Did you hear the one about the Dutchman, his wife, and their girfriend? They "married" last Friday in a civil union. This is no joke. The groom states that a goal of the marriage is to "not philander." But if they are led into temptation, the husband and wife and wife can always bring the additional partner in--just as the husband and wife did this time--to make things right with the Lord and all. No one, not even a polygamist, wants to be known as an adulterer.

Just about any mantra used to justify gay "marriage" rationalizes three-way "marriage." "Stop pushing your morality on other people." "Love makes a family." "Who are you to dictate what's a marriage and what's not?" Unfortunately, demonstrating this train of logic to most liberals will probably result in a wave of support for legalized polygamy rather than reflection on the foolishness of homosexual "marriage." One thinks of the admonition to keep an open mind--but not so open that your brains fall out. Perhaps we should be happy that Euroleftists draw the line at interspecies marriage--at least until they meet such a couple and feel an emotional tug to award them their sanction. Who are they to pass judgment on Magnus and his goat lover, anyhow? C'mon people, marriage is about love--not discrimination and speciesism.

Thousands of years of tradition did not happen by accident. When you mess with the past, the present exacts its revenge. We laugh at Medieval doctors bleeding patients and ancient Greeks mocking the heliocentric planetary system. They laugh at us too.

it is extreamly perturbing and perplexing how you can make strong judmental remarks about how the "left" (whatever that really means), is so stuck on tradition and ideaologies that have been passed down through ignorance, combined with the notion that today's thinkers need to make a return to critical thinking. LOOK IN THE MIRROR! You say all of this while trying to cling to this argument of the tradition of marriage?!?! You yourself are an intellect, therefore I would expect you to have at least some deeper thought about what you were going to say then this "I'm right, you're not" attitude. If you want tradition, realize that it NEVER lasts and that people are indipendent thinkers, and change happens. one argument that has been around much longer than your christan view of marriage are the words of Aristotle, "All I know, is that I know nothing." think about that and go reread some William James. For the sake of humanity, stop thinking there is a right and wrong. Truth is for the individual to decide, not for dusty and crooked polititions. I'm sure you've heard this before, but, it realy isn't necessary to be cramming a moral platform down on millions struggling to survive in this nation, because face it, without tradition there is no right or wrong, so get over it you hypocrit.

Whoever wrote the comment above, please run spellcheck before posting your next offering; it was truly difficult to read given the number of errors in spelling and grammar.

Please also note at the end that your comment was made tongue-in-cheek, as I can't believe such inane drivel was intentioned as true debats, and truly wouldn't deserve the dignity of a response.

Hey, that Victor is a studmuffin. No wonder he's got the chicks falling all over him.

Hope they don't have a dog. Might be Mrs.de Bruijn the Third.

So, are you trying to say that you HATE Mormons?

So now he has two women telling him to take out the trash? What a sucker.

I'd love to have two wives.......woodenshoe?

Hey, our Governor is a Mormon. Great guy that Mitt. A lot of people don't know it, but the Lt. Governor, Muffy Healey, is really Mitt's second wife.

Good one Feck. But Ralph might be right. Unless things are different in Holland, it would appear that Victor will be doubly hen pecked.

I say, go for the free milk and don't buy one cow, nevermind two.

That picture is insane. Are the wives twins? Is he the basis of "moleman" from the Simpsons?

"For the sake of humanity, stop thinking there is a right and wrong."

Hilarious.

If we don't have a right and a wrong, what do we have? I guess morality, values and lawfulness mean nothing as long as something feels good, I suppose. Or is that just a shallow way of justifying incorrect and corrupt behaviour?

I love my television and I should have the right to marry it!

I now pronounce you man and 50 inch flat screen.

Why are you so concerned with what people do in their own bedrooms?

Take a look at your Bible. Show me where it says marriage is one man and one woman.

And as far as thousands of years of tradition, I defy you to show me the tradition of one man and one woman being married.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

I believe the actor Ken Wahl from Wiseguy fame also married two woman. Who happen to be twin sisters..The Barbi Twins. He's the Man!!!

