The Immorality of Human Morals

Since humans have begun debating philosophical ideas, the question of the origin of man’s morality has been raised and passionately debated. Although there are slight variations on occasion, the two sides generally tend to propose that either, a) man is basically good, or b) man is basically evil. Philosopher and revolutionist Jean-Jacques Rousseau was of the belief that the nature of man was “decent, tame, moral, and benevolent.” Although it is an avidly disputed topic, using logic and reasoning, we can arrive at the possible conclusion that Rousseau was mistaken in his assessment, for without having a clear moral basis (such as his view did not), we cannot properly define morality in the first place, much less assign it to the entire human race.

Rousseau and his followers argued that only when feeling oppressed and endangered by an institution or government are humans ever violent, evil, and immoral. An obvious flaw in this ideology is all the evidence otherwise: all of the countless stories of completely unthreatened humans committing acts of treachery and barbarism. Napoleon Bonaparte, a revolutionary similar to Rousseau, battled his way out of the shackles of governmental oppression in France, only to establish a tyrannical rule arguably more oppressive than the first. Adolf Hitler, the infamous German dictator during World War II, was considered by many to be an embodiment of pure evil because of the mass genocides committed at his command. During his tyranny, he was not a man oppressed by the government, but rather was a man reinforcing and campaigning Darwin’s theories of Evolution and “the survival of the fittest.” In essence, rather than being the oppressed, both men were the oppressors. What Rousseau seemed to overlook was that an “evil government” - such as his ideology required for the conception of evil - would have to be composed, organized, and enforced by evil men who were not under the same subjugation as was the oppressed citizen. He blamed the causer of human wickedness on a human-controlled apparatus, which does not hold up under logical scrutiny. Rousseau also stated that another possible cause for making man become evil is “punishment for disobedient acts.” We are then forced to wonder: If man is naturally benevolent and moral, what acts of disobedience would he be committing in the first place?

If we decided to examine the argument from a strictly secular, psychological view in which we used explicitly observable science, we could easily see another example of evidence against Rousseau’s view that man is innately moral. Sigmund Freud, perhaps one of the most well-known psychologists of all time, first proposed the now widely-accepted idea of the “psychoanalytic theory” based on his observations of humanity. Freud divided the personality structure into three components: the id, the ego, and the superego. According to his theory, all humans are born with the id, which is the primitive, selfish, immoral component of the personality; the superego, the morality component, has to be taught. In other words, Freud observed that from birth, man is inherently immoral and selfish, and morality is a real part of the personality, but it does not come naturally to anyone. Though the observations of one man can be argued and possibly thwarted, his ideas suggest that the innate evil nature of man is not a strictly religious idea, but that it is a scientific view as well.

The problem with using philosophy and psychology to arrive at any conclusion regarding morality is that humans debating the morality of man can argue indefinitely and inconclusively, but they are all equally unqualified to determine the existence or predisposition of morality, because, should Freud be correct and mankind naturally possess from birth an evil and selfish desire, we as humans do not then have the credibility to determine our own goodness. If our morals came from ourselves, they would all be relative, and they would all be different, therefore it would render the word “morals” completely meaningless. For example, if a person decided it was morally right for him or her to murder someone, he or she could do so and still claim to possess morals. Surely such a judgment should not and cannot be made by those who would be so directly affected by the outcome, for it would be like a guilty man being the judge of his own trial. Without a consistent moral basis, the idea of morality loses its meaning, and with it, its significance.

Therefore, in order to refute the idea of inherent morality with authority, we must determine who or what is the deciding factor; who has the authority to regulate anything regarding morality. Since we require a moral foundation in order to discuss or define morality, we could logically go to the most widely-accepted moral foundation there is: the Holy Bible. On this moral foundation our forefathers laid the groundwork for the United States of America; and during the years 1760 to 1805, the Holy Bible was the most commonly referred-to source in American political works. Although many believe the Bible to be mythical, we must suggest that if the Holy Book and other spiritual books are not credible sources regarding morality, the first question on the goodness of man is rendered meaningless, for without the belief in the Greatest Good (God), any other goods do not have a clear definition, thus they cannot be debated. If, however, the Bible is true and accurate, it would logically follow that a book on morality written by a God of perfection would have more credibility on the topic of man’s goodness than would a conceivably self-centered human. Thus, using logic and reasoning, we can conclude that the Bible is likely one of – if not the – best authority on matters of morality, for without a moral basis, we would have no idea what the words “good,” or “moral” meant in the first place.

Since we have examined Rousseau’s view of the supposed inherent goodness of mankind and exposed its logical instability, we must therefore consider the alternative, that man is inherently evil, which is not difficult to see in the world around us. Since we are discussing the concepts of goodness and wickedness, it would be illogical to dismiss the only rational authority on the subject. The foundation of morality for millions of people, the Holy Bible, states in the book of Ecclesiastes, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins” (7:20). And again in Romans:

As it is written, “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is no one who understands; no one seeks after God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one…they use their tongues to deceive…their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed innocent blood…there is no fear of God before their eyes. (3:10-12)

We see a clear commonality throughout scriptures of the theme of mankind’s wickedness. The whole purpose of the Holy Bible, in fact, is based on the wickedness of man, for in the book, Christ offers redemption and salvation, both of which would be completely unnecessary were we all born naturally upright and decent.

Although the debate of whether or not man is basically good will likely remain a core argument among philosophers and theologians, we can see that the question of man’s inherent goodness cannot be legitimately debated without a proper foundation for terms such as “good,” or “morality.” Trying to argue about morals if we do not truly believe in their origin would be like a man talking about humanity who did not believe in the existence of conception, or a man arguing about leaves who did not believe in the existence of plants. To claim to believe in something without believing in its origin is a sign of illogical and indolent thinking. If we debate truth, we must determine and ascertain what the Ultimate Truth is; if we debate love, we must decide where ultimate love comes from; if we debate pain, we must know where pain comes from; and if we debate morality, we must understand where morality comes from. The origin of something will determine its foundation. The foundation will give us credibility and authority. Authority will reward us with reasonable and logical discussions. 

Therefore it is not a requirement to believe that the Bible is true, however if we do not believe in the origin of morality, we cannot believe in morality in the least, for we have denied its essence. And if we do not believe in the existence of morality, we cannot truly debate it. Perhaps a good question would be: If goodness does not come from a good God, and we have no other moral basis besides our own minds, how can we ever be sure at all what morality is? How can we ever be moral if we do not even know what it means?

A Word on Words

Words…

Words are fickle creatures

Sometimes they are friends

Sometimes they are weapons

Sometimes they help pretend

Words can be manipulated

And used for unjust gain

Words can hint at something else

And make us go insane

Words can build up structures

Words can brace our allies

Words have much more power

Than most men seem to realize

Words can be fictitious

Words can just tell lies

Words can turn you black and blue

Words can help you die

Words are also meaningless

When fallacies start to leak

Words can mean no more than breath

And that’s when words are weak

Words can just be letters

G b t and k

And when they’re put together

We have nothing real to say

But words are evil too

Words are sharpened swords

Words are arrows that the bow –

The tongue shoots till we’re gored

Words can help us heal

They can be just breath

They can also be the rope

That strangles you to death

Words, even in their weakness

Of spewing off misconceptions

Can still be strong enough to hurt

Those with misdirection

When words are used repeatedly

Even if they seem incorrect   

Will over time take the mind

And diabolically redirect

Even lies can chant in our heads

Like permanent mental canticles

These lies tie knots around our souls

Clenching us in emotional manacles

Words are wicked and wonderful

Words are like hunger and thirst

They can give a man sustenance when he needs

But fill a full man and he bursts

Words can be handled like people

Words can be twisted and useful

And with the words that make up this poem

I've shown you that this is truthful

Words can be honey and wine

They can encourage us when we hear it

But words can also be poison

That torments and sickens our spirit

Words can become habitual

Which is foolish, if you consider

A soldier thinks before he fires his weapon

But we don’t, even when we’re bitter

If words were not natural to us

Maybe we would see their price

Maybe if we paid for every word

Insensitive Gossip wouldn't be a vice

Words are not simply creatures

Sometimes tameness cannot be learned

Some words have no way to be lucid

Play with fire, and you will be burned

The mind is the wicked general

Words are the enemy’s encampment

The mind is the diabolical curse

And words are the evil enchantment

If snakes are known for their venom

And snakes are known for their curves

Add the curviest letter – an S –                                               

And I've shown you the power of WORDS.

0--|=========>

The Root of Pain

     There is not a special place in hell for people who commit suicide. In fact, it would seem that Christians have more of a reason to do so than most; we know where we are going, we know that we are pardoned of all mistakes, and whatever heaven is like is certain to outshine this life and all its hideous pain.

     The problem we have is that even Christians sometimes wonder where our place is. Spiritual awareness does not always mean you have spiritual understanding. Life gets hard and we begin to question what was meant to go unquestioned. We ask ourselves what is the purpose of life, even though we of all people should know the answer.

     When pain momentarily blinds us, we begin to doubt the very fiber of our spirituality. Our faith is replaced with "I know, but-" and we all become like Thomas. We hear that Jesus is among us, but we will not believe it unless we can touch him. 

     Sometimes it is in these times of absolute aloneness when we are filled with greatest agony that God becomes most real to us. Perhaps it is these times when we feel the most alone that He is nearest. Perhaps His presumed absence is to help us appreciate and treasure His presence. Christians might have "reasons" to commit suicide, but His hand is always there to prevent it.

     When we blame life for our pain, it is a misconception. Life is not the source of our pain, but rather it is the recipient. The source of pain is the world and all the evil people just like us that live in it. Life is not only our interaction with this evil and the reception of all the inevitable pain, but it is our reaction to that pain mentally, physically, and spiritually. The world and the people are evil; life is the result of that and how we deal with it.

     To say everyone has a terrible life is not only a misconstrued idea, but it is a logical flaw. Everyone lives in a terrible world, everyone is part of the sin curse, and we all share in the evil. But not everyone has a terrible life. Everyone is given different measures of pain, but Life is only our reaction to that. If our life is terrible, it is therefore mostly our doing.

     Desiring to end this life because it is terrible is not only evil, but it is also fallacious. We can only end our own life; and what we know of as "life" – our interaction with and reception of pain – is severed, but the cause of pain still remains. Our spark of life, with all its evil and all our errors still has hope and light for others. This hopeful light is what is snuffed out by suicide, not the pain.

     Since pain is from the world, instead of ending our pain, suicide actually adds to pain's root. Every time we do evil, we add to the sin curse and we create out of our momentary bliss our child: Pain.

     Suicide does not bring escape, for there is nothing to escape from. Our interaction and reception of pain is not one-sided. We have the chance and responsibility to respond. Our lives are beautiful because they are defiance of this overbearing pain. Our lives are beautiful because they are tenacious refusals to allow sin, death, hurt, and pain the victory over a battle we have already won. Our lives are beautiful because this painful stance we take gives us and others hope. Your Life is beautiful because you are the only human who has a say in how it plays out. Others may influence and bend it, but you alone make the final decision of how to live each day.

     Every breath we take is a spit in the face of pain, a proclamation that we will not be vanquished, and it is a source of hope and light for others who are surrounded by darkness. What dictates whether our lives are terrible or beautiful does not depend on what hand we are dealt, but rather how we play our cards. Despite the heaviest pain and most smothering depression, it can still be a fulfilling, beautiful life. A horrible lump of clay is given to us; we decide what shape it takes. We are all artists, after all. 

The Corruption of Tolerance

          Many people ask one another what the greatest moral issue is in America. They get in arguments and debates until a few radicals – activists for narrow-mindedness – pull out their individual beliefs and religions, and hold them like guns to each other’s heads. Swiftly the mainstream of society jumps into the center of the fray, screaming for tolerance. “You are no longer allowed to stand up for your beliefs,” society seems to advocate. Suddenly the pill of “tolerance” is force-fed to children in schools, and to parents at home or work. Because of a few radicals, all ideals are silenced. The only respectable belief is one that challenges no one else’s. In other words, the only respectable belief is none at all. In asking the question of what is the greatest moral issue, the answer seems to present itself: perhaps the greatest moral issue is tolerance, for it breeds indifference, and indifference, apathy.

          Tolerance sounds beautiful. It suggests that all religions and beliefs can coexist peacefully and respectfully. It preaches that everyone should be open-minded, and most importantly that no one should ever force a religion or ideology upon another person. The problem with this ideology is that it is often forced upon everyone the moment they engage someone of a deviating belief. In fear of conflict, tolerance is shoved upon just about everyone by society at large. What the word “tolerance” means, and what is expected of many people is quite different. While the traditional sense of the word suggests that we simply tolerate and respect other ideas and beliefs, what it now seems to mean is that society will no longer tolerate us unless we conform to its tolerant image.

          One of the problems this forced “tolerance” causes is indifference. The radical believers and philosophical advocates are the ones who forced the “tolerant” hand, yet they are the only ones who seem to be unaffected by its power and sway. The people who are affected the most by the tolerance movement are those who dislike conflict and disunity; in other words, nearly everyone. We hear the beautiful-sounding tolerance ideal, and we swallow it eagerly. Suddenly everyone is afraid of speaking up for their beliefs, in fear that people around them will label them “intolerant.” Tolerance becomes the only belief that is tolerated, but it is a shallow belief. It silences discussions that are essential for intellectual development and analytical contemplations of reality. It keeps people from sharing ideas that might upset others. Those who are “intellectual cowards” strongly advocate the tolerance movement because it protects them from intelligent engagement. They can label people “intolerant bigots” and it protects them from having to challenge or refute an idea. But what is the purpose of deep-thinking if there is no one to test it against? Eventually, we become indifferent to anything that might upset other people, and we go from “tolerant” to something called “acceptant.”

          Acceptance is a step beyond tolerance in that we not only allow others of a different worldview and mindset common respect, but we adopt their ideas and decide to believe them. Acceptance is different from tolerance, for tolerance requires differing opinions, while acceptance blurs out any distinctions. We decide that since we cannot really debate new, deep ideas, or discuss the possible fallacies of old ones, we will simply accept everything as a possibility. We could say we stand for everything, but our “possible beliefs” are so conflicting, that in reality we stand for nothing. This acceptance of everything destroys our ideological zeal, until we no longer care about what is truly correct. By accepting everyone’s beliefs but our own, we have adopted an apathetic mentality that is destructive to our society, and to the entire world.

          Apathy kills countries. Apathy silences all but the most radically devoted believers, and holds the door for them while they manipulate and take control of the world. Apathy tells citizens not to vote for whom they believe is the right candidate. Unable to consult their moral compasses, those that do vote base their decisions on whomever can give them the most immediate material gain, for apathy breeds laziness. Laziness begs for everything to be free. Communism answers.

          In the midst of the apathetic masses, those few radicals who refuse to recant continue to wage wars of ideological propaganda, and because of their radical nature, they do it in the most intolerant ways. Churches picket funerals of soldiers, children shoot or stab fellow classmates, and hijackers turn our airliners into bullets and wrecking machines, slaughtering thousands of unsuspecting – and quite tolerant – people. Is tolerance the answer to intolerance? Or does it simply lull us all into a lazy, false sense of security while we are repeatedly deceived and destroyed?

          Conceivably, the greatest moral predicament in America is the tolerance movement, for it not only differs greatly from authentic tolerance, but it encourages the apathy of the temperate and destroys the very heart of morality. Originally referring to someone who stands for and upholds his or her beliefs, the word “morality” is now traded for words such as “bigot,” and “hateful.” While the tolerance movement hypocritically forces their twisted version of tolerance upon those who oppose them, cruelly labels the devout and spreads intellectual cowardice and apathy, the word “morality” appears to lose its meaning altogether. When tolerance gives birth to acceptance, we allow this destruction of morality, because we accept it. Perhaps the greatest question to ask ourselves is this: If tolerance is the enemy, can it be toppled? Or could it be that upsetting this ideal is not, in fact, to be tolerated?

Irresponsibility and Logical Consistency

          There is much cognitive unconformity in our country, and it weighs heavily on the minds of the intellectual. To try to smooth out the ideological wrinkles in today’s society is a harrowing task, and it often lands us in a state of mental frustration, for no matter how well we can rearrange the tangled mess of differing and combating worldviews and analyze them subjectively and critically, there often remains an underlying fallacious cesspool of contradictions. When we arrive at a state of moderate understanding of the cause of this effect, we may see that the core of most issues in America – including ideological contradiction – is the pervasive lack of responsibility, which is manifested in our government and in personal beliefs, and is reflected in the resulting society that is created.

          It is most probable that irresponsibility begins at a completely physical, fleshly level. It usually comes from poor parenting and then grows in the young child, so that by the time the child is older and thinking for his- or herself, they have been instilled with the idea that they are entitled to whatever they want at whatever cost. In fear of social distaste, parents have been known to shush their children in public instead of openly disciplining them, have principals change their children’s grade to a passing one if they fail an important test, and keep other adults from rebuking their children too. In fear of other adults looking down on them for having undisciplined, out-of-control children, the parents will subconsciously make the fear a reality by failing raise their children to learn to take responsibility for their actions. By the time they are older, the idea that they can do whatever they want and get away with it will be cemented deep within them, for they have done so their entire childhood, and it has become their way of life.

          Eventually this idea spreads out into different regions of the person, until the irresponsibility is not only physical but it is spiritual as well. Religions that suggest judgment for immoral behavior are shunned, for to assume such beliefs would force the person to take responsibility for their actions. New beliefs are invented to suite their desires, for they indeed have itching ears. Those who are unfamiliar with religion will be repulsed by it and build their own religions to make man the god. They say they are atheists for they do not believe that god exists, but unfortunately they are misinformed as to what “god” means. In truth, they have made themselves gods, and they worship themselves on a daily basis. They are filled with a selfish idea of freedom which unrealistically demands all of the benefits of “freedom,” but ignores the heavy cost, for freedom is never free. They put a new name on hedonism, and they call it “Evolution.” They use this theory to crown themselves kings of their “own” realm, pretending with all their might that this world was not created. They are forced to shut their eyes tightly to the obvious majesty of Creation lest they see the truth and be forced to turn to a God who demands justice for their immorality. Since they are forced to accept the implausible in order to support the immoral, it gives birth to a whole new level of negligence: intellectual irresponsibility.

          Because their way of living demands blindness in order to function, their way of thinking must demand the same thing; this creates incredibly fallacious attitudes in society. They begin to adopt new customs, and take offense at anything moral. They use this “offensive” morality to excuse the irrationally “inoffensive” immorality. They begin to take pride in their sins, and pretend that their biblically unacceptable ways of living are not harming anyone. People who are hurt or alarmed by the growth of sin, and stand uprightly for the morally just are called “hateful bigots.” The intellectual irresponsibility creates an illogical laziness and foolishness in which the only reliable means of debate is childish name-calling and hypocritical labelling.

          This intellectual laziness breeds hypocrisy by fostering an acceptance of fallacious arguments out of convenience to support new movements, which eventually end up contradicting their own claims. For example, “independent” feminists insist on complete self-reliance, and then the very same people are heard complaining about the lack of chivalry in the world, not understanding how they are the very ones who exterminated it. Men who were raised to treat women with honor are not always ready for a woman who disdains or turns her nose up at the hand of respectful courtesy he offers to her. Many unsuspecting men are easily discouraged from trying to polish pearls that claim to be rocks. This illogical demand for chivalry then scorn when it appears is just one example of the illogical thought-processes caused by irresponsible intellectuals.

          Another example would be evolutionist lawmakers who spend unfathomable amounts of resources on American schooling, forcing all children to learn explicitly evolutionist-slanted propaganda. The very same people often are the ones with the audacity to call Christians “intolerant, hateful bigots” for “forcing” our beliefs on others, usually when we are merely standing up for our own. Christians and other religious peoples are required to be “tolerant” of Evolutionists teaching their beliefs to our children, but they are intolerant of us sharing our beliefs with them. This double standard is almost unthinkable, which suggests a consensually intellectual blindness. This thoughtlessness is perhaps the result of irresponsibility of thought, by irrationally and desperately struggling to maintain a lifestyle in which there is absolute entitlement and an absolute lack of responsibility. Perhaps the logical fallacies of society’s “best” could all begin in the stores with the indiscipline of our children.  

Serial Painters

     Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were all on display? If we were all forced to compete in a never-ending contest and we had no say in what was being judged about us? Wouldn’t it be terrible if there were an impossibly high standard to reach, a picture of perfection, even if no one had control over meeting this standard? If we were hated and demeaned every time we failed to reach this standard?

     Wouldn’t it be terrible if the judge were an artist, and every time he judged, he took his brush and painted us a picture of how awful we look, comparing us to the standard of perfection, highlighting our supposed flaws, and exaggerating them like a caricature? If the artist gave us the picture he had painted, told us to pin it to our chests like a derogatory sign? If we had to carry this sign with us wherever we went, and every time we looked in the mirror, instead of our faces, we just saw the hideously cruel painting? Wouldn’t it be terrible?

     Wouldn’t it be horrible if the painter began targeting children? If he took his brush and smeared gaudy strokes on his canvas, until he had fabricated an image of humiliation for the child to wear? Wouldn’t it be horrible if other children stapled the image to the child’s chest, ensuring it never fell away, mocking his every awkward step, ungainly appearance, unsightly birthmark? If they attacked and sneered at his shortness and physical weakness, or laughed at her late-blossoming womanhood? If they kicked down the smaller and weaker, with every kick adding a stroke or smear to the dirty, ugly painting? Wouldn’t it be horrible?

     Wouldn’t it be ghastly if the painter went after young women? If he dipped his cruel brush into his horrid ink, and streaked up his punishing canvas an image of ugliness for the young woman to wear? Wouldn’t it be ghastly if the painter told her she was fat, awkward, and ugly? If he communicated through his twisted masterpiece complete disgust and revulsion at her inability to match the image of perfection, and how perfectly worthless she was for it? What if she started believing it? Wouldn’t it be ghastly if other women grabbed their own brushes too? If they drew attention away from their own terrible canvases by smearing mud and hate on the loathsome paintings of others? Wouldn’t it be ghastly if they laughed and mocked and hated, with each sneer and jibe adding an ugly array of bruise-like blotches to the young woman’s mauled and mangled painting? What if she couldn’t see her beauty? What if when she looked in the mirror, the painting hid her loveliness? If she forgot who she truly was because of whom she was afraid of being? If she was afraid of being herself, because the painter told her that only the ones that match the Perfect Canvas are beautiful? If she believed his lies, what then? Would it not be ghastly?

     Wouldn’t it be evil if the painter directed his venom toward emotional men? If he sloshed some paint across the canvas, streaking and smearing with furious hatred, manufacturing an image of weakness? Wouldn’t it be evil if he told sensitive men that they were not truly men if they shed any tears? That experiencing emotional pain was detrimental to becoming a man, and showing emotion earned a “man up!” Wouldn’t it be evil if these emotional men were forced to wear a canvas, a sign that said “I am not a man”? If, in the shadow of their canvases, they accepted the lie that they were weak, childish, and pathetic, wouldn’t it be evil?

     Wouldn’t it be terrible if we recognized the truth? If we understood that we are the painters, we are the serial killers of society. If our words were our hateful paintings, and our tongues the diabolical brushes? If our standards of bravery, beauty, and manliness were just a Perfect Canvas, and our judgmental comparisons were our smears of permanent hatred? Wouldn’t it be evil if our society was homicidal? If children destroyed each other, young women destroyed each other, and grown men destroyed each other? If our words caused men, women, and children to look in the mirror with loathing and see only our evil pictures of something they are not? Wouldn’t it be terrible, ghastly, and evil if these things were real, if they were true, and if you and I were serial killing painters of hatred?

No it would not be.

For it already is. 

Freedom is Slavery

     Freedom, like many other topics, does not rest in the physical alone, but rather it is also richly alive in the emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects of our person. These aspects shape our view of the word, and greatly change its meaning depending on our focus; if we are referring to the emotional aspect, freedom could mean, for example, being able to love whom we will. On the other hand, if we are referring to intellectual freedom, it could conceivably mean we have simply arrived at a state of inner mental peace. Though everyone has a different idea of what the word “freedom” means, they are often mistakenly thinking of the opposite, especially in the case of physical and spiritual freedom.

     Freedom is not free. To establish liberty from any sort of oppression requires liberation – a typically lethal emancipation, quite often through the death of those who desire it the most and fight for it the hardest. The price of freedom is often paid for in human lives, and consumers of freedom do not generally appreciate the sacrifice that has been made to ensure that it yet lives. Freedom does not mean that everything is free, but rather that there is recognition and payment of the enormous and costly price.

     Physical freedom does not mean everyone can do as he or she pleases, because freedom requires a balance. To remove restrictions on society would upset the balance, until eventually freedom would belong to only the most powerful or resourceful people. If one man’s freedom interferes with another man’s, it is no longer freedom, but rather it is oppression; it is the beginning of a terrible struggle for ever-changing power which is never wholly attainable.

     Freedom is not safety. Freedom is not feeling comfortable and stable; indeed, those feelings are only indications of a false reality, for the world is neither comfortable nor stable. Rather, freedom is acknowledging the instability of reality, and making prudent preparation for an unstable future; indeed, the moment we cherish our safety above all else is the moment we lose our freedom. If we want to surround ourselves with walls, we must remember this: walls do not simply keep evil out, but they also keep the innocent in; when we allow or give another entity the job of protecting us, we also give that entity our liberty, for we have surrendered to them our power. The balance is skewed, and freedom is destroyed. To allow an almighty hand to surround us is to admit our complete trust and utter slavery in that being or power.

     At a physical level, freedom is hard to achieve, and harder to hold onto, for when we have been pampered and spoiled by the pleasure freedom affords us, we forget the cost and are pacified into a false sense of security. We are so coddled by our safety and comfort that we would give up our freedoms to maintain that sense of well-being, not understanding that as soon as we lose our freedoms, we will not have the power to retain our former luxuries, and will be at the mercy of whoever is providing our security. In desiring the comfort of safety, we would trade the freedoms that bring us that comfort in the first place, and in the process we lose both.

     Physical freedom is quite different than spiritual freedom, but the former aids us in understanding the latter. Indeed, without physicality, we would never arrive at a proper understanding of any spiritual concepts, for we are physically-oriented beings with an inherent spiritual ignorance. Therefore, it is unsurprising when we see physical reflections of spirituality in many facets of our lives, including the concept of freedom.

     Spiritual freedom is similar to physical freedom in that it is not free: it comes with a monumental price. The greatest difference being perhaps that the price has already been paid, and we are expected to make use of this great sacrifice, lest it be in vain.

     Spiritual freedom is challenging in demand, but fulfilling in reward. It demands the complete abstinence of immorality in order to find a unity with a Just God, all the while recognizing the inability of sinful humans to achieve a complete abstinence. Spiritual freedom is irrationally fulfilling, because it is a reward of absolute excellence granted to those who could never deserve it, only attainable due to the incalculable sacrifice on the part of the reward-Giver. It is beautiful madness, conceived by the Creator of the World – a type of magnificent madness that we refer to as “Love.” Spiritual freedom is the reward given to the dirtiest, ugliest, poorest, evilest, and most unworthy, by means of a sacrifice made by The Most High, whose only reward is the appreciation of the aforementioned who could never fully appreciate it. It is unfair, illogical, irrational, unreasonable, and perfectly, wonderfully free for We the Filthy who were/are so evil we required the Great Sacrifice to take place.

     The most illogical and unreasonable in this situation, however, is not the God who made such an incalculable sacrifice for the incredibly undeserving, but rather it is the undeserving who does not accept the free reward that comes as a result. This is perhaps the epitome of irrationality, and it defeats any arguments against God’s aptitude to govern the World, for we have only proven by discarding unearned, everlasting, priceless gold that we are far more intellectually inept than any other being, especially the Creator of the Universe.

     Perhaps the most complex aspect of freedom of any sort is that we must refer to it in an abstract and relative manner, for absolute freedom paradoxically does not truly exist. To become free entirely of one entity requires servitude to another: to maintain civil freedoms, one must become subject to the laws, otherwise all rights would dissolve. In a similar manner, to become spiritually free of sin and our fleshy selves, we must become slaves or servants to God, Who then grants us liberation. We must choose, therefore, which bondage is more eternally beneficial, and which is more detrimental in the end; we must choose which freedom is closest to the unattainable absolute, and which freedom contradicts itself the least.

     But we do have a choice, and perhaps this is freedom: to choose our own masters, to choose our enslavers, to decide to whom we give our chains and to whom we refuse ownership. Perhaps true freedom is just choice slavery.