5 Moral Boundaries You Do Not Want To Cross
To understand evil, we must set aside the comfortable belief that we would never do anything wrong. Instead, we must begin to ask ourselves, what would it take for me to do such things? Assume that it would be possible. — Roy Baumeister
Many people consider monsters like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin somehow uniquely evil. They imagine them as malevolent, abominable, nearly inhuman entities who spent their days scheming to inflict misery on other humans for the sheer sadistic pleasure of it.
The truth is much more terrifying: human beings as evil and ruthless as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are so common that we pass them on the street daily, see them on TV, and may even have the misfortune of knowing them personally. The real difference between these notorious butchers and the guy in a federal prison is not so much the degree of depravity, but the unchecked power needed to make his darkest desires reality.
Once you set aside Hollywood’s caricatured portrait of evil and accept the normalcy of villainy, you see how a “normal person” just like you or me could embrace evil. Moreover, sometimes the shift from human to fiend can have murky beginnings. Some people step over a line and come back. Others follow that tragic path described by C.S. Lewis,
The safest road to Hell is the gradual one — the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.
Here, at least, are a few signposts that will alert you to stop, pause, and take stock to make sure you’re not on that gentle slope.
1) I/You vs. I/It.
We’re all sometimes guilty of treating others like objects instead of human beings with families, feelings, and dreams, just like us. Without that ability to objectify other human beings, pornography couldn’t exist. It’s also one of the reasons for Internet rudeness. When we type something cruel to janeeschmoe8765, we don’t see the crushed look on her face, watch the tears roll down her face, or know that her brother died last week so she’s feeling particularly vulnerable.
Oftentimes, the “morally challenged” among us tend to see themselves as real people, but they look at most others as “things” to be manipulated in any way that benefits them. The thief views a house the way you’d view a gold nugget you found underfoot in a stream instead of thinking about how he’s taking things that another human being may have worked for months or years to pay for. A man who tells a woman he loves her just to seduce her and then never call again only thinks of her as an object for his gratification as opposed to a person. A professional hit man looks at the targets he kills as a pay day. Ultimately, the perpetrator looks at himself as an “I” and his victim as an “it,” like a coffee maker. Few people have moral qualms about what they do to a coffee maker.
2) An Ends -Justifies-the-Means Mentality.
Utopianism and a willingness to use any means to achieve a predetermined “good” end can devastate the lives of other human beings — and even that assumes the “good” outcome is really good. Jim Jones, Pol Pot, and the KKK all probably believed what they were doing was right and good. Yet in the end they turned out to be doing evil in pursuit of an evil end. This is the norm of human history since the beginning of time.
Of course, theoretically, one might create a good outcome by using evil means, but it’s very difficult in the real world because evil tends to spawn more evil and provoke retribution. Tactics adopted by one side inspire the other. Crossing one moral line usually leads to crossing another and taking things to further extremes. Some of the worst devils you’ll ever run across are people who believe themselves to be working for the best ends.
3) A Feeling of Victimization.
Certainly people who’ve been genuinely victimized aren’t evil. However, many folks walk around nursing grievances the size of asteroids when their legitimate complaints amount to a pebble. These tend to be some of the nastiest, vilest, most despicable people you’ll ever run across because they feel justified in “fighting back” after having their “victimization.” A man’s wife says something he doesn’t like so he thinks it’s okay to smack her in the mouth. Others think their company treated them unfairly so they feel justified in stealing from the cash register. They don’t feel like it’s fair that they’re poor, so they feel entitled to sell drugs to kids. Some of the most malicious people you’ll ever run across never blame themselves for anything and perpetually feel as if they’re being victimized by invisible, malevolent forces beyond their control.
4) Escalation and Line Crossing.
There’s a Peruvian proverb that goes, “Little by little one walks far.” Whether you’re talking about business, love, or evil, that’s very true. Evil begins with fantasies, poor choices, and small steps and ends in sin, degeneracy and cruelty. Do you think when Nikki Sixx started doing drugs that he believed he’d end up on his own couch freebasing instead of going to the funeral of the grandmother who raised him? Do you think when the guards at Auschwitz first started going to work they had any idea they’d help to send a million human beings to the gas chamber? It all started with a step and then another step and then another step…
Yum
5) Refusal to Accept Moral Absolutes.
Is it always wrong to torture an animal for pleasure? What about gang rape? How about a 30-year-old man having a “romantic relationship” with a 10-year-old boy? Considering the fact that torturing and killing animals acts as an early warning sign for serial killers, rape remains a “tactic” of warfare in parts of the world, and groups like NAMBLA actively defend adults who commit statutory rape, more than a few people would say “no” to all three questions. Without any real moral lines in the sand, where everything floats in a grey area justifiable under the right circumstances, then we can very easily slide into levels of depravity most people haven’t even imagined possible.
****
Related at PJ Lifestyle from John Hawkins:
All good points. I especially respond to points 1 and 3. In “Hotel Rwanda”, the Tutsis are often referred to as “cockroaches”. I don’t know if that was true in that particular case, but it’s easy to see that it’s logical and even good to exterminate a “cockroach” and not see a human being.
As for victimization, suffering should be an equalizer among human beings, something that gives us empathy. The current victimization racket allows people to think that they alone suffer, and only their suffering matters. It’s dehumanizing.
Lenin said of his opposition: “We are ridding the land of all kinds of insects.”
Great lesson in Saul Alinski 101. aka “lessons for Radicals” which is Obama’s ‘Bible’.
It all stems from the culture of death. That’s the real “root cause.”
I find you to be an interesting read for a young man – actually much deeper than the popular writer who helped found PJM, a man I find incredibly gifted but incredibly shallow too.
I believe C.S. Lewis had it right about the path to hell and #4 the most relevant of your points as to relevance of America. America, too big to fail like those banks, would appear to me to be the proverbial frog sitting on the stove waiting at slow boil – and not just financially. The feeling is palpable and the signs clear to those with a modicum of sense. That’s why this last election was so painful. Many of us believed it was our last, best hope to turn the tide of momentum toward the cliff.
I read this morning once again that America’s fastest voting demographic is the ‘nones.’ No religion, sometimes under the banner of the mindlessly dumb “spiritual but not religious” whatever that means, now considered the new power voting bloc. And this last election would indicate that is probably true. In Iowa, that group of nones won the election for Obama by an overwhelming 52% of the margin for Obama. And I think this speaks volumes.
And a thought occurred to me as I read the perpetual hate filled comments towards the message of Christianity – actually a reminder that I am seeing more and more frequently.
As the political clout of Christianity dwindles in this country, the last 20 years the conversion to no faith exponentially increasing, what are not the opinions but the only relevant measure – the actual results of the popular path?
Are we less divided, more E pluribus unum? Are we financially more solvent? Are we more civil? Is our leadership stronger? Have our public institutions like schools improved? In our leniency, have we grown more honest? Are things more edifying? My answer to any of these would be a resounding no.
Like ancient Israel, as we drift further away from absolute truth, each of deciding what is moral and what is not, I think I can safely predict and sadly America’s best days are far behind her. That greatly saddens me for my children.
I don’t think the “nones” have really thought about the world they are taking us to. Iconoclasts, all of them. Tear it down for the sake of tearing it down. Maybe a few of the honest ones will have a “hey, wait a minute” moment or two. The only silver lining I see is that the Church will never die. Every thing ebbs and flows and what goes around comes around. The pendulum will swing and the Church will survive–and without all the dead wood that sickens the vine.
Absolutely dcanner. I have no fear as this is one you and I can’t lose. I’m completely confident of that. Just a profound sadness at how abjectly ignorant most of these folks really are and the fact it need not be this way, with a foreboding of what is coming. These reprobates, and that is what they really are, obviously know nothing of history and are absolutely blind to what ails us. I can’t think of a better cliche then talk about “cutting off your nose to spite your face.”
The ones that bother me aren’t the hostile, though I’ll bait them here for my own amusement because they are so vile. The ones that bother me are the ones sitting in church pews believing their attendance is all that is necessary, and they can do as they please. And they do, but only for a time. It’s the ultimate fraud and perversion of grace.
In his “Vortex” commentaries, Michael Voris has recently said that while the USA is almost certainly headed towards decline and disaster, this actually offers us a great opportunity to be bearers of the Faith in dark times–to be part of that “Church that will never die,” as dcanner describes. While keeping Christ’s church alive will be a big responsibility, Voris suggests that this responsibility is actually a great gift from God to those of us who believe–a great opportunity to do God’s work. So while it is tough to see what our children might have to face, as Tex Taylor says, we should also welcome the challenges that we will face.
So many churches are dying because they embrace what is out there in the non-Christian culture. They claim to do this in order to be “relevant” or “inclusive.” Usually this is actually a rejection of Christ’s teachings–the same Christ who said He had not come to bring peace, but a sword. The embrace of secular culture might involve a desire to be accepted by the world, or to take the easy way and not face conflict. Voris shows many examples of how this is rampant in the Roman Catholic Church, in the form of “updated” worship services, cowardice in the face of challenges from the world, and “social justice” programs, which are really far-left, non-Christian activities. I see this also in many Protestant churches. Obviously the mainline denominations have strayed very far from Scripture, but a slackening has also crept into the supposedly Evangelical churches, with more emphasis on satisfying one’s self and with an avoidance of confronting sin and evil. Since I am a Protestant, Voris would consider me to be a heretic, but I believe that devout Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox can hold together to keep Christianity alive and flourishing, even though we might become small in number.
As Tex Taylor suggests, we are now pretty much dominated by reprobates who are ignorant about history or in denial about it. As someone who loves history, and who has studied it for decades, I find it very sad that so many Americans now don’t appreciate western civilization, the American founders and their ideas, and the many other Americans no longer with us who did so much good through our history. Maybe, as the monasteries did through the Dark Ages, a few of us will be able to keep this heritage alive for the future.
Tex Taylor, egil and mommynator: Absolutely spot on. Thank you for brightening my day!
Traditional Christianity seems to be doing just fine in other parts of the world.
Seems to me that people who achieve a little material security and control over their circumstances begin to believe they don’t need religion, or The Supreme Being.
Iconoclasm has a history as a Christian heresy: the destruction of icons, which are pictorial representations of saints, Biblical events, or Christ. Present-day “iconoclasts” aren’t merely trying to destroy the images – they harbor an intense hatred toward the spiritual and historical realities that such images depict.
I read that article this morning as well, and the comments. I was dumbfounded that they believe their life is based on “science” and thought and education. They claim to be more “educated”, etc. And all I could think of, educated by who? were you given different points of view or just talking points? I respect atheists/agnostics who come to different conclusions without denigrating anyone else, but this was just outright lunacy.
And like many people who keep saying that we should “let it burn” when it comes to the fiscal cliff, I felt like we people of faith should just withdraw and allow them to have their wish and see how much they like it.
This after spending the evening shift in a hospital with an 11 month old whose mother neglected and practically starved her, leaving her with the developmental age of a two month old and height and weight under the 5th percentile.
It’s people like you. Voices I hear online that keep me going. Thank you so much! I long ago stopped going to church. Not because I stopped believing, but because I kept believing. We got a new pastor and what he taught just wasn’t what our old pastor had preached and it wasn’t what I had been raised to. Then, you hear the worst stories about the things they preach these days in the United Methodist churches … so, I’ve been procrastinating about going back.
I never put down by Bible or my prayers, though. Never, not ever.
There are a lot of truths in this article, but the biggest one that most of the so-called enlightened non-believers miss is that morality is chiefly the means of governing oneself. If you put your morality aside, then you are ungoverned and someone else must step in to govern you. Why do you think that totalitarian governments everywhere either seek to become the faith/chief arbitor of morality or to abolish faith outright? Faith is the best means of establishing morality in the people, and if you would rule, you either want to control the morals or abolish them so the people must be controlled.
Hi, I’ve admired your posts often. I was raised in the Methodist church but gave up long ago of finding Truth there. The Methodists used to have a vibrant church but that faded with transition to relativism. Yes, there are still many good people there but the leadership has sold its soul. I would encourage you to seek out an independant church with loving people who can encourage and support you. You will know them by their fruits.
aharris,
The New Testament is full of scripture pointing out that we need the fellowship of the Body of Christ. I hope you will keep looking for a church, of any denomination, so long as it preaches the gospel. We need our fellow believers to keep us encouraged, and also to point out the beams in our eyes from time to time.
A lot of Baptist churches aren’t much better. I stopped going to church after the pastor I grew up with retired because I just didn’t like the new one. About a decade later I tried going back but by then they were on their third man since the old one retired. The church had become very liberal, and the congregation was a fraction of what it once was. They folded about 3 years ago now. From a vibrant, Biblical church that had lasted for decades to ruin in one.
