thoughts on objective reality

In my last post, I attempted to explore and contrast the differences between assumption, fact, belief and knowledge and apply them to the standard of "objective reality." I recently received this comment from a reader:

I'd like to hear more on objective reality. Your "the world is round" comment made me think...is Earth round? Obviously, we know it is round from a extraterrestrial yet intra solar system perspective. But what about from another galaxy? Our solar system is not spherical. It is a flat disc. And our Earth is a non-dimensional speck. Without rambling, I'm just curious as to how objective is reality? And similarly, how universal can truth be?

I want to: a) thank the reader for his question and, b) attempt to answer this question to the best of my ability.

One of the prevalent definitions that I have been working off of for the purposes of this blog has been that of "objective and factual reality." Let me begin by making a clear admission: all three key words in that phrase are highly debatable in terms of conception. Allow me to explain further:

• Objective - the dictionary defines "objective" as "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." The definition, however, can be deceptively straightforward. The problem is not necessarily the act of defining objectivity but achieving objectivity. It is my opinion that humans, because of their inherent first-person perspective, are not able to achieve complete objectivity. We all have limited perspectives as individuals and, as a species, our perspective is also currently limited. Whether that will change any time in the future remains to be seen. I do believe that there is a "reality" that is completely objective and free from personal bias and limited perspective, even if humans cannot perceive it. It appears to me that φύσις (physis or, crudely, "nature") is objective outside of νόμος (nomos or "human convention"). In this light one might say that nature, itself, is both objective and real because it does not conform to the biases, feelings or interpretations of human convention.
  
• Factual - this idea, too, is difficult to wrestle with. In modern, English-speaking traditions we understand the word fact to have the meaning of "holding a mirror to reality." From an empirical, and scientific, perspective this makes plenty of sense. There is a conflict, however, when one reads the idea of a fact in an ancient sense. The Latin word for fact - facere - means, roughly, to do or make with one's hands. It is the same Latin root that provides English words like "factory" and "manufacture". The ancient Greek analog of facere is poeio or poesis - the root word for poetry. Tying this with the previous definition, a fact is also a product of human convention because it requires a medium of communication in order for it to be shared between peoples and because it also, generally, requires an agreement between peoples to be accepted. Thus, in order to get to a place where your knowledge of the world is informed by facts, you must first come to terms with the idea of factuality and decide how you intend to deploy the word with language.
  
• Reality - this may be the most troubling idea of all. Every time I use the word "reality" I can feel my professors cringe. I use this word a lot, but I also try to use this word advisedly or, on occasion, by framing it in quotation marks. The English word "reality" has a Latin root in res - meaning "thinghood" or "thingness" - and in the Greek word onto - meaning "being". If that sounds confusing or pedantic to you, you're definitely not alone. How can anyone begin to define something like "being" or "thinghood"? This, of course, is the problem associated with using a word like "reality" without prefacing it with a specific definition.

Even with these logological difficulties with understanding "objective factual reality", I still think it is possible to employ the concept. If we refrain from framing our exploration of reality in a human-centered (anthropocentric) view and allow for a broader Being-centered (ontocentric) view, the idea of "reality" begins to take sharper focus. All of that is a ridiculously philosophical way of saying the following: "reality", as I understand it, is considerably larger than the human being's perspective and experience: unlimited, unaltered and indifferent to our attempts - successful or not - to understand it.

With regard to "how universal can truth be", I can only fall back to a simple answer: truth is only as universal as reality is; which is to say that it is only universal, since truth and reality are the same. How people understand, interpret or communicate truth may be prone to mistake or manipulation, but - again - reality (and truth) is unbiased and not influenced by human convention.

and justice for all...

The Preamble: My wife and I love to watch Law & Order. It's a highly predictable crime drama that wraps itself up neatly at the end of every episode. While it uses many current events and values debates as a backdrop for episode plots, the show allows us to put our minds on autopilot for an hour. Very rarely does it provide any kind of intellectual stimulation for either of us. But it's good entertainment. A lot of times I wish the world could be as simple as a network TV drama - especially when it comes to our justice system. Bad guys are bad guys, good guys are good guys, the world always comes back together in the end, everyone goes home happy and gets what's fair. That's the Law & Order way (more or less) but it is not, at all, a fair representation of reality.

When I look at the commonly shared concept of justice in western culture, what I see is a system that it has become so focused on crime and punishment (and law and order) that any real presence of justice is hidden by layers of vengeance and retribution. I once said that not all ideologies are words that end in "ism", and the American system of "justice" is one of them. As an ideology, it stands as another obstacle on the path to finding objective reality.

The Case: It was once said that "there is a way that seems right to mankind, but in the end that path only leads to death."* There should be no doubt that this much could be said of our entire social fabric and especially of our concept of "justice". The foundation of our entire society is completely incompatible with a real environment of justice. From start to finish the American system is overrun by the protection of self-interests, even at the expense and exploitation of others. And in a social environment where self-interests are the penultimate reality to be chased, we encourage people to get the best that they can, even if it means doing their worst. The evolution of this kind of a society - which is seen in every corner of the world, but celebrated so much in America - has created two opposing groups: the "haves" and the "have-nots", with anyone still in-between slowly being pushed into one of the two camps. By elevating the protection of the privacy of person, private ownership of property, and personal rights to the level of "sacred", we've ultimately forced the "have-nots" to fend for themselves by way of some kind of merciless experiment in "Social Darwinism". So many of us have no substantial qualms with the reality that there are those in our own cities and neighborhoods that have become so weighed down by this system that they are a mere step or two away from choosing between crime and utter poverty and improvision. And this is nothing new to us either - it's as old as life itself. Yet in all of our advancement, all of our sophistication, all of our technology, all of our collective global wealth, we - all of us - prefer to spend our time and resources terminating on our selves.

So I hear you say to me: "Hey! Thanks for proving you're a clone of Karl Marx, but what does this have to do with the injustice of human justice?" You'll be surprised to know that in all of my historical studies, all of my reading, all of my free time I've never read anything written by Marx - not even the Communist Manifesto. But what I'm talking about has everything do with human justice. William Boothe, founder of the Salvation Army, wrote a brilliant work called In Darkest England and the Way Out that detailed the horrible living conditions of the poor in London and the connection between poverty and crime. Booth's main argument is that a man's soul (and his "eternal salvation") is completely unattainable in the midst of extreme poverty and squalor. In order to attain the salvation of the soul the missionary must also provide for the "salvation of the body."** But, of course, proselytizing and "salvation" is not the aim of this current discussion. Where Booth's argument and my own converge is when Booth acknowledges that many of the rich London residents were not willing to give up their money to fund the Salvation Army in order to achieve something as practically worthless as salvation of the soul. He presents a case that suits their needs when makes the claim that as the rich are able to help the poor meet their own needs and as they begin to help the "inner man as well as the outer man", the amount of crime in London would be sure to decrease. To Booth the choice was a very clear one: those Englishmen with resources (i.e. money and time) could use them to improve the condition of the impoverished and, in the long run, help prevent crime against all Englishmen (especially the wealthy and middle-class) or they could continue to horde their money, live in luxury, and ignore the plight of the poor - and then pay the government in tax money to execute a robust and expensive "criminal justice" and prison system to house those same people after they've violated someone.

It should be said that not all crime is derived from being oppressed and desperation. Even crime for those reasons is not based, ultimately, on just that. Crime happens whenever anyone elevates the self interest above or ahead of the good of those affected by one's circle of influence. But that is only criminality. Let's move on to justice. Let me say first that there are two different ideas about justice in our world: social justice and criminal justice. What Booth was trying to encourage his audience and neighbors was that there was a very ancient belief that the more generously a society invested in social justice, the more insulation that society is providing for itself against the need for a robust and expensive criminal justice system. What should also be mentioned is that the ancient world considered - in large part - the practice of elevating the private (or "self") interests before the public good as a complete lack of virtue.*** What's more is that even the definition of "justice" seems to have very little (if anything at all) to do with the concepts of crime and punishment. In nearly 84% of the passages in the Bible where the word "justice" is given a contextual meaning there is a very explicit definition: to tend to the needs of the poor the orphan and the widow, to be fair to the foreigner ("alien"), and to restore those that have been victimized (by man or by nature).****

And that is the truth of justice. Justice is not punishing the "violator of rights", it is reclaiming our responsibility to the poor, the foreigner in our land, and the victim of loss. In fairness to the reality we live in - financial poverty isn't the only criteria for a "victim of loss". A wealthy woman that is violated feels the same pain as the homeless women suffering the same violation. The reason I make such an argument for the poor is because too often they lack the resources to bring about the restoration necessary to completely heal. And that is the business of justice: healing and restoration. Anything less than this is simply reaction, revenge, and retribution. And this, of course, presents a problem for all of us. If any of us come to embrace this reality and reclaim this ancient axiom of justice, how can we ever hope to convert the substantial investment we've made over the millennia of emotion, money, laws, careers, and infrastructure in "crime and punishment" to a new system of justice? Do we stand up and fight a government that is legitimized by this current system? Do we overthrow it? No. Do we ignore the laws? No. Do we quit our jobs as police, corrections officers, wardens and judges? Not until they are made unnecessary, no. In the wise counsel of Dallas Willard: no need to fight it, just don't feed it.+

But how, then, do we create a new system? The answer is both comforting and terrifying at the same time: there is no need for any of us to build it, rather what is required of us is simply to be it. Like all movements that generate a lasting legacy, it starts with one or a few and spreads - like a virus - from one to the next until it grows so vast and powerful that it replaces and suffocates the original organism, rendering a new manifestation of the body. All that is required to create the change we desperately need is simply to be the change, and let that change influence (just like the influenza virus) everyone you come into contact with. There is no need to dominate with new laws or systems. There is no need to force a new way of thinking on those who aren't ready to see it - or those that have built a brick wall of dogmatic immunity to it.

If we, together as a community, can begin to sacrifice our self-centered needs for luxury in order to give to the poor, to sacrifice our selfish alienation of "foreigners" (as if any of us live in the exact place of our own births?) in order to practice generosity and hospitality to the immigrant, and to sacrifice our self-righteous need for retribution against the "offender" and the "criminal" in order to restore to wholeness the ones that suffer from loss, then we can transform our dark and miserable immitation of justice for true justice - a justice that is far less susceptible to perversion and corruption. A justice based on truth, responsibility (for ourselves and to others), and compassion instead a mockery of justice based on ideology, rights, and selfishness. It may look like donating blood, volunteering time at homeless shelters and food pantries, giving money, organizing benefits... take your pick or think of your own. But, in the end, the beginning of all justice is to care. Simply allow yourself to care about injustice and the plight of those losing hope around you. Let that compassion - and, yes, even grief - motivate you to act. Someone you know is hoping and praying for a miracle... a sign. We can be that sign. We can be that miracle. We can become justice for someone. Let the law judge the lawless and the lawful. Let the judges debate crime and punishment. But let the just be the justice that reality demands of all of us.

The Question: Are you, the reader, able to see the distinction between our system of "crime and punishment" (which we may call "crime management") and the ancient concept of justice? Are you willing to trade your personal vested interest in the current system for a new one? If there was a reason that would hold you back from being the change in order to create the change, which would you say is the primary one: the personal cost of change, being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the challenge, or rejecting the validity of the concept outlined in this post? And, lastly, with the absolute failure of the human "crime management system" to prevent or rehabilitate criminal activity++... what more do you have to lose?

Leave the light on.

-------------------
* - Proverbs 14:12, Proverbs 16:25
** - James 2:16
*** - Reference Plato and Socrates
**** - Examples: Deuteronomy 16:20, Deuteronomy 27:19, Proverbs 21:3, Ecclesiastes 5:8, Isaiah 1:16-17, Isaiah 10:2, Isaiah 59:15, Ezekiel 22:23-31, Ezekiel 49:5, Micah 6:8, Zechariah 7:9, Matthew 23:23
+ - The Great Omission, Dallas Willard
++ - Based on felony recidivism statistics provided by the U.S. Department of Justice

from emptiness to everything

The Preamble: Coryn told me that she really likes running errands with me. She said it reminds her of when we were dating and we did everything together. And today we were running errands together while listening to John Mayer's Continuum album. I know John Mayer is a musically polarizing artist - you either like him or you think he sucks. I hope you readers can appreciate the kind of risk I took alienating you all by telling you that I was listening to his music!

In any case, we were driving around and a song of his called "Belief" spun up and, through the course of listening to his lyrics, Coryn and I began to realize that John was kind of singing about one of the major themes I've been trying to talk about with this blog: everyone believes something, at some level they're trying to fight for that belief, and the dogmatic division this willingness to fight for our beliefs is causing a pretty substantial amount of the conflict we have in this world... from little conflicts between two people and large conflicts between two nations.

Just so we're all on the same page, I'm going to post the lyrics of this song so you can follow along:

Is there anyone who
Ever remembers changing their mind from
The paint on a sign?
Is there anyone who really recalls
Ever breaking rank at all
For something someone yelled real loud one time

Everyone believes
In how they think it ought to be
Everyone believes
And they're not going easily

Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword
Like punching under water
You never can hit who you're trying for

Some need the exhibition
And some have to know they tried
It's the chemical weapon
For the war that's raging on inside

Everyone believes
From emptiness to everything
Everyone believes
And no ones going quietly

We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for

What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Belief can

The Case: Whether you like John's music or not, agree with his political ideologies or not, or find him credible in commenting on "the human condition" or not, it can scarcely be argued that everyone believes in something. As Dallas Willard said once at a conference:

"Whether someone is a Christian or not, they are going to live according to certain assumptions about what is real. They are very likely to accept the popular notion that they live in a world where there really is no God, and that right and wrong are determined by what you want, as long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's freedom.

We have to start by helping people see that they cannot escape the fact that, no matter what they do, they are in fact choosing one version of what is real, true, and good. In that choice they need to be responsible. Not believing in something has exactly the same consequences as believing.

I'm saying that [we all have] a belief. This is absolutely crucial for [us] to understand. Otherwise [we are] under the illusion that [we are] in a safe place simply because [we haven't] explicitly committed [ourselves] to something."

On the question of "God" - everyone believes in something. By saying they don't believe in "God", most people mean that they don't accept a Christian's interpretation of reality. But the so-called "atheist" is a theoretical impossibility. There is, to everyone, an assumption or belief about the cosmic reality that exists outside of ourselves. To the Hindus it is called "the Brahman", to the Jews that cosmic reality is called "Yahveh" or "Elohim", to the Christian it is called "Y'shua HaMasshiach" or "Jesus Christ" and so on. Some will tell you that a Zen Buddhist has no "divinity" to emulate or achieve, but their cosmic reality is the attainment of "enlightenment" which stops the cycle of life. I don't mean to equate these perceptions of reality as though they are somehow really the same... they're not. Each of these perceptions of reality is an ideology of its own. They all have very intrinsically different and unequal "ideas" that they are trying to convey and, as I said before, to try to say they are the same thing is to diminish all of them.

What I mean to say is that there is no truly "neutral" position when it comes to reality. And, like Dallas explained, being non-committal about reality is still the same as choosing. Like the song says, "everyone believes, from emptiness to everything." When you say that you believe in something or stand for something you are intrinsically saying at the same time that you believe against something else and stand against something else... even if that "something else" seems senseless and obvious. But it is important to examine your values and your assumptions about reality in order to see just where and what those assumptions place you in regards to the opposite. Performing that kind of a "values inventory" may lead you to learn quite a bit about yourself, how you see the world, and - most importantly - why!

The asking of "why" is also a critical element of learning anything. Surely none of us are so educated and full of truth that there's no need to continue asking questions and continue learning. It may surprise you to learn that, in one way or another, we've all gotten to a place where we believe that there is nothing more to be learned - we've "figured it out". Think about it. There is something in your mind or heart that you have such a conviction about that you do not believe you could ever actually be wrong about it. I know that I've had to confront my own on many occasions and continue to find more every time I go to look. I've come to believe that this is simply an element of "experience". Through the course of events all of us begin to detect patterns about our existence in reality, those patterns lead us to assumptions, those assumptions lead us to convictions. Those convictions lead us to construct dogmatic brick-wall "beliefs" and "values" which, eventually, come together in the form of an ideology that dominates our worldview and keeps us insulated from the (sometimes frighteningly) dynamic nature of reality. Asking "why", like an infuriatingly curious two-year-old, helps keep those assumptions to a minimum, undermining the "mortar effect" that hardens those assumptions into rigid worldviews.

The Question: What do you call the cosmic, universal, objective reality? Do you remember how you originally came to this understanding? What are the most significant assumptions that you have about reality? Have you allowed those assumptions to crystalize into a rigid belief system or worldview? If you have any kind of rigid belief system or worldview, have you experimented with "why"? If so, how far down the rabbit hole did it take you? Blow up the comments section - I can't wait to see what you all were able to get from this.

Leave the light on.

the gods must be angry

The Preamble: So I've been reading a book called "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola and George Barna and I have to recommend it to anyone searching for a very authentic and original examination of the Christian church. Reading the book and examining the evidence provided has also rekindled my own thoughts about the pagan nature of what most people call "Christianity". (*Disclaimer: None of the information I address in this post has anything to do with what is discussed in the previously mentioned book and I do not represent the authors or their viewpoints.*) Some of the more difficult questions I've had to work through revolve around the roots of morality as a cultural bonding agent and its preoccupation with the ancient pagan fertility gods.

The Case: Let me start by saying that I did not come to any of these questions or conclusions lightly. The sensibilities put in me from my childhood were just as offended in my initial discovery of what I plan to share with all of you as yours are certain to be. What can be certain, however, is that when you start to examine the stability of your foundations and when you begin to perceive that the foundations and structure you've inherited are inherently flawed it can be a frightening experience. I want to approach this topic as sensitively and gingerly as possible without mincing words or watering down my case. I encourage you to continue to respond in the form of comments (for dialogue and discussion), emails, and phone calls because this topic is (in my opinion) too important to walk away from without engaging.

All of that being said, let me dive right into it. There are certain facts about how ancient paganism has infiltrated the modern "Christian" community that are readily obvious to even the most casual question-asker. Some of the easiest examples to digest are found in Christian sacred holidays like Christmas and Easter.

In regards to Christmas, celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25 is a holdover from the old Roman pagan holiday dedicated to Sol Invictus ("the Invincible Sun" god). There is no solid archaeological, Biblical, or empirical evidence to suggest that Jesus was born on December 25 (or even in the winter). One of the main reasons that this has never been challenged by church leaders or theologians is that there is very little evidence to suggest what time of year Jesus was born at all, so no alternative date has ever been offered. Generally for most Christians the date makes little difference because there's no harm and no foul in the current tradition. Let me be clear: I'm not anti-Christmas or trying to argue against the holiday. I'm simply trying to cast some light onto how our traditions started and allow you, the reader, to come to some sound conclusions on what it means for you. The question that should come to mind, however, is this: if Christmas is in the top two most sacred holidays for Christians, why would the Gospel writers not give us a relative timetable for his birth? (All we're given is clues as to the year it happened.) The answer is in the history. The original Christians (including the Apostles and the Apostlic church fathers) didn't celebrate Christmas. There is no teaching in the New Testament or by the Apostlic church leaders of the first 300 years of Christianity suggesting they ever celebrated Christmas. In fact, the only truly Christian holiday they celebrated was the Resurrection (what we now call "Easter"). Most of the holidays the first Christians celebrated were the Jewish religious holidays like Passover. And that, of course, brings us to Easter.

Easter, as we've come to know it, was not celebrated by the first Christians either. The early church celebrated the Resurrection every single day. They held meetings every day (very different from our "church") to discuss the Resurrection and celebrate it, pray for one another, tend to each others' needs, and then they celebrated the Resurrection by partaking in communion every day. But even their communion was different from ours. It was not a saltless wafer and grape juice (real wine if you belong to a more liturgical congregation). The entire Christian population in a given city or town gathered together at a central meeting place (usually a large house - where all daily church meetings took place) and ate a large and hearty dinner there including whole loaves of bread and barrels of wine. It was, essentially, like a wedding banquet every day! But when it comes to setting apart one day in early-mid Spring for celebration of the Resurrection... that didn't begin until after 325 AD when the Roman govenment took over as the central power of the "church". It was then that Easter, like Christmas' from Sol Invictus, was taken from the old Roman pagan holiday dedicated to the fertility god. Easter bunnies, eggs, mandatory church attendence... all of this is a holdover from the ancient fertility god. When the Roman Catholic Church was founded by the Roman government in the early fifth century the new Roman "bishops" (which were simply Roman pagan nobles given new positions of great power) decided to merge the very popular pagan holiday with the Resurrection since they both signified "new life" and, thus, Easter was born. Even the mandatory church service was a holdover from the old fertility god. Romans, under the pagan system, were strongly encouraged to visit the temples of the fertility god in order for that god to continue to give to all of Rome's empire agricultural and reproductive fertility. Since, under Christianity, the old fertility god had been replaced by one God and a very powerful symbol of life and fertility in the Resurrected Christ, the old traditions simply made way for new names and new gods.

What's important to remember about this is that the Romans lived in absolute terror of angering the fertility gods. They believed that if they did not continually satisfy the fertility gods, then those gods would cause the land to stop producing food, the rivers and lakes to dry up, and the women to stop having children. Without water, food, and new Roman boys the empire could not maintain its staus and power in the world. When the people of the Roman empire came to believe that there were not many different gods but one all-powerful God, the fear and dread of that one God became even more intense and the already-existing pagan morality became even more strict. The empire could not afford to risk angering this new God: a god - according to the Jewish scriptures - that was able to cause droughts and floods, was able to open and close the wombs of women, and was able to turn farmable lands into fields of blood. This ancient pagan devotion infiltrated the Roman "Christian" church from the very beginning and has not left since.

It is this pagan sense of morality that I intend to dive deeper into. By now you may be asking yourself, "Why does he keep saying 'pagan' and 'morality' as if they're linked?" That would be a truly excellent question to ask. One of the points I intend to show is that morality is not a creation of New Testament Christianity but, rather, pre-Christian paganism. Furthermore, this morality hasn't fundamentally changed since the first pagan society was formed and the very same pagan morality that existed in ancient Sumeria still exists today: it exists in our modern world as the foundation of western civilization, even as the backbone of the American culture and the skeleton of our modern - yet incredibly pagan - "Christianity".

It may surprise many of you to find out that morality as we know and practice is not Biblical in origin (neither Old nor New Testament... more on this in a little bit). For as long as humans have been living together in towns and cities, and as long as governments have existed, and as long as the old pagan gods have been worshipped by tribes and nations - morality has existed. The very first comprehensive morality code was created by the Sumerian/Babylonian civilization under a ruler named Hammurabi (1795-1750 BC), at least 300-500 years before the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt and the creation of the Ten Commandments. Depending on the dates of Abraham's departure from Ur (which was under the rule of what became Hammurabi's kingdom), Abraham and Hammurabi could have been contemporaries and Abraham could have taken the existing Babylonian morality code with him as he travelled to Egypt and Palestine. It is also just as likely that the Israelite culture, in keeping with the tradition of Abraham, was influenced by the existing morality code of Hammurabi when they produced (at the instruction of God, according to the texts) the Ten Commandments.

Now whether the Jewish Law was borrowed from another culture or whether it was hand-written by God himself is not really the question. It is an interesting question to get into, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. What I'm trying to point out is that what we consider "Biblical morality" actually existed in a culture that was, in no way, devoted to the God of the Bible. Hammurabi's morality code (which rivals the detailed laws in Leviticus) was developed in service to Babylonian pagan gods. And it isn't just Babylon, either. Egypt, Assyria, Neo-Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome all shared the same morality code. Surprisingly enough, four of the ten commandments are found in every single morality code in history: do not steal, do not kill, do not lie, do not commit adultery and two others were present in all pagan cultures: do not covet your neighbors possessions, and honor your parents.

All of that simply goes to show that the only thing that was unique about the standard morality code of the ancient Jews is that it was done in devotion to one God instead of many gods. But, more importantly, the ancient Jews shared the same rules, laws, customs, and taboos as their pagan neighbors when it came to issues regarding the fertility gods. Some of the most oft-repeated miracles in the Old Testament revolve around Yahveh (God) performing miracles of fertility: making barren women have children, making the crops grow, making the rain fall on drought-ridden lands... producing prosperity and ensuring the survival of the Israelite people through history. These were the very same miracles that the pagans asked of their gods and the pagans had special altars, special sacrifices, and special rituals to help get the favor of the gods just as the Jews did with Yahveh.

So, you may be asking, am I saying that the Jews were really pagans or that the Old Testament of the Bible is a copycat of the pagans? No, I'm not saying that. It should be noted that while Abraham followed the instruction of Yahveh, he still came from a pagan culture and it is never said that he rejected that culture. While the decendents of Abraham dedicated themselves to the One God, they still kept their knowledge of other gods and it was not uncommon for men in pagan cultures to devote themselves to one god over another in the group: the god of war for soldiers and warriors, the god of agriculture for farmers, the god of the sea for sailors, and the fertility god for nearly every woman on Earth whose worth was tied to the production of children. Abraham simply chose a mysterious, powerful and unknown God to dedicate his family to and that family (which would become the Jews and Arabs in later generations) knew nothing of monotheism as a religious practice until the Exodus and Moses.

But what does this have to do with our modern "Christian" morality being pagan in origin? The religious priesthood and authorities of all pagan cultures before Christianity had the same kind or moral system that we do and it was, like many other things, totally preoccupied with the fertility gods and the cultural survival that those gods represented. The Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans all had cultural and moral taboos against homosexuality, for instance. These moral taboos weren't always enforced (as we all know in history) because of the impact of hedonism but we know, in history, that many of the Roman emperors (before Christ and Christianity) outlawed homosexuality and cracked down on notorious locations of gay orgies because they were concerned over the morality of the empire and the impact it may have on the blessing of the gods (most especially the fertility gods).

Adultery and prostitution was also outlawed heavily from time-to-time for fear of angering the gods as a culture, but not because it was a betrayal of the sacred marriage bonds as we percieve it in a modern post-Christian culture. In the ancient world (and even parts of the world today) marriage was not done for love between two people. Marriage was a contract between families to hand over the ownership of women to men so that the man could use the woman to produce children. Women, in marriage, were not objects of love and beauty but objects of breeding. I apologize for offending any sensibilities when I say this, but it is from this built-in tradition of breeding that men - even today - continue to obsess over the hips and busts of women! And in this light our cultural and moral opposition to adultery does not come from a betrayal of love but a violation of property. It would be as if one cab driver took another cab driver's car to use for his own pleasure. The owner of the cab probably has little sentimental attachment to the car when you compare it to depriving the owner of his ability to use that car to provide for his family.

So, I'm sure you're asking, what's the point of all of this? What am I trying to say? Let me break it down as much as I can and get straight to the point.

America has a very strong moral backbone. It is built into nearly every institution we have and it is entirely inseparable from the culture and the society at large. Since the creation of the Roman Catholic Church in 325 AD (and nearly every single denomination that has followed since the Reformation in the 1500's) Christianity has become synonymous with morality. Christianity has adopted many things over the last 1700 years which Jesus, the Disciples, and the Apostlic church leaders never intended it to pick up and a systematic "morality", that ultimately seeks to gain the favor of God (or, more accurately, the gods), was one of those things. We've made hot-button issues out of adultery, abortion, and homosexuality because they offend our cultural morality and then call it Christian. But that morality was created, originally, by pagan societies, adapted for a single God by the Jews (with the best of intentions, I'm certain), abandoned by the New Testament and adopted again by pagans in Christian clothing after the early church fathers and the Twelve Apostles were long dead. The ethic of the New Testament is not one of morality but one of the Divine Character: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control (Galatians 5:22). Christians in the New Testament are instructed on how to live as Christ did, conforming themselves to His example - going to the "moral outcasts" and bringing them into a redemption that morality and "the law" could never give.

It is the time for all New Testament disciples of Jesus to see the moral code we've adopted for what it is: a pagan manifestation intended to curry favor with the gods. We can see it when Jerry Fallwell blamed 9/11 on abortion. We can see it when Pat Robertson says that Katrina happened because of homosexuality. We can see it when James Dobson warns against calamity and disaster because of adultery and the failure of the family unit. These men do not represent the Jesus of the New Testament but the old gods of paganism when they claim such things. We put ourselves under the yoke of the old gods when we live in fear of violating morality for even more fear of disaster being brought to our doorstep. God is not a vindictive old man with a thunderbolt waiting to crush you under his feet if you fail to please him. That's not what Jesus tells us about God... and if Jesus is who he said he is, he ought to know!

The mission of the New Testament church is not to fight the "moral decline" of America or western civilization. Leave that to the pagans in Christian clothing. The mission of the New Testament church is to love and support the moral outcast without any agenda or ulterior motive. It is to let their love, not their tired sermonizing, do the preaching to the "lost" and broken. Is abortion heartbreaking? Yes. But the answer isn't morality - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Is adultery heartbreaking and harmful to families? Yes. But the answer isn't morality - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Does homosexuality miss the ideal of human monogamy and family creation? Possibly - but I'm not one to say and never will be. But I do know this: morality isn't the answer - the answer is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.

"I seriously command that you may not exploit your neighbor or oppress him... You may not curse the deaf or trip the blind... You may not slander or spread rumors and gossip about your neighbor and do not treat the lives of your neighbors as worthless... You may not secretly hate your neighbor... You may not seek revenge or keep a grudge against any of your people. You will love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." - Leviticus 19:13-18

"If all you do is love those that are like you, what good is that? Even the pagans do that much. No, I am telling you this... live generously and graciously towards others in the same way that God is generous and gracious towards you." - Jesus, Matthew 5:47-48

The Question: I realize that this post, somewhat differently from other posts, works from an assumption of Christian spirituality as opposed to a more universal and generic framework that I usually work from. This was done in order to respond to a specific problem I perceive within the framework of Christianity in order to start a dialogue between Christians and non-Christians about the foreign and dangerous nature of the infiltration of pagan morality. There is no question this time... I'm just asking that we begin the dialogue.

Leave the light on.

if it ain't broke...

The Preamble: I was sitting down with a friend a couple of days ago discussing what I'd written over the theory of "rights" and I was walking through my points with him when he stopped me to ask: "Ok, so if you're saying that rights don't really exist and saying that we should stop using that system, then what are you offering in return? What other system are you saying we should be using instead?" If ever there was the "right question" to ask - that was it.

In trying to give him an acceptable answer I began to remember something I heard Dallas Willard say when I saw him speaking at a conference in Kansas City. He talked about how, in his driving all around L.A., he sees these bumper stickers that say: "Stand up for your rights!" I have no doubt that we've all seen them. Anyone born in the U.S. since the 1960's and/or has listened to Bob Marley should be familiar with that mantra. What struck Dr. Willard was that he has never recalled (and neither have I for that matter) seeing a bumper sticker that said: "Stand up for your responsibilities!" But it is the fulfillment of our responsibilities, not the protection of our rights, that holds the key of true freedom (not just "liberty") for all of mankind. Allow me to make my case.

The Case: Responsibility is a loaded concept these days. In our modern rights-driven culture "responsible" is a problematic idea - something that we shy away from throwing around at each other. To accuse someone of being irresponsible - indeed to be accused of being irresponsible - is to immediately invite conflict. In our modern and, literally, self-centered worldview the attempt to limit our own personal liability and responsibility is priority number one for many people. We see it everywhere and in nearly every aspect of our lives.

We see it in our obligation to pay taxes. We want the government to decrease our tax responsibility in order to keep more of our money. But, for many of us, we also would like to know that the government has less of our money to "waste" on entitlement projects. This, of course, reminds us of the infamous quote by the Biblical Cain: "Am I my brother's keeper?"* In other words: "I'm not responsible for anyone other than me. Don't bother me with anything that isn't in my own immediate self-interest."

We see this attitude reflected in our legal system. We speed, drink and drive, defraud our brother, commit murder... "Not guilty, your honor." In other words: "I know I did what I'm being accused of, but I should not and do not want to be held responsible by the state or society." We see it when someone sues McDonald's for spilling hot coffee on themselves. We see it whenever someone asserts their rights to free speech or free religion or free whatever. Our legal culture and society screams out: "You can't make me responsible!"

We see it in our children and when we make utterly incomprehensible excuses for their simply inexcusable behavior. We see it in ourselves whenever we offend a neighbor and immediately assert that it is they that shouldn't be offended by us instead of taking responsibility and asking for forgiveness. We see it when someone is shocked that you would admit to hitting their parked car instead of simply driving off. We see it when we come walking out of the mall and find our parked car damaged. We see it everywhere we look. "You can't put the burden on me!"

But I ask you: if the burden is not on "me" and everyone is a "me", then where shall the burden lay? Where does the responsibility lay if not on "me"? How selfish and conceited have we all become that we all stand around pointing the finger outward chanting with our actions: "I'm not my brother's keeper"? The old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Let me assure you all - this system of individual rights and limited responsibility is broken. It is so broken and so hopelessly worn out that the suggestion that we can make it work "perfectly" is laughable. So laughable that the mantra of "I'm not by brother's keeper" is accompanied directly by "Well, it's not a perfect world." As if, by rattling off that old axiom, the world's problems are somehow removed from our hands and we're clean of the consequences. If I haven't made my point yet, please allow me to make it:

You cannot fix the problems of this world until you accept your responsibility for contributing to them. And you cannot accept your responsibility for the problems of this world until you quit carrying around your "rights".

Rights and responsibilities, regardless of what you were taught in grade school (or Sunday school), do not mix. One focuses all of the productive powers inward on the self and the other focuses those powers outward on others. Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change themselves. And lest you be tempted to argue that you can - or should - balance the two, remember this other axiom: "A man cannot be loyal to two opposing 'masters'. At some point he will begin to resent one and worship the other."** In our case the choice is far too clear to ignore. You cannot retain the ultimate loyalty to yourself while also putting forth an ultimate loyalty to something that will cost your "self". You cannot be selfish while also being selfless.

The reason that this kind of responsibility sounds so crazy and implausible is not because it is impossible. It sounds crazy because no one is willing to be the first one to do it. We're like a group of school kids in the first day of class unwilling to engage the teacher or each other for fear of being wrong or looking stupid. We're too in love with ourselves and our own self-image to do the right thing.

We're too in love with our luxury and comfort or, for many of us that are barely making ends meet, whatever luxury or comfort we've got. For me it's a $10 used Xbox 360 game. For you it could be new "7" jeans or a Lexus. More square footage in your living space or a pool in the backyard. It could be the moonroof or the leather. It could be the pack of cigarettes or the bottle of Jack. It could be the new CD or iPhone. It could be a Venti Skinny Cinnamon Dolce Latte from your local Starbuck's instead of a Tall. It could be a "nice" dinner at Fogo De Chao instead of Chili's. Your "rights" tells you to increase your standard of living whereas "responsibility" demands you increase your standard of giving. (Thanks Trey! You're the shiznit.)

And it's not just money, either, though money is the easiest thing to point out. It's the way we spend our time (because time is the only true commodity any of us has). It's the way we resolve (or don't resolve) conflicts and disputes... it's the reason we even have conflicts and disputes!*** It's the way we get irritated at the person on the other side of the drive-thru speaker for not having an "American" accent or good English diction. It's the way we tip our servers (and not just restaurants, either) based on "how well they do" instead of dropping a generous tip at the very beginning and leaving it there regardless of your experience... and doing it every single place you go.**** It's the way we get road rage and employ our horns and fingers in the car. Its the way we get offended for any reason at any time.

Let me be clear to you about one thing. If you get nothing else from me please get this: a person who does not claim to have rights can never have those rights violated. If we don't assert our "right" to dignity, no one can succeed in in-dignifying us. If we don't assert our right to property, no one can succeed in stealing from us. If we don't assert our right to liberty, no government can succeed in oppressing us. If we don't assert our right to our very lives, no one can succeed in taking them. If we don't claim ownership to any right, we can live in absolute fearlessness from losing them. This is true freedom. Freedom from attachment and fear of loss.

Oh, but I hear you protest: "That's not true, Jeremy! If we don't protect our rights we can guarantee we will be violated! And not just us, but our loved ones as well. Our spouses and children and families." Under the current system and worldview, yes - you're right. If what you're interested in making a priority in life is the continued exaltation of your own self-interests (and the self-interests of those around you), then exchanging your "rights" for selflessness and responsibility is the last thing you should do. Responsibilities are a "self-killer". They will put your self-interests in the ground every time because they will always insist on making the needs and interests of others a priority.+ You will, quite literally, lose yourself to the world.++ This is, perhaps, the most difficult question and uncomfortable answer of all. This is, perhaps, the most terrifying decision you will ever have to make. The decision to choose between your rights and your responsibilities will change the course of events in your life from the moment you make it until the day you breathe your last breath. The gravity and weight of it is totally inescapable... it is capable of crushing the strongest ambition, the strongest pride, and the best-laid plans. And if that wasn't gloomy and morose enough (or make me sound more like an angst-ridden teenage "emo" spouting out lyrics from The Cure and Radiohead) for you, then let me also point out that you've been making this decision since the moment your were able to make decisions and are in the process of making it even now. Take a moment, right now, while you're reading this to stop and digest that. Let it sink in for a moment and allow yourself to meditate on that one, single, inescapable reality.


-------------------

Ok. So you ask (and I've already gotten this question), what does the kind of responsibility that you're talking about look like? I will tell you this: you have probably never witnessed it with your own two eyes. This responsibility looks like every high virtue we've ever conceived of in our myths. It is the fundamental "morality" of our religions. It is witnessed in the greatness of our heroes throughout history. It looks like Samwise Gamgee carrying Frodo up the slopes of Mout Doom. It looks like Obi-Wan Kenobi sacrificing himself for his friends on the Death Star. It looks like Sydney Carton going to the guillotine instead of Charles Darnay. It looks like Mohatma Ghandi, living in poverty and starving himself in order to bring peace and justice to India. It looks like Mother Theresa, spending a lifetime in the foulest of gutters just to tend to the needs of the most conveniently and intentionally forgotten amongst us. It looks like Dr. King, a beautifully imperfect man, suffering injustice and indignity - without retaliation or malice - in order to expose the brutality of segregation and racism. And, yes, it looks like Jesus.

Jesus, that patient and radical rabbi, teaching, healing, feeding, challenging the social norms and the selfish bigotry of our world. It looks like Jesus allowing himself to be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed. He claimed no right. He defied no authority. He railed against no injustice. He suffered, prayed, and died... and did it victoriously. They did not take his dignity - he offered no claim to any. They did not take his freedom - he went willingly. They did not steal justice from him - he claimed a higher justice as his own. They did not take his life - he gave it freely. And just in case you want to feel bad for Jesus or think he got screwed: don't. The way the gospel narrative tells it, he planned the whole thing. And, as Dr. Willard reminds Christians (and, by extension, everyone else): "Jesus didn't die on a cross so that you wouldn't have to. He died on the cross to show you how to do it."

The Question: Only one question worth asking to this. Which will you choose? Your right or your responsibility?

Leave the light on.

* - Genesis 4.9
** - Matthew 6.24
*** - James 4.1-10
**** - Matthew 20.15, Luke 12.33
+ - Philippians 2.3
++ - Luke 17:33

da, comrade jesus?

Let me be immediately clear on two points:

1. Jesus wasn't a "communist" in the way that we think of communism.
2. "Communism" in the way that we think of communism, isn't communism.

Some readers took immediate exception to this comment on my last post: "... the very first manifestation of the Christian church - located in Jerusalem (not Rome) - was akin to a communist society - devoid of private possession (Acts 2:43-47, Acts 3:6)..." and, while I don't really intend to back off of that statement, I would like to clarify what I mean by that. I will retrace the case for this argument in three points.

The Soviet Union, "Red" China, Vietnam, North Korea... these countries are not communist. I know that's what we've been calling them for nearly a century, but that's not what they are. These countries were/are single-party dictatorships. They are more akin to fascist states than the true definition of communist states and share more in common with Nazi Germany, Baathist Iraq, Fascist Italy, Revolutionary/Napoleonic France or even the current regime in Iran than a true communist state. All of these states and regimes were controlled by one dominant and unchallenged party and ruled by a premier that reigned with near-impunity. This is not communism in the text-book sense. In a theoretical sense, democracy is only the precursor to a more "perfectly equal" system of government: and that system is, theoretically, communism. Make of that what you will - but, rest assured, the "communist" bogeymen of yesterday and today are simply dictatorships.

Communism, in a true form, cannot ever be a government system because it requires the constant, wholehearted, and unanimous consent of its people. This, of course, will never happen. So why would I say that the first manifestation of the Christian church was "akin to a communist society"? Well - let's take a look at the cited texts:

"[The church in Jerusalem] committed themselves to the teaching of the apostles, the life together, the common meal, and the prayers. Everyone around was in awe--all those wonders and signs done through the apostles! And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person's need was met. They followed a daily discipline of worship in the Temple followed by meals at home, every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, as they praised God. People in general liked what they saw. Every day their number grew as God added those who were saved." - Acts 2:42-47 (MSG)

"When [the crippled beggar] saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms. But Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze on him and said, 'Look at us!' And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. But Peter said, 'I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene--walk!' And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened. With a leap he stood upright and began to walk..." - Acts 3:3-8 (NASB)

These passages of ecclesiastical history show us two very pointed facts about the first church. First, the disciples of Jesus (which numbered in the thousands at this time) turned their back on their possessions, wealth accumulation, and private ownership in order to voluntarily pool all of their combined resources. Some members had very little wealth to donate and some had a lot, but what's noteworthy is that all of the members' financial and provisionary needs were met. The second fact is that Peter and John, the two most powerful men in the Jesus movement, claimed to be broke when dealing with the crippled beggar. This instance, while seeming like any one of our own false claims when we're being accosted by the homeless man at the intersection, is consistent with other passages in the chronicle and also with claims by the Apostle Paul (the other most powerful man in the Jesus movement) when he claimed to be sustained solely by the generosity of the churches he visited.

These men are a far cry from the multi-million-dollar net worths of America's most prominent preachers, though there was every reason to believe that the Apostles could have very easily gotten away with getting rich off of the generosity of so many new converts (ranging in the hundreds of thousands and, eventually, the millions). One need only look so far as the Roman papacy to prove that point.

In short: if you find the concept of the Christian church being similar, in every tangible respect, to a communist society - it seems that your ideological framework is clashing with a very objective reality.

Leave the light on.

challenging an axiom - the theory of rights

The Preamble: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

It is upon this foundation - the theory of human rights - that the entire western civilization has established itself. There cannot be any value more central to a member of the West than this - above all in America. The concept of human rights is the most solid example of an axiom given the place of factual truth - a place it may actually occupy falsely. Together we will break down the concept of rights and see that it is derived from an ideology that is built around a belief that is, in turn, based on completely unsubstantiated ideas. Together we will take our first steps to seeing a world of truth and freedom that doesn't rely on rights - or acknowledge their existence.

The Case: This examination can get very heavy very quickly so let's take it step-by-step and start at the top. One of the most interesting thoughts expressed by Jefferson in his Declaration is the assertion that human rights are "self-evident". The reason this is interesting is because Jefferson is stating a belief of his as though it were completely and empirically factual. But nothing could have been further from the truth in his time - and this is still the case today. At the time of Jefferson the concept of rights under an arbitrary law derived from the citizenry was not only not self-evident, it was totally contrary to any system of government that had existed in the previous four thousand years. From ancient Sumeria to Georgian-era England the concept of human rights scarcely existed at all and, even then, it was in the minds of radicals that were not taken seriously by the majority of western society. There was nothing "self-evident" about rights and the great trick of Jefferson is to assert his position so boldly, so eloquently, and so passionately that it became the "truth". But the truth of rights and equality derives its authority not from objective reality but from the beliefs of the masses. The truth of this assessment is pointed to not only by history but by current events worldwide: there are hundreds, if not thousands, of societies and cultures around the world that do not recognize Jefferson's rights and they continue to retain what most would consider a peaceful or just society.

What the Declaration won't tell you is that Jefferson's notions of rights are heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke - most specifically Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1698) - and Thomas Paine's Common Sense (1776). Locke, a career political thinker and radical, makes it clear from the outset of his argument that the concept of private property and ownership is essential to the theory of human rights. (Section 35) In fact, one of his core human rights, is the right to property (replaced, by Jefferson, with "the pursuit of happiness"). Locke's argument also asserts that a man's life and liberty are simply manifestations of human ownership and that such ownership cannot (life, liberty, and property) be infringed upon by any other or by the state (government). There is one very deep-seated and fundamental problem with Locke's argument: if the idea of property and ownership were somehow changed or was understood differently, the entire "house of cards" that is human rights collapses on its own face. Herein lies the problem: there are ever increasing philosophical questions over, and realistic challenges to, the concept of ownership, property and - by extention - rights.

In short: our entire civilzation could be based on a complete fabrication.

This is a huge jump, a jarring conclusion. The possible denial of the validity of human rights is so uncomfortable, so potentially offensive, that it will strain any remaining credibility I have left among you. I simply ask you to hear me out and keep an open mind. I do not ask this question lightly and do not come to any conclusions with a cavalier attitude.

Locke, and Jefferson after him, argues that rights must be recognized and legalized in order to protect the holders from violation. While there are many rights there is a central core among them: "life, liberty, and property". What I find interesting - what stands out so incredibly - is that Locke's predication of rights is his own weakest link. What I mean by that is this: he claims that rights have to be protected and recognized in order to be secure, but I look at this and see the complete opposite: because they must be recognized, legalized, and protected - it is obvious that they do not actually exist! Whew, ok. Let's take a break from this for a second and skip over to an analogy.

Let's say I'm walking along in a field and I find an apple tree. By my own efforts (labor) I pick an apple from the tree. According to Locke, this makes me the owner of the apple. I own the apple simply because I exerted the labor to take it for myself. But this begs the question: how can something go from being in the domain of public (on the tree) to private (in my hand) simply because I decided to take it? Is that even ethical? Is it moral? Is it practical? Back to the analogy: along comes another man and he decides he wants the apple in my hand. He decides to make an effort (labor) to take the apple from my hand. But here's where the definition of ownership breaks down: Locke doesn't call that a transfer of ownership in the academic sense, he calls it robbery in the legal sense! But that begs the question: what's the difference between me laboring to take the apple from the tree and a man's labor to take the apple from me? If I work harder to take the apple from the tree than the tree works to keep it, and the man works harder at taking the apple from me than I do at keeping it... then how does that jibe? But it doesn't end there. Locke says that a man's willingness to "rob" me of my apple (property) constitutes a willingness by this man to steal everything else (my liberty and my life) and I am - according to Locke - authorized to kill that man. Yes - that's actually what he says. Your thirteen year old can kill the bully trying to take his lunch money... no problem, it's a "protected right". I hope that the ridiculous nature of this argument is becoming increasingly obvious to all of you.

But this is where I differ from Locke - right at the beginning. It has become evident to me that the very fact that a piece of private property can be "stolen" from me proves that such an object was never actually in my possession to begin with. In short: if it can be taken from you, you don't actually own it. Ownership must rely on intrinsic security to be real, otherwise it is contrived and false. I'm certain that there are those of you that would see this statement and say: "Well that's just irresponsible and naive." If you belive that, you're certainly entitled to your belief, but the facts and the reality of the world should easily bear out the truth. What's more: if the concept of ownership is not based on reality and fact, it will eventually fail (both individually and corporately) in the same way that ideology will eventually fail.

The final point of contention I will make is theological in nature. Jefferson declares that these "inalienable rights" are endowed by God to a people He has created in a state of equality. This, again, he absorbed from Lockean philosophy. Contrary to public opinion, Jefferson was no Christian. Oh yes - he had a copy of the Bible. Oh yes - he read from it daily. Oh yes - he dropped God's name into as much documentation as he could. But what they fail to tell most people is that Jefferson does not ever refer to God in the traditional sense. He does not refer to Him by the obvious and most oft-used title of "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" or the "God of the Bible". No, he constantly refers to God as "the God of Nature" or "Nature's God" very carefully leaving any Christian dogma or kerygma out of his authoritative writings. Even more disturbing to the Christian is that Jefferson had his copy of the Bible, literally, re-written to cut out any mention of miracles, supernatural occurrences, or - most especially - the divinity of Christ. He regarded (as Benjamin Franklin did) Christ not as the Son of God but as a moral teacher on the same level with the pagan Greek philosopher Socrates. The miracles of Jesus were considered a series of superstitions and legends. The resurrection was a physical impossibility. The narrative of Jesus Christ ended at the crucifixion in the Bible of Thomas Jefferson. And, as the Apostle Paul reminds us, "if Christ has not been raised then our preaching [of Christianity] has been in vain, your faith also has been in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:14.

How is any of this relevant? It only goes to this point: Christians (specifically Western Christians and American Christians in particular) have become much more loyal to the teachings of Thomas Jefferson and John Locke than the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. While modern evangelicals have become some of the strongest proponents of the theory of rights in our culture, there is a stark contrast between New Testament and Apostlic Christianity and Lockean political philosophy. Unlike Locke and Jefferson, Jesus discouraged his followers to retain private property (Matthew 19:21, Luke 12:33, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 10:8, Matthew 14:16, Matthew 16:26, Mark 10:21, Luke 6:30, Luke 6:38, Luke 9:3, Luke 12:33, Luke 14:33) , the very first manifestation of the Christian church - located in Jerusalem (not Rome) - was akin to a communist society - devoid of private possession (Acts 2:43-47, Acts 3:6), and pre-Nicene or pre-Constantanian Christian teaching frowned heavily upon the notion of luxury and "comfort" (1 John 2:16, Acts 20:35, Romans 12:20, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:16). [DISCLAIMER: To double-check my exegesis, feel free to visit any online Biblical resource and read these passages for yourself. I, personally, use Studylight.org's application because it has all available translations of the Bible in one location.]

The New Testament does not give a single endorsement of human rights. It also implies a strict taboo on collaboration with state (government) entities or any institution or societal structure built on top of the concept of private, propertied, or privileged. The post-New Testament church (in the Apostlic tradition) also retained a stigma of unholiness for any system that incorporated the elevation of self-interests (which would include rights and ownership), especially with two influential second century Christian bishops: Polycarp and Hyppolitus.

In short: New Testament Christianity runs diametrically opposed to the theory of human rights, private property, and ownership. This oppositition can also be extrapolated onto a foundational incompatibility between Christianity and the economic system of capitalism (and its political benefactor of democracy).

The Question: There are many questions that one should ask in regards to the subject covered by this post: from the reasonably superficial to the potentially worldview-altering. Does Locke's definition of ownership submit to logic and reason? At what point (if at all) does it start to break down? Does ownership imply or create "rights"? Do rights actually exist in nature or reality? If rights don't exist what remains to hold up the structure of society? Does the society "deserve" to continue existing in its current form if rights are not empirically or factually derived? Does New Testament Christianity really run contrary to the foundation of Western civilization? Does the disparity between Jesus' teachings and Locke's philosophy (assuming disparity does, in fact, exist) give more credibility to either side? If a disparity does, in fact, exist which teaching would you choose to live by? So many questions to ask.

Keep the emails, questions, comments, and criticisms coming. Now, more than ever, we need dialogue. Education - not indoctrination.

Leave the light on.

an honest addendum

First, I would like to thank all of you that have sent me emails and called me up in regards to the previous post (honesty - the best policy). It's been such a great experience to share with all of you and to get such great positive and constructive feedback. A lot of the questions I got were based on the structure of truth as I was trying to explain it. It became very apparent to me that I had explained this part poorly and need to clarify. While I was meditating on the subject my thoughts drifted to the scientific method and I immediately began to see the connection between the scientific process and the structure of truth that we're all looking for together.

The scientific method, for those of you who aren't very familiar with it, outlines the process by which scientists substantiate their hypotheses and create scientific laws. As the method goes, a scientists starts with a hypothesis: this hypothesis is simply an unsubstantiated idea or question. From there a scientist will take that hypothesis and use the tools of observation and experimentation to flesh out the hypothesis. If the experiment fails or the observations don't pan out then the hypothesis is either tossed out or adjusted so that the new information and facts drive the process - not the beliefs.

Once the hypothesis has been proven to a reasonable degree (i.e. in every way that it can be proven with the tools and information available to humans), then it becomes a scientific theory. A theory in science, unlike a "theory" as the word is used by a layperson, is not just an idea... it's a proven idea. It's proven to be true as far as we can tell. For instance, creationists (wanting to remain firmly in their strict and literal interpretation of Genesis' creation narrative) will attack the concept of evolutionary theory being taught in high school biology because "it's only a theory - it's not a fact." But that's a general misconception of what a theory is: a theory is a fact in every way that we can measure, but (as in the case of evolution) we can't prove as fact all of the necessary details to make it into a scientific law. But the title of "theory" means that it is as factual as we can tell and is potentially a law.

A scientific law is the equivalent of "factual truth". It is proven to be true in all circumstances and for all people all of the time. "The Sun is the center of the solar system", "humans carry two pairs of 23 chromosomes in their genetic structure", "the earth is round", "what goes up must come down". These laws were born from a hypothesis that became a theory through experimentation and observation and were declared laws when all points could be independently substantiated.

To search out truth - real, factual, empirical, objective, and universal reality - the same method is at work. The only difference is the terminology. Instead of "hypothesis" we use "belief", instead of "theory" we use "axiom" or "philosophical truth", and instead of "law" we use "factual truth".

In this sense a belief can be false. It's just an idea. It's not really proven at any real level. It is here that all ideology is born. This is why ideology is incredibly dangerous - they are all based on completely unsubstantiated ideas. If they were proven they wouldn't be ideologies or beliefs - they'd be taken for granted as truth. That doesn't mean that the core belief of an ideology is definitely false - it means it is unproven and could be false. An ideology could be having the believer base his or her entire view of reality on something that could be false.

The axioms we have in life are also equally unworthy of being called truth. "The sun will rise tomorrow", "the world will keep on spinning", "mankind is inherently evil", etc. These are a step up from an unsubstantiated belief. We've got some observation and experimentation involved in these. The Sun has never failed to rise. The world has never ceased to spin. And man's cruelty and malevolence toward one another and toward the world we live on has no shortage of examples to draw upon. But it isn't proven in a quantitative or qualitative sense. Only that which can be proven, over and over and over, should be given the coveted and elite title of "truth".

This is an uncomfortable reality for the ideologue or ideologist because it undermines their authority to speak on behalf of the ideology. It, potentially, undermines their individual or collective credibility. Typically there is only one form of combat an ideologue has against this argument: discredit and accuse. At this point the ideologue becomes dangerous to the truth because they will, on occasion, behave like demagogues - arousing the passions and prejudices of the people and flatly refusing the overwhelmingly objective reality. If anyone is curious about the factuality of my argument I simply encourage you to pick up a history book and start at the beginning.

Please - as always - continue to feel free to email me, leave comments, or give me a call. I cherish your thoughts and criticisms.

honesty - the best policy

The Preamble: I've gotten some good questions recently on the ideas I've posted so far (which, granted, isn't really much) and they've led to some really good conversations. I love conversation. Anyone that knows me knows that much. I don't like "small talk" or "chit-chat". It drives me crazy - too superficial, no depth, no meaning... whatever the reason I've just never liked it. But conversation is kind of like a unique learning style for me. Some people are auditory, some visual - I'm a very conversational learner. I guess that's why I like asking questions and making potentially provocative statements: they're bound to start a conversation - a chance for me to learn something. Today I got to talk to someone about the difference between "truth" (as I've defined it out to the right of the posts) and "reliability". As always, some people will accuse me of splitting linguistic hairs or of being too pedantic or technical when I say that there's a real difference between truth and reliability. But allow me to make my case and elaborate on why I think it's important.

The Case: Let me first say that there are two different kinds of "truth" that people will identify with. There's a factual truth (which, to me, is the only real kind of truth) and then there's a "philosophical truth". Factual truth deals in the realm of what is knowable. Tonight it is partly cloudy outside and 76 degrees... it rained earlier and the power went out twice. This is factually true if you live on the east side of Allen, Texas. Philosophical truth - which isn't technically a question of truth at all - is the realm of belief and opinion. "Humans are inherently evil" or "love conquers all" or "blondes have more fun", etc. These are statements that cannot be empirically proven or factually substantiated (yet or, perhaps, ever). They are opinions, beliefs, and values. They are axioms and maxims - not facts.

Let's put the more axiomatic philosophical truth aside for a moment and talk about the difference between factual truth and general reliability for a moment. A friend of mine asked me to unpack the differences that I saw between truth and reliability so I went to a place that was very familiar to the both of us: Biblical Christianity. (Uh oh.) You may think that what I'm about to delve into will look like I'm "picking on" Christianity and you may end up having very strong feelings about what I'm about to say. All I'll ask is that you simply hear me out.

Despite the rhetorical platitude you'll hear from evangelicals calling it a "relationship", Christianity is a religion. It is a religion and has been since (roughly) the late-third-to-early-fourth century. Just like every other religion in existence today (though I will readily admit its complete uniqueness in history), Christianity is an ideological framework based around "the sacred": in its case "the sacred" is Jesus Christ. As an ideology Christianity has been, at many times, at complete odds with the objective and factual reality that we call "the truth." In a vain attempt to deny the claim I'm making about Christianity, many modern (mostly protestant evangelical) believers will try to divorce the vast history of the Christian "church" from its more modern manifestations. As an ideological framework Christianity has historically been on the wrong side of truth by tying itself to empirically improvable or empirically false beliefs and insisting on their truthfulness. Ok - that's a big, bold, and mean claim to make. A big accusation to level. So what could I be talking about?

Let's go back to my particular problem: the elevation of something that isn't empirical, factual, and objective to the elite status of true. Christians use Jesus as the reference point of truth. Jesus, according to Christians and the synoptic gospel narratives, is "the Truth." The word used for this in the gospels is "aletheia" and there is both an objective way to translate that word and a subjective translation. In an empirical sense, there is no way anyone can substantiate the claim that Jesus is the central reference point for all truth. There's no way to validate the truth of Jesus' "truthiness" (to borrow from Stephen Colbert). Until the day that we can prove - one way of the other - the factuality of this statement by Jesus, it remains firmly in the realm of philosophical truth: the realms of opinion and belief. This is the starting point for every skeptic in the world: every non-believer, every skeptic, every critic, and every cynic. What makes this unnerving to a Christian is that the notion of Jesus' factual truth-ness is unquestionable. The Christian won't even entertain the question - as my friend could not during this conversation. But in order to be intellectually honest, in order to remain objective, in order to give loyalty to the truth above all else, we must come to this conclusion - it's the only one that reality has left available to us. What should console the Christian is this quote from Dallas Willard: "Jesus is on the side of truth and if you don't believe that, you don't believe in Jesus." If Jesus is "the Truth", then our loyalty to finding the truth will ultimately lead to him. If not, then the Christian is wasting his time. Either way - there is nothing lost by evaluating the truth outside of an ideological scope while using uncomfortable questions.

The Christian, in this case, may not be interested in "the truth" or interested in intellectual honesty, or objectivity. It's understandable. The ideological framework of Christianity cannot allow a core supposition to be challenged. But let's get it out there: if we can't substantiate the truth-ness of Jesus or prove his divinity empirically, then what are we left with? That's where the vocabulary of "general reliability" comes in. We may not have empirical proof for a philosophical truth, but what information we do have - while not devoid of internal and factual "question marks" - can easily be called "generally reliable". In other words: what we do know about Jesus, on question of factuality, is reliable information. Much of it has been substantiated by archaeology, anthropology, historical studies, etc. The synoptic Jesus traditions and gospel narratives are historically reliable. Not "inerrant" as many Christians would try to elevate it, but reliable. We may not be able to prove Jesus rose from the dead or performed miracles or was born in Bethlehem to a girl named Mary... but we've got plenty of reasons to believe that this information is reliable and that's good enough to put some trust in. It's good enough to believe until or unless the information is proven one way or the other. We may never know if the Bible on the whole or the gospels is true in a factual or empirical sense - proven beyond reasonable doubt - but it can be said in the very least that it is "reliable" and potentially true.

Ok - so why would I even make this point? Why would I walk into such an unpopular and controversial minefield? And why would you, the reader, be at all interested in following along? Let me say this: I'm not naive. The statements I've made and the questions I've asked are, to many, inflammatory or even blasphemous. More to the point: what I've said is either going to turn most people off from listening to anything else I've got to say, or piss other people off. But this point has to be made.

When someone makes a claim of truth that cannot be substantiated or proven, it damages the credibility of the person(s) making the claim. One of the biggest reasons Christianity - as a religion - has slowly slipped further and further into complete irrelevance to this world is because its credibility is almost completely shot. From the absolutely corrupt institutions of the Catholic papacy in history, to the political catastrophe of the Crusades, to the shameful Copernicus/Gallileo (Sun-revolves-around-the-Earth) fiasco, to the Inquisition, to Protestant persecutions, to the Conquistadors, to the Augustinian/Calvanistic tradition of hybridizing church-state powers, to the modern embarrassment of literal creationism and the divorce of discipleship from "churchgoing" - Christianity has lost its credibility and claim of relevance because it advanced an ideology and elevated opinions and beliefs to the elite status of truth. And instead of being honest with themselves and others, Christians (like everyone else in the world) has placed a higher importance on being "right" instead of being "truthful"... on being believed instead of being honest.

The only way for anyone, in any walk of life, to regain any degree of credibility with the world-at-large is to return to a stalwart loyalty to the truth, calling things what they are, being intellectually honest about reality, and keeping an open dialogue with people who have different opinions and beliefs. And you can't regain credibility inside the framework of an ideology.

The Question: I hope that this post was very provocative. I don't have a specific set of questions to ask, but feel free to elaborate on whatever thoughts (if any) were spurred by the topic. Feel free to disagree or express whatever opinions you may have on it. Comments are not "moderated" or edited - I only ask that you be respectful to other commentors.