Slashdot Mirror
Is Computer Sex Adultery?
Falling in love with strangers on the Net poses a whole set of special problems, says Dr. Esther Gwinnell, author of Online Seductions. Her book takes a shockingly businesslike and useful look at cyber-romance, the unheralded killer app of the World Wide Web.
When technology and romance mix, the result is explosive, many of the participants in need of a good shrink. Usually, the subject is treated phobically -- predators, stalkers, porno-peddlers, even cyber sexual assaults. But as more Americans go online, it follows that more are finding their ways into chat rooms, IM's and video-confs and trying to seduce each other, digitally and literally.
Gwinnel, an Oregon therapist, and other shrinks, report growing numbers of marriages in trouble because one or even both spouses are having online affairs. In her practice many patients are encountering some kind of problems with Net relationships.
For instance, they tend to falling in love with someone they meet online while other relationships flounder.
Or they fall in love with people who don't return their affection. Or think they're in love, but they're not sure.
Sometimes, of course, things get really ugly. An online romance turns into a frightening or pathological relationship. Or somebody has a pseud or doesn't tell you it's a same-sex relationship. Or that they're much younger or much older than you are. Or life outside the Net gradually shrivels and shrinks for the lovestruck.
People drawn to long distance romance used to fall in love via the post office or on the telephone. The Net obviously permits strangers to find one another more easily, get to know one another better and faster, and in a variety of ways, from chat rooms to IRC to video encounters.
A number of people in Gwinnel's practice have met online, fallen in love and been happy together for ages. It isn't rare any longer. Others get disappointed by flamers, fakers, and stalkers, or by role-players who aren't looking for real relationships. Seduction online lends itself both to experimentation and misunderstandings, and to the complications anonymity can breed.
Gwinnell gives advice on how to protect yourself online: how to spot trouble, to figure out when you've gone too far or when someone is going too far with you.
Where she scores highly with me is that Gwinnell brings a sensible, even historical approach to the topic of seduction. The Net may be new, she writes, but the issues she writes about are not. People have been meeting and falling in love in odd and unconventional ways ever since people have been falling in love.
Online relationships are still considered odd, despite their exploding numbers. Sex, as educators, parents and pols talk about it, is such a scary taboo that little useful information has emerged about how people meet online and conduct their seductions and affairs.
Gwinnell warns to be careful about taking too much advice from online therapists, and even though some of her patients suffer from Net addiction and obsession, she believes that for the majority of people the benefits of seeking romance on the Net outweigh the dangers. "And for those who are seeking a romantic companion, the Internet offers many opportunities to make emotional connections outside of those that hitherto have been available," she writes.
She also asks some interesting questions: is computer sex "adultery?" (Yup. Being unfaithful hurts relationships, no matter where it's done).
This perspective is quite different from the stream of alarms about perverts, predators and porn online.
Falling in love with strangers isn't talked about in proper society much. But it may soon be one of the primary means by which people seeking romance meet for the first time.
You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.
I'm sorry. Of course you are right (google?), but I was in a mad hurry to post something ontopic before this article would pityfully die from acute crap-flooding.
I purposedly posted AC to prove that I'm not karma-whoring (and again here to avoid the backlash).
Regardless: ALl you lonely geeks getting into online relationships with strangers: Read the initial post! It's sound advice and it may save your sanity.
Consider this..What if a married man has "cybersex" on an IRC channel. Unbeknownst to him, his "partner" is his WIFE, who is at another physical location,or even another computer in another room in the house. Is that adultery, since they both think they are having "cybersex" with other people...even though they are staying faithful to themselves?
i think that is bestiality not adultery.. paraphrase: whosoever looks upon a goat is guilty of bestiality... :)
the underlying principal is the same: the real life practice of adultery or bestiality is an expression of an inward unfaithfulness or perversion (which are bigger problems than the practices).
It seems like such a cliche these days, but I met my boyfriend here on Slashdot a week ago to the year. We are very happy. We ICQd for about a week before we actually met, and were good friends and then it just came naturally. Today he sent me a dozen chocolate roses from a world renowned choclatier (Bernard Callebeaut). RL or online cheating is the same. If you are a bored housewife or lame loser, then all the net cheating in the world is just a book. One day you'll close that book and move onto something else.
This is really simple, but you can tell the girl who's persuing (or being persued by, and liking it) a married man and she'll say "No! You don't understand! His wife is a bitch to him and he really loves ME!"
Bull-ass-shite!
Chasing DIVORCED, or at least legally SEPARATED men is fine, but if a man is MARRIED and STILL LIVING WITH HIS WIFE, then YOU (the girl who thinks he's so sweet and misunderstood by his evil wife) are really nothing more than a relief valve for him. He may not know this himself. It's a two-way street and it takes two (three actually) to spring the trap, so don't think for a second that I'm putting all the blame on the man.
The man LIVES with his wife, and has for a long time, day in and day out. He knows her and she knows him, in no uncertain terms. His time with you is FANTASY time. Like a movie, he can cut in and out at the perfect times. You never have to see back-stage.
By the time you DO see back-stage, you've probably become HIS wife.
His 'evil' wife. Hmmm...he's working awful late tonight!
Dating a gay chick is the best, if you can swing it. All those stupid woman magazines say that you should build a relationship on shared interests and hobbies. I'm interested in chicks. She's interested in chicks. My hobby is having sex with chicks. Her hobby is having sex with chicks. It really works out beautifully.
It sounds impossible, but my dumb ass pulled it off for almost a year.
I'd much rather prefer real stuff that happened to real people than generic gems most of us know but don't really relate to.
:(
So here's what happened to me.
I occasionally dabble in short-story writing and have a small set of fans on a popular webzine where amateurs try their hand at storytelling. In Apr 99, this girl ( lets call her G1 ) posted a story which outlined a teen suicide attempt. It was was almost a replica of stuff I had gone through in my teen years! I instantly sent G1 an email about the curious coincidence & similarity of events, & we became net pals. At that time, G1 was in a different country, so net romance was the only possibility, but we were more on a friendly "Hi there, how're you" level. We carried on this friendly platonic chitchat for over a year & got to know each other pretty well.
Around July 99, I met a girl G2 in a chatroom. We traded lyrics for a song & found we liked the same kinda music. G2 was in the US, so we exchanged phone #s & the conversation instantly shifted to a very sexually charged level I was terribly uncomfy with, cause I hardly knew her. G2 became obsessively attracted to me in a very short timeperiod & insisted I fly over to meet her, which I did. Turned out G2 was a desperately sex-starved teen in high school
I bought G2 a coffee & took the return flight home, refused to answer all calls from her, told her parents about it & soon enough, things settled down. I did have some nasty surprises when G2's dad initially threatened to call police & sue me for apparently seducing a teen, when I had done no such thing. Things quieted later after some lengthy explanations & hefty phonebills.
Around Oct 99, I met G3 on an online dating site. We exchanged #s, talked & decided we liked each other. The despo that I was, I drover 150 miles in a fucking snowstorm to check her out! G3 was an incredibly fat & terribly overweight girl with puffy cheeks, very tight pants, large folds of skin where her neck should be...you get the idea. I was expecting no model, but she had totally misrepresented herself on the site. I gave her some candy I had taken along & drove back in the snowstorm the same night & messed up my car & had to deal with major traffic shit the next day.
Around Nov 99, I corresponded with a model ( a real model! ) G4. But the model wanted another hunk and not an ordinary bloke like me. She stopped writing after a while.
In Jan 2000, G1 ( remember G1 - the storyteller ) arrived in the US & invited me over for coffee. We were pretty good friends by then. We met, incredible chemistry ==> things clicked perfectly, got engaged in Apr 2000 & married her a month later.
Moral of the story : I don't know. Net romances are real. They work. It all depends on how you handle it, I guess.
Good luck.
It sure felt like cheating when my ex-gf did it. It started with Hearts games online, then she started chatting with a colleague she'd never met and would have blown off immediately if she had. (He was obviously a sleazeball.) Eventually, she slept with him on a trip to Europe.
She was under the delusion that they were connecting mentally and emotionally, when really he was just much more experienced at saying flattering things than her stupid unxeperienced boyfriend.
I'm sure the false sense of anonymity and intimacy fostered her illusions about this guy.
