Ethics

Blog entries categorized under Ethics

Subscribe to feed 10 posts in this category

Sudden coital death, animals and morality

by Donald E. Hester on Thursday, 23 August 2012 Ethics 0 Comments

Naturalistic Worldview Discussion on Facebook

This is a discussion I had with a friend on facebook. I found that we had a good discussion and that I found the experience to be enlightening. My hope is that you will find it enlightening as well.

My Post:
I am at airport reading Scientific American, and came across an article that says that studies show sex for men can be life-prolonging. However, extramarital sex increases risk of sudden coital death. Apart from STDs man die from cardiovascular issues. Get this, the article says, guilt may play a role. Really, you think? Study confirms what we should know. I wonder how the naturalistic worldview explains this.

AC Comment:
Lol. I'm going to make a point with my wife that she needs to help save my life!
‎"Naturalistic worldview"??

Me:
A worldview that really has no basis for morality and thus guilt. I guess they feel it is a social construct. I don't know that is why I ask.

AC:
I think you mean a "nonreligious" worldview. If that's the case, then it's not that they don't utilize morality or ethics, it's just that they don't believe it's derived from a supernatural source. e.g. Take Yahwey out of the equation, and people don't suddenly think it's fine to then murder, rape, or cheat on their spouse. Humans evolved with a sense of cooperation and fair play, and it's a part of the reason why we made it to the top of the food chain.

Me:
There are Deist and Atheists that are naturalists. The naturalist worldview is really just how people answer the question of the boundary of the universe. In other words, there is nothing beyond the material of this Universe. Deists that are naturalists would hold that God is part of the fabric of the Universe.

The question I have is how does random chance and luck result in morals? Why and how does my DNA care about other people’s feelings? Morals are needed for our society but not for survival. This is what puzzles me.
Ok if they are created by man then they really are just subjective preferences on behavior. Why should I feel guilty if I don’t share a particular preference in behavior? Why is this are universal phenomenon?

AC:
It's not random. It's naturally selected among social animals. People who "play nice" with others had an easier time than those who didn't. Also, there are other primates who demonstrate cooperation and morals. I also read an article sometime ago that stated that children have a better survivial/developmental rate with monogamous parents.

Also, read "Superfreakonomics". Human altruism only goes so far. If this were divinely created, then there's a flaw.

Me:
Where is the flaw?

AC:
We're not more altruistic on things that wouldn't determine our destination in an afterlife.
Here's another question out of the blue: would Joe Pa's actions/inactions be held against him biblically?

Me:
AC there is a lot going on in your last comment. Let me see if I can unpack it a little. I don’t know if we can equate morality with altruistic behavior. Much of what animals do is based on reciprocity and can be attributed to being advantageous for survival. However, acts like that of a Japanese nuclear reactor working going in to fix a reactor are not based on reciprocity, especially when death is the known outcome.

I agree with you and think many (but not all) religious people are doing altruistic or good behavior in order to gain merit from an ultimate being or in an attempt to position themselves for the afterlife. I can only speak for myself as a Christian. I don’t do what is right because of a reward system. I do what is right because I know and understand how wrong, wrong is. Because I do believe there is evil and because I hate it, I avoid it. Have you ever notice what animals do with sick and lame animals or animals with birth defects? They let them die. Why as humans do we do everything in our power to prolong the life of a child with downs syndrome or other genetic defects? How is it in any way advantageous for society or the survival of the human species? As a Christian I see them as God sees them, valued and loved. A better definition of altruistic behavior is taking care of them at great expense, work and possibly suffering for me or society without reciprocity. I just don’t see animals doing this. I just don’t see picking fleas off the back of another primate as even close to similar.

As for Joe Pa I am not familiar with him. I will have to look him up and get back to you.

Oh you mean Joe Paterno? Biblically, just as in our legal system, things can be wrong based upon action or inaction.
I have not read what his alleged actions or inactions were. So I can’t speak to specifics. What do you think?

AC:

I wasn't touching on a "reward motive" for religious people; that's a completely different discussion. I was just referencing a chaper in "Superfreakonomics" whereby people will mostly avoid sharing fairly with others if given a chance. Nothing serious, as it's not against the 10 Comnandments, etc, but if an omnipotent god gave us our system of right and wrong/morality, wouldn't that aspect have been addressed? I guess you can say it's part of the golden rule, but breaking it won't keep you out of heaven, so it doesn't seem a needed aspect for the whole free will calculation of where you go after death. (Karma addresses this though, but that's a different belief system.)

As for taking care of the geneticly less fortunate, humans aren't perfect, but do we do a better job compared to other animals because of desire, or does it play more to ability/intelligence/technology? I think we do more because we're able to do more. Animals aren't slouches though. There's a YouTube video which shows a dog risking it's life to rescue another dog stuck on a freeway. There are also reported incidents of one dog leading another blind dog with a stick, a dog rescuing a human child from a house fire, or a police dog stepping in to save it's vulnerable human against an armed attacker. Dogs can't be "saved" religiously, so why do they do that? Dogs are a social pack animal however, and are similar in that regard to humans. It's part of the reason why the two species get along so well. There are also primates who will help feed their sick, etc., so it looks like it's less of a human only trait.

As for Joe Pa, I'm not an expert on the bible, and I don't know of any passages off hand that would condemn his choosing to look the other way. I was just curious and thought you might be a source to ask. It also seems relevant to the current discussion since people uniformly feel he acted badly. (I do remember Lot(?) offering up his daughters to be ravaged by a crowd in order to protect an angel though. Not exactly father of the year material, or a condemnation of rape. Joe Pa could theoretically argue with St. Peter that the school was his equivalent of the angel...)

Dog Rescue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXXaRECHHT4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rWP1O3HbAs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.wndu.com/hometop/headlines/98083109.html

Dolphins support sick or injured animals, swimming under them for hours at a time and pushing them to the surface so they can breathe. - Davidson College, biology department (2001) Bottlenose Dolphins - Altruism, article retrieved March 11, 2009.
Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos. - October 7, 2005, Hour Two.

Humans, like animals, are also influenced by kin selection, so we would also have to look at nonrelated morality/altruism. Are we profoundly better than other animals? Perhaps, but look at a homeless shelter or orphanage. Also, when money's tight, what's the first thing to go in budget cuts: social services for the vulnerable or needy.

Me:

We can argue all day that the examples of possible animal morality. I still see them at a level different than that of human self-sacrifice, with known outcomes. I can see we could argue either way ad naseum. So let’s take it from the angle of gratuitous evil. Do animal act immorally to the same magnitude as do humans? I mean like, Pol Pot, Vlad Tepes, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ted Bundy, etc… Animal don’t kill for ideological reasons. They kill to eat or protect. Lions don’t decide one day that all the monkeys must die because they are different. Only moral agents do this level of evil.

About sins of omission for Joe Pa see James 4:17 "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins."
I should clarify what I mean by moral agent. That being when one can choose to do or not, what one ought. This means one can choose self-sacrifice (altruistic) or gratuitous evil, either of which goes beyond normal animal behavior.

AC:
Good versus evil in animals isn't much of a distinction as it still runs up against the same problem of ability/intelligence/technology. e.g. In order to have an "animal Hitler" you'd need a verbal form of communication, a written language, and a system of economics, etc. It's like saying (erroneously) that humans are the only species that can use tools because no other animal has built a suspension bridge. We're at the top of the food chain for a reason, but you need to set your sights lower with other species and focus on what's within their capabilities.

With that being said, animals do demonstrate their propensity for "evil". For instance, let's look at chimps:
"'Demonic Males' (1997) discusses new evidence that killer instincts are not unique to humans, but rather shared with our nearest relative, the common chimpanzee. [...] Besides killing of conspecifics, Wrangham 'includes infanticide, rape, and regular battering of females by males' as a part of this inherited legacy of violent behaviors shared by humans and chimpanzees." (1997:108).

Also researchers have shown that there are "cultural" differences between different groups of chimps and that this has been a source of conflict, as resource scarcity and female availability have been ruled out in specific instances:
"Research in recent years (2006) has focused on chimpanzees and other monkeys who murder their own. Field studies in Tanzania have demonstrated that chimpanzees will attack and kill other chimpanzees, and brutally so.
In one study (that took place over a five-year period), a group of male chimpanzees directed attacks on a splinter group of chimps that had broken away from the larger group.

Each member of this splinter group was beaten and subsequently died. Young male chimps initiated these attacks, usually using their hands, feet and teeth, though sometimes stones were thrown, as well."
Lastly, self sacrifice requires knowledge that something will definitely kill you. Since animals have only a comparatively rudimentary knowledge of risk, we're back to the suspension bridge argument. Even so, you have to admit that the dog in the video rescuing another on the freeway is at the very least knowingly jeopardizing his life to save another. (Otherwise, why go through the effort of pulling the other dog off?)

With these types of observations, I think you can see how someone with a "naturalistic worldview" can posit that our sense of morality evolved along with us, like our culture and technology, and could still harbor guilt about cheating on a spouse. Our culture places value on fidelity, and that can exist outside of religion.

Me:
A dog on its own trying to save another dog is easily explained in self-serving terms. Dogs, for protection, always hunt in packs. A lone dog would try to keep members of the pack alive, if the pack is low in numbers as it aids in survival. If there was a pack of ten dogs we don’t know that any of them would have saved the wounded dog, especially if saving the dog would be a detriment to the pack and by extension individual survivability. This is a plausible explanation and really does not advance the argument in either direction.

I agree that humans are different. However, our ability to choose to go against our fight or flight response is different not in magnitude but in kind. What happens when a fire fighter runs into a building to save someone? The chemicals in his body tell him or her to run the other way. Yet, in his or her mind they think about another person possibly dying, compassion or sense of duty overrides their natural and physiological reaction. He or she then makes a choice to run into the burning building; into harm’s way. As far as we know no animal contemplates the ramification of their actions and chooses actions that in some instances will be a detriment to themselves and other times a benefit. Sometimes it is a benefit or a determinate the specious as a whole. The point is animals don’t need technology or culture; they need moralistic thinking that goes above and beyond mere survival.

Another example: Are primate brutal, yes, but not the same kind as humans. I am not talking about technological advancement either. Humans not only are brutal but often make sport of it and in some cases enjoy causing pain on other humans. Humans do unspeakable things that go well beyond the brutality of anything in the animal kingdom. This is how I know we humans are different in kind and not in magnitude from animals. Animals have the ability to harm others for fun but don’t. When food is plentiful you won’t see apes killing young primates because they are an imposition or because they want more bananas than they need. Apparently only humans do those sorts of things.

A materialistic worldview would say genetics causes our morals. However, genetics can’t be the cause of our morals if we can choose to suppress them. This ends in a very nice mess of determinism making any moral code immoral. It would be cruel to impose punishment when it is not possible for a person to react in a different way than as dictated by their genetic makeup. The naturalistic worldview however does not suffer from this contradiction; they have cultural evolution as the alternative. Memes instead of genes become the carrier of moral codes. However, this really deteriorates into moral relativism. In which case, whose rules should we follow? The cultural norm? Which culture? Do different cultures evolve different morality? We can’t justify killing Nazi’s if they were following their own moral code. We all know it was wrong and they even seemed to know they were wrong. What is more intriguing to me is that we seem to agree what is good behavior and what is bad behavior, across all cultures. I wonder if we would evolve with these definitions apart from our religious heritage. If it is a meme that has served us well, why deny it? If not, why are we in a hurry to cast off the shackles? The only worldview that makes sense of the world we live in is the theistic worldview. It posits a moral code that is above us. A code that tells us that people are valuable and that if we can do go we have a responsibility to do it. For the theist it was their duty to stop the Nazi’s even at the cost of thousands of lives. For the evolutionist there is no logical reason to fight the Nazi’s and every reason to join them. Why not? Nazi’s sought to take random chance out of the evolutionary equation and take control of our next evolutionary steps. Why leave our evolution to chance? We do this all the time when we breed animals. After all what are humans in the naturalistic or materialistic worldview? We are only animals or a random selection of atoms.

AC:
I'm not in agreement that an "evolutionist" would refrain from wanting to stop the Nazis, (Welcome back from the east coast, BTW ;-P) as religion isn't needed to place value on the individual. E.g. To be extreme, I don't see Richard Dawkins reported as a serial killer or holding values contrary to your own. Also, I think you're paying too much deference to the theist view. Without a theist view, why would the nazi's hate the christ-killing jews, etc. Also, why were Republicans against Bill Clinton intervening in the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia? (Aren't republicans supposed to be the party of religious values which place morality over base politics?) Also, not all gods agree on values. The west has (slowly) come to welcome women as equal actors, but in Saudi Arabia the female Olympic athletes were forced to walk behind the men and were referred to back home as prostitutes. While a lack of ethnocentrism is good for anthropology, a person who commits an honor killing in the west demonstrates the limitations of tolerance as we will not sanction it, even if their religion/culture does. Nor do we allow the killing of "abominable" homosexuals, etc.

Going back to animals, I agree that we'll just spin our wheels if we simply go back and forth over particular animal examples. So rather than narrow the issue (examples of good or evil), let's broaden it instead. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I understand your position to be that humans have something (morality/altruism) that animals don't, and this seemingly appeared on it's own. My position, on the otherhand, is that animals do have that and that humans can better express it because of particular evolutionary advances to the species. If your view is correct for the sake of argument, then that would appear to be the only example of it, and (to me) its status as an outlier should raise some red flags. Take language for example. Humans have an elaborate spoken language due to changes to our vocal cords that primates did not develop. We can sing, recite poetry, etc. Does that then mean that humans are the only species that have language? No. Animals can still communicate with one another even though they can't form words. Primates can and do communicate to each other, the same with whales, dolphins, dogs, etc. Primates can even be taught to communicate with each other and humans through sign language. Can humans communicate better than animals? Yes. Are animals incapable of getting their point across? No. (Just ask any dog owner.) However no man, nor any species, is an island. Traits don't suddenly appear out of the blue, and you can always trace its development from some earlier species, or its codevelopment in others. I don't see altruism any different than language; humans are better at expressing it, but it's a tall order to show that it's uniquely human.

Me:
I am not saying an atheist like Dawkins can’t have morals. Obviously he does. In reality, Dawkins has just accepted the morals of the culture he is in, which happens to have strong Judeo–Christian roots. However, that is not what I don’t understand. My question really centers around the grounding of those morals. There seems to be two choices, one where morality is a product of evolution and is genetically coded in us or it is a product of individual’s preferences. (Unless you know of another source?) It seems the atheist/naturalist is on the horns of a dilemma. The source or grounding of morality is either deterministic or relativistic. If deterministic, then everyone is born the way they are, which makes for a great criminal defense but practically leaves us devoid of true justice. The other horn of the dilemma leaves us with a relative sea of morals with no solid ground to base anything on. Not to pay too much pay too much deference to a theistic approach but it does not suffer for this particular dilemma. As you have indicated the theistic position suffers from inconsistencies and hypocrisy, however that is another debate.

BTW thanks for the debate I have found it enlightening and am glad people can still discuss things civilly.

About the animals, I think my hang-up is on choice. We obviously have choice where I don’t know we can prove that animals are capable of thinking out their actions and the impact of those choices. While I will admit your explanation is possible, the need for choice in any moral system seems to be a stumbling block for me to think it is probable. Who knows, maybe someday science will be able to tell us what dogs think. At least we seem to agree there is a difference, the question is it a difference in kind or degree.

Hits: 3917 Continue reading →

A Modern Retelling of John 8:1-11

by Donald E. Hester on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 Ethics 0 Comments

A Modern Retelling of John 8:1-11

This is simply a modern retelling of John 8:1-11 about the woman caught in adultery. I think this speaks for itself.

A Man Caught in Homosexuality

Jesus returned to the City, but early the next morning he was back again at Church. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. As he was speaking, the religious teachers and leaders brought a man who had been caught in the act of sodomy. They put him in front of the crowd.

“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this man was caught in the act of sodomy. The Bible says this sin is punishable by death. What do you say?”

They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the man. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the man, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

“No, Lord,” he said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

Notes

Based on the New Living Translation

I should probably make a number of qualifying statements for this but I think it stands on its own. Ten pages of footnotes would detract from the power of the simplicity. You can bring up a number of objections to my retelling, but, I believe it is theologically sound. I pick this particular issue out of many that I could have. I could just as easily retell the story with any number of other sins. The woman who had an abortion, the couple that got divorced etc… This passage came to mind while I was reading a blog post entitled, “Is Homosexuality the Worst Sin of All?”

Hits: 3142 Continue reading →

Integrity

by Donald E. Hester on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 Ethics 0 Comments

This picture is from the National Museum of the Marine Corps in Quantico, VA.

Integrity

You are playing a ball game and you touch the ball before it is called out-of-bounds by the referee. The referee did not see you touch the ball and called the ball out-of-bounds against the other team. What do you do?

The Marine Corps Leadership Traits defines integrity as:

“Uprightness of character and soundness of moral principles; includes the qualities of truthfulness and honesty.”

The Knights Code of Honor defines integrity as:

"A Knight must be a man of his word with his actions seen and unseen governed by an inner code of honesty."

People often define integrity as always telling the truth. I think that is part of the definition. I define integrity as constancy of character. Your character is the sum total of all your values and actions. Honesty is one aspect of your character. When you consistently follow those values and your acts match those values all the time, you have integrity. To tell the truth some of the time is not integrity.

When you have integrity, people can rely upon you. They know that you will live up to your values even when no one is watching. Do you want to have friends that always tell you the truth or do you want them to tell you the truth some times? Would you rely on fiends who tell you the truth all the time, or are there for you all the time? Or would you rather rely on friends who flake on you all the time?

When I think of integrity, I think of steel. When we rate steel, we rate it based upon how well the steel maintains its’ form under stress. In other words, the steel does not bend because of the weight or stress on it. It maintains its shape and stays straight. When you build a bridge, you want it made of steel that does not bend under pressure. You would not want to cross a bridge that did not have integrity; you would not trust it to keep you safe.

“The one who lives with integrity will be helped, but the one who distorts right and wrong will suddenly fall.” Proverbs 28:18

"Let integrity and uprightness preserve me, for I wait for You." Psalm 25:21

How well do you keep true to your values when you are under stress, especially the stress of peer pressure? Do you say no when others are smoking pot or doing drugs? What if it is your friends and they are pressuring you? Can you maintain your values when your friends are pressing you to compromise? Do you do what is right no matter the cost?

Some people fold like blankets under pressure. You know, I have never tried building a bridge out of blankets. I really don’t think it would work well. I think I will stay with tried and true steel.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said:

"To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment."

One of the best quotes I have heard about integrity comes from the Garth Brooks song titled ‘The Change’.

“I hear them saying, you'll never change things and no matter what you do it remains the same thing. But it is not the world I am changing. I do this so this world will know that it will not change me.”

Some videos on integrity that I found on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-CHyWDky1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMYYOXTuUeQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ioht4sSgibY

Hits: 4646 Continue reading →

Why is it so difficult to admit when we are wrong

by Donald E. Hester on Wednesday, 17 August 2011 Ethics 0 Comments

Why is it so difficult to admit when we are wrong? I mean when we have wronged a friend or loved one. It is easy to admit when you cut someone off in traffic. All you do is shrug your shoulders and give the “oops” face. You don’t know the person, it’s a minor offense and you are not likely to see the person again. So, it is easy to admit fault in that type of situation.

Now, when you hurt a good friend, it is often difficult to admit guilt. In fact, most people rationalize why it is ok to do whatever it was that was done. Let’s say a good friend asks you to help him move this weekend. You say ok, I will be there to help. Then you have another friend ask you to play golf the same day. You come up with some rational reason to golf rather than help your friend in need.

So what do you do? Call your first friend and tell them you would rather golf? I mean that is the truth. Of course, that is not the easy thing to do, nor is it what you want to do but it would be the right thing to do. Many people come up with an excuse, like “I threw my back out”. An easy way to solve problems like this is not to commit to something you don’t really want to. If you make a commitment, fulfill it. If you don’t, admit you are wrong.

When I was in middle school, I was picked on almost relentlessly. I was a dorky, awkward kid. It was a private school so must of my classmate families had money. My mother had to work two jobs to pay the tuition. So, I never had the right clothes. Kids are really mean at that point in their life, and I was the brunt of their attacks. You start to believe what they say about you. What can I say? I hated my life at that point.

To feel better about myself I did some stupid stuff. A new student came to class and the other kids had a new target and the verbal abuse was now directed at someone else. The stupid thing I did was joining in with the other kids. Yes, I became what I hated. What an ass I was. I should have stood up and helped her.

I regret to this day that I joined in on being a bully and not a defender. It is difficult to stand up for what is right. It is more difficult to publicly admit that you were wrong. It is not easy to do and I wish I would not have to admit my mistakes.

Lavey, I am sorry I joined in with the other kids who picked on you. I am sorry I did not do what was right and stand up for you when they verbally picked on you. I was wrong.

See related blog posts:
Emotions Can’t Tell Time
Reflections on My Redeemer

Hits: 4967 Continue reading →

The X-Men, Martin Luther King Jr. Connection

by Donald E. Hester on Monday, 06 June 2011 Ethics 0 Comments

X-Men First Class, (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/) is one of those movies that is penetrating with deeper meaning. For example did you notice the interaction and philosophical differences between Professor Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto) regarding the situation and rising tensions between humans and mutants? Erik, a victim of the Nazi holocaust, believes that mutants should force humans to accept them and further sees the mutants as a superior race. I find this ironic in light of the fact that he was a victim of intolerance and hatred by people claiming to be a superior race. Erik takes the approach that the ends justify the means and might makes right. Charles, on the other hand, focuses on the peaceful solution. Not joining humans necessarily, but protecting them and treating them as equals. He takes the high road, or what we might call high ethical standards.

I see parallels in this tension between Magneto and Professor X’s worldviews and the civil rights movement here in America. If you parallel Martin Luther King Jr. with Professor X and Malcolm X with Magneto, you may begin to see what I mean. I am reminded of a great play I saw in college. I forget the name of it, but the play was a mythical meeting between Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X and the discussion that followed. Each one of them arguing (or better debating) passionately for their solution to the problem.

One oddity of this parallel is the "X" in their names is in opposition. Professor “X” taking the pacifist approach and Malcolm “X” the by all means necessary approach.

X-Men the First Class movie explores these same tensions and debates. With this story, it starts with them working together for a greater good. Later, they see that their philosophies are not compatible and they part ways. Knowing the rest of the story and what follows, we see they become enemies. This is because they realize their two approaches are incompatible.

Check out the movie and let me know what you think. If you have seen the movie, do you see where I am coming from?

Hits: 3896 Continue reading →

Emotions Can't Tell Time

by Donald E. Hester on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 Ethics 0 Comments

Your Emotions Can't Tell Time

The other day I was browsing Facebook when I noticed a suggested friend who was someone I went to school with long ago. The problem was this 'suggested friend' was a schoolmate who was a total jerk to me. I noticed very quickly I remembered what he said and did to me and I found myself upset and angry as if he had just done it or said it to me.

This is the problem with emotions. In order to trigger them, you just need to remember or think about something that made you feel that way once before. Then, bam! The emotions are back just like that. Even if, intellectually, you forgave the person or you now realize it was minor or long enough ago to not matter anymore.

After a few seconds, I realized that kids are mean and that what he said and did was mean, but it was over 20 years ago. Does it matter to me now? Not at all. However, emotions don't understand time they just react to what you are thinking.

You will find another example of this with actors. Good actors will draw on thoughts to create the emotions they need for the scene they are in. If they need anger, they will focus their thoughts on something that angers them and if they need to show love, they focus on thoughts of love.

I wonder if this means we can control our emotions based upon controlling our thoughts?

Here is a related quote:

“Words can never adequately convey the incredible impact of our attitudes toward life. The longer I live the more convinced I become that life is 10 percent what happens to us and 90 percent how we respond to it.” - Charles R. Swindoll

Hits: 2893 Continue reading →

Christian Pacifism

by Donald E. Hester on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 Ethics 0 Comments

alt

I wrote this when I was younger and more idealistic. I am not sure where I am at this point in my life. Other than I am not as idealistic as I once was.

STATEMENT OF BELIEF OF PEACE THROUGH JESUS CHRIST

PREAMBLE

I, Donald E. Hester, find it appropriate and necessary to state my convictions and moral objections to combat and physical violence. Further, I find it appropriate and necessary to state my motivation and where I base my beliefs. I do hereby announce my beliefs, for the glory of God.

ARTICLE I MOTIVATION

Section 1. My motivation, in stating my beliefs, are for the benefit of the military’s investigation.

Section 2. To state in an organized manner my beliefs on war, combat , military service, civil authority, peace, the sanctity of life, and my future action.

Section 3. As with all I do it is with the sincere intent to bring glory to Jesus Christ, and to further His Kingdom, while spreading the good news of the Gospel to all nations and people.

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"

-Jesus Christ (Matt 28: 19-20 KJV)

Section 4. My pursuit of peace, which entails the sanctity of life, is compelled by God’s love for me. This love is what has prompted my love for others and prompts me to do what ever I can do, and what the Lord wills that I do to further peace. Not only to bring my walk with the Lord closer but also and foremost for my Lord. I feel the call on my life to express the love of God to all people.

“' You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ "This is the great and foremost commandment. "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

-Jesus Christ (Matt 22: 37-40 NAS)

ARTICLE II FOUNDATION

Section 1. I base my belief and practice not on Human tradition but on the living Christ and His example to us.

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

-1 Cor 3:11 (NAS)

Section 2. The example of Christ is found in the Bible the only plum line to truth. The Bible is God’s own words that show us Christ whom I have not physically seen, but have experienced spiritually.

"Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path."

-Psalm 119:105 (NAS)

Section 3. I also believe it is right to hear what other saints know concerning the Word of the Lord. While always testing them to the scriptures.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

-Acts 17:11 (NIV)

ARTICLE III PEACE

Section 1. I not only feel that the pursuit of peace is a worthy cause but is also a command of God. Matt. 26:52-53, Mark 9:50. Ps. 34:14, 2 Cor 13:11, Zech. 8:16, 19; James 3:17-18. Rom. 14:19; 2 Tim 2:22; 1 Pet 3:11; 2 Cor 13:11; 1 Thes. 5:13-14; Heb 12:14; Rom. 12:18.

D"epart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it."

-David King of Israel (Ps 34:14 (KJV))

“Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. The beauty of nonviolence is that in its own way and in its own time it seeks to break the chain reaction of evil.”

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Section 2. I believe that those who seek Peace are blessed by the Lord Matt. 5:9. If God blesses an activity how can anyone say that we should not follow His advise to the fullest for the greatest reward. Not for the reward itself, but for the sake of the One who has called us, because He knows what is best for us.

Section 3. Nonviolence the way of a Christian. Matt. 5:5,39,44. With Jesus we will endure suffering for the Kingdom of God without violent resistance. As the Rev. Martian Luther King, Jr. once said, “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline...Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.”

"No my friend, our principles are active obedience or passive suffering"

- William Rotch 1814

Section 4. Peace is the work of the righteous, Isa. 32:17-18. The Holy Spirit leads us into all righteousness. If we, who are called to be righteous, have no fruit, how can we say we are righteous or are lead by God?

Section 5. Peace is one of the fruits of the spirit. Gal. 5:22; No law against peace, Gal. 5:23. I believe God has no problem with anyone who seeks. God has no problem with peace because it is a part of His nature.

Section 6. Military solutions do not fundamentally bring peace.

"The Supreme Argument of unbelief: Do we really believe that Christianity will perish unless it be defended by war?"

- William Barclay

Section 7. Peace is a Divine command and a responsibility in our stewardship of what God has given us. We as stewards of this planet have not used the resources we have from the planet for the intended purpose. We have perverted the resources in order to make some rich and to neglect the needy. God gave us the ability to us the atom to further mankind and we have used it to destroy millions of noncombatant, women and children.

“The Choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or non-existence.....If the church is to remain true to its mission, it must call for an end to the arms race.”

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Section 8. I know that peace on earth will never be achieved until the Lord returns and brings peace with Him. Even knowing this should we should never be swayed away from that holy goal.

"Only in a society in which men love each other because they love Jesus Christ can there ever be peace."

- William Barclay

ARTICLE IV THE SANCTITY OF LIFE

Section 1. I know that life is sacred and a gift of God, which no individual has the right to take away.

“One thing we must be concerned about if we are to have peace on the earth and goodwill toward men is the nonviolent affirmation of the sacredness of all human life. Every man is somebody because he is a child of God. And so when we say “Thou shalt not kill,” we’re really saying that human life is too sacred to be taken on the battlefields of the world.”

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Section 2. The Decalogue (Exodus 20), and the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5), are two of God’s specific command which encompass my view of life.

Section 3. Christ summed up the commands of the Old Testament in Matthew 22:37,39. We are command to Love our neighbors as ourselves. In 1 Cor. 13 defines Biblical love. With that definition it would be hard for someone to kill another Human or condone violence.

"Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails"

-1 Cor 13:4-8(NAS)

Section 4. We are all made by the Creator, and we are all His children. It would be morally wrong not to see the value that God has on all His creation. We are all precious in His sight. I want to see people as God sees them. This is one of the goals of the Christian life. The question then is, how does God see people? God sees everyone as worthy to die for, and He proved it.

Section 5. The ultimate value of something is the price that one is willing to pay for that object. The price that was paid for you and me was the death of God’s own Son. This is where the value of a human is, not only are we one of God’s greatest creation we were also bought at a price.

ARTICLE V WAR

Section 1. Considering the destructiveness of war and warfare and the reality that it does not and will not resolve conflict, without the shedding of blood or the loss of precious Human life, we as a humans must strive for peace. The problem lies in mans sinful nature, as long as we have it we will continue in war. The fact that we have a sinful nature and are prone to war does not mean that we should give up and support war.

“Do you know, Fontanes, what astonishes me most in this world? The inability of force to create anything. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the spirit.”

-Napoleon

Section 2. Avoidance of war best serves the interests of humanity on all levels. War only leads to more war and more death and more violence, a never ending circle of Satan’s games with us Humans.

“The present insanity of the global arms race, if continued, will lead inevitably to a conflagration so great that Auschwitz will seem like a minor rehearsal.”

-Billy Graham

Section 3. Christians hold to two views that condone war in limited fashion. One is the just war theory and the other is the Crusade. Neither of these views holds any water Biblically.

Part 1. Just War Theory: Advocates war but limits the Christian’s participation in war. One limit is that nonparticipants, of war, were not killed.

Part 2. Crusade: War with a holy cause, enforcement of peace, or the removal of other religions. One limit banned clerical participation in war.

(For more information on the positions see the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.)

"The Lord disarmed every soldier when He disarmed Peter."

- Teriullian

Section 4. Jesus seemed to accept that war was a part of the world’s system, Matt. 24:6. Christ also told us to be in the world but not to be a part of the world. No where in the Bible did Christ ever condone war or ask Christians to partake. If Christ would have condoned war He would have mentioned it. This leaves us with the only viable solution do as Christ plainly said ‘love your enemy.’

"The Paradoxical stance of the gospel is that the disciple of Jesus is called to live now by the values of a world that is yet to come."

-Pawlikowski & Senior

Section 5. I do not see war as a “Necessary Evil.” I feel that there can be no justification for evil.

"Whoever can reconcile this; resist evil, with resist evil by force; again, give also thy other cheek, with strike again; also love thine enemies, with spoil them, make pray of them, pursue them with fire and sword; or pray for those that persecute you’ with persecute them by fines, imprisonment and by death itself. Whoever can find means to reconcile those things, may be supposed to also have found a way to reconcile God with the devil, Christ, with the Anti-Christ, light with darkness, and good with evil."

-Robert Barclay 1676

Section 6. I feel so strongly against war and feel that God is just as strongly against war that I can be no part of it. If I did I would be doing something I felt was wrong.

"Christians would rather shed their own blood than stain their hands and their consciences with the blood of other people"

- Arnobius

Section 7. War is inconsistent with Biblical truth and the will of God. No where in the Bible will you find God command us to be at war with anyone other the Satan and his followers. On the other hand you will find commands of God to be at peace. We must let the Holy Spirit guide us, in order to be at peace.

"As Christians we believe that armaments and military force are inconsistent with the ways of Jesus Christ and the biblical hope of justice and peace."

- American Baptist Churches 1978

Section 8. Christ has called us to take up our cross and follow Him. Part of following is obedience to His commands. One of His most holy commands is for us to love our enemies. This command is against all we know, our flesh recoils from this command because it bids us to put away our selves and to consider the welfare of those whom have done us wrong. Only by Christ living in us will we ever be able to obey.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven."

-Jesus Christ (Matt 5:43-45a(NIV))

Section 9. There is an alternative to war. I believe that if someone does not have any ideas on how to better something, but only empty criticism very little will be accomplished. I know of a better way and that way is found in Christ. In 2 Chr 20:1 we see Jehoshaphat and our alternative to war. Prayer. That is where we see the power of God when we allow Him to fight our battles. If God is for us who can be against us?

ARTICLE VI MILITARY SERVICE

Section 1. The military’s goal is to make war. All levels of the military support the war making process, no level is exempt. Anyone who aids the military in any way aid in furthering it’s goal.

Section 2. I do feel that Military service and action in combat is permissible and not a sin or forbidden by the Lord, however...

Section 3. I do not feel that it is not a necessity or beneficial for Christians to partake in military service and combat situations. I feel the Lord prefers for Christians to seek peace and not take other human lives, in war or in any other situation. (From interpersonal to international).

"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything."

-1 Cor 6:12 (NAS)

Section 4. God clearly states that we should not kill (Humans). Christ commands us to Love our enemies, and states that peacemakers are blessed. In many instances military necessitates the combatant to partake in actions that are against the aforementioned commands of God. In those situations, I cannot and will not partake! I accept the commands of God on the authority of the Bible.

"You shall not murder."

-Exodus 20:13(NAS)

Section 5. My goal is not to tell other Christians that they cannot partake in military actions, or that I feel the Lord commands us not to. My only goal is to encourage Christians to seek peace and strive for the glory of God. I acknowledge that other Christians feel that military service and action in combat are sanctioned in the Bible. I don’t feel that they are not Christians and I feel that this issue is in the realm of nonessentials and we have room for disagreement.

Section 6. As for the commitment that I made to the military and before God, both God and country provide a annulment to that agreement. God has provided for us an exception which is sometimes called civil disobedience. The concept is basically this: the final authority is God and if anyone asks or tells you to do something immoral you have the right to refuse and refusal would not be a sin. The United States government also has provided a means to object to military service and combat. It is called DoD directive 1300. By the rights I have from God and this country I have the right to break my oath.

"You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him."

-Deut 13:4 (NAS)

Section 7. I cannot pass responsibility to anyone other than myself for my action. If it is wrong to seek peace than I stand before God and Him alone. In the same way if I follow the command of a superior officer to kill another Human and I know it is wrong and I do it anyway, I am responsible before God alone.

"According to the biblical narrative Adam sinned against God, and then said that his wife told him to eat the apple, while his wife said she was tempted by the devil. God exonerated neither Adam nor Eve, but told them that because Adam listened to the voice of his wife he would be punished, and that his wife would be punished for listening to the serpent. And neither was excused, but both were punished. Will not God say the same to you also when you kill a man and say that your captain ordered you to do it?"

- Leo Tolstoy

ARTICLE VII USE OF FORCE

Section 1. I would define force as, the measure of physical aggression taken to eliminate an enemy or actions taken to stop someone from performing an act.

Section 2. The force the police use is fundamentally different than that of the force used by the military. The motivation and goal are different. The police use force only as a last result and the main objective of police is the safety of the citizen to include the perpetrator. When police use force it is a remedial task, when the military use force it dose not correct the wrong it wrongs back until one side gives in.

"It would be quite wrong to say that force is forbidden to the Christian, but it must be used in order to cure and not to kill; it must be used personally and not indiscriminately; and it must be used in love that seeks, not obliteration of the other person, not even so much his punishment, but rather his highest good."

- William Barclay

Section 3. I refuse to use force to gain peace. I choose to trust in the power and sovereignty of God Almighty. I feel that He will cause all things to work out for good on the Eternal level.

"And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."

-Romans 8:28(NAS)

Section 4. The New Testament witnesses to us that nonviolence and return evil with love, to return violence with nonviolence. We must follow the example of Jesus Christ, which is found in the Bible.

"But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. "And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. "And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.' "But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven;"

-Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:39-45(NAS)

Section 5. Our whole entire goal in this life as Christians is to love others and further the Kingdom of Christ. We need to be available to God and bring the world the good news, not blow them off the face of the Earth before they can here it.

ARTICLE VIII CIVIL AUTHORITY

Section 1. As God has appointed the authorities, I believe that it is appropriate to respect and obey civil authority.

Section 2. Exception to obeying civil authority: Where as I am asked take others lives or act in a violent matter against others. I feel that when a civil power asks of it citizens, something that is against God or His commands we have the right to decline to be involved. Knowing that declining may end in death or imprisonment or ostracization. I must obey God rather than man. When we disobey man to obey God this has been termed Civil Disobedience.

Section 3. The Bible calls us to be obedient to civil authority. God uses the civil government at times for His will, and He appoints them according to His will. Rom 13:1-7; I Peter 2:13-17.

Section 4. The Bible calls us to absolute submission to God, over all. Deut. 13:4; Jer. 7:23; John 14:15.

Section 5. When these two commands come to an in pass the later must be followed for we answer to God in the final court. Examples of this in the Bible are found when Daniel prayer to God illegally. (Daniel 6). Peter preaching illegally. (Acts 5: 27-32). Paul refusing to leave His prison cell when ordered to. (Acts 16:35-40).

ARTICLE IX FUTURE ACTION

Section 1. I feel compelled to do more than just stand for peace, I feel I must actively pursue truth and peace.

"Christian tolerance does not extend to the actionless acceptance of that which is vicious and poisonous."

- William Barclay

“What the world expects of Christians is that Christians should speak out, loud and clear, and that they should voice their condemnation in such a way that never a doubt, never the slightest doubt, could rise in the heart of the simplest person. That they should get away from abstraction and confront the blood-stained face history has taken on today.”

-Albert Camus

Section 2. I will do what I feel lead to by the Holy Spirit to promote peace and the sanctity of life.

"For us as children of a common Father it is time to follow His lead."

- Yearly Meeting 1942, Society of Friends

Section 3. I will refrain from actions and organizations that do not promote peace or the sanctity of life. I will do what I can to promote unity in the Body of Christ and educate those in the Body on the issues.

Section 4. This belief encompasses more than military service but to all related issues, such as abortion, capitol punishment, and euthanasia. Just as Telemachus stood against violence and the taking of human life I too shall stand for truth. Telemachus died for what he believed in, one in a long list of martyrs for peace and the value of life, though Jesus Christ.

Section 5. In the interest of maintaining unity in the body of Christ I do not force my views upon any other saint. Nor do I dispute that others in the body of Christ have a biblical view. If at such a time others in the body show me in scripture that I am wrong I reserve the right to recant this statement.

Section 6. I intend to take what may seem to be a negative refusal to partake in war into a positive witness for Christ. Showing the world there is a better way and the Love of God.

"We find security in God, not in weapons, and would point those around us to that security."

- Church of the Brethren 1980

Section 7. The Church must follow Christ in these critical times and be a light unto all nations. We must be the standard to which the rest of the world will be conformed to. If we are to remain true to Christ we must be obedient to Christ.

"There is nothing the world would like so much as a silent church."

- William Barclay

Section 8. I know that as a human I may at time not live up to the standards that I know that God has. At times I may stumble when I am filled with emotion and I pray that the Lord will strengthen me in those times that I may stand strong.

ARTICLE X CONCLUSION

Section 1. I know that we as humans will never reach peace. Not by war, not by protest, not by our human endeavor. It is by Christ that peace will be attained and life will be respected as it should be.

Section 2. I know that following Christ means that we will endure suffering for the kingdom of God and I will not resist with violence but accept the hardship. “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” Job 2:10

Section 3. I do not seek peace or to raise the value of human life by my own efforts. I do seek peace and the increasing in the value of human life by faith in Christ. Faith which says “ I cannot but He can.”

Section 4. I cannot in good conscious ask God to show me how to love and value people, and then actively engage in violence against other people or take the life of another human, or even aid in someone else’s taking of a life. A human is precious in the eyes of God. God has given me a new heart through the renewing of my mind by the Holy Spirit. A heart the wants to love, and not a heart that wants to kill, for this I am not ashamed.

Section 5. Again I want to stress that this is done because I feel moved by God and I do this to bring glory to Jesus Christ,

"So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God."

-1 Cor 10:31(NIV)

His name be praised forever more.

Signed in love,

Donald E. Hester

Written: March 1995.

Revised: September 26, 1995.

Second Revision: June 2, 1996.

Hits: 1662 Continue reading →

The Good Atheist

by Donald E. Hester on Monday, 09 February 2009 Ethics 0 Comments

alt In some of my previous posts on Atheist, I have explored the source of their ethics.

Atheists derive their ethics from three precepts. 1. Survival of the fittest, 2. Self-preservation and 3. Avoid unnecessary harm. My contention is that Christian ethical precepts are superior. Christian ethical precepts being 1. love God, 2. love your neighbor, 3. love your enemy and 4. love your wife.

From this, I received a number of comments and emails concerning 'the good Atheist'. I have been wondering where they fit in with my contention. A number of questions came to mind. Are there truly good atheists? Is it the actions or the motivations that we should be looking at? If Atheist can act good without the Christian precepts are the Christian precepts still superior?

I think the Bible actually speaks to the motivation.

