[paraclete]

I didn't see a blood red sun, but darkening skies have happened many times before so not so sure this even qualifies as a precursor for biblical prophesy. Not to nit pick, just saying. I really have no quarrel with those that use the gospel as a good moral compass, just as I have no quarrel with those with a good moral compass without the gospel. Whatever works.

What moral compass would you use? "an eye for an eye" as the Jews would say. seems to me that is the one in operation over there at the moment. Perhaps you would use the Muslim five pillars until you realise this requires you to subjectate others in the name of religion. Perhaps you would like to sit under a tree and contemplate until you find your nirvana? doesn't stop you from violent confrontation of others as the Rohingya have found. Would you embrace Shinto? Hinduism, with its casts. Tal, I pick the Gospel, it speaks of love

[talaniman]

I have always had my own moral compass Clete taught by my parents and elders of different sects and "religions', of which no religion has a corner market on right from wrong. Now they all may have their own flavor of tradition, dogma, and ceremony, many trabal and local and region, but no less the same.

LOL, the gospel of love has never stopped conquest and commerce Clete, and has it's own conflicts through time. I am sincerely happy it works for you and others however, flawed humans can screw up love too!

[jlisenbe]

I have always had my own moral compass

Does everyone else get to have that privilege? If, for instance, the guy who steals your car thinks that he was following his "own moral compass", then does that make it OK for him?

I don't know of anything more dangerous than a culture where everyone has an independent moral compass. You can go ahead and prepare for chaos.

LOL, the gospel of love has never stopped conquest and commerce Clete, and has it's own conflicts through time.

That is largely untrue concerning conquest. As to commerce, I'm not sure what is wrong with that.

[talaniman]

Does everyone else get to have that privilege? If, for instance, the guy who steals your car thinks that he was following his "own moral compass", then does that make it OK for him?

I think those that do evil, or wrong as criminals are crossing a boundary of good behavior as set in LAW, and punishable by that LAW.

I don't know of anything more dangerous than a culture where everyone has an independent moral compass. You can go ahead and prepare for chaos.

As long as your moral compass doesn't take you beyond the boundaries set in the law, then there is no chaos but ORDER. Isn't that why we make the laws of the land to establish order, or are you saying religious law is above the secular law of the land? That in my mind would be more dangerous given the many religions of this land, where a vote could outlaw one religion and sanction another, and even one sect of a religious belief over another sect.

The freedom to practice ones religion of choice is sacrosanct to our basic freedoms and you are against that?

That is largely untrue concerning conquest. As to commerce, I'm not sure what is wrong with that.

The ancient churches and religions were built on commerce as well as conquest to spread whatever religious doctrine they were ascribed to. The king was the head of the church and what he said goes.

[Vacuum7]

You know what is more frightening than a Right Winger to a leftist or more frightening than a socialist to a Republican? ANARCHY! The lack of ORDER in a land is a scary thing. What frightens any people in any land more than just about anything is the potential for the LACK of Law & Order. Moral compasses are the starting points for Law & Order (example is why do wear "SWEAR" on a Holy Bible?)….But the simple fact is that lawlessness and no "structure" are frightening to the vast majority of the world. Religion lends itself to the architecture of civilization and society: And, what you say is true in that the King was the head of the Church (King Henry The VIII) but it is also true that, to some extent, the Head Of The Church was also the King (i.e. the Pope) many centuries ago.

[jlisenbe]

I think those that do evil, or wrong as criminals are crossing a boundary of good behavior as set in LAW, and punishable by that LAW.

It used to be lawful to own slaves, so are you saying it was good, moral behavior to do so? It was also against the law to assist runaway slaves, so were they criminals who were "crossing a boundary of good behavior as set in LAW?" It used to be set in law that women could not vote. Was that good, moral behavior as well? Now I don't think you would agree with any of that. The law does not establish morality. The law will hopefully reflect morality, but that still leaves unanswered the question of how to establish morality.

As long as your moral compass doesn't take you beyond the boundaries set in the law, then there is no chaos but ORDER

Nazi Germany and the former USSR were both very orderly. I don't think I would say they were moral. Besides, when you say that my moral compass must not take me beyond the boundaries of the law, then you are imposing your moral value on me and in doing so showing that a person really cannot have his/her own moral compass since it must, of course, be subject to Tal's moral imperative concerning the law. You are, in reality, agreeing with my previous statement that everyone having his/her own moral compass would result in chaos.

