Not a good sign

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I do sometimes have common sense.

My common sense tells me that the it is likely that as the Baltimore DA was looking at prosecuting the police officers involved in the Gray case he would have wanted to try the strongest case first.   It seems that given the chance of riots if "justice" is not done that they would have wanted to first trial to be their best shot at a conviction.  

The fact that the first trial ended in a hung jury seems to indicate that there was not an overwhelming amount of evidence of the officers guilt.   Or, it is all one big conspiracy designed to encourage other police officers to brutally murder unarmed innocent African American youths for doing nothing.

Anyway, if this continues I suspect that there will be increasing unrest from the pro-Freddie side of things.  Up to and possibly inevitably more riots if "justice" doesn't happen.

The problems with this are twofold.

1.  This is what is going to happen when prosecutions are driven by political considerations and not by evidence of guilt.

2.  There are two many folks out there who define "justice" as seeing these cops get convicted with lengthy prison terms  no matter what the evidence actually demonstrates.


I could be wrong, it is perfectly possible that they will find enough of these officers guilty to satisfy the mobs.   It's perfectly possible that some of these cops are actually guilty and deserve to be punished.   It's also perfectly possible that the mobs will realize that actual justice has nothing to do with their demands and that they will accept whatever verdicts are rendered.

Common Denominator

Has anyone ever encountered someone who manages to alienate virtually everyone they come into contact with?   I think we all probably have.

The guy who was my direct supervisor at work a couple of years ago comes to mind.  Every time he came around all he did was point out all of the things that I hadn't done the way he thought they should be.  To be fair, he did point out some legitimate things I needed to do better, all of which I acknowledged and improved.   At first I really gave a lot of serious though to his criticism, I wanted to as honestly as possible asses my performance and try to figure out if he was right in all of his criticisms.   Then I had the opportunity to see how he interacted with one of the other people he supervised for an extended period of time, who was treated much worse than I was.   At that point, I realized that we were dealing with someone who just sucked at the supervisory part of his job.   He just didn't get it.

I think there are plenty of these types of people around.   They manage to offend or alienate the people they work with and even their friends without necessarily trying.    The thing I wonder is, do they even realize that this is happening.   I tend to see people like this blame others pretty frequently for the broken relationships.    It's almost like they are unaware of how they affect the people around them.

As someone who tries to be as realistic as possible with myself, about myself.  As well as someone who has some people who I can rely on for honest feedback.   What I'd like to ask one of these folks is; "At some point, don't you have to look around, and honestly assess your broken relationships?".   It seems like you have to see the common denominator, which is you.

Honestly, I have a great deal of compassion for people like this, it must be painful to go through life with a trail of co-workers or employees who you've alienated and lots of ex friends.    I'd be interested to see how people deal with this, and I'd love to know how I can be a person who is a positive influence.  

Sometimes I honestly (in the case of my supervisor) just don't care that much and am happy to avoid them as much as possible and be as pleasant as I can when I'm around them.   But in other cases I see the pain, anger, frustration, and discord these folks leave behind and I'm just filled with sadness at all of the carnage.

I know that the first, best answer is to pray both for these people and for those they hurt.  I wish I was better at it.

Hate

Recently, I've seen a lot of people on various media and social media outlets addressing the issue of how to handle the Syrian refugees.   Most of the responses from those who would identify as progressive christians tend to go something like this.

"We need to show love for the least of these because Jesus was once a homeless refugee"

Well, that sounds very loving and pious, but what about specifics?   How specifically do these folks suggest that we show love to these people?

The most common response I've heard is that we need to bring tens of thousands of these refugees to the US, with out screening them to much because they're refugees.  

OK, what then?

What happens after we bring X number of refugees into the US?  

I suspect that a number of these people will end up on some sort of public assistance for  some undefined period of time.  Which, of course, has to be paid for by someone.

So now, this solution looks more like, "We need to borrow billions of dollars to bring X number of refugees into the US and support them indefinitely because Jesus was once a homeless refugee."

Lest anyone think that I am heartless, I realize that there will be situations where it is necessary to do exactly the above.  Is this one of those situations?   I don't know.

Here's where I have a problem with the progressive christian "solution".

1.  It sounds like one more instance of the christian left wanting to make US federal government policy based on what they think Jesus would do.   To me that sounds like a call to at least a limited theocracy.    

2.   While the Bible talks about believers and charity, I'm not sure it ever suggests that the believers obligation to help the less fortunate can be transferred to the federal government and away from the believer.

3.   Does it address the why question?   Why are their all these refugees and what can be done to solve the problem?


Ultimately it's the why that really get's me.    The reason why we have this refugee crisis is that a bunch of radical Muslims want to establish a caliphate and don't appear to care what harm that goal causes for anyone in their way.    Or, put another way, "Why do we have this crisis?  ISIS.".

So, why don't we invest in actually solving the problem?   What would the christian left have to say about the best way to do that?

I haven't actually heard anyone from that side come up with anything that we should do, but I've heard enough about what we shouldn't.

In short, their answer is pacifistic and nonviolent in nature.   Don't fight them.   Don't drop bombs.   Don't make them angry.  Turn the other cheek, because Jesus said so.

I guess my questions is what are these folks actually doing about the root problem?   Is it enough to simply advocate that the US government address the symptom of the problem (refugees) because Jesus, who was a homeless refugee, wants us to?  Or should there be more?

Where are the teams of trained NVDA folks on the ground in the caliphate?    Where are the hospitals and feeding centers in the caliphate opened by the American christian left?  Where are the American progressive christians standing in front of the armed columns of ISIS fighters showing them love in the name of Jesus?    Why is it considered enough to advocate for governmental charity from the safety of suburban America, while not being willing to risk anything by going to where the problem is?   Is it really what Jesus called us to to simply advocate for the spending of other peoples money to succor those in need?

Now, I'm not saying that I have any answers.   But, I'm also not advocating for any specific governmental policy.

Does the government have a role?  Sure it does.
Does the Church have a role?  Sure it does.

I'd just like to see and hear some substantive solutions from the christian left, beyond "Let them in because Jesus was a homeless refugee.".

Any chance of getting any specifics?

???

"President Obama is right. ISIS will be destroyed with an international coalition in which Muslim troops on the ground are supported by the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and other leading powers. We must learn the lesson of Iraq. American troops should not be engaged in perpetual warfare in the Middle East. Further, as we destroy ISIS, it is essential that we do not allow fear and division to undermine the constitutional rights that make us a free people."

I actually agree with Bernie Sanders on this.  I do think that ISIS needs to be "destroyed".  I don think that the "moderate" Muslim nations need to take the lions share of the role of actually doing the destruction.  I think that the failure of the "moderate" Muslim nations to deal with this tends to undermine their credibility and keep the door open the those who think that they secretly support ISIS.   I think that we don't want US troops to be engaged in perpetual war anywhere, but that we can't unilaterally withdraw from confronting evil in the world either.   Finally, I agree that we must not undermine or limit our constitutional rights in the process.


There's no way in the world I'd vote for him, but when he's right he's right.

Even a blind pig...

Authority

"Many of the people I know who reject God or who have crafted a God that makes no demands on them have a fundamental problem with authority.  They don’t want anybody telling them what to do.
For a person who wants complete autonomy, who chafes at the thought of anyone having authority over them, a creator God who makes demands is way inconvenient.
Many people who believe in God, but also have this authority hang-up, create their own version of God.  This God gives them what they want when they want it.  He approves of everything they do, as long as they are just trying to be happy.  He encourages them to follow their desires, wherever they lead.  C. S. Lewis compared this God to a senile, old grandfather who never says “no” to his grandchildren.  You want chocolate for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?  No problem!
Is this the Christian God?  Philosopher Paul Moser answers the question:
It would be a strange, defective God who didn’t pose a serious cosmic authority problem for humans.  Part of the status of being God, after all, is that God has a unique authority, or lordship, over humans.  Since we humans aren’t God, the true God would have authority over us and would seek to correct our profoundly selfish ways.
If you are “worshiping” a God who makes no demands on you, you’re worshiping no God at all.  You’re just trying to find a deity to make you feel good about your selfish choices.  What’s the point?"

Thanks Wintery Knight

Evil

^"7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil."

I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like Jesus is telling His audience that He was going to be killed for testifying that the "works" of "the world" are "evil".

No evidence that there are some things that are "minor", no evidence that there is an in between, just "evil".

I know it's not always wise to build a theology on one verse, and I'm not.   But it also doesn't seem wise to ignore one verse (especially one so clear and direct) either.

 

 

Let's wait...

I heard P-BO on the radio telling the nation that we should wait until all the facts are in before we determine what motivated the 2/3 peaceful Muslims to get all loaded up in their "Tommy Tactical" gear and go on a shooting rampage.   I guess we're fortunate the bombs didn't explode as well.


To be honest, I agree, we should wait until all of the facts are available before we render a judgement.

Unfortunately, this is one more area where the left tends toward hypocrisy.

A few examples.

1.  The rush to put forward ANY alternate theory that suggests that the motivation of the S.B shooters was ANYTHING but terrorism.

2.   The lack of ANYONE in the media or the P-BO administration making any sort of similar statements about the CO shooter.

3.   The rush to label anyone who engages in a "mass" shooting as a white conservative.

4.   The "Don't blame all Muslim's for the actions of a few."  Contrasted with the willingness to apply exactly the opposite standard when it comes to gun owners.

5.   The protests (complete with Molotov cocktails) in Minneapolis demanding "justice" before the investigations even start.

I could go on, but that seems sufficient.   So please, you all on the left.  Heed P-BO's words.   Show a little maturity and patience.   Let's all wait for people to do their jobs before we jump to any conclusions.

Or, if you must jump to conclusions, at least keep them to yourself.

Narrative 2.0

Of course the narrative coming from those in the media and on the left is that we just need more "common sense" or "reasonable" or whatever new gun restrictions.

This narrative ignores several facts.
1.  CA already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US.
2.  The very restrictions that are advocated are virtually identical to those in place in France
3.  Virtually all of these attacks take place in "gun free zones".

Given those facts, one wonders what additional restrictions could be implemented that would have prevented either of these two recent incidents?    Why do we just get vague platitudes instead of specific proposals?


Our state auditor took to Twitter to advocate for some vague new something, but when pressed for specifics was able to provide nothing.   Oh, but she did delete Tweets from people who asked for specifics.

Media Narrative

Many years ago when I was a young naive college student, unaware that university was supposed to provide a "safe" place where I would be free from even the merest hint of offense, I blindly accepted it when my communications professors told me that the job of the media was to report the facts of any given situation while removing as much bias of the reporter as possible.

Now we live in the age of the media narrative, in a rush to produce something original so many media outlets will run with any out of context tidbit and craft a story that fits their view of what should be without reference to context or truth.

We see this with the CO shootings.   There has been a rush to spin one out of context, essentially unverified comment (something about baby parts) into a narrative that blames pro life supporters for expressing disgust about the practices of PP.

This raises questions.

Isn't it possible that the fact that PP was selling human body parts, intentionally harvested to maximize their value would disgust any human being with an ounce of compassion?

Given his external similarities to left wing eco-terrorist the unabomber, wouldn't it be just as reasonable to assume that he was a left wing nut?

 Why isn't the same standard of responsibility applied to the guy who shot up the Family Research Council based on the SPLC labeling them a hate group?

Why minimize the role of the most authentically pro life actor in the whole thing?

If there is so much hate filled vitriol out there, then why have there been so few incidents where abortion providers are attacked/shot/killed?   (Hint 8 over the last 40 years)

Isn't the real story the incredible level of restraint shown by the pro life movement?

Why do we not assign the same types of blame to those who perpetrate terror attacks in the name of saving the planet?

Of course this applies to the various incidents that drive the BLM agenda.

"Hands up don't shoot", demonstrated to be false which doesn't stop the narrative being propagated.

What is the single common denominator to the vast majority of the cities where these police shootings take place?


Why isn't the media who is supposed to be accurately reporting events asking some of these questions?  

Why aren't more people questioning the accuracy of the narrative, before they leap into action?

Why is there such a low value on Truth?

Those darn racists

"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

" I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."


As I've watched Nakima Levy Pounds milk various incidents up here in the Peoples Republic in order to raise her profile, the above racist quotes seem very appropriate.

Justice

"the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals"

 "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments"

 "the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action"

Up here in the peoples republic we've been hearing a lot about "justice" recently.

A couple of weeks ago a black man was shot by police under somewhat murky circumstances.  It appears that this guy was interfering with paramedics who were trying to treat his girlfriend.   It is unknown at this point of he inflicted the injuries which necessitated calling to paramedics in the first place.  It is rumored that he was handcuffed when he was shot.

In my opinion, the most important factor at this point, is that no one really knows exactly what happened.

Given that, the local BLM folks were out immediately making some demands.   

1.  ID the officers.
2.  Make the video public.
3.  Bring in the U.S. DOJ to investigate.

The powers that be quickly caved in to #3, and after getting permission #1.    The problem with #2 is twofold a) at this point it is against the law to release the video, b) the DOJ investigators have stated that it would hamper their investigation to do so.

Given that, the BLM folks decided to block an interstate for a period of several hours, and to protest outside the precinct station where the police were stationed.    I question the wisdom of the freeway blockage for several reasons, 1.  It is clearly illegal, 2.  It is provocative and inconveniences people who might otherwise support the cause, 3.  It denies innocent people emergency (fire, medical, police) services or makes them less timely.

The blockade of the precinct is a whole other matter.  While I support the right of these folks to peacefully and lawfully protest outside the station, and while that's how it started it certainly didn't take long for that to change.   Amid multiple claims of the group to only engage in nonviolent protest, it wasn't long before we saw damage to police cars and property as well as Molotov cocktails being thrown.   

The last big news was that some folks decided to take some pot shots at the protesters and injured 5 of them.   There was a rush to identify the perps as "white supremacists"  and "terrorists", even before anyone knew any facts about the shooters.  Surprising no one but those who want to portray the police as racist thugs, the shooters were quickly apprehended and are being charged.   This ignores that at least one of these suspects was a Hispanic "white supremacist".   Nonetheless, it's safe to say that the police did their job, quickly and efficiently.

Why justice?

One of the chants heard frequently at these protests is "No justice, no peace.".

Essentially demanding a predetermined outcome or else there will be violent protests.

What about that is Justice?   

Why not actually be patient and wait for the facts of the case before threatening violence?

Do they really want to perpetuate what amounts to vigilante vengance?

This also applies to the situation in Chicago where a police officer was recently charged with Murder for his shooting of a black man.   

It seems to me that in Chicago we actually see justice (as defined) playing out, yet the protesters aren't satisfied with actual justice before they protest.

So, do these folks really want justice? Or revenge?

In the MN case, justice could mean that the DOJ investigation exonerates the officer(s) and determines that the black guy was a legitimate threat.   Seems to me that if you want justice, then you have to be satisfied with the just outcome no matter what.   Yet, how many of us think that the officers being exonerated will not result in (violent?) protest.

One other aside, in both the MPLS as well as Chicago situations the dominant political party in charge of these cities is the Democratic party.   The protesters voted these folks into office, they support them, they buy into the Democrats message.    Maybe part of the solution is political.  Maybe part of the solution is not to simply continue to support the same old same old politics as usual.   Maybe part of the solution is not to vote a certain way because everyone else of your race does.

Maybe, part of the solution is to let justice happen whether you like the results or not.

 

Colorado Springs

As of this point we don't know what motivated someone to attack the Planned Parenthood center in CO Springs, it is safe to say that this is a horrible thing and a tragedy.  There is nothing that can justify the taking of innocent life.

While that actions of PP disgust me and many others, I see nothing that would make the actions taken anything other than wrong.

I have to say that the actions of the police officer Garret Swasey who was from all accounts a passionate Christian and profoundly anti abortion, yet he ran toward the gunfire to try to save people who were engaged in actions that he found reprehensible.   Seems like an excellent example of a Christian.

Capitalize

In an earlier post I noted as an aside that the historic use of the pronouns in relation to Jesus or God was to capitalize them.   Yet in a number of quotes I used the "christain" authors chose not to capitalize those pronouns when referring to Jesus.  This practice has continued as things move through the comment threads.  Yet we see the terms; "Jesus' Way of Grace", "Way of Grace" capitalized.   One must wonder why those terms which never appear in the Bible, do not have any sort of actual recognized specific definition., are never ever used by Jesus are capitalized as if they are somehow some codified biblical doctrine.  This is especially curious in light of the failure to capitalize pronouns referring to Jesus.    One has to wonder is the use of capitalization is intended to send a message about the author's view of Jesus, as opposed to his views of an unbiblical "doctrine".

Why?

I wanted to take a look at how folks look at the teachings of Jesus.   There are a lot of facets to this, so I am going to try to not cover too much in any single post.   To me it seems like the place to start is with the question, "If we should follow (or heed, or obey, or take seriously) the teachings of Jesus, what is it about either the teachings themselves or about Jesus that makes them worthy of being followed?".   Why should we follow Jesus teaching?    It seems that if we can't lay that foundation, then none of the rest of it really matters.

Back in the day, it was fairly common to hear people who were not Christian say things like “Jesus was a great moral teacher.”.   This kind of thing is what prompted C.S. Lewis to come up with the “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” formulation as a response.   Now things are a bit different.   We live in a culture where people who claim to be Christians say things like the following.

 (Note, historically the pronouns referring to Jesus are capitalized to indicate His divinity.  One must wonder why to writers of the following quotes, who all identify as a Christian, chose not to capitalize.  Is it possible that it is a way to minimize or deny Jesus claims to divinity?)

“The original sin of Christianity is to think it’s about Jesus.”

“Jesus may have been a historical figure, but most of what we know about his is in the form of legend.”

“Many liberal or progressive Christians have already let go or de-emphasized belief in Heaven, that the Bible is literally true, that Jesus is supernatural, and that Christianity is the only way.”

“But without the supernatural stuff, the teachings of Christ were not original or even that progressive.  Nobody would give a shit if they didn’t think he was the creator of all time, space, and matter.  Hell, some of his teachings were flat out draconian.”

“Of course Jesus didn’t exist prior to his time on earth. Jesus was the name of a certain flesh and blood man born at a certain time early in the first century of the modern era.”

“The search for the historical Jesus that has gone on since the enlightenment is an act of creativity at least as much as discovery.”

“Another view gaining popularity is that Jesus was not an historical person. Instead  he was a composite figure created over time.”

“1^st century Jesus is not as inclusive and feminist as I would like.”

“I think he is often harsh and is pretty consistently a jerk to his closest followers, deriding them for their lack of understanding while he intentionally speaks in abstract riddles.”

At the same time, within the scope of people that identify as Christian, that the very existence of Jesus is up for grabs, and the veracity of the words attributed to Him is “determined” by casting lots, how do we respond to Jesus?

We also hear this kind of thing fairly often.

“Let us, please, take Jesus exactly at his word”    

“But let us please take Jesus at his word and take THAT word seriously, if we are going to be followers of Jesus.”

“And we should seek to embrace them all, if we are followers of Jesus.”

“We should seek wisdom and truth in all these teachings, seems to me.”

“Jesus followers should rationally follow Jesus’ teachings. All of the ACTUAL teachings.”

“My point was to follow Jesus teachings.”

“Perhaps we really need to hold more tightly to Jesus teachings?”

“We ALL should do better at heeding those teachings.”

“And I am quite specifically speaking of following Jesus teachings, that was my point.”

“I’m positing that we, who follow Jesus, should follow his teachings.”

So where does that leave us?

What does that do to the teachings of Jesus?

How should we treat the teachings of Jesus?

Can the two positions above both be considered Christian?

Are Jesus’ teachings objectively “good” or “right”?

But the single biggest question I have is why do these people think we should “heed”, “follow”, or “hold tightly” to the teachings of Jesus?  

What is it about those teachings that are authoritative enough that we should follow them?

"If Jesus was not God incarnate, if Jesus was a composite, does that make the teachings ascribed to Him more or less worthy of being followed.

