What Good is the UN?

There is something that I have been thinking about for a while, ever since I was awakened from my apathetic attitude that world events are irrelevant to the current affairs of the US. I have been thinking about the United Nations and whether or not is of any good...? I do not mean to ask this question pithily but in a serious manner. What good is the UN?
Looking back through history, after World War I President Woodrow Wilson went to the Versailles and introduced his idea of the League of Nations. Wilson did get the League into the Treaty of Versailles but when Wilson brought the Treaty back to the US to be ratified the Congress shot him down (and there were many reasons why this was the case). As a result the League of Nations was formed but since the US was not a part of it, the League collapsed not long after the beginning of WWII. Thus after WWII and the rise of the USSR (and among other factors) the United Nations was formed. But ever since its conception has the UN really big force for good in the world? I do not think so. Now, I am not saying that the UN has not done anything worthwhile in its history, because that would be an utterly absurd assertion. However, my premise is that the US alone has done more good in the world than the UN.
Whenever the UN got involved in the Korean War, if it were not for the US, the UN would not have stopped North Korea from taking over South Korea because it took US military might to stop North Korea. Without the US, the UN would have been powerless in that conflict. Take the First Gulf War; if not for the US Saddam probably would not have been ousted from Kuwait. What about Kosovo? The UN had peace-keepers there but ethnic genocide was still occurring; Clinton sent in US troops, and now Kosovo has been extremely quiet. Remember Mogadishu? In that instance, the US had the power to stop the ethnic cleansing that was occurring but Clinton put us under the purview of the UN and UN put so many rules of engagement upon US forces we were ineffective, and many of us know how that turned out. The US pulled out two weeks after losing two Black Hawks and the UN mission collapsed not long after that. Now to more modern history. Whenever the tsunami hit Indonesia, it was the US who helped, not the UN. The UN sent some money to Indonesia but the US beat the UN's giving exponentially to point where Indonesia told US citizens to stop giving.
Look at the Iraq War; there were a number within the UN who did not want us to go into Iraq and take out Saddam, but what came to light is that many of those who were opposed to the invasion were getting millions from Saddam. Just research the "Oil-for-Food Scandal." So while the UN was busy passing resolutions that it would not enforce, Saddam was murdering thousands of his own people, and proof of this has been uncovered throughout Iraq in finding of dozens of mass graves. It was the US who took out Saddam while the UN sat idly by and did nothing, even when proof of genocide was right in front of their faces.
And now there is the issue of Israel. One of the first things that the UN did was to form the nation of Israel. Now look at the UN. Israel gets attacked by Hamas; UN the sides with Hamas. Iran has said that it wants to destroy Israel; UN sides with Iran. So the very nation that they helped form they have stabbed in the back.

So again I ask, "What good is the UN?" I think the UN is not worth very much.

A Lesson From Jonah

During my study through the minor prophets I just finished going through the book of Jonah. Many within our Western world know about the story of Jonah and how he was swallowed by the "Big fish" after he disobeyed God's order to go to the Assyrian capital city of Nineveh and preach a message of reconciliation to the people there. For the longest time I thought the reason why Jonah disobeyed God's command was that he was afraid and with good reason. Historically during this period in Israel's history, Assyria was Israel's most gravest of threats time before the rise of Babylon to dominance of the region, and was known for deploying brutal tactics in crushing their enemies. Some accounts in the Bible say that the Assyrians would decapitate the defeated and pile the heads in heaps on the battlefield. Therefore, if I were Jonah, I might too be extremely afraid to go to Nineveh. However, much of my surprise, fear was not the motivating factor for Jonah's disobedience; the cause was two fold, unforgiveness and his utter lack of compassion for the people of Nineveh.
After Jonah was vomited by the big fish he went to Nineveh, preached, and the people (for however brief of a time) turned to God. This is exactly what God wanted but it was not what Jonah wanted. Jonah got angry with God because He gave the Assyrians, Israel's enemy, a chance to repent instead of wiping them out. In Jonah 4:2-3, Jonah says,
"He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to due than to live."
Unfortunately we have no record of Jonah's statements before he tried to make it to Tarshish; the Bible only says that after God commanded Him to go to Nineveh, Jonah fled. So, what this Jonah real attitude or was he, as I had assumed for so long, just simply afraid to go? I believe the evidence from the story reveals that Jonah's attitude of unforgiveness and lack of compassion were his reasons. While fear may have played a role in his decision to flee from God, I believe these previously cited reasons played a major role in his disobedience.
After Jonah's first complaint, he went to a hill that overlooked Nineveh, built a "shelter" and waited to see what would happen to the city, i.e., would God destroy it and let it remain. Later on in the day God caused a vine to grow over Jonah providing him with shade to "...ease his discomfort" (Jonah 4:6), and this makes sense given that Nineveh was located in the middle of a desert and as we all know deserts get hot, especially around midday. However, the next morning, God "provided" a worm which came and,

