 |
Moral Law, Justice, and Evolution
Author: Jerry Richard Boone  | Posted: 29-08-2007 | Comments: 0 | Views: 14 | Rating: (62)  (?) 
We already mentioned intelligence. Remember in the article: How Do We Account for Instinct? we divided it up into two broad categories, one of which we call instinct and the other a type of decision-making ability? We grouped the lower forms of animals into the first category and humans into the second. Other creatures, we allowed, appear to operate using a combination of instinct and "thinking."
But, of course, it is really more complicated than that. People have instincts too. The sexual drive, a mother's love for her offspring, and a basic desire to survive are undeniable human instincts. Each of these traits are shared to one degree or another with animals. However, we seem to have something more than mere instinct.
Somehow or another we find ourselves with a moral sense of right and wrong. We feel as though we know somethings are right and others are wrong. But then again, is what we consider right and wrong merely a subjective whim? Or is it possible that there might be a real, honest-to-goodness, objective standard for good behavior?
Some people claim there's no fixed standard for decent behavior. It varies over time and from one culture to another. Different civilizations and different ages have had very different ideas on morality, they say. And they seem to have a point.
Manners and Styles
Certainly manners, styles, and dress codes change over time. The past half century has seen considerable change in the United States. In 1960, most women worked in their homes raising children. They usually wore dresses, and those dresses were of a certain conventional length.
Men were expected to be the breadwinners. They wore their hair short and rarely had facial hair. Children addressed grownups as "Sir" or Ma'am" and in general were taught to be deferential to adults. Unless you were well acquainted, it was Mr., Mrs, or Miss whatever their last-name-was. Times have changed!
Much of what passes as normal behavior nowadays would have been socially unacceptable just thirty years ago. And it works both ways. Many of the things our ancestors did in the past would not be tolerated today. A few hundred years ago, capital punishment was the approved punishment for crimes ranging from petty theft to treason. Witches were hung or burned. And slavery was by and large considered an acceptable practice.
Moral Principles
Obviously some of the things our forefathers believed are social taboos today and vice versa. However, that's not the whole story. While some values can and do vary, others evidently do not. In his book, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis points out that if you take the trouble to compare the moral teachings of ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, you will be struck with how much they have in common with each other and with us today.
Fair play, unselfishness, courage, faithfulness, honesty, and truthfulness have always been admired, whereas treachery, murder, robbery, theft, and rape have always been condemned. Men have disagreed over whom you should be unselfish to - just your family, your country, or to everyone.
But none have advocated putting yourself first. Some cultures have allowed more than one wife, but none allow you to have just any woman you want.
Golden Rule
The most universal concept of all is also the most basic. We call it the Golden Rule. Most moral teachings state it in a negative form such as "Never do to others what you would not have them do to you." This fundamental rule of conduct turns up in rabbinical Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.
We also see it in Greek and Roman ethical teachings and even in Old Norse proverbs. Jesus Christ turned it around and put it in its positive form two thousand years ago. "Do to others what you would have them do to you."
Is any other type of morality possible? Lewis challenges us, ". . . think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battles, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five."
The Moral Law
It sounds like the rule of right and wrong, the moral law, or whatever you want to call it, exists on two separate levels. One is arbitrary. Fashion, convention, or taste sets the tone for acceptable behavior on this level.
Then we see another moral level beyond the trends of society. Here we find a permanent core of values. These fundamental guides for human behavior seem to be deeply ingrained in mankind and are not swayed by time and place circumstances.
Everyday conversation suggests that most of us at heart believe in a real right and wrong. Take arguments for example. People young and old, educated and uneducated, often say such things as: "Come on, you promised." "Hey, you broke in line ahead of us. That's not fair." "Why don't you help me? I helped you when you needed it."
C.S. Lewis tells us that remarks of that sort don't just mean that the other fellow's attitude doesn't happen to please the speaker. There is something else involved. The one who makes the complaint is appealing to a certain standard of behavior which he expects the other person to know about.
And usually he is right. The other man rarely replies, "I don't give a hoot about fairness." No. He makes out that what he's doing isn't really unfair after all. He claims to have some special excuse which lets him off the hook for not living up to his promise this time, or for breaking in line, or for not helping you on this occasion.
It looks as though both sides really agree there is a law or rule of fair play. Quarreling means trying to show the other person is wrong. What's the sense in trying to do that unless both sides agree as to what is right and wrong. Just as in basketball, to paraphrase Lewis' example, there's no sense in saying a player committed a foul unless there is an agreement on the rules of basketball.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Thieves cannot excuse themselves saying they didn't know stealing was a crime. Murderers can't get away with murder, claiming they didn't know murder was wrong. The underlying idea is that all citizens are expected to understand that stealing and murder are wrong.
Can you imagine an attorney in a request that the case be dismissed against his client, saying, "No judge, I don't think my client should be held responsible for murdering his wife and six children. After all, the defendant doesn't have a law degree. Why should we expect him to know all the finer points of the law?"
On the other hand, lawyers do try to excuse their clients by pleading "temporary insanity." Doesn't that let the cat out of the bag? What they are saying is that for one reason or another, the accused was momentarily mentally unbalanced and didn't understand he was committing an act which all of us know to be wrong. Had the defendant been sane at the moment, he would have recognized and upheld the same Rules for Right Conduct that all the rest of us sane people do.
They seem to be affirming that criminal codes are based on certain moral truths. In fact, federal and state criminal laws wouldn't make sense unless there were a real standard of decent behavior which the "sane" criminal knows as well as we do and ought to have practiced.
Sometimes right and wrong are so obvious, no one seriously questions it. After World War II, Germany was widely denounced for their war crimes. But as Lewis observes: "What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced?"
Earlier we asked, is our idea of right and wrong a subjective whim or a real objective standard for good behavior. Evidently it is both. Manners, styles, clothing, and opinions on any number of subjects vary over time and location.
Then again virtues such as courage, faithfulness, and honesty have always been praised. Likewise, vices such as treachery, murder, and theft have been universally condemned.
Civilizations throughout history have reflected these eternal values. And they are still with us today. Much of what we think, much of what we say, and much of what we do would be utter nonsense if there were not a true moral standard of right and wrong.
Now if we can agree that there really is an objective standard of right and wrong, we can go on to our next question. Namely where does this standard come from? Some say mankind invented the moral code because civilization couldn't function without basic rules for getting along. Through education, they passed these rules for right living on down from one generation to the next.
Others say the same Outside Source which designed the human body also produced the moral code as a guide for our behavior. The moral law was imprinted in humans much the same as instinct. Who's right?
Before we take up that question, let's first consider an entirely different subject - mathematics. Math, as we know, is based upon certain objective truths. Algebra, calculus, and trigonometry are all derived from solid mathematical principles which have been around long before mankind discovered them.
And if we somehow lose knowledge of them again, those principles would still be there awaiting future generations to rediscover them. Therefore, we can say that mathematical truths exist separate from any human knowledge of them.
Notice we say such things as: Pythagoras discovered the principles governing the right-angled triangle. Or Descartes discovered the principles behind analytical geometry. We don't say they "invented" the principles. They were already there. In the same way we speak of people discovering other scientific facts.
In 1781, William Hershel discovered the planet Uranus, and in 1930. C. Tombaugh discovered Pluto. Uranus and Pluto have probably been around as long as our own planet. They would still be there even if we had never learned of their existence.
Bearing that in mind, let's return to the moral law. The most reasonable assumption is that individuals down through the centuries discovered and rediscovered certain fundamental truths of right and wrong. They didn't invent them any more than Pythagoras invented the principles governing the right-angled triangle or William Hershel invented Uranus.
The moral law for decent behavior was already there. Men and women merely looked into their own hearts, their own conscience, and there they found a bundle of "oughts." "Oughts" such as: I ought to keep my promises, even if I would rather not. I ought to tell the truth, even if it makes me look like a fool. I ought to finish my assigned duty, even though I would rather do something else. I ought to remain true to my spouse, even if I am attracted to another. I ought to be honest, even if it would be easy to cheat. I ought to treat the other fellow the same way I would like to be treated, even if I think he is a jerk.
Apparently, none of us made up this moral code of "oughts." Sometimes it would be rather convenient if they would just go away. But they don't. They continue to press in on us whether we like it or not.
One thing more, if man created the moral law himself, we would expect to find each society and each civilization developing their own set of basic principles. Our clue is that they did not. While they came up with widely different customs, conventions, and manners, every civilization, past and present, discovered the same bundle of inconvenient "oughts" to direct their lives. Isn't that curious?
It looks very much like the Outside Source is behind all of it. What does the moral law tell us about this Outsider? Obviously, he's not a create-'em-and-let-'em-run-amuck sort of being. He's not a neutral, hands off, passive creator. Instead we find a Moral Agent who has loaded the dice trying to influence our thinking.
Freedom of Choice
He implanted basic instincts in us much as he did the animals. But he gave us something other creatures apparently didn't receive. This Moral Agent programmed a series of "oughts' into us to guide our behavior. Clearly, he wants us to keep our promises, tell the truth, do our duty, remain faithful, be honest, and to do to others the same way we would have them do to us.
Notice though, however much the Moral Agent wants us to act in a certain way, he does not force us. He allows us free choice. We can chose to obey the moral law, or we can reject it.
Justice
Before we leave the moral law, I would like to draw your attention to an enigma. Our natural desires in life seem to be satisfied by one means or another. We thirst; water quenches our thirst. We hunger; food quenches our hunger. We want sex; our mate quenches our desire. Our human nature appears to be in close harmony with what life has to offer; so much so, it looks like someone planned it that way.
Give them a desire, then give them a way to satisfy it, seems to be the idea. It keeps us busy doing the things that Whoever-made-us wants us to do. And it all works well, up to a point. Then we run into something that doesn't quite pan out.
Deeply embedded in our conscience we find a penchant for justice or fair play. We are not neutral observers; we are moral creatures. We want the good guys to win. We like happy endings. And we cheer when good triumphs over evil.
About the only place that happens, however, is at the movies, old movies at that. Real life isn't nearly as accommodating. In fact, life often seems inherently unfair.
Consider the following: One baby is born to wealth, another to poverty. One is born to a family that loves him, another to a family that abuses him. One is aborted, the other is not. I don't need to tell you, there is nothing fair about any of that.
Fortune seems to smile on some and frown on others. We see geniuses, and we see idiots; women with great beauty, and women who are downright ugly; people with many talents, and people with no talents at all; and those who are healthy, and those who are sickly or physically deformed. What's fair about that?
Let's take it a step further. Some people are endowed with good looks, sound nerves, wit, charm, and a pleasing personality. Popularity and admiration come fairly easy for them. They fit in naturally wherever they go. They don't need to work at it. It's a gift. They are the blessed. They are life's winners.
At the other end of the totem pole, it's an entirely different story. There we find the homely, dull, slow-witted, timid, warped, lonely people or the passionate, sensual, unbalanced people. By no choice of their own, many are born into homes filled with hatred, petty jealousies, and constant bickering. Others are tormented by sexual perversions or nagged by an inferiority complex. No matter how hard they try, they don't fit in anywhere. They are life's losers - unappealing, unloved, and often the object of ridicule and jokes. These folks will be quick to tell you, "life is unfair." And they are right.
Notice, what we have mentioned so far are traits and circumstances over which we have little or no control. What about those things over with we do have control? Do we find fairness there?
Some people work long and hard, day in and day out, sunup to sundown. Others do nothing they are not forced to do. Both live out their seventy or so years and die. Memory of both soon fades away. All they had, whether plenty or little, is left to someone who did not work for it. Somehow that doesn't strike us as fair either.
And what of the honest, the faithful, the kind, and the generous? Do they not meet the same fate as the hypocrite, the unfaithful, the cruel, and the greedy? Death overtakes them all, good or bad. And soon they are forgotten. Certainly, that's not fair. Where are the scales of justice?
But it is even worse than that. You and I know that as often as not, it is the bad man who prospers while the good suffers all kinds of afflictions. The bully wins, and the weak pays the price. The cheater gets off scot-free, while the innocent is accused. Crime all too often does pay. The criminal really does get away with murder. His victim suffers the loss. Justice is stood on its head.
We know life is full of injustices. No one denies it. They spring up everywhere. Our sense of fair play tells us something is fundamentally wrong. Something is out of kilter. We long for a world turned right side up. We want those who have been forced to suffer to receive their just compensation.
We want those who have benefited others to receive their just reward. We want those who have abused others to receive their just punishment. Anything less would be a travesty of justice.
Our True Home
Why then, are we given a longing for justice and forced to live in an unjust world? Has the same Agent who provided so generously for all our other needs, created an elaborate hoax just to frustrate our desire for justice? Or could it be that this world is not our final destination?
Perhaps we were made for a better world, a world without death, suffering and injustice. We might find our ingrained sense of fair play to be in complete harmony with the reality of our true home.
Evolutionists have nothing to say about justice or fair play.
Questions to Consider:
1. If we are nothing more than the chance meeting of random atoms of matter, why are we concerned about justice?
2. One more question: If we are nothing more than the chance meeting of random atoms of matter, how did we ever acquire the intelligence to figure out that we are nothing more than the chance meeting of random atoms of matter?
Rate this Article:
Current: 0 / 5 stars - 0 vote(s).
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/moral-law-justice-and-evolution-205824.html
About the Author:Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of http://merechristianity.us with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from Georgia State University. His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE - EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.
|
Submitting articles has become one of the most popular means of generating quality backlinks and targeted traffic to your website. Join us today - It's Free! |
|
Got a Question? Ask.
Ask the community a question about this article:
Frequently Asked Questions
Information needed immediately
By: Rosalie | 14-07-2008
Who do I talk to about getting copies of court cases, criminal.
Since you have Internet, you write less or more?
By: qzmaster591 | 09-07-2008
Since you got internet, the number of postcards and letters increased, decreased or stayed the same?
Ant vs Elephant, Ant has a case?
By: instaloans | 06-07-2008
Of an Ant and an Elephant,Once upon a time there was not just a big, but a very big jungle under the scope of a tiny Ant?s eye. The Ant was enormously curious about the jungle but this jungle was not only big, but very big under the tiny Ant?s eye. The Ant spent all of his time wondering how he could see it all, but the jungle, it sometimes seemed, was too big for this tiny Ant with the big curiosity.The Ant, trusting in the Lord, was always very sure that what he wanted he would get. And one day, very late in the day?another day that the Ant had spent pondering his problem?he came up with an idea. This idea could solve his problem and allow him to see more of the jungle. He would make a very special pair of shoes for his tiny feet. These shoes would allow him to do things he normally could never do, like walk through water and fly as Aladdin flew on the magical carpet.So the Ant started working on the shoes. Using ordinary materials he found in the jungle around him, he worked day by day, knowing that the Lord was with him.With the help of the Lord, the Ant completed the very special shoes that would allow him to journey through the big fascinating jungle.But a rumor soon spread across the entire jungle that an Ant was about to conquer the jungle with surety. All of the giants of the jungle, especially those giants among giants?the elephants?heard this rumor about the bodacious little Ant.One day the Ant tried on the shoes for the first time and found that they really worked! The first thing he did was to cross the stream next to where he lived.While this stream seemed very small to the large animals, like the elephants, to the tiny Ant it seemed very big. In fact, as the Ant crossed the stream, he felt like a giant as one of the elephants, who without any fear, crushed through the waters of the stream everyday. The Ant enjoyed his journey across the stream, and when he found he could cross it as easily as the elephants did, he returned home and hid his shoes where no one else could find them.Feeling bigger, the Ant grew bold and begins peeking at the large elephants. Then one day, while busy peeking at the elephants, the Ant fell in love with the beautiful big eyes of one elephant in particular who felt for the tiny Ant and guided him. The Ant with his big ideas thought that by winning the big heart of his very big love, his new jungle shoes and his new love could together help him conquer the entire jungle.But the very next day the Ant woke up and discovered his shoes were gone. With a heavy heart, the Ant started looking everywhere for his missing shoes.But the Ant still peeked at the elephants as he searched for his shoes and, much to his surprise; he discovered that one of the elephants had stolen his shoes. The giant elephant kept the shoes under his big feet so he could cross a stream so big that even elephants could not cross it.Now the mighty elephant became as confident wearing the shoes as the Ant had been. The elephants would not listen to the little Ant?s request to return the shoes and the Ant asked them several times to return the shoes. So the Ant took the matter to the lions. But the lions could not help because they had to guard their kingdom and helping the Ant would result for them to loose their royal position in the jungle. The Ant then desperately asked his fellow ants for help. But the other ants would not help, because they did not have much faith in themselves or in the Lord and they thought they were too smart to mess with the giants of the jungle and that no ant could ever conquer the jungle.After receiving no help from anyone, the Ant decided that he had four choices to get his stolen shoes back and that the elephants also had two choices regarding the shoes.The Ant listed his choices as follows.Choice number one: He could challenge the mighty elephant for a fight, he said to himself proudly, ?Who says an ant cannot fight with an elephant.?Choice number two: He could forget about the shoes and become friends with the elephant. ?The shoes would not work for the elephant anyway, so he will lose interest in them.?Choice number three: He could win over his very big love and together they could conquer the jungle. ?Love is power,?? he said.Choice number four: He could have an eagle ask the sky to decide who should have the shoes: the elephants or the ant. ?Leave it to the Lord,? he said.The Ant also understood that the elephant had options too. He understood that the elephant could either crush him under its big foot or make friends with him and agree to share or return the shoes.The Ant chose option number four and had an eagle ask the sky to resolve the matter of dispute between them.According to the eagle, the sky said, ?To conquer is to join the devil and that is the devil sense. To love is to join God if your love is clean and that is the God?s sense.And to be a good friend, it is to enjoy the sense of good humor.?The mighty elephant has yet to exercise his option, while the Ant has yet to get his shoes back...The last time I saw the Ant, it was at Starmugs Hacienda. He was chasing sugar and seeking refuge. Ant has a case? Copyright material. Please do not copy, edit, alter parts or in whole. Thank you.
What charges have beeen placed against Canadian ...
By: Pennieroyaltea | 27-06-2008
What charges have beeen placed against Canadian Pig Farmer who murdered all those girls?
Latter Days Satans
By: instaloans | 26-06-2008
Freedom of speech, Freedom of expression and justice for all; without these, we humans will remain ignorant and continue to be slaves. April 1989: I moved to United States and settled here believing that this was one of the jungles where justice for all still exist and thus I became a successful businessman. October, November, December 2004: As a businessman, I had previous relationship with the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City by visiting them a few times upon the church's missionary?s request and through a friend of mine who is a Mormon. I was preached about the book of Mormon on many occasions. At that time, I was never curious into religions but their invitation sparked my curiosity in order to find the truth that I should find for myself. But we always argued on some little and big issues about all religions. Based on the testimony of the Mormon missionaries, they claimed that they are the only true religion and also that they were very open to any discussions. They told me that they are looking for pieces of a shattered glass, lost in time, in the form of a religion. The missionaries also said that they are looking forward to add to their religion anything that is good and they also told me that they are open for a discussion about finding truth. They made me recite something from the book of Mormon, asking the Holly Ghost to show us the reality of all religions. But they also warned that the Holly Ghost will start to play with me once I recite to the Holly Ghost and until I will become a Mormon. I had argued with them on many issues such as calling the Book of Mormon a book of discrimination and also that the picture of Jesus which they occasionally use, is not what Jesus looked like, also I told them that they run a ''KKK organization'' the way the Book of Mormon sounds. At that time I happen to be in the mortgage business, where the Mormon missionaries came to my office once or twice a week. I also found that the missionary?s names were all wrong and their phone numbers will change every 2 weeks. Missionaries also got replaced every month with new ones to come and see me. December 2004: I lost my office to vandalism by multiple people who worked under me but all of them stopped working for me but under the instructions of my broker. My broker accepted some sort of bribes from the Mormon Church and Washington Mutual bank to put me out of business. My entire staff vandalized my office on the broker?s call by washing all the computers.The Mormon missionaries are also witnesses to the vandalism. January 2005: The missionaries continued to come visit me as usual and asked me to come to the Church so I can meet with some influential people at the Church. There they can help me find the root to this vandalism. Thus I thought I should investigate. I agreed and went to the church in order to receive help from the influential authorities who come to this Church but instead I was insulted at the church by the members delivering indirect speeches and threats against me. I regularly continued to visit the Church more often to find why these people were so against me and also at the same time I found myself in for a forceful bribed situation to convert to Mormonism and then I will have a roof over my head; also I understood the reality of these people, nothing else but a secret society organization to which John F Kennedy was strictly opposed. February, March and April 2005: I started my office over again and hired a few people who also continued to play mafia in my office; these people also somehow have roots to the Mormon organization that is provable and I still continued to go to Church. I also realized that the people in my office were part of the same game called the game of the Holly Ghost. These people followed the instructions of the same organization thus the church could not help me by putting themselves into trouble by helping me. I further continued my investigation by going to the Church. At that time they knew my intentions and they called me an investigator but I was only doing my job and to find out why these people were in possession of so much power over the law and why these people were such an untouchable mafia. I also received help from a church member, a most beautiful and kind lady, she also had a degree in law. She was the only one on my side, she pointed to me that the Church was not a place for me and that I should be careful and to look out for myself. She also pointed that the Bishop is the man in charge under further instructions from the Salt Lake City temple, main head quarters of this organization.May 2005: At the Church, I met with an officer of Washington mutual's bank; this officer holds a vice president position at the bank and he also knew about the vandalism situation at my office. This officer also holds the president position of the Mormon Church; he is also the man in charge who sent me missionaries to my office. This officer also offered me help in return if I will convert to Mormonism. June 2005: I was told by the Church to get baptized secretly and everything will be given back to me. I insisted I should be baptized publically to which they did not agree so we had to go separate ways. After that, I will never go to the church again and went on to start my office one more time. At the same time I hired a court mediator, I obtained much help from her time to time. Her advice to me was that I was dealing with a dangerous Cult organization and I should leave this country. I told her that this country is mine being as an American citizen and told her that I have equal rights here. I also asked her that why an elephant is afraid of an ant. June 2005: Soon someone from the same Washington mutual bank will do something very wrong to me, without my knowledge, a dirty mortgage deal was processed under my name but through the Washington Mutual bank. A newly hired coworker at my office shook dirty hands with someone from the same bank to pass a dirty mortgage loan. Penalty