My Coming Out Story

Raised as I was in a strict conservative Christian family, it was hard for me to admit, even to myself, what I knew to be true.  Let alone even to dare come out to anyone, even myself, about it.  But suppressing such an important part of myself was driving me to depression and suicidal despair!  Why should I have to hide who I was any more?

I knew what would happen - heck, we've all see what happens.  The anger.  The sadness.  The remonstrations and exhortations.  The lectures.  And of course, everyone seems to think you did this as some kind of personal affront to them!

Like I chose to be a drunkard, rather than having been born that way like the media and the schools taught me was true!  I was born to be a drunkard, and no out of context writings of a few thousand years ago were going to hold me down any more!

"How could you do this to us?" is a question your parents will ask.  As will your brother, your uncles and aunts, heck, everyone in your family.  Like you woke up all mad at them and decided this would be a great way to get back at them!

It's also the question your pastor will ask.  Like you're doing this only to tear down the church.  Your pastor will not believe, and nor at first will your parents, that coming out is a brave and courageous decision, that was only done after much prayer and study.

For me, I decided to come out when I knew, deep in my heart, that this was who I was, and that God loved me anyway!  So I took out my hip flask, took a healthy swig of Jack Daniels, and looking my dad straight in the eye at the tender age of 17 said, "Dad, I'm a drunkard!"

I almost called them into the bathroom, but I thought the
living room would be more formal.  You're welcome.

My dad only looked grim, not so my dear mother who shrieked and swooned.  I thought she'd faint, but she only collapsed in the chair and started moaning, "No, no, no..." over and over.

Having had the loving support of fellow Christian Drunkards I had met online - older drunkards more experienced in this matter who could guide and aid me in this process - I assured them that it would be okay. That there really was nothing in the Bible against anyone being a drunkard, it wasn't really a sin, I could still be - and was - a believing Christian who trusted the literal word of the Bible.

My mean brother laughed and said I was an idiot.  I took another swig to keep my courage.

I reminded my family that there was a difference between just getting drunk at parties (something that I agree Jesus wouldn't like!) as opposed to the deep and daily commitment that people like me have towards drinking.  Drinking is the first thing on my mind in the morning, and the last thing on it before I go to sleep, there's nothing casual about it!

My dad looked like he was going to blow up.  He told me in a low voice through clenched teeth that this would not stand, that no son of his was going to be a drunkard, that he was going to send me to AA to have me get the help I needed.

I told him that I didn't need any help, that being a drunkard was who I was, and Christ made me like that, and loved me just the way I am.  My dad shook his head and cited the verse in the Old Testament about how wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging.  I told him as the older drunkards I met online had taught me, that the verse was took out of context.

He read me the story of Noah getting drunk, and I told him that it had nothing to do with being a drunkard, the sin was only in the son looking upon the father's nakedness.  Looking grimmer, he reminded me of Lot's daughters.  Needless to say, it went a bit down hill from there, and to this day my sisters won't speak to me!

Finally mom spoke up and asked about what the Apostle Paul said?  About how in 1 Corinthians 5:11 Paul had warned about being a fornicator or an idolater or a drunkard!  But I said that the Greek word used meant only about the imbibing of fermented grape juice, while I studiously only drank beer and the hard liquors!  I was asked about Ephesians 5:18, but reminded them that it was out of context.

My brother, out of meanness and spite, piped up to ask if anything in the Bible that could correct anyone's behavior was ever "in" context.  I took another swig of my Jack and ignored him with dignity.

I reminded my parents that many modern churches had come to accept drunkards as fellow Christians.  That Christ was all about love, and who were they to judge me for drinking so frequently and so copiously.  They kept speaking of sin, but I kept educating them about how this was a genetic thing, that I didn't choose to be a drunkard, I was born this way, like grandma had been!

They spoke of free will, but I said I would not abuse my free agency by giving up something so natural to me as getting drunk.  That God did not intend that I suffer a whole lifetime without the alcohol my body craved. Mom cried some more.  Dad told me that I no longer could drive his car.  He also told me that I was going to go to AA, and that bothered me.  Even though I knew that AA was not a sure fire cure, but just a way for parents and church to try to "drum the rum" out of those of us who were proud drunkards!

Places where they tried to shame you into being someone you aren't!  I knew if I just sat in those AA meetings and ignored them, that soon enough I'd be 18 and free, and could live my life openly, as a drunkard, and fulfill my dream!

I told them of my dream, too, but they mocked and scorned me for it.  I told them that I felt called of God to be a Minister.  They tried to quash my dream by pointing out that I could hardly be an active and unrepentant drunkard while preaching the gospel that forbade being such!

I reminded them again that those verses either didn't apply, were out of context, or the Greek word meant whatever it had to mean for me to still drink.  Whichever.  I hiccoughed at that point, then missed the coffee table when I tried to set my hip flask down.  Darn carpet, hard to walk strai - strai, well, hard to walk! Which they know and never care about!  Like no one ever cares about what I need!

Where wuz I?  Oh, yes, my natural inclinationsh being no bar to my dreamsh!  That I sure as heck fire would be minister, that it was my right, and if the chursh dint like it, they could lump it!  No, no, I kid, I didn't say they could lump it, I said we would all, all the drunkards, and friends of drunkards, all the LBGTQ (Libations, Beer, Gin, Tonic and Quart drinkers) would just convert doze churshes so that we'd be runnin' dem, not duddy, er, dud, no, I mean no fuddy daddies like dud - no, ha, ha, I mean no fuddy duddies like dad would be runnin' tings!

Ish not hish chursh!  Ish my chursh too!  I can too be a drunkard Chrishun!  I will be un!  Wash and see!

Ahh, my friends!  That was my coming out 20 years ago, I read it verbatim from the transcript of the recording that my pesky brother made on his iPhone in an attempt to out me with others!  How embarrassed I could still get back then, every time evidence of me getting drunk was brought to me, before I had full come to terms with my drunkard status and realized that it really was okay to be Drunkard and Christian!

That's why I'm proud to accept my appointment today as your new Pastor, standing here in the pulpit, my trusted Bible in my left hand, and my even more trusted bottle of Guinness Cream Stout in my right hand!  I raise this bottle to you now, but also to me for my achieving my dream!

I'm here!  I'm drinkin' beer!  Get used to it!

As we would chant in our Drunkard Pride Parades!

Now, for my first sermon, I'd like to share with you the story of a dear friend of mine, unfairly defrocked and ostracized from the church for his habit - that he was born with and in no way chose - of stealing.  Did you know that in the original Hebrew, that "stealing" didn't really mean "stealing"?

And besides, that whole "Thou shalt not steal" thing is always took out of context!

*************************************************************************

The above was obviously satirical.  But don't let any homosexual activist fool you - being gay is in no way different from being a drunkard.  I don't actually think most of them are born that way, I think it comes from mal-imprinting and other mostly environmental factors.  No, I don't think they specifically choose it, but I do think that it can be overcome.

And never be fooled by that false choice of "Were they born that way, or are you saying they chose it!?" Obviously no one consciously chooses it - but that's not the same as they being born with it.  This false choice offered you forgets the third and true option of "I think that whatever inclinations they were or were not born with, that some environmental influences led them to this orientation."

Now, regardless as to any genetic aspect of homosexuality, there is also a wide belief in a genetic component to being an alcoholic - certainly we see various families and ethnic groups that seem to have higher proportions of alcoholics.  Yet there are also plenty of environmental factors, and as natural as it feels to drink, it can be overcome with prayer and fellowship with good Christians and with the various aids that one can find in programs like AA.

Hard to stop drinking?  Yes, as I well know.  Impossible?  No, as my own recovery is evidence of.

It is common to make a joke out of the places that seek to "pray the gay" away, and I have no doubt that if we reviewed each of those programs that we'd probably find three stupid programs - where their hearts were in the right place, but the education and training were somewhat lacking - for every real one with counselors with actual degrees in relevant fields from accredited colleges.

And yet the concept is valid, and while it is hard - as hard as it is to stop drinking or drugging - one can re-orient oneself to an attraction to the opposite sex.  Don't believe that?  Well, it's obvious when you think about it - how often in the old days, when heterosexual men were placed aboard wind powered wooden ships in the Navy of the 1500s to 1800s did they "turn gay" for companionship and sexual relief, there being no women available?

How often do we see this in our men only prisons even today?  The scary thing about prisons is not so much the rape - but how after a few years, it may not be as much "rape" as the ex-con might want you to believe.

People may well be born with various sexual inclinations.  Inclinations, though, not commands.  And the liberals who feel that gender is endlessly fluid so that a man can "really" be a woman or a woman "really" a man depending on how they feel and think, should not then be surprised to hear that a heterosexual man can go gay if deprived of women, or a homosexual man go straight if he voluntarily undergoes some intensive re-orientation therapy.

But while I'd never "make" anyone take such a program, any more than I'd make a drunkard go to an AA meeting, churches - all churches - should uphold the standards wrote down of old.

One may be inclined to homosexuality.  One may be inclined to be a drunkard.  One may be inclined to be a fornicator.  Or an adulterer.  Or a thief.  Or a murderer.

Being inclined is free.  But if one is to be a Christian, a real, no nonsense "wants to walk in Christ's footsteps" Christian, then part of that is knowing that there are rules to now be followed.  Such as not killing.  Or stealing.  Or having sex outside of marriage.

Or being a drunkard - like I was until I repented.  Because I knew that it was I who had to change, not God, not Christ, not the Bible, and not the church.

Or, and this is the point, if any are inclined to be homosexual.  Being inclined to that is free - but if any suffer that, they need to be told that it is they who need to repent of that and change.  It is not on God or Jesus or the Bible or the church to change.

The Dead

How often - and boringly - have you seen the Family Circus cartoon where dumb old Billy is about to bike into traffic or off a cliff but good old Grandpa, who is dead, is there, flying and invisible, taking time out from harp playing to save his grandson from danger!?

Kind of sucks for those who have lost a kid to a car accident or any other kind of tragedy, as then - to the extent they believe in Bil and Jeff Keane's theology - it means that their ancestors didn't care to watch over their kids.

And it kind of sucks for the readers, because false theology is not all that funny.  Especially as for kids growing up reading this, it gives a devastatingly false impression of how things are in the hereafter.

The logical lesson being that if you don't find enough pagan themed
candies then your dead granddad didn't love you enough.

First, let us examine a pertinent verse on this matter.  Ecclesiastes 9:5 says, "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything..."  Well, that seems pretty clear.  The dead know nothing.  Which means that no, Little Billy's granddad is not flying about, playing harps, hugging his still living wife, visiting school plays, saving Billy, helping PJ find "Easter Eggs" and all the other things that he's been shown doing over the decades.

But, I hear it called out, don't lots of Christian faiths believe that when you die you go up to heaven?  Yes.  And some also believe that if you were bad, then after you die you're going straight to hell.  And still others believe you go to a Spirit Paradise if you were good, and a Spirit Prison if you were bad.  And still others believe that there's a place called Purgatory where some have to stay awhile until they can improve - or I guess fail to improve - their situation enough to go up or down.

And in all cases, this involves the dead knowing things.  Hmm.  So maybe all those churches are right and the verse is wrong?  Okay, so here's the thing.  When you get to the "maybe the Bible verse is wrong" option alarm bells should already be going off.  Especially for a very clearly stated Bible verse not subject to much misunderstanding.

Also, one must consider something obvious.  What is the one thing that all Christian faiths agree is coming?  Yes, that's right, Christ's return.  And what does that herald?  Yes, right again, Judgment Day.  And what happens on Judgment Day?

Well, quite a lot, and it starts to diverge again with different faiths and denominations having different thoughts on how all that goes down.  But one thing - oddly - agreed upon is that at that time a final decision will be made and all those who are good (repentant and believing upon the name of Jesus) will get their reward and all those who were bad (unrepentant and/or not believing upon the name of Jesus) will get their punishment.

Now.  People have been dying since Jesus ascended into the sky after His resurrection.  If they are already in Heaven or Hell then what is the point of Judgment Day?  Or perhaps they are only there until the final, final judgment, and then they'll get to learn if they get to stay in Heaven or not?  Wow, that sounds kind of nerve wracking.

Imagine playing a harp for 1,700 years or so, and still not sure if you get to stay.  Conversely, maybe you're in hell dying for a cup of water, and what, when Judgment Day comes Jesus will say, "Oh, wait, hey, sorry about this, you're supposed to be up here - My bad!"

It seems unlikely.  Far more logically, you are dead, and know nothing, and then later when Judgment Day comes it all gets sorted out.

And so none of those other faiths make much sense, as all of them negate the need for a Judgment Day. Because everyone is thus either already sorted appropriately into Paradises and Prisons and Heavens and Hells, or worse, it has God as a person who may have "wrongly sorted" people who died and then must "correct" Himself later!

Far, FAR easier to simply believe the literal words of the Bible that say, "The dead know nothing" and thus avoid those theological difficulties.  There are but two faiths I know of who do this, and they are Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists.

Now there are other theological difficulties with Jehovah's Witnesses - to put it mildly - but they are outside the scope of this article.  For this article, the important thing is that they have at least that one thing - and I'm sure a few more things here and there - correct.

Of even more importance is that the Seventh-day Adventist faith, correct in so many other ways, is additionally correct on this issue.  The dead know nothing, and Judgment Day has a point to it!

Paganism, again

I recently debated a guy about my earlier article on Evolution.  He counts himself as “Christian” but insists that Genesis wasn’t real and that he knows this from his scientific education.  I offered up that a man can be a Christian and a Scientist, but that it’s important to know which they are first.

