Congrats on your anniversary!

@Rae, thanks!

I hope you have a wonderful time, Jill. 27 years, that is awesome!

Wow, Jill! 27 years! Hawaii! I envy you. God bless you both & have a wonderful & relaxing vacation. You definately deserve it!

Re: the photo, thanks! That look on Obama's face while he's looking at the beast is classic!

Happy Anniversary!! Have an awesome time in Hawaii!!

Oooo! Hawaii! My Dad grew up in Hawaii. Are you on the Big Island?

Hey Jill,
Happy anniversary! What an awesome place to spend some time celebrating.
Congrats!

Oh, I'm so happy for you two! Have a wonderful time! :)
It was so great to see you both this weekend (even though it was a quick hi and bye). We need another get together soon. It's been too long-- and I would love to see Jack. :P I'm sure he's as adorable as ever. Take care and enjoy that beach! :P
*Hugs*
~Natalie

Glad that you and your husband finally found the time to celebrate your 25-27 years together, Jill.

Congratulations, enjoy, God bless...

Ain't love grand!

Jill, you're such a cutie.

Doug

Congratulations, & many happy returns of the day and from Hawaii!

Love the second photo...I couldn't have resisted posting it, either; not anymore than I can resist posting this:

Agenda for the 2008 Democratic National Convention
(Just Released)

7:00 pm Opening flag burning
7:15 pm Pledge of Allegiance to the U.N. in Spanish
7:20 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:25 pm Nonreligious prayer and worship with Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton
7:45 pm Ceremonial tree hugging
7:55 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
8:00 pm How I Invented the Internet - Al Gore
8:15 pm Gay Wedding - Barney Frank presiding
8:35 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
8:40 pm Our Troops are War Criminals - John Kerry
9.00 pm Saddam Memorial Rally - Cindy Sheehan and Susan Sarandon
11.00 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
11:05 pm Collection for the Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund - Barbara Streisand
11:15 pm Free the Freedom Fighters from Guantanamo Bay - Sean Penn
11:30 pm Oval Office Affairs - William Jefferson Clinton
11:45 pm Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
11:50 pm How George Bush Brought Down the World Trade Towers - Howard Dean & Rosie O’Donnell
12:15 am “Truth in Broadcasting Award” - Presented to Dan Rather by Michael Moore
12:25 am Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
12:30 am Satellite address by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
12:45 am Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Nancy Pelosi
12:50 am Speech and toast by Hugo Chavez to the departure of “the great satan”, ‘W’ Bush
12:55 am Hillary proposes a toast to our 89 million new Democratic Mexican voters
1:00 am Ted Kennedy proposes a toast to the extinction of the Republican party.
1:05 am Coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton
1:30 am Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
1:35 am Bill Clinton asks Ted Kennedy to drive Hillary home

Cheers, y'all!

Hope you have a great time in Hawaii !
Don't get sunburned...you redheads burn SO easily !
That photo of Obama etc. is PRICELESS !!!

Jill, congratulations on your 25th anniversary (2 years late)! Have a great vacation!

The Pope - LOL it's the same guy.

Jill, what island are you on?

Sav:

Priceless!

I think I'll go propose to a toast.

All, thanks for the kind well wishes! We are on the Big Island for 5 days and then will go to Maui for 5 days.

Enigma,
“I feel that this would be a good avenue to pursue as well, but, like you, I haven't the faintest idea as to how one would do so. An obvious route would be "where do objective morals come from?" but I feel like it would probably not be productive one at this point.”

Well, I was thinking a bit about this last night, and I have some ideas, but I should try and get them a bit more coherant before I share them.

“Good to know--I'd never run into anything that stated what that belief was called. I suppose I should actually read philosophy instead of just debating it. Blast, another thing I don't have time for.”

Actually, it wasn’t even a philosophy book, but I am trying to study that as well. I never knew what a fasinating subject it is. Hey, you still have a chance to maybe take a course in it. I wish I could. Ever consider it?

“We still don't completely agree: you would draw the distinction between the action being neutral and the feelings behind it being immoral whereas I would not draw that distinction at all. To me, in a general sense, feelings are not immoral or moral. This stems from my belief that humans cannot control all of their thoughts or feelings. Since they cannot control them, to me is seems counterintuitive to say that they are "behaving" morally or immorally based on either feelings or thoughts. How they act on those feelings or thoughts, however, is a completely different story.”

Okay, now I definitely see what you’re saying. So having a deep hatred for someone is not immoral, correct? How would you answer the objection that since humans can not control their thoughts or feelings, there is no good reason that they can control their actions, and hence nothing is immoral? I’m not necessarily saying I believe the objection, just wondering what you think.

“I would answer that it enables us to draw a distinction between a person behaving immorally and an immoral person. It's actually quite similar to your anser, barring the religious element.”

That’s right, except for the fact that I think it is impossible for someone else to be able top judge another person’s subjective understanding of his action. In fact, I might even say that one may not be able to know their OWN understanding of the subjectivity of the action. This kind of goes back to when we were talking about ‘the motivation for why one does good.’ Do I only think I’m doing it for love of my neighbor, or deep down, is it really for selfish reasons? Well, in a similar manner, do I really think that I believe that a particular action is moral, or am I fooling myself into believeing that I really do think it is moral just so I can do it and not feel guilty? But your point is true, it’s just that I don’t know if any one can really say anything about any one else’s subjective understanding of an action. I hope that makes sense.
“I don't, however, believe that one should be completely absolved simply because he/she didn't know that said action was immoral. A bit contradictory with my other views, I admit, but this cuts really close with something I dislike about Christianity.
The notion that, regardless of what one does, one is simply forgiven if he/she confessess his/her trangressions to Christ and accepts Christ as his/her personal lord and savior is one that I have trouble with. On one hand, it's a beautiful and noble sentiment; on the other, I find it unfair to those who already were behaving in a moral fashion.”

Right. Well Enigma, I could type for pages on this. So now we’re talking Christian theology, so let me just say a few words to try and explain how I understand it. So you might remember from the parable of the workers in the vineyard? Basically a guy hires workers all through the day to work on his vineyard. He hires men from the beginning of the day all the way until the very last hour before the work for the day is done. However, he pays everyone the full days wage (a fair wage for a days work), whether they had been working for 1 hour or 8 hours. So the men who ahd been there for 8 hours complined that they got the same pay as the ones who had been there only an hour. But the owner of the vineyard tells them that he paid them the amount that they had agreed on and he is free to do with his money as he wishes.

So this is supposed to be representative of God and salvation/heaven. We believe that God’s mercy is infinite. The fact that someone can lead a perfectly good and moral life and go to heaven and the fact that had Hitler at the last second of his life said “Lord have mercy on me a sinner” he would have gone to heaven is only a reflection of the love and mercy of God. He may do with his mercy what he wishes. We’re all called for different purposes and at different times. There is just so much, so much I want to say about this, but we shouldn’t digress.

Actually, sorry, let me say one thing about something else you mentioned above. I love my Protestant brothers and sisters emmensly. They have done some wonderful things and there is so much that Catholic can learn from them. But this notion that all you have to do is “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour” is unbiblical and unhistorical. This idea has sprung up in just the past couple of centuries, and I think you can see all the strangness that follows from it. I mean, Jesus demanded a LOT from us. So to simply condense all his teachings into a simple formula and you’re saved does not do his teachings justice. So the Catholic position is that there is this very high moral standard that we must adhere to, otherwise it really isn’t loving Jesus. (I can back this up with pleanty of biblical references, but blah). So there is a much deeper theology that I won’t get into; this is just scratching the surface. But everything has to be understood in light of what God is; and that is a loving Father. I’ve always been very loving to my Dad, but my brother is a real jerk towards him. Yet, if my brother asks for forgiveness of my Father, my Dad will forget my brother’s entire jerky past towards him, no questions asked. So we always keep in mind that God is a Father, and interprit what he does in light of his Fatherhood.

Sorry, sorry, sorry that was so long. Don’t feel obliged to respond to any of it. Just wanted to try and clear some things up.

“It may strike you as ironic in someone who clearly prefers theory as much as I do, but I believe that theory, as wonderful as it is, cannot possibly answer to all of the realities of life. When theory collides with reality, I am more likely to choose the latter.”

Ya know, and I hear ya. That is why that scenerio gives me so much trouble. My guess is that a good moral theologian could give some compelling arguments as to why the prisioner should not kill the other prisoner. But exactly what you said, theory and reality collide, and how in the world could one sit by and let 10 or 100 or 1000 people die when only 1 could die? I don’t know.

“Perhaps a real-life example would be more poignant. I read this autobiographical account in Reader's Digest several years ago, though I would be hard-pressed to tell you exacly when.
Anyway, this particular women worked as a maid for a fairly high-up SS officer. She lived in his basement and used it to hide a number of Jews who would instantly be killed if they were found.
They were successful for a while at keeping the SS officer in ingornance of their prescence but eventually he found out. When he did, he offered his housekeeper (I believe her name was something like Ingrid or Elena or Ivena) a choice: he would let them continue to live in his basement as before if she would willingly become his mistress. (I believe the exact quote was, "I want you willingly"). Ignoring the moral dimensions of the SS officer, what should the woman have done? What was the more moral thing for her to do: sleep with the man (and since the Catholic Church teaches that pre- or extra- maritial sex is immoral, this has more implications for you than me) or stand by and watch her Jewish friends be turned out on the street?”

Wow. That is tough. I wonder if there is any sense in which this could be considred her sacraficing herself for the good of the Jews. But especially the way you talked about it, how she had to do it WILLINGLY, that does complicate things.
“In the story, she slept with him and never told her houseguests because she knew that they would never have allowed her to pay that price for their survival. When she confessed to her priest (she was Catholic), he refused to absolve her and said that she was committing a mortal sin.”

Well, the priest should absolve her unless she wasn’t sorry or told him that she was planning on doing it again. But that still begs the question as to if that was wrong or not. I’m going to be hoset with you Enigma, and I feel like a sick bastard for saying it, but my intuition says that it is wrong of her sleep with the SS. However, I don’t WANT it to be wrong. My hope is that there is some sort of moral principle that may allow for something like that. But it does seem like it violates the principle that “one may never do evil so that good may come of it” which is something that I must hold to. I’m wishing that some sort of “principle of double effect” would hold here, but I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. Tough stuff, my friend.
“I would argue that it is not considered suicide for a number of reasons. A.) It is not the person's own hand that commits the deed. B.) The person is not following typical suicidal reasoning (ie. "I don't like my life," "I would be better off dead," ect.). The person would prefer to remain alive but has realized that, for whatever reason, sacrificing onself is the only way to spare others. Suicide is a selfish act; this type of sacrafice is a selfless one. (Well, there are problems with that last statement--I could argue that a person could be sacrificing him/herself in order to be remembered or for some other selfish reason, but for the moment, I'll let that statement stand.) “

Right on. I think that’s a good assesment.

“My bad; I have this bad habit of assuming that a good portion of what I know is basic knowledge that everyone knows. This is not the first time I've been tripped up on that.”

I know virtually nothing that is common knowledge. I barely passed high school! Have a good weekend, Enigma.

Bobby,

"Well, I was thinking a bit about this last night, and I have some ideas, but I should try and get them a bit more coherant before I share them."

Take all the time you need. Sometimes things need to shimmer for a while before you can allow them to boil.

"Hey, you still have a chance to maybe take a course in it. I wish I could. Ever consider it?"

I took one my first year of college which, at the time, made me swear off of philosophy forever. That turned out well. Epistomology is the stuff of nightmares.

"Okay, now I definitely see what you’re saying. So having a deep hatred for someone is not immoral, correct?"

Correct. I would not say that it is a good thing, either, but I would not say that it is immoral to feel a certain way.

"How would you answer the objection that since humans can not control their thoughts or feelings, there is no good reason that they can control their actions, and hence nothing is immoral? I’m not necessarily saying I believe the objection, just wondering what you think."

I would answer that the premise that one cannot always control his/her thoughts does not logically extend to the arguement that one cannot control his/her actions.

The thought is not the deed; simply because one has a thought that is beyond one's control does not compell the individual in question to follow through with it. Thoughts and feelings may be beyond our control to some extent, but deeds, which are fundamentally different from either, are not.

"That’s right, except for the fact that I think it is impossible for someone else to be able top judge another person’s subjective understanding of his action. In fact, I might even say that one may not be able to know their OWN understanding of the subjectivity of the action. This kind of goes back to when we were talking about ‘the motivation for why one does good.’ Do I only think I’m doing it for love of my neighbor, or deep down, is it really for selfish reasons? Well, in a similar manner, do I really think that I believe that a particular action is moral, or am I fooling myself into believeing that I really do think it is moral just so I can do it and not feel guilty? But your point is true, it’s just that I don’t know if any one can really say anything about any one else’s subjective understanding of an action. I hope that makes sense."

It does and fits in with previous understanding quite well.

"Right. Well Enigma, I could type for pages on this. So now we’re talking Christian theology, so let me just say a few words to try and explain how I understand it. So you might remember from the parable of the workers in the vineyard?"

Actually no, but you're summarized quite well.

"So this is supposed to be representative of God and salvation/heaven. We believe that God’s mercy is infinite. The fact that someone can lead a perfectly good and moral life and go to heaven and the fact that had Hitler at the last second of his life said “Lord have mercy on me a sinner” he would have gone to heaven is only a reflection of the love and mercy of God. He may do with his mercy what he wishes. We’re all called for different purposes and at different times. There is just so much, so much I want to say about this, but we shouldn’t digress."

Still, to me it seems illogical and inherently unfair. The idea is a beautiful one and I would love to share it, but I cannot because it fundamentally contradicts everything that I know about guilt, retribution, punishment, attonement, and equity.

"But this notion that all you have to do is “accept Jesus as personal Lord and Saviour” is unbiblical and unhistorical. This idea has sprung up in just the past couple of centuries, and I think you can see all the strangness that follows from it. I mean, Jesus demanded a LOT from us. So to simply condense all his teachings into a simple formula and you’re saved does not do his teachings justice. So the Catholic position is that there is this very high moral standard that we must adhere to, otherwise it really isn’t loving Jesus. (I can back this up with pleanty of biblical references, but blah). So there is a much deeper theology that I won’t get into; this is just scratching the surface. But everything has to be understood in light of what God is; and that is a loving Father. I’ve always been very loving to my Dad, but my brother is a real jerk towards him. Yet, if my brother asks for forgiveness of my Father, my Dad will forget my brother’s entire jerky past towards him, no questions asked. So we always keep in mind that God is a Father, and interprit what he does in light of his Fatherhood."

Interesting; I wasn't aware of that. The area that I am from is fairly heavily Protestant with a heady dash of Evangelicals.

"Ya know, and I hear ya. That is why that scenerio gives me so much trouble. My guess is that a good moral theologian could give some compelling arguments as to why the prisioner should not kill the other prisoner. But exactly what you said, theory and reality collide, and how in the world could one sit by and let 10 or 100 or 1000 people die when only 1 could die? I don’t know."

To me, it's quite simple but, then again, I don't have religious beliefs to contend with. Theory is a beautiful thing and serves to help us understand the world, but I believe that clinging to it too tightly, and in spite of the evidence, prevents one from living in the real world.

"Wow. That is tough. I wonder if there is any sense in which this could be considred her sacraficing herself for the good of the Jews. But especially the way you talked about it, how she had to do it WILLINGLY, that does complicate things."

It does and it doesn't. One can do something even if one is unwilling and, from her further account, she was. I suppose that all the SS officer wanted was for her to tell him that it was okay; he didn't seem to care whether or not it was what she actually wanted. I believe the next sentance read something like this: "Tears spilled down my cheeks; I knew I was lost."

"Well, the priest should absolve her unless she wasn’t sorry or told him that she was planning on doing it again."

Perhaps I should have been more explicit: it wasn't a one-time thing. She continued to sleep with him, basically until both she and her Jewish friends fled near the end of the war.

"But that still begs the question as to if that was wrong or not. I’m going to be hoset with you Enigma, and I feel like a sick bastard for saying it, but my intuition says that it is wrong of her sleep with the SS."

Really? She should have stood aside and watching 10-12 people, who she had protected and become friends with, be turned out to face horrible deaths?

I absolutely deplore the fact that she ended up in that situation and the thought of what she had to do to save her houseguests turns my stomach. In her place, I honestly couldn't tell you what I would have done. However, for me, it would probably have come down to this: would I be able to face in myself in the mirror the next day if I simply let those people die?

"However, I don’t WANT it to be wrong. My hope is that there is some sort of moral principle that may allow for something like that. But it does seem like it violates the principle that “one may never do evil so that good may come of it” which is something that I must hold to. I’m wishing that some sort of “principle of double effect” would hold here, but I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. Tough stuff, my friend."

Indeed. For me, being evil and being immoral are not completely intertwined concepts: one can do something immoral without doing something evil. Still, I would argue that in certain circumstances, some evils or immoral acts are necessary in order to secure a higher good.

Take care.