Hi Krim I'd certainly accept the proposition that both good and evil are possible and available for us to embrace if we so choose to. Hard to tell them apart quite often, which of these possibilities we are trying to actualise is what the fighting and arguing is all about.
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Krimel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 7:15 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Social Darwinism > [SA] > Krimel, I still ask the same question. Notice in > the post in which I question this same value that dmb > has, and others, in which by improvement, are they > saying 'in addition to' or 'options', as in biological > doesn't have the option of intellect, unless we are > talking about intellect which does involve biological. > Inorganic is not biological, but biological does > involve inorganic. This is all I gather, so far. > > [Krimel] > Have betterness as your central thought is problematic. It leaves open the > question of worseness. In theological circle similar arguments cause > similar > problems. The existence of evil has been used often as a proof for the > non-existence of God. The devout offer up all kinds of theodicies to > discount this critique but frankly they are all pretty lame. You are > seeing > basically the same thing here. > > > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
