It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who are more moral? Men or women?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Who are more moral? Men or women?

I am not an atheist but am a man who, thanks to apotheosis, believes himself to have high morals. Perhaps even superior to women.

I will take the Jewish view of Eden as man’s elevation as opposed to the Christian view that Eden was man’s fall. I do this because the Jewish view was the initial view of their scriptures. I give their view more authority than I do to Christianity. That Jewish view was later reversed by Christianity. Why Christianity did this is not clear.

www.mrrena.com...

For this mental exercise, I say women are more moral than men. I take this view because teaching a topic is the best way to learn it, and that most of the child rearing/teaching in that day was done by women. Women then, teaching children their first morals, would also teach themselves morals faster than what men would.

I do not read scriptures literally but will use the literal view and my logic trail and progression through Eden as if I do.
Eve was first to eat of the tree of knowledge, and as scriptures states, became as God. That is, she developed the same moral sense as God. She then recognized that instead of leaving Adam to follow God’s instruction to not eat, she chose, with her new wisdom, to have Adam also eat of the tree of knowledge. Thus both were elevated to having a moral sense.

Is the Jewish view the correct one?

Who should lead mankind in religious and political thinking?

Who are more moral? Men or women?

Regards
DL




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The old testament says a lot of bad things about women.. how you can't sit in a chair they have sat in if they are on their period because they are filthy or unclean..etc. etc.. other ridiculous things.

Moral people don't believe they are more morale than all members of the opposite gender though.
edit on 1/31/2012 by Drezden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Who are more moral? Men or women?

I am not an atheist but am a man who, thanks to apotheosis, believes himself to have high morals. Perhaps even superior to women.

I will take the Jewish view of Eden as man’s elevation as opposed to the Christian view that Eden was man’s fall. I do this because the Jewish view was the initial view of their scriptures. I give their view more authority than I do to Christianity. That Jewish view was later reversed by Christianity. Why Christianity did this is not clear.

www.mrrena.com...

For this mental exercise, I say women are more moral than men. I take this view because teaching a topic is the best way to learn it, and that most of the child rearing/teaching in that day was done by women. Women then, teaching children their first morals, would also teach themselves morals faster than what men would.

I do not read scriptures literally but will use the literal view and my logic trail and progression through Eden as if I do.
Eve was first to eat of the tree of knowledge, and as scriptures states, became as God. That is, she developed the same moral sense as God. She then recognized that instead of leaving Adam to follow God’s instruction to not eat, she chose, with her new wisdom, to have Adam also eat of the tree of knowledge. Thus both were elevated to having a moral sense.

Is the Jewish view the correct one?

Who should lead mankind in religious and political thinking?

Who are more moral? Men or women?

Regards
DL


Oh god, another sexism thread...can't we all just admit no one is perfect, whether their genitalia are female or male?

Honestly, I don't think morals are grounded in the sexual anatomy of a person! And I doubt testosterone and estrogen have any significant influence either, or scientists would have confirmed it.

Interesting thoughts, but primitive at best. Carry on with your sexism debate, but I'm only going to rage at the arrogance. I'm not saying your wrong...I'm just saying you probably aren't right.


Check, please.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Anyone who say women are more moral than men, probably hasn't had much experience with them.
We're equally immoral.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I think we could chase this down the halls of infinity looking for an answer. To me morality is an interior struggle, not for groups or sexes but for individuals. One sex might have an easier time than another adhering to any random set of cultural goals but for me this is not really morals.
Are morals just how well we can follow the leader?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
If we consider nature as our mother then surely the feminine part is the source of order and morals.
How can someone tolerate b**stards called humans without it???
Rather than men and women, i would say feminine part in us is the source of all morals.
Since women have greater polarity towards faminine aspect, i would consider them more moral with exceptions.
Whoever believes in ridiculous terms as 'sexism' must be dreaming.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 



Who are more moral? Men or women?


Both men and women are immoral.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Who are more moral? Men or women?


Let them who have eyes see, and let them who have ears hear.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Well, I honestly believe that if women ruled the world there would be less war, as we know it. There would, however, be a lot of bitch slapping, back stabbing and withholding of sexual favors as law!