The ancient churches and religions were built on commerce as well as conquest to spread whatever religious doctrine they were ascribed to. The king was the head of the church and what he said goes.

There is only one King over the Christian church. He is permanent.

You still have not said what is wrong with commerce.

[paraclete]

Does everyone else get to have that privilege? If, for instance, the guy who steals your car thinks that he was following his "own moral compass", then does that make it OK for him?

I think those that do evil, or wrong as criminals are crossing a boundary of good behavior as set in LAW, and punishable by that LAW.



As long as your moral compass doesn't take you beyond the boundaries set in the law, then there is no chaos but ORDER. Isn't that why we make the laws of the land to establish order, or are you saying religious law is above the secular law of the land? That in my mind would be more dangerous given the many religions of this land, where a vote could outlaw one religion and sanction another, and even one sect of a religious belief over another sect.

The freedom to practice ones religion of choice is sacrosanct to our basic freedoms and you are against that?



The ancient churches and religions were built on commerce as well as conquest to spread whatever religious doctrine they were ascribed to. The king was the head of the church and what he said goes.

Tal, what I have to say about every man's moral compass is this, if it existed we would not need the ten commandments, but as we are told, in those days everyone just did whatever they thought was right, and it didn't work, it fell short of the obviously required standard. Now by suggesting the your moral compass is good enough you place yourself on the same level, and we know that even the ten commandments wasn't good enough, it was a shadow, because our own nature didn't allow us to comply

[jlisenbe]

our own nature didn't allow us to comply

Well stated.

[talaniman]

Oh come on. This isn't about moral compasses, it's about the reality that some don't have one nor want one. No amount of beating them over the head with a bible will change that. You have had the ten commandments and even earlier versions for thousands of years now and still here we are filling up prisons and jails as fast as they can be built. Even those with so called moral compasses slip slide into bad behavior too as you mentions with slavery, which in America were good upstanding Christian men with the money and influence to write the laws to justify their actions and beliefs until it changed after a lot of blood and guts. That didn't stop the struggle as to this day people are still trying to get there justice and just as many are still writing laws to make it hard. So spare me the sermon about moral compasses and your bible, because I've seen how that's used to justify bad behavior.

Your gospel got you to where you are, and I'll just stick with what got me where I am. We're still equals folks in the same boat. Can't we just be grateful for the boat and share the love?

[paraclete]

Your gospel got you to where you are, and I'll just stick with what got me where I am. We're still equals folks in the same boat. Can't we just be grateful for the boat and share the love?

This is why discussing this with you is a waste of time, I think I smell some sort of alternative belief system here

[jlisenbe]

You have had the ten commandments and even earlier versions for thousands of years now and still here we are filling up prisons and jails as fast as they can be built.

Which is exactly the point that Clete was making.

Even those with so called moral compasses slip slide into bad behavior too as you mentions with slavery, which in America were good upstanding Christian men with the money and influence to write the laws to justify their actions and beliefs until it changed after a lot of blood and guts

But you said that as long as a person was obeying the law, they were acting morally. That's not my belief, it's yours.

So spare me the sermon about moral compasses and your bible, because I've seen how that's used to justify bad behavior.

Uhm...you're the one who brought up the subject of a moral compass. I am simply saying that if everyone acts on their own moral compass, then you better buy a gun and keep your doors locked. Many areas in our country are already at that place. That's the very reason that Jefferson made his moral appeal to God and not to the moral compasses of mankind. "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.."

[Vacuum7]

jlisenbe: You best keep your doors locked and guns at ready as a matter of course....If you aren't armed, you are a victim....Law Enforcement rarely arrives at a residence in time to prevent anything and average Police response times are getting longer...relying on the police to protect your abode and what all is in it is not going to cut it.

[talaniman]

Why don't you just say only certain Christians can have a moral compass and stop beating around the bush. Then at least we can understand the basis for your narrow minded prejudices on this subject, and understand you think you are one of them. I find that type of passive aggressive position to be well suited for some, but not others, and can respect it but not go along with it. I just find no love in gloom and doom and fire and brimstone as a convincing argument to follow your lead, or as a consequence of not doing as you say. and many Christians agree with that and take a different approach than just your basic fundamentalism, based on your literal interpretations of your own bible.

I cannot even say you are the mainstream of your own religion as dedicated to it as you seem to be, but different approaches is hardly an alternative that you tolerate. I mean you seem to use the L word, but hardly apply it where it can be felt as genuine at most times so yeah just come clean and admit it's not for everyone and everyone doesn't subscribe to it. You don't get to use your beliefs as an excuse not to row the boat we are all in the same direction. Unless of course you can walk on water and have no need for a boat to navigate the sea of life.

I thought love was about everybody, and not just the select few that you deem fit for it. Isn't that rather discriminatory? Why can't you just be a good human, rather than your version of a good Christian?

[jlisenbe]

Why don't you just say only certain Christians can have a moral compass and stop beating around the bush.

I haven't said that because I don't believe it is true.

I cannot even say you are the mainstream of your own religion as dedicated to it as you seem to be, but different approaches is hardly an alternative that you tolerate. I mean you seem to use the L word, but hardly apply it where it can be felt as genuine at most times so yeah just come clean and admit it's not for everyone and everyone doesn't subscribe to it. You don't get to use your beliefs as an excuse not to row the boat we are all in the same direction. Unless of course you can walk on water and have no need for a boat to navigate the sea of life.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I thought love was about everybody, and not just the select few that you deem fit for it. Isn't that rather discriminatory? Why can't you just be a good human, rather than your version of a good Christian?

The love of God is for everyone. As to being a good human, the Bible teaches, and I think you would agree with this, that no one is absolutely good or can even approach it. We have all sinned and come short of God's glory. We can't even agree on what it means to be a "good human", much less be able to do it. And it is certainly not sufficient to stand and say with great pride, "I am better than you!"

But the topic was the moral compass you say you have. I have simply tried to point out that no one gets to operate on the basis of his/her own individual set of moral standards. If we did that, we'd be sunk in the mud because the world is full of people whose moral standards are atrocious. That being the case, we better have a standard that sits above human ideas and concepts. You appeal to the law, and I think that's a good appeal so far as it goes, but the law does not make people moral, and we even can have laws which are not moral themselves. If you believe the law makes people moral, then try walking certain neighborhoods in Chicago at midnight and see how much the law controls morality.

[talaniman]

JL, I can only speak for myself and not you, or the multitude of other humans, but in no way do I consider myself better than any other. I give it my best shot and leave others to do the same. Right or wrong that's just ME. No the law doesn't make anyone moral, and indeed some think they are above it and there may well be a double standard in how and who those laws are applied to, but the law should define acceptable behavior to have any semblance of order, and as more facts and data presents itself then the more we can change or define the law through orderly processes. You're not suggesting we abandon those processes by which we derive that order are you? Just because some places are more dangerous than others for whatever reason does not mean the law can bring morality to those that break the law and I have never inferred such a thing.

It does hold into account the actions the law says is unacceptable. Yeah, over time the concept of unacceptable has changed and no doubt keep changing as we evolve, grow and learn, because what do you expect from flawed humans, a PERFECT system? That's rather naïve.

Now I can agree in the greater picture and things beyond us humans, and for me that means a relationship with a God that I understand and that's where MY moral compass is derived. I put nothing between that and as flawed a human as I may be I do my best. Look elsewhere for perfection because I ain't it.

[paraclete]

glad we got that out of the way, now back to more mundane things, in what way does Iran shooting down a Ukrainian plane change the status quo?

[jlisenbe]

As it turns out, it does appear that the peace loving Iranians did shoot down the plane, so your question is a really interesting one. I wonder if they bought the missile with some of the money Obama gave them?

[paraclete]

As it turns out, it does appear that the peace loving Iranians did shoot down the plane, so your question is a really interesting one. I wonder if they bought the missile with some of the money Obama gave them?

I have no doubt that after the successful test by Putin of shooting down airliners in the Ukraine they wanted to try it out, but with no american planes nearby what were they to do? well the Ukraine appeared to be a friend of Trump, so hey presto, here is a message

[Wondergirl]

As it turns out, it does appear that the peace loving Iranians did shoot down the plane, so your question is a really interesting one. I wonder if they bought the missile with some of the money Obama gave them?

Obama didn't give them any money. The money they got was their own -- after the US dropped sanctions that unfroze Iranian money held in banks around the world.

[paraclete]

convienent story, Obama should have gone further and brought them in from the cold