 |
| 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/23/2003 9:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | While I was up in Minnesota, Modes and I talked a little about love and justice. I told him I would have to write my thoughts down on the board when I get back. My thinking is that love will ultimately find fulfillment in real tangible, down to earth, concrete, material, demonstrable ways. This could even be political in nature. Hopefully we can apply this to the question of war.
Modes, I believe doesn’t want to confuse the two (correct me if I’m wrong Modes) categories of love and justice. Therefore questions of a political nature would seem to fall along the lines of justice. In a post this past year Iconoclast said to me, “Forget justice, I want mercy.” I believe this was said on the Bonhoeffer thread. My view is (and scholars are not altogether in agreement on this) that justice is not a different principle, in contradistinction to love; rather it expresses in terms of fixed duty and obligation the appropriate response to love in certain social (where any two people meet) situations. Again, something concrete. Let me explain.
First, to start, as I said to Modes, some people try to separate love from Christ. But I would agree with Hauerwas that “God does not exist to make love real, but love is real because God exists. God can come to us in love only because he comes to us as God, the creator, sustainer, and redeemer of our existence. Thus, our ethic is not an “ethic of love” but an ethic of adherence to Jesus Christ...” So what sets a “Christian ethic of love” apart in the history of ideas is not so much the command to love, but that it is inextricably connected to the Saviour John 13:34. Jesus loves so that we will love actively. We could say that there is an obligation to reproduce in human action the quality and direction of the divine action by which it was initiated (Dodd). So we see in the light of such instructions as Rom 13:10, Matt 22:38-40, 1 John 4:20, a Christian ethic and with it, a basis for social action that must be established in love.
But as much as this is, love needs justice to carry on what love starts but cannot finish alone. I would agree that love is the greater factor of the two? But justice is a necessary instrument of love. So, when we have a social situation of two or more? Love affirms the value of all parties. But what love cannot do is present a reason for preferring one neighbor over another. Love responds equally to both. Now you may ask why would one do that (prefer someone over someone else, it hardly seems Christian)? The reason is because it has to do with obligations. For example, we all assume that we have moral obligations to certain individuals: spouse, children parents, church members etc. How can these relationships be affirmed in terms of love? How can we take into account the special needs of particular people? Sure we could just say, “Love them!” But that would only go so far. It is justice which aids love in these considerations because it deals with the individual needs of our neighbor as a member of the community in the context of his or her special claims. Justice carries out what love motivates. It is the order which love requires.
And I think this partly goes to explain why some here, at CVM have RAGGED about the way love is used on these boards...it looks sooo wishy-washy! And this is the thing. Because of sin, we simply cannot leave it to each individual in each situation to act on the impulses of love. Grenz has talked about this. Even in evil societies, such as a slave society? Loving actions can take place. But if the order is not changed, that is, the rich people remain rich and poor people remain poor, then love itself is thwarted. Please try and understand this. Love, by itself, is sufficiently poor to respond to these questions. As one person has wrote, “Love cannot rest until it has breathed a peculiar spirit into the existing world-order.” That is, the institution, the system, perverts love within it and therefore, structural changes are needed to “make love more possible.” That is to say, love provides the impulse to change through justice. This is why, as I mentioned on the “Christian and Politics???” thread, I am not so much concerned with the particulars of politics. Don’t get me wrong, as important as they are to address contextual situations, love and justice can fall on both sides of either political ideology i.e. Democratic or Republican (more can be said about this).
A Little Bit of Bible Ssssstuff: Moving from the Personal to the Political
A rule of thumb is that when one sees “righteousness,” or “judgment” in the context of social responsibility or oppression one can assume that “justice” would be the better translation.
Our justice, grace and love is to be patterned after God’s justice, grace and love. In 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 after Paul encourages the Corinthians in their collection for the poor with the sufficiency of God’s grace, Paul reminds them of God’s justice for the poor.
quote:
9 As it is written: He has scattered; He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever. 10 Now the One who provides seed for the sower and bread for food will provide and multiply your seed and increase the harvest of your righteousness—2 Cor9:9-10.
