[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Oh, cool, another “Misconception of Christianity”: Christians think that, if they disprove any other philosophy or belief, they have somehow proven theirs right.[/quote]
Nope.
I hope I can speak for others when I say that^.
Sorry. NIce try! [/quote]
“Nope.”
Wow, you’re really good at debating.
Ok, counterpoint:
Yuh-huh!
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
All the different philosophies and religions of the world are fascinating to study. I read Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant and Kierkegaard (and others years back), but your homeboy Van Til taught me that there are really only 2 world views. There is the view of the fallen autonomous man who sinfully begins without and inevitably ends without the triune God of the bible regardless of what specific packaging he sells it to himself in and the view of the new creature in Christ whose resurrected life tells him that absolutely everything begins with the triune God of the bible.
2 different and utterly irreconcilable paradigms of reality. Every “fact” is different for these 2 men. 2 + 2 = 4 means something totally different to the man who sees the mind of God behind the order in the universe than it does to the man who refuses to. What’s the point? The point is whether you call it Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, rationalism, empiricism, existentialism, Marxism, agnosticism or atheism it all comes down to a different paint job on the same vehicle.[/quote]
Read: There are christians and there are nonchristians, and the nonchristians are wrong, wrong wrong, and the christians are right.
Tired.[/quote]
Unfortuantely, it appears that “non-christians” are even wrong on their own terms. Which isn’t really all that surprising to me. What IS surprising, however, is that this revelation doesn’t seem to phase “non-christians” in the least. The web of deception is so artfully woven it’s almost admirable.
[/quote]
Care to make some sense of that nonsense?
Let me guess… every nonchristian knows the bible is right but is a liar? something like that?[/quote]
I’ll give you an example - I’ve never met an atheist who doesn’t believe that he or she is a “relativist,” proclaims a commitment to the idea that “all values are relative.” However, even on the face of it, this is a massive self-deception.
Like I said - even on their own terms, even without reference to Christianity - they are wrong.
[/quote]
Let me guess: your values are absolute and they’re absolute because the bible says so, and the bible is perfect because its says so…
something like that, yeah?[/quote]
Nope. You couldn’t be more wrong about me. Or about Christianity. Thanks for revealing the poverty of your understanding on both counts though! 
May I make a suggestion - if you’re really interested in bashing Christianity, why not do a little reading so as to lessen that poverty of yours?
[/quote]
So, instead of explaining the actual truth of the matter, you’re content with just telling me about how wrong I am and insulting me.
Yup, typical Christian.
Ok, then, *******, tell me where your absolute morality comes from if not from the bible, and tell me why you believe it, unless you believe the bible to be perfect.
Please, oh please, explain exactly how wrong I was.[/quote]
First, you are the one who started with the insults. Which I’m fine with - but you see, my friend, I’m going to reflect them right back at you. Don’t like it? Change your attitude then.
Second, I don’t mind swearing generally, but what you wrote is so incredibly insulting I hope you’ll take it down.
Third, yes, humans hold absolute values, whether they know it or not. Do you want to discuss this in a civil manner?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Oh, cool, another “Misconception of Christianity”: Christians think that, if they disprove any other philosophy or belief, they have somehow proven theirs right.[/quote]
Nope.
I hope I can speak for others when I say that^.
Sorry. NIce try! [/quote]
“Nope.”
Wow, you’re really good at debating.
Ok, counterpoint:
Yuh-huh![/quote]
Ummmm, I simply don’t believe that to be the case. What else would you like me to say?
You seem awfully angry about something.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But since you asked so kindly, I’ll tell you what I believe: I believe the universe exists.
Go ahead, disprove that one, buddy.[/quote]
You’ll get no argument from me there. That’s actually quite a nice start. We agree! Now, what - in your mind - follows from that fact. Maybe nothing, I’m just asking!
[/quote]
Then shut the fuck up, because thats what I believe. Nothing has to “follow from it”. I don’t need bedtime stories and fables to make me feel ok about the fact that the universe exsits, I dont need stupid stories about a sky wizard who makes no sense whatsoever.
[/quote]
Okay, so I guess that about does it.
I’m curious though. Why would you care if some people - in your words - “need bedtime stories and fables.” You sound rather upset about this “fact.”
Incidentially, this “fact” is just something that exists in your head. That’s okay though. We’ll assume it’s true for now.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
All the different philosophies and religions of the world are fascinating to study. I read Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant and Kierkegaard (and others years back), but your homeboy Van Til taught me that there are really only 2 world views. There is the view of the fallen autonomous man who sinfully begins without and inevitably ends without the triune God of the bible regardless of what specific packaging he sells it to himself in and the view of the new creature in Christ whose resurrected life tells him that absolutely everything begins with the triune God of the bible.
2 different and utterly irreconcilable paradigms of reality. Every “fact” is different for these 2 men. 2 + 2 = 4 means something totally different to the man who sees the mind of God behind the order in the universe than it does to the man who refuses to. What’s the point? The point is whether you call it Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, rationalism, empiricism, existentialism, Marxism, agnosticism or atheism it all comes down to a different paint job on the same vehicle.[/quote]
Read: There are christians and there are nonchristians, and the nonchristians are wrong, wrong wrong, and the christians are right.
Tired.[/quote]
Unfortuantely, it appears that “non-christians” are even wrong on their own terms. Which isn’t really all that surprising to me. What IS surprising, however, is that this revelation doesn’t seem to phase “non-christians” in the least. The web of deception is so artfully woven it’s almost admirable.
[/quote]
Care to make some sense of that nonsense?
Let me guess… every nonchristian knows the bible is right but is a liar? something like that?[/quote]
I’ll give you an example - I’ve never met an atheist who doesn’t believe that he or she is a “relativist,” proclaims a commitment to the idea that “all values are relative.” However, even on the face of it, this is a massive self-deception.
Like I said - even on their own terms, even without reference to Christianity - they are wrong.
[/quote]
Let me guess: your values are absolute and they’re absolute because the bible says so, and the bible is perfect because its says so…
something like that, yeah?[/quote]
Nope. You couldn’t be more wrong about me. Or about Christianity. Thanks for revealing the poverty of your understanding on both counts though!
May I make a suggestion - if you’re really interested in bashing Christianity, why not do a little reading so as to lessen that poverty of yours?
[/quote]
So, instead of explaining the actual truth of the matter, you’re content with just telling me about how wrong I am and insulting me.
Yup, typical Christian.
Ok, then, *******, tell me where your absolute morality comes from if not from the bible, and tell me why you believe it, unless you believe the bible to be perfect.
Please, oh please, explain exactly how wrong I was.[/quote]
First, you are the one who started with the insults. Which I’m fine with - but you see, my friend, I’m going to reflect them right back at you. Don’t like it? Change your attitude then.
Second, I don’t mind swearing generally, but what you wrote is so incredibly insulting I hope you’ll take it down.
Third, yes, humans hold absolute values, whether they know it or not. Do you want to discuss this in a civil manner?
[/quote]
Trust me, when it comes to being offensive, I wont try to compete with christians.
I didn’t ask if humans hold absolute values, I asked what makes your values absolute, if not that they come from the (perfect, inerrant) bible.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
All the different philosophies and religions of the world are fascinating to study. I read Hegel, Nietzsche, Kant and Kierkegaard (and others years back), but your homeboy Van Til taught me that there are really only 2 world views. There is the view of the fallen autonomous man who sinfully begins without and inevitably ends without the triune God of the bible regardless of what specific packaging he sells it to himself in and the view of the new creature in Christ whose resurrected life tells him that absolutely everything begins with the triune God of the bible.
2 different and utterly irreconcilable paradigms of reality. Every “fact” is different for these 2 men. 2 + 2 = 4 means something totally different to the man who sees the mind of God behind the order in the universe than it does to the man who refuses to. What’s the point? The point is whether you call it Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, rationalism, empiricism, existentialism, Marxism, agnosticism or atheism it all comes down to a different paint job on the same vehicle.[/quote]
Read: There are christians and there are nonchristians, and the nonchristians are wrong, wrong wrong, and the christians are right.
Tired.[/quote]
Unfortuantely, it appears that “non-christians” are even wrong on their own terms. Which isn’t really all that surprising to me. What IS surprising, however, is that this revelation doesn’t seem to phase “non-christians” in the least. The web of deception is so artfully woven it’s almost admirable.
[/quote]
Care to make some sense of that nonsense?
Let me guess… every nonchristian knows the bible is right but is a liar? something like that?[/quote]
I’ll give you an example - I’ve never met an atheist who doesn’t believe that he or she is a “relativist,” proclaims a commitment to the idea that “all values are relative.” However, even on the face of it, this is a massive self-deception.
Like I said - even on their own terms, even without reference to Christianity - they are wrong.
[/quote]
Let me guess: your values are absolute and they’re absolute because the bible says so, and the bible is perfect because its says so…
something like that, yeah?[/quote]
Nope. You couldn’t be more wrong about me. Or about Christianity. Thanks for revealing the poverty of your understanding on both counts though!
May I make a suggestion - if you’re really interested in bashing Christianity, why not do a little reading so as to lessen that poverty of yours?
[/quote]
So, instead of explaining the actual truth of the matter, you’re content with just telling me about how wrong I am and insulting me.
Yup, typical Christian.
Ok, then, *******, tell me where your absolute morality comes from if not from the bible, and tell me why you believe it, unless you believe the bible to be perfect.
Please, oh please, explain exactly how wrong I was.[/quote]
First, you are the one who started with the insults. Which I’m fine with - but you see, my friend, I’m going to reflect them right back at you. Don’t like it? Change your attitude then.
Second, I don’t mind swearing generally, but what you wrote is so incredibly insulting I hope you’ll take it down.
Third, yes, humans hold absolute values, whether they know it or not. Do you want to discuss this in a civil manner?
[/quote]
Trust me, when it comes to being offensive, I wont try to compete with christians.
I didn’t ask if humans hold absolute values, I asked what makes your values absolute, if not that they come from the (perfect, inerrant) bible.[/quote]
Okay. A syllogism:
All humans hold absolute values.
Katzenjammer (some might say) is a human.
Ergo, Katzenjammer holds absolute values.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<<< Um, nope. Its best to focus on the fact that millions of people keep saying the same damn thing with no proof or hard evidence. >>>[/quote]Then when are you people gonna knock it off? =] (only by saving grace)
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Only the evidence they “see” AFTER believing. The fact that you people cant see how stupid that is worries me.[/quote]Only the evidence you can’t “see” AFTER the entrance of sin despite being a major component of that evidence themselves. The fact that you people cant see has nothing to do with stupidity and while it burdens me, it doesn’t worry me one bit because I know both the Doctor and the cure.
@Ephrem: I’m still reading that other thread as I can.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…well haney, i can only reiterate that there’s more to buddhism than what you deduced, but that requires a thread of it’s own, and i’m not up for that at the moment…
[/quote]
I am not denying that the philosophy has more with in it. I also am not saying buddhism is wrong. I am saying that I find there to be contradictions with in it. Which are acknowledged by some of the sects of buddhism.
In fairness though Ephrem do you think there is more to Christianity that you have deduced, or do you apply logic to the system find contradictions and judge it based partially on that?
I am willing to let the buddhist discussion go since it seems we are not making any progress.
[/quote]
…the biggest difference between christianity and buddhism is the absence of a deity in buddhism. Christianity requires a belief, and just that is already a breaking point for me. Otoh, attaining enlightenment or Nirvana in buddhism is also a belief, and that too was a breaking point for me. What appealed to me in buddhism more than christianity is its elegance and a language that goes straight to the heart of the matter…
…buddhism introduced me to non-dualism: Nondualism - Wikipedia another topic close to my heart, and one well worth looking into!
Objective truths are truths that are equally true for each and everyone of us, no mattter the circumstances.
Values are therefore never absolute, but relative to the culture or sociaty that holds those values.
An objective truth is: humans need air to survive. Without air we die. This is true for all humans no matter the circumstances.
That’s it.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…well haney, i can only reiterate that there’s more to buddhism than what you deduced, but that requires a thread of it’s own, and i’m not up for that at the moment…
[/quote]
I am not denying that the philosophy has more with in it. I also am not saying buddhism is wrong. I am saying that I find there to be contradictions with in it. Which are acknowledged by some of the sects of buddhism.
In fairness though Ephrem do you think there is more to Christianity that you have deduced, or do you apply logic to the system find contradictions and judge it based partially on that?
I am willing to let the buddhist discussion go since it seems we are not making any progress.
[/quote]
…the biggest difference between christianity and buddhism is the absence of a deity in buddhism. Christianity requires a belief, and just that is already a breaking point for me. Otoh, attaining enlightenment or Nirvana in buddhism is also a belief, and that too was a breaking point for me. What appealed to me in buddhism more than christianity is its elegance and a language that goes straight to the heart of the matter…
…buddhism introduced me to non-dualism: Nondualism - Wikipedia another topic close to my heart, and one well worth looking into!
[/quote]
Please allow me to interpret what you said with out offense.
In essence you consider neither to be valid due to the lack of physical substance of certain held belief. No amount of logical reasoning or convincing argument would satisify your one basic requirement for a tangible evidence of a core belief.
Is that accurate?
As for nondualism I just finished reading the problem of pain by CS Lewis and he uses a nondualism argument to desribe self awareness to certain elements when dealing with animal suffering.
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…well haney, i can only reiterate that there’s more to buddhism than what you deduced, but that requires a thread of it’s own, and i’m not up for that at the moment…
[/quote]
I am not denying that the philosophy has more with in it. I also am not saying buddhism is wrong. I am saying that I find there to be contradictions with in it. Which are acknowledged by some of the sects of buddhism.
In fairness though Ephrem do you think there is more to Christianity that you have deduced, or do you apply logic to the system find contradictions and judge it based partially on that?
I am willing to let the buddhist discussion go since it seems we are not making any progress.
[/quote]
…the biggest difference between christianity and buddhism is the absence of a deity in buddhism. Christianity requires a belief, and just that is already a breaking point for me. Otoh, attaining enlightenment or Nirvana in buddhism is also a belief, and that too was a breaking point for me. What appealed to me in buddhism more than christianity is its elegance and a language that goes straight to the heart of the matter…
…buddhism introduced me to non-dualism: Nondualism - Wikipedia another topic close to my heart, and one well worth looking into!
[/quote]
Please allow me to interpret what you said with out offense.
In essence you consider neither to be valid due to the lack of physical substance of certain held belief. No amount of logical reasoning or convincing argument would satisify your one basic requirement for a tangible evidence of a core belief.
Is that accurate?
As for nondualism I just finished reading the problem of pain by CS Lewis and he uses a nondualism argument to desribe self awareness to certain elements when dealing with animal suffering.
[/quote]
…yes, because you have to start out with one basic assumption [belief] i cannot resign myself to following either. Do you by chance have a link for that CS Lewis piece?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Objective truths are truths that are equally true for each and everyone of us, no mattter the circumstances.
Values are therefore never absolute, but relative to the culture or sociaty that holds those values.
An objective truth is: humans need air to survive. Without air we die. This is true for all humans no matter the circumstances.
That’s it.[/quote]
And this is right about where we reached our sticking point in the Arrest the Pope thread in which, based upon the relativist line of reasoning, you could not justifiably condemn the atrocities of Aztec society.
You know, if you think about it, from now on you are kind of going to have a hard time convincing any of us that the American War Machine is doing anything other than conforming to its own particular Zeitgeist. Our militaristic conquests are just an expression of the realities and needs of our society, no more or less “good” than those of Switzerland or, well, the Aztecs.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Objective truths are truths that are equally true for each and everyone of us, no mattter the circumstances.
Values are therefore never absolute, but relative to the culture or sociaty that holds those values.
An objective truth is: humans need air to survive. Without air we die. This is true for all humans no matter the circumstances.
That’s it.[/quote]
And this is right about where we reached our sticking point in the Arrest the Pope thread in which, based upon the relativist line of reasoning, you could not justifiably condemn the atrocities of Aztec society.
You know, if you think about it, from now on you are kind of going to have a hard time convincing any of us that the American War Machine is doing anything other than conforming to its own particular Zeitgeist. Our militaristic conquests are just an expression of the realities and needs of our society, no more or less “good” than those of Switzerland or, well, the Aztecs. [/quote]
…and i have said pretty much exactly that: that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a calculated move by the USA to secure natural resources, and that i can’t blame them for doing so because they’re thinking of #1…
…what bothers/bothered me is the blind acceptance by posters on this board of the lies the american public were told by their government to win their support for the wars…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]haney1 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…well haney, i can only reiterate that there’s more to buddhism than what you deduced, but that requires a thread of it’s own, and i’m not up for that at the moment…
[/quote]
I am not denying that the philosophy has more with in it. I also am not saying buddhism is wrong. I am saying that I find there to be contradictions with in it. Which are acknowledged by some of the sects of buddhism.
In fairness though Ephrem do you think there is more to Christianity that you have deduced, or do you apply logic to the system find contradictions and judge it based partially on that?
I am willing to let the buddhist discussion go since it seems we are not making any progress.
[/quote]
…the biggest difference between christianity and buddhism is the absence of a deity in buddhism. Christianity requires a belief, and just that is already a breaking point for me. Otoh, attaining enlightenment or Nirvana in buddhism is also a belief, and that too was a breaking point for me. What appealed to me in buddhism more than christianity is its elegance and a language that goes straight to the heart of the matter…
…buddhism introduced me to non-dualism: Nondualism - Wikipedia another topic close to my heart, and one well worth looking into!
[/quote]
Please allow me to interpret what you said with out offense.
In essence you consider neither to be valid due to the lack of physical substance of certain held belief. No amount of logical reasoning or convincing argument would satisify your one basic requirement for a tangible evidence of a core belief.
Is that accurate?
As for nondualism I just finished reading the problem of pain by CS Lewis and he uses a nondualism argument to desribe self awareness to certain elements when dealing with animal suffering.
[/quote]
…yes, because you have to start out with one basic assumption [belief] i cannot resign myself to following either. Do you by chance have a link for that CS Lewis piece?
[/quote]
I appreaciate the honesty and thank you for the civil and interesting exchange. Hopefully we will have another one soon.
No I don’t have a link, it is a book I own. I would qualify it by saying you would prob. be dissapointed though his premise is not nondualism, he just uses a pieces of the argument to make a point. It is a good read, but if you are looking for that small piece I wouldn’t waste the time.
I will say this if you are interested in the human experiece I would read that book followed by his book a grief ovserved.
The first is him making an argument for the problem of pain. The second is his personal thoughts as he wrestled with the passing of his wife.
It is particularly interesting how in the problem of pain he says he doesn’t know how he would handle real pain, but that it would most likely not be a good site to observe.
In the second you observe how he handled that pain.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Objective truths are truths that are equally true for each and everyone of us, no mattter the circumstances.
Values are therefore never absolute, but relative to the culture or sociaty that holds those values.
An objective truth is: humans need air to survive. Without air we die. This is true for all humans no matter the circumstances.
That’s it.[/quote]
And this is right about where we reached our sticking point in the Arrest the Pope thread in which, based upon the relativist line of reasoning, you could not justifiably condemn the atrocities of Aztec society.
You know, if you think about it, from now on you are kind of going to have a hard time convincing any of us that the American War Machine is doing anything other than conforming to its own particular Zeitgeist. Our militaristic conquests are just an expression of the realities and needs of our society, no more or less “good” than those of Switzerland or, well, the Aztecs. [/quote]
…and i have said pretty much exactly that: that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a calculated move by the USA to secure natural resources, and that i can’t blame them for doing so because they’re thinking of #1…
…what bothers/bothered me is the blind acceptance by posters on this board of the lies the american public were told by their government to win their support for the wars…[/quote]
…but those lies were for our (society) own good…so it was OK. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to fit with your views.
CappedandPlanIt.
Why are you so angry with Christians? What happened to you as a child? If there is something that happened maybe we can talk about it and resolve the issue. Coming in here and throwing around the name Christ*&%$ is not going to get you anywhere. If you want help we are here and listening. If you are just being an ass you can go somewhere else. Grow up. We are all gentleman here.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Objective truths are truths that are equally true for each and everyone of us, no mattter the circumstances.
Values are therefore never absolute, but relative to the culture or sociaty that holds those values.
An objective truth is: humans need air to survive. Without air we die. This is true for all humans no matter the circumstances.
That’s it.[/quote]
And this is right about where we reached our sticking point in the Arrest the Pope thread in which, based upon the relativist line of reasoning, you could not justifiably condemn the atrocities of Aztec society.
You know, if you think about it, from now on you are kind of going to have a hard time convincing any of us that the American War Machine is doing anything other than conforming to its own particular Zeitgeist. Our militaristic conquests are just an expression of the realities and needs of our society, no more or less “good” than those of Switzerland or, well, the Aztecs. [/quote]
…and i have said pretty much exactly that: that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a calculated move by the USA to secure natural resources, and that i can’t blame them for doing so because they’re thinking of #1…
…what bothers/bothered me is the blind acceptance by posters on this board of the lies the american public were told by their government to win their support for the wars…[/quote]
…but those lies were for our (society) own good…so it was OK. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to fit with your views.[/quote]
…that they told lies to justify going to war isn’t what bothered me. Please read more carefully. That people believed the lies and defended their nation’s actions based on those lies, that’s what bothered me…
[quote]haney1 wrote:
I appreaciate the honesty and thank you for the civil and interesting exchange. Hopefully we will have another one soon.
No I don’t have a link, it is a book I own. I would qualify it by saying you would prob. be dissapointed though his premise is not nondualism, he just uses a pieces of the argument to make a point. It is a good read, but if you are looking for that small piece I wouldn’t waste the time.
I will say this if you are interested in the human experiece I would read that book followed by his book a grief ovserved.
The first is him making an argument for the problem of pain. The second is his personal thoughts as he wrestled with the passing of his wife.
It is particularly interesting how in the problem of pain he says he doesn’t know how he would handle real pain, but that it would most likely not be a good site to observe.
In the second you observe how he handled that pain.[/quote]
…same here haney, until next time…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Objective truths are truths that are equally true for each and everyone of us, no mattter the circumstances.
Values are therefore never absolute, but relative to the culture or sociaty that holds those values.
An objective truth is: humans need air to survive. Without air we die. This is true for all humans no matter the circumstances.
That’s it.[/quote]
And this is right about where we reached our sticking point in the Arrest the Pope thread in which, based upon the relativist line of reasoning, you could not justifiably condemn the atrocities of Aztec society.
You know, if you think about it, from now on you are kind of going to have a hard time convincing any of us that the American War Machine is doing anything other than conforming to its own particular Zeitgeist. Our militaristic conquests are just an expression of the realities and needs of our society, no more or less “good” than those of Switzerland or, well, the Aztecs. [/quote]
…and i have said pretty much exactly that: that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are a calculated move by the USA to secure natural resources, and that i can’t blame them for doing so because they’re thinking of #1…
…what bothers/bothered me is the blind acceptance by posters on this board of the lies the american public were told by their government to win their support for the wars…[/quote]
…but those lies were for our (society) own good…so it was OK. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to fit with your views.[/quote]
…that they told lies to justify going to war isn’t what bothered me. Please read more carefully. That people believed the lies and defended their nation’s actions based on those lies, that’s what bothered me…
[/quote]
So you are saying that it was wrong for the USA to lie?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
<<< you could not justifiably condemn the atrocities of Aztec society. >>>[/quote]Awww, now there’s a spoiler. Haven’t gotten to the blood swimming Aztecs in that thread yet, but that is a great example that hadn’t occurred to me. And yet with all that sickness and carnage they undeniably did demonstrate advanced (for the time) understanding in areas like engineering and astronomy for instance. I’m jist thinkin out loud. I’ll get to it in the other thread I’m sure.