Hey Mary, The point I was making is that Christianity was the supposed belief system of both persecuted and persecutor, as was the case in the south with slavery. Some souther "christians" used Christianity to justify slavery. However, the slaves, and the abolitionists were likewise Christians who used the teaching of their faith to abolish slavery.
Yet Christianity is often blamed for these crimes which, in truth, it brought to an end for the first time in history. As to moq and its levels, and which is primary. On what possible evidence can you base such a conclusion. It is a faith based assumption, someone else's faith based assumption that you have adopted on faith. There is no evidence for such a selfish gene theory. Who says or can justify such a view that a bilogical level values anything, much less genocide. I hope to get into DW soon. He shows why none of the levels has any absolute meaning of its own, and none that can be held superior to another level. I keep coming back to how we know. That's the starting point. How can we have any valid knowledge? Cause Pirisg says so, cause DW says so? Cause you or I think so? No, there's something deeper. And there are different social priorites, ethical, legal, even natural law. These change-some agree with genocide, like Hitler, while others condemn it. And who is to say the genocidal aspect of biology dominates the co-operative aspect, the symbiotic aspect. These are imputed to nature by man's mind and change with the fashion of the times. One final question on the genocide notion. Which law trumped which in the Nuremburg trials? And what do you think of the concept of natural law in itself and in relation to the biological law of genocide. Thanks, Jon On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Jon, > > > > Are you making the belief of the victims the cause of the crime? > > [Mary Replies] > No. It is the belief of the criminals which is the cause of the crime. > > > I am not speaking about the goodness of man, but the goodness of a > > specific > > belief system. And if you are one that thinks man is basically good, > > and you > > don't believe in God, then who commit > > ted these atrocities throughout history, the ones you and I mention??? > > It > > had to be man in all his natural goodness! > > > [Mary Replies] > Of course. > > The MoQ says that what is valued at one level is not necessarily valued at > the next. Value is equated with good. The Biological Level values > genocide > as one possible way to assure the persistence of one genetic pool over > another. The eternal battle of DNA. Having many offspring would be > another. It is perfectly valid to debate the relative morality of each > solution. However, in a more overarching sense, the Biological values > biology and probably has no preference for any particular configuration of > DNA over another. At least at its most basic. You can't neglect the fact > that the Biological Level is very old and humans have only existed briefly. > But I stray from my point. > > The values of Biology were the foundation from which the Social Level > arose. > Pirsig explains that each level depends on the continued existence of those > below it, but the levels are in a moral hierarchy. What is more moral is > that which supports the higher level without destroying the lower. It's a > hierarchy of moral Quality all the way down. > > Mary > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
