I got my own thread now you know. Read it why don't ya.

Been reading yours today, and I am thankful you are in a place of peace. Thinking about your kids, especially your son...and knowing that love will carry him through, whether you and WW part or not. All these years of security will bode him well now.

Mel,




Me TOO, but No evidence to say that Golden rule is counter-evolutionary either...None either way!! That is why I gave the scenario, weak tho it may be. Who Knows????

And of course it matters what each man's moral code is..it will effect others at some time. And of course I would/could have someone arrested for following their own moral code - if they included in their "morality" to kill on a whim, or brunettes need to be punished..

I really didn't start this, I UNDERSTAND both sides. Just agree with WAT.

I am not saying that Christians don't have a "proper" set of morals, or that mine don't adhere somewhat closely. I just don't assume that theirs is wrong for them or mine is right for them. As long as they're close enough for comfort, that is fine with me. I am not trying to get you, or any Christian, to drop God and see the "light". I don't mind what you practice at all, or what you think about your God. I don't think that you are less than me, just different. Unfortunately, I think that you all made my point. That I think that PUSHING religion on other (esp. adults) is disrepectful and yet common. And thinking that one is "better" because they are Christian, or whatever faith one is, is a large portion of what spikes the world with problems. Even here, on little ol MB forum. It's ok, this is a christian based forum, I would NEVER come in here and say you are all wrong. Just that I might not be, either, and at least it is ok for me to have my beliefs!! Or non-beliefs. And you can't profess that mine are worse than yours because they are not yours. -Well, you can, but it is unjust.

There are many different "standards" of morality (from religion and other leaders). As long as they don't fall outside the lines of the law (of whatever country you may be in), that is fine. Especially right here is the USA.



Forever,




I'm not sure what you mean? Why would that be stretching? The meaning of what? Are you saying that bOb didn't mean it that way? I took it in the context that it was used, I think. That the seemingly non-secular head wasn't doing the "right" thing, but further up the chain, someone would be a God fearing pro-marriage C.

I AGREED that one SHOULD think that a faith school should uphold those values. But it does SEEM that he meant that the head wasn't upholding those values BECAUSE he was "seemingly secular". That's a biased judgement. Derived from what, i don't know. But it SOUNDS like he thinks that Christians are better, or at least more pro-marriage. I disagree. That's all. And I EVEN SAID thatI didn't think that he (bOb) meant for it to come out that way.



I agree. But WAT could be right, I honestly don't know. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The golden rule or the 10 commandments??



Really agree, that's what I said.




What about Buddhism. Taoism? Again, you could be right, but not what I bellieve in. Taoism makes some sense, Christianity makes some sense.. None of it or the people/god that they are based on are MY anchor. Is that ok with you? It's okay with me.And with my Christian friends. And they are ok with me too, but they don't preach to me.

I am ok with all of this. It seems to me that maybe FH and Mel are not ok with my thoughts and beliefs. That's ok, they don't have to be. I would just rather not argue about it.

I never said that the Christian beliefs are wrong for you, they are just NOT mine. Nobody will "win", I'm not gonna change your mind and you're not gonna change mine. I actually wasn't trying to change your mind, just standing up for what I believe.

And cliche as it may be, right now I believe I'll have a drink!!

weaver and 2long,it's not my thread, but please don't go too far away. You lighten up the thread. And I bartend, weaver, I know alot of those cavemen..believe me, they mostly believe in the golden rule, when it works for them!! But most of them are Christians...Wait a minute, NOT supposed to discuss religion in the bar, are we?!!

*jls yelling* OPEN BAR!!!!

Isn't the Pantheon in Athens?

-ol' 2long <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Good Point 2long -

Everyone forget what I said above..

DALAI LAMA FOR POPE!!!! DALAI LAMA FOR POPE!!!
*marching out, chanting loudly*...

*jls pauses at the door*

oh wait, I opened the bar. Want a Cranberry Margarita, 2Long? Or should I just pop u open a cold one? *humming,then singing-
got callouses on my hands from opening beer for cavemen..lala..and callouses on my heart from everything else..lalala * <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

And we also don't know that the cow didn't jump over the moon, however, it would make no sense to adopt such a viewpoint without evidence. Unless one were quite insane.


jseagull do you realize how full of contradictions your post is? You claim that no one has a right to tell others they are "wrong" after you have just done that very thing to "pushy" Christians. I guess it is ok for YOU to have your beliefs, but not ok for them to have their beliefs. Ok for you to say they are wrong, but not ok for them to say you are wrong. Do you see how you are contradicting yourself so badly?

And, of course, everyone believes their worldview is better than the next or they wouldn't have adopted it. No one believes that all world views are equally valid or valuable. Just as you believe that YOUR world view is better than those nasty Christians who "push their views" as you push your own views on them. Just as you insist that your moral standards are better than those whose morality "falls outside of the laws," or who want to kill those with brown hair. As you have claimed no right to say that your world view is better than anyone else's you can't then turn around and condemn those whose world view condones serial killing. To do so, would be self contradicting, js, don't you see? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

jseagull, you were the one who had problems with our thoughts and beliefs, so let's not pretend that mean ole FH or Mel sought you out. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I think what you mean is that you would rather not be challenged back when you so vigorously challenge others, right? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I don't see where I PUSHED my views on anybody. Of course I think that they are better views, FOR ME.

You're right again. I just don't get it. If I was contradicting myself, I don't see it. I think that you can have YOUR moral code and Christian beliefs, I can have my whatever. Did I say that mine were better? Just that we all have to live within the law.. Do YOU believe it is okay to kill those wiht brown hair (I said "punish)? So your views are better than those..AND mine? Because you say so? OR because you truly believe that it is wrong to kill (or only blondes). ME too.

Aand I never said NASTY anythings. The implied was unwelcome PUSHERS of any religion. I didn't say that it as wrong for them to have their beliefs, jsut don't push em on me, ok?


I'm sorry MelodyLane. I gotta let this one go. Maybe you misunderstood. Maybe I wasn't clear. Maybe you feel like debating. Maybe you are just passionate about this. Like I said, it's a no-win debate. Besides, I hate typing, esp those long-winded things.

"The gulls who scorn perfection for the sake of travel go nowhere, slowly. Those who put aside travel for the sake of perfection go anywhere, instantly. Remember, Jonathan, heaven isn't a place or a time, because place and time are so very meaningless."

-Richard Bach, "Jonathan Livingston Seagull"

WTH? Yes, I agree. It would make no sense to adopt ANY view without evidence!! I never said that I adopted that view, just that it was a possibilty. Were you there for all that, Melody? Do you know?

I could be insane tho, more certified people than you have said that it was a distinct possibility!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

2long,

""The gulls who scorn perfection for the sake of travel go nowhere, slowly. Those who put aside travel for the sake of perfection go anywhere, instantly. Remember, Jonathan, heaven isn't a place or a time, because place and time are so very meaningless."

-Richard Bach, "Jonathan Livingston Seagull"

One of my fave JLS quotes. Got the book inmy bathroom. Is that TMI?

But you said that no one's world view was better than the next one. So who are you to condemn killers of brown haired women? By what standard can you claim that it is wrong to break the law, unless you are trying to say that your own standards are better than that of law breakers. That's pretty arrogant and intolerant if you ask me. Killers are just doing what is "right for THEM." You do what is right for you, they will do what is right for THEM. You have no right to force your beliefs on them.


And who are you to say they are WRONG? You said earlier that it was wrong to say you are wrong. Wouldn't the reverse be true? How can you say they are wrong when you just said no one had a right to tell another they are wrong. They are just doing what is right for THEM.

LOL, I rest my case! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

jlseagull - 'cmon now. Now you are begging the question and attempting to drag a red herring through the discussion.


Yes, jlseagull, it's "okay" with me. It's not "okay" with God, but to accept or reject Christ IS your choice and the choice of every individual. So just what is it that causes you to choose to reject Jesus Christ in favor of whatever "belief" you feel "fits you better?"

What you call "preaching to you" I call a genuine concern for your soul. It is my responsibility to proclaim Jesus Christ, not to "convert" anyone. To accept or reject is the responsibility of each individual, and many never will accept Christ. It is my responsibility to stand ready to "give an answer as to why I believe" what I believe to any who might question. It is my responsibility to "defend the faith" as necessary, especially when someone is attacking directly or indirectly the truth of God's existance and the truth of Jesus Christ. It is NOT my responsibility to "choose for you." Nor is it my responsibility to "force" anyone to believe in Christ(it can't be done anyway).


jls, I am quite "okay" with your "thoughts and beliefs," just so long as you don't "preach" them to me or to others. That, after all, is the same position that you, and others, take regarding Christians "preaching."

I do NOT ask you take my word for it, or the word of anyone else on it. One more time, Christianity is based upon Jesus Christ. He existed. He was a real living man. He is "historically proven." There are ONLY 4 possibilities about Jesus Christ. He was either; 1)a legend (didn't really exist and was just "made up," or 2)a lunatic (crazy, and actually believed all that 'stuff' about himself, but was as loony as the nutcases locked up in insane asylums who believe they are Napoleon, or 3)a liar (purposely deceitful and knowingly told falsehoods to deceive others for his own personal gain and profit, or 4) he is LORD, Creator, God.

Jesus Christ existed. He did many things and made certain claims. He was crucified, died, was buried, and was resurrected from the dead and appeared to many people AFTER his resurrection. So which of the 4 possibilities do you believe after closely examining all the claims about him? You see, jlseagull, I, too, was a skeptic. My training in science demanded proof. The proof exists. Whether or not someone accepts the proof is up to the individual. Even if someone accepts the proof as being true, they then have to make the "step of faith" to surrender their lives to Christ and accept him as their Lord and Savior. Make NO mistake about it, even SATAN and his minions KNOW exactly who Jesus Christ is but they will NOT submit to him. It is NOT possible for them to gain salvation through Christ's sacrifice because that sacrifice was specifically for humans. But God has given us our "free will" and though it pains Him greatly, will not force us to surrender to Him. It must be a willing choice. The choice is yours, as it is with everyone, until we die. There were two thieves who were crucified along with Jesus. One of them surrendered and was saved, the other steadfastly refused to accept Christ and went to eternal separation from God.

Is that preachy? I suppose. But not really any more preachy than "there is no god so pick your own morals and believe whatever 'trips your trigger,' there is NO eternity beyond E=mc2."

So as we tend to examine the claims of anyone who postulates something, I found Christ to be the one true "rock." "I am God, I change not." What is possibly better about "I am society, I change frequently, as do my morals and standards of behavior?"

Who or what do you find to be "superior" to God?

"I actually wasn't trying to change your mind, just standing up for what I believe." The same holds true for myself and I believe for Melody, Bob Pure, and others too.

Wow

I only asked a question !

JLS, you said

That the seemingly non-secular head wasn't doing the "right" thing, but further up the chain, someone would be a God fearing pro-marriage C.

Do you not believe that the head of an averred Christian school should not support the holy institution of marriage ?

If the head applies different rules than thos eof teh God his school professes to follow, is it likely that his boss or HIS biss just might ?

This is my central point. The sticker " Christian" means amongst other things that respect and support for the institution of marriage is a part of teh moral codex they signed up to when they became Christian. that they may not personally choose to follow that part of teh codex is unimportant.

I can think of no 'sticker' or club membership in the secular world that shows a rationalist has signed up to a support for the instituion of marriage. In the UK our secular MC service is call "relate" and even THEY are not pro marriage. They are pro 'niceness' and "practicality".

Thats whyI believe Alphin can expect, if she goes up teh chain far enough will find someone who will move tp help protect her marriage over practicality or covebinece if required.

In a secular school there may be DOZENS of shool leadership staff who fervently support the institution of marriage but who do so through personal compulsion, not by signing up to a credo that does so.

As the head of Aplhs school shows signing up to the credo doesnot guarantee support for marriage BUT in a Christian school he SHOULD support marriage, while in a secular school he should only support decency and practicality.

Absolutely no judgment on the 'goodness' of secular people versus christian people. None at all.
Just thelikelihood of getting them to do something to support marriage.

bOb,

I SAid that I understood that. Yes, a Faith school SHOULD be expected to be pro-marriage. I believe that a secular school should be also, but that would, I guess, be the school that I ran/owned (if I ran/owned one).

I know that secular schools would not be EXPECTED to be this way, necessarily. I also stated that I did not think that you meant for it to come across that way. But I could see how it did. I did not read it, except through this thread, so i might have been slightly biased anyway, by then.

I sincerely apologize if my thoughts have not been clearly conveyed here.

jls

And to me, decency is pro-marriage and vice versa. Marriage is a promise, a vow. And to be respected as such, between two people (religiously and/or legally,as a contract! I am not that naive, tho, I know that not all(religious or not) will feel this way, or might want to "stay out of it".

JLS, I am not articulating this well.

Let me use the example of the UKs MC service "relate".

Its a secular service.

When I spoketo a counsellor and s senior manager to asess if their service would be approariate for us.

Both told me that minimising pain and restoration of peace was their main priority.

If either spouse was in pain relieving their pain was the prime objcetive.

Now as you and I both know saving a marriage rather than giving it up CAN temporaririly at lest cause more pain and hurt than giving up and self-helping immediately instead.

The secular service would advocate the provel least painful path indicated by the circumstance presented.

Now the OTHER UK MC , Marriagecare, is a catholic-sponsored agency. And they are pro marriage. Only when the M cannot be saved do they assist in the most eual andpain free seperation.

When I talked to THEM they told me to expect a lot of hard work and hurt, and commended me strongly for doing what I'd done independently though MB.

My point is that NOT supporting a marriage MAY WELL be the least painful and therefore 'most decent' thing to do under the circumstances, but the lady in the original thread, Alphin, wants to save her marriage even at the price of some pain.

It is perhaps more MORAL in some cases to divorce fairly than to struggle on with a faltering marriage, but the CHRISTIAN ethos is that the marriage should be saved if possible even if sacrifices are required.

SO while the school head may have been most practical and compassionate, he wasn't being CHRISTIAN.

See my point ? Sometimes prioritising the MARRIAGE Over the QUICKEST CESSATION OF PAIN may not seem sensible.

Its not "saving M good, not saving marrige BAD".

I hope I've explained myself better now.

Glad all ya'll have been having fun in my absence. I DO have another life outside this forum, believe it or not.

Note: "all ya'll" is plural of "ya'll".

I did not yet read all the replies on this thread since my last appearance - skimmed them and maybe will go back for more details.

One statement, however, caught my eye. Mel said:
Hmmmmmmmm. Be careful, Mel. Doesn't take rocket surgery to realize what I could ask you based on this statement!

Just to summarize my initial point, which I may not have articulated well, but which I actually think all agree to: Participation in any organized religion (or disorganized, for that matter) doesn't automatically mean that any espoused morals of that faith, as practiced by the adherants of that faith, trump anyone else's practiced morals, faith or not.

Key word is "practiced".

I agree that any "established" standards can be more easily pointed to and "claimed" than any "non-established" standards.

Yep, all the organized religions in the world have better articulated "standards" than my personal religion. So what?

It certainly doesn't appear that having such articulated standards does much good. Look at the the history of behavior in the name of such standards.

So, yep again, one cannot look at me, knowing that (for lack of a better term) I am a "secularist", and make any conclusion based solely on that characterization about how I may behave or believe when it comes to morals and right vs wrong, marriage, whatever. None. I could be a pedophile.

But anyone can also make the same characterization about anyone claiming to practice any other faith (including none). As in the case of Alphin's H's school, I and others can "expect" or "hope" that it will practice what it preaches - because it claims to adhere to a standard - but it's a crap shoot whether this standard will actually be implemented. That Priest could be a pedophile.

Now someone will invaribly counter that my unpublished "standard" - because it's not rooted in some "authority" - is prone to variation and being changed on a whim. I guess you're right.

Again, so what?

No worse than the flawed implementation of the "gold plated" standards as history shows us. Those things are apparently modified on the whims of a lot of individuals, despite the original "standard" remaining unchanged.

WAT

No WAT, it doesn't take rocket "surgery" to know that a belief made up on the fly, without evidence, is nothing more than pure fantasy. She can't support a thing she says and shouldn't be taken seriously. That standard should not be acceptable to any thinking person.


And here is where you go wrong in this premise, WAT. You try to dismiss the standard of a religious school based on an EXCEPTION to the RULE. The problem is that you can't judge the rule by the exception.

The big difference in the case of expectations with secularists is that there are no rules, hence, no expectations AT ALL. They have NO professed standards, as far as we know, their accepted standard could be pedophilia for ALL it's members. We just don't know, because they have not affiliated themselves with any moral standard.

mEL - i THINK WE'RE IN VIOLENT AGREEMENT.

(Dern caps lock key. I cannot type without looking at the keyboard.)

I'm not arguing with the standards, per se, just the implementation of the standards. I'm not dismissing the standard. I honestly wish that all Christians would implement the Christian standard. (It was copied from mine. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> )

I agreed that you nor anyone can look at my standard, because it's unpublished. Thus you may conclude that I'm about to stab you in the back. This requires an assumption that because I have no published standard that that means I have NO standard.

This has been my point all along. That's an over generalization.

On the other hand, you agree, right, that merely having or claiming to follow a standard does not guarantee anything as far as actually implementing that standard?

Again:
I'll go re-read the context of your original quote - I don't know who "she" is.

But are you sure you wanna stand by "it doesn't take rocket "surgery" to know that a belief made up on the fly, without evidence, is nothing more than pure fantasy."??

WAT

Well, no, WAT, its not an invalid generalization at all to say that there is no expectation of a moral standard with secularists. Nor is it a generalization to say that there might not be a moral foundation, because that describes most of the group. Sure, there are exceptions, but again, you don't judge a group by the exception, but by the rule. With them, there is no rule, thus no reason to expect anything.

And of course I stand by my statement. Isn't that a self evident statement? She made some crap up on the fly without a shred of evidence. That is a fantasy. Maybe you can take that seriously, but I sure can't.