Update (10/12): Be sure to check out my lunch time post today. Yesterday, a black pastor compared John Kerry to King David, the prophet Jeremiah and Jesus Christ himself! I have a few things to say about that…
***
A couple of days ago I blogged about the most recent beheading and touched upon why God allows evil. It’s a question even Christians ask while knowing the answer. But I believe the more appropriate question is, “Why is there good in the world?”
Some of you may have heard the phrase, “total depravity.” It means that man is sinful through and through, though not as bad as he could be. Despite what humanists think, man is not inherently good, committing evil acts only because of his environment, poverty, ignorance, racism or the latest fad-excuse. We are inherently bad. Every word, thought and action is tainted by sin because we are sinful. In our unregenerate and rebellious state, we do not seek after God nor do we want to please or obey him.
Some people believe they are “saved” from eternal damnation (if they believe in eternal damnation at all) because they are “good.” God tells us otherwise: “The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” (Psalm 58:3)
The wicked are estranged from the womb. That’s a hard saying, isn’t it? While it may not be explicit in this passage, “the wicked” referred to is every human born. We don’t usually associate sin with a precious baby, but the fact is we are born sinners. The “good” we do, if any at all, does not meet God’s requirements.
In Ecclesiastes 9:3 we read:
Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…
For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
This verse may be more familiar to you:
There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one. Romans 3: 10-12
Not one man, left to himself, is righteous. Are you clear on what God thinks of us mortals and our plan to save ourselves? If you’re not, God certainly is.
I use the word “we” because although I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, I’m still a sinner just like you. But I’m a sinner who’s been forgiven and touched by grace. God, in his infinite mercy, chose to save me. Sometimes when I’m riding the subway or walking down the street or in the middle of a meeting, I’ll think about it. The exceeding abundance of God’s mercy toward me is too profound to express in this post.
You don’t need to consult the Bible to know how evil we can be, if we make an honest assessment of ourselves. Some believe that if the “good” they do outweighs the bad, they will go to heaven (if they believe in heaven at all).
I’m always amazed that some think a do-it-yourself salvation plan will get them into heaven, although I know why they deceive themselves. You see it all the time in movies and on TV. As long as they tried to be a “good person”, they will go to heaven. Do you really think Hitler will be the only one suffering eternal damnation?
God says: “[F]or we have sinned. In these ways we continue; And we need to be saved. But we are all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags…” Filthy rags. That is what God thinks of the “good” we do apart from himself. You see, God’s standard is perfection, not “the best we can do.” The only righteousness we have is through Jesus Christ.
But finally we come to one of the answers to why there is good in the world: common grace. What is common grace? In Matthew 5:44-45 we read:
[L]ove your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
Common grace is distinct from saving grace in that the believer and unbeliever alike share in God’s earthly blessings. Also, since the Bible tells us man is not as evil as he could be, something must be restraining evil. That restraint is also God’s common grace.
God is long-suffering with us, but his patience does wear out.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. Romans 1: 18-27
As harsh as that may sound, it doesn’t have to be this way for you. More than common grace, you can have saving grace through Jesus Christ.
“[I]f you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For ‘whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.’”
Addendum: A commenter asks: “Why is man inherently bad? Because God said so? And how do we know that?” I want to give others an opportunity to answer before I do. It’s a legitimate question and one that needs to be answered. The commenter wants evidence for my assertion that man is inherently sinful. A biblical response is required, although a mirror and a pair of eyes will suffice.
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 128 comments }
With all due respect, Miss Barber, where is the evidence for the remarks you make in this post?
Why is man inherently bad? Because God said so? And how do we know that?
Were a liberal to say that he believed some unfounded rumor about President Bush, we’d rightly denounce him, since his assertions aren’t fact-based. So, why open ourselves up to ridicule by making man a “sinful creature?” Such unearned guilt only serves to make life one long corridor of pain.
I am not a liberal – I’m on the Right. However, there’s a rational way to answer the Left, and Christianity is not one of them.
I suggest you take a look at the work of Ayn Rand. Check out her novels, “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” when you have the time.
Thank you for your weblog, and have a good Sunday.
You are so right La Shawn, after sin came into the world the human race began to devolve. The book of Romans says since people did not worship God he gave them up to do anything they wanted.
It is horrible for God to give you up to your own devices for it leads to more and more evil in your life.
At times it is just frustrating trying to explain this to any unbeliever because they think they are “good” and do “good works”.
I guess if humans were inherently good we wouldn’t need forgiveness at all. Jesus would have been another face in the crowd. A non-Biblical explanation of the same? How about we are all animals and must be taught to act ‘human’. Did you learn manners from yourself or did you learn them from your mother? Goodness is taught, selfishness is instinct.
I reject the notion that Christianity is not the rationale to answering the left. Many on the left who ‘hate’ Christianity hate it because they know they need God, and the notion that they need something other than themselves is scary to them. Of course, we should not try to force it on them, but I will not have things non-Christian forced on me either.
Regarding Dare’s post:
Sin is part of what we are. It is not a question of what we do. Ever since we decided we could replace God with ourselves, everything that exists (apart from the realm of God Himself) is tainted by sin.
Who teaches a child to lie? My wife and I don’t lie to each other or other people, so when my son at age one knocked over a houseplant right in front of me then fingered my wife as the culprit, where did that lie come from? (We didn’t spank our son at that tender age, so he wasn’t trying to avoid punishment, either.)
Children embody all sorts of sinful, anti-social behavior. I’ve personally never thrown a temper tantrum in front of my child, so where did he learn to do that in order to get his selfish way? Even the very youngest children are naturally selfish. Watch a couple eight month old children fight over a toy and then tell me that people are fundementally good.
Sinfulness is inherent in what we are.
As for the supposed “irrationality” of Christianity, I would contend that nothing is more rational than Christianity. The scientist who rationally plotted the very order of the solar system and created calculus, Isaac Newton, was a Christian. Many consider Blaise Pascal to be the greatest thinker who walked the face of the planet, yet he firmly saw that nothing was more reasonable than the Christian faith. And the list of others like those two great minds goes on and on.
If you want to approach Christianity from a purely rational angle, then consider reading Josh McDowell’s book Evidence That Demands a Verdict. McDowell, a brilliant student of the law, decided to debunk the Christian faith from a rational perspective, but not only could he not do so, he ended up surrendering his life to Jesus at the end of his inquiry.
The life lived apart from Christ is one of murkiness and compromise. As scientists delve deeper into the mysteries of the universe, more and more are coming to grips with the fact that it is all too mysterious to explain unless God is there in the midst of the mystery. The truly rational man sees in Christ the source of all Truth.
Blessings.
DLE,
Good day to you, sir.
You did not provide a factual rebuttal of my position.
Then, you said that Newton and Pascal were both Christians. Yes, I’m aware of Newton’s concern with alchemy and so on. But Newton or Pascal saying so doesn’t make it so, just as million leftists saying that socialism is good won’t make it so.
I understand why many people turn to God: the human need for morality, which is inescapable. Most of us see that the world is falling apart. Day by day we see the effects of what the multiculturalist-socialist Left puts forward in the name of science. Disgusted, we turn to unshakable principle in guiding our personal lives, principle which religion provides.
But, it won’t work: we court the same harm that the liberals hold out to us. Why? Because the morality of religion in many areas cannot be defended.
So, what is the alternative? The free-wheeling, do-what-you-like selfishness of the Left? NO.
The answer is a rational morality of rational selfishness, which has been outlined fully and completely by the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. This is a fact-based morality that doesn’t leave you groping for answers; that does not leave you studded by guilt; that sets you free to climb every mountain; that enables you to realize your dreams.
But, I leave you to find it out for yourself by checking out the books I recommended to Miss Barber in my first comment. If you don’t agree, then at least you’d have first-hand knowledge of the morality.
Best wishes.
Thank you, La Shawn, for this meditation.
You write of the blessings of God’s grace in your life. That brings to mind the words of the great Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis, who wrote much about good and evil, and of God’s infinite love and mercy. God, the loving Father, never abandons any of His children:
“St. Augustine says, ‘God gives where He finds empty hands.’ A man whose hands are full of parcels can’t receive a gift.’”
Without prejudice, as a Buddhist, I am always astonished at how much so many Christians profess to “know” about both God and the World. The question I would ask immediately is: Where was your ‘immortal soul’ BEFORE you were born and was it tainted by ‘original sin’, then? If not, why was it forced to be born into such a disadvantged state? If so, who made it so?
The Buddhist view of the matter is somewhat different: none of us are ‘inherently’ anything, neither ‘inherently good’ nor ‘inherently evil’, and we act in unskillful ways because we are confused about this fact.
Moreover, I think our hostesess’ statement of the case is very close to what Christian theologians call the Manichean heresy.
Since this issue is always sliding over into politics, I would invite anyone interested in it over to read an extensive 3 part essay of my own “On Being Liberal and Religous” where I discuss both the clevage between Christian and Secular Conservatism (well displayed by Dare’s response above), and the overwhelmingly secular character of contemporary Liberalism.
Doesn’t every religion believe theirs is the righteous one,
the only one? Doesn’t history show this attitude, when strongly promoted(preached) by its leaders, has created extremists has led to violence against their fellow man?
Examples: Crusades, Inquistions, Abortion Clinic Murderers,
Islamic Jihadist.
The scale of the violence in the examples above were in general directly related to the amount of state power the religion had while attempting their ‘convert or kill’ missions. Food for thought.
“The “good” we do, if any at all, does not meet God’s requirements.”
No, but it does (or should) meet our requirements to show our love for God.
Good Post, especially for this beautiful Sunday! Glad I found you!
Here is a passage that describes why we are all born with sin:
Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-..for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
My pastor once used the analogy of a factory. When a factory makes, say a car, the first few cars manufactured will be studied for any defects so that they may be corrected before anymore cars are made. When Adam bit that apple, he set the ‘defect’ if you will, for all of man. That is why we are all born sinful.
Part I
Why is man inherently bad? Because God said so? And how do we know that? Were a liberal to say that he believed some unfounded rumor about President Bush, we’d rightly denounce him, since his assertions aren’t fact-based. So, why open ourselves up to ridicule by making man a “sinful creature?” Such unearned guilt only serves to make life one long corridor of pain.
Where do I begin with this? First of all, let me ask this question: Why is it that Christians are always asked to “prove their beliefs?” No doubt we should be able to do so (by a preponderance of evidence, as we do with most things, and not a for-Christians-only 100 percent standard of proof), but curiously, the “other side” makes no such attempt. Asking why I believe man is inherently evil is fine, but the more interesting discussion would be for you to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that man is inherently good, or to put it in the way you mean it, why he is not inherently bad.
Secondly, we all have a worldview. Mine derives from the supposition that God exists and can be known as far as we can know him. We all have presuppositions about the world and how it works, but unbelievers commit the common error of assuming they’re being objective while we Christians are blindly subjective. For instance, there is no proof that evolution (which is certainly a religious belief) ever happened, yet evolutionists are convinced that science proves we evolved from apes. As offensive as my beliefs are to such people, it’s even more offensive to think that man, made in God’s image, evolved from apes.
Taking it on faith that Christ is indeed the Savior is not to say Christians don’t rely on evidence for our beliefs. This gets into a discussion about the reliability and infallibility of the Bible, which proclaims the glory of the living God and His Son. If and until I am convinced that God doesn’t exist, which atheists and agnostics cannot demonstrate, I will continue to believe my eyes and ears as I observe the awesomeness of the created order. One example that always blows me away is the existence of DNA, the information-rich formula of all life. That this magnificent piece of “technology” evolved from nothing or “chance” is absurd.
Observations of the physical world aside, I see the unity and harmony of the Bible. Written over thousands of years by people inspired by God, this book is the story of mankind, and it’s overarching and awesome theme is man’s redemption. Why God chose to order his world this way and make his creatures as he did are questions I can’t answer. Sorry. I can only tell you from what I read of his will for man, part of which is to glorify him, is to be redeemed from our fallenness, be reunited with him and worship him for eternity. Now my finite mind can just barely grasp this, so that’s the best I can do.
I have no concern about the so-called ridicule you speak of. And believe me, our guilt about sin is well-deserved. Again, this goes back to a belief that the Bible is true and reliable. God says he is perfect and holy and just. As such, he does not make mistakes. If one breaks a law, one must be held accountable before a perfect, holy and just God.
As we see in the Old Testament, blood was required to pay for sins. The slaughtering of a lamb was a picture of the slaughtering of the Lamb, Jesus Christ. Since God requires perfection – perfect obedience to the law, perfect justice – breaking even one of his laws requires punishment. Yet, we commit a multitude of sin. When Christ came, the ceremonial sacrificing of the lamb was fulfilled in him. That is, he assumed the punishment for our sin. His blood was God’s requirement for the forgiveness or “pardon” of lawbreakers.
This harkens back to your comment about “undeserved guilt.” Breaking God’s laws means we are guilty. We commit most of these acts knowing full well they are wrong. Yet we do so anyway because we are rebellious. That is man’s condition, but God provides an escape for that condition: through is Son Jesus Christ.
Dare,
Let me direct you to a book by Max Lucado that I am reading right now. It is entitled, “In the Grip of Grace”. It will go a long way towards answering your first post. Now, to answer your question, I will direct you to scripture, God’s own words.
Romans 3:10 “There is none righteous, no not one.”
That means none of us are right or good, etc.
Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.”
That means that we have all sinned, and no matter how hard we work, we can never measure up to God’s standards. We always like to compare ourselves to man. Shoot! It’s not hard to look wonderful, great and good when we do that. We can always find someone a whole lot worse than us to compare ourselves to. But, when we compare ourselves to God’s standard, we fall so far short, it should cause us to cry out to God for His mercy and grace.
Pay no attention to the detractors, Ms. Barber.
I have been posting a chapter of Romans each day, with Martin Luther’s commentary.
Not sure if anyone has been by since…lol.
Oh well, I don’t blog for them anyway.
God bless you, La Shawn, keep up the great work.
Miss Barber wrote:
Where do I begin with this? First of all, let me ask this question: Why is it that Christians are always asked to “prove their beliefs?” No doubt we should be able to do so (by a preponderance of evidence, as we do with most things, and not a for-Christians-only 100 percent standard of proof), but curiously, the “other side” makes no such attempt. Asking why I believe man is inherently evil is fine, but the more interesting discussion would be for you to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that man is inherently good, or to put it in the way you mean it, why he is not inherently bad.
Christians are asked to prove their position because a basic principle of logic (which is the method of proof) is the “onus of proof” principle, which states that the onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive to provide evidence for his assertion. If I were to say that LaShawn Barber has a blog, I am able to point to this site for all to see. However, no-one has ever been able to point to God. For proof, the evidence of the senses (sight, touch, hearing, smell, taste) is required.
You ask me why I think that man is inherently good? I don’t think that man is inherently good – men can be glorious, excellent, good, bad, vicious, wicked, evil, etc.
Man, since he has free-will, can choose to be good or otherwise.
