Living in a Sex-Saturated Society

Sex sells, but what does it cost?

In the world of dystopian literature, there are two books that stand out as significant works representing warnings of society’s downfall from two distinctly different sources.  The first, 1984 by George Orwell, presents the “Big Brother” concept in which the totalitarian government oppresses its people with total control over every sector of life.  The second, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, presents the concept of a society which is so obsessed with pleasure that they sedate themselves with sex and drugs to the point that nothing else matters but the next dose of pleasure.  Which is scarier: a pit that we’re trapped in or a pit that we choose to trap ourselves in?

I’ll admit that I think in a sense we are headed in the directions of both novels.  There has certainly been an increase in government control and oppression in our modern society, but there has been an even steeper decline into the world that Huxley feared we would create for ourselves: a driving obsession with pleasure that will ultimately destroy us.

I say all of that to get to this: we as a society, not only in America but in the world at large, are obsessed with pleasure.  That applies in a lot of ways, but I’m just going to talk about the biggest one: sex. 

Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry.  Alfred Kinsey is heralded as a hero of science and Sigmund Freud is honored as the father of modern psychology.  Homosexuality and more recently pedophilia are no longer viewed as perversions but “alternative lifestyles.”  While these things have been around for as far back as history goes, they are becoming rampant at a rate that is nearly unprecedented. 

Here’s the thing: society goes through degradation.  That is a simple fact.  How can we as Christians live in a sex-saturated society while not being of it?  We’ve all heard the ultimatums: don’t have sex before marriage, bounce your eyes, and don’t lust after something that isn’t yours.  That’s pretty simple (if you aren’t too sure about the statements I just made, read Matthew 5:27-28, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and Hebrews 13:4).  However, there are some things that are being left out in the chanted mantras among high school Bible classes and youth lectureships. 

I once heard someone say that Satan isn’t very original, he just perverts something God gave as a blessing and makes it into something evil and twisted.  I don’t think that’s ever been more true than with sex.  Hebrews 13:4 says “Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” (MKJV).   This passage is often used to talk about fornicators and adulterers, but let’s think about those that are married for a minute.  Does this say that sex is dirty?  Does this say that sex is evil?  No, much the opposite.  Within the marriage context, sex is part of God’s plan.  The bed is undefiled.  The same was true in the original marriage in Genesis 2:25: “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” (MKJV). 

What is missing is a respect for sex in its proper abode.  We preach not to have premarital sex and to avert our eyes, which is good and right, but neglect to show where sex is meant to be.  Again, we should be preaching against premarital sex and against lust, but if that’s all we do, we are treating the symptoms and not the disease.  A respect for sex in its proper place will lead us to the point where won’t want the perversion.

Let’s say you marry your high school sweetheart, your first love.  The only person you have ever felt anything for.  You are happily married for years with a healthy, loving relationship.  Then one day you come home and find him or her with someone else.  How are you going to feel?  Betrayed.  Because one of the most sacred parts of your relationship has been violated: the exclusive sexual union.

This is especially important for single people to understand.  When we look with desire upon someone who is not our spouse, we are doing the same thing that the third individual in the previous paragraph was doing.  We have violated them and their spouse (regardless of consent), and robbed ourselves of the loving relationship in which the bed is undefiled.  That should disgust us.  It should repulse us. 

When we get that through our minds, we will no longer see how close we can get without crossing the line. 

We will push sexual perversion away like a piece of green meat. 

We will finally see it the way God sees it.

May that day come quickly

Outlawing Criticism

Sometimes history is relevant.

My last post highlighted the troubling violence in our society, which I attributed to a godless society.  I’m going to revisit one of the first signs that we were going away from God in the modern era, and hopefully challenge one of the biggest giants opposing godly reform in our modern society: Kitzmiller v. Dover.

I know some of you might be staring at the computer screen with a rage comics poker face, completely oblivious to the last statement.  I know you are, but frankly I wish you weren’t.  This is something that we ought to be educated on.

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. is a federal U.S. court case from 2004.  The short version of the story is that the Dover area school district had made a textbook supporting intelligent design a mandatory reading, which was challenged on the basis of the First Amendment (no establishment respecting a particular religion).  The court ruled that requiring the book to be read was unconstitutional.  The rest is history.  Now any theory outside of macroevolution is scorned and ridiculed as musings of a moron.

On the surface, this doesn’t seem like such a bad thing.  After all, as a Christian I wouldn’t want my kids to be required to read a text promoting Buddha.  Should we be upset about this?  Let’s take a look at the book itself.

Of Pandas and People, the textbook that started this whole debate, is not what it has been proposed as.  Having read my summary, you probably assume that it is basically a religious text, right?  This is not the case.  The book points out several problems with macroevolution, then goes on to propose intelligent design as a viable alternative without pointing to any particular designer.  Here’s my question: do you want your kids to be a taught a theory which has flaws in it, and the book which shows the flaws in it has been banned?  

This is not good science and it is not good education.

Secondly, let’s talk about the legal grounds of objection.  I said earlier that the objection was made on the grounds of the First Amendment, which is often referred to as “The separation of church and state.”  Here’s the kicker: those words are nowhere in the Constitution. 

Here’s what the First Amendment says:

                “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In this circumstance, did Congress make any law respecting the establishment of religion?  No.  As a matter of fact, this text does not respect the establishment of religion.  As a matter of fact, I would argue that the case’s decision was ultimately an infringement of the First Amendment.

In the decision, the following was stated:

The school board was barred from “maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and 

from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID.”

On the surface, this appears to say that the board cannot force teachers to teach something against their beliefs.  That is good.  However, what does this mean in practicality?  If you are an evolutionist, you’re protected.  You can preach evolution in the classroom until your feet fall off and you collapse of hunger.  Believe intelligent design?  Tough luck.  Done your homework and believe that evolution is flawed?  Too bad.  Your beliefs are not as valid as the evolutionists and therefore you have to teach evolution.  This is respecting establishment of beliefs.  We may not call it a religion, but the same concept is there. 

