Human Morals vs Divine Morals

Philosophy and God

Once upon a time, I was a philosophy major. Every once in a while, one of the professors would give a talk about some philosophical issue of import. And, when that happened, I and several other philosophy students, plus a bunch of philosophy professors, would gather together to hear the talk and engage in a rousing philosophical conversation. It was a blast.

I remember one time, one of our philosophy professors was giving a talk about God, whether or not He could exist, and whether such a fact, if true, led to a contradiction in light of the philosophical problem of evil. Or something like that. My memory of the talk is pretty hazy. But there are a few morsels I still recall.

The Suprarational God 

I remember the speaker making a few important distinctions. The first was the distinction between a rational justification and an irrational justification. The question being explored was whether or not the belief in God was rational or irrational – or something like that. Like I said, my memory is a bit vague here. I do remember, though, that the philosophy professor made an unsuspecting move.

The concept of God may not be either one. That is, perhaps God is not rational, nor is He irrational, but rather suprarational. That is, understanding of God is beyond human comprehension or even rational comprehension. He is above and beyond mortal thought.

I remember one of the other professors saying something like, “Okay, but that means nothing to me. God is ‘that which cannot be thought?’ How does that help anyone understand God or religion or what-have-you?”

I can’t blame him. That’s a valid point. But, at the same time, it does give one wiggle-room if you want to believe in God and you are constantly bombarded with all these “rational” arguments against His existence.

Supramoral

Of course, I didn’t really want to raise the question of whether or not God exists (I happen to think He does). Rather, I wanted to apply a similar philosophical distinction in morality (as opposed to ontology).  If the rational and the irrational allow for the suprarational, is it possible that the moral and the immoral allow for the supramoral (not amoral, but supramoral). That is, God has an understanding of morality far in excess of our own.

There is a problem with that, though. The whole point of morality is that it is supposed to guide your actions. If you are acting according to supramoral dictates, by definition, you don’t understand what the moral reasoning behind what you are doing. You may be ‘following orders’ perhaps, but is that really what God wants of us? Blind faith?

I also want to say that if there is such a thing as supramorality or Divine morality, I don’t think it contradicts simple human morality. If something is immoral by human standards, I don’t think using supramoral standards will alter that fact. Why? Well, that’s kind of a contradiction, I think – although only philosophers really worry about contradictions.

Basically, that puts me in the camp that there is something wrong with the story of Abraham and his attempted sacrifice of his son to God. Granted, God did not let him go through with it, but I really don’t understand how a Deity – a real Deity – could ask a mortal to sacrifice his son. I think it was Sartre who said, “If God asked me to sacrifice my son, I think I’d ask him for identification” – or something like that. And, I’m kind of like, yeah … I would, too.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that I can accept that the one true God would have supramoral knowledge, but I just can’t accept that that knowledge will contradict what little moral knowledge I might have acquired in my life. I got that he can know more, it’s just – I don’t see God coming up and saying, “Yeah, 2+2 = 3 million. And here’s My proof!”

Because if God can do that, there is no such thing as moral knowledge for humans or any other mortal being. I mean, it’s 2024. We’re all good with the notion that “Racism is bad,” right? We don’t have to learn that lesson again, do we?

Conclusion

Anyway, those were just a few of my thoughts on God and morality. To sum up, I think there is an analogous relationship between the rationality and the morality of the concept of God. God is, likely, both suprarational and supramoral. But neither one of those imply that He is irrational or immoral. At least, that’s where I am right now. That m ay change at some future point, but for the moment, that’s where I am.

Mid-May Book Promotion

Another FYI – the promo for my philosophical dialogue, A Thinker’s Guide to Truth, starts Monday, May 13^th and goes to Friday, May 17^th. It is available for free during that time. And it is available almost everywhere … except (ironically) Amazon. Additionally, the Smashwords promotion for my three discounted fantasy books on the Smashwords site (only) is also still going, until Friday, May 17^th. The coupons are listed on each Smashwords book page.

