Yes, I am sure that there are. Maybe not as personal as this site, as I invited my dad to participate rather than some unknown Facebook friend that shares a similar view with me.

 Your first statement, “…God is real, without a need for faith,” seems to make some sense. If something is real, surely there is no need for faith in order to believe in it. Of course, most everything that we deem as “real” can readily be proven. Let’s leave the philosophical questions like, “What is the definition of reality?” alone for the moment. From the keyboard that I am typing on to complex mathematical equations, most “truth” can be proven. With your statement, you are pulling God out of the faith category and placing Him/Her/It into the reality category. Realities and truths are generally provable. (And I am not trying to mock you or your God by the designations that I gave. My thought is that if there is a higher being, I doubt that it would be gender specific due. “He” and “She” are merely pronouns used to denote the sexual difference between two genders were biogenesis is needed to create another life. A God that can merely speak things into existence would have no need for sex.) Certainly we need faith to believe in God. He may not need our faith to be real (which is what I think you were intending), but we do need faith to believe in God. If there was the slightest bit of certainty about the existence of God, wouldn’t everyone believe?   

As for your next argument, the onus cannot lie with the one claiming a negative. Negative claims are inherently subjective. Prove to me that dragons do not exist. While you can say that you have never seen one, you have not been all over the world, searching every crevice for the elusive creature. Even if you had, surely the dragon could’ve eluded you. Taking this to a different realm, prove to me that Shiva doesn’t exist. Or Krishna, Horus, Odin, Set, Isis… If one is claiming that “x” exists, the onus lies with them to prove their positive statement. Generally, a negative statement is made in response to a positive claim. If nobody claims that “x” exists, then there is no reason to make the statement that ”x” doesn’t exist. Theists claim that God exists and refuse to offer empirical evidence and yet require those who question to prove them wrong. Again, if I were claiming that I had an invisible dragon in my garage, our roles would be reversed and you would rightly think I was mad. You would devise various tests to prove my claim (like throwing flour on it) and every time your test proved me wrong, I would come up with another excuse as to why the test failed (like, he can shift from one dimension to another). This double-standard is both illogical and frustrating.

While God may not need to prove Himself to anyone, we can find several places (in both the O.T. and the N.T.) where God obliges the need for proof. While I can agree with the argument in principal, it’s the theological dogma that stifles it for me. He is God, why should He answer anyones need for proof? Except for the idea that He is an omnicient God and would’ve known well in advance that there would be MANY that would question. After all, only about 33% (+/-) of the entire world’s population is Christian. (And that would include all the Christian denominations that aren’t “real” Christians.) For a God that is “not willing that any should perish,¹” that sure is a lot of souls that will will spend eternity in anguish. I don’t see how an omnicient, omnipotent God would allow His words to be translated, mistranslated, twisted, perverted, edited and added to in a manner that would cause so much confusion.

I don’t believe that you can have “too much intellect.” If God did create us, He created us with a brain and the ability to reason, deduce and learn an immeasureable amount of data. Certainly, we would not be good stewards of that gift if we were to put a “cap” on it. As for Eve, well… This all depends on if you take the accounts of creation found in Genesis literally or allegorically. That is a different discussion for a different time.

Here is the quote in response:

It is this very mindset that allows us to be continuously enslaved by those in power and why we will always wage war with one another. “Limited resources require conflict.” No, conflict is not required, it’s only one of several options. Cooperation and compassion offer a far les bloody outcome. Of course, that would require us to try to better understand our fellow-man and develop some empathy.  

“Ours, the West’s, principles promote a better life for all they touch.” What a myopic view of the world. Do you really believe this or is this just the line you tow in order to make yourself feel patriotic? Pretty sure that Norway would disagree with your observational bias. Tell the destitute that live all across this nation in perpetual poverty and shame that their lives are better due to our principles. Tell those that have lost their homes due to the financial crisis that was brought about due to our “principles” that they are better off. Tell those that have lost all that they have due to the skyrocketing cost of their health care that they have a better life.

Do you really believe our principles our that much higher than any other nation? Tell that to the victims of the Rwandan genocide that occurred while the U.S. made the conscious decision to set idly by and do nothing (including shutting up the embassy doors to those in need of a safe haven). Wake up…

First of all, I do not wish to be perceived as someone who is going merely to pick it apart. I am sure that is how it would come off, for reasons that will be made clear throughout this article.  My intent would have been to go and get a sense of the people there. How would I be treated as a new face? If I were asked about my beliefs, I would have been upfront and honest with them. How would that have been taken? What was the sermon about? What are their “core” beliefs? Things like that.

I realized that none of that really mattered due to one simple fact. No matter what Christian denomination or non-denominational church I visit, their core beliefs are centralized around one individual; Jesus. While this is not a problem for most, it’s a huge stumbling block for me. In fact, the mere idea that every Christian belief is framed around the Bible is problematic for me. Maybe if I had not researched church history so much or looked at the Bible so critically… But I have and continue to do so.

Just the mere fact that the historicity of Jesus has almost always been in dispute gives me pause. We can find no credible contemporaneous accounts of Jesus beyond the hallowed text of the Bible. Apocryphal books paint Jesus in a somewhat unfamiliar light than what we know of him through the accepted New Testament writings. Those books of the accepted New Testament known as The Gospels are sold to us as “eye-witness” accounts yet were written decades after the life, death and subsequent resurrection of Jesus. Paul’s writings come to us chronologically before the Gospels and yet Paul never mentions Jesus in a historical context. This is quite bothersome for me, being asked to believe in certain events that we cannot even be sure are historically accurate nor are they corroborated by external contemporaneous sources. Even various books of the Bible disagree with one another when it comes to certain events.

If I am asked to simply look past these questions and rely solely on faith, I have to ask myself what I will be asked to look past next. Will I be asked to believe, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that the Earth is a mere 5,000 to 7,000 years old? Will I be asked to deny evolution when I can plainly see it at work? This is the problem with a vaguely written holy writ. It is completely open to interpretation by everyone seeking to advance their own agendas. This is why we have so many different denominations and sub-sects all based on one book that was cobbled together over a couple hundred years. How many? Over 38,000 different denominations of Christianity. All from one book. Certainly they can’t all be right. I guarantee that if you look for it, you will find a Christian religion out there that will take Luke 19:27 to the literal ends. “But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither and kill them before me.” Who decides what is literal and what is allegorical?

Short History of the N.T.

By the mid 1st century, numerous gospels, epistles and other texts started circulating amongst the Christian Churches. First came the Epistles by Paul such as 1 and 2 Thessalonians which are our earliest books from the NT. Gospels such the Gospel of Thomas and the Q were amongst our earliest gospels developed (however, it is important to note that the latter has never been found). Mark was the first to produce a gospel using a specific narrative structure. This structure was later copied by the authors of both Matthew and Luke. Some scholars believe this structure was “borrowed” from Homer’s epic which contains a near exact narrative structure. The Gospel of John seems to have been written around 90 AD.

In addition to this we had the Acts of Peter, the Apocalypses of Peter and John, the Book of Barnabas, Hermas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospels of the Hebrews, Ebionites and the list goes on an on. Below is the listing of the main events in the process which led to the formation of the NT:

- 95 CE: 1Clement is written by the church father Clement. He quotes sayings by Jesus that are not in any of the gospels found since. He makes references to Paul’s letters but never mentions any actual written gospels, which indicates that these were not well known or distributed at this stage. Clement also only refers to Paul’s letters as wise council and reserves the use of the word “scriptures” for the Old Testament only.

- 110 CE: The Didache is written by the Orthodox Church fathers, quoting the Gospel of Matthew (it refers to it as “The Gospel of Jesus”), and direct extracts from the Old Testament. The church fathers Origen, Clement of Alexandria and the churches in Egypt considered the Didache to be inspired scripture.

- 110 – 140 CE: Papias writes down his collection of sayings. He did not trust any of the gospels nor the epistles but decided to rely on oral tradition (stories told in the marketplace). Some of his quotations do indeed seem to come from some form of Matthew and Mark, but he never attributes these to the gospels themselves. Some of his claims have a sense of Baron Munchausen about them such as when he explains how Judas’ head swells to become “wider than the width of a wagon trail so that his eyes were lost in the flesh,” and that the place where he died “maintained a stench so bad that no one, even to his own day, would go near it.” At the very least, this serves as an indication of the nature of the stories being circulated at this time. Papias also noted that the author of Mark was a young secretary of Peter, who had never met or seen Jesus himself. Once again we don’t know how reliable this is, however Eusebius used this source to repeat the claim about Markan authorship.

- 100 – 154 CE: The book of Hermas is written by a man who, supposedly, had known Paul (Romans 16:14). The early church so revered this work that they included it in what they considered to be inspired scripture. The book of Hermas was considered inspired scripture even as late as the 4th century.

- 100 – 200 CE: The Christian Church begins to grow into various segments such as the Orthodox (later split into Catholic and Coptic), Ebionites, Nazarenes and Marcionites amongst others. Various gospels and epistles were written and copiers were changing texts to fit in with their own agendas and preferred doctrines. Due to pressure from Roman authorities, who saw Christianity as a social problem, the various Christian groups began to compete for Roman favour. The Gnostics would blame the Orthodox Church for all problems with the Roman authorities and vice versa. At this time, any anti-Roman sentiments within religious literature would be frowned upon and any anti-Semitic texts were applauded by the Roman authorities, which had a significant influence on the gospels and epistles being produced and copied. For example the verse “Give unto Caesar what is due unto Caesar” and the reduced responsibility of the Roman authorities during the crucifixion of Jesus could be viewed as possible examples of this.

- 140 CE: The first Canon is recorded by Marcion who was a Gnostic church father. Marcion strongly supported Paul but he believed that Jesus’ God was different from the God that the Hebrews worshipped. He included a heavily edited version of Luke and Paul’s epistles but excluded all others, even excluding the entire Old Testament. Marcion, in general, rejected anything Jewish-related, including the Gospel of Matthew and the Book of Hebrews. The Orthodox Church responded to this and wrote various anti-Marcionite literature, calling him a heretic. Some scholars believe that 2 Peter was produced as part of the Orthodox Church’s response against Marcion. What is important to note is that this was the first Canon and all of Marcion’s books made it into the final Orthodox Canon centuries later. Some of Marcion’s own editing as well as his prefaces to Paul’s epistles were even included in the Latin Vulgate itself.

- 150 CE: Justin Martyr refers to the Gospels as the “Memoirs of the Apostles”, He refers to Mark as the “Memoirs of Peter”. An idea he probably got from Papias or from the same oral tradition that Papias received it from. Justin goes on to describe church services where these “memoirs” were being read alongside the Old Testament. This gave rise to an interest in these texts and helped established the idea that the Gospels should be seen as being equal to the Old Testament scripture.

- 156 CE: A new movement within the early church started to develop called Montanism. They prayed in tongues and primarily preached apocalyptic teachings such as the famous adage “the end is nigh”. They shunned educated clerics and admitted women to their clergy. In fact, you could say that they were very similar to our modern-day Evangelical Churches. They were considered as demonic by the Orthodox Church due to their reliance on personal revelation as opposed to the scriptures themselves. This marked the beginning of the drive by the Orthodox Church to form an official version of the New Testament. It’s at this time that the term “New Testament” is first mentioned. Interestingly, the Church did not want to include the book of Revelation in this Canon as it was very similar to the Montanists’ apocalyptical ideas.

