<strong>OK Scott - can you prove this? Can you prove what is wrong and what isn't? Where do the morals come from? I have my own ideas about this, but I'm curious where you think they come from.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Me shooting you in the head for no reason would be wrong. I rest my case.
I for one never meant to question that rape is wrong and rape of innocent youth would in particular be very bad, sthese are awfull things.
I'm just wondering where the talk of rape came in in this discussion exactly? Who mentioned anything about rape?
As for Greece, well we now find that model of thought to be abhorent and perhaps rightly so, perhaps not. the reasons why it might not be abhorent is because there is an unbridgeable gulf between now, our attitutes towards sex, and the attitudes back then in which the adult youth relationship is said to be one of nurturing and learning.
Clearly from our sex obsessed cultural perspective: where we love sex but deny it due its 'inherently' prurient and 'immoral' nature, we create an ugly thing out of it, to the point that many people in our culture 'lust only after the forbidden... and turn healthy sexuality into the 'dirtiness of forbiddeness'. It is impossible, from the perspective of our culture, where sex is ubiquitous yet made into a commodity and a monster, to see how another culture may have treated the act otherwise. From what I have read of Plato, the reverence and care for the body and for beauty and teh stewardship of youth into adulthood was in a very different frame of mind and relationship than we have to these ideas:
where we can only see the idea of rape they may have seen something else: not at all violent, abusive, dirty or coercive.
It would be untenable for us to have youth--adult relationships in our culture because the way we treat sex we make of it an act of power or shameful activity to be denied and kept hidden in the confessional.
True that psychologically there is a natural sense of shock in relationship to sexuality: a shock, in par,t due to sex's power in relationship to the Ego: namely that the Ego's sovereignty is a sham in the face of the power of sex, and the Ego feels this like it feels the fear of death. But, perhaps if our culture had a different relationship to the body and the sex act, the manner in which we deal with that natural shock to the psych might not be so painful and might not result in so many screwed up people in relation to sex.
Once again, think about the grounding of the sexual relationship that predominated in the culture that fostered the Terorists: screwed up for sure.
And besides, Berkeley is one of he best schools in the country and has virtually nothing to do with the Berkeley of the sixties mentality.
<strong>I for one never meant to question that rape is wrong and rape of innocent youth would in particular be very bad, sthese are awfull things.
I'm just wondering where the talk of rape came in in this discussion exactly? Who mentioned anything about rape?
As for Greece, well we now find that model of thought to be abhorent and perhaps rightly so, perhaps not. the reasons why it might not be abhorent is because there is an unbridgeable gulf between now, our attitutes towards sex, and the attitudes back then in which the adult youth relationship is said to be one of nurturing and learning.
Clearly from our sex obsessed cultural perspective: where we love sex but deny it due its 'inherently' prurient and 'immoral' nature, we create an ugly thing out of it, to the point that many people in our culture 'lust only after the forbidden... and turn healthy sexuality into the 'dirtiness of forbiddeness'. It is impossible, from the perspective of our culture, where sex is ubiquitous yet made into a commodity and a monster, to see how another culture may have treated the act otherwise. From what I have read of Plato, the reverence and care for the body and for beauty and teh stewardship of youth into adulthood was in a very different frame of mind and relationship than we have to these ideas:
where we can only see the idea of rape they may have seen something else: not at all violent, abusive, dirty or coercive.
It would be untenable for us to have youth--adult relationships in our culture because the way we treat sex we make of it an act of power or shameful activity to be denied and kept hidden in the confessional.
True that psychologically there is a natural sense of shock in relationship to sexuality: a shock, in par,t due to sex's power in relationship to the Ego: namely that the Ego's sovereignty is a sham in the face of the power of sex, and the Ego feels this like it feels the fear of death. But, perhaps if our culture had a different relationship to the body and the sex act, the manner in which we deal with that natural shock to the psych might not be so painful and might not result in so many screwed up people in relation to sex.
Once again, think about the grounding of the sexual relationship that predominated in the culture that fostered the Terorists: screwed up for sure.
And besides, Berkeley is one of he best schools in the country and has virtually nothing to do with the Berkeley of the sixties mentality.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>1. There is really no "hippy culture" in Berkeley. It's a grouping of college students, and is fairly liberal, as most colleges are.
2. I didn't quote the syllabus. I quoted the same anecdotal students comments that you did. The classroom part of the class has a lot of real world applicability.
3. Just because I say morals are relative doesn't mean I don't have any.
4. What have I been assimilated into?
5. I edited my earlier post because I realized the inappropriateness of what I said. I'm just annoyed by people who are afraid to question the underlying assumptions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Just like most other colleges? Mmmk. Next question. (Berkeley is hardly just like any other college.)
2) Well good, so maybe they actually learned a few things other than it is ok to have sex in front of your students and to particiapate in an orgy in public.
3) I have never said you don't have any morals.
4) Moral relatavism is all the rage. "If society says it is ok, it is. So long as nobody cares who am I to say what is wrong?" And you just go along with it, following the crowd. Assimilated.
5) See my previous post. Questioning? I bet you are coming up with your next response to write of my opinion already as we speak. It is much harder to swim against the moral drift that to float along placidly in it. I have to "question the underlying assumptions" almost daily. It is not easy, in fact is was much easier before I decided that there are moral absolutes. Much easier.
4) Moral relatavism is all the rage. "If society says it is ok, it is. So long as nobody cares who am I to say what is wrong?" And you just go along with it, following the crowd. Assimilated.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's news to me. I came up with that while reading Machiavelli, not the New York Times.
That's news to me. I came up with that while reading Machiavelli, not the New York Times.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And this proves what? So Machiavelli wrote it down a while ago. That does not change what is going on in society around you. You just found something written that backs up your opinion that shows that morality is what you make it. There are no absolutes. Still BS, and you are still just foating along with the rest of society, you just have a fancy name to point to as to why you beleive what you do. Most others just beleive it because it is human nature. Congratualtions.
And this proves what? So Machiavelli wrote it down a while ago. That does not change what is going on in society around you. You just found something written that backs up your opinion that shows that morality is what you make it. There are no absolutes. Still BS, and you are still just foating along with the rest of society, you just have a fancy name to point to as to why you beleive what you do. Most others just beleive it because it is human nature. Congratualtions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just because others agree with me doesn't make me a fish following the current. I truly believe (and think I understand) that everything is relative. I accept somethings as absolute (like that murder is bad) for the sake of maintaining a social order. Don't criticize my argument because "everyone else is doing it". Tell me, if there are absolutes, where do they come from? God? Are they just there, existing outside the bounds of time?
[quote] It is much harder to swim against the moral drift that to float along placidly in it. <hr></blockquote>
NoahJ, you are playing the moral martyr card, Except that you don't recognize that your moral-castle is that of the majority.
We have argued about this in other threads, and I have seen where your moral grounding comes from: we know that you believe they are grounded in the absolute reading of scripture.
and you know that my morals, and I do have them, are grounded in the pragmatism of daily life and born out of Compassion for the Other.
The main difference here is that my Ethics is dynamic, and, in principle deals with real people in real situations and yours is rigidified in (what is impossible, in my mind) an absolute reading of a text, as if interpretation were merely an illusion.
I am glad that our legal system has a structure that mirrors the understanding that judgements are dynamic and based on interpretation, jurisprudence is dynamic.
I'm not making excuses for these classes. But mainly my objection to them is that it reveals just how trite the instructors thoughts about sexuality probably were, and just how blunt and clumsy they were: like a dumptruck on an ice rink. What occured outside of the class room sounds pretty inappropriate for a class room, and should probably not be given the legitimation of the institution, it sounds more appropriate for an extra curricular seminar or group.
But, I think that the manner in which the story is told most probably distorts what happened to make it sound like a debauch when it probably really was not much.
