Thursdays with Seth #12: FRIDAY EDITION!

The World is a Vagina (and Pat Robertson will cleanse it)
If there are two things I've learned from watching television, they would be that Padma Lakshmi is super hot and that televangelists are douchebags. These multi-million dollar windbags (the televangelists, not Padma) are the least Christ-like of anyone I've ever seen (including satan worshippers). Whenever tragedy strikes thousands of people, as occurred during the 2004 tsunami or the September 11 attacks, these douchebags are always the first to leap at the opportunity to blame someone not responsible. Whether it's abortion providers, homosexuals, or just plain people they don't like, you're sure to hear some dickish comment targeted toward a specific group from a televangelist regarding any world tragedy.

The latest? According to Pat Robertson, Haiti essentially got what was coming to it because the nation signed a pact with satan in 1791 to win their independence from France. Granted, they didn't win their independence from France until 1803 (twelve years later) but apparently Satan works in mysterious ways (and slowly). Now, 207 years later, those Satan-worshipping Haitians are finally getting their punishment!

So yes, according to Pat Robertson, a nation of people who weren't alive in 1791 has made a promise to Pat Robertson's imaginary friend's imaginary enemy, and therefore deserves to have death and destruction rained down upon them. Way to go, Pat! Judge those sinners!

It seems that this fellow seems to think that the world is just one big vagina, and the only way to cleanse it is with a giant douchebag. Well, I guess we can all be thankful that Pat Robertson has filled that role. Pat Robertson: Douching the world's vagina, one sinner at at time.

JESUS REALLY
Every time I hear someone say that Christ died for my sins, I chuckle. Why? Mostly because I was thinking of a joke that I heard one time. But also, the idea of Christ dying for my sins is simply a laughable argument for several reasons.

1. I was not alive when Christ died. I had never committed any sins when he was alive.
2. I didn't ask for him to die for my sins, so I refuse his "gift."
3. He was only technically dead for three days. Now he spends an eternal life in heaven. Yeah, some sacrifice, Jesus. Way to take one for the team!
4. I don't believe that incest is condoned in the Bible, yet God was his own father, meaning Jesus had sex with his mother. Now, if Jesus says that I should judge not lest I be judged, maybe he should shut the hell up and take a piece of his own advice!
5. The word "sin" in the Bible is, in many cases, interchangeable with the phrase "human nature." For instance, wanting something (greed/coveting/lusting) would be considered a sin. If that's the case, then I started sinning the day I was born and wanted food. Anyone who puts money into a savings account is sinning, or even anyone who works for money and buys anything beyond food and shelter. So I refuse to accept this bullshit definition of "sin." If, as crazy people claim, God created me in his own image, and I happen to be born as a sinner, then that means that God is just as guilty as I am. So he won't let me into heaven because he created me to be exactly like him? What a dick.

Marriage: Sign on the Dotted Line
Personally, I don't like the idea of marriage. It's not that I have commitment or trust problems; in fact, it's quite the opposite. Let's consider two scenarios:

Couple A is dating for five years. They finally decide to "tie the knot" (not a fallopian tube reference) and move on to "the next step." They decide that, in order to ensure that the other person will fulfill their promise to stay in the relationship until death, both parties must sign on the dotted line and enter a legal (and/or spiritual) contract. From this point forward, if one person decides to leave the relationship, it will require a mountain of legal work, attorney's fees, and court time. But that's okay, because they'll never leave each other! They promised, right?

Couple B is dating for five years. They don't really talk much about marriage, but they continue to stay together anyway. They take their relationship to "the next step" and make a promise to stay with each other until they die, and they then continue to stay together. One of them could leave the relationship at any time with no real legal consequences or hassle, but they both trust that the other won't do so. And that's okay, because they'll keep that promise, right?

What it comes down to is a question of trust. Which couple is actually more trusting: the one that requires a legal obligation to stay in the relationship, or the couple that takes each other on their word? Plus, if a couple wants to get divorced, the legal proceedings will be extremely time-consuming and can be very costly. So many married couples will stay together not because they want to, but because it's too inconvenient to do otherwise at the time. If each person could exit the relationship at any time without hassle but chooses not to, doesn't that represent a more trusting relationship?

Even though I will probably end up getting married (I may be a hypocrite, but it does bring tax advantages), I think the institution is a load of crap. The underlying idea behind marriage comes from a time when women were objects to be traded. A marriage was a way to transfer ownership of the woman from her family to the new husband's family (and often a dowry was used as payment). Maybe it's time we moved past that.

Critical Thinking: FOR ADVANCED USERS ONLY

I'm taking a CAPSTONE course, which is a course that seniors at UNI must take before they can graduate. There are a number of Capstone courses a student can choose from, and I chose "Analysis of Social Issues." The first book we are reading is essentially a guide on critical thinking, entitled Asking the Right Questions. This book lays out the groundwork on how to understand an argument, how to self-analyze, how to engage in intellectual honesty, and basically how to actually think about stuff instead of being a sponge.

This is extremely frustrating for me for a few reasons. First, as an atheist, I already employ these techniques, and therefore the book is somewhat boring for me. I approach everything with a skeptical yet open mind and am willing to change my beliefs i the face of new evidence. My views aren't a result of taking input and directly turning it into output; I process everything I come across and decide whether or not it is based on sound reasoning.

Second, why the hell is this not required reading for all college students? It is extremely disappointing to me that this book gets shoved off into the corner for only a handful of seniors to read just before they finish their education. Learning critical thinking skills should be one of the first things students do at college! But then again, that may destroy the fabric of society, since we'd have so many atheists running around. Stupid society fabric!