P.I.D. Radio 1/17/15: The Moon is a Planet


moon_creationTHE TITLE of this week’s show is a reference to a wonderful exchange between a clothing designer and a host on the QVC shopping channel about whether the Moon is a planet or a star. Of course, it’s neither, but it led to a discussion of a panic 60 years ago when the U.S. government frantically searched for two “natural” satellites that appeared on radar, orbiting the equator at 400 miles and 600 miles above the Earth.

We believe the UFO phenomenon is real, but it’s not what UFO true believers think it is.

Also: Elon Musk plans global satellite broadband; John Kerry brings James Taylor to France; Project Gladio; more American soldiers (and weapons) for Iraq; Russia uses Gazprom to threaten Ukraine and EU, while moving to absorb South Ossetia from Georgia; Thailand recognizes third gender in its new constitution; U.S. Supreme Court to rule on homosexual marriage; George Soros finances Ferguson protests; and ISIS continues to gain territory despite hundreds of Western air strikes.

Please join us Sunday mornings at 10:30 AM Central Time (UTC -6) for the Gilbert House Fellowship at www.GilbertHouse.org, a virtual gathering to study the scriptures in chronological order. And check out the website for our forthcoming book on transhumanism, Rise of the Cybergods.

Visit the P.I.D. Radio Facebook page. Find links to the articles we discuss at P.I.D. News, discuss the topics at the P.I.D. Radio Cafe, and make time to listen to some of the great Christian podcasters at the Revelations Radio Network.

Click the arrow on the player below to listen now, or right-click (control-click if you have a Mac) the “download” link to save the mp3 file to your hard drive.

6 comments on “P.I.D. Radio 1/17/15: The Moon is a Planet

  1. Elizabeth Alvarez

    Great show! I played the crazy QVC exchange for my husband & daughter & we all cracked up! Been listening to PID and VFTB for years. Love you two and am so happy about your great opportunity with Tom Horn & company in Crane. Eager to tune into Skywatch TV and see how it all develops. Good luck and God bless!

  2. Dr. Barton

    Just listened to this episode and I agree with other listeners that the QVC clip was top-notch ridiculousness.

    On the other hand, your comments about transgendered showed that there is a lot that you don’t know about the sexual spectrum or that you have carefully cultivated an ignorance so that you don’t have to question your strongly-held religious beliefs.

    1) It isn’t just XX and XY. There are other autosomal combinations that exist though they still, generally, exhibit the male / female dichotomy.

    2) There are other significant factors that affect the external physical sex characteristics than just the autosomal (XX / XY) genes. This is why there are significant numbers of people who are genetically one sex yet exhibit the external genitalia of the opposite sex. There is even a tribe in Central America in which the sex of the children is not assigned at birth because some of the female children, as they approach puberty, develop male genitalia and continue their adult lives as males. These “men” are XY but develop late. They are referred to as Huevos Dulces, I believe.

    3) We know, from studying numerous animal species, that sexual preferences are programmed in the brain. We also know that that this programming is not strictly dictated by the autosomal genes and that its development seems to be heavily influenced by epigenetics. As such, there is little to no reason to disbelieve people when they say that they have sexual attraction to members of the same rather than opposite sex just as it is quite reasonable to believe that some people have significantly lowered or heightened libidos.

    4) Theologically, if the sexuality of our physical bodies and emotional programming exist along a spectrum, then doesn’t it seem likely that this is God’s way of telling us that the sex of the person that you love is less significant than the love. After all, even Jesus has said that sex will have no significance in the afterlife (Mat 22:23-33).

    5) You may be mis-reading Gen 1:27.

    (The) Elohim created the Adam in (the) image. In (the) image of (the) Elohim (they) created you. Man and woman (they) created you (plural).

    The structure of the verse allows for “man and woman” to be understood as individuals or as an androgynous individual. Then, in Gen 2:7, it does not actually state that Yahoweh of the Elohim created “man” but, rather, “the Adam”. This is the way that this being is referred to until Gen 2:22, when Yahoweh of the Elohim removes one of the Adam’s side. At that point, man and woman come into existence. Thus, just as contemporary greek legend and later kabbalistic lore stated, the Adam was an androgynous being, half man and half woman. Once split into man and woman, neither could feel complete without its missing half (Gen 2:24). Of course, with the built-in sexual spectrum, the missing half need not be of the opposite sex.

    5) Finally, for this posting, perhaps it is time to start acting more like Jesus who never condemned homosexuality (even Mark 10:6-9 should be understood in light of the above). Rather, understand that it was the Elohim who made us and our spectrum of sexuality and treat it as the gift of love (not hatred) that it is.

  3. Derek Post author

    Dr. Barton:

    Thank you for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to listen and formulate such a well-written reply. However, I suggest, with all due respect, that you may be pigeonholing our position because you find it inconceivable that any reasonably well-informed person might reach conclusions with which you disagree.

    Sharon graduated with high honors with a degree in molecular biology, and she emphasized genetics in her studies. So we are aware that there are genetic abnormalities that fall outside the standard male-female paradigm. Obviously, people born with such genetic irregularities are special cases, 1 in a thousand or even more rare, that we did not address during the show. Perhaps we should have added a disclaimer.