for such crime is years in jail. I threw the blame on the Mormon Church. The church excused that the president of the church and the vice president of the Washington mutual bank nor anyone from their organization has nothing to do with such doings but this harm was caused/performed by a third party at the bank. Also this third party person was never investigated nor put in jail. February 2006:Only one person from my office will go to jail who performed such action. The same person then soon is out of jail, he suddenly disappears from public's eye. Also no one is held responsible from the Church or the Washington mutual bank. Penalty for such crime might be years but this man is not in jail nor does Washington mutual accept any liability.July 2006: Main witness to this entire case, she is the one and only living proof to testify against this Church and solve a conspiracy and discrimination case. She will not respond or talk because the mighty organized church have threatened her and displaced her back to main headquarters Salt Lake City. She and her family could have been a victim of their blood attonement program. I do not know further about them but I am trying to find if they are okay. August 2006: I was selling my house while I was desperately about to face foreclosure when I was already behind on payments. At that point I was only desperately willing for this sale to happen as quickly as it could, I approached a qualified realtor in San Ramon. I was promised (verbally), in a very first meeting, by the qualified agent from Remax that my house can quickly sell for a price which at that time was considered to be very reasonable in the hot market of that time. I also agreed and understood that the house could easily be sold for the price negotiated with the agent, thus I agreed to sell it. The agent, the next day, prepared a contract but delivered it to me without her signature, she left the contract with me for my review and she also asked me to sign it. The agent then, according to the contract, which is still not signed by her, next day brings in a stager/decorator to go through the decoration of the house by marking all the items at my house one by one. The agent also promised me that she has a potential buyer that is willing to take a look at my house, I agreed. The next day, the agent brings in a client; they both walk through my house. Soon it turns out that the agent is a Mormon, the stager was also a Mormon and that the buyer is also a Mormon. I recognized the buyer as the lady president of the Mormon church. She walks out the house as soon as I recognized her face. I had recently given a ??thank you letter?? to the Church not to bother me with missionaries anymore and to leave me alone but they still will send more and more asking me if they can teach me Mormonism. Boy I touched a beehive. The agent suddenly changes her mind to sell this house, she also walks out quickly as she can, her short excuse was that she found more liens on the property than the actual value of the house; therefore she could not sign the contract and she walked away from the deal. I did not agree with the decision of the agent because the actual liens were actually less than the sale priced of the house. In reality the agent either lied just to walk away and discriminate against me being that I never wanted to go to the Mormon Church anymore or the improper liens put on my property came through the result of an ongoing conspiracy against me by the Mormon Church. I also found a note on the table that represents a threat of the Mormon Church to me. The paper note explains the true strength of the church. The note also says ''when you witness something at the church then the requirements of the church becomes a challenge''. It also says '' Be thou an example''. It also has a picture of their prophet wearing a Free Mason ring. This note put my brains on fire as that I read it as a direct threat to me. Later in August 2006: Just before I will start on making this house a monument of a Mormon graffiti with the copies of the note that I received from the Mormon agent. Just before I will give the house to foreclosure and based on the risky situation of the unknown liens, I accepted an offer from a broker that approached me through one of his agents. This broker offered me that he will fix the lien situation only if I could sell the house for a higher price of $1200,000 instead of $925,000. The broker also stated that he will give me an equity that is between the actual liens and the actual value of $925,000. I accepted the deal as that this broker was very capable of doing such to save me from a foreclosure. The broker successfully accomplished this sale to pass through banks and escrow companies. This broker, in the past, was also my previous employer but we never could agree on any corrupt deals such as this one. This broker also was the man responsible to destroy my office on behalf of the Mormon conspiracy. Until the present day, the game of the Holy Ghost continues in one way or the other while I have to get my justice. NO ATTORNEY IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO FIGHT THIS CASE.Do I have a case against the Mormon Mafia? http://mormonlawsuit.com/ alOf an Ant and an ElephantOnce upon a time there was not just a big, but a very big jungle under the scope of a tiny Ant?s eye. The Ant was enormously curious about the jungle but this jungle was not only big, but very big under the tiny Ant?s eye. The Ant spent all of his time wondering how he could see it all, but the jungle, it sometimes seemed, was too big for this tiny Ant with the big curiosity.The Ant, trusting in the Lord, was always very sure that what he wanted he would get. And one day, very late in the day?another day that the Ant had spent pondering his problem?he came up with an idea. This idea could solve his problem and allow him to see more of the jungle. He would make a very special pair of shoes for his tiny feet. These shoes would allow him to do things he normally could never do, like walk through water and fly as Aladdin flew on the magical carpet.So the Ant started working on the shoes. Using ordinary materials he found in the jungle around him, he worked day by day, knowing