You haven't given up; if you had, you wouldn't have started this forum!



I really did laugh out loud when I read this. I am going to pencil in this translation in my copy of the Bible. (By the way, Ephesians is in the Christian Scriptures, aka the "NEW" Testament.)

Only if the tattoos are on a hot body. Tats on a 350 pound man do nothing for me.

I sometimes wonder if I am different from most women and someone forgot to give me the How to be a Woman book.

What types of secrets?

I am a storyteller,and in my stories, the woman who I am is "exposed." When I was still seeking men to date, my profile was a series of stories about my experiences. Some people tell who they are, but I prefer to show who I am.

When I used to frequent chat rooms, a man had written on his profile that men can get naked and it means nothing, but when a man talks, he is baring his soul. He said women bare their souls easily and openly, but when one gets naked for the first time, she is showing trust and is truly baring herself (in more ways than one).

I told him it was a hackneyed, BS concept. He was not pleased.

So, which is it?

I don't think we can make such generalizations about men or women.

Oh, I am definitely curvy, but my query was more on the side of is "curvy" the breasts to hip ratio or obese women?

Your arguments are circular. I gave clear examples on how "morality" rises and falls with the current deity. Since deities are constructed by humans, it follows that those ideas of morality were not handed down by the deity, but what the people in charge of the deity wanted them to be. Did you not understand "a society's CONCEPT of deity" means that the deity is given the attributes that a society wants it to have, thus embodying the ethics/morals of that society?

This is why "morality" has changed. When I was a girl 50s and 60s), having a baby out of wedlock was a shameful thing; now, many women have babies out of wedlock and have no shame (nor should they). In addition, few people lived together without the "benefit" of marriage; now, it is very commonplace.

So is it moral or immoral (a word that I don't use, but I will here) to have a baby without being married? Is it immoral to live together (or have sex) without being married?

But go further back in history and you'll find common-law "marriages." Long-term but unmarried coupes in today's world would have been married by default in decades past.

If you didn't understand my stance on deity and morality, let me make it clear: no god/dess dictated morality or ethics to humans. However, humans have long made this claim; kingdoms have been ruled by it and people have died for it.

You didn't explain "reality." As for trust being "man made," distrust stems from whichever sources as does trust, eh? How do you define "man made" in relation to trust? Explain how trust factors into ethics.

As for an ethical or moral stance being something other than "good," define "good." Is that good for the populace? The individual? I will use the example of human sacrifice again: in a culture that practices it, are the ideas of the lone person standing up in protest "good" ideas or "bad" ideas?

It also depends on the person holding the "moral" control. Is homosexuality "bad"? Who decides? How can it be "good" and acceptable in one culture but "bad" in another?

And "immoral" is not a word that I used or would use.

I have heard people rail against "unjust" laws, but shouldn't laws be ethical by their nature? I have even heard people say that a law might make an action legal, but that doesn't make it right. Then how did such laws come into being? Are they good? Are they ethical? Are they bad?

Ab, I will concede that there very well was (probable, even) that there was a man named Jesus.

I don't buy into his teachings, though, so I guess I don't have the dilemma of even considering that I might be Christlike. In fact, I don't think we even have a clear idea of what Jesus taught and what Paul thought he taught.

The lessons to be learned in the Christian Scriptures are found in most religions--there's certainly nothing new there!

How about How the Chrisgrinches Stole Jesus?

This line would work on me:

"Hilda Doolittle is every bit of the poet that TS Eliot is--so why isn't she more widely recognized and appreciated?"

I met my boyfriend in a chat room on yayhoo. The one liner in an IM from me that grabbed his interest was: "Ladies drink tea with their pinkies extended."

Different strokes.

I didn't wade through all of the pages for this forum, but to anyone who followed it from the beginning, is "curvy" ever defined?

Erk.

I am, again, in a long distance relationship with the only man whom I have met in five years of dating with whom I thought there was a chance of a long-term relationship.

He dumped me twice and I dumped him once (though he says I dumped him twice). I don't think that either of us would have dumped the other had we lived in an hour or two driving time. He is in Chicago and I am in Springfield, MO.

There are so many variables in a scenario such as this that is almost impossible to say whose relationship will work and whose will not.

1. How well do you know this person? Have you met him/her in person? In-person meetings are different from email and phone conversations.

2. What is the distance?

3. If the distance is a quite a lot, does one or both parties have enough money and time to make regular visits?

4. Is one willing to move if it comes to that?

This period of the relationship has lasted five months. We have seen each other three times and have been in constant contact despite the fact that he has been to Australia, Sweden, England, and Germany. He has been in China for the last two months and is coming back to the US in a week.

I think it will last this time, but who knows? I teach and most of my classes are online; I can take my job with me anywhere in the US.

A couple cannot live on love alone: consider all aspects before truly committing to someone who is not next door.

Just don't discuss it. Your beliefs are yours. However, if you continue to attend a Christian church, you will most likely have to choose between staying and living a lie or leaving the church.

Abra and I agree; I suppose we are two brick walls enclosing a courtyard.

That's what I said, just in a lot more words. (Grin.)

I can't believe that one of my online students said that I am "terse."

I see. Dialogue closed--there are some things not worth debating, and the age of the earth is one.

I don't know what you mean by "reality, trust, etc." are necessary in morality. Can you elucidate and elaborate?

Morality does rise and fall with the concept of a society's conception of deity. They used to burn and hang people as witches because god sanctioned it; while we still have "witch-hunts" in the modern Western word, they are largely allegorical and have different outcomes.

