Arguing With Inspirational Quotes Written On Little Pictures #2 - Gwyneth Paltrow

Back in October 2012, I declared war.

It didn't make many headlines, if I'm honest. I'm not sure the thing I declared war on actually noticed that I'd declared war on it. And, as wars go, it's not seen a lot of action. Kind of a cold war. Except without the cold.

I declared war on Inspirational Quotes Written On Little Pictures.

Writing Inspirational Quotes on Little Pictures and then disseminating them across the interwebs like some sort of Contagion has seemingly become The New Normal approach to discussion. Where once we listened to debate, now all we hear are the clattering footfalls of a stampede of editors, Running with Scissors outstretched, ready to extract, redact, reduct, and slap on pictures - and beneath that, the softer, almost inaudible shuffling gait of The Pallbearers, carrying the creaking coffin of conversation towards the Shallow Hallowed ground of ignorance.

I had High hopes that my one-man crusade against these pithy little parcels of propaganda would result in the great Shout of revolution, but alas, I am but Flesh and Bone, not an Iron Man, and my Great Expectations were met only by the deafening Hush of indifference.

Nevertheless, today is the day I Bounce back, revolution or no, to deliver a faintly stinging slap to this particular Quotey Picturey thing:

Many thanks to www.Truth-Saves.com for providing this image. They've culled the quotes from an interview that you can read here, if you are the sort of person who likes to check their sources. If you can't read the teeny text on the image, fret not, here is what it says:

Religion is the cause of all the problems in the world. I don't believe in organised religion at all. It's what separates people. One religion just represents fragments, it causes war. More people have died because of religious conflict than any other reason.

Stirring words from the Infamous Gwyneth Paltrow, a woman who, if I can say this without Malice, would appear to be a much better actress than philosopher.

In the interests of fairness, therefore, rather than simply deriding her views, I shall simultaneously attempt to pay homage to her acting career, by mentioning all 47 of her acting credits, as listed on this page of the Internet Movie Database.

I'll do it subtly, so it won't interrupt the flow of the argument. Much. We've done fourteen already, and I bet you hardly noticed, right...? And, as silent movie heart-throb Rudolph Valentino famously said, "         ".

"Not that I'm complaining, but I have no idea what I'm doing in this post."

Broadly speaking, Paltrow's argument is that religion is currently running the show, and messing it up, and the world would be fixed by putting something else in charge. Basically "Religion makes a riSky Captain and the World of Tomorrow would be better off without it."

Is she right? Let's dissect her claims one by one.

"Religion is the cause of all the problems in the world."

That's a bold assertion.
The world has a lot of problems. In the Bignell household at the moment, for example, we're currently facing the intractable issue of where to keep our wine-rack. Does it look okay on the shelf by the TV, or should it go on the floor somewhere? It's a problem. I guess if I didn't work for a church, perhaps we could afford a house with a wine cellar, but I think it would be stretching the idea somewhat to assert that religion is behind our alcohol positioning difficulties.

Religion has undeniably caused some problems. Perhaps even lots of problems. But all? Tsunamis, earthquakes, forest fires, death, flooding, cancer, falling out of Love and Other Disasters - none of these can be pinned on religion. To do so is to accredit religion with God-like power. Which is slightly ironic, really, for someone who presumably doesn't believe in a God with God-like power.

"I don't believe in organised religion at all."

Odd choice of word, there. "Believe".
I assume she simply means "approve of". Otherwise she's claiming not to believe in the thing she just claimed was responsible for a vast percentage of her experience. Which would be a little bit muddled.

Though this does illustrate something for us: that truth does not depend on belief. Something is either true or false - Gwyneth's belief in it is neither here nor there. She may not believe in organised religion, but it still exists. There is plenty of evidence for it. And if something is true, then it is true, whether you - to use the phrase coined by The Talented Mr. Ripley - "Believe it or Not!" [From Ripley's Believe it or Not? No? Come on, how else was I going to get it in?]

I know Miss P isn't seriously suggesting that organised religion doesn't exist - but this fuzzy use of language is indicative of our society's current confusion between truth and belief. Somehow we have it in our heads that belief influences truth, rather than the other way round. We decide what we want to believe, and then assume the truth will fall into line for us... it's the very opposite of science, which attempts to discern the truth, and then uses that to inform our beliefs. I could rant for some time about this, but instead I will refer the reader to a rant I prepared earlier, here.

For example, Gwyneth clearly doesn't believe the Weeping Angels in Doctor Who are real.
She's either right or wrong... which is it? BLINK AND FIND OUT, I DARE YOU...

Moving on:

"It's what separates people."

Religion does, undeniably, separate people. The Church of Scientology certainly has a lot to answer for. I've seen a marriage torn apart by Mormonism. I know of Muslims who became Christian at the appalling cost of separation from their family and friends. It happens.

A community builds itself around a set of doctrines, and if an individual dares to question, or contradict, the teaching that underpins their society, then the Sliding Doors of social acceptance will slam shut on any limb they are careless enough to leave in the opening.

We should be grieved by cases like these - but let's not pretend such separation is the exclusive prerogative of religion.

Critics were apparently divided over this dress. Does that make this dress a religion?
(Dresses also, in general, help to separate underwear from outerwear, which is
sometimes considered to be quite a good thing.)

Separation on the societal level is at work everywhere - just go to any party. As the novelist K J Parker put it: “It never ceases to amaze me how adaptable social geometry can be. Within a couple of days I went from being the centre of the circle to an indefinite point outside its circumference.”

In other words, separation. We operate in circles, vicious circles, with insides and outsides, and K J Parker's vicious circle is in operation in every sphere. Every sphere has its circles.

The point that Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle are illustrating is that separation is fundamental to the human condition. Why? It is the inevitable consequence of our innate selfishness. What do Paris Hilton, Thomas Jefferson, Rudolph Valentino, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, me, Britney Spears and Mother Theresa have in common? Selfishness. You will find it in me, in Valentino, in Jefferson, in Paris Hilton, in Mozart, in Muslims, in Christians, in Buddhists, in Gwyneth Paltrow, in Britney... We are all, to a certain extent, curled in on ourselves - inward looking - selfish.

Here's a brief aside: the theory of evolution is inexplicable without a concept of selfishness. "Survival of the fittest" depends on there being an outside and an inside - the fit and the unfit; those on the inside become fitter as those on the outside become fodder. You can't explain evolution without acknowledging separation.

Which means, I think, that an atheist blaming religion for separation is a bit like a cheese sandwich blaming cows for milk.

Evolution separated man from the animals. (Allegedly.)
Face-paint helps us find the way back.

Separation isn't just a societal problem, of course - it operates on a much more personal level too. Let me tell you an all-too-familiar story.

It begins with Two Lovers - let's call them Emma and Mortdecai - and all is fun and laughter and Glee and the singing of soppy Duets; he buys her an expensive Tod Pashmy bag, she introduces him to all her Deadly Relations, they are on top of the world and the View from the Top is all fluffy bunnies and unicorns and rainbows... and then, somehow, Cruel Doubt sets in, the Pashmy Dream crumbles, she starts throwing away his most treasured Possessions, he starts eyeing up his secretary (Sylvia) and before they can even make it to the The Anniversary Party the Good Morning has become The Good Night, the romance is dead, and she ends it all by hitting him in the face with the Iron. Man. 2 or 3 times.

What happened?

It wasn't caused by religion.
Atheists gets divorced too.

Somehow, deep down, on the inside, humans are broken creatures, irrevocably separated from each other, no matter how hard we try to cling to each other on the outside.

Any religion which is a product of these broken creatures is going to cause more breakage; but the problem was ours long before organised religion evolved its first rotas.

"I still have no idea what I'm doing in this post."

"One religion just represents fragments, it causes war."

War.
Huh.
What is it good for?
Yes, there have been wars fought on religious grounds. Not very many though. If you have a spare $285 and some free time, you could spring for this book - which, apparently, lists 1763 different wars. Of those, 123 are categorised as being religious in nature. (I've not read the book myself, I'm getting these stats from this post here: but I'd welcome correction if anyone thinks they sound a bit off.)

So, yes, occasionally - in less than 7% of cases - people went to war for religious reasons. But mostly they go to war for other things entirely. Like love. To quote the great Shakespeare: "In Love, who respects friend?" (Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act V Scene IV, oh yes.)

People go to war for love of oil, love of money, love of power, love of land... One Country Strongly desires what their neighbouring country has, crosses a line or two, revenge is declared, armies are mustered, Avengers Assembled, and, hey presto, people are dying in the mud, all without needing any help whatsoever from organised religion.

I presume Gwynth Paltrow thinks we could abolish war by abolishing religion, but it won't work unless we also abolish oil, borders, race, power, money, love...

"More people have died because of religious conflict than any other reason."

You only need to think for a microsecond to realise this isn't true. Aside from the fact that 93% of wars weren't religious conflicts, war itself has killed comparatively few people. While the two World Wars carved ghastly swathes of destruction throughout our civilisation, most people die without any help from war at all.

I beg anyone who unthinkingly agrees with Gwyneth to do just the teensiest tiniest bit of research. You could start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/

The first link is outdated, but is still a very revealing list of causes of death, arranged by mortality rate. The top cause of death, fairly unambiguously, appears to be heart disease. War is pretty far down the list. Amazingly, "intentional injuries" (war, suicide and violence) rank quite a long way below "unintentional injuries". In other words, more people die by accident than because of religious conflict. So unless Dame Gwyneth wants to blame religion for all the rotting floorboards, slippery step-ladders, badly labelled rat-poison jars and precariously balanced bath-side toasters in the world, she doesn't really have much of a case.

(Having said which, some of those accidents were indirectly caused by religion. Apparently 31 Britons have died since 1996 because they watered their Christmas trees while the tree lights were switched on. Yes, the Royal Fir Trees - or, as the Germans might say, The Royal Tenenbaums - were lethal long before Doctor Who came along.)

Everyone knows that a real killer robot tree would just spray poisonous pine needles everywhere.
We've still finding the damn things all over our flat, three months later.

Final Thoughts

Well, there you have it.

But we can't quite stop yet, because there are still a few more Paltrow acting credits to crowbar in. Eight, in fact. Don't worry, it won't take long, it's not an especially Hard Eight. Sorry, Se7en. Sorry, six. And it will give us a chance to think more deeply about what's going on here.

If we go back to the interview from which the quote-on-a-picture was scissored, we learn how Miss Paltrow thinks mankind can get off the Hook:

Everybody needs to change their consciousness and realise we are all one and let go of the ego that's involved. That's the only way to solve it.

Salvation through Higher Learning, you could call that.

Ignoring, with some difficulty, the breathtaking incongruity of a Hollywood A-Lister suggesting we need to let go of our egos, what I think this boils down to is: try harder to be nicer.

Remember we are all one, says Paltrow - me, you, Britney, Rudolph Valentino, Mother Theresa, the Jews, the Muslims... Black and white all look the same in the Moonlight and Valentino is one with the Dalai Lama.

"Ah, so that's what I'm doing in this post. Disappointing.
Also, what the hell is this thing on my head?"

Trouble is, we are not all one. Clearly. The Muslims aren't one with the Jews. Valentino isn't one with the Dalai Lama. I'm not one with Britney. Gwyneth would say that's the fault of religions splitting us apart - if there were no religions, and we all thought like her, we would all be one.

So, let's get this straight:

If we all agree with Gwyneth, and we all try harder to be nice, then the world will be fixed.

Can you see the irony?

What we're describing here is a religion. Almost all religions, in fact. All religions, as far as I can tell, but one.

Islam says "Think like us and try hard to be good."

Judaism says "Think like us and try hard to be good."

Catholicism says "Think like us and try hard to be good."

Buddhism says "Think like us and try hard to be good."

Paltrowism says "Think like us and try hard to be good."

There's a bit more to it than that, of course, but - in essence - what these religions say is that "Mankind is basically okay, and can earn redemption by doing what we say."

And what these religions do... is destroy.
Our skinny blonde philosopher is both right and wrong:
She's right that mankind has a problem.
She's wrong in saying it was caused by religion.
She's right in saying that most (not all) religions cause many (not all) problems.
She's wrong in thinking that her approach is any different.

"The first rule of Paltrowism is that you do not talk about Paltrowism.
The second rule of Paltrowism is that your head needs to be able to pick up Sky TV."

Any system of thought that says "Mankind is basically okay" is dangerous. Because it's overlooking a terrible truth:

In all of human history, there has been precisely one perfect man. One man who didn't have that whole inward-looking, selfish streak. No one likes to be shown up... so he was murdered. The only execution of a truly, fully innocent man that has ever happened. A Perfect Murder, in a sense.

And he is the central figure of the one religion that says something different. The one religion that doesn't say "Mankind is basically okay, so think like us and try hard to be good."

Christianity says "Mankind is broken, and no amount of trying to be good will ever fix it."
Christianity says "Stop trying to do things... just believe in Jesus... and you will be changed."
Christianity alone provides the answer to the things Gwyneth Paltrow - and all of us - instinctively know we need an answer to. Selfishness, war, violence, separation... and it's not do something - it's believe something.

John's Gospel describes this encounter between Jesus and the crowd:

Then they asked him, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?'
Jesus answered, 'The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.'
(John 6:28-29)

That's it - just believe. And he doesn't ask us to take it on trust - the way Gwyneth Paltrow expects us to believe her own ill-informed cockamamie theories about saving the world. By living and dying, and rising again - in front of eye-witnesses, who wrote it all down for us - he left us with Proof.

This matters, because there is one final thing we need to mention about separation.
The underlying assumption in Gwyneth's quote is that separation is a bad thing. But we rely on it. We rely on our skin separating our insides from our outsides. We rely on our roofs separating the rain from our wine racks. We rely on our police force, our courts and our prisons, separating the wicked from the vulnerable. Deep down, we long for the day when the wicked are finally, completely, permanently separated from the good.

And there will be no more implacable evil golden robots creeping up
behind unsuspecting starlets to rip their Oscars right out through their hearts.

Gwyneth is looking forward to that day. She thinks that it will come when religion - the bad - is abolished by everyone else - the good.

The Bible says it will happen when Jesus returns as judge, to separate those who believed in him from those who didn't.

Two conflicting views; they can't both be right, and all heaven and hell is at stake. Who do you trust? Miss Paltrow, or Jesus? You may choose what you want to believe, but as we said earlier, what matters is what is true. At least do some thinking. It's fairly obvious, from a momentary examination, that Gwyneth's words - which you will find gleefully parroted on any number of atheistic websites - don't stand up to the facts. Do Jesus'? And don't just find a Bible quote stuck on a picture and think "Hah, thought so, it's all nonsense." Check your sources.

Well, there we have it. The wisdom of Gwyneth Paltrow, fabulous actress and terrible philosopher. Thank you, Gwyneth. Thanks for Sharing.

The Top Ten Worst Bible Readings To Have At A Wedding - Part III

Greetings good friends, and welcome back to our glacially slow plod through what should really be called the Bottom Ten Bible Readings To Have At A Wedding. If you missed Parts One and Two, then you may perhaps be wondering why we need a Top Ten Worst Bible Readings To Have At A Wedding list at all, and you will almost certainly be wondering why this post is punctuated with pictures from 80s weddings. If these questions are bothering you, I invite you to scour Parts One and Two for answers. And if you find any answers, perhaps you could tell me.

For some reason, looking at this makes me think of doing the washing up.

Anyway, we're up - or down - to number seven. And that means it's time to embrace the sticky subject of...

7) The Classic Seed Spilling Passage

It was only comparatively recently that I stumbled across the delightful word "onanism". For some reason they didn't teach us that one at school. Onanism, for anyone who was similarly poorly schooled, is another word for, um, the "M" word.* And if there is one thing you don't want mentioned at a wedding, it's the "M" word. (No, not "marriage". It would be fairly difficult to avoid mentioning marriage at a wedding. The other "M" word.)

The good news, therefore, is that this passage in Genesis - from which we get the word "onanism" - actually has nothing whatsoever to do with... you know.** In fact, just how Onan ever managed to give his name to this act is a bit of a mystery. This is precisely the sort of terminological inexactitude that results when people don't pay sufficient attention to the Bible. Look:

And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also. (Genesis 38:6-10)

Clearly no "M" wording going on there.***
What is actually going on?

Well, according to Pope Pius XI, in the famous papal encyclical of 1930, Casti Connubii, this passage is a proof-text against the evils of contraception. As he says:

No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death.

Onan wastes his seed, God kills him, therefore contraception is a horrible crime. Iron-clad logic, no?

Subtle adjustments to the iron cladding.

Now, throughout the ages, many people have diligently obeyed the Pope, and their consciences, on this issue, at immense personal cost, and I would hate to trivialise their choices and sacrifices. It's a complex issue, and this Bible passage isn't the sole factor in the debate.

But...



If, as I believe, the Bible is the word of God, what does that say about how carefully we should study it? Are we happy with this interpretation? In the spirit of encouraging discernment when it comes to paying attention to the words of God, consider this: is the seed spilling the crime, or merely the means to the crime?

Onan had been given a specific job to do: provide his dead brother's wife with children. He refused to do it - simultaneously disobeying his father, dishonouring his brother, and disregarding his duty. He did it for selfish reasons, and he did it in a grubby, underhand way - which coincidentally entitled him to free sex on demand, from a grieving, childless widow. In short, he's guilty of far more than sowing his wild oats on the stony ground. To say that God put him to death simply for the act of spilling his seed is to imply that God cares more about sperm than about family loyalty, honesty, and filial obedience. Not a very high view of God's character.

Put it another way... Imagine that I knew you were allergic to peanuts, and I served you peanut butter in a deliberate attempt to kill you, and a judge rightly locked me up for doing so. "Long-winded blogger sentenced to life for serving peanut butter." scream the headlines.

Who would take those headlines and then seriously suggest that no one, anywhere, should ever serve anyone peanut butter again?

I'm not trying to pick a fight with the Pope. But if you are going to let some dude in a big hat tell you what the Bible means, then you are putting yourself at his mercy. Go get a copy and read it for yourself and make up your own mind. That applies to anything I tell you too. And I don't have a big hat.

I would love to see the Pope wearing a hat like this. After all, Little Bo Beep was a shepherd, and the Pope is supposed to be a shepherd too...

Anyway, all that's a massive aside.
The real reason you wouldn't want this at your wedding is because, even if you hire an experienced Shakespearean actor to read it for you, it's impossible to get through the first couple of lines without sounding hesitant. Try it.

Incidentally, the miserably abused Tamar does eventually get her offspring - becoming, if I've counted correctly, the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother of... Jesus Christ.




Well, that's it for this post; I'm rapidly weakening in my resolve to keep things clean. So very many risque jokes are lining up in my head and I don't know how long I can hold them in. But at least I managed to get through the whole post without saying "masturbation".****

Or without mentioning this:



See you soon for 8, 9 and 10.


*It's a family blog, okay?
**Still a family blog.
***Families.
****Oh bums.

The Top Ten Worst Bible Readings To Have At A Wedding - Part II

So. Tenterhooks.
Anyone know what a tenterhook actually is?
I do. I just looked it up. Shall I tell you? Maybe later.

Anyway, about two months ago I left the whole universe on tenterhooks with The Top Ten Worst Bible Readings To Have At A Wedding - Part I. Most of the universe was probably unaware that I'd left it on tenterhooks, but there you go, that's where it's been. For the six of you who did notice, and have been longing to read Part II, I am pleased to announce that your tenterhook tenure is now officially terminated. I hereby unhook you. So have a stretch, grab a cuppa, and join me in The Top Ten Worst Bible Readings To Have At A Wedding - Part II. Punctuated with photos of 80s weddings, because what the world needs now is 80s wedding photos, sweet 80s wedding photos.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Grumpy here is the only one who made it out alive; the other six are still in there somewhere...

Let's dive straight in with the old classic Boy Meets Girl, Boy Marries Girl, Boy Leaves Girl, Sets Fire To Foxes, Starts a War and Gets Girl Killed. Yes, it's a cliche, but only because it's so good.

6) The Classic Boy Meets Girl, Boy Marries Girl, Boy Leaves Girl, Sets Fire To Foxes, Starts a War and Gets Girl Killed Farce

We're in the book of Judges here - Judges 14 and 15 to be precise, and the boy in question is Samson, of Delilah fame. Yes, everyone's favourite hairy hero was wedded once, before the whole Delilah shearing incident. And, as you may have gleaned, it did not turn out especially well for his blushing bride.

The main reason you wouldn't want this passage read at your wedding, of course, is that it's quite long. I'll walk you through the highlights of the story here, but if you've got time, I'd suggest reading the original in all its glory instead.

Boy Meets Girl

Samson went down to Timnah, and at Timnah he saw one of the daughters of the Philistines. Then he came up and told his father and mother, “I saw one of the daughters of the Philistines at Timnah. Now get her for me as my wife.” (Judges 14:1-2)

Well, his parents are not best chuffed, what with the Philistines being ancient enemies of the Israelites and all, but Samson is pretty adamant, so the arrangements are made, leading to the natural next step:

Boy Kills Lion

Then Samson went down with his father and mother to Timnah, and they came to the vineyards of Timnah. And behold, a young lion came toward him roaring. Then the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon him, and although he had nothing in his hand, he tore the lion in pieces as one tears a young goat. But he did not tell his father or his mother what he had done. (Judges 14:5-6)

Incidentally, Samson and I are polar opposites. It never once occurred to me to tell my parents when I fancied a girl, but I was forever bringing home bits of the lions I had killed. (Oh, animal lovers be warned - it only gets worse.)

Okay, it's not a lion, but it could still do some damage. It's only the cat's natural fear of parasols that is preventing it from taking out the old lady.

Boy Causes Untold Misery With His Smart-Alekry

Some time later our boy takes a butchers at the beast he's bested, and beholds a bunch of bees abiding in the body. Not being the squeamish sort, he scoops out the honey and has a good old munch, and, since there was no Twitter or Facebook in those days, rather than writing a pithy status update, he composes this pleasing little riddle:

“Out of the eater came something to eat.
Out of the strong came something sweet.” (Judges 14:14)

Well, a riddle like that is clearly too good to waste, so he poses it to his thirty wedding guests, with a hefty bet at stake - thirty sets of clothes. And we're not just talking Moss Bros hire rates here. Now, wedding feasts in those days used to last seven days (try suggesting that to your prospective in-laws...) and by day four what may have seemed like friendly banter has become a little more serious...

On the fourth day they said to Samson's wife, “Entice your husband to tell us what the riddle is, lest we burn you and your father's house with fire." (Judges 14:15)

Needless to say, the new Mrs Samson is not thrilled by the way things are turning out:

And Samson's wife wept over him [Samson] and said, “You only hate me; you do not love me. You have put a riddle to my people, and you have not told me what it is.” And he said to her, “Behold, I have not told my father nor my mother, and shall I tell you?” She wept before him the seven days that their feast lasted, and on the seventh day he told her, because she pressed him hard. (Judges 14:16-17)

Seven days of weeping and nagging. Sounds like a great time for all involved.

Naturally, Samson is forced to cough up on the bet, because his wife promptly tells the people the answer to the riddle. It doesn't cost him anything though, because he does it by killing thirty other Philistines and nicking their clothes. Then he skulks off back to his parents, leaving his new wife, who gets given to his best man instead. The perfect climax to the celebrations, really.

Things Escalate, More Animals Die

Well, after a while, Samson decides to go and visit his wife, taking her a goat. After all, nothing says "Sorry I nearly got you burned alive" like a goat. But he's turned away by her father, who breaks the news to him that she's now wedded to his best man. Samson is not impressed:

So Samson went and caught 300 foxes and took torches. And he turned them tail to tail and put a torch between each pair of tails. And when he had set fire to the torches, he let the foxes go into the standing grain of the Philistines and set fire to the stacked grain and the standing grain, as well as the olive orchards." (Judges 15:4-5)

Yes, Samson invented Firefox.
(Sorry.)

Anyway, surprisingly enough, this doesn't go down well with the Philistines, who decide to follow through on their original threat: they burn Samson's (ex) wife, and her father, alive.

Samson retaliates and gives them an almighty smiting, causing a major diplomatic incident between Philistine and Judah; the men of Judah consequently arrest Samson and hand him over to the Philistines, at which point he escapes, grabs a donkey's jawbone, as you do, and kills 1000 of them. And, being the jolly, literary sort that he is, he composes a little ditty to round off proceedings:

“With the jawbone of a donkey,
heaps upon heaps,
with the jawbone of a donkey
have I struck down a thousand men.” (Judges 15:16)

And everyone who was still alive lived happily ever after.
For a bit.

With this hair, I thee wed. With my hair I honour you, all that I hair I hair to you, and all that I hair hair hair hair HAIR.

Actually, this would be a great reading to have at a wedding. Think about it: whatever complications, snarls, family arguments or logistical catastrophes happen on your Big Day, if anyone besides the groom makes it out alive then you are doing better than Samson. And to any fathers-in-law who are worried about your speech: if the guests aren't piling kindling around you, then you are probably doing okay.

What Is This Actually About? Or To Be Serious For A Moment...

Just in case this post is coming across as irreverent, I'd like to pause for a second to reveal where I stand. I believe that the Bible is the word of God. But I want to show that the word of God is rich; as I said in Part One, God doesn't talk in a monotone. For some reason, as a culture, we have come to believe that the holier something is, the more dull it needs to be. The Bible can't just be read out - it must be intoned, all contours eroded into a flat, emotionless chant - preferably in a cold, echoing space by someone well advanced in years, and, for bonus points, in a translation that is almost incomprehensible by today's standards.

One of the reasons I like writing these posts is because I love being able to point out the colour in the Bible - it's full of love, pain, loss, hope, misery, failure, victory, hilarity, farce, fury, horror, sex, intrigue, incest, death, dismemberment, fire, confusion, deceit, devotion, burning foxes and poo. Especially poo. Hopefully you can see that the tale of Samson and his wife is a cracking good yarn. We're meant to be saying "He did what!?"

But it also means something. God does not speak in a monotone, but nor does he speak just to enjoy the sound of his own voice. However extraordinary or random a passage might seem, there is always a reason for it.

Unlike the bubble perm mullet.

The reason for this one is found right at the top, when Samson's parents are pondering why their son wants to marry a Philistine, of all people:

His father and mother did not know that it was from the Lord, for he was seeking an opportunity against the Philistines. At that time the Philistines ruled over Israel. (Judges 14:4)

Yup, this whole fiasco, foxes and all, was a roundabout way of gaining victory against the Philistines... Although this was really just the warm-up act: Samson ultimately defeats the Philistines by bringing their temple down on top of himself, after the even-messier incident with Delilah, in Judges 16.

Samson was, all things considered, not the sharpest piccolo in the orchestra. A hero of the faith no doubt, but he gallivants around like a puppy, throwing his affections in all the worst directions, generally behaving irresponsibly and acting like a petulant teenager. And he set foxes on fire. Who does that? But he was God's chosen man. Flashback to before he was born:

There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. And his wife was barren and had no children. And the angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her, “Behold, you are barren and have not borne children, but you shall conceive and bear a son. Therefore be careful and drink no wine or strong drink, and eat nothing unclean, for behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. No razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he shall begin to save Israel from the hand of the Philistines.” (Judges 13:2-5)

So, a visitation from an angel, a miraculous birth, a child who is destined to save his people from their enemies, who is caught, imprisoned, tortured, and who eventual rescues his people through his death... ring any bells?

Yes, Samson is a glimpse; a deeply-flawed, fox-burning prototype of the real rescuer to come.
As I said, God does not speak in a monotone.


Right, that's enough for now.

Look out for The Top Ten Worst Bible Readings To Have At A Wedding Part III soon, when maybe we'll pick up the pace a little and actually finish the list... or not.

Oh... and a tenterhook? It's a hook for tenters.

Things That Don't Do The One Thing They Were Designed To Do - Part Two

If you had been passing Fenchurch Avenue a week or so back, you probably have no idea how close you came to being confronted by an angry young(ish) man with his trousers round his ankles hurling a useless plastic toilet-paper dispenser into the street.

Let me explain.

Some time ago now, you may remember, I spent several column inches venting my spleen about delivery companies, tin openers, badly designed clocks, and all Things That Don't Do The One Thing They Were Designed To.

Well, I've added to the list.


