Hey Christians (Yes members of the LDS Church too), Stop Passing Judgment on People, it's getting Old

I doubt that any of my friends have this opinion, being exposed to my news stream and blog and notes, but IF any of my Christian friends still think that Mormon's aren't Christian and ALSO feel justified in "judging" members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as going to hell for not believing in Christ I have a logic problem for you. This logic problem really applies any time anyone feels justified in passing "salvation judgment" upon others.

1) Jesus Christ said in Matthew 7:1; Judge not that ye be not judged.

Now this is serious stuff my friends. If you judge others as "not being Christian" you are taking one of the roles of God upon yourself, and one that He is very jealous of.

2) He says in Matthew 6:15; But if ye forgive men not their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

He is very serious about who is allowed to judge. This doesn't mean don't make decisions, and don't make good decisions, but it does mean that you and I have absolutely no right or ability to pass judgement on others' salvation.

3) In Matthew 7:2 he continues with: For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall also be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Do we really understand what is being said here? Honestly and completely? So here is the end of the logic problem:

1) If a person believes in their very heart and soul that they can decide who is and isn't a Christian and pass judgment upon the supposed non-Christian that they are going to hell

2) That person will be judged in that very same way by Christ, "for with what judgement ye judge, ye shall also be judged..."

In other words, be very careful before you try and tell others that they are going to hell, or that they are not Christian, because Christ is very clear about how He will deal with those that are so prideful as to believe that they can judge His children.

Suicide, Bravery, and the Categorical Imperative

Recently I read a blog post by Matt Walsh seen here; http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/there-is-nothing-brave-about-suicide/

It really got me thinking; is there anything brave about suicide?

I think back on cultures that have accepted suicide as a viable option. The first one that comes to mind is the Japanese form of Bushido, aka "the samurai way." Bushido code was a standard of living that the samurai had to live by. It was based in honor and loyalty. One rite within Bushido is seppuku. If a samurai were to lose his honor, the only way to regain that honor was to commit ritual suicide, or seppuku. A samurai could lose his honor through various means such as being defeated in battle, being mortally wounded, or allowing his master to be killed.

In other words, seppuku was a form of human sacrifice to appease the "god" of honor. Honor had been lost, and the only way to regain honor was through the human sacrifice of the dishonored.

In American culture I feel that there are mixed opinions on this idea of seppuku. While we glorify it in books and movies, we at the same time wholeheartedly reject it in practical application. If we didn't, then there are a few secret service operatives who would be on the chopping block right now (no that isn't meant to be funny, it's meant to state a fact. Those guys have dishonored themselves, their profession, and their commander-in-chief. If we actually embraced ritual suicide for dishonor, they would be top candidates).

So no, we don't embrace seppuku as an honorable form of suicide.

I'm reminded of the Kamikaze fighters during World War II. We feared them, we respected the damage they could do, but we dismissed them wholesale as ridiculous both strategically, and honorably. There is no honor in flying a plane into the side of a ship. There is no honor in becoming a human torpedo.

There are a few instances of "suicide" that seem to be appropriate even today, and those come in the form of intentional martyrdom, specifically martyrs who knew that they were going to die. I think of movies that depict men and women fighting honorably for a cause, and facing certain destruction they still fight on to the bitter end. I'm reminded of some of my favorite movies such as Gladiator, V for Vendetta, Armageddon, and The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. There are many more besides these, but the underlying idea behind all of these is dying for someone else. In every instance, those that die do so in pursuit of something greater than themselves. We accept these individuals as hero's and I personally feel that we are right in doing so.

In all of this, where does Brittany Maynard fit in? For those of you that don't know, Brittany Maynard is a woman who has chosen to take her own life in the face of extremely difficult circumstances. She has been diagnosed with a fatal form of cancer that would require extreme treatment for a very small chance of extending her life. She and her husband moved to Oregon because of its doctor assisted suicide laws, and she was prescribed a pill that she is planning on taking at the end of the month.

