patrick.net

Bap33 says

Sex for rec, or personal abuse, is not murder in the Christian life (as far as I know)

OF course not, but why ? Clearly millions of babies a year (in the US alone) that otherwise would have come in to existence, are prevented from doing so. All those sperms and eggs were prevented from fulfilling their mission. Just think.

How can you justify or rationalize that ?

And yet you KNOW that at fertilization those sperms and eggs that a moment ago were basically irrelevant biological matter, are now a human being?

From my point of view we are talking potential human being and the potential increases a lot at fertilization, and abortion is an ugly concept and process. But I don't know how anyone can know when a human becomes a human. If there is such a thing as a soul, I don't know why it would necessarily be there when there are just a few cells.

Incidentally, old school Catholics do (or did) have a belief that sex should always be about procreation and that masturbation is a sin. Obviously you get a lot of new Catholics with those beliefs.

Bap33 says

I feel this way because a normal healthy fertilized egg will continue to split and strive to live until the natural death of the 90+ year old person it becomes - if left alone and all goes well.

Nomo or others can probably speak to this better than I, but I'm pretty sure that a fertilized egg will not survive on its own.

no human survives without nurishment and a waste system. So, if you get fed through a tube because of a defective throat, or fed through a tube called an umb-cord, you are still getting fed. Food in, waste out, cells split, cells slough away, the process is life - I think. But, nothing that lives can survive on it's own.

marcus says

Bap33 says

Sex for rec, or personal abuse, is not murder in the Christian life (as far as I know)

OF course not, but why ? Clearly millions of babies a year (in the US alone) that otherwise would have come in to existence, are prevented from doing so. All those sperms and eggs were prevented from fulfilling their mission. Just think.

no, a baby is what you get AFTER egg meets sperm. Before a baby you only have eggs and sperm. Eggs are alive (kinda) but they do not split cells. Sperm are alive, but they do not split cells. Neither an egg nor a sperm take in nuishment or create waste. But, a fertilized egg does all three ... splits cells, takes in nuishment, and sends out waste. And don't skip over that whole unique DNA print that each new fertilized egg has, please, as that is kinda important too. You see, that fertilized egg can only end up what that DNA says ... and this copy-paste from a site tells me there is a time frame:
"Male and female gametes (eggs and sperm) each have a nucleus containing DNA. Within hours after penetration by the sperm, the egg jettisons half of its chromosomes in a process called meiosis. (Sperm complete meiosis much earlier, while still in the testes.) The remaining DNA packet from each gamete is called a pro-nucleus. For a period of time after the sperm penetrates the egg, the two pro-nuclei exist separately within the cytoplasm of the egg. Appropriately, this earliest stage of development is called the “two pro-nucleate” (or 2PN) stage. When embryos are being created in an IVF laboratory, the embryologist typically will be looking for proof of initial fertilization (2 pronuclei in close proximity to each other) about 16-18 hours after insemination."

I thought that sounded about right.

Marcus, Do you believe in the God of The Bible? Do you believe in the spirit/soul? My answers are yes, and yes.

@sim,
I included some science in that last post. Just trying to keep it real.

Nice

Bap33 says

Marcus, Do you believe in the God of The Bible? Do you believe in the spirit/soul? My answers are yes, and yes.

I'm one of those who takes pleasure in the mystery of it all. That is, I don't need to feel that I know the answers. But also, I don't like being wrong, which is a good reason to not commit to dogma. But I was originally Catholic.

It's an interesting question that I spent a lot of time in my adolescence pondering. I don't spend too much time there anymore, but it still is an extremely good and unanswered question for me. I guess I can say that I don't believe in the God of the bible. This has allowed me to explore eastern and I guess in a way pagan views. Ultimately I am agnostic I guess.

I could only believe in and love a god who would have more respect for an atheist who was a good person, than a Christian who was a born again dirtbag. That is, I believe actions are important. You don't get to just do what ever and then go to confession or repent. I had problems with the logic of that at a very early age. I'm not totally denying grace or forgiveness. But to me actions, that is not harming others is more important than what you believe.

Having said that, I still do eat meat. I guess I'm some kind of protein addict and something of a hypocrite at that.

Spirit ? Soul ? I would like to think so. I guess I love the mystery.

You are doing well, having been under the influence of Catholicism. Since I too struggle with the whole man-made religion thing, I see your point pretty well. I read the Bible the first time at about 15 or so, and in my simple mind I could read and understand that God and Jesus said to not do things that the Catholics (I was born into) did do - regularly - so I avoided that particular classification. I believe in God. Not even a little doubt. I believe Jesus died an innocent man to cover ALL sins of man, not just mine. Angles, demons, Satan, hell ... yep, I believe our soul lives on forever in the spiritual energy of the universe. Energy can not be created nor destroyed, it just changes state. In a scientific sence, we return to source when we expire - maybe. lol

Bap33 says

in my simple mind I could read and understand that God and Jesus said to not do things that the Catholics (I was born into) did do - regularly

Curious. What do Catholics do regularly that the bible says not to do ?

Nomograph says

Your freedom of speech is protected already, as is their freedom of religion. The two issues are unrelated, and to insinuate that their religion infringes on your free speech is to play the victim. You are not being victimized in any way.

I disagree. The issues are directly related. Their religion calls for your death if you exercise your freedom of speech. I definitely agree with Bap. It's not much consolation to know that it would be illegal for them to kill you. Parts of Islam would be classified as illegal hate speech and incitement to violence were it not an official religion.

marcus says

Here’s what I hear Patrick saying: “I want you to view us in friendship and with respect, but for the record, what I think about you is that the prophet that is at the core of your religion is a total dirtbag”

No, that's not what I meant. No devout Muslim can ever view non-Muslims with friendship and respect. It is specifically and repeatedly forbidden in the Koran to make friends with infidels, and it could hardly be less respectful to them too, calling them filthy and untouchable, destined for hell, etc. Get your Koran and follow along: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/call_to_muslims.htm

No devout Muslim can ever view non-Muslims with friendship and respect.

I'm surprised Patrick. I'll try to look in to it. But you have to know that faithfreedom has a pretty strong bias. Doesn't have a very objective feel to it.

Besides, Islamic faith is like any other, a majority are less devout, and less orthodox, not fundamentalist. There's no benefit to insulting them, or trying to tell them why their religion sucks. A person can't help what superstitions go with the family they happen to get born in to.

@marcus,
I am not trying to pick shit with Catholics ... and I admit that I have only read the KJ Bible ... but in there it says very plain that it is wrong to:
Pray to Mary (or saints or anyone other than God - directly)
Pray to images of things in Heaven
Graven images
Talking to dead people
Chant/blindy repeat for prayor (mass is EXACTLY not an ok way to pray to God - but it is a cool tridition) Rosary combines robot chants and praying to Mary.
None of the Church structure is biblical. Pope on down ... all man made stuff.
Puragatory ... not biblical
Pentance for salvation .... not biblical
Fish on Friday is not anywhere in The Bible
And that hand jive they do when they drive past a church is not found anywhere in text.

There may be other stuff, but it's late and I'm tired. No offence to my Catholic peeps.

thunderlips11 says

In any case, It’s all Fox News’ Fault. The Mosque is being founded by Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who is the second biggest shareholders in News Corp, Fox News parent company . Fox News profit is paid via News Corp stock dividends to bin Talal, who then uses it to fund mosques like the one near Ground Zero.

And Citibank, Apple, Four Seasons, Motorola, MCI, Euro Disney, Monte Carlo Hotel, and AOL.

Hum! Apple with its cool Ipods, Iphones, and all the rest funding mosques like the ones near Ground Zero. 5% stake doesnt make you second biggest shareholder. Dodge and Cox have 8% stake.

marcus says

Besides, Islamic faith is like any other, a majority are less devout, and less orthodox, not fundamentalist. There’s no benefit to insulting them, or trying to tell them why their religion sucks. A person can’t help what superstitions go with the family they happen to get born in to.

In Islamic nations, they kill people for not following Islamic laws. When they come here, many didnt leave their religion at home, they have taken their Islamic laws to other shores. You can see that in Europe a few years back when muslims killed several people who 'offended' their religion. And those Islamic laws were and currently are being reinforced in local mosques.

So why did South Park censor Mohammed in one of its shows, because of violent treats ....

You remember Salman Rushdie...

Salman Rushdie, author of "The Satanic Verses" as of early 2010 has not been physically harmed, but others connected with the book have suffered violent attacks. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese language translator of the book, was stabbed to death on 11 July 1991; Ettore Capriolo, the Italian language translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month; William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, barely survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October 1993, and Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the intended target in the events that led to the Sivas massacre on 2 July 1993 in Sivas, Turkey, which resulted in the deaths of 37 people

When Islamic countries are modernized they also become westernized and hopefully will eventually reject Theocratic governments on their own. We all know the Iranian example. It's just a matter of time. Hopefully.

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/12/30/the-death-of-theocracy.html

If you have any right wing Isreali friends, then you may hear a lot of the kind of bias "they will never be satisfied until Isreal is gone." I wonder what percentage of the under 33 yrs of age population (2/3 of Iran) of Iran feels that way.

Interesting video about youth of Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixG55tWAebg&feature=player_embedded

marcus says

When Islamic countries are modernized they also become westernized and hopefully will eventually reject Theocratic governments on their own. We all know the Iranian example. It’s just a matter of time. Hopefully

Iran can be argued was the most modernized Middle East nation in the 60s-70s. But the modernization and western influence were rejected by many.
Perhaps the new generation will feel differently. I doubt it will be anything close before the '79 revolution.

Good to know you're paying attention.

Its not that freedom of religion is threatened - ALL freedom is threatened. And the greatest threat to our freedom is not some foreign enemy, it's the politicians right here in America (AKA "the enemy within"), who are stealing our freedom and liberty - one law, one rule, one regulation, one "code" at a time.

But many of you are too smart to recognize this. You want even more government, more dependency, more "helpful" government programs, more regulation, more taxes and more oppression because your distorted psychopathological mind thinks that is the solution to America's problems. Mnay of YOU are the cause of America's problems, because you support it all.

Aww, shucks, abeabe.

You started out so well. Really. I was duly impressed to notice that you recognized all of our freedome is threatened by the asinine protest of a religious community center in NYC. That people should be allowed to practice their religion, regardless of whether or not they agree with it.

I agree with you that polticos are manipulating emotions in order to get more division amongst the people - there are 6,000 christian places of worship, 1000 jewish places of worship, and 100 mosques in NYC right now (without the addition of the one that will obviously change mankind as we know it). The fact that there are several christian churches closer to ground zero than the proposed community center/mosque isn't relevent when one is attempting to whip the people into a frenzy over a non-issue.

We have so many other issues to worry about - including those pesky firefighters and rescuers who now demand healthcare since they fearlessly gave their time in order to find survivors, deceased, and god-knows what in the rubble. We haven't even addressed what the debris in the air did to the people who lived and worked around the site - because it's not an emotional issue. Those people shouldn't have lived that close to such an obvious target of a terrorist attack.

You had me at "hello." But then you lost me, abeabe... perhaps it was your accusation that we:
Honest Abe says

want even more government, more dependency, more “helpful” government programs, more regulation, more taxes and more oppression because your distorted psychopathological mind thinks that is the solution to America’s problems.

Or perhaps it was your final parting shot:
Honest Abe says

Mnay of YOU are the cause of America’s problems, because you support it all.

You drive on the roads maintained by your taxes, eat food subidized by farm subsidies, wear clothing imported by trade agreements, send your children to schools subsidized by your taxes, drive cars that cost less due to tax breaks to auto makers, use computers with components imported as a result of trade agreements, participate in the voting process that is heavily funded by the government, are protected by law enforcement agents paid for by your taxes, will draw social security funded in part by monies you contributed... and yet you don't believe that your participation in this society is heavy on the "more" of which you complain?

To voice your opinion, you write your comments about how others are dependent and imply that you're not - on a forum on the interwebs that I doubt you've contributed to. If you have, it probably was a token amount to make you feel better. You're as large a part of your perceived problem as everyone you blame for it.

Nomograph says

You have ZERO say over someone else’s rights.

TOT taking a huge bong hit...

"Word!" (cough! cough! cough!)

Garage, anyone?

Bap33 says

None of the Church structure is biblical. Pope on down … all man made stuff.
Puragatory … not biblical
Pentance for salvation …. not biblical

I'm with you about the man made religious traditions of the Catholic church, but how do you know that the bible or at least significant parts of it aren't also man made?

I'll play angel's advocate here for a minute. Maybe the humans who wrote the bible and the leaders of the church who came up with the sacraments and other specifics where vessels through which God communicated with us, and the differences are nothing more than human error or imperfections in the translation.

Maybe God likes to mix it up and do the religion thing differently for different groups and different times, but a certain amount of human error, causing divergence from what God actually wanted, always gets thrown in to the mix.

