Supreme Court Affirms Gay Marriage

"So?"

Well, this morning the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that GLBT people have the right to marry.

So what? Is this really a big deal?

So, now gay couples have the same responsibility that straight people have to do it right. We'll see if a court decision impacts the level of commitment, faithfulness and fidelity in gay relationships. If marriage means anything, it means that couples work through problems, and stop trading in partners like they trade in their old cars now and then. Straight couples aren't doing that well in this area, and we'll see what the GLBT community does. Personally, I expect that divorce lawyers and going to be thrilled with the results of this decision. I hope that gay world makes me wrong.

So, the last stronghold of legal discrimination and differentiation between gay and straight people has been removed. The ramifications of this decision are a lot broader than marriage. If gay people can marry, and that is the most sacred, most untouchable social right, then they can reasonably expect to be treated as equals in every cultural or social arena. The big one has been overcome. The little ones shouldn't be a problem anymore.

So, another huge step in the redefining of Christianity in the U.S. is reinforced. Christians no longer have the right to hate gay people. They can disagree, just as they disagree with all kinds of people groups, legal decisions, behavior patterns, etc. Maybe it's time for Christianity to see itself as ambassadors of God's love and redemption rather than defenders of God's integrity. God's integrity doesn't need to be defended by a group of hard line, hypocritical, hateful people anyway, does it?

So, it really is a landmark day. Personally, I really hope that people younger than me, who love God with all of their hearts and are also gay, can can have the opportunity to enjoy life on a level that I never could. God bless and help them.

1 Cor 6:9-10

"Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord Thy God In Vain."

I have thought forever that Duck Dynasty is the stupidest show on TV. But I'm all about political and social agendas. We all have them. We all have issues we believe in deeply, and want to see changed. Since I have a blog, I think I shall promote mine here:

My issue is the drunks. I believe very strongly that a third conviction for DUI should be a capital offense, and should incur the death penalty. Drunk drivers kill people - innocent people who were not involved in the perpetrator's decision to get drunk and did not receive any benefit or pleasure from that decision.

Further, violent crimes such as child or spousal abuse, rape, assault or anything associated with firearms when the suspect was drunk at the time of the incident should incur the death penalty on the first offense.

That may sound harsh, but violent drunks and drunk drivers cause incredible harm and should be purged from society.

That's my opinion, and I am allowed to have one.

But when I escalate that opinion to the level of spiritual truth, documented by snapshots of scripture like 1 Cor. 6:9-10, which clearly states that "neither [blah, blah], nor drunkards [blah, blah] have any part in the kingdom of God", when I tell all of the Christians they aren't following Christ if they disagree with me, when I use the Bible (God's Holy, self expression to man) to justify and solidify my social/political opinion and coerce others into submission to it, have I not violated the Third Commandment?

Using the name of Jesus and all that He stands for to promote any agenda is exactly what the Third Commandment forbids. And we do it all the time. Hitler killed 6 million Jews in Jesus' name and the Catholic Church sat by in silent agreement. The concept has been used to persecute and discriminate against all kids of people groups throughout history including blacks, divorced women, kids born out of wedlock, and a whole lot more.

This is as wrong as anything else on the planet. Period.

Which is more important, the Third Commandment or the First Amendment?

MIQ #2: The Missing Ingredient - The Main Ingredient

"Something wonderful happened and now I know, He Touched Me and made me whole "

Surely there is something deeper, some more meaningful, substantial reason why I am a Christian besides the fact that I happen to like it - like I like green beans or jazz music. In a way it seems to be the nature of life that I have to choose a worldview (or have one chosen for me). But in another way, that seems backwards. I don't choose gravity, it just is. If I decide not to submit to it and try to fly, it just is (and I fall on my butt). I can like it, hate it, argue with it, ridicule it or surrender to it, and it just is.

Truth should be like that, and many times it is exactly like that. My mind tells me that a universally objective worldview should be this way too. Acceptance or rejection of it is irrelevant. It just is. From a certain point of view, if it has to be accepted, sought out or distinguished from the competition, it is already disqualified as universally objective.

On the other hand, truth only really exists in the context of a worldview.

8+5=13  so long as we're working in the decimal system. In a hexadecimal system, 8+5=D. In binary math, the same equation looks like 1000+0101=1101. The numbering system we use doesn't really change truth, only the way expressions are represented. But our worldview becomes our numbering system. Everything around us is understood in terms of our worldview, including truth.

For example, if I asked a hundred people a True or False question like, "True or False: 13=D=1101," probably all hundred people would answer "False" and think the question is nothing more than jabber. All hundred would be wrong. The expression is True (universally and objectively), but one must know this truth in the context of decimal, hexadecimal and binary numbering systems.

How then could we ever find universally objective truth, or a universally objective worldview?

I have thought about this a lot, and I can only find two possibilities. 1. This whole discussion really is jabber, and the Default Answer is the only one we can ever really have. Or 2. The Universally Objective worldview, and its subset of truth, has to help me find it. It has to connect with me in a proactive way that I can understand its point of view and accept (or reject) it.

I don't see any way around it. And Christianity excels like no other worldview in providing this connection.

Let me try to say this more simply: In order to see something with my eyes, two things have to happen. First I have to look. If I'm not looking, I will not see. Second, I have to be able to see. If I look but just don't have the ability to see, I will never see. I can control the 'looking' but I cannot control my ability to 'see'. Life has to provide that.

Same with a worldview. I have to choose one. And the right one has to make itself known to me. Both ingredients are necessary in order for me to find the right one (other than the Abyss). The basic Christian story is that Christ came from God to show God to us and become in His own person the very path to God and God's universally objective worldview. (Remember that for now all worldviews get to tell their story. We'll worry about rippig them apart later.)

What worldview has a better mechanism for reaching out to humanity than tthe Christian worldview? The answer is easy: None.

MIQ #2: Backwards! !sdrawkcaB

"I once was lost but now I don't know where I am, Was blind, but now I can't see."

