Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I think the following fits in with this topic.
    
    In 30.19 Alfred offered a passage from the Bible I've found myself
    pondering ever since:
    
    > The Bible *does* however call for some things to be a capital crime. 
    > Exodus 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." just to give one
    > example.  But capital punishment should be an other topic.
    
    Is this the passage that people interpreted as meaning that God wanted
    all witches to be killed?  If so, I think it was interpreted wrongly. 
    Many so-called witches were gentle women who were healers and herbalists 
    and a village's only source of medical care centuries before the birth 
    of Jesus and for several centuries afterward.  Why would God command 
    their unmerciful slaughter at the hands of Christians, which to me 
    appears to have happened?
    
    Karen

    The book of Joshua also relates the massacre of the men, women and
    children of Jericho and Ai, and Deuteronomy 20 claims that God
    allegedly ordered the people to commit these atrocities.

    I am not a biblical literalist, and I view these passages as a product
    of the cultural lens through which the people of that time and region
    viewed God, rather than any sort of accurate portrayal of God as a
    barbarian.  I don't infer from that passages that that God wants humans
    to commit atrocities, such as slaughtering the residents of captured
    cities or executing people for being witches or cursing their parents.

    Having said that, though, it is true that my perspective is not
    specifically Christian.  I would be interested in hearing how
    Christians, who accept the Bible as authoritative, but who also oppose
    the death penalty and other atrocities, view these passages.

    -- Mike

    At one place in the Bible, the hearers were told to beat swords into
    plowshares; in another, the reverse.  Jesus sent out his disciples
    unarmed, with only the clothes on their back, but at the last supper he
    told them to bring money and a sword.  
    
    I'm familiar enough with my mind's tricks that I do not trust to logic. 
    I'm familiar enough with apparent contradictions in the Bible to know
    that any one section could be a poor guide to any action of a specific
    situation.  Yet I know that I need the guidance of a good knowledge of
    the Bible and a broad ethical foundation.  
    
    For me, all logic, Biblical knowledge and ethics fail without the
    guidance of the Holy Spirit.  This is not, for me, situational ethics,
    but at-one-ment in the moment.  And in those times when the guidance I
    seem to get appears to contradict the wisdom of the ages, I tell God
    what I'm doing and why, and ask for purification of motive and
    transformation of results.  Then I act on faith.  
    
    The results are often magical, and I cannot recall having been deeply
    disappointed for long in my or God's performance under such
    circumstances.
    
    DR

    (Caution: the following is off the top of my head...)
    
    As for the witches, I believe that command was given so that God's
    people would not be led astray by folks who were empowered or
    influenced by satan. If I'm not mistaken the witches the Bible talks
    about are people who are active in satanism. God was interested in
    developing a holy people separate only unto Himself.
    
    As for the commands given to the Hebrews to destroy the nations they
    were coming in contact with, I take it in a very similar vein. God had
    promised that land to His people (it's His land after all :-). The
    folks who currently occupied it knew that the Hebrews were coming and
    they knew of the power of the Hebrew God. Instead of vacating (i.e.
    yielding to God's will) they chose to thumb their noses at God by
    fighting His people. It's not like they weren't warned.
    
    This is still consistent with God's character today (imho), and it fits
    in line with what I posted elsewhere about Christianity not being
    all-inclusive. God is calling a group of people to be devoted to Him.
    Those of us who accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior constitute this
    group and are the ones to "enter the promised land". Those who don't
    will end up in hell. Sounds pretty rough, but that's how I read the
    Scripture.
    
    God is certainly a loving God, but He's also a holy and just God. He
    has established the rules, He knows our hearts, and He perfectly
    judges.
    
    	BD�

    I'm afraid that we'll have to disagree on this issue.
    
    -- Mike

RE: .2

    Mike,
    
    >The book of Joshua also relates the massacre of the men, women and
    >children of Jericho and Ai, and Deuteronomy 20 claims that God
    >allegedly ordered the people to commit these atrocities.

    >I am not a biblical literalist, and I view these passages as a product
    >of the cultural lens through which the people of that time and region
    >viewed God, rather than any sort of accurate portrayal of God as a
    >barbarian. 
    
    >I would be interested in hearing how
    >Christians, who accept the Bible as authoritative, but who also oppose
    >the death penalty and other atrocities, view these passages.

    I am a Christian who views the Bible as "authoritative" on matters of
    faith, but not "literal and inerrant" on everything.  I agree with
    your method of understanding the Bible in terms of those who wrote it.
    I see the Bible as a wonderful, inspired, description of the
    faith-journey of a group of people *whose understanding of God changed
    and improved over the centuries!*
    
    Nancy

    Nancy
    
    you are going to get tired of this..
    
    but you keep putting my thoughts into words
    
    hugs
    
    Bonnie

    
      Are not all ethics, situation ethics ? You find yourself in a
    given situation and you figure out how to try and act ethically
    under the circumstances.  
    
      Is it wrong to lie ? Sure. Now, how about people who hid Jews
    from the Naszi's and lied about it ? Was this not "ethical lying"?
      It is probably not good to kill either, right ? What about a
    injured animal in great suffering ? I have killed injured animals
    before. I didn't like it, but it was the "ethical" thing to do.
      It is seldom clear cut as to what is "ethical". It would be nice,
    but it is a complicated world. 
    
      I remember a group discussion around a situation given us by
    our professor:
    
      "You have the opportunity to go back in time and kill Hitler and
    Stalin. You will be "beamed" into their offices when the are alone.
    You will have a loaded gun with you with which to kill them.
    Will you commit two murders ?"
    
      I am sure some or all of your have had this scenario put to
    you before. 
    
     Is this a situation where cold blooded, premeditated murder would
    be the ethical thing to do ?
                                            
                                                       Mike

    Thanks Mike, you really know how to get someone thinking !

    Lie - a deliberate falsehood.
    Lying - to tell a lie or convey a false image.

    I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where it says it is a sin to lie.

    Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, speaks
    about lying when it would be damaging to another person. So lying
    to save someone's life, as in the case of saving people from Hitler
    during WWII, would not be a immoral.

     Mike your question about going back to kill Hitler and Stalin is
    too hypothetical. Let's make it tougher by being slightly more
    realistic. 


    You have the opportunity to kill Sadam Hussein. Would you  do it ?


    I'm stuck here, so I don't have an answer yet. I'm leaning towards
    no.

    Peace
    Jim

    RE:10
    Charlie,

    Rev 21:8
    "As for the cowards and traitors of the faith, the depraved an
    murderers, the fornicators and sorcerers, the idol-worshipers and 
    DECEIVERS (my emphasis) of every sort - their lit is the fiery
    pool of burning sulfur, the second death."

    Seems to be talking about those who deceive people in every way
    about God. They're bearing false witness against God.


    Jim

    
    Hmmm, sorry dude. My Living says "..liars..".
    
    I was poking at your statement that lying was not synomymous with sin.
    You did say that right? :) If so, then here's another: Colossians 3:9.
    
        

    Well Charlie, in either case, lying was done with malice or it's intent
    was deception in order to do evil. 

    I would say that it's the intent not the action that makes lying sin or not.


    Do you tell your kid's there's a Santa Claus ?
    
    Even if you do or did, it isn't a sin.

    Jim

Situation ethics is a on-going issue between my cousin-in-law and
I. I say that we are given a tool-kit by Jesus; called love your
brother and do that which Christ would do for him/her. He says
that it's all spelled out and that's that.

Well, he's somewhere in Saudia Arabia, enjoying the beach and sun
while I am getting ready for the winter here in Colorado.
Somewhere, there is an issue in situation ethics here but it's
hard for me to define.

calvin

Those who believe in Situational Ethics believe that "rightness" or
"wrongness" is *dependent* on the situation.

Those who do not believe in Situational Ethics believe that "rightness" or
"wrongness" do *not depend* on the situation.  Most Christians fall into
this camp and believe rightness and wrongness depend on God.  Applying
this standard to a situation may require knowing the situation, but
the rightness or wrongness is not dependent on that situation.

A typical Situational Ethics view is that "rightness" or "wrongness"
should be determined based on Love.  This view was already expressed
in a previous note.  One of the main problems with this (I believe there
are many) is that people would choose different solutions based on
Love.  Another problem is that what love would do (in the abstract) is
very poorly defined.  A third problem (the biggest, in my opinion) is
that this conflicts with the teaching of the Bible which gives many
moral teachings as being simply true.

Collis

Re:  .16

Mike,

Having a firm moral standard does *not* mean that the circumstances of
the situation are ignored.  The circumstances of the situation may
simply tell *how* the firm moral standards are *applied*.  This is
different from *defining* the moral standard *from* the circumstance.

Does this help?

Collis

    Collis,

    Is it really true that situation ethics defines moral standards
    strictly from the circumstance, rather than applying firm moral
    standards to specific circumstances?  I don't claim to be an expert on
    situation ethics, so I don't really know.

    However, it also seems to me to be self-contradictory that a "firm"
    moral standard against something can be applied in a specific
    circumstance so that the same act becomes acceptable.  In other words,
    I don't see how it is possible to "apply" a firm moral standard in such
    a way as to violate itself.  That seems like situation ethics to me.
    Either that, or I infer that the moral standard wasn't so firm after
    all.

    -- Mike

    Mike and Collis - I, too, do not understand what you mean, Collis, by
    saying that "siuation ethics *defines* moral standards strictly from
    the circumstance."  I do not believe that is an accurate depiction at
    all.
    
    As I understand and believe it, situation ethics applies particularly
    in those situations where two seemingly absolute moral standards are in
    conflict.  (Examples appear in this string and elsewhere.)  Then, using
    love as the ultimate test, situation ethics would ask, "What is the
    most loving thing I can do in *this situation*?"  or "What would God
    have me do in *this situation*?  (To me, those questions are the same.)
    
    You are right, Collis, that the answer to the question might be
    different for different people.  But even though we discuss many
    hypothetical situations, in real life it is the *person in the
    situation* who must apply the test of Love, not an onlooker!  The fact
    that someone else might apply the test of Love and come to a different
    conclusion is irrelevant.
    
    To me that is not a problem -- I do not demand, need, nor believe we 
    are offered, certainty.  I believe that that *is* important to you,
    Collis  - yes?
    
    Nancy
    

    I think there is an example of what Mike is talking about currently
    going on in the golf:: file.
    
    some one asked anonymously why God sanctioned and aided and abbetted
    the murder of all the inhabitants of Jericho, wondering why this
    was different from the holocaust.
    
    The one answer that I read that I found totaly disgusting was that
    all the inhabitants of Jericho were already condemed to hell by
    their actions (say what? that they lived on territory the Hebrews
    wanted?) so they deserved to die. (women and children and babies
    too, all un redeamable). The word I would wish to use for such
    an arguement in favor of mass murder is not printable in a notes
    conference.
    
    Bonnie

    If rightness or wrongness doesn't depend on the situation, then it
    follows that the bloody massacres at Jericho and Ai were just as
    morally wrong as the massacres at My Lai and Malmedy.
    
    I find it interesting that Christian fundamentalism, which is so
    vehemently opposed to situation ethics, is required by its biblical
    literalism to defend the instigation of any otherwise immoral action if
    some passage in the Bible condones it.
    
    -- Mike

    
    Bonnie - you are somewhat misstating the understandings that
    were offered, which were spiritually discerned understandings.
    You are trying to take that which is spiritual and convert it
    to head knowledge.
    
    I know this is a difficult thing to grasp and understand. I
    had great difficulty with the violence I saw in OT times -- 
    I still have difficulty with it. 
    
    I see the physical realm as an outworking of the spiritual realm. 
    And yet, we only see in part. We do not see, in the physical, all that 
    goes on behind the scenes in the spiritual that brought it about.
    
    I don't have all the answers, as I'm sure everyone here will
    agree that they don't, either. I do believe that God, being
    omniscient, does have the answers. If we could see from God's
    eternal perspective, I'm certain they'd look much different
    than from our limited view 'down here'. God's view is not
    sliced up into past, present and future (or even divided into
    subsets of last year, last month, last week, yesterday and so
    on into what we call the future). In truth, we are living
    in God's eternal present. And He sees the whole of it, while
    we only see yesterday and that part of today that we've lived.
    
    The Bible is quite clear. The ungodly (those separated from God)
    will remain eternally separated - whether you believe in hell
    or annihilation. Without Christ, there is no reconciliation
    with God, no sealing into eternal life. This is, after all,
    the reason Jesus came - not only to show us the way, but to
    *be* the way. "I *am* the way," He said. He is the door -
    knock, and it shall be opened to you.
    
    There are many who will never bother knocking, and God knows
    these in advance. We hold no surprises for the Everliving One,
    the Creator of the universe.  
    
    Is not life more than this physical shell, eating, breathing,
    laughing, crying, dying? It may be all *we* see, but it is
    not all there is.
    
    Much as we may not like to admit this, God is not accountable to us. 
    We cannot hold Him accountable. We can either accept Him, or reject
    Him, but we cannot hold Him accountable. Our love for Him has to
    be a reflection of His unconditional love for us. We have to trust
    Him, love Him, unconditionally. It is a choice He gives us. A
    difficult test indeed but with eternal consequences.
    
    All I have seen has brought me to a place where I can trust Him
    in all I have not seen. I may not know why God does what He does,
    but I trust Him. I may question, but I do not say that His ways
    are wrong, and that I know better. I simply say, "Lord, I don't
    understand." I'm sure He has no trouble accepting that. :) 
    
    For the same reason, I can accept His word on things as the
    guideline for living. [I may not always like it, but it is always
    the best approach.]
    
    God works things for good according to a plan for ultimate 
    good, and He knows what He's doing. I not only believe that, 
    I have no trouble accepting that.
     
    Irena
           
                                     

    Thanks, Bonnie, for your comments.

    I can't help but wonder about the implications of all of this.  What
    would those who casually defend this slaughter do if they were somehow
    magically transported back in time to the fall of Jericho?  Would they
    have willingly participated in the killing, because they believed it
    was "God's will"?  Would they have killed babies and little children? 
    Could they have slain mothers and grandmothers while the terrified
    children watched?  I infer that the answer is yes, and that is enough
    to make me shudder.

    The suggestion that we are not to question these Biblical depictions of
    God because God is not accountable to us assumes that everything the
    Bible attributes to God is accurate, and the lack of a universally
    palatable depiction of the deity implies that God acts according to
    arbitrary whim.  This implies further that God does not do the good
    simply for the reasons that it is _a priori_ good and that God always
    does that which is _a priori_ good; rather, it implies that "good" is
    whatever God arbitrarily decides to do.  The result is that good has no
    meaning in and of itself; it is just an expression of God's raw power. 
    "Might makes good", one might say.

    In this way, God is not really "good", because goodness is not an
    independent attribute of God that can be philosophically determined. 
    Morality per se would thus not be "firm" at all.  We therefore seem
    have an extreme case of situation ethics, the "situation" in this case
    being whatever divine whim dictates. I'm not sure what the implications
    of this are for the Moral Argument of natural theology.  But this
    stance certainly seems to follow from a biblical literalism which
    requires its adherents to accept at face value any biblical depiction
    of alleged divine activity, no matter how offensive it might be to our
    moral sensibilities.

    For those who take the Biblical creation myths literally,  Adam and Eve
    may have eaten of the tree, but it seems that our human knowledge of
    good and evil does us little good anyway.  Our God-given brain, our
    capacity for creative and moral understanding, is to be thrown aside in
    favor of a blind acceptance of an immorality espoused in a 3000 year old
    written document.  And yet we are supposed to accept that this God of
    Biblical literalism is good, holy, and pure.

    The alternative, of course, to suggesting that God is not accountable to
    us is NOT to assume that these activities attributed to God are accurate
    in the first place.  If we don't presuppose that God ordered His people
    to commit genocide, then there is nothing to question, nothing unsavory
    to hold God accountable for.

    -- Mike

All the notes from .23 to .27 have been set hidden pending the resolution
of a complaint lodged with the moderators.

Please note that note .27 was simply an "innocent bystander" responding
to the notes of the parties in conflict -- but I thought that it was better
to hide it too, at least temporarily, since it contains excerpts and 
discusses the conflict, rather than the topic.

This note is till open for replies about the subject "Situation Ethics".

Bob

Re:  35.18

Mike,

  >Is it really true that situation ethics defines moral standards
  >strictly from the circumstance, rather than applying firm moral
  >standards to specific circumstances?  I don't claim to be an expert on
  >situation ethics, so I don't really know.

I've thought about this some more and I think my previous answer was
not good, at best.

Let me try again.

In situationally ethics, ethics are determined by the person's
conception of what is "right" in a given situation.  This leads to the
following problems:

  1)  Dependent on a person's limited understanding.  People do not
      have the same experiences, mental abilities, understanding, etc. 
      so even if they use the same principle, their actions can (and
      will) be different.

  2)  Different people use different principles to guide them.  "Love"
      is often considered to be the best principle.  But different
      people define "love" (which is a nebulous concept at best) in 
      different ways.  (I know that I define it differently than most
      the people in this conference.)

  3)  Situational ethics often (although not necessarily) leads to
      "the end justifies the means" analysis.  Again, it depends on the
      person and how they view the world and the specific situation.

On the other hand, if there is a definite moral standard, then the
capabilities and principles of the individual as well as the end result
are irrelevant to determining what the right course of action is.

For example (and a controversial one at that), there is currently a
topic in CHRISTIAN which asks the question, "is it ever right to lie?"
Now, I don't know the answer to this question (from a Biblical perspective).
Many in the conference, however, believe that the Bible teaches that it
is NEVER right to lie.  Situational ethics would never say such a thing
primarily because the logic is usually based on "the end justifies the
means" mentality.  And there are cases when lying can be sound (whether
rightly or wrongly) to produce a "good" result.

The Bible does not situational ethics.  God wants purity.  God wants
holiness.  God wants you to do what is right regardless of the cost.

God defines what is right.  If there was no God, it would be impossible
to determine what was right and what was wrong.  Our God is holy and pure
and always does what is right.  Thank God then we have Him as a standard
and not something or someone else - because you and I fall short.

Collis

    RE: .29
    
>On the other hand, if there is a definite moral standard, then the
>capabilities and principles of the individual as well as the end result
>are irrelevant to determining what the right course of action is.

    But if the moral standard *is* Love, then the individual *is*
    critical in the decision-making!
    
>God wants you to do what is right regardless of the cost.
>
>God defines what is right.  If there was no God, it would be impossible
>to determine what was right and what was wrong.  Our God is holy and pure
>and always does what is right.  Thank God then we have Him as a standard
>and not something or someone else - because you and I fall short.
    
    Our disagreement, Collis, is *how to know* what God defines as right!
    Many of us do not accept a literal understanding of the Bible as
    a clear definition of what God defines as right.  When the issues are
    really clear, there is no problem!!  When the issues are *not* really
    clear, I would much prefer to act on *my best understanding of God's 
    Love* than to act on either my own or someone else's understanding
    of a Bible passage that is controversial.
    
    If you yourself do not know what the Bible says about lying, for
    example, then how do you know or determine what God defines as right in
    terms of lying?? 
    
    Nancy

Nancy,

By what you do, you beg the question, in my opinion.

You accept what you choose to accept about God (from the Bible) and you
refuse to accept other information about God (from the Bible).  Who is
defining the standard?  You, or God?

Unless you base what you accept or reject on an objective test, I think
the answer is that you (or the individual doing the determining) is
defining the standard himself or herself.  My experience has been that
people who pick and choose what to accept/reject do so not from an
objective test but rather because of their own definition of what is
acceptable/not-acceptable.

For example:

  God reveals Himself as love.  I find that acceptable.
  God reveals Himself as just.  I do not find that acceptable (because
    justice involves finding people guilty and the punishment for guilt
    is death (spiritual, physical) and God would never implement such a
    punishment).

In other words, the where the revelation of God that the Bible claims to
be conflicts with our personal sense of right/wrong, we choose our personal
sense.

To answer your question:

  >how to know what God defines as right

I think we need to examine the full character of God.  This question is
certainly important to answer because we don't have an explicit guideline
for every circumstance.  However, we *do* have explicit guidelines for
many circumstances.  Are you willing to follow those?  

Collis

    So Collis, do you want me to believe in a barbaric God, who perpretates
    atrocities, who tells people to commit genocide, and then in the next
    breath claim that this God is "holy, just, and pure"?  That sounds more
    like Satan than God to me.
    
    By the way, what would *you* have done at Jericho?  Could you have
    slain the babies, mothers, and grandmothers there?
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .32

Mike,

Yes, Mike.  I can only pray that I would be faithful to the only pure,
wise and faithful God that exists; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
the God of Collis Jackson and my household.  A God who punishes the children
to the third and fourth generation of those who hate Him, but shows loving-
kindness to thousands who love Him and keep His commandments.

If my God says, "Enough is enough.  I command you to destroy these
people", then I would do it.  Because I love my God.  Because He is
wiser than me.  Because He has proven time and time again that only He is
perfect, only He is holy, only He is pure.  I, on the other hand, am a
wretched sinner.

God is NOT barbaric.  He overflows with mercy and with grace.  But his
patience is not forever.  He will judge you, I and everyone else for what
we have done.  And God has the right to use other people as the instrument
of His judgment if He so chooses.

You sound as if you believe the people have a right to life, Mike.  I
agree in one sense, but disagree in another.  People have a *privilege*
to live.  A privilege granted by God.  When someone sins, even that
teneous privilege is revoked.  It is only God's mercy that allows you or
I to live and God's grace that provides a way out of eventual (spiritual)
death.

God has never committed an atrocity, nor could He.  This is incompatible with
His nature.

By the way, Mike.  The very *worst* think you can do is to call "goodness",
"sin".  That was what the Pharisees did to Jesus.  They called Him the
devil.  The unpardonable sin, in my opinion.  Just so you're aware of the
seriousness of the issue we're dealing with.

Collis

    
    Butting in here,
    
    I doubt that a GOd as expansive and powerful as the one described in
    the Bible would feel very threatened by a human definition and
    conception of barbarism. From down here in humanness, lots of things
    look pretty barbaric, like floods, etc. From up there looking down...
    well, I doubt the states of our minds could fathom.
    
    Jamey

RE: .33 Collis
    
How would you know that such a command came from God?
    
If God wanted to destroy a group of people, why would God need other
people to do the destroying?  Why not just send a flood or plague?
    
>You sound as if you believe the people have a right to life, Mike.  I
>agree in one sense, but disagree in another.  People have a *privilege*
>to live.  A privilege granted by God.  When someone sins, even that
>teneous privilege is revoked.  It is only God's mercy that allows you or
>I to live and God's grace that provides a way out of eventual (spiritual)
>death.

Hmmm....this I find curious.  Isn't it a Christian belief that we are
born sinners?  And, if so, what kind of privilege have we been given
if it is already tenuous?  I find this somewhat confusing, so please
bear with me.  If we hold the belief that we are born in sin, why 
does God give us this *privilege* to live?  If God realizes that we
are sinners and will probably sin again, why put us through this kind
of process?
    
Carole

  >Isn't it a Christian belief that we are born sinners?

Yes, that's a common belief.

  >And, if so, what kind of privilege have we been given if it is already
  >tenuous?

So *that's* how tenuous is spelled. :-)

Good question.  I was writing on the fly and I'm not sure I would express
it the same way again.  However, I do think that what I said is
defensible.  Note that Jesus was not born a sinner and so his "privilege"
was not "revoked".  In other words, that the privilege can be considered
tenuous is not God's fault, but ours.  (It is not God's fault that we
are born sinners.)

  >...why put us through this kind of process?

Because God desires for us to love and worship Him.  We are to glorify
God.  That is the chief purpose of people (man).

Again, the main point is that the "right to life" is not a "right" in
God's eyes and never has been.  As a way of looking at it from a human
perspective, it is very appropriate (although not always, e.g. capital
punishment comes to mind where thinking of life as a right can become
problematic).

Collis

Yes, Mike, we certainly do disagree.  God has the right to not only
wipe out Jericho, but you and I as well.  In fact, He has the
*responsibility* to wipe us out.  Fortunately, God loved you and me so
much that he died Himself so that you and I could live.  Thus fulfilling
both his responsibility for judgment and his love for both of us.

Praise be the name of our God and Saviour!!!

Collis

    Collis,

    So you *would* kill the babies, mothers, and grandmothers of Jericho if
    you thought God ordered you to do so.  That sound you hear is me
    shuddering, across the E-net.  And this is where we will disagree--I
    am afraid that I do not agree with you that genocide is not barbaric. 
    However, I don't think that a good God would ever want people to commit
    such an atrocity in the first place, so I don't agree with you that
    this is an attribute of God.  Since we have such different views of the
    deity, I doubt that we will resolve this issue here.

    As for your warning that I might be committing an unpardonable sin--I
    thank you for your concern, but frankly I am not worried.  I am afraid
    that I disagree that genocide is "goodness".  Rather, I believe that it
    is sin, and one of the worst kinds imaginable.  However, I believe that
    God can even forgive those who commit atrocities.  Were I thrust back
    in time (assuming that the Jericho event as depicted in the Bible is
    even authentic), I would have refused to participate in the slaughter,
    and would have urged and exhorted my cohorts to do the same.  I would
    have done this even if it would have meant my own death.  I will not
    apologize for taking that moral stand.

    -- Mike

    Thanks for the paraphrase of John 3:16, Collis.  In any case, since I
    have just committed an unpardonable sin, I guess there goes *my* chance
    at eternal life.  Oh well, c'est la vie.
    
    -- Mike

    Collis - 
    
    I grew up in the Episcopalian church.  I was always taught that God is
    all loving and all forgiving of all people.  If that is true, why would 
    God command (much less condone) genocide?  That just doesn't make sense
    to me.
    
    Nanci 

    Nanci,
    
    Could it be that the Hebrew children, like most healthy, normal
    children, heard what they wanted to hear God say?  Or, at least,
    it was recorded that way?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

RE: .31  Collis,

>Unless you base what you accept or reject on an objective test, I think
>the answer is that you (or the individual doing the determining) is
>defining the standard himself or herself.  My experience has been that
>people who pick and choose what to accept/reject do so not from an
>objective test but rather because of their own definition of what is
>acceptable/not-acceptable.
    
I gotta call you on this one, my friend!

You, too, pick and choose.  You have chosen to grant deference
to the Bible.  And since the Bible is external to you, you may
perceive that it is objective, rather than subjective.  However,
when you granted deference to the Bible, in that moment the Bible
became your subjective standard.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Nanci,

Balancing the view of God's love and God's justice is something that *many*
people do not want to deal with.  Yours is not the only church (if indeed
your church did not deal with this issue).

Yes, God is all-loving.  Yes, God is all-forgiving.  And yes, God is
perfectly just.

God desires *all* to come to repentance.  God paid the way for you and
I and everyone to do so.  But for those who chose their own way rather
than God's way, the justice that was meted out on Jesus will instead by
meted out on them.

Doesn't the sacrifice of God's only Son on the cross indicate how
important justice is in God's eyes???

*This* is the real issue that I see.  Are people going to be seperated
from God for eternity?  If not, then let's ditch the Bible which clearly
teaches this.  Because if we can't trust it in a simple matter like this,
then it is indeed untrustworthy.

What happens here on earth is only a small sample of what will happen when
God judges us all.  If you don't like God now, you'll really despise Him
later.

Nanci, have you really grappled with the issue of God's justice?  Of his
holy and pure nature that CAN NOT ABIDE SIN?

Collis

No, Richard, there is a difference.

I did *not* say that the moral standard is my perception of God or the
Bible.  I have said that God defines moral standards and ethics.  Not
my perception.

Now, I implement my perception.  But that does not mean what I do is
moral or that what I believe is moral.  Morality is defined outside of
me.

It is *NOT* the fact that I chose what God says that makes it an
absolute standard.  It is rather the fact that it *is* an absolute standard
that I chose it.  I freely admit that this is not provable to many
(if at all), but that's not the issue.

Situational ethics, however, are guided by the philosophy that there is
NOT an external standard.

I hope this is clear.

Collis

Re:  .40

There's still hope for you, Mike.  The Pharisees were too hardened to
turn their hearts to God.  You, however, may still choose to accept
the gift that Jesus is offering.

Collis

    But Collis, you just told me earlier that I committed an unpardonable
    sin!  I wish you'd make up you mind.  :-)

    Actually, while I normally don't care to be the object of
    proselytizing, I did somewhat expect that you would 'invite' me to
    convert to your faith in response to the comment I made.  So I suppose
    I deserved that.  However, I would like to point out that I come from a
    fundamentalist background, and am very aware of what conservative
    Christianity believes; so your proselytizing is not going to have any
    effect on me.  If that belief system suits you, that's fine, but since
    I have personally moved beyond my prior fundamentalism, the chances of
    my returning to that sort of religious faith are, frankly, zero.
    
    -- Mike

RE: .31  Collis,

>You accept what you choose to accept about God (from the Bible) and you
>refuse to accept other information about God (from the Bible).  Who is
>defining the standard?  You, or God?

    I am saying that the Bible alone does not define either God or the standard.
    I am willing to say that God defines the standard of right and wrong,
    but I am not willing to say the the Bible = God.  Isn't that what�� you
    are saying?
    
>Unless you base what you accept or reject on an objective test, I think
>the answer is that you (or the individual doing the determining) is
>defining the standard himself or herself.  My experience has been that
>people who pick and choose what to accept/reject do so not from an
>objective test but rather because of their own definition of what is
>acceptable/not-acceptable.
    
    I do not consider the Bible to be the least bit objective on anything!
    :-)  Seriously I do not consider the Bible to be "an objective test."
    In this respect, I believe it is you who are "begging the question!"
    
>For example:
>
>  God reveals Himself as love.  I find that acceptable.
    
    So do I!
    
>  God reveals Himself as just.  I do not find that acceptable (because
    >justice involves finding people guilty and the punishment for guilt
>    is death (spiritual, physical) and God would never implement such a
>    punishment).

    This is a straw argument.  I never said  that I find "God is just" to
    be unacceptable!  Nor have I said that God would never implement a
    death punishment.  You jump to conclusions.
    
>In other words, the where the revelation of God that the Bible claims to
>be conflicts with our personal sense of right/wrong, we choose our personal
>sense.

    I believe you built up a "straw man" (or in this case a "straw woman")
    and knocked it down.
    
>To answer your question:

 >>how to know what God defines as right

>I think we need to examine the full character of God.  
    
    I agree!
    
    >This question is
>certainly important to answer because we don't have an explicit guideline
>for every circumstance.  However, we *do* have explicit guidelines for
>many circumstances.  Are you willing to follow those?  

    I believe I do!   I have *more* than a "guideline" -- I have a Life to
    follow -- the life and sacrificial love of Jesus Christ!  *This* is the
    external standard and the explicit guideline -- the life, death, and
    resurrection of Jesus Christ.
    
    However, I think you are *really* asking if I accept the Bible as a 
    final authority *in everything it says,* and you know I don't!  That
    does *not* mean, however, that I believe the things you stated in your
    argument!
    
    Now, Collis, you haven't answered *my* question about how *you* know
    what to do re: lying!
    
    Nancy

 Warning ! Heresy Follows:

   So God says to Mike Seabury, "You are to kill everyone in this town.
 No exceptions, old people, women, children, all of them."
   Now, what does Mike do ?
   I am afraid Mike tells God off in no uncertain terms. While this
 may sound presumptuous of me I will not compromise my standards of
 moral behavior, even for God.
   At the point where the order is given God ceases to be God and becomes
 someone trying to get me to be a mass murderer. Such a being ceases to
 have any authority and must not be obeyed and cannot be worshiped.
   Anyone else read "The Rebel" by Albert Camus ? In it he says that
 he would willingly go to hell with the condemned rather than worship
 a being that would send people to hell.
   The idea of holiness and purity are incompatible with obeying orders
 that can only be described as totally evil. To obey them would make you
 no different than those who put the Jews into the gas chambers in the
 the death camps. 
   "I was only following orders", is not a valid defense no matter whose
 orders they are.

                                                  Mike 
    

    Mike .49,
    
    Amen!
    
    Karen

    
    Mike, don't be upset - I love you, but... :) You did say
    that .49 contained a heresy. I totally agree with you!
    
    God doesn't order killing. Such hypothesizing *today* about
    how God works *today* is not glorifying to God.
    
    God has manifested Himself in many ways throughout time. His
    last and greatest manifestation was the incarnation - Jesus Christ.
    
    It is to Jesus that we must look now, in order to approach God
    and try to understand His ways. It is through Jesus that we can
    do that -- as we dwell in Jesus (and He in us by His Spirit), we
    can have His mind in us. 
    
    It is in Jesus that we can see God.
    
    Let us glorify God, and not the wisdom of man.
    
    Irena
                      

Nanci,

In your reply, you said that you were raised Episcopalian. (I am
focusing on you but please, I am not getting on your case.) In
the Anglican communion, we believe that God continues to reveal
Himself to His people. What is different here, is that beginning
with some denominations that believe that God STOPPED talking to
man through prophets when Jesus came. This is an important
difference between fundamental belief and main line Christianity.

In my studies of situation ethics I was taught that God:

	o Gave us tools to make the choice (teachings of Jesus)
	o Made availiable example to live by (Jesus, His son)
	o Gave a communications channel (through prayer, both corporate
		prayer and individual prayer)
	o Will stand by us after by not making judgements on our
		actions when we consult Him for guidance.

Often, the question is asked, why a merciful, loving God allows
suffering. We must remember that through Adam, we took on the
knowledge of life. This knowledge includes natural events as well
as choices that children of Adam and Eve made, (that is choosing
between good and evil.) This is evidanced by various accounts
through Biblical history through today.

As we grow, we learned that enslavement, for example, is sin.
This goes back to the premise that God continues to reveal to us
more of good and evil and the choices that we make becomes more
and more complex, but we still have the communications, example
living and guidance.

Jesus promised, "I am with you always."  That, to me means that,
He will continue to listen as long as we choose to have Him be
our Father, guide, friend, saviour, and what ever we want to call
our relationship to Jesus.

Jesus, when He was with us as a man, blasted the Phrasees for
being rigid in their way of living. Remember that they, the
Phrasees, were following the Law that God gave in Dutronomomy and
Exadous. As the children came responsible, He gave them more and
more freedoom and less and less rules because His children
continued to follow what He had set down. Some of His children in
Israel sought the "righteous life" by living the old law; namely
the life pf a Phrasee (whose real job was to enforce Jewish
religious law).

There is a parallel here. Some denominations sought to live the
old laws in order to be religious and holy. Some denominations
follow the examples that Jesus taught, that is there is a new
order from God, "to love each other as God loves you." The
positive of that is we have a boundless freedom." God knows that
not all His children can live with freedom of choice; so to them
who choose to live by the law, they have their way of life (as in
religious orders within the Roman Catholic Church and
fundamentalist protestant denominations).

I am not saying that either way is the only way to live. I am
saying that to some, situation ethics cannot work for them; so
they must have an exact guide to live by. This reflects in even
their daily life; they must drive exactly at the speed limit set
by government. Some of us will drive by the law as a guide,
faster if there is no-one else on the road; slower if there is
rain, snow, or other impairment of the road.

BTW, these are my thoughts and does not reflect the teachings of
the Episcopal Church.

calvin

Re:  35.48

Nancy,

Thanks for your responses.

I think we agree on much of what we are discussing.

  >I am saying that the Bible alone does not define either God or the 
  >standard.

To some extent I agree and to some extent I disagree.  God reveals who
he is and has revealed much which has been preserved in the Bible.
God has standards many of which, again, have been preserved in the
Bible.

  >I am willing to say that God defines the standard of right and wrong,
  >but I am not willing to say the the Bible = God.  

Then you do not believe in situational ethics.  You believe in an
external standard.  THIS is the prime difference between the two.

  >Seriously I do not consider the Bible to be "an objective test."

It is "objective" in the sense that it is external from me and well-defined.
(Yes, you can argue people disagree on what it says, but people can
disagree on what *anything* says.  In the normal sense of the word
"objective", the Bible is an objective test.  (If you wish to argue that
nothing is objective, then I would agree that the Bible is not "objective"
either.)

  >I never said  that I find "God is just" to be unacceptable!  Nor have I 
  >said that God would never implement a death punishment.  You jump to 
  >conclusions.

Sorry, Nancy.  I really was not trying to make this claim about you as
an individual.  I was using this example (which some in this conference
do "struggle" with) as a typical problem that arises when a personal
judgment supercedes divine revelation.

Since you do not accept the whole Bible as God's Word (at least as I
understand you), pick a more relevant example for yourself and the
same argument applies.  Actually, it sounds more like you do accept
God as having an absolute standard and you simply need to find what
that standard is.  The Bible's claims and my reasoning have led me to
accept that what the Bible says is true.

    >>However, we *do* have explicit guidelines for many circumstances.  Are 
    >>you willing to follow those?  

  >I believe I do!   I have *more* than a "guideline" -- I have a Life to
  >follow -- the life and sacrificial love of Jesus Christ!  *This* is the
  >external standard and the explicit guideline -- the life, death, and
  >resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Wonderful!  I think that the life of Jesus is a great example to follow.
As are his words.

  >Now, Collis, you haven't answered *my* question about how *you* know
  >what to do re: lying!

I'm sorry.  The answer is, "I don't always know".  Perhaps you'd like to
help me with this one?

Collis

    Calvin - 
    
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I, too believe that God continues
    to reveal himself to us.  Maybe that's the problem that I have with
    the concept of taking a document that was written thousands of years
    ago and following it literally.  Did God stop His interaction with the
    human race 2000 years ago?  Did God stop caring, stop loving each of us
    as a perfect idea in the Divine Mind?  I don't think so.  Therefore, I
    don't think God stopped revealing His divine nature to us after the
    death of Christ.  We each carry that Christ spirit within us, if we try
    to live by His example.  And I believe that we can each receive divine
    guidance, yes, even situationally :-), by tapping into that Christ
    spirit within.
    
    Nanci

    re: 53, Collis,
    
>  >I am willing to say that God defines the standard of right and wrong,
>  >but I am not willing to say the the Bible = God.  
>
>Then you do not believe in situational ethics.  You believe in an
>external standard.  THIS is the prime difference between the two.
    
    Here we disagree.  I believe your portrayal of situation ethics is
    inaccurate.  I believe that almost everyone (especially in this
    conference) who ascribes to situation ethics *does* believe in the
    ultimate standard of love -- and most would probably say it is
    *love as revealed in Jesus Christ.*  
    
    This is definitely my statement for
    myself:  I ascribe to situation ethics in terms of "What is the most
    loving thing I can do in this situation?"  To me, this is the same as
    saying, "What would God have me do in this situation?"  However, it is
    *not* the same as applying some OT passage (or some NT passages, for
    that matter!) to the situation and trying to do exactly what the passage
    says.  You see, in some situations, the most loving (Christlike) thing
    I can do *may* involve going *against* something in the Bible! 
    
    Yes the Bible is "objective" in that it is not-me.  However, the Bible
    as a whole is not *my* objective standard.
    
    As to the lying, this note describes how I would try to solve the
    problem.  :-)
    
    Nancy

    Nancy (.55),
    
    I very much agree with your last reply.  In daily situations, I try
    to find the spritual meaning behind the event and then ask what God
    would have me do.  The answer comes from the Holy Spirit, it may not be
    one I like, but I trust in that source.
    
    Ro
    

Note 35.45

Collis,

I think we're getting closer.

>It is *NOT* the fact that I chose what God says that makes it an
>absolute standard.  It is rather the fact that it *is* an absolute standard
>that I chose it.  I freely admit that this is not provable to many
>(if at all), but that's not the issue.

You chose as your absolute standard whatever you think or believe to be
what God says or said.  When you (or anyone) identifies the foregoing as
being the absolute standard, you have made a conscious and internal selection.

If someone comes to me and says, "*This* (insert your favorite external
standard) is what God says," you and I have a choice.  We can buy into
this external standard 100%, we can reject it 100%, or we can choose
some combination thereof.  Regardless of which we choose, we all _still_
choose.

>Situational ethics, however, are guided by the philosophy that there is
>NOT an external standard.

Perhaps this would be more accurate if you said that there is no _single_
external standard, and that one had to carry the burden of using one's
brain, heart, conscience and intuition in addition to external standards.

Peace,
Richard

    re. 56
    
    Thanks, Ro.  I rely on the Holy Spirit to provide guidance for me,
    as well.  Some might consider this a non-objective standard.  I'll
    take that risk.  It has been my experience that the rewards outweigh
    the risks.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: .58 rewards and risks
    
    ... and the fear -- like that of one learning to swim or to ride a bike or
    maybe to fly -- outweighs the comfort of never having tried.
    
    DR, who has experienced the fear of following the Holy Spirit, as well
    as the comfort of ignoring the call, the flying as well as the couch.
    
    

re Note 35.58 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     Thanks, Ro.  I rely on the Holy Spirit to provide guidance for me,
>     as well.  Some might consider this a non-objective standard.  

        On the contrary, I consider it the ultimate objective
        standard.

        However, the guidance of the Holy Spirit is private, and
        one's private experience of this sort is not directly
        accessible to others, nor is it always easy to distinguish
        between such guidance and the workings of one's own mind.

        How do we compensate for such pitfalls?

        Bob

    
    re .58,
    
    Perhaps by measuring what we percieve the Spirit to be saying against
    the Bible? I wouldn't expect the two to contradict each other.
    
    Jamey

    Bob,
    
    > How do we compensate for such pitfalls?
    
    By prayerful contemplation, compassion and forgiveness for
    ourselves and others, and cultivating a reverence for creation.
    
    We can keep trying, in earnest. 
    
    Karen 

    re:  .60 -- How to compensate?
    
    A prayer before action.  Especially useful when confronting another
    individual.
    
    DR

Re:  35.55

Nancy,

  >I am willing to say that God defines the standard of right and wrong,

  >I believe that almost everyone (especially in this conference) who 
  >ascribes to situation ethics *does* believe in the ultimate standard 
  >of love -- and most would probably say it is *love as revealed in 
  >Jesus Christ.*  

Let's cut to the bottom line.

Is the standard God?  Or is the standard Love?

If the standard is Love (as you said in your most recent reply), then
who defines Love?  If God defines Love, then isn't the standard really
God, not Love (since he can define Love however he wants - that's
what it means to be the definer)?  And if God is not the definer, then
what is Love?

There really is a problem here.  THIS is the difference between an
absolute standard  and a moving (situational) standard.  In an absolute
standard, there is a definer who defines one standard which does not
change.  In a moving standard, there is no single (consistent) definer,
there are many definers and each definer decides what the standard is
taking into account (by default) where they are at (in terms of mental,
physical, spiritual, emotional capabilities), what the "goal" is (to
be "loving"), and what the situation is.  There is NO absolute standard.
THAT is situational ethics.

Is the difference between these two clear?

Collis

  >However, it is *not* the same as applying some OT passage (or some NT 
  >passages, for that matter!) to the situation and trying to do exactly what 
  >the passage says.  

I agree.  Let's interpret the passage first using the proper "rules" of
interpretation and not be blindly doing something that may be
inappropriate.

I'm somewhat frustrated.  There seems to be a generally consensus among
those who do not believe the Bible is inerrant that those who do believe
the Bible is inerrant interpret the Bible in a very "wooden" and 
"literalistic" manner.  I certainly agree that some do this.  However,
in my experience, they are a distinct minority.  The explicit and implicit
references to my interpretation of the Bible seem to assume this.  Let
me state for the record again (since I already stated something similar
in the topic I started to address this issue on Biblical literalism)
that Bible interpretation is not a wooden exercise and the application
today of what the Bible said long ago may be different.  This is because
good Biblical interpretation, in my opinion, demands this.

Collis

re Note 35.64 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> If the standard is Love (as you said in your most recent reply), then
> who defines Love?  If God defines Love, then isn't the standard really
> God, not Love (since he can define Love however he wants - that's
> what it means to be the definer)?  And if God is not the definer, then
> what is Love?
> 
> There really is a problem here.  THIS is the difference between an
> absolute standard  and a moving (situational) standard.  

        Collis,

        You make the alternative to be much more clear-cut than they
        actually are.  While I would agree that, ultimately, God IS
        the absolute standard, as a practical matter all we have to
        guide us are 1) the Holy Spirit and 2) our understanding of
        what God has chosen to reveal to us.  As I stated above, the
        Holy Spirit is absolute (because the Holy Spirit is God) but
        is not subject to common (more than one person at a time)
        understanding.  Unfortunately, our understanding of God's
        revelation is heavily influenced by subjective elements.

        So the person who says "love is the standard" and the person
        who says "God is the standard" may quite likely be judging by
        different standards, but neither AS THEY ARE APPLIED is
        absolute.

        Bob

re Note 35.65 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> I'm somewhat frustrated.  There seems to be a generally consensus among
> those who do not believe the Bible is inerrant that those who do believe
> the Bible is inerrant interpret the Bible in a very "wooden" and 
> "literalistic" manner.  I certainly agree that some do this.  However,
> in my experience, they are a distinct minority.  The explicit and implicit
> references to my interpretation of the Bible seem to assume this.  

        Perhaps it's guilt by association?  :-}

        Bob

< Note 35.64 by XLIB::JACKSON "Collis Jackson" >

>There really is a problem here.  THIS is the difference between an
>absolute standard  and a moving (situational) standard.  In an absolute
>standard, there is a definer who defines one standard which does not
>change.  In a moving standard, there is no single (consistent) definer,
>there are many definers and each definer decides what the standard is
>taking into account (by default) where they are at (in terms of mental,
>physical, spiritual, emotional capabilities), what the "goal" is (to
>be "loving"), and what the situation is.  There is NO absolute standard.
>THAT is situational ethics.

Collis, I am a little lost here. Are you saying that there is no
absolute standard? By some of your other replies, you mean that
there is an absoloute standard.

As an example, right now, my son is 29 months. He is ruled, as
far as I am concerned, by a absolute standard; that is, if he
crosses the street to play, he must consult us, his parents, then
we cross the street with him. Like wise, God gave us some
absolute rules as in the 10 Commandments. As we become more in
His trust in us, we are given new standards, that is the Law of
Love taught by Jesus Christ. That law leaves a whole lot of lee
awy, based by His former laws, though, we are to use those laws
as a guide to how we now conduct ourselves.

Let's take the two standards and see how it might appear to me.
In the 10 Commandments, the clear standard is that we are not to
kill; ie take another life. Then Jesus came and said love as I
teach you to love. Now a mad-man challenges us in a war, I must
kill in order to protect those which I love. It's against the
absolute that I must not kill but the law of love gives me the
leeway to judge and pray about before I do something that I
abhore; that is killing another soul.

Now lets take that one step closer to home. My spouse has a
degenerative nerve disease. If she gets pregnant, she could die,
by most of her doctors' advise. If she does get pregnant, then,
we would choose abortion. (In my case, the choice has been made,
I have a vesectomy procedure done back when we had to make a
choice to have children or not.) We have adopted a son.

In the world of variables, I realize that some people cannot make
judgements; there fore they must live by rigid laws.

To me, Jesus taught freedom from the law so that we might become
like Him, compassionate.

calvin

Re:  35.66

Bob,

You're discussing practicalities of how to apply standards.  I'm
discussion realities of whether or not there is a standard.  I think
we need to first determine what the standard is (if there is one)
before we discuss how to apply it.

Collis

    re: .55, Collis,
    
>If the standard is Love (as you said in your most recent reply), then
>who defines Love?
    
    My answer:  For me, it is God *as revealed in Jesus Christ!*
    
    >  If God defines Love, then isn't the standard really
>God, not Love (since he can define Love however he wants - that's
>what it means to be the definer)?  And if God is not the definer, then
>what is Love?
    
    Perhaps it is just your wording that bothers me -- but it bothers me
    *significantly*!  If you are saying that today or tomorrow God can
    redefine love so that it means (for example) genocide rather than 
    sacrifice, then, no, God cannot be the definer of love!  But my 
    understanding of God is that He is *not* arbitrary and *not* 
    capricious and that it would be totally outside of His nature 
    to do something like that.  
    
    If this is not what you are suggesting, then I guess I don't fully
    understand why you are so concerned with stating that God defines
    love!?!
    
>There really is a problem here.  THIS is the difference between an
>absolute standard  and a moving (situational) standard.  In an absolute
>standard, there is a definer who defines one standard which does not
>change.  In a moving standard, there is no single (consistent) definer,
>there are many definers and each definer decides what the standard is
>taking into account (by default) where they are at (in terms of mental,
>physical, spiritual, emotional capabilities), what the "goal" is (to
>be "loving"), and what the situation is.  There is NO absolute standard.
>THAT is situational ethics.
    
    NOW I have much less of a problem with your definitions!  But, Collis,
    you have made a significant change -- from saying that situation ethics
    has no "objective" standard to saying that it has no "absolute" standard!
    Basically I agree with you here -- even if all of us reading this
    happen to say that love is our objective standard -- because love is
    dynamic, and what it means to be loving *does* change from situation to
    situation!
    
    :)
    Nancy  

Calvin (.68),

I have very much enjoyed your heartwarming replies in this file.  Thank
you for sharing so honestly and openly with us. 


re:  .35

I never thought one had to choose between God and Love as a standard,
I believe God is Love.

Ro

Re:  35.68

  >Are you saying that there is no absolute standard? 

I believe there is an absolute standard and that it is God.

  >As an example, right now, my son is 29 months. He is ruled, as
  >far as I am concerned, by a absolute standard; that is, if he
  >crosses the street to play, he must consult us, his parents, then
  >we cross the street with him. 

This, in my opinion, is not an example of an absolute standard.  It
is the defining of a rule for a situation by someone given the
responsibility (and right) to do so.  You may define your rule 
based on an absolute standard or not.  But you, in my opinion,
can not (appropriately) define an absolute standard.

  >In the 10 Commandments, the clear standard is that we are not to
  >kill; ie take another life. 

Major disagreement.  One, it is not clear and two, I don't believe
that is the standard God set.

The standard that God set has not changed.  Some of the rules that
God has laid done so that his standard would be achieved have
changed.  But the absolute standards have not.

Re:  madman example

It was *never* against the absolute to kill a madman threatening
you and your family.  

  >In the world of variables, I realize that some people cannot make
  >judgements; therefore they must live by rigid laws.

We *are* to use our judgment.  This does not mean there is not an
absolute standard; just that we are to do our best to understand the
situation and apply the absolute standard appropriately to the
situation.

Collis

Nancy,

I hope to show (later - tomorrow maybe?) that situational ethicists
do not have either an absolute or an objective standard.  You are quite
right that I changed my tune, in a sense.  I view both of these as part
of the same problem.

Collis

        Re the general topic "situation ethics":

        Do we really have of good definition of "situation ethics"? 
        Is it perhaps, like the term "new age", one which has been
        used by many people to mean many different things?

        Bob

    re: .49 
    
    Mike,
    
    
    >   I am afraid Mike tells God off in no uncertain terms. While this
    >   may sound presumptuous of me I will not compromise my standards of
    >   moral behavior, even for God.
    
    This probably is the best articulation of the humanist world-view that
    I have seen in a while: worshiping mankind above the Lord of all. Putting 
    one's own standards of moral behavior above God's. Telling God what is
    good and right and what is not. Even if God *were* a totally evil
    being, the very nature of God is that He makes the rules. That we have
    so much freedom to follow him or not is sheer mercy. As is the the fact
    that we exist at all.
    
    > Such a being ceases to have any authority and must not be obeyed and 
    > cannot be worshiped.
    
    Amazing! Assume for a moment that the God of the old and new testament
    does exist. *YOU* have the power to strip him of his authority? This I
    gotta see. And all based upon your viewpoint of morality. 
    
    > In it he says that he would willingly go to hell with the condemned rather
    > than worship a being that would send people to hell.
    
    Even if He gave them a ticket to exit the place they had chosen for
    themselves. We are a rebellious people, aren't we.
    
    >The idea of holiness and purity are incompatible with obeying orders
    >that can only be described as totally evil.
    
    Evil? You forgot IMHO. I would say that it could *only* be described as
    justice. It is not until we see how richly each of us deserves justice
    that we begin to understand the depths of grace.
    
    > "I was only following orders", is not a valid defense no matter whose
    > orders they are.
    
    Especially if yor god is as small as the one described herein. Or if
    your god is something made to serve humanity instead of the other way
    around.
    
    Jamey
    

    Jamey, (.75)
    
    I'm certain God can take Mike's telling God off.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I believe the term "situation ethics" was coined in the
    teachings of Joseph Fletcher, who I believe was at Harvard Divinity
    School.  Unfortunately, I can't confirm this for sure, nor do I seem to
    have any of his writings.  Can someone else reading this provide more
    specifics?
    
    Nancy

    re: .75 -
    
    >Even if God *were* a totally evil
    >being, the very nature of God is that He makes the rules. 
    
    No.  The very nature of God is that God is love.  This is where
    we differ.  God's authority or His ability to make rules is not why I
    worship Him.  A God who would be arbitrary, capricious, or unjust,
    would not be "God" but the devil!  I think that is what is meant by:
    
    >> Such a being ceases to have any authority and must not be obeyed and 
    >> cannot be worshiped.
    
    >Amazing! Assume for a moment that the God of the old and new testament
    >does exist.
    
    We aren't saying He doesn't exist but that you and some of us
    understand Him quite differently!
    
    Nancy

    	My understanding of situational ethics is that it presents a way to
    choose between two courses of action, both of which are right or both
    of which are wrong but both of which are mutually exclusive. Which
    action is MORE right or LESS wrong is the result.
    	
    Collis,
    	the notes that were set hidden were due to my intolerent,
    immoderate and intemperate response to a note by Irena which seemed to
    say pretty much what you have insisted on saying outright about the
    slaughter of women and children in war. Several others have mentioned
    in one way or another that they very much do not agree with you on that
    issue. Having calmed down, I will try to say this in such a way as to
    be helpful, rather than hurtful. The genocide practiced by those OT
    warriors was totally and irreconcilably incompatible with the later
    teachings of Jesus Christ. As such, they are as horrendous and
    dispicable as Hitlers attack on the Jews (and others), Stalins attack
    on the Ukranians, the Ottoman attack on the Armenians, and any similar
    event in known history. I believe in the love, forgiveness, and offer
    of redemption preached by Christ and reject the atrocities practiced on
    the errent words of earlier prophets. A just God may have the power to
    commit genocide but must also have the wisdom not to. It is never just
    to destroy the innocent with the guilty, only expedient. Would you
    declare that God is "expedient" ?

 Re.51

  Irena:

        As I understand the idea of the trinity the God who ordered
 the massacre at Jericho, and a few other places if I remember correctly
 is one in the same with Jesus. Right ?
        Now to be honest with you the whole concept of the trinity is
 something that I have never been able to make the least bit of sense
 out of. 
        Please correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that
 you are saying that God has "reformed" and in the incarnation of
 Jesus is really a much nicer being. Who would sill be one in the same
 with the not so nice God who orders massacres according to the 
 Trinitarian concept. Sorry, but I am lost as how to sort this out.
        

                                                           Mike
         
        

 Re.75

 Jamey:


        In a way this is kind of funny. I am the one with the humanist
 bent who believes in situations ethics and you are Christian who believes
 that "God makes the rules". Yet in this case I am holding to a rigid
 uncompromising position and you seem to saying that how we behave
 is dependent upon what the current set of rules, the situation if you
 will, is at the time we are to act.
        Hilarious ! I have become the moral absolutist and you the
 moral relativist. 
        I do not see how the killing of innocents is "richly deserved justice"
that make us appreciate God's grace.
        The tone of your reply seems to indicate that there is something
wrong with because I have drawn a line and in effect said, "Here I stand,
it cannot be otherwise."  I tend to think that there would be something
wrong with if I didn't do that.
         I suppose that this is inevitable because our beliefs, our
value systems, our world views for lack of a better term, begin at
at vastly different starting points. 
         Perhaps I do have a lot of nerve, unmitigated gall, chutzpah
 or whatever you want to call it. This is simply part of me and I will
 never, Never , NEVER !! apologize for or feel guilty about being the
 person I am. 
         If the worst you can muster is to accuse me of being one
 of those nasty, rotten, evil humanists who thinks killing innocent
 people is never justified. Then all I have to say is, Thank You.

                                                        
      
                                                       Mike


P.S. You still think the holocaust was God's way of testing
     the Jews ?
         
         
          
        
        
          
        

Re .81 (Mike)

    I am not speaking for Irena, but your comment seems to hit the nail on
    the head regarding this whole discussion:

>        Please correct me if I am wrong, but I get the impression that
> you are saying that God has "reformed" and in the incarnation of
> Jesus is really a much nicer being. Who would sill be one in the same
> with the not so nice God who orders massacres according to the 
> Trinitarian concept. Sorry, but I am lost as how to sort this out.
    
    The Biblical teaching of God is that He has not changed from eternity
    past and will not change through eternity future (Mal. 3:6). The Bible
    is also clear that Jesus is God. One reason this discussion stays as
    confusing as it's been is because people are thinking of an OT god and a
    NT god as two different beings. In fact, the Bible teaches that the God
    of the OT is actually the same God as in the NT revealed in Jesus.

    The trouble is manifested when we pick only those teachings/actions/
    attributes of the OT god and/or the NT god that we like or can accept.
    If one were to instead take the entire revelation of God as provided
    throughout the Bible (both OT and NT) then we see how, although God is
    indeed incomparably loving, He is also incomparably just, holy, pure,
    etc.

    To concentrate only on the "loving Jesus" of the NT and ignore the
    "wrathful Jawheh" of the OT is to not understand all of who God is.
    
    	BD�

    One is not "putting one's own standards of moral behavior above God's"
    when one rejects the view that God advocates genocide.  That would only
    be true if one both believed that God advocated genocide and that this
    was morally wrong.  However, if one believes that God doesn't advocate
    genocide, then they are not criticizing God at all, since they believe
    that God is moral.  In fact, God is assumed in this case to have the
    highest possible moral standards, and nothing is assumed to have a
    higher moral standard than God.  The problem is not with God's
    morality, but rather a flawed conception of a God that makes Her to be
    less than moral.

    The basic flaw in biblical literalism with regard to morality is that
    it inevitably superimposes the flaws of the humans who wrote the Bible
    onto God.  As humanity continued to struggle with and express their
    understanding of God throughout history, they expressed their
    understanding in their writings.  The reflected both the best and
    (unfortunately) the less than best of that struggle of understanding. 
    What biblical literalism results in is grafting both the good and bad
    into a composite image that is not always the most flattering to God. 
    Thus biblical literalism often takes the moral low ground, apologizing
    for moral barbarism (such as genocide and mass murder in Canaan).

    I believe, however, that the Christian faith does not inherently
    require one to sacrifice either one's conscience or one's ability to
    reason.

    -- Mike

    re: .84 Mike,
    
    I definitely agree!  The Bible is the marvelous story of humankind's
    *growing understanding* of the nature of God!

re Note 35.84 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

>     The basic flaw in biblical literalism with regard to morality is that
>     it inevitably superimposes the flaws of the humans who wrote the Bible
>     onto God.  

        So your basic disagreement is not with God as God actually is
        but with Biblical literalism and traditional conservative
        interpretations of the OT?

        Bob

    That's correct, Bob.
    
    -- Mike

    
    re .76   
    
    :)
    
    The question is:
    
    Can Mike take God's telling Mike off?
    
    Jamey

    re .79
    
    Nancy,
    
    >No.  The very nature of God is that God is love.  This is where
    >we differ.  God's authority or His ability to make rules is not why
    >I worship Him.  A God who would be arbitrary, capricious, or unjust,
    >would not be "God" but the devil!
    
    Who said anything about arbirtrary, capricious, or unjust? I was
    operating under the unspoken assumption that all the rules are just and
    consistent. Especially the rule that the wages of sin are death. The
    fact that God also provides a mechanism for atonement and deliverance
    from said deserved sentence is another of his rules: mercy above
    sacrifice. But we love our own lives too much as well as those of the
    others to give them up to follow Him.
    
    The fact that people have placed an ugly label (genocide) on an act of
    God in no way binds God to the definition of that word. It is man
    putting God in a box of what he can and cannot do and still be 'fair'
    from a human perspective. In light of the rule for sin, we should all
    have suffered the fate of the Caananites by now.
    
    
    Jamey
    

    I don't think anyone here has put the label of genocide on an act of
    God.  Rather, it is an act of humans (the mass slaughter of Canaanite
    people) that was genocide.  Many of us disagree that God orders people
    to commit barbaric and immoral actions.  Since we don't believe that
    God was responsible for the genocide, we do not put the label of
    genocide on God at all.
    
    -- Mike

    Hi Mike, (.82)
    
    Yes, I literally laughed when I read your last. There is a lot of irony
    going around. 
    
    Of course, there are a couple of points that I will have to take issue
    with. :)
    
    Even in this discussion, you are still the relativist. What is right is
    relative to what you believe. I assume that you change over time. What
    is right for me is whatever God says, whether he is administering
    justice or mercy at any given moment in time. So, though God does
    different things at different times, his principles are absolute,
    starting with his sovereignty. You principles are relative, depending
    upon how the winds of life blow, though admittedly the older we get the
    harder the wind has to blow to make us change, for better or for worse.
    
    
    
    	>I do not see how the killing of innocents is "richly deserved justice"
	> that make us appreciate God's grace.
    
    	You are making the judgement that innocents were killed. This is
    perhaps only true from a humanist perspective. The grace comes in when
    we realize that we deserve equal treatment, but instead God chose to
    have mercy on some (and we scream, but it's not fair that you didn't
    give a candy bar to *everybody* instead of thanking him for the candy
    bar he did give to us).    	
    
    	
    >    The tone of your reply seems to indicate that there is something
>wrong with because I have drawn a line and in effect said, "Here I stand,
>it cannot be otherwise."  I tend to think that there would be something
>wrong with if I didn't do that.
 
    It's not that you stood and drew a line, it's that you put God on the
    other side and said, I double dare you!  ;)   
    
>         Perhaps I do have a lot of nerve, unmitigated gall, chutzpah
> or whatever you want to call it. This is simply part of me and I will
> never, Never , NEVER !! apologize for or feel guilty about being the
> person I am. 
 
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I constantly have to apologize to somebody for the
    person that I am, usually my wife. You may find yourself apologizing as
    well if the God of Jesus and the God of Jehrico are one in the same.
    
    >        If the worst you can muster is to accuse me of being one
> of those nasty, rotten, evil humanists who thinks killing innocent
> people is never justified. Then all I have to say is, Thank You.

    No accusation of you, just adding a perspective that is so utterly
    juxtopposed that it is, sort of, hilarious.
                                                        
      
    
>P.S. You still think the holocaust was God's way of testing the Jews ?
    
I don't know what God had in mind in Germany. He hasn't yet confided in me.
    
    Jamey 
            
         
          
        
        
          
        

re .84
    
    Mike V, (Too many Mikes)
    
    >One is not "putting one's own standards of moral behavior above God's"
    >when one rejects the view that God advocates genocide.  That would only
    >be true if one both believed that God advocated genocide and that this
    >was morally wrong.  However, if one believes that God doesn't advocate
    >genocide, then they are not criticizing God at all, since they believe
    >that God is moral.  In fact, God is assumed in this case to have the
    >highest possible moral standards, and nothing is assumed to have a
    >higher moral standard than God.

    You make the assumption that genocide is *wrong* in all cases from
    God's point of view. You make the assumption that God would be immoral
    if he advocated genocide for whatever reason. This is clearly not what
    the Bible teaches.
    
    >The problem is not with God's morality, but rather a flawed conception 
    >of a God that makes Her to be less than moral. 
    
    I could not have phrased this any better myself. Thanks. One of us has
    a flawed conception of God around the question of genocide. Is it moral
    or is it not. One or both of us is foisting our own view of morality
    upon God.
    
    >The basic flaw in biblical literalism with regard to morality is that
    >it inevitably superimposes the flaws of the humans who wrote the Bible
    >onto God.  As humanity continued to struggle with and express their
    >understanding of God throughout history, they expressed their
    >understanding in their writings.  The reflected both the best and
    >(unfortunately) the less than best of that struggle of understanding. 
    >What biblical literalism results in is grafting both the good and bad
    >into a composite image that is not always the most flattering to God. 
    >Thus biblical literalism often takes the moral low ground, apologizing
    >for moral barbarism (such as genocide and mass murder in Canaan).

    The basic flaw in humanism is that it superimposes the flaws of human
    morality and justice onto God and in effect makes God man's servant.
    Humanism consistently takes the low ground, denying who God really is
    and putting themselves higher than Him.
    
    >I believe, however, that the Christian faith does not inherently
    >require one to sacrifice either one's conscience or one's ability to
    >reason.

    I believe that Christian is required to sacrifice everything to the
    Lordship of Jesus, including the fallen conscience and reason. Unless
    these are given up and transformed by Him, the faith is not in Christ.
    
    
    Jamey

    
    Re .85
    
    How does all the death etc in the *last* book of the bible fit in.
    
    Jamey

    re .90
    
    Ahhh, yes, the assumptions I make.
    
    OK, I will gladly apply the term genocide to the Jehrico scene *and*
    stand by that God commanded it *and* stand by that it was just and fair
    and consistent to the character of God.
    
    Jamey

    re: .94
    
    >OK, I will gladly apply the term genocide to the Jehrico scene *and*
    >stand by that God commanded it *and* stand by that it was just and fair
    >and consistent to the character of God.
    
    So, I think it is now quite clear where we disagree:  agree with your
    first statement and disagree with the last two.  These disagreements
    are quite firm.  Several of us are just as firmly convinced that you
    are wrong in your belief as you are that we are wrong!
    
    Still, your heart is right and you are our brother!

    Re. 88
    
    God took being questioned and challenged in numerous instances in both
    the OT and in the NT without retaliation, retribution, or harsh
    punishment.  I suspect God perhaps even appreciates Mike's chutzpah
    and moral integrity.  I know I do.
    
    Certainly, Mike exhibits greater piety, in the the truest sense of the
    term, than many who profess to be Christian.  And, Mike is Buddhist.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Yes, Jamey, I do believe that God would be immoral if She advocated
    mass murder and genocide for whatever reason.  And I do agree with you
    that there are sections of the Bible that portray God as promoting
    these acts which I and many people of conscience consider deeply and
    fundamentally immoral--which is *precisely* the point.  Since I am not
    a biblical literalist, I do not accept these human depictions of God at
    face value.  And I believe that in both cases *human* conceptions are
    what we are talking about in either case--your human conceptions and my
    human conceptions--as well as the human conceptions of God that the
    authors of the Bible expressed as they struggled to understand and
    perceive God.  Since we disagree over whether the Bible is the literal
    word of God, we also disagree about our conclusions about the
    attributes of God.

    I don't believe that we can resolve this difference.  I am as strongly
    opposed to the Jericho genocide as you are strongly in favor of it.

    -- Mike

  RE: .38  Collis

  You seem to be getting most of the questions directed at you!  Thanks for
  putting in the effort to answer all of these.

  I had asked how you would know it was God speaking to you and asking
  you to do these things.  I would really like to know your answer.


  
 >>Isn't it a Christian belief that we are born sinners?

 >Yes, that's a common belief.

 >>And, if so, what kind of privilege have we been given if it is already
 >>tenuous?

 >Good question.  I was writing on the fly and I'm not sure I would express
 >it the same way again.  However, I do think that what I said is
 >defensible.  Note that Jesus was not born a sinner and so his "privilege"
 >was not "revoked".  In other words, that the privilege can be considered
 >tenuous is not God's fault, but ours.  (It is not God's fault that we
 >are born sinners.)

 OK, I think I get the flow here.  From a biblical perspective (and please
 correct me if I am wrong here), Adam and Eve were born sinless.  They 
 sinned, so all the rest of us born into physical existence are born with
 sin.  Hmmm...but God creates us in spirit first, right?  Is the Christian
 belief that we are sinless in the spirit state?  If so, why would God
 get involved in the continuation of physical manifestation, especially if
 this is the start of sin?  As soon as our spirits are in the embryo, we
 would then be in sin.  
  
 >>...why put us through this kind of process?

 >Because God desires for us to love and worship Him.  We are to glorify
 >God.  That is the chief purpose of people (man).

  Why?  We could do that in our spirit state.  Why come into a physical
  body to do this?  It seems to me that God is directly involved in
  the physical world, having created all of it, including our bodies.
  If God is so intricately involved, how can coming into a physical
  body automatically mean sin?
  
 >Again, the main point is that the "right to life" is not a "right" in
 >God's eyes and never has been.

 Hmmm...this creates an interesting contradiction to the pro-life argument!



 Carole

    Carole,
    	an interesting thought, since we are all born in a state of sin
    then all abortion accomplishes is to limit the number of sinners in the
    world. The logic is good, but I'd better take my tongue out of my cheek
    before I bite it. Strange what kinds of currents and eddys form when
    you stir things up. 
    
    Mike, re .97
    	thanks for taking the words right off my poor slow fingers and
    expressing my thoughts so well. I believe that the account in question
    has historical validity and truely hope that the soldiers believed that
    they had God's fiat to commit genocide, but that the fiat (look it up
    in the A.H.Dictionary, PLEASE) came instead from a priest, prophet or
    general who was "taking liberties".
    
    Jamey,
    	I'm going to quote from the A.H.Dictionary (corporate property)
    regarding the word "just", when used in a moral or ethical sense.
    JUST  adj. 1. Honest and impartial in one's dealings and actions. 2.
    Consistent with standards of what is moral and proper. 3. Properly due
    or merited: just deserts. 4. Legitimate. 5. Suitable; fitting. 6.
    Sound; well-founded. 7. Exact; accurate: a just account.
    	Using the above, could you kindly explain how it is "just" that
    someone who has committed no offense, was not aware that an offense has
    been committed, and could not understand what an offense is, should
    suffer equally with those who have indeed committed an offense?
    
    re .80 I forgot to include the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and
    Dresden in my short list of unpardonable atrocities, consider them
    added.

>    Carole,
>    	an interesting thought, since we are all born in a state of sin

Dave,  Is that anywhere near Kansas?


Sorry, the devil made me say that!
]:+}

Richard

    Richard!
    
    Are you suggesting that us poor folks in the "C" state might just be
    next to the state of sin???
    
    I'm shocked!
    
    ;-)
    
    Nanci

    Re.101
    
         The "C" state ? Is that short for State Of Confusion ?
      I've spent quite a bit of time in that state.
    
    
                                                       Mike

    I KNEW I'd seen you somewhere before !  I get there often. ;')

    Jamey:
    
           Let me get this straight. You will worship a being that
     you believe orders genocide ? Why ? I cannot begin to understand
     this. Out of fear perhaps ? 
        
           Also, I do apologize to my wife pretty regularly. Occupational
    hazard of being a husband, I guess. However I have to think that
    we are talking about apologies that are decidedly different in nature.
    
           In my admittedly short life, I've found that the road to
     drug abuse and self destruction began with hate. Hate for the
     feelings and beliefs that are part and parcel of the inner most
     core of the the person that I am. 
    
            No Jamey, no more self hate, no more dwelling on my "sinful
    nature" ( What a truly revolting concept ) No more apologizing for
    and running from myself. 
    
                                                       Mike

    re .99
    
    Dave,
    
    >I'm going to quote from the A.H.Dictionary (corporate property)
    >regarding the word "just", when used in a moral or ethical sense.
    >JUST  adj. 1. Honest and impartial in one's dealings and actions.
    >2.Consistent with standards of what is moral and proper. 3. Properly
    >due or merited: just deserts. 4. Legitimate. 5. Suitable; fitting. 6.
    >Sound; well-founded. 7. Exact; accurate: a just account.
    >Using the above, could you kindly explain how it is "just" that
    >someone who has committed no offense, was not aware that an offense
    >has been committed, and could not understand what an offense is, should
    >suffer equally with those who have indeed committed an offense?
    
    I know this may sound absurd to you, but give me a break. You refuse to
    accept the biblical authority in its account of Jehrico, yet you wish
    me to accept the authority of your interpretation of a dictionary!!!!??
    And then to explain to you in your framework how God is just. 
    
    As it turns out, all of these terms more or less describe God and *all*
    of his actions. It is your misperception of both guilt and innocence in
    both the personal and corporate sense that tugs at your sense of
    unfairness. You can't believe that you, let alone an 'innocent' child
    could deserve death. Only from the perspecetive of a Holy God, way
    beyond our human sense of morality, can we comprehend this. 
    
    Take another look at the OT in terms of how guilt is a corporate
    matter. See how Moses and all the prohets did the repenting for
    everybody. The American individualism has been one of the major poisons
    inflicted upon the church. I.e., you're guilty because of ______ sin
    and I'm not, when in reality, I suffer under guilt when any christian
    is in unrepentent sin. Boy am I in trouble.
    
    Jamey
    
    

    Mike,
    
    >       Let me get this straight. You will worship a being that
    >     you believe orders genocide ? 
    
    Absolutely. 
    
    >Why ? 
    Because He is God. 
    
    >I cannot begin to understand this. Out of fear perhaps ?
    You are afraid he might order it again. And you can't believe it would 
    be justified.
    
    Now, I may be way off base, but as a humanist, you are basically
    worshiping people, right. One, at least. How can you possibly worship a
    species that would do all of the horrible things you attribute to it.
    How could you ever trust any one of them, starting with yourself.
    
    >Also, I do apologize to my wife pretty regularly.
    >Occupational hazard of being a husband, I guess. However I have to think 
    >that we are talking about apologies that are decidedly different in nature.
    
    Maybe, maybe not. I often find that I have to apologize for what I have
    done, not knowing at the time it would be hurtful, but my nature was to
    hurt, even though I could not have comprehended it beforehand.
    
    >           In my admittedly short life, I've found that the road to
    >     drug abuse and self destruction began with hate. Hate for the
    >     feelings and beliefs that are part and parcel of the inner most
    >     core of the the person that I am.
    >
    >            No Jamey, no more self hate, no more dwelling on my "sinful
    >    nature" ( What a truly revolting concept ) No more apologizing for
    >    and running from myself.
    
    Workstation crashing. I'll come back to this in a bit.
    
    Jamey
    

    
    re more for Mike,
    
    	>     In my admittedly short life, I've found that the road to
        >     drug abuse and self destruction began with hate. Hate for the
        >     feelings and beliefs that are part and parcel of the inner most
        >     core of the the person that I am.
        >
        >    No Jamey, no more self hate, no more dwelling on my "sinful
        >    nature" ( What a truly revolting concept ) No more apologizing
    	>    for and running from myself.
    
    Yes, it is a revolting concept. Thank goodness that there is freedom
    from sinfulness. I don't think that simply stopping: to hate one's
    nature, apologizing for it, or running from it solves anyting. It is a
    great first step, but once recognized, the old must die and the new
    must be born. It is not about hating self, it is about self being
    born again. Unfortunately, we hold on to old self so tightly,
    occaisionally changing our perspectives to justify who we are, that we
    never do grow up again.
    
    Jamey
    
    

    Jamey,
    	OK, let's try to set some rules for discussion here. 
    
    Rule #1 is that we will share a common language. 
    
    If you choose to discuss something using the English language then we
    only need to be sure that our understanding of terms is fairly
    consistent and mutual. In 35.105 you stated pretty clearly that you
    will not accept any of the morally or ethically oriented definitions of
    the word "just" offered by the American Heritage Dictionary. The one
    you offered as a counter seemed circular to me. Since we have no common
    language to use, we cannot discuss this topic. You have rejected most
    of the usages most speakers of the English language would attribute to
    the word "just". You have seemingly created your own word which bears
    the same spelling and pronounciation as a different word already in the
    English language. When you decide to share a language common to the
    rest of us, try again to tell us how that massacre was "just", and in
    terms someone else might be expected to understand.

    
    No Dave,
    
    I didn't reject your word 'just'. I was humorously referring to the
    authorities to which we are both appealing. Sorry if it was lost. I may
    have forgotten a smiley face.
    
    The definition of just is acceptable. The disagreement comes as to
    whether God was just in his administration of Jehrico's destruction. I
    say he was just, you say he was not. I say that from His perspective,
    none were innocent. You say that from your perspective, innocent
    victims were slaughtered. I choose to believe that God is both just and
    the God of the Bible. You choose to believe that God could not both
    commit genocide and be the Father of Jesus, teacher of love.
                                                            
    
    
    Jamey

    RE: .106 Jamey
    
        
    >>       Let me get this straight. You will worship a being that
    >>     you believe orders genocide ? 
    
    >Absolutely. 
    
    >>Why ? 
    >Because He is God. 
    
    I asked this of Collis but he didn't answer it, so I'll give you
    a try.
    
    Collis said he would follow God's order as Joshua did.  Would you?
    And if so, how would you know it was God ordering you to do this?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole
    
    

    
    
    Hi Carole,
    
    > Collis said he would follow God's order as Joshua did.  Would you?
    
    Collis, did you really say that? Well, if Collis said so...
    
    Yes, I would follow any order He gives me. I may stutter like Moses or
    run for a while like Jonah, but I will give my all to follow and obey.
    I know the heartbreak of disobedience. I hope never to know that again.
    
    > And if so, how would you know it was God ordering you to do this?
    
    That's His problem. ;)  I have to believe that God knows to speak to
    his people. The hardest part of obedience is when nobody else hears the 
    command. I am so unsure of God's promptings now, that it sometimes
    takes months for Him to get through to me on little things. If it were
    something like killing thousands of people, He would really have to get
    my attention. He hasn't been prompting me in that direction.
    
    Jamey
    
    
    
    

    I can't help but wonder if those who administered the Jonestown
    cool-aid thought that they were carrying out God's will.

    -- Mike

    
    
    RE: .111
    
    Thanks for the reply Jamey.  I guess what I want to know is if you
    have some sort of measurement or something where you would know
    it was God.  I mean, ordering a large group of people to be killed
    is not something that is just accepted (I don't think so, anyway).
    It could be anything or anyone whispering in your ear or talking
    to you from within - even yourself.  How would you know absolutely?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

    Mike - 
    
    That's exactly the same correlation that this whole discussion brought
    to mind for me.  I think there are lots of things that humans do which
    we subscribe to God so that we don't have to bear the enormous
    responsibility of our actions ourselves.
    
    Nanci

    
    
    re .113
    
    Carole,
    
    I may not. I guess I will simply have to trust Him. Trust him to call
    me. Trust him to send me. Trust him regardless of whether I trust
    myself or know absolutely. Satisfying myself is not the goal.
    Satisfying Him is. The desire to know everything up front is not a
    concept, just ask Abraham.
    
    Jamey
    

    Visions of religous command (a la Jonestown) are commonly recorded
    in our history. That would be enough in and of it's self to make
    me suspect that any 'message from God' telling me to kill myself
    or other people (were I sane enough to think) were either from the
    malfunctioning of my own brain or the workings of the powers of evil.
    Insane persons beliving that God is directly talking to them *really*
    belive that...the experience is very powerful and over whelming.
    
    Quite frankly I'd rather deny what I felt was a God given order
    to kill people and deal with my punishment in the afterlife, than
    to kill them beliving God told me too. I think that the odds that
    I was wrong are so high that He'd forgive me.
    
    If He really has a purpose in killing a large number of people
    He can use all sorts of natural disasters...He doesn't need to
    bloody human hands.
    
    Bonnie

    RE.116
    
        Bonnie:
    
               Sounds like we agree, except I'd be pretty ripped
        if I were ordered to commit mass murder. I guess you are
        better at keeping your cool.
               Your take you chances in the afterlife comment sounds
        a lot like Camus in "The Rebel" You might be interested in
        this book if you haven't read it already.
    
                                                       

re Note 35.111 by COOKIE::JANORDBY:

>     something like killing thousands of people, He would really have to get
>     my attention. He hasn't been prompting me in that direction.
  

    Bonnie .116,
    
    I concur with you.  God has the power to destroy without having to
    use human hands to do so.  I would also prefer punishment in the
    afterlife for not obeying such a command.
    
    This reminds me of the several instances of mass murders that have been
    committed and the person claimed it was God who commanded them to do so.
    
    Also in a somewhat similar vein, in an interview on NBC Nightly news 
    last night, one of the fellows who shot and killed Palestinians earlier 
    this week, said without any apparent remorse that his actions were 
    perfectly justified, since these people were not on The Path anyway.
    
    phew.
    
    Karen

Re:  35.80

Dave,

  >The genocide practiced by those OT warriors was totally and irreconcilably 
  >incompatible with the later teachings of Jesus Christ. As 

Sounds like we disagree.  :-)  Not only were they compatible, but Jesus
Himself will come back and DESTROY more rebellious sinners than the entire
Old Testament put together.  But for the grace of God, I too would be
destroyed.

  >A just God may have the power to commit genocide but must also have the 
  >wisdom not to. 

A just God, by definition, must destroy sin one way or the other.
(The wages of sin is DEATH.)

  >It is never just to destroy the innocent with the guilty, only 
  >expedient. Would you declare that God is "expedient" ?

God has *never* dstroyed an innocent person.  The only innocent person
who ever lived was destroyed by man.

Collis

    At the risk of rat-holing this topic, I'd like to quickly ask Collis,
    'A newborn is quilty of what?' 'How are they _not_ innocent?'
    
    Thanks,
    Charlie

Re:  35.98

Carole,

  >Hmmm...but God creates us in spirit first, right?  

I honestly don't know.  Perhaps he creates the soul and the body at the
same time.

  >Is the Christian belief that we are sinless in the spirit state?  

I would say the answer to this is "no".  It is our spirit (the essence
of who we are) that has a predisposition to sin, not our physical bodies.

  >If so, why would God get involved in the continuation of physical 
  >manifestation, especially if this is the start of sin?  As soon as our 
  >spirits are in the embryo, we would then be in sin.  

Sin is not from the physical body.  This doctrine was erroneously taught
in the 1st and 2nd centuries (I think it was then).  I don't remember the
name of this doctrine.  But it equates the physical body with sin (that
which is of the body is sinful, the sprit is not sinful).  This is not
the teaching of the Bible.  We will NOT remove our sin if we deny our
physical body of what it desires.  It is NOT what goes into a man that
corrupts him, it is what comes out of a man.
  
  >If God is so intricately involved, how can coming into a physical
  >body automatically mean sin?

As above, that is not what the Bible is saying.
  
     >>Again, the main point is that the "right to life" is not a "right" in
     >>God's eyes and never has been.

  >Hmmm...this creates an interesting contradiction to the pro-life argument!

Yes, this contradiction is inherent from God's perspective.  However, if
the pro-choice people accepted this argument, then they would be accepting
that it is God's choice, not the woman's choice, whether or not an unborn
human being should live.  And that is *exactly* what they are unwilling
to do.

Collis

Re:  35.116

Bonnie,

  >Visions of religous command (a la Jonestown) are commonly recorded
  >in our history. That would be enough in and of it's self to make
  >me suspect that any 'message from God' telling me to kill myself
  >or other people (were I sane enough to think) were either from the
  >malfunctioning of my own brain or the workings of the powers of evil.

Agreed.  People certainly do commit atrocities in the name of God.
This does not make them God's work.  It does make it imperative for
anyone who thinks they are doing the will of God by such acts to
make sure that they really do KNOW what God is saying.

  >Quite frankly I'd rather deny what I felt was a God given order
  >to kill people and deal with my punishment in the afterlife, than
  >to kill them beliving God told me too. I think that the odds that
  >I was wrong are so high that He'd forgive me.
    
Bonnie, would you deny what you *KNEW* was a God given order because
you thought it was wrong?  This, in my opinion, is the question.  Who
determines what is right or wrong?  You?  or God?  (or someone/something
else?)

  >If He really has a purpose in killing a large number of people
  >He can use all sorts of natural disasters...He doesn't need to
  >bloody human hands.

He could - and sometimes he does.

Collis    

By the way, how do you who hold "the love of Jesus" as a standard
respond to Jesus' implicit approval of God's judgment on Sodom and
Gomorrah?

Collis

    Collis,
    
    My logic here is that if I were convinced in my mind that I was
    being ordered to kill someone I would hope I'd have enough rationality
    left to believe that I was actually insane.
    
    i.e. it would be almost impossible for me to imagine that an order
    to kill someone could come from God, and was not the result of
    a diseased process in my own mind.
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. your arguement about pro-choicers the decision in re an embryo
    being only God's reminds me of arguements used against modern
    medicine. i.e. that all healing was in God's hands and that it was
    against God's will to use medicine. 

    RE: .122
    
    Welcome back Collis!
    
    I am asking these questions so that I can understand where you and
    others are coming from in your beliefs, and to help clear up my
    own confusion about all this.  I appreciate your time and answers!
    
  >>Is the Christian belief that we are sinless in the spirit state?  

>I would say the answer to this is "no".  It is our spirit (the essence
>of who we are) that has a predisposition to sin, not our physical bodies.

>Sin is not from the physical body.  


    Above you say that the spirit has a predisposition to sin.  Does this
    mean that the spirit is not necessarily *in* sin?
    
    Above you say that sin is not from the physical body.  Please help
    me understand then what original sin is.  I thought original sin
    happened at birth into the physical.  When does original sin come
    into the picture?
    
    If it is our spirit that is predisposed to sin, and it is our spirit
    that God creates, and we live only once here and then return to
    God never to return here again.....why would God create a spirit
    that is predisposed to sin?
    
    Carole    

    
    
    Also Collis...I would like to ask a question of you again.
    
    How would you know that it was God asking you to do something?
    
    Thanks much,
    Carole

    .122, on erroneous doctrine:
    
    That might have been the Marcionites (who are also the first to, um,
    'edit' the OT & NT);  there were also Gnostic groups which had ideas
    like that.
    
    Dick

    
    
    re  afterlife,
    
    
    Assuming of course that the deliberately disobedient will see the
    afterlife.
    
    Jamey

    
    Check out Revelation, especially the destruction of Babylon, chapter
    17-18 (note in particular 17:14, 18:21) and then read 19 (19:1, 2, and
    on...)
    
    	"And I saw heaven opened and behold a wite horse, and He
    	that sat upon him (was) called Faithful and True and in
    	righteousness he doth judge and make war"
    
    						Rev. 19:11
    
    	"...and the armies in heaven followed him..."
    
    						Rev. 19:14
    
       

    The passages that Irena cited show that there is Biblical imagery that
    contradicts Jesus's message of nonviolence and love for enemies in
    *both* testaments.  I am more interested in living my life according to
    the Sermon on the Mount--which means a life of nonviolence and love for
    one's enemies--than according to the less than noble imagery expressed
    elsewhere in the Bible.  Not being a Biblical literalist, the
    contradiction poses no problem for me.

    -- Mike

    "For the most part the book consists of several series of revelations
    and visions presented in symbolic language that would have been
    understood by Christians of that day, but would have remained a mystery
    to all others."
    
    The preceding is taken from the introduction to the Revelation as found
    in the TEV (Good News) Bible.  It's very important to keep in mind that
    the Revelation cannot be read at face value.  I'm incessantly surprised
    at the number of people who try.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Thanks Richard,
    
    It was my understanding that Revelations was meant to be symbolicly
    not literally interpreted.
    
    Bonnie

re Note 35.134 by WMOIS::B_REINKE:

>     It was my understanding that Revelations was meant to be symbolically
>     not literally interpreted.
  
        Of course, even if Revelation is not meant literally, we
        still have to wrestle with a symbolic representation of a
        warrior God.  Even a symbolic reading conveys a strong sense
        of judgment, condemnation, and separation.  Unless we dismiss
        it completely.

        Bob

Re:  35.121

Charlie,

  >At the risk of rat-holing this topic, I'd like to quickly ask Collis,
  >'A newborn is guilty of what?' 'How are they _not_ innocent?'

A newborn is not guilty of a personal sin of commission.  A newborn is 
guilty corporately of Adam's sin.  In the same way that all are guilty
because of Adam, all are forgiven because of Jesus.  If there was no
such concept as "corporate sin", there could be no "corporate forgiveness".

Collis
   

Re:  35.126
    
  >your arguement about pro-choicers the decision in re an embryo
  >being only God's reminds me of arguements used against modern
  >medicine. i.e. that all healing was in God's hands and that it was
  >against God's will to use medicine. 

Does this mean you think it is the mother's right to choose whether or
not the unborn should live and not God's right?

Your analogy doesn't quite fit.  I'm discussing rights, not actions.
It *IS* God's right to determine who lives and who dies, who recovers
and who does not.  This does *not* say how this healing (or non-healing
is accomplished.)

Collis

Re:  35.127

  >Above you say that the spirit has a predisposition to sin.  Does this
  >mean that the spirit is not necessarily *in* sin?

I'm not sure what it means to be *in* sin, so this is difficult to answer.

(We're equating spirit and soul here which I do not believe to be the
same.  But then again, I'm not clear on the difference, so I'll continue
to equate them.)

I believe the spirit has a predisposition to sin.  I'm not sure how I
can answer that more definitively.
    
  >Above you say that sin is not from the physical body.  Please help
  >me understand then what original sin is.  I thought original sin
  >happened at birth into the physical.  When does original sin come
  >into the picture?

Original sin happened once long ago when Adam sinned.  We are all
corporately responsible for Adam's choice and, as such, under the
judgment of God.
    
  >If it is our spirit that is predisposed to sin, and it is our spirit
  >that God creates, and we live only once here and then return to
  >God never to return here again.....why would God create a spirit
  >that is predisposed to sin?
    
Because we have inherited an imperfect spirit from our spiritual
ancestor(s) (Adam).  Just as we inherit an imperfect body from our
ancestors.

Collis

Re:  35.128

Carole,
    
  >How would you know that it was God asking you to do something?

Lots of things to check for:

  1)  consistent with God's previous revelation (Bible)
  2)  agreed upon by other Spirit-filled Christians
  3)  makes sense (doesn't have to make sense, but it is much more
      likely to make sense than not to)
  4)  awareness of God's Spirit witnessing to me
  5)  possibly accompanied by other signs

These are some of the ways.

Collis

  RE: .138 Collis

  I hope you will bear with me a bit more on this.  If we were face to
  face this would go much more quickly!

  >I believe the spirit has a predisposition to sin.  I'm not sure how I
  >can answer that more definitively.
    
  >>Above you say that sin is not from the physical body.  Please help
  >>me understand then what original sin is.  I thought original sin
  >>happened at birth into the physical.  When does original sin come
  >>into the picture?

  >Original sin happened once long ago when Adam sinned.  We are all
  >corporately responsible for Adam's choice and, as such, under the
  >judgment of God.
   
  I understand where the concept of original sin came from.  I am trying
  to understand where it *happens* for the rest of us.
 
  >>If it is our spirit that is predisposed to sin, and it is our spirit
  >>that God creates, and we live only once here and then return to
  >>God never to return here again.....why would God create a spirit
  >>that is predisposed to sin?
    
  >Because we have inherited an imperfect spirit from our spiritual
  >ancestor(s) (Adam).  Just as we inherit an imperfect body from our
  >ancestors.

  This is what is confusing to me.  Christians do not believe in 
  reincarnation.  Thus, God creates each spirit/soul brand new.  How
  can a brand new spirit/soul inherit an imperfect spirit if it is
  being newly born/created of God?

  Carole  

RE: .139
>                           -< *Knowing* God's Will >-
>
>Lots of things to check for:
>
>  1)  consistent with God's previous revelation (Bible)
>  2)  agreed upon by other Spirit-filled Christians
>  3)  makes sense (doesn't have to make sense, but it is much more
>      likely to make sense than not to)
>  4)  awareness of God's Spirit witnessing to me
>  5)  possibly accompanied by other signs
>
>These are some of the ways.

    Collis - these are *excellent* criteria for applying to each
    *situation* for making *ethical* decisions!  This, IMO, is
    how a Christian *applies* situation ethics!
    
    Bravo!
    
    Nancy

Re:  .140

Carole,

  >How can a brand new spirit/soul inherit an imperfect spirit if it is
  >being newly born/created of God?

I don't know how.  This is what I believe happens because of my
understanding of what the Bible says.  Your question implies that God
alone is responsible for this new spirit/soul.  I don't think that is
true.  Yes, God makes everything, but it seems to me that there is an
inherited spirit nature just as there is an inherited physical nature.
(e.g. God made each of us physically, be we still inherited a
"corrupted" (i.e. less than perfect) physical body.)

Collis

Re:  .141

Nancy,

I'm glad we see eye to eye on how to apply our efforts to do what is
right.  

However, that doesn't address the questions of "what is right" and "is 
there an absolute standard".  Instead of me defining what situational
ethics is (since time is fleeting), perhaps you or someone else could.
Part of the problem here is that we have not yet come up with a 
definition of "situational ethics".  We, as a group, are discussing
an issue which is ill-defined (amongst ourselves) at best.

Collis

    Collis,
    	I put forth a definition in 35.80 which I'm sure you read, since
    you replied to another part of that same note.

Since no one has come forward with a quote from any of Joseph Fletcher's
writings, how about accepting as a starting place, .80, where Dave Meyer
states:
>    	My understanding of situational ethics is that it presents a way to
>    choose between two courses of action, both of which are right or both
>    of which are wrong but both of which are mutually exclusive. Which
>    action is MORE right or LESS wrong is the result.

The issue under discussion, as I saw it in .30, is:
>	*how to know* what God defines as right!
>    Many of us do not accept a literal understanding of the Bible as
>    a clear definition of what God defines as right.  When the issues are
>    really clear, there is no problem!!  When the issues are *not* really
>    clear, I would much prefer to act on *my best understanding of God's 
>    Love* than to act on either my own or someone else's understanding
>    of a Bible passage that is controversial.

Then let's add to Dave's definition (for purposes of our discussion here)
that situation ethics for a Christian involves applying love as the
standard (test) in any such unclear situation.  (This has been suggested in
previous notes and no one has objected so far.)

Then take it one step further and specify that the standard is *love as
revealed in Jesus Christ.*  

As I said in .80, for myself: 
>    This is definitely my statement for
>    myself:  I ascribe to situation ethics in terms of "What is the most
>    loving thing I can do in this situation?"  To me, this is the same as
>    saying, "What would God have me do in this situation?"

Now Collis, your multi-part list of how to know what God wants seems to fit the
bill!!

So what issues remain???????

Nancy

    I found it!!  
    
    From Situation Ethics (The New Morality) by Joseph Fletcher, 
    Professor of Social Ethics, Episcopal Theology School, Cambridge, Mass., 
    in 1964:
    
    "There are at bottom only three alternative routes or approaches to
    follow in making moral decisions.  They are: (1) the legalistic; (2)
    the aninomian, the opposite extreme -- i.e., a lawless or unprincipled
    approach; and (3) the situational....
    
    "The situationist etners into every decision-making situation fully
    armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he
    treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems.  Just the
    same he is prepared in any sitatuion to compromise them or set them
    aside *in the situation* if love seems better served by doing so.
    
    "Situation ethics goes part of the way with natural law, by accepting
    reason as the instrument of moral judegment, while rejecting the
    notion that the good is 'given' in the nature of things, objectively. 
    It goes part of the way with Sciptural law by accepting revelation as
    the source of the norm while rejecting all 'revealed' norms or laws but
    the one command -- to love God in the neighbor.  The situationist
    follows a moral law or violates it according to love's need.  For
    example, 'Almsgiving is a good thing *if* ...' The situationist never
    says, 'Almsgiving is a good thing. Period!'  His decisions are
    hypothetical, not categorical.  Only the commandment to love is
    categorically good.  'Owe no one anything, except to love one another.'
    (Rom. 13:8)  If help to an indigent only pauperizes and degrades him,
    the situationist refuses a handout and find some other way.  He makes
    no law out of Jesus' 'Give to every one who begs from you.'"

    More from Situation Ethics (The New Morality) by Joseph Fletcher, 
    Professor of Social Ethics, Episcopal Theology School, Cambridge, Mass., 
    in 1964:
    
    "As we shall see, *Christian* situation ethics has only one norm or
    principle or law (call it what you will) that is binding and
    unexceptionable, always good and right regardless of the circumstances. 
    That is 'love' -- the *agape* of the summarey commandment to love God
    and the neighbor.  Everything else without exception, all laws and
    rules and principles and ideals and norms, are only *contingent*, only
    valid *if they happen* to serve love in any situation.  Christian
    situation ethics is not a system or program of living according to a
    code, but an effort to relate love to a world of relativities through a
    casuistry obedient to love.  It is the strategy of love....
    
    "But the *Christian* is neighbor-centered first and last.  Love is for
    people, not for principles; i.e., it is personal..."

    The previous two notes quoted from chapter 1 of Fletcher's book.  The
    Table of Contents, in case anyone is interested, is:
    
    	Three Approaches
    	Some Presuppositions
    	Love Only Is Always Good
    	Love Is the Only Norm
    	Love and Justice Are the Same
    	Love Is Not Liking
    	Love Justifies Its Means
    	Love Decides There and Then
    	Postscriptum: Why?
    	An Appendix: Two Other corruptions and Four Cases
    
    
    Interesting relevant quotes in the frontpages include:
    
    	There is only one ultimate and invariable duty, and its formula is
    	"thou shaot love they neighbor as thyself." How to do this is another
    	question, but this is the whole or moral duty.
    		--William Temple
    
    	The law of love is the ultimate law because it is the negation of
    	law; it is absolute because it concerns everything concrete....The
    	absolutism of love is its power to go into the concrete situation, 
    	to discover what is demanded by the predicament of the concrete to 
    	which it turns.  Therefore, love can never become fanatical in a
    	fight for the absolute, or cyncial under the impact of the relative.
    		--Paul Tillich

    Nancy, I am interested in the titles of one of the chapters:  "Love and
    Justice Are the Same".  I have always believed this myself, and I am
    curious about what Fletcher has to say on the subject.

    -- Mike

    Mike V., re: .132

>   I am more interested in living my life according to
>   the Sermon on the Mount--which means a life of nonviolence and love for
>   one's enemies--than according to the less than noble imagery expressed
>   elsewhere in the Bible.

    Let me see if I understand your position.  You ascribe to Jesus (God)
    love and nonviolence.  Judgement, condemnation, contending with
    (defeating) evil you do not.

    Who then, in the Sermon on the Mount, is Jesus talking about when he
    says:

    Matthew 7:19  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
    thrown into the fire.
    Matthew 7:23  ... "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers."

    Jon

    {I don't closely follow this conference.  It may be a while before I
    get back in.}

    Well, Jon, I do not agree with you that Jesus is God. 
    
    Also, an important point about pacifism is that it need *not* be
    passive--not at all.  Pacifism can, and often does, contend with evil.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  35.146

Nancy,

Thanks so much for finding this definition:

    
  >"The situationist enters into every decision-making situation fully
  >armed with the ethical maxims of his community and its heritage, and he
  >treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems.  Just the
  >same he is prepared in any sitatuion to compromise them or set them
  >aside *in the situation* if love seems better served by doing so."

This makes the distinction clear.  There is no foundational "truth"
which can be asserted or maintained in respect to how to act (i.e. by
specifying an action).  In other words, a command that says "You shall
not murder" or "You shall not steal" can NOT be considered always true.
It all depends, is the best that can be said.

This, as I understand it, is in DIRECT contradiction to what God said
in the Bible.  God HAS given us direct commands which are right and which
should never be disobeyed.

A second point.  Who decides what is the "loving" thing to do?  In other
words, who is the ultimate determiner of what is moral?  Is it the
individual?  Or is it God?  The usual response I have heard is that if
the individual uses his/her best judgment and does what s/he believes is
the "loving" thing to do, then what was done is acceptable or "moral".
Do you (each of you in this discussion) agree with that?  Or do you
think that there IS a "standard" by which you can be judged.  But if
there is a standard which if you do not live up to, are you not saying
that there is an absolute standard and that the "correct" action is based
on the absolute standard rather than your understanding of "love"?

Comments welcome.

Collis

Re:  35.145

Nancy,

  >Now Collis, your multi-part list of how to know what God wants seems to 
  >fit the bill!!

  >So what issues remain???????

I could, in good faith, do something wrong after going through the list
of things I go through.  That is because I am not *assured* of knowing
what is "right" in a given situation after doing these things.  Therefore,
I could still do the wrong thing.  Because there is an absolute standard
which I am responsible to live up to.

Not only would a situational ethicist be content to do the things that
s/he would choose after doing these things, s/he might also choose to 
clearly disobey an absolute command of God because the command does not
fit into his/her perception of what "the love of Jesus" would do.  The
standard is actually the participant's perception of what love should
be, not God's absolute rule.

Collis

re Note 35.153 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Not only would a situational ethicist be content to do the things that
> s/he would choose after doing these things, s/he might also choose to 
> clearly disobey an absolute command of God because the command does not
> fit into his/her perception of what "the love of Jesus" would do.  The
> standard is actually the participant's perception of what love should
> be, not God's absolute rule.

        Collis,

        I too am struggling to understand what "situation ethics"
        really is about.

        I get the impression that a situational ethicist, in the
        above situation, would just see it in a very different way. 
        They wouldn't see any "absolute command of God" in the first
        place, so they wouldn't be choosing (in their perception) to
        set aside an absolute command.

        How absolute is absolute?  Even Christians who believe that
        "thou shall not steal" and "thou shall not murder" are
        absolutes may, at times, perform acts that another would see
        as stealing and murder.  The Christian might say "this is not
        murder, it's self-defense" or "it's not stealing, it's
        taxation."  :-}

        My point is that even for a believer of absolute standards,
        including the Christian, there are situations that alter the
        understanding of whether a physical act is forbidden or
        commanded.  Of course, to the absolute ethicist, the command
        is not negated or overruled by the circumstances;  rather,
        the circumstances simply determine that a particular rule was
        never meant to apply.

        Is this a distinction without a difference?

        Bob

Bob,

I'll try to draw a distinction which I have heard others draw.

Given a situation, how should an individual respond?

A situational ethicist uses his/her understanding of a principle (the
love of Jesus) and then, even at the risk of disobeying what God has
clearly commanded, makes a choice.  A different situational ethicist in
the same situation may make a very different choice, even an opposing choice.
This is because they understand the situation differently, they have
different values and principles.  Even the one principle they agree
upon in theory (the love of Jesus), they may understand very differently.
They have different intellectual abilities.  All of these factors, as well
as other factors, come into play in the decision.  And, yet, if both acted
as best as possible to the prinicple (as they understand it) of "the love
of Jesus", then they did the "right" thing.  

Because the standard is not really "the love of Jesus", the standard is their 
perception of what this means.  If "the love of Jesus" gets truly defined
(such as, "it is always wrong to murder"), the situational ethicist refuses
to (necessarily) follow the standard.  This is how you can tell that they are a
situational ethicist.

An absolutist, on the other hand, believes that there is a (set of) actions
in a situation which are *defined by God* to be right or wrong for a
situation.  It is the responsibility of the absolutist to determine as best
he or she can what to do.  The absolutist may do this and do what seems best
and do the wrong thing.  There is no such "doing what I understand the love
of Jesus doing and doing the wrong thing" for a situational ethicist.

Question for all to ponder:  Is it ever possible to do what "the love of
Jesus" would have you to do and do the wrong thing?

You see, humans are limited.  None of us has all the information needed to
truly determine what "the love of Jesus" would have us to do.  The "love
of Jesus" is extremely vague.  Each person, by necessity, defines it for
himself or herself.

But God is an absolutist.  God says, "You shall not murder."  Doing what
is right is, in fact, more important at times than doing what will benefit
the most people (which is another standard sometimes used by the
situational ethicist).  Even if *terrible* things happen as a result of
following the absolute law, it is still right to follow it and still wrong
to disobey it.

The summary given in a previous note is quite explicit.  Even if it means
disobeying God, the situational ethicist chooses what he/she thinks it
means to follow an abstract (ill-defined) principle such as "the love
of Jesus".

Bob,

Dr Joseph Fletvher was guest lecturer when I was in seminary in
1972. He lectured on situation ethics during one of my classes on
Clinical Pastorial Education. He used an application that sticks
to my mind. That is in a hospital emergency room, a team provides
triage, a method of deciding whom shall receive medical first
based on availiable facilities, personnel and the amount of
patients to be dealt with. The emergency team have a set of tools
to work with; they can only do that which is possible.

As Christian, we have a set of tools; spiritual and moral, to do
that which we must do to live as a Christian. This includes
killing, if need be, to protect that which we hold dear. There is
neither a rightness or wrongness; just that some action must be
taken by the individual at the time of the action.

Dr Fletcher says that Christians are judged by their actions,
based on what or how we apply the tools that Jesus gave us. His
conclusions are based on his studies of the teachings of european
theologians from the earlier part of this century. He mentioned
that many of the situation ethics morals are applied in the
Neuremberg trials that we tried the German Nazis (the Italian
Facists, and the Japanese also).

There are two premise that situation ethics are dependent on:

	o Prayers asking God for guidance on the right decision.
	o That you do the best you can with what you have.

Often, Mother Teresa of Calcutta must make the decision whether
to feed that dying person or give the food to the next person who
have more strength to live.

calvin

    Mike V. (.151)

    I think I'll grade your reply "C-  Thanks for clarifying, but ...
    incomplete".  :-)   Let me repeat my questions which were my main
    intent for .150.  This is regarding your living your life according to
    the Sermon on the Mount, rather than "according to the less than noble
    imagery expressed elsewhere in the Bible" (your .132) which, I assume,
    refers to (some of the harsher examples of) justice and condemnation.

    Who then, in the Sermon on the Mount, is Jesus talking about when he
    says:

    Matthew 7:19  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
    thrown into the fire.
    Matthew 7:23  ... "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers."

    Jon

    Jon
    
    Maybe it means that God/Jesus look at the fruit that a person
    produces in their life? and if they produce that fruit and it is
    good by ways that aren't acceptable to you, by your creed, that
    they still might be acceptable in God's and Jesus's and the
    Holy Sprit's eyes?
    
    Bonnie

    Thank you, Bonnie.
    
    In any case, Jon, even if it were correct that even Jesus himself, in
    his life, expressed less than nobel virtues, that is irrelevant to me,
    since I do not worship the man.  I will continue to believe in the
    principles of love and nonviolence that Jesus *did* advocate in the
    Sermon on the Mount.
    
    -- Mike

    Bonnie, Mike V.

    Thanks for trying.  Maybe I'm being too picky here, but please hear me
    out as I continue down this side-topic.

    Bonnie,
    re: Ma. 7:19  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down ...
    You replied:
    > ... if they produce ... fruit and it is good by ways that aren't
    >acceptable to you, by your creed, that they still might be acceptable
    >in God's and Jesus's and the Holy Sprit's eyes?
    
    But Jesus is talking about cutting down the bad tree and throwing it
    into the fire.  I don't see any "acceptance" in this verse.  Sounds
    pretty drastic and *final* to me.  This doesn't seem pertinent to
    creeds or being acceptable in *my* eyes.  Is there such a thing as a
    bad tree in your view?  If so, what does it mean to "throw it into the
    fire?"

    Mike,

    And I'm not talking about Jesus expressing non-noble virtues in his
    life (and I don't worship any man (lower-case) either).  If Jesus
    advocated love and non-violence in the Sermon on the Mount, what is He
    advocating here, if not judgement and/or condemnation?

    Besides Matthew 7:19 and 23, try verse 13:
    "... the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction,
    and those who enter by it are many."

    Anyone,

    "Destruction", "thrown into the fire", "depart from me" - sounds pretty
    "un-loving" to me.  :-)  How do you interpret these?

    Jon

    Jon - 
    
    I have dealt with the wide path-narrow path in another note.  (Could
    anyone provide a referral?  I can't for the life of me remember where
    it actually was.  I do remember it was a reply to Collis.  Maybe he
    remembers.)
    
    At any rate - speaking about this particular "tree" verse, my
    interpretation is that Jesus is telling us, in his own inimitable way,
    that we need to get rid of the dead-wood in our own lives.  By
    dead-wood I mean those things which do not serve us on our path to
    knowing the Divine Presence.  By getting rid of that which does not
    serve us there is room to plant anew something which may "bear good
    fruit" and nurture and nourish us.  
    
    This seems to me to be another way of teaching two things can't occupy
    the same space at the same time with the added caveat of, so what do
    you choose to occupy *your* space?  to quote something that I took
    from the sermon on Sunday, "Are you vitally alive or dead right?"  Why
    do we cling to that which serves no purpose in our lives?
    
    Nanci
    
    

    Jon, I think I already answered your question.  As I stated before, if
    he is not advocating love and nonviolence in those passages that you
    cite, as you apparently believe he isn't, that is irrelevant to me,
    since what interests me is the love and nonviolence that he *does*
    express in many passages within the Sermon on the Mount, as well as
    through much of his life.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  35.162

Mike,

  >As I stated before, if he is not advocating love and nonviolence in those 
  >passages that you cite, as you apparently believe he isn't, that is 
  >irrelevant to me, since what interests me is the love and nonviolence that 
  >he *does* express in many passages within the Sermon on the Mount, as well 
  >as through much of his life.

Thank you, Mike, for being so forthright about your reading of Scripture
to affirm what you want to believe (rather than basing your beliefs on
what all of Scripture says).

It does seem to me, however, that this methodology is dishonest to the 
full intention of the author and the characters as well.

Collis

    Jon and Collis,
    	in neither of those two passages is Christ suggesting that WE
    should act in any particular way, he is simply letting us know what
    standards to expect to apply when we pass beyond this realm. He has
    also provided standards, which different people understand differently,
    regarding what fruit is "good". Some people insist that spreading the
    Word is the standard, others that living a loving life that improves
    the lives of others is the standard, some that you must do both - each
    in it's time. In any case, it is we who will be judged rather than who
    will judge so these do NOT apply to us here. As a warning, perhaps, but
    not as a guideline to action.
    
    	DaveM

Re.106 (Boy go away for a couple of days and yer a million replys behind)
    
      Jamey:
    
            I wouldn't say I am afraid that God would "order it again"
      after all I don't believe in "God" as you use the term. 
            I sure ain't a big fan of genocide and I am not to keen
      on it happening ever for any reason.
            As for being afraid it is justified, that's simply not true.
      It cannot be justified. I view trying to justify it as an attempt
      to avoid responsibility for participation in evil. Non-participation
      in evil is a moral duty.        
            By the way you didn't answer my question about fear. Do
      you worship God out of fear ?
            No Jamey, I do not "worship" humans or one human. Humans have 
      managed to be incredibly stupid throughout history. Just being one
      is sufficient to convince me that humans are not to be worshipped.
      I manage to trust humans rather easily and this trust it turns out
      is well placed more often than not. If I can't trust people,
      well, who's left ? If I can't trust myself I'd might as well nip
      off and kill myself. Actually I tried this on the installment plan,
      but fortunately wised up before I succeeded. No doubt you will tell
      me to trust God or Jesus ( Who are the same aren't they, this trinity
      thing really confuses me.)
            I hate to tell you this, but I tried and it did not work. 
      It was a total, absolute, complete and miserable failure. More than
      one Christian has laid the blame for this squarely on my shoulders.
      This may indeed be the correct place to lay it. But if a thing don't
      work, it don't work and assessing blame does not solve the problem.
            As a Buddhist I believe that people are essentially enlightened,
      good and compassionate beings. Granted they don't act that way all
      the time, but according to the Bible God doesn't either. Since people
      are who I am spending my life with I'll take my chances with them.
      Any species that could produce the likes of my parents and Elaine
      has got a lot of potential. Now you will surely ask me about my
      my plans for the afterlife. Only the dead know if there is one and
      what it is like and they ain't talking.
             Just curious, do you place any trust in people or is it all
      reserved for Jesus ? 
            I was really surprised to read you might run away from a command
     from God ? Really ? Is it a case of doubt in the correctness of obeying
     the command ? 
            I'll agree with you we need to be born again. However, what
     I believe that to be as a Buddhist is pretty far removed from the
     from the Christian concept of being born again.

            
             
                                                       Mike
           

    Collis, I have stated several times before that I am not a biblical
    literalist, so this is hardly anything new.  Back in my fundamentalist
    days, I had a serious problem with the idea of not accepting at face
    value everything in the Bible, but my spirituality has long since
    changed from that perspective.  I don't accept that one must choose
    between the extremes of either accepting everything in the Bible or
    simply rejecting it all as bogus.

    I have also stated, as you know, that I am not a Christian.  My
    spirituality tends to be eclectic, and therefore, by definition, it
    borrows from many sources; but my primary source for spiritual
    inspiration *is* the Christian tradition.  However, given the fact that
    I am not a Christian, then it certainly doesn't make sense to criticize
    me for not conforming to someone's idea of what a Christian should
    believe. 
    
    Be that as it may, though, even if I were a Christian, I disagree with
    the premise that I must either accept someone else's world view in its
    entirety, or not at all, and that if I somehow reject parts of it I am
    being "dishonest to the full intention of the author".  Such a dogmatic
    ultimatum is, in my view, simplistic, whether applied to religious faith,
    or to political, philosophical, or sociological thought.  

    The history of philosophy is full of examples of philosophers who
    develop their ideas while using the view of others as the starting
    point.  If philosophers merely echoed what their predecessors wrote, no
    new philosophical insights would ever develop, and philosophy would
    never have undergone any real history.  Yet I don't consider any of
    those philosophers to be "dishonest to the full intention of the
    author" simply because they borrow from but don't accept everything at
    face value.  Schopenauer was not being dishonest to Kant because he
    believed that the Will is the thing in itself.  Kant was not being
    dishonest to Hume because of his belief in a priori ideas.  And so on.
    
    As far as I am concerned, there is no contradiction between those cited
    passages from the Sermon on the Mount and the passages that endorse
    love and nonviolence.  But if you want to portray Jesus as having
    contradicted his own message of love and nonviolence, you are welcome
    to do so.  My point is that even if this alleged contradiction were
    true, it would be irrelevant to my own eclectic spirituality.  But it
    is clear to me that Jesus's life and teachings advocate a life of love
    of enemies and nonviolence.  These principles *are* found in the Sermon
    on the Mount.

    The fact is that I do happen to admire virtually all that Jesus taught
    and expressed in his life.  But if I were, for some reason, to discover
    things about Jesus that I did not like, that would not invalidate those
    things that I do admire.  Nor would it pose a real threat to my
    spiritual explorations.  For now, though, I don't see much about Jesus
    to criticize.  And I will continue to base my life on the loving,
    nonviolent principles that he espoused.

    -- Mike

    
Mike,

>            As for being afraid it is justified, that's simply not true.
>      It cannot be justified. I view trying to justify it as an attempt
>      to avoid responsibility for participation in evil. Non-participation
>      in evil is a moral duty.        
 
    That you cannot justify it does not mean that it cannot be justified. I
    view avoiding the realities of justified genocide as a denial of human
    nature and the way God deals with it. Non-participation with God is
    eternal suicide.
    
>    By the way you didn't answer my question about fear. Do
>    you worship God out of fear ?
    
    Sorry, I somehow missed the question unintentionally
    Not that I can tell. I do fear the way I would be were it not for God.
    I worship him because he is God, and I thank him for what he has done
    and is doing for me and the rest of his family.	
               
    >If I can't trust people, well, who's left ? If I can't trust myself I'd 
    >might as well nip off and kill myself. 
    This leap of faith to trust self and others is what I mean by worship
    of humans, self or otherwise. On the whole, you are saying and acting
    upon the assumption that humans are trustworthy.
    
    >No doubt you will tell me to trust God or Jesus 
    At least I don't have to repeat myself ;)
    
    >( Who are the same aren't they, this trinity thing really confuses me.)
    Me too lots of the time. Luckily the concept of the trinity did not die
    for me. It was much simpler, a man paid the price for my life.
    
    >I hate to tell you this, but I tried and it did not work. It was a total,
    >absolute, complete and miserable failure. More than one Christian has laid
    >the blame for this squarely on my shoulders. This may indeed be the correct
    >place to lay it. But if a thing don't work, it don't work and assessing 
    >blame does not solve the problem.
    Tried what? Something that would 'work' for you. Sorry, you didn't try
    Christianity at all. Did you come to see your sinful nature and that
    Jesus was the only hope to survive it? You may have tried a christian
    religion, but you have not known Christ. I am sorry that some
    Christians have resorted to guilt and blame. The essence of
    Christianity is not to get something that works for our lives, it is to
    finally understand that God is God, and he sent Jesus to bring us back
    to Him. Serving Him is the essence of a Christian's life, trusting Him,
    regardless of how our lives may seem to us.
    
   >   As a Buddhist I believe that people are essentially enlightened,
   >   good and compassionate beings. Granted they don't act that way all
   >   the time, but according to the Bible God doesn't either. 
    Just to point out a difference of interpretation, I do not see
    administering justice as lacking compassion. Using the way God acts in
    the Bible to justify the fact that people lack compassion is rather
    ironic coming from you.
    
    >Since people are who I am spending my life with I'll take my chances with 
    >them. Any species that could produce the likes of my parents and Elaine
    >has got a lot of potential. Now you will surely ask me about my
    >my plans for the afterlife.
    Of course. Since people are who I am spending eternity with, I'll trust
    in the only promise that will get me there.
    
    >Only the dead know if there is one and what it is like and they ain't 
    >talking.
    Jesus isn't dead, and he's done a lot of talking.  
    
    >Just curious, do you place any trust in people or is it all reserved for 
    >Jesus ? 
    People? None whatsoever. Thank goodness Jesus has saved others besides
    me and is living in them so that I can see tangible faithfulness of
    Jesus. He is utterly worthy of my trust.
    
    >I was really surprised to read you might run away from a command
    >from God ? Really ? Is it a case of doubt in the correctness of obeying
    >the command ? 
	It would have nothing to do with correctness, more likely my own
    weakness and doubt. I would not sit down and weigh the pros and cons
    and then make a rational decision to not follow God's order. It would
    more likely be something like Moses: Me Lord, go talk to Pharoh? You've
    got to be kidding. They'll laugh at me, right before they kill me. 
    In other words self taking over my trust.
    
    Jamey
    

Re:  35.167

Mike,

I recognize that you are not a "biblical literalist", but then again neither
am I.  I made an assumption that, perhaps, was unwarranted.  I assumed
that you accepted that Jesus really did make the statements that are in
the Gospels.  If you deny that Jesus is the author of those statements,
then certainly you are not compromising Jesus' message when you ignore
those statements.

However, if you do accept that Jesus made the statements that you would
rather ignore, then I believe there is still a major problem of procedure.
You are claiming the support of Jesus for your position, but not being
true to all of what Jesus' said.  The problem comes in that Jesus says
things which do not support your position.  Therefore, it is *not* clear
that Jesus really does share the same view as you.  By ignoring these
verses, I believe you are violating an accepted method of interpretation
which says that we take what is said in context.  I believe that the
context for Jesus covers all of what he says and thinks.  A very strong
case can be made (and has often been made) that Jesus supported and
supports the killing of people by God.

The reason for this is one of priorities.  Which is more important to
God:

  1)  a person's life
  2)  God's holiness and purity

I hear you saying that (1), a person's life is the priority.  Certainly
God has sacrificed much so that all might live (even if most choose not
to).

However, God has also made it clear in the Scriptures that HE IS HOLY
and that He intends to ALWAYS be holy.  It is impossible for a Holy God
to live (in heaven) with an unholy person.  And those who reject God
get the justice which they deserve and which is another perfect attribute
of God.

As far as accepting part of what an earthly philosopher says, it is
very reasonable to do that and to build upon it.  I disagree that this
is appropriate with what God says.  But even if it were, then I request
that you acknowledge that what you are teaching is NOT necessarily what
Jesus was teaching.  That you have taken *part* of Jesus' teachings that
*you* find likable and have deliberately chosen to ignore other parts
of Jesus' teachings which you do not accept.  I consider that to be
intellectually honest.

  >As far as I am concerned, there is no contradiction between those cited
  >passages from the Sermon on the Mount and the passages that endorse
  >love and nonviolence.  

I don't quite follow.  First I hear that there are teachings of Jesus
you choose to ignore, and now I hear you saying that you really do
accept all of his teachings as consistent with love and non-violence.
Perhaps you could clarify for me?

  >But if you want to portray Jesus as having contradicted his own message 
  >of love and nonviolence, you are welcome to do so.  

The Bible, which was written by God, is quite clear what God has done
and what God will do.  Some reject those portions of the Bible.  The
Bible does not contradict itself and Jesus did not contradict Himself.
It's simply a matter of interpreting both messages accurately (which has
been done for hundreds of years and so is not new to us today).

Collis

    I totally disagree with you that Jesus supports the killing of people. 
    I will not acknowledge that what I am espousing is not what Jesus was
    teaching, because I don't happen to think that is the case.  However,
    as I also stated, *even if that were true*, I totally and utterly reject
    your claim that it is intellectually dishonest to critique specific
    points of someone else's world view.  I consider that view of things to
    be excessively dogmatic and intellectually dubious.

    You state that is not appropriate to accept only part of what "God"
    says.  I completely agree with you.  But since I disagree with you that
    the Bible was written by God, how can you possibly expect me to agree
    with you that I don't have the right to evaluate the Bible on the same
    terms as the works of the "earthly philosophers"?  Collis, you seem to
    be arguing from certain premises that I don't accept, and then expect
    me to accept your conclusions.  Since I believe that the Bible is
    written by human beings, I evaluate it as I would any other collection
    of human works.  When I point this out to you, you object that I should
    not reject any part of what God says.  That is a non sequitor.

    It is my view, by the way, that it is *you* who are rejecting Jesus's
    teachings, since you do not accept his principles of love of enemies
    and nonviolence.  I find it ironic that so much of biblical literalism
    rejects the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

    -- Mike

    Collis,
    
    Thanks for sticking around in spite of the shrapnel that's falling all
    over the place lately!  :-)  Now that I know you *are* still here, I
    can plan to try to address some of the questions you asked me!  I
    extracted some of your messages and then read that you were leaving.
    So I didn't know what to do.
    
    Nancy

    Collis,
    	ditto on the thanks for sticking around. But about how it would be
    impossible for God to be holy and yet have an unholy person in heaven;
    I'm also told that nothing is hard or impossible for "him". Moreover,
    since there is no chance that either of us will ever approach God in
    holiness, your statement would suggest that we are bound for someplace
    else. The alternative is that God isn't all THAT picky but will welcome
    those who have led good lives - good *Christian* lives, if you prefer
    or insist - to dwell in heaven in spite of their imperfections. Whatcha
    think ?

  Re.168
    
        
      "Justified genocide" ? What a concept !! Are you serious ? 
     If the whole idea were not so sickening it would be funny.
     It is this "ethic" if it can be called such that has given
     us Aushwitz.  
       Would you still be so thankful to God and all he has done
     for you if it was to send you and your family to a death camp ?
     Your attitude strikes me as a bit caviler when you throw out
     terms like "justified genocide". You have already said you
     would commit genocide ( which scares me in no small way ).
       I imagine you'll tell me that you are willing, along with your
     family to be the victim of genocide also. 
       Since when does trusting someone constitute worship ? You ought
     to start using the same dictionary as the rest of us. I would remind
     you that my "leap of faith" is no different from your choice to 
     trust in God. 
       By the way you do trust humans. You cannot function in any way
     with out considerable "trust" in people you'll never meet. The food
     you eat, the car you drive, the house you live in all involve you
     trusting other people to do a multitude of things. You may deny it,
     but you are inextricably caught up in a complex web of trusting
     all kinds of people.        
       I was also surprised to find that you are a mind reader. I am
     going to blunt about this. It is not for you to say whether I 
     experienced Christianity. It it possible to to experience Christianity
     and find it to be a bad, even dangerous experience. You cannot speak
     to the spiritual experience of another with any validity. It is not
     your place to say whether I have known and trusted Jesus or given
     myself in service of "Him". You simply do not know these things and
     and it is presumptuous of you say you do. 
        At this point I'll end our little dialogue as we have drifted.
     of the topic. It is also apparently become unnecessary because no
     matter what I write about my beliefs and spirituality you state flatly
     that you know otherwise. Being omniscient you clearly don't need
     me to tell what I think or feel.


                                                       Mike 
             
        
    
                  
         
        

    In the (perhaps futile) hope of getting parts of this discussion back
    on track, I have created a new topic on the Sermon on the Mount.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  35.170

Mike,

  >I totally disagree with you that Jesus supports the killing of people. 

O.K.  But you also have refused to deal with verses which seem to support
Jesus killing people.  Again, these are the options I see:

  1)  You do not believe that Jesus said what he was quoted as saying in 
      the Bible
  2)  You have researched these verses and believe that they do not mean 
      what we would ordinarily think they mean
  3)  you are being intellectually dishonest in not investigating this
      information thoroughly

Now, you have not claimed option 1, although I made it quite clear in my
last note that I had overlooked that option and apologized if that was
what you believe.

You have not claimed option 2.  Perhaps you researched this in the past,
came to some conclusion and just don't desire to discuss it?  That's fine.
Just tell us.

I have saddled you with option 3 which you take offense at.  Obviously,
you do not choose this option either.

Are there more options?  Or are you really choosing one of the first two
and I haven't understood that?

  >I totally and utterly reject your claim that it is intellectually 
  >dishonest to critique specific points of someone else's world view.  

Let me clarily myself.  I consider it intellectually dishonest to claim
that your position on an issue is symmetrical with the position of someone
else and intentionally not deal with views expressed by that person which
contradict this claim.  It appears to me that this is what you are doing.
I have no desire to hang any kind of negative label on you action.  But
I *do* have a strong desire that the teachings of Jesus be accurately 
represented which the methodology I see employed here does not.

  >It is my view, by the way, that it is *you* who are rejecting Jesus's
  >teachings, since you do not accept his principles of love of enemies
  >and nonviolence.

I have entered many specific points about what I believe and why.  Please
address specifics since I know we disagree on generalities and the causes
for our disagreement can only be resolved on specific issues.  Who knows?
Perhaps I'll change.  I changed my mind on a very significant issue (in
my opinion) just 2 weeks ago by what was entered in the Christian Notes
Conference.

  >I find it ironic that so much of biblical literalism rejects the 
  >teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

I won't make claims for biblical literalism (since I'm not a literalist,
just an inerrantist) but I personally *fully* accept the teachings of 
Jesus in the Sermon on  the Mount as appropriate for individuals.

Collis

    re .173
    
    When in doubt, declare victory and run.
    
    Jamey
    
    

Re:  35.172

  >I'm also told that nothing is hard or impossible for "him". 

This is certainly true in some sense.  God can do anything that requires
"power" or "strength".  However, in another sense, this is not true.
God can not do anything which is against His own nature.  For example,
God cannot lie.  God also cannot tolerate unholiness in his presence
and MUST cast it out.

  >Moreover, since there is no chance that either of us will ever approach 
  >God in holiness, your statement would suggest that we are bound for 
  >someplace else. The alternative is that God isn't all THAT picky but 
  >will welcome those who have led good lives - good *Christian* lives, 
  >if you prefer or insist - to dwell in heaven in spite of their 
  >imperfections. Whatcha think ?

Dave, you're a perfect setup man.  :-)  What an opportunity!  To share
what is on your heart with someone who is asking you the question!!!

You are quite right in all your conclusions.  We *should* be bound for
someplace else.  The alternative *is* that God isn't all the picky.  But
He is.  Sounds insolvable, does it not?

But (and here's another sense), God CAN do all things!!!  God found a
way to deal with this "insolvable" problem.  God found a way to make
you and me and anyone else who would accept his solution *perfectly holy*
before Himself.  This is by attributing the holiness of Jesus Christ to
everyone who accepts it.  Jesus WAS and IS perfectly holy.  By taking on
himself OUR sins and paying the penalty of DEATH, we can be justified
before God and *credited* with righteousness.  Not because we are
righteous, but because He is righteous.

Aren't you glad you asked?  :-)  :-)

Collis

    RE: .177 Collis
    
    I'm back with my questions again! ;-)
    
    
    >God can not do anything which is against His own nature.  For example,
    >God cannot lie.  God also cannot tolerate unholiness in his presence
    >and MUST cast it out.

    Why?  
    
    How do you know this?
    
   
    Thanks,
    Carole

Re:  35.173 

  >"Justified genocide" ? What a concept !! Are you serious ? 

Justified killing of all people of a nation or a tribe.  Surely you have
read in the Bible that God has done this not once, not twice, but
many times.  Starting with Noah, through Joshua and even beyond.

I've been thinking about this.  It occurs to me that God, as far as
I can remember, never orders an individual *as an individual* to
administer judgment in this way.  Rather, He uses nations or leaders of
nations.  Instead of using an individual to judge, God Himself will
cast judgment.  For example, in the New Testament, Acts 5 tells how
Ananias and Sapphira were judged.  And the Old Testament recounts several
stories of how God killed people by a lion or bear attacking them.

So, given that this is a principle of how God operates (which is my
current understanding), I think it would not be of God if I were
commanded to kill others as an individual.  Somehow, though, I don't
think this eases your mind about me very much.  :-)

  >It is this "ethic" if it can be called such that has given us Aushwitz.  

No.  It is sin that gave us Aushwitz.  Not God's righteous judgment.
There are some superficial similarities, but the cause and purpose
of these are at *totally* opposite ends of the spectrum.

  >Would you still be so thankful to God and all he has done
  >for you if it was to send you and your family to a death camp ?

Actually, I'd be more grateful.  It is a strange part of human nature
that we don't truly appreciate what we have until it is taken away from us.

  >I imagine you'll tell me that you are willing, along with your
  >family to be the victim of genocide also. 

I see no such injunction in the Bible.

  >Since when does trusting someone constitute worship? 

This is a tough question.  I think that trust is necessary for true
worship.  If you don't believe that you are dealing with a god who
is faithful to what he claims to do, I don't see that worship is of
any value.

  >By the way you do trust humans. 

I certainly do.  I am *well* aware of this.

  >It is not your place to say whether I have known and trusted Jesus or given
  >myself in service of "Him". 

I didn't know I had?  Perhaps you're confusing me with another noter.

I agree that I am not to judge you or anyone (in terms of casting
judgment).  I am, however, to be discerning.  Since I hardly know you,
I agree with you that I am in no position to discern much about you.
However, there are principles given in the Bible to allow all of us to
discern what constitutes a relationship with God.  If you admit that,
according to these principles, you are not a believer in God, then
in my understanding it is not inappropriate for me to believe that you
were not a believer in God previously.  However, this really isn't an
issue for me to address with you in a notes conference.  Rather, it is
an issue that should be dealt with one on one.

  >It is also apparently become unnecessary because no matter what I write 
  >about my beliefs and spirituality you state flatly that you know otherwise. 
  >Being omniscient you clearly don't need me to tell what I think or feel.

Again, perhaps you have me mistaken for someone else?????

Collis

    Collis, I have not "refused to deal with verses which seem to support
    Jesus killing people".  These verses have been addressed by two other
    people in this topic, one of whom I explicitly expressed agreement
    with.  What more do you want?  If others address an issue, I am not
    going to simply echo what has already been said.  If that is not to
    your satisfaction, that is unfortunate, but baiting me is not going to
    change my noting style.  Furthermore, although what you say is almost
    always of tremendously profound significance, I honestly don't feel the
    need to comment on every single word that you write.  And I certainly
    am not going to be sucked into a Soapbox-style debate that drags on
    endlessly just because you like that style of noting.

    I have stated that I believe that Jesus advocated pacifism.  This is
    also the view of Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren (the traditional
    peace churches).  Jesus expresses pacifism in the Sermons on the Mount
    and the Plain, and throughout his life: "resist not evil, turn the
    other cheek, go the second mile, love your enemies" (Matthew 5 and Luke
    6).  "Blessed are the peacemakers...for they shall be called children
    of God" Jesus (Matthew 5:5,9).  "All they that take the sword shall
    perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

    The early Christian community took Jesus's teachings quite seriously,
    and refused to participate in war:

    	"Christ in disarming Peter ungirt every soldier."
    		- Tertullian

        "God in prohibiting killing discountenances not only brigandage,
        which is contrary to human laws, but also that which men regard as
        legal.  Participation in warfare therefore will not be legitimate
        to a just man..."
    		- Lactantius

    	"I cannot serve as a soldier; I cannot do evil; I am a Christian."
    		- Dior, proconsul of Africa

    That is my interpretation.  You are entitled to a different
    interpretation of Jesus's life and teachings.  The fact is that people
    don't always agree on things.  I happen to feel that it is often useful
    to accept that, and to move on to other things once you understand that
    source of difference.  Your baiting tactics, and your insinuations
    about my integrity, will not change my approach to this issue.

    What does any of this have to do with Situation Ethics?  Nothing, that
    I can see.  That is why I started a new topic on the Sermon on the
    Mount.  It appears that this topic is quickly ratholing itself to
    death. 

    -- Mike

    Mike,

    re: .180
    >What does any of this have to do with Situation Ethics?

    I acknowledged my contribution to this discussion as a possible
    side-issue earlier.  However, let me attempt to tie it in with the base
    topic.  Earlier discussion centered around standards, the lack of them
    or the definition of them.  I *think* you've defined your standard (or,
    at least one of your standards) as Jesus' teaching as found in the
    Sermon on the Mount.

    Related to this "side issue" is your specifying that the Sermon on the
    Mount deals (exclusively?) with Jesus' teachings on non-violence and
    love.  I have a problem with that "exclusively".  If that is not what
    you mean, please clarify.

    Clarify especially, please, how you view those verses I quoted (which
    I'm always glad to re-quote :-).  If the Sermon on the Mount is all
    love and non-violence, Jesus' statements (below) *really* don't seem to
    fit.  Please tell me how the judgement and condemnation readily
    apparent in these verses square with a "loving God who wouldn't kill
    anyone" (not your quote, just my image).

    (Pardon my thick-headedness.  I think you see that you've already
    addressed these verses adequately.  I guess I disagree.)

    Matthew 7:13  ... the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to
    DESTRUCTION, and those who enter by it are many.

    How can this destruction (to *many*, please notice) be executed by a
    God who is (only) love?

    Matthew 7:19  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is CUT DOWN and
    THROWN INTO THE FIRE.

    Can a God of (only) love do this to one person, let alone many?

    Matthew 7:23  ... "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers."

    If God is (only) love, how can he reject anyone?

    As I see it, love is *one* of God's attributes, as is clearly seen in
    the Sermon on the Mount.  As I see it, judgement and condemnation are
    also attributes of God, as is *also* clearly seen in the Sermon.

    Jon

    Jon,

    I disagree with you that those verses contradict Jesus's message of
    love and nonviolence.  Are you suggesting these verses imply that we
    should *not* love our enemies after all?  That we should *not* turn the
    other cheek?  How you *you* square your belief in violence with those
    admonitions of Jesus to turn the other cheek and love your neighbor?

    Pacifism is *not* amoral, as I stated earlier.  Love of enemies does
    not imply approving of what the enemy does.  It is not passive.  I
    don't believe that Jesus viewed God as amoral.  If by judgment, you
    mean expressing moral approval or disapproval of human actions, then I
    would agree that this was Jesus's view of God.  A pacifist and loving
    God certainly would want us to be loving; if we were not, then God
    would disapprove.  Is disapproval inherently unloving?  I don't think so. 
    Disapproval can be either loving or unloving.  I don't see how it
    follows that just because God exhibits moral approval or disapproval of
    human actions, that humans must therefore be violent in their dealings
    with one another.

    This, I think, is the basic issue that many people don't understand
    about pacifism.  Pacifism can be angry.  It can be active.  It can be
    (and usually is) moralistic.  Love of enemies, after all, implies that
    someone is an enemy in the first place.  You can't love someone as an
    enemy if they *aren't* your enemy.  If God is moral, then God surely
    feels the same way.  We make our own Karma.  Those who live by the
    sword will die by the sword; evil bears bad fruit.

    You can disapprove of others in a loving fashion.  A loving parent
    disciplines their child; beating or abuse is not an act of love.  It is
    possible for someone to be judgmental in a non-loving fashion; in that
    case, it is not justice at all.  Justice that is inconsistent with love
    is, I believe, an oxymoron; it is my contention that justice must
    necessarily be loving.  The message of trees bearing fruit is not a
    statement of human ethics; it is a state of divine disapproval of human
    activities that are not loving.  It says nothing whatsoever about
    telling people not to love their enemies after all, or not to turn the
    other cheek after all.

    Perhaps you can explain to me how you infer from those passages that,
    despite Jesus's clear admonition that we should love our enemies, he
    actually didn't mean that after all?

    -- Mike

Re:  35.180

  >Collis, I have not "refused to deal with verses which seem to support
  >Jesus killing people".  These verses have been addressed by two other
  >people in this topic, one of whom I explicitly expressed agreement
  >with.  What more do you want?  

In 35.162, you said,

  >As I stated before, if he is not advocating love and nonviolence in those 
  >passages that you cite, ... that is irrelevant to me...

and I responded by saying that I did not think this was intellectually
honest.

I'm truly sorry, Mike if I misrepresented you.  I was NOT aware that
you had addressed these issues by agreeing with others.  What I understood
from the above was that you decided to pick and choose which words of 
Jesus to form your opinion of what both you should believe and what
Jesus espoused.

May I ask a question?  Why put me through all the effort of explaining 
in detail exactly why I said what I said, and then at the end of it all 
say that I misunderstood you originally?  When you could have said that 
anytime along the way?  It seems almost to be intentional, from my
perspective.  And I still consider my comment valid in light of the
quote you made in .162 above.

  >...but baiting me is not going to change my noting style.  

I have no desire to bait you.  Just to discuss.

  >Your baiting tactics, and your insinuations about my integrity, will 
  >not change my approach to this issue.

Perhaps I don't understand what "baiting" is.  If you want, you can
explain what it is about my noting style that is "baiting".  From my
perspective, I'm explaining what I believe and why I believe it as well
as explaining my reasoning.  If you want, you can send mail to me
directly.

Collis

    Mike,

    >I disagree with you that those verses contradict Jesus's message of
    >love and nonviolence.  Are you suggesting these verses imply that we
    >should *not* love our enemies after all?

    But those verses aren't directed to us, to (help) form our ethics or
    standard of behavior.  They are describing God's judgement of us, God's
    condemnation of those that are not (ultimately) justified.  It is this
    aspect of God, clearly taught in the Sermon, that (I think) doesn't
    square with a God of (only) love and non-violence.  The Sermon on the
    Mount treats more than just man's relationship to man.

    >Perhaps you can explain to me how you infer from those passages that,
    >despite Jesus's clear admonition that we should love our enemies, he
    >actually didn't mean that after all?

    I don't infer that.  Yes, we are to turn the other cheek.  (I think it
    also implies that God does not.  Hmmm.  There's a thought!)

    I think we disagree (so far, anyway) on what Jesus is talking about in
    those verses.  I say he's talking about God and (some of) what God's
    justice is.  I guess you think he's telling us humans how to behave.

    Let's pick one:

    What does Jesus mean by a "tree that ... is cut down and thrown into
    the fire" if not divine judgement?  Who does the cutting and throwing? 
    Who is cut?  What is the fire?

    I think God does the cutting - He cuts those who are not (ultimately)
    justified - and He throws these into eternal damnation (separation from
    God).  If I'm anywhere close on this, this delineates rather clearly a
    *standard* (related to the base topic) and our responsibility to adhere
    to that standard.  It also, I think, means that God cannot fit into a
    nice, love-only box.

    Jon

Re:  35.178
    
Carole,

     >>God can not do anything which is against His own nature.  For example,
     >>God cannot lie.  God also cannot tolerate unholiness in his presence
     >>and MUST cast it out.

  >Why?  
    
  >How do you know this?
    
Those are good questions.  In short, because "the Bible tells me so".
It would take more time than I have to reference the necessary verses
right now (which is what is needed to be done).  (I don't have my on-line
Bible for a while, so it's not as easy to find these references as it
was a week ago.)  However, maybe someone else will be willing to do some
work on God's holiness.  Any volunteers?

If no one picks up the slack, I will get to this.  Just be patient.

Thanks,

Collis

    Re.179
    
    Collis:
            My re. 173 was "addressed" to Jamey. So it is not 
       surprising that you thought I had you confused with another
       person.
           Thanks for the response in any case. It was interesting
      reading.
    
                                                       Mike

Mike,

And I thought it was just the Mike's that got confused. :-)

O.K. Jamey, what do you have to say for yerself.  Them's serious
accusations floatin' around these here parts.

Collis

    #1. re: the Sermon track:
    	Jon, I addressed that problem earlier, you obviously ignored it.
    Let me try again. Christ's sermon taught many things, some of them
    regarding man's relationship with man, some regarding the relationship
    between God and man. The man/man teachings are of love. End statement.
    The man/God teachings were indications of the results of not accepting
    the man/man teachings. God is not rejecting anyone, God is accepting
    man's rejection of Christ's teaching and responding as promised.
    	It is indeed God who does the cutting, man is never deputized to
    act in God's stead in this. Those who are cut are those who have not
    lived according to Christ's teachings regarding how men should live,
    those who have rejected love in favor of some lesser drive. God offers
    love to us all, saint and sinner and everyone in between, it is those
    who reject this love that have opted for "the fire".
    	OK? Can we move on now, please?
    
    #2. Collis, what am I gonna DO with you? First you bite your tongue and
    agree with me that "nothing" is impossible for God, then you start
    listing the things that are impossible for God. Have you and Jamey been
    comparing notes as to how to tweak my nose? Then you agree with me
    AGAIN (it's a miracle) about where we must be bound (toasted tootsie
    time) since God IS picky, then you come back with "God CAN do all
    things ! ! !". I've gotta get me a yoyo, could you provide me with a
    small portrait ?  You dance around faster than a lightweight boxer. If
    God can declare such as us "holy" then he can certainly do so for any
    as she - oops, he - sees fit.
    	And what's this stuff about Jesus being perfectly holy ?  According
    to what I think I've heard you say here, Jesus is God. If God is holy,
    can Christ be else ?  Or were you expecting me to argue ?  It was nice
    of him to prepay the wages of our sins, though, don'tcha think ?
    
    #3. weren't we talking about something else here ?

Re:  35.188

Dave,
  
  >#2. Collis, what am I gonna DO with you? First you bite your tongue and
  >agree with me that "nothing" is impossible for God, then you start
  >listing the things that are impossible for God. 

I tried my best to confuse and obscure.  (But note that I did first say
that there are different "senses" (i.e. meanings) that can be associated
with "nothing is impossible for God".)

  >You dance around faster than a lightweight boxer. 

You too kind.  <blush>

  >And what's this stuff about Jesus being perfectly holy ?  According
  >to what I think I've heard you say here, Jesus is God. If God is holy,
  >can Christ be else ?  
    
Now you're getting it.  PREACH IT!

  >It was nice of him to prepay the wages of our sins, though, don'tcha think ?

Yes, I do.

Collis

    
    re .173, .179 and whatever led to them.
    
    Collis, by all means feel free to help me out at any time. As it is,
    I'll take your answers for the first couple of questions, couldn't add
    much to them. Looks like there's a couple only I can answer, though, eh
    :) 

  >It is this "ethic" if it can be called such that has given us Aushwitz.  

    I have never heard that the attempt at Jewish Genocide was mandated of
    God? I believe it was mandated by Hitler (wasn't he an atheist). 
    
  >would you still be so thankful to God and all he has done
  >for you if it was to send you and your family to a death camp ?
    I fully expect this to happen in this country in our lifetimes. I can
    only hope that I will always be thankful to God for the eternal hope
    that he gave in Jesus.
    
  >I imagine you'll tell me that you are willing, along with your
  >family to be the victim of genocide also. 
    Willing to suffer whatever it takes for the name of the Lord. I cannot
    say that I relish the thought, but willing nonetheless.

  >>Since when does trusting someone constitute worship? 
Collis said this very well:
    
This is a tough question.  I think that trust is necessary for true
worship.  If you don't believe that you are dealing with a god who
is faithful to what he claims to do, I don't see that worship is of
any value.

    I might just add that trusting in oneself and one's mind as the
    standard by which to live implies worship.
    
  >By the way you do trust humans. 
    I guess I see this a little differently. God has chosen humans to suply
    food, water, shelter, etc. However, whether these people believe it or
    not, they are simply instruments of Jesus providing my every need, and
    yours. If all these people were to be eliminated, the Lord has
    demonstrated countless times that he can supply ones needs without all
    these people. Almost universally, however, it is the Body of Christ and
    unwitting accomplices that deliver the fulfilment of everyones needs.
    
      >It is not your place to say whether I have known and trusted Jesus or given
      >myself in service of "Him". 

Again, I must defer to Collis answer inthe confusion:
    
  However, there are principles given in the Bible to allow all of us to
  discern what constitutes a relationship with God.  If you admit that,
  according to these principles, you are not a believer in God, then
  in my understanding it is not inappropriate for me to believe that you
  were not a believer in God previously.

    Since you brought up how you were previously a believer but it didn't
    work so you gave it up, I responded that I doubted seriously if you had
    ever believed. Just the attitude that 'it didn't work for you' sheds
    multitudes of light on the issue. I bet it didn't work for Him either.
    

    Jamey
    

    
    re Dave,
    
    > Have you and Jamey been comparing notes as to how to tweak my nose?
    
    OK, now *I'm* confused. Is it your turn or mine, Collis, to tweak
    Dave's nose? And what about Mike? And which one? OK I'll take your next
    5 replies and you take my next 4 (you already got one). 
    
    Jamey
    
    ;)
    

 Re.190

   Jamey:
           You asked if Hitler was an atheist and didn't know the
        answer to that question. Did you ever get asked a question
        you didn't know the answer to and not knowing really bugged
        you ? Well, not knowing the answer to your question really
        bugged me. So, I went to the library today to come up with
        an answer for you.
           First let me tell you that the number of books about Hitler
        in the biography section astonished me. There must have been about
        three hundred different titles, this is no exaggeration.
           Now for your answer. No Hitler was not an atheist. He believed
        that he was sent by God to save Germany. There were several references
        to his experiencing a "revelation" while recovering in the hospital
        during World War I. 
           Hitler believed that the Nazi party was actually a religious
        rather than a political organization. 
           He also claimed that God also sent him "signs" many times
        in his life showing him what political or military actions he
        should take.
           Apparently Hitler got a bit frustrated in the later years of
        his life because God was not so forthcoming with these signs and
        this is when he began to shift towards the mythological Norse
        gods. In particular the mythology as it is represented in
        Wagner's, "Ring Cycle" operas.
            Hitler seems to have gone from "conventional" Judeo-Christian
        monotheism to Wagnerian mythological Norse polytheism. He despised
        atheists.In his mind they were always linked with Communism which
        he also despised.
            I can't help but wonder if Hitler wasn't schizophrenic or 
        maybe borderline schizophrenic. He seems to have had visions,
        heard voices and saw signs which modern psychology would say
        are symptomatic of this. I do separate these symptoms from what
        I would call ecstatic religious experience which I do not consider
        to be mental illness. These are two entirely different things to
        my way of thinking.
            One Christian commentary on this I found considered that
        demonic possession may have been at work in Hitler's case and
        there does seem to be similarities between what psychology
        would consider schizophrenia and what some would see as evidence
        of demonic possession.
            

                                                               Mike 
             

    Mike .192,
    
    Many thanks for making a trip to the library and researching
    the info you provided on Hitler.  It's very interesting.
    
    Karen

    
    Yes, thanks. I'll have to ask you the right questions more often ;)
    
    Jamey

    
    
     Karen & Jamey:
    
       
              You are both quite welcome. I am fortunate that I have
        an excellent library right down the street from the plant. (SPO)
               Being a history buff it was a case of "Darn I should
        know that".
               Now what I wonder about is will too much Wagner lead
        to demonic possession or schizophrenia ? As a serious opera
        fan I could be as risk. :-)
                Maybe I should stick to Mozart ?
    
                                                       Mike

    Mike,
    	didn't you know ?  All music is a Satanic influence designed only
    to arouse the Beast in men. Well, Rap and disco sure aroused the
    "beast" in me, I offered to crumple more than one offending boom box. 
    
    	I need to thank you, too. I was complacent and unquestioning in
    what I knew. I knew that Hitler had been "born again" and had visions
    etc., I also knew of his later obsession with the Norse/Germanic
    pantheon. It never occured to me that this represented a change !
    (pound head against wall three times, then relax) His redirection seems
    to have come after the war effort started to run into difficulties and
    after his doctor started a questionable and experimental series of
    treatments for his bouts of depression. (his mania was seldom seen as a
    problem except by a few generals who obsessed on reality) I'm not sure
    what led to what, or when which changes occured, but I really should
    have made some connections earlier myself. Except, maybe, that I really
    don't like to think about WW II except as a source for war-game
    scenarios.

       

        

    Re.196 
    
    
    Dave
     
           Surely you've heard, "Mozart doth soothe the savage beast".
      Well, it sooths my budgie and he can be a "beast" some times.
    
           Yeah it all sort of clicked for me too. After years of making
     all the right moves, suddenly things start to go very wrong for
     Hitler along with cocaine addiction via his new psychiatrist.
     Increasing paranoia coupled with possible schizophrenic behavior
     causing him to feel abandoned by his "old" God.
            The Norse pantheon would almost seem ready made to fit
     in with the quasi-religious aspects of the Nazi party. This would
     be especially true with the war effort going badly.
    
                                                
                                                       Mike 
    
                                                       

    
RE: 35.145, Collis,

>I could, in good faith, do something wrong after going through the list
>of things I go through.  That is because I am not *assured* of knowing
>what is "right" in a given situation after doing these things.  Therefore,
>I could still do the wrong thing.  Because there is an absolute standard
>which I am responsible to live up to.

So could I.  I am not perfect or sinless.  I may make the wrong decision or
I may not be able to carry out the "good that I would."  Did you think
that situation ethics removes the possibility of failure or removes
moral responsibility?

>Not only would a situational ethicist be content to do the things that
>s/he would choose after doing these things, s/he might also choose to 
>clearly disobey an absolute command of God because the command does not
>fit into his/her perception of what "the love of Jesus" would do.  The
>standard is actually the participant's perception of what love should
>be, not God's absolute rule.

Here you jump to an assumption or conclusion or whatever.  The situation
ethicist *does not accept the concept* of "an absolute command of God!"
Here you jump from the situationist's frame of reference to your own --
but the situationist does not jump to that frame of reference with you.
It is not logically fair to expect us to make that jump and to then come to 
the same conclusions you come to.

Nancy

RE: 35.152, Collis

>A second point.  Who decides what is the "loving" thing to do?  In other
>words, who is the ultimate determiner of what is moral?  Is it the
>individual?  Or is it God?

Collis, who decides that the Bible *really says* about God's will and God's
demands?  There is no consensus -- much less unanimous agreement -- among
biblical scholars as to interpretations of the Bible.  Who decides?  Aren't
*you* the one who decides what *you* must do, based on *your best
understanding* of God's will?

>The usual response I have heard is that if
>the individual uses his/her best judgment and does what s/he believes is
>the "loving" thing to do, then what was done is acceptable or "moral".

That does not mean it is sinless or perfect.  We are accepted by God through
God's grace.  How does God judge *you* when you make a wrong decision based on
your best understanding of His will?

>do you
>think that there IS a "standard" by which you can be judged.

Yes, the standard of Love, which, in my understanding of the Bible,
*is* God's will.

>But if
>there is a standard which if you do not live up to, are you not saying
>that there is an absolute standard and that the "correct" action is based
>on the absolute standard rather than your understanding of "love"?

You can't find a more absolute (or difficult) standard than Love.  I try to
base my actions in any given situation on "my understanding of love", and you
try to base your actions in any situation on your understanding of God's
absolute will.  Are we really so different, Collis?

    Nancy

    
RE: 35.155, Collis,

>A different situational ethicist in
>the same situation may make a very different choice, even an opposing choice.
>This is because they understand the situation differently, they have
>different values and principles.  Even the one principle they agree
>upon in theory (the love of Jesus), they may understand very differently.
>They have different intellectual abilities.  All of these factors, as well
>as other factors, come into play in the decision.  And, yet, if both acted
>as best as possible to the prinicple (as they understand it) of "the love
>of Jesus", then they did the "right" thing.  

You omitted one very important difference among situation ethicists -- because
they are *different persons* the *situations* are NOT the same - the situations
are also different!  Relationships are dynamic.  My two sons do not have the
same mother -- even though I bore and raised both of them!

>Because the standard is not really "the love of Jesus", the standard is their 
>perception of what this means.

Your standard is not really what *God* has defined as right; your standard is
really *your understanding* of what God has defined as right -- in other words,
*your perception of what this means.*

>If "the love of Jesus" gets truly defined
>(such as, "it is always wrong to murder"),

Now you've jumped to an assumption or conclusion or something.  Situation
ethics would say that you cannot arbitrarily lock in the definition that way!
So your "if" doesn't apply.  The standard that the situation ethicist is
refusing to follow in your example is *your standard* not one that the
situation ethicist has agreed to.  (I know, you claim it is God's standard, but
this is *your* argument I'm looking at), 

>An absolutist, on the other hand, believes that there is a (set of) actions
>in a situation which are *defined by God* to be right or wrong for a
>situation.  It is the responsibility of the absolutist to determine as best
>he or she can what to do.  The absolutist may do this and do what seems best
>and do the wrong thing.  There is no such "doing what I understand the love
>of Jesus doing and doing the wrong thing" for a situational ethicist.

Collis, here you are either inconsistent or unfair:  For the Christian
situation ethicist, "the love of Jesus" is just as absolute a standard
(because it is defined by the life and teachings and sacrifice of Jesus)
as the set of actions that you claim are defined by God.

AND, you admit that "it is the responsibility of the absolutist to determine
AS BEST HE OR SHE CAN what to do!"  Yet you have just *criticized* the
situationalist for doing the same thing -- "the standard is their perception of
what this means."

>You see, humans are limited.  None of us has all the information needed to
>truly determine what "the love of Jesus"

-- *or* the "standards defined by God!"

>would have us to do.  The "love
>of Jesus" is extremely vague.  Each person, by necessity, defines it for
>himself or herself.

God's will -- even as revealed in the Bible -- is not clear in every case and
is interpreted very differently by many different Christians.  There is not
even consensus among Bible scholars -- must less total agreement!

>The summary given in a previous note is quite explicit.  Even if it means
>disobeying God, the situational ethicist chooses what he/she thinks it
>means to follow an abstract (ill-defined) principle such as "the love
>of Jesus".
 
Aren't you also saying that even if it is cruel and unloving, the absolutist
chooses what he/she *believes* (whether rightly or wrongly) is God's will as
revealed in the Bible?

Nancy

Re:  35.198

  >I may make the wrong decision or may not be able to carry out the 
  >"good that I would."  Did you think that situation ethics removes 
  >the possibility of failure or removes moral responsibility?

It does not remove moral responsibility.  It does, as I understand it, remove
the possibility of doing the "loving" thing as the individual understands
it and having that be the wrong thing to do.

    >>...s/he might also choose to clearly disobey an absolute command of God 
    >>because the command does not fit into his/her perception of what "the 
    >>love of Jesus" 

  >The situation ethicist *does not accept the concept* of "an absolute 
  >command of God!"

That's true and not true.  Many seem to accept the command "to love your
neighbor as yourself" as an "absolute" command.  But let's just take out
the word "absolute" and say that they choose to clearly disobey a command
of God because the command does not fit into his/her perception of what
"the love of Jesus" is.  (An interesting question, "When is a command
not an absolute command?")  Do you believe that God has given commands
to his people?

     >>A second point.  Who decides what is the "loving" thing to do?  In other
     >>words, who is the ultimate determiner of what is moral?  Is it the
     >>individual?  Or is it God?

  >Collis, who decides that the Bible *really says* about God's will and God's
  >demands?  

The point I was making was that, in situational ethics, the individual
decides the right ("loving") thing to do.  Using an absolute standard, God
(who sets the standard) decides what the right thing to do is.

I was not trying to focus on how an individual comes to a conclusion in
a particular instance of what is right.  Rather, I was trying to point out
that the individual in one instance relies on himself/herself as the
"code setter" and, in the other instance, relies on God.

     >>The usual response I have heard is that if the individual uses his/her 
     >>best judgment and does what s/he believes is >the "loving" thing to 
     >>do, then what was done is acceptable or "moral".

  >That does not mean it is sinless or perfect.  

I agree.  I believe that what you are espousing here is invalid from a
situational ethicist perspective.

How could something be "sinful" if the person did the best (i.e. most
loving) thing they could do in a situation?  It they used all their
resources to come to the very best solution they could implement?

It can *only* be sinful if there is a standard that they did not live
up to.  How is that standard defined?  Who defines it?  The individual,
in the above scenario, could not have defined it since the person lived up
to his/her own definition and was still found lacking.  Therefore, the
standard is being defined by someone else.

Is it another individual who defines the standard?  Is it God?  Who
is it?  This is what needs to be determined.

Absolute standards do *not* mean that there is no flexibility about
what to do in a given circumstance.  It *does* mean that what is wrong
is always wrong regardless of the circumstance.  And that there are ways
of doing what is right (even when it hurts people, at times.)  

Absolute standards all mean that that "the ends NEVER justify the means".  
The means through which something is accomplished MUST be moral (i.e.
live up to the absolute standard).  

Situational ethics takes a differing approach.  It says that what is
"right" or "wrong" is dependent on the circumstance.  Why is it dependent
on the circumstance?  Think about this.  The reason it is dependent on
the circumstance is because DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES produce DIFFERENT
RESULTS.  In other words, this is a round-about way of saying that
the ends DO justify the means.

     >>do you think that there IS a "standard" by which you can be judged.

  >Yes, the standard of Love, which, in my understanding of the Bible,
  >*is* God's will.

Please define (as explicitly as possible) the "standard of Love".

I'll give you my response up front.  

If you *are* able to define this standard explicitly, then it means that 
you DO have absolute standards.

If you are *not* able to define this standard explicitly, then it means
that there really is no "standard", just your idea of what love is and
you are "defining" the standard for yourself, just as a situational
ethicist does.

  >You can't find a more absolute (or difficult) standard than Love.  I try to
base my actions in any given situation on "my understanding of love", and you
try to base your actions in any situation on your understanding of God's
absolute will.  Are we really so different, Collis?

Nancy, it is not clear at all to me that you really are a situational
ethicist.  I really don't think it is clear to you, either.  The questions
are, "do the ends justify the means?" and "is the standard of love
well-defined by someone other than myself?".  If it is, then realize
that SOMEONE ELSE has defined AN ABSOLUTE STANDARD which you are
responsible for.  This is *NOT* situational ethics.

Hope this helps.

Collis

Re:  35.199

  >You omitted one very important difference among situation ethicists -- 
  >because they are *different persons* the *situations* are NOT the same - 

This is true.

  >Your standard is not really what *God* has defined as right; your standard 
  >is really *your understanding* of what God has defined as right -- in 
  >other words, *your perception of what this means.*

What do you mean by "my standard"?  You are correct in saying that my
understanding of what is right/wrong are not entirely correct.  But that's
not the issue.  The issue is whether or not there *is* a standard of
what is right/wrong.

  >Situation ethics would say that you cannot arbitrarily lock in the 
  >definition that way!

Situational ethics says much more than that.  Situational ethics says that
there is no external standard that you can be held accountable to.  The
"love of Jesus" is defined by the individual and, if the individual does
what the "love of Jesus" would do, then the individual has done the right
thing.  This is the problem with situational ethics.  It bases the standard
(ultimately) on the individual rather than God.

I *agree* with you that it is not always clear what to do in a situation.
What I do *not* agree with you is that some actions are *sometimes* right
which God has explicitly declared wrong.  Adultery, for example, is
clearly by the Bible's definition *always* a sin against God.  Even if
some positive comes out of it ("the ends justify the means"), it was
still wrong ("a sin is a sin is a sin").  

  >Collis, here you are either inconsistent or unfair:  For the Christian
  >situation ethicist, "the love of Jesus" is just as absolute a standard
  >(because it is defined by the life and teachings and sacrifice of Jesus)
  >as the set of actions that you claim are defined by God.

Perhaps, but I think not.  I do not want to be unfair.  But I also
believe that you are not a true situational ethicist.  You claim to have
an "absolute standard" which is externally defined.  A situational ethicist 
does NOT have an absolute standard which is externally defined.

You say that the standard of Jesus is "defined by the life and teachings
and sacrifice of Jesus".  Is it really?  Is Jesus' response to a situation
what the standard really is?  And if Jesus believes that adultery is
always wrong (as he assumed in his teachings), does this make adultery
always wrong?  Or can the "ends justify the means"?

Again, situational ethicists do not have absolute standards externally
defined.  While they often claim to have a standard such as "the love
of Jesus", this standard is either

  - ill-defined so that "love" can mean most anything
  - defined ultimately by the individual, not God
  - essentially "the ends as I see justifies the means" put in other terms

One thing I don't understand is how you can believe in a pure, holy,
just God who practices the principle of "the ends justifies the means".
Maybe you don't believe that God uses this principle.  But if he doesn't,
then the only alternative I see is that God uses this principle that
some things are always right and some things are always wrong.  What
other principles are there that can't ultimately come down to one of
these two?  I'm not aware of any.  I don't believe there can be any
others.  Any other principle *can be reduced* to following one of the
two principles stated above.  And the "ends justifies the means" is
contrary to Biblical teaching.  And what situational ethics teaches
(although usually at a very high level which needs to be broken down
quite a bit before the ultimate principle is clearly revealed).

  >AND, you admit that "it is the responsibility of the absolutist to 
  >determine AS BEST HE OR SHE CAN what to do!"  Yet you have just 
  >*criticized* the situationalist for doing the same thing -- "the standard 
  >is their perception of what this means."

The problem is, "what is the standard".  The absolutist is responsible
for doing the best he or she can, but is judged for doing what is right.
The situationalist ultimate standard is himself/herself.

  >God's will -- even as revealed in the Bible -- is not clear in every case 
  >and is interpreted very differently by many different Christians.  There 
  >is not even consensus among Bible scholars -- must less total agreement!

But, the point is, a standard exists.

>The summary given in a previous note is quite explicit.  Even if it means
>disobeying God, the situational ethicist chooses what he/she thinks it
>means to follow an abstract (ill-defined) principle such as "the love
>of Jesus".
 
  >Aren't you also saying that even if it is cruel and unloving, the 
  >absolutist chooses what he/she *believes* (whether rightly or wrongly) 
  >is God's will as revealed in the Bible?

Of course individuals (hopefully do) choose to follow their understanding
of the absolute standard.  However, this in no way determines what the
standard is or how they will be judged by the standard.  That is
determined by God alone.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    I believe your definition and understanding of situation ethics are
    incorrect and I believe I have shown that in other notes.  I also
    believe that you apply *different* logical arguments to your view and
    to the situation ethics point of view.
    
    I truly believe I have already answered all your questions and
    objections -- including defining situation ethics *at your request* but
    apparently *not* to your satisfaction!  You still say my definition is
    wrong and that I am not a true situation ethicist.  
    
    You may be correct; perhaps my definition is wrong or incomplete or
    whatever.  But you *asked* for a definition, so I thought it was fair
    to discuss based on the definition I provided.  However, you are
    rejecting that definition, so I see nothing more to be examined.  
    
    If time permits and others are interested, I will try to enter summaries 
    of some of Fletcher's other chapters.
    
    Nancy

You misunderstand me, Nancy.

I accept Fletcher's definition completely.  I have no problem with that.
In your explanations, you depart (in my view) from what Fletcher says.

Collis

Re:  35.146

  >...and he treats them with respect as illuminators of his problems.  

They are infallible guides, they are illiminators only.  In other words,
there is *no* external guideline.  The person himself/herself is the
ultimate authority on what is right/wrong.

  >Just the same he is prepared in any sitatuion to compromise them or set them
  >aside *in the situation* if love seems better served by doing so.

Again, the ultimate authority is the individual.

  >"Situation ethics goes part of the way with natural law, by accepting
  >reason as the instrument of moral judgment, while rejecting the
  >notion that the good is 'given' in the nature of things, objectively. 

Reason is the instrument of moral judgment.  The reason of the
individual.  Again, it is the individual who defines right/wrong.

  >while rejecting all 'revealed' norms or laws but the one command -- 
  >to love God in the neighbor.  

It rejects 'revealed' norms, that is absolute standards.  It accepts
one command which the individual himself/herself is the ultimate judge
of.

  >The situationist follows a moral law or violates it according to love's 
  >need.

Again, who defines love?  The situationist.

  >The situationist never says, 'Almsgiving is a good thing. Period!'  
  >His decisions are hypothetical, not categorical.  Only the commandment to 
  >love is categorically good.  

The entire focus is on the individual and his/her judgments.

There is *nothing* in the entire definition here which even suggests
that anyone other than the individual is the ultimate authority.  *THIS*,
in my opinion, is a true differentiating factor between situational
ethics and absolute right/wrong.

Do you agree, Nancy, that this is a proper understanding of this
definition?  Or is there something I missed here?

Collis

    Nancy, I would be interesting in seeing more summaries from Fletcher's
    work (if you have the time, of course).
    
    -- Mike

    From "Situation Ethics" by Joseph Fletcher:
    
		FOUR WORKING PRINCIPLES: 1 and 2

1.  Pragmatism
--------------
In the first place, this book is consiously inspired by American _pragmatism_.
....For our purposes here, let's just say that the pragmatic method is a
legitimate tool of ethics....James said, "The true, to put it briefly is only
the expedient in the way of our behaving." (This is the same temper and the
very term Paul uses in I Cor. 6:12, when he says anything could be "lawful"
but only if it is "expedient," i.e., constructive or upbuilding.)....

We must realize, however, that pragmatism, as such, is no self-contained world
view.  It is a method, precisely.  It is not a substantive faith, and properly
represented it never pretends to be. Pragmatism of itself yields none of the
norms we need to measure or verify the very success that pragmatism calls for!
To be correct or right a thing -- a thought or an action -- must _work_.  Yes.
But work to what end, for what purpose, to satisfy what standard or ideal or
norm?  Like any other method, pragmatism as such is utterly without any way of
answering this question.  yet this is the decisive question....

Christianly speaking, as we shall see, the norm or measure by which any thought
or action is to be judged a success or failure, i.e., right or wrong, is
_love_.  What "love" is can wait for later and longer discussion, but here and
now let it be clear that the situationist, whether a Christian or not, follows
a strategy that is pragmatic.

2.  Relativism
--------------
[Our method] is _relativistic_.  As the strategy is pragmatic, the tactics are
relativistic.... The situationist avoids words like "never" and "perfect" and
"always" and "complete" as he avoids the pague, as he avoids "absolutely."
....

To be relative, of course, means to be relative _to_ something.... There must
be an absolute or norm of some kind if there is to be any true relativity.
This is the central fact in the normative relativism of a situation ethic....
In _Christian_ situationism the ultimate criterion is, as we shall be seeing,
"agapeic love." ....

Only love is a constant; everything else is a variable.  The shift to
relativism carries contemporary Christians away from code ethics, away from
stern ironbound do's and don'ts, away from prescribed conduct and legalistic
morality.

The Pharisee's kind of ethics, Torah, is now suffering a second eclipse, a far
more radical one than it endured under Jesus' and Paul's attacks.... "The truth
of ethical relativism," says Paul Tillich, " lies in the moral laws' inability
to give commandments which are unambiguous both in their general form and in
their concrete applications.  Every moral law is abstract in relation to the
unique and totally concrete situation.  This is true of what has been called
natural law and of what has been called revealed law."

Contemporary Christians should not underestimate this relativism.... Christian
ethics was drawn into it long ago when Jesus attacked the Pharisees' principle
of statutory morality, and by Paul's rebellious appeal to grace and freedom.
Even earlier, the Biblical doctrine of man as only a finite creature of
imperfect powers and perceptions was voiced in...Isa. 55:8:  "For my thoughts
are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord."  This
concept of human creatureliness at the very heart of Christian ethics cries,
"Relativity!" in the face of all smug pretensions to truth and righteousness.
Christians cannot go to trying to "lay down the law" theologically, about
either creed or code.

    From "Situation Ethics" by Joseph Fletcher:
    
		FOUR WORKING PRINCIPLES:  3 and 4

3.  Positivism
--------------
A third presupposition is "positivism."....theological positivism....two ways
to approach "religious knowledge" or belief.... One is theological
_naturalism_, in which reason adduces or deduces faith propositions from human
experience and natural phenomena....Th eother approach is theological
_positivism__ (or "positive theology"), in which faith propositions are
"posited" or affirmed voluntaristically rather than rationalistically....
outside reason but not against it.... Thus Christian ethics "posits" faith in
God and _reasons_ out what obedience to his commandment to love requires in any
situation....

Any moral or value judgment in ethics, like a theologian's faith proposition,
is a _decision_ -- not a conclusion.  It is a choice, not a result reached by
force of logic, Q.E.D.  The hedonist cannpt "prove" that pleasure is the
highest good, any more than the Christian cna "prove" his faith that _love_ is!
....Reason can note facts and infer relations, but it cannot find values
(goodness).,,,

Ethical decisions seek justification, whereas cognitive conclusions seek
verification.  We cannot verify moral choices.  They may be vindicated, but not
validated....

...the key category of love (agape) as the axiomatic value is established by
_deciding_ to say, "Yea" to the faith assertion that "god is love" and thence
by logic's inference to the value assertion that love is the highest good....

*_The faith comes first_*.  The Johannine proposition (I John 4:7-12) is not
that God is _love_ but that _God_ is love!  The Christian does not understand
God in terms of love; he understands love in terms of God as seen in Christ.
"We love, because he first loved us."  This obviously is a faith foundation for
love.  Paul's phrase (Gal. 5:6), "faith working through love," is the essence
and pith of Christian ethics....


4.  Personalism
---------------
Ethics deals with human relations.  Situation ethics puts people at the center
of concern, not things.  Obligation is to persons, not to things; to subjects,
not objects.  The legalist is a _what_ asker (What does the law say?); the
situationst is a _who_ asker (Who is to be helped?)  The is, situationists are
_personalistic_....

In _Christian_ situation ethics, ther eis also a theological side to
personalism, since God is "personal" and has created men in his own image....
Personality is _therefore_ the first-order concern in ethical choices....Things
are to be used; people are to be loved.  It is "immoral" when people are used
and things are loved.  Loving actions are the _only_ conduct permissable.

The Christian situationist says to the non-Christian situationist who is also
neighbor -- or person -- concernced:  "_Your_ love is like mine, like
everygody;s; it is the Holy Spirit.  Love is not the work of the Holy Spirit,
it _is_ the Holy Spitis -- working in us.  God _is_ love, he doesn't merely
_have_ it or _give_ it; he gives homeself -- to all men, to all sorts and
conditions:  to believers and unbelievers...."

This is what is meant by "uncovenanted" grace.  This is the "saving" truth
about themselves which the faithless, alas, do not grasp!  It is not the
unbelieving who invite "damnation" but the unloving...."

If we put these working principles together..., their shape is abviously one of
action, _ex_istence, eventfulness.  The situation ethic, unlike some other
kidns, is an ethic of _decision_ -- of _making_ decisions rather than "looking
them up" in a manual of prefab rules.

    Thanks for posting that, Nancy.

    I am interested in his use of the term "theological positivism", which
    I would normally have considered an oxymoron.  He makes the point that
    morality is a decision rather than a conclusion, and, more importantly,
    that reason cannot find values.  I find this interesting because this
    is the *opposite* of what I usually associate with the positivist
    outlook.  Certainly August Comte, the nineteenth century positivist
    sociologist, seemed to argue the opposite point, as do those who I
    (perhaps mistakenly) perceive to be his twentieth century heirs in the
    "objectivist" camp.

    His point that "cognitive conclusions seek verification" is definitely
    the outlook of logical positivism.  In fact, A.J. Ayer defined the
    Verification Principle, which distinguished between what logical
    positivism considered to be sense from nonsense, in precisely those
    terms.  Metaphysics, according to logical positivism, was nonsense. 
    The Verification Criterion was defined by the words "the meaning of a
    term is its method of verification."

    One difficulty with logical positivism was that it was that it did not
    seem to be a very useful or tenable philosophy of science.  Many
    critics might have pointed out that the Verification Principle was
    itself a metaphysical tenet and thus violated itself.  In any case, I
    am inclined to agree with Fletcher that "we cannot verify moral
    choices."  This is the problem with sociological positivism, which
    seems to argue that all we have to do is "reason" our way to the proper
    answers to society's problems.

    I am also interested in Fletcher's comment that emphasizes love in
    terms of God.  This reminds me of the comments of John A. T. Robinson
    in his book "Honest to God":

        It is not enough to say that 'religion is about human fellowship
        and community', any more than one can simply reverse the Biblical
        statement and say that 'love *is* God'.  And that, significantly,
        is what Feuerbach thought St John should have said.  But it is what
        the Apostle rather carefully refuses to do.  He is clear that
        *apart from* the relationship of love there is no knowledge of God:
        'He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.'  And
        conversely: 'He who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in
        him.'  But the premise of this last sentence is not, as we might
        logically expect, 'Love is God', but 'God is love'.  The most he
        will say the other way round is that 'love is *of* God'.  It is ek
        theou: it has God as its source and ground.  For it is precisely
        his thesis that our convictions about love and its ultimacy are not
        projections from human love; rather, our sense of the sacredness of
        love derives from the fact that in this relationship as nowhere
        else there is disclosed and laid bare the divine Ground of all our
        being....

        To assert that '*God* is love' is to believe that in love one comes
        into touch with the most fundamental reality in the universe, that
        Being itself ultimately has this character.

    Robinson's book, which was published in 1963, also includes a chapter
    titled "'The New Morality'", in which he cites and discusses in detail
    Joseph Fletcher's 1959 article in the Harvard Divinity Bulletin, 'The
    New Look in Christian Ethics'.

    -- Mike

    re: .208
    
    Mike,
    
    I'll print out your note and try to research a bit more on what
    Fletcher has to say about theological positivism -- if there is
    anything more that would help.  
    
    It may take a couple of days! :)
    
    And I think Fletcher refers to Robinson's writings, at least in the
    beginning parts of his book or the frontspiece or somewhere. :-)
    (Sorry, Mike, I think my "scholarly" days are in the distant past!)
    Fletcher sees his book as explaining more about the "new morality."
    
    I'd  like to fill in the gap in my own education as to how those
    theological writings of the 60's -- that shocked so many, BTW --
    have evolved into today's thinking.  
    
    Nancy

    Nancy .209,
    
    > I'd like to fill in the gap in my own education as to how those
    > theological writings of the 60's -- that shocked so many, BTW -- 
    > have evolved into today's thinking.
    
    This statement really nudges my curiousity Nancy.  I would like to
    understand more about this evolution of theological thought as well.  
    Perhaps we could start a new topic on it.  Hmmm....        
    
    Karen

    Nancy,

    I began to think some more about the term "theological positivism"
    after I posted my note.  I began to wonder if what Fletcher meant by
    that was that *because* morality is a "decision rather than a
    conclusion" (which I am inclined to agree with), situation ethics is
    consistent with the view of logical positivism that morality, as a
    "metaphysical" concept, is irrelevant to empirical inquiry.  In that
    sense, then, perhaps he is agreeing with logical positivism about the
    non-empirical nature of a metaphysical concept like morality, but
    disagreeing over the conclusion--specifically, he may be arguing that
    morality is *not* a nonsensical concept simply because it falls outside
    the realm of empirical discourse.

    I am just speculating, though, and perhaps that isn't what Fletcher
    really means. 

    -- Mike

From "Situation Ethics" by Joseph Fletcher:

				CONSCIENCE 

Situation ethics is interested in conscience (moral consciousness) as a
function, not as a faculty....

The traditional error likes in thinking about conscience as a noun instead of
as a verb.  The reflects the fixity and establishment-mindedness of law ethics
as contrasted to love ethics.  There _is_ no conscience; "conscience" is merely
a word for out attempts to make decisions creatively, constructively,
fittingly....

...[Situation ethics] deals with cases in all their contextual particularity,
deferring in fear and trembling only to the rule of love.  Situation ethics
keeps principles sternly in their place, in the role of advisers without veto
power!

Only one "general" proposition is prescribed, namely the commandment to love
God through the neighbor.  "God does not will to draw any love exclusively to
Himself; He wills that we should love Him 'in our neighbor.'" [from Bunner, The
Divine Imperative]  And this commandment is ... a normative ideal; it is _not_
an operational directive.  All else, all other generalities (e.g., "One should
tell the truth" and "One should respect life") are at most only _maxims_, never
rules.  For the situationist there are no rules -- none at all.

    
    Still back on .118 (Fleischer) at this reading, however just wanted to
    reply to that one...
    
    
        hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
         
    Cindy

    
    My paraphrases are in []
    --Nancy
    
    
1.  Love Only Is Always Good

    The First Proposition: "Only one 'thing' is intrinsically good; namely,
			    love: nothing else at all."

"The rock-bottom issue in all ethics is 'value.' ... Is the good or evil of a
thing, and the right or wrong of an action, intrinsic or extrinsic?

"The medieval realist-nominalist debate, in part carried on around this basic
question of ethical understanding, is by no means merely archaic or an outwork
argument."

[This debate asks whether something is "good" because God considers it to be
good (nominalist view) or whether God considers something good because it
really *is* good (realist view).]

"God finds 'valuable' whatever suits his (love's) needs and purposes.
Situation ethics, at the level of human value judgments, is likewise
nominalistic.

"...Martin Buber... says that 'value is always value for a person rather than
something with an absolute, independent existence.'.... Edgar Brightman argued
that 'in personality is the only true intrinsic value we know or could
conceive; all values are but forms of personal experience.'  There _are_ no
'values' at all; there are only things (material and nonmaterial) which
_happen_ to be valued by persons.  This is the personalist view....

[Value is extrinsic:]
---------------------
"...in Christian situation ethics nothing is worth anything in and of itself.
It gains or acquires its value only because it happens to help persons (thus
being good) or to hurt persons (thus being bad).  The person who is 'finding'
the value may be either divine (God willing the good) or human (a [person]
valuing something).  Persons -- God, self, neighbor -- are both the subjects
and the objects of value; _they_ determine it to be value, and they determine
to be value for some person's sake.  It is a value because somebody decided it
was worth something.... There is no other way to set value but by price, even
though _money_ is not always the truest measure.  Good and evil are extrinsic
to the thing or the action.  It all depends on the situation.

[Is it right to lend cash to one whose children are hungry?  Is it right to do
so if the parent is an alcoholic who is more likely to spend the loaned money
on liquor than on good?  Is it wrong to take possessions away against the
owner's will?  What about taxation?  What about taking a gun away from a
homicidal maniac? Is it right to steal bread rather than to starve to death?]

"'... life is of more value than property and should be chosen first for
preservation if both cannot be preserved together.  The rightness of an act,
then, nearly always and perhaps always, depends on the way in which the act is
related to circumstances; this is what is meant by calling it relatively right;
but this does not in the least imply that it is doubtfully right.  It may be,
in those circumstances, certainly and absolutely right.' (Temple)

[Love is a predicate, not a property; we love but only God _is_ love.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"... _Value, worth, ethical quality, goodness or badness, right or wrong --
these things are only predicates, they are not properties._ They are not
'given' or objectively 'real' or self-existent.  There is only one thing that
is always good and right, intrinsically good regardless of the context, and
that one thing is love.  Yet we should not, perhaps, call love a 'thing.'
.... It is a principle, a 'formal' principle, expressing what type of real
actions Christians are to call good.... It is the _only_ principle that always
obliges us in conscience.... love alone when well served is always good and
right in every situation.  Love is the only universal.  But love is not
something we _have_ or _are,_ it is something we _do_....

"...What we mean is that whatever is loving in any _particular_ situation is
good!  Love is a way of relating to persons, and of using things.... It is for
the sake of people and it is not a good-in-itself.... It is not a virtue...; it
is the one and only _regulative principle_ of Christian ethics....

"...if love is to be understood situationally, as a predicate rather than a
property, what we must understand is that Jesus' going to the cross was _his_
role and _his_ vocation in _his_ situation with _his_ obligation as the Son of
God.... Love does not say to us, '_Be_ like me.'  It says, '_Do_ what you can
where you are.'

"...Said Luther: 'Therefore, when the law impels one against love, it ceases
and should _no longer be a law_; but where no obstacle is in the way, the
keeping of the law is a proof of love, which lies hidden in the heart.
Therefore you have need of the law, that love may be manifested; but if it
cannot be kept without injury to the neighbor, God wants us to suspend and
ignore the law.'

"Only in the divine being, only in God, is love substantive.  With men it is a
formal principle, a predicate.  Only with God is it a property. [We love but
God _is_ love.]...

[What, then is evil?]
---------------------
"...The other side of the proposition that only love is intrinsically good,
is... that only malice is intrinsically evil.  If goodwill is the only thing we
are always obliged to do, then ill will is the only thing we are always
forbidden to do....

"...Indeed, in any careful analysis it must be made quite clear that actually
the true opposite of love is not hate but indifference.  Hate, bad as it is, at
least treats the neighbor as a _thou_, whereas indifference turns the neighbor
into an _it_, a thing.  This is why we may say that there is actually one thing
worse than evil itself, and that is indifference to evil...

"[Intrinsic ethics, on the other hand, speaks of choosing lesser of two evils
and being forgiven.  Fletcher says this is theological/ethical nonsense, an
obvious contradiction.]  Because its starting point is an ontological rather
than existential conception of right and wrong, it is compelled ... to divorce
what is right from what is good.  It even opposes them to each other!....

"If a lie is told unlovingly it is wrong, evil; if it is told in love it is
good, right.  Kant's legalism produced a 'universal' -- that a lie is always
wrong.  But what if you have to tell a lie to keep a promised secret?  Maybe
you lie, and if so, good for you if you follow love's lead.  Paul's 'speaking
the truth in love' (Eph. 4:15) illuminates the point: we are to tell the truth
for love's sake, not for its own sake.... _The situationist holds that whatever
is the most loving thing in the situation is the right and good thing._ It is
not excusably evil, it is positively good.  This is the fundamental point of
the extrinsic position.

[Christian legalists hold to _intrinsic_ value and have problems:]
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The instrinsicalists, i.e., the legalists, have always dominated Christian
ethics....

"For the classical moralists... suicide and lying are always wrong regardless
of circumstances and relativities, even though loving concern might excuse such
actions in the situation.  Faced with the shocking possibility that law may
have to condemn what love has done, the priests and preachers have worked out
a false kind of casuistry.... Having set out laws based on ethical absolutes
and universals, love compels them to make more and more rules with which to
break the rules.  This is the ridiculous result when law ethics (as in the
Christian tradition) tried to keep control, yet wants also to pay homage to
love.  It can't eat its cake and have it too.

"But it is all wrong at the very start; The intrinsic theory of goodness is ...
the basic mistake of the legalists.  No law or principle or value is good as
such -- not life or truth or chastity or property or marriage or anything but
love.  _Only one thing is intrinsically good, namely, love: nothing else at
all_.

2.  Love Is the Only Norm

    The Second Proposition: "The ruling norm of Christian decision is
		             love: nothing else."

"Christian situation ethics reduces law from a statutory system of reules to
the love canon alone.  For this reason, Jesus was ready without hesitation to
ignore the obligations of Sabbath observance, to do forbidden work on the
seventh day... (Mark 2:27-28) In exactly the same way Paul could eat his food
kosher or not, simply depending on whether in any situation it is edifying
(upbuilding) for others (I Cor. 10:23-26)


"Love Replaces Law
------------------
"Jesus and Paul replaced the precepts of Torach with the living principle of
_agape_ -- _agape_ being _goodwill at work in partnership with reason_.  It
seeks the neighbor;s best interest with a careful eye to all the factors in the
situation.  They redeemed law from the letter that kills and brought it back to
the spirit that gives it life.  And to do this, law and general rules always
have to be redefined back from legalistic prescriptions and from rabbinical
pilpul to the heart principle of love.  This was indeed a collision between two
ways of being good, as far as Pharisaism and Jesus were concerned.... We follow
law, _if at all_, for love's sake; we do not follow love for law's sake.

"...Literalizers or fundamentalists take these phrases [Matt. 5:17-20 and Luke
16:17 about not a dot or tittle passing from the law] ... as a law requiring
the law!.... The love commandment (the Shema of Deut. 6:4-5 combined with Lev.
19:18, in Mark 12:29-32, etc.) is, so runs the argument, Jesus' summary of the
_law_!

"But here lies the issue.  Is the Summary to be taken as a compedium or as a
distillation?  Legalists take it as a compendium, as a collection and
conflation of many laws.... Situationists, however, take it to mean a
distillation, i.e., that the essential spirit and ethos of many laws has been
distilled or liberated, extracted, filtered out, with the legal husks, or
rubbish, thrown away as dross.

"Let's look at the Ten commandments...


"Tablets of Stone"
-----------------
1.  "The first one is: 'I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods
before [but?] me.'  This causes situation ethics no difficulty.... It is a
tautology, not a true commandment.... It only says ... that if you have faith
in one God, you won't have faith in any other!...

2.  "As to the second prohibition, 'You shall not make for yourself a graven
image...of anything,' if it is taken to be a prohibition of idolatry, love
might technically, i.e., in a false way, violate it as it might violate the
first prohibition [by _pretending_ to worship some other god in order to save
someone's life is soft of his example]....

3.  "'You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,' presents
exegetical problems but no ethical difficulty.  Does it mean we must not take
solemn oaths?  If so, we all rightly violate it in court.... If it merely
prohibits using the divine name for magical purposes or false oath-taking or
irreverent expletives (swearing in that sense), we ought to obey it _unless
some real good can be gained by violating it_....

4.   "'Remember the sabbath day....In it you shall do no work,' is of course
completely overthrown by Christians who make Sunday, the first day of the week,
the Lord's Day, rather than the Old Testament's Sabbath, or seventh day,
Saturday.... [and] few even pretend to obey this prohibition of Sunday work.

6-10.   "The last six of the commandments, for filial piety (honor your
parents), and against killing (or is it murder?), adultery, stealing, false
witness, and covetousness, are more 'ethical' in the ordinary nontheological
use of the word.  All but the fifth (Honor your father and mother) are
universal negatives.  But situation ethics has good reason to hold it as a
_duty_ in some situations to break them, _any or all of them_. We would be
better advised and better off to drop the legalist's love of law, and accept
only the law of love.

"...to denounce 'murder' is a very question-begging universal negative.  It
really means 'immoral killing is immoral.'  It begs the whole question whether
killing is ever possibly right.... The Sixth Commanment of Moses is rendered as
'Thou shalt not kill,' but obviously the Jews killed for food, punishment, and
war.  It should be, 'Thou shalt do no murder' -- i.e., _unlawful_ killing....

"A situationist might or might not agree on particular exceptions like capital
punishment, but he would be sure to protest that, in principle, even killing
'innocent' people might be right.  Mother Maria, for example, who killed
herself [by taking the place of someone else in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp].
[What about Hitler?  What about a] man caught hopelessly in the burning
wreckage of a plane, who begged to be shot?

"Neither Nature nor Scripture"
------------------------------
"Every religious legalism, whether of the Catholic natural law variety or of
the Protestant Scriptural law variety, is sooner or later repudiated.  It is
overcome by the spirit of Paul's insistence that what matters is not what is
lawful but what is upbuilding.  It is sub-Christian to imagine that the
juridical order ever exactly, or even often, coincides with the moral order.

"...There are no 'universal laws' hedl by all men everywhere at all times, no
consensus of all men.  Any precepts all men can agree to are platitudes such as
'do the good and avoid the evil'...

"...Either cheap mealancholy or utter frustration will follow if we turn the
Bible into a rules book, forgetting that an editorial collection of scattered
sayings, such as the Sermon on the Mount, offers us at the most some paradigms
or suggestions.  Only the Summary of the Law is the law!...


"Love Has No Equals"
--------------------
"In its very marrow Christian ethics is a situation ethic.... [that] separates
Christian conduct from rigid creeds and rigid codes.  Some... critics... seem
to fear that by dropping codes it will drop its Christian commitment....

"Christian love is not desire.  _Agape_ is giving love -- nonreciprocal,
neighbor-regarding -- 'neighbor' meaning 'everybody,' even an enemy (Luke
6:32-35).  It is usually distinguished from friendship love (_philia_)
and romantic love (_eros_), both of which are selective and exclusive....
Erotic and philic love are emotional, but the effective principle of Christian
love is _will_, disposition; it is an _attitude_, not feeling.

"Situationists welcome the German label for this conception,
_Gesinnungs-ethik_, an attitudinal ethic rather than a legal one. 'Have this
mind among yourselves, which you have in Christin Jesus' (Phil. 2:5), and
_then_, as Augustine says, whatever you do will be right!  The mind of him whom
Bonhoeffer called 'the Man for others' is to be for others, for neighbors.
_That_ is _agape_.


"Objections
-----------
"...There are those who say situationism ignores the reality of human sin or
egocentricity, and fails to appreciate the finitude of human reason.

"People who think there was literally once a 'Fall' ... would say that law is
needed now to control us, echoing Paul's famous discourse on law in Gal. 3:19
to 4:7, especially his thesis that law acts as a custodian, judging us until
Christ comes.... But Paul proceeded to say, 'For freedom Christ _has_ set us
free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery [i.e.,
law]' (Gal. 5:1).  This might well be the slogan of Christian situation ethics.

"[As the Grand Inquisitor says in Dostoevsky's novel _The Brothers Karamazov_]
...most people do not want freedom, they want security.... Freedom is danger,
openness.  They want law, not responsibility; they want the neurotic comfort of
rules, not the spiritual open places of decision-making.  They prefer absolutes
to relativities.  The Christ, he says, must not come back to start again all of
that old business about freedom and grace and commitment and responsibility.

"...The Christian is called to be mature, to live by grace and freedom, to
_respond_ to live, to be responsible.... The motive and purpose behind law,
however hidden it may be, is to _minimize obligation_, to make it clear exactly
how muich you must do _and no more_.  Grace... refuses to put a ceiling or a
floor on concern for the neighbor.  Love, unlike law, sets no carefully
calculated limits on obligation; it seeks the most good possible ine very
situation.  It maximizes or optimizes obligation.

"...If Brunner is right, as quoted earlier, that people regard legalism as the
most 'serious' morality, the point of view of this book is that it is not
anything of the sort; that in truth it only too often evades the depth,
competence, and responsibility of free decision.

"Absolute negatives and absolute affirmatives alike have this neurotic
character of falsifying complex realities.... Classical pacifism is an example;
it holds the use of violence to be always wrong regardless of the situation.
This is a legalism, even though many pacifists would be unhappy to think of it
as such.  The subtlety here is this: the pacifist knows that if, as in the
'just war' doctrine, it is possible that some wars are just and some are not,
the pacifist with his absolute prohibition is bound to be ethically right some
of the time, whereas the situationist could be wrong _every_ time, failing to
recongize when a war is just and trying to justify one when it is not
justifiable.  The pacifist is safe ethically in a way, as all legalists are,
whereas the siatuionist is always vulnerable to error in any decision-making
situation.

"...It is true that all of us are limited in how much we know about things, and
how competent we are to evaluate even what little we know or think we know.
This is very plainly the case in foreign affairs.  But the average person...
needs only to contribute his opinions to the democratic control of foreign
policy (if it can be done anymore).

"But in his more immediate situation he must make his own decisions, and
should.... We are always free and often well advised to call in expert and
professional advice _if we choose_ to call upon it.  But if law cuts down our
range of free initiative and personal responsibility, by doing our thinking for
us, we are so much the less for it as persons.  Law easily undermines political
freedom (democracy) and personal freedom (grace)....

"If it is supposed that [situationism] is too open to a consious or unconscious
rationalizing of selfish and evasive motives, we need only to remember that
self-deceit and excuse-making can exploit _law_ too for its own purposes, often
as eaily as it uses freedom.  Our real motives can hide as effectively behind
rules as behind free contextual choices.  Law is a common camouflage, and makes
a much better disguise.  It is harder to hide double-dealing when you have no
protective cover of law.  Being legally right may mean nothing at all morally,
as any acquaintance with money lenders and technical virigins will show.

"...[Love] will not share its authority with any other laws, either natural or
supernatural.  Love is even capable of desecrating the Holy of Holies, the very
tabernacle of the altar, if human hunger cries for help... Matt. 12:1-8 (and
parallels Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5) left no doubt about Jesus' willingness to
follow the radical decisions of love.... At least the _Christ_ of the Christian
ethic leaves no doubt whatsoever that _the ruling norm of Christian decision is
love: nothing else_.
    

    Sorry for the typos.  I used spell check on Prop. 1, but not on Prop.
    2, and it shows!
    
    Interest comments in .216 on pacifism as a form or legalism.
    
    If these two propositions generate discussion, I will then enter more.
    (He has 6 in all.)
    
    Nancy

    Nancy, I finally had a chance to read through your most recent excerpts
    and commentary.  Since pacifism is a topic of particular interest to
    me, I would like to comment on what Fletcher said on that topic.

    I tend to agree that absolute pacifism is inconsistent with situation
    ethics.  My own view is that the question of violence must be
    determined with a view towards universal love.  Is violence ever
    consistent with a belief in universal love?  In an article published in
    _Friends_Journal_ last year, one Quaker writer argued that there are
    times when violence is a necessary outcome of love.  This view was
    controversial, and not accepted by all Quakers, but his point was that
    the determining principle *should* be love, not the legalism of saying
    unequivocally that violence is always wrong.

    What has always disturbed me is the way that many people can dehumanize
    those who are deemed to be the necessary recipients of violence.  For
    example, they might argue that shooting a criminal in self-defense is
    justified because that criminal, through their actions, has forfeited
    their right to be considered human.  That is hardly a very loving
    attitude, and, as one who believes in "that of God in everyone", it is
    one I cannot agree with.  In fact, the argument there is primarily one
    of hate rather than love.  The Quaker writer who defended violence as
    sometimes consistent with love was offering a radically different
    position, arguing that violence and love are not mutually exclusive. 
    Right or wrong, at least he is using love as his starting point.

    I don't know to what extent I can accept that position.  Elise
    Boulding, another Quaker, argues that pacifism is actually a spectrum
    of beliefs.  She defines four categories, ranging from the
    internationalist who may support one's government in wartime, to the
    anti-war activist who may support certain specific wars as just, to the
    conscientious objector who cooperates with governments, to the
    individual who even resists legal cooperation and will go to jail and
    refuse to pay war taxes.  The word "pacifist" is so broad as to almost
    be meaningless.  The point is that one can justify violence in terms of
    love, or in terms of hate.  I prefer to use love, rather than hate, as
    the starting point for my own explorations into right and wrong.

    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    	Have you read "The Peaceable Kingdom", by Jan de Hartog?
    
    	There's a part where a Native American is being tortured.  One
    of the central characters, a Quaker woman, prevents his further torture
    and robs his tormentors of their sick pleasure by shooting him.  Under
    the circumstances, it seems like it was the most loving and compassionate
    thing to do.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Richard, I am sorry to say I haven't read "The Peaceable Kingdom".  I
    have heard many references to the book; it seems to be something of a
    Quaker classic.
    
    -- Mike

    I am also interested in Fletcher's comment on the realist versus the
    nominalist position on the goodness of God.  I had not heard of those
    terms before, but I am inclined to agree with the realist view, which
    does not view "good" as being contingent upon divine will, but which
    instead views "good" as an independent attribute characterizing the
    divine will.  While the distinction is subtle, perhaps it is also very
    important in understanding different positions on the moral validity of
    various assertions about divine mandates.

    -- Mike

    re: 221, Mike,
    
    Yes, that surprised me, too -- but his point is something I'm still
    considering.  By his definition, I was definitely a realist rather than
    a nominalist, but now I am trying to rethink it  (especially since *he*
    says "ya' gotta be a nominalist to be situationist!")  I think he's
    saying that what is "good" depends on the situation (rather than
    goodness existing as some absolute reality) -- and that *is*
    what I think I believe.  
    
    Perhaps you and I are reacting to views that seem to portray God (and
    thus the definitions of "good") as capricious? 
    
    Nancy

    Yes, Nancy, that is my initial reaction to nominalism--that it seems to
    make God out to be capricious.  Is nominalism saying that "divine might
    makes right"?  Do humans have the ability to formulate philosophically
    valid definitions of good and evil under the nominalist paradigm?  I am
    reminded of St. Anselm's description of God in his ontological
    proof--something along the lines of "that than which there is nothing
    greater".  But if God's "greatness" in the realm of morality is simply
    due to the fact that "good" is whatever happens to be the divine will,
    then it seems to me that St. Anselm's definition is a mere tautology. 
    If, on the other hand, moral "greatness" has some kind of independent
    meaning, which characterizes the divine will, then Anselm's definition
    makes some sense to me.

    To be quite honest, I'm not quite sure *what* to think about the
    nominalist position.  Perhaps some of my reaction to it has to do with
    my negative perception of what results when nominalism is combined with
    a belief in biblical inerrancy.  Then, I do tend to perceive a view of
    divine capriciousness, and a tendency to throw one's hands up and
    respond, "It's a mystery" or "Who are we to question" whenever this is
    questioned.  However, I suspect that nominalism is not as simplistic as
    my gut reaction infers.  And I must admit that there are times when
    nominalism does make sense to me, particularly if we believe that God
    is omnipotent.

    Hmmm.  Perhaps some of this debate over nominalism and realism does
    have to do with whether or not you believe in divine omnipotence and
    creation ex nihilo.  If God is not only the ultimate reality, but the
    source of everything--including morality-- then perhaps "good" has no
    independent meaning outside of God.  On the other hand, process
    theology (to cite one example) rejects a doctrine of creation ex
    nihilo, and believes that there are certain characteristics and
    relationships that describe God and the universe inherently, which
    would mean (I infer) that morality has an independently definable
    basis.

    And yet, if "divine right makes right", then how can anything, even
    love, be defined as the absolute good?  If God is not capricious, but
    is always consistently good, then aren't we really saying that "good"
    has an independently definable reality after all, with which we are
    able to describe God as being consistent?  Maybe I am oversimplifying
    the nominalist position, though.  I guess I'm not sure that I
    understand why situation ethics demands a nominalist position.  Doesn't
    Fletcher say that "the good" is defined in terms of the application of
    love to a particular situation?  If so, does that imply that, *within a
    given situation*, specific actions *can* be defined as right or wrong? 
    If so, and if love is the absolute good, then isn't "good" a definable
    concept?

    I agree with Fletcher that values are a decision rather than a
    conclusion; maybe that is the basis of his argument for a nominalist
    position.  The question is, why does the choice of values constitute a
    decision?  Is it because values transcend the boundaries of empirical
    reason?  Perhaps we make decisions about morality because we (to use
    Whitehead's term) "prehend" a greater reality within the universe.  Back
    in my logical positivist days, I tended to view such things as morality
    and love as strictly human notions that our human brain developed during
    its long evolution.  I no longer believe that--I am inclined to believe
    that love, and morality, represent some sort of greater, numinous
    reality of the universe, that we naturally developed a prehension for in
    our evolution as a species.

    This is also how I have come to the conclusion that we humans have
    formulated our concepts about God.  I believe that there is a natural,
    albeit imperfect and often dim, prehension about the numinous reality
    that includes God.  Perhaps it is because of our limitations in numinous
    prehension that we have our differences over questions of values, and
    over the nature of God.  Values are a decision, not a conclusion--but we
    may come to somewhat different decisions than others do.  Some of that
    is no doubt because many values are legitimately subjective, of course,
    but some may also be because of the blurry nature of human prehension.
    That is also perhaps why humanity has had to struggle over its history
    with its concept of God, and why this process of developing of
    understanding (as found, for example, in the Bible) has had its share of
    mistakes.

    -- Mike

                   
    I believe that talking about situation ethics gets people to think
    about things they wouldn't ordinarily think about...thus preparing them
    for *potential* similar difficult situations that they may indeed find
    themselves in.  It's much like learning where the exits on the plane
    are, just in case you have to use them to save your life.  'Tis better
    to learn their location in a safe situation vs. not having a clue where 
    they are if an accident happens.
    
    I was visiting a neighbor the other evening, and picked up their copy
    of "The Book Of Questions".  As I was flipping through it, I realized
    that I could already answer a majority of them with relative ease,
    primarily because in most instances I'd already contemplated the
    question in some form.  So for me, it wasn't all that thought-provoking.
    In fact, a lot of the questions were boring and silly.  (;^)
    
    But for those people who don't normally contemplate much beyond what
    choice of entree they're going to have during their next meal, or which
    television programs they're going to watch that evening, such books and
    questions (hence situation ethics) are a very good thing.
    
    The problem comes in when the answers are being discussed, and people
    heap judgements onto them and each other, etc.  But the original intent 
    is, I believe, a good and well-intended one.
    
    Cindy