The opening...

From Brandon Pickett

The Golden Rule's Problem

I wanted to respond to a comment from my last post. The pertinent part of the comment follows:

"What would happen if you remove the religious connotations and incentives, and did "good works" and "right actions" simply because they are the right things to be done.

Then, if you do a "wrong thing" you should appeal first to those wronged for forgiveness, before forgiving yourself.

It happens too that if someone should "wrong" you, then you should be forgiving in your turn.

But that sounds too much like religious teaching. No?

Now, in those terms how does one define "right" and "wrong"? Again very simple -

If an act is one that I would consider a "wrong" when it is done to me, then it must be "wrong" when inflicted upon any other person.

If an act is one that I would consider "right" when it is done to me, then it must be "right" when done to another person.

Are there shades of grey and "excuses"? Not, I think, if one is honest with oneself. "

The first line is the most interesting. To be truthful, men do not do something simply because it is the right thing to do. Always in the heart of man there resides evil. Jeremiah 17:9 states,

"The heart is deceitful above all things,

and desperately sick;

who can understand it?" In other words, I can be sure that in most every decision a man makes from day to day, sin will be involved. That's because men are sinners. I mean that most mathematically. Man=sinner.

So, when you take away true goodness from men's hearts (as happened in the fall), the rest of my commentator's comments fall away. I won't forgive. I won't ask for forgiveness. I will not abide by my own moral code of the golden rule. I won't. Read world history to see this.

Moreover, to make that which is good "that which I would like done to me" and that which is bad "that which I would not like done to me" is completely hopeless outside Christ. Christ gave that command to the faithful, those who have the Holy Spirit of God within them, and they have a hard enough time doing it! To make good and bad so relativistic is dangerous.

// posted by BLP @ 5:58 PM

Comments: - This first from me...

I am (I think this is the right word) honoured that you have picked on this.

Can I comment just a little further, again as an observation on the principles involved rather than personal...

The idea of -

"Always in the heart of man there resides evil. Jeremiah 17:9 states, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick;

who can understand it?"

you follow directly with the qualification of "choice"...."In other words, I can be sure that in most every decision a man makes from day to day, sin will be involved. That's because men are sinners."

For me THAT is where the matter starts and finishes.

It is not some outside evil, nor any original sin, that leads me to beating up on my neighbour, or taking his car without his permission, or sleeping with his wife.

Every time, I have the CHOICE of doing or not doing.

The same can be argued in relation to omission - the not doing of a good act. Again it is choice, as you have pointed out, that leads to the wrong, not an externalised "the devil made me do it".

That really is the crux of the matter. In my mind, the religious connotations follow at all manner of levels.

I am by no means perfect. There are matters of conscience that I have going back some many years that need to be set right. Some I might still be able to correct, others I know I can not. This, if I am frank about it, is where "religious forgiveness" for those wrongs might be applied. But I have also to be honest with my self and my own beliefs. That manner of "religious forgiveness" is in fact no more than a salve for the conscience, an antibiotic against the Greek Erynnes (?sp), a "self applied forgiveness bandaid" to make me feel better about myself and what I have done.

It does nothing to correct my wrong. The person I have wronged knows nothing of my acceptance of my guilt.

Where is the "rightness" of that?

On the wider scale of your comment, the same rationale applies, in my mind, to every moment of history.

Some choices have led to "good outcomes" - I have seen the assassination of Julius Caesar mentioned in this light as "justification" for the assassination of enemies such as terorists.

Was Hitler "forced by some evil" to invade Poland? No. Was Napoleon "forced" to invade the Low Countries and threaten Britain? No. Was Yamamoto and the Japanese leadership "forced" to bomb Pearl Harbour? No. Was Ghenghis Khan "forced" to cut his swathe of invasion, murder and destruction across Asia? No.

EVERY event of history is the consequence of human decision. There are no supernatural forces involved.

The outcome of those decisions is more fundamental in the long term in determining the "goodness" or the "evilness".

If Hitler had successfully overcome Britain and eventually the US, I have no doubt that his invasion of Poland would now be seen as a "great moment of history".

It is the result of great numbers of events and decisions that has led to the world we now have rather than the other.

What must be said is that nothing, but absolutely nothing, can unravel that history. To that extent, the wrongs that I have done can not be undone either, and have their own microscopic place in the present.

That, I believe, is something that not even "religious forgiveness" can right.

Finally, "the evil that lurks in men's hearts" I do not dispute. But it is not the "evil forces" that religion portrays it as. It is in our nature as animals that brings this survival and self-preservation instinct to the fore. That makes NO EXCUSE for the act of evil - the "wrong". As sentient beings, we should be able to recognise the fact, and we should be able to control the instinct.

And that is one reason why I think that your final paragraph is an incorrect conclusion.

Taken literally, you are saying that any person not a Christian is ipso facto evil. That is just plain wrong. You can not make such a sweeping generalisation.

If you were correct, then over 80% of the world's population would be, in your definition, evil. Try telling that to the ordinary, law abiding, good folks who happen to be Bhuddist, or Hindu, or Moslem, or Jewish, or Taoist, or even atheist like myself.

