Instead of me sharing my new post this week, I want direct your attention to J. D. Nyle's post about witches and why they would be considered evil by definition.
To be fair, I think the original definition of a witch is a woman who practiced magic in which the evil comes from magic being evil. It's probably more of a case that not all witches start of wanting to become evil, but since magic is evil, it naturally corrupts and turns them into evil witches.
In contrast to that, if we were to consider delving deeper into the nature of witches, I'd follow the line of reasoning that Nyle shows. I think the idea about the nature of a witch being complete opposite of that of a virtuous woman is a good one.
If you don't trust the hyperlinks, here's the link in plain text: http://neostrikershining.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-nature-of-witches.html
While you're at that blog site, check out his full novel for Neostriker: Shining
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Saturday, April 16, 2016
On Bullying
To the Victims,
Our society is in a nasty situation: we are
filled with bullies, and society is multiplying them rather than depleting
them. You may think that societal pressure and TV shows that villainize bullies
would help, but they actually make things worse. When I was in college, I
noticed that those who watched the Disney Channel were often the bullies. If
you watch the CW network, that’s not any better. I pondered why, as I recall
the shows on there would condemn bullying. Now I realize they actually promoted
bullying. They condemned one form of bullying, only to advocate another.
What is this other form of bullying? It's what
adults practice, though it's common for the female youth to do so as well.
Instead of the stereotypical physical bullying often done by boys, it's
emotional and psychological. While a boy may physically threaten you for lunch
money, a girl would try to try to destroy your friendships and destroy your
self-esteem by humiliating you. I actually had a female teacher who taught at
an all-girls school and an all-boys school and she said she preferred the boys
to girls for a similar reason. Her analysis was “Boys fight to prove a point,
girls fight to destroy each other.” While each gender is certainly capable of
doing the other method of bullying, the typical practice is usually limited to what
I described. This is a bit of a stretch, but it may actually be related to the
TV shows each gender typically watches.
The Disney Channel has mostly been female-centric
for a while now, so little girls would be the type most likely to watch and be
indoctrinated with the emotional bullying. Boys have been stereotyped into
watching action cartoons, so they see the more forceful form of bullying
instead. So if a girl instead watches the more physical shows that boys
typically see, perhaps she'll be more likely a physical bully than an emotional
one. Likewise, if boys are forced to become more feminine, then they may more
likely become emotional bullies by the time they are adults.
Now this still doesn't make sense. I made a
claim earlier that society isn't helping despite pressure. Well, here's the
irony. TV ads and magazines verbally claim that bullying is evil, but they
often engage in bullying tactics such as blackmail or suing in order to get
what they want, which means they are bullies. Children perform actions mostly
based off the results they see, not based off what they hear. So when a child
sees that his father gets his way when he raises his voice and throws a fit,
he's going to do the same. Just like if they see an adult, who is
"cool", smoking a cigarette, he'll likely smoke as well (hence why
smoking was banned on TV for decades in the US as well as many other things.
This is also why censorship is a good thing when it's practiced properly).
Perhaps I should
give some examples of everyday bullying. It’s so bad, that the purpose of
occupations has been completely undermined. Politicians and Lawyers often make
their living by bullying others. This is WRONG! Politicians are supposed to
reconcile people, not break them apart. Lawyers are supposed to defend the
afflicted, not create them. Free speech is supposed to promote listening to
everyone’s concerns, not to heckle or boo someone off stage. The world is full
of bullies and we must convert that which has been turned evil back to good.
There's also a second reason for the abundance
of bullying, and that's because of a lack of empathy, though not in the way you
might be thinking. What I mean is that even when adults condemn bullying in the
schools, they don't help. By help, I don't mean putting a stop to the bullying
but rather teaching kids how to properly handle them. As a result, the only
advice children get is from the TV shows I mentioned before. The problem
expands in that the TV shows are crafted to try to make the children feel good,
which often results in the bullies being bullied. This is because we apparently don't care about those who are bullied when we have been
bullied ourselves. As least, that's what I've noticed from adults.
When I was being bullied on the psychological front, the deans had no helpful
advice and would often just stick to their rules where, as long as there was no
physical bullying, they would do nothing and give no helpful advice. All I can
recall them saying is something along the lines of "You need to figure it
out" or "You need to grow up." I think one did mention something
about bullies were often bullied themselves, though he didn't go into the
details like I have about that.
This lack of help about how to stop bullying
could be claimed as one of the great crimes of inaction by adults, as kids
don't grow out of bullying, they grow into bullying. And as these kids, who
don't know how to handle bullies, become adults, they cannot help their
children either. But enough about describing the cause. Let me offer the
solution.
This might not be something you want to hear,
but the answer is the cliché "Forgive". Yes, that thing that
Christians often preach about is how we stop bullying. It may not stop your
immediate bullying problem, but it'll lay the foundation
for destroying it in the future. When you realize that bullies are those who
were previously bullied but didn't know how to properly cope, you find that
it's because they are seeking "fairness" which they think is Justice.
As I previously mentioned, Mercy helps puts things back in order, which is true
Justice. The act of mercy here is to forgive. This may not fix the bully, but
it will at least fix you. When you forgive, the bully may be done issuing his
"revenge on society" or may continue, but your scars will heal.
Because if your wounds stay open, you will start searching for revenge out of
envy and carry it out until your thirst is quenched, and revenge is never sated
except by forgiveness and true Justice.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo
P.S. Another observation is that bullies actually often
think of themselves in their victims’ shoes. A common thought would be “I’ve
had it worse. He hasn’t had enough yet.” This may often come from envy and it’s
a hint about how to distinguish Bullying from Teasing even though they may
appear the same. Bullying is rooted in malice, envy, or contempt, but Teasing
comes from love or friendship.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Why English (and other languages) are so hard to study
To the Language Students,
English is perhaps one of the most difficult languages to study in the world. Why is that? Well, it's a big convulsive mess because of many things. You may have heard of the interesting history of the development of the English Language and how it is German based with French influences. Here is a brief summary as I learned in college.
First you have the original inhabitants of England. They have their Germanic roots (I think these were the Anglos and hence how England got its name as "Land of Anglos"). Then Rome comes and establishes a brief influence in the region. After the Romans, the Germanic tribes from Europe come and conquer (possibly the Saxons? Hence you get Anglo-Saxon). It's from the Vikings that we have the "count in quantities of 12" system also known as "base-12". That's why we have words like dozen and how we have separate words for 12 numbers before your fall into the more Roman pattern of base-10. Why Roman again? Because England was then conquered by the Normans who inhabited Northern France. These people became the rulers but didn't want to contaminate their "noble language" with that of the common folk. This leads to English having a proper, French-derived word set and an Germanic-derived vulgar set. Tom Scott briefly covers this in his own video about why you swear in Anglo-Saxon. Next is even more Roman influence as you have the Renaissance. After that, you move towards Modern English where there's a global influence as English adopts words from many different languages.
However, the development history as I described is just one aspect of how the Language became so confusing. A large part of the blame stems from those who have inherited the language over generations and failed to practice proper English. Now my English skills are not great either, but I do also get frustrated by inconsistent practices that are starting to become normal. For example, the use of the for "they" for third-person singular annoys me. "10 items or less" instead of "fewer" is another annoying point as this makes it confusing how to properly use the two ("less" is for what you cannot count such as "water", but "fewer" is for something you can count, such as "items"). So when something like my latter example becomes common, it's no wonder that learning the language becomes a tedious task.
English is perhaps one of the most difficult languages to study in the world. Why is that? Well, it's a big convulsive mess because of many things. You may have heard of the interesting history of the development of the English Language and how it is German based with French influences. Here is a brief summary as I learned in college.
First you have the original inhabitants of England. They have their Germanic roots (I think these were the Anglos and hence how England got its name as "Land of Anglos"). Then Rome comes and establishes a brief influence in the region. After the Romans, the Germanic tribes from Europe come and conquer (possibly the Saxons? Hence you get Anglo-Saxon). It's from the Vikings that we have the "count in quantities of 12" system also known as "base-12". That's why we have words like dozen and how we have separate words for 12 numbers before your fall into the more Roman pattern of base-10. Why Roman again? Because England was then conquered by the Normans who inhabited Northern France. These people became the rulers but didn't want to contaminate their "noble language" with that of the common folk. This leads to English having a proper, French-derived word set and an Germanic-derived vulgar set. Tom Scott briefly covers this in his own video about why you swear in Anglo-Saxon. Next is even more Roman influence as you have the Renaissance. After that, you move towards Modern English where there's a global influence as English adopts words from many different languages.
However, the development history as I described is just one aspect of how the Language became so confusing. A large part of the blame stems from those who have inherited the language over generations and failed to practice proper English. Now my English skills are not great either, but I do also get frustrated by inconsistent practices that are starting to become normal. For example, the use of the for "they" for third-person singular annoys me. "10 items or less" instead of "fewer" is another annoying point as this makes it confusing how to properly use the two ("less" is for what you cannot count such as "water", but "fewer" is for something you can count, such as "items"). So when something like my latter example becomes common, it's no wonder that learning the language becomes a tedious task.
N. D. Moharo
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
How is Mercy Just?
To Those Who Desire Justice,
The idea of Mercy can be a very confusing thing. When we often think of Mercy in terms of Justice, we might perceive that Mercy avoids Justice. When you get into religion, you may even hear the concept of a God who is Equally Merciful and Just. How can this be?
