Posted on 05/30/2012 9:24:08 PM PDT by xzins
First let me say I appreciate the friendly tone of this conversation. It’s getting too rare on FR. Thanks.
As to your argument, I am glad we have common ground in understanding God as the starting point for moral reasoning.
But I think we disagree on more than just what actions are moral or not. I think we still disagree on what morality actually is.
Harm avoidance is a weak basis for moral choices. In practice, it is not useful for any moral problem that doesn’t produce an immediate and obvious harm. God tells us to avoid idolatry. But who is really hurt if we worship rocks or fishes or fancy cars? Not God. And if we don’t inflict “injury” on anyone else (whatever that really means), why should it be prohibited?
Mere harm avoidance cannot answer that question, and that is exactly why it is the preferred form of moral argument the left uses to advance almost every element of its ungodly vision for utopia. After all, who can argue with heaven on earth? If you buy their premise, all moral arguments devolve to mind-numbing attempts to quantify harm. We become driven, not by the precepts of Scripture and the God who loves us, but by the (manufactured) crisis of the day. We cease to be truly free.
A better argument, IMHO, is that God knows all possible harms, and with that knowledge has told us what we must do. This is the heart of faith, that we believe God’s long-range radar, even when our short-range radar is predicting something different.
God is not asking us to control the future. That’s his job. He asks us to be faithful in the few things he has given us, and if we do OK with those, he will give us more someday.
And he has clearly told us two important things that bear on how we use our vote this election. First, flee idolatry. We are under direct command authority, not so much as to even bid Godspeed to those who bring doctrines of Christ contrary to the apostolic teaching (let alone voluntarily grant them power over our lives). If we help them in their evil, we become a party to their evil. See 2 John 1:10.
As for your calculus of harm, Jesus puts it in perspective: What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his own soul? In other words, if you would measure actions by measuring harm, start with your own soul, because according to Jesus, it is worth more than the whole world.
Peace,
SR
You Obama trolls have been reduced to talking to each other and mau-mauing Mormon FReepers.
Of course you are - you are doing the same thing as voting for Obama.
Thanks for your courteous reply.
I think we could say the basis of morality is love. Love of God and through Him love of our neighbor.
While avoiding harm is not the basis, we do strive to minimize harm out of love.
As for God’s omniscience and omnipotence, this could be used to avoid responsibility for our actions or justify no action at all. God created man, our actions have meaning and consequences, we should strive to increase in moral discernment and love.
I don’t think idolatry comes into play in my vote. (Perhaps if I were a materialist or utopian or Obama worshipper...)
I do believe opposing evil and godlessness does come into play. As does opposing secular humanism, reductionism, denigration of soul and spirit, etc. And with it all the resulting harm.
Primarily for these reasons, I believe the moral thing to do in this election is act to remove this evil regime from power. I believe that voting for a third-party candidate is counter productive to this primary objective. And is, therefore, IMHO, immoral.
thanks again...
Are you talking about me...xzins? Are you saying I posted a thread the subject of which was an encouragement for people to vote for Obama?
So, I post a quote from you in which you say Obama and Romney are the same, and that means I want Obama to win?
That kind of spin is worth of....of....Maxine Waters.
Maxine...is that you? Are you here? Are you channeling EPUnum?
ROTFLOL!
So, I post a quote from you in which you say Obama and Romney are the same, and that means I want Obama to win?
That kind of spin is worthY of....of....Maxine Waters.
Maxine...is that you? Are you here? Are you channeling EPUnum?
ROTFLOL!
So, I post a quote from you in which you say Obama and Romney are the same, and that means I want Obama to win?
That kind of spin is worthY of....of....Maxine Waters.
Maxine...is that you? Are you here? Are you channeling EPUnum?
ROTFLOL!
Why did you only send your message three times? Shouldn’t a spasto like you send it a hundred times?
Why?
So people would go back and look at your quote that says Mitt and Obama are the same.
EPluU: “The alternative is Myth, who is the same thing as Ubama. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2800991/posts?page=10#10
LOL!
