1. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    13 Mar '14 12:001 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Hi 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?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    13 Mar '14 15:59
    Originally posted by CalJust
    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 never once did he say 'the law is wrong' and that is my main objection to his teachings.

    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.
    I think it was fairly well established that the Roman oppressors were being oppressive. I am much more concerned about his lack of outright criticism for Old Testament Law.

    My point being that most, if not all, our choices are influenced deeply by our environment, background, upbringing, etc
    Our choices, maybe, but I am less inclined to admit that moral judgements are equally influenced.

    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.
    Yet every one of those was recognised by some people as being immoral, prior to it being changed, just as it is currently widely recognised that discrimination against homosexuals is immoral despite such discrimination still being widespread.

    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!
    But I already recognise that that is incredibly irresponsible.
  3. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    13 Mar '14 16:421 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But never once did he say 'the law is wrong' and that is my main objection to his teachings.

    Our choices, maybe, but I am less inclined to admit that moral judgements are equally influenced.
    The OT Law

    The PRINCIPLES of the OT Law were not wrong. They were just badly applied and implemented. For example, adultery was always wrong, but you just don't have to stone someone for it - there are better methods of treating the offender. Like stealing - it is always wrong, but don't cut off someone's hand!

    Choices vs Moral Judgements

    Excuse me, but the difference between the two escapes me.
    Every moral judgement involves a choice, whilst most choices involve moral judgements.

    Future moral Values

    OK, that was a poor example. (good for you, anyway!) But the principle remains. We cannot predict what present common practice may well be considered despicable by some future generation. And today we are totally unaware of it.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    13 Mar '14 18:48

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  5. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    14 Mar '14 16:363 edits
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Hi Duchess,

    Let me see if I can tackle some of these issues which are actually "Situational Ethics".

    The argument seems to be that there can be no hard and fast rules (like stealing is wrong) because there are always exceptions.

    The first point I want to make is that one should always argue from the general to the specific, and not extrapolate from the specific to the general. So there may well be exceptions to a "no stealing" rule, but that will always be the exception.

    Ini fact, the English proverb: "The exception proves the rule" recognises that it is BECAUSE SOMETHING IS THE EXCEPTION, that the general rule is established.

    For example, if there was no "general rule" about adultery, then the fact that Jesus did not condemn her would have been inconsequential, because no forgiveness was needed.

    My second point is that one principle that recurs over and over in the Bible is "Justice tempered with Mercy". These are the two sides of the coin. On the one hand there IS the general rule (no stealing, no adultery) but on the other hand you will always see that each case is handled individually, without invoking the General Rule. (At least in the NT, not in the OT)

    Another way of looking at it would be (as Paul wrote) "The Spirit of the law is always more important than the Letter of the law." In fact he put it : The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

    THAT was the message of Jesus, and when John refers to him in his biography, he say that Jesus' distinguishing factor was that he was "full of Grace and Truth". Grace in this context was the mercy and compassion which he extended to the "sinners", without saying that the Law was null and void.

    There are people who live by the letter of the law. In fact, legalistic people have a very simple life - all you have to do is obey the set of rules, no thinking required. A far more difficult - but vital and liberating - approach is to evaluate the applicability of the law in each case, and to see if what the law was designed for to achieve, was in fact being achieved.

    Have i answered your question?
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Mar '14 17:451 edit

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  7. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    14 Mar '14 19:09
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    With all due respect, Duchess, I don't think you have understood anything I have been trying to say.

    Unfortunately I don't think I can explain it any better.

    Also, I don't understand your rebuttal.

    So let's just leave it at that.

    In peace

    CJ
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 Mar '14 19:39
    Originally posted by CalJust
    The PRINCIPLES of the OT Law were not wrong.
    Actually, many of them were wrong, and still are, and you know this, but probably will never admit it but instead will spend the next 20 posts trying to wiggle around.

    For example, adultery was always wrong, but you just don't have to stone someone for it - there are better methods of treating the offender.
    Stoning someone for adultery was the law. How is it not part of the PRINCIPLES?

    Like stealing - it is always wrong, but don't cut off someone's hand!
    And slavery is just fine, its just that you shouldn't beat them?

    What about eating pork?

    OK, that was a poor example. (good for you, anyway!) But the principle remains. We cannot predict what present common practice may well be considered despicable by some future generation. And today we are totally unaware of it.
    But my point remains: we often do see the immorality in things that are prevalent at the time we live. Here in SA, most people knew throughout the time of Apartheid that it was morally wrong - and many people spoke up about it. Simply saying 'back then it was considered acceptable, so anyone who supported it was OK' just doesn't cut it.
    If Jesus lived in SA during apartheid and said nothing about it, there would be no excusing him, just as there is no excusing him saying nothing against slavery.
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    14 Mar '14 21:19

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  10. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    15 Mar '14 06:16
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    ....will spend the next 20 posts trying to wiggle around.
    No
  11. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    15 Mar '14 06:19
    Originally posted by CalJust
    http://www.tickld.com/x/this-man-got-mugged-what-he-did-next-was-genius

    Jesus said: You are my disciple if you [b]do
    what I say, not if you just say: Lord, Lord.

    He also said: If a man takes your wallet, give him your coat also. (OK, I paraphrase)

    So was this man a Christian?

    This links to FabianFnas's question: Am I a Christian?[/b]
    "So was this man a Christian?" -CJ

    Men speculate; only God knows.
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Mar '14 06:32
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    People are selfish and quite frequently do things they know to be morally wrong.
    Most people today, know that slavery is morally wrong. A significant proportion of those people, if given the chance to own slaves, would do so.

    How would the apartheid system have classified Jesus? If Jesus had not
    been classified as 'white', then he would have had less power, so might
    that be a possible excuse?

    How would having less power change anything? Did he have any power in Israel?
    My point is that if he lived in South Africa during apartheid and said nothing against apartheid then we could not hold him up as an icon of moral thought.

    Given that the Dutch Reformed Church supported apartheid until its end, do you believe that church should be forgiven?
    I don't know if a Church can be forgiven, a Church is an organisation not a person. I do think the policies of the Church were morally wrong and thus the people that made and supported those policies were morally wrong, and that many of them were perfectly well aware of that at the time.
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    15 Mar '14 19:061 edit

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  14. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66380
    16 Mar '14 06:183 edits
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Hi Duchess,

    Let's see if we can hold a reasonably intelligent conversation without resorting to offensive abusive attacks. I'm sad to see that twhitehead apparently can't. Pity.

    Back to you. Maybe Apartheid is a good example of changing morality. To answer your question above: No, most white South Africans did NOT believe Apartheid (aka Separate Development) was morally wrong. (Obviously not *until its end*) That is what kept the Nationalist government in power.

    But it was not only the SAcans that agreed with it, the US and UK and most other nations had no problem with SD until Sharpeville in 1960.

    In 1948 SA had a population of less than a million whites and twenty million blacks. Separate Development, in theory (later called Grand Apartheid, as opposed to the Petty Apartheid of pass laws) was intended to secure separate AND EQUAL. Living space for both groups without the minority, with very different culture and habits, being swamped. It was a matter of survival.

    Of course, the well known atrocities came almost inevitably - the forced removals, the detention without trial, the beatings, etc etc. By about 1980 most SAcans could see that Grand Apartheid was not going to work, although Petty Apartheid was already dismantled in most places (the separate public toilets, work reservation, etc).

    Ironically, what Verwoerd had tried to avoid in 1948 is reality in SA today. Now we have about one-and-half million whites and 48 million blacks. The new BEE (Black Economic Empowerment ) laws STILL require all citizens to have a racial identification on their ID documents. White owned companies are excluded from government contracts, white graduates cannot find work due to stringent employment quotas, we have a President with four (legal) wives who dances naked in a leopard skin and who has just built himself a R200 million private residence with taxpayers money but won't be voted out of office due to "what the ancestors say". Our national infrastructure (roads, utilities, municipalities, hospitals, transport) are disintegrating because most trained whites have been replaced by untrained and unskilled blacks due to BEE, whilst our education system rates (according to the Global Competitiveness Index) No 145 out of 145 countries.

    But Apartheid was morally wrong, yes.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Mar '14 09:13
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    And so would I. I already said earlier in the thread that Jesus was careful not to criticize the Old Testament because doing so would have been dangerous.
    But my point is that he therefore does not make as good an example of exemplary morals as someone like Nelson Mandela who decided to speak up despite the fact that it would put him in prison for much of his life. And even Nelson Mandela was hardly an icon of good morals at the time.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree