Love: Two People Are Drowning And...

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: Two people are drowning in a river. One person is someone very close to you, who has done you nothing but good all their life. The other person has done nothing but try to harm you. You can only save one. Which is the more Christian choice, indicative of Christian love? (Note: Just saving whichever one is closer, in other words, not having a preference, is a viable choice.)

[TRANSPONDER]

Save the one that loves you. That's what God is going to do right?

Well I don't think we're supposed to imitate God. We're supposed to forgive everyone, no matter what, while God only forgives some.

I also think it's a given, according to Christianity, that you risk your life for someone who hates and harms you, though I suppose I could be wrong. I don't see that any actual religious person has responded yet, perhaps because this is such a difficult question.

My understanding is that your other post is basically correct, and our love for those closest to us is simply biology; it's our nature. But throwing my child before wolves to be torn apart so I can save somebody else's child, or so I can save somebody who hates and harms me... That would be real love, according to a Christian. And I'm not saying I think that's incorrect even outside of religion. I think it is correct, and that doing otherwise is a form of racism: Preference for one's own genes and group over the genes and group of another.

To me, that makes God look less moral than humans and more hypocritical ("Don't do as I do; do as I tell you") ad preferring one's own may smack of racism, but preferring those who aren't your own smacks of inverted racism.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Tcg in post #10]

If I could figure out how to save one, I could figure out how to save both.

How can you know for sure? If they're drowning on opposite banks of the river, you'd only have a set amount of time available for both of 'em. That's a pretty big boat, depending on the width of the river, I suspect!
But the thread says "You can only save one.", so the "both" option seems to be off the table:D

Doing so has nothing to do with love.

Why do you say so? What makes you think this? Is it your duty? Moral obligation?

[Bradskii]

Who, in their right mind, would pick a stranger to save over their own family member(s)?!?

I've had the thought in my mind that saving one's own child, or one's own friend, or one's own pet, is the same type of behaviour as racism. You make a group, and then prefer members of that group over non-members. Imagine you were the only white family on Earth. Then, saving your own child over another would definitely be racist, and evil. You just chose the white child over a nonwhite child. 100% evil. So I wonder then, why is it not considered evil anyway?

I have come to the conclusion that when I pick people who are close to me, or alike to me, over those who hate me, or are unlike me, I engage in the same kind of evil that racism is.

It's not racism. It's a simple evolutionary trait. You tend to protect those who are genetically closer to you as opposed to those who aren't. Haldane put it perfectly: 'J.B.S. Haldane fully grasped the basic quantities and considerations in kin selection, famously writing "I would lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins". Haldane's remark alluded to the fact that if an individual loses its life to save two siblings, four nephews, or eight cousins, it is a "fair deal" in evolutionary terms, as siblings are on average 50% identical by descent, nephews 25%, and cousins 12.5%'. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

But you are close to determining the basis for racism. We tend to trust those who are most like us and distrust those who aren't. This can be as simple as a wearing a different team's colours or the colour of one's skin. This affects us all. Mostly unconsciously. It's how we act in response to these inbuilt tendencies that will determine if we are racist in the usual meaning of that term.

[Jemima]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #9]

Well I don't think we're supposed to imitate God. We're supposed to forgive everyone, no matter what, while God only forgives some.

Who told you that? God forgives only those who repent.....those who are genuinely sorry for what they have done. We can forgive those who do us wrong, but that person would not take precedence over a loved family member or friend. If I could only save one, I would save the one I love, but I would of course try to save both.....

I also think it's a given, according to Christianity, that you risk your life for someone who hates and harms you, though I suppose I could be wrong. I don't see that any actual religious person has responded yet, perhaps because this is such a difficult question.

God does not expect us to lose our humanity. But making a decision between saving someone you love as opposed to someone who hates you, my humanity would lead me to save the one I love. Why would God or Jesus expect me to do otherwise?

our love for those closest to us is simply biology; it's our nature. But throwing my child before wolves to be torn apart so I can save somebody else's child, or so I can save somebody who hates and harms me... That would be real love, according to a Christian.

What makes you think so? When Jesus said..."No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends."...where does it say that he gave his life for his enemies? God is going to destroy his enemies, so Christ did not die for them.

And I'm not saying I think that's incorrect even outside of religion. I think it is correct, and that doing otherwise is a form of racism: Preference for one's own genes and group over the genes and group of another.

That sounds more like an indoctrination rather than a Bible based belief. Who told you these things, because they seem way off balance.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Question for debate: Two people are drowning in a river. One person is someone very close to you, who has done you nothing but good all their life. The other person has done nothing but try to harm you. You can only save one. Which is the more Christian choice, indicative of Christian love? (Note: Just saving whichever one is closer, in other words, not having a preference, is a viable choice.)

Hmm. After thinking this over for about 2 long hours, I've made a decision, although it is very choice.

I think I am gonna have to go with, saving the person VERY CLOSE TO ME, WHO HAS DONE ME NOTHING BUT GOOD ALL THEIR LIFE.

Again, that is a tough one.