However, since before we act, we must first think, before a person chooses to be good or bad, he or she must first ask, What is good? what is bad? what is evil? In other words, by what standard of value are we judging men’s actions? Is it an arbitrary standard not based on facts? or is it a standard that we can validate? If it is arbitrary, as the religious standards usually are, what stops a bleeding-heart liberal from coming in and insisting that murderers are innocent? He’ll simply maintain that your values are just as arbitrary as his.
But if we have a fact-based standard, such as man’s life, then we can condemn the liberal fully knowing our cause is firmly grounded in the facts of reality. We can say Hitler is evil; we can say murderers are evil; we can say Clinton was vicious.
Secondly, we all have a worldview. Mine derives from the supposition that God exists and can be known as far as we can know him. We all have presuppositions about the world and how it works, but unbelievers commit the common error of assuming they’re being objective while we Christians are blindly subjective. For instance, there is no proof that evolution (which is certainly a religious belief) ever happened, yet evolutionists are convinced that science proves we evolved from apes. As offensive as my beliefs are to such people, it’s even more offensive to think that man, made in God’s image, evolved from apes.
I want to take this opportunity to disassociate myself from those atheists who smoke LSD and then say that there is no God. Or those who say that they “feel” there is no God. These people are not objective. “Objective” means, broadly, “derived from a human, logical analysis of the facts of reality.”
And the primary fact of reality is that Existence exists, and only existence exists. Nothing and no-one can exist outside of reality – reality simply is…
On evolution: actually, there is enough proof to call the theory of evolution valid. However, saying that man descended from apes does not mean that men are apes, so this should not offend anyone at all.
Taking it on faith that Christ is indeed the Savior is not to say Christians don’t rely on evidence for our beliefs. This gets into a discussion about the reliability and infallibility of the Bible, which proclaims the glory of the living God and His Son. If and until I am convinced that God doesn’t exist, which atheists and agnostics cannot demonstrate, I will continue to believe my eyes and ears as I observe the awesomeness of the created order. One example that always blows me away is the existence of DNA, the information-rich formula of all life. That this magnificent piece of “technology” evolved from nothing or “chance” is absurd.
But, as I indicated with the onus of proof principle above, logic does not require atheists to prove that there is no God. To even attempt to do so would be illogical. Proof presupposes evidence which presupposes existence. And only existence exists. It is the Christians, the Moslems, etc, who have this onus.
I do not see what is absurd in saying that DNA simply exists. After all, we have Hurricanes Jeanne, Lisa, Ivan, Charley, etc., wreaking havoc on America but we don’t think it is absurd that no divine plan brought these into play. do we?
I have no concern about the so-called ridicule you speak of. And believe me, our guilt about sin is well-deserved. Again, this goes back to a belief that the Bible is true and reliable. God says he is perfect and holy and just. As such, he does not make mistakes. If one breaks a law, one must be held accountable before a perfect, holy and just God.
But such a God, were he even to exist, could not be just if he made laws that His own creations could not obey, could he? I mean, picture a father who told his children not to go out and play, who told them they would sit in the kitchen oven at 50000F if they did. What would you think of such a parent? Would you not label him cruel and wicked?
In any case, I did not intend that we go into a back-and-forth on this issue. I only hope that you would find some time to look through those books I suggested to you.
Have a wonderful week, Miss Barber.
Part II
Without prejudice, as a Buddhist, I am always astonished at how much so many Christians profess to “know” about both God and the World. The question I would ask immediately is: Where was your ‘immortal soul’ BEFORE you were born and was it tainted by ‘original sin’, then? If not, why was it forced to be born into such a disadvantaged state? If so, who made it so? The Buddhist view of the matter is somewhat different: none of us are ‘inherently’ anything, neither ‘inherently good’ nor ‘inherently evil’, and we act in unskillful ways because we are confused about this fact.”?
What is so astounding about it? You profess a belief to know God, do you not? But two opposing beliefs cannot both be true. That is the issue, not the fact I claim to know God.
While the Bible doesn’t explicit refer to an “immortal soul”, we do read everywhere about spirit. For instance, until we are saved, we are “spiritually dead.” After God quickens us alive, our spirit is now “alive in Christ.” Believers are promised bodily resurrection from the dead upon the Second Coming of Christ.
Let me interject here that this will probably we a protracted, and I hope fruitful, back and forth on these issues. We are approaching these subjects from very different worldviews, and that has to be acknowledged.
Understand this: God, as our creator, can do with us whatever he wants to do. He is the Potter and we are the clay, which cannot ask, “Why do you make me so?” Fallen human beings don’t want to hear this! We want to think we have a say in what God can or cannot do. He has every right to order his creation as he pleases.
While I can’t answer the question why a particular individual was born, I can say that man knowingly rebels against God. The Bible teaches that because of Adam disobedience, sin entered the world, but we will be judged according to our own sin, not Adam’s.
From where do you derive the view that we “act in unskillful ways”, which is just an excuse for the evil we do? When you tell a lie, for instance, are you “unskilled” in the truth or “unskilled” about why you seek to cover your misdeeds? If you could elaborate, that would be helpful.
Moreover, I think our hostesess’ statement of the case is very close to what Christian theologians call the Manichean heresy.
Why would a non-Christian concern himself with a “Christian” heresy? Interesting. From what I understand of this “Manichean heresy”, it sounds like another form of Gnosticism, which is the belief that salvation is obtained through occult knowledge and is revealed to chosen ones. Gnosticism and Manichaeism hold that matter is intrinsically evil and spirit intrinsically good. That’s not what I believe, and I challenge you to find anywhere in my post such implied or stated assertions.
I think you accuse me of heresy because I point out the depravity of man. This depravity is not the result of man’s physical nature but of his spiritual nature. His spirit is dead without Christ. God’s creation isn’t evil. After he made the world he “saw that it was good.”
As an aside, it would have been helpful for you to demonstrate how I am “very close” to committing heresy, but I won’t quibble. While I think I understand exactly what your problem is with Christianity, I don’t want to get into this response further until you’ve provided some clarity.
Part III (and possibly more) to follow.
The most pertinent question is this, and Jesus Himself asked it:
“Who do you say that I am?”
-Matthew 16:15
Either He was a liar, a lunatic, or He was Lord.
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” -John 14:6
So the real problem people have is with Jesus Himself.
Each one of us must ask ourselves, “Who do we say that Jesus is?”
Will we take Him by His Word, or not?
“atheist”
the word is making a statement.
it means “no god”
alot of “pearls” are getting trampled on by “swine”.
I agree, Joshua, but Christians are called to defend the faith. The problem is that people hold Christians to a higher standard than they hold themselves to. It’s not really a complaint, just an observation. For instance, must one actually see and hear God to believe in him? How pleased he is that those who do not see still believe! But how can a believer explain this to someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible in a way that will satisfy him? As I said, we all have our presuppositions, whether people admit to them or not. That makes it very difficult to find a common ground upon which to stand to have the discussion in the first place.
La Shawn – Beautiful post today. Did you happen to read Piper’s Fresh Words on the language of the faith (I’m mangling it) this week? It looks like you’re doing exactly what he mentioned.
God bless you.
I have read “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” and other works by Ayn Rand and the Objectivists. There are some good ideas there, along with a lot of bad ones, but nothing that made me even briefly consider rejecting Christianity. I doubt they would make a huge impression on La Shawn, since she seems to have applied the best parts of the ideas put forth in those books to her life already; those being to think for yourself, dare to dream your dream, make things happen for yourself, and don’t let other people hold you back or drag you down out of envy for your accomplishments. The rest of it’s just noise.
Thank you, Joshua, for slapping an ad hominem attack in the middle of the discussion. Just what we needed.
Thanks for bringing this topic up, La Shawn (if I may be so bold). As for some of Dare’s comments.
I will grant that there is eveidence for evolution (in the sense of change), but not enough for the general theory of evolution (in the sense that all life came from a rock). Certainly not enough to allow evolutionary theory to be taught as fact in the schools or reported as fact in the media. (BTW, before you object to the rock analogy, think about the textbook explanation for the generation of life – water splashed on the right rock at the right time in the right conditions.)
Even ardent evolutionists accept that there are gaps in the fossil record. Even more astounding is the existence of parentless plutonium isotopes which suggest sudden crystalization of molten rock. Evolution is a theory held on to because in the hearts of many, the alternative is unthinkable. But this is not the place to discuss the theory of evolution. It is to discuss the theory of God – spefically right and wrong. I refer you to some excellent books by C.S. Lewis: “Mere Christianity” and “The Problem of Pain” for a logical approach to Christianity. Also look at the “Case for…” books by Lee Strobel.
You want to look at existence or life for proof that we are flawed? The theory of God does not say that God created man flawed, but that he became flawed. Flawed people do not a;ways do “their best” by whatever definition of “best” they choose. Honestly review your own life – are there things you wish you would have done differentlY? Times when you did not perform up to your (not some arbitrary other person) own standards? That missing the mark is what the Bible calls sin. All have fallen short of the glory.
God does not condemn His children to hell (although hell certainly exists), but they condemn themselves. He offers salvation through Jesus Christ. That is the love of God – that He took the form of a man and offered himself as the final sacrifice for sin.
The link at my name is off topic, but worth reading in the next month.
Others can say things so much better than I can. Let’s call this comment Part II-a. This is from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org/apologetics/logic.htm):
—-
“Logic is typically very important in apologetics. To defend the faith, the Christian must use truth, facts, and reason appropriately and prayerfully. The Christian should listen to objections and make cogent and rational comments in direct response to the issues raised.
Logic is simply a tool in the arsenal of Christian apologetics. Logic is a system of reasoning. It is the principles of proper thinking used to arrive at correct conclusions. Of course, some people are better at thinking logically than others and there is no guarantee that using logic to the best of one’s ability will bring conversion of anyone. After all, logic is not what saves a person. Jesus does that and we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1).
Therefore, the proper use of logic in apologetics is to remove intellectual barriers that hinder a person from accepting Jesus as Savior. Logic is not to be looked at as the answer to every problem facing Christianity or every objection raised. Logic has its limits. It cannot guarantee wisdom.It cannot prove or disprove inspiration or love. It cannot replace the intuition gained through experience, the prompting of the Holy Spirit, nor the clear truth of God’s word. Nevertheless, logic is still very valuable and can be quite powerfully used by people both the saved and unsaved….
[Is logic a common ground between the believe and unbeliever?] I believe that logic is indeed a type of common ground. But I do not believe that it possess some innate quality that renders it above human capacity or limitations, nor is it possessing of any ethereal, mystic qualities that somehow transcends the blinding influence of sin. I think that logic, used properly, always vindicates the truths found in the Bible and point to God – whether or not an unbeliever acknowledges it.
Logic belongs to God. This is so because God has invented the universe, the physical laws, mathematics, and all other natural and true phenomenon in it. Existence has an order because God gave it order. Logic is true, not because it is logical, but because it is a reflection of God’s nature which is order and truth. Therefore, logic, ultimately, belongs only to God and can only properly be used by Him and, in matters pertaining to God, by the Christian.”
—-
I cannot point to something and say, “See, God exists!” and suddenly people will believe, especially when they’re are predisposed to believe he doesn’t exist. To find the truly objective person who will weigh the evidence of God’s existence (through design or cause arguments, for instance), would be ideal.
Addendum: Thanks, Rick. I hate to do after-the-fact “that’s what I meant” posts, but…
You are correct that some evidence may point to such a theory as evolution, but as it stands it’s only a theory, and certainly should not be taught in schools as fact.
Blog Jones – What Joshua wrote is not ad hominem. In the Sermon on the Mount (beginning at Matthew 5) Jesus said: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”
Many people do not take to spiritual things. That is, when sharing the Gospel and defending the faith, there comes a time when one has to cease doing so, at least for the moment. At some point it becomes obvious that the person fails or refuses to see the beauty of the “pearl” of God’s word. The language is symbolic, and that is the way Joshua used it. He is not calling anyone a literal “swine.”
Understand this: God, as our creator, can do with us whatever he wants to do. He is the Potter and we are the clay, which cannot ask, “Why do you make me so?” Fallen human beings don’t want to hear this! We want to think we have a say in what God can or cannot do. He has every right to order his creation as he pleases.
La Shawn,
Thanks for this discussion – you have truly made my day. And I agree with your statement above – it is directly from the Holy Scripture (as far as that matters to an unbeliever!). It has been my experience that we fallen creatures cannot tolerate the thought of not being in complete and total control of ourselves and all those things having to do with ourselves. We stand there – puny little individuals – in the face of the entire universe – with our fists clenched and raised up in the face of our Creator – and claim to ‘know’ all there is to know. We think our institutions of learning, our churches, our political leaders, our great thinkers ALL have the answer. And most of all, we even believe that all of that ‘knowledge’ rests in our own teenie, tiny little selves! AMAZING! God is indeed awesome and MOST PATIENT!
I can’t allow this comment, Omar. Perhaps you’ll find the answers to your questions in the post and comments. In fact, if you read “The Beheadings”, it may prove helpful. – Admin
I was going to ask Omar if he was really interested in answers to his questions or if he was just throwing out flame bait. If you really are strugling with those kinds of issues there are much better ways to seek answers.
I feel it was a legit question. If it came across as offensive, then im sorry.
‘I was going to ask Omar if he was really interested in answers to his questions ‘
Yes, i am very interested.
‘….or if he was just throwing out flame bait.’
No. I didnt mean to offend anyone, or sound judgemental.
‘If you really are strugling with those kinds of issues there are much better ways to seek answers. ‘
Issues? What do you mean? I feel asking is usually the best way to find an answer, funnily enough.
Blog Jones said,
“Thank you, Joshua, for slapping an ad hominem attack in the middle of the discussion. Just what we needed.”
And that would be where? I don’t see where I attacked.
But hey, you can say that all you want, you’re free to your opinion.
Sincerly,
Ed Hominem
“What is so astounding about it? You profess a belief to know God, do you not? But two opposing beliefs cannot both be true. That is the issue, not the fact I claim to know God.”
Buddhists are not creationists, and view arguments about the existence or non-existence of a “creator” God who is omnipotent and omnicient to be irrelevant to the religious problem of humankind, which is how to deal with the sufferings of birth, old age, sickness, death, and rebirth.
What a Buddhist takes on trust (note I said “trust”, not “faith”–nothing in the Dharma cannot be directly tested by experience sooner or later, though much may not be testable immediately) is the existence of prior and future lives. Buddhist ethics is based on “karma, cause, and effect”. Unskillful action is that which results in personal suffering for the individual who commits it, though how soon that action “ripens” into suffering depends upon individual circumstance. Sometimes several lives are necessary for the “ripening” to occur.
In the Buddhist view, the reason we act “unskillfully” is that we hold the confused and incorrect belief that there is a permanent “self” within us which must be supported, protected, and defended against the rest of the world. This belief results in the three emotive “poisons”: bewilderment, craving, and anger. These poisons drive our actions which continually recreate and sustain the illusion that we have a “self” which is something apart from the appearance of the rest of the world.