...chewed the vine so that it withered. When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah's head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, "It would be better for me to die than to love."
But God said to Jonah, "Do you have a right to be angry about the vine?"
"I do," he said. "I am angry enough to die." (Jonah 4:7-8).

So for Jonah, I think he wanted Nineveh to fall because he believed (and perhaps even with warrant) that Nineveh deserved to fall given all of the evil things it had brought about upon Israel. God, however, had other plans; He wanted to give Nineveh a second chance, perhaps something they did not deserve. However, if God gave everyone what they deserved then none of us would be alive because our sins warrant death.
The lesson from Jonah I think is that whenever God does something which runs contrary to what we think needs to be done, live with it. Who can search the mind of God? Our vision is so shortsighted where God's is not. If God tells us to do something that we run contrary to our own attitudes, live with it.

A Response to My Critic

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."
--Proverbs 26:4

In my post "Did Obama Lie?", the debate within the "Comments" got interesting and there were a few exchanges that got extremely heated, in particular the exchanges between myself and an individual who identifies himself as "Nameless Cynic". After our last bout where I responded to his comment, Nameless Cynic did write a counterargument, but again resorted to ad hominem Furthermore, when I presented my arguments against Nameless Cynic will full logic notation showing how Nameless Cynic's arguments did not logically follow, unfortunately they did not actually address those arguments, not addressing the logical invalidity of their arguments, and again resorted to ad hominem attacks claiming at one point that I had posted my response while drunk (which is somehow supposed to discredit me and legitimize their arguments, which is again an ad hominem attack and an utterly baseless assumption). Therefore, I did not and have not posted any of Nameless Cynic's comments. The reason is as follows:

Whenever a particular individual resorts to ad hominem attacks instead of actually being civil, honorable, say have you, any hope of a rational and productive dialectical discussion evaporates. In which case any further argumentation, at least in my estimation, becomes fruitless and a waste of time. Therefore, I choose to ignore such individuals who resort to such tactics.

In a later comment Nameless Cynic claimed that my "philosophy is weak" because I have not posted his comments. Once again an ad hominem attack. Since I have found the debate fruitless, I have chosen not to give "battle", because ultimately the debate would be fruitless and a waste of my time, and the time of those who would be reading the comments. In my response, and I do not wish for this to be taken as hubris, I never once resorted to ad hominem attacks; unfortunately that was not reciprocated.
Such conventions do not only apply to Nameless Cynic, but to anyone who resorts to what I deem dishonorable tactics, such as using ad hominem attacks. If someone resorts to such tactics I will not post your comments, it is that simple. Is this a sign of 'weakness' as Nameless Cynic claims? Perhaps, but I would contend that walking away from a fruitless debate is more productive than pursuing an argument which in the end will go nowhere, particularly when that debate as resorted to ad hominems and baseless accusations in attempts to legitimize an argument.

Deficits (Again...)

