Interesting online discussion on Abortion and Personhood

Original Poster (OP)
‎"As the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade passes, it’s important to remember the both sides of the evangelical anti-abortion movement’s history. Yes, it did involve legitimate moral concerns about abortion, it did occasion serious reflection on the issue by evangelical scholars and pastors, and it did bring a formerly apolitical segment of America into the political process.

But its founding moral outrage stemmed not from Roe v. Wade, but from the prospect of government-imposed desegregation; it rest its intellectual foundation on highly dubious, non-scholarly arguments advanced by Francis Schaeffer; it mobilized lay evangelicals to action by telling them the Bible teaches something it does not actually teach; and it actively suppressed the scholarship of evangelicals who held alternative viewpoints."
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/6801/the_not_so_lofty_origins_of_the_evangelical_pro_life_movement_/

(Me)
I actually think the Bible does talk to this issue. Whether it comes from the commandment not to murder or to the judgment of the Canaanites and others who sacrifice their children to Moloch. I do not think it is an unwarranted leap to apply either to the issue of abortion. In fact, I think it rationally follows from both. Especially when you understand the context of ancient near-east cultures and their promiscuous activities needed a form of birth control. Child sacrifice being the only possible form of abortion for them. – Yes, I grant that the word ‘abortion’ is not in the Bible, neither is the word gravity, but that is not an argument against gravity or abortion.

(John)
God is Pro Life otherwise he might as well not have made Adam or Eve.

(OP)
Donald your argument assumes that the debate over abortion is a debate over whether or not we should murder people--one would which certainly would be settled by the Bible's clear prohibition of murdering people. In reality, however, the debate is over whether or not embryos or fetuses are people in the first place. Those who don't think they are (and the Bible gives no conclusive reason to think one way or another on the subject--commandments against murder are irrelevant to the question of when full moral life begins) would not find themselves guilty of supporting murder by supporting abortion.

(Me)
OP what do you mean by "people" and "full moral life"?

(OP)
I mean an entity that possesses rights, such as you or I. The debate over abortion is a debate over whether or when the embryo is an entity like that. It's not a debate over whether or not we should murder people.

(Me)
OP How or what does an entity have to do to gain those rights? Does the act of birth confer those rights?

(OP)
That's the question at the heart of the debate over abortion. And that's exactly my point. It is not a debate over whether or not we should murder people; it's a debate over whether or when the embryo has the same rights as we do.

(Me)
I think that is the problem. The debate has been moved from concrete human rights to slippery subjective personhood rights. Reframing the debate from human rights to personhood rights leaves us with the question as to who decides this subjective definition of personhood. Any definition can be challenged. For example if it was based on moral capability how could you make the argument it wrong to kill a child after birth? What is the difference in moral capability an embryo have over a new born or over someone with advance dementia? In Jewish circles and still in some Christian groups children are not seen as being morally until the age of accountability. Would we say that it is ok to take their life until that age? If not, says who? It becomes a subjective slippery slope that will change with society’s whims.

Human rights on the other had are not subjective. We as human beings recognize the inherent value of all human life regardless of arbitrary divisions. Human rights are about protecting all, regardless of what they can do for society, their race, their sexual orientation, their stage of development or disorder. We can determine with scientific accuracy that the embryo is a unique, human life. Further the embryo has not broken any laws and is also innocent. So we have an innocent, unique, living human. Don’t we as moral agents have a duty to protect innocent human beings?

(OP)
And hence you've expressed one side of the debate over whether or not the embryo has human rights. My argument here is not that the embryo does not have human rights, although I do believe that, but that the question of whether it does (a question which the bible does not answer) is at the heart of the debate over abortion--not the question of whether or not murder is permissible (a question which the bible does answer).

(John)
God said he knew us before we were in our mothers womb. That settles it for Christians on whether it is life or not. Unless your one of those pick and choose Christians when it comes to Gods word.

(OP)
That verse was not widely interpreted as teaching when life begins until around 1980, when the evangelical Right emerged. Probably because 1) it's a poetic reflection on God's foreknowledge, not a treatise on personhood and 2) it says that God knew us before we were in the womb. On your reading, shouldn't we then conclude that life begins before conception?

So no, the Bible does not answer the question, despite the very recent, politically-motivated efforts to suggest otherwise.

(John)
Yes life was already here when he spoke it here. I dont try to figure out every single thing with my own thoughts. I let the Holy Spirit guide me into all truth and wisdom of Gods word. His word changed my life 5yrs ago and continues to everyday. Thank You Jesus!!

(John)
When you speak politically are you talking about the morons up in Washington, The ones who use God to get votes or the other ones who mock God. Well I dont pay one bit attention to anything them liars spew from their greedy evil mouths. The President included with them.

(Me)
By definition an embryo is a human and thus has human rights.

(Me)
The Bible is silent about nuclear war. Yet I think any rational person using the precepts of the Bible can come to the conclusion that it is wrong and violates God’s created order. Likewise, abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. The Bible not speaking to the issue directly is to be expected. If the Bible said abortion was wrong the original readers would not understand the context and that portion of the Bible would be meaningless to thousands of years of readers. Yet we can take the precepts of the Bible and natures witness to God’s created order (science) and come to the conclusion that in fact it is a human being, that it is unique from the mother and father, that it is innocent and that it is alive. God’s created order is that we use sex for reproduction and abortion violates the God ordained outcome.

(Me)
OP are you saying that even though the Bible does not speak directly about a recent medical procedure, you think that God should have included it in the Bible 3500 years ago, if He really thought it was wrong?

(OP)
Your getting your conclusions there from catholic natural law theology, not science. Science cannot prove that the embryo is a human being since the category "human being" is defined by moral and philosophical criteria as much as by scientific ones. And you're forgetting that abortion has in fact been practiced for thousands of years, including at the time the Bible was written.

(Me)
1.) I am not getting the definition from catholic natural law theory. I am using a Biological definition of what a Human being is.

Let me explain my point including more explicit references to the biology that is pertinent. First, the embryo is unique from the mother and the father, the child has a unique DNA sequence from the parents. Second, the DNA of the embryo is not that of a baboon or mushroom, it is human DNA. Third, is it growing (reproducing on a cellular level) and metabolizing the definition of biological life. We can even determine there is brain activity before the child is born. As far as we can tell all humans share a certain sequence of DNA that makes them Human and there are variations that uniquely identify the particular person from other people. I don’t need natural law to make my case. The only other premise I had was that the child was innocent. Generally, you need to prove guilt, otherwise innocence is presumed.

What cannot be defined scientifically is personhood as you have defined it. How would you define ‘full moral life’ scientifically? It can’t be done.
(Me)
2.) What specific evidence is there that ancient cultures performed abortions, other than death by exposure and sacrifice? Both of which are infanticide and morally on the same level. I spoke to this issue earlier as the Bible does say God finds infanticide detestable.

(OP)
The criteria you set forth for defining the category "human being" depend on philosophical assumptions about the nature of humans. I could just as easily assert a list of empirically verifiable features and say they characterize the nature of persons, such as the presence of a neocortex. Why a set of criteria should define a category like "human being" or "person" is determined by philosophy, not science.

