Chris' Blog

I have moved to wordpress

2010-12-28T07:17:00.001-08:00

http://schr8r.wordpress.com/

Freedom...

2010-04-29T04:10:00.000-07:00

I just wrote my last undergrad exam last night and feel somewhat cathartic that it is over. I feel that now I can write and read without obligation literature that I want to read. And to cultivate my fiction portfolio, I asked my wife to recommend three books to read. They were Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Dostoevsky's The Idiot, and Oscar Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Gray (note: these are not her top three novels, just novels recommended for me).

This post is selfish in nature (aren't all posts though?) in that I am now accountable to read these books. Hopefully I will be posting about them in the future.

Is abortion okay in cases of rape and/or incest?

2010-03-01T18:30:00.000-08:00

I had a recent discussion with a young gentleman on the abortion issue and heard the often used argument in favor of abortion: I don't like abortions, but if it is a case of rape or incest, then I think it is okay.

Is it okay?

Why is it that abortion is okay in these two cases? One answer is that it reminds the mother of a horrible past, and it isn't her fault that she got pregnant. Therefore, in order to help her "move on" in her life, an abortion seems like a viable option. At this point, one should empathize with the victimized mother-to-be because this is certainly a traumatic and unfortunate circumstance. No one deserves to have his/her personal freedoms infringed upon by someone else.

However, emotions aside, the argument goes like this: If someone reminds you of a horrible past, then it is okay to kill him/her.

Is this okay? Do people kill other people because of a bad memory? Perhaps some people do, but this is wrong, and it is a bad argument. This innocent human being in the embryo/fetus stage should not have his/her rights infringed upon by someone else because of a horrible event that happened in the past. There are many children that have been born from victims of rape and incest. Would it be alright to kill these children?

I hope and pray that your answer is "no."

Jack-a-lope?

2009-12-16T17:27:00.001-08:00

Poor guy. I can't help but think what Jack will do to Leah and me when we are in our old age diapers and unable to move around. Until then, we're gonna have fun.

Pro-Abortion Argument: Are you willing to take in all the "unwanted" children in the world?

2009-10-24T13:48:00.000-07:00

"I don't think that anybody has the right to object to abortions unless they're willing to take care of all of the unwanted children brought into the world if abortion was made illegal."

Have you heard of this argument before? I have from both Christians and non-Christians. At first, it seems like the argument handcuffs you. Are you willing to take in the "unwanted" children of the world? After stammering for a while, you might think that you should say, "Yes, of course!" However, realistically, this is impossible. The next dart thrown your way may be phrased this way: "Well, if you say that you are pro-life, what have you done to help the single moms who have to raise their unwanted children on their own?" If you haven't done anything, you're the fool. If you have done something, it is not enough; you're in a double bind. Thankfully, you don't have to worry about such pro-abortion rhetoric.

Greg Koukl from Stand to Reason suggests that you respond this way:

"What would you say if I suggested that we solve the homeless problem in this way. We herd all of the homeless together, who are really a drag on our resources, and inject them with a poison or gas them. Let's just kill them and get them out of the way. Would you object to that?" I presume the answer would be yes and then the response that I would offer would be: "What if I told you that you have no right to object to killing the homeless unless you're willing to take some of the homeless into your home or help to pay for them out of your own pocket. Your moral objection isn't sound if you aren't willing to take care of the needs that accrue as a result of letting them live."

Obviously in a circumstance like that the person is going to say that it's not an appropriate kind of argument for the same reason that it's not appropriate to say that the United States couldn't object to the killing of Jews in Nazi Germany unless we were willing to take all six million Jews onto our own soil. The reason is because we're talking about human beings. We're talking about people's lives and you don't make a trade off like that. If a person's life is in jeopardy it doesn't matter whether you're willing to care for that life or not for you to have a legitimate moral objection against the taking of that innocent life.

That's the point.

Jack

2009-10-04T06:39:00.000-07:00

Here are some pics of Jack. He is such a joy to have and to play with. I still can't believe I am a dad!

Abortion Debate: Location, Location, Location.

2009-09-12T21:46:00.000-07:00

At work, I am an English Instructor by definition, but really I just help adults learn how to read better. I teach some grammar including punctuation, misplaced modifiers, and past participles ('ridden' is the past participle of the verb 'ride'...ride, rode, has/have ridden). To switch it up, I incorporate some reading comprehension exercises usually taken from newspapers. It is a great job and I am very thankful to have it.