Our justice corresponds to God’s. That’s a big point to remember. God’s grace flowing through us is manifested in the form of justice. And justice in the Bible has different images. The poor, the powerless, the fatherless and the oppressed. God is the one who vindicates them, Psalm 103:6, Psalm 146:7-9. Now it must be remember that this isn’t merely for the Old Testament. God’s justice transcends Israel’s theocracy, preceding it as well as succeeding it and is the basis for a Christian social ethic. God being King of the universe works justice for ALL the oppressed of the earth. This isn’t simply for the Israelites or Christians, but for EVERYONE. Human justice is a manifestation of grace not only in the sense that it is provided by a gracious God, but also because it is similar in nature to grace and to grace’s expression in love. In scripture love and justice do not appear as distinct and contrasting principles. Rather there is an overlapping and continuity.
Now some theologians will argue that love and justice are two distinct theological principles even saying that they reflect a distinction in God. And this is then projected on to society. That is, justice and not love, is the concern of the state. It is related to God’s wrath towards evil and preserves society through the enforcement of morality. I believe that Chuck Colson holds to this position. Justice in this view is impartial; it renders without favor what is due to each person and is therefore appropriately expressed in political or civil rights when is extended equally to all. Basic economic needs would not be given such status because to do so would be to take away from some to give to others. Therefore it would be partial. Therefore, it is said that those who appeal to love in seeking to expand the role of government to include social and economic welfare are said to exhibit a confusion on love and justice. Neibuhr, though has said that, “The effort to confine “agape” to the love of personal relations and to place all structures and artifices of justice outside that realm makes Christian love irrelevant to the problem of man’s common life.”
But this whole idea that love and justice are distinct in principle can be traced back to:
A. A confusion of terms prevalent in systematic theology and
B. A failure to analyze the biblical material regarding justice.
At some point it became customary to speak of God’s judgment on sin as God’s justice, in contrast to God’s redeeming love. Think about what this does and in fact what it has done. It has made justice a “static” (and conservative term), while love, on the other hand is conveyed as the dynamic action of God. This becomes clear when we use two modes of justice prominent within the social system: distributive and retributive (or criminal). Distributive provides the standard for the distribution of the benefits of the society, the second, retributive, the distribution of the penalties. That is, punishments according to one’s deserts. Now in classical soteriology, when God’s justice, which demands death for sin, is satisfied by God’s love through Christ’s vicarious death, this is RETRIBUITIVE JUSTICE. But the Bible applies the terminology of justice extensively to distributive functions which are ALSO CONTINOUS WITH LOVE. So that what we end up with in the atonement is that God’s righteousness (distributive justice) overcomes God’s wrath.
See, justice in Hebrew thought has different ways in which it can be used. It can used in the sense of a gift, of abundance and of generosity (sedaqah), relief, release and deliverance (mispat). Sedaqah is never used in scripture to speak of God’s punishment for sin. It has to do with God’s positive actions in creating and preserving community especially those who have been marginalized Ex 23:7. Justice here applies to the innocent. Justice may then represent God’s victory for the innocent, the negative side of which is defeat of the wicked or the oppressors, often describe in terms other than those of justice. The point here is not that justice is NEVER punitive but rather that it is not restricted to THAT function. Justice is also vindication, deliverance and creation of community.
In the New Testament, Paul follows similar lines. That is, grace is closely related to God’s distributive justice for those who are weak and oppressed who seek justice on that basis (weak and oppressed). Hesed rendered in the English as “steadfast love or covenant loyalty” is closely related to grace or charis. Justice describes the content of covenant and defines the order of the relationship within the community, steadfast love expresses loving faithfulness to a covenant. Steadfast love is closely related with justice and is not a contrasting principle, Hos 10:12; 2:19; 10 ;12;12:7 Jer 9:24 Mic 6:8. A justice which includes partiality to those who are afflicted in their social relations extends the meaning of the creative power of grace and love; received by the weak and alienated, these virtues create community where there is no apparent basis for it, reversing the normal expectations of the world. For example, God’s elective love can be described as justice, in the context of the redemption of Israel from Egypt or the deliverance of the human race from sin.
When justice is an instrument of love, the question comes to the fore, “How does love affect the nature of justice?” It affects it in that it applies equally to all, demands respect for each and appreciates the needs and capacity for enjoyment of every person, love gives birth to rights—the fabric of justice. Justice functions to ensure that in our common life we are for our fellow human beings which is the meaning of love.
Love raises justice above the mere equal treatment of equals; biblical justice is the equal treatment of all human beings for the reason that they are of worth in God’s eyes.
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 3/24/2003 8:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Cool stuff. I'll be back, probably tomorrow, I am out of time for today. I wish I would have seen this first...
Looking forward to this discussion Brandon.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 3/25/2003 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay, people who have seen my stuff on this board should know that I am a fan of both justice and love. But Brandon is right, I do see a distinction.
