 |
 | 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/5/2004 6:13 PM (GMT -6) |   | In response to Meph’s questions:
1) What is your description of love?
To love someone is to be FOR them for no other reason than that you choose to be for them. In other words you are “acausally” for them. If there is a cause then you are not loving them but simply using them your own purposes – your own cause. Love is uncaused.
2) What is your description of ethics?
I agree with Bonhoeffer that there is no such thing as a “Christian Ethic” except as a denial of ethics. Ethics is fundamentally the law, which is nothing but the knowledge of good and evil.
3) What is your description of justice?
Justice is a legal term that comes from the knowledge of good and evil. When love is absent we think we want justice. But nobody really wants justice; we all want mercy. Justice will never bring us love, in fact, it will only bring us condemnation. Fortunately God’s justice, God’s “knowledge of good and evil”, IS mercy and love, unlike our own.
4) How do you feel that love is related to ethics? Are they one and the same? Are they distinct? If so, what is the distinction? What are the meeting points of both?
They are two ships passing in the night. When we are operating out of love do we need ethics? No. When we are operating out of ethics are we being loving? No. To operate out of ethics is for our action to be caused by the principles that we are seeking to adhere to and thus violates the definition of love which is uncaused.
Ethics is a set of principles and as such it is dead. Love is always an action that brings life and healing and thus it is alive. Ethics is an object. Love is a living relationship.
The only relation of ethics to love is that when we are operating out of ethics we can begin to see how really dead we are – we can begin to see how we are not operating out of love. To die to ourselves IS to die to our own notion of ethics and choose to live for, to be FOR, another.
5) What does Chris Argyris say about love?
Chris Argyris has been studying organizational behavior at Harvard for most of his life (I believe he is in his 70’s and chairs the department of organizational behavior at Harvard). He has a huge body of work on organizational dysfunction; where it comes from and how to deal with it. He is not just an academic as he also consults using this material. I have posted summaries of his basic concepts on this web-site before and would gladly do so again if you are interested in learning more. Here is a very brief synopsis:
There are two theories of behavior. A person’s espoused theory of behavior – the principles and beliefs that a person says they act out of. And a person’s actual theory-in-use – the theory of behavior that they are actually operating out of.
What you won’t be shocked to find out is that NO ONE’s espoused theory of behavior looks anything like their actual theory-in-use. This is our common experience of ourselves (those who are moderately aware) and each other. We say one thing and do another – we are double-minded.
What you probably WILL be shocked to find out is that while everyone’s espoused theory of behavior is radically different from person to person, from community to community and from culture to culture, Chris Argyris shows that everyone’s theory-in-use is the exact same the entire world over!
Chris Argyris calls this theory-in-use the world over “Model I theory-in-use”. I think it could just as well be called – “operating out of the knowledge of good and evil”.
Argyris shows how this particular theory-in-use generates corporate systemic dysfunction (evil).
Argyris has come up with a new theory-in-use that he calls “Model II theory-in-use”. He has shown how this new theory of behavior, once implemented by individuals, stops corporate dysfunction.
In my view Argyris Model II behavior could be called “dying to self and loving others”.
It works.
6) What does Chris Argyris say about JUSTICE?
Nothing. It is not about justice. It is about changing our microbehavior in every thought and action to be consistent with dying to self and loving others. THIS is the only way we get systems that support life.
7) What does Chris Argyris say about love's relationship to justice? Does he feel that they are one and the same? Does one entail the other?
There is one sure way to kill love and that is to seek justice for justice’ sake. Now, is there a “seeking of justice” for love’s sake? And if so, how is that not simply love? Moreover, if that “seeking of justice” for love’s sake means being AGAINST others then how can that really be for love’s sake? How can that be love, if love means to be FOR others? Will it not contain the seeds of its own destruction?
8) What does love look like socially applied?
It looks like one person being for another person at a cost to themselves. Rarely in big ways but rather in every little thought and action we take. It looks like Jesus, it looks like Mother Theresa, it looks like Ghandi, it looks like someone giving a glass of water to a small child.
It is like a mustard seed…
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/6/2004 4:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Beautiful.
Thank-you, Brother....
Peace & blessings,
<><
Iconoclast wrote:
quote:
In response to Meph’s questions:
1) What is your description of love?
To love someone is to be FOR them for no other reason than that you choose to be for them. In other words you are “acausally” for them. If there is a cause then you are not loving them but simply using them your own purposes – your own cause. Love is uncaused.
2) What is your description of ethics?
I agree with Bonhoeffer that there is no such thing as a “Christian Ethic” except as a denial of ethics. Ethics is fundamentally the law, which is nothing but the knowledge of good and evil.
3) What is your description of justice?
Justice is a legal term that comes from the knowledge of good and evil. When love is absent we think we want justice. But nobody really wants justice; we all want mercy. Justice will never bring us love, in fact, it will only bring us condemnation. Fortunately God’s justice, God’s “knowledge of good and evil”, IS mercy and love, unlike our own.
4) How do you feel that love is related to ethics? Are they one and the same? Are they distinct? If so, what is the distinction? What are the meeting points of both?
They are two ships passing in the night. When we are operating out of love do we need ethics? No. When we are operating out of ethics are we being loving? No. To operate out of ethics is for our action to be caused by the principles that we are seeking to adhere to and thus violates the definition of love which is uncaused.
Ethics is a set of principles and as such it is dead. Love is always an action that brings life and healing and thus it is alive. Ethics is an object. Love is a living relationship.
The only relation of ethics to love is that when we are operating out of ethics we can begin to see how really dead we are – we can begin to see how we are not operating out of love. To die to ourselves IS to die to our own notion of ethics and choose to live for, to be FOR, another.
5) What does Chris Argyris say about love?
Chris Argyris has been studying organizational behavior at Harvard for most of his life (I believe he is in his 70’s and chairs the department of organizational behavior at Harvard). He has a huge body of work on organizational dysfunction; where it comes from and how to deal with it. He is not just an academic as he also consults using this material. I have posted summaries of his basic concepts on this web-site before and would gladly do so again if you are interested in learning more. Here is a very brief synopsis:
There are two theories of behavior. A person’s espoused theory of behavior – the principles and beliefs that a person says they act out of. And a person’s actual theory-in-use – the theory of behavior that they are actually operating out of.
What you won’t be shocked to find out is that NO ONE’s espoused theory of behavior looks anything like their actual theory-in-use. This is our common experience of ourselves (those who are moderately aware) and each other. We say one thing and do another – we are double-minded.
What you probably WILL be shocked to find out is that while everyone’s espoused theory of behavior is radically different from person to person, from community to community and from culture to culture, Chris Argyris shows that everyone’s theory-in-use is the exact same the entire world over!
Chris Argyris calls this theory-in-use the world over “Model I theory-in-use”. I think it could just as well be called – “operating out of the knowledge of good and evil”.
Argyris shows how this particular theory-in-use generates corporate systemic dysfunction (evil).
Argyris has come up with a new theory-in-use that he calls “Model II theory-in-use”. He has shown how this new theory of behavior, once implemented by individuals, stops corporate dysfunction.
In my view Argyris Model II behavior could be called “dying to self and loving others”.
It works.
6) What does Chris Argyris say about JUSTICE?
Nothing. It is not about justice. It is about changing our microbehavior in every thought and action to be consistent with dying to self and loving others. THIS is the only way we get systems that support life.
7) What does Chris Argyris say about love's relationship to justice? Does he feel that they are one and the same? Does one entail the other?
There is one sure way to kill love and that is to seek justice for justice’ sake. Now, is there a “seeking of justice” for love’s sake? And if so, how is that not simply love? Moreover, if that “seeking of justice” for love’s sake means being AGAINST others then how can that really be for love’s sake? How can that be love, if love means to be FOR others? Will it not contain the seeds of its own destruction?
8) What does love look like socially applied?
It looks like one person being for another person at a cost to themselves. Rarely in big ways but rather in every little thought and action we take. It looks like Jesus, it looks like Mother Theresa, it looks like Ghandi, it looks like someone giving a glass of water to a small child.
It is like a mustard seed…
thanks,
Iconoclast
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/6/2004 5:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes. Nice. Poignant. Understandable. As BJS says. Ok. I have a few questions, probably going in a different direction than Meph Man, but I'm sure they will overlap.
1. If there is no such thing as "Christian ethics" would that mean that you deny branches of ethics called "deontological" and "teleological" ethics? It seems to me when someone asks, "What is the most loving thing to do that somewhere along the line one of these two branches (or even both) will arise. Can deontological and teleological ethics be complementary?
2. Why must justice and mercy be mutually exclusive? Also, if God's justice is love and mercy? How would this play out socially, Christian community (to the world and each other) or otherwise? This may require a concrete example.
3. Where does the notion that ethics is a set of principles come from? I would think a response to this will interact with your response to number 1. What would be the weakness of "What the most loving thing to do" idea? I can envision two major areas.
4. I have no problem believing that theory and orthopraxis conflict. But is there ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for a person to hold to principles because of this?
5. To say "There is one sure way to kill love and that is to seek justice for justice’ sake." seems to reflect your disdain for principles. Why must we have over-arching principles informing the situation rather than growing OUT OF the situation?
6. In your response to how it would look socially, what happens if what Ghandi, Mother Teresa conflicted with other loving actions?
Yeah, I'm really coming to believe that any serious reflection on ethics (as I understand the term) cannot afford to ignore the cultural elements that influence our perceptions of good and evil. Nothing that I think, say or do is exempt from the influence of culture. Even my faith doesn't allow me to escape culture because culture is the enviroment in which what I believe takes shape. In other words, "There is no space which is not cultural space."
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/6/2004 9:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Great stuff, Iconoclast. Thanks for your answers. I want to take some time to answer back, give my impressions and whatnot.
But I'd like to start with this. It has been quoted by others, including Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Amos 5
6 Seek the LORD and live,
or he will break out against the house of Joseph like fire,
and it will devour Bethel, with no one to quench it.
7 Ah, you that turn justice to wormwood,
and bring righteousness to the ground!
8 The one who made the Pleiades and Orion,
and turns deep darkness into the morning,
and darkens the day into night,
who calls for the waters of the sea,
and pours them out on the surface of the earth,
the LORD is his name,
9 who makes destruction flash out against the strong,
so that destruction comes upon the fortress.
10 They hate the one who reproves in the gate,
and they abhor the one who speaks the truth.
11 Therefore because you trample on the poor
and take from them levies of grain,
you have built houses of hewn stone,
but you shall not live in them;
you have planted pleasant vineyards,
but you shall not drink their wine.
12 For I know how many are your transgressions,
and how great are your sins—
you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe,
and push aside the needy in the gate.
13 Therefore the prudent will keep silent in such a time;
for it is an evil time.
14 Seek good and not evil,
that you may live;
and so the LORD, the God of hosts, will be with you,
just as you have said.
15 Hate evil and love good,
and establish justice in the gate;
it may be that the LORD, the God of hosts,
will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
16 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God of hosts, the Lord:
In all the squares there shall be wailing;
and in all the streets they shall say, “Alas! alas!”
They shall call the farmers to mourning,
and those skilled in lamentation, to wailing;
17 in all the vineyards there shall be wailing,
for I will pass through the midst of you, says the LORD.
18 Alas for you who desire the day of the LORD!
Why do you want the day of the LORD?
It is darkness, not light;
19 as if someone fled from a lion,
and was met by a bear;
or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall,
and was bitten by a snake.
20 Is not the day of the LORD darkness, not light,
and gloom with no brightness in it?
21 I hate, I despise your festivals,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
22 Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them;
and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals
I will not look upon.
23 Take away from me the noise of your songs;
I will not listen to the melody of your harps.
24 But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an everflowing stream.
Do we REALLY want the "Day of the Lord" spoken of in Acts 2, when Peter spoke to the crowd???
Something else...
Isaiah 58
Shout out, do not hold back!
Lift up your voice like a trumpet!
Announce to my people their rebellion,
to the house of Jacob their sins.
2 Yet day after day they seek me
and delight to know my ways,
as if they were a nation that practiced righteousness
and did not forsake the ordinance of their God;
they ask of me righteous judgments,
they delight to draw near to God.
3 “Why do we fast, but you do not see?
Why humble ourselves, but you do not notice?”
Look, you serve your own interest on your fast day,
and oppress all your workers.
4 Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to strike with a wicked fist.
Such fasting as you do today
will not make your voice heard on high.
5 Is such the fast that I choose,
a day to humble oneself?
Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush,
and to lie in sackcloth and ashes?
Will you call this a fast,
a day acceptable to the LORD?
6 Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of injustice,
to undo the thongs of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?
7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover them,
and not to hide yourself from your own kin?
8 Then your light shall break forth like the dawn,
and your healing shall spring up quickly;
your vindicator shall go before you,
the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard.
9 Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer;
you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am.
Justice (mishpat) and righteousness (tsadek). God speaking through God's prophets both times.
AT THE SAME TIME....
Psalm 136
O give thanks to the LORD, for he is good,
for his steadfast love endures forever.
2 O give thanks to the God of gods,
for his steadfast love endures forever.
3 O give thanks to the Lord of lords,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
4 who alone does great wonders,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
5 who by understanding made the heavens,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
6 who spread out the earth on the waters,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
7 who made the great lights,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
8 the sun to rule over the day,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
9 the moon and stars to rule over the night,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
10 who struck Egypt through their firstborn,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
11 and brought Israel out from among them,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
12 with a strong hand and an outstretched arm,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
13 who divided the Red Sea in two,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
14 and made Israel pass through the midst of it,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
15 but overthrew Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
16 who led his people through the wilderness,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
17 who struck down great kings,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
18 and killed famous kings,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
19 Sihon, king of the Amorites,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
20 and Og, king of Bashan,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
21 and gave their land as a heritage,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
22 a heritage to his servant Israel,
for his steadfast love endures forever.
23 It is he who remembered us in our low estate,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
24 and rescued us from our foes,
for his steadfast love endures forever;
25 who gives food to all flesh,
for his steadfast love endures forever.
26 O give thanks to the God of heaven,
for his steadfast love endures forever.
"Chesed", baby.
God is merciful, loving, AND just.
These are just for previous meditation. I'm just asking everyone to meditate on these. Get commentaries. Get bible dictionaries. Think about these.
I'll be back with more later...
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 3/6/2004 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast, I started a separate thread just for you because your response here was super but I notice everyone is posting here so I will too. I originally started the other thread because I was thinking Mephi wanted to interact with YOU hence he addressed this thread to you. I guess I don't yet understand the etiquette of this board  I'm glad to post here. I hope Mephi will respond to the same questions he posed to you and I hope Brandon will too.
Ethics subset of love? I heard it put so beautifully today that I want to share it here. Lack of love is what causes problem/sin therefore the only way solution/healing/reconciliation can be achieved is through LOVE. Ethics won't cut it. When we are loved and accept that love we then respond with love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/6/2004 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | My stuff probably won't be as concise and well-worded as Iconoclast's. My apologies. Anyways, all of the following are only MY beliefs and where I am operating from…
******************************
What is your description of love?
This is the description of love that I work by:
Love is made manifest when a person A acknowledges another person B’s unique existence, and ON THAT BASIS ALONE,
1) attributes positive worth to B’s individual, unique existence,
2) shares some part of themselves with B and,
3) seeks, whenever possible, to empower the other person B to have the ability to become more of a person before God and him/herself in such a way that the empowered person B is NOT dysfunctionally reliant upon the empowering person A.
In laymen's terms, to love someone is to give worth to other people's existences JUST BECAUSE they exist…and do this through, in some way, sharing yourself with them and empowering them in some way to be the persons that God wishes them to be.
