This week's travel picture...

The Greek island of Naxos.

Birthday Dinner

Last night for my birthday, Reese took me out to a wonderful little place in Santa Monica called Library Alehouse. I was surprised by the choice - generally, we seem to pick quieter, upscale places for special occasions, and this place was rock-concert loud - but it was a pleasant surprise.

Once they took us to the back, away from the bar, it was much quieter and the ambiance was pleasant. We sat next to a very friendly couple (Reese would say TOO friendly - the guy let me try his beer) and got to select from an impressive list of beers. Reese chose something "girly" - her words, not mine :) - and I ended up selecting a beer called Allagash Curieux. Aged in Maine in old bourbon oak barrels, it was a great treat. It poured an attractive cloudy, amber-golden color, and had a nice foamy head. After drinking it, I could easily see why they called it "curieux" as the taste was quite mystifying: a hint of bourbon and oak (obviously) with fruity and malty undertones. You can never quite put your finger on what you're tasting, but you just know it's darn good. It's 11% alc. by volume and it comes in a 750 ml bottle, so if you ever try a bottle yourself, be careful - it goes down smooth and can really knock your socks off in a hurry!

I paired it with a delicious steak - perfectly cooked - but unfortunately Reese's grilled salmon was overcooked. Still, the dinner was enjoyable and memorable.

On the way home, we decided we wanted to stop at Duke's in Malibu for dessert. We got there at 9:45 (the restaurant closes at 10) and they seemed a bit reluctant to serve us until we came across a very nice woman who ended up being our waitress. She was happy to serve us and I'm glad she did - we enjoyed our macadamia nut ice cream and chocolate lava cake served over a strawberry and guava sauce. Yum!

After driving home, I opened my birthday present from Reese: a Joe Rodeo Mens Chronograph Bubble Diamond Watch! It's really beautiful. I'll have to post a picture of it soon, although I fear a picture wouldn't do it justice.

Great food, great beer, and great conversation with the woman I love? Wouldn't want to have my birthday any other way.

Paris

I think I'll post one of my travel pictures per week. For funsies.

Where else to start besides Paris?

Is a rejection of evolution essential to the Christian faith? Apparently, yes.

Today, Reese and I went to our first incarnation of Cornerstone's new community-focused small church gatherings. We were curious and anxious to see what the leadership had in store for the direction of the new church. We were looking forward to hearing the message that would inspire us as local missionaries and evangelicals who are ready to show the love of Christ to those around us. Would it be a message on the Great Commission? On how to approach strangers? On how to encourage and hold others accountable in their primary mission? On how best to reach large communities?

Nope, wrong, none of the above. Rather, to my great dismay, the message and discussion centered around... wait for it... evolution and the absolute priority that we as Christians must place on destroying this "scientific" mumbo jumbo.

Wait. Huh?

Why in the world would this topic take precedence over every other? This message is essential to our "love your neighbor" focus? The logic for launching these community-focused groups with this message, I can only assume, went like this:

1) Christianity and evolution are incompatible
2) Lots of people believe in evolution
3) If 1 and 2 are true, then Satan's greatest tool to combat Christianity must be evolution
4) If 3 is true, no one can ever come to Christ if they believe in evolution
5) If 4 is true, our new community-focused church is bound to fail unless we arm ourselves against evolution
6) If 5 is true, we must spend 50 minutes spewing straw man arguments against evolution so as to motivate and encourage ourselves to go out and destroy Satan's great lie

Apparently, groupthink is so rampant that the mere possibility that there might be a believer or two among us who believe in evolution AND have a profound love for Jesus Christ never crossed anyone's mind. I felt like a stranger in a group that should be family. For the sake of courtesy and keeping the peace, I took the coward's way out and failed to speak up, even though nothing I heard made a lick of sense. I fully regret this decision mere hours later. All I accomplished in doing that was feeding the groupthink mentality. Shame on me.

Ultimately though, I have to give a Stephen Colbert "Wag of the Finger" to Cornerstone, which has consistently confused me by putting such unyielding focus on a matter that I, and supposedly they find to be largely inconsequential. I say "supposedly" because while their words say one thing (several in leadership positions have said that it is definitely possible for true believers to be proponents of evolution), their actions show another (continuously harping on the issue as an essential cornerstone of the faith).

The fingers-in-the-ears rejection of evolution is, I believe, more of a threat to Christianity than evolution itself. Most of the anti-evolution positions espoused are ignorant, if not entirely intellectually dishonest, and the flippant dismissal of a theory that is widely studied and accepted throughout the vast majority of those in the scientific community - many of whom have devoted their lives to the study of the subject - is unseemly and can certainly be perceived as arrogant. No credible scientific explanation has been postulated to combat evolution - ever. Could it be wrong? Sure! But dismissing the only scientific explanation for the the arrival and development of man without replacing it with another scientific explanation does no one any good. It's as if Christians think "science" exists to destroy Christianity or discredit God. While some scientists undoubtedly have such an angle, science itself has no other goal than to create a set of models that best describe the measurable universe. If anything, most scientists I'm sure would love to be the ones to prove evolution wrong, as they would be widely credited with advancing the knowledge and understanding of the world around us, and would probably win the Nobel prize.

Ultimately, for me, it's not even about evolution vs. creation. You don't believe in evolution? You find the evidence presented to be insufficient? Fine by me! My issue lies with those who essentially tell believers who do find evolution to be a resonable way through which God could bring life to this planet - people like my wife, my parents, and myself - that we are not really Christians at all. My beef lies with these same people who essentially tell non-believers that they must choose between creation and evolution if they are to accept the truth that is Jesus Christ. How wrong is that? Before we can even share the most important message in the world, we're slamming the door in our own face by forcing them into a choice they should never have to make.

I want there to be no mistake: I love Cornerstone, I love my Christian brothers and sisters and I love Jesus! I just think we're doing ourselves and the name of Christ a great disservice by making evolution a make or break issue and by approaching the topic in such a dismissive manner.

Save the world. Pee in the shower.

Guys pee in the shower. Not necessarily all the time or on a regular basis, but every once in a while. Any guy who tells you he has never peed in the shower is definitely lying. Usually, a guy will do it out of laziness. The usual scenerio goes like this: a guy realizes he has to pee, but he's already standing under the warm stream of water and doesn't want to have to get out and run to the toilet dripping wet, so he lets it go down the drain because, after all, who's going to know? Well, he may not have realized it, but Mr. Lazy McUrinator just helped save the planet.

We think of urine as dirty and disgusting. Nobody wants to sit on a toilet seat that has dried urine spots on it from some guy that missed or splashed. It looks gross, it smells gross and we get rid of it as quickly as possible. But the truth of the matter is that urine is sterile (unless you have a urinary tract infection). In fact, if you were dying of thirst in the desert, you COULD drink your own urine (although the benefits of such a technique are debatable) until you were able to find water. Astronauts, military personnel and people lost in the wilderness have all had to do this to stay alive. Bear Grylls drank his own urine using snake skin as some kind of filter on Man vs. Wild. So if it's sterile, you can drink it, and it is washed right down the drain anyway, is peeing in the shower really so bad? Some will still say yes, and they're free to disagree, but as far as cleanliness and civility goes, I say "Pee away."

I'll go one step further though. Not only is peeing in the shower ok, it's actually morally admirable. Most people have to pee first thing when they wake up in the morning. Most people also shower first thing in the morning. That's a lot of water usage. If you can eliminate one of these, that's saving a heck of a lot of water. There are 304,000,000 Americans. The average flush uses 9 liters of water. If every American were to pee in the shower in the morning rather than in the toilet, that would save 100 BILLION liters of water per year. Even if only 1 out of every 10 Americans did this, it would save 10 BILLION liters of water per year. You alone could save 3285 liter (~1000 gallons) of water each year just by peeing in the shower each morning. Combine this new habit with a water-saving device in the toilet, a front-loading energy-efficient washer (washers' water-efficiency rankings can be found here), a water-efficient shower head, and even a water recycling system to water your lawn, and you're in some serious water saving business!

