Can there be a standard of morality without God? The religious would vehemently declare no! According to conventional thinking, the absence of God would leave a vacuum in moral standards, which, in turn, would lead to utter and complete chaos and violence throughout society. That would beg the question. Without God, would it be alright to murder?
The common denominator of all religions is the belief in a supreme being and a belief in an afterlife. In accordance with those beliefs is the belief that if you follow God's rules, you will be rewarded in the afterlife; and if you disobey God's rules, you will be punished in the afterlife. In the christian religion, the fifth of the ten commandments clearly states, "Thou shalt not kill." Murder someone and you will spend an eternity in Hell without the possibility of parole.
In discussing morality, let us examine the crime of murder. The overwhelming majority of human beings do not murder.Why not? There are 3 reasons: 1) It is against God's law. 2) Society has laws against murder. 3) The vast majority of human beings understand that it is innately wrong to take another human life.
Believers would tell us that in a world without God, the murder rate would explode. True? I contend it would not. Tens of thousands of years ago, when early homo sapiens emerged from their caves, they formed cohesive social groups for the purpose of security and survival. They had no concept of a supreme being to guide them. They did, however, understand that certain behaviors, like murder and thievery, were detrimental to their welfare. Therefore, the survival of the group became the measure of morality for early man.
Therein lies the governing principle. Yes, there can be morality without a belief in God. Human kind, not a supreme being, becomes the standard of morality.That which aides and promotes the security, prosperity and fulfillment of humankind is moral. That which endangers the security and fulfillment of humankind is immoral.
One final note. Believers claim there can be no moral standards if God does not exist. But God cannot be held as a standard of morality. Why Not? Because by his very nature, God is incapable of immoral action. If he had the capacity to engage in immoral action, he wouldn't be God. Therefore, he cannot be a standard of morality because he is amoral, just as animals are amoral. Are dogs, cats, elephants, fruit flies capable of immoral acts? Of course not, because they are not volitional beings. They are driven and directed by pure instinct.hardwired into their brains.As a result, animals cannot be held up as a standard of morality; nor can a supreme being whose very nature--just like animals--precludes him from acting immorally.
The innate nature of human beings ultimately demands order over chaos, security over terror, and a code of conduct that protects the people we love and cherish. That is the basis for morality.
Friday, April 28, 2017
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
THE TIMES THEY WILL BE A'CHANGIN' (AND NOT FOR THE BETTER)
What you are about to read can easily be misconstrued as racist; however, the following has nothing to do with the superiority or inferiority of one race compared to another.The issue at hand is not racial; it is cultural differences in political and social terms.
The undeniable fact is all cultures have their differences, whether it's a religious culture, ethnic culture, geographic culture, etc..My concern is with the changing social and political culture in the United States. And let there be no doubt. The culture is changing.
On the day John F. Kennedy was sworn into office in January of 1961, the US was 80% white. In 2016 the country was 62% white. And at the present rate of demographic changes, it is predicted that by 2050, the US will be 45% white. Statistics would bare out that prediction. In 2016, caucasians accounted for 78% of all deaths in our country. In addition, for the first time in our history in children age 5 and under, whites are already a minority.
These numbers beg the question: Are these population trends a good thing or a bad thing? The answer lies in one's political beliefs. From my perspective as a libertarian, these statistics fill me with grave concern. Let me cite the reasons.
1) As a libertarian, I believe in minimal government, as encapsulated in the old adage, "He who governs least governs best." To be more specific, I believe in the supremacy of the individual and individual liberty over government interference and intrusion in the lives of its citizens. Accordingly, I strongly support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect the individual from unfettered government power and coercion.
2) Taxation is theft. It is the theft of honestly earned wages. Therefore, I am opposed to higher taxes, whether it be on the middle-class, the rich, or big business.
3) Because taxation is theft, I am opposed to the welfare state, entitlements and corporate subsidies. These programs, in effect, steal money from one group of citizens to bestow it on another group of citizens chosen by elected officials who seek to buy votes and encourage political bootlickers.