# posted by The probligo

To which this reply...

The Probligo,

As I have read your comments here on Brandon's blog, I am refreshed with your cordiality and seriousness (unlike others who sometimes comment). Even though you disagree, you are a gentleman. Thank you for that. It is in that irenic spirit that real conversations can be had, even among those who have real and fundamental differences.

Allow me to comment on your comment:

"I am by no means perfect. There are matters of conscience that I have going back some many years that need to be set right. Some I might still be able to correct, others I know I can not. This, if I am frank about it, is where 'religious forgiveness' for those wrongs might be applied. But I have also to be honest with my self and my own beliefs. That manner of 'religious forgiveness' is in fact no more than a salve for the conscience, an antibiotic against the Greek Erynnes (?sp), a 'self applied forgiveness bandaid' to make me feel better about myself and what I have done. It does nothing to correct my wrong. The person I have wronged knows nothing of my acceptance of my guilt. Where is the 'rightness' of that?"

It seems that the problem does ultimately hinge on the existence of a God who is above me and has the right to command me. Is there such a thing as "real guilt," or is our guilt merely a feeling that we must "salve"? Granted, we all carry around with us false guilt, that is, feelings of shame and guilt that are not connected with any moral lapse or sin. But we also, as you admit, do commit genuine evil acts for which we are genuinely guilty.

The question is, what is the ultimate source of my genuine guilt? Is it just the person against whom I have sinned? If so, then that person is the only possible source of forgiveness for me. If that person is dead, or absent from my life, then I have no hope of being forgiven and I must either suppress my genuine feelings of guilt, live in depression and despair, or act as if my actions weren't really wrong after all.

In a Christian vision of things, however, there is another option. In a Christian vision, my sin against other people is a problem and needs to be reconciled. But ultimately, my sin is against the God who made me and has the absolute right to command me and judge me. A good Biblical example of this is King David's words in Psalm 51. He wrote this psalm after he committed adultery with a woman and had her husband murdered in order to cover it up. Real guilt? Absolutely. Did he sin against these people? Certainly. But look at his own words after he came to acknowledge his guilt. Speaking to God, he says, "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment" (Psalm 51:4).

In other words, David knew that his sin was ultimately against God. In committing adultery and murder, he had violated the Law of the God who made him. David needed to seek forgiveness on a horizontal level, but ultimately he needed to find forgiveness on the vertical level. He needed to find forgiveness from God.

That forgiveness from God is, of course, the central message of Christianity. Our guilt is real, because we have rebelled against the one true and living God. But this same God in love and compassion sent his Son to live a righteous life in our place and then suffer for our crimes so that God could "be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26). In order to be just, God must uphold his Law. Yet in love, he satisfied the righteous requirements of his Law in his Son so that he could offer forgiveness to all who hope in Jesus Christ alone.

Now, I know that all of that sounds like nonsense to you, being a professed atheist. But I am going to go out on a limb: The Bible tells me that, despite all of your protestations to the contrary, you know that there is a personal God who made you and against whom you have sinned. (If you are interested in the reference, you may read it in Romans 1:18-32.) Therefore, I appeal to you to search your conscience. Why would an animal have a conscience? Why would an animal have a sense of right and wrong? How could non-personal forces (time+chance+matter) give rise to personality? How could mere chemical reactions give rise to love?

If you say that personality and love are illusions, then why go on living? And further, what makes the actions of Hitler, Napoleon, Yamamoto, Ghenghis Khan, and a thousand other evil men and women bad in the first place? If you are just a chemical reaction--the random and purposeless product of time+chance+matter--then why is it more "right" for me to talk cordially with you than it is for me to strangle you to death? After all, we terminate chemical reactions all the time.

I would submit to you that you cannot live with that. If you take your presuppositions to their logical conclusions, you have no reason to live or love. You have no reason to think and write. And nothing that you write or think is any more "right" than what a crazed lunatic thinks or writes. Again, how can a mere chemical reaction be "right" or "wrong"? It simply is.

I wish you and I could sit across the table from one another, share an ale, see the expressions on one another's faces and hear the tone in one another's voices. Writing like this is so impersonal. I am writing as one who respects you as a human being made in God's image. I only want you to consider another way of looking at things--a way that actually explains our world and our existence in it and offers satisfying alternatives to nihilism.

One last thing (please forgive the length of this): You write, "Taken literally, you are saying that any person not a Christian is ipso facto evil. That is just plain wrong. You can not make such a sweeping generalisation. If you were correct, then over 80% of the world's population would be, in your definition, evil. Try telling that to the ordinary, law abiding, good folks who happen to be Bhuddist, or Hindu, or Moslem, or Jewish, or Taoist, or even atheist like myself." Actually, Brandon's point (and more importantly, the Bible's position) is that every single person on the face of the earth is, in fact, evil. Christians are not exempt! God speaks in the Scriptures, "as it is written: 'None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes'" (Romans 3:10-18).

Homer had no way of explaining how Achilles could be both self-sacrificing and self-absorbed at the same time. Only Christianity provides an answer for both the dignity, value and sanctity of human beings, and the evil, meanness and perversity of the same.

Warmly,

Stephen Baker