June 30, 2013

Evangelicals Are Being Challenged to Change on Gays by Their Gay Members

Evangelicals are being challenged to change their views of gays and lesbians, and the pressure isn't coming from the gay rights movement or watershed court rulings: Once silent for fear of being shunned, more gay and lesbian evangelicals are speaking out about how they've struggled to reconcile their beliefs and sexual orientation.
Students and alumni from Christian colleges have been forming gay and lesbian support groups - a development that even younger alumni say they couldn't have imagined in their own school years. Gay evangelicals have published memoirs that prod traditional Christians to re-examine how they think about gays and lesbians. Among the most recent is Jeff Chu's "Does Jesus Really Love Me? A Gay Christian's Pilgrimage in Search of God in America." Paul Southwick, a gay evangelical attorney in Oregon, has started an "It Gets Better" style video project, "On God's Campus: Voices from the Queer Underground," with testimonials from gays and lesbians at the Christian schools.
The goals of these activists and writers vary. Some argue monogamous same-sex marriages are consistent with traditional Bible views and hope to remain in conservative churches. Others agree with traditional teaching on marriage and have committed to staying celibate for life, but are speaking out because they feel demonized within their communities.
Whatever their aims, they are already having an impact.
"There are a growing number of us who grew up hearing a certain origin story about our same-sex attraction that didn't resonate with us," said Wesley Hill, 32, who teaches at a conservative Anglican seminary, Trinity School for Ministry in Pennsylvania, and wrote the book "Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality." ''We are wanting to have conversations that older generations of evangelicals haven't had or haven't wanted to have."
A February survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found seven in 10 white evangelicals overall were against gay marriage. However, younger respondents backed same-sex marriage by 51 percent. Younger Christians grew up with openly gay friends and relatives, and often found their elder's fight for traditional marriage damaging to the church, according to studies by the Barna Group's David Kinnamon, among other surveys.
Still, it is only in the last few years that gay and lesbian evangelicals have discussed their same-sex attraction so openly. It has been far more common for gays and lesbians from traditional faith groups to join liberal houses of worship or leave organized religion altogether. In a recent survey of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans by the Pew Research Center, 48 percent said they had no religious affiliation, compared with 20 percent of the general public. Of the LGBT adults with religious ties, one-third said there is a conflict between their religious beliefs and their sexual orientation.
Evangelical leaders are taking notice. After the U.S. Supreme Court last week gave federal recognition to gay marriages, several evangelicals responded not only by renewing their commitment to traditional marriage, but also by urging like-minded Christians to be more sensitive in the way they express their beliefs. For those outside conservative Christianity, this may not seem significant, but it's a notable change for Christians who believe their faith requires them to challenge same-sex relationships.
"We need to show grace and friendship to those who struggle, while holding fast to what the Scriptures teach. Without hiding our beliefs, we need to look for opportunities to have conversations, build relationships and demonstrate grace," wrote Ed Stetzer, head of the research arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, on his blog, "The Exchange."
A week earlier, the head of Exodus International, a Christian ministry that helped conflicted Christians rid themselves of unwanted same-sex attraction through counseling and prayer, apologized to the gay community for inflicting "years of undue suffering." Alan Chambers said he continues to hold "a biblical view that the original intent for sexuality was designed for heterosexual marriage." Still, he said the organization would shut down and he would instead work to promote reconciliation between people with opposing views.
In the last few years, more than 40 gay and lesbian support groups have been formed at Christian colleges, by Southwick's estimate. The 29-year-old lawyer has been reaching out to the groups as part of his video project and is also active in OneGeorgeFox, the support group founded by gay and lesbian alumni and students of his alma mater, George Fox University, a Christian school in Oregon.
He said few of the groups have been formally recognized by their schools and some meet secretly off campus. Christian colleges generally have community standards policies barring sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. Students fear publicly identifying as gay - celibate or not - could jeopardize their futures at the schools.