4) I am in favor of a free market economy. Government manipulation of free enterprise inevitably results in, recessions, high unemployment and in equality of opportunity. Need proof? Look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea. Or the difference in China under Chairman Mao a half century ago, and China today, a semi-capitalist society.
We libertarians believe these principles have resulted in making the US one of the freest and prosperous nations on the planet.
So how are these principles threatened by a growing minority population? Eighty to ninety percent of black voters vote Democrat. Sixty-five to seventy percent of Hispanic voters vote Democrat. By supporting liberal Democrats, these groups support the liberal agenda, which includes expanding the welfare and entitlement state, subsidies for favored corporations, raising taxes on the middle-class and rich to pay for these entitlements and subsidies.This, in turn, reduces the living standard of the middle-class, penalizes hard work and personal initiative, and creates a class of people who live off the toil of productive citizens, ultimately lowering the living standards for everyone. In addition, these liberal supporters regard free enterprise with disdain and support strict control of all businesses by the government. Finally, too many young blacks and Hispanics contemptuously regard the Constitution as an irrelevant document authored by a "bunch of old white guys."
So why would a growing minority population foster such an anti-individual agenda? Would they not foster a society rooted in the libertarian principles of minimal government, low taxes and free enterprise? Because only a mere handful of Hispanics and blacks call themselves libertarian or conservative. That means that as the white population dwindles, the pool of libertarians and conservatives will dwindle, as well, reducing these ideologies to irrelevance,while liberal and socialist ideologies will continue to grow.
The result is that the welfare state will rein supreme, and the priniciples of individualism fostered by our Founding Fathers will be overrun by the rule of statists who hold the Constitution and the supremacy of the individual in contempt.
My granddaughters will live in a country starkly different from the one I have known throughout my life. And I fear they will be the worse off for it.
The undeniable fact is all cultures have their differences, whether it's a religious culture, ethnic culture, geographic culture, etc..My concern is with the changing social and political culture in the United States. And let there be no doubt. The culture is changing.
On the day John F. Kennedy was sworn into office in January of 1961, the US was 80% white. In 2016 the country was 62% white. And at the present rate of demographic changes, it is predicted that by 2050, the US will be 45% white. Statistics would bare out that prediction. In 2016, caucasians accounted for 78% of all deaths in our country. In addition, for the first time in our history in children age 5 and under, whites are already a minority.
These numbers beg the question: Are these population trends a good thing or a bad thing? The answer lies in one's political beliefs. From my perspective as a libertarian, these statistics fill me with grave concern. Let me cite the reasons.
1) As a libertarian, I believe in minimal government, as encapsulated in the old adage, "He who governs least governs best." To be more specific, I believe in the supremacy of the individual and individual liberty over government interference and intrusion in the lives of its citizens. Accordingly, I strongly support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The whole purpose of the Constitution is to protect the individual from unfettered government power and coercion.
2) Taxation is theft. It is the theft of honestly earned wages. Therefore, I am opposed to higher taxes, whether it be on the middle-class, the rich, or big business.
3) Because taxation is theft, I am opposed to the welfare state, entitlements and corporate subsidies. These programs, in effect, steal money from one group of citizens to bestow it on another group of citizens chosen by elected officials who seek to buy votes and encourage political bootlickers.
4) I am in favor of a free market economy. Government manipulation of free enterprise inevitably results in, recessions, high unemployment and in equality of opportunity. Need proof? Look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea. Or the difference in China under Chairman Mao a half century ago, and China today, a semi-capitalist society.
We libertarians believe these principles have resulted in making the US one of the freest and prosperous nations on the planet.
So how are these principles threatened by a growing minority population? Eighty to ninety percent of black voters vote Democrat. Sixty-five to seventy percent of Hispanic voters vote Democrat. By supporting liberal Democrats, these groups support the liberal agenda, which includes expanding the welfare and entitlement state, subsidies for favored corporations, raising taxes on the middle-class and rich to pay for these entitlements and subsidies.This, in turn, reduces the living standard of the middle-class, penalizes hard work and personal initiative, and creates a class of people who live off the toil of productive citizens, ultimately lowering the living standards for everyone. In addition, these liberal supporters regard free enterprise with disdain and support strict control of all businesses by the government. Finally, too many young blacks and Hispanics contemptuously regard the Constitution as an irrelevant document authored by a "bunch of old white guys."
