I Can't See Christ For All the Christians

What do you say to the quote to the right?

Fact is, among the top reasons people give for not accepting Christ into their lives - or at least considering it - is "Christian Hypocrisy".  

Unfortunately - even as a Christian - I agree with Gandhi on this.  It seems clear to me, at least in America, that we "Christians" aren't very Christlike much of the time.  We are called to draw people to Christ with our love, but more often we drive them away from Christ.

In this blog, I'd like to speak to two audiences:  (1) Non-Christians with a bad taste in their mouth about Jesus based on experiences with "Christians" and (2) "Christians" who aren't following Christ's lead.

Notice I use quotations around the word "Christian"?  I too have quotations around my Christianity more often than I'd like to admit.  I can do better - I know.

To non-Christians:  I understand.  But I ask that you look at Christ, not his far-from-perfect followers.  The Christian faith is not a museum of saints, but more like a hospital with a lot of sick people who are getting better (but are still very sick).  Christians are humans just like you.  They are flawed, sometimes quite unlikeable humans.  But that is part of why they are Christians ... they realize that they are flawed and know that this state of being is not right, nor is it pleasing to anyone, especially God.  By accepting Jesus into their lives, they are admitting they can't do it alone.  They are admitting that they need saving.  Even Mother Theresa said she was a sinner.  So if that incredible woman is a sinner, where does that leave me?  Am I good?  No.  "... for all have sinned and fallen short ..." (Romans 3:23).  ALL - bar none.  If you believe you have not, ask yourself, "By what (or whose) measuring stick are you coming to that conclusion?"  For instance, by worldly standards, most would say I am a very good person.  But that's a subjective measuring stick.  The only objective measuring stick is God's definition of "good".  I don't say this to make you (or me) feel bad ... we're all in that boat.  So, some so-called Christian did you wrong, or simply rubbed you the wrong way?  Please, don't judge Christ by that Christian.  See the forest for the trees - that's all I ask.

I care deeply for you - so does God.  After having done the research and followed it to it's logical conclusion, I know it's true, but I can't debate you into it.  It must be a personal choice to seek the Truth.  But if you seek, you shall find.  I'll guarantee that.

To "Christians":

"Christians are the light for everyone else, for the whole world. If we are Christians, we must look like Christ. We must be like Him." -- Mother Teresa 

We will always fall short, but we must persevere, becoming more and more Christ-like everyday knowing we will never reach that pinnacle in this lifetime.  Too many of us do things that are quite unChrist-like:  We judge, we condescend, we show our obvious love for money and not God, we withhold compassion, we don't give when we really could give ... heck, many of us don't look any different from non-Christians.  In fact, in some cases, some non-Christians live lives that are considerably more Christ-like.   We're asked to stand out - to have God's love shining from us.  Most importantly, we must draw people to Christ through our love.  Are you loving people unconditionally - meaning, even though they don't believe what you believe?  Are you removing judgement from your heart?  Are you reminding yourself that their is a big plank in your eye (only the Christians will get that reference) and that we're all work-in-progress?

To All:  We're all in this together.  God loves you and wants to have a personal relationship with you through his Son.  Let Christ Himself be the focus and let's strive to love one another like He loves us.

Some other great quotes from Mother Teresa:

Find Jesus, and you will find peace. 

Give until it hurts.

Every time we need to make a decision concerning our families, we need to pray.

Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person.

Each one of them is Jesus in disguise.

Each one of us is what he is in the eyes of God.

God doesn't require us to succeed; he only requires that you try.

If we really want to love, we must learn to forgive before anything else. 

If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.

The Atheist Professor: A Conversation on Logic

This content is not my own, but was worth cutting and pasting here in place of one of my blog entries.  

My Opinion:  Do not be hesitant to engage with Atheists and Agnostics in a kind and loving, but direct way.  Facts, reason and logic are on the side of Truth.  And that Truth is, God is very real and involved in our individual daily lives.  I - for one - am glad I did the research, then "woke" 4 years ago.  The lyrics, "I was blind but now I see" seem to be an understatement having spent 38 years of my life as an adamant "skeptic" and quasi-athiest.  For more on my 360 degree change in worldview, read "A Skeptic's Epiphany".  If given the choice between letting someone spend eternity without God or potentially annoying them in the process of conveying Truth to that someone, I choose the latter for reasons of love of my fellow human beings.  