God couldn't teach tolerance if he made us view him the same.
I feel to criticize one religion is to criticize your own.
Also I feel tradition in regions trumps rights for others in that region.
Being if it is a Jewish village and you are a Baptist there to convert souls, then you get what you deserve for not respecting God in his all forms. The same for Jews, or Muslims, Christians, that traverse the Globe trying to reprovision tradition and religion as that region sees it.

When in Rome you don't have to do as the Romans do, but if want to be a Jersey Jew.
Then be so at your won accord.

Since we are so worried about what the Koran has to say in regard to violence, let's get real and quote the Hebrew Bible, which the Christians use too:

Bold emphasis is mine.

Follow me or die!
"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

"If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. " (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you." (Deuteronomy 7:1-4 NLT)

Basically, God is saying, "follow me or else!" above.

"You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. If you do, they will trap you. Perhaps you will think to yourselves, 'How can we ever conquer these nations that are so much more powerful than we are?' But don't be afraid of them! Just remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all the land of Egypt. Remember the great terrors the LORD your God sent against them. You saw it all with your own eyes! And remember the miraculous signs and wonders, and the amazing power he used when he brought you out of Egypt. The LORD your God will use this same power against the people you fear. And then the LORD your God will send hornets to drive out the few survivors still hiding from you! "No, do not be afraid of those nations, for the LORD your God is among you, and he is a great and awesome God. The LORD your God will drive those nations out ahead of you little by little. You will not clear them away all at once, for if you did, the wild animals would multiply too quickly for you. But the LORD your God will hand them over to you. He will throw them into complete confusion until they are destroyed. He will put their kings in your power, and you will erase their names from the face of the earth. No one will be able to stand against you, and you will destroy them all." (Deuteronomy 7:16-24 NLT)

"Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death." (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through." (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

"Then, with Micah's idols and his priest, the men of Dan came to the town of Laish, whose people were peaceful and secure. They attacked and killed all the people and burned the town to the ground. There was no one to rescue the residents of the town, for they lived a great distance from Sidon and had no allies nearby. This happened in the valley near Beth-rehob. Then the people of the tribe of Dan rebuilt the town and lived there. They renamed the town Dan after their ancestor, Israel's son, but it had originally been called Laish." (Judges 18:27-29 NLT)

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'" (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

Kill for God, or else!
"Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood." (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

And here's but one violent gem from the "New Testament." Peter kills with words and accusations:

"There was also a man named Ananias who, with his wife, Sapphira, sold some property. He brought part of the money to the apostles, but he claimed it was the full amount. His wife had agreed to this deception. Then Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart? You lied to the Holy Spirit, and you kept some of the money for yourself. The property was yours to sell or not sell, as you wished. And after selling it, the money was yours to give away. How could you do a thing like this? You weren't lying to us but to God." As soon as Ananias heard these words, he fell to the floor and died. Everyone who heard about it was terrified. Then some young men wrapped him in a sheet and took him out and buried him. About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, "Was this the price you and your husband received for your land?" "Yes," she replied, "that was the price." And Peter said, "How could the two of you even think of doing a thing like this – conspiring together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Just outside that door are the young men who buried your husband, and they will carry you out, too." Instantly, she fell to the floor and died. When the young men came in and saw that she was dead, they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear gripped the entire church and all others who heard what had happened. (Acts 5:1-11 NLT)

That last bit says that either you do the right thing or you will be struck dead.

Now, how is this different from the Koran? All religions springing forth from the "One God" are charged to do violence in the name of the "One God." The Koran is just following the theme of "follow our God or die" that was established in the very first of these religions in the Torah.

Now tell me how Jews and Christians have such peaceful sacred literature and the Koran is nothing but violence.

The above is but a sampling of violence in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. I can dig up many more violent quotes.

@Marcus, that is another way to look at things, and that is very possible. There has to be a reason there are so many flavors of The Word. Sadly though, I figure man has screwed things up most times.

@Sim, in my opinion the first point that needs to be agreed upon is, "What is right and what is wrong." Do you think we should find a common base for morals and such first?

Bap33,

In my opinion the first point we should agree on is tolerance of differences in morals, religion, philosophy, thought, etc. Until we listen to one another, nothing can be accomplished. Tolerance is what the Founding Fathers wanted for us when they acknowledged that we were peoples who fled Europe to be able to live out our religious beliefs without interference or control from the government. They valued religious freedom so much that they wrote it into our founding documents. Tolerance is the first point we should agree upon because it's already something we are supposed to hold as Americans.

Finding a common base for morals can't be done without tolerance. Without tolerance it's going to be one group's set of morals that is chosen and rammed down everyone else's throats.

And we may never find a common base for morals because morality is situational. We are not omniscient beings. We are finite. We can't know absolute truth. And therefore we can't know absolute morality. Every moral system we devise will fall short of the ultimate moral truths (if they exist). Therefore, I believe that we must have tolerance for differences above all else.

The majority of Muslims are tolerant people. I know. I've been to Muslim countries as a Jew and I was NEVER harassed. Apparently I look Jewish so even though I wore nothing to identify that part of myself, they all knew and were curious about Judaism.

The majority of Christians are tolerant people. I have always worked with Christians who are tolerant of other people's beliefs without having the need to force their beliefs on anyone else.

The majority of Jews are tolerant people. Most Jews in the world are either Liberal Jews or Secular Jews. We don't "evangelize" and we don't believe that our path is the only path.

The minority of Muslims are Fundamentalists. They embarrass the majority of Muslims and get all the press due to their loud violence.

The minority of Christians are Fundamentalists. They embarrass the majority of Christians and get all of the press due to their loud shouting and occasional violence (Unless we count Iraq and Afghanistan as "Christian Holy Wars" which has a kernel of truth to it.).

The minority of Jews are Fundamentalists. Ultra Orthodox Jews are a very tiny minority in the world outside of Israel. Even in Israel Ultra Orthodox Jews are a minority. They often embarrass other Jews with their shouting and occasional violence.

I firmly believe that Fundamentalism of any stripe is the problem with all religions today. If you read my quotes above as "Inerrant" and as tenants that must be followed, you become a violent person ipso facto.

Tolerance is the key.

I just joined a Unitarian Universalist Church today after swearing that I'd never be in another organized religious setting. What I believe they have right is that they profess to strive for Tolerance of all beliefs, and even respect for all beliefs. No one is perfect and we all have our prejudices. However, we had a very nature-based service today where a Sufi Islamic text was read about the Spiritual Nature of Water. It was one of the most beautiful texts I've encountered about the Spiritual Nature of Water. It reminded me that most Muslims are not hate mongers who wish to destroy "The West" or "Non-Muslims (infidels)." Most Muslims are on a spiritual path to lead good and decent lives in community with others.

I am still a Jew. I fit in well at the UU Church I joined today. They embrace all religions, creeds, beliefs, and forms of spirituality. There are even Atheists who are Secular Humanists who go to services there and belong to this Church. There is a richness in the in-gathering of diverse ideologies where we are all learning from one another in peace.

That, I believe is the first point that needs to be agreed upon, Tolerance, to the point of Respect and Open-mindedness toward different opinions, viewpoints, beliefs, creeds, religions, theologies, etc.

simchaland says

I just joined a Unitarian Universalist Church today after swearing that I’d never be in another organized religious setting.

I like them. I've also checked out Unity Church, which is a bit more "new age." They had a much more interesting community in Chicago than they do here in LA. Maybe I will check out Unitarian Churches here. With a church like that you get the social benefits, the community and some of what could loosely be called group prayer, without the specific dogma. MY sister on the east coast is a member of a UU Church too.

simchaland says

Finding a common base for morals can’t be done without tolerance. Without tolerance it’s going to be one group’s set of morals that is chosen and rammed down everyone else’s throats.

Then, lets find what we can agree is intollerable. Is intollerance intollerable? What would you say should be listed as intollerable?

I think there are absolute lines between good and bad, and I think tollerance blurs some lines that should not be blurred. I also think common kindness is mistaken for tollerance.

Bap33 says

I think there are absolute lines between good and bad, and I think tollerance blurs some lines that should not be blurred.

You would make a very good Fundamentalist who would love living in a Theocracy. I suggest moving to Saudi Arabia to see the end game of your thinking.

sim, are you suggesting there is no absolute right and wrong? That's why I kinda felt that would be a good starting point. Do you believe in a clear and definite line between absolute right and absolute wrong? To be fair I should answer also, and my answer is Yes.

Bap33 says

sim, are you suggesting there is no absolute right and wrong? That’s why I kinda felt that would be a good starting point. Do you believe in a clear and definite line between absolute right and absolute wrong? To be fair I should answer also, and my answer is Yes.

