Is Homosexuality Natural, or Supernatural?

Religious people usually claim that homosexuality is a choice. If this is true, then how does one account for the Bonobo chimpanzee? These close relatives of ours use sex as a social lubricant (no pun intended), with both sexes engaging in frequent homosexual activity. Is this a lifestyle choice? Do they have “free will,” or is their behavior natural?

If it is natural in the Bonobo, then there is good reason to believe that it is natural in humans (not to mention the other species that exhibit the behavior). This would refute the “choice” hypothesis. It would also mean that God, as the creator of all things, must have created homosexuals and intended them to be that way.

If it is unnatural, then it must be the opposite of natural, since a behavior cannot be both natural and unnatural. The opposite of natural is supernatural. This, too, would mean that God created homosexuals and intended them to be that way.

Which position would the religious prefer to deny? Unless they wish to present some other hypothesis, they must decide if homosexuality is natural or supernatural. The only solution to this riddle, as I see it, is to grant free will to those other species, which raises a whole new set of questions that will need answering.

Atheists: Please Stop Talking About Morality In Absolutist Terms

There are no universal morals or ethics. It sickens me when atheists speak as though there were. It is a total cop-out. I understand that it can be difficult to discuss societal ideals without the context of right and wrong, but if you want to live in reality you simply must learn to do so. Morality is a human construct; it shifts like the winds. This need not be a problem unless you are a dogmatic, doctrinal demagogue. Whatever the percentage of theists who fit that description, the percentage of atheists is at least as high.

As for you theists, do not think that you have just picked up some free points. The basis for your system of morality is even shakier. Just because you have an ancient book that spells it out for you doesn’t make it any more real. At least (some) atheists take the time to explain the evolutionary utility of a system of right and wrong. You simply invoke God, as you do for everything else. So hush.

Back to the atheists: stop it. No, seriously, fucking stop doing it, please. It is exceedingly embarrassing to those of us who understand that the concept of morality was invented out of whole cloth and, moreover, who feel no need to invoke morality to explain why we hold various political positions. When you show theists that you need morals as much as they do, you make yourselves look like abject fools and, sadly, this is projected onto the rest of us, by those even bigger fools who believe that atheism is a cohesive “worldview.”

If you think it is inconsistent for me to ask you to view morality as I do, even as I deny such a cohesion, imagine how inconsistent you appear as you count off the planks of secular naturalism on nine fingers, then poke into the ether with the tenth, pretending to point to “morality.”

The Silver Rule

The so-called “Golden Rule” is something that most theists and non-theists seem to agree is a Good Thing, but I hope that people will not invoke that “rule” in their dealings with me.

Simply put, the Golden Rule says:

Treat others in the same manner that you would like to be treated.

Since I do not know how you would like to be treated, I do not know if I would like to be treated in the same manner. So the Golden Rule makes me a bit leery.

The Silver Rule, on the other hand, carries no such risk. It says:

Do not treat others in any manner that you would not like to be treated.

If you would rather that something not be done to you, it is reasonable to presume that I would not want it done to me; and even if I would, no direct harm is done by you not giving me what I want.

There is also the “Platinum Rule,” which says that we should treat others however they want to be treated; this sounds nice, but it is unreasonable, I think, because it would allow others to make arbitrary and selfish demands on us. Even if they agreed to reciprocate in kind, there is no guarantee that they would be capable of doing so, whereas everyone is able to meet the demands of the Silver Rule.

Is Christianity a Cult of Death?

Why do Christians dwell on the symbolism of the cross? They seem to want to be constantly reminded of the gruesome, torturous execution of Jesus. Their fixation on this event troubles me. Even if I were to accept the veracity of the Christian religion (which I do not), I would seek out a church that does not display the crucifix. I wonder, does any such congregation or denomination exist?

I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses translate the original text to read that Jesus was executed on a stake (a single upright beam) rather than a cross, and I’ve never heard of them obsessing over that (wearing torture stake necklaces, etc.). The Mormons, as far as I know, do not place much emphasis on the cross. But those are two rather unique minorities; I cannot think of any prominent Christian sect, which believes that a cross was used, that does not feature it prominently in their worship.

I think if I were a Christian, I would rather dwell on the positive aspects of the religion (such as they are), instead of stroking my crucifix, with my eyes fixated on a life-sized representation of a naked, blood-soaked man, nailed to a cross, dying in an expression of obvious agony, such as can be found in so many churches around the world.

What a barbaric death-cult Christianity appears to be.

Can There Be Only One?

While reading something-or-other on logic, I came across this oft-used syllogism:

Major Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

It suddenly occurred to me that most Christians do not believe in the truth of the major premise: they believe that Jesus of Nazareth was non-mortal. I won’t say “immortal,” since they do believe that he gave up his Earthly body in the end. The Gospels, however, claim that he rose from the dead before ascending to Heaven — not in spirit form initially, but his Earthly body actually came back to life, if only temporarily. This is clearly something other than mortal, although not quite immortal; hence: “non-mortal.”

Of course, most Christians also believe that Jesus was something more than a man as well. Still, they would likely concede that he was born of a human mother, that he was flesh and blood, that he consumed food, water and air and presumably required them to survive while in his humanoid form, and that he was vulnerable to harm. This would place him squarely in the “man camp,” for all practical purposes, at least while he was here on Earth. As such, it is fair to call Jesus a man, albeit a non-mortal one, according to Christian doctrine.

If Jesus was a non-mortal man then the major premise of the example argument would not be true. In that case, it would be reasonable to presume that there are non-mortals living among us even today, and that there always have been. If we presume a worldwide population of about one million, circa 10,000 BCE, with even just one non-mortal among them, then simple arithmetic tells us that Jesus may have been, at best, only one of a couple-hundred non-mortals. This most conservative estimate suggests that there could be upwards of 6,000 of them alive today!

I would like to meet one of these non-mortals. I would also like to devise a test for non-mortality, to determine whether or not I am able to rise from the dead. Such knowledge would allow for a far more adventurous lifestyle!

First Post: Religion?

Where does one begin a blog? I’ve started a few others in the past, but always abandoned them after a few posts because I find blogging to be annoyingly presumptive; why would anyone care what some random stranger has to say? This time my motivation is different: I do not intend to ramble on about my inane day-to-day activities, but rather to jot down random thoughts and, I hope, to sort through and sharpen my own beliefs. This “blog” is for me. If somebody else stumbles upon it and wants to comment, that’s cool. If nobody ever finds this place, that’s cool, too.

That said, I suppose religious identification is as good a place to start as any. I currently define myself as…

***

Deleted. What was written here was annoyingly convoluted. It seems I still haven’t settled on a comfortable description of my views on religion. What I am sure of is that the need for such terminology irritates me. For now, I’ll simply state that I am godless. This post will be updated if/when I come up with a concise term that doesn’t require clarification, as both atheist and agnostic do.

***

So there it is: my first post is in the can. As to precisely how and why I arrived at my current religious self-identity, that will have to wait for another post.