If You're Going to Be an Atheist Do It Right!

Ok, to be certain I am a theist - and hence prepared for the onslaught of venom likely to be attracted by this missive. The idea is to express certain observations I have made through my exchanges with atheists and through the material I've read that's been generated by the atheist/theist debate. 

Take it in good humour too - that's how it's meant...at least in part.

1. If God doesn't exist then stop hating him. Truth: I've interacted with folks who claim to be atheists but hate God with a passion. Now if God doesn't exist why would you hate him? Wouldn't that be like hating Santa? Or hating the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Proper atheists just hate people who believe in God and/or religion. But hating God means acknowledging his presence which would render you a theist...and that won't work in the whole endeavour to not believe in God. Which takes us to point 2.

2. Since there is no God then everything is our fault. Right, as we proceed with hating and ridiculing everyone who isn't us (and we theists have fabulous experience doing this - I'm willing to give lessons...for a small fee) one must remember that religion is completely man made and therefore religion is not the problem at all, but mankind who invented it. So, the obvious solution to this religion business is to round up all theists into camps and systematically destroy...oh wait. Aright forget that - did that, didn't go down well. But clearly it's something to consider. Bear in mind that when it comes to culling you do have the White Supremacists, Doomsday Cults and the Hadron Collider to contend with so act fast before stocks run out!*

3. If everything is a product of evolution then so is religion. Let's be fair now. Evolution suggests that all we are is a product of what we were, and what we are is producing what we are becoming...or something. So, if everything we are, from our moral compass to our opposable thumbs is a product of evolutionary forces, why too isn't religion? And if it is then why be upset about it? One may as well be upset with a volcano for erupting. That's what is does - erupt. So religion is some kind of moral volcano, yes causing mass destruction and flight cancellations, but leaving in its wake a crusty foundation that eventually provides the basis for life and...R&B or snooker, among other things.

4. Kick a friend or stranger - it's ok! The absence of a final judgement is relieving even for a theist, I will admit that. With no objective morality imposed by God or after-death accountability, anything goes! Right and wrong are completely subjective and based on cultural mores, contexts and POV's. In fact, that POV that morality is subjective, itself is based on cultural mores, contexts and POV's and is therefore as valid as any other POV which makes all POV's equally valid and invalid, and therefore allows us to go and randomly kick someone! Further, folks who rape, steal and kill are simply acting in accordance to their specific genetic and cultural influencers - which takes us to point 5. 

5. Science has all the answers, so stay away from everything else. To be a proper atheist one must avoid all other frivolous pursuits and interests lest you find yourself engaging in some metaphysical consideration like philosophy, or even literature, history and Sesame Street, none of which are products of science (never mind that science is a product of Philosophy - that doesn't count...because I say it doesn't)! History is definitely not a science - you can't observe the past - and then you have to make up stuff about things like Stonehenge and the Easter Island Heads, which were probably just the teen hangouts of their time. Look at the sprawling malls of today. Surely they are destined to be considered Mecca's of worship and plasma TV's household gods by future archeologists (well after the nuclear winter has subsided).  It would also be appropriate to refer to one's child as 'offspring' and should be made patently clear to them that you really don't 'love' them per se, but are simply acting out one's genetic programming and endeavouring to perpetuate the species, it's nothing personal. They really shouldn't get all excited about 'daddy coming home'  as it offers negligible advantage in natural selection. 

6. Listen to nothing a theist has to say. Let's face it, theists are irrational. Only a set of lunatics would believe in an invisible all knowing, all loving, all powerful God and try to be 'better' and 'righteous'. Hence nothing a theist says or does can or should be trusted. If there is anything a theist invented, discovered or produced - DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT! This would only encourage them. If a theist shouts 'get out of the way a truck is coming!' at you, stand your ground they are chatting their usual groundless, irrational rubbish. Wait for an atheist, who is far more trustworthy, to warn you of the oncoming vehicle and then, and only then should you take evasive action. If no atheists are present then natural selection has done its work!

*If one seriously considers culling, the possibility that a pure blood atheist spontaneously believes exists, as some have been known to do. This can be easily remedied by culling all those who have the possibility/propensity for any faith-based approach. 

Love: overused cliché - under exercised virtue

I asked the question 'What is love?' recently and got a few interesting answers. Here are the definitions as I received them:

Love is both a noun and verb, both a power and an action. It is the recognition of, and attraction to, and expression of, beauty and kindness and intelligence. I believe it to be the purpose of the universe, the reason we're here. It gives all of creation meaning. And everything else - the mistakes we make, and the struggles we have - if those things lead us to understand love better, and lead us to love more - then I think that's all that matters, really.

Apart from the Biblical explanation in 1 Corinthians 13:4 - 6 verse 7 says it all for me ... Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
LAYMAN TERMS - IF IT DOESN'T EAT AWAY A PART OF YOU THEN TIS SOMETHING ELSE - NOT LOVE 

Heinlein said it pretty well: Love is that condition in which the other person's happiness is essential to your own.

Love is the law of attraction.

I would have a response to this question but the only things that come to mind are dry answers about social evolution on the one hand and "baby don't hurt me..." on the other hand. I'm useless to this discussion.

Difficult to define and relatively easy to see/identify.

Love is the word humans use to define the sense of attraction, compassion and attachment we feel towards other members of our species (and occasionally members of other species, like pets) caused by chemical processes in the brain. Sometimes caused and spurred on by arousal, pleasure, intellectual stimulation (also pleasure) and innate altruism.

Love is forgiveness on steroids…

Love is a willingness to sacrifice for something/someone…

Love is openness, or open energy, towards life, yourself, or another person/animal/thing. It can feel like it comes from outside, but it really is an inner thing that is possible to learn, practice and maintain …

...Love like Time is an abstraction... it needs to be viewed in relation to something else.  The Mamallian Brain comes equipped with the pleasure centers that facilitate this feeling of love.  Is that love?  I dont think so... It's far beyond just feeling or expression of feeling.

The intention of such an exercise was not so much to see what people thought about love but whether or not folks think that love has a significant role to play in the advancement of our civilisation. If love is biochemical - can we then synthesise a drug coupled with gene therapy and therefore 'make the world a better place'? Or find the hate/prejudice/idiot gene and remove it from our DNA forever? Certainly genomics is far more complex than I'm making it out to be - but perhaps love is not as complex, or impersonally synthesised through biochemical processes. If it was then there might be a lot more of it demonstrated in more uniform ways.