The unfortunate truth as that as upset as we may or may not be about this case, the damage has been done.  This is why it is more important now than ever to educate ourselves and others about evolution and intelligent design so we can counteract the bias within our current system.  At the end of the day, we cannot blame our society on the school system.  It is the responsibility of parents as well as individuals to educate their kids (and themselves).  We were asking for trouble when we made the education system the parents of our children.

Don’t eat what others feed you.

Before you comment a single word, search the facts.  The facts from both sides.

Intellectual honesty is the path to freedom.

                                                                                                                             

The Birth of a Tragedy

They have my undivided attention.

I remember 9/11 pretty well.  I was sitting in the living room of our old house in Orleans watching the television in horror as my 8-year old brain digested an all-too-obvious yet still terrifying fact: we have been attacked.  I didn’t think it was possible.  America was always an impenetrable fortress in my mind and war a thing of history that wouldn’t ever happen to us again, at least not in my lifetime.  Yet I watched those assumptions melt away before my very eyes.  The worst part was that, at the time, we didn’t know who was attacking us or why.  Even for an 8-year-old child who couldn’t fully understand the situation, it was terrifying. 

I thought that would be a unique event in my lifetime. 

It hasn’t been.

Columbine.  Virginia Tech.  Sandy Hook.  These tragedies struck our hearts at their core as we mourned for the innocent victims mercilessly slaughtered like animals.  Then, while we were busy contemplating gun control, two young men decided to blow up some runners at the Boston Marathon. 

I was horrified. Beyond horrified.  These terrorists didn’t even make a public proclamation like self-righteous jihad killers.  They just wanted to kill some people.  Bloody.  Violent.  Twisted.  Evil.  That’s how we see this, and I concur with every fiber of my being.  I pump my fist along with the crowds who call for their lives as penalty.  I feel disgusted.  I feel wronged.  I feel attacked. 

I am tired.  Tired of feeling afraid.  Tired of feeling in danger.  Tired of feeling wary that anyone on the street could be the next sadistic maniac to pull out a Glock and start shooting people or pull a hunting knife and start stabbing everyone.  None of us “sign up” for life, but none of us would have signed up for this. 

I want to do something.  I want to take all weapons from everyone, take all of the mentally unstable individuals and lock them up, anything to stop this from happening again.  But here’s the honest fact: I can’t stop it. 

If we know a man named Steve will be the next killer, we can’t stop it.  We take the guns, he’ll use a knife.  We take the knives, he’ll use a bow.  We take the bows, he’ll use a hammer.  We take the hammers, he’ll use a club.  It’s pretty hard to outlaw wood.

We’ve been treating the symptoms and not the problem.  The problem is in our spiritual condition.  We as humans are to blame.  We have been acting out in rebellion to God as long as history has come and gone and this is what we reap for our actions.  We have been begging for a society without God.  As He does when asked, He is bowing out, and this is what it looks like.  Is this really what we want?

Quoth the Raven

Since I’m on Spring Break, I have found the time to watch a few movies that I’ve always wanted to see but have never taken the time to see.  Earlier this week I watched The Raven, a film directed by James McTeigue (The Matrix trilogy, V for Vendetta, Star Wars Episode II) starring John Cusack as Edgar Allen Poe.  In The Raven, a serial killer is using Poe’s literature as inspiration, matching every detail of his gruesome killings to Poe’s horror stories.  Upon the film’s ending, I found myself locked in mental discussion for a good part of the night.

The film’s depiction of Poe is interesting.  He is an underappreciated and misunderstood writer whose genius the audience accepts, but his world renounces.  He is looked down on as a drinker and a troublemaker, although he does have a few admirers.  He is involved in a relationship with a young girl named Emily, though it is behind her father’s back and she pretends to despise him.  That is threatened to change, however, when she wants to marry him.  That revelation could put Poe’s life in danger from her father, but alas, she doesn’t get the chance.  She is kidnapped by the psychotic killer first.  Thus begins a thrilling chase that will drive the maddened poet to the very brinks of his shaky sanity.

SPOILER ALERT

After many twists and turns, Poe faces the killer.  Ironically, the killer is an admirer who considers himself an artist much the same as Poe.  In a desperate search for his beloved Emily, he makes an agreement with the man.  He drinks poison in exchange for being told Emily’s location.  He is able to find her before the poison takes full effect, and later dies on a park bench, but not before giving a concerned man information to give to Detective Fields that leads him to the killer’s identity and subsequent arrest.  Given that this is a take about Edgar Allen Poe, we all knew he was going to die.  That doesn’t stop the ending from leaving us with disappointment.

There’s a lot to be said for this film.  I was hesitant to watch it at first because I don’t want to be somebody that enjoys the suffering of others.  However, after reading some reviews of it, I decided to give it a shot.  The film is bloody at times, one of the killer’s murders is done by a swinging blade that cuts into his abdomen, and another is by a somewhat graphic slitting of the throat.  The real depth of the film, though, comes at the end.

Poe’s discussion with the killer reveals the murder to be a very disturbed individual.  He is a psychopath, and even considers himself to be an artist.  Poe recognizes that, showing that he at least has enough sanity to realize the difference between his stories and the gruesome executions of his adversary.  It is a very scary reality that he faces.  That shows me that we are dealing with danger when we entertain with violence and bloodshed.  The real message, though, comes with Poe’s sacrifice.

Poe recounts the story of his beloved wife’s death.  He speaks of his love for her and his horror when she became sick and started coughing up blood.  He says that after she died his life was left in ruins.  That is, until he met Emily.  When it came down to it, his love for her was selfless.  He was willing to sacrifice himself in order to save her life.  Amidst a culture that professes love as liking that which makes me feel good, this is a refreshing message.  At the end of  the film, I did not find myself basking in the violence.  Rather, I found myself asking the question: would I have made the sacrifice that Edgar Allen Poe made? 

Canadian Pro-Lifers and Freedom of Speech

Yesterday Linda Gibbons, a Canadian who is a Christian and a staunch pro-lifer, was released from prison after five years.  When I first read about her, I was kind of surprised at her circumstances.  She has been in and out of prison for the last ten years due to her stance on abortion and her zealous activism.  That surprised me.  Although Canada does not have as much freedom of speech as the United States, I still didn’t expect someone to be in prison due to speaking out against abortion.  Then I kept reading.