Drasmyr: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/131156  (Free)

The Children of Lubrochius: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/415779 ($0.99) 

Prism: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/693400 (Free)

Hope you enjoy the reads.

A Few Brief Thoughts on Reincarnation

Introduction

Lots of people wonder about life after death. To me, I see four major possibilities: a spiritual afterlife, nonexistence, reincarnation, and the Catholic Church’s spiritual and bodily resurrection. In this post, I’m going to look at reincarnation.

I’ve never been a big fan of reincarnation. Well, that’s not entirely accurate. I’m not a fan of karma in the context of reincarnation. To me, it makes absolutely no sense to punish or reward an individual based on deeds they committed in a former life, particularly, if they don’t remember anything about the deeds in question. That just seems fundamentally unfair.

Anyway, back to reincarnation by itself.

Christianity and Reincarnation

It is my understanding that most Christians and Christian sects do not believe in reincarnation. The Catholic Church, for example, points out how it is incompatible with the notion of the final resurrection which is a resurrection (and perfection/glorification) of the physical body as well as the soul. Most other Christian sects agree or have some other Biblically-based reason to deny reincarnation.

There are a few outliers, though. Outliers that, supposedly, rely on certain Biblical passages to support the notion of reincarnation. For example, the notion that John the Baptist was, in some way or form, by Jesus’ own words, Elijah the Prophet. This seems to suggest he was the reincarnation of such, or, at least, something similar.

Then there’s that whole concept of being “born again”- which some people may point to. That one, though, I think is a weak connection. Taken in context, to me, it doesn’t seem like Jesus was talking about a second physical life when he said one must be born again, but, rather, some kind of spiritual rebirth.

Other Religions and Reincarnation

There are several other religions, though, who believe in reincarnation. Hinduism, for example, which, I think is the origin of the concept of karma that I mentioned above, is one. Buddhism is another. And I’m sure there are at least several others. But the ones I know the most about are Buddhism and Hinduism.

Which isn’t saying much, because in all honestly, I don’t know a heck of a lot about either one of those religions – beyond the notion that the “top” gods of Hinduism are Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu (?). And the ultimate goal of the Buddhist faith is to purify yourself through many lifetimes until you ultimately achieve a state of Nirvana. Or something like that.

Both incorporate reincarnation. The Buddhist reason for such is obvious. The Hindu reason has slipped my mind. I know they have the “transmigration of souls” going, but I don’t know if there is an ultimate end state or not. Or is it simply reexperiencing life over and over again? I don’t know.

Actually, I just did my due diligence and looked it up on-line.

Apparently, the end state for the Hindu is achieving moksha. When they do so, they rejoin Brahma. So, it’s similar to Buddhism in that way: they each have a specific end state. Of course, I’m sure there are significant differences overall, but I won’t delve into it any further.

Science and Reincarnation

I used to be really fascinated with the “science” of parapsychology – or study of the paranormal, if you will. This was back in the early and late 1990’s – before I developed my “issues.” I read several books on the subject – I still have them, though I have not read them in years. I do remember one book putting forth the evidence for reincarnation.

Basically, there are recorded people in history who just seem to know far more about certain other people who lived before them than they really should. I mean we’re talking about 3- and 4-year-olds who know all about the life of some Buddhist monk who lived thirty or forty years before the child was even born.

How is that possible?

The most common explanation is that the child in question is really the reincarnation of the remembered person (the Buddhist monk or whomever). But that’s not the only possibility. And I think the parapsychologists writing about this—in whatever book I’m remembering—pointed this out. You really can’t rule out something like ESP.

Is the child really the reincarnation of the Buddhist monk? Or is the child a gifted psychic who is simply reaching back in time and reading the monk’s mind or reading the memories of the monk’s spirit wherever that may be. All three options are possible. And I don’t see a way to rule out one or the other.

