Relationships: probably one of the hardest if not THEE hardest thing in life. Like all things in life, this sort of thing is fragile, convoluted, hard to maintain, and sometimes if not treated right, a BIG problem. Like other things that fit this category, computers or complex machinery for example, have instruction manuals so we are able to use them effectively and avoid serious error. For this blog, I will attempt to write such a manual on relationships, this is one manual you MUST read.
Section 1: thoughts and feelings.
A. Looking for someone
As a lot of people would tell you or imply to you, is that relationships are all about the physical aspects, such as how beautiful or handsome a woman/man is or (more commonly) how sexually attractive another person is. Instead of thinking and looking for such aspects, we need to look for character traits, personality, and interests. Why? Beauty does not last, the person inside does. If you go the other way, there will be no substance in the relationship (which I will talk about later)
B. Guy brain maintenance
Guys: you knew it was coming. For a lot of us, we need to attempt to wipe our brain clean like a corrupted hard drive concerning the way we feel and think about girls. Instead of listing the many thoughts and feelings that are wrong, im going to list the ONLY right way to think about girls, no exceptions. For this I made an acronym to easily remember…
G.I.R.L.
A GIFT that we INVEST in with RESPECT and LOVE.
For the first letter, G, girls are gifts. When you are in a relationship or dating a girl, they are giving of themselves and their time. Just like any other gift, we need to girls as something given to us, something we don’t deserve and that can be easily taken away, something to really appreciate!
For the second letter, I, we need to invest in girls. What does that mean? No we do not need to go to Wall Street, but we do need to at the very least match what girls are giving to us. How do we do that? The last two letters: respect and love. We need to respect them, if they say anything having to do with anything; you need to at least respect that and listen to an opinion, because she is human too, and has the same exact position on anything you do. If a girl says she does not want to kiss or something similar, you must respect that decision and not force anything, for if that is not followed that relationship would (or should) end immediately. Also, the MOST important, is love. There is no relationship without love. Love is a heavy word, it does not simply mean attraction or that you are very fond of someone, it means that you are willing to commit to this person, and it should make you happy to think of yourself and the one you love to be together forever, you should even be willing to die if necessary. So how do we do that? No, we are not going to know how to love like that for a while, we need to learn. It is OK to be with a girl that you are “fond of” or like a lot, love is a learned through experience. The main way to tell is this: If you are getting bored with a relationship, its probably not a good one, on the other hand if you cant get enough of a relationship, its probably very good.
C. Girl Brain maintenance
Girls: I do realize I am a guy and I might be wrong on a number of these topics, so PLEASE tell me if I am.
If you read the boys section, you would have seen me say girls are gifts. Some might be offended by this statement, so let me explain. In terms of a gift, I really mean a privilege. As you know, gifts have value, how do we determine this value? It is my belief, that God created all things and humans were his best creation, so therefore, quite valuable! What’s the point? If girls give of themselves and their time, that is determining their worth by how often or how much they give. What I am saying is, don’t sell yourselves short. If you are just floating around going around with a bunch of guys and not really trying to much to find the one, your basically saying “I am worthless, so I will take what love I can get” This is not what it should be, you should be like a ruthless business person with the latest and greatest product in years, only allowing investors that offer a high investment of love and respect to even get to hang out with you. Are you going to let some punk take advantage of that value? Don’t let him! Does this mean that you turn your nose up to every single guy you see? Of course not, you need to get to know your investors, like an interview. What’s a good investor? Here’s how to tell: If a guy is proud, calling all sorts of cute little names and yanking you around with smooth language and trying to get you to “just relax”, that’s not a good investor, he’s trying to swindle you into a deal, don’t let him! On the other hand, if a guy truly takes interest in you and tries to get to know you and does not try to take advantage in any way and actually apologizes in a legitimate fashion, he is a good investor trying to find a good investment, this is most of the time a good relationship.
