Saw this on social media, posted by an atheist, presumably to take a stab at us Christians:

If you’re good because you fear hell, you’re not good.

To which I reply, “What is meant by ‘good’?”

This is the fundamental problem with attacking morality and then claiming there is nothing fixed from which morality derives.

You cannot claim to be “good” or “bad” if you do not fix morality in an immutable absolute.

So, after a little back and forth with the person, including some others chiming in to tell me to shut up and inform me how ignorant I am, it came down to this, I think: the intent of the post was the difference between “doing good” and “being good”.

Now that I find intriguing, because it begs a means of evaluating motive.  I have to give this some thought ….

Others said “good” depends on what evolution makes a social species do to support its survival, or maximize happiness while minimizing suffering.   But they didn’t all say it very nicely.  They certainly were not being “good” in my opinion.

But there is something deeper that gets at the heart of the matter.  Temptation is not something we can always, on our own, resist.  A healthy fear of consequences is often the extra anchor we need to remain firm in virtue.  Venerable Louis of Granada:

Without the fear of God the soul is like a ship without ballast; the winds of human or divine favor may sweep it to destruction.  Even if she is richly laden with virtue, she is in continual danger of being wrecked on the rocks of temptation, if she is not steadied by this ballast of the fear of God.

In a brief exchange in some comments, I had this to say which I wanted to save, so here it is:

The idea of the origin of a new species via random gene mutations and natural selection is hard pill to swallow. I don’t find evolutionary theory is anywhere near convincing: as a hypothetical speculation or as an evidential theory.

What I do see are several archetypical body forms under which the various species fit and similarities across archetypes. Does that mean that they all descended from a common base ancestry? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think one can say much more about it than that they are similar. Maybe foxes are foxes simply because they have always been foxes and skunks are skunks because they have always been skunks.

What thrills me as I live out the diversity of species in my own life is that we are linked by the interdependence we share within the material universe. I have a flesh and bone body, just as foxes, owls, wolves, fish, and even skunks do :-). But unlike them, I have a capacity for appreciating the fact that we all do and for reasoning about it and for trying to make sense of it and for choosing what I do about it.

If I slip into my personal spiritual perspective on the matter, it hinges on the purpose of mankind as the steward of all that is. We feel connected because we are made to be connected. We are driven toward the natural world because we are made to nurture and protect it. We crave to bring solace to living things because we are made the bridge of their redemption. We are like it because we are made to share its destiny. I think the fact that we gravitate toward individual kinds has most to do with how we are individually made to be a part of that mission of stewardship than anything. That individuals would find a kind of transcendental connection to specific species — an affinity for and even maybe a disposition to share behavioral traits with — seems more a part of a primordial motivation toward a calling toward stewardship over a particular kind than it evidences a merger of spiritual typologies. What I mean is, maybe we feel connected with foxes, wolves, or skunks because we are made to feel connected with them.

As part of my Lenten exercises this year, I am reading a book by Paul Thigpen entitled, “Manual for Spiritual Warfare.” Thus far it has been a very sound and useful read, but a theme (that should be obvious to any Christian) is emerging that has occurred to me before but I’ve never deeply considered.

The theme is that the Christian life is chiefly about doing battle with the Devil. As the book proceeds, makes a compelling demonstration that one aspect of our life in this world after another is ordered toward waging spiritual warfare in the army of God.

Many people will use (erroneously) the fact of evil in the world as an argument for the non-existence of God. “After all,” they say, “if God is all powerful and hates evil and loves mankind, why doesn’t he just eliminate evil once and for all?” There are several problems wrong with this line of thinking, chiefly:
– the assumption that God is not doing anything is wrong. He is doing something and is in the process of destroying evil utterly
– the assumption that we are merely innocent, victimized, non-combatants is entirely wrong. We are:
* responsible for the rampage of evil, for “through one man (Adam) sin entered the world”
* victimizers, for the wrongs done to people most often are done through the actions and choices of other people
* combatants, for we are offered the armor and weapons to battle the enemy and called to the mission of spiritual warfare and to help to right the wrongs we have brought upon creation.

