Nobody in the world is good

[law12345]

Nobody can ever be as perfect as Jesus Christ was, evn if he existed, even monks of today's world fight vigilantly for a cause. You have to live in a monastery to avoid the struggle of life. I'm in Thailand now and have seen monks throwing rubbish out of busses, smoking cigs and buying violent or perverted dvd's to watch. We may be 90% good but even that 10% of badness circulates into a greater magnitude of evil. Even people who think they are good are still selfish and may even do nothing charitably for others.

When you cut doen human interaction I'm getting to the point where I don't give a shit about pleasantries. Between humans there is either a negative, positive or neutral interaction. That's all human interaction is. When you think about it we are all connected one way or another and it's better to just be a human as boring as it is, forget the sub-groups and colours and religions we're all just humans and animals and spirits.

 

[Jamshyd]

I'm in Thailand now and have seen monks throwing rubbish out of busses, smoking cigs and buying violent or perverted dvd's to watch.

LOL, I always tell people that Thai "buddhism" is mostly b/s, but no one believes me until they get there. Most of these monks you see are thinking about mobile phones and girls (trust me, I've spoken to quite a few when I lived there).

That said, it seems your thread is more like a blog entry than a thread. I'll leave it for now, but will keep an eye on how it goes.

 

[Fohat]

Nobody can ever be as perfect as Jesus Christ was, evn if he existed, even monks of today's world fight vigilantly for a cause. You have to live in a monastery to avoid the struggle of life. I'm in Thailand now and have seen monks throwing rubbish out of busses, smoking cigs and buying violent or perverted dvd's to watch. We may be 90% good but even that 10% of badness circulates into a greater magnitude of evil. Even people who think they are good are still selfish and may even do nothing charitably for others.

When you cut doen human interaction I'm getting to the point where I don't give a shit about pleasantries. Between humans there is either a negative, positive or neutral interaction. That's all human interaction is. When you think about it we are all connected one way or another and it's better to just be a human as boring as it is, forget the sub-groups and colours and religions we're all just humans and animals and spirits.

We definitely can't be 100% good (unless God's grace decides to lead us there, though that's only ever happened to one person: Mary). And yeah I know how you feel about the hypocrisy of some priests and monks. It can be frustrating. It's too easy to get wrapped up in the "other stuff" - the theology, philosophy, worrying about confession and fasting and all that - and forget the most important thing of all: love for God and our fellow man.

The #1 complaint I hear from atheists about Christians in general is that we just aren't all that good. Sadly I can't say that I don't see where they get that idea. Christianity is a huge religion and far too many Christians just go to church, preach, whatever, but forget to be kind to others. Without Caritas all the masses in the world won't help your soul.

People forget that loving your neighbor means loving your neighbor whether you want to or not, whether you "like" the person or not.

I assume you're already familiar with the Catholic beliefs on free-will and goodness (namely that there is no true free-will involved with doing good acts, any other belief being heretical, that we can't do anything good without Grace). FWIW you should try not to fixate on that unless you start to feel spiritually prideful, which is something you should constantly be on the look-out for.

Human beings truly are in a fallen state. Compared to the omnibenevolence of God, we are maggots. Every one of us sins dozens of times a day - little prideful thoughts, little hateful thoughts, little arrogant thoughts, etc. etc. The fact that God would still admit even *one* of us into heaven despite our depravity is a testimony to his infinite mercy.

Remember the maxim of St. Francis - "Preach the Gospel at all times. If necessary, use words!"

Edit: Just realized that you're not Catholic at all and are talking about Buddhist monks My bad, I'll leave the post as-is though just in case it sparks some interesting discussion. I don't see how any rational person looking at the evidence without bias could conclude that Jesus Christ was not a historical person but that's a discussion for another time.

 

[Sweet P]

We may be 90% good but even that 10% of badness circulates into a greater magnitude of evil. Even people who think they are good are still selfish and may even do nothing charitably for others.

Everybody's selfish. That's human nature for you. I suspect that there's even an underlying selfishness behind charity... people be charitable to make themselves feel better, believing that they have made a difference in somebody's life. I've certainly had warm fuzzy feelings on the odd occasions that I've given spare change to drunken bums.

 

[Fohat]

Everybody's selfish. That's human nature for you. I suspect that there's even an underlying selfishness behind charity... people be charitable to make themselves feel better, believing that they have made a difference in somebody's life. I've certainly had warm fuzzy feelings on the odd occasions that I've given spare change to drunken bums.

