The Golden Rule is Like Gold

 Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.

The first thing to understand about the Golden Rule is that God invented it. Which god?  The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, The Almighty, The Father in the Trinity which also includes the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.  The God whom Jews and Christians worship.

So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12

I know I have some potential readers who will take issue with this specific God’s authorship, citing holy writings from other faiths which predate the Tanakh and certainly the New Testament. No matter. That is moot.

The One True God wove His perfect ethic into the fabric of the universe. The true moral law is in every facet of creation. Many seekers the world over from many faiths or none have discovered it. But terminally self-oriented human beings will always twist and bend this perfect treasure, and their moral eurekas will be handed down agendized and neutered to fit their cultural uniforms.

The One God poured His own perfect nature into the universe He created ex nihilo. It cannot but reflect His perfect goodness. There is one God, and one moral ethic.

Detractors like to assign other authorships to righteous morality but no one has found an alternative rubric, or a better one. All other ethical systems are remarkably similar to this one, and always <_.

This moral meme is found the world over because it is fundamental to any ethical system. It can be found everywhere. Indeed the fact that this law is ubiquitous lends validity to its being the genesis of ethical formation.

“That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.”

“Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” — Confucius

If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” — Mozi

“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.”

The true moral ethic is found in us.

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

There is no one who does not know that there is right and wrong. That’s easy to demonstrate. We may not all agree on the details, and we may rationalize our own preferences and favorite sins into the good category, but we all run up against items that we’re indignant about when we see them. Even an existentialist, even a nihilist, declares objectively wrong or unjust his possession taken from him. Even a morally relativist atheist is quick to condemn evil when he ascribes it to the Judaeo-Christian God.

The second thing we all know is that there is some non-subjective moral mean. If right and wrong were truly relative, that would mean that nothing was truly wrong, and that nothing was truly right. Everyone still recognizes some acts as morally atrocious and has an expectation that everyone should agree.

You may argue endlessly without agreement with an atheist about the origin of an objective moral standard. He will one moment deny that fixed morals exist, and the next moment proudly declare his objective repugnance at some perceived injustice of which religion is guilty. In asserting a subjective origin such as cultural consensus, yet asserting that there are objective morals which derive from a subjective source, the only thing he proves with certainty is that his own personal morals are totally subjective, and that he believes in spite of himself in an objective morality.

The Golden Rule is the right reason for all righteous behavior. The implications of the Golden Rule are endless and everywhere.

If I am to treat every person with the treatment I desire for myself, it must mean that there is an objective measure which applies to all human beings (me and others= all). The Golden Rule implies that there is an overarching code that all should recognize and obey. That leaves no room at all for relativism.

It must mean that it is objectively right that everyone else ought to receive the best treatment which I want for myself. But what imposes those objective “oughts‘?

A Code Originator, a Golden Rule Author, is inescapable. No impersonal process is capable of requiring accountability.

It follows that each person, according to that measure, is of equal value, and that each and every person is entitled to equal and just treatment. When we acknowledge that every single person is equal in value, and equally entitled to rights which God has given, all lawful and kind and just behavior is then is the only response.

As soon as you allow that some persons may have more value than others, or that some persons must have greater rights than others, tragedy and injustice follow as night follows day.

As soon as you allow, for instance, that a tiny human in a womb may be negated and erased, because her mother’s perceived rights may be diminished; as soon as you pit one person’s rights against the other’s, which in itself is anathema to the honoring of a Golden Rule; you have opened the door and invited inside injustice, lawlessness, brutality, elitism, and oppression. The right of some to kill, the necessity of others to die.

 

 

Extinguishing Everything

Rendering the Sexed Body Legally Invisible: How Transgender Law Hurts Women

Nothing surprises me more than today’s feminists allowing males to appropriate woman-hood.

Who suffers most when we erase male and female? Those who want us to stop acknowledging the distinction between the genders have not played out in their minds the world that they would create.

One obvious recipient of change is marriage.

So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them. Genesis 1

Jesus replied. “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. ’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Mark 10

“In His image” meant male and female, two beings different yet part of one another; in His image meant in a very particular kind of relationship wherein two complementary and very distinct beings are intimate and interdependent.

If we erase the concept of two distinct yet necessary sexes, we lose a premise which allows us to conceptualize the marriage relationship. When we erase marriage as it was designed and intended, we erase marriage. But that’s not all we erase.

The unique sexual union which is the big bang for a marriage relationship creates family, church, community, society, government, nation, world.

Remove that unique relationship, and you remove the nucleus around which everything spins. Remove the foundation, the structure collapses into a chaotic mess. And chaotic messes are no place for love, justice, equality, rights, peace, stability or the building of a society. When we lose that most fundamental thing, we disintegrate and descend into chaos.

For starters: reality-denial. Insanity. Total subjectivity. Disconnectedness, loss of community, relentless self-absorption. Instead of oneness, we get alone-ness.

I said it here: Manifesto: The Primal Creation

Can there be a substitute for male or for female? Can there be an equivalent to the complementary union in marriage? A parent which is nether a mother nor a father?  A substitute for the true family?

In today’s brave new world, marriage means a legal union of two people, gender orientation irrelevant, based on the subjective feelings of the pair. Adopted children can be given over to the stewardship of two persons, gender orientation irrelevant; the need and the right of a child to an ideal consisting of a mother and a father is negated. Transgender bathrooms mandated throughout the land from on high. Urgent social effort to make gender orientation a continuum rather than one which acknowledges reality. And again from on high, the creation ex nilio of gender orientation special rights.

Now we read  here of some of the repercussions when we make male and female a state of mind disconnected from bodies.

Lo and behold! The result for women is that we disappear. We are erased.

The progressive-secular paradigm is cannibalizing itself, and what a surprise: it’s the women who get eaten first.

Gender

Featured Image -- 14220

The Humiliation of Getting into a Boat

This one from 2014.

Messages from the Mythical

This passage from Mark 6 demonstrates the everyday mundane but also the awesomely sublime qualities of Jesus’ love:

Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd.  After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.

Later that night, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land.  He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. Shortly before dawn he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them,  but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out,  because they all saw him and were terrified.

Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”

View original post 343 more words

Rage and Hate Are Virtues Now

Judging by the most committed left-leaning acquaintances of mine, divisiveness is a noble thing now. So is constant, focused, unrelenting anger.

To hate just the right people is the highest of aspirations. But to focus one’s hate on one or two people does not satisfy. One must hate approximately half of the country.

Do I need to explain?

Maybe some of you don’t have old friends who were once rational, warm and pleasant  who have become devoted to social media trolling, spreading the gospel of Everyone Who Can Be Remotely Associated With Trump Should Be Silenced And Rendered Powerless. They go looking for fake news items which are as extreme as possible in order to be outraged at them. They will even misrepresent themselves and claim to be Republicans or Christians distancing themselves from Trumpism.

And distancing themselves from loving personal relationships over their loved one’s non-conformity. It is precisely as though they have joined a cult.

But it’s not enough to focus the rage on Trump and his associates. Let me quote:

He should have asked for calm at least a year ago but we know that would not have helped him excite the racists and bigots and just plain ignorant people to his cause.

I’ve lost an old friend and now a family member is shunning me. Several abject apologies later, I am still unforgiven. And I didn’t even support Trump. I never, ever made personal criticisms; I always discussed issues. For instance, I never criticized President Obama personally, but registered objections at his policies. You’ll have to take my word that I kept personal relationship in mind when arguing over social media. I chose my issues and my words carefully. I did not burn bridges.

My offenses are that I am not sufficiently in breathless support and unquestioning agreement with all things left, Hillary whitewashing and Planned Parenthood’s version of abortion-on-demand in particular.

It’s a sad time.

One Hundred Years of Death

On the 100th anniversary of Planned Parenthood, some celebrate, some mourn, and many millions are forever silent.

Here are two questions for reflection.

How did we give any kind of respectable profile to an organization which exists for the purpose of killing your unborn child?

 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20

We have here an organization which will, if you so choose, halt your healthy pregnancy, and pull your unborn child out of you piece by piece, and call that healthcare. It is the champion of human rights. All while creating in your mind a scenario in which you, the victim, are in need of a defender against your mortal enemy: the child you carry.

The baby is your mortal enemy because allowing it to control your destiny, even for a mere few months, will end your life as you have known it. Your carefully-planned future would have to change, and you’ve been taught that any usurper who would wrest control from your grasp must be cast out.Your autonomy and your validity as a person is dependent on your right to kill your offspring.

At the same time, people who prefer to make legal abortion unthinkable, and who speak up for the voiceless and defenseless are called oppressors and haters of women. Backward and upside-down, calling good, evil, and evil, good.

But those who fail to find me harm themselves;
    all who hate me love death.Proverbs 8:36

Only by denying that death is death can Planned Parenthood be celebrated. Too many rationalizations must be made in order to celebrate.

How do pro-choice advocates explain the motivation behind pro-life advocacy?

It’s easy to understand the motivation for the abortion industry. Structurally and culturally, it is business-corporate. Money and power are humankind’s besetting downfall. Gratification of greed and power is instant and addictive. That’s easy to understand.

As individuals, we buy into the propaganda which best fits our need to feel that we are good people. For some reason, many people like the propaganda in support of a huge major corporation which exists for the purpose of freeing women from their unborn children. And somehow turn their support into a virtue.

But how do pro-abortionists explain pro-lifers’ motivation for the defense of the helpless?

X is vocalizing the motivations of every politician who votes to restrict access to abortion. It’s about controlling women. ~ Cecile Richards

That the best they can do? Politician X stakes his career, his giant pension and his reputation on an unreasonable, unpopular cause because..he feels a need to control women?

I have a hard time buying into the victim-oppressor scenario if I’m expected to believe men and women achieve personal pleasure each time a woman has to see a pregnancy to its natural conclusion BECAUSE it denies the mother her autonomy.

Can we at least admit that pro-lifers might have a more rational motive than the desire to oppress women? Can it be that pro-life people really care about the unborn lives who are in danger?

We have a command and a mandate. We have credible motives, respectable motives. Only by twisting noble motives into malicious ones can the pro-abortion rhetoric look passable.

A few of my earlier posts on the subject:

War on Children

Life Debate ABC’s

Insufficient

We Kill the Weak

Some Persons Have No Rights

What If

Why Do You Champion Genocide?

What’s Wrong with Genocide?

WHY Defend Planned Parenthood?

The Wrong Side of History and Cultural Change

Being Bullies

 

The Disposables

There are two kinds of people. There are the people who are born, grow, live their lives, and die. For example me and you.

And there are the other people.

They are disposable. They are optional. They are possibilities that we do not want. They are not born. They are not given the opportunity to grow or live lives. But they do die.

Interesting science factoid: Scientists have yet to discover an intrinsic difference between the disposables and the other people. We have yet to find the difference, at any stage of development pre-birth, between a disposable human being, and you. Interestingly, there does not appear to be a demand for a genetic test to be used during pregnancy to determine whether you are carrying a real child or a disposable one.

Since our laws allow one unborn person of say, thirty weeks gestation to be called a person, nurtured, hoped for and loved; and another unborn person of thirty weeks gestation to be unwanted and extracted from the place of its sustenance in a manner designed to end its life, and discarded as waste (or sorted and sold); the age or developmental status of the person cannot be the determining factor.

“We have some young people in the audience who weren’t even born when Roe [versus Wade] was decided, and this is pretty important,” said Vice Presidential candidate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D).

That was true. There are also those people who weren’t in the audience because they weren’t born.

The recent Democrat candidate for president unflinchingly declared that “unborn persons do not have Constitutional rights.” In theory, that jury is still out. In real life, it is undeniably true.

In 1973, the distinction between the two types of persons was legally recognized.  Since then, we have discovered disposable persons in huge numbers. We ought to be very thankful to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates for managing the enormous disposal issue so creatively.

 

I know what some of you are saying right now. That is not a person!!!!! (redundant punctuation included.) But arguments in support of assigning disposable status are, without exception: arbitrary, self-serving, agendized rationalizations which appeal to ludicrous internet scientism.

But since WordPress comment conversations have taught me the uselessness of arguing for the personhood of very young fetuses with people who raise this particular objection, I will, for the moment, allow  personhood status to be undetermined.

But perhaps you can tell me why it is a moral neutral to dispose of a living organism which will become a human being.

Not potentially, not maybe. This small organism will become a person every single time. It will not become anything else. If it survives, the result will be exactly the same kind of organism that you are now. A human being.

The determination of the moment of personhood is irrelevant.

 

A human being is created in the image of the Creator of all things. Our nation is founded upon an idea that all human beings possess inherent and equal rights. We dismiss the disposables’ rights just before we dismiss their lives.

We must do the former, or we must openly admit that we are arbitrary granters of human rights, and that we openly confer rights to some and deny rights to others. And that would make us unfair. Not nice people. Hypocritical. That’s just not us.

What are the real implications? If we are honest with ourselves, the answer is too plain. We kill people for preference sake. We balance our logic and our integrity on a knife’s edge of rationalization, and we maintain hyper-vigilance toward any idea which would give us even a gentle push.