In the Beginning
November 17, 2007
What the Church says: God is, was, and always will be; God is Alpha and the Omega– the Beginning and the End. He was not created; God just is. God created the Heavens and the Earth, knitted our innermost being while in our mother’s womb, and gave life to every creature and being in existence. God is the Creator, Designer, and Master Craftsman of all the wonders the eye can see. God is the very ‘uncaused’ that caused the universe and the world that we live in. His existence cannot be denied as doing so would create the very paradox that to deny something is to acknowledge first that it exists and then that it does not (ie. I cannot say a Minotolo exists or does not exist until I establish that it does exist).
What they say: If God just ‘is’ and has always been, then why can’t we use the same argument for the existence of man? That the earth and its creatures just ‘are’ and always have been? Why is one argument good for the Christian but not for others (an idea explicated by Carl Sagan an adopted by atheists and agnostics alike). After all, since there is no concrete proof of ‘God,’ how can we say that He existed post-creation and that creation was not before Him?
I can freely say that a Minotolo does not exist because it does not– not because it does, and I choose to deny it. I do not first have to admit that something exists in order to say that it doesn’t; all I have to do is call you an idiot for thinking that a Minotolo exist. You have to define a Minotolo before telling someone it exists so that I can then again call you an idiot and prove that a Minotolo is actually something totally different or still does not exist.
What I say: The first problem that atheists run into in using an argument such as the Earth always being just as God always has been is that they are trying to compare a holy deity to an anthropomorphic (like man) being. In other words, we are comparing apples and parachutes. The Bible tells us that God is a spirit (John 4:24) and that God never was man. It tells us that God is in a whole other dimension by saying that He is beyond time (Psalm 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) and is in fact in control of time (Acts 1:7). How can we even begin to compare the Creator of time to imperfect man???
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
Revelations 21:4 tells us what Heaven will be like– the Heaven that God offers to us and where He is seated on His thrown. Such a place is like the antithesis of what we have created here on Earth. How can we compare what we have created to what God has created?
To simply state that there is no evidence of God is like a hollow excuse; all I would have to contend is that there is a God then and I would be right? It is science that for every effect there is a cause, and this argument has been used by the Christian community to show that creation (effect) came by means of God (cause). Atheists will say then what caused God, but what they forget is that there has to be an ultimate uncaused; moreover, that there has to be a ‘first domino’ to knock down all the others, and God is that domino.
You don’t have to call me an idiot for saying a Minotolo exists; you merely have to discuss with me what a Minotolo is**. Once I have told you what a Minotolo is and you still don’t believe me, you can deny that exists, but that doesn’t have to mean that it doesn’t. But if I say to you that I have seen a Minotolo, how can you who have not seen it say it does or does not exist? In the same turn, I can say I have seen God, but you denying His existence does not make it any less true or that God does not exist.
**I will dive further into this ‘idea’ in further posts, but being at work at the moment, I cannot. For the sake of the topic, though, I did want to touch on it briefly.
Tags: God, Alpha and the Omega, uncaused, atheists, agnostics, holy deity, anthropomorphic
Shy Snippet
November 9, 2007
When I was in college, I had to do a research paper for my Human Sexuality class. It was based on a thesis that I had to prepare so I did something related to online dating. I made an online ID that I would continue to use in most of my online ventures for years to come. The ID was ’shylesson’ and as simple as it sounds, it usually is available for use in any venue I join. So as such, I have been tagged the nickname ’shy’ despite my extroverted nature. Yet lately, I have not been so extroverted.
I think a lot. I ponder on the day to day and my past. I wonder what I could have done here, there, then, now… I’m a good person. I always come back to that. I am the type of person who would give my shirt off my back knowing it was the last shirt I even had just to see another person clothed. It is just how I have always been. Yet, it always seems to bite me in the ass. I have been working 11-12 hour days 5-6 days a week, and it is taking its toll on me. I sit here in a new place (again) trying to build up money (again) to get another car (again) because I gave all of myself for the people I loved. And what do I have to show for it? Well she stole my Wii, my bike, my drums, and broke my computer (I had to wait like 2 weeks to get it fixed) when I had done absolutely nothing to her. I worked hard for each of these things except the drums (a Christmas present). I had wanted a Wii for almost a year, and I finally was able to get it. I bought all the accessories and most of the games and any other extra you could think of. I loved it. It was something that I bought. And she stole it. Claims she loved me? Bull shit. I gave her everything she ‘wanted’ but the two things that I asked for (my computer and my Wii), she takes from me.
Never mind that she beat the ever loving crap out of me. Bruises heal, scars fade, and memories of the pain die out as well, but to target the few things that I enjoyed? Nothing more than a pocketbook to her I was.
I loved her. Still do. Anyone will tell you that. But how do I deal with loving her and feeling that she never really did love me? She could not possibly have loved me. She never showed me. And after all the drama, she continues to show me that she never really did.
I could not possibly write all the thoughts that I have in my head right now in regards to my ex and how things ended, but thought that a snippet inside my mind would be a great way for me to deal with it some. I think I will write more of my thoughts in this blog too. I’ll make a separate category just for them. After all, this is the blog where I can say anything–nothing is filtered– right?
Tags: ponder, drama, thoughts, filtered
Can’t, Never Could
November 5, 2007
I had a teacher once who hated to see her kids give up so easily on anything. Whenever she would hear us say that we can’t do something, she would say to us: can’t, never could. It never really made any sense in my mind’s eye, but today is a little more clear. See, if we say we cannot do something, then logically we never could have done it, right? In other words, the only reason not to be able to do something is because it just never was doable. But if it could be done, then I should be able to do it and not saying that I can’t.
I recently read an opinion article of a young man who thought it fitting to propose the title ‘You Can’t Protect Everything.’ My disdain for the article has nothing to do with its title however. Let’s take a look at an excerpt from that article:
Let me express the voice of those thinking students who understand what nondiscrimination really should be about.
If you look carefully at the list of things which the university does not discriminate against, they are all things that one is. They are not things that one does.
In other words, I did not choose to be born male. Nor did I choose to be born white. In fact, with ever more shrill cries for affirmative action, I might have chosen to be born neither.
The policy states that the University does not discriminate based on “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability or veteran status,” according the article.
Each of these affiliations relates to things that a person is. A person is black. A person is female. A person is old. A person is disabled. One doesn’t choose to be these things. One simply is.
Though religion isn’t something you are, freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, so it’s there for that reason.
While this point shouldn’t have to be made, homosexuality is not something that someone is. It is something that someone does.
There is no such thing as a gay gene. It only demonstrates the agenda of humanist, liberal scholars that this hasn’t been made clear.
But, let’s say there was a gay gene. How would this gene be inherited? How would this gene last for more than one generation?
I was so taken aback by this ‘educated’ man’s ignorance that I simply had to post a reply to his column in the comments section. My comments on his opinion:
“Though religion isn’t something you are, freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment, so it’s there for that reason.”
Why is it justifiable to make exceptions to a point that you are attempting to make so as to merely support your side? You attempt to make a point that we do not choose to be a sex, race, or age, etc. and therefore should rightfully not discriminate against those, but not homosexuality. Yet, you realize that your point does not hold water when it comes to the aspect of religion so you are quick to make the First Amendment comment. What about ‘veteran status’? Don’t we have those who choose to go into the military, thus choosing this status?
“While this point shouldn’t have to be made, homosexuality is not something that someone is. It is something that someone does.”
Really? I didn’t know I ‘do homosexuality.’ I was under the impression that I ‘am’ a homosexual. So do you ‘do straight’ or are you just straight?
“There is no such thing as a gay gene. It only demonstrates the agenda of humanist, liberal scholars that this hasn’t been made clear.”
There is also no such thing as the religion gene or the veteran gene for that matter. But that’s not what is up for discussion is it? So why bring up a moot point?
And then to go on to compare homosexuality to body piercings! I love it! Let’s not stop there, though. Let’s not forget about clothes! The government should not protect us from being discriminated against because of what we wear! That’s our choice after all! But wait… does not a nun wear a habit and priest wear their vestments? So we can discriminate against them because they are wearing silly clothes…no wait, we can’t because they are religious people who only wear them because that is their religion so to discriminate against them would be to discriminate them based on their religion…wait…right?!
The thing with clothes and jewelry and any other accessory you choose to adorn for the day is that these are all accessories! These are not who you ‘are.’ But then you will say that you can choose not to be gay, right? But then you still have to admit that being gay or straight is just that: ‘being.’ You are comparing inanimate objects to a state of being. This is like comparing apples and parachutes.
All in all, you attempt to bring up several points as to why rights of homosexuals should not be protected, but when you apply the vacuum test, they fail. You cannot apply one logic to homosexuality, one to religion, and then yet another to veteran status.
Do a little more research before you post illogical barbel. After all, even an opinion should use some logic; because if it doesn’t, it’s really just a load of bull.
I would like to point out that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Sure, many think that being gay is a choice. Obviously the author and I have different opinions on what our choices are, but it is not for lack of knowledge or research that I make the statements that I make. An educated opinion, while still an opinion, allows for educated debate.
Just as when I spoke on children growing up raised by gay parents, I think it is highly illogical that someone would choose to be chastised all their life. That even as a young child, that they would go against peer pressure and love someone of the same sex. So when someone says to me that being gay is a choice, I have to wonder why. One day I will share how I came to fall in love with the woman I want to spend the rest of my life with so more will see that it really was not a choice for me.
I must say, I enjoyed one follow-up editorial that another student wrote. There were a couple of others who wrote in reply to the editorial as well:
Sexuality, Rights Are Who I Am
All in all we realize that no one will ever have the ‘right’ answers; that in a world where relativity and opinions allow us to be the ignorant race that we are, we cannot find the happy medium that is unity.
Tags: discriminate, homosexuality, ignorance, gay, rights, opinions, choice
Anti Abortion Alley
November 1, 2007
On April 1, 2004, President Bush signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act into law. Also known as Laci and Conner’s Law, the law establishes that one may be prosecuted for causing death or bodily injury to an unborn child.
`(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
`(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.
`(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that–`(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
`(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
`(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.
I find the wording peculiar. The very premise of abortion laws now is that a ‘baby’ is not really a living member of the homo sapien community until it is out of the mother’s womb. Yet, this law is calling this entity an ‘unborn child’. Bush’s press secretary quotes:
“The President does believe that when an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a crime of violence, the law should recognize what most people immediately recognize, and that is that such a crime has two victims.”
So how is it that we are supposed to accept abortion laws when the current laws contend that the fetus is an unborn child and the President insists that a crime against this unborn child has two victims? Obviously pro-abortionists caught onto the snafu too because they were in an uproar.
However, one abortionist in New Hampshire, Dr. Wayne Goldner, candidly gave his position on the Peterson case, “On a realistic basis, (the fetus) was not a human being, it was a potential human being,” he said.
I love this ‘idea’ the best. ‘Potential’ human being?? Is this guy for real? And he has a PhD??!! Is this to say that the fetus may or may not be a human? Color me confused, but I thought once a woman became pregnant, we throw them ‘baby’ showers…not ‘potential’ baby showers. Sure, he may be going on the premise that this unborn fetus may never get to be born due to complications during pregnancy or other horrors, but does that make it any less of a human? The syntax is wrong if that is what he was trying to say, but what befuddles me the most is that someone so educated could make such a stupid remark.
The law does contend that it cannot be used against those who choose to have an abortion. But it that does not make it any less illogical. Here we have a law that contends if someone kills or causes ‘bodily’ (and on an aside…how can we say this is not yet a human being, but it still has a body?) harm to an unborn child, that they have committed two crimes: one against the mother, and the other against the unborn child. Yet, if a mother decides to kill their baby, there is no crime… Why does it matter the manner in which one takes to terminate the life of this unborn fetus?
I think the abortion debate is flawed in many areas. Anti-abortionists contend that we should not play God and that abortion is murder (also against Christian beliefs). Yet, they can go around judging, slandering, and hindering their brothers. How does this make them any better of a Christian? The Bible contends that there is no difference in the weight of sins. Abortionists contend that we should have the choice to do whatever we want to with our own body because it is ours. Yet the Bible contends that the body is God’s temple. The Bible does also contend that we have free will. This means we have the choice to do whatever we want to (good or bad), yet Anti-abortionists cannot allow for it? They want to say that it is wrong to play God or go against the Word of God, yet they cannot allow others to institute the free will that God gave to us all? Hypocrites.
I myself am Pro-Choice, but given the choice, I would choose not have an abortion. And if anyone asked me what they should do, I would tell them every time not to have an abortion. I do not believe in abortions, but I do believe that we should have the choice that is given to us through the free will that God has granted us. I do not think it is appropriate to call Pro-Choicers ‘Pro-Death’ because that is not what they are. They are exactly what they are labeled: pro-choice. Because like in my instance, I am against abortions, but still pro-choice. So I cannot be pro-death if I do not condone it.
Do I think there should be anti-abortion laws on the book? Yes. Why? Because I think abortions have become the new birth control and it has done a great injustice not only to the unborn children, but to the mothers as well. Just as we have to have sanctions to ensure order, I think we should have sanctions to ensure our legacy, safety, and good name.
Tags: Unborn Victims of Violence Act, abortion, unborn fetus, pro-choice
