Goodbye Xanga

Goodbye Xanga. It was good knowing you, but I have fallen in love with another. I'll see you around sometime.

http://larrylin.wordpress.com

- Larry

A Survey That Honestly Isn't Too Exciting

Random Musings 11.30.08

Hello.

Unlike most Cornellians, I spent my Thanksgiving break at Cornell. There were some fun moments. My love for Mafia matured even more, and I experienced for the first time waking up as early as 4:30 just to wait in a line. I eventually blew $150ish that day at the mall. Other than that, I spent my time sleeping and eating pizza. I spent a night in the recording studio. I did close to no homework. And I got to know some people better. Not a bad deal. Now I have a week of hard-working to make up for my wasted weekend.

I looked up a bunch of artists recently, because it's a thing I like to do. And I never knew that the Goo Goo Dolls once were these punk rockers. Back in the late 80s and early 90s. Andnow I have new/revived appreciations for bands such as the Beach Boys, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Supertramp, AC/DC, and Journey.

I realize that I feel good when people think I'm smart. Well, that's kind of obvious. Most people feel good when people think they're smart. But for me, it's gotten to a point where that good feeling plays as a big motivation for me. Sometimes I write these deep posts partly so I can feel smart. Or sometimes I read so I can feel smart. Or sometimes I give advice so I can feel smart. The pastor at KCCE gave a message a while back (though I didn't agree with everything) that hit home. And reading Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller (which I highly recommend) reinforced it. Here's an excerpt.

"I figure I was attaching myself to a certain identity because it made me feel smart or, more honestly, it made other people tell me I was smart. This was how I earned my sense of importance. Now, as I was saying earlier, by doing things to get other people to value me, a couple of ideas became obvious, the first being that I was a human wired so other people told me who I was. This was very different from anything I had previously believed, including that you had to believe in yourself and all, and I still believe that is true, but I realized there was this other part of me, and it was a big part of me, that needed something outside myself to tell me who I was. And the thing that had been designed to tell me who I was, was gone. And so the second idea became obvious: I was very concerned with getting other people to say I was good or valuable or important because the thing that was supposed to make me feel this way was gone.

And it wasn't just me. I could see it in the people on television, I could see it in the people in the movies, I could see it in my friends and family, too. It seemed that every human being had this need for something outside himself to tell him who he was, and that whatever it was that did this was gone, and this, to me, served as a kind of personality theory. It explained why I wanted to be seen as smart, why religious people wanted so desperately to be right, why Shirley MacLaine wanted to be God, and just about everything else a human did.

Later, when I set this truth about myself, and for that matter about the human race, next to what the Bible was saying about who God is, what happened at the Fall, and the sort of message Jesus communicated to humanity, I realized Christian spirituality fit my soul like a key. It was quite beautiful, to be honest with you.

This God, and this spirituality, was very different from the self-help version of Christianity. The God of the Bible seemed to be brokenhearted over the separation in our relationship and downright obsessed with mending the tear.

...

You go walking along, thinking people are talking a language and exchanging ideas, but the whole time there is this deeper language people are really talking, and that language has nothing to do with ethics, fashion, or politics, but what it really has to do with is feeling important and valuable. What if the economy we are really dealing in life, what if the language we are really speaking in life, what if what we really want in life is relational?

Now this chnages things quite a bit, because if the gospel of Jesus is just some formula I obey in order to get taken off the naughty list and put on a nice list, then it doesn't meet the deep need of the human condition, it doesn't interact with the great desire of my soul, and it has nothing to do with the hidden (or rather, obvious) language we all are speaking. But if it is more, if it is a story about humanity falling away from the community that named it, and an attempt to bring humanity back to that community, and if it is more than a series of ideas, but rather speaks directly into this basic human need we are feeling, then the gospel of Jesus is the most relevant message in the history of mankind."

I like Donald Miller. I realize that I have to abandon these desires for feeling smart. Wanted to be thought as smart all in all is a very pitiful thing to want. And I have to find my satisfaction in God Himself.

I'm listening to Home by Michael Buble right now. That's another song that I've always listened to but never appreciated until recently. Because I do kinda wanna go home. Physically and spiritually. I miss people. I was on Facebook, and everybody seemed to have a status similar to "Person X is home!" I couldn't help but feel a little jealous. I definitely know more people in college than in high school, but in so many of these relationships, there's no depth. We're just hang-out buddies. I don't have a best friend.

It's hard to do homework for the glory of God with such an array of feelings.

Another thing. It saddens me to see people change for the worse. Today, being on Facebook again, I just went to random profiles of high school friends. And some of them seem like they've made too many wrong turns. And I feel helpless in the whole thing.

I have a busier schedule my second semester. By far. I'm taking twenty credits, compared to fifteen first semester. I'll be working at a computer lab. I'll be on the Campus Crusade worship team. But this change is good. I'm looking forward to it.

I'm thankful for my family. I'm thankful for the people I've met here. I'm thankful for God and His grace and love.

- Larry

Proposition 8

<Disclaimer>I believe homosexuality is not genetic and that it is a choice. I believe that it can be a very difficult path for a homosexually inclined person to refuse to be homosexual, but I compare it to an addiction to alcohol or drugs. The reason I believe this is because there is no substantial evidence that ties homosexuality to one's DNA. In fact, life with homosexuality imprinted in one's DNA hinders natural selection, because reproduction is impossible with homosexuals. It is not advantageous to be homosexual in evolutionary terms, so therefore this supposed "gene" should not be as abundant as it is today.</Disclaimer>

Recently, Proposition 8 passed in California, defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I did not vote on the issue back on Election Day, because I voted in New York, but even so, I wouldn't have known how to vote on it. The religious side of me told me to vote yes, but the libertarian side of me told me to vote no.

After weeks of meditating under a tree cross-legged during a hurricane of snow naked, I finally have come to a conclusion. Against the flow of supposedly flawless Cornell students, I would've voted yes. This post is to explain why. First off, one should not use the following arguments in supporting Prop 8.

Bad Reason for Supporting Prop 8 #1
"The Bible tells me so." From a Christian perspective, homosexuality is a sin. So under a theocracy, this would be a good reason. But we live in a nation that advocates freedom of religion, and many people do not hold the Bible to be a book of authority. In other words, I believe in a separation of church and state. Christian laws should not define the laws of the government. Otherwise, under the Christian understanding that all sin is equal in the eyes of God, it would be a crime to lie, to lust, to slander. The role of the government is to protect life, liberty, and property, not to enforce any one belief over another. And to face the facts, there are a considerable number of US citizens who don't find homosexuality to be wrong. "The Bible tells me so" will only fuel the stereotype that Christians are all about shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats.

Bad Reason for Supporting Prop 8 #2
"Teachers in elementary schools will be forced to teach their kids that homosexuality is just as natural/wonderful as heterosexuality." This is false. The proposition does no such thing.

So in light of these bad reasons, and in light of reading dozens of articles from the Cornell Daily Sun bashing stubborn traditional Christians, why should I care if some random guy marries some other random guy?

Let's take a look at the proposition.

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Here's how I look at the situation. I have no problem with homosexuals being homosexual. I have no problem with homosexuals dating homosexuals. I have no problem with homosexuals living with homosexuals. I have no problem with homosexuals having civil unions. I believe strongly that homosexuals should have as the same rights as any other individual. But the moment people invade the very definition of marriage, that's where I draw the line. And if you look at this proposition, it isn't discussing equality or human rights, which is what opponents want you to think it is. It's merely stating a definition in legal terms.What's the point of this definition, you ask?

In many forms of debate, often speakers would define certain words before they enter their arguments to make sure that they are arguing over the same things. This is a similar deal. Many words need to be defined in legal terms so courts and lawmakers know how to act. Let's say there was a law that defined a "cow" as a creature with wings that lay eggs. If it passes, then under legal terms, cows will be creatures with wings that lay eggs. So when a person accuses another for stealing his cow, and evidence shows that the supposed "cow" does not have wings nor lay eggs, the victim should not be convicted for that particular issue. Or if a law was passed that stated "All cows must die," executors of the law will proceed to kill all creatures with wings that lay eggs. Do you see what I'm saying? The definitions are the foundations for cases and laws.

Let's take a more serious example. In 1898, there was a court case that came about when a US-born man with Chinese parents was disallowed re-entry into the United States. Here, they expanded the definition of "citizen" to include Chinese-Americans, yet still withholding the definition from Native Americans (they were included a few decades later). This court case was necessary to provide a ground for future laws and decisions. If this court case did not exist, I would not be a "citizen" under legal terms.

