And the recorded history of ideas is factual — that one specifically developed from another precedent may not be provable unless explicitly cited, so again fair enough.

Well, maybe I should confess to believing in the tooth fairy, Santa, Intelligent Design, UFO’s, the Loch Ness Monster, and the predictions of Nostradamus, among my other beliefs, such as Christianity.

How in hell should I know what anyone else really, really believes in?

Well, the idea that morality evolved over eons has been expressed by some as fact. Call it a supposition or a theory, it cannot be proven. That was my point.

Cicero was indeed a polytheist that seems to have settled in the end on a Supreme Creator (perhaps the God of Gods, I don’t know!). He did serve as a definer of Natural Law, which was the opening argument. He also arrived at the two great commandments of (the eventual)Christianity more or less independently once he had settled on the SC, and his ideas were used by our Fathers in framing our Constitution, using very similar phrases. I do not believe I ever claimed Cicero to be Christian: he did live way long before Christ(106-43BC)after all.

What he also believed in was a Supreme Creator that set forth the rules of right conduct in society. He believed that the Creator’s order of things was Natural Law. (Ref: Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers, p.132-134)

Hence, my claim is that Natural Law by Cicero’s definition, and the use of the NL by our Founders, contains a spiritual element, i.e. ‘given by the Creator’, and I interpret the Creator to be the same as ‘The First Cause’, ‘The Supreme Architect of the Universe’, or the ‘God’ of our Bible in the OT.

So that is how I see it. We are now approaching a “which came first argument, the chicken or the egg?” I vote for the Creator!

“The origin of morality, however, is a very murky ‘fact’ since no one has recorded its beginnings and its evolution adequately. It is merely a theory.”

. . . jumping in to be a pedantic jerk . . .

If its a theory, then its more than a “guess” which is how you seem to be using it here. Personally, I don’t think you can use “theory” with matters of faith, since a theory requires verifiable testing and faith-based arguments by definition can’t be tested (I’m not saying they aren’t valid or correct . . . just that you can’t test them).

Also, how do the writings of Cicero (a non-Christian who died before the birth of Jesus) lead to Christianity? Are you saying that Cicero actually declares two of the Christian Commandments?
Respectfully, I think you may be reading his work with an interpretative eye. If you are looking for an affirmation and exhultation of Christian dogma, you can imply it . . . but if you read it as the work of a polytheist philosopher the first thought you come up with isn’t “wow — Cicero truly believes in the saving grace of Jesus of Nazareth!”

There are many aspects of Christianity that are similar to pretty much ALL theologies and moral structures. What theology doesn’t have some version of “respect your fellow man”? That such an idea is present in Christianity doesn’t make it a Christian concept, but a moral/ethical concept. The Christ is what makes Christianity unique (without him, you’re Jewish), and there isn’t anything in Cicero that I can think of that supports/endorses the concept of kristos. Been a while since I read him, but I’m fairly sure about that.

Of course one can adopt a morality one has learned to be beneficial to life. It is a product of human inheritance, history, education and experience. The origin of morality, however, is a very murky “fact” since no one has recorded its beginnings and its evolution adequately. It is merely a theory.

There is a First Cause for everything, including Natural Law, and morality, and its evolution or progression too, which is a decidedly spiritual and faith-based point of view.

I suppose that the First Cause idea is the cut, or at least a major cut, between belief and non-belief in God.

Now there’s the “leap”. Would never suggest that a blog, regardless of size of followers is a “window” into a movement, let alone a party. And I would say that for Hot Air and for Daily Kos.

Clearly a distinct minority of the public visits, let alone comments on the blogs. Additionally, the tenor of “discussion” on blogs is exaggerated to the extreme. I visit several conservative blogs and I have friends who regularly visit liberal blogs. I could never imagine us having such a loud, obscenity-laced “discussion” that is so common on so many blogs.

People are different on the blogs.

And Shaun if you met me and discussed a hot topic (i.e. healthcare reform) I bet you wouldn’t call me “soulless”.

Morality is a product of evolution. This is a fact. Design whatever feel-good framework you want around it, but your framing changes nothing. No deity is required for human beings to behave morally.

Cicero, in his Republic, defined Natural Law as “true law”.
True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…

He goes on to state that right reason comes from God, and then produces the First great two of the Ten Commandments as essential to understanding our obligations to God:
1) Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
2) Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Recognizing and loving the Creator, God, as the giver of right reason seems to me to be quite spiritual, and it is the foundation for the prescription of morality that follows.

To get the full impact of this one should read both Republic and the proper sections of the Bible, but it is clear that the foundation for Natural Law is spiritual.