This morning I was scanning through via news websites when I came across another article by Kevin Williamson at National Review Online entitled,

"Beyond Economics."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWVkN2JkYTExODM5MjIwNGU5MDA3MjA3OTkyNTBhMDA=

After reading through a few paragraphs I was completely stunned. Here is the opening paragraph: "One hopes Ben Bernanke and the Fed gang are reading the Drudge Report, where the top news items one day last week were: Enlarged U.S. deficits allow Switzerland to displace the United States as the world’s most competitive economy; Obama asks the Senate to raise the debt ceiling beyond its current $12.1 trillion level; the United Nations continues its push for a “global currency” to displace the U.S. dollar as the world’s go-to reserve; and — this will be no surprise, given the other headlines — the ChiComs are freaking out."

Commonsense says that if one wants to stop going into debt then one should more than likely do the following:

1) Cut spending.
2) Spend wisely.
3) Differentiate between needs and wants.
4) Avoid adding to one's debt at all costs, borrowing only when absolutely necessary (such as buying a home or perhaps going to college).
5) If one does not have the money to pay for an item, do not buy it (which can be superseded by condition 4) in some cases).

It is an enigma, at least to me, that while many Americans know that 1) through 5) are methods by which one can avoid massive debt, the Federal government has a different mindset. When faced with financial hardship the Federal government begins spending money like 'drunken sailors' claiming that it needs to be done. However, I doubt this line of reasoning.
I know that there is a fundamental difference between Washington and the average American household; one is a government entity while the other is not. Therefore, the argument that could be advanced is the following: "Washington works differently than American households. Thus the rules for spending in average households do not apply to Washington."

I believe that the great fundamental difference between Washington and the average household (and I hope I am not oversimplifying things) is the following: The average American household has to work for its money, Washington does not.
Washington DC, like every other government throughout human history, survives via taxing the private sector; that is how governments get their money. However, unlike the average household, Washington essentially has an unlimited supply of money, because it can contact the US Mint and say, "I need more money; print some more." The average household does not have that luxury; it has to deal with what it earns. If households began printing its own money then we would have some serious financial problems (study the history of the South during the Civil War to see the validity of this claim).
Some time ago I made the argument that the government, by definition, does not turn a profit. So, does the claim that Washington should not rack up large amounts of debt contradict this argument because if Washington, by definition, does not turn a profit how can it not help but go into debt? I think the answer to this question is simple: government should work with the money it receives via taxes, no more, no less. Essentially I believe the government should break even. Is this realistic? A part of me says, "No", because it does sound extremely idealistic. But I believe that Washington should not act any different from the rest of America when it comes to spending practices. Commonsense says, "Spend within your means." I believe the same should hold true for Washington.

Excerpt: Kant's Arguments for the Synthetic A Priori

Why did Kant believe that the propositions of geometry (and arithmetic) are synthetic a priori? Critically examine his view.

Introduction
A major piece of Kant’s epistemology is what he classed synthetic a priori statements and under this class of statements are mathematical statements within Euclidean geometry. It is my thesis to explicate this particular view within Kant’s transcendental philosophy.

Synthetic A Priori Statements of Euclidean Geometry
Assuming Kant’s distinction between analytic and synthetic statements, consider the following statement of Euclidean geometry:

P. “Parallel lines are such that they never intersect.”

For Kant, (P) is synthetic a priori for the following reasons:

1. (P) is a synthetic statement for the predicate is not contained within the concept of parallel lines. (B11-12)
2. The denial (P) does not produce a contradiction. (B14)
3. Experience shows parallel lines do not meet; since (P) has empirical content it is synthetic. (A714/B742; A734/B751)
4. Space does not exist in the world; space is mind-dependent because it is an a priori intuition in the mind. (A42, B59)
5. (P) is a priori because it is necessarily true and universal. (A48, B65)
6. Therefore (P) is a synthetic a priori statement.

