I say thank goodness for constants. Thank God the sun rises every day and sets every evening. Thank God gravity stays constant and the moon's gravitational pull still changes our tides. Without constants we would literally die. Literally die you say? Isn't that a little melodramatic you say? Well, let's take a single constant and analyse its impact (that we take for granted) and discuss this statement.
First, I'm not a scientist, however I have a pretty solid grasp of some solid principles of science, like Newton's laws etc, but my examination using what I know of science is not for a scientific viewpoint, but rather for the sake of logic and reasoning. Now to return to my last dramatic statement about dying, let's discuss the sun and its rising and setting and bees and how they affect our potentially dying. Bees only operate in daylight. Bee keepers will tell you that the bees that facilitate pollination, live for 3 months in winter and around 3 weeks in summer. Their workforce and social structure is extremely fine tuned and efficient.
If the sun never rose, that is to say the earth stood still, our diligent bee friends would not work, and so no pollination would happen. Ah but we have livestock and fish from fish farms that we have grown that we could consume you say. Sure. What do you think they all get fed with? Fish farming yields 1kg of fish meat for every kg of feed. That's quite efficient, and way more efficient than the meat to feed ratio involved with livestock but, still whether fish or other meat, we need feed and that means we need the bees. So if good old Sol the sun doesn't rise constantly as we know he has done, we could be in for a nasty surprise. So argue if you wish, but we NEED constancy.
Now why all the going on about constancy you may ask, and why the title the slipping anchor? Because like so many earlier civilizations when there is an absence of a moral compass that civilization dies.
It has been my observation that in today's day and age nobody wants to consistently take responsibility for any single action, because with a fixed constant stance comes friction or conviction.
The world has lost its moral compass.
I have noted that people want to change their disposition whenever it suits them, so they can always be assured of the path of least resistance and either avoid any friction or the backbone it takes to stand by one's conviction. And I notice this is where a lot of so called "post modern" thinking comes in.
Post modern thinking or attitudes say what's good for you isn't necessarily good for me. It's I feel a flawed point of view in my opinion, but I'll elaborate on that more later. This post modern excuse routine could be construed as abject laziness to engage on an issue or just attempt to rationalize a bad attitude or misdirect a dysfunctional disposition.
Oooooh, rationalize a dysfunctional disposition!??!? That last one probably really rocked your boat. There are plenty of people in this world that you dear reader, will rub shoulders with every day and if you have dealings with lots of people every day and you just watch them, you'll soon find a lot of dysfunctional, broken people.
Dr M Scott Peck in his book "people of the lie" presents a solid basis for diagnosing evil. In essence the book offers an insight for recognizing and hopefully healing human evil. At the core of Dr Peck's suggestion is this, that narcissism is the root of many evils. The narcissist loves themself so much, it is almost inconceivable for them to recognize fault with themself or to accept such a fault pointed out to them by somebody else. This observation I have come to see as critical in correctly understanding many abnormal circumstances. The liberalists, like narcissists, don't like hard fixed stances because they often are not able to maintain the standards and so they want exemption from the rules, or can't bear to think that they are wrong.
As for "the slipping anchor" or absence of moral compass today that I referred to earlier, when you consider the great diversity of ideas and opinions people have, there is a tremendous potential for more and more social erosion. Not erosion of "traditional" values but let's say collectively agreed social norms.
Because the thing is as soon as I say MORAL values, the friction becomes even more severe and nasty, because the initial moral values pretty much come from Judeo-Christian biblical values and a lot of people particularly don't like Christian biblical values because they like to think that they, man, are inherently good, and we arent (see my previous blog discussions on humanism). With having Christian biblical values you need conviction to stand by them. And with conviction comes friction! Friction in the form of Christians getting called bigoted fundamentalists. Be aware it's no picnic it to submit to biblical moral values and therefore the strong repulsion to those values ("wide is the easy road...."). It's much easier to live like those values don't exist or just to pretend to ignore them.
What most don't get is, Christians aren't perfect, but we're forgiven and we're trying to live in a relationship with a God who loves us and is deeply interested in daily relationship with us. And so we try live in a way that pleases him whilst trying to introduce others to a righteous but forgiving God. It's tough to everyday ditch our bad human nature because human nature is inherently narcissistic. We think we're good but we really aren't, so just know Christians have life just as tough if not tougher than non-Christians.
So what about the moral decay? Moral decay and the slipping anchor is a BIG problem in my humble opinion because, simply put, in all the letting slide of values, at some point people will become more and more deeply unhappy depending on how they have lost as result of these values and the world will descend into total anarchy and chaos. So why am I writing this?
To provoke you the reader into considering that perhaps the world needs to curb the ever expanding moral slide and regain some constancy. Why? You ask. Well, consider this. Cannibalism, pedophiles and infant rape. In all our modern societies these things are currently unacceptable.
What If tomorrow pedophiles became accepted following a scientific publication saying that they are biologically and genetically different, yet a set of humanity and therefore not unnatural and so paedophilia should not be considered illegal. And what if following this publication, pedophiles cannot then be considered criminals any more, they say.
What if then the lives and innocence of countless thousands and hundreds of thousands of children are stolen from them and the beauty and purity of their youth lost forever, only to be told 20 years later with new scientific research that the former research on pedophiles was totally wrong? Then what? Those liberalists and others who scorned the Christian or moral stance, are effectively the continuous movers of the moral goalposts, and the slipping anchor cause, singularly, squarely and solely to blame.
The funny part is here that they, the movers of the goalposts so to speak, will attempt to justify this horrible failure of fabricated flawed human morals(and they will always fail) by saying "you can't blame us because we believe differently to you" and "I was just trying to keep everybody happy" and "what works for you doesn't necessarily work for me, that's why.... ".
Two things here. First, right there they have just shot themselves in the foot because all their clever invented human reasonings and defenses lack one critical thing. The same thing they have rallied against and cited as their reason for wanting to be exempt from the rules is what nails them in the end. They have no constancy. Secondly their reasoning and excuses want to claim that they are special and therefore excused but in actual fact, we all die, and that's how God made us all equal and subject to the same rules. Death is the big equalizer.
I would suggest to you the old addage " if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is probably the best approach with regards to taking a Christian based moral approach to our world. After all, in a binary world, one inextricably fused with constancy in its very nature, is it not absolute foolishness to think that you can conceive better rules for a world you are still constantly discovering, than the rules handed to us by the world's creator? I know whose judgement I trust.....not mine.
So I want to suggest we adopt a strong, fixed moral standpoint but one that we temper not with bending the rules but rather with wisdom and compassion.
An example would be corporal punishment, nowadays a subject quite controversial. The bible speaks of "spare the rod and spoil the child. "The occasional hiding may well work to correct a basically good child when he/she transgresses on the day when they have overstepped the bounds and the bounds need restating. However a child from a dysfunctional family where the only attention he gets is negative attention, could be a purposeful repeat offender for hidings, simply because it's the only attention he gets, and to him even negative attention (a hiding) is still attention. In such a case I believe, "you catch more flies with honey"........