And an internal tug-of-war for most of us, jerking us back and forth between "Fuck this noise, I'll go find myself someplace that agrees with me on this and to hell with these bigoted assholes" and "Fuck this noise, this is my church too, and they don't get to weasel around and try to passive-aggressively make me feel so uncomfortable I leave on my own.

As long as either way, this noise is getting some action.

I think I've seen a picture of a turtle attempting to mate with a crash helmet, does that count? Or only if the love that dare not [turtle noise] itself is consumated?

I've seen a bull elephant seal trying to mate with a VW Beetle. Bull elephant seals, I have to report, are into teh rough sex. VWs, not so much.

You don't think, like BT posits, that morals can determine religious beliefs?

I saw billytea's point last night, and I'm glad you highlighted that bit ita, because I do largely agree with that assertion too, even though it's coming at the issue from the opposite direction.

I would like to say that I do believe that one's morality and one's religious beliefs will interact and connect in myriad ways. Furthermore, I do indeed hold that morals can determine religious beliefs. But what I said went a bit further than that to. I was saying that I reached the position that I realised I would hold my moral beliefs independent of any religious beliefs. Whether I was Christian, atheist, Wiccan, a Muslim or a Satanist, my morality would be the same. It would, of course, determine something of the kind of Christian / atheist / Wiccan etc I could be. (Is that part of my religious view? It's certainly part of my worldview, it certainly would relate to and would affect my religious view, but I tend to think calling it part of my religious view is not the most accurate way of putting it.) But my ceasing to be a Christian, while initiated by this realisation, was not determined by it.

Morality is a code to me. Code of desired behaviour, either in you or someone else.

Amoral is without a code. Immoral is against the code I prefer.

Good and evil, on the other hand, get a lot fuzzier in my lexicon. They act a lot more absolute.

I was all ready to leave for the day, and then I went and started a client download from the FTP server. Stoopid Stoopid Stoopid me.

Do you have to be there for the end of the download?

I'm getting a migraine. Wanna go home.

Of course killing his son did not go against all Abraham knew about the world. Child sacrifice was not uncommon at the time in that region.

I’m not sure why similar demands for child sacrifice by polytheistic gods are relevant here. The story clearly is written to show that Abraham faces a difficult dilemma. Indeed, the story is chosen to represent the most difficult dilemma that a person could face: Submit to God’s will or protect my child? Abraham is admired because his submission to God is so complete that he is willing to kill his son. If killing his son were a mundane request, then the story would have no meaning. You might as well have Abraham hear a thundering voice saying “I AM YOUR GOD AND I DEMAND THAT YOU GO UP ON THE MOUNTAIN AND ENJOY THE VIEW FOR AWHILE! MAYBE PICK A FEW BERRIES! I COMMAND IT!” Then Abraham could have founded three major religions on the basis of his very reverent berry picking.

yeah, I need to disconnect and shut down before I leave.

I need to disconnect and shut down before I leave.

Ah, that's annoying. We're allowed to lock our workstations. Though they don't love it.

Good and evil, on the other hand, get a lot fuzzier in my lexicon. They act a lot more absolute.

Yup. A philosopher called Moore proposed an argument in the early 20th century (that I find fairly compelling) that the definitional content of the term 'good' can't be specified, because whatever someone proposed as a definition can be questioned whether that really is good in all cases. If not, then it might be regarded as good by people, and they can call it good and we seem to understand what they mean (more or less), but it doesn't really do as a definition of good.

I tend to view it similarly to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The more absolute we treat good and evil, the less we can profitably talk about what they actually mean. (Funnily enough, I'm also then quite comfortable in regard good and evil as being absolute, and one of my favourite philosophical works is called "Good and Evil: An Absolute Conception", but this isn't about trying to say that this or that is good.)

it's done. I'm outta here.

Bye Msbelle!

kidnap-a-nonconsenting-straight-man-and-force-him-into-an-unholy-union.

Do you have to be a gay man to do this?