Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience
91 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Islander, in reply to
.
Report
I cannot get the site to copy Sacha’s earlier comment.
Silly comments like ”:bandaids dont stop bleeding” DO NOT FEED HUNGRY KIDS-
if they are in your vicinity, and you have spare food, your bounden duty as a rational human is quite simple – help feed the kids- -
Sacha, in reply to
do whatever makes you feel better.
-
Islander, in reply to
I do what makes a difference, what helps others - If what was just makes ME feel better, I'd be out there, hunting whalers-
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I do what makes a difference, what helps others – If what was just makes ME feel better, I’d be out there, hunting whalers-
My turn to add a +1000
-
Islander, in reply to
AE!
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Now that my wife is home and I can write more than the occasional quick sentence...
It is strange and troublesome that people who would not normally defend moral relativism defend things in their holy book that most modern folk would deem to be completely immoral and utterly abhorrent by pleading "product of their time and place". So all the law that Abraham knew was blind faith in and unflinching obedience to God...
I take some comfort in the knowledge that anybody threatening to kill their own child today would be locked up for a long time and given the treatment they need. 'Tis also nice to hear this 'progressive revelation of God' and look at history and see that for all our 2 steps forward, 1 step back, 3 steps sideways, and the occasional drunken stagger, our species has generally tended to progress from 'nasty, brutish and short' to at least a veneer of civilisation and gentility.
Still, even the very short span of this century so far has thrown up plenty of evidence that we're never more than a couple of steps from total barbarity. I could go on, but I fear I might finally convince myself to disappear up a mountain and go feral, ancient Daoist poet-style.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
No but if we really want to fix the problem, letting the heartless pricks off the hook while we go feed the poor is not a sustainable answer. Band-aids don't stop the bleeding.
It's worse than heartlessness, if various comments in the original article are anything to go by. One commenter in a Guardian article on potential unrest from the Great Recession summed it up best:
Sweet Jesus. No one is going to fix this mess, are they? No politician seems up to the job.
This week I heard a pefectly sensible guest on Radio 4's Moneybox, use the phrase "when the balloon goes up" without any sense of irony whatsoever. I've recently read three level-headed articles predicting the end of the "marriage of convenience" between capitalism and democracy.
I'm scared. Proper Weimar Republic scared.
-
"at the top.
there is no after:
at the bottom,
there is no where:
when & what
are your questions-
who is your answer?"(My lengthy koan...)
-
Lilith __, in reply to
I fear I might finally convince myself to disappear up a mountain and go feral, ancient Daoist poet-style.
My only contact with Daoism was a book called The Tao of Pooh which I read as a teenager. So someone mentions Daoism, I think of teddy bears. :-s
-
Tim McKenzie, in reply to
But Lewis misses a few things too. He doesn’t note the position which denies that morality is real at all, perhaps he hadn’t even heard of it.
I think he does address the position that morality isn't real; he addresses it by trying to demonstrate to the reader that their beliefs aren't actually consistent with the position. Maybe he'd never heard of anyone whose beliefs really were consistent with the position, but he certainly seems to have heard of the position.
Most people would tend to agree with this – they find it inconceivable that God would love immoral things, that he might, for instance, fully endorse sexual violence against children. If he did endorse that, it would not make sexual violence against children right, therefore his endorsement is not the source of the rightness.
Lewis agrees, from The Poison of Subjectivism:
if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the "righteous Lord."
-
Tim McKenzie, in reply to
Not to mention the terrible things the OT God does to people.
Poor old Job, who was tortured in every way possible to test his faith. He endures the gratuitous killing of his wives and children but keeps his relationship with God, which is obviously the most important thing.
For a start, the book doesn't describe God doing horrible things to Job; it describes satan challenging God to do horrible things to Job. God declines to harm Job, but allows satan to harm him, within limits.
Secondly, only one wife is mentioned, and she isn't killed.
-
Tim McKenzie, in reply to
I certainly dont agree with that comment of your’s – it is in opposition of what I understand to be so-
If you truly don't believe in absolute morality, then why do you say things like
if they are in your vicinity, and you have spare food, your bounden duty as a rational human is quite simple – help feed the kids-
?
You certainly sound as if you believe that there is an objective moral imperative to help feed hungry children --- not merely an imperative that applies in contemporary New Zealand, nor merely a subjective preference that you hold. -
Tim McKenzie, in reply to
Is it able but not willing?
Then it is malevolent.Which is more malevolent: to allow evil that you can prevent, or to enslave every creature to prevent them from causing any evil?
-
Lilith __, in reply to
the book doesn’t describe God doing horrible things to Job; it describes satan challenging God to do horrible things to Job. God declines to harm Job, but allows satan to harm him, within limits.
Secondly, only one wife is mentioned, and she isn’t killed.
I stand corrected about the wives. Only Job’s 10 children were killed! Of course he can have some more later.
God allows Satan to test Job’s righteousness by killing of all his children, and taking from him all of his livestock, and by harming his body…I don’t think this is the action of a loving God.
And all this because Job's such a good guy! His kids are collateral damage in a round of point-scoring between God and Satan.
-
Tim McKenzie, in reply to
Adam and Eve only knew ‘eat all the fruits and seeds you want, just not the fruit of these two trees’, and they blew it.
Only one tree was out of bounds.
Abraham and Job knew only unquestioning faith and total obedience no matter how shite the situation or ridiculous the divine order.
Abraham famously bargained with God, and to call Job "unquestioning" is beyond ridiculous.
-
Tim McKenzie, in reply to
Only Job’s 10 children were killed! Of course he can have some more later.
Interestingly, although Job ends up with twice as many sheep, camels, cattle, and donkeys as he started with, he ends up having only ten more children, not twenty. It's not spelt out, but the impression I get is that the first ten children still count.
His kids are collateral damage in a round of point-scoring between God and Satan.
But if death isn't the end, then the children might be enjoying life somewhere else, and not complaining at all.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.