In my last post, I attempted to show that living life as a follower of Jesus is the only way that one can live without blinders on – to live in a non-compartmentalized way. For that post, go to Life Without Blinders.
This will likely tick some people off, but I want to shine the light of truth on some of the most outrageous lies we have been sold, and the messy societal norms they have produced. Most of us wish we could all just get along. But as long as we insist on believing these big lies, and ignoring these inconvenient truths, we really have no chance. Among the lies are that gays can’t help being gay, life started accidentally and evolved to more and more complex life forms by something called natural selection, that whatever one believes about God is fine, as long is one is sincere, and that sex without procreation is a right to which we all are entitled. With that as background, here are some of the inconvenient truths we are dealing with today.
Being “gay” is not a genetically unalterable trait – I was not born a Jew in the early 1900’s. Had I been, I probably would have been discriminated against, persecuted, marginalized, and maybe even killed. But no matter how much I may have wanted to gain respect, or social acceptance, or legal protection, I would not have been able to change my Jewishness. “Gay” people are people who can change. They may feel an attraction to the same sex (that’s a matter of faith), but it is not unalterable. Gays are people who can change how they behave, but don’t want to. Or they are misguided people who believe what other people in the “gay community” tell them. Many of them are decent, loving people who seem to be happy and well-balanced. But the facts are unalterable: one can chose not to be gay.
So if we were to recognize this inconvenient truth at every level of society, would the gay advocates have been able to gain so much ground? Consider this: Gay people are allies of the GLBT movement. That’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender. They are most definitely not allies of ex-gays. Why would they welcome bisexuals, but treat ex-gays as traitors? Does anybody seriously believe there is a bisexual gene? Or that being bisexual is substantively different than just being unabashedly sexually promiscuous? Could it be that the most important area of common ground among the factions of GLBT is unrestricted, legally subsidized promiscuity? And why ostracize them? Why vilify them? Why treat them more contemptfully than any other group?
Will we as a society eventually come to treat gays as perfectly normal? Will we as a society subsidize that normalcy by giving it the same legal and tax protections given to families? Is that what we want? Is that what’s best for our society? And is that what is best for those with a seemingly irresistible attraction to members of their own sex? It’s about choice, not genetics. Until we find a gay gene, or some other proof that gays are well served by encouraging them to see their behavior as acceptable, we are ignoring a most inconvenient truth.
The universe began – This inconvenient truth has been all but ignored by many, who don’t see it being relevant to much of life in general. But it actually changes everything. In the not-too-long-past days of Carl Sagan, who assured us that the cosmos was” all that is or was or ever will be”, we could just think of the universe, or cosmos, as the infinite ultimate reality. It just was, is, and always will be. It had no beginning, and would have no end. Nice theory, but we now know better, even if we are still in denial about it. Now we have this troubling reality that it is not the ultimate reality. The cosmos did have a beginning, so we are left to wonder what (or who) really IS the infinite ultimate reality. If the universe came from non-existence to existence, it either created itself, or it was created. I’ll let you decide whether it’s rational to think of the universe as having created itself out of nothing, Remember, before the universe began, there was a complete lack of matter, energy and time. So the only rational question is who or what was the cause of the universe coming into existence.
Life is impossible without an intelligent creator – DNA, the informational digital code of life, is so complex, that the odds of it self-creating are so infinitesimal that it’s mathematically impossible. Yet here we are. The evidence of design is overwhelming. Yet many insist on trying to come up with some alternative – any alternative to God. There has to be something natural, they insist. We can’t resort to the supernatural. Yet life itself borders on the supernatural. We can’t create it ourselves. Recently, scientists announced that they had “created” the first artificial life. But what they really did was take some of the components of a life form that already existed, and made copies. Created indeed. Did you know that the genome for a human liver cell seems to be identical to that of a human brain cell? How do the cells “know” which is their proper function? We can’t really even understand what makes us able to think. Nor do we understand why humans alone of all life forms seem capable of sentience.
So if the emergence of life is impossible by natural means, that seems to leave only a supernatural. So if you have or one day come up with an alternative explanation that seems to require some supernatural agent, welcome to reality. Life is not 100% natural. There’s just more to it than that.
Abortion is the taking of a human life – It’s not even an argument anymore. Most of us have seen the pictures in magazines or on TV or the internet. By the time most women notice they might have missed a cycle, the baby is already starting to take on human features. So enough of the nonsense that it’s more important to protect the rights and liberties of the mother than it is to protect the human life growing inside her. Every concern we as a society have for the mother must be weighed against the monstrous price we pay when we wantonly take the life of a human being for reasons little more than to keep from inconveniencing the procreators, especially the mother. It’s time to focus the debate not on whether abortion can be moral or right, but on how to prevent the unwanted procreation in the first place.
The sexual urge is so strong, and we as a society have had it thrown at us so compellingly, that we have become hyper-sexual. We see other humans as sexual objects first and foremost, only considering their other attributes after properly categorizing them from a sexual perspective. The result is that we have settled for a sexual experience that is 95% physical and only 5% spiritual, if that. Yet sexual intimacy has a compelling spiritual element that deepens the experience greatly, allowing a level of intimacy only hinted at by the sex we are so obcessed with. Maybe we should rethink the whole thing. Maybe God’s design for sex should be reconsidered. Maybe we should wait. Maybe we should accept the idea that delayed gratification usually provides better results than our animal instincts. Think.