PaulS

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.

Thanks Don (and welcome to the forum, I hope you have found a home of sorts), I'm not so sure one has a 'choice' when it comes to belief. In the past I have chosen to believe in God, but it's never really worked because my thinking eventually tells me I'm only fooling myself, and the 'belief' in God is over-ruled. However, up until about 18yrs of age I did believe and I remember that feeling. For others it has clicked into place for them for whatever reason and they can hold their belief. However I see that less as a choice and more as a belief that fits them so it 'works' for their brain. I'm certainly not arguing against other people's belief (I believe others have genuinely experienced what they feel is God) or against the existence of God. I appreciate your thoughts. Thank you. Cheers Paul

On that note, I must apologise too George. I haven't had much time to scratch myself these last few weeks, but hope to get back to Haidt this weekend.

Welcome Randall, I hope you enjoy and participate in the forum here. I would appreciate a link to your essay if that is possible. Cheers Paul

I listen to a podcast titled 'Reasonable Doubts' which has a segment titled "God Thinks Like You", which is exactly the point you made here - funnily enough, most people's God aligns with their way of thinking!

I think there are some distinguishing points between a fetus and a human being. For one, a fetus doesn't feel pain until after 28 weeks (because the neccessary nerve pathways haven't been formed yet) and from that it is argued that a fetus's brain doesn't function coherently enough to be conscious. Nonetheless, even to recognise it as a human life brings into questions as to what is more worthy - protection of the fetus, or in some cases protection of the mother, or in other cases even protection of the fetus from the conditions it's likely to be born into (not wanted, unable to support it financially, unstable or non-existnent relationship, etc). Not an easy decision to make by any stretch, hence the ongoing debate. That's why I for one am prepared to legally leave the decision to the mother. I will support her in her decision to terminate, as I will support her in her decision to have the child. That doesn't mean she's on her own in the decision-making process, but I do think the final decision rests with her.

Wecolme Marko, I hope you enjoy it here. Cheers Paul