Christian "Para-Morality"

In the July 19th broadcast of Unbelievable?, the atheist spokesman, Rory Fenton remarked that as a "Catholic-atheist," he had grown up in the tradition, but rejected it in his perception that the moral code of the Church had not advanced itself beyond the mores that any secular man would embrace.  His lapse into atheism wasn't to live an exotic wild life of pleasure.  His demeanor was that of an extremely principled person.  Bravo for his ethos, but he remarks on an inaccuracy concerning the Christian faith.

Christianity doesn't promote a specific moral code, not even the Mosaic ordinance of the Old Testament.  Not that a Christian is not cognizant of the Ten Commandments.  They would cite each commandment, arguing only over the numeration of the specific commandment (e.g., the commandment against murder being the Sixth Commandment for my Reformed friends has always been the Fifth Commandment to Lutherans as I and Catholics as well).  They would agree on the importance of the Laws of Moses in daily affairs, but differentiate about the ultimate need of them in matters of salvation.

Christianity is compelled by the single commandment of Christ, to love one another (as impossible a moral code to preserve).  Thus Christianity is not about commitment to established codes, but motivation to properly apply the divine will.  It deals with matters of conscience, and requests thoughtful introspection to all applications.  Moses is indispensable, only the ultimate consequences of failure is dispensed (the faith in Christ, thus there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus).

This is what is maddening to those outside the faith, who deem this faith worthy of criticism.  In white vs. black assessments (this wrong, that right), we may fail to present a system of consistency.  Take, for example, war.  One Christian may be the perfect pacifist.  Another may recognize the matter of defense of self of defense of the weak and defenseless.  One may seek contribution to the war effort as a medic, a soldier, or an anti-war activist.  All impelled by Christ's command to love.  All making a conscientious choice in the matter and at peace with their view of war (irony intentional).    This makes any perception of a truly Christian ethos difficult.  Snickers of presumed hypocrisy are invoked, all due to a failure to understand Christ's Gospel message.

Christ did not descend to offer us new inscribed slabs of stone.  He rose up on a cross to foil the results of Moses' Ten, the guilt and consciousness of sin, its just retribution for failed morals (a truly universal moral status), and to promote a faith-life in which morals no longer are compulsory but a pleasant response of gratitude for something as simple and simply impossible as forgiveness.

And that removes that subtle cause of morality, retribution for failure to abide by the subtle codes that align us all.  Modern morality fails to understand it, or have it at all.

Wit vs. Wisdom

In the recent Unbelievable? podcast, two gentlemen (theist/atheist format) debated the legitimacy of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument.  It was agreed that such a concept raised the issues about the theme of "intelligent design," but in itself was no better than a "conversation starter."  It was further agreed that the range of acceptable behavior concerning dealing with offensive parodies needed definition.  Such an attack against some Muslim paradigm would have led to aggressive responses.  Aggressive responses are inconvenient replies, but often they are responses to aggressive attacks.  The value of the FSM remains as conceptualizing theist creative/origins as buffoonery, but lacking this FSM only belabors the fact that atheistic approaches to the origins issues lacks that initial spark.  Beginnings > how?  From which core materials > origins from where?

Grahame Veale (the theist) needed only to remark that the FSM consisted of components that were material, and thus did not constitute creative force.  Pasta has limitations.  Thus the objection to the multitudes of theistic originators (the atheistic argument) is advanced through the elimination of one obvious phony towards the elimination of all other ineligible possibilities.  Theists quickly eliminate pantheist and panentheist possibilities.  Thus most of that roadwork has been accomplished.

In sum, we have often confused the element of wit as the sum and substance of wisdom.  The atheist does often spout clever lines.  Critical examination allows wit to be scrutinized to see if it remains wit or witlessness.  The FSM fails this test of wit.  It in world of that which ought to be carbohydrates, wither the proteins?  This last statement is theistic wit.  Atheistic examination of theism argues the present world as a botched work, hence not divine in origin.  However, the botched element arises in consequence of human actions not following divine predilections.  The un-botching is best expressed in Christianity, where God delivers the world from the sad state of affairs.

Modern Activism and the "Sisyphus Effect"

To all intents and purposes, one would suppose the life of Rev. Jesse Jackson to be an abject failure.  He continues to speak, to march, to aggressively advance the cause of "rights" in this nation.  There has been no stop in him.

But advances have been made.  The life of the 50's African-American is stark contrast to the life of the millennial African-American.  The good reverend has achieved much, accomplished much welcome change.  How could this man be an abject failure?  Only in that he continues to speak, march and advocate as if nothing had been accomplished.

And this is the heart of what I term the Sisyphus Effect.  In Greek mythology, Sisyphus challenged the gods in the Titan Wars and was punished by eternally hauling a huge boulder up an incline only to have the rock tumble back, forcing the fallen hero to redouble his efforts to put the stone into place, and action reenacted to infinity.  Activists do make bold stands, agitate for their causes, and succeed, only to hanker for more causes, more redress to inequities.  All hoping that the popular view of their work will continue to be deemed "heroic."

And this is the flaw of activism.  An eternal state of unrest is a form of social agony that we wished relief not continuation.  Progress is not always to be forward.  History allows for regression as a term for such relief.  Lyndon B. Johnson gave way to Reagan via Nixon and Carter.  Then a reflux to Obama via two Bushes and one Clinton.  The boulder will roll back.  To believe that Rev. Jackson merely perpetuates the political tone of crisis to maintain his political clout and prestige is erroneous.  Liberty means vigilance, and with two causes in the political millrace, such vigilance can become strained.  Celebrate the advances.  Acknowledge that times of reversal will occur and should be welcome. 

But the greatest ideal is that Sisyphus could break from his labors, if but for the moment.

Secular Morality and the "Noble"

A series of posts have recently run in the Stand To Reason post that argued the merits of an evolutionary origin of moral principles that could be explained over against a divine absolute standard.  Such an approach would reject the ideals of a Mosaic ordinance or sharia tradition based on a pragmatic foundation of moral transitioning from core concepts to refined details that bend and adjust to changing cultural norms.  As interesting as this line of debate had been, I have found one fundamental flaw that dooms the tenets of evolutionary morality.

It cannot, and will never, embrace the noble act, the self-sacrificial, the unselfish, the motives of helping the other to the detriment or endangerment of self.  If evolution is the driving force, the important issues of self-survival, self-preservation, and self-advancement would overrule the "noble."

I think of the medieval tale of Sir Gwain and the Green Knight.  The knights of the Round Table are petitioned by a lady-in-waiting whose mistress is held captive by the Green Knight.  She would ask for a prestigious knight as Lancelot, but he is indisposed.  Gwain, a young and lesser known knight, volunteers to save the lady.  The lady-in-waiting scorns the uppity young lad, but agrees to lead him to the Green Knight's castle.  After a few side adventures which proves Gwain's merits, they finally arrive at the treacherous knight's castle.

The moment of that arrival was at 11 A.M.  Gwain prepares to blow the castle horn to announce his presence when the lady-in-waiting asks Gwain to delay that summons.  The Green Knight is under a charm where his greatest strength would be at the sun's height, at noon.  If Gwain waits till three or four in the afternoon, the battle would be in his favor.  Gwain scorns the woman's advice, stating that as a knight of integrity, it would not do for him to seek such advantage, but battle the Green Knight at his greatest strength.  Gwain blows the horn, requests battle from the Green Knight, and engages in battle for the liberty of the captive damsel.

And, after horrific battle of hours duration, Gwain triumphs, spares the Green Knight whose loyalty is to be pledged to King Arthur, wins the release of the woman, and accomplishes the goal of his mission: to prove the merits of a noble knight pledged in the pursuit of justice.

Gwain would never do in an evolutionary scheme of ethics.  Mankind would never aspire to higher, better goals in a evolutionary ethics.  A system that reckons man for ape can never have such lofty aspirations, all claims notwithstanding.

Which is why godliness trumps mere morality, which is becoming rather chimerical these days.  Which is why no society will have a future in adopting it.  Chesterton is correct:  It is not that Christianity was tried and found wanting, but found difficult, and never tried.

We must stop trying to be moral;  we needs must be noble.  That is why "paying it forward" is a paper tiger, awesome only in form, but lacking true bite in its teeth.  As much good as can be accomplished with a PIF mentality, far preferable of "spend it recklessly."  Much more good is done if we feel we must not wait for some awesome kindness granted to us.

What, Then, Is Intolerance?

In trying to explore the flip side of tolerance, I thought to distinguish the definitions of tolerance and intolerance.  In viewing "intolerant," I noted this definition:  not able or unwilling to accept or embrace a concept.

I wish to consider these two elements 1) inability and 2) unwillingness.  In the modern quest for "Toleration," we seem to ignore both.  The novel notion of undiscriminating acceptance loses the discernment that refusal to accept is based on pre-conceptions.  Examination of these pre-conceptions is reduced to declarations of such views as "hateful" or "evil."  The natural mode of tolerance would at least have the curiosity that would inquire as to the perceived intolerance.  "Why are you against ... " is a legitimate inquiry to ones opinion and the bases of the opinion, especially if proven as fact.

