The Struggle To Be A Real Person

I want to be real. I'm freaking Pinocchio, trapped in a wooden body, fighting to break out and become a real boy.

And in some sense that is literally true. I am trapped in a body wracked with pain and limited mobility and often crippling headaches that render me unproductive for days and sometimes weeks.

But I am talking about something we all struggle with. We want to be what we perceive as our perfect self. We see that there is a version of ourselves that we want to be. Maybe that has to do with our job, or our kids or where we live, but overall I think we all see a version of ourselves that has more to do with habits and hangups than it does with outward appearance.

"If only"... if only I could quit smoking. If only I could lose weight. If only I could be a better spouse. If only I could stop doing x. If only I could start doing y.

If only.

Friends, "if only" will kill you. Literally. I'm being very serious here. Chasing that "if only" will literally kill you. Maybe not quickly, but it will steal your life and leave you staring at your mortality with a wasted life.

We all want to be better. We all want to do better. And that's good. We should all want to be our true self. The problem comes when we look toward that true self and weigh it on the scale with 'if only' and see the huge pile of 'if only' outweighing the potential of reaching the true self.

And we feel like a failure. And we feel small and worthless. We feel this way because it just seems like an insurmountable mountain of 'ifs' that we need to overcome to become our true self.

Friends, let me make this really clear.

You are perfect as your are.

Let me say again, YOU are PERFECT as YOU ARE.

YOU ARE PERFECT AS YOU ARE. RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW.

I don't care what your boss or your doctor or your church or family or anyone else is telling you.

Your true self is who you are right now. It's not an ideal that you have to waste your life to achieve.

Ok so you have this issue or that. You might have an addiction you need to deal with. You might be overweight. Yes, those are real things that you need to work on.

But those aren't the real you. Those aren't barriers to get to your true self. They're just globs of dirt that you need to brush off. Your true self is you as you are right now.

Everything you want to be  is here. Now. Anything you see as a barrier is an illusion.

What is really stopping you from being who you are? Fear. Specifically fear of failure.

I have one question for you: Who flipping cares?


Ask yourself this: If you had unlimited resources and unlimited time, what would you do with your life? Put aside the mansion and the sex partners and the piles of guns and consider, really consider, what you would DO? Put aside your family and friends and the selfish things and consider actually what you would DO as a vocation. What is that THING you would DO that you want to be. Is it a writer? An athlete? A philanthropist? Movie maker? Comedian? Lecturer? Teacher?

Now ask yourself this: Even though you don't have unlimited resources and time, what can you do to do that thing you want to do? What is honestly stopping you? Put aside your need to make enough money to eat and have a place to live, that's your job, it's not who you are. What can you do, in spite of your job, to become that thing you want to be?

There is really only one answer, isn't there? Fear. What if I do it and I suck at it?

Let me let you in on a little secret. You will suck at it. Everyone that has done something you consider great has also done something that is a complete disaster. But here's the secret:

They kept trying. They KEEP trying. They DO.

I am writing as much to myself as to you. I live in fear of failure. Of failing my family, of failing my church, of failing my God. (Yes, I am a 'religious' person, this may or may not apply to you). What do I want my real self to be?

I just want my real self to be .... real. I don't want to be the mask that I put on to hide my pain and disability. I don't want to be the mask I put on to hide my addictions and stuggles.

I want to be that person that lives without fear.

I am in my late fourties. My life is probably more than half over. My father died in his 50s. I could lament over how much time I have wasted. I could cry over how many lost opportunites I have had. I could be angry about how much time I have wasted in fear.

But I'm not going to do that. I don't want you to do that. I want you to dare to be real. It doesn't matter what you define as your real self. Just DO IT.

Do it. Go. Do. Fail. Get up. Fail some more. Who cares? What is the worst that could happen? Well, ok, you could die. But unless what you are trying to is skydiving or Russian Roulette, is death really on the list of worst things that could happen?

#NotOneMore

My blogs have been dead as of late. I really have no excuse other than laziness and depression. But if you're here and reading this, thank you.

---

 Today I am angry. Angier than angry. And I've had enough pussy footing around this topic out of fear I will offend someone or tread on their rights or some other such crap.

First, let me preface this by saying that much of what I am about to say is out of emotion. I do not have facts to back anything up, this is just my feelings and if you don't like it, too bad. My blog, my rules.

Ok, back to the rant.

Guns. I am angry about guns. Specifically I am angry that yet another gun has been used to kill yet another child. If you have seen the unfolding story (at the time of this writing), a teenager went into a high school, killed a student and himself (I don't currently know if said shooter was a student at that school or not. A teacher also sustained non-threatening injuries.)

How many dead children is it going to take for this country to wake up and DO something about it?

Ok, I know what some of you are going to say. "Well, if a teacher had been armed only the gunman would have died. More guns makes us safe. If he didn't have a gun he would have used a knife, just as many were killed with a knife by that one guy as with a gun. Good guys with guns. Blah blah blah blah blah."

So don't even tell me those. I've heard them all. And I honestly don't give a flying flipping crap about what you think about any of that. Guns kill people. No, not people killing people, guns. (If guns are safe, then let your toddler play with your's, go ahead. I'll wait. No? You see my point.) And yes, if you leave a gun on a table it's safe, but they never are, are they? Guns have infiltrated our entertainment, our media, our culture, and worst of all, our MINDS. There are some that practically worship them. Guns are more important to some than their family, their church, or their own health.

Why? Because it gives a sense of POWER, of god-like ability over life and death. And the illusion of safety. You have a gun to protect your family? That's swell. I'll just cut your gas line and wait for you house to blow up.See? Didn't really protect you, did it?

I'm so angry right now I can't even stay on track. My point is NO MORE DEAD KIDS!!

The President, Congress, and the courts need to stand up to the NRA and gun lobbyists and end this. Now. We are the only developed nation that this happens in. No other places in the world, even with similar gun rights, do we see kids killing other kids in schools. No where. The best time to act is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

If it were up to me I would say ban them all. Get the National Guard, go door to door and just take them, all of them. All the guns. Every pistol, hunting rifle, antique, bb gun, all of them. Put them in a big pile and burn them. Then burn the factories. Institute the death penalty for anyone that has one.

But it's not. And I don't hold any fantasy that that will actually happen. The real world is too messy and like Pandora's box the demons are already lose. (Plus guns are actually useful tools when used that way.)

In spite of that, there are real things we can do. For starters, someone please tell the Open Carry idiots to put their toys away and grow up. Second, shut down the NRA. It is a terrorist organization that can no longer be allowed to exist. It's only purpose is to protect the so-called rights of those that continue to kill our children and that cannot be allowed in this or any other civilized place in the world.

Third, extremely harsh penalties to gun owners whose guns are used in a crime either by them or by others in their homes or those who stole them. If you own a gun, do everything possible to keep it from killing another person, not even in self defence. If it kills someone, even if another person did it, it's your fault. And you should be tried and convicted on the level equal to the crime. Death penalty. Period, the end. Your toddler gets a hold of it and accidentally shoots himself? That's not an accident, that's murder. Someone steals the gun you got to protect your possessions? Then why didn't you use it to stop them from stealing it? They used it in a crime? Too bad, that's on you.