"The goal is survival," Southwick said. "If you talk to any of the LGBT students at these campuses, they are in environments that are really hostile."
However, at least one prominent evangelical school, Wheaton College in Illinois, officially recognized its support group, called Refuge, four months ago. Wheaton is known as the Harvard of evangelical schools, graduating evangelist Billy Graham and other influential leaders. LaTonya Taylor, a Wheaton spokeswoman, said the goal of Refuge "is for students who experience same-sex attraction to be mentored by a Christian community" within traditional biblical standards, "rather than to struggle alone in silence." Other schools, including George Fox, have responded to the groups by organizing campus discussions about the Bible and homosexuality, including speakers who support same-sex relationships.
Another sign of change: Gay evangelicals have already prompting a backlash.
The influential Pentecostal magazine Charisma ran a critical three-part series starting in May, titled "Can a Christian be Gay?" in response to the recent book "Torn: Rescuing the Gospel from the Gays vs. Christians Debate" by Justin Lee, founder of the Gay Christian Network.
Lee is gay and celibate, but encourages dialogue among evangelicals with different views. He frames the discussion as "Side A" and "Side B" Christians. "Side B" believes gays should be celibate because of a consistent Christian teaching that sex is only for marriage between a man and a woman. "Side A" Christians believe God blesses same-sex relationships because the particular Bible verses cited to condemn homosexuality do not reflect advances in knowledge about same-sex attraction.
Lee started the network as an online-only community in 2001. It has since grown to become a national organization based in Raleigh, N.C., with annual conferences that organizers say draw hundreds of people.
In his Charisma articles, evangelist Larry Tomczak wrote that he wanted to clear up confusion caused by Lee's arguments.
"An entire chapter in the Old Testament lists certain activities and calls them 'detestable,' stating in no uncertain terms, "Stay away!" The New Testament uses five terms to describe both male and female homosexual conduct: 'unnatural,' 'perverted,' 'degrading,' 'shameful' and 'indecent,'" Tomczak wrote. "Not to be facetious, but is that hard to understand?"
Tomczak said being gay is a choice - and one that dishonors God.
Inadvertently, Exodus and other ministries that have promised a gay-to-straight transformation have played a role in prompting gay and lesbian evangelicals to go public. Many gay evangelicals who unsuccessfully sought out a "cure" in the programs have emerged with profound misgivings about the way Christians approach the issue.
A 2005 graduate of George Fox University, Southwick said he was encouraged by the school to enter a two-year counseling program with a local affiliate of Exodus, which included a graduation ceremony that Southwick dismissed as "a straight diploma." He became depressed and suicidal during the program.
Lee, of the Gay Christian Network, was raised Southern Baptist believing that gays could become straight "if they trusted God and had the willingness to do so." In college, he attended Exodus conferences and sought out other similar ministries hoping to become attracted to women. It didn't work. Lee says he's always been celibate, so the ministries' focus on changing behavior wasn't helpful.
"I was focused on changing the attractions. That led me to ask a lot of tough questions about whether people's attractions were changing and I realized they were not," Lee said.
The Rev. Russell Moore, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, cautioned against reading too much into the collapse of Exodus International or any talk of a more compassionate evangelical response to gays and lesbians.
' 'There is no change in the Christian sexual ethic, because there can't be. For us it's a matter of Gospel fidelity," Moore said.
Instead, he considers the Exodus shutdown the end of a misguided therapeutic approach that Moore argues promised a quick fix it couldn't deliver. "We like conversion stories, and we like them to be quickly resolved in two or three minutes with a happy ending, but that's not what the Christian life is like in Scripture," he said.
Still, Moore agrees religious conservatives are at least approaching the debate about homosexuality differently in what he calls "a more authentic, honest conversation about sexuality."
At Fuller Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., the group OneTable formed to foster open discussion about religion and homosexuality.
Last October, Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, the first bishop in world Anglicanism to live openly with a same-sex partner, spoke to the students, at a screening of a movie "Love Free or Die," about the uproar that followed his 2003 election as the New Hampshire bishop.
"Everyone thought there would be some horrendous blowup. It was a wonderful evening. The questions to me were absolutely honest and thoughtful and faithful," said Robinson, who recently retired from his diocese. "A lot of people came in certain and a lot of people left confused - which is huge.”
AP Religion Writer

