Alright, I guess I'll weigh in on the marriage issue...

Now that I check Facebook regularly after Lent, I see a lot of these

and I'm like "Yay equality for all!". But here's the problem. Supporters of the big red equal sign don't really care so much about equality as re-definition of marriage. That isn't to say they don't support equality, but the movement they are supporting really doesn't have anything to do with it. They want to extend the marriage license to include unions of homosexual persons. Good idea? I don't think so but I will discuss that later. First, is this an equality issue? The state has a definition and not all people fit it. This is true, but if not fitting a definition is a civil rights issue than we should hand out driver's licenses to blind people, gun permits to felons, and restaurant licenses to whoever feels themselves worthy of handling food. This is foolish, of course it isn't limitation itself that is unfair. Then what is? The claim is that there is something about marriage that is a right for any two persons to enter. Frankly I just don't see it. I don't see a marriage contract as any more of a fundamental right than a drivers license or a food permit. You have a right to it if and only if you can perform the task which it certifies you for. What is that? I will propose what I think it is later but first let us see what the supporters propose.

Often I hear on campus the line "Marriage is about love right?" to which confusion results when I answer "No".  Others who agree with the charge then hear the accusation "Then how can you deny people the right to love by restricting marriage to a certain kind of relationship?"

Question: Is love restricted to marriage? Certainly not! What is the number one reason people get married in the twenty first century? Because they are in love! So they already have have love before they get married! What then is marriage good for? Does that mean that that marriage is about love? No! A chef gets a food permit because he loves cooking and want to cook for others but that doesn't mean a food permit is about love of cooking and cooking for others. A food permit certifies that the holder can handle food responsibly and not get the public sick. Likewise it does not follow that the reason people get married has defining value on what a marriage is.

So why do we have marriage? Do we as a society care who loves who? So much so that we say "You two can love each other but you are not allowed to love anybody else!" After all both sides of the debate believe in marriage as exclusive. If somebody is married to one person they cannot be married to anybody else. So what then, are we not allowed to love others who we aren't married to? Clearly marriage is not about love or at the very least not exclusively about love.

So what is it then? Why does the state give out marriage licenses? What precisely is it a license for?

Sex? Clearly not in the strict sense. Sex is all too common outside of marriage and nobody is proposing the idea that the police go around arresting teenagers for practicing it without a license.

 Is there any way it could still be about sex? Possibly. The state does offer tax benefits and other perks to those who are married. The state essentially pays people to be and to stay married. The state essentially pays a couple to... what? To have sex with each other and not with any others? Why do the taxpayers care about such a thing? Perhaps they care as a method for STD stagnation, but that can't possibly have been the original intent. Marriage laws pre-date our understanding of STD's. Even if we choose to ignore tradition and understand that marriage is a government program to combat STDs why does nobody propose STD testing before giving out the license? Clearly this isn't the good of marriage to which the state had in mind when it agreed to pay people a privileged status to marry and to stay married.



So what did it have in mind? Love? No we've seen that isn't it. Sex? No, that's not it either. Family? Ahh that may be it! Why would the state care about family? Because family is assumed to correlate with mental and economic health for the children. In other words, the state makes a contract with individuals to make and raise the states upcoming generation of kids for them.


That makes sense. It explains the call for marriage to be exclusive (less turbulent for the children), it explains the contractual nature of marriage (why marriage is a license) and explains why it is expected to be long term. Why else is it funny to follow the hilariously short "marriages" of pop stars? So now we have a working definition that makes sense, let us consider whether "gay marriage" is in any way a good idea. Two gays cannot both be the parents of a child but it is possible for one of the partners to be related to it. Never-the-less the pro-gay-marriage crowd does stress family.

So the question before us is: Is it good enough to provide a contract to a parent and a co-signer who is not a parent to raise the kids? (only one can physically be a parent to any children they raise). Is this arrangement better than single parenthood enough that they should also get privileged status from the government to raise the kids? I don't think the data is quite conclusive either way but a looming question remains.Where did they get the kids?  Today we have a size-able number children that can't identify who their father is because people are not making good on their contracts to raise their children. So the question is this: Are children better off being raised by their biological parents and are children better off with both male and female parents or not? If so, then it is in the states best interest to keep marriage between a man and a woman because only such a couple can do what is expected of them. They are the only class (like the class of people with good vision applying for a driver's license) that can deliver the results expected in the marriage license. If what the "equality" supporters claim is true that it makes no difference who raises the child then the assumption of what makes marriage special that has been used throughout the nation's history minus recent years is wrong. The test? Is this offensive?

It sure isn't to me. Only one at maximum can actually be a parent. Let's say for argument that this is abhor-able. Perhaps it means that children do not benefit from both a father and mother for development such that any caretaker will do. Then the homosexual persons are right to demand equal benefits for raising children.  There's another solution however that is more logical but largely ignored. If children do not benefit from having both a mother and a father such that stability of care-takers is all that matters, why have marriage at all? The old way of thought was that a father has something unique to give his children and a mother has something unique to give her children. If this is wrong, why does it take two to tango? Isn't one just as good? If the elements are interchangeable what's so special about the number? What exactly does a child see in his/her married care-takers that gives him/her an advantage over their peers from unmarried households?
The argument that the gender of the care-takers of children has no effect on the development of the child is just as strong an argument for the dissolution of marriage as it is for the extension of it to homosexual caretakers. If it is a false argument then a man and a woman is necessary to secure the emotional health and future economic stability of our children and we should reserve marriage licenses to those who can fulfill such roles. If it is true, then we might as well dissolve marriage as expand it.

The Catholic Church:of Authority, History, and the Alone-ness of it all

A Substantive Post!!! You're very welcome! ;)

So I have a lot of Lutheran friends. And the thing about Lutheran friends is that they are super close to Orthodoxy, the only real issue is they hate authority with a passion. They have a habit of calling the papal office the seat of the anti-Christ yet they understand the real presence of the Eucharist and even often quote Martin Luther when he says "I would rather drink blood with the pope than mere wine with the sacramentarians". So before I become merciless I would like to express my gratitude to my Lutheran friends as brothers and sisters in Christ and people the Lord has done marvelous good deeds through. I especially enjoy the camaraderie complete with studying, partying, and discussing the intricacies and developments with regards to our favorite relationship, our relationship with the Lord! Thus begins our discussion with the protestant brothers and sister most close to me personally. And now I prove the true-ism that we reserve our harshest words for our closest allies. Allow me please my sarcasm.

Perhaps we could summarize the discussion like this:

 (google image search, I don't own any of the above images nor could I find the original source)

So let's jump right in. The million dollar question of the day is this: Who has the authority to teach the scriptures?  Follow-up question: Where did we even get the scriptures?
I'll paint a picture for you. Jesus died on the cross. Three days later He rose from the dead. As He began appearing to His followers He showed them the wounds in his hands, feet, and sides, and then proceeded to hand each person a leather bound book with golden edges that said "King James Bible". Before He left He would give the parting words "The church that follows you will think they have the authority to interpret this book but they don't. No worries though, Martin Luther will come along a long time from now and restore the church to orthodoxy by telling all the illiterate peasants that they need to read and argue from the scriptures themselves to find the Truth."
Oh wait:

(Sorry Marc Barnes! I had to re-post and I couldn't find your original image so I made it again)

Alright I'll tone down the sarcasm a bit. Maybe... But honestly friends, do you even hear yourselves? You claim that the Catholic church is an utterly heretical institution that has existed at least since the dark ages and that the doctrines it proposes for belief are problematic to salvation because they put interpretational trust in the pope and the magisterium. Furthermore, not everything that is part of Catholic belief is obvious from a cursory glance at scripture therefore it must be the case that the Catholic church made it up. The protestant says "I don't see where purgatory, praying to saints, salvation from faith AND works, the immaculate conception, etc. etc. etc. is laid out explicitly in scripture and therefore the Catholic church and the papal scumbags MUST have made it up!"

