As an atheist and a divisive jerk (which are not mutually inclusive), there's not much that I enjoy more than watching a fundamentalist Christian argue a modernized Christian.
From the view of an objective third party, it's a revealing take on the Bible itself and on the evolution of "memes" within society.
Memes were first outlined by Richard Dawkins as a medium other than genes through which natural selection can be observed. In short, memes are cultural units. Stories, philosophy and anything else transmitted through interpersonal communication can be considered a meme.
With each telling of a story, the details change. Certain things will be emphasized to prove a point based on the needs of the era, but the fundamental story stays the same.
Memes are similar to different breeds of dogs. Dogs living in the mountains grow longer hair to keep warm. Sight hounds are extremely fast so they can catch prey. Scent hounds have huge nostrils that pick up a lot of information. Despite their different strengths, they're all still dogs.
Similarly, a meme might emphasize one thing or another, but at the end of the story, the wolf always eats grandma.
Religion is an interesting case.
Religion is a meme. It wants to change. It has to stay updated to remain relevant and survive. Religious texts lack this ability.
Christianity wants to change to remain relevant, but the Bible was still written 2,000 years ago.
To watch a fundamentalist Christian talk religious shop with a modernized Christian is to watch that fundamental conflict between the evolution of Christianity and the attempt to stay true to the Bible.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are both memes. They evolve with the times. The Constitution, at its heart, is still the same as it was 200 years ago, but as our society has changed and progressed, so has the foundation of our nation.
We dropped the Three-Fifths Compromise in favor of accepting the equality of all people, which allowed everyone to vote regardless of wealth, education, race or gender. Barack Obama is not three-fifths of a President-elect.
The Bible does not amend. That's a problem. It doesn't matter how many Christians are against slavery; in all forms, the Bible still says it is kosher.
It doesn't matter how many Christians say rape is bad, Lot was still saved from Sodom for being such a good guy after offering his virgin daughters to be raped by the city. Lot's wife was turned to salt for watching the city burn. Matthew and Luke will always disagree by 10 years on when Jesus was born.
It is a conflict between living in the real world and living in the Biblical world, and it's difficult for people to do both. The result is people pick and choose when they want to live in one world or the other. A fundamentalist chooses more of the rules and punishments of God, while a reformist will choose the hippie-esque words of Jesus.
It is possible that no single work contradicts itself more often than the Bible.
Why would it ever need to change if it could take all three sides of a two-sided argument?
Wes Hunt is a history senior. His column appears on Tuesdays.
