Quote:

---

The costs have been borne by private insurance, donors, volunteers and government. Only you would deprive these children of receiving government aid because you don't approve your tax dollars being spent for it. I estimate the actual tax cost to you is one-ten-thousandth of one cent.

You presume to speak for others. You sure as hell don't speak for me. I support my tax money being spent to keep these children alive.

---

I sure hope I don't speak for you or anyone else. Never have claimed to, so your imagination is at work on that point. I don't "presume" to speak for anyone but me on this board.

One cent per American would be about 3 million dollars. One ten thousandth of that would be only 300 dollars, so sorry, but I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. The Boston Globe article said Medicaid is picking up the cost. Now if you feel that strongly about it, are you one of those donors or volunteers, or are you just in favor of forcing the American government to go out and borrow this money, thus going even further into debt in order to support non-citizens?

If someone feels strongly about a charitable cause, I suggest they support it out of their own resources, or even encourage others (like me) to do so, but I would not suggest they try to feel noble and superior by forcing others to support it.

And besides all of that, it would appear you might have your story wrong to begin with.

https://www.breitbart.com/immigratio...s-with-cancer/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

One cent per American would be about 3 million dollars. One ten thousandth of that would be only 300 dollars,

---

Ok, so make it one ten-billionth - it was hyperbole, I thought you guys liked hyperbole.

Quote:

---

are you just in favor of forcing the American government to go out and borrow this money, thus going even further into debt in order to support non-citizens?

---

Unbelievable! You just don't get it, do you? I bet you'd pay to put the Ten Commandments on the government buildings but God forbid you'd pay a penny to save the lives of non-citizen children.

Quote:

---

but I would not suggest they try to feel noble and superior by forcing others to support it.

---

Are you projecting how you feel?

Quote:

---

https://www.breitbart.com/immigratio...s-with-cancer/

---

Breitbart?? You gotta be kidding.

Quote:

---

Unbelievable! You just don't get it, do you? I bet you'd pay to put the Ten Commandments on the government buildings but God forbid you'd pay a penny to save the lives of non-citizen children.

---

Actually I get it quite well. It seems to be the typical liberal attitude. "Hey! Look at me! I'm a great and noble guy because I am forcing others to pay for my charitable impulses, and with borrowed money no less!"

You didn't answer my question about your own personal involvement as a donor or volunteer, so I guess we can all assume that your contribution to this, other than words, is zero.

I get that you are advocating for the use of fed funding for a particular cause. I understand that, but you can just lose the smug attitude of superiority you love to carry around. I am all in favor of helping sick kids, but a government 23 trillion dollars in debt that cannot balance a budget should figure out how all of this is going to be paid for and stop pretending that the money will just fall off a tree like ripe apples. Do I consider you noble for supporting that which costs you nothing??? Absolutely not.

Would I contribute to put the Ten Commandments on the wall of my local schools? You better believe I would. I guess that's how you and I are different.

Time for you to stop the liberal this liberal that. You're sounding like a broken record.

You may assume what you want. It means nothing to me.

As usual, you get it wrong - again! I am not advocating the use of federal funding for a cause. I am advocating saving the lives of children by letting them stay in this country where they receive life-saving treatment unavailable to them if Trump gets his way and deports them. Wow - you sure have a one-track mind!

I see where your new charge is "noble" instead of "hatred". An odd pairing.

I'm curious. Would you make Christianity the official religion?

Quote:

---

As usual, you get it wrong - again! I am not advocating the use of federal funding for a cause. I am advocating saving the lives of children by letting them stay in this country where they receive life-saving treatment unavailable to them if Trump gets his way and deports them. Wow - you sure have a one-track mind!

---

You can't have it both ways. Either this involves fed funding or it doesn't. And, of course, it does, so I did not have it wrong. And I will mention again that you are apparently contributing not a single red cent to the cause, so you are all in for that which costs you nothing other than that one ten-thousandth of one cent you mentioned earlier. I don't mean that to be ugly or hateful. I'm sure you have a genuine concern for those children, just like I have a genuine concern for having a government that has some idea of how to pay for what it obligates itself to do, or a genuine concern for charging the taxpayer for med care for people who are not citizens since I don't know how we can do that for some and not for the millions of others who need it.

Quote:

---

I see where your new charge is "noble" instead of "hatred". An odd pairing.

---

Refresh my memory. Where have I accused you of hatred?

Quote:

---

I'm curious. Would you make Christianity the official religion?

---

No. That would be unconstitutional. Putting the Ten Commandments on the walls of schools, as it is in the chamber of the Supreme Court and where it was for many decades, would not establish a national Christian religion since the Ten Commandments pertain to three major world religions and never mentions the name of Jesus. It would, however, begin to impress upon our children that there is a moral code in this world that everyone should recognize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You can't have it both ways. Either this involves fed funding or it doesn't

---

The point is - saving children's lives is primary. Sad that you can't see that.

Quote:

---

And I will mention again that you are apparently contributing not a single red cent to the cause,

---

You don't have the slightest idea what I contribute to anything. Just another of your ad hominems.

Quote:

---

Refresh my memory. Where have I accused you of hatred?

---

Refresh your own memory. Whenever I criticized Trump, you rarely replied directly to the criticism, you just accused me of hatred of Trump.

Quote:

---

No. That would be unconstitutional....{skip}....... the Ten Commandments pertain to three major world religions and never mentions the name of Jesus. It would, however, begin to impress upon our children that there is a moral code in this world that everyone should recognize.

---

You say Christianity as official religion would be unconstitutional, yet the Ten Commandments on school walls promotes three religions and is not unconstitutional. Is it three religions that makes it ok? What about a code with 4 religions? Just asking. I grant you some Commandments are moral in nature but what about the ones that aren't? Like remembering the Sabbath. Not worshiping "other" gods?

Would you object to other moral codes being posted on school walls? The moral sections of the Code of Hammurabi, for example? The moral codes of Buddhism?

Quote:

---

You don't have the slightest idea what I contribute to anything. Just another of your ad hominems.

---

I asked you earlier if you had contributed. I took your non-response to be a "no", but feel free to correct that misunderstanding.

Quote:

---

Refresh your own memory. Whenever I criticized Trump, you rarely replied directly to the criticism, you just accused me of hatred of Trump.

---

I don't recall saying that, but if I did it was improper.

Quote:

---

You say Christianity as official religion would be unconstitutional, yet the Ten Commandments on school walls promotes three religions and is not unconstitutional. Is it three religions that makes it ok? What about a code with 4 religions? Just asking. I grant you some Commandments are moral in nature but what about the ones that aren't? Like remembering the Sabbath. Not worshiping "other" gods?

---

The Constitution disallows the feds establishing a religion. The recognition of a moral code associated with three religions would rather plainly not do that. As to the first three commandments, if you do away with those, you lose all moral authority to make the final seven authoritative. They become simply "good ideas" or "good suggestions", but with no way to make them indisputable.

Quote:

---

Would you object to other moral codes being posted on school walls? The moral sections of the Code of Hammurabi, for example? The moral codes of Buddhism?

---

Yes. This country does not have a Buddhist heritage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Yes. This country does not have a Buddhist heritage.

---

Doesn't have an Islam heritage, either.

If you wanted to impress a moral code on your children then why have a guy on TV everyday who lies cheats, steals, and spews hate based on race and anything else he can find, and is cruel to men, women, and children who cannot fight back or help themselves as they ask for mercy, and is fiscally irresponsible and secretive as all get out about his personal finances, while openly enriching himself and his friends?

You think kids are that dumb? You tell them to follow God and Jesus, while you follow a dufus? Come on man.

Quote:

---

If you wanted to impress a moral code on your children then why have a guy on TV everyday who lies cheats, steals, and spews hate based on race and anything else he can find, and is cruel to men, women, and children who cannot fight back or help themselves as they ask for mercy, and is fiscally irresponsible and secretive as all get out about his personal finances, while openly enriching himself and his friends?

You think kids are that dumb? You tell them to follow God and Jesus, while you follow a dufus? Come on man.

---

As I have said many times, I voted for Trump simply because the alternative was unthinkable. He is disappointing in many ways, but if you don't want to have a person like that in office, then try nominating someone not along the lines of BC, HC, or Obama. Thankfully he does not actively support the continued slaughter of hundreds of thousands of unborn children a year. You plead for those children in hospitals, and rightly so, and yet have no concern whatsoever with children who are slaughtered in the womb by the MILLIONS, in many cases only days prior to birth.

Looks like when we have coffee, the weather will be the topic of discussion.

Quote:

---

Looks like when we have coffee, the weather will be the topic of discussion.

