Speculate! Speculate! Speculate!

So much rampant speculation. So any conclusions jumped to. So much talking, so little knowledge to back it up. But whoever notices.

Today, as I was having difficulty deciding on what to write about and thought about how easy it would be to choose a topic if I decided that it didn't matter if I knew anything about it. And I honestly wonder now if other writers on the internet even care, especially blogs.

So you know, I have a commitment to truth, and I would rather not lead people astray by not accurately checking information. Admittedly I am a busy college student, whose opinions are not entirely set in stone, so I can't guarantee everything.

But I do wonder (and given the nature of this post may I emphasize that word a little bit more) just what other sources do. It seems enough of a warrant (especially given the other possibilities of misinformation) to maybe not just trust all the information that you read all the time.

So some examples of speculation from the mundane to the serious that might just make you think.

Stana Katic hasn't signed a contract for the next season of Castle, so she and Nathan Fillion are obviously not getting along on set...

Jeb Bush was the frontrunner of the Republican candidacy, so he obviously was going to win the nomination. That certainly looks so certain now. right?

Or just think about any time that a crisis occurs, school shooting, terror attack, or anything else, there is so much talk about what we don't know, and before long, we're talking about the causes of an incident we don't even need.

Respect for Authority

Imagine this: you have a friend who sits down one day and just rants and rants and rants about how restrictive his parents rules are. After he finishes blasting them with insults (and not even addressing the rules), it becomes clear to you that regardless of how wrong his parents are, he is more wrong to disrespect his parents because they are his God-ordained authorities.

Clearly we can see that while we might be able to give some friendly criticism to show the flaws in those that have been placed as authorities before us, we should know not to ridicule, we should know not to constantly complain, and we should know to respect them in all that we say and do.

But among certain groups (of otherwise amazing people) here at my college you would guess that this particular respectfulness and willingness to criticize without mocking has not been understood.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out some things that you find weird about the viewpoints of the authorities in your life. If you think it's weird for instance that this university does not let women teach men in Bible classes (I tend to agree, but I've heard compelling arguments for both sides), then you can say so.

What you can't and shouldn't do, of course, is say that this action obviously proves the current administration to be a collection of sexist pigs who simply want to keep women in the kitchen. (Food for thought: if they really believed that, why would they hire any female professors at all?)

This attitude of name-calling and exaggeration of an issue is disrespectful to an organization that you just happen to disagree with. Regardless of the intentions that these students had in the first place, their comments ultimately just smell of the same bigotry and intolerance that they accuse the university of.

Perhaps another example may illustrate this point further. It is acceptable for one to express disagreement over chapel speakers, but it is disrespectful to make those same speakers the butt of jokes throughout the entirety of the semester (and beyond). They're human; they'll make mistakes, say some things that they regret; some may even change their minds about what they say later. If you were in their position, you wouldn't want to live in infamy for your comments the rest of your days.

While we're on the subject of chapel, why is it that we think we have the right to avoid punishment when we skip chapel? Don't get me wrong, if you want to skip chapel, you have a right to do that. But if you are going to go past your 8 allowed unexcused absences (as well as that 5 absence grace period), then you should submit to the authority of the university and pay the fine. You should not falsify excuse forms or "scan and scram" in order to avoid the consequences. We should not defiantly refuse chapel "because the university has no right to force mature adults to attend a worship service every day."

At the end of the day, students here (and everywhere, I assume) have accepted the authority of their college. Disrespecting the authority of one's parents is one thing, but we do not typically think that disrespecting a university is really bad. But this becomes especially bothersome when you consider that most students specifically chose this specific authority in their life.

When you agreed to come to this university, you agreed to respect and accept their authority. That's not even in the fine print. So can we all just take a moment to purge the wonderful community here of this one glaring problem and start to change our attitude of the current administration and beyond.

On Further Thought: Is Lying Always a Sin?

Whenever I see someone post an update changing or clarifying what they originally said, I always tend to gain respect for them, that they would be willing to admit their mistake. Although it wouldn't (or at least I hope it wouldn't) change any of my decisions, I do hope that you would be able to think the same as I post this update here.

When I wrote this blog post, I quite honestly wanted to open up a discussion. I was a bit unsure of where I stood on the issue, and I thought that posting my current thoughts might spur some discussion that would further refine them. 

I did not get such discussion unfortunately, but that worked out just fine. The Lord was able to further refine my thoughts through other means. This Sunday, he showed me a verse which has once again changed my entire views on the subject. 

If you remember, my entire premise was based on the fact that there was no specific Bible commandment to not lie. Yes I admitted even then that the Bible did generally look down on lying. My point was simply there were rare circumstances where lying was permissible. But I have now been reminded of Colossians 3:9,

"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds."

The argument could still be made that this verse is telling Christians not to lie to other Christians. It could be sad that lying to non-Christians in order to protect God's people, which describes all my examples in my original post, is permissible, but I'm not quite sure about that. Thus, I am unsure of what implications this should have on situations like the Holocaust, which is why I still ask you to pray for me as I prayerfully find answers to these questions. And maybe you would feel compelled to discuss what you have learned in your similar mulling in this topics. I'm not against changing my mind based on sound logic, even when the logic is not mine.

This just goes to show to me that even when you think you have it all figured out, the Lord may not be done refining your positions. In fact, when I first was publishing this post, it was going to be a complete retraction of what I wrote, and going back to the opinion that lying was always wrong.

Then the Lord used my Mom to highlight the context of the verse more specifically to  show that I may have been right about what I originally said, and this post really needed to refine my original point.

So if you want to take away anything from this post, take away the thought that the Lord is never done revealing truths about his Word to you. Don't ever get tricked into thinking that you have all the answers and be willing to listen to those opposing you. You may come back with a different opinion, a refined opinion, or just stronger reasons to back up your opinion. At any rate, I bet you will learn a lot by continually letting the Lord work in your life.

Is Lying Always A Sin?

Imagine this: it is World War II in Germany, the Nazis are searching persistently for Jews. You know all they find will be surely tortured and then killed, as a part of "ethnic cleansing."

Your friend, David, a Jew, is looking for a place to hide. You let him come in; surely, no German would look for a Jew here. Yet this does nothing to calm anyone's nerves. You don't truly believe that this house will really save your friend and know the risk you are taking in harboring a Jew. 

Then comes the knock on the door. You know what this means. You are all doomed. You tell David to hide under a bed. Maybe we'll be lucky and they won't look there. As you open the door, your heart shivers all the more. 

On the other side is a German officer. "Are there any Jews here?" He steps aside pushing you out of the way. As he does this, you exclaim, "Yes, indeed, there is one just upstairs under the bed in the second bedroom on the right!" 

But wait, why would you do such a thing and betray your friend? Surely, you don't believe in the ethnic cleansing of the Germans. Surely, you are not so concerned with your own safety that you would see nothing wrong with subjecting David to torture! 

No, you are concerned with a little question of morality. You see, you had always been taught that lying was a sin, and could not bring yourself to break the commandment of the Lord, even to save one of his people. 

Remember morals are absolute. If God says, "Thou shalt not lie," then "Thou shalt not lie." Period. Regardless of the circumstances that come in our lives, lying would not be permissible. 

But is this really what the commandment of the Lord is? Does the Lord forbid all types of lying, regardless of the benefits thereof in a specific circumstance? 

No, the Lord see lying as permissible in certain situations. Indeed, he has even commanded people to lie to support his will. Thus, clearly, there is no commandment, of "Thou shalt not lie." 

The closest we come to such a commandment is in Exodus 20:16,

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

At first glance, this verse does seem to indicate that lying is forbidden on all accounts, yet a closer examination reveals an essential three-word phrase, "Against thy neighbour."

The Ninth Commandment exhorts us to not lie about everyone around us, to not falsely accuse others of wrongdoing. But it would be a stretch to say that this forbids lying regardless of the circumstance.

Now, I will not be going into when these circumstances exist which make lying permissible. Suffice it to say that they are extremely rare. What I would like to prove is simply that these rare situations occur.

Also note that this idea that the morality of lying is nothing new and does not indicate relative morals. Everyone of us would admit that murder is immoral; however, killing someone in self-defense is justified. The action is the same, but the morality of that action has changed by the situation. Yet no one would argue that this makes morals relative.

Surely, you think my interpretation is a bit too convenient. Lying is not inherently evil, just evil in most situations. Seems like an attempt to justify a position. But it's not.

