Friday, 6 June 2014

The Homosexual Issue

Many are probably unaware of recent events in the Mozilla organisation which is responsible for, among other things, the popular open source web browser Firefox. On March 24th, 2014 Mozilla promoted Brendan Eich to the position of CEO. This led to protests and boycotts by the homosexual community because Eich previously donated a sum of money in support of California's Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The amendment did not prevent a homosexual person from marrying another person of the opposite gender. On April 3rd, 2014 Eich resigned his position. The public apology released by Mozilla certainly confirms that support for Brendan Eich evaporated. Although Eich has apparently resigned of his own accord, the attitudes displayed immediately after his departure show a lack of support within the organisation which was likely a contributing factor for the resignation.

Being a computer programmer and technology nerd in general, I like to keep myself informed on developments related to technology. I am quite aware of the rapidly developing prejudice and hatred for people such as myself who believe in and are unwilling to compromise the truth of the bible in order to be politically correct. Still, I was very unsettled to learn of Eich's resignation, knowing that he was forced to quit his job because he chose to support his values through political activism. It has taken me some time to process all of this, but I wanted to write about the homosexual issue. I will attempt to address some of the lies about conservative Christian beliefs that are perpetuated by the homosexual agenda and provide a biblical foundation for my opposition of homosexuality.

Abortion supporters prefer terms like pro-choice and women's rights to that of abortion or baby murder. It makes publicity easier if you can present your platform in a positive light. It looks better if you can say you are supporting equal rights and freedom of choice than saying you are in support of murdering helpless babies. Homosexual propagandists have been very successful at playing these word games as well. By characterising their fight as a fight for equality, they have taken what was a term for the fight against racism and associated it with homosexual rights. They would have us believe that the right to be treated as an equal regardless of appearance is the same as the right to do as we please regardless of morality.

Homosexual propagandists use a straw man argument to attack Christians opposed to homosexuality. They have created a god who superficially is like God, but loves a person's every thought, choice, and act, absent any true sense of morality. This is a god who loves everyone including their sin, rather than God who loves everyone despite their sin. They point to this permissive substitute, accusing any Christian who opposes it of hatred. If this god, whom everyone is supposed to think is God, doesn't object to homosexuality, then the motivation for Christian opposition must be hatred. Yes, God is loving and He does love everyone. However, society does not have a true understanding of what that means. The societal definition of love demands not only acceptance of a person, but acceptance and support for their every choice and action. Homosexual propaganda has promoted this definition of love, accusing all opposition of hatred.

Homosexual supporters love to characterise those who oppose the homosexual agenda as homophobes. Technically this is the irrational fear of homosexuals, but homosexual propagandists have expanded the definition to include anyone who disagrees with their choice of lifestyle, whom they accuse of hatred. In fact, this is the exact opposite of how God wants a Christian to treat those who participate in homosexual activity. The bible gives no room for a Christian to harbour any sort of hatred or malice towards another person and this includes those who identify as homosexual. As a Christian, I neither hate nor fear a homosexual person, though I do feel a great deal of anguish when I consider the eternal suffering they face should they choose to reject God's offer of salvation.

The bible makes it clear, God defines homosexual activity as sinful. Genesis 19:1-13 is an account of the sinful conditions of Sodom and God's decision to destroy the city.

In Leviticus 18:22, homosexuality is characterised as an abomination.

Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22)
God has an intense aversion to homosexuality, considering it to be detestable and shameful behaviour.

Romans 1:22-27 teaches that homosexuality results from not acknowledging God. When people are unrepentant, continuing in their sin, He gives them over to further depravity and allows them to sink deeper into sin.

22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
(Romans 1:23-27)

God considers homosexuality to be dishonourable and unnatural (contrary to nature). It does not honour Him and ultimately will lead to an eternity in hell.

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

In our society, homosexuality is more often viewed as normal. Even within some churches, homosexuality is never acknowledged as a sin. However, the bible makes it quite clear, homosexuality is a sin. It is a lifestyle of those who refuse to acknowledge God. Like any other sinner, the unrepentant homosexual, that is a person who continues in wilful disobedience to God, will spend eternity in hell for their transgressions. The good news is, God is gracious and merciful. Jesus gave his life on the cross as payment for our sins. Accept God's offer of salvation in repentance, believe in Jesus Christ for your salvation, and He will graciously forgive you of all your transgressions! He will give you victory over your sin.

There is a major flaw in logic which cannot accept that we as Christians object to the homosexual lifestyle without assigning it as hatred or malice toward homosexual people. Objecting to a persons choices, even hating those choices, is not the same thing as hating the person. Nobody agrees with everything another person does. This does not mean they hate the other person. The bible instructs us to love one another. It also shows us very clearly what the fate will be for those who don't repent. To ignore the sin of homosexuality instead of opposing it is to watch silently as people head to their own destruction. As a Christian, I cannot say of myself that I have a loving attitude towards homosexuals if I am silent, any more than I could say I am loving as I stand idly by and watch a blind person step out into traffic. The two choices, loving the person and ignoring the sin are mutually exclusive.

