Errors in moral reasoning

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
Bootstrap
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby Bootstrap » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:50 pm

MaxPC wrote:Are you willing to monitor all statements full time to provide an accurate and impartial score, Peter?

I'm confused. Sometimes you seem to be saying we shouldn't keep score. Other times you seem to be saying that we are responsible for monitoring all statements full time to provide an accurate and impartial score. Often, you seem to be telling us how you would grade other people.

MaxPC wrote:I hope you understand that I'm trying to inject the Biblical perspective into this situation.

Good. Can we try to focus on that? All this scorekeeping is going to drive me insane. I don't think that's what the Bible tells us to do.

MaxPC wrote:Turning away from God to make an idol of politics and judging those who don't share our views is also sin.


I agree. So let's please refrain from judging those who don't share our views. I don't think that means we can't discuss current events or even some political things. And I don't think you do either - you do weigh in on these things.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

PeterG
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:52 pm
Location: Central PA
Affiliation: Conserv. Mennonite

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby PeterG » Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:57 pm

Max, I have indicated that I do not completely share your point of view, and that some of your recent posts seem inconsistent to me. I do not believe that that constitutes an attack.

PeterG wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you yourself appear to have drawn conclusions about which posts in this thread are more correct than others.

Am I wrong?
0 x

User avatar
ohio jones
Posts: 488
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 11:23 pm
Affiliation: CMC

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby ohio jones » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:19 pm

temporal1 wrote:OP, Page 1 / bears repeating :)

Yes, we need to keep our eyes on those bears. But I'm not sure it's wise to completely ignore the rattlesnakes, either.
3 x
I grew up around Indiana, You grew up around Galilee; And if I ever really do grow up, I wanna grow up to be just like You -- Rich Mullins

I am a Christian and my name is Pilgram; I'm on a journey, but I'm not alone -- NewSong

silentreader
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby silentreader » Fri Aug 18, 2017 2:45 pm

ohio jones wrote:
temporal1 wrote:OP, Page 1 / bears repeating :)

Yes, we need to keep our eyes on those bears. But I'm not sure it's wise to completely ignore the rattlesnakes, either.


And there's lots of those to go around.
2 x

RZehr
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Location: Palisades Mennonite Church Culver Oregon
Affiliation: Western Fellowship

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby RZehr » Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:51 pm

Bootstrap wrote:
haithabu wrote:1) That moral responsibility is a zero sum game.

There is a tendency to interpret the criticism of one aspect of a position or action or event as a corresponding support for or justification for the other side. We see this repeated over and over in the near universal criticism of Trump's statements on Charlottesville.


Do you know the term Whataboutism?

Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.


It's an error in moral reasoning. To take the focus off of a horrible wrong, it points at another moral wrong and tries to change the subject. It's the opposite of looking seriously at both sets of sins, it turns into a race to the bottom where each side feels justified because the other side's sins are worse.

What about John 8:7?
Was Jesus engaging in whataboutism in the case of the woman taken in adultery?
1 x

Bootstrap
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Kingdom Christian

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby Bootstrap » Fri Aug 18, 2017 5:58 pm

RZehr wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:It's an error in moral reasoning. To take the focus off of a horrible wrong, it points at another moral wrong and tries to change the subject. It's the opposite of looking seriously at both sets of sins, it turns into a race to the bottom where each side feels justified because the other side's sins are worse.

What about John 8:7?
Was Jesus engaging in whataboutism in the case of the woman taken in adultery?


Only if you don't read to the end of the story.

At first, Jesus does deflect from her sin, using whataboutism. He does this to protect a vulnerable woman against righteous judgement. But he never says that her sin does not count or that it is not important. He deals with the sin of the Pharisees first, creating a space so that he can address her sin.

I don't think there's a problem with pointing out that Antifa is also inflaming violence and hatred that needs to be stopped. That can calm things down in the heat of the moment. But if you deny the adultery, you miss the entire story. So let's not forget to discuss the Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists too.
2 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?

haithabu
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:11 pm
Affiliation: MennoBaptist

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby haithabu » Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:02 pm

Bootstrap wrote:
RZehr wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:It's an error in moral reasoning. To take the focus off of a horrible wrong, it points at another moral wrong and tries to change the subject. It's the opposite of looking seriously at both sets of sins, it turns into a race to the bottom where each side feels justified because the other side's sins are worse.

What about John 8:7?
Was Jesus engaging in whataboutism in the case of the woman taken in adultery?


Only if you don't read to the end of the story.

At first, Jesus does deflect from her sin, using whataboutism. He does this to protect a vulnerable woman against righteous judgement. But he never says that her sin does not count or that it is not important. He deals with the sin of the Pharisees first, creating a space so that he can address her sin.

I don't think there's a problem with pointing out that Antifa is also inflaming violence and hatred that needs to be stopped. That can calm things down in the heat of the moment. But if you deny the adultery, you miss the entire story. So let's not forget to discuss the Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists too.



An interesting detail in that account is that at the end Jesus stoops down and writes in the dust of the temple floor. This would have been a visual reminder to the Pharisees of the bitter water test of a woman for hidden sexual sin described in Numbers 5:11-31.

The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. (v. 16,17)


From this I gather that when Jesus said "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone", he actually meant "let he who has not committed the same sin cast the same stone". I believe that Jesus' challenge to the woman's accusers was even more pointed than most people think.

And when the Pharisees turned and left one by one, it was in accordance with the principle of the rabbinic teaching that if the husband himself was guilty of sexual sin, then the bitter water test would have no effect on his wife even if she was guilty. The effectiveness on the accused of the curse related to the test depended on the innocence of her accuser.

When she [the adulterous woman] dies [on account of the bitter water curse], the adulterer because of whom she was compelled to drink will also die, wherever he is located.... All the above applies provided her husband never engaged in forbidden sexual relations in his life. If, however, her husband ever engaged in forbidden relations, the [bitter] waters do not check [the fidelity of] his wife.
- Maimonides
1 x

Sudsy
Posts: 959
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Location: Leamington, Ontario
Affiliation: Mennonite Brethren

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby Sudsy » Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:16 pm

ohio jones wrote:
temporal1 wrote:OP, Page 1 / bears repeating :)

Yes, we need to keep our eyes on those bears. But I'm not sure it's wise to completely ignore the rattlesnakes, either.


:) Reminds me of that little girl who came home from Sunday school and her mother asked her what she studied today, She replied we studied about 'gladly'. Her mother said, 'what ?' The little girl replied 'you know, gladly, the cross-eyed bear'.
1 x

RZehr
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Location: Palisades Mennonite Church Culver Oregon
Affiliation: Western Fellowship

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby RZehr » Fri Aug 18, 2017 7:51 pm

Sudsy wrote:
ohio jones wrote:
temporal1 wrote:OP, Page 1 / bears repeating :)

Yes, we need to keep our eyes on those bears. But I'm not sure it's wise to completely ignore the rattlesnakes, either.


:) Reminds me of that little girl who came home from Sunday school and her mother asked her what she studied today, She replied we studied about 'gladly'. Her mother said, 'what ?' The little girl replied 'you know, gladly, the cross-eyed bear'.

:laugh
0 x

MaxPC
Posts: 1636
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Full time RVers
Affiliation: Catholic
Contact:

Re: Errors in moral reasoning

Postby MaxPC » Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:27 am

PeterG wrote:Max, I have indicated that I do not completely share your point of view, and that some of your recent posts seem inconsistent to me. I do not believe that that constitutes an attack.

PeterG wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you yourself appear to have drawn conclusions about which posts in this thread are more correct than others.

Am I wrong?

Yes, you are mistaken; we are trying to parse a non-emotional approach and I believe you're seeing this through emotional lenses of one side vs another. I'm of the Biblical view when it comes to these matters. That's why I posted Matthew 7:1-3 and Romans 3:10-18.

It's important that we seek God above political indoctrination or bias. I believe it is Dirk Philips, the Father of Mennonite theology who can provide a good insight on these events as well.
.
0 x
Max (aka Plain Catholic)
Psalm 105


Return to “Current Events and Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest