Both fields share the belief that law is “institutional.” This is to say that law is a necessary product of, organized as, or forming a social institution. In a sense, there are no places where humans group and live together where there are no laws. In these places, there are those who determine laws, such as courts, legislatures, chieftain, or royalty. Similarly, law is a sort of “social fact.” Not only does law seem to exist only for cohabitation and its institutions, but there seem to be no societies which exist without, or could presumably last for long without, law.

Another shared view is that law is “normative.” To be normative is to prescribe the norm or standard, meaning that law regulates behavior, dictating the normal (desired) actions of society. While many people simply try to live how they want to live despite the consequences, most look to law to decide how to act harmoniously with society doing what they want as far as it is lawful, or doing what they want as far as it is unlawful, but perhaps unlikely they will be caught or sanctioned. Law gives us reasons for behaving in the way law dictates, granting relatively safe and satisfactory living for compliance, and often threatening a sanction, or penalty for noncompliance.

The combination of these two characteristics of law can be problematic because in some sense, law may be understood to be dictated by man from the institutional viewpoint, and man may be understood to be dictated by law from the normative viewpoint. In other words, man decides what law does, by creating and enforcing them. Law, in turn, decides what man does by mandating actions or inactions, with the power to coerce through the power of sanctions (which can include the removal of the desired or the implementation of the undesired – which may often be seen as the same in cases of fines or freedom). That man dictates the content of law and law dictates the actions and inactions of man suggests a circular argument, which presses the question, “which came first?” Does man dictate law or does law dictate man (this can become a problem when the laws become outdated due to generational differences, or when the law is applied in an unforeseen context which is insufficient. Unconscionable acts may exemplify this situation). Because of the inclinations of these characteristics, Natural Law Theorists stress the normative in the belief that higher laws and morality guide us, and Legal Positivists stress the institutional with the stance that law is a creation of man, to use upon mankind, independent from morality.

St. Thomas Aquinas presents four types of law: the Eternal, Divine, Natural, and Human. The Eternal regards the laws of the universe. The Divine are God’s laws. The Natural laws are those which apply to mankind, understood through proper reasoning, aimed at the good. The Human laws are man made laws, with the purpose to guide mankind to the Natural laws, formed from necessity to correct the apparent failure for those who do not recognize the Natural laws (Feinberg/Coleman 8 ).

“Consequently, every human law has just so much of the nature of law as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it departs from the law of nature, it is no longer law but a perversion of law” (Feinberg/Coleman 9).

Aquinas’ Natural laws sometimes dictate what Positive law should be (he claims through logical deduction), and sometimes leaves room for human choice in the determination of general principles. Aquinas explains positive (which he calls Human) laws as being diversified due to the “great variety of human affairs” wherein “the common principles of natural law cannot be applied to all men in the same way.” Aquinas believes Human laws can be (or have been) derived from principled convictions (these stem from what he called Natural laws, of which the conscience has a basic understanding, and when that understanding is subconscious it manifests itself as a principled conviction) or from social norms (these describe normative, positivist law, which are not based on morality or Divine law, but are simply laws made for the purpose of regulating, structuring, and directing society with the purpose to give order and reduce chaos, and according to Aquinas, if Human law adequately points men to the realization of Natural law, it is beneficial in aiding man in the fulfillment of Divine law). Natural law include standards such as “one should not commit murder,” but says nothing as to necessary regulative laws such as how fast the speed limit should be, or what side of the road our society should drive on (therefore these laws are nothing but Human law). Furthermore, Aquinas believes that while there are many Human laws which are not natural laws, there are many Natural laws for which no Human law has been made (Feinberg/Coleman 10).

“[Laws] framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding the conscience from the eternal law whence they are derived… On the other hand, laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good… as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory… Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the divine good… Laws of this kind must in no way be observed, because… we ought to obey God rather than men” (Feinberg/Coleman 28).

There are certain guidelines Aquinas believes Positive laws (those binding in conscience) must be held in order to adhere to Natural laws. First, they must be ordered to the common good, with the intent (seemingly utilitarian in essence) toward the flourishing of some form of success (clarified again through Divine law). Second, the lawgiver must not exceed its authority. (The authority has been if overstepped if someone acts beyond their appointed authority; examples may include a Supreme Court Justice declaring war, a police officer granting pardons to death row inmates, or an E.M.T. conducting open heart surgery. More to Aquinas’ point, if the authority tries to overstep Divine law he has exceeded his authority – Divine law may include the commandments of the Old Testament, but I’m not sure what Aquinas’ stance on exactly what constitutes Divine law.) Third, the law’s burdens must be imposed on citizens fairly; the laws set up must apply to all its citizens equally. (The law is fallible if one race gets hung for an offense for which another race would merely be slapped on the wrist.) (Feinberg/Coleman 22-25).

“Law is nothing else than an ordinance of reason for the promotion of the common good, made by him who has the care of the community, and promulgated” (Feinberg/Coleman 2) .

The above statement is regarded as the final definition of law given by Aquinas. First, it contains the teleological ends of the “ordinance of reason”, meaning that it is given with a purpose, end, or goal. Secondly, he suggests a utilitarian theme of the common good, as previously reasoned. Third, promulgation suggests that the law must be made known by public declaration, saving society from guessing at every step what the law might be. Last, but not included in this quote, is Aquinas recognition of the “coercive power” for the “inducement to virtue” (Feinberg/Coleman 19-22, 31). (This implies the sanction of noncompliance.)

John Austin presents the “Separation Thesis”, the “Command Theory”, and “Legal Sanction.” The Separation Thesis (defined earlier) starts with Jeremy Bentham, Austin’s predecessor, giving a descriptive analysis of law (with which he coined the term “expository jurisprudence”), “subjecting the law to moral criticism based on the principles of utility” (Feinberg/Coleman 33). The movement of Legal Positivism is thus pressed from a secular viewpoint of the causality and utility of law in opposition to the “vagueness and indeterminacy” embodied in morality (morals are beliefs, which in this case convictions rather than structured theories. As convictions these morals are based in feeling, which can not be determined to be right or wrong, nor based in utility, making them indeterminate as to their purpose, and validity. They are simply feelings, and without being empirically or logically sound structured theories they are vague). Austin, like Bentham, believed that in regards to the Separation Thesis, it is necessary to “separate the authentic subject matter of legal science from that which should be regarded as irrelevant to such a science (Tebbit 20). The Command Theory of Law embodies the idea that every law is a command. Those laws which do not lay down a rule from one rational being to another having power over him, those which do not have legal authority, or those which lack the power to back one’s sanctions, are not laws (Feinberg/Coleman 34-36). Sanction is “the evil which will probably be incurred in case a command be disobeyed”, whether it be forcing an undesired punishment by an authority (Punitive), or depriving a desired act from the capability of said authority (Privative) (Feinberg/Coleman 35).

