An Alumnus's Mind Bomb: My Schooling Experience

I graduated on June 9th, and I cannot express just how liberated I feel.  I attended the same private Christian school since I was in Kindergarten.  I had strict, conservative guidelines that I was required to follow every day, and I had Baptist doctrine (they swore it was "nondenominational", which is itself a denomination) force fed to me until I wasn't even aware I was being indoctrinated.  The teacher's word was law.  The school rules applied to my entire life, not just life on campus.  I wasn't an individual or even a human being; I was a student.  I was someone to handle, to control, to indoctrinate, to program.

I've always struggled with authority, but for the longest time I had no idea why.  Now, with the gift of hindsight, I realize why authority figures and I would always knock heads.  It wasn't because I was a horrible, disrespectful, rebellious sinner.  It was because the authority was wrong.  My teachers and other members of the staff insisted time and time again that they could be trusted, that they were my friends, that they were there to help me.  Authority figures have a tendency to tell you that they are the good guys, the heroes, people to look up to.  The reality is that I could not trust the people in authority over me.  They were too absorbed in their way of doing things; their methodology, their traditions and practices, their religion, their lives and their wants and desires.  They did not want me to become Nicolas Portwood.  They wanted me to be a submissive, easy to control, docile robot to make their jobs that much easier.  When I refused to comply, they had me deported to the principal's office, in hopes that I would be ashamed or embarrassed into submission.

I remember Kindergarten, when I was first being forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag, to the Christian Flag (which is in my opinion a very pathetic icon), and to the Bible.  How is a five-year-old supposed to understand what those words mean?  Yet, I would drone on every day, reciting those laughable mantras like the little robot I was.  This carried on until my Junior Year of high school, when I finally refused to recite the pledges on the grounds of strong moral convictions.  I would not swear fealty to a worthless piece of cloth, regardless of the symbolism.  Was I punished?  Absolutely.  When I asked why I was being punished, the staff told me it was on the grounds of disrespect.  Disrespect?  That was only the 120,000th time I had heard that cop-out excuse for punishing a student.  Anything a teacher doesn't know how to deal with, or hasn't the patience to deal with, is tantamount to disrespect.  Even something as trivial as a differing opinion is disrespect.  

Teachers don't like being challenged.  They don't like having their authority questioned.  It reminds me all too well of the corruption we see in Congress and in the White House.  Edward Snowden is on the run from the federal government because he called them out on illegal activity.  Whistleblowing is not treason.  Calling a teacher out is not disrespect.  Teachers have no right to demand respect.  Respect can only be given voluntarily.  Too many students are not aware of this.  They are told to shut up, sit down, or go to the office. The threat of discipline is always over the students' heads.  Many teachers blatantly violate various sections of the Geneva Conventions; did you know that?  Punishing an entire class for the infraction(s) of one individual or a few individuals is a breach of the Third Convention (which is all about how to treat prisoners of war, I might add).  Likewise, holding a class after the dismissal bell as a form of punishment is a breach of the same Convention.  Have you ever heard a teacher say, "The bell doesn't dismiss you; I do"?  That is a lie.  The dismissal bell dismisses the students, not the teacher.

Many teachers even liken their classes to dictatorships.  That's a incredible demonstration of idiocy.  In such a paranoid country that has on more than one occasion executed dictators (remember Saddam Hussein?), our teachers confess to being dictators.  How can they claim to be upholders of democracy when their classes are draconian and totalitarian?  That is hypocrisy.  I was blessed to have some teachers who were not like this.  There was voting, there was discussion, there was debate, and there was change.  I did not experience this until my Senior Year of high school, and by that time, I was already burned.

My elementary school days were filled with screaming and crying.  That is all I can remember, honestly.  I had a horrible childhood.  I was only trying to be myself, to express myself, to discover myself.  My teachers didn't want me to be creative or adventurous, though.  They wanted a robot that responded to their every command without question.  They would tell me I had talents and that God had big plans for my life.  I discovered my talents on my own, away from school.  I figured out God's plans for my life by talking to God, not my teachers.  My teachers, with all their knowledge and experience, were idiots.  Sweet and friendly idiots, but nonetheless.  They loved scolding me when I tried to be an individual.  They didn't realize that I talk because I have knowledge I wish to share.  They thought I was just being "disruptive".  Sharing knowledge is "disruptive" unless the teacher is reading it from a book published by Bob Jones University Press, a heavily conservative and biased college press who believes that Catholics aren't Christians.  That was my curriculum.  Biased, conservative, and religious.

I was required to attend a chapel service every Thursday for thirteen years.  They painted a picture in my head of a God with an iron gavel and anger in his eyes.  Every sin I committed pushed me closer and closer to hell.  They never taught me how to have a relationship with God.  They taught me how to be afraid of God.  They used the chapel services to push their agenda of obedience and submission.  The question "Why?" was a question that would send me to hell.  Follow blindly.  Be a sheep, a drone, a robot, a copy of a copy of a copy of the ideal student.  Religion was rampant and relationship was nonexistent; thus, I felt alone, scared, and angry.  I never knew why I was always so angry.  I was too young to realize that I was experiencing social injustice, that I was being belittled because of my youth (which is a practice Paul the Apostle condemned).

Ironically, when I disobeyed out of spite, I never felt freer.  When I rebelled with the anticipation of being punished, it was exhilarating.  I was manipulating my teachers to perform a preprogrammed response: discipline.  I realized that I was not the robot, they were!  I discovered the presence of consequence and the absence of love.  There was never any love behind any discipline I ever received as a Christian school student.  They were too busy trying to keep me in line to love me.  I was an volatile child.  I was prone to chronic fits of rage, wherein I would scream at the top of my lungs and cry and slam various body parts against the ground.  This was my coping mechanism until around the sixth grade, where I started to mellow out (I owe it all to child therapy from a doctor in neuropsychology; yes, they insisted I needed therapy).  They could not handle me at my worst behavior, and they demanded I be on my best.

After dozens of parent-teacher conferences and scores of visits to the principal's office, I found myself in Junior High School.  Not much changed.  I was still an immature idiot, and my teachers were still slaves to the Teacher's Agenda of Methodology: rules, instructions, and systematic procedure.  Any deviation was met with humiliation and shame disguised as discipline.  The principal was a righteous man who told me to my face that I was obnoxious and that I was not a Christian.  He told me that "a wise man speaks little" immediately after a forty-minute lecture on what a horrible little rebel I was (I am not exaggerating: it was forty minutes.  There was a clock right behind him).  The staff was trying to control every aspect of my life.  They called me into the office for things I said on Facebook that they disagreed with.  They had no legal justification to do this; the papers I signed to enroll as a student said nothing about my life outside of school.  For all these reasons listed in this paragraph, Junior High was rank with hypocrisy and Christian Legalism.  I have nothing good to say about those years, no matter how generous I may be feeling.

High school was the darkest period of my life.  I had several members of the staff personally verbally degrade me on more than one occasion, further justifying my belief that teachers were not allowed to love their students while on duty.  Enforcing the rules and stifling ideas they didn't want to hear were more important than demonstrating the love of Jesus Christ.  I saw that first hand.  The only difference from elementary school is that I was spurned by seven teachers instead of one.  Thus, high school was seven times worse than elementary school.  In the tenth grade, confused and scared and sad and convinced that I was a horrible sinner and that all my teachers hated me, I attempted suicide twice.

Senior Year was different, because for the first time in my life, I had some measure of authority.  I had influence, and the teachers realized it.  By this time, I was so used to authoritarianism, I knew exactly how to manipulate it.  I behaved myself.  I listened to my teachers and obeyed their instructions.  I used my influence over the underclassmen to convince my fellow students that, "Even though the rules seem stupid, they still exist, so you still have to obey them".  By saying this, I reinforced the idea that rules can be wrong.  It was a subtle but effective message to my peers that the laws of the land are not infallible.  It was a clandestine call to question the rules, to challenge authority, in hopes of improving the school for everyone.  Eschew the ridiculous rules and promote the beneficial ones.  Emphasize love over enforcement.

That was the message of my Senior Year.  Outright rebellion is a fool's path.  Subtle influence, in my experience, is much more effective.  Why?  Because love is contagious.  People will respond to love and naturally resist having their freedoms limited by rules and restrictions.  For this reason, I became "popular", I maintained my level of relative influence, and you know what?  It's working.  My school has changed.  Love is becoming more prevalent.  Rules are being reevaluated, some are being struck down, and others are being redefined.  Some are even being left alone.  Change is happening, as I had hoped for the longest time.

I wish I could say that I enjoyed school.  I never stopped hating it, dreading every weekday morning, worshiping the weekend.  Overall, I have to say that my schooling experience was horrible; however, it was also productive.  I promoted the question "Why?" and I got answers.  I got results.  I saw change.  I saw progress.

I started a silent rebellion.

Debunked: The "Sin" of Instrumental Worship

This should be a rather interesting post.

My attention was drawn to an article giving ten reasons why instrumental music is wrong in worship.  What my post about is simple: showing you all how wrong the article is.  Thus, I debunk!

1. There is no command in the New Testament for Christians to use instruments of music in the worship of the church.
   
   The Book of Psalms is a collection of 150 worship songs, the 150th of which says "Praise Him with trumpet and sound; praise Him with harp and lyre.  Praise Him with timbrel and dancing; praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe." (Psalm 150:3-4 [NASB]).  This Psalm was written by King David of Israel, who is described in the Bible as being a man after God's own heart.  Surely, a man so close to God would not dare sin against Him by worshiping in a way that God forbade.  There may be no command in the New Testament for instrumental worship, but such music is rampant in the Old Testament, and if you accept one part of the Bible, you would do well to accept the entire thing.
    
2. There is no example in the New Testament of a church, apostle, teacher, or any Christian ever using an instrument in worship.
   
   Again, there are many examples of this in the Old Testament, which is still completely valid and crucial to modern day Christianity.  The Old and New Testament are actually extremely similar, so to reject the Old Testament to force your argument is extremely foolish and ignorant.  Furthermore, it is irrelevant that there are no New Testament examples.  There are no examples of anyone in the New Testament going to the bathroom.  Does that make defecating a sin?
    
3. It is not faith, therefore it is a sin (Romans 14:23).
   
   I shall quote the cited verse: "But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin" (NASB).  In this passage (this is where I apply proper context), the author of Romans is advising the Christians in Rome not to do anything that causes their brethren to stumble in their faith.
   
   In Jewish culture, eating pork is ceremonially unclean.  I am not a Messianic Jew (a Jew who believes that Jesus was the Messiah, and so a "Jewish Christian", so to speak), and so I was never forbidden from eating pork.  However, because I do not wish my Messianic Jewish brother to stumble, I will not eat unclean food in his presence.  In fact, I would not do so around any sort of Jew, or a Muslim, or even a common vegetarian.  That is what the verse that the site was using is supposed to mean.
   
   By that logic, it could be argued that you should not participate in instrumental worship if it will cause one of your brethren to stumble, but that does not at all mean that instrumental worship must be prohibited universally.  The verse they used provides grossly insufficient justification for the point they were trying to make, and so the point is moot.
    
4. It is going beyond that which is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).
   
   This verse says, "Now these things, brethren, I have applied figuratively to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that you will not become arrogant on behalf of one against the other" (NASB).
   
   My question: how does instrumental worship "go beyond that which is written"?  That is a massive and unjustifiable assumption which they provide absolutely no proof for.  What Paul was talking about in this letter was advising his fellow believers not to pass judgment on others before the time of judgment (during which time, all the judgments will be performed by God, and not Christians).  It has absolutely nothing at all to do with instrumental worship.
    
5. It violates the command to "sing" (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).
   
   No it doesn't.  That is another grossly unjustifiable assumption.  Remember that Psalm I mentioned earlier?  The one about praising God with various instruments?  That Psalm was a song.  Both of the verses that they provided here explicitly mention worshiping God with psalms, as well as hymns and spiritual songs.  Psalms were written to be accompanied by music.  King David, the author of many of the Bible's Psalms, played the harp.
    
6. Singing is commanded; the accompaniment of a musical instrument is an "addition" to this command, and therefore it is wrong (Revelation 22:18).
   
   Here, John the Apostle, one of Jesus' original twelve disciples, says, "I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book" (NASB).  He is specifically referring to the book of Revelation, because John had no idea that his book would be incorporated into the Bible.  He wrote it while in exile on the island of Patmos, for crying out loud!  What John was saying is that no one should add any additional prophecies (or revelations) to the book of Revelation.  Once again, it has absolutely nothing to do with how worship should be conducted.
   
   Also, their point that singing is commanded forgets to add that the very same Psalm I keep mentioning also encourages instruments and even DANCING!  Save your solemn worship music for Catholic Mass (which has organ music, so the Catholic Church must be in universal sin).
    
7. The use of the instrument in worship to God is a failure to "abide in the doctrine of Christ" (2 John 9).
   
   Yet another huge assumption which for which they offer no justification.  "Anyone who goes to far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son" (NASB).  The teachings of Christ were simple: love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; love your neighbor as yourself; and prepare for the Kingdom of Heaven.  Jesus never gave specific instructions on how to worship.  In fact, He gave us many freedoms on how we may choose to worship Him.  Jesus is always delighted when we worship Him, even if it is done with musical instruments.
    
8. Those who use the instrument in worship "reject" the authority of Christ (Matthew 28:19; Luke 6:46).
   
   These points are very circular at this point.  They are essentially arguing that instruments in worship are wrong because instruments in worship are wrong.  They make an assumption, and attempt to prove the assumption correct by assuming that they are already correct.  That is a very pathetic demonstration of illogic.  And just to come full circle, no: those who use instruments in worship do not reject Christ's authority, for reasons I have already mentioned.
    
9. It cannot be done "in the name" (or by the authority) of Jesus (1 Corinthians 4:6; Colossians 3:17).
   
   Yes it can, and it is done quite often.  These points are committing suicide at this point.  I can't debunk each one without sounding redundant.
    
10. From the above evidences, the use of the instrument in worship is obviously not from Heaven, so it must be from men (Matthew 21:25).
    
    They did it AGAIN!!!  They assumed they were already correct, so they could bring in their final point!  First off, they provided no evidence, only Scripture verses quoted way out of context and a legalistic theology WHICH, ironically enough, IS FROM MEN!  Not only is the author of this article an idiot, but also a blatant hypocrite!

But wait, it gets better!  Here's how the article is concluded:

From the above Scriptures, we can now "clearly" answer this question, "Can Christians use musical instruments in worship and still be pleasing to God?"

I am sorry, idiot who wrote this article, but the answer is "Yes, God is overjoyed when we worship Him, instruments or no instruments."  He is infinitely more gracious than you can ever hope to be.  It's people like you, who treat the Bible like a book of laws to be forced upon others, to whom Jesus said, "Woe to you!"  I would say, "God have mercy on your soul," but not only is that tremendously cliché, but I also know that God already will be.

God loves music, and music is made with instruments.  Get over it.

On Agnosticism

By definition, an Agnostic knows nothing.

Are you searching Dictionary.com to prove me wrong?  The word agnostic, and many other words in the wonderfully corrupted language we call English, has had its definition warped by colloquial and idiomatic influences.  I, being a lexical purist, vehemently eschew such distracting cultural movements and adhere to the true definition of agnostic.  And by this true definition, an Agnostic does not know anything.

Let's take agnostic back to its roots to ascertain its true meaning.  We see it has the prefix a-, which means "without", and also the Greek gnosis, which means "knowledge".  With this we see that agnostic means "without knowledge", so an Agnostic truly does know nothing.  More specifically, an Agnostic makes no claims to having knowledge.

Take a look at this wonderful chart I found laying around on Wikipedia (do not worry.  I referenced the article from which I took this image, and that article is indeed accurate, despite Wikipedia's infamous reputation):

At the right side of the image, we see a bar which represents one's claim to knowledge.  At the bottom, there is a bar representing one's strength of belief.  The top of the Knowledge bar indicates no claim to knowledge, and the far right of the Belief bar indicates no belief.  Thus, you can infer from this diagram that an Atheist has no belief in a god, but the amount of knowledge the Atheist claims to have in this regard can vary greatly.  A Theist has belief in a god, but again, the amount of knowledge claimed could vary.

This is where Gnosticism and Agnosticism come in to play.  These two philosophical methods determine certainty.  For example, and Agnostic Atheist (which is what most people think of when someone says they are "an Agnostic") has no belief in a god, but does not claim with any certainty to know whether any sort of deity does or does not exist.  Contrariwise, a Gnostic Theist has a belief in a god, and claims to know for certain that there is one.

Whether or not the person's beliefs are justified and indeed factual are another story entirely.  I shall save that for another blog post.  For now, let's remove the theology from Agnosticism and focus on the philosophy.

"I don't know and I can't know."

That statement, dear reader, is Agnosticism.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the question of the existence of a deity.  It is instead a question of whether or not anything can be known.  I find this interesting, because if Agnosticism is justifiable, then by the logic of agnostic thinking, an Agnostic is by definition incapable of knowing that they are agnostic.  Therefore, anyone who calls themselves an Agnostic is either mistaken or lying!  With the understanding that agnosticism has had its meaning corrupted over the years, we find that most who identify themselves as "agnostic" are simply mistaken.

Everyone has doubts, naturally.  In this way, everyone at some point has a measure of agnosticism.  We can know some things for certain—as René Descartes deduced: "I think; therefore, I am."  Other things are rather uncertain, such as the origin of the Universe.

If you believe something, you must declare at least some agnosticism.  One does not know beliefs; one believes beliefs.  That is exactly why beliefs are called "beliefs": they are not factual!  For this reason, we see Agnostic Theists, who say that while they believe that there is at least one deity, they cannot say this with any certainty, and so they simply have faith that their belief is justified.  I personally do not have any doubt that there is a god (at least, not now!), but I do acknowledge that I could easily be wrong, so I must be an Agnostic Theist.

In conclusion, if a person identifies as an "Agnostic", it is safe to say that they probably mean "Agnostic Atheist".  Do you see why definitions are important?

The Illusion of Equality

Black History Month discriminates colored people.

It is also hypocritical, ridiculous, and creates an illusion of equality.  The finger of Modern Culture is now pointing at me, stabbing the air, crying, "He is a racist!"  No I am not.  I can prove what I am saying.

Black History Month, the month of February, is the shortest month of the year, having a mere 28 days (an occasionally 29 every four years).  It relegates the history of an entire people group to one month out of the year.  It discriminates the black people by separating them from the rest of the human population and focusing your attention on them.  That separation is called segregation, which is what the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s so vehemently opposed.  Any sort of separation for special treatment, be that treatment good or bad, is segregation.  Black History Month segregates and discriminates in the name of equality and tolerance.

The government really should rename it "American Hypocrisy Month".  If Blacks are equal to every other "racial group" (which is a discriminating notion in itself), then they do not deserve their own History Month, unless you also have a White History Month (even though not all Caucasians are white, and vice versa), Yellow History Month (which fails to discriminate between any of the Oriental ethnic groups because it has to fit the color-history-month theme, but is only understood to be the Chinese), Indian History Month (which really should be a part of Black History Month, but isn't because Indians aren't from Africa), Brown History Month (which could describe people from almost every ethnicity) and even Jewish History Month (even though the Jews aren't a race, but it is a religious group, and groups need their own months of history for some political-correctness reason).

I have pale skin.  I am not proud to be white, nor am I ashamed to be white.  Any sense of pride or shame based on skin color is the very zenith of human stupidity and ignorance.  In fact, I disagree with even calling myself "white".  My skin is not white.  It is clearly skin-colored.  I do not look like a vampire.  Why am I "white"?  By definition, I am not even Caucasian!  I have never even set foot in Caucasus!

The very idea of "races" is completely illogical, backwards, and dangerous.  America is not at all interested in putting a stop to racial prejudice.  If America truly was, then every American would condemn the very idea that there are different races.  If America genuinely wanted to end racism once and for all, then every American would come to terms with the staggeringly simple fact that there is only one race: the human race.

I passionately forbid the government to define things, because they are absolutely stupid when it comes to definitions.  I wholeheartedly oppose the idea of different races because all races do is create labels, and anything that can be labeled can be hated.  There is no equality between colored people.  Those with lighter skin are still favored by popular culture even today.  Those with darker skin are paid less and punished more harshly than those with lighter skin.  This is a national statistic.

The entire country is rank with hypocrisy and double-standards.  It is tolerant and acceptable to have a Black History Month, but it is evil, repugnant, and racist to even think of having a White History Month.  How is that equality?  That is a double-standard which lobbies for white guilt.  Apologize for being white. Be sorry that you were born with light skin, you oppressive scum.

I am exaggerating, of course, but these hypothetical sentiments may not be so hypothetical.

Equality is an illusion.

No, not everyone is equal.  No, not everyone has to be equal.  No, equality does not have to be a social priority.  However, one's skin color should never have any affect on one's inequality either.

Michael Phelps and I are not equals.  I am a high school student, and he is an Olympic Gold Medalist.  His prestige and athleticism are both vastly superior to mine.  In this sense, we are vastly unequal.  I would address him as a superior out of respect, rather than as an equal.  Equality means nothing.  It is a subjective and personal judgment.

The cure for racism and inequality is this: stop comparing people to other people.  You are so incredibly unique, you could not possibly hope to effectively compare yourself to another human being.  Even identical twins are extremely different from each other—and I know this because I am dear friends with a pair of twins!  The issue is not equality.  The issue is respect.  People disrespect people.  It happens.  It hurts when it happens and it hurts to see it happen.  Equality has nothing to do with it.

Want to stop racial prejudice?  You can start by regarding others as superior—unequal—to yourself.

Debunked: Fundamentalism vs. Legalism

What many, many people consider "Fundamentalism" is actually something putrid known as "Legalism".

Egad!  What are these long words!  What do they mean?  That is a fair question, of course, and naturally I will explain myself.

I will start with the term most people are familiar with:

Fundamentalism:

I am a Christian Fundamentalist.  As a Fundamentalist, I am concerned with the essentials or the basic function of Christianity.  The basic function of Christianity is to live like Christ.  In fact, the very word "Christian" means "to live in Christ" in Greek.  By this, I am concerned with living like Christ.

So, how did Christ live?  He followed two rules: Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and love everyone.  In order to live like Christ, I should strive to live by these principles as well.

That is Christian Fundamentalism in a nutshell, but maybe that's too simplistic for your taste.  I shall summarize what the majority of Fundamentalists believe.  The following are the Five Fundamentals of Christianity as they were established by the Niagara Bible Conference and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church:

1. The Bible was inspired by God, and is inerrant as a result.
2. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin.
3. Christ's death was the an atonement for sin.
4. Christ was bodily resurrected.
5. Christ's miracles are historically real.

That's it.  That's Christian Fundamentalism.  The first point listed understandably generates the most controversy, for not everyone believes the Bible is divinely inspired, but take a look at something:

• Christian Fundamentalism says nothing about homosexuality.
• It says nothing about abortion.
• It says nothing about Evolution.
• It says nothing about politics or government.
• It says nothing about Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
• It says nothing about religion vs. irreligion.

What does it say?  Love God and love people.  If you can do those things, then, in theory, everything else will fall into place.  Your mission will become serving God and serving others, rather than dictating their morality or forcing beliefs down their throat.  This doesn't sound like the Fundamentalism people are used to hearing about.  Who are these people that keep getting called "fundies"?

Legalism:

Christian Legalism is the over-emphasis on discipline of conduct.  The symptoms of Legalism are as follows:

• Misguided rigor
• Religious pride
• Superficiality
• Hypocrisy
• Noted neglect of compassion or mercy
• Ignorance of the grace of God
• Emphasizing the letter of the law over the spirit of the law
• Asserting the view that obedience to the "laws" of the Bible, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption

A colleague of mine presented an interesting point regarding obeying the "laws" of the Bible.  He pointed out that only ten of all the "rules" stated in the Bible were directly from God.  The rest were created by man.  Moses authored the Mosaic Laws which are found in the Old Testament and followed by many Jews to this day.  Trying to adhere to all of these laws poses a risk of missing the whole point of Christianity: having a personal relationship with God.

It also puts you at risk of becoming an unpopular Bible-Thumper.  Jesus Christ was very frustrated with the Legalists of His day: the Pharisees.  He constantly called them out on their distortion of God's commandments and their pride in their religion.  This does not make all Christian Legalists judgmental bigots, of course.  However, the risk of becoming a bigot, or a modern day Pharisee, is very high.

What can bigotry do?  It can give you and the platform on whose behalf you are speaking a bad name.  A loud minority is a minority that is heard, and a minority that is heard can affect the opinion of the majority in the eyes of the third party.  In reality, not all Christians are bigots; likewise, not all bigots are Christians.  The Christians who are bigots, though, are the ones who are more ready to condemn and judge other people.  People generally respond negatively to such attacks, and therefore the platform these bigots represent (Christianity in this example) is given a negative connotation.

In the same way, Fundamentals are given a bad name—"Fundie"—because Legalists operate underneath that title.  So when you say that someone is a "Fundamentalist", what are you really saying about them?

The Problem of Good vs. Evil: Revisited

I feel compelled to further expound on the Good/Evil duality.

In my first Ruminations post, I briefly touched on the subject, but I wish to go deeper.  I believe I left some crucial points unmentioned, so I am going to dissect my first post and expand upon its ideas.  I'll start now:

What is Evil?  What is Good?

According to moral relativism, good and evil don't exist.  That's complete foolishness, because relativism disproves itself.  It is simply one's excuse to exempt oneself from responsibility and accountability.  It doesn't matter if you don't believe in a right and a wrong, because the country in which you live does.  No matter how relativistic your paradigm is, morality is imposed on you by society.  You are raised from birth being indoctrinated that morality is a thing, that it exists.  Most accept this indoctrination without question.  I, ever the Devil's Advocate, will gladly question this notion!

Let me ask you something: do you believe in morality?  Why?  What justification do you have for believing in morality?  By what standards to you base your morals?

If you answer was something along the lines of, "I believe in subjective morality", then you are, in my very humble opinion, making a paramount mistake.

The Illogic of Moral Subjection

Moral subjection is what happens when a person defines their own standards of what is "right" and what is "wrong".  It is very similar to moral relativism, and it is just as illogical.  To be frank, if you adhere to moral subjection, you have no justification to oppose rape, murder, thievery, dishonesty, or anything else that is popularly deemed "wrong".  At this point, you are probably wondering where I found the gall to make such a shocking claim.  Forthcoming: my explanation!

A person with a subjective morality has to set their own standards of "right" and "wrong".  This is something they must do on their own.  It is a personal thing.  Therefore, those standards are personal standards, and consequently can only be personal standards.  To impose your own arbitrary standards of morality on another person makes no sense!

Where do your morals come from?  From where did they first derive?  Did you make them up yourself?  That's moral subjection.  Did you obtain them from someone else?  That's moral subjection.  Did you acquire them from your parents or your culture?  That's moral subjection.  These sets of morality are entirely concocted by human beings, who are entirely arbitrary creatures.  If your morality is influenced by your opinion, it is subjective an unreliable due to its overwhelming lack of factuality (for opinions can never be nor become facts).

What comes about as a result?  Laws and political definitions.  Here in America (for I am an American), we have laws that prohibit certain courses of action.  Murder is a crime, for example.  My government has defined murder as a "wrong".  I have a few options, but I shall focus on the two most common: I can use my subjective opinion and agree with this definition of murder as a "wrong", or I can use my subjective opinion and disagree with this definition of murder as "wrong".  However, both scenarios do not in any way alter the true nature of murder.  The rightness or wrongness of murder (or any other action) is never for me to decide.

Where does morality come from?

Most of the time, it is made up.  The government of our respective nations tell us what is wrong and what is right, and we either comply or rebel.  Social acceptability tells us what is right and what is wrong, and we either conform or deviate.

There are those among us, though, who derive their sense of morality from higher, objective standards.  For Christians, these objective standards are found in the Bible as the Ten Commandments; and as we see in Exodus, the Bible and the government are in agreement that murder is in fact wrong, so subjective morality is certainly superior to total lack of morality.  Greater still, though, is objective morality.  Muslims find it in the Qur'an, Buddhists find it in The Eightfold Path.  Hindus find it through the study of karma.  Jews find it in Mosaic Law.