- 161 – 180 CE: Dionysius complains that other people had changed his own letters written to the various churches and goes on to complain that even his version of Mark contained too many errors and additions to be reliable. Eusebius, thus, became one of the main sponsors for formalizing the books which would be considered “inspired”, and decide which were the preferred versions of those books.

- 170 CE: The first Orthodox Canon is produced by Tatian, a convert of Justin Martyr, from the Syrian Church. This Canon was actually a Syrian translation and not in the original Greek. He decided upon the four gospels which we have today – possibly because his mentor supported these four gospels. He included Paul’s epistles and Acts and then proceeded to forbid the reading of any other books in the church.

- 170 CE: The first attack against any questionable texts is launched by the Orthodox Church when a well meaning priest is exiled after he writes the Acts of Paul in honour of Paul. The Acts of Paul is still included in the Armenian Church’s Bible today. Interestingly enough, Tertullian attacked the book, but not because it was falsified, but because it depicted a woman teaching on the baptism, as according to the Orthodox Church only men were allowed to teach. It shows that even at this stage, texts were not necessarily accepted or rejected on their historical validity but rather on the subjective ideologies of the church fathers.

- 325 CE: The Council of Nicea meet to discuss Jesus’ divinity. Arianism, lead of Arius, opposed the idea of Jesus as Divine, as they believed that Jesus was not equal to God himself. The Orthodox Church however were in favour of the doctrine that Jesus was equal to and, in fact, part of God Himself. The council’s decision, after much discussion, was that Jesus was indeed equal to God. Subsequently, the only two bishops who voted against the notion, were exiled and lost all their material possessions and property. The canonization of scripture was also discussed but they could not agree on a single canon at this stage.

- 327 CE: Eusebius writes the fifth and final revision of the “History of the Church”. This had previously been revised following his conversion from Arianism. At this stage, there is still no agreement regarding the official Biblical Canon. In this book he states the different considerations for books that are nominated for inclusion into the Bible. He lists three types of texts categories:
* Texts that are recognized as inspired by every orthodox author he knows.
* Texts that are considered inspired by some orthodox authors but disputed by other authors.
* Texts that are considered to be heretical by all orthodox authors.

Basically, Eusebius used his own subjective criteria (orthodox) to select his own Canon. He identified the four gospels, no more and no less because of mythical and numerological reasons (Irenaeus and Cyprian had used these criteria previously as well). He also includes Acts, Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, 1 Peter and 1 John. He mentions that the Book of Revelation is disputed but confusingly still includes it into the first category.

He then goes on to list the disputed texts but not heretical texts, which included James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, the Acts of Paul, Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, Gospel of the Hebrews and book called the “Teachings of the Apostles”. To confuse matters further, he again includes the book of Revelation into this category.

Lastly he listed the books which he considered to be heretical, which were the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, and Matthias, and the Acts of Andrew and John.

- 327 CE: Eusebius states that he was commissioned by Constantine to produce 50 pristine copies of the officially recognised imperial Bible. We are not sure exactly what these copies looked like, however scholars found the Codex Sinaiticus developed in the 4th century, which is a possible copy of Eusebius’ Bible. It includes the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, seven Catholic epistles, the book of Revelation, Barnabas and the book of Hermas. The Vaticanus Codex was also discovered that dates from this same period. It contains similar material in the same order. Both of these texts are incomplete however and we don’t know if any other books were included.

Finally, it is impossible to discuss Eusebius’ work without addressing his character. The 19th century historian Jacob Burckhardt, describes Eusebius as “the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity”. Eusebius himself said that, “It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.” This is an alarming passage as he also stated that he believed that Moses used certain falsehoods in the book of Genesis in order to persuade the people to follow in the footsteps of God. How far did Eusebius go? Did he use “falsehoods” in order to persuade people of his own ideologies? Scholars believe that Eusebius forged certain documents including official letters by Antoninus Pius and possibly even the Testamonium Flavianum itself. Unfortunately, he is our main source for much of what know regarding the church fathers and it was his personal theology which formed the bedrock on which the NT Canon was based.