So the good news in my quest is that after comparing Christianity to other ways of looking at life, I am more convinced than ever that I've made the right choice. The bad news is that I realized I embraced Christianity (or my perception of it) because it represents MY worldview. It is everything I want it to be and more. Even where I fail to live up to Christian ideals and principles, I agree with and want the ideals. One of the benefits to Christian thinking is that it keeps me growing, keeps me engaged.

But surely there is something deeper, some more meaningful, substantial  reason why I am a Christian besides the fact that I happen to like it - like I like green beans or jazz music.

Besides, one of my biggest pet peeves with church is when some preacher takes his opinion, goes to the bible and finds some obscure scripture to support, justify or give credence to it, and then preaches it as universally objective truth. This is so wrong and has been the source of a whole lot of error over the centuries. Plus, it hurts a lot of people and doesn't honor Christ or a good God at all.

These guys aren't preaching God's word, they are preaching their dumb-ass opinions, cleaned up and made palatable because they disguise it with scripture. Whenever I have to give my dog medicine, I hide the pill in a piece of bread or a bite of weenie. The dog eats it really fast thinking it's a hot dog and never knows it just swallowed some drug. I'm not a dog and it makes me mad to be treated like one.

Surely, the years of study and growth in my own Christian walk don't amount to just the same thing!

My quest is to document why I believe in this, not why I like it. The process is to find 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived'. I see no way around the fact that I will by definition adopt a worldview and live by it (whether I do this on purpose or not). I think it is in my best interests to do so by choice, not by accident. I look at the available worldviews and let them tell their own stories. I choose the one with the greatest destiny; the one that offers the most, makes the most sense and promotes the highest ideals I can imagine. So I choose Christianity - on purpose with a good heart. And I believe my choice is right.

And that takes me right back up to the top of this post, and starts an endless loop.

There is something missing: A facet of the 'right' worldview that I'm overlooking. Who am I to say what is the 'right' way to look at things anyway? The process and the outcome seem backwards!

Then I realized what is missing, and that it is at the very heart of Christianity.

MIQ #2: Heinz 57

"Salagadoola mechicka boola bibbidi-bobbidi-boo.
Put 'em together and what have you got? Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo"

In my quest to figure out why I believe in Christ, "Why am I Christian?", I looked at several 'competitors' to see what they had to offer. I figured I would either justify my decision to believe in Christ or find a better answer. I looked strictly at the benefits of each worldview I studied, and didn't really try to criticize any of them. I wanted to hear each of their stories, and see what life might look like from their perspective.

In a way, the project was successful. The good things that I saw in other worldviews were even better in Christianity. The perfect peace that Buddhism seeks as Nirvana, Christianity contends has been given already. The 'higher level of life' promoted in Illusions is more precisely documented in Christianity. Our state of being is Spirit, confined in a physical body for a time, destined to lay it aside for an immortal body in an eternal home that is not here. The freedom without boundaries set forth in the Abyss is not as appealing as the freedom to seek and do right without condemnation or judgement when I screw up or fail. (This paragraph could be 16 pages long, but hopefully you get the point.)

I discovered that even in the presense of other ways of looking at life, I like being Christian. I identify with the benefits of it, and embrace the responsibility. It feels right, and I want it.

Then I realized I got it exatly backwards.

I embraced Christianity (or my perception of it) because it represents MY worldview. That which I am, want to be and want not to be are expressed in the Christ story and the biblical worldview - even to the point of not wanting to be gay. I wasn't trying to be an expression of Christ in this world. I was allowing Christ to be my expression of everything I saw as good.

Hmmm. I'm sure my exposure to Christianity had a lot to do with the way my worldview developed. But so did my parents, Captain Kirk, Sgt. Joe Friday, my high school History teacher and a zillion other things. I was just a mutt. a mix of a whole lot of different breeds of philosophies, ideals, lifestyles and opinions. Some of them came from the bible, if I liked them. Some of the came from Cinderalla's fairy god mother.

This, I decided, is not what being a Christian should be. And I better think about this a whole lot more.

MIQ #2: Religions

"Be a clone and kiss conviction Good Night! Cloneliness is next to Godliness, Right?"

I promise, this is the last one, but it's time to talk about the God based worldviews. I really should avoid the word religion, so that I avoid the connotation of blindly following a set of rules, rituals, creeds and liturgies while turning the brain off except to condemn anyone who does not do likewise. This is badly implemented religion widely practiced all over the world, in all kinds of cultures and belief systems. This is NOT what I'm talking about.

In addition, I should point out that all worldviews except the default answer have a God. For the materialist, money is God. For the scientist, nature is God. For the humanist, humanity is God, etc.

In religious worldviews, God is presumed to be a higher power that controls human destiny, and is presumed to have a personality, a will, a purpose in and of Himself and for humanity and each human. When a God based worldview says, "God is good", the contention is not that God passes the good vs. evil test and is found to be good. Rather the contention is that God defines what Good is. God IS Good.

Certain God based worldviews like Agnosticism and Theism deviate from the previous paragraph in that they believe that it is either impossible to know God or that God created then moved on, leaving us to do as we please with His creation. Pragmatically speaking, these worldviews are not too different from the abyss. Other God based worldviews assume that God wants man to find Him, know Him and connect with Him.

The character of God varies within the God based worldviews and factions thereof. Some characterize God as absolute, holy, uncompromising and judgmental. They are afraid of Him, and their world revolves around obedience. Others see God as weak, helpless and incompetent which is why they are so zealous to do His job of judging and condemning everyone else. Some see God as Father, Shepherd, Teacher, Helper or Friend, and tend to emphasize trust and faith in any circumstance.

From what I can see, each of the groups mentioned above can be found in any of the major religions. Christianity, Islam and Judaism all contain groups of people who fit into each category above. This is what differentiates a religion from from a worldview.

If I have a certain worldview and choose a religion that lines up with my worldview, I haven't really accomplished anything. I just learn to say the right things, do the right things and feel good about my worldview. Religion becomes my expression of my worldview, and as such serves no purpose at all. I'm just a wind up toy soldier marching blindly forward. From what I can see, this is the vast majority of church members, even church leaders. And it's a real shame.

But finding an expression of God in which I have confidence, and binding myself to that point of view as a wife binds herself to her husband, opening myself to the fullness of that expression and yeilding my own perspective to its presumed higher wisdom, intentionally and with all of my heart is a different thing. This is the context in which a religion qualifies as a worldview.

An expression of God that is a worldview in and of itself, with a more meaningful outcome than the Divide By Zero answer, that is more tangible than the Abyss, more reliable (credible) than science and reaches higher than the pragmatic...Now we're getting closer to 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived.'

MIQ #2: The Pragmatic

"Many times the most obvious answer is also the right answer."

Another whole class of worldviews falls under the heading of The Pragmatic. To me, Humanism, Materialism  and Aestheticism fall into this category. All of these worldviews share a very noble character trait, which is that they sacrifice Destiny for Legacy. In many cases, people who cling to these worldviews are wonderful, caring, giving, beautiful people. These worldviews are very 'earthy', and full of flavor.

Humanists take a lot of crap from the church because they replace God with Humanity. The glory of humanity is the goal, and any one life is only a very small piece of that goal. Self worth and satisfaction in life come from doing everything possible to advance the next generation, build a solid, secure society, care for others and insure the survival and continued growth and development of the human race. Humanity is the important thing, and my contribution to the future of humanity is the legacy that gives my life definition and meaning.

Materialistic people, who derive their self esteem from the power they wield, the fortunes they accumulate and the influence they exert, are less fortunate. They know they can't take it with them, but they can enjoy it while they are here. And even after they have more than they could possibly enjoy, they continue to strive to acquire more. I think that nobody would choose this worldview intentionally, but many are afflicted by it.

Aestheticism is much more interesting to me. The opposite of materialism, aestheticism seeks beauty, and values it above all else. Beauty needs definition, but the connotation of aestheticism is that the whole world is beautiful and this beauty should be acknowledged, exalted and appreciated. Further, each of us has the ability to recreate or originally create beauty, and not to do so is not to live. My legacy is my beautiful life, and the impact I have had on the world in highlighting and preserving its inherent beauty.

I am a very pragmatic person, despite obvious evidence to the contrary in my blog. I admire the pragmatic worldviews because of their obvious impact and effectiveness. I don't want to steal my thunder from my conclusions about choosing a worldview, but the Christian worldview is all of these pragmatic worldviews on steroids. Christianity completes and empowers any of the worldviews mentioned above - even materialism, albeit somewhat conditionally.

I would think, for example, that a true humanist would genuinely appreciate the Destiny offered by the Christian worldview both on an individual basis and concerning all of humanity. My concern with all of the pragmatic worldviews is that they are short sighted and too limited. I can imagine a better, higher purpose for each of the pragmatic worldviews I considered, and see no conflict but only augmentation when aligned with the more esoteric worldviews available to me. I see no necessity in sacrificing Destiny for Legacy.

I want a worldview with a more meaningful outcome than the Divide By Zero answer, that is more tangible than the Abyss, more reliable (credible) than science and reaches higher than the pragmatic.. Now am I asking for too much here?

MIQ #2: The Fantastic

"Believing in something is a different thing than wishing for something."

Just as several worldviews can be combined and categorized as 'the default answer', there is another category of worldviews that I consider The Fantastic. Some of them are scary, some pointless and some pretty neat. Here are two perfect examples of what I'm talking about:

First, there's The Matrix. It made for a great series of movies, and Keanu Reeves is ... well, nevermind. Hopefully you know the movies and the plot.

Second, there is Richard Bach's Illusions. This book promotes (among other things) a worldview whereby we are just experiencing a form of life that's different than any we've lived before. It paints a human as universal, immortal creature that could have taken on any life in one of an infinite number of dimensions, and does so just for the experience of it. Maybe when I'm finished with this life, I'll choose to be a star for a life, or a pretty rich girl, or a cockroach or something in a world that is not space-time related at all. It's all just fun.

These are both good stories, and I have enjoyed them. But they're just fantasies, just expressions of someone's imagination. There is not enough substance behind them to actually believe in it at all.

Most science qualifies as fantastic. When science tries to answer worldview questions, i.e. the nature of everything, the best it can come up with is a plausible theory with a little evidence. Of course scientists give more credence to science than to the mystics like Nostradamus. I tend to be a little skeptical of both. The only clear truth in science is that its understanding of the nature of things changes over time. Obviously the science of 1492 changed when Columbus sailed the waters blue. But science has changed dramatically since the 1970's when hair spray and aerosol deodorant was going to destroy the ozone layer and kill the planet, and carbon dioxide wasn't even on the map.

I don't intend to criticize science, but I don't think I can build my life around its theories either. In my search for a worldview, one thing became pretty clear: If we're going to be able to interact with the nature of everything, or find anything close to the truth, the truth itself is going to have to help. Again, by definition, a worldview cannot have a point of reference outside of itself. The only place that point of reference could come from is the Abyss. The only other choice I can think of is that the worldview itself must reveal itself to us in a way we can comprehend, relate to and trust. If this isn't true, I'm afraid we're stuck with the default answer.

I want a worldview with a more meaningful outcome than the Divide By Zero answer, that is more tangible than the Abyss and more reliable (credible) than science. Am I asking for too much here?

MIQ #2: The Default Answer (The Abyss)

"A certain fish swam all over the ocean asking everyone he met if they knew the way to the sea."

There is an unstated property of the Default Answer, Divide by Zero worldview that deserves some special attention. It is the concept of Freedom. If I were to discuss my search for the right worldview with the Divide by Zero worldview, it would teach me that all worldviews are right (and wrong). It doesn't matter which worldview I choose, only that I fully engage whichever one I want to follow. It would teach me that I am free. That I am not bound by any concept, law, doctrine or tradition. It would show me that all of these things actually hold me back, and keep me from experiencing the freedom of thought and mind that the Divide by Zero worldview promotes.

Freedom without boundaries. The Divide by Zero worldview connotes that boundaries and freedom are mutually exclusive, and so long as I try to live within any set of boundaries, I am not free - not in the true sense of the word. The highest form of happiness and perfect peace comes from outgrowing or overriding all boundaries, all pleasures, all sorrow, all pain. I can experience this happiness only through living in the immediate moment all of my life.

Man, that sounds good. I think this is what the serpent in the Garden of Eden sold to Eve. Transcend the boundaries. Be like God. Eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and know that neither are important. Be free.

I question whether this kind of freedom is true freedom, or if it is just disorientation. Consider this: A blind man is "free" from seeing any horrible thing. He is free from seeing any beautiful thing too. If you ask a blind man, "What does 'beautiful' look like?" How could he answer the question? He has no frame of reference to evaluate beauty. Is this really Freedom?

If freedom=blindness, I think I do not want to be free. On the contrary, the question, "What does beautiful look like?" is subjective. I think that in my search for a worldview to build my life around, I want to try to find objective, universal answers to questions like, "What does beautiful look like?"

It seems to me that without boundaries, one cannot be free - only lost. Freedom without boundaries is not enlightenment, it is the abyss; the void. Freedom without a frame of reference is not meaningful, beneficial or productive. It is just a delusion.

Freedom comes from knowing and respecting the very boundaries that the Divide by Zero worldview negates. I want to be free - free to perceive and gravitate towards a universal Good, Beautiful, Right, Pure, Wonderful Expression of Everything. I want to be free to be proud of that Center, and live inside of its context. Living there IS Freedom, Meaning, Fulfillment, Identity, and Belonging.

For me, I reject the Divide by Zero, Default Answer worldview on these grounds. I do not want to live in the Abyss. I want to avoid the Void. I can conceive of better than this. I want better.

MIQ #2: The Default Answer (Divide By Zero)

"It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter."

When I was in fourth grade learning my multiplication tables, I had the hardest time understanding why math doesn't allow division by zero. Once I got my mind around it, it reminded me of the one tree in the garden of Eden that Adam and Eve were commanded not to touch. Dividing by zero in math is really the only sin one can commit. One can make many errors. But dividing by zero is more than error. It is indescribable, unthinkable, inconceivable. It is the one place math cannot go. The best word we have to characterize it is 'undefined'. Not even the smartest minds in the world can answer the question, "What is 4 divided by 0?" The answer just does not exist (or it can be whatever you want if you prefer).

There is a worldview that makes perfect sense, that many have accidentally or intentionally embraced, that answers all of life's questions, that relieves all of the pressure of understanding the world, that negates all joy, sorrow, pleasure and pain, and that reduces everything to "the circle of nothing" (i.e. zero).

The shallow expression of this worldview is, "Eat, Drink and Be Merry, for tomorrow we die." Nothing really matters. In the end we're all dead, so "make hay while the sun shines". A more pessimistic version of this worldview is expressed by Robert Penn Warren in All The King's Men: "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud."

The other end of the spectrum is the Buddhist concept of Nirvana: A perfect state of mind that is free from anger, desire and other 'afflicting' states. It is also the "end of the world;" there is no identity left and no boundaries for the mind. In various versions of this worldview, the words 'nothing' and 'everything' mean exactly the same thing. There is no distinction between them at all. Both words connote wholeness, completeness and perfect peace. This is thought of as the highest form of happiness. There is no 'God' per se, (or I could say that everything is God because it means the same thing).

Now, in the process of examining various worldviews, I kept in mind that all worldviews are circular (they depend on themselves), and that my overview study of any particular worldview is not thorough enough to tear it apart. Many people do this with Christianity: They take a version of the gospel suitable for presentation to a group of five year olds and use their college education to rip it to pieces and claim it makes no sense.

I did not make that mistake. I understand that, A) A large portion of the world embraces Buddhism and/or Hinduism, B) There are thousands of years of devout thought and study behind it, C), that I have not studied it enough to criticize its math, and D) there are obvious advantages to looking at life this way. For me to try to poke holes in the either the shallow or the deep versions of these worldviews would serve only to show my ignorance the way most atheists do when they criticize Christianity. I'm not doing that.

On the contrary. I assume that the overview is absolutely sound. I assume that whether I've studied it or not, the math works. I give it the benefit of the doubt, and carte blanche to paint whatever picture of the world it would have me believe. Then I ask myself whether I can conceive of (imagine) anything better. That is the process. That is the methodology I used in choosing my worldview on purpose, rather than accepting the one that was given to my by my parents, my education, my environment and my heritage.

So, here's what I can't get around: If the themes and variations of this worldview are true, then when it comes right down to it, nothing really matters.

I have named this worldview the "Divide by Zero Worldview". To me, it makes sense. But I want better, if I can find it and gain some level of confidence in it. I want things to matter. I want to matter. I want an identity. I want the trials, pleasures and drama to mean something. I want life to matter.

I think I will stop there for now.

MIQ #2, Definitions

"Now, what are we talking about again?"

Well, it seems like I've taken a vacation without intending to. Just life is good (and busy). But I'm anxious to get back to the second MIQ, "Why am I Christian?" Before I go any farther, I want to define some terms:

Worldview: A working theory of everything that provides a context in which life, and specifically my life, happens. Everybody has one, even the most shallow people whose worldview consists of nothing more than their own satisfaction and pleasure and is no larger than 36 inches in any direction from the end of their, well, noses. A worldview is a mental model of reality. A framework of ideas and attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life, a comprehensive system of beliefs.

It is my contention that it is not possible for a human to live without a worldview. We should therefore select a worldview intentionally, rather than accept the one that grows all by itself subject to our environment. Experience will give us a worldview, but there's no reason to think it will give us the right one, the best one or one that is in our best interests. Our worldview forms us and gives us our identity. It's much too mportant to leave to chance. Isn't it reasonable for us to pick a worldview, then conform to that worldview? To view life through that lens? To interact with the world based on the rules and properties of the worldview we choose?

God: The best definition I know of, in that it is the broadest, most basic, yet still complete definition, came from St Anselm. The definition is "That than which nothing greater can be conceived". The original version assumes God to be a being, and I do not. Therefore, I'm not using a biased version propagated by Christianity. I use the term more conceptually. We may explore God as a force, an idea or anything else. So long as we cannot conceive of anything better, we're in bounds to characterize God any way that makes reasonable sense. Maybe a better way to phrase this definition is, "That than which nothing greater can be imagined."

