Personal and Religious: Not Your Average Christian

“...because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet believe.” John 20:29

“Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” - Tim Minchin

I may be the only Christian you ever meet who doesn't want to go to heaven. This post has been 2 weeks in the writing, but really it's been about 14 years in the making.

 

1 – My Problem with God

I was baptized when I was 13 for the remission of my sins, because the Bible told me to. The Bible told me if I wasn't a Christian I was going to hell. The problem is, it also says if I am a Christian, I'm going to heaven.
 

My problem with God starts with that fact – there's no third option. God created the heavens and the earth, created hell (or maybe just put Lucifer there and it formed in reaction. I'm not sure), created sheol, but didn't create an option for His faithful servants who don't want to live forever. He sent Jesus to die for our sins, and gave us a gift of grace that would allow us to get into heaven and avoid hell, but the gift has very limited options and strings attached.

I don't wish to come off as blasphemous. God is God and I can't change what God's going to do. It's His right. But I don't like it. I can't change what I like and what I want. God has to do that for me.

I might be able to rationalize it a little better, and take some comfort in working diligently for the Lord in exchange for a reward I don't want if I at least knew why God's plan is the way it is a little better. But one personality trait God exhibits all the way through the Bible is that He's very secretive. From the Book of Genesis when He gave Adam and Eve the tools of self awareness and told them not to use them to the Book of Revelation where He showed John a great mystery and told him not to write it down, God is always depicted as being very protective not only of His will but also knowledge of His will. In the book of Job, after Job spends an entire chapter praising and beseeching God once his torment is over, God blasts him for the next four chapters for daring to ask Him why he had to suffer. Jesus, even after he performs miracles, tells his followers not to mention them to anybody.

Kee-ripes, God. You put us here, gave us very little information, filled us with curiosity, and scold us for trying to sate it. I'm not questioning Your judgment, but it's really hard to live with. I have to “deny myself, taking up my cross daily (Mt 16:24)” “without looking back (Lk 9:62)” based on “no sign but the sign of Jonah (Mt 12:39)” and do the “good works ordained beforehand (Eph 2:10)” in such a way that people “see the light of the Father (Mt 5:6)” in order to “teach the Gospel to all creatures (Mk 16:16)”. What comfort do I have, Lord? This is the “easy yoke and light burden (Mt 11:30)” Jesus put before me? I'd almost rather have the damnation I've earned (Rom 6:23) than accept a gift that bleak. Almost.

I keep trying to live a good life, a life according to the Word, and hope and pray that one day God will change my heart. But as I said at the beginning, I've been a Christian for 14 years, from age 13. That's now more than half my life and it hasn't happened yet. I'm running out of hope.

2 – My Problem with Atheism

“Well if you feel that way about it, why don't you just join the atheists?” you might wonder. The trouble is, as attractive as their ideas are, I'm not an atheist. I can't just stop believing in God and Christianity and more than I can stop being six-foot-six with brown eyes and graying brown hair. I can choose what I believe, to an extent. I can change my opinions based on evidence. I can choose what I'm going to follow and what I'm going to do with my faith, but I don't choose to have faith. Faith is a need, like hunger, thirst, or shelter. It's a touch more complicated than the basic body needs, on the same plane as fears and sexuality. My problem with atheism is that it largely says the need doesn't or shouldn't exist.

I should make it clear that I'm not talking about a blind faith here. I have read the Bible and made my own decisions about it. If you'll look back at the two quotations I put at the start of this post, there's a difference in believing in things unseen and refusing to believe in things that are seen. If you can't believe in things unseen, you can't really be an empiricist either. I've never been to a dinosaur excavation but I believe they existed. I've never set a match to hydrogen but I still know it would explode. You have to accept that things have happened that you haven't seen. Otherwise the world ceases to exist while you're asleep.

I have two big problems with atheists, even though I like their skeptical and rational approach to the world. One is that because they don't feel the need of faith, they don't really understand that it isn't something you can just turn off. The second is that they're bullies about it.

I don't blame them completely for being angry and aggressive in their approach. That is partially our fault. If you ever watch a debate on the issue, the atheists always get riled up about the horrible things Christians (particularly Catholics) and other religious groups have done throughout history, and they're not wrong. But if you've see how nasty those debates get, you know that it's not really about casting down the “lies” of religion and freeing the minds of mankind. It's about getting even with the religious authorities for all the crap they've done over the millennia. Most activist atheists don't just want religious people to stop being religious; they want us punished for everything our spiritual forefathers did wrong in God's name. And if they hadn't done such great evils in the name of such great goodness, the atheists wouldn't be nearly as popular in their attacks.

The problem there is that they're either missing or ignoring the thing I said a few paragraphs back. Faith is a need. Religion fills that need. Pointing to all the horrific inhumanity done in the name of religion is proof that we don't need to do any of that horrific inhumanity anymore. The Spanish Inquisition provides an excellent argument against the Spanish Inquisition. The sale of indulgences illustrates just how wrong the sale of indulgences was. Showing the awful stuff done wrong in the name of religion and saying it proves there shouldn't be any religion is like showing all the stuff people have done in pursuit of money and saying it proves there shouldn't be any money. But there will always be money just like there will always be religion, because they fill a basic need in a way nothing else does.

Even if they had a valid point, though, they're not doing a very good job of practicing what they preach when it comes to proving it.

 

 

 

 

That is a picture taken from Atheist Resource on Facebook. If you go to their page and scroll through their other pictures, you'll find at least one example of a logical fallacy in each one.

What you find in their arguments is what happened in the Intelligence Squared debate I mentioned the other day. John Onaiyekan, the Catholic Archbishop from Nigeria stood up and talked about all the great things he's witnessed as a Catholic priest, and all the wonderful things his Church has done in his life and the lives of people he knows. Christopher Hitchens took the stand next and listed item after item of all the terrible things the Catholic Church has done throughout history. Then Anne Widdecombe took her turn and began striking back against everything Hitchins had said. Finally Stephen Fry took to the podium and continued pointing out horrible things the Church had done and is still doing.