As to the history of abortion, here's one place to start: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

(Me)
OP The article you cited about abortion in the past uses a very broad definition for abortion and merely restates the type of activity I already mentioned that is not technically abortion in today’s use of the word but miscarriage or other forms of infanticide. For example in the cited article they equate the Code of Hammurabi’s “miscarriage through assault” as abortion.

So if you maintain the broad definition for abortion (as in the website you cited) in order to prove it has been done in Biblical times then the Bible does speak directly to the issue. If not, then abortion is not in the Bible because it is to narrow a definition and not something the readers could have related too.

(OP)
What you really mean is that we define infanticide to extended to unborn life then the Bible condemns abortion. But to do that is to assume the fetus is a person, the very question we are debating. #circularreasoning

(Me)
OP I think you may be missing something. I am not advocating the position that the Bible speaks directly to the issue, only that ‘your’ reference uses a broad of a definition for abortion. If you find it circular, then you should not reference it. ;-)

My claim is that we are taking the life of an innocent human being and that using the precepts of the Bible come to the rational conclusion that abortion is wrong in God’s eyes. I don’t claim the fetus is a ‘person,’ I think that is an ambiguous and arbitrary term. I think the fetus is an innocent ‘human being’.

The difference is a human being is something you are and a person is something you can do. Any being that qualifies as a "person" has to meet a set of criteria to gain rights. In fact, scientists claim that dolphins qualify as a “person” under the same set of criteria. However unborn and even newborns don’t qualify as persons under this criterion. This same a linguistic sleight of hand has been used in the past to exclude some humans from right from African America slaves in the US to Jews in Germany.

(OP)
The claim that the embryo is a human being is a philosophical one, just as much as the claim that it is a person, as the category cannot fully be defined by science. It is based on criteria that exclude some entities and include others.

(Me)
OP Well we have found our area of disagreement. When I say ‘human beings,’ I mean a ‘Homo sapiens’. To me the two terms are synonymous and can be quantifiable via sciences as I have previously explained and you have not yet refuted. I don’t want to be accused of using the term inappropriately, so here are some official definitions: “human being n. A human. human being n a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child.” The medical dictionary defines human being as “human [h(y)o̅o̅′mən] Etymology: L, humanus a member of the genus Homo and particularly of the species H. sapiens.” Form a science dictionary “A member of the species Homo sapiens” Based on the official definition and how I use the term ‘human being’ it is a question science can answer simply based on a DNA test. Therefore, it is not a philosophical question.

I believe the Bible supports this definition. The Bible uses adam as the term for all human beings. Sometimes translated ‘man’ it is used in the same way we often use the male specific term to mean all human beings. I don’t think this is a just happenstance. The Bible often sees all humans as an extension of Adam. As his descendants we carry forth his same nature. In science we see the same thing in the parents passing on their genetic makeup to their child via conception and the process of DNA transference. I won’t press this much further other than to say it is a fair interpretation and most importantly both view “human beingsness” as innate and not subjective.

Now that I have clarified what I mean by human being you might be able to see where I am coming from. My point is you use ‘person’ as an ambiguous term, you agree it is ambiguous and think there should be debate over what it means to be a person. I think that debates on the ambiguity of a term when the rights of human beings (homo sapiens) is involved will undermine the rights of all. That is why in the past people talked of human rights and not personhood rights. Human rights being rights you do nothing to earn but are simply conferred based upon your being human (a being of inherent worth to God).

Since you and I were discussion how the Bible sees this issue I think it is important to reflect on your definition of personhood and what Biblical support you have for that definition, so that I can better understand from the Bible how you support your view of what it means to be a person.

(OP)
Donald, you are confused in several ways. First of all, if having unique human DNA not found in any other cells means an entity is a human being, then the sperm an egg would be human beings, since they also have unique DNA produced by the process of meiosis. Second, quoting a dictionary definition of human being obviously doesn't prove the category is a purely scientific one anymore than quote a dictionary definition of person. It is no more purely scientific than the category "person," as any definition of "human being" requires a particular set of criteria to be put forth (ex. unique human DNA, gathered into close proximity, a member of the human species, etc...") that depend on philosophical assumptions that are outside the realm of science. You fault personhood thinkers for setting forth a category defined by philosophical criteria than excludes some forms of human life, but "human being" is also a category defined by philosophical criteria that excludes some forms of human life. Why, for example, do you include the embryo but not the egg? Or why not cells in the human body? Both are living, may be genetically unique, are human life, and in the proper context may develop into a child. Yet you exclude these based on a category that depends on philosophical criteria, just as the personhood advocate does. My point here is not to argue for a particular definition of person, but to point out that both "human being" and "person" are philosophically-defined categories that will exclude some form of human life. The difference between them is semantics, and nothing more.

(Me)
I used my definition advisedly when I previously said ‘unique’ human person. An egg or any other cell has only the mother’s DNA, something I can test by science. (And we rely on this fact for court cases) The Embryo however has unique DNA from the mother, again something that can be determined scientifically. There is no contradiction in my argument. Again the official definitions and I do not mean that a toe nail or piece of hair is a human being simply because it has human DNA. Where I think you may be confused is I am not saying DNA = human being, what I am saying DNA can be used as a test to determine the child is unique from the mother and human. The embryo is not the mother and it is not a dog, it is a unique human being. This is scientifically proven and irrefutable. Is the DNA of the embryo unique? Does the embryo have human DNA? These are yes or no questions that science can easily answer. I can see nothing philosophical about them, they seem to be hard facts.

In this explanation, where is the philosophical criteria I am setting forth?

(OP)
You're not understanding my objection. Your assertion that whether or not an embryo is a human being is a strictly scientific question is wrong because how the category "human being" is defined is not strictly scientific. This is the structure of your argument:

1. A "human being" is an entity that is living, human, and possesses unique DNA from the mother and father. (a philosophical argument)

2. An embryo can be scientifically show to be living, human, and possessing unique DNA from the mother and father. (a scientific argument)

3. Therefore, the embryo is a human being. (a logical deduction)

#2 is true: the embryo can be shown to possess those characteristics. But #1 is a definition that is based on philosophical assumptions that not everyone shares (for example, James C. Peterson, the Chair of the Ethics division at McMaster University has an essay titled "Is a Human Embryo a Human Being?" in which he answers "no"). And it cannot be shown to be true by science. You assume without argument that 1 is true.

(Me)
Nice syllogism. If premise #1 is incorrect please show it. Appealing to authority won’t cut it, especially a professional in ethics and not one in biology. Just out of curiosity if he is correct and the embryo is not a human being what exactly is it? Is it a dog or a goat or a dolphin? Having read these arguments before I can only assume your point will be that it is different because of it’s developmental state. If so, I think there might be a categorical error. For example, a puppy is a dog at a different development stage not a different species. Both puppy and dog are Canis lupus familiaris. My argument is an embryo is a human being at a different developmental stage. A human being and a human embryo are both Homo sapiens.

My point has been we should not determine human rights based upon a subjective definition of personhood but rather on the concrete definition of let’s say Homo sapiens. This seems to be the safest approach.

I do appreciate your patience in explaining your point so that I can understand where you are coming from. I think I am still stuck because I am not sure why you object to my definition or how it is exactly different from yours. If Human being does not equal Homo sapiens, something I think is scientifically determinable at any stage of development, then what is a human being?

