![Cultish delusions [1213x1351 - 182KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/qHDfBL.jpg){kind=link}
So you're saying... To make rent, I need to resort to immoral means. Okay.
No. But I am saying that you and almost everyone else in various degrees are victims of an economic system that for centuries has ceased to have any mind for moral considerations. But whatever the unjust situations in which we find ourselves, no good end sought justifies evil means to attaining it - and if evil means are employed regardless, the end attained will not be peace or goodness of any kind.
Here, perhaps, Christianity is at odds in the real world. In the real world, immoral conditions cause people to perform immoral actions in order to defend themselves and their families. Theoretically this might be immoral, but raising that consideration to people in desperate situations doesn't convince them to act otherwise.
It is self-preservation that makes the world go round, not concern for what's right.
(The earth is stationary.)
"...but whoever does not have, even what he does have shall be taken." [Matthew 13:12]
The issue is ascertaining why a person finds themselves in desperation. So often, we are the cause of our own despair.
This is why the gate to heaven is narrow because evil begets evil begets evil.
There is no question that a suffering person can behave morally. This idea that a desperate person must be immoral to survive is simply wrong.
I suppose the particular sort of desperation is what is at stake. Does the enslaved person have a moral pass to kill the person who took him as a slave?
Does a starving person have a right to harm others to acquire food?
In the first example, my answer is yes. In the second, it is no. The simple way to show this might be to demonstrate how the person's confounding was the result of improper actions at the start of the causal chain which lead to their situation of starving. We might also ask what other options exist to acquire food: charity, for example, which were available (but perhaps less convenient at the time) than killing someone to raid their fridge.
Here, perhaps, Christianity is at odds in the real world
Christianity is and always has been at odds with "the spirit of the world" (, , , ).
As for convincing, there is scarce a rational argument that will persuade anyone in dire straits, unless such a one already possesses great virtues. And if the sacrifice required is great, it may require supernatural virtues in addition to cardinal virtues and the like. So I appeal more to grace than argument to "convince".
(The earth is stationary.)
Based.
(post is archived)