Forgive the philosophical tone of this post, especially since I am not a philosopher but I was wondering about the question after having some conversation or other with my father about decisions in life and what was right and wrong. For instance, is it right for a Christian to be a soldier? Is it right for any Christian? Do these grey questions imply that there is no absolute truth. (Some people would think it is not a grey question but for many I think we would agree that we would be uncomfortable with the killing part of being a soldier but would accept that many soldiers are believing Christians)
As in many subjects of life, people seem to disagree, not because they necessarily disagree but because they are careless with words and definitions and not humble to backtrack on an opinion. So person A, lets call him Bruce, says that "Truth is absolute", he believes this because God is absolute, Jesus calls himself the Truth and is God therefore, Truth is God is absolute. He therefore believes that his view on being a soldier is the universal view that should be held by everyone. Person B - or Charlie - has a problem with this stance because he thinks that it is wrong to be a soldier if you are a Christian because it could involve killing someone which he thinks the Bible doesn't agree with. He also knows that lots of soldiers are Christians so he has a few options. 1) He is wrong about thinking it is wrong, 2) All soldiers who are Christians are wrong or 3) truth is not absolute because what is wrong for him is not wrong for others. The 3rd option is the most palatable so he disagrees with Bruce and they have a big argument and both storm out of the pub cursing the other person's lack of theology!!
What if we more careful with our definitions? When we talk about absolute truth, we are unqualified to talk about it because it is much beyond our understanding but we can probably safely say a few things. Bruce and Charlie would both agree that God is absolute and that what he knows and thinks both in Himself and for us are absolute but we cannot go much further than this with any certainty. We can say with certainty that the Bible forbids murder but we also know that God ordained various people to kill others in a way that would be murder if it wasn't for the fact that God allowed them to do it. So if we defined murder as killing without God's permission then it would be an absolute statement of truth and Bruce and Charlie can then argue about whether God permits armies to kill people and if so to what extent it is allowed!
Put simply, life is complex and although there is a perfect/absolute plan in God's mind, for the most part this appears to be worked as best as possible in real life allowing for the complexity of humans and their own ideas.
1 comment:
The whole army thing has always confused me too. People were attacked and killed in the Bible (I think sometimes under God's direction too) after God released the 10 commandments so is there something in the definition of 'killing' vs. 'murder' that gets lost in translation? Why is it that the authorities were permitted to kill people who had broken the law? In the old testament the wages of sin are death (as they still are, but we have Jesus) so that is perhaps more understandable, but who has the authority to implement it? xx
Post a Comment