I know this from personal experience: in Iowa, where I went to graduate school, a Graduate student did a work of art that entailed moments where naked men, while dancing had bodily contact: a student was a fundamentalist and protested that the event was a blatant promotion of immoral homosexaul activity, and was a sex act . . . this interpretation carried the day as far as the interface with the public was concerned. . . . .obviously it was a misreading of what hapened in order to serve the interests of the "moral majority" --the people who would have us live under the Christian Taliban if they could
I can't help but think that this is what's happening here. . . it serves the 'morally indignant' in two ways:
1. They are interested in controlling others in the name of their absolutist morallity
and
2. They re interested in stories of lurid sex but have to deny that they are: but its clearly the luridness that they love
NoahJ, you are playing the moral martyr card, Except that you don't recognize that your moral-castle is that of the majority.<hr></blockquote>
I can see how you would think that. But I am not asking for sympathy. I am telling those who think it is so easy to be a Christian and to believe that right is right and wrong in wrong that they are living a pipe dream. IT is hard. Very Hard. Even in this forum I am told how stupid I am to believe what I beleive and how I should just give it up and realize that there are only Societal morals and no absolute moral authority.
[quote]We have argued about this in other threads, and I have seen where your moral grounding comes from: we know that you believe they are grounded in the absolute reading of scripture.
and you know that my morals, and I do have them, are grounded in the pragmatism of daily life and born out of Compassion for the Other.
The main difference here is that my Ethics is dynamic, and, in principle deals with real people in real situations and yours is rigidified in (what is impossible, in my mind) an absolute reading of a text, as if interpretation were merely an illusion.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, we have had discussion about this before. And I still appreciate that people have, for the most part managed to keep the tone civil. Makes it easier to put a point across without having to wade through personal attacks.
You say that your ethics are dynamic. Seems like a big word to say they change over time. If you read my last post in the other thread I explained how my interpretation of scripture is not rigid when it comes to what is intended for my edification and my relationship with God. But when it comes to base moral right and wrong. That part DOES NOT change. It is always wrong if it is wrong, no matter what society says.
[quote]I am glad that our legal system has a structure that mirrors the understanding that judgements are dynamic and based on interpretation, jurisprudence is dynamic.<hr></blockquote>
But those laws are man made, and judged by man. Therefore they can be fundamentally flawed sometimes, thus the need for interpretation. The 10 commandments are not.
[quote]I'm not making excuses for these classes. But mainly my objection to them is that it reveals just how trite the instructors thoughts about sexuality probably were, and just how blunt and clumsy they were: like a dumptruck on an ice rink. What occured outside of the class room sounds pretty inappropriate for a class room, and should probably not be given the legitimation of the institution, it sounds more appropriate for an extra curricular seminar or group.
But, I think that the manner in which the story is told most probably distorts what happened to make it sound like a debauch when it probably really was not much. <hr></blockquote>
So they made the story up for sensationalism? Maybe. But they don't quote any students as saying that is not what happened either. Most just said that it was accepted by all and so it should be no big deal.
[quote]I know this from personal experience: in Iowa, where I went to graduate school, a Graduate student did a work of art that entailed moments where naked men, while dancing had bodily contact: a student was a fundamentalist and protested that the event was a blatant promotion of immoral homosexaul activity, and was a sex act . . . this interpretation carried the day as far as the interface with the public was concerned. . . . .obviously it was a misreading of what hapened in order to serve the interests of the "moral majority" --the people who would have us live under the Christian Taliban if they could<hr></blockquote>
Couldn't resist comparing to the Taliban could you. Sigh. Now it is I who am disappointed.
[quote]I can't help but think that this is what's happening here. . . it serves teh morally indignant in two ways:
1. They are interested in controlling others in the name of their absolutist morallity
and
2. They re interested in stories of lurid sex but have to deny that they are: but its clearly the luridness that they love<hr></blockquote>
This is not a very helpful analysis. First you are asking for a snide response, begging actually. This is very broad brushed remark that makes me wish I had a moral martyr card to play.
As far as the interest in lurid sex, once gain, that is human nature, it is not like people can just turn off a switch and not be interested in sex or sexual behavior anymore. But then again, that does not stop that behavior from being wrong in certain circumstances. Such as outside of marriage, with a minor child, or in an orgy.
Hate to take this off topic, but Noah, I believe that the 10 commandments are somewhat open to interpretation.
For example, "thou shalt not kill".
Now, how do you interpret that? Or is every war America has fought been based on Sin?
I'm not attacking your beliefs. I'm just questioning your statement that scriptual laws aren't open to some amount of interpretation. As can be seen by the variety of Christ based religions i.e. protestants, catholics, lutherans, etc.
<strong>Hate to take this off topic, but Noah, I believe that the 10 commandments are somewhat open to interpretation.
For example, "thou shalt not kill".
Now, how do you interpret that? Or is every war America has fought been based on Sin?
I'm not attacking your beliefs. I'm just questioning your statement that scriptual laws aren't open to some amount of interpretation. As can be seen by the variety of Christ based religions i.e. protestants, catholics, lutherans, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Every war is based on sin. Without sin there would be no need for war. Sin brought death to earth, before sin there was no death. So yes, every war that is fought by America, by European nations, or by anyone is based on some degree of sin. War is usually a retribution for a crime committed against a nation. God gave the leaders of those nations authority over the people in them and has told us that we mus obey their rule. If they decide that retribution for the wrong is to go to war, then that is what we are obligated to do scripturally. It is not my job as a man to judge the heart of my enemies or to condemn any of you. My job is to deal with myself and to answer questions you may have about my beleifs. My only hope is that along the way some will see what I beleive and come to beleive the same thing.
So, is it ok in time of war to kill? Yes, and no. I fyou are a soldier and that is what those who have authority over you have ordered, you are scripturally bound to obey that order. If you are a citzen with no ties to the war, no, I do not beleive it is OK to kill even during times of war. Too vauge? It does make one think.
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
A Saudi man who had sex with his sister-in-law has been sentenced to six years in prison and 4,750 lashes. The sister-in-law, who says she was raped, gets only six months in jail and 65 lashes--still an awfully stiff sentence, given that, as the Associated Press puts it, "the court found she had not consented to the relationship."
So, is it ok in time of war to kill? Yes, and no. I fyou are a soldier and that is what those who have authority over you have ordered, you are scripturally bound to obey that order. If you are a citzen with no ties to the war, no, I do not beleive it is OK to kill even during times of war. Too vauge? It does make one think.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, I would have asked this in the other thread, but the party seems to have moved to this one.
How about an example a little closer to home? Killing is wrong, but what if you were faced with the choice killing in order to protect a loved one, say, a family member from an attacker? Or, what if the choice were between the lives of two strangers (one stranger is attacking a bystander, neither of whom you know. Your choice is to interveine by killing the attacker, or to do nothing and let the bystander die.)
The answer to the first, I think should be obvious, but what about the second? To what do you look to guide your decisions? The Bible? Does the Bible have something to cover this situation?
Or, more on point, what if you were faced with a situation that the Bible does not cover in which to act would violate one of your core beliefs, yet to not act would bring imminent harm to you, a stranger, or a loved one?
You mentioned in the other thread that the "core values" don't change. I think that's true for most people, barring some major idealogical crisis. But things aren't always as black and white as we'd like them to be. Sooner or later, everyone will need to make decisions based a relative situation. Even Christians. Hopefully, though, they will not be as extreme as the ones above, but they will still have to be made nonetheless, and the choices you are faced with may violate your beliefs. To say that you would not make decisions based on a relative morality or relative circumstances is, I think too much of a simplification.
<strong>Sin brought death to earth, before sin there was no death.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I presume by this that you are referring to the parable of the Garden of Eden (correct me if I'm wrong), and I have a problem with you stating this as fact. The idea that man ever was or could be immortal is stretching it a bit. The nature of life is that it is intertwined with death. All things die, man, animals, plants, even rocks are withered away by the wind. Every rabbi who I've ever talked to views the Eden tale as a metaphor, not a fact. It was a way for the Israelites to come to terms with the nature of their existence. Anyhow, I would always trade immortality for knowledge, because an existence without knowledge is a meaningless one.
(Noah, if you meant something completely different, just let me know so that this post will sound like babble )
Comments
<strong>OK Scott - can you prove this? Can you prove what is wrong and what isn't? Where do the morals come from? I have my own ideas about this, but I'm curious where you think they come from.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Me shooting you in the head for no reason would be wrong. I rest my case.