Very important point. Love happens between INDIVIDUAL PERSONS. One does not "love" a group of people as such. Just like God doesn't love "humanity", but God loves EACH HUMAN BEING as if they were the only one. Remember this. It will come in handy later.
********************************
2) What is your desciption of ethics?
I'm hoping that people will see my influences…(a smidge of Bonhoeffer and a dap of SK)
Ethics, from a secular standpoint, could refer to principles or patterns of behavior based on moral dicta. Regardless of what form of ethics you choose, I believe that they all have, as one core aim, the provision for reasonable and right action based on some form of explicit or implicit obligation.
Ethics, from a Christian standpoint, is the frustrating, paradoxical praxis called "responsible action" that takes Christ's INCARNATION into a FALLEN world seriously. In effect, Christ is LORD over a world that happens to be currently run by the "god of this age", Satan. Because of this tension, to preserve the intentions of the Reign of God, sometimes (not ALL the time) a complicity of sorts has to be endured in doing NON-IDEAL actions to do "responsible action" in the world that is Christ's world. Personally, I feel that this is tied with the biblical sense of "doing justice and righteousness" in the earth. The aim of this is not to follow "Christian prinicples" but to be IN the world as a follower of Christ…and wrestle with that accordingly.
If you notice, there are simliarities in both things. 1)Both things deal with "obligation"…though one is specifically more geared towards God in Christ. 2) Both things take place in a FALLEN context. #2 must be understood very carefully.
Ethics, as a category, would NOT exist if it weren't for a FALLEN context.
*********************************
3) What is your description of justice?
I strongly agree with the OT idea of justice. (which is fundamentally inextricable from righteousness) It's not about self-justification or self-righteousness It's about "DOING" justice. This concept is about bringing forth the Reign of God by making crooked things straight and eliminating disparities that dehumanize and pervert, and, thereby work against the Reign of God.
This is distinct from the idea of "justice" that says presumes a legal standard by which everyone is judged.
One thing that MUST be noted though is that justice is inextricably related to ethics. How so? If you think about it, if ALL were love, then wither justice? Where would be the NEED to "do justice" if all were of love? Doing justice PRESUPPOSES an ethics-conducive context where injustice exists. Hmmm….
*********************************
4)How do you feel that love is related to ethics?
I believe that love is related to ethics in the following way:
Love goes FAR BEYOND ethics' demands and aim…but, in the context of a fallen, broken world, love at times WORK ITSELF OUT through ethics.
In my mind, there is a healthy distinction between love and ethics. They are NOT the same thing. But neither are they SO divorced that one never influences the other. Love of God and the neighbor necessarily undergird the search for justice, as Iconoclast states...but the search for justice does NOT require love at all.
Mic 6:8
He has told you, O mortal, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
Mat 23:23, Jesus speaking…
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.
8) What does love look like socially applied?
VERY important question…and here's where the distinction between love and ethics gets very obvious. Love doesn't OCCUR in a communal context. What this means is this: you can't truly "love" a GROUP of people as such. You truly love INDIVIDUALS as you encounter them. Example. It makes no sense for me to say that I love "the Eskimo people" when I have never in my life met a member of that people group! For me to say that only shows me creating an abstract category that I am so called "loving." I love those I ENCOUNTER. That's how love of God and love of the neighbor operate.
So, I can love individuals…but then how can I arbitrate issues of equality and justice BETWEEN individuals and people groups solely from the context of love? I CANNOT. Get this. I can love individuals…but how can I "do justice" in SYSTEMS where institutional oppression exists from the context of love? I CANNOT. Why not? Because love ONLY deals with individuals! I cannot love "humanity" I can only love human beings as I encounter them. My "neighbor" is the person I encounter. So, I must enter the realm of…
ETHICS!!!!!
