A willingness to take risks can be liberating. It is human nature to want to be safe, to be taken care of and remain a child, but we were never meant to remain children as it is written, “ For this purpose, a man shall leave [wholly give up] his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh.” Obviously, there are risks involved. As everyone now knows, half of all marriages end in divorce. But is that really an argument against marriage, that marriage is risky? Upon that single piece of evidence many have decided to forego marriage. Admittedly, it is a rational decision, but it only serves to once again prove that rationality, all by itself, is as likely to produce bad results as good ones. The question remains whether living “safe” is really living? Is a ship in the harbor really fulfilling its purpose? What is more mortifying than to feel you’ve missed the plum for want of courage to shake the tree?[1]

Numbers, like divorce statistics, can be especially deceptive when applied to complex questions. Whether to marry or not cannot be simply determined by the percentage of divorces – the actuarial method of she-love-me, she-loves-me-not.  It is interesting, maybe even revealing, that the same persons who dismiss divorce as too risky 0ften have no objections to ignoring the data that is opposed to relations with those who are not a spouse. For example, condoms have an 11% failure rate and offer no protection against some common STDs. When the condom advocates are probed as to whether they would have “protected” sex with someone infected with AIDS… they resort to personal attacks rather than answer the question. Obviously, numbers are not the reason or basis for their advocacy.

Consider the all-important question of Christian faith. Some have rejected Christianity because they cannot make a commitment that is 100%. Ahhhh more numbers! In truth, no one ever has, or ever will, enjoy 100% certainty (about anything) with the exception of Jesus.[2] So what percentage of an individual’s will is sufficient to define him or her to be a Christian? Thankfully, the Bible doesn’t use numbers. The faith that a Christian possesses is “a gift”[3] However, for those who need to put a figure on the unquantifiable, let us assume that you are 50% sure that the Gospel of Jesus is true but have serious doubt about 25%? (Why is there evil in the world?) Are those doubts REALLY sufficient to label yourself an atheist or agnostic?. Aren’t you actually a “Christian with doubts”?  So why is it grounds to reject Christianity over concerns that will never be knowable, at least not in this lifetime? There is no reason at all. The Old Testament prophets often ask why God does not do something about the suffering of His people and they were PROPHETS. The name Israel means, “Struggle with God”

Assigning numbers where they do not belong or inflating their significance is in fact, a fraud… but it sounds so scientific and so rational. It is a weenie way of going through life. Not knowing answers to big questions is what science is all about but scientists seem to be OK with it. Atheists cannot explain how something came from nothing (Big Bang) or how life came from lifelessness or how mankind became self aware – not a big deal for them.

So when are we really ever operating at 100%? What about your spouse? Do you love him or her 100%, 100% of the time, or are you very much “in love” with occasional doubts? Not 100%? Just to be consistent, you ought to let them know that you are agnostic on the veracity of your relationship. Let me know how that works out for you.

[2] Mark 9:18-30 A favorite story of mine Vs 24 And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief

[3] “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” – Eph 2:8

My blog, the first in almost a year, is dedicated to blistering the practice of accusing others of “black-and-white” or dichotomous thinking. My thesis is this: Black and white thinking does not exist except to categorize and thereby dismiss an opponent as shallow. A typical example reads like this: “It requires far less courage to live in the black and white than it does to live in the gray. The world of gray requires that we show up and be present. It does not afford us the luxury of putting life on automatic pilot.”[1]

First, there is a distinction that requires clarification. B&W thinking and a point in question such as, “You can’t be a little bit pregnant.” are not the same. Whether one is pregnant must be either A) Yes or B) no while an accusation that one is thinking in black and white is nothing more than a red herring since no one thinks in terms of black and white. The distinction may seem absurdly obvious but please read on since it is my opinion that for some it is not.

To begin, there isn’t anything analogous to b&w thinking in daily life. A search of the internet yielded nothing to support the concept of b&w thinking with one possible exception, mental illness. The examples, at least all the ones that I found, were purported to be instances of b&w thinking, but as it happens, they disprove b&w thinking rather than support it. For instance, imagining that a glass filled half way cannot be said to be either half full or half empty because to do so “indicates that you think the glass is either one or the other.”[2] What else would I think!? What the third possibility might be the author does not say. ^[3] Vast numbers of b&w thinkers are now officially on hold!

A dichotomous statement may also serve as proof of b&w thinking. “We need to do a bailout now or the whole economy will collapse.”[4] Replacing the political topic with one where the outcome is more certain makes a label of B&W thinking seem ridiculous. “We need to exit the burning building or we will certainly perish.” Both statements are essentially the same but the second cannot be an example of b&w thinking, it is simply thinking.

Another writer prejudicially asserts that “Such [b&w] thinking wouldn’t make it through the door of an undergraduate course in logic,” and then goes on to quote George Bush’s well known declaration, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” as another example of a “clear logical fallacy”.[5] In Matthew 12:30, Jesus said something analogous. “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattered abroad.” President Bush was issuing a public declaration that aiding terrorists would expose a nation as an enemy of the US. In Christian theology there are only two camps, that of God and that of Satan. Neither of the above statements defy logic when read in context nor are they an example of B&W thinking. The author’s objection is not that the Bush quote is true or untrue but rather that it has only TWO options and must therefore be illogical. Btw, a statement is not necessarily true just because it is logical.

Feminist attorney, Gloria Allred uses a similar sounding argument, “If you are not a feminist, then you are a bigot.”[6] Is Allred guilty of b&w thinking? No. (The only alternative is to dismiss her as shallow.) Allred, whether intentionally or not, is utilizing a rhetorical tool – the “straw man” which is the intentional misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. The straw man argument which is concocted from air is easily defeated while the opponent’s actual position is ignored.

Anyone who follows either the printed or broadcast news is aware that such attacks are very common. Often a straw man attack is coupled with a personal attack – sometimes in the same sentence. An example is a quote from Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean ; “Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans, is, we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”[7] Likewise, Ms Allred combines a false accusation with a personal attack. Anyone who opposes feminism is a bigot. These are not examples of b&w thinking but do smack of demagoguery, and utilize a logical fallacy (non sequitur) since the conclusion does not follow from its premise.

Third, It is an easy task to locate examples where b&w and “simplistic” are assumed to be one and the same. For example: “His was a very simplistic statement. The world isn’t quite so black and white.”[8] [9] Ignoring the b&w accusation and focusing just on “His was a simplistic statement” we need only decide if the claim is true or it isn’t – nothing more. A simplistic statement ignores the break in the link between cause and effect. Therefore a simplistic statement is almost certain to be false but a b&w statement, as I have already shown, is merely an objection to a statement’s simplicity and independent of whether or not it is true.

Many solutions are incorrectly labeled “simplistic” because they are simply stated. However, stating your position as concisely as possible is the preferred means of communication unless you are a lawyer or professor writing for other professors. Albert Einstein said it well, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

The litmus test for all of this tortured logic is to ask, “Is it true?” An accusation of B&W thinking is an attempt to circumvent the question. Is the glass half empty or half full? The answer can never be that you cannot ask the question as our erudite friend would have us assume.

Conclusion: The accusation of B&W thinking is an elitist attempt to get someone to either shut up or slander them. The issue is NEVER whether it is a case of b&w logic, which is meant to divert our attention, but rather “Is it true?”

[2] “Get Rid of Black and White Thinking Once and for All | Slow Down Fast Personal Coaching and Lifestyle Design ~ David B. Bohl” ( http://bit.ly/pCM6hl)

[3] Bill Cosby humorously makes the case that the significance of a half empty or half full glass “…depends if you are pouring or drinking.”

[4] “The False Dichotomy” – Doug Utberg ( http://bit.ly/ntEzTa )

[5] http://donmilleris.com/2010/03/29/why-we-think-in-black-and-white/

[6] http://bigthink.com/ideas/20864

[7] “Why the Left Hates Conservatives – Dennis Prager – National Review Online” ( http://bit.ly/nhLjCK )

[8] “MichaelF321: Very simplistic statement. The world isn’t quite so black and” ( http://huff.to/pCC3OK )

[9] Simplistic thinking is the oversimplification of complex problems. A simple solution to a problem is straightforward while a simplistic one is no solution at all.

By declaring the solution as simplistic, it is therefore immediately invalid and we can declare along with the Global Warming proponents “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” – Al Gore

“Whoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.”  – Benjamin Franklin

“These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also.” (Acts 17:6)

With 2.1 billion adherents, Christianity is not only the world’s largest religion it is also the greatest force for good in the world.

Great is not the same as perfect. Obviously, Christians are not without flaws. If the prerequisite for goodness were perfection there would be no greatest anything.[1]

Those who are in search of perfection; (a futile endeavor), ultimately destroy the good they find and replace it with something inferior which is the point of the old joke, “If you ever find a perfect church don’t join it because then it won’t be perfect anymore,”

The values that are most important to a peaceful world are derived from the Bible: the value of the individual, the equality of women, being hospitable to the stranger, the abolition of slavery, the belief in a rational world (which spawned modern science), moral accountability, etc.

But…let’s assume for a moment that Christians are dead wrong and there is no God. Would Christianity still be the greatest force for good? And if it is, why would anyone who professes a desire for good oppose that which is doing the most good?

More than any other group, Christians freely provide help to others in the form of financial giving. (Giving is just one example; there are many other proofs that Christianity is an important element of an improved world.)

What do Christians believe about wealth?

Christians have a detachment or independence from things or possessions because things have no lasting value and provide no eternal advantage.[2] Jesus taught us to “Stop worrying, over questions like, `what are we to eat, or what are we to drink, or what are we to wear?’ The unbelievers are always running after these things. Your heavenly Father knows all that you need” (Matthew 6:31-32).

A consequence of financial liberty is generosity. John Wesley wrote, “Make all you can, save all you can, give all you can.”

Americans excel at giving because beneficence is a part of the Christian creed. “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” – Jesus [3]

Arthur Brooks, author of Who Really Cares?, says that one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: “their religious participation.” Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money — four times as much.”[4] Those who believe that the motivation to give might be explained by the personal reward of a warm glow in one’s heart need to explain how Western Europe, where Christian influence is considerably less, give at a rate far below that of Americans?

“No developed country approaches American giving. For example, in 1995 …Americans gave, per capita, three and a half times as much to causes and charities as the French, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians. Similarly, in 1998, Americans were 15 percent more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 percent more likely than the Swiss, and 32 percent more likely than the Germans. These differences are not attributable to demographic characteristics such as education, income, age, sex, or marital status. On the contrary, if we look at two people who are identical in all these ways except that one is European and the other American, the probability is still far lower that the European will volunteer than the American.”[5]

A reasonable person, even one so “enlightened” as to not believe in God, ought to be delighted by the thought of such generosity, even cooperating in the effort by offering encouragement, or contributing from their own finances. That is what a rational person might do…

So whether there is a God or is not, (depending on your point of view), those who oppose Christianity do so for motives that are neither reasonable nor consistent with their stated aim of a better world and too often oppose the greatest force for good – Christianity.

[2] The exception is the “faith” or “prosperity” teaching that has no basis in orthodox Christianity.

[3] Those who claim that America is not a Christian nation need to explain the disparity of American generosity compared to that of other secular nations.

[4] “Who gives to charity? – John Stossel – ( http://bit.ly/crQjae )

[5] “A Nation of Givers — The American, A Magazine of Ideas” ( http://bit.ly/bBrvX9 )

There once was a Roman who was looking to convert to Judaism. In his search he came upon a well-respected scholar named Hillel and said,

“Teach me the entire Torah while standing on one foot.”
“Sure.” Hillel said while slowly raising one foot,
“Do not do to others that which you do not like done to you.
This is the entire Torah[1];
the rest is commentary.
Now, go and study.”

Hillel, perhaps the greatest rabbi of the Talmud, lived approximately 20 years before Jesus. From this Talmudic story we know, at least in Hillel’s opinion, that Judaism may be summarized while “standing on one foot”

What about Christianity? Can we compress the message of Christianity so that it is quickly or easily comprehended while balancing on one leg? The answer is, yes!

In the city of Philippi[2], the Apostle Paul and Silas had been imprisoned.  At midnight, as they prayed and sang hymns, the Lord caused an earthquake which freed them from their stocks and made the prison doors swing wide open. The jailer, convicted of his sins[3], asked,

“What must I do to be saved?”

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”![4]

Paul and Silas then taught the “Word of God” to the unnamed jailer, who with his whole household were baptized.

In the second chapter of “The Acts of The Apostles”, during the Feast of Pentecost (50 days after Passover), a large crowd gathers after hearing a loud and unusual sound. Peter addresses the startled multitude and as Peter concludes his address they enquire,

“What must we do [to be saved]?”

‘Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise is to you, and to your children, and even to the Gentiles–all who have been called by the Lord our God.”

Afterward, he admonished them, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation!”   Three thousand were baptized on that same day.[5]

Is it Simple or Simplistic?

The New Oxford Dictionary of English defines “Simple” as “easily understood” and “simplistic” as “treating complex issues and problems as if they were simpler than they really are. Simplistic solutions to complex issues are rarely ever scrutinized for the consequences of oversimplification.[6]

The straightforward replies by Peter and Paul can be misleading since “simple” and “simplistic” is often assumed to be equivalent.  To be sure, God is calling you to a simple faith but by no means is a Christian life simplistic or even easy.[7]

A simplistic Gospel does not require a serious examination of faith. For instance, who can say that they are a follower Christ if they do not first ask themselves, “To where might I be expected to follow Him?” A journey begins by knowing the destination. “To heaven” is barely adequate since heaven is not so much a destination as it is a promised reward. The more relevant journey, in Jesus’ words is “to the cross …anyone who does not take [up] his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” (Mathew 10:38) “We have become so accustomed to this expression-”taking up one’s cross”-in the sense of “being prepared for trials in general for Christ’s sake,” that we are apt to lose sight of its primary and proper sense here-”a preparedness to go forth even to crucifixion,” as when our Lord had to bear His own cross on His way to Calvary…”[8]

Travel does not comport with idleness.  Christians are on a journey and that exodus is demarcated by coming out of the world without delay.[9]

What about childlike faith?

Childlike faith, which is often assumed to mean intellectual simplicity, is not a teaching of Scripture and more often than not, results in childish behavior and intellectual hedonism – believing only that which makes them feel good. Jesus did however say that we are to be like children in our humility,

“Whoever humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”[10]

Humility (a gift of God) is to reckon oneself to be of little account and unimportant. Humility is an expression of love for others. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.  Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also the interests of others.  Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus…”  Philippians 2:3-5.[11] James said it this way, “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.”[12]

Words of human wisdom or of the Spirit?

Our natural inclination is to assume that comprehending the Gospel is on a par with other types of learning as if we can mentally ingest spiritual things in the same way that we learned our A B Cs.  That would be a mistake. The Gospel is spiritual and therefore, no one can appreciate or recognize the significance of the gospel message unless the Spirit first makes it known. We possess no natural capacity for the spiritual. “The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

To illustrate the point, consider the Parable of the Sower.[13] Jesus’ Parable of the Sower can be found in all four Gospels.

The Sower is God and His servants.  The seed that He sows is His Word, the Gospel of the Kingdom. The parable describes four types of soil that represent four conditions of the human heart; the hardened heart, the stony heart where no permanent root takes place, the divided heart where the cares of daily life crowd out the message and the good heart where the seed of the Gospel sprouts, grows and most importantly, produces fruit.

It is immediately apparent that while the Gospel is preached to all, not all are saved[14] and those who produce fruit are relatively speaking, few. (The total of which are a great multitude.) Bearing fruit, according to Paul, is to “have a walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God”.[15]

“… the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.” (verse 15)

Martin Luther declares that the “hardened soil” of the trodden path is not, as we might assume, the lawless sinner but instead the outwardly pious. He writes,

“…these are not the mean people in the world, but the greatest, wisest and the most saintly, in short they are the greatest part of mankind; for Christ does not speak here of those who persecute the Word nor of those who fail to give their ear to it, but of those who hear it and are students of it, who also wish to be called true Christians and to live in Christian fellowship with Christians and are partakers of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But they are of a carnal heart, and remain so, failing to appropriate the Word of God to themselves, it goes in one ear and out the other. Therefore Christ says the devil cometh and taketh away the Word from their heart, that they may not believe^…”[16]

No farmer plants a crop unless he expects to reap a harvest. God’s field, the world, is no different.

The natural man tries through effort to win God’s approval, but if the “greatest, wisest and the most saintly” are indifferent to the Gospel how can anyone be saved? “It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”[17]

The Promise of God through faith

So again we return the “simple” Gospel as declared by God’s Apostles, Peter and Paul,

“This promise is to you, and to your children, and even to the Gentiles–all who have been called by the Lord our God.”

Everyone who believes by faith, a gift from God, is saved.

We have this assurance that we are saved by the promise of God and that all who believe by faith are the children of God. “for the Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” (Romans 8:16)   ‘Whoever believes with a firm faith and hope that he is a child of God, is a child of God, because no one can do this without the Holy Spirit.”[18]

“We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son. Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” (I John 5:9-13)

[2] A city of Macedonia

[3] Paul and Silas understood his question, “What must I do to be saved?” to be a concern for his spiritual life and not his physical welfare.

[4] Acts 16:29-31

[5] Acts 2:37-41

[6] There is a saying: “Nothing is as simple as black and white.” The 1998 movie Pleasantville confounds the 1950’s with an oversimplified and idealized TV sitcom by the same name. David and Jennifer are transported via TV remote control to the paradisaical Pleasantville. Almost immediately and innocently David and Jennifer begin to introduce concepts which, until their arrival, were unknown. The consequences of acting on their new freedoms soon manifests itself in the personal transformation of Pleasantville’s residents from black and white to color suggesting that their world was no longer a simplistic black and white, but nuanced. One by one the colorless palette of its citizenry is changed; last of all, the town fathers.

Ironically, the spark that ignited the mayhem in Pleasantville was the introduction of 1998 moral values, most notably, sexual liberation without consequences. Pleasantville is comparable to the Garden of Eden which was perfect until Satan deceived Eve. The fall was initiated by Satan, just as sin was introduced by David and Jennifer. The emotion based, simplistic sexual mores of the post 60’s are not only destructive in an idealized, unsophisticated movie version of the1950’s but equally disastrous for any society that attempts to implement them.

[7] I Peter 4:15 “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

[8] Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary – Mathew 10:38

[9] 2 corinthians 6:16-18

[10]Matthew 18:4

[11]http://www.soulation.org/library/articles/childlike_faith.pdf

[12] James 4:10

[13] Luke 8:4-15 The Parable of the Sower is found in all four Gospels

[14] The devil comes and takes away the Word. Where there is no word, there can be no salvation.

[15] (Colossians 1:10)

[16]“The Parable of the Sower, by Martin Luther” ( http://bit.ly/d6CcW8 )

[17] Romans 9:16

[18] Commentary on Romans, Martin Luther pg 122

Taking issue with Scripture usually begins with its very first claim that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” – Genesis 1:1

If God is not the “first cause”, then the universe is not the result of creation but an inexplicable accident; a consequence of “chance” The concept of chance is completely foreign to Scripture. The word “chance” does not even appear in Scripture except to signify something as being “unexpected” or an “occasion” as in, “We met by chance.” [1] Even when lots were cast,” the lot was regarded as a solemn appeal to God for his direct interference in cases which they could not themselves decide. Proverbs 16:33, “the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord.”[2]

Neither is chance inferred in the Bible but is instead categorically denied. Jesus taught that nothing is too small or so insignificant that God’s will is not the directing force behind it, again, rejecting the possibility of chance. In the 10^th chapter of Matthew Jesus plainly tells his disciples that the providence of God extends to the very smallest of things. “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.” (Matthew 10:29) God knows the number of hairs on your head, the name of each star in the sky and how many grains of sand there are upon the seashore.[3] (Luke 12:7; Psalms 147:4-5; Isaiah 40:12)

Whether the topic is macro, like creating the universe, or micro, all of creation is maintained and sustained by the Will of God, who was before all things, and by Him sustained. (Colossians 1:17) Nothing may occur except God should first will it, even something as insignificant as the loss of a single shaft of hair.[4]

God’s good and perfect Will leaves no room for chance, Just as he has sustained all things in the past, he also preordains the future. At the cross, Jesus’ clothing was divided by the soldiers in fulfillment of Scripture, “they parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots.” (Compare Psalm 22:18 and John 19:24) The casting of lots for Jesus’ clothes was not just an inspired forecast of events to come; but was divinely predestined and it all occurred exactly as David said that it must. The Roman soldiers were not hoping to fulfill a Biblical prophesy that they probably had never heard of and likely were never aware of the significance of their actions.

As for those who claim that everything is accomplished by chance alone I cite seven observations.

To begin, there is no proof that chance is responsible for anything. Chance by definition is not improbability, but impossibility as the Merriam-Webster dictionary puts it, “the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled…”  Pure chance then cannot be said to account for anything since it is not the cause” of anything. Causeless change is neither rational nor scientific.

Those who attempt to rationalize chance often begin with the effect and then work backward in search of a cause. An example of this kind of working backward is the theory of evolution. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It is only a theory of what may have occurred since life began. For instance, Natural Selection is a process occurring in existing populations and not the genesis of life. Scientists who believe in the primordial soup theory have been unsuccessfully trying to create life for approximately 60 years.[5]

Second, it is deeply embedded in human nature to believe in chance. The inclination toward “chance” increases in proportion to the denial of God’s role as the divine creator and sustainer. Many people are simply optimists who are well aware of the spectacular odds against them and roll the dice anyway. Ironically, those who do so are actually looked upon as being a cut above the common man. One iconic illustration is that of a suave James Bond at the roulette table dressed in a tux, a beautiful woman on his arm, confidently and consistently beating the odds.

Games of chance are in actuality carefully devised instruments of odds and mathematical probability which doesn’t sound nearly as sexy as “Games of Chance”. In all games of probability it is a certainty that a winner will emerge – it is only a matter of time. Conflating chance and probability is the result of muddy thinking since the two are very different. We may assume an outcome in the case of probability but cannot with chance.

Third, believers of ”chance” assume that moral values evolve. For instance, a kind of natural ethics is noted when adults nurture their children because that trait is likely to ensure their survival. However, effect does not prove cause and at the very best can only suggest it. Chance does not prove morality – it disproves it since chance is not concerned with consequence or purpose, it simply happens.

But morality requires intentional acts. Animals differ from people in that humans choose their behavior while animal behavior is instinctive. Having grown up with Lassie, Flipper and Bambi, just three examples where animals are anthropomorphized, imagining that animals possess the ability to make moral choices is not a big a stretch. Today, the use of anthropomorphized animals in children’s cartoons, books and movies is so prevalent that animals, which ironically have no moral values, are a large part of the next generation understanding of morality. Animals as teachers are likewise found in the church. I will never forget an Easter play titled, Fluffy, the Passover Lamb. The writers must have thought that it would be easier for children to identify with a talking lamb than Jesus!?

I am not saying that animals as teachers are necessarily a bad thing. C.S. Lewis’s “The Chronicles of Narnia,” is a wonderful book. Today, the genre is probably overused. In C. S. Lewis’s day people probably did not equate their pets with people.

Talk show host Dennis Prager, asks a revealing question during his speeches to high school age children. If their pet and a stranger were drowning, which would they save? 50% consistently say that they would save their beloved pet and not the stranger. 90% have no problem with their classmates decision.

Nature is amoral, being neither good nor bad and according to some may be summarized as “survival of the fittest” (not treat your neighbor in the way that you would hope to be treated if the situation reversed). Who would argue that “survival of the fittest” is evidence of a natural morality? It is actually evidence against an evolution of morality.

Ultimately, the evolutionary moralist must decide what is moral and what is not since there are no clues to be gotten from nature. It should be obvious that evolutionary morality is nothing more than personal opinion or knowledge gleaned from the present culture. Not marrying your sister cannot taught by nature. It is a learned value.

Fourth: Chance has been endowed by its creators with moral certainty even though it is an ethical code that emerges from nothing. . “Equality of outcome” is an example of a secular value that is not found in nature (or in the teachings of Scripture) or any society prior to the 20^th century. “Equality of outcome” is well intentioned goal, that is, remove the possibility of failure. It is, however, impossible to implement and in history there are no examples of a society who actually practiced equality of outcome, though some have claimed it as a rhetorical value.

Fifth, the belief in chance is one of hopeless optimism. Those who attribute no cause for anything have no logical reason for hopefulness. Chance is not 50/50. Chance is a trillion to one! (And I am being generous). Since no one actually lives as though their odds are a trillion to one, they instead act as though there is a guiding, caring, beneficent force that is going to reward and protect them. They speak of hope and positive change with the same frequency and fervor as do theists who hope (trust) in the promises of God, but, in what can a materialist hope?

Sixth, a belief in chance does not comport with reason. Logic cannot account for the zealous nature of those who labor to attribute meaning to a world benighted, so they say, by a deficiency of absolutes. Why expend so much energy to alter a world where nothing is certain?

Last, and possibly the most interesting but also the least certain, is the conclusion of physicists that a four-dimensional world (all events – past, present, and future – are equally existent) and therefore does not allow for free-will or chance.

“And here is the challenge: if our bodies (as material objects) exist equally at all moments of our life, as the theory of relativity requires, our free will appears to be an illusion – no matter how convinced we may be that we do whatever we intend to do, not only is our entire material life predetermined, but it is completely given as a “timeless” (four-dimensional) existence. … It is the only correct interpretation; if we assume that reality is a three-dimensional world, evolving in time, immediate contradictions with the theory of relativity and the experiments, confirming it, are reached.”[6]

[2] David divided the priests by lot, 1 Chronicles 24:5. The land of Canaan was divided by lot, Numbers 26:55; Joshua 15; Joshua 16:1-10; Joshua 17; etc. Jonathan, son of Saul, was detected as having violated his father’s command. and as bringing calamity on the Israelites by lot, 1 Samuel 14:41-42. Achan was detected by lot, Joshua 7:16-18. – Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

[3] Contrast the knowledge of God Who knows that which is infinitely small; something the wisest person dares not claim. They do however profess to know the prodigious occurrences such as the creation of the universe – something that the common idiot also claims to understand.

[4] We shed an average of 50-100 hairs per day.

[5] It was in the 1920s that a biologist by the name of Alexander I Oparin claimed to have real scientific evidence against biblical creationism.  Oparin argued that life had arisen by natural physical means here on earth and not by Divine Creation.  He presented his argument in his book Origin of Life in 1936 and the primordial soup theory was born.  A theory that at its base suggests all life was a beneficial accident that started with a loose collection of chemicals and eventually evolved into what we see (and are) today. Bobby Biffel – The Beginning of Life

[6] RELATIVITY AND ITS PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HUMAN FREE WILL - Vesselin Petkov (http://alcor.concordia.ca/~vpetkov/freewill.html)

It was in 1980 that I first went to work at the Arizona prison in Florence. The “building tender” system of prison management had been declared unconstitutional. For those who do not know, the building tender system consisted of “…Inmates that were selected by guards to assist correctional staff. Tenders were meant to maintain order among the inmate population (often through the use of force), as well as serve as intelligence gatherers. Such people were also called “inmate guards.” …However, in 1980, Chief Federal District Judge William Wayne Justice ruled that such a system was unconstitutional, set after the prison lawsuit of Ruiz v. Estelle.[1] Having relied on the system unconditionally for so long, Texas [and essentially all US] prisons were plunged into a crisis, and two and a half years after the building tender system was abolished, Texas Syndicate membership rose from 56 to 1,400.[2]

My first six weeks of employment at Central Unit (Arizona State Prison) were marked by five inmate murders. Before Judge Justice’s ruling, prisons had been, relatively speaking, stable. The Court decision, created an imbalance of power which erupted into widespread violence, followed by the expansion of prison gangs – gangs that spread from the prisons to our cities.

It is axiomatic that weakness begets violence – not sometimes, but every time. (Please, do not misunderstand; I am not advocating a return of building tenders.)

The 1980 court ruling did not make better inmates. On the flip side, in an ethical society, increasing the size of government does not make better citizens. More government in a free society relieves citizens of their moral and social responsibilities; which results in a less ethical, less motivated citizenry. We are at our best when we are self-governed.

The less ethical a people become, the more government is necessitated. For that reason, prison requires a maximum amount of government and offers very little liberty. Ironically, the larger the government becomes, the more prison-like America becomes.

For most people, being a passenger on a commercial airliner is as close as they will ever come to being in prison. Where else are you told when you can and cannot go to relieve yourself?  Also, there are metal detectors, scans of your person and searches of your property and a little rough talk to a flight attendant could land you in an actual jail.

The absence of a strong America is endangering the peace of the world and setting the stage for an eruption of world-wide violence. In general, the human race is prone to evil. If it were fundamentally good we would have no need of organizations like the United Nations. In truth, the United Nations does little to make a better world which also supports my position that the world is not good. People are good but humanity is not.

