Homosexuality ?

So it's time we talked about Homosexuality. Despite how I begin this article I'll still be called a Homophobe, people will still say I'm promoting Hate Speech, and at this time it doesn't really matter. I'm going to address this topic as best as I can and as logically as I can. Before I begin I'd like to say that I do NOT hate gay people, I know gay people and they're cool people. They are sinners in the same way that I am a sinner, so I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Homosexuality is the WORST THING TO EVER HAPPEN! The only reason Christians are so concerned with Homosexuality is because;
1) It is against what we believe.
2) It is against what we believe and we are being told we are not allowed to say it's against what we believe and act accordingly to that belief.

When someone like Kirk Cameron says;

“I think it’s unnatural, that it’s detrimental and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization.”

and someone who isn't gay (Roseanne Barr) responds with;

“Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech. So is rick warren. Their peers r killing gays in Uganda.”

I doubt this article is going to be received with much critical thought, and will only suffer emotional responses from Gay sympathizers rather than homosexuals themselves, and they will disregard the content and only reply with calling me a homophobe and ect. ect. So with that out of the way let's begin.

First I'd like to address the MYTH that Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It most certainly is a choice and it is VERY easy to prove. I'm a guy and like most guys I have some knowledge on Porn. In the Porn Industry there is such a thing called "Gay For Pay". This is when Straight Male Pornstars do sex scenes with other male pornstars. Hence the term "Gay For Pay", they are Straight but for the right price they'll be Gay. This is interesting because this proves that Homosexuality is NOT something innate and immutable. How does it do that? Simple. This proves that people have the CHOICE to be Gay. If one can CHOOSE to be Gay, then Homosexuality is NOT innate or immutable. Ugo, that doesn't prove anything, those pornstars aren't Gay, you just said they were Straight. They're just doing that for money. That's true, but there is no such thing as "Black/White for Pay". If people can change their orientation for money, the case that homosexuality isn't a choice doesn't look very good. So how do you judge who is Gay? You can't see Gay people based on their clothes, voice, skin color, manner of dress, you can only judge a Gay person on their actions. I know this because I've accused of being Gay SOLELY based on my voice.

If you see a guy sitting by himself you wouldn't be able to say "They're gay.". You'd only be able to figure them out based on what they do. If this guy gets up and makes out with another guy, you'd immediately know he was Gay. After all, what is Gay ? Homosexuality is simply defined (via Wikipedia as)  

Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

Sexual attraction or behavior...hrm..how does one judge this? BY ACTIONS! Actions are NOT innate or immutable. I can have sex with men, I don't what to, but I possess the ability to do so. If Homosexuality was truly innate and immutable, I would not have the ability to do so. As an example, I am African American, this is innate and immutable, I did not choose to be African American and I am unable to NOT be African American. I cannot wake up one morning and decide to be Japanese or Native American. Despite everything I will always be African American NOTHING can change this. Race is innate and immutable, Homosexuality is NOT.

Furthermore, there are EX-GAYS, people who used to be Homosexuals and are not anymore. What about them? Are they somehow not counted in this discussion of Homosexuality? They could argue that they weren't really Gay in the first place but how would they know? And I am NOT talking about the poor kids in those "conversion" camps who suffer at the hands of people who think they're doing God's work and claim that they're no longer Gay when deep down the truly are. I'm talking about actual Gay people who made a CHOICE and CHOOSE to be Gay no longer. Such people exist, do a Google search. What happens to that argument when these people are added to the equation?

I'll tell you what there aren't any of, Ex-Black people. You can make ALL the Michael Jackson jokes you want, Michael Jackson is Black. Furthermore there is NO such thing as a Closeted Black Person. You can spot a Black person IMMEDIATELY, but you can't spot a Gay Person at all UNLESS they did something to call attention to that fact. For proof,  look below and tell me which one is Black.

That was easy, now scroll back up and tell me which one of them is Gay. The best you can do is guess, but you WON'T know for sure (unless you've seen these men before). But for the sake of proving my point I'll tell you which one is Gay, it's the Gay one. Which one is that? Ah ha! This little exercise was also made to prove that Homosexuality is NOT a Civil Rights issue. There is a BIG difference between being treated like a Human Being and being given privileges for a certain kind of behavior (Wikipedia's word, not mine, take it up with them). I don't recall there being any Straight Only Water Fountains, I don't recall Homosexuals having to sit in the back of the bus because Straight people didn't want them sitting in the front of it. I know Homosexuals suffer murders for their homosexuality, but those murders are only committed when one of the homosexuals are caught engaging in homosexual activity or suspected of doing so (not an excuse, just a fact), for African American, we can be killed for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Being Gay is something that CAN and HAS been hidden, being Black is something I cannot, nor can any other Black person hide (unless they're passing). Furthermore Homosexuality is NOT a Civil Rights issues because Homosexuality is a condition that CAN change (once again, there are Ex-Gay) so why are we re-defining marriage based on something that is changeable? And as far as Interracial Marriage is concerned, comparing Homosexuality to that is an even bigger issue, because there is NO way prove that Interracial Marriage is a bad thing. Sure there were people who spoke out against it, but their arguments are senseless and foolish.

Marriage is the union between a Man and a Woman. I don't recall ANYONE with authority putting any stipulation on that.  Furthermore where did the concept of marriage come from in the first place? I believe it came from God, BUT if you're not a believer in God then isn't marriage just some old out-dated custom? Furthermore if there is no final authority on marriage then Interracial marriage CAN be made illegal. But I doubt you want that, and neither do I considering my girlfriend (future wife) is not Black.

Sex is the action that proliferates the species. In order to do that you need a man and a woman. You cannot continue the species with a man and a man and you cannot proliferate the species with a woman and a woman. You can proliferate the species with an Asian Woman & White Man, or with a Black Woman & Mexican Man, and whatever combination you can think of as long as it's a man and a woman. This is Science, notice I am NOT appealing to The Bible to support my view on Homosexuality. Homosexuality is counter evolutionary and if anything Atheists and Agnostics and anyone who claims Empirical evidence to be their final authority should be more against Homosexuality than we are. This is because no one can make a solid case for Homosexuality WITHOUT appealing to emotions. Take Emotions out of the equation and Homosexuality is nothing. Take emotions out of Heterosexuality and you still have species. This is Science.

Furthermore, are we really going to say that Mom and Dad are NOT different? I grew up without a father so I have no frame of reference. But for my readers of do have both parents, do you really NOT see a difference between your Mother and your Father? Because homosexuals will tell you that you don't need a mother/father. There is a reason WHY sex between a man and a woman produces a child, because that child was meant to learn something from both genders. I've said this before:

A Father for a boy teaches him how to be a man and how to treat a woman. A Boy learns this through watching how the father interacts with the mother. A Father for a girl teaches her how a man is supposed to treat a woman. A Girl learns this by watching her mother interact with the father.

A Mother for a boy teaches him what a good woman is. A boy learns this by watching how his mother interacts with his father. A Mother for a girl teachers her how a woman is supposed to treat a man. A girl learns this by watching her mother interacts with the father.

If the parents do their jobs, the boy will have a solid idea on what interactions between a man and woman are supposed to be, same for the girl. But what can a man and another man teach a girl? What can a woman and woman teach a boy? This is NOT some Biblical argument being made, this is factual established psychology. Some of the most functional children in society have 2 parents at home, a mother and a father. Unfortunately LESS and LESS children have this and deviate more and more.

At the moment I'm done writing, but I have a feeling I'll be writing more on this. One last point, if Homosexuals can't get visitation rights, I suggest they lobby to change that (if they haven't already). That'll do it for me, for now...

PLEASE CHECK OUT:
 http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2012/05/22/why_gay_is_not_the_new_black

No Moral Reason To Be Chaste ? Wrong.

This article hurts me, it hurts me because I'm writing this in response to a friend who made a claim that I could NOT ignore. He stated that there was "NO moral reason to be chaste." Needless to say I found this statement to be entirely false since my reasons for remaining chaste are completely moral, therefore my own virginity refutes his statement. But let's not take my word for it, let's examine the argument. Now, considering this is a Christian blog you're probably guessing that I'm gonna whip out my Bible and appeal to my Christianity to support my reasons for remaining chaste...well in 99.99% of the cases you'd be right, but in this case you're 100% wrong.  I am simply going to appeal to facts. Before I go any further I'd just like to say that me and the person I'm writing this article in response to are on speaking terms and I will send this to him once I am finished. Without further adieu, let's begin.

Can you imagine a world without STDs? Can you imagine a world where EVERYONE knew EXACTLY who their parents were? Can you imagine a world where babies weren't being killed before they even get to see the light of day? Such a world is 100% possible and the ONLY thing keeping that world from existing is our inability to keep it in our pants (and in ladies cases, keep your legs closed). This is NOT to call women whores and men lechers, rather this is to explain a very server problem with a very SIMPLE solution. I have never suffered from an STD, I have never faced the daunting reality of being ill prepared for an unexpected pregnancy, I have never felt the emotional weight of knowing my offspring was aborted. In a like manner I will never spread an STD, I will never cause a woman to become a mother without preparation and I will never cause a woman to get an abortion...Why? Because I haven't had sex.

I'm going to get a little personal here. Myself and my girlfriend are both virgins, neither of us have ever had sex. Considering we plan to get married, the only people we WILL be having sex with is with each other. In that realm the potential of catching an STD and spreading it is ZERO. People will often chime in and say things like "Married couples catch STDs too!" TRUE! But that's only if one of them were getting action outside the marriage. I know someone who recently caught herpes (very unfortunate) now the sad thing is the person he caught them from was completely unaware that she had them and she passed them along to that someone. You're telling me it's not moral to willingly limit the potential spread of a disease? How am I limiting it? By not having sex. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I don't have herpes, because I've never engaged in any activity to potentially get them.

The unfortunate thing about STDs is that some of them show NO symptoms therefore making some men/women carriers. The proper thing to do is to get tested, but how many people get tested after EVERY sexual encounter...I imagine not many...including porn stars. So these carriers are unsuspectingly infecting people, and some of those infected people become carriers themselves and they infect more people...and so on. So one moral reason to remain chaste is to limit the spread of STDs. I made a moral decision in my mind that I was not going to have sex because:

A) I didn't want to get infected.

B) I didn't want to infect anyone else.

Now you may consider this paranoid but I ask you to consider the statistics on STDs and weigh your chances. I know 2 people who had their FIRST sexual experience only to contract chlamydia and herpes. Call me a puritan, call me paranoid, call me negative BUT I know for a fact that when I have sex I won't have to worry about infecting my girlfriend with an STD because I was a carrier and vice-versa. Is that not a moral action to seek the protection of the one you love?

To move on to my next point, let's talk about Progeny. Unfortunately in the African American community there is a HUGE problem with progeny. Too many children are walking this Earth COMPLETELY unaware of who their father is, who their brothers and sisters are ect. ect. This is all because of Progeny. I hate to use this as an example BUT we've ALL seen The Maury Povich Show. This show is an unfortunate carnival of (more often than not) minority women who are DETERMINED to ascertain the progeny of their child...and they do this by parading several men on stage claiming them to be the father...why...because they had sex with every last one of those men. Each of those men have the potential to be that baby's father...and unfortunately the most celebrated moments on The Maury Povich Show are when the words "YOU ARE NOT FATHER!" are spoken, which causes the men to often leap out of their seats in an exclamation of GREAT joy.

I only post this to provide an example...

As darkly humorous as these moments are, we're ignoring a MAJOR problem here...a child is missing out on a father because of the mother's inability to remain chaste. Considering how many African American children DON'T know who their fathers are, each time this happens we should be crying our eyes out. Because children without fathers are more likely to engage in criminal activity (and considering I fall into this category, I have NOT engaged in any criminal activity, but I can't deny that according to statistics I am an anomaly). Not to mention a father's involvement in a child's life is CRITICAL to their development. My Friend (the person I am writing this article to) mentioned that his father died when he was 3, and even he expressed that he'd like to know his father. So even he understands the critical role Fatherhood plays in childhood development. To purposefully rob a child of that is one of the most cruel actions another human can commit without the shedding of blood.

So how can this problem be fixed? Once again, limiting your sexual encounters to ONE PERSON. When I have children I'll know EXACTLY who their mother is and they will know EXACTLY who their father is. If people followed such practices we would not have the abundance of undisciplined children roaming the streets as we do, and we wouldn't have phrases like "Mother's baby, Father's maybe." floating around. All of this can be accomplished by remaining chaste. And is not providing a children with a sense of familial identity a moral action?

But I skipped a step, how do we end up on The Maury Povich Show in the FIRST place? Lots of sex with multiple people and suddenly...maybe the tip of a condom wasn't pinched, maybe it split in some places, maybe he wanted to go raw dog that one time, regardless of how...all of a sudden you've got a baby on your hands. A baby that you're NOT prepared for AT ALL. A baby's that's gonna need your love and attention  and you've got college, or your job, or your English homework to worry about. This is an scenario that once again is prevalent in the African American community. Too many Too-Soon Mother end up raising children while they're children themselves and those children grow to lack discipline and other qualities that will aide them in being productive member of society. Why does this happen? Because somewhere down the line he/she got it in their heads that they were some how invincible from facing any consequences of having sex.

Sure condoms work, sure the pill works BUT the catch is you have to remember to put one on and you have to remember to take it. Let's be honest here, only the MOST responsible guys are going to stop when they discover they have no condoms. But in most cases, just one innocent "just this one time." ends up become Child support payments for the next 18 years of your life. I'm not currently facing that problem, not because I've always wore a condom or because my girlfriend always takes the pill after, but because we haven't had sex. So when we do get married and have sex we can have a discussion about potentially bringing children in this world (we both want to) instead of constantly having to worry about not having condoms and pills ect. ect. Unfortunately people don't think like this and we end up conceiving children before we're prepared to take care of them. Isn't preparing an environment where both parents are ready and willing to be parents for your child a moral action?

Same scenario as above, lots of sex, multiple people, something happens that shouldn't have happened and all of a sudden you've got a baby on your hands. Except this time things are different, you already have children, you can't afford another, or maybe your job is far too important for you to have to slow down for a child, your Ph.D is near complete, whatever the case maybe, having this baby will irrecoverably set you back a great deal. So you turn to abortion. Then comes the moral question on whether or not abortion is murder (no small clue to figure out where I stand on that issue). I can tell you with 100% certainty that my girlfriend won't have to deal with this issue, mostly because we want children (so the concept of an unwanted pregnancy won't be an issue) and we consider abortion murder. BUT I don't want a baby right now, neither does she and the BEST way to keep that from happening to remain chaste. If people were to do that we wouldn't have a need for abortion clinics.

All of these things I listed to you are NOT fantastically or unrealistic, BECAUSE I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT'S POSSIBLE. This is NOT difficult (speaking from experience), this is from making intelligent decisions based on things I've learned in Sex education in High School. My mother didn't brow beat me into being Chaste, nor did my Church ostracize promiscuity beyond what any normal church would do. I was not taught that if I have sex I'm going to Hell, nor would I endorse that mode of thinking. I was not taught that sex was dirty. I was taught that Sex is the means of reproduction for (just about) all living species and that in most cases it feels VERY good (that part I'm looking forward to very much). One thing I was taught about sex is that if done wrong, HORRIBLE things can happen and considering the state of our world as it is today, they already have. 

STDs are in abundance, children without fathers, abortions, all of these problem can be solved by the SINGLE action of remaining chaste. Now, as I have said earlier in this article that DO plan of having sex, so I am not actually chaste, I am abstinent. But considering I haven't had sex AT ALL I am chaste de facto (hehe). I am NOT ordering people to NEVER have sex EVER...of course not, not even I would endorse such a suicidal plan. I am however instructing people to limit their sexual encounters to one person. Oh but Ugo, that's unrealistic! Is it? People have done it before...people ARE doing it now...you mean to tell me that having sex with just one person is an unrealistic goal...that's rather sad. Oh but Ugo how are you ever gonna get good at sex if you only have sex with one person? (I've been asked this question before and it makes me roll my eyes.)

To answer that question I'm going to use a video game reference and use some "wisdom" other people have told me about sex. I was told that "Not every woman is the same.", with that in mind let me move on to my video game analogy: If I wanted to get good at playing "Halo", I am NOT going to play "Final Fantasy"! Same system (female), different controls (likes and dislikes), and an over all different tactic to play (positions).  Meaning if I'm gonna get good at playing "Halo" I'm gonna play "Halo" until I learn everything there is to know about "Halo". In a like manner I plan on learning my wife and her learning me and us learning each other when we do have sex. Those who've had sex can't deny that it's a learning experience that only get better with practice, however for me I'll be able to apply what I've learned...the rest of you will have to learn a new woman all over again (that's only if you subscribe to that ideology). This was off topic...just felt like throwing that in there.

Anyway, I hope I've made a clear and logical choice on the morality of remaining chaste...at least I hope I did considering that these are the reasons I am not having sex yet. Now I will admit that if I was in a better financial situation I would be more open to the idea of premarital sex, but even then I'd have other things to consider that money couldn't solve. How's about that, an entire article on a Christian blog that DOESN'T make a SINGLE religious argument for chastity...hrm...almost makes me feel guilty, lol Heb 13:4. Thank you and God Bless.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001620/#adam_000594.disease.causes

Conversions are NOT our business !!

I CANNOT stand this kind of garbage! Somewhere down the line "Christians" decide to take spiritual matters into their own hands and they end up committing horrible acts and THIS is one of those cases. Now, I think I've made it clear here that I am 100% opposed to Homosexuality. Do I think it's wrong and NEEDS to be cured, of course I do, but DON'T think it's our job to cure it. FORCING someone to convert to ANYTHING is NOT an honest conversion. I'd rather have someone be an Atheist of their own freewill than a Christian at the barrel of a gun. Jesus did NOT order us to convert by Any Means Necessary; Jesus taught us to go and make disciples of all the nations (Matt 28:19), Jesus did NOT tell us to FORCE conversions (if I remember correctly, that was Muhamad, Sahih Muslim 1:33).

In this case we have Christians attempting to TORTURE the gay out of gay people. IMPOSSIBLE! The thing about torture is once it begins, the victim will do whatever necessary for it to stop! So a Gay persons can undergo these so-called "conversions" and say they're no longer gay BUT they'll always be gay at heart. Notice what I said there, GAY AT HEART! AND THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE! These "conversions" do NOTHING but torment and make attempts to control physical acts, and while that maybe effective in the short term in the long term it's ineffectual. We as Christians need to be concerned with the HEART. For our homosexual friends and family we need to be in constant prayer that GOD converts them and changes their heart.

And furthermore I'd just like to say that I am APPALLED that this kinda crap is going on in God's name. Atrocities committed in God's name WILL be met with it's just punishment and anyone who supports "conversion" camps are un-biblical and un-Christian. Thank you and God bless.

Jesus, Republicans & The Bible...seriously ?

I really have to do this again don't I ? Okay, let's get started point by point.

"Peaceful, Non-Violent, Radical, Revolutionary."

Yes, Jesus was peaceful BUT, Jesus was not 100% anti-violent. This is NOT to say that Jesus went around preaching violence, HOWEVER John 2:14-25, Jesus drove heathens out of the Temple. Now, how exactly did Jesus do this? He used a WHIP! It's right there in The Bible, check it out. Jesus attacked them with a Whip. Now you might be asking yourself, Why did Jesus do this? Well, because the heathens were defacing his Father's house. The Jews even noticed this and asked Him what authority did he do this under. This doesn't mean go out and attack people with a whip BUT this does mean that Jesus did react physically against morally corrupt practices going on in His father's house. So much for your non-violent angle. Oh and insult to injury here, Jesus in Luke 22:36 tells His followers to "sell your cloak and buy a SWORD". Which means that Jesus was NOT against self-defense, and understood the need for such things. To support the non-violent aspect though, Jesus did react negatively when Peter cut the ear off of The Roman soldier who arrested Jesus, Luke 22:49-51. However Jesus wasn't having it and healed the soldier's ear. Why ? Because Jesus understood what needed to be done and was willing to go peacefully. So yeah wrong there Mr. Fugelsang. Also, you'll notice I'm using citations to validate point.

 "Hung around with lepers, hookers and criminals"

Yep. Jesus did all those things. Note, He did NOT advocate their activity though.

"Never spoke English and not an American citizen."

Also correct.

"Anti-Capitalism and Anti-Wealth"

WRONG! Jesus never taught any exact political system (mostly because Christianity can work in any political system that will allow it to work). Jesus may have not taught capitalism BUT Mr. Fugelsang's words were "ANTI-CAPITALISM" which means He was AGAINST Capitalism. Now where would we find Jesus teaching against Capitalism? Nowhere. Jesus and The Bible do speak a lot about sharing though, Romans 12:10-13, Ephesians 4:28, 1 Tim 6:17-18, Hebrews 13:15-16. So The Bible teaches sharing...but ANTI-CAPITALISM?! Not at all. First of all in order to SHARE something you'd have to OWN something to begin with. Furthermore let's take a look at Acts 5:1-11, specifically verse 4 where Peter reveals Ananias OWNED the land. Therefore Peter was attempting to BUY some land, Buying implies that someone OWNED the land in order to sell it. Now, IF Peter was a follower of Jesus (and if Jesus was ANTI-CAPITALISM as Mr. Fugelsang said) then Peter would have had to rebuke the man and shun him for being selfish with the land that was rightfully everyone's. But no, Peter even told Ananias that if he didn't want to sell the land, he didn't have to! So obviously Jesus was HEAVY on sharing but was NOT anti-capitalism by ANY stretch of the imagination. 

This anti-rich part makes me laugh A LOT. For someone who claimed to have a pretty exclusive Christian background (Catholic...not the same thing) he really doesn't know much about the teachings of Jesus. Let's start at the beginning shall we? Jesus is God in the flesh (this is what Christians believe John 8:48...I could go on). So Jesus is God in The Flesh. In The Old Testament there was a man who was called a man after God's own heart, this man later became King. I'm talking about David. David was King...King equals rich. David was very rich and VERY blessed by God (keep in mind Jesus came from David's lineage)., So what does this tell you about rich people and their relationship to God? God is NOT ANTI-RICH, THEREFORE JESUS ISN'T EITHER! Jesus is against THE WORSHIP OF MONEY! Why can't anyone understand this? Just to be redundant let's review the little scene in Luke 18:18-25 (crack open your Bibles, NOW!).

The Rich Ruler calls Jesus "Good.". Jesus answers this with a VERY important question that The Rich Ruler does NOT catch, nor respond to BUT this is a VERY critical part of understanding this text. Jesus says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God.". If The Rich Ruler were paying attention he would have heard the subtext of the question, just in case you missed it, allow me to clean it up for you. Jesus was asking The Rich Ruler if he was calling him God (once again Jesus is God in the Flesh). Jesus was asking The Rich Ruler this question because He wanted to make this guy knew who he was talking to (and apparently he didn't). So Jesus lists the bottom 5 commandants and ignores the top 5 (I'll explain why in a bit). The Rich Ruler confirms that he has kept those commandants and then Jesus tells him to SELL EVERYTHING he owns and join Him. The Rich Ruler is OBVIOUSLY disheartened by this answer and leaves. 

The COMMON misconception here is that Jesus literally wanted this man to sell everything and join Him, and why wouldn't that be a misconception, that's EXACTLY what Jesus said is it not? Yes, but here's where the topic of those missing 5 commandants come into play. The 10 Commandants are divided into 2 sets. The first 5 are man's responsibility before God, the second 5 are man's responsibility to each other. The Rich Ruler was doing great on his responsibilities to his fellow man but his responsibilities before God were LACKING VERY MUCH SO. How do I know this? Because Jesus was able to see into the man's heart (once again Jesus is God) and Jesus saw that The Rich Ruler loved his money more so than God. If The Rich Ruler DID love God, he would have been more than willing to sell his possessions. Jesus wasn't condemning the man for being rich, he was condemning the man for his unwillingness to part with his riches for eternal life (which to be fair it was The Ruler who asked Jesus how to obtain eternal life). Basically if The Rich Ruler REALLY wanted eternal life, he would have agreed. I doubt Jesus would have made him sell everything BUT the willingness of The Ruler would have shown Jesus that The Rich Ruler was down for the cause all the way, instead The Rich Ruler exposed his true nature. JESUS IS NOT AGAINST PEOPLE BEING RICH! DAVID WAS RICH! SOLOMON WAS RICH! ESTHER WAS RICH! JESUS IS AGAINST THE WORSHIP OF MONEY! Matt 6:24,Luke 16:13,1 Tim 6:10, Hebrews 13:5! Once again, citations.

"Anti-public prayer"

Seriously? Wow...this is a MAJOR swing and miss Mr. Fugelsang...so far you just got a few right. But this is just sad. Okay, let's look at Matthew 6:5 because that's the ONLY one He gives a citation for...and didn't research it completely, so leave it to me to come in and clean things up. Let's get started. Jesus was instructing His disciples to not be like hypocrites who pray for show. Jesus was NOT ANTI-PUBLIC prayer. Now Jesus DID preach to pray in private, Matthew 6:6-14. But Jesus is mostly discouraging making a spectacle of prayer. If a massive gathering of people decide to pray on the beach or at a camp site or event at school, Jesus isn't going to shake a finger at them. Jesus makes that clear when He says "so that they may be seen by men". Once again Jesus is God and He's talking about the intent of their actions, (ie, hoping people see how "holy" they are by praying in public). Jesus discourages this because their intention is NOT to seek an audience with God but rather to make a spectacle of themselves.

"Anti-Death Penalty"

Not true in a broader sense of the term, because Jesus is pretty much the invocation of The ULTIMATE DEATH penalty, (John 8:24). So was Jesus for the electric chair, lethal injection, ect. ect.? No, BUT He will bring judgment and a LOT of people are going to die, not only physically but eternally in Hellfire. But this is a broader sense of the term. However in The Old Testament who do find a Death penalty in effect. Death penalty is a societal issue and each society will judge if they choose to have one. Jesus made no pro or con about a death penalty for murders ect. ect. Death penalties are NOT about punishment, rather they're about justice. They are not meant to be cruel, they are meant to serve justice to those who have taken a life. For those who are anti-death penalty, you might as well be anti-war and anti-police as well because both of these jobs require you to kill when necessary (NOT out of punishment, out of justice and/or defense). God did not condemn David for killing Goliath, which shows that God understands the meaning of war and all that entails. So is Jesus anti-death penalty? No, but He wasn't exclusively pro-death penalty either...not making a very strong case here Mr. Fugelsang.

"Not anti-gay"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Okay, let's go to The Bible to Matthew 19:4-6. Here we see Jesus outlining what a marriage is. Notice, He says MALE AND FEMALE! And how wonderful is it that the text put those in all caps so I didn't have to. Don't give me that face as if homosexuals weren't as popular in that day as they are now (The Romans pretty much perfected homosexuality). Jesus makes it very clear, MALE AND FEMALE. Still not convinced? Okay, let's go to Leviticus 18. Specifically Lev 18:22. Once again, Jesus is God in the flesh (so if God says it Jesus agrees with it). Oh Ugo, that's the OLD testament! Okay, let's look at the new, specifically Romans 1:18-32. Very clearly there's a major anti-homosexual message here. Now Mr. Fugelsang, I have to GREATLY question your admiration of Jesus at this point. You claim to admire Him and Jesus affirms The Bible as His inspired word...so when Jesus' inspired word preaches a message that is clearly anti-homosexual, you claim that Jesus was never against it. So obviously you're picking and choosing what you want to believe about Jesus instead of who Jesus actually IS. This is NOT admiration. Furthermore 1 Cor 6:9.

"Didn't mention abortion."

If you mean Jesus used the word "abortion" no, He did not. BUT Jesus does state that "Thou shall not commit murder!" Matthew 19:18. I am 100% we can all agree on what murder is, right? Murder is the unlawful taking of someone's life. Prime example:

If a police officer is chasing a criminal and the criminal prepares to shoot a civilian in order to escape and the police officer shoots the criminal and kills him, we do not call that a murder. The Police officer was acting in the defense of a civilian. This is echoed in several other instances. As I've stated before David killed Goliath in the setting of war. In these cases not even God calls that murder. These are simply killings. Murder would be the aforementioned criminal shooting a civilian. There was no law or infraction made upon the criminal to shoot the civilian. Can we all agree on that? Good. So if Jesus commands us not to commit murder, and very clearly God makes a distinction between murder and killing, I ask you a very important question: What law did an embryo break in order to be killed? 

But you're already saying that abortion is NOT murder, okay so in order for it NOT to be a murder there MUST be a lawful reason WHY you're killing someone...otherwise it's murder. And I have done my research, embryos develop heartbeats as soon as 6 weeks! And as far as I'm concerned if it has a heartbeat and you actively seek to STOP that heartbeat, that in my mind is murder. And consider this Ex 21:22-23. Please note that this does NOT specify AT WHAT TERM this is acceptable. Now there are people who will argue the following:

This was a comment in response to "180 The Movie" found on Youtube. The username has been blurred out to protect the innocent and the section I am arguing has been highlighted.

A fetus will GROW into a person, so it may not be a person YET but it will grow to be one. In a similar fashion a seed is NOT an apple tree YET, but it will GROW to be one (this is not a disputable fact). So saying that a fetus is not a person is to deny the fact that it will be a person. As far as not having thoughts, feeling, self-awareness or complex interpersonal relationships...first of all, coma patients don't have feelings (how can they? They're in comas). Self-awareness, most mentally retarded children aren't self-aware and once again, neither are people in comas. And interpersonal relationships, the fetus's FIRST interpersonal relationship is with THE MOTHER, so that's a foolish argument to make on all accounts. And considering the logical conclusion I've drawn here, Jesus is against abortion, He just never used the word "abortion". 

"Didn't mention premarital sex"

So that whole thing about looking at a woman lustfully in Matthew 5:27-28 had NOTHING to do with premarital sex. Considering that Jesus emphasized marriage Matthew 19, and condemned fornicators in Matthew 15:19-20. Furthermore, Jesus' points are echoed in Acts 15:29, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and in Hebrews 13:4. It's PAINFULLY obvious that Jesus taught against premarital sex. Once again, I've got citations, all you've got is well..pretty much your word and so far it's not looking very reliable.

"Never justified torture."

You're 100% right. Jesus was not pro-torture.

"Never called the poor lazy."

Right.

"Never asked a leper for a co-pay."

Right.

"Never fought for tax cuts for the wealthy Nazereans."

Right.

"Long haired, brown skinned, homeless Middle Eastern Jew."

 Okay, quick issue. Although I won't deny that Jesus was of a dark pigmentation, going to Revelation to support this is NOT the best way to go and here's why. Revelation is an EXTREMELY coded book FILLED with Jewish iconography and symbology of the day that only The Jews of that time would understand. The verse Mr. Fugelsang is referring to is Rev 1:12-14. HOWEVER, you have to understand that "Wool" and "Bronze" were not straight forward terms like they are today, whether they meant something different in that time. Consider the visions in Daniel 2. Each material and animal was reflective of 4 rising empires. It's all very hard to explain so I suggest pulling out a Bible a research it for yourselves. Long story short, a LOT of Revelation is symbolic language. ONCE again, I am NOT denying that Jesus was of a dark pigmentation, I'm just saying Revelation ain't to place to go proving that. Gun to my head, if I HAD to guess what Jesus MAY have looked like, I'd immediately pick:

I'd go so far as to Jesus was probably just as built as Naveen Andrews to, considering Jesus was a carpenter and all.

"Of course that's only if you actually believe what's in The Bible."

Well Mr. Fugelsang, I suggest you stick to comedy as your knowledge of The Bible and Jesus is pretty flawed, which amazes me because you said you admire Him. I think you just admire the image you made up of Him in your mind, because the TRUE Jesus would rebuke you for distorting His word to suit your own political alignment. Now, I'll leave the case to you, the reader, which one of us made a more clear case for our position? The person offering citations, references and logic to support their position or the person who was merely making statement after statement without context? The choice is obvious. I suggest YOU read your Bible Mr. Fugelsang and believe what's in there. Thank you all and God bless.

Why is Pedophilia Wrong ? Seriously ?

Once again I decided to write yet another satirical article THIS time about pedophilia. I want you all to know 100% that this is SATIRICAL! 100% SATIRICAL! I am NOT in favor of pedophilia, but I SERIOUSLY had to write this article just to prove a point and once again if you agree with this article then may God have mercy on you. Let's get started.
___________________________________________________________________________
I'm confused here. I have to ask an EXTREMELY serious question. Why is pedophilia wrong ? You're probably very disgusted right now and I understand that but hear me out before you judge. I saw a video quite a few days ago about a boy who decided to be referred to as a girl.

I thought to myself, IF this child is able to identify her own sexual identity at such a young age, who's to say she can't understand the concept of Love ? We're making MANY psychological breakthroughs with children's psychology and development ENOUGH to prove that they're much smarter than we give them credit for. Much like young Hailey here. I'll do you one better, I recently read an article about a 7 year old boy who expressed physical attraction to one of the young men on the popular "GLEE" show. As seen here. Among these 2 things are a common thread of young children making absolute statements about their sexual identity.

So let me ask you, why is pedophilia such a horrific topic to discuss ? I mean pedophiles can't help that they're attracted to children and who's to say a child CAN'T be physically and emotionally attracted to a someone much older than they are? I think it's absolutely foolish to say they can't. Most parents feel that their child is able to express love for them (their parents) but the idea of expressing any other kind of love is completely out of the question. FOOLISH! People consider pedophiles to be child molesters and rapists and things of that sort when in reality they're all seeking the same thing each of us are, a normal healthy relationship with the person they love, and at the end of the day isn't that something we all want?

But you just can't get passed that child issue, can you ? Okay how about this here, in another article in The Huffingtonpost I read that Sex Change Treatment is becoming increasingly popular among children. Here we have a child at 18 months expressing that she is a boy. Who are her parents to further confuse the poor child and tell him that he is actually a she. If she says she's a boy, she's a boy! This is at 18 months! If a child is THAT early developed mentally and psychologically then why are we still refusing them the love that all of us have?

 No one wants to think about children having sex, BUT it happens! Children as young as 12 years old are discovering things about their body and their hormones are raging. Do you want your 12 year old son knocking up some poor girl because they didn't know what they were doing, would you rather have your 12 year old daughter pregnant because she got with some boy who didn't know what he was doing OR would you rather have someone their with experience to cater to their needs and take their time with them? I'd go for the latter. Understand something, I think it's horrible for anyone to force themselves on anyone sexually, but pedophiles don't want to do that. Sure there are MANY pedophiles out there who give them a horrible name forcing themselves upon young boys and girls, BUT you can't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. That's UNFAIR because there are MANY law abiding pedophiles who aren't raping anyone and yet they get same amount of flack simply for something outside of their control.

Is it wrong to feel that way about a child? If so, then why ? If a person expresses that a child is  beautiful is it wrong to call them that ? Is not a little boy or little girl, a man and a woman ? We certainly allow them to make adult decisions about their lives and identity. We certainly treat them with the respect we'd treat any adult. Simply because through psychology we have learned that their opinion is just as valid as anyone else, and HOW DARE YOU SAY, "Oh but they're just kids, they don't know what they're saying." How do you know ? Hailey certainly KNOWS she's a girl, That 7 year old boy KNOWS he's gay. So when your son expresses physical desires for an older woman or man, or your daughter expresses physical desires for an older man or woman who are you to tell them that what they're feeling is wrong? Or that they're not allowed to feel that way YET? You can't control people's feelings.

Lastly I'd like to say that nowadays, adults engaging in sexual intercourse with "minors" has been on the rise lately, if you turn on the news you're bound to hear a news story about a female teacher having sex with her student. Why are we still treating this as if it's a horrible thing? If both parties wanted to have sex and agreed to have sex then why is it still wrong ? Because one party is older than the other? So you're old enough to make statements about your sexuality and your gender but you're not old enough to have sex? And we're making this arbitrary rule about 18 being legally an adult, in some states you can get married at 16. Those numbers don't magically impart maturity to you. There are VERY immature 16 and 18 year olds, and some VERY mature 10 and 15 year olds but they're not allowed to have sex? What's the reasoning here? Because I fail to see it.

Is it that pedophilia disgusts you? Why should we keep them from being happy solely based on our tastes of what we find disgusting and attractive? Whose standard are we using ? No father wants to think about his daughter having sex (young or old), the only thing a father wants for his daughter is she's cared for and provided for and who can do that better than a man just like him? The benefits GREATLY outweigh the problem. And in all honesty what are the problems we have with pedophilia? Children shouldn't be having sex ? You can do a Google search for Young Mothers, and they all are well adjusted children who aren't psychologically disturbed at all. And being a mother means they had to have sex. So if you wanna argue that sex at an early age can psychological damage a child you're gonna have a hard time proving that outside of rape.

Which again is NOT pedophilia. So really, what's wrong with pedophilia and why are we denying them their rights? Do they not have the right to love who ever they want (like the rest of us)? So I employ you to think long and hard about why pedophilia is wrong, without appealing to the same tired tropes of Psychological damage, Sexual abuses, ect. ect. Why do YOU think pedophilia is wrong, and if you can't think of a reason outside of your emotional comfort...then maybe you should re-think how you feel about it.
___________________________________________________________________________
 To conclude the satire, I leave you with this.

Euthanasia, Why not ?

Okay, so all too often I talk about Christian topics here but I wanted to write a satirical piece for the sole purpose of exposing a few things, I'm using this as a preamble for anyone who thinks I'm 100% serious about this. I AM NOT. This is satire and it's meant to invoke thought rather than agreement, and if you DO agree with any of this then may God have mercy on you.

Poison. Wait, WHAT?!

"What they've been mislead into what they think their Bible tells them." ? Good one Cenk, good one, anyone else who doesn't do any research would get fooled but not me. First of all, I'd like to point out that Cenk failed to provide a citation. Not to resort to internet speak here but if you're going to make a reference to something written PROVIDE A CITATION! ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT VALIDATES YOUR POINT! Basically anyone who just agreed with Cenk without asking for a citation is simply believing what they're told rather than researching it themselves (hypocrisy much?). I'd like to say that at this point in time I am STILL searching for whatever it was Cenk was referencing and have thus far found bumpkis.

*Jan. 30th, 2012, 5:46pm* FOUND IT! Let's take a look at it: Numbers 5

Cenk clearly said "poison" and unfortunately for him the text does not. The text Numbers 5:17 clearly says "dust" from the floor of the tabernacle. Dust and poison are two completely different things for anyone who wants to argue semantics. So what we have here is a symbolic ritual as opposed to poisoning someone. Drinking water with dust in it wouldn't cause a person's thighs to swell ect. ect. and it certainly wouldn't cause immediate death. Furthermore nowhere in here is abortion or forced miscarriages looked upon favorably, once again Cenk I gotta question how thoroughly you researched this.

 Considering that in those ages Child bearing was incredibly important to a woman's worth (I am NOT arguing that it should be now, women are worth a lot more than the ability to have children), at any rate the prospect of NOT being able to bare children is a terrifying concept to a woman in those times. So again, where's this favorable look ? Now being a Bible Believing Christian and not a Nominal Christian I believe that in THOSE time before DNA tests ect. ect. God was that involved with people where He WOULD do as He promised and spare the innocent the consequence of of never baring children again.  Also would a little dirt in the water cause someone to NEVER BARE CHILDREN AGAIN ? Doubtful. Might make you sick for a couple of days but it wouldn't stop you from pro-creating period. Now let's look at what Cenk says in the video;

1) Never mentions abortion specifically...
If you mean in terms of using the word "abortion" it's self, no. BUT Exodus  21:22-23 makes the case that a child in the womb is a living creature. And I'd like to point out that if there's something to take out of a woman there was something growing there as well. Furthermore embryos develops a heartbeat around 5 to 6 weeks of gestation, and as far as I'm concerned if it has a heartbeat and something purposefully stops it's heart from beating, I consider that murder. Because let's face it you can't kill anything that doesn't have a heartbeat. So again, it's not  mentioned specifically BUT it is hinted at in more than one way. If people back in those days had the ability to abort babies as we do now the language would be very different.

2) We already discussed the favorable thing, so no need in beating that dead horse.

I find it funny that when a non-believer says something about The Bible everyone is so willing to listen to them REGARDLESS of whether or not a citation is given but when a Christian provides a citation those SAME people will IMMEDIATELY ignore the context and go with what the non-believer said. Funny...