Here's the deal; the early Christians didn't have a Bible. The Catholic church called an ecumenical council to determine the canon of scripture. This council didn't have any of the original apostles in attendence as it was held in 397 AD! I don't know when the last apostle died but let's say 100 AD, that means for nearly 300 years nobody had a Bible nor any living member of the original body of Christ! Under what authority then did they settle disputes?! The Church at Corinth had their letters from Paul and read them on Sundays and perhaps even other churches had copies made but there existed NOWHERE a list of and copy of every book of the Bible that was considered trustworthy. Here's the deal though, the Catholic Church had already silenced the Arian heresy, determined that baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit was valid even if performed by heretics, and silenced two other heresies that sought to distort the nature of Christ as fully God and fully man ALL IN APPEALING TO PAPAL AUTHORITY for proper interpretation of the Christian faith! So, at this time either papal authority exists or the church has already fallen in to heresy even before the Bible was finalized. So the whole issue is this, it is impossible to appeal to the authority of scripture without appealing to the authority of the Catholic church because it was only under authority of the Catholic church that the canon of scripture was accepted in the first place.

"And I tell you that you are Peter,^[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades^[b] will not overcome it. ¹⁹ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be^[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be^[d] loosed in heaven." Mathew 16: 18-19

To claim that this authority stopped with Peter is neither historical (a second pope WAS elected as was a third etc.) nor Biblical for nowhere does it say that this authority was to stop. On the contrary the Biblical precedent set in Isiah 22: 20-22 mirrors exactly the words of Christ

“In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. ²¹ I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. ²² I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open."

And thus began the passing of the keys and today's pope is the direct continuation of the Church from Peter the rock and the first pope. To be disobedient to the pope is to be disobedient to the very church of Christ, His most magnificent bride.

-Clumsy Sheep
(Andrew Klein)

My less than charitable response to the accusation that the Bible should be made illegal

The Supreme Court has just made the statement that truth is no longer a valid defense in courts.
LifeSiteNews.com reports

  "Supreme Court Judge Rothstein wrote that 'truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction.' Critics across the spectrum have slammed the Court for ruling that truth is subject to restriction. Some lawyers have argued that what this means legally is that truth is no longer a defense."

Comments from the article seem to state that this was done in order to make strides against the Bible and make it illegal. Regarding this a commenter had the quite poignant accusation of

"Ah, why, oh WHY would a document which calls for the death penalty on those who work on the Sabbath, on those who do not believe in the "true" religion, on those who have the temerity to be raped in an urban setting, be considered dangerous? Why would a document which has a HISTORY of passing the death penalty on those who disagree with its edicts be considered dangerous?
Gosh, I don't know. You tell me."

Naturally the accusation prompted me to compose a reply and here it is. Also if approved it will be on the site too. I'm sorry the last two posts have essentially been "re-posts" of my comments on other sites. I'll write something cool for you again eventually! Anyway here was my certainly less than charitable reply:

"That's just stupid. That would be like blaming science for Hitler's inhumane experiments with the Jews or the pharmaceutical research industry for the mass street murders of innocents by drug addicts. Even the University of Minnesota should be deemed "hateful" for it once was a proponent of eugenics! Judge a thing not merely by what it has been used for in the past but what it IS being used for today. I don't know of anybody advocating any of these things today when they quote the Bible. Plus most people who quote it say the Old Testament laws no longer apply, so your argument is "It used to say that those who work on the Sabbath should be executed."
Also it is a relatively recent development that diversity is a good thing. The ancient Romans killed anyone that did not agree with their society as did most all of the ancient world. If you took your argument (that anybody who quotes any part of a literary work that has within in any of its pages something deplorable to the modern mind) seriously then we would have to burn a great majority of all works older than 400 years old.

 ... And what do you propose TO DO to those who would DARE to hold on to such literature even when told not to? Let me guess; 10 years from now it will be jail time or life in prison for quoting the "book full of hate." Certainly prison for life if they dare quote it on the day of the Pride Parade! *Gasp*. In fact I'd guess that in 10 years from now anybody speaking contrary to the opinion of the country that the normative sexual identity is not synonymous with the moral life would be imprisoned for "hate" as well. After a few years I bet the prisons will fill up and cause a strain on the economy. Then "accidents" will begin to be common in the penitentiary system. I hope I'm wrong but your ideas work out of exactly the same mindset as what you are trying to fight against! Namely, the tried and failed idea that any opinion deemed deplorable to the majority ought to be suppressed by it when possible. It is only the next logical step to add "and forcibly when necessary" to that destructive creed. Sounds like a modern re-enactment of the dark ages to me! Let's learn from our mistakes as society stop trying to suppress freedom of speech!"

My really long drawn-out response to a comment on LifeSiteNews.

Below is a comment I wrote in response to someones comment on a news site. Because I put time into it I'm writing it here for safe keeping. Plus it has some good things to say (I think anyway prolly because I wrote it haha) so enjoy.

ok I'll break down pro-life logic for you:
Either human beings have dignity or they do not. If they don't we shouldn't worry about killing of any sort provided the "common good" is upheld. Sorry for over-used analogy but then Nazi-ism would be false only in the sense that it improperly/fictitiously portrayed the "master race"/"common good achieved" and not because of its mass murders [Keep in mind it is the attitude we are calling in to reference here, so often pro-choices throw this analogy away because they misunderstand it]. I think we can agree that mass extinctions are wrong even if it is for some so-called "better good".
So, human beings have dignity (I'm now taking this as a given). Where did they get this dignity? (I.E. Why is it wrong to kill them? Where did we get this idea? etc.)  We must either claim that we have always had this dignity or we must claim that it was conferred on us by some exterior means. The pro-life movement essentially claims that there is no sufficient argument that dignity is conferred upon humans such that we can definitively say "Before this point they do not have dignity and after this point they do". Keep in mind what is happening here, humans have dignity as adults, as teenagers, as children etc therefore it is the pro-choice position that requires a leap of faith that there must exist a point in the womb such that this dignity is conferred. Only in this leap of faith can we dare say that the killing of this being (abortion) is a moral practice. So I will lay out common things that are pointed to in order to justify this leap of faith.
1. Ability to feel pain/Development of neurons: Pro-choicers will claim that because there is a point that the developing fetus/child cannot feel that this must be the conference of dignity point and abortion is OK before that. Pro-lifers then point to people with neuro-degenerative disorders. Why? Because if feeling pain is where the pro-choice movement makes its leap of faith that dignity is attached to the human person then to be logically consistent they must also hold to no moral consequence the killing those who have lost the ability feel pain. Now, because by this point in the argument things have usually devolved in to accusations and/or crying the following counter-point by the pro-choice movement is seldom if ever made: One could say "well that's all well and good, you made me see my flaw, but the person with a neuro-degenerative disorder can still feel 'emotional pain', and so my argument still stands". Pro-lifers then point to those with psychiatric issues who feel no remorse of any actions. It is logically consistent then only to accept the killing of both or neither. Also we or at least I will argue that if emotional pain is really what gives us dignity then would those who cause emotional pain in their peers be conferring dignity on them? We take this to be self-evidently absurd. Why put faith in a stipulation that the ability to feel pain is the conference of dignity if you can look at a person without the ability to feel pain (emotional in psychiatric deficiencies or physical in neuro-degenerative deficiencies) and still see a person. Furthermore the idea that humanity has dignity only in the extent to which it can feel pain is a frighteningly strong argument for the dignity-affirming nature of torture. Needless to say we reject this claim.
2. The "Who-says" objection: Strictly speaking this is not a suggestion of a point of dignity-conference but rather a dodge. It's very common though so I am including it here. Pro-choicers will say "Who are you (pro-life people) to decide what is right and what is wrong! How dare you step upon our health care!" Quite frankly this is a non-argument. We aren't deciding what is right or wrong, we are expressing what we DISCOVERED to be wrong. We all look upon disgust at the mass murders of Mau's China, Hitler's Germany, etc. not because we decided "I think killing is wrong and so I'm going to decide to be angry with you for not agreeing with me" but rather because we discovered within ourselves the disgust for the destruction of dignity and voiced it as "That is wrong!". The second part of this claim that it is the "woman's health care" is simply not true. From the moment of conception, the fetus (zygote at that stage) is as different genetically from the mother as any child is. I would like to verify this, but I believe it would also be more genetically dissimilar to the parent than most cancers are (given that cancers are genetic mutants of the hosts original cells and children are crosses between two genetic pools). As our fault in the pro-life movement, we (or at least I) often don't bother to explain this fully because it requires me to explain the non-subjectiveness of morality (essentially "things are wrong because they are not because we decide they are. If I decide rape is ok, it doesn't make it ok, it simply makes me wrong). So I normally shake my head and exit the conversation, which is really a dis-service to both ends of the spectrum. So yeah, sorry about that... Moving on. Also, this is getting really long, I'll try to be explain more briefly in the following arguments. I can explain further if you want me to.
3. The "self-sufficiency" point: Some pro-choicers claim that dignity is conferred when the child is able to live apart from the mother. This claim I'm sure was intended to give abortion rights up until birth but quickly the logic forced proponents to carry it out to young children as well. Som even admit this http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/27/ethicists-argue-in-favor-of-after-birth-abortions-as-newborns-are-not-persons/ but even at 2, they are not really self-sufficient. I'm not even really self-sufficient. The cousin to this argument is the "mental capacity" argument that higher order processing is what confers dignity on the person. We then respond similarly to case one in saying "Fine, but if that is your system you must logically also support the mass extinction of those with down's syndrome or any others affected by cognitive syndromes that prevents higher order processing" Not being able to look at our fellow men and women with down syndrome or our young children of age 2 and say "you are not a person with dignity" we reject this claim.
4. Appearances: I don't think this is a real argument, but reddit loves to but a picture of developing elephants next to developing humans and say "Which one is human, I bet you can't tell!" sometimes they are both elephants and the picture closes with "Neither, they're both elephants!" etc. The underlying assumption here is that you do not have dignity unless you look human. Apparently our worth really is in our looks! I'm sure the fashion industry would love this! But the mistake we pro-lifers point to is this, if we get our dignity as persons from our looks then this makes racial discrimination, discrimination against those with disabilities, discrimination against those who have been in accidents that mars their facial expressions, etc. all valid provided we don't think they "look human". Not being able to do this, we reject this claim.

Essentially the pro-life argument boils down to this. We believe along with the rest of humanity that human dignity exists in adults. We assume that human dignity exists in stages of human development until proven otherwise that there is a case where it does not. Finding the pro-choice movements evidence lacking and often times incomprehensible we reject their proposal for belief that there exists such a case. Despite the amount of people of faith that make up the pro-life movement, at its core it is the position of the skeptic. We refuse to believe based on shoddy evidence and poor logic that there exists at any point a time when humans do not have dignity and thus when it is ok to kill them.

The Reasonable Faith

Let us assume for a moment that existence of a creator is assured. Let us assume further that this creator is a good creator and that the creator sent a messenger to mankind so that we could know of His/Her/Its existence. How would we know which messenger is the messenger of God? Among all the philosophies and religious dogmas and founders of said philosophies and dogmas, how would we know who to believe? Let us then construct a metric by which to judge who is the true messenger of God if any messenger exists.

We would expect the messenger of God to be foretold. Why? because if there is a creator than there was some existence before and outside the existence time. Only such an existence would be able to plant prophesies in previous generations of what He/She/It would do in the future. Perhaps the creator did not use such a measure, but only a creator could use one.

We would expect the messenger of God to be accompanied by works unexplainable except for by the influence of one who has the power to create. What being of any authority would begin to speak without establishing the credentials of authority. How could that being expect to be taken seriously if they do not answer clearly the source of credibility of the information they offer? If there is a messenger of God that has come with God's authority, it is reasonable to assume that works of God would accompany the messenger to establish an authority.

We would expect the messenger of God to speak what God would have to say. As we are assuming the creator is good, we would expect the message to be one of truth and not of deceit. Therefore should find no contradiction between the message of the messenger of God and reason.

Let us construct an interrogation in our mind. Let us bring together all those that claim to be messengers of God and all founders of religion and subject them to the test. Let us line them all up in an auditorium with internet whiz fact checkers at the ready. Let us show no partiality to any religion and any figure.

