Ben Compton logically expresses concern for my views about morality as
defined as unconditional belonging and living moral as "Love and do as you
please." Question is what is logical?
>I think we should be careful when we say morality is doing that which we
>love and wish...
I believe you have made a leap of abstraction here that needs clarified.
"Love and do as you wish" is very much different from "Do as you love and
wish." The former starts and ends with Jesus Christ. The later starts
and ends with you. Whom do you trust?
>unless of course we're willing to accept all the implications of such a
>statement.
It is not up to me to accept or reject the implications. The one who
loses his life will find it.
>If one "loves and wishes" to murder, then we'd have to say, "Hey, thats
>ok, its what that person likes." I have a small problem with that idea.
If one "Loves...and does as one pleases" it is impossible to love murder.
If one has a small problem, one has not yet lost one's life.
>Which implies there is no such thing as moral absoluteness.
If one choses to hold on to one's life, one needs rules. If one loses his
life, one does not need rules...just trust.
Durval Muniz de Castro captures this idea well:
> Morality is not a binary quality, maybe we can say it is a scalar, with
> various levels exhibiting different properties. The highest level of
> morality is not subjected to rules ("Love and do as you wish"), while the
> lowest levels consist in prudently following rules.
One would assume you need prudently follow the rules and one day achieve
the higher level. This is an evolutionary process. I see it a little
different. In Christ I am a new creature...not an evolving one. I don't
become more and more like Christ. I'm dead. He lives. I don't get to the
higher level based on works. It can be a scalar learning process from
rules to perfection. But I see it as a Metanoia, or discontinuous
reorientation. So I "Trust in the Lord with ALL your heart, lean NOT on
your own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he WILL
direct your paths." If I lean to my own understanding I am at the lowest
level prudently following the rules and worrying whether or not others
are. This is not liberation I imagine Christ would die a violent death
for.
>If so, then what do you think of Covey's "Principle-Centered Leadership"?
Rules, principles, etc. start with me wanting control. When one is in
control, one needs principles to build their character-based ethic. Then
they feel the need to "selI" these in books. I am not interested in
building my character. Because my character died. Death of self is not a
discipline to perfect. It is something to give yourself to.
>Is it, in your opinion, immoral to attempt to change the rules of a group or
>society?
Yes, If I use the definition of as conditional separation. God changed my
rules. He had me drop my stones. Sticks and stones may break my bones but
love will always change me. He came so that the blind will see and those
that see will become blind. Only when I am blind can I truly love and
turn the other cheek 70x7. I don't see evil, because God is. And where
God is hell isn't. Job saw this. I experienced it. I just LAF, Love,
Accept, and Forgive...unconditional belonging. There is nothing more
powerful than that in changes the rules of a group, indeed it is the only
thing that ever has. All else is compliance, not commitment. Compliance
involves fear or conflict manipulation. Perfect love casts out fear.
>What if the group or society rejects attempted change? Is it immoral for
>me to separate at that point? Does separation under these conditions
>imply that my morals are decaying?
You cannot separate. Jesus still belonged to those who rejected
him...even when he kicked the dust off his feet and moved on. That's
love.
>How does one group or society look at the morality of another group or
>society? I >could see how it would be possible for one who feels as you
>do to view any other >group or society as immoral.
There is no other group. Just God. In my view I do see the "immorality"
just as Job saw the roof cave in on his family and sores all over his
body. All of which God freely gave. My seeing darkness itself is the
problem. God is light and in him there is no darkness at all. Job's
friends tried to get him to focus on what rules he broke. Job just kept
seeing God. He was eating from the Tree of Life, not the tree of
Knowledge of Good and Evil. He saw himself as upright and perfect. He
was perfect because he lost his life and found it.
That is my "Organized Ignorance."
Have a Great Adventure! Don Kerr
--"Kerr, Donald" <Donald.Kerr@usahq.unitedspacealliance.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>