Now I will explicate each premise in order to show how Kant’s conclusion following from them. First, premise (1); Kant made critical distinction between analytic and synthetic statements. (A) is an analytic statement and (S) is a synthetic statement:

A. “All bachelors are unmarried males.” (x) (Bx → Ux)
S. “All bodies are heavy.” (x) (Bx → Hx)

(A) is analytic because it is true by virtue of the meanings of its words and the predicate is contained within the subject, i.e., being an unmarried male is contained within the concept of a being a bachelor. Analytic statements also obey as Kant calls at (B14) the principle of contradiction for if one were to deny an analytic statement a contradiction would result. Considering (A), if one to deny it then one would be asserting the claim, “It is not the case that all bachelors are unmarried males” or in logical terms ~(x) (Bx → Ux); however, a contradiction arises because by definition a bachelor is an unmarried males and thus is impossible for one to be a bachelor and be a married male. (S) is synthetic because it is not true by virtue of the meanings of its words and its predicate is not contained within the subject and do not obey the principle of contradiction. The denial of (S) does not produce a contradiction because if one were to assert, “It is not the case that all bodies are heavy”, or in logical terms ~(x) (Bx → Hx), such a statement does not produce a contradiction because being heavy is not contained by the concept of being a body.

[...]

Did Obama Lie?

While Obama was giving his speech on health care reform, he made the claim that under his plan illegal immigrants would not receive health care benefits through it. At this Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled, “You lie!” So, here’s the question: Is Obama lying about illegal immigrants not receiving health care in this new government run health care system?

There are some very serious problems answering this question because depending on how one answers this question will determine whether one thinks Obama lied or not.

The fact is that the Health Care Bill which came out of the House of Representatives does have a section which explicitly states that illegal immigrants will not receive health care benefits. The Section is 246 and it states:

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

(Just as an aside, this is the only section which addresses illegal aliens. The Republicans wanted to vamp up the requirements saying that if someone wants medical care (excluding emergency care), then they must provide proof of citizenship, or some form of documentation. This proposal was defeated in Committee by the Democrats.)

Returning to point, prima facie, Obama did not lie. He did tell the truth. So, does this mean that Representative Wilson is wrong? As a matter of fact it does not and reason why is the Senate Health Care Bill which has just been released mentions nothing about illegal aliens and makes no references to the House Bill concerning the issue. This means that whether or not illegal aliens will receive health care coverage under this new system is an open question. A contradiction has been created: “Illegal aliens will not get health care according to the House and illegal aliens will get health care according to the Senate.” So, again, did Obama lie?

Kevin Williamson from National Review Online says, “Yes.” I do not want to discuss his arguments but here is the link to his article:

Joe Wilson is Rude but Right

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzU5MjU2NDNlZmNkOTUyNDdmM2ZkYTI2YmE5ZjAxMzY=

I think Williamson’s arguments are good but I am going to take a more mild-mannered approach to this.

According to the dictionary a lie is a false statement which is intended to deceive. Therefore, when Obama said that his plan would not give coverage to illegal aliens, was he intentionally deceiving the American people? Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question with an absolute “Yes” or “No,” I can only speculate. If he plans to give illegal aliens coverage, in some form or fashion, then Obama did lie. If Obama spoke out of ignorance because he does not know that the Senate Bill, as it stands right now, does not bar illegal aliens from receiving health care, then he did not lie but just made an argument from ignorance. If he is truly ignorant of the plans that out there then it would have been best if he said something along the lines of, “We need a health care system which does not allow illegal aliens to receive health care.” This claim would be accurate then making the claim that his plan does not cover illegal aliens.

I heard the argument that what will happen is that the health care bills will not allow illegal aliens to receive health care (again exempting emergency care), but what will happen next is that the Congress will push for amnesty for all illegal aliens in the country (regrettably just as President Bush tried). In which all of those illegal aliens will receive health care after all. Technically speaking if those illegal aliens are given amnesty they are no longer illegal aliens, but the point remains valid. However, consider this; if all of those illegal aliens are granted amnesty and thus are American citizen eligible to receive government health care that means that an additional 12 million individuals will be added to the government’s tab, or I should say, the tax payer’s tab. With a price tag of $900 billion, much higher do we think this is going to go if those 12 million former illegal aliens are added to the system? Furthermore, what is that going to do to the overall system the government wants to set-up?

Another complication is that we are faced with a conundrum, however, with all this talk about health care plans. When Obama says, “His plan…” what plan is he referring to? Is he referring to the House plan which bars illegal aliens or the Senate plan which does not? If Obama wants to be truthful then he will need to say his plan is the House Bill. When Obama says, “His plan…” he cannot be referring to anything he has written because via the separation of powers in the Constitution, the executive branch, i.e., the Presidency, does not write law or bills because that is the job of the Congress (which is why Congress is called the legislative branch). So again, what plan is he referring to? The only answer I can logically conceive of is that Obama is referring to his own preconceived plan that he wants in which case such a plan does not exist in either the House or Senate. In which is it absolutely unfounded to refer to a plan of "His...".

So, did Obama lie? The answer could be “Yes” if he plans to give illegal aliens health care by some other means than this new government system or by granting amnesty. The answer could be “No” if he is making an argument from ignorance because in that case Obama intention was not to deceive, but he just made an uninformed statement.

Excerpt from "Christian Faith vs. Irrationality".

Can a rational agent accept Christianity? There are some who would answer “No” to this question while others would say “Yes.” But before this question can be answer we must answer the more fundamental questions, “What is rationality and what does it mean to be rational?” This is a troublesome epistemic question because rationality concerns the issue of having justified beliefs, having true beliefs, knowledge, and determining whether one’s knowledge and attitudes are rational or irrational is a type of (but not purely a) logical question. But rationality and irrationality are linked for to say that an action is irrational one must appeal to or be appealing to a standard of rationality for irrationality instantiates a violation of that (or some sort of) rational standard, which is something I will elaborate in the following chapter. One cannot define one without the other.

[…]

The question of whether or not a Christian is rational in holding their Christian belief is, according to Alvin Plantinga, a de jure question. […] Within the realm of ethics there is a consider debate concerning how individuals are held ethically responsible for their actions and in the spirit of that tradition some theories of rationality has began using ethical terminology and analyses in order establish new accounts of what it means to be a rational individual. Some argue that rationality is connected to what they call “believing responsibly”, and the idea is that an individual have beliefs that are true, justified, have logical basis, etc. In contrast, it may be said of someone that they believe irresponsibly if their beliefs are false, unjustified, illogical, etc.
I have noticed an extremely interesting sentiment held by those within philosophy (and perhaps maybe even science) who are atheists, agnostics, and perhaps just in general anti-theists, and this sentiment is that those who believe in Christianity are in some sense are believing irresponsibly and that they are not acting in accordance with what rational thought would have us believe. Let us consider a case of a Christian named John; John begins studying the atheistic arguments found within philosophy and science, carefully considers them, even has moments of doubt concerning his Christian beliefs, but in the end, his Christian beliefs remain intact. Now there are some within philosophy who would argue that John is irrational and that he believes in Christianity irresponsibly, but is this really the case? The interesting thing is that philosophers hold the type of inquiry that John underwent as sacrosanct. For example, I consider myself to be a student and believer in the philosophies of Donald Davidson and even to some extent W.V. Quine but I do know that there is an increasing majority who no longer accept Davidsonian philosophy and an ever greater number who do not accept Quinean philosophy. Many philosophers who do not accept Davidsonian and Quinean philosophy have studied their theories, considered their implications, but in the end, remained unmoved by their arguments. Philosophers in this case would say that those who have studied Davidsonian and Quinean philosophy but remain unmoved are in fact acting rationally; they considered the arguments, considered their implications, but in the end they do not believe Davidsonian and/or Quinean philosophy to be correct. Consider a case of a philosopher named Susan; Susan has studied Davidson’s truth-theoretical semantics, carefully considers its implications, but in the end remains unmoved by the theory. We would not say (at least I would not say) that those who do not accept Davidsonian and/or Quinean philosophy are somehow acting irrationally nor believing irresponsibly. In the case of Susan, even though I accept Davidsonian philosophy, I may say that she is wrong in not accepting Davidson’s truth-theoretical semantics, but I would not say that she believing her opposing view irresponsibly nor irrationally since she had studied Davidson’s theory and was unmoved. Susan acted in such a way that I would deem to be rational and epistemically responsible. This is not isolated just to Davidsonian/Quinean philosophy but really for a majority of philosophical theories; for every philosophical theory one may hold there will be a majority who disagree with that theory, such in the way of the philosophical realm.
So, if being unmoved after carefully considering a philosophical theory is considered to be true rational inquiry and holding on to ones original beliefs after such an inquiry is epistemically acceptable/responsible, why do some philosophers think that theists, specifically Christians, who are unmoved by atheistic arguments are irrational and believe irresponsibly? I have heard it said, “Atheistic arguments just show without a doubt that Christianity is false.” I believe that if one studies Davidson’s philosophy carefully, skepticism of the external world, knowledge, meaning, and truth are without doubt clearly shown to be false, but that does not stop some philosophers from being skeptics despite the obvious truth I believe Davidsonian philosophy possesses. Therefore, despite the obviousness that I believe Davidsonian philosophy shows skepticism to be false, that does not stop some philosophers from being skeptics about the external world, knowledge, meaning, truth, and the like. ‘Obviousness’ is not a necessary condition for the acceptance of a given philosophical theory; at most it is a sufficient condition, if even that. So clearly there must be more to this philosophical double-standard than just the so-called obviousness of atheistic arguments.

