Originally posted by Halitose [b]I take it you're expressing your own opinion on the matter.
Absolutely; how many times to you see a humanitarian Christian make the headlines for doing something good compared to one (and I'm thinking in particular of the ones who have been paraded time and again in these forums) who's done something wrong? It's the nature of the mass-media engine; it thrives on irony, violence and dirt.[/b]
Exactly, but how many times do you see anyone on the news for doing good. I don't think the news editors censor their stories.
"Yeah, I have a lead on this one lady who did these wonderfully humanitarian things. It would be a great story to run during our 2-minute 'Things Happening in the World that are not Depressing" segment, but alas, I hear she's a xian so it's no go."
Originally posted by telerion Exactly, but how many times do you see anyone on the news for doing good. I don't think the news editors censor their stories.
"Yeah, I have a lead on this one lady who did these wonderfully humanitarian things. It would be a great story to run during our 2-minute 'Things Happening in the World that are not Depressing" segment, but alas, I hear she's a xian so it's no go."
Noted. :'(
Removed
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
07 Apr '06 22:30
Originally posted by lucifershammer What his pronouncement on the subject?
I think he said something about Judas fulfilling some part of Gods plan- even if what he did was wrong.
Originally posted by Halitose [...] I can't understand how someone can keep a straight face and claim that “humans are essentially good and virtuous, we are only perverted by our societies”.
Perhaps human nature was the wrong term. I don't think humans are evil or good by nature. We simply are what we are, and we do what we have to to survive. Our strange fascination for violence is due to a society encouraging such. Or at least that's what I think. There has been "primitive" cultures not fixated at violence. So, I don't think our gloating in other people's misery is a more integral part of our beings than us empathising and wanting to help others. It's more like a part of us that's encouraged from childhood. If we encourage our children to hug instead of bitchslap each other, I'm sure we'd have a much more peaceful society.
Originally posted by stocken Perhaps human nature was the wrong term. I don't think humans are evil or good by nature. We simply are what we are, and we do what we have to to survive. Our strange fascination for violence is due to a society encouraging such. Or at least that's what I think. There has been "primitive" cultures not fixated at violence. So, I don't think our gloating in ot hug instead of bitchslap each other, I'm sure we'd have a much more peaceful society.
We simply are what we are, and we do what we have to to survive.
This state of being can be classified as good or evil. Take any of the myriads of serial rapists/murderers and tell me how their actions were necessary for their survival. You might not want to admit it, but I'm sure you are morally outraged at some of the happenings in our society. Do you claim there is no concept of evil? Then why are you outraged?
There has been "primitive" cultures not fixated at violence.
Rome had its gladiatorial games, we have our slasher films and violent video games; nothing has changed.
Our strange fascination for violence is due to a society encouraging such.
This statement is circular in nature, since society is comprised of individuals. Ergo, humans encourage a fascination for violence in each other. It follows then that we have a fascination for violence – stop blaming society, since we are society.
Originally posted by Halitose Rome had its gladiatorial games, we have our slasher films and violent video games; nothing has changed.
Rome was far from being a primitive society. For a better model closer to home, try the San. Civilisation produces wars; primitive societies tend to be victimised by civilisation.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Civilisation produces wars; primitive societies tend to be victimised by civilisation.
War is survival of the fittest, it is the socialisation of primitive aspects of men. As you've said, moral outrage is another example of socialisation of a primal fear.
As for civilisation, I distinguish it from socialisation. It is not because a society exists that it is necessarily civilized.
Note: I don't know if the word socialisation is the most adequate, but I can't find a better one at this moment...
Originally posted by Palynka War is survival of the fittest, it is the socialisation of primitive aspects of men. As you've said, moral outrage is another example of socialisation of a primal fear.
As for civilisation, I distinguish it from socialisation. It is not because a society exists that it is necessarily civilized.
Note: I don't know if the word socialisation is the most adequate, but I can't find a better one at this moment...
Is "survival of the fittest" used in evolutionary theory?
Does natural selection operate at cultural level?
How would natural selection account for the difference in warfare as practised by the Romans compared to the Celts?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Rome was far from being a primitive society. For a better model closer to home, try the San. Civilisation produces wars; primitive societies tend to be victimised by civilisation.
As for moral outrage--it stems from fear.
Rome was far from being a primitive society.
Did you notice the inverted commas: "primitive"?
As for moral outrage--it stems from fear.
I'm outraged at this statement -- where does the fear come in?
primitive societies tend to be victimised by civilisation
Getting back to the original theme here, if the JGos is only 1700 years old, then it is contaminated by 300 years of christian reformist history and doesn't seem to me to have much validity. There would have to be a 1900 year old document that verified what the later one said to have any real historical force.
Originally posted by Halitose [b]Rome was far from being a primitive society.
Did you notice the inverted commas: "primitive"?
As for moral outrage--it stems from fear.
I'm outraged at this statement -- where does the fear come in?
primitive societies tend to be victimised by civilisation
One word: technology.[/b]
You seem easily outraged; you must be very moral.
I don't think stocken had Rome in mind when he brought up primitive societies.
The fear of Chaos and Old Night is at the heart of moral outrage: fear of the big bad wolf; fear of the sky falling down. What's your version?
I don't think "technology" adequately explains why primitive societies are victimised by "civilised" societies. The more interesting question is why the "superior" cultures use their technology to exploit rather than assist their less technologically developed fellow human beings.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage You seem easily outraged; you must be very moral.
I don't think stocken had Rome in mind when he brought up primitive societies.
The fear of Chaos and Old Night is at the heart of moral outrage: fear of the big bad wolf; fear of the sky falling down. What's your version?
I don't think "technology" adequately explains why primitive societies ...[text shortened]... to exploit rather than assist their less technologically developed fellow human beings.
I don't think stocken had Rome in mind when he brought up primitive societies.
Maybe we'll never know.
What's your version?
Kant called it: the moral law within.
The more interesting question is why the "superior" cultures use their technology to exploit rather than assist their less technologically developed fellow human beings.
Because the primitives would have done the same thing had they the technology. Civilization can hardly be considered the taming of the savage beast -- man.
Finally salvation for ....Judas
07 Apr '06 20:21
Back to Top