Abortion

The basic argument behind abortion usually comes down to whether or not the zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being. Pro-life people insist life begins at conception. Pro-choice people insist human life begins at birth or at some far along point in the pregnancy. The difficulty for pro-choice people is creating some sort of dividing line between human and not human. Conception at least makes for a logical jump to personhood. There are other arguments in favor of abortion. One notable philosopher, Peter Singer, argues that life begins at conception, but there is nothing wrong about terminating the pregnancy. From a utilitarian perspective, by terminating the pregnancy, the baby doesn't lose much (it has virtually no cognitive ability) but the mother has potentially much to gain. Peter Singer goes on to use this argument to even justify infanticide! I have always been in the anti-abortion camp. It never made sense to me to have life begin anywhere but conception and killing an innocent human being seems to go against everything I believe in regardless of any utilitarian gain.

However, I came across this article the other day which discusses when life begins from a biblical perspective. It lays out a fairly convincing argument that, Biblically speaking, human life begins at first breath. Before the baby breathes, it is something less than human. After first breath it becomes a 'living soul.' I will summarize the basic ideas presented:

• Genesis says that Adam did not become a living soul until God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.
• In the accounts of Jesus and Stephen, their souls departed their physical bodies when they breathed their last.
• When Ezekiel saw the army of dry bones regrow muscle and flesh they were not alive until breathe entered their bodies.
• The author goes on to say that just because a fetus is not a living soul does not necessarily justify abortion
• In addition this raises some interesting questions about embryonic stem cell research
  

After a little more searching I found another article. The author is some sort of Bible Scholar who advocates abortion. While he definitely shows some aggression towards anti-abortionists (he calls anyone who is against every type of abortion a fanatic) , he does make some interesting points. I recommend you take a look.

While I still have extreme moral concerns with abortion, these articles are at least causing me to think.

Why are Christians Conservative?

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about my political beliefs. Coming from a traditional Christian home, it should come as no surprise that I was raised to be a republican. Almost every Christian I know is conservative. The reasons for this seem logical enough. Republicans stand for morals that are closer in line with those of the Bible. The traditional family becomes the example. Father is off at work while the mother drives the two and a half kids to soccer practice in the minivan. They have a nice sized house in a nice suburban area. This is the ideal family that the liberals are trying to destroy. Liberals stand for immorality.

Really though, how many social issues are there in the Democratic party that are anti-christian morally? Abortion, gay rights, embryonic stem cell, and ... what else? Christians have bought into these few issues so thoroughly that they have decided that they can't possibly be democrats and thus buy into everything else that comes with being republicans. Christians in general hate the idea of increased taxes on the rich and having more social programs for the poor. Things like universal health care, increased welfare, etc become associated with the 'evil' democratic party.

Now I know what the typical response is to all this. The government shouldn't be the ones to care for those in need. That job belongs to the church. Or Christians should be the ones to take care of the needy. We shouldn't let the government do it for us. Another argument is that people will just end up taking advantage of these programs. If I give personally then I can be sure that the right people are getting the help. These arguments are weak. Most of the Christians I know do their couple of service events a year and spend the rest of the time focused on themselves. If there were no government programs to help those in need, very few people would ever get help. Of course there are those who will take advantage. But there are so many who are honestly trying but just can't get out of their circumstances through no fault of their own. Do we let those people suffer because there are those who will take advantage of you?

I see nothing particularly christian about the ideal family touted by conservatives. I see a lot that is christian about helping those in need, even if it is through the government. There are still the issues of abortion, gay rights, etc. I have been against legislating against gay marriage for a while now. I say it in that confusing way because I am not exactly for gay marriage. So for me at least, the issue of republican versus democrat comes down to abortion versus suffering of the poor. While I still haven't made up my mind, I think I might be leaning left.

Or I could always go with the tried and true political position of apathy.

Homosexuality

I was planning to do a post on homosexuality at some point but it seems that this conversation is already going over at free convection. I encourage you to take a look and join in the discussion.

Real Post Coming Soon.

About Me

If past experience influences present perception then it would probably be helpful for me to explain a little about my background.

I was born in 1985 on Long Island, New York to middle class suburbia. I come from a very fundamental Pentecostal Christian family. My father is a Pentecostal pastor. My grandfather is a Pentecostal pastor. My great grandfather was a Lutheran pastor, but they kicked him out for speaking in tongues. Then he became a Pentecostal pastor. The main thing that separates Pentecostals from other forms of Christianity is the belief that the spiritual gifts (described in 1 Cor. 12, Romans 12) are actively being utilized by the present day church.

I've lived in several different places. Long Island from 0-7 years old. Indiana just outside Indianapolis from 7-8 years old. Kingston, NY from 8-13 years old. Indiana again from 13-15 years old. Long Island again from 15-18 years old. Then I moved off to college in Rochester, NY from age 18 to 23 years old. Rochester is my current residence, but not for much longer.

All of this moving helped me to be familiar with many different kinds of cultures. However, since I was always involved in a Pentecostal church, I was never exposed to other Christian viewpoints until starting college. I have gone to christian schools while in Kingston and my latter stay on LI but I've found that they make it a point not to bring up any theology that is outside of the basic Christian doctrine. After all, you can't get the parents paying for tuition angry. I think this shaped my thinking of how to deal with different denominations. Don't bring up doctrinal differences so you don't offend fellow Christians. I've now come to believe that this viewpoint sacrifices meaningful conversation and spiritual growth in the name of some silly notion of christian unity. (I'm not saying unity is silly, just the false idea of what unity is.)

As a result of all of this, I never really questioned my faith until I was 18 years old. Once in college I could not help but be exposed to all sorts of views, not just of Christianity but of many religions. Since then my theology has changed, and I've become stronger in what it is I believe. I still find myself only discussing the basics sometimes but I'm working on not shying away from uncomfortable conversations. This blog is one outlet for that.

Anything else you want to know, don't be afraid to ask.

A Little Perspective First

Before I talk about any particular topics, I want to address the issue of perspective. Nobody is able to see the entire world exactly as it is. There are so many things that limit us. The only way to experience what is around us is through our senses. Sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, and if you want to include some sort of sixth sense or some sort of spiritual sense or instinctive sense, that's fine too. All information that we receive passes through them. But our senses only work in a small range away from our bodies. In addition they are imperfect and incomplete. Senses can deceive us. Our senses do not give a complete picture of what is even immediately around us. For example, our eyes only see what we call the visible spectrum. But there are so many other forms of electromagnetism that we cannot perceive such as X-rays, infrared, radio waves, etc. Imagine a world which is exactly the same as it is now except that nobody has eyes. No one can perceive color or even light and dark. Imagine how differently we would sense the world. Concepts such as the moon and stars would become unknown. How would people try to explain the tide? Now imagine that we have an extra sense. You'll need to think about it a little abstractly but imaging how much our understanding of reality would benefit.

Even if two people are looking at the same object, they will still have different experiences associated with it. Everything we sense, we then process. And nobody processes information in the same manner. We all have prejudices and presuppositions affected by our past experiences. Our experience is sort of like a filter through which we process the world.

Perspective: Good or Bad? I don't think anyone is arguing that we don't have different perspectives. But people in philosophy at least do argue whether or not they are beneficial. One person will argue that it would be ideal if we were all able to see with the "mind of God." That is to say we were able to see reality for what it really is. We would need to get rid of the filters that taint the truth. Another person will argue that while that sounds great, it's not possible. No one can get rid of perspective. Instead we should try to see the world though as many perspectives as possible. The idea here is that if truth is a mountain, and we are all standing around it, the only way to see the entire mountain is to combine the views of everyone. Everyone has part of the truth, but not the whole truth.

I tend to agree with the latter thought, but both views have some merit for me. In response to the first idea, I think it is beneficial to get rid of some of the filters that we have put up that block us from thinking about something correctly. However, it is not realistic to get rid of every filter, and not all of them are even bad to have. Therefore we should try to see the world from a multi-perspective view. I'm not saying that everything everyone believes is true but that there is some truth at least in their beliefs. If everyone sort of sees only a small part of the mountain of truth, they have to fill in the blanks with a lot of other things that don't necessarily constitute what is correct. I will argue that there is some truth in every religion and in every worldview. And that is the point of this blog. Bring together many perspectives, even ones that you do not agree with, and find truth. Strengthen your own picture of what reality is all about. And even if in the end you don't change your opinion on an issue, you will have a much better understanding of why you believe it.

The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

(untitled)

There are two things you should know about me. The first is that I love a good title. The second is that I am not very good at coming up with good titles. Whenever I write a paper, the title is usually the last thing I add. It also takes a significant amount of time to get it right. But I feel it is worth the investment. The title can be an important factor in setting the tone of anything.

I would have started this blog quite some time ago if not for the facts stated above. A blog is not like a paper or a poem. The title comes first. The content follows. A well-titled blog will draw my attention and I will be more likely to read the content and return for more. A few examples of nice blog titles are Paradigms and Revolutions (you have to read Thomas Kuhn to get it), Good Math, Bad Math and my personal favorite free convection (I'm mostly jealous I didn't think of it first). After mulling over a lot of possibilities I have found one that I really like (of course the domain name was taken).

Iron Sharpens Iron. So what is this title all about? Proverbs 27:17 (NIV) reads "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." This verse speaks to the mutual edification of people. But the sharpening process is not passive. Sharpening takes work; it's not easy. It should be challenging. I grow the most when I feel the most challenged. The most challenged I feel is when I have to rub up against those whose opinions are not my own, people who see the world in a different light. I have grown a significant amount since first beginning college. The wide array of viewpoints has caused me to make serious reflections on my own beliefs. Oftentimes I am passive when it comes to my opinion of issues that may be different from those around me (As long as we agree on the basics, the rest doesn't really matter all too much). I wish to change that. I want to present issues that many of my readers hopefully will disagree with. I want to generate discussion that makes me and you sharp. Not all conversations will necessarily be religious. I am sure I will delve into politics and philosophy and everything else that makes up my view of the world. And of course my perspective is subject to change.


I want to be iron.