That raises a very interesting philosophical question: is there such a thing as selfless action? Ayn Rand said "no". To her, the mere fact that we *act* at all requires that we *desire* the action and therefore the ultimate root of all action is Selfish. My problem with her is that she fails to make a distinction between two senses of Selfish. All action is Selfish in the sense that we must *want* to do something as a logical precedent to *doing* it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's Selfish in the sense of self-serving.

Then there's the issue of the "warm fuzzy feeling" you describe which we get when we help someone. But can we say that all good acts are done for that "warm fuzzy feeling"? Is the warm feeling the impetus for the action, or the reward for doing it? And of course there are plenty of examples, both real and hypothetical, in which people act "selflessly" to the detriment of themselves for the good of other people, to the point that for most any psychological benefit from doing the good deed would be outweighed by the detriments that come from it.

 

[vegan]

there is no objective definition of goodness.

what has jesus chris to do in the equation?

almost all boys are monks at some point of their life in thaland
even if only for 2 weeks when they are 12 and don't know anything about life

LOL, I always tell people that Thai "buddhism" is mostly b/s, but no one believes me until they get there. Most of these monks you see are thinking about mobile phones and girls (trust me, I've spoken to quite a few when I lived there).

i don't know too much about it, but i know that it's far from bullshit
it's just also very far from what westerners expect

when i mention enlightenment or universal consciousness to "average" westerners, i know what to expect

when i mentioned enlightenment or universal consciousness to some thai people while chatting, they said they were happy to be able to have a conversation with content rather than the usual blend exchanges most people have. and they gave their opinion in return rather than taking me for a madman

 

[Sweet P]

That raises a very interesting philosophical question: is there such a thing as selfless action? Ayn Rand said "no". To her, the mere fact that we *act* at all requires that we *desire* the action and therefore the ultimate root of all action is Selfish. My problem with her is that she fails to make a distinction between two senses of Selfish. All action is Selfish in the sense that we must *want* to do something as a logical precedent to *doing* it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's Selfish in the sense of self-serving.

Then there's the issue of the "warm fuzzy feeling" you describe which we get when we help someone. But can we say that all good acts are done for that "warm fuzzy feeling"? Is the warm feeling the impetus for the action, or the reward for doing it? And of course there are plenty of examples, both real and hypothetical, in which people act "selflessly" to the detriment of themselves for the good of other people, to the point that for most any psychological benefit from doing the good deed would be outweighed by the detriments that come from it.

I think the "warm fuzzies" are a reward for the behaviour, but that reward itself can be an impetus to continue the behaviour. It's operant conditioning, in a way. My guess is that people who are regularly charitable, to the detriment of their own comfort or lifestyle, still feel that their charity is rewarding. The personal sacrifices they make must be worth the warm fuzzies, or they wouldn't continue to be charitable.

 

[Fohat]

there is no objective definition of goodness.

what has jesus chris to do in the equation?

Without wanting to drag this thread off-topic I think that you're rejecting objective morality far too readily. The problem is that Ethics isn't a purely rational branch of philosophy, so in this age of science people tend to ignore it outright rather than trying to determine a normative standard for good behavior, which should really be our goal. As for Christ? Many people see Christ as portrayed in the Gospels as being the most perfect example for men to follow. Even many atheists believe this. Whether or not you agree with this view, I think that's what OP was alluding to.

Plato didn't understand that natural world and concluded that it didn't exist. Modern man doesn't understand the metaphysical world and concludes that it doesn't exist. I disagree with both views but the latter is much more damaging. Not that that's what you're saying - clearly you *do* have metaphysical views, it's just that your statement on morality reminded me of that.

i don't know too much about it, but i know that it's far from bullshit
it's just also very far from what westerners expect

when i mention enlightenment or universal consciousness to "average" westerners, i know what to expect

when i mentioned enlightenment or universal consciousness to some thai people while chatting, they said they were happy to be able to have a conversation with content rather than the usual blend exchanges most people have. and they gave their opinion in return rather than taking me for a madman

That's very interesting! I'd love to live in a place where I could have "serious" discussions with people I don't necessarily know very well without looking like a nerd or a weirdo. I hate small-talk

I suppose one of the issues is the fact that, in our culture, most serious discussions are nothing more than arguments, with each person trying to defend a view. It's been said a thousand times before but is worth saying again . . . discussion shouldn't be about arguing. That is, it shouldn't be about different people defending a partisan view. Discussion should be two (or more) people sincerely seeking the eternal Logos, detached as much as possible from biases, experience, and passion.

 

[Jamshyd]

i don't know too much about it, but i know that it's far from bullshit
it's just also very far from what westerners expect

It's about as profound as baptist Sunday service, that's for sure . If you want something slightly more intriguing, try Japan or even India (although Buddhists are rare in the latter).

Thai buddhism, like Thai anything, is shallow, barely-understood crap. Sorry.

 

[Swerlz]

I believe Evil and Good are all matters of perspective

 

[law12345]

Fohat hit the nail on the head. The irony of doing good deeds is that we sometimes do them to feel better about ourselves as well.

In Buddhism this is considered the greatest act of all-bringing joy to others via good deeds...

That's also the biggest cop-out of Christianity-Jesus Christ was so perfect and when we use him to take away our sins we pass responsibility onto someone else. How about we withhold the negative act in the first place rather than shoot first and ask for forgiveness after.

Really humankind is becoming decadent through capitalism, violence, perversion, hate, polarised levels of society and we need a massive upheavel of this or some kind of new moral code before it's too late.

Globalisation is rearing it's ugly head via capitalism and terrorism and we are forgetting about the global community and global justice, putting the global economy first.

Communism anyone?

 

[Fohat]

Fohat hit the nail on the head. The irony of doing good deeds is that we sometimes do them to feel better about ourselves as well.

In Buddhism this is considered the greatest act of all-bringing joy to others via good deeds...

That's also the biggest cop-out of Christianity-Jesus Christ was so perfect and when we use him to take away our sins we pass responsibility onto someone else. How about we withhold the negative act in the first place rather than shoot first and ask for forgiveness after.

Really humankind is becoming decadent through capitalism, violence, perversion, hate, polarised levels of society and we need a massive upheavel of this or some kind of new moral code before it's too late.

Globalisation is rearing it's ugly head via capitalism and terrorism and we are forgetting about the global community and global justice, putting the global economy first.

Communism anyone?

I definitely feel you on the "shoot first, ask for forgiveness later" view. None of us are perfect. We will screw up, a lot, which is what confession is for: when you screw up, admit it, and truly regret your decision and resolve to avoid it in the future. It's not like a gas-station, which is how I've seen some Catholics treating it ("isn't drinking that much alcohol a serious sin?" "aw don't worry about it tomorrow's saturday I'll just go to confession." And that only goes for those Catholics who go to confession at all, a number which is disturbingly low).

With Protestants it can be even worse. Liberated from the embarrassment of verbally confessing their sins to another person, plus certain grave misinterpretations of sola fide, they have been led into some pretty damn bad habits too.

I disagree with you on Communism though. For one thing (I'm assuming your a Christian here) Communism is an inherently atheistic philosophy, at least Marxist communism which is generally what people mean when they use the word. There are also huge problems with economic calculation in a communist system, etc. etc.

"Capitalism" in the modern sense *is* very screwed up. There are many reasons for this. One is a real and noticeable lack of morality: there was a time when it wasn't so uncommon for businessman to accept profit loss voluntarily, without any government action, because they thought it was the right thing to do. That still happens sometimes today, but it's becoming rarer. There's also a lot of government intervention which makes Capitalism much worse than it would naturally be: for example, excessive regulations make it so that only large companies can afford to stay in business. Some of the biggest financial backers of the Progressive movement were big businesses. Not to mention the forced redistribution of wealth from the citizens to certain select corporations through things like war. Especially war.

But all that says nothing of Capitalism *in essence* which is merely a system in which people are assumed to have full ownership of their bodies and those things found in nature which they transform with their labor. I know that I'm not offering a defense of Capitalism here, just a description (in the interest of avoiding this thread going off-topic), but I don't see anything wrong with such a system. In fact I don't see it as a "system" at all, it's more the natural state of man.

 

[law12345]

Capitalism is not natural when it becomes so globally distorted that people are suffering at the hands of others as they are being exploited.
458 billionaires own over 1/2 of the worlds wealth. 2 billion people earn $2 per day, 3 billion people earn $3 per day.

The communism reference was satirical.
However we need something new and fast....what could it be? Ideas anyone?

 

[Fohat]

Capitalism is not natural when it becomes so globally distorted that people are suffering at the hands of others as they are being exploited.
458 billionaires own over 1/2 of the worlds wealth. 2 billion people earn $2 per day, 3 billion people earn $3 per day.

The communism reference was satirical.
However we need something new and fast....what could it be? Ideas anyone?

Ahh alright lol.

We should get rid of states in the modern sense. I believe that people have full ownership over themselves and those things they transform from a state of nature - an extension of the ownership of their bodies. I believe that people naturally desire governance, they want to live in a system of laws with defense and court systems and whatnot provided by a pseudo-monopoly (in other words, I'm not a true anarcho-capitalist). I think that government should exist only when 100% of the people living under it agree to its rule. Anything else is immoral. So, in this hypothetical system, the U.S. could easily be split into thousands of tiny countries. These tiny countries, bound together by common culture and interests, could for "pacts" with eachother of some sort: for example, agreeing that if one of them was attacked they'd all gang up, things like that. So for me, the problem is the federal government.

Articles of Confederation, anyone?

 

[vegan]

The problem is that Ethics isn't a purely rational branch of philosophy

that's not a problem
it's just an observation which agrees with the fact that goodness is not objective

Many people see Christ as portrayed in the Gospels as being the most perfect example for men to follow. Even many atheists believe this

many people also believe he didn't exist

perfect according to what?
i agree with many things that i know about him, but that's because of my system of thoughts
someone else can very well disagree

and there are no objective criterias to decide that this someone else is less right than me

I think that's what OP was alluding to.

last week i told to a swedish white muslim. he said the same, but about mohamed
he didn't mention jesus

how many people are not christians in the world?

It's about as profound as baptist Sunday service, that's for sure . If you want something slightly more intriguing, try Japan or even India (although Buddhists are rare in the latter).

Thai buddhism, like Thai anything, is shallow, barely-understood crap. Sorry.

i refrained from saying it until now, but i'm sorry, i now have to

it is my opinion that you, as 99% of people who pass there (maybe me included), didn't understand thailand and thai people

did you have conversations with thai people?
they don't speak english and you don't speak thai. period

how valid can be a judgment on people who you never communicated with?

i would agree about many things you criticize about thailand
but you're blinded by this decision you made to hate anything thai

have you talked enough to buddhist monks to be able to comment on thai buddhism?

there's quite a difference between the substance of buddhism and common people who put a bowl of rice for the spirits outside of their shops

also, by definition, buddhism is extremelly tolerant, which means that people don't appear serious about their religion
if they don't feel like going to the temple, there's no one to tell them that they'll go to hell if they don't pray 5 times a day

so the substance of thai buddhism is not put in plain sight in the same way as many other religions. only the shiny statues are
but it does shape the way people are
and people are in my opinion benefiting from their religious education way more than people of any other religion (as far as i know - but i'm still against any organised religion)

if for instance you could have listened to the speeches your students were given every morning before school, you could have seen many "bad" aspects of thai buddhism, but also many surprisingly "good" ones

i'm sorry to say it again, but your experience there was the classic experience of a farang who lives his farang life in thailand rather than trying to live a thai life (by changing your way of seeing things, forgetting your a prioris, being more forgiving and more constructive through criticism, communicating in something else than a language they don't understand, finding a way not to have a "walking wallet" label on your forehead, talking to other people than foreigners with their foreigners' ideas and to your boss who sees you as someone who will go back to his country is a few months, as 90% of foreign teachers do, etc.)

it's surprising about you, but it's my conclusion


"barely-understood"
yes
by you
and me
and others

but have you been to any of their buddhism lessons to say that it's crap?
no

and they didn't try to make you understand because :
- they don't try to force their ideas onto others
- you were just a farang staying there for a few months. and that's the same thing as a tourist for them
you usually don't talk metaphysics with tourists who don't speak your language

 

[Jamshyd]

i refrained from saying it until now, but i'm sorry, i now have to

it is my opinion that you, as 99% of people who pass there (maybe me included), didn't understand thailand and thai people

That IS the problem. What little there is to understand is not WORTH understanding.

did you have conversations with thai people?
they don't speak english and you don't speak thai. period

A lot of them DO speak English. Especially the monks.

how valid can be a judgment on people who you never communicated with?

That's a bit of an ad-hom.

One needs not engage in conversation to observe behaviour. Just because you can't talk to a tree, doesn't necessarily mean you cannot describe it as green.

i would agree about many things you criticize about thailand
but you're blinded by this decision you made to hate anything thai

Perhaps you are right, but at the end of the day I feel I have missed absolutely nothing, because like I said before, TO ME, Thailand is the garbage dump of the world. If you like it - I can only be happy for you, which you know from previous conversations. Don't let my criticism of a foreign country affect you personally because you like it.

have you talked enough to buddhist monks to be able to comment on thai buddhism?

Honestly, I have. Since buddhist monks and Kathoi are the two segments in Thai society that generally speak English, these are the ones I have had actual conversations with.

there's quite a difference between the substance of buddhism and common people who put a bowl of rice for the spirits outside of their shops

I know - that's what I'm saying. The people who put a bowl of rice outside their shops are about as "buddhist" as anyone who goes to church on sundays to eat the flesh and blood of their god and then forgets all about it all week.

also, by definition, buddhism is extremelly tolerant, which means that people don't appear serious about their religionif they don't feel like going to the temple, there's no one to tell them that they'll go to hell if they don't pray 5 times a day

No, it's that most of them have no clue what buddhism is. Just like most people worldwide with their respective religions, but more so in Thailand than anywhere else.

You see, IMO, the very behaviour and evolution of Thai Society as a whole is counter to some very basic Buddhist teachings.

so the substance of thai buddhism is not put in plain sight in the same way as many other religions. only the shiny statues are

Actually, most of the shiny statues in Thailand are of Hindu gods .

but it does shape the way people are
and people are in my opinion benefiting from their religious education way more than people of any other religion (as far as i know - but i'm still against any organised religion)

Again, my observation is different. And language has nothing to do with it.

if for instance you could have listened to the speeches your students were given every morning before school, you could have seen many "bad" aspects of thai buddhism, but also many surprisingly "good" ones

I've asked a lot about what these speaches are about. I know a fair deal of what is being said. Besides, most of them are in Pali, which most Thais simply memorize like catholics memorize a few latin phrases for their church service. Yes, there are profound messages delivered - but they fall on mostly deaf ears, ears that hunger for the warmth of a mobile phone.

i'm sorry to say it again, but your experience there was the classic experience of a farang who lives his farang life in thailand rather than trying to live a thai life (by changing your way of seeing things, forgetting your a prioris, being more forgiveful and more constructive through criticism, communicating in something else than a language they don't understand, finding a way not to have a "walking wallet" label on your forehead, talking to other people than foreigners with their foreigners' ideas and to your boss who sees you as someone who will go back to his country is a few months, as 90% of foreign teachers do, etc.)

it's surprising about you, but it's my conclusion

See, G, I think it is "surprising" about me because I managed to do ALL these things you listed in ALL the countries I visited EXCEPT Thailand. This alone proves to me that the problem is not in myself, it is in Thailand.

The very fact that this applies to almost all other foreigners in Thailand (as you note) simply furthers my point.

Just because you managed to find something you like in Thailand, doesn't invalidate the fact that most people are revolted by it.

Think of it this way: you know when a guy falls in love with a girl and marries her with all her obvious faults, and all his friends can't stand that girl and wonder what the hell is wrong with their friend? It's because he's smitten by love. I think this is your case with Thailand. And there is nothing wrong with that.

"barely-understood"
yes
by you
and me
and others

Actually you're confusing subject and object in my sentence, but it's not that important.

but have you been to any of their buddhism lessons to say that it's crap?
no

and they didn't try to make you understand because :
- they don't try to force their ideas onto others
- you were just a farang staying there for a few months. and that's the same thing as a tourist for them
you usually don't talk metaphysics with tourists who don't speak your language

Once again, you do not need to speak Arborish to be able to to say that a tree is green. Language is not everything.

"Their" teachings are theravada teachings, written in Pali. The teachings themselves are actually translated into Thai. I can get those very same teachings in English. Whatever particular Thai alteration there is on these teachings, it will be reflected in the way people act. And the way these people act is repulsive at best.

 

[vegan]

That IS the problem. What little there is to understand is not WORTH understanding.

and if i told you that what i understood was worth understanding, what would you conclude?

that i understood wrong, or that you guessed wrong?

A lot of them DO speak English. Especially the monks.

a lot!
i'm not sure. 1% maybe
english teachers don't speak english, for once

survival english is not conversation english
you may be generous with the monks, or may have met the good ones

I feel I have missed absolutely nothing

i feel i missed a lot during the whole life i had before discovering thailand
to each his taste
but don't you think that deserves reflection?

Don't let my criticism of a foreign country affect you personally because you like it

what foreign country?
there's one world, nothing less
my house is where i am right now
if tomorrow i'm somewhere else, that will be my house for tomorrow

i don't feel that any other country is more my country than thailand

Honestly, I have. Since buddhist monks and Kathoi are the two segments in Thai society that generally speak English, these are the ones I have had actual conversations with.

ok, sorry

- what kind of monks?
every thai man is monk at some point in his life

- you seem to be talking about working kathoeys
that means that for them, you're a walking wallet or a bit of fun, nothing else
as soon as you left, they looked for another prey
did you have gratifying conversations with them (not talking about them talking about their lives)

The people who put a bowl of rice outside their shops are about as "buddhist" as anyone who goes to church on sundays to eat the flesh and blood of their god and then forgets all about it all week

i don't agree with the "forgetting about it all week" for buddhists

much more than christianism, their religion influences their way of being in every instant
that means they don't have to think buddhism to actually act buddhism

No, it's that most of them have no clue what buddhism is. Just like most people worldwide with their respective religions, but more so in Thailand than anywhere else

i disagree

they have buddhism classes during their whole schooling
(= it's a subject. they get marks in buddhism)

the ministry of education passes bills on how to involve buddhism in all subjects
and teachers have to attend seminars on how to do

they know much more about buddhism than the average "christian" knows about christianity

You see, IMO, the very behaviour and evolution of Thai Society as a whole is counter to some very basic Buddhist teachings.

agreed

something went very wrong somewhere

but wetern society is way further from buddhism teaching
(it's not only a question of rich people taking advantage of the poor. other aspects of their behaviour are quite close to what i understand of buddhism)

ost of the shiny statues in Thailand are of Hindu gods

quite a few buddhas too

but as buddha is not a god, they take pretty much anything that comes along to please people of other reloigions, because those gods are not necessarily contradictory with buddhist teachings

Again, my observation is different. And language has nothing to do with it.

because you're interacted with thai in the way foreigners do
especially with people nationalist like thais, you don't get to know them if they don't communicate with you as with an equal but as with someone who's here on "long vacations"

there are profound messages delivered - but they fall on mostly deaf ears, ears that hunger for the warmth of a mobile phone.

that's not how i perceive it when i compare european students with thai students

The very fact that this applies to almost all other foreigners in Thailand (as you note) simply furthers my point.

come on
you know what 90% of foreigners in thailand are worth

first thing i was told by a friend when i arrived was "foreigners living in thailand are not the kind of people you'll want to associate with"
i can count on one had the ones i know who don't fit this description

what can you say about a tefl agency boss who's been here for years and years and can't count to ten in thai?
has he tried any kind of integration? or just to abuse the system?

Just because you managed to find something you like in Thailand, doesn't invalidate the fact that most people are revolted by it.

but when i hear their criticism, i can think exactly of the reason why they get this bad aspect of the country while others don't get it

sometimes, when everything seems wrong, the problem is not everything, but you

Language is not everything.

simple observation : here it transforms black into white

it's not everything, for sure, but it makes a damn huge difference

And the way these people act is repulsive at best.

with you
not with me
why?

got to sleep now

 

[law12345]

Ok so can we agree that buddhists, although not faultless do have an awareness of what is what-they can suspend it and acess it. Then do they really take action or just acknowledge it. Buddhists meditating and chanting cannot reform the world-just balance out some of the people at the other end of the spectrum.

So how is a Buddhist with awareness any different to you or I knowing that the world is fucked but not doing anything about it?

 

[Jamshyd]

FUCK I just wrote a huge response to vegan and the site froze when I hit "reply".

Nevermind, maybe it's for the better. I hate arguing with those I love. I think, G, that although we agree on a lot of things, Thailand will never be one of them.

One thing that does disappoint me a bit is that you seem to have conveniently ignored the very two points that were central to my argument: That tree analogy and the unlikely-marriage analogy.

 

[Max Power]

Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?