I’ve heard that said many times but I’ve just recently grasped what that actually means. Humans aren’t an external invader like a virus or pathogen. Rather we are, like cancer, a part of a delicately balanced and constantly evolving ecosystem which has adapted in a way that gives it a survival advantage within its limited ecosystem but at the expense of altering the ecosystem it relies on for survival.
Immediately before they go to Sodom, God’s spies pass Abraham’s tent which he keeps all the flaps up on so he can sit in the shade while scouring the 360 degree horizon for weary travelers. When he sees them he runs out, drags them back to his drafty home, brushes the sand off some food he had out when a sandstorm hit his unprotected tent, and is generally a lovely host.
Shift to Sodom and again there is a good host who meets the strangers in the town square and takes them in. When a mob of locals shows up wanting to rape the outsiders and put them in offshore processing facilities, Lot protects his guests to the extent that he is even prepared to offer up the virginity of his two daughters. By the cultural understanding of the intended audience, this would actually be a lot worse than a gang rape. The girls would consent because it is what their father told them to do, but it would destroy any prospects of respectable marriage and long term security after Lot’s death. Basically, Lot would rather end his own family line than allow harm to come to his visitors.
A lot of Christians think that the story of Sodom is about God punishing people for bumming. I’d say those people have an unhealthy anal fixation. The story is about hospitality. The fate of the daughters is meant to sound horrific. It is there as an exemplar of how far a good host will go for his guests.
This story is about how a town or country treats travelers who arrive in their lands unannounced and uninvited. Do they invite them in and share what they have or do they say “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come” and imprison them if they don’t arrive in the correct manner?
There is a moral in this story, but it isn’t “God hate teh gayz”.
The Gospel of John tells a story not found in the other gospels which describes Jesus washing the feet of the Disciples. He strips off his clothing and puts on a servants towel, he washes the disciples feet despite Peter’s objection and then has them wash each other’s feet (13:3-14). At first glance, the meaning of the story seems pretty clear. Jesus is taking the humble role of a servant and treating the young men to a relaxing foot bath and massage with some kind of vague allusion to servant leadership, right? That is certainly one way of reading it but it doesn’t explain Peter’s reluctance or his later suggestion of washing his whole body rather than just the feet. There is something else going on here which I intend to reveal.
There are a lot of Christian self help books available offering quick fix solutions to the dangers and emotional pitfalls of modern dating. In fact, it is a multi-billion dollar industry. Clearly they aren’t working, otherwise people would have stopped buying the books right? In this article, I’m going to offer some advice based on lessons I’ve learned during the course of my life which have changed the way I look at dating.
Modern society continues to be plagued by conflicting ideas about sex practices, how they relate to marriage, and what God thinks of all this. Being the good Samaritan that I am, I thought I’d help out a bit by giving the argument a Jaminological treatment. In this post, I intend to strip Western ideas of sex back to their basic components, identify the common religious assumptions, and consider how a religiously enlightened Jaminist would view sex and marriage.
Heterosexual Males and Homosexual Females are prone to risky behaviour
Homosexual Males and Heterosexual Females are prone to risk avoidance
Homosexual Males and Heterosexual Females are prone to religious behaviour
Heterosexual Males and Homosexual Females are prone to church avoidance
Rejection of an angry, vengeful God = high risk behaviour
Rejection of an indifferent God = risk neutral
Heterosexual men and homosexual women are more likely to leave the church and reject the Christian God than homosexual men and heterosexual women because of their gender/sexual attraction to risk taking.
1. A meta-analysis of 150 studies in risk taking behaviour shows no correlation between gender and risk taking (Byrnes 1999, p78). So while men may be more prone to certain kinds of risk taking, the overall difference in risk taking is not significant.
2. This study compares only two religions in its American population study. So it is not really a comparison of risk differences but Christian and Jewish doctrinal/social differences. Assuming that denying Allah could also be considered risky behaviour, one would expect similarly high ratio of female Muslims, this is not the case however. Only 38-39% of Muslims in America are female (Robinson 2009, np). Perhaps the issue is more complex than mere risk avoidance.
3.The people sampled were not asked if their believed that God exists. That would seem to be an important question to ask when deciding if their behaviour is risk based.
4. The groups that tended to avoid church also tended not to believe in an afterlife. So where is the risk in not going to church? Playing soccer on the highway is perfectly safe if there is no such thing as cars, trucks and busses.
I propose we need a new theory…
Jamin’s Ultimate Theory of Masculine/Feminine Faith Disparity
1)Genderality is a continuum between purely masculine and purely feminine. Men tend to gather around the telly on one end and women tend to gossip in the kitchen at the other, but there are no guarantees. Sexuality tends to fall somewhere on that continuum too, often nearby one’s genderality but that’s really more of a guideline than a rule.
2)There are a number of masculine and feminine traits which will be expressed in a person depending on where they fit on the spectrum.
3)All conscious beings are also on a developmental moral continuum, somewhere between Egocentric, Ethnocentric and Worldcentric. The gendered traits find expression through whatever developmental stage we happen to be on.
4)There are several masculine traits which, when expressed at certain levels, could easily cause a person to feel that church simply isn’t the right place for them to be. Likewise, there are several feminine traits which, when expressed at certain levels, will cause a feminine person to feel that their church is exactly where they need to be.