Well Rita.... couldn't you find a hard question to ask?

Seriously though, this question is one that humankind has been struggling with throughout recorded history, and probably since long, long before that.

I am also looking forward to the discussion, and I want to thank you for your framing of it. I think you've set us a hard task, but one which will yeild excellent results to anyone who approaches it wil good will.

I'm going to go now and try to put together an answer from my perspective that will do it justice.

Thank you for asking.

Just to clarify, do you mean:

morality - a set of rules or principle of conduct ; the doing of right; virtue?

and

ethics - that part of science and philosophy dealing with moral conduct, duty and judgement the study of standards of right and wrong

Or did you mean something different. So that we are all on the same page.

It is a very deep place.... a very vague place... and a place we can overlap and blur.

For me, I see no difference, a subtle difference and a vast difference depending.... That is me the relativist and being the "it's subjective" type.  I know it when I see it, but can hardly explain it.

For me, both are concepts and can be collective (for a religion, for a society...) or personal. I am not a fan of the "all rational people agree..." kind of thing with morality or ethics. Yeppers, subjective.

For me, morality is the principles of what is ethical in a society, culture, group, religion, family.....Ethics are more beliefs to me. Both can also be very personal and that they can and do change.

The problem, for me, is that we put them in wrong/evil and right/good  black and whie categories and so much is grey.  I think there are things that are not simply good or bad  and simply inherently wrong or right. Yes, again subjective.... and relative....

Here is where my spiritual beliefs come into play..... I weigh it as in what builds up versus tears down, what is life-giving versus life-sucking....

Example : I accept it is considered unethical(to governing boards, licensing agencies, hospitals, our culture, etc) for a doctor to enter a relationship with a patient. It is, in most cases, not ethical to me. There is a power position thing....Are there cases I would say it was ethical? Maybe not... because it is a collective thing.....but there are places I might say it was not unethical to me. If the power was/is a perceived position by outsiders, but was not there in existence, there is- to me- a difference.

I know of an opposite sex couple who had attended a single session with a therapist. One single session. The one partner did not want to do any more counselling, packed their bags and left.... and the other needed no further "couples counselling". The one-time patient and one-time therapist re-met in a public place ( a play at a theatre) by accident months later and struck up conversation, "don't I know you?.... Oh that's where.... How is it going? We broke up months ago...."
They  bumped into each other a few more times and shared a coffe on one of the bumps... and liked each other....one asked the other out....
For many, it would be/was unethical and improper.
To me, I did not personally see it that way.
For me, I accept it was/is considered unethical to agencies/hospitals, etc and as such one resigned their position and became otherwise employed. I however saw no intent to harm and no harm. I saw no position of influence, authority... no manipulation or coercion...
So, it is difficult for me to assign bad or wrong to it. They did not fall while one was in a position of authority or influence... they reaquainted as two equal people who viewed each other as equals. They have been together 37 years.

I know another couple
One had been a parishioner (not UCC) years back... Their parents attended this church. They met on holidays and had Sunday service and a meal. They were never a regular or even an "adherent". They popped in occasionally. The dad dies and the mom prepares to go to a nursing home. X goes to talk to clergy about mom's adjusting to the idea. Y provides "pastoral care". X's mom goes to a nursing home. Dies. Y does the service. Eleven years pass.  They reconnect and start a relationship. Congregation blows a gasket.  Y is drummed out (likely would not have been had it been opposite sex) and becomes a chaplain somewhere. Was it unethical? Perhaps, according to the church and even some people. Maybe many who hear their story. To me? No. They are still going strong.

I would never suggest either was immoral.

For me, Christian ethic/smorals may be what a group of Christians decide it is (Catholic morals are different than United and Baptist, etc...) It may also be what a majority of diverse Christians agree on. That said, I still have personal Christian ethics and a personal sense of morality.

RitaTG

I'll try to get back later too but for now I wanted to tell you that last night I was in bed (reading a book actually )  when you popped into my mind. I don't know why. There must have been a trigger....lol. I was thinking : "RitaTG .....she's the most lovely person on the WonderCafe". I was thinking of your daily enthusiasm for life, your joy , your love and understanding  for all .

Off the top of my head.... I suppose Christian morality for me would mean trying to follow the 10 commandments. I'm still under the law...lol. Christian ethics.....gosh I'd have to think..ouch! I'm thinking about something called situational  (?) ethics which means certain actions aren't always wrong depending on the circumstances  ( e.g. Abraham lied and said his wife Sarah was his sister or I lie saying my sister's not home if someone comes to harm her)

We've had lots of talk about whether or not absolute morality exists meaning different cultures may have their own ideas about what is moral and what isn't. Cannabalism may not be  wrong if the villagers don't know any better and everyone is doing it....lol...that kind of thing. People were pointing out that  parts of the Old T. don't  set a very good example of  high morals as they debated the idea that the biblical God set the standards for  our morals,  if I understood right. You're asking about Christian morals 'tho, not morals in general.

Good topic! Good Luck!

P.S. I agree we have an over abundance  of the same old "God does not exist"  posts. We've gotten  the message many times over!

Hi Rita:

For me, the definiton of morality and ethics is easy: UNITY: unitive awareness, unitive consciousness and conscience, unitive love.

By "UNITY" I mean universal at-one-ment with each other, with the world around us, with God.

Ideally, UNITY is experienced, and one acts from the experience. Thus, rather than setting up a bunch of rules and regs, or dos and don'ts, I'd advocate seeking the unitive experience and acting directly from the consciousness of IT.

Morality is what you do, and what you become, when no one's looking; ethics is either an intellectual discipline, or what you SAY you do and are when no-one's looking.

People who doubt their moral capacities often compose Codes of Ethics and sometimes even hang them on the wall, an act that announces their true vacuity.. 

Aminius

I don't like to tangle with you   but sometimes I think you are a mystic mad man....lol!

  Isn't it possible that your church members  in unity might  make a decision ( as we've seen happen in other churches) that  we might  consider  morally wrong?  You seem to believe that all the church members would experience the same God revelation during their meditation as you do. What if that isn't the case?

  I believe we are influenced by the culture we live in (even if we deny it)  so perhaps if you lived in Iran this  at-one-ment  with each other might  consist of believing its O.K. to behead someone in the public square for adultery?  You have explained to me that one's meditation experience may come from one's own ego or mind... depending.  If you lived  in China  despite meditating  you might believe its O.K. to kill and serve dogs in restaurants and skin cats alive. 

 I mean I have a real problem in relying on the meditation experience alone to bring about your idea of  UNITY regarding morals and ethics  re your post above. It is supernatural  to the average person and people are known to have weird supernatural experiences.

Love? Eckhart Tolle has some good articles on love in the Power of Now. He says we don't know what love is. Your definition may not be the same as lots of other people's definitions.

I know not  too many people take you to task. I'm feeling brave today. Your reply is going to tell me all about synthesis.....?....lol.

I can meditate until the cows come home....fall in love with my own experience while this holiness, universal  love , and reverence for life and God  you speak of eludes me. I told you I used to belong to a forum where all the people were meditating. They weren't enlightened in their human natures more so than anyone else. What a big disappointment!

Amen!

Hi stardust:

Yes, stardust, you are right: I am a mystic mad-man.

Unfortunately, the members of our congregation aren't always in unity. About two years ago our congregation permitted a group of cadets to hold a gun safety training in our church hall. I got mad and moved heaven and hell until the permission was revoked.

Ultimately, what we think determines what we do and are. Meditators can meditate until the cows come home, but, if they slip back into their former cultural conditioning after the meditation, then the meditation was little more than a relaxation excercise. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that.

But focused, deep, and prolonged meditation and contemplation, in the nature of a vision quest, almost always results in experiences of at-one-ment, unity, unitive love, and synthesis (there is the dreaded word :-)

In Zen Buddhism—which, to me, is the greatest religion in the world—one just practices austere living and a meditative and contemplative lifstyle until on gets IT, whatever IT is. Although the nature of the experience of ITdiffers from person to person, IT is a mystical transformation. From then on one acts directly and intuitively from the awareness of one's newly transformed mystical self, which almost always is some kind of unitive awareness of and identification with the creative spirit of the cosmos, along the lines of Jesus' "I and the Father are one."