If you watch the debate, you get a real sense of how atheists usually make their points. What you don't see a lot of is good firm debate on the merits and demerits of the Catholic Church and whether it's a net force for good in the world (which was the topic). What you see is one guy who believes the Catholic Church is great and three angry people hurling accusations and insults at each other.

Atheists nearly always spread their message by talking about everything done wrong in the name of religion, with cleverly worded insults all the way. I already said, using the bad done wrong in the name of religion as an argument against religion doesn't hold up because it's a bad argument, and mocking and insulting your opponent, however cleverly you may do so, is not evidence of correctness or intellectual superiority. It just proves you know better insults.

On the subject of the great mass of human atrocity that has been done by people with religious authority, I should say that we know power corrupts. If we want to prevent that from continuing, we should limit the power of people, and keep watch on those with authority to make sure they don't abuse it. We shouldn't dismantle the institutions and hand control over to the atheists. Why?

 

(Not the product of any religion)

Atheists don't have as long a history as religious people of doing terrible things, but it's because they don't have as long a history period. But they're poised to do just as much if not more if they get the control they want. Taking away faith and a spiritual conscience and replacing it with a humanist conscience ensure that your adherents are going to do what's best for the greatest number, not what's morally, objectively right. Historically, sometimes what produced the greatest good for the greatest number was inhumanly terrible to the rest. Taking religion and God out of morality won't stop people from doing awful things. It will take away any internal motivation to avoid those things if the reward is great enough.

3 – My problem with other Christians

I am a true fundamentalist. I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't believe in a literal interpretation of what someone else told me about the Bible. There is a long list of stuff we have to stop doing if we're ever going to be taken seriously again. Again, looking back at the two quotes I used to introduce this post, we are called to believe in things unseen. That doesn't mean we have to keep coming up with stupid arguments against things that have been seen. It also doesn't mean we have to keep coming up with stupid arguments in support of things that just aren't right.

My complaints here are almost to numerous to list. I'm going to give each one and an explanation and then try to discuss them all.

 

Evolution. It happened. It happens. There is proof.
The Big Bang. See evolution.
Demonic possession. It doesn't happen. It did, but not anymore.
Divine Retribution. It doesn't happen, particularly not in the form of natural disasters.
Speaking in tongues. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
The Rapture. It isn't going to happen the way you think it is.
Homosexuality. I agree it's a sin. That doesn't give anyone the excuse to hurt them.
Acceptance. No more “well if we can't pick on them anymore, who are we going to pick on now?”
Science is not evil. It's not man-made. It's as true as anything else.
Ignorance does not justify making stuff up.

I'm going to talk in the last section of this post about reconciliation and how religion and science are currently holding both halves of the creation puzzle in their hands and can't fit them together. For the trickier issues, hang on and be prepared for me to tell you stuff may never have heard before.

First of all, demonic possession was something that only happened when Jesus was on earth. There are no scriptural records of it before, and there are only a few briefly after. The Bible does not always go in chronological order. If you want proof of that read in the Revelation (If you're still calling it the Book of Revelations then you've never looked that closely at the title and you probably don't know the rest very well either) where John's description of the Rapture comes before his description of the birth of Christ. This is important because Lucifer was kicked out of heaven at the same time Jesus came to earth (and possibly is the star that led the Magi to Bethlehem). Lucifer and all his angels were wandering the earth when Jesus was on it. Lucifer tried one last time to tempt Jesus, and then never appeared again. If you read further into the Revelation you get an idea why. There were still some other demons on the planet for a while until they were driven out by one source or another. On the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit came on the Apostles and they received a measure of Godly power. They could speak in tongues (more on that in a sec), cast out demons, know things they hadn't seen, and a few other such divine powers. Why? Because they needed those things to establish the church, protect themselves, and carry out the Great Commission.

They were not given the authority to transmit these gifts any further.

Read the New Testament. The other disciples traveling with them could not cast out demons unless they had an Apostle present. Paul was given the same gifts by Jesus in Damascus, but he was unable to pass them on to Timothy. That's why he kept having to write letters to people while he was in prison.

Once their missions on earth were completed, the Apostles (except John) were all martyred and their powers went with them. John had to stay alive with his divine authority because he had one more prophecy to write. There are no demons in the world today. If there were, no mortal has the ability to cast them out. That all went away about 2000 years ago.

Speaking in tongues is not the same as speaking gibberish. It's a very perverse interpretation of the miracle. The miracle was that when the Apostles spoke, people could understand them. In Acts, the people marveled that though they were all Galileans each man heard them speak as though in his native language. The miracle was that they could speak so everyone of every tongue could understand, not so they could babble nonsense in public. If you've seen people doing that, they're under something akin to mass hysteria – they're doing it because they believe that's what they're supposed to do so strongly that their brain makes it happen. It's not a miracle, it's an insult to the miracle. The same goes for people who seem to be demon-possessed.

What about the Rapture? We don't know what will happen, how it will happen, or when. If anyone tells you otherwise, they're either lying or wrong. How do I know? Because Jesus said so. “Watch therefore and wait, for ye know not the day nor the hour when the Son of Man cometh (Mt 25:13).” We don't know what will happen or how because of the misinterpretations of the prophecies leading up to the birth of Christ, apart from anything else. From the birth of Isaac to the birth of Jesus, when God tells people what will happen, He always keeps His word and the people never expect it. Besides that, as I said way back at the beginning, God guards the secrets of His will very closely. When Jesus says “no one will see it coming” I have no trouble believing it. One thing God's really good at is taking us by surprise, and there's a whole Bible full of stories of men trying and failing miserably to predict how and when God's plans would come to fruition.

Why would people tell you that if they don't know? Because, like I said way back at the beginning, we're full of curiosity. A lot of times religious leaders have either made up an answer or found what they think might be the answer because their followers expected them to have it. That has caused doctrinal problems from the time of the Apostles on down, and many of the aforementioned atrocities committed in the name of God were done because people either wanted to know something or worse, were sure they already did. We have to accept that when it comes to God, we may never know the answer. He won't tell us until He's ready. If you try to fill in the blanks with your own answer, look what happened to Saul, Nebuchadnezzar, the Pharisees, Judas, etc. It never works.

There is no scriptural evidence for modern divine retribution. Only three people were so struck after Jesus' Ascension – Ananaias, Sephira, and Herod. Ananaias and Sephira committed the first sin in the church, lying to the Apostles and the Holy Spirit and were struck dead by the Spirit because Peter said so. Herod was the only one struck dead without an Apostle present, and he died suddenly of a parasitic infection, rather than just falling down dead like the other two. Jesus said he was going to prepare a place for us in heaven. He's not sitting up there with God using sinners for target practice with natural disasters. Those things just happen. God makes the sun rise on the good and the evil, sends rain on the just and the unjust (Mt 5:45). Reading some supernatural meaning into those things is in fact a violation of the scriptures against divination, not receipt of some divine message.

This leads to that all-important question both atheists and Christians ask – Why does God let bad things happen? Why did God let Hurricane Katrina level New Orleans? Why did God let an earthquake wreck the Fukushima reactor in Japan? A better question might be who builds a major city below sea level next to a giant lake and builds a nuclear reactor on a fault line? God's warnings were in place well in advance. Well, what about the other stuff? Why is there so much poverty, hunger, war, and disease in the world? What's God's plan for that?

It's us. It's the church. Fixing all the suffering in the world is our job. It's a job carried out by those man-made forces of agriculture, medicine, diplomacy, and economics. Those are really powerful, world-changing forces. We can either use them as good stewards, helping each other and giving God the glory, or we can use them selfishly for personal gain. Look at the world and its history and see which does better, and which is more prevalent. God told us what to do and how to do it. He isn't going to do it for us. Waiting for God to fix all the world's problems is like sitting in your car and waiting for it to drive you to work.

Those things aren't currently in the hands of Christians because Christians have rejected them. We turned our backs on learning how to carry out our assignments so we could tear the Bible apart looking for whatever secret messages God was really trying to send us. That's why we have to accept knowledge, no matter the source. We need to stop looking for writing on the walls and read what's in the textbooks. If you do see anything written on a wall, you can bet your soul it was a mortal who wrote it.

We also have to stop persecuting people out of habit. I'm not sure why, but ever since the Civil Rights movement really took off, Christians as a group have tried to figure out who's left for us to scapegoat. Currently it's the gays. Stop! God did not make anything bad happen to any nation because it had gay people in it. God isn't punishing Israel for being full of Jews (their neighbors are punishing them for being bad neighbors but that's another post), He isn't punishing Africa for being full of black people, He isn't punishing Europe for being full of liberal atheists, and He isn't punishing America for failing to stop any of this. Bad stuff is happening in the world because we're all too busy trying to figure out who God hates instead of being the vessels of God's love we're supposed to be. It's our fault there is still suffering in the world because we haven't fixed it yet, and it's our fault there's still hate in the world because we haven't stopped that yet too.

 

4 – Looking for the Reconciliation

A team of people won the Nobel Prize in physics in 2011 for determining that the universe is not only expanding, but its rate of expansion is accelerating. It's been over a year, and I have yet to hear anyone else realize what this means for the oldest, bitterest fight between religion and science.

Why is this so significant? Because the expansion of the universe is what causes the progression of time. I cannot overstate this – Proof that the universe's expansion is accelerating is proof that time itself is getting faster. Proof that time is getting faster is proof that time has gotten faster.

Why does that matter? Because it proves that what we think of as a day isn't the same as what a day was right after the birth of the universe!

“In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was lifeless and without form, and darkness covered the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said “Let their be light, and their was light, and God saw the light” Genesis 1:1-3

 

A day as we see it today is not the same as a day at the dawn of the universe. Everything the smartest people in the world have asked about his subject for 120 years is answered right there.

“I will open my mouth in parables. I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. (Mt 13:35)”

Why has no one found this before? Because no one's looking for it. Religious people and scientific people are dismissing each other. They have two things that don't agree and each immediately assumes the other is wrong. Neither side looks for how the two conflicting ideas might exist together.

This is the answer we must try to find in the world. The Bible tells us what our mission is. Science tells us how to do it. Science tells us what we might do later. The Bible tells us what our choice should be. Ignoring either side because you don't like what they have to say doesn't help anything. It just holds everyone back.

Political: The Big Six – My Opinions on Gay Rights, Immigration, Abortion & Death Penalty, Drugs, and Global Warming

Gay Rights

(Specifically marriage. I haven't heard of gay people being knocked off voting rolls or anything)
Position: Gay marriage is probably immoral, but still ought to be legalized.

I'm firmly of four opinions on gay marriage. On the one hand, I do think homosexual behavior is immoral. I'm not going to throw out the five Bible passages that get misinterpreted both ways on the subject. If it matters to you, you already know them and I'm not going to change your mind about what they mean and how they should be applied. What I am going to say is that it's only been around 150 years, since Victorian England specifically, that there was any such thing as a homosexual. Victoria's parliament legislated against gay acts between men, and Oscar Wilde was the first famous case tried under the new law. Before that period, monogamy in general wasn't as big a deal as it is today. People got married men and women, and sometimes they took lovers on the side, and sometimes they were lovers of the same sex. There weren't any clear lines yet of what was “normal” and what was “deviant.” When the anti-gay legislation came in, it got really clear really fast. Men either had to stop all the fooling around with other men or at least keep really quiet about it. So what was the law about?

