Bakery Run

Introduction

Shoebat has posted a video that consists of 13 hone calls. These phone calls are to pro-gay bakeries. The caller asks for a cake stating that "Gay marriage is wrong." Why is this even a post? Isn't this an open/shut case? No. Not at all.

Because Reasons

The caller is trying to prove a point that I agree with: if an establishment wants to refuse to violate their morals, as long is demonstrable, it should be allowed. Gay, straight, Jewish, Hindu, fill in the blank. Whereas supply and demand function in economics in terms of product and money (to simplify), the ethics of economics are the same. So long as there is a demand for a particular kind of provider, it will exist.

So where does Shoebat go wrong? He trolls. Instead of leaving his point where the bakery refuses to make the cake with his statement, he starts asking "Why is this fair?" and then descends into more trolling. This is bad for various reasons. Besides his point already being made, two points come to mind.

First, what do the employees he called have invested in such cases of Christian bakeries being sued? Assuming that someone is invested like that is assuming. ASS-U-ME. That's a no-no in logic and discourse. If you want to prove a point, don't tick off the opposition just because.

Second, even if the employees admitted that it was wrong for pro-gays to be able to refuse service, but not Christian bakeries, what does that prove? It would prove that they're invested in their beliefs. If I, for whatever reason, was working at a pro-Christian bakery and Shoebat did this, what would the result be? So he's asking just to confirm that I think bakeries should be able to refuse service. I say yes. Result? The obvious! My investment in my belief shows. Nothing else is accomplished, certainly nothing worth noting, unless of course you have a website to get views for. That's why I'm shamelessly using it to gain blog posts.

Conclusion

Be smart. Don't go for the echo chamber, or in this case the inverted echo chamber. Just stick with proving the point and move on. Heck, this goes for anyone of any belief. 

Expanding on the UVa Incident

Introduction

I have many choices when it comes to false rape allegations. There's Lena Dunham and her crap book and claims, which as a side note, Game Informer recommends in its gifts section of issue 260. The urge to burn that magazine aside, there's also the UVa case that I mentioned previously and here in the title. Whichever I choose, I have come to realize that there are no penalties for false claims. Worse, the new definition of rape excludes some cases of men being raped. Due to the nature of this subject, I urge sensitive readers to turn away now. I use explicit language where necessary.
Penalties

It's pretty clear that the grand majority of the human race thinks rape is wrong. Still, here is the obligatory line saying that my intention is not to take away from rape victims, but to increase awareness and expose faults in the system.

As far as I can find, the only penalty for false accusations is for the falsely accused to sue the accuser. This is to say nothing of the stigma that will be attached to the falsely accused, at least until (if) he succeeds in suing the accuser.
Definition


The newest definition of rape is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

according to justice.gov.

So what's the problem? Well, there's the ambiguous area about consent. If one or two people get drunk and have sex, can the penetrator be accused of rape? Per the definition, yes. The abuse this allows is appalling.

That aside, what about rape that isn't penetrative? For this example, I will be using Francis Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula. Technically the scene is alluded to in the novel, but it demonstrates my point less.

After being warned not to wander around the castle, Jonathan Harker does so anyways. He finds a room with a chest full of vials. While investigating, he hears the voice of a woman. Beckoned, he ends up surrounded by Dracula's three brides.

Once seduced there is obvious allusion to Harker getting an erection and subsequently having his blood drained in a sort of oral sex/vampirism combination. This does not fit the new rape definition, though I'm sure few would argue that it is, aside from assault, fiction as it is. In other words, a guy under the new definition receives oral sex against his will is not raped, even if it is against his consent. This is the same for a man who does not or cannot consent to conventional sex.

My Point

What I think is being overlooked in these situations is that sexual violation, being of sexual origin, is universal and thus requires universal definition. Man or woman, no one should have the law excluding them in these cases. While the cases I've made are few, that does not mean they should not be taken seriously. False allegations should carry a harsh penalty. As I see it, rape claims made on regret/revenge/lack of original self-control are too powerful, no matter their number. By accommodating those mentioned, real victims will not be disenfranchised.

Samuel L. Jackson and Eric Garner

Introduction

This post was originally going to be a short list of what needs to really be talked about in terms of Eric Garner's arrest and death. Before I had completed my first draft, it was brought to my attention that Samuel L. Jackson had made a video on the matter. It can be found on his Facebook page. 

My Gut Reaction

I have a confession to make before I continue. I have little faith in what Mr. Jackson says in racial matters. In 2012 he admitted to voting for President Obama simply because he is black. To be fair, he has replied to comments on his video stating that he's referring to any racist police. This encouraged me so I stepped back for a moment.

Where we this takes us

After talking with one of my friends last night, we came to a conclusion on the matter of cases like Brown and Garner's. First, before we get into claims of race we need to know what we're talking about. We need to look at crimes, who commits them, and against who. Likewise, we should do the same in terms of police action. 

According to census.gov, for 2013, Blacks/African Americans were about 13% of the population. According to fbi.gov, in 2013, states that Blacks/African Americans constituted about 28% of arrests. Whites/Caucasians were about 78% of the population with about 69% of the arrests in 2013. Proportionally, this means that Blacks were arrested about twice as often as Whites. See here for the breakdown of what the arrest was for and ethnicity of each. My point is that with few exceptions, whites were responsible for crime relative to their population. This is not the case for blacks, who remain about twice as likely to commit a crime.

What this doesn't tell us is if the arrest was made due to racism or not, as numbers are impartial. The best number that can be used is the one for violent crime. I say this because if violence is not vague. We're not talking about cases like Garner's. With about 39% of arrests for violent crime being made of blacks, this is means blacks are three times more likely to be arrested for violent crime. Unless there are a large number of arrests for violent crime that end up being false, I will use this rate to make a point. If blacks are three times as likely to commit violent crime, it makes sense that any profiling be done. 

Racism

I am not trying to disprove racism by my last section. What I'm saying is that the overtly racist cases among the police are like the overtly racist cases in any profession. We should not be surprised that they occur. They are outliers. 

What Mr. Jackson does is call out all racist cops. He doesn't disparage all cops, and for this I'm grateful. He doesn't make himself or his ethnicity a victim, something I've seen from the likes of Al Sharpton his sort, the race hustlers.

Where I'm Hesitant

I'm hesitant for one big reason: Eric Garner, regardless of police conduct, could have saved his own life. If he had complied, despite the silly law, he'd be alive. If he had taken responsibility for his actions there would be no outrage. I do not want to put words in the mouth of Mr. Jackson, as in this alternate reality, he may have made a video anyway.

Another point that comes up between me and my friend is, why aren't police equipped for these situations. Chokehold aside, where was a taser? I get that pepper spray was avoided due to the area. I'm not faulting the officers for not having equipment they didn't have. What I'm saying is that if we want to prevent such a scenario from repeating, we need cops equipped for neutralizing non-violent people. Unless we are willing, as a people, to support the police we cannot expect them to suddenly make up for situations they cannot control.

