An Agnostic who Believes in Jesus

Today, I’m going to talk about religion and Christianity. Again. I don’t mean to sound like a broken record on this blog, but religion has always been a subject of great interest to me. I’ve also had something of a crisis of faith over the past several months that has had me questioning my own Christian beliefs. I was raised to be a Christian, but many of the “Christians” I see are some of the nastiest, most judgmental, ignorant and bigoted people I’ve come across. It makes me wonder if the path of Christianity is truly meant for me. That being said, I thought I’d give my interpretation on the history of Christianity. I should probably do some research and be prepared to back up my statements, but that’s not the point of this little exercise. Take this as the point of view of someone who once called himself a Christian but is now more of an agnostic who believes in Jesus. And yes, I believe that is a thing. An agnostic can still believe in Jesus. Bear with me and you’ll see what I mean. * * * In the beginning, the Universe was without form, or at least any kind of form that we know. It existed as a dense, hot singularity until some abstract force acted on it and caused it to expand. This is known to modern scientists as the Big Bang, and it was the beginning of the Universe as we know it. The force that acted on the singularity is bigger, more powerful, more abstract and more mysterious than anything we can comprehend, and there is no way any human being can truly know what it is. As the Universe expanded, stars and planets began to form. After billions of years, one of these planets became capable of supporting life. We know this planet as Earth. After billions of years of evolution, modern human beings became the dominant species on Earth. These humans became aware of the world around them to decide that the abstract force that created the Universe must be watching over them. As people have a tendency to do, they attempted to personify this force. They called it many names and experienced it in different ways, but to keep things simple we’ll call this force God. People everywhere worshipped God in different ways, and this gave rise to several religions all over the world. One of these religions was Judaism, followed by people in what is now the Middle East. These people believed that they were “God’s chosen people,” and that they would one day be saved by a Messiah who was the Son of God. Many people believe that this Messiah was a man named Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was something of a radical who questioned and challenged many of the religious teachings of the time. He also taught that we should love our enemies and do unto others as we would have them do unto us. He gained many followers during His time, but those in power didn’t take kindly to the way He questioned their authority and ultimately had Him executed. It was believed that He came back from the dead, thus demonstrating His power over death and proving to His followers that He was the Son of God. Of course, not everyone believed that a man had come back from the dead or that He was truly the Son of God. After all, it’s a hard thing for a person to believe. His followers attempted to spread His teachings, and while many of them were mocked and even killed for their beliefs, eventually some very powerful people decided that this new religion called Christianity was the one true faith. This led to the foundation of the Catholic church, which eventually spread Christianity to all parts of the world. By this time it looked as if Jesus really was the Son of God, and that He and His followers did what they were always meant to do. It was during this time that the holy Scriptures of Christianity was canonized into one book, known as the Bible. Many people all over the world believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God to this day, but there are some problems with that belief. First of all, the 66 books that make up the Bible are far from the only Scripture that pertains to Jewish or Christian beliefs. They were only what the church believed to be relevant. Second of all, the Bible has been translated and reinterpreted so many times that it’s difficult to know exactly what the original meaning of what some of the Scriptures were meant to be, and the fact that many of the stories presented in the Bible predate the written word just makes things more confusing. While much of the Bible is true, much of it is also full of folklore that was not meant to be taken literally, and some of the mistranslations and misinterpretations over the years have filled the book with things that simply aren’t true. Faith can be a powerful thing however, and over time the folklore and half-truths were taken as absolute truth. Armed with the not-always-infallible Bible and a position of nearly absolute power, the leaders of the church began to impose their will on the rest of the world while passing it off as the will of God. Teachings that were meant to keep people in line became church dogma, and after several generations few people bothered to question any of it. Even different denominations of Christianity that broke away from the Catholic church fell into the same traps. The dogma of the churches allowed people to persecute and condemn others who didn’t fit into a specific mold of what a Christian should be, and soon this beautiful religion of peace that was meant to be founded on teachings such as “Love your enemies” and “Love your neighbor” became a bone of contention to modern people at best and a breeding ground for hatred and bigotry at its worst. There are still people who forego the more extreme and hateful dogmatic teachings and follow the teachings of Jesus, and they do provide hope for the future, but sadly the damage to Christianity’s reputation has been done. So now the question after that long-winded explanation is this: where do I fit in? I was raised as a Christian to be a Christian, but I’ve grown so disillusioned with church dogma and the hypocrisy of those claiming to follow Jesus that I find it hard to fall in line. I still believe in the teachings of Jesus, mainly because it’s hard to argue with anybody who says that we should love our neighbors and help the lowest, poorest and most “wretched” of people. It’s a beautiful message, and I would be hard pressed to find someone who isn’t moved by it even a little bit. I’d like to believe that Jesus was also the Son of God and that He did rise from the dead, but I’m both skeptical and open-minded enough to think that may not be the case. For now, I choose to look up to Jesus as a kind and wise teacher as well as someone who wasn’t afraid to question an unfair status quo. I have to plead ignorance of everything else while I make my own path in the world simply because I cannot know about anything else having to do with this force we call God. That’s the best I can do, and that’s the reason why I can call myself an agnostic who believes in Jesus.

