Politics and Religion

[Huckleberry]

But why?

That’s the question I’m asking.

If we’re just an accident then all of your talk of how things make you feel are merely random chemical reactions that happen in your brain due to the randomness of nature.

Because suffering exists whether the universe has a designer or not. If I hit you with a hammer, the pain isn't less real because our brains run on chemical reactions.

I don't see why "it's only chemistry" means our experiences don't matter. Every thought you have, including your belief in God, depends on chemical activity in your brain. That doesn't make it meaningless. Not to me, anyway.

To me, morality is about how conscious beings affect one another. We shouldn't need a supernatural reason to recognize that reducing unnecessary suffering is better than causing it.

 

[AWRTR]

Is this is a vision into what is going to happen to this board when AI completely takes over?

I didn't have time to read every state constitution from the 1770's. I knew the generalities of what they said and used AI to aggregate the detailed information.

 

[JDCrimson]

Because suffering exists whether the universe has a designer or not. If I hit you with a hammer, the pain isn't less real because our brains run on chemical reactions.

I don't see why "it's only chemistry" means our experiences don't matter. Every thought you have, including your belief in God, depends on chemical activity in your brain. That doesn't make it meaningless. Not to me, anyway.

To me, morality is about how conscious beings affect one another. We shouldn't need a supernatural reason to recognize that reducing unnecessary suffering is better than causing it.

The innate longing for morality and consideration of the harm to others is what differentiates us from animals who live with a breed and survive mentality. The continual pursuit of knowledge is an exercise of this innate longing. This innate longing, imo, comes from a supreme being, not a which one but The One. The religions of the world exist to try to give context to his image and our innate longing. Most religions have common themes that include morality and concern for others. Just because you reject religion doesn't mean you dont a faithful desire, you do because you search for meaning to your life and you do want a society that respects life. The animal kingdom largely doesnt have this motive.

Even without The Bible or other religious texts, if one just meditated on his existence and the world we live you would likely arrive that a supreme being existing outside time and space set all this into motion. With what we know about physics and chemistry, you dont get what we have with some random big bang.

 

[AWRTR]

I don’t think morality is particularly valid when it depends on reward or punishment. If the only reason someone does the right thing is because they believe a god is watching or judging them, that is not a higher morality. That is obedience under threat.

I think basic morality comes from empathy, reason, human dignity, reciprocity, social instincts, and concern for suffering. People know cruelty is wrong because suffering is real. They know honesty matters because trust matters. They know restraint matters because unchecked power is dangerous.

Human beings have to live together, raise families, build trust, and cooperate. Those things require moral rules whether everyone shares the same religion or not. People don’t need fear of divine reward or punishment to recognize basic human values.

The Biblical principle isn't just punishment. It's a call to live for a higher calling. Something outside of ourselves and our own selfish desires. The idea of judgment does play a role, but the idea of God that lays out right and wrong and what that looks like and makes Himself available to us by going as far as death on a cross. A Christians life should be lived in response to that.

You should go check out some history. Man hasn't exactly used the standards you are laying out across history. History is full of people, leaders, and civilizations doing the exact opposite. The morality you are espousing comes from a combination of Judeo-Christian ethics and Enlightenment philosophy. Many of the Enlightenment's ideas were secularized versions of Christian thought.

You are unintentionally making my point for me. The moral rules you are speaking of are a result of the effect of the dominance of Christian values in the US and the Western world as a whole. Whether someone was a Christian or not the dominance of that worldview pushed everyone down certain moral roads. This isn't a perfect process because humans are a flawed rebellious group, but you can see the progress of applying these ethics moving us in a positive direction over time as a culture. The civil rights movement is a great example of this.

Ben Shapiro was on Real Time with Bill Maher and told Maher he was "born morally on third base and he thought he hit a triple" because his morality was just a rip off of Judeo-Christian values that left out the source. That's what your post is.

All the things you referenced as being where morality comes from have no grounding outside of you think they are good from your point of view. Why is what you say we should base morality on better than any other basis from any other time or culture? I think you are coming to the right conclusion you just have no basis for your conclusion other than I said so. Why was Genghis Khan wrong in his conquests and massacres? Why were the Muslim Caliphates wrong to come storming out of the Arabian desert and massacre people and destroy entire nations? You may say because human suffering is wrong. I agree with you, but if someone says human suffering is good if it gets me what I want why fundamentally are they wrong and you are right? What is your morality based in besides feelings? You might say your morality will make the civilization function better, but the Caliphates seemed to be very successful for a long time. The Chinese Communist Party seems to be putting together a pretty successful run without putting much of your morality into practice. The end of the problem is you are on third base and you hit no triple.