First of all, it is important to understand the differences between Canada and the United States.  Canada also guarantees freedom of speech but not under the exact same terms.  Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of speech as a “fundamental freedom,” but section 1 of the same document allows the government to pass laws that limit freedom of expression so long as the limits are reasonable and can be justified.  As you can see, that “exception” is extremely broad and allows the government a manner of control over their freedom of speech, legitimized by their charter.  One example is that it is illegal to speak out against homosexuality in Canada; it is classified as illegal under the term “hate speech.” 

Canada also differs from the United States when it comes to abortion.  There are no legal restrictions on abortion, so it is considered a valid medical route.  That being said, there are activists in Canada that are fighting against it.  Which brings me back to Linda Gibbons. 

When I first read about Linda Gibbons, it sounded as though she was being imprisoned for being an activist.  Naturally, I was very upset.  However, there is more to the story.  The way that she had been protesting abortion is by protesting outside of abortion clinics.  There are some discrepancies on what all was going on, some reports indicate that she was supposedly harassing people, others indicate that she was peacefully protesting.  Her arrests have been on the basis of harassment, and most recently, violation of an injunction which order her not to come within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. 

The Canadian publication National Post did an interview with her and her responses sound a lot like what Peter and John said to the Jewish elders in Acts 4 and 5.  Others have suggested that her zeal would be better directed in counseling. 

I appreciate Linda Gibbons’s attitude toward the life of the unborn.  However, I want to ask a serious question.  How much good is she doing?  Some of the most encouraging pro-life campaigns I’ve heard of come in the form of pregnancy centers that give frightened and isolated pregnant women a viable alternative.  Those have done a lot of good.  How much good does protesting outside of abortion clinics do?  Let me ask it another way.  Why didn’t the apostles march straight up to the Jewish leaders and protest against them and demand that they repent?  It wouldn’t have done much good.

We ought never to back down from preaching the truth.  We should, however, think about what our actions show and what the wisest approach to take is.  While there is a respectable and legal way to preach the truth, we ought to take it.  It is not until those options are depleted that we ought to act in rebellion to the law.  Let’s avoid acting in such a way that would give someone an excuse to call us loud, self-righteous bigots and do what God told us through Paul in the letter to the Ephesians: Speak the truth in love.  Always remember Colossians 4:6: “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.”

Dressing Up for Church

I admit that I don’t have a real good grasp on who all is reading this blog.  I know that some of you are Christians like I am.  I’m betting that some of you grew up going to church and so you were raised with certain ideas about church.  If that’s the case, I’m about to challenge one of them, and I hope you can take a minute to clear your head and be open-minded about it, because it is not one that people tend to be very understanding of.

My parents are Christians, so I grew up going to church.  Most of the time I dressed up a little bit.  I didn’t always wear a tie, but I didn’t ever wear jeans on Sunday morning.  My father believes that you ought to dress up for church and my mother believed that it wasn’t as important and should be an individual choice, and since I was fortunate enough to grow up in a home where we discussed these kinds of issues, I got to hear both sides of the argument.

Traditionally, it has been expected that when you attend worship service, you dress up.  That starting to change in our culture.  The belief that you ought to dress up for worship services is now being associated only with older Christians, and not the with the younger generation.  This shift is one worth looking into, because my generation has got a lot of things wrong.  There are many people in my generation would rather be entertained than worship God and would rather be comfortable than hear a challenging lesson.  Unfortunately, that has motivated many churches to make their services and their activities more about entertainment because they are afraid of losing the younger generation.  That pushes them farther and farther until many churches now are so unrecognizable, I have little doubt that Jesus would do a few cleansings of churches were He still on the earth.  I don’t want to contribute to the problem.  So I ask the question: should we dress up for church?

Given the fact that so many people older and wiser than me think that you ought to dress up for church, I would think that there is some scriptural basis for it.  Here’s the honest truth: there isn’t.  The only passages I can find on dress one way or the other is like what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:9: “likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” 

The point of 1 Timothy 2:9 in context is that women ought not to dress up in order to draw attention to themselves.  When you read 1 Timothy, you get the impression that the Ephesians (Timothy was at Ephesus) had a big problem with pride, and 1 Timothy 2:9 addresses that.  It gives us an interesting concept, though.  If the Bible says anything about how we ought to dress, it tells us not to dress up! 

The argument that I often hear is that it is a matter of respect.  That you dress up for a funeral, so you ought to dress up for God.  This is a fool’s smokescreen.  We all know that our lives as Christians are to be lived 24/7, not just during services.  So if it really is about respect, why don’t we walk around in suits all of the time?  If we really believe that it is a matter of respect, then doesn’t that mean we are living a double standard?  One measure of respect outside of the building and a greater one inside of the building (where everyone can see us)? 

It is not about respect.  It is about cultural acceptance.  It is not culturally acceptable (generally speaking) to come to a funeral in jeans and a hoodie.  It didn’t used to be culturally acceptable to come to church in jeans and a hoodie either.  Where we have erred is in going to the scripture seeking a way to make a cultural thing that we practice binding on other people.  Is this really any different than the Pharisees, who condemned Jesus’s disciples for breaking the traditions of the elders in Matthew 15?  It is no different.

I am not condemning people who dress up.  If you want to, that’s great.  You should do as your conscience dictates.  I will, however, say this: people often equate dressing casually for church with taking it lightly, as though it is just another part of their life.  I see another interpretation.  After all, if we truly can treat worship service as another part of our lives in that we are serving God so much that worshipping God on Sunday is normal for us since we are serving Him all of the time, is that really such a bad thing?

Trees and Chaff

On Sunday night after services I went to a Bible study that was led by a friend of mine.  It was about the analogy in James 1:23-25 comparing the word of God to a mirror.  He concluded by talking about how we always manage to find time for leisure activities and hobbies, but we somehow find ourselves too busy to devote time to the study of God’s word.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading in the psalms this semester.  There’s a few of them that have jumped out at me as having some particularly applicable messages.  One of those is Psalm 1.  Psalm 1 is interesting.  It is a stark contrast of the wicked and the righteous.  The psalmist starts by saying “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the path of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful.”  I have often noticed the progression of that opening: how sin is progressive.  First you walk and talk with sinners, then you stop to check them out, and before you know it you are sitting among them as one of their own.  There’s more to this psalm though.  If you only know what not to do, righteousness can escape you.  This psalm tells what to do: “but his delight is in the law of Yahweh, and on His law he meditates day and night.” 

