The Meaning Of Justice

[John Smith]

Have you guys seen the movie "Seven"? My wife and I argued for half of the night after we saw it. After that, I came up with the following mental experiment.
Suppose you are someone with the ultimate knowledge of morality, the knowledge of right and wrong. You are not even God, you are above it. If it is hard to imagine, think of yourself as a super-God, someone or something that is above Allah, Buddah, and Christian God.
So, you are hanging around the gates to heaven, and the devil comes to you, escorting 4 guys. You are in the position to judge their sins and to decide who gets to heaven.
The devil introduces the candidates to you:
"This is major Tom Ferebee, the american pilot who dropped the nuke on Hiroshima and killed several hundred thousand people. He said that he followed the orders of the general."
"This is the guy who brutally executed seven people. Just as an example, he forced-fed an obese guy until his stomach exploded, to punish him for gluttony. The killer says that he was chosen by God to complete his 7 murders mission"
"This is a guy whom Christians and Jews consider their God. He murdered every first born Egyptian child to persuade the pharaoh to free the jews from slavery."
"This is just an atheist. He avoided the draft to Vietnam by hiding in Canada, he laughs at the concept of believing in anything mystical, including believing in you, the Super God. Aside from that he didn't actually do anything wrong."
Now, your assignment as a Super God is to arrange these 4 guys in the order from the most evil to the least evil and decide who gets to heaven.
Here is my solution:
1. God
2. Tom Ferebee
3. The guy who killed 7 people
4. The atheist
Only atheist gets to heaven, the other three fellows end up on the pit.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's your turn to throw stones!

[Thomas Paul]

Is God killing people really a bad thing? What if God killed you and immediately brought you to heaven where for the remainder of eternity you would know nothing but joy and happiness? Why would that be a bad thing?

[Cindy Glass]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
"This is a guy whom Christians and Jews consider their God. He murdered every first born Egyptian child to persuade the pharaoh to free the jews from slavery."

God makes EVERY person and animal die, not just those first born children. That is part of his "job". From that perspective causing someone to die is not evil, it is just a fact of life.
The only issue might be the timing of when he chose which souls to return to him. Since that timing is all a part of a bigger plan, you are going to have to tell me the bigger plan before I can tell you if his timing was wrong :roll: .

[Cindy Glass]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

"This is just an atheist. He avoided the draft to Vietnam by hiding in Canada, he laughs at the concept of believing in anything mystical, including believing in you, the Super God. Aside from that he didn't actually do anything wrong."

Of course the issue is that even if he didn't actually do anything wrong, which is impossible, he STILL is not good enough to get into heaven by himself. You don't GET there by good works - it is a state of spirit.
So, you have to tell me the state of his spirit - not what he did or did not DO.

[Thomas Paul]

By the way, because the draft dodger didn't go, someone else went in his place. That guy had a wife and young daughter. He died when he stepped on a Vietnamese land mine.

[Jason Menard]

Out of all that you listed, it would seem that the most morally bankrupt out of them was the aetheist. He acted purely in his personal best interests without worrying about the consequences of his actions or the people who might die or be maimed because of them.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
"This is major Tom Ferebee, the american pilot who dropped the nuke on Hiroshima and killed several hundred thousand people. He said that he followed the orders of the general."

Two things, the death toll at Hiroshima was 140,000 not several hundred thousand. Also Ferebee did not drop the bomb simply because he was following orders.
Here is an article about him that reveals the person to some extent:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/bob/greene032400.asp

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Out of all that you listed, it would seem that the most morally bankrupt out of them was the aetheist. He acted purely in his personal best interests without worrying about the consequences of his actions or the people who might die or be maimed because of them.

But may not be more bankrupt than the one who dropped nuked hiroshima. The pilot listened to his general (and probably also to his inner self that said he is doing a good thing or just doing his job whatever). In his mind, the pilot weighed the + and - of dropping the bomb, and finally decided to drop it.
The draft dodger, on the other hand did a similar calculation and figured that he does not believe in war or his national leaders or may be he simply did not believe in the concept of a nation (which was, btw, forcing him to go to war). Finally, he decided not to participate in the war. The only solution for him to not go to war was to dodge the draft.
I don't see a difference between a draft dodger and the pilot. Both did what they believed in. Neither is right or wrong. Both should or should not have the right to go to heaven (if it exists :roll: )
Further, I think both have a right to go the heaven because the brain that they got was not of their choice. Everybody is more or less intelligent. What a person does, depends on what he thinks, and what he thinks depends on what he's got up there in his brains. So aren't his actions also controlled by God, basically? God had already done his coding.
Somebody is greedy while somebody is altruistic. Humans may think that the greedy one should go to hell. But should God really send him to hell?
A scitzophrenic may kill a couple of people. Would god punish him? He did not ask to be mentally ill.
In Gita (one of the Hindu holy books that contains the philosophy of life) Krishna (God) tells Arjun (The legendary fighter who was supposed to kill thousands of his cousins, teacher, elders) says (in a nut shell), "Do your stuff, do what you believe is right. Don't worry about the outcome for that is my(God's) job.". "You only have control over your actions, but not to the fruits thereof. Be not driven by the fruits of your actions, yet be not attached to inaction."

[John Smith]

Cindy Glass: God makes EVERY person and animal die, not just those first born children. That is part of his "job". From that perspective causing someone to die is not evil, it is just a fact of life.
Natural death is a fact of life, but I can't accept God's plan (whatever it may be) when he kills every first born child, -- he (God) is going to the pit, if you ask me. In the context of parallel universes, each one having its God, our local God is nothing but a mass murderer who has good intentions (apparently to exclusively dominate and be admired). His son did much better, I must admit, although Jesus was clearly a communist, -- he put the welfare of the society above his individual well being. That may be the purpose of life for many people, indeed, but not for a capitalist pig like me.
Cindy Glass: You don't GET there by good works - it is a state of spirit.
I am not sure what you are saying, Cindy. Do you mean that if I accept Jesus, I will be saved and sent to heaven, even though I was Adolf Hitler in my life?
Thomas Paul: Two things, the death toll at Hiroshima was 140,000 not several hundred thousand.
The devil in my mental experiment used the statistics from "The Making of the Atomic Bomb":
Hiroshima: 140,000 dead by the end of 1945. Five years after, the total is close to 200,000.
Thomas Paul: Also Ferebee did not drop the bomb simply because he was following orders.
I read the article that you linked, and it seems to be in line with the devil's summary. Here is a quote from the article: "He was no politician; none of them were. They did what they were asked [...] to carry out the single most violent act in the history of mankind." There is also another passage: "I would rather have helped the Cardinals win a World Series," he said. "That's all I ever wanted." Is that what you refer to?
Pakka Desi: I don't see a difference between a draft dodger and the pilot. Both did what they believed in. Neither is right or wrong.
I was thinking something similar, -- you get to heaven (if there is heaven) if you are truthful to yourself and do what you believe is right. But then, an unlikely group of people will be in Heaven: Adolf Hitler, a draft dodger, an atheist, and Usama bin Laden. Something is not right, so I've got to think more about it.
[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:

Pakka Desi: I don't see a difference between a draft dodger and the pilot. Both did what they believed in. Neither is right or wrong.
I was thinking something similar, -- you get to heaven (if there is heaven) if you are truthful to yourself and do what you believe is right. But then, an unlikely group of people will be in Heaven: Adolf Hitler, a draft dodger, an atheist, and Usama bin Laden. Something is not right, so I've got to think more about it.

That's right. The result of applying the "what you believe in" logic seems to be flawed. But I don't see a problem with the logic itself. If I, a human, were to decide, OBL et al wouldn't be in heaven. But that's a biased decision. In the world of OBLs, Gandhiji would not be allowed to go in heaven.
But to real god (if he/she exists), OBL and Gandhiji, both did what they were "coded" to do. So why should God prefer one over the other?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
The draft dodger, on the other hand did a similar calculation and figured that he does not believe in war or his national leaders or may be he simply did not believe in the concept of a nation (which was, btw, forcing him to go to war). Finally, he decided not to participate in the war. The only solution for him to not go to war was to dodge the draft.

I think you are giving this guy who fled to Canada far too much credit. The only thing he believed in was saving his own ass.

[John Smith]

The only thing he believed in was saving his own ass.
.. and the asses of those children that he chose not to kill.
Eugene.

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The only thing he believed in was saving his own ass.

