OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 10:39:01 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Bad jobs  (Read 7679 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #90 on: October 12, 2011, 11:24:17 PM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #91 on: October 12, 2011, 11:27:51 PM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 11:33:12 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,489



« Reply #92 on: October 12, 2011, 11:35:53 PM »

The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.

No, but other Biblical writers, and Church Fathers, argued as much. Not that they would have put it quite like that... but choosing "lesser evils" (ie. sins) was deemed an acceptable--even necessary--path in some cases.
Well, then let's quote the Fathers too. Like I said, I think the example of the OP is flawed for the reasons I mentioned. We don't want to communicate one Christian principle by condoning the violation of another Christian principle. And despite the intent, the OP could lead some to believe that sin is justified by its accomplishments.

Here is the primary example that I was thinking of:

Quote
"It is better both to attain the good and to keep the purification. But if it be impossible to do both it is surely better to be a little stained with your public affairs than to fall altogether short of grace; just as I think it better to undergo a slight punishment from father or master than to be put out of doors; and to be a little beamed upon than to be left in total darkness. And it is the part of wise men to choose, as in good things the greater and more perfect, so in evils the lesser and lighter. Wherefore do not overmuch dread the purification. For our success is always judged by comparison with our place in life by our just and merciful Judge; and often one who is in public life and has had small success has had a greater reward than one who in the enjoyment of liberty has not completely succeeded; as I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean. To give you a proof of what I have said: Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself."

-- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19

This "hospitality" that Rahab is said be justified by--and not only St. Gregory says this but also the Bible (James 2:25) and several Orthodox prayers--what is it besides using lies and deception to bring about a good end? (Also see this thread for a couple other examples of deception used for good ends--by a prophet of God and an Archangel) As St. Gregory says, sometimes we have to pick "evils the lesser and lighter," and God takes into consideration the context when judging us. I think we also see the concept that there are greater and lesser evils in other places, in the Scripture (Jn. 19:11), and also in various Fathers, such as St. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2, 30), St. John Chrysostom (Homily 17 on Ephesians; Homily 17 on Matthew), St. Augustine (The Enchiridion, 18), and Tertullian (The Prescription Against Heresies, 5).

Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #93 on: October 12, 2011, 11:39:34 PM »


The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.

No, but other Biblical writers, and Church Fathers, argued as much. Not that they would have put it quite like that... but choosing "lesser evils" (ie. sins) was deemed an acceptable--even necessary--path in some cases.
Well, then let's quote the Fathers too. Like I said, I think the example of the OP is flawed for the reasons I mentioned. We don't want to communicate one Christian principle by condoning the violation of another Christian principle. And despite the intent, the OP could lead some to believe that sin is justified by its accomplishments.

Here is the primary example that I was thinking of:

Quote
"It is better both to attain the good and to keep the purification. But if it be impossible to do both it is surely better to be a little stained with your public affairs than to fall altogether short of grace; just as I think it better to undergo a slight punishment from father or master than to be put out of doors; and to be a little beamed upon than to be left in total darkness. And it is the part of wise men to choose, as in good things the greater and more perfect, so in evils the lesser and lighter. Wherefore do not overmuch dread the purification. For our success is always judged by comparison with our place in life by our just and merciful Judge; and often one who is in public life and has had small success has had a greater reward than one who in the enjoyment of liberty has not completely succeeded; as I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean. To give you a proof of what I have said: Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself."

-- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19

This "hospitality" that Rahab is said be justified by--and not only St. Gregory says this but also the Bible (James 2:25) and several Orthodox prayers--what is it besides using lies and deception to bring about a good end? (Also see this thread for a couple other examples of deception used for good ends--by a prophet of God and an Archangel) As St. Gregory says, sometimes we have to pick "evils the lesser and lighter," and God takes into consideration the context when judging us. I think we also see the concept that there are greater and lesser evils in other places, in the Scripture (Jn. 19:11), and also in various Fathers, such as St. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2, 30), St. John Chrysostom (Homily 17 on Ephesians; Homily 17 on Matthew), St. Augustine (The Enchiridion, 18), and Tertullian (The Prescription Against Heresies, 5).




Thank you brother. Our Lord and the Fathers certainly do a much better job than we do in explaining such matters.


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #94 on: October 12, 2011, 11:45:53 PM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP, that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam
« Last Edit: October 12, 2011, 11:46:17 PM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #95 on: October 13, 2011, 12:58:02 AM »


The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.

No, but other Biblical writers, and Church Fathers, argued as much. Not that they would have put it quite like that... but choosing "lesser evils" (ie. sins) was deemed an acceptable--even necessary--path in some cases.
Well, then let's quote the Fathers too. Like I said, I think the example of the OP is flawed for the reasons I mentioned. We don't want to communicate one Christian principle by condoning the violation of another Christian principle. And despite the intent, the OP could lead some to believe that sin is justified by its accomplishments.

Here is the primary example that I was thinking of:

Quote
"It is better both to attain the good and to keep the purification. But if it be impossible to do both it is surely better to be a little stained with your public affairs than to fall altogether short of grace; just as I think it better to undergo a slight punishment from father or master than to be put out of doors; and to be a little beamed upon than to be left in total darkness. And it is the part of wise men to choose, as in good things the greater and more perfect, so in evils the lesser and lighter. Wherefore do not overmuch dread the purification. For our success is always judged by comparison with our place in life by our just and merciful Judge; and often one who is in public life and has had small success has had a greater reward than one who in the enjoyment of liberty has not completely succeeded; as I think it more marvellous for a man to advance a little in fetters, than for one to run who is not carrying any weight; or to be only a little spattered in walking through mud, than to be perfectly clean when the road is clean. To give you a proof of what I have said: Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself."

-- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19

This "hospitality" that Rahab is said be justified by--and not only St. Gregory says this but also the Bible (James 2:25) and several Orthodox prayers--what is it besides using lies and deception to bring about a good end? (Also see this thread for a couple other examples of deception used for good ends--by a prophet of God and an Archangel) As St. Gregory says, sometimes we have to pick "evils the lesser and lighter," and God takes into consideration the context when judging us. I think we also see the concept that there are greater and lesser evils in other places, in the Scripture (Jn. 19:11), and also in various Fathers, such as St. Jerome (Against Jovinianus, 2, 30), St. John Chrysostom (Homily 17 on Ephesians; Homily 17 on Matthew), St. Augustine (The Enchiridion, 18), and Tertullian (The Prescription Against Heresies, 5).




Thank you brother. Our Lord and the Fathers certainly do a much better job than we do in explaining such matters.


Selam


Cave
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #96 on: October 13, 2011, 01:00:43 AM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP
No, I don't see the difference.

that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam

You're using this example to prove your point, but the point you're trying to prove is the Jesus NEVER condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Your example shows that he did not condone the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but this one specific example cannot prove that He ALWAYS acted in this way. To prove that He NEVER acted any differently from the example you give, there can be absolutely no examples in the Gospel of Him acting differently. One, and only one, example to the contrary will disprove your point. I provided other passages of the Gospel that can be read as disproving your thesis, if you read those passages the same way you read Pasadi's OP, since they really aren't any different.

I think Asteriktos essentially says from the Fathers the same thing I'm trying to say, and you apparently acknowledge the truth in his words. I don't understand, then, why you think it necessary to argue with my point of view, since I'm essentially saying the same thing.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #97 on: October 13, 2011, 01:06:35 AM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP
No, I don't see the difference.

that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam

You're using this example to prove your point, but the point you're trying to prove is the Jesus NEVER condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Your example shows that he did not condone the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but this one specific example cannot prove that He ALWAYS acted in this way. To prove that He NEVER acted any differently from the example you give, there can be absolutely no examples in the Gospel of Him acting differently. One, and only one, example to the contrary will disprove your point. I provided other passages of the Gospel that can be read as disproving your thesis, if you read those passages the same way you read Pasadi's OP, since they really aren't any different.

I think Asteriktos essentially says from the Fathers the same thing I'm trying to say, and you apparently acknowledge the truth in his words. I don't understand, then, why you think it necessary to argue with my point of view, since I'm essentially saying the same thing.

What about this do you not understand?:

"Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself." -- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19


If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.


Selam
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 01:08:26 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #98 on: October 13, 2011, 01:09:42 AM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP
No, I don't see the difference.

that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam

You're using this example to prove your point, but the point you're trying to prove is the Jesus NEVER condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Your example shows that he did not condone the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but this one specific example cannot prove that He ALWAYS acted in this way. To prove that He NEVER acted any differently from the example you give, there can be absolutely no examples in the Gospel of Him acting differently. One, and only one, example to the contrary will disprove your point. I provided other passages of the Gospel that can be read as disproving your thesis, if you read those passages the same way you read Pasadi's OP, since they really aren't any different.

I think Asteriktos essentially says from the Fathers the same thing I'm trying to say, and you apparently acknowledge the truth in his words. I don't understand, then, why you think it necessary to argue with my point of view, since I'm essentially saying the same thing.

PtA, was just writing a "mean" post to say the same thing. As if he looked up whether it was truly from St. Gregory anyhow.

PtA, this is another thread where Gebre has PWN's himself.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 01:10:03 AM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #99 on: October 13, 2011, 03:18:50 AM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP
No, I don't see the difference.

that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam

You're using this example to prove your point, but the point you're trying to prove is the Jesus NEVER condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Your example shows that he did not condone the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but this one specific example cannot prove that He ALWAYS acted in this way. To prove that He NEVER acted any differently from the example you give, there can be absolutely no examples in the Gospel of Him acting differently. One, and only one, example to the contrary will disprove your point. I provided other passages of the Gospel that can be read as disproving your thesis, if you read those passages the same way you read Pasadi's OP, since they really aren't any different.

I think Asteriktos essentially says from the Fathers the same thing I'm trying to say, and you apparently acknowledge the truth in his words. I don't understand, then, why you think it necessary to argue with my point of view, since I'm essentially saying the same thing.

What about this do you not understand?:

"Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself." -- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19
I think my posts on this thread show that I understand both sides of this issue.

If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.
That's not my point. My point is that you're seeing only one side of this issue, and by continuing to argue with me, you're only closing your mind further to seeing the validity of any point of view other than your own. I think, therefore, that I should bow out of this discussion to give you more time to read this thread again and possibly gain a broader perspective.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 03:20:37 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #100 on: October 13, 2011, 03:47:51 AM »

Why not just quote Jesus and Scripture instead of presenting an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the means of sin justifies the ends it accomplishes? The analogies Christ used never indicated that sin was justifiable because of a particular ends that it might serve.
Do you say that because it's true, or do you say that because you can't stomach the idea of possibly attributing to Christ the logical conclusions you attribute to others?

You read the OP as using an analogy that runs the risk of indicating that the noble end of feeding one's child justifies the sinful means of accomplishing that end. Yet I don't see how the OP's analogy is any different from some of the analogies Jesus used to teach that we should be careful how we judge people. According to your reasoning, you would have to conclude that Christ used what you would call risky analogies, yet you can't bring yourself to make that conclusion because it would attribute less than perfect wisdom to Christ.

Working the other direction, if you recognize that Jesus used only perfect analogies, and if the OP uses an analogy that follows the same pattern Jesus set, how can you not extend to the OP the benefit of the doubt and recognize that he only wants to communicate the same message? Why do you feel comfortable reading into the OP a conclusion that you won't read into Christ's words, even though their basic logical method does not differ?

That's why I think you're missing the point of the OP.


Dear brother, you must not have read what I clearly stated. In the examples Christ used about not judging, He never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Therein is the difference. Please understand.
I read what you said, and I drafted a direct response to what you said. In fact, the very focus of my response was your assertion that Jesus never condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. What, then, do I not understand?


It just seems that you don't understand the difference between Christ's example and the example of the OP
No, I don't see the difference.

that difference once again being that Christ never excused the sin of the woman caught in adultery, for example, but rather commanded her to go and sin no more. He didn't say, "Do not judge this woman, for she had to commit adultery in order to feed her children." No. Our Lord simply said to her accusers, "He who is without sin cast the first stone." And then He said to the adultress, "Go and sin no more."


Selam

You're using this example to prove your point, but the point you're trying to prove is the Jesus NEVER condoned sin as a justifiable means to an end. Your example shows that he did not condone the sin of the woman caught in adultery, but this one specific example cannot prove that He ALWAYS acted in this way. To prove that He NEVER acted any differently from the example you give, there can be absolutely no examples in the Gospel of Him acting differently. One, and only one, example to the contrary will disprove your point. I provided other passages of the Gospel that can be read as disproving your thesis, if you read those passages the same way you read Pasadi's OP, since they really aren't any different.

I think Asteriktos essentially says from the Fathers the same thing I'm trying to say, and you apparently acknowledge the truth in his words. I don't understand, then, why you think it necessary to argue with my point of view, since I'm essentially saying the same thing.

What about this do you not understand?:

"Rahab the harlot was justified by one thing alone, her hospitality, though she receives no praise for the rest of her conduct; and the Publican was exalted by one thing, his humility, though he received no testimony for anything else; so that you may learn not easily to despair concerning yourself." -- St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40, 19
I think my posts on this thread show that I understand both sides of this issue.

If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.
That's not my point. My point is that you're seeing only one side of this issue, and by continuing to argue with me, you're only closing your mind further to seeing the validity of any point of view other than your own. I think, therefore, that I should bow out of this discussion to give you more time to read this thread again and possibly gain a broader perspective.


