Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics

Expand Messages
  • Bill Harris
    Ryan, I think there is an apparent contradiction that is overruled by the need for self defense. You probably know the roman church has several ,parallel,
    Message 1 of 18 , Dec 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Ryan, I think there is an apparent contradiction that is overruled by the
      need for self defense. You probably know the roman church has several
      ,parallel, moral systems. One for clergy, one for laity{ divided into rich
      and poor ] and one for pagans. It is social stratification on a basis little
      understood in more secular times. We fought religous wars and revolutions to
      get rid of this kind of tyrrany, but the wolf still hides in the woods.
      Bill
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <Roggles457@...>
      To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 1:49 AM
      Subject: [existlist] disguised situational ethics


      > This is just a thought that occurred to me when someone in this list
      brought
      > up killing almost always being wrong. Many groups (I'll use the Catholic
      > Church as an example) seem to me to use a sort of labeling to rail against
      > situational ethics while secretly doing it on there own.
      > Example: Taking someone's life/Murder/Self-Defense - The Catholic
      church
      > considers Murder, killing an unarmed person, always wrong, an immoral
      action
      > in and of itself. It claims not to follow situational ethics. But if the
      > person is trying to kill you, its not murder, its selfdefense, which is
      ok.
      > Murder and Self-defense: the action in both is still taking ones life, but
      > the situation is the difference.
      > Does this make any sense to anyone, or is it just a crazy idea in my
      head.
      >
      > Ryan
      >
      >
      > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
      > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
      > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Bill Harris
      George, Can you envision the the pogroms as an existential experiment gone wrong? Bill ... From: George Walton To:
      Message 2 of 18 , Dec 28, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        George, Can you envision the the pogroms as an existential experiment gone
        wrong? Bill
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "George Walton" <george@...>
        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 8:18 AM
        Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics


        > I wonder if God thought that up before or after the pogroms? Very
        mysterious ways indeed, eh?
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: greg goodwin <ggoodwin56@...>
        > To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:25 AM
        > Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics
        >
        >
        > > Sorry I'm not familiar with the afore mentioned
        > > Catholic faith (Methodist rearing), but it's my
        > > understanding the phrase quoted from the pages is
        > > "thou shalt not kill", period!!
        > > Greg
        > >
        > > --- Roggles457@... wrote:
        > > > This is just a thought that occurred to me when
        > > > someone in this list brought
        > > > up killing almost always being wrong. Many groups
        > > > (I'll use the Catholic
        > > > Church as an example) seem to me to use a sort of
        > > > labeling to rail against
        > > > situational ethics while secretly doing it on there
        > > > own.
        > > > Example: Taking someone's
        > > > life/Murder/Self-Defense - The Catholic church
        > > > considers Murder, killing an unarmed person, always
        > > > wrong, an immoral action
        > > > in and of itself. It claims not to follow
        > > > situational ethics. But if the
        > > > person is trying to kill you, its not murder, its
        > > > selfdefense, which is ok.
        > > > Murder and Self-defense: the action in both is still
        > > > taking ones life, but
        > > > the situation is the difference.
        > > > Does this make any sense to anyone, or is it
        > > > just a crazy idea in my head.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Ryan
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > __________________________________________________
        > > Do You Yahoo!?
        > > Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
        > > http://greetings.yahoo.com
        > >
        > >
        > > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        > >
        > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        >
        > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • Bill Harris
        I want to use some modern interrogation techniques on whoever heard this god say THOU SHALT NOT KILL. A little pentothol might resurrect a more empirical
        Message 3 of 18 , Dec 28, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          I want to use some modern interrogation techniques on whoever heard this god
          say THOU SHALT NOT KILL. A little pentothol might resurrect a more
          empirical truth. Bill
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: <openbook02@...>
          To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:20 AM
          Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics


          > Although the bible said "thou shalt not kill" god still encouraged
          religious
          > wars--imagine the bloodshed. God (or Yaweh if you swing that way) also
          > encouraged the slaughter of false profets, and killed the firstborn son of
          > all the families that neglected to paint blood of sheep on their doorways.
          > Also, he killed men who went betrayed his trust and went against his word,
          > and burned all his property with it, which included all their wives,
          > servants, slaves and entertainers. So either way you look at it, killing
          is
          > not all that forbidden, "thou shalt not kill... unless i say it's ok".
          > There's a double standard in there somewhere that gives one a loophole or
          > two, self defense, I'm sure, is one of them.
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
          > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
          >
          > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
          > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • Dave Hall
          I have a question that perhaps someone can answer with regard to The Ten Commandments. While in college I ran across a book in research that said the archaic
          Message 4 of 18 , Dec 28, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I have a question that perhaps someone can answer with regard to "The Ten
            Commandments."

            While in college I ran across a book in research that said the archaic
            Hebrew list consisted of a word with a negative attached. Example:

            "Kill" with a negative, or "No" attached.

            "No Kill"
            "No Idols"
            "No Adultery"
            etc...

            Has anyone else run across a similar reference?

            -----Original Message-----
            From: Bill Harris [mailto:bhvwd@...]
            Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:33 AM
            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics


            I want to use some modern interrogation techniques on whoever heard this god
            say THOU SHALT NOT KILL. A little pentothol might resurrect a more
            empirical truth. Bill
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <openbook02@...>
            To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 10:20 AM
            Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics


            > Although the bible said "thou shalt not kill" god still encouraged
            religious
            > wars--imagine the bloodshed. God (or Yaweh if you swing that way) also
            > encouraged the slaughter of false profets, and killed the firstborn son of
            > all the families that neglected to paint blood of sheep on their doorways.
            > Also, he killed men who went betrayed his trust and went against his word,
            > and burned all his property with it, which included all their wives,
            > servants, slaves and entertainers. So either way you look at it, killing
            is
            > not all that forbidden, "thou shalt not kill... unless i say it's ok".
            > There's a double standard in there somewhere that gives one a loophole or
            > two, self defense, I'm sure, is one of them.
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
            <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist>
            > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
            >
            > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
            > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
            >
            >



            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

            <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=215839.1778785.3296727.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17056892
            16:HM/A=868540/R=0/*http://zappos.zappos.com/bin/zapposset?ref=yahoogroups2>


            <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=215839.1778785.3296727.1261774/D=egroupmai
            l/S=1705689216:HM/A=868540/rand=765134134>

            Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
            <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist>
            (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

            TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
            existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
            <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Dave Hall
            So, too, did the Christian Messiah, Joshua Ben Nazareth, but not much is he quoted say that wasn t contradictory or gibberish. How about some of these: The
            Message 5 of 18 , Dec 28, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              So, too, did the Christian Messiah, Joshua Ben Nazareth, but not much is he
              quoted say that wasn't contradictory or gibberish.
              How about some of these:

              The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet Jesus said,
              "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a
              sword." (Matthew 10:34)
              "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke
              22:36)
              "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,
              bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

              The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of
              Jesus:
              "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
              withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are
              burned." (John 15:6)

              Jesus looked at his critics "with anger" (Mark 3:5),
              attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15),
              showed his respect for life by drowning animals (Matthew 8:32),
              refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother
              (Matthew 15:22-28).

              The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal
              torment.
              "The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send forth his angels,
              and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend,
              and them which do iniquity;
              And shall cast them into a furnace of fire:
              there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42)
              "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:
              it is better for thee to enter into life maimed,
              than having two hands to go into hell,
              into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark 9:43)

              "If any man come to me,
              and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and
              brethren, and sisters,
              yea,
              and his own life also,
              he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

              "I am come to set a man at variance against his father,
              and the daughter against her mother,
              and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
              And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)

              When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus
              rebuked him:
              "Let the dead bury their dead." (Matthew 8:22)

              Jesus never used the word "family." He never married or fathered children.
              To his own mother, he said,
              "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4)

              Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves:
              "And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will,
              and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will,
              shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

              He never denounced servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship
              into many of his parables.

              He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive
              ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying,
              "Ye have the poor with you always." (Mark 14:3-7)

              If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew
              5:29-30, in a sexual context).

              Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

              Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)

              Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)

              Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)

              Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)

              Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)

              Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)

              Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)

              Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)

              Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors.
              (Luke 19:23-26)

              If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)

              If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)

              If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)

              If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)

              If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew
              5:42)

              Lots of reasons to believe in Moralism and see the beneficial effect of
              totalitarian ideals robed in a book about love and compassion...

              Dave Hall

              -----Original Message-----
              From: openbook02@... [mailto:openbook02@...]
              Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 9:21 AM
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics


              Although the bible said "thou shalt not kill" god still encouraged
              religious
              wars--imagine the bloodshed. God (or Yaweh if you swing that way) also
              encouraged the slaughter of false profets, and killed the firstborn son of
              all the families that neglected to paint blood of sheep on their doorways.
              Also, he killed men who went betrayed his trust and went against his word,
              and burned all his property with it, which included all their wives,
              servants, slaves and entertainers. So either way you look at it, killing is

              not all that forbidden, "thou shalt not kill... unless i say it's ok".
              There's a double standard in there somewhere that gives one a loophole or
              two, self defense, I'm sure, is one of them.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

              ADVERTISEMENT

              <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=216105.1806326.3318126.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17056892
              16:HM/A=915130/R=0/O=1/I=brandr-lrec/postholidaygroup/*http://shopping.yahoo
              .com/domain?d=holiday&cf=posthol01>

              <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=216105.1806326.3318126.1261774/D=egroupmai
              l/S=1705689216:HM/A=915130/rand=403753857>

              Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
              <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist>
              (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

              TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
              existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
              <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • greg goodwin
              Ahhh, the beginning of the do as I say, bot as I do philosophy ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday
              Message 6 of 18 , Dec 28, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Ahhh, the beginning of the " do as I say, bot as I do"
                philosophy
                --- openbook02@... wrote:
                > Although the bible said "thou shalt not kill" god
                > still encouraged religious
                > wars--imagine the bloodshed. God (or Yaweh if you
                > swing that way) also
                > encouraged the slaughter of false profets, and
                > killed the firstborn son of
                > all the families that neglected to paint blood of
                > sheep on their doorways.
                > Also, he killed men who went betrayed his trust and
                > went against his word,
                > and burned all his property with it, which included
                > all their wives,
                > servants, slaves and entertainers. So either way
                > you look at it, killing is
                > not all that forbidden, "thou shalt not kill...
                > unless i say it's ok".
                > There's a double standard in there somewhere that
                > gives one a loophole or
                > two, self defense, I'm sure, is one of them.
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                > removed]
                >
                >


                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
                http://greetings.yahoo.com
              • Eduard Alf
                Is it Jim? Anyway ... The Bible is more of a history book. Sure, there is a lot of killing, but that does not invalidate the rule. Any more than Christ s
                Message 7 of 18 , Dec 28, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Is it Jim?

                  Anyway ...

                  The Bible is more of a history book. Sure, there is a lot of killing, but that does not invalidate the rule. Any more than Christ's admonition to love one another might be made invalid by his promise to return with a sword. Or Sartre's statement that "hell is other people" prevents him from rubbing shoulders with his fellow philosophers. It is always easy to pick holes in things.

                  eduard
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: openbook02@...
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 11:20 AM
                  Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics


                  Although the bible said "thou shalt not kill" god still encouraged religious
                  wars--imagine the bloodshed. God (or Yaweh if you swing that way) also
                  encouraged the slaughter of false profets, and killed the firstborn son of
                  all the families that neglected to paint blood of sheep on their doorways.
                  Also, he killed men who went betrayed his trust and went against his word,
                  and burned all his property with it, which included all their wives,
                  servants, slaves and entertainers. So either way you look at it, killing is
                  not all that forbidden, "thou shalt not kill... unless i say it's ok".
                  There's a double standard in there somewhere that gives one a loophole or
                  two, self defense, I'm sure, is one of them.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  ADVERTISEMENT




                  Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                  (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                  TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                  existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Eduard Alf
                  Dave, Yes. I could also go through the Bible and pick out parts that are not attractive. We could come up with a very extensive list. And our list will not
                  Message 8 of 18 , Dec 28, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave,

                    Yes. I could also go through the Bible and pick out parts that are not attractive. We could come up with a very extensive list. And our list will not be the only one. People have been picking words and phrases out of the Bible, to prove some point, since it was first composed. Yet none of this changes the central message the New Testament that we are to love one another. One thing to keep in mind is that much of what is written was intended for the audience at the time. It was a violent world. So if Christ says [or as recorded long after his death] that he is come with a sword, this could have a range of meanings. Not necessarily that he is out to kill people.

                    The passage in Luke 22:36 refers to a change in condition prior to the meeting with the priests on the Mount of Olives. The prior passage of Luke 22.35 is, "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing". The 22.36 then has a meaning beyond that of having swords to kill people. If you go to 22:38 you will find, "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." So Christ was not bent on a battle but rather something different. In fact if you look at 22:51, Christ heals the ear of the servant of the high priest. If Christ wanted to initiate some killing, why would he do that? In any case, it shows that just picking out a line with the word "sword" proves nothing.

                    As much as I know of the Inquisition, this had a lot more to do with the politics and power struggles at the time and selecting a passage from the New Testament hardly proves that such behaviour can be pinned directly on Christ. Any more than Osama bin Laden's innovative reading of the Koran, proves something nefarious on the part of the Muslim religion.

                    Yes Mark 3:5 does say that he looked at the merchants in "anger". But that same passage also says that he was "grieved for the hardness in their hearts".

                    John 2:15 does say that he attacked merchants with something like a whip [he made a scourge with small cords], but the message is the sacredness of the temple grounds. It is not as if Christ arbitrarily went around whipping people.

                    In Mathew 8:32, the drowning of swine was due to the act of the demons and not by Christ's order.

                    In Mathew 15:22, he does initially refuse to listen to the woman of Canaan. But look at 15:24; "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Then read 15:28, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." The initial refusal was an object lesson, much like the parables. It was to emphasize Christ's position with respect to the Jews. And since the New Testament was the propaganda of its time, it also served [as other passages of the same type] to justify the Paul's bringing of Christ's message to the gentiles. The meaning is that Christ is open to everyone who has faith.

                    In Mathew 8:22 he doesn't simply say, "Let the dead bury their dead". The full passage is, "Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead". The message is the importance of his mission. In fact it could be taken as a indication of a respect for the dead, since it is elevated by comparison to his mission.

                    Anyway, I could go on like this for all of your list, but I should think you get the point.

                    eduard

                    .----- Original Message -----
                    From: Dave Hall
                    To: 'existlist@yahoogroups.com'
                    Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 3:51 PM
                    Subject: RE: [existlist] disguised situational ethics


                    So, too, did the Christian Messiah, Joshua Ben Nazareth, but not much is he
                    quoted say that wasn't contradictory or gibberish.
                    How about some of these:

                    The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet Jesus said,
                    "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a
                    sword." (Matthew 10:34)
                    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke
                    22:36)
                    "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,
                    bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

                    The burning of unbelievers during the Inquisition was based on the words of
                    Jesus:
                    "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
                    withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are
                    burned." (John 15:6)

                    Jesus looked at his critics "with anger" (Mark 3:5),
                    attacked merchants with a whip (John 2:15),
                    showed his respect for life by drowning animals (Matthew 8:32),
                    refused to heal a sick child until he was pressured by the mother
                    (Matthew 15:22-28).

                    The most revealing aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal
                    torment.
                    "The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send forth his angels,
                    and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend,
                    and them which do iniquity;
                    And shall cast them into a furnace of fire:
                    there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42)
                    "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off:
                    it is better for thee to enter into life maimed,
                    than having two hands to go into hell,
                    into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark 9:43)

                    "If any man come to me,
                    and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and
                    brethren, and sisters,
                    yea,
                    and his own life also,
                    he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)

                    "I am come to set a man at variance against his father,
                    and the daughter against her mother,
                    and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
                    And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)

                    When one of his disciples requested time off for his father's funeral, Jesus
                    rebuked him:
                    "Let the dead bury their dead." (Matthew 8:22)

                    Jesus never used the word "family." He never married or fathered children.
                    To his own mother, he said,
                    "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (John 2:4)

                    Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves:
                    "And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will,
                    and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will,
                    shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)

                    He never denounced servitude, incorporating the master-slave relationship
                    into many of his parables.

                    He did nothing to alleviate poverty. Rather than sell some expensive
                    ointment to help the poor, Jesus wasted it on himself, saying,
                    "Ye have the poor with you always." (Mark 14:3-7)

                    If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew
                    5:29-30, in a sexual context).

                    Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

                    Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)

                    Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)

                    Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)

                    Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)

                    Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)

                    Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)

                    Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)

                    Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)

                    Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors.
                    (Luke 19:23-26)

                    If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)

                    If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)

                    If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)

                    If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)

                    If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew
                    5:42)

                    Lots of reasons to believe in Moralism and see the beneficial effect of
                    totalitarian ideals robed in a book about love and compassion...

