Being Good Takes God

One of my friends and brothers, Linn Hartman, spoke to me concerning a 60 Minutes spot about a young man named Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University. Epstein wrote a book titled, You Can Be Good Without God. In describing his book, Epstein tells us it is a book about community or being a community of Humanists who can be and are good without God. He speaks about nurturing the spiritual (offering a disclaimer saying you don't have to use the word spiritual, you could use the word emotional) needs of people that arise because we're human.

There are two things in the last sentence that are interesting to me: 1) The first word that came to his mind as he was discussing his Humanist Philosophy is the word "spiritual." No one uses the word spiritual when talking about the needs of a dog or a daffodil. They use the word when speaking about the needs of people. Why would that word come to mind? Could it be that there is within us a spiritual longing? We could use the word emotional or emotions, but it gives an entirely different thought than the word spiritual. When we think of emotions we think of feelings - depression or euphoria; happy or sad. But when we think of spiritual we think more of a state of being, something higher than earthly or touchy, feely, at least that's how I understand it. Why is it that man seeks things spiritual? It's a good question and needs to be pondered. 2) That he uses the word human. If there is no God why would we make a distinction between us and the other animals? We would be only a little higher form of primordial soup. We just happen to have climbed, through no plan or thought of our own, to a higher plain than our sign language capable monkey cousins.

Man makes distinctions between animals and us because there is an obvious distinction. There are so many distinctions that I couldn't make even a reasonable attempt to list them all or even half of them. But I will say that two of them, as stated above, are mentioned by Epstein and they demonstrate this great distinction. If we are just higher plain same, then these seeming distinctions must be brushed aside because me and my pet goldfish are equals.

In addition, where do we get the definition of good if there is no God? If I am just an animal and I kill another animal and I say it's good, is it not good? Why not? Does it take a collective to determine the good? And if a collective, does a 51 to 49 vote determine it or do we have to have a 65 to 35 ratio? Who decides what the ratio should be. Was Hitler correct in his attempt to annihilate the seeming weaker races? Why not? He was in power and the people beneath him appeared to agree with his doctrine. Would it not be good to kill all the Jewish people?

We understand that those who would espouse such a doctrine are evil (another of those without God undefinable words) and warped in their thinking. We understand it this way because we have within us that great understanding of what is right and what is wrong and it was placed there by an infinite God. Without the placing of those definitions we would be nothing but animals and good would be whatever I say good is.

Haiti and Millstones

We've all been watching the terrible devastation in Haiti. Buildings collapsed, roads impassable, food and water cut off, bodies of those unfortunate souls lying, bloating in the streets. We've all watched...in horror. Yesterday I was glued to some news coverage as a small band of men dug, with their bare hands, through several feet of rubble to reach a crying child buried somewhere beneath them. As they struggled, the great drama was being witnessed by several women and children standing back from the ruins, yet altogether a part of them. The eyes of those standing around had already cried their fill of tears and their weakened, dehydrated bodies could shed no more. Yet anyone could see that their hearts were still weeping.

As I watched, there was sudden movement among the diggers and then applause from the onlookers and shouts, shouts of pleasure and joy. The crying was no longer buried under feet of rubble, but buried in the arms of one of the rescuers. A tragedy was avoided and a momentary release from the horrific scenes surrounding them was has by that small crowd. A baby was saved! Though thousands of babies lie crushed beneath the mass of rock, cement and destruction, one was saved and there was rejoicing.

The whole thing reminded me of Jesus telling his listeners that it would be better for them to hang a great stone about their necks and throw themselves into the sea than to offend one of His little ones. Then I thought, what if these people, out of fear of further collapse of buildings and the chance that they might get crushed, maimed or even killed, what if they refused to help the crying one? Would they be guilty of offending? Oh, I know Jesus wasn't talking about saving the life of a little child - at least not necessarily, but He was talking about caring for the weak and the struggling and the helpless. I understand that He was talking about not causing them to sin or stumble so as to be lost and that He wasn't necessarily talking about little children, but rather the weak in faith. Yes. Yes. I understand all that, but what about helping the helpless?

Should I stand by and allow the crying to continue until such a time as it weakens, slowly quiets and then subsides altogether to be heard no more? Would that be offensive for me? Yes, and I know we all cannot go down to Haiti and dig through the rubble, nor can we all adopt one of those unfortunate instant orphans. But there are other ways to dig a child from the rubble. A tiny gift of ten dollars wold help, and for those who do not see ten dollars as tiny could give a dollar. Working with those who are loading cargo containers is a possibility. You may not be able to dig out, but you could help fill up by lending your hands and back to load a container that will be sent to relieve the suffering of the devastated. Look around and see, there are things that can be and should be done. Things that you can do. And when it's done then we can all stand back and shout a shout of joy amid the rubble and know that we have not offended and the millstone can be laid aside.

A Good Laugh

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, boy! I've had a good laugh today. There is nothing better than a good laugh and foolish people always give me the best laugh of all. Today I've been laughing at the Lord's church. It's great fun! Hahahahaha. There are so many who don't agree with me, and I'm obviously correct in my understandings and interpretations. Wow! How funny those weak people are. I'm sure God sits up there and has a good laugh at His church, don't you think so too? People thinking that 1 Timothy 2:11ff actually has any meaning to or for us today are really funny. I just can't stop laughing.

I look at some of the ladies in our congregation who hold deep seated beliefs (In this day and age, can you imagine?) that they should not stand before the congregation, even to do something as service oriented as passing the communion (Yes. They actually believe this. Hahaha.) and I just laugh at them. They are lovely ladies, but oh so funny. Can you imagine that anyone with even a meager education could actually believe something as foolish as "women cannot stand and pass the communion"? Or what about those ladies who would be mortified if the teacher asked them to say something in class, because they believe a women should not speak. Hohohohohoh0, hahahahaha.

How could they be so silly.

Everyone knows Paul was a woman hater and wanted to be sure women stayed in their place, that's why he wrote those things. God never felt that way. That Genesis three stuff where we read, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." That's just something some other male chauvinist threw in there. The intellectuals have shown us this plainly. So when people actually read that and believe it...why, it's just laughable and I can't stop giggling. Hehehehehehehehe....ohhhhhh....hahahahahaha.

I just love a good laugh and laughing at the expense of the body of Christ, why that's the ultimate in "good laughs." I can hardly wait until next Sunday when I can get back with those people who actually say they love the Lord and yet believe and practice so many foolish things, so I can have another good laugh at their expense.

Their actions remind me of the ones in the first century who would not eat meats sacrificed to idols, as if an idol was something. Hahahahaha. Paul sure told those weak and foolish people didn't...well... ummmm... yes...... I do know that Jesus died for them - 1 Corinthians 8:11, but still how funny...Hahaha, and Paul sure.... What? You actually think I could hurt someone with my laughter? Oh, but I would miss out on... and besides, I have this freedom... and, seriously, don't the rest of you agree with me that they are foolish? Won't you join me in a good laugh?

No. No. Don't read the next few lines, they are just more of Paul's maudlin drivel.

^{1 Corinthians 8:9} Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. ¹⁰ For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? ¹¹ So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. ¹² When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. ¹³ Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

Oh Paul, you're so funny! Ha, haha.


This is tongue in cheek sarcasm. I am writing to express my sadness at those who would laugh at or ridicule others who may be more conservative in their beliefs, yet love the Lord as deeply and dearly as any. I am not trying to espouse any particular doctrine except to be kind to one another.