Are they a scientist first, and anything God has related in the Bible can be adjusted or dispensed with to make it fit science?  Or are they a Christian first, and anything science says can be adjusted or dispensed with to make it fit what we know to be the truths of God’s word?

The debate ended with him expressing an agreement that either he does not truly feel, or he is agreeing with something utterly unlike what I was speaking of.  Most likely, he was doing that thing where he tries to just leave a debate peaceably without concession.  I guess we’ve all been there.

But to me, the politeness is irrelevant.  It's of no comfort to watch a person disagree with the word of God but claim belief in God.

I have seen this happen with homosexuality in various churches.  Where they sure want to accept practicing and unrepentant homosexuals as ministers, but they sure don't want to stop calling themselves a Christian church.

We're born this way, but drunkards and thieves are not.

All the benefits then of being perceived as on a moral high road, but none of the austere self-sacrifice and discipline needed to live that kind of life.  I have to do this with alcohol, because I am the drunkard that the Apostle Paul said would not see heaven.  And it takes courage for me not to drink.  A courage utterly lacking in others, who inclined to sin in other ways, figure that instead of they changing, God and His word can.

But this kind of thing makes me see how much deeper - and for how much longer - this has gone on.  This is part of the theological liberalization of the churches from back in the fifties and sixties, and the current acceptance of homosexuality as "normal" is just the latest effect.

Jesus spoke about building houses on a firm foundation, of stone and not sand, but I see that modern "Christians" of all faiths and denominations feel that not even a foundation of any sort is needful.

To me, this is all absurd upon the face of it - yes, as a man of faith, but more to the point, as a man of science.  The illogic of it all is vast, and having forgot more scientific thought and principles than some young pups are likely to ever learn, it annoys me.

Picture it - the whole world knows of God first and foremost from the writings He inspired many men to write of.  Men we justly call "Prophets".  Whatever one may know of God by their faith and their feelings, it is well known that such communicates little more than "that" He is, for the "what", we must go to the Holy Books.

There are those who only accept the Old Testament as inspired.  These are the Jews.  Others accept the Old Testament and the New Testament as inspired, these are regarded as Christians, of many denominations, yes, but all Christians.

Some instead of the New Testament believe in the Koran - they accept the Old Testament, so we know they worship the same God, but the difference in character and description from the Koran versus the New Testament is large, in one Jesus is the Son of God and God, in the other he was but a man, "a prophet, and the most blameless".

So such as believe in the Koran are the Muslims.

And there are Mormons and there are members of the Church of Christian Science.  Those two faiths  pass the point of "denominations", as they don't just have other books as "advice" or "thoughts" upon the matter, they instead each have another book that is believed to be divinely inspired Holy Writ, the same as or greater than the Bible, and thus instructive in learning of the character of God and/or His son Jesus.

And yet they still hold to the Old Testament and the New, and so for that they are esteemed by many as Christians.

But then we have the new breed.  And the new breed, the "modern Christian" is not a thing of the Mormon church, or the Methodists, or the Baptists or the Presbyterians.  You may find such in nearly every church, I daresay you could find them in the Eastern Orthodox churches, too.

No, the "modern Christian", who fancies himself so new and up to date, is just the regurgitation of New England Transcendentalism.  Which was nothing more than a regurgitation of prior Deistic movements, and before that Naturalist and before that Paganistic movements which have as their commonality a desire to keep the idea of a God, to keep the idea of a moral high ground, but not to keep any kind of solid wrote down book by which their own behaviors and conduct could in any way be measured against it and found wanting.

Like then the Pagans of old, it’s an “I’ll believe in God as I see fit, and you do the same, and we’ll call him the same, and it’s all good!”  No, it is not all good.  Oh, yes, politically, fine, believe as you wish.  God will deal with you as He sees fit, He needs not my aid.  But the claim of a practicing homosexual who thinks the Bible was wrote by dead patriarchal oppressors that he is a Christian, same as I, is false. And frankly, rather obviously false.

As are the claims of a great many other “Modern Christians” who would be more honest if they simply dropped the “Christian” word and went with “Modernist”.  Or better yet, and in an acknowledgment of their roots, simply went back to “Pagan”.

In this latest modernist movement it’s a buffet.  But a buffet not where one picks and chooses between which few things are sins or not, but a larger and more brazen buffeting where the aroma of the food is found pleasing and may stay, but the table and that which is upon the table would be better off gone.

A God without the Old Testament - let alone any subsequent inspired writings - is but that faith and feeling I mentioned, and the whole secret point of that, and it's a secret that some of these folks keep from themselves, too, is that it lets them play aces and deuces - and tres and hearts and clubs - wild!

Then on any matter of what is or is not God's will, they need not pick up the Torah or the Talmud, the New Testament or the Apocrypha, The Koran or the The Book of Mormon.  They need not review or study the writings of the men of old who earned the title Prophet from their contemporaries and from history.

No, they need only consult with how they feel, and if they wish to aggrandize it, how their own personal faith tells them that it is.  On any and all matters. Thus their feelings - by any name, faith or knowledge or study - becomes their god.

And like the pretense of believing in God without believing in the things that describe what or who that God is, they can arrogate themselves all the rights and privileges of a Prophet, or even really, a god, and by simply denying that they are doing that, it all somehow be good.

It is not good.

Now if one wishes to stand up and proclaim that which one believes is the Will of God and that he or she is inspired to say so, then more power to that person.  If they believe that they are a divinely inspired Prophet or Prophetess, maybe I will agree and maybe I will not, but there is an honesty in saying so openly and unashamedly.

What I intensely dislike is those who seeing how such men and women come under scrutiny and fire for what may - and is - often counted as a brazen farce, decide to sneak it in, not by saying, "Here is something new that the Lord has let me know of" or "Here is a correction that the Lord desired us to know of" but instead by saying, "Oh, six days?  No, that means four billion years!  Who me?  A prophet?  Oh no, not I!  I just happen to know that it was four billion years meant!"

No.

No, you do not get to "know" and proclaim that without stepping up and courageously claiming new revelation.  If one did so, then I could agree or not, but I'd respect the honesty of it.  But to simply label an actual Prophet as wrong, not due to revelation but simply due to feeling?

Even when feeling is called "what I know"? It's blasphemy. It's denying the Word of God, not openly and honestly, but sneakily and cagily, such that children, the uneducated, the gullible, might well then figure that what you say is Christianity, as you say it with pretty words. I find it violative of the commandment against having no other gods, for if you ask for Dr. John Smith the well known cancer curer and I take you to Psychic Astrologer Jane Doe but greet her with the words, "Hello, Dr. Smith", am I being honest? Is it really the same person for me falsely calling her the same name?

I thought as a child reading the works of Louisa May Alcott and Emerson and Thoreau that as cool as some of them were that there was a wrongness in them claiming Christianity when they were much more clearly Deist.  But perhaps they could be forgave as it could go hard on those who were non-Christian in those times.

