Quite frankly google, it doesn’t get better…Presenting unbiased statistics on the homosexual lifestyle

Currently watching: Mr. Show-Seasons 1&2 Currently listening to: Beastie Boys-Hot Sauce Committee Part 2

First of all, this site: http://factsaboutyouth.com/

As stated on their site, factsaboutyouth.com is put together by the The American College of Pediatricians which is a national organization of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals dedicated to the health and well-being of children. Formed in 2002 and now with members in 47 states, the College is funded almost entirely by membership dues and receives no financial support from religious or political organizations.

The site gives a scientific overview of all aspects of homosexuality, from where it begins to the health risks involved.

To begin, homosexuality is not exclusively hardwired. http://factsaboutyouth.com/getthefacts/quickfacts/  , http://www.narth.com/docs/bornway.html

At best there is some predisposure for homosexual attraction, but ultimately it is a combination of factors with environmental events playing a large role.  In other words, some people might have a greater chance genetically of being overweight or an alcoholic than someone else, especially when put in an environment that might encourage said behavior.   Without getting into too much of a debate over whether morality is individually defined or not, there just are things in life that some people have deal with more than others.  All genetic predispositions involving behavior choices can be avoided if that person decides that the behavior is not beneficial. 

The key here is homosexuality is NOT exclusively genetic.  That is a proven fact amongst even homosexual psychologists.

Interesting factoid: Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25. In one study, as many as 26% of 12-year-olds reported being uncertain of their sexual orientation yet only 2-3% of adults actually identify themselves as homosexual. Therefore the majority (85+%) of sexually questioning youth ultimately adopt a heterosexual identity. http://factsaboutyouth.com/wp-content/uploads/ACLU_whitehead_Sept2010.pdf

The homosexual lifestyle is one of extreme sexual promiscuity, resulting in much higher STD/HIV rates.  http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/promiscuity/ , http://narth.com/docs/disproportionate.html (featuring Center for Disease Control (CDC) stats) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts (this is a biased Catholic page with documented stats, take it for what its worth)

No matter where you want to get your facts, its undeniable homosexual practitioners have far more overall sexual encounters/partners than heterosexuals, which appear to lead to higher disease rates.  2010 CDC stats indicate that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men is more than 44 times that of other (hetero) men and more than 40 times that of (hetero) women. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among men having sex with men is more than 46 times that of other (hetero) men and more than 71 times that of  (hetero) women.  In addition to this, there is a laundry list of other viruses, cancers, and diseases associated with anal sex (http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/physical-health/). 

Homosexuals have higher rates of psychiatric illness, including depression, drug abuse and suicide attempts. http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/mental-health/

And this cannot be solely attributed to homophobia.  Many studies have been done in countries where homosexual activity or marriage is accepted and have found the same mental health results. 

“The Dutch study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, did indeed find a high rate of psychiatric disease associated with same-sex sex. Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interview, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence. In fact, those with a history of homosexual contact had higher rates of nearly all psychiatric pathologies measured in the study.”

Suicide thoughts or attempts are 5-6 times higher for homosexuals practitioners than heterosexuals. And its thought that up to 2/3 of the reasoning behind those suicide attempts were from relationship breakups (rather than the oft thought “societal pressure”). http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

Male homosexual or bisexual practitioners lost up to 20 years of life expectancy. http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/life-span/

This is perhaps the most alarming and damning statistic on homosexual behavior.  An epidemiological study from Vancouver, Canada for AIDS related dealths….concluded that if 3 percent of the population studied were gay or bisexual, the probability of a 20-year-old gay or bisexual man living to 65 years was only 32 percent, compared to 78 percent for men in general.  The damaging effects of cigarette smoking pale in comparison -cigarette smokers lose on average about 13.5 years of life expectancy.

Its thought that this lost life expectancy is a low estimate because it doesn’t even include suicide or other diseases other than HIV that are perpetuated through homosexual behavior.  Also, HIV/AIDS is often undereported by 15-20%.

Homosexual relationships are extremely unstable http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/monogamy/

“The survey found 94 percent of married people and 75 percent of cohabiting people had only one partner in the prior year…..Gay men reportedly have sex with someone other than their partner in 66 percent of relationships (meaning 34% didn’t, a 40% drop from cohabiting heterosexuals) within the first year, rising to approximately 90 percent if the relationship endures over five years. 

