Sex Culture - or Thoughts About the Election

I am seeing a huge swing into the world of sex. This is not covert, as it used to be. This is flashy and unapologetic. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, except for actual acts, I have little to say about my participation.

You see, this occurs at my university. It occurs in many places where people gather. It is pervasive and stifling.

What used to be reserved for the bedroom is now served on platters. And even in places where it isn't, where it is kept a little more quiet, it is still not the private, protected, and sacred thing it used to be.

Every woman, it seems, wants to be considered, not just beautiful or pretty, but sexy, too. In fact, sexy is the new "pretty."

I heard some, I use the term cautiously, minorities, talking the other day about how the culture of hip-hop has changed and the music has become less of a creative niche and more of a platform of idolatry: promiscuity and materialism. I couldn't agree more when the gentleman expressed his disenchantment with it all.

A personal observation, and it isn't a blanket statement but more of a concern: the people who have come up in the sex culture, embrace it and further it, are now of voting age. There are many, many of them. And good, I say. That is, IF they choose wisely, reject the idols that will suck their lives away and vote with a clear conscience.

I do not mean that they can only vote fore one candidate and maintain a clear conscience. I could not advocate a thought such as that with a clear conscience, because FREEDOM is about CHOICE.

However, within that choice, I also advocate wisdom. What is wisdom at this stage? The ability to tell when someone is being truly intolerant and when they are exhibiting care for your well-being, for starters.

In fact, I fussed at a classmate recently who doesn't wear a helmet on his motorcycle (no helmet law, here). He offered his opinion on the topic and I listened, yes, but maintained my positioned and threatened to kill him if he got himself killed. Is this intolerance or care? Given that a friend of mine died because she didn't wear her seatbelt, I think I have a reason to fuss.

In fact, this could be applied to nearly everything that is upheld by many individuals, including, but not limited to, Christians. I am a Christian, so the increase in negative attitude toward Christianity, while often deserved, is a bit mystifying when applied blanketly. For instance, I've run into this thought process: Christian = stupid, judgmental, anti-Darwinist goon. Most people won't say this to a person's face, but thoughts are prevalent in much media (not necessarily professional media).

What I'm saying is that, when I suggest to an 18 yo that breaking the law, getting hammered, and getting behind the wheel might not be a great idea, or that I would actually stand in their way of implementing such a decision, I think it's a bit stupid of the 18 yo, not to mention illustrative of the reasons why 18 yo's shouldn't drink, to say that I'm being intolerant of them as a human and that I don't care about anything but the money in my wallet (in spite of the fact that I am also a student with a family, and absolutely no money to speak of).

If I say to one of my good friends that I think her practicing homosexuality could prove harmful to her (which I haven't said, but if she asked, I probably would), if I act caring in all other ways, then how does it follow that this is about--whatever someone who wants to react wants to accuse me of? Stupidity? Old-fashionism? Intolerance? Bigotry?

Is the Bible bigoted about homosexuality? Well, here are some thoughts: perhaps it was so frowned upon in the Bible because, the descriptions in the Bible were of promiscuity and hedonism. In other words, the known homosexuality was related to orgies and rape. It could be, that due to the promiscuity (homo- and hetero-), disease was rampant within those populations that practiced homosexuality (and probably heterosexuality, as both had death as punishment). Add to that, the fact that homosexuals do not procreate on their own, at a time when survival of a group of people was contingent upon it (as it always is), it would make sense that the practice was discouraged.

This fits into the value the Bible expresses for life. The times when an entire people were wiped out, or when the command was for the people to be wiped out, it was for a reason, or by the target group's own doing (as in Jericho).

If I say that I think abortion is wrong, and vote accordingly, because, get this, I value the lives of any unborn, regardless of the parents' party affiliation and convictions or choices, is this uncaring? Face it, if we keep on this route, those who CHOOSE LIFE will outnumber those that CHOOSE ABORTION some day. That the CHOOSE LIFErs advocate procreation of those who disagree should say a lot about their intents. The focus isn't political; it regards the perpetuity of humans. I suppose I could ride the politically correct line and say: off your offspring if you want to. But I don't. Why? Intolerance? No. I care.