Enjoy.

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. 

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son? 

'Yes sir,' the student says. 

'So you believe in God?' 

'Absolutely.'

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes.'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!'

He considers for a moment, 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues.

'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er...yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one,  'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters, 'From God.'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir...'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes.'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer.

'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question, 'Who created them?'

There is still no answer... Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.

'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing, 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or  smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes.'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

'Yes,' the professor replies. 'There's heat.'

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't..'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet.

The student begins to explain...

'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat,  mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

'Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? That's the  meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time, 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains...

'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it...'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean..' The student looks around the room, 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into  laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers,  'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues, 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil  is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

Taken from an email sent to me in February of 2014.  Author unknown. 

Be loving, but be bold.  As mentioned, Truth is on our side.

The Skeptical Muscle

What is your immediate reaction to this?

"He's just going to buy drugs."

"She needs to get a job and stop asking for handouts.  She just doesn't want to help herself."

"I've heard about these people.  They stand on the corner with a sign, but they live in a 3,000 square foot house ..."

When we see that person on the corner or outside the convenience store asking for help - for many (if not all) - part of us says, "I wonder what the real story is."  Our skeptical muscle kicks in and, well, we don't want to be duped.  This is a natural human reaction.  But is this what the Bible teaches us?  No, it doesn't.  Actually, it teaches us quite the opposite.

In fact, most of life's instructions given to us by God are opposite of what we naturally want to do.

• We want to hate and take revenge upon - not love - our enemies.  But God says clearly to love our enemies without pause and without grumbling about it.  Matthew 5:44
• We want to hold back love or respect from our spouse until they show US the respect or love we deserve ... not give love and/or respect unconditionally as God instructs.  Ephesians 5:22-33
• We want to use our God-given blessings to our own advantage, not for others, doing God's work (including helping others before helping ourselves) like God asks.  1 Corinthians 12:7
• We want to protect ourselves completely from the negative repercussions of scams, cheats, and mooches, so we don't look like fools.  We put so much effort into this that we miss out on the chance to help for helping's sake.  We lean toward the "they're likely trying to cheat us" assumption so much that we leave no room for "maybe they're not cheating us - maybe they honestly need our help."  
• And when we give, we expect a "thank you" or a pat on the back, or to know that they really needed the help as mentioned above, when God asks us to give simply because He asks us to, not for what we expect to receive in return.  

I for one have been horrible about this for the majority of my life.  And I'm still not the best about it (but I AM working on it).  It takes strong and steady faith to simply trust God at His Word ... but He asks us to do just that.  Funny thing is, I can't think of a time when things haven't worked out after I decided to just let go and trust Him.  Logic says that His infinite wisdom might actually be more reliable than my flawed and finite wisdom.

Unfortunately for us, our emotions/feelings get in the way, don't they?  But how often can "feelings" be trusted?  Heck, when do they not get us in trouble?  Think back on the decisions you've made solely on feelings and emotions, and tell me how those decisions worked out for you and for others.  I know from my experience that they've not worked out at all.

NOTE:  To be clear, I'm not suggesting that God wants us to be suckers.  It's clear in the Bible that we are to "discern" - to use our minds.  But if it's not clear what the real case is, we should lean toward giving without skepticism rather than withholding because of skepticism.   

Here's a thought that I believe is Biblical:  Help without worrying about it so much.  If there is a need - give, help, comfort, love.  Period.  Don't worry about their motives or your reputation.  Just do it.  If the recipient is not on the up and up, that is between him or her and God.  It is your role to give if you are able.  If you have and someone else does not, give (Luke 3:11).  What are you doing with the surplus?  Hoarding it?  Protecting your future?