So I just do what I have been doing all along, reading the Bible, CS Lewis, those Bible Study group booklets, etc.
Some parishes, and some entire church denominations, aren’t actually churches any more – they’re merely clubs. That’s why membership declines.
Properly speaking, Protestant denominations can’t be called churches at all; only those with Apostolic Succession can.
Most Protestant Churches CAN trace their clergy back to an apostolic lineage.The Luteheran and other northersn European Churches can trace their lineage to the mother church. (Though I’m not Roman Catholic myself, it is rather silly not to acknowledge the RC Church as the mother Church of Christianity.) The Archbishop of Canterbury and all the churches that split off from the Anglican Church have maintained apostolic succession. This includes the Methodist Church, according to the teachings I received as a youth.
A lot of the Baptist Churches and independent churches are fuzzy in the apostolic lineage. In independent churches void of denonimation, preachers are just as apt to be self taught and self declared men of the lord as they are to be seminary graduates ordained by a recognized church body.
One thing I have found some Catholics don’t understand. There is no such animal as THE Protestant Church. But then, I’ve also run into Jews who thought that the Christian Church was one big happy family, with different congregations. Similar to orthodox, conservative, and reformed.
And I’ll bet the vast majority of people cannot tell you the difference between Sunni and Shia. Which is similar to the difference between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Salt Lake City, and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, headquartered in Illinois, which is apparently now the Community of Christ, just to confuse things a little more.
> Properly speaking, Protestant denominations can’t be called churches at all; only those with Apostolic Succession can.
In agreement about the mainstream Protestants. But try a Reformed church and stick to the Bible as your authority. Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), Orthodox Presbyterian Church, some brands of Lutheran. The concept of apostolic succession is from Catholic tradition and not Biblically based.
mybuster is right about Authority. Christ granted specific authority to Peter, and other authority to the Apostles, all of which has been “handed on” down through the ages to today’s Pope and Bishops. Jesus meant what he said when he told Peter the gates of Hell would not prevail.
Without the Authority of the Church Christ himself founded, its all relative.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/apostolic-succession
If the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not biblical, then by what authority did Peter and the other Apostles make Matthias an Apostle (Acts 1)? And if Apostolic Succession is not sound doctrine, the entirety of 1 Timothy is reduced to nonsense.
Then there’s Hannah Arendts “The Banality of Evil”.
I find it interesting that all three of the commenters above me have automatically equated Mr. Hawkins’ terms, and particularly the fifth, with Christianity.
Mr. Hawkins made no such equation, and, I think, there is no good reason to do so.
Christianity, after all, worships a god that follows no moral code at all, much less any moral absolute. Christianity itself is no better, having at various times and in various places violated all moral covenants, comitted every possible moral violation, in the name of god and power.
Absolutes of morality come about through respect for other people, the willingness to care for others and the power of compassion. Christ spoke of these things, as did the Buddha, and Ganesh, and Mohammed. The fact that the religions supposedly based on their teachings have all ultimately failed to live up to them shows that relgion is no font of goodness, and that finding those moral attributes is the duty of the individual – and to be perfectly honest, I have seen much more of it among the “nones” than among the self-congratulatory believers in their sunday pews.
I find it astounding that you assume the three commenters above automatically equated Mr. Hawkins’ terms with Christianity exclusively. Christianity was used as a familiar example, not an exclusive one.
To take an example from another religion, you can go to this link, and read about a man who saw the things he gave his life to broken, and he stooped to build them up with worn-out tools.
http://www.aina.org/news/20121030100325.htm
In what way are YHWH’s statutes unjust? Or in what way has He transgressed His own Law?
Well, at the most basic, and if we stick to just the OT, one of the decalogue is usually translated as “Thou shalt not kill”. From what I’ve read, a more accurate translation is “Thou shalt not murder”. God murders all the time, from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (which might be rationalizable as justice, depending on your point of view – I’m sure the natives of those cities would disagree) to the actions of Elisha – who had a bunch of children eaten by she-bears for calling him bald (and while Elisha may have called the curse, who actually sent the she-bears)?
God, and those ordered by god, in the OT have no limits, no absolute Boundaries. The nation of Israel, at God’s order, commits genocide, mass rape, the slaughter of fellow Israelites…there’s very little in the way of moral precept that DOESN’T get violated at some point.
Of course these things were just. God said that the penalty for murder is death, and so He ordered the Israelites to exterminate the baby-killers in the land of Canaan, whom He had given 400 years to repent, but they only grew more evil in that time. Sodom and Gomorrah, likewise, suffered the just penalty for their rape mobs. The youths mauled by bears weren’t so much mocking a prophet as threatening a prophet, and God is zealous for His holy ones. Finally, observe the reason that God condemns murder: Genesis 9 says that murder is forbidden and murderers must be put to death because man is made in the image and likeness of God. We are valuable because He made us so, but we are also called to judgment for our works, and the God who gives life has the right to take it away if that life displeases Him.
Kevin, the moral question here is, who holds the authority to take a human life? When God created man and then due to man’s sin He took away the Tree of Life, that decision right there decreed that life will someday be taken — whether by Him or someone else. But the decision as to when life is taken is God’s decision, to be made by Him or at least by principles established by Him. That makes the injunction against killing, in the context of the Ten Commandments, an injunction against the unauthorized taking of human life.
Sigh. Mass rape? Where?
The actual correct translation is “do not kill people”, in fact the term is used for executions. However, it is modified by the several commandments to execute certain criminals, particularly murderers. A common fallacy is to assume the 15-odd cammandments of the decalogue override the other 600-odd commandments. The Torah is a unit and cannot be understood without reference to the whole.
God is continually giving existence to everything. He is not obligated to continue doing so, nor is he human. So the rules don’t apply to him in the same way.
In fact, the only rule with no exceptions is treason, i.e., worship of other gods, because then you are kicking the ball into your own goal.
To Kevin R. Cross–I wouldn’t be so quick to proclaim the superiority of the “nones.” We already have plenty of examples of the ravages committed by societies which are heavily populated by people who are similar to your “nones,” including a western Europe which is in a deep cultural, moral and economic decline, and, in our own country, “cosmopolitan” areas with very high crime rates and very low rates of charity for the unfortunate. Recent studies have shown that conservative Christians and Jews tend to be much more charitable towards the down-trodden with their actions and their pocketbooks than non-religious people are. It also appears to me that the “nones” tend to approve of our popular culture, a culture which is deeply degenerate, immoral and politically correct.
