PaulS

Skinker, Knowing Joseph and the other moderators on this site, I doubt very much you were banned because Joseph (or any other moderator for that matter) thought you weren't fit for PCs to hear. Similarly, without knowing the exact circumstances I am confident that Joseph wouldn't use his authority in such a way simply so our PC forums wouldn't be upset with the likes of you and the free expression of your point of view. I for one am quite happy to be upset by another person who holds the one and only truth as revealed directly to him by the one and only true God. In fact, I have communicated with several of these people over the years, and I always find their views......interesting. Personally I have no issue with you posting your beliefs, providing you post in accordance with the guidelines of this community. Should I or others wish to read, consider, and/or debate your beliefs, then we will I guess. But as a suggesstion, one can easily obtain a free web site and blog these days - have you considered setting up your own website and forum with your own rules and with you as your own moderator, whereby you are free to share this message with all and sundry whom may wish to read about it? Cheers Paul PS - Maybe I do seem a bit facetious in my opening. I am partial to this forum, its members and what it has offered me in the past and what I hope it to offer in the future. Somebody coming on here telling us we all have it so wrong and that we need to listen to them and them only, frankly, gives me the willies, to put it politely. As an ex-fundy who has had 'the truth' rammed down my throat from birth, could I maybe suggest to you that if indeed you do genuinely wish to connect with other Christians to help them better understand what you say God has directed you to share, maybe approach the matter without putting down people and belittling where they are on their journey in life.

One little one that jumps out at me concerning Christmas, is the conception of a child without any male ######. That to me seems a little strange . Seems to me that if one is convinced a woman can conceive without male ######, issues about stars aren't going to get much of an airing. Cheers Paul

It's not just the absence of declared war, Skinker, death caused by violence as a percentage of all deaths has declined dramatically over the centuries. Tribal warfare was nine times as deadly as war and genocide in the 20th century. Similarly, the murder rate of medieval Europe was over 30 times what it is today. And there are more chances of Americans dying in a bathtub (one in 950,000) than in a terror attack (one in 3.5 million), according to a paper published by John Mueller and Mark Stewart. Yes, there are millions starving as a result of overpopulation and under-resourcing, which is not all suprising when the world is divided up into countries and one country's problems are its own. I agree that territorial control influences or has influenced these situations in some circumstances, but by most measures the world really is heading in the 'right' direction IMO. Cheers Paul

In this chapter, the first in Part 2 - There's More to Morality than Harm & Fairness, Haidt addresses how morality is indeed influenced by culture. Haidt points to a study citing WEIRD people (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, & Democratic) which demonstrates that these people are actually the 'outliers' in the world of human nature and are the least typical, least representative people you could study to make generalisations about human nature. Very eye-opening when you consider that's the situation most of us here, come from. Haidt compares WEIRDs against cultures such as East Asians and identifies a distinct difference in the way the two cultures think and subsequently how their morals are developed. WEIRDs see the world full of seperate objects, rather than relationships, which is the opposite to how East Asian cultures tend to see the world. An excellent demonstration of this was when asked to write twenty statements conmmencing with the words "I am..." Americans wrote about their own internal psychological characteristics (I am...happy/outgoing/interested in jazz/etc) whereas East Asians were more liekly to list their roles and relationships (I am...a son/a father/ and employee of Fujitsu/etc). Haidt states that this difference in way of thinking (WEIRD way of looking at things in isolation vs the East Asian way of looking at things in relationship) accounts for why philosophers such as Kant & Mill have mostly generated moral systems that are individualistic, rule-based, and universalist - Haidt suggests that's what you need to govern a society of autonomous individuals. But holistic thinkers in the non-WEIRD cultures are prone to writing about morality as a variety of relationship-specific duties and virtues. Basically Haidt says that westerners hold to a morality that protects individuals and individual rights, which doesn't work in non-WEIRD cultures where morality is more sociocentric, placing the needs of the group often ahead of the needs of individuals. Helping to make these differences apparent, are such studies referenced by Haidt as that conducted by Richard Shweder which identified three major clusters of moral themes - the ethics of autonomy, community, and divinity. Each of these is based on a different idea about what a person really is. Pointedly (to me anyhow) the ethic of autonomy (placing individuals first and foremost with wants, needs and preferences) is dominant in Western seclar society but outside of this culture the other two moralities come into play - community (people are first and foremost members of larger entities such as families, tribes, nations etc) & divinity (people ar etemporary vessles within which a divine soul has been planted). Haidt experiences exposure to these additional moralities when living in India for three months. There he adjusted to and learnt about the culture but more specifically, gained empathy and began to 'feel' such morality. Haidt begun to understand why in a community where dirt and filth is prevalent, why that culture puts such an emphasis on cleanliness before eating and in other customs. I began to see why these rules were required, such as always greeting someone with your right hand (as they used their left hands to deal with toilet practices) and why breaching these rules was more than just offensive, but was a threat to the health and wellbeing of the communtiy. Haidt explains in depth how different circumstances and culture affect how people view morally important matters. Essentially, he's making the point that there can be more than one truth, more than one morality, quite simply because there is more than one particulalr type of community or country. He quotes Shweder to make the point - "...there is no homogeneous 'backcloth' to our world. We are multiple from the start". One last thing in this chapter that Haidt address is the moral matrices that we encounter. Haidt explains how he sees many moral matrices coexisting within each nation. Each matrix providing a complete, unified, and emotionally compelling worldview, easily justifiable by observable evidence and nearly impregnable to attack by arguments from outsiders. Subsequently people find it difficult to consider the possibility that there might really be more than one form of moral truth, or more than one valid framework for judging people or running a society. I can't help agreeing with him and now finding myself identifying that everywhere. Apologies to my friends here for the lateness of kicking off this chapter. It may seem silly that I haven't had the time to address one simple chpater of a book, but as the cliche goes I have hardly had time to scratch myelf recently. I promise to try harder! Cheers Paul

