Chastity White Rose

Tag: god

  • Chapter 9: Chad and Luke Share Bible Stories

    Chad was hard at work finding Bible stories he could tell the kids while they ate after soccer. He had managed to speak the story from Daniel chapter 1 in his own words, which made more sense than how it sounded in the King James Bible.

    Meanwhile, Luke was also busy picking his own set of Bible stories. He was looking for something he could use to fight against Chad’s Vegan diet and also justify his own beliefs about eating meat. He also remembered that Chad said he could bring any food he wanted for the children. He decided to buy some regular hot dogs and buns because he knew it would make Chad angry.

    On the next Sunday, Chad and Luke coached the kids in soccer, and everyone had a lot of fun. There seemed to be more children there than the previous week. Chad said it was probably because they told their friends about the fun of soccer and free food.

    When it was time for lunch, Chad got a big cooler out of his car and bags of chips. This choice of food surprised Luke, because he had expected Tofu sandwiches. He also noticed that there was no grill, and Stacy wasn’t there.

    Chad served everyone a plate full of chips and filled several cups with cold lemonade. He brought a cup to each child and told them to come to the table for more if they were still thirsty.

    “Chad, do you have a Bible story prepared today?” said Luke.

    “You bet I do, but first I need to drink some lemonade,” said Chad.

    “In that case, I will tell my story,” said Luke.

    “The story begins in Genesis chapter 6, when humans were so evil that God regretted making them. He decided the earth needed a great reset. He liked a man named Noah, who was righteous, and told him to build a big boat called an ark. He and his family would collect animals and lots of food to eat during a flood that would drown every other living thing. The only humans on the ark were Noah, his wife, their 3 sons, and their wives. They also had a male and female of every kind of animal,” said Luke.

    “Why did all the animals on the earth have to die?” said Simon.

    “They were not necessary because the animals on the ark would reproduce after the flood, and there would be more of all the animals,” said Luke.

    “What does it mean to reproduce?” asked Simon.

    "You might want to ask your parents about that. I am not qualified to answer that, especially for children. Anyhow, that’s not the point. After the flood ended, God gave humans permission to eat animals for food. In Genesis chapter 9, God said

    
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

    “So you see, animals exist to be eaten, which reminds me, I brought hot dogs,” said Luke.

    The children hissed and booed at Luke. They wanted no part of eating animals, and they were quite traumatized by the Noah’s Ark story. They asked Chad to tell another Daniel story.

    “Of course, I can tell you a story,” said Chad.

    “Many years after King Nebuchadnezzar died, and also his son Belshazzar was killed, a new king named Darius took over. In spite of this, Daniel was still trusted by the new king and still considered a wise man or a prophet because he had interpreted dreams for King Nebuchadnezzar and had translated the writing on the wall for Belshazzar. He was assigned to be in authority over the princes and presidents,” said Chad.

    “The presidents and princes became jealous of Daniel because he was their boss and the king liked him more. Therefore, they tried to find a way to turn the king against him. They asked King Darius to write a decree that for the next 30 days, anyone who prays to any God or human other than him would be thrown into a den of lions. He agreed and wrote a decree that anyone caught praying to someone else would be executed by being thrown into the Lion’s Den. Though he didn’t realize that this was a trap being set for his most trusted servant, Daniel,” said Chad.

    “The men who asked him to make the decree knew they would find Daniel praying near his window as he always had. Daniel knew about the law, but he still prayed to God 3 times a day and didn’t change anything he did.”

    “Why didn’t he just keep his prayers hidden or hide somewhere where the bad guys couldn’t catch him?” said a young boy named Trevor.

    “I think that he knew it was better to be faithful to God and live in his truth, even though he knew he might be in trouble for it,” said Chad.

    “What happened after that?” said multiple children.

    “The princes and presidents told the king that Daniel was still praying to his God, despite the decree. They demanded that he be thrown into the Lion’s Den as was written in the executive order,” said Chad.

    “The king tried to talk his way out of his, but the law of the king could not be disobeyed even by the king himself because he would be admitting he made a mistake and was not a God. He knew he had been tricked by the bad guys. Daniel was thrown into the Lion’s Den, and the king could not eat or sleep that night because he was so worried about Daniel. The next day, he went and found that Daniel was still alive. The lions had not even touched him. Daniel said that God closed the mouth of the lions because he was innocent,” said Chad.

    “At that moment, the king ordered Daniel to be taken out of the den and to throw in all the men who had accused Daniel. The lions tore them each up before they even hit the ground. He then made a new executive order that everyone should worship and pray to the God of Daniel. He believed that he was the true God who could make sure that even hungry lions would not eat the innocent,” said Chad.

    “Come on, Chad, do you really believe this story? Those lions would have eaten Daniel if he were in there all night,” said Luke.

    “Tell me, Luke, do you believe the flood story you told the children in Genesis? Do you really think that a God who prevents lions from eating innocent man would drown all the innocent animals of the whole earth, and that only 8 humans were righteous enough to be saved?” said Chad.

    “Well, these stories are both part of the Bible, so I guess they are both true,” said Luke.

    “But that’s not what I asked you, Luke. I asked whether YOU believe the story you read to the children,” said Chad.

    “I am not sure. But do you believe the story of Daniel in the Lion’s Den?” said Luke.

    “You bet I do. It only makes sense. Daniel was innocent, and he had done nothing wrong. We also know that he did not eat meat from last week’s story. He did not have the smell of meat on him, and the lions probably didn’t think he smelled like food. They probably would have left him alone even if God had not intervened. This story not only matches what I believe, but it makes sense to my brain as well,” said Chad.

    The children clapped and continued to enjoy the salty chips and the cool. Lemonade. Chad knew just what their bodies needed in the summer heat and told a story that they could understand and relate to.

    Nobody touched Luke’s hot dogs, not even him. He was too angry to eat. He was jealous of Chad, just like the princes and presidents who had tried to turn King Darius against Daniel.

  • Abortion prevention: don’t forget about the men

    Consider this situation: A man chooses to have sex with a woman who he knows will go for an abortion if she gets pregnant. She does get pregnant. She goes to an abortionist, who performs the abortion. Which of the three people killed the baby? The father, mother, or abortionist?

    It should be obvious that all three people played a part in the abortion. So no matter what your answer, you are partially correct. The father chose to do the one thing that could result in a pregnancy the mother did not want. The mother chose to abort rather than seeking out alternatives. The abortionist was the final step in causing the death of the baby.

    Keeping all of that in mind, if you could go back and talk to one of the people—the father, mother, or abortionist—and convince them to become pro-life, which one would you choose?

    Again, there’s no one right answer, but I would pick the father. Talking to the abortionist could have a major impact if he’s the only abortionist in town and has no one to replace him, but otherwise, the mother will just go elsewhere for the abortion. Of course talking to the mother is good because if her mind changes, the child will live. But will she have the support of the father? He had expected the mother to have an abortion even before they had sex, which implies that he has no interest in taking care of the child.

    Talking to the father makes sense because he has the power to change his ways and stop creating children who will be killed. He also has the ability to support the mother in taking care of the children he is responsible for, making the mother less likely to want to abort. Many women abort due to fear of being a single mother.

    Outreach to women in crisis pregnancy situations is great, but we need to make sure we’re reaching the men too, rather than placing all of the weight on the women. The idea that men are irrelevant to the abortion debate is incredibly misguided.

    This was a post that I submitted to Kelsey Hazzard at Secular Pro-Life back in 2014. At that time, I was still known as Chandler Klebs. You can still read it where Kelsey posted in on the Secular Pro-Life Blog

    http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/08/abortion-prevention-dont-forget-about.html

  • The Intersection of My Religion and My LGBTQIA+ Activism

    The Question Hook

    “Have you ever been told that you have to choose between your soul and your self? For years, I was warned that my identity and my faith could never occupy the same room. But what if the gap between scripture and advocacy isn’t a canyon we fall into, but a bridge we build?”

    The idea that I had to choose between being a Christian and admitting that I was transgender was strange to me, but it is what other humans seemed to imply. I am too smart to think that other people or God can be fooled by dishonesty. A person who is of the LGBTQIA+ spectrum has the choice about whether to LIE about their feelings, but they can’t change them. Those who come out of the closet are just being honest with themselves and others, which, in my opinion, is always less sinful than the alternative of coming up with new lies.

    Although some claim that their faith caused a change in their gender identity or sexual orientation. I think these are not something the individual does but is forced to undergo over time. Either they are pleasing people and trying to conform to what their church teaches them, or perhaps being gay or transgender doesn’t seem to matter as much when they learn their purpose in life is better served as a single person who can do with fewer friends to influence them in the wrong direction.

    The Universal Code

    “In computing, a binary system uses ones and zeros to build infinite worlds, yet we treat the gender binary as a cage. What if God’s mind isn’t a simple ‘either-or,’ but a complex digital landscape? Understanding this logic didn’t just save my faith—it revealed how my advocacy is the ultimate prayer.”

    There have been moments when I almost feel I see something supernatural and beyond anything I was taught about God or the power of the soul. When I am deep into math algorithms used in my computer programs, I sometimes am shocked by the idea that math is a Universal Language, which is at least partially represented by programming languages and the traditional math notation used by physicists and other mathematicians. Humans may have invented the symbols used, but they never could have created numbers, colors, or geometric primitive because these things must exist before anything else can exist.

    Many religions cannot agree on how many gods there are or whether the one Christian God is split into 3 parts. Others like me tend to believe in a dualistic bi-theism where good and evil can only be defined when both exist. Otherwise, the statement that God is good and the devil is bad makes no sense.

    But beyond that, it is important to see that the binary numeral system is the closest way of representing this duality in computers. Perhaps this is why it is the checkerboard or the yin-yang of everything, I believe.

    The Provocative Question

    “What if respecting the identity of the LGBTQIA+ community is precisely what Jesus would have done if he walked the earth in 2026? Most assume faith and advocacy are at war, but I’m deconstructing that myth. Let’s reconcile tradition with authenticity to prove these worlds are beautifully and inherently compatible.”

    When looking at the character of Jesus. He spent a lot of time around the sinners and was often criticized by religious leaders for it. I like to think that Jesus might actually be a better example for people like me than he was for mainstream heterosexual and cisgender people.

    After all, if Jesus is God, and humans, both male AND female, are made in the image of God. Then clearly God is not simply a man or a woman. Even if he presented as a man two thousand years ago, this says very little about what he truly was before he came to inhabit a human body. The pronoun he is only a convenience and tradition, but I would not call it a reality, especially when I don’t identify with my birth sex because it never felt right.

    Of course, much of this is speculation, but I think it is fair to make connections to modern topics that were not discussed in ancient times but are relevant today. In fact, none of the things in the Bible match our modern society. There were no cars, airplanes, or computers in the ancient Middle East. The English language didn’t even exist back then.

    But there is no doubt that gay, transgender, and intersex people would have existed during Jesus’ time. The closest mention of it is what he said about eunuchs.

    "9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

    11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

    12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." – Matthew 19:9-12

    Clearly, some of us were born different. I would argue that the LGBTQIA+ people were what Jesus was referring to, although the language we use today didn’t exist back then. Even if it had, we can assume most of Jesus’ audience were cisgender and heterosexual people. Those of us who are not like the majority must find our own path.

    And the final question that I think about every day is: Am I a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake? I am not sure what it means, but I can’t help but feel it is relevant in some way that I don’t have the education to understand.

  • Chapter 17: Blessed are the Peacemakers

    Right now, in September 2025, the world has gone mad on social media, with everyone having an opinion on the murder of Charlie Kirk. I have no such opinion about him but I think it is a fine time to remind you why I have been committed to non-violence for many years. Therefore, my only statement that I will ever make is that it doesn’t matter who Charlie was or whether you like the things he said; the fact is, nobody should be shot just for what they are speaking.

    I didn’t know Charlie and I didn’t know who he was prior to his being shot on September 10, 2025. However, I thought it was quite strange that this one act of murder got so much media attention, even though people are getting shot, bombed, stabbed, or starved to death, including many of those who are innocent and have done nothing wrong.

    Although I didn’t know Charlie Kirk personally, I think he had the right idea because he did not commit violence against people, but instead he had debates with them and talked about disagreements rather than resorting to violence. He talked to people, and he said some things that people disagreed with sometimes. After the news broke that he was shot, many people on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok were celebrating that he was shot and said he deserved it.

    The real tragedy is not the death of Charlie Kirk but the death of freedom of speech. If you kill someone just because you don’t like what they said, then the same reasoning could be used to kill you when someone doesn’t like what you said.

    Moreover, I think violence is for the weak. I think it takes a stronger person to have difficult conversations about areas of disagreement and try to resolve them through peaceful means. I personally think that guns, bombs, and all manner of military equipment should be destroyed because nobody should be killing anyone.

    Let me be clear, I understand that others are violent and that they do not follow my philosophy of radical pacifism and peaceful protest. I also don’t think someone can reach this stage without an evolution in ethics and a strong moral framework based on a solid philosophy or religion.

    To be a peacemaker is to take the hard route, instead of the easy path of violence. Living peacefully and resolving conflicts takes time, conversations, studying history, reading books, and considering each new issue as it arises.

    Charlie was not perfect. He was just as flawed as any human is, but he did identify as a Christian, and I think he would have understood that violence is not good. Those who call themselves Christians would do well to remember what Jesus said about the importance of being peaceful and non-violent.