(OP)
I'm not appealing to authority to prove premise 1 is incorrect; I'm demonstrating that premise 1 is precisely the question being debated. Saying his opinion doesn't matter because he is not a biologist presumably discredits your opinion as well, in addition to being absurd. On the other hand, I do have advanced training in human biology; I'll have an M.D. from Johns Hopkins in a few months. Does that mean I'm right and you are wrong?

The question under debate here is: Does the embryo belong to a category--whether you call it person or human being is irrelevant--that gives it moral value? You enter the debate assuming without argument that it does and then proceeding with your argument on the basis of that assumption, thus engaging in circular reasoning. Your definition of human being is just as subjective as any definition of person is. And here's one problem with it: if your criteria for human being is "living, human, and possessing unique DNA from the mother and father," a definition you agreed with, then Hydatidaform moles--tumors that form from embryos--are human beings. And homo sapiens is just another word for human being, so substituting that word in does nothing to solve the problem.

(Me)
One of my points has been that we disagree on definitions, I don’t believe that human being = person. I believe the definition of human being is self evident and I use DNA to prove scientifically one point that it is unique human from the mother. I think the DNA can confirm the self evident nature of my premise and gives us a concrete way to confirm and thus not circular.

However, you avoid answer the question, what do you think a human embryo is if it is not a human being?

(OP)
Well that settles it then! Here we have this enormous debate raging among philosophers as to whether the embryo is a human being and here you come, with what credentials I'm not sure, saying the answer is self-evident! Because it has human DNA!

There's really no more to discuss at that point, other than noting that by that criterion every cell in the human body is a human being. I personally think the embryo is human life (as are all cells in the human body) but that it is special because it has the potential to become a human being, giving it an increasing amount of moral value as development proceeds in the womb.

 It should be noted though that the majority of embryos (over 50%) spontaneously miscarry and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow. Since you believe embryos have the same moral worth as children, I'd be curious to know what you think about the fact that those who share your position, and presumably you yourself, evince no concern at all about studying and trying to address what would be the number 1 killer in history.

Or to pose another question--your position that embryos are humans requires you to believe that abortion in America is an atrocity with nearly ten times the lives lost as the Holocaust. And you think voting for Republicans and debating people online is a proportional and adequate response to a holocaust that has continued unabated for 40 years? To the slaughter of tens of millions of people?

(Me)
Obviously the question is not settled. There are philosophers, ethicist, biologists and medical doctors on both sides of this debate. I have read from both sides and I think we should be able to follow the logic to the most rational conclusion simply based on the logic and not the credentials of the proponent of the view.

We are going in circles on the DNA issue. If I cut my finger off, I would not call the finger a human being. Yes it would have Human DNA but it is only a part of a Human being, or was if I cut it off. By self-evident I mean no one in their right mind would look at the finger and say look at the human being.

Here is a better explanation of the categorical error. When I use the term human being I mean to differentiate the being from a dog, cat, elephant or even dolphin. The term then seeks to differentiate an animal by the category of species. When I use the word embryo, adult, child, adolescent, or senior I mean to differentiate by the category of development of the being. You seem to be using the species category term of human being to apply it to a development level of a being to come up with moral worth definition.

I mentioned dolphin’s because there are those today who argue that dolphins are persons such as Thomas White, philosopher at Loyola Marymount University, who made the argument that dolphins aren't merely like people; they may actually be people, or he calls them, "nonhuman persons." His use of the term "nonhuman persons," seems to indicate the same categorical understanding I have and yet he would agree with you on the moral worth distinction for “person.”

Sorry, I am not a Republican and I don’t vote party line. I am curious where I could find your definition of person in the Bible. The Bible address philosophy and you say human being (person) is a philosophical question, so there must be something there. Even more curious to me is, do you think that God finds abortion morally good, bad or neutral?

(Chuck)
Autobiographical point: I became pro-life in the 1970's before it was the consensus among evangelicals, and it was a Catholic who convinced me. I had not read Schaeffer. My point is that evangelicals entered the pro-life fold for a variety of reasons -- including philosophical. Perhaps several leaders on the Right joined the fold for the reasons mentioned in this article, but that is a historic curiosity and doesn't address the merits of the argument. The statement "with what credentials I'm not sure" strikes me as strange at best. We don't need credentials to render an opinion on this subject. No matter what his credentials are, Donald Hester's argument that the embryo is composed of human DNA is powerful. It seems to me that any doubt should favor the preservation of the embryonic life. Concerning the reference to the spontaneous miscarriage of 50% of all embryos, we should remind ourselves that a similar figure applied to the death of children in previous centuries. No reasonable person used that as justification for taking their life.

(OP)
Yes but they would use that as a justification to try to save those lives, something which those who believe life begins at conception show no concern about. And again, if simply having human DNA makes something a human being, then every cell in our bodies is a human being. I only bring up credentials because Dinald had earlier summarily dismissed the opinion of a respected bioethicist because that person was not a biologist.

(Me)
I am not sure how you know I have no concern for miscarriages. My wife and I lost our first child to a miscarriage, while not as emotionally taxing as having lost a child of let say a 10 year old, it was still a loss we mourned. That being said there is a difference between miscarriage and abortion in that one is intentional (a moral decision is made) verse something that is accidental.

My argument is NOT that DNA = human being. My argument is DNA can show the embryo is a human being without the need to appeal to philosophy. With DNA we can determine that 1.) An embryo is a human being and 2.) Distinct from the mother.

My other argument is the term ‘Human Being’ does not mean a development stage or moral value judgment on a life. Human being in the colloquial use and technical definition is a determination of species of animal.

It may have seemed like I was dismissing the credential, for that I apologize. What I was attempting to do was demonstrate the ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy. In my subsequent comments I clarified that no matter what an expert says we should be able to follow the logic of their arguments to determine the rationality of their claim.

BTW OP I appreciate your time in explaining your position. Through this discussion I think I better clarified my position. I also think it is important for people on both sides of this issue to discuss it without the tempers, accusations, malice, or divisiveness.

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.

Same-sex Marriage Debate on Facebook

This is the discussion I had with Matt (not his or her real name) on Facebook on the issue of same-sex marriage. Matt had commented on a meme (info graphic that ridicules) that mischaracterized the Christian perspective and had commented that Christians had been PWND (owned). What follows is our discussion minus the other random comments from others not invested in the discussion.

My Comment:
“I have to admit it is a good rhetorical strategy to take things out of context and misrepresent the other view. Although I would not say anyone is PWND simply with empty rhetoric.”

Matt’s Comment:
“@Donald - As an honest, non-rhetorical question, what's being taken out of context here? The root of this photo (and similar items like it) seems to be that some fundamentalist Christians are selectively choosing what parts of scripture they will ignore, and which parts they will not. When I was growing up my family was stricter than most (we would not eat anything with cloven hoofs or shells, and let's just say that the sunset to sunset observation of the Sabbath was rough on the kids) but we never made our womenfolk cover their heads, and we never stoned anyone for adultery. In the US today it is not uncommon for politicians and religious leaders to use the Bible as a justification for denying rights and legal protection to homosexuals. If this part of the Bible is appropriate for modern times, what makes it different from the parts which those same politicians and religious leaders choose to ignore?”