 

[AWRTR]

I don't see why being the product of evolution makes morality meaningless. Our brains may operate through chemistry, but love, suffering, compassion, and cruelty are still real experiences. That's enough for me to say some ways of treating people are better than others. Some may see it differently.

Will it matter a billion years from now? Certainly not. But how I treat others now matters to me (and to them). There doesn't have to be some grand design. If someone is moral only because of their religion, are they truly moral?

It doesn't make morality meaningless, but it does mean that no one version is any more right than another. Your version and Hitler's are equally valid from a logical and philosophical point of view. I like your view better, but that's because I embrace the ethics of Christianity just like you do, but you do so without the Creator that sets the standards of what is right and wrong.

You also seem pretty taken with the idea that people only obey because of the idea of punishment. A strict adherent of Christianity will tell you that's not the only or even driving force behind their actions. It's about the relationship between man and God and what God has done for us that drives us to obey. You are building a straw man.

You say at the end if someone is truly moral only because of religion are they truly moral. Catchy talking point. I would counter by saying you have no basis for your morals. They are simply your feelings. You are operating off vibes.

 

[JDCrimson]

Religion seeks to address what happens in the afterlife. You can say you dont believe in afterlife, and that's your prerogative. But just because you do t believe in afterlife doesnt mean there isn't a supreme being that set into motion our existence.

If being honest, everyone has contemplated their existence in the afterlife, even for a moment maybe the moment was right before their death, maybe years earlier. People may deny afterlife and that's their prerogative. But our souls long for peace, rest, and restoration. Religions say this is achieved through either faith or good works or maybe both.

The beauty of our country, constitution, and government is that we should be free to figure this out for ourselves.

 

[Huckleberry]

@AWRTR and @JDCrimson, you (and I’d guess most people here) believe in a Supreme Being, and I don’t. I’m sure we’ve heard all the arguments one way or the other, so there’s little likelihood of changing any minds. I believe the roots of human morals likely began millions of years ago in our primate ancestors, and you seem convinced they came from the Judeo-Christian God.

Fair enough. At this point, we’re just talking past each other.

In the end, our moral perspectives are probably similar enough that it doesn’t really matter who’s right. As long as the federal government protects those same basic ideals without endorsing religion, it doesn’t make much difference.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Because suffering exists whether the universe has a designer or not. If I hit you with a hammer, the pain isn't less real because our brains run on chemical reactions.

I don't see why "it's only chemistry" means our experiences don't matter. Every thought you have, including your belief in God, depends on chemical activity in your brain. That doesn't make it meaningless. Not to me, anyway.

To me, morality is about how conscious beings affect one another. We shouldn't need a supernatural reason to recognize that reducing unnecessary suffering is better than causing it.

If it’s all just accidental, then you or I mean no more than the frog, turkey, or cat outside. They don’t live by any moral - nature is beyond brutal 99.99% of the time. That’s what simple chemical reactions looks like.

We innately feel that humans are valuable - because we know we’re different than the animals.

If there is no objective morality, then it’s all relative.

C. S. Lewis and 8 Reasons for Believing in Objective Morality — Moral Apologetics

The cornerstone of the moral argument is the existence of an objective moral standard. If there really is a standard of right and wrong that holds true regardless of our opinions and emotions, then the moral argument has the ability to convince. However, apart from the existence of such an objective

www.moralapologetics.com

 

[crimsonaudio]

I believe the roots of human morals likely began millions of years ago in our primate ancestors

So you think it’s passed down genetically? And somehow we’re the only primates who live under a genetic moral law?

 

[Huckleberry]

If it’s all just accidental, then you or I mean no more than the frog, turkey, or cat outside. They don’t live by any moral - nature is beyond brutal 99.99% of the time. That’s what simple chemical reactions looks like.

We innately feel that humans are valuable - because we know we’re different than the animals. If there is no objective morality, then it’s all relative.

“Mean no more” to whom? Meaning and value do not have to be assigned by the universe to be real to us. Do we matter in some universal sense? I see no reason to think so, though I understand why people want to believe we do.

And no, I don’t believe there is a universal objective morality written into existence across the stars. What we might call objective morality developed as humans evolved and learned to live together, reduce suffering, and make social life possible. No supernatural cause needed.

We also see some of its basic building blocks in other animals. Chimpanzees and bonobos comfort distressed group members, and other social animals show cooperation, attachment, reciprocity, and sensitivity to unfair treatment. Humans took those tendencies much further through language, culture, and reason.

So you think it’s passed down genetically? And somehow we’re the only primates who live under a genetic moral law?

I’m not saying there’s a morality gene or that a full moral code gets passed down genetically. I’m saying genes can influence traits like empathy, cooperation, self-control, attachment, and concern for others, all of which help make morality possible. And as I said above, we do see some of those traits in other primates and social animals.

 

[AWRTR]

@AWRTR and @JDCrimson, you (and I’d guess most people here) believe in a Supreme Being, and I don’t. I’m sure we’ve heard all the arguments one way or the other, so there’s little likelihood of changing any minds. I believe the roots of human morals likely began millions of years ago in our primate ancestors, and you seem convinced they came from the Judeo-Christian God.

Fair enough. At this point, we’re just talking past each other.

In the end, our moral perspectives are probably similar enough that it doesn’t really matter who’s right. As long as the federal government protects those same basic ideals without endorsing religion, it doesn’t make much difference.

We aren't talking past each other. You haven't dealt with the questions you are being asked.

What if the federal government changes? What if a government is elected or if those in power just decide to do something different? They have a different moral code to enforce that the one we have agreed upon in the past. What if they don't want to follow their primate ancestors programing anymore? It's all just chemicals. Their chemicals just want to do something different now. We are evolving after all. That ok with you?

Let's have a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a king. The country I rule has been based in the same kind of thinking and moral code you endorse. I want to do something different. I want to go with a might makes right philosophy like ancient Babylon. If we can take it we should. Our highest duty is to each other in our families and then to a lesser extent within our nation. If we can take our neighbors land, resources, and even take slaves we should do it because that will make us more powerful, prosperous, and safe. How do you argue that I shouldn't do that? I can just look at you and say I've evolved differently and I think this is the way to go. Change my mind using your philosophy.

This is how logic and philosophy work. When you detach from absolute truth and morality you can't ground rights in anything outside of the human mind so they are malleable. The scenario above is how humans have worked for the vast majority of our history, and many are still operating that way today. We tend to give into our baser instincts which are far from compassionate. Judeo-Christian morals and ethics grounded in a Creator above us that exists outside of space, time, and matter has been a great restraining force and led to the world you live in. We have never gotten it fully right because we are flawed and imperfect, but it's the best we have ever had. When you detach from that foundation all bets are off. That's what the USSR and the CCP did and it led to more deaths than Hitler could have ever dreamed of.

 

[Huckleberry]

We aren't talking past each other. You haven't dealt with the questions you are being asked.

What if the federal government changes? What if a government is elected or if those in power just decide to do something different? They have a different moral code to enforce that the one we have agreed upon in the past. What if they don't want to follow their primate ancestors programing anymore? It's all just chemicals. Their chemicals just want to do something different now. We are evolving after all. That ok with you?

Let's have a thought experiment. Let's say I'm a king. The country I rule has been based in the same kind of thinking and moral code you endorse. I want to do something different. I want to go with a might makes right philosophy like ancient Babylon. If we can take it we should. Our highest duty is to each other in our families and then to a lesser extent within our nation. If we can take our neighbors land, resources, and even take slaves we should do it because that will make us more powerful, prosperous, and safe. How do you argue that I shouldn't do that? I can just look at you and say I've evolved differently and I think this is the way to go. Change my mind using your philosophy.

This is how logic and philosophy work. When you detach from absolute truth and morality you can't ground rights in anything outside of the human mind so they are malleable. The scenario above is how humans have worked for the vast majority of our history, and many are still operating that way today. We tend to give into our baser instincts which are far from compassionate. Judeo-Christian morals and ethics grounded in a Creator above us that exists outside of space, time, and matter has been a great restraining force and led to the world you live in. We have never gotten it fully right because we are flawed and imperfect, but it's the best we have ever had. When you detach from that foundation all bets are off. That's what the USSR and the CCP did and it led to more deaths than Hitler could have ever dreamed of.