If God loves the sparrows enough to feed them without storing anything up, how much more will He provide for us?  Yeah - that's in the Bible, too.  Isn't securing ourselves with stored up money the same as worshipping or trusting in "money" to be our god?  Isn't it telling the real God that we don't trust Him at His Word that He will provide for us what we need?  So conversely, isn't giving - when you have and someone else is in need - like saying, "God, I trust you.  I am your hands and feet to this person in need.  I trust you to secure me more than money ever could."

Tomorrow, you will see someone who is in need ... or maybe they aren't REALLY in need.  That's your skepticism muscle flaring up.  Rub some Ben Gay on it and help that person.  Here's the caveat that I suggest - take it or leave it:  Before giving them anything, ask them their name.  Treat them like a human - like one of your brothers or sisters, created by God just like you.  Maybe talk to them for a bit - get to know them.  If they ask for money, ask them why.  If they say they are hungry, feed them.  If they are cold, give them your coat.  If they need help with anything else, help them.  But if they insist upon money when you could provide otherwise ... pray for them and walk away.  No one "needs" money.  No where on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs does it show the good old greenback.

We are all here as God's instruments.  I fully believe that.  I also believe that God puts us in these situations for Him to act through us.  He is there with us in those scenarios where someone is in need (or at least seems to be in need).  And He's hoping that we'll not be a hand that is paralyzed by skepticism, but a strong hand extending out with His love to our brothers and sisters in need.

God, I ask that you strengthen me in times when I'm skeptical.  To discern, but then to act on your instructions.  We are your hands and feet.  Help us to do as Jesus would do in all things.  We ask this in Jesus' holy and precious name.  Amen.

Why is There Evil in the World? A Theory

Why do diseases like cancer, AIDS, hemophilia, malaria, etc. still exist?  Why haven't we found a cure?  Doesn't God care?

Why do we still have such brutal wars, killing one another over (in the grand scheme) nothing?  Why hasn't God stepped in to stop it?

Why do so many bad things happen in this world?  Doesn't God love us? 

I'll posit a theory.  We killed the man who would have discovered the cure for cancer.  That was back in 1982.  We killed the woman who would have cured AIDS just a few years after that in '89.  And back in the early 70s, we killed the person who would have been the diplomat who ushered in peace to this world, ending war as we've known it. 

We killed them ... all of them ... before they could do what they were "born" to do. 

It was murder, plain and simple.

We have killed almost 60 million people because we think/feel that we had the right.  And that "right" was all that mattered.  Nothing concrete to back this up ... we just "think" we had the right.  And we continue to kill the very people who will solve other problems we face, hundreds maybe thousands per day ... each and every day.   Why?  Why do we do this?   And why hasn't God stopped this?

One answer:  Free Will.

A relationship can not exist without allowing for the choice to either love someone or reject them. God knows this, so He created us that way to meet this beautiful purpose.  God loves every one of us, but we have the choice - the free will - to love Him back, say we hate Him, or even go so far as to say He doesn't even exist.  It's up to us. 

Although necessary, free will is dangerous.  It gives us the latitude to do some horrible things.  To physically harm people for enjoyment.  To steal.  To cheat.  To lie.  To kill.

Here's the theory.  God DID help us, but we stopped Him.  God blessed one individual back in the early 70s with the ability to stop war, but we killed Him.  God sent another few in '82 and '89, but we killed those people, too.  They had the answers.

What if ...

What if all the people who could have saved us were slaughtered long before they could act ... killed before they were ever born because we believed it wasn't really a life until 25 weeks?  That our Right to Choose was more important than the new life's right to live? 

What a horrible thought.

What is Rational?

Which of these two sentences is more rational?

1. The universe was created by an eternal, supernatural being.
2. The universe popped into being from literally nothing.

Hopefully you see that #1 is the rational statement.  If you need more, I'll clarify.  The Law of Causality states that if something came into being (was created), it had a cause.  Now the first "cause" couldn't have been created, though, could it have?  Something had to start it all, and it couldn't have started without that first cause.  Imagine a train of dominoes that stretches over the horizon, out of sight.  If those dominoes were falling, one after another, as they passed us then off over the opposite horizon, and I told you that the first domino just fell without any cause, you'd call me crazy.  That would be completely irrational to even think that.  "Of course something caused it to fall.  Someone pushed the first one over, or the wind knocked it over, or the ground shook, or something."  So, we can agree that all things that have happened or have come into being had a cause, with exception to some "first cause", correct?