Today our class discussed an article about President Obama addressing grad students at Notre Dame University. This event was controversial because many thought it contradictory for a Catholic University to honor a speaker who was pro-abortion. During our tangential classroom discussion one student suggested that the fetus is not a person because it could not live on its own outside the womb. Playing the advocate (and also myself), I engaged her in a debate. I have a great relationship with this student (thus far) and felt comfortable in talking about this issue. Our dialogue went something like this...

Me: So, are you saying that a fetus is not a person because it can't live outside the womb?

Student: Yes, it needs the mother to survive. It can only survive outside the womb after 22 weeks or something like that.

Me: Hold on. There are two things going on here. First, you mentioned that a baby is not a person because it cannot live on its own outside the womb.

Student: Yeah.

Me: So this is a matter of location, environment right? Can anything survive outside its natural environment? If you were sent into space without an oxygen mask, you would die. If you were dropped into the ocean without food or water, you would die. Even if you were just born and left on your own to survive, you would die. Now, in any of these three instances, are you not still a person?

Student: Yeah, but, it needs the mother to survive.

Another student: Like a parasite.

Me: Hold on, so your saying that a fetus is not a person because it relies on something else to survive.

Student: Yeah, it would die otherwise.

Me: Couldn't you say the same about someone on oxygen? Or someone on insulin? Or someone on kidney dialysis? Do not these people still retain personhood? (Student #3 nods head in agreement).

Student: Yeah, but...a fetus can't live on its own.

(Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Think, McFly!)

Unfortunately, we had to get back to the lesson. But the pro-abortion argument goes like this: A fetus is not a person because it is in the wrong environment; it can't live outside the womb on its own. Steve Wagner from str.org posted a response to this kind of argument: "How long can you breathe under water? Well, did you know that the unborn is not only surrounded by amniotic fluid, she is breathing it in an out of her lungs? If you can't survive in her world, why are you asking her to survive in yours? Isn't that a bit arbitrary and unfair?"

The fact of the matter is that nothing can survive outside its environment. Can a fish live out of water? No, but it is still a fish.

if...

2009-08-01T18:34:00.001-07:00

I would agree that women shouldn't be forced into back alley abortions, and I would agree that the government should fund such procedures, and I would agree that is a woman's choice of what she wants to do with her body, and I would agree that Christians should not solicit and persuade Abortion clinic clients not to have an abortion...

I agree with all these things if the fetus is not a human being.

For if a fetus is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. As Greg Koukl put it, 'if a fetus is not a human being, you can't take it out and eat for all I care, it's just a blob of flesh." However, if the fetus is a human being, then no justification for abortion is adequate. In the next few blogs, if I am not too busy changing the diapers of our new born son, I will post a couple of the oft quoted Pro-Abortion arguments and the errors that lie within.

(This argument was taken from Scott Klusendorf's Life Training Institute http://www.prolifetraining.com/.)

"The Fightin' Side of Me"

2009-07-22T15:10:00.000-07:00

I hear people talkin' bad,
About the way we have to live here in this country,
Harpin' on the wars we fight,
An' gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be.
An' I don't mind 'em switchin' sides,
An' standin' up for things they believe in.
When they're runnin' down my country, man,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Runnin' down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it:
Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'.
If you're runnin' down my country, man,
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.

I read about some squirrely guy,
Who claims, he just don't believe in fightin'.
An' I wonder just how long,
The rest of us can count on bein' free.
They love our milk an' honey,
But they preach about some other way of livin'.
When they're runnin' down my country, hoss,
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.

Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Runnin' down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it:
Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'.
If you're runnin' down my country, man,
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.

Yeah, walkin' on the fightin' side of me.
Runnin' down the way of life,
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep.
If you don't love it, leave it:
Let this song I'm singin' be a warnin'.
If you're runnin' down my country, man,
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me.

Merle Haggard

Me too, Merle!

Jesus, Judging, and Contextomy

2009-07-11T20:27:00.000-07:00

A first glance, two of the three words in the title seem related but not the other. In fact, if you were like me, you may not have ever seen or heard the word before, (and now after seeing it, find yourself having a hard time pronouncing it). Contextomy was a word coined by historian Milton Mayer to describe the practice of quoting a text out of context. He used it to describe Julius Streicher, a Nazi, who misquoted the Torah and Talmudic texts in his newspaper to incite anti-semitism in Germany during WWII.