If love can be learned - what is it that we have to learn in order to effectively and correctly practice love? There seems to be some consensus that sacrifice is involved - that might mean some amount of inconvenience to self for the sake of another and outreach to complete strangers and even those with whom we disagree or have serious conflicts.

It seems to me that whatever love is - it's not easy and it doesn't come naturally, as 'forgiveness on steroids' suggests. We know that sexual attraction is part of love, but attraction certainly doesn't mean love is present, and not all love is about physical attraction. Indeed, many might agree that it is 'beyond just feeling'. But if it is 'innate altruism' what are the characteristics of such?

Love really is hard to define, but it seems we believe it is real nonetheless, and accept that there are elements of instinct and reason that make up love. And times when we must go against our instincts and impulses in order to demonstrate love and times when we must deny reason and rationality. The trick is knowing when and what must be denied.

More questions than answers seem to be arising.

Please...what do you think about this discourse so far?

What is Love? Your Views Please...

To be sure a question mired in cliché. But the actual practice of the subject may be a most rare occurrence indeed, so we shouldn't dismiss it too quickly. I intend to elaborate on the subject but crave your perspective.

Please, in your own words or the words that best fit your personal understanding...

Thanks,

CY

Thoughts On God, The People Who Need Him & The People Who Don't

Even though much harm has been done in the name of God, much good has been done too. But good doesn't make headlines, moreso, the good is often done in an individual life that only knows they are better off for the faith they have found. As much as Christians are saved from the 'world' (not planet Earth but the idolization of outward appearance, material possessions and self-centred thinking)  the world (planet Earth) is saved from them. As much as some insist there is no God and/or a need for one, some folks need God.

The reality of the world tells us that there are some problems in it. Not all the problems are caused by or even remotely related to religion. Despite being capable of unimaginable savagery for whatever reasons, some have emerged to find decency and compassion because of their encounter with God, as they perceive him. Others say that such people are weak, deprived and dysfunctional with a twisted sense of morality that needs external motive in order to seek goodness. Very true! Jesus came to help exactly this kind of person.

Respect is due to those who have no faith to speak of, yet possess a deep sense of morality  exemplified through character and lifestyle. But such persons shouldn't disdain their weaker brothers and sisters who find the need for supernatural help - and somehow receive it. If God is where one finds morality and hence a transformation for the better - what is wrong with that? Indeed, it is this faith that is preventing some from adding a little more breaking-and-entering, adultery and awkward vacations to the planet. But again, what doesn't happen doesn't make headlines.

In truth, we all seek to become 'better' - or at the very least wish to. But what does 'better' mean? Perhaps more patient, honest and forgiving - more courageous, loving and faithful (in relationships). Even Stephen Hawking suggested that we launch a 'program of systematic self-improvement of the species' employing our knowledge of evolution (Collins, 2007). Not surprising as we all want a better world. We also tend to think that our way is the best way to achieve that goal which leads inevitably to a world that demands the need to be better.

Somewhere along our journey though, we all seem to ask questions like: 'is this it?', 'can't we do better?', 'can I change?', 'what's wrong with me/the world/my Mother-in-Law?' We ask these questions because we recognize that something is wrong and if we raise the questions in the first instance, we are very likely correct. If you raise these questions but are wrong to do so, then something is wrong with you.

Often when folks query anothers position they are really wondering why others aren't more like them. They are, perhaps without a holy document like a Bible or Koran, presuming to know the best course of mankind using themselves as the touchstone. And like many 'believers' are consumed by a sense of superiority due to their privileged position of knowing and being the most perfect incarnation of what mankind is meant to be (vegetarians, republicans and Colombian drug lords, among many -or all- others, are also prone to such thinking).

The faithed are often (rightly) criticized for asserting that they and only they know the right. This of course could never be true and some of the unfaithed attest to that because  they and only they know what is right. We see that the problem isn't peculiar to faith or skepticism. But we can agree that there is a problem so insidious that it manages to participate even in the very solution.

Many, of a variety of ideological persuasions, agree that love is the universal answer - but vehemently disagree on what love is - introducing: square one.

The Parents Who Prayed Their Child to Death

Dale Neumann of Wisconsin USA was convicted of second-degree reckless homicide several months after his wife was convicted of the same. Their crime was neglecting to seek medical attention for their daughter who died from complications associated with undiagnosed diabetes. Neumann, according to the BBC, said "If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God...I am not believing what he said he would do."

This is pretty serious stuff and I think it should be made clear without any confusion that this kind of heartbreaking choice is in no way a Biblical or Godly expectation. Abdicating our responsibility to act (when it is in our power to do so) in the name of faith  is a recipe for heartache, bitterness and disappointment.

I can’t find a Biblical reference to support this faith-only approach to healthcare that wont need some amount of assumption or twisting to suggest turning to medical care is an act of doubt. When Hezekiah, one of the kings of Judah, faced imminent death he asked God to extend his life. Medicine, in the form of a 'poultice of figs' was used to treat his illness. Indeed, medicine was the answered prayer.

But what is it that according to Neumann God said 'he would do'? The Pentecostal Church is known for its emphasis on supernatural phenomena, like speaking in tongues, demon possession, exorcisms, visions and faith healing akin to that recorded in the Gospels (immediate and complete). With this in mind it may be James 5: 13-16  that is the source of Neumann's belief. It reads,

Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

The preceding passage does clearly state that a faithful prayer would lead to healing. It doesn't suggest that medical care should not be sought or that seeking such care is a sin of some kind. Paul suggested that Timothy drink wine and not just water due to his 'stomach' and 'frequent illnesses'. It seems that faith healing was not employed in every case of illness and it may even be that healing was not performed only for the sake of physical health.

Jesus performed miracles out of compassion but also as evidence of his divinity. Even though we don't know all the kinds of illnesses that he healed, the ones specified in Biblical text seemed to be untreatable (like blindness, paraplegia, epilepsy and leprosy for example) by any other means available at the time (save Peter's mother who 'only' had a fever - of course we don't know the severity thereof). And generally divine intervention in health crises is sought when there is no other recourse though one is free to pray about anything at anytime if one wishes.

Neumann's reasoning almost suggests that we are to do nothing most or all of the time when faced with health crises. But James suggests that faith and action work together,

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Though James is specifically talking about the issue of righteousness by works vs faith - we can learn that genuine faith results in righteous action. The idea that 'faith can move mountains' doesn't only mean that one waits for the mountain to move but your faith spurs you on to find a shovel and start digging. The shovel in Nuemann's case might have been a doctors visit.

Still, this is a tragic case for everyone involved and one can't help but think about the needless suffering of the little girl and the parents whose sincerity was sadly misplaced. While this case doesn't mean that folks aren't or can't be healed by faith, it does remind us that faith is not a substitute for action but a catalyst.

Book Review: Language of God by Francis Collins

This is one the best apologetic works put out by the side of faith in this new debate around faith, science and skepticism.

That Collins is head of the Human Genome Project adds a hefty amount of credibility to his argument proposing harmony between science and faith. Even more convincing is that he defends science itself against forces (including irrational and incomplete ideas) within religion that would counter basic facts of nature as well as cogent, tested and accepted theories. He is not just an apologist for the Divine but for the natural as well.

Collins successfully guides both skeptics and believers through the essential definitions, arguments and theories of each approach so both can have a clearer understanding of the other and even their own position. There is no doubt that Collins is both a devoted (and accomplished) scientist and theist.

Apart from sharing some of his personal journey from atheism to faith and the role science played thereof, he shows with great effort to be impartial and tolerant of all views, just how the beauty, intricacy, structure and harmony of the human body & DNA, the universal  Moral Law  and the cosmos itself points to a Divine presence. He also counters some of the primary arguments of atheism's more prominent figures including Dawkins. His complete lack of hostility, his logic and scientific expertise make him a worthy opponent.

The reader will be encouraged not just to consider their own knowledge and approach but equipped with a mercifully simple introduction to scientific and spiritual concepts with which they may not be familiar. The atheist is given alot to consider (some might find parts of his argument too metaphysical) and the theist is educated and encouraged not just by a scientist but a man with an admirable understanding of God's nature.

Finally, Collins offers his own alternative theory to circumvent the irrationality of Creationism and the lack of rigour in Intelligent Design, but considers the reality of a universe governed by the interaction of the laws of physics, chemistry and evolutionary biology as revealed by science. He calls this approach BioLogos.

Unquestionably worth a read for persons of all persuasions.

Writers Note:

Collins includes an appendix where he discusses Bioethics broaching issues like cloning, stem cell research, genetic mutations and disease and the implications thereof on healthcare policy. Indeed he even touches on the current healthcare debate now raging in the USA. He does so with great objectivity and responsibility considering the many arguments for against each issue. Ensure you  read this section as well.

TV gameshow offers atheists 'salvation' - CNN.com

This interesting - pretty topical and cutting edge I think.

What do you say?

TV gameshow offers atheists 'salvation' - CNN.com.

Exorcising Your Rights? Demons of Homosexuality

The Original Exorcist

Many may have already seen the frightening and  pitiful YouTube 'exorcism' of a 16 year old boy. This 'spiritual' approach of the Manifestation of Glory Ministries in Connecticut is not strange amongst Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. Perhaps a look at the thinking within the denominations in question can shed light on this dehumanising ritual.

Jesus encountered a few demons during his sojourn on Earth and the Bible does attribute illnesses and afflictions to demons (Matthew 9:31-33 & Matthew 12: 21-23) though it also distinguishes demon possession as an affliction separate from physical illness (Matthew 4:23-25). Some movements have extended this demonic association to many things even beyond illness, to sinful acts and attitudes (like arrogance or hatred), stubbed toes, acid reflux and now, homosexuality.

The thinking behind this is that everything in the physical world is affected by the spiritual world. Because one, according to Ephesians 6, is in a spiritual battle 'against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms' then it must follow that demons are everywhere lying in wait to make you gay, arrogant, greedy or Republican.

The Devil Made Me Do...Everything

This view takes personal responsibility for one's own thoughts, actions and attitudes completely out of the picture, and advocates the 'devil made me do it' philosophy. Nothing is done out of will, intent or choice but we are under the control of some demon or other when we, for example, exceed the speed limit. This view also assumes that everything can be handled with a quick roll-on-the-ground exorcism (or some other spiritual rite) complete with projectile vomit. Everything including homosexuality or bad grades perhaps. This of course means one doesn't have to study to pass exams - just exorcise the 'demon of dunce'. This thinking also flies in the face of James (1 v 14&15) assertion that '...each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.' The obvious suggestion here is that we are responsible for our own actions - whatever they might be.

This obsession with the demonic is an easy way out of providing love, counselling, a listening ear, daily self-discipline or qualified care to those who need it. It's a quick fix that requires no thought, long suffering or effort on the part of the exorcist or the 'possessed'. It requires no depth of character or love. Anyone can roll on the ground without much practice, and shouting 'begone' into a microphone is easier than teaching someone the value of self-control and setting an example thereof. It wouldn't  be unreasonable to conclude that the desired results of this approach would last as long as the rite itself. But while people should be free to live according to what sexual orientation they find they have, there are those who wish to walk a path contrary to inner inclinations which, in this argument, happen to be homosexual desire. And make no mistake, there are those who have willingly made the move. Indeed, if Kinsey's  Scale is correct, then such a move will be easier for some than others.

The key element in this issue might be honesty. Even if a homosexual wishes not to live according to said desires, he will and should accept the reality of the desires as a part of who he is - so should his church family. Some folks have apparently converted their faith and sexual orientation with no looking back. But if a person is on the extreme right of the Kinsey Scale then this may not be possible. Though they may make a conscious choice based on their convictions, they might just have to accept that the desires are a permanent fixture (and to be sure there is a distinct difference between orientation and lifestyle - one need not act on desire whatever the orientation). Sexual issues can come with lots of baggage (even without sex involved we all have our carry-on luggage)  often being complicated by abuse, dysfunctional relationships, neglect, gender confusion, physical sexual ambiguity and so on. The view that every gay person is born thus oversimplifies the issue as much as thinking no one is born thus. It is one thing to undergo a religious conversion and quite another to resolve what might be deep psychological and emotional issues. Here, the suggestion may be that folks who are homosexual may not be so for identical reasons, and to formulate a rote response to a complex issue is a fast track to an assembly line of damaged goods.

The Right to Do or Not to Do

However, many are condemning this YouTube 'exorcism' because they think homosexuality isn't wrong in the first place - but haven't considered that the freedom for which we strive includes the freedom to deny our impulses as well - to choose another path. The Proposition 8 controversy in California, while seen as a dark day for democracy, is actually a victory for democracy as much as legalising gay marriage has been a victory in other states. In both cases the voice of the people was heard. The majority spoke and the majority won. That is democracy. The important and often overlooked element is attitude. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. But the homosexual debate is taking a turn to extremes on either side. Disapprove of homosexuality and you are an inhuman, irrational Jesus freak - advocate for it and you are the devil's spawn. Even though the application and brand of 'help' offered to this young man may have been totally useless and indeed harmful, his desire to seek  help was and still is his own personal choice.

