quote:A child that cannot walk without his parents holding him up is an immature at walking. A person who cannot be a morally good person without his God keeping him in line is a morally immature.
Is the child who is still willing to hold the parent's hand after being able to walk also immature? What of the child who refuses to hold the parent's hand?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: MPH - the relation is definitional.
A child that cannot walk without his parents holding him up is an immature at walking. A person who cannot be a morally good person without his God... is a morally immature.
No, I don't think that morality works like that.
All right, then. Could you explain to me how your understanding of morality works is different, then? Under your understanding of the concept, is it possible to be morally immature? If so, what would that look like? And if not, why not?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't disagree, JH. However, at least in academic-type philosophy & theology, there are an awful lot of arguments floating around that without a God there is either no such thing as morality, or there is no reason to be moral. I disagree with both stances, and I think others on this thread do too.
Um, so do I, and I'd wager a great deal so does 90% of those who disagree with Squicky in this thread.
I still think that pretend to be able to read minds and saying those those who tie their morality to the Lord are immature is both rude (which - whatever. who cares.) and ignorant of how the religious mind and morality works (which is more serious, because it means the same mistake will be made over and over again).
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still think that pretend to be able to read minds and saying those those who tie their morality to the Lord are immature is both rude (which - whatever. who cares.) and ignorant of how the religious mind and morality works (which is more serious, because it means the same mistake will be made over and over again).
And I'm stuck wondering who on this thread said any of that?
You are again not responding to anything anyone has said. I will ask you again to try to treat people (myself in particular) with respect.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: That has to be it, as I'm not trying to interpret it. Just reading what it says.
Reading without interpretation is not possible. Various groups have claimed to do so (with regard to the Bible) for centuries, but their "uninterpreted" reading is just another interpretation. Until someone finds a way to communicate concepts mind to mind without the interference of language, communication will always involve interpretation.
Witness the different interpretations of various posts on this thread, for example.
I'm not using it to judge how I live my life, so I don't see how I'm interpreting it. Perhaps by not assuming it's true when I read it I am therefore interpreting it? I dunno.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't disagree, JH. However, at least in academic-type philosophy & theology, there are an awful lot of arguments floating around that without a God there is either no such thing as morality, or there is no reason to be moral. I disagree with both stances, and I think others on this thread do too.
Um, so do I, and I'd wager a great deal so does 90% of those who disagree with Squicky in this thread.
JH, I see Squicky as protesting against those who do hold those stances. As I understood his position, he's saying that those who believe that without God there's either no morality or there's no reason to be moral are morally immature. If you disagree with those stances then I don't think anything he's said can be applied to you or others who are likeminded
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Javert, Simple example. Can you read Greek and Hebrew?
Point well taken.
But as the majority of people in this country don't speak those languages, what I'm doing is reading their bible, and trying to just take it for what it says.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with his statements and I think such an judgment of those who believe God is necessary to morality reveals (among other things) a profound ignorance of why people are religious in the first place and how that religion affects them and their thinking.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree with his statements and I think such an judgment of those who believe God is necessary to morality reveals a profound ignorance of why people are religious in the first place and how that religion affects them and their thinking.
Could you explain why you disagree with my statements?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would disagree with the general idea of moral maturity. I think morality is a state, and not an cumulative acquisition. But I'm off until tomorrow, I suspect.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think such an judgment of those who believe God is necessary to morality reveals a profound ignorance of why people are religious in the first place and how that religion affects them and their thinking.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Javert, Simple example. Can you read Greek and Hebrew?
Point well taken.
But as the majority of people in this country don't speak those languages, what I'm doing is reading their bible, and trying to just take it for what it says.
"Their Bible" is an interpretation of a translation of an interpretation. And when you "just try to take it for what it says" you are still interpreting. Even reading something in contemporary English by someone who shares a similar context with you, you are still interpreting. Heck, even listening to someone, face to face with inflection and physical cues, you are still interpreting.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, everyone is always intrepreting. You bring your vocabulary, your cultural assumptions, your personal experience, your knowledge of history, religion, people, literature with you when you read. All those things affect how you interpret/understand the words.
When reading about often abstract concepts, it's even more extreme.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:By a reasonable definition of "mature," someone who requires a belief in God to behave morally is immature.
TomDavidson, I am not going to disagree with you here, because the statement implies a misunderstanding of what religion really is.