We put a lot of focus on not sinning.  We look at the world and the things that people do and we say that we must resist those temptations.  This is very true.  We definitely should.  Unfortunately, though, we often neglect to mention how we should go about doing that.  Ephesians 6:10-18 compares our lives as Christians to warfare.  In listing the armor of God, the only weapon that is offensive is the sword of the spirit – the word of God!  In Matthew 4, Jesus used scripture to combat Satan’s attacks.  Given the fact that Jesus was the only person ever to resist temptation every single time without fail, I think it’s safe to say that his strategy is the one we should employ. 

All of this is pretty easy to agree to.  It’s another thing to implement it.  That’s what you tell yourself, isn’t it?  I’m going to suggest something else.  It’s easy to implement.  We just don’t do it.  How hard is it to not play video games for a half hour so that you can read your Bible?  Not read a book for a half hour?  Not watch Netflix for a half hour?  Not hang out with your boyfriend of girlfriend for a half hour?  Get the picture?  The truth is, it is not that hard to pick up the Bible and read it for a little bit every day.  The problem is we don’t do it. 

Why don’t we do it?  I’m going to venture to say that we are self-focused.  It’s true that many of us are busy people.  I’m not denying that.  But ask yourself this: in all of your busyness, is there at least one television show that you keep up with (if it is on Netflix, it still counts)?  Is there a book series that you are reading right now? 

Let’s think about the way that we use our time.  Because if we’re going to be, as Psalm 1 says “a tree planted by streams of water” and not “chaff which the wind blows away,” we’re going to have to spend time in the word.

Should Christians Be Preoccupied with Guns?

Earlier this week, I wrote about Christians and gun control and proposed that a Christian can be pro-gun.  I hold to that and hope that it was thought-provoking for you if you read it.  If you haven’t read it, you may want to scroll down a little bit and read it first, because it is a good disclaimer for some of the things I am about to say.  The question that I ask in the title, though, is a very sincere question.  I know a fairly decent amount of Christians who own guns.  A lot of those Christians really like guns.  They use them for hunting, for recreation, and love to watch movies with a lot of guns and a lot of action.  So I ask an honest question: should we as Christians be so preoccupied with guns?

I believe that Christians have the right to defend themselves and their families.  I do not doubt even for a second that guns can be used in that role.  I won’t take the time to spell out all of my reasons for that because I’ve only got so much room here before you guys take one look at this post and say “Dude, I am not taking a half hour to read this thing.”  If you’re more curious about my reasoning behind that, let me know in a comment and we can discuss it further.  The point is, Christians have a right to defend themselves and their families and guns can fulfill that role.

What is a Christian’s attitude towards violence, though?  I see Jesus telling his disciples to carry a sword in Luke 22, but beyond that what I see is not a preoccupation with violence.  On the contrary, I see violence as a grim reminder that sin exists in the world.  The first act of violence in the Bible is Cain killing Abel in Genesis 4.  Cain’s punishment is severe, showing that violence is not something looked favorably upon by God.  Among the seven things that God hates in Proverbs 6 are hands that shed innocent blood.  On the contrary, the picture of God’s people in Isaiah 2 shows them turning their weapons into agricultural tools. 

Here’s the thing: weapons do have a legitimate use for the Christian.  However, it should absolutely be the last resort and it should pain us to have to hurt another person.  I fear that many of us would rejoice at the opportunity to use a weapon on an evildoer, not mourn that violent action had to be taken upon one of God’s lost children.  Read that last sentence again.  It sounds different when you put it in that light, doesn’t it?

We are to be a people of peace.  People of peace are not obsessed with weapons of war.  I often wonder what Jesus thinks of us in our current circumstances.  It helps me remind myself that it is not that Jesus “was,” Jesus is.  So what does He think of our  preoccupation with guns?  Somehow I can’t see Jesus getting excited about machine gun slaughters in the movies or the precision of an AR-15.  Are we being Christ-like in the things that we pursue?  Or have we so removed our ambitions to be like Christ that he never enters that facet of our life?  Do we remove the thought of him so that we don’t have to feel guilty for having an interest in something that doesn’t fit Him?  If Christ is our all, He must fit into every facet of our lives, not only those that are most convenient.

The Problem with the Pro-Gun Position

After my last post, this title might seem a little odd.  After all, I just spent a lot of time telling all of you that Christians can be pro-gun, right?  Why would I turn around and talk about why that’s a problem?

Well, the two are not entirely contradictory.  I still hold to the belief that a Christian can be pro-gun (can be, not has to be).  However, there’s an issue that I’m seeing in this whole debate.  Gun control has been a debate for a very long time, but more recently it has been a reaction to the tragedy at Sandy Hook.  

Politicians and advocates of gun control have reacted to the violent shooting, and gun owners immediately have reacted in defense of their rights to own guns.  “If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns!” and “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!”  There’s one thing that the pro-gun people are missing though.  If you don’t want guns to be controlled, how do you suggest we stop the violence that results in tragedies like Sandy Hook?

Here’s what I see happening: we don’t want our guns taken away.  I hesitate to say “toys” and I hesitate to say “weapons” because guns are different things to different people.  To the married man with three small kids who lives in a dangerous city, it means protection for his precious children.  To the gun enthusiast who lives in the backwoods of Kentucky, it means recreation.  Regardless, these people have something to lose so they react defensively.  I understand that.  However, we need to grapple with this: SOMETHING needs to be done.

The Washington Post reports that 84 people died in mass shootings in 2012, not including the shooters that killed themselves.  New Republic reports that 45% of the deaths due to mass shootings in the past 30 years have happened in the last 6 years.  There are no signs that the numbers are going to stop increasing anytime soon. 