If you're not convinced yet, consider the following:
1.2 billion people lack access to clean water. The World Health Organization says that at any time, up to half of humanity has one of the six main diseases -- diarrhea, schistosomiasis, or trachoma, or infestation with ascaris, guinea worm, or hookworm -- associated with poor drinking water and inadequate sanitation. About 5 million people die each year from poor drinking water, poor sanitation, or a dirty home environment -- often resulting from water shortage. Already, wars are being fought over water and many experts believe that most wars of the future will be fought over water, not land or oil. It is estimated that the world could be facing a global water shortage as soon as 2025, and that by this same date, Americans will consume 10% of the global houshold water consumption, despite only making up 4% of the world's population. In the end, our excessive water usage has direct social, economic and environmental effects.

I have certainly been guilty of water waste and there's still much more I need to do. It may not be a huge deal to most, but it seems of particular waste to me to use 9 gallons of water every morning that does not need to be used, just so I don't have to suffer the indignity of a faint urine smell for a few short seconds. Some may champion other methods of cutting down on water consumption, but this one just seems so easy to do that it's impossible to ignore.

So to all the Mr. Lazy McUrinators out there: I salute you.

Hibernation: over!

It's been a while since I posted, but I promise there are reasons. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether the reasons hold any value, but they're reasons nonetheless.

1) I often forget that I even have a blog.
2) Even when I do remember that I have a blog, it's often while driving, since this is where I get to do most of my thinking. And in my estimation, blogging and driving is probably not a reasonable combination.
3) Even when I remember that I have a blog AND I'm around a computer, I can't really understand why anyone would want to read what I have to say, so I often lose motivation to write what I had intended.

But here I am. I've overcome reasons 1-3 and have decided to write a little something today...

In response to Kyle's abortion forum

Ok, so in quotes are Kyle's original post. The rest is my response. Enjoy and please feel free to add to the discussion...

---

"Seeing as how a fertilized egg can be shed during a woman's menstrual cycle (not all attach), you have a "whole person" being flushed down the toilet."

If that's the viewpoint that a "pro-lifer" holds - that life begins at conception - then you're right; that is true. However, the woman in this situation did not CHOOSE to flush the fertilized egg down the toilet. It happened naturally. However, the “morning after” pill (or abortion at any stage), IS a purposeful choice to terminate what COULD be construed as a life.

"Counseling is one thing. Changing the law so that women have no choice but to give birth to rapist's children, or their father's children is totally different."

I'm of the mindset on this one that two wrongs do not make a right. Revenge is bad enough - to take something out on someone who did something wrong to you is naturally what we would want to do, but it is wrong. But abortion because of a rape is worse. To be wronged and then take it out on an innocent who had no control over the situation is something that is, frankly, frustratingly selfish. Not that it is something I don’t understand – I can’t imagine the pain of having to endure rape and bearing the child of the man who did it – but I still don’t think the fetus should suffer for it.

“Just because it may be 'alive' doesn't mean it's a person. If an adult were, brain-wise, the same as a 12-week old fetus, we'd call that person brain dead and they'd be hauled off life support and the organ harvesters would start circling. Even if the person is a "person", no one has the right to hijack someone else's body for life support against that person's will.”

You’re partially right on this one. I’ll get to why I agree with that first sentence later. The rest though is not quite true. A “brain-dead” person would not be “hauled off life support”. This makes it sound as if the government or the hospital makes the decision as soon as someone is brain-dead, when, in fact, this is the decision of the family. They may keep a “brain-dead” person on life-support as long as they choose (or are willing to pay). But I think it’s better to think about it this way… If a man walked into the ICU, strolled into a “brain-dead” patient’s room and then shot and killed the “brain-dead” patient, wouldn’t that man be charged for murder? It IS technically still a life.

“If the right-to-lifers are so adamant about the sacred value of life, why is so much hate dumped on single women who have children? They should be applauded.”

I don’t think “so much hate” is dumped on single women with children. I think the fact that they eschewed the most successful manner in which to raise and nurture a child (with a loving and committed husband) is what is lamented (not hated). However, the woman’s decision to have the child and give it a chance at life is not something that is frowned upon, but IS applauded.

“Why aren't they offering women who are thinking of abortion $20k (the going rate for a surrogacy) as well as offering to pay all medical expenses, living expenses, and offering to pay for training, education, or whatnot, so the women could hope to have a good job and take care of their children themselves?”

This one is easy. If this were the case, every single mother across the country could apply for a $20k grant saying they’re thinking about abortion. Every woman looking for extra benefits and extra pay and extra education would simply have to go get pregnant (I’m sure there are plenty of men who would unknowingly oblige). There is something called personal responsibility. If you have sex, know that there’s a possibility you’ll get pregnant and that you’ll have all the challenges that come with raising a child. I think everyone who engages in sex knows this to be a possible outcome.

“Far easier to dump hate on women who can’t handle pregnancy”

I don’t know where you’re getting this “hate” stuff. Who hates them? Does showing disapproval equal hate? Does suggesting a better way mean hate? I don’t understand this.

“What of the men?”

This is a good question and one we’ve been inadequate as a country to address. Men are held responsible by courts to pay child support if it is proven that the child is their own in a court of law, but only if they agree to a DNA test. I believe it should be a law that a woman should be able to offer up the names of potential fathers (up to a certain number) and each should, by law, be forced to take a DNA test. The positive DNA test would be responsible for financial support. This would take some taxpayer money, but it would be money well spent in my opinion.

---

Ok, so after all this, you’re going to be surprised that I am pro-choice. Not in my own life though. I would never advocate that in my own personal life and I would never recommend it to a friend and I believe it to be immoral, because I DO believe that life begins at conception and I believe nothing is more vulnerable and weak and in need of protection than a fetus. I’d never want to face that judgment from God for making a decision that might have been murder. Even still, if one was not influenced by faith on this issue, there are still three ways they could think about it that still could make them reconsider their position:

• If a pregnant woman is driving at midnight and a drunk driver comes and smashes into her, killing her fetus, this guy would be made out to be a total monster, even though it was unintentional (albeit, irresponsible). However, if the woman decided that she no longer wanted the baby and intentionally killed it, it’s no big deal. Huh? So the one who consciously did it is the one who gets off the hook but the guy who did it by accident is guilty? I don’t get that.


• When someone kills a pregnant woman, it is double homicide. Pregnant women are allowed to use the carpool lane. Why are the fetuses people then, but not when it’s abortion?


• If my neighbor planted a new rosebush in his yard and one month in, after it’s showing its first green stalks and leaves, I took my lawnmower and razed his garden, I’m going to bet he’ll be pissed that I killed his roses, and I doubt I could get away with the argument that “They weren’t actually roses yet because they weren’t showing buds.” Sure they hadn’t fully matured, but it was still a rosebush, if not a fully developed one, and I killed it. Why wouldn’t the same apply to a fetus?

Constitutionally speaking, however, I’m pro-choice. I believe the argument centers around whether you believe life begins at conception (and whether a fetus without fully developed and functioning organs is a human) and if one DOES believe this, it’s a faith-driven opinion. Fortunately (I’m probably in the minority of Christians who would say “fortunately”), policy and legislation is not faith-driven and is not supported by personal beliefs, but is supported by our constitution and Bill of Rights. Scientifically speaking, an embryo is NOT a human (yet), and as much as I or any other Christian may think it already has a soul (and thus a life), this isn’t really something the courts can go on. I believe in minimal government intervention into issues of personal moral choice and I think this issue falls under this category.