How hard is it to get a toilet-paper dispenser right? Yet there I was, for ten minutes, the chill effluvial winds of despair circulating around my unveiled posterior as, with arms akimbo and wrist contorted into the sort of shape that would raise some eyebrows at A&E, I attempted the key-hole surgery equivalent of finding the end of a roll of sellotape, operating entirely by feel and with a serrated plastic blade threatening to curtail my promising career as a concert violinist at any moment. Half a wheelbarrow's worth of plastic serving no function whatsoever other than to ensure that my only option for paper-based sanitising was the crumbling feathery chunk I hacked out of the roll with my door key.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a Thing That Doesn't Do The One Thing It Was Designed To Do. And, if you have even a shade of empathy in your hearts, I hope you would have mentally applauded me as I hurled the useless abomination into the street and jumped up and down on its spiteful grabby entrails.

Anyway, now that my implacable plastic foe has been vanquished, mentally at least, and you've stopped applauding, and I've pulled up my trousers, it's time to consider the rather disturbing question I posed at the end of the original post: What if WE are Things That Don't Do The One Thing They Were Designed To Do??? Would God be justified in hurling us into the street and jumping up and down on us?


Which sort of begs the question: What, exactly, were we designed to do?
Or, to put it another way:




Of course, it's a question which all the greatest thinkers throughout history have cogitated over. Philosophers, scientists, artists - innumerable ingenious minds over many many centuries have all contributed their sparkling strands of speculation to this, the greatest debate in history. Intellectual giants, boldly locking horns with the intractable problems that blight every age of man, wrestling on our behalf to make known the mysteries that lie behind our very existence.

Let's look at some of their answers:

Britney Spears - Born To Make You Happy

I think this is a fairly common philosophy. It's probably got a fancy name. I'm going to call it the "Life is about making people happy" philosophy. I suspect a lot of people subscribe to it.

Here are some questions to ask of it:
1) Who exactly were we born to make happy?
2) What actually makes them happy?
3) Can we actually do what makes them happy?
For example, what if our sole purpose in life is to make God happy, and perfect obedience is what he likes, and none of us can do it?

Delta Goodrem - Born To Try

I've not really got a chuff what this song is about, but I'm going to name a philosophy after it anyway, and I'm going to call it the "Life is about doing your best" philosophy.

Questions to ask of the life-is-about-doing-your-best philosophy are:
1) Who, genuinely, has ever done their best? Okay, the narcissistic little twerps in the Apprentice may claim to be giving 210% percent, but that is because they are remedially-brained, mathematically illiterate asses.
2) How do you know that life is graded on effort, rather than achievement? Isn't that a bit of a gamble?
3) Do you best at what, exactly? (I hope it's not learning New Testament Greek. I've definitely not done my best at New Testament Greek. What the heck is an aorist?)

Incidentally, about three minutes into this video is the moment where musical enlightenment is reached. Ah, Delta.

Sha-na-na - Born To Hand Jive

As philosophies go, it would be a tough sell to suggest that our one true purpose in life is to repeatedly form our hands into strange shapes in time to some 50s rock music or the Blockbusters theme tune.
So let's broaden this out a bit and call it the "Life is about having fun" philosophy. Or, if you want to get all fancy, you could call this Utilitarianism, or Secular Humanism, or probably any number of other philosophies which are based around the idea that the happiness of the individual contributes to the well-being of humanity.


Questions to ask:
1) What if the thing you enjoy most happens to be eating living human skulls?
2) What if you aren't having any fun, because someone is eating your skull?*


Personally, I think this philosophy would work provided everyone wore those massive petticoats. Massive petticoats are pretty much all kinds of brilliant. I can't really imagine how anyone could be sad with an acre of crinoline frothing around them at every turn. Mark my words: what the world needs now is a massive petticoat.

Steppenwolf - Born To Be Wild

So, this is a cool song for cool dudes on cool bikes running cool and free through cool countryside. It doesn't get much cooler than this. Though I'd like to point out that real men use pedals.
Anyway, let's call this the "Life is about individual liberty" philosophy. I believe this could be termed classical liberalism.


Here are some thoughts about the pursuit of freedom:
How free is it possible to get in this life? Creation is ordered - there are rules built into the fabric of the universe, from which there is no freedom:
1) The human body is designed to work a certain way - you will never be free of the need to eat, drink, sleep etc.
2) You cannae change the laws of physics - so you will never be free to fly, walk through walls, turn yourself invisible, etc. This is a bummer.
3) Time only goes in one direction - you will never be free to undo past mistakes, you will never be free to be in two places at one time, and you can't stop getting older.


Mankind has made some great advances, but in all the really big, important areas of life, there is no freedom whatsoever. Except in death. (And that's making some pretty big assumptions about what happens after death, too.)
Speaking of which:

Lana Del Ray - Born To Die

Or possibly Born To Stand Naked In Front Of An American Flag, or Born To Have Funny-Shaped Lips. The reason this post is about eight months late is that I made the foolish error of attempting to work out what this song is actually about. I went a little deeper into the rabbit warren than was perhaps advisable. I see from my notes that someone somewhere on the internet - possibly the voluminously be-lipped chanteuse herself - described it as a "homage to true love and a tribute to living life on the wild side". I shall call it the "Life is all about finding your one true love and then pursuing it recklessly at the expense of all other things because after all we are all going to die, so you might as well die in an explosive love-fuelled vehicle accident whilst wearing hotpants" philosophy.


I actually own some hotpants. Many of you know this.


Questions to ask of this philosophy include: ah, whatever. Just enjoy the tigers. She has tigers. Tigers are cool.

Bruce Springsteen - Born to Run

This is an easy one to critique:
NO. WE WERE NOT BORN TO RUN.


DO.
NOT.
MAKE.
ME.
RUN.


I do not like running.


Okay, that important fact established, let's forget about the literal interpretation of the title, and blatantly hijack it in order to introduce the "Life is all about forgetting what life is all about and just getting on with things" philosophy, or Just-Keep-Busy-And-Don't-Think-About-Itism. What Existential Therapists call "Dereflection" - basically, the idea that worries about the meaning of life will evaporate if you just get on with living.


I suspect most of us, if we had to pick a philosophy, would pick this one.


Questions:
How is this any different from just sticking your head in the sand?
Getting so engrossed in living that you no longer need to worry about why you are alive is a little bit like driving as fast as you can so that you don't need to worry about which direction to take. I've been in cars with drivers like this, and eventually we always had to stop, look at a map, and turn around.
Or to put it another way - when I'm really engrossed in work, I sometimes forget about the need to pee. 

But there always comes a reckoning.

Ray Price - Born To Lose

Finally, let's have the good old "Life is pointless" philosophy. We evolved, by chance, so there's not much purpose to anything. This is rather in vogue these days, what with Dawkins running around publishing books and bellyaching like a miserable old woman about all things religious. The sciency bits of it might be new, but that whole God-Is-Dead thing has been around since the 1800s. Existential nihilism, innit? Whatever.

Things to ask an existential nihilist when he tells you there is no point to anything:
What's your point?

The Bit You Knew Was Coming But Which I Don't Have A Cool Song For:

That's my hugely simplistic and limited tour of some of the answers I think people might give to the question "What do you believe is the meaning of life?"**

What do you believe is the meaning of life?
Any of the above?
None of the above?
Have you ever thought about it?
For more than a minute?

Because if there is a creator, who created us for a purpose, and we are not doing that thing for which we were created, then we are the deeply useless Thing Which Does Not Do The One Thing It Was Designed To Do. And that's not really a good place to be.

Here's the first question of the Westminster Catechism, which was written by a smart bunch of dudes who really knew their Bible:

Q: What is the chief end of man?
A: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever.

Making people happy is a good thing. The Bible says you should try it. But it's not the purpose of life.
Trying hard is a good thing. The Bible says we should try hard. But it's not the purpose of life.
Having fun is a good thing. The Bible wants us to have fun. But it's not the purpose of life.
Individual liberty is a good thing. The Bible has much to say about freedom. But it's not the purpose of life.
Love is a good thing. The Bible has much to say about love. But it's not the purpose of life.
(Running is not a good thing. Let's just gloss over that one.)

The Bible, over many centuries, through many stories, using many genres, by the mouths of many characters, reveals a purpose that fundamentally revolves around God, and our relationship to him. In a nutshell: Our reason for living is to glorify him, and to enjoy him forever.

And the Bible is quite clear that everyone was designed with the same purpose in mind - whether they believe that or not. It's also quite clear that the only way to Do The One Thing For Which We Were Designed is by putting our trust in Jesus Christ.

If we've not done that, I'm sorry to say, we are a broken toilet-roll holder, and we risk getting jumped on.

Jesus, incidentally, is the perfect Britney - the one man who made God happy, by doing what God loved, perfectly.
He's also the perfect Delta - the one man who actually did give 100%, all the time.
And he's the means by which we can have perfect, eternal fun - the "enjoy Him forever" bit...
And he's the means by which we achieve perfect freedom - freedom from the curse of sin, death, pain, all that stuff.
He also demonstrates perfect love...
...by being, literally, born to die.
(And, though I hate to admit this, in one of his parables he portrays God as running.)

This website might help you explore these ideas further: http://www.christianityexplored.org/

Thank you for your time.

*Of course, the internet solves a lot of these problems for us, because the people who enjoy eating skulls and the people who enjoy having their skulls consumed can now find each other in a skull-eating chatroom somewhere and hook up. But I think it's fair to say that, as long as there is death in the world, life is not going to be fun all the time for everyone.


**Limited mainly by the fact that it's hard to find good "Born to..." songs. I could have had Monie Love's "Born to B.R.E.E.D" in there, for instance, but that song makes me want to gnaw my feet off and stick them in my ears. I figure if I'm going to make you think about philosophy, the least I can do is ensure there are good songs involved. And Britney.