There is no doubt that the discussed approach to spiritual development in general, and homosexuality in particular, is profoundly destructive. It wasn't demons that were attacked at this church in Connecticut - but a young man's dignity and right to a confidential listening ear and learned answer. The kind, perhaps, that Jesus would have offered. What actions will be taken against the church, if any, remain to be seen, and while we all have a right to our opinion, I am willing to assert that this church was exorcising the wrong right.

What the Hell?! Loving God VS Fiery Furnace

The Burning Question

No one wants to end up on God's BBQ pit - if it exists. Indeed the spectre of hell has turned many off of the idea of the 'Bible God' or the idea of any god at all.  But what exactly is hell? It defintely isn't Dante's Inferno or the many visions throughout religious art history of demons torturing condemned souls. According to Revelation, hell's purpose is to imprison satan and his demons (along with those not in the Book of Life) - not to provide employment for them (although God knows in this economy...).

What happens after death has always been a moot point for philosophers, religious adherents, sceptics and atheists alike. Even the Pharisees and Saducees didn't see eye to eye on the issue, the former not believing in life after death. We know that intra-faith disagreements exist on this issue and are as controversial as inter-faith disputes. The beliefs vary from those who think that the soul is destroyed in hell rather than tortured, then there is the idea that punishment is only for a limited time commensurate with one's sins, then hell is eternal and most attractive of all: there is no such thing as hell only 'the grave' or 'Sheol' and hell is really just representive of death - Hades - the 'place of the dead'.

We all hate punishment when we are the recipients. Some enjoy meting it out - others attest that 'this is gonna hurt me more than...', you know the refrain. But hell, as frightening as it is, has many lessons for us and may be far more real before death only coming to frution after the 'silver cord' is cut. So, assuming there is life after death - and that a super-heated retirement home for satan is a part of it - let us proceed.

What Goes Up...

We can safely conclude that hell is about punishment - whatever we believe about the experience or length of the punishment - that is the purpose. Punishment is nothing new to life before death. It is built into our judicial systems, moral systems, constitutions, cultures and even our instincts. Because we say things like 'that's not fair', as CS Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, it seems we have a sense of justice floating around in our heads. When we are 'unfaired' we expect that justice should be done. However, if we are the 'unfairer' we tend to think mercy, leniency and our turbulent past filial relationships ought to be seriously considered.

In reality justice is often not carried out. Despots die peacefully in their sleep full of years, or rapists commit their atrocities undiscovered -  that is unfair. Unjust. Perhaps the notion of hell arose because of such great impunity? The idea that no one can escape justice by death, even if eluded in life,  is very appealing to the oppressed - not so much to the oppressor. But it has a modicum of fairness, doesn't it?

Some think that God, if he loved us and gave us free choice/will, shouldn't then turn around and punish us for exercising that gift. Here is the view of one blogger:

Free will must be unconstrained by external circumstances. God tells us that we have free will to accept or deny him. But then threatens that we will be punished in life and burn in hell upon death if we deny him. Free will no longer exists when one choice comes with the threat of violent consequences. [emphasis added]

This writer seems to think that free will means the absence of consequence. The implication of the last sentence is that we should be free to assault someone, but it would be unfair if they retaliated because they would be disrespecting our free will to administer a kick-butting curb stomp on them. Everything has a consequence - good, bad or benign. That is a physical law: 'what goes up must come down' (at least on Earth) and 'for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction'.

...Must Come Down

I don't think God is saying that 'if you disobey me I will send you to hell', so much as 'if you don't listen to me the very things I warned you about will turn around and bite you in the rear'. We teach our children this stuff - 'if you scoop hot coals into your lap, you wil be burned' say the Proverbs (6:27 & 28). We teach kids about consequences so they can see the sense in rules - the principles - the character. However, rules cannot convey character or experience - they can only pass on a hollow edict. But it is this experience that seprates children and adults. We know kids shouldn't touch the stove, but because they haven't had the scalding of their life yet - curiosity can win out over obedience...and common sense.

Punishment teaches consequence and consequence helps us realize that we are not islands, that what we do and who we are affects our immediate environment. We see this played out in broken homes, destroyed marriages, estranged children, psychological disorders etc. The whole adultery commandment wasn't to spoil our fun - it was so we wouldn't ruin our families. The converse is true - a whole family, as far as is possible, is likely to be better off than a divided one, and it is no coincidence that much of the 10 Commandments revolve around the  mircocosm of family and neighbours.

Hebrews (12:10) points out that we discipline (or punish) our children as far as we see fit - as best we can to help them be good citizens. Indeed we attempt to do this as a state and have real trouble determining the crime/punishment balance. God, Hebrews says, punishes us so we can become better people (12:10-13). Not just so someone can say 'Ha! Vindication!' but so even the perpetrator can benefit from punishment (note that Hebrews says 'endure hardship as discipline' v7). Punishment is part of love. Parents who love their kids punish them. Indulgent, coddling parents will pay for their lack of discipline with spoilt brats.

One can discipline without love - but one cannot love without discipline.

Being Human or Doing Human

God is often villified by some for not carrying out fairness in ways some think he should - say famines, victimized children and other like tragedies. This indignation says something about or sense of justice - it says that we have one. But we must be willing to apply our sense of justice to ourselves as much as we apply it others - as much as we apply it to God.

Which is worse; to have a crime committed against you, or to be the criminal? What about committing a crime or getting caught - which is worse? In truth whether one is caught or not - consequence occurs. Getting caught is the final and least important part of a crime or sin. The most devastating part of a crime/sin is arriving at the place that allows one to commit it in the first instance. The tragedy in the idea of hell is not going there - it's qualifying. Even if there is no external consequence for certain actions, there is always an internal consequence: a deadening of the conscience, a disregard for the violated principle, a degradation of character, and so on.

Some might argue that not believing in God is no sin. But if God is/represents love, mercy, patience, peace and all other higher virtues of character (and I believe him to be these things) then would it not be a sin to reject such things? No one would consider these virtues to be undesireable. A world without them - now that is hell.

CS Lewis gives the most realisic depiction of hell I think there is. No flames, pitchforks or forked tails - just people and their attitudes. The same attitudes they held in life only without the sugar (in the case of hell) and without the sour (in the case of heaven). Lewis, even implies (some might be happy to know) that one can opt out of hell - but persons in either place are there because that is where they really wish to be. 'But who would choose to be in torment?' you ask. People make that choice every day in life when they choose wealth over family, an affair over their spouse, abuse over patience, greed over honesty, a grudge over forgiveness, isolation over community, fear over peace etc. Lewis' hell depicts persons who simply refused to let go of a pattern of destructive thought - a pattern that becomes their eternal reality.

