I have been the unfortunate victim of this comment. The more unfortunate part is that it is accepted as urban fact, and not something that you can submit to Myth Busters for verification. Unlike gas mileage without your tailgate, or pennies dropped from the Empire State Building, we can't run a cute little test to verify the results. The sad fact is that you can't even rely on just visiting a few different churches and synagogues and mosques, you can't get the answer by looking at the origins of religions.
The closest most people would be able to come to testing this is to look at the basic ideaologies of each group and making a side by side comparison, but even this is not fair, because it makes religions that are very different appear very similar, and religions with many similarities appear very different, for example:
A comparison of Christianity and Islam will yield many similarities: They both have a Heaven, they both have a personal God, they both claim to be the only way.
This leads many people to falsely assume that they are "essentially the same, they are saying the same thing, they just misunderstand each other"
This is a problem because these people have likely never considered Islam as an option for their personal faith. They likely know someone who is islam and that's all the farther their knowledge goes, along with popularized ideas like "It's only fundamentalists who bomb buildings" "Islam and Christianity are like brother religions, they both come from Judaism"
The problem is that most of these statements are false, and unless you let yourself set a foot inside Islam, you are unlikely to ever know that. Muslims can lie to infadels to get them into their religion, so to get a straight answer, you sometimes have to pretend to be one (depending on the fundamental factor of who you are talking to)
and let me straighten out the record on "Fundamentalist" Fundamentalists does not = Terrorists. A fundamentalist is one who believes that their principles ought to be strictly and literally followed. (really similar to the definition of a bigot, huh?)
A fundamentalist basketball player is good at basketball, he takes the principles of dribbling, fouls, baskets, zone defense, out of bounds, etc etc. literally. A non fundamentalist basketball player will very quickly find himself ejected from the team for such beliefs as "I view dribbling more as a metaphor than a physical action. I don't think they really meant for us to bounce the ball off the floor. That's so difficult!" or "Out of bounds is just something that referees added to scare people so that they could have more power, they are so limiting that there is no way a good game would be played with them"
Take this from sports to religion. suddenly comments like "The Bible was changed by King James, so we can't trust it" and "I can't believe that a good God would send people to hell, that seems to harsh" and "When Jesus said 'be perfect' I don't think he really meant perfect" take on a whole new meaning, it's like joining basketball and looking incredulously at the rules saying "this can't be right" In the end non-fundamentalists don't practise whatever it is they claim to practise, just like a basketball player trying to take a shot from the twenty-third row of the bleachers behind the backboard, and claiming that he scored a point because he hit the court isn't really a basketball player.
That being said, when I read the Bible, I am lead to believe that a funamentalist Christian would think that Jesus is God and literally rose from the dead. That both Heaven and Hell are actual places and that God takes his holiness and sin very seriously. Furthermore a fundamentalist christian should have very high standards for his brothers and sisters in Christ, and a lot of grace for those who do not, choosing death at their hands over renunciation of Christ as the only way to heaven.
When I read the Koran I would believe that a fundamentalist mulim should think that Allah chose his people to lead the world to salvation, and that those who resist or get in the way need to be removed, heaven is a place of luxuries abounding where Allah will reward me for faithful service, and those whom do not follow him are destroyed to nonexistance. The primary goal is to get everyone on earth following Allah by any means necessary, and Allah himself is a bit enigmatic, drawing us to truth by telling us what we need to know.
These are extremely different religions that people claim have the same end, and that end is usually named at being "be a good person" I see nothing in either of these declaring this to be the end. They seem to indicate that God either wants people to know him personally, or people to follow and fear him, but nothing about just being a good person.
Frankly, "knowing someone who is bhuddist and knowing someone who is Christian" doesn't qualify you to say you have researched religions, and knowing someone who is a "Christian Bhuddist" who says they both believe the same thing is not the same thing as knowing a Christian and a Bhuddist who can concur on every point, just like asking a beer pong player the rules is not the same as knowing the rules to ping pong and brewing.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Separation of Domain and State
The United States of America is the greatest country on earth. At the very least, it is one of the better ones. If you don't believe me, look what happens around the world when our country holds a presidential election. Everyone stops, everyone looks. For some unknown reason they feel like they have the right to weigh in, despite the fact that they are not citizens. When Canada gets a new prime minister, no one holds their breath. Canadians have often bragged to me about their country's superiority, upon which I ask them questions about their own government. They don't know the answer, and I let them know that neither do I. I then ask them questions about MY government, and they know all the answers. I think that pretty well speaks for itself.
