Thursday, October 20, 2011

A man from Uganda reminded me that...

Last weekend in Chicago, at Brent House (the campus ministry of the Episcopal Church at the University of Chicago) I finally had the chance to meet Bishop Christopher Senyonjo . I have written about him in the past (including his work with the St. Paul's Reconciliation and Equality Centre in Kampala, Uganda and the St. Paul's Foundation for International Reconciliation in San Diego, CA) and how I have been inspired by his courage, his faith, and his determination as part of his ministry and mission for: human rights, women’s self help and advocacy programs, HIV/AIDS, decriminalization of homosexuality (it is illegal in 75 countries including his native Uganda), education, fighting poverty, and other critical issues. 

However, to read about him and watch his interviews on youtube quite frankly does not do any justice to this man from Uganda called Bishop Christopher, this human being called his humanity.

The following are some of the things that will stay with me for a long time as I (and everyone that attended 'A Conversation with Bishop Christopher Senyonjo') listened to him. This man from Uganda, this Christian, this human being reminded me that:

1) My path in life (like it has many times) will lead me to places and situations that are not part of the 'plan'. This can be very scary, but it can also be very rewarding.
2) That love and compassion are superior and stronger than hate.
3) That hate along with prejudice itself has no flag, no country, no religion, no government, no society, etc; hate and prejudice will use US in the name of flag, country, religion, government and society to do their work.
4) All of us regardless of where we come from can be either victims of prejudice or can be enforcers of prejudice one day, and the next day the roles can be reversed.
5) That education, knowledge, and compassionate dialogue are key against all types of prejudice. It is a risky venture, but it is worth it.

Also, I will remember his wife and her strong spirit as she spoke to us about how she knew she had to stand by the man she loves and how she understood him when 10 years ago he told her what he was going to do. It is truly wonderful to see two people (specially at this stage of their lives) be so committed to each other.

I will remember his laughter. His laughter during little moments like trying to 'correctly' fit his suitcase in the back of a car as he got ready to leave, or trying to find the correct page in the Book of Common Prayer :)

I will remember him asking me how to say "Bless you" in Spanish.
I will remember him giving big hugs to all of us.
I will remember his smile...

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Will my faith make me abuse, torture and kill my own child?

My dear reader, I will try answer the question "Will my faith make me abuse, torture and kill my own child?" and I will address some points like this one by my friend JT when at the end of his latest blog entry "Spare The Rod, Spoil The Child Not Relevant In Child Abuse Case" stated:


Lazy thinking and irrationality are evil, for they are mother to this kind of behavior. People who lend endorsement to irrationality by imbibing it in sub-lethal doses are failing their duty as a human being. We can point to the effects of the poison and all we hear from other believers is, “I swallowed it and I didn’t die!” This perpetuates the problem, and I hold all people who believe in faith accountable for that.


Allow me to post for you the text of "Couple accused of starving daughter plead not guilty" as reported on Friday Oct 7, 2011 by Reuters. Please read the story and stay tuned for my thoughts on this.



Couple accused of starving daughter plead not guilty

SEATTLE | Fri Oct 7, 2011 5:31pm EDT

(Reuters) - A couple accused of starving their adopted 13-year-old Ethiopian-born daughter and locking her outside in the cold, where she died from exposure, pleaded not guilty on Thursday to homicide and child abuse charges.
Although investigators found the Washington state couple adhered to a harsh child-rearing regimen prescribed by a controversial Christian parenting book, the prosecutor said Thursday that religion was not relevant to the criminal case.
Larry and Carri Williams, of Sedro-Woolley -- a town about halfway between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia -- were arrested September 29, more than four months after their daughter, Hana, died of hypothermia in their backyard.
A Skagit County Superior Court judge reduced their bail from $500,000 to $150,000 each on Thursday, and barred them from contact with their eight remaining children, who were placed into foster care in July, or with each other.
Each is charged with homicide by abuse in connection with their daughter's death, and first-degree assault of a child stemming from mistreatment of her adopted 10-year-old brother from Ethiopia.
If convicted each faces a prison term of between 20 and 29 years, according to state sentencing guidelines.
Hana Williams, adopted from Ethiopia by the couple in 2008, died on May 12 after she was found unconscious outside shortly after midnight, in temperatures hovering around 40 degrees, authorities said.
Investigators say the abuse she endured included beatings, starvation, being forced to sleep outside and use an outdoor toilet, and that she had lost a significant amount of weight since her adoption. Prosecutors said the 10-year-old brother was similarly mistreated.
The parents kept the family isolated from non-relatives, home-schooled the children and followed strict religious principles described in the Christian parenting book titled "To Train Up a Child," investigators said.
According to court documents, their 16-year-old son told investigators that Hana "was kept in a locked closet and the only light switch was on the outside of the closet. He stated that his mother would take her out every other day to walk and exercise. They played the Bible on tape and Christian music for her while she was locked in the closet."
But Prosecutor Rich Weyrich insisted that issues of faith were not a factor in the case against the couple. "Religion's not an element we have to probe. We have to prove that the children were assaulted, tortured and died," he told Reuters on Thurday.
Larry Williams, 47, who works for Boeing, and his wife, Carri, 40, a stay-at-home mother, were being held in Skagit County Jail.
(Editing by Steve Gorman and Greg McCune)
Corrects book title in 9th paragraph

What is Hell, to you, to me, to us?

A while ago, I wrote something as I was thinking about the following question:
"What is hell?"

During a conversation I had last night with an old friend and a new friend, the topic of the "afterlife" was discussed among the many topics we talked about. As I was reading some of my previous blog entries for inspiration and/or to perhaps revisit some ideas, I came across this blog entry I wrote a while ago on the topic of Hell. Allow me my dear reader, to share this with you once again.
What is hell? Many Christians have thought about this and we have debated this for centuries. This in not a new question. Once we realize this then we can try to understand the controversy about Rob Bell's book "Love Wins".  I cannot wait to read it. In the meantime all I have is a book description, a couple of interviews and the video in youtube; you may know the one, the one when he asks "Gandhi is in hell? Really? Do we know that?"

But let us stop for a second: if Gandhi is in hell (or not) is not THE question to me. Because I believe that is one of many, many questions. And every time I think of this, I ask: what is hell?

Depends who you ask since to start, it has many names:

And those are just the names. So what is hell like?
Is it to be taken literally as described in those places in the Bible, using the names we mentioned before?
Is hell something like we see in a Bosch painting?
Is hell separation from God?
Is hell a separate place from heaven?
Is hell a spiritual state?

Out of the many reactions that I have seen regarding Rob Bell (I believe one phrase was something similar to "progressive Christians like Rob Bell") I found one very interesting. A writer admired that many people have been able to get help at Mars Hills (Rob Bell's church) with drug problems, marital problems etc.  But then he said: "a therapist can do that." He went on to say how important it is that people like Rob Bell tell the truth (with love) about the orthodox Christian teaching of hell and how a soul can end up in hell.

That got me thinking about two things:
1) If one of us, or someone we know, is a drug addict and gets the help he/she needs, what is more important: that the help was given without strings, or that the helper must fit the proper definition of a helper?

2) The "orthodox Christian teaching" of hell? What is that? And even if we had the answer, why are we so concerned about the AFTERLIFE teaching of hell? What about hell in THIS life?

If a 9 year old boy is forced to fight in a war, is he not in hell?
If a 9 year old girl is forced into prostitution, is she not in hell?
If a friend looses his house and everything that he owns in a flood, is he not in hell?
If a friend is bullied every day at school, is she not in hell?
If a family member is in pain every day due to a medical condition, is he not in hell?

So, is hell ONLY the place we go in the afterlife because we did (or not) this or that, we thought (or not) this or that?

Or is hell also right here right now.

And if you, me, or someone we know is in that hell right now, would we care for the "love" of the "orthodox Christian teaching of hell"?

Or, would we say: help me get out of this hell, please...

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

'One of Those People': My Life As A Christian on Planet Earth

Tonight is the night:

'One of Those People': My Life As A Christian on Planet Earth
Wednesday, October 12 · 6:30pm - 8:00pm
Purdue University, room PHYS 203

You are invited. I think it will be a great event. Hope to see you there.


(Thank you to the "Society of Non-Theists" here at Purdue University for giving me a chance to do this.)

Monday, October 10, 2011

Jesus teaches that I must hate my family, so I'm told.