I'm just wondering where the talk of rape came in in this discussion exactly? Who mentioned anything about rape?
As for Greece, well we now find that model of thought to be abhorent and perhaps rightly so, perhaps not. the reasons why it might not be abhorent is because there is an unbridgeable gulf between now, our attitutes towards sex, and the attitudes back then in which the adult youth relationship is said to be one of nurturing and learning.
Clearly from our sex obsessed cultural perspective: where we love sex but deny it due its 'inherently' prurient and 'immoral' nature, we create an ugly thing out of it, to the point that many people in our culture 'lust only after the forbidden... and turn healthy sexuality into the 'dirtiness of forbiddeness'. It is impossible, from the perspective of our culture, where sex is ubiquitous yet made into a commodity and a monster, to see how another culture may have treated the act otherwise. From what I have read of Plato, the reverence and care for the body and for beauty and teh stewardship of youth into adulthood was in a very different frame of mind and relationship than we have to these ideas:
where we can only see the idea of rape they may have seen something else: not at all violent, abusive, dirty or coercive.
It would be untenable for us to have youth--adult relationships in our culture because the way we treat sex we make of it an act of power or shameful activity to be denied and kept hidden in the confessional.
True that psychologically there is a natural sense of shock in relationship to sexuality: a shock, in par,t due to sex's power in relationship to the Ego: namely that the Ego's sovereignty is a sham in the face of the power of sex, and the Ego feels this like it feels the fear of death. But, perhaps if our culture had a different relationship to the body and the sex act, the manner in which we deal with that natural shock to the psych might not be so painful and might not result in so many screwed up people in relation to sex.
Once again, think about the grounding of the sexual relationship that predominated in the culture that fostered the Terorists: screwed up for sure.
And besides, Berkeley is one of he best schools in the country and has virtually nothing to do with the Berkeley of the sixties mentality.
<strong>
Me shooting you in the head for no reason would be wrong. I rest my case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That doesn't at all answer BRussell's question.
<strong>I for one never meant to question that rape is wrong and rape of innocent youth would in particular be very bad, sthese are awfull things.
I'm just wondering where the talk of rape came in in this discussion exactly? Who mentioned anything about rape?
As for Greece, well we now find that model of thought to be abhorent and perhaps rightly so, perhaps not. the reasons why it might not be abhorent is because there is an unbridgeable gulf between now, our attitutes towards sex, and the attitudes back then in which the adult youth relationship is said to be one of nurturing and learning.
Clearly from our sex obsessed cultural perspective: where we love sex but deny it due its 'inherently' prurient and 'immoral' nature, we create an ugly thing out of it, to the point that many people in our culture 'lust only after the forbidden... and turn healthy sexuality into the 'dirtiness of forbiddeness'. It is impossible, from the perspective of our culture, where sex is ubiquitous yet made into a commodity and a monster, to see how another culture may have treated the act otherwise. From what I have read of Plato, the reverence and care for the body and for beauty and teh stewardship of youth into adulthood was in a very different frame of mind and relationship than we have to these ideas:
where we can only see the idea of rape they may have seen something else: not at all violent, abusive, dirty or coercive.
It would be untenable for us to have youth--adult relationships in our culture because the way we treat sex we make of it an act of power or shameful activity to be denied and kept hidden in the confessional.
True that psychologically there is a natural sense of shock in relationship to sexuality: a shock, in par,t due to sex's power in relationship to the Ego: namely that the Ego's sovereignty is a sham in the face of the power of sex, and the Ego feels this like it feels the fear of death. But, perhaps if our culture had a different relationship to the body and the sex act, the manner in which we deal with that natural shock to the psych might not be so painful and might not result in so many screwed up people in relation to sex.
Once again, think about the grounding of the sexual relationship that predominated in the culture that fostered the Terorists: screwed up for sure.
And besides, Berkeley is one of he best schools in the country and has virtually nothing to do with the Berkeley of the sixties mentality.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That was a very enlightening post. Thank you!
<strong>1. There is really no "hippy culture" in Berkeley. It's a grouping of college students, and is fairly liberal, as most colleges are.
2. I didn't quote the syllabus. I quoted the same anecdotal students comments that you did. The classroom part of the class has a lot of real world applicability.
3. Just because I say morals are relative doesn't mean I don't have any.
4. What have I been assimilated into?
5. I edited my earlier post because I realized the inappropriateness of what I said. I'm just annoyed by people who are afraid to question the underlying assumptions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Just like most other colleges? Mmmk. Next question. (Berkeley is hardly just like any other college.)
2) Well good, so maybe they actually learned a few things other than it is ok to have sex in front of your students and to particiapate in an orgy in public.
3) I have never said you don't have any morals.
4) Moral relatavism is all the rage. "If society says it is ok, it is. So long as nobody cares who am I to say what is wrong?" And you just go along with it, following the crowd. Assimilated.
5) See my previous post. Questioning? I bet you are coming up with your next response to write of my opinion already as we speak. It is much harder to swim against the moral drift that to float along placidly in it. I have to "question the underlying assumptions" almost daily. It is not easy, in fact is was much easier before I decided that there are moral absolutes. Much easier.
<strong>
4) Moral relatavism is all the rage. "If society says it is ok, it is. So long as nobody cares who am I to say what is wrong?" And you just go along with it, following the crowd. Assimilated.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's news to me. I came up with that while reading Machiavelli, not the New York Times.
<strong>
That's news to me. I came up with that while reading Machiavelli, not the New York Times.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And this proves what? So Machiavelli wrote it down a while ago. That does not change what is going on in society around you. You just found something written that backs up your opinion that shows that morality is what you make it. There are no absolutes. Still BS, and you are still just foating along with the rest of society, you just have a fancy name to point to as to why you beleive what you do. Most others just beleive it because it is human nature. Congratualtions.
[edit] Oh, and as for the rest of my post???
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
<strong>
And this proves what? So Machiavelli wrote it down a while ago. That does not change what is going on in society around you. You just found something written that backs up your opinion that shows that morality is what you make it. There are no absolutes. Still BS, and you are still just foating along with the rest of society, you just have a fancy name to point to as to why you beleive what you do. Most others just beleive it because it is human nature. Congratualtions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just because others agree with me doesn't make me a fish following the current. I truly believe (and think I understand) that everything is relative. I accept somethings as absolute (like that murder is bad) for the sake of maintaining a social order. Don't criticize my argument because "everyone else is doing it". Tell me, if there are absolutes, where do they come from? God? Are they just there, existing outside the bounds of time?
<strong>
[edit] Oh, and as for the rest of my post???
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
As for the rest of your post:
1. Berkeley is like other universities. I go to another UC school, a lot of my friends go to Cal, we both have similar educational experiences.
2. My point here is that the class is good, it just needs structure.
3. Fair enough
NoahJ, you are playing the moral martyr card, Except that you don't recognize that your moral-castle is that of the majority.
We have argued about this in other threads, and I have seen where your moral grounding comes from: we know that you believe they are grounded in the absolute reading of scripture.
and you know that my morals, and I do have them, are grounded in the pragmatism of daily life and born out of Compassion for the Other.
The main difference here is that my Ethics is dynamic, and, in principle deals with real people in real situations and yours is rigidified in (what is impossible, in my mind) an absolute reading of a text, as if interpretation were merely an illusion.
I am glad that our legal system has a structure that mirrors the understanding that judgements are dynamic and based on interpretation, jurisprudence is dynamic.
I'm not making excuses for these classes. But mainly my objection to them is that it reveals just how trite the instructors thoughts about sexuality probably were, and just how blunt and clumsy they were: like a dumptruck on an ice rink. What occured outside of the class room sounds pretty inappropriate for a class room, and should probably not be given the legitimation of the institution, it sounds more appropriate for an extra curricular seminar or group.
But, I think that the manner in which the story is told most probably distorts what happened to make it sound like a debauch when it probably really was not much.
I know this from personal experience: in Iowa, where I went to graduate school, a Graduate student did a work of art that entailed moments where naked men, while dancing had bodily contact: a student was a fundamentalist and protested that the event was a blatant promotion of immoral homosexaul activity, and was a sex act . . . this interpretation carried the day as far as the interface with the public was concerned. . . . .obviously it was a misreading of what hapened in order to serve the interests of the "moral majority" --the people who would have us live under the Christian Taliban if they could
I can't help but think that this is what's happening here. . . it serves the 'morally indignant' in two ways:
1. They are interested in controlling others in the name of their absolutist morallity
and
2. They re interested in stories of lurid sex but have to deny that they are: but its clearly the luridness that they love
[ 02-19-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
[QB]
NoahJ, you are playing the moral martyr card, Except that you don't recognize that your moral-castle is that of the majority.<hr></blockquote>
I can see how you would think that. But I am not asking for sympathy. I am telling those who think it is so easy to be a Christian and to believe that right is right and wrong in wrong that they are living a pipe dream. IT is hard. Very Hard. Even in this forum I am told how stupid I am to believe what I beleive and how I should just give it up and realize that there are only Societal morals and no absolute moral authority.
[quote]We have argued about this in other threads, and I have seen where your moral grounding comes from: we know that you believe they are grounded in the absolute reading of scripture.
and you know that my morals, and I do have them, are grounded in the pragmatism of daily life and born out of Compassion for the Other.
The main difference here is that my Ethics is dynamic, and, in principle deals with real people in real situations and yours is rigidified in (what is impossible, in my mind) an absolute reading of a text, as if interpretation were merely an illusion.<hr></blockquote>
Yes, we have had discussion about this before. And I still appreciate that people have, for the most part managed to keep the tone civil. Makes it easier to put a point across without having to wade through personal attacks.
You say that your ethics are dynamic. Seems like a big word to say they change over time. If you read my last post in the other thread I explained how my interpretation of scripture is not rigid when it comes to what is intended for my edification and my relationship with God. But when it comes to base moral right and wrong. That part DOES NOT change. It is always wrong if it is wrong, no matter what society says.
[quote]I am glad that our legal system has a structure that mirrors the understanding that judgements are dynamic and based on interpretation, jurisprudence is dynamic.<hr></blockquote>
But those laws are man made, and judged by man. Therefore they can be fundamentally flawed sometimes, thus the need for interpretation. The 10 commandments are not.
[quote]I'm not making excuses for these classes. But mainly my objection to them is that it reveals just how trite the instructors thoughts about sexuality probably were, and just how blunt and clumsy they were: like a dumptruck on an ice rink. What occured outside of the class room sounds pretty inappropriate for a class room, and should probably not be given the legitimation of the institution, it sounds more appropriate for an extra curricular seminar or group.
But, I think that the manner in which the story is told most probably distorts what happened to make it sound like a debauch when it probably really was not much. <hr></blockquote>
So they made the story up for sensationalism? Maybe. But they don't quote any students as saying that is not what happened either. Most just said that it was accepted by all and so it should be no big deal.
[quote]I know this from personal experience: in Iowa, where I went to graduate school, a Graduate student did a work of art that entailed moments where naked men, while dancing had bodily contact: a student was a fundamentalist and protested that the event was a blatant promotion of immoral homosexaul activity, and was a sex act . . . this interpretation carried the day as far as the interface with the public was concerned. . . . .obviously it was a misreading of what hapened in order to serve the interests of the "moral majority" --the people who would have us live under the Christian Taliban if they could<hr></blockquote>
Couldn't resist comparing to the Taliban could you. Sigh. Now it is I who am disappointed.
[quote]I can't help but think that this is what's happening here. . . it serves teh morally indignant in two ways:
1. They are interested in controlling others in the name of their absolutist morallity
and
2. They re interested in stories of lurid sex but have to deny that they are: but its clearly the luridness that they love<hr></blockquote>
This is not a very helpful analysis. First you are asking for a snide response, begging actually. This is very broad brushed remark that makes me wish I had a moral martyr card to play.
As far as the interest in lurid sex, once gain, that is human nature, it is not like people can just turn off a switch and not be interested in sex or sexual behavior anymore. But then again, that does not stop that behavior from being wrong in certain circumstances. Such as outside of marriage, with a minor child, or in an orgy.
<strong>come on... where are you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Impatient are we?
