Dear Paul,

You wrote, ""Acting in a manner which is neither humane nor decent is not restricted to Europeans." Absolutely, were the Romans civilised when they fed Christians to the lions, in our book no, in theirs of course they were a perfectly civilised thing to do."

I don't know what point you were trying to make as the Romans were Europeans.

Hi David,

Forget the Romans were European, I could have said the natives boiling up a missionary in a big pot, would have seen themselves as civilised. Just on the Romans, I believe when the Barbarians took over Rome, they stopped the practice of feeding people to the lions, they thought it uncivilised, its all relative. My point is we can't determine what is civilised and what is not, we can only judge it against our own established standards. Agree.

Just a little point, the Native Americans viewed the European as extremely uncivilised, and the reverse was also the case. Who was correct, one, both, none? My wife's Maori people thought the European when he arrived in Aotearoa was an uncivilised drunken greedy slob, and had no culture or tradition. They thought the majority of Pakeha were beneath them. Even today she thinks of the Pakeha as lacking in virtue, not respecting ancestry, not having important close family bonds, not having long established practices and traditions etc. Those are the important aspects of culture/civilisation for her, for others its different.

What is your take on this; "Forms of pedophilia were common among nobility (Roman and Greek) and were often seen as rites of passage for the youth involved in them." This might be unacceptable to us today, but was the social norm back then.

Dear Paul,

No people can reasonably claim to always act humanely and decently. Now much of the world condemns the barbarity and atrocity of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Much of that same world supported the wars in Vietnam and Iraq which were also barbarous and indecent.

However, I would like to see more honesty in speech. We should have armies, navies and air forces rather than defense forces. Banks, corporations, real estate people and the like should not claim their services are 'friendly'. Religious institutions should not claim they are spreading enlightenment when they are intolerant of those who do not subscribe to their particular enlightenment. I should not continue preaching so I will stop.

Hi David,

Its all relative, take our old mates Hitler and Stalin, I'm sure they didn't wake up in the mornings and thought; "What evil deeds can I do today", but rather thought what 'good can I do today". Banks honestly believe they are 'friendly", churches "enlightened" and so on.

Dear Paul,

I do not think banks believe anything. I think churches would rather accept 'eternal verities' than be enlightened. I don't believe it is all relative. I believe that the scientific method can sometimes determine what is true. Possibly, Stalin and Hitler didn't think in terms of good and evil.

Hi David,

You are probably correct, Hitler and Stalin most likely thought in terms of what is necessary, and not good and bad. What is good and bad? If I bake you a birthday cake and you are pleased with it, then I feel "good", likewise if you are displeased with it I feel "bad". Is good and bad just an emotional feeling within, and has nothing to do with the cake, after all in both cases its the same cake. If in the same situation, you say that cake is "good", you are expressing pleasure, having enjoyed the cake, but later on you become ill, and say, Paul's cake was bad. Is good and bad simply related to cause and effect? Could not a person who commits evil acts in our minds, see those acts as good. In your example; Churches are intolerant and not enlightened, and that is bad in your mind, and they should change their ways. They would be far easier to change if the churches seen their actions as bad, but they don't, they see them as good. I said it was relative, you see their actions as bad, and in need of change, but the churches see them as good and not requiring change. How do you change a person or a church who believes they are doing good. Other than convince them they are actually doing bad, a tall order indeed.

"I believe that the scientific method can sometimes determine what is true". If you drop a stone from high, it falls to the ground, that is true, and it can be proven scientifically to be a fact, but science can't prove something to be good or bad, only a fact.