The point of my question about birth is that, if there IS some basic “self”, “soul”, “spirit”, or whatever, in you that is “depraved”, “inherently evil”, “sinful”, where is it? And where was it before you were born? Did it appear out of nowhere at the moment of your conception? And where will it be twenty minutes after your heart stops beating?
As to Manicheanism, I bring it up because I grew up secular in a Christian intellectual culture, and as a Buddhist convert, I usually have to find some meeting point in dialog with my Christian neighbors using the concepts we both share. The Buddhist view is not just a profoundly different view of religion, it is a profoundly and radically different view of the entire world.
By raising the issue, I have enabled you to give me a basis for continuing dialog. So, then, what is “matter”, “spirit”, and “evil” and how do they interact? You, yourself, asked the question, “Where does good come from?” but I hardly think you have explicitly answered it so far, although the stock answer, “from God” is certainly implied in what you have to say.
But is that stock answer more than a piece of circular reasoning?
The reason I deleted your post, as if I have to explain myself, is that it was inflammatory and offensive to me. Aside from that, I addressed at least one of your concerns in the beheading post, which is why I referenced it. It is very discouraging to do all this writing if people won’t even make the effort to read posts and comments but then ask questions already answered.
Joseph – Your post is astoundingly confusing, and I don’t understand how you believe all that, yet doubt the Christian faith.
You accuse me of using circular reasoning when I answered your question. The Christian believes good comes from God. Why is that circular? Where do you say it comes from, or do you argue that no one can know?
I’ll tell you, the “circular reasoning” accusations don’t bother me at all. I’m not sure if that was your intent, I just think it needs to be said.
I’ll repost an excerpt the comment I posted above. I like it, and I think people should read it. From the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org/apologetics/logic.htm):
—-
“Logic is typically very important in apologetics. To defend the faith, the Christian must use truth, facts, and reason appropriately and prayerfully. The Christian should listen to objections and make cogent and rational comments in direct response to the issues raised.
Logic is simply a tool in the arsenal of Christian apologetics. Logic is a system of reasoning. It is the principles of proper thinking used to arrive at correct conclusions. Of course, some people are better at thinking logically than others and there is no guarantee that using logic to the best of one’s ability will bring conversion of anyone. After all, logic is not what saves a person. Jesus does that and we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1).
Therefore, the proper use of logic in apologetics is to remove intellectual barriers that hinder a person from accepting Jesus as Savior. Logic is not to be looked at as the answer to every problem facing Christianity or every objection raised. Logic has its limits. It cannot guarantee wisdom.It cannot prove or disprove inspiration or love. It cannot replace the intuition gained through experience, the prompting of the Holy Spirit, nor the clear truth of God’s word. Nevertheless, logic is still very valuable and can be quite powerfully used by people both the saved and unsaved.
[Is logic a common ground between the believe and unbeliever?] I believe that logic is indeed a type of common ground. But I do not believe that it possess some innate quality that renders it above human capacity or limitations, nor is it possessing of any ethereal, mystic qualities that somehow transcends the blinding influence of sin. I think that logic, used properly, always vindicates the truths found in the Bible and point to God – whether or not an unbeliever acknowledges it.
Logic belongs to God. This is so because God has invented the universe, the physical laws, mathematics, and all other natural and true phenomenon in it. Existence has an order because God gave it order. Logic is true, not because it is logical, but because it is a reflection of God’s nature which is order and truth. Therefore, logic, ultimately, belongs only to God and can only properly be used by Him and, in matters pertaining to God, by the Christian.”
—
You’re pushing it, Omar. If you want to discuss this further, e-mail me and don’t address me in this comment thread again. – Admin
CARM is a very informative site. Alot of these folks questions can be answered there.
Yes, I agree, La Shawn, we must be ready to defend the faith. You do a much better job than I can.
I end up goin’ off and get emotional. I still got alot of growin’ to do.
All I can do is point to Jesus and Paul, and say what they already said. No use in reinventing the wheel when there are alot of great apologists that have already tackled these questions.
C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharias, Hank Hanegraaff, John Piper, J.I. Packer, to name a few.
Keep up the good work, sis.
You’re right, Joshua. Much greater minds than mine have been writing on and speaking about these issues for centuries. Nothing new under the sun. Knowing how I am, I at least have to make a go of it first. In an update to this post, I’ll link to a few articles that directly address some of the questions raised by this post.
Thank you, everyone, for reading my blog and participating in the discussion!
I believe that we have choices, but lacking a knowledge of Christ, how does one choose good or evil? I believe that we are all inherently good, but we also have to make choices based on the conditioning of our environment until a new paradigm comes along.
I am not good at the metaphysics of morality, but in a nutshell, we can choose good over evil because we want to.
La Femme Crickita (love the name by the way),
Hank Hanegraaff refers to this as libertarian freedom. The freedom to act, or to act otherwise.
La Shawn,
I think you are doing a fantastic job. Your arguments are very cogent.
Thank you, La Shawn, for sharing this wonderful topic today. It is something we as Christians should all be ready and willing to explain and defend.
You understand that we can only plant the seed, and leave the growing to God.
Thank you LaShawn for bringing up such important topics on your site. It makes for informative and satisfying reading.
If Dare truly wishes to understand how a man or woman can “reason” his or her way to accept the truth of Christianity, I suggest one source might be C.S. Lewis’s (you see, Ms. Barber, some of us can follow your grammatical preferences) book “Mere Christianity.” No one can “irrefutably prove” matters of faith to the satisfaction of another person solely by the application of logic, and that goes for Objectivism, as well. I read Ann Rynd’s books as an undergraduate and post-graduate student and wasn’t aware that anyone still took her philosophy of Objectivism seriously. Obviously, some do. I came to the same conclusion about it as Laura; however, if you’re ever wondering what might be proposed as a philosophical basis for the pursuit of personal selfishness as a creed, you should read Rynd’s works.
Great post Miss Barber!
Just last week I had a similar conversation on my blog about the origin of evil and the theory(religion) of evolution. You made a great point in an earlier comment, that we are all coming from completely different world views. Therefore the desire for “evidence” will never satisfy those who simply do not believe and have their own set of rules and definitions of life. And you read my mind in your point about the burden of proof is always put on Christians, yet the challenger doesn’t see a need to defend why he/she believes what they believe. Personally, I know that anyone who is truly honest with himself can see that there is an intelligence behind all that exists today, that SHOULD be a given. The Apostle Paul makes this point in Romans 1. The true question, if one is honest, is who is and where does this intelligence come from? From this I believe one will eventually come to the inevitable question, am I accountable to this being? It is this question that many do not want to answer. The reality is that the burden of proof is on the one who says there is no God, as Paul once again states, they are without excuse.
Touche Mr. McClellan.
Just for the record, good people: the name is Ayn Rand, not Ann Rynd. I say this for the more curious people who are reading these comments.
A good week to all.
Well, La Shawn, look at it this way, if we start by assuming that God is, by definition, an all-powerful, omnicient, and good being, then “God is the source of all good” is a tautology implied by our prior assumption–this is the circular reasoning that I spoke of. And this of course leads to the question, Who is the source of all evil?
As for the confusion about my Buddhist views, this is again a function of the fact that Buddhism has a radically different starting point in viewing the world. For example, in the form of Buddhist logic that I have been taught, each of the “four extreme views” is in error:
If you say that anything exists, you are in error.
If you say that nothing exists, you are in error.
If you say that things both exist and non-exist, you are in error.
If you say that things neither exist nor non-exist, you are in error.
When you abandon all of these four errors, what is left?
Pure, radiant, unobstructed bliss.
But I doubt that clarifies the confusion, so perhaps we can back up and look at the dichotomies implied in the terms you are used to using: by implication “good” is the opposite of “evil” and “matter” is the opposite of “spirit”. Do you see them that way?
If “matter” includes everything perceptible to our senses, including our own bodies, where and what is “spirit”? And, incidentally, just who is it who perceives either one?
If “good” is an objective, permanently existing quality, is “evil” merely the absence of good or is evil also objective and permanently existing on its own side?
And is there then such a thing as “good matter” as opposed to “evil matter” and “good spirit” as opposed to “evil spirit”? Or, as in the Manichean view, is “matter” co-existent with “evil” and “spirit” co-existent with “good”?
Did God create all four of these: matter, spirit, good, evil?
If so, then what existed before He created them and what other qualities define His nature apart from them?
By the way, thanks for stopping by and visiting. You have a nice blog and it is a pleasure to have you on my list.
La Shawn!! That was a inspired post. I wish I could add my 2 cents — I had and then lost my train of thought. Oh well, maybe it’ll come back to after I sleep on it.
I trust this will be a regular Sunday feature?
Thanks for this topic and for addressing the issue of evolution. A good resource for material on the topic of the general theory of evolution can be found at http://www.wildersmith.org/library.htm. These are recordings of lectures by a Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith. He had a background in pharmacology and taught in different universities all over the world. He expertly uses logic (and a dollop of humor) to explain why the concept of biogenesis held to by Darwinian evolutionists makes no sense. He also addresses the issue of genetics, DNA. language and time to disprove Darwin’s theory.
I personally like his approach because he addresses the most basic concepts of biogenesis—how life began in the first place—rather than dealing with the subsequent issues of the fossil records, etc. Since I haven’t mentioned it yet, Dr. Wilder-Smith has a definite biblical Christian worldview. While I’ve not read it, it’s my understanding he addesses his worldview in his book titled “He Who Thinks Has To Believe.”
ah. Thanks so much for the clarification. I am NOT a humanist, but a Christian who tries to practice her religion every day. However, I am of the belief that there are good people out there who know not Christ, but who do good because they choose to. Does that make sense?
Joseph, I am not a Buddhist, but I do believe that there are two parts to mankind: His spirit, and his body. Once united, they form the soul, body and spirit.
And in living, they must work in harmony to learn how to make good choices and to choose what is right. Some have Christianity, and others have other forms of worship to help them in this mortal time or a belief in another Being.
So, since we accept that ’spirit’ is part of the human condition, (good or evil isn’t part of this yet), then let us ask the terrible question: Where did spirit come from?
La Shawn,
After spending the entire day at my church home of worshiping God, I find you have posted a blog that gives honor and witness to the goodness of God. Not surprisingly, I also find it has generated an enormous volume of comments, many of course that discount Gods’ very existence. Well, as for me and my house, I will stake my eternal life on only one book, the absolute truths of Gods’ holy word, the Bible. And I will do my “humanly” best to live by the example of Jesus Christ and His commandments. When I fail, He will forgive if I repent. I get only one chance at making the choice that secures my eternal life to be with God. If I’m wrong, so be it. I don’t ever intend to succumb to “false teaching” or any other gods(?). The one true God I believe in has created in all humankind the desire and need to worship. Who or what one chooses to worship will determine their eternity. In the end, the Bible says, before God “every knee shall bow”. And I believe your work, La Shawn, will be a light for someone.
To Dare,
I am not going to go into the religious thing with anyone. However, There is NO proof that evolution is real The theory has undergone several revisions in the last 100 years or so since it was enacted and there are no LINKS, missing or otherwise to prove evolution. The latest theory says that things ” suddenly mutate” and become a new species. This is called the puntuated equilibrium theory and it was called the “hopeful monster” theory in the 1930s when it was first proposed. This theory is supposed to make up for the lack of archeological evidence to support evolution. Read up on it and you will see that it just didn’t happen. What did happen I don’t know but I do know that evolution has NOT been proved or even come close to it. Thanks.
Mr. Marshall,
Here are a few thoughts on your above post:
“Who is the source of all evil?” I am guessing that you think the obvious answer is the Christian God. In one sense, I suppose, that is true, as we believe that God created all. However, there is really one source of evil, although it is promulgated through multiple agencies. The original source of evil is the desire by either Satan or man to usurp the role of God and act outside of the role that God created. Yes, I’m sure that sounds rustic and quaint, but that is the Christian perspective. There is no singular source of evil, then, it comes from any of God’s creations attempts to supplant God and act outside of His will.
Second, at least to my thinking, the Christian view of evil is not that it is the opposite of good. Rather, evil is a perversion of good. For example, God creates sexuality for a man and woman in the context of marriage. Evil occurs when the good thing (sexuality) is practiced outside of the context that God intended (outside of marriage, etc.). Thus, evil is not the “opposite of good” but is a perversion of, or a deviation from, God’s intentions.
Matter is not the opposite of spirit. They are qualitatively unique and need not be set in opposition to each other. It is not a dualistic either or situation. (Is Buddhism dualistic?)
So, then, there is no “bad matter” or “bad spirit,” but there are bad uses for matter and there are spirits that choose to do wrong.
What existed before God? There is no answer to that question–it is a null set. God is, was and forever wil be. Is God spirit? I do not know how to answer that. God transcends our conception of what spirit means, I am sure. But, I cannot tell you what, exactly, God is made of, or if it makes sense to speak of what he is made of.
The qualities of God are too numerous to list in this already overly long comment. I would suggest that, for the moment, it is sufficient to note that God loves us all. That is the quality that draws us to Him.
Mark S.
To no one in particular,
Did someone refer to Ayn as “Ann?” I must have missed that. I’ve surfed over to the Objectivist Center site a few times in the past, and I actually liked a few of the articles on reason. I’m interested in reading a wide variety of things, some too controversial to post on this blog (me, afraid of controversy?). Reading to satisfy my curiosity or fill my head with more ideas is fine. But as a Christian with a Christian worldview, I can quickly spot the line of reasoning incompatible with my faith. Many unbelievers presume there is no God while I presume there is.
In a discussion, just like the one on this board, I’m ask to “prove” God exists, which the unbeliever contends I must do. Look, if people think believers in God are strange, I think folks who don’t are even more so. From where does the moral law derive if not from a good and perfect being, for instance? Who designed the world to function exactly as it should to sustain human life? I notice that most don’t explicitly assert, “God does not exist” Rather, the framing is, “Prove that God exists.”
What proof will suffice? If persuasive arguments about the cause and design of the universe don’t do it, what will? If demonstrating the reliability of the Bible through manuscript evidence or references found in extrabiblical sources is not persuasive enough, what would be? What sort of “proof” is required in this case? Logic games are fine, but I’m afraid they are insufficent to “prove” matters of faith. In my view, that should not be the standard.
I was so surprised yesterday morning when I posted this entry. I returned to the post after a few hours and started preparing my response to some of the posts. I don’t know how an Objectivist and a Buddha found my blog, but I like it. I like defending my faith, even if I’m not as articulate as some of these other folks. Pressed for time and working on other projects, I couldn’t address the smaller issues I wanted to. Perhaps I’ll address them in another post.
This thread will remain open, and I encourage you all to continue the discussion. Thanks again.
Interesting thread — wish I’d got time to join in properly.
I do just need to take issue with your explanation of Ps 58:3 La Shawn.
“The wicked” in that verse are clearly not “every human born” – verse 10 introduces “the righteous”, the ones “on God’s side” to use playground language, You’re reading the doctrine of total depravity into scripture at this point I think.