Often I’ve asked, what is the purpose of this life on earth? I’ve wondered why Jesus is waiting so long to return in force with his angels. The book I am reading is giving me a new perspective on what might be going on. It is also neatly meshing a number of things Catholic that seemed a bit arbitrary and disjoint to me with concepts that make them far from arbitrary and entirely connected. These are things that all Christian denominations profess to greater or lesser degrees, but as usual, they seem to possess a fullness in the context of Catholicism. Here are a few of my thoughts:

I am leading a Lenten bible study program that provides a framework for reading the Bible in its entirety through the books within it that compose its narrative thread. That is, read the story and augment the story with the supplemental material as you want/need. But what is the “story” in the Bible? It is the story of Creation. The important thing to me is that it does not begin nor end with mankind. It begins before the emergence of man (and I’m not making any claims about how that came about, only that it did, and that it occurred very late in the process). It ends with the perfection of creation with the “new earth” (whatever that means). What we observe about humankind is that the story is not about us, it merely includes us. We enter into the story and we have a roll to play in it, but the story is bigger than us. No matter how significant our composition or our importance in the story, we must first accept the fact that we are not the most significant nor the most important. Here is how the story goes:
– God, complete and perfect unto himself, determined to express Himself in a work of creating, and so he made the heavens and the earth.
– God made man to “cultivate” and “keep” the creation he had made. From the beginning, God made everything for Himself, and He made man to be its steward, to tend to it for Him. He placed a very powerful angel in the Garden to watch over mankind (Ezekial 28:14).

Now this next bit is Biblical interpretation according to Graowf. I am not a theologian, nor do I know the Catholic interpretation of this in full, so you should not take this as authoritative, but it works for me to knit the story together, so here goes:
– The angel assigned to watch over Adam was envious, and he turned on the man. He invaded the body of the serpent and deceived first Adam’s wife, Eve, and then Adam, so that they turned from God and sought first after their own gain rather than remaining true to their purpose. The price for their disobedience: mortal death and the loss of sharing in the divine life (which leaves them unprotected against the wiles of the Evil One, and the possibility of eternal death).
– Mankind is cast out of Eden, losing their state of grace. The Devil and those angels who chose to ally with him, fought a great battle with Michael, who led the angels loyal to God, and the contumacious angels were cast out of Eden as well and denied further free access to Heaven. An enchantment of confusion was placed upon the minds of the fallen, so that neither man nor demon can perceive beyond the veil between Heaven and Earth without the aid of the Power of God. Thus the fates of men and demons were cast together into the fallen world, where they wandered into beguilement and chaos.
– But God in His Mercy would now allow even for the willful self-destruction of the stewards He appointed over his Creation to bring His magnum opus to ruin. For in imbuing mankind with an immortal soul, He promised eternal life, and in making mankind both spirit and matter, He made mankind complete only when the human person is both matter and spirit, and thus the honor of His promise requires man a material world to dwell in. But God is a God of justice, and though the angels, with perfect knowledge of God, have no possibility of redemption, mankind does, but Justice demands recompense, and so through man must come payment for man’s transgression. As the fall of creation came through the free choice of man, so must the payment come through the free choices of men.
– And so God began the task of redeeming mankind by leading him from his fallen state back to a state of grace. He called to man, led his chosen people, guided them until he had prepared the world for His coming.
– At the pivotal point in the history of the world, God entered into it, to deliver his message to fallen mankind, to instruct them in the way to salvation for Creation. And because only He could know it, and only He is able to deliver Justice, and since redemption must come through recompense paid by humankind, God Himself became a man, through the free cooperation of Mary, in the person of Jesus, the Christ. A great power rippled across time and space when He was Incarnated as Man, for in sharing His divine Nature with the nature of a man, the Son, Jesus, became dependent Himself upon a material body in order to be fully complete. No longer could creation be undone, for now it was fused with the Godhead.
– Just as man’s fate was tied to creation, the Son’s fate was tied to man’s. And though the Son never sinned, nor shared in the culpability of Adam, yet the Son suffered the fate of Man: He died a mortal death. But death could not contain Him, for the Son, being God, is Eternal, and so the Son rose from the dead, and having paid the ultimate price for the transgression of his earthly kind, received the reward that was Adam’s treasure: perfect presence in the Divine life and stewardship of all Creation.

