If judging is wrong, then God won't judge... right?

Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty (a show I admittedly have never watched), has once again waded into controversy with the following statement (taken from this link):

“I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him and then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of ‘em and then shoot him and they take his wife and decapitate her head off in from of him. And then they can look at him and say isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged … there’s no right or wrong … and then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say wouldn’t it be something if this was something wrong with this, but you’re the one who says there's no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong…. so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head. Have a nice day.”

Of course, atheists are quickly shouting that this is a "straw man" argument... that no one is advocating these practices, and that this example is outrageous and argumentative.

I know a couple atheists, and I have definitely never heard anything to make me think that they would advocate such behavior.  In fact, I frequently see these people advocating for kindness and benevolence, and often for individuals who are disadvantaged... quite different from the hypothetical antagonists in Phil Robertson's example.

General advocacy for benevolence seems to be prevalent, even as religious devotion seems to wane.  I have frequently seen memes and articles that decry exclusion, bullying, and the practice of judging others... many of which are quite clever.  I saw a meme that said "don't judge me because I sin differently from you" (apparently President Uchtdorf saw something similar).  Certainly this thought is not reserved as a slogan for agnostics; it definitely resonates with Christians.  Jesus himself said "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)

I myself have been accused of being excessively judgmental, and in spite of the irony that individuals have judged me as being so, there is certainly room for me to improve.

That having been said, all the "hold hands and sing kumbaya" sentiment can distract from legitimate problems that exist in society.  While the vast majority of people would never break into a home and perform violent acts for entertainment, there exist some that would and do.  The media has shared stories of people who have killed dozens in schools and theaters.  Enemies in foreign lands share their own videos of brutal executions with knives or with fire.  There exist areas of the world where even innocent children are exploited as slaves to slake the lust of adults.  There are few people who would suggest that such deeds are "right" or that the perpetrators of such crimes should not be judged because they "sin differently."

Additionally, there exist people that believe they are justified in committing acts that society at large considers atrocious.  Consider the example of Nehor from the Book of Mormon.  He was a large and mighty man that preached the "judge not" brand of religion:

"And he also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life." (Alma 1:4)

This idea was popular, and Nehor boldly went preaching against the church of God, which advocated not only righteous living, but also repentance for sinners.  In other words, the church taught that bad men should become good, and good men should become better.  They judged unrighteousness as being bad.

In the process of "educating" these "ignorant" Christians, Nehor sought them out for argument and debate.  On one such occasion, he found an elderly man named Gideon who resisted Nehor's teachings.  Anger led to violence.  Nehor slew Gideon.

Instead of admitting that what he had done was wrong, he actually held to his doctrine of universal salvation.  He defended himself boldly, and insisted that what he had done was not wrong.  Of course, the law saw it otherwise, and Nehor was executed for his crimes.

Of course, Nehor is not the first one to become confused as to what is right and what is wrong... and that is the real question that Phil Robertson was illustrating in his example... How do you know what is right and what is wrong?

Those that embrace atheism may be quick to shout "straw man," but for a group of people that claim to espouse reason, there is no consensus about how to answer this question.  Without an answer to this question, how does one answer the question "why not murder, rape, and steal?"  It cannot be answered by "because these practices are wrong" without the existence of universal right and wrong.  I suppose it could be answered by "because these practices are illegal" but in many places, gay marriage is illegal, and most atheists I know are in favor of legalizing this practice.  So if morality cannot be coupled to the law, then what?  Harm?  What if a society does not recognize something as harmful... or cannot currently prove that something is harmful?  Who will do the study on whether intimate relationships between humans and animals is harmful?  Are there some applications of eugenics that have a net positive effect on society?  Who can prove otherwise?

Also, to whom must something be proven?  What if someone performs an act without knowing it could be harmful (a lobotomy for example, which is now considered harmful)?  And if not knowing something is harmful makes it unethical, can ignorance excuse unethical behaviors such as robbery, murder, rape, etc...?

While evolutionary biology has become popular in classrooms and creationism has fallen into controversy, the ethical implications of saying that people are "intelligent animals" are rarely considered.  If evolutionary fitness is the means by which humans became the dominant species on the planet, then are we on equal moral standing as cattle?  Certainly there are some humans who would like to criminalize the slaughter of pigs, cattle, chickens, and other animals for human consumption... but does that also mean we should prosecute lions, hyenas, leopards, wolves, and other predators for murder?  Is there a moral difference in killing a human, a dog, a rat, or a cockroach?  If so, what causes this difference?

Even though these ethical questions can be difficult to answer, there seems to be a general understanding that is common to most humans.  The feeling of guilt for doing something that a parent has forbidden is present even in very young children.  The sense of happiness that comes from helping another is also found in young children.  There is something intangible that is present in all humans that steers us toward goodness and virtue, and repels us from evil and vice.  Of course, its intangibility, as well as a number of other factors, can cause this to diminish or even disappear for some... Nehor was a clear example of this.

Ultimately, this intangible force is to help us to recognize other things beyond our immediate perception.  This is precisely why Jesus taught:

"I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:14, emphasis added)

The ability to recognize right can also lead us to recognize our God.  Honing this spiritual awareness is a fundamental purpose to the mortal experience.

While it may be popular to say "judge not," or that "judging is wrong," it is important to know that these thoughts do not remove the personal responsibility of each individual.  Ignorance, popularity, available proof, empirical evidence, or evolutionary biology will not be sufficient defenses on that day when a man stands before God to be judged.  This is not to say that there is no mercy... the power of Jesus Christ is available to those that have faith, repent, and live as he taught.

Yes, Jesus did condemn hypocritical judgment.  Yes, Christ said "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her..." (John 8:7)  But he also said "go, and sin no more..." and "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20)  Vital to following Christ is changing our lives to better.  Vital to salvation is learning and doing good.  (James 1:22)

Also, if all judgement were wrong... then Christ would not be a judge himself.  Consider this passage:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:21-23, emphasis added)  In the end, though right and wrong are nearly impossible to comprehend alone, the man that truly follows Christ can be confident that he is doing right.

People can say what they may about Phil Robertson's example, his show, and his facial hair... but in the end there is definitely value in understanding the importance of God as a source of goodness, authority, and judgement.

Confessions of a Creationist

The Winter Olympic games are nearing.  I look forward with anticipation to seeing talented athletes perform amazing feats, and with the hope that my country, the United States, will win many competitions.  There is, however, an aspect of the winter games that I do not enjoy: the artistic competitions.

Events such as speed skating have measurable results.  Though at times, special cameras and equipment is necessary to determine what racer finished first, the method for winning is always crossing the finish line first.  Similarly, ice hockey rewards the team with the most goals at the end with victory.

Events such as figure skating or "ice dancing" are distasteful to me because they have arbitrary elements.  The objective is not to skate faster, farther, or higher, but to skate "better" than the other competitors.  Of course, this does not mean that the competitors are not impressive, or that they are not athletic... they can be both.  It means that their events should not be considered competitive sports.  They are artistic performances.

While it is possible for some performances to be better than others, the criteria for "better" always has an arbitrary element.  Whether the competition is "American Idol" or figure skating, these types of competitions have always seemed a bit distasteful to me.  To some degree, I have an affinity for the definitive, objective, and the measurable.  In other words... I like science!

I was always fascinated with learning about biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy... and while repetitive practice became tedious, the concepts of mathematics have always interested me.  The names of planets, elements, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, theorems, and rules were valued acquisitions even from before I started attending school.

The first time I recall learning something scientific that I disliked was in my sixth grade class when the curriculum turned to evolution.  Every image of the ape-like homo habilis or homo australopithecus filled me with a distaste that was practically instinctive.  I recall one of my fellow students suggesting that the pictures "looked like monkeys."  The teacher expressed that they were ancestors of modern humans.  Something inside me snapped, and I recall angrily saying that "my dad is not a monkey, and his dad was not a monkey."  The next hour was filled with attempts to calm everyone down.

In hindsight, my outburst was not based on evidence, science, or anything measurable or definitive.  It was raw and emotional.  I just knew that there was something wrong about it, but I had no idea how to articulate my thoughts.

Of course, part of the reason that I found the curriculum so distasteful was my firm belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)  From my youth, I was taught that humanity represent the children of God, and that people are not animals.

As I have gotten older, I have learned much more about the theories that support evolution.  I have learned about the processes of natural selection, and how they impact changes in allele frequency.  I have learned that speciation is not as simple as some make it out to be (for example, donkeys and horses may be considered different species because they produce sterile offspring, mules... but organisms that reproduce asexually cannot be separated into species using this method).

Though my belief that God created heaven and earth has not diminished, if I am honest, I am forced to confess that I have grown to like the science behind evolution.

That having been said, I have also grown to understand more of the reason the concept was so distasteful in my youth.  And although I could state that evolution is not based on observable evidence, or how it assumes that the basic characteristics of life have not changed since life began (such as reproduction and death), if I am honest, I am forced to confess that my skepticism toward evolution has little to do with science.

My beef with evolution is Godlessness.  Of course I know that not all evolutionists are atheists, and I suppose it is possible that not all atheists are evolutionists, but I have known many atheists to use scientific evidence that supports evolution not as a tool of enlightenment or to express interest in fossils, genetics, or taxonomy... but rather as a weapon to mock and belittle those that believe in God.

In other words, many Christians are made to feel the argument being made is this: people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because evolution.

There is no other scientific principle or theory that I have seen used the way evolution is.  No one says:
people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because fundamental theorem of calculus.

The implications of Godlessness are not scientific either.  They are ethical and philosophical.  If humans are animals, and other animals kill one another (whether for food, for mating, or for other competition), how can we say that it is wrong to kill someone?  Without some higher purpose, what exactly is immoral about human cruelty?

Of course, most secularists are not interested in intellectual honesty when it comes to questioning the instability of their moral foundation... but those that are reveal the awful truth about Godlessness.  For example, rabid atheist activist Richard Dawkins said this:
"I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today" (http://twitchy.com/2013/09/10/mild-pedophilia-cockroach-richard-dawkins-brazenly-defends-sexual-abuse-of-children/)  He later went on to say that a former teacher that abused him and his classmates did not do any "lasting harm."

When the standards of right and wrong can shift toward what is convenient for society, there is no evil that is off limits.  When life has no purpose, then there is no good reason to avoid exploiting or abusing others for personal gain.  Arguments about the "good of society" being a motivating factor for moral behavior justify wrongs perpetrated against those that society dislikes and/or devalues.

Ultimately, if right and wrong are relative concepts, then crimes such as genocide or child abuse are given equal moral strength to children being forced to eat their vegetables... as they are both only "called bad".

Having said this, I certainly understand the legitimate feelings of those that do not want creation taught because it is not scientific.  I would prefer that figure skating not exist in the winter Olympic Games for similar reasons.  I do not however think it is appropriate to belittle those that enjoy figure skating, or who participate in the events... and if I am honest... I have to confess that sometimes the music and the skill can even be good, and that American gold medals make me smile regardless of the event.

I would suggest that persons who find creationism distasteful might similarly find value in an ethical foundation that believers aspire to build where honesty, kindness, and virtue are inseparably connected to the purpose of life.  Just because it is not based on observation or hard evidence does not mean it is worthy of universal condemnation...  In fact... if everyone is honest... they must confess that there is beauty and goodness that comes from faith in God.

Tolerating Unethical Behavior

John Dillinger was a depression-era gangster that robbed banks.  He had quite a number of successful heists before the BOI (precursor to the FBI) eventually tracked him down.  He was shot multiple times in a final escape attempt.

During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular.  There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown.  Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad.  Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.

Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber.  In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.

Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue.  Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level.  The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States.  In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars.  In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.

Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this.  For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States.  For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.

Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity.  There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.  Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.

The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality.  The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners.  While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.

There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision.  Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics.  Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical. 

I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits.  I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be.  I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured.  The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.

Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical.  The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:

John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child."  After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted.  He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity.  In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them.  The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported.  Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.