But who are the righteous? Those who follow God; those he saved. Who are the wicked? Those he has not saved, the unrighteous. How are we born into the world? As sinners. The righteous being referred to are only so because of God’s righteousness, not any of their own. Total depravity is man’s condition in light of the whole Bible.
There are none righteous, no, not one…
I’m =really= late to this convo, so I won’t add anything to the inherent sinfulness of man discussion. Part of the sacrament of confession/reconciliation in the Catholic Church is self-examination, and anyone who really thinks about it will realize how they themselves fall short of God’s will. I used to have a different attitude (like the old “But =I= don’t lie/cheat/steal/murder” thoughts) and with time these things have become more evident to me. The idea of one’s inherent sinfulness is not a popular one to individuals, but it is not constrained to Christianity.
I just wanted to make a comment about your throwaway line about Hitler — yes, he was a terrible sinner. But one of the Christian messages is that =anyone=, no matter how horrible his sin, can be saved through Jesus. I know it’s not likely in Hitler’s case, but this is definitely a Christian idea that is not very popular, and also why the Catholic Church does not indicate any particular person as being in Hell. We just don’t know. We have no control over who God’s Grace will touch, and it’s entirely possible for some extremely wicked people to be saved. Some of the most profound witnesses to the saving grace of Christ were indeed some of the most profligate people. Today, we have sidewalk preachers who tell the world about their degenerate ways before being touched by Christ. One of Christ’s greatest disciples, Paul, had been one of the greatest persecutors of his disciples. St. Augustine had a pretty shady past when you look at it.
When I thought about these things as an adult, after shunning Sunday School and church because it was filled with hypocrites, basically being a spiritual snob. Then I realized what a ridiculous position this was to take in Christianity – for crying out loud, Jesus hung out with some shady characters, and I rather doubt that people just stopped sinning because they ran into Jesus.
Critical subject, amazing discussion. when simmers down, lead to discussion of the church.
this discussion directly relevant to our situation in America today
You have been given a gift…use it!
‘From where does the moral law derive if not from a good and perfect being, for instance?’
The concept of morality existed long before Christianity, or any other organised religion for that matter.
‘Who designed the world to function exactly as it should to sustain human life?’
It was a very gradual process…..billions of years…. not a click of fingers kind of thing.
‘What proof will suffice? If persuasive arguments about the cause and design of the universe don’t do it, what will?’
What happened to the story of creation and 7 days etc? This argument was still majorly in place 200 years ago. People STILL believe it now.
La Shawn, since you asked: I confess to my failure to realize that I missepelled the name “Ayn” as “Ann” in my post of yesterday. Hope that hideous error didn’t ruin Dare’s day, or confuse anyone who might be searching for “The Truth” from discovering it in Ms. Rand’s books.
Miss Barber, I suggest you take a look at the Ayn Rand Institute website, and not the Objectivist Center. The Ayn Rand Institute is the only recognized “think-tank” on her ideas.
Thanks.
>>“But who are the righteous?”
The righteous are those within the covenant and do as God requires
>>“Who are the wicked?”
Those who do not do as God requires.
There isn’t anything here about “imputed righteousness”. In the schema of this Psalm, there are good and there are evil.
I hold the doctrine of original sin – but this Psalm is not the scripture to use to support it.
Executive summary from Ayn Rand Institute homepage:
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” —Ayn Rand”
Just that alone is at odds with everything that the Creator has to say about the human condition. That said, do I need to read any further on a fatally flawed philosophy?
Straight from the Gill Commentary
Psa 58:3 – The wicked are estranged from the womb,…. Which original corruption of nature accounts for all the wickedness done by men: they are conceived in sin, shapen in iniquity, and are transgressors from the womb; they are alienated from God, and from that godly life which is agreeable to him, and he requires; and from the knowledge and fear of him, and love to him; and they desire not the knowledge of him nor his ways; they are far from his law, and averse to it; and still more so to the Gospel of Christ; the doctrines of which, as well as the great things written in the law, are strange things to them; and they are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, estranged from the people of God, know nothing of them, neither of their joys, nor of their sorrows;
they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies; they are wicked from their infancy, from their youth upward; and sin, which is meant by “going astray”, as soon as they are capable of it, and which is very early. Sin soon appears in the temper and actions of then; they go out of God’s way, and turn everyone to their own way, and walk in the broad road which leads to destruction: and particularly they are very early guilty of lying; as soon as they can speak, and before they can speak plain, they lisp out lies, which they learn from their father the devil, who is the father of lies; and so they continue all their days strangers to divine things, going astray from God, the God of truth, continually doing abominations and speaking lies; which continuance in these things makes the difference between reprobate men and God’s elect; for though the latter are the same by nature as the former, yet their natures are restrained, before conversion, from going into all the sins they are inclined to; and if not, yet at conversion a stop is put to their progress in iniquity.
“…if we start by assuming that God is, by definition, an all-powerful, omnicient, and good being, then ‘God is the source of all good’ is a tautology implied by our prior assumption – this is the circular reasoning that I spoke of.”
No, there is nothing circular in that line of reasoning. The premise is that God is the uncaused first cause. As the uncaused first cause, God is the source of all good. That’s not circular logic, that’s *linear*.
“And this of course leads to the question, Who is the source of all evil?”
In order that love might be meaningful, God gave humanity (and the angels, for that matter) free will. Free will, in order to be meaningful, must include the ability to choose to disobey God, as well as to *obey* God. As God is the source of all good, disobedience to God is the source of all evil. Therefore, whoever chooses to disobey God is the source of all evil.
“As for the confusion about my Buddhist views, this is again a function of the fact that Buddhism has a radically different starting point in viewing the world. For example, in the form of Buddhist logic that I have been taught, each of the ‘four extreme views’ is in error:
If you say that anything exists, you are in error.
If you say that nothing exists, you are in error.
If you say that things both exist and non-exist, you are in error.
If you say that things neither exist nor non-exist, you are in error.
When you abandon all of these four errors, what is left?
Pure, radiant, unobstructed bliss.”
Is this bliss existent, or non-existent?
I have been told that Buddhist logic is “both/and”, rather than “either/or” logic. That is, seemingly contradictory concepts can both be true (depending upon the situation), rather than one contradicting the other. However, the act of living and doing in the world becomes impossible when one attempts to live under a dialectic (both/and), rather than an Aristotelian (either/or) framework. After all, even Buddhists look both ways before crossing the street: it’s *either* the bus or the Buddhist, not *both* of them.
“But I doubt that clarifies the confusion, so perhaps we can back up and look at the dichotomies implied in the terms you are used to using: by implication “good” is the opposite of “evil” and “matter” is the opposite of “spirit”. Do you see them that way?”
I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that we are dealing with polar dichotomies when we’re talking about these things. Yes, good is ontalogically different from evil, and matter is ontalogically different from spirit, but the fact that things are ontalogically different does not necessitate that they are opposites. You might as well say that liquid is the opposite of gas, or that color is the opposite of scent. They are different, but not intrinsically opposed.
“If ‘matter’ includes everything perceptible to our senses, including our own bodies, where and what is ’spirit?’ And, incidentally, just who is it who perceives either one?”
Humans are body-spirit unities; one analogy is that if the brain is the “hardware” of a human being, the spirit is the “software”. Spirit is the “vital aspect” of living beings; in a way it is the quality of being alive itself. Two intrinsic qualities of spirit are intelligence (though not necessarily sentience) and non-corporeality. The latter of these is the reason why the question “where is spirit” has at its heart a category mistake: non-corporeal things have no location by their very nature.
“If ‘good’ is an objective, permanently existing quality, is ‘evil’ merely the absence of good or is evil also objective and permanently existing on its own side?”
As has been noted in previous responses, evil is neither the absence of good nor eternally self-existent. Evil is the perversion of good, and the choice to do evil is the rejection of the choice to do good. God made all things good, and gave humans and angels the ability to choose to reject that good. The evil in the hearts of humanity and the world around us is in part the reverbrations of the first evil choices made within creation, and of all the evil choices since.
“And is there then such a thing as ‘good matter’ as opposed to ‘evil matter’ and ‘good spirit’ as opposed to ‘evil spirit’? Or, as in the Manichean view, is ‘matter’ co-existent with ‘evil’ and ’spirit’ co-existent with ‘good’?”
No. Morality is volitional, and any view that tries to ascribe inherent morality to any created thing is operating under flawed logic.
“Did God create all four of these: matter, spirit, good, evil?”
As I have previously stated, God created matter and spirit as good things, and gave sentient beings the ability to choose to do evil (as a function of free will, which is necessary for love to exist). God cannot do evil, nor can he create evil. God allows evil to exist for a time, in order that all may have an opportunity to turn to God, or turn away from him, by their own volition. God cannot abide with evil forever, though, and will one day call all to judgement.
“If so, then what existed before He created them and what other qualities define His nature apart from them?”
God existed before he created *anything*. The Triune Godhead is, always was, and always shall be eternally self-existent. Other qualities that define God and his nature are omnipotence (he is all powerful), omniscience (he is all-knowing), omnipresence (there is nowhere in creation where God does not permeate), sovereignty (all is under God’s control), holiness (there is nothing evil in God, nor can he ultimately abide evil), justice (God is absolutely fair in his judgements), mercy (God is compassionate, and inclined to forgive the penitent), and love (love was in existence before creation, expressed between the members of the Godhead).
I hope that helps, and look forward to further discussion with you.
AWG that was excellent. You just stated the train of thought that I lost last night and said it better than I could have.
Some time ago Neil at Digitus, Finger & Co. wrote using different proof but from the same viewpoint that man is inherently evil. I did not agree (which reflects Catholic theology) and wrote a rebuttal that may prove interesting although I realize it does not speak directly to the points that you raised. It can be found here: http://happycatholic.blogspot.com/2004/09/is-man-good-or-evil.html
As an aside, I love your writing La Shawn whether we agree on man’s inherent nature or not!
The beliefs of a particular religion have never been proven, that is why it is called a faith. Faith by definition does not rest on (require) logical proof or material evidence. Religion and faith is a ‘personal’ matter for each individual seeking answers for their life, and probably more importantly, their death.
To date no religion has been able to produce their God to demonstrate their supernatural powers as proof to the rest of us. All we have to go on are writings from mortals who claim witness to these powers, and associated miracles, as well as claims their words are Gods. We either give our ‘faith’ they are telling the truth, or we cannot without the proof.
So this ancient discussion continues here, and I thank God it is finally becoming mostly a mental exercise and not a physical one (exceptions exist as we know in America from first hand experience). This discussion, in my opinion, is most useful to help to remove misunderstandings that lead to animosities and distrust between good peoples from all over the world and of various faiths. This opportunity is provided by the awesome direct and instant conversations the internet provides and of course La Shawn’s awesome blog.
I believe internet blogs are an extremely powerful medium for clearing up misunderstanding and misdeeds of people, organizations, and states. So does Dan Rather.
Julie D, your rebuttal does emphasize fundamental differences between the Roman Catholic and Protestant views on the man’s inherent nature. It is well written, and I’d recommend it to anyone who reads La Shawn Barber’s blog regularly, as a good discussion of the differences in these persectives. It served to remind at least one ex-Catholic of the reasons that he left the Church.
Julie, you have a good post on your site and I for one appreciate the input. I think this is one of those issues where Christians can agree to disagree on the semantics and interpretations, hence the denominational differences between sects. Baptists put emphasis on baptism and so on.
Your notion of original sin vis a vis actual sin is a valid point. If for no other reason, what happens to babies that die before the “age of accountability”? If we subscribe solely to the notion that we are like filthy rags (rancid meat in your example), then it stands to reason that infants and even aborted babies are children of Satan hence intolerable in God’s eyes in relation to the mark of sin. However, we also take comfort from other verses that seem to assert that God finds such young to be innocent. Maybe someone can help me out here — or it’s just a figment of my imagination — but I think there is something in the OT pertaining to innocent babies sacrifaced to Baal.
In any case, God has always demanded that actual sins be redeemed by the spilling of innocent blood. The OT sacrifaces were the price for sins committed. Although a baby has the mark of sin, I don’t think it is capable, let alone accountable for sin, because to sin, one must know the difference between good and evil. The selfish behaviors exibited by them are motivated by survival instincts. On the other hand, if we use the logic of a blood sacriface as redemption, I would think that aborted babies have paid the price of sin with their own blood, regardless of the spiritual condition of the parents.
You know, every time I hear or read a Christian making the claim that “man is inherently sinful”, I always flash on a picture of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, expounding, “It’s not my fault!”. And indeed, it just intuitively seems like a cop-out to me.
I much prefer the view that we are all inherently good but also imperfect, and that the ultimate goal of our existence is the act of striving for a perfection that we may never obtain. The act is it’s own goal, and that which others call ‘God’ is simply another name for perfection.
The Christian focus on imperfections, to the exclusion of the whole, seems to me to be an unhealthy mindset. It reminds me of my mother-in-law who, when asked whether the glass is half-empty or half-full, will inevitably focus solely on the single dried waterspot on the outside of the glass. Her life then becomes a misery because of that one spot, and she is unable to observe anything else – much like the title character in “The Princess and the Pea”.
Like the Buddhist, I am no longer interpreting from within the context of Christian assumptions, but have taken a step farther back. It is a much larger, more beautiful and completely amazing universe, much more full of hope and possibility.
Andy,
There is some scriptural support for the idea that babies who die go to be with the Lord (though I don’t have the ability to look them up at the moment). Apart from that, we can take solace in God’s justice, in that he will judge absolutely justly in every circumstance.
Claire: “I much prefer the view that we are all inherently good but also imperfect, and that the ultimate goal of our existence is the act of striving for a perfection that we may never obtain. The act is it’s own goal, and that which others call ‘God’ is simply another name for perfection.”
Of course you prefer that view; most people do. As human beings, it plays to our pride, that we can through our own actions “be good enough” to be saved.
The problem lies in the fact that the standard is absolute perfection: in order to be saved, one must be absolutely righteous. It’s not so much a matter of a standard “that we may never obtain” as a standard that we by nature *cannot* obtain. Anyone, no matter how virtuous, who tries to live a blameless life will fall short.
This knowledge can lead to despair, which causes a fair number of people to deny that the standard is absolute perfection (as you have done). Contrary to your conclusion, the proper Christian viewpoint is *not* focusing on one’s imperfections to the detriment of the larger picture. Rather, it is the knowledge that since we *cannot* save ourselves, we need a savior, and Christ entered time to become that savior. Instead of a mire of negativity, the Christian life (properly understood) is more liberating than any other, as we do not have to worry anymore about “being good enough”. Someone else (namely, Christ) has paid the price of our sin for us.
That is not to say that Christians are given license to sin, but rather that Christians are freed from the burden of their past sins (and of future sins) so that they may pursue holiness more freely. Doing right is then not a Herculean labor performed alone in the dark, but rather something that you *want* do to do out of gratitude to the lover of your soul.
