Posted by Jason on: 05.19.2008 /
- The late, great Peter Cook in The Princess Bride.
I doubt if anyone has missed the news that California’s Supreme Court has seen fit to extend the law on marriage to include same sex couples. Well, good for them. Rather than repeat my best wishes for equality for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, I’d like to take a moment to look at the people that this ruling has upset.
Unfortunately it seems to be a certain brand of Christian who objects to the idea of gay marriage. Obviously not all Christians but enough to be significant. Why do you think that a religion that is based on tolerance and love for your fellow man should appeal to people who seem to want the opposite? I mean, what is really so wrong with two people being in love and making a commitment to remain together? Is it at all important if they happen to be of the same sex? Why are some Christians so angry about the idea?
I know that the Old Testament has some small mention of homosexuality as being abnormal. A handful of passages that seem to me to be entirely culturally based. There are some stories that include homosexuality in the list of “not nice” ways that decadent societies act. The New Testament has even less mention of it, more building on what went before really. Well, apart from a single mention of sex between ladies. The shocking spectacle of sapphic love. What the bible seems to focus on though is the naughty bits, the rudeness, the sex. Never the love or the sharing, the simple pleasure of the company of another human being who you know and trust. Never that.
Acceptance of someone who has different values, who has different opinions, or who lives differently from the way that we expect must first come from accepting that they are no different than we are in most respects. A homosexual man is as human as a heterosexual man who is as human as a gay woman or an autistic child, or a black man, a white woman, an Asian woman, whatever. We all have more in common than we have differences. It may seem obvious but homosexuals have been demonized by generations of Christians and that is just not right.
I’m glad that society is finally making steps to correct that. I hope that religion follows rather than fights it.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
1 05/19/08 6:39 AM | Comment Link |In an evangelism conference this weekend Jim (Henderson) was asking four people in their 20s, 2 Christian and 2 ‘outsiders’, their views on various topics. (Actually Todd Hunter was asking some of the questions too)
After they’d covered politics Jim said “Let’s go to an easier topic: let’s talk about homosexuality.” That got a laugh from the audience.
You can listen to the podcast here if you’re interested. It’s the third one - the unChristian Interview - and this segment begins about 23 minutes into it.
On the whole there seems to be a gap between some conservative Christians and everyone else on this issue. For everyone else (including moderate Christians) it seems to be becoming a non-issue.
Comment by: Jason
2 05/19/08 12:14 PM | Comment Link |Good. If it really is a vocal minority then I’m obviously overreacting.
Comment by: Karen
3 05/19/08 2:39 PM | Comment Link |Well, that “vocal minority” has gotten laws banning gay marriage passed in something like 27 of our 50 states (or maybe it’s even more than that by now). They are now gunning to do the same - pass a state constitutional amendment - here in CA that would invalidate the recent ruling.
So no, I wouldn’t say you’re overreacting at all.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
4 05/19/08 4:13 PM | Comment Link |Jason, I don’t think you’re overreacting. In terms of numbers I think they’re a minority. But as Karen points out, they are quite active in trying to change legislation so it backs up their beliefs.
Comment by: Jason
5 05/20/08 1:38 AM | Comment Link |Can you explain why they dislike the idea so much?
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
6 05/20/08 7:26 AM | Comment Link |Jason, what I’ve seen is a) they think it goes against what God wants b) they think it will have detrimental effects on society.
If you google relevant words there are lots of sites by Christians laying out their position. I wish I could remember a couple I’ve been to in the past. Anyway here’s a breakpoint article I just found with Google. Breakpoint is respected by conservative Christians - it’s not considered a fringe extremist site.
Comment by: Mike O
7 05/20/08 9:53 AM | Comment Link |I don’t think it’s a vocal minority. It’s the standard Christian position that homosexuality is a sin. Don’t hate me for this, but I am in that camp myself.
It is entirely possible to love people - homosexual or not - without agreeing with everything they do. Look at what we have here for an example. We absolutely do not agree on many things, yet we seem to be able to get past that and maintain a relationship. How have we dont this? By looking past the differences and getting to know and love each other. The same can be true of gay-straight controversies.
The Bible is pretty clear that homosexuality is a sin. The fact remains that there are gay people. Those of us Christians that think homosexuality is a sin need to look past that and see the person.
Also, it’s been my experience that the most anti-gay people aren’t Christians - they’re just mean, bigoted people. Look in the news - if there’s a gay hate crime, who perpetrated it? A Christian fundamentalist? Probably not. It was probably some pack of stupid punk kids. Just because Christians think homosexuality is a sin doesn’t make us villians. We just don’t think it’s right.
Comment by: Jason
8 05/20/08 11:52 AM | Comment Link |Mike, I think we all appreciate your honesty.
I don’t see a controversy in homosexuality. It is my belief that homosexuality is part of the make up of all human beings (actually no just human beings), that the sexual attraction towards men and women is part of an attraction to other humans, to those who are like us. There are a number of psychological studies that indicate that we are attracted to people who share certain characteristics with us. We see a reflection of that which we find most attractive in ourselves and respond to it.
This basic idea explains why some people are attracted to people of the same race or gender or height. It isn’t controversial to accept that basic premise. We can certainly expand upon it to include people who act upon their attractions in a way that does no harm to anyone else. We have men who are attracted to redheads, men who are attracted to brunettes, men who are attracted to men, women who are attracted to tall men, women who like round faces, or big hands or humans who like humans. I don’t see a need to separate people in law or society because of their likes and dislikes.
The Bible is pretty clear on male homosexuality. Leviticus calls for the death penalty for men who love other men. A stance that must seem harsh even by the most fundamental Christian. There is a single mention of lesbianism (Romans 1:26) but no prohibition. So the Bible doesn’t treat the genders equally. We know that and accept it as part of the historical baggage of the writers. Should we not do the same for homosexuals?
On the subject of the Bible though, it is clear that the homosexual act is a sin (whatever a sin might be) but not that homosexuality is a sin. Specifically the act of sodomy is considered sinful but only between two men. Having homosexual friends I can say that anal sex isn’t always practiced in gay relationships. They are still gay or bisexual but don’t fit the neat little definition that the Bible forces on them.