One can, of course, not impose this kind of lifetsyle on anyone. Zen Buddhists are a small minority in Buddhism and a small minority in Japan, yet their influence is far-reaching.

I think mystical transformation awakens us to universal principles that already exist and are part of the self-evolving cosmos that we are. The principle of synthesis, of universal unity or at-one-ment and unitive love is one of those. If we abide by those, then we can't go too wrong.

Then we intuit that we are an inseparable part of the whole cosmos, and from this lofty cosmo-centric viewpoint we realize that our ego-centric perspective and limited world-view was nowhere near big enough to contain the enormity of what we are. Then we become inspired by the creative power and the creative intelligence of an ever upward and self-evolving cosmos, and become co-creators and co-evolvers in this sacred process of self-creation.

Madly in love with the self-creative totality,

Arminius

My morals drive my behaviour.

my ethics drive my behaviour with others...and relationships.

ethics are complicated. ..things are rarely yes/no, 0/1, black/white.

my morality and ethics evolve...as i learn and grow in the world around me.

christianity influence both...the teachings , the study of those teachings, the understanding of the importance of interpretation, such as the prodigal son...the various roles each person plays in that story...martha & mary...

I  apply the practice of  interpretation   to real-life events -- attempting to turn to look from various angles.

This is a very cool question.

I base my morals & ethics purely on experiences.

What I see around me & the different ramifications of my choices & the choices of people in history that have made choices that effect me is some way or another.

It took me quite a while to learn what I have learned so far, & the biggest lesson in life I learned is, that I realy didn't have to learn lessons the hard way, but that I chose to learn them that way.

There are always people that are put in our paths to give us good counsel, yet we choose to follow a different path sometimes.

Bolt

Well that's all I needed to read.

My goal!

Whew! I've got the mad-man part down pretty well...workin' on  the mystic part...

What a question! I have two daughters, and grandchildren, and since they became able to talk I have pondered that question.

I think that borht ethics and morality to the extent it exists in my life come directly to two very secular sources:

What my grandfather taught (Discussion of religion was forbidden in the household, religion and politics. (Evidently an atheist, a rock-ribbed  Republican) 

What he taught, and what my grandmother lived. Love, consideration, kindness...

Those two,  If I have or will develp any good points in the area of ethics and morality thery will derive from those two.

Realizing my incredable good luck makes me happy every day, (Workin' on this genius-dom-ish-ness)

Your questionn made me try to think of some philosopher, or theologian, or poet that influenced me--but my answer, is a pretty much new thought for me, for which thanks for bringing it up!.

To me, ethics are rules or guidelines that are set up and we adhere to because we are part of that group or choose to, something that comes from outside of us - for example, there is a set of ethics that a doctor must follow that is set out by the profession.

To me, morals are what we believe to be true for us based by our experience, teaching, nature, and nurturing - something that although affected by outside forces lies within us.  It's what and how we believe to be true in given situations, and can change within us over time - it's about how we live our lives - for example, the doctor follows a set of ethics as set out by his profession, but within it they also have to line up with their own personal morals.

Wonderful discussion so far and thank you so much everyone!

Crazyheart ...... this is a compound question I suppose....

First:   I was looking for just good working definitions of morality and ethics in general ..... just bare bones definitions.

Second:  From the various personal spiritual perspectives (and please allow me to loosly attach athiesm etc to this classification) then please colour and approach the concepts of morality and ethics.

What I am hoping to learn is how others view those concepts in general and then how their spiritual standpoint further affects how this all actually plays out in our lives and decision making processes.    I am also looking at group dynamics as well but that is a bit beyond the scope of this discussion and perhaps we can address that in a new thread when we are done this one.

Thank you so much everyone for the excellent response.

Hugs

Rita

They're almost synonyms to me.  I could say that morals are more individual "habits" of conduct - what people actually do, while ethics are more like a codified set of rules of conduct.

I think the basic underlying source for our morals is the empathy we all (sociopaths excluded) feel for others.  Empathy is ingrained in us, and reinforced by good parenting.  Humans naturally feel for those who are suffering (as do many animals), and our imaginations may try to put us in that same place, hypothetically.  I'm no philosopher, but I subscribe therefore to the notion of the ethics of recipricity.  Basically, the "Golden Rule".  Yes, you can start arguing about people who don't want good things to happen to them, etc., but when a moral quandry arises, I try to put myself in the other person's shoes.  I think that's a good start.

I think Spockis53 from this forum has an excellent definition of what is moral, so I'll end with this:

No post. I was replying to Arminius. It was off topic. I moved my reply to a new thread titled Eckhart Tolle.

stardust ....... thank you ....and I understand misplaced posts and thats ok

chasen ..... thank you ..... excellent post and the quote from spockis53 is great!

That one is a keeper for sure and really gets down to essentials in a bare bones way.

I am really enjoying the insight I am receiving .......

Hugs

Rita

I like Beloved's idea that ethics are external rules and guidelines - and morals are essentially internal.

Our individual morals have many influences. These originally come from "outside" - our culture and environment, our families. 

As we mature as individuals we consciously or unconsciously examine these "givens" - rejecting some and incorporating others. The end result is our individual morals - an inner guideline for how we wish to conduct ourselves in the world.

No-one can possibly disagree with that.

LBmuskoka .... thank you!!! .... I shall read all of it and I hope others will as well...

That is a great site to draw from.....

Besphin ....... your post is excellent and practical ....... something I can use for sure ... thank you....

Isn't it so very fascinating??? ..... all our various viewpoints and how we define things??

To me this is an essential part of my understanding process ....

Lets keep going ...... it seems to suggest there may be two general contexts to explore

individual morality and individual ethics

corporate morality and corportate ethics  (and for our discussion the broad meaning and not the business one)

perhaps a blend of the two????    .... this is fascinating and it will be of practical use to me in dealing with very real issues in my life.

Thank you ..... everyone ..... I am beginning to build a much better picture and we are laying a very good foundation for what I will be asking for help with in a later thread.

Hugs to all!

Rita

The ethics of community change with the context of the time but I think that our morals stay the same for each one individually. But I might change my mind as this thread progresses.

Where  we sometimes get confused is so called ethics for profession ( doctors) which really are protocols.  Now those protocols may be based on what is called ethical reflection.  There are several ethical/philosophical issues.  For example is the ethical ground universal?  It is what we are informed by beyond self and group issue.  There is the question of the common good - ultity this works for the greater number.  Then there is the question situation, how does it inform the universal - for example not to kill but in situation one might kill one person for the greater good.  And that runs into a universal which is the standard.  Then there are virtue ethics - the nature of character and the character of the group or wider and the external good that is purposed.

Ethics is a dance of context and givens and reflection on this evolution.  It has a transcendent value that applies to all.  Morality is what a group or an individual uses for daily living and is informed by ethical reflection.

Ethical reflection includes but is not limited to religious values and the values of a society - its self image- what we have learned like human rights - civil rights.  It is a dance of meaning that ought ( and the word ought is chosen with intent ) to inform all action.

Relativism enters but is not a full ethical stance.  Just as self interest is not sufficient.  A example is enlighten self interest - would I want all to act in this way.  Pure subjectivism is not sufficient for there is an objective reality - in the very narrow sense we live in some world of ideas that inform and create identity.

Morality is age connected but an adult cannot excuse themselves by acting like a child but child cannot be expected to act like an adult for experience and education and wisdom enters our understanding.

Please excuse meis dig Rues sings!

 Let me di-semanate (whereas semantics has to do with words in an old way). Man hates semantics and thus ante Semitic is often confused with the concept that early languages come from the Middle East and King James called Hebrew a devilish language because he didn't understand. Then, if you study the royal history of Europe ... that uppidy bunch wasn't very understanding what-so-ever! Does the word suggest understanding? Do we fire words around loosely? Isn't that an odd devilishish action?

From old definitions:

Moe, Moor and other similar words from different tradition induce a sense of pool ... like the Moorish Laid-E, or the bright lady of the Loch ... the forest pool, a lake? There seems to be a collective sense of waters ... and ancient archetype of thought process much hated by physical peoples without appreciation for metaphysical idioms like emotions and th'aughts ... coming from no where it seems! Is that moor-aLs where aL is beyond in some undertandings?

