An Ahimsa ThanXgiving - Fast 2003

[Guest guest]

 

-

Oliver Slay

Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:49 AM

RE: Re: An Ahimsa ThanXgiving - Fast 2003

 

but what is 'good' for one person ... is often 'bad' for another ... it's purely subjective... and we can project our own subjective world to the greatest heights and create for ourselves a personal Ultimate Good ... God ... >

 

Yes things can be used for good or bad, I believe good and bad are objective and would exist without us humans in the equation. My main point is, we search for what is good not invent ( for want of a better word) what is good..>

 

But that God will not work for everybody ... because it is not a projection of my 'good' ... therefore i will fail in the eyes of your God ... and i will be branded as evil ... ...>

 

I do believe there is a ultimate good which is basically good for everyone. not killing, not eating animals etc.>

 

do you see how this controls the weak, the poor... ? because those in power .. the Priests ... created a God in their image... and projected onto a poor and weak people ... who had to repent for not being in the image of that God ... ?>

 

I don't see priests as being holier than anybody else, some case far from it.

Christianity frees people not control people..thats if you are willing humble yourself to at least the advice it gives to us in human behaviour.>

and my problem .. is that 'what you mean' what you 'just want to say' ... is more than that ... you want us to agree with you ... to join you ... in loving your God ... with your God's Reason ... and we simply can't>

 

I think people have to find their own Good/God. And actions speak louder than words..regardless of beliefs.

 

Simon

 

 

 

 

 

 

simon [simonpjones]

If we look at the word 'Good' and it's meaning, there can only be one 'Good way' or 'The Best Way' in any situation you could ever think of. Thats what I regard as God...I don't believe we invented what 'is good' rather it is there for us to find. **~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to -

[Guest guest]

They may perceive it as good..But is it?

 

-

Oliver Slay

Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:14 AM

RE: Re: An Ahimsa ThanXgiving - Fast 2003

 

So it is good for us that Bush is having a good time becoming rich and exploiting the oil of other countries that he has bombed and destroyed? ... ok .. i can't really see the good in that for the Iraqis ... but i can see how the american president, owner of oil companies and oil-derivative companies and all his cronies and their multimillion businesses they own ... i can see how they think it is a good thing ...

 

so apply what you have written below to this world situation ... and see how objective good isn't ....

 

 

 

 

simon [simonpjones] > This is complete nonsense, aka moral absolutism.>> There is no objective "good" or "bad" - it's all subjective. What may> be good for one person may be bad for another.>You said it!Of course when something is good for one person it is not bad...equally whenthe same is bad for another it is not good is it?In my opinion I can't see how good and bad can be subjective.. if you wereto treat them as a science they can only be objective.**~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to -

[Guest guest]

<your email has been edited so i can read it ...>

 

i did not say that we 'invent' what is good ...

 

but wasn't killing lots of people in WWII 'good' if it meant that Hitler did not win? where does that fit into an ultimate good?

 

priests are human not angels ...

 

i think too that people find their own good ... but do you not see that two such factions of people are doing so ... one is Bush and his oil cronies ... and the other the freedom fighters of Islam ... Al-Queda who want Bush out of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic countries... they are both seeking their own 'good' aims ... this is a war ... neither is in fact morally superior from the other ... one might argue and say .. "how can you say that ? al-queda bomb us embassies... and the world trade centre ..." ok .. so they killed a few thousand people in something that was very emotional for the people of the US and around the world... in an act that we consider to be illegal... outside of war ... well i reckon if you asked an Al-queda member ... the deaths of 3-5000 people by US air raids and marines and cluster bombs ... and the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis in the cluster bomb, air raids .. starvation .. and resulting cancer due to depleted uranium ... in an act that we consider to be a legal one ... because it is part of the War against Terrorism ... i reckon the Al-queda or Muslim (and many other people around the world) .. are going to think that neither side can be morally superior than the other ... that neither's actions are 'good' ... and the whole conflict is meaningless...

 

'all's fair in love and war' no?

 

and so far Bush and co are making billions on new oil deals and he's still in power making new plans to invade Iran? perhaps... whilst Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are still out there ... making money and planning new attacks on the US ...

 

but to each side ... there is a definite good they are seeking ... but to each side the other's is definitely an 'evil' ...

 

 

 

simon [simonpjones]

 

Yes things can be used for good or bad, I believe good and bad are objective and would exist without us humans in the equation. My main point is, we search for what is good not invent ( for want of a better word) what is good..>

 

 

I do believe there is a ultimate good which is basically good for everyone. not killing, not eating animals etc.>

 

 

I don't see priests as being holier than anybody else, some case far from it.

Christianity frees people not control people..thats if you are willing humble yourself to at least the advice it gives to us in human behaviour.>

 

I think people have to find their own Good/God. And actions speak louder than words..regardless of beliefs.

 

Simon

 

 

 

**

[Guest guest]

well Bush is a Fundamentalist Christian... no? world created in 7 days n all that? no? i reckon he believes everything he does is 'GOOD' and allowed by 'GOD' ...

 

in fact hasn't he already made such allusions to grandeur?

 

 

 

simon [simonpjones]

They may perceive it as good..But is it?

 

-

Oliver Slay

 

so apply what you have written below to this world situation ... and see how objective good isn't ....

 

**

[Guest guest]

but wasn't killing lots of people in WWII 'good' if it meant

that Hitler did not win? where does that fit into an

ultimate good?

 

Thats like saying ' from being in a tempature of 40 degrees

sub zero and the tempature going up to 30 degrees sub zero

and saying it is warm when it is only warmer.>

 

 

 

priests are human not angels>

 

Who said they were angels...Look what happened to Jesus when

he tried to teach the priests of his day about

righteousness.

[Guest guest]

'all's fair in love and war' no?>

 

War shouldn't even exist..it is not a good thing to have

force on people is it?. And love should be given without

selfishness.Maybe people should 'rise in love' not 'fall in

love'.>

 

and so far Bush and co are making billions on new oil deals

and he's still in power making new plans to invade Iran?

perhaps... whilst Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are

still out there ... making money and planning new attacks on

the US ...

 

but to each side ... there is a definite good they are

seeking ... but to each side the other's is definitely

an 'evil' ...>

 

It seems both sides have been disceived in to to thinking

they are doing good.

[Guest guest]

Hi Paul,

 

I love having you on the lists...Much of the time you write exactly what I

would, and save me having to write it myself!

 

John

-

Paul Russell <prussell

 

Wednesday, November 19, 2003 3:35 PM

RE: Re: An Ahimsa ThanXgiving - Fast 2003

 

 

> >

> >That's just your opinion though, no need for the sarcasm. Why are

> >some people so nasty on here, this is the nice list or so I thought!

> >

>

> Where was the sarcasm ? Are you thinking of someone else's posts or

> just " projecting " ?

>

> >If you don't accept moral absolutes, how can you then believe the

> >equally absolute belief that everything is subjective, you are

> >obviously very certain this is always the case from your attitude to

> >Simon, so you fall into the same trap you accuse him of falling

> >into, but maybe some things are always good and others always bad

> >and then there may be other things that are neutral or sometimes

> >good and sometimes bad. Either way you are being pretty dogmatic in

> >being against the idea of there being some moral absolutes.

> >

>

> If you want to deal in absolutes then you can't get any further than

> " I think, therefore I am " . This is not particularly useful, so we

> base our beliefs on subjective observations and probabilities.

> Morality is a purely subjective framework which we as a society

> construct - it has no real meaning outside the context of our society

> (or at least any given human society), and it certainly has no

> absolutes. " Good " and " bad " are purely subjective, emotional human

> constructs. To try and define good and bad in any absolute terms is

> meaningless.

>

> >With or without religion we need some system of values to live by! I

> >don't think some moral absolutes are necessarily a bad thing.

> >

>

> Moral absolutes, like Newtonian mechanics, can indeed serve a

> purpose, when they are simple to express and generally applicable to

> the large majority of cases, even though they may not be universally

> valid. But once we accept them as absolutes, e.g. as in the case of

> religion, we cross the line from ethics into dogma, and this enforced

> morality then starts to become misapplied.

>

> >I can easily think of several things that are bad for everyone besides.

> >

>

> I can probably just as easily think of exceptions to any that you can

> come up with.

>

> Paul

>

> --

>

>

> ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author,

> there may be another side to the story you have not heard.

> ---------------------------

> Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>

> Un: send a blank message to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Hi Paul,

>

>I love having you on the lists...Much of the time you write exactly what I

>would, and save me having to write it myself!

>

 

Thanks John -

 

I take a lot of flak from all quarters just for trying to be an

objective, rational atheist/skeptic - it's good to know I'm not

alone. ;-)

 

Cheers,

 

Paul

 

--