Okay, now reread the two sentences above.  Which is more rational?

Next two questions:

1. All the variety of life on Earth, from plants to animals to the human being, was created by an eternal, supernatural being.  Something or someone outside of the natural world we know created the complex and varied life we see today.
2. Life started accidentally as a simple-cell organism, then evolved through millions (maybe billions) of years to become a plant, an octopus, an ostrich, a tsetse fly, and a human.

Again, something or someone from outside of nature had to have created life.  If you are a Naturalist (one who says that only the things we see in nature are real - that precludes supernatural forces or beings of any kind before we even start searching for answers), you are stuck.  Life from lifeless matter ... in any combination?  Those two dots do not and cannot connect.  To say otherwise is, again, irrational.  To say that something or someone outside of nature, with some pretty incredible intelligence beyond anything we can comprehend, created life?  Now that is rational.

Note:  A scientist is supposed to preclude nothing, make hypotheses, test them, then go where the evidence leads.  Many, unfortunately, preclude anything supernatural before even starting.  This is the equivalent of saying, "I haven't ever seen a combustion engine, even though you have a book that says that's exactly what is under the hood, and explains how it works, etc.  Instead, I'm going to preclude combustion engines before I even start and begin my scientific search for why the car goes.  I think it's a very quiet bear under there.  Ooh, or a very fast dung beetle.  NO!  For the last time, stop trying to explain this 'combustion engine' nonsense to me!  Don't press your beliefs on me, you religious freak!"  Okay, tongue removed from cheek.  I digress.

With regard to evolution, let's begin by defining what we mean by "evolution".  If we're talking about micro-evolution (the beak of a finch in the Galapagos Islands changing over time to meet changing environmental conditions, for instance), sure - I can see that.  In fact, that's pretty rational.  Now, a plant becoming a dog?  Or a chicken becoming a whale?  That's called "macro evolution" and that's not feasible or rational.  I know apes look a bit like us, and chimps have 97% of the same DNA as we do, but you need to think through what that other 3% means.  That is an insurmountable chasm to cross.  We also have more than half of the same DNA as a chicken, but no one is looking for the missing link chicken-man (a.k.a. cluckus erectus). Also, look up the "Cambrian Explosion" where archeologists have found in the fossil record a single point-in-time emergence of thousands of life forms all completely formed.  Before this - nothing.  What does that sound like?  That crazy Christian theory that God created it all at once, maybe?

Also, there are no real examples in the fossil record for anything that looks like a giraffe, for instance, in an earlier evolutionary form, without the super-powerful heart, the sponge-like organ in its head that throttles blood flow to the brain, or the super-long neck.  We continue to search for any explanation - outside of "God created ..." - to explain the variety and complexity of life, but nothing rational emerges.  Even Darwin said as much.  And since his book was first published 150+ years ago, there has been no scientific evidence found to support his theories further.  Quite the contrary - each new scientific discovery seems to provide evidence for the opposite ... that an eternal, super-natural force created all forms of life.

Last two questions to check for rationality:

1. The data contained in DNA shows further proof that life was created by an eternal, intelligent, supernatural being.
2. The highly complex and ordered information contained in DNA came about accidentally.

Did you know that the data contained in DNA taking up an area the size of a pin head, if printed and put in book form (normal font, single space), would stretch from here to the moon 500 times?  The data contained in DNA is complex and vastly more intelligent than anything man has ever been able to create.  How did that come to be?  Did it pop into existence from nothing, accidentally?  Is that even close to rational thinking?  Of course not.  What is considerably more rational is that an intelligent creator - an architect - outside of nature brought that intelligence into existence and placed it in us - the life it (He) created. 

I'm not jumping at this point in the blog to the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian God is that eternal supernatural being that created the universe, life and the intelligence contained in DNA.  I'll cover that in a future blog entry.  Let's agree, though, that - if the above is rational (and thinking otherwise is irrational), that you must be at least a Diest, not an Agnostic and certainly not an Atheist. 

More to come ...  Intelligent and thought-through comments and rebuttals welcome. ;)

Life

Logical Sequence:

1. Conception is when DNA is combined between a man and a woman to begin a new human being.  
2. At no other point can you reasonably define a person as human or alive than at the creation of their DNA.
3. A person is therefore human and alive at conception.

Not all people believe this.  Usually, this is not because it does not make logical sense or that it does not ring true.  It's either that they choose not to believe it OR they believe the "rights" of the woman bearing that baby are more important than the "rights" (e.g. life) of the baby inside her.

I'd rather not use squishy diplomatic terms.  It's insulting and it masks the severity of what's been going on for 41 years now.  "Abortion"?  "Terminating the pregnancy"?  Let's be adults here.  It's the "killing of a human being".  

Here is the bottom line:  When the spermatozoa enters and fertilizes the egg, life has begun.  Nothing will stop the life now growing from fully forming in the womb unless it is killed or it dies on its own due to complications or by accident (just like any human).  Whether or not it looks like a baby (or a bean or a "mass" or whatever) from the first seconds of its life is irrelevant.  It is what it is ... a life ... with the same God-given rights any of us has.  

Let's be clear - what a woman does with her own body is up to her.  No arguments there.  Freedom to Choose certainly extends to a certain point, and if the woman chooses to cut off one of her ears, or her legs, that is her choice.  But the life inside of her is NOT her - nor is the life even a part of her.  She is a separate life - a separate human that is growing inside the mother.  She is completely dependent on the mother to grow to "term", but that still does not give the mother the right to kill the human inside her.  

Let's think this through:  That human will grow to a baby, then to a toddler, then to a teenager, then to an adult.  At each of these stages of life, a human being is dependent upon the mother to varying degrees.  So, if one believes they can kill the human inside the womb, what stops them from killing that human once outside the womb, 7 inches away, minutes after birth ... or when she is living in the bedroom down the hall, or living on the other side of town?  

• How about before they are 1?  Surely then, right?  Why not?  The baby is still entirely dependent on Mom or someone?  She should have that "right to choose" ..
• How about before 10?  Still ... dependent on Mom or someone.  I mean, what if the kid is a real hassle.  A total brat.  Then, right?
• Absolute insanity to think this way.  You get my point.  

This is where the arguments start to flow.  

Argument:  You're a man.  How dare you tell women what to do with THEIR bodies.  

Counter-Argument:  See everything I've said above.  One, I'm a human taking exception to the murder of another human.  Doesn't matter if this author is a male or female human.  Killing the baby is wrong.  Period.  Two, it's connected to the woman's body, getting nourishment, but it is NOT (as mentioned) a body part of the mother.

Argument:  I would rather not subject that baby to the life it would have to lead given the situation (whatever situation).

Counter-Argument:  So, what is the worst that will happen to the baby?  That she is killed in the horrible environment into which she has been born?  So, killing her now to avoid the risk of being killed later?  That's some wacky logic.  

Argument:  The mother is just a girl herself, too young to have a baby.  It will ruin her life because of a youthful mistake she made.

Counter-Argument:  The baby is younger, and I'm pretty sure murdering him will ruin his life even more.  Sorry no one warned the young woman (by default she is a woman if she became pregnant - girls can't get pregnant) that sex can result in pregnancy, but ignorance is not bliss on this one.  The baby should not have to die for her mistake.

Argument:  Until 25 weeks into the pregnancy, the baby can't feel anything.  

Counter-Argument:  It's still extinguishing life.  And besides, I know many grown people with nerve conditions where they can't feel anything.  Okay to kill them?  Of course not.

Argument:  How about in the case of rape and other horrible, unthinkable things that should happen to no woman.

Counter-Argument:  God does not want any of these things to happen.  He cries with, and has compassion for, all of these women.  But He has compassion for the life that has been created, too.  That life does not know how it was conceived, nor does it matter to that human.  He or she has a right to live.  

