The Problem with Homosexuality: What is "normal"?

The problems of the homosexuality argument begin with the whole idea of “normal.”  Every effort is being made to “educate” people (children and adults alike) that homosexuality is normal.  We need not be against it because it is apparently normal behavior and we should embrace it.

Define “normal”

The main problem with this is the definition of normal.  Do we mean natural?  As in, it occurs naturally.  Maybe genetics determines your sexuality before you’re born.  Do we mean typical behavior? So, people should “normally” want to have relations with the same sex.  Do we mean it isn’t any different than any other behavior?  Answering each question leads to a further stripping of the homosexual argument, ultimately leaving it as irrational, incompetent, and utterly defenseless, like every other liberal argument.

“. . . born this way.”

A huge push some years ago was to say, “We’re born this way.  Do you think we would choose this if we had a choice?”  The effort was to make homosexuality the byproduct of a cruel mother nature cursing the individual to a life they didn’t want to embrace or forcing the religious to accept that their God made the person gay.  However, as homosexuals trumpeted this cause treatment centers sprang up trying to help people leave behind the homosexual lifestyle.  Their argument was being used against them, showing that if indeed they could choose differently, treatment would be given to help them make that choice. 

This seems natural, because if it is a byproduct of genetics, then why should we not treat it like we do other genetic disorders.  People that are alcoholics are said to have a genetic disposition that responds differently to alcohol than others.  We offer numerous treatments for them to help them break out from a self-injurious lifestyle.  “AH!” the liberal shouts, “See they injure themselves and others!  That is different than homosexuality!”  Though I could argue that homosexuality does indeed cause injury, I find that we can easily accept the liberal premise and still destroy their argument.  

The easiest way to expose this fraudulent argument is to simply ask a moral question, “If we could determine that there is indeed genetic triggers behave differently and result in homosexual tendency (accepting the argument that they are “born that way”), what if we could isolate that cause and eliminate it – never again having another homosexual walk the earth?”  So we accept their premise that there is nothing wrong with it, we accept the premise that they’re born that way, and now we say what if it was completely preventable, “Should we prevent it?”  The issue arises for the liberal because the trumpeting of homosexuality is actually just the liberal looking for a pass for ANY sexual behavior.  If they say we should prevent it, then they admit that it indeed IS NOT normal.  In fact, by saying we she prevent it then we further strengthen support for offering treatment to those who are currently living the homosexual lifestyle.  Either it is some type of abnormality (NOT “normal) and therefore, given the power to prevent it, we should prevent it or it is normal and they cannot justify why is should be prevented. 

Now, if they say it should not be prevented, then the liberal has revealed that they aren’t interested in the freedom of the homosexual (as a person) but rather interested in everybody accepting the liberal’s sexual pursuits.  An atheist must think about what is better for humanity.  Intentionally allowing a genetic disorder to continue on when given the power to prevent it is sabotaging the evolution of humanity.  Normally, weaker genetic mutations would be naturally eliminated by nature by simply allowing the stronger to overwhelm the weaker.  Within human evolution, if human life has some sort of natural value, different than other animals (NOT an atheist belief) then the “weaker” still have a place and have value.  However, without some intrinsic value within humanity itself, then that which could be shown as a weaker development, abnormality that if it became dominant among the species would lead to our demise (like homosexuality), then we should seek to eliminate that.  So the liberal who does NOT want us to prevent homosexuality (if we had the power) is openly rejecting their only priority as an atheist – to help advance and strengthen the species.  Their aren’t really a lot of excuses the liberal can offer for this position, so even though they could create some generic excuse, establish a baseless pseudo morality, or just admit that they are really only interested in justifying all sexual behavior.

Basic biology - we have males and females, and together they can reproduce (we’re talking humans here).  This is how genetically speaking our species is able to survive.  Healthy, genetically normal females can reproduce with healthy, genetically normal males.  If we accept evolution and atheism, then we must know that the advancement of the species is the only value a person can add to humanity.  Genetic abnormalities that prevent advancement should be eliminated.  Atheism has no place for a barren woman, a crippled, or the elderly that are too frail to take care of themselves.  The only way these people survive in atheism is if the atheist declares that there is a moral law that compels people to help these people.  The problem is they have no basis for this moral law.  They would like to present a pseudo moral code, but if a person completely obliterates their fake moral law in attempt to advance the species further, that person is a better atheist, and in these terms, a better person.  Now, when the homosexual enters this picture the pseudo moral group tries to defend the homosexual and wants others to embrace their lifestyle.  However, the better human (in evolutionist and atheist terms) would be the one who destroys the homosexual.  The homosexual is a person that voluntarily is the equivalent of the barren woman or the sterile man.  “Voluntarily?” the liberal asks.  Yes! Because even if they desire a person of the same sex, it is their BIOLOGICAL (evolutionary duty!) to try and reproduce to propagate the species and by rejecting that role (even if they don’t desire it) they reject the only reason they exist biologically and therefore are useless in the advancement of the species.  “Well, what if they are a doctor or scientist?” Well, they cumulatively add less than a person that does the same job, on the same level, but is also capable of reproducing and actively pursues their biological duty.  Maybe the homosexual that participates in their biological duty to reproduce while still engaging in homosexuality would be granted a place in this world, but that is NOT what they are seeking.  The liberals want us to call it normal and even say we’re all equals.  But where does the liberal have any ability to back up that desire?  Pseudo morality has no basis and offers little in terms of accomplishing the evolutionary goal of advancement and they have no biological role given the basic biological reason for a human being is to reproduce.

