spill the blood of sinners to pay for their sins, a doctrine that lasted until 1978.

3.) Name the religion that preaches that God became God through hard work and now lives on another planet with His many wives-and also preaches that you can do the same.

Put down your pencils.

If you said, “Mormonism,” to all three, you’d be exactly right, providing of course that you chose the year 1857 instead of 2001 to answer #1. (Look up the Mountain Meadows Massacre.)

Mitt Romney, the Mormon, has the support of Christian America.

Christians are so deeply in bed with the Republican Party that they don’t mind electing a guy who belongs to a heretical, blood-drenched space cult-so long as he says he’s “pro-family values.”



All means all. It means, every, completely, totally. It doesn’t mean sometimes.


So what are we to do with Bible verses that say things like:


“All things are yours.” (1 Corinthians 3:20-21)

“All things are permissible to me.” (1 Corinthians 6:12)

“All things to all men” (1 Corinthians 9:22)

“All things are from God” (1 Corinthians 11:12)

“Love believes all things” (1 Corinthians 13:6)


You could come up with some pretty squirrely doctrines with those verses. But they are there. No one ever talks about them, or if they do, they quickly point out that they don’t mean you can do/believe whatever you want/need to do. But that’s pretty much what they say. Even taking them in context doesn’t diminish their universalism. Any ideas out there, readers?

Taliban Atheists

So the latest attempt by militant atheists to rid the world of the scourge of religion is the attempted removal of a statue of Christ on Big Mountain in Montana. Besides sporting the most boring name for a natural feature ever, the mountain is host to a statue of Jesus that atheists feel is somehow oppressing them.

The mere reminder that someone has a belief in something different than themselves is enough to incense the atheists, who are always claiming how evil religion is for being so intolerant, and they will show the religious the error of their ways by being…intolerant.

It’s hard to see what the problem is. It’s not like it’s this thing:

No, the statue on Big Mountain is six feet tall. But apparently, it so fills atheists with rage that they have to bring it down. Fortunately they won’t just blow it up like the Taliban did with those giant Buddhas. They’re trying to use legislation, because you know, they’re civilized.

How thin are the skins of these people, really? What’s next? Are they going to try to get churches closed down because they feel that the mere sight of one is somehow the imposition of religion on their fragile psyches?

Of course, atheists feel that religion is always being “shoved down their throats” (they seem to love that rather homoerotic phrase,) due to Christians trying to legislate morality. It’s OK to attack Christians because “they started it!”

Hey, pal.

We didn’t start it. You did. We had morality in this country. You took it away. You OK’d abortion, you put porn everywhere. You push alternative lifestyles and evolution. So don’t give me any of that crap. You fired the first shots, and now you’re bringing it to the next level.

I’m willing  to be non-obnoxious, non-emotional and non-vindictive about my faith. Are you willing to be the same with your atheism? Do we have a truce?

Addendum: So I looked this thing up to see if maybe the statue was on public land and therefore a violation of the First Amendment, and it turns out that the Knights of Columbus rent that space from the Feds. So they can put whatever they want on it. And it looks like the statue is staying for now.