Basically, popular opinion was (and still is) that men having sex with other men is just a gross thing to do. Every argument against it boils down to that. Nobody's really been able to explain why, but they're sure it's a nasty behavior. Laws, customs, and now Bible verses have been applied to rationalize that position. The Victorian era was when the Catholic Church and others adopted their current position on the subject and applied the popular interpretations to the relevant verses. But underlying all of that is that what had been socially acceptable in practice, if not in polite discussion, for many years suddenly wasn't anymore. The majority of the public agreed, and a few decided that it didn't matter what anyone else thought, they were going to carry on anyway.

That's sort of the definition of immoral – there was a consensus on what was right and wrong, and even though it was different from what it had been, it was still standard. The people who decided their own desires were more important than everyone else's, well that's what deviance is. Now, whether it's objectively right or wrong, I don't know, but for all our lives it has certainly been on the contrary side of the cultural morality. To me, that's what “immoral” means. Of course, that opinion only came in 150 years ago and it is beginning to change. If the common morality is changing, it won't be immoral anymore.

My second of the four opinions on the subject though, is that just because something's immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal. One of the most common arguments against legalizing gay marriage in the US is that it is going to cheapen the institution of marriage. I don't think that's true. I think divorce has cheapened the institution a lot more than every other factor. People don't take their vows seriously (or any other vows for that matter) anymore, and people get divorced just because they don't like their spouse at the moment. The often-quoted statistic is that half of all marriages end in divorce. This, incidentally, isn't true – the statistic is that there are 2 marriages each year for every divorce. When you count how many people are getting married for the second or third or however many times, and divorced for the same number, that still means it's more common to stay married for life than not.

Apart from divorce, there are already a lot of forms of immoral marriage that are legal, as long as they take place between a man and a woman. The image of a horny old rich guy marrying a sexy young gold digger is positively cliché and is basically a long-term prostitution arrangement. It wasn't that long ago that people thought interracial marriages were wrong, and some people out there still do. People are still allowed to get married for political or other advantage, for money, and under duress (as in “shotgun weddings”). It's pretty stupid and hypocritical to say that gay marriage can't be allowed but all those others are just fine. I say legalize them all or criminalize them all, and since I believe in letting people decide for themselves what's best for them, I vote legalize them all. You can still say snarky things about them behind their back.

On the third hand, marriage isn't a guaranteed right in the US. The idea of picking who you get to marry is still pretty recent as well. Arranged marriages were the norm all over the place for a long time (and probably the reason for all those affairs in history). There's nothing in the national constitution about it, and if it's covered under the tenth amendment, then it's up to the states to decide. And if some states vote one way and you don't like it, move to a state that voted the other way. The borders are open. If enough people migrate into one or the other for that reason, the affect on the economy in those states will be enough to force the others to follow suit.

On the fourth hand, even though marriage isn't a legally defined right in this country, most people seem to think it is and act accordingly. If we're going to say marriage is a right, then it has to be open to any and all, and discriminating against any group goes against the grain of the national conscience. If it's a right, it's more wrong to deny it to a group because the majority doesn't like them than it is for them to do all the nasty stuff that majority doesn't like. We are absolutely not allowed to oppress any minority just because we don't like them.

 

Immigration

(Specficially the illegal immigration from Mexico and other Latin American countries that's so controversial right now)
Position: There shouldn't be any such thing as illegal immigration. Let them come in.

This one's pretty self-explanatory. Go back 90 years and you could have listened to all the people who already lived here complaining about all the immigrants coming in from Poland, Ireland, Russia, Italy, or what have you. The arguments were exactly the same – we don't know who might be a cirminal, they look a little different, they don't have the same values as the rest of us, and horror of horrors THEY DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH!

Get over it. The country survived. We added all those other groups to the pool, the better parts of their cultures became part of the American patchwork and the worse parts went away. Yeah, every now and then a violent criminal sneaks in, and we still need to watch out for those guys, but we're not going to catch all of them. Most people don't come to this country because they see a lot of innocent people to murder. Most of the people with that view were born here. So do what it says on the Statue of Liberty's base. If they're willing to make the trip, let 'em in. Even if they never learn English, their kids will. How far back in your family tree do we have to go to find someone who didn't speak English? Didn't affect your ability at all, did it?

 

 

Abortion & the Death Penalty

Position: Both should be available; both should be a last resort.

I put these two topics together for a reason. I've never met anyone who's in favor of both, or against both. They both involve legalized forms of killing people, and they're both allowed under the current federal laws. The liberal view is that abortion is fine but the death penalty isn't, and the conservative view is the reverse. It looks like one set is based on choices already made and their consequences while the other is on choices not yet made and the opportunities. I don't think either of these is a good basis for policy. Similar to my position on gay marriage, I think both probably shouldn't happen, but I know there are times when both are called for. Therefore they should be legally permitted but we shouldn't be so gung-ho to ring the bell on either.

Abortion has become a “right” in the wrong category in my opinion. It's become an entitlement, like the right to life, freedom, and safety, that people have to go out of their way to make sure everyone who wants one can get it. I think it ought to be more like the right to bear arms – You're allowed to have one, if you can afford it and go through the proper channels to get it, but expect that if you get one some people are always going to say you're a bad person. Nobody has the right to be free from being called names when they do something other people don't like. Roe v Wade gives women the right to get one, but the First Amendment still gives the right to criticize her for it. On the flip side, the anti-abortion view seems to be more based on forcing the screw-up parents to live as screw-up parents as a punishment to them than having anything to do with the baby. There's not a problem in the world that wouldn't be solved with fewer people. Every soul is sacred. Lives on the other hand are frequently a waste of good material.

The death penalty definitely gets pushed more than necessary, but that doesn't mean it needs to be eliminated. Serious, repeat offenders that are never going to stop being violent unless the state kills them first, that's fine. That's basic public defense. Somebody who lost his temper once and beat someone to death, and is now consumed with remorse for it, let him live. Not let him out, but don't kill him back. It isn't going to make anything better at that point. Criminal prosecutors keep up with how many death sentences they can get just like their won/lost ratio, like they're stats on a freakin' baseball card. That's just sick. No matter what they did, nobody should die so someone else can advance their career.

 

 

Drugs

Position: I have no problem with drugs, but I can't stand the users

On this one, I'm going to my Bible. Obviously, if you're not a Christian, this won't really mean much to you. But since a lot of our modern attitudes on the subject come from a religious context, that's where I'm going to start. The New Testament, particularly the liberty doctrine found in Romans 14, is quite clear on personal behaviors, particularly when it comes to what you put into your body.

Matthew 15:17-18 “Know ye not, that whatever enters at the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the ditch? Those things which come out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.”

Romans 14:1-14 “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believes that he may eat all things. Another, who is week, eats (only) herbs. Let not him that eats despise him that eats not, and let not him which eats not judge him that eats, for God hath received him.

Who art thou that judges another man's servant? To his own Master shall he stand or fall. Yea, he shall be held up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind. He that regards the day regards it to the Lord, and he that regards not the day, to the Lord does he not regard it. He that eats, eats to the Lord, and he gives thanks. He that eats not, to the Lord does he not eat, and he gives thanks.
For none of us lives to himself, and no man dies to himself. For whether we live, we live to the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord, therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
But why dost thou judge thy brother? Or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, 'As I live,' saith the Lord, 'that every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Let us not therefore judge one another anymore, but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteems anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

Well said, Paul.

This is one of the most overlooked passages in the Bible when it comes to what is an acceptable behavior and what isn't. What gets in the way of one person isn't going to get in the way of another. We're supposed to make our own decisions about what we can handle and what we can't in life. Those who can handle a little more stimulation than others, may, and those who can't may not. Your call. This is probably why it isn't quoted in church much – it's a passage that strips Christians of their right to tell people off for doing stuff they don't like or don't do themselves.

I don't use any form of illegal drugs, and I never have. I used to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, although I've quit both. I can't tell you you should or shouldn't drink, smoke, smoke weed, eat meat, celebrate Christmas, shoot up heroin, or any other form of behavior. And you can't tell me what I should or shouldn't do either. It's up to each of us to make that call. But if you know I don't like a particular kind of thing, you're not to do it around me, and vice-versa.

That said, I do not like being around drunks and stoners. They are some of the most annoying people I've ever been exposed to. At my job, they both make up a lot of my customer base, and I can't tell them not to get drunk or high. But if you're going to, do it at home, and leave the rest of us alone!

Global Warming, Global Climate Change, Global Climate Destabilization, or whatever other label you want to use.

Position: Open-minded skeptic. Neither denier nor believer.

I am still a skeptic where global warming is concerned. I don't actively disbelieve and argue against any and all evidence that might support it, but I haven't been convinced that it's happening yet either.

I am not a scientist. I have to admit that I don't understand the physics behind global warming. I know the basic principle is that light (and other radiation) from the sun passes through our atmosphere and warms the surface of the planet. The underlying argument is that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere make it harder for the heat produced by this radiation to escape the planet and therefore the planet is getting hotter.

Why do these gases prevent heat, which is a form of radiant energy, from escaping the planet, but don't prevent light, which is also a form of radiant energy, from escaping it? Why is the planet getting hotter but not brighter? If the increased gases make it harder for heat to get out, why don't they also make it harder for the radiation causing it to get in? I understand that it has been conclusively proven that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there used to be. Regardless of any effect on the planet's temperature, I do know that carbon dioxide is heavier than average air. Why is there a danger of flooding in low-lying areas but no danger that this heavy suffocating gas might accumulate in those areas and kill everyone?

National Geographic's website, which came up first in my initial search, provides lots of concise factoids – the temperature has risen 1.4ºC around the world since 1880. The rate of warming is increasing and the last two decades of the 20^th century were the warmest for several millennia. Eleven of the past 12 years were the warmest since 1850.

Has the temperature risen around the world? What was the temperature where I live twenty years ago? A hundred and twenty years ago? Last week? Even if they provided me with that data, it's pretty hard for me to verify. I have a suspicion that if I dug around in records from 1880 I could probably find numbers indicating “the temperature” that would not agree with each other. I can't even remember what the high was here four days ago. There is a lot of “citation by exhaustion” going on here to back up this claim. Their millions of data points do lend them credibility, but they're all virtually unconfirmable to the average person. And what makes me more cautious is they don't seem to want me to. The argument is “We've looked at the evidence. It says we're right. You'll have to take our word for it.”

My biggest problem with the whole global warming debate is just that – it's a debate. You don't debate scientific principles. They are or they aren't. We can debate what to do about them, but we shouldn't have to argue about whether or not the facts are the facts. If they are true, there should be lots of indisputable evidence backing them up. Instead, what I've seen is a scientist presents findings that support the hypothesis, someone like me questions the findings, and then someone attacks the questioner, impugning the motives of whoever is asking the question instead of answering the question.

Everyone is focused on which side has the most support – who agrees with them – rather than which side has the most evidence – who is correct.

Al Gore and others have said that there's a lot of money to be made in just arguing that he's wrong. That's true. There is a lot of money at stake either way. There's a lot of money to be made in proving or disproving global warming, and there's also a lot of money threatened by proving something that would mean massive, worldwide, and permanent changes in our lives. Whether it's a threat to commerce doesn't change whether global warming is or isn't happening, but any matter with such enormous consequences needs to be given that level of consideration. If the truth really is that destructive either way, then we need to be absolutely positive we have the right answer. Nobody gets to claim that they have the truth just because their side is easier to accept.

Also, there is no distinct separation between the question of fact of global warming and the genuine debate about what to do about it, and all of the debate part needs to wait until the factual question is settled. I know it is settled in the minds of a lot of people, but the muddying of the two issues is a lot of why I can't understand the true/false part of the question. After Hiroshima, there was a lot of debate about the ethics of using atomic weapons, but not whether or not it was possible to split an atom.

There isn't enough evidence to prove that the factual question has been answered because the people who ought to be presenting that evidence have already started arguing for or against the social change they say must follow. What started as a question of fact with a definite right and wrong answer has been transformed into a fight with a victory at the end. What scares me is that the people who think the right answer might permanently disrupt life as we know it act as though that's an added bonus. Proving there's money in burning fossil fuels doesn't prove we need to stop. First you have to prove that burning fossil fuels is part of the problem, and then we can argue about whether the benefit outweighs the cost. From what I remember of college chemistry, when it comes to the scientific method, until the burden of proof is met, until the hypothesis is conclusively and repeatably shown to be true, the status quo is the default conclusion. So why is so much time and effort spent arguing against that rather than objectively proving something right or wrong?

One of the strongest supporting points in any scientific hypothesis as I understand it is that the results should be able to be reproduced. Naturally we can't build another earth but we can build greenhouses. Why hasn't someone built a few hundred greenhouses, carefully controlled the contents and the environment around them, and then filled them with different specified and controlled concentrations of greenhouse gases and measured the temperature? Some sort of duplicable experiment like that would go a long way to cementing the validity of the hypothesis, but none have been presented.

Then there's the constant, vicious mud-slinging and outright intellectual bullying that always goes along with questioning the accuracy of the global warming claims.

The first example of that is the argument that shifts the burden of proof onto the skeptics – that because climate change is such a great threat to the world, action has to be taken even if it's a possibility and it's up to the people who think otherwise to prove so. That argument is not only specious but it's dangerous. That's almost the exact line of reasoning that was used to justify the war in Iraq – Saddam is a threat, and even though we're not exactly sure how, we are sure he is, and we have to act now before it's too late. That's intellectual strong-arming. “I know better than you, and we should do what I say until you can prove otherwise.”

The second example is the suggestion of a bias on the part of the skeptics, which is true but irrelevant. People whose salaries depend on cars stand to lose a lot if everyone stops driving cars. That is a valid objection to sweeping social change that might result if global warming is proved to be a) happening, b) the fault of humans, and c) mostly the fault of cars. It doesn't mean that you no longer have to prove a, b, or c just because people won't like those results. I don't think people will refuse to change jobs, but they will insist you give them a really good reason first. As I said before, proving your own unpopularity doesn't prove you're right.

The third example is the attack that's always made on the intelligence of the skeptics – Either the condescending attitude that we just don't understand what's going on, or the challenge of, anyone who doesn't agree with us is an idiot. I admit I don't understand the physics, I don't know what would make a good solution, and I don't understand how any of the solutions I've heard, like a carbon tax, are going to really solve anything. That doesn't mean I'm stupid. It means you haven't presented and defended your evidence very well.

I am open to the possibility of nearly everything I've heard argued about global warming – the planet might be warming up, it might be our fault, and we might need to do something about it in a hurry. But I remain unconvinced that any of those are true. And I probably will remain unconvinced until someone stops calling me an idiot long enough to enlighten me.

Whew! If you made it this far, you should now know what my personal opinions are on the six most controversial subjects are of the day. Thanks for your patience.

Single Issue: Cider Recipes

I hadn't intended on making this a cookery blog, but this is sort of for someone.

Here are my two apple cider recipes. The vary only a little bit.

Harvest Apple Cider (more of a fall flavor)

1 gallon of apple juice, 6 cups set aside
2 whole apples
1 box of light brown sugar
1 tsp ground cinnamon
1 tsp ground allspice
1 tsp ground cloves

You will need 1) coffee percolator 2) stock pot.

Spice Portion
In coffee percolator, put in a new coffee filter. Put the cinnamon, allspice, and cloves in the filter as though they were coffee grounds. In the hopper, put the 6 cups of apple juice as though it were water. Let percolator brew. Mixture should reduce significantly, and spices may form a sludge that prevents all of the liquid from getting through the filter.

Sweet Portion
In stock pot, pour in remaining apple juice and heat to simmer or low boil. Add brown sugar in parts, stirring until completely dissolved. Cut apples into thin slices and/or small chunks and add to juice (No need to peel or core. You may remove the seeds if desired). Bring slowly to boil, then turn off heat and allow mixture to sit on hot burner.

When the Spice Portion is done, slowly heat the Sweet Portion back to simmer or low boil. Stir in Spice Portion, bring slowly to boil, then turn off heat and remove cider. Discard the apple pieces (or just eat 'em.)

Cider may be served immediately or chilled to reheat and serve later. Spice amounts may be increased in equal parts to taste. Best served hot. NOTE - You will have to clean out your coffee maker.



Candy Apple Cider (More of a winter flavor)

1 gallon of apple juice, 1-2 cups set aside
2 whole apples
1 box of light brown sugar
1-2 tbsp. caramel syrup or ice cream topping.

You will need 1) double boiler 2) stock pot.

Follow directions for Sweet Portion above.

Candy Portion
In double boiler, heat caramel syrup and the set-aside apple juice. Mix together into apple/caramel slurry.

When the Candy Portion is done, slowly heat the Sweet Portion back to simmer or low boil. Stir in Candy Portion, bring slowly to boil, then turn off heat and remove cider. Discard the apple pieces (or again, just eat 'em. They're pretty tasty.)

Cider may be served immediately or chilled to reheat and serve later. Spice amounts may be increased in equal parts to taste. Best served hot.

Personal: The Three Media that Changed my Life

My life was changed in serious, permanent ways a few years back. Adolescence finally died and adulthood reached its long-overdue cruising altitude within me. Like most major changes, it didn't happen all at once or even in clearly defined stages. There was a long and muddy period with no clearly defined beginning or end, but a definite change happened.

There were a few clear landmarks on the way. It all started with a house fire, and then happened more when I got rejected from the four law schools I'd applied to. I don't recommend either of those as the start of personal growth, but they did the trick for me. I moved out of my mom's house (and into my brother's apartment – little steps), six hundred miles from home, and was finally able to find work. I came off my psych meds because they had done their job. Part of their job was keeping me in a highly suggestible state so my therapy would be more effective. Once I was no longer in danger of hurting myself, I could come off of them, and a fog lifted from my brain I hadn't even noticed before.

I was finally the person I had wanted to be – independent, sufficient, and sane – instead of who I had been most of my adolescence. I was all set to take on the world and do whatever I wanted.

What did I want?

It took me a long time to come up with any sort of answer to that question. I still don't have a good one. I don't have any deep, burning passion, no great calling I just have to achieve in life. I don't know if I'll ever find one. In the meantime, my goal is to be happy and healthy. Those are fairly simple, and the rough thing about simplicity is that it's very difficult to achieve, and usually dangerous as well. I didn't have any idea what would make me happy. I'd spent about half my life trying to be healthy, at least mentally, and I wasn't sure what I needed to do anymore.

Enter the three media outlets that made me into a better person, and a lot closer to my goals than ever before. First was a morning radio show I was listening to on the way home from work one morning. They were commenting on something they'd found online for men with a title like “Tips to Improve your Sex Life” and included items like good hygiene, good nutrition, etc that weren't overtly connected to a better sex life. “We're onto you, ladies,” the radio guy said. “Trying to trick us into doing the right thing by telling us we'll get more sex. We're not falling for it.”

I was struck by that statement. When did the moral balance become men bad, women good? Since when did women have to trick men into doing the right thing? Why would someone who knows what the right thing is choose to do something else? I was a little afraid, because I knew the answers to the last one, at least. I hadn't been doing the right thing quite a bit. And I resolved to start making some improvements in my life.

I quit smoking, something else that had kept my mental health together for a long time. I was attached to smoking like a baby to a blanket. I didn't want to quit because I was afraid of the pain of separation and I was even more afraid I would go insane again (because that's what happened on all my previous attempts) now that I was off my meds. But I didn't go crazy this time. I did start hallucinating worse than before, but I've been able to handle it. I haven't been lost unable to tell what's real and what isn't.

Encouraged by that success I started making other changes. I went back to church on a regular basis, and crashed through a series of diets trying to find a way to lose weight and get in shape. That's been a much harder struggle than quitting smoking, but I haven't given up. Based on what I've learned, I know I can eventually, and it may not be pleasant but that part will go away and I'll like being on the other side a lot better.

I've recently started getting exercise. A few weeks of running laps back and forth across my living room until I was comfortable enough to go out and do it in public. I've been running a mile a day except in bad weather (when I ride an exercise bike instead) for five weeks now, and I'm finally used to it. But it was really hard to get used to. For the first three weeks I thought about quitting every day because I was sore all the time. My thighs, then my knees, then my calves, working on down. But after three weeks it all started to pass, and over the past two running every day has felt more natural than not doing it.

The only reason I made it through the adjustment period was I already knew from quitting smoking it would get better with time, if I didn't give up. The only reason all of this self-improvement was possible was because I had resolved to do what I knew was right regardless of whether another option was easier, more fun, or more popular. It all stemmed from that radio broadcast, and a few good decisions.

The second of the seemingly inconsequential media that made me who I am today was a Daily Motion clip. I've loved standup comedy for a long time, and I was poking around looking for clips of comedians on YouTube and elsewhere. On Daily Motion I found a clip of Eddie Izzard. I don't remember what the show was, or what his joke was, but in the suggested links was something I'd never heard of called the Intelligence Squared debate, and it was Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens arguing with Ann Widdecombe and John Onaiyekan, the Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, Nigeria (none of which I'd heard of at that point) over whether or not the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world. I don't need to get into the specifics of what happened in the debate, but what was important was that Daily Motion only had Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens' parts of the debate. I stopped looking for standup comedy and went looking for the other half of it.

I eventually found it on YouTube, and in the suggested links on that site, I found an excerpt from a show called QI. By the time I watched that all the way through, I was hooked. I had no idea what British TV was like prior to that, other than I had a vague sense that Whose Line Is It Anyway and a few other shows had migrated over here from over there and I had always heard that their shows ran for very short periods – like 15-25 episodes – and then went away. Just over two years ago as I'm writing this, I'd never seen a British TV show. Now I've seen every episode of QI, Mock the Week, Would I Lie to You, 8 Out of 10 Cats, all of the Big Fat Quizzes several episodes of Peep Show, Mitchell and Webb, and The Graham Norton Show, and “watched” all of The Unbelievable Truth and quite a bit of Heresy, which are radio shows uploaded with either a still photo or just a black screen. As a side note here, I don't want to be a freeloader, but I don't know how I can pay a BBC license fee from here in the States. If I knew how, I would, but all I keep getting are snarky suggestions that I should just send the money to (insert username of person I'm talking to) and let them pay it for me.

What I've seen has opened my eyes and stretched my horizons in ways I never knew were possible. To start with, I now have an idea of what life is like outside the US and what people in other countries might think of us. I don't just mean the different words Brits and Americans use and other cultural differences like that (although that's going to get a post all to itself because of the problems they cause), but I mean what it's like to live in a different kind of political system, with a different economy, with different reasons behind why people think what they think and do what they do. I've come away from just watching TV online with a better understanding of what it means to be international, particularly what it means to be non-American.

I also realize that the cultures in Britain and America are still pretty similar. That's what I mean by stretching my horizons. I now realize that if there's this much I didn't know in a country that speaks mostly the same language and shares a lot of the same history, I can't even imagine what life would be like in China, India... or Iraq. It's given me a level of real comprehension I didn't have before about world politics, wars, globalization, international trade, and what America has been doing wrong in all those fields and why.

If you want to know how to make America a better place, encourage all of us to watch British TV on YouTube. But still, I never would have discovered any of this without clicking that link from Eddie Izzard on Daily Motion.

The third medium that's changed my life recently isn't so much a single broadcast as it is an entire industry, and that's Hollywood. What's changed is, I've quit paying them any attention. Some of that you might expect – I've been so busy watching British TV I haven't had time for any American shows. And you might also say that it's probably a good thing, and not worth the trouble to miss. The thing is, that's been sort of true and sort of not, sort of good and sort of bad.