That's right. When I am thinking in terms of operating under principles that aid the amelioration of human suffering, I am NOT trying to do the "most loving thing"..because when I think of human suffering, I am thinking in terms of the "greater goods" not merely each individual person. When I do stragetic non-violent resistence against oppressive governments and structures, I am NOT trying to do the "most loving thing"…I am actively resisting a SYSTEM as opposed to a person. I'm not even DEALING with a person per se.
My love for God and the neighbor can (and should) GROUND my responsible freedom, but to say that my operation in said ethics is EQUIVALENT to me being loving is fundamentally misguided.
*******************************************
I believe the following quote will be the person summary for ALL this. From the book "Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Testament to Freedom" page 357…speaking about Bonhoeffer's struggle with Nazism in his country
"Responsible action in such a clouded-over situation is, Bonhoeffer admits, extraordinary. He can only appeal to the freedom of those who cannot be compelled to be responsible yet who do the deed. They are those who accept their "deputyship" for a nation, acknowledge their guilt in the violence even as they act to stem the violence, trusting in the Lord's forgiveness even as they experience in their deed the paradox of being a lawbreaker for the sake of the law and to restore the original unity of Christ and gospel values to the nation.
In other words, those preparing to deliver their nation and the world from the evil of nazism cannot set their own "innocence" above the needs of the people. They enter into what Bonhoeffer called a "fellowship of guilt", sustained by the example of Christ, who himself accepted the guilt of his people in opposing the dehumanizing forces within his own religion. He is the model of and inspiration behind every action of responsible deputyship. What we find here in Bonhoeffer's "ethic of responsibility" is what he also recognizes as a special appeal of Christ's Lordship over the world. This is still an ethic of conformation; in this case, however, in the conflict situation where one's conscience is badgered by conflicting considerations of patriotism, abhorrence of violence, respect for oaths of allegiance, and downright guilt feelings over what they must do."
This is where I'm at.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 3/7/2004 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | I like what Bonhoeffer has to say very much. I would disagree however with the idea that we are in any way "guilty" for "switching the train tracks" or "sacrificing the rook for the queen." There is simply nothing morally culpable about being faced with a lesser of two evils decision and choosing the better alternative.
I don't think we are "guilty" for making such decisions when necessary, and I don't think God would be "complicit in evil" for any such decisions, either.
As Bonhoeffer expressed in the quote above, we must take on these kind of decisions if we are to maximize the loving effect we have on the world. Simple as that. Killing Hitler was the MORALLY RIGHT thing to do, just as it was the MOST LOVING thing to do. To do otherwise, would, in my opinion, have been LESS LOVING and therefore MORALLY WRONG.
As you can see, ethics and love, in my book, should be considered the same thing. The "ethical" thing to do is the "most loving" thing to do.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 3/7/2004 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast, I like what you said about changing microbehaviour. We are to be transformed (continuously) by the renewing of our minds. That's a choice. I really appreciated what you said about justice, that if we die to self and love others - that justice will be done. At least that is what I understand you to be saying. Our focus really is to be loving others as He first loved us.
I appreciated this quote on love as well (Iconoclast)
"To love someone is to be FOR them for no other reason than that you choose to be for them. In other words you are “acausally” for them. If there is a cause then you are not loving them but simply using them your own purposes – your own cause. Love is uncaused."
I posted the following on Carlie's thread. Hope I'm not being a "post-hog" by reposting it here!
(Jo-Anne)
I cannot think of a more wonderfully descriptive definition of love, one that so adequately defines unconditional, self-sacrificing love. Thank you Iconoclast.
Try as we might, humanly, it is almost impossible to understand that kind of love because we are either consciously or subconsciously meeting our own needs, even in loving.
I think that Iconoclast has boiled this down to its purest form. Love is a choice. The Father chose to love us when we were unlovable, not knowing if we would choose Him. He risked because love is worth risking for.