G'day all, Just putting my hand up to start the Chapter 5 thread on Monday. Cheers Paul

Just for information, I've recently started listening to the podcast "Point of Inquiry" and their podcast dated 20 March was with none other than Jonathon Haidt discussing The Righteous Mind. As a result of listening to their podcast I've joined Audible.com (a site for audiobooks) and downloaded my first book free - The Righteous Mind. I haven't been reading lately due to an increased workload and a fair bit of travelling - hence the audiobook and a hope of being able to participate in this dscussion soon. Cheers Paul

Well, the word community is derived from french and latin words which broadly meant 'fellowship' or 'organsed society'. Typically community has been associated with where one lives and/or the groups with which they interact. But with global cohesion developing we now have regualr reference to the 'international community' and of course with the rise of the internet, 'online communities' abound. Taking some of what you say, Raven, I think a community does go beyond simply being a group of people with like interests, although I don't think it needs to sound as onerous as having a sense of purpose, direction and the setting and reaching of goals. Unless of course these can be regarded as simply wanting to share thoughts and insights and be of help to others if one can. That would be enough for me to call it a community. Subsequently there are stronger communities and lesser communities, but still communities nonetheless.

Welcome Jay, Similarly, I found Spong as a breath of fresh air. I hope you enjoy participating in this little community. Cheers Paul

How exciting for you Wisdom_Bodhisattva! I hope you really get something out of this community (I'm sure you will) and look forward to learning from you too. Cheers Paul

Welcome Bearpaws, I can relate to much of what you mention and have experienced. I hope you enjoy it here. Cheers Paul

I agree pretty much with what you say, although you say you do not thnk abortion should be used afer the baby is viable. I think it is this 'viable' queston that has been receiving much discussion here. I can assure you my defintion of viable differs significantly from that of a pro-lifer.

Could you explain a little more as to why you think it is out of hand please, Margaret?

True George, moral clarity (and all the murkiness that goes with it) has been a much more popular security blanket for many over mystery, doubt, ambiguity and instability. I don't see it as being ONLY a values issue though. It is a values issue to many, but for some it's just science - a fetus has no consciousness (prior to the brain forming and functioning), cannot feel pain, cannot even function without its host, and subsequently is not a human unless one chooses to think that it is. But I acknowledge that is not how most opponents to abortion view it. I have no idea how pro-abortionists can win over those who take a view that life begins at conception and that's final.

I guess to a degree they do, in a democracy, George. I think society has a right to set what it considers the norms. Of course, people also have a right to oppose and argue against the norms which seems to me the way most major reforms seem to happen. I'm not sure what an alternative may be if the majority of a society doesn't want something. Civil revolt? That doesn't mean we have to stop trying to convince others that their arguments against abortion should be reviewed.

I think more than just a right to decide, society in fact has a responsibility to decide, particularly when it is stopping people from proceeding with their choice to have an abortion. However, IMO, pro-life proponents have already decided they have the right to decide and furthermore they have decided to stand against abortion. In the other corner, pro-choice supporters believe they have a right to decide and that the right decision is to allow abortion by choice. Like the argument around when or when isn't a fetus a human, I very much doubt there will be agreement all round concerning the question of a right to make such decisions as you propose, Steve....as much as I wish there could be. Paul

Well good luck, Harry! I think addressing when a fetus becomes a person is the easy bit, reaching agreement with fundamental christian pro-lifers is proving a lot more difficult. I don't know how one can counter-arue the point (to the proposee's satisfaction) that a fetus has a soul the moment it is conceived. Science is yet to discover the soul, although it can prove that a fetus' brain is not conscious or near developed until 20+ weeks after conception. Neorology: Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognisable Electroencephalography (EEG) pattern from the fetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception. The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs such as a heartbeat is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using mostly involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic processes. A heartbeat means relatively little in real terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view.