Instead of the false hope of self-effort, the Christian has the sure hope of God’s grace and mercy. Freed from the anxiety stemming from not knowing whether his/her efforts are good enough, the Christian can truly appreciate the possibilities of the amazing, beautiful universe that God has made for us.
AWG; I thought so, I was just drawing blanks with the keyword searches in my e-KJV Bible. Anyway, i’m glad we’re tag-teaming on these scriptural and political discussions.
For those of you interested, you can freely download an assortment of concordances, commentaries and other research tools (at last count over 100 modules) along with the KJV, ASV and other Bible translations in old/modern languages, to include Spanish, Chinese, Greek etc at http://www.e-Sword.net The advantage being it’s all on your harddrive so you don’t have to be online to access it
The website is a non-profit ministry run by;
Equipping Ministries Foundation
5902 Parham Road
Franklin, TN 37064
United States of America
“As human beings, it plays to our pride, that we can through our own actions “be good enough” to be saved.”
I didn’t read anything in Claire’s post AWG about being ’saved’, if you mean it in the Christian sense of life after death?
It seemed like she was talking about a way for human beings to save their mortal life by not being so negative about themselves and others. I mean to start with a premise of dirty rags, rancid meat, original sin, children going to hell…….please???
Re: the question of human sinfulness.
As a Catholic, I read the doctrine of man’s “inherent sinfulness” thus:
(1)Man is not 100% sinful. He can’t be, because then he wouldn’t be God’s creature. Even after sin, he has a mind, a will, a body, etc.—all good things that a good God created.
This, by the way, is why Christians can appreciate goodness, truth, and beauty wherever it is found, whether among Christians, among Muslims, or among atheists. I’m not an expert in Reformed theology, but it seems to me that the doctrine of “common grace” would allow Calvinists to see goodness, truth, and beauty scattered across the face of the world.
(2) Nevertheless, human beings don’t just automatically do all they have to do to be good human beings all the time. In saying this, Christians aren’t making wild or absurd claims. They’re being realistic about the human condition.
Everyone knows that human beings, taken just as they are, won’t just automatically do all they should do to be good human beings. And I mean everyone. Buddhists, for example, say that people need to get enlightened, not that they are born enlightened. Followers of Ayn Rand say that people need to become objectivists, not that they are born objectivists. And the fact that they aren’t is seen as a problem, a problem to be overcome by Buddhism, objectivism, or whatever.
Why is it that, when it comes to the Christian teaching about man’s sinfulness, we all suddenly forget the universal fact, not only of inconsistency (has anyone reading this never not fallen flat on his face?), but also of self-deception?
The disagreement, then, is not about the facts, but about what the facts mean, and about how to deal with them.
Some of the commentators in this discussion have said that there’s no way of rationally adjudicating these disagreements. In one sense, there is a grain of truth in this assertion. Christians have always said that faith is divine gift, and not (just) the product of argument. But, then again, no significant worldview commitment—and we all have one—is ever just the product of argument. Complicated issues, these, to be sure, but that is just my point. Before we assume that religious truth claims can’t be rationally adjudicated, we need to have a discussion about the nature, limits, and possibilities of reason.
Not only that, but the great religious traditions have all produced an impressive body of reflection on the intelligibility of their beliefs. It seems to me that dismissals of religious belief as mere irrational preference often reflect an ignorance of that fact. It’s as if the critics were assuming that all religious people were cretinous Bible-thumpers. When it comes to Christianity, the best Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theology is enough to show that faith isn’t just about unwarranted leaps in the dark.
Another question somenone might ask is “who says what human beings do in order to be good human beings?” This sort of question often presupposes that moral judgments, too, are only matters of opinion that are not susceptible of rational adjudication.
Now, everyone, including the most dyed-in-the-wool relativists, is a moral absolutist in everyday life. Anyone who’s suffered some injustice and has immediately and spontaneously said “hey, that’s not fair,” knows what I mean.
But suppose that the offending party retorts, “no it’s not.” What will happen? Either the offended and the offeder will come to blows, or else they will go before an impartial third party and . . . argue their respective cases! Living in a super-litigious society like ours, how can we not believe that moral judgments are rationally adjudicable?
So what’s the standard of judgment? Well, if moral judgments can be right and wrong, it has to be the case that no one just “makes up” the standards. They have to be in the nature of things. Thomas Aquinas talked about a “natural law,” whose standard is the type of flourishing appropriate to the kinds of beings that we are. Since we are objectively beings of a certain type, then we can hope to make objecively true judgments about right and wrong.
True, it ain’t easy, and people will disagree, but this doesn’t mean that morality is simply a matter of opinion. If it is, then on what grounds do I protest when I’m being dragged off to the gas chamber?
No one just “makes up” the “rules” of morality, I said. Not even God. It’s not that God’s commands are good because he commands them. No, he commands them because they’re good. We Christians think of God as endowed with a will, and so he is. But his will is not arbitrary. It’s always already—eternally, then—in accord with the Infinite Goodness that he himself substantially is.
The Christian’s attitude towards God’s commands is a bit like anyone’s attitude towards someone whom he looks up to for wisdom and virtue. You are inclined to follow his advice precisely because you know a priori that he’s trustworthy. In God’s case, we’re dealing with someone who’s absolutely trustworthy.
One last point. Whenever you’re loved by someone you love, you don’t plume yourself on your intrinsic worthiness and greatness. On the contrary, you can hardly believe that the beloved has chosen YOU.
You realize, then, that the love you’ve received is a free gift that was disproportionate to your “merits.” In fact, if the other loved you because you’d done this or that, and not for yourself, you’d be greatly disappointed.
It’s not that your obsessed with your own evil. To obsess like that would be to miss the point, certainly of Christianity. No, if you’re loved, then you’re being affirmed as intrinsically worthwhile, and you can rejoice in that. The point is simply that, when you really love, you’re happy to acknowledge that the worthiness that you have as a beloved is not your own, but has been loved into you by your lover.
How much more won’t this be true when the lover is God?
Thanks.
Adrian
To Claire and to answer the more broader question:
How do I know man (or at least myself) is inherently bad?
As Christ said:
Matt 5:48
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(NIV)
…and to which Paul so succinctly, yet somewhat highly Pythonesque replies:
Rom 7:15-25
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.
17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.
19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do– this I keep on doing.
20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.
22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law;
23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members.
24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
25 Thanks be to God– through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
(NIV)
–”The act is it’s own goal, and that which others call ‘God’ is simply another name for perfection.”–Claire
No, actually Perfection is simply “one” of the attributes of God.
Finally, Claire, I find your take on the moral of the “Princess and the Pea,” in that the princess couldn’t observe anything else, to be quite, um, different. I had always thought the point of the story was that the Queen could not believe the disheveled girl was who she said she was, and kept adding mattresses to test her. She always felt the pea and, thus, proved that she was a princess — A moral not unlike some of the tests required of Christians…
Cardeblu, that was excellent on every point.
A brief addendum:
In order to understand the Christian doctrine of original sin, one has to keep in mind one of the theological presuppositons that undergird it. It’s that man is an “amphibian,” on the one hand he lives out his life within this world just like any other animal, on the other he is made for a destiny that transcends this world: intimate union with God, what Thomas Aquinas calls “the beatific vision.”
This implies that man needs “outside help”—what Christians call “grace”—to be “all that he can be” as a human being. Man is made for a sphere that infinitely transcends him, but this means that, in order to realize his dignity fully, he needs Another’s help—a helping hand, so to speak, reaching down “from on high.”
Why is this relevant to the doctrine of original sin? Well, one of the functions of that doctrine is to explain why it is that man, even though he is made for more, tends to love so attached to the cares of this life that he can hardly look up from his own self-imposed slavery (today we call it stress).
Once again, this is a phenomenon that we’re all familiar with. It’s just that the explanations are different.
So, what does the doctrine of original sin say? It says, first of all, that the fact that we tend to live absorbed in everyday cares is a problem. It says, in other words, that, although we may be animals, we’re not just animals, so that what’s natural to them isn’t natural for us.
But it also says that, although we were once balanced, we’ve lost our balance—and that, now that we’ve lost it, we can’t just re-right ourselves by ourselves whenever we want to. Why not? Because we are now 100% evil? No. Because even when we were balanced, that balance was a GIFT that we could never have achieved on our own. Which becomes even truer, of course, once we’ve lost the balance. Once we have, then even our efforts to regain it are colored, to a certain extent, by the unbalancedness. We can’t get out of our own skins and lift ourselves up.
But this is just another way of saying that we’re made for a destiny that fuflills us totally, but that we can’t achieve without Another’s help.
Does this dependence on Another’s mean we have no dignity? Well, if dignity means the pride of having pulled ourselves up by our own bootstraps, you bet it does. Who wants that kind of dignity? But if dignity means having intrinsic worth, it doesn’t at all.
We know even from our human relationships how we feel most free, most happy, etc. when we’ve forgotten ourselves in the joy of being loved beyond our merits. The highest selfhood is in self-forgetfulness. This self-forgetfulness, though, is not the result of a voluntaristic effort at self-annihilation, but is the byproduct of being struck to the very core by a gracious Love.
Adrian
LaShawn: thank you for the article. I am saved, through grace by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Continue your witness. js
Thank you for writing this La Shawn. Your words pierce my soul. I write this through tears.
There is some scriptural support for the idea that babies who die go to be with the Lord (though I don’t have the ability to look them up at the moment). Apart from that, we can take solace in God’s justice, in that he will judge absolutely justly in every circumstance.
“While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:22,23).
Thanks, everyone!
Calliope – The effect God’s words have on you is all his doing. I hope you consider this an opportunity to become closer to him. His words pierce me every time I read them or recite them from memory or hear someone else speak them. I know you read my blog, and I glad you commented. Please contact me if you need to. You’re are in my prayers.
“No, there is nothing circular in that line of reasoning. The premise is that God is the uncaused first cause. As the uncaused first cause, God is the source of all good. That’s not circular logic, that’s *linear*.”
Again this assumes a “creation” which we cannot prove. As I stated in my first post, we Buddhists are not creationists. There is no need whatever to assume a “first cause” or an “unmoved mover” as a starting point.
We speak of the Universe as existing “from beginningless time”, meaning by that, functionally, that the problem of how it all started is essentially irrelevant. The primary religious question is: What do we do, right now, with our elbows deep in the suds of our own kitchen sink, to address who or what we really are?
That is precisely why the reasoning is circular. The assumption of a “first cause” that is inherently “good” is functionally the same assumption as the existence of a “creator” God which it is supposed to prove.
Nor is it self evident that any “first cause” would automatically be “good”. There is no objective evidence in the world of our senses to refute Zorasterian dualism, as far as I can see, which was the point of almost all the rest of my questions to La Shawn.
“Is this bliss existent, or non-existent?”
The moment you ask the question you fall back into one of the “four extremes”. Beyond the four extremes the question is not “answered”. Rather, the neurotic emotional NEED to ask the question disappears.
More generally, our problems come from the chronic habit of attempting to impose precisely this question as a frame around our experience which, of and by itself, has no fixed limits, frames, or boundaries.
Buddhists call this habit “grasping and fixation”, fixation on the belief in a permanent “self” somehow different from a permanent “world” to which this ficticious self relates.
This grasping and fixation is the essential source of all our suffering. The practical techniques of Buddhism (what we call “skillful means”) are about eroding this habit of trying to impose an answer to this question on our experience.
Buddhist logic systematicly obliterates all attempts to predicate anything, because predication itself is the mental expression of the illusion of “self” and “other” caused by grasping and fixation.
The surest “skillful means” for addressing the religous problem directly is to put to one side for the moment all such intellectual framing devices as “good”, “evil”, “matter”, “spirit”, “soul”, “causality”, “creation”, and so on.
Then once you have your mind clear of such things, just ask who?, what?, and where? is the “me” who is asking all these questions. Look as hard as you can for that “me” and don’t rest until you are sure you have found it and can actually look at it face to face.
Hi La Shawn.
I’m a long time reader and a 1st time poster. This topic got to me. I saw the 1st beheading on the internet a while back. I was very sorry I did though I understand we must know who we are dealing with. I have had recent deaths in my family (brother and father), they were not sudden or violent. I consider myself a Christian…maybe not a very good one, anyway, I thought I believed in the mercy of Jesus Christ and that God loved us. I prayed for my brother and my father…to keep them, I prayed for them to live. probably the wrong thing as God has his ways (as the preachers explain).
I was grief stricken after their deaths and became angry at God. “F*ck him”, I said. Grief does strange things to your mind no doubt.
I never gave God OR praying another thought till it came to Mr. Bigley…not that I didn’t care about the Americans. Their murder came as a surprise. I prayed for Mr. Bigley last week and everyday until I found out about his murder.
Mr. Bigley saw what happened to the other men and he knew what was going to happen to him….Where was God? Oh yeah…I am not forgetting the little children who are murdered. The ones in Russia and the ones murdered every day. Where is God and why, if he is a loving God, would allow people to undergo unspeakable pain, torture and death?
You asked the perfect question;
~But I believe the more appropriate question is, “Why is there good in the world?”~
You also provided the perfect ending to your entry;
~The “good” we do, if any at all, does not meet God’s requirements.~
La Shawn, thanks for being such a strong Christian lady and for standing firm in your beliefs. I always enjoy reading your thoughts and your responses are a true example in graciousness. God has put you in this unique position and His light shines through you!
“I didn’t read anything in Claire’s post AWG about being ’saved’, if you mean it in the Christian sense of life after death?”
No, but it’s germane to the conversation as a whole. Claire’s argument is for the striving towards perfection for the sake of striving. The Christian strives for perfection out of gratitude for having been saved from eternal condemnation.
“It seemed like she was talking about a way for human beings to save their mortal life by not being so negative about themselves and others. I mean to start with a premise of dirty rags, rancid meat, original sin, children going to hell…….please???
It’s not as if we as Christians *want* to start with such a premise. However, if one is going to approach life with honesty and rationality, one must be prepared to face life as it is, warts and all. We can be all shiny-happy-sunshine-lollipops-and-rainbows until the cows come home, but to do so to the extent that we ignore real and pressing problems is foolish at best and downright deadly at worst.
A man in a burning building is not well served by thinking happy thoughts and ignoring the smoke pouring in through the crack at the bottom of the door. Rather, he must face the fact that his life is in danger, and then take appropriate action to save his life. Similarly, a person can distract himself with pleasantries and positive thinking his whole life, but it doesn’t change the fact that unless he is reconciled with God he will be separated from Him eternally. It’s only by addressing one’s need for a Savior that a person can be truly freed from negativity toward self and others, and experience true joy. I speak from experience in this matter.
Someone, forgot who, said, (about Christians)
“We are little more than snow covered dung.”
Was that Luther?
LaShawn, this post has evolved into quite an excellent discussion that apparently many find interesting, I included. Congratulations!
Regarding Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivity. In The Fountainhead she has the protagonist Howard Roark put into words the basis of that philosophy. At its heart is ‘let each pursue his dreams so long as he treads on no one else’s’.
Apart from this being quite impossible since there must nearly always be compromise in order to advance one’s cause, that sentence put into other words is ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. This is, of course, the Golden Rule the source of which is The Holy Bible suggesting that the very idea came from God.
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. KJV
“Again this assumes a “creation” which we cannot prove.”
Of course it assumes a “creation”. It also presumes that we’re having a conversation in the first place. Would you care for me to prove that we’re communicating through print?
We must assume some sort of common experiential framework for there to be any sort of meaningful conversation. If you’re not willing to believe your senses when they directly and indirectly communicate that there is a world around you, then there’s little purpose to arguing “truth” in the first place.
“We speak of the Universe as existing ‘from beginningless time’, meaning by that, functionally, that the problem of how it all started is essentially irrelevant.”
How do you know this? What is your proof that the Universe has existed “from beginningless time”? The problem of origins is only irrelevant if you can prove that the Universe is intrinsically eternal, and you have a fair amount of contradiction from the Scientific community in that regard (for an example, look up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).
“The primary religious question is: What do we do, right now, with our elbows deep in the suds of our own kitchen sink, to address who or what we really are?”
But how do you know there is someone to even address that question to? From what you’ve said, the nature of existence is unknowable to the point that meaning itself is essentially meaningless. What is even the point of asking questions in such a milleu? To coin a phrase, “nothing is real and everything is permitted, except where everything is real and nothing is permitted”.
“That is precisely why the reasoning is circular. The assumption of a ‘first cause’ that is inherently ‘good’ is functionally the same assumption as the existence of a ‘creator’ God which it is supposed to prove.”
No, you’ve entirely misread the question (which is odd, since you’re the one who posted it). The statements that “1)God is omniscient, omnipresent, eternal…and inherently good” and “2)God created the Universe, and is the source of all good within it” *really are* two distinct statements. Saying that “God is the source of goodness” and “Goodness is the source of God” would be circular reasoning.
“Nor is it self evident that any ‘first cause’ would automatically be ‘good’. There is no objective evidence in the world of our senses to refute Zorasterian dualism, as far as I can see, which was the point of almost all the rest of my questions to La Shawn.”
From what I’ve gathered, you aren’t particularly worried about objective evidence, if you in fact believe in objective evidence in the first place.
Through manuscript evidence, historical evidence, archaeological evidence, and the science of probability (specifically applied to prophecy), the Bible can be proven a credible source of information. As a credible source of information, it would qualify as objective evidence that refutes Zoroastrian dualism.
“The moment you ask the question you fall back into one of the ‘four extremes’. Beyond the four extremes the question is not ‘answered’. Rather, the neurotic emotional NEED to ask the question disappears.”
Actually, the moment I asked the question, I cracked a joke. Lighten up, dude.
So in other words, you’re stating that Buddhism prescribes ignorance. “Don’t ask, and eventually you won’t care about not knowing.” I’m sorry, but I don’t call wanting to know the answers of questions “neurosis”, I call it *curiosity*. Blissful ignorance might taste okay for a little while (especially if you don’t know what’s real and what’s not), but eventually you’ll wake up with a bad taste in your mouth.
“More generally, our problems come from the chronic habit of attempting to impose precisely this question as a frame around our experience which, of and by itself, has no fixed limits, frames, or boundaries.”
Actually, many of our problems come from mankind’s chronic habit of refusing to face and respond to often unpleasant truths. The rest come from seeking our own will to the detriment of others.
“Buddhists call this habit “grasping and fixation”, fixation on the belief in a permanent “self” somehow different from a permanent “world” to which this ficticious self relates.”
Coincidentally, I call this line of reasoning “grasping and fixation” too: *grasping* at any straw that will justify the *fixation* on the idea that reality and truth are subjective. The problem with this idea of subjective reality is that it is presented as objective fact (though its adherents would never couch it in such terms).
“This grasping and fixation is the essential source of all our suffering. The practical techniques of Buddhism (what we call ’skillful means’) are about eroding this habit of trying to impose an answer to this question on our experience.”
In other words, if you pretend your problems aren’t real, and you pretend your pain isn’t real, and you ultimately pretend that YOU aren’t real, then you won’t suffer? The answer to humanity’s deep thirst for meaning is to squash said thirst down into a tiny ball, kick it into the corner, and ignore it? Please forgive my skepticism, but I somehow doubt that such self-delusion does much to address the problem of human suffering.
“Buddhist logic systematicly obliterates all attempts to predicate anything, because predication itself is the mental expression of the illusion of ’self’ and ‘other’ caused by grasping and fixation.”
From what I can ascertain, Buddhist logic stubbornly refuses to admit that *anything* can be objectively proven, all for the purpose of being able to cover up its logical flaws (e.g. “everything is subjective apart from the objective truth of Buddhism”). Sorry if I’m stating it too baldly for your tastes, but that’s what I’m getting from your arguments (and have gotten from Buddhist arguments in the past).
“The surest ’skillful means’ for addressing the religous problem directly is to put to one side for the moment all such intellectual framing devices as ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘matter’, ’spirit’, ’soul’, ‘causality’, ‘creation’, and so on.
“Then once you have your mind clear of such things, just ask who?, what?, and where? is the ‘me’ who is asking all these questions. Look as hard as you can for that ‘me’ and don’t rest until you are sure you have found it and can actually look at it face to face.”
But the question remains: how are you to come up with any sort of meaningful answers to these questions if you reject any terminology by which one might describe what you “see”? If you reject outright the notion of an objective reality, then how can you be sure that you are really seeing anything, that you have found anything, at all? And if there is not really a “self” there at all, then who is doing the asking, the looking? If “the world” and “the self” are illusory, then what purpose is there in self-examination in the first place? How can you know there *is* a Universe, that there *is* Karma, that there *is* suffering? It all becomes folly, all becomes meaningless, all becomes a chasing after the wind.
Joshua, you’re correct about that. Solomon’s firstborn brother and son of Bathsheba. Interesting isn’t it, how God took the firstborn as punishment for David’s sin and then gave him the second to become the wisest man of all.
But I was originally asking about babies being sacrificed to either to Baal or similar god.
I believe you’re correct about the “snow covered dung heap” quote. Thanks.
Donna,
I was touched by your very honest expression of grief and resulting anger. There are many who have lost loved ones and question the apparent meaninglessness of life under such circumstances.
I too, perhaps many here, have gone down that same road, belief without understanding-unbelief with prejudice-questioning…the next stage is the important one. Will the answers (or non-answers) to your questions lead you back into faith or away from it?
I have long since come to the conclusion that not all questions are ultimately answerable. I know that amounts to scientific heresy, but since each answer raises several more questions it seems clear that science is not sufficient in itself.
Take, for example, modern medicines. They solve a problem, but cause others so more drugs must be taken in conjunction with the first to prevent severe side effects. The present problems with Vioxx are a case in point. It dramatically reduces the pain of arthritis, but ultimately causes heart disease and/or strokes.
Optics can explain that white light is comprised of every color, but it can only theorize about why there are colors in the first place and how they came about. The same is true regarding the origins of our solar system and the universe it inhabits.
When I was in the fifth or sixth grade a teacher demonstrated the origins of the universe this way. Filling a large beaker with water, she poured into it a small quantity of oil. Then, pricking the oil globule with a pin, she moved her hand in a circular motion causing small droplets of oil to spin outward from the edges of the larger globule. This, she explained, is how the universe came into being. What she left out of the equation, however, is that she, herself, caused it all to begin. She (read God) was the a priori cause of the event.
The ultimate question to be answered it seems to me is should I follow science (materialism) or religion (spiritualism). In recent years the two have actually merged more than anyone would have thought possible a mere 25 years ago. The book, By Design by Larry Witham traces this merging and explains in layman language (without polemic) how the two actually confirm each other.
I sincerely hope you will find the peace and understanding you seek. That you are a reader of LaShawn’s fine blog is a good sign.
DARE>>The answer is a rational morality of rational selfishness, which has been outlined fully and completely by the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. This is a fact-based morality that doesn?t leave you groping for answers; that does not leave you studded by guilt; that sets you free to climb every mountain; that enables you to realize your dreams.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dare, the alternative you proffer is unimpressive. The morality of Ayn Rand’s “rational selfishness” is rightly seen by many as shallow, lacking in both compassion or a sense of morality. Rand for example dismisses duty, preferring instead “choice”. But what would our civilization be without duty- duty to parents, duty to children, duty to a spouse, duty to society, duty to one’s employer, and duty to God. To dismiss duty is not only damaging to human life, but also naive.
The notion of “choice” also assumes that men will act rationally, but in fact men often lack the facts necessary to make good choices and often cannot forsee the consequences of the choices they make. Such consequences can be anything but “rational”. And “rational selfishness” does not make one necessarily realize their dreams. In fact experience teaches quite the opposite- what may look good for a few years could mean disaster or death a decade later.
Many like Rand hail man and his reason as the measure of all things. But as history shows “reason” and “rationality” may in fact countenance the vilest forms of evil and cruelty. It was perfectly rational for some rulers throughout history for example to initiate murderous progroms against Jews, both as a way of diverting domestic discontent and a way of enriching themselves by grabbing Jewish property. In like manner the atheists of the 20th century like Josef Stalin reasonably calculated that the mass murder of millions would yield both immediate and long term benefits- liquidating internal opposition, generating capital for military modernization and industrialization, and strengthening control via a climate of fear.
Rand also dismisses altruism as the province of weaklings. But what would the quality of life on earth be without altruism? The Bible is full of such “weak” characteristics. For example Moses forbid the harvested field to be gleaned, leaving the remnants for the poor and the stranger. The Sabbath day was to benefit both man and beast- the slave was to get his day off even if it meant lost production. The institutions of mercy developed to such a high degree by Christianity such as hospitals often began from an altruistic motive. All these things and many others- the elements of grace, and mercy and duty and compassion, would be condemned as “waste” by the selfish philosophy of Rand and her followers. As an alternative to Christianity “rational selfishness” is clearly inferior, and is unimpressive even on its own terms.
See: http://www.livejournal.com/~contentedbloke/136227.html?mode=reply
“And if there is not really a “self” there at all, then who is doing the asking, the looking?”
Well, AWG, who IS doing the asking and the looking?
When I ask that question here everyone seems to want to run away from it rather than ask it of themselves. Why is the question so frightening?
Is it “me” doing the looking?
Well, what color is “me”? What shape is “me”? Where is “me” located exactly? In my head? In my heart? In my navel?
Is my hand as I type a part of “me” or an object that “me” perceives? Where is place, exactly, that “me” ends and the objects that “me” perceives begins? Why can’t we define or locate that boundary? If we can’t find “me”, how on earth is “me” going to “find God”?
Is “me” merely a result of some of the more complicated gyrations of “matter”? Or is “me” really “spirit” which has somehow been injected into some globs of “matter” and not others?
And if “me” is either a part of “matter” or a part of “spirit”, where are boundaries that separate “me” from the rest of “matter” and the rest of “spirit”? Where are the boundaries between “matter” and “spirit”, in my so-called body for that matter? Or in the world?
Is your “you” the same as my “me” or is it different? Does my cat have a “you” like I have a “me”? Can my cat “find God”?
We can ASSUME anything we please about all this. We can assume a “self”, assume a “first cause”, assume a “creation”, assume whatever we need to assume to “prove” anything we want: that we are “inherently good”; that we are “inherently evil”; that God is this way, or that way, or the other way.
But the Buddhist question for all this is a simple one: Why should we assume any specific starting point? What is so inherently necessary about the particular assumptions which you favor, which I favor, or which anyone favors?
If we can’t find the answer to the problem of religion sitting with us in our own chair, as a real part of our own experience, why should we expect to find it anywhere else?
Leave for a couple of days and lots to go over. I liked Mark’s comments, but I want to point out that there is opposition in all things. ‘Good and evil’ would be opposites as we can choose to do what is good versus choosing to do what is not good.
Your discussion and points about deviancy/perversion are Biblical as the prophet talks about those who ‘pervert the right ways of the Lord,’ and are a case in point about opposing evil by choosing good. See what I mean?
And FINALLY, some one deconstructs Ayn Rand! I picked up a copy of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and flipped through it. Lacking a degree in philosophy, or even a dime’s worth of psych courses, all I could see was that I disliked the book intensely and now I know why. Thank you thank you thank you.
I believe we need to love and serve one another. Christ was the Master Teacher as He set the example here during His ministry. I don’t see that in Rand’s book. Rather a modern day twist on Machiavelli. My neighbors that I love and serve first are, of course, my family.
To those of you who have had loved ones die, I pray for you and hope for your healing and the Peace that Surpasses understanding to be yours.
May I add just a couple more remarks?
Going back to the question of inherent sinfulness: people ofen recoil in from the Christian doctrine that man is fallen,protesting man’s inherent goodness.
This can arise, partly, from misunderstanding. Christianity says man is a sinner, not that his sinfulness completely undoes God’s work. As Aquinas puts it, fallen man can do many good things, just not what he, Aquinas, calls the “complete good”—which is what some of the commentators have meant by the good one needs to do in order to be acceptable to God.
Which brings me to another source of the resistance to the doctrine that man is sinful—the dumbing down of standards. That is, if I haven’t committed any spectacular sins like murder, it’s easy for me to think that I’m OK as is. But this can be, and probably just is, self-deception talking. I mean, who of us can be consistently good all the time and in every circumstance?
It seems to me that the great religions and philosophies all recognize that man isn’t OK just as he is. The difference has to do with the diagnosis and the cure of the problem. Even there there is some convergence, although not a total one, of course.
As for Buddhism, I would like to ask Joseph Marshall to explain: (a) why do we all NECESSARILY start out ignorant of our true nature? (which even the Buddha did); (b) is the self who desires liberation the same as the self who disappears once liberation happens?
I admire Buddhism’s profound analysis of the illusion of selfhood. There is a convergence on that score between Buddhism and at least one stream of the Patristic tradition (for example, Gregory of Nyssa). The difference, though, is that, for Christianity, the death of the individual ego leads to the resurrection, not of the individual ego, but of what Christian theology calls the person, namely, one whose selfhood consists in its relational communion with others and with/in the Communion that God himself is.
Adrian
Enrique Bravo writes,
Dare, the alternative you proffer is unimpressive. The morality of Ayn Rand’s “rational selfishness” is rightly seen by many as shallow, lacking in both compassion or a sense of morality. Rand for example dismisses duty, preferring instead “choice”. But what would our civilization be without duty- duty to parents, duty to children, duty to a spouse, duty to society, duty to one’s employer, and duty to God. To dismiss duty is not only damaging to human life, but also naive.
Most of these “many” have never tried to study Miss Rand’s work. Rather, they rely on the opinions of others in forming their judgments.
There is a lot of Objectivist literature out there on the concept of duty. I would suggest that one write to the Ayn Rand Institute with such questions as you have posed and hear what they have to say about it. I don’t have the time to discuss these issues.
The notion of “choice” also assumes that men will act rationally, but in fact men often lack the facts necessary to make good choices and often cannot forsee the consequences of the choices they make. Such consequences can be anything but “rational”. And “rational selfishness” does not make one necessarily realize their dreams. In fact experience teaches quite the opposite- what may look good for a few years could mean disaster or death a decade later.