Similarly, "marriage" is one such word that needs to be defined. Almost every common English dictionary already defines it as a union between a man a woman, but the dictionary definition was not enough, so legal measures had to be taken. And so the sole purpose of the proposition was not to impose one belief on another, nor to discriminate against homosexual people, nor to supposedly "cut back on the milestones achieved on November 4." Its sole purpose was to define "marriage" in legal terms. And in my opinion, "marriage" should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Why? Because that's simply how it has been defined, and I see no need for change. Defining it otherwise is almost equivalent to calling the man of the house a mother and calling the woman of the house a father. A man of the house is a father simply because that's the definition of a father. A woman of the house is a mother simply because that's the definition of a mother. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman simply because that's the definition of a marriage.

A same-sex couple's assertion of their right to marriage is similar to a man's assertion of his right to give birth. Same-sex couples can't say they have a right to marriage because the natural definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is the natural bond between a man and a woman. Any other combination of genders simply isn't marriage.

With this philosophy, I shall respond to common arguments opponents of this proposition have.

"But what if I want to define 'marriage' differently?"
Go ahead. However, until the American public agrees on an alternative definition, your definition is invalid under legal terms. Here's an example. The NBA defines a three-point shot as a scored basket that was made outside of the three-point line. A player simply cannot say, "I believe that a three-point shot is a scored basket right behind the free-throw line," and then proceed to shoot a "three-point shot" behind the free-throw line. The definition is the definition.

"But the rights of people in civil unions and people in marriages are not the same."
I realize that there are a few differences between civil unions and marriages. However, that is irrelevant to the proposition. If civil union rights are to be advanced, I wouldn't mind voting for that. But to equate civil unions with marriages is a whole different issue.

"Why do you care if someone else is gay?"
I don't care if someone else is gay. This is irrelevant to the proposition.

"Why do you care if gay people get married?"
I don't care if gay people get married. Just not with other gay people of the same gender.

"Isn't it discriminating against homosexuals when you disallow them to marry other homosexuals?"
No, because they aren't lacking any rights that heterosexuals have. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry those of the same gender, just as heterosexuals are not allowed to marry those of the same gender. Let's say somebody is psychologically addicted to marijuana (in a state where it is illegal). One should not fight for the legalization of marijuana on the basis that otherwise that person is being discriminated. Or let's say somebody is not as good at making money as most people are. It is not discriminating to disallow him to steal. In fact, allowing him to steal would be advocating inequality. Basically, just because one is more inclined to do something illegal does not make it discriminating to disallow him to do that illegal thing. And under the current state of California, homosexual marriage is illegal. (Note. This is a very different argument than "Isn't it discriminating against homosexuals when you disallow them to vote/attend public school/serve in the military?" The answer to that argument would be yes. But again, that is irrelevant to the proposition.)

"Isn't it unfair and wrong to disallow freedom of choice?"
Where do you have these concepts of "unfair" or "wrong"? Words like "unfair" or "wrong" presuppose a previously held right that has been taken away. But if so, on what foundation do you base this right? There never was a right to marry another of the same gender. The United States never had such a law. No major religion had such a law. Freedom of choice still exists, but it is the same freedom of choice that always was. It hasn't changed.

"There isn't substantial evidence that kids raised in homosexual families have it worse off than kids raised in heterosexual families."
Agreed. This, however, is irrelevant to the proposition. It still is legal to raise kid in a family tied by a civil union.

"How does it change your life if gay people get married?"
Gay marriage changes the definition of marriage. If marriage is defined to be a union between a man and a woman, that definition is imposed on society. I agree. But if it is defined alternatively, that definition is also imposed on society. People will be forced to submit to an alternative definition, which is a big issue. If a three-point shot in basketball was defined as a shot behind the free-throw line, that is a big issue. Teams would change their plays.

"How would you feel if heterosexual marriage was illegal?"
I would be bummed out, because I had been hoping to be a father.

All in all, it's not the huge revolutionary issue that many make it to be. Historically, the dictionary have said that marriage is between a man and a woman. In 2000, Prop 22 stated just that. Now Prop 8 repeats it in constitutional terms. There is no backstepping here. We are defining a word the same way it was defined. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is more "backstepping" to go against the consistency and standards that have brought us this far by changing the definition of marriage.

