It's Nicely Wrapped and All, but I Didn't Ask for This Gift

How many times have you seen this argument: you should worship god (in this specific way) because god gave you life. He gave you the greatest gift of all, so you should do whatever he wants.

I've seen that three times today and plenty of times before that.

So let's try a metaphor to help us examine this argument.

You are homeless until a man gives you a house. You don't ask him for a house, you just find out one day that you have a house. It's an okay house, decently maintained, taxes prepaid, utilities prepaid. That's awesome, right? Sure it is.

So, a month after you move in to your amazing surprise house, a man comes to your door. He tells you that he gave you the house and he'd like to ask you for a favor. Sure, whatever you need, right? He gave you a house, how can you refuse?

He takes you to his property, all 5 acres of it and ask you to mow the lawn. With a push mower. It's 100 degrees and humid. Of course you do it. This guy gave you a house, how can you complain about mowing 5 acres with a push mower in high heat and high humidity?

The next week, he asks you to paint the outside of his 5 story mansion- with a 1" wide brush. Two coats.

This goes on and on until your benefactor is taking up all your time with his requests.

That's kind of accurate, right? I didn't ask to be alive. If I hadn't been made alive, I wouldn't miss it. If I died right now, I wouldn't know the difference. And being alive is difficult at best. So why am I supposed to spend a lifetime thanking anyone for this?

But wait, it's not an entirely accurate analogy, is it? At least not concerning Christianity, or at least Christianity that believes in eternal hell, anyway. Okay, let's rework the analogy.

You're homeless. You get a free house. Some years later, your benefactor appears and tells you that he needs you to do something for him, but he's not going to tell you what. You need to figure that out for yourself by reading certain books he has written. Except a lot of people have written using the same name, so you'll have to figure out which books he actually wrote on your own. These books were originally written in Finnish, and you don't speak Finnish, so you'd better hope the English translations are accurate.

Oh, and he won't tell you how long you have to complete this mystery task, but if you don't do it in time, he has evidence, really believable evidence that you ran a child pornography ring and he'll give it to the police- and the news.

Good luck, now thank me for that house.

That's actually nicer than god, isn't it? I mean, eventually your prison term will be over, or you'll die in prison, but either way it's done. Hell is forever.

Now get down on your knees and thank god for this wonderful gift he's given you.

Furniture Metaphors

metaphor, euripides, gay, marriage, same sex, homophobia, homosexual,

Euripides, our friend at Self Evident Truths proposes the following metaphor to explain why same sex marriage is bad: Dressers made from two trees are better than end tables made from one.

First of all, I assume he means that the dressers are made from two different species of trees, rather than two trees of the same species, because marriage never involves one person. In response to that, I would like to point out that making furniture from two different species of trees has to do with the look of the furniture rather than its strength. The strength of furniture has to do with how it's constructed. You may want to combine two different color woods, or woods with different grain patterns to create a specific artistic effect, but that wouldn't make anything stronger. So, metaphor fail on that one.

Once upon a time there was a cabinet maker. He produced fine, wood cabinets for the people of his village and they all came to him whenever they needed a cabinet for their home. He took great pride in producing cabinets, using wood from two different trees and fitting the crafted pieces together into a seamless union. His cabinets had many drawers and room enough to protect the things the villagers needed to store. The cabinets were strong and useful, built to last a lifetime.

Many villagers were glad to have a useful and beautiful cabinet in their home. The villagers used the cabinet's drawers to protect their possessions from dirt and bugs, filth and corruption. With care, a cabinet lasted a lifetime, protecting the villagers' possessions and making the villagers happy.

He uses the word "cabinet", which to me is what I have in my kitchen, attached to the walls, which perhaps this is just a regional difference in the way words are used, but to me, he's talking about a dresser or wardrobe, and it is what is pictured in his post.

I assume the "possessions" in question are either love or children. I can't quite tell. I also can't see how a properly made dresser would protect from "corruption", or how marriage protects from dirt or bugs. Oooh- maybe "bugs" is code for AIDS. Fail again. In Africa, AIDS is a disease of heterosexuals, many of them married. I'm still not sure what "dirt" is in this metaphor, though.

Yet, over the years, the cabinet maker discovered that many of the villagers didn't properly care for their cabinets. They no longer realized that even the best-made cabinets needed care and protection. Instead, some villagers left their cabinets exposed to the weather, to dry and crack. Some left their cabinets exposed to rot and filth. Termites ate away at others. Neglected, many of the cabinets broke to pieces. Some villagers even destroyed their cabinets outright in fits of anger or abuse. Some left their cabinets empty and unused, then threw them away because they could find no use for them.

