Baptism Follies

While I'm the topic of baptism, I thought I'd follow up with a quick personal story. If the idea of an actual baptism ceremony being essential to salvation seems a little uptight to you, then you should know that for some Christians even the specific wording of the ceremony is crucial (kind of like a magic spell). My brother-in-law firmly believes that my mother-in-law, a life long evangelical christian, will burn in Hell merely because she was baptized "In the name of The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" rather than "In the Name of Jesus".

Now of course there happen to be two verses in the bible which command baptism as a prerequisite to salvation. And of course one of them happens to use the Father-Son-Holy Ghost declaration while the other specifies the Name-of-Jesus. Rather than that be proof that a) it doesn't matter, or that b) there is a clear cut biblical discrepancy; the two sides have fought long and hard over the issue - even to the point of condemning to eternal damnation those who choose the wrong magic words to say.

Baptism for the Dead

It has long been known that Mormons periodically indulge in that freaky sounding practice known as "Baptizing for the Dead". However, far from being a voodoo-esque ritual involving rotting corpses and the exhuming of graves, I think they merely baptize volunteers standing in for the deceased. Now the Catholic Church is weighing in on the issue. According to John Pieret, the Vatican is refusing to hand over baptismal and death registries, which are commonly used for genealogical research, for fear that the LDS Church will use the information to re-baptise good dead Catholics. This is a far cry from the slaughter than ensued during the 16th century when the Anabaptists tried to do the same thing to the same people, albeit while they were still living. I'd say the Catholics are slipping a little.

Of course baptising dead people is a completely loony activity, but it is not without biblical support. There is one puzzling and unexplained mention of the practice in I Corinthians 15:29; "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them"? It is such an offhand reference with no explanation or supporting documentation for the practice that theologians and biblical scholars have wondered about the issue ever since. I think the only way to understand such a weird practice is to see it in the light of a brand spanking new religion. Hence the Mormon example is crucial to understanding what factors and motivations were likely present in the early church.

Joseph Smith actually invented the current practice in answer to a personal dilemma he was faced with. His father had been very supportive of his new religious direction, but he had tragically died before Joseph had fully evolved his thinking and doctrines. One of the major doctrines of his newfound LDS church was that a person could not obtain salvation unless they had been properly baptized, the Mormon way. Yet, if that were true, the prophet's own father would burn forever in hellfire, even though he likely would have accepted if he had lived just a few years longer. Rather than admit that his whole premise was ridiculous and unjust, Smith scoured the bible looking for some hint of a way that this problem could be resolved. It was at that time when the Mormon leader stumbled onto the verse about baptizing for the dead and realized he had found an escape clause. He immediately instituted the practice and saved his father from eternal damnation. I think it is pretty obvious that the exact sentiments were swirling around the early church and leaders would have had to find a way to placate new believers concerned about previously deceased relatives who had not had the opportunity to accept the gospel.

Of course after the church had been the dominant religious force for a couple of generations these concerns largely faded and the catholics eventually replaced the baptism of the dead with the practice of baptizing newborn infants ASAP (just to make sure). Yet both systems still manage to make a mockery of the original idea of baptism being a personal choice to dedicate oneself to god, to immerse oneself symbolically in death and rise from the water as a new, born again creature - which was kind of the point of the thing in the first place.

Third Chimp: The Evolution of Human Sexuality

I'm still really enjoying reading the Third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond although I didn't realize when I bought it that it was written way back in 1992. It wasn't until I noticed that some of his information about human evolution was a bit out of date before I caught on and looked back to check the copyright. I'm currently reading the chapters on The Evolution of Human Sexuality and the Science of Adultery which is a really fascinating read. I have to say that even though I was already aware of most of the basic facts and have thought about these issues myself over the past few years, it is really expanding the way I think about the world.

It is interesting that so many of our "moral values" revolve around sex and sexuality when really it is becoming quite clear that we are just another animal that evolved certain sexual strategies to maximize the successful replication of our genetic material. Our sexual choices, therefore, are at their basic level guided more by the specific needs imposed by long-term child rearing among our species than they are by logical considerations of what is right and proper.

This is where god really fails as an explanatory device. People have long believed that sexual mores were placed upon us by god at the time of creation and that the big guy gets really cranky if anyone veers from his intended will. Yet when we look around at nature we see all kinds of sexual perversion going on all around us. It doesn't make sense to think that the same god who wrote the Old Testament also created all these kinky animals doing it in such weird and wonderful ways. When we also look back at other cultures down through history we can see the way that human sexual strategies have varied somewhat over time and from one place to another.

I'll just close with a choice quote on the topic of how human females have disguised ovulation (a very rare trait in the animal kingdom): "Whatever the main biological function of human copulation, it isn't conception, which is just an occasional by-product. In these days of growing human overpopulation, one of the most ironic tragedies is the Catholic Church's claim that human copulation has conception as its natural purpose, and that the rhythm method is the only proper means of birth control. The rhythm method would be terrific for gorillas and most other mammal species, but not for us. In no species besides humans is the process of copulation so unrelated to conception, or the rhythm method so unsuited for contraception".

Is God Good?

These days most theists seem to view god as good and loving and beneficent, ceaselessly putting himself out for the benefit of mankind. I was reminded of this in a post over at Atheist Revolution where VJack is attempting to make the point that "religious belief is part of the human condition". It wasn't directly spelled out that way in the post, but it just struck me as I was reading that the idea of god being compassionate and merciful has become so ubiquitous in modern society that we scarcely remember that the ancients didn't always view him with the same tenderness.

To put it bluntly most of the gods of past were complete assholes. They lived their own lives up on Mount Olympus or in the feasting halls of Asgard and didn't really spend a lot of time worrying about the welfare of us mortals. In fact, the occasional human who did get singled out for divine attention usually ended up suffering horribly as a consequence. Let's face it; there is a reason the Old Testament emphasizes the need to fear god.

I think Bernard Cromwell says it best in his Aurthurian triolgy, The Warlord Chronicles, "To the gods we are like mice in the thatch. The less they notice us the better". Modern theologians anxiously wrestle with the problem of how evil can exist side by side with a benevolent and omnipotent god. That wasn't really much of an issue in the brutal world of the bronze age when the gods regularly entertained themselves with our misery. That's why nobody blinked an eye when they first invented the doctrine of eternal hellfire. What else could one expect from a god?

The idea of god really caring about our welfare only recently emerged with our growing awareness of social justice and says more about evolving human moral values rather than anything about the divine.

I'm a Sourdough... Again

Up here in the Yukon there is a long tradition of the Sourdough going back to the Klondike gold rush of 1896. The area was literally overrun with hundreds of thousands of fortune seekers parading into the uncharted wilds over a few short years. However, the harsh cold and brutal conditions assured that few stuck around for long.

A Sourdough (named after the type of bread starter that many of the miners used) was anyone who survived an entire winter in this lonely place. You had to be here when the rivers and lakes froze over and you were awarded the honoured title only if you were still here to watch the river break up in the spring. Up until that point one was considered a Cheechako (a tenderfoot). Well yesterday the ice finally broke on the river, officially making me a five-time sourdough.

Creation Myths - Hindu

This story begins, like so many other creation myths, with castaways floating on an endless ocean with no beginning nor end in sight. In the Hindu version it is a giant cobra somehow drifting with the tide while the immortal Vishnu sleeps soundly within its coils. It is night and all is quiet and at peace. It is only at dawn when things begin to get a little weird(er).

At the first crack of daylight Vishnu awakens and immediately proceeds to sprout a giant lotus flower from out of his bellybutton (at least he didn't pull it out his ass). But that's not the really weird part... the blossom happens to have none other than Brahma himself sitting on it. Since Vishnu is too lazy to create the world himself, he makes poor Brahma do all the work; making the land, sky and the cosmos out of the three parts of the lotus, then planting all the grass and trees and forming all the beasts and bugs and fish and birds.

Many modern Hindus take this story metaphorically, as a way of understanding the formation of the cosmos. "Vishnu is the personification of the eternal multiverse that exists forever without any beginning or end. Brahma is the personification of our temporary physical universe that was created in the big bang".

Soap Operas Banned in Afghanistan

Well, it's official. The Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan and not only are we not fighting against them, we are actively propping up their corrupt regime.

The Minister of Information and Culture has proposed a decree that would ban Indian Soap Operas from appearing on Afghani TV sets. The racy shows feature such evils as bare midriffs, mixed groups of males and females talking to each other, dancing, singing and acts of Hindu worship - all very unmuslimy activities. In the ensuing debate it has come out that Afghan law "forbids the publication of anything contrary to the principles of Islam". Remember that this is the constitution whose creation we oversaw and the government that we installed and which we are currently keeping in power through force of arms. The only entertaining part of this is watching the vile Hamid Karzai trying to play both sides of the fence and failing miserably. First he claimed that "media freedom will be upheld", then he turned around and stated that "unsuitable material should not be broadcast". Which one is it Mr. Karzai?

And apparently this was only the first volley in a culture war that threatens the basic rights and freedoms of the Afghani people. According to the article the Afghan government is calling for a "prohibition against loud music, women and men mingling in public, billiards, video games, playing with pigeons – all measures similar to regulations imposed by the fundamentalist Taliban". Playing with pigeons? WTF?

I honestly don't know what we're still doing there anymore.