June 29, 2013

Technical Problems for two days-Hopefully You won’t Notice♥

All of a sudden in such an important week one of the computers I have the cable decided to malfunction.
Without it I can’ re charge. I went nt shopping: First price I got discounted for $179.00  besides this is the endof the month. Im always broke on that week. Does it happen to you? No, you should buy one of my shirts.
I just wanted to see the discounted prices before I went to my store Amazon. Got it right away. I coul’ve gotten on for 420 bucks but no guarrantee of delivery,
I got for $50 what I needed and two days delivery. cool. The reason Im telling about my problems which i dont because you have your own problems is that if I don’t get it soon, I will have to activate a second back up Mac and I don’t know how much she still hate me for treating her like she was worth 30 slaves but I never typed the word N*. May be one time because it went with the story.

   A    M     A     Z     O     N ♥

(Cluck-click above don’t be chepo)

My back up mac is got Diabetes two which is the one people and machines get when they are laying around eating the wrong stuff.

S0 If  I slow down a little bit you know what it is , hopefully Ill go at the same pace. Please keep  coming in to the site even if its to check something through a search. Dont for get to use amazon without I will have to close…a possibility but I think the readers wont let it happen,

Enjoy this weekend to all. Hopefully the new edition of this blog(I do 2  a year) I can make some more posirtive changes. I ache for reaching more of the 9 nations I have been given because of the readership coming from those places an I wish I could seprate stories just for them.
I will see you to tomorrow.

Dexter on Paula Dee’s Carvin Table But Does He Have Enough Fat? This is the Final season

 'Dexter' final season interview

Michael C. Hall has killed 125 people as Dexter Morgan since we first met him seven years ago. Yet it’s breaking into all those apartments and houses that’s bugging him.
“The Miami of Dexter’s world is a world without home alarms or deadbolt locks,” he notes after having quickly lock-picked yet another suspect’s residence. “He’s like Houdini.”
Hall is sitting at the kitchen table of a Long Beach house used in the production of Dexter‘s eighth season. For his next trick, he will help bring to a close Showtime’s long-running hit series, which launches the first of its final 12 episodes on Sunday night. The lock-picking comment is very Hall. As you’ll see below, he’s quite thoughtful and analytical about his character and the series. If he were to take a Meyers-Briggs personality test, one suspects he would strongly index as a “thinking” person vs. “feeling” (the unedited transcript of his interview originally contained about a dozen uses of “I think”).
On the set, Hall comes across as cool and capable. He can switch quickly into character and causally endure a chilly submersion into a lake, for example — no complaints or slacking, but occasional “does this make sense?” questions. Since his character is almost Spock-ian in his reliance on pragmatic logic vs. emotions, Hall’s own seeming left-brain tilt has likely served him well. This season, in addition to being the star and a producer on Dexter, he’ll also make his directing debut in the second week’s episode.
Below, Hall teases the final season, tackles some burning questions about the series and wonders: Who is Dexter talking to during his voice-overs, anyway?
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: Let’s go way back. What did you think the moment you first heard of Dexter?HALL: I finished Six Feet Under in the spring of 2005. I got a call about a new pilot. I was reluctant to the idea of doing another television series in general. When I heard it was about a serial killer who only killed criminals … I didn’t roll my eyes, but I did think, “Do I want to be surrounded by dead bodies for another indeterminate number of years?” And second, I wondered how tonally you’d pull something like that off. But once I looked at the book and the pilot script I realized it was a totally unique character and I knew I’d kick myself if I didn’t take the leap.
The show’s sense of humor helps sell it, I think.Yeah. I think, obviously, his code, too — the code that he’s defied more and more significantly over the course of the seasons. The audience’s affection for the character has been challenged in more intense degrees. And there’s his voice-over, so you are in on the secret and implicated as a result.
There’s definitely a voyeuristic quality.You’re a silent passive accomplice.
When asked about Dexter’s morality, you once said he “should be given a medal and then beaten to death with it.”I’m reluctant to come down on one side or another, with this or any character. I like that he operates in a morally gray area. He’s moving toward the light in some ways, but as a result the darker stuff is all the darker because of it. I like that the spectrum between the light and dark of the character has broadened. He has an undeniable and insurmountable compulsion.
Do you ever lose sympathy for him?
No. No. I wish that he could be liberated from his compulsion. I have sympathy for him because of that.
Do you have any compulsions that help you relate to the character?
[Pause] I’d acknowledge that they exist, but I wouldn’t [reveal] them.
Every time he veers from the code, as you’ve pointed out, innocent people die.Arguably the tragedy of Dexter is that it’s not his homicidal behavior that’s gotten the people in his life in trouble but it’s his appetite to play at becoming a human being — his desire to have real relationships. I guess a lesson that’s emerged is that you can’t have your cake and kill it too.

