[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1234[5]6789 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:25
Author: Eponymous-30Apr02
Subject: Re: Addendum/Correction
In reply to: ketch-30Apr02 's message, "Re: Addendum/Correction" on 11:59

I find this whole distinction between "political reformer" and "spiritual messenger" a little fatuous. Where, for example, does the Dalai Lama fit in this categorial scheme? One man's "political reformer" is another's "spiritual messenger." Some people worship at the alter of Ayn Rand.

In any case, and again, I think it's a nonargument to say that Jesus was concerned with the customs of the day only to the extent that he wanted to make "some spiritual points." Suppose I grant it; what follows? Only that he was concerned with the customs of the day. Which is what I stated. If he was concerned with those customs because they reflected debased spiritual values, so much the better.

Next, I find this line of reasoning about miscegenation currently being "fashionable" almost bizarre. First, Miscegenation isn't presently "fashionable" any more than abstaining from killing babies is "fashionable."

Second, miscegenation is not being "promoted"; it is merely allowed. Do you want to say that it should not be?

Third, do you really want to argue that there is a question as to whether granting the liberty to marry someone despite a difference in skin tone is a more enlightened policy than denying that liberty? If so, please go ahead, and I will then enumerate the reasons such a denial is unenlightened. If not, I won't spend time laboring over mere Devil's advocacy.

Fourth, if you want to argue that we have no principled means of determining whether a given policy or behavior or creed is enlightened, that "it's all relative," well, it is difficult to know what to say. With this sort of reasoning, we cannot say, for example, that infanticide (killing babies) is unenlightened; we can only say that it's "unfashionable." Now, if you want to bite the bullet and unequivocally endorse that statement, maybe we can have a discussion about what constitutes enlightened thinking and action. Otherwise, I think this is just more Devil's advocacy that stands in the way of addressing the genuine issues.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.