mark

Hmm... too much.

Steve, I am just curious how and why people resolve thier personal faith, organized practice of faith, and the advice in texts of faith. -Not trying to tell folks what is the right or wrong thing to do. Not as long as it doesn't break that social contract, that is.

Rob, I am not sure you paraphrased me correctly. Almost. However, I wasn't really so interested in "the right way to interpret" so much as "How do people justify thier personal interpretations, whatever they might be?" -Just a slight difference, but remember I asserted that no one could say what the right way to interpret the bible is.

Still, I think how people develop their philosophy of interpretation is very important. For you and me, we tend to fall back on reproducible evidence for belief, but for what underlies our action and morality, it might not be so simple. Do you use science to decide whether you will be kind to a stranger? What do you use and why? I think I do because it just feels right.

That's why I'd love for Chris to tell us why he is an unsung altruist despite the carrot of salvation or the stick of damnation.

Rob, obviously the moral behavior of believers and non-believers covers the spectrum. I was thinking it would be interesting to be a believer, because you have some concrete guidelines. However, due to their source, and due to obvious contradictions with organized religion and everyday life, I was curious about the thought that underlies the interpretation of those guidelines.

BTW, I'd say my brain is built for altruism and rational behavior in addition to hate and irrational behavior.

And, just knowing that your intuition and not intellect is the source of a behavior accounts for something, right? And, as far as large-scale social interaction, I think the global economy, 100+ million peopled nations, and mass warfare suggest that we are pretty good at large-scale social interaction.