    We have no doubt that there are a significant number of people who are generally attracted to members of the same sex. I don’t believe we tried to suggest otherwise during the program. As both of us have quite a bit of experience in music and, to a lesser extent, the stage, we both have known quite a few and would consider many of them friends.

    From point #4 onward, however, we must disagree.

    The concept of a sexual spectrum is of dubious scientific merit and ultimately irrelevant as far as God is concerned. Humans were created to multiply, and sexual relations outside of marriage (the biblical definition) were deemed sinful. (It is not clear to me how what we do in our resurrected bodies reflects on God’s definition of sin.)

    Your reading of Genesis is interesting but contradicts other scripture. “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6, the parallel verses to the passages you reference in Mark.) It has not been understood in orthodox Christianity to mean anything other than what one derives from a plain reading of the text: God created a man, then created a woman, and He created the two to be together. Reading Genesis as an androgynous origin story is eisegesis.

    As for #5, your point is only logically coherent if Jesus is not part of the godhead. I find the evidence to the contrary compelling. Jesus affirmed the Law, and no wonder — he gave it to Moses, including the parts that defined homosexuality as a sin.

    Now having said all that, maybe we didn’t communicate our reason for discussing the matter clearly enough. It has typically been true that Christians find it much easier to condemn homosexuality than other sins because it is one in which less than 4% of the population participates. It makes a tempting basis for going all self-righteous, which is wrong. Christians are no more righteous than anyone else, we are simply beggars who know where to find a free meal.

    We recognize that Christians are our own worst enemies when it comes to reaching the homosexual and transgender communities, which is why I interviewed Walt Heyer. Mr. Heyer says flat-out that most of the Christians he encountered when he lived as a woman were positively hateful. That serves no purpose — no godly purpose, anyway. The Enemy certainly appreciates our effort in setting up stumbling blocks between others and Christ.

    So if we did not communicate that effectively, then I apologize. We need to build bridges, not walls — but that does not mean we will agree to redefine what God calls “sin”.

  4. Dr. Barton

    My apologies for sounding like I was holding the two of you to the very limited views presented in this episode. Limited time does not often lend itself well to full expression of ideas. My posting was more to provide more information to the listeners.

    I will say that, in a society as large as ours 1 in a 1000 is not all that small. That’s, what? 7 million or so people around the world.

    Point 4 is exactly on-point. Sex is, ultimately, unimportant to God. And I believe that you are incorrect when you state that

    “Humans were created to multiply, and sexual relations outside of marriage (the biblical definition) were deemed sinful.”

    Human were created to multiply in Gen 1. Human multiplication in Gen 2+ is not really implied until after the Fall. They are separate creation stories and the subject of many pre-creation theological debates. You can conflate the two stories but that can lead to even greater theological difficulties (such as explaining the contradictory orders of creation and the different methodologies).

    Also, only certain sexual relations outside of marriage were deemed sinful. Concubines and sex with slave girls were certainly acceptable. Actually, I’m pretty sure that the biblical rules of “marriage” were even more ambiguous. I could be wrong but I don’t believe that same-sex marriages are even brought up in the “Bible”. It may be implied but implication is not the same as statement when it comes to death crimes.

    As for my reading of Gen 1:27, it actually matches Gen 2:23-24 better than the non-androgynous interpretation – unless you want to claim that “they shall be one flesh” is allegorical. Yes, it’s physically impossible but the text is quite clear, “one flesh”.

    As for your objection to point 5, I honestly don’t understand what Jesus being part of the Godhead has to do with the creation of man. Yahoweh or Yahoweh / Jesus / Holy Spirit doesn’t change the narrative that I can see.

    As for homosexuality being an abomination:

    1) you’re being too broad. Female homosexuality is actually never mentioned in the “Bible”. Male homosexuality is the only form that was considered important enough to mention – probably because of lineage issues.

    2) The abomination, in the OT, was “if a man lay with a man as with a woman”. As other people have pointed out, that is physically impossible, therefore the plain reading of the text leaves one with no clear idea of exactly what the abomination was. One could claim that it was anal sex but if that were the case, then it applies to some heterosexual couples and why wasn’t that more clearly stated? I might say, “Ick!” but I certainly wouldn’t condemn a person for a “sin” that God couldn’t be bothered to state clearly.

    Glad to hear that you are more accepting of the “sinner” than many evangelicals. I actually suspected that you were because, at that level of hatred, I wouldn’t have been able to listen to your show for more than a couple of minutes. My posting was not to condemn you but to point out to listeners that scientific theory is far more self-consistent and evidence-based than many evangelical leaders would have us believe and biblical interpretation is actually far less certain than they would like us to believe. Thanks for you time.

    P.s., If you haven’t already done so, let’s find out what your wife’s objections to genetics and evolution are. Most anti-evolutionists barely understand the concept of DNA (perhaps a bit of an exaggeration but not much) or fossilization let alone understand the enormous amount of data that fits together to form the ever-refining theory of evolution. It would be interesting to hear why someone who does understand part of it objects.

Comments are closed.