For example, "thou shalt not kill".
Now, how do you interpret that? Or is every war America has fought been based on Sin?
I'm not attacking your beliefs. I'm just questioning your statement that scriptual laws aren't open to some amount of interpretation. As can be seen by the variety of Christ based religions i.e. protestants, catholics, lutherans, etc.
<strong>Hate to take this off topic, but Noah, I believe that the 10 commandments are somewhat open to interpretation.
For example, "thou shalt not kill".
Now, how do you interpret that? Or is every war America has fought been based on Sin?
I'm not attacking your beliefs. I'm just questioning your statement that scriptual laws aren't open to some amount of interpretation. As can be seen by the variety of Christ based religions i.e. protestants, catholics, lutherans, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Every war is based on sin. Without sin there would be no need for war. Sin brought death to earth, before sin there was no death. So yes, every war that is fought by America, by European nations, or by anyone is based on some degree of sin. War is usually a retribution for a crime committed against a nation. God gave the leaders of those nations authority over the people in them and has told us that we mus obey their rule. If they decide that retribution for the wrong is to go to war, then that is what we are obligated to do scripturally. It is not my job as a man to judge the heart of my enemies or to condemn any of you. My job is to deal with myself and to answer questions you may have about my beleifs. My only hope is that along the way some will see what I beleive and come to beleive the same thing.
So, is it ok in time of war to kill? Yes, and no. I fyou are a soldier and that is what those who have authority over you have ordered, you are scripturally bound to obey that order. If you are a citzen with no ties to the war, no, I do not beleive it is OK to kill even during times of war. Too vauge? It does make one think.
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle-be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
- <a href="http://lone-star.net/mall/literature/warpray.htm"; target="_blank">The War Prayer</a>
Mark Twain
A Saudi man who had sex with his sister-in-law has been sentenced to six years in prison and 4,750 lashes. The sister-in-law, who says she was raped, gets only six months in jail and 65 lashes--still an awfully stiff sentence, given that, as the Associated Press puts it, "the court found she had not consented to the relationship."
<strong>
So, is it ok in time of war to kill? Yes, and no. I fyou are a soldier and that is what those who have authority over you have ordered, you are scripturally bound to obey that order. If you are a citzen with no ties to the war, no, I do not beleive it is OK to kill even during times of war. Too vauge? It does make one think.</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, I would have asked this in the other thread, but the party seems to have moved to this one.
How about an example a little closer to home? Killing is wrong, but what if you were faced with the choice killing in order to protect a loved one, say, a family member from an attacker? Or, what if the choice were between the lives of two strangers (one stranger is attacking a bystander, neither of whom you know. Your choice is to interveine by killing the attacker, or to do nothing and let the bystander die.)
The answer to the first, I think should be obvious, but what about the second? To what do you look to guide your decisions? The Bible? Does the Bible have something to cover this situation?
Or, more on point, what if you were faced with a situation that the Bible does not cover in which to act would violate one of your core beliefs, yet to not act would bring imminent harm to you, a stranger, or a loved one?
You mentioned in the other thread that the "core values" don't change. I think that's true for most people, barring some major idealogical crisis. But things aren't always as black and white as we'd like them to be. Sooner or later, everyone will need to make decisions based a relative situation. Even Christians. Hopefully, though, they will not be as extreme as the ones above, but they will still have to be made nonetheless, and the choices you are faced with may violate your beliefs. To say that you would not make decisions based on a relative morality or relative circumstances is, I think too much of a simplification.
<strong>Sin brought death to earth, before sin there was no death.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I presume by this that you are referring to the parable of the Garden of Eden (correct me if I'm wrong), and I have a problem with you stating this as fact. The idea that man ever was or could be immortal is stretching it a bit. The nature of life is that it is intertwined with death. All things die, man, animals, plants, even rocks are withered away by the wind. Every rabbi who I've ever talked to views the Eden tale as a metaphor, not a fact. It was a way for the Israelites to come to terms with the nature of their existence. Anyhow, I would always trade immortality for knowledge, because an existence without knowledge is a meaningless one.
(Noah, if you meant something completely different, just let me know so that this post will sound like babble