After she cheated on me, his e-presence certainly made it impossible for us to reconcile, though I tried really hard. I knew she was chatting with him every day, sending SMS messages to his cell phone, and most probably masturbating online with him. I'm sure she actually thought he was her true soulmate, and I was an annoying yappy little dog standing in the way of her true happiness.
She kept insisting that she realized that her relationship with him was not reality, but her intimacy with him and the plans she tried unsuccessfuly to make with him say otherwise.
Ultimately, of course, he wound up disappointing her and put an end to her delusions, but by that time they had helped destroy our relationship beyond repair.
Eventually, she started chatting it up with other guys online, many of whom seemed to have severe emotional problems. I know that she was planning on meeting one of them who also wound up being a drunken suicidally depressed psycho who wound up turning on her and blaming her for all his problems.
I've never seen anything as depressing as the world of online relationships through her experiences. And it wound up hurting me very much.
Happy freakin Valentine's Day!
two years ago, i was sitting in my room at university cramming for an algebra final. i decided to take some time off studying and do some people finding on icq's random chat. before long i came upon a girl who only had her first name filled in and her nick. i struck up a conversation and before long we were both very excited about chatting with one another. we talked and talked and it turned out that we had a lot in common.
:)
after a few months of chatter we decided to meet. the venue was a foreign movie premiere. all very posh and fancy. we planned to meet in the lobby of the theatre before the show. i got there early, waited and waited. moments before the show started i saw a beautiful woman in a golden dress walking into the theatre. she had just glanced over and noticed me too. it was her. she stopped, and with a quizzical look in her eye mouthed my name. my jaw dropped. she never sent me a picture of herself online, but when i saw her my mind blanked. yes, she is THAT hot. i walked up to her, gave her the dumbest smile in human history and just stood there like a dolt. we decided to meet again after that wonderful evening and we've been happily dating for over 18 months now.
i must point out that our relationship was very much a long distance endeavour for over a year. i visited her every couple of weeks and recently finished school. i've sinced moved into the city and am working, paying my debts as she finishes her studies. we see each other all the time now. life is grand.
Penis and Vagina. That's adultry. Wacking off in front of the computer-- Not adultry Thinking about having sex with another woman, but not doing it-- Not adultry Getting a hand job by a lovely Phillipino girl in club Neptune while chilling with upper managment-- Not Adultry Having sex with someone who is not your spouse-- Adultry
Pick me, teacher! Me me me!
;) instead of the immensely fun cooperative story telling it CAN be.
I run a small roleplaying webchat. One of my cardinal rules of RP is Thou shalt not get overinvolved with thy character.
The reason for this is quite simple: too much emotional involvement totally blurs the lines separating out of character "reality" with in character "fantasy," which in turn kills the roleplay (how you gonna enjoy your play if your character is just an extension of your ego/self?)
By that reasoning, romance and sex are verboten in roleplay, seeing as these two touchy subjects are virtually guaranteed to cause messy emotional entanglements. Not to mention csex in roleplay turns it into a lame game of masturbatory, self-congratulatory adolescent fantasy ('course most of it is anyway, but I digress
Anyway, to wit. Just because it's "in character" doesn't mean it can't and won't get emotionally intense or cause hurt to others. So, if your going to enage in "romantic" or "sexual" roleplay, fine, but be DAMNED clear both to yourself and the people your playing with what it is. Establish very clear boundaries as to just how far things can go before it gets too serious to be fun and then be very careful about NOT crossing said boundaries. And you might want to clear it with your S.O. first as well so he/she doesn't stumble across you one day and get hurt.
Just my $.02
If you are married and think that your spouse is emotionally attached to you and loves you, it's up to you to understand what might hurt your spouse.
It doesn't even need to be computer sex to huge problems. Can't the spouse be jealous of a lot of other things ? I think it starts much earlier than that.
Any thought exchange online other than your strictly professional ones, any exhaustive investment of thoughts in an interesting conversation online, which you can't share with your partner at the same time, already drifts you away from real life into your online forum life.
Unless she/he is not involved in the converstation you have online with other people simultaneously, you have already made a decision not to exchange the thoughts with the person you live together with in real life.
There it starts. You converse with your computer and not with your real-life live-in partner. Why would you live with someone together when at the same token that partner is not available to you, because he is living in his computer forum instead of living in your house with you, instead of talking to you about what is in his/her mind, talking to his forum friends.
I bet that for many, many couples that already is a problem. You watch your partner mentally sucked into another world and are left outside (unless they discuss both in the same online community or forum and know the online identity of each other).
The whole real problem is not the problem where it enters the realm of online sex. Anyone who needs to have online sex in his computer room, while his/her spouse is in the room next door waiting and matter of factly has to compete with your online fantasy sex, has already a huge problem at hand. If I were the spouse who feels cheated upon, I can only say, of course, it is adultery.
It's even worse than that, because you devalue your real life spouse by replacing your spouse not even with another real life person, but with some idiotic bits and bytes fantasies. How more humiliating (and emotionally insane) can it get ?
The argument that if the partner knows about it and agrees to it, is to me not a sign of not cheating, it's a sign of not having a relationship with that SO/spouse to begin with. OK, if both partners find their paradise in experimenting both together online with whatever "sex", doing it together, who would ever want to know and who would want to judge. It's their business. I just have doubts that this is often and honestly the case. My feelings are that one partner (who loves the other partner more) agrees into it (without really wanting to agree), because he/she is afraid of loosing the relationship.
To me it's simply not imaginable that I could involve myself in a sexual exchange online. If I had a partner who wouldn't feel (naturally) the same way, and I had to face a situation where I compete with another human being which exists to my partner only in the form of bits and bytes, I would simple call it quits. My mental health and my dignity couldn't take it. I want to live in the real world and not compete with the online world.
The medium is so addictive. And I am not willing to deny or overlook that. Anyone, seriously thinking about his/her own usage of online conversations, trying not deny what damage this medium in fact has on your real-life interactions with real people on a daily basis, has to admit its addictiveness.
I divorced my Ex-wife based on this. The court recognized it, as well as the church. Sorry, cyber sex is cheating on your significant other. Those that believe that it is not is just trying to quiet their own concience.
Some of those /. moderators better look out then!!
Back in late 1995, when I first began my online adventures, there wasn't the proliferation of online dating sites like there is now. At that time, people pretty much relied on newsgroups and a few web sites devoted exclusively to providing seekers of love a means to find it.
Our advice applies to meeting someone through any of our numerous opportunities (personals, discussion lists, chat, etc.) as well as anywhere else on the Web. If you are worried about safety issues while looking for romance online, consider these tips to ease your mind:
Tip #1: Keep Your Personal Information Private
Unless you know who you're dealing with, do not provide your personal information such as full name, address and phone number. This will ensure your physical safety. Most people are harmless and genuine about seeking a partner in love, but the Web is full of individuals with ill intentions. This is not to say that these individuals migrate to our site, but common sense in any arrangement must be applied. This same advice would hold true for meeting someone through the newspaper personals and other options.
Tip #2: Carefully Choose Your Online Name
If you are female and you intend to spend your time online in various chat rooms or signing up for various free e-mail accounts and you don't want to invite sexual inuendo or the virtual equivalent of a whistle and an uninvited sexual reference, then choose a gender neutral name. Of course, if your intention is to invite advances from men, then choose a feminine name, but be prepared for an onslaught of advances. This tip doesn't apply to women only, though, as the Web is full of very assertive women who will target nicks of the male variety. By choosing a gender-neutral identity online, you afford yourself the option of revealing your gender identity (or more) when you're comfortable in doing so.
Tip #3: Have Your Wits About You When Meeting in Real Life
If and when you decide to meet your online friend, don't go alone. Bring a group of friends along with you and schedule your meeting during the day and in a public place. The person you are meeting, if they are worthwhile, will agree to your request to meet in the safest possible surroundings.
Tip #4: Trust Your Instincts
Too many of us don't trust our instincts and betray them, often to our own detriment. Our instincts are always trying to tell us something. Learn to trust your instincts. If something about your online encounters feels uncomfortable, you can almost bet that an in-person encounter will feel the same. With this in mind, don't lead someone on in e-mail. If you get an immediate sense that they are not your type, let them know politely by giving them the digital equivalent of "let's just be friends." If you lead someone on and their emotions get the best of them, there will be trouble. If they persist even after you have proclaimed disinterest, ignore them. This includes their repeated e-mails. If this doesn't work, retain their messages and forward them to their online service provider. It is rare that situations ever get to this point, but if they do, retaining such information will assist you should you ever have to take further action.