    Matthew 26:47 While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, arrived. With him was a large crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent by the chief priests and elders of the people. 48 (Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I kiss is the man. Arrest him!”) 49 Immediately he went up to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi,” and kissed him. 50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you are here to do.” Then they came and took hold of Jesus and arrested him. 51 But one of those with Jesus grabbed his sword, drew it out, and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back in its place! For all who take hold of the sword will die by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father and that he would send me more than 12 legions of angels right now? 54 How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled?” 55 At that moment Jesus said to the crowd, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me like you would an outlaw? Day after day I sat teaching in the temple courts, yet you did not arrest me. 56 But this has happened so that the scriptures of the prophets would be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

    Charlie was not a Vegan, unfortunately, and he did not take a Vegan seriously when they brought up the issue. Although Charlie called himself Pro-Life when it came to humans, he was dismissive of the idea that we should not cause unnecessary suffering and death to animals. He also interrupted a lot and changed the subject.

    Charlie Kirk Deleted This Debate With a Vegan

    I Debated Charlie Kirk – He Deleted The Video

    I bring this up not to say that Charlie deserved to be shot. Rather, I mention it to show why even his attitudes and those who celebrated his death are operating under a culture of violence. People believe that they have the right to kill any animal, including humans, as soon as they disagree with them or are of a difference race, species, religion, or political affiliation.

    Charlie got the Vegan topic wrong, and sadly, due to his death, we will never see him become consistently pro-life.

    There is one thing I do agree with Charlie on, though; he was right to be against abortion. In fact, one of the things many people criticized him for was saying that the 45 million babies killed in abortion was worse than the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews were killed.

    Charlie Kirk Compares Abortion to the Holocaust

    Charlie’s logic is correct on this issue. Deciding that a group of people is unwanted or undesirable and then killing them all is an unjustifiable genocide.

    And if Charlie were still alive, I would suggest to him that he use this same logic to reconsider what humans do to animals.

    https://christspiracy.com/

    The Ugly Truth: Most Important Films to Watch

    At this time, people are also trying to blame the transgender people for the death of Charlie Kirk. I must admit that part of the problem is that so many young people, including many transgender people, are celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. This does not make us look any better in a time when we are the most hated group of people in the United States of America.

    Shortly after the death of Charlie Kirk, I couldn’t help but notice that the attitudes of some of my coworkers had changed towards me. Everyone was talking about the death of Charlie Kirk because it was all over the news media. They looked at me as if I had killed him, just because I am transgender.

    I didn’t want to make a statement about this issue, but I also felt a responsibility to say something because I will not risk my silence being interpreted as meaning that I am in favor of the murder of Charlie Kirk.

    When Transgender people are happy about the death of some famous dude like Charlie, how is it any better than when people murder transgender people?

    When Charlie jokes and cuts off a Vegan who questions him on veganism, how is he any better than those who laughed at him after he was shot?

    In times like this when a single word can inspire people to shoot or bomb people, I am reminded of a quote from Schindler’s List when Oskar Schindler explained what true power is to Amon Goeth.

    Schindler: They fear us because we have the power to kill arbitrarily. A man commits a crime, he should know better. We have him killed and we feel pretty good about it. Or we kill him ourselves and we feel even better. That’s not power, though, that’s justice. That’s different than power. Power is when we have every justification to kill – and we don’t. Goeth: You think that’s power.

    Schindler: That’s what the emperors had. A man stole something, he’s brought in before the emperor, he throws himself down on the ground, he begs for mercy, he knows he’s going to die. And the emperor pardons him. This worthless man, he lets him go.

    Goeth: I think you are drunk.

    Schindler: That’s power, Amon. That is power.

    Similarly, I think true power is to be able to do better than violence. Instead, we can educate, we can peacefully protest, and we can write and record ideas that live long after we die. Which reminds me, I have one more quote to share for this chapter.

    V: “Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.”

    Killing people does not stop their ideas, their philosophy, their religion, or anything that they stood for. The death of someone solves nothing, helps no one, and is nothing to celebrate. Instead of killing people, become a peacemaker, because that is true power.

    Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.

  • Chapter 15: Love the Sinner Hate the Sin

    So many times in my life, I have heard the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin”. On the surface, it sounds good because you are saying that you love someone but disagree with what they do, but this calls into question both the intent behind the person speaking it and who they are saying it to.

    Interestingly, the only time I can remember hearing “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is when Christians are judging people for being gay or transgender. It doesn’t really work very well in this context because the person doesn’t know what the “sin” is that they are talking about. Imagine if you said, “Love the black person but hate the sin”. This statement implies that you think someone born with black skin has somehow sinned or erred in some way, as if they could have done something different and been born with a different skin color.

