Category: Morality & Ethics

Good Intentions the Source of Morality?

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Morality & Ethics

 

Good Intentions the Source of Morality?

I had a young friend tell me that humanity is mature enough that they no longer need religion for they have good intentions.  My reply was, where do you think good intentions and a sense of morality comes from?  Don’t they come at one level from our beliefs?  Do not beliefs need to be passed down from one generation to another and is not the mechanism that does that best is what we call religion?  Who do you think will have the best intentions towards their fellow human beings?  Those that believe that humans are just animals and no different from a bug, or those who believe that we were created in the image of God and therefore have ultimate worth?  I will take my chances with the latter.  I believe that the younger generation is living from borrowed values of a Christian culture which is quickly evaporating.  If I am correct there will be fewer and fewer good intentions coming from a good morality.

From a philosophical point of view, you cannot get an ‘ought or value’, from an ‘is or a fact’.  For example, explaining a high idea such as altruism does not make it a morality it simply explains the behavior.  There is a big difference between saying that giving food to the poor is kindness and that you ought to (morality) give food to the poor.  The latter carries a moral imperative and judgment.  The question is by what authority can you say ‘you ought to give to the poor’?  When you say ‘you ought to give food to the poor’ you are making ‘giving to the poor’ a moral or ethical imperative which is what morality and ethics is made up of.  However, you cannot get an ‘ought’ from a good fact.  You can only get a preference.  I may like giving to the poor but my liking of giving to the poor does not make it into a morality, only a preference.  You can say I prefer to give to the poor, rather than ignore them.  You are attempting to turn your preference into morality or an ethic when you say that you ought to give to the poor.  However, by what authority do you do this?  The only way to have morality, which is truly a morality, is a religion with a God, that has ultimate authority that can pronounce the thing as an “ought to”.

The above demonstrates why trying to make a morality will always end in authoritarianism with one man or one group imposing their so-called morality on others.  The reason is that they have no authority other than the state which itself is made up of mere men.  Only a morality formed by religion and the authority of an absolute deity has any ground in reason.  A personal morality grounded in preference is fictional and delusional.  It is the individual claiming to be deity.  More often than not it is for the purpose of covering up their own wickedness or lack of morality.

 

 

An Article for Believer’s on Abortion

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Abortion, Morality & Ethics

An Article for Believer’s on Abortion

A Call for Repentance

The Bible says that God created mankind in his image and no one images God more perfectly than an innocent baby born or unborn.  Jesus said they always behold the face of the father. In view of this, I must take the position that abortion is an attack on the image of God. The scriptures portrayed God as a God of life who hates death.  Therefore, I find it incredible that people who claim to be believers can believe that it is God’s will to put a new life to death.

It is obvious to a clear-thinking believer that the men and women that commit abortions are ideologically possessed and cannot be justified for any reason other than the life of the mother is clearly threatened by the pregnancy[1].  In the Christian world view all life is sacred and the taking of any life without justification is murder and reflects the spirit of Cain who was a murder from the beginning. I hereby define murder as unjustified killing. Therefore, I must define the majority of abortions as premeditated murder.

Now, God has given the right to categorize all life[2] except human life which he specifically says was created in his image. To put human life in another category or downgraded it to a lesser form of life is stepping over the line that God has created, which is sin. No man has the authority to do this and that is exactly what men do when they start debating over when life begins and the right and wrong of abortion. Shortly after conception takes place the life of a human being is marked genetically as an individual and the image of God and therefore it is a grave sin to destroy it.

Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to justify the idea that the unborn child is something less or different than a child after its birth.  Before the birth of Jesus, Jesus is referred to as a child and John the Baptist responded when still a fetus to the voice of Mary when still in the womb, demonstrating that even a fetus has a consciousness which is the main characteristic of God.

Some among us do not believe that an unborn fetus is a life, but if it’s not life what is it? Science believes it’s a life and Christians from the beginning have considered it a life.[3] All the women I have known during their pregnancy talk as though it’s a life so you could say language makes it a life. In most states, if someone murders a pregnant woman, they are indicted for two murders. So, in most states, the law says that the unborn are people that have a right to live. Again, If it is not a life what is it? Just a blog of cells and flash? If that is what it is the only difference with an adult and the unborn is the size of the blog of cells because it has all the same genetic makeup as an adult human being.  The only difference is its age and size.

When a people no longer can discern that abortion is contrary to nature and to the God of nature, there is something deeply wrong. In order to accept abortion, people must be ideology possessed[4] and demonically influenced. If God is to judge the world in righteousness and justice, there must be self-evident truths. His existence is self-evident and there are certain sins that are self-evident, otherwise God could not be justified in his judgment. I think it is evident that abortion is one of those truths that is self-evident because it is contrary to nature and to the God of nature. It is one of the natural laws that God has written on the hearts of all men.

This also raises the question of a corporate guild. Do people who support abortion share in the guilt of those directly responsible for preforming abortion? The indication from Scripture is yes.  The apostle Paul says, “Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Rom 1:28-32).  “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.  For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said:

Wake up, O sleeper,

rise from the dead,

and Christ will shine on you.”

Eph 5:11-14

If you are a believer and are practicing abortion or supporting it in any fashion, I would strongly suggest that you change your mind and repent.

[1] With modern technology and methods, it is extremely unlikely that a child would have to be aborted to save the life of the mother.

[2] This is what is depicted in the story of God bringing all the animals before Adam to be named.

[3] The early Christian father that wrote in the few centuries clearly state and shared the belief that abortion is nothing less than murder. Note “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” by David W. Bercot, Editor.

[4] Most people who claim to be Christians and endorse abortions have been influenced by materialistic humanism or the advanced liberalism of the West. Both these ideologies are grounded in atheism which is the denial of God.

The Source of Homosexuality

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Homosexuality, Morality & Ethics

The Source of Homosexuality

Since the rise of modern psychology, there has been a debate over the source of homosexuality. This goes back to the debate on the source of most human psychological states. That is the debate between nurture and nature. In other words, is it environment or is it genetic or biological?

As far as I  know, there is no compelling scientific evidence, which proves that the source of homosexuality is purely genetic. In fact, studies with identical twins have demonstrated the very opposite. Most of the Science seems to point to the fact that genetics may give one a predisposition towards sexual orientation, but it does not determine it.  Genetics does not destroy free will. I find it strange how homosexuals and their supporters appeal to genetics and science when it serves their argument but reject them when it does not.[1]

Believing that homosexuality (which I do not) is purely genetic raises the question: Does being born with a certain appetite or disposition give one the right to act out their desires no matter how bizarre or extreme they maybe? Does being born with an overactive imagination about one’s attraction to children justify pedophilia? Does an extreme or perverted appetite for sex justify all sexual behavior, i.e. pedophile, orgies, debauchery; sex with animals, incest, womanizing, etc.  In essence, does ones appetite do away with the idea of normal sexuality?

It would also seem that natural law has a place in this discussion, in that nature has provided every species the biological body parts for reproduction. It would seem that the very purpose of sexuality is procreation. This would indicate that the urge or desire for sex is a part of the procreation system that was implanted in humanity by nature. When the drive for sexuality is removed from the procreation process, you have a perversion of the entire system. In this, sexuality is very much like any other instinct, it can be excessive and perverted just as selfishness and self-centeredness are the perversions of our survival instinct.

In order to discuss homosexuality rationally, people must agree on terms. First, they must be an agreement that there are norms and therefore, perversions of those norms. This is especially true in the area of appetite. In other words, is there such a thing as a normal appetite? If not the discussion ends. There must also be a definition of perversion. In my thinking, a perversion is having an appetite for the wrong object or an excessive appetite for something. Of course, it could also be the lack of appetite as in bulimia. Personally, I don’t see how a culture can continue where people are not expected to control their appetite and their perversions.

Can we learn anything from history about homosexuality? I believe we can. There is a strong indication that homosexuality seems to increase at the end of civilization never at the beginning. It never seems to be associated with the progress of a civilization’s morality but always a form of declension. It would also seem that it is associated with the unnatural lifestyle of large urban cities.

My personal experience with friends and family that are homosexuals is that the majority of them were abused as children by siblings or relatives. In counseling, I have found that it is extremely hard if not impossible to get some people to admit to a sexual encounter or relationship with family members because the shame is just too great. It is very easy to understand how early-childhood experiences, can shape one’s sexual understanding of the self. If you have sex with someone of the same-sex and your body responds to it, it would be understandable to think that a person might think that’s an indication of their sexual orientation, when in fact, it’s purely a biological response. Still another source of homosexuality is a young boy’s sexual response to his mother. Sexual attraction to one’s mother is confusing and taboo for most young men; some deal with it by suppressing their sexual desire for all women which surfaces in an over attraction to men.

