Loving God [Part 1]
September 12, 2008
God is often referred to as a loving God. Atheists and Agnostics alike often like to use this ideal against the Christian community. They stipulate that if our God is so loving, how can He allow for pain and suffering? How can He allow babies to die or be killed. How can He allow women to be raped and abused? How can He allow others not to love? Moreover, it is not just that He is a loving God, it is that He is Omnipotent; therefore, God should be able to stop this.
Dissenters say that because the world as we know contradicts a loving, all-powerful God, that God cannot exist. After all, He would do something, right? Loving us means protecting us, right?
Let’s examine each argument fully for a minute. Read more
Tags: God, Atheists, Agnostics, allow, Omnipotent
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. So today I’m gonna choose to be gay. Tomorrow I think I’ll choose to be bi. Maybe next week I’ll dabble with ‘other’. I’ll choose to be straight only every other weekday though….
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? Why would someone choose to be the outcast? Perhaps because I don’t choose to be an outcast, I will never understand it, but I still want to. I try to put myself in other people’s shoes; play devil’s advocate so to speak, but I still can’t understand the ‘why’.
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
Me, Me, Me, ME!
October 10, 2007
At our core, we are ‘selfish‘ but ’selfish’ takes on such a negative connotation that no one really wants to admit it. It is not that we do not care about others or have compassion for others, it is just that we are taught from a young age to take care of ourselves first. This looking out for number one mantra does not always follow us into adulthood, but the battles of it affects us in that we see that we should not be so egocentric but that we find it easier to be.
Being single is easy; you do not have to make excuses for for your feelings, actions, and priorities. I would imagine people do not want to be single forever for fear of being alone, but how ‘alone’ can someone be if they have a plethora of friends? Sure, you do not have someone to go to bed with every night or hang out with in the mornings and late evenings (often), but you could always find someone to hang out with depending on the friends you choose.
Why is it that we cannot look after number one? I have been screwed in my life many times over caring about others and trying to put them first. I set my own needs, wants, and dreams aside so that they could be happy and have what they wanted and/or needed. To my own detriment. How is this logical?
It is hard to say what is right and what is wrong in a world where relativity is the answer to everything. All that you can do is make the decision that is right for you. Everything else is just… relative.
Tags: selfish, single, relativity
People Person
September 20, 2007
People are stupid. A person has a chance, but people as a group are stupid. They cannot think as a unit and therefore cannot be as productive as the individual. An individual will work and scheme to be better than the next whereas the group will contain slackers who depend on the others to pick up where they lack. It is the lack of motivation as a group that people become inert. A person is mobile. People are swayed by the masses whereas a person questions his own reality.
Entitled
September 6, 2007
You get off the bus from school and walk to your house. You throw your heavy book bag on the chair and go straight for the fridge. What will you snack on today? Dr. Pepper and chips? Milk and cookies? Juice and crackers? Maybe a little of everything? Too many options so why not? You grab your plate of goodies and plop down on the couch to channel surf. It feels so good to be out of that heat. You finish what you can, toss the rest, and then get on the phone to see what your friends are doing. Your mom comes home and fixes dinner while you finish your homework. You eat, have dessert, and even are so nice as to help with the dishes. You take a shower and get in your comfortable bed and go to sleep. Dreamland is not far off. Tomorrow is another day and it will be just as boring.
Then there is her.
A girl walks home from school in shoes with broken soles. She can feel every rock on the side of the street with each step. She has to carry her books in her hand because her family cannot afford bread let alone a bag pack for school. She arrives at the shed that they call a house and walks up the creaking steps. She opens the screen door that is supposed to separate their home from the outside world and walks into the murky room. It is hot outside but even hotter inside. Air conditioning is a luxury her family does not know. She lays her books down on the card table they call a dinner table and gets started on her housework. She looks in her fridge for something to eat but knows that nothing has changed since yesterday. There is nothing in there but some week old bread and half a gallon of milk that must be conserved until the next time they can get to the church pantry. She fixes some stew with all the odds and ends she can find. Her mom comes home and they eat. She makes sure she cleans the pot because it is the only one they have and they will surely need it tomorrow. She goes to the restroom, grabs a rag, and washes herself down; a bath or a shower is for special occasions only. She gets in her bed and pulls the sheet up and goes to sleep. She dreams only so she can drown out the noises of the street, and that she will live to see tomorrow.
Perception is a powerful tool that we do not use very often. I used to curse God for my life; I used to wonder when I am going to get my just due. After all, I put up with the abuse from my parents as a child and the lack of love, right? I sacrificed my well being for others. I am generally a good person! Should I not then get a break!?! And then I was coming home from work talking to God. We were going back and forth as usual when I finally conceded to God that I should be appreciative of what I do have. I know others here in America alone that have it worse off than I do without even having to think about third world countries. And then it really hit me. All this time I had been comparing myself to third world countries; I had been accepting that I do have more than they do and therefore should be thankful, but it was never ‘real’ in my head. But when I thought about the people I know personally, it became more personal. Who am I that I think I am entitled to anything? Why should I be entitled to a break? Who am I that I am more important than the next? I am an amazing person, a good person, and a child of God, but I am not better than the next man, woman, or child. It was a huge reality check; I apologized to God and told him as much. I am not entitled. But if He feels inclined to answer my prayers the way I would like, I would be thankful.