If religion is just a moral philosophy with a code of constraints, then it is not mature to rely upon that to ensure moral behavior. It could help in many cases, but that is not what religion is really all about.
True religion is the objective reality of the universe, not opinion or theory or philosophy. It is the ultimate science. How you understand that objective reality, how you acknowledge it and commit yourself to it in recognition of its consequences, constitutes your own personal faith.
Defined this way, moral behavior is what results from your own conclusions about what is good and what is evil, and how much you care about it.
There are varying levels of maturity for anyone in anything, of course. Even those who look to a righteousness and goodness outside of themselves and above themselves, often find encouragement and motivation to do good by being mindful of the rewards of pursuing good and opposing evil, and of the punishments for failing in these things. When one reaches full maturity, however, even rewards or fear of punishment lessen as motivating factors.
Let me give an example from the life of Moses. When God proposed that Israel be wiped out because of having just violated its oath to God, and God would make a new chosen nation out of Moses and his children, Moses responded: "Alas, this people has committed a great sin, and they have made a god of gold for themselves. But now, if Thou wilt, forgive their sin-- and if not, please blot me out from Thy book which Thou hast written!" (Exodus 32:31b-32; NASB)
This is one of the most astonishing passages in Scripture--astonishing to us immature human beings. Moses was offering to have his own name blotted out of the Book of Life, so he would cease to exist and never live again--for the sake of the people for whom he was responsible. Moses sought no reward. To him, what was right and good and affirming of selfless love, was so important, it exceeded the importance of his own existence, and having any hope of reward for himself, ever.
This was a demonstration of true maturity in a follower of God--because He acted in accord with the loving nature of God Himself, Who is Ultimate reality. Indeed, we Christians recognize that here Moses was revealing himself to be a type of the Saviour of all mankind, Jesus Christ, who on the Cross would show God sacrificing Himself, being willing to risk spending eternity unconscious in the grave, in the hope of saving mankind from having to be wiped out of existence. As Isaiah prophetically forecast: "When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:10-11; NKJV)
This is what enabled Jesus not to chuck it all and come down from the Cross in divine anger. He chose to go through with it because He saw there were those who had faith in Him, and there would be a generation of the Redeemed who would result from His sacrifice.
Moses, of course, was not allowed to bear the iniquities of the children of Israel; he was not qualified to. God replied to Moses' offer to sacrifice himself: "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book." (Exodus 32:33) But then He told Moses to continue leading the people. There would still be punishment, but He would not eradicate them. He would still be with them. Obviously God was pleased with Moses. He was learning to be a True Shepherd, like God is a Shepherd.
[ December 11, 2007, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Warning: This is only for the thick skinned, I suspect that many may be offended no matter which side of the issue you're on. (That said, you made it this far into the thread...) If you wish to proceed the relevant part is around 19 minutes into the interview.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not going to dive headfirst into the fray, but I will say that the idea that people who do not believe in God have no reason not to do ill things has been put forth as a claim on this board, and not by a fringe member. Mr. Squicky isn't just pulling this out of his hat -- although it may well not be a belief held to by many on the board (I have little to no idea, actually), it has been represented quite matter-of-factly in the past.
Actually, it was presented by a very kind and caring person to whom I responded most irately about it, and so I am not going to quote/link to it. That is probably best left in the past. I can tell you, though, that it seems to not be an uncommon belief with some of those I interact with offline (some, not all, and likely not a majority, by the way, but it is there).
---
Edited to add for clarification: What I mean to say is that I don't see that particular branch of the discussion as a straw man, but a real and sincere position for some that is worth noting. Maybe it is held by none here right now, but it is not foreign to this venue.
I myself think that there is likely to be a bit of a cognitive dichotomy for many I know who hold this view -- i.e., that it is true on theoretical grounds, but that one's own friends who are areligious are not necessarily without any moral standards. This seems to me to be both the most charitable and the most likely perspective, so it's the one I find most compelling.
[And I frankly will admit to holding several cognitive dichotomies myself, by the way. I don't mean that as a dig or slam, just a part of being human in the world.]
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Backing up to something scott said on the last page:
Having different views on what is morally acceptable isn't necessarily an indicator of moral maturity. Someone viewing cannibalism as morally proper doesn't tell us how he arrived at the conclusion that eatting people is correct, so we can't make judgements about his moral maturity. (We might, however, make judgements about his moral conclusions).
On the other hand, a statement about how one arrives at moral decisions is a statement about one's own moral maturity. Stating "I cannot have morals without god," is a statement about the decision making process, and thus a reflection on maturity
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understood (and I may be wrong) that the difference in maturity being referenced was not of what morals but of why.
"I won't do it because I believe it is wrong" vs "I won't do it because God will punish me if I do."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't there a hierarchy of some sorts? *draws on vague memories of a sociology of religion class from before her mission*
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: On the other hand, a statement about how one arrives at moral decisions is a statement about one's own moral maturity. Stating "I cannot have morals without god," is a statement about the decision making process, and thus a reflection on maturity
I think this is the part that was confusing some people. [Hypothetical] When people say "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God wouldn't have wanted me to" shows that they do not understand why God considers it bad to cause violence in the first place. It is equivalent to a child thinking "I won't steal because my parents will spank me." It shows a lack of understanding about the actual principles behind the morals. I think that to understand the moral code of the Bible requires understanding the reasons why Jesus did what he did, and I think Jesus summarizes that moral code very simply with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule may not be everything the Bible has to say about morality but it certainly provides a very strong core for Christian morality.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads, I think that is too simple. I think there can also be value and maturity deciding to obey God for the sake of obeying (not from fear of punishment). This is tricky because I think it needs to be a thought out decision rather than a "default" position because you don't want to think about it or because of habit. Open-eyed obedience rather than blind obedience.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: When people say "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God wouldn't have wanted me to" shows that they do not understand why God considers it bad to cause violence in the first place. It is equivalent to a child thinking "I won't steal because my parents will spank me." It shows a lack of understanding about the actual principles behind the morals. I think that to understand the moral code of the Bible requires understanding the reasons why Jesus did what he did, and I think Jesus summarizes that moral code very simply with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule may not be everything the Bible has to say about morality but it certainly provides a very strong core for Christian morality.
I'm not sure why following a pithy saying like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would necessarily be any more well thought out than following "God doesn't want me to hit people."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something bugs me a bit about your analogy, Threads, but I don't have the time to sit & think about the issue. I feel like you're somehow straying into Euthyphro territory, where there's a lot of philosophical dispute - are things moral/good because God says they are, or does God say things are moral/good because they are?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the analogy fails because it is equating wanting to please someone with fear of punishment. For it to work as an analogy either the first part of it would have to be "I want to hit this person but I won't because if I do God will <strike me with lightening, give me a toothache, send me to hell, whatever> or the second part would have to be "I won't steal because my parents would be disappointed in me."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure why following a pithy saying like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would necessarily be any more well thought out than following "God doesn't want me to hit people."
I think, again, it would depend on motivation. If you're following the pithy saying because you believe that following the pithy sayings of some book is required by someone standing over your shoulder, that's no more mature than not hitting people because you believe someone's standing over your shoulder.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: When people say "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God wouldn't have wanted me to" shows that they do not understand why God considers it bad to cause violence in the first place. It is equivalent to a child thinking "I won't steal because my parents will spank me." It shows a lack of understanding about the actual principles behind the morals. I think that to understand the moral code of the Bible requires understanding the reasons why Jesus did what he did, and I think Jesus summarizes that moral code very simply with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The Golden Rule may not be everything the Bible has to say about morality but it certainly provides a very strong core for Christian morality.
I'm not sure why following a pithy saying like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would necessarily be any more well thought out than following "God doesn't want me to hit people."
Why not? (honest question - I really don't have an answer myself)
posted
If you're just going off the two phrases, I'd say the first has a lot more complex/deep reasoning than the second. The first deals with the concepts of others, equality, fairness, etc, while the second is just about the desire of the a particular being.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I logged in two nights ago to see if Lisa had answered my question, and saw Rivka's little "pat pat" post. It made me pause, because the internet makes it easy to get tunnel vision; you can forget that other people are reading. So, while it's entertaining to watch Lisa fly off the handle, I don't mean to insult anyone, least of all people I have respect for. So instead of posting I logged off and spent a rather sleepless night thinking about what I wanted to say and hoping Rivka isn't too mad. I apologise for throwing my comment out as an intentional barb.
KoM still seems to think that I meant that the bible says that god is feminine. Let me be clear. I was referring to linguistic feminine modifiers only. As for "retracting the statement," I didn't invent this idea, I heard it first from a jewish woman who told me something like "in the original texts the word for god is both plural, and feminine." Years later, I saw a footnote in a Hebrew bible that said that elohim was plural, and I went "duh, I know that 'im' is a plural suffix." The same footnote says that the plural is used as a "royal we." It seems to me that a hebrew bible in a synagogue is a pretty reliable source. The feminine modifier bit is all over the internet, but I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't looked for a source to provide to Lisa. I also saw this mentioned in either a Time, Newsweek or U.S. News and World Report article on the origins of religion. That was what gave me enough to think it must have some basis in fact.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think there can also be value and maturity deciding to obey God for the sake of obeying (not from fear of punishment).
I didn't mean to eliminate that as a possibility. It probably would have been better for me to replace "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God wouldn't have wanted me to" with "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God would punish me." I meant to specifically talk about why fear of punishment reasons for not committing an act show a lack of understanding about why those punishments exist in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I'm not sure why following a pithy saying like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would necessarily be any more well thought out than following "God doesn't want me to hit people."
That's why I said it was a summary. Blindly following a generalization doesn't show any understanding either, but that isn't related to my point.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think the analogy fails because it is equating wanting to please someone with fear of punishment. For it to work as an analogy either the first part of it would have to be "I want to hit this person but I won't because if I do God will <strike me with lightening, give me a toothache, send me to hell, whatever> or the second part would have to be "I won't steal because my parents would be disappointed in me."
I intentionally said "spank". Disappointment may be a factor in many cases but there is also the fear of punishment (spanking, timeout, loss of privileges).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I intentionally said "spank". Disappointment may be a factor in many cases but there is also the fear of punishment (spanking, timeout, loss of privileges).
Exactly: you said spank in the situation you proffered as analogous.
But punishment wasn't necessarily present in the first situation: "God wouldn't have wanted me to."
Hence, your analogy fails.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, my initial one did. What I should have said was "I didn't hit that person even though I was very angry because God would punish me." along with "I won't steal because my parents will spank me." I was just trying to address the idea of following God's command out of fear of punishment. I haven't gotten the impression that anyone on Hatrack does that, but it is still an existing attitude.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag and Scott's assessments about what I meant by that are correct.
----
I don't think Mr S' incredulity about John the Apostle still being alive was offensive, at least to me, I can see how others were rubbed the wrong way.
edit:
Tom: I said,
quote:You'd be surprised how an immortal apostle would do little for you when a religion's requirements become too difficult to perform or to understand.
This was not me saying, "Tom you in particular would be surprised..." It was statement on people in general. You may very well be right that his visit would finally do it for you, but I'm unconvinced John visiting somebody would actually produce in of itself the lasting conversion somebody needs in order to be like God. It may start them on a path where they continue to make the correct choices necessary for such a conversion.
The pharisees of the New Testament saw many signs and never converted. I don't think that situation is a fringe outcome.
posted
Glenn, my post actually wasn't aimed at you at all. It was aimed at the last post on the first page.
And I wasn't mad.
As far as the Hebrew grammar, Lisa is correct. I've heard all the claims about pluralization and feminine endings, and as far as I can tell, they come from people who are insufficiently familiar with the details of biblical Hebrew. And almost always have an agenda.
*shrug* I also don't think they're terribly worth getting worked up over.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The pharisees of the New Testament saw many signs and never converted. I don't think that situation is a fringe outcome.
The writers of the New Testament, who explicitly defined themselves in opposition to the pharisees, claimed to have produced many signs which unaccountably failed to convert the pharisees. Curious, that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is, kmboots-- although we disagree very strongly about the role of sex in God's plan, I have never considered you morally immature, or denigrated your commitment to Good.
It's not something I've even considered. I don't know; I can't know.
quote:The pharisees of the New Testament saw many signs and never converted. I don't think that situation is a fringe outcome.
The writers of the New Testament, who explicitly defined themselves in opposition to the pharisees, claimed to have produced many signs which unaccountably failed to convert the pharisees. Curious, that.
OK well then we will use the 3 men who claimed to have seen the gold plates Joseph Smith translated and handled them. They claimed an angel presented it to them and a voice from heaven confirmed the authenticity of the artifact. All three men left the church, called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, but never denied the experience was genuine.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:All three men left the church, called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, but never denied the experience was genuine.
If they declared him a fallen prophet then they are saying that it was the church that had gone astray, not themselves. In other words, they may have still had their faith, just not in Joseph Smith and his church.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: That is, kmboots-- although we disagree very strongly about the role of sex in God's plan, I have never considered you morally immature, or denigrated your commitment to Good.
It's not something I've even considered. I don't know; I can't know.
No one can.
Well except kmbboots herself, but I suppose even then people cannot always judge themselves accurately.
Myself included, I'd hate to think people thought the above statement was directed at kmbboots only.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:All three men left the church, called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, but never denied the experience was genuine.
If they declared him a fallen prophet then they are saying that it was the church that had gone astray, not themselves. In other words, they may have still had their faith, just not in Joseph Smith and his church.
Precisely, which is what can also happen if somebody's conversion was based solely on seeing John the Beloved.
edit: It might rock your world, and you convert, but you may still decide you don't like what you are hearing later.
quote:Precisely, which is what can also happen if somebodies conversion was based solely on seeing John the Beloved.
edit: It might rock your world, and you convert, but you may still decide you don't like what you are hearing later.
So when a church goes into apostasy, those that don't follow it have lost their faith?
That's implicit in the claim of Joseph Smith being a fallen prophet. That says nothing about their faith position, only about their position with regard to a claimed prophet. Any affect that the experience with the plates may have produced has not necessarily been discarded.
Oh course I view conversion as being to an idea not to an organization. I realize that's a little foreign to the LDS way of things where there is not really any separation between the LDS Church and its doctrines. The idea of someone leaving the LDS Church but still believing LDS doctrine is viewed as strange but it's not impossible, given the many splinter groups out there.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:although we disagree very strongly about the role of sex in God's plan, I have never considered you morally immature, or denigrated your commitment to Good.
What if kmboots said something like "I'm not really all that committed to Good" or "you know, sometimes I really enjoy killing a complete stranger in the most painful way possible" or even "I'm good, but I have to admit that I wouldn't be if I didn't think I'd go to Hell if I weren't."
Would you really not question her commitment to Good at that point?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Precisely, which is what can also happen if somebody's conversion was based solely on seeing John the Beloved.
edit: It might rock your world, and you convert, but you may still decide you don't like what you are hearing later.
Are you suggesting then that it is bad for an apostle to attempt to convince someone of the truth of his beliefs, because that person might later change her mind?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK well then we will use the 3 men who claimed to have seen the gold plates Joseph Smith translated and handled them. They claimed an angel presented it to them and a voice from heaven confirmed the authenticity of the artifact. All three men left the church, called Joseph Smith a fallen prophet, but never denied the experience was genuine.
If I had at one time been in on a scam, and testified in its favour; and later had a falling out with the author of the scam; I think I would not want to draw a lot of attention to my earlier testimonies. Unpleasant questions might be asked. Likewise, was the question actually asked? I mean, did anyone come out and say to these people, "So were you lying about the golden plates?" It seems to me that "X is a fallen prophet" is a pretty broad indictment, which might well be understood to include "And we were under his spell when we said all that stuff, but we're all better now". (We could also note that the golden plates were not then so well known as they are now; the Mormons being at the time rather a fringe group.) And finally, although I might, say, take John the Beloved's age as proof of his god existing, that's not the same thing as taking his word on the nature of that god. Would you like to make any assertions about the moral character of these three witnesses after their rejection of JS?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Precisely, which is what can also happen if somebody's conversion was based solely on seeing John the Beloved.
edit: It might rock your world, and you convert, but you may still decide you don't like what you are hearing later.
Are you suggesting then that it is bad for an apostle to attempt to convince someone of the truth of his beliefs, because that person might later change her mind?
No, I am saying I don't think John were he trying to convert somebody would use his identity or some indicator of his advanced age to awe somebody into joining.
There is also a strong argument to made in Mormonism that the prophet cannot apostatize. Or rather God would not pick somebody who was going to fall in the first place. It would be hard to separate the church from the doctrine but I do know people who do it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Could you explain to me how your understanding of morality works is different, then? Under your understanding of the concept, is it possible to be morally immature? If so, what would that look like? And if not, why not?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