- 350 CE: Bishop Cyril develops a series of lectures for the churches in Jerusalem, which would cover all aspect of Orthodox Christianity. Included in this is the first official announcement from a senior ranking official of the church as to which books are recognized by the church as the NT Canon. Cyril declares that no other books are to be read, not even privately. His canon consists of all the books we have in our NT Canon today, however he excludes the book of Revelation.

- 363 CE: The Synod of Laodicea is held in Asia Minor to decide the official contents of the Bible. The result was the following announcement: “Let no private Psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in the church, but only canonical ones of the New and Old Testament”. Once again they use the same list as the Cyril produced and exclude the book of Revelation. We have no indication as to how they came to this conclusion but it has been suggested that they simply relied on Syril’s previous Canon.

- 367 CE: Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, had previously published a book called the Festal Epistle. This book contained the dates for all Christian festivals and it was considered the authoritative statement on these events by the Catholic church. Like Eusebius, Athanasius was fiercely anti-Arian and a conservative. In 367 CE he extended the scope of this epistle and included his Canon into it as well. This was considered an authoritative statement by both the Syrian and Western churches. His Canon included Revelation and looked exactly like our modern Canon today. However, even at this stage, there was still some dispute in regards to the Canon for example, Gregory of Nazianzus continued to protest the inclusion of Revelation, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John.

- 692 CE: There was continued debate amongst the various bishops in regards to the NT canon. Finally in 692 the Trullan Synod was convened under Emperor Justinian. The synod declared that they considered both the Synod of Laodicea and Athanasius’ Canons to be authoritative, even though these contradicted each other in regards to the book of Revelation. They also included 2 letters they attributed to Clement as well as 8 other books “which it is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them.” These are now lost to us but one can only speculate what they may have contained. This contradictory decision gave rise to much confusion and there were at least 6 different Canons used by churches in the East even as late as the 10th century. The Syrian churches still exclude Revelation from their Bibles to this day.

- 7th – 16th century CE: Various Canons began to circulate in both the Eastern and Western churches. The Eastern Bibles still differ today from Western Canons.

- 1546 CE: The Council of Trent finally recognizes the Canon, and this is still the article of faith used today. During the course of the next century Protestant churches also agree on the same 27 books in the NT Canon.

“Man, you just don’t get it! Our use of fossil fuels is destroying the planet,” I am told from a left-over hippie as he takes a swig from his Aquafina, one of about four that he had in his plastic sack from the convenience store. He has all the right bumper stickers on his Prius. I wonder if he realizes that he is drinking something that isn’t as regulated as tap water out of something derived from, you guessed it, oil. This is the problem that we have. Our dependance on oil is much deeper than transportation.

In real world driving scenarios, the Prius gets maybe five more miles to the gallon than my Ion Quad Coupe. I get almost 40 miles to the gallon out of it simply by driving smarter, keeping up with regular maintainance and using synthetic oil in the engine and gears. And, at its end of life, I don’t have to worry about a 100lb battery pack. (I also spent about $20,000 less, which gives me a better feeling than a false sense of “Look at me! I’m saving the planet,” ever could.) But this really isn’t about me or my car, it’s about our perceptions.

Where do we go if we stop using fossil fuels? Really think about this question for a moment. Realize that I am not blowing the horn for big oil, I am trying to get you to think. So, before you bang out your reply in the comments section, remember that you are typing on a plastic keyboard… Get the picture?

I always hear people saying the same things. “We have to get more electric vehicles on the market!” That’s great! unfortunately, batteries are not an energy source, they’re a storage device for energy. Besides that, what will you put under them? Every tire contains roughly 10 percent oil, or about 7 gallons. Not to mention the plastic body, insulating foam, wire sheathing, nylon fibers and a whole myriad of other components which  are oil based. On top of that, you have the battery. NiMH are currently recyclable, Li Ion can be, but there are few places that do it. They are listed as non-hazardous waste and may be disposed of simply by throwing them away. Long term effects? We have no idea. Sort of sounds like a pharmaceutical company. “Sure, it’s safe. We tested it for five years!” “What happens after long-term use, say 10 years?” “Uh…well I guess we’ll find out!”

