Please accept it as read that I meant no disrespect to anybody, living or dead. Having said that, here's the very first installment of what I may or may not decide to call "The Unpleasant Truth." In retrospect, it seems like that subject could get a bit depressing. I'm still mulling it over. What do you think? Too dark?

-----

The URL for this audio file is http://christiancarvajal.com/wp-content/unpleasanttruth05-25-12.mp3 , and you can listen to it by hitting the play button below.

Part of it must be simple compulsion. When I play armchair psychologist on myself, I sense I must crave attention; apparently any attention, no matter how negative, will do. I'm unable to find empirical evidence to disprove this theory, though it certainly feels incorrect from inside my head. It's probably the truth, though. I have to acknowledge that possibility.

Having said that, I've been this way for decades. I admire those who question things no one else will, yank them out into the open so they can be subjected to rational thought. Take Sam Kinison's standup routines about Jesus: "Maybe I wouldn't have to [die] if somebody'd get me a ladder and a pair of pliers!" I was shocked to my core when I first heard that joke. It offended me, even after I'd said goodbye to most of my childhood beliefs, because it was a strange new way of thinking. I may find new thoughts uncomfortable, but I fear them far less than our reluctance to entertain them. Humanity's problems will not be solved by reapplying the old ones.

When I watch someone like Christopher Hitchens demolishing religious arguments, driving them twelve feet underground with one irresistible rhetorical punch, it's hard not to feel sorry for folks who accept those ideas as literal truth. (Example: “How dismal it is to see present day Americans yearning for the very orthodoxy that their country was founded to escape.”) I respect people's feelings. I may not always give as much evidence of that as I should, but I do. I try to be fair to all sides, at least until it becomes obvious my opponents' beliefs are based on nothing that is any more concrete than the wish that they might be true. But y'know, if most people are wrong about something, we need to be told that. We really, truly do. When most Americans were wrong about slavery, John Brown needed to change their minds, even if his words hurt people's feelings. (Example: "'Caution,' sir! I am eternally tired of hearing that word 'caution.' It is nothing but the word of cowardice.") I'll go you one better: Jesus was never afraid to contradict people's long-held beliefs--about religion, ethnicity, morality, or politics. (Example: “Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword.”--Matthew 10:34) He trusted the world to catch up with him. Of course, that approach got him killed, so I'm not as ambitious. We should settle our differences with less animosity. Also, I vote no on blogger crucifixions.

I wasn't very old before I realized most people, especially most avowed Christians, were wrong to oppose equal civil rights for gay Americans. I'm pleased to see most Americans have come around to my way of thinking. If you haven't, I hope you will. You may never do that, but then again, some people still regret the vote being granted to women or black people. Some otherwise likable people think the purpose of our universe is to favor them over anyone who is in any way unlike them. That's dumb, even evil, on the face of it, and this time I don't mind being the one who says so.

Right now most Americans are wrong about religion. I don't mean they're wrong to have it, I mean they're wrong about several particular beliefs. I wouldn't make a big deal of it, except I've noticed there are Christian denominations who have no problem demanding their will be done in American government. They want images of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, Genesis mythology in public science classes, gay marriage banned, and nonbelievers excluded from public office. They scream against Sharia without realizing they want an equally outdated Judaic flavor of it. They want these things so badly that they never even question whether they're desirable outcomes. That's where I and others like me come in. We won't be popular, but we know some things must be said and, whatever the cost, we're willing to say them.

Example: We do not know God's morality. The putative Law of Moses is entangled with so much insanity and nonsense that it's all but impossible God had anything to do with it. It upholds a racist, misogynist, homophobic, pro-slavery, anti-liberty view of the world that can only have come from tribal chieftains. On those rare occasions when Bible morality does make sense, it shares that philosophy with every ethical code before and since. When it makes no sense at all, which is often, innocent people die. God neither wrote nor dictated the Bible. If your only justification for your moral belief is a Bible verse, that belief is no longer compelling.

By the way, I suspect the fact that the Bible is homophobic isn't the real reason fundamentalists are. I think they quote the Bible, rather, to support a feeling they'd have anyway, which is that gay people are oogy. That reason is also no longer compelling. I find Rush Limbaugh disgusting, but that shouldn't keep him from getting married as many times as he likes. His bed is none of my beeswax.

