Archive | Human Life RSS feed for this section

Coming Out . . . The Genius of It All

2 Mar

coffee3

A few years back, our school newspaper published an article titled, “Sexuality loses meaning as it becomes career booster.” The title, in-and-of-itself, was an oxymoron. The very thing that enhances careers is indeed meaningful. In fact, the claim of “sexuality” at all has become and “enigmatic enhancement” of the first order. How’s THAT for an oxymoron?

But semantics aside, titles are meant to catch people’s attention. What is it about today’s culture, anyway? Everyone seems to be defining themselves by their sexuality. The stars in the media always have to come across as sexy. Clothes have to be sexy. Food has to be sexy. Then there are mouthwashes, toothpastes, cars, whatever! Sex sells, I guess. Being sexy-gay, and metro-sexual also sell in today’s culture. Even Facebook has caved to the pressures of sexual expression, called by progressives as “gender identity.”

In that issue of the school newspaper, comments by students were printed in response to others, who have chosen alternative lifestyles. Isn’t everyone’s lifestyle an alternative one? Titles really do not define us, and neither do nicknames. What they do, though, is capture attention. Consequently, if a person favors traditional marriage, he or she is labeled “anti-homosexual,” or a homophobe.” Attention pushes emotions and thus, fads are born. High school campuses are replete with fads. Sex is just one more fad. However, fads based on sexuality are just a bit different, in that people seem to think their sex and gender are who they are.

The Genius of It All

Here is an example. If I call myself a genius, a born genius, and I am someone who joins up with groups of geniuses—and even begin to wear the “attire of the genius” groups, use the language of geniuses, etc.–I am perceived by these actions as a genius. But am I truly a genius? Would a genius seek to be one so desperately that he must come out as one and join a group?

Taking things even farther, I could even have participated in a community parade of geniuses and protested people of ordinary intelligence, calling them all hater of geniuses, if they dared to speak of the ordinary in ways that validated their ordinary intelligence. All things considered, do any of these actions mean I am a genius? Participation in the actions that some equate with lifestyle does not necessarily equate to the conclusion that I am a genius. I could bear the title of GENIUS and not be one. What is more, I could claim to have been born a genius, only to arrive later in life at the realization that I am quite an “ordinary genius.” Talk about oxymorons?

We live in a heightened state of sexual identity today, media-driven to be sure! How else would high schoolers—or anyone for that matter—know their sexuality, absent the practice? In my opinion, the titles we ascribe to our identities are not the real points of identification. Just like one’s beliefs, names are just that—NAMES. It is the actual, continued practice that defines us, in my opinion. Attraction is not the main issue. In the same way no one can claim to be a potato because of one’s regular cravings, attractions–and even addiction–for french fries, no one can say they are heterosexual or homosexual merely by attraction, or sexual lust. I’ll return to this conclusion a bit later. One thing is certain: We are all born sexual.

In case no one has paid attention yet, allow me to open a door and reveal this truth. We, the human race, are sexual creatures. Did you hear me? WE ARE SEXUAL. Why should we have to go around labeling ourselves by culturally-spotlighted titles? Why should heterosexuals and homosexuals have to somehow be certain that their sexuality is front-and-center? Think about it. Why do we have “sexuality clubs” on school campus? The Gay and Straight Alliance (GSA) is a club titled after sexual orientation and practice? Is being “straight” a belief or a practice? Or is it a world-view? Or better yet is it an inalienable right to be homosexual, found somewhere in Jefferson’s Declaration, or Locke’s Natural Rights?

Considering Teenagers

How do teens ever know what they are, unless they practice something long enough to know? Are high schoolers even oriented yet? Their brains and bodies are changing daily. Do we expect that teens WILL inevitably experiment with sexuality to discover their orientation? I hope not. That is quite dangerous. So, what purpose does a “sexual-titled” club have? I’d love to hear of the celibate homosexual–talk about the ultimate in doublespeak!!!

Any Google search will produce the answers to the questions just raised. There are places all over the nation popping up that base their identity on sexuality—as far down as middle and elementary schools. However, instead of going Google, many young people are going “Gaga.” Here is one such recent example:

The Youth Empowerment Summit (YES)

YES took place at Everett Middle School, just one of dozens of locations in the past few years. YES remains a FREE conference, sponsored by GSA Network for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, questioning, and straight ally youth dedicated to fostering safe schools and youth activism. The conference is open to all youth and allies, with a focus on middle school and high school. Adults and teachers are welcome. Under the guise of “bullying,” the homosexuality agenda has made its was into all the corners of our kids lives.

It is not a moot issue to ask why not have a BSC Club too (Bi-Sexual Curious club). What about a Transgender Club? Many GSAs include these other orientations and lifestyles as protectionary, for those choose to proclaim a different sexuality. If gays do not feel comfortable in places, based upon their sexuality, then bisexuals and transgenders will probably feel just as uncomfortable. Should all sexual expressions have their own club? I would like to know just what “alliance” is formed between students of different sexual expressions? What about the “teenagers with crushes on their teachers clubs”? I’ll stop there at the edge of absurdity.

Why can’t we just stick to clubs period, you know, those that enhance civic participation and not sexuality? Why does sexuality have to be the open door? I shudder to think that demonstrating sexual practice is somehow one’s civic duty. Does there have to be a heterosexual community service club and a homosexual service club? Could we ever envision a non-gender club? Hmmm. How about naming it the Interact Club, where everyone interacts? What about Rotary, or Lions Clubs?

What About the Celibates?

What I am pointing out in this article, and hopefully the reader is catching some of my sarcasm and facetious allusions, along the way, is that we are all sexual creatures– including celibates? Those folks are defined by their LACK of practice, or orientation. Are they born that way, or is it a choice? Do we have opportunities for them to be celibate, and are they offended by all of this intolerable sex-talk? Celibates are still male or female, therefore sexual. I would like to see the statistics on gay celibates–those who have never had sex before. I would enjoy a discussion to discover how celibates know they are gay. The norm never has to explain itself. It is pure silliness to think that just attraction and even physical lust makes one gay, yet these are the primary determinants of one’s “same-sex-ploration,” if you will, all pigeonholed by the phrase “born that way.”

We live in a society that is so afraid to discuss the gay-issue, for fear of being labeled a homophobe (fear of gays). Labels, Schmabels, Carling Black-Labels (Calm down; The latter is a beer). As a person, I dislike bashing of any kind. Bashing heterosexuals who speak out as activists against the gay-lifestyle, with labels of bigotry, is as bad as heterosexuals who bashing gays at every opportunity. I agree with my colleagues that bashing and sexual slurs have to stop. But, I will go one further. Defining oneself by their sexuality invites polarization, and that also has to stop, unless we are going to allow additional marginalization of Americans with whom they choose to love and with whom to have sex. I call that form of identification quite shallow. But we live in a culture of labels and shallowness, and it is as if people are so uncontrolled in their desires they cannot help themselves and have little choice in their actions. Additional labels are assigned when one finds heterosexuality, and comes out of the homosexual lifestyle. It seems that with sex, you can’t have it “both ways.”

Lost and Found?

Anyone who comes out of the closet to admit their sexuality is somehow viewed as a person who has found himself, or herself. When were they lost? Many gay-adults are people who had opposite-sex spouses and families, children, and were involved in mainstream American life and living. Suddenly some of these folks walk away from marriages, many of their responsibilities, and those they reared, in order to pursue themselves? That is quite the height of selfishness, if you ask me–another hallmark of the current culture.

Do I have to admit to being a heterosexual for the world to accept me? Am I intolerant if I have different set of beliefs about sexuality? Not at all in either case.

New Civil Rights?

I have heard it said that the gay rights issue of today is a new “race” issue, like unto what the blacks faced in earlier decades. I think that argument is a red herring. No one I know has chosen to leave the Asian, Black, or Caucasian races to join another. Slaves were property with no rights, no freedom of speech, etc. Gays have all of these constitutional rights and more, depending on the state–where the Constitution grants everyone the same basic rights. Your skin color and DNA are what they are. If just one person leaves homosexuality and lives a heterosexual life, then there goes the ALL GAYS ARE BORN THAT WAY.

If a person uses race as analogous to sexuality, in order to define or identify oneself, then a coming out of one race to realize he or she is not truly that race, would suffice. Many of us have heard about, or know gays and straights, that have chosen another lifestyle. Trust me on this. There is nothing Eminem, Madonna, or JT can do to be Timbaland, “no matta how day dress wiff dare cloves.” I know we are “One Nation,” but don’t ask the aforementioned to “Apologize” for their own identities. They did NOT choose them. I reiterate, if just one gay or straight has chosen the alternate lifestyle, then the “birth” argument needs to be reexamined. And believe me, it does need to be reexamined. There are many reasons for “being” homosexual, departing from the norm. Maybe I have it wrong. Maybe we are all born homosexual, and because of abuse, social conditioning, or gender identity maturity, we just come out as heterosexual–even though we say nothing about it. Are you shaking your head yet?

Today we have gay sports teams being sued by bisexual players for sexual discrimination. Homosexuals are demanding that marriage is a right, when it is clearly NOT a right. Government might grant a legal right, but it can never be “right.” Gays in Texas want to divorce there, even when they were not married in that state. They’ll try anything to get a state to recognize marriage. If states against gay-marriage grant divorces from OTHER states’ marriages, then they (1) would have to recognize the marriage for a divorce to be granted, and (2) “the full faith and credit clause” would be implied, opening the door to federal decisions to bring the “doctrine of incorporation” into the mix. Having said that, it is just a matter of time before homosexual marriage (notice, I did not say same-sex marriage) is brought to the Supreme Court. The trend is that soon, homosexual marriage will be a legally done deal, and incorporated into all 50 states. Then it will be like abortion–forever an issue that will raise anger and disgust for many.

Radicalism

We have proms being cancelled because lesbians and gay teenagers want to make it a point to being same-sex dates. Things are so out of control that there is little sense anymore. It’s all about the individual and not the common good. Soon there will be heterosexual proms, homosexual proms, bisexual proms, transgender proms, etc. There are already proms and graduation parties designated by race and ethnicity. I am starting to see some reasons why some Muslims of the radical sects want to destroy the western world. But they don’t have to do it. We are doing it to ourselves.

In closing, I reiterate, we are all born sexual, for that is what being male and female imply when you check the gender box. I know it is popular today for people to define gender and sex different ways. Expressing that reality with sexual practice, or not expressing that is mostly about one’s choice. Without the practice, who knows? We all have our feelings and passions. How does anyone really know what his preferences are, when they are based in experimentation? I would not trust a teenage mind to make a lifelong determination about sexuality.

Teenagers and Life-Altering Decisions

I would hate to define anybody by their feelings and passions—especially high-schoolers–whose brains and bodies are changing every day. Here’s the bottom line. Am I against gays, or somehow a homophobe? Nope. That would be silly. I can easily separate issues from people. What I am against is this notion that somehow we must accept that everyone’s individuality who is either born gay, straight, whatever–over and against the vast majority of others. I am against a group hijacking sexuality and calling those who speak out, all sorts of names. It is classical republicanism versus individual rights all over again. Common good for the majority, versus the individuality expression of one, or a group. This is a good struggle to have in a democracy, as long as the struggle is not enjoined by haters using media and politics to ruin dissenters.

Coming out of the closet is a choice. I repeat, coming out in a “choice.” So too, is coming out of, and entering a lifestyle. No one is so compelled and driven to practice a lifestyle, unless there are issues of abuse, self-control, or some other sociological or personal concerns, such as addictions. Does this mean that out of all homosexuals, NONE are born that way? Probably not. However, no one has discovered the “gay gene,” yet. But does that mean all are born as such? I would reject that notion, because humans are not so bound that they cannot un-choose, make new choices, or choose not to choose, at all.

Speaking of such concerns, I want to go on record and come out and state that I am a “caffeinexual.” I have been hiding this fact and been cavorting with tea drinkers. People think I actually am a “tea-drinker.” I feel highly empowered, after having written this piece. I also feel like a parade is “brewing.” Coffee drinkers unite! We are all born this way. I can now check the gender box as a caffeinexual. But I can both ways, honestly–and I have! Coffee or tea? I am attracted to both, depending on my moods and the days of the week. Come and join me in my classroom any morning in my new Coffee-Tea-Alliance, to celebrate my “phreshness,” as long as you have “grounds” to do so.

Is Suicide Unpardonable?

6 Apr

I would like to open a discussion on the topic of a person taking his or her life. We call it by the term “suicide.” Of course, the suicide of Pastor Rick Warren’s son, Matthew, age 27, has spurred this post. Is suicide ever justified?

I am saddened about the death of Matthew Warren, and I am dedicated to praying for the family. I hope you are also.

Furthermore, let us make certain to spend a little extra time lingering over those hugs with our kids, and making certain to state our love in words and by actions. One never knows how long we have on this earth, which leads me to the next point.

The facts are that even with all of these loving expressions, we live in a world that is tainted by evil and sin. We live in bodies that are faulty, and riddle with chemical imbalances, at time. We also live in a world that clamors for our lives. There is no mistaking the fact that evil exists, and that some people are tempted to end their lives. The culture of death and abuse in which we live is pervasive. Many young people are not seeing their futures as full of purpose.

I am left to wonder the extent that biology plays into suicidal thoughts. I know firsthand the thyroid deficiencies that cause destructive thoughts and irrational behaviors. I am aware of the depression that haunts some people, due to chemical imbalances, bipolarism, or clinical depression. The threat of suicide by all should be taken seriously. There is the reality that the brain is affected by biology and chemistry, and emotions and the brain are connected.

When these connections line up and negative emotions emerge from angry moods and language of destruction, we all must listen. However, what happens when we are all blindsided by irrational acts?

Having said all of this, permit me to address some issues for conversational purposes.

First, Jesus, in offering up His life and being in command of the moment it ended, has been accused of suicide by some critics. I would like to know the differences between giving up one’s life by choice, and ending one’s life by choice. They are both ends of life by choice. Is it in the purpose that we consider one not as suicide and the other, as such?

Second, if a military person charges directly into the line of fire, we call this person a hero—even if it means his life is ended. Is this suicide to do so, knowing the outcome is sure death? On the other hand, again, is it in the purpose for which the life ended that allows the removal of the label of suicide?

Third, is it possible for a person to be in such a state that ending his or her own life is to be viewed as equal to sacrifice for a higher cause? Alternatively, is suicide a cheap way out of problems, purposeless, irrational, and devoid of anything heroic?
We struggle to understand reasons why people would be tormented by thoughts of death and destruction. Yet, if we trace the family history, it seems as if others in the family’s past have also committed the destructive act. Some argue this is a spiritual issue. Others argue it is genetic and that mental illnesses are passed on.

I think there is a sensible position in the middle, where both explanations might fit as reasons. Certainly drugs can cause a person to commit irrational acts—whether prescription or not.

This leads me to the ultimate question: If the last act committed by a Christian is a sin—in the case of suicide, which a crime against oneself and a sin to God, as well as the stumbling other believers—does this person find himself in the presence of the Lord, and ultimately heaven? I do not know the answer to this question. I did not originate life and I do not control its ends and eternality.

Additional issues for concern:

(1) How is killing others the same, or different from killing self?

(2) If suicide ever justified for the believer, if it means saving someone else from harm?

(3) Is suicide an unpardonable sin, since the person deceased cannot ask for forgiveness after the fact?

(4) Is there purposeful suicide to alleviate suffering, whereby the person saves others from having to deal with the individual any longer?

(5) If a physician assists in a patient’s suicide, by his or her choice, is that really suicide, or murder—or both?

(6) What reasons are there biblically, and what theological context is there, to say categorically that suicide keeps one out of heaven, or allows one into heaven?

I do not pretend to know everything, and I am neither a medical doctor nor a psychiatrist. Nevertheless, I have opinions. I shared some of mine. Now, I would like to know yours!

Interesting Times: 2013

17 Feb

These are interesting times.  Two-thousand-thirteen has been quite eventful, thus far.  Somewhere between the words “interesting” and “eventful” lies the reality that affects us all:  Nothing in this world stays the same.

Friends retire from their lifelong vocations and press into their permanent vacations.  Others have medical issues arise and leave work, and full-time ministry.  Personal and moral issues drive a certain number into involuntary retirement way too soon.  Still others switch jobs and look for additional excitement.  Whether work or ministry, such revelations seem the pointers that guide each sunrise during the early days of this current year.

The possibility exists that many of the changes I write about are age-related, and that this is the season for change for those in question.  However, most are changing by choice, and doing so for a variety of reasons.  For example, I have lost colleagues and co-workers, pastors and friends, and sports buddies to change.  Some of these changes are conscious and weighed, others compelled by circumstances.  Even sickness and death have reared their ugly heads in 2013.  In fact, far too many of my family and friends are now ill and battling with one dreadful thing, or another.

In the midst of all of this change, so many wonderful opportunities have emerged for so many–even for many of those I reference above.  We could easily find ourselves mired in the negative aspects of life’s shortcomings.  That would be understandable.  However, in so doing, we would miss the blessings of each moment we are granted.  I use the word “granted,” for none of us are guaranteed any breaths or heartbeats.

Focusing on despair means sometimes missing out on the joys emerging, from within whatever struggles we face.  We will have them, and most of us will endure.  Those of us who are older are realizing the blessings of new family members, grandchildren, job-changes, ministry opportunities, writing ventures, and the  joy of realizing we have affected many lives for good, along the way.  I thank God for the people in my life.  Specifically, for example, I am grateful for people who decide to overlook what I do, in favor of whom I am.  Aligning these two, indeed, takes more than a life time, and is accomplished best by the Almighty.  This year the losses might be great, but we are all dispensable in this world.

I was reflecting on this very truth this past week.  My wife and I arrive at work very early each morning.  One day this week I commented, “imagine putting a sign up on your classroom door that read, ‘Mrs. Z’s classes will not meet this week.  See you next week.'”  She smiled and then laughed.  We both understand that laugh.  I then said, “You know, within 24 hours of your last day on this job, the system will continue like you never existed.  Things will change and the new students and teachers will have no idea of your life’s work.”  In her wisdom, my wife replied, “I know.  But hopefully what I do will live on in the lives  I affected.”  She is absolutely correct!

I share this brief conversation to say that we are products of the many people who left us long ago.  We are also living proof of those who left us recently, as well as emerging souls by the efforts of our contemporaries, including family and friends.  In change, and in God, there are always remnants–seeds planted–that germinate and flower through the efforts of others, later in life.  We owe much to those who gave their lives–only to be left along the trail of dusty memories.  Soon we will all be in that class, as we are mere passengers on this planet, transients, and this is not our home.  

At the sunset of one phase of our lives, where will we stand?  In the words of John the Baptist, when asked about his followers, directed all of his affection toward the Lord:  “He must increase, I must decrease.”  Therein lies the beauty of a life-in-focus, and priorities-in-line.  Life is not about my presence.  Life is about His presence in me.

The tabulation of the bottom-line for 2013 has begun.  No one knows what lies out there for any one of us.  However, I can assure you that making choices to thwart the status quo, and comfort, is what drives my passion for life.  Care to join me in the possibilities?

Open the door, God, if only for a moment . . . Walking by faith and not by sight, should get easier with age and diminished eye sight.  [smile]

Ownership of Human Life

1 Mar

Ownership of Human Life

By Ernie Zarra, Ph.D.

Competition has always been the bedrock of American economics. Adam Smith, political philosopher and economic genius of his day, wrote about the invisible hand. Within that discourse, he penned these words: “Profit is the motivator, and competition is the regulator.” How true. How true.

Profits. Profits are why most of us work. The notion that there is somehow a purist out there, akin to Mother Theresa, and works tirelessly, selflessly, or otherwise spending oneself for the sake of a higher purpose is more fiction than fact, I am afraid. In the words of Gordon Gecko, vis-a-vis Wall Street fame, “Greed is good.” Art imitates life and sometimes it is the other way around, in fact. Greed certainly is not good and is not about what is good. Greed is about “goods.” Allow me to begin with such a premise.

We all do things for “self.” Politicians who claim to have the American people’s best interests at heart, or claim to be doing the will of the people, are just plain rambling rhetoricians. Religious leaders whose gospel is about “American rights and civil discourse,” are preaching a religion of racial or political sectarianism. These are the “goods” from the systems in which this emerge, and they are self-serving. Such systems are fraught with competition, per se.

What I plan to address in the following is honestly controversial and might very well offend some readers. I apologize for any disagreement that might be taken personally. But I do not apologize for speaking what I truly and honestly comprehend as the truth. Truth never has to apologize. But honesty? It may have to be couched in apology after apology.

These past few years have pitted some very distinguished groups against each other. Most of these groups are concerned with issues of life–some for moral reasons, and some for monetary reasons. Some of these groups seek ownership of products through patents. All of the groups are seeking profits, in one form or another, including the storing and purchasing of human tissue and body parts. Many university and private research labs are seeking names for themselves, and make “no bones” about asking for federal funding.

Monday, March 9, 2009 President Barack Obama (#44) signed an Executive Order revoking the limitation of “Federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells.” (www.whitehouse.gov) What the president has done with this order is to pit life advocates against life advocates.

Recall, President George W. Bush (#43) signed a moratorium on federal funding of any new embryonic stem cells lines. He did not ban private groups or private money. Bush was pro-life and Obama is certainly different than Bush, in politics, decisions, and fundamental beliefs about life.

Essentially, Bush allowed the Clinton administration’s advanced research to continue only under private monies, while funding the Clinton’s existing embryo experimentation programs, when he took office in 2001. Federal funds did go to existing stem cell research at the time through the NIH (National Institutes of Health)—but not to any new stem cell lines of research.

Let’s take a brief look at the current president’s fundamental rationale for removing any barriers in experimenting with embryos in his executive order. First, Obama says he wants to “enhance the contributions of America’s scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of mankind.” Second, the president writes that he “is a man of faith,” and his faith is a driving for helping mankind.

At this point, many readers of this piece (making a great assumption here), are probably thinking I am against stem cell generation, harvesting, and research–including therapies derived from such scientific and medical breakthroughs and programs. Nothing could be farther from the truth!

I know many people in my daily sphere who are medical professionals. I rub shoulders in the real world with physicians. I pick the brains of scientific researchers. I have coffee with oncologists, and have met with and lunched with neurologists. Some of these and other medical experts are close friends. Several of these experts are religious, but not all. Some have deeper ethical beliefs than others, but so do we all. Just to assure the reader, I have done a little homework on this topic. Doctors and their profession is not so ideological so as to bypass financial and economic endeavors.

There is serious competition today between university and private research groups seeking to patent human genome discoveries. There is a “race to trace” the patterns of genetic structures. Also, the science world seems bent on patenting human embryos, which scientists fertilize in labs. These same embryos are stored in “embryo banks,” often the result of paid college-age donors’ sperm and eggs.

Europe, Australia, and North America continue to bring requests to own “human life” before their courts. The same is true for the proposition of human cloning. Human cloning has been billed as the “perfect fit” science. Allow me to explain.

If a person had a clone of himself, then any worn out part cold easily be extracted from a storehouse of parts, or a clone-bank, like unto what is already done with corneas, blood, and other organs that are harvested. Clones would make it possible to have a perfect fit for our own bodies, theoretically allowing for a personal warehouse for each of us.

With the passage of Obama’s order, the argument of removing barriers to science is one step closer to removing another barrier: human cloning. Some call this a “step in the right direction.” Others call it a slippery slope. I am in the camp of the latter. Science is never satisfied with status quo. Politicians politicize. Legislators legislate. Scientists scientize. Thus, professional and scientific competition is on! The race for patents and profits is a Gordon Gecko mantra made-to-order!

I find the President Obama incredibly naive in at least two areas: (1) He thinks scientists and scientific advanced are both enhanced by ending human life, and (2) His faith causes him to overlook moral and ethical issues. His experience and decisions demonstrate that he is firs a man of politics. His sacrifice of morality and ethics is glaring.

Who or what gives any president the authority to determine that human embryos are a matter of experimentation? I know what gives him the power. But I am talking about authority. If he is a man of faith, I ask “what faith?” Faith in science? Faith is whom, faith in what, faith in what sets of beliefs? Valid questions–ALL OF THEM.

The reader has already picked up on the fact that I am against using embryos for scientific experimentation. Such experimentation creates niche markets and eventually such a supply is available only to elitists demonstrating the wherewithal of demand. So, what are the alternatives to this mad, competitive drive to own human property?

There exist at least eight stem cell therapies already–including the use of adult stem cells that come so very close to the stem cells of the embryo. The Bush moratorium in 2001 actually enabled scientists more broad discoveries and realistic therapies, than would have been discovered if everyone was focused only on the use of embryos for therapies. There is only a “promise of potential” in the use of embryos. Are the moral and ethical, political and fiscal costs worth the “possible” benefits, knowing we already have so much helpful therapy available, presently? I do not think so, for many of the reasons already stated.

Embryonic Stem Cells. Let’s review exactly what an embryonic stem cell is all about. At the point of conception (fertilization) between sperm and egg, a zygote is formed. Within 3-5 days, due to rapid cellular reproduction, the package of cells is supercharged and is programmed to continue rapid multiplication. Throughout this reproduction, the DNA is present for a complete human being, with all the earmarks of a potential living, breathing person.

At around the five day mark, these “super-cells” are not yet marked for any specific tissue, and have the potential to develop into any tissue, if manipulated. So, the issue of embryonic stem cell research, then, is about scientists intervening at the point of human conception. They then remove the super-cells from the “blastocyst” (3-5 day-old embryo), and discard the rest. They throw away, as waste, the parts of human life that are not “needed.” The theory behind the use of these super cells is that they would be introduced into diseased areas of bodies to grow new tissue, or support existing good tissue.

Because the size of what is being used is small, it is visually insignificant. No one has seen a soul, yet many of us believe the invisible to be quite valid and essential to human life. To many people in the United States, the soul is implanted at the point of conception, and “being-ness” becomes an reality. We must question that if the president is a man of faith, does his faith inform him about this dimension?

Alternatives to the Use of Embryos. Presently, stem cells are grown from blood, placenta, spinal fluid, organs, and several other areas of already, fully grown adult stem cells and tissue. Such donations of bodily material and fluids are not resulting in forfeiture of human life. These are donations that enhance life. Embryonic stem cell research pits scientists against human conception, and it is NOT a fair competition. Conceived human life always seems to lose against the “possibility” of saving the human life of one already born.

The president has pitted those with disabilities, illnesses, and diseases against those who would seek to protect embryos from experimentation and destruction. I can assure you I am not against science and I have empathy for those who are suffering. Again, I would like science to be free to find cures–not at the expense of the life of another, or human life at its fundamental source.

Destruction of human life–and everyone agrees that is exactly what is being done–for human life is unfair and unjust competition. It will result in economic monopolies. Whenever human life is seen as “property,” we lose our moral compass. Just the mention of the terms slavery, abortion–and now embryos–in the same breath, sends shivers down my spine. Involve the government in the same discussion and other historical contexts resonate.

I asked earlier where the president, a man of faith, got his authority to decide the fate of embryos. Solomon’s words are appropriate here: “No man has authority to restrain the wind, or authority over the day of death; and there is no discharge in time of war, and evil will not deliver those who practice it.” (Ecclesiastes 8:8)

The president’s naiveté, or his blatant disregard in not considering the depths of morality on the issue before the reader is in line with his style of political leadership-not his faith. Going into greater debt fiscally in order to climb out of fiscal debt is just plain dumb. Going into greater moral debt to climb out of what he sees as “8-years of failed political and moral policy” debt is even worse. If these are the principles of faith to live by, we might, down-the-road, very well have to apologize to other groups for their eugenics and fetal experimentations. I sure hope not.

In closing, the president’s actions of late have disenfranchised the three largest bases of religious groups in America. Roman Catholics, Evangelical Christians, and Mormons . . . add whomever else you will to the mix. Is this the man of faith and principle we are talking about? Is this the man of change?

Life v. Life . . . a Barack Obama special edition of “I can do what I damn well please, and there ain’t nothin’ anyone can do about it.” Well, game on, Mr. President. I am glad you have put down the cigarettes. Now it is time for the teleprompter to hit the road.

 

Why?

28 Jan

“There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds.”  (Alfred Lord Tennyson)

Humans are set apart from animals in many ways and one of these ways is the fact that we question.  We question everything.  Sometimes questions imply doubt.  Other times, we claim to ask out of pure intellectual honesty.  In fact, the very nature of the word, “question,” has shifted from its mooring as a noun and is now used much more as a verb.  We humans think we are something special, don’t we?  I’ve done that very thing in this blog, haven’t I?

Humans are desperately curious creatures.  “I wonder if what the serpent said about this fruit is really true, and I will be like God if I eat it.  Let me find out.”  (Eve, the EZ translation)

It has been said that curiosity killed the cat.  One of the earliest versions of this proverb in print is from The Galveston Daily News, 1898:  “Curiosity killed a Thomas cat.”  Meow!

We question for more reasons than curiosity, but let us begin with this.  There is something about the unknown that presses us forward into making choices to question.  I maintain this is a gift from God, in that we are always seeking to learn more of the present unknown.  But is learning more, is there not a danger of thinking too highly of oneself?  There are times when questioning has gone over the edge into all sorts of evils, in my opinion.  But this blog is not about those.

I love cats.

Their sense of fearless curiosity is amazing.  I wonder who is more curious, males or females.  See what I mean?  We humans only have one life.  Lucky cats!  🙂  Talk about curiosity?

Yes, we question for reasons other than curiosity, don’t we?  We question to find agreement with others–just as I did in the opening question of this statement.

We question to justify our preconceived ideas, whether true or not.  “You and I both know there is no such thing as truth, right?”  We want others to validate what we think is already true.

We question to discover hurtful things to use against people.  “Did you know that Ernie was  . . . ”

We question to be able to compare ourselves to others, possibly making ourselves feel better.  “Mary looked fat in that dress, yesterday, didn’t she?”

We also question to challenge ourselves to grow in a multitude of ways, whether in spirit, mind, or in love.  “I wonder if I send her a Valentine’s card, if she will know I care?”

There is an underlying aspect to much of our questioning, for we cannot separate our souls and emotions from our intellects.  What is underlying is the self.  No one can be completely selfless.  Let’s face it, we elevate intellectual prowess and creativity, as well as curiosity.  This is what inventing and experimenting are all about.

Way too often, though, we find ourselves questioning as a form of rebellion.  This is particularly found in one simple challenge question “why?”  It’s comes across sometimes as a “back talk question,” and a direct challenge to authority.  Know anyone who practices this form of questioning?  Is is based in pure intellectual curiosity?  I am smiling . . .

I have found that my experiences in asking questions are usually followed by opinions and answers that I, and others, almost always are already in place to share.  In other words, we take pride in answering the very questions we ask.

Here are a few examples for the reader:

1.  Why does a good and loving God throw people into hell?

2.  Why is there sickness and disease?

3.  How long have you been stupid?  (I just had to, hahaha)

I am reminded of Leo Stein, who wrote:  “The wise man questions the wisdom of others because he questions his own, the foolish man, because it is different from his own.”

Don’t most of us already have answers to the above questions?  Which type of questions are they?  They are validating questions.  Did you notice that I asked with the answers already in mind?  See?  It is inescapable.  Dang, I did it again.

I am thankful for the brain I have been given.  I truly love being curious and challenging most everything I come across.  I am a natural skeptic over most things.  My closest friends know I debate most everything.  My family thinks I am obnoxious, at times, but they love me anyway.  But there comes a point when asking questions about the obvious, sensible, and observable are a bit annoying.  An example of this is in the question:  Are you really this dumb?  Along serious lines are questions about life, nature, and even death itself.  “Is the ‘fetus’ REALLY a human person?”  We already know the answer to that one, folks.

“No question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious.”  (Karl Otto von Schonhausen Bismarck, Declaration to the Prussian House of Delegates)

What questions really bug you?  These last two I leave you with?  I would love to know who else shares my very nature.

Mankind’s Greatest Achievement?

20 Jan

Here we are!  We have reached a new decade in the twenty-first century.  We humans are so accomplished.  Or are we?  The answer to this last question would depend upon whom we were listening to at the time.

Technologically, we have reached the moon, sent probes deep into space, mapped human and animal DNA, invented all sorts of things–including wireless audio and visual communications, and organ transplants.  Everywhere, we see medical advancements, scientific breakthroughs, and life’s longevity seems greater than it ever has been in the United States.  We are a nation of “haves” and we like it this way.

Whether communication, transportation, education, medicine, exploration, and data-information, the United States seems to have ownership of so very much of the world’s capabilities and resources.  We are now competing with China and other Asian nations for global economic and political status.  Yet, for all of this achievements, we still fall woefully short of the greatest human achievement of all.  But like good and productive humans, we plod along as if progress outweighs reality.

Matthew 16:26 offers us this query by Jesus, “For what will a man be profited if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul?  or what will a man give in exchange for his own soul?” 

That is a great couple of questions.  The questions cause us to ponder the contrast of how far we humans are willing to go for ourselves, without even giving pause to the deepest part that comprises us all.  Again, we plod along as if the human soul is not the greatest of all concerns.

We live in an age of the ethic of retaliation and political correctness.  We promote individual over common good.  We have confused what it means to love, and the biblical moorings of this love in relationships and marriage.  All of us have fallen short and we will continue to do so, as long as we are alive.  But for all of our accomplishments, so-called, we have yet to achieve the very thing sought by most:  Immortality and Youth.

Despite the fact that immortality and youth are not ours for the keeping, we still try to achieve them.  How many products and spas can you name?  What about this treatment of the body, or that application to the flesh?  We strive to keep what we have, knowing that it is first-of-all, not ours for the keeping, and second, there is nothing we can do about it.  Still we strive.

Man’s greatest achievement is not in the body.  It is in the soul.  For if man’s greatest achievement is the body, then it might appear logical that death is the ultimate achievement, since it happens to us all, in its own way and own time.  Ironically, what is thought as mankind’s greatest achievement, immortality, is not achievable by mankind at all.  He needs the assistance of the One who conquered this whole issue.

I think you know where I am headed with this blog.  Religion is man’s attempt to find immortality on his own.  Relationship with God is the reality that God connected with us.  The two are very different, and the latter is quite exclusive.  It comes down to either man’s attempts, or God’s accomplishments.  Which one places our souls in good hands?

Realistically, we have learned to swim under water like fish, learned to fly through the air like birds, and we have explored the heavenlies like angels.  But we have yet learned to walk the earth as mankind should.  Essentially, we think accomplishments count as points in some sort of “Look at all I did,” system.  Put another way, “What would it profit a person if he scored the highest on every test imaginable, died with the highest intellect, and cured the most diseases, and owned the most toys?”  Isn’t he still dead?  What about the soul?  Since death is the great equalizer, where is the profit then?

There is a lot of truth in this, my friends.  Often, truth is bypassed in life by those who practice the philosophy that truth is made by mankind.  I would only offer this:  If something is “truth” then it will not change during life and after death.  That’s the kind of reliability I’d prefer to trust.

May we continue to learn to walk in relationship with the Almighty, and in the newness of the opportunities of each day.  The spiritual truth is this:  In losing ourselves to God, we find ourselves.

“He who has found his life shall lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake, shall find it.”  (Matthew 10:39)

%d bloggers like this: