Dogtired.. that was precious.

One of my friends from Church, had a wife who developed schitzophrenia, and after a number of attempts, she succeeded also, in hanging herself. I found it difficult because the week before we were chatting.
You said u didn't have a position on God, yet 'out of the mouth of babes' He spoke to you :) Most of us have blindness. It is a blindness that has been produced over many years, presented in small sound and movie and news bytes, all conspiring to give us a 'bad' image of knowing God. "Rabid right wing".."bigoted Fundamentalists"... etc.

When what it boils down to is what your daughter said. All those things are what a relationship with Christ means.

"Truth-What is truth" Pilate asked of Jesus.

"I am....the Truth"
"You will know the truth and the truth will set you free"
"I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly"

Some positive 'word bytes' from Him.

Boaz

"its your turn to outline your alternative to my dualistic view of morality"

As far as I can tell, your dualism is as deep and as meaningful as "one rule for them, one rule for me". Your clumsy sidestep when I asked for your interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" lost you any credibility with your concept of "revealed truth" you might otherwise have had.

There is no dualism of morality, Boaz, there is simply the fact that we are here for a short time and are obliged to make the best of it. Part of this is living by a code that extends the period of time between upsetting or harming your fellow human being.

Your religion is the lens through which you see the world, and that is of course your prerogative. I don't envy you either your faith or your conviction that you are right, although these must be a great comfort to you. To see the world in such a limited fashion is to deny yourself one of mankind's greatest gifts - curiosity. I would absolutely hate to enter a room full of people who disagreed with me, and to come out having learned nothing. Yet this, I'm afraid, is the fate to which you have condemned yourself.

Religion is also the lens through which many theists of various other persuasions are looking, some genuine, some simply using it as an excuse to acquire power. The problem that so many of us non-religious folk have is that the two types are difficult to separate - hence the tendency for us to see religious conflict as inseparable from religion itself. We know intellectually that this is not necessarily the case, but when faced with moral absolutism of any nature it is wise to treat it with the utmost suspicion.

Incidentally, I have tried searching for that article you mentioned '"There is no room for moral judgements in Australia" by a Professer Meldel' but get no hits, could you please point me in the right direction, thanks.

Pericles....
All I asked for was your view..not a broadside.. specially one of pity.
You have assumed I am not curious about life, because of my implied 'one track' mind. I'm incredibly curious, but I'm no scientist. I love reading history, but not ploughing new ground about molecular biology. I just don't have the patience nor the intellectual equipment.
CREDIBILITY. My comment that 'kill' should be translated 'murder' is clear from many angles. While the hebrew does state "KILL" it is clear from the context that the HEARERS of this would understand it as I explained it. If not they would have recalled this when God ordered them to eliminate people under judgement. Also when called on to sacrifice animals etc. Further, Jesus himself quotes this "You have heard that you shall not kill" but I say anyone who is ANGRY with his brother etc etc." So, HE knew what it was meaning. I wont revisit the rest of my previous responses, u can read them anytime.

SORRY FOR ME
Puh-lease :) don't go there.

See your next post moit.

Boaz, please don't put words in my mouth. You can quibble about what I say, that's what we are here for, but please don't confer on me thoughts or feelings that I have not revealed. I did not say that I feel pity for you, I did not say that I feel sorry for you. I simply said that I do not envy you.

My point about curiosity was that if you look through a rose coloured filter, everything looks pink. The great thing about an open mind is that you can always be surprised by your own thoughts, which is pretty exciting.

As for the difference between "kill" and "murder", the picture that springs to my mind is of a vegetarian friend who always refers to beef as "murdered cow". Not everyone thinks that way. But I also know two very committed christians who differ considerably on the topic of capital punishment. One says "it is nothing more than state-sanctioned murder" which the other says "an eye for an eye." Which is right, given that we are talking absolute received truths here?

PERICLES..sorry.. the old 'implication' factor again :) no biggy.

as for your friends who have differing views about the kill/murder issue. This doesn't surprise me. I would come back to basic principles of interpretation. Contextually, keeping the cultural and historical situation in mind, the 'do not murder' interpretation is pretty sound. Eye for an eye, was meant to 'limit' the punishment and represent a just solution rather than an eye plus a couple of legs for an eye kind of thing.
Not all Christians are up to speed on some of this, but also, u will see those with differing views of scripture who will come up with all kinds of things. Those who don't believe Christ rose literally will be more towards this or that direction.

Absolute Truth, or better put "Divinely sanctioned Moral Truth" will always be open to a degree of human interpretation and selective application. Not because the idea of 'Do not Steal' is difficult to comprehend, but humans by nature enjoy 'spinning' things to either avoid punishment or to promote self interest. "Sure I stole it, but he was a ratbag"....

Your Christian friends, demonstrate "unity in diversity". Paul faced the problem in Corinth "Some say they follow Apollos, others follow Paul," He gives them a nudge about not following 'people'. There were times when he was in prison, and people preached Christ just to make his situation worse, and others out of envy, but he said "As long as Christ is preached,I rejoice".

The point I've been leading to in all of this, is not the idea that we can have a set of 'rules' that we can follow and thereby attain some level of perfection and acceptability before God. My emphasis on 'absolute truth' etc, its not about a ridid set of laws. No laws, rules or set of precepts can make a scrap of difference to a person. It always boils down to the relationship of the believer to the object of belief. A close inspection of the old testament will show this also. Even with its emphasis on ritual and ceremony, it was the condition of the heart which was paramount.
My oft used addage "New people make good government, not new systems"
is rooted and grounded in this also.
Jesus said "Come to me all who labor and are burdened down, and I will give you rest". He didn't say "come and follow this set of rules". Its relationship first, rules 2nd.

Hope this sheds a bit more light on where I'm coming from :)
I'll go back to that other post you did where u hinted I might be able to work out its source now.

Boaz, I think with your last post we have truly come full-circle.

"Divinely sanctioned Moral Truth" will always be open to a degree of human interpretation and selective application. "

This is the "make it up as you go along" morality that you have poked fun at so many times. Did you really mean to say this, or have I misunderstood you yet again?

"No laws, rules or set of precepts can make a scrap of difference to a person."

Hey. I thought that was my line. I won't have anything to discuss with you if we keep making this sort of progress.