But that wrongness remains in those today who desire to live life off only their own feelings on the matter, only their own knowledge of a few decades - but to pass it off in public as the faith of millennia!  They cloak their idle opinions in the garb of the hard won theological knowledge of several thousand years, and figure there’s nothing wrong in that! And yes, any who are thinking that "My opinions aren't idle, I studied for years!" - ANY opinions of one man are idle compared to the totality of mankind's knowledge over the ages!

It's remarkable then that any dare this, as if their off the cuff pronouncements as to the wrongness of Moses - while carefully not calling him wrong - are to be accorded equal, if not more, respect than that of the combined men of the past six thousand years! And some of you thought I went to far in claiming that such people were making themselves gods!

To put it in language a scientist could understand, it would be as if I proclaimed myself a "Doctor".  And why not?  I've read and studied more books on history, philosophy, religion and economics than most students in those fields!  I feel I am - heck, I "know" I am!  Therefore, do not take what I say as just the opinion of a simple man - no, regard my words as if from a learned Doctor!  

Am I then?  Am I a doctor for feeling so?  For even “knowing” so?  Or in this culture, in this world, is a necessary predicate of being called "Doctor" a course of study that may vary from state to state, nation to nation or era to era, but always falls within some recognized parameters, such that if one has it not, they should not be called "doctor"?

We know the answer to that.  A doctor is based upon certain things, not faith, not feelings, not any one person saying, "But I know I am!"

Same with Christianity - or for that matter, Islam.  Maybe one wishes to define Christian as believing in the Nicene Creed.  Maybe they have yet other solid and wrote out definitions the validity of which can be discussed by men of good will.

But there must at the end of the day be a definition a bit more stringent than, "How I feel" or "What I, a fallible man of a few decades, count to be my knowledge and wisdom."

Such are not "Christian". Such are only sorely deceived. In truth, there are no "Christian Evolutionists", though I titled the previous article that. There are only those greatly deceived who have accepted some current and fleeting doctrine of mortal men and placed it - and how they feel about it - over the received wisdom of the ages, over the truths described in the Holy Bible, and over the very God who inspired the men who wrote of those truths.

There may be as many definitions of a "Christian" as you like, but none can include, with logic or love, "Disagreeing with Christ's Father in Heaven".

Christian Evolutionists

My great grandfather was William Jennings Huffman, named after the famous evangelist and two time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryant.  This meant, among other things, that I was well familiar with who William Jennings Bryant was, his career and his fervor for the Lord.

While Mr. Bryant led a very fascinating life, he is most known nowadays for his battle in a courtroom against the equally famous Clarence Darrow.  The trial he participated in was what we call "the Scopes Monkey Trial".  In it, a teacher had been arrested in Tennessee for teaching evolution, and while he was convicted of that offense by a jury, it is generally believed that Clarence Darrow won by proving Genesis false.

A popular play was wrote about it, which has been made into a movie twice.  "Inherit the Wind".  In it, it shows an old and rather foolish seeming William Jennings Bryant character (they changed the names) being cross examined by a very savvy Clarence Darrow character on the literalness of Genesis and basically looking like a fool for believing in creationism.

I can't speak for now, but in my youth, the book was required reading, taught in class and carried in the library.  Just another way public schools try to keep children from believing in the faith of their fathers.

Forgot - or never learned - is that just as Clarence was not really "the" science guy of the 20th century, nor was William Jennings Bryant "the" religious guy of the 20th century.  That battle, as far reaching as the consequences were, was media staged from start to finish, the first radio broadcast court drama, an OJ or Casey Anthony drama before televisions were a thing.

William Jennings Bryant had been characterized by his peers of the day as a river a mile wide and two feet deep.  Yes, he had great breadth, but the depths were entirely lacking.  His spirit was always willing, but his intellect, sad to say, was a bit weak.  Truth is, if Clarence had grilled me, Clarence would have lost - and that's no boast, I know dozens of church people who could say the same thing.

But ever since then, evolution in the eyes of the public has been regarded as "proved".  Not due to the public looking at the science, but from that one trial nearly 100 years ago that many of them have probably never even read the play of.  That trial, and the play and the movies, manipulated by the media and schools, simply jammed it into the public consciousness that evolution was forever proved.

In evolutionary theory, the first full human
had to breed with the near humans around him.
Yes, really.  That's the theory.

And yet it was not.  And it's sad how many Christians believe in evolution now.  In fact, so many of them do that more Christians now believe in evolution than Genesis.  The Catholic church has come out in favor of evolution.  All the mainline and mainstream Protestant churches believe in evolution.  Any liberal church (in theology and/or politics) believes in evolution.

Churches that still believe in creationism are regarded as "fundamentalist" where that word has come to mean "stupid", "backwoods" and "yee-ha".  Those in such churches are supposed to live in trailers and beat their wives.  Yes, our media is very good at their agenda, and that's exactly what folks think of fundamentalist Christians, if they aren't thinking out and out "Amish".

I ran into this the other day, speaking with a Catholic who believes in evolution.  Now generally, and unlike my brash youth, I don't get into these kind of debates offline.  Who needs the grief?  Trying to teach any adult over 25 is like trying to teach dancing to a cat.  It fails, and it annoys the cat.

I made the mistake though of an off hand comment that directly implied that Genesis was literally true. Having some reputation for being reasonably educated and savvy myself, I was instantly attacked.  "You seriously don't believe in evolution?"

Questions phrased like that are always in the category of "argument from intimidation".  By the wording and the tone the hearer is to know that if they answer "yes" then they must be a dullard.  Not wishing to look like that, they now can then walk it back and try to avoid trouble.  Well, I know I'm not a dullard, so that kind of intimidation fails.

"No, I don't believe in evolution, because never minding the lousy science, I'm a Christian."

I got the inevitable reply of "I'm Christian, too, but even the Pope says that evolution is true!"

I thought to myself, yes he does, damn him.  And that kind of endorsement harms at least one billion Catholics out of the gate, never minding the all the Protestants who still tend to take their lead from Rome.  But I said, "Well, I'm sorry for the Pope.  I wonder what he thinks Jesus died for."

"What?"

"I said, 'I wonder what the Pope thinks Jesus died for'.  I wonder what you think Jesus died for?"

"What's that have to do with anything?"

"Jesus died for mankind's sins, sins that entered the world when Adam and Eve fell.  If there were no Adam and Eve, if we just evolved, then why did Jesus need to come down and die for us?  Why didn't he just visit instead, chat a bit and go home?  What possible reason was there for him dying?"

That didn't go over well.  "I'm not going to get into this with you." was the answer I got.  But I was riled, so instead of leaving it at that I said, "You cannot take the position of 'Science' and then decline to answer even the simplest of questions."

