| .8
Interesting questions, Dave. (As usual, I might add)
I know this sounds awfully simplistic to say, but I think one must, at
some point, take responsibility for one's own attitudes and actions.
We all carry *some* debris from childhood. Some carry a lot. It's
not always clear and easy to sort out or to make changes even after
it's been identified. Some deny it exists within themselves. Some
may even choose not to discard debris such as racial bigotry, but to
embrace it.
Richard
|
| Still using racial bigotry as an example, consider a white person born
and raised in the deep south, say in the early 1800's when slavery was
alive and ~well~. All this person has ever been taught would enforce
the racial bigotry, even that which was taught to him from the pulpit.
He would probably take full responsibility for his attitudes and actions,
be convinced that he was totally right, yet be totally wrong. He was
taught and believed that slaves were on par with horses. And so, in
the same sense you might regard yourself superior to a cat or dog, this
fictitious person would have seen himself to be superior to slaves.
I think we all have to take responsibility for our attitudes and
actions. But I'm not sure what's more important, the attitudea and
actions or the underlying intention given the flawed understanding we
have of matters.
How should one react to one's 5 year old child who presents you with
a piece of paper that says "I Love You Daddy"... that piece of paper
being the back of you diploma or something like that? The action in
and of itself damaging in a way. But the intention was right on.
I think we've got a responsibility to do the best we can and act in
accordance to the honest beliefs we develop along the way. And so,
the devout christian who told the little white lie could be more at
fault than the delinquent who robs a liquor store.
-dave
|
| re .8
; How to you judge the quality of "what comes out"? Can one action
; defile one person but not the next?
Dave,
Willfully practising wicked deeds defile a person irrespective of background,
or whether or not they are aware of their actions. Take for example smoking,
for many years, persons smoked in ignorance to the effects of what this
habit was having on themselves and those close to them. Today, there is a
wealth of medical literature documenting the varied health implications of
smoking. Persons have suffered (been defiled) irrespective of whether or not
they were aware of the results of their actions.
; So, who's more guilty of immoral behavior, the devout christian who was
; strictly raised a christian and taught right/wrong all his life who
; tells a little white lie and knows what he did was wrong? Or the kid
; who was raised in a high crime situation, having been "taught" by
; example what right and wrong is, who robs a liquor store? The first
; one did something wrong and knows it. The second did something which
; he thinks is wrong only if you get caught.
As I understand law, one is still guilty eventhough one might be ignorant
or coerhersed into breaking the law. But you make an important point that
often is overlooked as James 4:17 RSV reads "Whoever knows what is right
to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin."
If we break a law, then to the letter of the law we are guilty. Fortunately,
not all authorities are so strict as to not show leniency. For example, some
years back a law officer pulled me and my friends up for what you would term
as jay walking in Germany. Once he realised we were foreign and unaware that
we had comitted an offence, we were let off with a warning. However, when I
visited Kenya and during a violent storm we unknowingly parked in a wrong
location I was given an on the spot fine as soon as the storm abated.
We are all guilty of sin, that is "to miss the mark" as to perfect obedience
to God. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't take into account our weaknesses
and at times ignornance. As the apostle Paul put it in 1 Timothy 1:13 RSV
"though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I
received mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief,". For this reason
he has sent his prophets in the past to free men of ignorance to his
standards. Persons, cannot claim ignorance if they ignore those that God
has sent. Just as the state make sure that persons are educated enough to
know the more serious laws.
God is a just one, but he also excercises his justice with mercy.
Phil.
|