Apr. 11th, 2010

vovat: (Default)
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter
vovat: (Bast)

I've occasionally been known to listen to religious radio, which can definitely be annoying, but is also an interesting window on another American culture. Just so long as they aren't playing music, because that stuff is boring as anything. Anyway, it still seems to be in common parlance about evangelical Christians that they want to convert everyone to their belief system, but I'm not sure I believe it. After all, they go about it in a profoundly ridiculous way, many of them constantly insulting people who don't share their beliefs. [livejournal.com profile] rockinlibrarian made a comment not too long ago that people have to WANT to be converted. I think that's largely true, but more than that, they have to already be somewhat attuned to that way of thinking. If you're going to come around to thinking that only Jesus saves from sin, you have to already accept that sin could be a real thing. To someone who doesn't believe in sin, you might as well be saying, "Only Jesus saves from invisible nose-eating butterflies." But it seems that many of these evangelicals are mired in the idea that everyone secretly believes in God and Jesus, and those who claim they don't are in futile teenage-style rebellion against the big guy. A common explanation for why seems to be that non-believers are totally in love with sin, which is somewhat ridiculous, as many of the actions considered to be sin wouldn't be enjoyable to anyone with a conscience. I don't need stone tablets written by the finger of a sky dweller to tell me that murder and stealing are bad ideas. That's probably why a lot of these believers focus on sins that aren't universally considered immoral, like premarital sex, extramarital sex, gay sex, protected sex, and pretty much any kind of sex that doesn't result in children who will potentially provide more money to the church. Modern conservative Christians are obsessed with the "family unit," largely defining it with rules devised in a time when women and children were considered property and no one was quite sure how reproduction worked. But it's in the Bible, so it MUST be true, sort of like the bit in Genesis 30 about how goats that conceive when looking at striped rods bear speckled kids. Oddly enough, these same people are quite often opposed to polygamy, which was accepted by the same society that made up a lot of the other sexual rules. So how come you can change your minds on that, but not any of that other stuff? For that matter, Jesus and Paul seemed to regard marriage as the lesser of two evils, so why are Christian churches so eager to promote it?

In addition to sexual sin, another major category emphasized by the radio preachers is what could be considered thought-crime. Apparently thinking about sin is just as bad as actually doing it. In fact, since Protestant denominations that accept the idea of salvation through faith alone hold belief in Jesus to be more important than anything else, aren't they essentially saying thought trumps action? To hear some preachers talk, thinking about something will automatically make you want to do it. I can't pretend I know how their minds work, but I know mine doesn't generally operate that way. In fact, isn't part of the beauty of the human brain that we can think things over before deciding whether or not to do them? Doesn't making certain thoughts off limits hinder this?
vovat: (Default)
Some time ago, [livejournal.com profile] bethje took advantage of some deal where you could get extra value when buying restaurant gift cards, and one of them was for an Italian restaurant called Il Mulino, located in the Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. So we went there yesterday, and I don't think we have to go back. Not that it was bad, just very far from worth what we paid, even WITH the gift card. It was cool that they had sorbet for dessert, but not cool that they charged $8 for one scoop.

Not a particularly great Simpsons episode tonight, but not bad either. The parts with Bart and Lisa with the ants, while few and far between, might have actually been the best. The main plot was pretty amusing as well, although it wasn't resolved all that well. Homer and his friends break Burns out of prison, and no one goes after him? I know the cops in Springfield are lazy and corrupt, but that's going a little too far. I did like the framing story with Burns, especially when he segued into the commercials. (By the way, at least in our market, that bit was immediately followed with a trailer for a Steve Carell movie called Dinner with Schmucks, and Beth and I couldn't figure out whether it was real at first.) One joke I sort of figured out ahead of time (but not exactly) was with the book that the prisoner thought was the Bible, because I thought it looked like Charles Manson before they revealed the punchline.

As for Family Guy, it was all right, although it had the show's typical problem of dwelling too long on gags that weren't that funny to begin with. I have to wonder if it was pure coincidence that they had the pretty long run on Peter being prejudiced against ants on the same night as a Simpsons episode with a subplot involving ants. And I was glad to see American Dad back again, and with a pretty good plot at that. I appreciated how absurd Roger's corruption was.

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425 262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 12th, 2025 10:19 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios