Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Albert Einstein
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Convictions and Freedom
I’ll state my convictions clearly, then allow others the freedom to respond as they see fit.
Les Carter
Les Carter
Monday, July 26, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
One Call
If you were going to die soon and had only one phone call you could make. who would you call and what would you say? And why are you waiting?
Stephen Levine
Stephen Levine
Friday, July 16, 2010
When Absolutes Conflict
The Gospels tell us that Jesus was asked which commandment was greatest (Matthew 26:36-40). For him to give an answer implies there is a hierarchy of commands (and he DID answer the question). Just as not all commandments are on equal footing, not all sin should be treated as equal.* A hierarchy of commands implies a hierarchy of sin.
Slapping you is wrong but killing you is worse and deserves more condemnation. Thus, hitting falls below murder on our list of “top sins”. We recognize this in our legal system by giving harsher sentences to some murders (planned) over others (spontaneous and unplanned).
This comes into play when absolutes conflict. What do we do our options are either, for instance, lying or murder? Some people will tell you to choice the “lesser of two evils”. But is choosing evil ever acceptable? Are there situations where we have no choice but to sin?
Let’s put it in more concrete terms.
Perhaps you’ve been presented this dilemma. Let’s say you are sitting in the library, minding your own business, reading a book. Suddenly, a panting, red-faced young man runs past you. He hides behind a bookcase. Before you have time to take in the scene, another man comes charging inside the library. He looks like he’s been running as well. This second man holds a knife in his hand. You recognized his face. He’s an escaped killer who’s apparently ready to take another life. He looks you in the eye and says, “Where is he? Where is John?”
What do you say?
You should always tell the truth, right? But if you do and point out the victim’s hiding place, you would be guilty of helping the lunatic commit murder.
Would you say, “I don’t know” or “He’s not here”? Either statement is a lie. How would you justify it?
If you say nothing, wouldn’t you be guilty of withholding the truth? Wouldn’t that be wrong as well? Your silence may convey to the madman that John was indeed close and he may start looking for his victim. Wouldn’t that make you accountable as well?
The question really is, when there are moral dilemmas, that is, two absolutes that conflict (in this case, the charge not to lie comes against the charge to not murder), are these dilemmas real? And if so, what is the proper action?
If we accept there are “graded absolutes” then the choice is not the “lesser evil” but the “greater good”.
When a small child hands us a crude crayon drawing, we are not obligated in the name of truth to call it “a poor excuse for art”. There are greater “rules” that apply here. Just like when your wife asks if she looks overweight in a new dress. The brute facts may say one thing but the love in your heart will speak a “greater truth” into the situation.
(*this is not to say that all sin is equal in its consequences for any evil will separate us from our creator).
Stephen Goforth
Slapping you is wrong but killing you is worse and deserves more condemnation. Thus, hitting falls below murder on our list of “top sins”. We recognize this in our legal system by giving harsher sentences to some murders (planned) over others (spontaneous and unplanned).
This comes into play when absolutes conflict. What do we do our options are either, for instance, lying or murder? Some people will tell you to choice the “lesser of two evils”. But is choosing evil ever acceptable? Are there situations where we have no choice but to sin?
Let’s put it in more concrete terms.
Perhaps you’ve been presented this dilemma. Let’s say you are sitting in the library, minding your own business, reading a book. Suddenly, a panting, red-faced young man runs past you. He hides behind a bookcase. Before you have time to take in the scene, another man comes charging inside the library. He looks like he’s been running as well. This second man holds a knife in his hand. You recognized his face. He’s an escaped killer who’s apparently ready to take another life. He looks you in the eye and says, “Where is he? Where is John?”
What do you say?
You should always tell the truth, right? But if you do and point out the victim’s hiding place, you would be guilty of helping the lunatic commit murder.
Would you say, “I don’t know” or “He’s not here”? Either statement is a lie. How would you justify it?
If you say nothing, wouldn’t you be guilty of withholding the truth? Wouldn’t that be wrong as well? Your silence may convey to the madman that John was indeed close and he may start looking for his victim. Wouldn’t that make you accountable as well?
The question really is, when there are moral dilemmas, that is, two absolutes that conflict (in this case, the charge not to lie comes against the charge to not murder), are these dilemmas real? And if so, what is the proper action?
If we accept there are “graded absolutes” then the choice is not the “lesser evil” but the “greater good”.
When a small child hands us a crude crayon drawing, we are not obligated in the name of truth to call it “a poor excuse for art”. There are greater “rules” that apply here. Just like when your wife asks if she looks overweight in a new dress. The brute facts may say one thing but the love in your heart will speak a “greater truth” into the situation.
(*this is not to say that all sin is equal in its consequences for any evil will separate us from our creator).
Stephen Goforth
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Sexual Repression
The media has contributed to the confusion in our culture between repression and suppression. "Poster after poster, film after film, novel after novel, (CS) Lewis notes, “associate the idea of sexual indulgence with the ideas of health, normality, youth, frankness, and good humour.” He claims this association gives a false impression and is a lie. “Like all powerful lies,” Lewis explains, “it is based on a truth.. that sex in itself.. is ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’.. the lie consists in the suggestion that any sexual act to which you are tempted at the moment is also healthy and normal.” Lewis adds that human sexuality, like gravity or any other aspect of our universe, cannot in itself be moral or immoral. Sexuality, like the rest of the universe, is given by God and therefore good. How people express their sexuality, on the other hand, can be moral or immoral.
Armand Nicholi
The Question of God
Armand Nicholi
The Question of God
Labels:
Sex
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Shakespeare and the Incarnation
If Shakespeare and Hamlet could ever meet, it must be Shakespeare’s doing. Hamlet could initiate nothing.. Shakespeare could, in principle, make himself appear as Author within the play, and write a dialogue between Hamlet and himself. The “Shakespeare” within the play would of course be at once Shakespeare and one of Shakespeare’s creatures. It would bear some analogy to Incarnation.
CS Lewis
Surprised by Joy
CS Lewis
Surprised by Joy
Labels:
Incarnation
Monday, July 5, 2010
Power in Moral Events
Good deeds, even just thinking about helping others, have more willpower, more stamina and are sensitivity to discomfort, according to a new study out of Harvard. The same held true for people who perceived themselves as evil. Researchers call this the “moral transformation” effect because such deeds have the power to transform people from average to exceptional. They suggest helping others before being faced with temptation and that lending a helping hand may be a useful technique to regain control of your own life. Details are in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.
Stephen Goforth
Stephen Goforth
Labels:
evil,
good,
helping others
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)