that the Lord was with him.With the help of the Lord, the Ant completed the very special shoes that would allow him to journey through the big fascinating jungle.But a rumor soon spread across the entire jungle that an Ant was about to conquer the jungle with surety. All of the giants of the jungle, especially those giants among giants?the elephants?heard this rumor about the bodacious little Ant.One day the Ant tried on the shoes for the first time and found that they really worked! The first thing he did was to cross the stream next to where he lived.While this stream seemed very small to the large animals, like the elephants, to the tiny Ant it seemed very big. In fact, as the Ant crossed the stream, he felt like a giant as one of the elephants, who without any fear, crushed through the waters of the stream everyday. The Ant enjoyed his journey across the stream, and when he found he could cross it as easily as the elephants did, he returned home and hid his shoes where no one else could find them.Feeling bigger, the Ant grew bold and begins peeking at the large elephants. Then one day, while busy peeking at the elephants, the Ant fell in love with the beautiful big eyes of one elephant in particular who felt for the tiny Ant and guided him. The Ant with his big ideas thought that by winning the big heart of his very big love, his new jungle shoes and his new love could together help him conquer the entire jungle.But the very next day the Ant woke up and discovered his shoes were gone. With a heavy heart, the Ant started looking everywhere for his missing shoes.But the Ant still peeked at the elephants as he searched for his shoes and, much to his surprise; he discovered that one of the elephants had stolen his shoes. The giant elephant kept the shoes under his big feet so he could cross a stream so big that even elephants could not cross it.Now the mighty elephant became as confident wearing the shoes as the Ant had been. The elephants would not listen to the little Ant?s request to return the shoes and the Ant asked them several times to return the shoes. So the Ant took the matter to the lions. But the lions could not help because they had to guard their kingdom and helping the Ant would result for them to loose their royal position in the jungle. The Ant then desperately asked his fellow ants for help. But the other ants would not help, because they did not have much faith in themselves or in the Lord and they thought they were too smart to mess with the giants of the jungle and that no ant could ever conquer the jungle.After receiving no help from anyone, the Ant decided that he had four choices to get his stolen shoes back and that the elephants also had two choices regarding the shoes.The Ant listed his choices as follows.Choice number one: He could challenge the mighty elephant for a fight, he said to himself proudly, ?Who says an ant cannot fight with an elephant.?Choice number two: He could forget about the shoes and become friends with the elephant. ?The shoes would not work for the elephant anyway, so he will lose interest in them.?Choice number three: He could win over his very big love and together they could conquer the jungle. ?Love is power,?? he said.Choice number four: He could have an eagle ask the sky to decide who should have the shoes: the elephants or the ant. ?Leave it to the Lord,? he said.The Ant also understood that the elephant had options too. He understood that the elephant could either crush him under its big foot or make friends with him and agree to share or return the shoes.The Ant chose option number four and had an eagle ask the sky to resolve the matter of dispute between them.According to the eagle, the sky said, ?To conquer is to join the devil and that is the devil sense. To love is to join God if your love is clean and that is the God?s sense.And to be a good friend, it is to enjoy the sense of good humor.?The mighty elephant has yet to exercise his option, while the Ant has yet to get his shoes back...The last time I saw the Ant, it was at Starmugs Hacienda. He was chasing sugar and seeking refuge.All materail is copyright. Please do not forward, copy, reproduce any or all of its contents, thank you.
If a child is sentenced to 18 months is there a ...violation of due process, railroaded.
By: Nanabug | 21-06-2008
If a child is sentenced to 18 months is there a possibility they might be released sooner? Also, how can you get help for a child that has been sentenced to YDC when he was under the care of a physchiatrist and was receiving treatment and the doctor's recommendations were ignored by the court, the child was not mentally capable of aiding in his defense or making an informed decision. There was an excellent alternative provided by the family for the child to be sent to a private therapeutic school where he would continue treatment, continue his education and allowed to become a productive citizen. There was no previous criminal history, there was a previous charge of being unruly. The judge told the child that if he could not afford an attorney he would have to represent himself in court. His single mother was turned down by the public defenders office, even though she could prove the seriousness of her financial situation. A family member did provide an attorney who took his fees, walked the child into court and railroaded him in to accepting a plea agreement that the family did not want the child to take, and feel the child did not receive adequate representation. We feel that he will be lost in the system, that he will not receive the physchiatric care and medication he needs. We think his rights were violated, he never had a chance a fair hearing, and that his right to due process was violated. The whole case from arrest ( he turned himself in ) to conviction took a week and a half. We desperately need someone to come to our aid. Thank you,
Q&A Powered by: 
Latest Religion Articles
The King
By: Cliff Sanders | 25/07/2008
Who comes to mind when you hear the words "the king"? Some may think of Elvis or perhaps Henry VIII or King Arthur. Many kings have been egomaniac tyrants. King David was perhaps the greatest king who ever ruled. He was described as "a man after God's own heart."
God promised...
Wanting to Grow
By: Cory L. Kemp | 24/07/2008
Strolling up to the deli at my local grocery I didn't expect a conversation about the recession with the kind man plopping my tofu burger into its plastic take-out container
Christian Education: 7 Essentials for an Effective Teaching Ministry
By: Paula Marolewski | 24/07/2008
It's time to approach Christian education with foresight and strategy. Here are seven requirements that are essential to the development of an effective teaching ministry.
Christian Education: What is the Gift of Teaching?
By: Paula Marolewski | 24/07/2008
We could talk about the gift of teaching in terms of skill sets, personality types, and rhetorical styles - but we won't. Not here. Instead, let's discuss the gift of teaching in terms of what it is meant to accomplish in the Body of Christ. When you understand your calling, you will better understand your gift!
Knowing the Will of God: Does God Really Have a Roadmap for Your Life?
By: Paula Marolewski | 24/07/2008
"How do I know God’s will?" is probably one of the most-asked questions by Christians of all ages. And like all questions, it has innumerable wrong answers, misunderstandings, and skewed viewpoints attached to it. Here is one of the biggest myths that can derail our Christian life.
The Image of the Beast
By: Nikola Dimitrov | 24/07/2008
Shocking as it may seem, we either choose the image of God and His Kingdom (His character, His gifts, His fruit, His agendas, His purposes, His plans, His intentions, His destiny, His will, His standards, His value system, His morals, etc) or if we don’t choose that, we immediately fall for the image that the devil, his fallen angels and his structures (world systems, perverse values, Babylon, chaos, politics, false religion, etc) are offering...
The Church Structure
By: Nikola Dimitrov | 24/07/2008
There’s a revelation I would like to share here, and it concerns the structure – the form, the container – the Body. We all know the Church is the Body of Christ...
The 5-fold Ministry
By: Nikola Dimitrov | 24/07/2008
The Lord began to restore the office of the evangelist in the 1950s, the office of the pastor in the 1960s, the office of the teacher in the 1970s, the office of the prophet in the 1980s, and the office of the apostle in the 1990s...
More from Jerry Richard Boone
Which Church?
By: Jerry Richard Boone | 04/12/2007 | Religion
Since Jesus established his church, and the New Testament describes his church, do you think it might be a good idea to follow the biblical example: in church organization? in doctrine? in church worship?
Bible's 12 Quick Tips for Eternal Life
By: Jerry Richard Boone | 13/11/2007 | Religion
Ask any two denominations what do you need to do to be saved and you get different answers. But if you take your question directly to the Bible, the answer is always the same. Let's check it out.
Have you Heard the News?
By: Jerry Richard Boone | 11/10/2007 | Religion
Should we sit on our good news or should we tell others about it? If we don't tell them, who will? And if we don't tell the good news, will we be punished?
The Promise Fulfilled
By: Jerry Richard Boone | 28/09/2007 | Religion
Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that's true, or it isn't. If true, it's the greatest truth ever told. If a lie, it is the greatest fraud ever inflicted on humanity. Let's see what's behind that door.
The Promised One
By: Jerry Richard Boone | 21/09/2007 | Religion
Were Biblical prophecies specific enough to identify the Messiah? Let's take a look at the Scriptures and see for ourselves.
Legends? Myths? or Word of God?
By: Jerry Richard Boone | 12/09/2007 | Religion
The Old Testament claims God has spoken directly to man on a number of occasions? What should we make of these stories? Are they myths? legends? ancient fiction? Or could it be, there's more to it than that? Let's take a closer look and see what we can find out.
The Rest of your Life
By: Jerry Richard Boone | 05/09/2007 | Religion
What should you do with the rest of your life? If you could ask him for advice, would you like to address that question to the wisest man who ever lived? You can! And his answer is found in Ecclesiastes. Let's check it out.
Death and Beyond
By: Jerry Richard Boone | 29/08/2007 | News and Society
Are near-death experiences real? What evidence do we have? What can we conclude about the human soul? materialism? and naturalist theory?
|
|
News and Society 