And, if you think that a formally atheistic society would tend to be non-violent and with a high level of opportunity and satisfaction, well, we already have several examples that show otherwise: the USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain, Marxist Ethiopia….
Egil, I don’t think of the “nones” as superior. I have no doubt there are just as many, or more, good, moral people in the Churches, the Synagogues, the Mosques, the Ashrams. I haven’t encountered them personally, but I don’t doubt they exist.
My point is that moral perception and the attainment of moral absolute lines of demarcation are the actions of individuals, not groups. People of tremendous moral courage can be found among all believers and disbelievers. As, unfortunately, can the morally weak and those who never even try to develop their moral conscience. And I have seen no reason to think that organized religion, or the lack of it, helps in the formation of a truly moral human being.
Kevin, it might be worthwhile for you to read Arthur Brooks’ book Who Really Cares. And the Chronicle of Philanthropy determined in a careful study that “Red states are more generous than blue states, and that “Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not.” These are a few examples, among others, of how “organized religion…helps in the formation of a truly moral human being.” Alternatively, an ideology such as socialism is dehumanizing, because it encourages people to think, “hey, I paid my taxes to the government, so I did my part.” People with that attitude tend to be much less charitable, both with their money and in their actions. The Christian God tells us to do otherwise.
I have known Christians, Jews, believers of other faiths and non-believers who were good people. Yet, from my experience and from reading history, any widespread attempt by a society to deny a higher power and and to deny fallen human nature results in catastrophe. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and atheists have all committed bad deeds. Worshippers and non-worshippers have all committed bad deeds. This says more about human nature than it does about God.
“Worshippers and non-worshippers have all committed bad deeds. This says more about human nature than it does about God.” Precisely!
And yet the “faith-less” cite themselves as the standards of morality–all the while noisily condemning the “faith-ful” whose moral framework has provided the equality and freedom they now enjoy.
Kevin, the problem you have is with the word “religion”. There are many in the world and many who call themselves Christians are not. And you are right in saying that it is up to the individual to make the correct choice. There are two defining passages in the New Testament that deal with behavior and religion. One says that “he who hates his brother and says he loves God is a liar” and the other says that “pure religion is the care of widows and orphans”. Pretty much sums it up.
No it doesn’t.
The evil in the world is human evil.
“So, while the long history of religious oppression and hypocrisy is profoundly sobering, the earnest seeker must look beyond the behavior of flawed humans in order to find the truth. Would you condemn an oak tree because its timbers had been made to use battering rams? Would you judge Mozart’s ‘The Magic Flute’ on the basis of a poorly rehearsed performance by fifth graders? No. A real evaluation of the truth of faith depends upon looking at the clean, pure water, not at the rusty containers.”
—
Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project
If you want to judge any faith fairly, you have to look at it beyond the human vessels. Humans are flawed and necessarily pollute anything they touch by distorting it with their own, personal prejudices. Look at how you can’t avoid doing it in your own post.
I agree with your point. However, since Jesus slandered the Pharisees with “by their fruits shall ye know them”, it is only fair to apply that rule to him, and to look at what was done in his name.
“Absolutes of morality come about through respect for other people, the willingness to care for others and the power of compassion. Christ spoke of these things, as did the Buddha, and Ganesh, and Mohammed.”
I have only a little familiarity with the teachings Buddha and none with Ganesh, but anyone who has been alive for the last decade should be familiar enough with the teachings of Mohamed to know that he is the antithesis of Christ.
To put Mohammed in the same context as Jesus when speaking of morality is beyond absurd yet you wish to lecture others on the logic or lack of it when it comes to “religion” as if all religions are the same.
The atrocities of the Old Testament were specific to certain groups of people at a certain time whereas in Islam killing the infidels is for all time in all places until there is no other religion.
Matthew 7:16 “By their fruits you will know them…” While not perfect I will put the fruits of the Judeo-Christian Tradition up against the fruits of any other philosophy any day.
You’ve got THAT right. It’s time we stopped falling for that “three Abrahamic religions” propaganda. Islam is no more an “Abrahamic religion” than Satanism is.
Have you stopped to consider that Christianity is a very high ideal that has been preached to mere humans? God and Christ did not expect humanity to actually reach such lofty goals but we are expected to try. We are expected to try and fail and try again. It is all part of building one’s character and soul.
The examples you mention are the same ones trotted out by most non-believers. A lot of corrupt and terrible people have used Christianity as a means to trick people into doing foolish or terrible things. That is not the fault of Christianity. Christianity was merely the sugar coating that made the evil go do easily. If it wasn’t Christianity, it would have been something else they used to con the people. Even the best and noblest things can be corrupted by the evil. That is why people need to develop themselves as I stated above so they can more readily identify such charlatans and avoid them or better shout them down before they do too much harm.
I agree.
Mr. Hawkins is asking us to think about what we do, as individuals, on a day by day basis and how we justify our own actions, words and deeds. He asks us to look at ourselves and see how, when and where we objectify others and justify our own actions. (For chrstians, this means to examine your own hearts – mote, log, that sort of thing. Sadly, you spend your time examining someone else’s heart and never look into your own.)
Members of religous groups are certainly not immune to such behavior. Mr. Hawkins has used some extreme examples. Christins will dismiss those examples as aberrations. The problem is a bit more…prosaic, and closer to home. Witness the way the christians have objectified others in the responses to your post and in the responses to the first two posts above. (and in other responses below this one, I’m sure.)
It’s a short step from wanting to do good to actually doing ‘evil,’ iow doing harm to another human being, in both word and deed. If this were not true, there would’ve been no such thing as a Pharisee in the christian’s own bible. If ti were not true, they would not have attacked you or others in their responses to this article. (They don’t think of them as attacks, and nothing matters but their own self-justification, which is the same ‘evil’ behavior that is described in the article.)
It doesn’t matter your religion or lack of religion. It doesn’t matter your politics or lack of politics. It doesn’t matter where you live or what you do for a living. The step to evil often begins with the will to do good…and deciding that what others are doing is evil and absolutely *must* be changed, all for their own good, of course.
…and deciding that anyone who disagrees with you must either be insane or ‘lost,’ and that you must do whatever is neccessary to change them and then save them. All for their own good, of course. iow, they objectifiy anyone who disagrees with them. Meanwhile, their own bible and saviour tells them that what they’re doing is evil.
But they can’t see that. Their behavior is no different than that of a Pol Pot or a Jim Jones.
They love little or nothing but themselves and their own lives. No one else is quite real to them. This is at the heart of ‘original sin.’ Pride and hubris, and using others as objects in order to pursue your own desires.
But they can’t see that.
An easy trick. Discredit based on a lack of perfection.
The discreditor, of course, never mentions that perfection is never achieved and that what he is discrediting is often far superior to whatever alternative he is explicitly or implicitly proposing.
I’m not a religious person, but it should be clear to anybody that Christianity has overcome most of it’s worst moral failures. It was a religion, after all, that was birthed in a much different era, one in which life was harder, violence was more common, information about other ways of living were nearly impossible to discover, and inhumanity was a rule rather than an exception. Contrast Christianity with other religions, and other schemes for influencing behavior(Communism, et al) and it’s beyond clear that Christianity has risen above all of them.
But this too will be discredited because Christianity has had numerous failures throughout its history. And the discrediting will draw no contrasts with other moral schemes, except to cherry-pick a few examples.
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
A man’s wisdom gives him patience; it is to his glory to overlook an offense.
The problem is, christians do none of the first and find everything to be offensive.
Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love finds no joy in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth.
(No. I’m not an atheist. Technically, I’m a heretic.)
First Kevin R. Cross, let me say in at least my defense and maybe all of us you condemn, it is not difficult to be like Christ. It is impossible. If I made it sound like we alone claiming Christ are righteous, let me assure you none of us are. Christianity is unique amongst religions in that salvation is not based on works, but on faith. And that is the point. We acknowledge our shortcomings.
However…
We who you condemn have the recognition unlike you that there is only one qualified to define morality. You simply are not qualified to determine in and of yourself what is moral and what is truth.
What America reminds me of at this minute at least in one sense is France, years perhaps months before the French Revolution – only this time it is not the corrupted Church doing the oppressing but that are rising up in a title wave, the takers, the entitled, the race baiters, the feminists, the big government proponents – most like you angry at God or claiming no God that are doing the imposing, the threatening, the marginalizing, and demeaning. And as your post demonstrates, you’re very vocal about it. Don’t kid yourself – persecution is happening through the courts as we speak. Just a matter of time before the ‘Church’ is declared openly the enemy.
One third of Nazi Germany thought Hilter the ultimate morality. Many believe Che the ultimate moral authority. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Chavez, Castro…all were believed to have been moral at one time or another called compassionate.
You “beautifully” represent exactly what I spoke of in my first statement. Abject ignorance of even recent history. Egil called you on it – there is not one country in history of your mindset of ‘nones’ that has had any measure of lasting success, peace, compassion. It’s a profound arrogance on your part to believe as you do. Yours is replete with a history is of war, death, disease, famine. If you can point me in that direction of a country governed by atheism and success, by all means I will apologize. Seek all you wish, but you won’t find one.
Finally, instead of condemning us for our excesses, I challenge you to show me these great works, charitable and otherwise, and the compassion of you nones. Demonstrate to me what is edifying about you and your ilk so superior to my own. It would appear to me you nones have dictated your government to be benevolent dictator, the charity divvied up as they see fit through public largesse taken without vote. Can you point me to the charitable works of nones provided from their own pocketbooks? One that might rival Catholic Charities, John 3:16 missions, crisis pregnancy centers, The Salvation Army? Something of that regard? Not just your holiday dinner but charitable works throughout the year.
Because frankly, I find you and yours blowhards and liars of the lowest order.
Your pardon, Tex, but you’ve manged to atain a pretty darn high level of arrogance yourself there. I said I have seen more moral truth and courage among the nones than I have among the believers, absolutely. I never claimed to be one of them.
I was born Christian, and I still consider myself one. I’m not the most pious person on the planet, but I believe. I have faith. I just don’t have the blinders you so eloquently show.
As to “abject ignorance”, in that also, you are quite mistaken. The Soviets and Maoists were without doubt, both atheist and evil – but unlike you, I can see that such evil is the act of individuals, just as the good acts of the various “nones” are. But you, who live in a glass house, should throw no stones. Else it would be necessar to bring up the hroors inflicted upon the world by godly, christian people, often at the behest, even urging, of their churches, an even dozen murderous Crusades, Roman and Spanish Inquisitions, witch-finding throughout the world, need I go on? Bringng up the horrors of the past is a tactic which the Christian religion cannot win at. What we can do is say “Yes, this happened. Let us learn and seek that it not happen again.” And if we do that, we and the nones have common ground.
As to secular organizations, I would point you to both Medecins sans Frontiers and the Red Cross/Red Crescent organization. Which do very, very good work around the world and are explicitly secular.
However, you yourself show that your morality is, itself, a weak and pitiful thing.
“We who you condemn have the recognition unlike you that there is only one qualified to define morality. You simply are not qualified to determine in and of yourself what is moral and what is truth.”
What a load of absolute crap. God gave us free will and a conscience. He did not want puppets and creatures to dance at his tune, but people, moral beings, worthy of the compassion He showed us in Christ’s sacrifice.
If you abandon your morality, leave it to another, even to god, then you are nothing but a puppet. If god told you to do something reprehensible, foul, outright evil, then by your position, you would do it.
I would not.
Kevin, I am responding to you because you seem reasonable by comparison to other secularists.
I am assuming that you do consider both sides of a story before pronouncing judgement?? Well then, that being the case here goes:
1) From what I see the totalitarian nature of atheist regimes is a feature, not a bug. Do you not see the inherent danger of being a law unto yourself?
2) Atrocities committed by so-called Christians are a bug, not a feature. Such atrocities are not part of today’s christian faith which seems to prove that such actions in the past were merely politics cloaking itself in the language of faith. Same with leaders in the church. Often second sons were sent to be priests as a career option. Clearly when state religions are mixed with governing authority they can become subject to the same errors as atheist regimes. The church in the past thought that having the force of government/kings behind it would spread the gospel more fully. Today we understand that force doesn’t spread the gospel, service does.
3) Tex’s point that the human being is unqualified to determine morality is true. Everyone will want to define it as advantageously to himself as possible! As a deep thinker yourself you see that we are all beholden to the standards of right and wrong that have been handed to us. We cannot explain altruism any other way. You may imagine that you have chosen your own standard but you haven’t. Like everyone else you have borrowed your morality from others, from religious dogma, in fact. This is not a bad thing.
I believe that God has burned his standards of right and wrong into our very souls–it is part of the ‘image’ of God.
4) Is God good or is he not? You seem to say both and this seems to be the basis of your conflict with faith. I mean no disrespect here. God cannot act contrary to his nature. Those instances in the bible that tell of God seemingly engaging in evil must be explained as A. God takes holiness seriously–He never dances around or excuses sin. B. We don’t understand the full picture and are second guessing thousands of years after the fact. C. Translation from ancient languages into modern ones is a messy business. As a professional linguist I know the truth of C.
Anyway, I hope you can value some of my comments. I’m not a theologian or even as eloquent as some of the others here.
You obviously are ignorant of history as I have already demonstrated, and you once again have repeated the mistake to demonstrate your profound ignorance, contradicting yourself in the process. I hope debate is not your specialty. To call me a puppet is the height of irony, because you not only parrot the ‘Salem Witch Trial’, Crusade accusation of the militant atheists ** yawn **, but you obviously know little of the history of either – the consummate bleating sheep speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Why don’t you just admit you’re a religious bigot and be done with it – carry the banner proudly.
Kevin, if I could use one word to describe you (besides confused with that rambling retort), it would be duplicitous. If you consider me a puppet because I believe in God’s Word instead of your opinions and your own definition of your own personal goodness which I finding lacking and transparently foolish, I don’t just find you confused.
I find you deluded.
My God would never command me to do evil. What a twisted, immature view you have of my God; not even childlike worthy.
P.S. The Red Cross is a disaster…ask the Staten Island folk, ask the Haiti folk, ask New Orleans. You think my list was inclusive? I could name a million organizations, most of which you wouldn’t even recognize as Christian. Want an easy one? Habitat for Humanity.
TYou’re still not getting it, Tex. I don’t care if you like my opinions. Why should you? Your moral compass does not and should not answer to me. My problem is, you also aren’t answering to yourself.
As to God not asking you to do evil, have you ever actually READ the Bible? God actually says we can expect both good and evil from him.
“God actually says we can expect both good and evil from him.”
Care to provide a source to that quote?
@Buckeye: I’ve always had a bit of trouble with the Book of Job, in which God evidently stomps a man into the dirt just to prove a point. And the answer to “Why?” seems to be “That’s for God to know and you to find out.”
Any thoughts?
@Bugs
Point 1) In the Book of Job God does no such thing.
Point 2) It is Satan who stomps Job into the ground.
Point 3) God allows Satan to do as he does, which is not the same as an active participation.
Problem is, Kevin doesn’t have a moral compass to steer by. He moves the needle to point in whatever direction he thinks will serve his short-term self-interest. And then he gets to be self-righteous about it, as if this makes him a god in his own little world. Pathetic.
THIS is what the “nones” are all about.
‘Nuff said.
Tex, I too have seen some parallels between today’s America and late-18th-Century France. We now have lots of budding Robespierres, Heberts and St. Justs, within government, academia and elsewhere. And in combination with the “entitled” population and the other groups you mentioned, we have the likely conditions for another catastrophe.
Thanks for your eloquent comments, Tex.
You too, Egil. Excellent responses as well as compliments to dcanner. I don’t believe Kevin is the inherently vile type, though there are a few here that would qualify – the militant atheistic louts. I suppose I should be more mannerly but I have grown weary of the specious charges and outright lies. I thought today listening to a sermon I enjoyed that it is almost impossible to spread the good news because 99% of the time I’m correcting the insidious lies and propaganda.
Kevin’s is one of ignorance and perspective, believing The Great Society is the ultimate in charity and compassion – never taking a trip to the ghetto to see what the good intentions have left after 50 years. But to a reprobate, it is the thought that counts.
And thank you, dcanner, also. Its very heartening to communicate with kindred spirits such as yourself and Tex and others here. Part of God’s hand at work.
(Sorry I can’t always get my “reply” button to work)
I started reading this, saw wisdom, and said, this must be John Hawkins. Well done, John.
The point is that all of us our prone to evil.
“human beings as evil and ruthless as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are so common”
I’m glad that John Hawkins said this. Lots of people who are ignorant of history assume that Hitler was some kind of freakish, inhuman monster. He wasn’t. He was kind to children and his secretaries, He loved animals and was a vegetarian, and many people who encountered him loved him. Many women, from all classes of society, were enchanted by him. Albert Speer, who was a very gifted architect, talked about how it is hard to hate the devil when he has his hand on your shoulder. Speer went on to supervise slave-labor atrocities in the Nazi regime. The German movie “Der Untergang” (The Downfall) is excellent in showing Hitler as a human being, and not as some un-human monster who is always screaming and shouting. Away from the microphone, Hitler could be very much like you and me.
The reprobates of today think that they are somehow morally superior to Hitler. They’re not. We all have potential for evil within us. And as Hawkins indicates, there are many people today who would be just as destructive as Hitler or Stalin or Lenin or Mao, if those people today were in a position of power. Christianity and Judaism are two of the great forces which have stopped people from becoming Hitlers, or St. Justs. And the influence of Christianity and Judaism is clearly waning in our world.
Not everywhere.
Certainly not here at PJ Media.
“Certainly people who’ve been genuinely victimized aren’t evil. However, many folks walk around nursing grievances the size of asteroids when their legitimate complaints amount to a pebble. These tend to be some of the nastiest, vilest, most despicable people you’ll ever run across because they feel justified in “fighting back” after having their “victimization.”
Thank you for writing that! I feel that I have been the lone person knowingly witnessing Munchausen by Internet here on this site. It is impossible to get a “false victim” to tell the truth, they simply ignore you. I think there are real underlying psychological issues, but how can you help someone that won’t admit there is a problem?
I wish I had more time. Instead I’ll wish one of you would write about Munchausen by Internet and victimhood. Maybe she’ll get help if she hears it from somebody other than me.
They all sound like the characteristics of a good Alinsky-ite left/liberal.
Bingo. Got it in one.
clear ether
eon
I really connected with your number 1) point and realized that there was something that you did not address: our objectification of animals, leading to their destruction for the purpose of the gratification of our sense of taste. Do you think that’s happening or animals are excepted from this somehow?
I’ll agree with you up to a point. There are far too many people today who do not understand or appreciate at all where their food comes, and they do not understand what it takes to put that steak or this egg on the table or where that carton of milk came from. People should experience that knowledge first hand. They should understand that living things live and die for you to have those things. They should know and see that, experience it firsthand in some way to form an appreciation of that fact.
It won’t turn people into vegans or vegetarians like I think you may want (people are by nature designed to be omnivores), but it does help create a certain respect for life that I think is somewhat lacking in many.
There is a possibility that the liberal program will bankrupt the country in my lifetime and totalitarianism will descend. But it will not be a liberal totalitarianism, though, people will have had enough of the stupid liberal, popppycock! Liberalism will rightfully be blamed. As a result of 1, 2 & 3 above it will more likely lead to a religious totalitarianism. Many of the comments here seem to confirm it. The feeling of victimization, resentment, and moral outrage toward the secular is palpable.
Liberalism is stupid and destructive, but does not hold the sharp edge of religious outrage which seems to be building among America’s religious conservatives and is a necessary element for bringing on dictatorships. That is what I fear if the country does not right itself and the liberals bring on the collapse. The country will turn to a zealous, resentful, victimized and religious citizenry who will seek revenge toward all those they blame.
America’s last vestigates of rationality will have been smoothered by liberals and eaten by religious conservatives. I wish you guys here could see that your religious programs are not the opposite of the liberal program, but the same side of the irrational coin and neither have anything to do with protecting individual rights, the core idea that used to be America.
Oh yes. The enlightened amongst us with the charges of Christian theocracy the opposite side of liberal coin, never mind for the entire lifetime of this country, the majority of the citizenry called themselves Christian and there is no theocracy.
If we could all just be rational, reasoned secularists, still deluded by our own good, then we could have heaven on earth. Sorry David, you’re as lost and hopeless as the libs.
The fountain of all hope and humanity is love; without it we are doomed. In a world, and as a nation that is increasingly determined to squelch all that is good and celebrate perversity, evil acts of man will continue and even worsen. In the word’s eyes what is good is bad, what is bad is good. This robs our souls of goodness, of love and hope. Whether we humans realize it or not, we were made from ultimate goodness to love one another, the further away we get from this reality, the more lost, demented and perverse we become; in a word, hopeless.
May peace be with you. Digest it, use it and spread it from within. Know peace, for it will give you the strength to resist evil in times of need, and comfort those who need it.
Nope. Love is a wonderful emotion that many have died for, but mankind will not be sustained by it. Mankind depends upon his mind for survival & all values come from the mind. Reason is the hope of mankind.
The recent tragedy confirms that the most bitterly cynical materialist becomes a moral absolutist when something truly monstrous occurs. Materialists don’t believe in absolute right-vs-wrong until they encounter something they really, really don’t like — at which time they need more moral authority to condemn it than a mere bag of chemicals can possibly possess.
Yet another article that makes Obama look like a reincarnation of Hitler.
Hitler, too, had a following of faithful disciples.
There are more idiosyncrasies than not. But, try convincing anyone 40 years or younger who hasn’t been educated with this history. You’d probably have more success converting them to Christianity.
Everybody is capable of everything.
Speak for yourself dude. I think you can live your life by just three rules and easily raise your children to do the same:
1) Don’t harm anyone unless absolutely necessary in self defense or in defense of friends, neighbors and loved ones.
2) Don’t take any stuff that doesn’t belong to you.
3) Be kind and considerate to children, animals and any adults who follow these three rules.
Almost all “evil” comes from breaking one or more of these.
I disagree. There is an inherent moral code amongst sane human beings. There are some things that no power on earth could force me to do.
Interesting that all examples of evil are – men! One might add that the clitocentric meme of “girls are nice but boys are bad” that we have been force-fed for the past four decades reflects a major crossing of a moral boundary.
From Carpe Jugulum by Terry Prachett :
“There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example,” said Oats.
“And what do they think? Against it, are they?” said Granny Weatherwax.
“It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.”
“Nope.”
“Pardon?”
“There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.
“It’s a lot more complicated than that –”
“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes –”
“But they starts with thinking about people as things …”
“The problem is, christians do none of the first and find everything to be offensive.”
Then you have not met any real Christians. Let me assure you that my circle of friends very much practice this way of life.
Actually, as I stated, I’m technically a ‘heretic.’
It’s possible….possible, mind you, that I spent over twenty years in the church, breaking bread and having coffee and tea with big name preachers and teachers around the nation during the course of that time. I also spent time, lots of it, among the homeless and the wrecked, several times giving away everything that I owned, in the process. A liberating experience, in many ways. You should try it, at least once in your life.
It’s even possible that I’ve read the bible over a thousand times, front to back, back to front and from the middle to both beginning and end, along with learning a little greek, hebrew and aramaic along the way. (Latin is a pita.)Not to mention a bit of church ‘management’ here and there. I even spent quite a bit of time studying church history, comparative religions and even the cultures and histories of all of the people in and around The Middle East. Years of work, study and fellowship with other men, women and children. Good times, most of it.
These days, the church has abandoned it’s Saviour and it’s God and have followed men and the teachings of men. Those men follow another god, now, and another savior. …one who was once light, but who is now dark.
I may not be as ignorant of these issues as you seem to think.
Of course, I did grow weary of little kids pulling my beard and making fun of my bald head, too. …but, unlike another, and others here, I left the provence of punishment and the dispensation of grace to one that was bigger than I in all the ways that count.
Of course at no time did I make a claim to know you at all. A pity, because you are obviously very well learned. So I ask you, (without any implied sarcasm or disrespect) in all of your many readings of the scriptures and your time in the “church” (in quotes because I don’t know which church you were a part of) did you ever come face to face with the living God? Did you ever plumb the depths of your own wretched nature?
I only ask because a good number of critics of the church are themselves flawed human beings. Imagine that. Flawed human beings. Everywhere. But I agree with you (surprise) –The church, as a whole, needs a good kick in the backside. Which is exactly what the current state of affairs seems poised to deliver to it. As she is, she is an unworthy bride.
By their words you shall know them.
“Man is the cruelest animal,” says Zarathustra. “When gazing at tragedies, bull-fights, crucifixations he hath hitherto felt happier than at any other time on Earth. And when he invented Hell…lo, Hell was his Heaven on Earth”; he could put up with suffering now, by contemplating the eternal punishment of his oppressors in the other world.”
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
You made a false accusation, now, you lie about it.
You live in darkness, while claiming to bring light.
You’re delusional.
Sorry, the above was meant in response to Mr. Bonesteel above.
Woderderful post; thank you for the reminders of things I slip in all too often.
It does remind me of a table conversation here in Israel. Perhaps one of the things more common to religious people is the understanding that monsters are not a separate species; we are all capable of either extreme. People (with the exception of certain ill people) aren’t evil, they become that way.
So then … if you belong to a religion that includes *all* of these five things, and that in embracing them and acting upon them you are promised martyrdom and virgins along with your millions of fellow adherents, what are the rest of us supposed to do about that?
I hate to say this but Mr. Hawkins has probably indicted at least 50% and possibly 80% or 90% of the people currently inhabiting the earth – who violate these “boundaries” on a regular basis. It is sad.
There are some interesting observations, however irrelevant. I am a cancer survivor and after my “cure” I attributed my good fortune, or if you will “overtime”; partially to the idea of God’s providence.
Being by nature, a bit narcissistic, I may have underestimated the skill of my medical team, and over estimated the affection of the All mighty. My life is drowning in a whirlpool of fear and misfortune. Although anecdotal, this example stands for the universal “I” at some point in every life.
The premise missed, seems to be whether; consciousness and memory transcends the physical body after death. If not, there is really no teleological foundation for believing that an “I” has any reason to treat others as sacred. When I or you, blink out, (brief candle) the world effectively ends and so goes the Annihilation of its cause, purpose, morality, experience and well everything.
A very good start! Now just ask yourself: WHY do the evil embrace these steps?
When there is only blackness the light of a single candle glows as bright as the sun. And while much is made over Humanities capacity for Evil what is even more important is the capacity for Good that lies within each of us , even in the face certain martyrdom. It may seem strange that as a Jew ( we have paid the price for Mans capacity for Evil more than most I think ) I should be the ultimate optimist, but I am.
Perhaps it is because when I visit Yad Vashem I always walk through road of the Righteous Gentiles. Each tree named for a person who at the risk of their own lives saved the life of another. It would have been so easy for these Great Souls to simply keep their heads down and ignore the pain around them, yet they could not sit idly by their brothers blood.
Can one even begin to imagine the moral strength it took for a Rabbi to walk knowingly into Auschwitz because he knew he could not save the children in his care but knew he could comfort them as they were marched into the gas chambers? Do we who sit at our computers have the right to complain about our own circumstances in the light of such moral clarity and moral intention? Can we who are safe and fed and free complain and bemoan when we have the power to make things better?
There are two lessons to be learned from The Shoah. The first is how low Mankind can sink into depravity. The second is Mankind’s ability to achieve Goodness that borders on The Divine.
The line of morality that has been crossed and re-crossed so blithely by so many is honor. As it has been diminished, so has respect for individuals been diminished. As a means to achieve an end, dishonesty has become pervasive throughout our government, in law enforcement and our society in general. The leftists don’t care when one of their own lies, they believe it is necessary to counter the evil establishment. They draw that attitude from the days of the Cold War, when lies and deception were the primary tools of battle against the Soviet Union. Everyone does it, so say the liars, and they get a pass.
One’s word is of no value, in our modern times, and that undercuts all else. If the government can come in and alter the terms of any agreement, no contract is of any value. Marriage vows are said, then promptly ignored. Police men and women disguise themselves as drug addicts or prostitutes and they are diminished by it. Politicians routinely promise things they know they will not deliver. Trickery and deception are common themes in movies and television programs, performed by the “good guys”.
The absence of honor is the most corrosive condition we face today. A return to a code of honor under which honesty was the most highly valued moral could bring us back.
I am one of the “nones,” but I do think that I understand and adhere to concepts of reciprocal altruism, justified retribution, love thy neighbor, etc. I love my wife and children, and I won’t cheat. I’m total capitalist, all that. I am convinced,however, that morality is best that has a rational basis, and take little stock in deriving morality from ancient texts about ancient fables. Nevertheless, I am probably in the minority among the “nones” on much. There are more of me, however, and I think there can be a lot more if these discussions stay ” rational” and stay away from the “Christian” thing. There’ s more than ample relational basis for anything of substance shared here. I enjoy it!
Generally good points, but there are two where I would deviate on the specifics.
Ends cannot justify means, nor should the idea of moral absolutes be dismissed. However, I try to follow a slightly different moral paradigm, where the morality of an act is defined by the range of reasonable predictable consequences rather than the act itself, and that leaves the meanings of these two points a little different.
Under that setup, the means are in themselves amoral and need no justification, and if you consider the ends as well as side-effects and unintended consequences, you may find justification (or not) for any act. This means there is no such thing as a “necessary evil”, nor any incentive to stand on principle even when that would lead to more harm than good (despite the benefit of supporting whatever principle). It’s a slippery slope where rationalization of evil is very easy, but I feel more comfortable with it than with the idea of good and evil acts.
Also, what constitutes absolute evil is different. Torture purely for pleasure is wrong because the harm of trivializing hurting living beings is greater than the benefit of pleasure. However, putting an animal through tortuous experiences, even exactly the same pain and harm, may be acceptable for the sake of gaining medical knowledge. The exact same act may be acceptable if the consequences are different. While I cannot imagine any circumstances where “romance” with children could lead to greater benefit than harm in modern society, I do not dismiss the possibility that such circumstances could potentially exist. (I know of an old practice of forcing toddlers into marriage with each other because married men were ineligible for conscription, and Russia’s Tsars had children taken for training, with decades of training and service. It’s obviously not the same as adults in “romance” with children, but I otherwise would not have imagined any circumstances where forcing children into marriage could be acceptable, so I would not dismiss the possibility of some unheard of, and perhaps unthinkable, conditions making the relevant acts acceptable.)
The American Psychiatric Association started down the path of normalizing deviancy when it irrationally removed homosexuality from its list of disorders. So now we’ve got officially recognized college student groups for people who like to smack people around. In other words, we’ve got college student groups devoted to promoting bondage, sadism, and masochism, as well as homosexual heterophobia. Rome didn’t fall in a day. We’re slowly sliding down the slippery slope to mass dysfunction. But too many of us don’t see it. Those of us who do need to keep pointing that out.
Spot on Hondo. We DO need to keep pointing it out and refusing to be silenced. Christians/conservatives need to stop talking like we’re all running for office and start speaking the truth in love. Love sometimes means shoving you out of the way of a freight train.
John,
I am so thankful that I found this just before PJ Media took it down from current headlines to make room for a new piece by you. This is one of the best posts I have read in the blogosphere. I have linked to it here: http://bobagard.blogspot.com/2012/12/five-moral-mistakes-we-make.html