You’re not responding to what I actually said. I said the roots of morality likely developed through evolution. I did not say every moral judgment is genetically programmed or that anyone can justify cruelty by claiming to have “evolved differently.” That is a caricature of my position.

Evolution may help explain why humans developed empathy, cooperation, and concern for others. Human moral systems were then shaped by reason, culture, experience, and the consequences of our actions.

Your king could say his brain chemistry led him to want slavery and conquest. Every thought and desire has some physical basis in the brain, including your belief in God. That does not make every thought equally reasonable or every desire morally acceptable. Most human beings do not simply act on whatever impulse occurs to them. We think, weigh consequences, recognize the suffering of others, and judge some impulses to be wrong. “My chemicals told me to do it” is not a moral defense. He can be opposed because those actions cause suffering, destroy freedom, and subject everyone to arbitrary power. A supernatural source isn't need to explain that opposition (or, for that matter, the king's immoral acts).

As we agree, there is nothing wrong with many Judeo-Christian ethical principles. However, Christians throughout history have used certain biblical teachings to justify atrocities committed in God’s name, and the Bible itself contains acts attributed to God that many would consider immoral or evil. The useful parts of that moral tradition can stand on their own without requiring belief in a supernatural source.

 

[AWRTR]

You’re not responding to what I actually said. I said the roots of morality likely developed through evolution. I did not say every moral judgment is genetically programmed or that anyone can justify cruelty by claiming to have “evolved differently.” That is a caricature of my position.

Evolution may help explain why humans developed empathy, cooperation, and concern for others. Human moral systems were then shaped by reason, culture, experience, and the consequences of our actions.

Your king could say his brain chemistry led him to want slavery and conquest. Every thought and desire has some physical basis in the brain, including your belief in God. That does not make every thought equally reasonable or every desire morally acceptable. Most human beings do not simply act on whatever impulse occurs to them. We think, weigh consequences, recognize the suffering of others, and judge some impulses to be wrong. “My chemicals told me to do it” is not a moral defense. He can be opposed because those actions cause suffering, destroy freedom, and subject everyone to arbitrary power. A supernatural source isn't need to explain that opposition (or, for that matter, the king's immoral acts).

As we agree, there is nothing wrong with many Judeo-Christian ethical principles. However, Christians throughout history have used certain biblical teachings to justify atrocities committed in God’s name, and the Bible itself contains acts attributed to God that many would consider immoral or evil. The useful parts of that moral tradition can stand on their own without requiring belief in a supernatural source.

You are correct that a Creator/God isn't necessary to oppose a moral system contrary to yours, but moral absolutes that exist outside the human mind are necessary to ground those morals or rights in something that can be defended as objectively superior. That's where your world view falls on its face. You can oppose my decisions as king, but you can't objectively tell me I'm wrong. You would say we should have battled the Nazi's and Imperial Japanese in WW2 and that they were wrong, but your morality based in evolution foundationally and then culture, reason, and experience can't tell me why they were inherently evil even, though I agree with you. All you can say is because we should avoid human suffering. I agree, but who determines what suffering is and why I shouldn't do that. Are you the arbiter of it? Is it a group dynamic? Is it evolutionary? Is it a combination? Why should I listen to you? What makes your view better than Mao's?

You really admitted my position is the correct one within your post: "Evolution may help explain why humans developed empathy, cooperation, and concern for others. Human moral systems were then shaped by reason, culture, experience, and the consequences of our actions."

My reason, culture, experience and the consequences of my actions can lead me to a totally different version of morality, and that's fine according to your view of morality if it is taken to its logical conclusion. Evolution may have laid a groundwork, which I granted in my king analogy because that moral frameworks highest duty is to family and then to a lesser extent the wider nation/culture. It is contained within the group.

That is also seen in animals all over the planet. A group of chimpanzees will defend and take care of their own group and will savagely fighting another group. They will literally eat the young of another group. If an alpha chimp needs to defend his position he will fight and kill if necessary be that outsiders and even those within the group, and likewise others want his position and will try to kill or drive him away. We see the same thing in lions. The internal group is primary and even then it can and will go a different way within the animal kingdom. We are just more evolved primates in your view so the same is fine for us as well from a subjective moral viewpoint.

That's where your view leaves you. It leaves you as an individual with overall good morals and values that you can't ground in anything outside of yourself. It comes down to because I said so or because the group said so. Well other groups like radical Islamists have a different because I said so and you don't have a leg to stand on from an objective moral viewpoint. You have no choice but to admit that your view isn't the only valid one and that all views have equal validity even if you don't personally agree with them, which I know you don't, because the underlying evolutionarily development and subsequent cultural and experiential development, which is your position, can lead another individual or group to come to a different conclusion, and you can't tell me why it's wrong.

You were born on third base morally, you hit no triple. The basis for your entire moral worldview is a rip off of mine with no foundational underpinnings that exist outside of your own mind and personal experience. It's a house built on sand.

 

[Huckleberry]

You are correct that a Creator/God isn't necessary to oppose a moral system contrary to yours, but moral absolutes that exist outside the human mind are necessary to ground those morals or rights in something that can be defended as objectively superior. That's where your world view falls on its face. You can oppose my decisions as king, but you can't objectively tell me I'm wrong. You would say we should have battled the Nazi's and Imperial Japanese in WW2 and that they were wrong, but your morality based in evolution foundationally and then culture, reason, and experience can't tell me why they were inherently evil even, though I agree with you. All you can say is because we should avoid human suffering. I agree, but who determines what suffering is and why I shouldn't do that. Are you the arbiter of it? Is it a group dynamic? Is it evolutionary? Is it a combination? Why should I listen to you? What makes your view better than Mao's?

You really admitted my position is the correct one within your post: "Evolution may help explain why humans developed empathy, cooperation, and concern for others. Human moral systems were then shaped by reason, culture, experience, and the consequences of our actions."

My reason, culture, experience and the consequences of my actions can lead me to a totally different version of morality, and that's fine according to your view of morality if it is taken to its logical conclusion. Evolution may have laid a groundwork, which I granted in my king analogy because that moral frameworks highest duty is to family and then to a lesser extent the wider nation/culture. It is contained within the group.

That is also seen in animals all over the planet. A group of chimpanzees will defend and take care of their own group and will savagely fighting another group. They will literally eat the young of another group. If an alpha chimp needs to defend his position he will fight and kill if necessary be that outsiders and even those within the group, and likewise others want his position and will try to kill or drive him away. We see the same thing in lions. The internal group is primary and even then it can and will go a different way within the animal kingdom. We are just more evolved primates in your view so the same is fine for us as well from a subjective moral viewpoint.

That's where your view leaves you. It leaves you as an individual with overall good morals and values that you can't ground in anything outside of yourself. It comes down to because I said so or because the group said so. Well other groups like radical Islamists have a different because I said so and you don't have a leg to stand on from an objective moral viewpoint. You have no choice but to admit that your view isn't the only valid one and that all views have equal validity even if you don't personally agree with them, which I know you don't, because the underlying evolutionarily development and subsequent cultural and experiential development, which is your position, can lead another individual or group to come to a different conclusion, and you can't tell me why it's wrong.

You were born on third base morally, you hit no triple. The basis for your entire moral worldview is a rip off of mine with no foundational underpinnings that exist outside of your own mind and personal experience. It's a house built on sand.

You are right about one limited point. I do not believe morality exists outside the human mind as some universal law written into reality. I cannot prove that Nazism was objectively wrong in the same way I can prove that the Earth is round.

However, I do not need to pretend my values were written into the universe to say that Mao’s system was worse. It produced vastly more suffering, less freedom, and more arbitrary power than the system I support. That is a judgment humans can defend with evidence and reason, even if the universe itself has no opinion.

You say my morality is a house built on sand. From my perspective, yours rests on an unprovable supernatural claim and then calls itself objective.

To be clear, our sense of morality seems quite similar. You just give credit to a God that I find unconvincing and unnecessary.

 

[JDCrimson]

Judaism, Christianity, Islam all reference the same God. These religions have underpinnings of morality in them.

I remember seeing it somewhere but there is an international statement on human rights that aspires to take the macro tenets of the major religions to preserve human dignity. And I dont think that is just a chemical or evolutionary process. The utter foundation of law becomes unenforceable if my evolutionary path deviates from yours.

