moral law.

(these are merely fragments of something i have been working on of late. keep in mind they're rather random and somewhat unorganized still, the reason for posting them is to perhaps induce some form of conversation regarding these topics.)

if there is no objectivity in morals, the very idea of there existing a moral law behind the universe would be no more than mere concept and ideal for mutual comfort within a society. the golden rule would only apply insofar as it produced pleasure and not pain. it would be mere utilitarianism. yet if pleasure were the ultimate aim, it would contradict with the very 'morals' one ought to conduct thesmselves according to in it's pursuit. so what is the purpose of living according to the moral law? is it simply subjective good behaviour? while the byproducts of morality would be beneficial to society as a whole, can the ends also be the means to that end as well?

or is it that the entire purpose behind there being a law is to illuminate and attempt to contain our moral deficiencies? what other intrinsic purpose does the law possess? is it possible that we have developed the map of the road towards a more perfected state of society? the moral law serves a two-fold purpose much like a compass. first to give a bearing on one's position and second to point the way to one's destination.

given the historical timeline of human existence and our cultural 'progressions' it would seem that though we may not have progressed in many ways, it would seem that we have become more and more cognitive of our deficiencies, perhaps it is time we, instead of being bogged down in our own deficiencies, focused on the flipside of moral law, the good.

created in the image of a creator, it follows that there is inextricable value inside each and every person, regardless of religious creeds and denominational affiliation. the moral law cannot be owned by a specific cultural group without implying it's subjective implications.

do "evil" people exist? or are they merely people comitting acts of "evil?"if we are inherently evil and cannot help ourselves, it should seem faulty programming on the part of the designer. since i cannot cognitively blame my acts of "evil" on a creator, i must take responsibility for them, but also must acknowledge the possibility of not commiting the acts of "evil" in the first place. the truth that people do commit acts of "evil" does not devaule the intrinsic "good" that is within us as result of our reflecting the 'imageo dei.'

yet, even further, does morality itself exist independently of God? can it?if the two are inextricably intertwined, it should follow then that without God, man could not act in such ways that were morally 'right.' yet, they must be able to if they reflect the image of their creator within them.

war.

throughout this blog, do keep in mind that my definition for war is as follows: the planned & systematic killing employed as a means of resolving a dispute / conflict.

war is objectively wrong.
further, as a follower of Christ i cannot support war.
i can, of course, support the men and women of the armed forces*
(*this will be explained later on in the entry)

i believe that they way of Jesus is a way of peace. and no, i do not consider myself a pacifist in the universal sense that i would do nothing, but i do believe in the ethic of non-violence. the words of Jesus speak quite plainly in regards to this topic: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "love your neighbor as yourself," "those who seek to save their lives will lose them and those who seek to lose their lives will save them," "those who live by the sword die by the sword," "if someone strikes you on the one cheek turn your other cheek to them as well" etc..

now i know that some of you actually read your bibles and study it and will of course want to quote the statement of Jesus "i did not come to bring peace, but a sword.." and i must state first that please remember to read your bible verses in context, secondly this verse is talking more about the truth that when people live the way Jesus teaches, literally their families will become divided, even Jesus' own family illustrates the truth of this. also you may quote the verse in luke three where the centurions ask (as regards their profession as soldiers) "what should we do?" and the response is something along the lines of not extorting money from people, etc. yet, in response to that, i look at who gives the response and no, it is not Jesus, but john the baptist. i don't follow him. (though eating honey and locusts.. wow, respect is given. mad props!)

so let's look at some of the arguments for war, mainly these four:
- war as a neccesary evil.
- war as self-defense.
- war as defense of the innocent.
- war as a divine commandment.

first, war as a neccesary evil offers no problem to my argument that war is evil. obviously, a neccesary evil is still evil. but further than that this does not provide any real justification for war as the sole or first answer to resolving a conflict. to prevent an evil, we should commit an evil? may it never be. furthermore i would state that evil is not something of a graded scale. that is to say i do not consider certain acts to be more evil than others. if i lie to a friend over something trivial it is still an evil offense. the word used to describe this act would be "sin."

secondly, war as an act of self-defense. if i were punched by someone and punched back because i believed they would punch me again, i am still punching (active.. attacking) the person and responding to evil with evil. that is to say "an eye for an eye" which is what we have heard, but Jesus teaches not to resist an evil person. attacking, even out of self-defense, is still attacking. it is not justified as morally right simply because one was attacked. this is redemptive violence and escalates in cycle until it destroys the very people that started the conflict. i.e. a slap in the face would eventually lead to entire nations at war and millions of people dying, etc. "since you did this me.. i am going to do this to you." seeking retribution through violence is not the proper response to violence. because then someone will have to seek retribution through violence upon the person first seeking retribution through violence.

thirdly, war as defense of the innocent. part of this argument is refuted by argument number one, war as a neccesary evil. since when we speak of protecting or defending the innocent, we presume to stop an evil from being committed against them. yet, furthermore i must state that i find it highly arrogant to presuppose that one can objectively judge as to who is, in fact, "innocent" and who is not. and it offers no justification that war is needed and is the sole action that can be taken to prevent evil. furthermore, even when wars have been fought for the sake of preventing an evil, they ultimately have failed because the evils were still committed regardless to their violent response. do unto others as you would have them do unto you. as a christian, i believe that we are all guilty and are deserving of judgement. i heard a contemporary theologian's view on war to prevent evil stated like this.. "sometimes loving my neighbour (enemy) means killing him." that scares and frustrates me. and nowhere in the scriptures, especially the words of Jesus, do i read anything that even hints at justification of killing on the grounds that it is a loving act.

fourthly, war as a divine commandment. before speaking of the tanakh and war in the jewish historical context, i must pose this question: is the commandment of Allah that muslims take part in holy war morally justified? because if one is to state that war is right when their god commands them to take part in it, one has to allow for the other gods as justifying their people in war as well. ultimately a commandment from any god that causes a person to commit an act is unfalsifiable. that is to say, it cannot be proven or disproven. such subjective suspensions of the ethical (right and wrong) are often used to justify the most evil of human atrocities. i am sure if you think back a few years, you will remember hearing of the woman who packed her three children into a car and drove it into a river while she jumped out. later on she claimed that it was the result of a commandment from god she had received. i will state here that regardless of the proclaimed "justification" for these acts, they remain evil. and though there may be suspensions of the ethical, those suspensions do not abolish the ethical altogether. in fact, if such suspensions do occur, i would argue that the very fact that the actions they invoke are evil is a fair gauge of the faith within the actor. the actions remain wrong, but their belief that they shall be vindicated in the eyes of their god is commendable. certainly if abraham had actually killed his son, we would look upon him a) as a horrible human, but b) as an even greater hero of faith.

so even these arguments fail to truly justify war as ever being the "right" course of action. and furthermore i must mention my efforts and hopes towards demilitarisation and disarmament. (do you we really need that limited stockpile of 2,500 nuclear warheads anyways?) the idea that soldiers (war-riors) can be used to administer peace presents a logical contradiction. (i would not have a child-molestor be in charge of a daycare. this analogy isn't the greatest but i believe you to be smart enough to understand the point.. if war is the occupation of the soldier, and peace is the opposite of war, then it is contrary to the occupation of the soldier to administer peace.)

so many more thoughts on this topic. so please comment, i know you didn't agree with everything. challenge it. let's wrestle. i love debate and conversation with people who don't think like i do. it causes even more thought. also, if you'd like to learn more about countries (so far 30) that have disbanded their military and thrown out their stockpiled weapons, message me or comment.