Monday, March 2, 2009

Paul Harvey (R.I.P.), Religion and Sex

Yes, I am willing to take on both religion and sex in this blog. How else can I make sure to offend absolutely everyone, thereby making sure that no one reads this blog?

First, let me make clear that this was a sad weekend, in that Paul Harvey died. He was a giant in radio news, and a better "journalist" than the entire mainstream media. Or maybe it is his wife who was the better "journalist", since she supposedly wrote most of his broadcasts (something you have to take with a few grains of salt, although that is surely more true than not true).

That said, it is time to offend everyone. Don't read further if you don't want to see my discussion of Paul Harvey, religion and sex.

I am talking about Paul Harvey's "Letter from God". That is the "open letter" that Paul Harvey used as a conceit in one of his broadcasts. In that supposed open letter from God, God says he is "ticked off" with us. Is this because we have ignored his instructions on sex, abortion, homosexuality and the like? Not really (although I don't remember the full thing, and only heard an excerpt this morning, which means that stuff may have been in it). God is "ticked off" because each religion believes it has exclusive insight into the "Word of God", while the other religions are committing heresy--infidels. Harvey went on to say that the Bible, Koran, etc. were written by MEN, and not God, and therefore cannot be viewed as the Word of God. God, according to Paul Harvey, is only what you feel--the message and "faith" you receive--when you are "touched" by God directly.

Is that a reasonable position? Certainly it is. As with Nancy Pelosi's position that she has a mind, and therefore can decide whether to go with a particular "position" of God or not (to discuss it with Him when the time comes), ths comes close to my position on religion. I am an agnostic on whether God exists, but I don't believe in religion (without knowing whether any particular religion may be right or wrong).

You can't believe in a religion (like "global warming"--a bad religion) without believing that religion tells you the Truth directly from the horse's mouth (so to speak). What other reason is there (aside from practical reasons, as with "Total Failure" Pelosi) to say you "believe" in a religion at all?

If the Bible is not really the Word of God, but merely the words of men, how can you rely on any of it? How do we KNOW that there is only One God, if we do not have the Word of God telling us so? You can see why I say that Paul Harvey, and so many other people out there, do not relly believe in religion, even though they say they do. I am 100% certain that Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi is not really Catholic (she told you so--see archive entry quoting her), and 99% sure she does not really believe in God at all. If you can't believe the Bible, or the Koran, that each sets forth the only path to salvation, and that other paths are the path to Hell, what basis is there for believing any of it? Oh, there are "religions", of a sort, which adopt Paul Harvey's posiiton that there is a Creator, maybe even One whose spirit permeates the universe, but not one who insists that you live your life a certain way, or that you blieve in Him and worship a certain way. That is a rational position. It is just on the position of the three great religions, purporting to believe in One God, in the world today: the Jewish religion, the Christian religion, and the Muslim religion.

Note that I am not saying you have to take every word in the Bible as the literal Trugh (Adam and Eve and all of that) to be a Christian. That is ridiculous. But once you say that even the PRINCIPLES set forth are merely the words of men, and not the Word of God, upon which your opinion is just as good as theirs, then you no longer can be said to believe in the religion. That is Nancy Pelosi. From the evidence of that "open letter from God", it is the position of Paul Harvey. From the evidence, it is the position of a majority of people--most of whom do not act like the supposed beliefs of their religioin (like on sex) are the Word of God.

That is why I respect fundamentalists, evangelical Christians more than I respect most "mainstream" Protestant religions. They make me a little uncomfortable, since they clearly say I am going to Hell. But they are not really hypocrites (like the mainstream media, where one of the certainties in my life is that the people of CNN, MSNBC, the despicable Associated Press, and the rest will join me in Hell, if Hell exists--Hell being a very attractive concept to me).

No, it is NOT being a "hypocrite" to fail to live up to your religion. The Christian religion, for example says that we are all sinners. The idea that the sexual "sins" of an fundamentalist preacher invalidates the religion, or even proves the insincerity of his or her beliefs, is absurd. It merely proves the person was weak. Now the person MAY be a "hypocrite", but not because of his conduct. A hypocrite is Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi, who professes to be Catholic, and even goes to mass, when she is not. I regard most "liberal" Protestant religions, and almost all leftists who claim to be Christian, as hypocrites, because they don't really believe the Word of God is the basis upon which they should live their life. They reserve the right to "pick and choose" which edicts of God in which they believe.

Why is "sex" in the title. Do I believe God is obsessed with sex, so that it is the most important of His concerns? Nope. Sex is certainly important in human affairs, from history, despite the present leftist positioin that it is pretty much a meaningless recreational activity. Further, the objective evidence is that non-marital sex is hazardoud to your health (and probably the health of society in general).

