Theological Reflection on Gay Marriage Ruling in California
Emerson Wainwright
Theological Reflection on Gay Marriage Ruling in California
by Rev. Durrell Watkins
"[On the Sabbath] Jesus said to the man with a withered hand, 'Come
here, stretch out your hand.' And he stretched forth his hand and it
was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately took counsel with
the Herodians against Jesus." (Mark 3.3-6).
The religious rule was unambiguous, no work on the Sabbath, and that
included healing. But Jesus wasn't one to be tyrannized by traditions,
or rules that were oppressively applied. And so when Religion tried to
keep people out, Jesus redefined Religion to be more inclusive, life-
giving, and affirming.
Whenever prejudice would try to cloak itself in Religion, Jesus would
challenge it and dare to allow Religion to become liberating rather
than legalistic. Deuteronomy 20.17 calls for the destruction of
Canaanites (among other enemies of the Israelites). So, it's no
surprise in Matthew 15 that Jesus is initially dismissive of a
Canaanite woman who comes to him for help. What is surprising is that
he listens to her and changes his attitude toward her. Instead of
using scripture as a defense of his prejudice, Jesus chose to see his
"enemy" as a child of God and he responded with compassion rather than
with religiously sanctioned hatred. The scene ends with Jesus praising
the woman's faith and offering the help she sought.
In the gospels, we see Jesus embracing women, children, Samaritans,
Canaanites, people who were mentally and physically ill (at a time
when illness was thought to be caused by demons), even a Roman
centurion (when Rome was the empire that occupied his homeland and
would execute him). Jesus consistently pushed past the temptation of
demonizing difference. Even when his own scriptures seemed to allow
for hatred of the "Other," Jesus chose to think in new ways.
Yesterday, we received some very good news about California upholding
the dignity and equality of its gay and lesbian citizens who wish to
marry. In the weeks and months ahead, we will hear religious voices
condemning this liberating act, and we will hear them quoting
scripture, church law, and tradition to justify their fear and
revulsion of same-gender love and attraction. What we will want to
remember through it all is that Religion can be wrong; and when
Religion uses God's name in vain in order to exclude, marginalize,
control, or demonize a group of people, we can be certain that it is
wrong.
There are religious voices conspiring against "liberty and justice for
ALL," but like Jesus, we can remain faithful to the values of
empowerment and healing. I am very grateful for yesterday's news. I'm
grateful for places like Vermont and Massachusetts and California that
have led the way in the pursuit of fairness and equality. And I call
on all progressives, those who embrace religion and those who do not,
to continue working for equal opportunity for all people. Heterosexism
has worn the mask of religion long enough. Let's be like Jesus. When
Religion tries to demonize difference, let's insist on thinking in new
and empowering ways.
/End/
Durrell Watkins is the Senior Pastor of Sunshine Cathedral in Fort
Lauderdale, FL
Smiler
"Emerson Wainwright" <emersonw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:07b63aef-8c4d-4d43...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
>
> Theological Reflection on Gay Marriage Ruling in California
>
> by Rev. Durrell Watkins
>
>
>
> "[On the Sabbath] Jesus said to the man with a withered hand, 'Come
> here, stretch out your hand.' And he stretched forth his hand and it
> was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately took counsel with
> the Herodians against Jesus." (Mark 3.3-6).
>
What makes you think (I use that term loosely) that atheists would be
interested in your biblical bullshit, moron?
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
(That's alt.atheism, not the other aa)
Emerson Wainwright
> "Emerson Wainwright" <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:07b63aef-8c4d-4d43...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> > Theological Reflection on Gay Marriage Ruling in California
>
> > by Rev. Durrell Watkins
>
> > "[On the Sabbath] Jesus said to the man with a withered hand, 'Come
> > here, stretch out your hand.' And he stretched forth his hand and it
> > was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately took counsel with
> > the Herodians against Jesus." (Mark 3.3-6).
>
> What makes you think (I use that term loosely) that atheists would be
> interested in your biblical bullshit, moron?
What makes YOU (moron, and I use that term loosely) think that
atheists (and they're not the only ones posting to alt.atheism, ya
know) wouldn't find this interesting?
You may post your reply in this space:
:
Time is up.
Emerson Wainwright
>
> news:07b63aef-8c4d-4d43...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> > Theological Reflection on Gay Marriage Ruling in California
>
> > by Rev. Durrell Watkins
>
> > "[On the Sabbath] Jesus said to the man with a withered hand, 'Come
> > here, stretch out your hand.' And he stretched forth his hand and it
> > was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately took counsel with
> > the Herodians against Jesus." (Mark 3.3-6).
