Graeme Bailey wrote:
> >And if today people choose to follow a pagan religion, don't they know
> >better the relative merits of their new belief system in comparison to
> This is the issue I was addressing :-)
So you agree with the point that those people choosing a pagan belief
system today know that they are choosing a better system than
> >Tell me, without resorting to christian moral vitues, what is bad with
> >killing a kid?
> >Please note, I'm not saying that it is good or ok to kill a kid, not at
> >all. I actually think it's neither good nor ok to kill anybody. But this
> >is my personal bias that says it is not ok, I can't give any universally
> >correct reasons as to why not to kill a kid - as I can't give any
> >universally correct reasons as to why not to kill an adult.
> I'm sure you are just teasing me... no?
No, I'm not teasing you. What universally true reason does exist not to
kill somebody? Don't try to evade the question, answer it!
> Doesn't your heart or your conscience say something if
> your reasoning processes have become tired or jaded?
What's your point? My reasoning processes seem to be quite fine and ok,
> >In fact, wouldn't it have been better had Adolf Hitler been killed as a
> Adolf wouldn't have got very far *on his own*?
So what? Ok, expand the example to him and his immediate helpers.
Wouldn't it have been better if those had been killed as a kid? Again,
don't evade the question, answer it.
> Is self-defence allowable? ie *justifiable homicide*?
> This is a difficult one... some would say not under any circumstances,
> others would say murder is a different activity from a killing
> in the interests of saving an innocent life...
> Perhaps it depends on how much you love your wife :-)
So, what would you say? Would you prefer having killed your wife or
would you prefer having killed the one threatening to kill your wife?
Isn't it depending on the situation if killing a human is acceptable or
not? We can expand the example - what would you say if sombody threatens
to blow up a bomb that would devastate a certain area, killing and
maiming many, and already has the finger on the trigger - is it ok to
kill this person, so that he can't blow up the bomb?
> >...necessary to see the practice of human sacrifice in ancient pagan
> >religions not only from your own side, but also have to understand it
> >from within. As such, a human sacrifice is not necessarily murder.
> But it is killing for the purpose of what?
> What reason to take this life?
> For better crops... use manure... or fertiliser
> For the sun to come up, it will come up anyway, you hope...
> To win a war... get more missiles, buy more bullets..
> For fun? Get a Nintendo, rent a video...
Well, do you know this? Wherefrom? Perhaps by praying to a fertility
godess/god, your crops would grow grow better. Perhaps to win a war,
praying to a god of war helps. And who ever said that human sacrifices
were made for fun?
Wherefrom do you know that it is really true that pleasing such pagan
gods would have no effects? Did you make any experiments? Do you have
any documentation? No! You simply believe that it would have no effect!
And even if it had no effect, it would be as much murder as capital
punishment is, or killing the criminal threatening to kill your wife -
if you believe it is necessary to protect somebody or something that is
dear to you from harm, it is ok to you.
> >Well, I for one agree that Genghis Khan was a war criminal, and that
> >such behavior in these modern times should be thouroughly discouraged.
> >But this, again, is based on my own moral ideals, which not necessarily
> >have to be superior to somebody else's!
> Why are you scared to be positive?... have an opinion!...
> say that you *know* it's wrong :-)
I am not scared to be positive! I just don't think I am able to make any
absolute judgements based on my limited knowledge, especially not value
judgements in regrad to morality, as there is no evidence at all for
Again, I do think that many actions of Genghis Khan were crimes of war,
but I do not think that, based on this, he can be as simply and easily
condemned as you did - stating that he was nothing but evil!
> >> So things like mass murder, gang rape, torture,
> >> human sacrifice, sacking of cities 'because you feel like it'
> >> etc are now OK in your mind?
> >No, at least not in my mind.
> What else are you gonna think with? :-)
Well, I'm gonna think with my mind and you're gonna think with yours,
and if we think about the same thing we might come to different
conclusions. Now as we might come to different results, how do we decide
who is right and who is wrong? If I say yes and you say know, how do we
know who is right? Or is it then that you are right and I am wrong? As
such, what I think is fallible and might well be erroneous, so if I
think that mass murder, rape, torture or whatever atrocity that might
come to my or your's mind is wrong this still is not necessarily an
> >> In other words, it just depends whose side you're on?
> >Actually, most of the time, it does. Your own religious attitudes show
> Is this a philosophical statement?
If you want to take it as one, do so.
> Do you think that rather than the polarity is really
> (Prejudiced-Self-Righteous) versus (Kill-provided-you-believe-it's-OK)
> it is actually this instead:
> (Make-a-stand-for-good) versus (Morally-lax-sit-on-the-fence)?
The polarity is between 'I know what is right, because right is what I
think!' and 'I know what I think but that might still be wrong!'. I've
nowhere said that I'm not opposed against what I think to be wrong, and
that I do not take actions against such things, but I don't claim that
my morality is the only universally right and good one and that
everybody who decides to follow a different morality is inferior to my
morality and thus to me! As such, I very much make a stand for what I
think to be good, but I'm not willing to throw a stone at somebody who
does something different from what I think without having to question my
actions, by immediatly disqualifying him and his ideas and morality as
> This was the reason for discussing the *knowledge*
> of good and evil which means little if you cannot do something
> with your knowledge, ie decide what is right and say so?
The reason for discussing good and evil is that you do think that you
know what is good and what is evil and that anybody saying something
different from what you say is either stupid or evil! You have not for a
second considered the possibility that you might be wrong, at least not
from what I can say. And that is something I think to be wrong!
RAY - Mag.phil. Raimund KARL
Universität Wien, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
A-1190 Wien, Franz Klein Gasse 1
E-Mail: <[log in to unmask]>
Visit the Celtic-L Resources Page at
Privat: A-1120 Wien, Hasenhutgasse 7-11/9/4
Tel/AB/Fax: (+43 1) 8103629 oder mobil: (+43 676) 3048830