IrContent

Several years ago I agreed to debate a Muslim named Nadir Ahmed from Examine The Truth. I was reluctant because we had already debated (via email) before and it was fairly fruitless. However, a friend at Answering-Islam.Org encouraged me to go along with it. So we had the debate. It was also fairly fruitless and I pretty much forgot about it. But recently people have started mentioning it again. Weird. Well, I discovered that the debate has been posted on YouTube and several other websites (I have no idea who posted it nor have I listened to them, so I can only assume they have not been edited). Well, there you have it. So I decided to use this as an opportunity to comment on the debate and discuss biblical morality as well.

To begin with, Nadir refused to debate me according to a format which would have allowed for carefully considered responses to opening statements. The format he demanded was this: First there would be two opening statements, each about 15 minutes long (Nadir “volunteered” to go first, and then announced that he would also be the moderator . . . unbelievable!) Second, there would be a nonstop “crossfire session” where we each would get 60 seconds to ask and answer questions of each other (Nadir went first here too, which pretty much tanked any possibility of me getting the time to ask my own questions. I learned that falsehood favors the sound bite - it’s just too easy to ask a question in 60 seconds that might require 60 minutes to answer adequately. Unfortunately I was not prepared to take advantage of this format flaw as was Nadir). Finally, we had some audience Q&A for about 30 minutes (in this section we only were allowed to respond to questions specifically asked of us. Also, as this was a “G” rated room, we were warned and / or muted several times by the room boss when sexual issues arose. This made it extremely difficult in a debate concerning sexual ethics!).

Nadir’s basic contention is that the Bible does not speak to the moral issues of our day and that therefore the kind of rampant sin Christians speak out against is actually biblically allowed and tacitly approved. Nadir’s basic (and completely unproved or even argued for) assumption is that if the Bible does not specifically and in great detail address an issue then it must be acceptable. Nadir’s example was that since the Bible does not say anything about driving cars, then obviously driving cars must be acceptable. Further, anything that is acceptable to God is also encouraged by God. Thus, if wearing a miniskirt is not specifically addressed in detail then God must want people to wear them. My position was that this is not how Christian ethics works. The Bible itself does not affirm this system of moral authority. In fact, the Bible teaches that there are multiple ways in which God has revealed His moral will including conscience, wisdom, the Holy Spirit, Government, etc. (See the chart below for more details.) Taken as a whole, God’s revelation is sufficient for all moral decisions (2 tim. 3:16-17) so any lack is on our part - not the Bible’s.

click image for full size

Concerning the specifics of the debate, my opening argument countered the idea that the Christian must be able to produce a specific and detailed Bible verse for every possible moral scenario. Christian morality is based on both general revelation (conscience) and special revelation (scriptural commands). This argument completely undercut Nadir’s position, yet he never rebutted it. In fact, Nadir’s contention that Christians may only use the Bible actually counters his own position because the Bible itself commands the use of extra-biblical sources of morality! Nadir also has a penchant for pitting the Bible (a book) against Islam (a religion). But Islam’s teachings are not limited to the Quran any more than Christianity is limited only to the Bible. Extra-scriptural writings and traditional interpretations are appealed to in Islam just like in Christianity, yet Nadir will have nothing of these kinds of sources when referenced by Christians. This is a classic case of special pleading.

As to Nadir’s constant demand for specific and detailed rules, I pointed out that the while Bible does have many instances of these it also makes use of general categorical commands. For example, some argue that the Bible does not have anything to say about an abortion procedure. But because abortion fits the category of murder abortion a sin because the Bible commands us not to murder. I do not need to know specific details about how a murder is done to know it is wrong. Nadir did not successfully rebut this argument either. So even if I had not provided one shred of biblical refutation against his opening arguments I still would have won because the understanding of Christian morality that I presented completely undermined the foundation of his position. Because Nadir never refuted (nor, in some cases, even attempted to refute) my points about Christian morality being based on more than specific, detailed, biblical commands, I was free throughout the debate to reference conscience, wisdom, the Holy Spirit, etc. to bolster the historic Christian understanding of these issues.

