Wow. My second post wrote itself, too. Actually, someone wrote my second post, too, I should say.
I did not have time to write my own Martin Luther King, Jr. post today because I was really busy with home and homeschooling things, but this post on the new blog Two Know It Alls, the blog of the atheist couple I have been debating in the comments field on one of my posts for the last two weeks, really hits at the heart of what I wanted to say.
I’m not going to copy this one, so you have to hit the link.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Thanks for the link, Charity! It’s greatly appreciated, and I’m glad we could enjoy our own little 1914 Football Truce (albeit on MLK day instead of Christmas). I’m sure we’ll be back in the trenches soon enough
.
January 20th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I’m glad you liked my post, Charity, and thanks for the link. I’m curious, however, how you reconcile your apparent advocacy of individualism with your Christian worldview. At your suggestion, I have just finished reading Lewis’ Mere Christianity (I will no doubt blog a review when I find the time), and I have noted that at least some of your political and ethical values are in direct contrast to those stated by this celebrated Christian apologist.
Lewis illustrates what an ideal Christian society would look like, and it looks nothing like one that anyone would call “libertarian” or even vaguely “capitalist”. It sounds far more like pure communism (under a totalitarian, Christian rule). He describes it as “socialist” and “advanced”, but also “insisting on obedience” (children to parents and wives to husbands). And if you happen not to like any of this, it’s your own human failing and you should try to remedy it. He says that most people will not like all aspects of such a society, but that it nonetheless is the “right” one. That is, everyone has departed from God’s plan in one way or another, and are fighting (wrongly) to create their own modification.
Lewis specifically prescribes that Christians should not be individualists (or, ironically, totalitarians either… though to him “totalitarian” seems to mean forcing people to be “all alike”, not necessarily just requiring Christian behavior via “insistence on obedience” to rules consistent with Christianity).
A human, in the Christian view espoused by Lewis, is decidedly not an “independent, sovereign entity with an inalienable right to his own life” as I argued in my post. He is not even merely a member of a group, but no more than an “organ” in a collective body. And, of course, he has no partial claim to that body either. It is fully owned by God. Such an approach suggests that humans have no rights as such and are just means to the ends of the collective. Thus, Lewis’ view of Marxism as an ideal, Christian social system.
How do you reconcile your political beliefs with your religious ones?
January 20th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Thanks for the question, Rebecca. I welcome the opportunity to talk to you about something other than whether or not God is real.
I don’t believe that Christianity should be forced on anyone. If God wanted it forced on us, He wouldn’t have given us the ability to choose.
Forcing a Christian belief system on people is not going to foster a relationship between the person and God, which I believe is what God wants to have with us.
As far as government goes, a system like the one proposed by our Founding Fathers, which protects the people from an intrusive government, is the best system for us to have because it protects us from other religions forcing their views on us.
If Christians want to use the laws to impose their beliefs, it opens the door for others to do the same with their beliefs. That would not be good.
Where I agree with you that a human is an “independent, sovereign entity with an inalienable right to his own life” is with regard to the government, not with regard to God, or our responsibility to love one another through our actions, in accordance with God’s Word. This is a personal responsibility to God, not to be imposed or enforced by government.
As far as Capitalism goes, it’s the same thing. I believe that as a Christian, I have an obligation to use my money in a way that honors God, but I do not believe that the government has a right to spend it for me (especially in ways that conflict with my beliefs).
I also believe I can do more good living in a society that allows me the opportunities to make more money to do more good with. There is nothing wrong with making money, as long as money does not become more important than God and I conduct business in a moral and God-honoring way.
I hope that made sense. I’m kind of tired.
January 21st, 2007 at 6:58 pm
No, none of this makes sense, given your recent post on TwoKnowItAlls.
Rather than reject your faith-based premise that God is good, you’d rather destroy the concept of morality altogether and render yourself impotent to judge anything. In order to justify your belief, you claim: “I do not know what is good and what is bad.” Of course, this isn’t a justification at all. And it doesn’t even manage to protect your deeply-held premise; it refutes it in one sweep. If you can’t know what’s good or bad, how on earth can you claim that God is good?! What would that even mean? Your statement is a most extreme example of moral relativism. You are claiming that value judgment is a meaningless concept.
Yet now you also say here that forcing Christianity (or any belief system) on others would be bad, loving one another is good, government spending your money is bad, and that you can do more “good” with more money.
How can you possibly reconcile these claims with your claim that you don’t know what’s bad or good? And how can you justify your trust that “God is good”? You apparently wouldn’t even recognize “good” if it landed in your lap. I urge you to think carefully about the way your arguments have deteriorated from a moral absolutism into a complete annihilation of morality as we’ve continually asked you to justify your beliefs. Our arguments aren’t tricks or traps; we are just forcing you to face the inescapable contradictions inherent in your irrational beliefs.
January 21st, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I already responded to this on your blog. I did not say that I don’t have a personal opinion on whether something is good or bad, and illustrated that we can’t really know if something was good or bad without all of the facts.
I wasn’t destroying the concept of morality. My morality is not based on what I think is good. It is based on what God says is good. My inability to know what is good or bad absent knowing the outcome doesn’t bother me because I follow One who does know the outcome.
It would only bother me if I tried to base all my choices on my limited human ability to determine what is best.