Does the United States Pass the Test?

Question

Do we pass the test "But I say, love your enemies![s] Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven" Matthew 5:43

Answer 1

I think the people who do act in this way, are more likely reading better literature than that!

Answer 2

Try as I might, I cannot change what a whole country does. I can only control what I do, so I worry about that, and leave the rest alone, else I'd go CRAZY! Maybe this is some good friendly advice for you too! :)

Answer 3

Of course not. But then, neither does the majority of mankind. As far as I am convinced, aside from a handful of camels (camels through the eye of a needle) - only the Amish that I have met truly meet those standards.

Answer 4

Easy - nope. We're not even close as a nation. A few radical Christian might cover this, but that is about all.

Answer 5

As a country overall, I believe we would fail that test.

Answer 6

The command is to individuals, not to sovereign nations. God has set up governments to protect the weak, and to punish evil-doers. See Romans chptr. 13

Answer 7

Nobody accomplishes the futile mission of trying to be as "perfect" as the Christian bible tells everyone to be.

Answer 8

since were blowing up our enemies i would say no. but since i don't follow the bible i don't really care if we pass that test.
~*~Blessed Be~*~

Answer 9

Show me the verse that says, "Allow your enemies to rape and murder their own people, on their way to blow up your children. This do, because its none of your business."

Answer 10

Perhaps everyone might think on the subject of morality and agree that morality is needed by everybody, if we want peace in the world.

Morality has nothing to do with religion or atheism. Believing in God does not make a person automatically moral. Similarly, being an atheist does not make one automatically moral. Morality does not come from faith, feeling or social conformity. It comes from reason, logic, and the understanding of the law of cause and effect.

MORALITY FROM RELIGION

Religion teaches that one must obey God. Whatever God says must be good, right, and moral. This is hardly a practicable precept. It’s more like a blueprint for suicide. God may say things like: Take your son to the mountain and kill him, to prove that you believe in me, have faith in me, and love me unconditionally. Or God might say, it is your duty to fight the infidels: Take an airline and slam it into a building full of people. You’ll demonstrate you believe in me, love me unconditionally, above everything else and will be rewarded for such good action. This is putting in practice the moral precepts of religion based on absolute faith in God. Obviously, not many people are courageous enough to live these precepts, so it’s a kind of impractical morality that cannot be practiced consistently. The moral principle of religion can be condensed in the idea that pledging absolute obedience to God, sacrificing even one’s life and lives of others, is the ultimate standard of morality. If we all truly practiced it, what kind of world would we have? And for how long?


MORALITY FROM SOCIAL AUTHORITIES

In this case people reject the idea that God can tell us what is true and the principles for living. Instead, all the philosophies that advocate subjectivism teach that the moral principles for living are true if they are created by oneself or by a group. If it is an individual who creates the moral codes he can either follow them alone or he can have followers, other people who agree with his principles. In that case they form a society, with rules and laws. If the individual is powerful he can be a king or emperor or dictator and impose the laws that he likes.

Basically, dictators and personal subjectivists believe that FEELINGS determine what’s true and what’s right. They justify their moral principles with these popular statements (you must have heard them around):

There are many truths, mine yours, and theirs.

What’s true for me may not be true for you.

What’s right for me may not be right for you.

Go with your feelings and you’ll be right.


Social subjectivism is the idea that the individual must be controlled by the group and that number creates the right, or at least a better moral code. One person could not come up with the truth and correct moral principles all by himself, but a group, or a committee, or a voting nation should be able to accomplish the task. So in social subjectivism, society becomes the authority and the individual is the subject that must bow to its precepts. In a society without a dictator, people decide that the majority has the most wisdom, therefore it votes and enacts the rules and laws that are moral.

Notice that in all the cases so far mentioned, the individual must follow those moral rules BY FORCE, because the individual is placed in a position of dependence and subservience. He is considered moral only if he places God, the dictator, or the group above himself, no matter what these authorities concoct.

Is there an alternative to this tragic state of affairs? Yes.

What is needed is an objective morality, which neither personal, nor social, nor divine subjectivism can provide. It is our free will that complicates things. We have volition, the power to choose our actions and it is precisely freedom of choice that makes morality a requirement for happiness. But exactly do we choose? We choose what we value and then we choose the actions required to obtain those values. Since it appears that people choose different values, it becomes confusing to know exactly whose choices are right. How can we know how to choose the correct value and how to act correctly to get that value? Who is going to guide us in these choices? If we do not have a way to measure if a value is valid or not we have to rely on some authority. Religious authorities are not objective. Individual opinions are not objective, so opinions cannot provide a standard of measure. Dictators and kings may be wise and benevolent, sometimes, but they are not objective.

Where can we look and find an objective standard of value? In nature! By asking ourselves where in nature we find values and why we need them. A value has to be defined as the object for which one acts in order to acquire it and keep it. In nature, rocks have non need to acquire or keep anything, but living things do! Plants need to acquire moisture and sunlight. Animals and humans need food, and much more. Those are the values to be found in nature. So, now that we know that living organisms have values and rocks do not, what’s the big deal? The big deal is that now we have established LIFE as the objective standard of value. Values can not exist where life does not exist. Human values are all for human living, therefore it is LIFE that makes the concept value meaningful and possible.

The need to stay alive creates the need for the values food and shelter. To obtain food and shelter, there are thousands of actions one can choose from: examples of moral actions range from cultivating land, building houses, creating art work that people appreciate and buy, becoming an engineer, driving a bus, running a store, teaching, trading, can you think of some more? Why are these moral actions? Because they require no sacrifice on your part or on the part of others. No one is forcing you to choose them, you do. One, however, might decide that there are better actions to choose from to stay alive. One might prefer to think of ways to obtain money to buy food and shelter by stealing, mugging people in the streets, cheating by selling things that appear good, but are not, lying, and forcing others to give him goods without earning them, maybe murdering people to get what he wants. These are examples of immoral actions. What is the difference between moral and immoral actions. They both have the same purpose: they provide a living, but the moral actions do not require sacrifice, the immoral requires the sacrifice of some people for the benefit of others, sometimes the death of some people for the life of others. A peaceful world is achieved when we start teaching that objective morality exists because life is the objective standard of value for every human being.