What Matters

Consider two atoms moving back and forth. Does God truly care about the fact that those atoms are moving or how they move? There are two answers, and both are correct. First: Yes, but only inasmuch as the atoms play a role in affecting a person's life. By God's divine control, all of the complications of reality sum up in such a way that every particle plays an important role in affecting choice of the free will of each and every person in the universe. Hence, each particle is significant in that respect. The second answer: No. Particles are only a medium through which God conveys His love and we convey our love to God (via acts directed to please Him, especially such acts of loving neighbor). The motion of these particles is irrelevant. With respect to how I perform an act of love, God does not care if I move particular molecules of air around someone in order to perform the act of hugging or if I move the molecules of air a quarter inch above the other molecules in order to perform the same action. To summarize, in and of themselves, particle motion is meaningless or without significance.

Amongst theists, there are various points of view as to how God created the human race. Did God do things exactly according to a literal, six-24-hour-day interpretation of Genesis, or did it God use a more gradual process, perhaps macro-scale evolution? The answer to this question is hidden within the reason as to why God made the universe in the first place.

See "for-love-of-humanity".

So if God created humanity for their love, why would He watch the world build itself up, even if does seem instantaneous to Him? Why wouldn't God get started on what is significant immediately? Critics have commented that they don't like to put-thoughts-in-God's-mind, so-to-speak, implying that I might be doing so. Honestly, I am in a sense, but this is not because I think I know God inside out, but because we CAN know what God has revealed to us about Himself. It is not putting-a-thought-in-God's head to quote First John and say that God is loving and loving leads to self-sacrifice ("This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." - 1 Jn 4:10). Hence, since God is Love, it is not wrong to have certain expectations of that love. For example, love considers the beloved significant. Everything else is not necessarily insignificant, unless it has no meaning to the lover apart from the beloved. Hence, considering all this and the fact that the motion of the particles is meaningless, it is impossible to conclude that anything besides humanity is worth occupying God's attention before humanity's creation. Thus, the ideas of macro-evolution (in which creation progresses towards the point of humanity) or even six-24-hour-day creation are absurd theologically-speaking. It would make more sense for God to do everything instantaneously.

Concerning macro-evolution and six-24-hour-day creation, there are problems with each.

First, macro-evolution relies purely on scientific arguments. Instead of relying on God to instantaneously do His will, the viewpoint attempts to conform religion with science, essentially putting God in a box where the idea of God becomes the well-criticized model of "the god of the gaps". There are also some people who may take a different viewpoint and say that God was taking pleasure in forming creation. However, once again, forming creation is essentially the meaningless motion of particles. How long would God, an eternal being of infinite patience and creativity, "watch" His creation take shape via the meaningless motion of particles? It might be argued that, in this case, the motion of the particles is not meaningless since it is building up for the human race. However, this argument is flawed in that it fails to realize that God, when He instantaneously creates something, can arrange the particles in the exact setup they need to be in and with the exact speeds they need to have in order to fulfill the exact same role as if they had a 60 billion year head start. When "God saw that it was good" (various verses in Genesis 1 say this), it does not necessarily mean that God's creation was now an enjoyable thing to watch for its own sake. On the contrary, it simply points to the fact that God instilled Himself in His work, and He is thus visible in it. Notice that it never says, "God delighted in His creation" in the accounts of creation.

The 24-hour-day creation has similar problems. First is the time delay, which has already been accounted for. Second is the indescriptive nature of the word "day". The original word in Hebrew is "yom", meaning some indeterminate time period: anywhere from a moment to however long you wanted; it does not specifically mean "day". The word is used for "day" occasionally, but remember that the Hebrews only knew of a "day" with respect to the sun. A day for them could just refer to the morning hours (6 AM to 6 PM), and not restricted to 24 hours. Considering that Genesis is written to the Hebrews who would have interpreted "day" in that way, it would seem peculiar that the first "day" of creation would be over before the earth (dry ground) even existed, since light was created first.

In conclusion, there is little or no Biblical evidence to support either the macro-evolution hypothesis or the six-24-hour-day creation. What is most probable is that God instantly created everything.

For the Love of Humanity

God, who is love itself, decided, in His divine wisdom, to expand His community of love that existed between the three persons of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This extension was meant to include free wills, like Himself, and thus made in His image and likeness. This being His objective, God created humanity, people, each person possessing a free will like Himself. Being an act of God, creation is an act of love. God did not create free wills to be subjected to Him, but rather, free wills must be truly free. To be part of God and become one with Him in order to enjoy existence in the Divine Trinity's community of love, each free will must willingly love God - choose God and pursue of Him - in order to share in His nature. Free wills in the realm of eternity make a single, eternal choice that cannot be altered. In this respect, all of the angels of God who choose to follow Satan had chosen to disobey God from the moment of their creation, and all of those who choose obedience remained with God. In order that it would be possible for the free will of each person to change from evil to good, that is, to choose God, supposing that the free wills would first chose evil, God created humanity to exist within the framework of finite time.

Love from the free will is God's desire from people, considering that He wants to bring us into His divine community of love. This gives people significance in the eyes of God, and for no other reason than humanity did God create anything. In order that His creation might communicate love for Him or rejection of Him, God created the physical universe as a medium through which love can be conveyed. The medium in and of itself is meaningless (physical matter and motion are meaningless), bearing no significance that is not in relation to human persons. This being so, God had no need to form it in a state of less-than-complete before the formation of humanity. That is, God did not create a universe that needed to build humanity for God, whether directed by His divine guidance or not. Instead, God instantaneously began His work of significance by creating humans. By His divine patience, God waited for the progression in finite time of humanity's decision to love or reject Him. In hope, the servants of God waited for God to reveal His promised act of restoration, the death of Himself in His Son, an act already at work since the fall of man. At every moment, God calls men to Himself, yet they are free from the moment of bodily conception to choose to love Him or reject Him. It is when they have grown to an appropriate age are they fully capable of an informed decision concerning God and fully responsible for the choice they make.

Theology of the Body - the Love in Holy Communion

Monday, July 12, 2010

10:49 PM

Why did Jesus Christ institute the Eucharist ("Thanksgiving")/Holy Communion? The purpose was not necessarily to fulfill the Old Testament prefigurements since it was their duty only to prefigure the things God had planned, from the beginning, to institute.

Recognizing, then, that God is Love, the Eucharist is a manifestation of God's love. The Eucharist, Holy Communion, is called a sacrament because it is a physical manifestation of a spiritual reality. From "Theology of the Body - the Resurrection" (by Nicolaus Anderson, 12 July 2010):

"Notice that the actions in the physical universe are, in fact, meaningless were it not for the meaning given to them by the spiritual realities. Thus, all of the sacraments have meaning, but not in meaning merely in relation to human free will. What is meant by 'in relation to human free will' is this: That the spiritual meaning of something is a direct consequence of human choice. The Mosaic Law is of this sort. (In Romans 7:4-25) Paul emphasizes how sin gained power through the Law. Before the Law, how could man be accountable for unrighteousness save because of the Law written on his own heart? If man did not have the Law written on his heart, nor had he received the Law in writing, man would not be accountable for his physical actions as to the breaking of the Law. It is not the physical actions that matter, but it is the heart...

"Nevertheless, God has chosen to give the physical meaning through the spiritual. He does this in a variety of ways: through the Mosaic Law, through the human body, and through the sacraments."

It is logical that God, who gives spiritual meaning to the physical, would be willing to continue to apply meaning to it. There are several reasons why it is good that God does this. All that God does concerning the application of spiritual meaning to the physical is for people. This medium (that is, the physical) is used by people in order to communicate their love or hatred of God and to receive or reject the love that God gives to them freely. The physical is a medium that is perfect in every way for allowing communication between people and God. Communication can occur via a variety of physical actions. Such actions include prayer, which indicates trust in God, and sin, which indicates rejection of God in various degrees (i.e. rejecting the presence of God, distrust in God, hatred of the commands of God, or forgetfulness of God).

Most of the physical actions of communication are done with the movement of body in forms other than speech. In fact, much more can be communicated through the body than through speech. By identifying the posture or stance of a person's body, it is possible to identify if a person is in a state of reclusiveness versus gentle surrender, undisclosed anger versus composure, and so forth. God instilled in human beings such nature to reveal themselves in this way so that they might better communicate with each other and Him. When God came down as Jesus, He used a great deal of body language that is only described to a certain extent by the writers of the Gospels. The writers did not have to record such body language in great detail because Jesus either told them what He had on His mind or He revealed it in His actions, such as His acts of love. (For example, the Gospel writers say that Jesus felt compassion for people, a compassion He revealed in His many miracles of healing, not necessarily verbally.)

The Eucharist, Holy Communion, is a device of the continuation of the communication of God, as well as a device of surrender. It is a device because it is a tool used by God in the same way that the hand is a tool to a human. On the night He was betrayed, "Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, 'Take it; this is my body.' Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,' He said to them." (Mark 14:22-24)

In each sacrament, there is something being surrendered: In baptism, it is surrender of the right to seek one's own way in life. In marriage, it is the right to one's personal control of their own body and soul. In the Eucharist, it is God's surrender of His own Body and Blood.

God, in order that we might be more in Him and He in us, offers Himself to us out of love. The Eucharist is a direct consequence of God's love for us. It is, in itself, not a demand to humans, as baptism is. On the contrary, the Eucharist is an offering of God to generate a Holy Communion between His people and Himself. He, as a lover, is surrendering Himself to His people, just as any spouse does. The Eucharist, as the words of Jesus declare, is Jesus Himself in physical form, body in blood. The flesh and blood are not as we ordinarily think of as flesh and blood, but that begs the question, "What is flesh and blood?"

To demonstrate this point, consider your hand. Your hand is part of you. The most important criteria for something to be your body are these: it must be attached to you or your body, it must be interacting with the rest of your body in the functions of life to produce life, and it must be alive. Slugs are alive, but whether or not they are attached to your body is irrelevant since they do not interact with your body in the functions of life. Perhaps that which is closest to interacting with the functions of life in your body, and yet is not part of your body, is a pathogen. It, too, is alive, but it is not attached your body nor is it producing life. Finally, dirt may be attached to your body, and though it may be ingested into your digestive system, it nevertheless will find its way back out, and it is not alive. To be part of your body, something must be attached to you or your body, interacting with your body to generate life, and must be alive. Skin fulfills these criteria easily.

Thus, God, who is all powerful and all wise, is capable of making grape juice and crackers part of His Body (making them the Eucharist) every Sunday. Yet the question remains: Why?

Consider the attributes of bread and grape juice. Both are edible. Yet God did not pick carrots and dip. The color of the bread and wine seem more like human flesh and blood, but God could have picked a variety of foods if that was the case. Perhaps because these are symbolic in ways other foods are not, God decided that these were the perfect consumables. However, that does not explain His intention of having food in the first place, and perhaps examining God's purposes for it will reveal exactly why these specific foods were chosen.

By offering Himself as food, allows for the greatest and most widespread communication between Himself and people. Through the Eucharist, God can be given to everyone wherever they are at. No longer do people have to seek the man body of Jesus in order to see and communicate with Jesus physically. People, each in his own time, can meet with Jesus and worship Him in the body and blood, or they can desecrate His Body in the most horrid ways. Bread and wine allow for certain methods of physical manipulation that allow humans to show a great (though not total) extent of their love or hatred for him in ways that would otherwise be impossible if Jesus came down only as a human being.

The most important way that humans communicate their love for God via the Eucharist is by eating it. By eating the Body of Christ and drinking His blood, they allow God to offer Himself to them physically, in a world they understand. They accept God's surrendering of His Body at the same time they offer the Eucharist back to God as a holy and living sacrifice in themselves and for themselves (as for payment for their sins). In the Eucharist, then, God's people can truly say "Thank you" to God for His offering of Himself to them. Because this is an offering of love by God to His people, it would be considered an insult to God to not accept Him into one's body, as if God's physical body was not good enough or one is not willing to surrender one's uniqueness apart from Christ (to become more intimate with him). By accepting the Eucharist into one's own body, the person has taken God into their physical body and they become every bit more a part of the Body of Christ.

"...my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one load, we, who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." (1 Cor 10:14-17)

The Eucharist is the ultimate offering of God's love to His children: He offers His body to them and for them. They may do with it as they wish, just as they may do with the free gift of salvation as they wish since the two are directly related. The Eucharist, being the ultimate offering of God's love to His people, is a manifestation of the crucifixion of Christ. Indeed, it is the crucified body of the risen Lord, since the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord transcends time and space, extended throughout all time and cleansing the world of all sins in the past, present, and future. The Son of God, present in the Eucharist, is the ultimate offering of God to His people to offer back to Himself for the payment of sins. As such, God is both the Just Judge and the Ever Provider for His people.

Now because the Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, consequences can arise from taking it in an unworthy manner. If a person is aware of their sin and seeks no forgiveness and yet tries to eat the Eucharist, they disrespect God by not cleansing their self for, as a member of the Church, they are the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

"For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1 Cor 11:26-29)

Yet it must be asked, what is necessary? For if a man dies without taking the Eucharist, can he still be saved? - Of course! Remember always that God looks at the heart of the man and not at his physical accomplishments. It is reasonable to assume that a man seeking God would be willing to partake of the Eucharist if he had known of the necessity of doing so as well as the meaning behind it. Furthermore, it is not necessary that both species (that is, the Body and Blood) be taken, since both are equally part of God. Of course, what if a person finds their self in the bizarre scenario where they are allergic to both wheat and grapes? In such a case, it may be quite likely that God will not require them to eat the Eucharist. Why should He put their health in danger in order to be accepted by them? If He did, He might be a very selfish god.

In conclusion, the Eucharist is a wonderful gift of love from God to His church. By accepting it, we accept more of God into our lives. Our eating of it communicates to God our acceptance of Him in a physical way, even better than if we had confessed to God with sincere hearts that we love Him more than anything else in the world. And that is what He wants: our love in return for His.

The Necessity of Love

Wednesday, August 11, 2010
11:05 PM

Suppose your memory were entirely wiped. Where would your faith in God be much less your concept of Him? Would you, on Judgment Day, still be held accountable for not having faith in God? Quite the opposite is true! You are required to love God. How can you? Innately in every man there is some idea of God, regardless of whether man can express that idea in words or symbols or not express it. Furthermore, there is innate in every man the knowledge of the moral law that tells a man what is good and right. Can a man forget such things? Is it not true that God has ingrained in man's mind such truths? Or rather, is it not true that if a man's soul is headed towards the Lord, then the Lord will lead the man back to truth. Since it is possible that a man whose memory is lost may never hear of God again or even learn a language again, God will surely be just and not count it against that man for having lack of knowledge. thus, knowledge from the outset is clearly not what God is seeking from man.

What is God seeking from humans? It must be that which man can offer God at every moment: the choice of his free will. How can a man choose God if he has forgotten who God is? - By loving his neighbor. If you love your neighbor, you are indeed loving God because God is love. Only those who have knowledge are required to do more because they have been given the capability of doing more. Thus, these extra acts, as they could be termed, are ways that gifted (or blessed) people can deepen in their relationship with God and love Him. Having faith in God; being baptized; partaking of the Eucharist; all of these are acts of loving God. Loving your neighbor is an act of loving God; that is why God did not put us in a universe alone. We are not on a planet full of people merely as a consequence of human reproduction, for if it were necessary, God could have created a new universe for every human soul that came into existence. On the contrary, God placed us an a planet with other people in order that we could love and be loved by other people, and in so doing, love and be loved by God.

The Justice of God

It is often said that God is loving but He is also just, as if the two were entirely separate ideas. This notion is false for two reasons. First, it is wrong philosophically because it insists that God has an element contrary to His nature. For if God is Love, how can He also be just? Second, the notion can be shown wrong in actuality when justice is examined in light of love. The conclusion of this examination reveals that justice is both compatible with love (as the notion allows) and also stems from it (as the notion does not allow).

When God created Adam, He made man a person, a being with a free will. A person has the ability to choose. Whatever is set before the soul for the free will to pick and choose is a subject for a different discussion. What only matters here is the fact that man can choose to love God or not love Him. Ultimately, this is the only aspect of man's choices that God actually cares about. God does not care if the choice of a man will make him rich and famous or poor and unknown, though out of love for the man, God may manipulate the situation of a man for his own benefit. God cares for every single person He has made, and He wants everyone to love Him and every other human being. Everything that happens in a man's life will ultimately be to guide man towards a loving relationship with God. How the man views it and responds to it is entirely determined by the free will of the man. Though God knows the future, He nevertheless allows people to die outside of a state of grace, that is, in sin and on the road to hell. The question as to why He allows them to die at this point can be answered by the idea that the spiritual growth of the person (or their increase or decrease in love towards God) had stopped. At that point in their life, the person was not going to be any different. Maybe they might fluctuate over the course of their life should they have lived longer, but ultimately, they would not have changed. Those whom God allows to live some time longer than this point are probably being kept for a special purpose or purposes. Thus, it is reasonable to see why God allows people to die outside of grace. However, why God sends people to hell is an entirely different question.

God, being a just God, will send people to hell. He will judge them according to what they have done. To those who sought Him and His will in life, He will grant eternal life. Those who sought their own way in life He will send to hell for all of eternity. Why would God not forgive the sins of other people after a finite amount of time in the same way that men do? The answer can be found in examining justice in light of the love of God from the beginning of time. When God planned to create man, He did so because He wanted someone to love and someone to love Him. He did not need man, but He wanted him. However, love demands that it be free. Love cannot be forced from someone. It must be an act of a free will. That is why God gives each person a free will. If a person does not want to be with God, then God, in accordance with the rules of love, will not force that person to be with Him. However, the only thing remaining for the person to have when God allows them to leave is whatever is contrary to God, more specifically, the absence of Love. Since love is the ultimate source of the pleasure humanity so desires, and since God is love, then those who reject God are ultimately rejecting the sole source of happiness their souls are longing for. Thus, the justice of God is the assigning to each person a status based on, not what his or her soul longs for, but what their free will actually choose to pursue. The judgment of God is thus the examination of the life of a person to see if they choose to pursue a loving relationship with God. It is also the enactment of the justice of God. That is, it is the giving of each person what they want.

Loving needs reason

In considering the idea of love, I developed various arguments that defended the idea of love as requiring reason. That is, a person has to have a reason for loving someone else. By this, I am not pointing out that people's existence is the reason. Though indeed that is true, I am primarily concerned with the role of the human free will and its dependence on reason. The arguments themselves are not flawless, but they are food-for-thought and you would do well to consider them.

The various arguments about this subject are fairly unorganized in thought, and are presented here in chronological order of their creation:

====================

6:47 PM, March 23, 2010
Some people (it is reasonable to assume many) think that you must love people as an end and not a means to an end. That is to say, you must love a person just as a person and not for anything that you will receive out of them. Certainly this is true if what you are receiving is a material gain, for in such cases, you do not truly love the person; you desire what they give you. However, the reasoning cannot be taken much further than this. Ask the question, "What is it that I love about the person?" You cannot love a person just for a person's sake, just as you cannot love a rock for a rock's sake. Are you to love them because they are a person? Can you love a rock because it is a rock? When you open the door for someone, are you doing it because they are a person, or out of habit, or for another reason? Another reason might be that you are trying to please God. Why would you try to please God? - Because He would give you joy in return. What is it then that makes you love other people?
If I told myself one day that I was going to love all the people around me every minute, I know that I would fail miserably. Why would I fail? It is not that the task is too difficult as much as it is daunting. Nor would I fail because I did not make some commitment in my head that says I will love people. Over the course of the day, my focus shifts, my vision changes, and I am no longer looking at people as objects to love, but rather, I am trying to please myself. It turns out that we are always trying to gain pleasure. There are various means by which we gain it, none of which include simply loving a person for a person's sake. In fact, we gain pleasure from caring for people because God gives us joy when we do so. Our mind senses this boost and encourages us to return to such tasks. If we were not lead by this desire for pleasure, there would be no reason for us to do anything. However, God made us this way, not so that the world could be flooded by selfish people, but because He wanted to be the ultimate source of joy.
"Falling in love" is quite different from loving a person. This sort of "love" belongs to a type of love that finds pleasure (usually aesthetically) from another person. The person has attributes or characteristics from which you can obtain pleasure. That does not mean that you "fall in love" with that person. The "love" that you seem to "fall" into is this love that you not only gain pleasure from other people's attributes but also that your feelings are more tangled up in your relationship with them. That means that interactions with them (such as simply seeing them, or thinking of their smile, regardless of whether actual or psychological) are stimuli for the mind that give you pleasure.
There are two important things that must be distinguished between. The first is the emotional, and the second is the sensual. Let the former (that is, emotional), pertain to the soul. Emotional feelings are the inner feelings that you have inside your soul, regardless of your current state. Sensual feelings, on the other hand, refers to what the brain senses and encourages the soul to command it to seek. Sensual feelings arise pertaining to things such as pain and sex. In response to pain, your brain generally takes the initiative and commands your appendages to retract or move in such a direction and speed that would decrease the intensity of, if not obliterate, the signal originating from the nerves. The same is true with sex. If you know yourself well enough, you can easily tell when your body desires sex even though nothing else pertaining to sex or sex stimuli has come to mind. Emotional feelings are independent of sensual feelings. For example, a man might be suffering for a cause he cares for and feel emotionally happy about it even though sensually he may be being persecuted, injured with techniques beyond his wildest dreams. The opposite can be true: the man might be suffering emotionally because he is doing something that happens to be giving him sensual pleasure. The most ironic idea about this system is that both affect the decision of the individual because the sensual pleasure may lead to emotional pleasure. However, it is only the idea of the potential emotional pleasure that a person thinks they will find in something that drives them towards seeking it.





9:30 PM, March 28, 2010
It is quite possible that, being made in the image of God, we as humans are given some of God's own selfless love from the beginning and can thereby love people without actually having a reason to love them. Loving people, at least to a small degree, would be a part of our nature. If we believe in God, He gives us enough more of His selfless love to share. However, we have to desire that love or He will not give it to us. However, how can we desire such love? It must be by some pleasure we get from loving already. In such a case, it would be our selfless love, given to us by God, that causes us to do something, and in return, our souls are given pleasure that they desire to perpetually renew as time goes on. One way our souls can do this is by continuing to love in that simple manner that we started loving. The other way is by asking God to grant us more love.
Is this really the way it works?





10:50 PM, March 30, 2010
You can practically make happiness spawn anywhere, in a manner of speaking. That is, you can decide to think of something as a source of pleasure. Now, although it will not necessarily be a source of sensual pleasure, it will, however, be a source of emotional pleasure. Emotional pleasure is slightly harder to pursue because of the body naturally desires sensual pleasure. It is the free will of the soul that decides whether a man will try to gain emotional pleasure or sensual pleasure or both. Nevertheless, the emotional pleasure does not always if ever cause the body to provide itself with an instantaneous boost of pleasure that acts as motivation for someone to pursue the source of the pleasure, whether it be an action or thing to acquire, etc. Of course, if your soul is a slave to sin, it becomes quite difficult to imagine emotional pleasure in good deeds.