Tags: Perception, God, entitled
Broken Homes?
September 5, 2007
When a marriage ends, a straight couple breaks up, or a woman becomes a single mother; in any means, the child should be taken from the woman. After all, Christian activists contend that gays and lesbians should not have kids because a child needs both a mother and a father. So the same should apply to single parents. Because the child cannot have both a mother and a father, the child should be taken away and given to those who can provide the nuclear unit.
But the child would still be able to see his or her father, you say? Why then cannot the same argument be applied to a gay or lesbian family? Because you do not want it to? Because the family is gay or lesbian? What does that have to with anything? Once a family is split up, does that automatically make them bad homes?
The children will learn to be gay you say? What about the children that are allowed to stay in homes where the father abuses the mother or the child? Will they then learn to be abusers? What about the homes where the mother or the father is of a certain profession? A baseball player or a housewife? Will they learn to become a baseball player or a housewife? What about the ones where the mother or the father is of a certain religion? Will the child then be that religion? If we as adults know anything about growing up, we know that first, it is not learned that we follow in our parent’s footsteps, but also that we have control over our lives.
It is a well known fact that we do not always become our parents. If anything, we rebel against our family unit. We rebel against their ordeals, beliefs, and wants. Why would we expect any different from a child growing up in a gay family? Would not the horrors of the bashing that their parents are surely to meet be enough to detract them away from that way of life (if, as you contend, homosexuality is a learned act)?
Who wants to be abused and judged? Who would voluntarily step into the depths of despair? Who would voluntarily take on that judgment? That wrath? The world is not accepting of gays and lesbians so why would a child learn to be gay when they see the discrimination? Would not that teach them to not be gay? Being gay means to be hated, despised, ridiculed, beaten, and made fun of. Why would that mean that the child would then allow for it? Would not the child learn that this is in fact not the way to go? It would seem that the way to keep a child from going gay would be to have them placed in a gay family. After all, if they see the abuse and homosexuality is supposedly a choice of the person, would not they then choose to be straight? Because…after all…homosexuality is learned, right?
The very arguments that a straight person makes are the ones that they should and could apply to their own community. I have a cousin who is in fact gay. She is the eldest of 4 kids. She is the only one that is gay. But if we are supposed to learn our sexuality from our upbringing, how is it that she is gay and her siblings are not? The argument one straight person makes to support their own foolishness is ridiculous. The fact that one is held high above the other should not be allowed. It is called hypocrisy and is all that the people know. We should stop teaching our children to become hypocrites.
Tags: Christian activists, judged, homosexuality, hypocrites
Law of Attraction
September 4, 2007
Why are women not attracted to all men? Why are men not attracted to all women? It is natural, right? It is the way to be; to be attracted to the opposite sex. So why are you not attracted to all members of the opposite sex?
You cannot sit there and tell me it is because of their personality or how they look. They are a man, and you are a woman; you should be attracted to each other and be with each other because this is the way of God. Never mind that you do not have any feelings for this man or this woman; God says you must be attracted to the opposite sex so you must deny your true feelings and be with that man or woman.
How logical does that sound? How logical is it to say that God wants us to only be with men or women no matter if we are attracted to them or not? We should deny our feelings just to be with the opposite sex? Because this is how God wants it?
The Bible warrants that your body is a temple that should be kept pure. But because God knows that the flesh is weak, He made an exception to say that we could have sex in the unity of marriage. To be totally devoted to God would be to abstain from sex, but God does not penalize us for doing it when married. Just because He does not penalize us, does not mean that He supports the idea. God would still rather we are abstinent. How would we populate then? Exactly. Does reading the Bible translated from the Greek and Hebrew origins really make sense often?
Foundations of many belief systems are borne on the simplest of ideas. A small verse in a book of hundreds of chapters can make or break a system! It is the innate ability of the human race to take the smallest of things and blow them out of proportion. It is the legalistic approach to religion that condemns everyone. The Bible says there is no God and as such we should not believe in God…it does say it you know. ‘The fool sayeth in his heart “There is no God”‘. But because the Bible says it, I should accept it, and condemn others by its words. Never mind the context, the times, or who it is spoken to or about because it is in the Bible, and that Book is God-breathed.
By Christian logic, there should be no reason for a woman or man to be single. We should all be attracted to each other and thus be with each other. There is no excuse because God said it. Never mind that God also said that we should gouge our eye out if it offends us for example, by looking at a woman with lust. After all, that is just an allegory. We are allowed to pick and choose what things God meant literally and what things He did not mean literally. Why? Because we are Christians and what we say goes.
Tags: attracted, opposite sex
