Latest Entries »

And does hell exist?

Hello all,

Just yesterday, on the Fox News channel (the show called “The O’reilly Factor), they had a segment regarding hell.  It started off with “Time” Magazine running a cover story posing the question “Does Hell really exist?”  or something like that.  So he invided a priest to an interview to talk about the subject.  The general consensus between both the priest and Bill is that following the path of god as they believe will go to heaven.  You cannot exlude people (as they use as an example) such as Ghandi or Jews in the Holocaust, etc. just because of Non-Jesus faiths or what have you or lifestyles for being gay.  Because you have a lot of non christian or alternative lifestyles, you shouldn’t exlude them despite being good.  If G-d does, then as put is a monster (not my description here).

But I will correct Bill for a moment (distinguishing the beliefs in hell between Jews and Christians).  I could be mistaken, but Christianity as a whole (and compensate for what you denomination and beliefs) that hell is a very real place and you will be there suffering for all eternity for your sins that you committed (and the suffering is proportionate to your sins).  While Jews on the other hand, do not believe in the christian hell.  To simply the belief, Jews do not have a specific doctrine regarding an afterlife, but they describe that after you die you go into a kind of purgatory where one becomes fully aware of one’s own shortcomings and negative actions during one’s life (all souls).  You are to feel shame for what you have done in life that is considered sinful, etc. and for up to 12 months you will ascend to heaven and god.

That is to set the record straight.

But on a personal note, I am not here on Earth to judge or tell people how to live or what is right and not sinful in that kind of regard.  I will say this though, I do feel that the point of life, and the basic message of religion (any religion and denomination), is to be a good person, do the right thing, be a pillar of the community, help others whenever possible.  Don’t judge, discriminate, etc.  It may not always work out (I’m no exception), but everyone should strive to be the best person they can be. To me, all this is regardless if your sexual orientation, race, religion, nationality, age, etc., we’re here for a reason, and God doesn’t make mistakes with anyone.  So go forth and be happy!

So I pose these questions and be respectful in the comments.  Do you believe in hell?  What do you believe will get you there?  What kind of god do you believe in?

Steve

http://ec.yimg.com/ec?url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F4f%2FPeace_symbol.svg%2F220px-Peace_symbol.svg.png&t=1303886557&ttl=43200&sig=6T2t5GTdaPfcVmN1laEuhA--~B

Advertisements

Hello,

Long time no blog so to speak.  But today comes big news within the US.   Today in Florida by a judge there, under the lawsuit filed by 26 states declared Obamacare in it’s entirety is declare unconstitutional and is considered void.   For some articles see this one from fox news and the other from CNN.  It was even predicted from Bill O’reilly a year and a half ago.  See his “Talking Points Memo” at foxnews.com/oreilly:

<script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=4518818&w=466&h=263″></script><noscript>Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a></noscript&gt;

Though I do agree that mandating purchasing of anything by the federal government is unconstitutional, I feel this is the kind of thing that falls under “the right thing done for the wrong reasons is still the wrong thing”.  Meaning that there were some good intentions, but done it the wrong way, thereby still doing wrong.  In our democratic representative republic, you still have to still follow what your constituency say you should do and many voted to approve this law.

So with essentially forcing a purchase and essentially a government equivalent take over by buy their version of healthcare is now void, this leaves us with the question of “what should we do to improve the healthcare system we have?”.  Here are a few possibilities:

1.  Do away with disapproving people based on preexisiting conditions.   If healthcare provides do away with this anyone can have access to healthcare.

2.  Have tort reform and interstate competition.  Having people sue doctors for millions and millions of dollars and for a resided of a state buy insurance of only that state (EG Arizona residents only buying Arizona healthcare insurance) is the main reasons why the costs of health care is so high.  Who needs to spend $20 on 2 Advil while the same 20 dollars could buy 2 150 pill bottles of the same exact generic version at a Walgreens.

3.  Increase the amount of money that is capped with medicare/ medicare to help those who need government assistance so those who need it has access to it.

These are a few but essential reforms to health care.  All of which can be done as individual bills or as a bundle pack together.  This three at least will create REAL reform without having to increase the deficit, creating entitlements when it’s not obligated to mandate, and something that is highly encouraged.

I do encourage this rather than a government take over.

Steve

Latest DADT update

Hello all,

I waited to make an update on this subject is because I wanted to see what happened and not to raise hopes that may lead to  disappointment.   But the latest update is in this story from foxnews.com (and CNN as well).  But depending on which article you read from fox news they say it was a senate vote 63-33 (CNN says 65-31) that the senate passed the repeal of the law.  This was all contingent on the study that the military did to see if it would be a problem for gays to serve openly.  The majority had no problem.  Though the only real resistance came from those who are already fighting overseas.  I think I read certain that the marines shown the most resistance between the branches (though I’m not total positive here).  But  the thing is that I would not have a problem what so ever having a gay person in public service (firefighter, military, police, other, etc.)

In terms of military, since we are already are in 2 wars, and I feel that it is better for national security for us to have the man power to do so.  Plus we are all Americans who should allow all those who want to be really patriotic for our country  to serve.   I do not feel that there is no reason to not let gays in.

Steve

 

Thank You Fans!!!!!

Hello all,

It has been a while since I logged on let alone see comments.  I want to apologize ahead of time for those who did comment because for some reason, they are automatically marked as spam and I have to go and approve all of them before they appear.  Any suggestions on fixing that (private message or email me)?  And that’s why some of you may see duplicate comments.

But tonight I was going through 50 comments on a few different earlier blog postings on a few different controversial issues.  They were primarily on Gay marriage and rights as well as the immigration bill in Arizona.  I did get overwhelmingly positive support on all my ideas, thoughts, opinions, and perspectives.  It is because of you, the audience, that makes my blog a success.  It is that when you read my blog, I hope to bring some understanding, a fresh piece of insight to your life, and hopefully, that will help you gain a better perspective of yourself and others and to help produce a better world around you of, not only tolerance, but acceptance of others regardless of our similarities and differences and that’s what this blog is about.

I did notices that on a couple comments asked me for suggestions on making blogs (wordpress or others).  Here are a few suggestions, but don’t limit yourself to them.  First thing is to talk about something your interested in.  For example, in my blog, I talk about social issues such as gay rights/marriage (a big interest of mine) or immigration when the Arizona bill was signed into law.  Be well informed about the subject.  Be passionate.  Keep things open ended so invites discussion in a safe environment.  Be honest.    Though keep it readable and not horribly long because some might lose interest after a while.  And from here, go where your blog takes you and good luck!

Since I did recently get a job, I wont be on as frequently, but I will continue to post on interesting subjects,  and I still hope you read and enjoy!

Steve

Hello all,

The Pope going around promoting his new book.

Here is an intersting article on the pope himself.   Some background information.  It is typically the Church’s position that many things about humans and human nature are typically deemed as evil regardless if it is  natural or artificial.  Such things can range from sex/sexuality/gender to contraception (abstinence as the exception) to cheating to what you have to do to being a Catholic.  Until today because there has been a drop from the thaw of Catholic’s rift.  Now do not mistake me or hold your breath because it is nothing big.  In fact, it is equivalent to barely having your toe out line (all things considered of all the world’s problems in my opinion).  The current pope,  Pope Benedict XVI,   said in his new book that (according to the article),  that “…that condoms are the lesser of two evils when used to curb the spread of AIDS, even if their use prevents a pregnancy.”

WOW AND ASTONISHING!!!!!!   I never thought I would hear the pope say that condom use was alright.  It is the type of news that is no big deal to the rest of the world but huge for the news.  The moral dilemma to the church is preventing pregnancy aka life at and after conception.  Ok  lets back track to basics that since already the church already defines life at (and certainly) after conception.  Condom use is used before conception, so technically before life begins.  To get back to the article, the pope says it prevents the transmission the AIDS virus (which is the exact opposite position it took previously).  Now I admit, I do commend him that he is beginning to realize the importance of condom use and the role it plays in the prevention of the spread of HIV.  But the pope believes that condom use is only exclusive to male prostitutes who do not want to become pregnant and therefore not a moral issue.  Like I said only a toe out of place when saying that condom use is only good at preventing HIV in regards to male prostitutes and less of a moral issue.

But the pope does not arrived to the final realization in this confessional on condom use.  That condom use is not exclusive to male strippers who do not want HIV.  In terms of people, anyone can use condoms or other forms of contraception (beyond abstinence).  This leads to many reasons for their use while still enjoying a part of us that makes us human.  Reasons are different and can vary such as prevention of unwanted pregnancies (and preventing abortion which, for this reason, should be hailed),  prevention of many other STD’s beyond HIV/AIDS, personal reasons, etc.

