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?

Intermission: HELL

Introduction

Oh yes, there's that word hell. Something some churches have removed to be more relevant is still just as relevant either way. Jesus Christ spoke on hell more than anyone else in the New Testament, such as in Matt 5:22, 7:23, 8:12, and others beyond the book of Matthew. It's quite clear to me that hell is a very real thing. So what is hell?

Hell and Unheard Ofs

Hell is the destination for those who reject God and the salvation offered through Christ's sacrifice. Separation and eternal torment are details of hell. Why would God, all-loving and perfectly just, send people to hell? Even if they choose to reject Him, what about others? This is a question I was asked this evening by a  friend of mine. Until now I had not taken it too seriously. After all, I just knew God meats out justice and knows what He's doing. But I never asked why, until tonight.

Specifically, I speak of others who have not or could not in their lifetime hear the Gospel. Secluded tribes, those who lived before Christ's resurrection, and anyone else who falls into this category would be damned, right? Not so. Let's look at Romans 2:1-16.

Here Paul begins talking about passing judgment. Those who judge but commit the same sin they judge will feel the wrath of God (verse 3). He then continues into God's judgment to those who are righteous and those who are wicked (verses 5 through 11). While no less important, many have already heard this in some such form. Stick with me here.

Look at verses 12 through 16. Those who obey God's Law will be justified, but those who don't will not. Verse 12 says those who have sinned without the law will perish without it. Not looking good yet, is it? Let's look closely at verse 14 through 16:

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when,according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

It's clear here that those without the Law will be judged by Jesus Christ, through what is written on their hearts and consciences so long as their work is of the Law, even if they do not explicitly know of it. Recall in Matthew 22:36-38 Christ commands us to love God with all of our heart, mind, and soul. So long as those without the Gospel follow this, Jesus will judge them according to it and their actions.

To clarify, it seems that even if there are those who do not know God explicitly, they can still be saved if Christ judges them so. I do not claim to know how lenient this is. Will any believer of a deity with some attributes of God be saved? Or is it more specific? I don't know. Maybe it's just that gut feeling that there is One who rules over all. Whatever the case, God has a plan for them. He is perfectly just after all.

Conclusion

In closing, it is important that I remind my fellow Christians that we remain salt and light and continue missionary work. We can't suddenly slack off. After all, such delinquency could lead to blood on our hands, in soulish terms. We should not become lazy and deny others the joys of Christ's gift, let alone shirk our responsibilities!

Like, comment, share, read to others, read to your plants, just get this message out! I could not find such a write-up as this on the internet, yet many ask about hell and those who haven't heard the Gospel! Blessings, Lu.

Arguments for the Existence of God

Here is argument one:

Argument 1
Given: Universe cannot be eternal by 2nd law of thermodynamics
Given: Each created thing has an creator by Law of Sufficient Cause (3rd law of logic)
Given: Design requires intelligence (observation)
Given: Universe cannot create itself because of Fallacy of Infinite Regress and LoSC
Conclusion 1: Universe was created because it cannot be eternal; also, creating agent must be external
Conclusion 2: Universe was created by an uncaused force because of Law of Sufficient Reason
Conclusion 3: Universe was created by some intelligent, uncaused force
Synthesis: The universe was created and designed by some uncaused, external, intelligent force

As can be seen, this is merely a deist argument. Still, it is logically impossible to be an atheist due to this argument. Argument 2 will be posted in the near future.

Edit: It has been brought to my attention that Gottfreid Leibniz and William Lane Craig also follow this argument, or one very similar. This post is all work done by me.

On the Laws of Logic and the Laws of Information , Part 1

Introduction

I recently had a pseudo-exchange with a group of angry atheists. Their arguments had many logical fallacies, but I've decided to allot that idea to its own post. Rather, I'll focus today on part one of  the Laws of Information and the Laws of Logic. Anyone who has to deal with poor debating must always know these. In this case, my opponents did not even know these Laws exist. Pointing out various fallacies in a debate, especially one on the internet, will only get you so far. By following these Laws, dear reader, you will be able to construct a better argument and dismantle your opponent's at the same time.