I’m not saying that this means that the pro-gun position is indefensible.  On the contrary, I hope that we can take care of this problem without strict gun control.  What I am saying, though, is that we cannot spit in the face of Americans concerned about violence, tag them as “mindless liberals” and not offer an alternative solution.  Something needs to be done.

This is normally the part where I offer my solution to the mess.  Unfortunately, at this point, I don’t have a very good one.  I have been inclined to say leave the laws on how many guns and how much ammo you can buy alone and tighten the laws on who can buy guns so that dangerous people can’t get their hands on guns.  However, would that really work?  The man responsible for the shooting at Sandy Hook killed his mother and stole her guns with which he shot the kids at the school.  I don’t have an answer.  I’m looking for one.  This is an unresolved problem with the pro-gun position.  So I ask you, what is the solution?  

The Christian and Gun Control

I debated whether or not I should write this article for a long time.  I put it off for a while because I thought a lot of people were saying and writing things about it, and there were other things that had been neglected that I wanted to address.  However, there is a lack of clear thinking on this issue.  So I’m going to talk about gun control.

I’m going to start by giving you what my politics are on the issue, because that no doubt influences my views somewhat.  I don’t like labels, but if I have to take one, I’d label myself as a conservative.  I break that mold on certain occasions, but in general, I believe that capitalism works and the government should give its people as many freedoms as it can without endangering them.  I believe that the Second Amendment is referring to the rights of the citizen to arm himself or herself and that ought not be infringed.  I do believe that we ought to have better background checks and more strict regulation in terms of who can have guns so that incidents like Sandy Hook don’t happen.  My belief is that the problem is in the killer, not the weapon of choice.  I will probably go more in depth with this at another time, but for now that is all I will say.

That covers my base view of gun control.  My view on it as a Christian becomes more complicated, or at least deeper.  You see, just because the government grants me the right to do something, that doesn’t mean I should do it as a Christian.  When I turn 21 in November, it would be perfectly legal for me to buy all kinds of alcohol and drink until I’m well past drunk.  The command for Christians is to not be drunk.  The question then becomes what the Bible says about what we use guns for.

I think it’s fair to say we can legally use guns for basically three purposes: hunting, recreation (the shooting range, for example), and self-defense.  Since the question is really about violence and not about recreation or hunting, I’m going to take a look at self-defense.  Does a Christian have the right to defend himself or herself with violent or even lethal action?

The passage that is often used with this is Matthew 5:39, the passage that tells us to turn the other cheek.  It’s pretty hard to turn the other cheek when you’re shooting at somebody.  That, I grant, is true.  However, if that is how we are to understand Matthew 5:39, why does Jesus tell his disciples to take up swords when he sends them out (Luke 22:36)?  Doesn’t that seem contradictory?  When you look at the context of Matthew 5, I suggest we ought to understand it in terms of taking mistreatment by those in the world, not when people are trying to kill us or our family members.  It seems pretty clear that Jesus instructed them to take swords to defend themselves.  I doubt they were using them as razors.

Before we leave this topic, there’s one more thing I want to address.  1 Timothy 5:8: “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”  Let’s say I get married and have kids.  One night somebody breaks into the house.  They have a knife.  They go straight for my 3-year old daughter.  If I don’t protect my daughter, am I providing for her?  I will grant that the passage is speaking primarily of financial means in the context, but let’s use our brains.  If I do not defend my daughter, am I providing for her?  I submit to you that I have a God-given responsibility to protect my family.

In closing, I want to offer a caution.  My point is that a Christian can use a weapon in the defense of himself and his family. That does not mean, however, that to be against guns is the anti-Christian position.  I want to make that clear.  It simply means that being pro-gun is a defensible position for a Christian to have.  I also don’t want to leave this topic without including Romans 13:1-2: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” 

We have every right to arm ourselves in defense of ourselves and our families.  We do not have the right as Christians to take up arms in rebellion against our government, no matter what rights they take away.  The principle in Matthew 5 is important here.  When we are mistreated, we are not to retaliate.  That much is clear.  So if you are a Christian and you are pro-gun, that’s great.  Just remember where your boundaries lie, lest we be found to resist what God has appointed.

There's a Storm Brewing

I’ve read through the book of Acts many times in my 20 short years.  I’ve been in a lot of Bible studies on the book of Acts.  One thing that often gets a lot of attention is the persecution that the Christians had to endure.  In Acts we read of floggings, stonings, murders, all kinds of things.  Historically we know of other things also, such as Christians being fed to lions, and Christians being lit on fire to light the streets of Rome at night.  The thing it often comes back to as that we are glad that those days are behind us.

Except they’re not.  We often forget about our brethren in other parts of the world, in which physical persecution is just as much a reality for them as it was for the Christians in the first century.  A few years ago, I heard about a brother in China named San Fernando from a mutual friend.  San Fernando was a brave man.  He was imprisoned for being a Christian.  The soldiers beat him and whipped him repeatedly.  He became blind in one eye as a result of those beatings.  They would pour water out on the ground in front of him, saying he could be free if would renounce Christ.  He never did.  Thankfully he was released after several years of imprisonment.  Some aren’t.  Those days are not behind us, my friends.

Here’s a few countries that are hostile to Christians: China, North Korea, Egypt, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Ethiopia, and India.  That’s not by any means in exhaustive list.  I commonly hear that over 40 nations in the world are hostile to Christianity.  That is a lot of Christians facing physical persecution, perhaps even death for their faith.  We forget about them a lot.  Next time you read about persecution, don’t think about how glad you are that those days are behind us.  Think about and pray for the Christians for whom this is very much a present reality.

I have a second point, though.  Physical persecution is not the only persecution there is.  In Matthew 5:11-12, Jesus says “"Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.  Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”  Here the focus is not so much on physical persecution, it is more on verbal persecution.  Are Christians persecuted verbally in America?  You better believe it.  I’ve been called retarded for my faith and I’m sure you have too. 

It doesn’t stop at verbal slander though.  The storm is brewing stronger.  We are seeing a growth of government control in suppressing religious expression that is growing with time.  It started with the misuse of the Establishment Clause.  Now it’s growing.  The Family Research Council and Liberty Institute released a report last year on Christian persecution in America.  Here’s some of the incidences they found: A federal judge threatened a high school valedictorian with incarceration if she didn’t remove references to Jesus from her graduation speech.  The state of Texas has sought to regulate what religious seminaries can teach.  The U.S. Department of Veterans banned the mention of God from veteran’s funerals, overriding wishes of the family.  A federal judge said that prayers made before a House of Representatives could be made to Allah, but not to Jesus.

You get the idea.  Stuff like this is becoming more and more prevalent.  Here’s the point I want to make: we may not be facing the kind of persecution that Christians in China are facing, but that doesn’t mean that we won’t eventually.  If we can’t handle the verbal taunts that we’re facing now and still remain faithful, we won’t be faithful when the real trials come.  Let’s take the advantage of this easier time to prepare ourselves.  As for myself, I know what I will do.  I will take strength in Yahweh.  If Satan ever brings the hosts of Hell down on the United States of America, I’ll be ready.  Will you?

Rand Paul, John Brennan, and Katniss Everdeen

I like to keep up with stuff that happens in the political world.  That proves to be awful difficult, though, when you don’t watch the news and just happen to pick up on what you see or hear.  As a result, I get behind and people talk about stuff and I have no idea what’s going on.  Recently I’ve heard about Rand Paul and him being commended and I had no idea what it was about.  So I looked into it.  It turns out that it is a recent development on something I’ve already read about that has me pretty concerned.

Here is the basic background to what is happening.  The Obama administration believes that it has the right to conduct drone strikes on American citizens on American soil if they are believed to be involved in terrorist activity.  No arrest, no trial, no sentencing.  This has caused quite an uproar and has sparked controversy in several issues, including the value of life, the rights of the American citizen, and what the limits of executive power are.  This culminated on Wednesday, when the appointment of John Brennan as the director of the CIA was being discussed.  Brennan has been a staunch supporter of the administrations drone policy, so naturally some of our more reasonable members of Congress had a problem with his appointment, Rand Paul being one of them.  So in response, he filibustered Brennan’s appointment.

If you aren’t familiar with what a filibuster is, it is basically when a politician wants to protest a decision, so he or she speaks for hours during the meeting so that the vote is either delayed or prevented.  Paul spoke for just shy of 13 hours.  Now that is one dedicated politician.

The unfortunate result was that Brennan was still voted in.  The question I must ask, then, is did it do any good?  In general, I am not a fan of filibusters.  It seems to me that they do very little in practicality, but I will say this: at least the man did something.  During his filibuster, Paul said “if there was an ounce of courage in this body, I would not be here alone.”  Why is Mr. Paul alone?  Are we all okay with giving one man the power to kill an American citizen without any arrest, trial, conviction, or sentencing?  I think not. I daresay that Paul may not be the only one in Congress who feels this way.  But he’s the only one with the courage to stand up and say so.

The most despicable part of this whole mess is the value we are placing on human life.  It is a trend that 

seems to be increasing every time I turn around.  Planned Parenthood executed a record 333,000 unborn babies last year.  Euthanasia is now legal in the states of Washington, Montana, and Oregon.  Now the President thinks he has the right to convict and kill any American who is suspected of being of involved in terrorist activity.  Human life is becoming increasingly disposable. 

Today I started reading The Hunger Games.  A lot of the books I read describe worlds that I wish were real and that I would love to be a part of.  Not this one.  It describes a North America that requires her districts to submit a boy and a girl to “The Hunger Games” to fight ‘till the death.  Not only is this necessary, but it is celebrated like a festivity.  It is seen as good.  As right.  Another book I read a while back offered another futuristic look at human life.  In Unwind, abortion has become illegal but parents can, while their child is a teenager, have them “unwound,” a process by which they are salvaged for body parts and organs.  

As I read those books, I appreciate the warnings that they offer regarding where a lack of respect for human life leads.  I like to think we’re a ways off from what those books describe.  But are we?

I'm Going to Argue Semantics

What is your definition of a strong Christian?  We use the phrase “strong Christian” quite a bit, but what do we mean by it?  That’s a question that’s been on mind some, and it is something that I want to nail down.  I’ve often said that I want to be a stronger Christian, but what do I mean by that?  What does it look like?  To be honest, I’ve not been real sure.  I am definitely closer now, and where I am is a little unorthodox.

Here’s the way the logic tends to go: if you spend fifteen minutes a day reading your Bible and fifteen minutes a day praying, you’re a pretty good Christian.  If you spend an hour in either or both, you’re a super-Christian.  You get above that and you’re being robbed if you don’t have a cathedral named after you.  I admit, I’m being a bit sarcastic.  That’s intentional. 

Some nights when I get bored but don’t feel like going to bed, there’s a few channels on YouTube I like to visit.  One of those is blimeycow.  If you don’t know what channel that is, it’s basically a vlog with quick cuts and short skits about cultural and religious issues done in a tongue-in-cheek way.  One of their videos is about “making time” for God.  The video highlights the Pharisaical attitude that this shows.  I recommend it to everyone reading this.

I’m going to suggest something that might be slightly outside of the box.  I don’t think God gave us the Bible so that our service to Him could be in a cycle of cognitive exercises.  Who is a strong Christian, do you ask?  The one that knows when to stop reading and start doing.  I’m not saying that I don’t think that study and prayer are important, they most definitely are.  However, the strong Christian is the one who says “I am going to work for God.”  Not just “I am going to read for God.”  See the difference?

In Joshua 7, we find Joshua in an interesting circumstance.  Achan has stolen from the forbidden spoil in Jericho, but Joshua doesn’t know about it yet.  They go up to attack Ai and get their butts kicked.  In response, Joshua is praying and pleading to God.  God tells him, if I may paraphrase, “Shut up and get up.  There’s sin in the camp, go deal with it.”  Sometimes we need to be told “shut up and get up.”

So what is a strong Christian you ask?  A strong Christian is one who applies everything he reads in scripture and prays about in every single facet of his life.  He looks for ways he can be Christ-like in every possible scenario, even if that means being radical, weird, or socially awkward.  He looks for opportunities to worship God, and opportunities to encourage others to do the same.  He does not only read, but he does.

Penitence

There’s been a lot on my mind lately (as there always is), and I confess what I bring to the table tonight is nothing new.  It is, however, something worth revisiting.

The psalms are an incredible place to spend some time.  In times past, I have often taken the psalms for granted.  I appreciated the prophets for their blunt honesty in dealing with sin, the gospels for the portrayal of Jesus, and the epistles for practical daily living, but I often did not appreciate the psalms for being what they are.  I now appreciate them more.  I’ve been involved with an on-campus study in the psalms and it has been a very humbling study.  In this study, I’ve come to grips with one of the hardest of topics: repentance.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a perfect man.  I’ve messed up quite a bit.  Inevitably, I find myself coming back to God time and time again for repentance.  That’s true of humanity in general, but what I have paid special attention to lately is the way that we pray our prayers of repentance and the way we ask for forgiveness.  In Psalm 38, David says in verses 4-9 “For my iniquities have gone over my head; like a heavy burden, they are too heavy for me. My wounds stink and fester because of my foolishness, I am utterly bowed down and prostrate; all the day I go about mourning. For my sides are filled with burning, and there is no soundness in my flesh. I am feeble and crushed; I groan because of the tumult of my heart. O Lord, all my longing is before you; my sighing is not hidden from you.” 

How do I pray?  I definitely don’t pray like David.  As a matter of fact, most of the time I try to get it over with as soon as possible so that I can feel okay again.  It’s more along the lines of  “God, I sinned, please forgive me” than “My wound stink and fester because of my foolishness.”  That leads me to what I believe the cause of this is.  In the Bible study as the three of us were talking, I realized that I am not the only one that says prayers that simple.  We all do.  Why?  I believe I know the answer, if for no one else for myself, and I doubt that I am the only one who does so for this reason.  My problem is that I am more concerned about being feeling okay again than I am about what it is that I have done to God. 

I remember one time when as a kid I had misbehaved during church.  My mother told me that I would get a spanking when we got home, but when we got home she forgot.  I reminded her.  Pretty dumb kid, right?  But do you know why I did it?  I didn’t like the anxious anticipation.  I wanted to get it over with.  That had absolutely nothing to do with being sorry for what I did (which I don’t remember), I just wanted the knot in my stomach to go away.

Sometimes we act like that with God.  We aren’t really sorry for what we’ve done, we just want to feel okay again.  May I challenge you the next time you go before God in prayer, read Psalm 38 first and think about why you’re really praying.  Don’t aim for stress relief.  Aim for penitence.

The Sleeper Sin of Insubordination

Some of you probably read my title and thought “what in the world is he talking about?”  Let me explain.  I’ve been thinking some recently about the idea of “sleeper sins.” There are some sins that we clearly label and condemn and stay away from.  There are others that slyly slip in.  They slide under our radar as things that can be seen as virtuous, wholesome, or expedient.  C.S. Lewis spoke of the sin of gluttony this way in The Screwtape Letters, speaking from an elderly demon’s point of view: “One of the great achievements of the last hundred years has been to deaden the human conscience on that subject, so that by now you will hardly find a sermon preached or a conscience troubled about it in the whole length and breadth of Europe.”

Since Sandy Hook, gun control has been the favorite subject of everyone with an opinion.  The subject has become especially prevalent among Christians, many of whom I have found are pro-gun.  Whether you are for or against gun control is not the target of this post.  What I want to point out is the way that some Christians are reacting to proposed gun control laws.  The state of New York recently passed a law that made guns with a capacity of more than seven rounds illegal.  It hasn’t actually taken affect yet (it will on April 15^th), but it has caused quite an uproar among pro-gun Americans both inside and outside of New York.  President Obama supposedly wants to enact similar gun regulations nationwide. 

If I’m ever running out of material to write on, sometimes I just browse Facebook until I find something that gets me going.  Sometimes that doesn’t take any longer than ten minutes.  I have seen a lot of posts in the past few months that basically say something like this: “Obama wants to take our guns away.  I hope he’s ready for a revolution.”  Or something like this: “If you want me guns, you’ll have to rip them from my cold dead hands.”  You get the idea.

There’s a problem here.  A pretty big one, too.  Romans 13 says that we are to be in subjection to the governing authorities, for they are established by God.  Is the man who takes part in a revolution in subjection to the governing authorities?  I think you know the answer to that. 

Here’s what a lot of you are going to be saying at this point: “But Logan, the Constitution gives us the right to fight back!”  Listen and listen carefully: I don’t give a hill of beans what the Constitution gives us a right to do.  Like any patriotic American, I believe in the Constitution and I believe that it should be followed.  However (and I do believe we need to be told this, sadly), the Constitution of the United States of America is not an inspired document.  We do not have the right to do something as Christians because the Constitution gives us the right.  We answer to a higher power. 

Secondly, I’ve heard the argument “Because of the Constitution, the government doesn’t have any authority over us!”  Let me frank.  That’s bull.  It’s a smokescreen that we’ve used because we don’t have a way to justify our attitudes.  Search the Constitution for something that says “The government will have no authority over the citizens.”  You won’t find it.  There’s checks and balances to be sure, but if lawmakers and law enforcement really have no power over us, then why haven’t conservatives kicked out Obama?  Because citizens don’t have the authority to do that.  Not without due process. 

Let’s stop pretending.  God tells us to be submissive, so we should be submissive.  End of story.  Otherwise, we will find ourselves fighting God.

Beloved Bystanders

I’m afraid that every day it is getting harder to do the right thing.

Last week, a Florida high school student pulled a loaded gun on another student.  He intended to shoot him for arguing with a friend of his.  Thankfully, another student saw what was happening and grabbed the gun and with help from two other students who jumped in, was able to get the gun out of his hand.  These three students may very well have saved a life.  What was their reward?  Suspension.

There is something very wrong with our society.  Our freedom of speech has been slowly leaving for a while now.  That has been my biggest concern.  Now, however, we punish students not just for speaking up, but for acting when someone’s life is in danger.  This is beyond despicable.

According to the school representatives, they can suspend students when they are involved in some kind of violence.  I suppose the preference, then, would be stand by and watch. 

In 1964, a woman named Kitty Genovese was murdered in New York City.  A lot of people are killed in New York City every year, but the thing that made this particular murder significant was that she cried for help, and her neighbors heard her, but no one did anything.  This story is occasionally brought up in psychology textbooks.  I still remember the first time I heard this story.  I was horrified that something like this could ever happen. 

I’m not sure if this event is indicative of our entire culture, but I do know that even in an individualistic society, conformity is valued more than being a hero.  That’s generally the way things have always been, but this is different.  Normally when someone’s life is in danger, people applaud the hero.  Why did the school suspend these three kids?  Honestly, I have no idea what’s going through their minds, but I am going to use it as a springboard for a tangent that relates.

There’s a guy’s Bible study at my apartment every Monday night.  Recently we’ve been studying 1 Peter, which talks a lot about how the Christian responds to suffering.  I’ve been thinking about that some lately, especially in connection with 2 Timothy 4:12, which says “Indeed, all who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.”  God does not call us to passivity.  God calls us to stand up for the truth.  As we do, though, we may face situations like these, in which we are punished for doing what is right.  In these circumstances, I’m reminded of Peter and John’s response at the end of Acts 5, where after being beaten for preaching Jesus, they leave rejoicing that they had been counted worthy to suffer for Christ. 

I’m not saying that we’re going to be flogged for believing in the resurrection of Jesus starting tomorrow.  What I am saying, though, is that we do experience persecution for doing the right thing, even if it isn’t in exactly the same terms.  We need to be prepared to pay what it costs to do right.  

A Heart Like David's

At the moment, I am looking at a sad situation.  It looks as though I may have to miss services tomorrow morning for the first time in several years.  Actually, I can’t quite recall the last time this happened.  It is due to the fact that I am sick, which is a pretty rare occurrence.  I get sick about once a school year, so I guess my body figured out that Spring Break is almost here, so it was time to get the quota in. 

My sickness isn’t the point though.  The thought of having to miss services saddens me.  Earlier this semester I wasn’t able to make it to Wednesday night Bible study because of an exam.  Then I had a similar feeling: disappointment.  I’m reminded of David who said in Psalms 122:1 “I was glad when they said to me, "Let us go to the house of Yahweh!" 

My life has become increasingly busy lately and there are many schedule-like things that I’ve had to be mindful of.  I have classes.  Now that I’m working for the student newspaper I have deadlines for articles, events to attend, and interviews to do.  I am now writing for this blog every day, so I’m mindful of that.  I also have to study for my classes and make the time to call my parents every once in a while, which I am really bad at by the way.  Amid all of these things that I’m juggling, there’s always “church” on Sundays and on Wednesday nights.  It is really easy for worship to become just another one of those routine things that I do every week, and so I’ve been thinking about how I can keep it from becoming commonplace.  God deserves better than commonplace.

That led me to another thought.  Why is it that in my thinking process, worship to God is restricted only to formal church assemblies?  Is that right?  Is that Biblical?  Now before you label me as a heretic and come knocking on my door with torches and pitchforks, let me clarify that I am not saying that anything and everything in life is worship whether it be fishing, reading, working, or playing.  I am saying, however, that we should worship God outside of the assembly. 

The scripture that is often used when talking about singing to God is Ephesians 5:18-20: “And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  Now here’s the thing: Ephesians is not about assemblies.  Ephesians is about your life as a Christian.  The book talks about our salvation, the marriage relationship, being pure of sin, putting on the armor of God, so on and so forth.  So why have we taken a scripture about our lives as Christians and restricted it to the assembly?

By the time you’re reading this, it will be Sunday.  I may not be worshipping with the saints, but make no mistake about it, I will be worshipping.

The Man Behind the Curtain

Last night, I went to an open lecture on the Purdue University campus that was entitled “Debunking Darwinism.”  It was given by Dr. Gunnar Dieckmann, a Christian chemist who has studied Darwinism and its effects in both historical and scientific contexts.  I went for two reasons.  I work for the student newspaper and I was assigned to cover the event, and I had seen the flyer and was interested in attending anyway.  Interestingly enough, the information that I found most fascinating was not scientific, it was historical.

I should probably mention here that I do not believe in evolution.  If you’ve read very much of my writing, you probably knew that already.  Even so, I had always been under the impression that Darwin’s ideas were very successful even from the start.  I also was under the impression that he was an atheist, since there are very few evolutionists who are not atheists.  Here’s where it gets interesting: neither one of those two facts are true. 

In his book the Non-Darwinian Revolution, Peter Bowler says that Charles Darwin’s ideas were not readily accepted but were even combated by his fellow scientists, and it wasn’t until the 1920s and 1930s, about 80 years afterwards, that his ideas gained the immense popularity that grew to what it is today.  Charles Darwin himself admits that there is controversy over his ideas in On the Origin of Species itself: “For I am aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite those at which I have arrived.” 

Here’s the unfortunate truth: we eat what we’re fed, often with no questions asked.  I myself until recently believed that most Americans accept evolution as a fact.  You would think that were the case, given that it is taught in all of the public schools and state universities, and is treated as an accepted fact by most news media outlets.  However, that also is not true.  The Huffington Post in an article last summer gave the results of an interesting survey.  Participants were asked this question: Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

The results are surprising.  Only 15% answered in favor of atheistic evolution.  32% answered in favor of supernatural (God-guided) evolution, and an incredible 46% gave the answer that God created human beings in their present state. 

My friends, we have been lied to.  We have been led to believe that evolution is a scientific fact and, as Richard Dawkins put it, “Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, insane or hasn't read Jerry Coyne.”  So would Richard Dawkins be willing to say that nearly half of all Americans are stupid? 

Here’s what happening, folks: the evolutionists are the ones in control.  They are the ones in control of the scientific journals as well as much of the media, so they control the illusion that evolution is an undisputed scientific fact and that Charles Darwin was a hero who was embraced by his contemporaries.  That isn’t the truth.  Don’t eat what you’re fed without asking questions, because the poison will eventually kill you.