Many villagers, whose cabinets decayed, blamed the cabinet maker for not building the cabinets strong enough. Even more villagers blamed the cabinets themselves, thinking that cabinets weren't worth the price and care needed to maintain them. Of course, the corrupted and broken cabinets weren't the cabinet maker's, nor the cabinet's fault. Neither were responsible for the villagers' neglect or abuse.

The cabinet maker shook his head in sad bewilderment at the villagers who blamed him or his fine cabinets. In neglecting or abusing the cabinets, the villagers blamed everyone but themselves.

So, how many people think dressers are outdoor furniture? Have you ever seen a dresser in someone's front yard? (If yes, I want to know what else was in the front yard. I'm guessing engine block.) Also, termites rarely eat furniture, but that's not really neglect, unless Euripides lives in an area where checking your furniture for termites is common practice. Who is exposing furniture to "rot" and "filth"? What does that even mean? Are they storing garbage in the dressers? Who does that? Who breaks their furniture and then blames the maker? Does anyone think furniture is rated to withstand baseball bats?

These villagers are either stupid or psychopathic.

Then a new "cabinet maker" comes to town with his newfangled "cabinets": end tables made from one tree! How many trees does it take to make an end table, anyway? I mean, has Euripides even seen an end table? They're not very big. Depending on the tree, you could probably make several end tables from one tree. Does anyone put an end table to the same use as a dresser? Well, no. They're different things for different purposes. In fact, most people own both a dresser and an end table, which is where the metaphor really falls apart.

According to the stranger, as soon as he set up shop to sell his new cabinets, the villagers certainly would not want any other kind.

That's ridiculous, too. Why would a heterosexual couple not want to get married because a homosexual couple could get married? Or does Euripides assume that every human being on the planet is secretly gay, and we're all just waiting for same sex marriage to be legal, and then it'll be a big gay planetwide party? That says more about you than anyone else, my dear.

What follows is a ridiculous passage in which the original cabinet maker is sued and charged with hate speech and "unconstitutional acts" for pointing out that end tables are not dressers. Uh, yeah. Look, as long as Fred Phelps and his merry bad of morons are allowed to do their thing, you don't have to worry, Euripides. Unless you're planning on doing something worse than Westboro Baptist already does, which would amost certainly involve throwing poo.

Metaphors: ur doin' it rong.

The English Language

english, spelling, grammar, metaphor, simile
Why is it the average Middle Easterner seems to have a better grasp of English than the average US blogger? Sure, nonnative speakers will misplace apostrophes, misspell and construct the occasional awkward sentence*, but I rarely see them abusing English the way native speakers do.

For example, certain words cannot be combined with modifiers, such as "unique" or "confidential". One of the attorneys where I work just told me something is "very confidential". No. Either something is confidential, or it is not. Nothing is "somewhat confidential" or "really confidential". The same goes for unique. Either something is entirely unlike everything else or it's not, but nothing is somewhat entirely unlike everything else. Duh.

Oh, and can we discuss metaphors for a moment? Most people seem incapable of creating appropriate metaphors. I offer up for your perusal an example that while screamingly funny, also makes me want to cry. Or punch kittens.

A Stronger, Healthier America by Scott Robinson. It's a screed about letting poor children starve and letting old people die of easily treatable illnesses because, well, that's American or something. What's actually worse than the uberGOP rhetoric? This metaphor**:

Fortunately, she didn’t let the looks she was getting, where people seemed to scream with all the color in their eyes “why is there a crazy person taking a picture of the poster on the wall?” stop her from capturing this image.

"Scream with all the color in their eyes"? Really? How does one do that exactly? Can I, a brown-eyed person, scream louder than a blue-eyed person? (Less melanin, dontcha know.) That left a big ole bruise on English's tender face.

We'll end with a quick reminder of what appear to be very confusing English words:

They're, their, and there: they are, possessive of they, a place

It's and its: it is and possessive of it.

insure and ensure: relates to insurance and to secure or guarantee

affect and effect: when you affect a situation, you have an effect upon it. or, verb and noun.

continual and continuous: continual is frequently, recurring and intermittent. continuous is unceasing.

whose and who's: possessive and who is.

feel free to add your own. oh, and "add" is to unite or join so as to increase in number. "ad" is short for advertisement.


*Really, don't we all? I do it, though part of the problem is that I know what I meant to say, so when I reread what I've written, I'm not entirely reading what's on the screen, I'm also reading what's in my head.

The God Train

subtitle: the trouble with metaphors.

It's surprising how often writers get into trouble with metaphors. In essence, a metaphor is a technique in writing where you describe one thing as being equal to a second thing in some essential way. I like the metaphor of bigotry being a double-edged sword: whenever you swing it, you damage yourself as much as your target. That is a metaphor that works. It describes exactly how I feel about bigotry, without implying anything unintended or unfortunate.

The metaphor of the following article, Crossing Paths with God by Dan Ecklund, is not so successful.

When a car tries to race a train to the crossing, and it ties for first place, it usually ends up as a loser. The odds the train will swerve to avoid the collision are zero, and the likelihood of the car winning the match up is slim. Most collisions usually leave the car and driver so mangled that the identity of both can’t be easily recognized. The power, speed, and weight to the train are taken out on a thin metal frame and glass. Millions are spent on warning lights and crossing arms, yet the warnings go unheeded on a daily basis as drivers try to shave a few seconds off their travel time.

I like this first paragraph. ". . . ties for first place" is understated, "The odds the train will swerve to avoid collision are zero . . ." is amusing and the rest is quite evokative. It's practially poetic, and it describes an event I've seen play out numerous times, though never ending with tragedy. I was hopeful that this article would be better than than any other I have seen on RaptureReady.

Alas, such was not to be.

In the lives in the life of blahblahblah, not the lives. this use of the plural implies that every person has multiple lives. for a hindu, this would be appropriate, not so much for a christian. of every person, we if you start with "in the lives of every person", you can't move to "we". either start with "in all of our lives" or end with "all of us". continue to try to beat the odds with God.

And that's where the metaphor falls apart. He just compared God, loving omnipotent, omniscient creator of all (hey, i don't believe that, but Mr. Ecklund does) with a train. He then compares meeting your maker with a train collision. I'm an atheist, and I find that metaphor unfortunate. Beyond the "impersonal and ultimately avoidable display of certain principles of physics" aspect to it, there is the implication that one could surviving "beating the odds with god". It is theoretically possible to survive a collision with a train. It's probably even happened. Could one possibly come out on top of a meeting with god. Really?

If you were to poll the average person living in America, you’d find the majority would list themselves as Christians. According to the US Census Bureau, in 2001 79.8% of USians self identified as christian. Numerous polls have ranked people who confess belief in God between 90 and 96 percent. Which polls? The US Census Bureau puts the number of atheists/agnostics at 15% in 2001. Admittedly, agnostics do believe in god, but I can't tell where he is getting that figure from. (Notice that I told you exactly where I got my figures from.) I also have to wonder if he is including Jews and Muslims in this statement. Yet despite the belief in a God, the population is divided in a moral standard that should accompany Him. More like completely fragmented. That 79.8% who self identify as christian, are divided into 18 different groups, not including the "other" percentage. People say things like “My god would never create Hell.” ”My god has told me He’s fine with my lifestyle.” “My god told me (insert sin here) is ok.” Who says these things? I looked at the tenents of every one of the 18 listed christian denominations and they all believe in hell and sin. In general, when people say "god told me", what comes next involves hatred or violence. One must concluded one of two things as truth, either one god has a personality disorder, or some of us have a different God. 18+ different christian denominations, plus judaism in its variations, islam in its variations, hinduism, buddhism, etc.? Yeah, well, duh!

Christians in Chaos BWA HA HA HA HA HA I don't know what it is about the word "chaos", but it comes with a villain laugh attached to it for me. Obviously, I can't discuss chaos BWA HA HA HA HA HA theory.

Statistics don't lie- but statisticans often do.

Even though most Christians will claim we serve the same God really, do they? i have no idea. i'm guessing this guy doesn't either., it becomes evident that we do not. is this some sort of polytheistic revelation? Mr. Ecklund is not a monotheist? (Oddly, neither christianity nor judaism require monotheism, which is the belief that there is only one god. Both religions only require that you don't worship any other gods, which is monolatrism. Hmmm) It’s shown by the design a person puts on their personal god of chose choice?, taken from the Christian God. ok, i have no idea what this sentence even means. Does he mean that all gods are only copies of the christian god? kinda sticky considering that Jesus was a jew. Barna the Barna Group is, according to their website, my partner for information, strategy, execution and transformation. Whatever that means. surveys support this view. Here’s a list of division within “confessing Christianity” the only reference to confessing christianity that i could find was in reference to a christian resistance organization in nazi germany. on key issues that are found within scripture.

One third of born again adults (33%) say that abortion is a morally acceptable behavior, compared with 45% of all adults, 4% of evangelicals, and 71% of atheists and agnostics. (2004) I'm a little surprised that so many "born again" adults feel that way, but the rest of the numbers don't surprise me.

Half of born again Christians (46%) agree that Satan is "not a living being but is a symbol of evil." (2007) Where does satan appear in the bible? Not in the old testament at all. In fact, most of what you think of as religious fact concerning satan is taken from "Paradise Lost" by John Milton. Are epic 17th Century British poems scripture?

46% of born again Christians deny Satan's existence see above, i guess.
26% of born again agree that "while he lived on earth, Jesus committed sins, like other people he was rude to his mother once, which in Leviticus is supposed to be punished with death.
36% of born again said they believe in moral absolutes
37% of born again believe that if a person is good enough they can earn a place in Heaven. (2007) only 37%? That explains a lot of behavior on the part of fundagelicals.

Focus on the last two of the 2007 polls first. 36% of born again believers say they believe in moral absolutes. That means for 64% of believers there are no moral grounds that can’t be adjusted. I found this very surprising until I thought about the problem with polls: the questions. (among other things) I cannot believe that 64% of any group believes that there are no, none, nada, zip moral absolutes. For example, unless you're polling NAMBLA, where would you find any group of people 64% of which think that "raping kids of bad" is in any way adjustable?

Let me put it another way. If you asked 100 random people "is killing someone bad?", I guarantee you that at least 95% of those people would say, "yes, killing people is bad." However, if you asked those same 100 people "could you think of a situation in which killing someone would be justified?", I guarantee you that at least 80% of them would say "well, yeah, if it were to save my life . . . "

See what I'm getting at? It's all in how you ask the question. I'd have to see the questions Barna asked, exactly as they were asked, to get a sense of what this means.

That in itself explains the division within Christianity. Not really. If want to, read about what caused Protestantism, the first break in christianity. It didn't have to do with biblical inerrancy. If God’s Law, written in stone, is not an absolute, then the person can decided what is morally acceptable to them. Does this guy not speak English natively? "then a person can decide" plus, if god's law is "written in stone" then it is necessarily absolute, that is the meaning of the phrase. If it is not absolute, then it is not written in stone. I would imagine Mr. Ecklund is referring to the ten commandments, and the various branches of christianity can't even agree what they are exactly. This is of key importance. If something is absolute truth, it must come from outside of mankind, as it’s obvious we change what’s right and wrong to fit our desires no, not obvious to me. you'll have to show you're work on this one. People don't change their minds on what is right and wrong to fit the situation. Well, normal people don't. What normal people do is excuse their own behavior based on "special circumstances. For example, cheating on my husband is wrong. I could decide that due to the circumstances in our relationship, however, that I am justified in doing so. I would still assert that cheating is wrong. (no, I don't cheat on my husband.). It is no different that saying we can decided if we can beat the train to the crossing, despite the arms being down and the lights are flashing. No, actually that's totally different. In every way. Saying that there are situations in which killing another human being is justified- war, self defense, defense of another-- is not the same as deciding that physics doesn't apply to me. May as well try to flap my arms and fly away. Which is in no way morally reprehensible.

Recently, some Texas Catholics went into an uproar. Two bishops wrote a letter on the churches standing on abortion. The bishops wrote that it was immoral to support the act, which had been the churches belief for the last 50 years. Upon some of the church members hearing the letter read during church, they left the service. Some of those who left that were interviewed on TV, and they demanded the churches be taxed for taking political sides. The former patrons had decided the issue of “life” was not a moral one, but a political choice, and the church itself had no right to tell them what to do. Actually, that is not what happened. He is referring to two separate occurrences. During the election, the Catholic Church announced that good catholics would vote for McCain because of Obama's stance on abortion. (Killing people during a war? Just fine!). After the election, the Catholic Church announced that anyone who voted for Obama must receive confession prior to receiving the eucharist again. That is seriously blurring the line between church and state, and Ratzinger (or whatever he calls himself these days) does not want to go there.

Moving on.