Latest Posts

How Can Good People do Bad Things

April 21, 20090

We often struggle with the fact that people who seem to be able to produce so much good in their lives can also produce such bad. It makes us question all that we view as right about the world. It can even make us question God. After all, if God is the all-powerful creator , can’t He either a) make us in such a way that we cannot do such bad or b) keep us from doing it? Now I will address the second of those more thoroughly in another article. Suffice it to say for now that God can indeed ‘keep us’ from doing such bad but only as we allow Him.

The one who is able to do much good has equal ability to do much bad. It is precisely the ability to do such good that enables them to also do the bad. The one who is creative in his doing of good can use that same creativity toward the doing of good. It requires submission to the greater will of God to channel this ability toward good.

General

, , ,

Wrong = The Absence of Right

April 14, 20090

There are several terms we use as descriptors as if they are an absolute condition or state of being. Some of them are misleading insomuch that they seem to be on equal footing with their supposed counterpart.

Take for example the term dark, when used in reference to a room or the night around us. Dark is not a true measurement. There are no units of dark. There are only units of light. We measure light and use the term dark to describe the absence of light. Dark is solely a term of relevance, describing a condition where someone feels there is sufficient absence of light. Cold is another term like this. We measure units of heat and we say something is cold when it reaches some level of an absence of heat.

To refer to something as wrong is similar. When we refer to something as wrong we are describing it as being absent of or deviating from the condition of being right. Right is the standard. When we say something is wrong, we mean it does not or is not at the time, living up to the standard of being right. Whether we want to accept it or not we all have within our natures some level of understanding of an absolute standard of right. See my previous articles on God and intelligent people along with the article discussing other gods for more background. When we talk of something being wrong, or unfair, we are measuring it against this standard that originates with God.

Wrong is not an alternative means of doing something. It is the choice to deviate from the right way or the standard.

General

, ,

Believing Something Based on Authority

March 28, 20090

Religion, and specifically Christianity, is routinely attacked or questioned on the basis that its followers believe something written over 2000 years ago. We, the followers, believe something because someone else said it. We believe based on the authority of the people who said it, rather than having seen it ourselves.

Why is this a basis for such questioning and doubt? Is this not common among all people? How much of what anyone believes to be true or factual is not based on what someone else has said, upon their authority? Those who question Christianity have no trouble believing and accepting as fact that a George Washington or Abraham Lincoln existed or that Lincoln indeed delivered the Gettysburg Address. They believe this based on what they have read or heard, for they certainly did not see Washington or Lincoln with their own eyes. Nor were they present to hear Lincoln give the Gettysburg Address.

This acceptance of authority is not limited to historical figures or items. I have never been to London but I completely accept its existence. I even have opinions as to what it is like – all based on what I have read or heard. Some will say, “yes, but you have seen pictures or video of London on TV.” I’ve also watched “westerns” with Clint Eastwood depicting life in the Old West of America, that were filmed in Italy. These movies were quite convincing that the action was taking place in the American west.

Those who question will also say, “I have no reason to not believe in Washington or Lincoln, or to believe there is a London.” Well, what reason do you have to not believe in Christ and what He did and said, other than the fact you don’t want to?

General

We Use Faith Everyday

March 15, 20090

The world is full of modern day Thomases.  You remember Thomas; he’s the one who has gone down in history as ‘Doubting Thomas’.  How would you like to have that tag?  Its somewhat of a bad rap.  How many have never doubted God?

In the story where Thomas got his moniker, Jesus says, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.”  John 20:29b  He is challenging Thomas, as well as the rest of us to believe beyond what we can see.

Whether we realize it or not we exercise “faith” everyday in all manner of things:  things spiritual as well as things routine.  Lets look at some examples.  When you walk into a dark room the first thing you do is locate the light switch and flip it on.  Did you make sure the wires were connected properly?  Did you make sure electricity was flowing through the wires from the utility company?  No you just flipped the switch.  You had confidence, you had faith in the technology we call electricity.  Do you fully understand how electricity works?  Could you wire a house?  When you enter a room for a meeting, you select a chair and you sit down.  How many of us look under the chair and examine the construction of the chair to make sure it will hold us?  No, you just sit down.  You have confidence, you have faith in the people who built the chair.    You sit in the driver’s seat of your car and you turn the key or push the ignition button fully believing the car is going to start.  You have confidence, you have faith in the manufacture of the car.

We exercise ths kind of faith everyday yet we struggle to believe God, the creator and sustainer of all that we see, know and more.  Sometimes we exhibit more faith in the creators of our everyday appliances and items than we do in God.

General

Mercy Rather than Merit

March 5, 20090

I have recently had a few people half-sarcastically ask me if certain ‘sacrifices’ would get them into heaven.  They had to put up with difficult people and/or difficult situations.  Their comments were made out of frustration and part in jest, but they do reflect a common mindset.   “What must I do to obtain eternal life?”, with the emphasis on “do”.

Is there some minimum level of sacrifice, giving, or good deeds that will meet the criteria for entrance into heaven?  Obviously to get a reward such as heaven one must do sufficient good things to earn it.

Heaven cannot be obtained by merit, but by mercy.  Not in acts of mercy that we might perform to our fellow man.  That would be another form of giving or doing good deeds.  No, our acts of mercy cannot earn heaven for us.  Nothing can earn eternal life for us.

