It was intriguing, but the iPhone camera at a distance doesn’t really do it justice.

I called it The Deal, as in, I’m going to make a deal with myself. The Deal was this: no desserts, no between meal eating, no extra bread (sandwiches were okay, but no roll or garlic bread with the spaghetti), and whenever I was asked to go for a walk – an evening habit with the females of the house – I had to go.

It was NOT an all-out diet, otherwise I would have limited my portions a little more.

The only time I broke the deal was one night when it really looked like it would storm at any moment and I refused to walk. (It didn’t storm.)

The hardest part of the deal was the walking. I enjoy the company and time with my girls. I just dislike the actual walking.

The Deal began on June 1st and officially ended at midnight on June 30th. The picture shows my start and end weights. I celebrated on July 1st by having French toast for breakfast, but the only other thing I’ve eaten that I wouldn’t have eaten during June was a chocolate chip cookie.

Now…time to make your own Deal.

I currently have 6 people waiting there. Two of them will remain there as long as I have a Facebook account. I don’t want them as a “friend” – that sounds bad, doesn’t it? – but if I reject their request it just gives them an opportunity to ask me again. Leaving them in Facebook limbo lets me retain control. (Are you one of the two? Sorry.)

The other four people I don’t know well enough to decide on yet – though they’ve been there for awhile. Again, if you’re one of these people, I’m sorry. But my guilt won’t get you to be my Facebook friend.

How many people do you have in limbo?

Amazon is now listing these for pre-order (and you might as well use my links when you buy them):

Star Wars: The Prequel Trilogy (Episodes I – III) [Blu-ray] – $44.99. (Worth it? Meh.)

Star Wars: The Original Trilogy (Episodes IV – VI) [Blu-ray] – $44.99. (Worth it? Really? Is that a real question? Isn’t this a must-have for Blu-ray player owners?)

Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Episodes I-VI) [Blu-ray] – $89.99.

Do the math and you’ll find that you save a penny by ordering the two trilogies separately. You’ll save a full $45 if you avoid the first three episodes – Hayden Christiansen might be the biggest bag of hurt.

Though the biggest pain might be that these won’t actually be released until September. Just more time to save your pennies.

I disagree with much of Ms. Decker’s letter, and though I could express my disagreement in a responding letter to the editor or by commenting online, I don’t know Ms. Decker, and I don’t want this to come across as a personal attack. She sounds like a reasonable and thoughtful person.

Happily, I have a blog.

Ms. Decker avows that she is a Christian and reads her Bible and can’t find any Scripture that forbids same-sex marriage. I don’t know if she is a Christian. I don’t know how much she reads her Bible. I do know that she doesn’t understand the Bible in the same way I do.

However, that is not the main thrust of her letter, and neither is it the point of this response. After using a weak and tenuous definition of love to open her opinion, she launches into her line of reasoning with this gem, ”Every day, [homosexuals] are unfairly told they are not allowed the same rights as “normal” couples.”

“Rights,” she says.

Those that are trying to make homosexuality a normal and accepted lifestyle are succeeding. They have used every means possible to popularize their sentiments. We have reached the point where it is no longer surprising or shocking to see homosexuality depicted as normal on television or in movies.

Ms. Decker’s opinion is an example of the thinking that is becoming widely accepted as fact. It is thinking that is both reasonable and wrong. It’s reasonable because there is logic and reason that is used on a premise that leads to a conclusion. It’s wrong because the premise is wrong. The premise is that we are arguing about “rights.” In fact, those that are pushing for the normalization of homosexuality and any other aberrant behavior will always find it in their best interests to argue from this premise.

Quoting Ms. Decker again, “Every one, gay or straight, should have the same rights.” I agree. If we are talking about fundamental human rights, then the premise is correct. Are homosexuals human? Yes. Do homosexuals have the right to be treated as human? Yes.

However, the many other issues that come up regarding homosexuality are not “rights” issues, though popular opinion, as evidenced by Ms. Decker, would have you believe them to be so. Marriage? Adoption? Serving in the military? Those are not human rights. Those are societal privileges. Using the premise of rights to argue for the granting of privileges is nonsensical and misleading.

Should homosexuals have the privilege of serving in the military? That’s a different question than their “right” to serve. Should homosexuals have the privilege of adopting children? Should they have access to the privilege of marriage? Talk about these things from that vantage point and we can have a real discussion.

[For the record, I don't think it is wise to allow homosexuals to have any of those privileges. It might surprise you to know that serving in the military might be the one privilege I could see homosexuals having. Giving homosexuals the privilege to marry just makes no sense.]

Every day, we are being told that we don’t have the “right” to treat a homosexual differently than a heterosexual, therefore it is wrong if we do. That’s astounding irony, isn’t it?

No one has the “right” to marry. No one has the “right” to be in the military. No one has the “right” to adopt children. No one has the “right” to be a school teacher. But when you equate the “rights” of being human with the “right” to do these other things, you have started with an incorrect premise, which leads to a false conclusion. The false conclusion we’ve been led to is that by taking away these “rights”, we are treating homosexuals poorly.

In the end, our privilege to disagree is being attacked. Once again, this is ironic. Those of us that disagree with the normalization of homosexuality are told that we can’t disagree, though even if we have the right to disagree, such disagreement is hateful and immoral and wrong, equal with being a Nazi or a anti-suffragist or slave-owner.

