I published a post on June 11 about the possibility that the state of New York was going to begin allowing payment to be rendered to a women that allowed a research agency to harvest her eggs for the purpose of stem cell research. At the time I could not find any independent verification of the story other than the Christian News Wire. After returning today from being out-of-town and out-of touch for an entire week, I was overwhelmed by the number of news agencies reporting that this was in fact the case. Ironically, the affirmative decision on this matter was reached on June 11, 2009—the date that I published my post.

Among the plethora of news agencies now reporting this is the New York Dailey News, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the U.S. News & World Report. This move does not really surprise me all that much, as I stated in the previous post on this topic. This still makes me wonder about something. Is this going to now begin a flood of women into the state of New York only to donate their eggs in order to receive the compensation of up to $10,000.00? Likewise, is this going to set a precedent that those who, for example, donate a kidney to someone to also receive compensation for their “time, discomfort and expenses associated with donating” said organ for said purpose? I must also admit my ignorance at one point here; I have read many times that donating eggs is risky to the women doing so, but I have not read exactly how it is dangerous to the woman’s health—any help on this? Perhaps I am having trouble seeing how this is hazardous to the woman since there has not been any cry about this at fertility clinics. Don’t they harvest womens’ eggs in order to fertilize them before placing them back into the woman?

What do you think about this move by the state of New York—is it good, bad, or somewhere in between?

I will be out of town this week on a mission trip, so there will most likely be no posts this week. Look forward to seeing God do some amazing things this week and will be back posting next week.

There is something about the human psyche that makes us ask for a sign or wonder when it comes to the supernatural. In some form or another, I have heard many atheists and antagonists to the Christian faith say something along these lines: If God would give me a sure sign then I would believe. There are many variations to this statement, but they all drive at the same point—mainly that belief will follow some tangible proof of God’s existence. Is this a fair request? Is this an honest claim?

Whether or not this is a fair request depends upon some things. If the one making this statement has seen much and/or convincing evidence that would indicate God does exist (for this evidence, see my series on "Proving the Existence of God"), then this is not a fair request. Here’s a simple illustration to show what I mean. Mind you it is not perfect, but it makes the point.

The vast majority of American’s will never personally meet the President of the United States. However, I don’t think that there is anyone in America right now that would say our current President Barack Obama doesn’t exist. Why? Because we can see and hear him on television, we can read things he has written, we can speak to people who have personally met him. If I proclaimed to anyone that I didn’t believe President Barack Obama existed, they would probably think I was crazy and then ask me why I thought that? They may even follow it up by pointing out that he appears on television regularly and thousands of people know him personally and so forth. How silly it would be for me to then say, “I don’t believe that is really him that appears on television and all those people’s personal testimonies mean nothing because they have never actually met him—I won’t believe he exists unless he gives me a clear sign (or if I personally met him).”

This is the same criteria the request puts forth when one has seen reasonable evidence for God’s existence and yet says, “I won’t believe unless God does [X], then I will believe he exists.”

Most of the time, when this request is made I think it is made in a dishonest fashion. It has been my experience that this “give me a sign” notion is made simply because the person already believes it is an impossibility. In other words, they have already decided that God does not exist and, therefore, it is impossible for God to even give a sign to them making this a dishonest request. They do not even allow for the possibility of the request to be answered. Continuing the illustration from above will help demonstrate my point here. After making the statement “I won’t believe he exists unless he gives me a clear sign (or if I personally met him)” and then don’t even allow for the possibility of actually meeting President Obama personally, it is a dishonest request.

The last question I would like to address is whether or not God should acquiesce to this? I think we are foolish to think that God must do this. Let’s assume that President Obama was informed that I didn’t believe he actually existed and that the only way I would believe he existed is if I personally met him. Wouldn’t you agree that he could care less if I believed he exists? He is not going to stop everything he is doing to come and personally meet with me—who would actually expect him to do so?

I am not saying that God doesn’t care whether or not we believe in him, but what is it that makes us think we have the right to demand that God meet our requests. Even more so, that if he doesn’t then we have the right to pass judgment upon his actions (either condemning or condoning).

