As I have recently returned from a trip up North, I could not help noticing all the signage for the Christian Heritage Party as I traveled along the road. Now, as strong believer in the democratic process, I have no problem with the propagation of their beliefs. What I do take issue with is spreading their message with the name Christian Heritage Party, more specifically the words Christian & Heritage
First, I have a problem with the name Christian in any party because Christianity holds such a broad spectrum of beliefs that to say that all Christian believe in the same policies of one party would be absurd. Not all Christians believe that same sex marriage is wrong! Not all Christians believe abortion is murder! Not all Christians believe that the Capitalism of the west is a blessing from God! So to use the name Christian in a political name is quiet offensive to us that do not hold your views
Second, the word Heritage in the name insinuates that it is founded on long standing Christian principles. Christianity has been evolving since day one and it continues to mature today. We no longer support slavery, crusades, or segregation and not all Christians supported these practices when they were commonly accepted as OK. So it is impertinent to assume that your political beliefs are based on the Heritage of ALL Christians. We all come from varying backgrounds and Heritage’s; therefore, we all have a different heritage.
It is with this that I believe it would be better suited to call your political party the Ultra Conservative Fundamentalist Party or maybe the Minority View of Christianity Party, but please be considerate of your fellow believers that do not hold your view, and do not market yourselves as the Christian party. Please do not try and include all Christians within your belief system for we are quite diverse in our beliefs and function better because of it.
Cutty Sark
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Christians and Genetics
This one came in from brad (Said he wrote it for us but then put it on his myspace page...? Seriously man how old are you?)
Anyway Here it is:
We live in a world where the virgin birth in no more miraculous. The reality of the issue is that almost anyone can be a mother now and the new survival of five different tubule pregnancies makes it suggestible that a male could even carry a child. The topic of reproductive technologies and genetics is a very difficult one for me, but I do have some lines drawn in the sand.
Personally I find that Artificial Insemination (AID) is not immoral in and of itself. If seems to me that these implantations have nothing to do with adultery and to suggest so seems also to suggest that women commit adultery every time they visit the gynecologist. Though some complications exist with AID I see no reason to oppose it as an option and I find AIH to be even less problematic. This is not to say that I have no concerns when it comes to Artificial Insemination. In fact I do but my concerns do not lie with the "creation" of implanted fertilized eggs, but rather they lie with the discarded or unused eggs. In my view, as soon as the eggs have been fertilized; life has begun to develop. As such, anything that calls for the creation of fertilized eggs that could become little more than "medical waste" or "research material" is immoral because of the secondary outcomes. This means that Artificial Insemination is not wrong in and of it self but that some of the things that go along with it are. If Artificial Insemination would be done one egg at a time, I could not oppose it. (It seems the main problem people have with this is monetary and I do not see any relevance between cost and morality. It may cost more but the price tag is well worth the clean conscience.) Embryo Transfer is another interesting option but again I do not have any problems with the process per se. In stead I have a problem with the creation of life that will then not be allowed to develop to its full potential.
I have to say, though I find no real moral difficulties with these procedures, (save certain secondary concerns that could easily be eliminated) I would much rather opt for adoption. This is not because I see infertility as a sign. In fact, I see infertility as a medical condition and believe that much like cancer it should be treated wherever possible. The idea that people should accept there situation is ridiculous. This kind of position is a slippery slop that soon finds its way into trouble. Instead I merely favor adoption because adoption seems to be the greater good. Moses was adopted; Jesus as well. It is certainly a good option for Christians and I do not believe that waiting matters one bit. Impatient does not create morality.
Selective Genetics
For me it seems that the choosing of characteristics for you children is an error. The problem I find with this sort of thing is not that it is evil to want your children to be red headed or blue eyed or taller; it is in the issue of betterment. When we begin to believe that people can be better if only they hold certain characteristics, it shows that we have little respect for the differences in us as a people. In making an active choice to have a child without a handicap, we are essentially saying to all handicapped people that they are somehow lesser beings. This is not to say that we should not attempt to correct medical problems. In fact, if possible we should perform life saving surgery on unborn babies inside the uterus and this is of little difference from the illumination of disease causing genes in embryos, but it is a far step to get to eye color or height or even choosing what gender to have. In my view, these kinds of technologies carry with them great power. They could help us to eliminate disease, but the question comes in differentiating disease from discomfort; healing from "bettering".
