Here we have an application of the Law of the Excluded Middle, in spades — a system of two-value logic, in which the only possible answers to any question are "yes/no," or "true/false." You stipulate, in consequence of this type of reasoning, that a conservative or Christian cannot vote for Romney without betraying his or her core principles.
While the Law of the Excluded Middle comes in handy in situations requiring the determination of simple fact (where that Law is appropriate), it is far too crude a tool to engage the far more complex problems of human experience and judgment; for the Law requires that all answers must be given in terms of "true/false." Thus it works best in discrete situations involving either (1) direct observation; or (2) digital (machine) "thinking."
But for the vastly more complex problems of human experience and judgment, a three-value logical system is necessary. In three-value logic, there are three possible answers to any question: "true," "false," and "undecidable" (given any particular fact situation). The question must be undecidable unless we know all the relevant factors involved, which in human situations is rarely the case; and such relevant factors wouldn't be "direct observables" in principle anyway.
To employ the language of "Gagdad Bob" (a/k/a Dr. Robert Godwin, forensic psychologist), a two-value logical system moves along the horizontal time extension (like Newtonian mechanics). A three-value logical system has a third projection along the vertical time extension, which approaches the timeless....
Existentially, man lives "in-between" time and timelessness....
Which observation is probably as clear as mud to folks who don't worry themselves over epistemic problems. So let me put it another way: We have to say a question is undecidable unless we are in full possession of all the relevant factors bearing on the question. And arguably, you — and we — are not in possession of all the relevant factors. Indeed, no human being ever is. But — you evidently think you are, or you wouldn't speak the way you do.
But it seems to me that there are some relevant factors that you rule out in advance, preferring your own "true-and-false" notions, and closing your mind to all other factors that do not fit the criteria that you are attempting to impose on the question.
And then, rather gratuitously it seems to me, you wrote:
I would call that classic situationism for those who had formerly guided themselves by their Christian or conservative principles.Which to me is a breathtaking statement. Here you suggest that "conservatives and Christians" who don't see the problem exactly as you see it (and vote for Virgil Goode) are neither conservative or Christian.
Talk about the misapplication of the Law of the Excluded Middle!
Not to mention that your entire position suggests that people who don't agree with you are judged (by you) to have fallen away from God and His order....
Jeepers, dear brother in Christ — I just find that sort of thing totally appalling. Where is your Christian charity, your Christian humility?
Did not God say to us, "Judge not, lest ye be judged?"
Ultimately, God will judge me. For you to do that strikes me as being "way above your pay grade."
May the Grace of God be with you.
The second commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".
The Book of Abraham speaks endlessly about other "gods" performing creation etc.
Did your so called prophets just reveal that the 11th commandment is "Thou shalt not exclude the middle ?"...If not, take your phariseeical lawyer rubbush back into the cave it slithered out from.
If you vote for Mystery Babylon, expect to share in it's fate. (Don't worry the middle won't be excluded)
Hi Betty...a couple of things.
First, having dealt with Situational ethics nearly my entire ministry, and that in theological contexts, I do know that there is such a thing as a “situational” Christian. (By extension, I conjured up a “situational conservative” which never entered the discussions so much back then, but does sound logical.) So, to contend that I stripped them of their Christianity is reading a bit too much into my comments. As always, I could have written it poorly, so now you know more completely my meaning.
As to there being a forgotten middle, I would say that I’ve not forgotten the middle at all. Romney’s history is not that of a middle-of-the-roader.
I could go down the checklist at the Romneytruthfile, but I’ll just call everyone’s attention to it, and say that it supports every claim about the liberalism of Mitt Romney.
On top of that, Romney himself came out little more than a month ago in favor of gay couples. Moreover, he said that at a state level they should be allowed to adopt children.
This violates thousands of years of Christian teaching on the subject.
So, if a Christian can’t see that red flag and know they’re getting into the territory of situationism, then they need to do a little praying or studying or both.
My sense, Sister, is that those who accede to pro-homosexual politicians will sow the seed of homosexual acceptability within their own sphere of influence.
And Romans one associates pro-homosexualism with anti-Theism, although in reverse order of causality.