Is everything relative? The "Prime Directive" is evil

[no-body]

Example: If a culture practices cannibalism, would it not be a noble cause to introduce a better way of living? Or rather saying, let them alone, why should I even concern myself with that?

That depends, how would you show them the error of their ways?

The early Christians did it by raping, enslaving, and murdering them until they stopped. But hey at least they no longer eat people, right?

 

[look3467]

That depends, how would you show them the error of their ways?

The early Christians did it by raping, enslaving, and murdering them until they stopped. But hey at least they no longer eat people, right?

Invite a family to visit our culture and see it they would like what they see?

I believe that the original design of the missionaries was to bring their form of God to them, but like everything else, evil always infiltrates any good thing.

That is true in everything mankind attempts to do.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

That depends, how would you show them the error of their ways?

The early Christians did it by raping, enslaving, and murdering them until they stopped. But hey at least they no longer eat people, right?

I agree

The genocide of all Indigenous Tasmanians is even worse the ritualized cannibalism.

 

[Caladan]

Hope of, if their gods offer them hope, when mine does. (Believe it....or not) At least the offer is made.

Somehow I see little sense in propagating western dogma to non western people, people have their own hopes, and their own traditions, what a boring world we must live in, when people need to have the same hopes, traditions or even dogma.

I have some cars for sale, would it be good for me to introduce them to someone? Perhaps, they might buy one.

What's use for a car in the jungle?

I agree with that. That is why a more modern culture can influence other cultures to help bring them up to a higher standard.

Who determined its higher standard? its different standards. 1. there is a difference between introducing modernity, and introducing a different dogma, modernity is doing very well without Christianity. 2. what proof do we have that modernity would do any good for these people?

Example: If a culture practices cannibalism, would it not be a noble cause to introduce a better way of living? Or rather saying, let them alone, why should I even concern myself with that?

And how is cannibalism related to converting people to a different religion? do non Christians all over the world practice cannibalism?

I guess if you found a cure for aids, so what, nobody else needs to know about it: I found it and it belongs to only me!

Cure for diseases may be a great thing, its also a proven medical improvement, as opposed to eradicating native traditions in order to instill a colonial dogma.

So.....who would you say the Passion of Christ belongs to....Jews or Gentiles?

It's a narrative written by Jews which turned into a central theme in gentile religion.

If in all of human history, there was no knowledge of who, what or where a spirit-god was or is, can we say that to the human mind, any god imaginable could be thought up?
If yes, hasn't that been the case?

But let's say then that at a particular point in the span of human history, a god chose to make Himself known as to who He was and how He relates to humanity, should not be broadcast as good news?

These people might have their own gods who have made themselves visible on earth in the culture's mythology and traditions.

Can we say that the word "god" can be anything imaginable representing a spirit/god relationship, via the thing to that imagined spirit or god?

ah, what?

Even, I believe, that a non believer has within a yearning for something other than self that drives them to do good?

Perhaps, but its most probably not a man from Galilee nailed to a cross.

As humanity progresses into the modern world of knowledge and technology, it is just a matter of time when civilization will encroach upon every race on earth.

Perhaps, but last I check there was no consensus that 'human civilization' is Christian.

Abandon yes, especially if it is a one where human life can be bettered.

Who said that believing in original sin is better than believing you are a natural part of the ecological fabric around you?

My beliefs add riches to life of which if others would get wind of and experience would agree with me.

Highly subjective. every fan thinks his football team is the best. me? I just want to see good game play.

I would not force my belief on anyone.

History shows us that Christianity has been assimilating cultures around the world, erasing centuries old traditions, or at least trying to erase them, in many of the cases the result was syncretization of Christianity to a native pantheon and cosmological structure.

If it were not for religious beliefs, there would be no motive to spread the good news.

I think that many people would appreciate a bag of flour more than the 'good news'.

 

[painted wolf]

Why is the ritual cannibalism of dead loved ones wrong?
Christians ritually cannibalize Christ every week.

wa:do

 

[Misty]

Why is the ritual cannibalism of dead loved ones wrong?
Christians ritually cannibalize Christ every week.

wa:do

Good point

 

[look3467]

Why is the ritual cannibalism of dead loved ones wrong?
Christians ritually cannibalize Christ every week.

wa:do

Key word is ritual, as a practice, but not ""The real McCoy".

As for eating of the body and blood of Jesus is only figuratively.

The real embodiment of the action is spiritual.

Blessings, AJ

 

[painted wolf]

Why is the actual ritual action of cannibalism wrong?
Because you don't get to actually do it?

wa:do

 

[Misty]

Key word is ritual, as a practice, but not ""The real McCoy".

As for eating of the body and blood of Jesus is only figuratively.

The real embodiment of the action is spiritual.

Blessings, AJ

Even so, what a disgustingly yucky idea!

 

[ChristineES]

Even so, what a disgustingly yucky idea!

I totally disagree.

 

[Misty]

The idea of eating anyone's body and drinking their blood, even figuratively speaking, although some believe the Sacrament transforms itself literally into those components, is gruesome to say the least, imo.

 

[look3467]

Even so, what a disgustingly yucky idea!

It was as you stated, "a disgustingly yucky idea!" to His Apostles to the point of their vomiting when they first heard of it.

Isa 28:8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place clean.

What mankind could not accept as clean is turned into vomit of which all the tables are full of it.

All's it's saying in short is, that mankind has not a prayer of saving itself save God does it Himself.

So what did happen is that God did make the means by which He Himself would save His creation and that was by offering one individual as one sacrifice, once and for all, to die the death of many, as a ransom for many.

Hence......you and I don't have to.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Jeremiah]

Deep in the jungle of South America, there exists a tribe of uncivilized people.

They have had no contact with the modern world.

Should we leave them alone, unspoiled by modern influences?

When I read about these people, I was horrified at the suggestion that we 'leave them alone' and 'unspoiled'.

What if their women are raped?

What if their minorities are enslaved?

What if their children are suffering from child abuse?

What if they are lacking modern health care?

I could go on and on, but you get my point.

There was an episode of Star Trek where Worf's brother saved a small village from certain destruction.

The brother couldn't care less about the Prime Directive, but Roddenberry's crew of the Enterprise were going crazy at how terrible it was to risk 'contaminating' their culture. They didn't even want to debate the matter, it was PC to believe in the Prime Directive, the only question was, why was Worf's brother so crazy as to violate it? Was he sick? Sociopathic? Why was he betraying Worf's honor by saving these few hundred people from certain death? Why didn't he feel ashamed at what he was doing?

Well, from my survey of history, the further back into history you go, the more evil the cultures are.

Rome was facinating, but it was a nation of theives and slave masters. Sparta, boasting of democracy, had nine slaves for every single Spartan.

My only hesitation in hating Rome and Sparta was the realization that all the other cultures were probably worse, sacrificing children, double parking their chariots, raping women, leaving trash on the ground, torturing criminals, and even leaving their shoes in the middle of the floor after being told to put them away at night.

If one lady anywhere on the world is being forced into religious practices that she does not desire, that's a terrible thing.

Maybe we can't do anything about it practically, due to the abusers ability to inflict murder upon her rescuers, OK, sometimes we can't send the ambulance into every neighborhood and we have to let them die.

But, if we could save her, give her a real live choice, a safe and secure choice to be religious or not, we are morally obligated to do so.

/

A society which rapes each other is worse, morally worse, than a society which does not.

If a missionary went in and changed a rape society into one that does not rape, then things have 'gotten better'.

If the reverse occurred, then things would have 'gotten worse'.

Do you think that morality is relative, what they do over there is just as legitimate as anywhere else, it's only a matter of perspective?

I hope not, but please write and let's hash it out.

Before anyone write it, of course fine tuning morality is difficult, unclear, subject to raging debates, just as the proper speed limit is subject to honest disagreement.

But that there are gray areas do not detract from the fact that there are clear areas in morality. And since there are clear areas, morality, in at least some respects, is objective, not relative. Of course, some things are morally relative. Which toothpaste should I buy? But not all things are morally relative.

Please give me your thoughts.

Thank you for your time and attention.

What if they are developing weapons of mass destruction?

What if they are planning terrorist attacks on US soil?

What if Osama bin Laden is hiding out in South African tribes?

What if Al-qaeda is there too?

We better send in our soldiers as well, "to protect U.S. interests" and force democracy on them, liberating them from their freedom.

America Land of the Free, it is our way or else.

 

[McBell]

Deep in the jungle of South America, there exists a tribe of uncivilized people.

Define "uncivilized"

They have had no contact with the modern world.

Should we leave them alone, unspoiled by modern influences?

Seems to me that if they want help, they will ask for it.

When I read about these people, I was horrified at the suggestion that we 'leave them alone' and 'unspoiled'.

What if their women are raped?

What if their minorities are enslaved?

What if their children are suffering from child abuse?

What if they are lacking modern health care?

I could go on and on, but you get my point.

Actually, No I don't.
What is your point?
Are you trying to imply that they are unable/unwilling to deal with said issues when they arise?
If so, why are they not able to deal with them?

There was an episode of Star Trek where Worf's brother saved a small village from certain destruction.

WTF does this have to do with the alleged uncivilized tribe?
Is said uncivilized tribe facing certain destruction?
If so, you completely forgot to mention that in your long list of what ifs.....

Well, from my survey of history, the further back into history you go, the more evil the cultures are.

This is nothing more than your opinion.
Evil is so subjective a word that it is pretty much useless unless you are attempting to illicit an emotional reaction.

Rome was facinating, but it was a nation of theives and slave masters. Sparta, boasting of democracy, had nine slaves for every single Spartan.

