or maybe I missed something amidst all of of our Pandemic current issues.

Daffy Duck at the grinding wheel with his axe again.
Certainly consistent.

Dan

Well the terms 'spirits' can mostly be replaced with 'ethics' without changing the general direction of the document.

It is something Sellick at least acknowledges to a degree when he says: "Ethics are not so much a question of distinguishing right from wrong, good from evil, but a matter of discerning the spirits that lie in the hearts of men and women."

But ultimately his use of the language around spirits only enables a smoother marrying of biblical messages with ethics, and why not, since that is so much a part of the construction of the bible.

For instance his phrase: "The best political systems in the world can be corrupted from within when the spirit of disinterested public service is displaced by venality and the pursuit of personal power."

Can just as easily be written as: "The best political systems in the world can be corrupted from within 'by unethical behaviour when' disinterested public service is displaced by venality and the pursuit of personal power.

But there is a difference as it can allow for a diffusing of personal responsibility for said unethical behaviour. The Jimmy Swaggarts of this world do it all the time. When he was caught a second time using prostitutes he said: "In my mind I knew it was demon spirits . . . without warning, without stimulation," "Psychology says something has to trigger it . . . but when demon spirits function, they don't have to have any stimulation or triggering devices,".

Israeli Folau's ethics enable him to misquote the Galatians quote Sellick provides to include the word homosexuals. This of course is unethical in most people's eye but was it some 'spirit' in Folau enabling that act? Well no, he was just being unethical.

Perhaps this is not Sellick's intention in this article but enabling buck passing for any form of unethical behaviour should be guarded against.

SR

You confuse ethics with the rule of law surely.

Ethics are as vague and arbitrary as the rules of lock down.

In the regime of lock down, the grey areas are policed by individuals dressed as a policeman.
If you are being questioned by one of them concerning a grey area of lock down rules, his preference will win over your own.
So to with the question of ethics.

Your reference to your own chestnut of evil Israel Folau’s condemnation of homosexuality and his reference to biblical text to support his view, does illustrate exactly the flaw in the interpretation of ethics.

Every-man guides his own ship through those troubled waters, using his own tried and tested morals. For a Christian it’s his Bible for example.

The argument of ethical guide lines always gravitates to the question of which set of ethics will predominate.
Secular ethics are not be conformed to by a true believing Christian such as Folau
And neither should they be forced onto him by secular dogma.

And the method now used to achieve the silencing of the “other”, is the pasting of law over the top of the guidelines called ethics. Censorship: usurping of free speech, rolling individual ethical views into a dominating requirement.

The most complained about by your liberal followers was the Christian guiding principles, once being the prized part of Western culture for centuries.

Hitler is not far away from the ethics department at your local University, as we discover almost daily with such events as the persecution of Israel Folau, for his stridency and protection of his personal Christian views.

Dan.

SteeleRedux,
Thank you for your considered comment, rare on these pages. I prioritise "spirit" over ethics because ethics robs us of our freedom of action. Ethics is a bit like eating of the knowledge of good and evil that resulted in us being turfed out of the Garden of Eden. It is obvious to me that systems of ethics are artificial constructions based on our idea of the good. In Jesus' day it was unethical to touch a pepper, eat with prostitutes and tax collectors and to ignore the food laws. Our society is obsessed with the ethical to the extent that certain ideas or speech is forbidden. You would say that we have become too ethical for our own good.

Behaviour comes out of being, not ethical calculation. Being is the result of the spirit that lives within us. We find ourselves acting in certain ways without thought.

Peter

Dear Sells,

Sorry but no.

There are three things in consideration here; ethics, morals and sinning.

Granted there is overlap across all three but there are explicit differences.

Sinning is easy to describe in this context, it is offending or disobeying a deity.

Morals are framed around agreed societal or universal norms.

Both of these have in the past permitted slavery which is most potently illustrated by the fact that the man who penned 'Amazing Grace' continued participating in the slave trade for another three years.

Ethics are far more personal assessment of what is right and wrong. The Quakers arriving at the decision to work to end slavery came from deeply ethical men rather than any presumed edict from on high.

Another way of putting it is acting ethically is do something in accordance with personal values, acting morally is to have regard for community values and not acting sinfully is to have due regard for God's wishes.

The most fundamental of the three is ethics because it speak to the core of a person's beliefs about right and wrong. It is derived in a large part from lived experiences and so is the most truly human of them and therefore the most precious.

For you to be describing them as artificial strips them of that agency and is in my opinion wrong.

The prohibition about eating with prostitutes in Jesus' day was derived from agreed 'communal' morals and a wish not to offend God. It was Jesus' ethics which shone through and ultimately triumphed. Ethical behaviour has the ability to change history, Ghandi's non-violence is a case in point.

Think about who we generally give the most regard to, persons who are either determined to act appropriately out of a deep fear of their god, or act out of deep concern for the regard of the community, or a deeply held set of personal ethics?

I'm afraid in my opinion spirits have little place in this.