what eds saying is, you and the pope can interpret it how you want. that doesnt change the fact that you are interpreting it WRONG, and any attempt to argue a point based on a flawed interpretation is itself flawed.
On 6/27/05, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with you, Frank, some cultures are better than others, just as > some scientific theories and some people are better than others. Some > cultures are peaceful while others go to war. Some cultures pretend to > value the individual, while placing increasing emphasis on the state. > Some cultures are too corrupt to hold fair elections and others allow > big companies to rip off the population. Fortunately, we do not have > such a culture. > > Nevertheless Frank, I get the impression that you think a culture based > on Christian principles is better than one based on Islamic teachings or > Buddhism, for example. To further refine the approach, I assume only > certain Christian beliefs are acceptable. I agree, Christianity in > recent centuries has provided a good culture basis, the behavior of the > Nazis during WWII and slave owners in the US south being big, but not > the only, exceptions. But now in this century we are presented with a > problem. Christianity, which is based on brotherly love and a value to > all life, is believed to be in a war with Islam, a religion which > represents a large fraction of the world's population and which is in > control of most energy sources. In addition, we are now running out of > energy, land space, and water in many regions, but the Catholic Church > will not support population limitations based on birth control. The > great Christian cultures are rapidly destroying the rain forests, over > fishing the oceans, and polluting the atmosphere with CO2. In other > words, a large number of Christians are taking several approaches that > may well destroy our own culture while spending their political support > and money trying to save other cultures from "evil". How do you deal > with this problem? > > Regards, > Ed > > Grimer wrote: > > > At 01:55 pm 27/06/2005 -0400, you wrote: > > > >>thomas malloy wrote: > >> > >> > >>>That area of agreement a leftist notion called cultural relativism (the > >>>idea that all cultures are all equally good) which is leading to cultural > >>>suicide. > >> > >>That definition of cultural relativity is completely wrong, misleading and > >>childish. > > > > > > Etc. > > > > The real problem seems to be in the meaning of the > > word relativism as opposed to relativity. For example, > > > > ================================================= > > Benedict XVI, however, has been critical of > > progressive Catholicism. In a homily delivered > > at a Mass before the cardinals began the conclave > > Monday, he warned against "relativism, which is > > letting oneself be 'swept along by every wind of > > teaching.' [It] looks like the only attitude > > [acceptable] to today's standards. We are moving > > toward a dictatorship of relativism, which does > > not recognize anything as for certain and which > > has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's > > own desires." > > ================================================= > > > > I wouldn't want to hoist you on your own petard because > > I think your post was very interesting and well argued. > > > > However. I think you need to get inside the minds of > > people like Malloy and the Pope (and me for that matter) > > and recognise that we understand the word "relativism" > > in a different way than you might. 8-) > > > > Cheers, > > > > Frank Grimer > > > > > > -- "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write" Voltaire
