Faith and Politics

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Igzy

.....In fact, if you don't go back to God eventually, then all convictions are just opinions. Why should we help the poor, really? You can make arguments that it's in the best interests of everyone. But the fact is the power of the idea is that it is about compassion. Now, why should we be compassionate? Why not just look out for number one? Who says we should help others? What's the source of that idea? ....

..... There are no "human" matters that do not eventually resolve to him. So why pretend there are, except, ironically, for political gain?

You and I agree on this as a GENERAL truth, that all human truth eventually resolves ti God. But when it comes down to specific situations, there is an INDETERMINACY problem as to to what "truth" is God's and what is just opinion. You are exactly right that if we take reference to God out of it we are left with just "opinions." But THAT is honesty. Unless you actually think you CAN know God's will for what laws a human government should have.

But recognizing the REALITY that we're just exchanging reasoned opinions, it gives us pause. We're more willing to listen to one another. The fellow who uses "God says so" as one of his premises is less likely to allow mutuality in debate.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

You and I agree on this as a GENERAL truth, that all human truth eventually resolves ti God. But when it comes down to specific situations, there is an INDETERMINACY problem as to to what "truth" is God's and what is just opinion. You are exactly right that if we take reference to God out of it we are left with just "opinions." But THAT is honesty. Unless you actually think you CAN know God's will for what laws a human government should have.

But recognizing the REALITY that we're just exchanging reasoned opinions, it gives us pause. We're more willing to listen to one another. The fellow who uses "God says so" as one of his premises is less likely to allow mutuality in debate.

The principle of indeterminacy is one Christians should be familiar with simply from their relationship with the Church. So that should carry over to society in general. People have a right to their opinions and to voice them. But none of us are obligated to agree with anyone, only to be honest with ourselves about what our conscience tells us.

This is apparently how God expects thing to work: That somehow in this to-ing and fro-ing and pushing and pulling we are to arrive at something which resembles what He would be pleased with. No one of us knows much for sure, but everyone together arrives at something that's pretty close to what's right. That's the way the Church is supposed to do it through prayer and fellowship; and that's the way democracies are supposed to do it through debate and voting.

Stridently insisting one has the corner on God's will is as distasteful in the Church as it is in Public. But that doesn't mean we still can't invoke God, as long as we say "For me, I believe this is God's will." The only reason to leave that out in public is that it might be taken the wrong way, not that doing so is wrong in principle.