I also believe that even if God submitted himself to every one of these requests that many people would still not believe that he exists, they would find something that would prove the encounter unreliable. In fact, I think Jesus addressed this very issue in the gospel of Luke. Jesus was telling a parable about a rich man and a poor man. In the parable, the rich man refused to help the poor man who was starving and suffering from sores (possibly leprosy). After both men had died, the rich man ended up in hell and the poor man in heaven. The rich man makes several requests, one of which was to send messengers to his family to inform them of the fate that awaited them if they didn’t change their lives. The response given him was, “They have Moses and the Prophets, let them listen to them.” This referred to what we now know as the Old Testament.

He was told that no special sign would be given to his family. They had the same evidence available to them as everyone else. This also addresses the notion that God must somehow give a special sign to one person. It is somewhat unfair and selfish for one to ask God to give them a special sign above and beyond the evidence available to everyone else. Furthermore, Jesus pointed to his miracles as confirmation many times in the Bible and many still refused to believe in him even though they witnessed them (John 12:37).

There seems to be a growing trend in our nation of demonstrating our support of some cause by wearing a ribbon of some color. I don’t think I have ever really given much thought to this whole topic. But there is somewhat of a history of this in our nation.

I think the tradition goes back as far as the Civil War at least. There is some historical evidence that shows it may go back even further. The earliest ribbon tradition is the yellow ribbon. This traditionally signified someone who had a loved one serving in the military overseas (typically in combat). There has been a slight twist to this, however, where it has now become more of a symbol of one’s support of all troops serving everywhere in our military.

There is also the red ribbon. This has at least two major meanings of which I am aware. The first was to raise “drug awareness.” I remember this from school and the D.A.R.E program. It was to help promote the “Just Say No” slogan. The other major meaning the red ribbon has taken on is that of HIV/AIDS. It is to raise awareness of the problem this STD is posing here in America and the world.

There is also the pink ribbon that squarely belongs to the breast cancer arena. This ribbon has come to be worn by both those who are survivors of breast cancer and those who are trying to raise awareness about breast cancer.

Following 9/11, there were many red, white, and blue ribbons everywhere. This was showing to demonstrate one’s patriotism as well as their condolences to the families of those lost in the collapse of the World Trade Centers and United Airlines Flight 93.

The latest ribbon to take to the streets is the white ribbon, or more precisely “the white knot.” This ribbon is to show one’s support of the movement for same-sex marriage. In fact, there is even a website dedicated to this movement, it is WhiteKnot.org.

I am not going to rant on why this movement should fail. If this is how the supporters of this movement wish to raise awareness, then that is their prerogative. If you wish to know my stance on same-sex marriage you can read some of my previous posts on that here and here. However, hearing about this movement made me begin to ponder the whole question of visibly identifying with a movement.

I think what is beginning to happen is that this “identifying” by ribbons is becoming a way to point out those who don’t support a movement just as much as it is to publicly identify with a movement. I will use the white ribbon (knot) as an example. This becomes an easy way to identify those who support same-sex marriage in the public realm. On the other hand, if there is a rally supporting same-sex marriage where everyone is wearing the white knot and an opponent wants to attend the rally and refuses to accept a ribbon what do you suppose would happen? That person would quickly be identified as an “enemy.” What actions follow from that identification is not predictable because that rally could be a sensible, peaceful rally where no negative actions would follow. However, it could just as easily be that it is somewhat of an unruly rally where the opponent would be forced to leave immediately. Regardless of what follows, the identification will still be made. This could be said of any “awareness ribbon”—those who support our troops and those who do not, those who support finding a cure for breast cancer and those who do not, etc.

What is a little scary to me about this is it reminded me all too vividly of an “awareness ribbon” that was used for evil. Proceeding out of the Holocaust there was not just a movement to identify one’s self as a Jew by wearing a yellow Star of David, but a requirement by the Nazi government of Germany.

Now, I am not proclaiming that this happening with all the ribbons today (and there are a bunch, see for yourself here), but there exists that potential. It just made me begin to think about this topic.