In China and ancient Greece, it was moral to expose babies to the elements and allow them to die. The Greeks reasoned that if the gods wanted the baby to live, it would. In our society--though there is a horrendous amount of child abuse--leaving a child to die is an immoral act. In fact, in the US, we argue over whether it is moral to withhold life saving methods to comatose patients who cannot breathe on their own.





You basically reiterated what I said; did you not understand my point? As you say later in your post, "moral" vs "ethical" is an issue of semantics.





If you are asking me if I disapprove of religion being used to manipulate people, yes, I believe that such actions are unethical.





I am saying that the "moral" Christian Spaniards were no better than the "heathens" whom they slaughtered.





I am not trying to be difficult, but I often don't understand what you are asking. Is the question why I (personally, not speaking from a statistical point) find atheist more ethical than Christians? Or are you asking me why atheists and Christians both demonstrate a combination of ethical and unethical behaviors?





Again, you reiterate what I wrote. Was I not clear enough?





What do you mean by "good"? Do mean ethical or moral?

I do not turn the other cheek, but it depends upon the severity of the act and the person's intent. I find that people who try to suppress their anger and hurt often bottle up inside and sometimes, it explodes. I would rather dose mine out in small portions and cause less damage.

Also, note that I said "my basic survival instincts are still within me," as they are within the vast majority of people (I would say all, but that is perhaps too much of a generalization).





I talk "past" people all the time, but my empathy prompts me to take the time (at least off forums) to explain.

I largely buy into society's definition of "evil"; when I gave the example of the Aztecs, I do not call them "evil" if their intent was to save the universe. Do I advocate human sacrifice? No, but I know people are sacrificed all over the world everyday--we just call it by other names.

However, I do not term "evil" some aspects termed so by segments of the population: homosexuality is not evil; polygamous marriages are not evil if all parties consent freely; sex outside of marriage is not evil; even adultery is not evil, though if both spouses are not aware and agreeable to the act, it is unethical. As you see, these have to do with sex, which most--if not all--religions largely regulate, MOST consensual sex is no one's business but the persons involved.

I wrestle with those aspects that abhor me, is a pedophile evil or "sick"? It doesn't matter: a person who harms children should be locked away, at the least. Same for rapists.

Hitler was evil: Pol Pot was evil: Idi Amin was evil--there are more, but you should understand my point.

I plan to start a movement to return the plains to the deer and the antelope.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Are you saying that dinosaurs existed in the time of Noah? Is the earth only 6,000 years old?

It doesn't say "Eat, drink and be merry" in mass quantities until one is obese.

Carpe diem.

One more thing: I also think it is our empathy that makes us "moral," and it seems we are born with empathy. The moral edict itself is not inherent, but our ability to empathize with others is. Psychopaths seemingly are born without the ability to put themselves in the place of others. In other cases, abuse can blunt or even destroy our empathy.

In great part, I don't want to hurt another person because I KNOW how it feels to be hurt. Because I have empathy, I choose not to hurt someone MOST of the time. My basic survival instincts are still within me, though, and I (as will most people) will choose to hurt someone who has hurt me.

Altruistic acts make me feel good, so I want to be kind.

I have no morals, but I am a very ethical person.

All "moral" content is humanmade. The existence of a deity cannot be proven and the concept of deity varies from culture to culture. However, most cultures have similar standards for what is moral or ethical.

At the most basic level, the "meaning" of life is to survive long enough to procreate, then to live long enough to ensure that our offspring survive long enough to procreate. Without this drive, our species would have become extinct long ago.

So as we evolved into into thinking, conscious creatures (and even before), we found the best way to ensure the perpetuation of the species was to live in groups. Canines live in groups, as do elephants and other animals; not all do, but their "plan" for survival was through other channels.

Living in groups causes problems, though, so over time, we came up with "laws" to help regulate ourselves and ease the friction. Don't kill your neighbor, don't steal, don't lie, etc. Of course, we have a hard time obeying these rules, but they still exist.

These rules didn't necessarily apply to those not within our clan, tribe, and later, towns and countries. You could raid the next village and steal a wife or goods. You could invade another country and kill the people there.

Religion and deity were probably used early on to control the populace; the control certainly existed within the earliest recorded history, and there is no doubt of the control of religious leaders before we invented writing. It sounds a lot better to say, "This law comes god" instead of saying, "Joe down the street says we should stop stealing." Gods are arbitrary, changing to meet the changing needs of humans.

In addition, the priest/esses or theocracy had the extra added incentive of punishment AFTER death.

The Aztecs believed that if they didn't perform human sacrifices everyday, the universe would cease to exist. This did not violate their sense of morality, but rather supported it. When the Spaniards came into MesoAmerica, they found this practice abhorrent, so they slaughtered thousands of indigenous people to stop the practice AND to take their land and goods.

So, who was immoral?

To me, most atheists exhibit more ethical standards than do Christians. Atheists choose to follow the laws of the land; they are not commanded to NOT kill, steal, or lie by the threat of punishment from a god. Is every atheist moral? No. Is every Christian or religious person moral? God, no.

I do distinguish between "morals" and "ethics," even though the dictionary would say they are synonymous. I connect morals with religiosity and ethics with cultural mores and standards. Morals largely have to do with sexual orientation, i.e. homosexuality.

By the way, those who control the sex lives of a populace, control the populace.

I am extremely upset that my horoscope didn't tell me that my zodiac sign might have changed.