Note to Christians: Homosexuality, the love of the same gender, is a very clear representation of sin. God called men to love women with Him as the center. Loving a man is loving an image of God (Genesis 1:27). This is the sin referred to in Romans 1, in which it is recorded how man exchanged the glory of the Creator for the glory of the created. This was Lucifer's sin. Love for self. How can we have such a love with God in the center? I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1 list homosexuality along with other sins, and we cannot deny it. It is a contradiction to be a Bible-believing Christian and to deny homosexuality as a sin. At the same time, God loved and died for sinners (Romans 5:8). It is by grace that heterosexuals do not struggle with homosexuality. We have no right to put ourselves at a level superior to homosexuals, just as we have no right to put ourselves at a level superior to liars or murderers, because we are all sinners according to God's standard (James 2:10-12).

- Larry

Morality

Note: The core ideas behind this post are not original.

Much of the world is scientific. Such things are factual, because they state what is. Example 1. Rocks usually fall when dropped. After numerous observations, there is a consensus that rocks usually fall when dropped. Example 2. Studying for tests usually leads to better scores on exams. After numerous observations, there is a consensus that studying for tests usually leads to better scores on exams. Example 3. People usually die when they are shot in the heart. After numerous observations, there is a consensus that people usually die when they are shot in the heart. These are factual.

Now suppose someone were to say, "It is not right to shoot an innocent person." Or, "He stole my car. That's not fair." Those statements are not scientific facts anymore, because they do not state what is. They refer to what ought to be. They do not describe the state of the object or person but the state that the object or person should be. And that's very different. The moment someone cites "right" or "wrong" or "fair", he or she refers to another standard. C.S. Lewis calls it the Law of Decent Behavior. And so all laws can be divided into what is and what ought to be. Here's an example. If someone were to bump into another accidentally, the victim would not be as harsh in his response as he would be if he was bumped purposely with the same force and direction. Though the scientific results are the same, the latter scenario would be understood, under the Law of Decent Behavior, as more "wrong".

But if this law is not scientific, what gives anybody the right to refer to this Law of Decent Behavior? What use will the argument "that's not fair" be unless the judge of the argument also complies with the same standard? It only makes sense if this Law of Decent Behavior was universal. In other words. Everybody adheres to a standard law of morality.

This law is not one that describes the earth as the law of thermodynamics does, but it is one that describes what the earth should be. And people follow this law. Even those tried in court for crimes don't debate the "wrongness" of the crimes. They debate around the ethics. They try to say they are innocent from the crime, but through declaring innocence, they try to argue that they have not performed any "wrong". However, that very action shows that even they admit the existence of the "wrong" of the crime.

There are those who say that there is no universal morality. Morality is defined by one's culture and individualism. Under this presumption, no morality should be greater than another, and therefore all moralities are equal. The morality of Ghandi is no better than the morality of Hitler. However, most people would disagree. They would say that Ghandi was a more moral person than Hitler was. Do you see the flaw in this argument? In order to say one person is taller than another, you must define what "tall" means. Similarly, in order to say one person is more moral than another, you must define what "moral" means. In asserting the opinion that one is more moral than another, they admit that individual moralities are not equal. And this can only be measured if they compare the two moralities to a single Morality. A universal standard morality.

So there's a universal standard morality. So what?

Often people ask "If there is a God, why is there so much evil in the world?"

St. Augustine turns this around.

"If there is no God, why is there so much good in the world?"

And not only that. If there is no God, why are genocides universally understood as "wrong"? Why do people donate to the poor and the weak? Does not evolution and natural selection teach that the strong should survive? Does not the Darwinist stance support the idea that genocides of the "weak" are beneficial for society? That the insane and the unfit should naturally give way to those with the dominant characteristics? However, most humans would disagree on the slaughterings of millions, even if the massacres do further the society. Why? Because humans of different cultures have a central understanding of this standard Morality. It is highly improbable that Morality can come about through biological or sociological means, because this Morality is a hindrance on the core concepts behind natural selection.

So then. If not by natural selection, where did Morality come from? Why do people adhere to this unwritten law? Why is there this universal idea and respect for what ought to be instead of what simply is?

Check this out. Let's say God created humans for good, but humans sinned, eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus all humans inherit the concept of Morality. And humans continue to wish to measure things to this higher morality because they are made in the image of a God with a higher morality. What an explanation. No wonder humans are unsatisfied with what simply is. No wonder humans believe in things that ought to be. No wonder there is good in this world.

- Larry