Hmmm, where to begin in the Bible. Ever look at Leviticus? Maybe we should go back to stoning for adultery, promiscuity and immoral sexuality?

"For the sake of humanity, stop thinking there is a right and wrong. Truth is for the individual to decide, not for dusty and crooked polititions. I'm sure you've heard this before, but, it realy isn't necessary to be cramming a moral platform down on millions struggling to survive in this nation, because face it, without tradition there is no right or wrong, so get over it you hypocrit."

OK, I agree. There is no right or wrong. That means several things:

All your spelling and grammatical errors are really not errors at all, they are simply your way of expressing your individuality.

When I come kick in your door, beat you to a pulp, take everything you own and burn your house down...well, there is no right or wrong so that's just my way of expressing myself.

Oh, I just had an epiphany: If your premise about right and wrong holds true then every other issue on the liberal agenda is moot. Heck, there is no right or wrong. I can beat up gays, litter, burn rainforests to the ground, pollute rivers, rape, pillage, plunder, lower taxes for the rich, raise taxes for the poor, ignore drowning black people in Louisiana...It's all just my way of expressing myself...there's no right or wrong.

"Why are you so concerned with what people do in their own bedrooms?"

I'm NOT concerned with what people do in their bedrooms, If they want to call themselves married and act like they are married, that's absolutely fine with me...That's not what they want. They want ME to say that what they do is normal and accepted behavior. They want societal recognition of their lifestyle choices in order to rationalize their behavior to themselves.

In the words of Thomas Sowell: "If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what 'consenting adults' do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it."

"Take a look at your Bible. Show me where it says marriage is one man and one woman."

"The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man'. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh" Genesis 2:23-24

"But at the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. so they are no longer two, but one." Mark 10:6-8

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." Hebrews 13:4

Sorry Emily, just because you like it doesn't make it right.

Where does the Bible say marriage is one man and one woman?

M't 19:4-6, "... he which made them at the beginning made them male and female... said ... a man ... shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? ... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Note that twain means two, male and female

Eph 5:33, "... let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband."

Note that wife is singular and so is husband.

That man from Amsterdam really swings man. He reminds me of a rightous dude I knew when I worked at the Post Office. I think his name was Phil... I haven't seen him in a while. I heard he was in Florida.

If I was a woman I would be more then happy to be the second bride! By that I mean second in the bedroom. That way your basically gaining at least two to three minutes in longevity, I would think? Prehaps wife one and two can come to terms and split who leads off, you know like if one has a headache and justs wants to go first and take the minute job? Or wife two wants a marathon 3 minutes so she can have a good nights sleep?
By the way has there been any studies on whether the husband with two wives falls asleep faster when its over or does he still have to cuddle the both of them?

"Hmmm, where to begin in the Bible. Ever look at Leviticus? Maybe we should go back to stoning for adultery, promiscuity and immoral sexuality?
Posted by" -Isaiahsanswer

All Levitican laws not expressly upheld by Jesus of Nazareth were crucified along with him.

Might be a good idea to learn the Bible before you denounce it.

I'm sorry that there are so many bible thumpers that rely on a collection of books written by a bunch of sexist bigoted men and really try to take it literally. Like Mr. Flynn says, "We need to return to a time of critical thinking" I don't know about you, but that actually means questioning authority and considering different possibilities. Oh wait, I'm sorry... when we do that we become anti-americans and sinners. Jeeze, there is no right, , unless you are on the right. If any of you actually know about the history of the Church, then you know of several different developmental periods. One of which was the REFORMATION. Where people like Martin Luther promoted a rebellion against the formalities of the Church to return to a more personal version of spirituality. Can't you realize that life IS different for everybody, and the conception of a master religion and dominant set of morals is ludicrous.