The Laws of Logic

The first law of logic is the Law of Identity. It states that something is what it is. The second is the Law of Contradiction. It states that something cannot be true and false at the same time. The third is the Law of Excluded Middle, which means something either is or it isn't, thus no middle ground. The fourth is the Law of Sufficient Reason. It states that there should be a sufficient cause to all things that happen. I intend to show how these Laws glorify God and support Him as master of the universe.

The first two laws are self-explanatory and are rarely misused. True, there may be equivocation or backpedaling to make a point more or less clear, but this is the deception rather than the rule. That is, rarely is someone foolish enough to say "A cat is a dog," or "That dinosaur is a real fictional character." Oftentimes the Law of Identity suffers due to relativism. For example, when discussing traditional marriage, Progressive will say society makes the rules. Thus the identity of marriage can be changed, circumventing the Law of Identity. By altering the definitions and/or rules, they step farther away from God and His law. For this reason I suggest staying away from "definitions" of marriage and focus on the next Law. Identity as a Law is harder to use and can be misunderstood by those not in the know.

The Law of Excluded Middle is in other words "Black or white, this or that." When liberals tell me something isn't just an either/or decision, I get a funny feeling. An action is either right or wrong. Special circumstances can exist (death by self-defense is a Biblical one) but those are exceptions rather than the rule. When an opponent tells me "Well, 'gay' marriage is only wrong to you," the Excluded Middle is abused. By selecting levels of "rightness" and "wrongness" a middle is created, a spectrum created. Even when the problem of absolute morality is by-passed, atheists and Progressives still cannot avoid breaking the Laws of Logic. As C.S Lewis said in The Problem of Pain, "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.” This violation of Logic is a violation of God's laws as well. The two are inextricably entwined; Logic is a reflection of God. After all, the next Law shows that even the Laws of Logic require a sufficient reason of their own.

The Law of Sufficient Reason is perhaps my favorite. Examples of this application include the beginning of the universe/life and how you get a sandwich. The latter is easy: you or someone else selected the ingredients and made the sandwich, then you came into possession of it. Perhaps a machine actually made it, or a machine selected the ingredients and a person made it. Regardless, either of these lines of reasoning is sufficient for the cause. The beginning of the universe requires a cause. I will not expand upon this particular point as I cover it in a separate post. The Big Bang "causing itself" let alone existing on its own (or the alternative, the eternal universe) are both violations of this law. Life beginning by abiogenesis is not sufficient because it breaks the Law of Biogenesis. Thus atheists in particular cannot invoke their broken cosmology or faith in Evolution as reasoning for how things exist today. Special creation by God fits this Law perfectly, hardly a coincidence.

Conclusion

As a side note, not knowing the science behind how God created (if we can ever discover/comprehend it) is hardly reason for rejection. Indeed, comprehensive knowledge of a science does not make it any more or less true on its own merit. God does not require science to vindicate Him, though as His own creation it reflects His greatness. Nonetheless, just because we don't know how He created doesn't mean He didn't. Perhaps this reasoning will sound familiar to some.

This ends part one, a great example of Romans 1:20. Next post I will talk about the Laws of Information and how they also support God, the Bible, and His Greatness.

Lietz Rants: Abortion

Introduction

This summer I fell out of my habit of keeping up on recent events. Luckily I was able to find out what happened with the abortion bill in Texas. This was the most important story I had yet to fully follow. Once I read a few articles about the bill passing I was able to glean some thoughts from the comments posted on each. What I saw was mostly Leftist rhetoric and hateful attacks on the few who don't support abortion that posted.

As this is a rant, it will read more like a newspaper "advice" or "thought" column and I will not be citing statistics or studies. Google is your friend and frankly, I've still been attacked despite having all sorts of numbers and studies to support my point. Pro-abortion  people are often going on such assaults. Well, I'm mad as hell and now it's my turn.

The Bill

First it is important to note that the Texas bill raises standards of abortion mills, forces them to have hospital care at the ready, and makes adoption the first choice that workers are supposed to refer to (though this last point is fuzzy and I cannot pinpoint it). Since 20 weeks is even less than Roe V Wade's ruling, many are in a tizzy. Despite many alleged incidences of unsanitary and poor practice at such clinics, many are bemoaning that hospital care must be available. The list goes on.

The main, over-arcing complaint is that so few Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortions. This may be news to some, but regardless of a single clinic's services, the workers are instructed (and will) reference a woman to a clinic that will perform an abortion. Considering abortions are the moneymaker for PP this shouldn't be such a shocker. Check the tweets of @Defund_PP to find some material on the matter.

The Irony

Growing up, though until I was a certain age I wasn't told precisely what it all was, my mother told me if "woman things" needed taken care of, there was a doctor (OB/GYN) for such cases. Miraculous, huh? Such a doctor isn't just for middle-age and old people. You want more of a walk-in style and such that PP offers? Petition it, don't use it as an excuse to keep PP running.

Never mind that the Leftist rhetoric and their sheep continue to spout "CHOICE OR ELSE!" in various formats. Life begins at conception. That life cannot function on its own for a certain amount of time is a massive slippery slope (this is logically allowed because it is true). It develops in the womb, yet it is unique with its own set of DNA, fingerprints, and other markers that we often use to define a person. But they aren't, apparently, oh no! They are simply "fetuses." While an appropriate medical term, the unborn is still alive. I can call an unborn baby a potato, a tree, a cup, or anything else whether its medically accurate or correct at all. It's still alive. "BUT CHOICE!," I've heard and been yelled at about.

Choice?

What choice are we talking about? Murder, essentially. Here's the clever part: even if life begins at conception, by referring to the baby as a "fetus" and thus not a person yet, the definition of murder doesn't actually apply. Forget that to murder is to kill which is the ending of a life. By deciding on their own definitions, Anti-Women people change that. Really it's just a matter of semantics. Life begins at conception and if that life is stopped at anytime beyond a natural death, it's murder. Telling a woman that it's simply a choice is a lie and disrespectful. Women are the noble ones who carry us and give birth to us. Do not lie to them and make them dishonorable for it.

The rationale is that since a woman carries the baby then she should have the say in what happens to it. First I find this logic abhorrent because it brings up more problems than it solves. Why not apply that to a child in someone's care? What about the elderly? Only difference is that they're outside the womb. Logically, they can be just as much a burden. They take resources, take time out of work (or are more expensive), and they are unique individuals. This left me scratching my head until I heard some women and pro-abortionists as to why abortions are just dandy.

Women should have the choice to get an abortion, they say. But in the case that a woman chooses to have sex, she automatically accepts the consequences, from emotional and physical to spiritual. Usual disclaimer: I'm aware of rape, but the exception should not make the rule, evil as it is. Copping out of that by saying you should be absolved of one of the consequences of your own actions is irresponsible. Last time I checked, I had to take responsibility and be honorable about my own actions. Of course I can't become pregnant so apparently I have no say. Sarcasm aside, there are special cases that come up that are claimed to be legitimate.

The first is physical defect. There are two sides to this, the unborn that will have problems or won't live long, and the defects that would hurt/kill the mother. Children such as those with Down Syndrome fall into the first category. Many people rant about how such children take time, money, and resources. Regardless of disadvantages and the perceived burden they would have, that doesn't make any such children not-people.

If a child won't live long, I question why a woman would want to have an abortion. There are indeed negative side effects of abortion. Why risk those? Yes, giving birth is no rose garden, my mother reminds me of that if I'm complaining too much. My point is that you should not be able to kill even if the targeted person will die anyways. Why be responsible for that? Why not remember even a brief amount of time with your child instead of just killing it? Never mind that there are cases of doctors being wrong about defects. Imagine the horror of finding out you terminated a normally healthy child. I know this borderlines on a scare tactic, but I sincerely mean it. That would not be a great exchange, finding out you did not, in fact, spare a child of suffering.