Contextomy occurs frequently in this post-modern age. Although we might not call it that, we certainly recognize it especially when one suggests that another should not judge 'lest ye be judged.' I don't think anyone speaks Medieval English anymore and yet we know that Jesus Christ minted the phrase two millennia ago. And one may think, albeit incorrectly, that Jesus suggested people not make moral judgments against one another. However reading the passage of Matthew 7:1 in context, Jesus goes on to call other people "pigs," "dogs," and "wolves in sheep's clothing." So, either Jesus was a hypocrite or he had something else in mind when he condemned the Pharisees.

Defending the latter statement, Paul Copan in True for You, But Not for Me, suggests: "What Jesus condemns is a critical and judgmental spirit, an unholy sense of superiority. Jesus commanded us to examine ourselves first for the problems we so easily see in others. Only then can we help remove the speck in another's eye – which, incidentally, assumes that a problem exists and must be confronted." It only takes a few minutes of flipping through the New Testament Gospels and Epistles to see that Jesus and his disciples encouraged a restraining of immorality as it did not reflect the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed.

In the 21st Century there is mass contextomy taking place. "You shouldn't judge!" is demanded of by both Christian and non-Christian circles, perhaps unwittingly and/or ignorantly. If taken as is, wouldn't this statement produce anarchy? No one would be culpable for any wrong doing. Lying, stealing, and cheating would be allowed. Suicide bombers would be justified in their missions. Hitler would not have been wrong. Yet this is not what we say, or think, because we know that these things were wrong. We know that 911 and the Holocaust were examples of gross immorality and yet if one is to remain morally neutral, one could not suggest that Hitler and Bin Laden were wrong. One could not even say that what they did was evil. And yet moral neutrality is demanded by people every day, perpetuating the relativistic non-sense peddled by postmodernists.

The next time someone tells you that you shouldn't judge, ask them "Why Not?" Their answer will require a judgment value itself and the argument will commit suicide. They will be judging you for judging. Let's not delude ourselves or let others delude themselves, for mankind's sake, into thinking that one can maintain moral neutrality when we know that certain things are right and wrong.

Jesus did not remain morally neutral and didn't ask his disciples to be. The ability to judge is consistent with humankind being made in the image of God. So discern what is wrong and see the problem with contextomy.

A Simple Reading...

2009-07-09T03:16:00.001-07:00

This morning my wife and I went to church. The Pastor's message came from 1 John 3 and it was about the love of God; how He pronounced it, illustrated and demonstrated it to his children. It was a wonderful message and my love for my Lord and His Word increased. Sometimes, however, like Sunday, it is not the exposition of a biblical text that satisfies but rather a plain reading of Scripture that both nourishes the soul and draws one to repentance...again:

"If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who does right has been born of him. See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. The reason that the world does not know us is that it did not know him."

"Everyone who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he was revealed to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. Little children, let know one deceive you."

"We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us--and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?"

"And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us. All who obey his commandments abide in him, and he abides in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit that he has given us."

Thanks be to God for sending His son so that we may have a perfect example of love, and be reminded again of who we are and what we are being asked to do.

G.K. Chesterton: the "Prince of Paradox"

2009-06-30T04:37:00.000-07:00

I am currently reading through, albeit obstinately, G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. According to Wikipedia he was, "one of the most influential English writers of the 20th Century." Standing at 6'4 weighing nearly 300lbs G.K. was an intimidating figure however his quick wit and humor softened the hearts of both friend and foe. He was a journalist, fiction writer, and Christian apologist, and his book called the Everlasting Man was influential in the conversion of C.S. Lewis.

From the little that I have read of Chesterton, I have found his writing difficult to understand. He writes so intelligently and with such depth that I find myself re-reading one sentence many times over. Time Magazine calls him the "prince of paradox," turning sentences time and again throughout his writings. Here are a couple of examples taken from Orthodoxy:

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."

"Oddities only strike ordinary people. Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining about the dullness of life." pg. 13

"Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess players do. Mathematicians go mad; but creative artists very seldom." pg. 14

It would have been a pleasure to meet and learn from this wonderful man but for now his book will have to suffice.

Beggars CAN be Choosers

2009-06-25T18:42:00.000-07:00

Have you ever been confronted with your own commonly held maxims? Last week, as I pulled up to a stoplight, I saw a young man standing on the boulevard holding a sign that read: "Hungry and Homeless." I had some food left over in my lunch that I thought he could have. I stopped beside him and rolled down my window. The conversation went something like this:

Me: Hey man, all I have is half a sandwich

man: that's fine. It's not like I'm gonna say no.

