Rape is not about sexual gratification -- it is an act of reprehensible violence intended to degrade and humiliate a woman. I could never nor want to defend the act of rape in any way, shape, or form. It's simply deplorable behavior. Furthermore, I want to hear nothing said about "legitimate rape" or any other such nonsense intended to diminish the gravity of the crime. Blaming the victim is a despicable tactic all too frequently employed by unscrupulous defense attorneys more interested in winning than in seeing justice served. Survivors of rape are already forced to live with memories of the violence and the feelings of helplessness, rage, and humiliation for the rest of their lives. If the woman happens to become pregnant as the result of being raped, an additional unfair burden is placed on her shoulders. At that point, the innocent victim faces a truly horrible choice -- what does she do with the baby? She became pregnant through no fault of her own -- but how can she keep that baby, if she cannot love it? Does she have that child aborted? Should she have the baby, and put it up for adoption? No woman should ever be forced into the position of having to make such a difficult decision through no fault of her own. And I can't judge her decision from where I stand. Because of rape and incest, I could never in good conscience bring myself to support a universal ban on abortion, no matter how evil and barbaric I think most abortions are. Men who rape women are cowards. If murder is the worst thing one human being can do to another, rape would have to be a … [Read more...]
Contemplating the crucifixion and resurrection
Unless these are the first words I've written that you've ever read, you probably know that I'm not particularly shy about admitting that I consider myself a Christian. By that, I mean specifically that I believe Jesus really lived roughly two thousand years ago, and was crucified and died on a cross. Furthermore, I believe that God raised him from the grave, and Jesus ascended into heaven, just like the Bible says. And today is Easter Sunday, the holiest day on the Christian calendar. In my opinion, it's not a bad idea to contemplate the resurrection on an Easter Sunday. On the basic points concerning Christian beliefs, I believe it is safe to say that the vast majority of other people who considers themselves a Christian would agree with me about the divinity of Jesus, and that his resurrection really happened. Where we may or may not agree is on the question of why Jesus suffered, died, and rose again. Those who, on faith, accept the Bible is literally true, and without error will assert the answer is original sin -- in other words, it's Adam and Eve's fault for listening to Satan, and partaking from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. I will admit that I have my doubts about that particular belief, but I will explain why in a moment. My approach to reading the Bible is rather straightforward -- I assume that what I am reading is true. The problem with that approach, of course, is the content of the Bible itself. How do you reconcile when two accounts contradict each other? There are clearly instances where the same story is told … [Read more...]
Face Palm Sunday
Yesterday was Palm Sunday. The face palm moment came early. Before church, I visited a place on Facebook called The Battlefield. The group consists of theists and atheists who are interested in (more or less) cordial debate. I felt compelled to respond after one of my atheist friends asserted if Sir Isaac Newton were alive today, he would reject Young Earth Creationism and more than likely be an atheist, according to these statistics. Several replies came to mind. Naturally, I responded with all of them. First of all, such speculation is both silly and irrelevant. Newton has been dead almost 300 years. It's impossible to say what he would be like today. And it seems rather foolish to assume modern science would be anywhere close to where it is today if Newton hadn't lived and accomplished what he did, when he did. The issue of Young Earth Creationism is semantic, and especially for this argument. It can help divide Christians from each other, but does not separate theists from atheists, the more important point of contention in that forum. Secondly, historically speaking, the polar opposite has been true in regard to the relationship between super-intellect and spiritual beliefs. Polymaths like Newton, da Vinci, and Emmanuel Swedenborg were if anything uber-religious people, and most certainly not atheists. Modern polymath Michael Guillen has three PhDs, and he's a Christian. The appeal to modern authority falls flat because Newton was the authority of his time. If he were alive today, it would be reasonable to assume that Newton would still be an authority … [Read more...]
Mel Maguire to appear on Sean Hannity’s radio show
Be sure to listen to Sean Hannity’s radio show later today. My friend Mel Maguire will be speaking with Sean today, April 8th, about her excellent commentary regarding the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich. Mel represents a small but very brave minority – gay conservatives unafraid to speak against political correctness, in favor of freedom. Be sure to listen! It seems like Mel always has something interesting to say... … [Read more...]
Can a Smart Person Believe in God?
[ Hat tip and many thanks to fellow Prince of Peace Lutheran Church member Jim Jimenez, for lending me his book.] The title of theoretical physicist and author Michael Guillen's book Can a Smart Person Believe in God? is actually a rhetorical question. The author is obviously a very intelligent man as well as a professed Christian, who leaves nothing open to interpretation when he wrote: "I believe in the monotheistic God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God of the Book. The One who created the universe." Furthermore, his credibility as author of this work is beyond dispute -- Dr. Guillen holds a trio of PhD's from Cornell University, in astronomy, mathematics, and physics, respectively. Dr. Guillen also taught physics at Harvard University for eight years, and served as the ABC News science correspondent. In other words, his academic/scientist credentials are impeccable. He explained his motives for writing it by saying: In fact, the main reason for writing this book is not to rebut atheism (although, inevitably, I do that) but to discredit the arrogant manner in which its proponents often present and defend it -- especially these days, when being cool often means coming across as sassy and self-reliant. Probably the best word to describe Dr. Guillen (and his book) would be balanced. His professional experience as a teacher, his training as a scientist, and his ability to articulate useful information in a conversational, easy-to-understand style combine to create a book that is concise and very easy to read. He elaborated further on his reasons … [Read more...]