In terms of Mr. Jackson's video, I hesitate to endorse it because I cannot find racism in his arrest. I see a sloppy takedown and a man resisting, but no racism. The context doesn't work for me, but I agree with the message that we should all be against racism.

Conclusion

Even though I disagree with the context of his song, I'm glad that Samuel L. Jackson is speaking up. He skips the blaming and divisive tactics of figures in the media. Also, his message gives me a chance to get my points across, that even though racism still exists we mustn't blame whole groups. As a side point, with a wider range of equipment police will be able to incapacitate suspects that are not dangerous.

Down Time

Brief Introduction, in case you scroll right passed it

Due to the end of the semester and potential health issues, I have been forced to take a hiatus from this blog. Since I do have time now, I'll give my quick thoughts on some recent stories.

Michael Brown

Something Creepy

Introduction

As my profile says, I read up on many different issues related to Christianity. When I'm reading about "gay rights," one of the phrases I see the most is "I liked boys/girls when I was young," in terms of homosexuality. I'm writing today because after reading an exchange in Youtube's comments, the epitome of cheap entertainment, I realized just how creepy it sounds if the words are instead spoken by a heterosexual.

Seriously, Try It

Do it. If you're a heterosexual man, say "I liked girls when I was young." First, many of you will refuse to because it's an outright lie. Girls had cooties. But let's say you were like me, having friends of both sexes. What does it sound like? Now try it for the same sex as yourself. So if you're a heterosexual man, say "I liked boys when I was young."

Let me illustrate further. When I was in first grade, I was good friends with the girl that sat next to me in class. Even 15 years later, I can remember a field trip where I had no lunch to eat and she shared with me. She moved away after that year. The point is, we were close as far as kids go.

Now take "I liked girls when I was young" in the context of determining present sexuality and a heterosexual man. Does it not sound like a guy had sexual inclinations at that age by using that context? Let's remember, this is all in the line of being "born that way." The problem is, it doesn't make sense.

Two Options

This post can only refer to homosexuals using said line in the introduction if I want to be honest. Still, it shows how, aside from the evidence against "gay genetics*," how the reasoning fails. The first option I have already stated. That is, there are people claiming that their sexuality as a kid and at present reflect each other. Excuse me while I vomit for having to type "sexuality as a kid."

The other option is that it is an excuse and there is no link. If there is no link, then the excuse is moot. My ultimate point of this post isn't even about morality. It's about honesty. I highly doubt that homosexuals had strong enough, if any, sexual feelings as kids as to be able to decide on their sexual orientation.

To expand on my earlier point, I thought a teaching assistant I had in second grade was really pretty. So did a lot of girls in the class. None of the girls that I keep in contact with are lesbians. Not exactly scientific, I know. I'm just reinforcing the point that linking childhood attraction to current sexuality is stupid.

Try it Again

Now say "I liked (same sex) when I was young." It either sounds really dirty or mundane. In the general sense, the phrase means what most people think, having had friends of whatever sex in youth. Being around kids of whatever sex that you enjoyed playing with. Say it in terms of present sexuality, and you sound like you were a pervert as a kid. 

Conclusion

This isn't some proof or piece. It's not some treatise either. It's just my thoughts, using a bit of logic, to show how creepy it is when anyone says a certain phrase in a certain context.

*There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

Abortion: Curtain Call

Introduction

As any of my previous readers can attest, I often blog while I’m angry. Usually I take to my blog to vent about a major issue that is important to me. My method is often a mix of logic and politics, and then I show how it connects to the Bible. Well, this post is different. This will be my first post calling someone out. Me, an internet nobody, will be burning someone a the stake to show what's wrong with a movement.


But who could it be? The CEO of Planned Parenthood? An author of a neo-feminist website like Jezebel? I'm out of examples so I'll just tell you: Abby Johnson. If you're not familiar with her, she was an employee of Planned Parenthood, saw the light, repented, and is now a major voice in the Christian pro-life movement.

Lest I sound as if I am referring to my own faith in the third person, I mean this distinction for a reason. The pro-life movement can be classified as religious or secular. The most active voices I hear under the religious banner are Christians, which makes sense due to the prevalence of the faith. In this post, I will be contrasting these two main branches, the Christian vs secular pro-life movements.


The Background

If you're familiar with both secular and Christian pro-life groups, skip to the next section.

The main pro-life message is "Life begins at conception." Indeed, the most heated debates are "What counts as life?" Is conception immediate? After the zygote is implanted on the uterus? The main idea is not to destroy potential life. After all, conception occurs but for some reason pregnancy doesn't occur, then that's that. The pro-choice logic of "Well you don't know," is begging the question. Generally, but not in all cases, this "wait and see" approach means things like Abortion and Plan B are out of the question.

The Christian message is usually "life is sacred, thou shalt not kill, Jesus loves you, please reconsider." Or some such form. When I see Christians back off from all four of these factors (or three if you combine the first two), I get anxious. It's the same feeling I get when Christians say to put aside disagreements on doctrine. After all, if putting aside doctrine was so easy there wouldn't be so many denominations.

Go to Abby Johnson's Facebook page. Scroll down if you're reading this at a later date to posts on 14 November. It's right there. I'll even quote the first sentence "If there was ever a time for ALL people of faith to put down their disagreements on religious doctrine, it is now." This is a problem.

Consider that Johnson is a Catholic. If I remember correctly, this means no contraception. So my issue is, what does putting aside doctrine have to do with anything? Some denominations allow contraception, but none that I am aware of allow abortions or Plan B. Additionally, as far as I remember, all denominations are against premarital sex. Catholic doctrine might have material from Popes and other high ranking members of the church, but the message is still the same across Christianity. This isn't to mention the dangers of ignoring doctrine.

It's always a bad idea to ignore doctrine because "set aside" really means ignore. We can't be ignoring the part about being pro-life by default as Christians, after all. I'm guessing if I went to a Catholic church, they wouldn't just set aside doctrine at my demand as a Protestant. There would be no point in being Catholic, or any denomination, if things could just be set aside.

This is all unless she is referring to other people of faith. Are we talking about the “not-mentioneds” like Muslims and Jews? Does it include pagans? If so, this is even less reason to not put aside doctrine. Unity in the pro-life movement is good, we don’t have to set aside doctrine to do it in any case, whether Christian and Atheist, Christian and Muslim, or any pairing.

The entire quote is either dangerous or vacuous. I'm not the FB status police, but there's more to this.


Problems in Paradise

I have taken the liberty of taking a comment on the thread of the aforementioned status (grammatical mistakes in original):

I think the focus needs to be more on not having a woman get to the point where she feels like she needs an abortion. we have no paid maternity leave. not a lot of single moms have a good support system (including child care and housing options). we shame moms who are young, single by telling them they should have kept their legs closed if they didn't want to get pregnant- saying nothing about the man who impregnated them. we tell our girls to say no, but not how to say yes with using protection, we deny our daughters birth control by insisting they take a purity pledge and when they suddenly end up pregnant- wonder why. we have girls who are in abusive relationships, parents who will disown their daughters over a teen pregnancy. women who are up over their heads in student loans who were raped at a party and can't pay their rent let alone raise a child. doesnt take a genius to figure out that socially we have a lot of work to do. instead of just focus on how to save the babies. save the women who have the babies.

It has some good points. Johnson herself liked the comment and replied that she completely agrees. It's the completely part that sent me into mental convulsions.

Maternal leave and support for mothers in general is a good thing. As a conservative, I want such matters taken care of responsibly by business that hire women, but I can see how the more liberal viewpoint is taken. If a business does give leave, it's usually not much. Method aside, the fact is that it's ridiculous to expect a woman to have a family and work the whole time, even while very pregnant. I have no fancy solution for this; I'm just saying I agree. The same goes for support and quality child care.

As for shaming single mothers, I agree that it isn't a very Christian response, which is implied in the comment. On the other hand, as Christians we're not supposed to have premarital sex. Period. Call it as it is. That doesn't mean you don't love the heck out of the single mother and her child and help if possible, but dammit, don't lie. I do agree that if a woman wants to have sex, she should use protection, though as you know I am against things like Plan B*. So here we are, already ignoring doctrine, as in the Bible, as in regardless of denomination.

This is the part where someone says "But Lu, maybe Abby doesn't agree with that part." To that I say "Great, then she should unlike the comment I reproduced, edit the reply comment to only agree with the relevant parts, and get rid of the doctrine part of the status while she’s there."

Moving on with the comment dissection, abusive relationships, being cast out of a family, and rape are touchy subjects. While I am firmly against all three, they are somewhat red herrings. If a woman is raped (God help the rapist, because I won't), or abused (same comment for rapists), I wouldn't want them to have an abortion. Why do we have to set aside doctrine to help them? And how can the person making this comment say how horrible abuse and abortion are, but say use protection? It’s a big mixed message.

May as well drop the Christian part and join the secular pro-life movement. Following the quotes I’ve used, that’s the bottom line.

Closing

If Abby Johnson means what she says, she should continue being Catholic but drop the Christian label from her work. Doctrine is core to Christianity and cannot just be set aside. If a denomination has to set aside doctrine to do pro-life work, it isn't Christian; the same goes as far as interfaith pro-life work.

Endorsement of the popular "If you're going to do it, use protection" is ludicrous. That's what non-Christians are doing with mixed results. It's a bad idea for a Christian and since methods can fail, it's a bad idea for pregnancy. In fact, proposing help sources for pregnant women and that old tagline about protection are the hallmark of the "They're going to do it anyway" approach. Isn't that what got us here in the first place, Christians or not?

Create the resources, yes, but be consistent. Be Christian, or don’t bother. Endorse opposing ideas (use protection vs don’t do it at all) and modern political correctness (put aside doctrine/our differences when it’s not necessary) and you may as well leave the church.



*The research says it doesn't cause abortions is from places like PP; it's not that I'm giving my view the default win because it says the opposite. It's that I'd rather be cautious about something so absolute.

Taking Back "Manning Up"

A Brief Intro

Sometimes I write when I'm angry. Those journal entries and blog posts usually stick out and the tone often hurts my arguments. After all, why would someone affected by something as sensitive as, say, abortion want to read something by an angry young man? On the other hand, sometimes I find it necessary to write when I'm mad. When I'm so passionate about something that I can't hold it back any longer, I find no other choice than to say exactly what I feel. This is one of those posts.

Manning Up

I've always found the modern use of this phrase to be insulting. In the case of my uncle who first used it, at a time when I was 12, he was deeply interested in me growing into a responsible man. He had nothing but positive motivations, though I recall he was quite pissed at the time he said it. He overcame his obvious anger at the time and, as a role model, tried to improve me. Since then I worked on being assertive, while admitting when I was wrong, making eye contact, and keeping my hands out of my pockets. I hated the phrase then because he was right, which was an obvious turning point in my life. Now I hate how people self-righteously and incorrectly use it today.

Despite my personal demons, I can recall being told to "man up" various times, but I'll use examples of my senior year of high school. I was told to man up to lying about a workout sheet, except I wasn't lying; the man accusing me couldn't man up to his inflexible schedule and the dangers it brought in lifting, God rest his soul. I was told to man up to the fact that I raised my voice to a class of belligerent students despite my mentor being unable to man up and admit he had done the same thing.  That was senior year.

I was told to man up about lying about a Calculus 2 textbook and homework debacle, but I didn't lie. The professor was a woman, but she couldn't take responsibility for being unclear with what she said, let alone how she applied that standard unfairly. I was told to man up to my crippling social anxiety, which I'd later find out to be clinical depression. It was an impossible situation, yet I was emasculated for it. I was told to man up and "formally" ask out a girl who said she had no interest. That was freshman year of college.

I was told to man up and explain why I was getting bad grades, even though my health was obviously crap while I struggled to maintain a 110 pound body weight, which would drop to about 100 (I'm now still 5'7", but 150ish pounds when causally working out).  I was told to man up about not going to class with a particular individual, except that individual had campus safety watching me without my knowledge. Even once I knew, I was told to man up and go anyway, despite the personal danger due to the incredibly strict harassment codes at that university. That was sophomore year of college.

I was told to man up and apologize for being smart. For being critical. For being unwilling to needlessly confront people. For even being angry. For situations I couldn't control. For yes, having feelings and having them hurt. I was made to apologize for my reactions. Rather than being taught not to have pride, vent anger on others, and how some situations weren't as hopeless as I thought, I was emasculated. Why are these things "manning up?" Does it even resemble the phrase as originally used?

The Point

"Manning up" used to be something tough, necessary, and good. When my uncle used it, he did so to make me see my weakness, accept it, overcome it, and move forward. Now it's used to emasculate men, making them into doormats. You refused to try to control a hopeless situation? You weren't aggressive despite your personality? You didn't "man up!" You didn't take that woman home because it would violate your integrity? "Man up!" 

Absurd! These aren't qualities of "manning up!" Just today I was told to "man up" and "own" my feelings about a particularly painful memory. I didn't find a joke funny as a result of this memory. I didn't flip out; I respectfully explained why I responded the way I did. "Man up?" What about respect? That's something the men in my life taught me growing up. It was missed by the person in question. Men respect others by letting them function, as long as it's fulfilling the original meaning of manning up: taking care of business with integrity, owning mistakes, and treating others with respect, even when their ways are different.

My grandpa respected how emotional I was despite his generation seeing being emotional as not masculine. For him to act completely counter to his entire upbringing is a massive show of respect. My uncle (different one from earlier) would make fun of my brother and I and we'd carry on. Once, I said "Yeah, I am a wuss," his favorite term, "the guys at school are saying I don't act right." My uncle turned really serious and told me to have self-respect and stop giving a crap what those guys thought; to him, having self-respect was "manning up," not bowing to the crowd . My dad told me to only get into relationships I was comfortable with. No "manning up" and chasing a woman to get a girlfriend just for the sake of it. Notice how that term, "getting a girlfriend," is possessive? It's based on insecurity, not masculinity. True men earn a woman's trust and affection. Notice how "manning up" contrasts with the manning up of these men being respectful, yet sticking to their guns. They didn't compromise themselves, but they built me up through their use of the term.

Conclusion

I've put a lot of personal detail into this post. The integrity of this post depends on my vulnerability and letting go of ego and pride. My sincerity is reflected through my obvious anger at the misuse of this phrase and how it excludes guys who aren't archetypical. The effectiveness of this post relies on the willingness of people to let go of the modern use of the term and to see it's original use. It's time for men to start acting with integrity and doing the right thing for the sake of it, not to fill society's view of a man. It's time for self-assessment to see if we're doing the right thing and owning our mistakes so we can improve as men. It's time to truly man up and stick to our guns, not society's.

Hobby Lobby and Entitlement

Introduction

I'm sure by now we're all familiar with the SCOTUS decision about Hobby Lobby, and by extension, other closely held companies. Some people, like Wil Wheaton (@wilw), have fantasies about Rastafarians, as seen by his retweet of a @JohnFugelsang. Or to better illustrate, Wheaton's nearly concurrent tweet says that "women need to incorporate, if they want to have things like 'rights' and 'freedom'" No educated individual should conflate such things as "freedom" with "you aren't entitled to a company giving you what you want."

Making an Example

Wil makes the following mistakes: strawman (attacking the ideas of rights and freedom rather than addressing the ruling); makes a red herring (he might have a point, but it's irrelevant to the case and how it was decided), loads the question (or implication, as if women have no rights or freedom at all unless they incorporate); and perhaps some appeal to fear or emotion. In a single tweet, especially with the tone of the other tweet mentioned, Wil Wheaton not only makes a complete ass of himself, but he shows the sense of entitlement I often see in social media.

Perhaps some reductio ad absurdum is in order. Let's say I'm working for a warehouse, as I did a few summers ago. I had no benefits. Likewise, in this pretend example, I sue the company, not only for not having benefits, but because I'm not being provided contraception, let alone something that is an abortifacient. Odds of success: 0%. Odds may increase if I was a woman. I feel dumber just for typing this. Women and men alike can work elsewhere if they don't like what Hobby Lobby or any company does or doesn't offer, including but not limited to,  pay, benefits, time off, and promotions. I am no more entitled to benefits at the warehouse than others are entitled to contraception. Note that this is not a legal argument, but a moral one.

Closing

A great irritant to me is celebrities who do stupid things like Wil Wheaton did. They step out of what they're good at, influence the masses, and are usually much less informed then they think they are. The issue isn't "women's rights." It's that people aren't allowed to follow their conscience. If you'll excuse me, I need to order a cake from a Muslim Bakery with a hot lady on it. After all, I'm entitled to it.

That One Thing

Notice my posts? I mainly cover abortion, LGBT stuff, and evolution. I think I’m missing something, something a bit less mainstream but a bit more in need of coverage. If you answered “mojitos,” then you’re a good guesser, but you’re wrong. No, I’m talking about pornography. For years I’ve debated on posting about this issue. For one, it’s not too popular to sit down and criticize it, especially in today’s more sexualized society. Sadly, it’s also “Christians,” the “puritanical” ones, that make it difficult. As if not speaking about it will make it go away. Or maybe topics about sex are icky. Whatever the case, the main thing preventing me from posting is my future career as a teacher. Now that employers will stalk the crap out of a potential employee through the internet before hiring, I’ve avoided this and other subjects. As can be seen here, I’ve decided to take that risk, along with any other backlash that may come up.

Enough about me. Anyone reading this post is probably wondering how this post will be any different than other posts by Christians about pornography. If you read my last post, it will differ in two ways: first, to make a “secular” argument and show how it supports Scripture instead of the other way around, and secondly, to use real situations and effects of the matter to show the human condition. After all, if porn wasn’t appealing to people or filled a need, I wouldn’t even write about it. It’d still be disgusting and manipulative, but then I could leave it to rot and not worry about legality or other arguments.

To sum up a thesis, I intend to cover two points. First, what is porn? Is it just stuff hidden away or is it more prevalent? And does the content even matter? Second, what effects does it actually have? Is it actually harmless and some people just have a problem with sex, the internet, etc, or does porn have negative effects on the brain?

Watch anything past 9pm, especially on cable. You’re bound to run into a sexy commercial or two. The kind I’ve encountered most are Victoria’s Secret commercials. Notice how such ads have nearly as many effects as a Michael Bay movie. Close ups, wipes, smoky effects, gloss effects, the list goes on. This isn’t to mention the come-hither looks, the body language, and the group shots (I can’t remember a VS commercial with less than three women, and honestly, I’ve tried). I refer only to number due to novelty, of which something porn offers an infinite supply.

Compare this to something more clinical. I distinctly remember a commercial because of the hilarious comment I made to my father while watching it. It was a commercial for a bra for bustier women. Despite the close up, the commercial was short with only a monologue explaining the product. While the VS commercial is sexed up by effects and directing, the latter commercial, despite having underwear and boobs as well, is simply a demonstration.

The point I’m making here is of two things, arousal and intent. While the VS commercials are about sexiness and intent to sell the product for the consumers’ (and their lovers’) enjoyment, the clinical commercial was functional despite sharing some elements. Its intention is to sell a product, yes, but also about comfort and other aspects of the product. Sure, both can be appealing, but the VS commercials attempt to capitalize on that. Some would say because of this, such ads like those of VS, regardless of product and company, are softcore porn. While that may be an extreme conclusion to some, there’s a point to which I’m leading up.

Even more revealing, pun intended, is that VS commercials and their ilk have no nudity, portray no sexual acts, and I’m going to take a shot in the dark and say that the women aren’t in those ads to make porn. No genitals, no sex, nothing like that, yet there’s a case to be made for porn here. To satiate all of the literalists out there, let’s take a look at the definition of pornography. Meriam-Webster defines it as “movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way in order to cause sexual excitement.”

Let’s be real here. The VS commercial doesn’t show naked people or sex, so it’s not porn, right? I’d argue otherwise. Even if the intent isn’t to get men turned on, it probably does. I argue that porn is, metaphysically, “any material causing sexual arousal, not limited to nudity or focus on genitals.” In softcore porn galleries, there are plenty of lewd shots without nudity or sex. Yet it’s still porn. Does removing the nude/sex pictures from such a gallery suddenly make the other pictures not porn? Obviously not. Now, not all comparable cheesecake shots are shot as pornography. But the reaction to the material is the same. If a woman is beautiful, it doesn’t take underwear shots to prove it, and if a man is searching for such material then “porn” becomes completely subjective, hence my broad definition.

This is why Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue fares so well. What, you thought guys like checking out expensive swimwear for their girlfriends or wives? Again, the women involved are probably not thinking of producing porn and the photographers are just capitalizing on sex appeal. Yet it is generally consumed as pornography, thus blurring the line most people see. The question isn’t “is it porn?” and becomes instead “can it be used as porn?”, classic cases of porn standing on their own still.

To make a quick disclaimer: first, I’m not calling for the outlawing of sexiness. Second, while I’m using men as the primary examples here, women use porn as well. Third, I’m not saying to use my definition legally. It’s a metaphysical outlook and thus would be a legal mess. I also digress about sexy magazine covers and the like, but that’s a different issue.

Now that we have established that porn is different in intents and perceptions, let’s look at effects porn has on the brain. Is it damaging? Or are mindless surfing, compulsive masturbation, and OCD-like behavior to blame individually or together? 

This article here has technical speak and talks about the reward deal and the chemicals involved. Plasticity does indeed seem to happen with sex addiction as related to porn (read the second and third to last paragraphs of the linked article for that specifically). Addiction to seeking material and/or compulsive masturbation are thus separate issues that may or may not be involved as well.

Anyways, I think I’ve proved my point. Porn is addictive. It makes sense that Christ warned us against adultery in the heart. He doesn’t want us enslaved to sex, which is exactly what porn does in many cases. It seems safe to say that God has it right, and that’s why He tells us sex is for marriage. Thus ends my “secular” case, leading into Scripture as a sort of “soft proof.” You don’t have to be a Christian to accept the argument, but it still supports the biblical view.

Share your thoughts, reblog. Even if you don't agree, let's get a conversation started. It could go places.

A New Direction

After a sabbatical for finals and a bit of vacation, I find myself returning to my blog. Every so often, I find myself promising a different direction to my blog, but never getting it onto paper. For a long time, I've wanted to advance this blog beyond canned Christian issues and hot topic outrage posts.

What I mean by this is not posting safe, obvious responses to hot news stories and attaching Scripture just to make sure it sounds Christian. Instead, I wish, to delve deeper into issues and demonstrate Scripture. For example, showing that life begins at conception by science confirms the Bible, but can stand on it's own if someone is really adverse to the Bible. In other words, I take "secular" arguments and show that God got it right. Compare this to "proving " Scripture. It can get kinda circular to a non-Christian. Thus it's preaching to the choir and largely useless as an outreach tool. I also find the former method better for convincing people.

To sum up, rather than post rhetoric, I wish to analyze the human condition and connect it to Scripture. After all, we're all human. If someone wants to reject my end pieces that demonstrate the Bible, they can. Look at Frankenstein for a great example. The doctor plays God and pays for it. His condition was one of proving himself at any cost. We can all relate to trying for too much; pride and greed, two big Biblical principles. Take his creation, who only wanted a mate and to be left alone. The doctor wasn't ready to afford his creation human status, despite that others did so. The creation's condition is one we all know: belonging, a need for love, socializing. Not exactly a Christian novel, but I can connect it to God's Word and show these things. In English and Philosophy classes, some of these things are "universal truths."

If it convinces you of God, great. If not, the rest of my point exists on its own to show whatever my aim is. Someone might say God doesn't exist, but they still have to get around life beginning at conception, per my earlier example. Leave a comment and let me know what you think.

Consistency

Introduction

Logic must be consistent. Sometimes it's easy to refute a string of thought, sometimes it's harder, and sometimes it's impossible. As Hikmat Hanna said, logic can even be used legitimately to get to an evil conclusion. I agree. Still, logic can be useful for good and either way it must be consistent, for better or worse.

More important is Biblical consistency, an oft-made point of unbelievers. Biblical Consistency by Joseph Cook is good for answering those questions and as a support material for believers. He also brings up some good points: is consistency faith-breaking in (whatever case)? This is a good point. If there's a small error in name, does it matter? Even if a connection is made that two historical figures probably shared different names between cultures, is it truly important that it's not 100% sure? The overarching idea is that many points are just a smokescreen for unbelievers; it's easy to tell who wants answers and who wants arguments.

Finally, there's consistency in faith. There are a lot of angles that can be discussed here, but I'll narrow my focus to Christianity and CINOs, that being Christians In Name Only. Let's see what the Bible says about consistency:

Revelation and Consistency

John the Apostle is called to write in Revelation to seven churches. To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Originator of God's creations says: I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to spit you out of My Mouth."  Rev 3:14-16

Looks like the church of Laodicea was consistent at being middling! Likened to water, God would spit Laodicea out. As verse 22 says "Anyone who has an ear should listen to what the Spirit says to the churches." Looks like the church wasn't too keen on going "by the Book," pun intended.

Ephesians 5:15-17 echoes this as well as our world today: Pay careful attention, then, to how you walk -not as unwise people but as wise- making the most of time, because the days are evil. So don't be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.

Christians who adopt the ways of the world are not walking in accord with God's will. As much as anyone else, I have difficulty with this. The consistency I want to hit on is when people actively, continuously go against God but claiming fellowship with Him. They've deluded themselves and while much less important, they've given compassionate Christians a bad public image. I'm not so concerned with my image, it's that it affects our ability to reach people.

Closing

That digression aside, I wrote this article because of recent interactions with a friend. I'm not sure he realizes how his worldview is not harmonious within itself, let alone with God. Rather than bring him down, I'd like to use our interactions for this post as an example. Far from attacking him, I want to remind him and those like him that having one's cake and eating it too is a worldly deficit creeping into our lives today. We can't ignore God or tell Him off and then expect His blessing.

All verses are taken from the NASB version, which I recommend. Mine is a Holmans' The Apologetic's Study Bible, courtesy of my wonderful mother. I recommend it because it has many commentaries and food for thought sections inserted throughout. Sadly, yours won't come with the notes my mother wrote. Make your own and pass them on to accomplish this feat.

Social Expectations in Short Long-Hand

Introduction

I often talk with one of my good friends from high school. He's a student with me here at university and our conversations are never fluffy. Time after time, we talk about, in no small detail, social expectations. We cover a broad range, from physical appearance to "standard double standards". To cover each category in one post would be mind-numbing, perhaps lethal, both in writing and reading. Thus I have selected a few topics I deal with in my everyday life, some that I feel I can speak best on.

Expectations of Women

Perhaps the most potent expectation is that of physical appearance. Far from looking trendy, I just wear whatever is available. Most guys dress decently, with the exception of droopy drawers. You probably saw this coming a mile away, but I'll be focusing on the role women are expected to play. Literally from birth, we're all bombarded by advertising and messages of all sorts. The troubling trend I see is that women are expected to be sexy, yet then demeans them for it. Spiritually, I'd argue that modesty preserves one's dignity. Still, even if a woman wants to show herself off, she's then degraded for it. This is one of the rare times that I suspend my own beliefs; truly, women are forced into a no-win scenario. If she's modest, she's under huge social pressure to change. If she's trendy, that's cool but probably not to the degree society expects. Then if she is up to snuff, she's subjected to all sorts of crap for it. If she flaunts it...you get the idea.

Is it any wonder why we still see teen pregnancies, among other such hallmarks? Rather than at least prevent society's schizophrenia, we have have a dualism that defeats itself. True, I wish to see a world where the expectation is a modest, dignified beauty that women can be proud of. No need to show off, just living life and using her abilities to impress, like men pretty much do now (not boys, if you catch this brief differentiation). That's what I'd like to see. Still, the problem of "being to hot" for society's standard would pervade. It's a classic no win scenario. Humans are shallow. This only stirs the surface of the issue.

Teaching, a Cure-all

And now for something completely different. Have you ever had a bad teacher? How about a good one? We've all had a teacher, or at least a mentor, that we loved dearly. Perhaps that individual caused a chosen career path, or a passionate hobby. Teachers are pretty darn important. They're expected by society to be caretaker, counselor, taskmaster, knowledge dispenser, and even other jobs. Yet we see continually harsher expectations with the same amount of resources.

I could teach just about any math class back at my old high school at a pretty high success rate (for a young teacher, that is) despite my low experience. I know the material, what to expect in that social area, and so on. I know I'd have the resources to succeed, at the very least.

This is not the case everywhere. There are many neighborhoods where education is already on the brink of self-destruction. No Child Left Behind creates a usually-destructive trend that kills schools in such areas. What then? Is there a replacement? If so, does it fare better? I actually shudder to know; truth is, I haven't checked. The expectation of kids to suddenly want to learn more or learn better despite higher expectations with the same limited resources is baffling.

Learning becomes an evil machine rather than an enlightening process. Is it any wonder that a neighborhood composed of people of color will accuse a white person of privilege? Other issues aside, their kids will have a snowball's chance in Hell to get an education just to attempt to work their way up in life. Again, this is only a hair's breadth of the issue.

Professionalism, a.k.a People Suck

Finally, a sort of rhetorical question, something that's irked me for some time now. Why is it that if someone misses a date or meeting, or even work, the response is to verbally guillotine them? Throughout my life, I've had the privilege of being asked why I wasn't in my designated spot. Upon responding, I would always be told that the reason isn't good enough. This includes: nearly sliding off the road at 15 mph after the bus came early; being clinically depressed and arriving late to class and thus having homework rejected; simply being honest (don't get me started on law enforcement); and let's not forget people who start meetings/class/etc. five minutes late but penalize students who come in after the class is scheduled to start, but before anything actually happens. These are all situations I have experienced.

Why should an accident mean so much to someone's career? It's like in a sitcom: some friends are hanging out and they get ticked/sad/overly hopeful that the token outcast person didn't show up. Then they figure out he was mugged or something. Then it's tears and they accept the outcast and all that good stuff. Why is it that it takes something so drastic for an absence or tardy to be acceptable? Professionals might not have a choice: a barking dog preventing sleep, a faulty alarm (or several), exhaustion, the list is nearly endless. Society expects people to literally pay in blood, and usually mental health, for a mistake. Honesty means nothing; explanations are just excuses. Perhaps I've grown cynical in my experiences, but I've lived this trend.

Conclusion

Well, that's certainly a long post. Hopefully I've given you something to think about. Make a positive change about one of these points. Whether it's words of encouragement or volunteering your time, work for "the least of these" as Christ said.

A "Quick" Note

I decided to keep this separate from any other post, and it was too long to simply tweet. Two things are often posed to me in conversation and I figured it'd be good to list them here. One is use of Scripture and the is church attendance.

I think I mentioned it in an earlier post, but I'll repeat myself here. The point of this blog is to make arguments for Christianity, morality, and so on in a secular manner to show that the Bible is correct. Rather than do what many Christians do, my aim is to give unbelievers a reason to see consistency in Christianity. In terms of the faith, it's good to use the Bible to prove itself. However, if someone has no reason to find the Bible or the faith valid, then they'll need something else to do so. That's my aim here. The worst that happens is non-Christian people agree with me and Christians tell me Scripture I could use. Bombarding a nonbeliever with Scripture won't magically make them convert. Intellectualism will always attempt to be a substitute for Jesus Christ; my use or non-use of Scripture is not going to change that.

Secondly, church attendance. Nearly every ministry that I've spoken to a member of in the past few years will ask me what I believe, if I'm a Christian, and if I attend a church. Personal feelings aside, the big issue I see here is some "mustache growing." For unfamiliar readers, it's something I say instead of another male comparison. Anyways, I find that many ministries are interested more in numbers than anything else. With so many apostate churches, it's hard for me to take seriously very many claims by ministries.

This addition is mainly for Christians and "Christians": Asking me, or anyone else, what we believe, listening, and then asking if we have accepted Jesus when at least I, personally, already said I have in response to the first question, is a complete insult. Yes, some of us are intellectuals. We've all tried to be "normal" at some point (though I digress from that word now). We aren't going to want to attend your church if you undermine our entire thought process by assuming we're like the "intellectuals" that reject Christ. Never mind that many of us who scrutinize every detail won't attend a church with even a hint of apostasy.

I think you all get the picture, and I'm sure some of you, believers and nonbelievers alike, can relate. If something doesn't make sense to us who think in our way (mathematically in my case), we'll never get to the faith part. Ministries around the world are losing numbers by apostasy and limiting new numbers by alienating those of us who go intellectual->faith process rather than the opposite.

Word Play, Part 1

Introduction

While I research the Laws of Information and avoid plagiarism, I've taken up a new series to inject in between my other posts. The intention of this series is to see how words are used and what they really mean.


Let's look at homophobia, a word slung around like a tetherball hit by an ogre. What does homophobia mean? According to Merriam-Webster, it means irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. It doesn't take a sociologist to see that it's not how the word is used today.

A real-life example

By simply saying "If civil unions are equivalent to marriage, why should gays get married?" I would most likely be accused of being a homophobe.This is despite a legitimate question. If there's no "agenda" to undermine marriage, why not make civil unions equivalent in benefit? After all "marriage" could remain religious while "civil unions" would be the legal version, the government side.

I digress; I could continue that idea into an entire post of its own. The point is, there's no fear there. Two people getting married doesn't make me scared. Gay people don't scare me. I feel no threat by them. especially if the more vocal and political organizations are truly outliers. There's nothing in my reactions that points to fear.

There's no discrimination either. Even legitimate questions like the one above are ""homophobic." To quote from The Princess Bride's Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." The irony is that by discriminating between civil unions and marriage, I've taken care of all common arguments against same-sex coupling, in legal terms. To add one last layer of irony, if there is no "gay agenda," then it's truly ironic that no one has said this sooner. It would expedite the whole process of getting SSM (or SSCU, in my wording) legalized in all 50 states. Fascinating, right? For anyone thinking I've "betrayed my faith," I'll leave my personal reasoning to another post; this is simply a legalistic view.

What about an aversion? Personally, I have none. Let's take my question from the third paragraph again. An honest question is not an aversion. The vocal minorities in all cases need a thicker skin.

