Replies

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,

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...