So, when they make the claim to be born homosexual, logically that should be MORE damaging to the advancement of gay rights.  They’ve just staked claim to be genetically abnormal, biologically deviant, and evolutionarily weak.  To be genetically made to have a predisposition toward homosexual behavior is to admit the need for treatment and to admit that homosexuality is NOT normal.

Normal sexual behavior

Perhaps the homosexual simply understands that the sexual behavior itself is normal and should not be looked down upon.  So typical human sex would somehow include a tendency to have sexual relations with somebody of the same gender (I use gender here to specifically spit in the face of the sociologists that try to define gender as whatever we think we are – crazy liberal sociologists, abandon reason and science to pursue a specific agenda).  Obviously it doesn’t take much more than common sense to say it’s obvious that biologically that is not how humans were designed. 

Now here the liberal pipes up with something about hormones, studies that show a small majority of people have thought about or experimented with same sex relationships on some level.  This seems to be a biological justification, along with a somewhat psychological attribution to social norm, that it is the natural design of things. 

On the biological side, we can simply show how hormones are meant to function to produce a sexual desire that results in reproduction.  The hormones are NOT somehow trying to force a person toward the same sex, but rather toward sex – real sex where reproduction can actually occur.  If a person’s hormones are helping spur a desire for the same sex, that would be biology failing and some type of abnormality.  To biologically be drawn toward the same sex is to say that the human species is biologically designed to commit suicide.  Leave exactly three billion people on this planet, all of the same sex, whether male or female, and come back in one hundred fifty years and you will have exactly three billion dead.  Not one would have survived; none one would have reproduced; complete biological suicide –a real problem and evolution is a complete farce if that is how humanity is designed.

So if hormones are the culprit, they are so as an abnormality to basic biological function and design.  Therefore a homosexual can’t claim their sexual behavior to be normal.  Now the liberal must cling to the second point that studies show a majority of people have had thoughts of relations with the same sex or have experimented with a same sex relationship of some type.

The problem here is that they must somehow draw a correlation between thought and normal behavior.  First they are defining normal thought based on a simple majority, which is logically fallacious (argumentum ad populum).  Second, there must be some objective method to define which thoughts are normal or which links between thought and behavior should be considered normal.

For example, many people think about killing somebody (I don’t have a specific number and I don’t need one for the point to be true) and yet people don’t accept killing other people as perfectly normal.  In fact it is considered deviant behavior.  Just because people experience thoughts one cannot rationally define normal behavior as people who act on those thoughts.  If indeed it is completely normal, the great murderers in history should never be thought of as unique or different because they are simply behaving normally.

This brings up an interesting point, homosexuality is strange, NOT because of religion, but because of biological design.  Years ago people called homosexuals “queers” which is perhaps the most fitting description.  Not as an insult, but as a look at the strange and abnormal nature of the behavior.  People all over the globe have given daughters with dowries, but I don’t know any place where they offered their son with a dowry to another man’s son.  What would be gained?  It isn’t religious to want to have children to support you as you get older and to take care of you, it is biology at work.  Reproduction provides a means of survival for a society and any society that doesn’t reproduce dies.  No need for studies or surveys to discover that which we know – it takes two distinct sexual organs, working properly, in order to be able to reproduce (again, speaking about humans).

Reproduction is what the hormones drive.  Sex, in the very real sense (meaning two people of the same sex can’t actually engage in sex, but only imitate it), is what we were designed for.  When we deviate from this we are acting contrary to what nature intends and therefore we are the ones that are abnormal.  No matter which way somebody tries to classify sexual relationships between two people of the same sex, everybody intrinsically knows how we are supposed to behave.  It takes reprogramming people and constant excuses to try and justify anything different than what we biologically know to be true – a man and a woman are meant to be together, any other combination is unnatural.  Defining same sex relationships as normal is nothing but a denial of the same science, naturalism, and evolution that the atheist uses to justify sexual freedom. 

Christ - Ideal or Reality?

The Christmas season seems to be a tough season for me.  As I talk to more and more people, I come face to face with the reality that Christmas brings out the selfish, greedy, indulgent, self-centered thinking of many people.  A recent Facebook post I saw had taken the opportunity to turn the idea of being able to lie to your kids about Santa as proof that we can simply tell our kids that gay couple are alright because they have love (I don't link it here because why would I want to give it any more places to exist?).  This post appeared on an alleged Christian's page.  I specifically say alleged because I have come to doubt the reality of belief in almost everybody I meet that claims to be a Christian.  I have no idea whether or not they are true Christians and more likely than not they are better people than I am.  But the thing I've realized is that many people tend to be fonder of the IDEA of God or Jesus rather than actually believing the reality of God's existence.  Really, when these people say they believe it is really saying, “I like the general idea of it, so I accept that position.”  However, the position is excepted on the condition that they don't have to actually believe it (which would impact their life).

I find this idea of the Christian idealist to be the most common person I meet claiming to be a Christian.  The problem is I have no idea who is sincerely chasing Christ and just failing as a sinner or who is the person attached to the idea – I don't think there is any way to tell without really getting to know the person, but even then we can't look inside their heart to see their true intentions.

  

With that said though, something strikes me; certain things flat out contradict the very thing you say to believe and so accepting those positions means you really can't believe that which you say.  Gay marriage is one of those things that is so blatantly against the Bible, one cannot possibly believe that Christ is who He claims to be and still support gay marriage as a Christian.  One cannot possibly believe Christ is who He claimed to be an still believe the only thing that matters in life is the nice car, nice cell phone, and whatever little thing fills you with happiness aside from Christ.  Materialism is a sign of those who see themselves as the center of the universe and therefore cannot be serving Christ.  Liberalism and its pursuit of murder of children, gay marriage, the suppression of religion, and conformity to social morals is against Christ and therefore supporting liberalism means you are NOT supporting Christianity.   I find that people that claim to be Christians yet support these opposing views are simply NOT Christians at all (doesn't mean they don't live better lives than me), but somebody who got attached to the idea of God rather than believed in God. 

How can you judge them, you know you aren't supposed to judge? How can I? Simple, because I know some things are mutually exclusive.  You cannot be an atheist and a Christian.  You cannot support gay marriage and serve Christ.  Simple.  But I'm not supposed to judge right?  You see though, I'm not judging here, I'm simply stating the conclusion of the truth claim.  Liberals try to find ways to reinterpret the scripture to fit their belief system but that just shows the point, they serve liberalism and not Christ. Jesus himself says you cannot serve two masters.  The idea of serving your own belief system and making it to say what you FEEL it should, means that you are serving YOURSELF and not Christ.  These are not judgments, they are simply observations based on basic rational thought.  Though I could defend being judgmental in certain circumstances, I don't even have to offer any justification for a simple statement of truth – if the two claims are mutually exclusive then one cannot accept the position of one claim and yet hold the other to be true as well. 

Christmas is a reminder that I am a disgusting sinner in need of a savior and that God graciously provided one.  I see the darkness is the people around me, everywhere I look.  It's not the unbelievers that make me sick; it's those claiming to be Christians while clearly serving the wrong master.  This Christmas season, I find myself trying to look at the mirror and make sure that I am not attached to an idea.  This Christmas, I want to find that I BELIEVE and that I'm not stuck in the pursuit of an idea – my own ideas especially.  It isn’t my goal to condemn the world, but rather to make sure we have some rational thought.  We must understand that one cannot accept all positions equally.  Naturally, if some beliefs are to be accepted others are rejected in the same action.  It is sometimes worth looking at our lives to see if maybe we've compromised a bit and have started to embrace the IDEA of God rather than the REALITY of Him.

Atheism - The "Neutral" Enemy

Is Atheism neutral?  This question arises because within politics it is often easy to find people on both sides, liberals and conservatives, that believe atheism is a neutral position.  Part of the problem comes from the effective re-branding of atheism.  The atheist movement has made an intentional effort to redefine atheism as a simple lack of belief in a deity.  This watered down definition is not really what it means to be an atheist however.  Noe-atheism, as it is called in some philosophical circles, tries to include everybody that simply lacks a belief in god.  When we talk atheists though, what we really mean are those who reject the existence of God or a god.  We don't mean the person that hasn't considered the question; we mean the person who has considered it and concluded positively that there is no god of any sort. 

This definition is important because it contains the direct answer as to whether atheism can be neutral at all.  If somebody has already drawn a conclusion then they are NOT NEUTRAL.  Most politicians or political groups that go out to try to eliminate religious belief in politics do not just lack a belief.  They have taken a position against God and rejected all religious belief.  Of this belief, the 1828 edition of the Webster dictionary has this to say, “Atheism is a ferocious system that leaves nothing above us to excite awe, nor around us, to awaken tenderness.” Do we want leaders who have rejected our belief system?  This is what gets me, politics is precisely where belief SHOULD be expressed.  Leaders should lead based on BELIEFS.  The atheist REFUSES TO BELIEVE there is a God.  It’s not scientific.  It’s not the default belief. Most of all, it IS NOT NEUTRAL.