Morals are supposed to mean universal good. If any of you believe these exist, you obviously haven't read enough philosophy to make a valid decision. And yes, if any of you want to come to my house and rape and kill me or go and stomp on babies then I will hold true that these acts are neither good nor bad, evil nor pious. It is on the individual to conceptualize what their life is to be like and what they can live with. Truth is strictly relative to an individual. You all like to preach pro choice, (i mean "free will"), so suck it up and stop pushing your agenda on those who have different opinions. Try and open your minds to the abstract ideas of where tradition comes from and how propaganda works. We all make mistakes with what we believe because true knowledge is practically unobtainable, and yes we will someday look back at how we live today only to laugh at the ridiculous. READ and THINK! Education is not the devil.

and i'm sorry it says i'm an imposter, but I just happen to be named Daniel Flynn too.

two things: 1. wayne gro, that was the funniest thing I have read on this page in ages!

2.thats really strange if imposter is really named Daniel Flynn? A common name.. sure but to be typin to daniel flynn from daniel flynn is spooky anyway! either that or the bone and bud light crowd just see's things through kaleidoscope sunglasses??

3. how the heck do u spell Kaliedoscope???
.... I, before e, except after C??? hmmm

You know, before commenting on this, you should know something about **real** marraiges. It hasn't been until the last two centuries that monogamy has *ever* been the norm and even prior to that, while the church was trying to force it one everyone, most men with any standing had someone they 'married' for political reasons and a mistress they actually had a romantic relationship with. The whole 'normal' nuclear family bullshit is a fiction invented first by people worried about their inheritance being lost to a lot of illegitimate kids and only later became some sort of massive moral issue about what relationships 'true believers' are supposed to have.

This is not an attempt to make an excuse. Its simply fact. And what has trying to force a nonsense ideal of monogamy gotten us? People in jail for it, the amplification of the porn industry way beyond anything the Romans ever did, etc. All for thousands of years worth of obsession, which history clearly shows only became 'tradition' for the majority of humans in the last few centuries. When you ignore the past, you spend all your time trying to fight biology with rhetoric, which leads only to things getting *worse*, not better.

Dear the fake "Daniel Flynn": Pick a new handle. You are being rude.

Also, I'm glad that you add this: "Truth is strictly relative to an individual." If you are wrong, we don't need to take your view seriously. And if you are right, we don't need to take your view seriously. It looks like you have added nothing to this discussion. Speaking of philosophy: isn't it obvious that your view of "truth" is self-referentially inconsistent?

Imposter,

To avoid confusion, you are going to have to pick a handle that is different. This is not a rule that is exclusive to me. A few months back, someone called himself "Brian"; there was already a "Brian" here. To avoid confusion, I requested the new Brian to come up with a different name. This same rule applies to you--even if your real name is Daniel Flynn.

I'm glad that you're posting here. You're welcome here. But your name isn't--at least as used by you--as it unnecessarily creates confusion. Perhaps that's your point, and if it is I can change your name for you as I've done in your last two posts.

which daniel flynn is speaking?

"Dear the fake "Daniel Flynn": Pick a new handle. You are being rude."

you are ignorant.

I am named after the famed Irish lawyer Daniel O'Connell, so check yourself at the door. I jusgt found this right wing blog last night, and I needed to shed some light on the idea that there are more ways to think than your own.

As for the rest, try not to be hyptocrits... refute tradion with posibility. and question reality.

Wait a second . . .you mean imposter's post at the beginning wasn't satire? Dang, I had cracked up reading it and had a good laugh since it was so obviously ridiculous. Well, I think I will just pretend b/c his posts are both really funny when read as satire but worthless otherwise.

Kagehi, making history up again huh? Silly goose, monogomay did not become "tradition" in the last couple hundred years, rather, it has become "traditional" for "progressives" like you to claim that the history of human sexual relationships has not been dominated by the monogamous heterosexual marriage. Even though polygamy has been the most commonly practiced exception in terms of regional scope, it has never been more than a minority occurrence in any society in which it has occurred. This is for one very obvious reason (if not any of the dozens of reasons) b/c what would you think happens, Kagehi, to all the other men who are left as lonely bachelors? Hmmm, that would be quite a society which forced a huge number of bachelors to exist while a minority of men get the plurality of the women. Some serious social conflict would be in the works I would say.