Those who do not affiliate with any religion, perhaps, find federal law to be their objective morality.  Even so, one should not define their morality solely by what they feel should be right or wrong.  That would make it far to easy to justify any sort of action, no matter how radical it was.  Rather, before any action is committed, contemplate it and anticipate the consequences.  Determine how your actions will affect yourself and others, and act accordingly.

In conclusion, I have but two questions:

1. Do Good and Evil exist?
2. Says who?

If you know the answers, then any research conducted will surely agree with you.  The truth is only found by those who go looking for it.

The Truth About Judgment and Forgiveness

There are two things that the Mind of Modern Culture either fails or refuses to understand: the actual natures of Judgment and Forgiveness.

And so, I have taken it upon myself to debunk the rumors concerning them both.  Contrary to popular belief, both—when used correctly—can be beneficial and even necessary to one's growth and maturity.

And, as always, I shall explain what I mean, and then you can come to your own conclusion as you see fit.  Isn't freedom of thought amazing?

First off, I feel I should address how judgement should not manifest itself.  If you are making an objective declaration about a person's character, once might say you have judged them.  If a person stole a wallet, and I called them a "lowly thief", I have judged that person based upon one action that they have committed.  In this way, defining a person by one action is judgment.  Likewise, condemning a person based upon their actions is judgment.

So, why should we not judge others?  Christianity and other world religions give that privilege to their respective deities.  The right to judge others belongs to God alone.  If you are irreligious, then you would not want to judge others simply because it is rude and frankly quite ignorant.  Who can know the heart of another?  Who are we to say we know enough about a person and their story to make judgement calls on them?

"Do not judge so that you will not be judged.  For in the way that you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."—Matthew 7:1-2 (NASB)

In other words, if you don't judge others, then chances are that people won't judge you, and God will also not judge you for being condemning (which is technically a privilege that only God possesses, so by condemning others, you're stealing).  It's common courtesy to be free of pretension, but unfortunately common sense is not so common.  But I digress!  Now that I have demonstrated what bad judgment looks like, what does good judgment look like?

 Judgment as Discernment: How to Forgive

discernment

noun

The act of showing insight and understanding something

In other words, perception is a proper application of judgment.  Seeing things for what they really are is good judgment.  Exposing lies for what they are is an application of good judgment.  Discernment is used by many philosophers (or simply by people who enjoy thinking) to search for and discover truths.  In many ways, judgment is a necessary thing.

Forgiveness, for example.  Judgment is necessary for forgiveness.  So...what's forgiveness?

Forgiveness is what happens when you give up resentment.  Forgiveness is what happens when you call off a debt.  Forgiveness is an act of mercy.  It is much more awesome than the Mind of Modern Culture thinks it is.  If a person has a debt owed to you, you call it off.  If a friend betrays your trust, you shake their hand and make an effort to restore that trust.  If a person has wronged you, you do not hold it against them for the rest of their days.

So, why is judgment necessary for forgiveness?

Let's say you stole my wallet and took the money out of it.  Naturally, I am going to want my wallet back, but let's say I don't care about the money.  You return my wallet, but you keep the money, and you say, "I am sorry."  If I answer you saying, "It's okay.  You've done nothing wrong," then I have not forgiven you.

First off, I haven't forgiven you because my statement was false.  You have done something wrong.  You've stolen! I didn't use very good discernment, did I?  Also, if I told you that you did nothing wrong, then I am basically telling you that it's okay for you to steal from me.  In order for forgiveness to take place, a wrong has to be committed, acknowledged, and then amends can be made.

Now, let's say this time you've stolen my wallet and have taken the money.  Now let's say you return both the wallet and the money, and say, "I'm sorry for stealing from you.  This belongs to you."  I can do two things at this point.  I can accept the wallet and the money back from you and say, "I forgive you; do not do it again," or I can accept the wallet back but say, "I forgive you, but you keep the money.  Just don't go stealing from anyone else."

So now my question for you is this: which scenario do you think best demonstrates forgiveness, and from which scenario would you be more likely to have learned something about forgiveness if you were the wallet-snatcher?

Well, there you have it: my explanations concerning the importance of judgment and forgiveness.  Use them well!