larger view

Man can know objective truth in science, in mathematics, and even history. If we can find objective truth with evidence in these fields, can mankind know the objective truth about evil?

This blog came about as a discussion between me and some other posters on the nature of evil. I believe that evil can be known, that evil exists in some actions and intents, and that any supposed relatively concerning evil is denying nature's laws.

To me, what makes something evil is when something takes away life unaturally, or at times when something is used against its purpose: for instance, medicine is used to heal, but when medicine is used to take away life, it no longer serves its purpose and becomes an evil action. These aren't the only points, but the major ones.

Others offer that no actions or set of beliefs are evil- it's all an opinion of the individual or the society. For instance, one poster proposes that rape is not evil, because some cultures viewed it as the status quo. Rape, along with its physical, mental, and emotional violations is not evil if one's opinion says so.

According to this line of thinking, there are no intrinsically (by nature) evil actions.

I see this as moral relativity run amock.

This system of thinking makes jibberish of the legal system, as one's opinion of evil could differ from one lawyer, judge, and criminal to the next.

What would nature and nature's laws give us to think about this? Nature is at its best when it is alive, and healthy.  Rape takes away from one's mental and emotional health, I say, even if your culture tries to say it's okay. Who are we trying to fool here? 

Ask a little girl if she liked being raped, even if her culture allows it. Ask girls in Africa if they liked having their genitals mutilated even when there culture says it's the thing to do. 

What about a dose of common sense and reality?

Rape can kill the one being raped (and the raper as well). Transmission of HIV can occur, or violent sex can kill, not to mention irate mothers, fathers, and siblings outraged at the "neutral" action.

Can societies evolve, so that what they once thought was okay- rape, slavery, they arrive at a heightened sense of morality or consciousness and change their laws to reflect their new conclusions? 

I think it's certainly true that societies regress, as the U.S. now okays abortion up to the moment of birth. This wasn't legal before 1972. Did human nature change?  IMO, just because something is a law, it doesn't mean it's a just law.

 I do want to say that these are my thoughts on the subject, and I have in no way studied this definitively, but I am about exploring ideas.

larger view

Great news on the pro-life front recently, as the last abortion clinic in the entire state of South Dakota closed its doors after a new law came into effect which calls for the patient to be informed of the humanity of the child and possible side affects of the abortion. Here is the article from Lifesitenews.com:

"Last Abortion Clinic in South Dakota Closes after Law Requires Patients be Informed of Possible Side Effects

SIOUX FALLS, SD, July 24, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Monday, July 21, eight women arrived at the Planned Parenthood office in Sioux Falls in South Dakota for abortions, but were instead met with locked doors and a hand-written note indicating the only abortion clinic in South Dakota was closed.

Planned Parenthood closed its doors after their abortionists, who are flown in from other states, refused to work under the new law that went into effect last Friday. The law orders abortionists to inform patients of the humanity of their babies and that the procedure could affect their mental health two hours before the abortion is set to be performed. The law also provides that abortionists can be sued if they do not comply.

This law was the brain-child of attorney Harold Cassidy and passed with the help of determined pro-life leaders Dr. Alan and Leslee Unruh, who pushed for the regulation in the face of opposition, even from some in the pro-life movement. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for the law's enactment last week.

It remains unclear if the Planned Parenthood office has permanently ceased the practice of abortion. However, several women who were scheduled for abortions this week went to a pro-life center instead, where some have reportedly changed their minds about having abortions.

'The closing of this clinic is historic in that South Dakota is, for the time being, the first abortion-free state,' said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. 'It didn't take the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and it didn't take a new President or a new Supreme Court. It took the courageous determination of pro-life heroes like Mr. Cassidy and the Unruhs who saw an opportunity to save lives and pressed on until their dream became victory.'

'We applaud their efforts and encourage other states to emulate their campaign,' said Newman.

The Unruhs are currently involved in the Vote Yes For Life Campaign, which would effectively ban abortions in South Dakota, putting the finishing nail in the coffin of the abortion industry there.

Text of the new law and links to the court decision can be found at http://www.voteyesforlife.c...>http://www.voteyesforlife.c..."

larger view

Many a discussion on Christian history centers around the Crusades, which began in 1095.

It has been customary to describe the Crusades as eight in number:

• the first, 1095-1101;
• the second, headed by Louis VII, 1145-47;
• the third, conducted by Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, 1188-92;
• the fourth, during which Constantinople was taken, 1204;
• the fifth, which included the conquest of Damietta, 1217;
• the sixth, in which Frederick II took part (1228-29); also Thibaud de Champagne and Richard of Cornwall (1239);
• the seventh, led by St. Louis, 1249-52;
• the eighth, also under St. Louis, 1270.

This division is arbitrary and excludes many important expeditions, among them those of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In reality the Crusades continued until the end of the seventeenth century, the crusade of Lepanto occurring in 1571, that of Hungary in 1664, and the crusade of the Duke of Burgundy to Candia, in 1669. (New Advent.org [see Crusades]).

 Why did the Christian armies feel a need to pack up and fight the Muslims a continent away?  Some would say that it all had to do with the greed of the popes and gaining land for an empire, while others proffer that keeping the Holy Land open for Christian pilgrims and defending the Christian lives in Jerusalem was the original idea. From my point of view, the Crusades started out defensive in nature, but some over time, horrendous deeds were committed along the way. All of this gives a portrayal of the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Crusades.

(Information for this blog is taken primarily from Patrick Madrid’s book, Pope Fiction, 1999, from the chapter “The popes and the Crusades.”)

Since the beginning of the 4^th century, pilgrims made their way from Europe to the Holy Land.  I think it’s clear that some Christians do feel a need to keep a certain contact with their religious roots and the places where God made Man walked.

All went relatively well between Christians and Moslems until the beginning of the 11^th century with the Caliph of Egypt, Al Hakem, who ordered the destruction of the Holy Sepulcher (where Jesus was buried) and the removal of the Christian presence from Jerusalem in 1009 a.d.  (The Crusades  London: Secker & Warburg, 1960  by Regine Pernoud, p. 15 as quoted by Madrid.) 

From that point on, persecution of Christians (both residents and pilgrims) was almost constant. In 1071 the Seldjuk Turks overran and captured Jerusalem. (Pernoud, pp. 16-17.)

“After being heroically patient in the face of this Muslim onslaught and hoping for a peaceful solution, Pope Urban II could finally take no more of this unacceptable mistreatment of Christians in Palestine. In 1095 he ordered the first Crusade, for the protection of all Christians in the Holy Land.” p. 192

From all over Europe the armies of Christian crusaders marched upon Jerusalem.  After a number of battles, the Crusaders conquered the Muslim defenders of Jerusalem on July 15, 1099. However, upon entering the city, the Christian invaders killed every inhabitant they could find. This was a horrible atrocity, and is unexcusable. Author Patrick Madrid states of these horrendous acts: “This kind of atrocity, committed by Catholics in the name of Christ and the Catholic Church, is a sin that the Church deeply regrets and apologizes for.  Pope John Paul II has repeatedly asked forgiveness in the name of the Catholic Church for crimes, like this one, committed by Catholics in the name of the Faith.”  p. 192

Although after this Crusade pilgrims were free to travel to Jerusalem and the Christian residents of the area were safe from Islamic oppression.  Sadly, though the Crusades had begun with a noble idea, over time the Crusaders forgot why they had started the mission in the first place. The sack of Constantinople in 1204 by Catholic armies, with the money being split between the armies of the Venetians is another ugly chapter.  Again, the author, Madrid states: “Catholics should never attempt to deny or sweep under the rug the fact that this and similar sins have been committed by Catholics in the name of the Church.  Rather, as a genuine step toward reunion with our Orthodox brethren, we should recognize and grieve with them over these wicked acts, and then seek forgiveness to heal these old wounds in a spirit of fraternal repentance and forgiveness.” p. 193

Patrick Madrid states that a few points about the Crusades need to be made. First, the original intent of the Crusades was the protection of pilgrims and the Christians in the Holy Land.  The Muslims were the initiators of the violence back with the Caliph Al Hakem.  In this way, the Crusades were defensive in nature. Also, one can see that the warfare in the East weakened the Muslim armies significantly, preventing them from an inevitable invasion of the West, that did come at Lepanto, Otranto, and the siege of Vienna. Had these invasions been successful and long-lasting, Western culture would have been exterminated and most of the freedoms we have now we would not know. I as a woman would certainly not enjoy the freedoms I do. I see this as the good.

Yet, there is plenty of the bad and the ugly.  Personal vendettas by the Catholic commanders and individuals were pursued, and greed often held sway.  Also, according to Madrid, the rage and insanity of warfare gave way to some truly grotesque acts of brutality- which are absolutely inexcusable for Christians.

History is incredibly important, and we learn lessons from past mistakes or we will repeat those errors.