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.