pajarito

I'm an animal and I'll eat you if I have to.

I’d like to elaborate on this a bit. Your statement above leads me to think that you believe morality is tied closely with our natural instincts or “herd instinct (i.e. Establish conditions conducive to reproduction among other natural human functions) which some here have said developed over long periods of time through the process of evolution. As many here already know, I believe that basic fundamental morality and knowledge of right and wrong is there but that it came from God. I don’t expect for you to believe that, however, I’d like to point out some differences between what would be considered an instinct and that which might not. A feeling or desire to help someone else might be an instinct just like a desire for food when you’re hungry or a desire to sleep when you’re tired. If someone is in danger, you might feel two desires. One might be to help the person (herd instinct) and the other to protect you (self-preservation). However, those instincts or impulses are different from that “something” inside you that says to help the person without regard for your own safety. Both the “herd instinct” and the “self-preservation” instinct might be good in its own way, however, what “directs” these instincts and tells you what you “aught” to do and why (even if it’s not in your own best interest)? Some here might also say that it is simply yet another phantom evolving process just like all the rest. I’m just saying that it makes one think.

Why can't two people make the same promise without the piece of paper, especially if they don't intend to raise children together? People break promises. Granted, they also break contracts but at least that makes it more official and gives more of an incentive to stick to it. People need to be held accountable. Putting it into writing has always increased the seriousness of a commitment.

I do believe that a fundamental sense of morality and knowledge of right and wrong is built into the human. I was not referring necessarily to propagation of the species although that is important. By productive, I meant purposeful and meaningful. That is a good question. I think that’s possible as a contributor at the most basic level. How we decide and apply what is right and wrong. The nature of God is holy and just. He sets the standard for morality (***I understand that many here don’t go with that and I respect their opinions***). We are not holy and just, are selfish by nature, and do not measure up to God’s standard of morality. Only through his son Jesus are we reconciled with God. Through faith in Jesus, we must attempt to live according to those morals. God hates and will not tolerate immorality and sin. Therefore, because of that, there is a gap in the relationship between God and man. ----------------------------------------------------------- - Relations between people. - Things inside each person. - Relations between the person and God. Most agree with the first, disagreements begin with the second, and they become more serious with the third.

Why should we be moral? I can’t separate God from the equation but I’ll try and give a response other than “because God commands us to.” 1. In order to have healthy and productive relationships between individuals in a society. 2. In order to maintain the health inside the individual. 3. In order to maintain the intended relationship between the individual and the power that made him/her.

I'm amazed that this draws so much argument and discussion.

...Is there a point?...

Kind of like the Democrats (Kerry) vs. Rush Limbaugh. By the way, Clinton may not be running but he's got a whole lot of influence in the success or failure of the Democrat candidate. He's far from gone and is also a viable target.

You admit that you're not claiming validity, however, you've read similar stories (with the same validity as this one?) and came to this conclusion in your post:

I don't doubt there might have been serious straight talk, however, this sounds like a "fish story." It sounds like it might be exaggerated a bit. I doubt it was so dramatic. However, I could be wrong.

I stopped reading there. Since I don't believe that claim that point is moot. At least for me. That's cool...and it's just my opinion. The reason you quoted is just the first and most important reason. There are more. Just because it’s religious in nature doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have anything meaningful to say. It's a short article. You can make it through. Whether you believe that God ordained marriage in the beginning or not, I still think marriage, as has been shown in many posts in this thread, has become mostly about "what does it do for me" or "what can I get out of it." I think that is the main reason why most marriages fail. I've been married for 9 years next weekend and I'm no exception. Most of the major arguments that we've had in the past have dealt with selfishness and control issues. I think that if you're going into marriage with the benefits at the forefront in your mind, you're missing the point. It's not only that half of the material things you own now belong to your spouse; it's that all of you belongs to your spouse and them also to you. That's what marriage is about.

Every household should have a semi-automatic high-power rifle with several loaded magazines nearby. Every member of the household who's old enough and capable should know how to and be willing to use it when necessary. That's the way it is at my house. By the way, my gun collection does nothing to increase my d%&# size. Am I missing something?

Why should I get married? It's just a piece of paper.

Hmmmmmmm.......you never know.....could be.....

It probably originated from people doing searches on the internet. I mean, it's all over the place. C.S. Lewis has been consulted on the subject and has spoken out against it and has offered biblical solutions, however, that doesn't make him one. I think people just see his name all over the place with the word pedophilia also in the search engine return text and misassociate his name with it. The only site that was posted earlier by Newsstand that stated Lewis was a pedophile was just an internet forum discussion like this one and the guy even said that he mistaked the name for Lewis Carroll (NOT C.S. Lewis). I've looked pretty hard and can find no evidence whatsoever to support that rumor. I think it's absolutely false.

I know...all I'm saying is that is a very serious claim, rumor, or whatever you want to call it. The reason I'm defending this position is mainly due to the fact that it would literally astound me if it was true. It seems that outrageous to me. I think that, if it has no basis (which I'm very certain that it doesn't), then a rumor such as that shouldn't be perpetuated. Just my opinion. Not trying to get into a heated argument with anyone.

Like I said, though, I could say the same thing about anyone here. You don't know if it is true or not...You can only GUESS it's not true based on what you know of the person. Your knowledge does not make it false either. By the way, you don't think "Peaceful Jeffrey" was trying to slander the guy? Does anyone have credible evidence of the claim?

Ok...but I still say even hinting that C.S. Lewis, of all people, would be involved in pedophilia is preposterous. Not saying you made the accusation. I'm just saying that is a very cruel and completely unfounded attack on his character. You have to wonder about the motives of such an attack. It's very ridiculous. I mean, I could start that kind of rumor in the same fashion about anyone here. I don’t need proof. I just throw it around until public opinion is affected about a person.

I guess not if you have some basis for asking in the first place. Many people throw around baseless accusations just because they don't like someone or don't like what they stand for (i.e. I heard Hillary Clinton is really a bitch and is probably a bull dyke lesbian) in an attempt to discredit their character.

He's spoken about pedophilia. That doesn't make him one. If you just want to do a play on words with me, I guess my answer to your question, "Wasn't C.S. Lewis a pedophile??", is no. He is, in fact, a much respected Christian apologist among other things. I like his writings. That's why I go to bat for him. "Slinging" baseless accusations around is wrong.

Got proof?

Huhh...? I'm pretty sure not. From my book: Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963) was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably the most influential Christian writer of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English literature at Oxford University until 1954 when he was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. His major contribution in literary criticism, children's literature, fantasy literature, and popular theology brought him international renown and acclaim. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include The Chronicles of Narnia, Out of the Silent Planet, The Four Loves, The Screw-tape Letters, and Mere Christianity.

I think it's very important to be able to express yourself well especially when you're in a high position of authority such as the President. I also think that person should possess qualities such as honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness. Of the two, I'd choose the latter as the most important. I can deal with a few verbal blunders as long as I "believe" the person and think that, in his heart, he has the best interests of the country in mind (GWB). I can't deal with a person who doesn't but can feed you a line of bullshit very eloquently (Clinton). The ideal, of course, would be someone who is trustworthy and could also speak very well (Reagan).

uhhh....thank ya....thank ya very much!