In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime. 
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.

Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point.  The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior.  The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."

In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].

Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.

Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.

The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.

Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness.  They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.

This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good.  Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes.  The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"

For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify.  Homosexual behavior is unethical.  Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it.  Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior. 

The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)

Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior.  That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?

The format of this post will be in the form of a conversation between a hypothetical individual that is a proponent of homosexual marriage and believes that homosexuality is natural and harmless.  This post may make some people angry, so I issue the following warning to proponents of homosexuality before proceeding:

Yes, it is judgmental to say that homosexuality is wrong.  It would also be judgmental for you to rush to the comments section to tell me my belief that certain behaviors are sinful is wrong.  This post was written in a hypothetical conversation to avoid a heated conversation with you.  This article is meant to be thought provoking... not argument provoking.  Before giving in to the impulse to tell me everything I may have forgotten to consider, or how you know that I am going to hell... please just consider the points that I have made.  If you are unable to control yourself, there are plenty of other blogs, articles, memes, and clever sayings that promote your point of view which are less likely to upset your delicate balance.  Please consider these sources instead of continuing on.

That having been said, the hypothetical proponent of homosexuality will present their points in italics.

Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?

Jesus is the son of God.  He created the heavens and the earth.  He also suffered unspeakable pain to provide a way for every human being to escape sin and death.  I would not say that Jesus has a vendetta against homosexuals.  He asks all people to cease committing sinful acts as a means of accepting his power to save us.  Homosexuality is one of an innumerable list of sinful acts.

You just think that being gay is wrong because of a less than 2000 year old book called the Bible... but even Christians that all claim to believe in the Bible can't agree on how to interpret it.

That is not the only reason we believe homosexuality is sinful, but scripture should certainly contribute to our stance.  It may be true that not all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible, but the fundamental concepts that Jesus is the son of God and that through him all people can be saved are not disputed.

So you all believe in Jesus, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Bible.

You claim to read the Bible even though you discredit its contents?  I find that unlikely... but I suppose that's not important.  Of course you are meaning that the words of Christ as represented in the four Gospels do not explicitly define homosexuality as sinful.  Of course, prophets existed before Christ's mortal ministry that declared "thus saith the Lord" and spoke on behalf of Christ.  After his mortal ministry ended, he directed his Apostles to speak on his behalf.  In other words, prophets and apostles spoke in the name of Jesus when they condemned homosexuality.  (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27)

But the law of Moses also condemned eating pork, and you do that...  Do you really think everything in the Old Testament still applies?

Of course not.  Christians do not practice animal sacrifice, even though it was explicitly commanded.  Also... pork is delicious.

And what about the New Testament?  Paul said that women should wear only modest clothes and be silent in 1 Timothy 2:9-15...  Do you believe that?

Is it so wrong to ask women not to dress like prostitutes?  Also, Paul was not singling out women only is his preaching, was he?  Have you read the rest of 1 Timothy?  Have you read the strict conditions he gave the men in the church?  To answer your question though, Christians do not typically believe that women must be silent.  I have no problem with women speaking.

So you're just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to follow...  Why can't homosexuals ignore the verses that condemn what they naturally want to do?

So Christians are limited only to the Bible?  Is that what you think?  As you pointed out, it's less than 2000 years old, and people have been serving the Lord a lot longer than that.  As much as Christians love the Bible, it was possible for Peter and the early Apostles to be Christians without it.  It was also possible for Moses to follow Christ without it, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Before, during, and after the Bible, God spoke through prophets and apostles.  That hasn't gone away because we've "already had a bunch of them"...

So is that the Pope?  Is that someone else?  How do you know which prophet is right?

You ask that as if this is a new problem... as if true prophets were always easy to spot...  Jeremiah 23 is worth reading.  Also, there is a reason that Jesus told people to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15).  The existence of inconsistent sources does not mean there are no sources of God's word.

But you didn't answer my question... How do you know which prophet is right?

Following a prophet is always a matter of faith... but God can help.  (James 1:5-6)  Prayer should always be a part of the process.  Think also of how Peter became convinced that Jesus was the actual son of God... (Matthew 16:17-18)  Or how the disciples on the road to Emmaus perceived that they had spoken to the resurrected Lord by saying that their hearts "burned within them"? (Luke 24:32)

If I am supposed to follow my feelings, then I don't feel like there's anything wrong with being gay.  What harm does it do?

That is exactly the reason that God still uses prophets instead of explicitly telling every person everything.  By choosing a small number of individuals as prophets and communicating a lot to them, and only communicating to you who is a prophet, God creates an environment that rewards those that seek him.  The point of revelation was never to learn every detail about every behavior, thought, or deed...  It is to help identify a source that represents divine knowledge.  The requirement for faith or need to work together is maintained in this environment.

You didn't answer my question again.  What, specifically, is harmful about homosexuality?

Well, what if I told you that homosexual acts cause tremendous suffering, but it is not immediately detectable?

That's not specific.

We'll get to the specifics in a moment, first, how do you know something is harmful?

Visible negative effects prove something is harmful.

That's the real issue then, isn't it?  Whether or not something can be perceived doesn't necessarily mean it is or isn't harmful.  Being unable to see a sniper does not make him less lethal.

That's a bad example.  You can immediately see the negative effects of a sniper after he shoots someone.  You can't see any immediate negative effects from homosexuals.

How about radiation?  How about other diseases?  Handling objects that are contaminated with these things may not cause immediate harm, but over time, they do.

Yes, but we know through scientific methods about how these things are harmful...

So before scientific methods were discovered, were these things still harmful?

Yes.

So you're saying that we have discovered every method for perceiving things that are harmful?  If I can't immediately show you the harm of something, it is not harmful?

Well...

Or what about things that can appear subjectively harmful.  Take smoking and drinking.  Science tells us that these habits increase the risk of organ failure or cancer, however, I have met elderly individuals that have smoked and drank for their lives and appear to live in relative comfort.  Does that mean smoking and drinking is not harmful to some individuals?

Well...

Also, how harmful does something have to be in order to be bad?  A person that undergoes a surgical procedure accepts a degree of risk, and accepts that instruments will be used to damage their bodies.  Of course, they are hoping that the end result will help more than it will harm... but is accepting the harm wrong?

That's a different kind of harm...  It's more like potential harm or risk...  Humanity doesn't stay in plastic bubbles because things *might* be harmful.

But when you asked me to prove specifically that something is visibly harmful, you didn't communicate any of these details that might affect that.  Also, do you look both ways before crossing the street?  Do you reduce your speed when driving on icy roads?  Do you fasten your safety belt?  You probably already do things to protect yourself against potential harm.

I don't see a potential harm in letting homosexuals marry...

I don't see a harm in leaving the marriage laws alone...  How can you be certain you are seeing the greater harm?

Don't shift the burden of proof to me... You said you had a specific example...

True enough.  Jesus Christ is the example.

What?  What does that even mean?

Jesus Christ suffered because of the sins of all individuals.  In other words, every thought, word, and deed that was wrong that ever was or ever will be done exacted a physical harmful toll on Jesus Christ.  The pressure was so intense that blood squeezed through his skin.  (Luke 22:44)  I would say that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be able to tell us what is and isn't sinful because he suffered for all sins.

Yes, well, I don't believe in Jesus...  Prove to me in some other way that homosexuality is bad.

You believe that mankind is the result of evolutionary processes?

Yes.  I don't believe in creationism; We evolved.

Fine then.  So you're saying that the processes whereby mankind has become the dominant species on the planet are mutations and natural selection?

That's right.

So is homosexuality a natural mutation?

I believe it's natural.  I think that Christians only call it bad because they are clinging to their traditions about Jesus, when there is no evidence that Jesus was divine.

The divinity of Christ is a separate conversation, so for the sake of our conversation, let's pretend that you're right about the origins of humanity.  Let's pretend that humans are an advanced animal that is more fit to survive than other animals.  How can homosexuality be a natural positive force if it drives individuals toward behavior that will prevent them from passing on their genetic code to future generations?

I... well...

