That is it; I've had it.
I've had it with the finger-pointing, the division, the name-calling, the accusations and the hypocrisy. And yes, this means you.
I was raised "in the church;" from birth I've been the member of a religious institution of some stripe or other. I've seen the best and worst of church families; the support and the dissent, the joy of fellowship and the hurt of rejection. From going to a church where the leadership committed adultery with married parishioners, to gossip, to people leaving fellowships of over 20 years over the kind of music played. Whatever the scab, scar or fault you can find in a church, I've seen it.
Yet still I have no left the church, I have not left my faith, and I refuse to disgrace to Bride of Christ by calling her a hypocrite, an outdated, passe Christian country club, an old idea whose time is done.
Have Christians made mistakes? Yes -- even entire denominations have messed up. Christians have discriminated, insulted, and, yes, even killed. And Christians will always do so, till Christ returns to claim His Bride and remove her imperfections.
Do we think God is pleased when we point fingers at His children and name them Hypocrite, Fool, Hater? Do we think the Son is pleased by our ability to point out splinters while we ignore the planks? Do we resemble vessels of the Holy Spirit when we insult the Body He was sent to inhabit?
Over the years I've read at least hundreds of blogs, pulses and articles on why the Church is dead, why Her people are hopeless, and why Christians can only serve God by leaving the church behind. We have simply ignored whole admonishments from God through His apostle St Paul to not refrain from the coming together of fellowship by saying, "I on my own am better than We as a family." I don't know about you, but I look FORWARD to family reunions. This weekend I get to see family I haven't seen in over ten years and I couldn't be happier. Does that mean my family is perfect? Of course not -- but they are MINE, given to me by God to love. My church family is no different.
So before you write another five page treatise about why the church is, at best, an unnecessary burden, before you think you're being unique and clever by insulting God's children, your own brothers and sisters, before you point to history to justify your disdain for Christ's bride, and before you point to human weakness as a reason to dismiss the inner workings of the Holy Spirit, take a second to ask yourself this: Whose ends are you serving by your opinions -- Satan's or God's?

Okay, this is mostly just for shits and giggles, but if anyone knows the scientific data behind this question, let me in on the news 'cause I can't find anything.

Addison has warm, dark brown hair (red undertones), but a bright red beard, and has Irish and Welsh ethnicity. My hair is warm, medium brown with red highlights, but more brunette than red, and I am of German and French descent. Our parents on both sides are all brunettes, with the exception of my father, who has cool, medium blonde hair.

So... what are the odds of Liam being a ginger?

I find it funny, upon contemplation, to consider that a few hundred homosexual activists have the potential to grind the Capital to a halt and make a liar or hypocrite out of every member of the US legislation.

The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL, which doubles as their philosophy: plagal mode is a musical term referring to a kind of harmony, reflecting their position of harmony with all human life) has petitioned for the approval of a bill to be presented to the US government. As written, the bill would, in the event that a prenatal test for homosexuality or a disposition towards homosexuality is developed, make it a crime to abort children with a high likelihood of being born gay or becoming gay. I, for one, love this idea -- because, no matter who votes which way, everyone loses.

Republicans have two options: Either vote for or against it. If they vote for it, they would have to admit that homosexuality is a condition preexisting the individual's choice, thus negating any possibility of legitimately arguing against such issues as gay marriage or gay adoption. If they vote against it, however, they would admit that they do not care about unborn human life "under any and all circumstances."

Liberals are even worse off. If they vote in favor of the legislation, they would have to admit that they do not uphold a woman's choice "for any reason," and that human nature begins long before viability or birth-- that human nature is, in fact, inextricably linked to human life, and that human life begins at conception. On the other hand, if they vote against it, they would be admitting to all homosexuals that they do not truly care about protecting gays unless it becomes politically advantageous for them -- something no Democrat would want to portray.

I almost hope that such a test could be developed, if for no reason other than to see the images of agony come across our elected officials' faces as they deliberate over which cheek would hurt less to get spanked on.

I've been at this for ten years or so, variably debating, advocating, and protesting as a pro-life advocate. This isn't my first time at the rodeo. If I had a dollar for every time someone has violated one of these rules, I'd be rich enough to pay off my enlistment and settle down in Texas, where I belong.

This list is by no means extensive, but it does apply to both sides -- though one side may be more likely of violating certain rules than others. But if you're gonna comment on my posts about abortion, read these rules first -- before I call you a jackass and send you packing.

