| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
<snipped the first chunk, becuase we're starting to argue in circles>
> > > (this little post isn't a 'all laws are good' post--if a man made law is
> > > unjust or needs changing, then go ahead and change it. Now show me where
> > > *not* following any of the 10 commandments would be better for you (over the
> > > course of your life, to battle against the 'well, nailing my neighbours wife
> > > certainly "feels" better right when i'm doing it) than following them)
> >
> > A very solid case could be made to show that "Honor thy Father and Mother"
> > could be very detrimental to someone's mental and physical health if said
> > parents are abusive.
>
> Honour your father and mother has nothing to do with staying in an abusive
> situation. Respect does not equal suppressing what's right for you. You
> don't think you're honouring an alcoholic when you want to get them into AA?
> The alcoholic might not think you're honouring them at all by interventions
> or pouring all their booze down the toilet, but *you* know you're honouring
> them by doing what's right.
Not quite what I was saying; I should have been more specific. It is often
necessary to the healing process for someone who has been in an abusive
relationship to express their rage and anger towards the abuser. The rage
and anger (and esp. expression thereof) is fairly distinctly not respectful.
Q.E.D.
> > A very solid historical case *has* been made to show that "Thou Shalt Not
> > Steal" can in some cases be dodged with impunity until the day you die. I
> > point you in the direction of several medieval robber barons, some of whom
> > got toppled; some of whom lived contentedly to a ripe old age quite >unpunished.
>
> Sure it can be dodged with impunity, but it does not negate the
> command--they still did wrong. Whether they get away with it is irrelevant.
> If I'm a good thief, and never get caught, I'm still breaking the law, not
> just the laws of our land, but that commandment.
Yes, but if you are a thief all your life, and never suffer for it, (as you
admit is possible) then you have not suffered over the course of your life
for breaking a commandment. That was what you asked to be demonstrated.
> > Mosiac Law includes the concept of Divine Wrath for mis-stepping very much
> > *because* there is often no personal detriment to breaking it. It's (IMHO)
> > an early moral standard enforced by a primitive understanding of God, to be
> > as clear a guideline as possible for a less-developed human culture.
>
> It may be abrupt and not as wordy as we like our laws to be, and I may say
> for my life that I have a higher concept of justice and laws, but you have
> to start somewhere.
Well of course we have to start somewhere. All I'm saying is that Mosaic
Law is farther back than current standards, and our social understanding as
a society is beyond it's simplicity. Our society is more complex, so must
needs be our laws.
> The Mosaic laws, as well, have to be taken in context with the enitrety of
> the bible.
Well yes and no. As they apply today, of course. However, if we're looking
at Isrealite society at the time of Moses, well... no. During that time,
Mosaic law was fairly absolute, and the rest of the bible wasn't there for
context. (except some of the earler stuff)
> > Lots and lots of religions have had (and will continue to have, I'm sure)
> > varying complexities of moral yardsticks, as the culture they are
> > referencing changes and evolves. To pull two examples out of my hat, modern
> > Christianity has in general a much more advanced moral understanding (Do
> > unto others as you would have them do unto you) than early Old Testament
> > understanding (Thou shalt...). Just as modern Wicca ('An it harm none, thy
> > will be done') is a much more advanced moral standard than the ancient
> > Druidic teachings it evolved from.
>
> And I believe in a theory of moral absolutes (not for *everyting to be
> sure), not moral relativism. But it's my theory and I will not thrust that
> theory on others. I live as the anabaptists did, I try to live in the world
> but not of it, and do what's right for me. Joshua (again, I think) said it
> best when he said, 'They can beleive what they want. As for me and my
> house, we shall follow the Lord.'
I'm not completely certain either way on absolute vs relative morality yet,
although I lean towards 'absolute within context'(1). What I do firmly
believe is that human society (and all it's subsets) are evolving towards a
greater understanding, and morality is part of that.
James
1:How's that for wishy-washy fence sitting. :)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) And I think my point, reiterated, is that Chris twisted it into saying the Mosaic law says you cannot derive pleasure from living, which is far from the truth. Nowhere in the testaments does this concept even exist. I am not a biblical scholar (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