Poe, ET, rod. stix: are from ancient idioms ... uprights. This gives the mon Key to observing the whole pool for exceptions to the Roue' or write of Catagorical Imperative from a few peoples perspective ... a Kant or tilde of life from limited resources. Then is it easy for a m'n to get outside of 'eMself? One must understand "M" and the paradigm!

is it possible to be above what is beyond you? Above a mythical duty!

Consider ET in a western aboriginal perspective is Spruced up as the tree in Cree or Ojiibawa perspective. Has anyone read ... Through Black Spuce? Where a tree is placed in the light there is always a shadow of doubt ... is that acceptable in the light of the situation ... a loving mind exposed in a whorled of hate ... that's chaos of the other kind from light thinking ... mostly hated by physical people! Is there a metaphysical kind eM Boo'd with Light ... like Satan, or Micaihel Angello ... man can't stand such light immediately after coming from a shadowy place under th' aliefs ... Ar'abic inititation? Have you read lately the story of Tamyr and Judah ... under the power of a tree and sun?

Now there is another perspective ... in a tree of logic ... would it stand without routes of real emotives in the entire pool? Dah Mei-end is a mysteriously timid creature bean that in the beginning man didn't wish to know ... a lesson taught in the expanse of a tree laid out like pappy Roue's ... bi ble call! Holy Bo'ques with many gaps ...

If that isn't enough consider the Islamic Sufi (sous fey) expression that man cannot understand a story unless he can put himeself in the time, space and light of the situation of the teller ... a SHOE or travelling sol' s Tory? Recall there are always exceptions for cannibalism ... ultimate parsitism where we live off one another in a closed enviromnet ... Symbiotics in some people's expressions. But then, one first has to understand a whole bunch of words in a million; is over 600,000 close to 0.666 ... a devilish feat, pudentia or pedagogue Eris to the Hebrew sort ... rising above the dirt? It is just observation ... growing concern to our blind Ness/ Moorish Laid-E. Then the "E" is derived from the Greek "chi" ... in many tongues an expression for a well-laid Ire ... sheer madness like Arm, LGK, a a remnant of the aethers ... but you wouldn't wish to know unknown things mystery and metaphysical alike ... chilling winds along the spine of the 'hole thing ..."eM" in average sum ... Dae Pool when it comes to cryptic tongues. Has anyone read Seduction by Water or The Lake of Dead Languages? Just imaginary stuff speaking of witch a man doesn't like to know ... his Ur/urs ... two powers not utilized properly ... Karen Theo! Off into the vapours I go like Ahaziah after the habitual common stuff ... 'Ahab in sort for man that shys away from complex numbers ... Imaginary stuff that defines the electic and Black Hole forces. Odd heh?

Is God and Light provided as a hidden sign on the smear of a page? That's the word and few wish to know or read into the vast sea ("c") provided for the observer ... that beyond the blind man in myth!

Ire -sh boule in emotion confined? I did try and condense a vast story ... but many will not like IT!

uh...no, and yes.

For me, the purpose of ethics is to help us organize our social relations in a way that enables us to live decently, and in harmony.  For this reason, ethics is largely experimental and contingent.  There's rarely a perfect match between all of our desires and what we value, so we have to pick and choose and make compromises.  The few things I would say we should avoid in all circumstances, such as torture, are wrong because of just how pervasive their brutalising effect is.  Whatever their practical benefits - and let's not deny that they do exist - simply aren't worth the human cost, to the other side and to us. 

As I immerse myself in The Tao, it's dawning on me that ethics are something we create, not something inherently sacred.  The reason we need ethics is because we live in a world that's unharmonious.  If the Tao is harmony, you wont reach it only by strict adherence to rules made to mitigate disorder.  This is not to say that ethics isn't important - it's crucial - but to highlight yet another reason why fundamentalist legalism presents us with such a misguided view of God.  We follow rules to govern our relationship with our fellow humans, which brings us closer to God.  When it comes to how we approach God personally, I'm guessing the rules are nowhere near as clear-cut.  To say that a certain set of rules is God-given and beyond question for that reason is the height of arrogance, because it gives a human institution meant to meet  human needs divine status.  

There are few habits as likely to result in intolerance and cruelty as the tendency to assume that we are privy to a Truth or an institution that's so sacred and true, it gives us licence to forego the requirement to treat one another with compassion.  This is as true for doctrinal rigidity as it is for the ideological variety.  

Yes, Free_thinker, I agree: ethics is something we create, collectively and continuously.

Not long ago it was ethical to own people. Now, to own humans is unethical, but animal slavery is still ethical. To exploit human beings is now regarded as unethical but animals and plants and our entire natural environment is still being exploited, and this is regarded as ethical. But I expect that, sometime on the future, we will regard animals and plants as fellow beings and the exploitation of nature will become unethical.

Ethics and morality evolve continuously. But, for me, the ethical impulse arises from the intuitive feeling of universal of at-one-ment.

Arm,

Is that just aboriginal ethics ... to revere all that surrounds the bode' ve will?

That's our environment ... ment to add to what 's intuitive .. Mir mystery!

Admire a worm under foot, some day ID'll eat you ... in due time. I hope ID enjoys what becomes part of that worm 'ole in space ... thin logic ... or just spiritual mote?

You become what yah believe ... do some precess towards nothing ... like emotions they come from nowhere without th'aught ... mystical like ... myth .. beyond a physical bean! Asceded?

Hi Rita,

Well I'm thinking that morality is a constant that does not change, similar to  truth. We may try to manipulate it's definition but I believe morality and truth withstand all of this. It does not tolerate what we think it should be. Morality/truth might be the highest form of beauty that exists.

Our ethics are a pitiful attempt to reshape morality and bring it down to the level of this world. We interject circumstances and "special" situations that enable us to cope with the immorality of this world we live in.

Within Christianity I think Jesus represents morality/truth and by coming to us he knew that being of this world we would require forgiveness for the choices we make. I think he knew that we would not be freed from our human attitude with regards to morality until we die and physically  leave this planet and maybe by setting the bar so high God created a system that develops our spiritual nature, should we choose to follow it, that enables our constant spiritual and moral growth.

I do not think that even the most devout monks, priests, nuns, are able to reach Christs level of understanding simply because one must attempt to totally withdraw from this world we live in, yet the vibrations of evil will still surround us, and everyone that is alive must coexist with it. Even Christ wrestled with it in the dessert.

Possibly morality in it's highest form needs no ethical monitoring or consequences to exist because evil cannot function in a state of pure love.

I think Christ wanted to show us that we are to attempt to progress to the best of our ability until we are led into God's presence of pure love.

Theire's no evil ... just painful lessons ... and man doesn't wish to understand and know ... so it gets mis pelled ... eve-aL ... is the sky above on alternate periods as a sighn for dipping into the shadows ... in the script you find love and thought ... and a lot of dirt for the learning.

Did you know the old scribes sprinkled clay and sand over the script to prevent smudges? Alternate minds corrupted the word anyway ... because they wished not to know t'Ruth ... only hate ... the powerful emotion that leaves painful lessons in the wake ... Phene egge'n ... chicken-aegon thing Heh!

One must get to know the myths ... what's beyond yah!

.....sorry WaterBuoy ...... I just cannot make heads or tails of your posts.....

Am I the only one???

Thank you for posting though .... and I do wish I could understand a bit but I am a plain simple person I suppose....

Hugs

Rita

Roue's a' Chere-une are fluid matters of the h'art and sol' a man made of cle' has difficulty thinking about ... whan heis mostly emotional stuff ... like genre based ... doesn't appear to think like a boel in the grove, or bull in rutte? The if it is inappropriate to speak of lovein thought for common folk ... what else is there but a creative miss't Ruth?

The Dae Mon shimmers across the waters of time deep, dark and delle IC'us! Did anyone say that IC is Love's cede of Light ... Christ ... meus tardy sown! Calm slater ... Meis-UNE. D'Ephraim'd sol' is difficult to get into! It is a mystical sign for what you cannot see in the moor ... shadowy laid-E like Tamyr. Do some research on "Tamyr" ... that's an infinite task! Like a toxic in carnation ... it'll change what bugs yah ... d'flowering of the sol'!

Well, Rita, "there's no evil, just painful lessons," is WB's opening remark. Plain and simple enough, eh?

Two possibiloities.

1. morality is believing  Mary was a virgin,that Jesus and God were the same as well as being father and son (a possibility more likely than it sounds. And you should go t church every Sunday. Ethical is the same.

2. Morality is you try to follow the golden rule (and that you love God - whjich is mossentail than if might sound.)

    Ethics is usually honesty and fairness as applied to business, scientific and personal life - almost but not quite the same as morality.  The real difference, I suppose, is that ethics is morality more specifically defined for various professional and personal roles.

thank you Arminius ........ that much I did get from WaterBuoy .......

As for context ..... well .....still cannot make sense of anything else....

It sort of feels like hearing a snippet of a conversation and the rest is unintelligable to my ear.    I would be very cautious on how I interpret what words I did manage to make out.

Ah well .....

For all those that have posted .... a big thank you...... I am gaining insight......

Hugs

Rita

RitaTG

We've a joker on the WC......Tut...Tut....graeme.......

graeme wrote:

"1. morality is believing  Mary was a virgin,that Jesus and God were the same as well as being father and son (a possibility more likely than it sounds. And you should go t church every Sunday."

stardust  ...... I am glad to hear it was a joke

Hugs

Rita

What if Mir Ai was infinite space ... vergen territory ... collapase of such space ... would that create a man of great passion ... all emotive and no intelligence?

That's like virgin! Needing something to put there ... a hommoe, or form! A Jared in the shapin' ... blak's mythin because man doesn't believe in quantum chance ... even in the infinite's-ends! Phae loute of heavin ... das duh far bleu ... distant winds ... because man didn't wish to know! Intellect was out of the quest. Ode eh?

Hi WaterBuoy:

God created the cosmos by ITself, out of ITself, using ITself, or part of ITself. Virgin birth, eh?

Das apparantly the truth ... unless we don't know it all ... there's something hidden. Could that be with all the privacy laws? Then the powers that be seem to think they know all they need to know about the daemons ...  :-) ... at nein Tiye decrees ... bent space?

From Doug Tood "Our small table group -- a Quebecois student, native Indian teacher, philosophy professors, businessman and myself -- agreed we'd like young people to aspire to the following values: ``Compassion. Creativity. Integrity. Harmony. Diligence.''
When all 40 participants in the workshop, which included a big contingent from business, entered the discussion, words such as compassion, integrity, responsibility, truth, even joyousness, kept cropping up as traits we all could affirm.
Kidder told us he'd performed a similar exercise on a global scale earlier in his journalism career. He'd asked 24 people from different cultures -- New Zealand Maori to white Californian, Muslim to Buddhist, right-wing to left-wing -- what values they could all share in a troubled world.
You'd expect they wouldn't agree on much. To the contrary. Kidder found the pluralistic group held eight moral principles in common:
Love.
Truth.
Freedom.
Fairness.
Unity.
Tolerance.
Responsibility.
Respect for life.
Such shared values challenge the belief that every moral is relative.
We may disagree about the details of instituting some of these eight values. But they suggest we're not as different as we tend to think.
Emphasizing common morals is increasingly important in a world in which technology has handed us untold power for good and evil.
When modern weapons can wipe out hundreds of thousands of civilians by mistake, when the 230-year-old Barings Bank can go down the tube because of one trader, when the human body can be kept pumping far beyond its owner's desire to live, Kidder said we need to build on shared core values not only to prosper in the 21st century, but simply to survive.

Weed killers. Absolutely against participation in war. No meat-eaters here?

Like believing the Bible, you can argue anything.---

Yeah, like loving some of your neighbors, we do skip around a lot while paying attention...and nod agreeably with about every-other-one of the exhortations in the Sermon on the mount...

I believe everyone has a personal take on the bible; it contains enough for every interpretation.

Mine, weirder than most,  I claim as pleasant as most,  more pleasant than many and I get closer to actually believing it every day 

John 10:34

Psalm 82,6

No.

Hiss tile Jew Van Nile...In fan tile, knot sut tile. Fishing in dispond - four the halibut -size - idle light in a turan slay shun.

Artistic creation is non-conceptual. The ultimate artistic creation—God's creation—is no exception. God's creation is to be understood the way WaterBuoy's creations are to be understood: intuitively.