A Blogger Overhaul?

I'm thinking of giving this blog something of an overhaul.  I'm not sure what I want to do, but I'm thinking of giving this a new theme.  I'm not sure where to go with that, since I don't like complex themes.  I have a no-frills theme right now, but I've never liked anything too complex.  I've seen blogs with designs and themes that distract from the actual content of the blog, which defeats the purpose of something meant to be read.  After all, why would anybody want to read a blog where the display and theme are more interesting than the posts themselves?

Still, part of me thinks I should have something more here than one of Blogger's generic displays.  Some of the best websites have visual components that "pop" and grab people's attention, and my blog really doesn't have that.

I'm also thinking of changing the name of this blog.  I originally chose a vague title because I wanted this blog to be all-purpose and show content that doesn't have a central theme.  This blog was always meant to be a place where I talk about pretty much whatever was on my mind, so I called it "Herding Cats."  I had hoped that the name would give the impression of someone with a lot on his mind and the ability to express it and not someone who was completely scatterbrained.  Whether or not I've succeeded in the precious few blog posts I've posted here is open to debate, but part of me thinks it's time for a change.  I've noticed that I've written more on social commentary than anything else here, so maybe I'll come up with a title that reflects that.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the few people who actually read, stumble upon, or look up this blog out of pity can expect a change soon.  I don't know when that will happen, but now that I have something resembling a focus for this blog expect it to look more like a place for social commentary.

Since I suck at coming up with names, I'll continue to call this blog "Herding Cats" for now, but I'm open to suggestions of good names for a slightly cynical social commentary blog.  Post any suggestions in the comment area below.

How Not to Talk to Women Online

Today my lovely wife was talking to a couple of young men on Twitter.  She had just met these guys, and she apparently was having a pleasant enough conversation with them until one of them asked for a picture of her “big titties.”  Not surprisingly, my wife was offended by his request and let him have it with both barrels.  He responded by calling her a slut (because “slut” apparently means someone who doesn’t take her clothes off at the merest suggestion now).  She wasn’t happy about it, but she just shrugged it off and went about her day just as she should have.  After all, the Internet is full of asshats who like to take shots at people just because they can.

Still, the whole incident had me thinking about how guys talk to women, especially online.  Specifically, it got me thinking about how guys really don’t know how to talk to women.  Practically every woman I know has at least one story of some moron sending her messages on Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, MMORPGs like World of Warcraft or any other format that allows people to communicate with each other over the Web with such thoughtful romantic messages like “ur hawt,” “show ur titties” or “lets fuckk.”  It’s not always trolling, either.  Some of these guys really do seem to think that sending out these messages will get them laid.  After all, they’re paying these women compliments, right?  They should be flattered that someone is taking an interest in them.