That, and the fact that no one is guarding our borders to make sure those dirty Americans don't sneak into their country illegally.
And I have indeed agreed to live as part of this country. Yet. Our country has the unfortunate trait of being made up of millions of people, many of them unintelligent and/or gullible. We are a people with a short memory, and little backbone. We have huge balls, don't get me wrong. If you kick us in the teeth, we are right there to kill you and bury you in a hole, but once the fight becomes unpopular with the other kids, we just can't stick with it. We don't have what it takes to engage for more than a decade.
We are prone to fads. We love this or that new thing with all our hearts, no matter how impractical and unsensible it may be, we will jump full on board, at least, until it begins to cramp our style. We don't need any real science to get us along, you just need to give us a picture book that explains, in layman's terms (even if it is lying) why we should to X. And if your pictures are composed right, and you have a catchy theme music, we will ride along with you for as long as you want us.
All of this piles up to mean one thing: America is not a constant. The america we are today is not the america we were even five years ago. We totally reinvent ourselves at least every twenty years. So while I love my country, and at the moment would die for our country, I'm stuck on the preamble of the Constitiution: We The People...
America has great power, but! I have domain. America has much domain as well, but within america we each have a personal domain. For example. America can make all the laws about speeding that she wants. I have domain over my foot and my car. She can give me tickets and even take away my license and throw me in jail, but I still have domain, and in fact, so long as I aknowledge her authority, I'm even being Biblical.
This is important because there is a certain "Pushed too far" point. And it's unique to each individual. Mine is wearing thin. There is a list of things that we will not tolerate, now some people have no scruples or principles, they can be bought, and they will go along. They have an override price on their "Too Far Point" but I am a true believer. That is to say, there is no monetary or threat override on my TFP.
I cannot tolerate the killing of human fetuses. I despise the idea of any of my money going toward their destruction. I love Israel, and should America turn away from her, I will personally have to take up the slack. I care for my family and will protect them, lead them, and teach them our faith, no one else's. And in all of these places: my finances, my family, the beliefs that I hold: I have domain. When the USA tries to take this domain away from me, she has crossed her bounds. At that point, I will no longer support her, and at that point I will even be her enemy. Per the constitution, she would then cease to be what she is defined as.
The founding fathers thought it utterly necessary to make a point to say that America cannot go through my stuff without probably cause, how much LESS then, can she go through my children and ideaologies? Frankly, it is something I worry about, considering the party who elected the president and now controls both the Senate and the House seem to think that they can tell me what I can believe.
What they don't realize is they have crossed into a realm where they have no Domain. We would all do well to see where our domain lies, and more importantly, where it doesn't. There's lots of different kinds of domains, there are domains granted by physical priveledge, domains granted by ability to control, domains granted by authority, and they each hold a diferent level of control.
The bottom line I'm trying to make is this: The government has it's goals and it's level of control. But I have the RIGHT to make choices in my life, that includes breaking the law. That can even include declaring revolution in extreme cases and separating myself from my government. No matter what the law is, or the government is, I have domain in my life, and that means when I get to the ultimate ruler, that is what I will be responsible. In that day I cannot say "I was told by my king to go there and do thusly" because even then, I had domain.
This is why I must vote for laws wherever I see them to be right and good, even if they are not popular. This is why I want to know where my taxes go, because each cent I earn, I am accountable for. If the Government wants to fine me because I refuse to pay for morally irreprehensible acts, they may, but on that day, my conscience will be clear, and all who said "It's my government, not me." or "It's my neighbor, not me, what right have I to tell my neighbor what they ought do?" will find they had domain to tell their neighbor their thoughts, and even had the theatre of the voting booth in which to perform, and the bottom line is: they refused to support what they knew to be right where they had domain to support it.
We are not responsible for what others choose to do, but we are utterly accountable for what we choose to do about others. Regardless of laws and punishments, we still have domain and therefore the responsibility to live our very own lives the correct, good, and right way. Even if they kill us for it. Because when I stand before God, fear of earthly punishment will not be an adequate reason for allowing abominations to stand inside my domain.
That, and the fact that no one is guarding our borders to make sure those dirty Americans don't sneak into their country illegally.
And I have indeed agreed to live as part of this country. Yet. Our country has the unfortunate trait of being made up of millions of people, many of them unintelligent and/or gullible. We are a people with a short memory, and little backbone. We have huge balls, don't get me wrong. If you kick us in the teeth, we are right there to kill you and bury you in a hole, but once the fight becomes unpopular with the other kids, we just can't stick with it. We don't have what it takes to engage for more than a decade.
We are prone to fads. We love this or that new thing with all our hearts, no matter how impractical and unsensible it may be, we will jump full on board, at least, until it begins to cramp our style. We don't need any real science to get us along, you just need to give us a picture book that explains, in layman's terms (even if it is lying) why we should to X. And if your pictures are composed right, and you have a catchy theme music, we will ride along with you for as long as you want us.
All of this piles up to mean one thing: America is not a constant. The america we are today is not the america we were even five years ago. We totally reinvent ourselves at least every twenty years. So while I love my country, and at the moment would die for our country, I'm stuck on the preamble of the Constitiution: We The People...
America has great power, but! I have domain. America has much domain as well, but within america we each have a personal domain. For example. America can make all the laws about speeding that she wants. I have domain over my foot and my car. She can give me tickets and even take away my license and throw me in jail, but I still have domain, and in fact, so long as I aknowledge her authority, I'm even being Biblical.
This is important because there is a certain "Pushed too far" point. And it's unique to each individual. Mine is wearing thin. There is a list of things that we will not tolerate, now some people have no scruples or principles, they can be bought, and they will go along. They have an override price on their "Too Far Point" but I am a true believer. That is to say, there is no monetary or threat override on my TFP.
I cannot tolerate the killing of human fetuses. I despise the idea of any of my money going toward their destruction. I love Israel, and should America turn away from her, I will personally have to take up the slack. I care for my family and will protect them, lead them, and teach them our faith, no one else's. And in all of these places: my finances, my family, the beliefs that I hold: I have domain. When the USA tries to take this domain away from me, she has crossed her bounds. At that point, I will no longer support her, and at that point I will even be her enemy. Per the constitution, she would then cease to be what she is defined as.
The founding fathers thought it utterly necessary to make a point to say that America cannot go through my stuff without probably cause, how much LESS then, can she go through my children and ideaologies? Frankly, it is something I worry about, considering the party who elected the president and now controls both the Senate and the House seem to think that they can tell me what I can believe.
What they don't realize is they have crossed into a realm where they have no Domain. We would all do well to see where our domain lies, and more importantly, where it doesn't. There's lots of different kinds of domains, there are domains granted by physical priveledge, domains granted by ability to control, domains granted by authority, and they each hold a diferent level of control.
The bottom line I'm trying to make is this: The government has it's goals and it's level of control. But I have the RIGHT to make choices in my life, that includes breaking the law. That can even include declaring revolution in extreme cases and separating myself from my government. No matter what the law is, or the government is, I have domain in my life, and that means when I get to the ultimate ruler, that is what I will be responsible. In that day I cannot say "I was told by my king to go there and do thusly" because even then, I had domain.
This is why I must vote for laws wherever I see them to be right and good, even if they are not popular. This is why I want to know where my taxes go, because each cent I earn, I am accountable for. If the Government wants to fine me because I refuse to pay for morally irreprehensible acts, they may, but on that day, my conscience will be clear, and all who said "It's my government, not me." or "It's my neighbor, not me, what right have I to tell my neighbor what they ought do?" will find they had domain to tell their neighbor their thoughts, and even had the theatre of the voting booth in which to perform, and the bottom line is: they refused to support what they knew to be right where they had domain to support it.
We are not responsible for what others choose to do, but we are utterly accountable for what we choose to do about others. Regardless of laws and punishments, we still have domain and therefore the responsibility to live our very own lives the correct, good, and right way. Even if they kill us for it. Because when I stand before God, fear of earthly punishment will not be an adequate reason for allowing abominations to stand inside my domain.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Bigot!