This is not then where the other said, "Oh, you're right, sorry, let me answer your question now and then you ask me a series of other questions that will gently lead me to the truth of your position."  No, it's where I learned - again - that you still can't teach cats to dance.  But on the upside, there is at least one Christian evolutionist who now knows that "fundie" don't mean "dumb"!

Know this, though - that one question is THE question to ask any Christian who believes in evolution.  It has no value against an atheist who is an evolutionist, but it's very pertinent to any Christian who does.

Had the person I argued with been willing to play the foil, I'd have gone on to say, "The point of Christ dying was to atone for our sins and spare us the death penalty we received in Genesis.  It even says in the New Testament in Romans 5:12-21 that as death and sin entered the world because of Adam, so the cleansing of those sins and the removal of the death penalty comes from one, Jesus."

In Romans, and also in 1 Corinthians 15:21, they were explaining why the Son of God had to die.  Which if you think about, does kind of need an explanation, doesn't it?  But if Adam and Eve made a free will choice to sin, then it is obvious that if God did not want us to die that it would make sense to send His son down to atone for us.

But in the theory of evolution, this would have God doing what?  Kicking off the evolution of life, so that it would "evolve" from non-sinning amoebas into non-sinning animals into deliberately sinning humans?  Why?  So that He could then enjoy sending His own son to die for God's own error?  In what world does that make sense?

And where did sin come in, evolutionarily speaking?  Viruses kill, and that's no sin.  Lions kill, and that's no sin.  Primates kill and that's no sin - or is it?  Is it 98% a sin, as some primates are 98% our DNA?  Are they 98% hell bound later?  With 2% of the time in paradise?

Hammer this one, folks.  Hammer it hard.  Because it's the best and truest point you'll ever make.  Christ's atonement is pointless torture and death by His cruel and error prone Father if evolution is true.  Christ's atonement is an act of pure love of He and His Father for our mistakes and sins, if evolution is not true.

A Christian who believes in evolution has truly never thought out the logical consequences.  For instance - how can any of us be punished, since we "evolved" this way and have no say in it?  How can we be said to have "free will" if everything is set in stone from the first amoeba?  Is God even really our God, or is He - having waited billions of years while we went from slime to fish to reptile to monkey to man - waiting for us to evolve further to some unknown being of another billion years from now?

Maybe He's the God of that future race, and we're just an intermediate hairless monkey species who uses tools better than some.  And if evolution is true, that would make perfect sense, and again, entirely negate Jesus needing to die!

Fortunately, we can know that "Science" is as much in error on evolution as it was on phrenology.  We can know this because we have God's word in the Bible to let us know this.  It's called "Genesis".  It's quite clear.  And if you believe the Bible is God's word, you should believe in Genesis.

Don't let the Christian evolutionist duck behind, "But Science says...!"  "Science" says nothing, it's not a person, it's a concept.  "Science" is nothing but valid as far as I'm concerned, but those who speak in it's name?  Not so much.  Certainly not always.  Dr. Mengele was a "scientist", what of it?

Scientists, like any other humans, have weaknesses, agendas, foibles, illusions and such.  It would be odd indeed if in every other field of human endeavor there were errors and idiocy, but somehow evolutionary biologists are perfect?

Also point out the obvious - it is a bit bizarre for a Christian to say, "I cannot believe in Genesis, as it goes against what Science knows is true about how we evolved!"  Me, I'm like, "Really?  And what does this 'Science' have to say about arising from the dead?  Walking on water?  Healing at a touch?"

It's a theological buffet then, and incredibly UN-Scientific.  Why?  Because to the extent that believing that Jesus arose from the dead makes sense, it does so only for a person having a testimony that the Bible is itself a true witness, a true testimony.  If they knew not that the Bible was true, they would be foolish for believing He rose from the dead!

I can hear someone say, "I don't believe in the Bible, thus do not believe in Jesus rising from the dead." and say, "Okay, you're being consistent."

Or I can hear someone say, "I do believe in the Bible and therefore believe that Jesus rose from the dead." and also say, "Okay, you're being consistent."

But what I can NOT do is hear someone say, "I don't think the Bible is always true, but the Jesus part is cool, so I'm good with that, at least where He rose from the dead, probably not the Adam and Eve part, but maybe the Revelations part, because, lol, I don't know, I just do!"

That makes no logical or scientific sense.  It also makes no theological sense as it has the person citing a Holy Book as proof of miracles but then saying, "But not this miracle or that one either, just this one and that one!"  What, are they higher than God that they get to pick which of His works they'll believe in?

The Bible IS a witness, a testimony.  Picking and choosing like that is like being a juror and saying, "I'll convict this man, because the witness said he saw the man kill another.  True, the witness was caught lying about everything else, but I believe that last part."  Really?  You'd convict a man on the testimony of a mostly false witness?

But thus is the Christian Evolutionist who claims a belief in Jesus arising from the dead while disbelieving everything that would have such make sense.  And disbelieving everything else from the exact same source!

"But...but...", I hear it sputtered, "Dean you can't really believe that God stopped the Sun in the sky, that would mean the Sun went around the Earth!" or "Dean, can you explain how Noah had all those animals in the ark when the modern measurements of it have it only holding...." or "Dean, do you really think that Jonah was in a whale for three days when we know that would suffocate a man?" or "Dean, where did Cain get his wife?"

Yeah, I hear that stuff sputtered.  I've been asked all that before in real life, so I can sure hear some out there reading this sputtering it now.  And the answers are, "He stopped the Sun from moving further in the sky - by stopping the Earth from spinning while making sure that no geological disturbances took place, because, oh yeah, He's God, and the creator gets to do as He pleases with His creation!"

And, "The God who created the Heavens and the Earth and all the dimensions of it made sure that all the animals that needed to fit on the ark fitted on the ark and He made sure none of them ate each other and that the hay bales and Purina Zebra Chow never ran out, because, oh yeah, He's God, and the creator gets to do as He pleases with His creation!"

And, "You believe Jesus can raise a man from the dead but His Father in Heaven can't keep Jonah alive for three days in a great fish?  Really?"

Though of course, the answer is just another form of the answer that always works, which is, "Oh yeah, He's God, and the creator gets to do as He pleases with His creation!".

And as to Cain, wow, really?  Evolutionary theory would have all of humankind coming from the one full human born of an ape like hominid and breeding with his three quarter human sister and proceeding from there.  Some how that makes perfect sense - but Cain marrying a cousin or sister does not.  In any case - and say it with me, folks - "Oh, yeah, He's God, and the creator gets to do as He pleases with His creation!" Including help Cain find a wife!

Evolution is false.

We can know this as it contradicts Genesis, and without Genesis the death of Christ is meaningless and without Christ, where is the point of calling oneself a Christ-ian?  The Bible as a whole must be believed to be true, because to not believe the foundation of Genesis makes it unsustainable to believe the structure of the whole New Testament that was built upon the foundation of the Old Testament!