Keller (The Reason for God, 2008) points out in Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31),

that though their statuses have now been reversed, the rich man seems blind to what has happened...He does not ask to get out of hell...there is increasing isolation, denial, delusion and self-absorption. When you lose all humility you are out of touch with reality. No one ever asks to leave hell. The very idea of heaven is a sham to them.

Keller cites Lewis' Great Divorce as well,

Hell begins with a grumbling mood, always complaining, always blaming others...You may even criticize it in yourself and wish you could stop it. But there may come a day when you can no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself, going on forever like a machine...In each of us there is something growing, which will be hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

Good For Nothing?

Undoubtedly, running from punishment or consequence is no motivation to be 'good' - not for long anyway. Ideally the inherent value, common sense and benefits (personal and communal) of 'goodness' should be motivation enough to pursue higher principles and virtues. In my opinion, it is the abdication of this understanding for 'do it or else' or 'because I said so' morality (which is no morality at all) that causes us to be obsessed with guilt and punishment . I don't think God wants us to obey him 'because he said so', rather I believe he wishes us to share his understanding and righteous character and be guided thereof. 'Do it or else' morality, which is often a technique of parents, requires no thought for the adherent or explanation from the authority. No one benefits in this scenario.

To be sure, love and freedom do not equal impunity or permissiveness. Strong moral character is not achieved by accident - nothing worth pursuing ever is, and as no one is perfect, perhaps what is a major consideration is the overall tenor of our character and outcome of our lives. Of course, objectors to these ideas may not be concerned only with the consequence, but the system of redemption. That is another discussion.

A Theist, an Atheist & Why One is Good for the Other

An Enlightened Opposition = An Enlightened Defence
One can hardly refer to the theist/atheist debate without citing Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens or Dennett. Indeed, these proponents of skepticism and downright contempt of religion (primarily the Christian faith it would seem), have eclipsed their believing counterparts – no outstanding names come to mind when one thinks of apologia, apart from CS Lewis who is no longer with us. But there is a very good reason for that – apologists have not had to work very hard for a rather long time – so now is the time when their names should be made.

Individual Christians and their communities/churches who engage in a programme of proselytising, have probably found themselves having to dig deeper and farther than ever before in the face of challenges from staunch doubters armed with all the objections of the aforementioned authors and personal anger and disillusionment. No more are the pious clichés, go-to scriptures or threats of hell and damnation sufficient to fill the pews.

This is the best thing that could have ever happened to the modern day Christian church.

Years of blind faith, ‘do as I say’ doctrine, shallow knowledge of the Bible and its attendant history, scientific ignorance and  discouragement of intellectual curiousity, hypocrisy and little focus on the philosophical arguments behind morality and righteousness have not only weakened the authority of the Church but likely contributed to the growing ‘unbelief’. The church could have not survived long under such conditions. Indeed, the popularity of evangelical churches and attrition of traditional churches (like Catholic, Methodist and Anglican) might have been a result of the  more rigorous and inclusive approach of the former. But the rise of the Neo-Atheist is the kick in the pants every theist needed.

Knowledge Demands Character

The type of Christian being formed out of the crucible of atheism is a more curious, educated, thoughtful and considerate version of his fire-breathing, closed-eared counterpart (though the latter is still present and accounted for). The proliferation of apologetic material, though often aimed at the skeptics, is really a boon for the believer. This literature and its authors are providing a platform and template for communities of believers to follow that don’t include bigotry or amorphous relativistic conviction. Rather it encourages inquiry, rational thought and the willingness to entertain conflicting arguments and ideas. The result: a tolerant believer who can convey his beliefs with equanimity and authority.

The vitriol and sometimes dehumanizing rhetoric from some proponents of atheism bears such a striking resemblance to the uglier side of Christian fundamentalism that the more ‘enlightened’ believers are apt to recognize themselves in it. Seeing the destructiveness of an emotion-led argument can go a long way in discouraging someone from going down that road. That an argument may be sound almost does not matter in the face of its inconsiderate and condescending delivery. But still, the soundness of much of the atheist argument continues to generate more rigorous scholarship amongst the layperson and the theologian.

The Enemy Within?

Another very important point of contact on this issue, is where the ‘old-school’ Christian meets the new ‘enlightened’ set. The Christian community can be as harsh and unforgiving to itself as it has proven to be to outsiders. This internal venom is also a great motivator for change within the Church. If anything has been proven, it is that faith is resilient and usually thrives under external opposition – it is internal divisiveness and disunity that can destroy it. The internal battle lines have yet to be drawn in this latest Renaissance of Faith – but this is likely to happen once the ongoing external battle cools down. And Christians may provide more bitter opposition for each other than any atheist.

Kansas Abortion Doctor Slain; Suspect In Custody : NPR

Kansas Abortion Doctor Slain; Suspect In Custody : NPR.

Firstly condolences to family, friends & fellow church members. It is a real tragedy.

We do not yet know who killed this man or why, but anti-abortion extermists have been blamed. This tragedy can foment more anger and animosity between the factions on either side of the abortion debate.

Tragedy is often a spring board for other agendas (for even this discussion). I wonder if it's worth speculating about all this without knowing the motive behind Tiller's killing? Perhaps we should lay off the wild theories until the crime is solved?

What do you think?

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Atheists: No God, just whining | Charlotte Allen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk.

Here is a polemic rant - the very parallel of many atheist rants which I have either read or been subject to. It's not my style as a theist though I understand the position. What do you think?

Undercover At An Evangelical University : NPR

Undercover At An Evangelical University : NPR.

An interesting experiment with somewhat suprising results.

Oh God, You Devil - Dealing With Evil

‘There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.’
C.S. Lewis

The Devil Made Me Do It

What indeed is the right balance when it comes to Satan? Growing up, I gave him/it/her way to much attention, control and credit in my life. That did a couple things:

1. It made me think angels and demons - but mostly demons - were involved in everything from stubbed toes to lost homework, and that made me essentially ruddy paranoid. 

2. It made me more concerned about what Satan was up to than what God was up to.

I think my life, before really getting serious about God, was an unhealthy mix of religious hypocrisy and charismatic weirdness. Everything was attributed to the devil and demons. Laziness, lust, tiredness, anger, bad grades, general stupidity, taxes, natural disasters and the list goes on. The problem with that approach is very little was attributed to me! James does say 'but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.' Ya, 'his own evil desire' or stupidity, lust etc. I'll never forget the depiction of a person struggling with the 'demon of pride' in a very popular Christian fiction book (which I would still recommend), but the idea that something external to you is the source of your own arrogance or selfishness is a little far out. It overlooks the deeper more challenging issues of character we all face.

I don't know if you can relate, but that mindset convinced me that the only thing worse than a complete absence of some kind of faith is just enough to make you fearful and/or hypocritical. I have always found it odd how much people fear the occult and such like, even while claiming they don't believe in God. Yea, exactly! How come they don't believe in God, but fear Harry Potter (which I love - Wingardium Leviosa!) and Gandalf the Grey (White after the Balrog dust up)?

Fear No Evil

I've met people who completely balk at the idea of God and religion but quake at the mention of witchcraft and Obeah (Jamaican black magic). How come? Even in movies (except ones like Constantine and The Prophecy series - but even then) demons and the devil are real threats but the only way to combat them is with a mystical sword or a kick-butting magical boot or something like that. God? No, he's no good as a defence against the Dark Arts. Then in the movies it's always Catholic priests (did The Exorcist and the Omen series get that going?) coming to the rescue and inevitably getting their butts whooped in the name of the Lord. There was this one movie (the name escapes me) where the weapon used to send the incarnate devil back to hell was on over-sized toy rocket. An over-sized toy rocket!? C'mon! Satan's supposed to be the Prince of Darkness not a wayward teenager (though the two greatly resemble each other in intent and ability to create pain and misfortune).

I think there are those people, religious and otherwise, that give evil far more credit than they give good. Now in one sense, I don't blame them, evil gets way more headlines and media coverage than good does - and then there's all the wars, and eight long years of 'W'. But maybe evil gets so much support because we give it so much support - both religious and non-religious folk.

For sure evil is real. But certainly we are our greatest enemies. My good confession as a Christian was 'Jesus is Lord' not 'Satan is the devil'. So I subscribe to James and pay attention to how I may be tempted by my own 'evil desire' rather than running around afraid of demonic attack. Now, I'm not saying that we can't or are not hounded by minions of hell (though I don't recommend sitting around waiting for the doorbell to ring). But maybe we should think about how we are hounded a little differently.

Personal Demons

Granted, books like Job will get you wondering if God is gonna roll the dice over your faithfulness (a part of me kinda hopes God will be like 'ahh - no not this one he's too weak to test right now') but I do think that these divine transactions probably occur a little differently in heavenly realms. We see an earthly explanation for a spiritual event - difficult to translate I think. Indeed, the spiritual world would be an alien place to us all from this side of heaven.

Still, I have my doubts. Take demon possession. Far less of an occurrence than the reports suggest methinks (I have no idea how much it is reported - go figure) but it's really a popular past time in Jamaica and religious circles generally. Every now and then at some all-girls institution, some one will get possessed and make a whole party of it. Most of the time I just think it's plain old mental illness. Why? Cause when religious people are mentally ill - they are possessed. When non-religious people are mentally ill – they’re just crazy! I'm just saying before you start beating people with a hardbound copy of your favourite NIV red letter Bible, give the doc a call. I just find it a bit suspect that most of the people who seem to get possessed are Christians and Churchgoers. Shouldn't the main victims be non-Church goers and those who are vulnerable to satan’s attacks?

Natural disasters are another thing - but God get's the blame for those mostly. The 2004 Tsunami was a very tough one wasn't it? I surfed a public commentary site and persons of all faiths and creeds offered their condolences and prayers or sombre best wishes. Then the Christians came along and pronounced the reason for the death and pain was 'God's judgment' and anger at the people for their sin! Now, how in the world do they know that? I mean everybody is going to die some day - by tsunami or heart failure, but we are gonna go. Jesus said, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were guiltier than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."


For goodness sake

Now again, the reality of evil in the world is undeniable - it's way too apparent to ignore. While I think satan can attack us to discourage us, rob of faith, hope and maybe even life, through whatever nefarious means - evil can only be manifested by one outlet in this world: mankind, and good can only be expressed through the same.

Paul attests that 'God works for the good for those who love him' - I believe that to be true. Indeed, I think that 'good works for the good of those who love to do good' is another way to put it.

C. Arthur Young

But Seriously: Neo-Atheists - The Fundamentals

Dogma Isn’t Just For The Religious

In the past 2 years or so, I’ve met more atheists and agnostics than in the over 16 years since I came into my own understanding of faith, God and spirituality. There seems to be either a proliferation of atheism or at least a pronounced vocalization thereof. I’ve met those who were once well known and committed believers disillusioned by hypocrisy, irrationality and guilt or those who never got bitten by the faith bug at all.

Most of my contact with the sceptics came through the Amazon Religion & Spirituality forum. I started participating in the forum some time early in 2007 because I felt it necessary to put my faith to the test. Could I open it to criticism and examination and still leave with it intact? I noticed that threads were started and dominated primarily by vociferous, dogmatic and sometimes insulting and very angry atheists. They preached the evils of religion with all the fervour of a Puritan and proselytized their doctrine of logic, evolution and science with the meticulousness of a Pharisee.

I was amazed at the striking similarity they bore to myself in my zealous and often misguided days of spiritual youth. Many referred to Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens – the Apostles of Neo-Atheism – in their rants. They railed against ‘godbots’ and ‘fundies’ and scoffed at ‘scripture slinging’. They had a language of their own and created a society within the forum that had its own mandate and purpose: to ridicule religious adherents, to confound their arguments and hopefully disprove and remove their faith. It was a particular delight for some to see believers leave in a huff with scriptures in their wake, fire & brimstone on their breath and frustration tainting their ‘peace in Jesus’ (most religious participants were of some variant of Christianity including myself).

But Atheists Make a Good Point

In truth, I learned quite a lot from these neo-atheists, if not a lot, then a few very significant things. They were right about many issues including the reluctance of some religious folk to question the rationality of their beliefs, the over-emphasis on guilt as motivation, the contribution of religion to war, prejudice and oppression throughout history and that many adherents know very little about their own faith and therefore argue very unconvincingly in their efforts to win others over – especially those who have no fundamental belief in the Bible and therefore cannot accept it as a platform for argument.

These things caused me to examine and question the evolution and progress of my faith. Indeed I was forced to ‘practicalize’ Biblical tenets– to express them in non-biblical terms, in real terms. I was forced to look at the questions to which I either had no answer or never really thought about before. The logic and science behind Noah’s ark and the flood; death, violence and war in contrast to Grace, forgiveness and peace; the role of the devil in mankind’s moral quest and idea of morality outside of religion. It was an adventure that was both frightening and exhilarating. I teetered on the edge of my faith attempting to navigate a landscape that included scientists, witches, homosexuals, Jews and others – and many of them (if indeed they were what they claimed) were perfectly decent folk.

My assumptions and prejudices surfaced like never before. It was easy to condemn acts and lifestyles from the pulpit in a context where most agreed. But to do so in such a liberal environment, and to those who (in some cases) were so respectful of my own faith and position was brand new.  It made me consider the humanity that is often absent in mouth-frothing condemnation of others that has so defined much of religion. It made consider my view of Jesus himself and how he interacted with ‘sinners’.

Pearls & Swine – But Who’s What?

However, despite forging great rapports with some of the most vehement of non-believers the dehumanizing rhetoric, anger, ridicule and hostility continued – indeed flourished. Many threads, despite attempts to engage in reasonable discussion would devolve into a closed commiseration of atheists comparing notes on the virtues of their stance and the inferiority of both religion and the religious. It was the latter point that I found to be most disturbing. All viewpoints are open to deconstruction but to attack an individual’s personhood and freedom to believe as they will is very the thing of which religion has been guilty. The very thing these neo-atheists condemned. But a common response when challenged on this was justification. Many felt they had a right to launch these attacks because of abuse they experienced at the hands of religion and its proposers, because of the relative silence and ostracism of atheists over the years, according to some forum participants.

Still, I found it odd that for persons who had no faith in God, they felt an amazing amount of emotion about the things God did or was supposed to do, according to my or others faith. Some were very angry with the subject they claimed never existed. ‘Why would he let so much pain and misfortune afflict the world?’, ‘why create hell?’, ‘if he is all-powerful why doesn’t he just fix this place?’, they would often ask – truly, we all ask these questions from time to time. But I counter that if one does not believe in God then there is only one other responsible for the state of the world, and therefore only one who has the remedy: mankind. But they rarely argued that point. Some would simply condemn religion for emphasizing how sinful mankind is – but they were doing the same thing by pointing out the reality of human suffering often at the hands of humanity itself.

I was unquestionably disturbed by the approach of some of the neo-atheists and oft argued that their attitude betrayed something about human nature itself. Religion had committed no crime – men had, with religion as their weapon and, I concluded that there seemed to be a movement on the rise that was about to engage in the same crime but with a different weapon. I posit that atheists actually have the opportunity to exercise morality and reasoned argument in exemplary ways because of their non-religious stance. They are not burdened by the baggage religion can bring; the guilt, tradition, formality, heady zeal and practical restrictions. They have no motivation for goodness except goodness itself – no heaven or hell to compel or terrify them, just life, history, morality and science. But I fear many have simply thrown atheism’s hat into the ring of superiority, judgment and self-righteousness that often defines the debate around faith instead of standing outside that ring where they actually belong.

True Respect For All

In the end, my experience taught me that wherever we go we take our character with us. Our personal beliefs, ethos and attitude will ring true regardless of what we may say we believe, or not believe.  The forum, the last time I visited is still dominated by atheists, perhaps all the more, but I still believe in God and I still do my best to follow the teachings of Jesus albeit with a new sense of understanding, curiosity and openness to others. I am left convinced that whether we believe in God or not – whether he is real or not…we sure need him, and now more than ever.

C. Arthur Young

But Seriously: If There is a God - Why so Much Suffering?

'If there is a God, why is there so much suffering?'.

So controversial is this question that some voluntarily give up faith in God because of the unbearable reality of human suffering and death. It is a sort of 'revenge through unbelief' because God hasn't conformed to a particular perspective.

But there are a few assumptions one makes when taking a stance of 'unbelief' due to suffering:

1. Assumption of Omnipotence & Omniscience. Can we determine what is the best case scenario without absolute knowledge & power? The only way we can assume to know the best way to 'run the universe' is if we have the knowledge & ability to do so. One would have to go about managing the interaction between billions of personal choices, actions & attitudes and the impact of collective choice, not to mention the movements of nature itself and ensure the best possible outcome in the face of contradictory desires, agendas and purposes. Any volunteers (let's hope no bankers put their hands up)? Because one has the power to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea, pain-deprivation is not even recommended as a good parenting technique ('spare the rod and spoil the child'). Perhaps the Divine intervenes constantly and in ways that we do not even perceive. Perhaps we are living in the best case scenario and if you were God you would be doing exactly what God is doing, whatever that might be. But our distinct and glaring lack of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence leaves us sorely underqualified for the job.

2. Assumption of Suffering. Is all suffering pointless & evil? I think we know the answer is 'No'. People who overcome great adversity or live with seemingly insurmountable challenges are some of our greatest inspirations: The handicapped child filled with joy & laughter, the abused wife and mother who finds love & strength, the martyr who liberates a nation, the bleeding man who dies on a cross. Indeed, suffering often inspires a virtue that without it would be absent in some of us: compassion. It gives some a purpose in life - to help others. Pain can put our lives into perspective, allowing us to see what is really important. If the Bible suggests somewhere that life is painless I could understand the abandonment of faith - but it does the exact opposite and repeatedly acknowledges, not just the reality of suffering in this world, but its cause and value.

3. Assumption of Responsibility. Can we believe it is God's job to ensure 'painlessness' yet expect to have free-will? We can't have both. Much of humankind's pain is self-inflicted and product of free-will. The 'if I were God' argument is played-out every day in our choices when we try to be God rather than be like God. Hence we see bloodshed, rape, poverty, greed etc. Much pain is the result of 'playing God' and doing so very badly. Perhaps our responsibility is to contribute to the reduction of suffering in our sphere of life through honesty, generousity, forgiveness, fidelity, humility etc. We can't abdicate our responsibility to pain we have caused or to alleviating suffering because God is 'in charge', If anything, faith in God should spur us to action rather than blame shifting. Consequently, one is behoved to acknowledge religion's contribution to suffering and perhaps to correct former errors 'in the name of God' as far as possible. As it is, when mankind has been in 'the position of God' he has often made very ungodly choices, hence, '...absolute power corrupts absolutely' rings true more often than not.

4.The Assumption of Death. Death certainly is the source of some of our greatest suffering in this world - as common and universal as it is, we all do it, but that doesn't make it easy. The loss of loved ones and the inevitability of our own death are weighty even to contemplate, not to mention experience. There is a part of us that thinks we should not die - or at least that we should do so only according to our 'rules'. Ideally, one's death should be meaningful and heroic or a quiet passing full of years, surrounded by loved ones with a fulfilling life of success behind us. This of course is not reflected in reality for a great many of us. Death is a certainty - the variable is when and how - we are left to consider how we live, while we live. Jesus faced our greatest of fears most admirably - it suggests that not even God considered himself above suffering and death. Somewhere in there is the secret to dealing with that Dark Veil.

