Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 10
Near the end, the speaker says social “harmony” exists when no one causes suffering and each person is “the author of his own morality,” but “objective morality” makes things ugly—how does this critique modern “live and let live” spirituality, and what concrete pressures have you felt (or avoided) when biblical objective morality collides with cultural peacekeeping?
Another way to ask: The speaker says society is most peaceful when everyone makes their own morals, and “objective morality” causes conflict. How does this challenge today’s “live and let live” spirituality, and when have you felt pressure to stay quiet when Bible-based morals clash with keeping the peace?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s critique, modern “live and let live” spirituality depends on subjective morality and the avoidance of moral claims that bind others; the moment objective morality enters, conflict becomes inevitable because people no longer get to be “the God of my morality.”
- He frames his opinion of harmony: “so long as one man is not causing suffering on another… and… each man is given the freedom to be the author of his own morality, then harmony exists.”
- He summarizes the posture with examples: “I’m not killing you… I’m the God of my morality. You’re the God of your morality… Worship what you want… You do you.”
- He claims the flashpoint: “It is when objective morality shows up… that things get ugly.”
- He links this to his larger theme that in naturalism/Buddhism “there is no God,” so morality becomes subjective.
- He also warns these ideas are present culturally, just “repackaged… new age systems,” even “intertwined into some forms of Christianity.”
- He urges constant evaluation: “Does this seem coherent to you?”—implying “peacekeeping” can mask incoherence.