The existence of gay bashers who aren’t Christian doesn’t deny the fact that anti-gay sentiment does seem to be part and parcel of the religion. Whether strongly felt or not. You aren’t a villain but equally you aren’t a champion for equality. You don’t have to be, all that homosexuals who desire equal rights want is for you to not stand in the way. You can not think it is right and not think it is wrong at the same time.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
9 05/20/08 4:32 PM | Comment Link |Mike thanks for sharing your position. Do you think gay people are corrupting children and destroying society? I understand why Christians say homosexual behavior is a sin - but it seems like crossing over into paranoia Christians go further and say those two things I just mentioned.
As a conservative Christian I was taught that homosexual behavior was wrong, because any sex except between a man married to a woman was wrong.
A celibate homosexual wouldn’t be sinning according to what I was taught, so homosexuality is not a ’sin’ per se. Desires are temptations, not sins.
Having said that, Christians who believe homosexual behavior is wrong and homosexuality is an alterable thing tend to encourage homosexual Christians to try to change their sexuality. Being homosexual is not a sin but it’s less desirable than being heterosexual, since it’s not “God’s intention” for humanity. I think that’s how the view goes, anyway.
Comment by: Mike O
10 05/20/08 5:03 PM | Comment Link |One way I think I differ from most Christians is in my willingness to separate political vs theological opinions.
Theologically, I hold certain views of right and wrong. Everyone does. Theologically, I think homosexuality is a sin.
Politiclaly, on the other hand, while I don’t think we should be redefining the institution of marriage to include homosexual relationships, I do think gay couples should have equal rights - just as if they were married - as straights have. People are people, and in society, we need to treat all people with respect and equality.
If homosexuality is a sin (whatever sin is), it’s not society’s problem to solve, it’s God’s. So that’s why I think the church should have ministries that help homosexual people deal with it or get out of it or whatever, but society as a whole needs to treat them equally.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
11 05/20/08 8:21 PM | Comment Link |> a religion that is based on tolerance and love for your fellow man
Which religion are you talking about? Certainly NOT Christianity (especially in terms of how it’s practiced in the U.S.) True, Jesus talked about loving others as yourself, etc., but Contemporary Christianism doesn’t really seem to give two shakes about what Jesus said or trying to actually act in accordance with his behavior. If that *were* the case, I think we’d rarely hear from Christianists because they’d be too busy DOING worthwhile things to keep incessantly BLABBING about how they’re maligned in American culture.
Not kidding, I’ve read countless posts of Christianist whining about how their brand of bigotry and intolerance isn’t accepted as the standard and that they’re therefore persecuted. Reason, logic, truth, etc., mean very little to the average visible Christianist… it’s just lip service when they mention them, and carries with it a load of loaded emotional baggage with the terminology.
I think being a Christianist is a monstrous sin against humanity.
The few Christians who I do respect (and who are worthy of respect) are the ones who live their lives according to their principles and leave other people to do the same. I obviously disagree with their superstition, but I respect their behavior.
Christians and Christianists need to get their minds off of other people’s genitals and start living their own lives.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
12 05/20/08 8:41 PM | Comment Link |Mike, if homosexuality is “God’s Problem” then why should the church be meddling in it at all?
According to the bible, god dealt with the problem god created by demanding his own blood. According to what was drilled into my head, the OT is an account of human beings trying to fix thing and failing miserably, and the NT is an account of how god fixed things through self-abuse and suicide. The point of the scriptures seems to be “human beings can’t fix crap, but woot, god fixed his own problem, so now all’s well between god and humanity if humanity accepts the results of god’s games with himself.”
According to the scripture, god created ALL things and said that it was good, then he goes around and decides that a lot of what he created that was good is now bad, and condemns his own work. If it was a human being that you knew who did such things, wouldn’t you identify that person as being self-desctructive or loony? Why don’t the same rules apply to god?
I think the homosexuality “issue” exposes god as being a major asshole at best.
Comment by: Jason
13 05/20/08 10:43 PM | Comment Link |Mike, that’s all they want, equal rights to get married. Civil partnerships are a step in that direction but they want true equality, not pseudo equality. Not “as if they were married” but “married”.
Yes, Rev. Dan, Christianity. The religion is defined by what the adherents do but the basic idea is the “be excellent to each other”, all the rest is fine detail. Losing the sight of the core idea is a problem that many Christians are guilty of. It’s highlighted by issues like homosexuality or gender equality. I think that it comes about by focusing on some iron age comments like Leviticus and forgetting about the ideals.
What would I know though, I’m not a Christian. ;)
Comment by: Rev. Dan
14 05/20/08 11:39 PM | Comment Link |Me either, praise God… uh, Science… uh, Nothing. ;)
Comment by: Karen
15 05/21/08 5:54 PM | Comment Link |The written opinion, which was arrived at very carefully, is interesting reading. What the majority concluded is that it’s impossible to truly grant “equal rights” to someone when there’s a second-rate name attached to that right.
There are certain privileges and respect and standing granted to “married people” that just don’t fully transfer to “people in civil unions.” Yes, it’s a matter of vocabulary, but the majority on the court thought that “separate but equal” just didn’t work.
Interestingly, and I think this needs to be stressed more often, there is only one justice on the court who was appointed by a Democrat. The rest, including three of the four in the majority on this decision, were Republican appointees. So the hue-and-cry about “liberal activist judges” really doesn’t fit in this case (not that I buy it in general, anyway).
(Just some general reactions here, not specifically targeting your post, Mike O., by the way. I know you haven’t raised the activist epithet.)
Comment by: Mike O
16 05/23/08 9:45 AM | Comment Link |Rev. Dan, what I meant was, Christians (or religious people, perhaps) are the ones who see it as a problem, so we’re the ones who should be trying to change it. We shouldn’t be making culture and politics and society do our bidding when we’re the only ones who see it this way.
And what’s with all the rage?
Comment by: Mike O
17 05/23/08 10:10 AM | Comment Link |Maybe laws, then, should be based on civil partnerships, of which marriage is one particular type.
The reason I want to protect the institution of marriage is, where do we stop if we don’t protect it?
Marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman. I don’t know why it said that politically, but maybe it’s from religious roots. Probably.
Then it started changing to include gay couples. As I said before, politically and socially I don’t have an issue with that. But if we’re willing to redefine the institution to *not* be between a man and a woman, then were does it stop?
Let’s go with the “committed relationship” part of it. Today we allow straight people to get married with no committment whatsoever. So why require gay people to be in a “committed relationship?” It’s still not fair. They should be able to marry if they want, right?
And since straight people don’t have to love each other to be married (apparently!), and they don’t have to be in a committed relationship to be married (apparently!)then why require that of gay people?
If you’re not going to limit marriage to love-based or committed relationships, then a brother should be able to “marry” his brother or sister or parent or friend or roommate for the tax benefits.
Do you see where I’m going? As soon as we redefine marriage, we haven’t solved any problem at all, we’ve just redefined it and moved the line. And the next group outside the line (roommates?) will fight for the same tax breaks. And the line moves again, and so on and so on.
If we redefine marriage, it becomes nothing. But if we keep marriage defined as it has been since the beginning of time - a man and a woman - and grant gay people equality with that, doesn’t that solve the whole problem?
Or we could take it to a whole other level - What is marriage, anyway? What’s it for?
Comment by: Mike O
18 05/23/08 10:21 AM | Comment Link |Yes, it was carefully worded. There are two reasons for that
1) When you write something online, you can’t take it back. I want to be careful that I say exactly what I intended and that it comes across as accurately as I can. So I try to be careful about my wording.
2) I’m almost 45. I’ve been a Christian since I was 4, and it’s been only the last couple of years that I’m learning to really think through what I believe. So some of this is new processing for me. So I’m careful to make sure that I really agree with what I’m saying before I say it. As it turns out, I don’t agree with some of what I was taught. Homosexuality and civil unions is one of those topics where I’m not really sure what I think. I’m sure about the spiritual/religious aspects of the positions I hold, but politically and socially? I’m still working the problem.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
19 05/23/08 1:22 PM | Comment Link |@Mike:
I’m not enraged, angry, or upset. I honestly have trouble seeing how one can render what I wrote as being “rage,” but I assure you the “proper tone” when reading what I wrote is a sorta unenthused one. I’m a colorful/animated person and that apparently comes through in my writing too.
Kinda along the same lines, I generally speak with the authority of someone who’s thought about what he’s saying (though I often mispeak/write… I’m not necessarily a great communicator [which is why I lean towards verbosity]) and that often comes off as arrogant or whatever. I don’t think I’m arrogant, I think I have an informed opinion… and that often seems offensive to those who do not. ./shrug Not a whole lot one can do about other people’s perceptions or misperceptions.
The folks ’round here seem to get along pretty well (I’ve been mostly-a-lurker for the past couple of years), so sorry if I’m a-rockin’ the boat in a negative way. That’s not my intent. It’s also not my intent to be someone other than who I am, so maybe I don’t quite fit here…
Agreed… but my point is that the real problem is not homosexuality but the average Christianist’s obsession with it:
The bible has less than a handful of references to hot man-on-man action as being sinful, yet TONS of references to not being a gossiper, a deceiver, a fat person, etc., etc. It would likely leave a thinking person with the impression that homosexuality is far less important than not being fat… yet the average American (I only really speak about Americans, ’cause I try to stick to what I know) is clinically obese. The last time I went to church (’bout a year ago), it was full of fat people obsessed with the “sin” of homosexuality and how their god-powered marriages were in jeopardy because of people they don’t know, have never met, and who they’d never have any real compassion or empathy towards because of their own judgmental posture. That’s not even touching the gossiping and deception that’s rampant within Christendom. (I’ve seen it first-hand… in many places…)
Christians and Christianists should be focusing on real issues instead of worrying about what god does or does not think about what other people consentingly do to/with each other with their body parts. The fear and whining from the Christianist camp leaves one to believe that god is powerless to help two people in a covenant relationship because other people they’ve never met are more sexually adventurous than they are. If some gay dudes who a person doesn’t know can destroy that person’s covenant relationship before god, then that covenant relationship is awfully weak and powerless, like the god whom it was drawn before.
Why don’t Chrisitanists seem to understand that when they make these crazy claims about how almighty and powerful faggotry is that they’re denying their own god’s alleged omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience?
Comment by: Mike O
20 05/23/08 1:29 PM | Comment Link |Sorry, I guess I’m just not used to the way you write. Calling God an asshole kinda threw me, I guess.
What’s the difference between Christian and Christianist?
Comment by: Rev. Dan
21 05/23/08 2:14 PM | Comment Link |@Mike:
I think you might have missed what Karen meant… I think the written opinion she’s referring to is the judges’ written opinion…
That aside, I respect your care for writing what you mean and meaning what you write. Cheers!
—
@Karen:
Exactly.
The reason that all civil unions should be called “marriages” is simply so that there’s equal treatment for all civil unions under the law. There appear to be a lot of laws which specifically use “marriage” terminology, which would exclude “civil unions.”
I think Christianists are arrogantly assuming that gay people want to have special “Christianist Covenant Relationships with God” without the God part… which is obviously absurd.
Heterosexual civil unions are automatically called “marriages” and members of a heterosexual civil union are “married,” regardless and independent of the members’ religious position (or their rational position). Heterosexual civil unions wouldn’t necessarily have the “marriage” verbiage automatically attached, which would allow the unscrupulous (the health insurance industry, for example) to legally (and immorally) weasel out of their obligation to provide benefits to persons in homosexual civil unions (aka “they’re not technically ‘married,’ they’re only in a ‘civil union’ and our contracts say ‘married.’ Tough luck to you, civil union people.”).
Marriage, heuh, good god y’all!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing….
Whoa, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh oh…
( Lame joke, yes… but I couldn’t resist! )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZgHH72G8wQ
Marriage, since the beginning of time, has been a way to manage assets, and has traditionally followed a patriarchal model. Women were traded between men (from father to groom) to ensure property rights and wealth. Marriage hasn’t historically been so much about “love” or a “covenant relationship before god” or whatnot as it has been wealth management.
I think the best solution to this issue is not to give homosexuals the right to marry but rather to remove all civil rights and privileges one obtains as a married person, and to treat everyone equitably. Why should two people get tax breaks and be extended health benefits just because they agree to live together with an exclusivity agreement?
Christians and Christianists should consider sticking the word “Covenant” before “Marriage” thereby changing to meaning to fit whatever “traditional” definition they see fit. The “Covenant Marriage” label could be dispensed exclusively by a church, and I don’t think anybody else would give two shakes.
It’d be a win-win, ’cause society’s rules would be closer to equitable, and Christianists could then be continue to be uppity, and go on how much better their “Covenant Marriage” is versus an atheist or homosexual’s “Marriage” the same way they promote the notion that their way of living is superior to everyone else’s. I wouldn’t think most Christians would actually care.
The anal-retentive word-parsing nature of the law (and lawyers) these days absolutely requires that the term “marriage” be used to describe homosexual civil unions, else there will continue to be legal (yet radically immoral) institutional discrimination.
Comment by: Jason
22 05/23/08 2:17 PM | Comment Link |Mike said:
Well, long before Christianity’s rise Roman law permitted same sex marriages. Polygamy was practiced in many cultures as well, indeed it still is in some parts of the world. I’m not that familiar with earlier cultures but it seems clear that marriage being exclusively between one man and one woman is a newer invention.
Your comments on tax breaks are something I hadn’t considered. In England married couples receive no special tax breaks above single people, at least not in terms of income tax or inheritance tax. I think it fairer that an individual is taxed according to his or her income and one party is no penalized because of their gender or perceived subordinate role in a relationship. Why not use the change in law to reform tax policy as well? It seems overdue.
I’m going to post something about this on Monday but marriage is a public pronouncement of commitment and love between people. My personal view of marriage is that it is an outdated and pointless ceremony that could easily be abandoned. However I’m well aware that my view is an extreme minority view and it isn’t what we’re talking about. We’re talking about homosexuals wanting the same rights as heterosexuals. Change that to men and women or white and black and you might see it differently.
You might think that comparing the denial of equal rights to homosexuals with the denial of equal rights to black people is unfair but I don’t.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
23 05/23/08 2:40 PM | Comment Link |Rev Dan wrote
Hi Rev Dan, thanks for your contributions to this discussion. You raise a good point about what some Christians emphasize compared to what the Bible emphasizes.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
24 05/23/08 2:50 PM | Comment Link |A Christianist is someone who claims (truthfully or otherwise) involvement in the religion of Christianity or it’s branches/deviations. (I consider Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses to be Christianists as well as Evangelicals, etc., etc.) In Christianeese, Christianists are both the wheat and the chaff referred to in Matt. 3:12. The broad “AmeriChurch,” “Churchianity,” etc., labels are applicable to this group.
A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ, and the term has the connotation of being a “true believer.” I have no authority or interest in parsing out what it means to be a “true believer” (and have no magical insight into the human heart and its relationship to a “living god”), so I prefer to rail against Christianists (’cause they act like jackasses on the whole) and try to respect the relatively few Christians in the world.
I personally feel the need to make the distinction because I know some “Christians” who are inarguably devoted to Jesus Christ and the Bible. I disagree with their “math,” (I generally refer to it as either superstition or mythology because those are apt labels) but refuse to argue with some of their behavior (ie.- “Fruits of the Spirit” in Christianeese).
For example, a Satanist who’s out making human life better or more bearable will get little to no resistance from me… until we start talking about religion/philosophical stuff. :) (I wouldn’t suggest that a “Satanist” is a “Christianist” though.)
The difference between Christians and Christianists is akin to the difference between big-c “Church” and little-c “church.” The “Church” is the spiritual body of Christ throughout history (the collection of ‘true believers’), whereas the “church” is the organization which owns buildings where members of the Church show up to do stuff (right next to everybody else who shows up to church).
Hopefully that makes sense… I can give it another go if it doesn’t and you’re interested. :)
Comment by: Rev. Dan
25 05/23/08 2:53 PM | Comment Link |Preach it, @Jason!
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
26 05/23/08 4:00 PM | Comment Link |Rev. Dan, thanks for explaining ‘Christianist’ vs ‘Christian’.
I think every group has some decent people and some jerks in it (people you would call Christianists, I think). I’ve met some wonderful Catholics and Evangelicals.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
27 05/23/08 8:56 PM | Comment Link |@Jason: ( Looks like I missed the time window for editing… would it be possible to delete the above (and this) and replace it with this? Sorry to be a nuisance.
@Ir (Helen):
I think I’m more comfortable being opinionated and brushing with broader strokes than y’all seem to be.
Blessed are the peacemakers, but I’d rather be hot or cold vs. lukewarm (I’m not meaning that you’re ‘lukewarm’, I’m acknowledging that state I things strongly). I don’t know that I’d personally ever have made your point, because I assume it’s obvious that there are exceptions to every generalization. I’ve definitely known cool people from crazily-diverse walks of life too, but that doesn’t mean that the broad demographic they belong to doesn’t demonstrate an overarching behavior. In the case of the “Christianist” demographic, that behavior is generally bad, according to the demographic I belong to.* :)
Y’all seem to be far more thoughtful and considerate ’round here than I tend to be, and perhaps it’s maintained by your nice affirmations. :)
For what it’s worth, this is the kind of dude I consider to be blatantly Christianist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh503w_YLe4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXZbIGJrDkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tViqufbk7I8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw8-9AGGsQw
… or this Bastion of Pure Liquid Evil:
http://www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/
Have a nice weekend!
* Here’s a representation of the demographic I personally identify with:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPa03mia3-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si0WTCMrksw
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
28 05/24/08 7:45 AM | Comment Link |Rev. Dan, I’m not sure what you wanted to delete?
We do try to be considerate of each other - which includes you, now you showed up. (Showed up visibly, I mean - I saw your comment about being a lurker for a while)
We try to be civil to anyone who shows up even if we don’t agree with them (like, say, someone who loves James Dobson, although on the whole people who do don’t want to hang with us). We’ve found that we listen better to people who are civil to us, and we try to extend that courtesy to them.
Our underlying belief is that other people are more likely to take us seriously and listen to us if we’re civil to them. (Since that’s true for us - we aren’t interested in listening to people who yell at us, but if they’re civil and reasonable we try to give them a fair hearing) Some people don’t seem interested in listening anyway but at least if they don’t it’s not because we yelled at them.
That’s about where we’re at. We do have strong opinions. We’re experimenting with ways of (honestly) communicating with each other which allow us to dialog in the midst of difference.
Thanks for all the video clips and you have a nice weekend too!