Justice pertains to the ethical sphere of life where we are dealing with "the good of the whole". This category applies and bears fruit here and now, in the real world. This is also a category that we don't need special revelation to understand and employ. Pagans understood justice long before Christianity came to the scene. And they were generally better at it. It is important to remember this because issues of justice do not require Christian faith for their support and advancement.
Love pertains to God. Specifically Christian love pertains to Christ and our believing that everyone has infinite value because God was willing to die for them. In the world, it involves self-sacrifice. In the next world it will be full participation in the truine dance of God. Love does not ask what is fair, but rather dies to itself for the sake of the neighbor. There is no "good of the whole" here, but rather the whole is brought back down from abstraction and recognized as the neighbor.
The best the world can do is achieve a relative form of justice. And I will fight to that end as best I can. But that is not all I am able to do, I am also commanded to love my neighbor self-sacrifically. That is not justice, but rather love.
So...I will fight for justice in ethical and social settings where the abstraction from neighbor to "the good of the whole" is necessitated by my inability to relate to each as neighbor. This could be referred to as loving, but that seems to muddy the water unnecessarily. It is simply the right thing to do. The pagans knew this much.
And...I will love my neighbor self-sacrificially because Gode died for them and I am called to imitate Christ and agree with the infinite worth that Christ says my neighbor has.
Christ brought love to the world in a way that is completely unique. Yes, he supported just action, and we all should, but this is basic to human dignity. Christ pointed to a deeper dignity that we have as heirs of a kingdom in which justice is obsolete because all are united in Christ and there is nothing quantifiable to "distribute" in set portions to each one. All have all and are in the One who is All.
Love is a religious category that surely supports justice on earth, but it knows that love has an answer that justice can't even imagine in store for those who will participate.
Another way to break this down:
the category of aesthetics has beauty as it's highest "good"
[the good of the individual, in the individual's own perspective. One avoids boredom and enjoys the moment]
the category of ethics has justice as its highest "good"
["the good of the whole." There is relative "peace" due to approximately fair distribution. That's the best we can hope for in the real world.]
the category of religion has love as its highest "good"
[God dies for us, we die to ourselves, and we are willing to die for the neighbor. The result is spiritual unity of all parties eternally. This is both quantitatively higher than justice (it goes beyond relative "fairness" in finite things)and qualitatively superior to justice(it lasts forever and is coextensive with the very presense of God)]
Love can be expressed on earth, but it will not be fully realized until the next life when completion comes. As far as ethics goes, I'll settle for justice in the mean time.
BTW: Because am a person of priviledge, one action that I consider love may also be justice considered in the the ethical sphere. For the most part, I do agree that love and justice are coextensive. But in terms of the essense of each category, they are as different as God and the world.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
Edited by - ModesofThought on 03/25/2003 4:52:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/25/2003 5:13 PM (GMT -6) | | How about this:
Justice = The law of karma
Love = The law of Christ
The law of Christ overcomes the law of karma.
The law of karma:
What goes around comes around. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is an actual spiritual law as inexorable as the law of gravity. What you do unto others will be done to you. The judgement you create is the judgement you receive. The wages of sin is death. The sins of the father will be visited upon the children for generations to come.
The law of Christ:
Love overcomes a multitude of sins. When we truly repent by fully experiencing the sorrow for what we have done and turn and love then the law of karma is abrogated - we no longer experience the boomerang effect - the equal and opposite reaction that is the law of karma. We must die to the law of karma that we may live in the law of Christ.
The law of Christ (love) overcomes the law of karma (justice). This is why we don't want justice - because we need mercy.
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
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/25/2003 10:15:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 3/25/2003 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | | I like the Lutheran way of holding law and grace together dialectically:
You shall be perfect as God is perfect. ("good works," faith w/o works is dead...)
You gain no merit for this because this is what is expected of you as a human being in right relationship to God. (not saved by works...)
You are saved by grace alone. This warrants profound gratitude.
Life itself is enough to be grateful for. That itself motivates our godly behavior if we have faith. To participate in the work of God in the world is simply a function of being a member of the body of Christ in the world.
I see the emphasis on repentence which I agree with in terms of dealing with the problem, but I'd like to see a more postive "motivator" like thankfulness/gratitude to ground authentic action. Otherwise, we do run the risk of cheap grace. I am confident we agree on this, I am just saying out loud.