Personally, this gives me little reason to believe allowing homosexual marriage would make any difference in increasing the fidelity levels of homosexual relationships.

Children do best when raised by both biological parents. http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/are-children-with-same-sex-parents-at-a-disadvantage/

“…children who grow up without their own married mother and father in the home face significant disadvantages in all important measures of well-being: physical and mental health, educational attainment, general happiness, confidence and empathy development, as well as protection from poverty, substance abuse, domestic violence and sexual abuse and avoidance of unmarried child-bearing.  Children who grow-up in any other family form — single-parent family, divorced, step-family, or cohabiting parents – don’t do as well by up to half in these measures compared to children living with their own married mother and father.”

There is bullet point after bullet point after bullet point (with unbiased sources) in the link above that support the claim that the original biological parents offer the best results for child rearing. 

To be fair, none of this says homosexual couples couldn’t raise a child and that child succeed in all measurable standards.  However, as the link points out, no human culture over the course of a generation has raised children in a same sex household.  So what we have to go on is nearly 40 years of study of how children have faired in no-fault divorce, cohabitation, unwed childrearing and fatherlessness.  The results have been nothing but negative for child well-being. The same people who are saying that kids raised in same-sex homes will turn out fine were the same people 40 years ago saying no-fault divorce would have no effect on kids.  There isn’t anyone who could reasonably hypothesize based on the facts we have on family and child-rearing that a homosexual couple could raise a child to even equal the ability of the biological parents.

Summary

The debate rages as to whether we should publically accept homosexual behavior or license it.  Unbiased scientific research shows the homosexual lifestyle to be extrodinarily personally destructive.  Whether someone believes in God or the Bible or believes in the humanist ideals of individually defined morality; they can’t just ignore these facts.   Its perfectly reasonable, if not entirely responsible, to take a stand against supporting the homosexual lifestyle and any laws promoting it.  The key is how to approach it.  Not in a hateful “you are wrong and going to hell” method, but rather one of love and hope.  There is help out for those that want to avoid the consequences of the homosexual lifestyle.  As a Christian, its our job to be there when needed.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

(For those that don’t know, my blog title is in reference to google’s ad campaign “it gets better” http://mashable.com/2011/05/04/google-chrome-it-gets-better/)

No judge or law or vote will ever validate homosexual marriage

Just finished watching: Breaking Bad-Season 2 Currently listening to: Blitzen Trapper-Destroyer of the Void

Its pretty simple.  Marriage is a Jewish and Christian tradition.  It is a bind that God blesses between a man and woman.  That cannot and will not ever be changed.  The Bible and God are Absolute on this matter.  If people or a judge or whoever want to try and make or change laws that affect the benefits of Marriage or even change the definition, it still won’t make it moral or right.  That will always be between an individual and God. 

The same goes for any other man-made law.  Ultimately, what matters is the natural laws of God when it comes to morality.  Even if homosexual marriage is approved by the Supreme Court someday, it won’t mean anything to me or any other God-fearing individual.  We don’t get our laws from man.  And we thank God for that.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

For the minority of people who believe homosexual marriage should be allowed, do you really want to force it on people through fiat?  Shouldn’t it be about changing the minds of people and allowing it to be voted on?  After all, isn’t that how Marriage and the benefits attached were established to begin with?  Marriage isn’t a defined right in the Constitution, no matter how any judge tries to bastardize or mis-interpret it.  45 states have laws or state amendments that were voted on by people that specifically dis-allow homosexual Marriage.  That’s the will of the people.  To allow any rogue judge to overturn these laws on reasoning that is not specifically stated in the Constitution is a joke.  But like I stated above, in the end, it doesn’t matter…God is the ultimate judge.

For further discussion on this matter, see a previous post of mine:

https://whoreadsthis.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/californias-same-sex-marriage-ban-amendment/

The problem: Kids from the 60s running the country. The solution: Wait 10 more years.

Currently watching: Dexter-Season 1 Currently listening to: Broken Social Scene-Forgiveness Rock Record

Currently playing: Super Mario Galaxy 2 (Wii)

After finishing season 2 of Mad Men last week I started thinking about how much the 60s is affecting things today.  On the Mad Men dvds theres a lot of extras involving current events of the time and all the revolutions that took place.  People who grew up in the 60s (and into the early 70s), especially those in their teens and early 20s, had a lot to deal with.  Imminent fear of nuclear annihilation, being drafted into the Vietnam war, Civil rights protests, changing moral and cultural standards with movements involving feminism, the sexual revolution, and expanded drug use.  Its safe to say the idea of rebellion against authority generally ruled the day. 

So, fast forward to today, 40 something years later, and many of those kids are now in their 50s and 60s and are in charge of a lot of areas that affect our lives.  Politics, media, college professors, CEO’s, ect.  Now is the point where I’m going to inject a lot of opinion and conjecture.  You have a generation that enjoyed rebellion running the show, one that cast aside a lot of principles that had held this country together for a long time.  I’m not saying that all that was rebelled against was bad, but it was probably the first time in America that moral standards really took a hit.  Things became a lot more relative rather than absolute.  And when moral absolutes errode into relativism, well, I’ve written plenty about that here and here (basically that removing moral absolutes includes a general rejection of God and Christianity and leads down a path of socialism/liberalism/humanism).  There is no doubt the kids of the 60s have today pushed our country further down the path of moral relativism and social control.

Can we dig out of this?  Yes. Fortunately there have been a few beacons of light that have stood out amongst the decline.  A few who brought back the message of conservative principle and moral standard.  In the 80s we had a president unlike any we’ve had since maybe the founding of the country and in the 90s we’ve seen the conservative view take back over portions of the media.  People born in the late 70s and early 80s have grown up in a generally more peaceful time (especially after the fall of communism in the late 80s–Thank you Reagan–and compared to much of the war torn 1900s), and an economically prosperous time (Thank you supply-side economics).  We’ve also grown up with the internet and an ability to look up information on our own (rather than completely accept what the schools and older media have forced on us).  I believe conservative principles are more alive and well than ever before, its just that our generation hasn’t had a chance to take over yet.  Sure, there have been some pockets of conservative revolution in the last 20 years, but it felt like it was on borrowed time, it wasn’t completely deep set.  With so many levels of opposition most conservative revolutions have died on the vine and those who took part didn’t stand their ground firmly enough.  I think my generation is ready to stand their ground.  I and many other kids of the 80s and 90s are just now approaching 30, so maybe its still a little early to hope that real change is here.  It will probably take at least 10 more years before we see the fruit of conservatism and hopefully a multi-generational rejection of 60s moral relativism and failed liberal politics in general.

How Christianity should be presented

Just finished: Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia Seasons 1&2 Currently Watching: Flight of the Conchords Season 2

Currently Reading: Pirate Latitudes-Micheal Crichton

Something I’ve been thinking about recently involves adjusting how I or any other Christians present Christianity to people.  I’ve been influenced by the church Abbie and I have attended a little over a year now (Crossroads Christian) and just by thinking about my own experiences. 

I think the biggest perception issue is that many non-Christians think Christianity is about condemnation and judgement on people’s lives.  Most people hate that, they hate being told something they do is wrong or that they are bad people.  Christians are just as much to blame for this as non-Christians but this isn’t what Jesus went around talking about.  His goal was not to scare people or shame people into following him, but instead to offer Love, comfort, peace, relief, and absolution.  He also taught people about helping others and those in need. 

I think where the change in presentation should occur is in not condemning or attacking the way people choose to live, but instead teach people that Jesus (and subsequently Paul) when he did lay some “rules” they were for making people’s lives easier and more fullfilling.  There are the obvious “rules” in the ten commandments which are generally ingrained in most peoples conscience and also amongst society’s laws, but beyond that there are the other issues like sexual immorality.  Rather than say to someone, “hey don’t go around having sex with all types of people you are bad for doing that”, it should be suggested to people that a persons life will have far less difficulties if they do avoid sex outside of marriage.  Does this make sense?  This could be applied to almost anything that has controversy in the moral realm that the Bible touches on.  Jesus was trying to help people, and he offered the way to do it.

Now, if any Christians balk at this approach in that it isn’t, um how do I say it, being truthful about what does happen when we die, I would offer this:  I personally believe God offers the option to accept or reject Him at some point in everyones lives.  All we can do as Christians is try to live like Jesus, offer ourselves to people, tell people what we believe when the chance arises (that everyone has sinned and fallen short of God and needs salvation provided by God through Jesus’s death on the cross), then God does the rest.  It cannot be forced or shoved in anyone’s faces.  People have to live their lives and make their own choices.  We aren’t here to trick anyone.  We should just offer a way out of having to suffer through the difficulties of life.  Someone to turn to and give all of our worries and sadnesses too.  If non-Christians don’t want this, then that’s their choice.  We shouldn’t hate or judge anyone for their choice.  Just continue to offer Christ’s love and go from there.

Absolutes

Just finished: The Sopranos-Season 2Now watching: The Sopranos-Season 3

I’ve decided to halt my discussion of evolution and instead discuss something even more foundational than “origin” philosphies.  With everything I’ve read and studied lately I think the most important factor that defines what a person believe in lies with Absolutes.  I break it down like this:

Christian Absolutes

1. the existence of God/Jesus Christ

2. God’s Word expressed through the Bible

3. God’s Laws/Commands/Moral Codes

These Christian absolutes, as should any absolute, hold firm (for Christians) in any setting at any time or place or universe or whatever.  they exist because God is and always will be…independent of anything we as humans comprehend.  There is peace in knowing of the promise that something beyond this earthly realm and life exists.

Pagan/Atheistic Absolutes

1. our life on earth followed by Death

2. Science

In trying to understand humanism and the general rejection of Christianity as a whole, these are what I came up with as absolutes for non-Christians.  death is finite and absolute.  so then with this human existence being all there is, science is the only system that at least attempts to explain life (in what is assumed to be a rational way).  Though I personally, as a Christian, debate whether science can be any kind of absolute for a non-Christian for various reasons, I will give science (and pagans) the benefit of the doubt that their absolutes in science exist (for this universe as we know it) whether they have been discovered or not.

Biggest problem/question I have for Non-Christians:  what of the consequences of moral relativism?  I don’t think society and humans in general would ever function without moral absolutes.  if we evolved by chance from animals where did we develop that code?  what happens if morality continues to slide further into individually defined ideals?  Its happening at an alarming rate both worldwide and in America–and who would argue society is better for it?

Summary: Absolutes are where the real debate lies.  Evolution is certainly a tremendous philosophical tool used to try and destroy Christian Absolutes, but it isn’t the root issue.  What one holds onto–and everyone has to hold on to something less they be always questioning their existence–defines someone.  If all you hold on to is your life here and now and elements of science…is that enough?  is that all you want?  Its hard for me to fathom just accepting this life on earth.  if nothing else it appears totally depressing.  fortunately there are answers…

Evolution: The Atheist’s Religion-Part 2-The Great Chain of Being

currently watching: The Wire-Season 4 currently listening to: Dan Deacon-Bromst

The Great Chain of Being

Picking up from where I left off, from the fall of Rome till the renaissance, the Catholic church had taken hold and generally dictated philosophy/cosmology.  Origen, Augustine, and Aquinas all managed to push a mishmash of Creationist principles and pantheistic ideas (like that of Plato, Aristotle, “The Great Chain of Being/Scale of Being”, but also like some theistic evolution you see today) to the forefront while atheistic/naturalistic ideas were pushed underground.

With the “Scale of Being” concepts dominating the time, many evolutionary precursors sprung forth from it.  Remember, the original idea behind the scale of being philosophy was that it worked “top-down”, sort of a devolution (i.e. From God, or a god, came about successive lower forms of life–not necessarily directly from each other, but rather conceptually so everything could be ordered in a way to be better understood).  It was quasi-theological at best, and certainly not Biblical.  Though in fact all that separated the scale of being from evolution was a conception of time in vast quantities added to mutability of form.  In other words, a universe not made but being made continuously.

One of the first to look at the great chain in a more modern evolutionary approach was Comte de Buffon (1707-1788).  His work, Histoire Naturelle, while leaning heavily on Scala Naturae (great chain of being), managed to put forth many of the ideas used in later works by Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck and ultimately Darwin himself.  His writings included precursors to comparative anatomy, long time scales, and biogeography.  He did, however, still believe in the immutability of species.  Darwin himself gave Buffon some credit in early pre-“Origin” writings and Ernst Mayr said of Buffon ” He was not an evolutionist, yet he was the father of evolutionism.”