I know part of it is just the anonymity of the Internet; it is and always has been a breeding ground for the most obnoxious trolls imaginable.  I think there’s more to it than that, though.   I think part of it has to do with this sense of entitlement that a lot of men in our society have when it comes to women.  We’re basically taught that not only can a man have a beautiful woman if he wants one, but that he deserves to have one.  All he has to do is show interest in a woman, and she’s expected to just go along with whatever he wants.  Any woman who says otherwise is wrong and deserves the label of “bitch,” “slut” or whatever nasty name a guy can come up with.

Of course, this doesn’t just happen online, either.  I’ve seen plenty of instances of guys saying whatever they want to women and acting genuinely surprised when they get shot down.  It just seems to get worse on the Internet where people have enough anonymity to be able to say things that they wouldn’t dare say to someone’s face.  Still, I can’t help thinking that we’ll soon have an entire generation of men who think the proper way to talk to a woman is to basically proposition her and assume she must be a frigid bitch if she isn’t into it.

It should go without saying that this is not the right way to talk to a woman, and yet it looks like someone has to say it.  I’ve seen other unfortunate aspects of what I call Internet culture seep into other aspects of our lives.  I’ve heard people actually say things like “LOL” or “OMG” out loud (they sound like idiots, by the way), so I have to wonder if going up to a girl and saying “ur hawt show me ur titties” is going to be an actual pickup line for a certain brand of socially awkward male who grew up on message boards and MMORPGs.  I can see them getting shocked that it doesn’t work, and I’m not sure whether to laugh or weep for the future.

Hey guys, here’s a radical thought: if you like a girl, try talking to her like a human being instead of something that’s only there to please you.  Trust me.  That’s how most healthy relationships start, not with some lame attempt to get a girl to show her “big titties” over the Internet.

The "Black Friend" Defense

When I looked at the last post that I made on this blog, I saw that it was dated November 15, 2011.  That's too long ago.  It's been way too long since I posted anything here, and I think it's time I did something about that.  I had great plans for this blog, even if it had a slightly nonsensical name and covered a broad spectrum of topics (basically whatever was on my mind when I wanted to post something).  This was going to be my personal corner of the Internet, a place where I could make my voice heard.  I have a Livejournal account as well, but I wanted the writing here to be a little more polished and professional.  And yet, I haven't written anything here in over six months.  That's going to change.  I have things I want to say, and I'm going to make sure I say them a little more often.

Another trend I've noticed here is that even though this was supposed to cover a broad range of topics, I've spent more time on progressive social issues than anything else.  I've occasionally mixed it up by writing about movies and other things that interest me, but it'ts getting to the point where I might as well make this a blog about social justice.  So far, I've written about the SlutWalk movement, about being a heterosexual male feminist, and about how I can be an ally of the GLBT community without sacrificing my Christian beliefs.  Today, I'm going to continue (or revive, considering how often I post here) the trend of talking about social issues by tackling racism, specifically something that I like to call the "black friend" defense.

I've lived in the Twin Cities metro area of Minnesota for my entire life, and I consider myself lucky to live in a place that is so socially liberal and ethnically diverse.  I rarely see examples of overt racism; I don't see too many examples of minorities being harassed or assaulted, although I'm not naive enough to assume that it never happens.  That's not to say that I don't see examples of racism.  On the contrary, I see it all the time.  What I do see is a kind of passive-aggressive racism.  I see white people make assumptions about minorities, and I hear a lot of backhanded comments about "those people."  By "those people," I mean blacks, Asians, Latinos, GLBT people and any other minorities who happen to be interacting with us white heterosexual Americans.  It's okay for these white people to make assumptions and prejudiced comments about minorities though, because some of their friends are black.  That's proof that they're not racist, right?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what I mean by the "black friend" defense.  I've talked to plenty of people who think they can get away with making vaguely racist comments and assumptions because they have friends who aren't white, which somehow proves that they are enlightened, socially progressive people.  Every time someone calls them out on a comment they make out of prejudice and ignorance, they immediately hide behind their token black/Asian/Latino/Arab/gay "friends," and suddenly they feel they can do anything short of wearing a white hood and burning a cross and still be exonerated for their tolerance of other peoples.