Like my fussing at my friend for motorcycling with no helmet, I would fuss at those who advocate recreational marijuana use. If you want to fizzle your brain out, be my guest, I suppose I could say. But it seems wrong to tow that line which gives me a distinct advantage.

Survival of the fittest and most tolerant; maybe it's true, after all.

Regi G

Beginning at the Beginning

I had a discussion with my friend the other day, who is very smart. The interesting thing abou this friendship is that we are both free thinkers and even though we disagree, we allow each other to think what we want.

She mentioned that others take the Bible as the LITERAL Word of God. Well, I do, too. This is why:

If we look at the Haldane experiment, we have two things wrong with it: one, we have a creator, two, we have a human creator. (Funny enough, my friend and I agree on this. This was an original idea of mine, from when I studied biology, so not to take credit away from her or to overlook my contribution, but we arrived at the same conclusion separately.) Next, Christians are talking about an omnipotent being, who can create anything, at will. So, if we take the Bible literally, that means it happened the way it is written, not in the human perspective, but that we must take God's word for it. We are able to do this because while writers of science books show a curious preoccupation with addressing religious arguments, they also deny that science is suited to answer those questions.

So, Christians, if they claim an omnipotent being who is above scientific detection (watch out for the backlash argument that all claims that come from Christianity are not within the realm of science), can say that the Bible is the literal Word of God, also infallible, although the interpretation may not necessarily be a literal (in human eyes) or a well-defined one.

This is where Christians start.

Regina G

What's the Limit?

Many Christians have this notion that we are to give and give and give and give to others, and when it hurts, we keep on giving.

However, what do we do when someone is taking advantage of our giving? Here are some examples:

1. In good faith, you exchange time at work with someone. That person never returns the favor.

2. You forgive your brother for "borrowing" your money and never paying you back.

3. Someone enjoys your forgiving nature, but is quick to judge you, even when that person is guilty of the same "crime," or worse.

4. A spouse is abusive.

5. An employer works you hard and never says "thanks," and even throws a fit when you need time off to care for your ailing family member.

Are we supposed to be so understanding, forgiving, kind, etc., all the things we have been taught that we should be by other Christians, some of whom do not abide by this rule, themselves?

The answer is: that depends. The Bible puts a limit on the hurt a spouse may do to another spouse, but the Lord never says divorce is commanded in such a case. Rather, we may divorce in certain circumstances, if we think we need to for...a viariety of reasons.

Christians are humans, after all, and divorce is part of the human condition. In fact, many rifts between people are a result of sin. I think that, to some degree, as long as you aren't one to take advantage, you have a choice in how to approach a variety of situations, but you are not required to do the more benevolent thing.

Neither do I think that if you decline to do the "more benevolent thing," that makes you less benevolent than someone else. In fact, depending on the situation, it can reveal benevolence to a great degree; that also depends on the person viewing the events. God is the one we really need to worry about.

If we, for whatever reason, cannot continue to allow someone to sin because we are around, whether that person sees their deeds as sin or not, it is a benevolent thing to remove ourselves from the situation.

What if someone has an illness? I say, give to your limit, then remove yourself. At least, take time away to renew.

I think we Christians, in the well-meaning goal of acting with love, forget that the human "love tank" is only so big, and we must find the Lord and renew. Sometimes, that means we are taken out of someone's life, either temporarily or permanently.

Life is hard, and some of our experiences are traumatic. God can heal any wound, but that doesn't mean he always will. There are reasons that God allows such deep wounds to remain. In that case, we must do our best to point back to Him (but remember that even Jesus took breaks from His followers).

If the times of renewal aren't renewing, it may be that we need a longer time of renewal. The question is, are we Christians honest enough to admit when we are no longer loving someone, in order to get that refreshing break?

Regi

Stephen J. Gould, the...theologist?

In his paper, "The Panda's Peculiar Thumb," Dr. Gould expressed the following idea:

"If God had designed a beautiful machine to reflect his wisdom and power, surely he would not have used a collection of parts generally fashioned for other purposes."

This was a treatise from science on the topic of evolution. Yet, there is this bit of conjecture about what God would do, if there is such a being.

This is not an argument from science. It sounds like an argument from incredulity.

If Stephen J. Gould can do it, why not me?

What is Sin?