But non-marital sex is not the ultimate "sin". However, it is one of the defining tests (at least in the modern world) of whether you really believe in a religion. Can we agree that the Word of God does not change? If you don't agree with that, you are already proving you do not believe in religion. Why is non-marital sex so much more accepted in "modern" religion--such that Sixty Minutes thought it acceptable (I tell you, I will meet these people in Hell) to ask Mitt Romeny and wife whether they had obeyed the "strict" Mormon views on premarital sex--the implication being that most modern religions are not so "strict" in their views on sex.

If you regard the Bible's views on sex as merely one of God's idiosyncrasies, that you can't take seriously in the modern world, then you do not really beliefve in your religion. If the Bible's views on sex are wrong, as interpreted by the entire Christian, Jewish, and Muslim religions through the centuries, then what basis is there upon which to say that the rest of the Bible is correct? There is no basis at all. Once you say you can "pick and choose" what to believe, you have left religioin behind. God's views on sex (accepted as God's veiws through all of those centuries) are my views on sex. However, the views of these hypocrites on religion are my views on religion. I do believe that I have a mind (as Pelosi said), and that I have to decide for myself what is right and wrong. I am willing to consider God's input, and--as stated--adopt His views as my own in a number of areas. But I don't believe in faith, and the idea that a religion can tell me how to live my life. As stated, neither--in my view--do most people. Sex is merely the area where this hypocrisy is most evident.

Abortion is not about sex. It is about life and death--about infanticide. However, it is another area where hypocrisy abounds. Let me put it bluntly: You cannot believe in the Catholic religion and believe in abortion on demand. The Pope says so. More to the point, I say so (my accuracy rating being considerably higher than that of the Pope). Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi admitted as much (see that prior entry quoting her). Yet, you don't here the mainstream media asking Catholics, on Sixty Minutes, how they reconcile their leftist position on abortion with the teachings of the Catholic Church (although you will see the hypocrites--again, I will meet these people in Hell--on Sixty Minutes asking Mitt Romney and his wife if they have complied with the "strict" premarital sex views of the Mormon Church). For that matter, do you hear Catholic politicians asked whether they have HAD an abortion, or whether they have, or would, encourage their daughters to have an abortion?

Don't despair (the one or you who may still be with me). I am about through. (No applause, please!).

What about the idea that it is no use expecting modern young people to obey the Word of God on sex. We have to recognize that is too much to expect of them. Uh-huh. Think of the commentary THAT position is on the hypocrisy of modern religion. As early as when I started high school (1960), 70% of all unmarried girls graduated high school as virgins. In the movies and on TV, you were not even "allowed" to show, with approval, unmarried SENIOR CITIZENS cohabiting without benefit of clergy. The idea that we "can't" obey the Word of God on sex, because it ignores reality, is absurd. It is factually absurd. And this insult to God alone shows that most people today do not really believe in religioin--including most "modern" Protetant denominations and most practicing Catholics. Are these people really saying that we should not "expect" young people to obey the Word of God because it is too "hard"? Give me a break. Hypocrites all.

Yes, I am saying that religions which "change with the times" are hypocritical. By definition, the Word of God cannot change. Oh, as with the Mormon Church, you might have the occasional "revelation" (on blacks in the priesthood, for example), recognizing some doctrine as erroneous. But if you start backsliding on principle, as so many religions have on sex, for no other reason than that the "old" views of God are now antiquated, you are exposing yourself as a hypocrite who no more really believes in religion, or the Word of God, than I do.

Have I failed to offend anyone? I will try to do better next time!!!!!

"Tolerance" and "intolerance" are interesting concepts, as applied to religioin. The whole point of most religioins is that they represent the exclusive path to salvation. The "official" position of both the Christian and Muslim religions is that members of the other religion are going to Hell. How can you get any more intolerant than that!!!! In fact, the "official" position of most Christian denominations is that members of other Chritian denominations are going to Hell for not following th right path, or at least are in danger of doing so Yes, this "intolerance" was emphasized more in the past, and most "modern" religions are reluctant to talk about what happens to people who do not believe as they do. However, that is a false view of "tolerance". Real tolerance is letting God "punish" those who do not believe correctly, and not taking it upoin yourself to "punish" the infidels. That is why Islam, AS PRACTICED IN THE WORLD TODAY, is an intolerant religion Too many Muslims are unwilling to leave the "punishment" of unbelievers to God, and to leave it to the individual to decide upon his or her own religion. It is not really intolerant to try to guide people away from the path to Hell, even if you tell them they are going to Hell if they fail to choose lthe right path. It is intolerant to try to force people down what you regard as the right path. Christian religions have been intolerant in the past. Today, none--even the fundamentalist ones--are really intolerant. That cannot be generally said of the Muslim religion.

No comments: