From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 23:17:33 BST
I think there is important value to the "judge not" Christian idea, and I
think it is consistent with moq. It is a matter of separating different
senses of the word "judge" to see which one of them is discouraged in
Christian theology.
One sense of the word that has been discussed is judgment as discriminating.
As has been pointed out, it is ridiculous to discourage distinguishing or
discriminating and impossible to reject judging in this sense of the word,
and this is not what is discouraged in Christianity.
Another useful synonym for "judge" that I'm not sure has been discussed is
"evaluate"--to assess the value of (or perhaps to deliberately attach value
to). I think this sense of "judge" is the one that cannot and should not be
divorced from the moq because it is what morality (and spirituality) is all
about, and morality of course is not discouraged by Christianity.
The "condemn" sense of "judge" remains and has been discussed as the one
discouraged by Christianity and western culture but has not been
successfully distinguished (for Platt and Horse at least) from the other
uses of the word, so I want to take a crack at doing so.
Condemning is to judge in a way that is reserved only for God in Christian
and perhaps Jewish theology. ("Vengeance is mine", says the Lord, i.e. It
doesn't belong to the Christian coalition.) To condemn is to damn. (Maybe
someone out there has easy access to the OED and can verify this for me, but
I think the word "condemn" itself is related to the word "damn.") Damning
assumes an understanding of hell, which none if us probably see as a place
that bad people go to when they die. Hell is a state of earthly existence.
(I think Pirsig had something to say on the subject?)
I think hell could be defined as the state of complete separation from
quality. By this definition one cannot condemn another. While separation
from DQ is left only to "God" (one's self?) and cannot be imposed from
outside the condemned person, members of society may seek to try to impose
this separation themselves. They can't really do it, of course. All they
can do is try to impose a complete separation from society. It is this
attempt that is discouraged by Christianity.
The way I most clearly hear others condemn people is to claim that by doing
such and such a thing, such and such a person is no longer human. If all
agree to this condemnation, the condemned person would literally be in
"societal hell." (This is the most extreme condemnation, and it can be more
subtle.)
Christian theology rejects this sort of condemnation. Christian theology
includes the idea that one's humanity cannot be forfeited and has influenced
society. In fact, this is can be seen as the basis of Christian faith. To
say that someone is not human is about the least Christian thing a person
could say.
The Christian understanding of humanity is that there is that of God in
everyone (a capacity for quality). This is the most important innovation
that Jesus offered. Not everyone chooses to view humanity in this way, but
I think that there is value in rejecting judging in the sense of
condemnation. I think that if such an ethic achieves static latch in
society it will create a stronger society. To a certain degree, static
latch has been achieved in such moral claims as "all men are created equal."
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:03 GMT