The Saudi Arabian government is evil.

I've revised my essay on "who or what made God?". Updated today: 1/24/2011.

I’ve been out of work for a long time and this entry/ note it just me expressing some frustration. Things could be worse and I appreciate what I have. 

That said, like most people, I want and need money. I want to go back to college and earn a degree, but I can’t afford it. I want money so I can have a more active social life. Aside from those things, I also really like the feeling of contributing to society - of earning my money.

I’ve applied multiple times to multiple companies, to no avail.

Most recently, I applied for a server position at a nursing center. Basically, I would have delivered food to people laying in bed. I was not applying as a nurse and was not applying to hand out medication. I was just applying for the food-serving position.

Before I tell you the outcome, let me tell you about my last job.

My last job was a server at restaurant, where I worked for 14 months. I did more than just serve food to people. I also cleaned up after the customers (“guests”), cleaned up the entire restaurant, and did maintenance work. I didn’t always do those duties at separate times, but frequently juggled between them. I would serve food to several tables, then immediately clean up other tables, then immediately run to “expo” to pick up more food and serve it to another table, then immediately greet guests, then replace 3 or 4 light bulbs, then take out the trash, etc. On some occasions, I would even run across the street to the grocery store and pick up items for our guests!

We sometimes only had two employees working per shift. So I would sometimes do all of the above with only one other person, even when it was very busy. In order to further assist my co-workers, I often worked later than I was scheduled and sometimes worked two separate shifts in a day.

Despite that, I always kept a genuinely-good attitude and never “grinned through my teeth”. I was always collected, never lost my cool or cracked under pressure, and always eased difficult situations and calmed difficult guests.*

(* On one occasion, the guest was furious at one of my managers, who will remain unnamed, and would only talk to me. I talked him into staying)

Unfortunately, the restaurant shut down on October 22 of 2009. Had it not shut down, I’d still be there. I have not had a job since then. Fortunately, my GM wrote me a wonderful letter of recommendation.

I’m trying, but to no avail.

In May of 2010 I was finally able to get an interview for Starbucks and actually got the job. Unfortunately, I quickly discovered that it was not for me and left during my third week of training. I’m starting to wish I had stayed. I should probably briefly explain what happened. The training was terrible (full details available on request – they were basically experimenting with a new system of training), several of my co-workers were bitter and would demean or mistreat customers behind their backs, and I found myself getting frequently overheated to the point where red patches would appear on my forehead and remain for several hours.

So I left and have been trying to find another job.

---- Okay, having said all of that, I can now get to the point. ----

So I recently applied for a server position.

I called a week after I dropped off the application and was told that it was still being processed. 

I received a letter from the company a week later, in which they told me that I’m not “qualified” enough for the position! Yes, I’m serious. They said I wasn’t qualified to deliver food to old people lying in a bed...

If they had contacted ANY of my previous managers or any of my previous co-workers, they would have discovered that I’m dependable, ethical, and a very hard worker.

They didn’t even call me in for an interview, which would have given them the opportunity to learn more about my qualifications. They would have discovered that aside from having actual serving experience, I’m also friendly, calm, well-spoken, well-read, and reasonably ambitious.

I’m just mentioning this incident because I’m amused and irritated by it. It’s less interesting that I never heard back from CVS, Blockbuster, etc.

Romans 1, same-sex intercourse, and men with long hair

This is not a formal essay, but I included footnotes and a brief list of sources because I like being neat.

In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul describes male-male* sexual activity as “para phusis” and “atimia” (Romans 1:26-27). The former is often translated as “against nature” and the latter as “vile” or “shameful” or “disgraceful”. 

(* There’s debate about whether Paul was including female-female sexual activity, or female-male activity that was “likewise” para phusis [1]. Moreover, there’s debate about whether Paul was linking the sexual activity of verses 26-27 to the preceding verses on idolatry, in which case he may have been describing certain cults that used male-male sexual activity to worship their god/goddess [2]. I’ve previously argued that Paul did make a direct connection. But for now, let’s leave those questions aside.) 

However, St. Paul uses the same terminology to describe men with long hair in his letter to the Corinthian church (11:14). He asks his readers,

Does not even phusis itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is atimia to him?

Here the two key words used in Romans 1:26 (“phusis” and “atimia”) are used against men with long hair. If Paul’s language in Romans 1 implies universal moral condemnation, the why shouldn’t we interpret Corinthians 11:14 the same way? If we say that Paul’s condemnation of long hair is culturally-limited, then why can’t we say his condemnation of sane-sex intercourse in Romans is also culturally-limited? 

It’s also not clear what Paul meant by “phusis”. There are several possible interpretations.

If he really meant “nature” then Paul was badly mistaken. Biologists have shown that same-sex sexual activity is common in at least 450 animal species in otherwise non-pathological populations and some of those animals even form lifelong same-sex pairs [3]. And if anything, it’s against nature for men to cut their hair. (Interestingly, Leviticus 19:27 forbids men from cutting hair on the sides of their heads) But maybe Paul was offering his own opinion and was indeed mistaken. 

Maybe the description was culturally-specific. Perhaps “para phusis” meant “unexpected”, or “beyond current cultural customs”, etc. Paul’s additional description of male-male sex as “aschemosyne” supports the idea that the description culturally-specific. This same word is in only one other NT text: Revelation 16:15, which uses the word to describe naked people. But surely there is nothing inherently wrong with being naked. In ancient Israel, Jewish culture forbade people from approaching God’s altar by walking up stairs for fear that the person’s genitalia would be exposed. The Septuagint translation of Exodus 20:26 refers to this custom using the word “aschemosyne” [4]. This would make sense of Paul’s description of long hair on men, unless we say that long hair on men is inherently immoral (or at least accuse Paul of saying that). In my experience, most Christians do not have a problem with men having long hair.

Maybe Paul meant “against individual inclinations” and was describing heterosexual men. This would make sense of his claim that the men “abandoned” women for each other. In general, gay men do not “give up” on women; they’re attracted to other men from an early age and usually don’t experience any attraction to women. Why heterosexual men would do that is another discussion. Perhaps they were only engaging in homoeroticism as a way of worshipping their god(dess), in which case Paul may have been referring to the Galli - priests who had sex with other men to worship their goddess. In addition, female galli sometimes penetrated males with artificial penises. [2] But as I said earlier, I want to leave the idolatry issue aside for now.

Some may cite other texts that condemn same-sex eroticism, but for now let's stick with the relevance of Romans 1. The specific words of “phusis” and “atimia” are not applied to same-sex eroticism in any other Biblical text. I'm suggesting that those specific words in Romans 1 do not imply a universal moral condemnation. If Paul were really making a universal moral condemnation with the words “phusis” and “atimia”, then perhaps it was just his own opinion, otherwise it would be sinful for men to have long hair.  

Some may wish to bring up God’s design and say that same-sex eroticism is against God’s plan for mankind. Maybe SSE is against nature in that sense. But again, and this is the question I want to explore... if we condemn SSE by citing Paul’s language in Romans 1, then why shouldn’t we condemn long hair on men by citing Corinthians 11:14?

Footnotes:

[1] Discussed by Moore (2003), Chapman (2008), and Townsley (2001)

2. Townsley (2001) argues that Paul connected the idolatry of v 23-25 with the sexual acts of v 26-27. He suggests that the best candidate is the galli. See his online essay here (or shorter version here).

3. Bagemihl (2000). Also see Own (2004) and Chapman (2008). There is some dispute about whether any animals have a homosexual orientation. However, the existence of lifelong same-sex pairs (with sexual activity) in animals seems to suggest the existence of a “preference” or an innate predisposition.

4. Discussed by Moore (2003) and Chapman (2008)

Sources (alphabetically listed):

Bagemihl, B (2000). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, published by Stonewall Inn Editions. Bagemihl is a biologist whose book was described by Nature as one that “should become the standard reference work for research on the topics covered”.  

Chapman, P (2008). Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays, published by Haiduk Press. Chapman is an anthropologist trained in cultural, forensic, and biological anthropology.

Moore, G (2003). A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality, published by Continuum. Moore Was a Dominican Priest who gave lectures on theology and philosophy at Oxford. He died shortly before the book was published. Amazon link. 

Owen, J (2004) Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate, National Geographic News. Available online here. A brief National Geographic video clip can also be found online here. At 1:56 the narrator begins to note that some male Orangutans invert their penises to create a cavity for other males to penetrate.

I’ve noticed some T.V. double standards when it comes to religion and books that deal with it. Instead of merely asserting it, let me explain by listing a few examples.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart invited Bart Ehrman on the show. Ehrman is a scholar whose book “Misquoting Jesus” argues for the unreliability of the Christian gospels. His voice does indeed deserve to be heard. Fair enough. But the show has never invited any scholar whose work argues in the opposite direction. Why not? Why don’t the producers invite Greg Boyd or Paul Eddy for example?

The Colbert Report invited outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins because of his book The God Delusion. They gave him a platform to criticize theism. Fair enough. But why hasn’t the show invited scholars whose books argue for theism? Why hasn’t the show invited the philosopher Eric Reitan, or the philosopher Keith Ward, or philosopher William Lane Craig, or philosopher Alvin Plantinga, or philosopher Richard Swinburne, etc.?

There are many other examples like this. Dawkins and Ehrman (among others) have been invited on many other outlets (including News programs) that have failed to include the other side.

This isn’t because atheists and critics of religion have been more active lately. On the contrary, each one of the “new atheist” books has been formally addressed by scholarly “believers” in their own books.

So why the inconsistency and lack of balance?