Since all worldviews are circular in nature, we have to let each worldview tell us its story without ripping it apart. Every worldview has a God (at the center of whatever that worldview represents), and is based on that than which nothing greater can be conceived by that worldview.

Destiny: Basically Future with a twist. Future is whatever happens from this point forward in time. Destiny is what happens from this point forward in time AND what it is when it is finished AND what it will have been at the end even from the beginning. Example: The White house was built in 1792. It's future, as it was being built, was to be the place that U.S. Presidents lived and worked. It's Destiny (likely unimaginable in 1792, and still unfolding today) was to be the seat of power for the whole free world.

My contention is that every valid worldview has a destiny except one: The Abyss. The Void. There is no destiny there, because there is nothing there at all. This worldview will be the first one we look at. I think it will be pretty easy to eliminate it as an intentional choice, but it is the Default Answer, in lieu of any other reasonable choice.

Other than that, it is fair game for us to examine the destiny that each worldview claims to offer as part of the process. A worldview with a better destiny will likely make a better choice than a worldview with a less enticing destiny.

OK, we may have to define some more terms as we go, but  this should get us started. Coming next: The Default Answer.

MIQ #2, The More Important Question

"Like cramming a watermelon into a Coke bottle."

As I prepare to get into the second MIQ, "Why am I Christian?", I have to say that I'm excited and a little intimidated. I can't wait to get this part of my mind into written form. I sort of did it once before, as I developed the answer in the first place but it was a mess. My biggest challenge will be to present my thoughts in a coagulated, organized way that someone else has a chance of following, and do it thoroughly and concisely at the same time.

I was raised Christian. I could quote bible verses and stories long before I could read. As an adult, I wanted to know why I believe what I believe, and whether there is any substance to it, or whether I just had it crammed down my throat as a little kid and never considered any other options. The cool part is that Christianity passed my test - at least to my satisfaction. Now I make a humble effort to explain it to everyone else.

In no way do I intend to write a comprehensive, one size fits all, apologetic dissertation. That is work for others who are much more educated and intelligent than I am. (And nobody has come up with a good one yet that I know of.) My intent is much more simplistic. I want to explain why I believe, not necessarily why everyone else should. As I have said, I'm nobody's judge. I'm also nobody's brain.

Another challenge involves the circular nature of any worldview. If you think about it, it has to be this way. A worldview is a working theory of everything. By definition, a worldview cannot have a reference point outside of itself. If it could, it wouldn't be a worldview at all. Christianity, atheism, humanism, all other religions and all non-religious worldviews are circular. Even high school geometry is circular. The first thing we learn about geometry is to postulate the existence of a point and a line, and a concept that the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line. There is no proof that these postulates are valid. Yet all higher math depends on them being true. So it is with worldviews in general.

This is one reason we cannot prove the existence of God. If God exists, by definition there is no point of reference outside of God that can be used to independently validate His existence. Since logic offers no possibility of proving a negative, there is no way to prove that God does not exist. We're stuck with reason for better or worse when discussing a worldview, a theory of everything.

Ultimately, acceptance of any worldview is a matter of choice - A matter of decision. This much, I should be able to prove to everyone over the next several dozen (hopefully not) posts. But there also has to be a basis for believing in something other than my opinion of it. I don't want to believe a lie just because it says what I want to hear.

So, here we go. Hopefully I get this done this year. (Just kidding.) But it is a little like trying to cram a watermelon into a coke bottle. Before we can start, we have to define a few terms.

MIQ #1 RESOLVED Forever!

"What's in a name, anyway?"

So the "Why am I gay?" question, which has provided a significant level of frustration for me in the past because I've been taught (wrongly) that it is abominable in God's sight, needs an answer, or at least a resolution. I looked for one, and the more I looked, the bigger the question became and the more frustrated I became with the answers available to me.

And then an event happened in an instant. I could characterize the event as an Epiphany, a fever breaking, the sun bursting through the clouds, an awakening or something similar. But in a certain instant in time, I knew something I did not know in the instant before. Here's what I knew in that instant:

First, I knew that God has many names. We call Him God, but what does that mean? We call Him Faithful, Savior, Provider, Father, Creator, Healer, and a hundred other names. Each of these names describes or connotes some attribute, some manifestation, some characteristic of God. Every one of these names are true.

I knew that I had a name too. I am called Terry. So what? What does that mean? I have many names, just like God. In my case, some of those names are complimentary and I am proud of them. Others are derogatory, and I am not proud of them.

Then I knew that God has only called me one name. God has called me 'His Son'.

And I knew that any other name that I might be called, true or false, good or bad, complimentary or derogatory, is irrelevant; Any other name that I can be called is overshadowed and made insignificant by the name that God called me.  I have only one name that matters, and that name was given to me by the Only One Who Matters. And it is a good name, a name I am proud of, a name that overrides any other name.

And I knew that I would never again allow anyone on this planet to devalue that name or try to take it away from me.

And I knew that I would never again ask, "Why am I gay?", "Why am I half-blind?", "Why am I - any other name - "?

And the game changed. In that instant, life changed for me. Instead of fighting, trying and failing to be worthy or acceptable (or just not offensive) to God, I started thinking in terms of how to honor the name He gave me in every thing I do. I am His son, and I want to be good at being His son in whatever context life places me in; gay, straight, rich, poor, slave, free, leader, follower, teacher, student, almost blind or any other context.

Life is not about all of my names. It is about honoring my Father with everything that I have - my mind, body, sexuality, heart, soul, money, all of my possessions and all of my dreams. Life isn't about not being any number of somethings, it is about being something special, wonderful and exciting.

The question is resolved.

MIQ #1, Why Am I Gay?

"Sometimes the answer is, 'There is no answer'."

I admit to having trouble with this post. I think it's an important issue to deal with, but not for me. The weird thing is that of the two MIQ's, I spent a whole lot more time and effort on the second one than I did this one. But the second MIQ, "Why am I Christian", was the non-negotiable one. It's the one I wasn't ever willing to change.

