RE: Alliance for Science

-----Original Message-----
From: Pim van Meurs [mailto:pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 00:08
To: donperrett@interstrenuus.com
Subject: Re: Alliance for Science

Donald Perrett (E-mail) wrote:

>Pim wrote:
>
>
>
>The reason we put the Nazis on trial is because we won. You seldomly see
>the winner being dragged into court to defend its actions (point in case
>Iraq). Why should the majority impose their opinions on you? They don't
>they just have ways to punish you for not following laws and morality.
>
>
>
>Don P:
>Yes we won and winners of course usually do put the losers on trial. But
>the way you put it's as if you imply that the only reason killing Jews is
>wrong is if you lose the war.
>

Read carefully, I did say 'the only reason we put the Nazis on trial'.
So your objections are without merrit.

Don P:
First of all this was not an objection as such. Though I do object to
killing needlessly. It was an observation of the way in which you
structured your reply. Second, you didn't said "only".

>Certainly had the German's won then killing
>Jews would still have been legal, but somehow I think it would still be
>wrong, which was Matt's point. You seem to think that the only time
>something is wrong is when it is illegal. They are not one in the same.
>
>
Wrong in whose world? Let's assume that the suffrance movement had lost
and women would still not be allowed to vote. Would this have been
'wrong'? It all depends on one's perspective which is strongly
influenced by culture and society. Is it wrong to kill all but Noah in a
giant flood? Is it wrong to call for the murder of children?

Don P:
I do not disagree that most concepts of morality are a societal perspective.
My point is not the point others were making. I never insisted on any
absolutes, though I pointed out one. It was the idea that what may be wrong
for society may not be wrong to an individual. So while you seem to think
that if it's legal it's ok, or inversely if it's illegal it's wrong seems
rather black and white to me. If they legalized drugs tomorrow, I would
still consider it wrong and would not do them. In a world dominated by an
elite class as are the majority of societies now and throughout history, you
are correct to conclude that those in power decide what is best for the rest
of us. This does not however make them right. And that is my point.
Regardless of what the law says, mankind as a whole and as individuals can
decide for themselves what is best and live accordingly and say to heck with
the law. Thankfully in a democracy if a new moral concept reaches enough
people then that to may become law, as the suffrance movement did. Or as
perhaps in the future Roe v Wade will be overturned.

As for killing all but one, that would depend on whether you believe in a
global or local flood. And the murder of children is never a good thing,
though like many things in life necessity sometimes outweighs morality. Not
that I agree but one must do that which must be done. I may not like having
to kill the guy that just broke into my house, who plans on killing my
family, and may consider it immoral and illegal, but I must do it. To not
protect them is also murder, though tacit.

<quote>/"Next we headed for the land of Bashan, where King Og and his
army attacked us at Edrei. But the LORD told me, 'Do not be afraid of
him, for I have given you victory over Og and his army, giving you his
entire land. Treat him just as you treated King Sihon of the Amorites,
who ruled in Heshbon.' So the LORD our God handed King Og and all his
people over to us, and we killed them all. We conquered all sixty of his
towns, the entire Argob region in his kingdom of Bashan. These were all
fortified cities with high walls and barred gates. We also took many
unwalled villages at the same time. We completely destroyed the kingdom
of Bashan, just as we had destroyed King Sihon of Heshbon. We destroyed
all the people in every town we conquered – men, women, and children
alike. But we kept all the livestock for ourselves and took plunder from
all the towns."/ (Deuteronomy 3:1-7 NLT)</quote>

>What do you suggest would be examples of absolutes?
>
>
>
>Don P:
>Suicide. The punish for which is death.
>
>
>
>

Death is not always a punishment for many death is a release from
suffering. Which brings me to the concept of assisted suicide. Is this a
moral or amoral concept?

Things are hardly that black and white.

Don P:
Suffering is relative. I could say that I am suffering due to poverty. Is
suicide ok in this case? In a society without Christ suicide is neither
moral or amoral. In one with Christ it is immoral. Anything which can
prevent you from reaching a greater relationship with Christ and God is
immoral. This is why I do not believe in capital punishment. Most
conservatives do, but I consider it no better than abortion. If I kill a
man who is sentenced to death, then I not only kill him physically but most
likely spiritually. I have taken away his chance for redemption. If on the
other hand I allow him to live in prison for life, I give him a chance to
find Christ and salvation for the sin he committed. As Christians we should
afford every opportunity to reach salvation, even in the greatest sinners.
Received on Sun Mar 12 07:03:02 2006