If we re-create God's creation—as WaterBuoy does—then this is best done as non-conceptual as God's creation.

Who understands God's creation?

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth. Declare, if thou hast understanding. 

-Book of Job

Happy Genius ( an archaic word for "mined"); is it odd I have those two scripts underlined in my bib-le?

If God's fall and are raised for another dais ... does this indicate evolutionary thought and a wondering mind/sol' psychic complex ... sometime rational, sometimes irrational ... the thin space of Gods eh .. wildest stretch of the imagination required for the BUSS Roue' ... that's like KISS Principle just be fore you smack Eyore good-bye? Yo'al have to research those words!

Modern neuro science and WEBSTER brothers (a triad) defined intellect, the mind as all that is outside the body of will eh ... then what is the infinite des Ire?

"Take dah pits away ... I am depressed at what I've generated!" Been there heard that ... people don't know this stuff ... they don't wish to saes so in the bible ... if yah do guess what happens to de light? Scott Peck suggested we were the people of the lie, because we can't stand T'Ruth ... das Love on the grandest scale ... useless without a pair of qlues ... Paracleis? Everything changes to full phil man's wishes for ignorance ... pure state of pas Zion ... fear of phe lite? Thas Torah goes on ...

Pan,

Modern business states that they apreciate creativity, but if it goes against their leader who's in ID for money ... your dead! Been there dunne that.

For those who think I don't know what I'm talking about ... I've sat across the negotiating table from some of the greatest Brahman's ever borne ... Heads of Halliburton, Old Scott Paper, Sunbeam, Exon and T'X Echo ... so forgive me if I'm not true to the word ... most is just imaginary intellect ... pure desires for moor!

We are in a space warp that needs a rae nude way of thinking, bare'd ID's up, full transparent "c" ... but it ain't goan a' happen so one might as well have fun with the word while waiting for the God's to destroy them selves in belief that the bastille can't fall ...

Hoo Dah T'haught ...? Do you know ya' hoo'dah in old Hebrew satyr? The UN Know'n Gods ... dumb'd with desIre ... madden crow'd ... a tur Quies, roues Tur? Everything changes even the thorns of life are dulle din the end .. anne aether de'D sol' Diere. Died when he got a glimse of the other 's Ide! An emotive tah move yah ... infinite wonder?

One has to know a good portion of the 600,000+floaters in the wilderness ... the unused words hiding in the jungle we call mind ... requireing cultivation from all sides! That's a smudge on understanding a subliminal Law!

Is God/Love a state of chaos, is devilish thinking another state of chaos ... in opposing states could we put them together ... no th' Eire the two side in the plasma of the brae'n ... Dark Humours ... hidden from the disbelievers in imaginary numbers, irrational th'oughts ... ain't that diPits in reflection on th'poe-L?

My simple poindt from Kidder and Todd is there is a deep shared ethical ideas that cut across class countires and cultures that are shared - this is suggestive of what Kant suggested an universal which is more than what we say and informs what we say.

Empidrically the idea of relativism is dead. It is challenged by Kidder's research ( and others).

And yes business men and others do not live up to the ideal - we are corrupted. and Waterbouy experienced is one shared.

And this is what has always confounded this little girl in the central Ontario wilds - why?  Why, if the majority of people on the planet share these values, are they not reflected in those granted the power to rule?

The maxim - absolute power corrupts absolutely - is not, for me anyway, a sufficient answer.

LB

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

     Frederic Bastiat, (1801-1850)

Beshpin answer gives one answer LB - poor analysis and self interest,  just knee jerk reactiont .  The question is if the values of compassion et al why don't live them? We move between self interest and other interest and when we take those values seriously they make us other interest in our actions.

Another disconnect is modern worldviews which forget we are intimatelly interrelated - most of us have been informed ( I know some will not like the next word) by a metaphysics of atomistic relationships -  Thus we think we can act in self interested ways that will not effect those around us - or if we do think enlightened selfinterest it is still a trickly down effect - a truely radical relational view reminds us we are one while we are individual we are also connected deeply - you hurt I hurt not the other way round.

Your quote says it all LB