                    Dave Hall


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • james tan
                    the human s love for absolute..! james. From: greg goodwin Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com To: existlist@yahoogroups.com Subject:
                    Message 9 of 18 , Dec 29, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      the human's love for absolute..!

                      james.


                      From: greg goodwin <ggoodwin56@...>
                      Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics
                      Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 06:25:24 -0800 (PST)

                      Sorry I'm not familiar with the afore mentioned
                      Catholic faith (Methodist rearing), but it's my
                      understanding the phrase quoted from the pages is
                      "thou shalt not kill", period!!
                      Greg

                      --- Roggles457@... wrote:
                      > This is just a thought that occurred to me when
                      > someone in this list brought
                      > up killing almost always being wrong. Many groups
                      > (I'll use the Catholic
                      > Church as an example) seem to me to use a sort of
                      > labeling to rail against
                      > situational ethics while secretly doing it on there
                      > own.
                      > Example: Taking someone's
                      > life/Murder/Self-Defense - The Catholic church
                      > considers Murder, killing an unarmed person, always
                      > wrong, an immoral action
                      > in and of itself. It claims not to follow
                      > situational ethics. But if the
                      > person is trying to kill you, its not murder, its
                      > selfdefense, which is ok.
                      > Murder and Self-defense: the action in both is still
                      > taking ones life, but
                      > the situation is the difference.
                      > Does this make any sense to anyone, or is it
                      > just a crazy idea in my head.
                      >
                      >
                      > Ryan
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
                      http://greetings.yahoo.com








                      _________________________________________________________________
                      Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
                    • james tan
                      eduard s thinking is basically essentialist in tradition; it is not existentialist. which is not to discredit it. james. From: Eduard Alf
                      Message 10 of 18 , Dec 29, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        eduard's thinking is basically essentialist in tradition; it is not
                        existentialist. which is not to discredit it.

                        james.


                        From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@...>
                        Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                        Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics
                        Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:12:04 -0500

                        Ryan,

                        lets see if can find an example to help you.

                        Say you have been saving up some money in a piggy bank. The ethic
                        associated with that money is that it should be spent for something of
                        personal value ... say that shiny red motorcycle that you have seen in the
                        shop window. But one day, you find that you are without funds, so you open
                        the piggy bank and then spend the money on dinner for you and your children.
                        Even as you spend the money, and are aware that it is with good
                        justification, there is the awareness that what you have done is wrong.
                        That if, given some other alternative, you would not have spent the money.
                        The ethic itself is unchanged, and continues to provide a point against
                        which you can measure your behaviour.

                        That is all that morality and ethics are. Perhaps it would be better to say
                        that they are a pattern of desired behaviour. A kind of social roadmap. We
                        all need roadmaps that tell us what our expected behaviour should be. In
                        the end, that is what this existentialist group is all about. We are
                        exploring a particular roadmap that has been deviced by Sartre and others,
                        and it is something against which we can judge our choices. To say that man
                        is thrown into the world or that existence preceeds essence is simply to
                        give a view point for how we should deal with our own life-world. That is
                        not to say that we need follow this philosophy completely, since reality
                        tends to bring forth strange circumstances which demand decisions based upon
                        some other criteria.

                        Humans [ and I would suppose animals] work on the basis of foreseeable
                        expectation. Or brains are constantly trying to put together patterns that
                        tell us what we might do or should do if circumstance "A" should arise with
                        condition "B". Morality and ethics are merely a sort of Coles Notes which
                        give you pat answers as to the subseqent and desired behaviour "C". The
                        work of the philosopher is to examine the equation of A + B = C to perhaps
                        provide some enlightenment as to the context of A's and the realities of
                        B's. Given perhaps a new definition of circumstance and condition, one may
                        find that the more appropriate behaviour is D or whatever. I should think
                        that Sartre is mostly focusing on the A. That is, whether our circumstance
                        is valid. His advocation of "existence preceeds essence" is a way of saying
                        that not all circumstances are valid, that some are outside our own
                        life-world and thus do not or should not have an impact on our behaviour.
                        My understanding is that the phenomenologist is focusing on the conditions
                        B, so that we can discern which conditions are true.

                        My point on the ethic or moral of "thou shalt not kill", as being absolute,
                        is based upon the premise that it is a common ethic for most societies. And
                        simply because it would not make sense for individuals to kill other
                        individuals, without authority, within a society. This would seem
                        axiomatic, since a society is actually the complex of institutions and
                        cultures which form a self-perpetuating group. If individuals are allowed
                        to kill within the society then its future its jeopardized. Societies [and
                        in this you could include animal societies] have always sought to maintain
                        their existence against whatever outside threat. The society of the
                        Watergate gang, did as much as they could to protect themselves against
                        exposure and this eventually lead to the downfall of a president.

                        Yes, there are some conditions in which it is acceptable to kill, just as
                        there are some conditions for which it is acceptable to spend that money in
                        the piggy bank. But in so doing, there is an awareness that it is wrong.
                        If we are allowed to kill under some condition, that does mean that the
                        ethic to not kill is automaticaly removed. It continues to be there, so
                        that when a new condition arises, we have a means of measuring our
                        subsequent behaviour. If this were not the case, then my killing as a means
                        of defense in one circumstance would leave open my killing in future for any
                        circumstance.

                        Does this get a bit clearer?

                        eduard
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Roggles457@...
                        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:49 AM
                        Subject: [existlist] disguised situational ethics


                        This is just a thought that occurred to me when someone in this list
                        brought
                        up killing almost always being wrong. Many groups (I'll use the Catholic
                        Church as an example) seem to me to use a sort of labeling to rail
                        against
                        situational ethics while secretly doing it on there own.
                        Example: Taking someone's life/Murder/Self-Defense - The Catholic
                        church
                        considers Murder, killing an unarmed person, always wrong, an immoral
                        action
                        in and of itself. It claims not to follow situational ethics. But if
                        the
                        person is trying to kill you, its not murder, its selfdefense, which is
                        ok.
                        Murder and Self-defense: the action in both is still taking ones life,
                        but
                        the situation is the difference.
                        Does this make any sense to anyone, or is it just a crazy idea in my
                        head.

                        Ryan

                        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                        ADVERTISEMENT




                        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









                        _________________________________________________________________
                        Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
                      • Eduard Alf
                        james, Well it took me perhaps most of the day to find out what essentialist meant. I am still not too sure I know, considering the multitudinous ways in
                        Message 11 of 18 , Dec 30, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          james,

                          Well it took me perhaps most of the day to find out what "essentialist"
                          meant. I am still not too sure I know, considering the multitudinous ways
                          in which it is used on the internet.

                          I suppose that if you are saying that an essentialist is one who believes
                          that it is possible to discern, through reason, the essential properties of
                          something, then that is in part eduard. And I would suggest it might also
                          be part existentialist, since the later does focus upon essences. But what
                          I find difficult with the use of the term "essentialist" is that seems to be
                          used more often as a charge against the believer, or more precisely to imply
                          that the believer is one who conceives of the identified essences as final
                          and unchanging either by self-evolution or by factors which are outside the
                          object. I am not sure if that is eduard. Certainly I have put forth
                          arguements which in general attempt to identify essences that are inherent
                          to the object [e.g. essences of society and its dynamics]. But then are we
                          not all doing the same thing. Some here have argued that society would work
                          better if we simply followed animal morality. Surely this too is a
                          presumption of essence. That a lion tribe can be reduced to the essence of
                          its social ethics. My opposition to this was not whether these presumed
                          essences are true or not, but to advocate that their adoption in place of
                          human ethics would not achieve anything.

                          eduard


                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: james tan [mailto:tyjfk@...]
                          Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2001 10:07 PM
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics



                          eduard's thinking is basically essentialist in tradition; it is not
                          existentialist. which is not to discredit it.

                          james.


                          From: "Eduard Alf" <yeoman@...>
                          Reply-To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          To: <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
                          Subject: Re: [existlist] disguised situational ethics
                          Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 09:12:04 -0500

                          Ryan,

                          lets see if can find an example to help you.

                          Say you have been saving up some money in a piggy bank. The ethic
                          associated with that money is that it should be spent for something of
                          personal value ... say that shiny red motorcycle that you have seen in the
                          shop window. But one day, you find that you are without funds, so you
                          open
                          the piggy bank and then spend the money on dinner for you and your
                          children.
                          Even as you spend the money, and are aware that it is with good
                          justification, there is the awareness that what you have done is wrong.
                          That if, given some other alternative, you would not have spent the money.
                          The ethic itself is unchanged, and continues to provide a point against
                          which you can measure your behaviour.