1: Know what you're talking about. Words cannot fully express to anyone how annoyed I get when I hear abortion-choicers make such ignorant statements as, "The unborn are just a lump of cells," or "They're not even human." Don't even bother trying to sound like you know what you're talking about unless you actually do. When I first took a pro-life stance, I did so after having talked to L&D nurses, reading college textbooks on embryology and developmental science, studying Constitutional law, talking with women from a plethora of backgrounds on abortion, etc, etc, etc. And when I got tired of people insinuating I did not know what I was talking about (a violation of rule 2), I took a college course on embryology. I probably know as much about human development in the first 12 weeks as a first-year obstetrics student. If you don't at least have an interest in finding out the facts before opening your mouth, keep it shut.

2: Avoid ad hominems like they're the swine flu. "Ad hominem" is a Latin term which means, "against the man." It is a logical error in which a person attacks another's character or other unrelated topic in order to avoid the actual issue. Such ad hominems often overheard: "You just want to control women." "You think it's okay to kill babies." "You don't know what women are going through." "You have no respect for human life." Keep the debate about the issue at hand; not only will it keep things civil, but if you demonstrate respect, you might actually be able to get your opponent to listen to rule number 5.

3: Stop making assumptions. This ties in closely with rule number 2. Don't assume that because the person you are talking to is an abortion-choicer, he or she is automatically irreligious scum. Don't assume that because the person you're talking to is pro-life, he or she is automatically straight, white, and Christian. There are Atheists who oppose abortion and Catholics who believe it should remain legal. There are pro-life homosexuals and abortion-choice heterosexuals. There are pro-life Democrats and abortion-choice Republicans -- and, party platform aside, fully half of all Libertarians are pro-life. There are members of both sexes, all races, and all religions across all realms and spectrum of the debate. Spend more time listening and less time talking, and you just might have less chance of making an ass of yourself.

4: Think consistently. If your views on abortion run counter to views you have on other issues (for instance, killing or rape), ensure that you have either examined all stances for error or have at least thought through to the logical conclusion of your ideas. I cannot tell you how many people I have talked to who have used arguments for second trimester abortion that could easily be used to defend infanticide and involuntary assisted suicide. Don't get angry with your opponent if he or she asks you to define your terms and to extend the logical basis of your argument to its conclusion. You may find that your ideas run counter to what you actually believe is right -- leading you to rule number 5.

5: Be willing to admit when you're wrong. This is the biggest, least-followed, and most-hated of all rules in any real-life debate. When I was a young girl, before I bothered to give the abortion question any legitimate thought or time in my mind, I simply assumed that, since I was uninformed, I couldn't make any kind of decision about the lives of others any better than they could. I was very much "pro-choice," not out of reason or rationality, but because it just seemed like the "best" solution for all involved. It wasn't until I deeply considered the issue, examined the evidence, and applied consistency of thought to it that I realized the error in my logic and became pro-life. Since then even my pro-life philosophy itself has evolved from one based largely on religious belief, to an areligious foundation of Libertarianism and Constitutional consistency. It is because of my discussions with others who have challenged my thoughts and ideas that these views continue to change. I have often told others, if it can be PROVEN to me that the abortion-choice philosophy is one based on fact, logic, and correct application of science, I will change my mind once again. So far, after ten years, this evidence has yet to surface -- yet I remain, as always, willing to examine any evidence that comes my way -- so long as it is consistent with The Rules.

6: Don't make logical errors. This is a personal pet peeve of mine, but it's a big one. Non sequiturs, begging the question, anecdotal evidence, and my BIGGEST peeve, post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments -- none of these belong in a debate between two reasonable, rational people. If you can't play nice, you shouldn't play at all.

7: Be clear. This is another pet peeve, one that can make or break even the best of thinkers. Here's the cold, hard, truth: You can be the most intelligent, most rational, most well-informed person on Earth, but if you write or speak like a drunk five year-old and don't have some kind of mental or physical handicap, no one is going to listen to you. I work 8 hours a day, take care of a house and a husband, and am currently incubating a human being; I don't have the mental energy to sift through pages of "wut r u talking aboot my english iz grate 4 reelz." I'm pretty sure my cat could write better than that, and she's down syndrome. Know what you want to say, and how you want to say it, in the most clear, rational way you are able. And if your opponent is unclear on what you mean, differ to rule number 8.