If I ask myself, "Why am I too fat?", the answer implies the resolution. I'm too fat because I eat too much and don't exercise enough. The implied course of action is, "Move More, Eat Less." I have not found a valid answer to MIQ #1 that implies a feasible course of action.

But for the record, here are the broad stroke answers I researched and considered:

The religious/moral answer is characterized by words like sin, addiction, perversion, character defect, weakness. Their implied course of action is change the way I think. Make different choices. In extreme cases, these guys even came up with helpful programs to assist in the process. Shock therapy was used on gay guys who were shown pics of naked men and became aroused, then hit with the juice to 'teach' them that this thinking was wrong. Other disincentives like jail, mutilation, excommunication and even execution were and are used to teach society that the homosexual perspective is wrong. All it did was make people lie and be miserable.

The medical/psycho-babble answer is characterized by word like genetic difference, environmental anomalies, chemical imbalances, normal sexual development issues. The implied answer is expand the definition of normal, promote self esteem, accept yourself and distance yourself from those who will not accept you. All is well, there is no problem here. Nothing is wrong. This boils down to, "If you can't fix it, ignore it."

Of course the interaction and conflict between the two groups above, conducted mostly by straight people with no dog in the fight anyway, is pretty intense. They throw rocks at each other constantly, never knowing or caring that I'm caught in the middle.

The more I thought about this issue, the more disillusioned I became with both religion and science. The more I studied this, the more convinced I was that nobody had an answer that implied a resolution. The more I looked into these things, the more isolated, introverted, depressed, lonely and ashamed I became. I tried to walk away from the question completely, just to maintain my sanity. But the issue didn't go away.

Then I found my resolution. An event occurred that resolved the question for me powerfully, completely and instantly. But this post is long enough, so I'll write about it next.

Intro: The 2 MIQ's (Most Important Questions)

" 'Why?' is almost never a valid question. But sometimes it has to be asked anyway. "

Well, I guess it's time for me to try to address what I think are the two MIQ's (Most Important Questions). They may not be the two most important questions in the universe, but in my life, they need an answer - or at least a resolution.

The first question is, "Why am I gay?" The second is, Why am I a Christian?"

The apparent mutual exclusivity in my life could be easily avoided by renouncing Christianity - or watering it down like others have so that Christ doesn't really stand for anything. Gay and otherwise, many people have decided that Christ isn't for them because of some theme and variation of, "He doesn't meet my expectations." If Christ loves everyone except me, then He really isn't Christ. It's not a hard trip, and many have made that jump with ease.

If I could take a drug, say a prayer, do a chant or dance or some pagan ritual, or borrow Harry Potter's wand and not be gay, I would do it in a heartbeat and never look back. Why would anybody choose this lifestyle? I would have made a good father, husband and little league coach (well maybe not a coach). I would love to have fallen in love with the girl of my dreams back in the early 80's, gotten married, raised two (but no more than that) beautiful kids and hummed the "Leave it to Beaver" tune for the rest of my life.

Whenever I fall in love, I fall hard - and forever. I would have been a faithful, competent partner. I would have worked hard to please, protect, cherish and be an asset to whoever I mutually connected with in that way. There's not a day that goes by that I don't long for that opportunity.

So why on earth did I have to spend my life to age 40 avoiding relationships with girls (so they didn't think the world was turning in a direction it couldn't possibly go), and avoiding relationships with guys (so I didn't turn in a direction I was taught is automatic rejection of everything I believed about Christ)?

And I do believe the Christian worldview. Completely. I value my relationship with Christ and all that He represents, and to this day will not give it up for sex or human love or anything else on the planet. I was 'saved' June 9, 1972, when I was 9 years old at Vacation Bible School. And I believed in it then. I grew up seeking the things of God, willingly and eagerly. I was baptized, and it meant something to me. Because of it I was different. Even in High School when others went out and did things I knew to be wrong,. I thought, "Sorry, I can't go there. I've been baptized, and that changes the rules for me."

Nonetheless, I have fallen completely and hopelessly in love with three guys in my life. Two are straight. One is a successful doctor, and I still love him completely. He has a wife and 4 kids, and as far as I'm concerned is the greatest person on the planet. The second is almost as great a guy, married with kid, and leading a wonderful life. The third is gay, and that story didn't end well at all. But I still love him.

I could write all night about how terrible, hurtful and difficult the conflict between God and Gay has been for me. I'm not bitching about my life though. I played the cards dealt to me as well as I knew how with a pure heart, and did not compromise in either direction. I always felt that it was better to be stuck in the middle of the conflict than it is to resolve it inappropriately.

If I have an objective in addressing the MIQ's, it is so that the next guy like me can have some assistance resolving the conflict before he is old and ugly, and can enjoy the benefits of a wonderful life, in the sight of God and in the arms of whoever his Eve turns out to be - even if it's Steve. I sure miss mine, and somehow I know that whoever he is, he misses me too.

Universal Momentum

"Sometimes it's good to go with the flow."

Part of the Christian worldview that I believe in is a concept I call "Universal Momentum". The basics of this concept are:

• The universe was created intentionally, in a single and ongoing act of creative energy by God. He created the universe as part of a plan, with goals that are inherently good. As such, the universe was created in an atmosphere of joyful anticipation, and is today filled to the brim with excitement, joy, a driving purpose and a bias toward honoring and exalting its Creator.
• Everything in the universe is a coherent, intentional part of the initial creation. Nothing exists by accident and nothing is incidental or insignificant. Everything that exists has a role to play in what might best be called "The Great Dance", and nothing that was created is meaningless, worthless or irrelevant.
• The universe was created with a destiny or consummation in mind from the beginning. There is a fulfillment or a completion point to creation that has not been attained. Time is a tool created to facilitate the process of a universal life-cycle that began with creation and ends with consummation. 
• The whole universe, acted on by the force of creation, moves forward in time toward the point to it all with enthusiasm, unity of purpose and unstoppable precision, as it was designed to do from the beginning.

Humanity (and each human) uniquely has the choice of participating in or denying this universal momentum. I can be a part of the glory of it all, or I can choose not to. If I choose not to participate in the universal momentum, where does that leave me? In the abyss. In the void. There is no other place to be.

