Daredevil Thinking

Just a little something I whipped up today after getting out of bed. It's been a while since I've messed with GIMP or tinkered with graphic design. The photo used ins't mine, and was found at AlphaCoders. I added the font, the drop shadows, and found the quote (one of my personal favorites). I think it fits the idea of DDT quite nicely.

I was browsing through a forum earlier today that centers around the thoughts and contemplation of Christians from many different walks of life. A new topic titled "When Christians Experience Sorrow and Despair" caught my eye; it was a topic about suffering in general. How should we respond to it? Is it possible to be happy all the time? Is suffering a result of sin, or is it sin itself? Is it all apart of God's plan?

One of contributors to the discussion offered a thought that I had never heard before; and it's something I'd like to write about today on DDT:

Suffering is one of the most difficult topics in Christian discussion. I don't think there are any easy answers to why there is suffering. All the options are unsatisfactory in my view. They include:

1. God does not care.
2. God is unable to stop suffering.
3. God has a special love for those who suffer.
4. We suffer in this life but will have joy in the next.
5. God wants to teach us a lesson.
6. Suffering is a punishment for our sins.
7. Suffering is all in one's mind.
8. Suffering gives glory to God.

[...] 

It is an unsolvable question in my mind.

Often many of these explanations are just excuses that allow me not to deal with the sufferings of others. If suffering is divine in origin, then I have no responsibility to help others. 

-Paul 

I think this is the perfect topic to start with after my writings about sexual diversity. What this man (whose first name is coincidentally the same my own, but I assure you that wasn't me who wrote the quoted words above) wrote spoke volumes to me, because I'm constantly seeing born-again Christians and evangelicals judging people that are suffering. "This is your fault," they say. "You shouldn't do that; it's not what God wants." As if those that wield a judge's gavel over the heads of sinners have some insight into the mind of God.

Shouldn't we be helping those who suffer, rather than ridiculing them, or pitying them? Unfortunately, many of us don't. Even I am guilty of turning away from those in need of a helping hand, or someone to lean on during a time of grief or despair. We fool ourselves with the "God's plan" argument, applying it to suffering, but suffering is not of God. If God created suffering, wouldn't He know it? If He knew suffering when He created it, then why did His Son have to suffer on the cross, or even simply become human? And if suffering is sin, and suffering is divine, then sin is also of divine origin. So did God create sin? Again, why the need for Christ to die if sin is of God?

When Job was attacked on all sides, physically and emotionally, with suffering; did he give praise to God for the suffering? No, he praised Him despite his suffering. That's what made Job so great, and his love for God unwavering. It was also the point that Paul (now we're up to three Pauls; have I lost you, yet?) was attempting to make in Philippians 4:11-12:

I've learned by now to be quite content whatever my circumstances. I'm just as happy with little as with much, with much as with little. I've found the recipe for being happy whether full or hungry, hands full or hands empty. Whatever I have, wherever I am, I can make it through anything in the One who makes me who I am. I don't mean that your help didn’t mean a lot to me—it did. It was a beautiful thing that you came alongside me in my troubles.

-The Message

Bam! I believe that passage takes those eight typical responses to suffering that Christians usually give and tosses them in the dumpster. God does care; He loves you and wants you to look to Him no matter what is going on, because He'll show you the way.

Sin isn't divine. It was never from or of God, for He did not create it. Sin is a product of Satan, and though he may have once been seated next to the Father, he made the choice to refuse him. His choice brought sin into existence, and his choice allowed suffering to impact our lives. But no matter what sin is or is not, or where it came from or who is responsible for its unleashing, there is no excuse for us refusing to help someone; or taking responsibility to ensure they are comforted during times of pain or despair.

Is God incapable of stopping suffering? That question is as ludicrous as saying the sun must not be real because it goes away at night. Christ healed the sick, allowed the blind the see, fed the hungry, cared for the poor, and gave strength to the weak. And He continues to do so to this day... through us.

There is nothing beautiful about pain and suffering. It's cruel and tormenting. But as the Message's version of the Philippians passage says, it was a beautiful thing that you came alongside me in my troubles. Our calling, our commission, was to love and to care for those in need. That is how we make disciples of Christ, and spread His Word and His love throughout the lands. That is what is beautiful.

'Till next time; keep on daring.