The United Kingdom, the 5^th largest military in the world, announced a week or so ago that they will no longer seek to be a major military power. Britain is prepared to cut its defense spending by 40%.[3] Likewise, Europe is diverting more and more of its revenue away from military spending, not that they spend much on self defense anyway. Nationalism is returning, as nations like Turkey are increasingly concerned more about national self interest and less with the concerns of other nations. The European Union as well as Japan are increasingly becoming more independent as they perceive that an ever weakening US will be unable and/or unwilling to protect them from aggressor nations like China. “The post-Cold War new world order is rapidly breaking apart. Nations are returning to the ancient passions, rivalries and differences of past centuries.[4]

Averting world-wide catastrophe may be as simple as restoring the world’s confidence in America as a leader and that necessarily includes a strong military. In the future, the ever increasing U.S. debt will dictate our self defense capabilities and that future is not bright. Those who doubt the wisdom of returning to a system built on power ought to consider the alternative. The real world requires strength for peace.  “…when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” – Osama bin Laden

[2] http://www.insideprison.com/glossary.asp

[3] “Defense cuts mean Britain and her army can no longer go to war | News & Politics | News & Comment | The First Post” ( http://bit.ly/a5qREK )

[4] The New Old World Order” ( http://bit.ly/a8DNQJ )

Personality Set for Life By 1st Grade, Study Suggests

A judge, by definition, believes in the “rule of law”; which is to say, that no one is above the law. Likewise, law transcends personal experience because it consists of wisdom that has accumulated for millennia and has stood the test of time. Elena Kagan believes in neither.

First, as a progressive liberal, Kagan does not believe in the value of accumulative wisdom or that wisdom even is cumulative, but instead relies primarily upon personal experience and emotion as the basis for her judgments. From where does a liberal get her values? The answer is, “From the heart”. As such, it is difficult to imagine that Ms Kagan would seriously consider legal precedent (that past judicial rulings are useful) when deciding a case that conflicts with her liberal prejudices. I will provide an example later, but let us first continue with “who” Kagan is.

Elena Kagan not only opposes the authority of accumulated wisdom but is, as a leftist, opposed to moderate, carefully measured change; a hallmark of progressive liberalism (Obama, for example, campaigned on “transformation” – not change) and would therefore happily strike down an existing societal framework only to erect an inferior one.

Consider for a moment how rash dealings inevitably turn out. The French Revolution is such an example. The French Revolution transformed France as quickly as possible (by force) only to be governed by a dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte.

Good law is inexorably rooted in the past, is difficult to change, is blind to race, gender and class and unmoved by passion or personal whim. In Exodus 23:3 a judge is forbidden to favor the poor. “…and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.” However, leftist thinking supersedes any other values, no matter how loudly they may be espoused. I would remind you of the pro-life Democrats who recently voted for the Obamcare bill. Claiming to be pro-life their true allegiances were exposed when they declared life secondary to health insurance.

As the deputy assistant to the president for domestic policy in the Clinton White House, Kagan took it upon herself to draft a statement about partial birth abortion which had the effect of distorting medical science in order to promote the Democratic Party’s political agenda.

There is no better example of this distortion of science than the language the United States Supreme Court cited in striking down Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion in 2000. This language purported to come from a “select panel” of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a supposedly nonpartisan physicians’ group. ACOG declared that the partial-birth-abortion procedure “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” The Court relied on the ACOG statement as a key example of medical opinion supporting the abortion method.

…The problem is that the critical language of the ACOG statement was not drafted by scientists and doctors. Rather, it was inserted into ACOG’s policy statement at the suggestion of then–Clinton White House policy adviser Elena Kagan.

The task force’s initial draft statement did not include the statement that the controversial abortion procedure “might be” the best method “in a particular circumstance.” Instead, it said that the select ACOG panel “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.”[1]

Elena Kagan will be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, don the robe of a Justice and participate in the process, but she will never be a Supreme Court Justice where it matters – inwardly.

Hindsight is 20-20.  I was once employed by a company where the liberal point of view was king. The worst time to debate the worthiness of an electrifying story is while it is still in its infancy. At such times emotion cannot be ruled by reason, so rather than fight an uphill battle I would ask for the clipping, tack it to my wall and wait.

Like most “news”, a breaking story is intertwined with energy and emotion and very few facts but over time the facts eventually displace the emotion and a true picture emerges.

(It is also true, that by the time this occurs, the “news” junkies have moved on to their next fix).

Days or even weeks later, I would “break” the story anew, but this time the facts were emphasized – not the ideology. The clip/post/wait narrative was repeated a few more times and eventually the “news’ began to ebb and finally stopped completely.

Thank God I don’t work there any more but being the sentimental guy that I am, I will revive the practice once more – just for old time sake.

Just about a year ago, the liberal Moveon.org posted “The Top Five Health Care Reform Lies.” (told by those opposed to Obamacare) http://bit.ly/cdV4QM

Let’s see how they stack up one year later.

Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!! (Death Panels)

YouTube – Paul Krugman (of the NYTimes) Death panels are a cost saver”

“In answering a flip, but it turns out quite good, question about “death panels,” Paul Krugman claims accurately that the cost/benefit board established over private medicine by Obamacare will be able to impose “more or less binding judgments” refusing care, and moreover, that these refusals will save “a lot of money” in the context of treating the elderly (and others, such as people with disabilities and terminal illnesses). He says that the panel will prevent treatment that isn’t “medically” useful.”

Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!

. Time magazine is the latest to report:

Now that regulations about existing employer-sponsored plans have been issued, it’s becoming clear that many of the 160 million Americans with job-based coverage will not, in fact, be able to keep what they currently have.

Republican critics of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act point to the Obama Administration’s own estimates that by 2013, 39% to 69% of employer plans will be subject to new regulations and not grandfathered in, or exempted from the new rules. House minority leader John Boehner issued a press release about the new regulations with the headline “New ObamaCare Tagline Should Be ‘If You Like Your Health Care Plan, Too Bad.’ “

While the reporter feels compelled to call GOP rhetoric “overheated,” she readily concedes that conservative critics have the facts on their side:

The truth is that employer-based plans, which many assumed would easily be categorized as grandfathered, will be subject to the full regulatory thrust of the new law if they are altered in ways that are standard practice in the industry. Plans that increase the percentage of costs patients must pay out of pocket — known as co-insurance — lose their grandfathered status. The same is true for plans that significantly decrease the percentage that employers contribute to premiums or those that significantly increase deductibles or co-payments. An employer that switches health-insurance providers also loses its grandfathered status. These kinds of changes are common year to year in the current marketplace, since employers are constantly looking for ways to limit their expenses in the face of rising costs.

The “keep your plan” hooey was as deceptive as the claim that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. In short, ObamaCare was sold under false pretenses. In contract law, such a deal would be rescinded. In politics, the solution is for lawmakers to explain that the bill doesn’t do what it promised and repeal it so that they can start over. And what if Obama decides to veto the repeal of his handiwork? Well, there will be an election in 2012 and a campaign to debate just how misleading were Obama’s assurances. http://bit.ly/bEXdRj

Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!

“…the bill commits over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn’t be so objectionable–if it weren’t for the fact that a board will then “direct financing” toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with this.” http://bit.ly/xX64Q

Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens’ Medicare benefits!!!

“To help pay for coverage of the uninsured, Mr. Obama called on Congress to squeeze $200 billion to $300 billion from Medicare and Medicaid over the next 10 years, on top of the $309 billion in savings he proposed in his budget. Such cutbacks are sure to face resistance from health care providers who would be affected.”  http://bit.ly/cAtjXS

Lie #5: Obama’s health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The CBO [Congressional Budget Office] predicts an increase in our public debt from $7.5 trillion at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion at the end of 2020 if Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget is implemented. As a percentage of gross domestic product, the debt will rise to 90% from 53%.  http://politi.co/c5eyLO

The damage to business:

“Caterpillar, the first to speak out, reported it will take a one-time write-down of $100 million in order to account for the elimination of a federal tax refund it has been receiving for providing drug benefits to its retired employees. In the following days, AT&T, Verizon, 3M, Deer & Co., and AK Steel Holdings announced they would take similar write downs. AT&T’s new tax bill will come to over $1 billion. The news is a body blow to major companies hoping to recover profitability and add jobs.” http://bit.ly/bmzeIu

It may be true that if you aren’t black you can’t know what it is like to be black (everyone, that is, except for rich white liberals) but let me assure you that being conservative guarantees that you will be misunderstood by everyone, most especially by the rich white liberals.

Justice Clarence Thomas gets a “we knew it all along” from Eleanor Clift  – “Clarence Thomas, Gun Control and the Case for Black Self-Defense” Clift imagines that she has at long last discovered a ”race-based” argument from Thomas as reported in a Washington Post article by columnist Courtland Milloy, who also happens to be black. (Yes, they actually do report on each others columns as if they were news stories.)

Justice Thomas, who is opposed to gun control, in the majority opinion, recalls a period after the Civil War when blacks were disarmed (whites feared the consequences of a armed black populous) and the gun control laws that were intended to disarm them.  Clift sees a similar situation in our day where armed blacks are a danger to white society and then goes so far as to predict a future race war if guns remain plentiful. Thomas, she is convinced, is arming blacks.

The real danger, in Justice Thomas point of view, is not armed blacks, it is gun control. In the opinion Thomas recalls a tragic incident from post Civil War history to clarify his position that gun control is the danger that we need to fear.

And so I am once again compelled to repeat ad nauseum that the left has no understanding of conservatism and any description of conservatism it might devise is a blind stab in the dark.

The really funny part, if it is actually funny, is that the left frequently do what they accuse conservatives of and often in the same sentence. Their self contraventions could substitute for and lead to a revival of the pastime of “slug-bug”. Each time a liberal writer accuses a conservative of the same thing they are themselves doing (it has to be in the same sentence) you get to “slug” someone in the arm -  slug-bug for conservatives. Conservatives will finally be beating each other up for a good reason!

For example: “The opinion [offered by Justice Thomas] reads more like a manifesto that could have been written by Malcolm X, writes Milloy, who wonders if that’s the reason none of the other justices acknowledged it.” Malcolm X, for those who have forgotten, advocated a militant revolution in order to win equality for minorities. He would never have advocated arming the general population, like Thomas, because it would have weakened the revolution… So Milloy and I assume Ms Clift and likewise, other gun control advocates are actually the ones who most resemble Malcolm X who would have favored a general disarmament of America as a means to its transformation.

SLUG BUG!