Yes, I know. I'm a stupid hippy liberal that hates America. You know what? If love of guns equals love of America, then fine, I hate America. It's no longer "land of the free home of the brave". It's "land of the terrorized, home of the gun". That is not the America I was taught in school. That is not the country that Jefferson wrote about, nor the country Lincoln spoke of. It's degrading into "he who has the guns is in control" and I am not OK with my kids growing up in that country.

Dead children trumps gun rights. It just does. I don't care what Joe the (fake) Plumber or Sarah Palin or anyone else says. Dead kids trump all. We have seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, education laws, and even crossing the freaking street laws all designed to keep kids safe. But why aren't we doing something about GUNS? And no, the laws we have are not good enough. Don't tell me they just need to be enforced. The reason they aren't enforced is that when they were they were not effective. They are toothless. Real laws with real consequences to real people for every single bullet fired at a person. Period, the end.

Not one more. Not one more dead child from a gun. Not. One. More. No more excuses, no more "it's my right". NO.

If you want to argue, don't bother. I won't respond. Call me names if you wish. Send me hate mail. I don't care. I won't change my mind either. And yes, I vote.

Love the sinner hate the sin?

dNote: As always, what is presented here is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree and comment politely. I encourage  ]olite debate. I will probably contradict myself at some time in the future. So will you. That's what thinking people do - always growing, always thinking, always trying to find a better way. This is where I am today.

Recently I got into an ugly debate with an old friend. We had found each other on facebook after several years of not talking. I highly respect this person and still consider him a friend in spite of the fact that because of our difference of opinion he "unfriended" and blocked me on facebook.

Our 'discussion' centered on 2 things, abortion rights and Islam. At the end I posed the question "why the hate? Why the fear? Why so much spite?" His response was "I don't hate the people, just the sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin."

But, in my opinion, his comments didn't really reflect that position. In fact he said he was unfriending me because I "chose the way of death" and couldn't tolerate my "non-Christlike position". If he could really "love the sinner and hate the sin" and he saw me as a "sinner", then why didn't he approach the discussion with more love and less fear?

And that's the topic for today. "Love the sinner, hate the sin". Is this something that we, as people, can really do? Is it really a 'Biblical' position? Is this really the way to "win people to Christ"?

Let's start by defining sin. The dictionary definition is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law. But what does that mean? In simplest terms, there is "right" and there is "wrong". In a religious context, God (or gods or prophets etc. etc.) decided what is "wrong" and doing  a "wrong" thing is a sin. Maybe that's a little over-simplified, but I hope you get the idea.

My friend and I are Christians. He happens to also have very conservative views on most things. My views on many of the same issues are what many would define as liberal. But at least on paper we both agree that in our belief system God has told us what He considers sin to be in the Bible.

But in actuality, it's not that neat. There are as many interpretations of what the Bible says as there are people. In one sense, that's good because when people read it and talk about it and talk about how they each see it, then everyone learns and grows and we get closer to the truth of what it says and means. But in another sense, it leads to thousands of different interpretations of what God said, and in the case of sin, those interpretations give us thousands of different ideas about what 'sin' is. Some say X-Y-Z is 'sin' but others say X-Y-Z is OK, but A-B-C is sin. Another group says it's all sin as well as D thru W.

In other words, sin is whatever people say it is. And that's part of the problem. Group A hates group B because they think what B does is sinful. Group B hates group A because "they started it" and "their intolerance is sin". And on and on and on.

And bear in mind that I am still talking about those of us that believe in the Bible. To bring current events into it, some conservatives believe the enacting of Obamacare is a sin, while other think NOT enacting Obamacare is a sin. Same-sex marriage is sin, no it's not. Abortion is sin, not allowing choice is a sin. On and on back and forth.

Sin, or rather which acts are in fact sin, cannot be agreed upon. There are things that we all agree are obviously sin: theft and murder for example, but even then we argue about what acts should be defined as theft and when is an act of killing 'murder'.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. But we're all hating the different things. So that's part of the problem.

And then there's the hating part. What does it mean to 'hate' sin? Is it just a feeling or is it something you actively do? Is it just a passionate disliking? Or is there an act of hating? I hate creamed spinach (who doesn't?) Do I just hate it by feeling hate? Or do I hate it by trying to remove it from the planet? Do I hate it by telling everyone I know how evil it is and encouraging them to join my cause and spread the word about the evils of creamed spinach?

We can't agree on what sin is and we can't agree on how to hate it. So what about the rest of it?

What is a sinner, then? Obviously it is a person that commits a sin, right? In my opinion it should be that simple, but again, it's not. Some think that a person doesn't have to actually commit the sin to be a sinner. There is legal precedent for this. In many places a "conspiracy to commit" a crime is, in itself, a crime.You don't have to actually do the thing, you just have to have planned it. But some go further, claiming that if you allow sin to exist, then that too is sin. That is kind of what my friend accused me of when our discussion turned to abortion rights. By allowing abortions to be performed I was as guilty of the sin as someone who actually does it or has it done to them.

So we can't agree on what a sinner is either.Which when you factor in the fact that we can't agree on what sin is it gets infinitely more complicated.


Which leaves love. What is love? What does it mean to love? Like hate, is it just a feeling or is it an act?

We could get into a very long, lengthy, philosophical discussion about what 'love' is. I won't go into that here, it would just be too much to inflict upon you at this time. Needless to say, yet again, that love is not something we can agree on either.

I think the only word we can agree on in the statement "love the sinner, hate the sin" is the word "the".

Now let's get to the nitty gritty. If we believe the Bible, and the Christ it presents, then the question now is "what would Jesus do?" or more precisely, what DID He do? How did Jesus "Love the sinner and hate the sin" or did He do that at all?

The obvious example is the adulterous woman. The story is in the book of John, chapter 8. A woman is found committing adultery (why not the man, too? I don't know, it's not explained). The men bring her before Jesus and remind Him that the law says she is to be stoned. Jesus famously says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". One by one the men leave and soon it's just her and Jesus. "Has no one condemned you?" He asks. "No one", she replied. "Then neither do I" said Jesus, and then said "Go and sin no more".

So here is Jesus, loving the sinner by sparing her life, yet hating the sin by telling her "go and sin no more".

OK. Sure. Nice. Spiffy.

But how else did Jesus react to sin during His time here on Earth? What other stories do the gospel writers give us about Jesus and his dealings with people and their sin?

Matthew 23 gives us one example. Jesus it talking about the "scribes and pharisees". These were groups (think 'denominations') within Judaism in that day and age. They believed the best way to keep the Law of Moses was to build a 'hedge' around it. To create more laws to keep you from getting too close to breaking the "real" law. But then there were laws around those because they felt their laws were as important as what was handed down from Moses and so then there were more... and more.

"Woe to you" Jesus says. Over and over "Woe to you" and further He calls them "serpents" and a "brood of vipers". No where in this monologue does Jesus draw a distinction between their 'sin' and their persons. In the end he asks rhetorically "how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" In other words, "you're already doomed".

When it came to the pharisees, their existence was a sin. There was no love for the sinner and hate for the sin. Just hate.(Maybe that's a strong word when referring to Jesus, but I feel it's accurate.)

What else have we got?