I actually only recently figured out a solution to this paradox today (28th of February) and the best way to explain it is to better focus once more on a little short story written by J. D. Nyle. His story of the Rapist Knight is the best example of Mercy and how Justice actually needs it. I suggest you read it before reading my thoughts on it.
The story asserts that Rape is evil and even places it as a crime punishable by death. A knight is caught in the act and shows no form of remorse for his actions. In fact, he even tries to say it's no big deal as she is a peasant girl. He is given the Death Sentence with proper comments that "If the warriors who are to protect my land are evil, what need does another army need attack us?" The Knight is confirmed to be wicked. However, that is only beginning of the story.
The prince intercedes for the knight, confirming his father's words about evil, but responding that he sees potential for the evil to be corrected far greater than the death sentence. His proposal is that the knight become a slave for the family he had wronged with the possibility of regaining his rank. We may consider this idea to be evil but the prince's words explain his idea. He says to the father of the family about the death of the knight: "But what good will it do you? It is quick and simple, but it will not take away the pain. He is a human being like yourself and so I implore you to have mercy. His life is yours to deal with. Please respect it as a human life.” The prince acknowledges that the scar of the crime cannot be satiated with just one man's death. The effects would still be there. He proposes that by servitude, this scar may be healed as well.
When the father of the family decides to join in the prince's act of mercy, we read on to see the knight does change. He serves the family, begins to respect them, mourns his action toward the maiden, and actually grows to love her and the daughter who is borne, keeping all of these beyond his time of sentenced servitude. The Power of Mercy is that it can restore balance and therefore be True Justice.
Consider what it would mean if the knight had died. The scar of being raped would still linger on the maiden. The knight would have died as a fallen knight. The family would have a daughter who was a result of rape and no father. Through the prince, father, and also the maiden's acts of mercy, the evils were corrected one by one, replaced with virtue. The knight previously had no respect for the maiden and now did. The knight wronged the people he was supposed to protect and serve willingly and now he does. The knight committed an act of selfishness but now properly loves the maiden. The daughter, who would have been borne without a father, now has a father who loves her. The knight who had dishonored himself now had earned true honor.
As I mentioned before in my essay about Equality, Justice is the true honorable desire and is described as "Scales of Justice" in which we want balance. The Death Penalty was certainly the acceptable law in the case, but the true fulfillment of the law was servitude. Without Mercy, there would still be an imbalance, but through Mercy, there is balance and perfection. This is what we need in our lives and this is why Justice and Mercy go together.
The idea of Mercy can be a very confusing thing. When we often think of Mercy in terms of Justice, we might perceive that Mercy avoids Justice. When you get into religion, you may even hear the concept of a God who is Equally Merciful and Just. How can this be?
I actually only recently figured out a solution to this paradox today (28th of February) and the best way to explain it is to better focus once more on a little short story written by J. D. Nyle. His story of the Rapist Knight is the best example of Mercy and how Justice actually needs it. I suggest you read it before reading my thoughts on it.
The story asserts that Rape is evil and even places it as a crime punishable by death. A knight is caught in the act and shows no form of remorse for his actions. In fact, he even tries to say it's no big deal as she is a peasant girl. He is given the Death Sentence with proper comments that "If the warriors who are to protect my land are evil, what need does another army need attack us?" The Knight is confirmed to be wicked. However, that is only beginning of the story.
The prince intercedes for the knight, confirming his father's words about evil, but responding that he sees potential for the evil to be corrected far greater than the death sentence. His proposal is that the knight become a slave for the family he had wronged with the possibility of regaining his rank. We may consider this idea to be evil but the prince's words explain his idea. He says to the father of the family about the death of the knight: "But what good will it do you? It is quick and simple, but it will not take away the pain. He is a human being like yourself and so I implore you to have mercy. His life is yours to deal with. Please respect it as a human life.” The prince acknowledges that the scar of the crime cannot be satiated with just one man's death. The effects would still be there. He proposes that by servitude, this scar may be healed as well.
When the father of the family decides to join in the prince's act of mercy, we read on to see the knight does change. He serves the family, begins to respect them, mourns his action toward the maiden, and actually grows to love her and the daughter who is borne, keeping all of these beyond his time of sentenced servitude. The Power of Mercy is that it can restore balance and therefore be True Justice.
Consider what it would mean if the knight had died. The scar of being raped would still linger on the maiden. The knight would have died as a fallen knight. The family would have a daughter who was a result of rape and no father. Through the prince, father, and also the maiden's acts of mercy, the evils were corrected one by one, replaced with virtue. The knight previously had no respect for the maiden and now did. The knight wronged the people he was supposed to protect and serve willingly and now he does. The knight committed an act of selfishness but now properly loves the maiden. The daughter, who would have been borne without a father, now has a father who loves her. The knight who had dishonored himself now had earned true honor.
