I plan to keep up this “Frank Reads the Bible” series going as it is finally motivating me to read the Bible cover to cover with intense interest (you need to pay attention to make jokes). I think I should clarify where I’m coming from, though. I find the beginning of the Bible (Genesis) immensely silly… both logically and theologically. It sounds just like the ridiculous mythology from many other cultures of why it rains and where does the sun come from. Also, it’s hard for me to believe that God, the Creator of the universe, the most powerful Being that could possibly exist, went about things in such an asinine fashion.
That said, for the purpose of this series, I’m accepting everything at face value.
Now here is where I’m going to do some preaching and probably rub some people the wrong way (SarahK included). I think all this arguing about how many animals can fit into how many cubits and how all of creation really did just drop out of the sky hurts Christianity.
We have Jesus, the son of God walking among man and delivering messages of immeasurable value, and, having that, I don’t give a rats ass about the validity of Genesis. It’s piddling crap in comparison. Jesus showed me my value and my worth, and the exact details of how humanity came about thousands or millions of years ago will not affect that. Furthermore, the more time spent arguing about it, the more people think Christians are loons and the less time Jesus’s word gets spread.
I’ve gone to the sites mentioned by a few readers trying to combine science with the idea the world is only thousands of years old, and its horrid. The human mind is a powerful thing; if it starts with something it believes as fact, it can manipulate any evidence into supporting that “fact.” Real science involves collecting data and then making a conclusion. Now, there is plenty of bad science that doesn’t involve religion, but I’ve hardly seen any good science that does (good science with religion is studying whether people who pray heal faster — which only proves what it states to prove, not whether God exists or if He actually hears our prayers).
Now, I’d take the Bible more seriously on issues of science if God sat down and explained Newtonian physics to Moses, but He doesn’t. It’s not His modus operandi. If he was going to leave fossils that proved his existence, He might as well appear in the sky and shout, “Booga! Booga!” so we all know He’s there’s and believe in Him. Instead, God made all our laws of science and seems to stick to them (Jesus’s resurrection would be glaring example against that, but you’ll never find anyone prove scientifically that it happened). In the end, faith has to come from the heart, not geological evidence.
Anyhoo, Derbyshire recently dealt with a similar issue and I think his view is worth reading. Next, I’ll be getting back to finishing Genesis as I know the Tower of Babel is coming up, and, if I can’t make a good joke about that, I’m not Frank J.
Well, there was my– let’s see– 47 cents on the issue.
Now cast your stones.
Archive of entries posted on 10th February 2005
The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Enemy Since I Was Just Kidding About the First Being My Enemy
In case you missed it, Jonah Goldberg has been debating the asshat Juan Cole starting with Goldberg mocking a statement by Cole that the election in Iran were much more democratic than those in Iraq. Cole broke it down into a bunch of ad hominem attacks (history of the debate here), especially the non-sequitur of Goldberg being a “chickenhawk.” From checking on lefty blogs, it turned into open season on harassing Goldberg (meaning my harassment goes unnoticed), so I wrote him my opinion on the whole chickenhawk issue. Goldberg seemed to appreciate it, and, since I don’t think I’ve covered the issue here, I’ll reprint most of what I wrote:
SUBJECT: Why a young warblogger like me isn’t in Iraq
’cause I don’t wanna go.
I’m 25, I don’t have a family of my own, but I have a job here and I do a lot of good work through it (the contribution of my blogging is debatable, but I get e-mails from troops who appreciate it). If were to quit my job to sign up for the military, it would only be a symbolic gesture because my actual contribution through fighting would most likely be negligible.
My brother, on the other hand, as always been drawn to the military and signed up with the Marine a long time ago hoping for a conflict (you don’t join the Marines to not kill people). He’s finally heading to Iraq in March.
Now, if there were a call for people to sign up because of a lack of troops, that would be different (family tradition dictates dodging the draft by signing up), but this isn’t WWII.
My suggestion to you is tell anyone who isn’t an actively serving troop doesn’t have the right to call you a chickenhawk… going by the logic of those who call people chickenhawks.
Whether you like my argument or not, I think being a “chickenhawk” is better than being a muckadoo.
Gotta Target Something
I had to assume that someone as esteemed as Eason Jordan of CNN was telling the truth, so I asked a number of troops why they target reporters. The common answers given happened to be ten in number, so:
THE TOP TEN REASONS GIVEN BY U.S. TROOPS FOR TARGETING REPORTERS
10. “A bullet is just the same as saying, ‘No comment.'”
9. “One person’s Reuters reporter is another person’s terrorist.”
8. “It’s a common sentiment among Marines that the coverage of the Michael Jackson trial is particularly slanted.”
7. “Those cameras look quite a bit like a rocket launchers… you know, if you squint a bit and ignore the reflection off the lens.”
6. “Running out of other targets.”
5. “Actually targeting any anti-American wackos, but reporters just happen to be the most available examples.”
4. “One asked me what kind of tree I would be, and I didn’t take a liking to it.”
3. “Was cleaning the tank and it accidentally went off. What of it?”
2. “They were unable to answer who won the last World Series, so I assumed them to be Soviet spies.”
And the number one reason given by U.S. troops for targeting reporters–
“They’re reporters.”
