Moral law – Yes or No?

C.S. Lewis argued for something he called the Law of Nature. By this he meant a moral law, one that each of us has built within us even if we don’t follow it.

But is he right?

If no moral law exists then you and I can do whatever we want. Moreover, a prototype doesn’t exist either. We could never call a decision “right” or “wrong” because there wouldn’t be anything to compare the decision to. Stealing would just be stealing. You could say it’s wrong because it hurts somebody else, but then you’ve created a prototype. You’ve created something to measure right and wrong against – a moral law, if you will.

But if a moral law does exist then it rests at the core of every decision we make. We would have to compare every decision to the moral law and either allow the law to dictate our decision or intentionally act against the law.

So which is it?

A tree must grow its roots to drink. It follows the natural law and extends its roots in the direction of water. It seems unnatural for trees to have a law of nature if humankind does not. Why should trees, who possess a less sophisticated thinking system, need more structure? Isn’t it true that the more complex a task is the more steps, processes and rules there are to accompany it? Doesn’t it seem logical that if every other creature and material thing must adhere to some law, so must humans since we are the more complex organisms?

The way I see it, this moral law can come from one of three (very) broad categories.

• Utility. Does it hurt or help us/those around us? Those decisions which cause us and other pleasure, we follow. Those that cause pain, we avoid.
• Humans. More commonly thought of as government or religion. These bodies tell us what is right and what is wrong. We adhere to them.
• The Divine. Some divine being or beings create a set of morals and hand them to us. We adhere to them.

So, which is it?

Enjoy this post? Tweet or Facebook it with the short URL http://wp.me/ph5Rx-em. Suggested Tweet: Do you believe in a moral “law”? http://wp.me/ph5Rx-em.

The person I’m not

I want to become someone I’m not.

USA Network debuted a new series last month called White Collar. It stars Matt Bomer as a convicted con artist named Neal Caffrey, who helps the FBI catch white collar criminals.

Caffrey possesses some qualities I really admire. He’s relaxed. He’s smart. He’s charming. He wears handsome suits.

When I sat down last night, I told God I wanted some of those qualities. Relaxation, mostly. I’m not a naturally relaxed person. I get very tense, harsh even. I don’t want to be this way. I want to become someone more relaxed. Someone who rolls better with the punches. Someone who confronts a problem as a game instead of an obstacle.

And as I sat, I wondered: Is it wrong to want to be someone else than I am now?

I don’t think so. The bible talks about becoming “transformed” from the inside out, making it appear that Christianity supports this change. Yet many people of God will say that he loves who I am right now. Even that I’m not being “me” by becoming “someone else.”

I disagree. I think people are wrong in focusing on the change. I think, instead, that we should focus on how the change occurs.

Common talk in Christian circles contain the phrase, “give it to God.” In my situation, someone might encourage me to give my stress to God. Only in this way could I become more relaxed. But the terminology implies I have the power to change my life. It implies that I wouldn’t even have to give it to God, because if I had the power to do that then I would also have the power to just let the stress go. It wouldn’t have to go to God.

I suggest a different outlook. I think I need God to help me let it go. I need God to instruct me in how to relax my body (which he created). I need him to teach me how to play with problems instead of dread them. I need him to transform me.

So if you see me becoming more relaxed sometime in the near future, don’t attribute it to me. All I did was effectively accept God’s help.

Enjoy this post? Tweet or Facebook it with the short URL http://wp.me/ph5Rx-eg. Suggested Tweet: Asking God to make me like the Con Artist: http://wp.me/ph5Rx-eg.

The secret I kept from my fiancee

Last summer when Gehvyn and I were apart I kept a secret from her. Up until two days ago, I still harbored this secret.

For the first time in my life I lived in my college town over the summer so that I could take summer courses. During the beginning three weeks my summer job didn’t have any hours for me. When it came time to pay rent I didn’t have enough money. And it didn’t get any easier once I had work hours.

By this point Gehvyn and I had saved right around $400 toward our wedding. Although I wanted to ask her permission to use some of the money for rent, I couldn’t. I felt too embarrassed because of my inability to sustain myself. So I just used the money.

I told myself I would pay the money back when the regular semester began. But I never did.

Today this has changed. In accordance with one of my goals, I’m becoming financially responsible. I opened up a savings account with ING DIRECT and specifically named in “marriage.” I transferred $100 into this account, and promised to build it up to $400.

As much as I wanted to let the secret pass into the past, I knew I couldn’t.

Two days ago I told Gehvyn the truth, apologized and showed her what I’m doing to make it right.

I tell this story to make a point: secrecy and dishonesty are dangerous for a relationship. They may not always destroy it, but they surely restrict it. They create an unease. And they lead to lies. Four days ago when Gehvyn found the $60 left from the original $400, I felt I had no choice but to lie and tell her it wasn’t our wedding money.

This same principle holds true in my relationship with God. Every night I sit on my porch and talk to him. If I’m not completely honest, the conversation (and the relationship) doesn’t get far.

Here are a few things I do to stay honest:

I talk about what’s on my heart.
Not my mind. My heart. If some topic continually nags at my attention, or creates an emotional reaction within me, I share it.

I ask myself if I’m being honest.
Straightforward and simple enough, but the responses I give myself sometimes amaze me.
I tell God I don’t want to go there.

Once in a while I just can’t say it. Sometimes there’s a secret or an honest thought I am unable to communicate. In these moments I try to be as honest as I can. I tell God I can’t go there. We’ll have to come back.

There are other things I do, but these three come to mind most readily. If you’re having trouble being honest with God (or yourself), try them. They might prove useful.

Good luck.

Enjoy this post? Tweet or Facebook it with the short URL http://wp.me/ph5Rx-e4. Suggested tweet: The secret I kept from my fiancee: examining the danger of secrets http://wp.me/ph5Rx-e4.

The wrong route

This week I’ve written about the nature of God, whether he’s absolute or relative. Stephen and Cody have both offered profound comments at the bottom of the linked page. I’ve spent time pondering both of their thoughts and have created my own.

I’ve decided that God is neither absolute or relative.

“Absolute” and “relative” are describing words created by man. It’s their function. The more I thought about it, I began to realize that a created being cannot create something that can describe their creator.

In other words: I, God’s creation, cannot create a description that can describe God, my creator. If I could, I would be greater than or equal to the one who made me.

God, I now realize, is above description. He just exists.

If God were absolute or relative, we could summarize him in a series of principles. We could say that in any given situation God would act a certain way. We would be able to predict God. In essence, the principles would become God. But that’s not the case. Any series of principles we create cannot lead us to God. Even the ten commandments, God’s own principles, cannot do this. It’s why he sent Jesus.

Therefore, I must seek God by another route. Or – as I now believe – I must seek God by going to God himself.

This takes me back to the goals I posted earlier. These goals allow me to interact with God (ie. go directly to him) through the activities the goals require me to perform. At church I can interact with God by praising him and listening to what others have to say about him. When working on my finances I interact with God by learning from him how to handle my resources efficiently.

I can’t connect with God unless I go straight to him. I’m convinced he is a relational God. And by that I mean everything that I’ve said above, that one cannot get to him by any other way than himself.

Jesus said it best: “No one comes to the father except through me.” Because he, in substance, is the father.

Enjoy this post? Tweet or Facebook this post with the short URL http://bit.ly/2Vx655. Suggested tweet: Connecting with God through another route. http://bit.ly/2Vx655.

 

This week I’ve written about the nature of God, whether he’s absolute or relative. Stephen and Cody have both offered profound comments [LINK] at the bottom of the linked page. I’ve spent time pondering both of their thoughts and have created my own.

I’ve decided that God is neither absolute or relative.

“Absolute” and “relative” are describing words created by man. It’s their function. The more I thought about it, I began to realize that a created being cannot create something that can describe their creator.

In other words: I, God’s creation, cannot create a description that can describe God, my creator. If I could, I would be greater than or equal to the one who made me.

God, I now realize, is above description. He just exists.

If God were absolute or relative, we could summarize him in a series of principles. We could say that in any given situation God would act a certain way. We would be able to predict God. In essence, the principles would become God. But that’s not the case. Any series of principles we create cannot lead us to God. Even the ten commandments, God’s own principles, cannot do this. It’s why he sent Jesus.

Therefore, I must seek God by another route. Or – as I now believe – I must seek God by going to God himself.

This takes me back to the goals [LINK] I posted earlier. These goals allow me to interact with God (ie. go directly to him) through the activities the goals require me to perform. At church I can interact with God by praising him and listening to what others have to say about him. When working on my finances I interact with God by learning from him how to handle my resources efficiently.

I can’t connect with God unless I go straight to him. I’m convinced he is a relational God. And by that I mean everything that I’ve said above, that one cannot get to him by any other way than himself.

Jesus said it best: “No one comes to the father except through me.” Because he, in substance, is the father.

Analyzing the Absolute

Two day ago Stephen suggested (in the comment section) that relative is the wrong word to describe God. He said that I am relative to God, rather than the other way around.

I am not sure that relative is the best word to describe what you are describ[ing]. After all, God isn’t relative to you, you are relative to God. Meaning, of course, that God is exactly who He says he is, and likely much much more, but you experience and interact with him in a way that is relative from your point of view. After all, if there are universals in the world, we can only know them relatively.

At first I didn’t like what Stephen wrote. But when I sat down and thought about it I began to agree with his assessment. I realized my thinking revolved around myself. Stephen said it best, “God isn’t relative to you.” If this were so then I would be the more important entity.

It seems logical, then, that God would be the absolute. Not me, not a book or a prototype. Therefore, when God makes a decision he doesn’t base it on anything except for himself. When God tells the leaves to fall, they fall and it is right. This isn’t because it’s written in a book or because humans expect leaves to fall around the same time of year, but because God said it should happen.

It also seems logical that when God walks into a situation he knows all the factors. He doesn’t have to wonder if anybody has lied to him. Couple this with the fact that he is the absolute (as argued in previous paragraph), and we can conclude that any decision God passes is right. Even if it causes pain in our lives (think Job), it is the way things should happen. Even if God destroys someone we think should receive grace, or gives grace to someone we think should be destroyed, his decision is correct. We are the relative.

This creates a big problem, a problem which builds a barrier between God and me.

I’ve never walked into a situation and been able to discern all the facts. I never will. In any situation, something is happing behind the scenes I am unaware of. Because of this, I am unable to comprehend the fact that God experiences every situation exactly the opposite. I can think about it in the same way I can think about how a computer works. I can know that when I press the keys some sort of signal travels through various circuits to produce the letters on the screen.

But I can’t comprehend the exact logistics of how this happens. The same with God. I can think about how he walks into situations with perfect knowledge, but I can’t comprehend what the experience is like.

Because God and I don’t share this experience, I feel like we don’t share this particular relational connection. While he perfectly understand me, I don’t understand him at all.

Moreover, this leads to only one solution: God must tell me the correct decision to make in every situation since he is the absolute. And thus, I leave off today with two quandaries:

• Can humans still audibly hear God? The bible tells stories of this happening, but I’m not convinced I can achieve this. My question, essentially, is this: without having read any of God’s teachings before, can I walk into a situation, ask him for his guidance, hear him talk to me and make a decision, fully convinced I have followed his lead?
• If I were to overcome the first problem, could I even have the faith and courage it takes to follow the command of a God I can’t comprehend (for I’d have to follow the directive without truly understanding why it is the right thing to do)?

Two day ago [LINK] Stephen suggested that relative is the wrong word to describe God. He said that I am relative to God, rather than the other way around.

“I am not sure that relative is the best word to describe what you are describ[ing]. After all, God isn’t relative to you, you are relative to God. Meaning, of course, that God is exactly who He says he is, and likely much much more, but you experience and interact with him in a way that is relative from your point of view. After all, if there are universals in the world, we can only know them relatively.”

At first I didn’t like what Stephen wrote. But when I sat down and thought about it I began to agree with his assessment. I realized my thinking revolved around myself. Stephen said it best, “God isn’t relative to you.” If this were so then I would be the more important entity.

It seems logical, then, that God would be the absolute. Not me, not a book or a prototype. Therefore, when God makes a decision he doesn’t base it on anything except for himself. When God tells the leaves to fall, they fall and it is right. This isn’t because it’s written in a book or because humans expect leaves to fall around the same time of year, but because God said it should happen.

It also seems logical that when God walks into a situation he knows all the factors. He doesn’t have to wonder if anybody has lied to him. Couple this with the fact that he is the absolute (as argued in previous paragraph), and we can conclude that any decision God passes is right. Even if it causes pain in our lives (think Job), it is the way things should happen. Even if God destroys someone we think should receive grace, or gives grace to someone we think should be destroyed, his decision is correct. We are the relative.

This creates a big problem, a problem which builds a barrier between God and me.

I’ve never walked into a situation and been able to discern all the facts. I never will. In any situation, something is happing behind the scenes I am unaware of. Because of this, I am unable to comprehend the fact that God experiences every situation exactly the opposite. I can think about it in the same way I can think about how a computer works. I can know that when I press the keys some sort of signal travels through various circuits to produce the letters on the screen. But I can’t comprehend the exact logistics of how this happens. The same with God. I can think about how he walks into situations with perfect knowledge, but I can’t comprehend what the experience is like.

Because God and I don’t share this experience, I feel like we don’t share this particular relational connection. While he perfectly understand me, I don’t understand him at all.

Moreover, this leads to only one solution: God must tell me the correct decision to make in every situation since he is the absolute. And thus, I leave off today with two quandaries:

• Can humans still audibly hear God? The bible tells stories of this happening, but I’m not convinced I can achieve this. My question, essentially, is this: without having read any of God’s teachings before, can I walk into a situation, ask him for his guidance, hear him talk to me and make a decision, fully convinced I have followed his lead?