In a couple of days, I will be attending a meeting of the "Society of Non-Theists" here at Purdue University. They are a group for Purdue students who consider themselves an atheist, agnostic, ignostic, Objectivist, Pastafarian, skeptic, Secular Humanist, or are just otherwise not inclined to have religious or supernatural beliefs. And why my dear reader you may ask, why am I (Mr. "Episcopalian 'in' Planet Earth", Mr. "Christian", Mr. student of theology, etc,) going to this meeting?


I shall be giving a talk called:
'One of Those People': My Life As A Christian on Planet Earth

Wednesday, October 12 · 6:30pm - 8:00pm

PHYS 203

Among the many topics I will cover:
1) My background.
2) My life as a Christian.
3) My personal perspective on the Atheist movement.
3) My own views on religion, faith, current national and world issues, etc.
4) Ways to leap tall building with a single, I cannot guarantee that you may be able to do this yourself.

One of the many issues I will cover is how I "read" the Bible. During my many discussions with Atheists, I am sometimes told that Christians either A) Do not really read the Bible, B) Do not understand the Bible they claim to follow, C) Only follow the "good stuff" but don't want to talk about the "bad stuff"; more to the point Christians are really good at 'cherry picking'.

Greta Christina, an Atheist thinker and activist, is one writer (including Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, JT Ebehard--love you JT--and many others) that thinks that Christians (specially moderate or progressive Christians like myself) like to 'cherry pick' from the Bible the parts we like and, the parts we don't like (the bad stuff) we either ignore or simply have terrible arguments that allows us to ignore all that" bad stuff". At the end of her article "The Messed-Up Teachings of Jesus" (June 30, 2008), she said:
--Yes, the Jesus character in the Gospels spoke of love and respect and humility, healing the sick and taking care of the poor. But he also spoke of the wickedness of thought crimes, and the sinfulness of divorce; of the value of surrendering rational thought, and the nobility of abandoning family and responsibility to pursue a religious practice. He spoke with approval of the calm acceptance of evil and oppression in this world. And he spoke — over and over like a broken record — about the all-importance of believing that he was God, and obeying his commands. He spoke again and again about how there was just one right way to practice religion, and how doing this was a far greater priority than being a good person in the world.--

This conclusion is in part based on her interpretation and analys of the Gospels, as she focused her exegesis on the "bad stuff" in the Gospels when she states: 
--The point is this: The bad stuff — the stuff that runs completely counter to the most important values of most progressives I know, including progressive Christians — is not hard to find. It’s all over the place. I basically just spent a few hours with a Bible in one hand and my laptop in the other, and came up with this rather frighteningly long list. And it’s not like these are the minor teachings, either — some of them are among the most famous and beloved teachings of everything Jesus supposedly said.--

Among the many verses from the Gospels to make her arguments, she goes to the following verse from the Gospel according to Luke: --Luke 15:26: “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”-- Her comment of this particular verse is: --Nice. Do I have to say it again? Obedience to Jesus over affection and respect for your family; the dividing of people from their families to a degree that’s creepy and cultish. Ick.--

So according to her arguments I am not a Christian or (to borrow a term used by Sam Harris) I am not a "serious Christian" because:
1) I do not hate my parents, I do not hate my daughter, I do not hate my brother and sister, and (since I am not walking around with a gun to my head) I do not hate my life.
2) I let my "affection and respect" for my family override my "obedience to Jesus".

A 'serious' Christian loves and obeys Jesus AND hates his family, and people like myself who claim to love and obey Jesus AND also LOVE our family are NOT 'serious' Christians. And since my interpretation of this part of Scripture tells me something different from her interpretation, my exegesis is obviously wrong. I may be a Christian with tolerant, diversity-loving values, but I am not a "serious" Christian.

So a "serious" Christian MUST think that:
It is terrible that I love my daughter and call myself a Christian.
It is terrible that I love my family and call myself a Christian.
It is terrible that I am in love with a wonderful woman and call myself a Christian.
It is terrible that I defy Jesus by doing all these things.
Terrible, just terrible.

Or like I was told once, I am doing all these things for the "wrong reasons".

