"The major problem with you secular lot is you don't 'seeeee' the implications of your lack of a moral anchor."

Boazy, I suspect that most of us have a far better understanding of that than you do of the implications of arbitarily picking a "moral anchor" then assuming that it is absolute. See Foxy's excellent earlier post.

As for verses about number of wives you could also look at the conditions for being an elder of the church. "Husband of one wife" - you could ask if that means you must have at least one wife or at most one wife? It suggests to me in context with the lack of specific teaching and the history of key OT characters that the preference was for one wife but that polygamy was accepted in the early church but not encouraged. Ranked alongside being a lover of money and some other less than desirable characteristics.

R0bert

Ok, for all those who've criticised my last post, I take your point. I expressed myself badly. Of course, individuals with religious beliefs can influence legislation. I simply mean that the religion itself does not determine it. In the abortion debate, for example, religious people singly and as churches strongly express their views, and seek to influence the government. But because we have a secular state that view does not constitute the law, it is simply one voice among many.

I just meant to say that I think this is a dumb debate. Of course we have freedom of religion in Australia. But we don't have a religious government.

Boaz: "Your values are indicated by 'If 2 men fall in love'"

I quite agree. Thank you. Your values are indicated by teaching your son that marriage can only be between man and woman. I find that terribly sad, and decidedly immoral. It saddens me for both the two men in question, their son, and your son.

Boaz:" you have to be quite open to 'man and dog'... woman and horse.... woman and many men, man with many women. and so it goes on."

Sorry, that doesn't follow. In my moral universe, people's sexual lives are their own business, so far as both parties consent. *Properly* consent, that is. My view is shared by the majority of Australians, who believe that homosexuality is ok*, but bestiality is not. You may confuse the two practices, but please don't transfer such sexual moral equivalence onto others.

To paraphrase you, Boazy, the problem with you religious lot is you don't see the implications of your arbitrary, antiquated, bigoted moral position.

Why doncha try a bit of morality based on rationality, compassion, freedom and fraternity? Garn. Give it a go.

* See the Australia Institutes map of homophobia: http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP79.pdf

Aaahh bothersome :) I see I still have a bit more work 2 do with you.

You signed your own debating death warrant when you said "In my moral universe"...and that is entirely my point mate. Your post-modern credentials are quite in order there.

You also claimed that the way I socialize and educate my son morally is 'immoral' to you.. another nail in your positions coffin..

You see..without agreed values not only do we have you and I acting like chickens and ducks.. but we have the ferret, the Wombat and all manner of other moral systems going for broke to make their mark.

I agree that we 'GB's cannot say "change the legislation to such and such 'because God says so'....no, we should not do that (even though we might believe it) we can only say 'we want it this way or that way' full stop.

Now..you don't see 'woman and horse' following from your arbitrary value system, because most likely you don't find that 'marraige' option particularly appealing. But in terms of logical/reasonable implications.. it follows exactly.
If a proposition is "Behavior is not morally good or bad in itself"
Then clearly "any behavior believed to be ok, is likely". You and I are clearly different, and this is evidence of the truth of this.

ROBERT.. well quoted. Yes, leadership in the Church is meant to be very high principled. That's the biblical pattern. Polygamy 'tolerated' ? I have no real firm position on that aside from what I believe to be the very clear indication overall of 'one man, one woman' marriage.

Firstly, Boazy, I find the way you address me slightly creepy. Can we stick to Botheration? I'm happy to call you whatever you prefer.

Um, I don't understand your argument. I do believe in good and bad behaviour – I think my last post made that clear. I don't think anything is ok. I have a strict moral code. I think consenting adults – those who don't abuse or hurt or coerce or manipulate others – may do what they like in private. Clearly we don't agree on values, but individuals within society frequently don't agree on values, and culture/society/politics makes a ruling.

As I see it, you haven't advanced an argument in your response, so I've nothing to respond to.

botheration, Boazy appears unable to accept that it is possible to have a meaningfull moral code unless you have an imaginary friend to back it up.

He conveniently ignores that he has made value judgements in determining which imaginary friend to make his own. He assumes that now that he has one the values of ancient middle eastern sheep herders are somehow more credible than the those derived from the best of the last few thousand years of learning. Boazy's model "T" morality will beat your latest model mercedes morality any day in Boazy's estimation.

R0bert

R0bert, yes, I often wonder how religious people come at that. If I were to find religion, I would find it suspiciously coincidental to be particularly persuaded by Christianity. Surely, given that I was raised in a country with a Christian background, it's just a little too convenient that I should alight on that religion as the one-true-religion? Why isn't Buddhism the thing? Or Islam?

Seems so arbitrary.

And talking of things that sh!t me, you're right, I do get that Boazy is one of those people who believe atheists have no moral code. I know it's just dumb and whatever, and I shouldn't let it upset me. But it does, all the same.