Ambrose Bierce defined a bigot as "One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain" in The Devil's Dictionary I wish we could officially adopt this definition, because I find it to be far more honest than the contemporary ideas of bigotry and intolerance.
For reference Miriam Webster's definition of a bigot is not far off from Bierce's, it's just switched around to come from the opposite direction: ": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
The difference is that Bierce points out that we are all bigots, as he humorously forces each of us to realize that calling another person a bigot puts US in the center of the equation. Webster ignores us in the equation, which is how we like it, so we don't have to look at what we are really doing.
I have a great story about intolerance, one which no one seems to have shared before on any of the tolerance sites I have visited to investigate for this piece. I found it greatly enlightening.
I attended a class that was frankly, very boring to me as I had previously learned all of the material. Fortunately, the class was subject to frequent bunny trails. One such bunny trail occurred when a fellow classmate made a comment (I recall) about how fat people have no self control. The teacher proceeded to call this classmate a bigot. The classmate was understandably irritated, but could not think of anything to say, so I replied for him. "What's the matter, Ms. X? Are you opposed to biggots? Are you an anti-bigite?" The instructor sputtered that being a biggot was a choice, where being obese is not. I point out that obesity is often a choice, and that one's religion, creed, and career are also choices, as well as one's gender today. Yet one is considered prejudiced for judging based on all of these factors. Why is it that she feels qualified to judge all bigots in the same boat and stamp them with a negative overarching seal? She then asked me why I was helping my classmate, and I informed her that it is unfair to engage the unarmed in a battle of wits. My instructor was pacified, my classmate was unsure what my comment was all about, and my GPA was unaffected.
The main point is that any attempts at tolerance only encourage reverse-bigotry. An example of showing bravery in the world of tolerance given on tolerance.org is given in an elderly lesbian (isn't this description both ageist and homophobic?) who finally worked up the bravery to wear a rainbow pin to work. The problem comes with the fact that this is not tolerance at all, but rather the very hatred that they claim to be fighting. This person is emphasizing her difference from her co-workers, and some of her coworkers may hold beliefs to which homosexuality is offensive. Now they go to work and have offensive material flaunted in their face, when they have worked quietly, side by side with her for years and never talked about their religion with her although their religion asks them to share it with all people. The fact that she is unaware that her pin is inflamatory shows their incredible tolerance, and her wearing the pin is an inflamatory gesture. It would be like her coming to work one day and a coworker deciding they finally have the bravery to wear their "homosexuality is sin" pin. The only difference is that she will most likely not be fired for her apparel, and her coworker would be. If the co-worker complains, they are biggoted, when she complains, they are biggoted. This is an example of everyday injustice that is ENDORSED by tolerance societies.
The bottom line is that there are two sides to pretty much every debate, and believe it or not, some things are simply not tolerable. Do we tolerate murder? of course not, so where does the line get drawn?
Even the definition of a hate crime is intended to oppress the "other" side, the ones who are offended. A hate crime is defined as a crime comitted against someone because of a certain trait (everything is listed from physical appearance to religious belief and everything between). Yet, if I lose it and killed a man for sleeping with my wife, is this not a hate crime against adulterers? Every crime is performed for some reason, and, frankly, they are always tied to hate or insanity. So to punish the killing of a black man more severely because of his race is, once again, the very hate they claim to be fighting. They are saying that this crime is worse because the black man was killed because he was black. What about rich people killed because they are rich? this is a socioeconomic hate crime, isn't it? in fact, yes, but in legal practise no. So, a black man is worth more than a rich man. So when you are murdered, it would benefit you more to be black than rich. The obvious preference would be a rich black man whose family can pay the legal fees to get the perpetrator charged with the extra penalty of a hate crime.
Even our language is subject to this bigotted measure of intolerance, a man says "nigger" and he is racist, or if a man says "rag head" he has a religious prejudice. Yet people can say "Oh my God" around me all the time and I can do nothing to stop them, even though this is one of the MOST offensive phrases that can be uttered to me. the word "Nigger" in any circumstance (aside from off the lips of a black rapper) is a slur. If an atheist says "Oh my GOD!" knowing it bothers his protestant room mate, this is not hate language, it's his "freedom of speech"
What I hope to accomplish is to just get everyone to see that we have bias. And the world is not a fair place. But we can at least aknowledge that it is not fair, and rather than force others to a false standard of fair, we can learn to live with it, and not censor the offended that we don't agree with, because while you view me as a biggot because I hold zealously to a view you do not share, tha fact that you do not share it with me shows that you are a biggot too.