Thus intolerance can be an inability.  Those who are called homophobic explain their position as Scriptural.  To insist on one abandoning ideas that are deemed sacred would be ... well, call it what it is.  Intolerance.  Thus intolerance can be to a certain degree based on unwillingness.  To insist on political and cultural changes in the name of progressive advance thinks little of matters of conscience.  To demand willingness is coercion, high-handed, totalitarian activities worthy of thugs.

This is why the prospects of political correct default positions have dim hopes of foundational change in the lines of toleration.  Gun violence is becoming rampant, and it could well be based on the overt demands of accepting change against ones abilities and volitions.  When push comes to shove, we may have unwittingly sown the seeds of Intolerance in a campaign to produce a more tolerant society.

The irony is tragic, sad to think in a world that would have irony for their comedies.

What, Then, is Tolerance?

The trend is unsettling.  The Mozilla firing.  The forced sale of the L.A. Clippers.  The cancellation of television programming.  The censure of the rapper for an insult of the president.

One common theme of all these varied incidents is a professed allegiance to the idea of "tolerance."  There are segments that need to be accepted and affirmed.  Those who refuse are declared bigots, perpetrators of "hate crimes," and treated as pariahs.  All in the name of tolerance.

We have moved from a tenet of "live and let live" to a dogma of "accept all things without discrimination."   And those who fail to adopt the popular mantra of "equality" in unequal matters are savaged with a blood-lust that betrays the political savagery of an oppressor who has replaced an oppressor.

We are trained to view the LGBT community as warm, wonderful, and quite normal people.  Perhaps some are.  But individuals are convincible, not whole communities, and those who trifle with the affects (and affectations) of the "community" are dangerous.

We have emerged as a nation that cannot bear insult.  What decades ago would have been deemed polite disagreement has been given status of unbearable "hate."  Echoes of pleas of tolerance sound hollow somehow.  Perhaps the rise in violence is a counter-proposal to seek tolerance at the previous standard.

In the end, there are two opinions to tolerate.  If time is granted to savor one opinion and one opinion only, to see one side of the issue and only one side of the issue, then we have failed as a society.  Tolerance is being able to voice points of favor and disfavor, without bloodshed, unpleasant consequences, or diminished respect.  It is the work of two parties, not just the obligation of a single side.

If this then is a lesson unlearned, we must then move on to the next question ...

Demonization as a Political Process

The Salem Witch Trials are a lesson in history under reenactment.  What essentially was an attempt to discredit and remove rival interests led to the atrocity of unbridled accusation and slander easily accepted as truth.  Fear drives such engines, and the power to promote such trifling with reputations is unlimited in its uncritical acceptance by the masses.

The ploy of demonization is a tool that succeeds only when credibility is not sought out.  In the case of the witch trials, twenty lives were lost on the simple fact that an authority assumed too much, that it was inerrant in its pursuit of truth.  Today, anything that opposes progressivism is no longer the "loyal opposition," but an ulcer in need of removal.  And the removal process begins with the premise that such views are not worth holding, that they are antiquated not so much as they are hate-driven, monstrous, enslaving, degenerative, and debased in thinking.

We have made it a logical short circuit to credit the other side with the shades of despicable.  It is the course of politics to criticize the President.  It becomes racism if that president is black, sexism is that president is a woman, homophobic if the president is or supports the gay agenda.  The facts of the matter need not be discussed if this blockade to honest exchange is utilized.

The first thing that matters is to address the root cause, as it would have been in Salem centuries ago.  Fear.  We fear the defeat of progressivism and all the promises it advances, and all the lofty goals towards which it strives.  But we stifle an equally important fear, the fear of unwelcome progress, of dangerous progress, of progress in which more is lost than gained.  But the idea is not to demonize the whole of progressivism, but to offer second opinions of where we wish to go, or even where we wish to stay.

It is the issue of the path, the passage, the travel, the destinations, the stays, that must be given due consideration.  All of the trappings of safe, sane travel planning.  The passengers need to offer their insights and input, and disagreements on the flow of the trip must be expected.

Labeling one a churl for disagreeing on the most recent turn of the wheel belittles the trip, and makes for strained traveling.  People encased in moving vehicles would know of this tension as most unpleasant.  This is the tension we must cope with, and name-calling is this hallmark of immaturity.  And who wishes to travel with the immature?