Because the Bible Tells me so...

Fundamentalist say, "I believe because the Bible says so."

Evangelicals say, "I believe it because XYZ proves it."

Is one better than the other? One more spiritual than the other?

I think that to say "The Bible says so" and claim that's a reason to do something is childish. This is the kind of thing you say to kids when they ask questions they can't understand the answers to. It's OK for a while, but it's not the kind of response that can last for forever. Eventually you have to grow up and study the Scriptures and delve deeper than just "it told me so".

Also, using the above method makes it extremely easy to manipulate the Bible into making it say what you want it to say. When you ignore culture, history, and years of church theology, you make yourself an easy target for liars and thieves. You become prey to bad theology, putting unnecessary strain on yourself at best, and leading yourself into disobedience against God at worst. (Hello everyone, this is exactly why we have so much bad theology now!)

Lastly, when you live in a culture that says the Bible is just a bunch of myths or doesn't know anything about it, saying "because the Bible says so" will make no sense what-so-ever. If you are trying to preach Christ and Him crucified, it would help immensely to answer people's basic questions like: Did Jesus really exist? (Give people a break, it's been over 2,000 years since Jesus came down to earth. It's not like when Peter got up and preached to the Jewish crowd--who already knew Jesus existed and that he'd died.)

Why should they believe what the Bible says? Because they have a burning in their bosom? Are we Mormons now that we depend on feeling over reason? It's not like they know you (other than that sketchy religious person who keeps telling them about Jesus), so they have no reason to trust what you have to say. 

People need a reason to believe. Whether it's because you've shown yourself to be a truthful person, or because the Bible has shown itself to be a truthful book, a reason is needed. Paul and Peter and many others after them always gave a REASON to believe, a reason for their hope! So too, should we remember that the "Bible says so" will not be enough of a reason for many people to believe.

THAT BEING SAID....

How much proof does a person need? Some people just won't believe. You can throw every historical and scientific fact at them and they will simply brush you off as a religious nut. There's no point in chasing after people who adamantly refuse to listen. (This is what is called "throwing pearl before swine.")

And how many times must we (within the church) re-examine scripture before we believe it? We've got 2,000 years worth of church history at our finger tips! If our Christian fore-fathers have not figured it out already, I highly doubt we will. In which case it's either time to move on or just believe what's already been said on the matter.

There is, perhaps, an element of pride here too. There are things in the Bible that will just look foolish to the world. No matter how you rationalize and sugar coat it, the world will look at you and laugh. I think many Christians find the idea of being publicly shamed like this for the Gospel very very uncomfortable. They don't like it. So they try to make themselves look reasonably, clever, and intellectual, because they can't bear the thought of looking foolish.

Lastly, we defend scripture because we believe it to be true, not because we're trying to decide whether it is true or not. Let's not kid ourselves, we have a bias toward scripture. We already believe the Bible is true. Everything we say and do is based off this. So lets not pretend like we're being objective about our arguments. We're not. We're totally and completely defending our bias. (And lets also admit that that's OK, everyone has a bias.)

The Problem of Womenhood

I just finished reading "Feminine Threads - Women in the Tapestry of Christian History" by Diana Severance. This is a fascinating book that goes through the history of the Christian church and show cases various women who did extraordinary things. The reason it was written was to show that modern feminism has pretty much made up large portion of history concerning women and how they were treated in Christian churches and Christian influenced societies.

Some interesting highlights...

While I knew that marrying young was common in ye-old-ancient-times I never quite realized *how* young. It was common for women to marry at 12 or 13 years old. When you think about Mary, the Mother of Jesus, you often think of her as an older woman, at least 16... but it seems likely to me she was closer to 12. This makes her willingness to follow God at the risk of being ostracized or possibly killed for getting pregnant out of wedlock even *more amazing*.

It was also disheartening to see how many of these girls were widowed before the age 18 years old. Not only did they have many miscarriages and lose their birthed babies to sickness frequently, it seemed like a husband staying alive until his 10 year wedding anniversary was rare. Can you imagine being 16 and suffering  that kind of lose?

Another interesting thing is that authority does not equal influence. Up until recently, only fringe groups in Christianity dared say woman had equal authority within the church as men did. Despite women historically never having positions of power (like being a pastor), history shows again and again that women had more influence over people then men did, both in their own communities and on national levels.

In fact, it's flat out amazing how influential women were despite the social (not Christian) confines of their day. Christian women often learned how to read, write, and (the ambitious) learned several different languages. There were some women who were so well versed in scripture and theology that the contemporary male leadership of their day went to them for advice. They formed societies to help the poor, sick, orphaned, and widowed. They were huge financiers of missionaries and theologians and the afore mentioned societies. In Roman Times (and some other times in history too) wealthy women opened up their homes to be used as churches. Queens (especially early on in Europe) would often lead their Kingly husbands to Christ (sometimes marrying them specifically for that reason!) and there by bring Christ to the whole nation. And then there's all those schools, orphanages, and hospitals specifically started by women too.

You will be hard pressed to find one single great theologian, pastor, missionary, or great evangelical movement that was not directly influenced and propelled by women. In some sense, if men were the head of the church, women were it's hands and feet. But even this is not a perfect analogy, as it implies only men made decisions, when women often took the initiative when they saw a need not being met (to the praise, by the way, of the men).

In Christian marriages, historically, women were treated with respect and valued as people. You will be hard pressed to find a religious text from antiquity that commands men to respect their wives and love them sacrificially, to the death. Yet that is exactly what Apostles told early Christians, and that's exactly what the Christian men of their day did.

Even Jesus, when speaking on divorce and lust, was actually advocating *for* women. It wasn't uncommon for men to divorce their wives over anything (even a slight offense), so that they could remarry younger women. (Leaving their ex-wife destitute and with a social stigma.) Basically, Jesus was cutting this practice at the head and the feet by saying lusting after a woman when you are already married is as bad as adultery and divorcing your wife for anything but specific offenses and then remarrying was also adultery.

Speaking of Jesus, he was very pro-women. We have a hard time seeing this now, because of the cultural divide, but he very much treated women as intelligent and honorable. He taught women directly, something unheard of for his day. He talked to them in public, directly, which was shocking. He healed them and raised them from the dead. Before he died, Jesus remembered his mother, and made sure someone was there to provide for her once he was gone. Women had the privilege of being the first to see the empty tomb and the first to see a resurrected Jesus. All this he did in a society were sometimes just touching a woman made you dirty.

In closing, it is unfortunate that we live in a society that demonizes motherhood, particularly mothers who choose raising their children as their vocation in life. Marriage and motherhood are extremely important, and only the prideful, spiteful, modern feminists of today have the foolishness to think otherwise. A stable and healthy society is always built on a stable and healthy home, and lets not kid ourselves: the greatest influence of a home is the mother. (Something history proves again and again.)

That being said, the push from conservatives to try and bring motherhood and marriage back to it's rightful place of honor will likely end in failure. The problem is they're placing too much trust in a political system and the idea of changing society from the outside. That won't work, and you won't be able to talk people into it when all they can hear you saying is "Women should stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant."

I think there is also a tendency to lift up motherhood and marriage to the neglect of other legitimate vocations for women. It's important to remember that women don't have to get married to have value within the Christian community. It's also important to realize that motherhood is not the end-all be-all to a woman's life too. It's also quite possible to be a good mother and have a job--whether it's a ministry position or "for profit". None of these things have to be mutually exclusive, nor does one thing have to be better than the other. All of these vocations and paths can be--and have been--glorifying to God.

If conservatives want to make Christian femininity (including motherhood and marriage) to be honorable in our society again, it's time to stop talking and start doing. You can't make someone change their minds by arguing with them, but you can live your life in such a way that shuts them up. And we have plenty of women from the past and the present who live their lives in a way that would shut all those skeptics up if we put more effort into showing them off.

And that's all I have to say about it. Or at least that all I'm gonna write about it. Phew. ;)

Moving Very Slowly, VERY SLOWLY... Slower and slower and...

How do I put this?

For a long time I've felt a sort of pointless wandering about myself. What am I suppose to do? What's my purpose? Who am I? What's my worth?

I've always loved drawing. When I was younger I'd go through mountains of paper and never finish one picture. Just the act of drawing, of creating, was exciting to me.

As I got older I realized that people were expecting something of my art. It seemed that, specifically within the Church as whole, the only time anyone was ever truly pleased with my work was when it was "Christian". And by that I mean when it had a Christian moral message or blatantly referenced God or something Biblical.

This annoyed me. It's not that I didn't want God to be in my work, but there was something so fake about how I was going about it. I was not particularly interested in confining my creativity to easy moral messages and quick call-outs to God. It was shallow, it was boring, and it just wasn't interesting.

Why, I lamented, were Christians so easily amused by such shallowness? Why did they always settle for art and music and stories that were so simple? Why did they let themselves be satisfied with the uninteresting, the boring, the "safe"? Didn't they feel a calling for something deeper?

God is interesting. God is deep. God is never boring. Creativity that reflects God is inspiring, it's challenging, it takes our minds and hearts to new places, and when we're done we walk away somehow full, satisfied, better people then when we started.

I felt like I was being called in two different directions. One told me to be moral, upright conservative, predictable, easy to understand, "family friendly", and never talk about really difficult issues. Be good, and don't have too much fun. The other said; be wild, be free, make people laugh, make them cry, make them sigh with longing for a "otherness", follow those "bunny holes" to see where they lead, ask the disturbing questions. To reflect something beautiful and holy.

Inside of this slow nerdy person, there was a fire that burns all the time. It cries out to be free, to be wild, to reach out and grab something higher, purer, holier, than anything to be found on this silly little mudball of a planet. Always that desire was in the back of my mind, the back of my heart. And when I created, it felt like I was channeling that desire, that fire, I was giving it a place to go, and I was alive.

But for a while, I forgot. My heart forgot. I settled for something less, and I lost myself. Desire, what was that? Fire, what did it feel like again? What did it mean to be alive?

I became afraid. Who was I? Why was I here? What was I suppose to be doing? I lived in fear of losing myself, become less, of never really living again.

Recently, though, I got to thinking about it all over again. Did I really draw just to please other people? Because it was all I was good at? No, that can't be quite right. I liked showing off (obviously I'm not perfect) but I drew because I loved it. I knew I was free because I could draw. And when I drew, I felt free.

What have I been doing to myself these last 8 years? Am I total and complete moron? How could I have thought, even for a little while, that I could find happiness some where else? Why did I willingly chain myself down, making myself and everyone else miserable? I mean, seriously, what the crap?!

I feel like I woke up. Or more like, I feel like I'm waking up.

I'm a very slow person. Just, in general, I tend to take things very slowly. So it took me a long time to realize something was wrong, then to figure out what it was, then to know how to fix it, and then how to regain my equilibrium.

So here I am, very slowly getting myself back in order. And I realized something, I realized what I want to do.

I want to create something that reflects, even just a little bit, of the wonder and holiness of God.

Lets get this straight, I don't mean I'm gonna be making any masterpieces or writing great literature. I just don't have that in me and the pressure to do it would kill me creatively. I certainly don't mean I'm gonna make anything "American evangelical Christian". Ugh. I'd rather never draw again than do something substandard and restricting like that.

How do I describe it? You know when, as a Christian, you feel a... an... inner flame, right? I'm sure there's some sort of proper word for it but I'm not quite sure what it's called. It's that thing that makes you happy that God exists. It's that thing that's constantly tickling the back of your mind and heart and reminding you that there's something more than just what you see, feel, or hear. It's that thing that wraps you in peace, that tells you you're forgiven, that scolds you when you've done wrong.

That thing, I want to show that to other people. I want to make something that feels like that.

This isn't about converting people to Christianity. The simple method is best when it comes to that. You want people to be Christians? Then you share Christ and his Resurrection and live like it matters. Anything less is just making things complicated.

No, this is all about my longing to just bring a little bit of heaven down to earth. I want to reflect a bit of God's glory and goodness in the only way I know how: to be creative and to do it well. And if I am ever so fortunate, perhaps something I do will help someone else or significantly change their course of life (in the good sense).

I can do it, I know I can do it. Not because I've got something in me to do it, but because surely God wants others to know of His goodness, holiness, and all that makes Him worthwhile? And if He's with me, then how can I not succeed? So I can definitely do it.

But slowly. Very slowly.

I ain't got nothin' better to say.

I keep trying to write something and it keeps coming out wrong. Or maybe I've got so much thought in my head that one single blog can't hold it all.

A Summery:

There's a lot of evil in this world, and it makes me want to punch people.

There's a lot of good in this world, and it makes me wish there was more of it.

I wish my government wasn't so corrupt.

I wish people would make up their minds.

Why does my cat keep having problems?

Church

I might actually be able to go to church today. Normally I can't because I'm not able to wake up early enough for morning services (including the 11am ones). This is because my husband works evenings, and so do I, which means we're "day sleepers". Apparently a life style that does not meld very well with church attendance.

I have tried depriving myself sleep to go to church. All this has done is made me incredibly cranky and unable to remember anything I heard at church. I feel like it's pointless going to church if that's how I'm going to behave.

Why, oh why, have churches gotten rid of evening services? I like small group studies as much as the next, but it's incredibly inconvenient for any new person to the church to try to figure out where and when small groups are being held and which group they ought to be in (as no one knows them well enough to place them). I've tried contacting people, trying to get someone to help us, but no one does.

It also feels invasive when you (or me), a new person, tries to join. It's like you're the odd man out who doesn't know anyone or how anything goes and everyone treats you slightly suspiciously. (Or like they're trying to win you over.) It just doesn't feel natural.

There are a few churches that still have evening services, unfortunately they are not the churches I want to go to. It's mostly Baptist churches that still come together in the evening. And they are..... the more conservative bent Baptist churches. Which might have been fine 4 years ago, but I'm still recovering from Faith Baptist. (A type of church I don't ever want to go to again.)

The thing with church attendance is it's a choice between rarely seeing my husband and go to church, or see my husband all the time and never go to church. The thing is that while I value church, I value my marriage more than it. And I can't have a marriage if I never see my husband.

This is a no win situation for me. Either choice will make me unhappy and I've long since realized that. Some people might say that I'm putting my marriage before God by not going to church. However, my view is that both church and marriage are a God-centered activity. Neglecting either hinders my relationship with God.

That being said, in the practical human aspect, I can't have a relationship with a husband who's never there. God is always there, He is always available. I can have a relationship with God even without going to church, though I know that is not optimal. I can't have a relationship with my husband if I never get to see him.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not so stupid that I think one can have a perfect relationship with God without going to church. Church has value, church is part of a healthy Christian life. I value church, I like church! Even after that horrid experience in Misawa I still want to go to church. I still want to be a part of a body of believers. It is something I value. In fact, I value it more for it's absence right now. I mourn about not going.

My current view is this: I look forward to the times I can go to church. I look forward to a day when I can go to church consistently. I have hope that day will come, and God will someday make it happen. Until then, I do my part to remain spiritually active and growing despite my circumstances. 

That Perfect Balance

Where is that balance in life? Living in America I often feel like I'm inundated with extremes. From politics, to religion, to wealth, you must have more than everyone else, be better than everyone else. Whatever it is, the extreme version of it is what's popular and grabs the most attention.

Except I don't like extremes. (Well, generally. They have their place too.)

Perhaps I'm a coward, but sometimes I just wish we could all just get along. That's not to say I wish we could all just believe the same as me, but that I wish we didn't flip out so much when differences arise. It would be really nice if I could just talk to people, even if we get all heated up over it, and then shake hands afterward.

I'm so tired of the constant contention, strife, and anger. It's infecting everything in this country, even if we don't realize it. Must we always have an enemy to overcome to be happy and feel like we're doing something worthy in our lives?

Well, anyway. Just my late late-early early morning rant for the day. I bet I'll wake up later today and wonder what the heck I was going on about. ;)

The Question of Biblical Manliness

Some Kind of Christian recently posted a really interesting article about men and Bible. This is my response to his post. :)


"I really like this post! It hits on something I lament about constantly in this culture: the inability for Americans to distinguish "civic religion" as you call it from real Christianity.

So what is a Biblical man? Hmmm...

The first problem I have is with the phrase “Biblical man”. The Bible is--despite the large amount of “main male characters”--actually gender neutral on spiritual lessons. The lessons God teaches men in the Bible are just as applicable to women. This is part of the charm of the Bible--that anyone from any walk of life can read it and learn something about God and how he works.

I think what’s really being asked here is “What is Christian manliness?” How can a man retain or enhance his manliness while at the same time still following Christ? The problem with these kinds of questions is they are so seeped in our cultural that it is difficult to get a true Biblical answer.

There are only two instances that I can think of off the top of my head that deal with men specifically: one is married men and the other is men in church leadership positions. Married men are to love their wives as Christ loves the church and men in leadership are held to a much higher standard than the rest of the congregation. While being married is a goal, it is not nessicary for manliness. (And Paul even encourages men who can to remain single.) We are all to mature in Christ, but that doesn’t mean we’re all gonna be church leaders some day. So even in these two things we can’t really apply them to every man.

I don’t know how to describe it exactly but there’s been a blurring of the lines in what feminine and manliness means in our culture. Men don’t know what it means to be manly because the women they look to to define that term don’t even known. So of course men will ask “What makes me a man?” (Other than the obvious male parts of the human body.)

The matter is further worsened by the fact that conservative Christianity is trying to use an idealized 1950s definition of manliness. Which for all it’s apparent perfection just deepens the confusion and causes people to ask “Well, why should we act that way? Is that even Biblical?”

In response to these types of questions you get sermons like Driscoll’s. Because the question is cultural in nature, there is no real way to answer Biblically. So rather than try, they go to long lengths to justify why they use this ‘50s idealized model of manliness. They can only do it by pulling from non-Biblical sources.

I think the real question ought to be “What makes a Biblical Christian?” Of course, that kind of question requires actual thinking about one’s faith and why we believe what we do, which makes a lot of people uncomfortable. They don’t want to know why they believe, they just want someone to tell them it’s the right thing to believe. :-/"

A Trusted Source

Mike linked my post below on some other website. Apparently in response to the vehement dislike many of the posters had with the type of birth controls I mentioned before. He wanted to give them a differing opinion from a supposedly well educated and trusted source (that being me).

I'm pleased he thinks so highly of me. I'm just hoping it's justified.

It's not that I think I'm stupid, I'm just kind of nervous about people giving my post a critical eye. It was written primarily for the benefit of my husband and I, and perhaps an interesting opinion for people who are looking into the subject. It's not meant to be some exhaustive defense for or against birth control.

I really try to think through any subject I write about. It's very important to me that I don't write about things that I haven't thoroughly researched. And I try to draw from the most reliable and honest sources, not just the ones that will tell me what I want to hear (or what is popular).

It's difficult to find good sources online. I'm constantly amazed at the shoddy logic and under handed methods used by many writers. Take a quote out of context here, smooth over the part of the research we didn't like there, and generally just ignore anything that disagrees. Any one can lie about their information and you'd never know.

In the Christian realm this is particularly disturbing. Not just because it's dishonest, but because Christians will inevitably use the "God trump card". It comes in various flavors but generally sounds like "the Bible says so", "God says so", and "good Christians who want to make God happy do/believe this way". You can't argue with people who think God is on their side.

Whether this is true or not has very little to do with it. It's simply a method of forcing opponents to look like they are against God and "for the world" (at least on the surface level). Many people fall for it, because they have not been taught to look past the "holy rhetoric" and listen to what's actually being said.

Not that Christians have some sort of monopoly on this behavior. I don't mean to imply that they do. It's just disturbing to see it in people who ought to know better. It's also depressing how many spiritually gullible people are out there.

Birth Control: The Controversy

When it comes to pregnancy and birth control, people get really opinionated. It is often hard to know who is twisting the facts, who is telling the truth, and who is honest-to-goodness deceived. This post is my search for the truth--as best as we know it--about modern birth control.

Typically there are two views on birth control and they are tied into the view of when human life begins:

With the first view you have the common modern scientific belief that human life starts when the embryo attaches to the uterus wall. This is why almost all methods of birth control are not considered to be an abortifacient by scientists and doctors.

With the second view you have the religious belief that human life starts at fertilization. This means that anything stopping an embryo (fertilized egg) from attaching to the uterus wall is an abortifacient. Under this definition, at least half of all birth control methods could be considered to cause abortions.

Interestingly, actual scientific research always supports the view of human life starting at fertilization. The reason being is that it's a known fact that when the sperm and egg "combine" a totally new life form (with a new genetic code independent of the parents) is formed. All this new life needs is nourishment to grow into a fully functioning human.  So whether unintentional or not, science does support the more traditional religious view of when life starts.

For many this knowledge will turn them away from birth control. They view any thing that causes abortions to be murder and will therefore not participate in it. What they fail to realize is that there's more to pregnancy than just the above.

Did you know 10 to 20 percent of all reported pregnancies end in miscarriages? (Medically referred to as spontaneous abortions.) The number rises for unreported pregnancies (women who did not realize they were pregnant), reaching any where from 40 to 50 percent. That means, conservatively speaking, 1 in 4 pregnancies end prematurely.

Why is that? A lot of spontaneous abortions happen for unknown reasons. However, the more commonly known causes are a chromosomal abnormalities (not all sperm and eggs are "healthy" enough to form a viable pregnancy), family genetics, maternal health (or lack there of) and lifestyle factors of women (from anything to drinking alcohol to caffeinated beverages). And lastly age, the older you are significantly increases the chances of spontaneous abortions.

 In essence, a fertilized egg does not automatically equal a viable pregnancy. This is a very important point and must not be trivialized or rationalize away. The belief that birth control causes abortion is based on the assumption that most fertilized eggs will lead to a viable pregnancy if left on their own. When birth control interferes with this natural process it therefore kills the unborn. But as shown above, this is not the case. There is literally a 50/50 chance of viability. All embryos do not equal a living breathing baby nine months later.

Next you have to ask what does birth control actually do and why. There seems to be quite a lot of confusion surrounding this issue so lets go over the basics:

Oral birth control works three ways. First, it normally prevents ovulation from occurring so that the egg is never near enough to the uterus to risk fertilization. Second, thickened mucus in the uterus and the fallopian tubes traps the sperm and the occasional ovulated egg so they can't meet. Third, the same chemical that thickens the mucus also thins the walls of the uterus, making it harder for a embryo to attach to the walls to get nourishment.

The non-hormonal IUD's (Paragard) copper causes the uterus to make a spermicide-like fluid . This same fluid is considered to have an ovicidal affect. Ovulation continues as normal. A rare secondary affect of the IUD is irritating the uterus walls so that it makes it hard for an embryo to attach to it.

You will note that in both types of birth control that an egg can be fertilized and the resulting embryo can still attach to the uterus and go full term. I know of one lady who had only one "shriveled" ovary and was taking a hormonal birth control shot and still managed to get pregnant. So just because it makes it harder for an embryo to attach does not mean it makes it impossible.

Thus the million dollar moral question: Does birth control cause more, less, or the same amount of spontaneous abortions as women on no form of birth control at all?

It's important to keep in mind that most forms of birth control studies have not specifically done any tests to answer this question. With the notable exception of Paragard. So some of what I'm about to say is my best guess based on what information we currently have.

In the case of Paragard, the studies show that women using the IUD significantly reduce the amount of spontaneous abortions compared to their birth control-free counter parts. It's something along the lines of women using Paragard have a 1% chance or less of having spontaneous abortions (compare that number to women who aren't on any type of birth control at all). And of those abortions it's unknown how many were actually the result of the Paragard IUD itself or something unrelated (like drinking too much caffeine).

Oral birth control (OBC) is a different matter, but there is enough information out there to make an educated guess. Women on OBC ovulate between 2%-10% of the time (usually from missing or taking their OBC late) or they don't ovulate at all. Then on top of that, even should they ovulate, the thickened mucus traps the sperm and signficantly slows the egg down so they never meet. Which ought to logically lead to the conclusion that people who use OBC as directed will have fewer spontaneous abortions than those not using any birth control at all.

The only OBC I am unsure of is the mini-pill (progestin only) which works primarily by thickening the mucus, thining the uterus walls, and occasionally stopping ovulation.  (Women who stop ovulating on the mini-pill generally stop having periods all together. So if you're still having your periods on the mini-pill you're likely still ovulating.*)  With this pill, the chances for spontaneous abortions is much higher due to the risk of ovulating. Whether it causes the same amount, less, or more of abortions I don't know. (I leave that up to you to decide.)

So it is fair to say that most forms of birth control prevent spontaneous abortions, not cause them. And of those instances where spontaneous abortions occur, there is no way to know if it's actually the birth control causing it or the female body being disagreeable.

If a person is going to say that birth control is wrong because of the possibility of causing an abortion, then they must also admit that doing anything at all that causes a possible abortion is wrong too. So don't drink alcohol, or have too much caffeine, definitely don't smoke, and--oh yeah--don't have sex. Sex is the ultimate root to all types of abortions--intentional or accidental--because the only way for an abortion to happen is if the sperm and egg meet.

Now if this is not assurance enough, I give you two suggestions. 1) Women, keep track of your ovulation cycle.  You can further reduce the risk of unintended abortions by refraining from sexual intercourse during the times you are most likely to be ovulating. 2) In conjunction with the previous suggestion (or if that's just too much work), you can also use a second barrier method on top of whatever birth control you use now while you are ovulating (or all the time). With this combination, you can have lots of intercourse and feel rest assured that only an act of God will get you fertilized.


I did a lot of research and soul searching when writing this post. I could not link to any Christian articles regarding birth control due to their tendency to ignore, trivialize, or misunderstand the data available to them. Most of the sites I found the above information from were secular sites, and many of them referenced actual scientific studies for their information. I also went to a lot of trouble to learn the terms used in these articles so that I knew what they were talking about (aka would not get hoodwinked by a seemingly innocent sounding word) and could adequately explain what I read to you.

I hope you found this an interesting and, hopefully, an educational read. I tried to make this a "no spin zone" and to come at the subject with an honest and open mind.

Whether you still think birth control is wrong or not, I hope you can at least admit that women taking birth control are less likely to have any type of abortion/miscarriages at all than their non-birth control taking counter parts. This ought to be encouraging to you, whatever you think of birth control, as it means less babies are dying no matter which way you look at it.


Information Links:

http://www.modimes.org/baby/loss_miscarriage.html

http://www.hopexchange.com/FAQs.htm

http://www.ehow.com/about_5865198_abortifacient-effects-oral-contraceptives.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragard#cite_note-0

http://www.fhi.org/en/rh/pubs/network/v16_2/nt1623.htm

http://info.k4health.org/pr/b6/B6boxes.shtml

http://www.everything-condoms.com/contraceptives/iucd.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_pregnancy_factor

http://www.oralcontraceptives.com/about_cvc.asp

http://www.epigee.org/guide/pill.html

http://www.ivillage.com/can-you-ovulate-while-pill/6-n-145796

 *Note: When using OBC that has estrogen and progestin, you may experience "false periods". These are not related to ovulation. Rather they are the result of uterus shedding some of it's wall lining. "False periods" are typically much lighter than regular periods because there is less for the uterus to "dump".

MP4 is eeeeeevil, sorta :)

So today H, a realtor who works in the same building as my Boss, made the mistake of recording some videos in MP4. She thought she could basically copy/paste into a DVD and watch it on her dvd. MP4 doesn't work with DVD players, just computers (and generally with Quicktime). So then she tried to figure out how to convert, except none of the stuff she had worked.

Then my Boss must have walked by or she must have asked him for help. So guess what he decides? To ask me if I know what to do. So I'm like "I'll try."

And I do. I try some random program I found through google. It converts the MP4 into VOB, which is what I wanted, but than flat out would not burn to DVD. So from there I went to Windows Movie Maker, which let me make a title screen, and it actually burned. So I'm pretty sure it works now (though I couldn't test it, as there are no DVD players at my work).

I hope it worked. If it did I might have to show H how I did it. However, I wonder if I ought to find some other--much simplier--way for her to do this.... hm....

Random COMPUTERS! :D

So when I was with my parents I was given 3 computers to fix. One was super super old (from the early 90s), the other was my parents old computer from early '00 and the last was my sister's old computer. Then, at the last minute, my Dad comes home with another computer! (Total now is 4!)

This new computer was from someone at church. I guess a relative of there's got on their desktop and went places that caused viruses to be loaded. Essentially it destroyed the OS. And it was my job to fix it.

Well, it's an eMachine with XP, but no restore discs. Bummer. So I'm thinking "Well, generally there's a restore option right? Just use one of the F# keys...." but no F# key worked. In a last ditch effort I got it Windows Safe mode, as I had read some where that you could access recovery stuff through the start menu. It was a no go. At this point I'm beyond frustrated and decide I'd have better luck wiping the thing clean and starting from square one. (Luckily there was nothing important on the computer.)


Fortunately my parents have an OEM XP disc and a valid key. So I install the OS and then realize eMachine has "special" drivers for it's lan connections. Then I spend almost 30 minutes trying to find the stupid drivers (I was fortunate to find an older model with compatible drivers, otherwise eMachines would have required payment to ship a CD). Ok, so I get everything working and I'm happy to be done.

Jennifer's computer needed to have the harddrive wiped and cleaned and unreadable, for security type purposes. So I do that (takes a while with the program I using). Then I install Ubuntu on it. Why? Well, anyone using her old computer would do better using Ubuntu. :P

But my parents old computer had an important piece fall of the motherboard, so I didn't want to start it. I took out the harddrive, intending to install it on the ancient machine that had Windows 98 on it. Only to discover there are no SATA connectors. Then I open up Jen's computer only to discover there's no space for another harddrive. So then I gave it back and was all like "I dunno what to do with it!" (Until after I got home. Then I realized I could have gotten a free harddrive. DOH!)

Out of the 4 computers given to me, I could only save 2. My parents computer would be good scrap fodder, but the Window 98 machine... well... I was pretty sure that thing was on it's last leg.

But today I get a call from Dad saying how the eMachine wasn't working. The owners couldn't get the monitor to acknowledge the computer. I'm all confused because it worked fine for me. So I call the owner and he's talking to me about it not working, and in the middle of conversion he restarted the machine and I hear. "Oh, it's working!"

-__-

I don't even know what the problem was really. Either the computer couldn't find the driver for the monitor at first boot or he didn't have it plugged in all the way. My best guess. I was just glad it was working at that point.

House improvements

My list of things I'd like to do to improve my house:

1. Put better insulation in the attic.
2. Fix the electrical outlets so they don't pop out. (The cover plate on many are not secure.)
3. Put a new cover plate on the cable outlet in our room
4. Replace the remaining curtains.
5. Get a new stove top.
6. Get a new oven.
7. Fix refrigerator: water leak in freezer
8. Fix cabinet in kitchen and bathroom.
9. Remove wallpaper in both bathrooms & repaint.
10. Add new fixtures to Master Bath.
11. Replace bathroom mirrors.
12. Pull out all weeds and flowers from garden, replace with rocks.
13. Trim tree.
14. Trim all bushes.
15. Cut down giant bush on the left wall of the house.
16. Get chairs & small table for patio out back.
17. Fix air leaks from back door and check windows for possible air leaks.
18. Figure out how to close off fireplace to prevent cold/hot air from escaping.

Little Bitty Tear Drops

Tears always seemed like a weakness to me. As a teenager I cried when I was being illogical and unreasonable. I've always heard that tears are an emotional blackmail too. Some women even use them as a weapon (figuratively speaking). I didn't cry much when I was younger, and I liked how I had that level of control.

But now... now I just gotta admit it, I'm a weepy person. I cry when I'm talking about something sad, I cry when I'm angry, I cry when someone else is crying, I cry over sappy parts of movies and songs. And once I start going it's very difficult to stop.

I don't know how to deal with being a weepy person. It feels very awkward to me (yes, I get uncomfortable with myself when I start crying). I can't tell any more when it's ok to cry and when I just need to leave the room.

Mostly I just feel bad for Mike. I feel bad that I cry when I'm trying to talk about something serious. Crying when I'm trying to make a point just seems wrong to me. I just wanna say what I wanna say without all the waterworks. (And it's such an extra hassle too, since you need kleenex and you gotta pause to blow your nose and wipe your eyes. And tears are like glue on glasses to, so I spend 5-10 minutes after having to clean them off.)

Overall, I just don't like crying. My sister can turn her tears on and off. Even though I find that slightly... alarming... I wish I had that level of control. Just "flip a switch" and turn the tears off. It'd be nice.

Webinar

This Webinar thingy is... interesting. Some of the information was useful, but most of it wasn't practical.

The advert at the end was funny. I guess this is hosted by some company called PowerSite. They talked about how ythey normally charged $1,995 for their sites and the Gold SEO is $3, 595. But the first ten people calling can get it at a low price of $895.

Woooooah! Only $895?! *rolls eyes* For a Realtor, there's no reason to pay that kind of money. All these people are offering is a template website (Blogger does that for free) and plugins.

I hope no one was stupid enough to buy it. >_<

Work Related Talk

After returning from Christmas vacation and getting back to work, I was astonished to see a new printer/scanner/fax machine. I heard the old fax machine died and I guess the old printer was on it's way out too, so they just said "Heck with it!" and bought a new unit. (Apparently it's VERY expensive too!)

It's a wonderful machine. Today I needed something printed on front and back of the paper. I thought it'd take a while (like the old machine) but it was so fast. Almost as fast as regular printing. Amazing! And the print quality (for faxes even) is better as well.

I was printing a bunch of stuff when a Realtor walked in. She needed the printer. So I let her use it, since I was between prints. She actually called me sweet and gave me a hug for letting her use the printer.

I'm thinking "Well gosh, who ever heard of getting a hug over something like this? Are people in this office super aggressive with their printing rights or something?"

At the beginning of the New Year my Boss has me send out HUDS and helpful tax hints to our clients of the previous year. I remember the first time I did this I was really stressed out, but this time it's been pretty easy. (Though I'm still not sure exactly what paperwork to send in cases of people selling a home for a deceased parent.)

Tomorrow I'm taking a Webinar class my Boss suggested that deals with photography. It's supposedly all about improving your pictures of homes and making them look more dynamic and stuff. I'm interested to see how well this will work and if they're saying anything I don't already know. (It might be one of those classes for people who don't know how to use a camera at all.)

On other news tonight..

I've pretty much given up on the idea of keeping multiple journals. It just doesn't work. In the end all that happens is I never update. So I've officially stopped posting on the other websites and linked them all to here. The very very veeeery few people who still watched me will at least have some idea where I've gone to. :)

Today I gave my cats catnip. Nice fresh catnip. Puar took a whiff and a chew and then rolled her whole fuzzy body in it. She also got VERY possessive of her "space" and spat at the boys if they got too close. Danny chewed a bit and got loopy enough to lie down on his side. That was it. Ichigo chewed and chewed and then.... nothing. Didn't phase him at all. (Though Mike rightfully points out that he always seems like he's on a high anyway, so it's no surprise it doesn't affect him.)

We did a bunch of grocery shopping. Got lots of fresh foods and stuff. It's expensive to eat healthy. And it's not like you can find coupons on vegetables, you know?

Hmmmm.. I think I was gonna say something else, but I forgot! Ah well, must not be that important. :P

Woah, new layout!

Finally switched to the newer layouts on Blogger. I sort of kind of like this layout. Though it seems a bit to.... white to me. Needs more blue. Oh well, I might change it later!

Christmas & New Years '10-'11

It's 2011 everyone. Burning questions on my mind right now? Where are our flying cars? Why don't we have a colony on Mars? Or at LEAST the Moon!? Is anyone else deeply disappointed about these unfulfilled promises? :P

So this year we visited my parents. I love visiting my family! They are a little odd, quirky, hilarious, and completely lovable. I have always known I was blessed to end up in a family with them in it. Every visit just gives more credibility to that.

It's strange, because I had no real love for the area I grew up in. When I left it, I didn't really regret it. But I do regret leaving my family, and I do miss a "familiar place". Though it's exciting to move to a new place every 4 years, it's also tiring and lonely. When I visit my parents, it's like going home.

Well, not exactly. It's hard to explain. Where ever Mike is, that's home. I truly mean it. If Mike isn't there, than a place (no matter how familiar ) feels foreign and colorless. Like a soup with no salt or spice.

This year I bought myself a Kindle as a Christmas present. I brought it with me to my parents because.... well... if you don't use an ebook reader when you're traveling, what's the point of it? I thought my Mom might like the Kindle. She loves reading as much as I do, and travels about as much as me too.

I was disappointed with her response. She did pick it up and mess with it a little, and a few days later she commented on how amazing the screen looked (better than a page in a book) while I was reading a book on it. Beyond that she didn't say much and as far as I know didn't touch it again.

Then, two days before we leave, she comes over and starts talking about different ebook readers. Not just talking about them, she was wondering which one to buy. I was quite surprised, since it seemed to come right out of the blue. (Though now that I think about it, I bet she'd been eyeing my Kindle the whole time and wondering what the whole eReader thing was about.)

But anyone who knows me, knows that I can't pass up an offer to window shop for electronics. And the best kind of shopping is when someone else is spending money.

You might be surprised to know that I recommended she get the Nook, even though I have Kindle. There are a few reasons for this: My Mom is use to working with an iPod's touch screen. When she first handled my Kindle she kept ignoring the buttons and trying to "touch" the screen. The Nook has a touch screen, which means the learning curve is less severe for her. The Nook and many of it's accessories can be bought in the Barnes and Noble store near where she lives. It also reads more formats than the Kindle (particularly ePub) so she won't have to deal with converting files as much. All of these things together made it a better buy for her.

(For myself, I despise the touch screen. Waste of battery power. I also don't have a B&N store near me. While I truly wish Kindle read ePub I'm not that worried about it. I also like Amazon's Whispernet infinitely better than B&N method. And B&N navigation on their website to find ebooks is terrible. I tried finding free ebooks on there and it's like they made it purposefully difficult. And to top it all off the Nook is heavier than the Kindle.)

So the day before we left Mom and I went to Barnes and Noble to buy a Nook. The Nook Kiosk is literally right in front of you when you enter the store. We already knew what type of Nook she was getting (e-ink w/ wifi only) so we politely ignored the sales person and started looking at accessories.

When we were done we went back to the Nook Kiosk to buy our stuff. The Salewoman was helping an older gentlement who was trying to decide between the Color and two e-ink Nooks. The more the talked the more baffled he looked. You could tell that whatever she was telling him wasn't getting through.

My Mom and I (being perpetually nosy and loving to help someone in a bind) began talking to the confused gentlemen. It became clear to him early on that we knew more about the Nook than the Saleswoman did. He actually took us aside and asked us more in-depth questions. By the end of it, we decided he'd do best with the Nook Wifi E-ink Screen and that's what he got.

I walked away feeling immensely pleased with myself but also a little annoyed with the saleswoman. That man should not have had to talk to fellow customers to figure out what Nook to get. I suspect the saleswoman was trying to push the Nook Color on him. I understand the up sell since it's new and all, but there are better ways to go about it. Her "up sell" was just confusing the poor man, and if we hadn't been there I think he'd have walked away all together. When I talked to her, her knowledge of the e-ink screen seemed shaky at best.

As my sister would put it, the whole exchange made me go: =n=

So now my Mom has a Nook. She already bought some books, even a Bible for church!, and she spent most of the night before we left with her "nose to her Nook", reading. I'm really happy I helped "convert" her to eReaders. I hope she has good experiences with the Nook so she'll keep using it.

I think I might have gained weight at my parents house, lol. They were constantly feeding us delicious food. Dad made a turkey Christmas Eve dinner that was delicious. (Mike ate everything on his plate and even had seconds!) The last day we were there we had beef ribs (which were also delicious).

Puar (the female long haired grey cat) seemed to remember my parents house. She lived their for 4 years so I guess it's not surprising. I think, of my 3 cats, she had the best time. No one really bothered her, she ignored the dogs (and thus was ignored by them), and got to go outside on my parents screened in back porch. She also got to sit on her favorite seat cushions and watch birds and squirrels.

Ichigo did alright. I don't think he remembered last year's visit at all. He got in a huge fight with Sara (fur flying and everything) upstairs and there after avoiding the upstairs. He avoided the dogs, smacked them around when they got close, and by the end of our visit would chase after them if he felt harassed. (The dogs--Samuel and Skyler--are pansies and run away.)

He likes high places. One of the first things he did was hop onto the 'frig and then kitchen cabinets. Mom took down all the breakables within 5 minutes of realizing there was no way to prevent him from getting up there. Unfortunately she didn't do the same for her nativity set which was displayed on the fireplace mantel. I almost thought he didn't notice it, but botheration, he got up there. Knocked down several figures, one of the three camels didn't make it and I think a wise man lost a bit of his base.

I thought Mom was gonna be upset but she didn't really care. You'd think it'd have bothered her more, she made the whole set in college. I'd think handmade stuff would be valuable. But apparently she was surprised the set had lasted as long as it had and didn't seem to value it much.

Danny spent almost the entire time in the guest bedroom. I think he went out of that room twice, and never got further than the living room. He's terrified of the dogs (even though they're Yorkies) and he refused to walk past their kennels (which were in the living room). If we didn't pop into the guest room enough, he'd howl for attention.

He howled both ways on the drive. Not all the time, fortunately. Actually, I think part of the way he's howling because he think we're stopping to let him out or he doesn't like the road noise. By the end, I think he's just howling because he's got to pee. Hehe.

Sara (Jen's cat) suffered the worst from our visit. Sara hates other cats, has since the beginning. Having 3 of them show up put her in a foul mood. It got worse when Ichi got up on "her" bed (that's Jen's bed). They got into a hug fight which left bald spots on them both. Ichi ran away, but Sara suffered a real mental shock. She was practically scared of her own shadow for days afterward, and she'd go into a spitting rage at Jen's white statue tiger (we assume she thought it was another cat invading her territory).

In the end, Jen hid her tiger and brought Sara's food, water, and litter box into her room. She also kept her door closed at all times to prevent the other animals from getting in. Eventually Sara settled down, but I suspect she won't actually go down stairs for at least another week.

(Eventually, Ichi went back upstairs. I caught him trying to sneak into Jennifer's room. Probably knowing Sara was in there. I don't think he wanted to fight her, but he does like eating other cat's food and pooing in their little box. Little bully.)

I got to spend an evening with Priscilla while I was there too. That was cool. She hasn't been in my parents house since she was a teenager. She had a severe case of deja vu, since very little hand changed around the house. She said it was like walking into her past and being a teenager all over again. (Which would be alot cooler if her teenager years hadn't sucked so bad. Fortunately some of the only good memories she had of that time were at my parents house.)

We went to New Orleans with the Ds. I generally avoid new Orleans, always felt the place was dirty and had a kind of skeezy feel to it. We stayed in the nicer parts of town though, so that helped. We ate a pizza place (got garlic and sun dried tomota pizza, excellent!) and then some sort of desert that tasted similar to a funnel cake. We went to some festival thing called something like "Lighting of the Oaks". (Can't remember the real name.) It was ok, too many people. Worse than a Japanese festival!

It was cold, in the 20s/30s for the first portion of our trip there. It was strange having a coastal area be colder than Northern Texas. It warmed up by the end of our stay, but then I had to suffer the humidity. Never liked humidity, I'd rather deal with the cold.

For our actual travel, nothing much of interest happened. The Fit travels well, though the seats start hurting your butt by the 5 hour mark. We also discovered trucks don't like being passed by small cars like ours and will purposefully go out of their way to pass us by after we'd done the same to them 5 minutes ago. Also, traveling any where near Dallas sucks.

So now we're home. Glad we cleaned up before we left. Something about coming home to a clean house. It's a great feeling! :)

The Doctrine of Tithing

You know, I hate the word "tithe" and the theology that goes with it. It comes up every now and then, and no matter how many years pass by it still really ticks me off. I've tried being rational about it, not getting all fired up and whatever, but I've finally just given up. The fact is I hate the practice and I frown on evangelicals for propagating such an erroneous teaching.

My greatest lament is that I can not get my husband to take a serious look at this teaching. I have tried, but I guess I just come off as hysterical when I talk about it. He never takes what I say very seriously and has the general attitude of "Well, we ought to be giving anyway. What does it matter if we call it a tithe or not?"

But it IS important and I want to explain a little about why.

Tithing is not giving. To say they are is to say that a tax is the same a charitable donation. They've got nothing to do with each other.

Giving is something you chose to do. Giving can be anything. You can give to anyone or any charity or institution. You can give in any amount, even just a little bit. There are no guarantees that God will physically bless a giver. There is no punishment for not giving (though their is a punishment for selfishness and greed.)

Tithing is required to be a "Good Christian". Tithing is required to be a member of (some) churches. Tithing must be money. Tithing goes to your church. Tithing is used to support your Pastor's salary and the church building(s). Tithing must be at least 10% of your income before taxes and living expenses. The poor, widowed, and fatherless are expected to tithe. Many teach that if you tithe you will gain something in return from God and if you don't tithe God will punish you in some way.

Many have objected to tithing because it's based on the old Jewish Law. Jesus replaced the High Priest and our bodies are now the Temple so it's not really practical anyway. Additionally, the New Testament authors only talk of giving never tithing. For more detailed arguments concerning this please go HERE , HERE, and HERE. (Disclaimer: I have not read through everything these sites have on them. I can only say the reasoning behind these particular pages is sound.)

But there is a secondary argument that I've heard. They say that tithing was common practice among the godly and was done long before the 10 commandments. They use Genesis 14 as the example.

In this chapter it talks about a huge battled between a bunch of kings (4 vs 5 specifically). After the war, the spoils went to winners (the 4 Kings I believe). Alas, Abram's Nephew, Lot, was part of the spoils! So the Nephew and everything he owned got hauled away.

When Abram heard this he immediately set out to free his nephew. He was successful and freed his Nephew. But not only did he free his nephew, he also "freed" the 4 Kings of all their spoils of war. Abram came back with his Nephew, his Nephew's belongings, plus loot from 9 Kings.

On the way back he bumps into the Kings of Sodom and Salem. The King of Salem is apparently a priest of God as well, and blesses Abram. In return, Abram gives him a tenth (tithe in KJV) of all the loot. The King of Sodom (one of the losers of the war) asks for his men back, but offers Abram all the goods. However, Abram refuses and gives the King of Sodom everything back.

Now what people point out here is that Abram gave Melchizedek a tithe. Therefore, tithing predates the law and is an acceptable practice for Christians.

But lets look at a few things here:

1) Abram gave him a tenth (tithe) of the spoils of war.
2) Abram gave all of King Sodom's stuff back. Which means that Melchizedek didn't get any of it.

3) Before and after this, there is no mention of Abram giving tithes to Melchizedek or anyone else. (In fact, there is no mention of any Jew tithing at all until Leviticus 27!)

So what does this mean? We know Abram regularly offered animal sacrifices to God, but there is no mention of Abram regularly tithing to anyone. Melchizedek seems to be the exception. The Priest-King did not demand or even ask for a tithe. Abram did not give out of "his own pockets" but out of the stolen goods from the defeated kings.

Read that again.

It was only the spoils that got tithed, and not even all of that since Sodom got all his stuff back. Abram gave a tithe of what wasn't really his to begin with. And after this we never hear about Melchizedek or tithing on Abram's part again.

Paul compared Melchizedek to Jesus. (Some even say Melchizedek could have been a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. Though I'm not sure how likely that actually is.) Please read Hebrews 7 to understand why Paul makes this connection.

Anyway, the point is... Jesus is a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. It implied that Melchizedek got the tithe for being a High Priest of God. Christians only have Jesus as their High Priest. So if we are to tithe, we are only to tithe to Jesus.

But lets take this a few inches more and see if we can take that mile. If we are to reject the Judaic Law form of Tithing and follow the example of Abraham, what would that mean?

1) We should tithe out of our abundance, not our income.
2) If we have a made promise to someone that requires us giving them a portion of our abundance, we are to do so. Exclude the promised portion from the tithe.
3) The person we are to tithe should not ask or demand a tithe.
4) Tithing is rare, rather than common. It has nothing to do with blessing or curses from God.

Lastly, what would it mean to "tithe to Jesus", as that's the only High Priest available to us today? Well, the church building is not Jesus. Church ministries are not Jesus. The Pastor, Youth Pastors, and Deacons/Elders are not Jesus. In fact, Christians are "the Bride of Christ", not Jesus. But tithing to the Bride is not the same thing as tithing to Jesus.

So now we're at a dead end. We have no one to tithe to because Jesus is at the Right Hand of the Father. And even when he gets back, he won't need our money.

But if you're short on time, there's an even simpler way to refute Genesis 14 being a pro-tithe passage. Just say "I notice people were sacrificing animals to God before the Mosaic Law too. Does that mean it's OK for us to do the burnt offering thing today as well?"

Using Genesis 14 to justify modern tithing doesn't work. To try to make it work is taking scripture out of context. Worse yet-- it is forcing Scripture to say what you want it to say to get money. I fervently hope no one reading this wants to be that much of a slime-ball that they would purposefully use scripture to get money.

Other arguments are used for tithing in the New Testament, such as the Widow's Mite. I recommend reading those 3 links above, as they cover that too.

If you really look into it, you will find there is no New Testament support for the modern day tithe. There is much said about generosity, about helping the poor and needy, and even about donations to Christians suffering in other places of the world. But there is nothing--zero--about Christians needing to tithe.

Now you're thinking to yourself, "How are we suppose to give then, if not tithe?"

I say:

1) Give how ever much you want to or are able to give.

2) Don't just give money, or don't feel like only money counts as "giving". Your time, expertise, clothes, or food are just as needed as your money. Consider giving those in place of --or along with-- money.

3) If you're seriously struggling to make ends meat--don't give. Seriously, stop feeling guilty about it. God has *never* demanded money or goods from the poor, Old or New Testament. Anyone claiming otherwise is trying to rob you, and God seriously frowns upon robbing from the poor.

4) Don't limit yourself to the church. Give to that homeless guy on the corner, or that neighbor who is struggling, or to that charity you feel strongly about. Your local church is great, but there's more out there and absolutely no reason to limit yourself.

And that's all I gotta say about that. :)

Dietrich Bonhoeffer the German Who Spoke Out

We watched a documentary on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a theologian and part of a German resistant movement against the Nazis before and during WW2. He was, in fact, one of the few Germans who saw through Hitlers sweet talk and thought him a nasty piece of work that would lead to nothing but death.

It's really a shame that for so long so little is mentioned about the resistant movements in Germany. The one Mr. Bonhoeffer was involved in made several attempts to assassinate Hitler, and at the very end they almost killed him. (He had the damnedest luck though, being saved by an exceptionally sturdy wood table.) I feel that if people like Bonhoeffer would be mentioned in the histories of WW2, it would give much more depth to the plight of the every day Germans. It would certainly have made them seem significantly less gullible and foolish.

(It's important to note I'm not talking about Germany currently. Germany now and Germany than are two different things, alright? And I've also got German in me from my Grandpa's side so I'm not unaware of Germans outside of Nazis.)

Mike and I also talked about how it's morally permissible for a Christian to participate in assassination attempts on a government official. This is what we concluded:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke
Allowing a government to murder millions of people and doing nothing about it is the same as murdering those people ourselves. In the case of the Nazis, the silence from the church allowed the Nazi party to brainwash their citizens into thinking it was OK to murder millions of Jews. Their silence was the same as putting an endorsement stamp on the orders to slaughter the Jews.

Yes, Christ endorses non-violence... in a personal way. That is to say, when a thief takes your jacket, give him the clothes on your back. When your stricken on the cheek, offer the other. Love your enemy, all that good stuff. You'll notice this is all one on one. Your enemy, your cheek, your jacket. These things are not referring to justice in general or about other people's suffering, but to personal encounters.

We have some idea what Jesus opinion is about people who see suffering and do nothing. A good example is the Good Samaritan. In this story a man is robbed and left for dead. The righteous and pious walk by doing nothing--and are deemed to be morally wrong. It's only the Samaritan who gets it right when he steps in to personally help this man. And then there's the example of the Adulterous woman too. Supposedly this woman "deserved" to die by stoning, yet even then Jesus stepped in to save her.

And finally, what about his whole death? Why did he do it? He died so that others might have life. He sacrificed himself to give us all the chance to be made right before a righteous and holy God.

We also know, based on the book of James, that those who go around saying things like "God bless you" while leaving a main starving and shirtless have an empty faith. You can't claim to be religious or righteous if you leave others to suffer when you could do something about it.

All these things bring me to the conclusion that being a pacifist is not Christian. Please note, I'm not saying you can't object to war or violence or whatever. I'm not even saying violence shouldn't be the last resort. That's perfectly alright to think that way.

What I am saying is that sometimes you can't solve a problem by peacefully protesting and saying "Peace, peace!". There are times when a person very twisted and evil rises into power who won't listen to your peace talks and will keep on murdering millions regardless of what you say. The only way to stop these type of people is by killing them and/or violently stop them from murdering innocents.

That's just how the world works. It's not a decision to take lightly. But it's also not a decision to think about too long either. Because while you're thinking some one is dying by your inaction.

Now, I know some people are a little bit off and might try to misapply what I'm saying. For instance, you could say that abortion kills millions of innocents every year. This is a horrible injustice and something must be done.

BUT unlike Hitler, our government doesn't force anyone to get an abortion (like China). Yes, they allow it, but it's the individual who chooses to go through with it. (And even if it was still illegal, people would be doing it anyway like they always have.) It's a moral individual issue, not a tyrannical government issue.

Even within the group of people who get abortions, not everyone does it willingly. Some people are deceived, others are forced by family or lovers to go through with it. You can't lump them all together like you can a "Hitler".

In the case of abortion, murdering an abortion doctor is not going to stop anything. Being physically violent towards women getting abortions also won't work. The only thing that will work is education, alternatives, and the transforming power of Christ. Anything less is just putting a band-aid on a broken leg, morally speaking. (The root of the problem must be fixed first before any real meaningful progress can be made.)

And that's pretty much all I've got to say about that.