It is my contention that by accepting my role in the context of universal momentum, I gain the help and support of the whole created universe. The bias of the whole universe is to bring about the consummation as a mother in labor brings forth the child.  My momentum, when aligned with universal momentum, makes me part of the inherently good consummation God intended when He created the whole thing.

It is my contention that when my actions are in line and congruent with the motion of universal momentum, I join an overwhelming chorus - a tsunami of creation running headlong toward a destiny that is far better than I could ever have imagined.

It is my contention that this is the normal state of being for humans. The disconnect we see in this world, that seems so overbearing at times, is not the norm. It is the exception. It is merely a temporary illusion that cannot last. Sound cannot travel in a vacuum, and therefore never leaves our atmosphere. Even though the earth is very noisy, the remainder of the universe never hears it. So it is with everything that does not line up with the momentum of the universe. It all just fades away.

In 2011, more than ever before, I want to align myself with this universal momentum. I want to be a part of the purpose and destiny of creation. I want to do it right - not that I'm afraid of doing it wrong, I just don't want to be that way.

Come with me! It's going to be a hell of a ride!

(Why on earth would anyone in his right mind not want to believe this?)

A Gay Christian's Math Part 7B The Answer

"He is the Lord. He reigns on high. He is the Lord.
He spoke into the darkness. Created the light. He is the Lord.
Who is like unto Him never ending in days? He is the Lord.
And He comes in power when we call on His name. He is the Lord. "

So, the question is, "How do I make the call of God relevant to the 40 year old gay party boy who has nothing to show for his life except how much alcohol he has consumed and how many guys he has fucked, and is completely comfortable with his destiny to grow old, fade to black and enter the void?"

Before I answer the question, for the record, I don't like the answer. I want a better one. I want a more effective one. I want one that works every time, like 8+5 always equals 13. I want God to stop hiding behind the clouds, stand up and be God. I want Him to move in power, and show the whole world who He really is and what He can do, in an undeniable, irrefutable way. Bring on the fire from heaven, the miracles, turn on the light and drive out the darkness. He is not God for nothing.

He's done it before. Ever read the story of Saul who became Paul and wrote 2/3 of the New Testament? Remember Elisha's servant whose eyes were opened and he was able to see that there were more with them than there were against them? What about Danial's time in the furnace or the lion's den?

But alas, God is not a circus elephant. He's not going to spend eternity proving to barflies that He exists. Besides, the circus elephant stuff didn't work with the people of Israel in the old testament.

And so I defer to His wisdom.

His wisdom is that He gives us the Christmas star. He holds out before us the possibility of something better than the void. Like the wise men, we can walk toward it day by day. In the manger, He shows us that He is not here to pick a fight with us. He comes in peace. He shows us there is hope.

His wisdom is that He gives us His life. He shows us the Father, His math, His worldview. His love. He shows us that each of us has value beyond description, whether we see ourselves that way or not. In the beatitudes, he compares our thinking to His, and His is better. In the garden, He calls us friends not slaves, and teaches us that in Him we have life, peace and intimacy with God, and a destiny that is good.

His wisdom is that He gives us His death on the cross, on which is nailed every wrong thing in history from the beginning of the world until right now - as well as all of the excuses we hide behind for our own choices and bad decisions. Life is about what is right and good and pure. That which is wrong and evil and dirty is nailed to a tree.

His wisdom is that He gives us a resurrection. A new life with new terms. He gives us Baptism and the Eucharist to remind us of what we now stand for, and who we are in Him.

His wisdom is that He gives us a Helper to show us what is good and teach us all wisdom. He gives us an advocate with the Father who knows our weaknesses. He gives us His word, His name, His faithfulness, and a zillion other things that I should list but this post is too long already.

Somehow, this has to be good enough. God has made His case for mankind through the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. And He has presented us with a simple choice. For those who choose to believe it, he gives the power to be His children. For the rest, there's the void.

I know from experience, it's a hard thing to give your all for a long time, only to be told that you're not good enough. It's even harder when that which is good enough turns out to be so much less than what you are. I guess, in His infinite wisdom, God is comfortable with this situation. I guess I agree with Him.

But a good old fashioned fireball from heaven would still be fun now and then.

A Gay Christian's Math Part 7A The Real Question

"In the end, we all fade to black and enter the void."

All of the math posts thus far can be summarized by one contention:

The rift between the gay world and the christian world has no substance whatsoever.

Conservative Christian condemnation of homosexuality is based on error, and the backlash against Christianity from the gay community is understandable, but distracting and counterproductive. All of the ballyhooing from one side about 'protecting family values' and the "Out and Loud" rebellion from the other side is just a bunch of noise. Underneath all of the noise, there is no inherent, fundamental, factual basis for the conflict between Christianity and homosexuality. I think the math supports this contention, so if you disagree, please do so in context. If I'm wrong, show me where.

With other societal conflicts (i.e. socialism v. capitalism) there are valid, fundamental reasons for the conflict and differences of opinion that have substance. The debate between the two is an honest one. There are advantages and disadvantages to either perspective. But the conflict between Christianity and the gay world is only smoke. There is no fire.

The noise is loud, the smoke is thick and the passion on both sides is genuine and deep. Collateral damage done to individuals, families, churches and our culture overall is measurable and pronounced. In the midst of the fog, one question remains, and seems impossible to answer:

Why does the gay world need God anyway?

At some point, married, straight guys want and need to be good fathers and husbands. They want to be successful in whatever it is they do so that their wives and families will be proud of them and so they can provide the quality of life they desire for those they love. They want to preserve or sometimes change their family tree, and hand off to the next generation a better world than their parents left to them.

There is an evolution in the human condition, a maturing process, that takes a 19 year old college kid party boy and makes him a responsible, productive adult. Usually this process involves falling in love with a girl who the guy knows is the greatest thing that ever happened to him, followed by children, which the guy knows is the greatest privilege and responsibility life could possibly offer.