What About...?

If the birth of the child would endanger the mother, then it is logical that you would not want the child to die or for the mother to die. Perhaps a C-section is viable or some other form of delivery. The bottom line either way is this: if the doctors have to choose a life to save, it is usually the mother, especially if the baby doesn't have much of a chance. This is not an abortion. It is the act of trying to maintain two lives and sadly failing at doing so. I'm sure some people would say that's a lot of trouble to go through, especially a C-section or special birth. Life isn't found on convenience and either way it would be more convenient not to have sex in the first place.

All this build up is to the old canard of pregnancy by rape. Yes, the old canard. You see, if a woman is impregnated by some sick psycho, the child chose not to be born any more than the woman chose to be raped. In case it isn't clear, neither the woman nor the baby asked for such an event to happen. To kill a child based on that is as sick of reasoning as the rapist's. Many would say "But the child would remind her of the rapist!" That's true and a very hard  truth at that. However, consider that killing that child and still having the memory of rape could be far worse. You would be answering one injustice with another, taking action on the helpless, just as the sicko who started it all.

Conclusion

The heart of the issue is abortion is used as birth control. It's seen as a convenience, not the taking of life. That's why abortion providers can't let bills pass that affect their bottom dollar. It's why the arguments that I debunk are made.

The Theory of Evolution and Pokemon

I decided to write this article after reading a foolish YouTube comment. The user associated special creation (by God) to be the same as spontaneous generation. As some may guess, this was in response to a video about Pokemon and evolution. Rarely do I cover two separate topics in one post but I find it is a brilliant opportunity. Due to the outcries over the years about Pokemon, I will cover it first and then segue into Evolution and why it's wrong.

Pokemon is a popular franchise and requires little introduction. I've been asked many times "How can you play Pokemon? It's (anti-God for reason)." There are indeed some ways that Pokemon is at least anti-Christianity. However, I know the difference between fiction and reality so I find no conflict. I've considered expanding on this in an article about Star Trek which is drenched in naturalism. Whether Pokemon or Star Trek, the point is that they are both fiction. Anything that kids are exposed to can affect them, but is Pokemon truly an offender?

I have no degree in child psychology. What I can comment on is the understanding of kids. I highly doubt an average kid is going to see one of his Pokemon evolve and think it happens in the real world. Even so, and even if such a kid ends up believing in Darwinism, I would say that is a lack of good parenting rather than "OMgosh, Pokemon caused that." A kid isn't going to care how or why Charmeleon became Charizard. What the kid does know is his Pokemon can kick more butt! As with anything, if a game, toy, other kids, or anything else is causing problems in a child it is the responsibility of the parents to try to correct it. Whether it takes one good talk, professional help, or anything else I find it irresponsible to simply blame something.

Some object saying you don't let kids watch horror movies because they cause nightmares, so kids shouldn't play Pokemon lest they start to believe evolution is true. These are different things. A fun game with a mechanism a kid doesn't have to care about is much different than a serial killer eviscerating someone. So what about teenagers and adults?

If an adult or especially a teenager chooses to believe something found in fiction, then I find there is no reasoning that actually works to un-convince that person. As a young adult, I don't watch Star Wars and think the Force is something I can manipulate. If someone else chooses to do so that's fair game. Note I don't say it isn't foolish, but people can do so. Responsibility is needed as much here as with kids, except of course in a personal manner. So what about Evolution, as in the Theory of?

Darwin's Theory of Evolution (ToE) is about adaptations over time which claims that life resulted, and supposedly still results, in not only different species, but change at all levels (genus, family, and so on). Most Pokemon evolve into a form more along the lines of metamorphosis or growing up. For example, Charmander becomes taller, leaner and gains actual claws when it evolves into Charmeleon, and Caterpie evolves like a caterpillar's life cycle. I see no connection between Darwin's ToE and Pokemon's "evolution" except how the term evolution is used.

