Divorce Discussion Continues

Several people responded to my blog entry concerning the topic of divorce. They noted the following statement that I made in that blog entry:

To be clear, I do believe that all sins, with the exception of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, are forgivable. God will forgive us of adultery (in this case, adultery resulting from divorcing and marrying someone else).

And asked that I clarify my stance on divorce.

My reply was that Jesus was very explicit concerning divorce.

Mark 10:5-12 And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

And he saith unto them, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

The permissibility of divorce does not equate the permissibility of re-marriage. If one re-marries after divorce, one commits adultery.

They replied with the objections that I had been expecting. They cited two sets of verses which seem to allow remarriage after divorce under certain circumstances: Matthew 5:32 and 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

Matthew 5:32

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Many people believe that the first part of the verse gives the husband permission to divorce his wife and re-marry if she had committed fornication. However, Jesus never said that. Jesus was pointing out the consequences of divorcing one's wife. If a husband divorces his wife, he will cause her to commit adultery unless she is already an adulterer. If she is already an adulterer then her being an adulterer is not the husband's fault.

Unbelievably, those, citing this verse, consistently failed to reference the latter part of the verse: "whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery". Is that not clear enough? The permissibility of divorce does not equate the permissibility of re-marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Many people pointed out that the word "widows", in verse 7, was translated from the original Greek word "chera" and that "chera" literally means "lacking a husband". They reasoned that the reference to "chera" includes not only widows but also divorcee. Thus, they concluded that the Apostle Paul was giving permission to divorcees to remarry if they burn with passion.

This literal translation of the original Greek word "chera" is simply bad translation. It does not account for how that word is normally used in the cultural context of the writer and his readers/audience. It refers to widows.

Otherwise, it is like saying that Mary, mother of Jesus, was not a virgin because the original Greek word, from which the word "virgin" was translated, also means little girl, concluding that Mary was a little girl and not a virgin since Mary was pregnant. That's simply a bad interpretation since Mary was old enough to marry (at least 12) and would not be viewed by as a little girl in that society.

The people who tried to use 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 as justification of re-marriage after divorce also failed to address the next two verses.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

To interpret 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, as Paul giving permission for re-marriage after divorce, would cause verses 8-9 to contradict verses 10-11, the next two verses. The only way, for there to be no contradiction, is for the original Greek word "chera" to be interpreted as "widows" only.

One can not be formulating one's theology by cherry-picking only ambiguous verses and interpreting them to support one's view. There needs to be agreement among all the verses concerning the topic.

And the only way, there can be agreement between all these verses, is if one interprets the two ambiguous verses as I did and concludes that while there may be permissibility of divorce due to the hardness of man's heart, re-marriage after divorce is adultery.

However, I must reiterate that while God's standard is so high that it's unattainable, He does provide mercy.

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Divorce

According to Barna Research Group's 2004 poll, among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.

Barna also noted that he analyzed the data according to the ages at which survey respondents were divorced and the age at which those who were Christian accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. "The data suggest that relatively few divorced Christians experienced their divorce before accepting Christ as their savior," he explained.

To be fair, Barna's survey showed that a larger portion of those, who are not born again Christians, co-habits, effectively, side-stepping marriage - and divorce - altogether.

Nevertheless, more than a third of Christian marriages end in divorce.

While the statistics did not surprise me, I was shocked and very saddened by the recent appearance of the cover story of Christianity Today entitled "When to Separate What God has Joined: A Closer Reading on the Bible on Divorce."

Even Time Magazine made a note of it in its November 5, 2007 issue in the article entitled "An Evangelical Rethink on Divorce?"

It's bad enough that more than a third of all Christian marriages end in divorce, now Christian leaders are altering their theology to accommodate this trend.

(I'm purposely not any mentioning prominent Christian leader who has or is planning to divorce.)

To be clear, I do believe that all sins, with the exception of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, are forgivable. God will forgive us of adultery (in this case, adultery resulting from divorcing and marrying someone else). However, there's a major difference between asking for forgiveness for a sin and modifying theology to no longer recognize that act as a sin.

Need I remind us that the marriage relationship is the image that God gave us to describe His relationship with the Church? Need I remind us that adultery is the image that God gave us to describe the situation when we abandon Him to worship idols? If these are the images that God gave us, what would be the embracing of divorce?

Most importantly, how we view divorce is a reflection of how we view marriage. And if we no longer view marriage as a binding relationship, how would this view effect the health of our marriages?

Perhaps we all need to be reminded of what the scripture says about divorce.

Matthew 5:31-32

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Matthew 19:3-10

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?"

And he answered and said unto them, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

They say unto him, "Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?"

He saith unto them, "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you,

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

Mark 10:2-12

And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?" tempting him.

And he answered and said unto them, "What did Moses command you?

And they said, "Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away."

And Jesus answered and said unto them, "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefor God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Errata for Who is the Historical Santa Claus

After posting my blog entry entitled "Who is the Historical Santa Claus", I've received the following response:

Nice summary--just a few additions--

Nicholas was born in Patara, a town not far to the west of Myra in Lycia, Asia Minor, now Turkey. Not in Italy.

A technical matter--houses in that time did not have chimneys (a common misunderstanding)--there would have been an opening in the roof for the fire.

Nicholas' remains were taken to Bari, Italy, in 1087, where a basilica was built over his crypt. There are many, many towns named for St. Nicholas -- often ports along coasts and rivers as sailors carried stories of him wherever they went. Chapels and churches were named for him, often in ports as Nicholas is the patron saint of sailors and seamen, as well as children, maidens, the falsely accused and many others.

For more, see www.stnicholascenter.org

Here's my reply:

Thank you for the information.

The reference that I used is incorrect about St. Nicholas' birth place. I should have check other references.

As for Nicholas' resting place, I dug a little deeper and found that it's a bit more complicated than simply one resting place for St. Nicholas. Everyone agrees that sailors originally stole St. Nicholas' remains from Myra and took them to Bari. However, there was, evidently, a lot of contention for his remains. It seems that people were literally stealing his remains and moving them to their city.

For instance, Venice claims to have most of Nicholas' remains and that Myra only has one of his arm.

The most bizarre claim is that Nicholas II, the Czar of Russia, donated the remains of St. Nicholas to St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in New York. And after the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001, the church building was destroyed and the remains of the saints kept there were lost.

The bottom line is that I can neither confirm nor deny any claim of St. Nicholas' final resting place. It's all pretty bizarre to me that someone would actually rob a crypt of its dead remains.

The people who claim to have St. Nicholas' remain should open up their crypt and let forensic researchers figure out from DNA and whatever other tests to see who have a piece of St. Nicholas.

Who is the Historical Santa Claus?

My post concerning Halloween led to a discussion on Christmas and Saint Nicholas. I was quite surprised to find out that many of my friends do not know who Saint Nicholas was. Oh sure, they recognized him as the guy who secretly gave gifts during Christmas but all the other details were completely off their mark. For instance, many thought that he was German.

Since my friends, who are usually knowledgeable of Christian issues, do not know who Saint Nicholas was, I am suspecting that it's probably true of the general public. So, I decided to post what I know (and double checked with reference literature).

The historical Saint Nicholas was the Bishop of Myra (in modern day Turkey but at the time was a Greek city; the city was mentioned in Acts 27). He lived during the 4th century. Although he was the Bishop of Myra, he was born in Italy.

His parents were wealthy. When his parents died and Nicholas received his inheritance, he gave it away to the poor.

During his lifetime, he was renowned for:

1) Defending the Christian faith; most particularly the intolerance of Arianism, a warped form Christian theology at the First Council of Nicaea

2) Intolerance of pagan religions and pagan artifacts; responsible for the destruction of several pagan temples including the Temple of Artemis.

3) Taking care of the poor

4) Defending the falsely accused

Many amazing deeds were attributed to him including rescuing sailors.

The most enduring is, of course, the secret giving of gifts. Evidently, there was a poor man who had three daughters but was unable to afford a proper dowry for them. In those days, it would have doomed them to not only remaining unmarried but would have to become prostitutes to support themselves. So Nicholas, on the nights before each daughter came "of age", would anonomously throw a purse of gold coins into their house. The first two times, he threw the purse through the window. The third time, the father decided to lie in wait to discover their benefactor. When Nicholas caught wind of the father's plan, he tossed the purse down the chimney, instead.

When the Asia Minor was invaded by Turks, at the beginning of the second millennium (long after Nicholas' death), Nicholas' remains were taken to a church in Germany. The town was renamed Nikolausberg.

Celebrating Halloween

In the past several weeks, there has been a large number of new discussion threads concerning Halloween started in the Christian discussion forum. Most of the participants registered their disgust with the celebration of things associated with the occults. No one seems to recognize it as a Christian holiday.

(The following is taken from Wikipedia.)

The term Halloween comes from All Hallow Evening, i.e., eve of "All Hallows' Day" also known as All Saints' Day.

It was a day of religious festivities in various northern European Pagan traditions, until Popes Gregory III and Gregory IV moved the old Christian feast of All Saints' Day from May 13 to November 1.

Liturgically, the Church traditionally celebrated that day as the Vigil of All Saints, and, until 1970, a day of fasting as well. Like other vigils, it was celebrated on the previous day if it fell on a Sunday, although secular celebrations of the holiday remained on the 31st. The Vigil was suppressed in 1955, but was later restored in the post-Vatican II calendar.

In the early Church, Christians would celebrate the anniversary of a martyr's death for Christ (known as the saint's "birth day") by serving an All-Night Vigil, and then celebrating the Eucharist over their tomb or place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighboring dioceses began to transfer relics, and to celebrate the feast days of specific martyrs in common. Frequently, a number of Christians would suffer martyrdom on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all.

A commemoration of "All Martyrs" began to be celebrated as early as the year 270, although no specific month or date are mentioned in existing records.

(Back to my comments)

Perhaps we should consider celebrating All Saints' Day as it was intended, in remembrance of our brothers and sisters in Christ who have been martyred: Christian evangelists and new converts in Muslim countries, in communist China, in rural India.

Remember our Christian brothers and sisters in Sudan.

Remember the Korean Christians who were martyred in Afghanistan.

The Voice of the Martyrs

Associated Press Article about attacks on Christians in Turkey

BBC Article on Chinese Christians being tortured and killed

Time Magazine Article on Christian Martyrs in India

Dealing with Non-Believers

I've been encountering some very distressing sentiment from within the Body of Christ. By no mean is the sentiment a majority opinion. However, I've encountered it enough times within the past several weeks that I felt compelled to respond to it. Often it is subtle but there has been times in which it was very overt.

Of what is it I am speaking? It is the sentiment that non-believers (whether atheists or believers of other religions) are to be treated as our adversary. The advocates, of this sentiment, were often engaged in a shouting match with non-believers.

That is, of course, very inappropriate. Satan and his hosts of fallen angles are our enemies, not non-believers. The non-believers are the battle grounds upon which our war, against the evil one, is waged.

The following is a prime example of this sentiment:

IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST,

THEN WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE IN REGARD TO ANY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?

WHY WOULD PRIMITIVE MAN, "IN HIS PRIMITIVE THINKING," THINK OF HAVING RULES OF RIGHT AND WRONG? ACCORDING TO SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT, SHOULDN'T THESE RANDOM THOUGHT BE A RANDOM BLAST OF ENERGY? ANYHOW, WHO TOLD PRIMITIVE MAN ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG?

WHO TOLD PRIMORDIAL SOUP ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG? HOW DID MONKEY-MAN'S INVENTIONS GO FROM A BASIC STICK TO RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY? THESE ARE SUCH SILLY QUESTIONS BUT I HAVE YET TO SEE AN EXPLANATION OF FACTS RATHER THAN SO RANDOM GUESS OF WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPEN.

IF ATHEISM IS SURE THEN WHY WOULD ANY ATHEIST FOLLOW THE RULES OF A CHRISTIANIZED STATE? WHY DO ATHEIST LISTEN AND REACT TO THE LAWS OF THE RELIGIOUS "KNOW NOTHINGS" OF THE PAST? IT IS PROVEN THAT "EVERY CULTURE OF THE PAST" HAD ITS OWN RELIGION BUT AMERICA WAS ONE OF THE FIRST TO SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE. HOW TRAGIC. HERE ARE SOME KEY NOTES ON THE DUTIES OF THE ATHEIST.

1. ATHEISTS SHOULD GO OUT AND KILL OTHER PEOPLE!

THIS IS A RELIGIOUS RULE RIGHT? IT'S NOT THE ATHEISTIC WAY TO BELIEVE RELIGIONS. NEVER MIND IF THAT PERSON HAS LOVED ONES.

2. ATHEISTS SHOULD COMMIT ADULTERY!

AGAIN, ANOTHER RELIGIOUS RULE, BUT NOT ATHEISTIC TO HEED THIS WARNING.

WHO CARES IF YOU RUIN A FAMILY OF FOUR AND THE CHILDREN GETS TO SEE THEIR FATHER OR MOTHER ONLY ON THE WEEKENDS. JUST AS LONG AS YOU CAN SLEEP WITH YOUR BOSS RIGHT?

3. ATHEISTS SHOULD STEAL!

YEP, A RELIGIOUS RULE NOT TO DO SO, BUT ACCORDING TO ATHEISM, GOD DOESN'T EXIST. AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST" THEN IT SHOULD BE OK TO GO TO A BANK AND TAKE EVERY CENT OF CURRENCY THEY HAVE. "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST," THEN HIS WORDS DON'T EXIST.

IF YOU ARE AN ATHEIST THEN PERFORM YOUR DUTY AND STOP LISTENING TO THE WORDS OF MY GOD!

Here is my response.

I am a Christian but I can provide the atheist's counter to your argument.

The three rules that you mentioned (don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't steal) are part of the social contract: Do onto others as you would wish them do onto you.

It does not require God to tell us to do so, for us to know that we need to do so, in order for those of us, who live within a society to, co-exist peacefully.

An atheist would also remind you that Christianity does not have exclusive claim to the so-called Golden Rule. You'll find the same ethic in religions ranging from polytheist religions like Hinduism and Buddhism to monotheist religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

What is the difference, between all the religions, is how one deals with the violation of the golden rule ethics.

At this point I'll put back on my Christian hat and remind you that the foundation of the Christian faith is

Romans 3:22-24

This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

All of us are sinners. It is purely by the grace of God that we are saved. Before we were saved, all of us were in the same boat as the atheist, doomed to eternal damnation and unable to hear the word of God. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that allow us to see the truth.

You can shout at atheists as loudly as you like and they would never hear you for they do not have the indwelling the Holy Spirit. If you truly want to see them saved, I'd suggest that you do two things:

1) Get down on your knees and pray for their salvation.

2) Love them! Love them as Jesus would them.

p.s., BTW, The commandment is not "Don't kill". The commandment is "Don't commit murder." There is a difference. Murder is unjustified killing. There are justified killing such as self defense, the defense of the innocent, etc.

Is God Fair?

Some one posted the following in one of the Christian discussion forums:

The Son of Sam killer (David Berkowitz) supposedly became saved in prison and has been exhibiting very good behavior. It is entirely possible that ol' Dave Berkowitz may join us in heaven with the Father, while his victims rot in hell. Unfair?

The person, who posted the above, answered it with:

yeah, a little.. unjust? no. Why? Because God can do whatever he wants. He's God.

I was not happy with this answer. It leaves the reader with the impression that God is not fair and that the only reason that God is just is because He makes up the rules and He can bend the rules anyway He likes to accommodate His whim.

This perspective runs counter to the Christian faith. The Christian doctrine is emphatic about the absolutism of God's standard.

The absolutism of God's standard is why there is the necessity of grace.

It is wrong to sin and the penalty of sin is death. But all of us sin. Because God loves us and doesn't want us to perish, He can either change His mind and say, it is no longer wrong to sin (change His standard) or He can give forgiveness to whoever sins and accepts His forgiveness (absolutism of His standard and grace).

God chose to maintain the absolutism of His standard and dispense grace by sending His Son, Jesus the Christ, to die, in our stead, for our sin.

So, how can God saving Berkowitz while condemning his victims (who did not accept God's forgivenes) be fair?

Jesus answered the question of fairness in the "Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard" (Mathew 20:1-15) in which the landowner goes out and hires workers with the promise to pay a denarius for the day. He hired workers at the beginning of the day and continues to hire workers throughout the day. At the end of the day, everyone was paid a denarius. When questioned about the fairness of the same wage for a disparate amount of work, the owner answered:

"Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?"

In the case of the Lord dispensing grace, the agreement is that the Lord promised forgiveness to anyone who asks. It does not matter if someone "sinned greater" than others. If the Lord fulfills His promise, He is both just and fair. If someone is forgiven more than others, the Lord is being just, fair, and generous.

What would be unfair is if God saves someone who did not repent and/or did not ask for forgiveness.

Categorizing Churches

Do denominations really make that much of a difference? Within the Catholic church, there's a wide array of local parishes that worship as differently as night and day. We can say the same for many of the Protestant denominations like the United Methodist, Presbyterians, Baptists, etc.

I have a theory:

The real distinctions between local parishes/congregations, irregardless of denomination, is that they can be categorized into one of three different groups: fundamentalist, evangelical, and charismatic.

Fundamentalists focus on adhering to the fundamentals of the faith: the inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Scriptura, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Basically, it's yielding to the call of the Father to pursue holiness.

Evangelicals focus on completing the Great Commission that Jesus commanded the disciples before His ascension.

Charismatics focus on the being moved by the Holy Spirit.

It's really a focus on the call of one of the three God Head.

Of course, no local parish/congregation is completely Fundamentalist or completely Evangelical or completely Charismatic.

It's more of a spectrum within a triangle in which each corner of the triangle represents one of the far end of spectrum: Fundamentalist, Evangelical, and Charismatic. And each local parish/congregation falls somewhere within the triangle.

A well balanced parish/congregation would fall smack in the middle of the triangle.

It's just a theory. I don't have any Biblical reference to back it up.

Dissecting Morality

I had been involved in a discussion concerning morality. In that discussion, I identified two ways of applying morality: moral absolutism and moral relativism. At that point someone challenged me to define morality and these two ways of applying morality.

Here is my answer:

Until recently, research in cognitive studies have been based on the assumption that decision making is a self-interest utilitarian process. Choice is based on what best serves our goal.

Recently, studies by Marc Hauser, a professor of Biological Anthropology at Harvard University, point to non-utilitarian aspects of the decision making process.

In his studies, subjects were presented with scenarios like the runaway trolley scenarios that I've previously posted in the "life crisis" forum.

A trolley looses its brakes and is rolling out of control down a hill. It is about to hit five people who can not get out of the way. Between the trolley and the five people is a track switch. If the trolley is switched to the alternate track, it would hit only one person. Is it acceptable to switch the track so that the trolley hits only one person?

Almost everyone answer the question with "yes". Hitting one person is better than hitting five.

Then, the subjects were given a new scenario:

There is no switch between the trolley and the five people. However, there is a person large enough to stop the trolley if pushed in front of the trolley. Is it acceptable to push the large person in front of the trolley to save the five people?

Almost everyone answered the question "no".

The results were consistent with people of varying religious belief, culture, ethnicity, age group, and social-economic class.

Occasionally, someone may answer yes for both. However, when dug deeper, the results are consistent with the norm.

e.g., Hauser's father is a medical doctor who is a stoic thinker. His initial response was yes for both since both scenarios resulted in saving five lives instead of one. So Hauser posed a scenario closer to home (in this case closer to work).

You have five patients who are in need of organ transplants but was unable to find matching donors. A healthy person with perfect match for all five patients. Would you sacrifice the life of the healthy donor to save the lives of the five?

His answer is, "Of course, not!"

Then, how can you push the large person in front of the trolley to save the five?

With that, Hauser's father changes his position.

Both scenario involves sacrificing one life for five, yet the latter is unacceptable. The choice made is not based on utilitarian decision making.