You can be a Christian.  You can be an evolutionist.  You cannot, with any logic, be a Christian Evolutionist.  This doesn't mean you can't call yourself one, you can call yourself a Jewish Nazi if it pleases you - it just means it is not biblical, or logical.

How to Steal a Club

Democracy is a funny thing.  If abused, it can let the few outvote the many.

Wait...what?

Well, picture a club with 100 members.  The Vegan Club.  But one of the guys is a secret meat eater, and he wants to get his pro-meat agenda accepted.  

Wait - why is he even in such a club if he likes meat? 

Well, maybe he was raised in the club by Vegan parents.  So he enjoys a lot of the friends there, the sense of community, the familiar.  But he does really want to eat meat.  Instead of leaving then, and finding a Meat Lover's Club, he figures he'll change the club from within.

Mmmm...diversity!  

He can't do it by himself, but since he is in already, he has plenty of time to see who might be swayed.  

The woman who he saw having a Sausage Egg McMuffin at McDonald's last week.  The guy who he knows has a son in the Meatpackers Local 483 Union.  A dozen 20 somethings who watch a lot of TV showing how cool eating meat is and who figure this will let them have their "voices heard" as they exercise a bit of youthful rebellion.  A dozen who were dissatisfied with the club anyway, for a variety of non-meat related reasons and they figure that this kind of shake up is just the "get back" they need to feel better.  

Some disaffected wannabe leaders, sad that they were passed over, but who see that if they get in on the ground floor of "Meat loving" that they might be able to grab some leadership positions in the future.  A few sincere believers who while greatly deluded, really and truly see no conflict between meat eating and Veganism.

A noticeable number more who have various friends and family who enjoy a bit of meat now and then, and are more than up for being more "inclusive" so as to have their buddies in their club.  Or to not be looked down up for raising up a kid who so obviously loves eating meat.

Even a few outside agitators who so hate vegetables that they're willing to join just to disrupt from within.

And maybe some are tired of resisting meat, and figure this way they can indulge without being judged.

What's that all add up to?  Well, probably not so much.  Let's say 35.  Guess the Vegan Club is safe, huh?

Not hardly.

So the original guy knows not to just put it to a vote - because they'd lose and lose big, 64 to 36.  But 36 still isn't nothing, so he plays a game wherein at the end of it, a vote will help, not hurt him.

He speaks of "having a discussion" on it, as if the idea of eating meat is a normal and natural one for a Vegan club.  While that is really as insane as the Klan speaking of having a diversity program, he'll insist that a "discussion" never hurt a thing.

He'll have others give strident testimonials here and there about how sad some of their friends and family are about how "exclusionary" the Vegan club is when it comes to innocent meat eaters.  To listen to them, you'd figure that meat eaters are killing themselves in droves over not being able to join the Vegan club.

Others will wow you with stories of how wild Vegans, hyped up on the "Vegan Agenda" are beating and bullying the meat eaters, driving them to despondency, depression and sometimes - death!

The evidence for any of this will be so scant as to be non-existent.  Such examples as you'll see will melt upon further examination when it will turn out that maybe the guy who hung himself did so over being fired, having his house seized and his wife divorce him - as opposed to it being over not being able to join the Vegan club.

But such nonsense will, while having no merit, keep the issue in front of the club's membership and make calls for a "discussion" seem more credible.

It will also give them their lead in for asking, "Can we at least acknowledge that meat eaters should be treated with love and kindness and support?"  This will be agreed to at once, and the trap there is that since there is no similar statement about treating Sri Lankans and baseball players and Democrats with such love and kindness and support this sets up meat eaters as a "special class" in need of "special consideration".

And aids also in that from now on, anyone who does not agree that a discussion is needed will be told, "But our own club leaders told us to treat them with love and kindness and support - are you going against our own leaders?"  Ironic, as the person saying that is doing nothing BUT going against the leaders in every other way.

Then the writings of the club's founders will be gone over with a fine tooth comb and then twisted and turned about into seeming support of meat eating.  "It was wrote by our Founder that we should only eat of that which grows from the good Earth, but the cow is made up in it's entirety from the grasses of that good Earth!  Thus the eating of a burger IS the eating of grass!"

Idiotic?  Yes.  Does it ignore the other clearly wrote sayings like, "We Vegans will NEVER eat pork or fish or beef?"  Yes.  But does it keep the topic thus before the membership and give still more credence to the "need" for a "discussion" on what is now an issue?

For note that it was never an issue before.  But now just for yammering over and over, it's an issue.  And what do groups do with issues?  Resolve them.  And how do you resolve it?  With...a discussion first!

You can just see the discussion on this issue coming, can't you?

There's ten chapters of the Vegan Club, and given that some chapters have more of the disaffected secretly pro-meat in them than others, it will be almost inevitable that two or three will at some point vote for a chapter chairman who is "pro-meat".

Others, like those disaffected for other reasons and those who just look for rebellious opportunities to keep things lively, will see that and know that this is a cause they can go with.  Wannabe leaders will see this development and take that as an opportunity.

A guy who is running a close second in who gets to be the 7th Chapter's chairman will come out strongly "pro-meat" if he realizes that there are five in the chapter who were leaning that way for a variety of reasons.  Or a chairman in place, worried about a challenge, might come out "pro-meat" if he thinks it will get him enough panache to hold that seat.

If the main leadership gets upset, the "pro meat" chairmen will simply claim that they are "non-practicing" though they are "longing for the day" when they don't have to hide their true selves or their thoughts and feelings.  The main leadership will then dither about with whether "non-practicing" is okay, and the meat eaters will all the more call for a discussion to "resolve" this.

Now some of the main bulk of the Vegan Club, who still control most of the chapters, will start to get upset and say that this kind of thing is wrong, that they didn't join a meat eater's club, that meat eaters should start their own club, and that nothing needs to change.

But this plays into the meat eater's hands, as they'll say, "See, so you agree this issue needs a resolution!  Let's have some dialogue on this - for the sake of the club!"

Note in this that to the extent the club is in crisis or danger, it is the meat eater's who have done that.  They now propose that the crises they created be resolved - by giving them the "discussion" they always wanted!

Discussions are then had.  And three chapters pass "non-binding resolutions" encouraging a "tolerance" of the "diversity of thought" on the "cows are grass" issue.  Such that we should be accepting of those who eat cows, as they may honestly feel that cows are grass, and who are we to judge how a fellow Vegan goes about practicing Veganism?

And at least one chapter will offer up a non-binding resolution that their chairperson can so be "practicing" and if he goes, they go!  So there!  They may also stomp their feet.

This simultaneously emboldens the meat eaters and gets the Vegans even more in a tizzy.  The pretended made up crisis is now a real crisis, so since the Stage 1 "Let's have a discussion" was given to them in a vain attempt to appease them, the meat eaters now move to Stage 2 where they ask for "A Vote".

Why a vote?  Oh, to resolve the crisis "fairly"!  But didn't they know earlier that they could not just win an out and out vote?