Oil is in almost everything we use. We need a multi-faceted approach for the problem, not a single dart. From agriculture to  vehicles, we need to rethink things from the ground up. Just some food for thought.

I really cannot categorize Ryan as the fundamentalist Christian that we could have been, given our background. He is certainly far more liberal than most Christians that I know. (I mean really, how many Christians do you know that are for gay rights?) In our discussions, it surprised me how close our views were on a variety of subjects. I have only recently caught up with him after a nearly 2 decade absence. Our talks have been provocative and enlightening.

All in all, Ryan, I am glad to have reconnected with you and am certainly proud to call you a friend. I look forward to our future discussions and your first post here at Reason vs Faith.

]]> http://www.reasonvsfaith.com/the-textbook-wars.html/feed 0 http://www.reasonvsfaith.com/creationism-vs-evolution.html http://www.reasonvsfaith.com/creationism-vs-evolution.html#comments Sat, 29 May 2010 02:38:27 +0000 David J http://www.reasonvsfaith.com/?p=37 I have always been intrigued by this constant debate. Honestly, I have never really understood exactly WHY there is a debate when it comes to evolution. It seems that many Christians feel that the theory of evolution attacks the very core of their belief when, in actuality, it has nothing to do with religious belief structures.

Really, what they should be looking at is cosmology or theoretical astrophysics. The theory of evolution does not make an attempt to explain “how it all began.”  The theory of evolution simply attempts to explain speciation. (Speciation involves the splitting of a single evolutionary lineage into two or more genetically independent ones.) Let’s just take a moment to watch this video.

One of the huge problems that I have with this is the average age of the children in the video. Many of these children would still believe in Santa Clause if presented to them by their parents. These kids have no idea what the scientific method is, nor do they care for the most part. They hear that evolution states that man came from apes. “Did your grandfather look like this?” Evolutionary theory says nothing of the sort! And to fill these kids heads with grossly incorrect information about what evolution is is wrong. Evolution is observable, we KNOW that it takes place. Ever heard of “super bugs?” Perhaps we should use a study that shows evolution at work on a larger scale.

And we wonder why kids here in the U.S. are found to be lagging behind in the areas of math and science.

While I am by no means “evangelistic” in my atheism, I certainly make no efforts to hide the fact that I am. (Some would contend that I am evangelistic in that I maintain this site. If you consider this to be evangelistic, then it is quite passive when compared to other sites that one would consider “militant.”) Being open about your skeptical take on religion can definately strain your relationships. Family, friends and co-workers tend to look at you a bit differently. I don’t really have a problem with this, I just answer questions as honestly as I can.

I can, however, understand where some of the “angry atheism” comes from here in the States. In recent polls, atheists are viewed very negatively. Some numbers for you to chew on:

Barna Research Ltd. is the most active Evangelical polling organization in the United States. They conduct telephone polls about a variety of topics — mainly involving Christianity. Barna asked a random selection of American adults during 1995-JUL whether they thought that various religions had a positive or negative effect on U.S. society. The survey’s margin of error is ±3 percentage points. Responses were only counted from those subjects who were familiar with the religion in question. The study estimates that 50% of non-Christian adults in the U.S. view Atheism as having an negative impact on society. Fewer than half that percentage viewed Islam and Buddhism negatively. Among born-again Christians, this level of rejection reached 92% — much higher than for any religious belief system other than Atheism.

George Barna, president of Barna Research commented on the “us vs. them” mentality of many adults: “While many Americans are not practicing Christians, they retain some identity with the Christian faith and remain protective of it. They are suspicious of other faith groups because they are unknown but different—and we are generally uncomfortable with those who are not just like us…”

Considering the way that atheists are viewed in general, it is no wonder that many become “militant.”