What you have written above sounds to me like what happens to people who do not think long-term. They get into a bad way because they do not consider the full context of their lives when making decisions. They proceed through life out-of-focus, distrusting their faculty of reason, and place their confidence in non-rational means.
Then they wonder why life seems so unpredictable.
It could also be that the decision-maker is honest and has come to an honest re-evaluation of the facts. If so, there is no problem: simply re-evaluate accordingly and move on. There is no cause for head-banging. All evaluation occurs in a context, and a context can change owing to a change in its variables. Evaluation is evaluation of the facts. Evaluation, like the knowledge it is based on, is contextual.
Many like Rand hail man and his reason as the measure of all things. But as history shows “reason” and “rationality” may in fact countenance the vilest forms of evil and cruelty. It was perfectly rational for some rulers throughout history for example to initiate murderous progroms against Jews, both as a way of diverting domestic discontent and a way of enriching themselves by grabbing Jewish property. In like manner the atheists of the 20th century like Josef Stalin reasonably calculated that the mass murder of millions would yield both immediate and long term benefits- liquidating internal opposition, generating capital for military modernization and industrialization, and strengthening control via a climate of fear.
Your entire paragraph is false. Nazi Germany was based on the notion of self-sacrifice, the irrational notion of might-makes-right, and explicit racism (Aryan supremacy). These three doctrines are in direct opposition to reason and rationality. But, don’t take my word for it: read “The Ominous Parallels” by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. In that book, he outlines how America is currently exhibiting cultural patterns similar to pre-Nazi Germany. It is a widespread, fallacious notion that Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were rational. Those regimes were highly mystical, as all dictatorships are.
Rand also dismisses altruism as the province of weaklings. But what would the quality of life on earth be without altruism? The Bible is full of such “weak” characteristics. For example Moses forbid the harvested field to be gleaned, leaving the remnants for the poor and the stranger. The Sabbath day was to benefit both man and beast- the slave was to get his day off even if it meant lost production. The institutions of mercy developed to such a high degree by Christianity such as hospitals often began from an altruistic motive. All these things and many others- the elements of grace, and mercy and duty and compassion, would be condemned as “waste” by the selfish philosophy of Rand and her followers. As an alternative to Christianity “rational selfishness” is clearly inferior, and is unimpressive even on its own terms.
As I have written in previous comments, I do not wish to get into a back-and-forth on this issue: I am far too busy.
Altruism means: sacrifice of self to others and sacrifice of others to self. One canot occur without the other, in any given context. If I am happy to alleviate the suffering of others, provided I can afford it, this is not a bad thing, if benevolence is the extent of the action. However, it is not a moral achievement. I should not go around congratulating myself for “helping others,” talkless of making it the highest moral principle. To do so would be to imply that the most moral person is he who wishes to see others suffer so that he might be “good.” This, as you can see, is a very corrupt morality. What manner of man would want to achieve moral goodness from the pain and suffering of his fellow men?
Every sacrificer implies a sacrifice collector. Every serf implies a dictator. Every rape victim implies a rapist. And vice versa. Every murder implies a murderer.
A dictator, rapist, or murderer does not, in a full context, profit from his actions, contrary to widespread belief. Such a man perverts the working of his reason and makes it more difficult for his self (his soul, his reason) to deal with reality properly. Hence the multitude of psychological problems reported by these types. The hell they create in reality is replicated in spades in their souls.
“But the Buddhist question for all this is a simple one: Why should we assume any specific starting point? What is so inherently necessary about the particular assumptions which you favor, which I favor, or which anyone favors?”
Why should we assume *anything*, then? Why should we assume that Buddhist philosophy is a valid starting point in the search for truth? It’s one thing to attempt to evaluate one’s experiences and the evidence before a person in the most objective terms possible. It’s another thing altogether to attempt to do so without *any* form of benchmark by which to measure them. We must assume *some* form of meaning exists in order to find meaning in the world around us. Buddhism itself is not immune to this, either. The Buddhist assumes that his own experiences and his own self-examination are paramount in the search for meaning. But why is it inherently necessary to assume such a thing, particularly since the Buddhist concept of self is so nebulous in the first place? If the “self” is truly illusory, how can one trust what that “self” tells him?
“If we can’t find the answer to the problem of religion sitting with us in our own chair, as a real part of our own experience, why should we expect to find it anywhere else?”
And really, that is the crux of the biscuit in this whole thing. Buddhism appeals to many people because of its experiential nature, especially people who have hitherto had rather dry and empty religious experiences; a number of other religions, such as Mormonism, Wicca, and the Charismatic movement in Christianity, appeal to people for much the same reason. Mormons seek out a “burning in the bosom”, Wiccans “commune with the Goddess (or whatever diety/force the individual Wiccan ascribes to)”, Charismatics seek to be “moved by the Spirit”, and Buddhists seek “the truth within”. All of these are manifestations of not only a search for meaning, but a search for affirmation. However, each of these is also plagued by a lack of objective reality. Personal experiences can be very powerful, but they can also be ephemeral. The “burning in the bosom” a Mormon experienced that at the time steeled his faith might become more dubious a week later; if the feeling goes away, does that mean that his faith is dwindling? A person who was “slain in the Spirit” at a tent revival and felt some relief of his chronic arthritis might begin to doubt his faith too, when the ache starts settling into his joints again. A Wiccan might have a wild “astral experience”, only to wake up the next morning and wonder if it was a dream. Might not Buddhist experiences engender similar questions as to their validity, particularly since by their nature they question the validity of objective experience? If objective experience is suspect, how can one be sure that Buddhist teaching is valid? And if one is supposed to guage the truth of Buddhist tenets by his own experiences, how can he be sure he is guaging them properly? If the “self” is illusory, aren’t the experiences of that “self” doubly so?
Ultimately, this is why I favor Biblical Christianity. Yes, it is experiential; for example, I feel God’s presence in my life, and I can see his intervention in numerous events in my life. However, it is also objective. One can investigate the claims of Christianity and determine for himself whether or not they are true. One can study the evidence for the events of the New Testament (and much of the Old Testament) and decide whether or not they happened. In Biblical Christianity, one can not only *experience* the Truth, he can *know* it. Unless, of course, you want to ASSUME that objective reality is impossible and unknowable. But then, in doing so you’re no different than those whom you decry for “assuming” an objective reality.
The church is not infallible. Martin Luther proved that. It erred on the earth being the center of the Universe, on the age of the creation, and on Blacks being “children of Ham”.
Bijan – I don’t think anyone said the Christian church is infallible, though Catholics believe the church in Rome is. As you know, “the church” is not a building but consists of the family of believers, the body of Christ. Now while the Bible is infallible, human interpretation of it is not. The fault lies within ourselves, not God’s word.
Religion is a personal matter for each of us. We are all born different to some degree and will be attracted to one religion or another or none based on our own needs.
The problems arise between religions and between religions and states when the followers of a religion believe so strongly in the righteousness of theirs, to the exclusion of all others, that followers of others are viewed as needing conversion or subversion.
History then and now shows, with the power of a state behind a particular religious teaching(current example is Islam in the Middle East) this conversion or subversion can quickly become physical, bizarre, and highly dangerous to others.
I say to any religion, or individual for that matter; if you want influence, if you want converts, if you want to save souls, earn it by concentrating your efforts in improving and helping people live their mortal lives, not a promised after life, with your humanity, understanding, love, time, financial and emotional support.
Be an example for others and they will naturally be inclined to emulate you and your beliefs. Don’t preach. Don’t denigrate others beliefs. Don’t get so consumed by your own you can no longer self-evaluate.
Sorry, Jim, but I get to preach on this blog. I don’t the right to preach in someone’s face, however.
Usually when one states they don’t have time for defending their position it means that their position is no longer defensible. However, I will give Dare the benefit of the doubt and I posit this: There was a rationale for Nazism.
There was a reason and a method to the madness. I see
socialism as inherently selfish for the benefit of the state, versus Objectivism which says it is okay to keep what you earn, but to what extreme are you going to take that Self Actualization? To what level are people going to keep for themselves, and to what extent are the do gooders of the state going to say “you can’t do that?”
I am not selfish because I withhold from the state. The state didn’t earn my money, I did. It is therefore mine to do with as I please, and account only to myself (if humanist) or God (if a believer) for what I do with my means. However, in the Objectivity of Ayn Rand’s work,
I don’t see a willingness to help or serve others, only self. That borders on Darwinian thought for me.
Now, Mr. Dare, I have been to the website and I have thumbed through the books. I know three people who absolutely think Ayn Rand is the Last Thing in Social Objectivism, but who are extremely selfish people in their personal lives and have a tendency to blame others. If this is an outgrowth of Objectivism, I will take Christianity. If it is not, then I will need to see more in the way of how it is to be practiced as a philosophy.
Oh, and BTW, I am glad we won WWII.
Selfishness is the hallmark of Objectivism. They’re proud of it. Rand herself had a longstanding, destructive affair with her closest follower, despite the fact that he and she were both married to other people, and twisted around her ironclad “morality” to rationalize it. And she did mean “man” not “humans” – women, including herself, were second-class citizens in her worldview. Who needs it.
Donna, C.S. Lewis wrote a book entitled “A Grief Observed” after his wife died. Actually, he didn’t set about writing a book, he just kept a notebook of his thoughts and meditations and it was published later. It’s a very moving account of how he questioned his own very deep faith as he worked through his grief and I highly recommend it. One thought that occurred to him was that when a person takes his cat to the vet, from the cat’s point of view that’s no different from taking it to the vivisectionist. All the cat can comprehend is that this person it trusts has delivered it over to a stranger, who’s causing pain or at least discomfort. And the cat’s owner could never, in a million years, explain to the cat what he’s doing and why. All he can do is to do what the cat needs him to do for it, and hope that its love and trust can overcome its fear and anger. Maybe it’s like that with bad things that happen to us on Earth. We can’t take the eternal view because we’re such finite creatures. We really can’t understand God’s motivation for the things he does or the things he allows. All we can do is try to hold onto our faith that these things happen for a reason and work together for his glory somehow. I have a long list of questions for when I get to heaven!
La Shawn,
As a Catholic, I can say that not all Catholics believe Rome is 100% right 100% of the time. The historicial track record speaks for itself.
No changes would have been made to the structure and policy if this were the case.
Oh, how i sought to remain out of the fray on this one. Essentially, a cop out.
Jim, in a very gentle manner, the argument that “religion” is a personal matter is something new to the thought of Americans. From the ancient of days til now, those who penned the Scriptures, as led through the inspiration of a Holy God have done so with the basic reasoning that faith is a matter of cause. Either there is belief or lack or a disbelief. At least with Christinity, there is NO PERSONAL faith or belief in that we are to keep it too ourselves or shelve it for the sake of no hurting anyones’ feelings or being intrusive. As intolerant as it may sound, the God of the Bible has a few distinct characteristics about Himself:
1) He view Himself as the only God, there are none others and none like Him. He does acknowledge human flaws that believe that there are many”gods”(notice the small “g”). Howeve, God takes it for granted when He speaks.
2) This same God speaks matter of factly, in some cases logically to the unbeliever and other cases directly, either believe or suffer the ill consequences of unbelief. You choose, He sees Himself none the less as who He is. God, choose in this matter because He is Soveriegn; having the ability to do what pleases Him.
3)To LaShawn and the rest, I have come to view the events of our age as the demonstration of the depravity of Man. Romanns, does a much better analysis of this than I can.
4) In the aforementioned book,Romans, Paul the Apostle, points out that Man has a sense of the existence of God in the very creation of Man. God has placed a knowledge of Himself in every MAN REGARDLESS of whether that person chooses to acknowledge such. He(Paul) also lays out the nature of Man as a result of not acknowledging God in due fashion: pointing out all manner of evils, which he includes homosexuality, murder, strife,etc.
What I have attempted to point out to you Jim, is that for a Christian, there is an obligation to convey the message. I heard if best from someone else: God uses imperfect Man to relay a perfect story to imperfect Men. So be it.
Thanks Lashawn for another wonderful and thought provoking post. Unfortunately, some who do not believe are trying to make a factual argument and case for something that is essentially a matter of faith. Faith stirs from a belief in the heart and soul that something is true regardless of rational or irrational arguments. I know of God’s grace because my own experience has grown an article of His faith in my very soul.
Recall the gospel says God’s word confounds the wise & is a stumbling block to them. This is because it is a submission to an authority higher than oneself that some “wise” people cannot accept.
Instead of wasting energy on trying to plant in rocky soil, do as Jesus instructed and move on to where the soil is more fertile for planting. Then continue to pray that God’s hand will, over time, make the rocky soil more fertile also. Trying to argue the rationality of the gospel is a losing cause, because it is utterly irrational that man can rise from the dead–yet we know thru faith that it is so. Some are too wise to accept such a thing, and until God’s hand moves them, no amount of discourse will change them.
You have done as commanded, carrying the Word to them. You cannot make them accept it, so move on to the vast millions who will listen and accept, but continue to pray for those who wont.
God Bless your efforts and work here.
La Femme Crickita writes:
There was a rationale for Nazism. There was a reason and a method to the madness.
I agree: the reason and method were the sacrifice of the individual to the state, which is known as collectivism, and which has its roots in self-sacrifice as such, since the individual is the self. You are your self.
I see
socialism as inherently selfish for the benefit of the state,
Actually, it isn’t a matter of how you see it, but of what it is. Let me say it in other words: it’s not what you might choose to think it was (subjective), but how in fact it was (objective). And on this point, you are wrong – your reasoning is invalid. The state is not a self. The concept “self” refers only to human individuals. The state is not an individual. Thus, the state cannot be selfish.
versus Objectivism which says it is okay to keep what you earn, but to what extreme are you going to take that Self Actualization? To what level are people going to keep for themselves, and to what extent are the do gooders of the state going to say �you can�t do that?�
I don’t see a problem here: there is a way to know the proper functions of government. If you are truly curious and not just being rhetorical, La Femme, I think you owe it to yourself to do more than just “thumb through” books. I mean, can anyone pass any exams that way? by “thumbing” through books? See Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” then read her “Virtue of Selfishness” then her “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.” A good grasp of those should answer your questions.
I am not selfish because I withhold from the state. The state didn�t earn my money, I did. It is therefore mine to do with as I please, and account only to myself (if humanist) or God (if a believer) for what I do with my means. However, in the Objectivity of Ayn Rand�s work,
I don�t see a willingness to help or serve others, only self.
You are having this problem because you take it for granted that “helping others” is a proper morality. When someone mentions “morality” to you, the first thing that springs to mind is “helping others.” But, the subject of morality is much wider than just “how much to help others.” For instance, its first question is: Who is the proper beneficiary of one’s action?
In human history, the men who have most advanced man’s life on earth are the businessmen, scientists, artists, and technologists. Without them, we wouldn’t even have this website. Yet, under an altruist morality, these individuals are considered inferior to a Mother Theresa who simply used the money that the wealth-creators had earned to “help others.” Without the wealth-creators, how would these “others” have been helped? And if everyone is “helping others,” who will become the wealth-creators, who are the wellspring of human happiness? If everyone wants to Walk for Cancer, who will actually study the biology to find the cure?
That borders on Darwinian thought for me.
Darwin’s thoughts on evolution (”The Origin of Species”) do not deal with human morality. What I suspect you are talking about is Social Darwinism, which is an idea that drops the context of the phrase “survival of the fittest” and tries to apply one aspect of Darwin’s biological theory to human action. But, Social Darwinism is false. Once again, I refer you to “Atlas Shrugged.”
Now, Mr. Dare, I have been to the website and I have thumbed through the books. I know three people who absolutely think Ayn Rand is the Last Thing in Social Objectivism, but who are extremely selfish people in their personal lives and have a tendency to blame others. If this is an outgrowth of Objectivism, I will take Christianity. If it is not, then I will need to see more in the way of how it is to be practiced as a philosophy.
There is no such thing as “Social Objectivism,” so if the people you are talking to are telling you this, they are NOT Objectivists.
Furthermore, I am “extremely” selfish, so I don’t see anything wrong with that, provided that by “selfish” you mean a rational selfishness as defined by Ayn Rand. When you say “blame others” what do you mean by that? Blame others for what? In what context? Since you don’t provide context, I cannot make head or tails of your point. For instance, I can blame a thief for stealing my coat, which would be valid. I could blame today’s mainstream intellectuals for poisoning the culture, which would be valid. I could blame the St. Augustine for the Dark Ages, which would be valid. But, if I blamed Thomas Aquinas for Nazism, that would be invalid, even immoral.
If you want to converse with true Objectivists (actually students of Objectivism), try this site:
http://www.objectivismonline.net
Oh, and BTW, I am glad we won WWII.
I am very, very happy we won.
Thumbing through some of the posts, many of the detractors actully have cause for objection NOT WITH God but with events,organizations and actions. The Crusades, the Popes, preachers, teachers,crooks,etc. will always be around. Even in the day of Christ, our Lord had to rebuke those who were making a mockery of the Father by peddling God. It happened, and I suspect it will continue. However, its interesting to note that Gd still does not allow any of these events to provide a justification for not choosing Christ.
How about the Man that has never heard of Christ; once again, some of the aforementioned Christian apologists do a much better job of explaining the point,but that Man will still be judged by the righteousness of God. But, its safe to sy that there aren’t too many individuals in America who’ve never heard of the gospel and Christ. Interesting.
Thanks alot LaShawn, you’ve effectively caused me a whole lot of grief with this blogsite. Since, becoming aware of your site a little more than a week or so ago I have spent untold hours reading through the various posts and am comtemplating putting up a blog of my own in the future.
Great site.
Oh, no! If you get your own blog, you won’t be over here as often. It’s happened before. I’ve inspired quite a few to start their own blogs. Now I hardly ever see them anymore.
LB,
First I’d have to figure all the nuances out. But, I’m not sure if I’d have something to discuss on a consistent basis. Also, I wouldn’t stop coming to your site because I believe that the way you become better is through keeping near the heat; only way to stay warm(or in this case,SHARP).
Nuances?? Hey is John Kerry here????
Dear AWG,
Thanks for your defense of the idea that religious truth claims are susceptible of being right and wrong, and are not just matters of opinion, feeling, and the like. True, faith—at least as Christians understand that word—is not simply the outcome of argument, but it isn’t a simple leap in the dark, either. How people get converted may not seem rational to the rationalist, but that doesn’t mean much: rationalism itself is a world-view commitment that itself is bedeviled by all sorts of intellectual difficulties.
Adrian
No, I’m no John Kerry. Ucck!
Well, I like morality as defined by a religious belief system, and not by someone who says ‘Selfish is good.’ Look, I believe that we have been given certain gifts, and talents and we should use them to bless others. I have found that when I cast my bread upon the water, it comes back with butter and jam.
And even though the ’state’ is not self aware, what is the reason for government if not to perpetuate itself through the human administrators which means the ship of state is aware, after a fashion. It just isn’t Hal.
About responsibility: As an objectivist, if your damaged something some one loaned you, would you volunteer to replace it? Doesn’t matter how it was damaged, would you
volunteer to replace it? Or would you rationalize it by saying that since there was no clear cut contract or definitive person responsible, you are not therefore accountable?
It is a small hypothetical, but it does contain a moral.
Are we responsible for what is given to us or on loan to us, and if it gets damaged while in our care, do we try to make an effort to repair, replace or restore that which was lost?
Oh. Miss La Shawn, thanks for a wonderful site and the great discussion here, as well as the insights you post. I do zoom in here from time to time and just wanted to say thanks for being a wonderful hostess.
La Shawn: “Sorry, Jim, but I get to preach on this blog.”
I did’nt realize you considered your post preaching. I’m not dumb enough to tell someone what to do on their blog.
Besides, I never consider written material I have choosen to read preaching.
Well, preaching is declaring the word of God, oral or written. I wasn’t attacking you, Jim. But when I blog God, it’s preaching. I’m glad you read it, though. As long as you don’t consider it preaching, in a negative way, that’s good. Know what I mean?
I’m glad we hugged and made up La Shawn.
My apologies to all, particularly Adrian and AWG. I had to take most of a day to do some real work and am a little late getting back.
“As for Buddhism, I would like to ask Joseph Marshall to explain: (a) why do we all NECESSARILY start out ignorant of our true nature? (which even the Buddha did); (b) is the self who desires liberation the same as the self who disappears once liberation happens?”
As far as I can see, the Dharma asserts no absolute “necessity” for our confusion and corresponding suffering. It merely points out that we all ARE confused, why we are all confused, and what we can do about it.
The power of it, for someone with the karma to become a Buddhist (which not everbody has in any given lifetime), is that it describes your confusion so exactly, it pins the WHY down in such a way that it makes perfect sense, and offers you realistic solutions to the problem.
The second part of the question is a little harder to answer because the way the question is phrased is tangled up in the problem of our confusion itself.
To quote from a favorite commentary of mine, “Enlightenment does not mean going somewhere else or becoming someone else.” “Desire” itself, even “desire for liberation” is part of the problem because it is a craving to go somewhere else and become someone else, to run away from who we are rather than work with it.
The solution to the problem is to stick right here where we are and work with “right here where we are” undistractedly clearing away our confusion. The “self” does not disappear. The “self” has never been there from the first, any more than Wolf Blitzer (say) really lives in the box with the buttons that sits in the corner of our room.
There is no Wolf in the box, there is no “self” in us, and there is no eternal permanence in any of the things we see around us. They are all “mere appearance”. What “liberation” consists of is the total dispersion of our confusion about these things down to the subtlest and most persistent habits that persuade us to “reify” anything.
In that sense, “liberation” is a process. If I sit and think about it, I know Wolf doesn’t live in my TV. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not prone to throw the sofa pillows at him when I think his election coverage is unfair!
On one level, I know this is silly, on another level the emotional impulse to do it is quite strong. What practical Buddhism consists of is working with stuff like that. And the confidence in the results, which AWG has asked about so pointedly, comes from staying right here, getting familiar with right here, and not trying to go to some “more spiritual” somewhere else or to prove some more spiritual something else.
If you’d like a Christian comment that points in the same direction, try St. Catherine of Sienna: “All the way to Heaven is Heaven. For He said, ‘I am the Way.’”
I have, and everyone else has for that matter, the potential to clear away ALL of that confusion–not immediately, and not by merely snapping the fingers, but we have it none the less. We call this “buddha nature” which is inherent in everyone.
Once you start the process of clearing away some of your confusion through Buddhist “skillful means” the results become quite plain. You are a little less confused than you were and you can see how you could disperse the rest of your confusion with a lot more effort and work.
You realize that Wolf isn’t really in the TV and your impulse to throw a pillow at him is part of the confusion that could use some more work. And you can perfectly well concieve of simply letting the emotional impulse go for good, to cease to be bothered, particularly, about the pointless jabber in a box which you yourself can turn on and off. You could do that. It is possible.
Now I myself can claim no great progress at this. For I am lazy and Buddhism is very hard work. The Japanese describe it as like being a mosquito trying to bite an iron ball.
But even the small amount of work I have done has not been totally fruitless. After almost 25 years of it, I am somewhat less confused than I was when I started (I was quite confused then, by the way!) and I’m perfectly confident that I could get clearer if I just worked harder, even to the point of complete and total “liberation”. It is possible, and, however many lifetimes it may take, I am committed to do it and help everyone I can along the way.
Since this discussion must, sooner or later, come to an end, I just want to thank our hostess, and all my friends here for its liveliness and its courtesy.
To all the Christians here I say–be the very best Christian you can be–nothing will be more important for your future.
To all the non-Christians I say–keep focused on the religious questions, even if you don’t come to religious answers.
For in this matter, working on the questions is far more important than “finding the right answer”. This is, at least, what a Buddhist believes.
Dear Joseph,
Thanks for your detailed and eloquent response to my two questions.
I understand—I think—that, from a Buddhist perspective, the answer to my second question must be to critique the presupposition of the question itself, or, to put it another way, to point (again) to the illusory character of the ego, of a permanent, separate self.
I find helpful, too, your emphasis on the practical character of the Buddhist teaching that there is no self.
As a Catholic, I find this teaching not entirely alien to the Christian experience of creatureliness: in ourselves, we are . . . nothing. If we try nonetheless to be something in ourselves, we experience this nothingness as: disintegration, anxious care, death.
(Of course, all of us do try to be something in ourselves, and that necessarily—even though the necessity involved is a strange one: we are all inclined to do it, prior to any conscious choice, and yet, once we begin to see there’s another way, we realize that it was our fault that we sought to be something in ourselves and that we even wanted to. This is one way of explaining the doctrine of original sin, and so of answering my first question).
If, however, we accept that we are nothing in ourselves, we experience that nothingness differently. Or rather, since we don’t hypostatize that nothingness, let’s say that the experience of it is really the experience of being in a/Another, of being loved into being by a/Another.
Of course, the Christian wants to die to self, but he’s not out to destroy the self, either. The issue is neither self-assertion nor self-destruction—as works of the self performed in self-preoccupation. The point is self-forgetfulness in love.
I think that we Christians sometimes hear you Buddhists as teaching the annihilation of the self, but I realize that that’s not the case, since you don’t believe in selves! What I have been trying to say is that Christians also have a version of disbelief in self.
Of course, there are important differences between Buddhism and Christianity which we can’t gloss over. One of them concerns the nature of the alternative to the illusion of self. I am not an expert on Buddhism, but I have the impression that Buddhists are reticent on this point, or, at least, that the Buddha was. Perhaps the alternative has something to do with an experience of oneness beyond the subject-object divide.
Here, too, Christianity has something similar, for example, in the Trinity (in which Father and Son are one, not only in the divine nature, but also in the Holy Spirit). Nevertheless, Christianity, as this very doctrine implies, holds that there is a form of otherness—both in God and for the creature united with God—that does not involve subject-object dualism or any clinging to an illusory self.
This is why Christianity speaks of the person, and insists that the person remains distinct from God forever even in the midst of the highest union with him (beyond subject-object and beyond ego).
It was in light of this insistence that I asked my second question, because it seems to me that there is a paradox in the notion that we should seek to be delivered from the illusion that we are selves—a paradox that either points to something like the person rising up on the either side of the disappearance of ego-illusion or that slides into self-contradiction.
I realize, of course, that you will probably say that maintaining the paradox in all its starkness is precisely the answer to the question, and that, because it is, the answer has to be practical, and not just theorietical.
I agree, in part. However, I believe that it’s important to try to give a rational account of things, as far as possible—and that doing so doesn’t just have to be a way of clinging to self. We can’t speak the ineffable, but we have to try. That’s another paradoxical fact that has to do percisely with starting right where we are, here and now.
Adrian
“One of them concerns the nature of the alternative to the illusion of self. I am not an expert on Buddhism, but I have the impression that Buddhists are reticent on this point, or, at least, that the Buddha was. Perhaps the alternative has something to do with an experience of oneness beyond the subject-object divide.”
As a practical matter, my teachers (who are Tibetan) say that teaching from the vantage point “of the fruition” is better for people with some experience of the Dharma than for an introduction to it.
It is possible to merely drift in dreams of “being Enlightened” and neglect to do the real work. So Buddhists generally stress suffering and confusion as the starting point, to keep a practioner grounded and motivated at the beginning.
But what they do say about the fruition is this:
The way things really are is that they are “empty, luminous, and unobstructed.” They are pure potential out of which any appearance whatever can manifest itself.
No matter what happens to appear to us, that empty, luminous, and unobstructed ground does not change–and there is no essential difference between ordinary appearances and that unobstructed ground.
“Enlightenment” means simply to realize this. The “enlightened beings” don’t live in any different world than we do, and that world has been inherently perfect, pure, and stainless from the beginning.
We are confused about it, they are not. Because our confusion is so deep and abiding, there are parts of this perfect world that we cannot even percieve and we chronically misinterpret what we can percieve.
So the world of an enlightened being is not different from ours, but they have more perceptual capacity from their enlightened knowledge, just like I have more perceptual capacity, due to knowledge, than my pet cats.
One can elaborate on the details of all this, and there are extensive Dharmic descriptions of the things that we in the “human realm” generally do not see, but that is the essence of the matter. Buddhas and enlightened Bodhisattvas manifest in ordinary appearances, but they are not limited by them.
Joseph,
). Though I remain in disagreement with you, and you with me, I’m glad we were able to exchange ideas with one another. Further, I’m glad we can part ways amicably, and agree to disagree in good humor. Good day to you sir, and may you live up to the Light which you have been given (that’s my way of wishing you success in your pursuit of truth 
).
Thank you for taking the time to honestly and thoughtfully make your arguments, and for taking the time to respond. I apologize if at any time I made my arguments too pointed; my Old Nature gets the better of me sometimes, despite my best efforts (yet another reason why I’m grateful my eternity isn’t ultimately dependant upon my best efforts!
Dear Joseph,
Thanks for your explanation. If I understand you, you’re saying that Buddhist “enlightenment” is the realization, not that everything is nothing (as critics sometimes suppose), but that ultimate reality—if such language is allowable—nothing is other than than the ultimate reality, which is not a Supreme Thing, but emptiness, no-thingness, a kind of fullness that can’t be experienced until we let go of thing-think, and so of clinging to things.
Once again, there are some parallels to Christianity. Some of the Greek Fathers talk about God as being “beyond being,” for instance.
For Christianity, Ultimate Reality is Love. God is not a Big Ego. He is a loving exchange, communion. This is one of the meanings of saying that God is Trinity.
For Christians, Personhood is ultimate, even though divine Personhood is not individual ego. Personhood is how Ultimate Fullness is “emptiness,” i.e., not-clinging-to-self—in the form of communion that Love requires in order to be Love.
All the best,
A.
Comments on this entry are closed.