Couldn't Help Noticing

Using sex to buy the Bible

Along the same lines as Karen's post, there's another report about a group that's using a similar method for an entirely different outcome: using pornography to encourage people to get rid of their Bibles.

An atheist group at the University of Texas, San Antonio is encouraging students to trade their Bibles or other religious texts in, to receive pornographic material in return. In the interview, the group's president, Thomas Jackson, says that they are trying to “make the comparison between (pornography) and the smut that is religious scripture”.

I give them full marks for imaginative publicity (speaking of which, I can't help wondering if we get a jump in search hits from these two posts...), but I'd also give them full marks for fully exercising circular logic, as demonstrated in this exchange with the interviewer, Tucker Carlson:

CARLSON: The bottom of this, on your web site, you have a statement: “We find that morality should not be derived from religious texts.” What should morality be ... what should it be derived from?

JACKSON: Well, morality is not derived from religious texts. Religious texts actually contradict each other. If you read the Bible, it contradicts itself on nearly every page. And the fact that people can decide which one to go with shows that they are getting their morality from somewhere else.

Morality is actually based off of empathy, and failing empathy, it's based off of fear of reprisal from the law. That is where morality comes from.

CARLSON: Yes. But the law, it's a circular argument. You need to think through it a little bit more, Thomas, because the law itself is based on at least a notion of abstract right and wrong, and that is not rooted in empathy or any emotion, but ... you know, an abstract belief that this is right and this is wrong because someone larger, in control, says so.

JACKSON: Well, no, that's not true. It's based off of things that are good for society. If citizens murder each other, this is bad for society.

In the Imaginary Sarcasm Theatre of my mind, the exchange would continue something like this:

CARLSON: But that's your circular argument. Your idea that it's bad for society is also based on an abstract idea of what's good or bad. Why is murder bad for society? Why is pornography bad for society? Where's the basis for that?

JACKSON: No, it's not true. It's bad for society because we understand from morality, which is based on empathy, which is based on reprisal from the law, and the law, that's based on our morality, and our understanding of what's right and wrong, and we know what's right and wrong by knowing what's good and bad. And that's why murder's bad.

CARLSON: But that's a circular argument, because ...

Using sex to sell the Bible

Back on the subject of calendars, the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that a Protestant youth group in Nuremberg has put together a calendar of erotic scenes from the Bible in order to “represent the Bible in a different way and to interest young people” (Source but be warned: one of the calendar images accompanies the article). Figures include Adam and Eve, Samson and Delilah, David and Bathsheba, Rahab, and Salome. Bernd Grasser, the pastor of the church comments, “It's just wonderful when teenagers commit themselves with their hair and their skin to the Bible”. Somehow I don't think that's what Paul had in mind when he urged us to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Rom 12:1).

I'm sure it will get young people interested in the Bible but interested like Alex in A Clockwork Orange whose enthusiasm for sex and violence fed his sociopathic appetites. It's good to be reminded of the reasons why we don't read the Bible: we don't read it to be entertained, we don't read it to be titillated and we certainly don't read it to gratify the desires of the flesh. Instead, we read to meet the true and living God in the person of his son, Jesus Christ, who shows us the way that we can be washed clean from the desires of the flesh and regard the human body rightly—created by God in his image, beautiful, temporary and not something to be paraded and flaunted in front of others outside the context of God's gift of marriage where “the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed” (Gen 2:25).

If young people's interest in the Bible is waning, it will take more than kinky advertising to bring it back; it will take a complete carnal overhaul where a mind set on the flesh is transformed into a mind set on the Spirit.

Oh no, Baptists are homophobic

68% of Baptists are homophobic, making them Australia's most gay-hating religious community, according to recent research by The Australia Institute. The report, entitled Mapping Homophobia in Australia, also finds that 62% of ‘evangelical Christians’ are homophobic, and that Queensland and Tasmania are Australia's most homophobic states.

Before we recoil in horror at the spectre of gangs of Queensland Baptists beating up gays with industrial-sized hard-bound Bibles, it's worth checking out the methodology of the research. In the introduction, the authors, Michael Flood and Clive Hamilton, reveal that the report is based on a poll run by Roy Morgan Research which asked people whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “I believe that homosexuality is immoral”. Agreeing with the statement makes you ‘homophobic’; disagreeing makes you ‘tolerant’.

Flint-eyed Briefing reader Matthew Thomas, who drew the report to our attention, aptly comments: “Besides being intellectually shoddy, this seems to be nothing more than a cheap exercise in slandering people who don't share the same moral values as the authors. It's propaganda masquerading as research. And where does it leave evangelicals? In their workplace, they may be one of the few who think homosexuality is immoral, and yet also one of the few who aren't making pejorative and demeaning comments behind the backs of homosexual colleagues.”

I wonder how puzzled they would be if we suggested the following category in their next study: “‘Homophobic’ and loving towards homosexuals”.

What to do about Singapore?

On the day that Nguyen Tuong Van was hanged at Changi Prison, I had an appointment to meet a sales rep from a Singaporean printer. And not just any Singaporean printer: Singapore National Printers—the printery that produces all of the Singapore government’s publications (including, ironically enough, the printing of their statutes and legal documents), and is half owned by that government.

We have not used the printer before, but they are keen to get business from us. That’s why the sales rep was coming to see me.

So it occurrs to me that if we decide to use that printer, a significant amount of our money would be going into the bank account of that government.

My Christian view of the death penalty, and, in particular, the mandatory imposition of the death penalty in drug cases, suddenly has become less theoretical. I am actually in a position to make a stand that could potentially cost the Singapore government money. And I can advise them of the reasons for my decision.

I’m interested in other people’s views. Why don’t you what you think I should do (if anything)?

If you want to get started in thinking about the issues, read Andrew Cameron’s online article.

Who is the Bible For?

I recently received a publisher's catalog in the mail. This publisher produces resources for one of the most liberal denominations in the United States. As I browsed through the catalog, I couldn't help but notice a book in the ‘Biblical Studies’ section of the catalog. Here is its description:

Title: Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible
Description: “... assembles insightful and edgy biblical scholars who critically challenge long-held assumptions that the Bible is not for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.”

I agree with this description. I think we should join in and challenge this long-held assumption that the Bible is not for such people. The Bible is ‘for’ such people in exactly the same way it is ‘for’ heterosexuals. Jesus said, “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). Of course, I don?t think the editors of this book would be so pleased with my concession or offering of help.

A few pages before, I found another interesting book:

Title: The Spirituality of Wine
“Description: A sweeping look at the deep connection between wine and spirituality ...”

I wonder who this book is for?