My Reply:
“@Matt - I am not a Christina Fundamentalist nor do I play one on TV, so I really can’t speak for them. However, I see that context is the problem. People take texts from the Bible out of context and assume either that Christians support crazy ideas like those portrayed by graphics like this or they are ignoring certain texts. Careful Christian scholars are not selectively ignoring passages in the Bible, they are taking into account the broader context. (e.g. historical, socio-political, geographical, cultural, linguistic / grammatical, theological, and broader biblical context). My point is the graphic misrepresent their position, thereby creating a straw man they can call a hypocrite. (I didn’t even mentioning the problems with the first post or the logical contradictions in the reply. Note that there are problems on both sides. I even take issues with the original post.)

The Christian fundamentalist may very well be wrong, but this line of shallow rhetoric only deepens the divide. I think a better and more reasonable argument for replier can be made from the framework of the fundamentalist position without the need for emotional appeals. This would then create meaningful dialogue instead of hostility. Of course people on both sides of the debate would have to do their homework and discuss the issues with mutual respect and tolerance. (Note: tolerance means respecting someone’s opinion without acceptance; to disagree without being disagreeable) I guess it is easier to cast the proverbial stone then to take time to understand the complexities of the issue from both sides.

Unfortunately, well thought out ideas cannot fit into a sound bite and most people can’t focus long enough or are unwilling to spend the time to understand them. Obviously if you have read this far, then this would not be a criticism of you (the reader). ;-)
Coincidentally, I often call BS on both sides. Either the reaction is “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up” or it is the far better “yes we need more civil discourse on this issue.”

To PWN someone with an emotional argument or attacking a straw man is not really a great victory. To defeating their arguments with sound reasons may not be as ostentatious as with empty rhetoric, but it is much more intellectually satisfying.”

Matt:
“Well said, and thank you for the thoughtful response. I would love to see deeper and more meaningful discourse all around here. When I look at the public discourse I see the conversation shown here on a micro scale, simply expanded to the macro scale. I have homosexual friends who have been in loving, committed relationships for longer than my wife and I have (we've been together for 20 years, and married for 16) and I have seen those friends suffer and struggle because our laws deny them the benefits and protections that my wife and I have been able to take for granted. When I see Christian scripture used to justify this inequality and discrimination, it baffles, saddens and angers me.

I'm interested in your take on whether "careful Christian scholars" are those who want to perpetuate the status quo. My interpretation is that the strictures against homosexuality are made as invalid by changes in the factors you list as are the dietary and/or fashion strictures, but I don't claim to be either careful or a scholar.”

Me:
We are in agreement, we need more thoughtful discourse. I would say that a carful Christian scholar is one that reads the Bible applies the appropriate interpretation methodology (hermeneutics) and from there derives their theology. What can happen is the theology is presupposed and applied to the text. This would then take passages out of context.

I can’t say that a carful Christian scholar will not see homosexuality as morally wrong. There are those who do debate this within the Church. Some see it as morally wrong and others that it is no different from the dietary restrictions and cleanliness laws of the Old Testament that were later removed in the New. (I want to be careful to limit this to a Christian view of the Old Testament; a Jewish view would be quite different.) I don’t know that I am careful enough to make a theologically sound argument either way.

What I can say is this, that some Christians treat homosexuality as the greatest of all abominations. I would argue that they are wrong (this would be more of an in-house debate between Christians). Even if it is morally wrong there is a much more complex issue at hand.

1. What role should Christian’s or anyone else’s moralities play in a participative government in a pluralistic society?
2. Whose morality should be used as the basis for law? Many people don’t know that not only can you legislate morality but it is actually the only thing you can legislate.
3. How do we protect people’s right to practice their beliefs? Don’t force your beliefs on me but I am going to force mine on you.
4. What role does and should the government play in marriage? Why have the Government involved at all?
5. Is this a civil rights issue? The government sees marriage is a licensed privilege not a right even in current legal marriages. This then gets into the issue of genetics, polygamy etc…
6. Domestic partnerships and equivalency
7. For the Christians, if government recognizes the marriage does that mean God has too or does?

The list goes on. I hope my point is clear that it is much more complex than most people get.

If we had to distill it down to one issue I would say the issue come down to acceptance. If you boil it all down to the real reasons I think homosexuals want acceptance and they won’t feel accepted until everyone accepts them the way they want to be accepted. (Good luck with that emotional desire.) I think everything else is smoke and mirrors for what is seen as a good cause. I admit I could be wrong. On the other side I think Christians fear they will be forced to accept something that is morally wrong for them and that homosexuals will cause their children to be homosexual. I don’t know that the fear is unfounded or not. Unfounded or not, I don’t think the current response of some Christians is helpful.

I went with my brothers and children to see The Amazing Spider-Man, this 4th of July. If you remember that Marvel/Stan Lee has done a number of reinterpretations of Spider-Man over the years, you won’t be surprised with this movie. This movie is not Spider-Man 4. It is much like the alternate timeline in the new Star Trek movies or the new Batman series. (Although the new Star Trek does have continuity with the old as an alternate time line that Batman and Spider-Man do not have.) This Spider-Man is a bit cockier than his alternate and he has mechanical webs (as in cartoon and comics) and not biological webs (as in the last 3 movies and some comics). Most people tell me they prefer the mechanical web. I like either type of web; in fact, I liked the previous movies and this one as well.

The moral of the movie was a bit different than the previous movies; however, the theme is still responsibility. If you remember form the previous movies the moral was “With great power comes great responsibility.” In this movie it is “If you can do good, it is not a choice, it is your responsibility.” There are subtle and interesting differences between the two. The movie plays heavy on the ethics of Transhumanism as well. This movie is a treasure trove to draw upon for philosophical, moral, and ethical discussions.

Finally, the cinematography was outstanding. There were a number of times, more than in most movies, where a still of the screen would be an awesome and powerful picture. We saw the movie in IMAX 3-D and it was well done. I give this movie 5 out of 5.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0948470/

Buddhism and Christianity On Pain and Suffering

Introduction

There are many religions and many views of what life is like in the world today. Some of the differences in these views of the meaning and purpose of life make it difficult to find common ground in which a person can communicate with people who hold views that are different from our own. The cultural divide can be, especially, wide between Eastern and Western religions. Any common ground between these religions or philosophical systems becomes a bridge of understanding and aids in communication between people of different religions. Now, there is one universal experience for all humans and that is pain and suffering. The idea of pain and suffering is, universally, understood to be a part of life. This seems, to me, to be a great bridge between different religions, cultures or views of life.

In this paper, I plan to compare Buddhist and Christian worldviews on the question of pain and suffering. My hope is this will lead to great dialogue between Christians and Buddhists and, hopefully, will lead to great understanding of Buddhism for Christians and Christianity for Buddhists. I will describe the Buddhist worldview answers to the questions of pain and suffering, its source, and its solution. I will then describe the Christian worldview answers to the questions of pain and suffering, its source, and its solution. Finally, I will compare the two worldviews and see if I can draw out any similarities or differences.

Before we begin such a task as comparing two different worldviews,[1] it is important to remember that there is a danger of distorting or oversimplifying a worldview by unreflectively importing assumptions, frameworks, and biases.[2] This is especially true for Buddhism. As David Wong Professor of Philosophy at Duke University put it, “However, Buddhism may have especially challenging implications for Western ethics in its special emphasis on the elimination of suffering and on the way it explains suffering by referring to the human attachment to self as fixed ego entity.”[3] Because we have all seen and experienced pain and suffering in our lives, I think this is a worthwhile area of study. Challenges aside, there is much to be gained by this endeavor. If we do not explore the ‘possibility space’, how can we, truly, have an appreciation for the depth of the question of pain and suffering? I however, do see some similarities and some key differences. The question I find most useful is; which worldview has the best explanatory power for the world we live in?

Buddhism and Pain and Suffering

Before I begin to explain how Buddhism views pain and suffering (dukkha), I first must note that there are many schools of thought within Buddhism and it is beyond the scope of this paper to call out all the nuances within Buddhism on this question. Second, it is important to understand that that the problem of pain and suffering in Buddhism is rooted in the teaching of karma (kamma) that is shared in various forms with other eastern religions such as Hinduism and Jainism. The concept of karma has also made its way to the west in various fashions and belief systems. Finally, please note that, in order to make the best representation of Buddhism, I have relied upon Buddhist authors. This will help develop an accurate picture of Buddhist thought.

Buddhism is a worldview of liberation from pain and suffering. In fact, Buddhism’s central teaching, the Four Noble Truths, is about pain and suffering. The Dalai Lama explains the Four Noble truths this way, “As most of you might know, these Four Truths are the truth of suffering, the truth of the origin of suffering, the truth of the cessation of suffering, and the truth of the path leading to this cessation.”[4]

The first of the Four Noble Truths tells us that pain and suffering exist. This is something that we sense in our lives. We know something is wrong, amiss or not in harmony. To compound the problem, we know there is a problem but we really don’t know what it is or what we should do about it.[5] The first Noble Truth, "The noble truth that is suffering",[6] tells us that we long for something; we feel pain, loss and suffering. This ongoing and profound dissatisfaction is the first truth.[7] For Buddhism, ignorance is the root cause of our cyclic existence[8]. In the first Noble truth we have a realization of our problem. This realization begins our journey from ignorance to enlightenment or self-awakening.

The second Noble Truth, "The noble truth that is the arising of suffering,”[9] means that it is imperative for us to recognize that our dissatisfaction originates with us.[10] In Buddhism, evil or suffering is not something external to us;[11] it is in us and originates in us.

Our own ignorance…gives rise to attachment; an attitude that exaggerates the good qualities of people and things or superimposes good qualities that are not there and then clings to those people or things, thinking they will bring us real happiness. When things do not work out as we expected or wished they would, or when something interferes with our happiness, we become angry.[12]

It is our desire or attachment that originates in our mind that is the root cause of our pain and suffering. For Buddhists, the root cause is our own ignorant and undisciplined state of mind.[13]

The Third Noble Truth, "The noble truth that is the end of suffering,” recognizes there is a cessation of suffering. The Dalai Lama puts it this way: “The happiness we seek, a genuine lasting peace and happiness can be attained only through the purification of our minds. This is possible if we cut the root cause of all suffering and misery – our fundamental ignorance. This freedom from suffering.”

The Fourth Noble Truth is the path that we need to follow to end suffering. This path is called the Eightfold Path. The goal of the Eightfold path helps us to clarify our mind by developing insight into the true nature of phenomena (or reality) and to eradicate greed, aversion (hatred), and delusion. The Eightfold Path or eight factors are divided into three divisions as seen in the diagram below.

The Dalia Lama explains the three divisions in this way:

When we engage in the practice of morality, we lay the foundation for mental and spiritual development. When we engage in the complementary practice of concentration, we make the mind serviceable for and receptive to this higher purpose and prepare the mind for subsequent higher training in insight, or wisdom. …Then, on the basis of a very stable mind, you can generate genuine insight into the ultimate nature of reality.[14]

Our existance is a cycle of life, death, rebirth or reincarnation until we reach a state of true happiness called Nirvana (Nibbana). “This repetitious process goes on endlessly unless one arrives at 'Right View' and makes a firm resolve to follow the Noble Path which produces the ultimate happiness of Nibbana.”[15]

The cycle of rebirth is governed by the law of Karma (kamma). In the Western world, karma is often seen as a universal justice system or even as fate. However, this is a crude approximation of the law of karma. In Buddhism, there is no God to direct karma to reward some people and punish others. It is just cause and effect. Thich Nhat Hanh puts it this way, “Every time you produce a thought, that thought is a continuation. That thought will have effects on us, on our body, our mind, and on the world. The effect of that thought is our continuation. Producing a thought is the cause; the effect is how that thought impacts us and the world.”[16] As you can see, the seeds of karma start with our thoughts and those thoughts affect the world we live in. Hanh continues, “That thought will have an effect on our mental and physical health and on the health of the world. And that health, good or bad, is the fruit of the karma, the fruit of the thought.”[17]

Because Buddhism in concerned with our thoughts, it is important that the motivation of our actions is much more important than the actions themselves. Intention is the essence of the law of karma; it is the motivating force behind karma.[18] Our thoughts are the root of our actions and they are the root of greed, aversion (hatred), and delusion.

Our thoughts and actions will create karma. Karma is best understood as the law of cause and effect. In the west, we will often talk about good and bad karma; however, it is not that simple. In the terms of karma our actions are either kusala (skillful) or akusala (unskillful).[19] Kusala is often translated as “good”, but a better translation would be skillful, beneficial, wholesome or more precisely ‘that which removes affliction’. Akusala which is often translated as “evil” is better translated unskillful, unintelligent or more precisely ‘that which invites affliction’. Both kusala and akusala arise in the mind and then become eternalized by action.[20] In a way, the best understanding is kusala thoughts start a chain of cause and effect that move you away from pain and suffering and toward nirvana while akusala thoughts start a chain of cause and effect move you toward pain and suffering and away from nirvana.

In Buddhism, karma is a natural law that governs the cycle of rebirth. Ultimately, there is just action and reaction; cause and effect. Simply put, the law of cause and effect will govern how you progress toward or away from pain and suffering. People who understand this natural law of cause and effect are often called a "dhammic" person, which is often translated as "righteous". Now, the result may seem like "reward" and "punishment" however, it is simply the fruit of our volitional actions.[21]

"By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." (Dhammapada, chapter 12, verse 165)

Christianity and Pain and Suffering

Like Buddhism, the answer to why we have pain and suffering in the world varies amongst Christians. Volumes have been written on the differences between Christian understandings to this question. For this paper, however, I am limiting this to the most often cited answers.

To start with some background, a Christian person’s life is to love God. Freedom to love necessitates a choice. Man was created to have a choice to love and serve God; sin (evil) is a rejection of this. The choices we make not to love and serve God then are the source of our pain and suffering. This wrong choice then, is the source of the problem of pain and suffering for Christians.

Form the Christian point of view, pain and suffering is caused by evil; either directly or indirectly. Moral evil, or evil performed by other moral beings, would be direct evil. This evil is when another person causes the pain and suffering of another. Indirect evil is like natural evil. Natural evil is pain and suffering caused without volitional intent, such as an earthquake or tsunami. The Christian view is this evil is indirect in that its root cause is from the fall (initial choice) of mankind.

The Christian view of evil is that “evil does not just exist, it happens.”[22] Augustine, in Confessions, defined evil as “a privation of good, even to the point of complete non-entity.”[23] What this means is that “evil is not a being, thing, substance or entity…evil is real, but not a real thing.”[24] It is as if good was light and evil was darkness. Darkness is not a thing but, rather, it is the absence of light. In the same way, evil is the absence of true good. If evil is the source of pain and suffering, what is then the source of evil?

Because evil is the absence of good, the source of evil is our free will to choose evil over good. From the Christian view, God created man and woman and gave them a free will, or the ability to choose. Often, critics would counter with, why did God give them a choice if they could choose evil? The counter-question is how could anyone love if it were not possible not to love? How could people love God if they did not have a choice to not love? C. S. Lewis put it this way, “their freedom is simply that of making a single choice - of loving God more than self or the self more than God.”[25] Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga sums up the situation this way, “to create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He [God] must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so.”[26] Without this freedom to do evil we would no longer be human. Kreeft and Tacelli explain what would happen if we didn’t have freedom to choose, “free will is part of our essence. There can be no human being without it. The alternative to free will is not being a human but an animal or machine.”[27]

Pain and suffering then originate with our free will and our choices. However, freedom to choose is not the problem; the problem is when we choose the evil over the good, when we choose hate over love. With this freedom of choice we can choose to love. James Spiegel describes the benefits of our freedom this way, “The ultimate good for which such autonomy is a critical means in genuine loving relationships between persons, whether between humans or between God and humans.”[28] Without choice it would be impossible to understand or know love. “Even omnipotence could not have created a world in which there was genuine human freedom and yet no possibility of sin, for our freedom incudes the possibility of sin within its own meaning.”[29]

Christians will agree that just as it is logically impossible for God to create a square circle likewise, He cannot create the possibility of good and love without the possibility of evil and hatred. This seems like a difficult situation for God. God had to give us a freedom but that freedom means that we can choose poorly. However, God is not left in a difficult situation; He can use the evil in the world to bring about good. Spiegel observes, “There are greater moral goods to be achieved in this way than could ever be achieved by God’s simply giving them to us in creation.”[30] This may not make sense until you consider how you would learn forgiveness, a good, without having been wrong. Spiegel notes, “There are numerous moral virtues that cannot be achieved except by struggling against or in the midst of evil. These ‘second-order’ goods include patience, courage, sympathy, forgiveness, mercy, perseverance, overcoming temptation, and much greater versions of faith, hope, love and friendship.”[31] This view that God teaches us through our experiences is called soul-making.

The Christian view of pain and suffering includes the concept that we do not suffer alone, nor does God avoid pain and suffering for Himself. Kenneth Sample relates his experience with pain and suffering like this:

My experiences with suffering have caused me to appreciate even more the great historic Christian truth-claim that Jesus Christ took on human flesh in order to suffer with human beings and for us receptively on the cross. God, therefore, is acquainted with evil, pain, and suffering and has a greater good to accomplish through them.[32]

In the Christian view, God takes pain and suffering in the world, a necessary consequence for love, and uses it for good. C. S. Lewis sees this as a means for God to speak to us through or pain. "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."[33] For C. S. Lewis, pain and suffering is a means to an end.

For Christians, there is an end to pain and suffering. The end does not come in this life, but in the life to come. However, in this life, Christians can start to view their life’s experiences from a new perspective. For Christians, the life we live now is but a temporary ‘boot camp’ where we learn valuable lessons like how to forgive and how to love. It is not until the boot camp is over do we truly appreciate the difficult and often painful lessons we learned. Christians often call this an eternal perspective, the view from outside of our current time and lives, looking in from our future homes. The future home for Christians is with God in heaven a state of liberation from pain and suffering.

For those who do not choose heaven, a gift from God, they will receive their desire as well. C. S. Lewis puts it this way, “They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free”[34] In summary, for Christians hell is liberation from God and heaven is liberation from pain and suffering.

Comparison of Buddhism and Christianity on Pain and Suffering

In researching this paper, I have found a number of similarities or bridges of understanding between the Buddhist and Christian worldviews. First, I noticed that both worldviews recognize that things are not the way they ought to be. They both understand that pain and suffering is not the ideal or true existence. For Buddhists, the ultimate end, Nirvana, is liberation of pain and suffering. Likewise for Christians, the ultimate end, heaven, is also liberation from pain and suffering.

Another similarity I found was in the concept that the source of our pain and suffering starts within us. I found it curious that many Buddhists believe Christians see evil as an external force.[35] The Christian view is, evil ultimately comes from us and any perceived external force of evil is coming from within other moral agents. It seems that Buddhism and Christianity both see that the source of pain and suffering in this life come from within us and from our choices.

In life, we seem to experience that our thoughts often lead to actions and those actions often cause pain and suffering. Both Buddhism and Christianity agree that much of the pain and suffering we experience in life come from thoughts that lead to actions. Those actions then cause us or others pain and suffering. I think that it is significant that Christianity and Buddhism, in concept, see us and our choices as one of the causes of pain and suffering.

We often experience pain and suffering that is not a result of another person or our choices. Often, people have pain and suffering from external natural events such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. Thus, in life, it seems that all pain and suffering is a result of our choices; some pain and suffering seems to be, in one way or another, not related to our direct choices. According to the Pali Canon, there are overt and covert dangers. Overt dangers, which seem to equate to natural causes of pain and suffering, are not based upon people’s individual choices. Covert dangers are those that equate to choices made by the individual.[36] The Christian worldview recognizes the same phenomena and divides the source of pain and suffering into moral evil and natural evil.[37] Moral evil is rooted in the direct actions or inactions of ourselves or others. Natural evil is seen as the consequence of indirect moral evil.[38] This concept starts with the Bible’s account of how people chose to disobey God and then man and creation then entered into a fallen state.[39] This fall was a fall from the perfection in which it was created.

In these two worldviews, there are similarities and differences in pain and suffering that afflicts the seemingly innocent from events outside of their control. For Buddhism, these events are dangers that may lead you to have akusala thoughts. For Buddhism, it is important to not let bad things that happen to you control your thoughts and rob you of an inner happiness. Our reaction to negative events in our lives is seen in much the same light for the Christian worldview. Christian theologian Chuck Swindoll said it best:

The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes.[40]

Where these two world views take a deep departure is in the solution or how we can reach an end to pain and suffering. Simply put, for the Buddhist, the end of suffering and pain comes from as the Dalai Lama puts it, “freedom and liberation can only be achieved when our fundamental ignorance, our habitual misapprehension of the nature of reality, is totally overcome.”[41] For Buddhists, overcoming ignorance is not an easy task. “You must bear in mind that the attainment of enlightenment is not an easy task. It requires time, will, and perseverance.”[42]

To summarize, when we engage in the practice of morality, we lay the foundation for mental and spiritual development. When we engage in the complementary practice of concentration, we make the mind serviceable for and receptive to this higher purpose and prepare the mind for subsequent higher training in insight, or wisdom. With the faculty of single-pointedness that arises from concentration, we are able to channel all of our attention and mental energy towards a chosen object. Then, on the basis of a very stable state of mind, you can generate genuine insight into the ultimate nature of reality.[43]

As you can see the, Buddhist solution is to clear our minds to allow ourselves to become enlightened. Herein lies the biggest difference between the Buddhist and Christian worldviews.

