Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Jan 2000 14:11:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3441 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 31 Dec 1999 19:21:12 GMT, John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net>
wrote:
> Well, that's my point. I'm saying that good is beyond what the particular fancy of a
> given society says it is. We are not the author of good, we are the seekers of it
> (hopefully).
Which means that there is no meaningful definition of good at all.
That's not very useful either.
> > planet. Until the Y2K bug killed it off, of course.
>
> We'll soon see about that;-)
<antagonist>Drat. It was a dud. Well, I'll try again in 100 years.
</antagonist>
> All of these examples, of course, are examples of evil.
> I don't know who you mean by _we_; I stated that *only* God is good. Seems you are
> helping me prove my point.
If God is good, why has he never deigned to touch the world?
> The world is a harsh place mostly because bad people don't know how to exist
> *meaningfully*. They haven't figured out what it's all about, and so they bungle
> through life reeking chaos. People need guidance, and not the blind leading the blind
> kind, but the divine kind.
But since there is no divine guidance, only the
blind-leading-the-blind kind, what exactly are we supposed to do?
Jasper
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