Today, we come to a close on DDT's study of sexual diversity. If you've made it this far, then I thank you for reading. You and I live in a era filled with hate. Christians label anything secular that seems to go against conservative dogma as "wordly"; but from what I've witnessed on too many occasions, they themselves are creating their own world. As I said before, many fundamentalists have an "us versus them" mentality, and this is how it gets started. If you fear something you don't understand, and choose ignore it, shame it, and blame it, then you dig yourself into a hole.

Earlier last week I received a phone call from my mother with news that my grandfather (on my step father's side) was taken into the ER. His battle with leukemia was coming to an end, and cancer was winning. He had lasted more than three years, always fighting, always staying strong. When he was first diagnosed, my step father asked him the toughest question he had ever had to ask of anyone: "Do you believe in Jesus?" My grandfather answered with a resounding Yes.

He never went to church, but he often read his Bible. He was a believer in a loving and merciful God; but never bothered to know the god of modern Christianity.  Jerry Jones stuck to the basics. He was a loving father and grandfather, a handy man all around, a chef behind the grill, and an honored and decorated Marine. He passed away only a few days ago, peacefully in his sleep.

After receiving the phone call from my mother with news that his death was near, I talked to my flight sergeant and requested emergency leave to see my grandfather one last time. We talked, and he was genuinely interested in the tough ol' cowboy from East Texas that was my granddad. When I began telling him, he concluded: "So, he's a certified bad ass." I laughed. My leave was granted immediately and I took four days to spend with family; two at home with mom and my two younger brothers, and two in East Texas with my grandparents as soon as my step dad came home so we can all go together.

As an Airman (and a Warrior Airman at that), I've prepared myself mentally to face death. I know what it looks like, how miserable it sounds, how spine-tingling its presence is. I know that at any moment, my life might be taken by the enemy, or I might have to take his. When I saw my grandfather lying there in his death bed, fragile and tired, I saw death. But what I also saw was a man that lived a full life; with little regrets, possibly none at all. He was ready to leave this world; be gone from his suffering and his misery in his days. His heart was prepared.

I came to him one last time, wearing my dress blues. I wanted make him proud of what I had accomplished. He was a Marine, and I am an Airman. We are both soldiers; one old, one young. And though he was lying down, and I was standing tall; we both held great pride. It wasn't a sinful pride; not the kind that is puffed up, boastful, or distasteful. It was the certain kind of pride that let's you know you're worth something in this world. It's a pride that is blessed and sacred; because just as he stood right next to and in front of the ones he protected when he served, so I do now; just as Christ stands right next to and in front of all of us.

Christ has no prejudices. He does not discriminate against the ones that come to Him, the ones that He protects. Similarly, I do not discriminate against the ones that I watch over on my base. When I stand at the gate, or take up a security post, or patrol the streets, I am tasked with making sure that my fellow Airmen, their families, and their dependents, are all sleeping soundly at night. They can be black or white, of a foreign nation or American, male or female, child or adult, active duty or retired, guard or reservist, gay or straight, ignorant or educated, Christian or not.

While I was there, I was surrounded by a side of my family that is very conservative. They had been taught to not question what they believe in. My mother, after we got out of our cars and walked up to the house, even said to me, "No politics." It went back to a discussion between my step father and I the day before we left to visit my grandparents. We had talked about the election, and things like voter registration laws and gay marriage. He learned that I was voting on the Democratic ticket this year, and he saw for the first time just how "liberal" I had become.

I don't like that word much. Liberal. My dad and I prefer the term "progressive", but I suppose I don't mind what you call me. I lean neither left nor right anymore. I prefer the moderate to the extreme, fact to fiction... truth to fantasy.

I was quite annoyed when the first of many conversations I heard in the house was a political one. Just about every relative there, save for good ol' grandpa, talked about the election and current events. I suppose one shouldn't be too surprised considering voting is just around the corner. But I respected mom's wishes and stayed out of it. Besides, why tarnish a blissful one-sided conversation with my liberal agenda?

"Have you read the YouTube comments lately
'Man that's gay'
Gets dropped on the daily
We've become so numb to what we're sayin'"

-Ben Haggerty (Macklemore), Same Love

A single word though just about made me snap. "Twinkle-toes". One of my aunts and a woman I hardly knew, were talking about "those gays". If I wasn't sure before, it was made quite clear to me then that I was completely alone in that house; a foreigner, an outcast. I wanted to dive into the conversation right then and there, instantly lash out with everything that I know, and throw the Bible right back at them.

But I stayed silent.

When it was time to leave, I held my grandfather's hand and we talked for a bit. I joked about how the Air Force won't let me pour wax down the inside crease of my dress blues pants to keep them crisp and sharp. He laughed at that, remembering what he wrote to me in a letter one day before I left for BMT, passing on some trusty Marine advice. We talked until he could no longer stay awake. The tired old man allowed his eyes to flutter close and his mind rest.

I remained there for a moment, wondering what he was thinking about. Was he dreaming; or did he have anything left to dream about? I finally turned away and walked quietly out of the room, allowing him to rest. I wondered how much longer he had left. Hours? Days? A week at most? I question many things. I question time, dreams, dogma, scripture... God.

When my step dad and I walked out to my car, he asked me if I said goodbye. I replied, "I didn't, actually. There's no need to."

I managed to hold back the tears. I wanted to cry; but I couldn't bring myself to do it. I guess I had prepared my mind too much to handle death. Am I numb to it now? Was it inhuman of me to not cry over my grandfather passing away? I've always cried over things that have hurt me. I've cried over things that have hurt others. But I didn't weep that time, and I think I know why. Grandpa Jones lived his life. He had two kids, many grandchildren, a wonderful wife, a successful life, and a peaceful retirement. I didn't weep because he lived. I didn't weep because he was happy.

Westboro Baptist will often show up at the funerals and memorial services of my fallen comrades and blame their untimely fates on "fags" with signs like "God killed your kids" or "Pray for more dead soldiers".

But I do weep when someone doesn't have a chance to live and be happy; when that chance is taken from them, or they reject it because they feel they are unwanted and unloved. I feel sadness when I read about suicides every month, when LGBT kids have chosen to end their lives because the world around them has convinced them that God hates them. I shed tears for the oppressed, and the victims of hate crimes, slander, and bigotry; all in the name of Christianity.

Look around you at the world that conservative Christians have created for themselves. A world of ignorance, fear, and hatred. They pay no mind to the facts, ignore evidence, demonize science and education, and adhere to a strict, literal interpretation of Biblical verses that support their traditions. They speak of "light", but live in the darkness. They preach "love one another", but they take to the streets with signs that say "GOD HATES FAGS!". The Bible says to "pray in private", but their politicians are trying to amend the Constitution to "save marriage".

I've lived in the town I'm in now for the last two years, and I still haven't found a church that I like. All of them are far too conservative and old fashioned for me to feel comfortable or feel truly loved. If you say you love me because there's nothing wrong with me, then do you really love me? I doubt it. It's easy to say that word, but a thousand times harder to mean it. That's why so many LGBTQ persons won't dare to come out of the closet. They fear rejection, and rightfully so. It can seen, heard, and felt all around us; and it's coming from the very same people that are supposed to be standing up to fear and hatred and rejection. The one's that Christ commissioned to "go forth and make disciples" are the ones turning away gays at the doors of their church, and then slandering their names.

Riddle me this: Which is greater? God, or the Bible?

Just yesterday, I dared to venture back onto Facebook to check my private messages. I cut myself away from the social networking site because of all the drama and comments that made absolutely no sense. When my eyes glanced at my news feed I saw a status update with a political cartoon about "putting God in a box". It was posted by one of the youth at the church I attended before joining the military. I understood what they were trying to say, but I felt pity for them because they didn't understand the meaning behind it all. What are they being taught? I wondered.

Is the Bible so inerrant that it rules out the possibility of God having a say on something? If John 1:1 tells us that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," then how is a modern day version of the New Living Translation by Tyndale Publishers, Inc. God? Especially if God, the Word, is constant; "He Who Was, Is, and Is to come" (Rev. 1:8)?

2 Timothy 3:16 asserts that all scripture is God-breathed; but that doesn't mean it's 100% God-spoken. The Bible was written and rewritten by the hands of man, and it is tainted with the bias and bigotry of its many authors and voices. Don't believe me? Then why is the word "homosexuality" (a word not even conceived until 1869) pasted into some versions of the Bible to condemn both gay men and women, for verses that originally only speak of male-male intercourse?

It's a game of money and politics. If publishers started making "liberal" versions of the Bible, their sales would tank because the majority of Christian conservatives wouldn't dare pick up a version that implied "gay is okay".




Most people will never change their minds about what they believe. Even the most stubborn minds will not admit to their faults in the face of a heart wrenching tragedy. There are parents out there who have lost their children to suicide, and to this day believe they are burning in hell because their "lifestyle choice". There are others who grieve over the loss of their child and wish they had listened, or tried to understand, or was there to stop them and simply say "I love you".

When and where does unconditional love end? Does it end in the face of sin; or perceived sin? Does it end when a child goes against his or her parents' wishes?