Argument:  How about incest?
Counter-Argument:  Imagine the kid is 2 years old, standing next to you.  He was the product of incest.  Kill him, then?  Of course not.  Same goes for the child in the womb.

Argument:  Well, what about in a situation where medical complications arise and you must decide between the life or health of the Mother and the life of the baby?

Counter-Argument:  There is certainly an "it depends" here, but not as strong as many think.  Bottom line, one option you're considering is the killing of one to save the other.  Which human life is more valuable?  A reasonable person would say that they are equal, no caveats.  So if it's a decision between the mother's health (not their immediate life) and the life of the child inside her, it would seem the decision is obvious.  Save the life of the child versus killing her.  If it will mean the mother's chances of death is increased, still obvious.  No matter how high the probability is that the Mom will die, killing the baby is still 100% chance of death for the baby.  If one will die if the other lives, that is now a true "right to choose" scenario I suppose.  Although, what an unfortunate decision to have to make.

Argument:  Well, I don't personally believe ...

Counter-Argument:  Unless you have some absolute and objective foundation for what you "believe", save it.  I can equally say, "I personally believe that [fill in something off the wall, ridiculous statement]" and you'd say, "What are you basing that belief on?"  If I answer with "I just feel that way" or "Nothing", you'd laugh.  Same here.  

Final Thoughts

So, of the more than 55 million "Right to Choose" killings since Roe v Wade in 1973 (more than the populations of Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Iowa combined) how many do you think were in response to rape, incest, or a decision between the life of the baby or the mother?  I don't need to state statistics for you to know the answer.  Most killings are the result of a woman deciding that she'd rather not have this one.  It's a convenience thing.  

"I mean, what's the biggie?  You can't see the baby ... he's all hidden inside, so ending his life isn't the same as when you can see the person, right?"  That is just crazy talk.  

This is simple logic.  Killing is wrong, no matter if the person is 127 years old or negative-9 months, inside the womb or outside the womb, fully-formed or a viable living cell made up of the DNA combination of a woman and a man.  

If an alien came down from space and asked about this, and you explained "Right to Choose" to him, he'd think we were the most savage animals he'd ever heard of.  

.......

If you've had an abortion, God forgives you.  Accept Jesus into your life and leave that behind. 

If you're considering abortion, please don't.  Think through the points I've made above.

If you still disagree with me, I will be praying for you.  I love you regardless of what you believe on this topic, as does God.

Watch this short video, and join the fight to "End Abortion in Our Generation":

Christians and Homosexuality

Here's a polarizing subject, but one that needs to be addressed because it seems the popular media and the abnormally powerful LGBT machine have everyone's ear.  On any topic, you need data from both sides to make a truly educated decision.  There are some very strong opinions.  Unfortunately, most are based on "feelings" and they are usually misdirected and/or based on complete misinformation.

Generally speaking, we were all imprinted with a natural instinct that calibrates what rings to us as true.  I have reasonable knowledge to conclude that God Himself gave us this sense - more evidence for His existence, of course.  As we know, feelings can't be trusted, especially considering they are usually influenced by a slowly shifting society that thinks in ways no one would have believed 40-50 years earlier.  So don't confuse this logical "instinct" with feelings.

Let's test the instinct ...

Does this statement strike you as true?  "God hates homosexuals."  Doesn't jive, does it?  Of course not.  Okay, how about this?  "God loves homosexuals the same way He loves everyone of His children."  Yeah, that rings true, doesn't it?

So, let's take this to its logical conclusion:  If God loves homosexuals, and Christ loves homosexuals, then Christians (people trying to be as Christ-like as they can, more and more each day) love homosexuals.  Period.  There is no hate in there.

There must be some confusion.  We keep hearing statements about Christians hating homosexuals or being "anti-gay".  If Christians don't (or shouldn't) hate homosexuals, what then is the confusion?  Why all this talk about hatred and bigotry?  Two answers:

1. Some individuals calling themselves Christians have shown real hatred toward homosexuals.  Shame on them.  They are wrong.  But don't confuse flawed Christians with Christianity itself. 
2. Statements of objective Truth not understood or not in line with popular opinion (based on subjectivity) are being taken as hatred or bigotry.