The problem with the Karma version is that it lacks the presupposition of sin, it presupposes a basically neutral environment, which we don't have, and the problem with grace with out works is that it does not produce life.
Just working through the ideas out loud and somewhat tentatively... hope we continue to explore this stuff...
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 3/26/2003 8:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Okay Brandon, I bit, now you gotta reel in.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/27/2003 3:49 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't know about reeling in, but I do think I have to fish just a tad bit longer. I will in a little bit here. 
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 3/27/2003 6:53 AM (GMT -6) | | BTW: Brandon, I wanted to say thanks for your top notch interaction with Electra on another thread. I love it when the bar gets raised above the usual rhetoric. Thanks for doing the work.
Of course, you are still wrong, but that's okay. 
love ya bro. 
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/27/2003 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
BTW: Brandon, I wanted to say thanks for your top notch interaction with Electra on another thread. I love it when the bar gets raised above the usual rhetoric. Thanks for doing the work.
Of course, you are still wrong, but that's okay.
love ya bro.
What??? Jerk!
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 3/27/2003 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | So are we gonna talk about this stuff or what? Brandon, Iconoclast, anyone?
Oh, I get it. No one is responding because I have illuminated all the categories so effectively that there is nothing left to be said! Cool.
Let me know what else you want me to straighten out for ya.
If THAT doesn't get a response I give...
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/28/2003 12:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
I was going to have it (response) on today but as it turned out I got called to work some overtime. Hopefully tmw I should be finished with some thoughts and questions. Plus, I picked up my copy of "Beyond the Bounds" and I am hoping to discuss that on one of the threads that has already been started (probably the one Electra started). I have started writing out the main points to chapter 1 and I hope to cover every chapter and get a response from Greg and others. So that is taking some time as well. Personally I think the book should be entitled "Open Season on Open Theists."
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com
Edited by - BBBCanada on 03/28/2003 5:29:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/29/2003 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes man! Dude, I am sorry that I have not been able to get to this thread today. I am in the midst of a somewhat lenghty response and hopefully I will have something within the day or two. Thanks for your patience man.
Love ya and the Ms. Gotta jet.  Moi!
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 3/30/2003 9:57 AM (GMT -6) | | No problem. I just expect it to be that much better do to the extra time you have had to think it all through so thoroughly.
love ya man.
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/31/2003 9:34 AM (GMT -6) | | K. I lost what I was working on and I had to do this over again. So YOU BETTER agree with it.
quote:
Justice pertains to the ethical sphere of life where we are dealing with "the good of the whole". This category applies and bears fruit here and now, in the real world. This is also a category that we don't need special revelation to understand and employ. Pagans understood justice long before Christianity came to the scene. And they were generally better at it. It is important to remember this because issues of justice do not require Christian faith for their support and advancement.
Yes. I would agree with this. Something can be said for the Reformed term “common grace.” Here’s what I’m thinking. Creation ordinances and redemptive ordinances. Of what good are the creation ordinances if, through the fall the human being’s perception of what is just, let alone one’s moral motivation to act on those perceptions, is thoroughly clouded? Thus it is not uncommon to reject the concept of a universally known justice via creation ordinances and turn, instead to the notion of “redemption ordinances.” That is, given the fall there can be know sure knowledge of justice aside from the Scriptures and God’s incarnate Word. But there are dangers with this.
First, rejecting creation ordinances places reason as creatures bearing the image of God, into conflict with revelationally based knowledge. It is an epistemological problem that says that reason has nothing to say aside from revelation. It suggests that Athens has nothing to say to Jerusalem.
There are problems of strategy in political engagement. It would be such that those who are of the household of faith can only speak to each other. That is, there can be no “secular” basis for political involvement by the Christian, only the religiously informed need apply. But this can be sectarian. If we deny natural knowledge then the Christian is to:
A. Withdraw from politics because it is worldly or fallen.
B. Establish a “Christian” politics which is sectarian in ambition and motivation.
Disjoining “creation ordinances” i.e. universal norms of justice from “redemption ordinances” has demonstrated itself in various forms in contemporary Christian thinking. That is, many evangelicals and fundamentalists have sought uncritically to impose revealed norms of religious righteousness on secular society with little if ANY justification insofar as how such policies would affect nonbelievers. Thus we have contemporary “crusades” to make America “Christian” and Christian morality and ethics are uncritically upheld as normative for the secular state.
Also, many who have sought to subsume “redemption ordinances” to Christological ordinances” have uncritically sought to apply the “love ethic” of Jesus with little regard for the objectifying norms of justice which must inform the spirit of love.
quote:
Love pertains to God. Specifically Christian love pertains to Christ and our believing that everyone has infinite value because God was willing to die for them. In the world, it involves self-sacrifice. In the next world it will be full participation in the truine dance of God. Love does not ask what is fair, but rather dies to itself for the sake of the neighbor. There is no "good of the whole" here, but rather the whole is brought back down from abstraction and recognized as the neighbor.
Agreed. Our “neighbour” is not a “faceless humanity.” The abstract. Our neighbour is on our doorstep. Though, with the highlighted part, I don’t know if I would say that “Love does not ask what is fair.” It may be that justice asks, “What is fair?” in the distributive sense. Again, this seems to draw a false dichotomy between love and justice when we should be asking, “How does love act?” Now let me try to be clear on this. As I said above, there are recognized norms of justice which are objective and exist independently of human voilition (as recognized by pagans). Thus, claims can be made and rejected in the name of justice. Whereas love must be volitionally given, justice demands to be recognized independently of human volition. But having said that, God, who is the “God of love” is also a just God and therefore, love and justice cannot stand juxtaposed. Love may go beyond justice? But it can NEVER seek LESS THAN justice. You seem to render love and justice in a way that sees justice as a “second class citizen.”
quote:
The best the world can do is achieve a relative form of justice. And I will fight to that end as best I can. But that is not all I am able to do, I am also commanded to love my neighbor self-sacrifically. That is not justice, but rather love.
So...I will fight for justice in ethical and social settings where the abstraction from neighbor to "the good of the whole" is necessitated by my inability to relate to each as neighbor. This could be referred to as loving, but that seems to muddy the water unnecessarily. It is simply the right thing to do. The pagans knew this much.
And...I will love my neighbor self-sacrificially because Gode died for them and I am called to imitate Christ and agree with the infinite worth that Christ says my neighbor has.
Christ brought love to the world in a way that is completely unique. Yes, he supported just action, and we all should, but this is basic to human dignity. Christ pointed to a deeper dignity that we have as heirs of a kingdom in which justice is obsolete because all are united in Christ and there is nothing quantifiable to "distribute" in set portions to each one. All have all and are in the One who is All.
Hmmm…exactly what do you mean by “relative justice?” Do you mean “enduring?” Or are you asking if there is any such thing as justice at all? Do you mean partial and imperfect? Your second paragraph brings up a point that we were talking about at your place. For example, we brought up the issue of the abolition of slavery. You might refer to this as “simply the right thing to do” (abolishing it) and of course it would be that. But I can’t get away from the question above. Jesus indicates that the impulse to get justice is not evangelical but rather the impulse to give justice is. The great command that Jesus lays upon his followers is not to have their wrongs righted, but to right the wrongs of others. And it is this note of love perfectionism which is to be made applicable to the political order without reservation.
quote:
Love is a religious category that surely supports justice on earth, but it knows that love has an answer that justice can't even imagine in store for those who will participate.
Another way to break this down:
the category of aesthetics has beauty as it's highest "good"
[the good of the individual, in the individual's own perspective. One avoids boredom and enjoys the moment]
the category of ethics has justice as its highest "good"
["the good of the whole." There is relative "peace" due to approximately fair distribution. That's the best we can hope for in the real world.]
the category of religion has love as its highest "good"
[God dies for us, we die to ourselves, and we are willing to die for the neighbor. The result is spiritual unity of all parties eternally. This is both quantitatively higher than justice (it goes beyond relative "fairness" in finite things)and qualitatively superior to justice(it lasts forever and is coextensive with the very presense of God)]
Love can be expressed on earth, but it will not be fully realized until the next life when completion comes. As far as ethics goes, I'll settle for justice in the mean time.
BTW: Because am a person of priviledge, one action that I consider love may also be justice considered in the the ethical sphere. For the most part, I do agree that love and justice are coextensive. But in terms of the essense of each category, they are as different as God and the world.
My belief is that there is a continuity and an overlapping as I said above. But fo sheezy, there is a qualitative difference. Justice is an objective quality establishing rights and obligations, calculations can and must be made by individuals and societies as to how their actions serve the claims of justice. Given the fact that not all person’s seek justice, power can be used legitimately if and when it serves the cause of justice. My contention is that love CANNOT use power to achieve its ends. Justice, though, must use power to achieve its ends.
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:17 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 |
|
|