Don't begin your prayers with "if."

I saw in a movie long ago a girl after a date said to herself about the boy walking away, "if he likes me he'll turn around and look at me." He turned around. "Yes!" she squealed to herself. Cute. But come on. How real is that? Did the guy actually like her or was he just being nice? He might have liked her but was him turning around the signal? She could have said, "if he likes me he'll stop and tie his shoelace." Ridiculous.

People will give you advice, say about a girl. They'll say "you have to be direct with her. Tell her your intentions right away before you enter the 'friend zone.' Most girls appreciate guys being direct." But what about the girl who likes to move slow? What about the girl you HAVE to befriend first? Well, the advice giver will say "if being direct doesn't work out, then she's not the girl for you." WHAT A COP OUT! How ridiculous is that? He's saying one of two things, either HIS ADVICE is what MADE her the right girl for you, or the 5% of girls that this "advice" doesn't work on aren't right for anyone, because, after all, his advice is supposed to work for every guy. He doesn't realize that if you had followed the advice her GIRL friend told you, to befriend the girl first and approach things slowly, she would have grown to realize how compatible the two of you really are. If you do that, all of a sudden she's the right girl for you? Just because you chose someone else's advice? The advice has no connection at all to her being the right girl. You are either compatible or you aren't. All you can do is be yourself and try to win her heart the best way you can.

How many people are we compatible with? A lot. A whole lot. I think we are compatible with a lot more people than we realize. But how many do we end up with? One. Ideally. Does that mean you aren't compatible with the other people? No. Compatibility is a constant. You are either compatible with someone or you aren't. Sure it changes over time, but generally speaking you either are compatible or you are not. So the reason you don't end up with someone, even though you are compatible, isn't because you are only compatible with just one person. It's because conditions weren't right when the opportunity was at its best. Opportunity wasn't good enough, no matter how compatible you two are.

I hate it when people say things like "if so and so then it wasn't meant to be." No. You don't get to dictate the terms of a cause and effect relationship. Nature does. God does. It's like praying for something. I read in Boy Meets Girl, how Joshua Harris's girl prayed to God, "please if it's your will that Joshua be the man for me, tell him NOT to call me tonight." She believed that if Joshua was strong enough in Christ that he would hear God's word and fight the temptation to call. Nice idea, but completely faulty. Sure, in this case God said yes, but what if God had said, "no?" What if Joshua prayed a contradictory prayer? Would she have known? What if God had bigger plans? What if His plan was BETTER than hers? What if God said "no" to this girl? If Joshua hadn't called, then maybe he just wasn't interested. Or worse, what if he DID call but God said NO to this girl's prayer because He wanted Joshua to be proactive and to chase after her. Now he calls her and she loses interest, all because she THOUGHT she had a bargain with God. She didn't necessarily have a bargain. God doesn't say yes to every prayer, and if you give him an ultimatum or a bargain, watch out.

Think about how ridiculous this prayer would be... "If you don't want me to be with this guy, let me win the lottery tonight." Wouldn't it be great if God worked that way? I'd get both. I'd get the girl of my dreams one day then the next day say, "Ok God, if you want me to be with her then can you confirm it by letting me win the lottery? Thanks." Riiiight. God's not a vending machine.

Don't dictate to God. Don't bargain. Ask? Sure. Pray? Definitely. Beg? I guess. Fast? Yes. But don't think a bargain is going to work.

In short, don't begin your prayers with "if." He might say "yes." But then again, He might say "no." You'll never know if he said "yes" or "no," even if your condition is met. Just because you prayed for a condition, and the condition was met, it doesn't mean He said "yes" to the prayer. Be very careful about these sorts of prayers.

I do believe Jesus told us not to test God. You tread on thin ice when asking these sorts of questions.

Quick Movie Review: Gran Torino

I didn't expect the ending of Gran Torino, but I wasn't surprised it ended the way it did. Clint Eastwood understands what it means to be a man: Strength, Responsibility, Doing the Right Thing, and most importantly Sacrifice.

