Theological Dialogue #15: The relationship between Freedom and Morality

The church defines freedom as the power rooted in reason to make a choice.

This type of definition seems somewhat convoluted, but when examined a little more closely, it reveals a lot about what freedom truly is and what it truly requires. In order to be free (fully) one requires two things: intellect and the power to make the choice they decide upon. In other words, every free decision and action are brought about by the use of our inner freedom (the ability to reason, identify the good, and choose whether or not to pursue it) and our external freedom (the actual ability to act). If either is compromised, we are arguably less free, and consequently less human.

This notion in turn reveals a lot about what it means to be human and how our free will is wrapped up in our humanity. As noted in earlier dialogue, the reason that morality applies to humans, and solely humans, is because of the nature of their rational soul. Humans are the only animals that have the ability to identify the good and consequently to decide whether or not to act in favor of it or against it. This rational soul is comprised of two components: freedom and intellect. When God breathed the breath of life into Adam he bestowed upon him the ability to reason, which in turn allowed him to identify his own humanity and also the fact that he was alone, but he also bestowed upon him a freewill that was much different than his animal counterparts. Adam had the ability to act against his survival if he so chose. We can better understand this when we examine the directive that Adam and Eve should not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Ultimately, they were encouraged against it, but God left them free to do as they pleased. The reason that evil occurs is because we are loved and our freewill in prioritized above all else. And as a result, out of pride and disobedience (as well as a brief dip into the second stage of moral development) Adam and Eve chose to act against God's will and pursue their own.

The result of Adam and Eve's decision was their banishment from the garden, and analogously, this reveals a great deal to us about the relationship between our actions and our freedom. In other words, we learn that so long as we do the good, our freedom remains intact. However, if we choose to not do the good, our freedom is compromised. This same notion can be seen in our daily lives. If you break the law to a severe enough degree, you end up in prison. And in the same vain, if you find yourself addicted to drugs or alcohol, you lose the ability to function without them. You can no longer wake up in the morning and choose not to do those things; you have forgone your freedom in the midst of bad decisions.

Understanding this is incredibly important as we examine two elemental principles: It is in our nature to do good and when we fail to do the good, our freedom is impacted. We know this based, once again, on the nature of our soul. Because it is comprised of freedom and intellect, we are able to conclude that the decisions we make are also meant to support our freedom and intellect. They are meant to protect our freedom and grow our intellect and reason. Furthermore, every bad decision that negatively impacts intellect or freedom is theoretically against our nature. Therefore, if bad decisions take away our freedom and interrupt our intellect, while good decisions support our freedom and grow our intellect, one could argue that it is in the nature of our soul to do the good and avoid evil (i.e. the lack of the good that should be there by nature.)

Foundational Moral Principles Unit 2:
1. Doing good is in our nature because it supports our freedom and intellect, failing to do good goes against our nature in that it threatens those elements.

When we understand this to be the case, it further reveals a number of things about freedom, actions, and the morality associated with it. Because we, as humans, have the ability to identify the good and choose whether or not we pursue it, that also means that any action we perform voluntarily has a moral component. Therefore, if we have to employ our internal freedom and make a choice, then we are also able to determine whether or not that choice was moral. However, this notion carries with it a certain complexity. Remember, there is a difference between morality and accountability. And since that is the case, someone could theoretically do something morally bad, but not be accountable for it. In a state of duress, it is possible for all accountability to be removed. However, that does not mean that every state of duress will remove accountability in its entirety. Accountability is circumstantial; morality is not. For this reason, we are left with two more moral principles:

2. Every choice that requires freedom has a moral component.
3. Bad actions are always bad; however, duress might make someone less accountable. 

So how are we to become holy? How should we be set apart? Become the best version of ourselves?

Well... theoretically through the development of our rational soul, or our conscience. If we want to remain free and develop intellectually, then we have no choice but to align our conscience with the truth so as to accomplish that goal. To do anything else leaves us in jeopardy. And therein lies the primary difference between a true conscience and a erroneous one. When one evaluates every decision in regard to the truth (that which does no harm to self or others) and makes sure that their decisions are not influenced by societal influence, they in turn grow in intellect and retain their freedom. When we allow society to influence us and convince us that there is sin in something that there isn't (scrupulous conscience); or that there is no sin when there actually is (lax conscience); or worse yet, that we do not need to evaluate at all and we should make decisions strictly based on what we believe is right (certain conscience), then we often compromise our freedom and distort our intellect. And those are hard states to come back from. It is difficult to free yourself from societal restraints, and sometimes even more difficult to free yourself from your own restraints.

However, Kohlberg argues that if we dedicate ourselves to the development of our moral conscience then we can arrive at a place where we base our decisions solely on the good and thereby develop intellectually while simultaneously keeping our freedom in tact. However, he also asserst the following claims :

1. It is unlikely that we find ourselves in the same stage of moral development regarding all decisions that we make.
Ex. We speed if we know we won't get caught (1), we give into peer pressure and party even when it is illegal (3), but we treat our grandparents with compassion and kindness, sometimes even giving up our time to spend it with them (6).

2. Unfortunately, some people will never graduate beyond the brutal cycle of being stuck in the second and third level of development. They establishes a life of taking or giving and never break free of it.

3. We should all strive to be sixes in every decision we make. But in order to do so, we must honestly assess what is good (that which does no harm to self or others) and do it.

Finally, as we blend these concepts into one theme from unit 2, it might just be that our quest for holiness (to be set apart as the best version of ourselves) is best achieved by the aligning of our conscience to the truth and the development of our morality toward to objective good. In other words, we will be set about by our constant dedication to go the good, even if we have to endure ridicule and persecution in the process.

Theological Dialogue #14: What we can learn from Genesis 1-3

In the beginning there had to have been something. Understanding this is incredibly important. It is the foundation of all apologetics. Logically, something can not come from nothing. In other words, everything (with one exception) is contingent upon something else for its existence. Since there is now something, there had to have always been something, otherwise, if at any point there was nothing, there would still cease to be anything. Something can not come from nothing. 

Hence the line "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." (Gen. 1:1). Initially, there was God, and from Him, came everything else. And when he says, "Let there be light." He actually brings into existence so much more than that. The light fills the void, the universe is set into motion, and remarkably, we have the concept of space, and if we have space, we must also have time. From that moment of first creating, Genesis plunges us into chronos (chronological time), wrenching us out of Kairos (God's time). That is why we begin to measure in days, and that is how the narrative is able to move forward. 

On the next day, God performs another act of equal importance. He separates the heavens and the earth. This allows us to understand God in his transcendent nature (outside of space and time) while simultaneously allowing us to understand that we, as His creation, are still bound by these elements. In other words, we are not God(s), nor are we meant to be, and that theme prevails throughout Genesis 1-11, and ultimately, most of the Old Testament. 

With this, the scene is set for the creation of man, and the rules are in place as well. Adam is brought forth, and given the breath of life. The hebrew word used is נֶפֶשׁ (pronounced nephesh) and it means soul, mind, spirit, or life. If we understand this in Aristotelian fashion, this is the moment when Adam received the rational soul. In other words, he was set apart from other humanoid like creatures in that he became self-aware and developed the ability to reason. That is why he can eventually recognize Eve as being like him, while also recognizing that they are not like the others. And there is actually a lot of support for this theory from a scientific perspective as well. If we look at "man" as an evolutionary product, there is a left turn that takes place along the evolutionary path that results in an explosion of culture, the use of advanced tools, the cooking of food, and an assortment of other components that skyrocket homo sapiens beyond other species on our planet. One explanation for this radical advancement is the bequeathing of the rational soul. In a lot of ways, it can best be understood through Michelangelo's visual rendering in the Sistine Chapel:

Adam possesses a vacant gaze that we can only assume represents the animal like nature of his existence. The theory then being that the breath of life wakes him up, brings him into his full humanity. Adam becomes animated and rational. 

And as the narrative continues, we know this is the case. He has dominion over the other animals, but more importantly, he recognizes that he is not like them, and that consequently he is alone, and potentially without purpose. Or at least without a purpose that challenges him. 

The understanding is that Adam then asks God for a job, and God responds by telling him to guide and protect (literally, to shied) and naturally Adam does not understand what he is meant to guide and protect until he sees Eve. She is bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, she gives him purpose. 

But this is where the narrative also begins to unravel. We have every reason to believe that, for a time, Adam and Eve live harmoniously in the garden. That is until they encounter the character in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Understanding everything that comes before this moment is crucial if we are to best understand what eventually transpires. God had previously told Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree, but also gave them the free will to act against His commands. Yet, if we return to the second day, and look at it in comparison to the line that is ultimately responsible for tricking Adam and Eve, we can also see that Adam and Eve (and us) were not supposed to be God, we were simply meant to be in relationship with Him. Consequently, it is fair to assume that this would always be something that humanity struggled with, the idea of being gods versus the idea of being in relationship with Him. 

Furthermore, we gain additional insight by understanding the task laid out before Adam: to guide and protect. Without this information, the scene at the tree looks quite a bit different. Eve is talking to the character in the tree, and for a long time, we were lead to believe that Adam was off, surely minding is own business, until Eve sought him out with the fruits of their destruction. This narrative was appealing for a number of reasons, but primarily because it allowed the blame to be placed cleanly on the devil and his compatriot: women. However, we now know that to be wildly inaccurate. Michelangelo's rendition of the fall appropriately exposes the faulty nature of this thinking: 

The key being this: Adam was with her. This changes everything. Adam had a job, to guide and protect, and he failed to do his job. And you can think what you want about Eve's freewill, but we know two things for certain: They were told not to eat from the tree, and Adam was told to guide and protect. He failed. They failed. 

Now, you will notice something else that is quite interesting about this painting that potentially sheds even more light on how we are to understand these events. As noted, Adam and Eve were told not to eat from the tree. Consequently, it is difficult to understand why Eve is so easily deceived. She is rational, she possesses feminine intuition, everything is in place for her to make the right decision. That is of course unless she is mesmerized, enchanted, or mislead. Any of these could have been the case. It is likely that the character in the tree is Lucifer, the fallen Angel (and also the devil), and we learn throughout scripture that he is masterful when it comes to the art of deception. Eve would have been entranced by his charisma, but also deceived by his appearance. As Michelangelo portrays it, Lucifer appears in his angelic form, the serpent piece of him (symbolizing the deception) is coiled around the tree like a vine. It is far easier to understand the decision of Adam and Eve through this perspective. If the character in the tree appears to be divine, and if he seems to reveal the kinds of truths they want to hear, it all of a sudden becomes a recipe for disaster. The reason we often fail to do the right thing is because we are deceived into believing that our actions are in fact good. We do not rely on what we objectively know, we allow ourselves to be mislead. 

Ultimately, that is why we so often miss the mark. And that is why Adam and Eve engaged in original sin and introduced weakness (concupiscence) and knowledge into the world. The problem is that nothing has changed. The system of sin remains the same. 

How does the narrative then unfold? Well, in short, Adam and Eve feel the shame of their actions, they cover themselves and hide. Remember, they can no longer trust one another. And once their sin is unveiled, they lay blame on what they can and then live with the consequences. 

Genesis reveals this very simple truth: not much has changed. When we sin, what do we do? We feel the guilt of it, we attempt to hide it, when it is uncovered, we make excuses, find justifications, and blame others, and then we too live with the consequences. On account of our weakness, breaking from the cycle feels so difficult.

But Genesis also leaves us with a choice: we can do our jobs, we can engage in a shared responsibility for one another (i.e. screw the lid back on the Odwalla bottle), and when we fall, we can support one another as we climb back toward holiness. Or we can live for ourselves, shirk responsibility, and deal with the loneliness of that choice. One of these options leaves our freedom intact, the other binds us in our own selfishness. 

The beauty of Genesis lies in the fact that it reveals to us that from the moment of HIS life giving breath, we have been made free, and though the battle against our weakness is challenging, we also have the ability to prevail. 

Theological Dialogue #13: The foundational components of Moral Theology (Feat. Robert Frost)

By now you have already read and analyzed the poem "Design" by Robert Frost. If you haven't, here's the link:

https://poets.org/poem/design

Give it a quick look.

Some interpretations of this poem suggest that Robert Frost is making a comment on the cruelness of a creator, and that the perils we face in life are a product of broken world that we have been left to face alone and abandoned. The spider, the flower, and the moth supposedly act as an extended metaphor for evil, the world, and us. In other words, the trap has been set, and we are walking right into it.

However, an interpretation of that nature fails to address much of what Frost has done with this poem, structurally and otherwise. The first thing we have to understand is that this poem is a sonnet, and that he finishes it, in Shakespearian style, with a rhyming couplet. His choice to do so points us to the notion that he is using the rhyming couplet as the key to understand the poem. It gives the hint that unlocks the theme.

So what are we dealing with exactly? Well, there is a white spider roaming about, most likely looking for a meal. He happens to come across a white heal-all, which is incredibly important to the unraveling of this narrative. Why? Well because heal-alls normally look like this:



And if you were to put a big, supple, white spider on this flower, it would stick out like a sore thumb. So ultimately, this spider has found the perfect place to lay a trap for unsuspecting prey. And sure enough, that is what happens. When Frost stumbles upon the carnage, the white spider is on a white heal-all, holding a dead moth. The tragedy lies in the fact that the moth was lured into a death that under different circumstances would not have occurred. It would have seen the spider, it would have avoided the flower, and it would have survived. At least a little longer... And for this reason, Frost begins to ask the question of how this seemingly perfect set of events came together. Was it by design? In other words, was the moth fated to die? Was this some cruel alignment put into place by a cruel creator that enjoys burning ants under the magnifying glass?

Frost then goes on to note that if this is in fact the case, if design is working in the smallest parts of nature, then there is a darkness that persists. Our designer is appalling.

And of course, if this is in fact the case, he is quite right. Did you know that there is a particular type of wasp that, when ready to lay eggs, seeks out an unassuming caterpillar, paralyzes it, deposits its eggs inside, and then waits for them to hatch? And that isn't even the worst part. Her larva systematically eat the caterpillar from the inside out, saving the vital organs for the end in order to keep it alive as long as possible. Then they burst out. They burst out.

And did you know that there is a type of shark that has two uteri and only ever gives birth to twins even though there is reason to believe that she has up to twenty fertilized eggs inside of her after ovulation? Yep, that's right, 20. The eggs are fertilized at slightly different times, and the young baby sharks fight inside the womb, eating one another throughout the duration of their development until there is only one per womb.

Nature is certainly cruel, but there is also no morality associated with it. We aren't going to say "That's a bad wasp", or "That shark probably needs to reevaluate her decision making". And we aren't going to say these things because these animals are not acting rationally, these are not decisions they are making, at least not in the way that we as humans do. In accordance with Aristotle, animals lack the rational soul, and it the rational soul that is the foundation of our moral system. Humans can act against their survival to do what they know is right. They can evaluate each situation and identify the good (that which does no harm to self or others), and then they can decide to act against it or in accordance with it! Their freewill and rational nature, make them accountable. Which provides the foundation for our second principle of moral philosophy.

1. We can not judge people, we can only judge their actions.
2. Morality only applies to humans actions because humans possess a freewill that extends beyond survival and they operate with a rational soul.

Understanding this then allows us to move on to our third principle and fourth principles of moral theology: the debated questions of whether morality is objective or subjective, and why we should behave in a moral manner . However, before we jump into the debate, there are a couple things that we must first establish. One, morality can be objective even if people think that it is subjective and even if they treat it as such. What it is and how it is thought to be are two very different things. Two, if morality is subjective, then the moral quality of an action can change based on the circumstances, situation, culture, people involved, etc. When we understand these two concepts, it changes the nature of this debate completely. The argument is not actually between objective morality and subjective morality, but rather between whether morality is objective or if it exists at all. Let me explain: If morality is subjective, then everyone gets their own definition of what is good, and what is bad. And if a word can be defined in any way that we see fit, than that word actually has no definition whatsoever. If we define good and bad or right and wrong, then in actuality, there is no good and bad or right or wrong. And if we insist on being moral subjectivists, and we insist on coming up with our own definitions of right and wrong, then we must also extend that privilege to everyone. So when we see an image like this:


We do not get to claim that it was wrong if the people who committed the action believed it to be right. And we certainly cannot demand accountability for it. People can not be punished in a subjectively moral system for doing what they believed to be right.

So how do we amend this? After all, we have fought hard for moral subjectivity. It allows us to do what we want. Well, the number one way is that we become subjective objectivists. (I know what you're thinking: That doesn't make any sense. And you're right. But we do it anyway.) In other words, we decide, subjectively, what is right, but then we want it to be objectively applied. But then what do we do with the other subjective objectivists that want the same thing? It is a recipe for disaster.

So here in lies the choice: morality is either objective (good and bad or right and wrong are not influenced by our opinion or our beliefs) or there is no morality at all. And I can not say with certainty which of the options is the right one (and this is the case with a lot of moral issues, but us not knowing what is right does not mean that something isn't still right or wrong) but I do know that we have to operate as if morality is objective otherwise we should be abiding by the laws of evolution and simply governing ourselves by the survival of the fittest. If there is no morality, then we should behave "morally" only so long as it benefits us.

Therefore we are left with a nice tidy equation to getting what we all want at the end of the day.

Morality is defined as the assessment of human behavior as being good or bad/right or wrong (objectively). It applies to humans only because they alone possess the rational soul. They have the ability to reason and act in accordance with it or against it.

Thus, the process looks like this:

1. You are faced with a moral decision, and your freewill is intact.
2. You employ wisdom and prudence (in other words, you think about the action and judge it as right or wrong)
3. You do the good.
4. You are happy.

In other words, according to Aristotle: Morality = Happiness

Moral Principles 3 and 4:
1. Morality is either objective or there is no morality at all.
2. Behaving in a moral manner will make it easier to behave morally, and it will make you happy!

Enjoy!

Theological Dialogue 12: Are you a good person?

Recently, I experienced an interesting series of events that sparked a need to reenter the theological dialogue. Each one, by itself, would not have been particularly notable, but as I watched them unfold, one after the other, the desire to chalk them up to mere coincidence became increasingly more difficult.

The events were as follows:

1. I came across an article that was examining the truth behind the concept of being "cruel to be kind." This particular notion gained some notoriety with an artist by the name of Nick Lowe in an album titled Labour of Lust. In the song the artists is relaying a conversation that he is having with a "friend", seeking answers to why he is mistreated. The answer he receives is that sometimes we need to be cruel to be kind, at least in the right measure, and that, in fact, being cruel to be kind is a good sign, a sign that we are in love. Now the fact that there is an array of issues with this line of thinking is not lost on me; however, we don't have the time to unpack all of it here. If anything, it sounds to me like a justification for bad behavior that might be loosely translated "Yes, I treat you like trash, but it is because I love you." Which is ultimately not too far off from how a number of relationships function in today's day in age, hence the article. Interestingly enough though, the article seemed to actually favor this notion. Its main thesis was that every friend group seems to have one individual "who tells it how it is." That one person that doesn't hold back, even if it hurts our feelings. And furthermore, the article suggested that this "friend" should be commended for their honesty. If anything, we should be doing a better job of showing our appreciation. Brutal honesty is just another way to say "I love you." Right?

2. As I was getting ready to run a quick errand, I was stopped by a student who asked if we could talk. I sat down across from her and inquired as to what it was that was bothering her. Amidst the numerous things that high schoolers face today, both socially, and academically, she brought up one point that I found to be particularly interesting, especially in lieu of the article that I had just read. She told me that it felt as if right when she seemed to have a grasp on her identity, right when she felt like she had finally overcome some struggles and that she was being a good person, one of her friends never failed to use that time to tell her what a B*** she was. And in spite of what the article seemed to think was progressive behavior, this kind of thing totally devastated her. It drove her right back to a place where she didn't know who she was and how she should act. Her self-confidence was obliterated. It was here that I began to question why we feel, as human beings, that we are incredibly capable of highlighting one another's faults, when we completely lack the capacity for our own self-reflection. It always seems easier to try to fix other people than to fix ourselves. 

3. Moments after this conversation, I returned to my classroom and an absolutely scathing review of my sophomore theology class. Every trimester, students have the opportunity to evaluate their teachers, and this time around, I had one student who was apparently incredibly disappointed with my course. There were a number of complaints that appeared in the lengthy paragraph written on the survey. Amongst them was my lack of credibility when it came to complex theological concepts and the fact that my apparel is too feminine in nature. Furthermore, my vigilance when it came to things like dress code was yet another appalling behaviour witnessed throughout the trimester. I attempted to look at the comments objectively, searching for patterns that might help me to be a better teacher, but I genuinely struggled to get over the fact that the criticism was hardly constructive; it was just mean.

As I reflected on these three events and their quick succession, two questions immediately came to mind. How frequently are we criticizing one another's character? And, if it is as often as it appears, how are we possibly supposed to know whether or not we are being good people?

I think that the answer to the first question is relatively simple: a lot. The second question, however, is far more difficult. Theologically, we can talk about an adherence to the natural law. Psychologically, we can talk about the stages of moral development. And ultimately, there are answers that lie within these concepts. If we pursue the good for the sake of the good, and regardless of situation or circumstance, we treat others with dignity, then we will have accomplished something amazing. And if we do this collectively, we will actually make the aforementioned task far easier on one another. In other words, there would be no need to make exceptions for the breaking of the natural law if we all simply upheld it in the first place. This might be a little easier said than done though.

For this reason, I propose a slightly different approach that might be far easier, while still helping us accomplish the same goal. What if we stopped critiquing one another and the way that others act, and we began to focus solely on ourselves, and the way we acted toward others? You see, when our focus is outward, we are constantly highlighting the ways in which others fall short, but we are simultaneously failing to be mindful of our own actions, and it is the neglect of our own behaviour that is resulting both in our failure to uphold the good, but also the need of others to criticize our actions. Ultimately, it is a vicious cycle.

It is much like a game of capture the flag. If you dedicate all of your effort toward stealing the other team's flag, you will inevitably lose your own flag in the process. We cannot be mindful of our own actions if we are solely focused on the actions of others.

Theoretically, if we take care of ourselves, making sure that we are constantly in pursuit of the good, we will eliminate the need in others to criticize our actions. But that is only a small part of it. If everyone were to dedicate themselves to a similar goal, we would also no longer need to focus our attention on other people's behaviour because they are pursuing the same good. The cycle ends and the good rises out of it.

Of course, there is the slight issue of having to examine our own actions in light of an objective truth, and I realize that can be difficult. We could speculate that the real reason we are constantly critiquing others is because we do not want to look in the mirror; we do not want to come face to face with who we truly are because then we would be required to change. But remember, if we work toward this collectively, then love, not fear will persevere. If I am constantly working to better myself, and struggling in the process, then when I see others struggling as well, my natural reaction will not be one of judgment or criticism, it will be one of understanding as we both attempt to pursue this lofty goal.

So do you need to be cruel to be kind? I don't actually think so. In fact, the greatest act of love for another might just lie in one's attempt to become the best version of themselves, while also empathizing with another as they attempt to do the same.

Theological Dialogue 11: Can You Handle the Truth?

(Questions)
Dear Mr. Degitis,
I would like you to be informed that I do in believe in God. I was raised catholic. That being sId, there is a lot of religious strife in my family. I have mormons, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, baptist and Church of England all existing in the same household. My anger or confusion with religion is not the confusion of the lord.
My question is this. If the lord of god is true than why is there so much debate. Why is there a religion who views the exact opposite of the Catholic Church and why do they both claim to be right? If god sent a message to Muhammad and to Joseph Smith, why are the two "words of god" so different. If god truly sent angels to portray his word, why is the word different. Why would God contradict himself? Why would a messenger lie about the word of god and create a religion?
 I guess what I'm saying is, his do we know the truth when the documented truth is different from other documents of the truth. One has to be wrong, how do we determine that?


(Response)

Thank you for your questions, they are very good ones. I'm even going to put them on the blog. ;)

As always, I will answer them to the best of my ability. What you choose to do with the answers is up to you.

First off, I'm glad to hear that amidst all the religious debate in your home, your confusion isn't about the Lord. That is some impressive clarity. However, as you well know, and appropriately pointed out for that matter, the world does not necessarily share in your understanding. There is still a great deal of debate. The reasons behind this debate are pretty complicated though. I think that, as humans, we are naturally confrontational when it comes to issues over who is right and wrong. If we were to truly speculate as to why, it probably stems from our innate survival mechanisms. We are hard wired to trust our instincts because, for much of our history, instincts are what kept the "fit" alive. From an evolutionary standpoint, if we were too easily swayed, then we were doomed to die with everybody else making terrible decisions. But if there is something inside of us, telling us to go our own way, then if we are right, we survive while others do not. Unfortunately, this internal sense of right has carried itself way beyond our survival mechanisms, and we have become a people that believe we are right about everything, no matter the circumstances. This is one potential reason for the amount of debate surrounding religion. 

The second reason for debate, and probably the more prominent one, at least in today's society, stems from the fact that we have grown accustomed to a mentality that supports our "right" to change whatever we do not like. Ultimately, following any religion has its complications and challenges, so in a number of circumstances we have sought out ways to fit religion into our lifestyle, not the other way around. Essentially, we live in a world where people have created new religions because they didn't like the ones that existed, or they have decided that they only believe in certain parts of currently existing religions because those are the parts that fit so nicely into their lives. They get to keep doing what they're doing because their "version" of their religion says it's okay. If we really looked at the foundation of every religion, there would be a lot less debate because they agree on a number of principles. The problem is that we have taken the liberty of manipulating those principles to better fit our lives and in the process we have created over 7 billion answers to one question (what is the truth???) so of course there is going to be debate.

Regarding the next question about opposing beliefs and messages to Mohammad or Joseph Smith, the answer is a little simpler. When two religions oppose one another, the only logical conclusion is that one of them is right or neither of them is right. They can't both be right. And since they can't both be right, we are left with the fact that only one of them (or neither of them) were actually divinely inspired. In other words, God did not send down contradictory messages. He only sent down one, and the other is a farce. It is made up. 

Now, as to why a messenger would lie, this is where things get a little bit more exciting. At the heart of the issue, the answer is that they probably didn't like their current options, so they created new ones. However, it is probably a little more complicated than that. In fact, there could be a whole slue of reasons why someone would lie and create a religion. They might do it for fame, notoriety, wealth, moral liberty, or even because they are crazy. And the truth of the matter is that being at the forefront of a religion provides you all these things. As human beings, we are constantly searching for something tangible to worship, and the inevitable result of that is that we often worship those who are supposedly leading us to the truth. It happens all the time. It is why pastors find themselves in trouble, why colt followings develop, and why the Israelites worshipped the golden calf. I think that we love God, but we really struggle with not being able to tangibly see Him on a daily basis. 

So how do we find the truth? Well, we look at the history, we do the research, we follow our instincts, and we examine what is most reasonable. There are a lot of versions of "the truth" out there, but unfortunately, many of them are in direct opposition to one another. Consequently, you are completely right, only one of them can be correct, or the actual truth. Or none of them... we cannot forget that that remains an option. In lieu of this, all we can really do is dig deep into the research, establish what is most logical, and go from there. We won't know for sure, and that is okay; it doesn't mean there isn't an answer. And ultimately, if we follow the good, I think we will find the truth there. And if we remove ourselves from the equation, if we stop trying to manipulate everything to benefit us, if we step back and realize that we could be wrong, then we might just get that much closer to finding what is right. Seeking the truth is an ongoing process, but it is one that is worth while. Remember, the truth will set us free.

Thanks, and great questions.

MRD

Theological Dialogue 10: A Collective Soul? Maybe... But not in the way you think.

When the world comes to its inevitable end, and all human souls are judged by Jesus, does that mean that there is a set amount of human souls? Why do you think God would have made a certain amount of souls, but make His kingdom last forever? If the possibilities are endless, do you think there are infinite human souls, and if not, what limit do you think God would stop at?

Hey!

This is a particularly interesting question because there are a number of theories surrounding the amount of souls that exist in the world, but biblically, we don’t get a ton of evidence supporting one over the other. But ultimately, there are three schools of thought. One that suggests that the number of souls in the world is limited, one that asserts that only humans have souls, and a final theory that proposes that all things have souls (this was mainly Aristotle and his concept of the vegetative, sensitive, and rational soul, Reasons for the Faith A).

The implications of each are particularly fascinating. But in hopes of answering your question, we’ll look at Plato and his theory of limited souls. Plato suggests that there is a set number of souls, which inevitably leads to the notion that there are human beings walking around without souls, or at least human beings that are awaiting a soul. Christopher More wrote a really interesting book called “Dirty Job”, that discussed this very issue. The premise was that souls passed from human to human through death. Essentially, when one person died, his or her soul was released into the world and eventually landed with a new individual, the person meant to have that soul. There is a certain degree of romance in this. Our soul is literally meant for us, and shared by others. In a fascinating way, it is the soul that connects humanity.

However, the issue with this kind of theory is that it does not connect the soul to our humanity. In other words, we can be human without a soul, or as we are awaiting one. My problem with this line of thought is that I believe that the soul is intricately connected to our humanity. I do not think that we are human without it.

If we look back at the moment in Genesis when God makes man, He breathes a nashema (soul) into him. This, in a lot of ways, seems to be the differentiating factor. There is every reasons to believe that the world was inhabited by humanoid like creatures that existed prior to Adam, but they were, as Adam suggests, not man. They were something else in their entirety, and consequently, it was the soul (the imago dei) that separated Adam from these humanoid animals. Thus, the soul is what makes us human, and without it, we have no image of God, we are not a representation of the form and ultimately, we are not us.

In accordance with this notion, I would argue that there are an infinite number of souls in the world. Every human possesses one. And that is part of the beauty. We contain God within us, and yet we take nothing from Him.  And that is the very thing that allows for God’s kingdom to be eternal. It is not bound by space or time and consequently it can contain a limitless number of souls.

Another question : If God and heaven are eternal - or outside of time, timeless. Does that mean when we die and go to heaven, we will be able to see the souls of people who have yet to pass away on earth? For example, my grandfather who died when I was a baby would be able to see my soul in heaven as if I'd already passed right now.

 So this is ultimately a question of omniscience. And I do not think that when we die we necessarily inherit God’s understanding of time or His eternal vision. Obviously this is highly theoretical, but when we talk about time in regard to God, we must understand that He sees all things in the present. Your question reflects a good understanding of this notion, but I think it is important to know that heaven is not eternal in the same way that it is a permanent present. The grounds for this claim center on the fact that, biblically, we understand that the Kingdom of God is “…yet to come.”

Now, amongst the many theories concerning heaven, there are two that carry particular credence. Either heaven and the Kingdom of God are one in the same and we are at rest until Christ assumes His earthly throne, or heaven and the Kingdom are two distinct notions, and there are those who currently reside in heaven and those who have yet to come. The former of these two notions is problematic due to the fact that we see Christ ascend to “heaven” near the start of Acts, and we have reason to believe that Mary was assumed into heaven as well. However, Christ does not really offer us anything regarding the state of heaven, but He constantly references the Kingdom, claiming that it is an earthly Kingdom and that it is near. Consequently, we do not really know what happens to people after death. Be it the apostles, the saints, or anyone for that matter.

The Church of course teaches that some go to heaven and we can pray to them for guidance, but unfortunately, this isn’t really a scriptural notion, it is more of a theological one. Heaven is a very elusive concept, and appropriately so. In our fallen state, why would we assume that we can comprehend perfection?

On the other hand, if heaven is in fact separate from the Kingdom that Christ speaks of, then it is where He currently reigns while awaiting the end times. I think this type of thinking is far more satisfactory to most because we like to think that after death, we go to heaven and all is made well. But unfortunately what feels best is not always correct. But who am I to say? Maybe there is a golden gate and fluffy clouds, and maybe we do meet Christ face to face after we parish. That is certainly a beautiful way to think about death.

But wherever we end up, I do not think we are all there simultaneously. Maybe we wait for those who are to come, and maybe we even have the chance to guide them. Regarding your Grandpa, I think that he is waiting for you. Not in an anxious fashion, there is probably none of that in heaven, but in a wonderfully tranquil way. He knows you will arrive eventually and time is nothing there, so we probably do not feel the weight of it in the same way we do on earth.

Regardless of what it all looks like in the end, the one thing I can say with some confidence is this: In death, everything is illuminated. And only then are we made perfect in His truth.

I hope this helps to shed a little light on these topics. Your questions are fantastic ones, and not easy to answer. Thank you.

Theological Dialogue 9: Holy Days of Obligation

Why does the church have holy days of obligation? If our faith is what saves us, and not our works, how can we be obliged to do anything? Wouldn’t that kind of go against the teachings of the faith? I have also heard these days referred to as holy days of “opportunity”. Is that the same thing?

Thanks.

This is an extremely interesting question, and one that I do think warrants some explanation. First and foremost, the Church implements Holy Days of Obligation in an effort to celebrate significant moments in Christ’s ministry, Mary’s life, and church history in general. Essentially, these days are set aside so as to mark their importance outside our standard church going practices. In other words, the church wants to make them special, make them sacred, and thus they have been set apart, or dedicated, quite literally, which aligns directly with the etymological understanding of what it means to be holy (that which is separate).

Though it is somewhat of an elementary explanation, the Holy Days of Obligation are designed to pull us out of our standard routine in order for us to recognize that something profound is going on. From day to day and week to week, we tend to do much of the same thing, and sometimes that even includes going to church on Sundays (a Holy Day of Obligation by the way).  However, when a holy day falls on a Wednesday, or a Friday, it is equivocal to that moment when you are pulled away from your typical routine and asked to make time for something special, something worthwhile. The interesting part is that sometimes we allow ourselves to break from our consistent rhythm, and sometimes we do not. Whether or not our salvation depends on it is not so much the question, but why we refuse to find the time is actually extremely fascinating.

You are entirely right when you state that it is our “faith that saves us”. As for how that impacts the obligatory nature of holy days, I think it is important to recognize that these two issues are not cut of the same cloth. When the church declared the Holy Days of Obligation, it did not do so with the intention of tying them directly to your salvation. Much like the sacraments, that do not “save” you in and of themselves, but rather place you in relationship with Christ that you might be saved, the Holy Days of Obligation, and your dedication to them, speak to a lifestyle of salvation, they are not, in and of themselves, the saving mechanism.

You see, I think that we are afraid of this word obligation, which is in part why we have somewhat modified the title of these days to Holy Days of “Opportunity”. We have successfully maneuvered around our obligations, and instead created a situation in which we can now go to church and use it as an opportunity to grow closer to the Lord. The problem here is that, in opportunity, the entire dynamic has shifted. We are now celebrating these holy days for us. We have given ourselves the opportunity to say, “God, look how faithful I am. Look how I desire to be in relationship with you.” However, the reality of the matter is that on Holy Days of Obligation, and every Sunday for that matter, we are called to take time out of our day to worship the Lord. Not because of the benefits rendered, but because He is overwhelmingly deserving of that worship.

We need to no longer fear this notion of obligation and obedience, but rather embrace it. In Islam, the story of Abraham’s sacrifice is a very interesting one. Obviously, it is Ishmael and not Isaac under the knife, but the most fascinating part is that Abraham actually drives the knife into his son. However, when he opens his eyes, it is not Ishmael that lies dead beneath him, but a ram in Ishmael’s stead. Obviously the Catholic Church has a very different understanding of this particular sequence of events, but the motif, in a lot of ways, remains the same. Islam preaches faith and obedience, and in a lot of ways, Jesus does the same. But the interesting part is that faith and obedience in this sense are not separate entities but rather intimately tied to one another. In our faith, we will be obedient.

Christ establishes Himself as “the way, the truth and the light”. Essentially, at the foundation of this notion is the idea that Christ is our guide. He is the one that we should follow. And if we believe that, then following carries with it a certain degree of obedience.

In a world where we have become so accustomed to doing what we want (an issue I struggle with continuously) we have lost sight of the fact that sometimes we are called to sacrifice, to do something outside the normal order. In other words, we are called to be obedient. And not because our obedience will gain us our salvation, that’s not how this game works, but because our obedience stems from our love for God.

At the end of the day, and in a funny way, there is an opportunity here. An opportunity to be obedient: Obedient to the teachings of the church. Obedient to the commandments of Christ. And obedient, for once, to something other than ourselves.

So what is a Holy Day of Obligation? Ultimately, it’s our chance to admit that we aren’t running the show, and it’s our chance to revel in that fact.