So why would a growing minority population foster such an anti-individual agenda? Would they not foster a society rooted in the libertarian principles of minimal government, low taxes and free enterprise? Because only a mere handful of Hispanics and blacks call themselves libertarian or conservative. That means that as the white population dwindles, the pool of libertarians and conservatives will dwindle, as well, reducing these ideologies to irrelevance,while liberal and socialist ideologies will continue to grow.
The result is that the welfare state will rein supreme, and the priniciples of individualism fostered by our Founding Fathers will be overrun by the rule of statists who hold the Constitution and the supremacy of the individual in contempt.
My granddaughters will live in a country starkly different from the one I have known throughout my life. And I fear they will be the worse off for it.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
AND THE OSCAR FOR MOST HYPOCRITICAL LOGIC GOES TO...
Following last year's uproar concerning a lack of racial and sexual diversity in its nominees, the Academy Of Motion Pictures Arts And Sciences decided to make procedural changes. The previous two years had seen 20 white acting nominees, which created the pressure for greater diversity.
To facilitate change, the Academy added 683 new members to the already 6687 voting members. The new additions were females, blacks and hispanics. The Academy's strategy was a simple one. Over the years, nominees in the various categories had been overwhelmingly white and male because the voters were overwhelmingly white males. Therefore, adding racial minorities and women to the membership would achieve more diversity in the voting.
Oscar, it turns out, is not only befuddled in his logic, he is a hypocrite as well. Here is the major flaw in the Academy's thinking. The nominees have been overwhelmingly white males because the voters were overwhelmingly white males, meaning the voters had an obvious bias in favor of their own kind, The Academy says that is blatantly unfair, unjust and fundamentally wrong. Adding the 683 new members would level the playing field.That strategy implies that diversity would be achieved because women would vote for women, blacks would vote for blacks, hispanics would vote for hispanics. Problem solved. Except the new strategy allows the same "sin" to continue, which is, every member casts their votes on the basis of their own race and, or gender.
If it is fundamentally wrong for white males to vote exclusively for white males, then reason dictates that it is also wrong for blacks to vote on the basis of race, hispanics to vote on the basis of ethnicity, and women to vote on the basis of gender.
The only criteria for voting should be merit. To replace that with a tacit quota system is to downplay excellence and achievement in favor of numbers.
Oscar, you lose because there are no 12 inch tall metallic voters.
To facilitate change, the Academy added 683 new members to the already 6687 voting members. The new additions were females, blacks and hispanics. The Academy's strategy was a simple one. Over the years, nominees in the various categories had been overwhelmingly white and male because the voters were overwhelmingly white males. Therefore, adding racial minorities and women to the membership would achieve more diversity in the voting.
Oscar, it turns out, is not only befuddled in his logic, he is a hypocrite as well. Here is the major flaw in the Academy's thinking. The nominees have been overwhelmingly white males because the voters were overwhelmingly white males, meaning the voters had an obvious bias in favor of their own kind, The Academy says that is blatantly unfair, unjust and fundamentally wrong. Adding the 683 new members would level the playing field.That strategy implies that diversity would be achieved because women would vote for women, blacks would vote for blacks, hispanics would vote for hispanics. Problem solved. Except the new strategy allows the same "sin" to continue, which is, every member casts their votes on the basis of their own race and, or gender.
If it is fundamentally wrong for white males to vote exclusively for white males, then reason dictates that it is also wrong for blacks to vote on the basis of race, hispanics to vote on the basis of ethnicity, and women to vote on the basis of gender.
The only criteria for voting should be merit. To replace that with a tacit quota system is to downplay excellence and achievement in favor of numbers.
Oscar, you lose because there are no 12 inch tall metallic voters.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
PIPELINE TO PROSPERITY
Today President Trump overturned restrictions on oil drilling that were put in place by former President Obama. That means the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access pipeline can be fully operational.
As expected, environmentalists were apoplectic over Trump's action, likening it to a zombie apocalypse. Despite the objections of critics, the freeing up of the two pipelines represents a positive development. I have put together a list of reasons why we shall all benefit.
1. It increased the supply of oil, which in turn holds down the price of gasoline. It is the time tested law of supply and demand.
2. Cheaper gasoline means more money in the pockets of working people and their families. How can that be bad?
3. Cheaper gasoline means the auto industry will continue to meet consumer demands for larger, more expensive vehicles, which generate higher profits. Higher profits add up to greater job security, higher pay and increased stock prices. Increased stock prices mean more valuable and secure pension funds and personal IRA accounts and 401K accounts
4. More American petroleum means means fewer oil imports.That translates into billions of dollars less flowing out of our country and into the coffers of middle-east countries that provide safe haven and financial support to radical Islamic terrorists.
5.More American oil means we become exporters as well as importers.bringing billions of dollars into our economy.
6. Oil exploration means the creation of thousands of good paying jobs for American workers.
7.Less unemployment means less welfare expenditures, which in turn means less strain on the Federal budget and American taxpayers.
Along with environmentalists, Native Americans have fought the pipelines, claiming they are an intrusion upon sacred grounds, To penalize American workers and the American economy because of tribalism, myth, superstition and the belief in the supernatural is itself a crime against the human intellect.Angels demons and spirits have no place in a civilization created by courage, vision and the inventiveness of the human mind.
As expected, environmentalists were apoplectic over Trump's action, likening it to a zombie apocalypse. Despite the objections of critics, the freeing up of the two pipelines represents a positive development. I have put together a list of reasons why we shall all benefit.
1. It increased the supply of oil, which in turn holds down the price of gasoline. It is the time tested law of supply and demand.
2. Cheaper gasoline means more money in the pockets of working people and their families. How can that be bad?
3. Cheaper gasoline means the auto industry will continue to meet consumer demands for larger, more expensive vehicles, which generate higher profits. Higher profits add up to greater job security, higher pay and increased stock prices. Increased stock prices mean more valuable and secure pension funds and personal IRA accounts and 401K accounts
4. More American petroleum means means fewer oil imports.That translates into billions of dollars less flowing out of our country and into the coffers of middle-east countries that provide safe haven and financial support to radical Islamic terrorists.
5.More American oil means we become exporters as well as importers.bringing billions of dollars into our economy.
6. Oil exploration means the creation of thousands of good paying jobs for American workers.
7.Less unemployment means less welfare expenditures, which in turn means less strain on the Federal budget and American taxpayers.
Along with environmentalists, Native Americans have fought the pipelines, claiming they are an intrusion upon sacred grounds, To penalize American workers and the American economy because of tribalism, myth, superstition and the belief in the supernatural is itself a crime against the human intellect.Angels demons and spirits have no place in a civilization created by courage, vision and the inventiveness of the human mind.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
DYING FOR OUR SINS: A NOT SO GOOD IDEA
As the story goes, God looked down upon his human subjects and was distressed and angered by their sinful ways. As punishment for disobeying his word, God shuttered the gates of Heaven. That meant that no matter how good or virtuous a person lived, when they died they would be barred from entering Heaven. Instead, they would spend the afterlife in a place called Limbo. The evil would still be condemned to Hell, but the good would be denied entrance into Heaven. That hardly seems fair.
At some point God took pity on us poor, weak humans. He decided to send his son, Jesus, down to earth to die for our sins, thus allowing the gates of Heaven to reopen.
It is an interesting story and the cornerstone of Christianity. But let us examine it in greater detail, using our intellectual gifts of reason and logic. This story, like so many bible stories, is rife with implausibility and illogical behavior.
The first implausible aspect is the idea that God would close the gates of Heaven to bar entrance to new souls. Why would He punish the good, the innocent, those who obeyed His commandments? He was upset with the sinful humans, yet all humans were not sinful, so why would He punish the virtuous? What sense does that make?
The second implausibility is the idea of God sending His only begotten son to die for our sins so that Heaven could once again be open. This concept is completely devoid of logic. How does condemning His son to death atone for the sins of humanity? It would be the moral equivalent of having a next door neighbor who is a serial killer. But instead of punishing your neighbor for his crimes, you turn your son over to the authorities so that he will be punished for your neighbor's crimes. Make sense? Of course not, yet that is what the bible would have us believe God did.It is, in fact, a moral abomination.
The third implausibility deals with Jesus and Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples.Since biblical times, one of the worst things a person could be called is a "Judas," a term for someone who betrays a friend. Why Judas? Because the bible tells us Roman authorities were searching for this itinerant preacher named Jesus, and were offering a reward of gold coins for his capture. Judas, being one of his 12 apostles, knew exactly where he was, and informed the Romans in order to obtain the reward. For this act of betrayal, the name of Judas has been vilified for the past 2000 years. But does Judas deserve his shameful reputation?
I would argue that it is totally unjustified. Remember the whole point of Jesus coming down to earth was to die for our sins so that humans could be forgiven,.What Judas did was to set the wheels in motion. For this he should have been lauded throughout history for helping facilitate the reopening of Heaven. I would suggest that Judas was actually a hero.
Like most bible stories, when the spotlight of logic and reason are shone upon them, they are revealed to be totally devoid of reason, logic and plausibility. And for good reason. These ancient stories were created by ancient minds that lacked our knowledge of science and nature. These writers were part of a culture steeped in superstition and myth as a way of explaining the world around them. The real mystery is why these mystical tales are still regarding as unassailable truths in the 20th century.
At some point God took pity on us poor, weak humans. He decided to send his son, Jesus, down to earth to die for our sins, thus allowing the gates of Heaven to reopen.
It is an interesting story and the cornerstone of Christianity. But let us examine it in greater detail, using our intellectual gifts of reason and logic. This story, like so many bible stories, is rife with implausibility and illogical behavior.
The first implausible aspect is the idea that God would close the gates of Heaven to bar entrance to new souls. Why would He punish the good, the innocent, those who obeyed His commandments? He was upset with the sinful humans, yet all humans were not sinful, so why would He punish the virtuous? What sense does that make?
The second implausibility is the idea of God sending His only begotten son to die for our sins so that Heaven could once again be open. This concept is completely devoid of logic. How does condemning His son to death atone for the sins of humanity? It would be the moral equivalent of having a next door neighbor who is a serial killer. But instead of punishing your neighbor for his crimes, you turn your son over to the authorities so that he will be punished for your neighbor's crimes. Make sense? Of course not, yet that is what the bible would have us believe God did.It is, in fact, a moral abomination.
The third implausibility deals with Jesus and Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples.Since biblical times, one of the worst things a person could be called is a "Judas," a term for someone who betrays a friend. Why Judas? Because the bible tells us Roman authorities were searching for this itinerant preacher named Jesus, and were offering a reward of gold coins for his capture. Judas, being one of his 12 apostles, knew exactly where he was, and informed the Romans in order to obtain the reward. For this act of betrayal, the name of Judas has been vilified for the past 2000 years. But does Judas deserve his shameful reputation?
I would argue that it is totally unjustified. Remember the whole point of Jesus coming down to earth was to die for our sins so that humans could be forgiven,.What Judas did was to set the wheels in motion. For this he should have been lauded throughout history for helping facilitate the reopening of Heaven. I would suggest that Judas was actually a hero.
Like most bible stories, when the spotlight of logic and reason are shone upon them, they are revealed to be totally devoid of reason, logic and plausibility. And for good reason. These ancient stories were created by ancient minds that lacked our knowledge of science and nature. These writers were part of a culture steeped in superstition and myth as a way of explaining the world around them. The real mystery is why these mystical tales are still regarding as unassailable truths in the 20th century.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
GOOD RIDDANCE TO BAD RUBBISH
Fidel Castro, who ruled Cuba for over a half century, died Friday, November 25, 2016 at the age of ninety.Leaders around the globe responded to his passing. Two of the most egregiously ignorant statements came from President Barack Obama, and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada.