Nadir’s tactic was to argue based on descriptions of actions he claimed are moral evils (or at least things most Christians would say are evil - other than the millions he claims he knows who disagree) that the Bible encourages by not saying anything about them. He concludes that Islam is superior because it does speak directly to these issues. He did not back up his unwarranted claim that Christian morality must be found in direct and specific commands in the Bible. Since I had argued for categorical commands, conscience, the witness of the Holy Spirit, Government authority, etc., for Nadir to win the debate he would have had to argue against their use. But he did not. He also appealed to certain question-begging word definitions which I countered by quoting from the authoritative Greek Lexicon (see notes below). He then reverted to saying that because the Bible was not written in English we can’t know what it means anyway. Well which is it? First he argues be misrepresenting the meaning of biblical words, then claims that the meaning of biblical words cannot be known!

I answered Nadir’s arguments with appeals to scriptural word meanings in their context plus the varied sources of morality available to the scripturally knowledgeable Christian and he simply kept responding with his mantra of “the Bible doesn’t teach this.” Repetition, however, is not an argument. The problem is that when Nadir’s arguments are seriously challenged he often simply returns to his original conclusion as if no counter-argument had been made. Then, when he predictably receives repeated refutations of his repeated assertions he concludes that he has “hammered his opponent into merely repeating himself.” But this is not sound argumentation, this is posturing in the hopes that the louder and more repetitive one is the more believable one becomes. Unfortunately this trick works in a sound bite style debate with an untrained audience. In a debate two sides bring arguments to the table and then attempt to rebut each other’s arguments while supporting their own. Thus, there is an objective component to whether or not a debate was won. My position undercut the foundation of Nadir’s entire position, yet he did not offer a refutation. Rhetorical issues notwithstanding, you can’t win a debate if you don’t answer your opponent! This is not me being arrogant; it’s just how debates work (for some third party reviews see soc.religion.islam).

SUMMARY

Nadir’s fundamental assumption of a flawed ethical idealism may obscure the fact his arguments prove nothing more than that the Bible is not as specific as he would like it to be. Well, I agree - the Bible is not as specific as he would like it to be. The real question is whether or not this is a problem. If it is this has yet to be proven. Just because someone might like God to have done things differently does not prove God wrong. If God decided to use categorical laws and extra-biblical sources to communicate His moral will then who is Nadir to question that decision? I am willing to bet on God as the better judge of how to communicate morality!

In fact, there was one question during the Q&A that beautifully illustrated the difficulty in Nadir’s idealized model for moral authority. A girl asked what Christianity and Islam would think of a person marrying a person who had undergone “sex-change” surgery. I answered that because of the nature of humanity the person’s gender was not actually changed, therefore it would still fall into the category of homosexuality. But Nadir had nothing to say! He admitted that he had no answer for her. This is exactly what happens when one demands a specific and detailed rule for every moral decision. Once something new comes along you have no direction. Nadir could not answer because the Koran says nothing specifically or in detail about this matter, but what is worse - according to his principle of “if it doesn’t say anything about it it must be acceptable and endorsed” he should have concluded that Islam endorses people having sex change operations and getting married! Now of course Islam teaches no such thing, but Nadir cannot explain why it does not teach that based on his own system of moral interpretation.

The problem that Nadir does not seem to grasp is that the letter of the law does not promote wisdom, character, or virtue - which are the results of thinking through problems and acting rightly regardless of fear of punishment. Islam offers many specific and detailed laws (as did the pharasaical form of Judaism that Jesus so despised), but this offers almost nothing in character development (Nadir provided his own example of this fact when he said he would like to try drugs but hasn’t because the Quran says not to). But acting morally merely out of fear of punishment is no more virtuous than my dog peeing outside to avoid a spanking.

Muslims may persist in claiming that the Bible is inadequate because it does not provide the detail they want. But we Christians will, as we have for the last 2,000 years, continue to be held accountable to moral virtues anyway.

“MODESTY”

1 Tim. 2:9 - “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly [aidos] and discreetly [sophrosune].”

aidos:
1. modesty (of women 1 Ti 2:9)
2. reverence, respect

sophrosune:
1. reasonableness, rationality, mental soundness
2. good judgment, moderation, self-control.

“LUST”

epithumia:
desire, longing, craving.
1. as a neutral term, desires for other things Mk 4:19.
2. in a good sense have a longing for something Phil 1:23
3. in a bad sense as a desire for something forbidden in accordance with physical desire alone to satisfy the desires of the body: gambling, drunkenness and gluttony are called many foolish desires (1 Ti 6:9); youthful desires (2 Ti 2:22); in accordance w. their own desires (4:3); the desires that ruled over you formerly, when you were ignorant (1 Pt 1:14) defiling passion (2 Pt 2:10). deceptive desires (Eph. 4:22).

Into this torment carnal sinners are thrust,
So I was told – the sinners who make their reason
Bond thrall under the yoke of their lust.

In Dante Alighieri’s Inferno (part one of The Divine Comedy)he is given a tour of the underworld and the various punishments and inhabitants therein. In Dante’s vision, there are nine circles in hell that grow progressively worse (both in punishment and the evil of the act being punished), until ending with Satan himself. It might surprise modern readers, especially Christians, to discover that the first major sin punished is that of lust. Being the first, it is, in Dante’s view, the least sinful.I think this might be surprising to Christians today due to the major push among evangelicals for sexual purity. Yet Dante’s surprises do not end here. Among the sins considered worse than lust are gluttony, hoarding/wasting, sullenness, flattery, and (the worst of all) betrayal. We rarely hear about or are cautioned against these sins from the pulpit today (much less do we see whole ministries devoted to them!). How does Dante’s hierarchy stand up against the modern Christian focus on sexual purity?It is important to realize that Dante is not merely reporting his own personal tastes. Dante was a philosopher as well as a poet, and his hierchy was not based simply on sin’s immediate or obvious external effects. Rather, they had to do with the nature of the act in comparison to the nature of the actor (so to speak). A clue can be found in the various punishments encountered throughout the Inferno. The lustful are in Circle Two which is essentially the first circle of punishment (Circle One is “Limbo” – not a part of hell proper). The lustful are forever caught in a whirlwind that throws them around like rag dolls completely out of control. As Inferno punishments go, this is not too bad. Why?

The major problem with lust, in Dante’s view, is lack of self control (thus the out-of-control punishment). Lust is one’s allowance of animal instincts to overcome rationality. It is a sin that opposes a human virtue because it lowers mankind to the brute animal level. Animals have only instinct and emotion to work with. What separates mankind from the lower animals is rationality. We are given rational intellects in addition to emotion and instinct, and are therefore accountable to use it. When we act according to the dictates of emotion without intellect we act as animals. Yet these kinds of actions are, in Dante’s view, more acceptable than those that go against our nature or those that flow from more purely evil intentions.

For example, in the Inferno murderers are kept above homosexuals because murder is the product of wrath (which people naturally experience) that is out of control. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is simply unnatural (anti-natural, actually). The lustful in this circle are heterosexual – homosexuals are much further down in Circle Seven: Ring Three – the Violent Against God and Nature. Thus, lust is unlike some other sins in that it is basically an out-of-control acting upon good desires. There is nothing sinful about sex per se. Instead, sinful sex is sex outside prescribed boundaries. Because lust is born out of a good, natural desire (and a stronger one than say food or possessions), it is considered the least sinful.In today’s world emotions and instincts (“drives”) are considered good as such. Therefore the denial of any drive is seen as unhealthy suppression. However, as virtually all pre-modern philosophers (whose domain it is to speak to such issues) have noted, the opposite is the case. What makes us human is our ability to withhold action based on emotion if that action is morally wrong. (This is why we need to be so careful to look into one’s philosophy of human nature before allowing them to counsel – and why humanistic psychologists and therapists cannot solve society’s problems.)Anyway . . . where was I?

Ah yes – the contemporary focus on sexual purity. Many causes for this concern may be cited: Pragmatism (lust is one of the most obvious of sins, and its negative effects can be quite dramatic), Prevalence (in our relativistic, sexually soaked culture sexual sin is much more common than others. Philosopher Peter Kreeft believes that almost all of society’s moral issues of today are based in sinful sexual desires!), and Secular Acceptability (sexual sin has a general acceptability that would not apply to other sins such as murder or rape).My concern is not that this important issue be dropped or deemphasized - not at all. But rather that we consider lust and other sins in light of their effect on our very natures. Pragmatically speaking, sexual sin may be the easiest to spot and can lead to many very uncomfortable situations. But non-virtuous solutions to these pragmatic problems (condoms, birth control, abortion, etc.) exist and continue to be fought for in the socio-political-ethical arena. What if all the (obvious, immediate, and external) unwanted effects of sexual sin were done away with? What then would be the reason to abstain? In fact, why be good at all if we can avoid the undesirable effects of evil actions?

What is missing today in a lot of moral discussion, both secular and Christian, is sin’s effects upon us as people – not simply upon our circumstances. No pill or prophylactic can solve those. When we focus solely on avoidance of punishment or unwanted outcomes we tacitly approve of any action whose undesirable effects can be sidestepped. But sin is more evil than that. Sin harms us in deeper ways as it sidetracks us from our very purposes as human beings created in God’s image. When we sin we go against what we are made for - the very things that make us good.

What Dante offers may be more relevant than ever in at least this sense: he saw sin as its own punishment, and hell as the logical outworking of its effects. Those in Dante’s Inferno were not there because God decided it would be fun to torture them for their disobedience (for we see the same kinds of sinners, saved by God’s grace, later on in Purgatory awaiting the removal of their sin’s effects prior to their entrance into heaven).Rather, the damned’s eternal state is simply a reflection of what they became in life.

Professing to be wise they became fools . . . . Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator.

It is interesting to me that Paul connects idolatry and sexual immorality in his famous “sin spiral” of Romans 1:18-32. It seems that once men rebel against God the void gets filled with idols, and once they rebel against God’s provisions the void gets filled with perversions. Perhaps this is because one of the idols that lays claim to the devotion of mankind is the penis . . .When mankind exchanges the creator for the creation he becomes the arbiter of goodness. An objective universal ethical code is replaced by the drives of each individual human being. After all, if we are merely animals wouldn’t it be unnatural for us to deny our fleshly cravings? Or, from a “spiritual” standpoint, “How can God blame us for what we do when He made us this way?” People holding to either of these perspectives are essentially placing their sexual drives where God should be.

Peter Kreeft made an interesting point regarding sexuality and ethics. I do not remember the reference (and I think I’ve seen it in several places), but he says that distorted sexual desire is responsible for much of the worst in ethics today. He makes a good point – just look at some of the outcomes (some of the most heated issues of the day): abortion, venereal disease, unwanted children, homosexuality . . . how many of these evils would be avoided if we merely accepted God’s gift of, and provision for, sexual fulfillment?God says that sexuality is to be enjoyed by a husband and a wife (this is an adult male human being legally married to an adult female human being for those of you confused by liberal idiocy). This means that sex is not for the unmarried. Sex is not between other spouses of married individuals. Sex is not to be between two people of the same gender. Sex is not for children. Sex is not to be between two beings with different natures. Sex is also not for solo gratification (we can debate about whether masturbation is technically a sin, but let’s face it - sex with yourself involves many of the above prohibitions!).

The statue above may seem to reflect some primitive culture’s gross immorality in worshiping sexuality. But I think that particular culture was just being honest. If we “cannot” control our lust and its gratification then penises become our idols too (either our own or someone else’s).

Oh, I did not mean to exclude the heterosexually-challenged wymyn out there (gender profiling???), so here ya go:

I was just listening to NPR the other day and heard this little bit of oft-repeated tripe: “Religion has been responsible for more violence and wars than any other . . . blah, blah, blah.” Does this standard humanistic motto have any credibility? I saw a very good article on this issue that I have forgotten but it basically laid out facts of history for consideration. Let’s have a look shall we?

Ancient World Empires

Which of these world empires ever fought against, or conquered another nation, due to religious beliefs? Egypt - not over religion
Assyria - not over religion
Babylon - not over religion
Persia - not over religion
Greece - not over religion
Rome - not over religion

While the religious beliefs of the conquering nation were often imposed once it took power, this was a method of indoctrination to crush future rebellion (like assimilation through intermarriage, languages, cultural syncretism, etc.) - plus it showed the “superiority” of the conqueror when they placed their “gods” on display. This also allowed these empires to use religion as a test for loyalty - but the wars they fought were for power and wealth, not religion.

Ancient and Modern War Leaders

What about the leaders of the most violent people groups? How many of them fought wars to further their own religion?

Nebuchadnezzar - did not fight over religion
Egyptian Pharoahs - did not fight over religion
Alexander the Great - did not fight over religion
Roman Caesars - did not fight over religion
Attila the Hun - did not fight over religion
Genghis Khan - did not fight over religion
Napoleon - did not fight over religion
Hitler - did not fight over religion
Mao - did not fight over religion
Stalin - did not fight over religion (in fact, he fought for non-religion!)
Saddam Hussein - did not fight over religion (in fact he killed others of his own religion!)

None of them fought wars for their religion, and none of them attempted to impose their faith on other nations. While each held to strong philosophies and world views - the motivation for their wars was not religious dispute.

18th-19th Century America

Since 1776, America has fought ten major conflicts - and none of these centered on religion. In fact, prior to the Cold War against Communism (which was political and economic - also not religious), we fought all of America’s wars against nations that held to some form of Christianity! This would even include fighting against ourselves in the Civil War.

20th Century World

Is there any evidence that before the advent of the world’s great religions human beings behaved in a less warlike or murderous manner? Hardly. The opposite is the case. Man has never needed religious excuses to make war, and the 20th Century was no exception:

World War I - not over religion
World War II- not over religion
The Cold War - not over religion
The Korean War - not over religion
The Vietnam War - not over religion
The Gulf War - not over religion
The Iraq War - not over religion

How many “religious” wars would have to be fought to even approach the bloodshed so far recorded? Where does this “religious violence” idea come from? There do not seem to be many possibilities left, but let’s look at some current “religious wars.”

But What About The Middle East or Ireland?

Many wars, including the Arab-Israeli conflict, the continuous fighting in Northern Ireland, may have some religious elements - but so does politics and mountain climbing. This is because people are generally religious and people do all these things. What is common to all cannot be a useful cause. The fact that people who are religious fight each other does not mean that religion caused the fighting. Further, the lines drawn among these warring people are predicated on a territorial base, with the religions of those particular regions being used as convenient labels (for example, there are Palestinian-Jews, and Jewish-Arabs). Further, the Irish and English have been warring with one another since the 14th century - that’s 200 years prior to the Reformation!

What About The Crusades and the Inquisition?

This does not mean that one cannot find violence committed in the name of God. The Crusades are obvious examples. Crusaders massacred Muslims, Jews and, in fact, other Christians. This fact alone demonstrates that while the Crusades might have been labeled as “religious wars,” they certainly did not attain to their evil acts by following those religion’s guidelines (although Islam does permit violence for the sake of promulgating itself). Besides this, all three of the Crusades together pale in comparison with the death toll of any one of the above empires or their leaders. The Inquisition was not really a war, but it was certainly violent and religious in nature. Moreover, both of these atrocities stand out all the more because they were committed by “Christians.” However, there is no biblical basis for either of these acts, and one really can’t blame Christianity for what “Christians” do unless it taught them to do so in the first place. These are obvious exceptions to how Christians are expected to act. In all honesty - if you were to come upon a gang of people in a dark alley late one night while walking home all alone, would you be more or less fearful if you discovered that they were coming from a Bible study?

Conclusion

I have not even begun to list all the good religion has done for the world, but consider how it would be different without religion. Christian idealism is responsible for the rise of natural science, world hospitals, and relief efforts and charities everywhere . . . how can non-Christian actions (done in the name of Christianity of course) negate all this? How many other evils have been held in check by the positive beliefs of others? Blaming religion for the “most violence in the world” is patently ignorant, and rather blatantly overlooks the tremendous good that it has done for the world, and the potential violence it has stopped.

Ephesians 4:26 says “Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger.” You are most likely to hear this verse quoted in connection with marriage counseling, viz. “If you and your spouse are fighting, make sure to settle it before you go to bed.” That’s great advice, but I think that this is not the meaning of this verse. In this case the misunderstanding is not necessarily going to lead us astray (it is certainly a good idea to make up before you go to bed), but in missing the true point we could be missing out on an amazing idea . . .First we need to recognize that this verse cannot be regarding sinful anger because it is a positive command! If the marriage counseling version is correct Paul would be commanding people to “be angry with your spouse - but get over it before bedtime.” This is clearly absurd. Whatever this anger is it must be something good or else the command would be to sin.Second, although some translations render the phrase something like “If you are angry, do not sin” this is unlikely (the NET Bible states that the Greek term for anger used here is used almost exclusively referring to the source of anger rather than the results - to an external cause or provocation rather than an internal reaction).

The question is, what is the cause of this anger that we are to have?

In context we see that verse 26 comes right after Paul’s discussion of the difference between the saved and the unsaved (i.e. “Gentiles”). Look at v.17-19: “So I say this, and insist in the Lord, that you no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding, being alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts. Because they are callous, they have given themselves over to indecency for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.” The issue with these pagans seems to be that due to their attitude they engage in sin. What are believers to do about this? Verses 22-24 tell us: “lay aside the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires . . . be renewed in the spirit of your mind . . . righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.” Then we are to speak the truth and be angry . . . the only thing I can see in this passage to be angry about is sin itself (or the lies that might make us think sin is OK).

Further, the first part of verse 26 is a quotation from Ps 4:4 which says, “Tremble with fear and do not sin!” The psalmist is warning that men need to tremble with fear before God and turn from their sinful ways. The next verse of the couplet adds some interesting context: “Meditate as you lie in bed, and repent of your ways!” The verb “repent” could mean “wail, lament in sorrow.” So we see again that this is a command to do something good. Its parallel in Ephesians, then, should have the same function. In other words - this being angry seems to have something to do with repentance over sin, or over one’s callous thoughts about sin.

Therefore I think that the verse is actually commanding us to be angry - to have a righteous anger concerning sin. Unlike the pagans who are hard hearted and callous when it comes to evil, we need to be angry. It is not enough to simply wish to be good, or shake our heads sadly at evil. To have God’s mind we must be wrathful . . . furious at sin.

And we must not let the sun go down on that anger.

I was in a coffee shop some time ago and the lady working there was new. We talked for a bit and discovered that we were both Christians. After she found out that I was a teacher and worked at a seminary she started monologuing about how she was “just a simple believer,” and how her faith was “of the heart,” blah blah blah. In other words, I thought, you’re a believer but you’re willfully ignorant of anything but your own feelings - gee, how pious! What is it about lack of thought that so many Christians seem to not only accept, but celebrate???

The other day a buddy of mine was in a conversation with a (Christian) person who claimed that he could not live without sports on TV. My friend said that he wouldn’t miss TV because he’d rather read and learn than sit and watch sports. The other guy replied that he did not care much for deep thinking and that it was just a matter of opinion which activity was better. My friend gave a sweet retort that I cannot now remember word for word, but it was something to the effect of: “No, it’s not OK to be like that - that was not what you were created to do.”I think Christians should consider that last statement. Is it OK to be stupid (willfully ignorant)? I do not think so. (Yes - someone can get saved and remain saved, and go to heaven without learning anything but the gospel. So please, no whiny responses about “legalism” or whatever.) But is it the case that after salvation God does not expect any more from our minds? No, it isn’t. For the sake of brevity I offer only two general arguments to support this conclusion.

1. From Special Revelation (Biblical): Jesus said we are to love God with all our mind (Mt. 22:36-40) and subsequent believers (pretty much all of them up until the so-called Enlightenment) did just that. Hebrews 5-6 points out the perils of dullness after salvation. Nowhere in Scripture is stupidity rewarded, and wisdom is consistently held up as one of the most important things believers should seek after (see Prov. 4:7 and do a word search on the term to see about a million more!).

2. From Natural Revelation (Philosophical): Aristotle liked to classify things. A lot. To do so helps us to discover the good. A simple thought experiment will show how this works: We instinctively know the difference between a “good” shoe and a “good” knife. We also know that what makes a knife good is not what makes a shoe good! But we use the same term to describe them both. Why? Because the purpose of a knife is to cut, while the purpose of a shoe is to comfort and protect one’s foot. Different purposes make for different “goodnesses” (it’s my Blog, I can make up words if I want to!). So how do we discover a thing’s purpose? Aristotle’s method was to discover a thing’s purpose by what it did best. A knife is the best kind of thing for certain types of cutting. Therefore, to the degree that a knife can cut, it is good! What about mankind? Well, vegetables are distinguished from minerals because they have life - they grow, multiply, take in nutrition, etc. But so do animals. Animals are separated from vegetables because they can move, feel, and think (to some extent). But so do humans. Humans are divided from (mere) animals because we are rational (and therefore moral). Therefore, a good human is one who thinks (and acts) well.

God created humans in His image - with rationality as our primary difference from all other earthly things. In imitating God, therefore, stupidity is not OK. In fact, it might be considered inhuman - for when humans do nothing more than follow their feelings or desires are they not said to be acting like animals? (As a side note, it is interesting to hear homosexuals argue from the actions of animals that what they practice is “natural” - I guess that all depends on what a thing’s nature really is!).

Yes, our faith is to be “childlike” (Mt. 18:2-4). But childlike faith is not ignorant faith - it is trusting faith. Trust is an act of the will, not the just the intellect. Therefore faith will always have an element of the will. Faith is more than intellectual assent, but it is not less. True spirituality will not exclude rationality . . . Nor will it excuse irrationality.