John chapter 2 tells of the clearing of the temple court. (Also in Mark chapter 11). John, the writer, tells us that Jesus made a "whip of cords" and overturned the tables in the temple court where people were selling animals and things to be used in temple worship - something Jesus saw as wrong since the temple should be a "house of prayer". If he was loving the sinner and hating the sin, why would he threaten to whip people?

On the plus side, Jesus accepted tax collectors (those working for the Roman government), prostitutes, and others that religious leaders saw as 'sinners', often talking and eating with them. So in that sense he was "loving the sinner".

So here we are. At best it's favoritism. The scribes and pharisees are doomed, but everyone else can be forgiven. At worst there is no separation of the sin from the person. Hate for one is hate for the other.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that over all the Bible teaches that there is a differentiation between people and their actions. People are accountable for their actions, but it's possible to forgive the person while punishing their actions.

But I think that as humans, as real world people, that is nearly impossible. And especially as Christians many see a person's condition, their state of being, as sin. Homosexuality is one example. Many interpret the Bible to mean that homosexuality is a choice and anyone that makes that choice is a sinner. But what of someone that is attracted to the same sex, but has never acted on that attraction? What of the man that is attracted to men but has chosen to live a sexless life and has never been in a relationship? Is he still a 'sinner'? Many would say 'yes'. He is guilty of sin by just existing.

The same for others that live in places where Islam is the dominate religion. People that aren't really believers, but practice the traditions of Islam because that is what their local culture does are as guilty of the sin of "being Islamic" as those who are devout believers. And rather than reaching out to the person with love, we condemn all because they are "evil" and "Satanic".

Our language is the same way. Someone who lies IS a "liar". Someone who steals IS a "theif". One who murders IS a "murderer". It's how we, who use the English language, think. It's how we talk. We don't differentiate the sin from the sinner. And while it is possible to do that, it's HARD. When someone lies to you, you don't immediately trust them again. When someone hurts someone you love, you want them to hurt.  It's not impossible to separate the sin from the sinner, but it's against our nature. It's against our gut instinct, and as a result there is hate and fear directed not at sin, but at people. And even many who claim that they are indeed hating the sin but not the sinner don't do the love part and just practice hate.

So what are we to do?

One simple thing: love. Just love. However you define it as long as there is no condition or caveat. Love. Feel it, do it, speak it, write it, sing it, teach it, preach it.... whatever. Just love. Let God decide what is sin and what isn't. Love yourself enough to deal with the sin in your own life, but stop the hate. And with it the fear. Well, Mr. Allen, you may ask, what about someone who has an addiction? Should I just leave them there? No. But I would venture to say that sin and addiction are 2 different things. Addiction to things like alcohol and drugs are a medical as well as a spiritual condition and yes love the person enough to help them. But not because you hate what they do. You do, but don't act in hate, act in love.

Act in love. Perform love. Do everything out of love.

Love the sinner. The end.

So ends my rant. Hope you enjoyed it.

Christmas Rant

The world is a sad place again this Christmas. Or at least there isn't much joy to go around. Children murdered in the US, civil war in Syria, protests in Egypt (again), Israel flexing its muscle... not to mention Mali, New Delhi, North Korea... Peace on Earth, goodwill towards men - men aren't very good at it.

And here in America, on the Internet, we debate. I am the worst offender. Everything sets me off. Gun control? I am so there with fists raised ready to throw virtual punches. War on Christmas? Heck yea, let's rumble! Fiscal cliff? Let me tell you how wrong you are about everything you know about that!

Why do I do this to myself? Is it because I feel kind of helpless most days, struggling with physical pain and crippling headaches I feel like I don't matter anymore? So I make myself matter by being loud and confrontational?

Or maybe I'm just an asshole.

And that's really the opposite of what I need to be. I call myself Christian because of what I believe. If I really believe it, then I need to be better. I need to be salt and light, not angry and bitter. I need to be love and light, not sarcastic and vile.

Which begs the question, do I really believe what I claim to believe?

My journey of faith is different than most others. While many become Christian through a spiritual transition, my faith is based on a study of history and archaeology and ancient writings. The things I believe about the Bible would be much in opposition to the beliefs of most other Christians. And while I certainly believe in Jesus as the Son of God and the accuracy of the gospels, I do not feel that a completely literal interpretation of every single word in the Bible is how we are supposed to read it. God gave us brains, he wants us to use them and not just point at something and say "Yep, that's God, everything else is wrong". The debates over evolution/creation, when life begins, all that stuff, I don't think that's how we're supposed to "use" the Biblical text. Is it true and accurate and the Word of God? Sure. But it's not all history. Are the poems of Robert Frost true and accurate and the word of Robert Frost? Sure, but it doesn't mean that every word in them actually happened.

But I digress. We can debate Biblical authenticity and hermeneutics another day. My point is, from some people's perspective, I'm not a very good Christian. And maybe my confrontational nature has done more disservice to my friends than good. And maybe I'm not being confrontational enough in some areas.

I believe in God, I believe in 'Heaven' and eternal life (though the nature of such and the exact nature of life after death, we can discuss at another time). I believe in a "hell" (though the nature of such and the question of 'eternal torment', we can discuss at another time). As such I do wish that all my friends believed as I do and would be with me in eternity.

But I also know that most of my friends have looked at the same historical and archaeological evidence as me but have come to a different conclusion. Others look at those who claim to follow God and have determined if THAT is who God is, they want no part in it. It makes me sad. But if I truly love and respect my friends, is it better or worse to engage in endless discussion that isn't going to lead either of us to change our minds or is it better to just love and respect them?

 That brings me back to the debate question. This time of year, even though there are more important things in the world to discuss, the 'war on Christmas' always comes up. Was Jesus really born in a manger? Was she really a virgin? Was it December 25th? Shepherds? Angels? Wisemen? All that stuff? And is it really a 'war on Christmas' to argue against it?

A lot of arguments I've heard from atheists is that much of Jesus' story parallels that of other 'gods'. We'll save the discussion of Jesus death and resurrection as compared to other stories later and just talk about the birth story. First, the virgin question. Was Horus the Egyptian sun god born of a virgin? Well, first of all there's no evidence of that belief until well after the birth of Christ, but even if there were, so what? What about Buddha? Buddha's mother was married for 20 years before the Buddha came from her side (possibly a primitive c-section?) So doubtful. But even if he was, so what? Who copied who? Was Jesus the original "born from a virgin" or was that a tenant of other religions before? If the latter, so what?

What about December 25th? Jesus can't be real because so many other gods were born on December 25th and Christians just copied that. To that one I say "uh.. no". There is much more Biblical and historical evidence to suggest that Jesus was born in just about any other season except winter. The shepherds are the biggest give-away. Bethlehem is geographically situated about half a mile above sea level in what is basically a desert (even allowing for climate change over the last 2000 years, it was still very desert like). At that elevation at that time of year sheep would not be in the fields, day or night. There would be nothing for them to eat, they would have been penned up. The Biblical account says the shepherds were "tending their flocks by night". This points, most likely, to a summer time event. The days would have been very hot and too dangerous to be in the sun all day. Nights would have been cooler and safer to be out doors.

But why December 25th? To be honest, Christians stole it from 'pagan' celebrations of the Winter solstice. It was a marketing technique. "Hey, pagans, look over here! We're having a winter party too, only we have Jesus!" The celebration of Christmas, or to be precise, the "Christ Mass", didn't really exist until hundreds of years after the original writing of the gospels. Was that bad? Yea, kinda.

Born in a manger? What the freak is a manger? Most representations of a manger are a feeding trough. A box on legs full of hay. The gospel account says he was "laid in a manger". The Greek word translated as 'manger' is also used in Luke 13:15 and translated as "stall". Was it a feeding trough or just a stall lined with hay? My opinion? Meh. So what? Not sure we can know nor do I think it really matters. The gospel message of salvation is not changed if it was a trough or a stall.

Wisemen? Again, meh. It doesn't matter if they were there at the manger or later when Jesus was a toddler. What were their names? Where were they from? Meh. Does it matter? No not really.

War on Christmas? Hardly. It's more of a war to defend things that have no basis in history.

So then what does matter? What about Christmas is important? Should we not celebrate it at all because it's at best a fake Christian holiday and at worst a pagan celebration (full of pagan symbols like trees with lights)?

What's important is what is important to you. Don't believe in Jesus? That's OK. Don't think we should observe it at all because of it's pagan origins? That's OK too. What's important to you? Friends? Family? Food? Gifts? Fuzzy feel good feelings? It's all good. It's all great. If it's important to you, it's good.

Regardless of your beliefs, or non-beliefs, Christmas can be an amazing and awesome day. Don't let anyone convince you that you "have to" celebrate this way or that way. Even if you think the religious part of it is all wrong, so what? Enjoy the secular side. Enjoy the day off from work and the opportunity to party.

I'm off on tangents all over the place. But that's OK, it's my blog, I get to write what I want.

So, debate and confrontation. I love it. Should I? No, probably not. There's not enough love going around in the world. There needs to be more unity and harmony, or at the very least tolerance. (PS. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance. I tolerate my hemorrhoids, that doesn't mean I accept their right to exist.) Peace on earth and goodwill toward men should begin with me. Do you see Christ in me when I talk to you?

Probably not because all I want to do is argue with you. And I'm sorry. To you, guy I offended when you brought up gun control, I'm sorry. I was not kind when I could have been. It was obviously a very hot issue for you and all I did was make you more mad.

The world is a sad, tragic place this season. There are hurting people everywhere. Instead of insisting on standing my ground, I instead need to reach out in love and help you out of your hurt.

Merry Christmas to you, dear reader. If I have been unkind to you, I am sorry. I hope you can forgive me and give me an opportunity to make amends. And if you don't believe in Christmas, I say Merry Christmas anyway because to me it's not about pushing my belief on you, it's about a day of peace and love and harmony and I hope you find that, regardless of how you spend your day.

The Thankful Game - and how to suck at it.

It's the day before Thanksgiving here in the US. Over the course of the years the Wednesday before Thanksgiving has become as much of a "surrogate" holiday as Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, a day of grocery shopping, pie making, and for many, travelling.

The month before Thanksgiving, starting November 1st, has become a new holiday season. Many stores clear out the Halloween costumes and candy and put out the garland and tree decorations, but more than that, in our web-connected world, it's become it's own season. A season of thankfulness.

Many of my online friends played The Thankful Game this month. The Thankful game is where you use your blog or Facebook status or Twitter update to, once a day, tell something you are thankful for. The idea is that at the beginning of the game it's really easy, but as the days go on you are more and more challenged to think of things to be thankful fore and become more and more appreciative of the people and things and circumstances in your life.

I hate that game. I never play.

Why? Well, for one, it's kind of annoying. The first few days are always the same "my friends", "my family", "my job", "my house", "my dog"... on and on and on. Now don't get me wrong, those are great and fabulous things to have in your life and you should absolutely be thankful for them. But when 20 people on facebook are playing The Thankful Game and post their updates at about the same time every day and they all say pretty much the same thing ever single flipping day, it's kind of annoying. Really annoying. In fact I would say fingernails on a chalkboard annoying.

Another reason I don't play is, when it comes to Facebook, some people always need to comment on the things you say and make it about them. For example, if I post something like "I am really thankful that my chronic migraine is only at about 3 on the pain scale today instead of the usual 7" I get comments back like: "Oh I know just how you feel. Mine is at an 11 today when it's usually 17 and therefore much worse than yours and you should totally be grateful that your pain is less than mine and that you're able to talk about it because I'm on so much pain I can't move my hands an am typing with my left little toe because it's the only thing that hurts less than a 12." Ok, maybe not exactly that, but you get the idea. It has to be all about them and not just "hey that's great" or "I'm glad for you".

But overall the main reason I don't play is that The Thankful Game really misses the point. Absolutely I think that Thanksgiving is an awesome holiday and should be observed, but rather than fostering an attitude of thankfulness only a few days a year, we need to foster, develop, encourage, and grow that attitude in ourselves every DAY of the whole YEAR.

The Thankful Game needs to be played all the time. Now I'm not encouraging people to post on their social networks every day all the time. In fact please DON'T do that. Rather pray your thankfulness, if you are religiously inclined as I am - or keep it in your heart all day or write it down or privately express it in some way, if you are not. (In other words, thank God if you believe in him, thank karma or luck or your circumstances if you don't).

And that's when it really gets hard. Developing a sense of thankfulness every day of every year, no matter what else is going on in your life, is HARD. Can you be thankful when you get a flat tire and are stuck on the side of a busy highway with no spare? Can you be thankful when the dog has puppies and you didn't know she was pregnant... and she has them on your dry-clean only shirt that you needed for a business trip the next day? Can you be thankful laying in a hospital bed waiting for emergency surgery because your appendix has ruptured? Can you be thankful in the waiting room because someone else's appendix ruptured? Can you be thankful alone, in your room, when it seems no one is your friend and the loneliness buries you like a heavy wet blanket?

The only way to be bad at the Thankful Game is not to play. If you are reading this, it means you are among the wealthiest people on the planet. You have a home and electricity and light and a means to connect to the Internet. You also probably have a television to entertain you, a vehicle to get you places, and food in abundance. No matter your circumstances there is something to be thankful for.

Happy Thanksgiving.

A ranting rant that rants the rants that need ranting

It's been a bit since I've let loose a really good long rant, so let's go.

The election is over, thank God. And while I am certainly relieved that most of the candidates I voted for won, I would be just as relieved if the 'other side' had won because it's over.

What most people, and certainly the spinsters at the popular media outlets are failing to grasp is that the election is not the end, it's the beginning. Our vote is not the only voice we have, we are able to contact and work with our politicians, from the school board level to the federal government level. Most representatives have a website that you can email them through, they all have an office near your house (relatively speaking) that you can go to and make your wishes known.

So to those of your saying that Obama's re-election is "the end" and "the worst thing ever", the "worst thing ever" would be for you to live in fear and despair and not put the political machine to work for you. Is it a perfect machine, no, not by a long shot. Are there landmines and roadblocks in the way of getting what you want to happen, to happen? Oh yes. But the machine CAN work if YOU work.

And while we are on the topic of the election, the results seem to have given all the racists the opportunity to stop holding back and really let loose on Obama. So many that claimed their motives were not racist, but were really concern for the country are now just letting their mouths fly with every horrible racial slur they can seem to think of. And it's disgusting. I mean really, this is 21st century America and we're still dealing with racism? Martin Luther King, Jr. must be so ashamed.

And yet the lunacy continues. I had to block a facebook friend because she insists on carrying on with all this horrible stuff about whether Obama is an American or not and how he's an Islamic and how he's going to force Sharia law on this country and on and on. I tried to be accepting of her, I really did, but I just couldn't take anymore. So many of these people just want to live in fear and aren't taking reality into account. They don't have one shred of proof to stand on and insist that their paranoia is as legitimate as other people's facts. I for one cannot live in fear, I choose hope. And love.

And yes, maybe it's contradictory to say love when I deleted her, but I didn't know her in real life, I tried to get to know her, but she had such fear. I cannot do fear. It was time to let her go. Maybe in 4 years when she sees that this country is still ok, and probably a whole lot better, she'll see her fear was misplaced.

It's my birthday in a couple days. I turn 45 this year. I honestly never thought I would live this long. And 6 years ago when I started down this path that has put me in the health condition I find myself in I honestly felt that this was the end for me.

But for whatever reason I am still here. Some say that God doesn't take you until your mission on earth is finished. I don't know if I believe that. Certainly God can work through the things I do, or don't do, for the good of all, but I don't know if God has a "purpose" or "mission" or "calling" for each of us. I think for some He does, but for everyday shmoes like me I think He just asks us to follow, learn, and listen. If you happen to do something that falls in line with God's wishes, so much the better.

And since we're talking about God, let's talk about how He figured in the election. So so much came from the "religious right" this time that it's hard to sort out what was real and what was just media hype. From a Mormon candidate to the pro-life movement, to the downright weirdness of claiming that Obama will bring about the end times, religion played a big part in how people voted.

I had many friends tell me their vote was strictly based on the pro-life stance. They honestly felt that electing Romney would bring an end to abortion. That, to me, is sad. The issue of abortion is so much more complicated than who gets elected President. Roe v. Wade was a decision handed down from the Supreme court and not a piece of legislation, therefore it will be no simple task for a President or anyone else to walk in and say "oop, that has to go". Also, there is so much more going on in America than abortion rights.

Don't get me wrong, I think your faith should guide your actions when it comes to voting as much as it should guide you in other aspects of your life. However, focusing on one issue and declaring that you are doing God's Will with your vote based on that one issue, I don't think that's the way to go. If God is concerned about abortion He's also concerned about hunger and healthcare and fiscal responsibility and war and ... and ... and.... God is bigger than one issue.

And even within that one issue there is so much variation in opinions. I have written on my own position on abortion. Most people would call me pro-choice, but my view is so much more complex than the black and white most people boil it down to. I want abortion to end, but it can't end by legislation. Government's role in ending abortion isn't to legislate it one way or another, it should be in supporting programs that end unwanted pregnancies.

Also there are many that voted or didn't vote for one or the other Presidential candidate, and many that voted for neither, based on their religious affiliation - or what some claimed was their affiliation. Many conservatives that would have voted for any other Republican candidate refused to vote for Romney because he belongs to the LDS church. Many liberals wouldn't vote for Obama because of the rumor that he is Muslim. It was a very sad situation all the way around. As I said before, faith should guide your actions, but your faith or the faith some claim you have, has no real bearing on your ability to do a job.

And then there was the whole movement that Christians shouldn't vote at all. The claim was that God is in control so why should we bother? Our vote makes no difference because God chooses our leaders. God grants all authority so our vote means nothing. I think this is a mistaken premise and have written about it elsewhere in this blog, but my point is it was just more of the madness that surrounded this election.

But I ramble...

So how do we move forward? I'm not sure we can, not as united Americans, not like we've been able to do in the past. I think the false division that has been fostered by the media has become a real division, even if it is only based on emotion and fear and that chasm is too wide to be crossed, not without drastic changes to our political system.

How do we make those changes? I don't know. I'm not an expert by any means, but I think the first thing we do is do away with the electoral college, go to a popular vote, change the way we vote, allow voting to happen over a period of time rather than a day, and allow electronic means of voting over the Internet. This will change the way candidates campaign and how they spend campaign funds. Also, though it's probably impossible without a huge grass-roots movement, we need to end the two-party political system that prevents our government from actually working. Too much power is given to one party or the other to inhibit the functioning of government at any given time on any given issue.

So what else is bugging me lately?

My head. My head is freaking killing me. It's getting worse. The migraine thing is nearly constant. Sometimes it' sbig, most times it's small, but small for a migraine is still really freaking painful. Not to mention the dizziness, nausea, the blinky light thing that affects my vision. It really really sucks.

Anyone who claims that people who support "Obamacare" and other public assistance programs are "lazy" and just "want the government to care for them" I will gladly give them just 2 minutes of my headache. I would trade anything to have enough health to be able to work a normal job. Any job. Do I enjoy sitting here, day after day, pill after pill, doing pretty much nothing other than trying to control my pain enough to keep from crapping my own pants? Seriously do you think I just want to be taken care of? This disease or condition or whatever it is has taken everything from me. It's stripped me of my manhood, cost me the respect of my wife and children and just about every friendship I had (though I have made new ones thanks to the Internet). I don't want government care, I want to be fixed.


That enough ranting for now. See you later.

Biblical Reasons Why Christians Should Vote

Over the course of the last 3 days or so, I have heard from at least 3 different sources - Christian/Church sources - the opinion that Christians shouldn't vote or be involved in the political process in any form.

In this article I want to flesh out their Biblical arguments and also answer them Biblically to demonstrate why, as Christians, it is important not just to vote but to be very involved in our American political system.

First of all, let me state that one of the sources  is close to me and I am in no way intentionally showing any disrespect for this source or the other things that come from it. I am simply expressing my opinion which happens to be in opposition to this source on this topic. We as Christians do not have to agree on everything except one thing:" ...God gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life..."

So let's dive in. The sources will remain anonymous out of respect and I will address their arguments as a whole, but their talking points were all pretty much the same and can be found on the web by searching for "Why Christians Shouldn't Vote", the sites you will find present my sources in pretty much the same way.

The crux of this opinion is two-fold. First, Christians are not of this "earthly kingdom" and we should not put our trust in earthly leaders. The second, that God has ordained all earthly authority and therefore voting or not voting makes no difference because God places those who have authority in those positions.

We'll unpack the first: Christians are not of this world, our citizenship is in heaven.

This argument comes from this verse (and others like it). Here, Jesus is talking about his followers:

They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. - John 17:16 

And also:

But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ - Philippians 3:20

And they are right. When we became Christians, we became part of the Kingdom of Heaven. That is our real home. We are no longer of this world.
Paul, in his letters such as the letter to the Philippians quoted above, tells us that our citizenship is in heaven. But when he needed to, he exercised his rights as a Roman citizen as well.
But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion who was standing by, “Is it lawful for you to flog a man who is a Roman citizen and uncondemned?”  - Acts 22:25

But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men who are Roman citizens, and have thrown us into prison; and do they now throw us out secretly? No! Let them come themselves and take us out.” - Acts 16:27
What does that tell us about what Paul believed? Some might argue that in those cases he was scared and lost faith for a moment and chickened out. Well, maybe. But considering he used the opportunities to preach the Gospel, I don't think so. I think he understood, as we do, that while our citizenship is in Heaven, we have to live on this earth and should use every opportunity to do good.

A tangent to this argument comes from Ephesians 6:12

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

And also 2 Timothy 2:3-4

Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus.  No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him.

In other words, since our citizenship is not of this world, we are to fight the fight of the Kingdom of God and not worry about earthly battles, such as politics. We should speak only of Christ, sharing the gospel with everyone and not waste any energy on earthly pursuits.

And yes, as Christians we are to always fight the good fight and always aim to make disciples of all people. But does that mean we spend every waking moment doing just that?
The reality is we live in a world where we have to work to provide for ourselves and our families. If we as Christians were to just walk away from our earthly responsibilities, the results would be disastrous. Furthermore, should we give up TV and radio and movies and books and art and do nothing but preach Christ? I don't think so.
Paul understood that people had to work to meet their earthly needs.
[Paul] found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, ³ and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. - Acts 18:2-3
Paul also talks about living in a secular world and dealing with unbelieving neighbors:
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. - I Corinthians 10:31
In this context I am reminded of the words often attributed to Francis of Assisi (though the exact source is not known):
"Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words."
My opinion is that THIS is how you preach the Gospel always and fight the good fight. Not always with your words, but with your example. In our day to day life of working and shopping and Internetting and so on we are always to be the highest example of Christ even when we cannot use words. 

---

How does this apply to voting and the political process? Well, first of all, I do feel that during the political season, that Christians should be above the ugliness of the process. Talk about it, express your opinion in polite company, certainly, but avoid malice and slander. Stick to facts. 

And then vote according to what you feel is the best example of Christ. The Bible tells us that we are salt and light in this world, we are a city on a hill. Our vote, as with every other aspect of our life should preach the gospel.

---

Part 2 of the 'Christians should be apolitical' argument come from Romans 13:1-2:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there  is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 

And 1 Peter 2:13-14:

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

And again, yes, this is true. And good. And right. But while the stations of authority are given by God, does that mean the men in those stations are chosen by God? Are we to obey no matter what?
I don't think so. Peter in Acts 5:28-29 gives us an example:

“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he [the high priest] said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!"
Also, the early believers prayed in Acts 4:26:
‘Why did the Gentiles rage,    and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves,    and the rulers were gathered together,    against the Lord and against his Anointed
If they believed that the kings were God's authority, why would they be worried about them setting themselves against God?
The examples of Paul exercising his Roman citizenship given above apply here as well. If he were subject to the authority over him, why would he appeal to a higher authority?

The question of the early church presents itself here. There was much persecution. How did the church survive if the believers did not resist authority? If they had simply given in to the men that were seeking to kill them, they would have been wiped out. If those men were appointed by God, why would they want to wipe out the church?
Also if authority is from God to the man and not the station, why do we have examples of men choosing men to fill the stations ordained by God?
Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty.  But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”  And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. - Acts 6:3-5
And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. - Acts 14:23
Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads.’ - Deuteronomy 1:13
Another point: The book of Revelation. There are too many references to cite here, but over and over again we are told the nations and the kings of the world will be destroyed. If God ordained those nations and kings, why do they have to be destroyed? The only explanation is that the men in the stations are not following God.

A tangent to this argument is that "Paul, an educated man, would have knows about democracy, yet he never mentioned it" and "Jesus never taught about democracy so why should we participate in one?"

And yes, democracy had existed prior to the time of Christ. And Paul, being highly educated, may have known of this form of government. The Roman Republic had only just dissolved recently, probably within the lifetime of Paul's parents or grandparents. However, at the time of his writings and ministry, no one he reached lived in a democracy. Rome, at the time, was run by the emperor. If anyone he had written to had be lived in a democratic society, he probably would have written about it.
It's also important to note that democracy as it existed prior to Paul's time and even during Paul's time in other parts of the world, was very different from our American republic. In most cases, only citizens could vote. To be a citizen you had to be a land owner. As a land owner you were also a farmer, a business man. So, in essence, only businesses could vote. Even within them there was a hierarchy of a ruling class and a subordinate classes, with the hierarchy having a larger vote than the lower classes.

And the question "What would Jesus do?" Some might say "Jesus wouldn't vote, why should we?"

Well, honestly, it's hard to know what Jesus would do since the gospels don't record any situation similar to casting a vote to hire a leader. This is a red-herring argument.

   
There are other arguments against voting and participating in politics that you may here:

There are other things God chooses, your parents, the country you live in, whether or not you are saved, whether there is gravity... so be thankful that He chooses your leaders too.

Well, OK, but then why doesn't God choose other things good for me, like only giving me a taste for vegetables, clean water from my city, immunity to all disease? How does God pick and choose some thing and not others? And how does he determine which He chooses and which I choose?

Another is "has government ever changed the world for the better? Why would you want to participate in that?"

This one is funny in light of the previous argument that God gives all authority. If all authority, government, is from God, and government hasn't changed the world for the better, then we're blaming God for the government?
And besides, there is the Emancipation Proclimation, Women's right to vote, freedom of speech and religion, traffic laws that keep people from dying... I would say there is much that the government has done that has made the world better. More than has harmed the world.

The final argument I will discuss: "people's lives aren't changed by law, only by the gospel".

And this is very true. People's lives are not changed by law. However, they are maintained and protected by the law. Yes, only the gospel can save a man's soul, but earthly law, when followed and exercised (as Paul did exercising his Roman citizenship) can protect a man's earthly life allowing him to continue doing much good.

---

So should Christians participate in politics or not? I believe my points above demonstrate that, if your heart so convicts you in your Christian walk, YES, PLEASE VOTE! It is one way to act as the salt and light in this world, in one small way it is preaching as you practice.

---

Further points to consider:

1. Voting publicly recognizes that we submit to the authority of the political system in our nation as established by God. Romans 13:1-7. (This expands on our argument from earlier. If God has established a democracy, then he means us to participate in it.)

2. Voting recognizes the equality of all people and their right to speak and be heard. James 2:1.

3. Voting is one way that we can obey God’s command to seek the good of those around us and our nation as a whole. Philippians 2:3.

4. Voting shows that we care deeply about who our leaders are as we are urged to offer prayer and intercession on their behalf. 1 Timothy 2:1, 2 . (Again, if God placed the people in the stations of authority, why do we need to pray for them?)

5. Voting is a simple yet significant way we can do something about politics in our nation. ‘All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, Edmund Burke. Psalms 34:14.

6. Voting makes a difference in the same way a grain of salt makes a difference, and that is how we are to influence our society for good. Matthew 5:13. (Another way of stating my salt and light argument...)

7. Voting is a privilege not to be taken for granted. Those of us who reap the benefits of living in a democracy should play a part in upholding democracy.

8. Not voting is a form of voting, as it will influence the outcome. We need to take responsibility for our actions, as well as our lack of actions. I Peter 1:13.

9. Voting is part of our stewardship to use all the resources we have been given in ways that honor God; to waste a vote is to squander a gift.

10. Voting is Biblical. Jesus commands us to fulfill our responsibility to the civil authority. Matthew 22:21. (Render unto Ceasar... our government asks us to vote, so shouldn't we render unto them our vote?)

All verses are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise specified.

Continuing the Rage series

This political season needs to end. Fortunately in about 3 weeks it will, but until then, it's going to be a rough ride.

I am obsessed with the political races in my area and on up to the President. I can't think of anything else. It's consumed me. And I hate it, I really really hate it. Why? Because I literally can't think of anything else.

Why is it affecting me so? Am I that much more aware of the political process now than previously in my life? Am I really that drawn to the people and personalities involved? What is it that has me so engrossed in this process?

And why is it the only emotion I have associated with this whole process is 'rage'.

Since Obama was elected (well, shortly before, but certainly coming into full bloom after) we have seen the growth of the Tea Party movement. Many in my area, especially in the races for state legislature, have embraced the Tea Party, at least as far as their stance on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

I don't know much about the movement in other parts of the country, just snippets I've seen on the news, but around here, it's pretty nasty. One of the candidates for the state senate, who happens to be running unopposed, has spent a lot of money on radio ads that say something like this: "This election is about freedom and free stuff. If you love freedom, vote for me. If you think you're entitled to your neighbors money and free stuff, then you hate freedom. Simple as that.".

Really? That simple? And that's just an example.

The worst part? The Tea Party has gained a lot of ground in Native American communities around here. Many of which depend on the government for everything - that is to say, they get more free stuff than just about anyone.

Rage.

It's that kind of thing that just makes me angry! I just want to slap these people!

They really like their bumper stickers too. "One and done", "Nobama", "My healthcare plan is my gun" (seriously), and my favorite "I miss Reagan". I know I've mentioned that one before. I still don't get it. I mean really, out of control military spending, the constant threat of war with the Soviet Union, record unemployment, trickle down economics... really, what is it about the Reagan era you'd like to bring back? The worst part? A lot of the people sporting that bumper sticker weren't born when Reagan was president. Granted I was a teenager during Reagan's terms, but I must have a different view of that time than what they are teaching in schools.

I'm just ranting and rambling here, I hope you don't mind. I've had a severe case of mental block for weeks now and I'm hoping that by getting this all off my chest I can break through and put this behind me. Or maybe I'll have to wait until the election is over...

Last night was the second Presidential debate. So of course it's what everyone is talking about today. I didn't watch it. I'll probably go read a transcript of it later just to satisfy my morbid curiosity as to what was actually said, but honestly, I've already decided how to vote so the debates don't have any bearing on my choice.

And yes I am voting Obama and pretty much a Democratic ticket all the way down. Why? Because I don't feel the Republican party at this time better represents the interests of the American people compared to the Democrats. Are the Democrats really the best choice? No. There never really is a "best of the best" choice, it is politics after all, but I feel that for me and my family the Democrats are actually trying to do something while the Republicans are just focused on not being Democrats and are actually being obstructive to the process of government.

Case in point, the Affordable Health Care act. No one is talking about how Romney and state Republicans put essentially the same plan into effect in Michigan with great success. Healthcare for the populace is a brilliant idea. Everyone should be supporting it. But since the bill was passed under a Democratic President, it's a horrible idea, even though Romney has already done it. Why can't they just agree that it's a good thing and not try to be the opposite?

The way I see it, the Democratic party is moving in a certain direction. The Republicans, rather than being just 10 degrees off that direction or even 90 degrees are a complete 180 degrees - trying to move in the opposite direction. Not because they honestly feel that is the best way to go but because it IS the opposite direction of the Democrats. And moving in the opposite direction just for the sake of going the opposite direction is not what this country needs. Do the Democrats have the very best plan? I don't think so, but at least it's a plan and not just the polar opposite of someone else's plan.

Am I biased? Am I now a left-wing liberal who is just opposed to the right for no good reason? I don't think so. I am a registered independent. Besides not being able to vote in my state's primaries, this is also symbolic of my commitment to always try to look at the issues and the candidates no matter what. I voted for George W. Bush - twice. I also voted for Clinton. And Perot. I've never toed a party line. Often I've voted on party for President, and the opposite party for Congress. I think my voting record shows a commitment to always looking for the best choice for the times. So, am I biased? No. At least I don't think go.

That's why ads accusing me of "hating freedom" because I think someone should get "free stuff" make me so angry. First of all, I don't think anyone should get "free stuff". I think people should take care of people. If you want to belittle that by claiming that someone gets free stuff, then so be it. Second of all, I don't see how someone, like me (yes, me, I am on disability and medicare) getting free stuff means someone else's freedom is somehow in jeopardy. What they really mean by "freedom" is "money grubbing" and by "people getting free stuff" they actually mean "worthless people who are ripping off the system".

Which brings me to my next rant.

Everyone, and by everyone I generally mean Tea Partiers who have drunk the Kool Aid, seems to know someone or many someone who is getting food stamps and or welfare that really doesn't need it and is ripping off the system so we need to do away with the system so they will go back to work.

That kind of logic says let's stop drowning by removing all life guards from public pools, that way kids who can't swim will have to swim for themselves. IDIOCY!

First off, if there are so many people ripping off the system and so many people know about it, why haven't all those people been reported and investigated? I mean really. If you "know" your neighbor is getting food stamps but is buying a new $2000 TV or an expensive car, then do your civic duty and REPORT THEM. If you don't 'know', then don't say that. How about, instead, HELP them get a better job?

And that's really what the current election has come down to.

The Democratic party says we're a community and we should should help each other. Without unity, we're going to fall apart. The Republican party, trying to be the polar opposite of the Democrats says, instead, every man and business for himself. Your money is your money and you shouldn't have to help anyone you don't want to. Healthcare? Democrats say "everyone should be able to afford it and if you can't afford it, you should get a break". Republicans say "healthcare is a business, those that can afford it get it, those that can't should just suck it up and get a better job. Let the insurance industry set the rules."

And there is a lot more to this election than healthcare, but that is the most prominent issue that people know about.

Why can't we just help each other? Why do we have to have the government tell us we have to? Because if we WERE taking care of each other, then the government WOULDN'T HAVE TO!! I mean seriously, if it was working before, the government wouldn't have to step in.

I've told my story regarding health insurance before, but let me sum up. About 6 years ago I got sick. We still don't know what is going on with me, but chronic pain, memory loss, some neurological problems all sum up to a big pile of ick. I had health insurance through work that carried over when I went on disability, at least at first. Since in America health insurance is hard to transfer from one company to another, I had to go with the plans my job offered when I signed on. I picked what I thought was a good one. Low deductible, low co-pays, covered a lot of stuff. Over the 3 years I worked there I paid in more than $4000. (This was just for me, to have my wife and kids covered would have cost more than I made in wages - and that's on the discount plan.) Then I got sick. I had to have a lot of tests. Come to find out that even though the tests were "pre-approved" - that is we actually called the insurance company and said "will you pay for this" and they said "yes" - they weren't going to pay for them. In the end, if I had kept the money that I paid into the insurance company I would have been able to pay for the tests and everything else and still come out ahead. Instead I gave them $4000 and still have about $3000 worth of bills from tests that I'm struggling to pay. Then, because I couldn't pay the bills that piled up, my insurance company dropped me for not paying "my share". I have a lot of other tests that had to be paid out of pocket - that is to say I'm still trying to pay for them - that had to be done before I could get on Medicare (a nightmare of a process that took the better part of 4 years.)

The medical insurance system is broken. We've let the industry regulate itself and all it's done is put us in debt. Now it's time that we as Americans who love freedom to step up and take care of our fellow man. Whether we want to or not. Why? Because over the long term an America that takes care of it's sick will have a stronger workforce, more money to invest in small business and big business, and a health care industry that is fully paid for will lead to research and innovation that will lead to further improvements in health care.

ROAR!

Why can't people just GET that? Why is there such a prevailing attitude of what is mine is mine? We are a community, whether we like it or not. We have no CHOICE. We are only as strong as our weakest link. Romney and others don't think that way. They think by making the strong stronger makes us all stronger. That's not how chains work. That's not how communities work. That's not how America and the WORLD works. We, humans, are affected by everything that affects our neighbors be they right next door on the other side of the world. We HAVE to help each other. We have no choice.

But what about abortion? What about the unborn babies? Way too many people are making their political decisions based on this one issue. I too have been swept up in this cause and I have voted for a president based on their promise to end abortion.

The sad truth is that the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in 1972 - Roe v. Wade - will never, ever be overturned. Ever. No President, no politician, can make that promise because no matter what it will not be overturned. It would take a huge, miraculous, wild chain of events that lead to a complete replacement of Supreme Court judges with others that are 100% anti-abortion and even then there would have to be a case, exactly like Roe v. Wade, for them to rule the opposite way the judges in 1972 ruled. Or, alternately, there would have to be a Constitutional amendment. A Constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of states to propose it and 3/4 of states to ratify it before it becomes the law of the land. While not impossible, it is certainly unlikely to happen in our times.

I hate abortion. In fact no one LIKES abortion, but there are some that want you to believe that supporting the abortion choice means you like it or that you are supporting the business of those that do. The truth is, even the women that are getting an abortion, for the most part, don't want it. It's a horrible, painful process both physically and emotionally. Supporting a woman's right to choose is not supporting this horrible thing.

It's not going to become illegal. It's not. Anyone that tells you different is just trying to get your vote. The only way to end abortion is to make it unnecessary. You end it by making every pregnancy a wanted pregnancy. I feel that Republicans have put so much effort into trying to convince the American public that abortion can be made illegal that they have overlooked the only real way to end it.

Simply put - the way to end abortion is by supporting the rights of girls and women to receive equal education, equal pay, equal treatment in the workplace. Also by educating young girls about sex, relationships, and caring for themselves. We teach girls that sex is not shameful, but neither is it something that should be given away casually. We teach boys that they are responsible to take care of their bodies and selves too. We teach them to respect women. We support women's healthcare by making it accessible to every woman, no matter their age. Only when every pregnancy is a chosen pregnancy will there be an end to abortion.

This is not something that will happen over night. But I do feel that only one party really has a clue as to how to begin the process and right now, at this time in history it is the Democrats.

I'm just about ranted out here. I feel much better getting this stuff out of my head. I think the fog is clearing a bit. I've been trying for some time to write a blog post about how I, as a Christian, do not and cannot support the Christian Conservative movement., It's been hard to get the thoughts down because there is just so so much that is tied into everything in this election that I can't tease out the threads to make a coherent post and I end up just ranting and raving like I do now.

Thanks for listening.

Why I have atheist friends.... more thoughts.

Previously, I wrote a post, just some ranting and rambling really, about why I don't actively 'evangelize' (in the traditional sense of the word) my non-Christian friends. You can read it here. 

At the end of the post I questioned what we, as Christians should do because traditional evangelism doesn't work (in my opinion). I left the post kind of hanging with this:

We....do nothing. 

Ok, not 'nothing'. But we live. Our daily practical lives of eating, driving, working, parenting, and pooping. We just live. And in that living, we be Christ to those around us. Without condition, without preaching, without going around quoting the Bible (which more and more people declare "a book of fairy tales" and will outright reject). Just love people as Christ loves them. That's it and that's all.

Am I wrong? I posted a link to that post on Reddit to see what would happen. I got an interesting comment from an atheist that kind of surprised me. Basically it was this: I'd respect you more if you WERE being pushy. If you claim to have this great truth, why aren't you doing everything you can to share it with everyone?

Well, that was the crux of what I was trying to say in that original post. But let me be clear on one thing. I don't claim to have received some divine revelation about what the truth is. Many think that God is unknowable except my some opening of the heavens. I don't think that's true. I think that an observation of history, by looking at things that are tangible, places that exist, artifacts, and writings the truth is there. Truth is truth - it's not something you feel, it's not something that can be debated, it just IS. Now I don't think it's possible for any one person to know ALL truth, that's impossible, but I do think that one look at things that ARE and see the TRUTH.

But there's a problem here. Since none of us can see ALL truth, the truth I see is different from the truth you see. That doesn't mean either of us sees something wrong, it just means that we're looking at the same thing and are seeing it differently.

What we all must do, part of our purpose as beings on this planet, is to respond to the truth that see, to follow where that truth leads and learn as much of it as possible and ACT on the truth that we have. 

My search for truth has lead me to the conclusion that there is a God and that God has revealed himself in history and that history has been recorded in what we know at the Bible. Many will dismiss the Bible because it is "that religious book", but those books have in fact been grouped together because they are history. Is it a record of all history? Of ALL truth? No. But it is truth. I've shared bits and pieces of how I got there in other posts in this blog. Someday I will write it all out in one shot... but another time.

But the point I'm trying to get to is that I DON'T have this 'mystical' truth. I have historical truth. The same that is available to everyone with a lot of time and lots of reading. 

Since that truth is 'out there' do I really need to load up and go around repeating it over and over again to everyone I see? I don't think so. What I do need to do is ACT on that truth every minute of every hour of every day. If it is truth, then it's reality. If it's reality, I should walk and talk and chew gum in response to that reality.

Do I always do it right? No. And it's because I can't always, 100% of the time, do it right that I can't go around telling people to walk and talk and chew gum the way that I do, because I fail at it.

I can't in one breath say "Hey, check out this Jesus guy" and in the next say "Je*** H. Chr*** I stubbed my toe, holy f***ing sh** that hurts!"

So what should I do? Am I failing in what many call "The Great Commission"? (In case you don't know, it's this: "... go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." - Matthew 28:19-20 Many preachers and churches take this to mean that one of our main jobs as Christians is to always, at every opportunity, preach and convert everyone we meet.)

By not preaching at every opportunity, by not constantly talking about Jesus to my friends, am I a failure as a Christian? As my atheist friend on Reddit said, am I showing a lack of respect to my friends by not giving them the truth I know?

I don't think so. Because I think it's more important to SHOW the truth than to constantly talk about it. But as I said before, I fail at that too, at least by the world's standards. They love to find a Christian that has failed as point to them and say "Look at that! How can his God be real when he acts like THAT?" But poor actions don't change the truth.

So I'm a failure all around. I admit that. I own it. I accept it. But my action or inaction doesn't change truth. It doesn't change what is REAL. 

---

I've totally lost track of where I was going with this rant. But let me say this. Truth is truth.Truth is what is real, truth is reality. But truth and reality are complex. Very, very, very complex. No one can know all truth. But anyone that claims to have a divine revelation of truth should be taken with multiple grains of salt. 

As humans we need to act and respond to the truth that we can see. We need to look and examine and dig into truth to learn as much as we can and then live accordingly. Admitting all the time that often we will fail to live up to that truth but continuing to strive for that goal all the time.

Actions more than words will always so a better job of representing truth, of truly mirroring reality.