You may be asking "How does this challenge the Theory of Evolution?" It doesn't, terribly. It's the comment I want to focus on after I clear up some misconceptions. First, "evolution" is a weasel word equivocated by those supporting it. If speciation and the accumulation of traits is "evolution," then as a Creationist I also "believe in evolution." I submit that God created His creation to be able to adapt rather than die out as soon as change is needed. Second, the ToE has not been "proven." There is no proof of a "common ancestor" and the odds of life spontaneously arising and rearranging itself is foolhardy at best. Mathematicians much greater than I have calculated the odds. They aren't promising.

That said, is God creating an instance of spontaneous generation? Obviously not. God exists outside of His creation. True, He is "generating" something, but it is not spontaneous. It is planned and intelligent. There is actually little more to add to this point. Some YouTube user used faulty reasoning. What's important here is a few more details on the matter of spontaneous generation. Many Creationists (myself included) state that the Evolutionists hold that a "common ancestor" itself or the "building blocks" (proteins, etc) formed spontaneously and/or without guidance. Evolutionists now have a counter: they claim it is an instance of abiogenesis, known now as chemical evolution.

So what is abiogenesis/chemical evolution? It is the arising of life from non-living material. Thus it is different from spontaneous generation in that something has to exist first for abiogenesis to work; it's simply not alive. How plausible is this? The infamous Miller-Urey experiments come to mind. Basic components of life were made by sending electricity through a tube of elements. While this is a simplified synopsis, the important detail is that the tube was compartmentalized so that the now-living matter would not be interacted with (and thus destroyed) by the other components. Obviously, this would not work in real life. Other theories exist, some about clay, some about deep-sea vents, and the list goes on.

The problem is that even if an amino acid did form by abiogenesis, it would need other amino acids. Those amino acids would need to link in a comprehensive way.  Amino acids have a "handedness" where they are "left" or "right." Thus the amino acids without guidance, must link correctly and many times at that. Then a protein must fold into a particular shape native to the protein which may or may not link to another protein. The issue is that folding is done particular to the kind of protein being formed. Thus, even ignoring abiogenesis, it is still illogical to assume a "common ancestor" formed by chance.

If you don't believe me, being the Creationist that I am: (1) take the odds of an amino acid spontaneously forming (optional); (2) find the number of amino acids needed for a single protein chain and multiply by 1 over that number; (3)check the odds of having enough acids of the same handedness to even link; (4)multiply this by itself the number of successive times the same link must form. This will give you an idea of the odds of a protein forming. This ignores the folding problem. If you don't want to do the legwork, I'm sure you can find it on the internet somewhere. The issue is that the explanation is ad hoc, literally "(Chemical) Evolution of the Gaps."

Most Evolutionists are of the mind "We're here. God definitely didn't do it. So whatever theory we come up with must be true, unless a better one comes along." Not only have they done nothing but be ignorant to the possibility of God, but they have taken a leap of faith of their own. "Chemical evolution happened and everything else listed here did too and then even more events happened after even if it has far less than 1% of occurring."

I once did a presentation on infinity. I found that the only way for the evolutionist to be sure s/he's correct is if there are infinite chances. No amount of "Deep Time" can make up for it. Even with a vast amount of time it doesn't mean life would arise. Taking God out of the picture is ignoring biblical prophecy, design, the age of the earth, and other topics I have yet to cover. A believer in Evolution must have even more faith than I; they must listen to the scientists and even more objections than the few I pose here.

But isn't Evolution science? No, not at all. Historical events cannot be repeated. Even putting the astronomical odds aside, no one can go back in time and see how everything started. Thus believing in the ToE is done by faith. Remember, there's a difference between what we see in adaptation and speciation and the ToE.

There are many more factors contributing to the faulty reasoning and faith base of Evolution I will cover as time goes on. I would hope that nothing else is needed to show how the ToE is faith-based and not science. If you enjoyed this post, leave a comment and check back for more posts. If you didn't enjoy the post, leave a comment saying why. Questions, challenges, and comments are welcome so long as they remain civil.