The "black friend" defense annoys me to no end.  To me, it seems to be saying that the good and benevolent white person is doing a good deed by socializing with lowly minority groups even though he or she doesn't have to.  If you're a white person who has used your alleged friendship with a minority to present yourself as more progressive and enlightened than everyone else, guess what?  You're still racist.  In fact, you're almost worse than someone who is up front about his or her racism.  At least the folks who regularly use the N-word and won't go into an ethnically-diverse neighborhood because it's too "dangerous" are honest about the way they think and feel.

Another reason why the "black friend" defense is so offensive is that it not only allows people to forgive their own racist ideology, but it sometimes allows privileged white people to believe that they know more about racism than they actually do.  This was actually a topic of a conversation that I had about a week ago that started with an article about young people in this country being sent to prison for life.  Many of these young people were children under the age of 18, and they seemed to be mostly black boys.  Naturally, people saw this and started crying racism, as well they should.  Perhaps at least some of these children did things that warranted a life sentence, but there can be no denying that it was a clear example of institutionalized racism.  The topic of the conversation quickly switched to how most privileged white people in this country couldn't understand how racism really feels.  That got me thinking about the many white people I've spoken to who either act like they are authorities on racism or don't think it's much of a problem in our society.  Of course, they feel like they're experts on the subject because they have friends who are minorities.  Yes, it's entirely possible for a privileged white person to witness racism, and I would hope that this person would be outraged, but that person is still on the outside looking in.  He or she won't know how it feels to be discriminated against when they see bigotry in progress; all one can hope for is that they recognize it and be appropriately outraged.

As a 31 year-old white male in a predominantly white country, I don't know how it feels to be the victim of racism.  The closest thing to victimization that I've experienced is that I've had minorities treat me badly because they expect me to be racist.  That does hurt, and it is wrong, but I couldn't tell you how it feels to have an institution expect me to fail or become a criminal because of the color of my skin, and it would be wrong for me to say otherwise just because I have friends who aren't white.  That is why I tend to be careful when I pick a racially-charged battle.  I will gladly stand against any injustice and bigotry that I witness, but I'm not going to pretend that I know exactly how it feels.  Having friends who aren't white doesn't make me an expert on racism any more than it exonerates me if I were to make a racist comment.

If you're a white person with friends who are black, Asian, Latino, Middle-Eastern, gay or whatever, that's great.  I'm happy for you.  Just don't act like it makes you better than everyone else or makes you an expert on the prejudices that they experience.

Homosexuality and the Bible, Part Two of Whatever

In my last blog post I touched on the always-controversial topic of homosexuality and the Bible. Specifically, I talked about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and how it really doesn't hold up as well as a condemnation of homosexuality as some people believe it does. I was planning on returning to the topic and discussing other Biblical passages that seem to condemn homosexuality and submit what I hoped would be a sound argument against the notion that you cannot be a queer or queer-friendly Christian. That was a month and a half ago, and while it may seem that I've forgotten all about it, rest assured that I have not. This is still a topic of great interest to me, and I would like to do my best to at least touch on the so-called "clobber passages" and defend my status as both a Christian and an ally of the GLBT community.

In my last post, I decided that citing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not a good way to "prove" that God hates homosexuality. While I do stand by that, I can understand why it's often used as a clobber passage. If we were to interpret the way so many conservative homophobes have over the years, it essentially says that God will destroy you and your home if you are gay. I can't really think of a harsher warning than that. If someone really wanted to scare someone away from being gay (as if that was possible), threatening them with fire falling out of the sky sounds like a good way to do so. Still, there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that the people of Sodom were killed for being gay, so using it as a warning against the homosexual lifestyle is questionable at best.

Since the story of Sodom and Gomorrah shouldn't really be used as a warning against homosexuality, the next go-to passage in the Bible used to condemn homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22, which reads in the King James Bible as such:

"Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination."