8: Define your terms. Abortion-choicers and pro-lifers tend to use a lot of the same language, while meaning completely different things. For instance, when an abortion-choicer talks about "life," he is most often referring to what he considers "association with acknowledged persons" or "recognized humanity" or mechanical features of what they believe define persons, while the pro-lifer uses the term "life" to define any being which exhibits the physical and scientific characteristics of being animate. Pro-lifers talk about "humanity" in biological terms and association with homo sapiens, while abortion-choicers more generally refer to "humanity" in terms of "personhood."  Pro-lifers disregard definitions of "personhood" as merely philosophical and subjective, while abortion-choicers rely on "personhood" as an indication of legal and social protection. If you are unsure which definitions of common terms your opponent is using, ask -- and be willing to define your own terminology. If you find that you cannot without being self-contradictory, refer to rules 5 and 1.

9: Talk a walk on the wild side. Before entering an abortion debate, make sure you are not allowing personal biases to influence your agenda. Take into consideration, if you know it, your opponent's background, experiences, and personality. Walk in his or her shoes and see whether or not his or her experience may offer a richer basis for thought than your own. In debate we called this devil's advocate: arguing the other side in order to examine flaws in your own thought. And when you do this, be reasonable: Do not simply assume that because your opponent is abortion-choice, she has no respect for human life; or, if he is pro-life, don't assume that it is because he wants to revoke suffrage. If you do, you should take another look at rules 2 and 3.

10: Be respectful. This one is just self-explanatory. There are always going to be those people who simply want to hang on to their ideas, no matter how much evidence weighs against them. There will always be those people who will ignore their own flaws while demanding you examine your own, even if your logic is sound. Let them, and move along your own way. Respectfully tell them you will not discuss the issue further unless they will respect you as you respect them. Then follow through, and don't get dragged into an all-out mental brawl. Such arguments are what has deadlocked the abortion debate these last 30 years. It's time to move on, respect others, and command respect from others. We deserve it, and so does the issue.

You have been kidnapped. You find yourself in a dark corridor; there are no windows, no doors, except for one door at the end of the corridor. You are told to proceed through the door. You do so, and find yourself in a room. There are no windows, but a chair, a TV, and a video game console. The walls are covered with wallpaper of strange pattern, which you quickly dismiss. You are instructed to play the game; if you win, you will be freed. If not, you will remain trapped.

You play the game, finding its rules and controls difficult and unclear. You eventually beat the game, and a hidden door opens to allow you free passage to the outside. Upon leaving, you find that the "secret" door was in fact visible all along, its doorknob hidden in the pattern of the wallpaper.

What you do not know is that, when you won, a signal was sent out from the console to your captors outside, instructing them to kill your child.

Should you be held guilty for your child's death?




























Granted, the scenario is far-fetched. Yet this is almost the exact situation a million women find themselves in every year, trapped in a place they feel there is no escape from, willing to do anything to "just get out." They do not know that some chances for escape may involve the death of another human being. They do not know that other chances for escape require merely looking beyond the most obvious. They are, at worst, guilty of involuntarily acting as an agent of the abortionist, but certainly not murder. There is no question but that women seeking abortion are deceived, and you cannot be guilty of murder if you are unaware that your actions may contribute to the deaths of others.

Something weird is going on with my blog; for some reason, I can only read comments on my feedback, but not on my site. So if your comment is more than a few words long, I can't see the whole thing. Sent an error to Xanga; hopefully it'll get fixed soon.

Sorry about that if I haven't gotten back to anyone!

Dear sir or ma'am,

Yesterday you sent me a private message on a deleted profile. Since I can't contact you directly, I'll do so here.

You told me that you do believe that all people are saved by grace, and gave me this scenario: Two men are drowning in a lake. One insists, "God will save me!" and does nothing under his own power, and eventually dies. The other man swims towards the pier, but cannot make it on his own; so Jesus puts out a stick and pulls him ashore. You said that the first man represents the Christian idea of salvation by grace, while the second is Mormonism's.

But I contest that there is a third man in the water, who is dead at the bottom. Jesus jumps into the water, pulls the man out, and gives him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. THIS is the Christian idea of salvation by grace; Jesus is our savior not because "we do our best, and He does the rest;" Jesus is our savior because we could do nothing, and He did everything.

You said, "By Christian's logic, since God will forgive anything we do through grace, then there is no reason to not sin. You may as well do whatever you want and just ask forgivenss (sic), and it's like it never happened. Mormons just think that grace comes in when we have already done our best to eliminate sin from our lives; ITS (sic) UP TO US to change and up to Heavenly Father to make up the difference."

But this is an argument as old as Christianity itself. Paul has already answered in throughout Romans 6: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue to sin that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we, who are dead to sin, live any longer therein?"

Let me ask you a question. Do you have a car? If so, do you have insurance? Does it cover you in case you cause an accident?

