Adrian:
I cannot provide you with a B/W answer just as I do not live by B/W
"laws." I think we should take each situation on a case by case basis
and monitor it as we go along. What works well in one situation may not
work well in another. You know, you could "help" one poor person who
would respond well, engage in self-improvement, and use your Christian
behavior in a positive way. You could provide the exact same "help" to
another poor person who doesn't respond well, doesn't engage in
self-improvement, and uses your Christian behavior in a negative way to
enable himself to stay dependent upon you (i.e. "use" you). At that
point in time, I think it wise for yourself AS WELL AS the poor person
to stop helping. Your time can be used with someone else, and the poor
person can learn a lesson that, in fact, may help him later in life.
Didn't Jesus walk away from people? I think he did.
Lucy
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Fwd:RE: Darwinism/Compassion]]]]
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:06:24 -0800
From: Adrian Teo <ateo@whitworth.edu>
To: 'Lucy Masters' <masters@cox-internet.com>, asa@calvin.edu
Hello Lucy,
----Original Message-----
From: Lucy Masters [mailto:masters@cox-internet.com]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 11:21 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: RE: [Fwd: RE: Darwinism/Compassion]]]]
Adrian:
See my earlier post to Jan regarding the basis for moral decisions.
Inasmuch as the NT disputes the OT, I don't think one must accept
the Bible as the only moral authority. I think I **do** use it as a
guidebook - but not as a book of laws. So how does that work in
daily life?
[AT] [example provided by Lucy deleted for the purpose of clarity.]
So I would say that the "Christian in me" says we should help people
to survive *for a while* and we should help them to become *fit* for
a while. But they must also participate. The only reason I can
think of for not "cutting off the aid" is if the person is so sick
or disabled that they cannot care for themselves.
[AT] In your earlier post, you wrote that the bible is not the only
guide, but that you take the way the natural world works as a guide
also (I hope I am reading you correctly). You seem to imply that the
bible does not give enough to make daily moral choices, and I
assume, correspondingly, that nature does. Then in the above, you
seem to impose limits on our intervention, even for life and death
issues. All in all, I think these raises even more questions, and I
still don't see any coherence at all. Why is it that what is in
nature assumed to be the moral norm? What exactly do you take from
the bible, since you agree that it may be a moral authority? Why
should there be limits on intervention in life and death issues, and
how do we know when we've reached them? What is/are your guiding
moral principles?
BTW - it may or may not interest you to know that I am married to a
person who was born totally and permanently disabled. If everything
had been handed to him, I'm quite certain he would be a bloated slug
today parked in front of a television set in a day room. Instead,
his mother and I both pushed and prodded him all the way through his
Ph.D. in clinical psychology. He has maintained his own private
practice for over 20 years, drives a little, red Mustang GT, and is
extremely independent. I don't think he regrets it. (Although I
did tell him last night that some members of this list think I'm a
demon, and he did laugh and say, "Gee! And just from reading your
little emails? If they ever met you in person, they'd run screaming
into the night!").
Lucy (Lucifer?)
[AT] I commend you for your commitment and love to your husband.
This is something that even many of us on this list would probably
have a hard time living up to. I appreciate you sharing this piece
of personal information with me, and no, I don't think you are an
agent of the devil.
Blessings,
Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 27 2002 - 15:00:36 EST