Psalms 119:1-8

Psalms 119

Aleph

Verses 1-8

¹Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD. ²Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart. ³They do nothing wrong; they walk in his ways. ⁴You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed. ⁵Oh, that my ways were steadfast in obeying your decrees! ⁶Then I would not be put to shame when I consider all your commands. ⁷I will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws. ⁸I will obey your decrees; do not utterly forsake me.

“¹Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD.”

The Hebrew word for “Blessed” is barakh, and sometimes means in certain contexts, “happy many times over,” so in verses where “blessed” is used, one could say, “Happy many times over…”; therefore, we could re-translate verse one as, “¹Happy many times over are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the LORD.” However, what is the relationship between being happy and walking in the ways of God?

There is a multifaceted answer to this question; first, God’s ways are perfect and thus are completely without fault, and wholly trustworthy. Secondly, since God is omniscience, i.e., He knows everything from beginning to end, He knows what “ways” that human individuals need to take. Here I draw a distinction between the “ways” of God which are connected directly with God’s will. It is God’s will that we walk in His ways, and when I say “will”, this word has many connotations within Christianity but in the context of this discussion, the word “will” is synonymous with “desire”. This is not foreign because we have heard some individuals say, “It is my will for you that…”, and again in this context “will” is synonymous with “desire.” Therefore, it is God’s desire that we walk in His ways and the reason behind God’s desire is not that He can be a dictator, ethical prude, or egomaniac; the whole reason behind God’s will for us to walk in His ways is that God knows what “ways” we need to take. Since knows everything He know exactly what we need to do in order to happy, but not a temporal happiness that come and goes like the wind, but an everlasting happiness that no matter what happens we are happy. However, God’s happiness for us is directly connected to God’s peace He gives to all those who love Him and walk in accordance with His ways. As an aside, the two are connected because if one does not truly love God then they will not walk in His ways, recalling what Jesus said in Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord’, and do not do what I say?” If we do not love God then we will not walk in His, then we will not have peace and happiness.

Now, is there anyone in this world who has ‘blameless ways’? In other words, is there anyone who has never sinned? There is only one who has never sinned and that was/is Jesus Christ for Hebrews 4:15 states, “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every, just as we are―yet was without sin.”

So, if no ordinary human being has ever been sin, how then can we be blessed since the Psalmist says, “Blessed are they whose ways are blameless…”? God knows that no ordinary human being is perfect and thus cannot fulfill His requirements, i.e., that we cannot walk in God’s ways 100% of the time, but God has given us the means to walk in His ways, and that aspect of God’s will is given in the second half of verse 1 where the Psalmist says, “…who walk according to the law of the LORD.” Furthermore, the fact that no one is blameless does not mean that we cannot be happy―our inability to walk in God’s way blamelessly is compensated by God’s grace, forgiveness, and love. Now, I am of the persuasion that ordinary human beings can go a day, maybe even two days, without sinning, and thus within that timeframe we have walked in God’s ways blamelessly, but the key is that no ordinary human can live a sinless life. But how can an individual go a day or two without sinning? Again, in the second part of verse 1, “…who walk according to the law of the LORD.” Only when we walk in accordance with God’s will do we avoid sinning, for however brief of time.