Tip #5: Be Weary of Totally Free Personals Services
Sure, there are an abundance of free personals services across the Web. Many of the larger Web directories offer such services. When a service is entirely free, be cautious of the quality of the individuals with whom you correspond. Free services are easy targets for devious or insincere types because of that fact: they're free. More often than not, individuals who opt for a pay service are usually seeking quality, not only in the service itself, but in the other people who also participate.
As with any online activity, the best advice for online dating is pretty simple: exercise common sense. Think of the Web in terms of a large city. If you were a tourist in California, you wouldn't give your name, address, phone number and credit card number to just anyone on the street. Right?
29: If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.
30: And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
31: It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
32: But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
And lest we forget, Leviticus 20:10:
If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
Hey, I quote this not as scripture, but just as one possible viewpoint and answer to the question. If you commit adultery in your heart, your eye has offended you; pluck it out. I guess if you commit adultery in a chat room, you should cut of your internet connection and maybe a few fingers.
And if you've lusted after that neighbor, one possible viewpoint is that you should be put to death.
Good luck. I would avoid the neighbors completely just to make sure.
Truthfully, I lean toward the "screwed up people are getting screwed" side of things. BUt maybe I'm just a cold cynical bastard.
Werd.
you hit it right on the money . . . adultery also means keeping it a secret from the other person . . .
Sure, the romance thing is good for some people, but you can always skip the pretense/foreplay and head straight for the hardcore sex.
M4M4Sex is just one site that helps gay men find and fuck each other far more cost-effectively than something like a singles bar ever could.
Just another way that the internet enhances our lives.
Hey, I think that's the soap opera my wife watches :)
if one whether on of the two computer is married :-)
hmm maybe UI should read more than the headline
Or, to put it another way, if you're sane, rational, honest and aware of the consequence, you would never have the need TO break any commitments. Cos you'd never have made any that you couldn't keep and those you'd made would be important enough TO keep.
Or, to put it a third way, the more screwed up a person is, the more they'll get screwed. In both senses of the word.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Come on Jon, how do you miss such glaring errors?
"For instance, they tend to falling in love with someone they meet online while other relationships flounder.
Or they fall in love with people who don't return their affection. Or think they're in love, but they're not sure.
Sometimes, of course, things get really ugly. An online romance turns into a frightening or pathological relationship. Or somebody has a pseud or doesn't tell you it's a same-sex relationship"
Adultry or not adultry... its a matter of opinions... and opinions are like assholes... everybody's got one. Because of this there is no wrong answer, its really what a couple would consider to be too far.
:)
Personally if I found out my wife was having an online sexcapade I would be mildy worried.. I'd be asking myself the following...
Is it because there is something wrong with our marriage?
-or-
Is she just being her nymphy little self?
I'd like to think that our relationship is pretty open. If I piss her off I hear about it... oh god do I hear about it (stupid comments I've made 7 years ago get brought up when its appropriate). What it comes down too is that you need to discuss this with your partner.. you've got to live with them for the rest of your life (if your lucky) so communication is the key. For some people it may just be kinky.. kinda like safe swinging...
I met my wife online about 7 years ago.. back when a BBS was online and unless you where on a multinode system real time chat didn't happen. That was the best thing that ever happened to me.. We've lived together for 6 years.. been married for 3.5 years and are starting a family. So online romances can be a good thing.. I knew my wife 10 times better on the day we met in person then I've known anyone after 6 months or more.
If you feel you need to vent sexually this way, why not arrange a time to go chat with your spouse.. hell, I fire up ICQ at least 2-3 times a day just to sexually torment my wife so she's ripe for the pickin's by the time i get home
- Xabbu
- Jimbob
(Not directed at the author specifically, but in general...)
My problem with that thinking is that values, morality, and ethics become relative and determined by the latest whim and desire. The Bible provides a baseline from which you can measure values, morality and ethics.
Whether you are a Fundamentalist or believe simply in inspiration, I believe that the Bible is simply saying that we need to exercise self-control and to honor those to whom we have committed. Focusing your sexual passions (lust) on another is a detraction from what should be your marital focus: Your wife. What a better way to show her your love and respect than to honor her by focusing your passions and desires on her.
Lusting after another is putting your wife in a lower place that she does not deserve. If, for some reason, you don't think that she desreves it, then you need to take a hard look within yourself and get your priorities corrected because more often than not, it is individual selfishness that causes a husband to put his passiopns on someone else other than his wife.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
The comment from an anonymous user called "My two cents, or the story of how I met my wife" is actually from me, Jason Haas, of Linux PPC and Slashdot fame.
:)
:-)
My comment, because of a browser fuckup, wasn't recorded as being from me. (I guess Konquerer doesn't like Slashdot's cookies!)
If you're wondering, the AC who posted that is me. The article I tried to link to in the comment was the Slashdot coverage of what happened to me back in March 2000. (I'm much better now!)
And all I wanted to do was tell the story of how I met my wife, which was due to the net!
So, please, look for my story. It's a good one.
Haaz: Co-founder, LinuxPPC Inc., making Linux for PowerPC since 1996.
-- haaz.
It is all relative. I see three major categories of online-relations:
1. Two unattached people meet online.
2. Two people meet, one or both of them is in a dead relationship and are currently getting out.
3. Two people meet, and one or both of them are in a serious real-life relationship that they don't intend to leave.
My Morals:
One and two do not constitue adultery as long as there is commitment. If there isn't a commitment, then it's no different than a one night stand. Three is just out and out adultery.
The One Thing that bugs me about this article is that it automatically equates romance with sex. Romance does not mean an automatic roll in the hay. It is these people that can not see the difference between the two (hugging, touching and kissing vs. sex) that I think should not be in relationships - everyone should learn this before getting into a relationship.... yes, there is a direct link, romance should lead to sex, sex should lead to romance, starting a vicious circle BUT both parties should consent to every step along the way.
The difference between reality and fantasy is a nice soundtrack.
Cool! That means I stopped being a virgin when I was, like, 8 years old. I'm not as much of a dork as I thought I was!
**>>BELCH
Cool!
That means I stopped being a virgin when I was, like, 8 years old. I'm not as much of a dork as I thought I was!
**>>BELCH
Culture is, in turn and by varying degrees, influenced by religion, tradition, pop-culture, philosophy, the weather, science, superstition, etc.
There were some pretty amazing and complex cultues around before 'The Bible' came along to put a few the ideas into words which, being ascribed to an Amazing Supernatural Creature has a more powerful and convincing effect on a painfully self-aware human race which tends to look to the Sky for help when it's back (collective or otherwise) is against the proverbial Wall.
There are PLENTY of standards. You're soaking in them to such a degree that it's hard to see them.
The fact that we can intellectualize and question them leads many (especially the younger ones) to believe that the standards don't exist. Wrong!
**>>BELCH
As I understand it, adultery traditionally was sexual relations (which could be just lustful feelings) of a man towards another man's wife. So a married man could have his way with an unmarried woman, or a woman (married or not) could have sex with a man, and neither would be committing adultery.
It *is* possible for people to have more than one relationship at a time. You don't just have *one* friend...you have many. It's possible for you to love *both* your parents, not just one. I find it ludicrous to think that I should be constrained to only loving one person in the world.
/bin/truth is out there.
I accept that not everyone agrees with me. It's important that you have a partner that shares these views.
I think Heinlein had it right, though. The family units that he describes in his books seems much more warm and enticing than having just one person with you for the rest of your life.
With online relationships, though, you can finally have lovers that have nothing to do with you physically. You like physics? You find someone that likes physics online, and you start a loving, long distance, text only relationship. As long as you're a person that is capable of doing more than fixating on one person at a time, everything should be okay. You have a physical mate that you share interests with, and have a physical bond, and you have an online lover that stimulates you intellectually in a way that your physical mate can't. If you're willing to put time into both relationships, I say go for it.
To me, cheating on your spouse is ignoring them for someone else. If you lavish attention on *anything* to the exclusion of them (everquest, programming, pink featherdusters, whatever...) you're cheating them of what they deserve as your partner.
A human's capacity to love is only limited by the number of people their brain can pay attention to. You'll be hard pressed to convince me that more love in the world is a bad thing.
--
The
I've had (non-computer) role-playing characters in love with characters played by someone I had no romantic attachment to at all. I've had role-playing characters of different sex and/or sexuality than myself. (I've had other characters guess the characters' real sex/sexuality when disguised/hidden.) And it was all fun.
But in none of those cases did any of the sexual or romantic elements get played in any detail - they were background, rather than the focus of the game. "X and Y flirt for a bit", rather than X's and Y's players playing through a flirtation.
There have also been games where real life relationships and game relationships did cross over to some extent without problems. On the other hand I've seen one in-game relationship get nasty enough that the GM basically gave up - there was no way these characters were going to work together, no matter how much circumstances threw them together. The players in question were in a relationship at the time, later split up, then got back together, then split up again, but stayed friends; the characters were likely to kill each other. (The characters in question didn't have a sexual relationship, but sex was an important part of the background - she was an ex-courtesan who didn't like men, but expected to be able to use sex to manipulate them, and was sometimes near suicidally depressed and/or reckless; and he was gay (but not openly so), and resented having been nearly killed because of her recklessness.)
--
rant
I just wish he'd spend ten days on ONE story that's at least twice as good and ten times as short. Learn to write like Taco, Katz. You're a better speller than he is, but he lacks the curse of verbosity that you have.
ToiletDuk
Protector of the Wastes
I'm guessing that was (is?) the definition of the Christian church from the time. As the population drifts from the political power of the church, we use our own definitions of morality. It's really up to the couple involved. I honestly doubt that other than those in an open relationship, few would consider the above definition not to be adultery.
Anyone know the legal definition?
Thesis on the internet affairs.
Have you noted that most microsoft enabled mail viruses appeal to love and sex in order to make the user open it?
I did NOT attempt to absolve e-mail users of all responsibility of their actions. I DID say that holding them fully responsible is wrong. ("Dim witted users" is precisely the language I was railing against. You don't know everything about everything - don't expect everybody else to hold expertise in fields not their own. If I were an auto mechanic, I could just as easily call you dim witted for not knowing the proper way to change your oil - would that make me correct?)
"Everybody knows" can not be one of your defences - common sense isn't. Further, not every company has seminars on virus defense. A user who attends such a seminar but fails to heed its warnings can be classified as dim witted. A user who doesn't have such seminars to attend isn't dim witted - they're merely ignorant.
At any rate, this is way off topic.
I missed a portion of your post when I was replying.
Yep, and it's still as facist today as it was before. One should never trust those who restrict your freedom of thinking whatever you want. People should be judged by their acts.
We're not talking about restricting your freedom to think here, nor are we talking about judging. The question was: is online sex the same as adultery? The reply was: for what it's worth, here's what the Bible says (yes, it is). My post states that, among other things, just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's wrong, as some of the followups to that post seemed to imply.
This concept can be based on the idea that if you think about something often enough, you're probably going to eventually do it. For myself, if I knew my partner was continually thinking about having an affair, I'd have some pretty severe trust issues. That's not restricting their freedom to think whatever they want, is it?
You are not "Living by the "rules" in the Bible" if you take the second half of this most basic rule without the first half
Point conceded. (I'm no Biblical scholar, and the last time I read the Bible was years ago.)
However, given that it's possible to live the second half without living by the rules in the Bible, it's possible to live by some rules in the Bible without living by the whole thing (you said so yourself), and therefore the intention of the post you replied to is proven - just because it's in the Bible, doesn't mean it's wrong. *That* is the attitude that I was fighting against - there's too much slamming of Christianity purely for slamming's sake in geek-circles, IMO - but now we're getting OT.
if you accept this idea as being true for all thoughts no matter if you only think it once
that's why I said "often enough" - unless your definition of "often enough" was "once". (My definition wasn't; I had in mind some random number > 1.)
How would you know if the person you're with was tempted? Do they tell you "Honey, today I had lustful thoughts about a man I saw on the street"? Confess thy sin and thou shalt be pardoned? (I'm sure some couples do, in fact, do this; I'm equally sure there's a large number of couples that assume no harm, no foul, and if they were tempted and resisted, they don't bother mentioning it - unless they felt really guilty, I guess.) It all goes back to the definition of adultery is whatever the couple agrees it is - and if they don't agree, they probably won't last very long as a couple.
IMO, and others', only you and your partner can define what is adulterous. If your partner has no problem with you calling 1-900 sex numbers, then so be it, it ain't. The line is drawn where the agreement is made. For myself and my own fiancee, the line is drawn at the point of action - where it becomes interactive and more than just "wow, look at ". We didn't sit down and agree on this, it's just understood.
However: if you need me, or anybody else, to tell you this, my suspicion is that your relationship is on shaky ground anyway. Morals come from within, not without, and most peoples' reaction to having others' morals imposed on them is to go out and do whatever it is they're not meant to be doing.
(Strictly speaking, if you had a Christian Church wedding (be it RC, some form of Protestant, whatever), then as previous posters have noted, thinking is as good as doing.)
If you think your partner is being ridiculous in saying that online sex is cheating (or, reversed, if you think they're being ridiculous in saying it isn't), perhaps you should consider the lack of respect that's apparently there. (Not meaning you the person whose post I'm replying to; meaning you the reader who's in this hypothetical relationship.)
If you say the earth is flat, I'll laught at you. If you say the earth is flat and that's your religion, I loose my right to laught about it ?
And laughing is your prerogative. We're not talking about something that can be empirically proven though - we're talking about ethics, we're talking about morals - although some philosophers believe these CAN be scientifically proven. By openly laughing, however, you lose your right not to be laughed at in return.
Most christian people do this or that because "the Bible says so, and if it is in the Bible, then it is true". What an amazing display of self-thinking and independance !
Has it occurred to you that perhaps they've considered the alternatives and rejected them? Would that not fall under the definition of "self thinking" and "independance" [sic] ?
not ALL my beliefs come from ONE book. It's not getting ideas from book which is wrong, it is getting ALL your ideas and ALL your beliefs from ONE book, and then stubornly refusing anything not compatible with those ideas because they are against what that one book says.
I know VERY few people that get ALL their beliefs from ONE book, be they Christian, Jew, or Satanist. Ditto for the stubborn refusal idea. The original poster wasn't saying that "the Bible says that this is adultery, so it must be true". The original poster was saying "this is the Bible's take on it, take it for what it's worth to you". And my reply to the followup to that post was "don't reject it just because it's in the Bible".
It isn't JUST in the Bible, either. Many philosophical beliefs include this concept. (I happen to agree with those beliefs; many do not. That doesn't make them wrong, it makes them different.)
re "most christian people". By christian, do you mean people who follow the Bible, or do you mean people who believe in the Christian God? If the former, then obviously they believe that if it's in the Bible, it's true. (That doesn't mean their ethics are wrong, either.) If you mean the latter, I know *many* people who follow the concepts in the Bible according to *their* interpretation. Their self-thinking and independence led them to the conclusion that there is, indeed, a greater being, and that some of the concepts in the Bible are good. I'm don't believe in a greater being myself, but that doesn't mean I can't choose to live by some of the concepts in the Christian Bible.
By the way, by defending your right to ridicule somebody for their beliefs (whether or not their beliefs seem logical to you), you defend my own right to ridicule you for yours, immaterial of their logic. (Do unto others... but that's a Christian concept, so does that make it false?)
Is something invalid just because it's in the Bible? (And, for that matter, who are you to ridicule somebody for their religious beliefs, as your post implies?)
Further, this belief is in more publications, if you will, than simply the Christian Bible. The concept of "thinking it is as bad as doing it" has been around for longer than the Bible. Just how much longer is left as an exercise for the reader; Greek philosophers may have had something to say on the subject of ethics and morals.
Living by "rules" in the Bible doesn't require that you accept that there's a God as defined in said book; it just requires that you do unto others as you would have them do unto you, take personal responsibility for your actions, and other similar ideas. (But these are obviously silly and outdated in a day where the person opening an attachment maliciously sent to them is at fault for getting a virus... sorry, that's a different rant.)
If old books seem stupid, you could try reading, f'rinstance, Robert Heinlein, he held a few of the same beliefs. Or you could work out your own set of beliefs to stand by; provided they don't break any laws, there's no harm in that.
You could even post on slashdot, for all the world to see, your personal beliefs so that somebody else can take potshots at them because they happen to be based on a book. (I find it quite likely that, no matter what your beliefs, they've been previously published somewhere, so it should be fairly easy.)
There is also general agreement (or at least a strong argument, I am not a "new testament" adherent or bible scholar) that the gospel books in particular have to be considered in the context of when they were written. You have the changing makeup of the early church from Jewish "followers" of Jesus to gentiles, and the changing relationship with Rome.
Fundamentalist Christians who consider their Bible the direct recorded word of G-d are free to disagree with me.
AFAIK, Josephus makes NO mention of Jesus in his two books that have survived ("The Jewish Wars" is one, I forget the title of the other).
you're married to another computer.
--
But just curious, where do you draw the line? If you consider pure 'computer sex' to be adultery (not talking about a computer relationship, just talking to someone while masterbating) ...
What about a computer program that 'talks to you'?
Or calling a late night 1-977-xxx-xxxx number?
Or looking at pornographic material?
I think most typical people's responses would be that neither of the last 3 are 'adultery', so then why does option 1 count?
while fondling around with Anna Kournikova virus
So what does that have to do with your computer?
...Oh you mean that Outlook thing.;-)
I recall from old catholic lessons on sin that
mere action is not necessarily a sin.
Necessary mental components include:
(1) UNDERSTANDING there is a "wrongness"- deceit,
hurt, selfishness, etc. Just because there may not
be "an entry in the book" doesn't mean it isn't wrong.
An adult would understand wrongness better
than a child.
(2) INTENT to perform the wrong action.
Accidents aren't necessarily sin.
(3) TAKING STEPS to perform the wrong action.
Lust in one's heart isn't necessarily bad.
Trying to cheat on the computer, but failing is.
So under several circumstances computer sex can be wrong.
Out legal code takes some mental state into account,
but catholics allow more guilt and leeway.
F-U F-Me
Thanks, Slashdot, for making V-Day a little more inane than it already is.
--K
Sex Bot by chance? ;D
--K
Sure, it's possible and probably even fun to roleplay a relationship that has no meaning for you-the-player. But I don't know many people who can do it well without foundering on the rocks of personal involvement. I don't even know many people who can deal with their real-life romances, let alone additional make-believe ones. I have a hard time role-playing without feeling what my characters feel. I do believe it can be done, but most of us lack the strength to role-play in a more-than-superficial manner and still maintain an impervious emotional barrier between player and character. There's plenty of fun situations to role-play that won't screw up your emotional stability (or make your SO jealous). Avoid RP romances.
... have a lot of broken marriages. Coincidence? I doubt it. People have a lot of broken marriages too, but I'm not usually surprised when non-actors stay married for more than 5 years.
The only thing that matters is whether or not your actions are beneficial or hurtful to others, regardless of what label applies.
Is computer sex adultery ?
What are your suggestions for other options ?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Just another thought:
Many people don't know how to read scripture -- and I'm not just talking about the Bible. Rather than taking it as a possible source of wisdom from which one could learn something, they see it as a rulebook and source material for a feared hegemony (although if you're going to try to live a spiritual discipline, rules do come in at some point -- "that which abideth a law is protected and sanctified by the same").
This observation of mine is supported by the fact there about 10 replies of people who have to ask: Does that mean that it's only adultery if you lust after a woman? What about men? Goats? A bit of thinking goes a long way here. But in order to do that thinking -- and associated wisdom -- have to think about the text, almost enter into a dialogue with it, rather than treat it as a dead set if rules to be interpreted mechanistically and blindly followed. That's a start, at least...
--
Tweet, tweet.
But the people in the relationship do not exisit in a vaccum. They have been influenced by cultural factors, including the judeo/christian system of ethics. So, before you get into that discussion you should be mindful that the very act of trying to negotiate the issue could rub your significant other the wrong way. That is the way real people work.
The deficiency in Natalie Portman and hot grits posts has been giving me a considerable amount of concern, but no longer.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
I know, not a very sharp line.
Watching porn is "ok" because you're not really going to get it on with the silicone chicks (or dudes). If you use it to get ideas, etc then it's cool. If you watch it because your relationship is going downhill and you're bored with your partner, that's bad. You should leave the relationship.
Phonesex is like porn, but it's interactive. More of the "relationship is bad, probably should break it off".
It's not a rule-based thing for me I'm afraid. More like a judgement call.
Blar.
Just because you don't literaly slip Mr. Happy into another person doesn't mean you aren't being unfaithful to your signifigant other.
Blar.
Morals are just words in a book somebody has elevated to the status of an idol. Ethics are real-world ways to solve real-world problems with a minimum of pain.
That said, anytime someone uses the square-headed girlfriend as an escape from a relationship, it means there are problems in the relationship, whether the escape is XXX chat rooms, Doom, or hacking the demon code. (See how this ends up covering MORE than mere malicious intent?)
The poster and I do agree on a few things, though. One, get a life outside the box. (I actually use the box to help create life outside it.... I have a standing date every week with a bunch of folk I keep up with on line the rest of the time. Some of them are even closer than that.) And I also agree that if you're in a bad relationship, and the other person isn't talking, get the hell out!! It's never too late to start over, as long as you're still breathing.
I have to wonder, though, why the guy used a Decepticon's name for a handle....
--
"It takes a lot of courage to stand up and get what you need...
Oh, more of us are happy in a different kind of Family."
-- Gaia Consort
Well according to the Bible, even THINKING about a woman to lust after her is adultery! so YES.
"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Matt 5:27,28.
-- DuckWing
If you or your SO think it's adultery then it is. It's that simple. Some couples don't think it's a betrayal of marriage vows to occaisionally sleep with another person, some think it's ok as long as the other person approves it, some think it's not ok to even look at another with lust in one's eyes. There is a whole spectrum of beliefs. So in any individual case, it is up to those individuals.
If you want to appoint some outside agency (the Catholic Church as an example) to make that decision for you, then you must find out what their stance is on the issue. If you were Catholic then I'm pretty sure they would consider it a sin. As George Carlin said: "Wanna is a sin all by itself!" Just thinking about having sex with someone else is a sin.
In the end, however, it is you and your partner who must decide whether it's wrong or not.
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
"Or they fall in love with people who don't return their affection. Or think they're in love, but they're not sure."
I'm sure glad that never happens in off-line relationships. That would be horrible.
I'll quote Chris Rock on this one, "There are always two women. One that you love. One that loves you. One got the best pussy in the world. The other has the best pancakes in the world"
-B
No, it hasn't. Or rather, it had and I laughed at the thought.
I only know one christian who has anything like a rational view of religion, he was a minister and studied the bible in the original languages, decided what survived the translation, and tries to base his views on what he thinks a god who had said those things would now want him to do.
Every other christian I know blindly follows either what they read or what their minister reads and tells them. They're incredibly uncomfortable with the idea that the bible isn't the inspired word of god. Those bible contradiction sites that have two passages from different 'translations' that directly conflict, or that point out how the original King James talked about unicorns freak these people out. They think one of the translations must be a false one by satan, or that maybe there really were unicorns. (All because some tired monk wrote down the wrong word...)
I pick on christians here just because they're the most common, and most vocal, by far. I know some jews but they've never mentioned their beliefs (they're not orthodox, so they don't eat kosher or anything.) And I'm sure some of my other friends have beliefs that are less western than that, but they too have kept silent.
And very few people question their beliefs. When I realize I'm at odds with what many people think, I try to check my opinions. But religious people just say that faith is required and ignore any contradictions. It's like a flat-earther who realizes they don't hold the majority view, but who refuses a ride in an airplane where they could see this theoretical curvature of the earth and prove once and for all which is true...
Ignorance is perfectly acceptable, everyone is ignorant and always will be, there's just too much to learn. What isn't acceptable is someone who ignores the chance to trade some ignorance in for knowledge.
When you spend a majority of your free time on MU*s like I do, you tend to meet all sorts of people. Almost a year ago, I met someone who lived well over 1,500 miles from me, but we seemed to get along so well.
;)
Online chats turned to (expensive) phone conversations, and I eventually flew over to visit her for a weekend. We had a great time, but unfortunately there was just no way either of us could move. It was a good thing, but not phenomenal, and not worth an incredible amount of trouble.
On the other hand, I've met people who have moved or are planning to do so for people they've met online. Some of them are insanely happy. Some of them didn't work out. And I've even known someone who found herself someone with severe mental instability that could've been dangerous.
In the end, it's not all that different from real life meetings. You just get a wider selection, and don't see them face to face. That can cause problems with two women I know who've been starting a relationship, since one of them had masqueraded online as a man for her own protection. But it seems to be working out.
At least when you meet someone online, you know that in the long run they'll understand your need for DSL or cable modem.
I'm not a christian, but I thought quoting Jesus would be appropriate here:
:: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
:: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
From Matthew:
5:27
5:28
My point: Adultry is about emotional betrayal, not physical.
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
So, in short, you weren't looking for romance, and it just sorta happened after 2 years? Thanks for demonstrating that my system works. :)
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
People seem to think that the rules are different, that somehow the people they meet over the net are magically different from those they'd meet in real life. A woman meets a guy who admits to being married, but adds "Oh, I'm going to divorce her" and naturally the woman believes. These days, forget it -- ask for a picture and get a picture of a different person.
Once upon a time having long distance romances was ok -- you spent all your time talking and learning about the other person. These days people think they can use the net like a springboard into a new pool of eligible singles from around the world. The first conversation usually involves "Where are you from and how much do you weigh?" I mean, let's be frank -- people are still as much about the shallow and material things as they've ever been. At least the kids have it right -- they just blatantly running around asking "age sex location check?" (In my day it used to be just 'morf', for male-or-female, but I guess age and location are important now).
Once upon a time, when cyberspace was young and underpopulated, you had a very good chance that the person you were talking to was a kindred spirit. They'd probably come to the net (or other online world) for similar reasons that you had, work, school, whatever. And in those days you connected brain to brain, soul to soul, and you learned really fast who you were attracted to. We talked about religion, or philosophy, or math or movies or books. Maybe, eventually, out of curiosity, you'd ask where the other person was from. Maybe, eventually, out of curiosity, you'd think about meeting. That's all gone now. I know a young lady who trolled the net looking for a date for my wedding, and was prepared to bring someone from the opposite coast until he made it clear that if he shelled out for a plane ticket he was looking to get some. She was offended, but what did she expect? Is she blind? She'd talked to him for a week.
The net has turned into the singles bar that we all hated. What's the big complaint about the bar scene? That it's a meat market, all about looks and shallow people? So the first thing we do when we get on the net is ask for a picture and go to amihotornot.com? We've done it to ourselves. I know so many people now that are looking for love on the net. For years I've been telling them the same thing -- "Stop looking. Find a topic you are interested in. Find a forum or mailing list where they talk about that. Start talking. Before you know it you'll find someone you're attracted to, and guess what, they've got something in common with you." It works. I met many, many nice young ladies while hanging out in alt.romance (several of whom are still very dear friends, but my favorite was the one who emailed me "WHERE ARE YOU AND ARE YOU SINGLE???" :)). But nobody wants my advice. They want to get laid. And right now.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
Cool!
--
You're a suburbanite.
Ahh, no. I wasn't trying to suggest that the Christian teachings in the NT don't have any problems with homosexuality... The point here was that Leviticus (which some Christians tend to refer to in this sort of thing for some reason) isn't what we should be looking for.
Nice comment on laws - well put. I remember someone remarking a while back that Kosher was basically sensible hygeine when you're wandering in the desert.
Anyway, nice nattering.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Actually, pretty much everything sexual in the Bible refers to straight guys.
I was being curious and picky a while ago, so checked. Lesbianism is entirely safe according to Leviticus. No problems whatsoever.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Y'know, I honestly don't have the details to hand. http://www.biblestudytools.net/ are quite useful for this sort of thing...
Anyway - the point is it prohibits _men_ lying together. No mention of _women_. Nothing.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Actually, I'm quite happy to agree with that sort of thing. I'm a Christian myself and don't think overly literal readings of the Bible help anyone. People, remember it's translated from languages we're not always that sure about - you will not find anyone who's a native speaker of Aramaic, 2000 year old Greek and current English, after all.
:)
The reason I was researching this was after a wonderful post from a friend to a mailinglist. I'll copy it below:
Subject: Why can't I own Canadians?
Background: Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that as an observant Orthodox Jew homosexuality is an abominaton according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on
the Internet
Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
At this point it's normally worth reminding people that Leviticus is part of Old Testament Law and that Christians aren't subject to it, it's mostly there for historical reference...
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
And, for that matter, who are you to ridicule somebody for their religious beliefs, as your post implies?
Belief is one thing but when you preach, it becomes doctrine and therefore open to debate and, sometimes, ridicule.
Blog
Whether you are a Fundamentalist or believe simply in inspiration, I believe that the Bible is simply saying that we need to exercise self-control and to honor those to whom we have committed.
I believe Abe Lincoln summed this up in two points:
1. Be excellent to each other; and,
2. PARTY ON DUDE!!
Blog
On what basis can you label any of it fiction other than you don't believe it?
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head there. When you don't believe something, that's when you regard it as fiction. That's the basis on which anyone regards anything as a fiction.
Can you imagine how God feels when someone takes the bible at face value and only follows certain life guidelines by their own choice, but completely ignores the fact that it was a gift from God?
Very similar to how the tooth fairy must feel when people just throw old teeth away.
Or how the Tooth Fairy feels when She is compared to God?
This went on for a good 6-8 months. We became the pseudo-boy/girlfriend even though we were fifteen hundred miles from one another.
Over time, you realize how close and dependant you get to certain people, especially in online relationships. And since you don't have to go through the butterflies or nervousness that comes with meeting people in real life, the anonymous exotic world of IRC (among other utilities) gets you past the horrid beginnings and right into the good stuff--getting to know the person for who they really are.
Sometimes, it backfires. Mine didn't...much.
We met that September (of 97). She flew to see me. We had a great time the week she was here, but...when it was time for her to go home, it simply tore my heart out--I'm sure those who've been through this sort of thing know what I mean. So, after she went home, a month went by and the phone bill skyrocketed from our constant calls and the plain ole missing of one another.
After many calls and discussions, me and her finally agreed to end it.
Of course, she didn't tell me at the time she was gay.
Nope, didn't mention it at all.
Damnit.
Unfortunately, none of these people would be biblical scholars. There are some people who try very, very hard to correlate the bible with historical fact. Very few of these people believe that those books were, in fact, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those books were considered "good sources" at the time that the bible was assembled -- several hundred years after the death of Jesus -- and their authorship was attributed to those Apostles to give them greater legitimacy.
--
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
In terms of Internet activity, you are not looking at anybody, lustfully or otherwise, so the above verse does not apply. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that by reading this Slashdot post of mine, you are "looking" at me. There is zero Scriptural justification for this.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
How interesting that you crow on about "taking personal responsibility" and then in the next breath attempt to absolve e-mail users of all responsibility with regards to their actions. Virus writers clearly shoulder the majority of the blame when it comes to the affects that viruses cause, but dim-witted users are a big part of the problem, as well. Anybody who opens an "attachment" with the extension "jpg.vbs" that ends up unleashing Hell onto a corporate intranet is culpable. They should know better, but because they didn't know better, their stupidity has cost their company potentially millions of dollars from downtime and lost wealth creation opportunity.
If you're going to shout the virtues of personal responsibility from the highest tower in the land, at least be consistent. Users who ignore all virus warnings and common sense security precautions share the blame when viruses bring companies to their knees. They are legally and financially responsible for a portion of the damages. If they lose their Lexus and end up driving a Chevy, so be it; you can bet they'll be more careful next time.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Consider this: A married man has "cybersex" on an IRC channel. Unbeknownst to him, his "partner" is actually a sophisticated bot written in Perl. Is that adultery, since there is no "other woman?"
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
And, for that matter, who are you to ridicule somebody for their religious beliefs, as your post implies?
Absolutely! There have been more ridiculous dogmas perpetuated by religious institutions than just about anything else. "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh", as the old saw goes. Just because *you* happen to think your religion isn't funny doesn't mean that it isn't (or shouldn't be) to others.
Two words: Ritualistic cannibalism. Now *that's* funny. "Show me you worship me by eating me." Absurd!