So if it doesn't contribute to the fitness of an organism, the mutation must be called a disorder.

I never thought of it like that...

And if it is a disorder, than it would be in the best interest of our species to call it and treat it as such... right?

But what if it's nature's way of controlling the human population because we are abusing the earth?

So you're saying that homosexuals have been selected by nature to be removed from the gene pool?  You're saying that nature has declared them unfit to pass on their genetics?

When you say it like that it sounds kinda bad...

Ultimately, homosexuality is either wrong on religious grounds, or it is a disorder on evolutionary grounds.  Am I missing any options?

Yes, you're a bully and Jesus said not to judge others.

You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I am saying other people are sinful?  I will concede that point.  Only Jesus Christ was sinless.  That doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to accept sinful behavior for the sake of consistency.  It does mean that I should try and be less hypocritical myself by repenting of my sins.

Yeah, so take that bully!  You're a judgmental person because you think homosexuality is bad!  Also, judgmental people will go to hell!

You don't see any irony or hypocrisy in what you're saying?

I see your point.  I will now rethink how I approach Christians who object to homosexuality.



Ok, so I've never heard anyone change their position, and I doubt a blog post by an obscure and abrasive guy is going to actually make anyone rethink their position or approach.  One way or the other, it is becoming more important for Christians to understand their own beliefs.  Anyone that truthfully wishes to follow Jesus should be a bit more comprehensive in their quest than a few bible references from memes or clever sayings from protest banners.  Religion is not something to throw out when it challenges your views... religion should be the defining belief system that guides and governs all aspects of one's life.  Find out for yourself using all of your resources what God thinks... because God is never wrong.

Contention may be of the Devil, but Jesus was really good at it!

Having one's views attacked can be aggravating and frustrating whether the views are political, religious, or based on the type of music/movies/shows that a person enjoys.  Of course, closing in on the presidential race in the United States of America, arguments have become heated in many forums.  People that normally remember to say "please" and "thank you" have in many cases been seen slinging that which is vulgar and profane.  Arguments in many cases have the power to bring out the worst in humanity.

Certainly it is no coincidence that Jesus taught in the Book of Mormon the following:

"For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.  Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away."  (3 Nephi 11:29-30)

The passage in the Book of Mormon is quite plain and direct, and certainly in harmony with the messages that he shared famously in his sermon on the mount:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven..." (Matthew 5:38-45)

Jesus seemed clear that people probably should not participate in arguments or contentions.  That having been said, he was himself a target of many of the Pharisees and Sadducees that dominated religious thought in Galilee and Judea during his mortal life.  The gospels are filled with accounts of the various attempts that were made to argue against Jesus.  The truth is, as much as he talked about the vices of pride and wrath that are so easily stimulated by arguments, Jesus was really really good at arguing.

One example was the group of Pharisees that thought they could trap Jesus by asking whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar.  If Jesus were to say it was lawful, they could attack his popularity because Roman occupation was despised by the Jews.  If he were to say it was not lawful, they could report him to the Romans for sedition.  His response was perfect:

"Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:19-21)

Jesus gave the perfect answer.  By asking about the image on the coin, those that had thought they could trap him were forced to portray themselves as having overlooked something obvious.  Additionally, he could not be accused of sedition, nor could his piety be questioned by suggesting that people give to Caesar what is his and to God what is his.

Sadducees attempted to attack Christ's affirmation of the resurrection with a hypothetical situation:

"Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:24-32)

In this case, he showed his amazing ability by ignoring the hypothetical situation which was a distraction from the real point of whether or not there would be a resurrection of the dead.  Though they had come to attack his views for something they felt was inconsistent, he was able to counter by identifying their own inconsistency.

On another occasion, enemies tried to trap him by asking Jesus the source of his authority.  If he were to say God, they would accuse him of blasphemy (even though it was true).  If he were to say some other source, they could accuse him of being a false prophet.  He took the advice that he had given in his sermon on the mount when he said:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."  (Matthew 7:6)

Instead of answering the question they posed, he posed a similar question to them:
"And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet. And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things."  (Matthew 21:24-27)

His enemies were never able to win an argument with him, so in the end, they paid Judas Iscariot to betray him so they could secretly arrange for his death.  Ironically, they were not able to surprise him or beat him even with their murderous conspiracy, as Jesus raised himself from the dead.