Austin’s theory points out the difficulty in pinpointing a source of law without acknowledging a sovereign authority as the basis for all positive law (Feinberg/Coleman 4). Based on this difficulty, he goes on to describe the nature of sovereignty within the legal system. “For superiority is the power of enforcing compliance", and he who lays down the rule, with the power and will to enforce it is the sovereign. “Command and duty are, therefore, correlative terms… The greater the eventual evil, the greater [is] the strength of the obligation.” The importance of sovereignty to Austin lay not in the legal validity in accordance to some higher law, but in the realist sense of whether or not he has the ability and desire to enforce a sanction possessing a magnitude worthy of proper fear and compliance. The more drastic the threat, the greater the fear, and the more consistent the punitive or privative enforcement, the more consistent compliance will be.

In disagreement, Aquinas doesn’t get a rebuttal to Austin, but then he was also trying to explain law from an entirely different perspective, beginning with his view of God and Divine law. Austin on the other hand tries to explain law from the perspective of a society trying to free itself from the legal tyranny begun by the perception of Aquinas’ God (while Austin does not clearly oppose Aquinas or his beliefs about God, he does hold that the perception of morality based on the unfounded beliefs of man, which have historically been influenced by the philosophy and theology of Aquinas, have found their way into the improper understanding and speaking of law, and legal theory, thus convoluting the proper advancement of legal and moral understanding). The specific, most important discrepancy between the two is that Aquinas believes in law within everything, not to be confused with morality, but definitely to include it. Aquinas believes in the laws of the universe, probably having something to do with mathematics and physics and their like. Aquinas believes in a law of nature, governing the natural order of life. He believes in the laws of God, upheld and handed down. Last, and definitively least, he believes there is a law of mankind, born of necessity to fulfill and perfect our fallible understanding of the laws of God and Nature.

Austin tries to explain God out of the mix of the legal profession, from fear of the implementation of a possibly corrupt tool in an idealized system which society must trust. In doing so, he points out that, “The existence of a law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another.” While the laws of God fit his most literal definition of law, they are not laws because they are “general commands laying down the moral requirements of utility.” Austin does indeed share beliefs about what laws are aimed at the “common good” and what aren’t, yet he seems to want to surpass the question of good and evil, and answer what it is, through extreme descriptive detail. Consequently, Austin’s command theory of law and his systematic analysis of the perception of law opened the door to the movement of legal realism, detracting the moral/value judgment, and simply defining what the law “is.” (Austin provided the bridge from the positivist view of the conception of law through methods which led legal realists to simply attempt to understand law even more objectively, acknowledging only what law is and how the system works, less focused on the initial need for law and how it parallels or contradicts morality.) While Austin would say that a corrupt law was legally valid if put in place and enforced, I think Austin would admit that it was indeed corrupt, but such does not negate from its validity. We are not held to law because it is right, but we are held to law because it holds us to it through sanction. A relevant statement is as follows:

“It could not follow from the fact that a rule violated standards of morality that it was not a rule of law; and conversely, it could not follow from the mere fact that a rule was morally desirable that it was a rule of law” (Hart).

That flies right in the face of Aquinas stance that morally desirable things are indeed those which are dictated by divine or natural law, and that morality must not be violated in order for a correlating law to be valid.

Both Austin and Aquinas seem to agree that laws have a form of sovereign as well as a sanction, and belief in validity (though what constitutes validity for each of them differs). Aquinas also has a stipulation within validity that seems to parallel Austin’s view; Aquinas says that even if a law is corrupt or invalid, it may be immoral, or one may be morally obligated to follow that law in respect to keeping an overall just legal system intact. Although it seems that Austin might object to this view, looking back on a statement he made about leaving room for radical reformation with regards to Christian moral principles shadowed in the guise of legal systems. I personally side with neither of these strong minds, yet I find value in both. I like Austin because I am most inclined to agree with a form of legal realism, and I believe Austin’s methods of attempting to clean up the language of law are consistent with the methods of analytical legal realism. I also like that as a positivist he tried to clarify and clean up the view of what constitutes law, acknowledging Aquinas different forms of law, but stating that having those views of laws confuses what law is in the legal field. I do think Aquinas made great progress in his own right, attempting to explain the different understandings of law as he saw them, whether held by Jewish tradition, that of The Church, and that of the courts.

In Aquinas’ favor I might prefer a judge that was more interested in my intentions and “goodness” than what the law dictates. This again would depend on what my “crime” was, since I may have acted corrupt under the presupposition that the law would rule in my immoral favor. Consistency is probably more important that morality to me. Predictability and strength of sanction enforce laws. Yet, moral parallels to the law may result in less chance of up-rise and power-shift. I believe there is a necessary connection between morality and law historically, if not causally, and yet I believe that law may indeed be understood, and perhaps should be understood amorally.

“A sacred and unalienable right is truly and indeed invaluable: For, seeing that it means nothing, there is nothing with which it can be measured.” (Aquinas, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, Lecture II)

The major difference in between Austin and Aquinas is validity of law, and the understanding of what law is. Aquinas believes (positive human) law is valid if it is intended toward the good, and focuses man to the understanding or fulfillment of Divine law (mandates of God laid down for man) through Natural (conscionable) law. He believes human law is a supplemental tool which aids in discerning Natural law. Natural law is mankind’s true law and anything in Human law that is immoral or incongruent with Natural law should not be understood to be law or valid law. Austin believes that only the laws of man should be understood as laws for they are what are true for men. He seems to believe that Aquinas’ Natural law is simply an understanding of Divine law, and that Divine law is a moral code set up by God, not a set of laws as law should be understood. Eternal laws like gravity and geometry are not laws at all, but the nature of, and/or forces within, our universe. Austin thinks law is only valid when it comes from one intelligent being (sovereign) implementing it on another intelligent being. The Sovereign must have the power and authority to enforce that law through sanction. His authority is granted by the acknowledgement of the people whom he rules, or dictated by laws created by a prior sovereign. When a law is not created by the sovereign, or the sovereign acts out of his authority, or when a command is given that is not paired with a sanction, the law mandated is invalid.

I agree more with Austin in the respect that the validity of law works within the system of law rather than with its relation to morality. I don’t believe that Austin’s Sovereign exists as he sees it in our society today. I do however agree that the power of the sanction and the consistency of its implementation upon actions incongruent with commands directly relate to the success of conformity to the desires results of the law. If we were fined every time we exceeded the speed limits, we would probably reduce our speed.

Reference Materials

Tebbit, Mark, Philosophy of Law: An Introduction, 2000, New York, NY. Taylor and Francis Books Ltd.

Feinberg, Joel and Coleman, Jules, Philosophy of Law -6th ed., 2000, Belmont, CA. Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.

Aquinas, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, Lecture II.

I know this is far less private than an email, but nobody comes here anyway. I wasn’t trying to be offensive to anyone, but it’s probably better if I’m not “on the record” when I might be perceived as potentially offensive. I wrote something to the effect of:

I suppose that is necessary that mystery remain a mystery. However, God has this same requirement that for him to be infinite or beyond mankind in any way is to be unattainable in the full sense. Levinas is trying to be descriptive of something I think exists (the other) in a way I do not think is possible and he claims cannot be understood. He is saying something toward the understanding of something one cannot understand. For me to buy into the unexplainable whose defense is that we do not have to explain and we could not if we tried is a fool’s errand.

I had slept for 1 hour or less before class this morning (in the past 36-48 hours) so, I sometimes am not so clear. Plus, Professor K. rarely gets my meaning before he tries to defend, but given time or through writing he comes to understand my problem more clearly, and then can give me clarification or what may or may not be an offered response. Heidegger, Levinas, and Derrida, according to Prof. K., have no “answer” to my questions. But modern and analytic philosophy show that reason or logic demand answers to such questions. These continental philosophers, while interesting, make no arguments, and so people think they cannot be wrong.

The problem is that they are being descriptive (like what Professor K. and Elder M. discussed on WebCT), of something that is annulled through definition, and cannot be defined. To me, things like this may be interesting, but are not “real” or substantive. If I were to accept them without them having any reason for believing that “the other” calls on a level far sooner than any physical phenomena represents itself (which I’m still not clear is what is being claimed), then I might as well get baptized in all religions and accept them as true because what they present supersedes or exists outside our ability to ascertain.

The fact that Levinas is describing an event (the encounter with the face) in regards to sensory and cognitive beings, which happens outside or before sensory perception or cognitive recognition proceeded by cognitive reflection, is a descriptive of a case I have never seen. Then to say that when looking at the face of another you cannot look at their eyes for too long IS to speak of an encounter that does not preempt sensory perception, nor is any sensory perception or recognition of anything done without cognition or thought.

Professor K. believes that I just want to get to sleep, but my “lack of sleep” has nothing to do with the power of the face or struggle of responsibility. If I understood the matter of the face actually happening or able to happen as Levinas describes then I might have the problem of the insomniac. My lack of sleep as it is, is due to the fact that I am supposed to take something seriously which I cannot, unless I can make sense of it. I am not so sure that it can be made sense of in the way Levinas thinks it happens or should occur.

I do think the problem of the face arises from the point of sensory perception between two cognitive beings with intelligence to the point of a concept of personal identity. At that point there is a call from the other. This call to me, can exist, and perhaps is just as important. This is necessarily so, since existing situations are necessarily more important than non-existing situations, if I’m right.

Even at this point people like Elder M., wanting to make things jive with their religious views, and/or people who are “good natured” I guess, want to say, “we cannot live up to the absolute responsibility, so we do what we can.” Which I think is admirable. But I think someone is as justified to say, “If the responsibility is absolute, and infinite, then any amount of ‘doing what one can’ is no closer to the infinite than a ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’ effort would be.”

Personally, since this deconstruction of metaphysics leads to the continental philosopher’s theory of Ethics, I personally start with another form of ethics, the one which I prefer, from the point at which, although as an “other” I call to “not kill me” I do not call to have them disregard my face. It is only in the presence of my face that I expect recognition, and that only when clear contact is made (I ask someone a question on the bus), but I acknowledge that it is not my right(power to enforce) to demand of others anything which I cannot likewise give. So, I do not give an absolute responsibility of recognition of my face in my call to other (even if they perceive that I do), since I cannot give that to one person or all people. To boot, I don’t have the right (power to enforce) that others not kill me literally. So, I hope they perceive the call to not kill me, and if they do not I may try to establish my right to not be killed by defending myself.

Harm is always done in the Heideggerian/Derridian sense, but biology teaches us that life exists and progresses in competition and correlation with all other life. Harm is beautiful. Economy is beautiful. The Gift is destructive. Anyway, two of my principle interests are in psychology and philosophy, but metaphysics is the section I dislike the most; it is far too masturbatory, and not all that productive. However, I do love the reading, but for me it is a mental thing. Professor K. thinks Levinas is not asking for mental activity here, but then he should be writing to a rock, not a conscious intelligent species. Also, any form of physiological (which is the part of psychology I mentioned today), biological, or hard science (rather than “pure science” like logic, reason, geometry), are shunned when mental masturbation is at play.

The Traditional interpretation of the Christian God from the Bible does not need to be rejected any more than any other interpretation or belief. What may need to be revised is conduct of believers. There is a global search for the one true God, and it is true that a hard relativistic view cannot stand up to its own critique. But what I wonder is whether there is need for a God at all.

The two viable concepts of God mentioned thoroughly in, “God Under Fire”, are the biblical interpretations of God through open theism and “mainstream” Christianity. My challenge to open theists is that their theory makes God temporal, measurable, and within the grasp of science to behold. If so, where is the proof of the existence of God? How tall is He? Is it a “He” at all? To mainstream Christianity I challenge that the open theists have that the Bible speaks of a “human” or “changing” God. They must admit the fallibility of the Bible as it describes God, or at least that it is errant to the point that it can only describe man’s perception of God. The third, but less common view that I find viable is any perception of God solely through personal revelation. This theory has the major challenge that it must be an un-doubtable experience of sensation or illumination of further knowledge or understanding, without being simply an idea, burning inside, or a feeling. It must be clear. However, this fails to do any good for anyone other than he who perceives it; the experience is, or should be, only accessible and sufficient for he who “experiences God” directly. One cannot sufficiently communicate something “miraculous” to another (meaning supernatural and outside of nature, immeasurable and outside of science, illogical, irrational, or inconceivable with regards to the world as we know it – could anything else be miraculous?).

In “re-creating God,” open theists use the biblical God to promote their view of the “one true God” by reinterpreting scripture (The Bible) in a way more fitting to their view of God, much like the young earth creationists try to back Intelligent Design to support their specific version of God. The open theists’ God may fit better, but it is a different God, and their God was believed in as he is now, quite possibly before the books of the Bible were written. However, “the church” and theologians changed all that, and possibly the “who” of God in the process (once they got their hands on the text). I struggle with open theism from the perspective that if you are going to try to promote a view of God different from the mainstream, it should be offered as another viewpoint, not taking pieces here and there from the Bible, or even adopting the Bible as a whole. It is a powerful viewpoint, but one which creates its own faults in giving credence to the “text” which is a product of the “early Christian” and Catholic churches. Following, or allowing for the text to be true, or contain many truths –while it might provide a path to further one’s new “religion”- it ultimately becomes the largest reason for incompatibility and can easily be shunned as an abomination.