  

So what's the point of this?  I guess the more I look at the world, the more I see believers getting sucked into the mentality that leaders should govern outside of their religion.  The assumption has become that the atheist position is not only neutral, but also the default.  These so called believers need to be slapped because this is total nonsense.  First off, as pointed out atheism cannot be neutral (I also touch on it in my other post: Is Religion Bad?).  Second, all these believers need to realize the default position is belief.  Look at the history of the world, look at the primitive tribes that exist today, look at the studies of belief, and look at the kids of the world.  BELIEF IS DEFAULT.  Atheists always try to act like belief is learned and that atheism is the natural way.  This however is complete false!  A quick look at primitive tribes or study of ancient history shows that the default has always been BELIEF in a deity.  We might learn our particular religious belief system, but we don’t have to be taught to believe.  G.K. Chesterton covered this in his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter “The Ethics of Elfland.”  Dr. Alvin Plantinga also discusses the idea of a properly basic belief frequently – he actually lists belief in God as properly basic.  My point is Christians need to wake up and stop acting so dumb about atheism.  Understand that to be an atheist is to REJECT the Christian view.  It doesn’t mean the person that never considered your position, but rather the person that considered and chose to reject belief in God.  This is an opposing view to Christianity, not the pre-Christian belief.  Those who lack belief need to be educated.  Those who rejected it need to be opposed.

When we vote for leaders, when we encounter laws, we need to reject the liberal view that religion should be separate.  Religion should permeate politics!  Governing should be done based on a belief system other than atheism.  The U.S. government cannot promote a single religion, so why do we not get up in arms when they promote the religion of atheism?  People need to be educated that atheism isn't a neutral position; it is the partner of liberalism, the enemy of conservatives, and in direct opposition to Christianity. 

That Dang Pope!

Sorry for the long delay in writing, I’ve just been very busy with work.  I couldn’t find time in my day to write anything for the blog.  Though there were a number of things on my mind like the government shutdown, the future of conservatism, and what we should aim for as conservatives in a liberal society, I just couldn’t find the hours in a day to write about any of them.  Now that the shutdown is over, I actually wanted to address another issue completely different than those I just mentioned – the Pope.

See, right now the Pope is highly controversial among Catholics and has caused quite a stir.  Some conservatives want his head while many liberals are cheering him as if he fighting for their cause.  Now, as a non-Catholic I have found that I tend to come in with a slightly different view of him.  Pope Francis has been in the media quite a bit and many of his statements seem to have been flaunted as a change in Catholic teaching.  However, what the liberals would like the Pope to say and what the Pope is actually saying are two different things.  Francis has sparked a lot of debate and I hear many conservatives bashing him as completely stupid for even talking.  So let me breakdown my perspective a little.

First though, let’s address the media.  As most people with half a brain know, the media is completely sold out to liberalism.  The news is just a propaganda machine trying to bend everything in a way that promotes liberalism.  Liberals are absolute idiots, they’re never going to embrace logic yet try to argue with logic until they get destroyed and then they argue emotions.  As far as liberals are concerned, debates are over: evolution, global warming, gay marriage, and even religion.  They are over because the liberals are so smart they don’t even argue, don’t follow science, logic, reason, or intelligent process and instead just say the arguments are over.  This approach is surprisingly effective because the news (along with essentially every TV show, except Last Man Standing, is liberal) promotes the idea that the argument is over and just doesn’t ever talk about the other view, ever.  So whenever there is a story about the Pope on the news we need to understand as non-Obamaholics that each story comes in the context of EXPANDING THE LIBERAL AGENDA.  Meaning, most likely the news will use words to skew the story, take out of context the quotes, and have some sort of bash on conservative values – very slyly over course.  If you’re a conservative and mad at the Pope because of something you heard on the news, you’re misinformed. 

However, some conservatives are well aware of the worthless news and have decided the Pope is an idiot because he even talks and should be aware that the liberal media will decimate whatever he says.  I find this a bit disturbing because it gives MORE power to the media! Should the Pope really be holding his tongue because the liberals will try to change it to fit their agenda?  Set the Pope aside for a second and ask yourself if all conservatives should be quiet in order to not give the liberal media something to talk about.  Living in fear of being taking out of context gives all the power to the liberals and we as conservatives have done their job for them.  Conservatives should be celebrating that at least the Pope is still a news story!  Make no mistake; liberals can’t wait till there are no conservatives to talk about and bad mouth.  Remember, the only compromise a liberal knows is where the other party talks, looks, eats, acts, thinks, and votes the same as them.  The Pope is a story because HE IS NOT one of them and the liberals want to make him like them. 

The second thing to take into consideration is that the Pope has successfully brought the debate forward.  Gay marriage and women’s roles have actually been talked about again and people have had the opportunity to EXPLAIN the conservative view.  For a long time the conservative view has been described by everybody else EXCEPT the conservatives.  Liberals have defined what we believe and others have accepted.  “The church hates homosexuals.” “Christians believe just being gay is a sin.” “Christians think they’re so much better than everybody else.”   When the liberals define the conservative view, then the real conservative view can never win.  All the attention the Pope has drawn has given an opportunity for conservatives to actually talk about what the REAL conservative view is.  Conversation has actually surfaced and the time for educating the liberals and other “conservatives” has started because of the Pope.  Mention “Christian” or “Catholic” and you automatically have images flood into people’s minds – many images that have been defined and establish by the LIBERALS and are therefore completely distorted.  We can win every debate against liberalism because conservatism is simply a better, rational, logical, and intelligent view of the world but many conservatives have succumb to the liberal view and have accepted the liberal media’s position that the debate is over.  Because of the focus on the Pope we have been given the opportunity to educate the world, liberals and conservatives alike, on the real beliefs of conservative Christians.  THIS IS A GOOD THING!

A third thing to realize is that the Pope has attempted to be more Christ like and less Pharisee like VISUALLY.  It’s not to say other Popes where Pharisaical, but rather that Pope Francis is specifically trying to change the IMAGE that is perceived when viewing the Pope .  Many of the conservatives remind me of the Pharisees who had their own understanding of how things should be and were unwilling to see any differently.  They held so tightly to THEIR PERSONAL beliefs that many missed the very thing they were looking for.  Often times these conservatives get so focused on their way that they believe they personally know better than everybody else.  By making many of the drastic or more subtle changes, the Pope has moved into a ministry that is much more Christ like than acting loftier and higher than everybody else.  Focusing on the poor, emphasizing love, and walking among the crowds is very much a shift in style and a great attempt at changing the PERCEPTION that exists among people.  How effective it will be in the long run remains to be seen, but the contrast is clear when compared to some previous Popes, especially those in recent memory of the people.  He has to find a way to be on the level with people because stories of the smuggling millions of dollars in or spending millions on lavish living continue to pop up.  How do we educate people and change the perception WITHOUT doing something different? I think people need to really appreciate what the Pope is trying to do, whether or not it is successfully achieved.  People expect the Pope to be in a palace.  People expect extravagance.  People expect the Pope to not talk about anything controversial.  However, what has this done for the message of Christianity and what has this done to establish the Christian attitude of serving people?  Something NEEDED TO CHANGE!  We don’t want to sacrifice CONSERVATIVE VALUES, but we need to find a way to express CHRISTIAN VALUES that effectively represents the message of Christ while at the same time shatters some of the views that the liberals have so effectively instilled in the minds of the people.

I’m not here to defend the Pope in everything he does or says.  My main point is that all this attention is good and it gives conservatives a real opportunity to educate people.  Liberalism is the enemy of reason and logic, but most of all it is the enemy of conservative Christian values.  We need to take advantage of this time to use these conversations to spread the real conservative message and dispel the liberal implanted ideas.

Is Religion Bad? (PART 2)

The second failure of the anti-religion group is its failure to understand religion.  To shed some light on this, I grabbed the definition from dictionary.com.  Here it is:

re·li·gion 

noun

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. The life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. The practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

With that understanding in place, take a look at these groups.  Notice that they all tend to be a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.  Atheism rejects the superhuman agency, but does contain its own moral code.

Notice, the subjective view takes some things from the religion group and then rejects other while adding its own.  Obviously, there can be numerous things added to the lists here and many additional subjective views offered which all contain different lists.  I think that is pretty clear.

The “Outsiders” Test

Why does this matter?  It matters because people think they can ESCAPE religion by believing what they want to believe.  However, all they have done is created a new box of beliefs “concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe…containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” You haven't abandoned religion!  All you succeeded in doing was creating a new religion!

John Loftus, an atheist, terrible debater and woefully stupid man, described what he called the outsider test.  Essentially he suggests that if you look at Christianity from the outside, you would abandon it embrace atheism.  This pathetic view ignores the fact that one is always an INSIDER to some view! There is no way to outsider test OBJECTIVELY because it will always be done in terms of an INSIDER to another belief system.  A person is always an INSIDER – ALWAYS!

Unfortunately, nobody can ever be truly objective because they always have some sort of subjective interpretation involved in the processing (it doesn't mean that if we understand our biases that we can't try to set them aside – but this is very difficult due to the impact of our worldview).  The idea of being an “outsider” and therefore seeing an objective view of is pure fantasy.  With my own experiences through Christianity, when I do the “outsiders” test on atheism (after all I am an outsider to it), it appears to be ludicrously stupid, naïve, ego-centric, hedonism.  So which “outsider” perspective is right?

For those agnostics who think they live on the outside of religion, they don't.  They have just chosen a softer and more cowardly religion.  It tries to find a box where relative understanding somehow equates to leaving every religion alone because God is bigger than that.  But by choosing this path, they have inversely shrunk God to the tiniest and most impotent being available.  Agnostics live in a religious box, where they think God lets “good” people go to heaven and doesn’t send people to Hell that don’t believe in him.  However, God doesn’t appear to have a standard for what is good, because the agnostic can’t decide what a good person is.  God also doesn’t appear to be good, because now he lets people that don’t care about Him go to heaven as well.  It’s only those that agnostic deems evil that would suffer some sort of punishment.  What does all of this equate to? A RELIGION! You are yet another insider with another biased opinion, offering your relative god based on your subjective understanding.

The Relevance of Religion

What about those that play the ecumenical card and act soft hearted and say, “Religion just isn’t needed.” If religion is not needed, then YOUR RELIGION is not needed either.  Your understanding of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe are IRRELEVANT!  So the ecumenical (cowardly) agnostic believes that HIS OWN VIEW IS WORTHLESS by rejecting all religion as wrong.  If he believes himself to be right (that all religion is wrong) then in fact he cannot truly believe ALL religion to be wrong, because he believes HIS religion to be right!  Therefore he is NOT ecumenical at all is completely exclusive, arrogant, and judgmental!  The agnostic is therefore a liar and a fraud.  His belief cannot exist within the self-defeating nature of its stupidity or it exists at the cost of the agnostic being exposed as a self-absorbed, arrogant, liar.

Picking certain aspects of religion that you like while rejecting others is simply creating your own religion that defines a moral subset based on your subjective views of morality.  However, your own religion is powerless and holds no merit because it is ONLY based on your SUBJECTIVE views – making your entire belief system relative in nature.  Truth is objective in that something either is or is not true.  If Christianity is TRUE then all other religions are FALSE.  It is the nature of truth.   To be picking parts that you like of each and trying to apply them to yourself and saying others should do the same – is to say, that YOU have found the TRUTH and others are wrong.  However, if you don’t think others should do the same and accept that others could come to different conclusions, then you are saying that you in fact believe that WHICH IS FALSE.  For if others could have differing views than you and be right - then a square is not a square indeed. 

There is no exception here.  A person is always an insider to a certain view.  The question is whether or not that view is true.  A partially true belief is in reality a false belief.  Just as a square is a square, truth is truth – you can’t have three sides and it still be a square.  If all religions are wrong, your religion is wrong.  If your religion is right, then all other religions are wrong (technically speaking they would have to CONFLICT with your view in some way – which we assume they do otherwise why not be in that religion?).  So rather than think religion is judgmental because it rejects other views, stop being so naïve and understand that if something is TRUE it must necessarily EXCLUDE certain other possibilities.  EVERY RELIGION by nature must be exclusive of other views – it's not judgmental, it’s the nature of truth.  Even your own pathetic, subjective, religion that you established IS EXCLUSIVE toward other religions and points of view if you believe it to be true.  Christianity doesn't condemn because it's judgmental – it condemns because it is TRUE.

---

On another note, if you get a chance please offer prayers for the family trying to adopt (posted on the right) and pray for the little girl.  If you feel up to it, you can always help donate as well.

Is Religion Bad? (PART 1)

Due to an influx of people talking about how religion is the bane of Christ and that loving God doesn’t require a religion; I felt it was time to address this thinking.  I guess before I lay out the errors of this thought process I should at least summarize the thought process.

Essentially people come to this conclusion from two paths. 

1.  In one path, people determine that Christ was against religion based on his opposition to the Pharisees and Jews in general.  People assume that Jesus was trying to expose religion as restrictive and he therefore was attempting to set people free from the rules of religion.
2. The second path comes more so from the ecumenical people that believe a pseudo agnostic view that there is a God (perhaps even the Christian God), but that he is ambiguous and cannot be known through any single religion.  Obviously the two paths approach God from a different way, but they both draw that conclusion that religion is bad and God doesn't require religion (or even want it)! 

Unfortunately, this lofty thought process of the ambiguous God embraced through a personal relationship free of religion is utterly stupid.  The first and greatest weakness is that the inevitable conclusion from such a view is a god who fits OUR personal view.  So rather than an objective greatness, we have a subjective impotence.  Why? Because WITHOUT clear definition of who God is and what His character and nature are like then each person is the arbiter of who God is.  This is because something that is true is OBJECTIVE.  If you believe a square is round, then you are WRONG!  Your belief is wrong, because a square is objective.  It isn’t whatever you imagine it to be.  GOD IS OBJECTIVE!  If God exists then God is by necessity, OBJECTIVE!  Why is DNA evidence so effective or fingerprinting a tool that is still used today? Because they identify a person on an objective level.  Creating an idea of who you think God is and what He is like is creating a SUBJECTIVE god.  By disregarding the teachings of a religion, you are essentially saying God isn't who they say He is but who YOU say He is – and that is a purely subjective.

FOR THOSE WHO ATTEMPT TO BE AGNOSTIC

Now the natural question would be, “But people know people differently.  One man might think one a villain while the other think him a hero.  Isn't that subjective?”  Now granted, most people actually wouldn't think that and instead would run away insulting you for being a “head-thinker.”  However, let's assume somebody actually did take half a second to think and asked that question, what is the answer? Well, it comes two fold I guess.  Perception isn't reality, but only a subjective interpretation of what is there.  Grass is orange when perceived through my eyes, because I am colorblind.  So HOW we perceive a person does not mean that is WHO the person really is.  There must be a standard with which to measure a person, but that standard CANNOT be subjective and relativistic because then it cannot be a standard with which to measure EVERYBODY.  If the measurement cannot be applied to all, then it CANNOT be OBJECTIVELY applied to one!  Assuming no religion has got it right, means that we most likely don't have it right as well.  Therefore, the standard with which the agnostic assumes to measure with is subjective if they believe ONLY themselves to have it right (by saying that others are wrong), because if the standard was objective then that would mean the agnostic was almost certainly wrong in his belief as well and therefore there TRULY must be a religion that got it right.  Agnostics are cowards in thinking because they don't accept the subjective nature of their view and yet the only truth they want to accept is that all religions got it wrong.  The truth of agnosticism is that it is not ecumenical at all, but an arrogant ignorance that places their understanding that ALL GOT IT WRONG as the only the truth yet somehow reject the implications of the self-defeating nature of the creed they proclaim.

The second part would be that if God is changing then God cannot be trusted because He could change and could become weaker, less powerful, less loving, evil, and the world would suffer the consequences of those changes; therefore, God must be IMMUTABLE and therefore if something was true of Him ever it is TRUE OF HIM STILL.  Meaning, if God was ever good, God is still good.  Unlike a person who can change and making our perception the person might change.  God MUST BE immutable and therefore He does not change, only our perception of Him.  So our subjective perception cannot be the measure of God’s objective person-hood.

Let's examine the concept a little more.  For instance, imagine God had no hand in creating the universe and it was pure, unadulterated chance.  Now as time goes on God changes and begins creating ex nihilo.  Well now things would just start popping into existence within the existing universe and science would be baffled.  What if God was evil?  Would people be crying out why do good things happen to some people?  With a simple role reversal it is easy to see our perceptions fail us and that if God is anything He is immutable.  A changing god, whether or not we give him the attributes of the Christian God, would (given an infinite amount of time) become the Christian God.  If it is possible for Him to become the Christian God, then He would ALWAYS remain the Christian God, because the Christian God is IMMUTABLE!  Therefore, if God IS changing, then given an infinite amount of time God WILL BECOME UNCHANGING!

FOR THOSE AGAINST RELIGION

This is important because it reinforces that which we learn from RELIGION.  Religion teaches us about who God is.  Based on WHO HE IS, we find WHO WE ARE, objectively!  Our objective position is based on the objective God.  Defining our worth, position, status, righteousness, based on OUR own understanding or perception is simply relativistic.  If however, we define our worth, position, status, and righteousness on an OBJECTIVE reality then we find our TRUE and OBJECTIVE answer to who we are.  Christianity as a RELIGION is important because it seeks to find the objective standard with which to measure.  Unfortunately, most people are appalled by the results of such measuring and appeal to the relative measuring of their subjective perceptions.  When a person says, “I don't know why God would condemn a good person to Hell.” they are simply reflecting THEIR OWN PERCEPTION of what is good and also what a good god would act like.  Now the Christian church comes in and measures that same person with an OBJECTIVE standard and people cry out that the church is judgmental.   Why? Because when the measure is our own, we can shape it how we see fit and change how we see ourselves.  When we measure objectively, there is no lying and there is no shifting.  We land where we land and we cannot argue it. 