The principle investigator steps forth from the audience.
 "Attention!"
When the murmur dies down she continues.
"Mr. Aristotle, Mr. Buddha, Mr. Mohammad, Mr. Confucius, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Joseph Smith, Sir Pharaoh,  the avatars of Hinduism, Thor, Professor Dawkins, Mr. Christ, and all other messengers please step forward"
"Objection!" says Professor Dawkins "I don't accept these premises and Thor isn't even here, nobody's seen him. Nobody's EVER seen him. This is ridiculous, may I leave?"
"You may leave if you wish. Everybody else stand ready. Feet together! Back straight! Don't speak until invited to!" said the principle investigator.
"Now" she continued, "Let us subject all of you to the test! If any of you believe your message has absolute coherency with reason let them take one step forward!"
Everybody takes one step forward. The fact checkers are confused, and the principle investigator speaks
"Enough! Let us enforce the second metric! Who here has done wonders inexplicable by the ways of man to prove they are the true messenger of God?"
Many remain where they are, but a sizable number step forward. The contestants begin defending their works listing all the things that we done in the name of their cause. The fact checkers are whizzing and chaos ensues. The principle investigator takes a step closer to the babbling prophets, religious leaders, and all those who showed up with their claims as her voice booms out
"Enough, let each of you remember what it is you say you have done or what has been done to validate your message and let us move on! Now, the final metric. This is most easily verified and because I am sick of all your bickering I will make the following stipulation. Any being that steps forward to the last question will be maimed and mangled by all those present if what they claim is false. Who will attest to their coming being foretold, where are the records of old of where you would be born, the records foretelling your coming and your purpose, and the records on how you would live your life!"
The room was so silent it took a while for the crowd to realize that one man had in deed stepped forward. "Well well well, and what do you have to say for yourself?" cried the investigator fighting back her hysteria at the prospect of cross-examination.
"See for yourself my foretelling among the nations and cultures of the world before me. Here's a head start http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/08/what-on-earth-is-prophecy.html " said he.

The Winds of Change

Greens become brighter, the sun's warmth gets lighter, and all around can be sensed the winds of change. As I walk through campus I notice the brilliant reds of the maple trees, the green and yellow conglomerations of honey locusts, the orange oaks, and of course the stragglers desperately holding on to the green of summer.This change couldn't reflect my emotions more perfectly. Midterms have started, friendships are forming, and my knowledge of the Lord is growing; but amidst all this beauty is the knowledge that life is turning in to a time of trials. My academics have been sub par and the amount of work necessary to pull them up will take a great deal of work. But, graces have been flowing unbound. I see beauty all around, hopefully in preparation of the first great trial. I'm excited actually. I sense quite clearly the assurance that comes from a God who loves. I look forward to starting the journey of a soul. I have more to go in the purgative way, but the proddings and pokings to see my reactions in preparation of the next stage are beginning. There is much to learn and much to purge my soul of, but at last the blessings of fall are appearing. I look forward to the great spiritual winter. May the Lord keep me free from sin and lead me not in to temptation, but deliver me from evil, especially from the evil inside my own soul. Let the purification begin! Bring on the winds of change!

Life Logic

So, I got fed up with people calling the fetus a blob of tissue or saying that I'm not pro-life, I'm pro-fetus. Of course I didn't see a difference. Pro-life=pro-zygote + pro-fetus+ pro-infant +pro-toddler etc. Redefining life with a certain stage of life doesn't make it not life. Anyway in typical reddit style I made a flow chart. It is posted below.

there's one argument that could be made given my reasoning that because downs syndrome is a change in the number of chromosomes, that they then have been partially removed from the human species and are worth less.This would not follow because although genetics is a diagnostic tool for determining species, it is not the species definition itself. An offspring is the species of its parents. It is precisely the human identity itself that gives a human worth in this moral system. The diagnostic tool of genetics can then confirm the human identity but cannot be the mode of discrimination between worth because it is the identity as a human that is valuable and not the content of the genetic code directly.

There you go. Why I am pro-life.

-Andrew