“But to you who are willing to listen, I say, love your enemies! Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who hurt you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also. Give to anyone who asks; and when things are taken away from you, don’t try to get them back. Do to others as you would like them to do to you. If you love only those who love you, why should you get credit for that? Even sinners love those who love them! And if you do good only to those who do good to you, why should you get credit? Even sinners do that much! And if you lend money only to those who can repay you, why should you get credit? Even sinners will lend to other sinners for a full return. Love your enemies! Do good to them. Lend to them without expecting to be repaid. Then your reward from heaven will be very great, and you will truly be acting as children of the Most High, for he is kind to those who are unthankful and wicked."

- Tyndale House Publishers: Holy Bible : New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House Publishers, 2004, S. Lk 6:27-35

I guess an atheist could say that it is wise to love your enemy out of self-preservation. In this way, you would not have any unnecessary enemies who could possible hurt you in the future. Out of a motivation of self-preservation, you attempt to prevent future harm to yourself. However, Jesus does not seem to be talking about love your enemy with a motivation of self-preservation. Jesus is asking us to give kindness with the motivation of not expecting anything return.

Most people, atheist and Christian alike, know that if we are all going to live in peace we have to at least be nice to one another. Don't we, atheist and Christian alike, do the good we do for something in return? Maybe so someone will repay the kindness, or maybe someone will see us doing good and boost our ego, or perhaps out of guilty feelings.

I know as a Christian I fail at this all the time. Doing good to those who will most likely be a benefit to me in the future. However every once in awhile I make a difficult choice to do good with no expectations. My family and I recently had a falling out with my in-laws after my father-in-law passed away. Given what they said and did to my wife and family I have every reason to call them enemies. I find it harder to let something go when someone hurt my family, I think we all do. I culminated in a confrontation over the phone. I was businesslike and called them on everything they had done. I could tell they were not being 100% honest. In spite of what everyone told me I should do I let it all go. We even gave them something they did not deserve nor were owed. Did we do it so that we could bring the family back together? No. I don't think it will ever be back together. Did we do it so they would leave us alone? No. Generally, if I am right about something I generally for the principle of it will dig in and not budge to my own detriment. Why did we do it? Because God loves them too. I don't have the feeling of love for them however, I am treating them with love. Love is actions not feelings.

Are there atheist who do good? Absolutely! Do Christians all act with the right motivation? No. Which one has the superior precepts? I guess that is up to you.

Passages reflecting Christian ethical precepts from above:

Matthew 5:44
Matthew 22:37-39
Mark 12:30-31
Luke 6:27
Luke 6:35
Luke 10:27
John 13:34-35
John 15:17
Romans 13:8-10
Galatians 5:14
Ephesians 5:25, 28, 33
Colossians 3:19
1 Thessalonians 4:9
James 2:8
1 Peter 1:22
1 John 4:11-12, 19-21

Past Posts:

Christian Hypocrisy http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/4-apologetics/49-christian-hypocrisy
Question of the Week 1 http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/4-apologetics/44-question-of-the-week-1
How would you answer Richard Dawkins II http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/4-apologetics/40-what-would-you-say-to-richard-dawkins-question-ii
How would you answer Richard Dawkins? http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/4-apologetics/40-what-would-you-say-to-richard-dawkins-question-ii

Hits: 2682 Continue reading →

Seven Pounds, a Great Day

by Donald E. Hester on Wednesday, 07 January 2009 Ethics 0 Comments

alt I need sleep but can't sleep because I need to write this.

You may have heard the phrase, "Coincidence isn't a Kosher word." I believe that know more and more. You see the day I had to day goes beyond any mathematical probabilities and the entire day, almost every part of it reflects how great today was. You may be wondering if I won the lottery. Sorry, not the lottery, actually it was something far more valuable and meaningful. In order for you to understand, the gravity of how great today was I have to give you some background. I hope that you too can see just how great a day today was!

[If you have not seen the movie Seven Pound and want to you may not want to read this blog as it will be a spoiler for you.]

This morning I get up for a long commute to teach out of town. I decided to listen to a debate on my Zune (MP3 player) and I pick one that I wanted to listen too back in November. Back in November, to my great frustration I could not get the Zune software to recognize the 1st file of the 4 files of the debate. Without the first part I did not want to listen to three quarters of the debate. What's the point? I really wanted to listen to it too! I called tech support and they had no idea what the problem was and had me try stupid things I knew would not work. (IT people hate to call tech support and deal with people who know less that we do, it is extremely frustrating.) After 4 hours trying to get it installed, I gave up. I tried it again last weekend and had the same problem. As it turned out the fix was to move it to another computer and then it worked fine. How frustrating is that? This morning, I figured, it might be a great idea to listen to the debate finally and get my mind off my stress.

The debate was on the existence of God and it was between Phil Fernandes and Dan Barker from the freedom from religion foundation. Dan Barker is normally a good debater, however, in this debate he made some very bad arguments and he was very disingenuous when he claimed Hitler was a Christian, everyone know that is not true. It is a well know dirty little argument trick to associate you interlocutor with Hitler. One particular statement he made caught my attention. He claimed that his moral code was superior to the Judeo-Christian God's moral code. Wow, what a claim, very presumptuous and outrageously boastful. At the time, I was thinking the guy was totally full of bullshit. What was his self-proclaimed universally know moral? "Avoid any unnecessary harm." Is that all his intellect could muster? Is this the empty and hollow moral principal that fills his life? What a piece of garbage. How is the passive, 'avoid unnecessary harm' better than and active, ‘love God, love your neighbor, love your enemy and love your wife as Christ loved the Church’? There is no way that a passive approach to avoid doing harm better than give of yourself for others and actively do good by loving others. To say that inactive passive avoidance is better than active involvement is akin to committing intellectual suicide.

The world becomes a better place when people actively seek to benefit others at their own expense, not when people seek to avoid unnecessary harm. In fact, from Barker's moral stance, you could argue the Nazis were justified in the holocaust (He played the Nazi card and now it is on the table). I think the Nazis really did believe that the harm that they were doing was necessary. Not on the individual level but on the level of preserving or promoting what they thought was best for the human race. You can't justify the holocaust with Christians morals of love your enemy, it is impossible.

After that, I got to where I was going to work and did my job. As it turned out my best friend (a new title I give out today as I have not had a 'best friend' in awhile [other than my wife].) and I were supposed to go to a class together that was cancelled. So, he suggested we go to the movies. With my son, we wanted to see Valkyrie. I checked the movies times online and proceeded to drive to the theater. On our way there, I decided to stop by a friend’s house and drop off something and when I got there, he had something for me. A mutual friend of ours (and the only other person lately I would have counted as a brother or best friend) had passed away in July and his wife had given us both a set of prints that he showed me before he passed away. I kept the emotions in and was just thankful for the gift from beyond. Words cannot describe how much they mean to me now.

I left got back in the car and headed for the moves. When we got there, we found out I had the wrong time. We could not see the movie we wanted to see so my best friend suggested we try the next movie to start which was Seven Pounds. I said what, the hell let’s do it.

The movie started 25 minutes late, which gave me and my best friend some time to talk about the debate I listened to this morning. I told him all about it. Had the movie started on time I would not have had time we would have not discussed it.

The movie is about a man, played by Will Smith, who lost his wife in an accident he caused which also resulted in the death of seven innocent people. His way of making amends was to find seven worthy people and donate his organs to them. In order for him to do that, he would have to sacrifice his life for them. He had survivor’s guilt and wanted to make things right in his own way. My friend and I talked after the movie how Dan Barkers approach of avoid unnecessary harm did not come close to the self-sacrifice in the movie. In fact had he followed Dan's approach he would not have done anything and bankrupt in comparison. Because of his sacrifice, seven people got a second chance. Because of God sacrifice, we all get a second chance and we know this love because He first loved us!

On our way back home I mentioned what a coincidence it was all this stuff coming together today as if it was divinely orcastrated message. I told my friend at that time that coincidence was not a kosher word and we continued home. I thought that it was ironic that Dan Barker said that experience is not evidence of God existence because when he was an ordained minister he thought that God talked to him to even though he now knows 100% for sure it wasn't real. I shrugged my shoulders and thought to myself maybe it could be all just a coincidence. When I got home I got out of the car, my best friend said see you later and was going to his car. I opened my trunk and pulled out my gift from beyond and just then, it all hit me. An epiphany!

My friend who had passed away in July once confided in me his survivors guilt form a long time ago. A heavy burden he carried for the rest of his life. He wanted to know from God why it was him who survived and not his friend who died in his arms. I told him at the time that he could not carry that burden and that he had to let it go. I told him that maybe, just maybe, the good he has done in the rest of his life was the mission God had for him and that maybe, there was a higher purpose in his survival.

The reason I had said that to him was because, about two years ago, he went to a local VA hospital to visit those coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. In the poly-trauma unit he saw a young Marine officer who was just sitting there. He said to him "Semper Fi" a coming marine greeting and the young officer looked up into his eyes and said "Semper Fi" back to him. The nurses were astonished because those where the first word that he had spoken since he came back to the States. From that time my friend, no, my brother, would go to the hospital to care for wounded and raised money to help them in any way he could. We met some of Americas finest there.

About a year ago, we started to raise money for a special bike that was needed at the hospital for rehabilitation. They needed a three-wheel bike as many of those recovering had head injuries and had issues with balance and needed a bike they did not have to worry about balance with. Our organization started to raise the money but it was going slow. The bike was $3200. People wanted to help but not that much. We continued on. He was actively giving to those in need not satisfied with simply avoiding unnecessary harm.

He passed away before he completed his mission. The members of our organization, his family and many in the community donated money in his name for a three wheel bike for the poly-trauma unit. In November, we delivered the bike to the poly-trauma rehabilitation unit. We were a team and the mission had to be completed. That’s what Marines do for each other, even if one falls, we continue until the mission is complete. As it turns out, we had lost track of that young Marine officer in the time between starting the collection until after our brother passed. We found out the week before we were going to deliver the bike that the first person that was going to use it would be that very same officer that had inspired my friend to start the program in the first place. What a great completion to his mission.

Tonight, as I walked into the house with the prints (my gift from beyond), I realized how much the movie and all of today's events culminated into this epiphany. Though all of our pain, suffering and lose, we have a choice to give and to love. Self-sacrifice leads to fulfillment, you give and yet you get so much in return. What an empty dead place this would be if all we did was simply avoided doing unnecessary harm. How wondrous is God’s love, that while we were undeserving, He sacrificed Himself for us, in our place?

My friends life gave a new chance to countless wounded heroes.

Will Smith's character's life gave a second chance and new life to seven.

Jesus life gave a second chance and new life for all of us.

Had my Zune work as it should have in November. Had I not decided to listen to it today. Had the commute not taken so long as I would have missed listening to it all. Had our class not been cancelled. Had my new best friend decided to flake out on me, which he could have given it was late and he had a long drive home. Had we not decided to go to the movies. Had I got the time right. Had the movie not been delayed. Had I not decided to stop by and drop something off at my friends, which I wanted to blow it off until another day. Had I not picked up the gift from my friend. Had we not discussed this. All today. I might have missed this.

Does God talk to us? I think so. He did for me today. Call it coincidence if you want. Or you can ask Him yourself.

And We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. Romans 8:28

Hits: 2643 Continue reading →

Is God a kitten killer?

by Donald E. Hester on Sunday, 21 December 2008 Ethics 0 Comments

alt

[Advisory: This is a topic that most religious folks might find too risqué. If you think this is to risqué, you might find that parts of the Bible might not be suited for Sunday morning as well.]

Where in the bible does it say masturbation is wrong?

Pasted from <http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060614200926AAwDBYb>

There is a saying that every time you masturbate God kills a kitten. Is this really how people view Christian's view of masturbation? I am concerned that non-Christians and Christians have bought the idea that this is an important issue. I am not one to simple accept something as true just because an authority, even a church leader, says it is so. I believe God gave me reason and that I should use it. My head is not a hat rack.

To look at this issue the first question one must ask is does the Bible even speaks to the subject? Once that is done you can have meaningful dialogue concerning whether it is right or wrong. The most sited verse as a prohibition of masturbation is Genesis 38:6-10.

Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.

But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the Lord's sight; so the Lord put him to death.

Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."

But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.

What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so he put him to death also.

Genesis - Chapter 38:6-10

New International Version (NIV)

What was Onan's sin?

Judah son Er was next in line for inheritance. After he died without an heir of his own, the inheritance would have gone to the next in line. Next in line was Judah's second son was Onan. As custom, if a man died without an heir another male family member would give him an heir. If Onan would have impregnated Tamar and gave his brother an heir; he would not get his father's inheritance. In his self-interest, he tried to make sure his sister-in-law would not have an heir.

Onan's sin was disobedience and selfishness. The application of disobedience and selfishness was to spill his seed on the ground. The motive was selfishness and greed the action was spilling the seed.

Does the phrase 'spilled his semen on the ground' indicate masturbation?

Note the context of the phrase, 'whenever he lay with his brother's wife.' This indicates that he did have intercourse with his sister-in-law. The question here is does masturbation best fit the meaning in context. I have never heard of anyone using masturbation as a means of birth control. It is a real stretch to say that masturbation is the means of birth control being described. However, the withdrawal (pull out) method of birth control has been around for ages and fits the description given by scripture.

Using Occam's razor what is the most probable scenario with the least assumptions? Clearly the pull out or withdrawal method is what is meant.

What is the context of the verse?

The context of this passage is that it is a narrative account. Meaning that it is simplify telling a story as what happened. Like a news story, the story recounts what happened and does not state what anyone was thinking or what their motives were. To apply prescription to a narrative account is taking the scriptures out of context. Hermeneutics, the study of scriptural interpretation, requires that we apply the context of the passage when we interpret meaning.

What should be the Christian response to this question?

For Christians this is not a primary or core issue of doctrine or faith. Therefore, Christians have the liberty to disagree on this point. Christians should not be compelling other Christians to accept their conclusions as gospel. “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” St. Augustine.

By creating a prohibition out of this non-essential issue, Christians are placing a stumbling block in the way of those who might otherwise seek to the Love of Christ. Once a Christian, the Holy Spirit will help them work out their own faith in the process of sanctification.

Hits: 2161 Continue reading →

Connect

Recommended Reading