Alongside Buffon, rose other ideas based on the scale of being.  “Progressionism” (and sometimes catastrophism), developed by Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), probably helped reverse the top-down scale of being approach more than anything else.  Cuvier believed that catastrophes (the last being the Noahic flood) brought about new assemblages of organisms with each group being progressively more complex than the preceding (bottom-up development).

Another important idea developed from the great chain of being was ontogenetic recapitulation.  This theory (now completely discredited) became a cornerstone for “proof” of evolution by Darwin himself. What it says is that embryonic development of humans is in itself a representation of going from the bottom of the chain to the top. Friedrich Kielmayer, amongst other German “nature philosophers”, originated this idea going back to the late 1700s.  More on this theory later.

So, now we have connected the ancient greek philosophical idea of the Great Chain of Being as a profoundly influential concept in the development of evolutionary theory.  Next up: A look at those most influential to Darwin

Evolution: The Atheist’s Religion–Part 1–The Why and the Background

currently watching: The Wire-Season 3 currently listening to: Cymbals Eat Guitars-Why There are Mountains

Having discussed Atheism/Humanism and Liberalism going hand in hand, I’d now like to venture into how Atheism/Humanism has managed to infiltrate into the minds of people today.

The Why

Since the creation, those opposing God have sought to discredit, disprove, and ultimately destroy the idea that man did in fact originate in perfect form from a god, most often the God of the Bible.  Paganism and its many offshoots are as old as Jewish history.  Like I wrote in my description of Humanism, man opposes God because he does not want to submit to His will, does not want to admit sin, and desires to live entirely for himself.  James 4:4 …whoever chooses to be a friend of the world takes his stand as an enemy of God.  Romans 8:7 The mind of the flesh [with its carnal thoughts and purposes] is hostile to God, for it does not submit itself to God’s Law; indeed it cannot.

So why is evolution so important to Atheists?  Its perhaps best summed up by Atheist Richard Bozarth in an article “The meaning of Evolution” published in the American Atheist:

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!”

The Background

Evolution itself is Paganism, and it originated long before Darwin published the “Origin of Species”. Upwards of 2,500 years before Darwin in fact.  Some early cosmologies included a concept of God or a form of intelligence, and some were strict Atheism.   I’ll detail both, and I’ll start with a few more well-known figures.

Plato (422-347 B.C.), of whom we have a ton of writings from, combined purpose and chance as an explanation for the cosmos.  He talked about a form of “devolution” (that from God came about successive emergences of lower and less worthy forms) and used descriptions for the universe that defined it as a “Living Creature” (a form of pantheism).  Plato’s successor, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), began to remove aspects of the Biblical God by referring to God as a more impersonal “Prime Mover” that simply set the pre-existing and uncreated (eternal) cosmos in motion–then leading to devolution (summarized in his “Great Chain of Being” theory).  While these two had some concepts of evolution, they were not what was surmised by Darwin.

To get closer to the Atheistic/Darwinian views, you actually have to go back further than Plato and Aristotle.  Around 6th century B.C.(about the same time other “rationalistic” religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Vedanta Hinduism were beginning–not a mere coincidence i’m sure) in Asia Minor the father to Greek philosophy, often called Milesian or Ionian philosophy, began.  Thales was its creator, he was the first to introduce naturalistic and materialistic lines of thinking to describe the world rather than supernatural.  From Thales’ thinking developed Atomism (5th century B.C. philosophy developed by Leucippus and Democritus) which simply said that there were invisible building blocks(atoms) making up anything that exists.  Ultimately this lead to the philosophy of Epicureanism.  Epicurus (342-270 B.C.; who today would be an absolute champion of the Humanists) believed that everything that occurs is the result of the atoms colliding, rebounding, and becoming entangled with one another, with no purpose or plan behind their motions.  From this you would have little trouble conforming it to modern “sciences” and evolutionary ideas.

So as you can see, the original line of thinking (that we developed from random and chaotic chance) began in and around Ancient Greek philosophy.  From there evolutionary thinking was broken down and redeveloped many times, often by people in the church trying to mesh it with Christianity (see Origen, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas for some examples).  Then in the 19th century Charles Darwin published “Origin” and the same atheistic philosophies developed 2000 years earlier were finally accepted as “science”.  Though before we get to Darwin, we still need to look at the more immediate precursors to “his” theories.

Earth Hour

just finished: Deadwood-Season 3 now watching: The Wire-Season 1

currently listening to: Smashing Pumpkins-Siamese Dream

I can’t let this one go.  Amidst dealing with a half a foot of snow on March 28th, the rest of the world is trying to save us from global warming by trying not to use any energy for an hour.  ok sorry, i forgot we’ve shifted to “climate change” because this winter wiped out a decades worth of “warming“.  but i’m not even here to discuss whether man can affect the weather of a planet that has supposedly existed for billions of years. 

I’m here to discuss how silly it is when people try to show concern for something by doing things that are just a show in order to just feel better about themselves for a moment WHILE FIXING NOTHING.  One example i posted about here.  Another I remember was when i was in college some college kids in the dorms staged a “live in a cardboard box” night so they could see what its like to be homeless.  HEY BETTER IDEA…How about finding a homeless dude and giving him a meal or something?  What does staying in a box do for anyone?  just like what does shutting lights off for an hour do?  NOTHING!!!!!

listen, i understand whats going on, i really do.  as i’ve outlined below in prior posts about humanism, life on earth is meaningless so people must find something to latch onto and usually its doing things like “earth hour” that give some sort of temporary self-satisfaction.  you don’t actually have to help anything or fix a problem, you just have to show you cared through an otherwise pointless demonstration.

ugh.  i think someday i’m going to end up in jail and it’ll likely be from arguing with some sort of energy policeman who stopped by because my thermostat wasn’t set properly.   seriously…type energy police into a search engine and see what comes up.  its freaking scary.

The allure of Atheistic Humanism

currently watching: Deadwood-Season 1

In trying to understand the differences of thought on nearly all matters political and otherwise I’ve accepted that the deepest disparities lie in where a person stands with their belief in God-specifically the Christian God of the Bible.  While I understand most don’t necessarily put themselves on one extreme side of the fence or the other, (that being a total belief in God/Jesus Christ as their savior vs an outright rejection of God going as far as not even thinking it logical that God exists),  the fact remains that if one doesn’t totally accept the Biblical Truth that one may as well completely accept humanism.  This being because all throughout the Bible there is no room for the middle ground, you either completely submit to God or you reject Him.

So why do so many reject God and what are they instead drawn to?  The answer is keenly summarized in a document provided by the intellects at the American Humanist Association.   The Humanist Manifesto III lays out the consensus of beliefs of your everyday atheist.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

Its important to note that this is the third iteration of the humanist beliefs.  I highly recommend reading the first humanist manifesto to get an idea of where the current (much simpler and easier to read) 3rd manifesto developed from.  You can also read the 2nd one, but its extremely lengthy and wordy and especially specific on many controversial subjects.  Worth a gander I suppose.

I will now delve into the bolded points of the humanist manifesto 3 and why it is so attractive today.

1. Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

Basically, Science=Truth.  It is easy and comfortable to live in a way that all there is is what we can see and understand.  Its fearful and oppressive to a certain extent to believe there is a greater force at work beyond what we know.  We like being able to put everything into terms we all know, like being able to explain everything.  All that we know in the world and the cosmos are inside of a box, a box of human understanding.  All truths must be materially perceived and all new discoveries have to go through a process limited to current intelligentsia.  It is of course only rational to believe in what can be put into human focus.

2. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.

The natural progression from #1 is #2 which is if science=truth, then our reality and existence is purely random.  This is what we teach in schools since nothing can be explained using God.  Since there is nothing beyond what we see and know, then we as humans can only be a result of what we observe in science (nevermind the extraordinary stretches “science” must take to describe our existence, as it pertains to following the scientific method and the laws of thermodynamics).   This point, while necessary to accept if one doesn’t believe in God, has to be the most difficult for some to accept.  The reason is that it tells a person that his/her life has no meaning, that he/she is a result of pure randomness, has no free will (part of a cause-effect machine), came from nothing, and will return to nothing.  A hard pill to swallow and a depressing reality.  But, atheism is what it is, and the best must be made from it.

3. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.