If you want to see a man being a man, watch this movie. Clint portrays a vulgar abrasive racist old war veteran, but in the end he exhibits true manliness. The character might be a bit difficult for some Christian people to watch through most of the movie, but he more than makes up for it in the end.

Watch this movie.

Do you separate yourself from Christianity by denying the church?

What's wrong with Christianity today? The good Christians are leaving the religion.

Do you call yourself spiritual but not religious? Do you say you believe in Christ but you don't like the religion of Christianity?

I don't find it necessary to qualify my relationship with God with words like Spiritual or Anti-Religious Christian.  I am a Christian.  Protestant is the only qualification I need.  Okay, non-denominational Christian.  If people don't understand what it truly means to be Christian, my denying it and separating myself from the overall Christian community (dogmatic as they are) only supports the mistaken belief that all Christians are bad people.  I don't need to defend my faith from people who hate Christians.  If they even only dislike the judgmental hypocritical fair-weather Christians, they aren't much better.  I am Christian.  The Christian faith isn't the problem.  Bad Christians might give the rest of us a bad name, but denying the name Christian because of some bad apples is shameful.  The problem isn't the religion.  It's some people in the religion.  I'm not going to deny the religion because some people give it a bad name.

There are a lot of atheists, agnostics, new agers, witches, Muslims, Buddhists, even satanists who are genuinely nice people. You need to separate yourself from THEM, not Christians. When you say that you are a believer but not Christian, you join the crowd that includes nice atheist, good witch, and peaceful Muslim. Do you want to be one of them? Do you want people to associate you with atheist? Or witch?? Or SATANIST???? Or do you want people to think the reason you are special is the fact that you follow Christ? What do you want the world to think causes you to be so nice? Good genes? Good upbringing? Your pride? No. THAT isn't what it means to love God. You glorify God, not yourself. THAT is what will separate yourself from non-believers.

You aren't supposed to point the finger at yourself. "Yeah I'm a nice guy. I worship Jesus, but I'm not one of THOSE Christians." That statement glorifies YOU! Not God. Not Jesus. You are telling the other person that you are nice DESPITE the fact that Christ dwells in your heart. Are you kidding me???? That's not the way you communicate Christ's love. That only glorifies you. Stop it!

To clarify to non-believers that you aren't like those other bad Christians gives the bad Christians power.  Show your non-believing brethren what a true Christian is like.  If you exemplify Christ's love and the non-believer has heard you say that you don't affiliate yourself with the overall Christian religion, you only prove to him that the overall Christian faith is flawed.  But if you defend the Christian faith and you exemplify Christ's love, then the non-believer will more likely associate Christ's love with Christianity, not you. They aren't supposed to associate Christ's love with you. Not you exclusively. You aren't the only good person in the world. You aren't the only good believer. You are supposed to be just one of millions or billions of good Christians. To deny and separate yourself from the overall Christian community points the glory of being good back right at you. That is virtual blasphemy.

YOU aren't great. GOD is great.

Get over yourself. Defend your faith. Prove to the world what it means to be a good Christian.

The 5 arguments about cohabitation

1) The Trial Marriage
It's a very popular notion that living together is a good idea. You have a trial marriage and test yourselves and you don't have the hassle of divorce if you find that you are not compatible. This is of course an excuse. People live together before they marry because they want to, not because of some high moral principle. That doesn't negate the logic behind the argument, but is the argument really all that sound? Are you really tested enough when you cohabit? We'll answer that question later.

2) The Statistics
Christians love to cite studies and surveys by many different credible sources that have found a correlation between cohabitation and divorce. They make other claims too, such as couples who cohabit before they marry are not as happy after they marry and their children are less healthy. This may or may not be true. Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. A more reasonable reply is that people who think you should not cohabit before marriage belong to religious groups who also believe that you should not get divorced. One might logically conclude that these Christians are not actually as happy as they like to claim. But that ignores the studies that show that more of them are happier.

3) The Fairy Tale Argument
This is the worst one. It's the "we have a fairy tale marriage and we cohabited" response. Again correlation does not necessarily mean causation. You may have a fairy tale marriage but cohabitation didn't create it. Had you waited to live together until after the wedding you would still have the fairy tale marriage. You should have stuck with the rebuttal that people who don't cohabit stay married because they think divorce is wrong.

Anyway, whether or not your marriage was a success is immaterial. Marriages that were a continuation from cohabitation fail more often than marriages that did not come out of a cohabitation relationship. Your success does not disprove the statistics. But is there a danger to cohabiting? We'll discuss that in a moment.

4) The Christian Rebuttal
The whole cohabitation argument is a red herring. The fact is you have two groups, one that has Christ at the center and another that doesn't. It should be no surprise that the group that has Christ at the center is more successful... well, unless you aren't Christian. In fact those who think cohabitation is right really have a lot of trouble explaining the statistics. The best they do is bring up the fairy tale argument.

But getting back to the red herring... what matters is that couples that don't belong together don't get married and those that do belong together stay married. The fact remains that people who cohabit are divorcing more often than those who don't cohabit. Even though they have trial marriages... even though more of these relationships break up before they marry, these people are still getting married when they shouldn't. What can account for that? Well, it seems the defining variance is morality and religion. Couples that share a strong moral center are more connected. They are on the same page. Their goals in life are complimentary. They aren't room mates who happen to be in love. They aren't independent. They are interdependent. They aren't two individuals sharing the house and bed. They are one couple sharing a common life. Yes, there are many couples who cohabit who share these same traits but they still lack the moral center. They don't have the strength of a ruleset that is bigger than they are. If they are non-Christian they also probably lack the advantage of a church that will do everything it can to help the couple with any marriage problems. A couple without a strong moral center is definitely more at risk.

Those who are religious tend to remain happily married. Note I said happily married. There is a cause and effect relationship here. The effect is happiness. The cause is the Holy Spirit. Studies have shown that couples who did not live together before they marry are happier.

This isn't the strongest argument though. It religiously biased. But there are other differences between cohabiting couples and non-cohabiting couples.

5) The Secular Logic against Cohabitation
The fact remains that people who cohabit are still more likely to divorce. They choose to cohabit to prove that their marriage will last. But for 70% of them, despite their trial run, their marriage still doesn't last! Well, what happened? What did their cohabitation prove? Nothing. So all we are left with is the fact that they lived together before they were married because they didn't want to wait.

Unlike the non-cohabiting couple, the cohabiting couple believes that they have tested themselves. Have they really though? No. There are tests that a married couple endures that a single couple living together doesn't. Children for example. That's a big one, but of course there are some unmarried couples with children. Generally though the unmarried couple won't endure 18 years of parenting without being married. Maybe one or two. Eventually they will probably marry and have to raise the children through all of the stages of childhood development. This is definitely going to test the marriage. There are other tests too. One of them will lose a job. One of them will lose a parent. One of them will feel the pressure to relocate for their career. There will be very big tests. Of course all marriages are tested. So is there something to protect the non-cohabiting couple? Yes. The shock of commitment.

The shock of commitment is one more difference between a couple who cohabits before marriage and a couple that does not. It is the strongest argument against cohabiting and I believe it explains the statistics. See, when a couple first moves in together, it's great. It is a bit of a jump, but not nearly the jump that happens for a couple that doesn't cohabit before they marry. When THEY move in together, it's coupled with a brand new life together. It's coupled with commitment. The cohabiting couple is going through the trial run because they don't trust that they will have what it takes to endure the tests in marriage. Sure they have commitment. Perhaps a bit more (at that time) than if they decided not to live together. After all, it's a huge deal to break up after you have been living together so you aren't going to take that step if you aren't somewhat committed already. There is a lot invested so naturally they have more of a commitment than a dating couple who don't live together. But the commitment that goes along with the cohabitation is nothing compared to the commitment of marriage. And even moreso, the feeling of commitment after the marriage is MUCH stronger after a non-cohabiting couple marries.

