The Third on a Moral Dilemma

Today is the day that I wrap up the "series", if you will, on morals and moral codes. If you haven't read Monday's or Wednesday's blogs, you may want to read them so that today's blog may be a little more lucid; although I'm not certain how clearly I have expressed my views on the issue of morals. It is a difficult subject to tackle in three, short blogs. Once you begin to study and consider morals and moral codes, you realize that it peels like an onion, thin layer after thin layer.

I have stated that my intent is not to be an exhaustive or definitive source on all things moral, but to cause all of us to think about how we come to decisions and what leads us to actions.

I began this series with a synopsis of two women and some of their decisions; decisions that reflect their moral code. One woman has fourteen children, the other woman has been married twenty three times. Then I asked the question, "Which of these two women is the most immoral?" Then came some analogy and observations, opinions and philosophies. No real answers of right or wrong were given.

And today is the day that I give my answer to which of the two women I feel is the more immoral. And my answer may or may be agreed upon. And it is probably anti-climatic to many readers who have followed this weeks blog entries.

I have to admit, I have no definitive, resolute answers here. At least no answers in terms of pure logic. I could probably post about a thousand more questions, but we have considered enough questions on this topic. And I hope that the point I am trying to make is a little more clear; and that is that when we compare individual moral codes to other individual moral codes, all we get are questions, gaps, and inconsistencies.

So how do we come to an answer to which woman is the most immoral? And how can there be more than one answer to a dilemma when there is only one reality? I can only answer for myself here; the final piece of this moral "series" will be written from my perspective, using my philosophies of life; otherwise we would chase our tails for weeks and weeks, only to find that there is no "one answer fits the question" type of answer to the question.

And my answer is the anti-climatic as mentioned before; my answer is that I am not qualified to make an answer as to which woman is the most immoral. Even if I believed that one person can be more or less immoral than another person, I would not be qualified to give an answer as to which woman would be lower on the moral totem pole or caste system. The reason is that I cannot give an answer is because that I try to follow a moral code that, I believe, is higher than any code I could create on my own. It is a code that God has ordained in His actions and through His son and by means of His Spirit. It is a code recorded in The Holy Bible. It is a code that is revealed to me as I pray. It is a code that I have accepted when I made accepted Jesus as my saviour. The same code that remains constant through all of these things, revealed and guided by the Holy Spirit.

I cannot answer as to which woman should be deemed as more or less immoral; the code I follow is not my own. And to pass judgement on someone using a code other than one that is my own, not only gets into the area of law, but is moral plagiarism. Sure, I can make a guess as to either woman's morality. I can judge "by the fruit of the tree that is their life" as some say in church circles. But the ultimate answer is God's; because He has given us a code to follow. A code that is intended to bring a full life now and salvation after this life in the here and now.

This is the section of the series that I was to give some proof and credibility as to Christianity having absolutes. This is the part where I get into apologetics and defend Christianity. This is whereI give examples of there being more evidence that Jesuswasa real person than proof of George Washington's existence. Here is where I give the some of the records of the historical significance and extensive documentation of The Bible. I then would follow up by saying that there is More documented proof of the Bible's historical accuracy and more historical proof of Bibles authenticity than the authenticity of all ancient literature, including Plato, Socrates, Pliny, etc and so forth. But God has reminded me that he doesn't need me to defend His honor or His integrity,and that there is no sense in trying to convince anyone to join His side. Only The Holy Spirit can bring that conviction. I can only hope that He uses my feeble talents and my words.

And I realize that acceptance of this code relies on faith and not logic. So why ask all of the logical questions if I have been leading to an answer that is faith based? I hope it was so to show that we cannot live by a logical,moral code due to the conflicts of individual moral codes; that there is one real answer for one real reality. I hope to make you think about your logic and your faith. If you claim to be a Christian, are more or less moral if you follow God's code more or less? Just as you cannot be more or less pregnant or have more or less than five dollars worth in a five dollar bill, you cannot be more or less a Christian. You are or you aren't.

This not where I lecture about why don't we who call ourselves Christians, live more like Christ. This is not where I chastise anyone because their belief is different than mine, regardless of how strongly we may feel individually. This is where I would like to take a whiffleball bat, the old yellow kind we played with as kids, to both of these ladies whose morals we have questioned, but instead istheplace where I must remember grace.

We can look at the various breaches in moral codes committed by these two women, although none have been illegal. And we will not muddy the waters with the difference between law and morals. But we can look at the "sins" that have been committed by these women, but we cannot condemn them. We can bring their breach of code to attention, but only as a means to help correct their lives. We can keep our distance from them and even discipline them in their church, but only as means of restoration and love. We have no moral or legal right to condemn them; that is reserved for someone bigger than you and I.

There are several other words I wanted to say and several other aspects I wanted to focus on, but I really feel that enough may be enough. I hope that I have made my point clear; that there are no absolute answers to absolute reality if we consider individual moral codes. There is one definitive source for answers to our moral dilemmas, and that is God. Not a religion or a sect or a demographic, but God.

Treat this "series" as one may treat Pascal's Wager,that even if there were to be no God wouldn't it be better to live as though there were a God? That may help society, but not any one's individual salvation.

I end this by asking again, How do we come to the decisions that we make and what leads us to actions? I also want to leave this subject open if anyone wants to ask questions, so that I may be more clear on specifics than I may have been the last few days. Contact me at ronnie_mason@hotmail.com or join the group "Readers of The Self-Inflicted Blog" on Facebook and post a question there.

I hope this has caused us all to think and more importantly, I hope I used the words God asked me to use and that this is part of something bigger than my two-cent opinions or an opinionated blog. God Bless and have a great weekend!