    I know what you’ll say next: “But being gay is a choice!”

    First, it isn’t a choice in any meaningful sense. Second, if it were a choice, it would actually be a fine choice. Third, you know what is a choice? Shutting up when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    I will use 2 examples to illustrate the point I am making.

    Judging the Gay Person

    A person finds out that someone they know is gay. Then they start talking about hating their sin or their sinful lifestyle. But the truth is, a straight person does not know what sin they are speaking about. Are they speaking about the sin of being attracted to the same sex, which is not an action? Are they talking about a specific sexual action the person is doing? Are they in their house watching them as they do this action by themself or with their partner and judging them for doing it wrong? What specifically are they even talking about?

    Judging the Transgender Person

    Suppose someone discovers that someone is transgender, or simply assumes it because they don’t look like what they think a man or woman should look like. Some thoughts they might have include

    • That person is too tall to be a woman! They must really be a man pretending to be a woman! Someone call the police!
    • That woman has a deep voice, I bet she is really a man!
    • That woman has small boobs, I bet it’s a man!
    • That woman has facial hair, it’s a man! Protect the children!
    • That man has boobs; it must have been a woman, but it has a beard. What the hell is it?
    • That man sounds like a woman. I bet she tried to act like a man because she was such an ugly woman!

    These are just a few examples of the things I have heard or read. Most of the time, these things are said on Facebook or YouTube comments on a news story about someone who was just trying to use the restroom or play a sport.

    But what I have noticed is that while gay people are judged for actions (whether real or imaginary), transgender people are judged for how their body looks. Whether they are being judged by how tall or short they are, the sound of their voice, or the size of their breasts (why are people staring at other people’s chests so much?), the point of all these sayings is to insult people for how they look. What is the sin they are hating as they claim to love the sinner? Wait, is a woman sinning if she grows facial hair due to Polycystic Ovary Syndrome? What about these thoughts or words about the size of their breasts? Is having a certain size of boobs a sin? What is the correct breast size, and how does someone make their boobs bigger or smaller?

    More context is needed even to know what the sin is that they are referring to. Most of the time, this person is very vague on what the sin is. That is because they don’t really know any information about the person they are judging. This phrase is used mostly to strangers whom they don’t know.

    When someone speaks of “sin”, the context usually implies that they think the person has made an error or is doing something morally wrong. These two definitions get mixed up. I will call these definitions A and B.

    Sin Version A: Making a wrong move, such as moving a chess piece that causes the loss of the game, or forgetting a semicolon in a C program that you are compiling. Or perhaps “missing the mark” when you throw a ball or shoot an arrow at a target.

    Sin Version B: Doing something that hurts someone, such as murder, lying, stealing, or committing adultery (having sex with someone other than your spouse).

    Sin versions A and B are not the same thing, and they are not compatible. Sin A refers to a mistake made when playing a game or doing some action that has no harmful consequences. Sin B means you did something that hurt a person, either permanently by killing them, or at least temporarily, such as stealing their money that you can theoretically pay back.

    Interestingly, when people say “Love the sinner, hate the sin”, they are not usually talking about a type B of sin. They don’t usually say it about murderers, rapists, thieves, or liars. No, instead they call the police, bring a lawsuit against them, or cut off contact with them. Do they talk about loving these people? No, they are too busy trying to protect themselves from this person who has hurt them or their friends/family.

    But more importantly, can you still love someone while you are posting on Facebook about how much you hate someone’s sin? It is kind of a hard thing to balance. Love and hate don’t usually go in the same sentence. How about just loving the sinner and leaving it at that?

    But once again, you are calling someone a sinner, as if somehow they are more in the wrong than you are. It is still hypocritical to speak of your neighbor as someone you love in spite of their being a sinner. When a person says this, they are implying that they are perfect and somehow not being a sinner, and this gives them the right to call someone else a sinner.

    Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First, remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

    It’s also worth mentioning that the statement “Love the sinner, hate the sin” only applies in the context of Christianity. Rarely do non-Christians ever use the word “sin”. However, the culture, most of which has been raised in one of the denominations of Christianity, understands that you are judging them, even if they are not sure what they are being judged for.

    The only advice I can give here is to stop using this phrase unless you are prepared to be very specific in what way you love someone, and also what sin it is that you hate. And PLEASE CHOOSE A DIFFERENT SIN ONCE IN A WHILE. The LGBTQIA+ people are tired of being picked on as if we are the only sinners. You would be wise to look at what sins you and many other self-identified “Christians” are doing while distracting themselves with the sins of others, so that they don’t have to change their own behavior. Remove all the sin from your own life, then we will talk.