I've never had any premium TV channels, like HBO or Showtime, and when they started doing original series I felt a bit left out because I couldn't watch the shows everyone was talking about like The Sopranos. It was especially annoying in college, because those of us who lived in a dorm had no control over our channel selection and it made it a bit hard to take professors looking down their nose at plebes who didn't appreciate their favorite shows we couldn't watch. Some of what I've found in the passing years has been good. Based on how I've seen other people react, I'm really glad I've never seen Jersey Shore. In fact, I avoid it so much I only know two names, Snooki and The Situation, because of the radio, and I had no idea what any of them looked like until I saw a picture of Snooki on a news website yesterday. I really like that my head isn't full of useless and meaningless information like that, and that if my thoughts wander at work it's more likely to be into an area like particle physics than something I saw on reality TV. (I don't want to make myself look like a genius there – it's just as likely to wander into what I'd wish for if I ever found a bottle with a genie in it, but still not reality TV.)

What I didn't expect is that I've almost completely disengaged from the American culture. If you think about it, what defines a culture is a shared sense of values, priorities, opinions, and morals all drawn from a pool of shared experiences in our lives. I'm missing more and more of those experiences every day, and as a result, I'm losing my reference for those really important values, priorities, opinions, and morals. For instance, 2012 was the first year I didn't watch the Super Bowl. Now, about 2/3 of the nation didn't watch the Super Bowl based on it's rated viewing of 110 million viewers, but that still means that one person in three did. When you take into account how many people couldn't watch the game live (infants, people in comas, people who wanted to but had to be somewhere else), the number of people who watched it afterward (like those people who wanted to) , and the number of people who weren't counted in the ratings, that figure probably rises to half or better.

What were the commercials this year? Super Bowl commercials are probably as important as the game now. Did you see any you remember? I didn't. That's what I mean about disengaging. I run into people who remember things I don't, and think things I don't because of it. People who can quote lines from shows I've never seen, catchphrases from movies I didn't see, jingles from commercials I didn't see, lyrics from songs I've never heard, and like movie stars I've never heard of. On and on it goes. There are movies on DVD in the checkout counter at the grocery store I've never heard of, and a lot of them were summer blockbusters. When people make a reference I don't get, I come off as a weirdo, only unlike in middle school I can't blame the fact that my mom won't let me watch R-rated movies yet.

Therein lies a decision I haven't made yet – do I sacrifice all that “blank space” in my head that's not filled with memories I don't want, which is very valuable to me, or do I risk becoming further isolated from everyone else around me in important situations, like customer interactions, casual socializing, >gulp< job interviews... I'm introverted enough that usually it doesn't matter and I don't care, but sometimes I do have to go out into public and it chafes me that I can't do that without being as socially awkward now as I was when I couldn't tell which of the people I was speaking to were really there. And sometimes, it really matters that I'm unable to do that.

So all in all, a lot of things made me who I am today. We are the sum of our experiences, our vices and virtues, and other such cliches. In my life, some unusual things have gone into that mix. Some of them were really important and it was obvious, like the house fire and law school rejection letters. Some of them were really trivial and it was obvious, like what toppings I prefer on my hamburgers. What's surprising is how often something that seems really important, like my college GPA, turned out not to be, and something that seems trivial, like what radio station I listened to on my way home from work, turned out to be the thing that changed my life.

Introduction

Yes, it's another blog.
One man sitting at his keyboard writing his thoughts into empty space.
I used to write fiction, but I ran out of stories. I used to journal, but it was too much like doing homework that I knew wasn't going to be graded.

No expression is created in a vacuum, so why have I decided to put yet another one of these things on the web? Mostly because I have several firm opinions that are going soft in my head because I keep forgetting why I have them. More on that later. I have been actively avoiding blogging up till now because I thought of it as one more aspect of hipster-ism I might have to defend in public. I could always say "At least I don't have a blog!" and now that's not true. But I have finally caved in as a result of an hours-long discussion with my preacher earlier this week and and hours-long perusal of some atheist literature yesterday. The fact of the matter is I need somewhere to externalize my thoughts and (potentially) get some feedback I haven't heard before. I do not intend for this to be a "religious blog" but that's going to be the subject of another post soon after this introduction because that's what's on my mind today.

If you are reading this, what you can expect from me
- Some rambling, disorganized thoughts.
- Some existential questions I can't answer
- Me to be on the defensive at all times. I've been criticized in arguments for being unable to pick a side because my natural impulse is to jump to the defense of whoever's being attacked at that moment. I like to say "I won't enter a fight to help either side win, but to force both sides to stop."
- Quotations like that one, either from me or other people. I have a rather large notebook of collected sayings over the years that do a lot to inform my personal philosphies.
- Contradictions. I change my mind. I believe it's healthy. I may well argue for one thing in one post and its opposite in another. More on that later as well.
- I'm going to try to keep my language from being rough on the sensiblities. There's no lack of cursing on the Internet and I agree with the idea that words are neither good nor bad except by context, but you never know who might be reading - my parents, my boss, a congressional appointments committee in 30 years...

Now, that "later" business
Part of the reason I want to externalize my thoughts to get something of an objective view on them is that I am bipolar, with hallucinations and delusions besides. I have learned to cope over the years with a few various techniques, and one of the things journaling used to provide was the opportunity to view my thoughts later when I was in a different mood and re-evaluate them. I have learned to accept that I may not be right on any given subject, and usually when everyone I know is in agreement I have to assume they're right, even if I don't like what they're saying. Because of this, sometimes I forget the good opinions I have and the reasons behind them if I'm in a group of people who all disagree.

The second reason is, I have a lot of opinions that are far from what I view as standard in America and the world today and I have a lot complex, uncommon, and detailed reasons behind them. If I get caught up in some sort of philosophical or controversial debate, handing them a link address and saying "read this and then we'll talk" is a lot faster and much less tiresome than saying the same long speeches over and over again to various people I barely know.