KICK LARRY DAVID TO THE CURB

In a recent episode of the HBO series, “Curb your Enthusiasm,” writer and producer, Larry David inadvertently urinates on a picture of Jesus. The picture is hanging on a wall in the guest bathroom of a home he is visiting. Larry David’s urine, which continues to drip down the picture, subsequent to Larry’s departure from the bathroom, makes it appear to the homeowner and her mother (who later witness the scene) that Jesus, is weeping. The two women, in a state of awe and reverence, kneel before the picture and pray. The naïve homeowner and her mother (as depicted) believe this event to be a miracle. The miracle, as I see it, is that a sixty-two year-old man could pee more that three inches up a wall. Larry is fantasizing again! While doing so, however, L.D. has desecrated an image of deity, most sacred to the Christian faith.

The obvious question is, would Larry David perform the same shtick with a picture of Allah? Probably not; characterizations of Allah are forbidden by Muslims. How about a likeness of Mohammad? Sure, at the risk of a Rushdie-style contract on Larry’s head. I do not think Larry David is that brave, nor is Islam Larry’s concern. I doubt we would ever see Larry David urinating on a picture of Brahman, a Hindu god, Buddha, the Maharishi of TM, or Yoda, for that matter. Why? Because none of the gods, representing these religions, are threatening to Larry’s secular, humanistic lifestyle. I am certain Larry’s god is exempt from his micturition splatter, as well. Can you imagine Larry’s rage should he witness someone pissing on a picture of a dollar bill?

There is a battle currently raging between worldly, “New York – Hollywood” philosophy and Christ’s message. Larry David understands this, only too well! Jesus Christ and His followers are the enemy of the humanist perspective – a view and lifestyle, which Larry David holds dear. The pee fest, exhibited in Larry’s recent show, was a deliberate and calculated effort to offend those, who he believes are challenging his philosophy of life. His efforts were successful, in a most base and un-cultured manner. I was greatly offended and outraged when I saw a clip of the episode. Apparently, so were many other Christians. Their immediate verbal and written response to Larry’s crude and disrespectful act caused HBO to release a statement that Larry was just acting “Playful.” If HBO actually believes that ridiculous explanation of Larry’s sacrilege, they should warn Larry’s two daughters to wear heavy rain gear upon visitation.

Some who have defended the episode in question, say that Larry David offends everybody?!? That’s a nice human quality! And, how does that make me feel better about his abhorrent act? Additionally, there have been those who place the blame of Christian outrage on an inability to show tolerance, “as the Bible teaches.” Nice try! As the Bible does not teach “Tolerance,” this transfer of responsibility does not work (please read my posting on “Tolerance,” dated, October 30, 2008). It also demonstrates the ignorance of Bible scripture by those who pose this fallacious argument.

As Christians, we must rebuke the kind of behavior displayed by Larry David. My recommendation is to write a letter to HBO, 1100 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 and express your outrage, primarily by cancelling your subscription; make yourself heard! Additionally, should you be a fan of "Curb your Enthusiasm," don't admit it and stop watching!

SELF-REALIZATION ETHICS

This topic represents the last in my series of moral and ethical thought, which has molded the contemporary culture in which we live.

The philosophy of self-realization proclaims divinity as part of the self. Its commandments declare: feel and realize thy divine nature; thou art the master of your destiny; have a new angle of vision; arm yourself with discrimination, cheerfulness, discernment, alacrity and an understanding spirit. Anyone remember Erhard Seminars Training (EST) in the 1970’s and 1980’s? Self-realization promises: a glorious brilliant future is awaiting you; let the past be buried; you can work miracles; you can do wonders; do not give up hope; you can destroy the harmful effects of unfavorable planets through your will-force; you can command the elements and the nature; you can neutralize the effect of evil influences and the antagonistic dark forces that may operate against you; destiny is your own creation; you have created your destiny through thought and actions; even if there is an evil or a dark antagonistic force to attack you, you can diminish its force by resolutely denying the existence of evil or turning your mind away from it. Did you happen to notice this pervasive theme in the Star Wars film series? Yes, George Lucas realized his “Divine Nature” a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

Self-realization teaches that there is no such thing as sin. Sin is only a mistake. Sin is a mental creation. The baby-soul must commit some mistakes during the process of evolution; mistakes are the best teachers! OK, let me see..., "Teachers are good; mistakes are teachers; therefore, mistakes are good!?!" "Russian roulette is a mistake; mistakes are good; let’s play Russian roulette. Bam!!! That will teach me!"

To attain self-realization, one must rely on self only; destroy the inferiority complex, draw power, courage, strength from within, and lead a life of non-attachment. This ambition offers the diametric objective of what Jesus Christ wants for his children. Accordingly, stop worrying about your crummy self-esteem!

This fatuous philosophy of ethics completely eludes rational thought, the reality of life, and most importantly, God’s obvious truths. It only deserves mention in that it is the conglomeration of humanist subjectiveness, and has captured many lost souls in an expanding realm of “New Age” ethics and religion.

RELATIVISM ETHICS

This is a continuation of my series on the origins and tenets of contemporary philosophies of morals and ethics:

According to the view of the relativist, the awareness of societal customs, and not moral truths, are the only standards for achieving situational harmony. These customs are not sanctioned, for that would imply an independent standard of right and wrong. As there can be no independent standard, every standard is culture-oriented.

For the relativist, the study of history and culture, establishes that past behavior throughout the entire world was fostered by madness; man always thought that he was right, which led to wars, persecutions, slavery, racism, etc. The relativist is not compelled to learn from the mistakes of the past to be right; rather, [he] is unencumbered by an obligation to be right at all.

Relativists do not believe that there are self-evident moral principles that are true for everyone. [They] say that the customs and traditions for the society in which they live determine one’s moral judgments. These judgments may have been handed down for centuries, but their age or past application does not secure them as true standards; they are simply norms that certain society has developed for itself. What is right, is what society says is right, and whatever is considered good for society, must be right.

The relativism philosophy advances the notion that moral problems arise out of a conflict of impulses or desires. Therefore, the goal of moral deliberation is to find a course of action that will turn a conflict into harmony. Each individual problem must be viewed in the light of the actions necessary to solve it, with some understanding of the consequences, which naturally follow the actions. A choice is right if it leads to a solution of the specific conflict; however, there is no absolute right or good, as every successful solution gives rise to new problems that must be evaluated on their own terms. Moral rules are only hypotheses, or tentative assumptions, which have been found to work in certain circumstances. Accordingly, there are no principles or standards that are right for all people at all times. New situations demand new approaches. What was once valid may be inappropriate now.

In the relativist’s view, one ought to do whatever fulfills the highest moral rule in a situation. When this is done, such action is right, and in no way can be wrong. Within this context, there are no tragic moral dilemmas. The lesser of two evils is a misnomer because the relativist argues, the lesser evil is actually good!

EXISTENTIAL ETHICS

It is my intention, in presenting the various societal philosophies, to offer an awareness of the foundations of thought, relevant to the establishment of today’s ethical standards.  In this respect, one may better understand the root causes, and therefore the effects, of contemporary thinking and actions:

Existentialism is a philosophy of several varieties.  Its general theme focuses concern on human existence, hence, the name “Existentialism.”  The concern is not upon some kind of abstract principle of metaphysics, or of God, or things of that nature, but the concern is with human beings, and what it means to exist as a person in this world.  Existentialism, in fixating on the predicament of the individual, tends to be pessimistic and atheistic.

The most basic tenet, common to the many uses of the term [existentialism], is that man is entirely free and wholly responsible for himself.  In this light, mans’ imperfection is suddenly obvious, to which follows a sense of anguish and helplessness.  To the existentialist, this is roughly the point of “Awareness.’

Existential awareness can logically lead in several opposing directions, all of which are captured by the term.  For some, anguish leads to loneliness and despair, possibly resulting in nihilism (belief that societal conditions warrant destruction).  For others, meaningless prevails, and life is simply inconsequential.  Yet, others perceive the imperfection of man as merely a changeable facet of his character; for with total freedom and total responsibility, comes limitless potential.  The human condition, therefore, is neither absolute nor entirely understood.  Improvement can come through the emphasis of different or new human attributes.  The individual is free to be whom he chooses.

Existentialism as a philosophy, or world and life view, is largely a 20^th century phenomenon.  [It] is the very antithesis of Christian belief, by asserting the total autonomy of man.  Hence, it is one of the most virulent forms of humanism.  Existentialism has spread rapidly because its proponents often convey their message in more artistic form, rather than in dry philosophic tomes.  Their medium is often novels, plays, art, and movies, which are often profoundly moving and entertaining, as these works speak to real human conditions.  The influence of existentialism is pervasive, and often subtle, in our society.  The violence and breakdown of modern culture can largely be attributed to the philosophy of existentialism.

The root of existentialism is autonomous thinking.  It is man yielding to the satanic temptation of desiring to be as God, i.e., rejecting all outside or transcendent sources of authority.  Man does not discover values; he creates them.  Since there is no standard to live well, then man should live much.  For the existentialist, it is mans’ feelings and passions, which make him a man.  Feelings are the standard for truth, e.g., “It is true if I feel strongly about it.”  “If it feels good, do it!”

If there is no infinite, personal creator-God who transcends His creation, then there is no infinite reference point, which can give meaning to the particulars of life.  Man is alone; there is only the cosmos, and mans’ consciousness of himself.  A man, therefore, is the sum total of the acts that make up his life – no more, no less!  When a man is alive, he is a subject; when he is dead, he is an object.

IS BEING CALLED A HYPOCRITE NECESSARILY A BAD THING?

At various times in our lives, we have all been chastised and denounced as hypocrites.  Certainly, being labeled with that moniker was not meant to edify your behavior or intellectual posture.  On the contrary, it is most often used to eliminate one’s credibility as a legitimate contributor to a philosophical debate.  In these times of growing secular positioning, the word [hypocrite] has gained accelerated, liberal acceptance as an expedient means of claiming victory in any discussion of social values.

I am going to go out on a limb on this one and say, it is not necessary a bad thing to be called a hypocrite.  To understand my thinking, one must consider the path to avoiding the purposed pejorative – simply claim no principles.

The New Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language defines “Hypocrite” as:  One who feigns to be what one is not; assuming a false appearance of piety and virtue; insincerity; pretending goodness or religion.  Clearly, pretending virtue or goodness is not an admirable personal attribute, but labeling someone as described, can be a subjective or intended misrepresentation of character.  I would posit that more often than not, this would be the case.  You may have noticed that Christians tend to be frequently targeted for this belittling stamp.  Belly-dancers, Congressmen, and lawyers generally get a pass. 

Prior to Jesus’ arrest by Pontius Pilate, had the disciple Peter been feigning love for his Savior?  Was Peter, in fact, a hypocrite [note:  The descriptive noun did not exist at that time] for denying his association with Jesus?  Or, had Jesus merely predicted mans’ weakness when separated from God?  God understood the intrinsic nature of man and sent His Son as a sacrifice for mans’ sinful behavior.  Jesus knew Peter’s impetuous heart and his human frailties, yet Peter was the disciple whom Jesus told to “Feed my lambs” (John 21:15).  If in the eyes of others, Peter was a hypocrite, it did not appear to disqualify his appointment by Jesus as leader of the disciples.

As Christians, we understand the sinful nature of man.  We know that our sins are only forgiven by God’s grace and mercy.  Does this knowledge suggest that we continue to live as God has instructed us, or yield to the imminence of future sinful behavior to avoid the dreaded “H-word” slander?  Sadly, the fear of hypocrisy keeps some from making a commitment to Jesus in the first place.  Interestingly, it is often a self-inflicted burden.  But is putting one’s faith in Christ (for seeking wisdom and righteousness on earth) hypocrisy, when comprehending mans’ true nature?  Certainly not!  Should we hide our faith in Christ from others for fear of being called a hypocrite?  In this context, it is not necessarily a bad thing to be called a hypocrite.

 

HEDONISM ETHICS

To help illuminate the bases by which individuals establish their values, I have promised to present the most prevalent ideologies, which have fostered our current cultural thinking in America.  This posting is part of a series of core behavioral principles known as, “How people define what it is to be ‘good’,” “Christian Ethics,” “Humanism ethics,” “Hedonism ethics,” “Existentialism ethics,” “Relativism ethics,” and a proclaimed state of mind identified as, “Self-realization.”  As Christians, I believe it is important to be knowledgeable of these fundamental belief systems in order to more effectively promote God’s truth within our society:

          Hedonism is a philosophy in which the highest good is pleasure.  The hedonist decides between the most enduring pleasures or the most intense pleasures, whether present pleasures should be denied for the sake of overall comfort, and whether mental pleasures are preferable to physical pleasures.

       The term “Hedonism” means an ethical system based on pleasure instead of rules or consciously chosen values.  This system argues that what is moral, in any context, is whatever gives the moral actor the most pleasure.  The problem with this concept is that it forgets that men have control over what gives them pleasure, what a person perceives as his values affects what gives him pleasure.  A person feels pleasure when he achieves what he believes to be his values.  Ethical hedonism is silent on this critical point.  Man, in order to practice hedonism, must take his already formed perceptions of proper human values as cast in stone and simultaneously as flexible, [at his whim].  Because hedonism is powerless to tell men what their values are, it fails as an ethical system.  Additionally, hedonism robs human beings of volition.  It argues that humans, in fact, do not have true volitional power; they automatically choose whatever will give them the most pleasure.  Believing this, its adherents cannot argue that the tenets of hedonism are in fact true, but only that it gives them the most pleasure to believe and argue that they are true..

 

           

 

HUMANISM ETHICS

        The ancient Greeks were probably the first humanists.  Protagoras wrote, “The human is the measure of all things.”  Sophocies expounded on that notion by saying, “Of all the many wonders of the world, there is none so wonderful as the human.”

          Today, humanism is an orientation and an approach with applications in virtually all professional disciplines, including education, counseling, law, and medicine.  Elizabeth Campbell, a past executive director of the Association for Humanistic Psychology (AHP), wrote that, “Humanistic psychology holds a hopeful view of people and their ability to be self-determining, self-actualizing, and capable of making choices.”  In addition, she listed the likely results of humanism:

1.      Promotes human growth and transformation;

2.      Provides priority to human needs;

3.      Holistically insists on looking at all-encompassing systems;

4.      Honors the subjective and the intuitive in the study of humans; and,

5.      Supports self-disclosure, trust, and openness as ways of being in the world.

       Campbell’s description fits closely with assertions made in the Humanist Manifesto, a collaborative effort written in 1933.  The writings declare that the purposes and practice of humanism is to:

1.      Affirm life, rather than deny it;

2.      Seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from it; and,

3.      Endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely the few.

This philosophy of life asserts that human beings are responsible for their own destinies.

       From the Humanist’s perspective, principles are chosen where their ultimate value is not determined, nor is the value-determination possible.  Such ethical philosophy usually equates satisfaction in life with prudence, power, or pleasure but it is basically derived from belief in the ethical doctrine of natural human fulfillment as the ultimate good.  Those lacking motivation to exercise preferences, may be resigned to accepting all customs and, therefore, develop a philosophy of prudence.  They live in conformity with a mix of ethical standards, popular with society at the time.  Where power is considered the highest attainment for man, competition is identified as the motivating force of achievement.  Because each victory tends to raise the level of competition, the logical end of such a philosophy is unlimited or absolute power, which of course, is not possible.  Power seekers may not accept customary ethical rules but may conform to other rules that can help them become successful.  They will seek to persuade others that they are moral in the accepted sense of the term, in order to mask their power motives and gain the ordinary rewards of morality.

       Kenneth W. Phifer, a Harvard University educated Unitarian minister in Massachusetts, affirms his humanistic philosophy of life by articulating, “I have faith in that part of humanism, which sees the human being as the highest form of life; an end, not a means; the creator of moral values; the maker of history.”  Odd, that a Harvard educated, Massachusetts citizen would hold counter-cultural views!

The contrast of Minister Phifer’s humanistic philosophy can be no more striking, than when it is compared with the Apostle Paul’s writing in the book of Galatians:  “When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear:  sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissention, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these.”  Gal. 5:19-21 (NLT).

 

 

CHRISTIAN ETHICS

The fundamental question of ethics is, who makes the rules – God or man?  The theistic answer is that God makes them.  The humanistic answer is that man makes them.  God’s prescription for mans’ behavior in this life has remained timeless and unchanged.  Mans’ many philosophies of what is “Good” are continually evolving.  That fact, in and of itself, provides a testament to mans’ failure to offer a steady moral compass for society.  This distinction between theism and humanism is the basis of division in moral theory and conduct.