The cohabiting couple who gets married just continues doing what they did before they got married. The only difference is they are no longer planning a wedding. Now they get to live their lives. But they lack the adventure of living together for the first time. The only thing they might do is purchase a home together as a newly married couple. That might add to the excitement but imagine the excitement if they'd waited to live together.

This sudden change from single to married is exceptionally strong if a couple did not live together before they got married. They are so grateful. Getting to the wedding was a struggle. Sure they loved each other. Sure their relationship improved. But they had to be patient. They had to be strong and withstand temptation and societal pressure. They had to stay determined. They no doubt had cold feet, but they fought their fears and remained vigilant because of their love for one another. All that effort paid off after they married. Now they have achieved something. Marriage is like an award to them. The rings on their fingers symbolize more than love and commitment. They symbolize the time they were together before the wedding. They also symbolize the hard times when they were apart. The rings are a reminder of what it was like before they won the award of marriage. They are a reminder that they really really really want to stay married.

A dating couple that decides to move in together approaches things much more carefully. They gradually approach marriage. The entire process of commitment is a gradual one. They slowly reach the commitment of marriage. So they don't feel the jump when it occurs. The wedding is a mere ceremony to celebrate the commitment they already have. It doesn't give them a commitment. The ceremony itself gives the non-cohabiting couple a bit more commitment. In fact, they really feel it. I believe the cohabiting couple won't feel it as much. It might be there, but it's more subtle because of the jump.

Now they are married and are inevitably tested. If they did not live together first, they feel the extra strong commitment created by the jump from single to married. Their "coupleness" is accentuated. They earned their marriage. But they also know that their marriage needs to be protected. So they are careful. They approach the tests differently than the couple who lived together first. The couple that cohabited is more likely to feel secure. In living with each other they believe that they have proven that they can withstand any test life throws at them. They are more likely to take their commitment for granted, and that puts them at risk. The tests can sneak up on them and rob them of their commitment before they even realize it. The next thing they know they are putting a checkmark in the "irreconcilable differences" box, and they can't explain why. They tested themselves but found out that the testing they endured before marriage was little preparation. In fact the testing before marriage only gave them a false sense of security.

And THAT is the main danger with cohabitation: the false sense of security. You MUST remain vigilant when you are married. Marriage takes work. It's not all pixie dust and granted wishes. You have to endure. You have to be careful and watch out for trouble. If you let your guard down, you will lose it all. Cohabitation sets you up for that. That is why marriages that begin with cohabitation fail more often than marriages that did not begin with cohabitation.

That's not the only danger of cohabitation though. Consider how difficult it is to break up when you are living together. It's incredibly difficult. Breaking up without the added burden of having to find a new place to live is hard enough on its own. But it is easier. I propose to you that some couples who live together would have broken up if they did not live together. They do NOT break up specifically BECAUSE breaking up is so difficult for them. They stay together even though in their hearts they feel that they are not compatible. It's easier to go with the flow and hope that the marriage ceremony is going to change them somehow. Naturally this is not true for all couples who decide to live together before they marry and it's probably not a significant portion of the 70% of cohabiting couples who eventually do divorce. But it is an additional issue that you will more than likely have to deal with if you do decide to live together before you marry.

Remember, most people who live together before they marry DO end up breaking up. Even if they marry, 70% of them will divorce. And considering the fact that we know that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, out of the couples who do not cohabit before they marry, only 30% of them will divorce. Don't believe me? Consider if 200 couples marry. 100 of them lived together before they marry. 100 of them did not. Eventually 100 of those total marriages will end in divorce. We know that 70 of the couples who lived together before they married end up getting divorced. 70 of the 100 couples who divorced cohabited. That leaves room for only 30 non-cohabiting couples to get divorced. So You actually have more than twice the chances of marital success if you decide NOT to live together before you marry!

Something to think about isn't it?

The logic behind the pro-choice position, or why you should abstain.

