HFQ Official Snippet #7

n7axw wrote:
From a Christian point of view, the heart of morality is love of neighbor as opposed to centering upon the self. If Thirsk cannot better the situation by acting, he is not necessarily absolved, but his responsibility is directly proportional to the amount of impact he can have.

Then there is the question as to who is the neighbor. No doubt but what the prisoners have first call on that status simply due to their helplessness, their vulnerability. So if he can improve their lot, he is bound to do so. That is the lesson of the Parable of the Good Samaritan -- though far from the only one.

Also claiming neighbor status are the men under his command. He must ask how his possible absence would impact them, how they would fare under less effective leadership.

His family also claims neighbor status. To act in a manner that would put his daughters, their husbands and children at risk when there is no way that he can change the condition or the fate of the prisoners would not be moral, at least not in my book.

Then there is the matter of the fate of Thirsk himself. On the one hand, the last person involved in the situation whom he should be concerned with is himself. That includes worry about staining his soul. Yet on the other hand, God calls upon us to value life, including our own.

Add into this matters of vowing to serve his country, his perceived responsibility to the church and you wind up with a very complex brew.

Finally, when push comes to shove, all Thirsk can really do is to try to do the right thing within the limits of the situation in which he finds himself and entrust the results to God.

Don

runsforcelery wrote:
Equating the CoG with the Nazi party is problematic at best. The Nazis were aware that they were acting in defiance of all standards of international law (whether enforceable or not) and morality. They were also acting in defiance of the tenets of virtually all major religions and Western moral teachings. The Church is following the letter not simply of international law but of God Himself, so far as anyone on Safehold has ever been taught. The heretics --- the ones defying international and divine law --- are the Charisians and their allies.

The problem is, at least in part, that the Writ is schizoid. On the one hand, you have the Book of Bedard and the Book of Langhorne, each of which repeatedly emphasizes the believer's moral responsibility to treat his fellow humans with compassion and kindness and both of which underscore the belief in a merciful and beneficent God Who wants His children to love one another and Who has so ordered and constructed the world (and granted so many and manifold capabilities through the teachings of His Archangels) that His children will be safe, well-cared for, and healthy. On the other hand, you have the Book of Schueler, which teaches the retribution and savagery to be handed out to those who defy the Proscriptions and justifies them on the basis that it will help to save the souls even of those who suffer the Punbishment. So what seems a very clear moral choice is nothing of the sort. The internal compass used to tell you that the Punishment is evil is the same internal compass which teaches you it's God's will. This is the entire reason resistance is so often and so consistently stated in terms of resistance to the Group of Four for misusing God's law for their own personal ends and for identifying their own beliefs and desires with God's. The argument that the Punishment itself is against God's will comes later in the theological and moral journeys of most Safehoildians, whereas it seems to me that many of the commenters think it should be the other way around.

PeterZ wrote:You forgot the first part. "Love God with all you soul, heart and mind."

What is owed to God? I submit that condoning or acquiescing to evil is failing God. Damage to one's soul or doing evil is a separation from God. That is where Thirsk failed God from a Christian perspective. Where he failed his original moral code. Where he might have used that separation to better recognize where his duty to God lies.

n7axw wrote:
From a Christian point of view, the heart of morality is love of neighbor as opposed to centering upon the self. If Thirsk cannot better the situation by acting, he is not necessarily absolved, but his responsibility is directly proportional to the amount of impact he can have.

Then there is the question as to who is the neighbor. No doubt but what the prisoners have first call on that status simply due to their helplessness, their vulnerability. So if he can improve their lot, he is bound to do so. That is the lesson of the Parable of the Good Samaritan -- though far from the only one.

Also claiming neighbor status are the men under his command. He must ask how his possible absence would impact them, how they would fare under less effective leadership.

His family also claims neighbor status. To act in a manner that would put his daughters, their husbands and children at risk when there is no way that he can change the condition or the fate of the prisoners would not be moral, at least not in my book.

Then there is the matter of the fate of Thirsk himself. On the one hand, the last person involved in the situation whom he should be concerned with is himself. That includes worry about staining his soul. Yet on the other hand, God calls upon us to value life, including our own.

Add into this matters of vowing to serve his country, his perceived responsibility to the church and you wind up with a very complex brew.

Finally, when push comes to shove, all Thirsk can really do is to try to do the right thing within the limits of the situation in which he finds himself and entrust the results to God.

Don

n7axw wrote:...
I can't in all honesty claim that Thirsk is right. My point is that his situation is very complicated. And if he messed it up, he has a lot of company. I find myself messing it up without being under nearly as much pressure as Thirsk.

Don

DrakBibliophile wrote:People, I believe that nobody has seen David Weber's comment concerning Thirsk's situation.

runsforcelery wrote:
Equating the CoG with the Nazi party is problematic at best. The Nazis were aware that they were acting in defiance of all standards of international law (whether enforceable or not) and morality. They were also acting in defiance of the tenets of virtually all major religions and Western moral teachings. The Church is following the letter not simply of international law but of God Himself, so far as anyone on Safehold has ever been taught. The heretics --- the ones defying international and divine law --- are the Charisians and their allies.

The problem is, at least in part, that the Writ is schizoid. On the one hand, you have the Book of Bedard and the Book of Langhorne, each of which repeatedly emphasizes the believer's moral responsibility to treat his fellow humans with compassion and kindness and both of which underscore the belief in a merciful and beneficent God Who wants His children to love one another and Who has so ordered and constructed the world (and granted so many and manifold capabilities through the teachings of His Archangels) that His children will be safe, well-cared for, and healthy. On the other hand, you have the Book of Schueler, which teaches the retribution and savagery to be handed out to those who defy the Proscriptions and justifies them on the basis that it will help to save the souls even of those who suffer the Punbishment. So what seems a very clear moral choice is nothing of the sort. The internal compass used to tell you that the Punishment is evil is the same internal compass which teaches you it's God's will. This is the entire reason resistance is so often and so consistently stated in terms of resistance to the Group of Four for misusing God's law for their own personal ends and for identifying their own beliefs and desires with God's. The argument that the Punishment itself is against God's will comes later in the theological and moral journeys of most Safehoildians, whereas it seems to me that many of the commenters think it should be the other way around.

jgnfld wrote:My main point is I do not see the Empire letting him off the hook with no consequences. My secondary point is that we know that he knows what he did was morally wrong. He is high enough to know that the church political mandates and the church religious principles are 2 different animals.

n7axw wrote:...
I can't in all honesty claim that Thirsk is right. My point is that his situation is very complicated. And if he messed it up, he has a lot of company. I find myself messing it up without being under nearly as much pressure as Thirsk.

Don

Keith_w wrote:Bligh had a compass, a quadrant (measured angles to 90 degrees) and no charts, sextant, or chronometer. They were loaded so heavily that there were only 3-4 inches of freeboard and 4 of the loyalists had to be left on the ship and released in Tahiti.

Despite its name, the Pacific isn'ta peaceful ocean, and Lt. Bligh deserves all the accolades he received for his seamanship.

Please note that I removed several quote indicators when dieting this as there were too many quotes. I apologize for doing so and will not repeat that error as I have now seen an excellent method for avoiding that issue

Annachie wrote:Don, problem is that that concept is completely against the CoGA teachings. The CoGA teaches that the law of god comes from the CoGA. Anything else is heresy.