We don't know God's morality. Really ponder that. Let it roll around in your head. We don't really know what God considers good or evil. If the Bible were true, then it would also, by necessity, be true that God prefers Jews to Gentiles, men to women, grateful slaves to abolitionists, genocide to peaceful cohabitation, carnal sacrifice to spiritual meditation, prayer to medicine, inexplicable two-thousand-year salvation plans to miraculous repairs. All of that is clear in the book we've been taught to extol. If God did authorize any of this so-called morality, it says nothing in His favor. So when I see a pleasant Bible verse quoted on a friend's Facebook update, I smile from old habit...but I also can't help thinking perversely that it'd be more interesting if I quoted any of the thousand Bible verses any thinking American would find appalling.

Here are verses you're unlikely to see quoted on Facebook:

"'Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt-offering on one of the mountains that I shall show you.'"--Genesis 22:2

"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us--he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."--Psalm 137:9

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go."--Judges 19:25

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."--Hosea 13:16

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."--1 Peter 2:18

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."--1 Timothy 2:12

Uplifting, right? That's what comes from making ethical decisions based on a series of books written by people who knew less about the world than most present-day people do. I know I'll never be everyone's favorite guy for saying it, but it needs to be said anyway. Anyone else willing to jump up and take the mic?

Dr. John H. Watson, M.D.:

Watson is close to Holmes’s age, athletic, and has a strong build, thick neck, small mustache, and square face. In no way should we think of poor, bumbling Nigel Bruce. Remember, Watson is only foolish compared to Holmes—but so are we.

Sherlock Holmes:

From A Study in Scarlet: “In height he was rather over six feet, and so excessively lean that he seemed to be considerably taller. His eyes were sharp and piercing…and his thin, hawk-like nose gave his whole expression an air of alertness and derision. His chin, too, had the prominence and squareness which mark the man of determination.” He’s said to have black hair, gray eyes, thin lips, a strident voice, and a “cat-like sense of personal cleanliness.” He’s in his 40s but needn’t look any particular age. Bearing is more important than looks here, though we do have certain expectations. The character should remind us more of House, MD than of Tony Stark.

* The actor playing Holmes will also play a Holmes lookalike, using slight makeup and vocal changes.

Mrs. Hudson:

Conan Doyle never gives her a first name. Also, he never says whether she’s older or younger than Holmes.

Liza:

Holmes tells her, “You have the brightest, most intense and exciting eyes I have ever seen in a woman.” She’s a pale, attractive strawberry blonde. (By the way, I'm not opposed to wigs and makeup, though these physical traits are referred to in the play.)

* “Liza” will be revealed as actress Bertha Walmsley, who also plays a young man. Range is critical here! Plan to read for that male role as well.

Inspector G. Lestrade:

Holmes describes Lestrade as “the pick of a bad lot,” meaning Scotland Yard, and “absolutely devoid of reason” but “tenacious as a bulldog.” He’s "a little sallow rat-faced, dark-eyed fellow" (A Study in Scarlet), "a lean, ferret-like man, furtive and sly-looking" (“The Boscombe Valley Mystery”).

Holmes, Watson, and Liza have educated London accents. Lestrade’s accent might be a bit rougher around the edges, but certainly not Cockney. Mrs. Hudson is said to be Scots, but that doesn’t necessarily demand a Scottish accent.

-----

If I were staging this play for the Cross Timbers Theatre Company in Ada, Oklahoma, I know already who'd play these roles. There were only so many good actors in town! But this is the Pacific Northwest, where I meet an amazing new actor each week. Oh, Lakewood Playhouse, I can't wait to be exhausted by how magnificent you are.

It begins!

And I still have something awesome in the works for tomorrow...

So hey, may I take this opportunity yet again to invite you to download, read, and review my new ebook, Rereading the Bible, by using that convenient link in the menu to your right? I like the book, and I think it compiles and crystallizes many of my thoughts on the Bible effectively, but I didn't self-publish it merely to release another book. My larger goal is to remind you that I'm an author.

A month or so after Lightfall was released, it was already clear it wasn't on its way to the New York Times bestseller list, but it was successful (and lucrative!) in ways I didn't expect. Being an author gave me the credentials needed to land that job at Cengage. It aimed me straight at the Weekly Volcano, if only by boosting my self-confidence enough to apply there. Heck, I even found myself delivering motivational speeches, which is bananas. I've been a professional writer--meaning paid, in money--for two and a half years now. Not too shabby. It's one of a handful of careers I always wanted.