Again, willing to take some heat for this.

Y'all know all of those reasonable, rations, common sense, incremental restrictions on guns that the American political left trots out every time there is a "mass" shooting in the U.S.?

That's pretty much exactly the gun control laws France has.

I'm not trying to politicize this as much as to point out that gun laws are virtually ineffective against the types of vile human beings who perpetrate these kinds of actions.

Works, not Faith?

"I'd say we find great blessedness in Jesus' Way of Grace, where we work, share, eat, pull together to build the Realm of God. AS and WHEN we walk in this Way of Grace, building this Kingdom of God, the poor literally are fed and blessed and have opportunities for justice"

I could be wrong, but the above sounds like someone who is advocating a works based salvation.

I'm willing to take some risk with this one.

I have no doubt that some will rush to label me a racist or accuse me of some sort of blanket condemnation of entire ethnic groups or people before they even read this, yet I'm willing to take that risk.

Let me start by saying that there is an undeniable history of treating groups of people negatively based on their physical appearance, ethnic background, religion, or gender.  I think that it is safe to say that these behaviors are not limited to any one particular group and frequently are directed at those in a subset of the larger group that one identifies with.   I also think it's safe to say that the situation is significantly better than it was as recently as 50 years ago. 

With that said, what in the world is going on?   We have instance after instance where some group gets all worked up and protests based on an event or event that either didn't happen or didn't happen the way it is portrayed.

We can start with the case in Florida where the "white" Hispanic guy killed the young black guy in what amounted to self defense.
Then we have the "Hands up, don't shoot." incident which we now know didn't actually happen.

Then we have the university professor in Texas who goes public about her stop by the police for "walking while black", except that when the video of the encounter is produced we find that her version of events is virtually entirely false.

Now we see the "protests" at Mizzou and we are learning that some (most) of what set this off (Including the "resignation" of university officials who have a demonstrated track record or dealing harshly with previous racially charged issues), is at best exaggerated or at worst false.   We find that the guy protesting "white privilege" actually comes from significant wealth.   The guy who claims he's "never" felt "safe" at Mizzou is a grad student who has continued to re enroll at this hotbed of hatred for 16 semesters. 

We see the lionization of a black young man who was shot by police while he was innocently driving along in a car.   Oh, well he was trying to run over said policeman in said car, but that's just a minor irrelevant detail.

I could go on, but why?    The bigger questions is, when confronted with the reality of the actual situation why do so many choose to ignore the reality and continue to perpetuate the false narrative?

Where this behavior seems problematic is that it trivializes the instances of real actual racially motivated actions that actually do take place.   It's like the old fable about the boy who cried wolf, at some point people are going to get so tired and inured to all of this fake outrage, that they will cease to be moved to action when real outrage happens.

It seems like this is a symptom of a larger problem, we have a political philosophy that is based on emotional response to outrage, whether it's real or made up.    Take a look at the interview that Neil Cavuto did with the spokesperson for the "Million" student march.   Listen to her answers when she is asked reasonable questions about the ramifications of what she wants to accomplish.   When confronted with the fact (easily and objectively provable by the way) that it is impossible to tax the "1%" at a level to accomplish what she is advocating for she blithely responds with something like "I just don't believe that.".   If you live in a world where you can just wish away objective facts with so little concern, how do you think these folks will respond when confronted with real life outside of academia.    (BTW, this is a young woman enrolled at an expensive private university, in a degree program that she admits will not provide her with a job that will allow her to pay her student loan debt, but thinks she's going to teach in a secondary school somewhere).     Who thinks this is a good life plan?

Ultimately this isn't about racial stuff as much is it is about a culture/political philosophy that thrives of perceived "offense" and is perfectly willing to jump on and perpetuate a false narrative as long as they perceive that it will benefit their short term political/social goals.

When I look around the urban areas where I build houses for low income families, when I walk/drive through Port au Prince, St Louis du Nord and Port de Paix, when I see my youngest son's pictures from Moyo and George Zambia, when I see the medical center in Goma built by my church to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the congregation, not to mention when I watch the news, I see enough real suffering and problems to get upset about that it makes me wonder what it is that makes folks settle for manufactured outrage over incidents that didn't happen when they could actually channel that into tangible help for real people facing real problems.  

Personally, I think it's driven by the same impulse that makes people think that re tweeting a hashtag is actually making a difference.   I think it's because it's hard to see actual individual people actually suffering and to deal with them as individuals.   It's easier to jump on a manufactured bandwagon with the rest of the crowed than it is to take the time to think things through and get involved in a real tangible way. 

To twist a saying to make my point.  "It's easier to give a man a fish, than to teach him to fish. It's even easier to appear to give a man a fish.  It's even easier to tweet about some guy who doesn't have a fish..".   Unfortunately it seems we are moving toward a culture that is more interested in APPEARING to be doing something about a fake problem than to actually be doing something about a real problem.


UPDATE

 1.  It seems that the gentleman who took over as president had a hand in organizing the protests that caused the "resignation" of the previous president.   Smells like a conflict of interest to me.

2.  It seems as though some of the oppressed Mizzou students are feeling a bit left out since the terrorist attacks in Paris are getting more coverage than they are.

http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/mizzou-protestors-are-upset-that-the-terrorist-attacks-in-paris-are-getting-more-attention-than-them/

What Makes Good Guns Go Bad?

In the wake of this most recent shooting incident, there is a renewed cry from those on the left to ban guns.   But if we look at the numbers, a bigger question emerges.   What is it that makes a certain number of guns go bad?   It is estimated that we have approximately 330,000,000 guns in the United States, yet the number of crimes committed with guns appears to be in the thousands (less than 500,000) or so are used in crimes of any sort.   Just to be on the safe side let's say it's 1,000,000.    What that means is that less than 0.003% of all guns are used in some sort of crime every year.   But since these guns are environmentally conscious they probably recycle which means that the number of guns used in crimes is most likely less than the number of gun crimes committed.    FYI, I suspect that each gun commits more than one crime per year.   But, let's stick with the 1,000,000 or 0.003% to be safe.

What we are left with is that 99.997% of guns in the Unites States are solid law abiding guns who don't do anything wrong.   

So, once again, what is it about that 0,003% of guns that makes them go bad?   What can we do to help these guns stay away from lives of crime?

Does it really make any sort of rational sense to punish the 99.997% of guns who live their entire lives doing absolutely nothing wrong, for the behavior of the 0.003% of bad ones?

Obey (edited)

My question, in light of the KY county clerk and her recent incarceration for contempt of court is;

"Are elected officials expected, required, obligated, or bound to obey, abide by and enforce the laws as they currently exist whether they personally agree with them or not?"

It seems to me that it is reasonable to expect the people elected to office should either obey current law or step down.

EDIT

Now, this is one answer to the question.

