Intelligent Design is not linked with Raelians

I was completely dumbfounded when reading, “Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers” by Rael. The foreword of Rael’s book begins with revealing information “of the greatest magnitude and importance of humanity by linking UFO’s and aliens to the creation of the world. To sum it up, according to Rael, aliens replace God in the Bible. How did Rael come to this conclusion? Well a alien messenger came to Rael with these important messages. To make matters worse, Rael then continues by associating the intelligent design with realianism. One of my favorite parts was when George W. Bush was mentioned because Bush had “declared that ‘intelligent design’ is as likely an explanation as evolution theory” (Rael xx). He continues writing, “Does this mean that President Bush has taken the first step on his way to becoming a Realian? Perhaps, perhaps not” (Rael xx).  Rael is completely stretching the definition and theory of Intelligent Design and morphing it into his Raelian Movement.

I was very curious to how people received this—also with what Rael’s appearance. Therefore, I found this very intriguing video of Rael speaking of how his encounters with the aliens went. The audience that was there could not stop laughing at Rael when he begins to talk about the UFO’s.  According to the raelpress.org, in 2008 there are over 70,000 Raelians in the world. Honestly, the number of people who are following this movement astounds me.

In case anyone wants to watch the video here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5nEuWVU07I

Flawed Law

Professor Mark A. Chancey’s, “Reading, Writing & Religion” begins with eye-opening laws that are in the state of Texas. I have grown up going to public schools in the state of Texas and am currently studying to become an elementary school teacher. That being said, I had never heard of House Bill 1287 that allows schools to offer Old/New testament “elective” courses and mandates districts, that offer kinder-grade 12, to “include in its required curriculum attention to ‘religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature”’ (Chancey V).  While there are some guidelines and instructions, Chancey points out that courts have not done much clarify specific details on how to teach religious material in an objective manner. Being a religion major, one can see that it is possible to teach religion courses objectively—but the question here is should this be allowed and should it be a bill? While “the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities”, mandating its study in a public school is controversial for many. Throughout Chancey’s study, one can notice that very few schools are following the guidelines of House Bill 1287 correctly and ultimately, overstepping their boundaries with religious teaching.

            As a future educator and religion major, I do not believe there should be a bill that requires studying of the Bible in public schools. If parents want their kids to be educated in the Bible, there are countless of ways to do that outside of school (Bible studies, Sunday school). While private school is an expensive alternative and some families may not be able to able to afford, it is another option for religious education. One of the most eye-opening parts of Chancey’s study is on page 55 with the section of matching the quotes with the Founding Fathers. In Chancey’s research, it is shown how flawed and controversial it can be to mix religious studies in public schools.

Obama's Rhetoric

Jeffery S. Siker begins his article by presenting how President Obama has been “perhaps the most complex individual ever elected to the position of President of the United States” (586). So, how did Barack Obama get elected? One could certainly argue that it was Obama’s speeches that led the country to vote for him. Siker mentions a book, Power in Words, that writes about Obama’s rhetorical strategies. There are countless amounts of books that have been written about President Obama’s rhetoric—a book that I have read is called Words Like Loaded Pistols: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama by Sam Leith. In this book, Leith talks about the power of persuasion, which Obama seems to have mastered this. In President Obama, the Bible, and Political Rhetoric we can notice that President Obama used Scripture for the benefit of the people—Siker states three aspects of Obama’s rhetoric: “(1) the felt religious commitment and experience of faith, (2) a faith that emphasizes the ongoing battle for economic and social justice, and (3) a faith that involves critical thinking and conscious choices, namely, a reasoned faith” (593). Obama used the Bible as a book of wisdom and not just as a formula to manipulate Christians to vote for him—which is very unlike the candidates that are running for presidency today. In the pew below, we can see that in 2012 Obama the less Christian voters than Romney and more from “other faiths”. Overall, one can argue that Obama using the Bible in speeches was not a form of exploitation, like candidates are now using the Bible in their speeches today.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/

Darren Aronofsky's Interpretation of Genesis 6-9

            Genesis begins by expressing the Lord’s regret in creating humankind by saying, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them” (Genesis 6:7). Then the story continues by favoring Noah because “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God” (Genesis 6:8). Trusting in Noah to build a very specific ark, God announces that He will put an end to the violence and he will destroy them along with the earth. After the flood it is said that “all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all the human beings; everything on dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life end” (Genesis 7:21-22). Darren Aronofsky creates a new or “rewritten” version of the flood story in his 2014 film, Noah. Three noteworthy interpretations of Aronofsky in Noah were: the people drowning in the flood and trying to get onto the ark, the perception of Noah’s malicious character during parts of the movie and the aspect of global conservation.

The first aspect—the scene of people drowning and suffering in the flood—was really interesting because the Bible never spoke of this. All Scripture said was that God would blow out every living creature and then said every living creature was dead. Aronofsky adding in the scene of people climbing the highest thing they could see to save their lives so they wouldn’t drown to death was enormously powerful because not many people think about what that would have looked like. Since it is not in the Bible, this could be considered to be an interpretation or reworking of the text.

The second viewpoint is how Noah’s personality is portrayed in the ark. It is understood in the Bible, that God chose Noah because he was neither violent nor evil. But, one can see how Noah becomes cruel on the ark. Noah almost ends up killing Ila and Shem’s daughters. This of course is another interpretation that could simply indicate that Noah was human, was not perfect and did not always know what God’s instructions were for him. Again, this is an interesting interpretation because of the contrast of Noah’s character in the Bible and in the film.

The third concept that was evident from the beginning of the film when Ham picks the flower and Noah instructs him not to take what is the Earth’s. In Genesis 9 it is written that God said to Noah and his sons, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (Genesis 9:3). Thus, Aronofsky’s is using his own version of environmentalism. The article and video I read and watched went more in depth in Aronofsky’s main purpose creating his film, Noah.

Aronofsky’s main objective was not to retell the same flood story that is written in the Bible, but to use authoritative scripture to justify why humans need to conserve the environment. Many critics are not fond of the film, Noah, because Aronofsky does several of his own interpretations of Genesis 6-9 and does not keep to Scripture. Thus, through interviews and quotes, one can see that Aronofsky’s purpose was not to keep to an exact representation of the flood account, but to create a new important message of environmentalism.

Christian Destructive Discipline

Overall, Enticed by Eden, was extremely eye opening on how modern society misinterprets the creation story in the Bible. From sexual images of Adam and Eve to abusing misogynistic images of Adam, authors Linda S. Schearing and Valarie H. Ziegler, reveal the ridiculous and frightening understandings of the creation story in Genesis. I was first shocked by the San Antonio organization, Vision Forum, but the most startling aspect that was revealed in this book was the Christian Domestic Discipline “movement”.

According to the Christian Domestic Discipline website, “domestic discipline marriage is one in which one partner is given authority over the other, and has the means to back up that authority, usually by spanking” and is set up “according to Biblical standards”. They defend their argument through passages like Ephesians, Titus, Acts and Proverbs. The verses the website provides nowhere say that the husband can harm the wife—they only assert that the husband must be the head of the household. Here is leading example of how people completely contort the meaning of those verses. Therefore, the CDD provides no justification of why husbands can beat their wife.

    I was roaming around their website and ran into an article called “How to Discipline

Your Wife, When the Unpleasant is Unavoidable”. To understand the severity of the article, here is the passage explaining how to “Rebuke and Lash” your wife: “This is the harshest discipline a husband should administer, and it should always be done privately and with Godly, Biblical love. Usually, exhortation will have already taken place before this method is used, but there may come situations where this is the first step. The rebuke and lashing should be administered with a calm heart. Talk to your wife, let her know you are serious, and tell her why she is to be disciplined physically. When administering physical discipline, take caution not to deliver the lashes anywhere but the buttocks. The first attempt at this punishment should only be delivered by hand so you can get an idea of how many lashings are needed. The best position will be for you to sit at the end of a bed or on a chair (with no arms) and have her lay across your lap. She can also bend over a bed with arms tucked under her chest and your left hand on the small of her back. If a strap (belt) is to be implemented watch that each stoke falls directly on the buttocks and not higher. EDITOR'S NOTE: When using the hand, or a small, short implement, such as a switch or small "hairbrush"-type paddle, over-the-knee positioning can work quite well. A fearful wife may begin crying or pleading and find it difficult to remain still. Reassure her. of your intent and love (yes this will hurt, that is why it is a punishment) then instruct her to be still. Remind her that she is not in control of this discipline. You should continue the lashing through her tears and pleas for you to stop, until you are certain the message was received. This will insure her remorse and therefore stop the undesirable behavior. A sound lashing is five to ten strokes with your hand, or three to five strokes with a strap; some wives need more. To avoid brusing do not strike the same area in repetition. Gauge your decision to proceed based on your wife's readiness to repent.” (You will notice that the author of this article spelt bruising incorrectly). According to the West Virginia Code of State, “physical abuse is the use of physical force, body posture or gesture or body movement that inflicts or threatens to inflict pain on a client. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to: unnecessary use of physical restraint; use of unnecessary force in holding or restraining a client; improper use of physical or mechanical restraints; use of seclusion without proper orders or cause; slapping, kicking, hitting, pushing, shoving, choking, hair pulling, biting, etc.; inappropriate horseplay; raising a hand or shaking a fist at a client, crowding or moving into a client's personal space; intentional inflicting of pain; punitive measures of any kind, including the use of corporal punishment, withholding meals for punitive reasons, inappropriate removal from treatment programs, restricting communication, or withdrawal of rights or privileges; or physical sexual abuse, i.e., any physical or provocative advance such as caressing or fondling, sexual intercourse, etc.” W. Va. CSR § 64-59-3. 

Therefore, what the men of CDD are doing is considered physical abuse and is not permitted by the law. Most importantly, there is no evidence that the Bible supports physical harm of women. Marriage is sacred in the Bible and states in Colossians 3:19, “Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them”. The CDD is a extreme example of how people misinterpret and distort the Creation story. Although the other examples are not as physically detrimental, it is evident in the book Enticed by Eden that the misinterpretation of authoritative Biblical stories can be harmful to modern society.

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/how_to_discipline.html

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/physical-abuse/

Decline of the King James Version

Alter Robert’s chapter about the regression of the King James Bible was very intriguing because of his comparison to dialect and syntax that is being lost in the vernacular of modernity. When reading the King James Version, one can notice that the language is different than the dialect we use today. For example, 2 Corinthians 1:3-4 in the King James Version says, “3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; 4 Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God”. In comparison, the New Revised Standard Version says, “3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God”. The King James Version may be confusing to many people by using words similar to comforteth and tribulation instead of comforts and troubles. Therefore, it is apparent why people would prefer the version that has a clearer dialect than the King James Version, which has an aged language.

            One could argue that because people prefer to read modern or common language, the King James Version is not as popular. As a result, one can understand that the Bible needs to keep up with modernity in order for the Bible to still live on. The King James Version is a more direct translation from Hebrew and Greek, but the modern reader probably prefers clearer translations similar to the New Revised Standard Version.