Skip to main content

If not Lives 1st, What 1st?

Have you noticed that the world seems to have gone noticeably crazy? A couple of days ago I turned on a news channel and the first reports were these:

● Litchfield Park, AZ – 11 year-old boy murdered his grandmother by shooting her in the back of the head and then committed suicide. Why? She had been telling him to clean up his room.1

Daytona Beach, FL – 15 year-old boy strangles mother to death. Why? They had an argument over his grades.2

● Chippewa Falls, WI – 10 year-old girl charged with murder for stomping head of 6 month-old baby boy.3

● Rowan County, NC – 11 year-old boy charged with putting sewing needles in Halloween candy.4
The next day there was the shooting at the bar in California5the 307th mass shooting in America this year.6 Even though these things seem “crazy” to most of us, our work at the TOV Center suggests that there is a factor that we need to consider. A growing number of Americans value other things above human lives – attention, power, unexamined beliefs, predatory profits, entertainment, individual appetites, desires and longings, addictions, etc.

We discovered a standard for making decisions and examining human actions in the ancient Hebrew text of Bible. We call it the TOV Standard. It doesn’t involve or promote a theology. Almost everyone that hears about calls it “common sense.” It is a tool that helps us keep Lives 1st in our thoughts, decisions and actions. When you need to make a decision, write down the answers to the questions before you make the decision:

1. Whose lives will be protected or harmed?

2. Whose lives will be preserved or threatened?

3. Whose lives will become more or less functional?

4. Whose quality of life will be increased or decreased?

5. Who will receive or pay money?

This is a model you can also teach very young children. As a matter of fact, many times children have an easier time answering the questions because they haven’t learned how to rationalize and justify actions that fail to measure up to the TOV Standard – like adults often do so well.

When you are involved in a decision making discussion use your creativity to come up with TOV options!

If you found this information valuable and let us know by
“Liking” the TOV Center’s Lives 1st Facebook Page ______________________________________________

Donate it Forward!

Become a “Friend the TOV Center.
Your donation makes it possible for this information to be shared without charge.
Every donation helps, no matter how small.
Your gift makes a big difference and is very important!
 Donate to the TOV Center online now by Clicking Here

Visit our website.



Popular posts from this blog

Why did they lay their coats at Saul's feet?

The witnesses, laying their coats at the feet of Saul, were the men that would cast the first stones at Stephen in Acts 7. Why did they all lay their coats at Saul’s feet? The Talmud contains a very interesting account of the act of stoning that may provide the answer.
“When the trial was over, they take him [the condemned person] out to be stoned. The place of stoning was at a distance from the court, as it is said, ‘Take out the one who has cursed.’[i] A man stands at the entrance of the court; in his hand is a signaling flag [Hebrewsudarin = sudar, ‘scarf, sweater’]. A horseman was stationed far away but within sight of him. If one [of the judges] says, ‘I have something [more] to say in his favor,’ he [the signaler] waves thesudarin, and the horseman runs and stops them [from stoning him]. Even if [the condemned person] himself says, ‘I have something to say in my favor,’ they bring him back, even four of five times, only provided that there is some substance to what he is saying.…

Madison's Warnings About Creating Political Parties

While doing some research today I came across the "Federalists No. 10" written by James Madison on Thursday, November 22, 1787. Madison warned his readers about the dangers of the formation of political parties and allowing them to become involved in government. 
When the Constitution was written in 1787, the founders thought of political parties as "factions," acting only for their own selfish interests rather than the public good. The founders saw instances in history when factions resorted to assassination and civil war if they failed to get their way. The writers of the Constitution believed that political parties would play no formal role in the new government. The Constitution made no mention of them.

Even in electing the president, the founders assumed the absence of political parties. The Constitution established an Electoral College, which called for a small number of electors—elected or appointed in the states— to meet, deliberate, and choose the best perso…

What does the word “religion” mean?

I just began reading Karen Armstrong’s book Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence (Anchor Books; New York, NY). Her introduction provides a tremendous amount of very important historical insights. Below is an excerpt from pages 4-5. I divided it into additional paragraphs and underlined portions because it is packed with so much.
For about fifty years now it has been clear in the academy that there is no universal way to define religion. In the West we see “religion” as a coherent system of obligatory beliefs, institutions, and rituals, centering on a supernatural God, whose          practice is essentially private and hermetically sealed off from all “secular” activities. But words in other languages that we translate as “religion” almost invariably refer to something larger, vaguer, and more encompassing.
The Arabic din signifies an entire way of life. The Sanskrit dharma is also “a ‘total’ concept, untranslatable, which covers law, justice, morals and social life.”