"I will always love you, no matter what." That's how most parents say it. They look their children in the eyes and tell them face-to-face. But when a certain kind of "what" comes to light... the love runs dry.

This study was never meant to be for those that are too stubborn to open their minds; because I know that no matter what I say, or what evidence I present, or what facts I bring up, they will continue to shut down and say "no, no, no...". This study has been for those that are open minded enough to seek out truth, and for those that need some reassurance that there is absolutely nothing wrong with who they are and whom they love.

⁴ Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

-1 Corinthians 13:4-7 NIV

Scriptural Literalism; Cherry-picking the "Fundamentals"

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

-Leviticus 18:22, King James Version 

Last time in our three-part analysis of sexual diversity, we looked at how "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is destroying the lives of many innocent people because they are "different". But where have Christians extracted this saying? From the Bible? If so, I can see how it may be based off of a multitude of verses. Christ did claim that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves; so that's probably where the "love the sinner" part comes from. The "hate the sin" part most likely comes, primarily, from the Mosaic laws of the Old Testament. Within the Talmud (which is a compilation of Jewish civil and ceremonial laws) there are 613 commandments that God gave to Moses: Genesis holds 3 of these, 111 in Exodus, 247 in Leviticus, 52 in Numbers and 200 in Deuteronomy. Breaking any of those precious laws could have warranted hatred.

The world today, however, has changed beyond what anyone back then would have imagined. Leviticus 25:44, part of the Holiness Code, permitted slavery; and even though Paul said nothing about carrying it on in his New Testament Epistles, it existed until the 19th century (in the States, of course). But we realized that slavery was wrong and that African Americans were just as human as Whites. So we stopped using the Bible to justify slavery; yet continued using it to justify oppression toward women.

Today, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is now primarily directed at "the gays". All I see is the same technique the Church has used against blacks, women, and other groups being used again to oppress LGBTQ people. And the "justification" for it starts with the first of the seven clobber passages that appear to speak on homosexuality; Genesis 19, or the story of Lot and God's planned destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

This story in Genesis 19 is generally thought of in terms of the fate of one or two cities: Sodom, or Sodom & Gomorrah. But according to Deuteronomy 29:22-29, God's anger caused four Canaanite cities to be destroyed. It involved:

"...the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath."

Unfortunately, the real names of Sodom and Gomorrah were not preserved. Sodom was derived from the Hebrew word "S'dom," which means "burnt." Gomorrah is derived from the Hebrew word "'Amorah," which means "a ruined heap." These appear to be place names which were assigned after their destruction and were not their original names.

The previous chapter, Genesis 18, describes a meeting between God, two angels, Abraham and Sarah. God had apparently decided to kill all of the men, women, youths, children, infants, and newborns in the four cities of ancient Canaan. Abraham bartered with God, as a Middle-East resident would debate the purchase price of goods in a market place. He persuaded God to cancel the mass murder if ten or more righteous people can be found in all of Sodom.

Genesis 19 describes how the two angels who accompanied God went on to visit the Sodom. These were not the typical angels that one might think of today: female human-like beings dressed in white with massive wings. Rather they would be angles such as the Bible refers to: males of a different species, and yet indistinguishable from humans. The city had just experienced warfare (Genesis 14:1-2) and was probably on high alert to detect enemy activity and forestall future conflict. Lot welcomed the angels into his house. They had been sent to warn him that God was displeased with the wickedness of the city's residents and might exterminate all human life over a large geographical area, including the city of Sodom.

All of the people from the city gathered around the house and demanded that Lot send the strangers out to the mob so that they might "know" the angels. Sensing evil intent by the citizens of Sodom, Lot refused. He implied that what the mob intended to do was "wicked." As an alternative, he offered his two virgin daughters to be gang-raped by the mob, if that would appease them. Since young women were generally married by the age of 15 in that culture, his daughters would probably have been 14 years old or younger! The offer was declined. The angels blinded some of the mob so that they could not force their way into Lot's house. Later, the angels urged Lot and his family to flee the city and to not look back. Unfortunately, the angels' instruction to not look back was apparently to be interpreted literally. Lot's wife seems to have had an inquisitive mind. She looked the wrong way, so God killed her on the spot and turned her into a pillar of salt.

-Source

How one of the most common sayings of Christian fundamentalists has elevated hate over love. 

And so we arrive at the topic of, you guessed it, sexual diversity. This subject is so vast that I'm going to have to break it down into a three-part study and possibly conclude it all with a Google+ Hangout session interviewing different persons with different voices.

Over the course of several years, going back long before I joined the military, I've seen, on countless occasions, strong and faithful Christians live out their ideologies by the phrase "Love the sinner; hate the sin". Those that use this phrase say it with a charming smile, like a Wal-Mart greeter, and will tell you that they say it to sound nice. Yet, it's one of the biggest insults to outsiders and progressive Christians. How? We'll discuss that today in this first part of the study.

My favorite class in high school was Debate. I was a debater throughout my entire high school career and was allowed the privilege of being the team's captain at the start of my senior year. At the very beginning, when I was a freshman, I entered the class thinking that debating was all about arguing and learning how to develop and use a silver tongue to get what I want, and even manipulate others into thinking how I think. But, as I quickly learned, I was dead wrong. Debating is a form of communication that involves and requires research, learning, understanding, and - above all else - humility in the face of facts and truth, and humility in the realization that sometimes the facts and the truth aren't always readily available or even knowable.

Student Congress was the one debate format that I truly enjoyed in that class. Instead of being pitted against a single opponent, you found yourself surrounded by friends and enemies of all different backgrounds. You would have a quick three minutes to assert or negate whatever piece of legislation was on the floor, and then answer any questions from the rest of round's participants afterward in a small amount of time. This moment of questioning is what debaters call "cross-examination".

One of the first pieces of legislation I spoke on was a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. I was a freshman that year, at the bottom of the high school totem poll, and as naive as a newborn when it came to politics, religion, and, well, everything else. I was a super conservative, middle-class high school student and die-hard Republican that supported then-President George W. Bush one hundred per cent. I was all for the War on Terror, anti-abortion, anti-Islam, and anti-sexual diversity. I'm sure you can guess what my stance on the bill was. Indeed: I was negative.

It was the first - and last - time I would ever give a fire and brimstone sermon as a speech. It would also be one of the few times I would quote the Bible over a politically controversial topic. In hindsight, I was just as cruel as many of the far right fundamental pastors are today: I preached that all the gays and lesbians were going to hell and that America should not allow them marry.

The cross examination became a heated confrontation between myself and a young freshman girl in the back of the classroom. It wasn't evident to me at the time, but I now realize that I had truly upset her. It didn't dawn on me until long after that speech that she was a lesbian, one of the many that I had blatantly said was "going to hell". What happened afterward I can't quite recall other than the fact that we weren't on the best of terms for the rest of the school year. I went on to join the varsity debate team afterward and was promoted to vice captain by the start of the second semester of my sophomore year. I became a quite successful - though very young - politician, and I use the word "politician" loosely as this was high school. While I was enjoying going head-to-head with the most liberal judges of the Dallas circuit, the crisp Van Heusen fashion, teaching the novice debaters about the congressional format and parlimentary procedure, and becoming an all-around favorite with all of my teachers and other school staff, I had completely forgotten about the young girl that I had hurt. She was a human being, just like me; and I drove a knife through her heart.

I had convinced myself that there was no such thing as sexual diversity before I even knew such a term existed. In a matter of months I had turned myself into a bigoted, self-righteous, religious zealot and used a gifted, trained silver tongue to put others under my shoe. Even if I was wrong, I would not admit it, and I would continue arguing until I made my point. If I found myself trapped in a word game, I would slither my way out of it by finding a new point and distract my opponent from winning the argument. And the worst part of it all: I did it with a smile.

Her name elludes me. She will forever be a shadow in one of my most regretful memories, and where she is today or how she's doing, I will probably never know. But I can at least take comfort in the fact that I now know more truth today than I ever did back then; and I started discovering it in the knick of time at the start of my junior year. After going through a time of immense self-reflection (caused by God bringing a 2x4 across my head, as I like to say) I began to learn that there is a lot more to what the Bible says than what "the Bible says". From that point on, I stopped quoting scripture in my speeches and debates. It's not because I didn't trust the Word of God, but because I realized that I did not yet understand it. To explain, I'll tell you another quick story about a time during my military training at the Camp Bullis Military Reservation outside of San Antonio, TX.

By the time we had arrived at this point in training we had all fired military-grade weapons several times; including the M4 carbine, the M9 Beretta, M249 SAW, and M240-B. All of these weapons have different effects on a person's hearing, and even though everyone has a different personal level of hearing, we can all generally agree that when a line of Airmen are all firing an assortment of these weapons at the same time, it becomes quite difficult to hear anything. During the firing, the instructors were trying to shout at the fire team I was in to move over to a particular spot and get ready to run a drill, but we couldn't understand what they were shouting about among the constant firing, let alone be able to even tell that they were shouting or just constantly yawning. Finally, once the vollies of lead stopped and the ringing in our ears died down, the tempered voices of our instructers echoed across the range. It was then that we finally understood what they needed us to do. We could hear them.

Unfortunately, in today's world it's hard to just "tune out the lead" flying around so we can hear what is true, because everyone shouting their politically-inclined opinion is claiming truth. Conservatives insist that homosexuality, in all its forms (which they ignorantly relate to beastiality and pedophilia), is a detestable sin. And though they may not say it to your face, their holier-than-thou attitude and constant insistence upon it being a sin suggests that homosexuals are in a worse boat than murderers. Continuing to insist that they are sinners in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary is suggesting that a gay man is going to hell anyway because of who he is and who he has been since birth.

But they will never tell you this; or very few of them will be so high-handed to outright spit it in your face. Why? Because it's not popular. For a modern church that seems to reject "wordly views", it seems like they're doing their best to conform to how the world actually does things. This, readers, is what is known as a slippery slope. In trying to save themselves from an increasingly negative identity as "anti-homosexual" they are now sacrificing part of their integrity (though a false sense of integrity, which I'll go into more detail about later) for politics. What does this look like? Someone saying "they love the gays" while stuffing their face with a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is an insult. It's an insult to me, my faith, my lesbian-gay-bi-trans-and-queer friends, and it's an insult to the Commission that Jesus charged us with.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

-Matthew 28:16-20 ESV

And what were Christ's commandments again?

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:  “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

-Matthew 22:35-40 NIV

This same conversation is found again in Mark 12:28–34 and Luke 10:25–28. Note that Christ does not simply say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." He actually says something much more profound: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Place yourself in the shoes of a gay teenager that is being confronted on all sides by Christians that are claiming they love you, but hate "your sin". Being homosexual is not a "lifestyle choice" that many conservatives ignorantly claim; but it's not a pathological disorder either. You're not sick, you're not wrong, you're not a danger to society, and you're not an animal or a criminal. You are a human being, and your sexuality is as every bit apart of you as the color of your skin. And the most amazing part of it all: it's more than just in your DNA, it's in how you love another human being.

But you're an outcast. Why? Because the Bible apparently says so. You're detestable, a low-life scum, unsupported and invisible, unfit to teach, a possible danger to children, a menace to society, unfit to serve in the military, and unloved by God. So tell me... would you love yourself?

That was the opening scene of the first episode of an HBO show called The Newsroom, where a university student asks the lead news anchor for a nightly news special (played by Jeff Daniels) a question that sends Will McAvoy's (Daniels) career into an uphill battle against the Republican Tea Party activists that have a stern grip on America's media conglomerates. While the HBO series is a drama, it does bring to light many real issues. In fact, all of the issues aired on this McAvoy's show are, indeed, real; though there are many news segments in the episodes that are not. Daniels' character does not interview actual persons, but the news broadcast does replay actual clips of actual people, and he does report on the actual stupidity that is the Tea Party.


This particular segment was personal to me. In this blog's first post, I explained quite clearly that I would be talking about sexual diversity. We'll get to that soon enough; but this interview - even though it was written by brilliant authors for HBO entertainment - proved that things aren't always so black and white. We see a man that is gay, and he's also black, but he supports a Tea Party presidential candidate that has spoken out against people like him. This character has even said that he thinks "he would make a good president". Many people will ask themselves: why in God's name would he support a man that finds him disgusting (a point that Will was quick to make)? But as the man returns quite passionately: he is not defined by others; no matter what they believe.

Is this show relentlessly attacking the Tea Party? Oh, heck yes. But is that what the show is about? No. The point of the show is finally made clear to us in the final episode, titled The Greater Fool. Now, in economic terms, "the greater fool" is an investment strategy that someone makes in an attempt to defy predictive models. Does it always work? No; but that's not the point. The point was explained to the watchers of The Newsroom by an economics journalist named Sloan Sabbith (played by Olivia Munn), who reminds Will that, "The greater fool is someone with the perfect blend of self delusion and ego to think that he can succeed where others have failed. This whole country was made by greater fools."

So, I dare you to think on this question for a moment: Are you going to be a greater fool?

I'll leave you with a final clip from The Newsroom.

...challenging what has been defined.
...seeking out truth; whether it be relative or absolute.
...loving when it is forbidden.
...risking without reward.*
...holding onto our human dignity.
...living with purpose.

These are just a handful of the definitions of daredevil thinking.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave

To further explain DDT, I will use Plato's famous "Cave" allegory. This was the first image I saw when I starting taking my government class back in high school. Our teacher, Mr. Cooper, had this displayed on the projector screen in a dim classroom. He asked us to write what we thought of the image in a journal entry that would become a regular routine upon entering his class over the course of the semester.

Plato's allegory of the Cave may appear confusing, so I'll do my best to explain what it means and how it relates to DDT. The first thing we see, starting from the right, is a crowd of people of all types and both genders huddled in a dark corner behind a wall. A couple of the individuals here are pointing to the shadows of the angelic statuettes positioned high on the other side of the cave. When we look to this "other side", we see a smaller group people, all standing and wearing fine clothes, and all men save for the one woman on the far left. Above them is a lamp holding a beautiful flame, responsible for casting the shadows of the angelic figurines. Finally, we see a dark entrance to the cave leading outside, where three individuals are gazing busy admiring the sun or sky (or maybe just enjoying small-talk about the weather).

To start off explaining, the group of many in the shadows represent most of the world. They are mostly lost. The faces of the individuals on this side of the cave all appear to have worried looks. They are unsure, confused, and glancing from one to another as if their neighbor might have an answer to their dilemma. Some see the shadows of the figurines being cast on the wall above them. They aren't sure what the shadows are trying to depict. They can make out the outlines of the angels, but they cannot the see the details, or understand how large or small they truly are. Finally, we see one man leaning over from the other side of the wall. Whether he's curious about the "rest of the world" or just trying to pass on a message from the other side, we'll never know; but he catches the attention of some, or look to him with reassured expressions.

On the other side of that wall we see the many groomed men standing in a circle. They appear to be men of dignity, or perhaps they all have an agenda to further their own interests. A woman, the minority, stands off to the side of the group. She is curious, but reserved. Above them is a lamp or a lantern, carrying a brilliant flame that lights up this side of the room. Because of this flame, we can see the refined details of the figurines above them, at equal height to the lamp.

From the top, the figurines represent what we consider to be holy and supreme. They are the fantastical source from which we have derived much of our morality. In essence, they represent God, or religion. The shadows of these figurines are blurred to the group in the shadows. Because a wall separating them from the societal elite, they cannot see the true beauty of these statuettes. The don't see the instruments of the choir, or the feathered wings of the angel.

The lamp, an all its brilliant light, represents human governance. It is not the same as the sun's light, being created by man, but it is enough light for the few on the other side to see and move about. It raised up to the level on which the figurines stand; and the dignitaries below it, though they may see the refinement of religion, pay little attention to it. They prefer to focus on the light given to them by their government. For it appears more logical to them. It helps them to see in the cave, where religion cannot. Note also that these dignitaries are standing tall and proud, and they are wearing finer clothes than most of the people in the dark. These men are the politicians and leaders of their society. They are the ones that call the shots and make the decisions. They define what is, and what is to be.

Now we come to the entrance to the cave and what exists beyond. We see the smallest of groups in the daylight, standing out in the open and enjoying a chat. These few are the ones that dared to venture into the darkened passage that led their fellow man into that cave in the first place. Outside, they see a light that is a thousand times brighter and more true that the flame inside. There are no walls to cast shadows outside the cave, and there different levels on which man can build idols or hang false lights. What they see, and what they are admiring, is Truth.

This Truth is The God, it is the apex of human understanding and wisdom; the pinnacle of intelligence. It is not reduced to the lifeless form of statues, or whittled down to blurred shadows. It is not overcome, let alone challenged, by the corruptible code of human government and society.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell."

-C.S. Lewis

You can hide from Truth in a cave, but you'll be forever lost and confused by illusions and false truths. Daredevil thinking is the way out of that cave. It is the bold steps taken through the entrance of that cave, away from the "dignified" minds of society and the twisted light they call "truth".

That's daredevil thinking. Will you dare to think?

---

*Thanks for the assist there, Ethan.

Just drafted a quick back story for a new main character in a Mass Effect series I'm working on. The series is being authored by myself and several others as a collaborative project. This short story is meant to be separate from the series, but relative.

---

Image created by Scott, from Deviant Art

The other day I shared a video of a dialogue between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Dan Wallace over the question "Is the original New Testament lost?" In brief, both agreed that the Bible today is not what it was in the first century, and many things have been lost in time; but their general response differed. Ehrman argued that it is now pointless to talk about "the original manuscripts", that they no longer exist. Wallace, however, argued that the original text is buried within the inaccuracies of today's surviving text.

Both of these are well respected historical scholars, and I agree with both men on many points. In the end, though, I must find myself in agreement with Bart's conclusion: that the originals are lost. Though Dan is right that the points the disciples were wanting to get across made it through, and that the values and virtues taught during Christ's walk on Earth have survived to this day and have made Christianity a great faith to practice, I can still see the hands of the church all over the pages of the Bible. Just as faith and sin are personal matters between you and God, so is recognizing the inconsistencies and the biased inserts and edits that riddle the scriptures hand-copied by uneducated scribes or wealthy men. Its a great book, but it bears a very murky history.

Some argue by quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All scripture is God-breathed..."), claiming that if the Bible was influenced by God then it is infallible, inerrant, and to question its authenticity is nothing short of blasphemy. But are we going to say the same about the church? Today we would respond with a resounding NO! But this wasn't always so. In the past, the Holy Catholic Church held power over kings, made the laws of the lands, and influenced the politics of the known western world. Only when people dared to think did we realize that the church is not the alpha and omega.

Nor is the Bible.

There is holy scripture, indeed influenced by God; and then there are what I call "the additions". Those little tag-ons that only serve political and societal purposes. The Bible is not the Word. Let me repeat that: the Bible is not the Word. The Word is God, and the Word is completely Holy and Perfect and immeasurable and unexplainable and unknowable. The Bible is a compilation of scripture inspired by God and additions by man. It is no more holy than the hypocritical Pharisees that tried to ensnare Jesus in wordplay. God influenced the authors of the original scriptural texts, just as Christ walked with men; but by walking with us, He did not make us holier-than-thou. Christ enlightened us, just as the Bible can challenge us to think.


Do you remember the story behind Israel's name, its meaning? In Genesis 32:28, a man named Jacob wrestled with the Angel of God (some scholars suggest that this was God Himself). During the fight, Jacob dislocated his hip, but remained persistent and determined. He held out, and the angel stopped wrestling and asked the man for his name. When Jacob replied, the angel said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome."

Do I challenge the Bible, what we have lazily come to group with God as being inerrant? Every single day. I wrestle with both God and man just as Jacob did.

I dare to think.

Here's one of my favorite dialogues with Dr. Bart Ehrman, one of the world's leading religious scholars. In this nearly two hour long dialogue, Dr. Ehrman and Dr. Dan Wallace engage in a civil debate over how reliable the New Testament is today. Both men will give you quite an education in regards to the history of the Bible itself. I will present my own views on both the debate and what I think of the New Testament's reliability at a later date. For now, just enjoy the video.

One of the first questions we tackled at the beginning of my first philosophy class was "what makes the human race unique?" We instantly think that this question is so easy, a child could answer it. Yet our pride is speaking before our reason when we think so. When we re-address the question, we're left debating - for an extensive amount of time - the specific qualities, behaviors, and characteristics that make us unique.

Most left-minded thinkers instantly jump to the idea of morality, where they will claim that humans are the only ones that have it and understand it. But the answer hardly has any solid data to back it up. Few experiments have been conducted on animals to thoroughly conclude that other species either do or don't have an understanding of right and wrong. On the other hand, this is primarily because we're not even sure how to go about such a feat. In what manner should we conduct the experiment? What should the test subjects be? How long? In what kind of environment? Though these questions can be answered with random variables, the most difficult part of the experiment would be translation. Do you speak dog? I don't.

By far, the most interesting and appealing response to the question of "what makes us unique" was provided by Ayn Rand in her novel Atlas Shrugged. During John Galt's speech, the enigmatic mastermind explains:

“A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. ‘Value’ is that which one acts to gain and keep, ‘virtue’ is the action by which one gains and keeps it. ‘Value’ presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? ‘Value’ presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.

“There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence-and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it does; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil. 

“A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction. 

“An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer. 

“Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An ‘instinct’ is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him t9 perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer-and that is the way he has acted through most of his history."

So what is it that Mr. Galt is trying to get at here? What does he mean by volitional consciousness? The answer, folks is actually quite simple: We can choose evil. We can also choose to simply not care; to ignore what's going on around us, despite the fact that someone nearby could use our attention or our assistance. And if our "instinct" tells us to do one thing, we can decide, instead, to choose our own path and go against that gut feeling.