No only that, it is not a Pavlovian behavior. i.e., It's not a learned behavior which can be positively or negatively re-enforced. Neither choice to save the five people yielded a more favorable result. This non-utilitarian behavior is not learned but biologically hard-wired.

Hauser describes the non-utilitarian process as a hard-wired moral brake against the self-interest utilitarian decision making engine.

Another example of non-utilitarian response is the test of the self interest economy, which I posted, previously on the "life crisis" forum, as "The Greed Game".

According to Adam Smith's "Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", in a free market economy, the self interests of all traders would dictate the distribution of all resources.

In Professor Hauser's studies, subjects were given the roles of donor or recipient. Each donor was given a sum of money, out of which he or she must offer a portion to a recipient. The recipient can accept or reject the offer. If the recipient rejects the offer, the donor and the recipient would loose the entire sum.

If the market is driven by self-interest, all recipients would accept any offer greater than zero since the rejection would result in one not receiving anything; something is better than nothing.

The research, however, shows that if the sum is too low, the recipient would reject the offer. The posts in the "life crisis" forum yielded the same result. And like the posts in the "life crisis" forum, the research subjects identified the lack of a fair distribution as the reason for the rejection of a low offer.

For more examples scenario used in his study, take the Moral Sense Test the Harvard Cognitive Evolution Lab's web site.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/

Subsequence research were done in several different laboratories using MRI to examine brain activities as subjects make these moral decisions. These research found that brain activities were firing in two different parts of the brain. They were firing in the part of the brain that performs logical and computational thinking. They were also firing the part of the brain that deals with emotional response.

An example of using the MRI in this research:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0004-282X2001000500001&script=sci_arttext

When the self-interest utilitarian choice wins out, part of the brain that performs logical and computational thinking is much more active than the part of the brain that deals with emotional response.

When the non-utilitarian moral response wins out, the part of the brain that deals with emotional response is much more active than the part of the brain that performs logical and computational thinking.

This result led researchers to conclude that the hard-wired moral brake in our brain is located in the part of the brain that deals with emotional response.

In fact, MRI studies of psychopath/sociopaths show a link between morally bad behavior with diminished mass of that part of the brain. See:

http://www.crimetimes.org/06a/w06ap10.htm

The interesting part is that, in the test of the self interest economy (the greed game), everyone agrees that the fair distribution is 50-50. However, the threshold for rejection is not 50-50. Before the fair distribution level is reached, the self-interest utilitarian processes overpowers the moral brake. (Everyone has price.)

How does this research apply to moral absolutism and moral relativism?

Here is my conclusion:

Morality is hard-wired in the brain.

Moral absolutism is allowing the hard-wired moral brake to stop the self-interest utilitarian decision making processes when it crosses the line.

Moral relativism is when self-interest is so strong that it overpowers the hard-wired moral brake.

Often, people say that moral relativism is not practical. However, when they say so, they are not defining impracticality as unachievable. They really mean that they are not willing to give up their self interest.

Can stealing be right if the situation calls for it? Discussing it in a Christian Forum

Having heard the reactions to the scenario in a non-Christian forum, I was curious to hear the reactions to the scenario in a Christian forum. So I posted the scenario of Hans stealing the medicine to save his wife on some Christian Discussion groups.

This time there were equal numbers saying Hans was right as those saying Hans was wrong. However, there were a couple of women who fervently defended Hans' position.

Their main assertion is that life is precious; so precious that God would want us to steal to protect the life of our love ones.

For my part, I reiterated my two main points:

1) God's standard does not change; stealing is wrong in all circumstances.

2) While life is precious, preservation of life must not trump obedience to God.

Our discussion resulted in pages and pages of posts. Most of these two women's posts are reiteration of their main assertion and accusations of my lack of humanity.

Frustrated with my counterpoints, one of the women stated:

Discussing the right or wrongness of an action bears no fruit that I can see.

So I posted the following:

Most westerner believers think that the scenario that I posted is purely hypothetical. Having traveled through parts of central Asia, I know that Christians in the east have to face this type of decisions all the time. Choosing between pursuing holiness and facing possible death for one's self or for a love one. It is amazing to see what happens when they choose holiness. Not only does God provide (e.g., causes a doctor to change his mind or their friends and neighbors rally to support them), but also God uses their actions to win the hearts and souls of Muslim observers.

In the same way, I could choose to obey God and risk my life by traveling to a certain Muslim country or I could say God surely doesn't want me to go because my life would be endangered. I can still remember the comment of an Uzbek cab driver when I walked out the of police station (when the corrupt police officers were shaking me down for money) and no a single officers stopped me. He said in his broken English, "God with you!" God provided my freedom and provided an open door to this Uzbek man's heart.

In fact, I can personally tell you that evangelical Christians in China pray hard for Christians in the west, especially in America, to have the conviction to say this is right and I'm going to trust God to provide when I do what is right. And even if not, I'm going to do what is right because I will partake of glory on the other side of eternity.

Yes, life is precious. However, it is not to be worshipped in such a way that saving the life is more important than obedience to God. And yes, God commanded us not to steal. It applies now as well as in old testament times. So not stealing is being obedient to God.

So many believers say that they offer up their lives to God but do they truly mean it or do they really mean they offer their services as long as their lives or the lives of their love ones are not at stake.

This is the foundation of our faith. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac. He can choose to obey God or he can say, "No, life is more precious so God must not really want me to take Isaac up the mountain to be sacrificed".

What would you do if you were in Abraham's place? How you answer that question defines of YOUR faith.*

*I'm adding this footnote just in case someone might misunderstand my last statement. I meant that if we truly believe that life on the other side of eternity is much better than this one and that when we accept Jesus as our Savior we would be saved, would we be clinging so tightly to this life that we are willing to say that it's ok to sin if our lives are at stake.

Can stealing be right if the situation calls for it? Discussion Continues

The discussion concerning Hans' theft of medication for his dying wife continued with more repetition of the same ideas.

So, I wrote the following to sum up my position on the topic:

While I sympathize with Hans' situation, I can not condone doing something wrong for the purpose of doing something right. The logic of the end justifying the means is simply bad logic.

If we apply this logic as being morally right, then Hans can rob his neighbor to get the money to pay for the medication and be morally right.

If we apply this logic as being morally right, then Hans can commit armed robbery of a bank to get the money to pay for the medication and be morally right.

My opposition is that there are too many alternative actions that can be pursued without having to resort to doing something wrong. Hans is either lazy or impatient or has no perseverance and gave up on pursuing morally right options.

My other opposition is that taking a morally wrong short cut has bad consequences. We have a legal framework for a reason. It is to minimize bad consequences. That is why we can not simply isolate our evaluation of Hans' morality to just the intent and the act.

If a metal artist steals an I-Beam from the Minnesota highway bridge over the Mississippi to build the most beautiful sculpture in the entire world. Can we simply isolate our evaluation to just the act of theft of the I-Beam from the bridge and the intent of building the most beautiful sculpture in the entire world? No, we have to consider the possibility of a bridge collapse that kills dozens of people.

In the same way, we must consider the possibility of the entire community loosing the doctor's services as a result of the theft. If the loss of $50, 000 drives the doctor out of the community, we must then consider the death of children dying from preventable diseases because of the doctor's absence.

The end can NOT justify the means!

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the crazy anti-abortion activists who fire bomb abortion clinics.

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the eco-terrorists who burn down homes next to wilderness areas.

The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the rioters who burn businesses in the cities hosting the G8 summit.

If you look at all the major atrocities of the twentieth century, they all started with the persuasion of an unsuspecting public that the end justifies the means.

Can stealing be right if the situation calls for it?

Lately, I have been participating in non-Christian forums concerning moral issues. Basically, I wanted to see how well I can defend the Christian perspective in a secular forum in which the contents of the Bible is irrelevant to the other members of the forum.

This week, someone started a new thread with the following post:

A man named Hans has a dying wife with a mysterious disease. It was thought that this disease had no cure until finally a doctor had created a special medicine that can save the life of Hans' wife. The problem is the doctor is charging $50,000 which is much more money that Hans can afford. At first, Hans tries to raise the money but he's still well short of the asking price. He then tries to negotiate with the doctor, but the doctor refuses to lower his price. Finally in a desperate measure, Hans steals the medicine behind the doctor's back. Was Hans wrong to do such a thing?

Immediately, someone else, posted

Nope he wasn't wrong

Another posted the following:

Sure, what Han did was wrong, but any sane human being would do the same thing. I would not equate $50,000 with an irreplaceable human life. The doctor will live and replace the lost money. The wife doesn't have the luxury of replacing her life. Also I'd rather live with the indirect death of others than live without my loved one.

The dilemma is between two moral wrongs. Which wrong is more serious is the question. Is stealing a bigger wrong than not saving a life? It is very cut and dry. The power is in your hands. The guilt and responsibility is yours and yours alone.

Instead of posting a structured argument supporting moral absolutism, I posted the following to prime the discussion:

What if it costs the doctor $50,000 to make the medicine? Let's say that the doctor purchases its ingredients with his own money with the assumption that the patient that needs it would redeem the cost that he incurs?

Now, he's out $50,000 and unable to pay his bills which includes the rent of his office space, the repayment of loan for his medical equipment (like x-ray machines, sterilizing ovens, etc.), and his medical school loan.

So, he packs up his practice to move it to an upscale neighborhood in which his patients are able to pay.

Now, the poor neighborhood, the original location of his practice, is without a doctor; many babies and children die from preventable diseases because of the lack of a doctor there.

Not so cut and dry is it?

The person who started the thread responded with the following:

You're missing the point of the question and adding irrelevent ideas to the story. I'm simply asking if Hans' action is right or wrong from a moral standpoint.

Again, I refrained from posting a structured argument supporting moral absolutism and continued my argument for considering the consequences of Hans' action. I wrote the following:

The ideas that I inject are not irrelevant. You are saying that theft stops at the loss of property and we should weigh the loss of life against the loss of property.

But too often, then it comes to health care, it does not stop at the loss of property.

In fact, the scenario plays out over and over in developing countries in which a socialist government takes over. These government would impose price control on the medical profession (as well as other parts of the economy) using the same comparisons that you specify. Whether it is the government imposing price control or Han stealing the medicine, it's still theft.

The doctors and other medical care workers have bills to pay and with the price control are not able to do so. So they leave the country and the entire nation sinks into a health care disaster. Check the news on Zimbabwe.

Closer to home, in West Virginia, people have been suing Ob/Gyn left and right. Same logic, it's only money; the doctors can re-earn the money. Unable to pay the malpractice insurance, all the Ob/Gyn left West Virginia. People there have to leave the state to get prenatal care if they are able to do so. Those, who don't have the means to travel to neighboring states, suffer. More particularly, these babies suffer.

When it comes to healthcare, theft does not stop at the lost of property.

The moral standpoint must weigh the loss of one life against the loss of many lives.

There are consequences to all our actions and moral judgment must not only account for the single act but also the consequences of that act.

Most of the posts rebutting my posts continues to rehash the argument that Hans is correct because he has chosen the lesser of two evils.

So, I asked the following two questions:

If what you said is true, then would it be ok for Hans to rob a bank to pay the doctor? Would he be right if he rob you to pay the doctor?

Then, someone posted a reply that allows me to segway to my structured argument supporting moral absolutism. He wrote the following:

Right and Wrong is personal perspective. If he were to attempt such a thing, two things can happen:

1.) I would kick his @ss and rob him of his dignity.

2.) He will be put in jail and punished by the courts.

These consequences are the results of the technical wrong he has done to me. This is negative from my perspective because it is not in my best interests to lose $50,000.

But we are speaking from his perspective now. His actions are noble and understandable. If it weren't, then we'd feel no sympathy. If he needed the money for drugs, booze, and prostitutes then I can agree with you 100% that it was totally wrong.

I'll break it down one more time. His actions are wrong because it was an act of theft (against the rules). His intensions were right because he is saving a life (protect family).

It is not black and white like you want it. "Intent" is a very important factor in morality and in law. It could mean the difference between murder and manslaughter. Sometimes judges consider the defendant's competence. This is related with the defendant's "intent" as well. We do not live in a black and white world so don't limit youself to that view.

Here is my reply:

You have misapplied the legal process of determining the defendant's intent. It is not the determination of whether he did wrong in order to help someone else or for selfish gain (the rob Peter to pay Paul scenario) as you described it. It is to determine if he intended to do wrong or was the wrong committed accidentally (the difference between murder and manslaughter).

e.g. Did the accused shoplifted a sweater or did she try it on, continued shopping and forgetting that she still had it on, walked out of the store?

Hans did not mistakenly take the medicine. He purposely took it for his wife.

You also misapplied the legal process of determining the defendant's competence. A defendant's competence is not based on intent. It is a determination of whether the defendant knows if he knows right from wrong. I think we can agree that Hans knows that stealing is wrong. Otherwise, this whole discussion is moot.

So legally, he would be convicted.

But, let's separate what is legal from what is morally right and limit our discussion to what is morally right.

You nailed our disagreement right on the head. It's a matter of whether one believes there is a moral absolute or is morality relative. I believe in a moral absolute and you believe in moral relativism (as do most other participants in this particular thread).

The problem with moral relativism is that often the criteria slips into what's best for one's self is what is right and what's bad for one's self is what is wrong. Your reply is a prime example. You wrote "Right and Wrong is personal perspective... This is negative from my perspective because it is not in my best interests to lose $50,000... But we are speaking from his perspective now. His actions are noble and understandable."

If we apply that criteria, society would fall apart.

That's why we have laws that are... well... absolute.

The scenario is framed for the purpose of supporting moral relativism.

First, it leads the readers to feel sympathetic towards Hans and unsympathetic towards the doctor. What if the doctor borrowed the $50,000 to make the medicine? What if Hans' effort to raise the money consisted of knocking one door and rejected never tried again?

Then, it leads the readers to conclude a false assertion. "Finally in a desperate measure" lead the readers to believe that Hans has exhausted all courses of action.

Hans has not exhausted all courses of action. Not that I'm advocating these actions but, Hans did not rob a bank to get the money to pay for the medicine nor did he rob an individual for the money as I had mentioned before.

Until his wife dies or Hans dies (whichever event comes first), Hans has not exhausted all courses of action. Every day brings new conditions and new opportunities for the acquisition of the medicine.

Hans simply gave up and resorted to breaking the law. And that is why Hans is wrong.

And All These Things Will Be Given to You as Well (Epilog)

At the end of last December, someone slammed into my car. (Thankfully, no one was hurt.) While my car was in the body shop, I drove a rental. A couple of days later, I caught the flu and stayed in bed the entire week. During that week, the city of Baltimore ticketed and towed my rental car that I parked in front of my own house.

I live near the stadium where the Baltimore Ravens NFL team plays. Because game spectators tries to avoid parking fees by parking in my neighborhood, the city designated my street a sticker parking street during stadium events; only cars with a particular parking sticker are allowed to park there.

Unfortunately, my rental car doesn't have a parking sticker and I had not realized that there are any NFL games at the end of the year (That's when they have the college football bowl games).

To get the rental car out of the city impound lot, I had the pay the cost of the ticket, the towing charges, and the impound lot vehicle storage fee; close to five hundred dollars.

I contested it in court and won. However, I did not receive the money back right away. The city had to process all the documents that I submitted.

This week, just as the bills started to come in (see my previous blog), I received the check from the City of Baltimore.

The Lord is faithful once again.

Matthew 6:25-34

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

And All These Things Will Be Given to You as Well

I dread it when the Holy Spirit directs me to give more sacrificially than what I've budgeted. I've already committed much more than the tithe percentage of my monthly net income. And I've also specified a couple of percentages more for discretionary giving to the homeless that I meet on the street. So, when the Holy Spirit appeals to me to help with more, I would spend several days praying about it.

O.K., I really don't spend the prayer time seeking God's guidance. It's more like several days of protesting the request of the Holy Spirit. More particularly, it's a couple of days of protesting and a couple of more asking Him to prepare me for the storm.

You see, the issue isn't about the giving of the money; I always leave some breathing room in my monthly budget.

What I dread is that whenever I give beyond what I've budgeted, without exception, a series of events/setbacks would follow and take me financially into an area that is completely out of my control.

This week was no exception.

A young woman, that I know, needed financial help with the cost of mission college training. I wrestled with the Holy Spirit concerning the amount. I offered an amount that I can afford but the Holy Spirit kept me restless. I reworked my budget and offer a little more but the Holy Spirit continued to keep me restless. Finally, I threw out my budget and asked the Holy Spirit to pick a figure; and He took away the breathing room from my budget for the next several months.

Lord, please, prepare me for the storm! Please, please, prepare me for the storm.

When my heart calmed, I unfurled the sail.

Then, the storm hit. My brother's Medicare prescription plan hit the "donut hole" and his prescriptions will cost $800 per month for the next several months. My car's air conditioner gave out during the hottest part of the summer. A lightening strike burned out the circuitry in my house's heat pump. My main sewer line backed up into my basement bathroom tub because the tree in front of my house grew its root into it.

I am, by no mean, destitute. I do have savings from which to draw. I just hate to have to dip from that fund since I don't believe that Social Security nor my company pension would be there when I retire.

Besides, in all previous times, when the Lord pushed me out from the security of my safety net, He had always provided so that I would not have to withdraw a single dime from my savings.

What I truly dread is the fear from the financial freefall that He forces me to take before catching me again.

Each time, He would whisper, "Trust me. Trust me" as I watched the earth jumped up at me at two hundred miles per hour. And just as my heart is ready to stop, He would pull the parachute.

You'd think that after so many times that He has proven that He is faithful to provide for all my needs, the fear would go away.

So, I had to learn the lesson, once again.

Matthew 6:25-34

"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?

"And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

My Dad, a Reflection of Our Father in Heaven

One of the blogs that I read regularly is that of an young woman named Colleen. Recently, she posted a blog entry about her dad. My dad passed away several years ago but as I read this blog entry, I was flooded with memories of my dad bringing him back to me momentarily.

So, I am remembering my dad in this blog entry and introducing him to you.

Several years ago, I gave a book to all the men in my house church. It was a book by Stu Webber called "Tender Warrior". In his book, Webber identifies four aspects of true manhood.

He is a Leader/King.

He is a Protector/Warrior

He is a Magician/Mentor

And he is a Friend/Lover

He is a Leader/King who receives his calling from the Lord, casts that vision for others, and invites others to come join the call.

He is a Protector/Warrior who fights for and provides for those the Lord puts under his care.

He is a Magician/Mentor who motivates and teaches those, which the Lord had brought to listen, by showing them the wonders and delights of what the Lord had shown him.

He is a Friend/Lover who speaks and acts with care and compassion for all those around him.

My dad, he was all four.

My dad was a leader who abandoned his lucrative teaching career in Taiwan to follow his calling to bring his wife and children to America. But most importantly, he was a leader who continues to take his family on his journey of faith.

My dad was a protector and provider for our family. He worked hard to earn a living and worked hard at attending to our needs at home. But there were always times when my dad made the decision to sacrifice the financial security of the family in following his calling and allowing the Lord to be our protector and provider.

My dad was a mentor. He was not just a teacher to his students. He wasn't just interested in dispensing information. My dad nurtured his students' growth as individuals, helping them acquire wisdom. Especially for my brother and me, my dad surrounded us with an environment for learning and character development. He exposed us to world literature while my mom exposed us to music and the arts. All the while, they encouraged us to pursue the sciences. But most important of all, he instilled in us a calling to pursue compassion and faith.

But of the four aspects of manhood that Webber identified, and my dad exemplified, the most indelible in my heart, is that last one. My dad was a man of love.

My dad was a man who loved his God, who loved his wife, his children, his students, his neighbors. During my childhood and into my adult years, my dad demonstrated every day that he was a man of love.

Although my dad was an English professor, words were not what he used most to express his love. My dad loved with action.

I remember, when I was a child, my dad would rush home from work to spend time with me before dinner. He would take me riding on his motorcycle. We would go downtown to see all the lights And we would go to the rail station to watch the trains. How I treasure those rides with my dad!

I remember one year, on my birthday, during a major ice storm, my dad insisted on going out to the store because we didn't have a cake with which to celebrate. He ended up in an automobile accident. But that day, there was a cake.

Even without action, my dad showed how much he loved my brother and me and showed how proud he is of us. No one can miss the way his face beamed whenever he presented his boys to his friends and colleagues.

My dad loved my mom. My dad loved her by being the husband who strives to build the home for his wife. My childhood images, of love in the home, were that of my mom and dad enjoying each other's company as they work around the house together. There is joy in their faces when they painted the living walls together. There is laughter when they prepared the soil for planting or when they harvested from our backyard garden.

My dad loved his neighbors. One of our neighbors was an elderly couple, Mr. and Mrs. Kaiser. I remember my dad cutting the grass in our yard and when he's done, he'd roll the lawn mower over to the Kaiser's to mow their yard. He'd rake the leaves in their yard after he raked our yard. And He'd trim their bushes after he'd trim ours. I remembered asking him why he did that, asking him if Mr. Kaiser had asked him to do their yard. My dad, he'd say, "No, they didn't ask. But they are old and have a hard time doing it themselves." And he left it at that as if the answer was self-explanatory.

My dad loved his students. He tutored them. He encouraged them. And the evidence of his love for them is their love for him. Year after year, my dad was selected by his students as their favorite professor.

Once, one, of his students, needed someone to co-sign his education loan. Evidently, the student's parents were either unable to or unwilling to co-sign the loan. My dad co-signed the loan. I don't know how often he did that for his students. I would not have known about my dad co-signing the student's loan if it wasn't for that particular student having defaulted on the loan.

My dad's income as a college professor was quite meager. My dad's income was definitely not large enough to be able to cover a student's defaulted loan.

So, early on, my dad taught me that love requires sacrifice. What better foundation than that is there for understanding scripture verses like John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

God's ultimate demonstration of love through sacrifice.

But coupled with the constant reenforcement of my dad's demonstration of love through sacrifice is his demonstration of his trust in the Lord to provide when we step out in faith.

Often, my dad's spontaneous generosity would put our family's budget at risk. And each time, my dad allows the Lord to prove scripture verses like Matthew 6:33

But Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be given to you.

And indeed, the Lord provided for our family abundantly: through the time when my dad didn't have an income because he was trying to complete his Ph.D. and through times of medical crisis for my dad and my brother. The Lord even provided pretty much a free ride through college for my brother and me.

Most important of all, the Lord brought salvation to my life through my dad. My heart was hard toward the Lord until my dad's massive stroke twenty years ago. When he had the stroke, the doctor said that my dad would not live beyond the week. It was at that point I went on my knees to ask the Lord to spare my dad's life. And if He saves my dad, I would give my life to the Lord. My dad was out of the hospital before the end of week.

My dad had set for me a wonderful example of godly manhood. This legacy, that I inherited from my dad, is of greater worth than a hundred-acre estate or a multimillion dollar trust fund.

It was a priceless gift of being an apprentice to a man who had mastered the art of godly love.

No, I can't honestly say that I have acquired all that character that my dad had modeled for me. There are good days and there are bad days. On bad days, I fall flat on my face. But on the good days... On those days when I came close...

when you see me, you've seen my father.

Although my mother, my brother and I miss my dad very much, we are also very much at peace and are filled with joy for my dad. When he was a young man, my dad received the faith to accepted the Lord's gift of salvation through Jesus Christ and because of this faith my dad is now with the Lord. And because of that same faith, he was given the grace to raise a family whose foundation is firmly set in Christ.

How Do You Know If Any Particular Act is a Sin?

Luke 10:25-29 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

Isn't that so typical of what we do? Once we find out something that we must or must not do, we automatically assume that the imperative is not to be applied universally and want to know the boundaries within which the imperative must be applied.

In the same way, after the discussion on whether homosexuality is a sin or not, there where several new discussion threads concerning whether a particular act is a sin or not.

I finally posted a reply after someone asked if masturbation is really a sin or not and many of the responders replied that it was not a sin.

Here is my reply:

In the original Greek text of the Bible, the word sin is translated from the Greek words hamartano and hamartia.

Romans 3:23 for all have sinned (hamartano) and fall short of the glory of God,

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin (hamartia) is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

These words are not religious word. They are secular terms. They are archery terms.

The definition of these words:

hamartano - to miss the mark hamartia - the act of missing the mark

To sin is to miss the mark.

What is the mark that we are trying to hit. What is God's purpose of creating man?

Genesis 1:26

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness

Our purpuse is to carry the image of God.

When we fail to truly carry the image of God, we miss the mark.

Romans 3:23 says that we fall short of the glory of God.

Whatever we do that cause us to fall short of the glory of God is sin.

Does masturbation reflect the glory of God or does the act cause us to fall short of the glory of God?

If one wonders if any particular act is a sin or not just ask that question:

Does this act reflect the glory of God or does the act cause one to fall short of the glory of God?

p.s., Shortly after I posted my answer, someone posted the following:

I wish I knew the verse, but there is a verse that says, "If you sin with your eyes cut them out, if you sin with your right hand, cut it off."  Masturbation is indeed adultery, adultery is sin.

To which I replied:

Take your pick:

Matthew 5:28-30

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:8-9

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Mark 9:43-48

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

That's an interesting take on masturbation that I've never considered.

Now that you mentioned it, I have to agree with you (with a qualification).

Adultery is sex with someone who is not one's spouse if one is married and fornication is any sex if one is single.

So, masturbation would be either adultery or fornication, i.e., a sin.

Also, masturbation would require some form of lusting in one's heart.

The Law, the Old Covenant, and the New Covenant.

It has been a while since my last blog entry because I have been involved in a discussion thread on a Christian forum discussing a very important topic. The main topic of the thread concerns homosexuality in Christianity. I am not really that interested in discussing the topic of homosexuality. (See my blog entry entitled "Obsessing over Homosexuality and Other Hot Button Issues", posted on July 2, 2007) However, the way the Bible was being interpreted, in that post, has greater ramifications than the mere topic of homosexuality.

Here is the initial post in the thread:

1. Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." Pretty clear huh? Well what about the rest of the Jewish Holiness Code in Leviticus which also:

* permits polygamy

* prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,

* bans tattoos

* prohibits eating rare meat

* bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles

* prohibits cross-breeding livestock

* bans sowing a field with mixed seed

* prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood

* requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

I am a huge sinner then... I thought this code was totally obsolete? Hebrews 8:13 "In that He says 'a new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away"

2. Where's the law against lesbian sex? Doesn't exist... hmmm...

3. Jesus never talked about homosexuality? Was it really not that important? Was it even a sin?

The original post was arguing that we are no longer under the Old Covenant (Hebrew 8:13) so we should no longer be obligated to obey any of the Old Testament laws unless the New Testament (more precisely, Jesus) also specifies that it is an offense against God. As evidence, he listed Old Testament regulations, in the first item of the original post, that are mostly ignored today.

Then, the author, of the original post, made two observations.

The first observation is that the Old Testament regulations explicitly forbid a man from laying with another man like a man would with a woman (Leviticus 18:22) however, they do not explictly forbid a woman from laying with another woman like a man would with a women. It would seem that lesbian sex is not forbidden.

The second observation is that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. If we carry the argument that we are no longer obligated to obey any of the Old Testament laws unless the New Testament (more precisely, Jesus) also specifies it, then homosexuality must then be no longer an offense.

I could have stop the discussion by posting a New Testament reference that forbids homosexuality. However, to do so would allow the broader problem of how the Bible was interpreted to continue to propagate.

The first problem is the interpretation of what IS the Old Covenant that Hebrew 8:13 is talking about. It is a problem because the interpretation of this verse does not conform to its context.

Hebrew 8:3

Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.

The covenant to which Hebrew 8:13 is referring is not the entirety of the Old Testament laws, it is referring to just the system of giving sacrifice found in the Old Testament. This system is no longer needed since Jesus gave the ultimate sacrifice to save all who believe; Jesus' sacrifice is the basis of the New Covenant.

This chapter of Hebrew is not about abolishing the Law. More particularly, Jesus said the following:

Matthew 5:17-20

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

In the context of the homosexuality discussion, I added:

Just because Jesus did not explicitly mentioned homosexuality, does not mean that He thinks it's ok. He came to fulfill every aspect of the Law. By upholding every aspect of the Law, he implicitly upholds the prohibition on homosexuality.

The author, of the original post, wrote back with the following:

So, let's make sure we preach against sex with unclean women, eating unclean meat, wearing certain types of clothing, tattoos, work on the Sabbath... If this justification is correct, why have we then selectively chosen what to follow and what not to follow? Did we feel it was not culturally relevant? I think you (and most Christian doctrine) may be drawing some dangerous conclusions here.

I think you are taking this out of context. Jesus spoke on His most hated sins (adultery, murder, divorce, truthfulness. He spoke much about piety, helping the downtrodden, and love for one's enemies during the entire Sermon. Are you saying by default then that "he really meant" to speak against homosexuality? Matt 5:17-20 is the catch all for all laws then? I think that explanation is devoid of true logic.

With this post, the author, of the original post, added another assumption. The post referred to some sins as more hated by God than others.

God/Jesus hates all sin; one is no more hated by God than another (maybe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit).

Jesus spoke about different sins to illustrate that we are all sinners. The ones that He pointed out were the ones that some people of that time were committing but weren't willing to admit that they have a problem these sins.

It's not about one sin being worst than another.

James 2:10

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Romans 3:23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

It doesn't matter which sin we commit. Any sin condemns us to death.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It's not in keeping the Law that we can be righteous since none of us are able to keep the law.

It is only through the acceptance of Jesus' gift of his sacrifice on the cross in which we can become righteous.

That's the Gospel.

Someone else who was following the discussion asks for clarification with the following:

If all sins are equally wrong then why did you say that homosexuals cannot be Christians? What makes homosexuality any worse than the daily sins we all commit?

I wrote back the following:

To be a Christian, one has to repent: one has to recognize that he/she is a sinner and strives towards not sinning. Of course, all of us continue to sin because we are not perfected until the return of Jesus.

However, if someone refuses to accept the fact that they are sinning, then they did not repent and they are not saved. It does not matter if the sin is lying or adultery or homosexual activities. If one is not willing to recognize their sin as wrong, they did not repent and therefore not saved.

So, if a gay or lesbian says that there is nothing wrong with being gay and he/she continues to sin, they are not saved.

However, if a gay or lesbian says that it is wrong to participate in gay/lesbian activities and is trying to stop sinning, then that person has repented. If that person, then, accepts Jesus' gift of his sacrifice on the cross, then that person is saved.

Frustrated with my answer, the author, of the original post wrote the following:

I'm straight and I ate pork, have had sex with my wife on her period, have a few tattoos, have worked on the Sabbath, and wear some pretty ridiculous clothes. And I don't think I've sinned... I guess I'm damned to hell? That my personal relationship with Christ is nothing but a farce?

To which I replied:

Leviticus 11:4-8

There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The coney, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

The dietary laws are about keeping clean. Whether it is for ceremonial cleanliness or health reasons, it doesn't matter. If for ceremonial cleanliness, since Jesus' death paid for all our sins and we no longer participate in sacrifice ceremonies. If for health reasons, our food processing methods clean those food. (Not to mention Acts 10:13-15)

Same with laws concerning having sex during a woman's period.

Leviticus 15:19

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

Notice that the person remain unclean only until the evening?

Leviticus 19:26-28

Do not practice divination or sorcery. Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.

The law against tattoos is about practicing divination or sorcery. If your tattoo isn't related to practicing divination or sorcery, it's not a sin.

My point is that the Old Testament law concerns three types of regulations:

1) Regulations for maintaining physical health

2) Regulations for maintaining spiritual health (acts that condemn us to hell)

3) Regulations for sacrifices to be made to atone for the violation of the second type of regulations

The first type does not concern eternal issues that send us to hell and does not require atonement. Before modern technology and modern medical practices, these regulations were very important. But now, we are free from the problems that they solved.

The second type, however, does concern eternal issues that can send us to hell and requires atonement. No modern technology or modern medical practices can save us from the penalty required to pay for sin. These regulations are very much in play today as they were when the Law was given.

The third type is the Old Covenant which was replaced by the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the Christian Gospel:

John 3:16

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

p.s., Homosexuality is also explicitly forbidden in the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 6:9

(NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

(KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

"abusers of themselves with mankind" was translated from the Greek word "arsenokoites" which means sodomite.

p.p.s., I addressed the lesbian question with the following:

All sexual activity outside of marriage is sin. If single having sex, it's fornication. If married having sex with someone who is not one's spouse, it's adultery.

Since marriage is defined from the start to be between a man and a woman, then two woman can not be married to each other. Thus, if two woman are a sexual relationship, they are either committing fornication or adultery.

To which he replied:

Understood, what about two women that marry in the church? Say in Vermont? They are not having sex outside marriage. What then?

My answer:

A Christian Church must abide by Christian Doctrine. Otherwise it is not a Christian Church. Since Christian Doctrine defines a marriage as between a man and a woman, a church that sanctions the union of two woman does not abide by Christian Doctrine.