Time to pull out those textbooks, folks, and gear up for your next exam — this time, in theological engineering! (an oldie, but a goodie — let’s see what answers you can come up with!)

THEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING EXAM 1
5 Questions, 60 Minutes

• You may use a calculator, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, and the Book of Mormon.
• The speed of light is c and is always blindingly pure.
• Show all work. Notate all divine inspiration.
• For all problems, assume a perfectly spherical Jesus of constant density D.
• No praying during the exam.

Question #1: (20 pts) Bob and Joe are standing on a street corner. God loves each an equal amount L. Bob then accelerates to 0.9c. In Joe’s rest frame, how much does God now love Bob?

Question #2: (20 pts) Sven, a Lutheran, is in a state of grace. He then has sex with standard-issue sheep S.

a. (8 pts) What is Sven’s atonement coefficient following the act if the sheep was not willing?

b.(12 pts) What if the sheep, while not technically being willing, could not be said to mind, either?

Question #3: (20 pts) Let the eternal, all-abiding love of the Holy Spirit be the x – y plane. Let Sue’s soul be at (0,0,5) at t=0 seconds, traveling at 5 m/s in the direction of the positive z axis. Everything is in Cartesian coordinates bespeaking subscription to a perfectly rational Enlightenment attitude towards the Universe. At what time t will Sue be saved? (Hint: Assume a point soul.)

Question #4: (20 pts) Assume the Rapture occurs at time t. Cornelia, a saved human being weighing 90 kg, in a state of grace, has her head in the closing jaws of an alligator at time t. What mass of meat will remain to the alligator at time t + 10 sec.?

Question #5: (20 pts) Stan is a frictionless, massless Mormon in a rest state. His sin level (l) for his faith is currently at 11 McBeals. He eats 0.3 kg of pork and enjoys it very much. Assume that the Jews are right about, well, pretty much everything:

a. (10 pts) What is Stan’s sin level now?

b. (10 pts) Assuming Stan repents at a constant acceleration of 0.32 petitions/hour, at what point will he reach a state of Holiness?

Extra Credit (10 pts): 25 grams of wafers and 20 ml of cheap wine undergo transubstantiation and become the flesh and blood of our Lord. How many Joules of heat are released by the transformation?

Hand in the exam when done and may God have mercy on your work.

Since losing my religion, I’ve noticed that my extreme emotions, especially on the joy/elation/happiness side of things have mostly gone away, or at least really hard to replicate, unlike when I was masked by that rigidity in my mind.   I’ve been musing about why that is and whether or not the feelings I felt back then were really true or not.

Let’s be clear here; when I say something about “losing my religion”, I am speaking specifically of that dogmatic, biased, conservative film that was placed over my life and mind for so many years of my life.    I speak not of belief, which is unconnected with this (and which I’ve retained, just in a different form.)   Until I entered my college years, I was as much of your typical Bible-banger as the next and if I was still in that state I’d probably think that the sun shines out of McCain and Palin’s ass as much as the next Republican fundamentalist whacko.  Fortunately, that’s not the case.

Losing all that was a long process that I’m not entirely sure I am finished with.   The first formative years were very hard; like a harsh solvent contacting an old portrait, logic, critical thinking, doubt, and speculation cut through the years of the caked-on paint of religious indoctrination, something supplied by my parents, my church, and many of my activities, including summer church camp.   Finding myself dropped into a vat of searing new ideas, I screamed.    The removal process was painful, confusing, and incredibly depressing.    But as the old grime came away, I discovered that the restoration process was, in fact, a good thing.

I emerged from the living hell as a better person, both mentally and emotionally.   Now I am left mostly with whatever is left — a more truer me, a justifyable credo, and a newfound appreciation for everything outside of myself.    I am significantly less in substance due to eliminating a large amount of my history, but I’m more real.    However, somewhere along the way, I lost my profound emotions.

I do not know if you, dear reader, have ever been involved in the extreme psychological experiences that the various acts and rituals of religions can impose upon a person, but most of my highest highs derived directly from my experience with the church.     Singing just the right hymn in the right context used to bring me to tears; hearing trumpets on Easter morning had me leaping for joy; the slam of the book at the end of Good Friday service sent chills down my spine; Christmas Eve was full of warmth and happiness;  joining arms with fellow church campers and singing praises to a song played by guitar while staring at a mirror-encrusted cross in spotlights made me weep uncontrollably with joy.

I sincerely doubt you’d get me to react that way anymore in the same situation.   But I think I’m ok with that.

I muse at these reactions that I used to have and their place in my life at that time, but then I also think of them in the context of what I know and believe now, and how they are so misplaced and misguided, they almost make me sick to think about it.    How could I have let myself get carried away like that?   It’s not only illogical, but is fully within the corruptive, rapturous behaviors that let groups of people whip themselves into a religious frenzy and do all sorts of crazy things devoid of thinking.

I think one of the greatest dangers of organized religion (amongst many others) is its ability to tap directly into that part of our brains which controls our unhindered emotional states and to trigger those extremes through use of a directed fantasy painted ontop of a base of suspended logic and glued together with dogmatic rituals and rites.   As we well know, emotional rollercoasters end up being very addicting, even those not enhanced by drugs or alcohol.   Some people live for the rushes, even if they come naturally.   Get enough religion under your belt and you have a constant source of high that doesn’t involve tying off and slapping your forearm or rolling up a roach.   How convenient.

Don’t get me wrong — I still have moments of extreme feelings in one direction or another, so it’s not like I’ve become a completely vapid creature.   Rather, many of the things that wind people up simply don’t affect me because I’m rationalizing my reaction.   Certain things still get me, however; particular performances of music, my wife, my son, specific writings, certain songs, some movies, the occasional commercial, etc.   I don’t know if these are illogical throwbacks and/or failings of my ability to intellectually handle all aspects of my life, or if they are expressions of my desire to, on ocassion, suspend my own reality in favor of another.   And on a moderate basis, I think that’s perfectly natural.

The question is, am I alone in my experiences?   Do the people who have religion automatically have a greater emotional range within them due to those extremes, or do they exist outside of the realm of belief?   Have I, by insisting that my life be directed by intelligent, rational, and calculated thought and conclusions, automatically excluded myself from ever truly achieving such profound emotional experiences?    It seems that the only way to truly reach those states is to suspend or deny reality so that they can be reached without the hindrances of thinking.

What of joy, oh heart?  Oh death, where is thy elation?

My ears ache and my head starts to throb in non-sexually-pleasurable ways any time someone brings up the topic of gay marriage, polygamous relationships, or other joinings of people in ways that aren’t traditionally mainstream. The unwashed masses toe up to the lines on the playground and throw feces at each other across the quad while I sit here with a simple, obvious solution to all of this mish-mash, and all I can do is reel under the waves of debate, screaming, “WHY DO YOU PEOPLE SUCK!?”

Yes, I’m on medication, just not the kind you’re thinking of. ~

Here’s how you solve the “problem” of marriage, once and for all, for all situations, types, and combinations, without hurting anyone’s feelings, stepping on any religious toes, or violating any laws of the land. This solution is airtight, I believe, and really doesn’t have any downsides — at least, until you prove otherwise. Feel free to show me a moron if I am, truly, barking mad.

The Problem

Parishioners get their petulant panties in a twist anytime someone goes to get married that doesn’t fit their religion’s bill of tender. Yet the act of not getting married means that the couple (or group, as the case may be) does not get to participate in the tax breaks and other civil benefits that marriage brings (for instance, getting to be your partner’s health care decision maker). Married folks clearly have the advantage when it comes to this, as well as simply being able to state, “We’re married.” Most homosexual couples are happy enough to simply have a “commitment ceremony” to say their vows to each other, but they feel they’re being shafted in the benefits department (and rightly so) by a society geared towards heterosexual unions.

The Solution

The answer to all of this is very simple (told you), can be understood by anyone, and involves little change from our current way of administering and handling marriages. It is also compliant with all religious beliefs, whether they specifically allow or disallow homosexual marriages or other different unions.

Marriage is, right now, a combination of two facets: one, the legal joining of two people in the sight of the government and society for purposes of taxation, health care, benefits, names, and other associations, and two, the religious ceremony that unites two people into one unit.

The key is to disassociate these two acts from being one act into their separate facets once again without any cross-association between the two. Once we are able to do this, marriage can happen and civil unions can happen and nobody gets their feathers ruffled.

The Civil Union

The word marriage gets stripped from government and the legal side of things and in its place the civil union is born. This is a legally-binding agreement that joins two or more people together in an entity that is recognized by government and society as being a single unit for purposes of taxation, health care, names, responsibilities, etc. I say two or more because what is to prevent a group of four from becoming a civil union? Logically, there’s no barrier to this. The result is very much like incorporating a business; you have to fill out the forms, jump through the legal hoops, pay your fees, and then you are joined. There’s no religious involvement — indeed, no ceremony at all. It is simply a matter of following procedure. The process should be difficult enough so as to not be easy but simple enough to not prevent anyone from going through it. The cost can be set high enough to make it a significant financial decision, yet not out of reach for the poorest yet well-intentioned.

The process for disjoining would be similar to the dissolution of a corporation. Agreements about assets and liabilities would have to be resolved, agreements made, and the courts involved to review the case and agree to the divorce. Again, it should be difficult enough such that it won’t be taken lightly and the system clogged with weekend pranksters, yet workable for the poor and inept to accomplish if necessary.

The Marriage

Marriage, then, is left to be a purely religious ceremony, carried out in whatever way that particular belief chooses. The religion of note can choose whether or not to support homosexual or polygamous relationships or to disavow them, much like it already does now. There would be no paperwork for the State involved with a marriage — if the religion has paperwork, so be it, if not, that’s fine, too. It is performed before or after the civil union or without it as people like — having a marriage does not mean having to have a civil union, nor does having a civil union mean that a marriage is required. They end up being two completely different acts.

It Works. Really.

The separation of these two aspects into different acts is the solution I propose. It allows any sort of combination of people to reap the benefits of government and society without being tied to a religious definition. Anyone can have a religious ceremony without having to make a civil committment. Divorce is taken in the context of which it was conceived — you can break your religious connection without dissolving your civil one if you choose. Each belief system can condone or disown each couple or group as they like.

“But Nathan,” you say, “I don’t believe that homosexuals should get married!” Fine. What’s the problem? You can believe that all you want, but you cannot tell me that in a religiously-neutral context it makes any sense to legally disallow gays or other groups from being civilly joined. If you insist that the government disallow civil unions because they aren’t allowed by your religion, then you are asking the government to align with the beliefs of your religion and that, my friend, simply isn’t right. Nobody wants the government to dictate religious beliefs — that’s a founding principle of the United States — so why do you insist on doing so with marriage?

The solution above is the best of all worlds. People can once again reap the benefits of being legally associated with others and conform to whatever religious belief they prefer (or to none at all, if that suits them). What astounds me is why nobody seems to think of this on their own.

Why is there such a barrier to an idea such as this? How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?

The world may never know.