>
> What makes you think (I use that term loosely) that atheists would be
> interested in your biblical bullshit, moron?
>
> Smiler,
Let it be shown that this personage know as Smiler reads only so far
as he thinks he needs to.... decides to comment on it... and then
sadly reveals himself to be the fool who reads only what he wants
(stating those things as fact) while refusing (read: is incapable of
reading) anything that might put a wrench in what he has already
decided to believe).
Opposite of logic. And he's shameless about it. What a shame, as we
all know that the sun revolves around the earth (which has 4 corners
and sits upon pedestals).
OH!@!! My milk is going bad. Says so on the carton. but....OOPS!!
It's been frozen for a month, which makes the expiration date moot.
Smiler
------------------------------------------------------------
What don't you understand about the word "atheism"?
thomas p.
"Emerson Wainwright" <emersonw...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:07b63aef-8c4d-4d43...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
It is nice to know that he supports a decent and logical measure, but it
would be more reassuring if he based his support on the decency and logic of
it and not on what Jesus may or may not have said. Following his reasoning
still supports other horrors because they can find support in the Bible. It
is not just the faith-based, individual conclusions that people can come to
that can be wrong; the entire idea of using faith as a guide to behavior is
dangerous. That lesson should be glaringly obvious to all by now.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
>
> Theological Reflection on Gay Marriage Ruling in California
"Theological" is an oxymoron.
pba...@worldonline.nl
wrote:
>
> http://www.sunshinecathedral.org/
Although Smiler now has an angry face, I rather enjoyed your article.
I am not sure that Jesus - in 33 AD would have been in favor of same-
sex marriage. But I am happy to see you at least realize that it is a
positive thing if two people want to express their faithfullness to
each other, and denounce "fucking around"/
Not that I want to imply people do not have the right to "fuck around"
as consenting adults. But I do personally approve of people wanting to
stay together and be a family.
Please note that in this Newsgroup we are more interested in modern
morality than about the exploits of early humanists, however much
ahead of their time they might have been.
I value Jesus - regardless of his theism - for his moral opinions,
but I do not value his moral opinions because of him.
Same goes for Emerson Wainwright,
Love,
Peter van Velzen
May 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Emerson Wainwright
> "Emerson Wainwright" <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:316fd26f-d45f-4437...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 10:29 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Emerson Wainwright" <emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:07b63aef-8c4d-4d43...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> > > Theological Reflection on Gay Marriage Ruling in California
>
> > > by Rev. Durrell Watkins
>
> > > "[On the Sabbath] Jesus said to the man with a withered hand, 'Come
> > > here, stretch out your hand.' And he stretched forth his hand and it
> > > was restored. The Pharisees went out and immediately took counsel with
> > > the Herodians against Jesus." (Mark 3.3-6).
>
> > What makes you think (I use that term loosely) that atheists would be
> > interested in your biblical bullshit, moron?
>
> What makes YOU (moron, and I use that term loosely) think that
> atheists (and they're not the only ones posting to alt.atheism, ya
> know) wouldn't find this interesting?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What don't you understand about the word "atheism"?
>
> Smiler,
> The godless one
>
> - Show quoted text -
Atheists should be FASCINATED by legal same-sex marriage, as the
prohibition of same is religion based.
Any further questions?
I didn't think so.
RedDog
Emerson's on our side, Smiler. His post is of general interest.
-
RedDog the Budweiser Troll
Atheist # [(( SQRT{8} + 1 )xSxT/2 ) - ((T^2 )/( 12 - SQRT{128}))]
RedDog
The atheists here, myself included, tend to shoot first and ask
questions later. Smiler didn't know you were one of the good guys
before he responded.
RedDog
wrote:
Ever read "Atheists for Jesus" by Dawkins?
pba...@worldonline.nl
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Now I did
Thanks!
(quoting the whole article)
The argument, like a good recipe, needs to be built up gradually, with
the ingredients mustered in advance. First, the apparently oxymoronic
title. In a society where the majority of theists are at least
nominally Christian, the two words are treated as near synonyms.
Bertrand Russell's famous advocacy of atheism was called Why I am not
a Christian rather than, as it probably should have been, Why I am not
a theist. All Christians are theists, it seems to go without saying.
Of course Jesus was a theist, but that is the least interesting thing
about him. He was a theist because, in his time, everybody was.
Atheism was not an option, even for so radical a thinker as Jesus.