Nick Stahl Terminator isTerminating His life and Carrer Arrested Again Alledged Drug Posession

A Beautiful smart Man that performs with all his being is fallen in this hole and he can’t get out
nick stahl arrested

It's been one heck of a year for Nick Stahl between going missing last May before checking into rehab, getting arrested in December and being placed on a 5150 involuntary hold at a psychiatric hospital following an undisclosed incident earlier this month.
But the roller-coaster ride isn't quite over yet -- earlier this morning, TMZ reported that the 33-year-old "Terminator 3" actor was arrested for alleged drug possessionwhen Los Angeles police went to a motel to conduct a parole compliance check on someone who was with Stahl. At the Hollywood spot, LAPD not only found Stahl and three others, but they stumbled upon some crystal meth as well.
All have been taken into custody just one day after Stahl, who has battled drug addiction for years, told TMZ that his most recent stay at the hospital had been "helpful" in straightening him out.

Inmminent Immortality Is Comming. Do You Want it?

    A Copy Writter  wrote about this particular subject”Inmortality" which happens to be subjeect that came on Discover and the general media about some advances that are being done on auto robotics in car and robots to help industry but that both uses are already passe for the next generation of them even though we just got aware of them and we are still waiting for the car that drives it self. Actually there is the technology and the car is been built. But as we know from the electric car, one thing is to be built or know how to built it and another is for it to be mass produced for the market.
One thing in which many super smart scientists are working is to make a clone of themselves. But not a clone as we know it. It would be a robotic clone with the entire scientist brain in which they already know it will fit in three “Avatars”. That’s the term the scientist use and as I just mentioned one brain can have three different perosnalities or duplicates .  Talk about being bipolar! They are creating in the lab it would seem.

These scientists have put all their marbles on one subject and that is "eternal life.” Someone living for ever with all that your brain contains which is “You” and connecting it to robotics that will responds to those commands. For it to be pleasing it will have to not just do the actions of the human body but be identical in every sence. Skin, eyes, perspiration, emotions, you name it. When are they building it you might say? I know some might say I can't handle the 60 years I got You think Im going for 200? or they again might say I want it yesterday. When do I get it?

I don’t know if you will ever be one, probably not but they do have them. They have prototypes, sorry, avatars replicating their makers that can talk, sing, sweat, show emotions, etc.

I want to get to that time and ask you if you would like to have your brain downloaded to an avatar that is identical to you. While we are making things why not make it better looking than you, but you can’t look like anyone else. So get that idea out of mind of looking like Mr.Superstar.
What do you do now? How do you handle your life now? Is it a burden or is just joy from day to day? Would you like to continue your life for a few hundred years?  Only you can answer those questions but I tell you that as you start thinking about that it will take a long time for your brain to see all the posibilities right away.