Comment by: Mike O
29 05/24/08 8:14 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for the Christian vs Christianist explanation, Rev. Dan. Our approaches are different, but as a Christian (not Christianist - hopefully??) part of what I’m trying to accomplish is helping other Christians - *my* people, as it were - chip away the Christianist parts of how we behave in the name of Christ.
Comment by: Mike O
30 05/24/08 8:26 AM | Comment Link |Rev. Dan said:
D’oh! [Homer simpson style!]
Now that you mention it, it’s quite obvious. To explain, if you look at Karen’s post in #15, she led it by blockquoting me - and what she quoted really “arrived at very carefully.”
I misunderstood.
Comment by: Jason
31 05/24/08 9:54 AM | Comment Link |Rev. Dan, you share ssome interesting definitions. I’d probably just use Christian and Christ follower for the same ideas but I can see the difference. The NT doesn’t show the figure of Jesus as a person who wanted to create a church or rebel against the Jewish faith. I like to think that the idea of being tolerant and accepting of others is in the message somewhere. It doesn’t seem to be in many churches (little ‘c’) which I fault them for…because I can.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
32 05/25/08 2:21 AM | Comment Link |<blockquote>a Christian (not Christianist - hopefully??)</blockquote>
The way I use the term, Mike, you’d fall in the Christianist bucket, but that doesn’t mean I automatically think that you personally are a wanker. :)
<blockquote>A Christianist is someone who claims (truthfully or otherwise) involvement in the religion of Christianity or it’s branches/deviations.</blockquote>
Mike, if you’re uncomfortable with my inclusive demographic bucket, that’s probably a good thing. :)
<em>(the official end of anything specifically directed Mike’s way in this post)</em>
I personally would hate to be lumped in with an Axis of Evil the likes of Falwell, Dobson, Hagee, Haggard, Parsley, LaHaye, Jenkins, etc., too. However each and every one of those jackasses claims membership in the Jesus Club, and who are any of us to try to parse whether or not they <strong>truly</strong> believe?
"Christian" is a technical term that few people use technically**, therefore it’s more useful to use "Christianist." Further, "Christianists" practice "Christianism" which I think is descriptively accurate. It’s not necessarily "Christianity" being practiced, but something like unto it.
Another reason I use the "Christianist" label vs. something like "Christ Follower" (which just makes me think of kinda lame Apple ad "parodies"*) or "Christian" is that I get *really* annoyed with Jackass for Jesus-types dismissively responding to things with "oh, well that doesn’t happen in <em>my</em> church… you must have been involved in a cult or something… you should come to <em>my</em> church and see for yourself [because your experiences don't fit with my experience, so yours doesn't matter]" or equally inane and offensive servings of steaming manure.
The one that *makes me go ballistic*: "Oh, well he’s not really a Christian." I don’t care whether somebody is truly a Christian based on your definition of what that is. As far as I’m concerned you won’t really know if you’re truly a Christian ’til you’re dead and standing at the Beama Seat or NOT. Whether or not somebody is truly a Christian is NEVER EVER my point, but was frequently used as a tactic to ignore/detract from what I was saying. That’s been effectively squished by the addition of the "ist."
Debating some theological point is of little to no interest to me, except when it’s useful to demonstrate to Christianists how backwards and twisted the religion they’re professing truly is, or how contrary to "Biblical principles" their position is. I was a practicing Christian for a period of my life (and would therefore have fallen into the Christianist bucket myself) but I’ve managed to work through how to exorcise the "Jesus demon." I’ve "tasted and seen" Christianity for myself… and that’s why I’m an atheist.
I can’t tell anybody that it’s a good idea to follow the Christian mythology any more than it’s a good idea to follow Mithrean mythology (which is remarkably similar), because I don’t think it’s good to base one’s life around mythology, period. Especially when that mythology is traded/relayed as being literal fact.
Honestly, if Christians would step up and start smacking Christianists down (debunk them, educate them, do whatever it takes to get their heads out of their butts and start acting like Christians***) I think people like me would go back to keeping our heads in the sand and leave Christians be. But the rhetoric from the Christianist camp has been growing louder and more militaristic, and Christian(ist)s are trying to "reclaim the country" by eroding or denying our civil liberties****. It sure doesn’t look like their stupidity will stop until we eventually end up in some sort of FUD theocracy.
If you’re a Christian, <strong>I beg you</strong> to deal with this problem. Start being an uber-badass Christian… show us by example, by doing. Don’t just change things… make things BETTER.
Fix stuff and then maybe people will be willing to entertain stories about talking serpents and donkeys again. :)
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RtfNdg1fQk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYdD-Qc7lbY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRiijctGcAY
** C.S. Lewis talks about this a fair bit in "Mere Christianity."
*** Perhaps starting with that "treat other people how you’d like to be treated" part.
**** Yeah, I’m being U.S.-centric here…. I stick to what I know. But.. Woo Hoo! I brought this verbose Tuna Boat of a reply back ’round to being close to on-topic!
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
33 05/25/08 7:09 AM | Comment Link |Rev. Dan,
I like you - you’re fun and funny and make a lot of good points.
It would be awesome if you could do that while toning down your language a bit. I’m fine with you using Christianist except I’m confused whether it implies ‘objectionable person’ or just beliefs. When you said Mike was one you also indicated it doesn’t necessarily mean ‘objectionable’ yet everything else you say about them does seem to indicate they are extremely objectionable.
I agree that -
I’d love to hear your story about how you became ‘outchurched’. Could you email it to me on the contact form? (Or email me at helen(at)offthemap(dot)com, which is where that form gets emailed to)
I’m outchurched myself (I say I’m almost an atheist, meaning I’m not 100% sure but I live like an atheist apart from talking with Christians) and I like to hear how other people got outchurched.
Comment by: Jason
34 05/25/08 8:49 AM | Comment Link |Rev. Dan, just one point: has “wanker” entered common American usage now? I’ve always understand that it was a curious Britishism that the former colonies hadn’t adopted.
I know, completely unrelated to the point.
Back to the point though, the Christian faith is an evolving philosophy with many, many schisms and breaks. You might argue that it isn’t a philosophy at all but for an ideal that forms the basis for a way of life it certainly fits. The Christian Right that opposes gay marriage, well gay everything really, is one interpretation of the lessons of Christ (mythical person, teacher, conglomeration of various ideas, or son of God). Another is the more liberal Christ follower who accepts a human being for what they are, gay or straight. There are literally hundreds of other interpretations.
I still have a problem with the idea expressed by many Christians (liberal or not) that they should “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Not only is the idea of loving someone regardless of their actions (invoking Godwin’s Law do they love Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, regardless of their actions) but it immediately judges their actions as sinful and wrong. Better to accept that actions that harm no-one should not be judged at all, there is simply no need to.
As an evolving philosophy the adherents should naturally be careful not to alienate others who would follow it. You don’t need to be gay to find offence in anti-gay sentiment.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
35 05/25/08 10:02 AM | Comment Link |Rev Dan
Not to get off subject or anything. But that’s a new one to me. Can you expand a bit? I can’t remember the Bible *ever* specifically referencing fat/skinny/BMI ect.
I love your phrase “verbose Tuna Boat”. Perfect.
I loved the Todd Snider song.
I think it’s pretty freaking easy (and even fun) to bash on so called “Christianists”. But it might be … more … interesting/challenging to bash on … some other group that’s a bit harder to bash on. Or to bash on some aspect of your own current in-group. What are “we” doing wrong rather that what are *they* doing wrong. Or perhaps when you bash on Christianists it’s related to some vestiges of “we”-ness you have/feel with them?
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
36 05/25/08 10:10 AM | Comment Link |with the regards to the clip from Princess Bride–last year my sister got married, and there were about … 150 people at the wedding, and my wife Megan and I were in the second row of seats.
And their marriage celebrant started out the service with a really brilliant hilarious copying of this exact monologue from Princess Bride (my sister and her husband had asked him to do this). My wife and I were absolutely cracking up–and those of you who know me know that I laugh really loudly. Meanwhile no one else seemed to get it at all–it was this sort of shocked silence. But we were just totally cracking up. My sister said she was *so* glad that we had laughed so uproariously, because they had been slightly afraid to do it, and it would have felt tres awkward if *no one* had laughed.
Comment by: Jason
37 05/25/08 1:34 PM | Comment Link |Benjamin, really? That’s brilliant. I’d almost consider getting married just for that.
Deuteronomy 32:15 mentions someone called Jeshurun (the upright one, aka Isreal) who was fat and therefore rejected God.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
38 05/25/08 1:45 PM | Comment Link |I just spent the last hour and 1/2 or so writing a reply (hey, it takes time to write “War and Peace”-length comments) to have it all disappear into the ether in a blink of an eye because my neighbor decided to flip off the power.
I am soooooo annoyed… however, I’m taking this as a sign that I need to get out of the house and ignore the internet for a while. I’ll chat with y’all later and will try to remember what I’d written.
(Maybe the universe is giving you a reprieve from my blather!)
Comment by: Eliza
39 05/25/08 4:53 PM | Comment Link |Jason asked, wayyy back up in #5:
IMO, because the idea of sex between men is threatening or disgusting to them.
Yes, Leviticus does prohibit sex between men (or, at least, prohibits certain positions, lying “with a man as with a woman”: Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13) but it’s completely selective morality to use this as evidence that homosexuality is a sin. Leviticus also condemns eating shellfish, mixing 2 kinds of fiber in clothing, oh and (in that same link) eating rare meat and trimming your hair or beard.
Comment by: Eliza
40 05/25/08 5:24 PM | Comment Link |Marriage is used as a means of political capital in the Old Testament, and is very little discussed by Jesus in the New Testament. Paul suggested that men shouldn’t marry, unless they just couldn’t control themselves.
This is my favorite reference to marriage in the NT:
1 Timothy 3:12 (NIV) A deacon must be the husband of but one wife…
(Indicating that other arrangements were not uncommon…)
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
41 05/25/08 5:54 PM | Comment Link |Rev Dan, I totally hate when the universe causes my comments to be lost! Sorry that happened to you.
Comment by: Jason
42 05/26/08 7:54 AM | Comment Link |Rev. Dan, curse the random caprice of technology.
Eliza said:
Well that makes sense. A person may take a dislike to all sorts of things for no logical reason and may certainly recruit others in sharing his or her dislike. There is a theory that phobias are spread in this way. A parent screams when they see a spider and the child associates spiders with fear. The fear of spiders is spread.
However, a literal interpretation of Leviticus means that the prohibition is irrelevant. A man cannot lie with a man as with a woman. A man simply lacks the sexual apparatus for penetrative vaginal sex. Perhaps the translation is wrong. Perhaps it should read:
That at least is possible.
I do recognise the pedantic nature of my comments before anyone else points them out.
Comment by: Mike O
43 05/26/08 8:04 AM | Comment Link |Rev. Dan, perhaps it was an answer to prayer? Or maybe it’s “God Smiting You: Stage 1″ ;/
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
44 05/26/08 9:56 AM | Comment Link |“Smite” is one of those really brilliant words–right up there with “slay”. =)
I don’t really think god, whoever she may be, needs to expend any energy to smite anyone. things seem to be set up in such a way that everything is booby trapped, and people get smitten (smited?) on a regular basis just as a matter of course.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
45 05/26/08 10:00 AM | Comment Link |It’s a bit of a stretch from Deuteronomy 32:15 to “being fat is a sin” Isn’t that passage more about how fatness is actually a *good thing*–in the sense of wealth, prosperity, etc, but that humans twist the good thing by thinking that they worked hard for it and thus somehow deserve it etc., and thus don’t remain humble and grateful?
Comment by: Rev. Dan
46 05/26/08 12:09 PM | Comment Link |@Helen
Thank you Helen, ’tis quite nice of you to say so. I’ve had y’all’s feed in my blog reader for a long time (at least three years) and y’all seem like nice folks to me.
I try to temper what I write with humor. My brand of humor doesn’t make sense to a fair number of people, so I’m glad you find at least parts of what I’m saying to be amusing.
What I think is interesting is that I’ve already toned down the language quite a bit. I’ll give what I write another editing pass from here on out. You might find me a bit abrasive in real life, ’cause I swear profusely… it’s one of the relatively few things I’m actually good at. (Sailors come to me for lessons!) :)
I’m a visitor here, though, so I’ll try to be a respectful one.