Me: Hope you don't mind, it's peanut butter and jam.

man: (gasp, pause...awkward)

Me: (immediately) ...unless you have a peanut allergy...

man: Oh, No thanks! (as he throws his head back), I have eaten way too many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, I just can't eat them anymore, no way! (chuckle, followed by some vague reference to consuming too much pbnj four years ago)

Me: (gasp, pause...awkward) Alright, sorry man, take care. (green light)

I didn't know what to say or think. I drove off baffled and confused, not knowing what to make of his sign and the non-transaction between us. Be sure that I was not in the least bit offended by his rejection nor am I now detracted from offering food to those who are 'homeless and hungry.' Also, it is not my intention to make a moral judgement one way or the other about those who seek food and money in between passing cars. He did mention however that he wasn't going to decline anything I would give him. So the question remains, "Was he really hungry in the first place?"

The Abortion Quadrilemma

2009-06-21T19:42:00.000-07:00

This post draws largely from Peter Kreeft's podcast entitled Pro-Life Philosophy. He is a Catholic Christian apologist and professor at Boston College. Below is an abridged version of his pro-life argument based on the format of Blaise Pascal's argument for the existence of God.

Pascal's Wager:

1) God exists and I believe in Him,

2) God exists and I don't believe in Him

3) God doesn't exist and I believe that he does,

4) God doesn't exist and I don't believe that He does.

In 2/4 cases the person is right, but if the person is a skeptic, he/she remains undecided. However, one is embarked on the journey of life and so they have to choose.

1) God exists and you believe in him=Heaven/infinite happiness,

2) God exists and you don't believe in him=no happiness,

3) God doesn't exist but you believe in him anyway="john lennon is right, as is vladimir lennon"

4) God doesn't exist and you don't believe he does-you are right, but gain nothing in terms of happiness, no payoff-you're dead.

So the only combo for winning anything is God exists and you believe in him. This is not necessarily an air tight argument for God's existence and Pascal is not the focus of this post. However, Kreeft uses the same format of Pascal's wager and asks the abortion skeptic to consider his quadrilemma:

What is abortion in each of these four cases?

1) If you know that the fetus is a person and you kill him/her=murder

2) If you know that the fetus is not a person and you kill it? It's okay, it is excising cells.

3) Don't know that the fetus is a person, but in fact it is, and you kill it anyways=manslaughter

4) Don't know that the fetus is a person, and it happens that it is not a person and you abort=lucky but morally reprehensible

Kreeft likens the last two choices to these scenarios: If you are driving on the highway at night and you see a box and there appears to be something in it, but you can't quite make out what it is, would you drive over it anyways and hope that there was no one in there? Or if you and your partner are hunting in the woods but have become separated and something moves in the bushes 20 yards from you, do you shoot at it and hope that it was not your partner?

"Pro-lifers get accused of claiming to know when life begins however can a pro-choicer prove that it doesn't begin at conception? The skeptical argument works in favor of anti-abortion rather than the reverse. If we can agree to be skeptical, this is the strongest possible argument for not having an abortion."

My Blog

2009-06-10T21:00:00.000-07:00

It is with great excitement and trepidation that I have entered the blogosphere. Excitement because I have been wanting to create one for a while now. I know that I am a verbal processor and ideas generally make sense to me when I hear myself. This blog will be a journal of those ideas. (Does this make me a textual processor?) There is also a sense of trepidation in starting a blog. Critique and scrutiny are inherent liabilities while posting in cyberspace. Already I have looked up the word 'trepidation' just to make sure that it is not mispelled and it is the right word I want to use to articulate my "consternation, butterflies, goosebumps, uneasiness, anxiety, worry."

But this is one of the reasons that I am blogging. I just graduated from University with a BA in History yet feel that my prose is not nearly where it needs to be and as an aspiring School teacher, this seems like a good forum to practice in, (is this a dangling participle? I don't like much dangling things and what's a participle?).

The title of this blog is semper reformanda. It is part of the latin phrase 'Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda est,' meaning, "the reformed church must always be reforming." Presbyterians will recognize this as their Church motto. The phrase's etymology however I have yet to discover. Some say it came from Dutch Reformer Voetius while others say it was Martin Luther or John Calvin. Despite it's origin, I thought it would be a good name for a blog and as a student of life, a good maxim to follow. I guess I could have named it "always reforming" but the Latin version sounds better than the English.