It is incomprehensible that we would seek to attribute complicity or culpability to a Father who loves us like that. Meph himself saw where terminology was a problem. We just don't have the right words. Yes, the Father created a world where nightmarish evil is possible, but does that make Him responsible (culpable) for it? No. It was our choice and people are responsible for their own choices. And yes, He relates to us in a world where a cosmic battle is taking place. He has to use what we will understand to speak to us (just as Jesus did when He walked among us). Does that make the Father complicit? No. The words are incriminating and I, for one, object to their use. I think I understand much of what Meph has been trying to say and that I agree with some things he is saying, but not with this idea of complicity or being culpable.
I appreciate the spirit in which Meph communicates what he is trying to say and the challenge he has issued for us to consider in the "problem of evil." What is most important to me in these threads is to see the manner in which we relate to each other as believers as we search for answers and come to know the Father in a deeper way and helping each other to apply them to our lives personally and to the world as we reach out with the Father's love.
Sparknheart asked a defining question on the complicity thread. What is your picture of God? We may differ slightly, but I have no doubt that we all see Him as love. If we start with love and end with love, we can't go far wrong.
My thoughts,
God Bless,
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
quest for truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 479
| Posted 3/9/2004 6:49 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quest,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with posting your compliments of Iconoclast's thinking on this thread. He will appreciate it either way I'd think.
Thanks for the feedback, Brandon!
quote:
In laymen's terms, to love someone is to give worth to other people's existences JUST BECAUSE they exist…and do this through, in some way, sharing yourself with them and empowering them in some way to be the persons that God wishes them to be.
Very important point. Love happens between INDIVIDUAL PERSONS. One does not "love" a group of people as such. Just like God doesn't love "humanity", but God loves EACH HUMAN BEING as if they were the only one. Remember this. It will come in handy later.
Amen, Mephi!  Very important point indeed! Sometimes it can be easier to love people in theory than to actually do a loving act of kindness for one person. I think this is where the parable of the Good Samaritan can be applied. Love is not just a thought or a word it is an action. Jesus came down to earth and died on the cross as an act to earn our trust and redeem our souls.
Iconoclast, are you planning on coming back on to respond to Mephi? I am looking forward to reading your response. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/11/2004 6:32 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS (emphasis mine):
quote:
I like what Bonhoeffer has to say very much. I would disagree however with the idea that we are in any way "guilty" for "switching the train tracks" or "sacrificing the rook for the queen." There is simply nothing morally culpable about being faced with a lesser of two evils decision and choosing the better alternative.
I don't think we are "guilty" for making such decisions when necessary, and I don't think God would be "complicit in evil" for any such decisions, either.
As Bonhoeffer expressed in the quote above, we must take on these kind of decisions if we are to maximize the loving effect we have on the world. Simple as that. Killing Hitler was the MORALLY RIGHT thing to do, just as it was the MOST LOVING thing to do. To do otherwise, would, in my opinion, have been LESS LOVING and therefore MORALLY WRONG.
As you can see, ethics and love, in my book, should be considered the same thing. The "ethical" thing to do is the "most loving" thing to do.p
I'd like to hear your reasoning about how love and ethics are really the same thing. Personally, I can't see how love can be the same as ethics. The demands (not requirements) of love go FAR, FAR beyond that required of ANY ethical system (deontological, virtue, etc). Now I do see love as interacting with ethics, due to us living in a fallen world. But I cannot see them as the same thing. So could you show me how your belief works out? Thanks.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 3/12/2004 5:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph:quote:
I'd like to hear your reasoning about how love and ethics are really the same thing. Personally, I can't see how love can be the same as ethics. The demands (not requirements) of love go FAR, FAR beyond that required of ANY ethical system (deontological, virtue, etc). Now I do see love as interacting with ethics, due to us living in a fallen world. But I cannot see them as the same thing. So could you show me how your belief works out? Thanks.
Yes, I believe the demands of love go far beyond that required of various ethical systems out there. What I'm saying is that if one defines ethics as the framework for choosing between right and wrong, I don't see how real ethics isn't just love implemented. I mean, how is doing the most loving possible in every situation (i.e., fulfilling the demands of love) NOT also doing the "right" thing in every situation (i.e., fulfilling the requirements of ethics)?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:06 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|