Still, another very important possibility for the origin of homosexuality is what we might call a mind freeze. As human beings and somewhat depraved creatures we often have bizarre and crazy thoughts pass through our minds. Most of these thoughts are quickly expelled or forced to the recesses of our minds. However, in some cases, people get stuck in one of these thoughts and then begin to fixate on it to the point of being addicted to it. These compulsive thoughts can lead to behavior disorders and I believe homosexuality. An example of this is that in interviewing a number of men I discovered that a large number of them could remember in a very vivid way the first hard-core pornography they saw or held in their minds a vivid picture of their first sexual encounter. In theology, these mind freezes could be referred to as temptation.

I have one friend who in his teens believed he was homosexual and practiced it for some time and then realized that he was not gay and turned to a heterosexual lifestyle, and now he’s married and has a family. I have asked him a number of times if he is ever tempted to go back to homosexuality, and he says that it has no hold on him. He was abused by his father and was dressed up like a girl and taken to his father’s bar where he was ridiculed and mocked by the men.

The only reason I can see for accepting homosexuality as normal in any fashion is by accepting the spirit of the age without much critical thinking. To me, it seems that science, history, natural law and my experience with friends and family all seem to indicate that homosexuality is anything but a positive force in the world nor can it be classified as normal. How you classified it is another story.

The last point is that sodomy goes against the tradition of all three Abrahamic faiths. This means that it is at odds with billions of people’s faith and tradition. At first, this may not seem to be a powerful argument, especially in a secular age, but when you consider that there was a reason for these faiths taking their position against such behavior. The fact that civilizations such as Greece and Rome which embraced homosexuality ceased to exist is interesting. It is understood that correlation does not necessitate mean causation, but it well could. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in scripture seems to link sexual perversion and declension.

Why the sudden change in people’s understanding of homosexuality? Some of it can be traced back to the enlightenment that created a bias towards anything religious and its association of morality with religion especially things having to do with sexuality. Sigmund Freud popularized these ideas and the general public accepted it with the belief that it was going to lead to sexual freedom[2]. What it led to was an obsession with sexuality. The pseudoscience of Freud was especially popular with men of the 50s and 60s who believed that their appetite was being suppressed by a rigid sexuality. Thus the popularity of Playboy magazine. There is also strong evidence that there was an effort by the elites in education and Hollywood to normalize homosexuality and classic hedonism in the last few decades which is understandable seeing they have nothing to live for other than feeling good and satisfying their appetites. The satisfaction of one’s appetite has become the par excellence virtue of Western culture. The only thing left for Western culture is for it to embrace its nihilism and die or repent of its nonsense.

[1] If homosexuality is purely genetic that would mean that it is simply a negative mutation which would make it difficult to put a positive spin on it. How could a gene be considered positive if it has the potential of eradicating the species? The only way homosexuality could be considered positive is if you wrap it in the ideology of radical individualism.

[2] instead of freedom it has led to slavery of our passions and our sexual appetites. Scripture speaks of these men, “These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity-for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. (2 Peter 2:17-19).

 

Reason and Morality

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Morality & Ethics, Reason and other Nonsense

Reason and Morality

When it comes to reason being the source of morality, reason is a joke and its control over morality is greatly exaggerated. The reign of reason over man’s morality is a social construct of the enlightenment. This was demonstrated by David Hume decades ago and is now supported by science. Reason is the handmaiden of the will and emotions. It was exalted to a place of predominance by the skeptics of the enlightenment as a weapon against religion and it is still used that way by atheists today. Reason on its own has no creative power in regards to morality and nor is it the main source of atheism. Atheism mainly stems from attitudes, disposition and behavior, not reason. Atheists call upon reason and claim reason as the source to justify their lack of faith and their disposition when in actuality their unbelief is simply an attitude often springing from the human ego and other genetic and environmental sources.

What about the explanation of morality given by evolutionary psychology? When people make an appeal to evolutionary psychology they’re making an appeal to more psychological babbling. I personally enjoy that subject but it is not science. To be a science something has to be able to be witnessed or observed happening and you have to reproduce it through experiments. It also should be open to falsification. You need to have facts not just the presupposition and a well-spun story to explain existence without God. Read Henry Gee’s book “Deep Time”.

Let’s look at some real science and history. One hundred years ago there was a grand experiment done in Russia when atheistic communism took over the country. At that time atheists in Russia were saying the same thing as atheists today about morality and reason. They believed they could build a better culture and morality on reason alone. Many of them lived to witness the corruption and collapse of that culture. Their atheistic reasoning didn’t create their perfect morality or state. The idea that reason can create morality is nothing but a myth. The rider (reason) does not control the elephant (emotions), the elephant controls the rider as Hume demonstrated decades ago. All that atheists have is an attitude and a created imagination.

Even in view of their failed experiment, many atheists have not changed. They still exalt reason to an unreasonable level and refuse to admit that if in power they would be corrupted like every other group. They also still maintain the  utopia vision and the myth of progress which is their hangover from Christianity, i.e. they still believe in creating a new paradise on earth through their atheistic communistic ideology.

 

 

Do atheists have the moral high ground?

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Apologetics, Atheism, Morality & Ethics

Do atheists have the moral high ground?

Watch the video at the end of the article

“The rationalists’ and atheists’ claim to the moral high ground is based on ignorance of history.  The hallmarks of atheistic regimes were persecution, oppression, brutality, cruelty and mass killings. Atheistic regimes from the start embarked on violence and have been amongst the most evil and bloodthirsty in all human history. The motivation of many of the killings was a hatred of religion.”[1]  John Gray whom himself is not a believe adds, “Yet the mass murders of the twentieth century were not perpetrated by some latter-day version of the Spanish Inquisition.  They were carried out by atheist regimes in the service of Enlightenment ideals of progress.  Stalin and Mao were not believers in original sin.  Even Hitler, who despised Enlightenment values of equality and freedom, shared the Enlightenment faith that a new world could be created by human will.  Each of these tyrants imagined that the human condition could be transformed through the use of science.”[2]  May I add a belief shared by many of the new atheists?

The atheistic response is usually along the line of denying that the atheism was not the true source of the violence.  They attempt to blame the political ideology at the time for the violence.  However, the political ideology of communism and  Marxist economic systems are both grounded in atheism and the belief in the totalitarian statism which seems to go with atheism.

An honest person can already see in the seeds of the new atheist movement the belligerent nature toward believers and the hate of religion that can be a source of violence of the worst kind.  You can see this vindictiveness in many of their blogs, if not in the body of the blog, then in the comments where believers are ridiculed and called about every name in the book.  Richard Dawkins the high priest of the new atheist movement, at a recent Reason Rally, told the crowd to ridicule and mock believers at every opportunity.  What he meant was for his Brown Shirt atheists to find some ill versed Christian and make them look stupid.  Of course, a well versed Christian could do the same to an ill versed atheist.

The New Atheists are no different from their forerunners, they hate religion and religion’s people. They mock Christians for saying that you should love the sinner but hate the sin, exclaiming that it’s impossible.  However, they claim to hate religion, yet love people of faith.  Just more nonsense.

[1] “The Liberal Delusion” by John Marsh.

[2] “Heresies: Against Progress And Other Illusions” By John Gray. Kindle location 553.

 

 

The New Holocaust-Abortion

Posted on by Lyle Duell in Abortion, Morality & Ethics

The New  Holocaust

In the practice of full-term abortion, we see the death of the liberal conscience that has been seared by its devotion to the god of choice. Its next move will be to eradicate anything or anyone who causes an awakening or pain of conscience. We already see them gathering their forces against Christianity and any other force which might try to convict them of their atrocities. This will be accomplished and has already started in some countries by the destruction of free speech. At least free speech by dissenters who will expose their monstrous endeavors.

The new mantra of the left is “I don’t believe in abortion but I support choice”. In such remarks we see individual choice being elevated to a higher place than life in our nation’s value system and becoming the absolute criteria for morality. A similar idea must have been held by the Nazi guards that were moving the Jews to the gas chamber. Their delusion allowed them to believe that they were doing something in the name of the higher good. In this, they could  continue to believe that they were righteous even in the face of the terrible evil they were doing. Similar, the  German people knew what was going on in the death camp’s but denied it or ignored it as long it was  hidden and not happening to them. We all need to remember that the Holocaust was an example of doing evil under the cloak of doing good.