As I mentioned before in my essay about Equality, Justice is the true honorable desire and is described as "Scales of Justice" in which we want balance. The Death Penalty was certainly the acceptable law in the case, but the true fulfillment of the law was servitude. Without Mercy, there would still be an imbalance, but through Mercy, there is balance and perfection. This is what we need in our lives and this is why Justice and Mercy go together.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo
Thursday, February 25, 2016
The Trap of Equality
To the Equal Rights Activists,
Hear my plea and reasoning. I ask you to be free from the trap of "Equality" for it is indeed just that. You may consider this briefly controversial to hear, but Equality is impossible, making it the perfect tool for manipulation.
Consider this food payment problem. How much should we pay for a meal? Should it be the cost of the ingredients? Or should it be in respect to how much we enjoy it? How about the amount of food that is in the meal? Or should it be in relation to how much it fills our stomachs? What about in respect to our income? Note that you cannot obtain perfect equality here. If you lean towards one idea, which is fair in its line of reasoning, then you create inequality in some other aspect. There will always be something we may consider unfair and we need to accept that.
I'm not saying that Equality is evil, but that shouldn't be our goal. What we should really desire and fight for is Justice and Mercy. Why? Because Justice is what balances things. Physics dictates that if you place two differing weights on a teeter-totter, the way you get them to balance is to either move the smaller weight closer to the fulcrum or heavier weight away from the fulcrum. This idea of balance is why Justice is described as scales.
Let me show you an example of current Equal Rights ideas that would actually disrupt the balance: Equal number of Men and Women in the workforce. Are women capable of working as well as men? Certainly! However, there is a problem here. If this means that less women stay at home as mothers, and the number of men working stays the same, that means there are no parents taking care of the children. Why is this a problem? Two reasons: First is that babies are said to become the most healthy when breastfed for 6 months (and I also read this helps with reducing food allergies though I don't remember where). This means women need the time off from work for this to be the most effective but it would create a huge burden for the company to pay for this time off. The second reason is something I have observed. In households where both parents work, the children may have more toys to play with, they also appear more likely to do drugs or commit crimes. When parents are actively part of the child's life, the child grows up with virtue and becomes a model citizen, both emotionally and academically.
A third reason, which is not totally unrelated to children, is that the economy requires one spouse to be at home. Think about it. Why would shopping malls and retail stores be open all day, providing jobs for the people who work there, if no one can come to the store? Why should the post office and banks be open only at the hours that a typical person is supposed to be working? Seriously, I cannot go to either of those places, except on Saturdays when they are only open for part of the day. This makes Saturday a day of stress rather than work as those are just two things that can take a few hours to do, in addition to all the other things that need to be done. When one spouse is at home, then these things can be accomplished during the week and people have jobs to do during the week. The economy and society depends on stay-at-home mothers.
I may not know which side to be on in the "Gender Wage Gap Debate", but I do know we need most mothers to stay at home if possible. In fact, this could be part of why men might make more than women. Society is still in the middle of that "The man earns money to provide for the household" while "women are working for extra money" mentality. Is that fair? Yes and no. I do hold that women should be able to earn enough to provide for a household, especially if she's a single mother. However, I also hold that should be the exception, not the rule.
It's amazing that we can be so focused on Equality, that we attack those who show generosity. Did the workers deserve the raise given by that Washington CEO last April? Most likely not, but that's why his act of slashing his own salary to help them was so special. Those who needed a boost got one, while those who were earning a good amount got only a minor boost. In all cases, the CEO's action was generous and that is an "inequality" that is okay.
What I think is that we need to stop comparing salaries as that can lead to trouble. The amount you are paid should be what you think you are worth for the work you are doing, with extra pay being considered a gift to be appreciated. In my company, there are multiple employees in my division, but I don't care how much each makes as I occasionally consider myself overpaid, but I'm thankful for my bosses' generosity. So even if we have the same title, we do our jobs in different ways, resulting in covering a large area that one man could not do himself. So there is no way to determine "equal pay for equal work." We all do our job and our management appreciates it. As a result, I like my bosses and I try to do what I can to work hard for them for as long as I can.
Equality should not be our goal. We should care about Justice and be Merciful. There are cases where we may have the right to be angry or to demand reparation, but sometime it's when we show our mercy, generosity, and forgiveness that we and others can move on to become a more perfect society. Fighting for Equality is a trap that never ends, but True Equality comes when Justice and Mercy reign supreme.
P.S. I forgot to include this idea in my initial draft despite my intent to do so. The Justice aspect of stay-at-home mothers is that they should be praised and appreciated for all the work they do to maintain the house and care for the family, because it really is a lot of work, even when you don't have children. They are important and necessary, so NO ONE should ever say otherwise.
Hear my plea and reasoning. I ask you to be free from the trap of "Equality" for it is indeed just that. You may consider this briefly controversial to hear, but Equality is impossible, making it the perfect tool for manipulation.
Consider this food payment problem. How much should we pay for a meal? Should it be the cost of the ingredients? Or should it be in respect to how much we enjoy it? How about the amount of food that is in the meal? Or should it be in relation to how much it fills our stomachs? What about in respect to our income? Note that you cannot obtain perfect equality here. If you lean towards one idea, which is fair in its line of reasoning, then you create inequality in some other aspect. There will always be something we may consider unfair and we need to accept that.
I'm not saying that Equality is evil, but that shouldn't be our goal. What we should really desire and fight for is Justice and Mercy. Why? Because Justice is what balances things. Physics dictates that if you place two differing weights on a teeter-totter, the way you get them to balance is to either move the smaller weight closer to the fulcrum or heavier weight away from the fulcrum. This idea of balance is why Justice is described as scales.
Let me show you an example of current Equal Rights ideas that would actually disrupt the balance: Equal number of Men and Women in the workforce. Are women capable of working as well as men? Certainly! However, there is a problem here. If this means that less women stay at home as mothers, and the number of men working stays the same, that means there are no parents taking care of the children. Why is this a problem? Two reasons: First is that babies are said to become the most healthy when breastfed for 6 months (and I also read this helps with reducing food allergies though I don't remember where). This means women need the time off from work for this to be the most effective but it would create a huge burden for the company to pay for this time off. The second reason is something I have observed. In households where both parents work, the children may have more toys to play with, they also appear more likely to do drugs or commit crimes. When parents are actively part of the child's life, the child grows up with virtue and becomes a model citizen, both emotionally and academically.
A third reason, which is not totally unrelated to children, is that the economy requires one spouse to be at home. Think about it. Why would shopping malls and retail stores be open all day, providing jobs for the people who work there, if no one can come to the store? Why should the post office and banks be open only at the hours that a typical person is supposed to be working? Seriously, I cannot go to either of those places, except on Saturdays when they are only open for part of the day. This makes Saturday a day of stress rather than work as those are just two things that can take a few hours to do, in addition to all the other things that need to be done. When one spouse is at home, then these things can be accomplished during the week and people have jobs to do during the week. The economy and society depends on stay-at-home mothers.
I may not know which side to be on in the "Gender Wage Gap Debate", but I do know we need most mothers to stay at home if possible. In fact, this could be part of why men might make more than women. Society is still in the middle of that "The man earns money to provide for the household" while "women are working for extra money" mentality. Is that fair? Yes and no. I do hold that women should be able to earn enough to provide for a household, especially if she's a single mother. However, I also hold that should be the exception, not the rule.
It's amazing that we can be so focused on Equality, that we attack those who show generosity. Did the workers deserve the raise given by that Washington CEO last April? Most likely not, but that's why his act of slashing his own salary to help them was so special. Those who needed a boost got one, while those who were earning a good amount got only a minor boost. In all cases, the CEO's action was generous and that is an "inequality" that is okay.
What I think is that we need to stop comparing salaries as that can lead to trouble. The amount you are paid should be what you think you are worth for the work you are doing, with extra pay being considered a gift to be appreciated. In my company, there are multiple employees in my division, but I don't care how much each makes as I occasionally consider myself overpaid, but I'm thankful for my bosses' generosity. So even if we have the same title, we do our jobs in different ways, resulting in covering a large area that one man could not do himself. So there is no way to determine "equal pay for equal work." We all do our job and our management appreciates it. As a result, I like my bosses and I try to do what I can to work hard for them for as long as I can.
Equality should not be our goal. We should care about Justice and be Merciful. There are cases where we may have the right to be angry or to demand reparation, but sometime it's when we show our mercy, generosity, and forgiveness that we and others can move on to become a more perfect society. Fighting for Equality is a trap that never ends, but True Equality comes when Justice and Mercy reign supreme.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo
P.S. I forgot to include this idea in my initial draft despite my intent to do so. The Justice aspect of stay-at-home mothers is that they should be praised and appreciated for all the work they do to maintain the house and care for the family, because it really is a lot of work, even when you don't have children. They are important and necessary, so NO ONE should ever say otherwise.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Shared Essays: Christian Marriage
Sometimes coincidences are purely interesting. I recently attended a wedding and the bride and groom prepared some essays for their guests about why they were doing a Christian Marriage. I meant to share this earlier last week but lost access to my computer and only just received permission from the bride to share it. As a result, I'm posting this on Valentine's Day which is a Christian feast day but also famous for showing love to one another. Hope you enjoy the interesting insights this married couple wrote their their guests.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo
Why the Crucifix?
