I don’t think our disagreement is on what is moral or that all morality, truth and goodness is from God. We strive to discern the will of God as He gives us the grace to do so.
We disagree on what actions that we take are moral or not, less moral or more moral.
I believe, and think you would agree, that acting in good conscience and with principles requires us to evaluate the results of our actions. In my discernment the action you propose result in greater harm, have less value in moral terms, than the action I have chosen. IOW, they are less conforming to the will of God and the absolute values we share.
This is where we disagree.
Thanks for your reply.
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
“I don’t think our disagreement is on what is moral or that all morality, truth and goodness is from God. We strive to discern the will of God as He gives us the grace to do so.
We disagree on what actions that we take are moral or not, less moral or more moral.
I believe, and think you would agree, that acting in good conscience and with principles requires us to evaluate the results of our actions. In my discernment the action you propose result in greater harm, have less value in moral terms, than the action I have chosen. IOW, they are less conforming to the will of God and the absolute values we share.
This is where we disagree.”
Do you believe God chooses our leaders? I certainly do. I believe we Christians have a wonderful opportunity to vote based on our conscience while believing God will work-out his divine plan.
Still disagree?