Jr,
I read your sentence too fast and this is what I read, "If by lying you're going to help kill Jews, then you should lie."

Just thought that was funny.

Back to the topic
I am not 100% convinced that the No Conflict approach is the right decision. I don't even know why I don't like it.

I guess here are some questions I am wrestling with.
1. How do I know which Law is the greatest to follow?
2. How do I know that my decision is indeed the right one to follow. Lame example but it describes my thought. Nazi's ask do I have any Jews. I lie and say no (which is the greatest law--loving my neighbor), but the soldiers still search and find the Jews and then kill them and my whole family. If I just turned the Jews in and told the truth, then the Nazi's would only kill the Jews and my family would have been spared.

I know that it is lame to argue from specific examples, but in this case I think it flushes out what I am wrestling with.

casey

Travis,

I understand what you're saying now, and I think I agree.  My bad.  Thanks for clarifying.

Casey,

I think I misunderstood what you meant by your point 1.  I assumed (clearly wrongly) that you were referring to believers who willfully ignore Scriptures that contradict what they already believe (for instance, Christians who are pro-war ignoring Jesus' command to love our enemies and pray for our persecutors).  That is the position I find spiritually and intellectually dishonest.

So... I guess I would go with your point 1... I don't think God ever puts us in a situation in which we have to break one of his/her laws in order to keep another.  Or, I would probably say that God's laws are always conditional on the big 2 (Love God, Love Others).  If by not lying you're going to help kill Jews, then you should lie.  But if your lie is only to preserve yourself at the cost of another, then you should not.

hm... that's what i've got.  I'm sorry i misunderstood.

I would love to hear what others would have to say about this topic.
casey

Jr.
"I have been saying over and over that when we are caught in situations that seem to involve contradictory laws, we are not 'being creative enough.' I am flat out saying that 'we are never in a situation in which our only recourse is to sin'. "

First, you have never said this. In all your conversations, you have not said your opinion until now. But that doesn't really matter. Perhaps, I messed up in understanding you. No big deal.

Second, What is the difference between what you have said here, "flat out saying that we are never in a situation in which our only recourse is to sin" and with what I said with the first view one could have, "No Conflict: We say that they never actually conflict with each other. Thou, at times, it appears so…they do not. "

Third, I find it interesting that if these views are the same, that you called this view "intellectually and spiritually dishonest." I do think what your saying is the same as what I was saying earlier, but I do not think this view is "intellectually and spiritually dishonest."

I think you are correct, that God will not place us in a situation where we have to sin. And our creativity comes in handy when we are faced with times when it seems like we must sin.

Travis,
I had not replied to your question of doing vs being. I think there is much wisdom in what you are saying. Unfortunately, the problem is the slippery slope syndrome. With an incorrect view of what it means to "be with Christ" one might say that since God has forgiven me then I am able to sin, because of grace. Does that make sense? I think many so-called Christians rely on God's grace as an excuse to keep sinning. I think you and I would probably assume that these people are not truly "being in Christ" because he should compel us to be holier than we are currently. Unfortunately, I find myself to be one of these people more often than I would like to admit.
casey

JR,
When I you said that you deny my premise that laws are absolute by nature, I guess I assumed that you know that I wasn't talking about natural laws (i.e. laws of the nature) but I was talking about the nature of laws (i.e. the essence of laws). This is more of a metaphysical/metaethical claim that I made rather than an ethical one per se. Again, all I was saying that God laws, in their essence, are unchanging and absolute because they are good, and the property of good never becomes not good. In this sense, God's laws are eternal for the word of the Lord is enternal. By simple reasoning, I believe that one can deduct from Scripture that God's laws (such as "love God with all of your heart, mind, and soul"), should never be violated. Any cases in Scripture you know of that show otherwise?

Travis,

What do you mean by 'laws of nature'?  Gravity?  F=MA?  These are not scriptural laws, so it's unfair to ask me to defend then scripturally, don't you think?  :D  In other cases, I don't find any place in Scripture where the Scriptures call their own laws absolute.  In fact, as I pointed out above, the laws were understood to be case studies to provide judges with guidelines for just such situations as Casey has indicated.

Casey,
I have been saying over and over that when we are caught in situations that seem to involve contradictory laws, we are not being creative enough.  I am flat out saying that we are never in a situation in which our only recourse is to sin.  In your example earlier, we just lie.  No big deal.  God's command not to lie is not an absolute commandment (i know you don't want to get caught up in examples, but it's the one you used).

Jesus himself said that all the commandments hinge on "Love God; Love others". If we're not doing that, then we're not following God.  And I can't imagine a situation where those two commands conflict.

JR,

If you take another glance at what I said concerning how God never changes, I said that, "God never changes with respect to his perfection and holiness." The important caveat here is that his perfection, goodness, and holiness never changes, and it is the law that reflects God's perfect holiness. I did not say that God is nothing more than a static Being who merely exists in a state of infiniteness. However, he never does increase nor diminish with respect to his goodness and holiness, and thus, he never changes in that regard.

That being said (pheww...) you reject the premise that the nature of laws are absolute. Any reason from Scripture for this? I know this is a tall order, but hey, what are we here for anyways? :)

Casey,
Thank you for bringing up this post. I really sympathize with you in some moral dilemmas that we face in this life. I use to bite the Kantian bullet and say, "hey, tell the Nazis where the Jews are hiding, for you can never lie." Now that I have moved beyond the moralism of Kant, I think it is not so simple. So what are we to do? I think these dilemmas are how God bring us to himself all the more. In the mist of such conflicts, He has given us the Holy Spirit to guide our minds and hearts toward the good. I think that God is not so much concerned with our actions (doing X), but with our hearts first (being X), so that later we will do the right thing. So the laws (yes absolute they are) were given to drive us to the Living God.

As St. Augustine said, "The law orders, that we, after attempting to do what is ordered, and so feeling our weakness under the law, may learn to implore the help of grace."

How gracious He is indeed.
What do you think?

Jr,
My question you still have not tried to answer. I don't care about your point 1 or 2 because they have nothing to do with my question. I am asking, what do we do when we seem to be in a position when we have no other option...it seems like we are limited to two options which are both sins.

With this statement I am not assuming your first point (God can't change--I indeed believe he does changed, probably not that much thou) or your second (if we are rightly interpreting the commands correctly). Obviously, with many examples we can prove how we are not correctly following them, but at some point in these commands there is validity that applies to us. So what happens when two of God's seemingly valid laws conflict?

Your examples of Jesus are perfect for our discussion. Many people misunderstand that the Sabbath was created for man not man for the Sabbath. In this circumstance, people thought there was a conflict. How did they handle it? Some drew closer to Christ, some tried to kill him.

Today we do not wrestle with some of those issues, but we still wrestle with some that are close. If Nazi's came into the room where you were hidden Jews and pointed a gun to your head--Do you lie or tell the truth which results in many deaths?

This is still a made up example and there is a danger to discussing these because people can miss the point, which is how do we handle the conflicting dilemma? Maybe, the answer is that there is no conflict. Maybe the answer is choose the greater good or lesser evil. Maybe there is another option that we have not discussed.If you have another option then let us hear it.

1 Cor. 10:13 (I think off hand), God does not give us temptations that we can't bear.
Hebrews 4:15, our high priest (Jesus) was tempted EVERY way that we are tempted, yet he is without sin.

What I am trying to communicate is that we assume one of two things

1) God meant for his/her laws to be absolute and never changing

and/or

2) We are rightly interpreting God's laws exactly as s/he meant them.

I am trying to point out that neither of those may be true.  So, if my understanding of God's laws is contradictory, I need to reevaluate my understanding of 1) God, 2) God's laws, 3) myself and 4) how I understand the relationship among 1-3.

If God's laws (seem to) contradict, that seems to be my problem, not God's.  My point in suggesting that God can change is that if God can change then maybe God's laws are not as absolute as you are both suggesting.

Jesus says laws are not absolute when he goes around breaking them.  Plucking grain on the Sabbath, touching dead bodies, lepers and unclean women, etc.  In fact, isn't the whole of Christianity built on the idea that God is doing a new thing?  Aren't we new wineskins?

And at the bottom of all of this, I still don't understand what's so threatening about a God who contradicts him/herself.  Why are we so uncomfortable with ambiguity?  Our very canon contradicts itself all over the place.  I think God designed us to work better in the gray areas.

Jr.
When does the bible ever say that the laws are not absolute? Dude, I really don't care to have that conversation. Like I said, I am not trying to debate my examples (murder and lying...what they really mean or don't mean). I don't think that really matters because my focus was on the boundaries that the laws created. What happens when the boundaries collide? For whatever the "thou shall not murder" meant, it was a boundary for people to follow. If you do not believe it applies to you or does or does mean "fighting in wars" then pick some other laws or commands...those things are things that don't matter (the apostle paul called these things adiophora-things that don't matter).

As far as the 3 options go, I only was trying to create discussion. Obviously, there are some problems with each point, but what decision do we make then? I never said I agree or disagree with any point of view. If you disagree, then at least state your opinion instead of saying everything is dumb. I am by no means upset. Your comments do not give the opportunity to discuss these matters, at least give us something to think about.

My question is still valid (even if you don't like the absolute issues). How do we handle those commands from God that seem conflicted?

By you saying that you do not believe commands from God can be absolute, does that mean you do not believe there are such times that his commands are conflicting?

Jr. you missed the whole point of what Travis was saying. He never said God doesn't change his mind or whatever, but his holiness never changes...Help me to see differently if you disagree with that.

casey

Casey,

I'm asking how you know that God's absolute laws are absolute?  When does the bible ever say that?  As for "Do not murder"... what does that mean?  Is war justifiable?  What about captial punishment?  What about the genocides in Joshua?  What counts as 'murder'?  Does this apply only to Israelites, or to all persons?  These issues have been discussed by Yahweh's people for millenia, and we're not a whole lot closer to a consensus. 

Your first option is intellectually and spiritually dishonest; the latter two are pragmatic.  What is the problem with understanding that God's laws are not, in fact, absolute, but are nearly always conditional?  What's wrong with that?  I don't understand what's so threatening about that idea.

Travis,
Who says the nature of a law is that it's absolute?  I reject that premise.

And who says that God never changes?  Certainly not the Bible; it's filled with examples of God changing.  I also reject that premise.

more later... it's MOVE TIME.

Laws by their very nature are absolute. This is the case because the Law is a reflection or mirror of the divine nature of God and His holiness. Just as God never changes with respect to his perfection and holiness, so the reflection of that holiness never changes as well.

Jr...first, I am not talking about the commands from God that are indeed matters of opinion or flexible. We are talking about laws or commands that are indeed absolute. My example of Thou shall not murder is a good example. This law is universal and absolute.

second...

I see this dilemma solved by taking one of three options:
1. NO CONFLICT: We say that they never actually conflict with each other. Thou, at times, it appears so...they do not. So 1 Cor. 10:15 is true, "god always provides a way out."

2. LESSER OF TWO EVILS: With this approach we choose whatever option that seems to do less harm to those involved. We admit there are times when conflicts happen, and when we choose an option we do sin. This approach focuses on trying to choose the lesser of the evils.

3. Greater Good: This might seem to be the same as point 2 with a difference in the naming, but there is a big difference. This approach focuses on trying to find what the greater good is. This approach does not hold one liable for their efforts of trying to do the greater good. Examples would be what Jesus did quite often. (healing on the Sabbath, allowing the disciples to eat on the Sabbath, etc).

More on this later...its my bedtime and I am preaching tomorrow

What's wrong with the ambiguity?  Maybe God didn't intend for her commands to be interpreted so 'absolutely'?  We already know that most of the laws in the Hebrew Bible were case studies meant to give a specific judge a general idea - not to provide for every situation.  God encourages us to be a little more creative than that.

Yes, Casey - I linked to them above.

Wonders for Oyars, I appreciate your crafty ability to rationalize this issue. You are very smart.

But one thing I notice when I mention this topic to others is that they try to make these "conflicts" go away.

I wonder if your statement about "lying vs. bearing false witness" is just that. There are many other texts in scripture that show us that it is God's command that we do not lie (not just bear false witness).

Like I said early, my desire is not to squabble over these smaller issues (kill vs. murder, or lying vs. false witness). I am trying to seek out what we should do when two of God's commands conflict, and I believe there are times when they do conflict.

Any other thoughts...

By the way, I touch on this a little here, in reflecting on the story of Jael.

Hi Casey,

This particular example is a little less difficult, I think. I notice that you did the right thing in distinguishing "kill" from "murder" in the commandment. Let's do the same thing with "lie" and "bear false witness". Pulling the wool over the eyes of your enemy in a time of just war is not bearing false witness against your neighbor - and as such we are not in the position of directly violating a commandment. Jesus himself took measures to act so that his opponents had eyes that did not see. This puts us in a less dire moral quandary - the same one of perhaps having to fight when we follow the prince of peace.

Wow, I am shocked so many already want to talk about the question. Usually, I ask silly questions.

Anyways:

What do we do when two of God's absolute laws conflict with each other?

God has give us commands to follow. These are not issues of interpretation or grey areas. I am talking about specific commands that are necessary to follow. Like the 10 commandments. Thou shall not murder is a good example.

Thou shall not murder is pretty straight forward. (this is not talking about killing, war, capital punishment--but specifically murder--try not to get on these side tracks).

Thou shall not lie is pretty straight forward (We need to tell the truth).

What happens when these two commands conflict? Nazi's during WW2, smuggling bibles, Abraham offering Isaac, Midwives in Egypt. Some might think these are too foreign and not relevant to us...but it does apply. What do I do when my wive ask me how she looks in a hideous dress?

Remember, I am not asking to solve these fake situations...but I am asking how do we handle the ethical question of dealing with two conflicting commands from God.

Do what Christians have done for centuries... pick the one that challenges your current worldview the least and be dogmatic about it.

Or settle for ambiguity.

Without faltering to the left or to the right, hold them together in mystical tension, and keep hold of them until he blesses us.

Whew, that was easy. Next question?

Yeah, Casey, I think this is a really interesting question and I am chomping at the bit to deal with this issue - but I'd like to get a feel for what you are talking about. An example would be nice.

I just popped on here long enough to print out the comments for the other thread (I'm at the in-laws with terrible internet access and on my vacation).

Oh boy... do you have a sample in mind?