Back to the subject of arguments, there are some that may wonder why Jesus even participated in verbal contests when he seemed so against them.  The effort to understand why he debated those that tried to trap him is fundamental to understanding the responsibilities of all Christians to defend the truth, and balancing that with the need to show respect and kindness to all of God's children.

Modern prophets and apostles have encouraged participation in discussions about the church:

"There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches. While some conversations have audiences in the thousands or even millions, most are much, much smaller. But all conversations have an impact on those who participate in them. Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time."  (M. Russel Ballard http://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/07/sharing-the-gospel-using-the-internet?lang=eng)

In spite of the possibility that disagreements or contentions may arise, or the fact that the internet is crawling with trolls that, like the Pharisees of old, feel satisfaction in discrediting, angering, and bullying others, Christians have a responsibility to help others both by charitably imparting of their tangible substance, and by sharing the good news that Christ is alive and has power to save us all.  That having been said, there are lessons to learn from the methods used by Christ himself for dealing with trolls.

Many people that attack Christians do so based on the idea of logical arguments.  A logical argument is like a house where the roof represents a conclusion or premise that is supported by walls representing supporting evidence or reasons.  The basic idea behind attacking a logical argument is that if all or many of the supporting reasons are eliminated, the conclusion falls just as if the walls of a house are knocked down or weakened, the roof falls.

This concept is important for many discussions, such as jury deliberations where the conclusion of the defendant's guilt is dismissed when reasonable doubt knocks down or weakens the evidence that supports the conclusion.  As important as critical thinking techniques are in making some decisions, matters of philosophy, ethics, and faith are not always best served by such techniques.

An example of this can be seen in the following hypothetical situation:
There is a Christian that believes in God, and that the Bible represents the word of God.  He has friends that are historians that have informed him about evidence that supports his belief in that ancient Biblical cities are mentioned in archaeological artifacts.  A skeptical friend finds that the mention of these cities can be explained by the fact that the Bible was written centuries later and used the names of old cities to appear to be of ancient origin.  Because there is no other tangible evidence of the Bible's authenticity that the Christian is able to enumerate, the skeptic explains that there is no reason for him to believe in the Bible.

Obviously, belief in God and the Bible does not need to be based on tangible evidence.  It is based on faith.  Consequently, when the supporting evidences of religious conclusions are attacked, their is an invisible pillar in the center that prevents the conclusion from falling.  Since a person of faith does not need tangible evidence to support their conclusion, exposing reasons or evidence of belief to those that might attack it is like casting pearls before swine.  Conclusions of faith such as those that God lives, that the Bible is accurate, and that prophets dispense the truths of heaven to mankind are not conclusions that require logical defense, so do not provide them.

Secular conclusions on the other hand do require logical and tangible justification.  It is typically easy to discern a person who is genuinely interested in faith from one who is genuinely interested in destroying faith by asking them to defend their philosophical and ethical positions.  Since such positions put them in a position of vulnerability, they will try and evade, stall, or shift the burden of proof to you.  Individuals that are genuinely interested in conversation will not maneuver you into positions where you may look bad.  Ending a conversation is not the same as conceding an opponent was correct.  If an attacker refuses to expose their reasoning, it might be wise to do as Christ did when he was pressed on the source of his authority and follow suit.

Avoiding contention does not necessarily mean avoiding pointing out flaws in reasoning.  Jesus was not afraid to tell people that they were acting hypocritical, or to condemn incorrect principles.  Going back to the example where Christ countered the Sadducees regarding their misunderstanding of the resurrection, it is good to use critical thinking to examine the integrity of secular conclusions.  Particularly in matters of ethics, few secularists have examined their views.  In recent conversations I have had for example, secularists claimed that their ethical behavior was guided by the principles of "empathy and compassion."  It does not take much critical thinking to show that these principles fall apart when administering justice.  If a person does not want to be held against their will, empathy and compassion tell them that imprisoning others even if they are guilty of heinous crimes is unethical.  Relativists that believe something is good only because an individual or group has labeled it good strip themselves of moral judgement entirely.  If something is bad because a person does not like it, then that puts bad acts such as child molestation on equal moral ground as having to eat vegetables.  The need for God in ethics is something I have previously touched on in this post.

Christianity assumes that humanity consists of more than animals with a large number of adaptations making survival easier... The assertion is that people are the children of Almighty God.  From the perspective of the Mormon church, we assert that each human being lived before they came to earth with our Heavenly Father, and that after we die, we will return to face him, and be held accountable for our choices.  The understanding that God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent is fundamental to our faith.  With that understanding, context is added to the story of the creation of the earth.  A being with tremendous power went to a lot of trouble to send us to a place where we would not remember him and where we could not typically see, hear, or tangibly perceive him.  He did not completely abandon humanity though, and provided spiritual sources for learning truths.  The environment created was brilliant in its design since it truly imparts free will to men.  The choices and desires of every human are not compelled by the Heavens.

Another assertion made by most Christians is that all human beings are given something to help them identify and recognize good and truth.  The conscience is sometimes referred to as the light of Christ in accordance with the description of the Apostle John:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.  There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."  (John 1:1-9)

People have a general understanding of how to perceive good.  They have an instinct that draws them toward God in some fashion.  While no one follows their conscience perfectly, and while there are some that rarely use it, it is capable of being as recognizable as the image and superscription on a coin.  Just as Jesus was not afraid to point out to his attackers what they should have already noticed, so should those that defend faith in Christ be willing to point out that people are already capable of recognizing truth without dependence on tangible evidence.  Like recognizing a scent, people know instinctively when something is right.  With regular, diligent use, anyone is capable of recognizing the truths of God and his Christ.  Odds are, any individual that attacks faith knows in their heart that they are wrong.  Even if they do not know it, they are still the person that will be most persuasive in convincing themselves that they should have faith.

The responsibility of Christians to invite all to come to Christ is not a policy to hunt down antagonists and attempt to humiliate them.  It is a policy of spreading the good news of Jesus.  Christ proclaimed the truth to all; his religion was his identity.  The same should be the case for those that aspire to be called Christians.

When a discussion moves to become antagonistic, affirm the truth and end the discussion.  Endless bashing between individuals is at best a waste of time, and at worst, could tragically turn a friend into an enemy.  In persuading others to accept Christ, Christians must not abandon his teachings.  In the end, what made Christ so good when he contended with those that sought to malign him was his ability to know when not to contend, and when to step away.

Winning a petty argument is meaningless since everyone will eventually agree.  In the end, Jesus will come in triumph and glory.  He will be the hero that appears in the moment of peril and despair to save his people.  Every knee will bow before His Majesty.  The good news is that he wants everyone on his side.

The Ethical Dilemmas of Godlessness

I recently saw an argument presented by a group of self-proclaimed atheists indicating persuading citizens to decry the practices of some political representatives to argue about the laws of God, and that they should instead embrace "reason."

The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort.  Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.

Atheist or agnostic persons can do good.  Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God. 

It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely.  In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement.  Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.

Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them.  Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices.  Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.

There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices.  A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions.  Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."  (Matthew 7:12)

The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers.  One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals.  If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule.  Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule.  This is similar to the generalization philosophy.  This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable.  The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.

Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice.  For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment.  The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him.  If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?

Other individuals base their actions on happiness.  They try and do things that generate happiness.  Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.

The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion.  "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence.  Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars.  Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars.  In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.

More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral.  What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral?  Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals?  If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?

In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism.  The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong.  The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency.  For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society.  Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior.  Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.

Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law.  People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.

The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear.  "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason.  With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense.  Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.

The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however.  In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe.  Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.

Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions.  Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world.  Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration.  In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught.  A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset.  If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.

Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong.  It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life.  It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy.  It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences. 

More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good.  In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.

While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place.  Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next.  Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general.  Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.