If that sounds bad, Leviticus 20:13 is even worse:

"If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

That is really harsh. I can definitely see why these two are used as clobber passages. They are also the passages that more than ever make me question my Christian beliefs. I'd like to think that Christianity is a religion of peace, love and forgiveness. I don't want to be told that not only are all gay people (or gay men, anyway) sinners, but that they deserve to be executed. It goes against everything that I've come to believe, and these passages are brought up so often that it's easy for someone to think that being a Christian means hating gay people.

Then again, just like the story of Sodom's destruction, these passages are open to interpretation. Yes, it is rather difficult to argue that these passages aren't talking about sex between two men, but as always it's important to know their Biblical and historical context. Leviticus 18:22 is part of the Mosaic code, which states that there are two types of sin: moral sin and ceremonial uncleanliness. Moral sin is deliberate rebellion against God. This is thought to be expressed in the original Hebrew text as "toeyvah," which becomes "abomination," "detestable" or "enormous sin" in many English translations. The transliterated Hebrew texts reads as: "V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee." If "toeyvah" means what traditional English translations would have us all believe, then sex between two men would indeed be "an abomination." Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on where you stand on this issue), homosexual sex appears to not be a moral sin within the context of the rest of Leviticus but a ceremonial uncleanliness. Ceremonial uncleanliness refers to coming into contact with a forbidden object or performing a forbidden act. An unclean act may have been perfectly acceptable for non-Hebrews, but it was forbidden to Hebrews. Those who were "unclean" were often put to death or exiled from their tribe.

I know that what I've said so far does not seem too supportive of my opinion that being gay isn't a sin. At a glance, it does appear that Leviticus 18:22 states that gay people are unclean, and that Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. Then again, Leviticus also states that those who eat shellfish, pick up sticks on a Saturday, cross breed livestock, plant mixtures of seeds in a field or wear clothing made from a blend of two textiles are also unclean. Religious conservatives are always quick to use Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, yet they all but ignore everything else that it warns us against. They are largely considered to be archaic laws that are no longer relevant. The New Testament even says that Christians no longer need to follow this code and that we are all saved according to a new covenant with God. To insist that we follow just one of these laws while ignoring the rest is ridiculous.

Of course, all of this talk about Leviticus condemning homosexuality is assuming that Leviticus actually condemns all modern same-sex relationships. The truth is that despite what most modern translations would have everyone believe, the true meaning of Leviticus 18:22 is actually pretty unclear. The verse could mean that all sex between two men is an abomination regardless of the context or the relationship between the men, but I cannot help but think that that interpretation was at one point simplified for the sake of conservative homophobes. When analyzing this passage further, one must remember that the structure of sexuality in Leviticus assumes that men are dominant and women are submissive. According to one interpretation by writer and rabbi Arthur Waskow, a sex act between two men could place one of the men in a dominant role and the other in a submissive role, thereby feminizing the submissive man and effectively turning him into "an abomination" since women were not regarded as highly as men in that society. This interpretation could mean that only certain sex acts that I'd rather not describe here were forbidden, not homosexuality as a whole. Other scholars have theorized that the passages in Leviticus that "forbid" homosexuality only do so in the context of pagan rituals, which would make sense since any Hebrews engaging in such rituals would be effectively disobeying their God according to their own religious beliefs. Again, this interpretation doesn't forbid homosexuality outright; it only does so in certain contexts. It's also interesting to note that at no time is sex between two women mentioned; Leviticus seems to be only concerned with the men of Israel.

To sum up this long-winded and possibly offensive-on-at-least-one-level blog post: yes, most modern English translations of Leviticus seem to condemn male-male homosexuality...maybe. The Scripture was written long ago and refers to a time and culture that was very different from our modern society. Many of the laws written in Leviticus are considered archaic to modern Christians, and in my opinion its very few mentions of homosexuality are open to enough interpretation to be disregarded as proof that all gay people are hell-bound sinners. People need to stop citing them as justification for homophobia and bigotry.

And yes, I'm well aware that the subject of homosexuality as a sin comes up in the New Testament. I plan to get to that as well someday. Hopefully, I won't wait a month and a half to do it.

Source:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm

Homosexuality and the Bible. Yeah. I'm going there (Part one of whatever)

For most of my adult life, I've had what I would call a love-hate relationship with religion, particularly mainstream Christian beliefs. On one hand, I believe in God and the teachings of Jesus. I believe that Jesus wanted all of us to love and care for each other no matter what, and that is a message that I can get behind wholeheartedly. On the other hand, my attempts to more fully embrace my Christian beliefs usually end with me being confronted with opinions and points of view that all but turn me off of organized religion. I believe in Jesus Christ, but I've found time and again that many of His so-called followers are horribly judgemental, elitist, prejudiced and even hateful people who believe that everyone who doesn't live as they do deserve to suffer in Hell for all of eternity. I know that's a very gross (and admittedly probably unfair) generalization of Christian conservatives, but when the most socially conservative right-wing Christians practically become the spokespeople of an entire religion in the eyes of many it becomes hard for a social liberal such as myself to identify with that religion. It's tough for me to just turn my back on my Christian faith, but it's also difficult for me to justify being a Christian sometimes. I don't like to hear about people who deserve to go to Hell just for not having the right religious beliefs, and I don't like being made to feel guilty or unsure of myself whenever I find that I agree with alleged sinners and non-Christians.

Over the years I've come to believe many things that the most conservative Christians might say are wrong. It's a long list mostly comprised of typically "liberal" beliefs, and I'm not going to go into great detail about it here. I've been able to justify most of my beliefs by saying that there is little to no Biblical evidence that says that they're sinful and wrong. It's church dogma that suggests that some of what I believe is wrong, and I've always been skeptical about organized religion anyway. However, the one major sticking point with me has been what the Bible allegedly says about homosexuality.

I'm not gay or bi myself, but I know a lot of people who are. These people are no different from me except for the fact that they find members of their own gender attractive, yet that one seemingly insignificant difference is supposedly enough to damn them to Hell for eternity. That has never sat well with me. If two men or two women fall in love and decide they want to be together, who are they hurting? How is anybody in society being affected by their decision? It doesn't make any sense to me that they would be branded as beyond redemption in the eyes of God, and it would be easy for me to write off this belief as a product of bigotry and homophobia.

And yet, there are passages in the Bible that do appear to condemn homosexuality as sinful. These passages are often referred to as the "clobber" passages since conservatives often use them to effectively end any debates about homosexuality, and probably because it really hurts to hear them quoted whenever the subject comes up. I don't see anything ethically or morally wrong with being gay or bi, but I do have a problem with people passing judgement on others for things that shouldn't be any of their business. And yet, if I were to listen to the religious right and accept most contemporary English translations of the Bible at face value I should view homosexuality and GLBT people as sinful abominations. That goes against everything that I've come to believe, and I cannot in good conscience look down on a person for being gay or bi. Yes, I know the Bible also says that we shouldn't judge others, but how can one believe that when many Biblical translations and even some contemporary teachings suggest that there are those who deserve it? I'm also not going to "love the sinner and hate the sin;" that just sounds condescending. The whole subject has been a bone of contention with me lately, and it has even made me question if I should even self-identify as a Christian.

Then again, I have never truly believed that the Bible was as infallible as many claim it to be. I believe that much of it was divinely inspired, but in the end it was written down by flawed human beings. Add that to the fact that it has been retranslated and reinterpreted countless times throughout history and it's easy to imagine that the meaning of some of the Scriptures have been lost in translation. That made me wonder if perhaps the so-called "clobber" passages were meant to be as damning as they appear to be.

There are about half a dozen major "clobber" passages that are usually said to be proof that homosexuality is sinful. I don't claim to be an expert on the Bible by any stretch of the imagination, but I decided to take a look at these passages myself. This blog entry is already getting pretty long, so obviously I'm not going to get to all of these passages in one post, but I'm hoping to address them all eventually.

Right now, I'd just like to focus on the first Bible story most often used to condemn homosexuality, that of the destruction of Sodom which can be found in Genesis 19. I'm sure just about everyone knows this story, but for those who don't Sodom was a city that was so corrupt and evil that God decided that it should be destroyed. He eventually decides that the city would be spared if ten righteous people were to be found there and sends two angels to find those ten people. They are quickly taken in by a kind man named Lot. Lot and his family prove to be very hospitable, something that cannot be said about the other men of Sodom. Before long, an angry mob shows up and demands that Lot send the two strangers out to them so that they may "know" them. Lot refuses to send his guests out to the mob and offers his two virgin daughters instead. The mob takes offense to this and tries to force their way into Lot's home. By this point, it is clear that there aren't enough righteous people in Sodom to spare it from God's wrath, so the angels help Lot and his family escape (except for Lot's wife, who disobeys their command not to look back at the city and gets turned into a pillar of salt) while God destroys the city with fire and brimstone and kills every other man, woman and child in it.

I've never really cared for this story, not because of what it's about but what it has come to represent for many people. To me, it's just a story of God punishing wicked people. The people of Sodom must have done some horrible things to deserve being wiped off the face of the earth. That much is clear, and I'm mostly fine with that. What I do have a problem with is the meaning that has been attached to this story.

The men of Sodom wanted to "know" the strangers in Lot's home. That can mean many things, but traditionally it is thought to mean that they wanted to have sex with them (the New International Version of the Bible even explicitly says that). Naturally, right-wing conservatives and homophobes have latched onto this interpretation and assumed that the unrepentantly homosexual men of Sodom were so overcome with lust after seeing two strange new men in town that they went into a sexual frenzy and decided that they needed to have sex with them, an act so disgusting and sinful that it justifies genocide. I have a huge problem with this interpretation for a few reasons. First of all, it's offensive. Regardless of what some people seem to believe, GLBT people are generally not perverts who are slaves to their sexual desires. They are no different from anybody else, and their sexuality is only a small part of who they are. Secondly, it implies that Sodom was destroyed because of an attempted homosexual orgy while completely ignoring the fact that God had already decided to destroy it before the events of the story even took place. Never is it mentioned explicitly that God is destroying Sodom for this reason. Finally, those that prescribe to this interpretation of the story rarely seem to take into account that the mob probably wanted to brutally rape and possibly kill the strangers. Rape is a violent act that is all about power, control and humiliation; it's a far cry from a consensual sexual encounter. Far too many people get hung up on the fact that what the mob wanted to do involved other men as opposed to the fact that rape is horrible no matter who it happens to or who commits the act.

Of course, those that see this story as a "clobber" passage never take into account the fact that to "know" someone can have a few different meanings. It is very possible that it was meant to have sexual connotations in this context, but it could also mean that the men of Sodom simply wanted to know who the strangers were. Sodom had recently been at war, so it would make sense if its inhabitants were wary of strangers. Perhaps they wanted to question them to see if they were enemy spies. Even if what they really wanted was to rape them, the rape would've been a way to humiliate and torture them if they were enemies. This was actually a very common practice with soldiers at the time. Such rapes were about power and humiliation, not sexual desire.

I'd really like to think that taking a closer look at the story of Sodom will allow people to see that it takes some pretty big assumptions and leaps in logic to assume that it was intended as proof that God hates homosexuality. Later verses in the Bible even state that the people of Sodom were destroyed because they were violent, inhospitable and uncaring. It's never once explicitly stated that their sin was being gay, and yet people have been supposedly reading between the lines and seeing that for hundreds of years.

Well, this first post turned out to be a lot longer than I had planned. I'm hoping I didn't offend or scare anybody off, but this is something that has been on my mind lately and I wanted to talk about it. Maybe if I'm up for it I might go through with my plans (yeah, right) to talk about the rest of the "clobber" passages and show that Christianity really shouldn't be as dismissive of the GLBT community as it seems to be at times.

Another "Special Edition" version of Star Wars for Blu-Ray

When it was announced that all six Star Wars films would be released on Blu-Ray in September 2011, people became understandably excited. After all, this is arguably the biggest film series of all time being released on a high-definition format at last. Why wouldn't the legions of Star Wars fans all over the world get excited? After all, they are getting their favorite films in a format that they deserve, right?

Actually, it turns out that there is probably bound to be a ton of controversy associated with this new release. It's a well-known fact that George Lucas likes to tinker with his work. When the original Star Wars trilogy was re-released in theaters back in the late 1990s, it came with plenty of updated special effects intended to clean up the rather dated look of the original films and give us all the version that Lucas allegedly intended to give us the first time around. Depending on who you talk to, the changes made to these films are either too minor to think about or the biggest travesty in the history of film. I was kind of in the middle of the road. While I appreciated some of the updated visuals such as the more impressive Death Star explosions, I was bothered by other changes such as the truly grating musical number that was added towards the beginning of Return of the Jedi or the infamous moment where Greedo shoots at Han Solo before getting killed in the first film. Overall though, I wasn't bothered too much by the changes. I certainly didn't think they ruined or improved the film. For the most part, the films that I grew up watching remained intact, and I gladly purchased the "special editions" on DVD simply because it was Star Wars on DVD.

I was mostly on board with picking up the Blu-Ray editions of the Star Wars saga when they come out later this month, or at least I was all for picking up the original trilogy. However, I changed my mind when I heard about some of the changes that were being made once again. For the most part, the changes that I heard about don't bother me a whole lot. I'm sure the CGI that was added in the first place will be redone with the latest technology so that it looks more realistic, and I have absolutely no problems with minor changes like having ewoks blink with computer-generated eyelids.

There is, however, one major change that I have a huge problem with. I could describe it, but I think it would be better to show you:

(Spoiler warning: I'm sure almost everyone who takes the time to read this blog has already seen these films many times, but the few of you who haven't are about to see the climax of the entire series. Stop reading now if you don't want to know what happens. Also, climb out from under your rock and rejoin civilization. It's not that scary out here. Trust me.)

(Note: Since this is a Star Wars clip I don't know how long it will be up on this blog before it gets taken down. If you can't see it, I apologize.)

Based on the controversy surrounding it, Darth Vader yelling "NOOOOOO!!!" as he tosses the Emperor to his doom seems destined to be the new "Han Shot First." I already mentioned the change made to the first Star Wars that turns Greedo's murder into self-defense, but in case you don't know what I'm talking about there is a moment in the original version of Star Wars where the space smuggler Han Solo shoots a bounty hunter named Greedo with absolutely no warning. It's basically a cold-blooded murder and a major character-defining moment for Han. It solidifies him as cold, ruthless, and willing to do anything to save his own skin. When the special edition came out, that character-defining moment was changed. Greedo takes a shot at Han at point blank and misses him, prompting Han to shoot back in self-defense. It's a minor change, but it softens Han's character too much. Also, it looked horrible. Harrison Ford's head shifts to the side to avoid getting shot in an effect that looks like it was done by an amateur with a laptop. The later DVD release changes it again to have Han and Greedo fire at each other simultaneously. It's better than the first special edition version, but in the eyes of many fans the damage had been done.

As for the change made to the pivotal moment shown above, fans are already saying how it has ruined their favorite film series for all time. Instead of "Han Shot First" t-shirts, we may be seeing something to the effect of "Vader Didn't Say No" shirts at some point in the next few years. In the original version, Vader doesn't say a word when he decides to save Luke from the emperor, but we can practically see the emotional crisis happening just beneath his mask. You can almost see Darth Vader become Anakin Skywalker again for the first time in over 20 years, and it is actually a very powerful moment because he does so without saying a word. It's a seemingly minor change, but it does cheapen a great moment in the film.

Will I shell out the money to buy Star Wars on Blu-Ray? I'm not so sure right now. I guess it would be nice to see these films in a high-definition format, but I've never really cared much about that before. I have Star Wars on DVD, and if I ever decide to purchase another version of the trilogy it will most likely be the original versions that don't have the "special edition" updates. Perhaps in the end, Star Wars doesn't need all sorts of fancy updates. The films have been as popular as they are for so long because they are fun, entertaining films. Good films don't age, no matter how long they've been around.