Actually, that’s not true. I also remember there was one case where the individual who was supposedly reincarnated was still alive after the child was born. How could the child be the reincarnation, if the soul that was supposed to be in his body was still in use in another body? Well, maybe it’s a kind of bilocation thing – a number of religions speak of that, including the Catholics – or its the ESP thing, or something else.

The least likely one is reincarnation – although, thanks to my “issues”, I think I could make it work. But we’re going to avoid that one for now.

Anyway, the problem, as the parapsychologist pointed out in the book was that there doesn’t seem to be a way to experimentally differentiate between some kind of ESP and reincarnation in these cases.

So, that’s the science of the matter: inconclusive.

Conclusion

Anyway, those are a few of my rambling thoughts on reincarnation. Is it real? I don’t know. The Christians say “no.” The Buddhists and Hindus say “yes”, and science doesn’t really seem to have a clear cut answer. Actually, many scientists probably wouldn’t even touch the issue. Parapsychology is still kind of a dark horse type of thing. But … I’ll let you make your own determination. Ta-ta.

Jesus as Doorway to Heaven

Generally speaking, I like most of the teachings of the Christian religions. They tend to emphasize love, forgiveness, kindness, and virtue. However, there are some points with them that I do have difficulty with. Specifically, there’s that whole notion that only people who believe in Jesus will get to heaven. As for all others, most Christian teachings argue they are condemned to hell.

That last – I find difficult to accept. I was raised Catholic and apparently there is a doctrine known as “Baptism by Desire” – in which individuals who are not Christian, who have never heard the Gospel or even Jesus’ name, will get to heaven by simply leading a good and virtuous life. At least there, that seems like the Catholic Church itself has had issues with this doctrine, too.

Regardless, to me, even with that step taken, I still can’t buy it. I know Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” And, elsewhere He said things like only those who believe in Him will have Eternal Life. And there may be a few other similar statements – coming from His mouth, no less. All together, they seem to condemn those who don’t believe Jesus to be the Messiah/Son of God/The Word or what-have-you. And, for the life of me, I don’t see how not believing the words of a man who lived 2000 years ago, words recorded in a book that is but one of dozens claiming to be the ultimate authority on religion, could possibly justify eternal damnation. I just can’t. It doesn’t make sense to me.

This is the best I can make of the claim. Take Jesus as the Gateway to Heaven. I can accept that it is Jesus who makes the call, that is, the decision as to who will and who will not make it into heaven. I can accept that He judges us based on our works and deeds and our inner thoughts and hearts.  If He wants us in heaven, He can send us there. If He wants us to be reincarnated to live again, He can do that, too. Or, off into Purgatory, or even hell, should He so decide. Although, I do not think hell to be an eternal punishment, but a temporary one, perhaps – still terrible beyond comprehension, but temporary.

Of course, I do know that most Christian sects don’t agree with any of that. They state that it is simply the “belief in Jesus” in and of itself that determines our destination after this Life. Reincarnation is not supported by the Bible. Neither is the idea that someone can be saved without Faith (there’s always an ongoing debate about Faith vs. Works – I lean more on the Works side of that argument) except in the Catholic “Baptism by Desire.”

Anyway, to sum up my position, I think we are saved by works, but it is Jesus who makes the call. He measures our works and our hearts to make that call. And “saving” consists simply in guiding us out of this universe to return to our heavenly home.

But then again, I could be wrong.

A Few Brief Thoughts on Politics and Stuff

Not sure what to say about the escalating tensions in the world.  As I generally suck at politics, maybe I shouldn’t even bother commenting on the current situation(s). But I feel that maybe I should. I kind of think that most people, not involved in governments of any kind, (most, but possibly not all) would be far happier if tensions eased, war was averted, and peace prevailed. I think that would be great. Not sure it’s actually going to happen. But I send out at least one prayer to God every night in hopes that it does.