The doctrines that develop through religion (the perceived “rules” of religion) are the protection against irrelevance.  It is by necessity that doctrines exist.  If a person rejects certain doctrines from a religion, they reject the authority of that religion.  Religion without authority is impotent and therefore falls into relativism.  Doctrines serve as barriers or fences to prevent relativism from taking over.  Every religion needs doctrines in order to survive. Rejecting the “rules” of religion is nothing more than embracing your own relativistic rules that make you the arbiter of truth.  Those who are Catholic and reject the church’s teaching on women priests, abortion, divorce, or homosexuality reject Catholicism entirely.  Because if you don’t accept those doctrines you don't accept the authority of those doctrines.  Without that authority, you practice relativism.  Those protestants who reject the Bible's teaching about homosexuality are in fact REJECTING the Bible as a whole!  If it doesn't have authority on that issue, then YOU become the ultimate authority and therefore the Bible is SECONDARY TO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING!  This is why doctrines are important.  This is why religion demands these “rules.”  Because the consequence for rejecting them is a self-ordained, relative to you, subjective understanding of the universe, God, and humanity, that bends to the whim of each individual.

It is a false belief to think the doctrines hinder religion and therefore religion hinders our relationship with God.  Doctrines are there to define that which is OBJECTIVE and to lead us away from our subjective understanding, short sighted perceptions, and relativistic understanding of God.  Religion is the tool to lead us to the OBJECTIVE REALITY, GOD.

 

 

Mob Rule- The Liberal Plight

The tyranny of liberalism surfaced again this week.  After a regular court case, involving the now well-known George Zimmerman, we saw all the liberals come out in force.  Liberals, focused on two things: race and guns.  They are ready to overthrow our entire justice system and force somebody to suffer at the hands of a mob rather than watch our judicial system work.  I’m amazed at the level of ignorance of this generation.  Without any effort the liberals believed prohibiting same-sex marriage was being denied some kind of equal rights.  Liberals cheer every time a politician takes away guns from the people.  Now, liberals take to the streets, assaulting bystanders, blocking freeways, and holding protests.  Why? Because they didn’t get the verdict they wanted in a court case that has nothing to do with them.  Where was the uproar over the Supreme Court’s betrayal of our rights in the Obamacare ruling? Of course they don’t protest that, the liberals got what they wanted – more government power and less individual rights.   But when a man with a family, and clearly an absolute lack of evidence, isn’t convicted because there is REASONABLE doubt, these idiots protest.  Liberals should be ashamed of their stupidity, but they’re just too ignorant to even see the shame in their actions.

Let me be clear, Zimmerman is not my hero.  He doesn’t represent conservatives, he’s not a great hope, and he means nothing to me.  However, this country is important to me and the liberals destroying it are completely inept. We have a court system and we have laws.  The man was granted a trial with a juror of his peers and he was acquitted.  HOW DOES THAT IMPACT YOU OR ME?! It doesn’t.  There wasn’t chaos in the streets when O.J. Simpson was acquitted and there shouldn’t be anything now.  Or maybe the difference is because O.J. is a black man.  Is that the truth behind the matter?  Are all these liberals nothing but a bunch of racists who are so ignorant that they would abandon that which makes our country free and try to abolish our freedom through mob rule?  Apparently our president hopes so.  Because as the outrage began to fade and as the Zimmerman ruling started to not be the main headline, Obama made a point to hold a press conference on Friday and fan the flames of racism once again.  The messiah of liberalism does NOT in fact want unity, he wants mob rule with a strict divide.

Liberals are trying to force mob rule mentality down our legal system, trying to make the legal system bend to the will of people and abandon justice, due process, and protection from double jeopardy and our executive branch is HELPING!  Americans should be protesting LIBERALISM!  It is emotionalism run rampant and rational thought cannot stand with it.  These people are idiots. Liberals are joining hands to try to punish Zimmerman for that which he was acquitted of.  Trayvon Martin was not a saint!  Zimmerman is not a saint!  The justice system worked and because there WAS REASONABLE DOUBT the man was not found guilty.  Let it go liberals. This verdict has nothing to do with the thousands who are protesting; these people are just ignorant liberals, fueled by a biased media, and lead by the great ignorant leader Obama and his failed appointment Eric Holder.

  

Think for a minute, what do you want America to be?  Should we be free and let the system work (and this system was rigged AGAINST Zimmerman and yet there was still wasn’t enough evidence against him) or should we sentence and condemn people based on the feelings and emotions of a racist mob?  Protesters raided Wal-Mart, shut down freeways, beat innocent people while shouting, “This is for Trayvon!” (This is probably an accurate portrayal of what he would do, as Trayvon referred to himself as a “gangsta.”)   It seems the simplest explanation of all emotional ignorance is one thing – racism.  At the end of the day, the liberals have shown THEY are the racists and THEY are the simpletons, and THEY are party of ignorance and emotion is what they rule by and justice is nothing but what THEY FEEL should be done. 

As I said, Zimmerman is no hero of mine, but neither is Trayvon.  People should get over it and move on.  I suppose there isn’t much hope of that with the ignorant party running things and the most ignorant leader in charge of our country, but deep inside these people should know better.  Perhaps instead of listening to the liberals, they should listen to reason.