Section 2: Existing relationships
A. Is it wrong to…
Ok so now you have a good relationship, fine, what else is the problem? We need to ask few questions first…
1. Is it wrong to kiss?
I am not going to answer this question right or wrong but let you decide for yourself after reading the good and the bad about it. Im sorry but I must list the bad first. Kissing is bad in the way in that it might tempt some people to take things “steps further”. Lots of individuals are controlling however and this may not be thought a problem, and that is fine. Now the other negative, kissing is a way in which you form a bond with someone, a bond that is more painful in the end if it is broken. The more you put into something, the more spills out if tipped over, that is the more you kiss the more pain you may have in a possible break-up. In many people’s opinion, it is better to wait for the first kiss on the wedding day, there for “sealing the lock” and avoiding pain altogether. On the other hand, some people might find it hard to keep a relationship that is so restricting, this is not wrong, God created us to have affection and love for each other, to a certain extent of course; I don’t know of anyone having no problem with an boy and a girl kissing in the park because they love each other, in the exception of a mother with young children. “keep in mind I use the word love as I defined it I this text, it is wrong for two people to make out if it is simply physical attraction.” So kissing can be a good thing, as long as there is commitment and one is sure of working towards a permanent relationship, if you are not at least 90% sure I would hold off until you are.
2. Is it wrong to have sex?
Although I try usually to be in the grey area, sex is one of those areas that I will NOT allow myself to be partial. Sex is something only made for after marriage, God intended it as something a husband and wife who love each other to conceive a child, although it is something that brings pleasure responsibility goes with it; responsibility that requires a marriage. If you love someone it is common that you may also have a sexual attraction to that person, however we often flip that on its head, saying that a sexual attraction is indeed love, this is not in any way true. Here’s an illustration…
A sculpture is being built, in order to be built; two metal rods must be glued together and heated. Many things can go wrong in this process, there might not be enough or any glue and the rods won’t stick or the heat might be applied to early. Only if there is enough glue and heat is applied at the right time right when the first two pieces meet, than the sculpture will be complete, if not it is at risk of falling apart or may not even be a sculpture at all.
We are the pillars, sex is the heat, and our character traits, personalities, and anything in common is the glue. You see, if there’s only sex (heat) and nothing else that would hold a relationship such as traits (glue) a relationship will only be held as long as there is heat, and it won’t last. Also even if there is not enough glue the same thing will happen. The ONLY way for a relationship to work the very best if is first the two people (pillars) join together (marry) with their traits (glue) and then have sex after marriage (heat up) to create an awesome marriage and a lifelong relationship (sculpture).
by Josh Buel
----------------------
References
That kinda girl- DC talk (for guys and girls) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvcZkFFn-uA
That Girl- R-Swift (for guys and girls) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHFaK-ZjAGI
Dismissed Vs. Jesus Freak (for Girls, maybe guys) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTVaV31XliM
I don't Want it- DC Talk (for guys and girls) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEpZd6jqmuQ
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Iphilosophize the health-care bill
Before I dive in, a disclaimer: I am not trying to prove or disprove the health care bill is right or wrong, good or bad, and I am neither for nor against the bill as of yet. Please do not comment politics, to say that I am not an American or something similar. I will NOT take a side in this case, this is simply analyzing the bill NOT to advocate it in any way.
I will divide this post into three sections: 1. The good/positive parts, 2. The bad/negative parts., and 3. My speculations
1. The Good
For the government, it is assumed that they are trying their best to do what is good for the country. In order to take this to the fullest extent, one must concentrate on ALL of the in the country. The health care bill intends to lower prices of general health-care so it is more affordable for those that are less fortunate, as well as regulating health care companies’ limitations (such as screening for health problems or age) I looked at the official Government page for the health care bill, and read the summary. Of course this bill will lean in favor of the bill, I will try to extract the facts rather than the language. This is what I found…
“Non‐partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that it will provide coverage to 32 million more people, or more than 94% percent of Americans, while lowering health care costs over the long term. This historic legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years, with $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction in the following 10 years.”
So according to this, in short, this plan has the potential to give coverage to a substantial amount of people as well as possible reducing the deficit. Before I critique this, let’s look at this in a moral sense.
To give an example, a very basic example, let’s say that there are two people, one with an umbrella and one without. The one with the umbrella is rich and has the best umbrella money can buy; it is wind resistant, indestructible, etc. The one without the umbrella is shivering and wet, but she can’t afford a decent umbrella and the one she can afford the seller refuses to sell noting that she is already wet. At this point, you should be feeling badly for the wet one, you might say “what is wrong with that sales person? Why wont he sell the Umbrella?”. That’s exactly what some insurance companies are doing today. They are refusing to sell their protection to someone who is already sick. So what can be done to fix this umbrella problem? Lets say the government starts giving out free umbrellas, very basic umbrellas maybe with some small holes, but umbrellas none the less. Obviously, the one who is drenched by now takes it and the one who already has the nice umbrella refuses.
End of story? Not quite yet. Lets say since the free umbrella solution, the man with the deluxe umbrella has to give his up because the company he bought it from is going out of business, now he too has to take the standard, somewhat flawed umbrella.
To those of you reading that feel more like the rich umbrella guy “the one who has good health care” might be thinking things like this... “Yeah exactly, I don’t want some standard health-care I want my own!” or “this is why the health-care bill isn’t good, it will ruin me!” Are you wrong? Of course not, most likely in the long run prices will go up for companies and a lot of people would be under that cruddy umbrella. But one must ask this: Was it more wrong for people to have no umbrellas and great umbrellas, or everyone the same cruddy umbrella? After the bill, it claims to give umbrellas to 94% of Americans; surely that is a good thing. Not only that but for those who were already wet it makes the sellers ignore the fact.
If you wish to read the bill itself or the summary, visit this official Government website.
http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2010/03/affordable-health-care-for-ame.shtml
2. The bad
“So why is the health-care bill bad? After all, its helping 94% of the population” The health-care bill in itself is not bad, but its implications in the future may be. The main point being is that many health-care companies might go out of business and the ones that do stay in business will make their prices higher and higher. In studying the article hereafter mentioned, This is indeed a problem. Not only is it possible for prices to increase, but If they do, will make the health-care involved less effective. The problem is in this free market society people are looking for the best way to make the most money. If profit is limited by the Government than it is possible that many doctors and other employees involved in the medical field will attempt to find something else more profitable. This sentence by a blogger from thechristianworldview.com probably sums this up the greatest…
Consider the doctors: If the government puts a cap on what a doctor can make for, say, intestinal surgery, then the very talented and intelligent folks who otherwise would have worked very hard to become wealthy surgeons will figure out how to make a very good living in other ways, perhaps in architecture, nuclear technology, or international trade.
So yes, this is bad, this definitely paves the way for the cruddy umbrellas we talked about earlier.
Here is the link for thechristianworldview.com quote Although i am sure this blogger is saying legitimate things, he is a little too harsh in my opinion, so please, if you read his article, don't get caught up in the rally he is seemingly trying to start, read calmly and critically.
http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/archives/2628
3. Speculations
After writing this article I found myself satisfied at the least of the positive and negative aspects of this bill. But is this enough? In this final section, I will look at this bill from a Biblical perspective. My main speculation on this bill is this: Is it right to have mercy on the less fortunate and give them health care or does the Bible say you reap what you sow, that is should they have got to it on their own without aid? Here are some Bible verses to study…
Galatians 6:7
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows
1st Corinthians 9:7-12
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
These verses can be seen as to supporting the fact that people should get what they deserve, that is if you waste money on gambling and drugs that you should not get health-care. Although this is true, it is not entirely unarguable, for there are many people who are very willing to work and do well and yet are still in unfortunate circumstances.
But what about these verses?
1 John 3:17-18
Whoever has the world's goods and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue but in deed and truth.
1st Timothy 5:8
If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Philippians 2:4
...Look not only to your own needs, but also to the needs of others.
These verses on the other hand should make you feel uneasy. By voting against the health-care bill are we going against our own as in 1st Timothy? Are we so worried about our own health-care prices rather than the lack of health-care at all for others as in Philippians? Maybe yes, maybe not, but an important question none the less. To finish, Here are two Parables to be considered regarding the bill. Mercies on debt or get what you deserve?
Parable of the Talents (via Wikipedia)
The parable tells of a master who was leaving his home to travel, and before going gave his three servants different amounts of money. (The large unit of money is called a talent, the word not yet having the meaning of a personal aptitude to do certain things.) On returning from his travels, the master asked his servants for an account of the money given to them. The first servant reported that he was given five talents, and he had made five talents more. The master praised the servant as being good and faithful, gave him more responsibility because of his faithfulness, and invited the servant to be joyful together with him.
The second servant said that he had received two talents, and he had made two talents more. The master praised this servant in the same way as being good and faithful, giving him more responsibility and inviting the servant to be joyful together with him.
The last servant who had received one talent reported that knowing his master was a hard man, he buried his talent in the ground for safekeeping, and therefore returned the original amount to his master. The master called him a wicked and lazy servant, saying that he should have placed the money in the bank to generate interest. The master commanded that the one talent be taken away from that servant, and given to the servant with ten talents, because everyone that has much will be given more, and whoever that has a little, even the little that he has will be taken away. And the master ordered the servant to be thrown outside into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The Parable of the Prodigal Son (via Wikipedia)
The story is found in Luke 15:11-32. Jesus tells the story of a property owner who has two sons. The younger son demands his share of his inheritance while his father is still living, the son goes off to a distant country where he "waste[s] his substance with riotous living" and eventually has to take work as a swineherd (clearly a low point, since swine are unclean in Judaism). There he comes to his senses and decides to return home and throw himself on his father's mercy, thinking that even if his father does disown him, being one of his servants is still far better than feeding pigs. But when he returns home, his father greets him with open arms and hardly gives him a chance to express his repentance. He kills a fatted calf to celebrate his return. The older brother resents the favored treatment of his faithless brother and complains of the lack of reward for his own faithfulness. But the father responds:
“‘My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'
So in conclusion, here is the question: are we, and the Government, supposed to be like the king in the first parable or the father of the prodigal son in the second? Do we force others to reap what they so, or do we keep them under our wing and help them?
Josh Buel
I will divide this post into three sections: 1. The good/positive parts, 2. The bad/negative parts., and 3. My speculations
1. The Good
For the government, it is assumed that they are trying their best to do what is good for the country. In order to take this to the fullest extent, one must concentrate on ALL of the in the country. The health care bill intends to lower prices of general health-care so it is more affordable for those that are less fortunate, as well as regulating health care companies’ limitations (such as screening for health problems or age) I looked at the official Government page for the health care bill, and read the summary. Of course this bill will lean in favor of the bill, I will try to extract the facts rather than the language. This is what I found…
“Non‐partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined that it will provide coverage to 32 million more people, or more than 94% percent of Americans, while lowering health care costs over the long term. This historic legislation will reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years, with $1.2 trillion in additional deficit reduction in the following 10 years.”
So according to this, in short, this plan has the potential to give coverage to a substantial amount of people as well as possible reducing the deficit. Before I critique this, let’s look at this in a moral sense.
To give an example, a very basic example, let’s say that there are two people, one with an umbrella and one without. The one with the umbrella is rich and has the best umbrella money can buy; it is wind resistant, indestructible, etc. The one without the umbrella is shivering and wet, but she can’t afford a decent umbrella and the one she can afford the seller refuses to sell noting that she is already wet. At this point, you should be feeling badly for the wet one, you might say “what is wrong with that sales person? Why wont he sell the Umbrella?”. That’s exactly what some insurance companies are doing today. They are refusing to sell their protection to someone who is already sick. So what can be done to fix this umbrella problem? Lets say the government starts giving out free umbrellas, very basic umbrellas maybe with some small holes, but umbrellas none the less. Obviously, the one who is drenched by now takes it and the one who already has the nice umbrella refuses.
End of story? Not quite yet. Lets say since the free umbrella solution, the man with the deluxe umbrella has to give his up because the company he bought it from is going out of business, now he too has to take the standard, somewhat flawed umbrella.
To those of you reading that feel more like the rich umbrella guy “the one who has good health care” might be thinking things like this... “Yeah exactly, I don’t want some standard health-care I want my own!” or “this is why the health-care bill isn’t good, it will ruin me!” Are you wrong? Of course not, most likely in the long run prices will go up for companies and a lot of people would be under that cruddy umbrella. But one must ask this: Was it more wrong for people to have no umbrellas and great umbrellas, or everyone the same cruddy umbrella? After the bill, it claims to give umbrellas to 94% of Americans; surely that is a good thing. Not only that but for those who were already wet it makes the sellers ignore the fact.
If you wish to read the bill itself or the summary, visit this official Government website.
http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2010/03/affordable-health-care-for-ame.shtml
2. The bad
“So why is the health-care bill bad? After all, its helping 94% of the population” The health-care bill in itself is not bad, but its implications in the future may be. The main point being is that many health-care companies might go out of business and the ones that do stay in business will make their prices higher and higher. In studying the article hereafter mentioned, This is indeed a problem. Not only is it possible for prices to increase, but If they do, will make the health-care involved less effective. The problem is in this free market society people are looking for the best way to make the most money. If profit is limited by the Government than it is possible that many doctors and other employees involved in the medical field will attempt to find something else more profitable. This sentence by a blogger from thechristianworldview.com probably sums this up the greatest…
Consider the doctors: If the government puts a cap on what a doctor can make for, say, intestinal surgery, then the very talented and intelligent folks who otherwise would have worked very hard to become wealthy surgeons will figure out how to make a very good living in other ways, perhaps in architecture, nuclear technology, or international trade.
So yes, this is bad, this definitely paves the way for the cruddy umbrellas we talked about earlier.
Here is the link for thechristianworldview.com quote Although i am sure this blogger is saying legitimate things, he is a little too harsh in my opinion, so please, if you read his article, don't get caught up in the rally he is seemingly trying to start, read calmly and critically.
http://thechristianworldview.com/tcwblog/archives/2628
3. Speculations
After writing this article I found myself satisfied at the least of the positive and negative aspects of this bill. But is this enough? In this final section, I will look at this bill from a Biblical perspective. My main speculation on this bill is this: Is it right to have mercy on the less fortunate and give them health care or does the Bible say you reap what you sow, that is should they have got to it on their own without aid? Here are some Bible verses to study…
Galatians 6:7
7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows
1st Corinthians 9:7-12
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
These verses can be seen as to supporting the fact that people should get what they deserve, that is if you waste money on gambling and drugs that you should not get health-care. Although this is true, it is not entirely unarguable, for there are many people who are very willing to work and do well and yet are still in unfortunate circumstances.
But what about these verses?
1 John 3:17-18
Whoever has the world's goods and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue but in deed and truth.
1st Timothy 5:8
If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Philippians 2:4
...Look not only to your own needs, but also to the needs of others.
These verses on the other hand should make you feel uneasy. By voting against the health-care bill are we going against our own as in 1st Timothy? Are we so worried about our own health-care prices rather than the lack of health-care at all for others as in Philippians? Maybe yes, maybe not, but an important question none the less. To finish, Here are two Parables to be considered regarding the bill. Mercies on debt or get what you deserve?
Parable of the Talents (via Wikipedia)
The parable tells of a master who was leaving his home to travel, and before going gave his three servants different amounts of money. (The large unit of money is called a talent, the word not yet having the meaning of a personal aptitude to do certain things.) On returning from his travels, the master asked his servants for an account of the money given to them. The first servant reported that he was given five talents, and he had made five talents more. The master praised the servant as being good and faithful, gave him more responsibility because of his faithfulness, and invited the servant to be joyful together with him.
The second servant said that he had received two talents, and he had made two talents more. The master praised this servant in the same way as being good and faithful, giving him more responsibility and inviting the servant to be joyful together with him.
The last servant who had received one talent reported that knowing his master was a hard man, he buried his talent in the ground for safekeeping, and therefore returned the original amount to his master. The master called him a wicked and lazy servant, saying that he should have placed the money in the bank to generate interest. The master commanded that the one talent be taken away from that servant, and given to the servant with ten talents, because everyone that has much will be given more, and whoever that has a little, even the little that he has will be taken away. And the master ordered the servant to be thrown outside into the darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The Parable of the Prodigal Son (via Wikipedia)
The story is found in Luke 15:11-32. Jesus tells the story of a property owner who has two sons. The younger son demands his share of his inheritance while his father is still living, the son goes off to a distant country where he "waste[s] his substance with riotous living" and eventually has to take work as a swineherd (clearly a low point, since swine are unclean in Judaism). There he comes to his senses and decides to return home and throw himself on his father's mercy, thinking that even if his father does disown him, being one of his servants is still far better than feeding pigs. But when he returns home, his father greets him with open arms and hardly gives him a chance to express his repentance. He kills a fatted calf to celebrate his return. The older brother resents the favored treatment of his faithless brother and complains of the lack of reward for his own faithfulness. But the father responds:
“‘My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.'
So in conclusion, here is the question: are we, and the Government, supposed to be like the king in the first parable or the father of the prodigal son in the second? Do we force others to reap what they so, or do we keep them under our wing and help them?
Josh Buel
Monday, March 22, 2010
Gay marriage and behavior: bad, just weird and unnatural, neither, or both?
This topic has been argued back and forth, so I will try my best to stay cool and use plain reason to sort things out. First off a definition…
Gay: One who chooses to live their lifestyle of having love and sexual affection for one of their own sex.
Notice the word chooses in this definition. To clarify, I mean choose in the context that the people who are gay, weather they have biological or emotional problems or not, choose to act in the manor that they do; one does not choose to become a homosexual because it sounded fun or everyone else is doing it.
So the first question. Is homosexuality bad? To do this lets define bad, in 2 ways in fact…
Bad:
1. Causing or liable to cause sickness or ill health; injurious or harmful
2. Invalid, unsound, or false.
For the first definition of bad, we need to see if homosexuality hurts anyone. At first, you might think not “it’s just two people in love, what is wrong with that?” I researched this question online, and I will try to summarize it here “if you want to read the whole article which I recommend, I provided the link below”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/februaryweb-only/2-16-41.0.html?start=2
This article sums up the negativity homosexual marriages into two categories, as well as a third to end and conclude the article…
1. Changing the definition of Marriage
To go through with this point here is a definition of marriage…
Marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Notice the word commitment, which means devotion, which is self explanatory. It is assumed in marriages that if you are getting married you will be with this person for a very long time if not for ever, and that you must not “cheat” your wife by sleeping with another woman or vice versa a woman sleeping with another man. In reading the article I saw that they made a claim that many gay marriages are open, or that there are other sexual partners involved. The link was broken to the site, so I searched it in Google, here’s what I found from the New York Times…
“New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
That consent is key. “With straight people, its called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.” From (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html)
There should be warning bells going off in your head by now. In gay marriages, not only is there a LOT of cheating going on, but they are OK with it! This goes completely against the definition of marriage, what would even be the point of marriage if you are going to have multiple partners? It just is not natural or even sound, definition 2 of “bad”
2. What about the children?
A good question indeed, what is the youth getting from this? In reading the article, I read the following…
“Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens.”
Not only this, but the confusion and brainwashing that go on in a child’s life in this situation must be horrible. The child would think this same sex marriage was a natural part of life “in which I will prove it is NOT later”, just like a male female marriage.
Going back in time, we can also relate homosexuality with early sex or sex before marriage or in schools. Believe it or not, the world used to believe it unthinkable that kids in middle-school would get pregnant and have sex. What did we do about? We invented sex education. Instead of reverting to the natural “waiting for sex till marriage”, we educated them to do it safely. We now know our mistake, there are now many abortions and overstressed children with their own children, as well as the confusion involved. If we controlled it better maybe we would not be in this mess. Who is to say the same won’t happen with the subject of gay behavior and same sex marriage? Should we just give in to our desires and say that it is wrong and help to make it safe?
For the rest of this post, I will concentrate on the natural part of this topic, or why it is bad in the sense of false or invalid. In my previous post we determined we have a sense of right and wrong, and not just instinct. In my studies and college classes, I learned how to see if something is natural or not, in which I will put the gay behavior on the hot seat.
For something to be a natural law, it has to work. For now, to be basic, let’s say not murdering someone was NOT a natural law, that is, it is morally OK to murder. What we must do now is this; we globalize the rule, now everyone must kill someone, its law. What happens? Everyone dies because everyone kills each other. Stealing… everyone must steal. What happens? There’s no such thing as private property, everything is up for grabs. Now that I have given some examples, I will use the gay behavior. People say to be gay is natural, so let’s try it using the “king of the world” method (what I used above)
“I am king of the world, and I am gay. Whatever I say goes, and I say every man must marry man and every woman must marry a woman, and no one must have sex with a human of the other sex.”
So in this decree, you see the error. If this is the case, than humans could no longer reproduce and the human population would die out. This would put the gay behavior in definition 2 of bad: Invalid, it does not work. Not only does it not work in the natural sense, it goes against instinct (to reproduce for offspring, not pleasure) and morality (It brings pain to others and it is not right, as well as changing the definition of something most people consider in the utmost importance, religious or not)
In conclusion, it is my view, along with these FACTS, that gay marriage and the behavior is WRONG and UNNATURAL.
Note from the Author
Although I believe the lifestyle mention above is wrong, and I completely disagree with them, I do not hate anyone who is living this way and I do not believe they will be condemned if they know Jesus Christ our savior. I am also not saying that all gay people are prideful about their status, I’m sure there are many people in this world that are struggling with emotional problems as well as biological problems that put them in this state of thinking, in recognition I sympathize for those who are confused and seek council rather than take pride in their abnormality and rally for it to be standardized.
Gay: One who chooses to live their lifestyle of having love and sexual affection for one of their own sex.
Notice the word chooses in this definition. To clarify, I mean choose in the context that the people who are gay, weather they have biological or emotional problems or not, choose to act in the manor that they do; one does not choose to become a homosexual because it sounded fun or everyone else is doing it.
