vision2020
RE: Compassion
Wait a minute Mr. Ted Moffett,
I did not express a rude and insulting attitude towards "women", as in
all the females.
I was reflecting on the character regarding the behaviour of some women
that feel it is necessary to expose themselves in front of all the
children in a downtown area.
Please try to keep it straight. Or another misunderstanding could occur
as similar to what we have all been witnessing between you and David
Douglas.
Cheers!
John Harrell
--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> David:
>
> I am glad you do not agree with the rude and insulting attitude expressed by
> John Harrell towards women.
>
> The ethical issues you raise are important and complicated. We could
> discuss them for years and not completely resolve the factual and logical
> difficulties involved which are of the highest order. If you are really
> interested in studying a non-religiously based ethical system, read
> Principia Ethica by G. E Moore.
>
> I suspect you will try to argue that only your theistic ethical system can
> be correct, while my agnostic or atheist system has no compass by which to
> judge ethical direction. Why don't we just agree to disagree? But allow me
> the dignity as a human being of having my opinion on ethical matters. I do
> not completely deny you the validity of many of your ethical beliefs, I am
> sure. So why must you insist, as it seems you are, that I have no basis for
> making any ethical judgments? Here I sense the arrogance of the
> fundamentalist who must be right and all other views that challenge must be
> wrong! Excuse me if I misjudge you.
>
> As far as my statement about accepting the validity of and sacredness of the
> many valuable cultural and religious traditions of the human race, this is
> just what I mean, though not in the extreme way that you might be
> interpreting this statement. To answer two questions at once, for example,
> I accept that Doug Wilson can be right about many ethical issues based on
> his faith. I admire many of the ethical teachings of Christ, so I accept
> the validity of and sacredness of this tradition, but I do not swallow it
> whole without a critical and skeptical analysis of what faults there may be
> in Christianity. I could go on and on listing numerous spiritual traditions
> and what validity they have, but why labor the point?
>
> Perhaps I can suggest, if I may, a way out of the apparent intractable
> quandary of the insane religious wars that plague the human race.
> When defining what is meant by "sacred" we will wade into very deep waters
> very quickly that often do not lend themselves to precise logical
> clarification. Some spiritual traditions, Buddhism among them, make it very
> clear that the true experience of the sacred is beyond definitions and
> words. If you are talking about the sacred this event is NOT SACRED. As
> far as my appreciation of the sacredness of the spiritual traditions of
> Christianity, I am certain that I understand, again perhaps at a level of
> experience that transcends logical or verbal definition, the exalted
> spiritual states of Hildegard Von Bingen that she expressed in her music. I
> know that because of my connection to music that I can assure you plumbs the
> deepest wells of the human soul. Please excuse my vanity and pretension
> here, but I feel strongly that I know of one way to unify spiritual
> experiences across culture and religion.
>
> I think we are structured as human beings to feel religious experience, the
> experience of the "sacred," perhaps we are even hard wired in our brain
> networks for a religious faculty of mind. Thus music in all cultures is
> used to evoke the sacred based on this commonality of structure of the human
> mind. There are other ways, I am certain, in which religious experience is
> linked across religions. Why not embrace the commonality of the experience
> of the sacred across cultures? Is this not a wise and humane project?
> Would not this endeavor do much to stop hatred and war based on religion?
> Humanity is not so at odds with itself as is commonly thought!
>
> Well, I suspect my ideas will not resonate with joy in your mind.
> Sorry....
>
> Of course I do not believe in many of the religious beliefs that Hildegard
> held dear, nor do I buy into much of the mystical trappings of Buddhism, but
> should that preclude an appreciation of the mystical sacred dimensions of
> the music of both Christianity and Buddhism? And based on this commonality
> can I not truly state, as I did, that I accept the validity of the spiritual
> traditions of religions across the human race, to shorten my statement? Of
> course, of course, I should have qualified my statement to indicate I do not
> mean ALL religious traditions to the letter, especially any religious
> traditions that inflict pain and harm, such as forcing women under threat of
> force to keep their lovely breasts all tied up and hidden from public view,
> which are actions that any humane ethical system would seek to avoid. But
> this is obvious!
>
> Read Principia Ethica! You will not agree with it, but just maybe you can
> open your mind to another viewpoint!
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> >From: "David Douglas" <ddouglas@pacsim.com>
> >To: "'Ted Moffett'" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, <vision2020@moscow.com>
> >Subject: RE: Compassion
> >Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 22:17:17 -0700
> >
> >
> >Ted Moffet says:
> >
> >"You do a disservice to your ideology and/or theology by coming to the
> >defense of misogynist mud slinging."
> >Ted,
> >
> >I *just* about gave a little preamble in my letter distancing myself from
> >Mr. Harrell. However, I really didn't think it was necessary because that
> >wasn't the point of my post. For the record, I neither justify nor defend
> >what Mr. Harrell wrote.
> >
> >I see no active defense for Mr. Harrell in my post. My "defense" of him,
> >such as it was, came from my disagreement about *your* reasoning. Based on
> >your reasoning, I saw no basis for *you* to make any kind of value judgment
> >at all. That you can indicates (to me) that your reasoning was
> >inconsistent; whether you agree with my reasoning or not, it does not
> >constitute a defense of Mr. Harrell. Lucy made a pretty good case, I
> >thought.
> >
> >Perhaps I was in error in picking that particular example, especially
> >since,
> >based on your response, I didn't communicate my point well. Mind if I try
> >again, sans Mr. Harrell? By way of a less volatile(?) example, you seem to
> >be disagreeing with Doug Wilson in a different thread: let me rephrase and
> >ask again a couple of my questions.
> >
> >
> >Mr. Moffet writes:
> >" ...mindset, that accepts the validity of and sacredness of the many
> >valuable cultural and religious traditions of the human race. "
> >
> >And I ask:
> > What, (and/or how) specifically, does one believe that is consistent with,
> >and accepts as valid, the many religious traditions of the human race?
> >and
> > "Some say there is no God, while others say God is everything (or rather
> >everything is God). If everyone can be correct, why not Doug Wilson? "
> >
> >
> >
> >David Douglas
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Back to TOC