Paidion wrote:How would Lutzer answer the question, "Is it right to lie to save a life if there is no other option?" He would answer, "No." Yet he would say you should choose "the least of two evils," in this case the "two evils" being lying or allowing a person to be killed when you could have saved him. So, in a moral dilemma in which you would be doing something morally wrong whichever action you choose, Lutzer would recommend that you should carry out the least of two evils and then ask God to forgive you for sinning.
Paidion, I understand that you may not personally hold to the view described by Lutzer. But looking at that view from the big picture, doesn't it imply that God created a world in which it is impossible not to sin at times? Specifically:
Paidion wrote:you would be doing something morally wrong whichever action you choose
This line seems to suggest such a scenario. If indeed there did exist a situation where you could not avoid sinning, wouldn't that by definition be a contradiction of terms? If sin is a failure to do God's will, but there is no option available to a person that actually
is His will, then how could you be said to have chosen to sin, or how could you really be expected to ask God for forgiveness if nothing better could have been done?
Look at it this way. What if Jesus was placed in the proposed scenario? Would He have failed in His mission and committed a sin? I don't think so, there MUST always be a choice that is in God's will. I'm not proposing that I know the right answer in every situation, but philosophically it seems that a right answer must exist.
[EDIT: added a question mark]
i think what happened was i read the article three days before i commented, then second guessed if i just assumed it from another statement. tand when i skimmed through to check, i skimmed over the beginning that does talk about there doctor's advice to terminate the pregnancy. oh well.