Dan Cathy, President of Chic Fil A, was interviewed last year.  He stated his belief in the Biblical view of homosexuality and marriage.  Instead of taking exception with the Bible and God Himself, the liberal media went to the extreme of calling Mr. Cathy "anti-gay", accusing him of bigotry and hatred.  Wow.  First, God forbid someone state what they believe (Freedom of Speech) and it contradict what's become popular and polarizing over the past few decades.  God forbid he state Truth, objective Truth based on something solid and real versus opinion, feelings, and subjectivity.  Second, he never said anything about gay people themselves - this is because he is NOT anti-gay, and does NOT hate gay people.  Quite the contrary.  He was simply discussing the concept of homosexuality and marriage, and his basis of belief.

God hates no one ... but He does hate sin.  "Oh no he didn't!  Homosexuality is a sin?  Again with the hate!"  C'mon, get real.  I'm sorry that doesn't jive with everyone's personal opinion, but who gets to make the rules?  You?  Me?  Hitler?  Mother Theresa?  Could you imagine if everyone's personal opinion counted in what was right or wrong?  We must have a home base.  A single objective rule-maker that sets the rules.  How about the one who created us all?  Crazy idea, right?  No, not crazy ... it must be that way, or the whole house of cards will fall.  So what He says goes.  And He says:  love the sinner (and we all are), hate the sin.

So, here is some truth, in love:

We all have challenges based on inclinations that came about somehow - chemical imbalances, childhood abuse, etc..  Yes, homosexuality is an inclination and a challenge for some individuals (called homosexuals), not unlike those who are inclined to over-eat, steal, or have anger-issues or self-hatred.  We're asked by God to fight those inclinations because they are not good for us.  God only gives instructions for our good, not to hold us back.  He loves us, just like any good father loves His children.

How do you think a 3 year old "feels" when she joyfully runs toward a busy street to go touch the speeding cars, only to be snatched up by one of her parents and told, "No, you can't go out there in traffic!  That's wrong!  That's dangerous!"  To the 3 year old, that may translate to "You don't want me to be happy!"  We as adults get that this is not the case, but explain that to the 3 year old.  To her, it feels right to run out into the traffic.  "How dare you tell me it's wrong!" she thinks.  Well, the parent knows better.  And so does God, with regard to acting on homosexual or any other inclinations that are not good for us.

“Just because you are tempted to do something doesn’t mean that’s what is best for you.”

The boundaries for sex established by God in the Bible are there to protect us from painful consequences. Many, many legitimate studies have shown serious health risks associated with homosexual activity (e.g. 10-30 year decrease in life expectancy, 4000% greater chance of anal cancer, AIDS, etc.). 

Trust me, as a man I have many inclinations that you would flip out about if I acted upon them.  But the longer I've fought those inclinations and the more I've kept myself away from situations where I might become tempted and weak, the easier it's become to avoid the temptations.  It's like getting in moral shape.  And I continue to take measures to avoid temptation (e.g. accountability partners, etc.).  I trust God and know that His instructions for me are not only True and objective, but that they are for my good.

I've discussed this enough for now.  Bottom line, if you are a homosexual, you're either getting my point, you're hating me, or I've got you thinking.  I'm hoping it's at least the latter.



But I am simply conveying Truth as I've learned it from a good amount of study.  Also, if you're honest, this likely "rings true" to you, whether you're prepared to admit that or not at this point.  You must make that decision, and it's not for me or anyone to condemn you, hate you or to look down upon you.

We are all God's children.  Even those who deny Him.  He gives us all free will because love cannot exist without the ability to choose to love back.  He offers us a free gift that we may accept or reject.  That gift is Jesus and the grace, love and hope that comes with accepting Him.

If you are Gay or Lesbian, God loves you and so do I.  Ask Christ into your life.  You don't need to be perfect or even all that great to do so.  He accepts us where we are and as we are, then helps us become what He created us to be.

You are welcome to my Church.  I look forward to getting to know you as an individual and - hopefully - as a brother or sister in Christ.

Much love.  God bless.