This is my view on the LDS church. With half a sentence they hope to free themselves from incompatibility with historic Christianity: “in so far as it [the Bible] is correctly translated.” Yet, while it brings many believers to its church through claiming the Bible and its message as their own, its ultimate downfall lies in the discrepancies between the description of God and the textual messages. (Although, left alone, I fear for the Mormons that, without the bible, there would be little historic, archeological, or geographic support for the events which occur in their texts.)

Once the Bible is called fallible and errant, it should be treated as such, not deified. I personally could only see open theism as valid on its own, as it seems to fly in the face of Biblical points on predestination and the description of God’s power and control. (Though I agree that the historic Christian theology does not fit piece by piece with the text either.) I believe there are varying levels of open theism, and I could see one as simply seeing mainstream interpretations as wrong, yet still holding to the text themselves. However, this refers to too much on free will, God’s power and control, and even his commands to inflict harm on one another as seen in Numbers 31:17 where he commands the killing of “little ones,” and 2 Kings 2:23-25 where it is implied that God sent two bears to maul 42 youths (see the added appendix for God’s other misdeeds). I think open theism’s main reason for existing is that people want another way to explain and permit free will, removing responsibility from an Omni benevolent God for that which we perceive as evil; the result is humanizing the creator in an attempt to feel more loved by that which we might not see, feel, hear, or know.

I certainly agree that God, “as we know him” must be reinvented, as he has historically been re-invented time and time again. The mainstream evangelical God, or even the mainstream “SLC Mormon” God of my generation are not compatible with the Biblical God, nor is the current Mormon God compatible with the God of Joseph Smith Jr..

Later Reflections

Talbot started poorly with a rather lame introduction (45-46) on how one asks questions, and how he comes by the answers to them. In fact, he beings quoting the Bible to back up his claims even before acknowledging the Bible as an adequate source for answering questions about the nature of God. This shows that either he made a mistake in his argument about how one can answer such questions, or he is not working from an argument, but an assumption about the Bible and God’s Nature.

I agree with Talbot that if there is a God, who has qualities such that man cannot bridge the gap of knowledge, then knowing God requires such a being to bridge that gap for us (45). I also agree with him that radical relativism and religious pluralism are mistaken viewpoints that cannot stand up to their own beliefs (as previously stated) (46-48).

Talbot points out how Christian theologians have “always” viewed scripture as the authority on Christian faith. However, while this might be true of theologians, it is obviously not true of Christians. Before the bile was compiled, the Jewish scriptures were held as authoritative, but many who believe in Christ (Jesus of Nazareth being God, the messiah) rejected the Jewish scriptures, or rejected the “authority” in them for the authority of Christ himself, even if accepting Him as the fulfillment of their scriptures. As far as the bible being established as the “scriptures” nobody held it as authoritative on Christianity between the “time of Christ” and the canonization of the bible (54).

I understand that if our only means to know Christ is through the bible, then to be Christian is to believe in the Christ of the bible. However, much of the bible’s stories have nothing or little to do with the life, and teachings of Christ. A controversial film known as “The Last Temptation of Christ” asked the question whether the “message” of Jesus was actually Jesus’ own. Could it have been Paul’s message? Paul certainly did a lot of writing in the New Testament preaching on how to be and how to conduct a church. From the tyranny of “the church(es)” it is easy to see why some would want to reject the authority of the Bible for simply its message of Christ (salvation), or life and teachings of Christ (how to live and how not to live). After all, is a Christian not defined as a “follower of Christ”? We need not pay the bible the respect due to a savior and/or God. Thus, to be any form of sect of Christian, one must believe in common grounds about Christ, not necessarily the authority of the bible. On the other hand, it is conceivable that one ought to believe in the bible’s historic authenticity if not just its message. Otherwise, why believe in Chris at all? Why not believe in majestic unicorns instead? For this reason of common belief in historic authenticity about Christ, I can see a possible line being drawn as to retaining the term Christian. So, I can definitely see Kleiner’s, and most mainstream Christian’s view that Mormons are not Christians. It is true that their Christ led a different, more Columbus like life, and stands in a much different light than that of the God he is purported to be in the bible. Thus, he should not have even been called Christ if he was going to be a different character with different attributes. Perhaps the character should have in fact been a majestic unicorn. I hate to sound like all the Christian “nay-sayers”, but if historical authenticity is important to believing in the person of Christ, The Book of Mormon has a lot to learn about authenticity.

Talbot goes on to say that the Bible is true because it says God says it is (55). This reminds me of the Aesop’s tale of the scorpion riding the back of some natural ecological animal opponent to save themselves from drowning. It ends with the scorpion stinging the creature that carried him, and they both drowned for it. The scorpion declared that it was in his nature. I for one believe that it is in the nature of those who promise to not be lying without first being openly doubted, that they probably are lying. It seems that the only people who do not openly see this biblical claim as ridiculous believe this way due to the taboo of blasphemy in light of peer pressure. Open theists and everyone else are right to question anything purported by man to be God’s doing, or “God inspired.” Not questioning is being conquered without a fight, and without even knowing who is beating you. If it is God, then great, but if you give in without knowing…

Pennock’s statement is right on the mark, that [if] God transmitted the bible through imperfect beings, we cannot know if God would do so in such a way as to “perfectly” survive those mediums (62). This is so even if the resultant text claims that it has happened in such a perfect way. The only resulting argument, “would God do that?” is inductive, guessing at His character. Pennock hits his target again pointing out how historically, “the unity of scriptures was assumed” (64).

Johnson basically reiterates most of what Sanders spoke of early on in “The God Who Risks” as far as the limits of communication, reasoning, and perception; both point out how these are stimulating ideas to freshman philosophers, but should not be feared for any practical purposes (though they should be recognized) (72-103).

On page 124 I didn’t understand the point of what Augustine of Hippo said about God and time, but since it quoted Psalms, I’ll assume it was just being poetic. Anselm points out a theory that if God is in all time, then he can be properly divided amongst every measured increment of time; such as, today we are experiencing .000001 over several trillionths of God, or some outrageous fraction. But, I think it could be seen in a light that because God is eternal, thus in all time, then his is 100 percent of God 100 percent of all time increments. This is kind of obscure. I enjoy the mental masturbation of discussing eternity, the infinite, and the non-temporal, but it is all meaningless. Not only can I not measure or experience eternity and its like, but I cannot fathom it. I can never finish the experience, for even when I’m “finished,” my experiencing of the infinite will not have attained the goal of completion…but perhaps the fun is in the journey, not in the destination.

Helm lists some strong quotes toward the argument of exhaustive knowledge and “planning” (Psalms 139:16) (1Chron. 28:9) (Heb. 4:13) (127). Of course, there may be a sort of double speak in the bible, not to be taken literally. Or perhaps the bible is simply men trying to conceive of God through their writing, doing the best they can. Maybe that is the nature of God. Craig also provides a wealth of biblical sources for divine foreknowledge followed by an unnecessary course in the logic of truth claims about future events.

Geivett gets into omnipotence, Omni benevolence, and the clash with the existence of evil (162-170). He compares them directly with theories of open theism. I was always taught that the way to understand Omni benevolence is not through our lenses of goodness, but as that defined by God, either by what he says is good, or by what he does as good. The existence of evil is due to God’s allowance, yet he is not to be blamed for it. First of all, there is none who can judge Him. Secondly, the existence of evil is what allows for free will and the ability to not be machines (a gift). Third is that man chose evil and so God granted man with the evil consequences of evil. Fourth is that while god is responsible for evil, he is not to be blamed for it because he has declared his plan to conquer evil (accepting responsibility) and saving us from it. (Who can blame someone who gave us free will and salvation?) The other discrepancy from the historic Christianity I was taught and open theism, as I have now learned it, is omniscience and exhaustive control versus free will and the idea of risk taking. Both of these I have thoroughly covered throughout this semester.

Afterword

Before last semester’s philosophy panel discussion on open theism, I had never heard of it, though I had heard of theistic evolution and process theology. While I disagree with either point of view, I now see them both just as plausible as one another. Though open theism better covers some questions as to difficult themes, I believe closed theism and open theism have many congruencies with the biblical nature of God that the other does not. Closed theists believe in an exhaustively powerful, all knowing God. Open theists believe in a God wholly apart from evil, who shows emotions like love and anger, changes in his relationship with man, and gives man a full and accurate libertarian free will (not just compatible with his plan).

NOTE: It has been a fun semester. Sorry that my papers lost some steam toward the end of the semester. I had too much on my plate to cover the topics as thoroughly as I had hoped. Remember to check How Many Has God Killed? I added for fun!

This was the topic of discussion in the USU Philosophy Club yesterday evening. It actually went really well. We managed to turn a 1 hour discussion into a 2 hour one. The panel was lead by Dr. Sherlock, and was argued by 4 undergrad students with 2 on each side. Those who believed in Closed Theism were on one side and those who believed in Open Theism were on the other. One of the members of the Open Theist duo was an old aquaintance of mine from my year in Mountain View Tower.

From what I gathered, it seems that the Closed Theists argued that God cannot have omniscience (because he can’t know the future which would negate free will. The Open Theists on the other hand said that God can know all…that is logical to know, (like he can’t know even things that are not knowable, that’s illogical) and can know anything that went into our creation, as well as everything we have done, but though he knows the future (or possible future webs), he cannot know for sure what humans will do tomorrow. He does, however, know what our choices are and has a pretty good idea of which we may choose based on what he knows about us. But, they are not clear on whether all that previous knowledge sets Causality into motion…which Harrison Kleiner later pointed out was what the classical Open Theist would beleive, which would prove in their view, lack of free will.

I’m not too sure either side unerstood the theories they were representing…so now I am unable to understand how what they said reflects those theories…however they did have interesting theories. The question itself has many facets to ponder, so our argument wandered about those.

Areas to reflect on are
Does vs. Can
Nature of God…who is this guy? what is he? How does he do?
Knowledge…what constitutes knowledge? ==> Raises Causality and metaphysical questions of the epistemic realm
Temporal…God? in, out, about Time? Is time perception? a dimension? Or a realm made to poorly describe our experience?
What is Free Will?

So we got off on a lot of those tangents.

In the crowd were Kent Robson, Philosophy of Religion Prof. and Harrison Kleiner, Aesthetics and Metaphysics/Hegel Prof. An old friend of mine, Suzy, was there. I was there, and an interesting guy from my “Kant and his Successors” class was there. The panel consisted of 4 Mormon raised students and a Pseudo Mormon Prof. At the end of the argument Kleiner pointed out how all 4 of the students were actually Open Theists, no Closed theists, since he is a closed theist, and what that means is that He believes God must know all including the future, and that they are not even real Open Theists in that respect since their classical claim is that God must not know all including the future. This made it hard for me to throw my argument against the closed theists since none of them back that theory.

My comment was that if we had free will, did we lack free will at the point at which God became an active God, intervening in the lives of peoples Free Will. My example, and old acquaintance, Doug, said I took his, was the situation where God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart and the Pharaoh changed his course of action. At which point is he causally responsible for his actions when directly acted upon by God intervening with previously set dominoes of causality.

Though I made that comment, it wasn’t at the heart of the discussion, but they had already blithely accepted my view as false when the interesting guy, Benny, from my Kant class mentioned that Knowledge of the Future in no way affects the causation of that Future. This has been my view since the reading Aquinas years ago. I understand that lack of choice entails lack of freedom to choose….but that is not fully true. One is still free to choose one choice, it isn’t much of a choice, but if unaware of the removal of other choices, and believing he was making the choice, he could choose Gods said “path” infinite times until he dies, and as far as he ever knew, he had free will. Here we get into a bit of a semantic game. Free will is defined as The capacity to exercise choice. But, is Free Will the ability to do whatever one wants (the common view) or is it the existence of multiple options to choose from, and the option to choose from any of them (which maybe a more complete, possibly more accurate definition of the term).

The distinction that I believe was most ignored, but most pertinent, was that knowledge may not necessarily entail causation. Kleiner tried to explain this through the idea that while I am sitting in a room, another person enters the room. I know he is there (or have Wittgensteinian certainty of such), and I am perceiving him only because of his presence. This is quite contrary to the idea that I know he is there, therefore I caused him to be there (some might say the opposite is true, he is there, which caused me to know it - do we cause God to know what we will do because we will do it? Kleiner didn’t, and may have no intention of taking the idea this far). My explanation is that a card counter, (someone so able to count cards and has watched the cards long enough to know which every card is, and which order they are in, say “Rain Man” for instance) could be watching a card game from a casino security camera, and would know every card that was going to come up, or be “chosen"/ randomly picked by a player, in a card game where a a player may draw a card at random from the deck for the dealer to guess what he has chosen. The player doesn’t know that there is a Rain Man who knows what he will next choose out of all his options, though he may suspect this could happen. In fact, the Rain Man’s knowledge of what card the player will pick, whatever card he chooses, does in no way cause the card he picks to be such.

Now that story may be misleading because it suggests a parallel with A hidden God knowing what choices we may choose from, but still unaware of which we will choose. This is not the suggestion, the suggestion is merely that knowledge does not entail causation. In this way, I believe that Aquinas is merely (and yet so much more) working with a semantic game of what Free Will consists, and that even were there a God who knew all, even the future choices of man, this would not negate his freedom to choose.

As Donnie Darko said, “If God controls time, then all time is predecided…every living thing follows along set path, and if you could see your path or channel, then you could see into the future…[you’re not contradicting yourself] if you travel within God’s channel.”

Monotov and Darko discuss whether or not all time is predecided, or as I think is better put “accurately forseen” not by guess, but knowledge of all temporal realities of human existence. The idea here is simply responded with the fact that we don’t have this knowledge that is being attributed to God. Otherwise we could indeed stray from our destiny (God’s set path) as Monotov puts it, or we could not do other than God’s set path despite fore knowledge (thus Cassandra Complex), hence the restriction of free will. Because we don’t know what our path is, we can’t have the freedom of choice restricted from us. We still choose, we couldn’t choose otherwise than God’s set path, but since we can’t look at it, for all we know we could guess that God is choosing while we go, what our set path is, is based on what we choose…this is a limitation of man, not of man’s God, he can’t have that limitation if he is defined by the absence of such limit.

When first asked to remove our image (one associated with Satanism), we asked for clarification as to whether we were being asked or told. Our RA explained that while many were upset with our symbol, the only way to force us to remove it is if a rule was established which prohibited all window decor in campus dorm windows. This would make even more people unhappy. We asked our RA to respond to all requests by saying, “They have said they will remove their offensive sign if everyone on campus stops wearing their offensive CTR rings.” (CTR, “Choose the Right,” rings are associated with Mormonism.) We knew this was an unreasonable request which would never even be considered by the campus community. In fact, we didn’t care about CTR rings or even believe there was a Satan. But once the wheels of censorship were set in motion we thought we’d play around with it. We merely hoped to spark the thought in people’s minds that they display offensive symbols all the time. In our situation, Mormons have been forced to see one symbol they have labeled offensive once or twice a night for just over one school semester. Non-Mormons, on the other hand, have been forced to see many more symbols (which may be considered offensive to them) far more often, over any amount of time they spend on the USU campus (be it one semester, the duration of attaining a four-year degree, or longer).

The housing department at USU seems to have taken Bok’s point of view of persuasion where he says, “…talk with those responsible, seeking to educate and persuade rather than to ridicule or intimidate.” The department was only interested in educating us of their view, attempting to persuade us into believing it was wrong to display our symbol because it offended people. The department spent no time trying to see our view or understand our position. Bok’s suggestion that “only persuasion is likely to produce a lasting, beneficial effect,” is limited to the idea that the offended person’s view is correct, and the solution is to convince everyone else that they are wrong. His solution is to proselytize his viewpoint rather than to seek understanding of a differing viewpoint. Subliminally, and probably unconsciously, Bok offers a suggestion aimed at the destruction of diversity of thought and perception, uniting a one world view. Didn’t Hitler try to do that?

When I first read Bok’s prompt, it rang pretty true. If someone tries to bother you, ignore it. If that person can’t get a rise out of you, he will stop. But with a deeper read I have found much distortion in the path of his problem solving. The initial problem is that you can’t ignore things that offend you. If I say don’t think of an elephant, your cognitive response to translating the language will form a framework within your mind associated with the sound of the word (Lakoff). If you are truly offended as a naturally response to the sight of a symbol, you will be able to do no other than respond naturally to the sight. What makes an object offensive is not the object itself, but the perception of that object through the sociological (or psychological) lens of the perceiver. If someone is offended (hurt) by the existence of something, the reason (or problem, if one allows it to be so) lies within the perception of the offended, not by the nature of the object. In the case that someone is trying to bother you, they are actively attempting to achieve a response you don’t have to provide. If you are bothered by the nature of something, it is passively bothering you. Depending on the offense, that something may be unable to change. In either case, a true (natural) response will always be shown. If something offends you, you will be offended when confronted with that thing. If you can ignore it, it means you have come to terms with it, or can be not offended by it. Therefore it is up to you to keep from being bothered. You have to change some part of your thinking (viewpoint) in order to come to terms with that which you have no power to control.

The next part I quickly agreed with, but had difficulty with at a closer look, was Bok’s urging for us to bridge the gap of diversity, to talk things out. That sounds reasonable enough, but what he actually aims at is to talk with them in order to persuade them to believe what he does. He wants to educate them, as if they could be sensitive, caring, loving, truth-filled and righteous, if only they could learn what he knows. This is conceited ethnocentrism on a personal level, unless of course, if Bok is perfect and right about everything. He mentions nothing toward acceptance that people are different, or toward embracing diversity in thought or culture. He mentions nothing about talking with people bearing socially controversial symbols in hopes to understand their viewpoint, or come to some mutual understanding.

In the end, when you start outlawing symbols, you start a process of censorship, the destruction of freedom. Even if you succeed, you’ve outlawed images that do no harm, their power is given by people weak enough in mind and will to give them meaning and power. Still, with knowledge comes sensitivity (if for no other reason than the extreme that some nut might kill you for a brandishing a symbol on your person or belongings). The most important aspect here is quality of life. Only you have the power to not be offended. You can learn to accept, come to terms with, destroy or understand that which offends you. Anger and offense are products of fear. They lead to the dark side. Being scared, offended, hateful, or angry is self destructive. These emotions do no good to anyone, no harm to anyone else, and harm only the person harnessing them. Aren’t there better things to do with life?

Work Cited:
Bok, Derek, Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus, March 25, 1991, The Boston Globe

Raised in a Protestant home, I was taught the love of Christ and the nature of God. I attended a religious private school from 1st through 10th grade and attended church weekly as long as I lived under my father’s roof. I was also required to attend a youth group or Bible study in placement of my request to no longer participate in Awana’s (I call it “Cub Scouts for Christ”) when I was 14. My father was a good man, and his road like those of many was paved with good intentions. My parents wanted me to grow into a good man, someone they could be proud of, a man of God.

I don’t remember for sure if it was shortly before I started the 1st grade, or during that school year, but feeling left out in an altar call, I raised my hand because everyone around me had apparently already asked Jesus into their hearts. They were now saved by the grace of God and had their names inscribed in the Book of Life, that they would live eternally in the presence of God in a heaven paved with golden streets in Christ-prepared mansions. If that didn’t grab your attention, it also saved you from your other option; fire and brimstone and the gnashing of teeth were but a small snippet of the descriptions of hell that awaits unbelievers. I knew from already hearing about God plenty that I was making the right decision, even at the ripe young age of six. I prayed the prayer and sold my soul. I was born again.

Now I don’t remember how old I was, between 12 and 16 I guess, but I know Super Bowl XXVIII was played the day of my Baptism. I remember the baptism/football party at our house after my brother, my sister, and I were baptized by our father in the name of the Holy Father. Our father was one of two elders in our church. In our church it means a lot to hold that position. They are the people directly under the pastor, having high responsibilities in and to the church, and are given a rigorous trial before the congregation votes on whether or not they fit the requirements of the Bible in regards to a man holding authority in a church.

Throughout my upbringing I was taught to deal with the great theological issues of the person of God; whether he was a “cosmic cop,” or an impersonal God leaving us like a ship in an ocean to fend for ourselves, perhaps even snapping his fingers resulting in the Big Bang, and sitting back to watch evolution take its course. But, what they taught me was that God is a personal being, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Yet, like the Greek gods, this God was given many arguably human characteristics such as jealousy, vengefulness, and caring. It could be argued that these are characteristics of a God, and that man shares these characteristics, not the other way around. Or that we must attribute human traits to a being so much more than us in our attempts to understand it. Theology was my forte. I studied it day and night. I studied scripture in hopes to master it backward and forward. By the age of 17 I had read the Bible front to back probably 3 times. In my studies between the ages of 17 and 19 I read the entire Bible through another 3 times. Throughout these years I began to question what it meant to be a Christian. I defined Christianity as “the following of Christ (Jesus).” But in studying biblical history at Salt Lake Theological Seminary and at Utah State University, I started to question the divine “inspiration” of the composition of the scriptures. I learned and began to understand that the infallibility of the canonized bible was never believed until after Martin Luther freed the Bible (printing press and what not) from the tyranny of the Catholic Church and unwittingly began its deification in the process. In my doubt of trusting what a bunch of dead guys said about the person of God, I found that if I wanted to be a Christian, the best thing for me to do is to hold tight to the teachings of Jesus, and take all else with a grain of salt. I was, as Lenny Bruce satirically stated, “…leaving the church and going back to God.”

Seeking truth in Christianity was a short lived adventure, as I was soon telling fellow followers that I would simply seek truth. If Jesus words, the Bible, and the Church were “the truth”, then they shouldn’t worry because that’s what I would find in my search. One of my biggest problems with organized religion in America, and probably in the world is that Christianity is a religion based largely in belief, and hardly in practice. DC Talk told me “Love is a Verb.” Love your neighbor as yourself meant more than a special feeling you have for the well-being of people inside your heart or the kind thoughts inside your head. Love means action, deeds, servitude, and much more. Doesn’t it? This lack of action in belief is not just in religion, but I think in Americanism (not that Europe and much of the rest of the world don’t already prescribe to it, because they do). An example is that people bicker and fight over major issues, but not about what to do, just what to believe. Yeah, we support our troops…up here in my head, where it counts. Bracelets help the people who wear them feel like they are showing the world something. That person, more often than not I’ve observed, wear it for what it does for them. Talk is cheap, belief is cheaper. Actions speak louder than words.

By 17 I had built my understanding of the power of an omnipotent God to the point that I found prayer absurd. God knew my thoughts, and my desire. He knew them before I knew them. If he knew that I knew he had this access, and my permission to it, then he didn’t need me to pray. I’ve never prayed since. For me, I could always stump illogical Protestant misconceptions of the Bible by noting that by similar logic, Mormonism must be right as well. In the circles I was raised, to be Mormon is to be abominable. So abominable in fact, that we have thrown the word “Mormon” into our vernacular in place of common cursing (http://www.mormoned.com). In finding that the shortcomings in the hated LDS faith were its simple leaps of faith necessary to cover every hole in their logic, lack of proof, or disagreement with historical prominence, I wondered why Protestant Christianity allowed itself to suffer the same weaknesses. When someone has a real question regarding theological issues, there are very few sources to go to where you won’t be responded to with a goofy pitying smile and glazed look coupled with the phrase, “You just gotta have faith.”

When I hear the word ‘faith’ the definition that I hear is “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence” (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith). This gets me because this definition of faith implies that it is a “blind” faith. Protestant Christianity loves to point out that theirs is an intelligent faith, implying and sometimes outright stating that their faith “rests on logical proof or material evidence.” That isn’t “faith.” If you have logical proof or material evidence, then you are not working from faith or belief in the unknown…you are dealing with a term called knowledge. A great testing of my faith was that we were constantly taught rhetoric and arguments to handle opposing religious or world views we would face later in life. I didn’t recognize I was being taught these things until I found myself spouting out rhetoric designed for just such occasions. Why is there such a need to prove our beliefs right, or more right than the beliefs of others? Why do people go around confirming and reaffirming to each other that “the church is true?” Is our faith that weak?

When I went to college and began my sessions of brainwashing by the hippy-liberal education system, I began to question things I was taught throughout my childhood. This happened enough (in just the little things) that I decided I was tired of being wrong, of being betrayed by my past, betrayed by the files in my brain that were categorized under “knowledge.” I decided it was time to purge, reboot, and reformat. I had to discern for myself what grounds demanded belief. I had to question why I believed certain things, or why some certainties are necessary for survival. I had to pinpoint exactly which things those certainties are. In my deconstruction I killed God.

Most specifically I had nothing against God. Since becoming what the LDS would have called “apostate”, and my religious upbringing called “fallen away,” many of my close friends believe that I am angry with God, and haven’t made my peace. They can’t understand what it is to not believe in God, not when you are taught that all building blocks of knowledge are built upon him as the basis. This is why deconstruction is so very necessary. Within the logical framework of Christianity, one cannot fathom life without God. God is the who, the what, the where, the why, and the how of all existence. We would simply die or starting killing each other left and right if there were no God. If there were no God there would be no us. This is a thought, but not their true opinion. They know they are there, for that they are certain. They believe God is there, and the first thing that attacks them in the attempt at trying to understand existence without God is not that they wouldn’t exist, but that all hell would break loose, either for them emotionally, or for humanity physically. The point here is that they cannot see out of the borders of the page they have been taught to live. In the bubble of the idea of Christianity it lends to a logic that makes no sense when you attempt to perceive from outside of this bubble. I took it like a math proof. The first step was to assume there was no God, then show how that was a contradiction, thus proving there is one. But I couldn’t do it at first. My biggest problem in trying to understand life without God from within my matrix of understanding (pun intended), was my need for there to be a God. Why was it so important for my mind that there be a God out there? Not so important that I could discuss it and say okay, let’s say there is not God, then what happens, but important enough that I couldn’t actually picture an environment outside that belief. I knew there were plenty of people that walked around as atheists and had no problem with no God in existence according to their minds. So why couldn’t I even pretend for a moment God didn’t exist? Why did I need there to be a God? Then I realized I don’t.