Not everyone makes it through this process, and many marriages end in divorce and children are raised in a different environment than the one into which they are born. But the point is that the motivation is there. And the Christian worldview addresses the motivation precisely and effectively. The party boy of ten years ago is transformed by the teachings of Christ, and the son becomes the dad and the baton is passed and the cycle of life, love, godliness and wisdom continues from one generation to the next.

At some point, most straight guys feel the tug of a higher calling, a need to be more than a shallow, drunk, sexually liberal, self centered party boy. What about gay guys?

Why does the gay world need God anyway?

The issue isn't whether God loves or accepts gay guys. The issue isn't whether church or the rest of the world at large accepts homosexuality. The issue is how to get the gay world to recognize and want the higher calling that Christ represents.

The decision to believe in Christ is a life changing decision. The decision is made once, and the rest of one's life is spent walking out that decision. It's not easy, and (sorry Baptists) success in the journey is not automatic. It involves work, sacrifice, study, effort and a willingness to see life as fundamentally different than it was before the decision was made.

Like the wise men, who left their own country and followed the star to Bethlehem, found the baby King and worshipped him, each of us has the opportunity in this life to perceive, discover and worship the creator of the universe, the source and substance of all life. We are all, gay and straight, invited to participate in the higher, deeper, eternal, meaningful dimension of life found in intimacy and fellowship with the Father of it all.

Now, the question is, "How do I make that calling relevant to the 40 year old gay party boy who has nothing to show for his life except how much alcohol he has consumed and how many guys he has fucked, and is completely comfortable with his destiny to grow old and eventually fade to black and enter the void?"

A Gay Christian's Math Part 6

"Lucy! You got some 'spanin to do!"

Of the roughly seven and a half billion people on the planet, roughly seven and a half billion of them have some reason to be mad at God. In my conversations  with people who have a grudge against God, I've pretty much found that their reasons are valid. All kinds of shitty things happen in and around humanity, and if God is All Powerful, All Knowing, Always Present, loves us the way the bible teaches that He does, and if He is the Deliverer, Healer, Father and Savior that He claims to be, ...

Well, He's got some explaining to do.

Frankly, Christianity, with all 2,000 years of devout study, doesn't really have a good explanation (in my opinion). I don't want to get into the details of the, "If God is God, why do bad things happen to good people?" question just now (if anybody needs me to, I guarantee you that I am capable, it's just not where I'm headed at the moment). But I want to acknowledge the question as part of my Gay Christian math.

And I want to make two rather bold assertions concerning the issue:

First, It Doesn't Matter. God is God whether I approve of Him or not. He is not going to abdicate His position just because I don't like him. My negative attitude toward Him can and will keep me from understanding anything having to do with Him and from experiencing the benefits He offers, but it will not impact Him in any way.

I know that is a cold, mathematical premise, and doesn't address the heartache and pain that so many people have endured. I also know that the issue of being mad at God must be transcended before we can experience relief or resolution to the seemingly meaningless, painful events of life. I know that the latter is a process, not an event, and I think I can help with that process.

Second, God Is Not Uncomfortable With This Conundrum. He overcame it with Job, Habakkuk, Jonah and Jeremiah in the old testament. He can overcome it with you if you'll let Him. Hint: Keep in mind that the issue for a blind man is not, "Why am I blind?" it is, "How can I see again?" The issue for a slave is, "Where is Freedom?" God is a God who heals the hurts of His people, and makes broken hearts whole again. He has done that for countless others throughout history. He is competent to do that for you too. Being mad at Him or demanding answers to the 'Why' questions are only distractions to that process.

The gay world has for years been aggressively attacked by the very people who should have been reaching out with His love. I understand that. I understand that the gay community as a whole legitimately hates the Christian community and, by extension, the God that it is supposed to represent. I get it. The demonizing light in which the gay community has been portrayed is a social and religious injustice, and should never have happened. I agree wholeheartedly.

Now, let's move beyond that. Let's transcend it, and go forward. It is less than a week until Christmas. Let's see if we can make Christmas happen all over again.

A Gay Christian's Math Part 5 and a Half

"I'm going to hell anyway. I might as well take the scenic route."

Previously, I discussed how Romans 1 shouldn't be used as a stand alone means of condemning anyone. But the issues raised in my last post have another side. In fact, all of the math I have shared so far has been to help Christians understand how things are from a gay perspective. To summarize: I don't believe --

• That God would have me live a lie and try to marry a girl when I know I'm gay.
• That being gay is in and of itself an abomination.
• That being gay is a choice, an intentional decision, which is a criteria for sin.
• That the only options a gay man has are to either lie or be alone.

Further, I don't believe Christians should believe these things either. I understand that straight, conservative Christians don't have to think through these issues the way I had to. Hopefully, they are starting to, just because it's the right thing to do. I hope some of them will study my math, and understand the gay world's situation better, but whether they do or not, they'll be OK.

The bigger problem lies with the gay community itself. I contend that the gay world puts more faith in the religious condemnation of homosexuality than Christians themselves. They've adopted the mindset that God (if he exists) hates them anyway, so they have nothing to lose. It doesn't matter what they do. They can't win, so they might as well lose with a party. God, and anything that is tainted with the smell of it, is irrelevant and offensive.

If I'm out of bounds anyway, then boundaries don't apply to me. There is no incentive to respect the boundaries of morality or godliness. If God hates me, and God is love, then love is not real to me. God is not real to me. I have to find something else to live for. And every evil thing in the world offers itself as the answer. And none of these things are enough. And Romans 1 becomes the status quo. And dead minds, souls and bodies become the only reality there is. This is exactly the kind of death that Christ came to save us from.

There is a better way. Christians know it already. The gay world is not excluded from it, but has believed the lie that they are ineligible to participate in it. They've pretty much rejected the whole notion of it, and are experiencing the consequences of buying a lie.

With the fanfare of the brightest star, and thousands of angels singing, Christ was born as a helpless baby in a manger suitable for goats, not people. He didn't come to condemn the world, but to show us the Father's love, and how real that love is. Where on earth could that kind of love have more impact than with a people group who has been falsely taught that it's not for them?

Fellow Christians! Stop Teaching That Crap!
Fellow Fags! Stop Believing It!