On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:08:58 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:1158545070.850102.68990@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com,
Noah's Dove <noahdove7@lightspeed.ca> typed:

Who defines good or evil?
If man is one with the cosmos or some impersonal concept of God there
cannot be a basis for truth or ethics. The impersonal, as such, is
silent about such things. There is no basis for saying anything is
right or wrong if all is one with God. What you are left with is total
relativism or the arbitrary absolutes of the controllers who ever they
may be. "If All is One , good and evil are reconciled, then one can
can do nothing bad; thus Manson was only acting logically....the fact
that Manson's followers knew him as both Satan and Christ highlights
the collapse of distinctions between good and evil under moral
relativity".13

That's total bunk. There are pleasant experiences and there are bad
experiences, there is creation and there is destruction. There is night and
there is day, there's darkness and there is light. You can be nasty to
others or one can be nice, you can love or you can hate.  There are
universal absolutes in our Universe on which to base a conception of good
and evil.

That remains true whether the individual gets their sense of morality second
hand from organised religion or from their direct experience as a child and
aspect of the Universe itself. The only difference is whilst the member of
an organised religion may be lulled into some sense of false security by the
concept of redemption, and feel he she has a licence to perpetrate evil in
the name of his or her religion a god has to take full responsibility for
all his or her actions knowing there is no redemption and that as a god you
can create your own Heaven or you can create your own Hell. You cannot be a
higher being without taking on the full responsibility of godhood :)

Tony Blair took the UK to war with a fairy tale. People will
believe anything dear, it's a fact.