Conclusion

I realize that not everyone is like me. Many vocal people of many camps are rude, aggressive, even violent in their verbalization, especially with the shield of anonymity that the internet provides. Let's call those people for what they are, so long as they aren't passionate and simply need a breather (though this may be beyond the baseline wisdom needed to converse on the internet).

Such a person would simply be rude, nasty, angry, maybe even hateful. It all depends on the person. But please, stop beating the dead horse that is homophobia. It hasn't been used properly, it's no better than the person one would use it, and it's unnecessary. Dropping this word would be a start to seeing who is really hateful, after the easy mudslinging dies down.

On Donald Sterling

Let's get this straight: Mr. Sterling is a scumbag. He's a lecherous adulterer, the poster boy of dirty, rich old men. To defend his actions, especially after his racist remarks, would be social suicide.

Right?

I have redacted this post because of the information that conveniently surfaced after Sterling was forced to sell his then-team. Apparently, he asked to have his conversations recorded. There was also the housing thingy.

Since Sterling was part of an organization, he had to play by their rules. In day to day life, one might call what happened to him the work of thought police. It contrasts a state of being with a state of doing.

Sterling couldn't actually keep "colored people" from attending his games. His state of being is racist. His state of doing wasn't much of anything. Still a scumbag, true. My point is that the moment we move from demonizing actions to demonizing thoughts, we land in 1984 territory. A racist who does nothing sucks, but don't lock him up for it. He wants to do something about it? Then hit him with the book. That's all I'm asking.

Love is Love?

Some of my friends on Facebook have posted a picture. You might be familiar with it: on top is a gay couple and it looks like they're getting married; on the bottom is an incredibly malnourished child. It calls anyone against same sex marriage failures if they have a problem with SSM when instead they could be helping starving children.

In logic, this is what we call a false dilemma. I could support starving children (indeed, Freerice is a way I can donate at least a bit despite my low income) and oppose SSM. Someone else might support both, and another might support neither. This is why the dilemma is false.

That said, this reminded me of an oft-quoted phrase, "love is love." At the risk of sounding sarcastic, congratulations,  you just used the reflexive property of equality. My point is that this little phrase means nothing. Say it if you like, I'm not the thought police. It's simply that it has no bearing in an argument.

Need I remind everyone that we don't legislate based on love, let alone act out of love all the time? While my friends want to tell me to accept their version of love and the legislation what it entails, I have no actual rebuttal because there's no argument in the first place. I don't have an issue with people with other worldviews than mine. The issue I have is when an argument becomes about one's viewpoint of love and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. Thanks for sowing seeds of discord, by the way, if you've done such a thing.

Post what you want, but be consistent and don't manipulate children to further your viewpoint that would be exactly the same simply by the cop-out "love is love."

Arguments for God: Part 2

Disclaimer: Before I even continue with my arguments and proofs, there is something that must be made absolutely clear. There can be no question of it. There is a massive difference between acknowledging God or even that He might exist, and actually following Him and putting yourself in the service of Christ. Without reception of the Holy Spirit, there is no change. This is why so-called Christians, yes, even if Hitler said he was, are not indicative of actual Followers of Christ. And such a change must be out of sincerity, the true reconciliation that you know what the Truth is and how to correct your fallen condition. As such, these proofs are not fool-proof. No matter how air-tight my cases, they will not suddenly make someone hard of heart into a believer as suddenly if they had been exposed to a frosty wind. Let us continue.

This second argument starts where the first left off. From my first argument we see that is logically necessary for a Creating Force. This proof used to be much longer being a list of deductions from non-Christian faiths. However, I have condensed it and changed partially to a proof by induction.

Premise 1: The Force must exist outside of creation, otherwise it presents a paradox.
Premise 2: The Force must be able to create the universe as we know it (logically, orderly, etc).

Point 1: The Force must be self-sufficient and uncreated. Thus we can discount the following:

Aboriginal "Dreamtime" and other "guiding ancestor" types can be discounted because it does not speak of creation's ultimate beginnings. The Force, Baiame, is not sufficient to create and rather teaches man through the use of ancestors.

Taoist use of yin and yang, because they are created (as are other things)  are without logical explanation. The elements that would form the universe already existed without explanation.

Hinduism fails because it describes the universe as eternal or an illusion. Since we have already seen that the universe cannot be eternal, it must be an illusion. If the universe is an illusion, then it cannot be eternal but only appear to be eternal. Thus, the universe cannot be eternal or an illusion.

Islam fails due to logical inconsistencies in the Quran See here for examples. Thus the Force, Allah, is either mistaken in his book or is not logical.

Other religions, particularly polytheist ones, rely on various deities that exist within creation and cannot account for each other. There is no order, even among those with the power, let alone the paradox of existing in creation. This is essentially the same as  the guiding ancestor type.

Point 2: By previous result, we know that the universe requires a creator. By previous result, we have deduced the potential list. By induction, we see that God, in Christianity, fits the requirements. He exists outside of creation, He has the capacity to create(unlike other deities) and He is orderly thus creating the universe in a certain way with certain laws for its function.

Conclusion:  This proof and the first show that God is able to, by definition, be the Creator. However, just because He does, doesn't suddenly mean people will change their hearts. This logic only serves to show that the conclusion is logical. In other words, this is a tool for those at a certain point in their journey.  Please do not use this or my other posts as a beating stick.

An Issue with Jesus' Parables?

Today a fellow named Tom Short and his ministry came by Purdue and basically did a Q&A on Christianity. During this time of five or six hours, one of the observers brought up a point. He stated that Jesus' parables were just redactions of Greek myth. Or perhaps of mythology in general, his phrasing was vague. This made me think for a moment: What's the point?

Indeed, what does that accusation accomplish? As someone who's dabbled in logic and is becoming a teacher, I don't see how this claim doesn't seem to harm Christ's message or Christianity as a whole. First remember the cultural context. By being culturally sensitive and using familiar stories, Christ made His work more relatable. This is a simple tool used in teaching; we take something students are familiar with and frame the new material within it.

Logically, this neither confirms nor denies Christ's existence, His work, or the Bible. You know, as someone who was an intellectual and not a true believer for awhile, I almost didn't include this. But then it hit me: in many cases, a complaint like this is exactly what it sounds like, a nitpick.

There are legitimate skeptical questions. How do we know the Bible is accurate? Where does it come from? Is it historically accurate? Sometimes it doesn't even take a Christian to see when a skeptic has a legitimate question or simply a  complaint, as I've shown above.

Moral Relativism

This is a short thought I had last night. Moral relativism, politically, boils down to the majority. Short of regressing to tribalism, this means that there will always be a minority (or more) in disagreement over legislation. The only thing stopping an infinite loop is how the Supreme Court system works, for better or worse. So long as moral relativism is used for "freedom," its supporters will always have the usual crowd of "bigots," "haters," and so on to contend with. Perhaps relativists would be best served reviewing why they want things a certain way. In my interactions in life, it has always boiled down to personal want. Regardless if this is the majority position or not, I wonder when humankind will realize that they've been acting out of physical want their entire existence, ignoring the soul?