Let me begin this post with something. This post is about a very controversial position and I am attempting to posit a theory to help me to understand a position I disagree with. If you disagree with me, please hold your temper and understand that I am not approaching the topic in this case with judgment in my heart. I am simply trying to understand the opposing side. Please before you form any judgment, read the entire post.

Now to the article: abortion.

I, like many Christians, am pro-life. Yet I am not pro-life because my religious leaders told me to be pro-life. I am pro-life because it's obvious to me that the fetus is alive. We should protect our young. I can't imagine a woman wanting to pay a "doctor" to rip her own child to pieces. It just doesn't make sense to me. I honestly believe that in 1,000 years people will look back at our time in horror at the practice.

Like most pro-lifers I have been completely baffled at the logic of the pro-choice position and have dismissed the pro-choice position that the fetus isn't a child as nothing but a heartless excuse to engage in casual sex (usually outside of marriage.)

I have been pondering the confusion for a few years now and I think I have finally begun to start to understand why pro-choice advocates support someone's "right" to have an abortion, even when they sometimes think the life being aborted is a sentient, feeling, little human baby. And some do, yet they are still pro-choice.

It begins with a lesson in the statistics of birth control. The most absolute form of birth control is sterilization, but even that is not 100% effective. Statistically speaking 3 out of every 1000 sterilized couples will become pregnant within one year. While this seems very close to absolute, it is absolutely NOT absolute, especially considering the sexual appetite of man. It is actually quite high. After all, if 1,000,000 sterilized couples engage in sex, 3,000 of them will become pregnant after one year!!!! WOAH! That number is far from absolute. And that number is reapeated the next year.

Now you must realize that this is the most extreme example, and most of the people who get sterilized are married. The most common examples, especially for single people, are birth control and the condom. They are far less effective. In real world use the condom can be as low as 70% effective. The pill only slightly moreso. But let's be optimistic and say that each are 99% effective. Well, that means that 1% of all people who engage in regular sex will become pregnant within one year. Holey Moley! That means that out of (a ridiculously low number of) 1,000,000 couples engaging in regular sex, 10,000 will become pregnant. Again that is EACH year! And again, this is OPTIMISTIC! And again that is out of a sample of 1,000,000 couples!!! Need I remind you that there are over 6 billion people on the planet. If only 1% of them are having regular sex then they will create 300,000 pregnancies IF all of them use condoms or birth control perfectly!!! And we all know that most people do not use their birth control properly, if they use it at all. So that 300,000 pregnancies is actually much much much higher.

And you thought that the sexual revolution was a good thing.

Of course many of these 60 million people engaging in regular sex do want their babies, but I think these statistics are very telling for people who do NOT want to get pregnant. I hope you see how my point demonstrates the severity and huge responsibility that you must accept when you have sex.

This responsibility is precisely the point. I think this might just be a dividing line between the pro-life position and the pro-choice position. And it also helps to explain why the dividing line so often becomes a debate between Christians and non-Christians. After all, the Christian faith is against casual sex, especially outside of marriage. And most women who have abortions are not married, although I know that there are some. Christians believe that you do not have a natural right to have sex whenever you want. The people who do think that you have a natural right to have sex whenever you want are typically not Christian, although there are some of course. Christians do sin and can be deceived by what they see in the world around them.

So, the Christian just does not understand how important sex is to the part of mankind that appreciates the value of a healthy sexual life. And in our opinion this part of mankind does not fully comprehend and appreciate the responsibility that comes with a sexual lifestyle. If you consider the statistics, you can see why.

Now, I do not think that the sexually active people are fully ignorant of the responsibility that comes with a sexually active lifestyle. They do after all support the use of contraceptives. A short while ago I had an epiphany. I came to the conclusion that most people in the western world believe that sex, especially within the confines of a committed relationship, is very important, before and after marriage. This realization was so ______-changing that I felt the need to create polls in several forums. The results completely confirmed my suspicion. Sex is very important to people today, before and after marriage.

