Abort! Abort! Abort!
May 21, 2008
With the upcoming presidential elections being more of a horse and pony show than a political agenda, I sat down to think about what America has become. When we moved in on the Native Americans and took over their land, we sought freedom from a monarchy that we had no say in posting. We did not know really that this was our intent though; it seemed to develop over time. Initially we were just good with gaining more land, riches, and glory. Soon settling in the British colonies was not enough; we wanted better.
The constitution was formed with the intent “to form a more perfect Union…” and to establish a creed for the United States of America. What is often used (or misused in many cases) in debates is the first amendment: Read more
Tags: constitution
Why I Shouldn’t Be A Christian
March 6, 2008
I was surfing the net and came across an article written by a mother about her son’s revelation that he was gay. She speaks of what her own feelings on homosexuality were before going through this ‘trial’ with her son. When I started to read it, I wanted to stop immediately. But rather than close myself off like she was presenting herself as doing, I continued to read. It was not getting any better.
She tells of when she read the note from her son that she had to call him and talk to him. She says that she made reference to Romans 8:38-39 where the Bible explicitely tells us that there is nothing that can seperate us from the love of God. STOP!
There is nothing.
Now wait a minute. Is it not the Christian advocate that dooms me to hell for loving another woman? Is it not the Christian advocate that says that God does not love me? Yet the Bible poses a different stance? The Bible is saying that my God loves me no matter what!?!?! “Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God.” I would think that the all-knowing and all-powerful God would first know what He is talking about, but second have the power to still love me. Do you doubt His power? Cause I don’t.
Sure, God may not condone my actions (again, another debate for another post), but nor does he condone the actions of any sinner. And that is what we all are: sinners.
Back to the story. She goes on to say that she tried to tell her son that he needed to renounce this lifestyle. She did some investigative work and apparently found an organization of ex-homosexuals who had essentially come back to God. Hoping her son would jump on the opportunity to be reformed, she presented him with her newfound knowledge. He told her that he did not feel trapped, and moreover that he was born gay. To which she writes of her sorrow over his deception. STOP!
Does not the Bible teach that we are all sinners at birth? Therefore if we are born sinners and to be gay is a sin, how is it wrong to say that we were born gay? We were born with this sin (again, a debate for another post) that is homosexuality.
Back to the scared sinner. She goes on to tell about these wounded souls that her son brings home from time to time; whether or not she is convinced that they have turned gay because of the scars they hide or wear is not apparent, and I do not want to make assumptions, but the direction was there.
I was abused as a child. My mother would beat us with whatever she could get her hands on the quickest. If it was the vaccum chord or the stainless steel spatula, she did not care so long as it was readily available. Yet, my sister got the real brunt of the abuse. My mother knew it would hurt me so much more than any beating ever could– to see her hit my sister and me not being able to do anything about it. She beat my sister once with this belt that was made of crushed jewels. It had no protective covering over it so even the slightest touch might prick you. I wanted to lunge at my mother that night.
So why is it that my sister has two beautiful kids and is about to marry the man whom she thinks is the world? And yet I am the one madly in love with the woman whom I think is the world? Perhaps we wear our scars differently, but I did try to have relationships with men. But there was never any chemistry. How do I know? Because the sparks and physical reactions that I have when I just think about my baby’s love for me is something that I have never felt with any man. My whole body tingles when she says just even my name. And the Christian advocate wants me to turn away love? The very love that they seek out themselves but can embrace because they get it from a man?
There is wonderful read by Bertrand Russell called Why I Am Not a Christian. Every time I read it, I leave with something new. While it is not really relevant to the topic of homosexuality, it does address ‘the church’ and ‘religion’ as he sees it and more. I could never denounce God and will make a post in the future about my thoughts on this particular read, but I believe that Christian advocates are a great reason why I should not be a Christian. It is just a shame that I know the truth far too well not to not be one.
Tags: homosexuality, Bible, God, Christian, Christian advocate
At Arms With An Atheist
March 6, 2008
A friend of mine is an atheist. I actually have several friends that are atheist, but I do not treat them any differently than my Christian friends. Nor do I treat them differently from my agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim, and Wiccan friends. My best friends always seem to be agnostic; I do not know what attracts me to them or them to me, but we always seem to be closer than their Christian counterparts.
No, I am not a different person around my different friends, but I am more open with some over others. Yes, they happen to be my non-Christian friends 99.9% of the times, but it is not because of their religious beliefs at all. It is because of who they are. Most non-Christians are more free thinkers, independent, and care-free. I like this personality because it means I can be 100% me.
See, while I am a Christian and adhere to the teachings of the Bible as best as an imperfect human can, I do not conform to organized religion too well. I actually believe the Bible when it tells me not to judge my brother. I listen when Christ teaches me to eat with the sinners (after all, I being a sinner myself should not hold myself above them). I try to follow in His ways when he showed me how to be servants of man.
Yet I missed the part when God told me to picket my neighbor’s house for committing a sin that I do not approve of. I must have fell asleep in Sunday school when my teacher was handing out the how-to booklets on judging. I forgot to take notes when my Pastor taught us how to hide our own sins while condemning our brothers. And I know I missed the part in the Bible that tells me I need to say ten Hail Marys for every sin I committed against my body….
But I believe in God. At times I hate that I have the knowledge of who He is because it is very true that ignorance is bliss. At least being ignorant to the word, I could join the world in their stupidity. Don’t get me wrong; I can do everything I want to do now. Sure, it is not always pleasing to my Maker, and I will have to repent for my sins, but I do it. No, I do not do these things with the guarantee that my sins will be forgiven; please do not misread me there. I do them because I am an impulsive person: I act and then I think. I talk to God often and apologize, but it does not stop me from having my fun. I am like any other person: I want to have fun.
This one particular friend who sparked me to write this post tried to figure out why me of all people (I assume because I am a lesbian…perhaps my abusive childhood…the abuse of my ex…or w/e…I don’t know why I would not be one) would believe in this God that the Christian community promotes. But I tried to get her to understand that my God is not their God. Yes, He is a father figure and yes, He is a ‘he’, but only because that is what the Bible represents him to me to be. He could be asexual, but He definitely has ‘male’ in Him. Why? Because Jesus was male. And Jesus was God as the Son. The Bible says that God presented Jesus to us as His son. So while it could be that God as a female mother presented Jesus as her son to us, I believe because Jesus was God personified, God is male. Or in the very least, asexual. But I prefer to think of Him as male. Oh…and He’s not white…He’s Hispanic…lol…just kidding….I don’t picture His race…that’s just my God.
Bottom line is that I believe in the Bible. I believe what it says so therefore I believe in God. But I believe in the Bible because it makes sense. It just makes sense. I can look around and see that this earth is too ‘perfect’ not to be divinely created. To say we are all a huge coincidence is what makes no sense to me! I mean to have a Maker makes more sense than coincidence in my opinion! For every cause, there is another cause; but there has to be an ultimate uncaused. The first domino but yet more because see, in order for that domino to fall, it has to be pushed. But to restrict an infinite God to a finite reasoning? I just cannot do it. So when my friend asked me to explain God essentially, I paled in comparison to Him. I just do not have the absolute truth and knowledge that He has to be able to explain Him.
The Bible says that even those who have not heard the word or been taught know that He is. That has to stand for something. That someone in a third world country who does not even know the Bible let alone organized religion just knows that there is a Divine Creator is awesome. Comparing in previous posts, man’s nature to God’s word, I cannot help believe that the Bible was divinely inspired. I asked my friend who is a manager for a small company to think of something for me: if the owner told her to create a new set of rules for which the office has to follow (herself included) or be terminated, would she write such rules as ‘no smoke breaks’ or ‘no talking to your neighbors’? Rules that she herself could not follow? She scoffed of course not; that would go against her nature–who she is (which is what she was trying to tell me religion does in forcing us to believe in this God figure, but I was trying to tell her that point was moot with the fact that my God is not the God of organized religion). To which I said: EXACTLY! So why would man write a book that tells him he must go against his nature in order to reach eternal happiness (or heaven…but that’s a debate for another post =P)?
I had a great conversation with my friend. I loved it because there was no raised voices, no judging, no name-calling, no negative vibes at all. It was pure conversation, purely intellectual, and just plain real. I cannot stand a Christian that tries to shove Christianity down another person’s throat, and I cannot stand an atheist who thinks that just because I am talking about God and the Bible, I am trying to conform them. After all, if they can state their opinions on God and the Bible, why can’t I?
I like for my faith to be tested; it reassures me that I truly believe. And I like intellectual discussion because it does get me to think. And as we already know, I like to think.
Tags: atheist, Christian, God, Bible
God the Father AND the Son
January 11, 2008
What the Church says: God is the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is the Holy Trinity of the Church and can be all three persons and one God at the same time. How? Why? The semantics don’t matter; God just is. The Son is separate from the Father, but is the Father… The Father sent His one and only son to die for us…He sent…himself…
What they say: How does that make any sense?! How can God be someone that He isn’t? One moment He is the Son, but the next He also isn’t? How can God be flesh and killed when God cannot be destroyed, and the Bible says that no eye has ever seen His face!? Oh, but because we have seen God the Son instead of God the God, we still have not looked upon..His..face… If God is omnipresent, what is the need for the Holy Spirit? God is everywhere inherently, right?
If God is the Son, why did he pray to the Father asking that he not have to take on the yolk that God the Father put on him? Jesus asked that the cup be passed away from him…but why ask himself? If Jesus was God the Son asking God the Father, wasn’t he really just God himself asking God himself to spare…himself? And if Jesus was God the Son, a manifestation of God the Father, how could he have the flesh to be spared (after all…God has no beginning or end..)? Either Jesus was a good man, faithful servant, loyal prophet, or he was a liar. Newspapers are filled with the lies and corruption of man; just because it is in print, does not make it valid. The Bible telling us that Jesus was God does not make him God.
What I say: When a born again Christian proclaims to have recieved Christ in their heart, they say that Jesus is in them; that he lives in their heart. Does Jesus really live in their heart? Of course it is silly to get so legalistic, but why get legalistic about the terms of God being both Father and Son?
The Bible says that man cannot look upon the face of God, but yet man was constantly looking for their Saviour. How could God make himself shown to man if not to change how He shows himself to man? God as the Son was the way to bridge the gap; from man to God, Jesus stretched out his arms for us.
There are many men that can be called great, good, loved men; but Jesus was perfect…how many other men are noted to be such? Sure we can discount him as just another good prophet…but was Mohammad perfect? Is there any other documents of another man, let alone a prophet being perfect? Perfect! We seem to let that concept escape our reasonings; who else but God could be perfect?! It’s like a cruel joke on us really: God can say ‘I know it can be done because I did it’ anytime we say it’s too hard.
I’m going to have to take a TBC (to be continued); like my other posts, these are just ‘openers’ to themes to come. Kind of like ‘Answers 101.’ Stay tuned for the rest of the semester when we hit Intermediate Answers. 
Tags: God, Father, Holy Spirit, Trinity
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
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
Prove God
October 12, 2007
What the Church says: God is. He just exists. There is no ‘definition’ of who He is and His ways are supreme, righteous, and warrant no challenges; after all, the Bible says that we should only test the Lord in our tithes and offerings. God does not have to prove himself and, in fact, to do so would be to challenge who he is. That being said, the Bible itself proves the existence of the Almighty anyways so why question who He is?
What they say: How can you use the book that publishes God as the creator to justify who he is; moreover, how do you prove ‘God’ with… ‘God?’ Specifically, the Bible is the one that establishes God as the Judeo-Christian entity that we have ‘accepted’ and now ‘challenge,’ but in order to validate it’s claims, the Church tells us to…look…in…it. Moreover, if I created a text that established that Muskucs exist in captivity and that for proof of their existence, I ask you to look to my writings…which first establish their existence and nature…have I not then created for you a circular logic that will only leave you at step one over and over again?
But say we accept the writings of the Bible on the character of God; not accept who He is perse, but rather what is written in the Book. How, then, are we supposed to ‘accept’ this version of God when what we see in our world totally contradicts the existence of a benevolent deity? We are supposed to accept that God is loving when children are being abused and killed daily; we are supposed to believe that God answers prayers when our mothers, fathers, and spouses die of cancer. We are supposed to accept that God exists in a world full of suffering, pain, evil, and despair. Because this book tells us. And never mind that we can’t question why or how He exists in such a state of contradiction, but that we should walk in faith. Seems all too self-fulfilling for the prophets and a cop-out for modern man.
What I say: When you were born, the hospital created a record of your birth and issued your parents a birth certificate which they used to obtain a social security card for you. When you hit adolescence and needed your driver’s permit, you had to provide these things to the DMV as proof of who you were. Did they ask you to prove who you are? Moreover, did they ask you to perform selfless acts of love to prove that you are a loving person? Or to save a child from a murderer’s hands to prove that you are merciful? Did you have to do anything more than present these papers backing up your claims of being ‘you’? Why, then, do we ask the same of the Creator? He cannot be just as we are? Are you any more of a John or Jane because you can perform spectacular sights on command; more specifically, are you defined by what you do rather than your inherit nature or being? Yet we as the inferior man presume to put standards on the superior God?
At the point where we grant that what the Bible teaches is accurate, we grant that God is. Why? Because that is what the Bible says. We cannot take parts of the Bible to suit our needs; it’s an all or nothing deal. Why? Because the Bible says! At the very minute that we concede the Bible, we concede God; or rather, the idea of God– not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God. Meaning, we concede that there is a God so the next step is to determine who He is. Moreover, is he the God represented in the Bible, the Qur’an, or the Torah? Yet how can we question who he is when we have already accepted that the Bible is an accurate source? It would seem the paradox that we created would lead to the assumption that there is no answer and/or that God is a nice idea albeit an illusion.
But the ‘logic’ does not have to be so circular; we go to the Bible and hear about this ‘God’, we read further to find out more about this ‘God’ and who He is, we become to know ‘God.’ The issues in the whole ‘prove God in relation to the world’ debate, is not whether or not he exists (that is for another debate), but that his existence contradicts what is written about him and the way the world operates. However, they also use this contradiction to then say that He does not exist which doesn’t work because in order to initially say that He contradicts the nature of the world, we have to concede who he is! It’s like law: you cannot establish motive after the fact.
Semantics and logic aside, we should not be challenging the ‘who’ of God, but rather the ‘why.’ Why do we deserve such a merciful Father? Why is He always in our court? Why does he love me uniquely? It would seem that in light of the world, why is God still the unchanging lover that He is?
Again, I would like to note that this is but the mere tip of the iceberg, but that it is also from my stream of consciousness alone. Til next post…
Tags: question, God, prove, Judeo-Christian
