A perspective on what is referred to as "gay marriage".

There once were some people who worked at a marina. They would take a sail and a hull and put them together to make a sailboat and sail around the marina and out onto the sea. Sometimes this worked well and sometimes it worked poorly. Sometimes the people cherished the sailboats and sometimes they were reckless. Sometimes a sailboat might have a tear in the sail or perhaps a warp in the keel of the hull in a way that the people could not repair, and to much sorrow, that sailboat could not sail out onto the sea. But the people continued to combine a sail and a hull to make a sailboat.

Then one day it was decided that two sails make a sailboat and that two hulls make a sailboat. What should we make of this?

How can you tell if you are just an ideologue or if you really are advocating something based on reason?

It is very common for humans to think that the actions they are advocating are based on reason and evidence, ie, because they themselves are “intelligent” and “practical”. It is also common for humans to explain that other people argue for some other set of actions just because those people are ideologues. How can you tell if this is the case or are you fooling yourself? I submit a good question is:

 “What are the downsides of the policy I am advocating?” 

If you cannot name any downsides, you are an ideologue. If you name a skimpy list of downsides that you quickly dismiss, then you are mostly an ideologue. Real policies and actions involve trade-offs, and include risks and downsides to real people.

Evangelicals and Roman Catholics

I have written elsewhere that the Xian question is "How can I be saved?", but is it better to think of that as the Protestant Xian question, or even more as the Evangelical question? The reason I ask this is because someone has submitted that the Roman Catholic question would be "How do we love?".

What are the 7 questions for evaluating character?

1) What do you do when no one else is watching?

2) How do you act when everyone is watching?
 
3) What do you do even when you know you will not get the credit?
 
4) How do you treat people who are wrong?
 
5) How do you act when you are successful? (or rich or influential or…)
 
6) How do you act when you are unsuccessful? (or poor or weak or…)
 
7) How do you deal with your own mortality?

Is it accurate to say that humans are very similar to chimpanzees because our DNA differs from that of chimps by only 1.6%?

Is it accurate to say that 9199999999 and 9.99999999 are very similar because only 10% of the characters are different?

(I will leave it to the reader to type longer stings if you want to get two strings with only a 1.6% difference in the characters.)

Why do evangelical Christians in the U.S. tend to associate with free market libertarians so much?

This has been asked elsewhere, and it seemed like such a good question to me that I wanted to include it here.

While I cannot speak for all evangelical Xians, the reason I like free markets is because I like the “free” part. I do not know if this is more prominent among evangelicals, as opposed to other religious groups, but I like freedom and would rather error on the side of too much freedom than too much coercion.

There are ways this blends well w/ Scripture, for Jesus is Lord – which implies that Pharaoh is not. And it seemed important to G-d to demonstrate that.

(I know, G-d has given certain legitimate functions to government, but normal humans being what they are often go beyond the boundaries G-d intended. I think of Matt 23 where some who had legitimate authority were still chastised…)

I am also moved by how freedom glorifies G-d. The Adversary challenged that Job served G-d for the pay. Without freedom, the Adversary could claim that we only serve G-d because we do not have the opportunity or ability to do otherwise.

Eye for an eye

How do you evaluate a religious law? I propose a good question is:

- What would I do if the law had not been given?

Consider, for example, an eye for an eye. If the law were not given, and I were injured would I just forgive and demand nothing in return in either punishment or compensation? Not likely. Would my demand be proportional to the harm done. Not likely either.

I do not need a law to make me demand at a least proportional response. I need one to limit me to a proportional response. I suspect that humans like to pretend that they (as a group) would be peaceful and just if only religion (or G-d) had not told them to be vengeful. I was *going* to be peaceful and just, G-d, but you made me be violent and vengeful. Sounds like Adam...