                          That is all that morality and ethics are. Perhaps it would be better to
                          say
                          that they are a pattern of desired behaviour. A kind of social roadmap.
                          We
                          all need roadmaps that tell us what our expected behaviour should be. In
                          the end, that is what this existentialist group is all about. We are
                          exploring a particular roadmap that has been deviced by Sartre and others,
                          and it is something against which we can judge our choices. To say that
                          man
                          is thrown into the world or that existence preceeds essence is simply to
                          give a view point for how we should deal with our own life-world. That is
                          not to say that we need follow this philosophy completely, since reality
                          tends to bring forth strange circumstances which demand decisions based
                          upon
                          some other criteria.

                          Humans [ and I would suppose animals] work on the basis of foreseeable
                          expectation. Or brains are constantly trying to put together patterns
                          that
                          tell us what we might do or should do if circumstance "A" should arise
                          with
                          condition "B". Morality and ethics are merely a sort of Coles Notes which
                          give you pat answers as to the subseqent and desired behaviour "C". The
                          work of the philosopher is to examine the equation of A + B = C to perhaps
                          provide some enlightenment as to the context of A's and the realities of
                          B's. Given perhaps a new definition of circumstance and condition, one
                          may
                          find that the more appropriate behaviour is D or whatever. I should think
                          that Sartre is mostly focusing on the A. That is, whether our
                          circumstance
                          is valid. His advocation of "existence preceeds essence" is a way of
                          saying
                          that not all circumstances are valid, that some are outside our own
                          life-world and thus do not or should not have an impact on our behaviour.
                          My understanding is that the phenomenologist is focusing on the conditions
                          B, so that we can discern which conditions are true.

                          My point on the ethic or moral of "thou shalt not kill", as being
                          absolute,
                          is based upon the premise that it is a common ethic for most societies.
                          And
                          simply because it would not make sense for individuals to kill other
                          individuals, without authority, within a society. This would seem
                          axiomatic, since a society is actually the complex of institutions and
                          cultures which form a self-perpetuating group. If individuals are allowed
                          to kill within the society then its future its jeopardized. Societies
                          [and
                          in this you could include animal societies] have always sought to maintain
                          their existence against whatever outside threat. The society of the
                          Watergate gang, did as much as they could to protect themselves against
                          exposure and this eventually lead to the downfall of a president.

                          Yes, there are some conditions in which it is acceptable to kill, just as
                          there are some conditions for which it is acceptable to spend that money
                          in
                          the piggy bank. But in so doing, there is an awareness that it is wrong.
                          If we are allowed to kill under some condition, that does mean that the
                          ethic to not kill is automaticaly removed. It continues to be there, so
                          that when a new condition arises, we have a means of measuring our
                          subsequent behaviour. If this were not the case, then my killing as a
                          means
                          of defense in one circumstance would leave open my killing in future for
                          any
                          circumstance.

                          Does this get a bit clearer?

                          eduard
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Roggles457@...
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 2:49 AM
                          Subject: [existlist] disguised situational ethics


                          This is just a thought that occurred to me when someone in this list
                          brought
                          up killing almost always being wrong. Many groups (I'll use the
                          Catholic
                          Church as an example) seem to me to use a sort of labeling to rail
                          against
                          situational ethics while secretly doing it on there own.
                          Example: Taking someone's life/Murder/Self-Defense - The Catholic
                          church
                          considers Murder, killing an unarmed person, always wrong, an immoral
                          action
                          in and of itself. It claims not to follow situational ethics. But if
                          the
                          person is trying to kill you, its not murder, its selfdefense, which is
                          ok.
                          Murder and Self-defense: the action in both is still taking ones life,
                          but
                          the situation is the difference.
                          Does this make any sense to anyone, or is it just a crazy idea in
                          my
                          head.

                          Ryan

                          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          ADVERTISEMENT




                          Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                          (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                          TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                          existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









                          _________________________________________________________________
                          Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com


                          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          ADVERTISEMENT




                          Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
                          (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

                          TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
                          existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.