Courageous?

There's something I really like about not writing a popular blog - that's that I don't get zillions of comments from people.  Reading these comments always raises my blood pressure ever so slightly, especially if the content strays even slightly towards the Christian.  Organisations and Markets a little while back posted about what they described as the most courageous man in academia, who has written a paper purporting to prove that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality.

I think the title of this blog makes posting on this paper somewhat necessary.  I think it's a pointless and wrong exercise, and a waste of an economist's time to be writing something like this.  Why does it matter?  What is the point to be proved?  The economist clearly has some odd Christian ideas in his head, and maybe I'm being a little harsh, but I don't see how this kind of writing is going to leave anyone more predisposed towards Christianity - and at the end of the day, for the Christian this is the ultimate aim - to bring honour and praise to Jesus.

Furthermore, as I think many have pointed out in other places (I know New Deal 2.0 commented on this too), even if we stick to biblical principles, a very narrow heterosexuality is superior in that it is not sinful - that is heterosexual sex within marriage.  Then, the teachings of Jesus ratcheted this up about a million notches by saying anyone who even looks at a women lustfully has committed adultery with her.

The point is, none of us are without sin, especially this economist who wrote this bizarre paper.  So it's hypocritical as well as being wrong.  Jesus didn't tell Christians to moralise - that's been proven to be about the best way, over the years, to turn people off Chrisitanity.

That can be well seen by the various comments on this paper.  Firstly, people interpret it as homophobia and thus dub all Christians homophobic - which is not true.  As said, there are many things that are sinful, and nobody managed to avoid sinning.  It's not PC to say homosexuality is a sin, but so are all my lustful glances.  The Christian abides by a moral code (and fails by it too) given in the Bible.  Others take other sources to base their morals on - neither can be claimed to be superior, although liberals of course claim theirs is vastly superior.

The Christian believes that despite his or her sin, that Jesus's death on the cross took the punishment for that, and hence the Christian is forgiven and can know God.  So there's nothing there to start acting superior to others over, no room for complacency, boasting or anything.  Certainly no room for this academic paper.

Instead Christians should be loving, and telling people about the good news - about what Jesus' death can do for them.

The Other Thing That Annoyed Me

New Deal 2.0 is a good blog reporting less right-wing stuff from the US, and as such it appeals usually to my left-leaning tendencies.  However, this article annoyed me greatly.  Now I'm not bothered about the idiot they are commenting on.  Trying to prove the superiority of heterosexual sex of all other kinds of sex is simply stupid and a complete waste of time.

But I get annoyed by the discussion of the "natural law".  Somehow, the fact that us humans can't keep up with the natural law seems to mean that therefore it's a pointless concept not to be dabbled with.  The author (Bill Black) asserts as some kind of proof of this, the fact that all Catholics don't keep it.

Of course they don't!  They are sinful humans like the rest of us!  But does our inability to keep up with this natural law somehow mean it doesn't exist?!

I could have misunderstood what the author is trying to say, as he is paraphrasing the guy he is criticising at this point - but I can't imagine the guy he criticises would be suggesting the natural law is useless.

I'd suggest anyone who has thoughts and interests in this "natural law" should read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis.

Posts on economics blogs I find irritating

I've always found how the Economist reports Christian or faith issues irritating, as it takes a liberal stance always, and takes objections to anyone forming their worldview and making decisions based on anything other than liberal principles.

I've noticed a couple of blog articles in otherwise economics blogs that irk me the last few days too.

First, on China Hearsay, Stan asks about How China Should Respond to the Rise of Religion?  In the blog he asserts that Christianity holds back a nation, because fundamentalists in America push the creation story at the expense of science, and there is high teenage pregnancy.  Basically, us Christians are unscientific hickeys, and we should be regulated in order that "progress" can take place.

The number of times I see this assertion that Christians are unscientific really irritates me.  Science was founded by Christians seeking to learn more about the world they saw God as having created.  All the early Western scientific pioneers were Christian, a point John Lennox makes at various points as he spars with Dawkins.  Wikipedia helps out also.

The point isn't that all Christians are scientists, or have their heads screwed on.  I get embarrassed by what I hear going on in parts of America.  But there is no contradiction between being a scientist and being a Christian: As Christians we want to find out more about the world God created.

In response to some of the comments I make, Stan claims that atheism is different to the Christian faith in a God, because my faith in God is based on no evidence, that's his definition of faith, whereas he makes the logical conclusion from his perceived lack of evidence for God that there is no God.

But the issue I have here is the definition of faith.  Faith isn't believe in the absence of evidence, it's belief in something because of evidence.  Just as I have no faith in politicians because of how they behave (i.e. based on evidence), I have faith in God because of the evidence.

The atheist position is one of faith, just as the Christian position is.  No matter how complicated the atheist response to this may be, the basic fact cannot be escaped: They came to a different conclusion than the Christian did based on the evidence before them.

The other one that annoyed me, I'll blog about later if I get a moment...