Anyway Here it is:
We live in a world where the virgin birth in no more miraculous. The reality of the issue is that almost anyone can be a mother now and the new survival of five different tubule pregnancies makes it suggestible that a male could even carry a child. The topic of reproductive technologies and genetics is a very difficult one for me, but I do have some lines drawn in the sand.
Personally I find that Artificial Insemination (AID) is not immoral in and of itself. If seems to me that these implantations have nothing to do with adultery and to suggest so seems also to suggest that women commit adultery every time they visit the gynecologist. Though some complications exist with AID I see no reason to oppose it as an option and I find AIH to be even less problematic. This is not to say that I have no concerns when it comes to Artificial Insemination. In fact I do but my concerns do not lie with the "creation" of implanted fertilized eggs, but rather they lie with the discarded or unused eggs. In my view, as soon as the eggs have been fertilized; life has begun to develop. As such, anything that calls for the creation of fertilized eggs that could become little more than "medical waste" or "research material" is immoral because of the secondary outcomes. This means that Artificial Insemination is not wrong in and of it self but that some of the things that go along with it are. If Artificial Insemination would be done one egg at a time, I could not oppose it. (It seems the main problem people have with this is monetary and I do not see any relevance between cost and morality. It may cost more but the price tag is well worth the clean conscience.) Embryo Transfer is another interesting option but again I do not have any problems with the process per se. In stead I have a problem with the creation of life that will then not be allowed to develop to its full potential.
I have to say, though I find no real moral difficulties with these procedures, (save certain secondary concerns that could easily be eliminated) I would much rather opt for adoption. This is not because I see infertility as a sign. In fact, I see infertility as a medical condition and believe that much like cancer it should be treated wherever possible. The idea that people should accept there situation is ridiculous. This kind of position is a slippery slop that soon finds its way into trouble. Instead I merely favor adoption because adoption seems to be the greater good. Moses was adopted; Jesus as well. It is certainly a good option for Christians and I do not believe that waiting matters one bit. Impatient does not create morality.
Selective Genetics
For me it seems that the choosing of characteristics for you children is an error. The problem I find with this sort of thing is not that it is evil to want your children to be red headed or blue eyed or taller; it is in the issue of betterment. When we begin to believe that people can be better if only they hold certain characteristics, it shows that we have little respect for the differences in us as a people. In making an active choice to have a child without a handicap, we are essentially saying to all handicapped people that they are somehow lesser beings. This is not to say that we should not attempt to correct medical problems. In fact, if possible we should perform life saving surgery on unborn babies inside the uterus and this is of little difference from the illumination of disease causing genes in embryos, but it is a far step to get to eye color or height or even choosing what gender to have. In my view, these kinds of technologies carry with them great power. They could help us to eliminate disease, but the question comes in differentiating disease from discomfort; healing from "bettering".
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Problem of Certainty
As the war continues in Iraq, it should give us time to reflect on the travesty of fundamentalist belief which I believe is Certainty. It is with certainty that we are able to hold so dear to our own beliefs that we are willing to kill and abuse others who do not hold onto the same ideas. We blindfold the masses in emotional security about our way being the right way while vilifying those outside our own belief system. It has been stated, “Whenever a group of religious folk begin to believe they posses God’s truth, almost inevitability they become those who in the name of their version of that truth persecute, excommunicate, purge, burn at the stake, or justify cruel religious wars against any who will not salute their tradition or acknowledge their rightness in things religious.”
Both sides of this conflict have those who believe beyond a reasonable doubt that they are right in their fight. But in order for us to move ahead with the peace process in the Middle East both sides will have to admit that they are wrong and enter into an area that is difficult for all of to enter, which is uncertainty. Whether we are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or Agnostic, we have to be willing to set aside our own moralistic views and live by the spirit of our religion and that is to love God and to love our fellow Human. All religions have this same creed within their belief system but it is somehow ignored. We decide to live by the law or rules and not the spirit or ideal of our religions. As John Shelby Spong wrote, “Fundamentalism is so limited. This is surely why Paul wrote that ‘the written code kills, but the spirit gives life.’” Maybe it is time that we grow up and be willing to admit that we are wrong and that the other side maybe right. It is the only way that we will be able to find peace. Uncertainty is not to be feared but needs to be embraced in order for humanity to move forward.
"Cutty Sark"
Both sides of this conflict have those who believe beyond a reasonable doubt that they are right in their fight. But in order for us to move ahead with the peace process in the Middle East both sides will have to admit that they are wrong and enter into an area that is difficult for all of to enter, which is uncertainty. Whether we are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or Agnostic, we have to be willing to set aside our own moralistic views and live by the spirit of our religion and that is to love God and to love our fellow Human. All religions have this same creed within their belief system but it is somehow ignored. We decide to live by the law or rules and not the spirit or ideal of our religions. As John Shelby Spong wrote, “Fundamentalism is so limited. This is surely why Paul wrote that ‘the written code kills, but the spirit gives life.’” Maybe it is time that we grow up and be willing to admit that we are wrong and that the other side maybe right. It is the only way that we will be able to find peace. Uncertainty is not to be feared but needs to be embraced in order for humanity to move forward.
"Cutty Sark"
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Strange Thought
Profound mental retardation
IQ Below 20
Severe mental retardation
IQ 20–34
Moderate mental retardation
IQ 35–49
Mild mental retardation
IQ 50–69
Borderline mental retardation
IQ 70–79
It is interesting to see how people treat each other. For example: Mental retardation is defined as someone with an IQ below 70. In this day and age, that means that these people are actually much respected and well cared for. It is looked down upon to mock people with disabilities. And if you were to do so you would be looked down upon by the general public. It’s true, it hasn’t always been this way, but today this is a general principle. On the other hand, what about people who score closer to the mid-80’s. Well, we see these people every day. They are often socially awkward. They work in our offices, provide our services and go through life relatively unnoticed. These people are the most despised people on earth. The truth is that these are the same people that are hated at your work. These people are generally described as “stupid” and nobody wants to be around them except of course for other “stupid people”. They do not complete tasks correctly. They preform at a sub-par level. They annoy.
It is strange to think that we have come so far and yet most of us dislike people we think to be “idiots”. It is culturally acceptable to mistreat them or talk about them with others. In fact, it is often a point of unity between other co-workers.
I wonder, could we learn to think of these people in a new way? What is it about human nature that says we must always place people into cast systems? It is an interesting question...
-Ha Kohen
Friday, March 09, 2007
New post from Loft
Okay so now Loft has also decided to send something in. I have got to figure out how to add you guys so you can post on your own.
So here it is a little article sent to me from Loft. I hope you enjoy it... byt remember it aint mine.
-Ha Kohen
So Joe Simpson, manager of daughters Ashlee and Jessica Simpson is at it again. No… he’s not praising the grandeur of his little girls “double D’s” again as he did back in GQ. Instead he’s sharing his pristine guidance on parenting with the world in order to further humiliate his daughter’s greatest competition. While Joe claims to “feel bad for Britney Spears” with all his ex-Baptist minister heart he also asserted that “I would never let that happen to my daughters”.
Well with all your daughter pimping skills aside and your newly found proficiency in applying Church whoreing to the secular music industry as well, I’d have to say that you are an ex-mega-church… mega-douche bag!
While I’m not a particularly huge fan of Britney Spears, I’m also not a big fan of kicking people while they’re down. And just exactly how many parents do you believe “let” this kind of thing happen to their children? As far as I can tell, you’re the most famous deadbeat dad I’ve ever seen and just because you still make a good living sucking up the loose change after the their quasi pornographic pictures are taken, that doesn’t make you the moral center of parenting. Your kids aren’t sexual commodities and nobody’s parents just “let” damaging things happen to their children… except for you of course. Screw off!
So here it is a little article sent to me from Loft. I hope you enjoy it... byt remember it aint mine.
