Morals and Values 3. Do We Have Them?

Morals and Values 3. 

Morals and Conscience

 Do we have them?

This is the third time I have talked about this subject from which you will gather that I think it’s important, especially in the light of some the recent events in the UK, such as  riots.  However I believe they are only a symptom of something deeper.

Politicians, of all shades, including the prime ministers are discussing this subject and it is playing central stage on many TV and Radio Programmes.  Perhaps, then, it really is important. There is also deep concern about our schools and our young people – how, the politicians and TV pundits ask, can we install morals into young people so that they do not smash up our streets and destroy our society?

Many responses to my talks and that can be summed up as follows, ‘Morals don’t need to come from the Bible, The Koran, or from a god, they surely can come from within ourselves?’ to which I answer, ‘yes of course they can but what sort of moral guide would that be?’

We need to go one step back and ask, why we need to have morals at all, and what is it that propels us to even ask these questions.  My answer encompasses the whole issue of conscience.

What is conscience? What is our conscience?  My argument would be that conscience is a part of us that we are all born with.  Some people disagree with this concept and say that we don’t have a conscience, but I strongly believe that we do. We each have our own individual conscience, unique to us personally. That means that it only works for us, it doesn’t work for anyone else.  What it instils in us is the general sense of right and wrong.

In a nutshell, right and wrong for you might be different to the right and wrong for me, but there will, most definitely, be a personal right and wrong. This concept is far beyond the idea that we do things because they are convenient or inconvenient or because we know we can ‘get away with it’.

How does conscience work, well for the individual, and I do stress the individual in any given situation it will say to the person, ‘yes that is right do it,’ or, ‘No, that is wrong! You should not do it.’  You conscience does not impel you, it does not force you in any direction, it will only hint at the decision you should make, the final decision that decides the action is the result of your decision making process, which I would call the will. 

When you have carried out an act, you know if it is wrong without anyone telling you, you will feel uncomfortable and disturbed; the pendulum of your conscience has swung into the negative zone.  For many people when they obey their consciences and do what they feel is right they often say they feel good, when they disobey their conscience they feel bad, or despondent, but the feeling does not prevent them from disobeying.

Interestingly the Bible does have some comments on this.  John 1:9 is obviously talking about Jesus the Christ, but also the implication is that there is a ‘light’, or the word I use, conscience that is there in every person, and Romans 2:14 says this, “for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves.”  In other words we all have it, and we use it, our conscience, personally.

 

This means that we will have different views of right or wrong according first of all to us, and then as we grow and develop, according to what we learn from our family and surrounding culture and education.

The problem is that we all break our own rules, and go against our own conscience.

Conscience can of course be educated and that is where the moral discussion enters the stage.  Who will define that moral code, will it be just me, will it be my culture, or will it be God?

It is possible for our conscience to be developed and refined by all sorts of external things, including education.

But who should define the moral code, which one will we adopt?

We need to understand that the moral code that Jesus defines is quite amazing in that it is contrary to all other moral codes that I know anything about, but please tell me if you know something different. 

Think about some of those moral imperatives and how counter-culture they are; ‘love your enemies, do good to those who do bad to you,’ for starters. What sort of Moral code do you want people to follow?  

What moral code is required for our culture to follow and for you personally?

Adrian Hawkes

W. 824

3 Minute talk for UCB

Morality and Values 2 - CONSCIENCE

 Morality and Values

2. Where does Morality come from?

I ended last time by talking about the Atheist Richard Dawkins and what he said to me. Let me continue with that.

Richard Dawkins often says, that being an atheist is not indicative of one with a depressing philosophy. Actually, he says it makes one appreciate life more and love life.  Again I say, “Bully for you!” The problem is, that one doesn’t have to travel very far to find people who are starving, people who have been enslaved, and people who have every reason not to love life. If you now want them to believe that atheism is the truth, and not be depressed by such a philosophy, all I can say is “HELP!”” It’s the most depressing view of life that I can imagine. Thank God it isn’t the truth!

So where does Morality come from? I note that even some of the comments on what I think - listed in Wikipedia – observe that I am saying that we live in a moral universe, and that there is a base line for morality, and that this base line comes from somewhere else. That somewhere else, I would say, is God.  Yes! That is what I am saying. Morality without a moral law giver is craziness. It is not morality. As Charles Grandison Finney would have put it:

“Opposed to this is willing self-gratification; a practical treating of self as if the gratification of our own desires, appetites, etc., were of supreme importance. Now in this ultimate choice of the good of universal being, or of self-gratification as an ultimate end, moral character must reside. Primarily, surely, it can reside nowhere else. It is this ultimate choice that gives direction and character to all the subordinate actions of the will; that gives direction to the volitions, the actions, and the omissions of all our voluntary lives. This ultimate choice is the root or fountain from which all volition and all moral action spring.

I guess even Richard would agree with some of that, as the basic premise is, as far as he is concerned, that morality only comes from our own selfishness to survive or not be killed. That, according to him, is why we don’t have mayhem on the streets.  I live in an area where we have postcode crime, knife and gun crime. So; the morality is: You don’t live in my postcode area?  You are there - so you need killing. That seems a Great morality. Not!

Going back to Dawkins’ statement I quoted earlier where I responded with “Bully for you”  Richard seems to take no note of the Hitler’s, the Pol Pots, and the Stalin’s of this world; which again makes me think - if morality is only up to our moving to a value system that selfishly benefits ourselves alone - we can get around it. If it is to my benefit - why not circumvent the law of the land, or the moral law, if there is no ultimate sanction or moral law giver?

It has always interested me that the Bible talks about God giving “light” to every person who comes into the world. What is that light?

Personally, I have always seen that light as being the conscience that dwells in each and every person.  We can obey conscience or disobey it. It is as if one has embedded within themselves a little bit of God. If we obey it, we feel good, if we disobey it we feel bad. However, it does not force us either way. We have freewill. We have choice.  Again, to quote Finney on the subject of conscience, he talks about “moral insanity”:

Moral insanity, on the other hand, is will-madness. The man retains his intellectual powers unimpaired, but he sets his heart fully to evil. He refuses to yield to the demands of his conscience. He practically discards the obligations of moral responsibility. He has the powers of free moral agency, but persistently abuses them. He has a reason which affirms obligation, but he refuses obedience to its affirmations.

So; where do I think Morality comes from?

It comes from the Law Giver – that is God. And he has created and designed a moral universe. A universe that ultimately works towards the best good for all the created order. That means us and God too.  We can pretend it is not there. We can work against it. We can listen to our conscience – and we can ignore it. But none of those things make it not there.

Adrian Hawkes

For UCB 3 minute talk

W. 774

Morality and Values 1 - ETHOS

Ethos

Morality and Values  1.

This subject of “Morality and Values,” I observe presents such problems.

I was part of a government think tank in looking at OFSTED inspections of schools. One of the things they looked at is the moral dimension of the ethos of the state schools.  My problem was – and is: How does one get hold of and understand morals and morality?  In this small group, on the discussion  of “Moral teaching in Schools”, were Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Humanists.

All of us - apart from the humanist - agreed that morals has to come from some kind of law giver. And actually, in all of our thinking, we concluded that the law giver must be God – that is, apart from the humanist - who said “There isn’t a God! So morals must come from somewhere else”.

I went on to argue that in terms of generosity, in such things as tsunamis, famines, natural and man made disasters and the like, the UK Is actually quite generous in its giving. I put this down to the Judeo Christian influence in the historical background of the nation. The humanist said, “Now don’t be silly! It is due to the fact that we were once great colonists”.   Hmm! I thought that was all about greed, trade, and getting lots of power and things for ourselves?

Anyway! Having been one of those interviewed by Richard Dawkins for his, “Religion is the root of all evil” programmes, I find the stuff all over the internet, usually with many of “the learned” atheists - so called - poking fun at my opinions.  Funnily enough, I have read Richard’s book, “The God delusion”. One of the things that struck me from the volume is how often the base of “who we are” and “where we are”, comes down to “luck” and simple good fortune - at least according to Mr Dawkins’ book. 

God seems a better thesis to me.

And of course, both in the programme and on the net, as well as – defiantly - in Wikipedia, comes the discussion of morality.  I am sort of “amused” that in at least one article or comment, the fact that we live in a moral universe  - and one “without God” according to the “atheists” - is actually argued from the fact that some fish have a symbiotic relationship with cleaner fish and actually protect them. This, so they claim, is the logical grounds as to why we don’t go around on our streets killing each other. 

The fish story is used to suggest that violence and killing is – sort of - wiser not too.

One of the things that Richard Dawkins said to me in the interview for his programme, (which I have not seen on the TV repeats or YouTube, so I guess it’s on the cutting room floor), was; “I am more righteous than you”. I, of course, said “Oh! And how is that?” To which he replied, “I don’t go around pillaging and raping, and I don’t need a God to stop me. You, Adrian, need God to stop you.” 

To which I answered “Bully for you! You maybe ought to watch the international news every day!”

One Swallow does not a summer make.

Adrian Hawkes

For UCB

300417

W. 550

 Edited KL

How to Create Gender Equality

How to Create Gender Equality

I think this desperate need within society is not easy at all to bring into being – to put it mildly. However, as it’s been in the news again just lately, I would like to have a go at how I believe it can be done.  We have particularly noted the wages problem in the BBC. And, make no mistake, we are told it’s much worse throughout the rest of the country.  If one happens to have been born female, then those persons will receive around 17% less than their male counterpart, even though they may be doing exactly the same job in the same office.

Why is it not so easy to change this and bring in a satisfactory sense of equality? Because we have to change a deep set culture, or even lots of different sub-cultures, and much of the thinking that has formed that culture goes back a long way, ingraining itself into people’s thinking over many generations?

What is that ingrained thinking? At a basic level it really is a fact that Males are in charge. Because they are more intelligent? Stronger? Could it be that they are better?  Females are, of course, lesser because they are not so clever or as strong, and therefore men need to be in charge. (That is a comment of sarcasm – please don’t write in to complain.)

What we tend to do is address symptoms of this disease. This means that we are wanting to increase women’s wages and make it, “equal jobs for equal pay” right across the board.  The trouble is that such an action, once taken, still will not have addressed the thinking, just the symptoms that came into being because of that thinking.

Legislation would change things, though that would be somewhat of a blunt instrument. We know that laws can change wrong to right (and sometimes even change right to wrong), so we must not underestimate the power of a passed law by government.

However, I do think we need to address the issue of equality at its base. The foundational  base is how people think. The way that people think has been formed by their family, the government, the educational system, the community that they mix with, the business pressures that they have been exposed to, the history that brought the issue into being, and even the language. 

So it’s about changing people’s thinking. Changing the thinking that says men are superior, woman are inferior.   That means influencing, educating, legislating and seeking to change the cultural mind-set that makes the acceptance of the statement above acceptable.

I listened recently to young lads, of non UK origin being interviewed on TV about what they thought about the so called “honour killings”. Their answers were horrific. They said things like, “If my sister had dishonoured my family, then, yes, I think she should be killed”.   The whole idea that women are lesser, builds the strong presupposition that their freedoms of expression, their friends, their choice of dress, and all of their relationships must of necessity be controlled by men.

Sumptuary legislation, where ever it comes from, is always about power and domination.  I hear comments like, “… but that woman chose to dress like this!”  My question is one step further back. “Who pressurises them to choose, or to exercise their supposed freedom in that way?”  The probable answer is their religion, the law, their culture, and all those facets of life that are their personally accepted conventions.  Then we need to ask, “Why is it so?” The answer will be, “Because men dictate it”. (http://adrianhawkes.co.uk/sumptuary-legislation-2/)

We can achieve equality, but we need to deal with the symptoms, i.e. equal pay and opportunities and the like, but we also need to address the underlying cultural perception. We will need to do that by education, legislation and a strong argument against our historical position. In other words; a full scale attack on the current cultural position and underlying thinking.

Adrian Hawkes

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

Edited KL

w. 551

Maybe I need some Helpful Understanding?

Maybe I need some Helpful Understanding?

It seems to me that after deciding on becoming a follower of Jesus, one then enters a relationship with God Himself.  This effectively changes the way that we are. This, I understand, is done by changing our minds by changing the way we think, which will in turn change our actions.

So; we should become the kind of people who love our enemies, do good to those who would seek to harm us, treat others as more important than ourselves, recognise that all humans are made in the image of God and therefore need to be respected and highly regarded.  I would then expect us (that is-all Jesus followers) to be generous, to see neither male nor female, bond nor free, this nationality or that - in fact caring for one another however possible

So; I am not sure how to express my disappointment, and lack of understanding on several fronts. Recently, reading an American article, (and I don’t think what I am about to say only reflects only on the USA- it just happened to be an American writer whose article I was reading) the writer noted that in the restaurant industry in the USA it was difficult to get staff to do the Sunday shift. They surveyed widely to try and understand why this was so.  Waiting staff are apparently not that well paid in America, and therefore tips become a very important part of staff income. 

It appeared, after the results of the survey had been assessed, that staff did not like the Sunday shift as they said, that, “Sunday is the day that all the church people come in to eat -  and they are the meanest and least generous of our customers”.  Why is it like that?

Friends of mine, both in the journalistic as well as the political world, tell me that the most vitriolic letters and communications, the ones that are “the most condemning” and, in their words, “the most unkind” of all the correspondence they receive (and this is both in the USA and in the UK) comes from people who express in their letters, that they are Christians.  Again why is this so?

I know it has always been a “secret evil” in society, but again; why is it that we keep seeing the misuse of children and the abuse of people of the opposite sex from selfish desires, so often by Christians who express themselves as leaders in the church or in church organisations.  Why?

I wonder!

Have these people really met God? Do they really understand what it is to have been changed by their relationship with God?  Or are they just “label” people? Are they hiding under the epithet “Christian” as a word that may seem to be a useful label to stick on their activities to cloak their dark activities?

Recently, I have stopped responding when people ask me, “Are you a Christian?”I wonder what that means. Usually my response is, “I am a follower of Jesus, and I want that to be more than just a label. I want it to be demonstrated in living lifestyle and action.”

Jesus said to his early followers; “This is how people will know that you are my disciples, in that you have love one for another”. 

I reckon that is not just love for other disciples. I think it should be possible to demonstrate that in the wider world with all races, colours and creeds.  To people who are created in the image of “the God who is there.”

What is it that I have not understood?

A.h

 www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

E. KL

w. 610.

Theory and Practice

Theory and Practice

My college years were in the late 60’s. I noted that during the years of training we were exposed to a great deal of theory. My complaint to the “powers that were” was; “This is all very fine, but we need practical knowledge and know how to go alongside all this theory.”

We live in a world, and in a culture where a piece of paper, stamped with some college or university’s backing and approval is very acceptable and the desired thing.  For some that certificate and status symbol gives great confidence. The recipients of these pieces of paper are inclined to become overnight “experts”, and lords of their discipline, demonstrating great academic knowledge and putting everybody else right, particularly those who do not have their own piece of paper.

The problem for me and my own personal perspective is that I am old enough to see that often the status information given by the piece of paper holders is not always correct. More than that, I see that more often than not the practitioners who do not hold the pieces of paper are often far more knowledgeable that those who do. Usually, after inquiry, I discover that deep and practical knowledge of almost any discipline and/or profession usually comes from years of experience in that discipline, learned at the coal face.  It’s a bit like learning to swim on dry land. Theory is great – but practice is somewhat different.

Now I am not decrying theory. Actually, I think it is very important, and will enhance practice.   I know that what we think will eventually come out in how we act. This means that if our thinking is wrong then our practice will probably be wrong also.  I am all in favour of people understanding the theory. Put good things in your head, right things.  However we still need those hands on the job, or, seeing it another way, getting one’s hands dirty, or a real water experience.  

On that issue - the water one that is - I am somewhat of an expert.  You see, I come from a family where everybody could swim and swim well.  My Mother was thinking of doing it professionally and challenging the channel.  So swimming was sort of talked about and considered a lot in our house.

One day I went swimming. Swimming with a load of big boys who went bathing all the time. They asked me if I could swim. Well!  I had never done it in water before, but boy, did I know the theory.  I listened to their feats. Then, at the pool, they asked me again, can you swim? What could I say? Of course, I responded with “I can”.  I think they were suspicious of this smaller boy’s great theoretical confidence.  So, in the pool they congregated at the deep end.  “Are you sure you can swim?” they asked again.  “Of course I can,” I confidently replied. Thinking to myself, “I did it across a chair, and on the bed, and on the floor at home. What’s the difference?”

“Right!” they said, “What we want you to do is to jump in here at the deep end.”  It was a depth of 6 foot 6 plus. What could I do? I decided that face saving was the most important thing on this occasion. So, plucking up courage, I jumped. Yes! Into the deep end.

I have to say that I learnt to swim very, very quickly, but it was not a pretty sight. Not only was it not a pretty sight, it was not a pretty sound.  All that practice across a chair seemed to count for nothing. Water did not quite have the same feel as the carpet at home.

I believe in theory, but I also believe in experience and practice. It is not “either – or”. It is both. And if you have just got the bit of paper and not much practice, may I suggest that a little bit of humility goes a long way.

A .H.

adrianhawke.blogspot.com

Edited  K. L.

w.689

I can do it!

I can do it!

Recently my good friend Jeff Lucas wrote some stuff about people saying, “With God all things are possible.” “So with God you can do anything?” He went on to say that he/you everybody who reads that scripture, couldn’t do somethings. “Yes - we can’t do anything, (like fly without tickets or speak Chinese unless we learn it) but we can do all things through Christ who strengthens - in other words, what he has called us to.

Peter got out of the boat. The others didn’t.” He also noted he couldn’t fly without an aeroplane. He cannot breathe underwater. He went on to list other things that he was not good at all. It was all very true and, as usual, Jeff expressed it in a very readable and funny way.  You will know that if you have read any of his many books how he writes things.

 He was, of course, unpacking that verse of scripture in the Bible that says “I can do all things though Christ who strengthens me”.  You can find that passage in Philippians Chapter 4 verse 13.

I often hear those “well meaning” “spiritual” people say things like, “You can do it with God! We can do all things!”

It’s obvious that when Paul was talking to the Philippians Christians, he was explaining that he had had bad times and good times, and that God was able to take him through any kind of time.

So, “Yes!” Jeff is right. However, I do get a bit bored with those “I live in a box people.” You know the type. I am referring to those who are always telling others, “It can’t be done”, or worse, “This is the way it is done and there is no other method or alternative”.

This breed of “wisdom” often surfaces in some people when they hear somebody thinking out of the box they exist in.

It has seemed to me for a long time, that if one knows – that is, if one, really knows God, then they have, (or, “should have”, because often those claiming to know Him don’t seem to) a very broad view of life. Meaning; where is it all going? What’s the plan?

 With those who are knowing God in a intimate way, it is a bit like looking from the top of a mountain and seeing further than those who are down in the valley. This releases them so that they are seeing the alternatives, conceiving the possibilities, perceiving the new – and even the impossible.

It also seems to me that that we can actually do a lot of things because God is with us that we would never be able to do if He wasn’t.

I know that my atheist friends struggle with that idea. They struggle with the idea of answered prayer. They struggle with the idea of God intervening on behalf of someone else. They struggle with the whole idea of miracles - boy do they struggle with that one! “It’s all just one big accidental coincidence”, I hear so often.  I have had a lot to say about coincidences. Look up:

http://adrianhawkes.blogspot.com.mt/search?q=coincidence+

http://adrianhawkes.blogspot.com.mt/2013/09/another-coincidence.html

http://adrianhawkes.blogspot.com.mt/2013/08/the-answer-my-friend-is-blowing-in-wind.html

Their negative rationale goes on. And whilst others struggle with answered prayer, God’s interventions, Miracles and the like, I struggle with an answer that would satisfy my life experience of knowing God. I am talking of an answer that would properly explain my own answered prayer. I am thinking of such as moments when I find £10.00 at my feet via the natural wind after a brief one line prayer immediately answered.

 I am remembering witnessing one woman’s blind eyes opening and acknowledging colour after laying hands on her and being amused at her sudden knowledge of the colour of her slippers.

Coming out of court recently, after a case where our own lawyer told us, “This is what has to happen - and it will happen just like this”, and then listening to the Judge say something totally different.  That lawyer, who I don’t think shared my expectations of prayer being answered, as he walked out of the court, leaned over to me and said, “I have worked in this court for many years as a lawyer. Today I have witnessed a miracle”.  

Of course, I know those who live in their mind set boxes where these sort of things do not happen, will work hard at a good explanation, and end up smiling sympathetically at my uneducated naivety.

For me, and I know many like me, we are happy that God is with us, that He does answer prayer, and that Miracles do happen. Maybe it is that boxed mindset that says, “This is how it works”, that keeps some from experiencing a more exciting way to live.

No! I can’t fly, or breathe under water, or do lots of things even though God is with me. But boy oh boy, there are things that can be done that take my breath away - metaphorically speaking of course.  

So there are lots of times when people say, “You cannot do that!” “It can’t be!” “We don’t do it!”  

Excuse me, but I did!

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

Edited by KL

W. 869

But...

But...

Never take notice of what people are saying until they have said, “BUT!” The “but” can change everything.

I liked the article that Benjamin Sledge wrote on “The Irrelevance of Christianity”.  I even wish I had written it. I agree that we Jesus Followers should not be imposing our laws and values on others. We belong to another kingdom, and hold passports of another country. So we observe the laws, values and culture of that regime as top priority.  BUT, Jesus did say he was putting us into THIS world and not taking us out of it.  So we are here! I need to engage with this world and not put myself in a corner and become part of some ghetto.

That means to engage with the politics, the voting, the speaking and - if possible - pulling down handfuls of Kingdom into this time space world and persuading people to take on board Kingdom Values. Why?  Because it’s good for all of us, both the followers of Jesus and everyone else on the planet.

So, I believe in a God of Love. He is one that loves all of humanity. This means that the laws of the Kingdom of God, the values of the Kingdom of God, The Morals of the Kingdom of God, must be for our good. It must be for our benefit. By that I mean the benefit of all humanity not just those who have discovered a relationship with the God who is there.

Logically then, if I know this God of love and His values, and understand that His way is the best way to live, of course, I will want to share His love and these values, not out of a sense of superiority, or one of condemning my fellow human beings, but because I want the best for the lives’ of others as well as my own.  After all God does not make the sun to shine just on His followers, we all benefit from His goodness.

Now! That does not mean that, as Benjamin Sledge says, I hammer you with a book that you never read (i.e. The Bible). Looking at the history of Paul he did not do that. Of course, in His day he did not have the New Testament part of the Bible, he was still writing most of it.

What Paul did is very interesting. He wants good things for people. He wants people to get related to Jesus, the “risen from the dead” One. But he does not start there. In other words, what we might say is, he does not quote Bible to them, but rather he starts where people are.  We should not – really - do anything else.  So he starts on Mars Hill in Athens with that rather strange phrase, “Oh! I see you have an altar to the unknown God.” I know the unknown God. Let me introduce you to Him.  

Paul does not quote the Bible to them. No! Not even the Old Testament Bible. Rather, he quotes their own poets and draws them from there to a better value system, a better way, a knowing of the unknown God.

It would have been quite difficult for Paul to get involved in the politics of Rome. It wasn’t a democracy. Although he gently tried at one point of time when he says in one of his trials before King Agrippa; “I know I am chained up, but what I have is still the best. Apart from these chains, I would want you all to have what I have got”.

Sure, people thought he was mad, but maybe what he had was so good that he wanted others to have that kind of life quality.

We live in a democracy. I am a follower of Jesus. I know that the value system that He gives, when applied gives a better life. Not always easy. Not always nice. Not always happy, but with a source of Joy and purpose.  I guess I want to share that.

Surely I know that Morals can come from other sources. The Atheists are always telling me that. But what sort of morals?  What sort of values? Are they the values of generosity? Of loving your enemies? Of doing good to those who are bad to you?

Lots would like me to be quiet and to keep my values to myself. But I care too much for the well-being of others to do that.

https://blog.heartsupport.com/lets-stop-pretending-christianity-is-actually-relevant-okay-ade4c00dabcc#.wvyh8b1za

Benjamin Sledge

AH

Edited KL

W. 724

adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

Noise and Think

Noise and Think

I spent quite a lot of time in the 60’s in what was, at the time, referred to as “Coffee Bars.” They were quite social places. Routinely we would go there straight from school, and then, if we were going to some event or other, we would be out and about for the evening, returning afterwards to our second home, which was – you guessed it – the Coffee Bar.  I am not sure how they made a profit as usually we could only afford one frothy coffee per night from their new-fangled machine.

The “wealthy” ones amongst us, and they were few, would put money in the jukebox, or occasionally play the pin ball machine.   Am I speaking a foreign language?

I moved on to some of the meeting places youth that were even more noisy, which, in Birmingham in the 1960’s were packed out with “standing room only.” Usually, I ended up jammed next to very large speakers which made hearing anything other than what came through the speaker impossible.  Hence conversation was difficult, if not, near impossible, unless you did what I see being done even in night clubs today, that is, one puts one’s lips as close to the person’s ear as possible and complies with the need to shout. The usual response was a primal retort of, “What?”