Thankfully, I still have the privilege of disagreeing. I still have the opportunity to say that homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is a lifestyle a person chooses, regardless of the inclinations of nature or nurture. A person is no more born to be a homosexual than they are born to be a carpenter or a thief. Just as no one has a right to be a carpenter, but only gains the privilege and opportunity, no one has the right to be a homosexual and to live as one. However, should they make that choice, they shouldn’t be surprised when their privileges and opportunities do not match those of people that have made the choice to live a heterosexual lifestyle.

Thank you for the privilege of sharing my thoughts.

Dad: Did Santa visit you?

Me: Yep. Did Santa visit you?

Dad: Yes.

Me: Did he leave a lot of coal?

Notice, I left off the crucial phrase “in your stockings.” I think if I had said “coal in your stockings”, everything might have been a little clearer. I’m not entirely sure that I didn’t say it, but we’ll assume I didn’t.

Dad: What?

Mom: No, we didn’t get much gold.

Me: What?

Mom: We didn’t get much gold.

Me: I guess I need to spell it. I said did you get much coal, you know, C – O -…

Mom: …L – D. No, it hasn’t gotten cold yet. It’s cool, though. It’s supposed to get cold tomorrow.

Me: No, COAL. Did you get much COAL?

Mom: Oh. Well, I got a few things from Kohl’s.

Me: No, no! COAL. C – O -A -L!

True story.

Why don’t you believe in God? I get that question all the time. I always try to give a sensitive, reasoned answer. This is usually awkward, time consuming and pointless.

What seems to catch everyone’s attention is both Gervais’s popularity and his ingratiating approach to embracing atheism.

I used to believe in God. The Christian one that is.

I like the tone he uses. I like that there is an appeal to reason and – though there are a couple of things he says that might be considered mocking or condescending – Gervais stays away from the nastiness usually exhibited in this kind of atheism/Christian discussion. Like many atheists, Gervais is bright, articulate, and funny.

Like every atheist, he is also wrong in his conclusion.

None of that is what provokes me to this post. The real question is…what would I say to him? What could I say to others who read his post and agree? There’s this challenge from Gervais…

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God?

What can I say to that?

My reply would be this:

Dear Ricky,

I don’t think you want my answer.

For one thing, you don’t know me. You know people like me, Christians who love God and try to love people and don’t do either one perfectly. You know me as part of the larger group of “People Who Say They Are Christians and Don’t Get Nasty With People Who Disagree.” On the other hand, if you knew me personally, you sound like someone who would be interested in why I believe in God. But you don’t know me, so it’s unreasonable to think you would care about what someone you don’t know or have never heard of thinks about such an important topic.

Okay, let’s suppose you know me, and you might really be interested in why I believe in God.

In that case, even if I told you, it wouldn’t change what you believe. That’s not meant to be condemning or condescending in any way. I’m not saying you’re closed-minded or stupid or egotistical or that you would object to reason.

But your stated reason for not believing in God – “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe” – tells me you never will.

Yes, there is evidence, evidence I’m sure you’ve examined and found circumstantial at best. Asking for scientific evidence is misleading. I think it would be more accurate to say that you don’t believe in God because you have no proof of his existence. Proof is the issue. Proof is what you won’t find. Proof…well, I’m no philosopher or high-intellectual, so I might have this wrong, but all we can do with anything is give evidence. Evidence is what witnesses produce. There’s plenty of that.

Proof can’t be produced by witnesses. In fact, the only place you will find proof is in the mind of the jury. If the evidence doesn’t convince me, it will never be proof. Evidence can always be explained away. It doesn’t matter whether it comes from science, religion or some other sphere of influence. There is no proof until I accept it as such.

Of course, as you so eloquently and accurately put it…

…believing in something doesn’t make it true. Hoping that something is true doesn’t make it true. The existence of God is not subjective. He either exists or he doesn’t. It’s not a matter of opinion. You can have your own opinions. But you can’t have your own facts.

That is correct. What is equally true is that evidence doesn’t establish the facts. Science doesn’t establish the facts. Both – like religion – can only point to or away from them.

Do I exist? There is much evidence that would point to my existence. Is there any proof? If you don’t accept the evidence, even if I were to show up on your doorstep with documentation, witnesses and a big plate of cookies, it wouldn’t be proof.

The bottom line is this. I believe in God for the same reason you don’t – I’ve examined the evidence and I believe it points in a certain direction.

Yes, that leads me to the conclusion that there is eternal separation and punishment for those that reject God. This is not a happy conclusion for me. I find no pleasure in this fact. I am not shouting for “death to the infidels.” On the contrary, as a reasonable person, I am concerned and distressed at this outcome for people like you. Yes, for you.

I feel sad that this type of concern could come across as mean-spirited or judgmental, but I know that others have used these same arguments in a mean-spirited and judgmental way, so I think I get it.

Sincerely,

Tim

That’s my explanation for why I don’t post more often to this blog. I have found out – like many other people – how time-intensive regular blogging can be.

So, I started another branch of the blog.

Actually, I’ve taken some of the content from this blog and I’ve created a new place for it. You can now find the sermon series I have been posting in the “Learn” category of this blog at its brand new home – NUMB3RS.SarcasticMonkeys.com. It makes sense for the series to have its own place. Now it does.

In the meantime, I’m trying to determine what content I really want to blog about here on the S-M Home. Most of the content I produce is found elsewhere. SO…for both of you that check in on this blog…thank you and I haven’t forgot you.

As a side note, I’m considering changing the look of this blog again. If I can’t produce content, at least I can make the old stuff look different.

Now head on over to the NUMB3RS blog. I’ve just posted the next chapter.