We all have failed to live up to God’s perfect moral law – even the best of humanity.  There must be an atonement for our failure.  God has acted in mercy toward us through the atonement of the suffering and sacrifice of His Son, Jesus.

General

, , ,

The Law of Nature – Part 2

March 2, 20090

Many will claim that what we refer to as the law of nature or the moral law is merely our instincts and the Herd Instinct. We all know about instincts like feeling hungry, or motherly love, or sexual instinct. Sometimes we may feel the desire to help another person in agreement with the herd instinct; but feeling that desire and choosing it are two different things. What happens if you hear a cry for help from someone in danger; helping them will place you at risk. You will be conflicted with two desires; one to provide assistance and another to keep out of it due to the instinct for survival. Yet something inside of you tells you that you should follow the instinct to help and deny the urge to keep out. What is this? It is the moral law. You probably want to be safe more than you want to help the person in trouble, but yet something inside you causes you to follow the weaker instinct. It is the moral law.

Throughout history we have viewed some instincts as better than others. As in the example above we may say that the instinct to help someone in trouble is better than others. But instincts themselves are neither good or bad. Certainly instincts such as the sexual instinct or the instinct to fight must be restrained more often than an instinct such as motherly love. But a husband must follow his sexual instinct with his wife at certain times and a soldier must follow his instinct to fight at the right moment while the instinct of motherly love may have to be restrained in order to be fair to other children, and can even in and of itself be perverted.  Even the mere idea that an instinct can be perverted tells us it can be good, pointing to good and bad, or right and wrong – a standard.

To choose the right instinct at the right time requires something other than the instincts themselves. It is much like the keys on the keyboard I am using to type this. The keys themselves do not determine which should be typed when. Something above them does. In order for what is typed to make words and sense something other than the keys must determine which key should be pressed and when.

In addition, a standard determines the quality of the output of that decision. We call some documents and stories good while others are not. Even simpler, for a word to be a word the letters must be typed in a certain order. As our instincts are used there is a standard we use to determine when they should be followed and when they should be restrained.   We do not merely follow them or restrain them, we choose to do one or the other.  Our instincts cannot choose themselves which to follow.  Something above them must make this choice – the moral law.

credit to C.S. Lewis – “Mere Christianity”

General

, , , ,

The Law of Nature – Part 1

February 26, 20090

We have all stated things such as “how would you like it if anyone did the same thing to you?”, “That’s my seat, I was there first”, “Leave him alone, he didn’t do anything to you”, “Come on, you promised.”

What is interesting about this is that the person saying them is not merely saying there is something inconvenient about the act or it does not happen to please them. They are appealing to some standard of behavior which he expects the other person to know about. They are appealing to a sense of fairness.  The other person is not apt to reply, forget your standard. Rather they will seek to justify their actions with some reason or excuse. They will try and come up with some reason as to why this particular instance is an exception to the norm and why they are justified in their action. It appears that both persons acknowledge the existence of this standard of behavior. The very fact that we will attempt to justify our actions proves our belief in an acceptable standard of behavior. We use the very same standard of behavior to defend our exception to it in certain cases. The mere fact alone that we debate in such instances shows that we acknowledge the existence of this standard of behavior. Debating is an attempt to prove that you are right and the other is wrong, and vice-versa. There can be no right and wrong if there is no standard of what is right.

In older days this was called the law of nature. It has more recently become known as the law of human nature or the moral law. In modern times we tend to identify the law of nature with such things as gravity, or if you mix certain chemicals they will produce certain things, or like will beget like, etc. Those of older times recognized that man’s existence was governed by the moral law just as he was governed by the law of gravity. I will discuss the differences and similarities of these laws more fully in a future article.

One of the objections to the Law of Nature being an absolute in mankind is the differences in what is right and wrong from age to age, civilization to civilization, and various cultures. If you actually examine these different ages, civilizations and cultures what you will see is there are actually far more similarities than differences. For example, selfishness has never been admired. Men may have disagreed whether a man may have one wife or three, but they have always said you cannot have whatever woman you want. A soldier who runs from the battlefield has always been looked upon as cowardly.

Some will argue against the presence of an absolute moral law by stating that as man evolves he simply evolves to a ‘better’ or more civilized creature. First, in doing so he undermines his own argument. For what is he measuring against to determine that man’s actions are ‘better’ or more civilized at one time or another. In order to do a comparative he must have a standard to measure against as an absolute. Secondly, quite often the ‘better’ or more civilized notion comes merely from an understanding of fact rather than an improved morality. For example someone may say mankind burned witches at the stake years ago as an illustration of how we have evolved. The reality is that the reason we do not put witches to death today is because we do not believe witches exist (at least as thought of in days past). We have not ceased putting to death witches based on a new or improved moral understanding but rather because we do not believe there are witches. Certainly if we did believe there were witches who used their powers to kill or drive others mad or other similar things many would feel that if anyone should be put to death, they should. This does not stand as an argument against a moral law and in favor of the evolution of man’s thought but rather it actually again argues in favor of an accepted standard of behavior – for how would we determine that it was wrong to burn these people at the stake and we should no longer do so?

General

, ,