Slavery was an accepted practice for the vast majority of human history.
Hell, even the Bible condones slavery.

My only hesitation in hating Rome and Sparta was the realization that all the other cultures were probably worse, sacrificing children, double parking their chariots, raping women, leaving trash on the ground, torturing criminals, and even leaving their shoes in the middle of the floor after being told to put them away at night.

So you excuse the behavior because there are those with worse behavior?

If one lady anywhere on the world is being forced into religious practices that she does not desire, that's a terrible thing.

I agree.
I wonder if you think the same about court ordered AA attendance?

Maybe we can't do anything about it practically, due to the abusers ability to inflict murder upon her rescuers, OK, sometimes we can't send the ambulance into every neighborhood and we have to let them die.

huh?

But, if we could save her, give her a real live choice, a safe and secure choice to be religious or not, we are morally obligated to do so.

seems to me that it would be just as terrible to force her into a situation you approve of as it is to force her into a situation you disapprove of.

If a missionary went in and changed a rape society into one that does not rape, then things have 'gotten better'.

Perhaps.
But only if the only issue changed was the raping.
Now in the really real world missionaries are not looking to merely change one little thing like the acceptance of rape.
Nope.
They are actually looking to change the whole frigging culture to mirror their own.
So they are in fact attempting to force their ideologies onto those cultures whose ideals differ from their own.

If the reverse occurred, then things would have 'gotten worse'.

Again, in your make believe world where missionaries only want to stop the acceptance of rape...

Do you think that morality is relative, what they do over there is just as legitimate as anywhere else, it's only a matter of perspective?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

I hope not,

Why?
Do you perhaps think that YOUR version of right and wrong is the best version for al the world?

But that there are gray areas do not detract from the fact that there are clear areas in morality.

Really?
Name one clear area of morality?
And no, murder is not a clear area of morality.
See, there is a difference between something being generally agreed upon and it being a clear area of morality.

 

[ChristineES]

The idea of eating anyone's body and drinking their blood, even figuratively speaking, although some believe the Sacrament transforms itself literally into those components, is gruesome to say the least, imo.

That reminds me once when I was telling an atheist person about a hymn I knew called "Are You Washed in the Blood of the Lamb". She said "That sounds gruesome". Sometimes you have to think of things in context.

 

[look3467]

The idea of eating anyone's body and drinking their blood, even figuratively speaking, although some believe the Sacrament transforms itself literally into those components, is gruesome to say the least, imo.

To me, drinking of the blood and eating of His body figuratively, is the greatest blessing of my life.

Once, I was lost to eternal nothingness, as if I would have never had existed, and now, it is unto life everlasting, as this life made it through the process of death unto life.

Regardless of what other view there is about God, this one view of mine covers the whole of all of them in the same manner.

If one body is sacrificed for all bodies, meaning the soul of mankind is made clean and pure by the blood of the sacrifice, then it is at the physical departure when the soul shall see Jesus for who He really is.

But, of course, that can be achieved without physically dying by just placing one's faith in Jesus as one's Savior.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Misty]

That reminds me once when I was telling an atheist person about a hymn I knew called "Are You Washed in the Blood of the Lamb". She said "That sounds gruesome". Sometimes you have to think of things in context.

Yes I always thought the sentiments behind that awful hymn pretty digusting!

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

\
Well, from my survey of history, the further back into history you go, the more evil the cultures are.

Rome was facinating, but it was a nation of theives and slave masters. Sparta, boasting of democracy, had nine slaves for every single Spartan.

This all depends on your definition of evil. It is no more evil than what we have today.

Rome was an Empire, and they conquered and took slaves and riches. Sparta was a military state, devoted to military training. Athens boasted of Democracy, not Sparta, btw.

 

[ChristineES]

Yes I always thought the sentiments behind that awful hymn pretty disgusting!

Of course you do! You are not a Christian. Christians don't think of taking a bath in sheep's blood, we think of a spiritual washing and not really of blood literally. It is symbolic of a spiritual cleansing.

 

[look3467]

According to the creation story, mankind was left to govern itself and it's environment.

Ref:Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Does that not sound like "Hey, I've created all this for you, now go take control of it"?

Has mankind not exercised that right? A God given right to booth!

Now, here is the stickler; along with all that comes responsibility, and that responsibility is defined between two extremes: Good and evil.

Up and until Moses, there was no laws governing human behavior, so anything went according to what mankind thought, believed and or exercised.

Hence the many gods imaginable?

With Abraham, the beginning of the introduction of God's character to the world was begun, and culminated with Jesus via the Jewish nation.

We now have a true picture of who and what God is via Jesus.
Ref: Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

"last days, is in reference to the end of Jesus' time here on the earth, because after His mission accomplished, Jesus became heir of all things as God.

So, if you want to see God, look at Jesus, one and the same.

Blessings, AJ