Originally, my questions were quite rudimentary. Where did Cain’s wife come from? Two or seven of every land animal on a relatively small Ark for 150 days? It was things like these that I questioned in the beginning. As I got older, more philosophical questions arose. What are the moral implications of an omniscient God? Even better, what are the moral implications of an omniscient, omnipotent God?  How do we determine what is meant as allegory and what is literal when reading the Bible?

I didn’t have the luxury of the internet in the 80′s and early 90′s, so I was pretty much limited to asking various church officials these and other questions and made use of my local library. First, I find it amazing that everyone that I asked had different takes on the same questions. Especially the clergy. I found this to be rather frustrating as well as futile. I wanted to believe, to belong, but I had questions… and no real good answers. It seemed like the more I read, the more questions I would have and the more futile the search seemed to be.

Dad and I had a lengthy discussion about this not too long ago. Inevitably, the phrase that I dread came out, ” That’s what faith is for.” Unfortunately for me, my brain just doesn’t work that way. I understand the concept of faith, I just can’t seem to apply it to my life. I mean, in every other aspect of my life I use reason, logic, critical thinking and experience to govern what my next “move” will be on the great chessboard of life. How do I abandon these tools for this one aspect of my life? And why should I? For the sake of argument, let’s say that God did create us. If this is true, then He also created our brain and our capacity for logic. Are we not to be good stewards of that which He has given us?

I find that I tend to agree with Jefferson on this one.

Well, my name is David Johnson. Most of the time I prefer Dave. My mother met my father around the time that I was about 8 or 9 years old. Could have been later, it’s kind of hard to remember something that long ago. Sure, he is my step-father, technically speaking. Although I did not fully appreciate it while I lived with Mom and Dad, he was more of a father to me than my biological sperm donor ever was. Nowadays, I just call him “Dad.”

Mom and I had never really gotten along as well as a mother and son should have. Both parties were to blame, really. I am sure that when I was younger, there was a bit of distrust that I harboured towards Mom, I’m sure. Deadbeat left when I was 3, so… What’s a kid to think? Especially when said Deadbeat tells you that he is leaving, he fails to tell your mother. I’m sure that later in my childhood that mistrust evolved into something else, just not quite sure what. By the time I was old enough to realize the dynamics of the situation, it was far too late. Our relationship was irrevocably altered. It would take nearly 20 years to have a decent relationship with Mom. (Sorry ’bout that, Mom.)

So, Mom meets Dad. Seems like a cool guy, but I don’t trust him any further than I could’ve thrown him. (He was an iron-worker at the time, so you can imagine the build on the man. Throw him, heck. I could’ve taken a three-point stance, rushed him and knocked myself out!) We go to his softball games, cookout at his place, feed his bird my finger…(inside joke). They get married and so on and so on.

I do not regret my past. Quite the contrary, as my past has shaped who I am today. Like everyone, decisions were made along the way that I am not to proud of. But they have led me to where I am today. I am a skeptic at heart, about all things. I am quite liberal in my humanitarian views and conservative in others. Like many people, I do not feel as though a political label really applies to me. I have libertarian, democratic, republican, conservative and liberal views on just about every facet of my life. Raised in a Christian home, dabbled in everything from Wicca to Buddhism. Religious views today? None, really. Some would label me an atheist, others an agnostic. But, then again, we’ve already covered the fact that I don’t really feel as though I have a label.

If I were to label myself, I would choose Humanist (as I have in the About section of the website). I am not such a die-hard atheist as to say that there is absolutely no God or other deity. After all, one can never be “absolute” in such matters. I can be absolutely sure, however, that there are others in this world. While I am not sure about the after-life, I am certain about the life I’m after. While the final chapter of my life hasn’t been written quite yet, here’s to hoping that it is nothing more than an appendice of kind and decent things that I have done for others.

That’s really all I have for the moment. Have a fantastic weekend!