The Christian worldview differs in that it claims we cannot reach liberation from pain and suffering on our own. The Christian worldview claims that man has fallen and cannot do anything to regain what we have lost. God, therefore, had to provide a solution for man. God’s love was demonstrated when He became a man and took on our pain and suffering for us; to provide a way for us to choose, once again, to follow God and reciprocate His love. Ultimately, the Christian view rests on choice. A wrong choice lead to the evil, pain, and suffering we all currently experience. God has given us a type of second chance, however, unlike the Buddhist, view we don’t get endless “do-overs”. We have this life to make our choice. Either we chose to follow and love God and be with Him forever or we chose eternal separation from God.

Conclusion

What we see here with these two worldviews is a bit of agreement that pain and suffering are caused by us. We see that when our thoughts, choices and actions are out of sync with what they should be, we create pain and suffering. These worldviews even agree that our attitude and how we react to events in our lives plays an important role. Finally, both agree that our ultimate end, either Heaven or Nirvana, will be liberation from pain and suffering. I see these areas of commonality as a great opportunity to create dialogue between two very different worldviews. I think greater understanding for those with either worldview of the other worldview will benefit.

Where these worldviews disagree sharply is how one reaches that end. We all want an end to pain and suffering. Ultimately, we all must choose an answer to the question. Knowing how others find answers to life’s pain and suffering and being able to see which worldview has the best explanation for what we know from our experiences in life and in our hearts, becomes an opportunity for dialogue about how one finally solves the issue of pain and suffering.

End Notes
1 Note here that I did not use the word “religion.” Alan Watts a British philosopher, best known for popularizing Eastern philosophy for a Western audience criticizes Westerners for calling Buddhism a religion and then trying to compare it to the Christian religion. While we may not be able to compare them as religions we can compare them as worldviews. Alan Watts, Buddhism And Christianity, YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV7FLlRmuf0 (accessed May 19, 2012).
2 David Wong. “Comparative Philosophy: Chinese and Western.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (October 1, 2009). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comparphil-chiwes/ (accessed May 3, 2012).
3 David Wong. “Comparative Philosophy: Chinese and Western.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (October 1, 2009). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comparphil-chiwes/ (accessed May 3, 2012).
4 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) location 220.
5 Steve Hagen. Buddhism Plain and Simple, Kindle edition (Tokyo, Broadway Books, 1998) location 210.
6 Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume One ed. Robert E. Buswell (New York, Gale/Cengage Learning Macmillan, 2004) p. 296.
7 Steve Hagen. Buddhism Plain and Simple, Kindle edition (Tokyo, Broadway Books, 1998) location 212.
8 Thubten Chodron. Buddhism for Beginners, Kindle edition (Ithaca, New York, Snow Lion Publications, 2001) location 73.
9 Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume One ed. Robert E. Buswell (New York, Gale/Cengage Learning Macmillan, 2004) p. 296.
10 Steve Hagen. Buddhism Plain and Simple, Kindle edition (Tokyo, Broadway Books, 1998) location 257.
11 Taigen Leighton. Evil in Buddhism. Mountain Source Sangha (October 6, 2001). http://www.mtsource.org/talks/evil.htm (accessed May, 3 2012).
12 Thubten Chodron. Buddhism for Beginners, Kindle edition (Ithaca, New York, Snow Lion Publications, 2001) location 75.
13 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) location 240.
14 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) location 294-296.
15 K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera. The Buddhist Concept of Heaven and Hell. BuddhaSasana. http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/whatbudbeliev/303.htm (accessed May, 20 2012).
16 Thich Nhat Hanh. Karma, Continuation, and the Noble Eightfold Path. Mindfulness Bell Magazine (August 5, 2005). http://www.mindfulnessbell.org/articles/karma1.php (accessed May, 20 2012).
17 Thich Nhat Hanh. Karma, Continuation, and the Noble Eightfold Path. Mindfulness Bell Magazine (August 5, 2005). http://www.mindfulnessbell.org/articles/karma1.php (accessed May, 20 2012).
18 Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto. Good and Evil in Buddhism. UrbanDharma.org. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/goodevil.html (accessed May 3, 2012).
19 Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto. Good and Evil in Buddhism. UrbanDharma.org http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/goodevil.html (accessed May 3, 2012).
20 Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto. Good and Evil in Buddhism. UrbanDharma.org. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/goodevil.html (accessed May 3, 2012).
21 Barbara O’Brien. Evil, Karma and Buddhism, About.com. http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/evil.htm (accessed May 3, 2012).
22 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1994) p. 126.
23 Doug Powell. Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics, (Nashville, Holman Reference, 2006) p. 334.
24 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1994) p. 132-33.
25 C. S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, (London, Harper Collins Publishers, 1940) p. 20.
26 Alvin Plantinga. God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001) Kindle Locations 342-343.
27 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1994) p. 138.
28 James S. Spiegel. “On Free Will and Soul Making, Complementary Approaches to the Problem of Evil,” Philisophia Christi vol. 13, no. 2 (2011): 407.
29 Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity Press, 1994) p. 138.
30 James S. Spiegel. “On Free Will and Soul Making, Complementary Approaches to the Problem of Evil,” Philisophia Christi vol. 13, no. 2 (2011): 407.
31 James S. Spiegel. “On Free Will and Soul Making, Complementary Approaches to the Problem of Evil,” Philisophia Christi vol. 13, no. 2 (2011): 407.
32 Kenneth R. Samples. 7 Truths That Changed the World. (Grand Rapids, BakerBooks, 2012) p. 193.
33 C. S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, (London, Harper Collins Publishers, 1940) p. 90-91.
34 C. S. Lewis. The Problem of Pain, (London, Harper Collins Publishers, 1940) p. 130.
35 Taigen Leighton. Evil in Buddhism. Mountain Source Sangha (October 6, 2001). http://www.mtsource.org/talks/evil.htm (accessed May, 3 2012).
36 Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto. Good and Evil in Buddhism. UrbanDharma.org. http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/goodevil.html (accessed May 3, 2012).
37 Note that not all Christians want to call natural evil as evil. Some reserve the term evil only for moral actions or inactions. I use the term natural evil here based upon common understanding and usage.
38 Walter A. Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1994) p. 384.
39 Or the initial choice of Adam and Eve.
40 This quote was taken from one of Chuck Swindoll’s books. I can’t seem to locate my copy to properly reference however, this is a well know quote of his.
41 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) Kindle Location 158-9.
42 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) Kindle Locations 204-205.
43 His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice, trans. Geshe Thupten Jinpa, Kindle edition (Boston, Wisdom Publications, 1995) Kindle Locations 293-297.
�

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?”

Chronicle (the Movie)

I think there is much more to this movie than meets the eye.