-Ha Kohen
So Joe Simpson, manager of daughters Ashlee and Jessica Simpson is at it again. No… he’s not praising the grandeur of his little girls “double D’s” again as he did back in GQ. Instead he’s sharing his pristine guidance on parenting with the world in order to further humiliate his daughter’s greatest competition. While Joe claims to “feel bad for Britney Spears” with all his ex-Baptist minister heart he also asserted that “I would never let that happen to my daughters”.
Well with all your daughter pimping skills aside and your newly found proficiency in applying Church whoreing to the secular music industry as well, I’d have to say that you are an ex-mega-church… mega-douche bag!
While I’m not a particularly huge fan of Britney Spears, I’m also not a big fan of kicking people while they’re down. And just exactly how many parents do you believe “let” this kind of thing happen to their children? As far as I can tell, you’re the most famous deadbeat dad I’ve ever seen and just because you still make a good living sucking up the loose change after the their quasi pornographic pictures are taken, that doesn’t make you the moral center of parenting. Your kids aren’t sexual commodities and nobody’s parents just “let” damaging things happen to their children… except for you of course. Screw off!
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Not from me - don't blame me!
Well I guess an explanation is in order. The Realist was handed down to a new generation some time ago. A new group has been running the actual paper for some time now and the issues just have not made it to the online version because I was no longer involved. However, being one of the creators does have its advantages and Cutty Sark has agreed to send some things in from time to time (his idea). So I guess you should just keep checking in to see what’s going on. For now I’ll post a copy of what Cutty sent me as an e-mail. In the future he will have a space on the dashboard and will be able to post his own work. But for now you will just have to make due with me pasting it in. Enjoy!
-Ha Kohen
An Open Letter to the Church Growth Movement: By Cutty Sark
So… What’s up… you spoiled bunch of hoe-bags for God. You know, God doesn’t need a whole lot of conservative dicks pushing him like a box of old, broken toys at a garage sale! Jesus isn’t some shitty tasting medicine that needs to be force fed down peoples throats or diluted to fit everyone tastes. STOP TRYING TO MARKET THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE!!! I’m pretty sure that thinking God needs your help is what’ll get you put somewhere between Hitler and all those unbaptized Catholic babies in the lowest levels of Hell!
And another thing… what the hell is the deal with you guys hate’n on the TNIV? It’s your effing (like how I did that?) conservative translation; complete with all your pathetic conservative theological slants. You should be shoving copies up you anus for safe keeping just in case the mainliners decide to burn up all the competition. What’s so bad about gender inclusive language? Seriously? It’s not like they’re claiming Jesus had a vagina or something. The just want to make the Bible read more like it was originally. I’m pretty sure God isn’t male anyway! I’m pretty sure he doesn’t need a dick to piss with; I’m pretty sure he doesn’t piss at all or need to drink so He’d have to piss in the first place. Ah screw it that’s enough for now! No what – Screw you! And Grow Up, Ass-clowns!
-Ha Kohen
An Open Letter to the Church Growth Movement: By Cutty Sark
So… What’s up… you spoiled bunch of hoe-bags for God. You know, God doesn’t need a whole lot of conservative dicks pushing him like a box of old, broken toys at a garage sale! Jesus isn’t some shitty tasting medicine that needs to be force fed down peoples throats or diluted to fit everyone tastes. STOP TRYING TO MARKET THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE!!! I’m pretty sure that thinking God needs your help is what’ll get you put somewhere between Hitler and all those unbaptized Catholic babies in the lowest levels of Hell!
And another thing… what the hell is the deal with you guys hate’n on the TNIV? It’s your effing (like how I did that?) conservative translation; complete with all your pathetic conservative theological slants. You should be shoving copies up you anus for safe keeping just in case the mainliners decide to burn up all the competition. What’s so bad about gender inclusive language? Seriously? It’s not like they’re claiming Jesus had a vagina or something. The just want to make the Bible read more like it was originally. I’m pretty sure God isn’t male anyway! I’m pretty sure he doesn’t need a dick to piss with; I’m pretty sure he doesn’t piss at all or need to drink so He’d have to piss in the first place. Ah screw it that’s enough for now! No what – Screw you! And Grow Up, Ass-clowns!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)