They know that there is a very real chance that they will become pregnant when they have sex. They don't feel that this is right because sex is just so important. So their answer is of course, abortion.


Oh blastitall. I forgot to finish my thoughts. I'm too tired right now, but I'll include some, but remember, they are unfinished.

A parasite is not related to its host.

Also, I, unlike many people, do not support abortion, ever. Not when the life of the baby is at stake. Not when the life of the mother is at stake. Not in the case of incest or if the baby will be deformed or impaired. And absolutely definitely most positively not in the case of rape. I know these difficult situations are controversial. I can at least understand situations that put the mother's life in danger. But not rape. I know it's horrible to say but women have been giving birth after rapes for thousands of years. I realize that the growing baby inside your belly is a reminder of the horrible incident you want to put behind you. But I personally can not think of a greater silver lining that a brand new life. Yes, it was horrible, but now you have a baby! Babies ate WONDERFUL gifts!

Knowing the condition of the birth is a new phenomenon.

How's this for a definition of evil?

While studying the morality of Bart Simpson I think I figured out a good definition of evil. Here it is:

Someone who does not want to do good.

Easy, right? So obvious. Maybe a little bit too obvious. Enough that you might miss what I really mean, so let me explain.

The standard measure of evil is Hitler. But maybe Hitler isn't the best example to use in these cases since there is so much emotional attachment to his figure. (see my comment) So rather than use that tired example I'll use a more fun one: James Bond villains. They generally want to take over the world. But to what end? Power? Greed? No. Not all of them. What do they want? Utopia. They want to create peace. Their methods might be a bit unorthodox, but their end goal is the same: goodness. They believe that they are doing good. In fact, EVERYONE believes that they are doing good.

This is why I don't believe in evil. Everyone thinks they are doing good. And I think it's pretty darned good evidence for the existence of God. The general "tide" or "current" in humanity is towards goodness. Over time we should gradually get to be better and better people because we all struggle towards goodness.

Unfortunately, although evil seems fairly easy to define, it seems that good is far more difficult. The struggles we have (indeed many wars were fought over this) are reconciling each others' definitions of "goodness." There are few universally accepted definitions of "good," so one of the main goals of philosophy I think is to study mankind in such a way as to discover that universal definition of "goodness" so we'll have a tried and true yardstick by which we can live and know that we are doing right.

This is why I especially like my definition of morality: free will. I think it covers all bases. Read the article for more information.

Bart Simpson: An allegory for humanity.

I got into a discussion with some people online about The Simpsons and I told them about my belief that they generally teach good moral values on the show. They completely scoffed at my thought and ridiculed me soundly. But I stand behind what I said.

You can really see what I mean if you study the bad seed, Bart. Bart is not intended to be a positive role model. Bart is an allegory of the nature of all mankind. He is an exploration of the duality of good and evil and a lesson that good triumphs. He is constantly struggling with temptation and having to deal with the consequences of his sinful tendencies. It's actually quite Christian in its nature. He always (and by extension we) learn(s) a valuable life lesson, although it's rarely spelled out "I learned something today" South Park style.

If you are a fan of the show, you no doubt remember when he killed a bird with a BB gun. Or when he was caught shoplifting. Or when he got Principle Skinner fired. Or in this latest episode, when he got Miss Krabappel fired. In this episode she tells him something particularly ground shaking, "You are bad on the inside." That completely shattered him, and the fact that he was so shaken by her accusation shows just how good he really is. If he was truly evil, it wouldn't matter that someone said that he was bad on the inside. (This is where the definition of evil became clear to me.)

Whatever you feel about Bart's nature, the one thing you must conclude is that he is not rotten to the core. He is in fact good inside. When his pranks go overboard he always feels bad for it and attempts to make things right. In fact, the majority of the shows involving him are almost always largely composed of his attempts to right his wrongdoings. The show is really about good.

So we can really study Bart and learn something about ourselves. Although we do tend to make mistakes, we should always try to do good and to make our evil deeds right. And in general, that's exactly what we do, because we are good.