In seeing how weak my usually creative mind was, I created my own crutch theory. The reason I temporarily needed there to be a God and couldn’t even pretend He isn’t there is that my mind was trained to believe in a God; my mind was trained to believe that God existed at the heart of all things, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1 John 1:1 NIV). (This verse is also used as an example to deify “scripture” as the “Word” of God, which is shown here to be God.) All logic and knowledge I had obtained until this point in my life were building blocks based on everything I believed about the person of God and his written word. This made it difficult to take the steps to bull-dose the foundations. I myself am a stubborn mule, and when I saw that the only reason I couldn’t walk right had nothing to do with my legs, but was due to my being raised by cripples, I was furious. Because they needed crutches to walk, they raised me to use them, so that I would never have to stumble or fall in life like they did. The anger didn’t last long because the newfound taste of freedom was so sweet. I had killed God, but I felt no guilt, because I had nothing against God. In fact, I used to love my idea of God. As far as I’m concerned it’s best to medicate the people with the disease, if it cures what ails them, but if it’s not broken don’t try and fix me. I think I’ll have a funeral for God one day, as a kind of thanks for being there for me growing up. [This wouldn’t actually require that I acknowledge the existence of God, rather it would acknowledge that I used to have an imaginary friend personified as my idea of God.]

Though the unfettered feeling of freedom is glorious at first breath of fresh air, all things can be taken for granted. And, while freedom carries its own joy, it is not easy, and it is not happiness. If you’re happy where you’re at, stay content, and seek nothing. The road is difficult and less survived the journey than have ventured down it. But while I may not live in the bliss that is ignorance, I find joy knowing that I would never go back even if it guaranteed happiness. Another freedom I’ve found is the clearing of my mind. I am free to love and welcome people of varied creed and cultures. I am no longer bound by hatred, but free to hate should I choose to. While I am not perfect by any standard, I am what I am. And while I am sorry for everything I am, I ask forgiveness from no one.

I’m a man, just a man. I am an animal and a human being. I live based on instinct, urges, thought and learning. I am not my job, religion, or possessions. I am a mind, a body, and possibly a soul. I have torn down my presumptions, and with them my doubts. Hitting bottom, I was left with nowhere to go but up. Now, in still admiration and awe I observe the word. I perceive my environment through the lenses of a child. And like such, so do I soak up all that I can, in perhaps vain hopes of truth, if not happiness. In every moment of my waking life I seek to learn, progress, and experience as much out of this life as I can. The simple-minded see things as simple, while the deep explore the extremities and complexities of life abandoned –world ignored. Knowledge is overrated, confused, and abused, but to understand the world, to catch even a glimpse of the abyss, and to return understanding…now that would truly be something.

Research Materials:
“The New Testament” KJV, NIV

http://en.wikipedia.org/

http://www.dictionary.com

How about life? Meh. Living’s overrated. To think that this is all there is. Sixty or so years of eating, sleeping, and watching movies then you’re 6 feet below. And all that you learned and all that you thought and all that you were…deleted. They still take their place on the continuous rift of time, but at this point in time, they are nil. Eat, Sleep, Computer, Movies…at least that’s my life. Sure I could get an education, a job, get married and have kids. Education today…psshh what a joke. And a job? Who wants to spend the short time we have in life making the rich man richer? Sorry Bub, I enjoy life too much. Marriage, yeah but then you’ve got to commit. Commit to change, to invasion of space, of personality, to work. And then what if she decides she wants Children. Don’t even get me started on Children. “Dear, why on earth would we have children? That is so nineteen fifties. Nobody’s having children these days. Absolutely out of the question, I mean, its absurd.” So… what if I’m wrong about it all ending here?

So lets give afterlife a shot. So first, what is this heaven thing? Well it sounds to me like its all fishing, beer, sex, drawing, and comic books….now that would be heavenly. But seriously; a place that’s perfect? I’m sorry but a place like that can’t exist. First of all, no human would ever make it in. To be human is to be flawed. And there in lies the beauty of humanity. Hot chicks wouldn’t be hot if there were no ugly chicks, or even chicks that were just somehow less hot. The perfect world is the ever changing fucked up world in which we currently reside. This is why I like the idea of reincarnation. Our life just doesn’t get deleted. It gets stored away in the soul memory. Now this could become very dangerous, I know. Perhaps you die a horrible way in one life. Well in the next few, you’ll always be scarred by or fearsome of whatever horrors caused your mishap. This torment might travel from one life to the next based on the damage of the soul. But honestly, that loses something in it…the whole sequel idea. I’m no fan of the stardust theory, but if I die. And eventually all earth life as well. I hope that the matter our corpses leave behind will be able to create some sort of new life or become a part of something further down the Tran dimensional time line of all that is, was, and will be. Now there is something glorifying in the humanistic view of one life to live. One shot at greatness. Often those who believe this is it, make the most of life. Teaching humility and contentment…Buddha and Jesus, and their super best friends…they taught the weak be happy in their places, and the rest to be stoners/potheads. They were taught to be content and not to achieve greatness, for someone else achieved greatness for them. …fun, fantastic…and weak like babies.

Comment by TigerSpice 2/22/2005:
Since the order of the world is shaped by death, mightn’t it be better for God if we refuse to believe in Him, and struggle with all our might against death without raising our eyes towards the heaven where He sits in silence?

Jesus taught to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39 NIV. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.). So it is then righteous to turn the other cheek is it not? I have heard interpretations that Jesus’ “Parable” Doesn’t necessarily mean that if one were attacked that he should not fight back. However, Jesus lived a life of “perfection” and when made to suffer consequences of blasphemy, unjust as the accusations may have been, he did not fight any of the guards or any of his persecutors. True, he may have simply been carrying out prophesy, but the fact is that he led an example for us in the life that he lived. His life was an example that Christians, followers of Christ and his example, should try to mimic in their thoughts as well as their actions. Shouldn’t a Christian then live Peaceful with a man as far he can? (Romans 12:18 NIV If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone). And when he cannot keep the peace, let it be the other person that does not keep the peace. What I then want to know; if it is right for a man to turn the other cheek–as not only Jesus’ words declared, but his actions exemplified as well– is it not right for a country, when attacked by a Terrorist cause, to turn the other cheek rather than declaring war on that man, and any nation that harbors him. Sure, God has set authorities in place of others. (Romans 13:1 NIV Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.) But when one nation attacks another nation, as one man would attack another man, where is the Christ like quality of turning the other cheek in the act of attacking back/retaliating? People tell me, “Chris, we have to defend ourselves (Declare war wherein many “innocents” will be slaughtered)…or else every country will mock us and attack us more because we appear weak.” What is it to Christians if they die following Christ’s example? In the eyes of God is it not the strong one who does not retaliate violently? (Matthew 5:9-10 NIV Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.) Vengeance is the Lord’s and He will repay. (Romans 12:17-19, 21 NIV Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.) What is it to the Christian people if they do the greater good by fulfilling spiritual merit as opposed to not having other nations think them weak?

Is what is righteous for a man righteous for a nation?
Is what is righteous for a nation righteous for a man?

Have you had a run in with the Mormons that you’d like to share? Ever been Mormoned? Got to http://www.mormoned.com/ to share your stories or read the testimonies of others’ experiences.