Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Agreed. There is a higher law. Either that, or it's the rule of the majority.

---

The rule of the majority is a poor substitute and it isn't democracy

Quote:

---

The rule of the majority is a poor substitute and it isn't democracy

---

I wasn't referring to ruling (governance) as much as the majority determining what is moral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I wasn't referring to ruling (governance) as much as the majority determining what is moral.

---

I have no confidence in the majority determining what is moral. Germany in the 1930's is a prime example, or the current legality of abortion in many places, I expect your comment was sardonic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

OK. Then what authority is he appealing to, his own or another's?

---

It would be a generous, diplomatic move (better than an accusatory statement) to ask him.

You have a right to your own moral compass within the law. You can hold your own nose but not mine...without my consent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You have a right to your own moral compass within the law. You can hold your own nose but not mine...without my consent.

---

I expect that is in your constitution somewhere

Quote:

---

Man obviously needed the 10 commandments to understand where the boundries are,

---

So only someone raised or who accepts Judeao-Christianity can know right from wrong ;evil from good and act accordingly ?

I generally do not respond to this type of discussion because it is better suited to a different forum. I've said enough on this . I'll continue to respond to discussion about the OP . and try not to respond to someone pointing the finger

J'Accuse at me because they think the position I take is not moral .

Quote:

---

I have no confidence in the majority determining what is moral. Germany in the 1930's is a prime example, or the current legality of abortion in many places, I expect your comment was sardonic

---

I agree completely. Actually, it was not sardonic. I meant it literally. Either we acknowledge a higher law or we submit to the determination of the majority. The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew this.

Quote:

---

It would be a generous, diplomatic move (better than an accusatory statement) to ask him.

---

I was not accusing him of anything. I was trying to summarize his statement for the purpose of discussion. I think a fair reading of what he wrote bears that out.

Quote:

---

and try not to respond to someone pointing the finger J'Accuse at me because they think the position I take is not moral .

---

I have not pointed a finger, called your position immoral, or accused you of anything. I am asking questions in the hopes of clarifying your views. You actually started this discussion with your statement that your moral beliefs are your own and not the result of being influenced by religion or parents. If you don't care to discuss it, then we'll just drop it. No problem and no bad reflection on anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I agree completely. Actually, it was not sardonic. I meant it literally. Either we acknowledge a higher law or we submit to the determination of the majority. The signers of the Declaration of Independence knew this.

---

Room for BOTH, if one stays in his own lane, and obeys the law.

Quote:

---

I have not pointed a finger, called your position immoral, or accused you of anything

---

didn't say you did ;and no I did not start it . There was a reason I went down that path in this OP and it had nothing at all to do with anything you wrote . here is what initiated the exchange :

Quote:

---

there has never been any doubt that you care nothing for the less fortunate. Your love is for profits. Didn't your mother ever tell you about loving your neighbor? Did she say love your profits?

---

Quote:

---

Room for BOTH, if one stays in his own lane, and obeys the law.

---

One has to be above the other. There cannot be two co-equal laws. When they disagree, as they will, which one trumps the other?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

One has to be above the other. There cannot be two co-equal laws. When they disagree, as they will, which one trumps the other?

---

The one YOU choose to follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

One has to be above the other. There cannot be two co-equal laws. When they disagree, as they will, which one trumps the other?

---

The Bible tells me to stay in my own lane. Illinois law tells me to stay in my own lane.

Quote:

---

The Bible tells me to stay in my own lane.

---

The Bible tells you to stay in God's lane.

Quote:

---

The one YOU choose to follow.

---

So does everyone get to choose?

Don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

The Bible tells me to stay in my own lane. Illinois law tells me to stay in my own lane.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The Bible tells you to stay in God's lane.

So does everyone get to choose?

---

No, JL; you don't understand. The Bible tells me to stay in my own lane so I don't hurt or kill anyone else. Illinois law tells me the same thing.

Both of you, I suspect, understand quite well what the question is. You two keep wanting to tell me what your source of personal moral belief is. I get that quite well, but that's not the real question. The REAL question is this. Does everyone else get to choose their own source of morality?

If they do, then do we have to honor those moral values?

If they don't, then what source of moral values should they choose?

It is an amazingly important question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The REAL question is this. Does everyone else get to choose their own source of morality?

---

Did God give man free will? (The El Paso shooter even wrote a two-page manifesto to explain his reason for killing, what his choice of morality is.)

God said, "Thou shalt not kill." The US government doesn't tell us not to kill anyone, not to murder, but if someone does so, the government will identify and punish the murderer. Thus, in this way, we are tacitly told not to kill anyone.

Both of you, I suspect, understand quite well what the question is. You two keep wanting to tell me what your source of personal moral belief is.

Not really but you're the one asking so if that's what you want to know then just ask. Why are you beating around the bush? You probably know already any way so why the questions and why do they matter to you?

Does everyone else get to choose their own source of morality?

If they want. That would be up to them wouldn't it?

If they do, then do we have to honor those moral values?

If you choose to. Isn't that up to you?

If they don't, then what source of moral values should they choose?

Isn't that a question they should answer for themselves? What's stopping them from choosing what they want?