Humans have always been told, no matter what race or place of origen that if you did certain things in a certain way it will buy you salvation or life after you die.  That is with the assumption that all we have is a body and a spirit to go somewhere and be a spirit.
No sicence is offering a better deal than the bible. I would imagine than when these comes to happen, what religion if any will play in that society. No hell and heave for these avatars.  May be they will deniy them downloads agains virus’.
 I invite you to read more on this from someone very different than me and if you aee interested in this subject we can go further. No sense waiting until they take all the avatars…..no as I explain that is not the way is bein planned, but I think that the future is also part of us because in many ways we build the future with wwhat we do on our daily lives.
{Adam Gonzalez} 
For as long as humans have wandered the earth, our mortality has been front and center in our long list of woes. In every culture, in every age, many people have attempted to cheat death, one of the most famous examples of which includes Qin Shi Huang, king of the Chinese state of Qin in the third century BCE. Obsessed with living forever, he ordered his alchemists and physicians to concoct an elixir of life. They obliged and presented him with what they believed might grant him eternal life. Unfortunately for Qin Shi Huang, what they gave him was a handful of mercury pills, and he died upon consuming them.
Maybe they were just tired of looking at his douchey headwear and debilitatingly huge shoes.
We’ve come a long way since Qin’s day, so much so that immortality — or at least unprecedented longevity — appears increasingly plausible sometime this century. Inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil seems so sure of it that he allegedly takes upwards of 200 dietary supplements a day to forge a “bridge to a bridge” when long life is the norm. The May 2013 issue of National Geographic, in fact, features this very topic.
For now, however, they say we die twice: once when we take our last breath, and again when our name is uttered for the last time.
Our greatest literature, both ancient and modern, seems to confirm this attitude. Countless examples suggest that as much as we strive to achieve everlasting life, death is our inescapable fate. To seek a loophole is folly and smacks of the worst kind of hubris. The earliest such tale, over twelve thousand years old, relates the ancient Mesopotamian king Gilgamesh’s quest for everlasting life following the death of his friend Enkidu. Although Gilgamesh ultimately fails in his undertaking, he achieves a sort of immortality in the minds of his people as a result of his heroic exploits. The same arrogance is seen in the character of Greek demigod Achilles, who was said to be impervious to harm in all parts of his body except his ankle, which his mother Thetis failed to immerse in the river Styx. Near the end of the Trojan War, he is slain by the lethal accuracy of Paris’s arrow, but Achilles’s courageous feats guarantee that his name lives on into perpetuity.
He wasn't known for his modesty.
One thing he wasn’t known for was his modesty.
For those of us who lack the godlike strength and derring-do of Gilgamesh, Achilles, Heracles and other ancient and Classical heroes, the only hope we have at gaining immortality is through emerging age-reversing technology and research into the human brain. Our two leading options appear to be an indefinite halt to the aging process or a sort of digital resurrection — uploading our minds into vast computer servers. But are either of these options desirable?
The former option, the perpetuation of our corporal bodies, seems at this point to be more scientifically plausible but far less satisfactory. Many stories warn of the dangers of unnaturally extending the shelf-life of our flesh and bones. The legend of the Wandering Jew, for instance, convinces us that everlasting life is a curse, a waking nightmare that results only in unfathomable despair and desperation. According to the legend, the old man scours the world seeking someone who will exchange his mortality for his cursed immortality. For two centuries now, Mary Shelley’s gothic novel Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus has terrified readers with the personal, societal and religious implications of reanimating dead tissue. Alphaville’s 1980s anthem of youth “Forever Young” rejects the notion of immortality for its own sake:
It’s so hard to get old without a cause
I don’t want to perish like a fading horse
Youth’s like diamonds in the sun
And diamonds are forever
Forever young, I want to be forever young
Do you really want to live forever, forever and ever?
What’s the use of everlasting life, Alphaville argues, if we can’t maintain a youthful spirit? Better to die with a hopeful eye on the future than to trudge meaninglessly though eternity.
Immortality without fabulous hair, eye shadow and colorful jumpsuits? No deal!
Poets routinely insist that the only fulfilling way for us to achieve immortality is through our art and innovations. In Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 18,” the speaker promises a youth or possible lover that “thy eternal summer shall not fade, / … Nor shall death brag thou wander’st in his shade.” Because he has composed the sonnet in her honor, her memory will last for as long as the poem exists: “So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, / So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.”
Of course, there are just as many counterarguments to the idea that art leads to eternal life. Romantic poet Percy Shelley’s poem “Ozymandias” tells of a wanderer who comes across a “lifeless,” eroded statue in the desert, whose pedestal reads:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!
Despite the once-grandness of the statue, “Nothing beside remains. Round the decay / Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare / The lone and level sands stretch far away.” Even this mysterious king’s exploits and fame – whatever they might have been – couldn’t save his memory from the ravishes of time. Not only has he died the first time but, as evidenced by the wasteland of his forgotten realm, the second time as well. American filmmaker Woody Allen echoes this sentiment: “I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying.”