"Even though polygamy has been the most commonly practiced exception in terms of regional scope, it has never been more than a minority occurrence in any society in which it has occurred"

1. Not true; certain groups in India and Alaska have traditionally featured women with multiple husbands as the primary relationship type. I've researched this particular phenomenon so I know more about it than man-with-multiple-women or mixed arrangements, so I can't comment on them as knowledgeably.

2. Even if it were true, why would it being a minority phenomenon make it wrong to recognise it? Exceptional genius and athletic prowess are also the exception rather than the rule, but we don't deny their validity. If anything, its existence and persistence as a minority phenomenon across numerous cultures and time periods would prove its durability and adaptability as an institution.

I'm pointing out the factual error here because the ideological component to the debate has already been well represented on both sides, so why bother continuing?

Hey, Ben-T, just to clear things up, I did not denounce the Bible at all. I was being tongue in cheek, to be truthful, maybe even being a little sarcastic, but my comments were more in response to the ludicrous dare on Emily's part to prove that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman, which it obviously is. I just thought that the Bible was VERY succinct in explaining it's views on promiscuity, adultery and immorality so my response was perhaps easily misread. Sorry once again.

"I just thought that the Bible was VERY succinct in explaining it's views on promiscuity"

and on slavery, mans dominance over women, war, musicians, the origin of life, the meaning of life, why it is ok to believe in this particular God and no other.

Imposter: Do you want to know why so many religious people in the US get all hot and bothered and political and usable by the Republican party?

Answer: Because people like you contanstly go out of your way to give them the impression that you (1) think they are retarded, and (2) want to destroy our tradition's basic social institutions.

Next time you are about to complain about to complain about the "Religious Right", remember that.

No, they get hot and bothered, because they know they are wrong. Clinton had sex in the white house, the republicans have given us a guy named Horsely who thinks its 'normal', not not necessarilly 'moral', to have your first girlfriend be a mule, but hates gay marriage, incompetence in war, treason in Rove, another worse case of perjury (at minimum) in DeLay, the ID movement and wave after wave of ignorance, lies and religious rhetoric. If these are the 'traditions' they think we are attacking, then imho, I don't think we are doing nearly enough to attack them.

As for my making up history, as someone commented. The women that wrote this *is* an historian, which is far more than I can say about people the vast majority of people here *or* the so called Biblical scholars, who never study anything that contradicts it:

http://www.sexscrolls.net/marriage.html

The truth is, the church and the right has been making up BS and misrepresenting facts since they day they sat down to decide which parts of the NT they should include in their holy book and which ones to burn at the stake with 'false' Christians.

Kagehi: Man, if anyone can get through your sentences, their first thought is probably: "I better do everything in my power not to be or sound like this guy."

Really. It's your boiling hatred of religion, the idea of God, and all traditional ways of life, that convinces normal, calm religious people to turn into your stereotype of "religious right" holy-war types.

"And yes, if any of you want to come to my house and rape and kill me or go and stomp on babies then I will hold true that these acts are neither good nor bad, evil nor pious. It is on the individual to conceptualize what their life is to be like and what they can live with. Truth is strictly relative to an individual." -The Imposter

That's nice to hear. Though you hardly seem one to proselytize about philosophy. The only philosopher of import who spouted rhetoric in line with you're views was mister "To Thine Own Self Be True" Rosseau. The existence of a universal good and evil is almost categorically present in philosophy from all peoples across all times. Rousseau and his followers are among the only exceptions, and as far as I know, Rousseau is the only exception of any import.

Note: And this is coming from a pro-gay marriage Libertarian like myself. (Well actually I don't believe the government should hold any control over the institution of marriage, but if they must, they might as well allow gays to get married as well.) I can't imagine how you must alienate anyone even the slightest bit socially conservative.