On the rare occasions when conversation could reasonably and rationally take place, which in those days usually meant a record was being changed somewhere in the depths of the building, I, being sort of odd would ask people who were pressed in on me, “What was the meaning of life?” or “Why are you here - not just here in this place, but here on earth?”

Usually I got funny looks. Many of the clientele of the night clubs were taking the latest drugs of the day too - that did not always encourage intelligent conversation. I saw many of the not so nice results of that kind of behaviour. However I did often get responses, of the same ilk of non-coherent talk.  I often heard things like, “I come here for the noise, so I don’t have to think.” Or, “I take drugs because that helps me not to have to think.”

 

For me, I wanted to think. I wanted answers. On top of that, I reckoned I had answers, and still know them, years later, to be good answers.  I had found that life is not purposeless, nor is it unreasonable. I do not think life is an accident. I don’t prescribe to what Professor Richard Peters said.

 Peters was Professor of the Philosophy of Education at the Institute of Education. He said “Our basic predicament in life is to learn to live with its ultimate pointlessness.  We are monotonously reminded that education must be for life, so obviously the most important dimension of education is that in which we learn to come to terms with the pointlessness of life.”  (Richard Peters (1919-2011).

I don’t think life is pointless. There is a purpose and there is a point.  I do, however, understand why one would want to put noise into one’s brain if one’s education had taught them that what Professor Peters said was correct.

 I understand why a person would put things in their ears to block out thought. I understand why one might take drugs to escape the pressures, responsibilities and the hassles of life. I even understand why one might just want to jump off a cliff to stop the pointlessness of the “pointless accident” of life.

As I used to say to my friends amid the deafening noise of the places I went to in Birmingham in the 60’s.

“Stop the noise for a moment, and think!

Ask some good questions! Like: “Why am I here?” “What’s it all about?” “Is there a purpose?” “Is there a God?” And, “Is there a point?”

Thinking for just a short while and asking some real questions will ultimately push out the nonsense and white noise of the “Life is pointless” thought.

AH.

adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

www.adrianhawkes.co.uk

Edited by K. L

W 689

Jenny or Robert?

Jenny or Robert?

My Puzzlement

Brexit and Trump

I am writing this blog with questions to my Christian friends who are followers of Jesus.  Now, I am sure that, in a democracy there are many who would agree that in the field of politics, the fact that we are followers of Jesus will not stop us from see us seeing things from different perspectives. I have many friends in all kinds of political parties who, I am sure, are followers of Jesus.

However to all of them, as well as you my reader, I would want to ask these questions, and hopefully find some kind of coherent answer.

Here we go...

• ·         As a follower of Jesus, why would I not want people to have health care, especially  if they could not afford it?
• 
  
• ·         As a follower of Jesus, am I not responsible to try my hardest to see that people have a home? Again I say, even if their economic ability does not give them the resource  that allows them to buy their own? Why also would I not want to see them clothed and warm? If you are asked for a biblical foundation for this thought, Luke 6.29 come to mind: “Give him your shirt also”.
• 
  
• ·         As a follower of Jesus, why would I want to support a policy that makes my nation and people more important than any other people? Matthew 25:38 comes to mind.  Am I not a stranger in this world holding the citizenship of another place? And more: Should not my citizenship of the other place impact my outlook in this place?
• 
  
• ·         Thinking historically, why would I want to push for Nationalism (as opposed to Patriotism), that says, “My Nation is Great. My nation comes first”? Would that make us think that we are superior to all others?  Wouldn’t that make me feel that Mexicans, Polish, Syrians and “whoever” are somehow lesser that my own people and my own nation? Would that not make me feel, somehow, that I was looking forward to the “Master Race”, which … oops!  Happens to be mine?
• 
  
• ·         On the political side; wouldn’t you agree that the Right wing politics around the planet have, somehow, given us the Hitler’s and the Saddam Hussein’s of this world?
• 
  
• ·         Again, on the political view of things: Why would I cheer at the demise of the EU? Do I really want to see the UK putting on the side things like worker’s rights, the Human Rights charter and other things like that.  Some are actually cheering the fact that we may have managed to wreck the whole project by our withdrawal. I see nothing to be happy about there.  I don’t want to see Europe become a collection of right wing nationalistic groups, with each country feeling that they are the superior one and that anyone who does not fit into their culture is unwelcome. May be those dissidents need to be got rid of. We all know where that leads too.

·         On a positive note, I do think that as a follower of Jesus my EU brother or my Mexican brother is my responsibility. I should want the best for him or for Her.

·         On a negative note I don’t think that the deprecation of women, disabilities, or other nationalities is in any way a positive force.

I understand the concern from my friends from the USA about the abortion issue. The problem is that exchange abortion death, death from no health care, no concern for refugees and other nasty’s raises possibly even worse scenarios. That is the problem with democracy and politics, its often having to choose the lesser of two evils – and the difficult choice of which one is the lesser along with the ensuing battle concerning which was the lesser evil and which wasn’t.

I understand the concerns of the jobless, and the need to blame someone, be it the EU, the last President, the governmental opposition, and, of course, never forget the immigrants.  The problem is, however, that these are not the makers of joblessness, the closed mines, the loss of the textile industry, or even car manufacturing.  

I was privileged, many years ago, to have a conducted tour around the British Leyland car factory, formally the Austin Motor Company, by my Aunt. She was not on the board of directors, but because of her financial nous they did not usually have a board meeting without her.  In that day (the 1960’s) the factory at Longbridge, Birmingham, employed some 25,000 people. When the whistle blew for the end of shift it was a site to behold. There was a veritable river of humanity pouring out of the factory gates.

The same could be said of the coal mines in Wales and the textile factories in the North of England.  It was probably true of Detroit too.

The thing is that in 1764 the UK went through similar labour throws, due to the invention of the Spinning Jenny. Workers broke into factories and smashed the machines. Why? Because one machine could produce together with a single worker, what hundreds of workers had previously been needed to achieve the same output.  So, it wasn’t immigrants or politicians that caused the job loss, it was a little piece of machinery called “Jenny!”

Are we at that stage again? However, this time it’s not the “Spinning Jenny”.  Maybe this time its Robert, as Nissan can run a car factory with 22 workers in Sunderland in the UK, and build 5,139 cars in its first year of production.  Maybe it’s not the Mexicans, Polish, politicians,   or whatever nationality you want to blame. Maybe its Robert’s fault! Eh! Sorry! 

Robotics.

I am sure that the New President of the US will be able to create Jobs for things like roads, walls (better to have bridges), locks and canals, using tax dollars.  Hitler was able to do that. I am still not sure that the UK will be able to replace the jobs that I believe we will lose, outside the EU mind you, even if the USA puts us at the front of the queue.

I am not sure how we created those new jobs that have been taken by the closure of mines, the use of robotics, as well as the outsourcing to cheaper labour economies.  Even the supermarkets make us serve ourselves these days.  Maybe we should invest in social care, hospitals, care for the elderly, social services, and maybe to do it taxes will have to go up?

So, 2017! Such new political policies. And are they really nice ones? Yes it’s the lesser of two evils. However, have we picked the lesser? Will we move backwards to where the poor get even poorer, where those who need health care can no longer get it because it is now too expensive, both in the UK and the USA.

I understand the arguments, particularly in the USA, but the UK too - where Christians feel that they have to not only agree with equality and fairness for people they disagree with, but they must no longer disagree.

They must, in fact, agree and change their opinions. The thought police are here these days, and we must now agree in thought action and word. Thinking like those we disagree with, but yet want them to have their say, and yes treat with respect and equality, even those we not agree with there view on marriage and whatever. 

Could it be that this is where the “Thought Police” have overplayed their hand they have pushed those who don’t agree to use the ballot box to give us Trump and Brexit.

Maybe the evangelicals, so called, have also overplayed their hand, and we will now get injustice, robbery of the poor, a downer on women, and - hopefully not- but maybe, just maybe, we are back to Caesar.

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

W.1330

Edited by K. Lannon

Saturday, 21 January 2017

What is this Freedom Anyway

What is this Freedom Anyway

Lots of talk on Face book and other Social Media about the Trump election and of course the Brexit out election, so I think this is a bit of a different take.

When I listen to my American friends, who voted Trump it’s all about abortion, and along with that an anti what they would call libertarian swing, when you listen to the Brexiters, it’s about freedom from the shackles of the EU, jobs, and the fact that the elite have ignored us and what we really are saying and wanting.  There are so many similarities in the reasons in both countries.

I am sure that I will not be the first to say this or the last but is it a cry for freedom, freedom from the elite, the professional politicians, freedom to as they say in Brexit so that we can be in charge of our own destiny as a nation, (fat chance of that).

So what I will not be first in saying is I wonder if the libertarians have overplayed their hand. If I ask myself where I sat, I am sure many people would put me in the libertarian camp.  I don’t think I have the right to tell other people how to live, act, sexual preferences, dress, even politics.  

However I do object to being told that I must agree with what I don’t agree with, that I am not allowed to express views that are different to what has been deemed by the liberally lobby to be politically correct.  

I do object to having to make cakes with slogans on that I don’t agree with.  I do object to being told to be silent because that what I think , be it on sexuality, marriage, politics, education family or whatever is different to yours.  That is where the hand has been overplayed.

Now I do want you to be able to express your opinion, even if I don’t agree with it, I want you to put forward your argument even if I think you are wrong, I don’t want you to make a cake expressing my opinion which you disagree with if you don’t want too. I even want you to be able to have platforms to speak on, I don’t want universities and the like banning speakers that they don’t agree with that is not grown up students studying that is childish.  But that is where we have got to.

And so to the ballot box and now I have the chance to vote for what you don’t want and won’t like because that is my last chance to express a view that is different to yours.

Yes I know that ultimately it will hurt me, but I have been cornered. It is a bit like what happens in riots, we burn down the buildings that serve us, accommodate us, help us, not at all sensible but for a very brief moment it makes us feel better, even if long term it makes us worse off than where we started.

It all comes back to that freedom that we feel has been taken away, Socrates said in that first treaty on politics way back in 399 BC that democracy is about equality and freedom and we all want to be equal and freedom is that we can all do as we like.  

We could argue about where that equality has got us to but let us look just at the freedom.  We can all do as we like, the problem is that currently you can do what you like but I am not allowed to say I don’t agree with you!

It’s an old chestnut, but we do not understand freedom.  We cannot do as we like there are rules, not just governmental rules, and Gods rules if you like, or you probably will call them rules of nature.

You can’t jump up in the air and keep going up; the law of gravity makes sure you come down.  Saying you don’t believe in the law doesn’t not work, so if you jump of a tall building hoping to go up you might but not in the way you intended.

The same principal applies to governmental laws in certain situations, so in the UK the rule, law, of the Road is drive on the left, if you chose to ignore it and dive on the right, you will end up a mess pretty quickly.

Now tell me this, here are two inexperienced climbers, they both arrive at their chosen challenge, one says I am free to climb this mountain and I will do it by myself.  The other say I am free to climb this mountain and he hires the best guide he can find, who ties him by rope to himself and they both climb together, and come down together.  The free climber dies on the mountain side.  Which was free to climb?

So are you free, well if that means you can do as you like I doubt it.

There is a time recorded in the Old Testament part of the Bible in Judges 18 and 21 which says ‘and every man did what was right in his own eyes’  actually it was chaotic and awful.

When we think that everything we want to do must be right, because we want to do it is very dangerous, to society but to us as an individual also; There are many things if you want to do it, I can’t really stop you, but please don’t make me agree with you, or silence me or stop me from saying something opposite to your opinion – when you do that what happens in a democracy is that there is a back lash and you get what we have in two recent elections.

Dylan says in one of his great songs, whoever you are you have got to serve somebody, and he is right. The Bible puts it a different way, but it’s really saying the same thing it say whoever commits sin is a servant of sin, (John 8:34.) I know sin is not a politically correct word, but there you go again, and I know many don’t believe that it exists, it just a different behaviour model. 

Of course Jesus said something else about serving somebody He said to those who were following him, there to serve him, I no longer want to call you servant but rather friends because I want you to know what I am doing.(John 15.15) 

Maybe being his friend we could climb that mountain.

Free, well just what is freedom?

Adrian Hawkes

adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

Edited K. Lannon

W. 1118

24^TH January 2017

The Death Of Free Speech

The Death of Free Speech

There are lots of times when we do not like what other people say, particularly if they say stuff about us,  our good friends, religion, work, politics, or what we believe about God.

I know  it’s a bit later than George Orwell’s gloomy prediction, and 1984 has come and long gone, but are we moving to the point where, not only have we got to act right, but we must also speak right. I am referring to being right according to what is PC. But more than that, we have to think right too! So, it may be late by thirty plus years, but has the Orwellian “Big Brother” world finally arrived?

There is a growing trend that says if I don’t agree with some issue, or if my different opinion is not PC, or even if I just don’t like it, then I must not be allowed to say it.  Our universities are stopping people speaking because they don’t like the view point of some of their students or staff.  I probably agree that a lot of what is being said is horrible, and distasteful; but doesn’t that suggest that the next stage is to demand that not only is one not allowed to say what one thinks, but that one must not even think differently, and then, if things escalate to stage three, the echelons of power in universities would probably have to kill the Thinking person who indulged in the atrocity of disagreeing with them.

There are many countries where one is  not allowed to speak about the current politicians if it is detrimental, the reigning monarchs of the state defiantly, and definitely not the religion or religious personalities or leaders - that would be  “blasphemy” and one would end up in prison or dead.

I do think it somewhat strange that a god has to be defended by humans?  I am very sure that God is quite able to look after Himself. He does not need me, or anybody else to defend Him. And of course, He said, when being crucified, “Father forgive them. They don’t know what they are doing.” Of course, He was saying things that should not be said, at least to the leaders of religion, and/or religious views.

There are many things that in today’s world we are not allowed to say we disagree with. We are not allowed to disagree with same sex marriage. We are not allowed to disagree with homosexuality. And, we are not allowed to agree with people who are perceived to be “non PC.”   Of course, I am sure that we should not be allowed to incite violence, or put people in danger, but does that mean I have to be seen to agree with them even if I don’t? 

Many commentators are saying that what is happening in our “Free Speech” western democracy, where free speech is being limited, or in some places, not allowed at all, people are having to learn how to lie. Lie to the pollsters as to which way they will vote. Vote in such a way that, in the secrecy of the polling booth, they can express that which they were denied being able to say in the public forum.  

My question is: If my arguments are so good in any particular area, does that mean that the only way my view cannot be presented is that I must be silenced – or even killed if necessary. That is not a nice world to live in. I am speaking from a position where people have written to me, telling me that if they had any power they would make sure my view was silenced .

I guess therefore my argument must be correct and the opposition so weak that the only way to win the argument or discussion is to silence any opposite view.

Very sad.

Adrian Hawkes

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

Edited by Keith Lannon

W.656

---