You may notice after entering the church there is a
crucifix, an image of Jesus when he died. Why do we prominently display this
image, which should seem to appear to be the worst thing to happen? This is
because God is an interesting Director and used this event to show how much He
loves us. By recalling the death and passion of our Lord, we remember how he
took flesh and suffered one of the most painful deaths to show that even though
we treat Him unjustly, desert Him, and even insult Him and speak words of
hatred, He loves us so greatly that He died for our sins. We pray that this
example of Love never leave our minds as there is no better example for
Christian Marriage.
There will be times where we make mistakes and hurt each
other emotionally, but it takes a strong will to endure the pain, forgive each
other, and continue to love each other. We must willfully desire what is good
for each other, even at the sacrifice of ourselves. Love is influenced by the
heart, but it is an act of the will. This makes it possible to “Love our
Enemies” and to love each other even when it is difficult.
Why Christian Marriage?
We often consider Marriage to be about Love even though the
joke is that very few actually still love each other after a few years.
Christianity, on the other hand, is and always has been about Love. It is about true, authentic, and undying
love. There is no other religion that can claim the title of Religion of Love.
Consider this chain of logic. God is Good. God is Love. God
created Man in His Image. God called Man
very good. If God is Good and Love, then
Man’s perfection and Happiness lies in being Good and to Love. Christianity
reveals that God created us out of Love in order to Love. God even became Man
to show us that perfect model of Goodness and Love. Therefore, Christianity
must be the Religion of Love.
Christianity has not only the perfect example of Love, but
it challenges us to strive towards that perfect example. Even if we cannot
reach the perfect model, there are many heroes called Saints that show us how
we can still love greatly. The first heroes we have are our parents bound
through marriage, committing to love each other “Through Good Times and Bad,
For Better and Worse.”
In today’s society, it’s hard to maintain that commitment,
but by focusing on Christian Models and Ideals, we look ahead with hope. We
have adhered to its teachings while we dated, and now we shall work to thrive
through them as we live as husband and wife.
Why the Mass?
The Mass consists of two liturgies. The first is where we
listen and reflect on the Bible. This is to help us appreciate the Love of God
and prepare our minds to participate in the second liturgy. The second is where
we participate in the passion of Jesus by receiving Holy Communion and praying.
The Mass is where we see a miracle every time with
transformation of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. While the
physical attributes of Bread and Wine do not change, we believe that God has
changed the substance within. This is amazing because it allows God to dwell
within us.
In the Bible, Jesus states that those who want to enter
heaven must eat His flesh. It’s a strong statement, but reading it carefully,
we see that He was serious. But if Jesus is no longer present here on earth,
how is this possible?
We believe the Mass to make present the sacrifice of Jesus.
We do not believe that we offer up Jesus to die again and again, but that
through a divine miracle, we are somehow present at the one sacrifice. By this, He who created the world, turned a
sea into blood and then back again, and turned water into wine, is perfectly
capable of changing bread and wine into bodily flesh without changing anything
physical. It’s called a Miracle.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
How a Mother Killed her Son and Got Away With It
Warning: This story, though fiction, is a prediction of the not-so-distant future. It will happen because the defenses have been and currently being taken down. It may make you feel sick. My hope is that y sharing this with you, we may prevent it from happening. My points are below the "article".
Nancy Smith, age 27, stabbed her one-year old toddler in the heart when he wouldn't stop crying. "I just could not take it anymore," she said with no regret. As a single mother after divorcing her ex-husband, George Smith, she was deep in debt from student loans and found the burden of a toddler unbearable. Her attorney, Hilary Sanger, successfully argued that "that toddler threatened her Constitutional Rights... It sucked the life out of Ms. Smith by its excessive crying, keeping up from sleep which has been clinically proven to be necessary. It also produced an undue burden financially that would only grow the longer she kept it." She provided studies that showed the estimated cost of raising a toddler to age 18 would be at least $1,000,000. "Since Ms. Smith was already deep in debt, it would escalate to the point beyond repayment. No only that, but the mere existence of the toddler limited her career options, proving to be an undue burden that threatened her Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness."
The DA, a white male from Silicon Valley, argued that the toddler should have been given to the father, who previously fought for custody after the divorce. However, precedents paved the way that the woman, who held the burden of carrying the fetus to term, should have the say in how its life is lived. This Right to Choose meant that even after the fetus was born, if she no longer wanted it, she could dispose of it. Ms. Sanger pointed out that if a woman could terminate a pregnancy by the 9th month, why should she be constrained because of going through the most painful experience? She continued to argue that a woman could complete an abortion even after it "fails" and the fetus emerges alive. This was supported by President Obama, who as a state senator, voted against a bill that would have prevented such an action because it would undermine Roe vs Wade. President Obama is currently being appointed to the Supreme Court by President Hilary Clinton.
The DA tried to argue that the toddler was a person and had a right to live. The defense scored another victory by proving that even in conservative philosophy, a child is not able to reason until age 5. Also, by reminding the court that the toddler could not vote or serve on a jury, it could not be considered a citizen. It was only a burden to the client and society, taking tax dollars which could be better spent on college scholarships and nature preservation projects. The closest the toddler could be considered being a person is 1/18th of one as it would take another 17 years before it could perform any services. Since 1/18th is not even close to 1, then the toddler was not a person...
Now this is prediction and such a case may not go entirely like that. However, I do beg the question, "How do you fight against this?" When a child can be killed even after being born alive, which the issue has been brought up many times but shot down, how can we prevent murder of toddlers when they are considered "inconvenient"? There are still some barriers as some members of Congress and some State Legislatures fight for the protection of those still in the womb. Unfortunately, the U.S. Democratic party is strictly in favor for abortion, as stated by the party platform and one thing it appears very united on.
So what arguments do I have for against abortion? First, something you must know is that women do require love and support, especially when caring for a child. Therefore, the debate actually stems to the current culture attacking true love. Husbands should be caring for their wives and be fully loving at all times. Children create a very strong bond for married couples to stay together and exercise their love. Those who father children should not be freed of their responsibilities. Yes, abortion and contraception was actually a trick in order that men could free themselves from having to love a woman. After all, by having abortions and contraception, they think they can hide their adulterous acts. Abortion doesn't free women from men, it enables males to avoid being men.
You may have noticed many of the tactics I placed in that article. The biggest thing was the personhood of a child. In order for this to be considered a "Human Rights" victory, the child would have to be declared "Not Human". Hence, the pronoun used was "It" which describes objects. This is appropriate because children have become considered objects rather than living things. This mentality exists in Human Trafficking, the artificial creation of children, and even in adoption in some cases (which is why adoption agencies can be strict about who can adopt).
A question we must ask ourselves is "At what point did we become human?" Is it when we are born? Then how about those babies who were born alive as part of the abortion procedure? What about those after 6 months of being in the womb? A baby born after 6 months can survive and grow up if taken care of. I actually know someone with that situation.
Another heavy question is "What gives us the right to say who can live?" We were all embryos and fetuses, and we were all given the opportunity to live. How can we deny that? We were in that situation and were given the right to live.
There is a joke where someone asks God, "If you are so great, why haven't you sent us someone to cure cancer?" and God replies, "I did. You killed her in an abortion." When you consider how many great figures in history were unwanted or unexpected children (including Jesus for Christians), you can't help but wonder how many more great people were killed through an abortion.
In terms of politicians and their stances, if they support abortion, which would mean the death of the defenseless and those who need support the most, why should they care to defend you? The inconvenient truth here is that they just want your votes for power.
The current situation is that the courts continually recently strike down laws that attempt to restrict abortions. Things will only get worse as the next president can possibly appoint 4 Supreme Court justices. Hilary has already stated that she thinks it would be a great idea to appoint Obama, and we know his position on babies born alive being killed (as well as how big of a liar he is when he's campaigning thanks to information revealed by his Campaign Manager). Now do I approve of any of the Republicans? Not really but I am curious about Carly Fiorina, but she also needs to clean up her campaign a bit if she want to win. On the other hand, at least I can have more faith that she won't appoint people who will legalize murder of children. If a woman president, I would definitely prefer her over Hilary. We cannot trust Hilary who wants all restrictions on abortions removed and also expressed dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the ban of partial-birth abortion in 2007.
P.S. I did not write this piece with the intent of condemning just Hilary Clinton, but all presidential candidates who support abortion. I just know more about Hilary than the others.
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAN FRANCISCO WOMAN FREED AFTER KILLING TODDLER
In a decision from the 9th Circuit Court, a woman guilty of killing her one-year old male offspring has been released in a victory for Human Rights. Following the precedents of major Women's Rights cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and Roe vs Wade (1973), the court found no valid argument for imprisoning a woman who decided to free herself from the slavery of a white-male parasite.Nancy Smith, age 27, stabbed her one-year old toddler in the heart when he wouldn't stop crying. "I just could not take it anymore," she said with no regret. As a single mother after divorcing her ex-husband, George Smith, she was deep in debt from student loans and found the burden of a toddler unbearable. Her attorney, Hilary Sanger, successfully argued that "that toddler threatened her Constitutional Rights... It sucked the life out of Ms. Smith by its excessive crying, keeping up from sleep which has been clinically proven to be necessary. It also produced an undue burden financially that would only grow the longer she kept it." She provided studies that showed the estimated cost of raising a toddler to age 18 would be at least $1,000,000. "Since Ms. Smith was already deep in debt, it would escalate to the point beyond repayment. No only that, but the mere existence of the toddler limited her career options, proving to be an undue burden that threatened her Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness."
The DA, a white male from Silicon Valley, argued that the toddler should have been given to the father, who previously fought for custody after the divorce. However, precedents paved the way that the woman, who held the burden of carrying the fetus to term, should have the say in how its life is lived. This Right to Choose meant that even after the fetus was born, if she no longer wanted it, she could dispose of it. Ms. Sanger pointed out that if a woman could terminate a pregnancy by the 9th month, why should she be constrained because of going through the most painful experience? She continued to argue that a woman could complete an abortion even after it "fails" and the fetus emerges alive. This was supported by President Obama, who as a state senator, voted against a bill that would have prevented such an action because it would undermine Roe vs Wade. President Obama is currently being appointed to the Supreme Court by President Hilary Clinton.
The DA tried to argue that the toddler was a person and had a right to live. The defense scored another victory by proving that even in conservative philosophy, a child is not able to reason until age 5. Also, by reminding the court that the toddler could not vote or serve on a jury, it could not be considered a citizen. It was only a burden to the client and society, taking tax dollars which could be better spent on college scholarships and nature preservation projects. The closest the toddler could be considered being a person is 1/18th of one as it would take another 17 years before it could perform any services. Since 1/18th is not even close to 1, then the toddler was not a person...
End of Fictional Story
------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Opinion Piece
------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Opinion Piece
Now this is prediction and such a case may not go entirely like that. However, I do beg the question, "How do you fight against this?" When a child can be killed even after being born alive, which the issue has been brought up many times but shot down, how can we prevent murder of toddlers when they are considered "inconvenient"? There are still some barriers as some members of Congress and some State Legislatures fight for the protection of those still in the womb. Unfortunately, the U.S. Democratic party is strictly in favor for abortion, as stated by the party platform and one thing it appears very united on.
So what arguments do I have for against abortion? First, something you must know is that women do require love and support, especially when caring for a child. Therefore, the debate actually stems to the current culture attacking true love. Husbands should be caring for their wives and be fully loving at all times. Children create a very strong bond for married couples to stay together and exercise their love. Those who father children should not be freed of their responsibilities. Yes, abortion and contraception was actually a trick in order that men could free themselves from having to love a woman. After all, by having abortions and contraception, they think they can hide their adulterous acts. Abortion doesn't free women from men, it enables males to avoid being men.
You may have noticed many of the tactics I placed in that article. The biggest thing was the personhood of a child. In order for this to be considered a "Human Rights" victory, the child would have to be declared "Not Human". Hence, the pronoun used was "It" which describes objects. This is appropriate because children have become considered objects rather than living things. This mentality exists in Human Trafficking, the artificial creation of children, and even in adoption in some cases (which is why adoption agencies can be strict about who can adopt).
A question we must ask ourselves is "At what point did we become human?" Is it when we are born? Then how about those babies who were born alive as part of the abortion procedure? What about those after 6 months of being in the womb? A baby born after 6 months can survive and grow up if taken care of. I actually know someone with that situation.
Another heavy question is "What gives us the right to say who can live?" We were all embryos and fetuses, and we were all given the opportunity to live. How can we deny that? We were in that situation and were given the right to live.
There is a joke where someone asks God, "If you are so great, why haven't you sent us someone to cure cancer?" and God replies, "I did. You killed her in an abortion." When you consider how many great figures in history were unwanted or unexpected children (including Jesus for Christians), you can't help but wonder how many more great people were killed through an abortion.
In terms of politicians and their stances, if they support abortion, which would mean the death of the defenseless and those who need support the most, why should they care to defend you? The inconvenient truth here is that they just want your votes for power.
The current situation is that the courts continually recently strike down laws that attempt to restrict abortions. Things will only get worse as the next president can possibly appoint 4 Supreme Court justices. Hilary has already stated that she thinks it would be a great idea to appoint Obama, and we know his position on babies born alive being killed (as well as how big of a liar he is when he's campaigning thanks to information revealed by his Campaign Manager). Now do I approve of any of the Republicans? Not really but I am curious about Carly Fiorina, but she also needs to clean up her campaign a bit if she want to win. On the other hand, at least I can have more faith that she won't appoint people who will legalize murder of children. If a woman president, I would definitely prefer her over Hilary. We cannot trust Hilary who wants all restrictions on abortions removed and also expressed dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the ban of partial-birth abortion in 2007.
N. D. Moharo
P.S. I did not write this piece with the intent of condemning just Hilary Clinton, but all presidential candidates who support abortion. I just know more about Hilary than the others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)