Philosophy Now Forum

Population by Category - Christianity
Jesus of Nazareth lived in no democracy. Small wonder he had to be clever in his replies to dangerous critics. Something that did not lend to ethical clarity. We do not know what he said or the context, other than be second hand accounts, and for most of us in modern translations. But where he spoke of 'turning the cheek' it presumably had much to do with society at that time, as well as today, in not stoking violence. A soldier was praised for his application to duty, which is barely a call to pacifism. And he may have had a fairly rigorous notion of legal sanctions against lawbreakers. But below this surface is the realisation that ethics has to be applied by category or levels in society. How individuals relate within society, and society relates to them and with other societies, or nations.
This leads the way to how our modern world measures almost everything on a per capita basis. It is the obvious thing to do. The world has a given population of people. There is grudging admission of countries existing, and they have their share of population. Goods are calculated per capita. Pollution, CO2. It is a perfectly good standard of measure, but also very dangerous for large societies and especially the world.
The population of Britain is not a mere statistic, it is a definition of ethics and how we view the country.
Anarchistic society might well measure per capita. Authoritarianism - as opposed to authority - by class or suchlike category. But altruistic democracy must then measure by community considered holistically. The country is not composed of individuals, but [was] composed of town centred communities with satellite villages complete with their natural and agrarian environment. How many such communities now remain in Britain?
Conurbation man, is a world taken over by commerce and industry. The population of any part of the world a mere function of production.

RWStanding wrote:Population by Category - Christianity
Jesus of Nazareth lived in no democracy. Small wonder he had to be clever in his replies to dangerous critics. Something that did not lend to ethical clarity. We do not know what he said or the context, other than be second hand accounts, and for most of us in modern translations. But where he spoke of 'turning the cheek' it presumably had much to do with society at that time, as well as today, in not stoking violence. A soldier was praised for his application to duty, which is barely a call to pacifism. And he may have had a fairly rigorous notion of legal sanctions against lawbreakers. But below this surface is the realisation that ethics has to be applied by category or levels in society. How individuals relate within society, and society relates to them and with other societies, or nations.
This leads the way to how our modern world measures almost everything on a per capita basis. It is the obvious thing to do. The world has a given population of people. There is grudging admission of countries existing, and they have their share of population. Goods are calculated per capita. Pollution, CO2. It is a perfectly good standard of measure, but also very dangerous for large societies and especially the world.
The population of Britain is not a mere statistic, it is a definition of ethics and how we view the country.
Anarchistic society might well measure per capita. Authoritarianism - as opposed to authority - by class or suchlike category. But altruistic democracy must then measure by community considered holistically. The country is not composed of individuals, but [was] composed of town centred communities with satellite villages complete with their natural and agrarian environment. How many such communities now remain in Britain?
Conurbation man, is a world taken over by commerce and industry. The population of any part of the world a mere function of production.

A sting of disconnected meta-facts, with no sequiturs.
What is the point of this post?

RWStanding wrote:Population by Category - Christianity

What does that title have to do with the post?

Jesus of Nazareth lived in no democracy. Small wonder he had to be clever in his replies to dangerous critics. Something that did not lend to ethical clarity.

Well, if he was trying to be "politic" and dodge the dangers of His day, I would have to say he was not very successful in that... something about a crucifixion tells me so...

We do not know what he said or the context, other than be second hand accounts, and for most of us in modern translations.

So...let me get this right...you're trusting the Biblical account to say there WAS a Jesus Christ, but NOT trusting it to tell us anything about what He said?

Seems a bit oddly selective, no?

But where he spoke of 'turning the cheek' it presumably had much to do with society at that time,
as well as today, in not stoking violence.

Yes. Because Imperial Rome and zealot-rife first-century Jerusalem at that time were both renowned for their tolerance. Those Jewish Rebels and conquering Romans sure hated violence.

...the realisation that ethics has to be applied by category or levels in society. How individuals relate within society, and society relates to them and with other societies, or nations.

Okay, that's the first bit you've said that makes any sense.

This leads the way to how our modern world measures almost everything on a per capita basis.

Eh? No logical connection here. I cry "non-sequitur." You'll have to justify that jump.

The world has a given population of people. There is grudging admission of countries existing, and they have their share of population. Goods are calculated per capita. Pollution, CO2. It is a perfectly good standard of measure, but also very dangerous for large societies and especially the world.
The population of Britain is not a mere statistic, it is a definition of ethics and how we view the country.
Anarchistic society might well measure per capita. Authoritarianism - as opposed to authority - by class or suchlike category. But altruistic democracy must then measure by community considered holistically. The country is not composed of individuals, but [was] composed of town centred communities with satellite villages complete with their natural and agrarian environment. How many such communities now remain in Britain?

What on earth would this have to do with the first part of your message? Not seeing it, I'm afraid. See if you can clear it up for us.

Conurbation man, is a world taken over by commerce and industry. The population of any part of the world a mere function of production.

Whether by grammar, jargon or logic, I cannot make any sense of this claim at all. And it's completely off topic for what you opened with.

Where are you going, and what has it got to do with "Christianity"?

Answering to RW may be fun, but remember that it is (probably?) bad for him.

TSBU wrote:Answering to RW may be fun, but remember that it is (probably?) bad for him.

Massively amused by your gif. Well done. I couldn't make the point better.

Immanuel Can wrote: So...let me get this right...you're trusting the Biblical account to say there WAS a Jesus Christ, but NOT trusting it to tell us anything about what He said?

Seems a bit oddly selective, no?

I hate to admit it but you are right. Rejecting it all is the only logical thing to do. Good point, Mmanuel.