In this article, after providing a preliminary characterization of pacifism, the author first argues that pacifism sensibly articulates with the concepts of force and rights and then critically discusses the just war position, the correctness of which would entail the wrongnessof pacifism in a strong construction. The author goes on to argue that a primary moral obligation of justice is sufficient to make it wrong to resort to war and that, moreover, utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, and the religious ethics of love, on their own separate grounds, arguably should agree on a repudiation of war, but, finally, religious ethics repudiates war best because it sees best the heart of the matter.

In this paper I describe and argue against two positions. The first, espoused by Epicurus and other philosophers, contends that in permanent death, since there is no longer a subject, my own death cannot be a loss for me. I argue that this thesis makes an illicitassumption and itself embodies a conceptual confusion. Therefore, my death can after all have the logical status of a loss for me. The Christian Church, however, has adopted what I call the “official” position; namely, that while my death could be a loss for me, if I am a believer, it must instead be considered a gain. Against this claim, I urge the adoption of a contrary “unofficial” position which argues that even as a believer my death may be a loss for me. I contend that the “official” position embodies internal incoherence and promotes a corrupt version of Christianity. The “unofficial” position, however, is compatible with Christian teaching on self-mortification and more accurately represents New Testament attitudes towards death. Thereby I conclude that regarding my death as loss to myself is neither conceptually absurd nor a failure of faith.

A proposition that theism has traditionally tried to establish, as part of its general effort to reconcile the existence of God and that of evil in the (supposedly God-made) world, is the following; that natural evil is logically a precondition of freedom of choice. Often the approach to this task has been through the free will defense. In my paper I argue that the standard formulation of that defense will not succeed in the specific task mentioned, and propose a variation upon the standard formulation. Then I try to defend the variation against some powerful objections.

This essay evaluates two arguments found in John Morreall’s Taking Laughter Seriously: That Christianity is incompatible with a sense of humor since the latter requires that a person take nothing with absolute seriousness, and that God can have no sense of humor because he is omniscient. I point out that seriousness about something is a necessary condition of humor and that what people find funny is in part a function of what they take seriously. I illustrate these points with examples from Samuel Johnson and SorenKierkegaard. Then I show how ultimate seriousness is compatible with a sense of humor, by appeal to Kierkegaard’s notion of a “way out” of responsibility for the object of one’s seriousness. Here I illustrate with St. Francis of Assisi, William James, and Kierkegaard.Morreall’s claim that God’s omniscience rules out his having a sense of humor turns on the thesis, fundamental to his book, that humor depends on “psychological shift,” which he mistakenly identifies with surprise. I distinguish these concepts, show that humor should not be construed even in terms of the (weaker) concept of psychological shift, and suggest a way of understanding God’s omniscience such that it is compatible with his sense of humor.

Many people view humor and a serious religious life as antithetical. This paper attempts to elucidate Kierkegaard’s view of humor, and thereby to explain his claims that humor is essentially linked to a religious life, and that the capacity for humor resides in a deep structure of human existence. A distinction is drawn between humor as a general element in life, and a special sense of humor as a “boundary zone” of the religious life. The latter kind of “humorist” embodies a religious perspective which is not Christian, but is closely related to Christianity. Humor itself is a fundamental aspect of Christian faith.

In his recent book, Until Justice and Peace Embrace, Nicholas Wolterstorff claims that in ethics there exist “sustenance rights,” also called “positive rights,” which demand that people be provided the requirements of productive social living, including food, clothing, shelter, healthful environments, and elementary health care. I defend Wolterstorff’s claims against attacks by social theologian Richard John Neuhaus, who argues in effect that to grant sustenance rights implies both personal and theoretical acceptance of an unreasonable obligation which I call the Duty of Sacrifice (DOS) to transfer all one’s wealth to meet those needs, a charge which Wolterstorff interprets as a demand that he sell his house.

The authors try to show that many of the differences between Ross and themselves are only apparent, masking considerable agreement. Among the real disagreements, at least one is over the interpretation of Aquinas’s account of divine simplicity, but the mostcentral disagreement consists in the authors’ claim that their concern was not with a distinction between the way God is and the way he might have been (as Ross suggests) but with the difference between the way God is necessarily and the way he is contingently. Finally, the authors argue that the concept of simplicity is indeed required for the solution of the problems discussed at the end of their original article.

Clement Dore has offered a demonstration that God is possible. This is important because the Ontological Argument shows that if God is possible, it is necessarily true that God exists. Dore’s demonstration parallels Descartes’s Meditation V argument: (roughly) God by definition has all perfections; but (Dore proposes) possible existence is a perfection; therefore, God is possible. However, Leibniz recognized that Descartes’s argument is incomplete, omitting proof that the concept of God is consistent. Dore’s demonstration fails for just this reason. Dore’s defense misses this objection. If the concept of God is consistent, that directly establishes that God is possible, making assumptions about perfections irrelevant.