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.)

[nobspeople]

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.)

All things being equal, you pick the one you know and love better.
I have 0 issue with that, christian love or no.
Add another variable:
the person has done nothing but try to harm me and my dog.
My dog.
Every.
Single.
Time.

[Purple Knight]

All things being equal, you pick the one you know and love better.
I have 0 issue with that, christian love or no.

I have this picture in my head of the person who chooses the opposite, and saves his worst enemy over his best friend or his child or his beloved pet, every single time. I can't help but think of him as moral, and holy, the kind of person I would want to be, the kind of person who's the opposite of what I am now.

When I was a kid, I had a few chickens as pets. I thought they were cool. The neighbour kid put his dog over the fence because he wanted to see the dog rip up some chickens. The dog killed one pretty brutally before I could stop it. Being evil, I did rush to stop the thing. I launched myself at it and tackled it, and it yiped, which my parents saw. There was a lot of concern over whether I could have hurt it.

I've done a lot of picturing my opposite, my "good twin" in that same situation, who puts himself and his loved ones very last, and the neighbour kid and his dog first. He has no hatred whatsoever for that kid; he's enlightened. He's perfect, actually. "Wow, your dog is really energetic," he says, "Look at him go! He needed that exercise. I'm glad he's so happy."

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #3]

I have this picture in my head of the person who chooses the opposite, and saves his worst enemy over his best friend or his child or his beloved pet, every single time.

I'd be hard pressed to think anyone would do that, christian or not. But then again, belief causes people to do weird things so who knows!

I can't help but think of him as moral, and holy, the kind of person I would want to be, the kind of person who's the opposite of what I am now.

I would think that person mentally deranged. Who, in their right mind, would pick a stranger to save over their own family member(s)?!?

[Purple Knight]

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.

When I picture myself choosing my worst enemy over my best friend or beloved pet, I feel a sense of pride in that scenario. If I could actually do that, and be so devoid of hate for the people who harm me that I would choose them over my best friend, I'd be a good person, and nobody could say I wasn't. Not just good, but more righteous than others; in the place where people couldn't tell me what to do on the basis that they are more righteous than I am. I'd never have to hear that again.

[TRANSPONDER]

Very good - and remarkably links up with the 'You are no longer you' thread - idea.

Yes, this preference for ones' own people is a human trait and some have seen it as wrong (or some might say 'sinful') but it is the way we are, or were made. It gets complex as we might prefer our friends (who are nothing to do with our family) over some family members whom one might prefer to avoid, or people from another country whom one prefers over a countryman who is frankly obnoxious.

Though the human rules of family, and nation are in place it comes down more to personal selection of who is 'our group'. That said, whowever is in 'our personal group' will be saved rather than some stranger, if you can't save both.

Is that immoral? It is unfortunate, but not immoral. And if God is so bothered by us not able to bring ourselves to save an enemy rather than a friend, let him save the fellow himself. And if there is no god there to do it, I'm not going to fret about the instinctive choice; or, if there is a god there but he can't do it because it would show that he exists and would thus abrogate 'Faith', that's his moral problem, not mine.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #5]

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.

I think this is a case of thinking too hard about something. But if it works for you....

When I picture myself choosing my worst enemy over my best friend or beloved pet, I feel a sense of pride in that scenario. If I could actually do that, and be so devoid of hate for the people who harm me that I would choose them over my best friend, I'd be a good person, and nobody could say I wasn't.

I don't see it as hate. It would only be hate, to me, if you actively participated in preventing the 'worst enemy' from being saved or, killing them yourself. To me, hate is an active emotion; you have to actively engage the emotion and act on it.

[benchwarmer]

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.)

That's easy from a Christian perspective. Save the one that loves you. That's what God is going to do right? Those who profess belief, ask for forgiveness, and love God will be saved (plucked from the river of life into eternal happiness). Those who don't believe, don't seek forgiveness, or don't love God will be cast out (left in the river to drown in misery). It's right there in the Bible.

Now, as for me personally, I will attempt to save the person I love. That's a no brainer for me.

The real tricky question is, do you risk your life and jump in when it's only the person that you despise and has only ever hurt you? i.e. do you potentially give up your own life to try and save the miserable sod in the river who probably shouldn't have put themselves in that spot to begin with. I don't have a cut and dried answer to that one. I'm not a terribly strong swimmer so risking my life on a venture that might lead to both of us dying anyway seems iffy. Would entirely depend on the circumstances and the day. I'm certainly no hero above all else.

[Purple Knight]

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.

[Tcg]

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.)

If I could figure out how to save one, I could figure out how to save both. That's what I'd do, save both. Doing so has nothing to do with love. Of course such is the value of hypotheticals.


Tcg