But the question remains — is not dying desirable?
If most of us one day have the opportunity to extend our lives indefinitely, how will that change the dynamics of society and culture? A typical person living to 80 years of age goes through several dramatic changes in his lifetime: his opinions and attitudes change, his interests, his friends, his career, sometimes even how he remembers the past. Imagine how much change would take place in a thousand years of life! You wouldn’t be a shadow of the person you once were. Some workers put in 30 or 40 years’ worth of service at a single company or organization, or work in a single industry for as many years, but how dull it would be to continue beyond that. We celebrate when couples reach fifty years of marriage, but could any of them reach 100 years? Two hundred? A thousand? A little over half of marriages end in divorce already. Would couples, knowing that they are going to live for hundreds of years, wed with the firm understanding that they will eventually split? How would immortality affect patriotism?
Let’s pretend for a moment that the Wandering Jew really exists. For close to two thousand years, he has shuffled down countless roads, cane in hand, trying to find some fool to take his place. He clearly cannot be the same person now as he was during the time of the Romans. He’s seen far too much and met far too many people to hold on to whatever prejudices he once had. What “science” he might have believed as a young man has since been obliterated. The language he spoke for centuries, Aramaic, will soon die out. His ancient brand of Jewish is no longer. He claims no country as his own. Having lived to be two thousand years old, he has seen the rise and fall of dozens of nations and empires. He has come to realize the arbitrariness and fragility of borders as well as tribal and national pride.
Leaving aside the unpleasantness of experiencing eternity as a decrepit old man and being charged with the impossible task of giving away your decripitude, what is it about immortality that attracts people so? As Caesar declares in Shakespeare’s play:
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear,
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.
Digital Rapture
The second option to immortality involves uploading our minds onto computer servers, a solution advocated by thinkers such as Kurzweil and Dmitry Itskov. Doing so would immediately eliminate many of the problems outlined above. You need not age in a digital landscape, for one thing. And since you’re whole existence amounts to lines of computer code, you could conceivably “program” yourself to avoid feeling depression, sadness, doubt and other negative emotions.
But there are other problems in this scenario.
If we upload our minds onto computers, we can “live” for as long as we wish, or as long as the data remains properly archived and resistant to fragmentation, viruses and hacking. After all, the official Space Jam website hasn’t aged a day since it launched back in 1996. But even if every last facet of our memories, temperament, interests, dislikes and habits carry over into the merry old land of ones and zeros,  are the digital copies really “us” — the essential us — or simply clever simulations? What’s lost, if anything, in the transfer from a carbon-based world to a silicon world? Perhaps the earliest available opportunities to experience immortality will be faulty and disastrous, resulting in regretfully botched versions of our psyches.
Something's not... quite... right.
Something’s not… quite… right.
Let’s say you upload your mind today. Now there are two “yous,” the analog you and the digital you. After your analog self dies, your digital self “lives” on. It will no doubt continue to assert that it is just as “real” as you ever were because it has the same memories, the same personality, the same tics and religious beliefs and tastes in women (or men, or both). Otherwise, how can it claim to be you? One of the problems here, if indeed there is one, is that you – the meat sack version — won’t survive to enjoy the immortality you’ve passed on to this immaterial copy of yourself.
Is “good enough” simply not good enough?
We place such a high premium on authenticity. Even if the digital copy of yourself isidentical in every possible way, it’s still not the “you” that emerged from your mother’s womb. The same argument can be made with regard to art forgeries, some of the best of which are sold at auction as the real deal. Shaun Greenhalgh, possibly history’s most successful art forger, was so good, he managed to dupe both casual and expert art enthusiasts for years and make close to a million pounds before being caught. Anyone who has one of his remarkably convincing pieces sitting in their house — one of his Rodin knockoffs, for instance — is reasonably entitled to tell visitors that they do indeed have a Rodin. There’s nothing about the piece that gives away its deception, other than the abstract notion of its inauthentic origin. But for most people, that’s enough. No matter what the piece looks like, either Rodin sculpted it with his own hands or he didn’t. Similarly, no matter how convincingly “real” a digital life might be, there are those who would refuse such a life because it lacks the nebulous idea of authenticity.
Of course, like Greenhalgh’s Rodin piece, and as we’ve already discussed, there’s no certifiable way to disprove that what you think is reality is actually a fraud. How do you know you’re not already living in a sophisticated computer simulation right now?
Gilgamesh and Qin Shi Huang’s quest for everlasting life might come to a close sometime this century. Before that happens, however, we must discuss the implications and consequences of a world in which death is no longer certain. Emily Dickinson, abandoning the desire to live forever, muses: “That it will never come again is what makes life so sweet.” Since immortality will surely become a reality, we must reassess the sweetness in life. 

About Joseph Guyer

Joseph is a marketing copywriter living in San Antonio. Joseph on Google+

Featured Posts

Staten Island and The US Looses One of Its Fighters to COVID-19 {Jim Smith}

                             Jim Smith helped organize Staten Island's first pride parade in 2005. He served as its...