My analogy is that a person who commits criminal acts 1% of the time is a criminal, even if he obeys the law the other 99%
So is a person who commits one stupid act a stupid person even if he is brilliant 99% of the time? And you have not explained why you use your analogy to state that the government is arbitrary rather than NOT arbitrary. It sounds to me like you are being arbitrary. Is that possible?
"In other words I look at what I would see as proper or improper moral action for the group (or the state, because this started as a discussion on the actions of government) and form an opinion"
I have been saying all along that you can only express your opinion, and that your opinion does not define what is right for the group. I did not mean that your opinion did not count in the group dynamic, or that it was unimportant, or that it had no merit; I meant only that it is not definitive, and it does not trump the opinions of others in the group.
Perhaps an analogy might make it clearer. You attend a meeting of XYZ Corp. for the purpose of approving the financial statements, and to determine the right course of action for the company to follow. You might very well get to your feet and make a nice speech in trying to persuade the group of the merits of your opinion as to what you believe is the right course for the company to follow. However, your opinion does not dictate that course. The group may consider your opinion, but it will decide for itself what it considers to be best for itself. You may agree or disagree with them, but you do not have the power to define group goals and values.
Depending on the size of the group, you are only one opinion--out of perhaps millions. The larger the group the less effect your opinion will have on what the group decides to value and believe. The group will decide what is right for itself through the weighing and the admixture of a great number of opinions.
Regardless of what the group decides, you still have your opinion. But your opinion does not determine what the group believes and values. You do not define what is right for the group. You only define what is right for you.
"Jesus then directly implies that this can be done, he states that with God everything is possible"
LOL, Tim! Leave it to you to interpret that as a loophole for the rich to get through the eye of the needle! The bible as written by tax lawyers...<g>
Even if there is a possibility of salvation through the grace of God, this possibility does not alter the clear thrust of the New Testament as it hammers home the point that riches are a constant impediment to the avoidance of Hell fire...and perhaps an impediment which may stand against all but supernatural intervention. The New Testament (and Jesus, in particular) are characterized by a plethora of Hell threats woven into an endless raillery against material possessions.
You may be right that there is a loop hole for some few rich based on some supernatural intervention, but I don't think that would be relevant to my point. So what if all things are possible with God?? Jesus does not use that as an excuse for hogging your money...or even your clothes. Inded...he warns of dire consequences.
"I have already more then filled any desire I might have to exchange biblical quotes"
I second that. The bible has far too many contradictions to be a reliable guide even to ancient opinions... |