No Scully. I am only against one specific 'type' of religious thinker. The ones that want to convince everyone else to follow them on the basis if religious authority, consider everything they believe to the the literal and absolute truth and seek to crucify anyone that doesn't act like a Pharisee. I have absolutely no problem with ones like:

http://tildblog.blogspot.com/

Which I am considering adding to the list of blogs I read regularly. The reason the conflict exists at all is because people like you think getting #$#$# pissed off is 'bad' and we should all just pretend the problem will go away on its own, while the modern Pharisee are busy knocking the pillars out from under history and science. Almost nothing moralists have ever produced has contributed to understanding the world. More often they have contributed to a loss of knowledge, misunderstanding, pain and war. Forgive me if I choose not to bow my head and pretend that their historical revisionism and tradition of bigotry doesn't exist. Not that I have a hope in hell of convincing people indoctrinated into that world of believing facts, instead of what someone 1,000 years ago insisted 'had' to be fact.

One recent poll indicated that 1 in 5 people in the US thinks the sun revolved around the earth. *This* is the irrational nonsense that the right claims will bring us closer to utopia, instead of follow the other 90% of the world. I am not impressed and unlike far too many people, including Christians, that agree, I won't keep silent when people quote 'tradition' as though it trumps reality.

Kagehi: Can you name any important and influential people who really fit the type of religious person you are describing? Probably only a few, if any. These are people who simply reject "facts" and "science." They are "moralists" who want to "crucify people who don't act like Pharasees"... I'm sorry, what does that even mean?

Your rhetoric indicates that this is a major, widespread, civilization-threatening phenomenon in the US, and because that is clearly NOT true, this rhetoric makes you seem like an absolute antireligious bigoted idiot. This only pushes normal calm religious people further right. I think this is so obvious it shouldn't need saying. For the left who is afraid of fear-mongering, superstition and moralism the religious right, the best thing to do is stop being chicken-little fear-mongerers, intellectually disrespectful, and moralistic toward the religious right.

Dear Dan,

I don't care what you think about gay marriage. I just want to know what you think about the Red Sox. Enjoy today's win. You beat Chicago, we'll take care of the Angels, and we'll see you in New York in a week or so...

Go Yanks!

Oh my goodness. The right believes the sun revolves around the earth. I'd like to see a show of hands to see how many right-wingers reading this blog actually believe this silliness. I suspect the same faculties employed in jumping to the conclusion that the 10% who believe in the earth-centered model of the universe are right-wingers are as irrational as the ones believing that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle in a dark sea.

Scully,
at the risk of alienating Kagehi, I feel compelled to say amen.

I believe in absolute truth. How much longer will I be able to say that in a public forum in this country?

Feeling sad for Kagehi...because the truth doesn't change, and crystal clear understanding of it will come to all of us one day.

Nice pic in the Boston Herald last week: Two portly 50 year old guys with facial hair, one with a Yankees shirt and the other with a Red Sox shirt, kissing each other. Id'ed as "partners".

Is this the future? Beam me up Scotty!

Kagehi, 1 in 5 equals 20% so you should say that the "right" should follow "the other 80% of the world."

I won't bother editing your screed any further, but the above commenters are correct, you just aren't making much sense. It is clear you hate religion (at least Christianity) and "moralists" but beyond that, ehh, not so much.

Ali-G does make sense though . . . Go Braves!

I've been out of town for the weekend, I missed a lot.

It's pretty cool how a lefty challenges us to prove that something is biblical, then, when we quote scripture strictly to rise to the challenge, we are accused of being fundamentalists, "bible-thumpers", fanatics etc.

It's a cool tactic: Ask someone what the bible says about it and them exclaim hysterically "See, you're a 'bible thumper'; you're always quoting the bible to support your opinions!!!"

Let's see. The established, traditional American definition of Marriage has been, pretty much since the founding, defined as between one man and one woman. The majority of Americans (something like 2/3 by the last poll I saw) support the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. So who is trying to "push" their agenda on whom?

I personally agree with Brian. The Government has no place in defining marriage. That is a religious rite. The problem is that marriage has so many implications in our society: survivorship, guardianship in the case of incapacity, tax implications, etc. That there is no way to disentangle the mess at this point that would meet with broad public support.

I think we all agree that a line must be drawn somewhere. Or are the non-traditionalists in this crowd suggesting that a horse should be entitled to Social Security benefits upon passing of it's human spouse? Or that a man should be allowed to "marry" 50 gophers and claim them as dependents for tax purposes?

So, if there must be a line somewhere, who defines that line? The majority. As of right now, the line stands at one man and one woman in this country. It doesn't make a bit of difference what happens in Amsterdam or San Francisco (OK. I guess San Francisco is still TECHNICALLY part of the country, but only technically and the attachment is tenuous at best).

"Feeling sad for Kagehi...because the truth doesn't change, and crystal clear understanding of it will come to all of us one day."

Truth doesn't change...but our imperfect human understanding of exactly what IS and ISN'T truth decidedly does. Are you suggesting that humankind has reached the absolute pinnacle of truth and knowledge? That we will never reach a deeper understanding of truth?

The most important thing that I gleaned from my relatively short educational career: The more I learned the more I realized how much I still don't know.

Anyone who thinks they've got the corner on truth is either a narcissistic, arrogant idiot, or is in serious need of professional psychological assistance.

Thanks for the references. I was specifically thinking of times in the OT where disciples of the Lord were said to have multiple wives and not only was this not wrong, it was encouraged. Admired, even.

And yes, I did ask for references but I'm not the one who called anyone a Bible thumper.

I just don't see why this is a problem. It wasn't a marriage, it was a civil union. It wasn't religious in any way. Why does it matter?

Yes, Emily, it was not you specifically who called anyone a bible thumper. I was lumping all the leftists together for the purposes of this argument. The point is that the people who DID accuse us of being bible thumpers had ready access to your post so they knew, before making those charges, that someone on their side had ASKED for references, we did not just start spuriously spouting them as the "anti-bible-thumpers" implied. I am perfectly capable of arguing this issue without even mentioning the Bible or Christianity and it didn't come up until people on YOUR side of the argument (specifically you) mentioned it.

"I just don't see why this is a problem. It wasn't a marriage, it was a civil union. It wasn't religious in any way. Why does it matter?"

That's an easy one. It is a matter of acceptance. It is a problem not because they do what they do, but because they want social acceptance of what they do. In other words, they want MY approval. I'm sorry, I find their actions to be morally, socially and biologically abhorrent; therefore, I withold my approval. I'm not saying their activities should be illegal, they're not hurting anyone. But that does not mean that I (or MY governmental employees) should be forced to demonstrate approval of their actions.

I repeat the words of Thomas Sowell...they didn't seem to register the first time:

"If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what 'consenting adults' do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it."

HA! i'm not on anyone's side. Some may say I'm on the left, but if that means preserving education, the enviroment, civil rights, civil liberties, the arts, while trying to aid the poor, then I must be a lefty. It's still illogical to group a mass of people because their views are different than your own. I will however throw out the phrase 'bible thumper' to people who rely on a particular collection of books that were all writen in a time that nobody fully understands. This is my way of shaking you all up to get you to recognize that: 1. Just because you read something does not make it true or right 2.What you read is the voice of one man with an agenda and their own opnions 3. The Church has been corrupt and 'mistaken' several times in the last 2000 years 4. Critical thinking is our savior

"The most important thing that I gleaned from my relatively short educational career: The more I learned the more I realized how much I still don't know.

Anyone who thinks they've got the corner on truth is either a narcissistic, arrogant idiot, or is in serious need of professional psychological assistance."

great... just what I was tring to get at. none of you (or me) can claim that you know what is right vs. wrong. If you do make these claims, have fun being an idiot.

and when you hear on the news that scientists prooved something today, just laugh because causation is very very elusive, therefore so is proof, along side of truth.

I guess I shouldn't have stated it as "lefty's" I was simply looking for a convenient term to lump together those who used the tactic in this thread.

I'm sure there are some on the right or in the center who support, or at least do not oppose, gay marriage.

How is your fanatical opposition to religion any different than some people's fanatical support of it? I would never imply that the Human Beings in positions of authority in the Church are never wrong. They have proven many times in the past that they are just as Human as the next guy. But using the fallability of human beings as an example of why the divinity of God is suspect is just as fanatical as those who support everything that the fallable humans in charge of the church do.

I'm also all for education, the environment, helping the poor etc...but if you are saying that those endeavors are within the purview of the federal government then you ARE a lefty whether you call yourself that or not. Those are all admirable endeavors that are properly the role of charitable organizations, individual effort and the States.

You also seem to be confusing the concept of truth. I didn't say that there is no absolute truth. The concepts of right and wrong are very valid and there are definitely absolute truths. What I said was that fallible humans cannot claim to have complete knowledge and therefore, cannot claim to have a "corner" on truth.

We come to believe what we believe to be truth through education, personal experience, study and debate. To shut off debate by implying "I know what the truth is and, therefore, your argument is invalid" without exploring the validity of such argument is what is arrogant and establishes one as an idiot. Not claiming that there IS an absolute truth.

There are absolute truths...some of them I'm pretty sure about, some of them I'm not. But they exist and my quest to better understand them is a never ending endeavor.

Final point: The statement "there is no absolute truth" is an absolute statement and, therefore, violates the principle and cannot be accurate.

Curtis,
according to imposter you're having fun being an idiot, knowing right from wrong and all those sort of far-fetched notions. I too have fun being that sort of idiot. Nicely observed notes on his nuttiness.

One thing I feel pretty certain of and saddened by, Imposter is not having fun.

"1. Just because you read something does not make it true or right 2.What you read is the voice of one man with an agenda and their own opnions 3. The Church has been corrupt and 'mistaken' several times in the last 2000 years 4. Critical thinking is our savior"

Hmmm... 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = the fact that you must have been alive during the last 2000 years, unless you---*gasp*---read these things.

Secondly, "critical thinking" is as big a cipher as "right" and "wrong". No side says "I don't go in for none of that critical thinking stuff!" So each side disagrees on what is actually critical thinking. Were you a more critical thinker, you would have examined your position for ambiguity rather that leveraging ambiguity against the other position.

"Critical" means "judgment". "judgment" in the face of ever-present ambiguity---especially how ambiguity is resolved by "critical thinkers"---means that because we are judging between two ambiguous (and therefore, anti-hierarchically equal) positions, no decision is better than any other.

If stomping babies into the ground is neither good nor bad, then so is censoring your speech or ignoring your cause. Because you claim that there is no source of goodness or badness and end up sounding quite like Hume. You, like Nietzsche, just end up creating another dichotomy Good/Bad => Weak/Strong => Progressive/Antiquated. But what you are essentially saying is that Knowledge = Good.

And it is BECAUSE of these nonsensical pronouncements on the left in support of free-form society, that I oppose your nihilistic advance, finding myself an ever-frustrated progressive siding with conservatives, because they at least don't make obvious fools out of themselves to the extent that dribble like yours does.

It's funny that you'd allege point 4, when you've robbed yourself of anything that we can be 1. saved to, or any firm idea what "critical thinking" is with all the various claims made on what critical thinking is. Nonetheless, if critical thinking is your savior, I'd suggest you at least look into it.

Curtis: "I would never imply that the Human Beings in positions of authority in the Church are never wrong. They have proven many times in the past that they are just as Human as the next guy. But using the fallability of human beings as an example of why the divinity of God is suspect is just as fanatical as those who support everything that the fallable humans in charge of the church do."

And, furthermore, that position is clearly visible only through the lens of the "There is no God and religion is false side." So a position that can only be maintained from one's own worldview is a very dependent position. Oh, I see, all I have to do is capitulate to your worldview and the answers are right before me. How silly I was not to capitulate to your point of view---which in the end tells me that things are ambiguous because of a difference in point-of-view, no less.