Well, it won't be an out and out vote now, because since some of them are now in various leadership positions, they can have "input" into how the vote will be done.  And while before Vegans not eating meat was an obvious non-issue, now everyone not only perceives it as an issue, but knows it to be an issue that has already been discussed, and already had various chapters speak on various sides.

From it then being a non-issue not worth a second thought, now it's a big issue, it demands resolution, and - and this is crucial - that there are people on each side, lets many in the middle know, "Well, I thought Vegans were only to eat veggies, but with a lot of my neighbors and friends and such coming down on the other side, I guess there must be some validity to it."

So instead of a small but strident minority with a monolithic block of "keep it as it is" against them, now it's one small but strident group on one side, one small but strident group on the other, and the great middle who now honestly believe that the issue is NOT cut and dry, because here there are so many discussing and debating on it!

Now it's time to vote.  Because without a vote, some chapters are threatening to bolt.  And threatening that, they claim they'll stay if only a "fair vote" can be had.  Hard for those Vegans who don't believe in eating cows to disagree with a "fair vote", isn't it?

True, there'll be a few who'll point out that on core principles, no vote is needed.  That voting is for stuff that doesn't matter so much, or to pick chapter chairmen in general, or what day to have the broccoli bake sale on.  Not about whether Vegans should be Vegans!

But this will only have the "cows are grass" faction howl about how they ARE Vegans also and they have voices and they need to be heard and it's not fair for some to try to boot others out and destroy the club over their old fashioned out dated ideas!  That they - the meat eaters - aren't asking for any "traditionalists" to leave, so how mean is it that the Traditionalists should ask the "alternative vegans" to leave?

Notice now how those who are actually "real believers in the ideals of the Vegan Club" are now re-branded as "Traditionalists" with all the old fashioned fuddy duddy connotations of that?  And those who eat meat are re-branded as "Alternative vegans", with all the hip modern panache that has?  Not to mention that it makes them out to be the "real" vegans?  And that now both paths are seen as valid, and the "issue" now is only about which path is better?

Yeah, you guessed it - now it's vote time.  Which the Alternative Vegans want as they know they're ready now, and the Traditionalists only grudgingly go along with just to "put this silliness to bed".  They're still so sure that the obvious will be known to all, and don't even realize that their base is now not their base but only just watching to see which way the wind blows and go along with whoever shouts loudest.

In one possible scenario, let's picture that one of the higher up leaders, is road blocked in his career ambitions.  He has known for years he's as high up in the hierarchy as he can go.  And yeah, he's bitter.  He sees an opportunity now, though.  The old regime won't promote him up higher or give him that much needed raise - but a new regime might.

If that new regime had cause to be grateful.

So he uses his power and influence to get the duty of running the voting process "fairly".  He comes up with a great idea.  He calls the other 99 to a great meeting at the main club house hall.  He tells them that to avoid "chapterism" he's going to separate the 100 members into 10 groups of 10, randomly, just to keep it fair.

Knowing full well who is who from his back room conversations with that original secret meat eater at the beginning of this article, he takes the list of 36 Alternative Vegans and places six of them in the first group of ten, six of them in the second group of ten, and so on until six of the ten groups has six Alternate Vegans in each.

He sends each of the groups off to "discuss and vote".

Six groups - the ones with the six Alternative Vegans in each - come back and say, "Cows are grass".  Four groups with no Alternative Vegans in them come back and say, "Vegans can't eat meat".

And that's how 36% of a club take it over and make it the opposite as to what it was.  Nor is that the only way.  Every thing described could be done, but instead of a razzle dazzle of mixed voters, each chapter could have voted.  

In that scenario, probably only three or four chapters out of ten would have voted to change, so it would seem that the Alternative Vegans would lose in that situation.  Not at all.  They'd threaten to all withdraw and start their own club and the others, not wishing to lose the dues or to see their Vegan mission cut in near half or to lose club houses and club properties, would immediately proffer compromises.

Maybe the Vegan Club could then go "local option" when it came to "Defining" what it "really means" to be a Vegan.  Which does nothing but allow the 3 or 4 chapters to grow in influence and numbers for any who witness that will see it as the defeat for the "Traditionalists" that it was.

Maybe they'll out and out call the bluff and 1 or 2 chapters really will bolt.  In that scenario then there'll be calls to compromise with the ones who didn't leave, and that then strengthens the Alternative Vegans in proportion to the now weakened Traditionalists.

Once it gets to the point where it's an "issue" in need of "discussion" then it doesn't matter which method is used, it's a sure thing that "a" method will be used.  A vote will be had.  And it will be a loss for the club regardless because honestly, when you vote on your core ideals, you've already lost even before the ballots are cast.

Because you're conceding that your ideals are no big deal and that whatever the crowd feels at any given point is fine with you and you'll go along with it.  And no, the same can't be said of those calling for the vote.  They're calling for a vote to gain what they claim are their deeply held convictions which you may be sure that if they won they'd not let it be voted on the following year.

You on the other hand are taking your allegedly deeply held ideals and placing them before the crowd for a thumbs up or down.  No one who cares about their ideals ever willing does that.

They also are making their new idea equivalently valid as your old idea.  How so?  Well, you're voting on it, aren't you?  Thus the new idea, whether it wins or not, does win in the sense that you've just acknowledged that it could be valid.  That it was at least worth considering!

What's the real solution?

The club needs to make darn sure from the start that no disaffected member leaving can take club property away.  Because often times that's what is really being sought.  The "cows are grass" folks obviously know they can leave and start their own club, the main reason why they don't is that they want to steal the buildings, bank accounts and properties of the original club.

They don't want to have to go through a century of capital accumulation, they figure they're owed being able to have all the advantages of the original group, without any of the long work it took for that group to get all that.

After making darn sure the assets are protected, a club should make sure that it's clearly known by all that some issues are NOT and NEVER WILL BE up for a vote.  Like whether Vegans can eat meat. 

Finally, a club should immediately, and at once, kick out any "leader" of any chapter that in any way attempts to speak against the clearly stated ideals and rules and mission of the club.  No "thoughtful talks" no "alternative viewpoints" no "points to ponder" on the subject of whether cows are grass or whether Vegans can eat meat.  And none of the passive aggressive talks like, "I refrain from meat, but only out of respect for the club, I do believe that cows could be good to eat if we could only get over our traditionalist prejudices that, I feel in my heart, are holding us back!"

Any thing less than what I just said and the club may as well just toss the keys to the first person who disagrees with the entirety of the club.  

He is Risen!

The time of year for celebrating the resurrection of our Savior Christ is a special one. It's also interesting how different faiths celebrate it.

The Catholics - like many, many other faiths - call it "Easter", though some faiths find that disconcerting, as the word "Easter" comes from "Ishtar" and has more to do with Pagan Spring and Fertility rituals. Hence the Eggs and Rabbits and such.