---

I thought about you a couple of hours ago. I was outside working and it was actually PLEASANT out there. Low humidity and a breeze made it all pretty nice. 92 degrees but didn't feel that hot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I asked you earlier if you had contributed. I took your non-response to be a "no", but feel free to correct that misunderstanding.

---

You ask a question and there is no response. So you take that to mean "no". Lacking an answer, you simply invent one to your liking. No wonder you have no friends.

Quote:

---

I don't recall saying that, but if I did it was improper.

---

Yeah, you recall.

Quote:

---

The recognition of a moral code associated with three religions would rather plainly not do that

---

It's more than "recognition". It's supporting religion by posting its tenets on a government school bulding.

Quote:

---

As to the first three commandments, if you do away with those, you lose all moral authority to make the final seven authoritative.

---

Good grief! So without the first three commandments, there is no moral code? Where in the world did you get that from? Your Bible? Did you know that the flood story has its origin in The Epic of Gilgamesh?

I noted previously to your comment that "this country has no Buddhist heritage" that this country has no Islamic heritage either, yet you include Islam as one of the supporting religions for the Ten Commandments in schools. You're confused.

Quote:

---

You ask a question and there is no response. So you take that to mean "no". Lacking an answer, you simply invent one to your liking. No wonder you have no friends.

---

You have whined and complained about it so much, I don't care anymore if you gave or not. If you want to say what you did, then fine. Otherwise try whining about something else.

Quote:

---

It's more than "recognition". It's supporting religion by posting its tenets on a government school bulding.

---

So? There is no prohibition on supporting the general concept of religion.

Quote:

---

Good grief! So without the first three commandments, there is no moral code? Where in the world did you get that from?

---

Without God there are no moral absolutes. It all just comes down to opinion.

Quote:

---

Did you know that the flood story has its origin in The Epic of Gilgamesh?

---

There is no evidence whatsoever of that. It is all conjecture. The Epic of Gilgamesh is significantly different from the Genesis account (i.e. the boat is cube-shaped, built in only seven days, flood lasts only seven days) other than it accounts for a world wide flood. If Genesis is a copy of that, it is a fantastically inaccurate one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't care anymore if you gave or not.

---

For someone who doesn't care, you sure whine about it.

Quote:

---

So? There is no prohibition on supporting the general concept of religion.

---

There is a prohibition against supporting a particular religion by posting Ten Commandments ON A GOVERNMENT BUILDING. This is really basic stuff. You brought it up so I assumed you at least were familiar with the basics.

Quote:

---

Without God there are no moral absolutes. It all just comes down to opinion.

---

Therefore, your statement "Without God, there are no moral absolutes", is just your opinion.

All questions of God come down to opinion. The color of the desk I'm typing on can ultimately come down to the existence of God. (That's a philosophical question you need not worry about). The answer can only be an opinion.

Quote:

---

It is all conjecture. The Epic of Gilgamesh is significantly different from the Genesis account (i.e. the boat is cube-shaped, built in only seven days, flood lasts only seven days) other than it accounts for a world wide flood. If Genesis is a copy of that, it is a fantastically inaccurate one.

---

Of course, it's conjecture. What else could it be? The authors were not sitting side by side. Read Gilgamesh, and you will find the similarities striking. To claim it is "fantastically inaccurate" reveals you have not read it. Scholars from both traditions agree on seeing it as the source of several stories in Genesis. But we need not argue the point here. You can see for yourself by a cursory check on the internet.

Quote:

---

For someone who doesn't care, you sure whine about it.

---

Imitation is the ultimate flattery.

Quote:

---

There is a prohibition against supporting a particular religion by posting Ten Commandments ON A GOVERNMENT BUILDING. This is really basic stuff. You brought it up so I assumed you at least were familiar with the basics.

---

We've just discussed that posting the Ten Commandments does not support a particular religion. But even at that, how do you explain the Ten Commandments being inscribed in the Supreme Court chambers?

Quote:

---

Therefore, your statement "Without God, there are no moral absolutes", is just your opinion.

All questions of God come down to opinion. The color of the desk I'm typing on can ultimately come down to the existence of God. (That's a philosophical question you need not worry about). The answer can only be an opinion.

---

Well, at least you are willing to admit that you consider morality to be purely subjective. You can consider actions to be illegal, but not really immoral. No wonder you support abortion.

Quote:

---

Of course, it's conjecture. What else could it be? The authors were not sitting side by side. Read Gilgamesh, and you will find the similarities striking. To claim it is "fantastically inaccurate" reveals you have not read it. Scholars from both traditions agree on seeing it as the source of several stories in Genesis. But we need not argue the point here. You can see for yourself by a cursory check on the internet.

---

It would be very helpful if you would read and actually absorb posts, such as stuff like the seven day flood and the cube-shaped boat built in only seven days. Those are fantastically different details, and there are many others.

There was morality before the bible and stories of ancient man before the ones that wrote or practiced Christianity, and Islam, or Judaism. Why do artificial differences discount one for the other?

Quote:

---

There was morality before the bible and stories of ancient man before the ones that wrote or practiced Christianity, and Islam, or Judaism. Why do artificial differences discount one for the other?

---

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Can you be moral not belonging to your religion? (Or any for that matter)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Can you be moral not belonging to your religion? (Or any for that matter)

---

Yes! Romans 2:15 ([The Gentiles] show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Quote:

---

Can you be moral not belonging to your religion? (Or any for that matter)

---

I'm not talking about BEING moral. I'm talking about being able to tell the difference between right and wrong, or between moral and immoral. If there is no God, then there is no final judge to appeal to, and we are all left in the terrible void of each one having to decide for him/her self what is right. And even worse, we are left with the knowledge that, in the end, it really doesn't matter. Who is there to care? I think this generation, and even the one preceding it, recognize that all too well.

jlisenbe: In the end ALL people need something to answer to: The atheist and agnostics live wretched lives because their very existences are rudderless.....this is one of the many problems on the left.....as they edge closer and closer to Marxism, they wander further and further away from having to answer to anything, thus they are capable of lies and deceit WITHOUT any repercussions of consciousness.

The left, like it or not, should come to terms with the fact that the U.S. WAS founded by people of the Christian faith....not any other religion.....it is part of U.S. history.....why in the hell they keep trying to change history is beyond me.....why they fight it is beyond me: Accept it, its fact, and move on. We are a secular society but we are definitely Christian in our founding. The left sounds really crazy with their offensives at the slightest hint of Christianity anywhere in the public square. At the same time they beg the courts to support Separation of Church and State, they have NO PROBLEM wanting to teach Islamic history in our Public School Systems.....why is there a dichotomy on this?

Quote:

---

jlisenbe: In the end ALL people need something to answer to:

---

That's true, but it does not establish the existence of God. It does, however, illustrate the pointless nature of life if we believe that what we see here is all there is. If that is so, then we are of no more importance than a cockroach or a grain of sand. We can pretend otherwise, but honest people know better.

jlisenbe: We ain't nothing but animals.....but most people don't want to confess that, either. Those of the Jewish faith believe what we have here is all there is. The commies think there is no God. I happen to believe in the MYSTERY OF FAITH....and I only have to see a bird lay an egg to know that God exists....I need no scientific proof.....but that's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm not talking about BEING moral. I'm talking about being able to tell the difference between right and wrong, or between moral and immoral. If there is no God, then there is no final judge to appeal to, and we are all left in the terrible void of each one having to decide for him/her self what is right. And even worse, we are left with the knowledge that, in the end, it really doesn't matter. Who is there to care? I think this generation, and even the one preceding it, recognize that all too well.

---

I didn't ask if their was a God or not. I simply asked if a person can be moral if he is not of your religion, or any other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

jlisenbe: In the end ALL people need something to answer to: The atheist and agnostics live wretched lives because their very existences are rudderless.....this is one of the many problems on the left.....as they edge closer and closer to Marxism, they wander further and further away from having to answer to anything, thus they are capable of lies and deceit WITHOUT any repercussions of consciousness.

The left, like it or not, should come to terms with the fact that the U.S. WAS founded by people of the Christian faith....not any other religion.....it is part of U.S. history.....why in the hell they keep trying to change history is beyond me.....why they fight it is beyond me: Accept it, its fact, and move on. We are a secular society but we are definitely Christian in our founding. The left sounds really crazy with their offensives at the slightest hint of Christianity anywhere in the public square. At the same time they beg the courts to support Separation of Church and State, they have NO PROBLEM wanting to teach Islamic history in our Public School Systems.....why is there a dichotomy on this?

---

No one is changing history, they were Christians but fact is not all Americans are Christians now. I know many atheists and even a few agnostics that have their own beliefs and are good moral people who live very happy content fulfilling lives, and what's wrong with teaching the ways and history of other parts of the world besides your own?

The founders were also slave owners and had no problem denying them their language or cultural identities to force them to be as they said they should be. At least you aren't beating fellow humans in this country to convert them, even though you still practice oppressing their descendants. If all men are created equal, where does it say you must be a Christian to be equal?

Talaniman: I'm not speaking for jlisenbe but I think it is impossible for a person to be moral if they are not of any religion.....because there is no compass or rudder to steer them to be moral. Atheistic societies (old U.S.S.R., PRC, and N. Korea) have no evidence of moral code....and I think it is not coincidence that they have no religion, either.

So being a good human is not enough for you?

Talaniman: No, if you thought I was saying that, you misunderstood me, or I probably didn't explain myself too well, more likely: I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching the history of any religion or even the culture of any religion....but what I am hearing is that, in some school districts, they want to teach about Islamic history and culture BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES! Now, that is plainly wrong and it is most likely an overreaction of some pinhead educator who is trying to look like they are fighting-off Christian overtures....I don't know but that is what it sure seems like....like they are petrified of anything with a Cross!

I had an agnostic relative: Just didn't get a warm and fuzzy feeling out of him, at all....and his selfishness was obvious.

Look, I LIKE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BEING SECULAR but, at the same time, I don't think its a Federal case if someone says a prayer or displays religious symbol in a public building, either......My God, we are an uptight, thin skinned bunch these days!

Not wanting anyone to receive a beating to convert to any religion.....its a choice that is very personal and should remain so: There have been enough beatings and killings throughout history in the names of religion to do us for eternity....enough is enough of suffering for that reason.

Talaniman: Being a good human being IS ENOUGH FOR ME.....but that wasn't the question: The question was "Could you be moral without having any religion?" And I don't think that is possible without religion of some sort.....Good doesn't necessarily equate to moral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

I am hearing is that, in some school districts, they want to teach about Islamic history and culture BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES!

---

Please list the school districts that want to teach Islamic history and culture BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES (Your emphasis). This sounds very much like a right-wing trope that has making the rounds for many years. However, if you are referring to pure history - not proslytizing - I would not be against teaching the history of other religions. Comparative Religion is a common college-level subject.

Quote:

---

I had an agnostic relative: Just didn't get a warm and fuzzy feeling out of him, at all....and his selfishness was obvious.

---

No comment.

Quote:

---

Look, I LIKE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BEING SECULAR but, at the same time, I don't think its a Federal case if someone says a prayer or displays religious symbol in a public building, either......

---

Does that include displays of religious symbols from Judaism, Islam, Voodoo, Wicca, Christianity, Buddhism, Druidism?

Quote:

---

Good doesn't necessarily equate to moral.

---

Agreed. Good is above morality which often changes according to the temper of the times.

Quote:

---

I didn't ask if their was a God or not. I simply asked if a person can be moral if he is not of your religion, or any other.

---

No one can be moral. At best we are a mix of moral and immoral. But I will say again that you cannot use the term "moral" without the existence of God, or at least you cannot use it with any real meaning. If morality cannot rise above opinion, then it really has no meaning. It's like a ship without an anchor. You never know where to find it.

Quote:

---

Agreed. Good is above morality which often changes according to the temper of the times.

---

How do you determine what "good" is?

Athos: When I say SECULAR about the Government, I mean ALL religions. And, the school district was one up around Minnesota...I don't remember the detail but its not a Right Wing story, its real: Some idiot Administrator decided to make such a move to placate: You would think most of them are Vampires the way they react to Crosses! Or like the dolt Macron, who wants rebuild the Notre Dame without a Cross atop it: He is true dingbat. And that is what I said: Teach all religions or none from a historic perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vacuum7

Athos: When I say SECULAR about the Government, I mean ALL religions.

---

That's NOT what secular means. It means non-religion.

Quote:

---

And, the school district was one up around Minnesota...I don't remember the detail

---

Not very specific. Maybe you confused it with something else. Rightists are prone to do that.

Quote:

---

but its not a Right Wing story, its real

---

Something isn't so, because you say it's so. We deal in facts here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

How do you determine what "good" is?

---

By the collective wisdom of a society based on informed individual consciences and learned over the history of human evolution. Good is always revealing itself.

You will say by a book. Problem with that is that it's static.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No one can be moral. At best we are a mix of moral and immoral. But I will say again that you cannot use the term "moral" without the existence of God, or at least you cannot use it with any real meaning. If morality cannot rise above opinion, then it really has no meaning. It's like a ship without an anchor. You never know where to find it.



