10 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by PinkFloydJust to be clear here...
I know statements A and B to be true--and that's enough for me. 🙂
Suppose you know that I farm black people for food.
Is it really enough for you merely to know that I am wrong? Is that the Christian thing to do? Is that what Jesus would do -- just sit back smugly and smirk at the mistaken? Why did he bother with all the parables and sermons? I mean, surely he knew that he was right, which you are saying is good enough.
You wouldn't feel compelled to at least attempt to convince me that I am wrong?
10 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydWhat if common sense tells me black people don't really experience suffering? What if
Oh---at first blush let's just say....common sense?
common sense tells me that black people taste good and that's enough justification?
You'd then say it's okay for me to eat them, even though you simply disagree?
Nemesio
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioNope-I'd say that's where the law should step in and stop you. Saying that black people taste good would be an obvious tip off to most people that you were mentally ill, and I would trust the law to act.
What if common sense tells me black people don't really experience suffering? What if
common sense tells me that black people taste good and that's enough justification?
You'd then say it's okay for me to eat them, even though you simply disagree?
Nemesio
BUT--if for some abominable reason we lived in Bizarro-world, and most people agreed with you--than the onus would be on me to act. I would then choose to move to another country.
10 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydI'm not talking about 'law' here, I'm talking about moral responsibility. If the law was changed
Nope-I'd say that's where the law should step in and stop you. Saying that black people taste good would be an obvious tip off to most people that you were mentally ill, and I would trust the law to act.
BUT--if for some abominable reason we lived in Bizarro-world, and most people agreed with you--than the onus would be on me to act. I would then choose to move to another country.
such that eating meat suddenly became illegal, would you stop or would you strive to get the
law repealed?
And, what if in Bizarro world most people agreed with me no matter what country we lived in?
Nemesio
Edit: you do realize that 150 years ago, most people thought that black people weren't entitled to
rights. Do you think they were correct back then?
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioYour question leaves out many other options. I am not an activist. So I doubt that I would "strive to get the law changed" (though if voting for a change counts, then yes, I'd do that). I also wouldn't necessarily obey the new abhorrent law. Likely as not, I would ignore it and mind my own business. There exist some moral imperatives that I would act on; others I would not. Like most people, I "pick my battles", and the ones I pick are personal choice--not subject to debate or defense.
I'm not talking about 'law' here, I'm talking about moral responsibility. If the law was changed
such that eating meat suddenly became illegal, would you stop or would you strive to get the
law repealed?
And, what if in Bizarro world most people agreed with me no matter what country we lived in?
Nemesio
Edit: you do realize that 150 years ago, m ...[text shortened]... t that black people weren't entitled to
rights. Do you think they were correct back then?
And no, they weren't correct back then.
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesJesus was an activist. He was also the Son of God. I, of course, am neither. We Christians ain't perfect, y'know. 😉
Again, is this what Jesus would do? When the adulteress was about to be stoned, did he simply turn his back and skip town?
Would you characterize Jesus as an activist?
10 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydSo, it's not 'law' that compels you to behave specifically.
Your question leaves out many other options. I am not an activist. So I doubt that I would "strive to get the law changed" (though if voting for a change counts, then yes, I'd do that). I also wouldn't necessarily obey the new abhorrent law. Likely as not, I would ignore it and mind my own business. There exist some moral imperatives that I would act nal choice--not subject to debate or defense.
And no, they weren't correct back then.
You say there exist some 'moral imperatives,' but you haven't articulated them.
You would intervene on behalf of black people for a person illegally eating them, but you would
continue to illegally eat meat in the other scenario.
What is your moral justification for acting on one and ignoring the other?
You see, PinkFloyd, this is why 'personal choice' is not simply a morally responsible answer: if
I 'personally choose' to think black people have no rights, this doesn't justify my denying their
rights.
Now, you're right: you can ignore me and say that you don't have to justify anything to me and
who the hell am I to tell you what to do and so on.
That doesn't change the fact that you are, in fact, not examining your own system of belief,
something you would expect of other people if they were possibly doing something morally
wrong.
I used to eat meat. I used to love it; frankly, I still love it. A summer doesn't go by that I
don't smell a steak cooking somewhere and salivate reminiscently. But, when I examined my
system of belief, I found that it was untenable to continue to eat steak (cows) and being morally
responsible. My wife doesn't eat meat, and, while she is bright, she doesn't eat them simply
because they are fluffy and cute and have big eyes. While she's making a morally responsible
decision, she hasn't justified it with anything resembling a valid stance. (And, yes, I was
married for several years before I made the decision. And, no, there was no coercion on the
part of my wife.)
I think that one element of spirituality is to strive to make morally responsible decisions. In order
to do so, we must have morally justified frameworks. In Christian terms, I think that such
examinations are one of the forms of prayer in which a person can engage. And, I think the
product of such prayers -- the insight that a certain ethical framework might be flawed, e.g. --
is what one could call the prompting of the Holy Spirit. In Buddhist terms, it might be taking
another step on the path towards enlightenment. Rabbi Joshua Ben Levi referred to this as
the continued giving of the Torah, hearing God's voice in our lives. The Mormons call it 'personal
revelation.' In fact, I cannot think of a single religious tradition in which self examination wasn't
elemental to faith.
So, yes, you're entitled to do what you want, but that doesn't make it right. And since I take
it as a given that people ought to pursue that which is right, I'd strongly encourage you to take
a look at your own moral framework to ensure that the believes it espouses are healthy ones.
Nemesio
10 Oct 08
I respect your beliefs Nem. I don't however, put much stock in "self-examination." I tried navel-gazing while in college; it made my hair hurt.
My beliefs are simple: God offered me a free gift of salvation in His Son, Jesus Christ, with no strings attached. I grabbed it with both hands. I am going to spend eternity in heaven.
I didn't list the moral imperatives that I would actively support because the list might get long. It's easier and more accurate to say that alleviating the suffering of animals isn't high on my priority list. I'll let Sarah McLaughlin and others carry that water. I have other priorities. So I guess I do believe that personal choice IS a pretty adequate defense after all. Again, we just disagree; but you're okay. 😉
10 Oct 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydAllow me to express that I believe that such a world view -- one in which
I don't however, put much stock in "self-examination." I tried navel-gazing while in college; it made my hair hurt.
self-examination carries no currency -- is in no small part why there is
so much strife in the world. People unwilling to examine a view that
they have will never change and since that view is often self-centered
('I'm' better than 'he,' or 'we're' better than 'they'😉, wars will continue.
I believe, among other things, Jesus taught people that introspective
prayer is an essential vehicle of a Spirit-filled existence. And I don't
think it is meant to be 'easy.' After all Jesus spent time alone in the
desert doing something, presumably communing with God and the
Spirit, seeking to incorporate them into His life. In order to do that,
you have to be willing look at yourself and maybe even change.
I'm deeply sorry to hear that you disagree.
Nemesio
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioNo need to be sorry for disagreeing. It's really not that big of a deal. The sky will not fall because I am not into introspection. My view of Christianity happens to be ...I don't know...less open to interpretation? No, that's not the right phrase. I can only explain it this way--the Christianity that I follow is a "better than"/"worse than" system. All religions can't be right, if Jesus is The Only Way. I don't see this as intolerant, it's just the way it is. The only way I can get to Hawaii is to either fly over or sail the ocean. That's just as much a fact to me as the fact that non-Christians are unsaved. But the fact that you have a less stringent belief system is absolutely skippy with me. I maintain that this makes me as tolerant as anyone can be.
Allow me to express that I believe that such a world view -- one in which
self-examination carries no currency -- is in no small part why there is
so much strife in the world. People unwilling to examine a view that
they have will never change and since that view is often self-centered
('I'm' better than 'he,' or 'we're' better than 'they'😉, wars will ...[text shortened]... f and maybe even change.
I'm deeply sorry to hear that you disagree.
Nemesio
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydThis is precisely my point. By your own admission your faith is stagnant. You've found an
No need to be sorry for disagreeing. It's really not that big of a deal. The sky will not fall because I am not into introspection. My view of Christianity happens to be ...I don't know...less open to interpretation?
interpretation and now you think you're done. There is the tacit impression that it cannot be
improved; that your faith has reached its full maturity: there's nothing more to be learned from
the Scriptures or the day-to-day revelation through experience.
I wasn't sorry for disagreeing. I genuinely feel sorry for you. Anyone who thinks that their faith
doesn't require constant self examination hasn't read St Paul much, because if ever there was a
self critical writer, he was one. And I'd venture that fully a third of Jesus' aphorisms were things
that encouraged people to think of things a new way, to reflect inwardly and change.
Nemesio
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydBut couldn't you also get swallowed by a great fish while swimming off of Mission Beach and get spit out on the shores of Oahu?
The only way I can get to Hawaii is to either fly over or sail the ocean. That's just as much a fact to me as the fact that non-Christians are unsaved.
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioThis is a great post.
So, it's not 'law' that compels you to behave specifically.
You say there exist some 'moral imperatives,' but you haven't articulated them.
You would intervene on behalf of black people for a person illegally eating them, but you would
continue to illegally eat meat in the other scenario.
What is your moral justification for acting on one and ignor ...[text shortened]... to ensure that the believes it espouses are healthy ones.
Nemesio
12 Oct 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydMy beliefs are simple: God offered me a free gift of salvation in His Son, Jesus Christ, with no strings attached. I grabbed it with both hands.
I respect your beliefs Nem. I don't however, put much stock in "self-examination." I tried navel-gazing while in college; it made my hair hurt.
My beliefs are simple: God offered me a free gift of salvation in His Son, Jesus Christ, with no strings attached. I grabbed it with both hands. I am going to spend eternity in heaven.
I didn't list the m ...[text shortened]... IS a pretty adequate defense after all. Again, we just disagree; but you're okay. 😉
Is it really so simple? If your being granted salvation still requires your standing in some relationship to Jesus (like, "believing in" him), then we still have to figure out what that even means. If Jesus was intent on teaching virtues like compassion and on teaching practices of self-reflection and self-examination; how is it that you feel you can basically ignore these teachings out of "personal choice" and still feel confident that you stand in the proper relationship with him?