> Which brings us to the nature of morality again - that was not meant as much as a string of yes/no questions as I'm afraid it was percieved. The question was: do we have morals because we're good at heart, or because we're afraid of the consequences of evil?

I might be willing to put it thusly: we don't have morals because we're good at heart OR because we fear the consequences of evil. I might cautiously state that we don't have morals at all, at least not good ones. Rather, God has morals, and we either adopt God's morals or we do not.

One might counter by saying that God created humans with morals built-in, but I don't really think that's the Scriptural picture. Humans were created with the ability to exercise their wills, deciding to do either right or wrong. God's plan from the first seems to have been that we should exercise our wills to be in accordance with His, and follow God's lead, as it were. God is then the source of moral truth, and humans are moral or immoral/amoral as they recognize this source and follow it, or do not.

> So, it's alright with God if you cause mass destruction and death and suffering, as long as you meant well? Or does it just work in the other direction; no matter how much good comes of it, if the intent was evil, it is an evil act?

> So God cares more about intent than about results. If that's true, can we really put Him in charge of morality in technological development? He seems to be working from an agenda that is not always going to be beneficial to man... so, again, if enourmous chaos is caused in the name of good, how does God view that?

> So, might makes right? I can, therefore I am justified in doing so?

At this point, your comments seem to be made with a distinct relish for poking holes in someone else's statements. Don't get me wrong, I'm a regular visitor at www.nit-pickers_anonymous.com too, but I'd like to differentiate the questions in this thread that genuinely seek clarification and advancement of the discussion, and those that seek to score points ala a debate club.

Sam has put forth some carefully considered points in his post. Of course they aren't TOE (Theory of Everything), and you've identified some of the possible problems with his view when it is held by immature persons. (This isn't a reference to you, by the way; I don't mean to throw around veiled insults. :-) ) But I think he's expressed his thoughts, and their limits, clearly enough.

Issy