Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site sdcc7.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc7!ln63fac
From: ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: How come God doesn't affect Dave?
Message-ID: <117@sdcc7.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 01:45:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc7.117
Posted: Wed Oct  9 01:45:24 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 11:17:22 EDT
References: <2214@sdcc6.UUCP> <583@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 74
Xref: watmath net.religion:7967 net.religion.christian:1439
Summary: An eye for an eye ...

In article <583@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA>, tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes:
> 
> In general, someone who has not abided by a moral principle has forfeited
> any right to protection under that principle.  For instance, if someone is
> trying to kill someone else, then it is moral to kill them, because they
> have no right to object.  Morality is exclusive of double standards.  The
> person who commits an offense against another and then whines piteously when
> the same is done to her or him is trying to have it both ways.

Great, but this makes all morality relative to the people involved.  If someone
else breaks the rules, than I'm no longer bound by those same rules, but what
about the possibility of a rule structure such that even if others break them,
you are still bound by them?  E.g.  If I call you a name, you might choose not
to respond back in the same manner, even though you feel you have the right.

Forgive me for paraphrasing Laura's comments on our discussion, but one point
she made was that much depends on the constraints placed on the people involved
you which 'forced' you to insult that person back (forgive me for
calling whoever it was 'that person', but I've forgotten just who it was).
If you have a completely free range of actions and you choose to break a rule
someone else broke, I would have to wonder why and about the sincerity with
which you held the belief in the first place.  If the idea is to keep dis-
cussions civil and coherant, then even if you weren't the instigator, by your
reaction you've almost guaranteed no further chance of a civil and coherant
discussion by taking an action you claim is immoral in the first place and that
does not 'need' to be taken.

One point that might clarify a little bit of my position is the question of
how one feels people are to be changed (or to put in more legal/psychological
terms; how non/anti-social behavior can be corrected).  In some cases, aside
from the issue of the best way to change people, some 'crimes' are so anti-
social that not only does the person need to be changed, but they also need 
to be prevented from committing the same crime again.  But in a situation like
someone calling someone else a name, what is the rationale or the advantage to
responding in the manner you claim to dislike.  Simply because this other
person did it to you?  This is where the whole Biblical idea of turning the
other cheek comes in.  Christ's ideas on how to change people were summed up
not only in his teachings about morality (one does occasionally need to tell
people what is right and what is wrong) but more often, they were exemplified
in a life-style that was a model.  And not in a model that showed an eye
for an eye, a model that always showed the good so that if modelling was to
take place, that's all there'd be to model.

The other major consideration that I should hit on here is your idea of not
judging people.  Simply, the Bible says that we can reprimand our brothers
(sorry I can't remember the refernce for this), we can discipline our
brothers but the Bible makes one point clearly, the basis for all judge-
ment is spiritual and any judgement that is made must be made on spiritual
criteria, by spiritual people.  The Bible says that we should submit our
selves to the governments, but in I Corinthians 6:4-7 Paul tries to make
clear the distinction, "If then you have law courts dealing with matters
of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the
church?  I say this to your shame. ... But brother goes to law with brother
and that before unbelievers?  Actually, then it is already a defeat for you,
that you have law-suits with one another.  Why not rather be wronged?  Why
not rather be defrauded?"

We submit to the government, obey its sanctions, but we do not have to and
we should not deal with morality on its terms.  The whole basis for turning
the other cheek is given by Paul near the end of Romans 12, "If possible,
so far as it depends upon you, be at peace with all men.  Never take your
own revenge but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 
'Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, says the Lord'.  But if your enemy is
hungry, feed him an if he is thirsty, give him drink; for in so doing you
will heap burning coals upon his head.  Do not be overcome with evil, but 
overcome evil with good."  The simple idea is that this world and the people
in it are God's to judge.  We should try as much as possible to be at peace
with all men and leave the punishments up to God.  And as for your comment
about looking good on paper, how did it look in the life of Christ?

				Rick Frey

"The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, 'Behold the Lamb of God
who takes away the sin of the world.'"  John 1:29