5. Assumption of Alternatives. As much as we consider all the 'what ifs' they don't matter in the face of the great 'What Is'. Unbelief in God doesn't alleviate suffering or remove our responsibility for the way the world is. Indeed, if one claims there is no God then there really is no one else responsible for the suffering in the world but mankind himself (and impartial nature). The Bible suggests that God allows some suffering - even causes it, so we are technically allowed to question the reason behind said 'allowances', hence point 2. In the end we are left with no alternative but to actually do something about our human condition. Life as we know it is not just the best case scenario - it is the only scenario. But we have a say in how this scenario develops.

Rather than ask 'what's God's purpose in all this - just to watch us stumble over our awkward imperfection?', perhaps it is a partnership between us and the Divine. An exchange and interaction between acquiescence & self-determination, surrender & proaction, faith & reason. A balancing act of allowing God to be God and man to be man, while not ignoring the reality of cause and effect or the power of faith and hope to influence our inner and outer reality.

For a working example of victory through tragedy check here.

Women, Woe, Men & God

It was when I became a Christian back in '92 that I heard about this 'women must be submissive to men' business. It threw me into an uncomfortably confusing world that perhaps, 17 years later and some 7 years into marriage, has only just begun to make sense - only just...I think.

Now Paul mentions in 1 Timothy 2 that ' 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.' Calm down. I didn't write this - call Paul up and shout at him (there's context - but that's another note).

Then there are the passages on wives respecting husbands and husbands being the 'head of the house' etc. Now I heard these scriptures - but the confusing thing was what I saw. I have yet to meet an actual 'submissive' woman (I hear they exist but I don't believe it) - and back in my single days the wives always seemed to be in charge and to have the last word - the husband, as head of house, deemed his wife correct! I silently vowed to myself that I would not be such a husband. However, what made me even more disturbed and annoyed was that I always found the least submissive of women to be the most attractive - so I married one.

Now my wife was not in on my 'silent vow' so she hasn't paid any attention to it whatsoever - and since it completely slipped my mind to tell her my plan - well, I'm just going with the flow. But I was decidedly befuddled as a young man and young Christian as to what this submission was all about. Should I expect the women to wash my car on demand? Should they fawn at my feet and say that I am right even when I am obviously wrong? If I was about to walk into the street and into the path of an oncoming Tata bus; should they remain 'in quietness and full submission'? After all, as a man I clearly must know exactly what I am doing...right?

Well, since then I've come to a few conclusions - none of these conclusions apply to my wife, unless of course they are happy ones, and any resemblance to her is purely coincidental. At any rate I am being forced to write all this by some dude with a high-powered weapon that is dictating everything to me.

Ahem:

1. It WAS Eve's fault. Yes it was and I make no apologies. It has come to my attention that women think they are smarter than men at all times. It has also come to my attention that women are in fact smarter than men at all times. Eve should have known better - Adam was a complete idiot. This was confirmed when watching a UK TV show about pre-teen children sent to live on their own for two weeks. In innocence, a couple of them liked each other and started 'dating' (they are no more than 10 y/o). The undue attention caused the girl to do the most sensible thing and conspire with the boy to pretend they had broken up publicly and proceed to date 'secretly'. It was all her idea. A boy would never have even begun to think this - we are not smart enough. Later we discovered that she already had a boyfriend. Sigh. IT WAS EVE'S FAULT.

2. Men will do anything to get a woman to shut up...including make her happy. Yes, it's true. But women know it's true. Nagging is an age-old technique to getting what she wants, and in lieu of the man doing the right thing ad libitum, she must talk incessantly until he does it. After the 4th year, 3rd if she is proficient, a man will do almost anything to get her to stop talking for as long as possible. If the woman is made happy as a result of his efforts to get her to stop talking - this is only a pleasant side effect. Now we know why Adam ate the fruit. See point 1.

3. The most confusing and dangerous moment in the Universe is when a woman asks her man 'What do YOU think/want?'. Most men know that the woman does not want to know what he thinks/wants...or does she? His experience will tell him that she only wants to know if he knows what she thinks/wants. The seconds in which he deliberates what it is she REALLY wants to know are the most painful in a man's life. He must determine whether he will be talked at for not knowing what she thinks (by saying 'I don't know') or for not caring what she thinks by insensitively expressing an opinion different from hers aka his own opinion. How very dare him... I mean us. By far, the safest answer (since you asked) is 'whatever you want/think'. However, this will work for only a limited time.

4. Women are experts at deceiving...themselves. The illustration in point 1 would have already helped. Men are liars - but they absolutely suck at it. Women, on the other hand have perfected the art. But what makes a woman a good liar is that she genuinely believes what she is saying, as a lie, to be the truth (hence all women reading this have no idea what I'm talking about). This is also what makes women right most of the time - they have the ability to change the parameters of correctness to suit their conclusions. Amazing. I'm beginning to seriously doubt if there was snake in the tree and that it said anything at all to Eve. Indeed, if there was a snake in the tree it was minding its own business. But if you were to ask Eve if there was a snake and it told her to eat the fruit she would say 'yes' and pass a lie detector test to boot. That said, the fruit has been eaten and we are now in a grand cosmic mess. Adam still continues to be an idiot and somewhere in creation there is a very offended snake.

5. All wars are caused by women. Shakespeare (via Macbeth) and the the Iliad (Helen of Troy/Trojan War) prove this point, if at least theoretically. You don't have to believe me but I guarantee it's true. Wars are generally fought by men for money and power - money and power are for getting things done - women want things done. Consequentially, the Iraq war was a result of Bush doing his best to get his wife to stop talking. See point 2.

6. God is having a good laugh...and then a good cry.

Even in nature, the female of the species is the more aggressive and usually does most of the nesting, feeding, raring, hunting etc. Take lions, the females do the hunting and raring of the cubs. The males however, rule the pride based on their decidedly more stylish hairdo and larger size. But the females get the job done.

Why all the submission for women then? Well, men need it - their self-esteem and masculinity depend on it. And since there is no woman known to man who will be submissive on purpose, well we have to at least present the illusion of it. As the saying goes 'the man is the head, but the woman is the neck that nods/shakes the head'.

Anyway, the dude with the high-powered weapon wants me to get him something to eat. Till next time.

C. Arthur Young