A problem arises from point #2, that is where do humans get their innate value system?  What decides right from wrong?  Ethics are explained by simply saying they are acquired through one’s own experience in life.   Perhaps you have heard of Abraham Maslow‘s Hierarchy of Needs?  Since man has no stated or theogical purpose, his only purpose becomes fullfilling needs and therefore happiness.  I think the way they connect the dots here is that by everyone pursuing happiness, there is a general understanding of what is good and right for everyone else.  Ethics are therefore both individually and communally derived.  This is appealing, as it says ethics are defined by humans based on our pursuit of happiness.  The issue I have is that it assumes humans are basically good and doesn’t explain evil.  Maslow and his contemporary Carl Rogers decided that evil behaviors come from cultural influences…specifically social institutions (religion) and authority structures (government/law).  Some clear circular reasoning that really makes my head hurt, but still all in all, very enticing.

4. Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

OK, now for the real meat and potatoes of the allure of humanism.  It is, quite simply, all about pleasing one’s self.  If it feels good (but doesn’t infringe on another’s ideal), then do it.  What could possibly be better than that?  We only get this simple little random life, so we need to make the most of it and please our hierarchy of needs including any and all sensual desires with complete tolerance for others.  Pretty awesome.

5. Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.

This essentially says we are interdependent and by joining together it enriches and inspires us to great things like peace, justice, opportunity, ect.  This is probably added in here so its understood that life isn’t completely fulfilling by just paying attention to self.  It involves other people and is actually increased by working with others.  Sort of an obvious feel-good addendum.

6. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Here is why most socialistic countries are inherently atheistic.  There is a general hope or want to achieve sort of a heaven on earth.  A utopia where all are equal.  Thus, it is only necessary to make it a part of humanism that the collective society must be satisfied in order to maximize how an individual feels about them self.  You see how this all works together in perfect harmony?  Lovely I think.

——————————————————————————————————————————————-

So, there you have it.  By reading and understanding all of this you can see why it is very easy to reject the concept of God, His creation, His Laws, any check on sensual pursuits, and most certainly the idea that we need to be saved.  No one wants to believe that he/she has to be subject to a higher authority, certainly not one we can’t see or prove using our own logic and reasoning.  No one wants to think that they are inherantly evil and deserving of any kind of eternal punishment.  So we reject God and His authoritarian Bible.  That is, quite simply, the easy way and answer to life.  One that allows us to go on living life for ourselves and our own personal happiness.  I hope that those who pursue this life really do find that happiness.  Because rejecting God is most certainly a choice, one that should never be taken lightly.

Mini Expose’ on Six Feet Under

Just watched: Six Feet Under-Season 5

For whatever reason I feel inclined to discuss what I think Six Feet Under is about, or at least what it showcases.  First off, it is without a doubt the most depressing show I’ve ever seen, it certainly elicits a wide range of emotions and really isn’t for everyone.  However for me none of the emotions i felt involved death specifically.  The writers and producers of the show talk about how the show is a lot about how people cope with the finality and sadness of death but I didn’t always see it that way, at least not directly.

What seemed to jump out at me in the show was the general destructiveness that results from the characters constantly turning to relationships, sex, and drugs for happiness rather than anything spiritual.  The idea of God or religion being any place to turn to is at best glossed over in the show and generally dismissed as a dead end or worse as a detriment.  I don’t, however, think the show is necessarily anti-religion.  It just doesn’t offer it as any solution to life’s problems.  And yet, completely ironically, the characters in the show keep turning to what continues to fail them rather than really explore a relationship with God.  This might actually be the best (unintended) commentary on society today.

When people discount God/religion they will seek the things that will bring them closest to God or a “spiritual high” of sorts and that generally is sex or drugs.  Yet these are of course very temporary solutions and so the characters are still left very wanting and dissatisfied not to mention still illed with whatever issue brought them to sex or drugs in the first place.  The writers/producers never seemed to explore this enigma, despite the constant repetition of their characters continuing to struggle and turn to the same old failed things.  I guess thier only resolution here was that life is just depressing and bad things happen and we just have to cope with it however we can (I do give them some credit for including family as an important place to turn, even though it still fails) and eventually we die and thats it.  Overall this is probably why the show depressed me the most, as it probably is how many view things.

In conclusion, Six Feet Under is a secular show that almost by accident gives tremendous reasoning for pursuing a relationship with God quite simply because nothing on this earth or any person will ever take away the pain, disapointment, or reality of life.