9:48 AM, April 12, 2010
When you are relaxed and in your "comfort zone" (hypothetically, the place on earth you are happy most of the time), it is quite obvious that, when asked to go to immediately go to the funeral of friend, of which no one is attending, you will no doubt be quite reluctant. You may not mention your reluctance, since that would cause people to judge you and you certainly do not like that. However, at the moment, you are in your comfort zone and could think of hundreds of reasons why not to go to the funeral. You could say, "There's no point. My friend is dead. I cannot resurrect him." On top of that, you would add other excuses such as, "His own family is not even going to be there" or "I do not know anyone going to the funeral, so what good would my presence do? I would not be a comforter to anyone." Regardless of your list of excuses, should you not mention them for fear of being reproached, you would no opt for remaining in your comfort zone. On the other hand, should it be that you had just finished a battle in which your friend had died, be he courageous or a coward, you would (after learning of your friend's death), if you are of noble character, go immediately to the body of your friend and mourn for him. Following that, you would make funeral arrangements.
The question that I wish to pose is this: Do these two examples lead to different conclusions about why we do things? When ethics and morals demand something of us, their demands are usually not accompanied by instructions ("Here's how to do") but only by commands ("Do"). This allots a person freedom to go about fulfilling such moral commands by whatever means is necessary. The question arises, however, do morals ask us to be concerned with motives? A person who "selflessly" devotes their life to others is highly esteemed and said to be virtuous or moral, but what is their motivating reason for "selflessly" giving away their life? Surely one does not automatically give one's own life away? Given that the freewill acts like a scale which is tipped one way or another by randomness and the various things in life, such as sinful desire and God's grace, man only does what will give him pleasure. Or is there something else? Do morals demand truly selflessly giving one's life away? That is, is a person not permitted by morals to receive pleasure after he does a good deed?
Perhaps the terms need to be more well defined. Good deeds are called that because generally they are voluntary actions that are intended to benefit people though such actions are not commanded by law. Morals encompass both "good deeds" and the laws that each person has in his or her heart and mind. On far end of the positive (desirable) end of the spectrum, there is "selfless" giving, that is, giving (e.g. caring for the sick, feeding the poor, and spending time for good causes) but without expecting a return.
How can, or is it even possible for, a human to selflessly give? Our morals may or may not require this "selfless" giving, but we feel inclined to do the deeds it is associated with, such as feeding the poor and caring for the sick. The acts themselves do not necessarily have to be acts that are completely selfless giving; you can have a reason for being charitable. However, what makes us inclined to do such acts in the first place? Surely with a sinful nature, man is (at least initially) inclined to only do evil and think selfishly. Yet something happens in a man that allows him to make such free acts of charity. Furthermore, those acts are often accompanied by a joy that survives the moment and dwells in the memory of a man, where it might be extracted at some random occasion and please the man for another moment before being returned to the shelf. This joy is somehow obtained by honest charitable works (that is, deeds that did not require an evil thing be done first) and remains undiscovered lest we cease ignoring the small voice in the back of our heads that encourage us do a charitable act. Note that the charitable act is not the same as the selfless act, for in the charitable act, we receive a burst (short or long, great or small) of joy that remains ingrained in our minds so long as the memories of the good acts we had done remain. Selfless acts, by their very name, remove the motivation for completing them. It would require someone's freewill to act contrary to the nature it was intended, or at least it would require that the human be controlled or enticed into such actions by a higher power.
When Jesus visited the tomb of his friend Lazarus, He had to first leave (what might be called) His "comfort zone". When He came, He wept, and the people said, "See how He (Jesus) loved him (Lazarus)." In this actual scenario, Jesus, who is God and does not need to obtain pleasure from anyone, weeps for Lazarus as though He has lost something of great importance. Indeed, Lazarus had died, and the Son of God was showing to the people God's love for every single individual. God does not will that even one of His created persons should be lost. Jesus is not only God, but also fully man. The human freewill of Jesus was submissive to the divine freewill of Jesus, the Son of God. To be fully human, the freewill of Jesus' human side must have had motivation. Indeed, there was great motivation promised to the human freewill of Jesus by the divine freewill of Jesus that He Himself would be taken up into heaven and worshiped as King and God. This brings up an important point: the difference between why Jesus went to the tomb and why any other man would go. Jesus goes out of command of His own divine freewill, not because the loss of Lazarus would decrease the pleasure that He would receive from him (for indeed, to gain pleasure from another human and mourn their loss because of the loss of your own pleasure is purely human). But when God enters into the heart of a man, does not He shape the man such that the man can love others as God loves others? When man goes to a funeral, if he is of noble heart (one influenced by the grace of God), then it is quite likely that he goes out of love for the man and not purely because of the loss of potential pleasure for himself.
Within relationships, there may exist a spiritual bond between the two people involved in a relationship such that, though they may gain no pleasure from each other and even never see, speak to, or hear of each other again, they still feel obligated to preserve that relationship. When one of the two of them breaks that relationship by deciding not to be friends with the other person, they feel a bitter flavor in their decision, depending on how well developed the relationship was as well as the kind of relationship it was. What this possibly indicates, if it exists, is that God wants them to preserve their relationship, and He has made the spiritual or physical mind such that, within the bond of friendship, some pleasure is intertwined and some is transmitted along it.





11:49 PM, October 27, 2010
Loving needs reason. It is impossible for a person not to love for a reason. Furthermore, the free will must consent to the reason to bring forth love. Various individuals may state that they are capable of loving without a reason, but this is not so. Consider what is going on in their subconscious mind. If a person loves another person, they feel a sense of happiness from it. It is this happiness or expectation of something they desire that gives them reason to do such an action. The reasoning is the same whether they begin to love in order to test and see whether they will receive what they so desire (evidenced by a sense of pleasure, which is what they hope for) or they love already expecting that what they do will result in something they desire, perhaps a sense of pleasure. If a person does not have to have a reason for loving, then people would naturally love, but we can see from reality that this is certainly not the case.

Considering the requirement of reason, loving is an act of the will. It is not as though one is driven solely by God or natural instinct towards such. Otherwise, there would be no reasonable explanation as to why people do not love. If loving required no choice, people would naturally choose to love. The counter-argument would be best described in an analogy of a ball rolling down a hill: the ball continues to roll down the hill unless stopped by an external force. In the same way, people would be naturally loving unless there were a reason not to be. On the contrary, this is irrational in light of the definition of love (considering love perseveres through struggles and difficulties and reasons not to remain faithful or loyal, so why would naturally-loving people invent reasons not to love?). Furthermore, the definition of love is external to human beings. If it is only relative to human beings, we can define it however we want and define it in such a way as to encompass the actions of all humans. However, if we define it extrinsic to humans and exclusive of some human activity, then it is no longer an innate quality but is, with respect to its physical manifestation in human beings, a category of actions. Hence, nothing binds us to automatic obedience to the rules that define this category.