“²Blessed are they who keep his statutes and see him with all their heart. ³They do nothing wrong; they walk in his ways.”[1]

Again we could say, “Happy many times over are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart.” This verse is essential because back in ancient times individuals believed that the heart was the very center of an individual’s being; all of our emotions, thoughts, and intentions were formed in the heart. So, if someone loved some else, they loved them from their heart; if they acted towards someone in a loving manner, that intention to love them was formed in the heart. However, in the same way, if someone hated another individual, the hate came from their heart. So, essentially what the Psalmist is asserting is something along the lines of, “Happy are those who intentionally follow God’s statutes and seek Him with every part of their being.” Therefore, whenever strive to obey God’s statutes (i.e., laws/commandments) and seek after Him with every part of our being then we will be happy. So essentially our happiness is conditional upon our response to God; if we respond positively to God’s laws/commandments and seek Him with everything we are then we will be happy. However, keeping with the theme of Psalms 119, we cannot know God’s laws/commandments without knowing His word, and in the context of Christianity, we cannot know God’s laws/commandments without knowing what the Bible says.

Does this mean that an individual must always be thinking about God and His laws/commandments? No because that is typically not the case; however, God gives us guidance via the Holy Spirit and guides our actions, in many cases even without us really being aware that He is. That does not mean that we are God’s puppets being “played” by Him and not doing what He want to do; humans are agents endowed with freewill from God and thus we can choose to do whatever we want. However, God gives us guidance and via the Holy Spirit we find ourselves walking in accordance with God’s will even though we were not consciously thinking about it. But again, in order for this to happen we must know God’s word, and let God’s word “sink deep” into who we are as an individual and take root so that God’s word begins to affect our actions and the way we think and this is a theme that will be explored in the section of the chapter.

Verse 3 does reiterate a point made earlier in verse 2; again, knowing and obeying God’s word does not entail that an ordinary human being will never sin. There is only one who has only been one human has not sinned and that is Jesus Christ. However, as we will see in the next section, knowing and obeying God’s word can greatly reduce the influence that sin has on one’s life and reduce the amount of sin one commits.

“⁴You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed.”

This verse I find interesting because it debunks the idea that God does not interact with the world and humanity. There are those who believe that God is inert and does not in any way affect to interact with the world or human affairs; despite undisputable Biblical evidence to debunk this claim, this verse states, “You [God] have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed.” However, the question is, “How can God lay down precepts, i.e., laws, for humans to obey if He never interacted with humanity?” The answer is very simple, “If God does not interact with humanity then He could not lay down laws for us to follow.” If this were true then verse 4 would be false; however, if verse 4 is false then that means that the Psalmist falsely believes that God laid down laws for humanity to obey. How could one respond to this accusation?

One could appeal to an argument made by the Apostle Paul in Romans 2:12-16:

¹²All who sin apart from the law will perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³For it is those who bear law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (¹⁴Indeed, when Gentiles[2], who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, ¹⁵since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) ¹⁶This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

The salient verses are 14 and 15; here Paul is arguing that all human beings have an innate sense of God’s law, i.e., what He requires of us, “built into” how we are. It is through this innate gift that we can distinguish between right and wrong even though we may know exactly why a particular action is right or wrong. In other words, God gave to every human being a moral conscience to guide our actions, in which case, this means that God has interacted with humanity being (at least in our very design) giving us this innate sense of His law and thus the Psalmist is justified to argue that God has laid down precepts (again, laws) that we are to obey. Unfortunately I think this justification is weak based upon this current argument because it could be objected that God gave us a moral conscience whenever He created humanity, but after that never interacted with humanity again; therefore, the Psalmist’s claim that God has laid down precepts for humanity to follow is not literally true but is only true to a certain extent, that is, to the extent that God gave humans a moral conscience but not to the extent that God has literally given humanity a written law to follow. I think this is the more difficult argument to counter one which I will return to later on.

“⁵Oh, that my ways were steadfast in obeying your decrees! ⁶Then I would not be put to shame when I consider all your commands.”

Verse 5 is a kind of cry of desperation because the Psalmist is crying out to God for they know that their ways are not always steadfast and he desires that they were steadfast. This verse is essential because in it the Psalmist admits their guilt of sin; they recognize that they have not always been steadfast in following God’s decrees. There are many in this world that do not recognize or just will not recognize that they do and have sinned in their lifetime. And even if they do recognize that they have sinned and have sin in their life they do not view that as a major problem. We live in a world that is numb to sin and individuals think that sin, while bad, is not a major problem.

There are those, particularly the existential philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre, who deny the existence of sin and argue that humans never do anything wrong; humans always choose what is right and good. Sin is an illusion according to some. However, all evil is caused by some form of sin. Sin is the cause of evil and everyone must come to grips with their own sin just as the Psalmist does in verse 5.

However, in order for sin to known, there must be something which tells us what sin is, and how sin is committed and we get the answer in verse 6. We know what sin is by examining the laws/commandments God has called upon us to follow. Anything contrary to God’s commandments or how God would have us do is considered to be sin. Sin is part of the human condition; no ordinary human is without sin. Whenever we fully understand how we have completely failed to meet God’s standards we often times feel ashamed because we feel like we have been rebuked and/or scolded by God. Feeling ashamed for our sins, once brought to light via God’s Word, we feel remorseful, even sorrowful, for our sins, and this is what the Apostle Paul called Godly sorrow which leads to repentance (2^nd Corinthians 7:14).

As Martin Luther argues in his book Commentary on Galatians, in congruence with the arguments made by Paul in the book of Galatians, the Law is designed to designate sin. Without the Law there would be no sin for there would be no ethical or moral codes to break. This will be a theme which returns later so I will discuss it as we move through the chapter.

“⁷I will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws.”

It may seem difficult to see the connection between praising God “…with an upright heart” and learning God’s law; the connection is based upon the fact that in order for an individual to have an upright heart they must know God’s requirements in order to have an upright heart and that is only obtained via learning God’s Word. Having an upright heart is based upon the condition that we know God’s requirements in order to be upright, i.e., righteous, and in order for us to be righteous we need to know God’s “righteous laws”.

Now we should not come to the conclusion that simply knowing God Word makes one righteous; that is not the case, but nor is it the case that simply doing what God’s Word says make one righteous either. During Jesus’ times, the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law obeyed (or at least attempted to obey) every single law in the Judaism and yet Jesus declared them unrighteous. While God does require obedience, i.e., performing actions that are in accordance with His Word, we are not made righteous by our actions. A common thread throughout the Paul’s letters in the New Testament is that an individual is not saved by “works of the law”, and what this means is that while actions which are in accordance God’s Word are good, such works cannot earn someone a place in Heaven nor can they win God’s favor. Actions alone do not save an individual; while Godly actions are the consequence of knowing God’s Word, we cannot earn righteousness. God grants us righteousness via His love for us; it is a free gift to those who want to receive it and in context of Christianity, the free gift is accepting Jesus Christ as a personal Lord and Savior.

“⁸I will obey your decrees; do not utterly forsake me.”

I want to focus on the latter half of the verse; this is a common theme within the chapter where the Psalmist asks God not to forsake them. However, in what way would God forsake the Psalmist since God does not forsake those who love Him? In actuality, God does not forsake us but most of the time we are the ones who forsake Him. Even in the book of Job, when we see all of the horrific things Job had to endure, God had not forsaken Job. What Job shows us that even in times when we think God has forsaken us the fact is that He has not, it just appears that He has.

---

[1] I combined these verses because I believe that they express a complete thought.

[2] The word “Gentile” refers to all individuals who are not Jewish.