Speaking of Sam Harris's expression of a "serious Christian", he was quoted by Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" at the end of the chapter "The 'Good' Book and the Moral Zeitgeist" when he said:
--The danger of religious faith is that allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy. Because each new generation of children is taught that religious propositions need not be justified in the way that all others must, civilization is still besieged by the armies of the preposterous. We are, even now, killing ourselves over ancient literature. Who would have thought something so tragically absurd could be possible?--

But, do not worry my brothers and sisters of the Society of Non-Theists! I am not planning to kill anyone over "ancient literature". Come to my talk and see what I have to say about all this and other things. Hey, who knows. Maybe this "crazy" Christian who refuses to hate his family may not be so crazy after all.  ;)

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Greed: why are some Christians not talking about it?

The topic of "Greed" has been on my mind for a long time. Two things made me write about it today:
1) Someone that I love is being affected right now by the GREED of others--Note: I shall be talking about that as part of a separate blog entry. And, 2) I read an article called Preachers confront 'last taboo': Condemning greed amid Great Recession (click HERE for details) that talks about how many pastors do not want to talk (or preach) about greed or money. Some pastors feel that it is better (in the words of one pastor) to speak about personal responsibility so we don't get into the blame game. This comes from the same pastor who once described same-sex marriage as "a satanic plot to destroy the family". So when it comes to an issue like that one, he is willing to talk about it but, when it comes to teaching about greed he thinks that the reality is that a lot of that teaching may wind up creating anti-economic-growth and anti-capitalism concepts (in people’s minds).... (Note: I am privileged that in my life I have met many priests and pastors from different denominations that disagree. Thank you to all of you.)

Another pastor who DOES TEACH on the problems of greed was very clear: Money is the last taboo in church. It’s much easier to talk about sex than money. He also believes that too many pastors opt for offering pulpit platitudes because they are afraid parishioners will stop giving money if they hear teachings on greed and money. If this is true, what does that say not just about those pastors and their thought process, but about the way they believe they should preach? What makes one pastor fearful of teaching on greed and money, and what makes the other pastor want to teach on greed and money with full force? I believe there are many ways to look at this, and some may provide clues while others will simply produce more questions. First, let us simply look at the word "Greed" per the Miriam Webster dictionary:

Definition of GREED
a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

Using this simple definition, we could see how some people may be uncomfortable if their priest or pastor starts talking about greed. Who among us wants to even think that we may be "selfish" or that we have "an excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed"?

Excessive desire....
More of something that is needed... 

Who among us have the courage to look into our own hearts and find out that we may, just may be selfish, or that we have an excessive desire, that we want more of something than is needed? However, you do not have to be a Christian to see a problem with greed. For example in Plato's "The Republic", Socrates thought that "greed" was responsible for bringing strife and injustice into society and those with power did nothing to prevent it. (I wonder what would Socrates be saying today about our political leaders). Spinoza talked about "greed" in the same way he spoke about "ambition" and "lust"; to him all these things were "species of madness."

As I think back to Christian pastors and preachers who are more afraid to sound like "Socialists" or "supporting" what could be interpreted as anti-economic-growth and anti-capitalism concepts (in people’s minds) that could in turn lead to loosing money, I think of what Gustavo Gutierrez once said. He said theology begins with the stomach because the theology and the way we approach theology is very different when we are NOT hungry. If some of these pastors were hungry for let us say five years, and on top of that they came home and found their own children (like the day before and the day before that) crying of hunger, would they still think that a pastor should refrain from talking about greed? Now, I understand that the problem of hunger has many reasons. But, is not greed part of the problem of hunger in the world?

To many of us, the effects of greed, is not about "proper" economics or "proper" theology, because many of us woke up this morning and once again are suffering from:
1) Being hungry because we do not have the money for food.
2) Being sick and/or in pain, because we don't have the medicines we need.
3) Being homeless, because we could not hold on to a job since we could not afford medicines for either a physical condition or a mental condition, etc.

One final thought....
Regarding how some pastors think we should talk about personal responsibility so we don't get into the blame game I say this: talking about personal responsibility becomes tragically irrelevant, if we die of hunger, if we die from a disease, or if we die from sleeping in the streets when it is 10 degrees.

Quite simply the dead do not have "personal responsibility" and the dead do not "get into the blame game".