I want to get this article up, because it's important, but a fuller exposition must wait.

In short, I think that sin is those thoughts and activities which bring harm to ourselves and others. This is, obviously, a very skeletal explanation of sin, but it will have to do for now.

One reason for why I think this is that the Bible says, "All things are permissible, but not all are beneficial." To me, this says that we can do just about anything our minds can conceive, and no one will stop us, but that doesn't mean we should do them.

The Bible also lists the things God hates, which are the chief sins, and nearly all others are derivatives of these. The Ten Commandments also guide us in knowing what sin is. I think we all know what sin is. It is doing wrong. How deeply we consider sin to go is nearly individual, with more guidance from scripture letting us know that our thoughts can be sinful, especially if we indulge the thoughts.

Hopefully this is a start in knowing why God hates sin and that it has nothing to do with giving Him some reason to punish us, or to kill our fun.

How To Become a Christian

I wrote some articles on the subjects of becoming a Christian, finding a church and baptism.

1. How Do I Become a Christian?
2. Now You're a Christian: The Next Step
3. ...And After That

I hope you find these articles helpful. The last two could use a little expansion.

Pride and Prejudice

In perhaps her most beloved novel Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen wrote, in chapter 5, in the voice of the character Mary,

"Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us."

Thinking about this, I suppose that she is right. On the whole, I'm more vain than proud. I am spurred on by my lack of regard for myself, and hope that others recognize my efforts, gifts and talents. I do not have great respect for myself, though there are things I like about myself. I would rather others have respect for me than that I should have respect for myself. I tend to dote on others' achievements, but in regard to my own, start with feet-shuffling and blushing, then feel guilty about my not downplaying anything I've done, enough. This is not merely show, though it does begin that way. Before long, I've talked myself into shame of demonstrating pride to another.

I think that vanity and pride are on a continuum of self-importance. Legalism leads to vanity, and "grace without requirement" leads to pride. I think that is why we must take the Gospel and the book of James, together.

We are given grace, and by definition, there are no strings attached. However, the consequence of grace is a longing to return some measure of the gift given to us. This shows that we have, indeed, received grace. I think that this is what James is saying, but I am not a theologian and haven't read James in a while.

Being able to say, "I am a worm," without any shred of vanity is a mark of having received grace. But how many of us can truly say that? How many of us can say, "I have received Christ" without any hint of pride? And if we concentrate on the constructs of our speech, hoping not to betray pride, are we being vain?

Being careful to always say the right thing--this is vanity. Refusing to change and thinking that no change is needed, or else that what we are is as good or better than what everyone else is--this is pride.

I think, really, these two issues have the same source, and only differ in respect to what angle we're working. Vanity is either a false front given to get something we think we deserve or pushing forward our achievements, however subtly, to get that recognition or reward. In the latter case, perhaps vanity is pride on viagra.

Pride, I think, rewards the self instead of seeking to elicit the reward from someone else. When we come to God, in search of His grace, it is because we can no longer be filled by our pride, and vanity is either completely unfulfilled, or like pride, no longer fulfills.

When we have received grace and still have vanity and pride issues, what do we do then? I think that we are supposed to find emotional sustenance in the love of the Lord. Self-esteem is the world's version of this. When God says, "You are so valuable, I will send my Son to die for you so that you can be with me," it means just that: we have value. This is different from self-esteem.

This is, instead, taking the Lord at His word. We can now say, "I was such a worm, before, and even then, God saw the value in me." The value is already there, and it is no more and no less than that belonging to any other human being. We have worth, but it does not come from ourselves, so it's inappropriate to call it "self-worth."

Rather, we seek to see ourselves with sobriety. Read for context 1 Peter 1:13. Consider praying to see yourself with sobriety, with clarity and discernment; this way, you may recognize what things need to change and what things need to stay the same, and start with the realization that we were fearfully and wonderfully made, that God values us in spite of our past, so much as to die for us, and consider jumping off the "self-esteem" bandwagon,  and be ready to accept every challenge as a challenge for God, and see our gifts and talents as those important assets that God has given us, protecting them from those who would steal or attenuate them.

This is not pride in self, but a recognition of the kind of God we serve. Let us boast in Him.

Regi G

Technorati Tags: Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen, Bible, self-esteem, self-worth