So what's wrong with that? The complete existance of living things is based on SYA. SYA is a natural instinct.
Many times I know something is not right for a project but I do it anyway because I need my job. My manager in turn also knows something is not right but he does it anyway too!

[Melvin Menezes]

EK: ...So, you are hanging around the gates to heaven, and the devil comes to you, escorting 4 guys. You are in the position to judge their sins and to decide who gets to heaven...The devil introduces the candidates to you:
Any why should a 'devil' introduce the same 'humans that I created' to me ?
Now think about this: I am a super-god and the devil is also my own creation. So do you think I am devilish myself for creating a devil? Or you suspect that the devil was created by someone else at my level? a super-devil?
Or you suspect that the devil was created by someone above me? a super-super-god?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
The only thing he believed in was saving his own ass.
.. and the asses of those children that he chose not to kill.
Eugene.

The biggest mistake about Vietnam was that we were too weak as a people at that time to deal with images on television of real war, and that we pulled out without finishing the job. As a result of our leaving, 2.5 million people died in Cambodia and Laos. Not so odd I guess that the scumbag willing to let others fight and maybe die in his place while he hides on a commune in Canada doesn't seem so willing to take responsibility for his legacy.
I used to think that we were totally wrong about being in Vietnam. Then I spoke with people who lived in Cambodia and Laos. That the so-called "peace" protesters of the era think they won some sort of victory, when what they really did was facilitate genocide, is pretty twisted.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
So what's wrong with that? The complete existance of living things is based on SYA. SYA is a natural instinct.

But Man is a higher order creature able to supress his natural instincts. Man generally also has morals and all these other ephemeral qualities of mind and being to act as a guide as to when one should supress these natural instincts. This is the reason we have things like parents running into burning buildings to save their children, or any other instance where SYA kicks in yetwe choose some other action that goes against this instinct.

[Michael Morris]

I am not sure what you are saying, Cindy. Do you mean that if I accept Jesus, I will be saved and sent to heaven, even though I was Adolf Hitler in my life?

That is where Catholic doctrine diverges with many Protestant or "Born Again" theological ideas. We Catholics believe that salvation is a life-long journey whereas these groups consider it a single event. Works do matter:
"So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." - James 2:17

[Melvin Menezes]

Since you mentioned a devil and super-god...
it occured to me, can a devil and a god co-exist? or are there a super-devil and a super-god? and super-super...
Or is there a concept of god-devil duality theory like we have wave-particle duality of light? And that all humans are a combination of some dual god-devil combo? Just like light exhibits properties of waves as well as particles in different situations, all humans exhibit good and bad properties in different situations?
I think that a human goes to heaven and hell simultaneously. After all, heaven and hell cannot be two separate places, eh! When someone is being served in heaven, someone else has to be serving in hell, isn't it ?

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

This is the reason we have things like parents running into burning buildings to save their children, or any other instance where SYA kicks in yetwe choose some other action that goes against this instinct.

Frankly, I think man is the highest order creature only in terms of evolution. Other than that, Man, in general, is not morally superior to other living beings. Come to think of it, Man really raped Earth. No other living thing has probably abused this planet more than humans. Isn't that all because of SYA?
As far as your example of parents-running-into-burning-building ic concerned, that is survial instincts (of their genes). Animals do that too. While I was a kid, we used to climb up the trees to see sparrow eggs. Before we could even reach the nest, the mother sparrow would start pecking on our head so furiously that it was a challenge reaching up to the nest.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
No other living thing has probably abused this planet more than humans.

Did you know that the primordial Earth had no oxygen. Oxygen was the waste product of these early organisms. In fact, they so polluted the planet with oxygen that they wiped themselves out. We haven't quite reached that point yet.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Natural death is a fact of life, but I can't accept God's plan (whatever it may be) when he kills every first born child, -- he (God) is going to the pit, if you ask me.

You ignored my comment on this. What if natural death actually brings you to a much greater place? So God causes an earthquake to destroy a poor village because he wants to stop their suffering and bring them to Him in heaven. Since we know so little about God's motives it doesn't seem possible to judge Him. Certainly judging God by human standards is an absurdity.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
As far as your example of parents-running-into-burning-building ic concerned, that is survial instincts (of their genes). Animals do that too.

So why do firemen run in to burning buildings to save other people's kids? Why do people risk their lives to save strangers?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
As far as your example of parents-running-into-burning-building ic concerned, that is survial instincts (of their genes).

No, that isn't it. If it were then strangers wouldn't put themselves in harm's way to help strangers. In other words, your neighbors going into a burning building to rescue your children, or even complete strangers. I believe in these instances we are talking about altruism, which has nothing to do with saving yourself or continuing the species.

[John Smith]

Melvin Menezes: Any why should a 'devil' introduce the same 'humans that I created' to me?
I actually didn't want to imply anything by having the devil introduce the candidates to God. It just seems a natural choice, if you are familiar with the Book of Job. The devil comes to God and says, "Let's challenge that fellow Job and see if he is really a moral person".
Melvin Menezes: Or is there a concept of god-devil duality theory like we have wave-particle duality of light?
Yeah, I think there is a theory (or maybe I came up with it myself, I don't remember) that God and Devil are really one thing. Makes sense to me, -- it explains God's pride, wrath and sloth, as documented in the scripture. I couldn't find the evidence of the remaining 4 deadly sins, though, -lust, envy, gluttony, and greed.
Eugene.

[Michael Morris]

I couldn't find the evidence of the remaining 4 deadly sins, though, -lust, envy, gluttony, and greed
That's because lust and gluttony are sins of appetite. God, being pure spirit has no such desires. No need for envy since God is above all things. Greed is useless because God owns everything.

[Joel McNary]

I will not get drawn in...I will not get drawn in...
OK, I got drawn in.
First, as a comparative religious scholar (not theologian), I would just like to point out the YHWH of the Old Testament is a vengeful God who used His might to make Right. According to Scripture, He slaughters innocents by the thousands and commits atrocities of the grandest kind. That is, if you are to believe in the black-and-white Scripture. Please keep in mind that humans with agendas are largely responsible for Scripture, and as such what is attributed to YHWH is largely biased according to their adgenda. (Keep in mind that if we were still in the Scripture-writing era, Pat Robertson would have written that God allowed the WTC disaster as punishment for America's tolerance of gays.) It is because of these adgendas we see YHWH transform over time from a vengeful God to the Loving Shepherd. (A friend of mine once proposed an Ace Doublet book (a book with two books inside, depending on which cover you were reading from). One side would be titled: War God of Irael and the other side would be titled: The Thing with Three Souls ). While I personally take this into light while reading Scripture, I write the following assuming a black-and-white literal reading of Scripture.
In my opinion, the point is that of context. I do not believe in moral absolutism, but instead in morals relative to the soceity one finds himslef in.
Yes, YHWH killed the first-borns in Egypt, but this could be seen as being in retaliation for the killing of the Israelite males by the prior Pharoh. This is the era of "eye-for-and-eye" type laws; the concept of the "Other Cheek" has not yet been intoduced into soceity. Thus, YHWH's behavious was perfectly acceptable according to the mores of the times. What's more, His behaviour changed over time (becoming repentant?) and should that also be taken into consideration (this whole redemption thing)?
Major Tom Ferebee was acting under orders. You and I can sit here and discuss whether his actions were morally right or wrong, but we are not in that position. Several psychological expirements (including the famous Milgram experiment has shown that people given orders tend to follow those orders, even though they might disagree with them. Thus, who should receive more punishement, Major Ferebee or his superiors?
The statement was made about the atheist "Aside from that he didn't actually do anything wrong." Am I then to conclude that not believing in the mystical is something wrong? But if I am the Uber-God, don't I get to say whats's right and what's wrong? If so, what context shall I judge him in? According to the New Testament, one is supposed to "Love your God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor as your self;" this fellow did neither (atheist and draft dodger). My context for judging him is decidely different from your context.
Finally, this brings us to the executioner. The questions abound: was his imperative actually from God? If so, which god (if we are assuming that I am an Uber-God, that implies multiple gods)? Als, should I then hold him or his god more accountable for these actions? Does he become another Major tom Ferebee?
My rankings are as follows (vile to acceptable):
1). The executioner.
You mmay be able to create a theoretical context for him, but since I am the Uber-God, I know the valid contexts. This guy's for the Pit.
2). The atheist.
As an Uber-God/Creator, I care for all my things and would like them to care for each other (whether or not they care about me). I would like my people to be above the base-animal instinct; however, I will not force them to be. What he does does not qualify for the Pit, but he was no saint either. Perhaps some repentance time in Purgatory or maybe a reincarnation or two....

3). Major Tom Ferebee
Here we have a guy who was following orders, but he did cause a lot of death and destruction. Again, base-animal instincts are difficult to overcome, but in this case his superiors are more in trouble than he is. Heaven? Maybe, but I might send him to Iowa to play baseball in the corn fields.

4). YHWH
This is a difficult one, because He tends to respond to the culture of the time. The Israelites want food? He sends them to Egypt. The Israelites want to get out of Egypt? He kills Egyptians so that they can leave. The Israelites want a king instead of a council of judges? He grants them their wish and they get Saul. They want salavation? He gives them Himself. He has mellowed over time and seemed even repentant; He serves His people well.

[John Smith]

Thomas Paul: What if natural death actually brings you to a much greater place? So God causes an earthquake to destroy a poor village because he wants to stop their suffering and bring them to Him in heaven. Since we know so little about God's motives it doesn't seem possible to judge Him. Certainly judging God by human standards is an absurdity.
I am judging God by his own standards: "One shall not kill". And I refuse to submit under that midevil explanation that "God is too big and too high for humans to understand". I have something above God in me (well, OK, parallel to God) that tells me it was wrong to kill every innocent firstborn child, even assuming that they were sent to Heaven. This is the very idea that gives rise to terrorism and war, -- if God did it, maybe it's OK for me to crash a few planes and murder 5,000 innocent people in some other country which I consider imperial and anti-my-God like.
Eugene.
[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Joel McNary]

Originally posted by Michael Morris:
I am not sure what you are saying, Cindy. Do you mean that if I accept Jesus, I will be saved and sent to heaven, even though I was Adolf Hitler in my life?

That is where Catholic doctrine diverges with many Protestant or "Born Again" theological ideas. We Catholics believe that salvation is a life-long journey whereas these groups consider it a single event. Works do matter:
"So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." - James 2:17

I do not believe in the "good works" doctrine, but I also cannot believe in the "Born Again" doctrine I see common in the "Bible belt" areas. To me, works alone do not save (as many "good-workers" believe), but faith is not enough by itself. Instead, faith is evidenced through works, as per Jesus's commandment "Love your neighbor as you would yourself." you do works because you love your neighbor because you have faith.

[Jason Menard]

Good post Joel. I'm surprised though you didn't mention how there really can't be an Uber-God to begin with.

[Melvin Menezes]

EK: I actually didn't want to imply anything by having the devil introduce the candidates to God. It just seems a natural choice, if you are familiar with the Book of Job. The devil comes to God and says, "Let's challenge that fellow Job and see if he is really a moral person"
That was a satan (just a tester who wanted to test Job's belief in God), not a devil. A devil is inherently evil. It doesn't matter anyways and I knew the point you were trying to make but my question still remains the same. Why do I as a super-god need introduction from a devil or satan about those four? For that matter, why do I even need to test my own creation?
We cannot reach any conclusion over here because we are not god and imagining that we are super-god for a moment will not help. As Thomas said, judging God by human standards would be an absurdity.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I am judging God by his own standards: "One shall not kill". And I refuse to submit under that midevil explanation that "God is too big and too high for humans to understand".

How can humans understand an infinite God? You are missing the point, God doesn't want us to murder each other because we are incapable of understanding the implications of our actions. God being infinite is capable of understanding the implications of everything and his actions can't be judged at the same level as our own actions. You tell your small children not to drive the car. Does that make you a hypocrite for driving it?

[Cindy Glass]

I am not sure what you are saying, Cindy. Do you mean that if I accept Jesus, I will be saved and sent to heaven, even though I was Adolf Hitler in my life?
In theory yes, if such a worm could actually find it in his heart to realize how awful what he was doing was, and made a real inner commitment to become a different person and accept God into his life and heart (sort of hard to believe that such a conversion could happen).
There is the precident given in the Bible when Jesus was crucified. There was a thief being crucified with him who asked for forgiveness and apparently truely repented. Jesus promised him that he would be in heaven that very day.
The point is that it is NEVER too late to be forgiven, if you are truely sincere.
Of course once you actually "make a real inner commitment to become a different person and accept God into your life and heart" then you must live the rest of your life in accordance with that belief, which means that you try to do good deeds and avoid bad stuff, but it is the state of your HEART that gets you into heaven - not the deeds themselves.
Course if you are NOT trying to do good and avoid bad then it would be hard to believe that you actually internalized that belief. Only GOD knows for sure . . .

