Quick Take on Interstellar

I watched Interstellar last night and I have mixed feelings about it. Basic spoilers implied ahead.

From a science standpoint, Interstellar educates the audience about how relativity works (although inconsistently) in regards to time dilation and how it is related to gravity. On the flip side, the movie also propagates the myth that black holes transport people places rather than kill them. I don’t care if movies educate, but I don’t want them to pass on wrong information as if it is correct. Science fiction is at it’s best when it takes unknowns and fills them with what could be true, not when it takes things we know are wrong and misleads audiences.

The movie also implies that the emotion of love transcends the mind, a theme many religious types and romanticizers would like about the film. Love as a motivator for the characters involved would be enough to keep the story together, using it as an attribute of the universe makes the movie feel more fantasy than sci-fi. They might as well evoke the Force.

The ending feels contrived and there are the typical Nolan plot holes, but it was worth seeing. The cinematography, acting, and music were great.

Gay Marriage Opponents are Bigots

It’s no secret that the religion fueled, hot button issue of the day is gay marriage. Like it's religion-fueled issue of abortion, gay marriage one of those nasty debates where generalized accusations fly based solely on one’s stance. Gay marriage supporters are endorsing immoral behavior. Gay marriage opponents are bigots on the wrong side of history. Both sides not only deny the accusations, but frame them in such a way that they no longer makes sense. I’ll argue that only one side of the issue has internally consistency.

Gay marriage supporters deny the claims by refuting the authoritative worth and/or truth of the bible, which is the only possible reason homosexual behavior can be seen as immoral. This makes me happy on a few levels. Since the America is pretty evenly divided on the morality of homosexuality, that means roughly half the population refute the authoritative worth and/or truth of the bible. Considering how many people belong to Bible-centric religions in the US, this means that most of them aren’t nearly as sold on their faith as survey data shows. They are my favorite kind of Christians--those that are Christian in name only. The most secular gay marriage supports make the accusations against them nonsensical in their warranted rejection of “sin” as a concept.

The opponents of gay marriage originally pushed that homosexuality was a choice, but this argument didn't hold up. First, there was a problem calling the majority of those who are an authority on homosexuality, gays themselves, liars. Second, there was a problem that if homosexuality is a choice, then so should heterosexuality be a choice. The straight opponents refused to accept this. Now, opponents deny claims of bigotry with their “hate the sin, not the sinner” rhetoric. Denying a person rights and branding them immoral for who they fundamentally are is the definition of bigotry, but focusing their intolerance on the one action that separates the gays from the breeders (that is, homosexual sex) is a loophole in the bigotry label--at least in their eyes.

This loophole is many things, but internally consistent isn’t one of them. Since the only way to see gay sex as immoral is by appealing to Abrahamic religious traditions, then we should measure their entire argument by the same standard. The bible repeatedly states that sins of the heart and mind are just as damning as sinful actions. Hell, it’s even in the commandments. Thou shalt not covet is an entirely separate command from thou shalt not steal. When using the bible as their guide, the unavoidable and internal homosexual attraction is just as sinful as the active and external homosexual sex act. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that gay marriage opponents are, in fact, bigots.

Pretty Much How I Feel

by the great George Hrab.

All We Need Is A Little Context

Pose a question of biblical consistency you'll find the apologetic Christian’s chambered response often deals with context. This is a valid response...if it is indeed valid. Taking a thing, anything, out of context to elevate, degrade, or otherwise warp it’s meaning is universally unfair--but please know that just because a dirty, rotten atheist quoted your holy book doesn’t mean it was taken out of context. An explanation as to why context is relevent and how it was misused is always necassary. For clarity, I’ll provide an example.

Let’s take a passage beloved by all Christians, John 3:16.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

If I knew nothing about Christianity, I might read this passage thinking that God’s child saved his supporters from some impending doom. I might even fill in the blanks with a heroic story like that of Zeus sending Hercules to resuce loyal Greeks from the intensions of Hades. Overall, a positive depiction of the biblical God that merits eyeliner advertising on quarterbacks nationwide. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

In context, this passage refers to Jehovah, a god who’s son, Jesus, was born to be sadistically murdered in order to overturn a rule that Jehovah himself created that condemned every man, woman and child to hell because an ancient decenant of humanity was tricked by a snake that (again) Jehovah himself created.

In context, God’s “love” is too little, too late. A more honest passage might read something like this:

For God so needed validation that he sacrifed his one and only son, that whoever worships him shall not be condemned to death.

So, theists, please, if I’m ever out of context, enlighten me. I’ll do the same.