What was interesting and remarkable about Jesus was not the obvious
fact that he believed in the God of his Jewish religion, but that he
rebelled against many aspects of Yahweh's vengeful nastiness. At least
in the teachings that are attributed to him, he publicly advocated
niceness and was one of the first to do so. To those steeped in the
Sharia-like cruelties of Leviticus and Deuteronomy; to those brought
up to fear the vindictive, Ayatollah-like God of Abraham and Isaac, a
charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness must
have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed
him.
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but
whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other
also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat,
let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a
mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him
that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it
hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, and persecute you."
My second ingredient is another paradox, which begins in my own field
of Darwinism. Natural selection is a deeply nasty process. Darwin
himself remarked,
"What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful,
blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature."
It was not just the facts of nature, among which he singled out the
larvae of Ichneumon wasps and their habit of feeding within the bodies
of live caterpillars. The theory of natural selection itself seems
calculated to foster selfishness at the expense of public good,
violence, callous indifference to suffering, short term greed at the
expense of long term foresight. If scientific theories could vote,
evolution would surely vote Republican. My paradox comes from the un-
Darwinian fact, which any of us can observe in our own circle of
acquaintances, that so many individual people are kind, generous,
helpful, compassionate, nice: the sort of people of whom we say,
"She's a real saint." Or, "He's a true Good Samaritan."
We all know people (is it significant that the ones I can think of are
mostly women?) to whom we can sincerely say: "If only everybody were
like you, the world's troubles would melt away." The milk of human
kindness is only a metaphor but, naïve as it sounds, I contemplate
some of my friends and I feel like trying to bottle whatever it is
that makes them so kind, so selfless, so apparently un-Darwinian.
Darwinians can come up with explanations for human niceness:
generalisations of the well-established models of kin selection and
reciprocal altruism, the stocks-in-trade of the 'selfish gene' theory,
which sets out to explain how altruism and cooperation among
individual animals can stem from self-interest at the genetic level.
But the sort of super niceness I am talking about in humans goes too
far. It is a misfiring, even a perversion of the Darwinian take on
niceness. Well, if that's a perversion, it's the kind of perversion we
need to encourage and spread.
Human super niceness is a perversion of Darwinism because, in a wild
population, it would be removed by natural selection. It is also,
although I haven't the space to go into detail about this third
ingredient of my recipe, an apparent perversion of the sort of
rational choice theory by which economists explain human behaviour as
calculated to maximize self-interest.
Let's put it even more bluntly. From a rational choice point of view,
or from a Darwinian point of view, human super niceness is just plain
dumb. And yes, it is the kind of dumb that should be encouraged -
which is the purpose of my article. How can we do it? How shall we
take the minority of super nice humans that we all know, and increase
their number, perhaps until they even become a majority in the
population? Could super niceness be induced to spread like an
epidemic? Could super niceness be packaged in such a form that it
passes down the generations in swelling traditions of longitudinal
propagation?
Well, do we know of any comparable examples, where stupid ideas have
been known to spread like an epidemic? Yes, by God! Religion.
Religious beliefs are irrational. Religious beliefs are dumb and
dumber: super dumb. Religion drives otherwise sensible people into
celibate monasteries, or crashing into New York skyscrapers. Religion
motivates people to whip their own backs, to set fire to themselves or
their daughters, to denounce their own grandmothers as witches, or, in
less extreme cases, simply to stand or kneel, week after week, through
ceremonies of stupefying boredom. If people can be infected with such
self-harming stupidity, infecting them with niceness should be
childsplay.
Religious beliefs most certainly spread in epidemics and, even more
obviously, they pass down the generations to form longitudinal
traditions and promote enclaves of locally peculiar irrationality. We
may not understand why humans behave in the weird ways we label
religious, but it is a manifest fact that they do. The existence of
religion is evidence that humans eagerly adopt irrational beliefs and
spread them, both longitudinally in traditions and horizontally in
epidemics of evangelism. Could this susceptibility, this palpable
vulnerability to infections of irrationality be put to genuinely good
use?
Humans undoubtedly have a strong tendency to learn from and copy
admired role models. Under propitious circumstances, the
epidemiological consequences can be dramatic. The hairstyle of a
footballer, the dress sense of a singer, the speech mannerisms of a
game show host, such trivial idiosyncrasies can spread through a
susceptible age cohort like a virus. The advertising industry is
professionally dedicated to the science - or it may be an art - of
launching memetic epidemics and nurturing their spread. Christianity
itself was spread by the equivalents of such techniques, originally by
St Paul and later by priests and missionaries who systematically set
out to increase the numbers of converts in what turned out to be
exponential growth. Could we achieve exponential amplification of the
numbers of super nice people?
This week I had a public conversation in Edinburgh with Richard
Holloway, former Bishop of that beautiful city. Bishop Holloway has
evidently outgrown the supernaturalism which most Christians still
identify with their religion (he describes himself as post-Christian
and as a 'recovering Christian'). He retains a reverence for the
poetry of religious myth, which is enough to keep him going to church.
And in the course of our Edinburgh discussion he made a suggestion
which went straight to my core. Borrowing a poetic myth from the
worlds of mathematics and cosmology, he described humanity as a
'singularity' in evolution. He meant exactly what I have been talking
about in this essay, although he expressed it differently. The advent
of human super niceness is something unprecedented in four billion
years of evolutionary history. It seems likely that, after the Homo
sapiens singularity, evolution may never be the same again.
Be under no illusions, for Bishop Holloway was not. The singularity is
a product of blind evolution itself, not the creation of any unevolved
intelligence. It resulted from the natural evolution of the human
brain which, under the blind forces of natural selection, expanded to
the point where, all unforeseen, it over-reached itself and started to
behave insanely from the selfish gene's point of view. The most
transparently un-Darwinian misfiring is contraception, which divorces
sexual pleasure from its natural function of gene-propagation. More
subtle over-reachings include intellectual and artistic pursuits which
squander, by the selfish genes' lights, time and energy that should be
devoted to surviving and reproducing. The big brain achieved the
evolutionarily unprecedented feat of genuine foresight: became capable
of calculating long-term consequences beyond short-term selfish gain.
And, at least in some individuals, the brain over-reached itself to
the extent of indulging in that super niceness whose singular
existence is the central paradox of my thesis. Big brains can take the
driving, goal-seeking mechanisms that were originally favoured for
selfish gene reasons, and divert (subvert? pervert?) them away from
their Darwinian goals and into other paths.
I am no memetic engineer, and I have very little idea how to increase
the numbers of the super nice and spread their memes through the meme
pool. The best I can offer is what I hope may be a catchy slogan.
'Atheists for Jesus' would grace a T-shirt. There is no strong reason
to choose Jesus as icon, rather than some other role model from the
ranks of the super nice such as Mahatma Gandhi (not the odiously self-
righteous Mother Teresa, heavens no). I think we owe Jesus the honour
of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the
supernatural nonsense which he inevitably espoused as a man of his
time. And perhaps the oxymoronic impact of 'Atheists for Jesus' might
be just what is needed to kick start the meme of super niceness in a
post-Christian society. If we play our cards right - could we lead
society away from the nether regions of its Darwinian origins into
kinder and more compassionate uplands of post-singularity
enlightenment?
I think a reborn Jesus would wear the T-shirt. It has become a
commonplace that, were he to return today, he would be appalled at
what is being done in his name, by Christians ranging from the
Catholic Church to the fundamentalist Religious Right. Less obviously
but still plausibly, in the light of modern scientific knowledge I
think he would see through supernaturalist obscurantism. But of
course, modesty would compel him to turn his T-shirt around: Jesus for
Atheists.
Smiler
"RedDog" <cap...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:cefee763-5ba7-4b57...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
It would have helped if he had made a comment in his OP instead of just C&P
the article as if it was his opinion.
duke
In Calee-fornia it is.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>Although Smiler now has an angry face, I rather enjoyed your article.
>I am not sure that Jesus - in 33 AD would have been in favor of same-
>sex marriage. But I am happy to see you at least realize that it is a
>positive thing if two people want to express their faithfullness to
>each other, and denounce "fucking around"/
It's a mortal sin. It's their funeral.
RedDog
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:57:03 -0700 (PDT), "pba...@worldonline.nl"
>
> <pba...@worldonline.nl> wrote:
> >Although Smiler now has an angry face, I rather enjoyed your article.
> >I am not sure that Jesus - in 33 AD would have been in favor of same-
> >sex marriage. But I am happy to see you at least realize that it is a
> >positive thing if two people want to express their faithfullness to
> >each other, and denounce "fucking around"/
>
> It's a mortal sin. It's their funeral.
>
Shut the fuck up, puke. Nobody here wants to read your mindless
drivel.
Nosterill
<emersonwainwri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> Theological Reflection on Gay Marriage Ruling in California
>
> by Rev. Durrell Watkins
>
I like this guy's principles. It's a shame that he has to mention the
J word, every other sentence, in order to support his stance but I
suppose he has to: It's his job, after all :-)
whatever
That's great, but the relevance of this to unrelated groups is.... ?
pba...@worldonline.nl
Being faithfull to each other is a mortal sin?
Go to the butcher to order some brain!
No seriously. You cannot possibly as stupid as you make yourself look.
You must be an atheist posing as a silly billy.
Be loyal!