[Melvin Menezes]

I read your posts after I posted. (never mind)
EK: I am judging God by his own standards: "One shall not kill". And I refuse to submit under that midevil explanation that "God is too big and too high for humans to understand".
And just who told you that "One shall not kill" is god's own standard? Did god come to you to say that? or some other human being told you that?
How about this? Judging God by "God's-own-standards-according-to-humans" would be an absurdity

[Cindy Glass]

As conceited as it is to believe that I have an inkling of what condition anybodies spirit was in at the time of death . . . I would say that just based on the surface I agree with Joel's alignment - except that there is NO WAY that GOD is a contender in this.
God hands out death all the time. That little Egyptian thing was NOTHING compared to the plaques in Europe, so why single that one out?
You don't like survival of the fittest? Too harsh for you? God is a meanie for allowing people to die? Allowing people to suffer? Or maybe he is just a bad guy for allowing them to die at some age that YOU consider too young? Sorry - get another universe to live in, because that is just the way this one works. And it does NOT make God the bad guy. It just means that WE do not have much of a clue as to what the motivations are at a cosmic level.
My children cried when I took them in to get their vaccinations. Does that make me a meanie because I allowed them to suffer? On purpose.

[John Smith]

How can humans understand an infinite God? God being infinite is capable of understanding the implications of everything and his actions can't be judged at the same level as our own actions.

This is exactly what I object to, -- this notion that humans cannot understand God and therefore should not question the morality of his actions. My God is Albert Einstein, and although it may seem that no one can understand his general theory of relativity, this is obviously not so. I do believe in Absolute Morality, and I do think that humans are capable of understanding it. God, as described in the Bible is a relative morality, cretated and recorded by his followers in a specific historical frame reference.
You tell your small children not to drive the car. Does that make you a hypocrite for driving it?
This is a bad analogy. If I killed the innocent children every day, but told my children not to kill, that would make me a hypocrite. If I were a catholic priest abusing the children, the hypocracy of God himself would be my excuse.
Eugene.

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Did you know that the primordial Earth had no oxygen. Oxygen was the waste product of these early organisms. In fact, they so polluted the planet with oxygen that they wiped themselves out. We haven't quite reached that point yet.

I did not know that but I know that oxygen is only about 22% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen being 77%, which I remember reading was the main ingredient of the primordial organisms (Amino Acids, bascially).
But that's beside the point. We will get to that point pretry soon.

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
[QBIn theory yes, if such a worm could actually find it in his heart to realize how awful what he was doing was, and made a real inner commitment to become a different person and accept God into his life and heart (sort of hard to believe that such a conversion could happen).
[/QB]

How would such a worn know that he was doing such awful things? How would he know what kind of person he should be?
OBL might even be dead believing what he did was right. Who is to tell what is right or wrong???

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Who is to tell what is right or wrong???

Societally, man. Cosmicly, God.
[ April 28, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Pakka Desi]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So why do firemen run in to burning buildings to save other people's kids?

That's their job, a very noble job, I would agree.
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Why do people risk their lives to save strangers?
Man is a social animal. One of the main reasons that humans came to dominate the earth is because they were able to work together. Helping strangers is a quality that is more advanced in humans than in animals, but animal too have this quality. It is common among elephant herds to care for the sick and old ones.
Further, there is a limit to the extent up to which a stranger would risk his life. After that, in harsh circumstances, a fellow human might even just eat up a fellow human. Would you let him in the heaven?

But again, what has this got to do with the discussion at hand? I do feel that these are good things that humans have. But they are "good" according to me. Are they good according to God...I don't know.
I think, we are just shooting in the dark really.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Did you know that the primordial Earth had no oxygen. Oxygen was the waste product of these early organisms. In fact, they so polluted the planet with oxygen that they wiped themselves out. We haven't quite reached that point yet.

Did you know that if you remove the ants from Earth all life would cease to exist in 5 years. If you remove human life all other life on Earth would flourish. Each species has its purpose.. if we were all created with equal capabilities and said "live together!!" it wouldnt happen. That is why there are interdependencies between different species.