The Catholics are the ones generally in charge of coming up with which date it is celebrated on, which they do by reference to a religiously themed solar/lunar calendar that is then synced with various other calendars, including the Jewish one. Hence the date bouncing around each year.

The Jews celebrate Passover, but obviously not then the Christian dates that are tied - with varying degrees of accuracy - to that.

Some have purported to done the calculations to know that the "actual" date is April 13th, a Friday, which in Roman tradition was the "Ides of April" and is supposed to account for why Friday the 13th is regarded as a bad luck day.

Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Easter itself, but have a "Remembrance Day" in which they memorialize the death and resurrection of Christ. It's the one time of the year they have communion, and it involves them all sitting quietly for an hour staring at the bread and wine but not partaking.

Because they're only supposed to have it if they believe they are one of the 144,000 going to heaven. And who wants to seem so prideful?

Latter-day Saints celebrate the general holiday, but on the Sunday itself aren't notable for doing anything special on it. I got called to give a talk on Easter Sunday one year, and it took me a bit to catch on to that not being some special honor, but just that not as many people usually attend that day. Never was sure why. Methodists and other mainline Protestant faiths use it as good reason to have nice breakfast and Sunrise service. Usually with kids putting on some music numbers and then a sermon on the crucifixion and resurrection.

Baptists, the same, but not so much any special breakfast or earlier time for the service.

Seventh-day Adventists are sensitive to any holiday with pagan associations, and are also reticent about Sunday worship, even when it's not meant to be Sabbath but just the day He rose. Still, the resurrection message features prominently in the Sabbath service just before that Sunday.

"Easter" - just using the short word designation here - also highlights some other differences between the various faiths. The Catholics use a crucifix, that is, a cross with Jesus shown on it. Many regard that as idolatry, but from their perspective, they are celebrating that He died on the cross for us. Protestants make use of a cross, without Him shown on it. This is to celebrate His defeat of the cross, in that the cross is now empty, He overcame death and sin for us.

Latter-day Saints don't use cross or crucifix. At all. This comes from a belief that the atonement took place in the Garden of Gethsemane, when He sweated blood. The actual crucifixion after that was not - in their beliefs - regarded as the atonement itself.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in neither cross or crucifix, but instead believe He was hung by His wrists on a "torture stake", basically a tall pole.
Seventh-day Adventists are in the same class as the Protestants in general are on this aspect of theology, in that the cross is used, celebrating His resurrection and defeat of death.

One disturbing aspect of this time of year, which is not a part of ANY of the above listed faiths but is just something that I notice random Christians of any and all churches do around this time of year is the whole "torture porn" thing, where some horrifically bloody picture of Christ is shown on line. Usually it comes from that Mel Gibson movie. It has His face totally obscured due to the blood. I think that such is needless and distracting from the meaning of the sacrifice.

What does "Easter" mean to me? Well, I was raised Methodist, so get all those type of celebrations. But I agree with the Seventh-day Adventists in that yeah, it's been turned, too much, into a Paganish holiday with all the egg hunts and chocolate bunnies. Those things can seem harmless, as can Santa, but the older one gets, the more one ponders, the more one realizes that these "harmless" things add up over time in a culture. And not in a good way.

I would have preferred some thing to mark the day today, but quiet time with my wife and the simple acknowledgment of His sacrifice was fine. I gather that on some years, my new church has a breakfast, and hopefully next year they will and I can attend that.

And yesterday's sermon was good, so there was that. And I greatly enjoy celebrating on the actual Sabbath each week, including the thing where Saturday starts at sunset on Friday, just like in Biblical times.

Any way. Just some musings on this day. A day celebrating the greatest event in human history, where Jesus rose from the dead and we all now have a chance to be forgiven our sins if we believe upon Him! All faiths at least have that commonality!

Hen house chaperones

Something happened to the Boy Scouts of America awhile back that reminded me of the zombie-ish movie "28 Days Later".

In the movie, our hero Jim and his friends are looking at a tunnel - a dark tunnel - that will take them to the other side of a river.  Or they could look for a bridge instead.

When one of them advocates going in - where there are no doubt dozens of zombies - Jim says, "No, no. No, see, this is a really (bad) idea. You know why? Because it's really obviously a (bad) idea."

Jim used a swear word instead of saying "bad", but his point was valid.  We've all seen a horror movie where it's patently obvious that to do X is going to lead to a horrible result, and it's the easiest thing in the world to not do X - yet then, I guess to make the movie entertaining, they do X anyway!

That's great for movies - not so great for real life.

What did I see in the news that reminded me of that?  Oh, yes.  A release from the Boy Scouts of America where they will now officially be letting in openly gay men into positions of leadership, including, of course, taking groups of 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 year old boys/men into the woods.

And I feel as Jim did, looking into that eerie tunnel.  No, no.  No, see, this is a really bad idea.  You know why?  Because it's really obviously a bad idea.

Those are my words now.  They need no quotation marks.

Let's clear something up, first.  I don't think that just because a person has any inclination or orientation to engage in homosexuality that it automatically makes them a pedophile.  It does not.  Homosexual men are mainly attracted to other homosexual men, and in about the same percents as heterosexual men are attracted to adult heterosexual women.

But we aren't talking about "children" as in pre-adolescents.  We're talking about boys and girls who while very immature still, are sexually adults.  Boys and girls who have reached puberty, and are capable of the act physiologically, but not ready for it psychologically/emotionally.

And just as it would be inappropriate for I, a heterosexual male, to lead a troop of 16, 17 and 18 year old young women out into the woods, it is also inappropriate for a homosexual adult male to lead a troop of 16, 17 and 18 year old young men out into the woods.

Or, for that matter, 12 to 14 year old girls.  Or 12 to 14 year old boys.  See, the thing isn't really to parse numbers and give puberty tests to each kid, it's just to have a general - and obvious - rule applied to EVERYONE who is taking kids out into the woods.

One great rule should be - "Anyone who is busy fighting a years long million dollar legal action for their 'right' to take other people's kids into the woods against their will should NEVER be allowed to."  I mention that in passing as there have been suits on this issue, and I find them "obviously" distasteful.

A more general and obvious rule is that adults don't need to go off into the woods with immature "adult-ish" kids who they are potentially attracted to and in a power position over.  All history has taught us this.  Never has there been any situation - from the Catholic Church to Public Schools to - oh, yeah, even the Boy Scouts - where the violation of that OBVIOUS rule has not led to trouble.

This is NOT even a gay thing.  I don't want heterosexual men taking Girl Scouts into the woods, and yes, I know that most of those men have no desire to have sex with the 14 to 18 year old set.  But children are precious, and if we can't eliminate all dangers, we can at least minimize them, and one way is to pair adult heterosexual women with younger women, and adult heterosexual men with younger men.

In the meanwhile, as of this writing, local sponsoring organizations - like churches - can still refuse to have openly gay leaders taking boys into the woods.

For now.