Take the Israeli-Gaza situation in the Middle East, for example. I think the long-term answer has to be peace in some form or the other, but I just don’t see how to get from point A to point B. I think the Israelis would be glad if peace could be assured. I’m not sure the same is true of the Palestinians. And now Iran is getting into the mix. Lovely.

It is my understanding that the Biden administration has given aid to both Israel and the Gaza Strip and the Iranians, too. Although I think I support the idea of trying to befriend an enemy with the use of aid, I think you have to be a little shrewd and careful about it. If you want to give money to an ally or even weapons and armaments to an ally, I think that’s fine (although I do wish weapons weren’t necessary). Doing the same to an enemy, though, I think is a bad idea. I know a psychiatrist who thought we should try to win them over by building hospitals. However, as they (Hamas) tend to hide hostages and innocents in hospitals, I don’t think that’s a good idea. And, ultimately, I’m not convinced any act of kindness will be enough to diffuse their hate. The choice between hate and forgiveness is just that: a choice. And we can’t make our enemy’s choice for them. At best, we can make a gesture that hopefully won’t be used against us (or even better, can’t be used against us), but whether or not our (or Israel’s) enemies accept that gesture is beyond our control.

But again, I tend to lean toward absolute pacifism, however, that’s something I don’t think a politician should ever do (thanks to Neville Chamberlain). Which is another reason why I think I suck at politics and probably should never get involved beyond the voting booth. And you probably shouldn’t listen to me either, particularly when it comes to politics.

Anyway … just felt inclined to babble.

April Promotions for My Books

Hi all! Just a quick note that I am running promotions for the following three ebooks of mine: “Drasmyr” (free – code: ZW22R), “The Children of Lubrochius” ($1 – code: CM84L), and “A Thinker’s Guide to Truth: A Conversation on Truth, Part 1” (free). The books should be available at Smashwords and/or other retailers to which Draft2Digital/Smashwords distribute – although it may take a little time to register. FYI – Drasmyr and Lubrochius are already up and running on the Smashwords site. And Truth on Draft2Digital. The promotions are running from now until April 30^th. Drasmyr and Lubrochius are the first two novels in a dark fantasy series. The truth book is a philosophical dialogue on truth – kind of stylized like something written by Plato. Anyway, give ’em a gander and spread ’em around. Woo hoo!

Freedom is more Valuable than Money

I wrote this post several years ago. My father was alive at the time, and, I think, I was more under the influence of my antichrist issues at the time, too. Anyway, I think it is still worth reading although I’m not sure I agree with everything in it – well, I think I do, just maybe not as strongly. Anyway, read on…

This post is about the Capitalism vs. Socialism debate. Back when I was in college, one of my roommates was a Democratic Socialist (DS). He was a nice guy, who sincerely believed in the cause. I wasn’t really into politics or economic systems at the time (still am not) but we were good friends through college and he left me with a positive outlook on DS. The older I get, though, the more alarmed I get by DS. Count me in the Capitalist camp (CC).

Why?

Because Freedom is far, far more valuable than money. DS strives to redistribute wealth in the name of “fairness.” But suppose one man wants (or even needs) a boat, and another wants (or needs) a car. The best way to fulfill these wants and needs is to let the two respective men make their own choices and buy their own boat or car. The government should not be in the business of picking and choosing goods for its people. Okay, so maybe the government should just supply each man with the money he needs and let him make whatever choice he wants. Okay, but why can’t one man have two boats, if he wants, and leave the other with but one car? Because that would mean they would have disparate wealth. But if the first man was willing to put in twelve hours a day, instead of eight, or find a more efficient way to make money, or maybe even build his own boat … why can’t he keep it? He should be allowed to pursue the acquisition of whatever goods he desires to whatever extent he wants. The second man might not be too into material things. He might be perfectly content with his one car. Maybe that permits him to get by on a thirty-hour work week, half of what the first man works. He finds time to be more valuable than any boat. Why can’t we just let each pursue their own goods without interference from the government? I certainly feel that I am more capable of determining what my material needs are than the government. Forcing someone to purchase a product against their will (cough, Obamacare) is anti-freedom. As for just giving money to this person and that person, that gives the government undue control over each person, because sooner or later, the government will cut off the spigot for whomever displeases it. Then, where are you? Someone must divide the money. Are you suggesting that the division be perfectly equal? Then the guy who wants to work 12 hours a day to get a boat is treated the same as the guy who just wants to work 6. I’m not judging either man, I’m just pointing out that wealth distribution is not something readily amenable to simplistic rules.

