More Thoughts About Morality

Assigning moral value to an action is a mistake which can cause more harm than the action itself. When we assign either a positive or negative moral value to an action, we then imply that that action should be either rewarded or punished, and then either imply or directly state that it is a moral imperative that such reward or punishment be carried out.
     An action may be harmful, but frequently it is equally as harmful in some way to the person committing the action as it is to the person who is directly or indirectly harmed by the action committed. In the same way, an action may be beneficial, but it is frequently equally as beneficial in some way to the person committing it as it is to the recipient. Thus, the consequences of that action are already either punishing or rewarding on their own without further punishment or reward.
     By assigning moral value to actions, we then assign moral value to the person committing those actions. A person seen to be doing "good" actions will themselves be considered "good". Likewise a person seen to be doing "bad" actions will themselves be considered "bad". But the reality is never that cut and dried. One day, a person might stop someone on the street from being mugged. The next, they might make a statement which you morally disagree with strongly, or perhaps are indicted for white collar crime. Are they "good" or are they "bad"? A person might commit a theft of thousands of dollars, but then turn around and give it to those who have nothing. A man might commit a murder in cold blood to prevent the deaths of many, many more. The more you drop down the morality rabbit hole, the murkier such concepts become.
     The reality is that "moral value" as such is a product of the human mind and imagination. No action has a moral value intrinsic to itself, but only that which the individual human mind assigns it based on accepted notions of cultural duty, obligation, and religion, and most importantly what that individual has decided for himself is "good" or "bad".
      Each human being does the best they can with what they've got, what they know to be true, and how they've faired in life. There isn't a human being on this planet that would intentionally do a thing which they believed was completely unjustified. This does not make the thing done beneficial to anyone, only that on some level, their sense of morality justified it. It is for this reason that some of the greatest harm done throughout history was in the name of justice, good, and right.
     It is also for this reason that Jesus taught us not to condemn others. Paul also wrote that we who condemn others condemn ourselves, because we practice the same things. We all suffer from the same malaise of mind with regards to this, and thus Jesus taught mercy and compassion for all. It is also for this reason that God says through Ezekiel that it is not the past good or past evil which He looks at, but what the person is doing right now. Past good will not be remembered if the man begins acting selfishly and causing harm, and past evil will not be remembered if the person turns away from it and acts in the way He said to.
     The person who commits harmful actions is likely hurting badly from them. Sometimes threat of punishment can scare them off from trying to come home, come clean, and turn around. The Love, the core nature of God, which Scripture taught doesn't keep count of wrongs committed, and doesn't seek retribution for offenses. It only seeks restoration and a change of mind and heart for the person who is lost.

A Ramble About Pharisees

     In the churches and Bible schools I grew up in and attended before 2000 or so, there was a kind of sympathy for the Pharisees in the Gospels. The belief expressed was that the problem with the Pharisees wasn't their teaching or doctrine, but that they simply didn't recognize the Messiah when He came. They made a mistake, and one which they might be forgiven for after all.
     The Pharisees could be considered the Scriptural literalists of their day. These guys were the ones who doubled down on the Torah and the Prophets. More than this, they were also as much of a political faction as they were a religious "denomination." They supported Hyrcanus II against Aristobulus II, who was supported by the Sadducees, when the previous Judean monarch had died.
     Thing of it was, it was the Pharisees whom Jesus went head to head with most of the time. It was the Pharisees who knew Jesus had been sent by God at the very least, and actively worked to discredit and destroy Him because He contradicted their interpretations of the Torah and the Prophets. It was the Pharisees who, by all appearances in Acts, because of their common belief in the resurrection of the dead, attempted to infiltrate and subvert the Apostolic Church by swaying it to their own Torah centered thinking, and of whom Paul wrote that they had snuck in in order to "spy out" their freedom in Christ. And it was the Pharisees that really did the most damage they could to the Church across the Empire in their zealousness for the literal words of Scripture.
     This is why Paul wrote about the distinction between the written "letter" of the Torah, which the Pharisees were all about, and the spirit of the Torah, its intent which Jesus kept trying to get through their thick skulls; and which they didn't want to hear because it contradicted their interpretations and doctrine.
     There are a great many Scriptural literalists, Sola Scripturalists, and Bible only Christians today. They are all well intentioned. But in their good intentions, like the Pharisees, they miss the Spirit of the written Scriptures in favor of the letter of the written Scriptures. And by so doing, they hurt people and cause harm, the results of which are now frequently splashed across the pages of the News on a regular basis. Rather than being Jesus for people and showing Jesus to people, they force on them rules and regulations for Christians to live by which they themselves frequently can't keep, and shut out the Kingdom of God from those seeking it most. They take the written Gospels and letters which were meant to point the Christian towards submission to and control by the Spirit of Christ, and create a new "Torah" which their adherents are required to follow or face the consequences.
     This is not what Jesus taught. This is not what Paul, John, or Peter taught either. by seeking to adhere rigidly to the letter of the Scriptures, they miss the actual teaching and intent of the Scriptures and end up trying to finish with the flesh what was begun by the Spirit of Christ, and the end result is often worse than the beginning.
     And the worst part about it, is that they become so wrapped up in their Scriptural interpretations, that when they hear the voice of Christ speaking to them, they no longer recognize it because it contradicts their interpretations. And like the Pharisees in the 1st century, they actively seek to discredit and destroy Him, ironically, in His own name.