The Big Question

Introduction

While taking lunch today, I was reminded of an oft-cited explanation by evolutionists about evolution. It usually goes something like "What you learn in the textbooks isn't evolution/the whole story/what actually goes on," or "Researchers know what it is, even if you don't." There are other variations. This is almost nearly in response to, when used seriously, the question "How did DNA, proteins, and such get more and more complex, as in length, number of pairs, etc?"

The question is within the Theory of Evolution itself. I aim to use ToE only in its own terms to show why such claims fall flat, namely that which I posed above. The answer I usually get is "Copying errors mutate into beneficial things to pass on." This seems a decent explanation at first. Let's ignore copying rate and mutation rate for a moment. Even if this idea is true, let alone demonstrable, there's a huge issue. This series of copy and mutate must happen enough over a course of billions of years to what we see today. Let me explain further.

The Example

Say we have some primitive form of life, whatever the in-thing is now for ToE to work off of after assuming first life. Let's say it gets these copying and mutation errors that end up making it something more advanced. The job is not yet finished! If this lifeform dies, the same series, or at least same sort of series of events must happen to the same kind of primitive lifeform there or elsewhere in a beneficial way. This is to say nothing of how multiple sexes formed or how those different sexes must then survive and pass on enough mutations.This then must repeat, going up Evolution's Tree of Life, which brings me to another point.

The Division

In the ToE, there are two thought camps: one that Evolution is progressive, working towards a goal; the other says it's simply random and we're here. Both fail logically. The latter shows by my example above that the explanation is already ad hoc. We're here, so this sort of thing must have happened numerous times. If Evolution is Progressive, this embodies it with certain qualities of intelligence, a sort of transcendence if you will. Evolution can no more work actively towards a goal any more than Democracy. Those things themselves are labels for a process; they describe, but do not guide how those things act. True, both are things done actively, but they do not work as themselves; they are not autonomous. Humans vote to make a democracy happen by electing officials. Evolution adapts organisms for an immediate need. Neither has some crystal ball revealing why those things are being done in terms of the future. (In the case of democracy, humans rationalize their vote, thus guiding it; Evolution has no such backing).

Conclusion

This is the part where I ask "How is it really supposed to work?" What are people like me missing? Even within its own system, Evolution begs the question "How did we get here?" This isn't some knockout punch. If anything, it reveals that ToE and Creationism are both philosophies and have no place in the classroom. But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

On the Prop 8 Lawyer and "Evolving Views"

Introduction

Attorney Charles Cooper was the one to argue Prop 8 all the way to the Supreme Court. As it stands now, he says his views are changing. This post aims to use this man and his views to make a contrast between oft-confused points while not slamming him or his views.

Why is this News?

First and foremost, his views changing comes from his step-daughter being a lesbian and her future marriage. That is his business and I don't even know what his worldview is. However, the issue in a Christian sense is the difference between loving someone and endorsing what they do. I no more tell a gay to continue in his ways anymore than I endorse the personal use of pornography, or something nonsexual like stealing. On the flip side, we Christians are called to be loving, not discounting anyone since we all have fallen short of the glory of God. Love your neighbor as yourself: your gay neighbor, your neighbor from a broken household, your wealthy neighbor, and the list continues.

The second important point is about standing one's ground. The people closest to use affect us the most. Sadly, many change their morality due to this. I get that people don't want to shake or shatter their family by not being fully supportive. Indeed, it takes a sense of maturity for both people involved to resolve the difference between who they are, how they act, and what morality surrounds them. Again, I cannot stress enough that love /= changing one's morals or approving of something that breaks your worldview.

Closing

By now there are dozens of posts on this matter. Posts making parallels, posts without a loving tone, posts that are about recontextualizing the Bible. I'd like to address that last part. "Evolving," in this case, entails that you are improving in some capacity. If this means you adopt a more loving attitude and actually show it, great! I advise caution on the other hand. If "evolving" means moving past God's Word and what it commands, then quite simply you are no longer following God's commands. In fact, such an "evolution" tends to be humanistic, focusing on the people as opposed to the morality involved or even love. It isn't necessarily a slippery slope, but it is still a breaking of a whole that should remain as it is. "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

TL;DR Version: Love thy neighbor, regardless. Christ didn't use modifiers to describe this. Love /= changing one's morals. "Evolving" views must makes sense in the context of one's worldview.

A Quick Note and a Tale

Introduction

This blog post is about an old canard I see regularly. Namely how pro-choice people say conservative Christians are trying to shame women into not having access to or the ability to have an abortion. First, not only conservative Christians are pro-life. It's disrespectful to attack a group you have a problem with when the issue or people involved are much broader.

Disclaimer

Secondly, the only shame involved in abortion is thinking it's okay. Before I continue, allow me this: anyone who has aborted needs support. Do not turn your nose up at a woman who has been damaged by abortion. For God's sake, after such a decision anyone would need support! I cannot bolster this point enough. Supporting abortion is shameful. What can top that shamefulness is scoffing at those who realize the what they've done. Quite simply, if you're more concerned with the child than the woman, you're doing it wrong. A woman won't be able to find forgiveness in herself if her fellow "Christians" are demonizing her. Like any other sin, we should not simply give up on ourselves or each other. Bringing it to Jesus is what we should do.

It has been known that life begins at conception since before Roe v. Wade. I may argue about personhood in a later, expanded post; after all, it really would be a legalistic argument, wouldn't it? For now, consider this: I often hear first trimester abortions are the most common and that the fetus isn't viable. It's important to note that in many cases, first trimester abortions are the only ones legal. This statistic of "most abortions are first trimester" should not then be surprising. Moving on, it still ends a life. Read the following story:

The Tale of the Wilderness

You and I are out in the wilderness. By freak accident, you become grievously injured, unconscious. The supplies we have are barely enough for one person, due to the accident. The rough terrain means that even if you recover, we'll probably be slowed down enough that we won't make it back to civilization. Knowing this, I reason the following: I can't keep you around! You'll take away from my meager standard of living, place a burden on me I didn't ask for, and perhaps even cause my death. I notice that you're unresponsive; you can't function on your own. You need me. But, caring more about myself, I justify murder by throwing you in a nearby lake thereby letting you drown.

Conclusion

I would never do such a thing. Even if I did, I would be guilty of manslaughter or murder if it was ever found out. However, the reasons are the exact same I hear to justify abortion: resources, management, responsibility. The story isn't perfect. You didn't ask to be injured in the wilderness. But this makes the point even more salient: if you choose to have sex, potentially conceiving a child, then you've already created a scenario where someone (the unborn) is "injured in the wilderness." Also, in the story you aren't inside me, but it's demonstrated that the reasoning to kill can still be carried out. Could you justify killing a friend or family member in this wilderness tale?