If you do, why do you not attempt to go cause accidents? I have full coverage on my car, but I still drive carefully and in accordance with the law and with due safety. God's grace is not there for us to abuse, and those who understand grace do not even WANT to abuse it. I know my husband will forgive me if I mess up; that doesn't mean I want to hurt him by screwing up every time I feel too lazy, too selfish, too cruel to take care of him.

Or take another example. A few years ago, my husband was stationed in California. Up till then I'd happily been an East Coast gal. I love, LOVE the East Coast; I was miserable in California. What was worse, my brother -- who is my best friend -- was just about to return from deployment in Iraq, and I wouldn't be able to spend any time with him in Virginia. My husband had been trying to figure out a way to send me home for a week when I messed up; I got a traffic ticket.

I called my brother in tears, and told him I couldn't afford to come home; I'd screwed up, and now I had to pay for it with the money I'd wanted to use to see him. He simply said, "Look, when were you planning on coming?" I gave him the dates, and he said, "Look at your e-mail box, I'm sending you your ticket confirmation right now." Without my asking, he was not only being merciful to me -- by NOT giving me what I had deserved -- but he showed me grace, by giving me what I hadn't deserved, hadn't earned, and could not have earned.

You say God makes up the difference after our own efforts; but what does that say about God's grace as a gift? If I had paid back my brother for what he had done, it wouldn't have been a gift. The point is that I COULDN'T pay it back, just like we cannot repay God for what He does by giving us grace. There is no difference to be paid; Christ has already paid the full cost of all our transgressions. You said that you believe Christ took up "all the sins of the world" in Gethsemane; if this is true, how can you POSSIBLY save yourself from any of them? Either Christ took them all up, or only some.

I truly hope you will think about these things -- not so that I can be right, but so that you will understand grace as "a gift of God, and not by works, lest any man should boast." It is the sweetest truth you can know.

I did in fact wait until marriage to have sex -- for reasons of my own, not those of any particular church (in fact, between ages 15-till now at 23, I didn't attend any church and still abstained outside of marriage). And while some of the conventional wisdom of the age are true -- women do indeed want sex, and sexuality in and of itself is not a moral issue -- I think we miss a lot of the point about not engaging in it. Feminists as a whole tend to view everything, regardless of relevance, through a male/female dichotomy; every issue is a male/female issue, and therefore, if it is "male" it is bad and if it is "female" it is good. But the social views of sexual "purity" versus sexual activity is less a male view, than a tool of social survival. It was prudent to look upon being sexually inactive outside of marriage in a negative setting because it helped to prevent children born out of wedlock (which women could not support) and the social-draining effects of STDs and STIs.

While I agree that, today, women (and men!) who engage in sexual activity should not be looked down on, and that especially followers of Christ should only see the person and not the "sin," the reasons for preferring sexual inactivity to sexual activity outside of the protective field of marriage still stand. In Africa men and women are encouraged only to have one sexual partner, and preferably to be married to that partner, in order to help curb the spread of AIDS; hundreds of studies point to the protective effects of children being born to two parents and being raised with fathers active in their lives. That's not to say that all children raised without fathers will be axe murderers, or that everyone with an STD is sexually promiscuous (my aunt contracted cervical cancer-causing HPV by having sex with just one person -- who had himself engaged in sex with four others) it merely illustrates some of the very good reasons that many people still view sex within a marriage setting. For me, personally, I chose to abstain for many reasons: To prove to myself that I could; to make my future husband wait for me (and see me as someone worth waiting for); in order to choose to marry with full clarity, based on personal compatibility and not on chemical impulses telling me to stay; and in order to make sex something only shared with my spouse. It may seem hokey and illogical, but I truly believe that those who have not tried it, have no right to judge it.

Effort still should be made to help women develop their sexuality in a way that affirms their personhood and physical, as well as emotional, mental, and sociological needs; however, when I look at the current state of society, I'm not sure that just "more sex, less judgment" is the answer. We've been trying that for over 40 years, and it seems to have caused more problems than it solves; divorce rates are incredible, STI/STD rates at highest levels ever recorded, and, in some communities (especially amongst the impoverished and least-educated) out-of-wedlock births outnumber births within wedlock. I simply don't buy that this is the result of sexual repression. To me, this is far more likely due to the view of sex as a merely physical act, and not one needing full understanding and respect.

To be perfectly honest, I think that those who choose to abstain outside of marriage tend to have a great deal more respect for and appreciation of sex than those who see it as something without moral quantification. It's not a matter of "sex = bad, purity = good," but "sex = good in many contexts, damaging in others; purity = a state of being beyond the current state of ones' genitals." A person can go his whole life without touching a member of the opposite sex and still be sexually impure; there's significantly more to it than that.