Generally speaking, massive centralized governments are a bad idea. They are clumsy, inflexible, and unwieldy. They are also weighed down with inertia. It is true in the private economy that it is the small new businesses that can most readily adapt to and respond effectively to new developments in the market. I see no reason why government wouldn’t follow the same pattern.

For those that want to use government to care for the poor via socialist policies, that too is a bad idea. Dollar for dollar private charities are far more effective. The last time I checked, for every dollar given to government to help the poor, about $0.35 actually reaches the poor person. The rest of the money is consumed by the bureaucracy. That number is likely to get worse as the bureaucracy grows. As I recall, charities average around $0.70 for every dollar. The really good ones get $0.90 or $0.95. Still, I’m kind of up in the air about whether or not government should have any social welfare programs at all (I benefit from two, personally – actually, three, now). Sometimes having a great size has advantages. But I just see the danger of them becoming huge money-sinks that will consume wealth with a rapacious appetite. With that in mind, I think, if we are going to have them, they should rely on voluntary contributions.

Speaking of bureaucracy, the more dealings I have with the U.S. Government, the more I dislike it. Just one example to consider, I recently got medication for my elderly father. Obtaining the medication was delayed because the hospital ER failed to provide a Diagnosis Code. I mean, really? I’m not going to blame the ER for a trivial paperwork error when God-knows how much paperwork they have to deal with. No, this problem came straight from Medicare. You don’t delay medication so you can cross a “t” properly. That’s just stupid.

Speaking of paperwork, let’s talk about its source: the multiplication of Laws. We have more Laws, thanks to the bloated bureaucracy, than we know what to do with. I mean, the Tax Code, is tens-of-thousands of pages long. And Obamacare was like 4000 pages or something stupid like that. I’m a pretty smart guy but I know I can’t keep track of that many laws with my poor mortal brain. When are we going to learn to give the people closest to a situation some leeway based on their own best judgement? I say we get rid of most of the legal code, except the really critical Laws like those against murder, rape, and child molestation. Yes, the antichrist is against excessive laws. Wasn’t I referred to by St. Paul as the Lawless One?

In considering Capitalism and Socialism, my instincts tell me this (like I say my “instincts,” I’m not sure how these would fare under scientific analysis) that Capitalism will “lift all boats”, but perhaps some at different rates. Socialism might lift all boats but far, far more slowly although I am more inclined to think it will sink them in the long run. Last I heard, the United States, the beacon of Capitalism, is responsible for something like 50% of the innovation on the planet. And yet, it has only 5% of the population. From my own experience, in 2009 I traveled to another small city to get access to an MRI machine. About 8 years later, I had three MRI machines as options in my own city. The technology had become more common and more readily accessible, thanks to, I think, Capitalism. I’m inclined to think that in Capitalism, the cutting edge technology is first available to the rich, who, in some ways offer themselves up as guinea pigs to use it. Then, 5 years out, the middle class get access to it. Then, 10 years out, even the poor get access to it. In a socialist system, the cutting edge technology likely advances more slowly and more often than not, is accessible only to those in power. That means, 10 years out only the rich can access the latest technology from 10 years prior; 20 years out, the same. 50 years out, maybe it will reach the poor, but I doubt it. And if this is the situation, which I am inclined to think it roughly is, count me with the Capitalists.

Also, a problem with socialized medicine is that it makes my lifestyle everyone’s business. Can I eat Doritos? Sane people would say it is up to me. But with socialized medicine, everyone else is paying my medical bills and they have a vested interest in keeping me from eating junk food like Doritos. Bite me. I want my friggin’ Doritos when I want them. If they kill me, fine. Blame it on  me.

For my final warning (and Christians won’t like this) against centralized government I will point to Jesus. He was offered control of the planet by Satan, and He turned it down, because He knew it would destroy Him. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

To Save an Adulteress

(I wrote this some time ago. It’s worth reading, but I think it may have a few flawed notions within)

A poor woman surrounded by an outraged crowd armed with rocks and prepared to exact Biblical justice. Her crime: adultery. Her sentence: death by stoning. Justice? Or excessive cruelty? Challenged by the Pharisees and confronting the mob, Jesus spoke words destined to be remembered until the end of time. “Let he who has no sin cast the first stone …” he said.

The result … one by one the crowd walked away starting first with the elders. In the end, only Jesus and the woman remained.

Did Jesus throw his stone? No. He let her go with the simple exhortation to “Go and sin no more.” Jesus saved her life showing mercy where Biblical Law had insisted on bloodshed.

The Crime of Adultery (Mercy vs. Justice)

With 2000 years of history to look back on, from today’s perspective, it is starkly obvious that Jesus was in the right. The woman may have committed adultery, but that hardly warrants death as a punishment. Did Jesus let her go without punishment? I’m not sure about that. It might be more accurate to say that Jesus let her go without further punishment. She was punished to a certain extent. She was humiliated and terrified by the crowd. Does that constitute punishment?

If it was, Jesus appears to have regarded it as sufficient. He let her go and told her to sin no more. Perhaps, Jesus thought that her sin really warranted no punishment but, short of turning back time, there was no way to erase the punishment she had already endured.

So, He demonstrated mercy and cut her punishment short. Where Biblical Law demanded death, Jesus let her off with a simple exhortation to sin no more.

This leads me to an important question. To what extent does mercy annul justice, if at all?

Consequence

Here in the U.S. this is not an insignificant question. In fact, it seems to be one way of distinguishing between the Right and the Left in politics. This may be something of a generalization, but the Right seems to support justice whereas the Left seems to side with mercy.

Justice demands a consequence for criminal acts. But the Left, perhaps with Jesus’ example in mind (or perhaps not) wants to pardon and forgive crimes. Who is correct?

I think some clarification is in order.

Crime and The Broken Windows Theory

I hear about this on conservative talk radio on a regular basis. In the 1990’s (I think), New York City was a haven for criminality. Then Rudy Giuliani became mayor and started enforcing what he called “The Broken Windows Theory.” The idea was … well, hardcore justice. No mercy. No exceptions. Any crime – even something as simple as breaking a window or jumping a turn style – was punished according to the dictates of the Law.

The result: New York City cleaned up its act and once again began to prosper with far lower levels of crime. Rudy Giuliani’s plan worked. At least, that’s the way the conservative podcasts present it.

In contrast, the conservative podcasts claim, everywhere that the Lefties are in control chaos and crime become more prevalent. A case in point: San Francisco. San Francisco was once a beautiful city, now, thanks to the Lefties (or so the Right says) the city is overrun with crime, homeless people, and human feces – Yuck!

Basically, the crux of the issue can be summed up in one word: consequences. The Right believes there should be consequences for crimes. The Left, I think, believe that in the name of compassion or understanding, crimes should bring little or even no real consequences (unless the criminal is a Republican – or so the Right says).

I kind of think that the Left’s thinking, in a way, can be traced back to Jesus. Jesus forgave sinners. Shouldn’t we try to emulate Jesus and do likewise? Should we, as good Christians, forgive the criminals?

And What Is the Virtue in That!

I think it was the “Sermon on the Mount” where Jesus summed up a moral framework that was almost obsessive with its treatment of love, mercy, and forgiveness. He says something along the lines of “If you love those who love you, what is the virtue in that?” I’ve always understood this as being, basically, an exhortation to be loving, forgiving, and merciful to the nth degree. You may love your friends and family, but, wow, so what? Love this guy who did this horrible thing. That’s a challenge. That’s where virtue lies.

And I think it may be that kind of thinking that the Left believes it is embracing. And I guess, in a certain sense, they really are.

But should we? The concepts of mercy and forgiveness combined with the exhortation: “What is the virtue in that!” – seem to imply that there should be no punishments for crimes. Did Jesus believe that? He did talk about hell on occasion, and hell seems to be the ultimate punishment/s. I (and many other people) think there is an issue with the existence of hell when God is described as being ultimately a loving Father (although I have a unique solution to that problem). But do Jesus (and, consequently, God the Father) think that one should be so prepared to forgive others that no punishment should ever be meted out?

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged Yourself

Similarly, nearly everyone has heard Jesus’ maxim, “Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.” That, too, can be taken to be an exhortation against punishing people for their wrongs. At least, superficially – I mean, you can’t punish somebody without first determining that they are guilty of some wrongdoing. Does not that determination of wrongdoing necessarily imply some type of judgment?

And, so, if we aren’t supposed to judge, then, it seems at least plausibly arguable that we aren’t supposed to punish either. Is that what Jesus wanted?

Let’s examine the notion of non-punishment a little more closely.

In the case above of the adulteress, Jesus prevented an admittedly excessive punishment from being meted out. But, as I asked above, does that mean, he didn’t think she should be punished at all? (I used to think so) Or, did he think that the punishment she had already endured (humiliation and fear of death) was sufficient (or simply done and over and not undoable)?

How about the next famous case: the repentant thief on the cross. The thief was being crucified for his crimes next to Jesus who, in turn, was being crucified. The thief sincerely asked to be remembered in heaven and Jesus promised that the thief would be with him in heaven. The other man mocked Jesus. Presumably, the other man went to hell after death – although that’s probably not a certainty. Anyway, the repentant thief was punished for his crime. He was crucified. Again, from a modern viewpoint, that is probably excessive for the crime of theft, but Jesus did not reverse it (assuming He could – if He was truly God, which is a whole other argument).

So, we have an adulteress who was punished less than the Law demanded and a thief who was given consolation and comfort (and possibly a ticket to heaven) at the time of his death. So, the question remains: Did Jesus support any kind of punishment or was he against all forms of punishment?

Looking at these examples in conjunction with the notion of hell seems to imply that He was okay with some level punishment.

For a long time, I was kind of in the liberal camp on this issue. Because of that single phrase, “And what is the virtue of that!” If forgiving someone for insulting you is good, how much better is it to forgive someone for murdering you! Of course, Jesus did, pretty much, do that last.

How about … is a Christian obligated to forgive someone who murders his/her spouse? Turn the other cheek? Someone is trying to murder your spouse … as a Christian, are you forbidden from using violence to stop them?

As I am not Jesus, I don’t know what He says to these questions. But here’s my 2 cents.

Good and evil are not simply binary qualities. The best analogy for the nature of good and evil is, unfortunately (for race reasons), a color scale where total blackness is the ultimate evil and total whiteness is the ultimate good (again, I’m not trying to say ANYTHING about race). As Socrates said, a few hundred years before Christ, we all fall somewhere in between these two extremes. Basically, all of us can be described as being certain shades of grey.

With that in mind …. Often (though not always) saying a certain action is good/evil in a binary sense is misleading or incomplete. Point yourself to the pure good (pure white – again, this is NOT about race) and strive in that direction.

If you happen to be crucified for a crime you either didn’t commit or which doesn’t warrant crucifixion (which, I think, is every crime in the book) and you forgive your executioners … I would say that your act of forgiving your executioners is very bright on the color scale.

Adultery is somewhere in the darker grey. Forgiving adultery is a few shades whiter. Theft … pretty much the same. Murder … yeah, that’s really kind of black. And so on.

Absolute Forgiveness

So … should a murderer be forgiven? Should he have his slate wiped utterly clean? If a murderer is “forgiven” and he suffers no consequences for his actions, will not he (and others) be less deterred from committing murder again?

Can murder be forgiven? According to most Christians, the answer is yes. I agree. Yes, murder can be forgiven. However, I think the point of contention is who has the Right to forgive a wrongdoer. And I think it is precisely here where the Left goes astray.

If my friend Sam is robbed by Paul, it isn’t up to me to forgive Paul. The person with the Right to forgive Paul is Sam. Not me. Not you. How about God? Clearly, I think God can forgive Paul, but I don’t think even God has the Right to forgive Paul on Sam’s behalf. When God forgives, He forgives on behalf of Himself. But God can’t/won’t override Sam’s choice of whether or not to forgive Paul. Is it morally better for Sam to forgive Paul? Once upon a time, I would have just said yes. Now, I’m not so sure.

The degree of evil in the sin committed here should be considered. It’s one thing to forgive someone for a minor offense to you, it’s quite another to forgive someone of something truly awful like murder or rape. In the latter cases, if the perpetrator is guilty and refuses to repent, just forgiving them and letting them go about their way, is actually dangerous. The perpetrator will learn there are no consequences and be even less deterred from repeating the crime. So, if you are brutally assaulted and you forgive the unrepentant criminal, that may just lead to a string of similar crimes that could have been prevented.

But … what is the virtue in that? The unrepentant man is the most difficult to forgive. But it is precisely that reason why we should strive to forgive them. But perhaps, forgiveness does not mean there is no punishment.

Hmmm. Not sure.

War and a Thinker’s Guide to Truth

I was having a conversation with my brother a week or so ago about my recently published book, “A Thinker’s Guide To Truth” – that I have mentioned on this blog elsewhere. Anyway, part of that conversation kind of triggered the thought in my head that I’m not sure I was clear about the distinction between killing and murder.

For those that don’t know, murder refers to ending someone’s life to serve your own ends, whereas killing refers to ending someone’s life in the service of your country – at least I read that somewhere along the way (I think it was in a Dennis Prager book, actually).

Anyway, I just want to say that I’m pretty sure that murder is always wrong and I think I made that point in the dialogue. As for killing… I’m honestly not sure. If given the choice, I would always try to not choose war, and thereby eliminate the need for killing. But this is an imperfect world. War sometimes happens – we even have two (involving allies of ours) going on as we speak. In light of that, I might characterize killing as a dark grey act as opposed to an act of pure unadulterated evil. Not as bad as murder, but still not desirable. Of course, there are a plethora of factors that can influence such.

Of course, this in turn impacts the “absoluteness” of the Right to Life and could lead to a long, complex discussion – a discussion I did not have in my Dialogue, or at least, this Dialogue. I touched on it only briefly in order to say that I think murder is always wrong/evil/whatever – so that there is a certain “absolute” character to murder, but, possibly not killing. And, if not killing, then not the Right to Life either.

Anyway, I will probably address the issue in more detail in some future dialogue on war, perhaps. Maybe. We’ll see how these first few dialogues on truth work out. And go from there. Oh, yeah, one more thing, once again my post about the adulteress is being postponed a week or so.

Promotion for “A Thinker’s Guide to Truth”

I was going to post something about the adulteress Jesus saved from stoning in the Bible, but it’s a post I wrote a few years back and I feel I have to re-edit it a bit, and I don’t have time today. So, I’m just going to post this notice that I am running a promotion for my first philosophical dialogue, “A Thinker’s Guide to Truth.” From now until Easter (March 31st, 2024) the book will be available at no charge. If you are interested in the concept of truth, it may be worth a read. It’s 18k-ish words and takes about 2 hours to read. You can find it here: Universal Book Link: https://books2read.com/athinkersguidetotruth . Happy Lent everyone!