-Caveat Lector-
See my comments interspersed below:
Teo1000
In a message dated 4/8/99 2:47:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< > If, on the other hand the person who
>threw the water just THOUGHT about throwing it and DID nothing, then what is
>the harm? Until an action is taken no crime is committed. Simple. No?
No, 't ain't This issue is rooted in our Christian (or at least "Christian"
in LIP-SERVICE) heritage. Remember, one of Jesus Christ's accomplishments,
in terms of breaking new ground in Western culture, was underscoring the
"psychological" dimension in ethics and morality --what we nowadays take for
granted as "motive," e.g., in law-- as opposed to the gross physical, up to
then the ONLY consideration in religion (Mosaic Judaism).
Without honoring such a distinction, indeed, no one could ever be accused of
being a "hypocrite" -- Jesus' favorite term, BTW, used incessantly, to
describe his OTHERWISE "righteous" co-religionists. So, with Christianity,
suddenly whatever qualities of "soul" MOTIVATED an evil act are elevated to
equal significance with the ACT, even if the act itself is NOT committed (but
the inclination is harbored, bristling at the restraint made necessary by the
need to at least APPEAR "good," hypocritically -- which the ignorant masses
[i.e., those who throng the ranks of "believers"] STILL mistake for
"goodness.")
I agree with this assessment but as you rightly point out later on there are
differing worldviews being expressed here. In my view if an action is not
committed against someone then no harm is done and therefore no crime is
committed. Of course I am well aware of the Christian perspective and the
idea of hypocrisy, and the idea that one is accountable for ones thoughts,
and a DESIRE to do wrong is as bad as the wrong itself. That is one
worldview you could hold, it is not one in which I put credence because if it
were true we would al be guilty of the most heinous acts, would we not?
Likewise, where originally no distinction was made between "crime" and "sin,"
BOTH being limited to PHYSICAL acts, NOW, post-Jesus, there IS that
distinction and a new division of the ethical sphere into (public) "crime,"
legality, and (private) "sin," morality.
Yes, This is not good, in my view. Morality is and always has been something
that must be approached on an individual basis. Universal truths exist and
one must try to find them and live by them if one wishes to adhere to any
meaningful moral code. But should you not want to do so that is equally your
prerogative. Additionally ones moral code is equally valid with another
persons moral code if it is adhered to as closely and there is as much belief
in it. Even Christianity allows for the redemption of those who aren't saved
in the classic "believe in Jesus sense", because many have come before he did
and many of them were "good" in that they accepted a moral code that was
compatible with Christianity therefore those are saved as well. Good and
bad, and right and wrong are issues that fall under the idea of dualism which
is a doctrine that has so penetrated western culture as to make it nearly
impossible to even argue about the subject to someone who doesn't understand
the conceptual difference.
In those who decry the splitting of the real world into separate and mutually
exclusive spheres --secular "Newtonian" law for all, otherworldly "Freudian"
religion for a few--
but mostly in those too dumb to grasp any distinction here at all, you will
often find a blurring of categories in "judgment" that insists that "the Law"
is "the Law," whether it's in the Good Book or just some silly lawbook, plus
a rather free-floating urge to "judge" and desire to punish EVERYBODY for
SOMETHING -- as if parroting the words of "the Law" was qualification enough
to play GOD. (Gotta love that god, "Jesus J. Jehovah.")
Lord knows I have a desire to punish everyone at times for some nebulous law,
even as "insignificant" as my desire for privacy and to be free from
distractions. I choose not to act on those feelings to judge, at least in
the real world.
Impulses --motivation, motives-- versus acts. No actions without SOME kind
of source in the subjective realm. Nothing in the subjective realm that
doesn't seek expression in SOME form -- whether directly in action or
"displaced" safely into a realm where one doesn't "get caught," i.e.,
fantasy. (Assuming that one has "impulse CONTROL" ... )
Fantasy is there for a reason. Jesus would say that the act of fantasy sin
is as bad as the sin itself. If the world is such that fantasy is a part of
reality in the sense that it takes form and substance somewhere, and has
ultimate fulfillment then we are all in trouble. Otherwise it is just a way
for our minds to reconcile a paradox, a DESIRE to do "wrong" and a DESIRE to
be "good". It allows for release of such paradoxical tendencies in our
minds, IMO, of course.
Hence, we can thank Jesus Christ and the Bible for the so-called "knee-jerk
liberal" concern for PREVENTING (before the fact) rather than PUNISHING
(after it's too late)
harmful behavior, as well as for the idea of "rehabilitation" ("re-forming
one's heart").
It all gets very sticky if you and your partner in dialogue are unclear about
there being at least two DIFFERENT contexts or worldviews here, or worse yet,
if you MIX these ...
>>
It is noble to want to prevent acts before they occur, and we do things every
day to try and prevent things. However, the idea of preventing things from
happening based upon my thoughts is not a sound one, especially since my
thoughts are fleeting at best and usually have no lasting reference point.
Still this idea has a good foundation in western law and as such is a real
world concern.
Teo1000
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