Look, I'll be honest, I'm not gonna earn squat from Rereading the Bible. I'm selling it for cheaper than McDonald's sells an order of fries. Why? Because the goal isn't to make money on book sales, it's to launch a new enterprise I call Carv's ThinkyWorks. If I can write a novel or an agnostic Bible commentary, it's a safe bet I can write about your company. If I can write, record, and edit an amusing vlog before lunch, maybe I'd be a good fit for your corporate video project. Maybe you need a public speaker, or a technical writer, or a teacher. I've been all those things...and I'm good at them.

No one likes a braggart; but then again, isn't bragging the whole point of a resume? My name is Christian Carvajal (TM), and I run Carv's ThinkyWorks. I'm the brain, hands, and heart behind this site and everything on it. That's my brag for the day. I feel grody publicizing myself and my writing, but I vastly prefer it to false modesty from me or anyone else. As my old-school text resume says, I tell great stories. That's my purpose, my identity, and my brand. You should put me to work.

Or at least read my book.

Pastor Tim, I accept your challenge. Any Christian friends care to suggest a book for me to read?

One proviso: if I don't agree with your book, even if it's a book you really, really love, I get to say so and explain why without any hurt feelings on either side. And if you're asking me to suggest a book to you, how 'bout my own? (Only 99 cents! What a deal!) Or, failing that, I most heartily recommend Why Christianity Must Change or Die by Bishop John Shelby Spong, God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens (a snide but persuasive work Pastor Tim also admires), The Evolution of God by Robert Wright, or The Ancestor's Tale by Richard Dawkins.

What say you, friends?

1. The Bible never says anything about birth control. Never. Not one thing.

2. It does command Adam and Eve to fill and subdue the Earth, but hey, mission accomplished. By any rational consideration, the human population on Earth is already excessive, as is our impact on the environment.

3. The Adam and Eve story is nonsense anyway. It's a myth. Even the Vatican acknowledges that.

4. The Pope is not, in fact, infallible when he speaks under any circumstances. Even Catholics know that, which is why...

5. Even by the most stringent criteria, two-thirds of Catholic women are on birth control.

How much do Baptists really care about keeping Catholic women off the pill? I think it's readily apparent that Republicans, most of them Protestant, are goading Catholics to object to this tiny aspect of health care reform in order to keep us from remembering that health care reform is terrific. Remember Sicko? Remember how we were all begging for health care reform a few years ago? Anyone out there nostalgic for the good old days of preexisting conditions? You, sir? Nobody?

The GOP knows what most voters do not: that when Obamacare kicks in for real in 2014, most people are going to love it. It solves so many problems and creates so few new ones. Of course the Affordable Care Act is in jeopardy in the sharply divided Supreme Court, but even then some new policy will survive. And the louder Fox News yells about it, the clearer it becomes that there will be much rejoicing in 2014. It's the kind of sweeping improvement to all our lives that could make things really difficult for Republicans in elections for years, especially after the lingering embarrassment of the Bush-Cheney era. In fact it exemplifies the positive change Obama promised in 2008, and which even many Democrats claim he's failed to deliver. But he did, despite years of monolithic opposition, and your parents (or you) may live longer because of it...and without being forced to declare bankruptcy.

Also, prohibiting birth control is stupid. I know it's totally gauche to call somebody's heartfelt religious beliefs a name, but this sincere belief is stupid. If you have that belief, and you're a friend, I'm not calling you stupid. I'm calling the Pope stupid, on this point if no other. Don't be stupid like his stupid belief. If you have that belief and you're a reader but not a friend, accept what I'm saying as knowledge almost everyone possesses but is too polite to tell you. Birth control prevents overpopulation, and God is not in favor of overpopulation. Birth control regulates menstrual cycles, and God doesn't want you to have weird menstrual cycles. Birth control allows people to enjoy marital sex without having to raise a new baby every year. One baby is delightful. Two babies is fun. A dozen babies is gross.