– So Jesus became Rex Omnium, King of All That Is, and the King of All set forth to raise an army to do battle with the Evil Spirits, and he equipped his army with armor (Ephesians 6:10+). And he gave them weapons (2 Corinthians 10:4).
– And now, in the present, we are soldiers in a spiritual war. We fight an enemy that is not human and that we cannot see. It is an enemy that can manipulate the material world with supernatural power, that can impress ideas and motivations into our very minds, that can even take control of our bodies. It is an enemy that has superior intellect and power to our own. Our only defense is the shield of faith, which surrounds us with divine interventions according to our belief and understanding, and our only offense the weapons of grace granted by the power of our faith. Chief amongst our armor and weapons are Prayer and the Sacraments. Our allies are the Saints in Heaven, the angels of God, the Holy Spirit, and the King of All.
– On the Last Day He will come, and with His angles and the saints will sweep the Enemy from the earth and free Creation from the bonds of Death and Sin.
– And the Earth will be remade, and the gates of Heaven opened, and all of Creation will be restored in its fullness and those allied with the King will receive the reward of life eternal in the presence of the Divine, as man was meant to live. And those who rebelled, both angels and men, will receive their reward as well: the reward of eternal life in the absence of the Divine.

The important thing about the story is our integral place in it as participants in the work of restoring Creation. It is kind of our second chance, as inadequate as we are, to make good on our charge as stewards. Instead of fixing the problem for us, God intervenes, becomes one of us, and fixes the problem through us. That is both encouraging and humbling, but makes clear why we share in suffering the horrors that we have brought upon God’s creation, and also why we are warriors commissioned to do battle to save it. It also pinpoints why we need to prepare ourselves for the battle each day.

Take seriously, therefore, your duty to “guard” the Garden, put on the full armor of God and equip yourself with the weapons of spiritual warfare. You are more important and more precious than you imagine.

I noted again today, in an article discussing the erroneous statement of a CNN anchor about the source of our rights, these words from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

There is an implicit logic that the authors of this document express in the conclusion “endowed by their Creator”.  It goes like this:

• God is the author if the absolute moral code.
• Justice requires an absolute moral code.
• Rights are claims in justice.
• Therefore, we are endowed with our rights by God.

The one that I think stumps people is the second: “Justice requires an absolute moral code.”  Why does justice require an absolute moral code?  Let’s say that we live in a culture like the Aztecs where sacrifice of children is morally licit.  People steal my child from me for sacrifice by immolation.  I go to the courts and demand that this not happen because of the child’s right to life.  I am told my child has no such right where sacrifices are concerned as the rights of society to sacrifice him for the greater good outweighs any right he might have to life.  Thus, I nor my child have any claim in justice. Does my child have a right to live?  Yes.  Why? My culture has determined he has no such right.  But there is some “right” he has to life that transcends the rights my culture has authored.  From where does it arise?  If there is no God, there is no authority higher than the government under which I live.  Why do I feel outrage?  Why do I feel that change is demanded, that the culture is not properly aligned with what is truly “right?”  If there is no God, I have nothing to which to appeal.  If there is no absolute moral code, I can feel no outrage.

Now let us suppose my child is sacrificed.  I bring charges against the priest who dropped him in the furnace.  But the courts declare him innocent because human sacrifice is not a crime, and thus he violated no one’s rights.  Where is justice?  The priest sues me for some kind of slander.  I am made to pay.  Where is the justice?

Let’s go further.  Let’s say that today human sacrifice is illegal, but then in a sweeping social change, it is made legal.  Where do I turn when government issue boots break down my door and steal my child for immolation?  Society has spoken.

Without a shared sense of a right and a wrong that transcends the whims of society there is no guarantee of any rights.  Without an unchangeable “right” and “wrong” there are no unalienable rights.  Without an absolute moral code there is no justice.

Thus, a statement like this:

Our rights do not come from God…. They come from man…. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.

is false.

So, I was looking up some information on the Internet and ran across a forum thread.  A guy asked a question, saying he was a  beginner with XSLT.  Here’s part of the answer he got from someone:

Sorry, but if you don’t know how to use XPath expressions within an XSLT stylesheet, then you really need to get a good book and do some reading. Forums are useful when you get stuck on specific questions, but they aren’t the way to get started.

Now, the thing that struck me is that the guy who gave this answer is author of one of the most well-known XSLT books out there (I actually own a copy) and instead of being helpful with the topic on which he is adept, he decides to berate the questioner and make unfounded claims about forums, and maybe hoped to get a book sale.  Frankly, I’m tempted to burn his book after his arrogant, rude, chiding, erroneous, and otherwise useless comment.

Let us examine the statement in parts: “if you don’t know how to … you really need to get a good book and do some reading.”

First off, I bought the author’s book years ago when XSLT information was lacking on the Internet because XSLT information was lacking on the Internet.  Especially information on getting started.  Had information been available on the Internet, maybe in a forum, for example, I’d not have bought the book.  It was overpriced and seemed awfully thick.

Secondly, perusing the Internet for technical information, especially forums, requires one to read.  So it isn’t like the questioner isn’t reading.  His question was actually a pretty good one for a beginner, and clearly he’d done at least a little research already in order to even be able to ask it.  The point is, “reading” doesn’t require a “book.”  I can read information in many forms, including Internet resources of all forms, such as forums.

Thirdly, when it come to technical information about programming and related disciplines, do you really need/want to pick up “a good book” on the topic?  Maybe if there isn’t anything about it on the Internet.  But having been a programmer through the birth of the Internet, I can safely say that “book” form is not the best source of information for a programmer.  Why?  Two reasons: one, searching in a book is generally limited to the author’s decision about the index.  If it is an ebook it is a little more robust, but my assumption from the responder’s remark is that he means a printed one.  If it isn’t a printed book, then it is really little different than searching the Internet, and he didn’t even suggest Internet resources for the questioner.  Besides, when he wrote the comment it doesn’t look like his book was available in an e-format.  So, I think he meant print.

The second reason the print book is not as good is that the information is quickly dated.  I’ve bought print books and then two years later needed a reference and discovered that the book is a couple revisions behind the software or specification — in other words, about useless.  So, I went to the Internet for the answers, usually hitting a few forums on the way. True, XSLT seems to change more slowly, but a beginner isn’t going to know that.

A third note is that really to get familiar with a programming-related topic, a person probably needs to read the equivalent of a good book.  But that means the equivalent volume and quality of one, probably from multiple kinds of sources and multiple sources.  Reading from one alone is kind of like listening to one side of an argument and then drawing a conclusion.  Or climbing one side of a mountain and then assuming the other side is just the same.   Not to mention, there is no reason for the responder to conclude that the questioner had not read a book already.  The questioner certainly didn’t say that.

Next look at this: “Forums are useful when you get stuck on specific questions, but they aren’t the way to get started.”

Who decided that?  Who gave the responder the authority to even make such a claim?  When I have to enter into a new realm of programming-related knowledge, perusing forums on topics is often very insightful.  I’ve used forums to get started before.  I was always glad that someone else who was getting started asked the question to which I found the answer on a forum because then I was able to get started without further ado.  I didn’t have to go and spend hours evaluating books on the topic and then wait several days for it to arrive at my house after I ordered it.  I got started right away.  Forums are a great way to get started.  When beginners ask questions, a knowledgeable person can usually answer it quickly and easily.  The beginner is helped, the expert gets the satisfaction of helping someone in need.  What could be better?  The Internet evoking good feelings all around — that would be novel.

But in this case the questioner used the forum as directed: he went to the forum and asked what he did precisely because he was stuck on a specific question.  Also, I looked in the responders book and it doesn’t really answer the question that was asked, so reading a book (the responder’s book at least) wouldn’t have helped.  I assume the responder classifies his own book as “a good book” on the topic, so his point about reading a good book on the topic is moot: the questioner would still have probably asked the same question on a forum.

There are websites that exist solely for people to discuss questions in a forum style.  These recognize that forums are very useful for getting started, especially for finding various alternative answers to a single question for beginners to study.  Stack Overflow, Experts Exchange — these are just two that come to mind.

I’m really disappointed that the responder could be so arrogant and crass (at the same time, and also a “crass” minus the “CR”).  Fortunately, someone else, probably not an expert at the level of the responder I’ve written about, and I don’t think someone who wrote a book on the topic — fortunately, this other person kindly provided a link to information pertaining to the questioner’s need without also insulting the questioner’s intelligence or belittling him in any way.

By the way, I’m not an XPath/XSLT beginner, and I have the responder’s book (though, admittedly, I haven’t read it cover-to-cover.  It’s not all that and a bag of chips) and the questioner’s question on the forum helped me find the answer to my question, which was actually the same question he had.  So guess what?  I sure am glad he asked that question on a forum!!!

I don’t like this theme very much.  No time to author my own.  Ah, well….

I was just thinking … a bunch of monkeys, even given an eternity, will never type out the complete works of Shakespeare.  They couldn’t, because the typewriter would get broken before they really even got started on the first sonnet.  Then you could give them all eternity and they’d never type out any works of Shakespeare because they wouldn’t have a typewriter.  It’s a one shot deal, and they’d urinate on it before they got the paper in.