A number of people criticise those who say that there is only black and white, a statement I would agree with. There is this idea that there is something such as the grey area, where morals can be diluted and we are not sure whether it is right or whether it is wrong.
However, naturally I disagree, as I said earlier, I definitely side on the side of only ever being black and white. There is one reason for this, and you have probably guessed it by now if you are following this blog - God. To God, I do not believe that there is such a thing as a grey area, where people might be pardoned or might not - why? because God is a God of justice - it is his ultimate decision to determine what is sin and what is not.
But today I thought about why we keep a "grey area" - why do we say something is morally grey and are prepared to live with it?
I think there are two reasons: the first is that law is a much more complex thing nowadays. The classic example can be taken in streaming videos off the Internet - is this piracy, is it wrong, should it be illegal or not? and I think that because we don't have a modern day "ten commandments" to deal with downloads, intellectual property, and therefore what is defined as stealing, under which this may or may not fall - the introduction of technology and the more ready availability of information, and the willingness of musicians, film-makers and TV-corporations to make money from their creations, yet with the ability to make an exact copy so easy (the only art that used to be sold for a living tended to be paintings and sculptures, which is a lot more difficult to make a forgery of than it is to say, copy a DVD).
And therefore the law needs to be more soundproof for people to determine what is right and what is wrong - the vast number of downloads per day can be argued to benefit the industries, as it gets artists work out into the public domain and people then buy the records if they want to hear the real thing with more improved sound quality, picture quality in films, etc. However, on the other side, there are the people who are making money from the download sites. it is so easy to make a quick buck from the Internet by the use of advertising. I could make money from this blog by allowing people to advertise on it, but I have chosen not to since I do not wish to make money from my wisdom (or lack thereof, I leave you to make your own conclusion...) - especially as this is not costing me any money in the first place - unless you count my Internet subscription fee - and the making of money would be at the cost of the reader getting annoying sidebar adverts which may not actually be beneficial to the values that I promote on this site.
Therefore, to answer point one, the laws need to be made clearer, and definite - and wishfully, by God - perhaps we ought to study his word to see if there is anything that may relate to this topic, for example, to give us guidance. Save that, Paul said that those who do not have the law are guided by their conscience, and convicted as such - Maybe our lawmakers should take a look back, see the whole picture, and decide what is right.
The second reason why we have a moral grey area is because we do not want to try and justify what we are doing, or for the matter, we are using it to justify something that is wrong. we keep a grey area because we know that if we had to place it in black or white, it would go in the side of black. In other words, we know that we are sinning. if you are in a situation such as this, unable to decide if it is right or wrong, stop trying to justify why it is right, take a step back, and look at the bigger picture. This I speak for from experience:
I am battling an addiction to something that has plagued me for around 6 years. Constantly I would try and justify it, putting it in a morally grey area. 6 months ago I realised this was wrong. a few weeks ago, after using it as a form of self-flagellation because of a period of depression I went through, I started trying to beat it, knowing full well that it was wrong and trying to beat it. That was the best 9 days of my life. I felt so free, so happy, so full of Joy in the Lord that I was on top of the world. Then I took a knock and I went back down, falling down a slippery slope. A week ago I pulled myself out again, and I now know how far I can go before I am on the slippery slope. I know that I am so close to that edge, because the slope leads straight up to my position on this matter of righteousness. There is a black and white. I am now, for the second time in 6 years, standing in the white. But the white square is so small and so close to the edge of the black. If you think you are in morally grey, it is because the black and white is blurring together - with morally grey, there is always a shade of black - you cannot get away from black until you are in a zone of pure white.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
A little philosophy
ok, so for those of you who have not done any philosophy, or have no interest in things such as this, this may be a little boring - but I enjoy it...
Anyway, so i was on the train the other day thinging about God and metaphysiscs and all that, and then the following arguments came to me:
The argument against God is that of metaphysics. For those of you who don't understand philosophy-speak, this basically means that which cannot be known. so to say that something is metaphysical, is to say that we don't know anything about it. Since God is (by philosophical standards) unseeable, untouchable, cannot be heard etc, then he must be metaphysical - how can we know anything about him?
However a counter argument would be to say that to define anything as being metaphysical, would surely mean to say that we know something about the object in question - that it cannot be known - we know, that God is a concept about which we can know nothing - therefore, to attatch the definition of "metaphysical" to anything, is surely a fallacy, since we contradict ourselves in attributing "metaphysical" to the object.
Sorry, I went into philosophy speak again. To say that we cannot know anything about God is wrong, because when we say we cannot know anything about God, we say that we know that we cannot know anything about God. At which point, we are saying that we know something about Him! So we contradict oursleves.
The next argument against God is that of language. since we don not know anything about him (as we could just simply ignore labelling him as metaphysical altogether and just refuse to talk about him full stop), we must therefore not talk about him and focus on more pressing matters. But as these arguments have stated, Philosophy is purely about language - an argument is produced in language, and concludes in language, and all we are discussing is how to use words. What we are not discussing is whether or not an object exists. Therefore to say that in language we must not talk about God is wrong since we are perfectly capable talking about God, whether he exists or not, just as we are capable to talk about a fictional character. If the argument is to say that there is nothing to talk about, then again they are mistaken, as we have talked about God for millenia, so clearly we have something to talk about.
This brings me on to my next point, as provided by Prof. Richard Dawkins:
"God probably doesn't exist. So stop worrying and enjoy your life" is a series of poster campaigns in the UK.
I have a few complaints about this. One, I am suprised by Richard Dawkins' lack of faith in his atheistic religion by saying only the word "probably" - so is he not sure? does he think that there is the possibility that God does exist? C'mon Richard, stand up for what you believe in! Does he exist or not? My next point is that this poster campaign sends surely a backwards message - why WOULD we worry if God existed? what on earth do we have to worry about, if we have faith in Jesus' death and resurrection? If God didn't exist then we have a lot to worry about! Death, destruction, pain, suffering - all of which, by faith, can be resolved...
And finally, I would argue that God probably does exist. Now it has been a while since my a-level in philosophy, so here goes my version of the cosmological argument for the existence of God - since I see no flaw in it, other than the earlier issue, now resolved, of trying to prove a "metaphysical" being (which, by the way, is a flawed argument as it claims that God has not revealed himself - which if you look at the eyewitness accounts of God's work written down in what is hailed by historians as a document which contains the most evidence and historical accuracy about the events in question, with the highest degree of reliability - the bible - he quite clearly has shown himself, and all around the world today, he still shows himself through miraculous works and deeds) - and the other flaw that exists in all philosophical argument of a priori logic having an infinite regress until you reach empirical evidence and empirical evidence being unreliable due to our senses being foolable (though since we can know no other until we are proven wrong, we might as well continue as we were anyway, rather than doubt empirical evidence, discard it, and live without knowledge of anything) - here is the argument:
1. We exist at this time, in this place.
2. time is continuous (as far as we can tell)
Conculsion - If time were infinite, we must have travelled an infinite length of time to reach our current position, as per the rules of mathematics
3. To travel through an infinite length of time is impossible, as per the rules of mathematics
Conculsion - Time must therefore be finite
4. To be finite, there must be a start or an end
5. Every effect has a preceding cause
Conclusion - to produce the effect of time, there must be a preceding cause that exists outside of time.
And so to conclude, I would actually say, Professor Dawkins, that there is more evidence to suggest God's existence than not. There is a whole wealth of evidence to put the evolutionary theory into disregard, we have still yet to discover what makes life, how, in fact, the first prehistoric goo became an organism in the first place, what that organism was, and recreate it in a laboratory. The evolutionary timescale of around 6 billion years is laughable, considering we have more than that many species on this planet (that we know of), and we certainly have not seen evolution of 1 per year - in fact, we have not seen evolution, which at the rate evolution would suggest it should occur, we should easily have seen by now, the length of time we have been studying (about 150 years since Darwin)
And finally, another argument I remembered I had today. Mankind is built wrong. We could not possibly have evolved and survived, and there is a very good reason for that. We explore. We want to find the new, the different, no matter how dangerous or life-threatening it may be - we want to see what is over that hill, be it mammoths to kill for food or man-eating leopards - It is hard to find another animal that likes to explore in the same way that we do - we are so different to the animals, so far reached - that we are even able to classify us in a completely different section from "the animals" - since they are so similar in comparison to ourselves.