I agree that love is certainly a better place to begin than avoidance of harm. However, I note than in your response you end up back at avoidance of harm as your primary expression of love, and that continues to be a weak approach, because it leads directly to moral relativism.
Consider: God has commanded us avoid worshipping idols. You agree? So let’s say I was told that if I worshipped an idol, King Nebuchadnezzar would not throw me in the fiery furnace. Would you have me worship that idol to save my life? If not, why not? Wouldn’t the loving thing to do be to save my own skin so I can go back to taking care of my family? They do need me. Or I could also go back to teaching people how wonderful God is. After I worshipped an idol?
What did Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego do? They rejected the pressure to disobey God, even if it meant the end of their own earthly lives. Apparently, the consequence they feared the most was displeasing God. Is what they did immoral? Based on your analysis so far, it is.
Now change the problem. Let’s say Nebuchadnezzar tells you your whole family will be thrown into the fiery furnace if you do not bow down low and worship his idol. Harder problem, isn’t it. The love you have for your family, if you are like me, is greater than the love you have for your own life. And if the harm would be so great, wouldn’t love predict you would bow down to that idol? To save your own family?
Or would love do something different. If the objective of a godly man is to see to the salvation of his family, is that primarily a physical salvation, or a spiritual salvation? Is it really “moral” to sin so that good may come of it? The Apostle Paul teaches us explicitly not to use that logic. We are not allowed to sin so that good may come of it. By so doing we commit an act of gross hubris, making ourselves more wise than God Himself. When confronted with such a choice, we must always obey God and trust him for the outcome.
Then the problem becomes, not what harm can I avoid if I do this sinful thing, but will I choose to trust in God, or will I cave to the fear of man?
One of my favorite stories in this regard comes from Corrie Ten Boom. She and her family in German-occupied Holland were giving refuge to escaping Jews. They were hiding them in the floor. One day the Germans came to their home and demanded to know of them whether they were hiding Jews.
Using your system of moral analysis, it would seem the right thing to do was to lie to the Germans. But Bessie, Corrie’s sister, did the most unusual thing. Taking on a bizarre, comical manner, she told the Germans the truth. They didn’t believe her. They probably thought she was crazy. But Bessie held to her conscience, which did not permit her to lie, even if grave consequences would come from telling the truth. She trusted God, and God vindicated her.
But your system says what she did was immoral. The “loving” thing to do would have been to lie, right? Lives saved, happy endings for all (well, except the Germans, of course). Yet she did what was right, out of a sense of unalterable duty to God. It is very hard, no, it is impossible, for me to judge that as immoral.
In fact, that story, among so many other stories of the people of God remaining true to God even when it made them the object of ridicule and violence, has served as a reminder to me that we have not yet paid the ultimate price for our sense of duty to God. We have brothers and sisters in Christ in China, Darfur, and elsewhere, who daily confront the prospect of prison or execution, for failing to sign on to the state-sponsored orthodoxy. What we are going through is child’s play by comparison.
I have to go somewhere. I have enjoyed the conversation. I hope it has been beneficial to you as well. Peace.
I realized that Myth would be better then Ubama, because Ubama hates America. You can't say that about Myth.
You, however, want Ubama to win.
Good luck to ya.
Does “adjust to reality” = OK with gay adoption by gay couples?
You think you're clever by pretending to be for Goode, when you really are nothing more than a DUer practicing the Delphi technique to get Ubama reelected.
It's pretty transparent.
Good. Return the favor and we'll both be happy.
Your words, EPU, are that Obama = Romney.
Goode is a life-long, pro-life advocate.
Romney is an on-again-off-again, on-again-off-again advocate of the political winds of abortion advocate.
Obama is a life-long, pro-abortion candidate.
Are you pro-life or pro-abortion?
mind reader alert
Deb seems so confused sometimes, be kind.
I'm so sorry. I thought she was truth challenged.
You are the one with the problem. Just a few months ago you were claiming that there was no difference between Obama and Romney and you were right. Now you claim that those who take the same position that you were taking just a few months ago are Trolls from DU.
You are a flaming hypocrite. No wonder you are carrying water for Romney. You are just like him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.