The ethical systems of the classical age (490–510 B.C.) were applied to the aristocracy, particularly in Greece.  The same standards were not extended to non-Greeks, and the term for them, “Barbarians” acquired derogatory connotations.  As for slaves, the attitude toward them can be summed up in Aristotle’s characterization of a slave as a “Living tool.”  Partly for these reasons, as the pagan religions decayed, the contemporary philosophies did not gain any popular following, and much of the appeal of Christianity was its extension of moral citizenship to all, even to slaves.

The birth of Jesus Christ marked a revolution in ethics, for He proclaimed, and lived by example, what is good.  In the Christian view, a person is totally dependent upon God and cannot achieve goodness by means of deeds or intelligence, but only with the help of God’s grace.  The primary Christian ethical belief is stated in the golden rule, in the injunctions to love one’s neighbor as oneself, to love one’s enemies, to give to the government what is the government’s, and give to God what is God’s.  Jesus taught that the essential meaning of Jewish Law is in the commandment to love the Lord with all of your heart, soul, strength, and mind; and, your neighbor as yourself.

Christianity emphasizes as virtues, asceticism, martyrdom, faith, mercy, forgiveness, and unconditional love – few of which had been considered important by the philosophers of classical Greece and Rome.

Saint Augustine (354–430 A.D). regarded as the founder of Christian theology, advanced the concept of goodness as an attribute of God and sin as Adam’s fall, from which a person’s guilt is redeemed by God’s mercy.  He believed in mans’ basic sinful nature.  The 13^th century Christian theologian, Saint Thomas Aquinas, supported Augustinian concepts of original sin and redemption through divine grace.

The Protestant Reformation, lead by Martin Luther (1483–1546 A.D), effected a widespread following of basic moral principles within the Christian tradition.  He believed that goodness of spirit is the essence of Christian piety.  Moral conduct, or good works, is required of the Christian, but justification, or salvation, comes by faith alone.  Additionally, the French Protestant theologian and religious reformer John Calvin (1509–1564 A.D.), accepted the theological doctrine that justification is by faith alone, and so upheld the doctrine of “Original sin.”

It is the divine ownership of man, which grounds ethical obligation.  Call it divine lordship or divine sovereignty, the fact is that God has made man and therefore owns man.  Man is God’s creature.  It is the position of divine possession, which is the deepest meaning of the Creator/creature relationship.  Neither divine power, nor divine goodness may be divorced from this relationship, but ethical obligation for man arises, first and most essentially, from the fact that man is God’s possession.  This is the explanation for ethical reality, as man knows it.  Divine ownership grounds mans’ sense of an objective, external, and absolute claim upon his obedience.

It is evident that Christian epistemology both harmonizes and transcends the precepts of non-Christian ethics.  Accordingly, omniscience is necessary if any ethical thinking is to be confident.  Certainly, man is not and cannot be omniscient; if man professed omniscience, despair would surely be his result.

The fact of divine revelation, however, provides the Christian with the necessary omniscience without the necessity of locating that deity in man.  Since God is omniscient, he can provide man with the necessary knowledge to make ethical decisions without making man omniscient.  Confidence, rather than despair, may thus mark the Christian approach to ethical decision.

In God's created reality, [He] has designed a world in which all particulars (a separate part of a whole, such as a fact detail, or circumstance), reflect certain universal principles (all-encompassing directives), while not being absorbed by or dissolved into those universal principles.  God’s created universals and particulars do not contradict one another.  The application of this system and epistemology to ethics provides this important insight.  The moral law of God is composed of both universals, as written in (Matt. 22:37-40) and particulars as directed in (Exodus 20).  The universals never negate or override the particulars.  The particulars always reflect the universals.  Hence, all the particular laws of God always reflect love for God and man.  There is never any conflict between universals and particulars in God’s law.  Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity and the Christian epistemology it suggests, immediately illustrates the inadequacy of situationism (to act in accordance with the situation), and other forms of one-norm absolutism (one “particular” fits all), conflicting absolutism (a “particular” that does not fit is due to a lack of knowledge), and graded absolutism (there is a hierarchy of “particulars”, where one will fit different situations).  This is so because each of these systems posits conflict between universals and particulars within God’s law, or particulars are subordinated to the universals in some way.

So, who do you think makes the rules? – God or man?  To be continued…

Topics:

Humanism

Hedonism

Existentialism

Relativism

Self-Realization