A final thought...
I believe that if we are going to declare that the Son of Man is the bread of life and that whoever comes to him will never be hungry (Gospel according to St. John 6:35) we have to make sure that people have the simple but necessary bread that we need to live; our 'kerygma' becomes tragically irrelevant if we only talk about the bread of life without talking about the bread that keeps the body healthy. Let us not forget that the Son of Man wants us to provide bread to everyone...including the least of us.



Monday, October 3, 2011

What a Baptist minister once said, about a Buddhist monk...

If anyone of us ever think, that we cannot work toward common goals with a person (or certain people) because "he is not like me", "she thinks differently from me", "he was born somewhere else", "she is from a different religion", "he is not very rational", "she will not agree with me", etc, keep in mind what an American Baptist Minister once said, about a Vietnamese Buddhist Monk:

"Thich Nhat Hanh is a holy man, for he is humble and devout. He is a scholar of immense intellectual capacity. His ideas for peace, if applied, would build a monument to ecumenism, to world brotherhood, to humanity." (Martin Luther King Jr., in nominating Thich Nhat Hanh for the Nobel Peace Prize).

Abortion: what do we say or do AFTER an abortion...

My dear reader, as I give you my opinion (since you cannot listen to my voice or see my body language) I hope that you believe me that what I say here (as has always been my intention with every blog entry) comes from the heart. Last week, there was an exhibit here at Purdue. It was part of "The Genocide Project"...a traveling photo exhibit comparing abortion to various forms of genocide throughout history. (Click here for more details) My opinion on the agenda behind the exhibit, including if it is correct to make this analogy is for another day.

What I would like to share with you my dear reader is not about abortion being right or wrong, or the position of any side of the issue. Most of those arguments (for the most part) deal with a PRE-abortion scenario; why people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT/CAN or CANNOT have an abortion. However, it has been my experience that during these discussions something very important is being ignored or not being discussed with the same fervor: the POST-abortion scenario or more to the point, what happens to the woman that already had the abortion. I tried to have this conversation with a few people that were either supporting the exhibit or against it, or not sure how to react to it. The image that I believe was the most controversial (specially from the reaction of many people including a few friends of mine) was the one that contained three pictures/images: first there was the inverted swastika of the Nazis, with a (gold) star of David below it showing dead bodies from the Holocaust. (Note: A friend of mine with a Jewish background reminded me that last Thursday as I tell you about all this was the first day of Rosh HaShanah. He did not approve of this image being used during a time like this and he asked one of the people at the exhibit if they knew about this. Any argument that the person (or perhaps one of you) could have for justifying the use of the image from this point was irrelevant, since the person told him that he did not know about the holiday) The second picture was a black and white picture of the hanging of a human being, a dead African-American male; I wish we had the details of that picture. And the third picture showed an image of an abortion. This lead me to have (among the many chats I had) two separate conversations that to this day feel like they occurred just a few minutes ago. One was with a young woman and an older man and they were both coming from the "Pro-Life" point of view and supported the exhibit. Since originally I did not plan to write about this and of course I did not get their permission to use their names, I shall call the (y)oung (w)oman 'YM' and the (o)lder (m)an 'OM'. I share with you ONE of the many issues I talked to them about if abortion once again becomes illegal, but also, what happens to the women that regardless of Roe v.s Wade being overturned or not still have abortions legally or illegally. Do we use the analogy of "genocide?" I believe that does not give us the entire picture of what is going on here. Allow me my dear reader to explain.

With YM, I had a very productive conversation. From the start she showed a willingness to speak to me in a respectful manner and to listen to what I had to say. After speaking for a few minutes I pointed to the image I described above (it was right in front of us) and I asked her what was the ultimate goal of this exhibit and why she supported it. She said that it was important to let people know that abortion is another kind of genocide responsible for the loss of human lives and it was important to to do everything possible to stop it; this includes overturning 'Roe vs. Wade' and making abortion illegal. Then I said: "Your strategy points to stopping abortions. Is that correct?" She said "yes". Then I asked (as I pointed to the image): "Have you thought of the women that already had an abortion? How does that image and this exhibit help them?" I continued: "I personally know women that had abortions. Some of them have shared with me that when they see exhibits like these, including the images that speak of genocide, the Nazis, lynch mobs, etc, that they feel like they are being told that they ARE just like the Nazis." Then I asked: "Have you ever thought of that?" YM responded in a very honest and compassionate way: "I never thought of that". We continued to have a productive conversation and at the least I got her thinking that when it comes to this issue there are two scenarios: BEFORE, and AFTER the abortion.  When she also added that part of her drive to do this was her Christianity, I also shared that I was a Christian. When she heard this, she was even more interested in hearing what I had to say. In the end, I told her that whatever point of view and/or strategy she takes to support her "Pro-Life" stand (to be fully effective) as a Christian (or not) she most also consider what we say and do before and after the abortion; just because we have something to say about abortion it may be at best academic and at worst irrelevant to the post-abortion situation; if the abortion already occurred, calling it a "genocide" does not help in any way the woman that already had the abortion. In the end, it was a very good exchange.

With OM, I unfortunately must say that it was not a productive conversation. Every point I tried to present, was at best ignored, and at worst attacked in a very, very personal way that bordered on attacks on me as a person, not about what I was trying to discuss. At a point during the conversation he said "I am a Christian and it is my duty to defend life!" I said: "I am not doubting your motives. I am also a Christian and I am trying to understand where you are coming from since this is a very complex and difficult issue to talk about." When he heard this, his demeanor became even more aggressive, condescending, and hateful. When I asked the same question to OM as I did with YM regarding how the images help those that already had the abortion, his response was: "I can't be concerned with that!" I must admit my control almost cracked at that moment. But I was able to ask calmly "Why can't you be concerned? Why can't you be concerned for those that are suffering now and trying to heal from the emotional effects after the abortion? Is it not our Christian duty to be concerned and have compassion for a human being that is suffering right now from those deep difficult emotional effects?" He simply ignored this and said some things that I do not believe need to be repeated here. At the end of the "conversation" (at some point it became mostly an affair that was driving him to simply make attacks, including comparing certain groups of people to the Nazis, etc) I walked away angry, sad, disappointed; I asked myself 'why did I even try?'

Then I think back to YM and I know why I tried. She tried to understand what I was trying to say. It did not matter if we did not agree on many points during the conversation. She did three very important things and allowed us to agree on one point: 1) She was willing to listen, unlike OM. 2) She was willing to say "I never thought of that" (takes a lot of courage and wisdom to say that; as human beings we resist admitting that we don't know about something specially in a conversation with other people around) AND 3) She felt that she needed to be concerned (unlike OM) with how the images were being interpreted by those who already had an abortion; she was concerned with those already suffering right now.

So, what did I learn from this? For example, I hope that in the future they may have more images that speak to those women that already had the abortion and to think real hard of how the images that they are using right now shape another very important part of this issue; I hope they think of that and I don't believe that this would be a betrayal of their position. Also, I have always thought that it is a good idea for all of us (for example) to find out if there is a  "Crisis Center" in our local area. For those of us still in college, we probably already have access to something very similar. There are many people out there trained and ready to speak to those of us that are suffering, to those of us that all we need is someone to talk to us, without judgement but instead with compassion. I suggest that you add the phone number to your phone of a similar place. Not only will you be able to share it with someone that needs it; you may need the number for yourself one day.

In the meantime, for all you know there may be someone in your life that had an abortion but you are unaware of this; perhaps you my dear reader are one of them. If this is the case, are we so ready to judge? Are we so ready to talk about "Genocide"? Perhaps that person will need your shoulder to cry on. I believe that compassion quite simply is more powerful and more EFFECTIVE than judgment. I believe that people on both sides of the issue can agree.

If you my dear reader had an abortion, I do not judge you.
If you my dear reader had an abortion, there are many people in this world that do not judge you.
If you my dear reader had an abortion, many of us want to help you in any way we can; you only need to ask.

I do not know if YM spoke to OM about this. Perhaps she did and if so, there is a chance that she was able to reach him in a way I was unable to do. I understand that this could just be wishful thinking. But also, who knows...who knows...


A little humor to start the week

Monday is here. So my dear reader, I would like to wish you a good week. Also, allow me to share with you some humor to start the week; this being a blog about Theology, Philosophy, thoughts about life, and sometimes even Sci-Fi among other things, allow me to share with you some humor related to those topics that makes me smile. Hopefully it will do the same for you :)