Our God-Breathed Constitution

When I raised in Christian Fundamentalism I was taught that the Bible IS the very Word of God. That is, that the Scriptures were God-breathed, based on 2 Timothy 3:16,17:

 

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (New International Version)

 

The most theologically conservative Christians still believe this.

 

This past week former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay brought pandering to this segment of the American people to new heights when he said:

 

I think we got off that track when we allowed our government to become a secular government, when we stopped realizing that God created this nation, that He wrote the constitution, that's based on biblical principles....

 

That was a snippet from his interview with Matthew Hagee, son of controversial clergyman John Hagee, and is my reason for suggesting he was pandering or "tickling" people's ears.

 

At first I thought DeLay perhaps had not exactly said that and was misquoted. That isn't the case. I've kept watching the news to see if DeLay would clarify himself by perhaps declaring that he simply misspoke. If he has I haven't found such an explanation. Neither have I noted a rush of conservative politicians attempting to distance themselves from this.

 

The claim that God wrote the US Constitution is shocking. And the implications of such a claim would be even more shocking. In that connection I am going to quote another politician, President Harry S. Truman:

 

Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination.

In fact, I think such a position is intellectual suicide.

If Religious Believers Shouldn't Be Anti-science...

I passed on blogging about the recent Science Guy versus Bible Guy debate. I'm so beyond all that now in my personal journey of discovery. I like science and I like the study of the human religious impulse. However, I don't like being a participant in some "religion versus science war."

 

In other words, I opt out. My personal opinion is that either study might inform the other, but I don't think one should be used to attempt to nullify the other.

 

Extremism. That's what really bores me. I don't prefer religious "revelations" beyond what I (or anyone) am able to discover using normal means. At the same time, I sure don't enjoy listening to science geeks pontificate on things that seems to me beyond the proper realm of their study. (I'm not here defending NOMA, but IF there is a supernatural realm, surely that isn't something science can tell us much about.)

 

Bram Stoker, noted for his horror classic Dracula, wrote "Ah, it is the fault of our science that it wants to explain all; and if it explains not, then it says there is nothing to explain.”

 

There is a God of the gaps - where the unknown is categorically chalked up to "God did it" - to be sure; but as has been noted, there is also a science-of-the-gaps that feels certain knowledge gaps eventually will be fully explained by naturalism. 

 

The ultimate why question still resonates with me: Why is there a Cosmos instead of a chaos, or nothing at all?

 

That seems to be a real toughie.

 

If religious believers shouldn't be anti-science (and I firmly believe they shouldn't and folks like Ken Ham are way out there in the Twilight Zone), should scientists be anti-religion (not a-religious, but vehemently against), and use their scientific disciplines to argue against the possibility of there be something beyond the natural?

Deadly "Faith"

The snakebite death of reality television personality and pastor Jamie Coots as he practiced his religion was front-page news here in my neck of the woods.

 

It is thought rude to speak ill of the dead, and certainly my heart bleeds for Rev. Coots' family. (I read also that Coots had no life insurance and his family is accepting donations.) But I feel nauseous that so much of the news coverage I'm seeing seems mainly to applaud Jamie Coots' sincerity and willingness to "die for his faith."

 

Personally, I have great sympathy for religious faith, little sympathy for unreasonable religious faith, and zero sympathy for idiotic religious faith. I can feel nothing but disapproval for anyone like Coots who puts himself and others, especially his loved ones, at great risk this way in the name of religion.

 

It is noticeable that most educated Christians find less sensational ways of interpreting the two biblical passages which speak of "snake-handling." This sensationalistic aspect of Pentecostalism seems only to be popular in backwoods areas.

 

Is the taking up of poisonous serpents faith or ignorance? Is refusal to use common sense in religious matters faith or stubbornness?

 

Coots' son is vowing to carry on his father's legacy. In the meantime the snakes will continue to ignore the memo on how this is to be properly done. 

 

Holy Shit!

“But I resist the devil, and often it is with a fart that I chase him away.” A favorite method of dealing with devil used by Christian reformer Martin Luther. I was always attracted to Luther - not so much for his theology - but because he had  a certain, shall we say, earthy way of putting things. My impression is that he was something of a mean-spirited bigot, but we all have our crosses to bear, I suppose. He just had a certain way of putting things that always brought a smile to my face (examples: "You are like mouse-dropping in the pepper"; "I can with good conscience consider you a fart-ass and an enemy of God.").

 

Maybe I never fully outgrew the childish enjoyment of scatological humor.

 

Legend has it that Luther was given the insight which launched his efforts to reform the Catholic Church while sitting on the toilet, having often spent time there because he allegedly suffered from severe constipation. How true this I don't know. Like so many things it comes down to how certain words should be translated or interpreted - in this case the words "in cloaca."

 

Somehow I choose to believe the legend is true.

 

There is, unbeknownst to some, a condition that has been identified as Poophoria. Dr. Stool's humorous little website explains:

 

This poo can turn an atheist into a believer and is distinguished by the sense of euphoria and ecstasy that you feel throughout your body when this type of feces departs your system.

 

Dr. Anish Sheth and Josh Richman have written a book about defecation titled What's Your Poo Telling You? Therein the explanation for poophoria involves the stimulation of the vagus nerve which can occur when passing large masses of feces. Some think of it not in terms of religion but in sex, as in an "orgasmic" feeling. Hey, but even sex can have religious overtones, as in the so-called Religious orgasm ("oh, God, oh, God!).

 

Butt seriously - er, I mean - But seriously, what if the roots of the Reformation, the theology which highly emphasizes God's Grace as over human efforts to be good, got its start as a poophoric experience?

 

What a way to do (or doo-doo) theology!

 

Well, this post has become just so much foul wind, so with that last bad pun I'll sign off for now.