Spoiler Alert: Don’t read if you want to see the movie.

Storyline: Three high school friends gain telekinetic powers after making an incredible discovery of a strange object in a cave. Soon, though, they find their lives spinning out of control and their bond tested as one of them embraces his darker side.

What would happen if you gave a group of teenagers extremely strong telekinetic powers?

It depends on the teenagers. In this movie you have three very different teenagers brought together by accidently gaining telekinetic powers from an unknown source. They bond together as they learn what they can do with their powers. Steve is running for class president and is the most popular kid in school. Andrew is an unpopular misfit with a dying mother and alcoholic abusive father. Matt fits in somewhere between the two.

Andrew uses his powers and accidentally hurts someone. Matthew, his cousin, says they need to come up with rules on when and how to use the powers. I can see him quoting Uncle Ben from Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” In this situation, Matt was pleading for an moral standard.

Together they continue to learn and grow their powers. However, giving people powers that are not prepared for it can be devastating. Andrew and Steve do a magic show during the schools talent show. Andrew’s reputation changes instantly; finally, he is popular. However, Teenagers’ feelings are fickle, so when Andrew pukes on a girl at the after party, the taunting becomes worse that it was before. In addition, his father becomes more abusive as he thinks his son is up to no good. Andrew starts to feel the walls closing in.

Out of anger, Andrew accidentally kills Steve, who was trying to tell him he was still his friend. He then confronts his father and beats him up for a change. This becomes the beginning of the end, as if Andrew had tasted blood for the first time.

In a key scene to the story Andrew sits in a junk yard and crushes a car with his mind. In his internal monologue Andrew uses naturalistic evolutionary bases to explain his justification for his coming actions. His first premise is the idea that an apex predator does not feel guilt in killing inferior animals. His next premise is that he is now a superior being. His conclusion is that he then should not feel guilty if he harms others.

The final straw comes when he cannot buy medicine to ease his mother’s pain. He then rationalizes robbing people. When a robbery at a gas station goes wrong and the station explodes, Andrew ends up unconscious in the hospital. His dad comes in and tells him his mother has died and blames him because he had to go look for him that night.

Andrew snaps and the mayhem begins. Matt goes to talk to him and reason with him, but he won’t listen. The talk deteriorates to an all-out brawl. They tear the city up with their fight. In the end his anger gets the best of him, and Matt has to kill him.

You can see the materialistic naturalism based morality play out with the Judeo-Christian based objective morality being contrasted as the story progresses.[1] The self-destructive materialistic naturalism played out to it’s natural conclusion. The moral of the story: with great power comes great responsibility, and if you don’t believe you have a responsibility, you will follow self-gratification to your own destruction, leaving behind untold carnage. This is a powerful story with a powerful message.

Movie Information: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706593/

Footnote:

[1] Both materialistic naturalism and Judeo-Christian moralities are objective. I just want to point out they are both based on something rather than the relativist position where morality depends on any number of factors. Materialistic naturalism is very much like social Darwinism (social evolution). Naturalism holds that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe and not supernatural ones, i.e. God. Materialism holds that the only things that exist in the Universe are matter and energy. Morality is thus derived as a result of material interactions i.e. genetics. It follows from this that if there is no higher power, why do we have constraints on behavior? Why not live out survival of the fittest? Morality is thus objective because you are hardwired for it. Does a lion feel guilty for killing a gazelle?

On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian view is that morality comes from the Creator. Especially in Christian doctrine, every person was created in the image of God (Imago Dei) and thus has value. It follows then that killing of people is wrong because there is a command not to from God and because people are of value to God.

One could argue that the movie does not specifically show Matt’s position as Judeo-Christian. I guess that is true, it could be based on Jainism where all life and non-violence is considered sacred. Some Native American tribes would have a similar quasi-pantheistic or animistic view. In any case Matt’s view of morality is transcendent (being entirely beyond the universe) while Andrews is materialistic (being entirely in the universe).

This movies starts off with a very happy beginning. Back dropped in the heydays of the 1940 as seen by children. "Set during World War II, a story seen through the innocent eyes of Bruno, the eight-year-old son of the commandant at a concentration camp, whose forbidden friendship with a Jewish boy on the other side of the camp fence has startling and unexpected consequences." Pasted from <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0914798/> 

Someone on FaceBook sent me a link to this video. It compares slavery and the holocaust with abortion. I know that everyone does not think that it is fair to compare the three different events. Citing they are to vastly different. However, I think that there is room to debate the coloration. I lean more toward the idea they are fair comparisons even if the events are different given in each case the value of life was in question.

Volition (n)- The act of making a choice. Sometimes the choice of inaction has consequences stronger than we could ever imagine. Throughout history, men have been faced with difficult choices in a world that makes it easy for them to conform. This film explores the hope that lies behind every decision made in the face of adversity; the hope that is buried in the heart of those that look beyond themselves and see something bigger worth fighting for.   Pasted from <http://www.thedoorpost.com/hope/film/?film=420351f1aefa2b42b1772fe9d5cc044a>

Director Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League recently said of Europeans:

"Anti-Semitism remains alive and well in the minds of many Europeans. It is distressing that there seems to be no movement away from the constancy of anti-Semitic held views, with accusations about Jews of disloyalty, control and responsibility for the death of Jesus," http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2617

Recently two very prominent Christians who turn out to be gay. Ted Haggard who was very outspoken against homosexuality now admits he suffers from same sex attraction (SSA). Ray Boltz a prominent Christian musician says he has always struggled with it and was tired of living a lie. It almost seems like it is epidemic within Christianity.

There is a group of people that I look up to or think exemplify a certain trait that is worth of emulation. I call them heroes for the lack of a better term. As a disclaimer, I realize that no one is perfect. I may count someone as a hero who may also have negative traits. For example Noah is a great hero because he was faithful, however, he was also a drunk. 

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

 “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

• 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

1. Christian Hypocrisy http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/4-apologetics/49-christian-hypocrisy
2. Question of the Week 1 http://www.unvarnishedblog.com/component/content/article/4-apologetics/44-question-of-the-week-1
3. 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
4. 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

The second post in a series exploring homosexuality and Christianity.

I want to take some time and explore different perspectives on homosexuality.� I have not spent any time researching homosexuality from a Biblical perspective.� The funny thing is I know Christians who have good reasons to have opposing positions.�

I think that in today’s culture it is important to have an educated opinion on a subject that is causing a great deal of separation.� Currently, I don’t have an opinion only because I have heard very convincing and contradicting opinions from many Christians.� I really don’t want to take the easy way out and just except someone else’s opinion.

As I work through this, I will end up with a series of blogs and hopefully I will receive comments that will help me explore this issue in ways I would not have conceived.

Some of the issues I think that need to be addressed are:

• Is homosexuality a sin?
• Can you be a Christian and a Homosexual?
• How should Christians treat homosexuals?
• Should Christians enforce their morals on non-Christians?
• Gay marriage, the State’s and Church’s role in marriage.

�

Stay tuned for more posts on the subject and please let me know your opinion.� This is a very divisive topic and one where emotions tend to run wild.� My intention is to learn and reserve judgment until I feel confident I have an educated opinion.

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