The Train Goes Over a Cliff- Or Do You Doom the Son?- Moral Dilemmas

Saltyhills • a day ago The question makes me smile. You might first ask if people with the same beliefs can solve a moral dilemma. A dilemma is a counterintuitive or unacceptable result that arises within your own rules; not from an outsider having different assumptions about morality than you. That would be more like a moral conflict. The best known example: Say I believe lying is wrong in principle, then what about lying to protect a Jewish family hiding from the SS? The one mom used to tell: a railway switch operator sees his son running down the train track toward him, but if he doesn't switch the train to the track his son is on, then the train goes over a cliff. That one is interesting because it's supposed to show that Jesus died to save a lot of people. But the Father didn't just blast him without warning. And since when are Christians Vulcans? "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". What if the will and pleasure of God was to save the kid? How many Egyptians would God kill to save 100 Israelites? Anyway, when it comes to moral conflicts, one of the things people gotta' understand is that conflict is built into identity. If the largest religion in the world is splitting up over whether Jesus can be portrayed in an image, then finding the right philosophical or scriptural answer to the question is missing the point that the two sides are done with each other for other reasons. The doctrinal stance of something silly like that effectively becomes a gang sign that puts you in or out of the group. 2 • Reply • Share › Avatar Justafoolagain Saltyhills • 2 hours ago "The best known example: Say I believe lying is wrong in principle, then what about lying to protect a Jewish family hiding from the SS?" A sin or lie that has no evil intent or evil mind behind it, is by secular law, mens rea in Latin, no guilt attached to the liar. To tell an aunt that you like the tie she bought, even if a lie, is the right thing to do. Regards DL • Reply • Share › Show 1 new reply Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Justafoolagain • 2 hours ago Except that, there are issues of integrity involved, and self-awareness. Thus, the issue is not simply "lying," but awareness that egotistical judgments aren´t all that healthy, American style. Does the person themself like it? What are your own values such that you "don´t like the thing"? Is there some quality in the thing that you really do like? For starters. American stock broker Bill W and medical Dr. Bob were alcoholics when they founded AA in 1935, shining a bright light on American culture as one among others. The 1893 Chicago Parliament of World Religions initiated by Swedenborgian CC Bonney was a landmark event that few Americans know about or appreciate. For another, and all for starters. • Edit • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Saltyhills • 2 hours ago • edited "And since when are Christians 'Vulcans'?" and "The Father didn´t just blast him without warning." and "doctrinal stance". I´ll cite you on those for strong agreement, but make the point that even "Vulcans" is a fictional notion. The factual truth is "rationalism" that normally goes with overspecialized scientific materialism And the truth of Jesus´ healing through love as a kind of foundational fabric to engage with the truth of the Resurrection beyond just self-effacing ogling. "Doctrinal stances" need to be grounded in their referent, Jesus´ loving integrity which actually has a clear legacy. All these evaluations need to be clear about assumptions, which takes the analysis beyond the assumption you engage that the "will and pleasure of God" is the appropriate modern manner of reasoning. I have to take the implications of my empirical theism that it isn´t. "Science" is taken for granted now, and theology has to be adjusted for empiricism, and that means accounting for them with the basis of philosophical truth, coherence and correspondence. The insight foundation that I´m framing involves the additional clarification that "science" is Christian-derived natural, or scientific, philosophy, and the whole of all modern disciplines need to be provided appropriate interaction. Capra´s multidisciplinary Systems Theory of Life is a sound start, but emergentism and antipositivism/interpretivism need adequate inclusion, as does phenomenology and related contemplative methodology. While "holistic thinking" and such terms have been tried by related efforts, "integrative" medicine has been sticking in that area, while "multidisciplinary studies" has its fans. To be clear, I see the simple step of identifying "Multidisciplinary Philosophy" as necessary. Now with that in place, the unaccounted element falls in place, say, with emergentism. Jesus´ Resurrection changed everything, and has changed it. The presumption of scientific materialism in the train example misses the point that the self-proclaimed Son of God who healed and taught spiritual practice in God´s love, didn´t just teach obligations of pious self-sacrifice (widely for the church itself, or the usurping nationalist state with its profiteering businesspeople). With the spiritual-religious context clear, the "kid" dies for the many, and gets Resurrected. Does he merely get ascended? Talk about the human healer Jesus going to Kashmir after the Resurrection and concomitant transcendental ascension (one man, two natures) is worth allowing now with an eye to situating churches in a spiritualized and modernized perspective. It is the University-based US-EU-UN system, with its less redeemed, rather excessively misguided unsustainable and exploitative WTO globalized system, with its very Christian "Freedom of Religion and Religion as a Human Right" that is in Jesus´ full, integrative legacy of loving integrity. Not just churches. Jesus Resurrected, in a very real sense, indeed. As for the OT context of Egyptians and Israelites, that has to be put in historical context. With that clear, the role of Christian-transformed Greek scientific philosophy clarifies that the Egyptians had allowed the Israelites to leave. God´s OT demonstrations with the Israelites had been clear, and when Pharaoh made his choice, he faced the consequences multiplied by his power and influence. It wasn´t "God´s whim" or "God´s bloodlust," but as Christian-derived, modernized Greek and eclectic University-based knowledge informs us, was part of the long rise from biological evolution and human historical development. Shamans had played and have been playing their role as great pioneers and "raw spirituality" practitioners. God´s work with the Israelites wasn´t deceptive or scheming, just preferential. Whatever the miracle of the Red Sea parting, it was an event for the Israelites, not for the Egyptians, as any "chance" event that allowed the British to turn the Spanish Armada into a confused mass of disaster. God blaming views are anachronistic and philosophically fallacious, for starters. We are in Jesus´ legacy of University based, US-EU-UN world oriented society now. Now everyone is getting educated about the meaning of sustainability and human rights, even if Saudi Arabia had slavery until the 1960s, or, has the world really eliminated slavery anywhere, given anti-union issues and sweat shops everywhere? Perhaps getting clearheaded about these things can shift things for the better and catalyze them. Thanks for a fun chance to reflect.