I feel for the safety of humans, the people (regardless of safe or unsafe sex), everyone should not only have this option, but should not be condoned or condemned for condom use.   It is not immoral or a devious act, but it is moral and taking responsibility for themselves and their partners.  It is empowering a person to make the right decisions and responsibility to do something that is only human.  I only come to hope that this pope and future pope relaxes their current stance on sexuality as a whole because while living in the present, the church is living in the deep past and is currently confusing and hurting so many people.

I do encourage good postings and please do share your thoughts.  Please do not knock or insult anyone as this is a sensitive subject.

Steve

Hi all,

Here is an interesting article on tiger endangerment:   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_russia_saving_tigers

Enjoy!

Steve

Hi all,

Published from the Associate Press and printed in the Las Vegas Review Journal say that there was a poll conducted in Salt Lake City.  Appearently 44% of the people who were polled agreed with the Mormon church, more specifically “with Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer”, that homosexuality can be overcome as opposed to “31 percent disagree and 25 percent were unsure whether same-sex attraction can be changed.”  What is meant by “overcoming homosexuality” is that somehow not only can you change your sexuality, but specifically changing from any sexuality to being straight aka heterosexual.  Now the article says that this comes from more partisan lines that most republicans plus 8% of democrats say that sexuality can be changed and most democrats plus 13% of republicans do not believe that sexuality can be changed.  Also, the poll suggests that there is a split among religion (and Utah is known to having a high population of Mormon people).  The article says that “55 percent of Mormon respondents believe it’s possible to change same-sex attractions compared with 20 percent of non-Mormon respondents.”

Honestly, let me say this:  I am gay myself.  I never had any real feelings for women sexually, nor have I ever wanted to be with a women.  To me, it’s not a choice.  I have always had an attraction to men and it’s not something that I would want to change about myself.  It’s not a phase or something I could “just get over” or change my mind about.  It is just simply who I am and I would not have it any other way.

When I read this article this morning in the Las Vegas Review Journal, I was absolutely taken back by what I read.  I feel that we live in a world and especially in the United States in 2010 that there is so much close minded, unaccepted, intolerance kind of philosophy that still exists.  I hear of stories, in the US of A alone, that (specifically relating to the GBLTQ community) that us gays are discriminated against.  Think of “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”.  Recently, Gates says he wants the Obama administration to repeal the decision that allows gays to serve openly.  There are cases where young gays are committing suicide such as Tyler Clementi that were “outed”, bullied, people trying to “change” them.  It is appalling to me to hear these stories that just because someone did not accept a person for who they are.  Certainly politics and especially religion does not have a right, what so ever, to tell a person that this is who you have to be to be a good and upstanding citizen.

I certainly hope that in the future that we get past our differences and be more accepting of those who are different from ourselves.  I may have biases of others just like anyone else, but I try to put them aside and try to accept others for who they are and I do hope that others do the same as well!

Steve

Pres. Obama says….

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/03/obama-addresses-nation-democrats-lose-house/

Hi all,

I was keeping track of the Nevada US Senate race with Angle and Reid (and mutely others) because I’m a resident of Las Vegas. I got an email that the subject heading that read something like “Harry Reid won the US senate seat”. So I went to foxnews.com to see what the latest stats were. The latest at 10:25PM PST was that Reid had 50% of the votes (272,201 Votes) and Angle had 45% of the votes (244,629 Votes). And the best part of it was that only 46% of the total precincts were tallied.

Then, it hit me! I thought “Dude, hows that possible?!?!?!?! How can you declare a winner when only 46% of people voted?  That’s not even half.” Yes, Angle has been trailing roughly 35,000 votes at any given time give or take another 5,000 either way. But dude what the heck is going on?!?!?!?!

How can you declare a winner when not even half the votes were counted and the other 54% can have a HUGE, HUGE impact on an election?!

This is so undemocratic, I feel, when you call a winner in an election when not all votes were tallied. It really doesn’t matter who the candidate is or what position is for.  The point of the matter is that every single vote should be counted before a winner is declared and after each one is counted, then the announcement of the winner should be made.  It is equally democratic to vote as it is to declare a winner after all have been counted despite the 24 cable news stations reporting on it.

Steve

Hi all,

Here’s a few articles on “Don’t ask Don’t tell”:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/10/20/20101020gays-in-military-policy-frozen-by-appeals-court.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69B63U20101012

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101020/ap_on_re_us/us_gays_in_military;_ylt=Ar.wVWkeA0uZdbU2MzqIasdvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTJrYmhvbnM3BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMDIwL3VzX2dheXNfaW5fbWlsaXRhcnkEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3Ryb29wc2Rpc2NoYQ&#8211;

Enjoy,
Steve