Welcome Lisa, Like so many here, fundamentalism was the norm for me growing up, until I entered the real word so to speak as an employee. I could no longer reconcile what I had been taught with what I observed on a day to day basis. So at 19 I left my church and effectively haven't returned for 25 years. My parents and sister are still committed to the cause, so I am regarded as the 'misguided' one. I must say, had I learnt about PC, Spong, and sites like this I may have held on to some semblance of belief. Alas, I didn't and spent the next 20 years or so simply 'rejecting'. A few years ago I came across the likes of Spong & Borg, which at the very least gave me a new understanding of how I could understand a different view of Christianity and biblical scholarship. I hope you enjoy it here. Feel very free to participate. Cheers Paul

Dennis, You might be interested to know that the youngest premature baby in the world (to survive, with full medical help) was born at 21 weeks and 5 days. As I understand legal abortion, most states and countries only allow abortion approaching this age when there is danger to the mother. Other than that, abortions are carried out normally well and truly before anywhere approaching 21 weeks. So I don't see the correlation you refer to. Some information about prem babies: Doctors have been able to improve dramatically the survival hopes for babies born as early as 22 or 23 weeks. However, very premature babies face a huge battle at the start of life. They are at risk of serious conditions including: * Hypothermia, due to lower levels of fat * Low blood glucose, which can lead to brain damage * Respiratory distress syndrome - which can cause blindness * Brain haemorrhage Long-term they may have cerebral palsy and have sight and hearing problems. They are also more likely to have motor impairments and co-ordination and concentration problems.

Too true, Myron. In fact when I commenced this thread I deliberately used that term because it is one that rolls off the tounge too easily and is oft quoted when any reference to marriage being a hetero-exclusive domain is made. sanc·ti·ty    /ˈsæŋktɪti/ Show Spelled[sangk-ti-tee] Show IPA noun, plural sanc·ti·ties. 1. holiness, saintliness, or godliness. 2. sacred or hallowed character: the inviolable sanctity of the temple. 3. a sacred thing. Not a word about tax exemptions, state promotion of population growth, caring for the elderly, etc. To me, I don't think there is anything sacred about a marriage, unless you call two people who love each other committing to a life-long relationship, a sacred act. For me, calling marriage sacred is a little melodramatic. It's not that I don't think marriage is very special, rather I don't think the word sacred suits the situation.

Donald, Please understand that there's not any intended sense of pettiness on my behalf. In no way do I wish to portray what people believe as petty or incorrect. I simply mean to say that people don't choose their beliefs, but that in a sense their beliefs choose them. The aha moment is exactly what seals it for people. I think though, with so many aha moments with so many people of so many different faiths and beliefs, that those aha moments have more to do with the individual than a one and only truth (I think you would agree with me there). Which indicates to me that people aren't willingly choosing one belief over another but that rather for whatever reason one beliefs connects and resonates with them whereas another doesn't. Not by choice, but just by 'because'.

Maybe. It seems we agree that one can't make theselves belief something that they have lost belief in, but then get thrown by your correlation with the absolute centre being a choice. I'm not sure what you mean there. II still believe (no pun intended) that to believe in anything is not a choice, it just happens. You can't make yourself believe whatever you want to make yourself believe.

I don't know the author, but the 'CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH - SECOND EDITION' states that Jesus rose on the 8th, or 1st day. I don't know if they get that from Mark 16:9 or from the other verses that are taken to mean that (although they don't specifically say that). http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c1a3.htm

I think that you can arrive at a belief through the choices you make, but I don't think you can choose a belief - you simply either believe or you don't. Take Santa for example. Could you believe in him right now even if you wanted to? I would suggest that it's not a choice to make - you simply can't believe in Santa because of the things you have learnt in life. You could choose to read books that promote the existence of Santa, you could choose to say you believe Santa lives, but I don't think you could genuinely believe it unless something in your head clicked that allowed you to hold that belief. Using me as an example, I used to believe in God & Jesus in the fundamental and literal sense. Later, life experiences and other learnings changed my belief. I struggled to believe, I struggled to remain 'in the fold', but at the end of the day the 'belief' left me. I did not have a choice. I could have gone through the motions and pretended to believe, even perhaps almost convincing myself that I believed, but at the end of the day I would have simply been unable to believe in something I didn't believe in. On the other hand, if I wanted to believe in God, I simply couldn't unless something made that belief click with me. I could arrive at such a belief through certain ways of thinking, research, experience etc, but again, if I had those which convinced me of that belief then again I've had no choice, I have simply begun to believe. Does that make my thoughts any clearer? Cheers Paul

I find it hard to believe that the leg Surely we as a modern culture can realise that society isn't going to grind to a halt and have the wheels fall off becasue we allow a minority of the population (less than 5%) to share access to marriage licensing and rights!

I love Enigma and still play that album today, Rivanna. It also reminds of the self-tilted album by Deep Woods and particularly their track Sweet Lullaby.