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Woman learned all her immorality from Man.


What did Adam do when God asked him "did you eat that which I told you not to eat?"

He blamed Eve.

Eve took the example and blamed the serpent.


... ah the blame game...


What if Adam had been a Man about it and taken the blame.
"Yes, God, I did eat that which you told me not to eat."
He probably would have gotten off with a spanking.

But nooooooo...

Even God knows you can't do anything with someone who wont take responsibility for themselves.


David Grouchy



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Why does it matter? What possible benefit could come from an accurate determination? You're surely not suggesting either ALL men or ALL women are "more moral" than the other? You'll never have the opportunity to interact with ALL of anything, so the only possible outcome would be to preemptively skew your opinion of an individual on an irrelevant fact before you have the chance to know them. That may not be immoral, but it isn't very bright.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drezden
The old testament says a lot of bad things about women.. how you can't sit in a chair they have sat in if they are on their period because they are filthy or unclean..etc. etc.. other ridiculous things.

Moral people don't believe they are more morale than all members of the opposite gender though.
edit on 1/31/2012 by Drezden because: (no reason given)


Actually, the uncleanness from periods is found in all ancient cultures. And you have to remember, they did not have tampons back in those days. I, as a woman, would not sit in a chair after another woman if I thought she bled on it. That is just nasty.

It is purely a sanitary issue for them, as it is now. Would you like to sit in a chair after a woman if you thought she did not use a tampon or pad? Sorry ATS, I am just trying to keep it real here.

But as far as morality goes, it is probably equal. Women should not have children if she is not intellectually capable of taking care of them, and men should not either.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by Drezden
The old testament says a lot of bad things about women.. how you can't sit in a chair they have sat in if they are on their period because they are filthy or unclean..etc. etc.. other ridiculous things.

Moral people don't believe they are more morale than all members of the opposite gender though.
edit on 1/31/2012 by Drezden because: (no reason given)


Actually, the uncleanness from periods is found in all ancient cultures. And you have to remember, they did not have tampons back in those days. I, as a woman, would not sit in a chair after another woman if I thought she bled on it. That is just nasty.

It is purely a sanitary issue for them, as it is now. Would you like to sit in a chair after a woman if you thought she did not use a tampon or pad? Sorry ATS, I am just trying to keep it real here.

But as far as morality goes, it is probably equal. Women should not have children if she is not intellectually capable of taking care of them, and men should not either.


I can agree with this. I'm tired of hearing about 40 million babies being murdered a year because the people in america are irresponsible.

People do not understand that sacrificing a child so that they can maintain their desired lifestyle so they can party and keep their money and not pay for the consequences is sacrificing babies to Moloch the god (demon) of fortune and prosperity.

If they cannot or will not take care of a child, they should abstain from having sex. As the saying goes "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time".



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by Drezden
The old testament says a lot of bad things about women.. how you can't sit in a chair they have sat in if they are on their period because they are filthy or unclean..etc. etc.. other ridiculous things.

Moral people don't believe they are more morale than all members of the opposite gender though.
edit on 1/31/2012 by Drezden because: (no reason given)




But as far as morality goes, it is probably equal. Women should not have children if she is not intellectually capable of taking care of them, and men should not either.


I can agree with this. I'm tired of hearing about 40 million babies being murdered a year because the people in america are irresponsible.

People do not understand that sacrificing a child so that they can maintain their desired lifestyle so they can party and keep their money and not pay for the consequences is sacrificing babies to Moloch the god (demon) of fortune and prosperity.

If they cannot or will not take care of a child, they should abstain from having sex. As the saying goes "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time".


Who said anything about killing babies? And, I doubt that any 12 or 13 year old of days past had the "intellectual capablility" to take care of a baby without the help of the whole village.

As far as abstaining from sex, well, that's a 2 way street. Also, I wonder what the statistics were, say in the '60 & '70 of married men hiring male doctors to take care of their mistresses' "little" problem.

Speaking of sacrificing a child, does the name "Abraham" or "Isaac" ring a bell, or how about your father god Yeshua,or whatever you call him? Didn't he sacrifice is "son" as you say, where's the example of moral men?
edit on 31-1-2012 by windword because: ocd



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 





Speaking of sacrificing a child, does the name "Abraham" or "Isaac" ring a bell, or how about your father god Yeshua,or whatever you call him? Didn't he sacrifice is "son" as you say, where's the example of moral men?


That was Yah's test and in case you failed to read the entire story he stopped Abraham before he could do it. He was testing Abraham's faith in him. This is not even remotely the same thing.

Yahshua had to be the lamb because only he could free man from sin. You cannot get to heaven on your own merit no matter what you do. Yahshua did not stay dead because death could not hold God, death has no power over him.

The Lord is the one who set morality into place, morality is his laws. Do you not know that the laws of men take their laws from God? The law of the United States itself was originally founded on the Decalogue and the Pentateuch.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by windword
 





Speaking of sacrificing a child, does the name "Abraham" or "Isaac" ring a bell, or how about your father god Yeshua,or whatever you call him? Didn't he sacrifice is "son" as you say, where's the example of moral men?


That was Yah's test and in case you failed to read the entire story he stopped Abraham before he could do it. He was testing Abraham's faith in him. This is not even remotely the same thing.

No, God told him to kill Isaac, an angel stopped him. Maybe the angel was Satan, or some other "Good Samaritan."



Yahshua had to be the lamb because only he could free man from sin. You cannot get to heaven on your own merit no matter what you do. Yahshua did not stay dead because death could not hold God, death has no power over him.

Jesus wasn't a lamb, or any other kind of animal, but a flesh and blood human being, who according to your religion was sacrificed, a human sacrifice that was ordered by a MALE god.



The Lord is the one who set morality into place, morality is his laws. Do you not know that the laws of men take their laws from God? The law of the United States itself was originally founded on the Decalogue and the Pentateuch.


Not true, but this thread is about the morality of men compared to women, and vice versa.

Here's some more of of the biblical morality, that MEN used as law:



If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23





The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
Number 5:21

edit on 31-1-2012 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
The real puzzling question is this.. why do we as a group have such high self-esteem when we in fact have such horrible morality?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The real puzzling question is this.. why do we as a group have such high self-esteem when we in fact have such horrible morality?


Because the group with the high esteem only have moral relativism while pointing out to others their moral shortcomings. They use the Bible to make a case without even actually studying the law therein.

The law is not just "thou shalt not"...it is why thou shalt not and punishment for the law because when someone breaks the law, there is a victim and that victim deserves justice.

OK, the kosher laws are the most misunderstood, and yet there was a reason for them. These were people who were desert dwellers, they could not preserve the meat well. Perhaps the kosher laws were to keep them from getting sick from various diseases contained in pork?

The Bible says the law is the schoolmaster, to teach us. When we get the point that these laws are to safeguard us in civil situations, then we can appreciate the justice also contained within. Most of the people who preach moral relativism usually have a problem with civil laws that are secular and never, never consider there are victims, whether slighted a little or a lot.

One thing I hear is this, "why is your morality better than mine?" They never respond when I answer, how else will victims receive justice? If you run over your neighbor's child, there are victims, primarily the child and secondly the parents who have now lost their child. Not only that, it has taken away the potential that child could have brought to the world to make it a better place. It is never just simply a small thing when it comes to the law, and justice is always there for the victims.

People need to read the Bible more, and not just assume it is a book of telling us what not to do, by why we should not do it. And when they charge God with crimes, they should take it up with God alone. They just can't say they do not believe in God and then hold Him guilty, that means they do believe in God when they acknowledge the act.

Even the prophets and kings of old learned they are not above the law, they had victims that God demanded justice for. God is going to require of this generation for their acts, but He made a way that we will learn not to hurt others and the ultimate justice comes in Jesus Christ, because we are a damaged humanity, lost and wandering.

Another one people have problems with is the laws about leprosy. They were to be kept apart at least until they were no longer contagious. There was no cure for leprosy then, and if people were kept inside the city with others, it would have been an epidemic. The blood laws were for a reason, because so many illnesses were transmitted through the blood. Now we can take care of those illnesses, to some degree.AIDS is not cured, and it is still transmitted through blood exchange. Perhaps that is why there were laws against sodomy?

Those who believe they are indestructible and above any moral accountability do not realize that when someone is hurt, that person is a victim who deserves justice.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The real puzzling question is this.. why do we as a group have such high self-esteem when we in fact have such horrible morality?


Because the group with the high esteem only have moral relativism while pointing out to others their moral shortcomings. They use the Bible to make a case without even actually studying the law therein.

The law is not just "thou shalt not"...it is why thou shalt not and punishment for the law because when someone breaks the law, there is a victim and that victim deserves justice.

OK, the kosher laws are the most misunderstood, and yet there was a reason for them. These were people who were desert dwellers, they could not preserve the meat well. Perhaps the kosher laws were to keep them from getting sick from various diseases contained in pork?

The Bible says the law is the schoolmaster, to teach us. When we get the point that these laws are to safeguard us in civil situations, then we can appreciate the justice also contained within. Most of the people who preach moral relativism usually have a problem with civil laws that are secular and never, never consider there are victims, whether slighted a little or a lot.

One thing I hear is this, "why is your morality better than mine?" They never respond when I answer, how else will victims receive justice? If you run over your neighbor's child, there are victims, primarily the child and secondly the parents who have now lost their child. Not only that, it has taken away the potential that child could have brought to the world to make it a better place. It is never just simply a small thing when it comes to the law, and justice is always there for the victims.

People need to read the Bible more, and not just assume it is a book of telling us what not to do, by why we should not do it. And when they charge God with crimes, they should take it up with God alone. They just can't say they do not believe in God and then hold Him guilty, that means they do believe in God when they acknowledge the act.

Even the prophets and kings of old learned they are not above the law, they had victims that God demanded justice for. God is going to require of this generation for their acts, but He made a way that we will learn not to hurt others and the ultimate justice comes in Jesus Christ, because we are a damaged humanity, lost and wandering.

Another one people have problems with is the laws about leprosy. They were to be kept apart at least until they were no longer contagious. There was no cure for leprosy then, and if people were kept inside the city with others, it would have been an epidemic. The blood laws were for a reason, because so many illnesses were transmitted through the blood. Now we can take care of those illnesses, to some degree.AIDS is not cured, and it is still transmitted through blood exchange. Perhaps that is why there were laws against sodomy?

Those who believe they are indestructible and above any moral accountability do not realize that when someone is hurt, that person is a victim who deserves justice.


The idea that morality comes from the bible or from any religious code is just not true. Morality comes from empathy and the human condition. It comes with experience, but most people have developed a sense of compassion from infancy.

That's the problem with using religious or biblical arguments about morality today. Too many interpretations and too much importance placed on out dated laws.

The bible has no place in today's morality debate.

Morality doesn't come from judgement either. Placing a punishment on perceived immoral behavior only reinforces a sense of rebellion. Enacting laws is a civil tool, used to regulate society, usually to the benefit of wealthier citizens. Laws don't dictate morality. Ideally they are there to protect the innocent, but in reality they protect and reinforce TPTB.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


The bible has no place in today's morality debate.

Morality doesn't come from judgement either. Placing a punishment on perceived immoral behavior only reinforces a sense of rebellion. Enacting laws is a civil tool, used to regulate society, usually to the benefit of wealthier citizens. Laws don't dictate morality. Ideally they are there to protect the innocent, but in reality they protect and reinforce TPTB.



Really? We have morality from birth? What happened to the real crazies in history? Were they not taught right?

Listen, if you feel you should be ok to go hurt someone and not recognize they are a victim, then go ahead. Prove to us that anarchy is the best form of morality. Does it really and truly work? I think you know the answer to that one. But, if anarchy is what you want because you don't want TPTB to be in charge, then go ahead and try anarchy and let us know how it works out for you, especially when someone else who does not believe in the law hurts you. Without the law, there should be no justice for you because you have shirked it.

No morality equals total anarchy. Is a world of total anarchy what you are promoting? So what happens when they smash your car to smithereens because you have one and they don't? Can you take them to court for it? No. Morality is defined in the Bible.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join