Monday, 29 April 2013

Abortion Propaganda

I have been following recent developments in the Kermit Gosnell trial as much as possible, considering the complete lack of coverage by the so-called mainstream media, and thought it would be a good time to address this issue myself.

Before I continue, I should explain my use of non-standard sociological and scientific language. I am aware of terms like 'pro-choice', 'blastocyst' and 'fetus'. I choose not to use this language because it is an attempt at making things seem more socially and morally acceptable. The term 'pro-choice' is simply an attempt at making abortion politically correct and putting a positive spin on what is in truth killing of helpless babies. Scientific terminology for unborn babies in early development is used similarly. It's easier to kill a blastocyst or foetus than it is to kill a baby. I refuse to play these lingual games and will use whatever language best describes the truth.

I'd like to address the silence in the media. Some excuse themselves, claiming the right to cover, or not to cover any particular story. Granted, the right not to speak is as integral to freedom of speech as is the right to speak. However, true journalism has no place for censorship. The sole concern of any journalist or news agency should be to accurately provide all the facts of the world around them, without editing and without agenda. Most media sources refuse to cover the Gosnell trial, and in this have told a lie of omission, showing their pro-abortion agenda, and proving themselves unreliable and untrustworthy as news sources.

I believe what is essentially a media blackout of the Gosnell trial is because the details do not agree with pro-abortion propaganda. The news website reported on witness testimony, which exposes the idea of humane abortion clinics as a massive lie. Babies were killed after birth using barbaric methods, including beheading, severing the spinal column, and breaking necks. The 'clinic' was also strewn with blood and baby body parts. Perhaps most chilling are the sentiments of the abortionist who joked about the babies being big enough to walk to the bus stop or home. If we lived in a society that really respected life, this story would be a huge conversation starter. It would be seen as the tragedy it is, and become a catalyst for change. Instead, it is being swept under the carpet in an attempt to keep the lie of humane abortion intact.

Many people claim to have scientific backing for their pro-abortion beliefs. Most supposed scientific arguments are based on placing an arbitrary date on when life begins, allowing the creation of laws which are then seen as 'humane' because they don't push this arbitrary date. The problem here is, such arguments completely ignore basic cell theory which state the following:
  1. All living organisms are composed of one or more cells.
  2. The cell is the basic unit of structure, function, and organisation in all organisms.
  3. All cells come from preexisting, living cells.

Nobody denies that we all start out as cells, but when it comes to the argument on when life begins, abortion supporters ignore basic biology. We know that during conception, a unique genetic sequence sourced from mother and father is formed, resulting in a new cell with human DNA distinct from its mother. The unborn baby grows from this initial cell, through cell division. Cell theory states that all cells come from preexisting, living cells, so if that initial cell was capable of cell division, it must be alive. If that initial cell is alive, the baby's life began at conception, not at some arbitrary stage.

If we accept that life begins at conception, in accordance with basic cellular biology, the atmosphere of moral ambiguity perpetrated by the pro-abortion movement evaporates. Remove the blindfold, and the lie of humane abortion becomes apparent. The unborn child is a human life. This baby is a person, with promise and potential, a life snuffed out in the most horrific way imaginable because it proved to be too inconvenient for somebody. They might cover it up as the right to choice or in the generality of women's rights, but if you dig down to the foundation, the only justification for abortion supporters is self. After all, how can you claim the morality of fighting for the rights of one person, all the while denying the smallest and most vulnerable people their right to life?

Wednesday, 20 March 2013

Is Free Speech Dead In Canada?

In the recent case against William Whatcott of Saskatchewan, the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled hate speech laws are a constitutionally valid limit to freedom of expression.

According to the National Post, the judges decided that 
Framing speech as arising in a moral context or within a public policy debate does not cleanse it of its harmful effect.
The judges gave the following advice in applying hate speech laws 'objectively':
  • The focus is on the effects of the hate speech rather than the intent of the speaker.
  • Hate must be understood to be extreme manifestations of emotion described by the words “detestation” and “vilification” but nothing less.
  • The focus must be on the effects of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others.
  • The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination.
  • The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm.
Anyone who has any moral standard that compels them to speak should be concerned over this ruling since it essentially eliminates freedom of speech for anything but the most benign of subject matter. Firstly, there seems to be no justification, whether it be moral or political, for speaking your mind. In other words, any form of true political activism for a cause, for example the criminalisation of abortion, could be considered a hate crime if the judge should deem that it causes “extreme manifestations of emotion” and has the potential to vilify a person or group.

If the audience, in the mind of the judge, has reason to think the message is advocating sufficient harm to an individual or group, you could be charged with a hate crime. Since the law apparently does not require proof of either intent or of actual harm, one could be charged with a crime, having innocent intentions and no victims.

How many criminals will use this as a way to avoid responsibility for their crimes? After all, if a non-violent protest can move a person to “extreme manifestations of emotion” and cause mindless “vilification” of a person or group, it is but a step away from blaming your criminal actions, as an audience member, on the protester. Are we as a society really so deluded that we think someone's speech, hateful or otherwise, has got to be the cause? Do we not have the intellectual capacity and judgement to determine for ourselves the truth and an appropriate reaction? If that is no longer the case, I would say government needs to start banning television and movies because those things are full of lies and hypothetical stories that could very easily stir a person into action.

