 | | Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —John DiRienzo
| | | | Just wondered if anybody was reading the little philosophy subthread that David and I have been slowly working on. Still, I find it useless to debate religion (on a hypothetical level of course), and friends really shouldn't. And, yes, there are (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | I'm reading it... Not sure where it is going, but I will say this. Morals are relative only to the extent that some are better than others. I hold any morality that says it is OK to violate rights as inferior to one that does not. As to history (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: History as hearsay (was Re: 22/7 & infinities (was: Re: The nature of the JC god, good or evil?) —David Eaton
| | | | | (...) Where is it going... hmmm.... the basic arguments (forgive any misquotes, John D): Q: Are actions good solely by their consequences, or is there an underlying morality which judges them regardless? A: I think we're more or less agreed at this (...) (25 years ago, 8-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
