13 Mar '14 12:00>1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHi twhitehead,
I'm actually not sure where I agree with you and where not, since you mingle some obvious truths with some pretty iffy stuff.
Let's take this one first:
For example, either we can find out Jesus' position on slavery, or adultery, or the death penalty, etc, or we cannot. - whereas we can positively say that other speakers did have a position, then I think we could do a comparison.
Clearly, Jesus had a very specific message. Particularly Matthews gospel refers to him talking about his "Kingdom". He juxtaposed this Kingdom against the Mosaic Laws, and in every case, brotherly love, concern for your neighbour and compassion trumped the letter of the law.
But yes, probably the greatest disappointment for those around him who had different agendas, was that he did NOT speak out against the Roman oppressors. To Pilate he said: My Kingdom is NOT of this world, meaning not necessarily the pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die-bye-and-by, but the INNER man rather than the OUTER man. (This is an entirely separate discussion on its own.) It is perhaps best encapsulated by his expression: What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul? Again, soul here can be translated inner man, and we all know of people who DID, in fact, gain "the whole world" but lost their own integrity and inner peace.
So, yes, to Jesus riches and comfort and even freedom from the Roman yoke were not as important as inner reconciliation and peace.
So who said similar things, and how would you compare the effectiveness of the various "reformers", if I may use that word? Clearly, the Buddha had a similar message, and whereas the basic ideas of Buddhism compare directly with the sermon on the mount, the practical implementation of Buddhism is very different. But, again, that is another story.
Well obviously who I am, is a product of my upbringing, so it is almost incoherent to talk of myself with a different upbringing.
I once heard somebody say "don't ever be tempted to say: 'I wish I could go back to that decision I made ten years ago - I would definitely chose something else this time around', because you won't." The simple fact of the matter is that given the same situation, with the same facts and the same mental state of mind you had, chances are pretty good that you would make the same choice again.
My point being that most, if not all, our choices are influenced deeply by our environment, background, upbringing, etc (This links to the "What is Free Will?" thread - let's please not rehash all that here!)
If you look at the historical development of morality, then there has been a progression on many fronts, e.g. child labour, role of women, capital punishment, you name it. However, in every case what was challenged finally by one or more pioneers and reformers, had been considered the norm for centuries before, if not millennia! So for you to say, with your 21st century understanding and make-up, to say If I had been alive then, I would NEVER have accepted ........... (slavery, death penalty, child labour, you fill in the gap) is presumptuous in the extreme.
Let me try to put it another way. I am pretty sure that in, say a hundred years or two, there will be major societal changes which we do not foresee today at all. Even speculating about what it could be is risky, for the simple reason that people do NOT foresee it! But let me try to give one example.
Let's say that by the year 2300, all fossil fuels will be depleted. Mankind is living happily on fusion power. However, there is one problem - crude oil is also a source of many highly useful organic products, not the least of which are many medicines and chemical feedstocks. These are also all gone. Now the question of the incredulous 24th century moralist would be: How on earth could 21st century humans have been so incredibly irresponsible as to burn this material merely for the heat it produces? It is like building a bonfire with a Rembrandt!
Now along comes our 24th century twhitehead descendant and says: If I had been alive then, I would have campaigned against it! I would have been morally superior to all those decadent 21st century fools!
Well, would you? Can you predict what is going to be considered high morality a few millennia from now?? And what are you doing about it NOW?
Sorry for the lengthy treatise - as Churchill said: I haven't got time to write a short one!
When did you leave Livingstone to come to SA? After UDI and the bush war?