No, the answer is not that "All sides are right" because unlike the authors of tolerance.org, I've actually gotten to know the other side and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, one of us is wrong and one of us is right and we must always clash if we are to be true to our respective beliefs. Furthermore, being devoted to Jesus, I cannot willingly say that it's okay for the "other side" to just go on travelling to hell, because that would be hatred far worse than anyone promoting tolerance has ever thought of fighting.
For reference Miriam Webster's definition of a bigot is not far off from Bierce's, it's just switched around to come from the opposite direction: ": a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
The difference is that Bierce points out that we are all bigots, as he humorously forces each of us to realize that calling another person a bigot puts US in the center of the equation. Webster ignores us in the equation, which is how we like it, so we don't have to look at what we are really doing.
I have a great story about intolerance, one which no one seems to have shared before on any of the tolerance sites I have visited to investigate for this piece. I found it greatly enlightening.
I attended a class that was frankly, very boring to me as I had previously learned all of the material. Fortunately, the class was subject to frequent bunny trails. One such bunny trail occurred when a fellow classmate made a comment (I recall) about how fat people have no self control. The teacher proceeded to call this classmate a bigot. The classmate was understandably irritated, but could not think of anything to say, so I replied for him. "What's the matter, Ms. X? Are you opposed to biggots? Are you an anti-bigite?" The instructor sputtered that being a biggot was a choice, where being obese is not. I point out that obesity is often a choice, and that one's religion, creed, and career are also choices, as well as one's gender today. Yet one is considered prejudiced for judging based on all of these factors. Why is it that she feels qualified to judge all bigots in the same boat and stamp them with a negative overarching seal? She then asked me why I was helping my classmate, and I informed her that it is unfair to engage the unarmed in a battle of wits. My instructor was pacified, my classmate was unsure what my comment was all about, and my GPA was unaffected.
The main point is that any attempts at tolerance only encourage reverse-bigotry. An example of showing bravery in the world of tolerance given on tolerance.org is given in an elderly lesbian (isn't this description both ageist and homophobic?) who finally worked up the bravery to wear a rainbow pin to work. The problem comes with the fact that this is not tolerance at all, but rather the very hatred that they claim to be fighting. This person is emphasizing her difference from her co-workers, and some of her coworkers may hold beliefs to which homosexuality is offensive. Now they go to work and have offensive material flaunted in their face, when they have worked quietly, side by side with her for years and never talked about their religion with her although their religion asks them to share it with all people. The fact that she is unaware that her pin is inflamatory shows their incredible tolerance, and her wearing the pin is an inflamatory gesture. It would be like her coming to work one day and a coworker deciding they finally have the bravery to wear their "homosexuality is sin" pin. The only difference is that she will most likely not be fired for her apparel, and her coworker would be. If the co-worker complains, they are biggoted, when she complains, they are biggoted. This is an example of everyday injustice that is ENDORSED by tolerance societies.
The bottom line is that there are two sides to pretty much every debate, and believe it or not, some things are simply not tolerable. Do we tolerate murder? of course not, so where does the line get drawn?
Even the definition of a hate crime is intended to oppress the "other" side, the ones who are offended. A hate crime is defined as a crime comitted against someone because of a certain trait (everything is listed from physical appearance to religious belief and everything between). Yet, if I lose it and killed a man for sleeping with my wife, is this not a hate crime against adulterers? Every crime is performed for some reason, and, frankly, they are always tied to hate or insanity. So to punish the killing of a black man more severely because of his race is, once again, the very hate they claim to be fighting. They are saying that this crime is worse because the black man was killed because he was black. What about rich people killed because they are rich? this is a socioeconomic hate crime, isn't it? in fact, yes, but in legal practise no. So, a black man is worth more than a rich man. So when you are murdered, it would benefit you more to be black than rich. The obvious preference would be a rich black man whose family can pay the legal fees to get the perpetrator charged with the extra penalty of a hate crime.
Even our language is subject to this bigotted measure of intolerance, a man says "nigger" and he is racist, or if a man says "rag head" he has a religious prejudice. Yet people can say "Oh my God" around me all the time and I can do nothing to stop them, even though this is one of the MOST offensive phrases that can be uttered to me. the word "Nigger" in any circumstance (aside from off the lips of a black rapper) is a slur. If an atheist says "Oh my GOD!" knowing it bothers his protestant room mate, this is not hate language, it's his "freedom of speech"
What I hope to accomplish is to just get everyone to see that we have bias. And the world is not a fair place. But we can at least aknowledge that it is not fair, and rather than force others to a false standard of fair, we can learn to live with it, and not censor the offended that we don't agree with, because while you view me as a biggot because I hold zealously to a view you do not share, tha fact that you do not share it with me shows that you are a biggot too.
No, the answer is not that "All sides are right" because unlike the authors of tolerance.org, I've actually gotten to know the other side and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt, one of us is wrong and one of us is right and we must always clash if we are to be true to our respective beliefs. Furthermore, being devoted to Jesus, I cannot willingly say that it's okay for the "other side" to just go on travelling to hell, because that would be hatred far worse than anyone promoting tolerance has ever thought of fighting.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Black and White, or Grey?
I was once told my my father that I am a "Star Wars Child" There's the light and the dark and I see nothing in between. Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader, and that's it. To this day I still don't see the problem. I've run across dozens of people that will try to insist to me that there are shades of gray out there, and there is no real black and white, or that perhaps there is black and white but it is rare to find. I disagree with all of them on the grounds that they don't break anything down far enough. Gray is a color and a name for a dog, it is not a moral state.
I've even had cousellors try to sway me from this direction. In the end their motives were off. They were trying to get me to change to be more likeable to people, they should have been encouraging me to realize that everyone will hate me anyway, they might as well hate me for who I am. My counselor tried the cute, classic examples that cause everyone else to stumble when they strive for the black and white view.
"Look at Robin Hood" The arguement goes that Robin Hood, while stealing was doing the "Right" thing by giving the money to the poor and that while stealing is wrong, stealing from a tyrant to do good deeds is a morally grey area and therefore is permissable under certain circumstances, especially when the starving are fed by it. It sounds cute and romantic. They love to try to trick me by asking the beautifully deceptive question of "Who is the hero in the story?" or "So Robin Hood is wrong to give to the poor?"
Who is the hero is a trick question. There is no hero. John is a coward and a schemer who unjustly tries to usurp the throne from the rightful king. During this time he treats the people of the country unjustly and causes suffering for people everywhere. Robin Hood is just as cowardly, though he has the people's full support he hides out in the woods collecting funds and handing them out as charity though he is well aware they will only get collected again as taxes, and running a hide-out militia takes up money so the time he is messing around collecting his fees, he is actually using up the money that he is supposed to be giving the people, furthermore as a citizen of a monarchy he has a duty to his king by remaining a citizen. If he wanted to go the right way about it, he should have gotten foreign support against his king and declared independance, at that point he is in his own government using his own currency and any supporters are in allegiance to him rather than comitting treason against their own country. In this unfortunate story, even Richard's hands are not clean because he put the potential for the injustice in place by leaving to covetously take the holy lands back from the muslims. Just like every other main character, he is neglecting what is his to take what is not his from someone else.
And no, it is perfectly right and good for Robin Hood or anyone else to give money to the poor, but it should be their money, not stolen goods. Stealing from the government is not ok just because you donate the majority of the funds to charity and use the rest to build a treasonous militia all the while holding on to your citizenship under that government. At least claim to be part of a revolution for goodness sake!
The next story problem she threw out is "If your wife was sick and only this medicine could get her better but the only way to get it is to steal it, wouldn't you steal it?" First off, why do people think that because I'd be willing to do something that means I think it's the right thing to do? I'd be willing to jump out of an airplane and ride a bull, but both of those things would be pretty stupid and selfish because of the potential consequences for my wife. And no, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. I would be a hypocrite if I said "YOU can't jump out of an airplane, but it's okay for me" Secondly I would be thoroughly suprised to find myself in that position to HAVE to steal the medicine to get it. I don't have huge faith in people, but I know my friends and the people I live around, something pretty earth shattering would have to happen for my pharmacist to withold medicine that would keep my wife alive even if he knew we couldn't pay for it. And finally, stealing is wrong, stealing from a pharmacist I consider my friend would be more wrong, administering a drug without a prescription would be wrong and reckless. I'd have to commit several moral breaches aside from stealing to just consider it, and... I would do it in a heartbeat. I would do the wrong thing to trade for my wife's life. There is a line: I would do the wrong thing when temporal things are at stake, not eternal. I would never renounce Christ simply to save my wife's life, at that point I would be a creature so despicable my wife would have no reason to love me though she had her life. But, yes, I would steal, lie, even murder (note I said murder, not kill. Killing in and of itself is not a sinful act) to protect my wife. That doesn't mean that any of those things are right. I would also have to accept getting arrested and going to jail for it because I choose to live in this nation where stealing is wrong. Odds are the Jury would have mercy on me because they see everything as greay but in truth aside from our "Legal System" (which doesn't decide right and wrong at all) I will have done the wrong thing to spare my wife.
The issue is that people try to blend everything together when they cannot be blended. Water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, its atomic weight is 12. This does not mean that Water is Magnesium. It is not Beyrillium either. It is not Hydrogen and it is not Oxygen, It is dihydrogen Oxide. Period. It's not adding together what it's made of and seeing what it weighs the same as, like so many see justice. It is not averaging together all the weights to see what it turns out to be between the two, it is not the one that there's more of, it's not all the other thing because the other thing exists. It is it's own thing made up of parts. Morality is atomic, not molecular, you break it down until it cannot be broken down any more. Water is 2 hydrogen, 1 Oxygen. Stealing to save my wife is stealing and saving my wife is saving my wife. The ends are the ends, the means are the means, and you don't try to mix them all together. You only see grey because you took off your glasses and can't see the dithering.
The most destructive part of this belief system is because when you follow it to its maximum end, you reduce people to the things they do and unless you want to renounce the person you must accept everything they do. While we don't run into issues as long as we focus on perfect people and genocidal maniacs that hold beliefs different from us, it appears to work. But as we move into the sins that we aren't made sick by, we start to call the sins ok, because we've combined them with the sin. People say I'm bigotted because I call homosexuality a sin. I call them pathetic because they call the person comitting the sin a homosexual. You think I hate the person. I think you have judged the person and are forced to accept their sin because by your judgement if you call the sin sin, you must reject the person too. I see the "homosexual" as a human being that commits the sin of homosexuality at times, just like I sin sometimes. I am not the sum of my sins and neither are they.
So who is the bigotted one? The one who sees the person as a person and what they do as what they do, their intentions as intentions and the results of their actions as results? Or the one who sees the person as merely the sum of what they do with a disregard for the fact that the guy under the bridge is a man who lost his wife and needs a friend and the love of Christ rather than "The meth addict"
I've even had cousellors try to sway me from this direction. In the end their motives were off. They were trying to get me to change to be more likeable to people, they should have been encouraging me to realize that everyone will hate me anyway, they might as well hate me for who I am. My counselor tried the cute, classic examples that cause everyone else to stumble when they strive for the black and white view.
"Look at Robin Hood" The arguement goes that Robin Hood, while stealing was doing the "Right" thing by giving the money to the poor and that while stealing is wrong, stealing from a tyrant to do good deeds is a morally grey area and therefore is permissable under certain circumstances, especially when the starving are fed by it. It sounds cute and romantic. They love to try to trick me by asking the beautifully deceptive question of "Who is the hero in the story?" or "So Robin Hood is wrong to give to the poor?"
Who is the hero is a trick question. There is no hero. John is a coward and a schemer who unjustly tries to usurp the throne from the rightful king. During this time he treats the people of the country unjustly and causes suffering for people everywhere. Robin Hood is just as cowardly, though he has the people's full support he hides out in the woods collecting funds and handing them out as charity though he is well aware they will only get collected again as taxes, and running a hide-out militia takes up money so the time he is messing around collecting his fees, he is actually using up the money that he is supposed to be giving the people, furthermore as a citizen of a monarchy he has a duty to his king by remaining a citizen. If he wanted to go the right way about it, he should have gotten foreign support against his king and declared independance, at that point he is in his own government using his own currency and any supporters are in allegiance to him rather than comitting treason against their own country. In this unfortunate story, even Richard's hands are not clean because he put the potential for the injustice in place by leaving to covetously take the holy lands back from the muslims. Just like every other main character, he is neglecting what is his to take what is not his from someone else.
And no, it is perfectly right and good for Robin Hood or anyone else to give money to the poor, but it should be their money, not stolen goods. Stealing from the government is not ok just because you donate the majority of the funds to charity and use the rest to build a treasonous militia all the while holding on to your citizenship under that government. At least claim to be part of a revolution for goodness sake!
The next story problem she threw out is "If your wife was sick and only this medicine could get her better but the only way to get it is to steal it, wouldn't you steal it?" First off, why do people think that because I'd be willing to do something that means I think it's the right thing to do? I'd be willing to jump out of an airplane and ride a bull, but both of those things would be pretty stupid and selfish because of the potential consequences for my wife. And no, that doesn't make me a hypocrite. I would be a hypocrite if I said "YOU can't jump out of an airplane, but it's okay for me" Secondly I would be thoroughly suprised to find myself in that position to HAVE to steal the medicine to get it. I don't have huge faith in people, but I know my friends and the people I live around, something pretty earth shattering would have to happen for my pharmacist to withold medicine that would keep my wife alive even if he knew we couldn't pay for it. And finally, stealing is wrong, stealing from a pharmacist I consider my friend would be more wrong, administering a drug without a prescription would be wrong and reckless. I'd have to commit several moral breaches aside from stealing to just consider it, and... I would do it in a heartbeat. I would do the wrong thing to trade for my wife's life. There is a line: I would do the wrong thing when temporal things are at stake, not eternal. I would never renounce Christ simply to save my wife's life, at that point I would be a creature so despicable my wife would have no reason to love me though she had her life. But, yes, I would steal, lie, even murder (note I said murder, not kill. Killing in and of itself is not a sinful act) to protect my wife. That doesn't mean that any of those things are right. I would also have to accept getting arrested and going to jail for it because I choose to live in this nation where stealing is wrong. Odds are the Jury would have mercy on me because they see everything as greay but in truth aside from our "Legal System" (which doesn't decide right and wrong at all) I will have done the wrong thing to spare my wife.
The issue is that people try to blend everything together when they cannot be blended. Water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, its atomic weight is 12. This does not mean that Water is Magnesium. It is not Beyrillium either. It is not Hydrogen and it is not Oxygen, It is dihydrogen Oxide. Period. It's not adding together what it's made of and seeing what it weighs the same as, like so many see justice. It is not averaging together all the weights to see what it turns out to be between the two, it is not the one that there's more of, it's not all the other thing because the other thing exists. It is it's own thing made up of parts. Morality is atomic, not molecular, you break it down until it cannot be broken down any more. Water is 2 hydrogen, 1 Oxygen. Stealing to save my wife is stealing and saving my wife is saving my wife. The ends are the ends, the means are the means, and you don't try to mix them all together. You only see grey because you took off your glasses and can't see the dithering.
The most destructive part of this belief system is because when you follow it to its maximum end, you reduce people to the things they do and unless you want to renounce the person you must accept everything they do. While we don't run into issues as long as we focus on perfect people and genocidal maniacs that hold beliefs different from us, it appears to work. But as we move into the sins that we aren't made sick by, we start to call the sins ok, because we've combined them with the sin. People say I'm bigotted because I call homosexuality a sin. I call them pathetic because they call the person comitting the sin a homosexual. You think I hate the person. I think you have judged the person and are forced to accept their sin because by your judgement if you call the sin sin, you must reject the person too. I see the "homosexual" as a human being that commits the sin of homosexuality at times, just like I sin sometimes. I am not the sum of my sins and neither are they.
So who is the bigotted one? The one who sees the person as a person and what they do as what they do, their intentions as intentions and the results of their actions as results? Or the one who sees the person as merely the sum of what they do with a disregard for the fact that the guy under the bridge is a man who lost his wife and needs a friend and the love of Christ rather than "The meth addict"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