Not that long ago, I would have fought tooth and nail that lying for any purpose was forbidden. I would have been the friend of the Jew during the Holocaust who told the Germans where they could find my friend.

But I have found that position in stark contrast to what the Lord commands. In I Samuel 16, God tells Samuel to anoint a new king over Israel, but Samuel feared Saul would kill him for these actions. The Lord commands in verses 2-3,

"And Samuel said, How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the Lord said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice to the Lord. And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will shew thee what thou shalt do: and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name unto thee."

The Lord here commands Samuel to lie to cover the actions of what he is doing. If you believe that the Lord forbids lying in every circumstance, then how can you justify this action in light of that position? If lying is always a sin, then the Lord is a sinner. And that just won't do.

One may nit-pick and say that it was only a deception, as Samuel really did call a sacrifice. But this excuse holds no water. Regardless, you cannot make any such claims in regards to our next example.

It is Egypt. The Lord's people are sitting in slavery, but the Lord plans to use a man named Moses to rescue them from it and bring them to the Promised Land, never to return to Egypt again.

But that is not what the Lord wants Moses to tell Pharaoh. No, in Exodus 3:18, the Lord instructs Moses to lie,

"Thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God."

 Oh, so that means the Israelites are to come back, right? That seems to be what I was reading. Maybe I'm daft, but this seems to be a promise of a return that the Lord has no intention keeping.

The idea that any and all lying is a sin makes the Lord a sinner. Indeed, this philosophy tears apart all basis of Christianity. Lying in almost every situation is wrong. Spreading false accusations is wrong. Making lies a rule, rather than the exception is wrong.

But lying to save a Jew during the Holocaust, or delivering God's people from tyrannical rule, is not a sin.




On further thought:
Since publishing this post, the Lord has reminded me of Colossians 3:9,

"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds."

The argument could still be made that this verse is telling Christians not to lie to other Christians. It could be sad that lying to non-Christians in order to protect God's people, which describes all my examples in my original post, is permissible, but I'm not quite sure about that. Thus, I am unsure of what implications this should have on situations like the Holocaust, which is why I still ask you to pray for me as I prayerfully find answers to these questions. And maybe you would feel compelled to discuss what you have learned in your similar mulling in this topics. I'm not against changing my mind based on sound logic, even when the logic is not mine.

Ukraine: Speculation Reigns in American Media

Today, I wanted to write a post about the situation currently ongoing in Ukraine and how the United States efforts to put Russia into a box would ultimately play out. However, I have found little solid backing to make any speculation about this.

Yet I still find all sorts of speculation about the consequences of the actions. We already have articles discussing how inevitable World War III is....if Russia responds one particular way to the United States response to the Russian response to the events that are just now transpiring, of course! 

The harsh reality is that geopolitics is too complicated on this matter to be able to accurately predict. Those who try should not be a blogger or a simple journalist, but a highly-qualified (and I imagine equally high in salary) expert after doing much research on the topic. 

You see there seems to be this problem in the media. Somewhere along the way, it has become more important to simply say something than to share truth. It's probably because just reporting the same information that has already been shared is not exactly a highly marketable product. 

But does this excuse this activity? Of course not! It simply explains why this is the case. 

This is not what journalism should be. Journalism should be letting the evidence lead you, and if the evidence leads nowhere, then find a different topic to write about. For instance, when I found inadequate information for proper analysis on Ukraine, I found a different topic (for the most part). 

Since the media holds so much power, they have a responsibility to inform the people with integrity and not just provide blatant speculation for the sake of marketing to the people. 

Yet we all know better. The media will not in the near future change their protocol to honest reporting. Until the miraculous happens, we as citizens must examine all the analysis presented and evaluate the evidence therein. 

If we don't, we will fall prey to believing that Russia will cause World War III by attacking the United States after the United States enters the battle in Ukraine because of Russia's invasion, etc., etc, etc. If the dominoes start to fall, the press must examine the implications, but right now there are too many possibilities to consider. The press should focus any speculation on what Russia's response to will be, not the chain reactions it could cause. 

Let's not stress ourselves over all 9,673 possibilities (a rough estimate) that could come from this situation. As great Star Wars philosopher Qui-Gon Jinn said, 

"Until the possible become actual, it is only a distraction."