How do you determine what "good" is?

---

Usually morality is defined by the group/culture or society, you know the "moral majority". At least they define the parameters sometimes strictly, and sometimes in some things not so strict. Things can sometime blend together as in a good human with morals, with or without god in the equation. Even with god in the equation there is a range of opinions, mores, tradition and values that can have a wider spectrum within that society.

You know humans though, they can be saying the same thing, maybe in different ways, and still disagree. I guess others agreeing with you determines what's good, or not, so it depends on whose doing the determining. I've seen Christians and Muslims and practically every other group or culture disagree on many things, and about the same things, so it's safe to say some things have meaning to some and not to others.

A ship with an anchor cannot sail unless you pull it aboard so you either want to sail, or just sit their. Consider me one who wants to sail. I'll let you know when I'm ready to drop anchor.

Quote:

---

By the collective wisdom of a society based on informed individual consciences and learned over the history of human evolution. Good is always revealing itself.

You will say by a book. Problem with that is that it's static.

---

How can good always be revealing itself when you say it is determined by something called "collective wisdom"? It's not being revealed, but rather made up as we go along.

As to it being static, that should be the most reassuring thing we know of, that it is not left up to the whims and ideas of people. For it to be constantly revealing itself, wouldn't it have to be static?

Your faith is in man, and my faith is in God. I like my chances a lot better than yours.

Quote:

---

Usually morality is defined by the group/culture or society, you know the "moral majority".

---

Really? So when slavery was legal in the south, it was moral? Or when homosexuals are executed in the Middle East, then it is moral? Or when women were denied the vote, it was moral then, but then it's not moral now? I don't think you really believe that. What is legal and what is moral are not the same thing, or at least not in my worldview.

The character of man is to justify his actions cruel and immoral as they may be, as we never know what triggers change, or evolution. As Athos pointed out morality can change and what was moral is no longer. It's usually after a big fight or long struggle to change things.

Plus it was moral to them at the time wasn't it?

Quote:

---

The character of man is to justify his actions cruel and immoral as they may be, as we never know what triggers change, or evolution. As Athos pointed out morality can change and what was moral is no longer. It's usually after a big fight or long struggle to change things.

Plus it was moral to them at the time wasn't it?

---

I completely understand what you are saying, which is that morality changes over time. Slavery was considered moral at the time, but is now considered immoral, or at least it is in our part of the world, but who knows? It might be considered moral in another decade or two.

So if a culture decides slavery is OK, then should we say, "OK. If you consider it to be moral, then for you it is." Should that be our response? If not, then on what do we take our stand? Our opinion? Man, that sure does seem lame.

I'm so glad my soul does not live in that world. It reduces morality to nothing more that a public opinion poll. The history of humanity is by and large an ugly affair, so I wish us all luck. We will need it. But then again, with no god, it really doesn't matter. A hundred years from now, do you think anyone will really care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

How can good always be revealing itself when you say it is determined by something called "collective wisdom"? It's not being revealed, but rather made up as we go along.

---

Revealed in the sense of discovered. Your Bible is a good example of the good being learned over time.

Quote:

---

As to it being static, that should be the most reassuring thing we know of, that it is not left up to the whims and ideas of people.

---

Your "whims and ideas" is one way of looking at it. Others may think of the process as a lived life marked by thoughtful examination over eons. Trial and error plays a role.

Quote:

---

For it to be constantly revealing itself, wouldn't it have to be static?

---

No. Revelation is a process.

Quote:

---

Your faith is in man, and my faith is in God. I like my chances a lot better than yours.

---

There you go again. You have no idea what my faith is, yet you manage to denigrate it by saying yours is a "lot better". When you find condemnation in beliefs other than your own, that tells us something very important - that your faith is a little shaky to find it necessary to condemn other ways of believing.

Quote:

---

Really? So when slavery was legal in the south, it was moral? Or when homosexuals are executed in the Middle East, then it is moral? Or when women were denied the vote, it was moral then, but then it's not moral now? I don't think you really believe that. What is legal and what is moral are not the same thing, or at least not in my worldview.

---

These are good examples of how morality changes over time. They are all found in your Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The history of humanity is by and large an ugly affair,

---

Fascinating, revealing comment. Unlike you, I find the movement of mankind over the millennia always tending to the good. To see it as an ugly affair explains your religious beliefs tending to condemn the great majority of humans who have ever lived to "eternal punishment in hell".

Believing that, I don't know how you can find any joy in life.