Perhaps there is an absolute right and wrong in a Universe (or dimension) where there are absolutes that can be known a priori.

We live in a finite universe. We are finite creatures in this universe. We are not omniscient. We cannot know the absolute as limited, finite, creatures. Therefore, logic dictates that we can't afford to live in absolutist terms since we cannot know the absolute, or even if it exists.

So, for us, there is no absolute right and absolute wrong that functions in our finite universe. We are bound by space/time and we are in no position to judge morality in absolutist terms. It would be arrogant to presume that we could place a firm line between the concepts of "right" and "wrong." These concepts have changed their bounds over time in human history and they are still evolving. Morality, therefore, isn't a matter of two discrete poles. It's more of a spectrum, or circles that overlap. We may share some moral ideals with another group. Those ideals on which we may agree might be starting points for dialogue. Also there are moral ideals that groups don't share. These ideals should also be in the dialogue so that our vision expands as much as possible.

Basically, I believe the question is more complicated than asking, "Do you believe in a clear and definite line between absolute right and absolute wrong?" This question points to other questions that must be answered first, like the metaphysical question "Is there an absolute right and absolute wrong?" Then the next question is, "As limited and finite beings, can we know absolute right and absolute wrong?" Then comes your question. Then many questions follow after that.

Question 1) Do you believe in a clear and definite line between absolute right and absolute wrong? Possibly. One way or another, we can't prove it definitively due to the answer I have for question 2.

Question 2) As limited and finite beings, can we know absolute right and absolute wrong?" No, as limited and finite beings we are not omniscient and cannot know whether or not absolute right or absolute wrong exists.

Question 3) Do you believe in a clear and definite line between absolute right and absolute wrong? Following the answers of question 1 and question 2, I would argue that we can't know the answer to this. So my answer is: maybe or maybe not.

Question 4) Since we cannot know absolute moral ideals, should we create absolute moral ideals for us to follow? In my opinion, it is unwise and illogical to create moral absolute ideals since we cannot know if absolute morality exists.

Question 5) What should we do to develop a system of morality? In my opinion, we should be constantly questioning our ideals and testing their utility and veracity. In that case a system of morality will include a spectrum or circles but no absolute line.

The Roman Legal system operated like this in practice. Roman Law set forth impossible ideals to which everyone was supposed to reach. The Romans, knowing that no one could reach the ideals because of our limited nature, would temper their judgement about whether or not someone was following the law based on how close or far away someone is to the ideal. That is why they had lawyers. The lawyers specialized in rhetoric to argue shades of gray. Due to the Romans' practial nature, a yes or no decision was needed and that was left up to a judge, who all Romans knew to be human and fallible. They amended laws and changed them throughout their history depending on the then current moral standards.

Only Fundamentalists think in terms of absolute right and absolute wrong. To think in absolutist terms one must abdicate reason and rely on blind faith that 1) there is absolute right and absolute wrong and 2) we can know absolute right and absolute wrong. In believing this way, one opts for faith without reason.

There is a middle ground most religious and spiritual people live in, it's called faith informed by reason. And most religious and spiritual people recognize that we cannot know it all and we should always question our conclusions.

So, as you can see, your quesiton is much larger than simply the question you asked. I cannot answer that question adequately enough without showing the complexity.

@thunderlips, I disagree. In your example the issue being questioned is one of priority and duty, not "lie or not". In The Bible a similar example was given where a lady lied to guards about the guys she was hiding in her room ... and Lot lied to the Sodomites that were knocking at the door asking to have sex with the Angel that was in his house. So, it should not be felt that telling a lie is always bad. Jesus never lied, he just refused to answer and answered questions with questions -- but didn't lie. As a matter of fact, the commandment is to "not bare false witness' .. and that is not so much about telling a lie as it is false accusations. In the old Hebrew laws they had it set up so that the accuser was in danger of serving the same penalty as the accused, should it be proved that the accuser was bearing false witness. So, telling a lie is not anywhere near the area of absolute ... When the wife askes if she looks fat, say no and it's ok, but, bringing false claims of theft against a neighbor, before a judge, is an absolute no-no.

@sim,
are you absolutly sure of anything other than the absolute lack of any absolutes in life? lol

By the way, one point you stated as a fact made me want to share a counter. You said we are finite in this finite universe. I humbly suggest we are infinite in an infinite universe. Maybe that is where the divide begins?

One thing is for sure (in my mind), a common base and understanding of moral / immoral, right / wrong would be a good Cornerstone to build a healthy and happy society.

simchaland says

There is a middle ground most religious and spiritual people live in, it’s called faith informed by reason. And most religious and spiritual people recognize that we cannot know it all and we should always question our conclusions.

great post.

just for basic reference:

1. Have no other gods.
2. Have no idols.
3. Honor God's name.
4. Honor the Sabbath day.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not murder.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not perjure yourself.
10. Do not covet.

I am guilty of them all, incase anyone wonders. Don't wanna seem all Holy and perfect and such.

@simchaland

Isn't it equally intolerant to disallow the views of those who consider the mosque to be an affront to those who died on September 11th, 2001? If there is no absolute right or wrong, then these two examples of intolerance should be equal. It is equally intolerant of the emotions of the families of those killed to demand the mosque should be built as it is intolerant of Islam to say that it cannot be. Actually, there is greater intolerance on the part of those wishing to build the mosque, because they refused to compromise when offered other locations for their building. So one side was trying to compromise by offering an acceptable alternate location, but the builders of the mosque refused to be tolerant of the feelings of the families.

Also, it is a major reach to claim that the mosque issue is indicative of any threat to religious freedom. The constitution guarantees the right to practice whichever faith you wish, it does not guarantee that there will not be repercussions to your choices. The street corner preacher informing a gay couple that they will burn in hell has every right to his belief, just as I have every right to tell him that I think he's a fool. It is perfectly constitutional for people to express their beliefs that the mosque should not be built, and the majority of people recognize the the builders have the right to build the mosque if they wish to. The majority just believes that they should choose not to out of deference to the families.

The article you linked contains the important information. Yes, there are a few nutbags around the country who oppose the building of any mosque anywhere, but these are the absolute minority, and (again as the article states) there are larger groups of non-Muslims defending the mosques in those areas. Very few people believe it should be illegal to build mosques, most Americans believe that it is legal to build the mosque near Ground Zero.

ahasuerus99 says

Isn’t it equally intolerant to disallow the views of those who consider the mosque to be an affront to those who died on September 11th, 2001?

Who is disallowing them? They seem to be rather loud and obnoxious and I don't see anyone stopping them from being loud and obnoxious, nor should anyone.

We are all allowed to have our own opinions and give voice to them.

What we are not allowed to do is to take away the right others have to express their religious beliefs, no matter how vile we feel those beliefs to be. That is the point of this entire thread.

Those who don't want the mosque built there get to voice their opinions all they want. At the end of the day, they don't have the right to eliminate those Muslims' right to build a mosque where ever zoning laws allow for it.

So, the Muslims have to tolerate the hate speech of those who would take away their right to religious freedom. These Muslims don't have the right to take away that freedom of speech from the protesters. These Muslims are free to build that mosque where ever they like according to local zoning laws. And protesters have the right to dislike the placement of the mosque or the building of any other mosque in this country, and give voice to it. The protesters do not have the right to take away these Muslims' right to build that mosque where ever local zoning laws would allow. Neither group should infringe on the rights of the other.

That is the whole point of this thread. We need to re-learn tolerance in this country if we are to save the USA that is put forth in our Constitution.

ahasuerus99 says

Very few people believe it should be illegal to build mosques, most Americans believe that it is legal to build the mosque near Ground Zero.

And you and I have a very different opinion about what is really going on around this mosque controversy.

ahasuerus99 says

Isn’t it equally intolerant to disallow the views of those who consider the mosque to be an affront to those who died on September 11th, 2001?

We should allow them their views. But then, we should recognized that they're nuts. They want to restrict a religion's right to have a place to worship because of some extremists. If that's the case, we should not allow any christians to worship within a certain perimeter of a planned parenthood clinic.

Muslim extremists killed a shitload of people. But they don't represent the muslim religion as a whole, and the freedoms for which we fought should apply to every religion.

Google this: Glen Allport, Have you had enough government regulation yet?

This short article puts everything in proper prospective...except the radical liberals will go nuts and will probably denounce the article and the author (but that's only because they have mental impairments).

I liked PGE as a limited-monoploy myself. They (and Army Corps) had done the foundation work, so it made sense for them to enjoy the fruits of their labor ... alot like train people. Just my opinion.