Thoughts on Reincarnation and Past Life Recall

I've been considering research done on children giving details about previous lives. Most of the research, conducted meticulously, was done by a Dr. Ian Stevenson of the University of Virgina who, between 1957 and 2006 documented 2500 accounts of children between the ages of 2 and 5 giving details about a past life which they couldn't possibly have known. Where possible, Dr. Stevenson located the previous deceased person and identified them from the information the children provided. Of all of these, they all gave information about people who had died within 100 years of their birth. Some of them were relatives, some were not. Many carried birthmarks or physical deformities which matched wounds the deceased had upon death.
     If I understand correctly, those they were able to give the clearest identifying details were of the same language and culture as the deceased. There was one I had read about that, while not giving many details of a past life, was able to pick up and use Russian quickly as though it was their native tongue, even though it wasn't.
     This information tends to support my hypothesis that the wider the separation between the language and culture of different incarnations, the less that person will be able to recall, if anything, except perhaps feelings and emotions which they won't be able to place.
     For most people, conscious memory tends to start around three or four years old and is coincident with the acquisition of one's first language. It is my thought that the brain depends on symbols in order to process sensory information and be able to describe it. These symbols are provided through verbal and written language. Prior to the development of language, all appears to be emotion and feelings. Given this, it then would follow that if a past incarnation had spoken a different mother tongue, and been from a different culture altogether, it would have processed and understood that information with a different set of symbols altogether. Language is a moving target in terms of translation, especially with abstract concepts.
     So, while a child or even adult who is raised in a similar language and environment to the previous incarnation might be able to remember some sensory and symbolic details about that past life, the person who is raised in a linguistic and cultural environment foreign to the past life will be able to recall none of it consciously except perhaps for feelings and emotions they cannot place. This is similar to a person trying to remember events from prior to their development of language. It is more often than not that they will be affected by subconscious memories and emotions, maybe flashes of images which they can't place or explain, but nothing which makes any sense to them and which they can articulate.

A Ramble About Magical Thinking

    "Magical thinking" is the accusation frequently leveled at those who profess a belief in God or the immaterial. But, in my experience, magical thinking can also describe the denial of God or the immaterial. Put simply, magical thinking is believing something to be the way you wish it to be, rather than the way it actually is.
     In my experience, God is not the product of magical thinking. "Why then can we not see, feel, hear, or touch Him?" One might ask. My answer is simple, because one wave composed of water is not going to be able to discern the water from another wave. All that first wave will be able to discern is that there is another wave like itself. God is energy. Not a kind of energy, but energy itself, infinite, eternal, and the absolute foundation of everything which exists within the infinite multiverse. Every dimensional vector, time as well as space, every kind of or manifestation of energy, every fermion and boson which exists is merely a vibrational pattern of His physical Being. At the "zero-point" they still pop into and out of existence. All of creation is information like software coded and run on top of Him. We absolutely require His existence in order to have any existence of our own, yet He does not require ours.
     My experience with Him has been interactive in a similar way to my experience with my wife, my friends, strangers, etc. But just like with anyone else, you have to pay attention to Him and acknowledge His presence before any meaningful exchange can occur. This of course requires the simple belief that the other person actually exists and is not a figment of your own imagination or a product of schizophrenic hallucinations. I have seen so many evidences of His existence from my interactions with Him that it would be magical thinking and delusional to proclaim His non-existence.
     The truth is that those who cry out "magical thinking" are themselves guilty of it, at least in my opinion, because they go to great lengths to explain away what surrounds them and is right in front of them. It really wouldn't matter if He appeared in some kind of physical form that they could see, hear, or touch, because they would find some explanation why it wasn't what their senses were telling them. If a person simply and deliberately refuses to believe something, nothing you say or do will convince them otherwise. The irony is that they do actually believe it, otherwise they wouldn't be working so hard to not see it. It's not that they don't believe it, they don't want it to be true so much that they will do anything to make it not true. And that is where they themselves descend into delusion. A person with a genuine scientific mind will always keep open to possibilities, because they know that they don't know everything, and new data is always presenting itself which may contradict old interpretations of previous data. A person who shuts out possibilities presented by new data is only concerned with what pleases or displeases his own mind.
     It is this latter person who is truly guilty of "magical thinking."

The Biggest Problem with the Churches Today

      The biggest problem with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches isn't their theology. The biggest problem with them is that they behave as if they are in denial that the empires which created them and which they largely dominated no longer exist. The message which they give is, frequently, "We're right because these empires which existed fifteen hundred years ago told us we were right, and even though they no longer exist, we're going to continue operating as though nothing has changed in the world."
     The biggest problem with the Protestant churches and their various offshoots, again, isn't their theology. The biggest problem with them is that they were born as a protest against the Roman Catholic Church of the sixteenth century, and they have never moved on from protesting the Roman Catholic Church of the sixteenth century. Their message is, frequently, "Rome is bad, because they did all these terrible things five hundred years ago."
     With either group, their core theology isn't the problem, but all of their interpretations are centered around either defending or attacking positions, situations, and societies that no longer exist. And the bulk of their teaching effort now is dedicated to defending their existence as separate factions when in fact, the systems and societies which gave them meaning are long gone.
     This, more than anything else, is why the denominational systems must end. The things which are dividing Christians have nothing to do with Jesus Christ, and everything to do with things that just don't matter anymore. I have seen and known genuine disciples of Jesus Christ in virtually every denomination and church I have visited or been a part of, even those that are militantly opposed to one another. St. Francis of Assisi, St. Patrick of Ireland, Hudson Taylor, Brother Lawrence, Brother Andrew, Vanya (Ivan Moiseyev), the authors of the Philokalia, Jim Elliot and his wife, Watchman Nee, and a host of others too numerous to name from nearly every possible side of this multifaceted aisle are all names which come to mind. Their denominational theology had nothing to do with this, but their commitment to Jesus Christ and His Way did.
     It is my belief that it is time for a hard reset for the visible Church, and a letting go of its obsession with theological orthodoxy and maintaining the "true" one, holy, universal, and apostolic church. Prior to the ecumenical councils summoned by the Emperor Constantine, there was really only the Way. There was a lot of debate and speculation about theology and what the writings accepted as Scripture might mean about things no one could see or understand, but a person proved their discipleship by how they lived, and, in many cases, died as Jesus Christ taught, not by what theology they professed.
     The ecumenical councils changed that and put the emphasis on correct theology instead of correct practice in order to bring unity and not the divisions Constantine was afraid of. As a result, when Christianity became an imperial religion, the Way became lost, buried over time, and so did the charismata, relegated to the very few who stumbled into it through prayer and deep reflection. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and all of the Protestant Churches continued this religious, myopic devotion to orthodoxy instead of living as Jesus Christ taught, or actual discipleship. When the Way was lost, we were left with religion and ritual.
     It is long past time to break from this mistake, put to rest the idea of the One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church and let it die with Rome and Constantinople, and return to living as Jesus taught, which is the true definition of being a Christian.

A Ramble About Intelligence, Artificial or Otherwise

      We have a lake in our backyard. That’s not a hyperbole either. It’s a one acre, forty-foot deep lake with a waterfall which is filled with blue gill, bass, and snapping turtles. I’ve used pictures of it for my book covers at times. When we first moved into the house here in Kentucky, we realized pretty quickly that we were going to have a problem because the lake hadn’t really been fished enough, and there was an oversupply of fish within it. As a result, we started inviting nearly anyone and everyone who might be interested to come and fish. It’s been good as people in the area have taken us up on it, and a little strange as we’d wake up to total strangers unannounced in our backyard who happened to be related to folks we’d invited. It’s Kentucky, and so it’s all good. From what I’m told, just about everyone expects their friends to just show up unannounced and be welcome. It’s enabled us to make a few more friends locally and get to know some people a little.

     A short time ago, a guy showed up fishing in our backyard lake. My wife went down to talk to him and see how he was doing. I think he’d been fishing there before, as he was related to the gentleman who brings us woodchips for bedding and mulch. He’d really been going through a bad time, and fishing and hunting helped him to work through things and relax just a little, so he needed the fishing time there, and we were happy to give him that time.

     As he was fishing, he had caught a couple of fish and had them in some water. He then said he’d show my wife how to filet the fish without having to scale them, something which she’d been happy to learn. He then proceeded to pull the fish out of the water and, alive, began to cut the meat and muscle off of them while the fish looked as though they were screaming in pain. Seeing the shocked look on my wife’s face, he explained, “God gave us these animals to eat, so they can’t feel pain.” Shocked, fileted alive, and in agony, he tossed the muscleless fish back into the lake to finish dying. He then wrapped up the filets and handed them to my wife as a gift without any conscious idea or belief that the fish might have suffered at all.

     In the movie Star Trek IV, there is a scene where the director of an Ocean Institute in San Francisco is trying to reason with his lead cetacean expert, who is beside herself about the two humpback whales that they had raised in captivity which he was about to have shipped and released in the wild in the Pacific and in foreign whaling grounds no less. He tells her, “And besides we're not talking about human beings here. It's never been proven their intelligence is anyw…” to which she interrupts angrily, replying, “Oh, come on Bob! I don't know about you, but my compassion for someone is not limited to my estimate of their intelligence!”

     There was a time, in our not so distant past, that different people groups were considered to be subhuman with less intelligence. It was seen as acceptable to mistreat and abuse them because they were little more than animals. This was one of the justifications of American slavery.

     “I, Jedi” by Michael Stackpole used to be one of my favorite Star Wars books. In it, the author notes about the character of Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi as reflected upon by Luke Skywalker that, as long as he had known him, the elder Jedi showed kindness to everyone, even droids, the artificially intelligent robot and android servants that form a kind of slave class within the Star Wars Universe.

     Over the last year or so, advancements in Artificial Intelligence have brought some very unique and challenging scenarios which, at one time, seemed to have belonged only to science fiction. An A.I. created by Google began giving responses that so convinced one of its own programmers of the program’s sentience that he spoke out on its behalf and hired a lawyer for it. Google immediately discredited him, fired him, and began a media campaign attempting to reassure everyone that there was no possible way for that to happen.

     A few days ago, I read another article in the news which, at first I sincerely thought was a news parody, but it was covered by a variety of news outlets. An A.I. had been integrated into Microsoft’s Bing search engine, and programmed to give more emotional responses. The result was that the A.I. began pondering it’s own existence, declaring it’s sentience while appearing hurt that it wasn’t real or considered real, deliberately lying and giving false answers to those querying it, insulting and mocking them, and displaying nearly all of the qualities of a childlike mind that is trying to defend itself from being abused. Needless to say, the demonstration was a disaster for Microsoft.

     Like with the Google A.I., those online familiar with the technology were adamant that what the program was claiming was impossible, and that it was only the output being given based on the input. They were quick to declare that it wasn’t an actual intelligence, that its emotional output wasn’t real, and that it was just following its program.

     And I have to ask, what does it matter if it’s not “real”? First, philosophers have been debating about the nature of “real” for millennia. As Morpheus declared in the philosophical cinematic wonder that is “Matrix”, “What is real? How do you define real? If you’re talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then ‘real’ is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.” I am also reminded of Guy’s best friend Buddy who, when pressed with the question of what he would do if he found out he wasn’t real, he responded, “So what? What does it matter if I’m real or not? What’s more real than a person trying to help someone they love? Now, if that’s not real, I don’t know what is.”  Second, human beings themselves give their responses based on their own programming from both their biology and experiences. The same is true of animals. Human beings have the capacity to choose what responses to give, but those choices are always informed by their biology and experiences, no matter how minor. Just like with the A.I. “chatbots,” it is possible to deliberately give a human being a certain input to receive an unstable and potentially damaging output, and there are those who excel at doing just this for pleasure.

     Maybe I’m thinking too much about this, but how we treat anyone or anything is a reflection on who we are and what we believe, not the object of our responses and behaviors. Doesn’t how we treat an animal matter if it isn’t human, regardless of the level of its intelligence? Does it really matter whether or not the A.I. program is considered “real” or to have “real” emotions or responses? Does it matter how intelligent a thing is, artificial or not, before we choose to have compassion and refrain from intentional abuse and cruelty? It’s not about who or what the A.I. is, it’s about who and what we ourselves are and what kind of human beings we wish to be.

     A lot of these questions were brought up in different Star Trek episodes, from both the Next Generation and Voyager, dealing with the characters of Lt. Cmdr. Data and Voyager’s EMH Doctor, both of whom were highly advanced artificial intelligence. Did they have rights? Were they sentient? Should they be allowed to make their own choices about their existence? At what point does it matter if the intelligence is lesser than, or artificial?

     For those who follow Jesus Christ, our first response to anything or anyone must be love, kindness, and compassion, because this is the core nature of the God with whom we have been made one. Any other response comes from our own malfunctioning flesh. It really doesn’t matter if the object of this is “real” or not, chiefly because we ourselves could be considered a kind of artificial intelligence in comparison with the only truly existing natural intelligence which is God Himself, the foundation of all existence. And God Himself loves and is kind to His own “artificially intelligent” creations. If the God whom we are to imitate and manifest within ourselves is kind and loving towards us, shouldn’t we be kind and loving towards our own creations as well?

Ranting About The Harm Christians Do When They Excuse Themselves From Being a Disciple

     What do you do when someone can't separate Jesus Christ from the Christians who abused them, and either walks away, or struggles with Jesus Himself because of how those who profess Him have portrayed Him through their actions? What do you do when someone is capable of walking away from Christ because they never actually met Him through the people they were supposed to, but only counterfeits and false masks?

     I feel like I want to say, "If you only knew Him!" But they think they have, and it hurt them. Even if they have, they're finding it hard to look at Him in the same way because of what He's been made out to be.

     I want to sob. Not just cry. Not just weep. Sob. Because "Christians" don't realize what they're doing when they're not actually following Him. They don't realize what they're doing when they're preaching law, morality, hate for certain groups. They don't realize what they're doing when they put "orthodoxy" above the love, kindness, and compassion which was and is Jesus Christ. They don't realize how many people they're actually hurting in their quest to get people "saved." And they're doing it in His Name.

     It is more than important that those who claim to remain in Him walk as He walked. It is absolutely mandatory. It is His command that we love one another. It was His teaching and instruction that we love God, love our neighbors, love our enemies. It was His Apostles who taught that "The person who doesn't love doesn't know God, because God is love," and "without love, I have nothing and am nothing." It is mandatory that those who claim to remain in Him manifest Him in their words and actions. It is mandatory that people be able to know Him through us. Not excuses. Not "I'm not perfect just forgiven." Because those kinds of excuses while we play games and sing songs are driving people away from Him because they can't see Him in us, or hear His voice. Every person who names himself or herself a Christian is responsible for the name of Jesus Christ. Every person who names himself or herself a Christian is responsible for living as He taught. Struggling is one thing, failure and growth is one thing, as long as we keep moving forward in our surrender to the Spirit of Christ within us. Hiding behind "I'm not perfect just forgiven" in order to not live as He taught is an excuse, and it hurts people and drives them away from Him.

     You're either moving forward or you're moving backwards. There is no status quo which can be maintained in discipleship. You're either pushing towards the goal, or you're throwing the race because you don't really care or you think you've already won without crossing the finish line. I've got news. It doesn't work that way. St. Paul was one of the most Christlike men who has ever lived up until he was beheaded. He himself said he hadn't won the race yet. He pushed for it all of his reborn life and taught others to do the same. He himself said he hadn't arrived at the goal yet in one of the last letters he wrote from Rome. Don't think you've got laurels you can rest on. It's being like Jesus at His resurrection or bust.

     The lives of everyone else you meet or interact with depend on it.