Anyway, so i was on the train the other day thinging about God and metaphysiscs and all that, and then the following arguments came to me:
The argument against God is that of metaphysics. For those of you who don't understand philosophy-speak, this basically means that which cannot be known. so to say that something is metaphysical, is to say that we don't know anything about it. Since God is (by philosophical standards) unseeable, untouchable, cannot be heard etc, then he must be metaphysical - how can we know anything about him?
However a counter argument would be to say that to define anything as being metaphysical, would surely mean to say that we know something about the object in question - that it cannot be known - we know, that God is a concept about which we can know nothing - therefore, to attatch the definition of "metaphysical" to anything, is surely a fallacy, since we contradict ourselves in attributing "metaphysical" to the object.
Sorry, I went into philosophy speak again. To say that we cannot know anything about God is wrong, because when we say we cannot know anything about God, we say that we know that we cannot know anything about God. At which point, we are saying that we know something about Him! So we contradict oursleves.
The next argument against God is that of language. since we don not know anything about him (as we could just simply ignore labelling him as metaphysical altogether and just refuse to talk about him full stop), we must therefore not talk about him and focus on more pressing matters. But as these arguments have stated, Philosophy is purely about language - an argument is produced in language, and concludes in language, and all we are discussing is how to use words. What we are not discussing is whether or not an object exists. Therefore to say that in language we must not talk about God is wrong since we are perfectly capable talking about God, whether he exists or not, just as we are capable to talk about a fictional character. If the argument is to say that there is nothing to talk about, then again they are mistaken, as we have talked about God for millenia, so clearly we have something to talk about.
This brings me on to my next point, as provided by Prof. Richard Dawkins:
"God probably doesn't exist. So stop worrying and enjoy your life" is a series of poster campaigns in the UK.
I have a few complaints about this. One, I am suprised by Richard Dawkins' lack of faith in his atheistic religion by saying only the word "probably" - so is he not sure? does he think that there is the possibility that God does exist? C'mon Richard, stand up for what you believe in! Does he exist or not? My next point is that this poster campaign sends surely a backwards message - why WOULD we worry if God existed? what on earth do we have to worry about, if we have faith in Jesus' death and resurrection? If God didn't exist then we have a lot to worry about! Death, destruction, pain, suffering - all of which, by faith, can be resolved...
And finally, I would argue that God probably does exist. Now it has been a while since my a-level in philosophy, so here goes my version of the cosmological argument for the existence of God - since I see no flaw in it, other than the earlier issue, now resolved, of trying to prove a "metaphysical" being (which, by the way, is a flawed argument as it claims that God has not revealed himself - which if you look at the eyewitness accounts of God's work written down in what is hailed by historians as a document which contains the most evidence and historical accuracy about the events in question, with the highest degree of reliability - the bible - he quite clearly has shown himself, and all around the world today, he still shows himself through miraculous works and deeds) - and the other flaw that exists in all philosophical argument of a priori logic having an infinite regress until you reach empirical evidence and empirical evidence being unreliable due to our senses being foolable (though since we can know no other until we are proven wrong, we might as well continue as we were anyway, rather than doubt empirical evidence, discard it, and live without knowledge of anything) - here is the argument:
1. We exist at this time, in this place.
2. time is continuous (as far as we can tell)
Conculsion - If time were infinite, we must have travelled an infinite length of time to reach our current position, as per the rules of mathematics
3. To travel through an infinite length of time is impossible, as per the rules of mathematics
Conculsion - Time must therefore be finite
4. To be finite, there must be a start or an end
5. Every effect has a preceding cause
Conclusion - to produce the effect of time, there must be a preceding cause that exists outside of time.
And so to conclude, I would actually say, Professor Dawkins, that there is more evidence to suggest God's existence than not. There is a whole wealth of evidence to put the evolutionary theory into disregard, we have still yet to discover what makes life, how, in fact, the first prehistoric goo became an organism in the first place, what that organism was, and recreate it in a laboratory. The evolutionary timescale of around 6 billion years is laughable, considering we have more than that many species on this planet (that we know of), and we certainly have not seen evolution of 1 per year - in fact, we have not seen evolution, which at the rate evolution would suggest it should occur, we should easily have seen by now, the length of time we have been studying (about 150 years since Darwin)
And finally, another argument I remembered I had today. Mankind is built wrong. We could not possibly have evolved and survived, and there is a very good reason for that. We explore. We want to find the new, the different, no matter how dangerous or life-threatening it may be - we want to see what is over that hill, be it mammoths to kill for food or man-eating leopards - It is hard to find another animal that likes to explore in the same way that we do - we are so different to the animals, so far reached - that we are even able to classify us in a completely different section from "the animals" - since they are so similar in comparison to ourselves.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Freedom and responsibility
The problem with the UK is that everyone wants freedom - I don't know whether or not it is the generation (mine) that grew up using the argument of "it's a free country" to get away with anything on the playground that has led to this uncomfortableness about a lack of "freedom". We do not live in a free country. Ok, granted, we have a lot more freedoms that other places in the world - for example, we are not restricted on who can go to school and who cannot, we are not restricted on healthcare or have our movements restricted by war. We are, therefore, by comparison, a free-er country than other places on the globe. but that does not give us the feedom to do anything - and with freedom, comes responsibility.
The Media, for example, have been granted free speech and freedom of information - they can publish any piece of true information (unless you are the daily star or the daily sport), and nobody is allowed to challenge whether or not they are allowed to say it. Which is good. Or is it? Let me explain. Only a little while ago, a top official in the police was photographed with top secret details of raids that would be taking place across the country with regards to terrorist suspects. What did the media do? Publish the photograph and explain that there would be raids across the country. This is one of a series of examples that show that you need responsibility when you are given freedom - as a result of this abuse of freedom, the police were forced to draw forwards the raids, leaving them unprepared and rushed - which could explain why none of the people who were caught during the raids are still detained - all of them were released.
When you bring up a child, you give him freedoms, but you als need o teach him responsibilites with that freedom - for example, if you let your child go down to the shops to buy some milk fr you, he has also the responsibiity to do as you asked him, to not lose the money or the milk, or to not spend it on sweets instead. The same with the Media - we have given you the freedom to publish what you want, but also the responsibility to pulish only what should be published, in the best interests of the nation. If, like the child, you cannot be responsible with this freedom, we must surely take away your sweets, and limit your freedoms again.
As for the expenses row - I think both the Media and the government have taken their freedoms too far - Yes, government ministers should not claim on their expenses what was not incurred as part of their job - and the media were good for pointing this out and getting this sorted - however now it is gtting petty and ministers are losing their jobs, some for having done nothing wrong - I think we need to nip this in the bud soon, and just have an overhaul of the expenses system and be done with it.
But of course this "freedoms and responsibilites" does not just cover the government and the media - we all need to make sure that with our freedoms of speech, lfe, etc, that we also take responsibility - otherwise, we should remove the freedom altogether.
The Media, for example, have been granted free speech and freedom of information - they can publish any piece of true information (unless you are the daily star or the daily sport), and nobody is allowed to challenge whether or not they are allowed to say it. Which is good. Or is it? Let me explain. Only a little while ago, a top official in the police was photographed with top secret details of raids that would be taking place across the country with regards to terrorist suspects. What did the media do? Publish the photograph and explain that there would be raids across the country. This is one of a series of examples that show that you need responsibility when you are given freedom - as a result of this abuse of freedom, the police were forced to draw forwards the raids, leaving them unprepared and rushed - which could explain why none of the people who were caught during the raids are still detained - all of them were released.
When you bring up a child, you give him freedoms, but you als need o teach him responsibilites with that freedom - for example, if you let your child go down to the shops to buy some milk fr you, he has also the responsibiity to do as you asked him, to not lose the money or the milk, or to not spend it on sweets instead. The same with the Media - we have given you the freedom to publish what you want, but also the responsibility to pulish only what should be published, in the best interests of the nation. If, like the child, you cannot be responsible with this freedom, we must surely take away your sweets, and limit your freedoms again.
As for the expenses row - I think both the Media and the government have taken their freedoms too far - Yes, government ministers should not claim on their expenses what was not incurred as part of their job - and the media were good for pointing this out and getting this sorted - however now it is gtting petty and ministers are losing their jobs, some for having done nothing wrong - I think we need to nip this in the bud soon, and just have an overhaul of the expenses system and be done with it.
But of course this "freedoms and responsibilites" does not just cover the government and the media - we all need to make sure that with our freedoms of speech, lfe, etc, that we also take responsibility - otherwise, we should remove the freedom altogether.
Friday, May 1, 2009
A Challenge
A friend of mine recently challenged me about why I feel there is a right and wrong to everything, and why I need to tell people that they are "wrong". Allow me to ramble during this post - I need to use this to think it through - I may even conclude that they were right...
I see only black and white - I guess it is because there is only black and white - that i how God would see it, so that is how I ought to see it - at least, that can be done for when it comes to sinning, but the challenge was also about theology - and differences between different christian denominations. I do not affiliate myself to any denomination - simply because I do not wholly agree with the set theology of any church body - I believe in a a literal interpretation of the bible, but where we balance what the culture was like at the time, with the reasons why God has set those rules in place then - and therefore what would God do for the times of today. Take for example, the infamous argument about women in the ministry - based around where Paul says that he would not allow women to preach - the reason being is that back then, women were nowhere near the status in society that they have now - their word could not be trusted, the very thought of a woman having authority over anybody else was ludicrous. this is why the rule was set down, clearly - because to have a woman leading the church would have ridiculed the christian faith, and made the word of God untrustworthy in the eyes of men. Nowadays, we know that such ridiculous stereotyping is wrong - but, it may be the case that in a church you know is populated by masoginists, you do not want to appoint a female minister for the same reasons that Paul would not.
Therefore my argument would be that I suggest that a particular theology may be wrong, simply because it is not biblical - it is nothing like what God intended our church to be - if it is not biblical, it will often have a negative effect, rather than a positive one.
The reason why I stand up and say that something is wrong is because somebody has to. If somebody had killed someone else, justifying that it was justice, out of passion, etc, would you turn around to them and say that what they had done was right? No! if someone stole something, you could not possibly reason that by God's word either, for it is forbidden in the commandments. The thing is, as someone who is also a sinner, I know how easy it is to be able to convince yourself that something is right, that it is okay - it is up to someone else to guide them into a Godly way of thinking. How you go about it is another matter - do you condemn them to hell for doing so? Whilst that would be God's judgemental wrath, that is not going to help them - they will most likely rebel against what you say, and therefore turn further away from God. This, again, I have experience of...
Instead, you show them, in love, like Jesus taught us, that what they are doing is not right and not glorifying to God. you pray with them and work with them such that they will then seek forgiveness and repentance for their wrongdoing. but someone has to point them in the right direction. We are the body of Christ, we bring God's holy spirit, and therefore we cannot leave them alone for God to convict them of their sin on their own - since they have turned away from God. Instead, we need to help shine the light on their path - and show them where they have gone wrong. This is why I tell people they are wrong - but I do not try to be judgemental about it - if I have in the past, that is due to lack of experience and I have learnt how to be more tactful! (and still learning too...)
When it comes down to theology, my friend does make a very good point - and I think we are both working towards the same goal, but by different methods - we share the same frustrations, about Christ divided amongst the church - different denominations not talking to each other because of different theologies that do not seem to matter - although we are all destined for heaven, we are split - the Kingdom of God is divided. My Friends argument was that it does not matter - and I am of the same opinion, that these things do not matter to our faith - if we were to get rid of these arguments by solving them through biblical analysis, we would have something clear.
My argument is that I want to unite the churches all under the bible - strip away all that we have added to Christianity and let us just simply sit on the bible, and Jesus' teachings, as the mainstay of our religion. Having anything extra is like being given a golden, polished statue to put on the mantlepiece, and then making your own things, that are worthless and useless, and putting them in front of the statue, hiding what is of real value. This is what the church has done, and we should unite - what holds us all together, what binds us together, is that statue - or rather, that cross, on which our Saviour laid down His life for us - let us clear everything else away, so that we can see him all the more clearly, and can hold him up as a shining light to all the world - a light we can carry, no longer clouded with the things we have hung on the outside, but a bright, shining beacon to the world.
As for whether or not my interpretation of the bible is correct - that is to be determined by other scholars. Let us let the scholars, who have studied his word carefully and under due consideration to the cultural reasons behind anything that was decided, decide accurately what it is that the bible is saying.
I see only black and white - I guess it is because there is only black and white - that i how God would see it, so that is how I ought to see it - at least, that can be done for when it comes to sinning, but the challenge was also about theology - and differences between different christian denominations. I do not affiliate myself to any denomination - simply because I do not wholly agree with the set theology of any church body - I believe in a a literal interpretation of the bible, but where we balance what the culture was like at the time, with the reasons why God has set those rules in place then - and therefore what would God do for the times of today. Take for example, the infamous argument about women in the ministry - based around where Paul says that he would not allow women to preach - the reason being is that back then, women were nowhere near the status in society that they have now - their word could not be trusted, the very thought of a woman having authority over anybody else was ludicrous. this is why the rule was set down, clearly - because to have a woman leading the church would have ridiculed the christian faith, and made the word of God untrustworthy in the eyes of men. Nowadays, we know that such ridiculous stereotyping is wrong - but, it may be the case that in a church you know is populated by masoginists, you do not want to appoint a female minister for the same reasons that Paul would not.
Therefore my argument would be that I suggest that a particular theology may be wrong, simply because it is not biblical - it is nothing like what God intended our church to be - if it is not biblical, it will often have a negative effect, rather than a positive one.
The reason why I stand up and say that something is wrong is because somebody has to. If somebody had killed someone else, justifying that it was justice, out of passion, etc, would you turn around to them and say that what they had done was right? No! if someone stole something, you could not possibly reason that by God's word either, for it is forbidden in the commandments. The thing is, as someone who is also a sinner, I know how easy it is to be able to convince yourself that something is right, that it is okay - it is up to someone else to guide them into a Godly way of thinking. How you go about it is another matter - do you condemn them to hell for doing so? Whilst that would be God's judgemental wrath, that is not going to help them - they will most likely rebel against what you say, and therefore turn further away from God. This, again, I have experience of...
Instead, you show them, in love, like Jesus taught us, that what they are doing is not right and not glorifying to God. you pray with them and work with them such that they will then seek forgiveness and repentance for their wrongdoing. but someone has to point them in the right direction. We are the body of Christ, we bring God's holy spirit, and therefore we cannot leave them alone for God to convict them of their sin on their own - since they have turned away from God. Instead, we need to help shine the light on their path - and show them where they have gone wrong. This is why I tell people they are wrong - but I do not try to be judgemental about it - if I have in the past, that is due to lack of experience and I have learnt how to be more tactful! (and still learning too...)
When it comes down to theology, my friend does make a very good point - and I think we are both working towards the same goal, but by different methods - we share the same frustrations, about Christ divided amongst the church - different denominations not talking to each other because of different theologies that do not seem to matter - although we are all destined for heaven, we are split - the Kingdom of God is divided. My Friends argument was that it does not matter - and I am of the same opinion, that these things do not matter to our faith - if we were to get rid of these arguments by solving them through biblical analysis, we would have something clear.
My argument is that I want to unite the churches all under the bible - strip away all that we have added to Christianity and let us just simply sit on the bible, and Jesus' teachings, as the mainstay of our religion. Having anything extra is like being given a golden, polished statue to put on the mantlepiece, and then making your own things, that are worthless and useless, and putting them in front of the statue, hiding what is of real value. This is what the church has done, and we should unite - what holds us all together, what binds us together, is that statue - or rather, that cross, on which our Saviour laid down His life for us - let us clear everything else away, so that we can see him all the more clearly, and can hold him up as a shining light to all the world - a light we can carry, no longer clouded with the things we have hung on the outside, but a bright, shining beacon to the world.
As for whether or not my interpretation of the bible is correct - that is to be determined by other scholars. Let us let the scholars, who have studied his word carefully and under due consideration to the cultural reasons behind anything that was decided, decide accurately what it is that the bible is saying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)