Granted, most religions are opposed to premarital sex, but most religious people actually aren't. That's why 80 percent of young evangelicals have premarital sex. Heck, even Brigham Young students have premarital sex. If you're a Protestant or Catholic Christian reading this and trying to work up a case of high moral dudgeon, take a deep breath and remember: you had premarital sex. Did it kill you? It did not. Did God curse your family unto the sons of your sons? He did not.

We don't believe premarital sex is bad anymore. I know we have to pretend we do when we're talking to other people in our churches, but we don't believe that...because it isn't...if you're careful. And birth control is how people who have premarital sex go about being careful. And smart. Premarital sex is how people shop for a sex partner they can stand having sex with for decades, aka a spouse. That's not immoral. It's just basic common sense.

Democrats like to call birth control "family planning," as if the whole point was to have kids. That's disingenuous. The point is to not have kids until you want and are ready to have kids. Call it "life planning" instead, fellow thinkers. And Catholic pundits, let this one go. You just sound stupid when you talk about it.

It's not nice to call any religious belief stupid. I know that. So why am I doing it? Because it's even more offensive to cost women their health or life plans just to score empty political points against a president you dislike. Also, this particular papal belief is incredibly stupid, which is why almost nobody has it.

Pathetic...but at least I never had to worry about feeling left out of water cooler conversations about Lost or The West Wing or BSG.

God, I miss Lost, The West Wing and BSG.

Now I'm happily married. My wife works during the day, so you might assume I spend weekday afternoons watching Dr. Phil while eating chili cheese everything. The truth is I've been busier these last few months than I was when I worked for Cengage. I watch TV during lunch, but even then I lay on the Fast Forward button like a speed demon. I've become acutely aware that I no longer have the time nor the inclination to sit in front of the tube by myself three hours a day. If Amanda doesn't like a show, it's all but impossible for me to stay committed to it. I need to break this addiction. Come to Papa, sweet freedom!

Which brings me to Mad Men. I started watching Mad Men because all the critics told me how amazing it was. They were right. Mad Men was and is an intelligent, multilayered, convincingly acted look at life in the mid-1960s. It tackles sexism, racism, homophobia, and the rise of youth culture without ever resorting to superficiality. It's addictive, and the many failed attempts to copy its period and style merely emphasize how singularly brilliant it is.

It's also a damn soap opera.

Do I need to be this loyal to a soap opera? Really? My wife doesn't care for the show (no particular reason), so it's inconvenient to watch when she's around. When she isn't, I'm busy. If I stopped watching Mad Men now, would I suffer in any way? How often am I asked how I feel about Mad Men? Is there some great unresolved plotline like the nature of the Island or how Starbuck came back from the dead? (Both explanations turned out to be lame, by the way.) Will Jon Hamm come to my house and beg us to return? I'm sorry, Amanda: the answer to that question is no. So what if I just...stopped?

What if I stopped watching 30 Rock? I know that season finale was funny, but the season which preceded it had about as many laughs as a Jerry Lewis telethon--from his fat years.

How 'bout Community? Ooh, tougher call. I love that show, but NBC just inexplicably fired its showrunner, Dan Harmon. Cram it up your cramhole, NBC.

The Office hasn't been worth a flip since Steve Carrell left, and it wasn't outstanding the year before that. So see you later, Ed Helms and weird British lady! Even James Spader bailed on that show, and he's starting to look like the Quaker Oats guy.

What if I only watched one Anthony Bourdain show? Sorry, Layover. You'll be missed...but how much?

What shows have you stuck with out of sheer DVR addiction? I promise, no judgment...unless you say Toddlers & Tiaras, in which case how the hell are we still friends?

Have you said any of these things? Your heart was probably in the right place, but was your head?

Check it out.

5 Phrases I Think Christians Shouldn't Say

Rereading the Bible includes updated material from this site, plus a bonus chapter on evolution vs. intelligent design and a full section on the book of Revelation. Buy it now on Smashwords, where it's only 99 cents for over 50,000 words! That's cheaper than a soda at McDonald's!

Rereading the Bible on Smashwords

Rereading the Bible is also available on Amazon for Kindle; but due to Amazon's "minimum pricing policy," the cost is $2.99 there.

Rereading the Bible on Amazon

Either way, I hope you enjoy it, and if you do, please review it on both sites. Thanks for reading, and tell a friend!

Rereading the Bible is brought to you by