" The answer to your question is, of course, yes, I expect elected officials to do their job, as a general rule. Unless and until their job causes them to do harm, then they should rightly not do their job."

While I am hoping for, and will edit this to reflect it, clarification it seems as though there is an assumption that "...do their job..." includes things like obeying, abiding by, and enforcing the laws of their jurisdiction whether they agree with them or not.   But, if one looks at the totality of the response, that isn't clear.    The notion of causing harm is interesting as well, as it seems as though it is possible to be faced with two competing "harms" and having to choose one or the other.   It also seems to equate the "harm" of inconvenience, with physical harm.   That notion seems problematic to me.    I'd love some more specific input.

 

Cop lives matter

So, on the one year anniversary of the Michael Brown shooting a bunch of folks decide that the best way to celebrate is to shoot at cops, really?

Since this time last year about 60 police officers have been killed in the line of duty.  Shot, Assaulted, Hit by a car, Killed during pursuit.

Where are the folks out in the streets protesting this?

For that matter, where are the folks protesting the hundreds of young black men shot, stabbed, or otherwise killed in Chicago, by people who aren't white and aren't police.

The rank hypocrisy shown by a bunch of people gathering to protest against a narrative that has been proven to be false, (especially after the riots, looting, and burning) and the fact that at least some of them thought shooting cops is the way to celebrate is just appalling.

Why is this a problem?

TORONTO – An ordained United Church of Canada minister who believes in neither God nor Bible said Wednesday she is prepared to fight an unprecedented attempt to boot her from the pulpit for her beliefs. 

In an interview at her West Hill church, Rev. Gretta Vosper said congregants support her view that how you live is more important than what you believe in. 

“I don’t believe in…the god called God,” Vosper said. “Using the word gets in the way of sharing what I want to share.” 

Vosper, 57, who was ordained in 1993 and joined her east-end church in 1997, said the idea of an interventionist, supernatural being on which so much church doctrine is based belongs to an outdated world view. 

What’s important, she says, is that her views hearken to Christianity’s beginnings, before the focus shifted from how one lived to doctrinal belief in God, Jesus and the Bible.
“Is the Bible really the word of God? Was Jesus a person?” she said. 

“It’s mythology. We build a faith tradition upon it which shifted to find belief more important than how we lived.” 

In response, Nora Sanders, general secretary of the church’s General Council, issued a ruling in May laying out a review process that could ultimately lead to Vosper’s defrocking.

Essentially, Sanders said, the review should determine whether she was being faithful to her ordination vows, which included affirming a belief in “God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

What we have is a pastor who openly admits she is an atheist, and argues that the Bible is "myth", being evaluated by her denomination to determine if she should be employed as a pastor in said denomination.   To be clear, she voluntarily affirmed a belief in God as a part of her ordination.  But hey, what's in a vow, right.   This is one more example of the direction that progressive christians are heading, and the fact that there are some who believe that it is perfectly fine to lie when taking ordination vows ( they wouldn't admit to lying, they just redefine the words so they can answer affirmatively without an overt lie) and to actively work to undermine the tenets of the group they lied to get in to.    

It seems as though atheist christian is a contradictory term.  

The Tolerant, Accepting American Left

I was just reading the comments on a Facebook post about Cecil the lion, and one commenter suggested that the dentist be stripped naked, equipped with a tracking collar and hunted down.    There were plenty of other folks who want the guy dead, but this was the most creative.

Just for grins, let's say that I posted a comment on Facebook detailing how we should take Cecile Richards (or any/all of the PP hierarchy), and against her will and without anesthesia, crush both her head and her lower extremities, then remove all of her salable organs and part her out so as to receive the maximum amount of remuneration for the parts.

How long do you think it would take for me to be labeled as every which kind of vile, sick and twisted person.   I'd guess pretty quick.

But, hey you want to strip a guy naked, take him to Zimbabwe, put a tracking collar on him and hunt him down and no one in the thread even bats an eye.

My goodness, isn't tolerance a wonderful (if a bit selective) thing?

More dangers of indoctrination.

As we have watched the tragic tale of Cecil the lion unfold over the last few days, one almost inescapable conclusion is that the political left is (at least on certain things) so indoctrinated as to have given up any semblance of common sense.

What we have is a bunch of people attacking this dentist for engaging in an activity that was legal.  Now, it appears that there was an element of the hunt (we don't know if he knew this or not) that went beyond the bounds of legality, but as a general rule it is legal to hunt lions in Zimbabwe.  If laws were broken, then those who broke them should be punished appropriately.   Having said that.

We have a group of people marching on this guy's office threatening him with death, in some cases things like being skinned alive.   How is it that the tolerant, peace loving American left is willing to abandon thise closely held beliefs at the drop of a hat, because of one dead lion?  Oh, and if you watch the local coverage, these folks are really upset about the fact that the guy is "rich".   Class envy anyone?

So, while the lynch mobs are out in full force against the dentist let's see what they are ignoring.

1.  The unfolding Planned Parenthood selling body parts in violation of federal law.
2. The killing of 5 elephants which are much more endangered than Cecil
3.  The fact that economic growth in the US is officially "tepid", yet the administration continues to try to spin the situation otherwise, and no one questions them.
4.  The fact that the MN governor condemns this dentist while in the same breath advocating an increase in state spending to increase the fish population (so that said fish can be baited and killed much like Cecil) and to compensate a bunch of rich resort owners who might not make as much profit because the fish shortage might mean an early end to the season.
5.  The fact that these people are more concerned about 1 lion, than they are about the economic conditions in Africa generally and Zimbabwe specifically that might motivate the native guides to violate the law in search of economic gain.
6.  The fact that the witch hunt against the dentist is going to put any number of other people out of work, you know the ones who aren't "rich" but actually make the office function.
7.   How hypocritical is it to threaten death to this hunter, then heading out the Burger King for a Whopper.   I hate to bring this up, but that cow didn't go willingly.
8.  The AFL-CIO in CA attempting to get an exemption for their members to the new minimum wages that they spent millions of dollars campaigning for.
9.  The graduation rates for minorities (as well as the ability of students to read at grade level) of both the Minneapolis and Saint Paul school districts are abysmal.  But we see no protests about that.

It just mystifies me that all these sheep jump on whatever Facebook or Twitter bandwagon is trending and actually think that liking a post, forwarding a tweet, or commenting is actually doing anything real.    These folks just buy in and repeat whatever the eruption du jour is without even taking the time to think it through.

Personally the thought of hunting has never appealed to me, and the though of simply shooting anything as a trophy is even less appealing.   But, as long as these things are legal and done within the scope of local laws all stuff like this does is to focus attention on a fake crisis, while allowing these supposedly caring compassionate people to ignore real crises that are out there.     There is a degree of political blind loyalty at play as well, it is all to obvious that the American political left is going to ignore and actively try to bury the PP story because maintaining and expanding access to abortion is critical to their political future and to do anything to upset the narrative would be unthinkable.  

In the end what we have is the angry lynch mob that is willing to kill a guy because he shot a lion, is willing to support the continued taxpayer funding of PP even though they are in clear violation of federal law.

It seems as though indoctrination can indeed be a bad thing.

Gossip, Slander, and Lies

Disclaimer:   This is going to be a bit strange because of the limitations of Dan's ability to comment here due to his refusal to answer certain specific questions in a post a while back.

Dan has been on a bit of a rampage lately because of a post Stan wrote about fairness.   Dan (is essence) doesn't think that God's view of what is fair and just should be different from Dan's opinion.   At several points over a couple of threads Dan pulls out his standard complaint that people are engaging in "gossip" "slander" and "lies" when they express opinions about the views he spouts.    The problem is that he doesn't seem to have a problem is wrongly characterizing the opinions of others in such a way that he can attack people for not responding to his false characterization of their position, rather than their actual position.    What I'm going to do is to copy/paste comments Dan has made that are either false, unsupported, or flat out lies. 

"I do tend to answer questions, unlike you guys."

Given Dan's a priori refusal to answer the specific list of questions that got his commenting privileges restricted, it's safe to say that in my opinion (based on specific interactions with him) this is just a self serving lie.

"Your position (that god is a monster who would condemn someone to eternal torture for one minor sin - and thus, you slander God by saying God is neither just nor perfect, but childish and whimsical and immoral as hell) is not one that can be defended rationally."

 "So, when reasonable questions arise from your insane sounding argument, you absolutely CAN NOT defend your position or answer the questions because, well, your position is insane and immoral. So, I would run and hide and refuse to answer questions, too, if I were called on such a crazy arguments."

These three are from a comment at Stan's.  The problem with the two above, is that they do not in any way resemble a position that has been taken, and cannot be supported.

 "You are using "justice" in a non-standard English way."

This is a common complaint, that is unsupported.   It also presumes (and we know Dan won't defend his presumptions, or at least hasn't so far)

"2. That because God is perfectly just, the reasoning goes, God can not "abide" or put up with ANY sin.
3. So, because God is SO "just," even one little lie is sufficient cause for God to send a person to an eternal torment and torture, as a matter of "justice..."

Neither of these is an accurate representation of either that position of anyone with whom Dan has actually conversed, nor do they represent Orthodox Christian theology or doctrine.

 "Part of the notion of justice includes proportionate punishment for sins/mistakes/crimes."

This is interesting because no one is denying the concept of proportionate justice.  What is being said is that sin is an active rebellion against the God who created and rules the universe and to try to minimize that willful rebellious aspect of sin by writing it off as a "mistake" is in itself seriously out of proportion.

 "So, while human beings are all sinful or imperfect in nature, do most of us do something so monstrous in our life as to merit an eternity in torment as an equitable "just" punishment?"

Again, this is a (willful) distortion of the Orthodox Christian position, as well as of the position in the post that started all of this.

 "Or, consider that we have been created imperfect by God (for those who believe we are created by God...) Is it rational or just that God creates us imperfect and then demands that we be perfect or else we'll be punished with eternal torment for being imperfect, as God made us!?"

I'm not even going to deal with the seeming denial of God as creator.   But, this is a complete (intentional?)  distortion of the Orthodox Christian position as well as the position of anyone who has interacted with Dan.

"God becomes whimsical, monstrous, unjust, uncaring... not the God most believers think of as a loving God."

As to the first sentence, no one is or has suggested that, as to the second I wasn't aware that God's nature is defined by how humans think of Him.

 "I would ask Stan or others who have made these sorts of statements:..."

There is a claim that "Stan or others" have made specific statements which correlate with the claims Dan has made about those alleged statements.   Of course, those specific statements are not quoted or referenced in any way that would allow someone to check the accuracy of Dans characterizations of the alleged statements.   So, Dan has attributed a lot of "statements" to "Stan and others" without actually proving the existence of the statements.

 "Every human is grossly immoral and JUSTLY deserving of eternal torture."

One more that can't be supported



I think that I have demonstrated a fairly consistent pattern with the above quotes and see no reason to add more of the same.

I am quite sure that there will be cries that it is not fair for me to post this about Dan without allowing him to respond.   I will respond by saying the following.

1.  Dan is well aware of what he needs to do in order to regain his commenting priveledges.
2.  Once Dan does what has been asked of him he will get those privileges back
3.  If Dan can provide specific documented (quote with a link for context) instance where any of his characterizations are correct, I will allow the comment to stand, edit the original post to remove my comment, and apologize for my error.

Terry Bean is the kind of person the American political left loves

Terry Bean is a native Oregonian, successful real estate developer, and President and CEO of Bean Investment Real Estate, a private company that trades and invests in commercial real estate as well as large residential complexes.  Along with these badges of honor, Terry Bean is often first recognized as a pioneer in the national civil rights movement, promoting full equality for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, queer/questioning communities. (GLBTQ)
Terry Bean is so well regarded as an activist that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski declared August 23, 2008, to be “Terry Bean Equality Day” in recognition for the work he has done on LGBT rights causes since the 1970’s.
A pioneer in the movement, Terry Bean, started advocating politically for gay rights in the early 1970′s in Eugene, Oregon. Early successes resulted in the passing of a city gay rights ordinance, which, while was later overturned by voters, set the framework for grassroot organizations and strategies which quickly followed—establishing a pattern of victories which have continued well into the new millennium.
In 1979, Bean helped to organize the National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, the first such highly visible effort to empower a minority while educating a majority.
After the march on Washington, Terry Bean turned his focus to the national level co-founding the Gay Rights National Lobby and the Human Rights Campaign Fund. These groups merged to become today’s Human Rights Campaign – HRC.

The Human Rights Campaign is the nation’s largest gay rights organization.


P-BO and Hilary have both praised him, I suspect Dan and his little enclave down in KY probably think he's a pretty good guy as well.

The Dangerousness of Indoctrination and the Unwillingness to Acknowledge it When it Hurts You Politically.

Apparently indoctrination is bad, so when we see this, I guess we must conclude that some folks are so indoctrinated that they are devoid of rational thought.

http://dailybruin.com/2015/07/20/free-tampons-would-slow-flow-of-gender-inequality/

It would seem that darling Zoey, is so indoctrinated into the government must pay for everything mentality of the American left that she can spew this kind of crap.

"To most government officials, feminine hygiene products are a luxury item. But, every day, women are being poisoned by their own bodies because they lack access to even the most essential health products."

 "Although still greatly outnumbered and underpaid compared to their male counterparts, women have made so much progress. Yet inequality still lies in the most basic areas of human well-being. Women are still facing unequal treatment when it comes to health care and are paying out of pocket for necessary female health products, particularly tampons and pads."

 "It’s about time that the federal government recognizes that even the most basic health care needs to start subsidizing the cost of tampons and pads for women, or covering the cost completely."

Seriously, doesn't the Daily Bruin fact check before they publish?

Slippery Slope

 Many folks get all worked up when you point out that if you follow certain actions or lines of reasoning to a logical conclusion that you sometimes end up with unsavory unintended consequences.   Let's take the push for "gay marriage".   At least that what it started out as.  It was this lice little picture of a metrosexual gay couple in a loving, happy, lifetime, monogamous marriage to each other.   Then we see that a significant portion of the "gay marriage" folks aren't really interested in the whole life time thing, nor the whole monogamy thing.   Some folks (not that it took any great predictive power) predicted this, and were laughed off as "That's a slippery slope fallacy".    Then the goal posts move slightly to "marriage equity for everyone" and the "why do you want to stop people from loving each other".    Of course the question is raised, well if you really mean "everyone", then you realize what that opens the door to, right?    Once more, we get that "slippery slope" response.   Yet we now see the pedophile community (they need a snappy acronym that isn't NAMBLA), trying to go mainstream, and the various plural folks are all over reality TV.    But now we have below a quote from the NY Times which points out what some of us have been saying for quite a while.

"NOW that the dust is settling from the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized a right to same-sex marriage, there are new questions. In particular, could the decision presage a constitutional right to plural marriage? If there is no magic power in opposite sexes when it comes to marriage, is there any magic power in the number two?…
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell did not focus primarily on the issue of sexual orientation. Instead, its main focus was on a “fundamental right to marry” — a right that he said could not be limited to rigid historical definitions or left to the legislative process. That right was about autonomy and fulfillment, about child rearing and the social order. By those lights, groups of adults who have profound polyamorous attachments and wish to build families and join the community have a strong claim to a right to marry…
So the real force of the polygamy question is a lesson in humility. We should not assume that our judges have all the answers. And we should not assume we have them either. Instead we should recognize that once we abandon the rigid constraints of history, we cannot be sure that we know where the future will take us."

What is going to happen is that the same folks who insisted that the line would be drawn at "gay marriage" will gradually but inexorably fall in line behind whichever of these causes  seems most likely to come to a head first.   Well hear the exact same word for word arguments that they made to justify "gay marriage", and they will eventually frame it as a civil rights issue.   Best of all they will still keep pretending that they are not happily rolling right down that slippery slope, and indignantly criticize anyone who dares to suggest that there might be a problem down the road.  

I guess the slippery slope argument is only a logical fallacy until it switches from prediction to description of reality.   

Liberal lamentation about the evil of selling human body parts, or lack thereof

Just wondering: Can anyone find a conservative blog that is lamenting the tragic turn of events in which we find that Planned Parenthood (supported by both liberals in general as well as funded by liberals with tax dollars) is selling the body parts of aborted human children or otherwise speaking out about this great evil?




I ask because I've looked around and cannot find any.

If not, why not?

I find it disgusting that the left can get worked up over slavery as it might have existed 4,000 years ago, but not about this monstrous behavior.

I find it reprehensible that the when the left responds to acts of evil like the shooting in SC or in CT, they are quick to blame flags or guns and call for the banning of inanimate objects as if those objects are the problem. Yet when faced with the systematic evil of Kermit Gosnell or the now multitude of things from Planned Parenthood (hiding rape, giving advice on how to turn kids into sex slaves, selling human body parts for profit), they can't even work up enough gumption to suggest that we ban forceps or scissors.

It seems obvious that the American left is so much more interested in protecting and advancing abortion, that they are willing to ignore or defend this type of reprehensible behavior.

You do have to love the fact that this little scheme does have the effect or rendering the "It's just a clump of cells" argument even more foolish than it previously was.

Assumptions

What is it about people, that allows them to form a set of assumptions with little or no support then to use those assumptions as the basis to make assertions which they expect others to accept.

For example, I listened to bits of Hillary's interview with the CNN reporter.   I was honestly surprised that the reporter asked some specific, tough questions and then followed them up.

What didn't surprise me was the Hillary did not answer any of them.  She just trotted out the same old lame talking points "vast right wing conspiracy", "just because someone says something, you have to ask questions", etc.      At one point, she flat out lied about the number of "devices" she had while SECSTATE (hint: she has already said that she had a Blackberry for official business and an iPhone for personal).

The point here is that her response is not based on the facts of the situation, or on a desire to actually answer that question.  It's based on the fact that her supporters will accept uncritically these talking points because their underlying assumptions condition them to do so.  While at the same time Hillary's underlying assumption is that anything that diverts attention from her and blames her "enemies" is what people really want to hear, not actual answers to actual questions.

I have also seen this recently on Facebook, the fact that people will uncritically post a comment or meme from someone simply because they assume that the content is correct, not because they checked it out, but because they agree with the person they got it from.

I suspect that we are all guilty of this to some degree.  I myself have pointed out when my opinions on a particular matter might be driven by my underlying assumptions and not by principle or the desire to be intellectually consistent.   I'm pretty confident that we all have this desire.

But how do we respond when those assumptions are directly and specifically challenged?

Do we take the time to go back and examine our assumptions, and are we able to provide some rational reasons why those assumptions should be assumed?

Do we, as I have done, sometimes admit that our assumptions are not always consistent and explain why?

Do we simply continue to assume that our assumptions are correct and ignore challanges to them?

At some point probably all of the above.

 Where it becomes problematic is when someone defines the terms of a discussion on the basis of their personal assumptions without providing any  sort of support that explains why their particular assumptions should be accepted as the basis for any conversation.   From that point it becomes difficult to move forward if there is no willingness to actually discuss and support those assumptions.    

I suspect that a lot of it comes down the the fact that it is just easier to operate on the basis that your assumptions are correct, and that they make sense for everyone else as well, and an unwillingness to actually put forth the effort to reexamine and support your assumptions.   So, it seems as if the default position is to just ignore it when those assumptions are questioned.

How's this going to work ? (edited)

I was just reading a blog post by a mainline ordained pastor who identifies as bi-sexual.  She was talking about how amazing it is that her denomination had changed it's definition of marriage from "a man and woman" to "two people", and how cool it was that queers (her word not mine) can get ordained.   While I'm sure this is all very exciting, especially in light of the SCOTUS decision, I was left with a question.   How will this work?   Given the fact that this entire campaign has been portrayed as being about lofty things like love, equality, equity, and justice, how can we arbitrarily grant justice to one group, while denying it to others?

This particular young woman identifies as bisexual, so how does a bisexual achieve marriage equity/equality?   It seems that there are three options.  One can marry one other person (of either sex), then engage in am extra marital affair with a person or persons of the other sex.  One can marry a person of each sex.  One can simply marry and divorce a series of individuals depending of their current preference.

It seems to me that each of these is problematic.

The first is problematic in that traditionally one component of marriage is the concept of monogamy, obviously this one is not shared by many in the GLBTQXYZPDQ community, but in a Christian marriage ceremony it talks about "forsaking all others" etc.  Again, it seems that entering into a marriage with the intent of engaging in a sexual relationship outside of the marriage kind of defeats the purpose.

The second, is probably the closest to equity/equality for the bisexual, and is probably one of the next bridges to fall.  But for now, the definition of marriage still reads "two people".  So, it seems like this one is out as well.

The third option has the benefit of seeming to fit with the popular culture in general which doesn't seem to see much problem with marriage and or divorce at will.   It does seem problematic to go into a marriage agreeing to the vows, all the while knowing that you'll divorce this one for someone of the other gender when you feel like a change.

It seems clear that the current push for "marriage equity" is the first step down a path.  How can we grant marriage to the person of one's choice to gay people, but not to bisexuals?  The PR is it's all about marrying who you love, right?   If that's the case, the obvious next question is why limit it to two people who love each other? 

So, how is this going to work when the bisexual folks realize that they are still getting less equity than the G and L initial folks are getting?

Charleston

The tragedy in Charlston is lamentable and horrible beyond words.   I am in awe of the way the victims families are handling this whole ordeal.    Hope is that the God who created all things will come near to each of the family members and wrap them in His peace.  

Before this goes further

I know this is a bit strange, but I wanted to get this settled before things went any further.    So, I'd like to try to clarify something.

You frequently use the term "rules", many times it seems that you use the term in an almost dismissive fashion.  What I would like to have you clarify is what you mean by the term "rules".    I presume that you are using the term as a shorthand for what the Scripture refers to as Law(s), The Law, Commandments, and Ordinances.     I have no problem using the shortcut, I just want to be clear about what meaning your are assigning to the term and whether or not you see some sort of differences between the terms.

A quick follow up

I think that there is a phenomenon in Christian circles that has spawned the type of thinking seen in the previous post.

Some friends of mine used to put it like this.

"People want Jesus to be their savior, but not their Lord"

I see this playing out differently of both sides of the spectrum

On the more conservative side this looks like someone who "commits their life to Christ", but still wants to hang onto that one (or more) thing that they/we just enjoy too much to turn over to God.    Usually, this is manifested as certain areas of ones life that one keeps private (from people) which entail things or habits or behaviors that one (we) know are wrong but don't want to give up.

On the more liberal side it takes a couple of different forms.

The first is what we are seeing from a growing number of influential folks who label themselves as progressive christians.   This one is the "If there even is a god, he is so loving and tolerant that he doesn't really care about stuff like sin, so as long as you're a good person it's OK."

The second is the folks who want a savior who is going to save people from whatever they perceive as the most pressing societal ill.   Poverty, Pollution, Racism, Climate, whatever.   They want a god who will come and save us from stuff and if he decides to use government mandates to do so, well that's OK too.

Ultimately, we see this playing out with (some) folks on the right focusing on personal piety as well as the public "sins", while failing to grasp (or ungrasp) what holiness is.   While in the left, we see anything from a denial of sin entirely to an almost relativistic view of sin (Well that might be sin to you, but...).

So, what's the answer?    I'd suggest that the place to start is to put God in His proper place, submit to His authority (even when we don't like it), and accept His gift of grace that gives us a clean slate.   I'd suggest that if we'd get the hierarchy straightened out and live like people who have been given a marvelous gift, that you'd see less of the social ills and we'd start to see the beginning of the Kingdom of God on earth, as It is in Heaven.

"God-given sexuality"

I saw this term used recently, and I found it a bit confusing.  starting with how the terms are Defined.

In this context does "God given", mean that God has "given" humans parameters for what is and is not appropriate behavior?   Does "God given" mean that whatever it is that "God" gave us, is objective, clear and understandable?   If it is, then where does one find out what "God" gave us on this topic?  If not, then how could one not argue that anything fits under that category of "God given"?    How did "God" give us this information?  How do we know if it is really from God?

One way to look at this is through the lens of who God is (or at least how God is portrayed in the Bible).    If Jesus choice of topics is any indication, then one could reasonably conclude that God is "King".     One way one could conclude this is the fact that in the existing record of Jesus words he uses the phrase "Kingdom of God" between 90 and 100 times.  He uses the term "King" between 10 and 20 times. He uses the term "Your/His Kingdom twice, and tells 3 parables about the what "Kingdom of God" is like.    So, it seems safe to conclude that it is at least within the realm of probability that God is King of something.

If one was somehow willing to grant the above point, then it seems that one might ask, what does that mean?

One possible conclusion that could be drawn is that God is (in fact) the King of all creation.     Or one could conclude that God (or god) is King (or king) of something, but not everything.  

So, what is a king (or King)?   According to the dictionary.com folks we find that two definitions are relevant here.

"1. a male sovereign or monarch; a man who holds by life tenure, and usually by hereditary right, the chief authority over a country and people. "

"2.(initial capital letter) God or Christ."

So, one could reasonably conclude that when Jesus spoke of the "Kingdom of God", he was speaking of a realm where God was the chief authority.   Most Christians would probably substitute "sole" for "chief", but I think the point stands.

What does that leave us with then,   If "God given sexuality" does exist, then wouldn't it follow that something "given" by the King would be really more in the nature of an ordinance or command?   Further, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that something  of this nature "given" by the King would be communicated in some rational way?   I mean really, what good is it to be King (king) if your gifts, wishes, ordinances, and commands are so vague and amorphous that no on can really grasp exactly what you meant?

I could go on, but I think my questions are enough for now.

Yet, we must grapple with the term "sexuality".    If the term is used to mean that God has created humans to reproduce sexually, and that there is/are feelings of pleasure as well as emotional bonds created between the male and female sexual partners, then I suspect some might quibble around the edges, but at least agree in principle.

But, like many terms today, this seems to be one which can be used to mean virtually anything or nothing, potentially both at the same time.

So, we're left with a few questions before even evaluating whether of not the claim is reasonable.

What exactly is the definition of that term?
What, specifically, is sexuality?
Why did God "give us" a sexuality?
How do we know sexuality is "God given"?
If we don't live within the parameters of what God gave us concerning sexuality are we breaking a rule?

In the end we are left with a statement that at least implies multiple claims of fact.

1.   There there is a God

2.   That God gives us things in general

3.   That God have given us a specific "sexuality"

4.   That is is possible to know what #3 refers to and to understand that scope of what we have been given

5.   That there is a scope of "God given sexuality", which can be known and adhered to

6.   The straying outside of the scope of "God given sexuality" could be problematic

This may get continued, but I wanted to throw it out.