I was first apprised of this story by an article on Facebook by CNN. Throughout the article Brittany's decision was not treated as controversial; rather, she was shown as being a brave woman who is choosing to take control of how she is going to die. I read the comments about her and by and large there has been a positive response to her decision. When I say positive I don't mean comments like "I can't imagine going through what you are going through and respect your decision to take your own life" I mean "you are so brave for this, thank you."

Let me be clear with this statement; I am not trying to judge Brittany's decision to commit suicide. I am however questioning the logic behind stating that her decision to commit suicide is brave.

I think of all of the cultural ideals that we have about suicide. We repeat phrases like "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem" but of course that statement doesn't quite work for Brittany's situation does it-because her "problem" is anything but temporary.

Let's look at it another way. Where do we draw the line between bravery, and cowardice. If a father of a family becomes an alcoholic and makes some bad decisions then commits suicide instead of facing his problems and overcoming them, we consider it cowardice. I'll ask it again-when does suicide tip from being cowardice, to being noble and brave? Does a permanent medical condition suffice? For instance, I have a permanent foot defect. I will never be able to run, jump, swim, kick, or do anything else with my feet that anyone else can do, yet I would say that if I were to commit suicide because I will always struggle with my feet that people would not consider this to be noble. I am NOT comparing my condition with Brittany's, I'm trying to figure out where the line is drawn.

What about every other person out there that has been diagnosed with a permanent medical condition that will result in death. What about those diagnosed with MS? What about those as Matt Walsh spoke of who are diagnosed with a similar condition as Brittany's and choose to fight to the bitter end? Are they less noble? Is it possible to consider both of these brave, when they seem so diametrically opposed?

Let's go back to the earlier examples of "noble" suicide, the martyrs. In every instance of martyrdom that I can think of - those who fought knowing that they couldn't possibly win - they go down fighting. They fight to the bitter end. They never stop, until their last breath, because what they are fighting for is so vitally important.

Brittany isn't doing this. She isn't going down fighting.

She's giving up.

Now, she's giving up "on her own terms," but she's still giving up.

It reminds me of watching a basketball game where one team is very clearly beating the other, and you see defeat in the eyes of the losing team. They continue to play, but for all intents and purposes they have given up. I compare that basketball game with a team that is losing, they are simply outclassed, and there is no way that they could possibly win, but they play the entire game as if they could. They fight to the very end and play their very best. Ninety nine times out of a hundred these teams still lose, but they are more enjoyable to watch, they are truly brave. And then, once in every hundred, they win. We call them underdogs, and we love underdogs in our culture.

Brittany is not an underdog. If she takes this pill, she has no chance of possibly winning, and she has no chance of fighting to the very end. She just gives up. She's the basketball team that is losing, sees defeat, and gives up. I mean, imagine if all basketball teams, once they were behind by fifty points, just walked off the court.

This all boils down for me to one last principle; and that is the categorical imperative. Immanuel Kant proposed a standard of living that sounds similar to that of the "golden rule" aka do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I think of the categorical imperative as the golden rule on steroids. It goes like this: "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become universal law." Let me put it in other terms, do only those things that you would require everyone else to do. The idea behind the categorical imperative is that if everyone lived by these ideals, everyone would be better off. We would never steal, because if I steal, I would require everyone else to steal, even from me. We would never rape, because if I raped, I would require everyone else to rape, including rape me. These are extreme examples but if we as a species would live by the categorical imperative, we would always treat each other well.

So what does Brittany's decision mean for the categorical imperative? Well, by committing suicide because she is facing terminal brain cancer, she would be willing that everyone else commit suicide when facing terminal brain cancer. Now I ask you-if tomorrow every single person on the face of the earth that has a terminal form of cancer decided to commit suicide at the end of this month, would we applaud them as brave? Or would we call them something else?

That is the question that I really want to ask. That is what this boils down to. Is Brittany really brave for choosing death over life? I don't think so. I don't believe that she is being brave. I do believe that she has free will, and what she chooses with her own life is for her and her alone. I will say that her decision to commit suicide should not classified as brave. Not mentally, emotionally...not even logically.