Christianity--or any other religion--doesn't make you moral or ethical. Morals and ethics make you the type of Christian--or other faith--you are.

When I stopped being a Christian, the thinking that took me there revolved around the statement "God is good." Interestingly, this was a key consideration in Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not A Christian too. Anyway, the question is, what do we understand by this? Is it that we come to an understanding of God otherwise, and we understand good to be His will? Or is it that we understand the distinction between good and evil, and God too is subject to the demands of morality? Russell, as I recall, was more interested in the first conclusion, which leaves God without any guidance or standard for action; any arbitrary action of His becomes by definition good. I was interested in the latter, that if morality existed independent of God - things that are good given the existence of God must still be good without Him - then is there not something higher than God? And what use, then, is God? I basically ontological proof'd myself out of believing in God.

Nowadays, I would have a different answer to the question, namely that for the believer (one who lives by Micah 6:8, anyway), the two concepts are not sufficiently separable to make one subject to the other. The understanding of each influences the understanding of the other. And I really like people of faith like that. But interestingly, it doesn't take me back over the bridge.

I cant figure out whether I file as Head of Household or Single. I mean, I'm single, but I'm also the head of my household.

Friggin taxes.

single, Allyson.

My understanding is that Head of Household means unmarried with dependents. I used to have to convince DH every year that he wasn't it.

How many cats = one human dependent?

Allyson, I don't think you can be Head of Household if no one else lives with you. I think it's for single parents. ::not a tax expert::

billytea, I talked myself out of it in much the same way. My reasoning was, I couldn't subject anyone, not even Hitler, to eternal hellfire (Presbyterian, we were - big on the hellfire). If God is by definition more loving and forgiving than a human can ever be, then He couldn't either. Therefore the God I was being taught about who could and did send people to burn in hell for eternity was either not real or not the ultimate divinity. This got me branded an athiest in junior high school.

There's a point beyond which the number of cats starts counting as negative human dependents. F(x)=c²l, or something.

So, "large number of cats" = "income potential"?

yo, Allyson, single, according to my accountant friend who does my taxes some years. But I did my own Mondat! money BACK from Fed and MO!! Whoo! And in time for spring break.

“Bob” is a geologist and a teacher at a science education institution that serves several Arkansas public school districts. My friend did not know the details of Bob’s problem, only that it had to do with geology education. This was enough to arouse my interest, so I invited Bob to tell me about what was going on.

He responded with an e-mail. Teachers at his facility are forbidden to use the “e-word” (evolution) with the kids. They are permitted to use the word “adaptation” but only to refer to a current characteristic of an organism, not as a product of evolutionary change via natural selection. They cannot even use the term “natural selection.” Bob feared that not being able to use evolutionary terms and ideas to answer his students’ questions would lead to reinforcement of their misconceptions.

But Bob’s personal issue was more specific, and the prohibition more insidious. In his words, “I am instructed NOT to use hard numbers when telling kids how old rocks are. I am supposed to say that these rocks are VERY VERY OLD ... but I am NOT to say that these rocks are thought to be about 300 million years old.”

[link]