To me, you even participating in this conversation is evidence you subconsciously recognize a higher source of knowledge and understanding. Your pursuit of it indicates there is a higher defined standard of life for yourself and everyone. You just prefer not label your religion with a Diety. You may find meaning studying Buddism or Hinduism.

 

[AWRTR]

You are right about one limited point. I do not believe morality exists outside the human mind as some universal law written into reality. I cannot prove that Nazism was objectively wrong in the same way I can prove that the Earth is round.

However, I do not need to pretend my values were written into the universe to say that Mao’s system was worse. It produced vastly more suffering, less freedom, and more arbitrary power than the system I support. That is a judgment humans can defend with evidence and reason, even if the universe itself has no opinion.

You say my morality is a house built on sand. From my perspective, yours rests on an unprovable supernatural claim and then calls itself objective.

To be clear, our sense of morality seems quite similar. You just give credit to a God that I find unconvincing and unnecessary.

You've hit the nail on the head. You don't need any reason to say Mao's version is worse than yours, but you have no way to prove the point, and maybe in your mind you don't need that, but you do see that under your worldview there is no right and wrong or good and evil. It is all just subjective. Mao would have said his version of morality and ethics would in the end lead to a better world so therefore the methods to get there are justifiable. You would disagree because of suffering, value of human life, etc., but your argument is no more valid than his from an objective standard. The worldview you hold will give us way more human suffering in the end because it leads to an unrestrained humanity that is justified to do as it feels or wants.


"I cannot prove that Nazism was objectively wrong in the same way I can prove that the Earth is round." That gives the whole game away.

Also the earth is flat!!!!

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Whether morality can originate from a non-living being or not depends on how one reasons and thinks through it. So, as most things we like to "argue" about, it comes down to some facts mixed with a whole 'lot of assumptions and opinions.

Personally, I am a Christian, so the Bible guides my morality and worldview. I believe we were created in God's image and morality is a part of the image of God. So when we're born, we have a general/basic idea of morality built into our DNA or "being". So the atheist, who has chosen not to believe in God or "a god", has the image of God within their being. That's why someone who says they don't believe in God can say "You see, I don't believe in God and I still have morals." IMO, whether they believe in God (or a god) or not, their morality was built into their being by a higher power.

I just cannot reason myself into believing that morals for a living being can come from a non-living thing. Heck, it's hard for me to try (just to play devil's advocate to my own beliefs) and reason myself to believe that physical things of the universe (mountains, stars, galaxies, cells, DNA, etc) came from nothing, a non living "nothing" at that. It would be like me trying to plant a rock and expect to grow another rock. It can't happen because there's no life in the rock. Whereas a seed has life, so it can produce life. How can non life produce life? That's stuff that is above my mental pay grade.

Morals aren't physical, they aren't like a mountain or star or planet that science can attempt to explain. Just like love, grace, mercy, empathy, sadness, happiness and all the things that aren't of the physical universe. How do things like that come from the non living? Again, above my pay grade. I just know that when I apply the reason and logic I have within the capacity I was born with, I just come to the conclusion that a supreme, eternal being had to create all of "this". The alternative just doesn't make sense.

 

[Huckleberry]

You've hit the nail on the head. You don't need any reason to say Mao's version is worse than yours, but you have no way to prove the point, and maybe in your mind you don't need that, but you do see that under your worldview there is no right and wrong or good and evil. It is all just subjective. Mao would have said his version of morality and ethics would in the end lead to a better world so therefore the methods to get there are justifiable. You would disagree because of suffering, value of human life, etc., but your argument is no more valid than his from an objective standard. The worldview you hold will give us way more human suffering in the end because it leads to an unrestrained humanity that is justified to do as it feels or wants.


"I cannot prove that Nazism was objectively wrong in the same way I can prove that the Earth is round." That gives the whole game away.

Also the earth is flat!!!!

To be clear: morality cannot be objectively proven in the strong, scientific sense of proof. That goes for my idea of morality and yours as well.

 

[AWRTR]

To be clear: morality cannot be objectively proven in the strong, scientific sense of proof. That goes for my idea of morality and yours as well.

That's true of many things it doesn't mean they don't exist and we don't have philosophical views of them that use reason and logic. It's just that some make sense and some don't.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

(Checks into thread……gets reminded why l quit talking religion even while in seminary……likes people with whom he disagrees…..Roll Tide………)