Christianism is a set of beliefs held and practiced by group people (Christianists) whose behavior I find to be largely objectionable. Christians are, in my view of things, a negative demographic as well (any group which promotes their mythology as being literal truth is “bad,” IMNSHO). However, I know a number of Christians who, while delusional in their beliefs, are functionally good people and don’t try to “combat culture” or conform it to the “image of Christ,” but are just busy doing their thing and living their lives.
Christians (those who internalize their mythology) are lumped together in the inclusive Christianist bucket along with non-Christians who are Christianists (those who profess involvement with the religion of Christianity). (Wheat and tares hangin’ out together.)
Because I’m not interested in parsing what “True Christianity” is (I’ve got this figured out good ’nuff for myself) it’s more useful to look at the larger inclusive demographic and their behavior (which is generally quite bad behavior).
Perhaps it’d be helpful to switch terms.
Americans, on the whole, are myopic and self-centered. They’re typically overweight and undereducated. Americans are typically wasteful and overconsume.
There are definitely a bunch of Americans who aren’t self-centered, fat, uneducated, or wasteful, but they appear to be the minority. Is it uselful to make generalizations about Americans? The larger group, yes. Is it useful to assume that the generalizations apply to all/each of the individuals in that group? Obviously no.
Americans have elected a monkey to lead them. I didn’t vote for that monkey, but that doesn’t change the fact that America has a monkey at the helm or make me any less of an American (or even “unpatriotic”). Is America doing terrible evil in the world? Hell yes, and it needs to stop. The fact America does evil doesn’t mean that I’m personally in agreement with it (or that I’m evil), but it doesn’t remove my responsibility to stop the evil behavior of the demographic I belong to.
Generalizations definitely collapse when one starts generalizing based on racial or ethic distinctions. One obviously doesn’t choose the color of their skin or where they were geographically born. Christianity, in contrast, is a religion one chooses to participate in and is fair game for criticism… and yes, it’s an easy group to criticize. I see usefulness is drawing a distinction between Christianity and Christianism so that I don’t have to debate theological points related to “is so-and-so a Christian or not.”
In terms of this conversation, I don’t see any reason for a Christian to internalize the negative things I have to say about Christianists beyond an admission that their brethren are wayward (according to their text “even a child is known by his actions”). From what I can tell, Christianists are mostly a group of well-intentioned people who are paving the way to hell for the rest of us with their good intentions.
More often than not, I apply the Christianist label to religious leaders/public figures (they’re valid to criticize), hypocrites who loudly and publicly profess to be Christians, or examples of really wrong “biblical thinking.”
For example: James Dobson is a Christianist scumbag, Mike’s a Christian dude who posts on this blog. I’m not interested in attacking of vilifying Mike personally (and it feels weird to refer to you in 3rd-person, Mike), but I have major issues with the religion/philosophical stance of Christianity/Chistianism. I’d expect that ideas I hold would be offensive to Believers, because what I have to say is essentially that Christianity is big bunch of lies and I’m not going to sugar-coat that.
I truly believe that if the God of Christianity exists that he’s a major weenie at best, but that doesn’t mean that I think Mike is a weenie because he believes in it, much like I wasn’t a weenie-by-default when I believed in that mythology.
I do my best to like people, even if I think their position/thinking is manure. I appreciate people who do good things, regardless of their thinking.
Yeah, but the problem with that is that scientists and freethinkers are far closer to the truth than religionists… and don’t deserve to be “bashed” on or poked with pointy sticks. :)
This comment was either really insightful or some enjoyable snark. Since we’re on this blog, I’m leaning towards “insightful.” Either way though, high-five! :)
I personally gravitate towards taking on Christianist stupidity because my personal experience is entwined in it. I tend to catch nuances in the craziness that other people don’t, largely because a lot of folks have no experience being inside the institution of church. I think it’s interesting when people treat me like I have no insider knowledge of what happens within Christendom just because I profess to be an atheist. It’s particularly interesting to me because most of the atheists I know have more knowledge and experience with Christianity than a lot of the Christians they talk to, and have actually chosen to become atheists because of their Christian experience. Essentially, I’ve “tasted and seen that the Lord is
good” quite bad. Other people claim that mana tastes good… to me it tastes like maggots.The consensus of my peers (my little group of outchurched friends) is that there was no way to effectively work inside the church organization to bring about the type of openness, honesty, or community that we’d mistakenly hoped Christianity could provide a foundation for, so we left. Perhaps it’s fair to suggest that I personally have chosen Christianism as an enemy because I’m disappointed with the false promises it made, which I believed. Hell hath no fury like a Dan scorned. :)
I ask Christians to do something very difficult: to give up the false comfort of their mythology and to actually embrace the life they have and engage in the world around them.
Once you’ve fallen into a trap and worked your way out of it I think it’s quite appropriate to try to dismantle that trap in hopes of saving others the misery of having fallen into it. I see people who remain in the Christianity trap and I can’t help but to have empathy for them and also have a desire to extend a hand to help them out. What’s interesting about Christians is that they really like the trap and will bite and snap at any hand extended to help them, if they haven’t grabbed on to the hand of the person trying to help them out and tried to drag them back into captivity.
Christians are suspicious of freedom, which makes sense in a way. If you have the “promise” of a bunch of rewards after this life and that makes this life more tolerable (I only have to put up with a lifetime of these evil gay people who have such an attractive lifestyle that I’m tempted to join them) I think you’d be hard-pressed to give that up for a lifetime of difficult questioning.
The notion of eternally living and being at a perpetual party in exchange for following some rules seems quite attractive compared to having to figure things out for yourself and ending up as worm food.
Perhaps I’ve fallen into snark out of desperation because I’ve been kicked good and hard by people who don’t want to help themselves or embrace anything other than their own pro-mythology-as-literal-truth beliefs.
Religion isn’t necessary for the creation of a moral society. We don’t need Zeus to tell us how to live any more than we need Yahweh, Theos, or Christos.
@Benjamin Ady:
There are more than a handful of verses about gossiping:
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=gossip&x=0&y=0
The online topical bibles I looked at all suck, in that they return tons of irrelevant results for topic searches… so specific uses of “fat,” “obese,” etc. aren’t correctly categorized, which makes the “show me the chapter/verse” thing difficult. However:
One of the Catholic Church’s “big 7″ is gluttony:
http://www.deadlysins.com/sins/gluttony.html
The logical consequence of being gluttonous with food is obesity.
http://www.gotquestions.org/gluttony-sin.html
Perhaps I’d overstated my point. As far as explicit verses regarding being “fat” or “overeating” there are more than a handful, but not necessarily “tons” as I’d said above. The biblical argument against overconsumption is far clearer (and repeated more frequently) than the one against homosexaulity, so I don’t think that negates the point that the Bible puts more emphasis on gossiping/gluttony.
One only has to tune in to the Trinity Broadcasting Network to see Christian Gluttony and wasteful excess.
@Mike:
LOL! Who would possibly pray for the power to go out?
I’m certain that my verbose and rambling opinions are soooooooo threatening to God that He needs to intervene, lest I lead billions astray via my blog comments. I guess I’m really, really important then! Thanks for the affirmation! ;)
FWIW, I’ve been thwarting God’s attempts to squelch me by typing my comments in TextMate and then pasting them into the comments form. It’s amazing that I can thwart the desires of the Creator of the Universe with a piece of software that cost less than $100. :)
@Jason:
That’s a hilarious story ’bout the wedding. Have you seen this clip of a cool couple’s first dance?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byj_y0E0ktQ
Comment by: Mike O
47 05/26/08 1:09 PM | Comment Link |Bwwwaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
48 05/26/08 1:11 PM | Comment Link |Rev Dan wrote:
Much appreciated :)
I think it’s normal to feel betrayed. I’ve seen a great deal of anger on sites where ex-Christians post.
I try to think about more positive things if I’m getting angry since I’ve found it only makes me miserable. I volunteer for Off The Map because I like Off The Map’s goals of helping Christians learn to be normal and promoting the spirituality/spiritual practice of serving others.
It’s great to know you’re that important, isn’t it? :)
Sounds like God will have to step it up a notch if he really wants to stop you commenting.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
49 05/28/08 8:37 AM | Comment Link |Saying obesity/gluttony is a sin puts too much of an individual spin on it for my taste. I mean to say that ….
Well, Rev Dan–you spoke of traps, and wanting to help people out of them, and being lashed out at for your efforts.
It seems to me that obesity/gluttony is more of a *cultural* sin, in America–it’s a bit of a trap we’ve fallen into, and … wanting to help people out of it is kewl.
I’m wondering if calling it a sin is helpful toward that end? Is it easier to promote change from inside or outside an institution?
I’m thinking something like creating a universal health care system with really high quality primary/preventive care would be useful for a step toward getting out of the cultural obesity trap.
I mean to say there are people who study the question of how to help fix the obesity epidemic in America, and I’m betting that, among other things, most of them have probably come to the conclusion that calling it a “sin” is not necessarily the most helpful model. Sin invokes the whole punishment model, which doesn’t work super well in the field of addiction, or anywhere else for that matter. A disease model works better. Relapse Prevention is a pretty kewl framework. Part of the problem from a psychological perspective is that we just don’t have answers to the questions which work for even a simple majority of people. So for instance drug addicts have a less than 30% long term recovery rate no matter what model you use.
Maybe Martin Seligman and co. are onto something, and we could make more progress by looking at the world and asking questions about what’s right and what’s working rather than what’s wrong and what’s not working.
Although the latter seems like a lot more fun sometimes than the former.
But along those lines–what excites you–what do you absolutely think is totally awesome and want to tell everyone about?
For instance lately the thing that really gets me going is math proofs. Writing QED at the bottom is just one of the more delightful things on the planet.
Comment by: Rev. Dan
50 06/5/08 4:46 PM | Comment Link |@Benjamin:
How does one distinguish between a “cultural” sin and a “non-cultural” one?
Why would homosexuality be a non-cultural sin? (Are you even saying that it is?)
Which word would you use to describe a “non-cultural” sin? (I’m thinking “abomination” or just vanilla “sin” or something?)
The emphasis on sexuality and it’s hyper-inflated “importance” is IMHO, a fairly recent historical development. American culture, for example, is completely saturated with an emphasis on “love.” The ancient greeks thought little of “love,” and didn’t compartmentalize it’s different expressions nearly as much as we do today. Yes, there are “four Greek words for love” and they have differing focus, but the distinction between them to Greeks wasn’t as great as we now make it. My point is that I think we obsess over sexuality far too often and with far too great an intensity.
According to Ted Haggard, “Christians have the best sex.” If that was true why would Christians be so interested in what other people are doing with their genitals and why.
There’s a fair bit of scientific evidence to support the notion that you have as much choice about your core sexuality as a white person has over their race.
It thoroughly depends, and it’s actually not “change” that matters so much as “positive change” or “growth” or “maturing.” Change for its own sake is just moving around. (A “Chinese fire drill” springs immediately to mind.)
In terms of the lower-c church, my opinion was (and remains) that the organization is polluted and broken to the point of worthlessness.
I’m not touching the health care system thing with a 1,000-foot pole (today) ’cause we all know how verbose I am, and I have plenty to say about that.
This is a fabulous question, and sorry it’s taken me a while to get to it. (You should see my “inbox.”)
Right now the answer to that question is “Ruby.” Several people asked me about the “whole ‘Rev.’ thing” after seeing my RailsConf name badge, and I said “the short answer is that I consider myself to be an advocate of folks learning Ruby and therefore I’m a Ruby Evangelist.”
I’ve been doing development stuff for a long time because I enjoy the hell out of it. It’s soooooo empowering to use a language as clean and understandable as Ruby (some of the other popular languages truly hurt my brain). Even if you don’t like code/software I bet you can figure out what this does (”puts” prints output):
10.times do
puts “Damn, I love Ruby!”
end
I find it fascinating that a programming language as clean and English-like as Ruby was written by an awesome dude in Japan. Matz is a superhuman.
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
I also am really, really excited about a framework called Ruboss, which integrates Ruby on Rails and Adobe Flex rather intelligently. It’s my goal/desire to contribute as much as I possibly can to that project. It’s obvious that blabbing here isn’t doing that, but I’m a remarkably undisciplined multi-disciplined kinda guy. I also like music/recording, reading, abusing commas, torturing language, and the female form. (I toned that down just for you, Helen!) ;)
Comment by: Rev. Dan
51 06/5/08 10:15 PM | Comment Link |@Rev. Dan:
@Mike:
I think there’s a problem with this thinking which is exposed if one changes the nouns. Example:
Couldja give another go at articulating what you mean?