So the first question. Is homosexuality bad? To do this lets define bad, in 2 ways in fact…
Bad:
1. Causing or liable to cause sickness or ill health; injurious or harmful
2. Invalid, unsound, or false.
For the first definition of bad, we need to see if homosexuality hurts anyone. At first, you might think not “it’s just two people in love, what is wrong with that?” I researched this question online, and I will try to summarize it here “if you want to read the whole article which I recommend, I provided the link below”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/februaryweb-only/2-16-41.0.html?start=2
This article sums up the negativity homosexual marriages into two categories, as well as a third to end and conclude the article…
1. Changing the definition of Marriage
To go through with this point here is a definition of marriage…
Marriage: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
Notice the word commitment, which means devotion, which is self explanatory. It is assumed in marriages that if you are getting married you will be with this person for a very long time if not for ever, and that you must not “cheat” your wife by sleeping with another woman or vice versa a woman sleeping with another man. In reading the article I saw that they made a claim that many gay marriages are open, or that there are other sexual partners involved. The link was broken to the site, so I searched it in Google, here’s what I found from the New York Times…
“New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
That consent is key. “With straight people, its called affairs or cheating,” said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, “but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.” From (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html)
There should be warning bells going off in your head by now. In gay marriages, not only is there a LOT of cheating going on, but they are OK with it! This goes completely against the definition of marriage, what would even be the point of marriage if you are going to have multiple partners? It just is not natural or even sound, definition 2 of “bad”
2. What about the children?
A good question indeed, what is the youth getting from this? In reading the article, I read the following…
“Research has also shown that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, suffer a greater rate of molestation within the family, and have homosexual experiences more often.
Gay marriage will also encourage teens who are unsure of their sexuality to embrace a lifestyle that suffers high rates of suicide, depression, HIV, drug abuse, STDs, and other pathogens.”
Not only this, but the confusion and brainwashing that go on in a child’s life in this situation must be horrible. The child would think this same sex marriage was a natural part of life “in which I will prove it is NOT later”, just like a male female marriage.
Going back in time, we can also relate homosexuality with early sex or sex before marriage or in schools. Believe it or not, the world used to believe it unthinkable that kids in middle-school would get pregnant and have sex. What did we do about? We invented sex education. Instead of reverting to the natural “waiting for sex till marriage”, we educated them to do it safely. We now know our mistake, there are now many abortions and overstressed children with their own children, as well as the confusion involved. If we controlled it better maybe we would not be in this mess. Who is to say the same won’t happen with the subject of gay behavior and same sex marriage? Should we just give in to our desires and say that it is wrong and help to make it safe?
For the rest of this post, I will concentrate on the natural part of this topic, or why it is bad in the sense of false or invalid. In my previous post we determined we have a sense of right and wrong, and not just instinct. In my studies and college classes, I learned how to see if something is natural or not, in which I will put the gay behavior on the hot seat.
For something to be a natural law, it has to work. For now, to be basic, let’s say not murdering someone was NOT a natural law, that is, it is morally OK to murder. What we must do now is this; we globalize the rule, now everyone must kill someone, its law. What happens? Everyone dies because everyone kills each other. Stealing… everyone must steal. What happens? There’s no such thing as private property, everything is up for grabs. Now that I have given some examples, I will use the gay behavior. People say to be gay is natural, so let’s try it using the “king of the world” method (what I used above)
“I am king of the world, and I am gay. Whatever I say goes, and I say every man must marry man and every woman must marry a woman, and no one must have sex with a human of the other sex.”
So in this decree, you see the error. If this is the case, than humans could no longer reproduce and the human population would die out. This would put the gay behavior in definition 2 of bad: Invalid, it does not work. Not only does it not work in the natural sense, it goes against instinct (to reproduce for offspring, not pleasure) and morality (It brings pain to others and it is not right, as well as changing the definition of something most people consider in the utmost importance, religious or not)
In conclusion, it is my view, along with these FACTS, that gay marriage and the behavior is WRONG and UNNATURAL.
Note from the Author
Although I believe the lifestyle mention above is wrong, and I completely disagree with them, I do not hate anyone who is living this way and I do not believe they will be condemned if they know Jesus Christ our savior. I am also not saying that all gay people are prideful about their status, I’m sure there are many people in this world that are struggling with emotional problems as well as biological problems that put them in this state of thinking, in recognition I sympathize for those who are confused and seek council rather than take pride in their abnormality and rally for it to be standardized.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
How do we know God exists?
Let’s be honest. There is no physical evidence on planet earth that you can pick up and hold and claim that it is made by God and every single person would believe you. To do so would be like taking the a painting and claiming it was painted by the original artist: studying the creation to prove the creator. Now let me skip that and go to point one.
Point 1: Morality
As humans, most people would say there is a right and wrong, we know murdering to be wrong, stealing to be wrong, among other things that we feel uneasy about. Now, imagine that there is no God and we all evolved from apes or what not. This question pops up: Where did we get our sense of right or wrong? Why don’t humans have the same survival instinct as other animals? The problem is this. If you think about it, instincts and moral issues and consciences are opposites. We would find it absurd to see a Tiger brining back a baby of another species it was about to have for supper because it felt guilty or humans eating their own best friend to survive without having any guilt or second thoughts. Instincts focus on the self, morality and consciences focus on the wellbeing of others or what ought to be done. If the world was created by purely chemicals, there would be no “aught” or “should”, but it would be an “anything goes world” and “do what’s best for yourself” kind of place. Fortunately that is not the case, it would be chaotic! Most people know what’s right and wrong, and that requires someone to define it, which is God.
Point 2: 0+0=1? / F(0) = pi F = ?
Math: it is absolute and no one argues with it. 3rd and 4th graders learn this and do not argue with it because it is truth; we all know 1+1 to be 2. First to prove my second point is this. The earth and the universe is something, so we will call something true, or in binary terms, equal to one. Nothing, as we know in math, is 0. In saying that the universe came from nothing is like saying that 1 was derived from 0. There is no arguing that something comes from something and nothing comes from nothing, it is common sense. However, if we were to add something to nothing, it would be something. Assuming that god is something “1”, we could mathematically conclude that nothingness “0” plus God “1” = the world, another something “1”, so 0+1 = 1. To further prove my point, the Universe is a LOT more complex than one. Ask any scientists that studies such things and they would agree, I believe even that if the earth was a bit closer or further from the sun we could not even survive. Mathematically, lets make the universe equal to PI, the number that is still trying to be fully defined by mathematicians, just as scientists are still trying to fully understand the universe. To say that the universe came from nothing, is like saying there is a function that exists that zero can equal Pi exactly without adding a number (or something), for if you just add the number itself, it does not explain how it got from zero to itself, it only makes it so. So then we need to come to a conclusion that something and nothing had to be in place, and that something had to know what he was doing, just like a mathematician calculating Pi.
Point 1: Morality
As humans, most people would say there is a right and wrong, we know murdering to be wrong, stealing to be wrong, among other things that we feel uneasy about. Now, imagine that there is no God and we all evolved from apes or what not. This question pops up: Where did we get our sense of right or wrong? Why don’t humans have the same survival instinct as other animals? The problem is this. If you think about it, instincts and moral issues and consciences are opposites. We would find it absurd to see a Tiger brining back a baby of another species it was about to have for supper because it felt guilty or humans eating their own best friend to survive without having any guilt or second thoughts. Instincts focus on the self, morality and consciences focus on the wellbeing of others or what ought to be done. If the world was created by purely chemicals, there would be no “aught” or “should”, but it would be an “anything goes world” and “do what’s best for yourself” kind of place. Fortunately that is not the case, it would be chaotic! Most people know what’s right and wrong, and that requires someone to define it, which is God.
Point 2: 0+0=1? / F(0) = pi F = ?
Math: it is absolute and no one argues with it. 3rd and 4th graders learn this and do not argue with it because it is truth; we all know 1+1 to be 2. First to prove my second point is this. The earth and the universe is something, so we will call something true, or in binary terms, equal to one. Nothing, as we know in math, is 0. In saying that the universe came from nothing is like saying that 1 was derived from 0. There is no arguing that something comes from something and nothing comes from nothing, it is common sense. However, if we were to add something to nothing, it would be something. Assuming that god is something “1”, we could mathematically conclude that nothingness “0” plus God “1” = the world, another something “1”, so 0+1 = 1. To further prove my point, the Universe is a LOT more complex than one. Ask any scientists that studies such things and they would agree, I believe even that if the earth was a bit closer or further from the sun we could not even survive. Mathematically, lets make the universe equal to PI, the number that is still trying to be fully defined by mathematicians, just as scientists are still trying to fully understand the universe. To say that the universe came from nothing, is like saying there is a function that exists that zero can equal Pi exactly without adding a number (or something), for if you just add the number itself, it does not explain how it got from zero to itself, it only makes it so. So then we need to come to a conclusion that something and nothing had to be in place, and that something had to know what he was doing, just like a mathematician calculating Pi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)