For the third time on this thread, I will repeat:

"It seems that Orthodox Christians should all be able to agree that it is a sin to lust, that it is a sin to cause others to lust, and that it is a sin to self-righteously condemn others who sin. If we can all agree on these things, then what more needs to be debated?"

It seems to me that this covers all sides of the issue at hand. I have never once argued that it is ok to self-righteously judge and condemn another. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you accuse me of only seeing one side of this issue. I would still like to know if you agree with my statement above. If we focus on these things, then we do well. No debate necessary, unless of course you disagree with my statement.


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #101 on: October 13, 2011, 04:20:05 AM »

For the third time on this thread, I will repeat:

"It seems that Orthodox Christians should all be able to agree that it is a sin to lust, that it is a sin to cause others to lust, and that it is a sin to self-righteously condemn others who sin. If we can all agree on these things, then what more needs to be debated?"

It seems to me that this covers all sides of the issue at hand. I have never once argued that it is ok to self-righteously judge and condemn another. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you accuse me of only seeing one side of this issue. I would still like to know if you agree with my statement above. If we focus on these things, then we do well. No debate necessary, unless of course you disagree with my statement.
Let me put it to you bluntly, Gebre. I think you misread the OP.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 04:21:37 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #102 on: October 13, 2011, 04:46:51 AM »

For the third time on this thread, I will repeat:

"It seems that Orthodox Christians should all be able to agree that it is a sin to lust, that it is a sin to cause others to lust, and that it is a sin to self-righteously condemn others who sin. If we can all agree on these things, then what more needs to be debated?"

It seems to me that this covers all sides of the issue at hand. I have never once argued that it is ok to self-righteously judge and condemn another. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you accuse me of only seeing one side of this issue. I would still like to know if you agree with my statement above. If we focus on these things, then we do well. No debate necessary, unless of course you disagree with my statement.
Let me put it to you bluntly, Gebre. I think you misread the OP.


I have read it and re-read it Peter. I offered my opinion on why I thought it was a bad illustration to make a good point. I guess we disagree on that. It would still be nice if we could at least agree on the statement I have asked you about repeatedly.


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #103 on: October 13, 2011, 04:58:12 AM »

Gotta love this bickering.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #104 on: October 13, 2011, 05:03:06 AM »

Gotta love this bickering.


 Huh It ain't me babe.  Wink


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #105 on: October 13, 2011, 05:43:03 AM »

Gotta love this bickering.
No. No bickering here. You have noticed that we're actually discussing the subject of this thread?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 05:51:18 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #106 on: October 13, 2011, 06:14:11 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,493



« Reply #107 on: October 13, 2011, 12:47:21 PM »

Quote
The name of the prayer is in Romanian "Paraclisul Maicii Domnului" When I needed something I would say it several times.

Could you help with the 'Merican translation?
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #108 on: October 13, 2011, 01:37:35 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

IOW, y'all need to cut the OP some slack on this.
Logged
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #109 on: October 13, 2011, 01:51:35 PM »

Gotta love this bickering.


 Huh It ain't me babe.  Wink


Selam

This sentence is false.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 01:51:49 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,975


« Reply #110 on: October 13, 2011, 04:08:36 PM »

This particular thread is mystifying to me and it has been going on for about five days. I obviously need help in understanding the mindsets of the posters with some exceptions poster-wise,

The original post was:

Interesting:
A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available.

[SNIP]

But this is not the point. The point is how and when did the dancer become a stripper in this thread (or pole dancer, lap dancer, choose your own hyperbole). To dance is an intrinsic part of humanity and more often than not geared to the opposite sex. It is an expressive art form and a language that allows us to relate who we are and what we are feeling. It is an expression of us and not the commercial advertisement for sex the former innuendo connotes.

In any case I just wanted to state that I found some of the posts in this thread sickening.


I apologize if someone else has already responded adequately to this, but I wanted to comment on how a “woman dancing for men” became a stripper or equivalent in this thread.  I think the insinuation is made from the fact that the woman was a dancer for men specifically, as opposed to a woman who just generally “danced” or “danced before crowds”  to feed her children.  What kind of dancing would a woman do solely “for men” that would not be of an immoral and seductive quality?  If this dancing is not of an immoral and seductive quality, why would she be a dancer “for men” only, and not for general audiences, crowds, families, both men and women, etc.?  While the point may be taken that even a stripper or otherwise seductive (but clothed) dancer, who by her profession draws men to perdition but who does so reluctantly and with regret out of necessity, may be “better” in the sight of God than any man or woman who is full of pride; nevertheless, I still doubt the patrimony of this text on the basis of the fact that it seemingly justifies such immoral and seductive dancing which inflames the passions of men and leads them to perdition.  In the stories which have come down to us among the Sayings of the Fathers, we learn of monks who have similarly wondered whether anyone alive surpassed them in perfection.  In response to this kind of thought, such monks are usually told of a certain man or couple in the world who surpasses the monk in perfection.  In such cases, the “more perfect” layman or lay couple are indeed very virtuous and are considered “more perfect” before God because while they also lived virtuously and chastely (as did the monk), they also considered themselves more sinful than everyone else.  While the monk tempted by pride wondered if anyone is greater than himself, the “more perfect” laity live uprightly in the world and are convinced that no one is worse than themselves.  In stories from the Fathers which refer to women who were involved in scandalous professions (usually prostitution), they are praised only after departing from such sinful occupations, giving their sinfully-gained incomes to the poor, washing away the filth of their sins in the waters of baptism, and passing the rest of their days in the most extreme forms of asceticism, shedding many tears and undertaking many labors to destroy the passions which formerly enslaved them.  The Lord said that prostitutes were entering into the kingdom of heaven before the Pharisees precisely because of the humble and complete repentance of the former in contrast to pride and hypocrisy of the latter.  The Lord told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more”.  We have no such stories which justify such sinful occupations, as far as I have read.

In general, I do not think we should discuss such questionable stories from unnamed monks that are at odds with the countless stories from the Fathers which we have on record.  Furthermore, if such an incident did occur wherein a woman could find no respectable occupation to provide for her family, do you really think God would bless her for choosing an occupation which would lead her soul, and the souls of her male clients, to perdition?  If such an occupation was the only occupation available to the woman, would not God greatly bless her and her children, either in this life or in the life to come, for refusing this occupation despite the material and bodily needs of her family?  What good is food, clothing, and shelter, if you lose your soul and help others to forfeit their souls in order to obtain them?         
« Last Edit: October 13, 2011, 04:14:14 PM by jah777 » Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #111 on: October 13, 2011, 06:21:03 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #112 on: October 13, 2011, 08:53:10 PM »

This particular thread is mystifying to me and it has been going on for about five days. I obviously need help in understanding the mindsets of the posters with some exceptions poster-wise,

The original post was:

Interesting:
A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available.

[SNIP]

But this is not the point. The point is how and when did the dancer become a stripper in this thread (or pole dancer, lap dancer, choose your own hyperbole). To dance is an intrinsic part of humanity and more often than not geared to the opposite sex. It is an expressive art form and a language that allows us to relate who we are and what we are feeling. It is an expression of us and not the commercial advertisement for sex the former innuendo connotes.

In any case I just wanted to state that I found some of the posts in this thread sickening.


I apologize if someone else has already responded adequately to this, but I wanted to comment on how a “woman dancing for men” became a stripper or equivalent in this thread.  I think the insinuation is made from the fact that the woman was a dancer for men specifically, as opposed to a woman who just generally “danced” or “danced before crowds”  to feed her children.  What kind of dancing would a woman do solely “for men” that would not be of an immoral and seductive quality?  If this dancing is not of an immoral and seductive quality, why would she be a dancer “for men” only, and not for general audiences, crowds, families, both men and women, etc.?  While the point may be taken that even a stripper or otherwise seductive (but clothed) dancer, who by her profession draws men to perdition but who does so reluctantly and with regret out of necessity, may be “better” in the sight of God than any man or woman who is full of pride; nevertheless, I still doubt the patrimony of this text on the basis of the fact that it seemingly justifies such immoral and seductive dancing which inflames the passions of men and leads them to perdition.  In the stories which have come down to us among the Sayings of the Fathers, we learn of monks who have similarly wondered whether anyone alive surpassed them in perfection.  In response to this kind of thought, such monks are usually told of a certain man or couple in the world who surpasses the monk in perfection.  In such cases, the “more perfect” layman or lay couple are indeed very virtuous and are considered “more perfect” before God because while they also lived virtuously and chastely (as did the monk), they also considered themselves more sinful than everyone else.  While the monk tempted by pride wondered if anyone is greater than himself, the “more perfect” laity live uprightly in the world and are convinced that no one is worse than themselves.  In stories from the Fathers which refer to women who were involved in scandalous professions (usually prostitution), they are praised only after departing from such sinful occupations, giving their sinfully-gained incomes to the poor, washing away the filth of their sins in the waters of baptism, and passing the rest of their days in the most extreme forms of asceticism, shedding many tears and undertaking many labors to destroy the passions which formerly enslaved them.  The Lord said that prostitutes were entering into the kingdom of heaven before the Pharisees precisely because of the humble and complete repentance of the former in contrast to pride and hypocrisy of the latter.  The Lord told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more”.  We have no such stories which justify such sinful occupations, as far as I have read.

In general, I do not think we should discuss such questionable stories from unnamed monks that are at odds with the countless stories from the Fathers which we have on record.  Furthermore, if such an incident did occur wherein a woman could find no respectable occupation to provide for her family, do you really think God would bless her for choosing an occupation which would lead her soul, and the souls of her male clients, to perdition?  If such an occupation was the only occupation available to the woman, would not God greatly bless her and her children, either in this life or in the life to come, for refusing this occupation despite the material and bodily needs of her family?  What good is food, clothing, and shelter, if you lose your soul and help others to forfeit their souls in order to obtain them?         



Excellent points my friend. Thank you!


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #113 on: October 14, 2011, 12:11:14 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #114 on: October 14, 2011, 05:37:15 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,489


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #115 on: October 14, 2011, 05:39:21 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.


Correct again. Thank you.


Selam
Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."
Selam, +GMK+
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #116 on: October 14, 2011, 12:10:17 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 12:11:05 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,702



« Reply #117 on: October 14, 2011, 04:11:07 PM »

This particular thread is mystifying to me and it has been going on for about five days. I obviously need help in understanding the mindsets of the posters with some exceptions poster-wise,

The original post was:

Interesting:
A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available.

[SNIP]

But this is not the point. The point is how and when did the dancer become a stripper in this thread (or pole dancer, lap dancer, choose your own hyperbole). To dance is an intrinsic part of humanity and more often than not geared to the opposite sex. It is an expressive art form and a language that allows us to relate who we are and what we are feeling. It is an expression of us and not the commercial advertisement for sex the former innuendo connotes.

In any case I just wanted to state that I found some of the posts in this thread sickening.


I apologize if someone else has already responded adequately to this, but I wanted to comment on how a “woman dancing for men” became a stripper or equivalent in this thread.  I think the insinuation is made from the fact that the woman was a dancer for men specifically, as opposed to a woman who just generally “danced” or “danced before crowds”  to feed her children.  What kind of dancing would a woman do solely “for men” that would not be of an immoral and seductive quality?  If this dancing is not of an immoral and seductive quality, why would she be a dancer “for men” only, and not for general audiences, crowds, families, both men and women, etc.?  While the point may be taken that even a stripper or otherwise seductive (but clothed) dancer, who by her profession draws men to perdition but who does so reluctantly and with regret out of necessity, may be “better” in the sight of God than any man or woman who is full of pride; nevertheless, I still doubt the patrimony of this text on the basis of the fact that it seemingly justifies such immoral and seductive dancing which inflames the passions of men and leads them to perdition.  In the stories which have come down to us among the Sayings of the Fathers, we learn of monks who have similarly wondered whether anyone alive surpassed them in perfection.  In response to this kind of thought, such monks are usually told of a certain man or couple in the world who surpasses the monk in perfection.  In such cases, the “more perfect” layman or lay couple are indeed very virtuous and are considered “more perfect” before God because while they also lived virtuously and chastely (as did the monk), they also considered themselves more sinful than everyone else.  While the monk tempted by pride wondered if anyone is greater than himself, the “more perfect” laity live uprightly in the world and are convinced that no one is worse than themselves.  In stories from the Fathers which refer to women who were involved in scandalous professions (usually prostitution), they are praised only after departing from such sinful occupations, giving their sinfully-gained incomes to the poor, washing away the filth of their sins in the waters of baptism, and passing the rest of their days in the most extreme forms of asceticism, shedding many tears and undertaking many labors to destroy the passions which formerly enslaved them.  The Lord said that prostitutes were entering into the kingdom of heaven before the Pharisees precisely because of the humble and complete repentance of the former in contrast to pride and hypocrisy of the latter.  The Lord told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more”.  We have no such stories which justify such sinful occupations, as far as I have read.

In general, I do not think we should discuss such questionable stories from unnamed monks that are at odds with the countless stories from the Fathers which we have on record.  Furthermore, if such an incident did occur wherein a woman could find no respectable occupation to provide for her family, do you really think God would bless her for choosing an occupation which would lead her soul, and the souls of her male clients, to perdition?  If such an occupation was the only occupation available to the woman, would not God greatly bless her and her children, either in this life or in the life to come, for refusing this occupation despite the material and bodily needs of her family?  What good is food, clothing, and shelter, if you lose your soul and help others to forfeit their souls in order to obtain them?        


Thanks Jah777 for clarifying thought processes that gave rise to some of the statements in this thread. From my perspective John Ward's posts, above, has the correct take home lesson from the original post. The justification for your interpretation of the OP is a house of cards, cemented with newly introduced terms such as "specifically", "solely", "only".  My take is that she danced for men because she was paid by men (whether on the street, in a cafe, taxi dance hall, etc.), it has nothing to do with the setting.

If I have interpreted Pasadi97 correctly (not always a sure thing), a monk told Pasadi about a Hermit back in pre-McDonald's days.  This hermit was spiritually and possibly mentally sick and God showed him the way out of his sickness (whether he accepted the meaning of what God showed him is not known). The woman was probably someone from his past, an abandoned wife, daughter, sister, who knows? Alternatively it could be that the hermit judged all dancing sinful and since I have not come across a culture where the majority of women/girls did not dance at some point in their lives, his thoughts about women were negative.

What I find disturbing is the discussion by some of what is probably the viewpoint of the spiritually sick hermit and not the message provided by God.

This gets into an area that I am not qualified to discuss, but perhaps this will be useful:

Humility And Purity Of Heart: A Lenten Reflection
by Fr. George Morelli

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" ( Matthew. 5:8 ).

What does purity of heart have to do with humility? Everything! Consider the words of St. Isaac of Syria quoted by Allchin (1989): "No one has understanding if he is not humble, and he who lacks humility lacks understanding."

Only someone who is humble can follow the prescription of the spiritual Church Fathers who point out that discrimination and watchfulness are the way to achieve purity of heart. For someone proud, this exercise will be useless. Let us reflect on these assertions.

Mental Status Exam

One of the ways psychiatrists and psychologists asses the mental health of an individual is by the mental status exam. Assessment of their thought content and form is part of the examination process. Thought content includes: delusion (false beliefs about reality), suicidal and homicidal ideations, and obsessions (recurrent, persistent and disturbing thoughts and/or images); thought form includes: circumstantiality (minutely detailed speech), tangentiality (excessive digressions), loosening of associations (lack of relationship between one phrase and another, flight of ideas (skipping from one idea to another unrelated idea), derealization (one's surroundings seem unreal or strange,) depersonalization (lack of feeling pleasant or unpleasant about events around you), dissociative events (a separation of emotions or personalities in the same person as distinct), concreteness (extreme descriptive specificity), grandiosity (boastful self-glory and/or praise) . The mental status examination goes well beyond evaluation of thoughts. It also includes the appropriateness of their appearance: how the person is dressed, posture, coordination and facial expression; the appropriateness of their emotional affect or mood; their speech: volume, length and speed, and the person's judgment and problem solving activity.


continued at:
http://www.antiochian.org/node/17377




Post modified to remove automatic smiley -- "8 )" sans white space = "Cool"  -PtA
« Last Edit: October 14, 2011, 04:49:37 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,985



« Reply #118 on: October 14, 2011, 05:02:24 PM »


The problem with being succinct or cryptic is that it may boomerang on you. For example, your statement seems to point to itself, but if it is false, then it must be true, in which case it means nothing at all. If you had been clearer, such as "Geb're's sentence" or "above sentence," nobody would have had a problem except to point out that you are not explaining why it is so, just exclaiming a conclusion.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
orthonorm
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,670



« Reply #119 on: October 14, 2011, 05:10:40 PM »


The problem with being succinct or cryptic is that it may boomerang on you. For example, your statement seems to point to itself, but if it is false, then it must be true, in which case it means nothing at all. If you had been clearer, such as "Geb're's sentence" or "above sentence," nobody would have had a problem except to point out that you are not explaining why it is so, just exclaiming a conclusion.

Keep up, you are learning. I AM that clever. Which really ain't.

So internetz for the confused:

It IS pointing to itself, the obvious and clearest form of the liar's paradox.

It is in a response to a post.

What on earth could that mean?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #120 on: October 14, 2011, 05:59:07 PM »


The problem with being succinct or cryptic is that it may boomerang on you. For example, your statement seems to point to itself, but if it is false, then it must be true, in which case it means nothing at all. If you had been clearer, such as "Geb're's sentence" or "above sentence," nobody would have had a problem except to point out that you are not explaining why it is so, just exclaiming a conclusion.

Keep up, you are learning. I AM that clever. Which really ain't.

So internetz for the confused:

It IS pointing to itself, the obvious and clearest form of the liar's paradox.

It is in a response to a post.

What on earth could that mean?
I don't know.

You need to explain that to us, since not everyone on this board is as clever as you.
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #121 on: October 15, 2011, 02:01:48 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #122 on: October 15, 2011, 03:00:43 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #123 on: October 15, 2011, 07:03:29 AM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.

I wonder if you would have responded differently if this last part of the sentence had not been there? I would have.

"A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available."

strikethrough mine
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #124 on: October 15, 2011, 02:46:26 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.

I wonder if you would have responded differently if this last part of the sentence had not been there? I would have.

"A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available."

strikethrough mine
We can argue hypotheticals all day if you want. I don't see how it makes any difference.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #125 on: October 15, 2011, 03:22:08 PM »

I need to talk to you in person because when you type online, sometimes I don't know the **** what you are saying.

I would publish here the only "chat" I've ever had with my best non-friend. He is the 5th smartest human I've met.

I would defy you to make sense of it. It lasted about 65 words and yet we said more than most people I write to in years.

But it has bad words in it.

Now all of the above has everything to do with try to do three things at once and having a brain injury that still affects my typing when I drop words, inflect, decline, homo, you know the problem.

But my brain injury did give me the ability feel sounds more clearly, so that sucks even more.

May I also request a copy of that transcript by PM? I am intrigued... Smiley
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #126 on: October 15, 2011, 04:49:05 PM »

I need to talk to you in person because when you type online, sometimes I don't know the **** what you are saying.
LOL you're not alone, he's the only guy I have to truly work to understand. But considering it's part of an injury it's understandable.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #127 on: October 15, 2011, 05:56:57 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.

I wonder if you would have responded differently if this last part of the sentence had not been there? I would have.

"A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available."

strikethrough mine
We can argue hypotheticals all day if you want. I don't see how it makes any difference.

That would be another thing you don't see then.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 05:57:39 PM by FountainPen » Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,141


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #128 on: October 15, 2011, 06:11:48 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.

I wonder if you would have responded differently if this last part of the sentence had not been there? I would have.

"A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available."

strikethrough mine
We can argue hypotheticals all day if you want. I don't see how it makes any difference.

That would be another thing you don't see then.
Well, I suppose there are two reasons for that: Either I'm blind or you're seeing things that ain't there.
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #129 on: October 15, 2011, 06:32:16 PM »

I have no idea why Peter doesn't want to understand what you're saying Gebre, as i reacted to the same issue as you when i first read the O.P. Do you both have 'history' with each other?

While understanding the initial point of the O.P., the example used to illustrate that point is a poor one as it does imply that the end justifies the means. It's really that simple.
And yet Jesus used such analogies. I bet I'll never see you say that the examples He used imply that the end justifies the means.

Quote from: Gebre
If you can demonstrate somewhere in the Gospels where Our Lord clearly said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved, then please do so.

I'll just repeat the statement Gebre made that you failed to respond to.
No need to respond, since I'm not arguing that Jesus ever said that a sin was justifiable because of the ends that it achieved. I'm arguing only that Jesus used such analogies as the OP, an analogy you read as condoning a sin because of the end it achieves.

He did use analogies yeah, absolutely correct, well done. However he didn't use "such analogies", such as this one, such a one that implies a noble end justifies a sinful means.
That's the problem. YOU SAY that the analogy of the OP implies that a noble end justifies sinful means, for that's how you read it. I say that I just don't see the implication.

That's okay, keep reading it over, it'll come to you eventually.
Yes, I've read the OP many times already. You read it differently than I do, but that difference in and of itself does not make me wrong. As Opus118 stated, you really have to read some assumptions into the text to get out of it what you do. I prefer to just read the text at face value without reading any presuppositions into it. Reading it as I do, I don't see the implications you see. In fact, since I see no reason to read any assumptions into the OP, I'm probably never going to see what you see.

I wonder if you would have responded differently if this last part of the sentence had not been there? I would have.

"A old man was praying to God to show him people better than him and God showed him a woman dancing for men to fed her children since other job was not available."

strikethrough mine
We can argue hypotheticals all day if you want. I don't see how it makes any difference.

That would be another thing you don't see then.
Well, I suppose there are two reasons for that: Either I'm blind or you're seeing things that ain't there.

#laughing
Wow, Speech Recognition Software has improved a lot!
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.241 seconds with 67 queries.