Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (34488)	4/12/1999 10:40:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Good morning Joan, Where did I ever say anything about "irrelevance"? Here: exchange2000.com Since I essentially started this sub-theme by questioning Sidney's rather naive assertion of the immutable nature of Bible-based morality by suggesting that it was anything but static, and contained nuggets of "morality" that all but Emile might find abhorrent, the argument has shifted several times, so I may not have made the comment in the context in which you answered. For that I do apologize. You are quite correct in pointing out that there are any number of sects (OK, denominations) that have differing beliefs, and some, like the Unitarians, pick and choose among philosophical beliefs like an attendee at a smorgasbord. But that has little to do with my argument. In fact, if anything, it strengthens it. Morality evolves over time and the evolution is reflected in current religious beliefs. Couldn't I simply say, after pointing to the Friends and Unitarians QED? The argument that I would undoubtedly get from some people as that these denominations are not truly Christian. My foray into the nether regions of fundamentalism by bringing up some of the more barbaric or inane parts of the Bible was intended to illustrate that even the most reactionary religious forces have allowed for the evolution of their sense of morality, and they have done that by either ignoring parts of the Old Testament, or creating dogma allowing for "corrected" interpretations of the Old Testament. That's why Blue got upset with my characterization of God. She was looking at a redacted version by saying the God she believes in is love, brotherhood, forgiveness and peace, etc., while I was looking at an earlier version which could be characterized at least in part, by jealousy, belligerence and deceit. So may I now append QED, or must I still struggle to prove that religious morality evolves (which I believe was the argument)? TTFN, CTC