Withholding any outright condemnation of Castro, Obama said history would ultimately judge the man.Trudeau praised the dead communist's leadership abilities. Those two statements painfully reveal the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the two leaders.
To say that history will be the judge of Fidel Castro indicates either a lack of moral values or crippling naivete.
One does not have to wait for history to evaluate Fidel Castro. Anyone with an ounce of of morality and intelligence can readily make a determination as to the character of Castro.
He ruled like a tyrant. Under his dictatorship, there were no free elections, no freedom of speech, all means of communication--radio, television, newspapers, the internet--were all controlled and censored by Castro. Protests against the government were outlawed, political dissidents were arrested, imprisoned, tortured and often killed. Cubans caught fleeing the island were either shot on the spot or imprisoned. Over the years tens of thousands of Cubans fled the island. Thousands more died trying. For an individual to risk life and limb is clear testament to the cruelty and poverty-level living conditions under the communist regime.
While Fidel and his cronies lived in affluence, comfort and security, the citizens of Cuba lived in poverty, hunger the constant companion of many.Much of Castro's wealth was derived from granting safe haven to drug lords.
You don't need history to make a judgement of this man. His deeds provide ample evidence. Fidel Castro was an immoral human being who used force against his own people to retain power. Anyone who initiates the use of force against others and denies them their basic human rights is, by definition, an immoral individual.
That others refuse to condemn him betray their own ignorance and moral weakness. You don't have to wait for history to Judge Fidel Castro. All you need are moral values.
Withholding any outright condemnation of Castro, Obama said history would ultimately judge the man.Trudeau praised the dead communist's leadership abilities. Those two statements painfully reveal the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the two leaders.
To say that history will be the judge of Fidel Castro indicates either a lack of moral values or crippling naivete.
One does not have to wait for history to evaluate Fidel Castro. Anyone with an ounce of of morality and intelligence can readily make a determination as to the character of Castro.
He ruled like a tyrant. Under his dictatorship, there were no free elections, no freedom of speech, all means of communication--radio, television, newspapers, the internet--were all controlled and censored by Castro. Protests against the government were outlawed, political dissidents were arrested, imprisoned, tortured and often killed. Cubans caught fleeing the island were either shot on the spot or imprisoned. Over the years tens of thousands of Cubans fled the island. Thousands more died trying. For an individual to risk life and limb is clear testament to the cruelty and poverty-level living conditions under the communist regime.
While Fidel and his cronies lived in affluence, comfort and security, the citizens of Cuba lived in poverty, hunger the constant companion of many.Much of Castro's wealth was derived from granting safe haven to drug lords.
You don't need history to make a judgement of this man. His deeds provide ample evidence. Fidel Castro was an immoral human being who used force against his own people to retain power. Anyone who initiates the use of force against others and denies them their basic human rights is, by definition, an immoral individual.
That others refuse to condemn him betray their own ignorance and moral weakness. You don't have to wait for history to Judge Fidel Castro. All you need are moral values.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
REASON VS. PURPOSE
Most of us have heard or may have even used the phrase "Everything happens for a reason."
Usually the line is recited in reaction to a negative event like an auto accident, serious illness or a sudden financial setback.
On one level the phrase certainly is true. Everything does happen for a reason. If I'm sitting in my car at a redlight and my car gets rear ended by another driver, there was clearly a reason for the accident. The driver may have been drunk, distracted by a cellphone, or the car may have had bad breaks. If I slip on ice and incur a concussion, the reason may have been snow covering the ice.
The point is, everything happens for a reason. But that is really not the intent or meaning behind the phrase "Everything happens for a reason." Here is where semantics comes into play. What people really mean to say is "Everything happens for a purpose." That is to say, there is some ulterior motive or plan behind every occurrence. It doesn't happen haphazardly. It implies that a higher power is manipulating events to create a specific outcome.There is a wizard hiding behind the curtain who manipulates every aspect of our lives, like a chess player moving pieces around the board to produce a certain outcome.
Herein lies the emotional struggle for people who are dealing with a crisis in their lives, particularly if it involves the death of a loved one. I recall several years ago speaking with a friend who had a two year old nephew that was killed in an auto accident.Needless to say she was distraught over the untimely death.But not only was she distraught,she was also angry and confused. Why? Because she didn't view the accident as a random event. Rather, she saw it as a deliberately staged event by a higher power for purposes unknown. She raged against God, baffled as to why He would allow an innocent child to die such a brutal death at such a young age. "Why would God want to take the life of such a beautiful child?" she railed. "Why? It doesn't make sense!"
She was right. It doesn't make any sense if you're searching for a purpose, a meaning to the death. The reason for the accident was a drunk driver who ran a stoplight. If you accept it at face value, yes, you're deeply shocked and saddened, and perhaps angry with the drunk driver. But there it ends. No confusion. The facts of the accident are clear and indisputable.
It is only when you believe a higher power pulls our strings as if we were mere puppets that the bewilderment grows and seethes in the heart and mind.
Things happen simply because things happen. There is a reason behind why they happen, but there is no blueprint or grand design behind why random events occur as they do. It is like the flip of a coin. It can only come up heads or tails. Why? Because those are the only two possibilities. There is no specific reason why one side comes up over the other.
It is only when one eliminates the supernatural from one's belief system that you can truly come to grips with reality and gain a fuller understanding of life's vicissitudes.
Things happen. It is the unbendable law of the universe.
Usually the line is recited in reaction to a negative event like an auto accident, serious illness or a sudden financial setback.
On one level the phrase certainly is true. Everything does happen for a reason. If I'm sitting in my car at a redlight and my car gets rear ended by another driver, there was clearly a reason for the accident. The driver may have been drunk, distracted by a cellphone, or the car may have had bad breaks. If I slip on ice and incur a concussion, the reason may have been snow covering the ice.
The point is, everything happens for a reason. But that is really not the intent or meaning behind the phrase "Everything happens for a reason." Here is where semantics comes into play. What people really mean to say is "Everything happens for a purpose." That is to say, there is some ulterior motive or plan behind every occurrence. It doesn't happen haphazardly. It implies that a higher power is manipulating events to create a specific outcome.There is a wizard hiding behind the curtain who manipulates every aspect of our lives, like a chess player moving pieces around the board to produce a certain outcome.
Herein lies the emotional struggle for people who are dealing with a crisis in their lives, particularly if it involves the death of a loved one. I recall several years ago speaking with a friend who had a two year old nephew that was killed in an auto accident.Needless to say she was distraught over the untimely death.But not only was she distraught,she was also angry and confused. Why? Because she didn't view the accident as a random event. Rather, she saw it as a deliberately staged event by a higher power for purposes unknown. She raged against God, baffled as to why He would allow an innocent child to die such a brutal death at such a young age. "Why would God want to take the life of such a beautiful child?" she railed. "Why? It doesn't make sense!"
She was right. It doesn't make any sense if you're searching for a purpose, a meaning to the death. The reason for the accident was a drunk driver who ran a stoplight. If you accept it at face value, yes, you're deeply shocked and saddened, and perhaps angry with the drunk driver. But there it ends. No confusion. The facts of the accident are clear and indisputable.
It is only when you believe a higher power pulls our strings as if we were mere puppets that the bewilderment grows and seethes in the heart and mind.
Things happen simply because things happen. There is a reason behind why they happen, but there is no blueprint or grand design behind why random events occur as they do. It is like the flip of a coin. It can only come up heads or tails. Why? Because those are the only two possibilities. There is no specific reason why one side comes up over the other.
It is only when one eliminates the supernatural from one's belief system that you can truly come to grips with reality and gain a fuller understanding of life's vicissitudes.
Things happen. It is the unbendable law of the universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)