A minor ethical dilemma: Bus tickets

Last Friday I was standing at the bus stop waiting for the number 25 to take me into town. As I was standing there a man called to me across the street, "do you want a day saver mate?" The man was kindly offering me his used ticket, which (being still valid for the rest of the day) would give me free journeys into town and back. I took the ticket, thanked the man, and started thinking about how good it was that you can still count on the kindness of strangers.

My thoughts soon moved on, however, to the ticket that was now sitting in my back pocket. Would it be dishonest of me to use it? Would it be unfair? Would it constitute theft?

What would you do?

Well, here's what happened. To the left is a picture of the actual ticket I was given. You might be able to see that it says "jrny: 20" somewhere near the top. That means that the guy originally bought the ticket on a number 20 bus. I started thinking about the remote possibility of getting caught out: what if the bus driver asked me where I had bought this ticket - could I remember which route the number 20 bus took? Was it Radbrook?

Then I realised I was trying to work out the most effective lies that could get me out of that unlikely, but sticky, situation.

A lot of people work like this: get what you can for as little as possible, and if that puts you in a spot, lie your way out of it.

I figured that is more of a worldly mindset than a godly one. So I paid for my tickets.

A response to euthanansia stories

One of the most-read posts on my blog is "7 reasons why I'm against euthanasia". This makes me slightly nervous, as I wonder whether any of the things I wrote will be seen as insensitive and ignorant, and indeed whether I myself will come to disagree with any points made previously.

What also worries me is that there is a propensity among religious people (including myself sadly) to jump headlong into any debate with their opinion of what's right and wrong. When it comes to euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage or whatever the first question we want to ask is "are you for or against?", which can be summarised in various ways: "are you right or wrong?" and "are you on my side or on their side?" being two prime examples.

As Adlai Stevenson shrewdly observed, some people approach every problem with an open mouth.

The tragedy then, is that when we hear another news story about someone with a debilitating illness asking for the right to have their life ended we call it a story about euthanasia, and we pronounce our judgement. To some people, though, this is not a story about euthanasia, it's a story about Tony Nicklinson. He is a real person (not a 'case') who is suffering, and who needs compassion more than he needs to hear seven reasons why I disagree with euthanasia.

Christianity's influence on a nation's morality

A while back I started reading Dawkins' The God Delusion but I have to admit that I gave up on it before I got to the section on morality. Nevertheless, I understand that when Christians and atheists talk about morals they are pretty much talking about two different things.

The Christian says, "Morality is the definition of what human behaviour is 'right' and 'wrong', as defined by God Himself. God sets the standard of moral perfection, and is the judge of good and evil."

The atheist says, "Morality is a system that humans have evolved in order to help societies function smoothly. There is no absolute good and evil, only relative concepts of right and wrong that constantly shift as a culture develops."

this fantastic screen shot is from http://www.scales-and-weights.com/

I have previously blogged about the implications of those definitions.

The issue seems very prevalent at the moment, what with the row over gay marriage, the proposal of "after-birth abortion" and the ongoing outcry over the greed epidemic amongst MPs, bankers and the like.

Do you think moral standards in your country are in decline?

(Incidentally, if you think morals can be said to 'decline' at all then you're a moral absolutist, right? Which means you probably believe in God, yeah?)

So what is it that causes shifts in the moral fabric of a culture?
And how can a moral decline be reversed?

I don't claim to have all the answers, but, well, I've got a few largish ones. Namely, that an increase in Christianity is always good for overall morality, and actually the only way of restoring broken morals is an increase in Christianity. Conversely, a decrease in Christianity is always bad for overall morality. This is not because religious people are better people, it's because Jesus is the light of the world.

So we can petition and campaign like William Wilberforce. We can lobby and protest. We can speak up on behalf of the church, and pray for her voice to be heard. We can plead with the government to listen to bishops, arch-bishops and cardinals. But we'll only pull out of a moral decline when people start repenting and believing the gospel.

I'mma finish with a quote from everyone's favourite pastor.

“See, after church tonight you will go home and you will eat chicken, not human, because of the spread of Christianity. You think I’m kidding, go to a country that hasn’t had the spread of Christianity. They’re having human for dinner.” 

After-birth abortion

Last week I read this article about two Catholic midwives who lost their case to not be involved in abortion procedures. Apparently being a conscientious objector will get you off the front line, but you might still have to make bombs.

But a much bigger volcano just erupted, namely the propsal of medical ethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva that parents should be given the option to have their newborn babies killed under certain circumstances (the same circumstances that apply to abortions).

Naturally, this has stirred up some intense reactions. Adrian Warnock suggests (or rather, agrees with the Daily Mail) that their argument actually undermines the case for abortion. I disagree, and here's why...

The proposal put forward by Giubilini and Minerva is, in fact, the absolutely logical next step from abortion. I firmly believe that anyone who holds that abortion is morally acceptable must either agree with them, or be guilty of double-standards.

What is the difference between an unborn baby and a newborn baby? It might immediately seem like a vast difference, but as these academics point out, neither have a sense of their own existence. So why would a person who is pro-abortion be opposed to "after-birth abortion"? Whatever their objections are, they are not logical because when you believe it is acceptable to kill an unborn baby because it is not really a person then you must also agree that it is acceptable to kill a newborn baby.

It's utterly appalling, and we need to be prepared for the following shift. One of two things will happen:
1) People will see the logical connection between abortion and "after-birth abortion" and agree to accept both.
2) People will se the logical connection between abortion and "after-birth abortion" and decide to reject both.

Lets pray that its the latter.

And also please read this.

A few photos

Last week I took Lis away to a secret holiday destination - the Forest of Dean. While I pause to think of some real blogging ideas, here are some interesting pictures to have a look at.

(From top: an interesting sculpture, Tintern Abbey, a rabbit, Puzzlewood.)

Talking about Jesus with the Smiths

I've just finished reading Delirious: My journey with the band, a growing family, and an army of historymakers by Martin Smith. It was an interesting read, particularly for a Delirious? fan. This isn't just a biography of the band though, in fact it's not very detailed on that front. Instead (as the subtitle suggests), it is a very personal reflection on Smith's own journey, and the issues that took over his heart and mind as the band sought God's direction for their lives. So there are insights into songwriting, the music business, family life, travelling, discipleship, the Church, worship and poverty among other things.

However, one of the sentences that struck me most was actually in the foreword (which goes to show it's always worth reading the foreword, the preface, the introduction and the acknowledgements - don't say you've read a book unless you've read it all!)

Matt Redman writes, "Beth and I have spent many precious moments in the company of Martin and Anna, and it's always more of the same - Jesus is consistently the main topic of conversation".

Note that the main topic of conversation was not church services, worship music, Christianity or theology. It was Jesus.

While it can be tempting to see the Smiths and the Redmans as super-holy-Christian-heroes in a special world of their own it's clear that isn't the case. These are people who, like everyone else, have a shared passion that they enjoy talking about.

So I have to ask myself the question, when I meet up with my Christian brothers and sisters, what do I talk about most of all, and why?

Your cross

And he [Jesus] said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. (Luke 9:23 ESV, emphasis mine)


When you got up this morning, did you remember to pick your cross up?