I find it ironic that the government is attempting to protect us from discrimination while perpetrating a discrimination of its own. Some groups of people, for example uncompromising Bible believing Christians such as myself, are being discriminated against by limiting our right to practice our religious beliefs. We do not believe in hiding or compromising the truth in favor of political correctness or unity, any more than Jesus would compromise His teachings to satisfy the religious and political leaders of His day.
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. (Luke 12:51)
This is not to say our goal should be to cause divison (some translations say controversy), but this is the most likely result of standing fast in our belief as Christians. We will be controversial and divisive simply because we stand against those things our society loves. We are called to publicly preach the truth of the Gospel, including sin. To ignore certain sins is an attempt at hiding truth and reducing our need for Jesus Christ as our Savior. In essence, the government is trying to change how we practice our religious beliefs.

These are troubling times for those who feel a moral obligation to stand up for our beliefs. It used to be that standing up for my beliefs earned me a “judgemental” label, which is fine. After all, if I want the right to free speech, I must also respect the other person's right to speak. Not to belittle the suffering of Christians in other countries like Iran and North Korean, but it seems Canada now has a developing system of Christian persecution. We're ok if we leave Jesus in the church, but once we hit the street, we might end up with a nasty fine, or worse, if we don't either shut up, or agree that every lifestyle gets His personal thumbs up. Can I as a Christian really claim to live in a free country when my choices regarding free speech are either compromise my faith or expect my government to punish me?

Tuesday, 19 March 2013

The Big Bang Myth


Welcome to the first entry of my first blog, titled The Big Bang Myth. I have no plans to devote this blog to any particular subject matter, so you may expect to see blog posts on a wide range of topics including Christianity, science, mathematics, electronics, computer programming, history, politics and anything else I may feel the need to comment on. I am a Christian first and foremost, and I pray whatever I may write, that it bring glory to God.

As a matter of integrity, I deplore the very notion of political correctness so be forewarned, you will likely read here what many would consider distasteful or offensive. This doesn't mean I like to be offensive, nor does it mean I would be critical about matters of taste such as the color of someone's “goofy looking” glasses. What it means is I won't trade moral truth for popularity or the sake of unity. If I am aware of a trend in society that goes against what is written in the Bible, sooner or later I'm probably going to publish something about it, and its not going to be in line with the popular view.

Why The Big Bang Myth?

"The Big Bang Myth" isn't necessarily referring just to the supposed 'big bang', but is meant to address the more generalised problem of science as faith.

Although the theory of the big bang is written as theory in many school texts, it is often taught as unquestionable truth. In some science circles, calling things like evolution or the big bang 'theories' is likely to make you a target of hostility and ridicule. Scientists pride themselves as discoverers and guardians of truth, but the reality is, they foster an environment where political correctness is valued above truth and true critical thinking, any thought that opposes the religion of science, is discouraged.

From the perspective of science, evolution and the big bang become huge issues when seen as nothing but unproven theory because there has been a lot of research done that relies on the correctness of these theories to validate their findings. In some cases, the very premise of a research project is supported by the assumption that these base theories are correct. If God were to suddenly show Himself to the world in some completely undeniable way, and tell every person on the planet that the base theories of evolution and the big bang were fundamentally flawed, a huge portion of research would either be beyond repair or require extensive reworking to make it correct. In other words, the scientific community has a lot invested in theories that have not been proven correct.

This is a huge issue in terms of impartiality as well. Scientists are supposed to hold a neutral position where it should not matter whether a theory is proven right or wrong. Either way, something new is learned and knowledge is gained. When it came to theories like evolution and the big bang, instead of waiting for incontravertible evidence, they put all their eggs in this one atheistic basket, going on faith that the handle was going to hold. The handle now holds on through the use of a lot of duct tape in the form of theories meant to prop up evolution. The big bang is one of those theories which attempts to stay in line with evolution by showing that planets, solar systems and galaxies essentially follow the same process as biological evolution.

The problem with godless theories that attempt to explain the formation of our universe is they always see it from the point of human logic. With human intellect, it is very difficult to grasp concepts such as infinity, especially in relation to time, and the idea that there was a time when the universe just wasn't. Even an attempt at describing the problem is a failure because as a human, I have to apply universal concepts such as time, to a problem that is extra-universal in nature. There will always be the question of what was before and a scientific establishment that refuses to acknowledge God's existence will always foolishly attempt to provide answers. For example, scientists are currently developing the theory of a 'pre-big bang' universe in the field of string theory. I won't go into too much detail, but the idea behind it is some kind of 'something' called 'branes' inside a hidden dimension which, when they collide produce a big bang and a new universe. Someone will again ask the question “what came before?” Science in it's foolishness will again try to find an answer. All these 'answers', which have their root in evolution, will build to a point where the prevailing 'facts' resulting from the theory are much bigger than the theory itself. At this point, which I believe we have passed, we will have myth instead of truth.