• If I were to overcome the first problem, could I even have the faith and courage it takes to follow the command of a God I can’t comprehend (for I’d have to follow the directive without truly understanding why it is the right thing to do)?

Goals

As I undertake this journey, I’m becoming a new person. I’ve developed some goals to aid me in the journey, and I want to share them with you. They are in no particular order.

I’ll create goals every month and try them for the entire month. I’ll post them on the back of my door, where I can see them. If, at the end of the month, a goal has proved useful in connecting with God then I will keep it. If it hasn’t been useful, I’ll toss it.

I’ll sit outside and talk to him every evening from 11:30 p.m. – 12 a.m. I hope that by talking to him and trying to listen for his voice I can discover a bit of who he is, who I am and what he wants from me.

I’ll seek square one. I’ll do my best to shed all preconceptions, everything I’ve learned. I’ll do my best to encounter God on his terms, and not the terms I’ve been taught. This will, hopefully, create a shift in my thinking, a shift that will be more accepting of whatever God wishes to say to me – whether he’s an absolute God or a relative God.

I’ll attend church every week and take notes on the key ideas and my responses. I’ll post them on my door, where I can see them. If church is the place where God’s people gather, I figure I should be able to learn something from their gathering.

I’ll work to become less angry in my words and thoughts. My life doesn’t seem as good when I am angry at someone/something, or when I’m cutting someone’s character down. I’m not following this goal out of ethical fulfillment, but because I want to feel worthy of people’s respect. I want to be the same person behind closed doors that I am out in the open.

I’ll get my finances under control by taking time every evening from 11 p.m. – 11:30 p.m. to track how much money I make and where that money goes. Again, I don’t choose this goal out of ethics. I choose it because I feel stressed when I spend my money needlessly and then can’t pay bills. I would rather live life without this stress.

Feel free to join me with these goals or goals of your own. You can post your own goals or commitments below (but please don’t feel obliged).

If you do choose to take part, then good luck.

Box-God

I feel like God’s people have screwed him up. I feel like we’ve built a structure around him, similar to how a manager builds policies for an employee. With these policies we interpret God’s actions, or even create a grid of what God will and won’t do. Often we do this by defining aspects of God. For example: worship. To the people of God this means meeting on Sunday morning, singing and listening to a teaching. Because of this, I feel narrowed in the way I can worship God.

Moreover, I feel like I’ve built a box of policies for God. I feel like I continually let him into bigger and bigger boxes, but never out of the box. Worse still, I fear letting him out. I fear that God would possess all the power when I de-construct the box.

If God were out of the box then I would have to follow his rules. I fear this would be dangerously close to relativism. I wouldn’t be able to predict God. I wouldn’t be able to tell him what he could or couldn’t do.

I’m scared of this “relative” God. I fear that those around me would judge the lack of absolutism. I’m afraid I could not defend a God who acted on his impulse and not on my prediction. He would operate so far above my head that I couldn’t understand him, much less explain him. And I fear believing against the majority. Doesn’t it seem right that the majority knows the answer, and not the minority?

On the flip side, I can’t imagine God any other way than relative. If he were absolute and I could predict his actions, I would be his equal.

A relative God would have the power to name a Samaritan as more righteous than nine other (possibly Jewish) lepers who didn’t return to thank him. A relative God might kill a man and his wife for lying about tithe, while also proclaiming the highest love ethic in history. A relative God might not speak just to the ordained or the elite, but to whomever he wished.

One the one hand, I feel the pressure of God’s people to proclaim an absolute God. On the other, I nurse a fear that he is a relative God.

And I truly, honestly, wholeheartedly believe he is the latter.

About

Apologia is the Latin noun for “apology/defense/justification/explanation.”

I have named this blog after the noun to describe what I intend to do here: justify and explain what I believe.

Be clear: I will not defend my “faith” as in Protestantism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, ect. I naturally detour away from many beliefs of all these religions.

I have created this blog, ironically, as a self-serving endeavor. As I’ve traveled through my college career and been exposed to different ideas and viewpoints, I’ve become a bit of a relativist. But two weeks ago I read a chapter written by C.S. Lewis in which he spoke of the Law of Nature. This didn’t refer to gravity, ect.; but rather to something built within each of us that dictates what is moral and what is not moral (his argument is much more than this – I don’t do it justice). This renewed a desire within me to discover the Law of Nature.

Posts will occur every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

I hope that you recognize I am not ignorant to other viewpoints. Very often I feel compelled to side with another viewpoint on the basis of pathos alone, but the very nature of “sides” states that you can only be on one side. And so I must pick one and justify it. This is my mission. Please, don’t consider me an intolerant bastard. I don’t write to piss people off. I write to justify my beliefs to none other than myself.

I can be reached at colbystream@gmail.com