- Rev.IMHO, cheating is when you are carrying on a relationship with someone other than your partner and you are hiding it from them. If both parties are up-front about it and are cool with it then it's swinging, not cheating. If, however, your romance (online or not) is being kept secret, then it's cheating.
Ex: There have been a couple of times (yes, twice) where my wife & I have gotten hammered at a party and engaged in some naughty-naughty with someone at the party. We were both present and definately happy about it. No cheating. If, however, I or my wife had done this without the consent or knowledge of the other, well there woulda been hell to pay.
YMMV.
- Rev.
Off topic, but what's the name of that song you got those lyrics from? I gotta get me that.
On topic: I kinda disagree. Yes, masturbation is usually involved. But masturbation with another person is still cheating, imho.
- Rev.
"i'm in love!"
"no, wait -- it's a stroke!"
Mindy: "Well...desserts aren't always right." Homer: "But they're so sweet!"
Ok, I'll try to restrain myself from excessive ranting here, but I've gotta say something.
Skimming over the replies to this, I see things like "the bible is just a dusty old book, it belongs on the shelf next to winnie the pooh, etc" (not direct quotes). Now, I know that anytime you bring up anything remotely religious, you're gonna take some flak, but I thought james here worded his post rather respectfully. He presented it, not as biblical fact, but as a different perspective to be taken into account. Whether or not he believes the bible to be true, he kept that to himself, and tried to stay objective. Mostly everyone who replied, however, immediately jumped on his back and ridiculed his input. Now, I don't know for certain, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess that most of posters are adults. Personally, I'm not even old enough to vote yet, so I don't know if you'll pay any attention to what I have to say, but it's kinda sad to see what are supposed to be some of the smarter folks out there (the geeks/nerds/hackers/techno-savy/and so on) reacting in sucha an ingnorant fashion. If he had quoted given a quote from The Matrix or [instert Sci-Fi movie/book here] he would've been lauded. Instead, he was ridiculed. Hopefully we can one day grow up and say "You know, you make a valid point. I don't buy into your belief system, but I can accept what you have to say for its sociological context. Now, here's what I have to add..."
Ok, I think I'm done......
-------------------------------------------
I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
-- Dr. Seuss
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
...if your spouse or S.O. is unaware of it, or does not approve. If they are both aware and approving, then there is no cheating involved, just as in real life relationships.
-- "God, Root, what is difference?" - Pitr, "User Friendly"
I think the important thing, if you are thinking about falling in love and having a relationship, is to meet them in person, and get the relationship off-line as soon as possible. As long as it's on-line it's too easy to idealize the relationship. I mean really, if you think typing to another person online is a meaningful relationship, that alone is not really true.
Online, the other person appears to us how they think we want them to (and vice versa). The Desert of the Real can be quite desolate in comparison.
(of course the usual cautions about meeting strangers applies, even if you think you know all about them.)
It is a threat to bandwidth and system stability(much like Napster and Gnutella are). If I were in charge of a large LAN (over 1000 clients connected), then I would develop a blacklist of smut websites for the router to block out.
Sex has no place in the workplace. Period.
Erm... near as I can tell, the issue of sex in the workplace was never brought up. Most porn/sex-type stuff, I believe I can state with some certainty, is done at home. Workplace issues are irrelevant; you're attacking an issue outside the scope of the article.
inigima
Shouldn't this be a slashdot poll?
:-)
I just asked this very question of my wife, my mistress, and my current girlfriend. Its two votes no, one yes. But now they want to check my history file and drop a sniffer on my local segment. Thank god for IPSec tunnels
the AC
Add my no vote to your tally
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
And if the object of your desire isn't an *adult*? Is it still adultery? ;-)
And, for that matter, who are you to ridicule somebody for their religious beliefs, as your post implies?
If you say the earth is flat, I'll laught at you. If you say the earth is flat and that's your religion, I loose my right to laught about it ? I'm sorry, but too many stupidities are protected from criticism under the umbrella of "Religion". Just because it is in someone religion doesn't mean it's not ridiculous anymore...
The concept of "thinking it is as bad as doing it" has been around for longer than the Bible.
Yep, and it's still as facist today as it was before. One should never trust those who restrict your freedom of thinking whatever you want. People should be judged by their acts.
If old books seem stupid, you could try reading, f'rinstance, Robert Heinlein, he held a few of the same beliefs.
ah, I never said old books seem stupid, I said trusting your whole life and beliefs on an old book written by a lot of different people a long long time ago, is a bit of a stretch. Most christian people do this or that because "the Bible says so, and if it is in the Bible, then it is true". What an amazing display of self-thinking and independance !
You could even post on slashdot, for all the world to see, your personal beliefs so that somebody else can take potshots at them because they happen to be based on a book.
True - but not ALL my beliefs come from ONE book. It's not getting ideas from book which is wrong, it is getting ALL your ideas and ALL your beliefs from ONE book, and then stubornly refusing anything not compatible with those ideas because they are against what that one book says.
By openly laughing, however, you lose your right not to be laughed at in return.
As another poster said, no-one ever had this right in the first place. The idea that you can't laugh of a religion (or can't even critisize it) is deeply defended by religious people, because there's nothing more dangerous to a religion than an open debate about its merits and pitfalls. There's a good reason most religion created speech-crime and killed or ostracised people who expressed different views. Religions hate free speech. Whenever there's censorship, you can bet that 90% of the time there's a religion feeling "offended" (read "threathened"). You can read the Bible, you can read the Coran or the Talmud, all of them have very clear explanation about how to handle critics... (and no, it doesn't just involve diplomacy)
Has it occurred to you that perhaps they've considered the alternatives and rejected them
If they have done so, then they can probably come up with a better explanation than "because the Bible say so". Obviously if their only argument is that "the Bible say so", then they haven't even started thinking about it and decided to let the book think for themselves.
This concept can be based on the idea that if you think about something often enough, you're probably going to eventually do it.
Now that is definitely at the root of dictatorship. You don't know how many people have been put into jail, tortured or killed just because they let other people know that they were thinking in a different way. And the justification for such harsh treatement is always "he was thinking about a different political system, so that just shows he was ready to plant bombs and kill children to make a revolution". Those who don't separate thinking and doing are merely placing the barriers of laws into everyone brain, and that is definitely not acceptable.
Beside, thinking is an independant process : you can't control your thoughts. They can show you nice or torrible things, they can lead you to very immoral or weirds concepts. That's the beauty of thinking, that's where creativity and humanity lives. I don't know any human who never though of cheating, beating or killing someone at a point of his life. Does that makes all of us cheaters, killers ? No, that makes us human with a free-will.
Beside, there's no point in being faithfull if you can't even think about being unfaithfull in the first place. There's no merit being good when you can't even THINK about being bad in the first place.
wisdom of someone who was obviously a great moral teacher
Learn from WHO exactly ? Because the Bible has been written by a huge number of contributors, who contradicts themselves. Because it also has been translated and rewritten many times. Oh you meant Christ ? Well I don't think he even wrote a single in it. For what we know, his message might have been "eat brocolies and sleep with lots of women with big boobs" and we will never know.
If you think Christian believe the bible just becuase, well, you're right, except you're missing the other half; that we believe it without question because it was written by someone who really knows everything
You make a good point there, except for one thing. The Bible is always right because God wrote it. And you know God wrote it because that's what the Bible says, and the Bible is always right. If you are not one of those engaged into circular logic, then why do you think the Bible is the word of God ? Why isn't "Harry Potter" or "Dune" the real word of God then ? Whichever way you take it, at one point or another, you are basing all your life and moral on something that is quite baseless. Either way "someone said so" or "someone wrote so", but unless God himself came to you and told you the Bible was the one true book, you are only believing what other humans told you (priest, familly, tele-evangelist, whatever).
See it as a PGP signature ring-of-trust. God is the root certificate. If the Bible is not signed by God, and if the signature on it is not signed by God either, then you cannot trust the Bible nor the one who signed it either. For what we know, the Coran and the Talmud are also supposed to be the word of God, and they are sometimes in total opposition to the Bible or each other. There can be only one conclusion : at least 2 of those 3 books are partially or totally wrong, if not the 3 of them ! All 3 books have "serious backers", all 3 of them are very old. All we have in the end are a bunch of people claiming they have a book that God wrote/inspired. None of those 3 groups can show the slightest proof of what they claim. Now why any sensed and healthy human would adhere to one of this group is beyond me. I can understand the need to be religious, but then why picking the christian religion, why this one (with all its quirks) and not another ? Most Christian have never thought about it because they never put their belief into question themselves. And now some of them want to force all of us to live by THEIR moral.
But those who keep thinking about it, or do something about it, are the people who need the help.
I'd agree with that - but then we are not talking about people who cheat on someone physically, but online : no physical contact, usually not even an image or a sound of the other person. Now some people are deeply hurted by the mere knowing that their partner can imagine, for a second, kissing someone else. Some are comfortable with their partners sleeping outside or even having short term affairs. Cheating is not defined by religion or moral, it's defined by the moral contract you have with your partner. Once you go past the line drawned in this contract, then it's cheating. And the line is drawned somewhere different by everyone. Religion should be kept outside the bedroom !
the thing about God is that once you experience Him, you know the truth
:)
;). As religious rules go, most of them are so old they are outdated, and they most of the time go against common sense. And you follow all of this because of a feeling ?
;).
What you are basically telling is that "God came to you and told you christianity was the way to go". Well, I obviously can't argue against that (damn!). Still, you have to wonder why an almighty all powerfull God, who (it's in the Bible) want his followers to grow in numbers can't even communicate with something a bit more "multimedia" than a feeling. I like to say that the day a Porshe GTR will appear before my eyes, with Laeticia Casta asking me for marriage inside, I'll gladly convert myself and attend church every sunday
The problem with religion is that, if you take a human, raise him in a non-religious environement, 99% of the time he won't develop any religious feeling of any kind. God will never "talk to him". God talks to people who are raised or trained to be religious... which means the feeling of a relationship with God is mostly cultural and environemental, and has probably nothing to do with a the existence of supernatural being...
Christianity (today at least) isn't a corporation, it doesn't have rules or restrictions you have to follow on a daily basis (ala religion).
I disagree with that - christianity is based on the Bible, and there are many rules in there (at least the 10 commandments). As to not being a corporation, it's true, but 99% of christians are following an organisation of some sort. Like most religious people, christians organise themselves into groups. Of course there'll always be "rogue believers" who don't want to join a group, but they are a very tiny minority.
Outside, you see rules and biblical dogmas and doctrines that are highly restricting. But from the inside, that's the freedom - you know why those 'rules' are there.
I see your point - but then, Nazis also qualify to this description, and that doesn't make them nice people or even tolerable people.
They're not there to hinder or restrict, but to help and protect.
Well 2 large religions explicitly forbid eating pork, yet I can lots of pork and still be alive (ok, so much for cholesterol, but I don't think that's the point in the ban
Christians are so looked down on because it's an offensive faith. Most other religions now are becoming tolerant of other religions
Well I think most religions are very offensive, because if they are not then they die out of lack of believers. And it's just logic : if you have the truth, then others are wrong, and who wouldn't fight to make the truth win ? If christians are so offensive in the western world it is because they are big enough to matter, especially in the US which is to christians what Iran is to muslims.
A marriage is a joining, given by God, of a man and woman
Hrrr, that's the half of the story I don't accept. Marriage is between two people - and that's it. That's always a man and a woman (that's a christians dogma), and God isn't involved (unless He shows up in person sometimes at the wedding, which has yet to happen). There are marriage in every human culture, including animist and atheist, so obviously God is not required to love and marry someone.
With God out of the equation, marriage becomes something only personal to the two engaged
Yep, so what's wrong with that ? It's messy enough to handle with only 2 involved people (and a mother in law
Matt 5:28 - "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
This is the part I hate most about christinity : I'm not guilty for something I haven't done ! Therefor, I'm not responsible for my parents mistakes, for Adam and Eve mistakes, or even for the thing I thought about and didn't do in the end. Trying to make me guilty of others mistake is utterly evil. This goes against the most basic definition of justice and fairness. If someone is responsible above everyone else in the universe, it's certainly the creator of the universe, not the poor creature who try to clear up the mess they were born in.
Faith is the essence of Christianty.
:-) . Actually if God exists, the armageddon comes, and he rejects people who did good but weren't christians, then he is obviously a bad God, and then there's reason to worship him. If your God is as good as you say, then there's no need to worship him to be "a good person" and be saved.
;).
:)
:) The crusades would have never existed, Galileo would have written several best-sellers and advanced the astronomy science by 150 years, Salem would be famous for it's nice architecture, etc... maybe the world would be in fact much better. But we will never know :-(
:)
Or any other religion for that matter - since no religion on earth has ever proven the reality of what/who it worship, christian, muslims, animist and satanist are all in the same boat. Even atheist have faith, since their faith is that no God exists (which can't be proven either).
As the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways.
That saying exists because there's probably no God, and people needed a way to explain why, in a world they think is ruled by God, nothing work as expected and events happen purely randomly. And the only way to make those random event fit with the God existence is to say that He is not working with any logic. Another dubious explanation to hide most religions usual shortcommings in the way they explain the world.
He wants us to believe in Him so He'll give us a little bit of Him over time
I understand that, but then this is such a little bit than having faith in Him is about as hard as having faith in any other purely imaginary being. Actually more people have reported UFO sightings than God sightings, so all believers would probably spend their time better worshipping aliens. The statistical probably that aliens exists and will come to save us is much higher than God coming down here.
it's not out of His ability just to come back to earth and wipe everyone out, because that's all we deserve
Well if christians think they deserve to be wiped out, fine, but that's certainly not my position. I've certainly done my share of mistakes, but none that deserve death. If someone deserves a blame in this universe, it's the one who introduced pain, injustice, desease, etc... in it. Not those who suffer from it ! And the maker of this all, if there's one, is God. Many christians says that humans are responsible for all these bad things. But if you raise and train a dog to kill peoples, is the dog guilty, or is it the trainer, who willfully "created" a tool of death ? who sends earthquakes and tornadoes, humans or God ? If there's someone to blame, it's certainly not humans. Some christians have created a nice excuse for this ("the devil did it") but that's really a poor excuse, because even the devil is the creation of God himself. If He did everything, then he is responsible for everything. You can't just create the universe and then blame the poor living things in it for all the mistakes you did in your design in the first place.
That is a flawed statement. God can choose when and how He reveals himself to anyone.
Well that's how you see it - but statistically speaking, he reveals himself to populations that are partly made of christian people. There is no "born again christian" in populations that have never heard of the Bible ! Coincidence ??? Obviously that's because he doesn't reveal himself but someone (human) does the work for him instead... I'm sure if you were living deep in the Amazonian forest and never ever seen a white man, you wouldn't be christian either. So much for God reaching directly to your heart... kill all christians, and God is dead. History is full of dead Gods.
This is true, but they aren't 'go do this 5 times a day', or 'to get right with god you must maime and paint this animal', or even 'pray this 2 times to be forgiven'...
Yep, at least christians have less silly rules than other religions.
You can look at the 10 commandments as laws or rules to live on, but you'll live a life of feeling sat on and repressed because you don't have the freedom you want.
OR you could look at them as obvious guidelines for living a safe, happy, comfortable life with everyone else around you.
...knowing that if you disobey them, your take the risk of spending eternal times in pain and flames. Now talk about rules enforcement by fear...
If you're a true Christian, you're not bound by laws and regulations, but morals and ethical principles.
And we touch another problem again : you are not bound by laws and regulations (which make sense for a christian, since obviously, if you take for granted that God exists, then he and his laws are above human laws). And when humans laws and God laws oppose (say, separation of church and state), then believers don't respect humans laws, creating a big mess in the country. Abortion clinics getting bombed, books being burned, etc... are all living proof that once you consider that your religion is above laws, then you are free to not respect laws anymore. Another reason why democracy and religion don't mix well.
Yes, but Nazi's were entirely motivated of selfish greed and pride, not on Godly an biblical principles.
I think this is utterly false. Nazis where, like religious people, convinced they had "a message", a God and principles. Many were greedy, but many religious people are greedy too. They had a leader (Hitler), a holy book (My Kampf), a symbol, missionaries, etc... and where truly convinced they worked for a better world. Of course they were as wrong as it can get. Religions are the same, they think they work the the good but most of them are so "into" their stuff that they don't even see that they are trully evil in their acts. Christians burned whichs and still burn books from time to time, Muslims wants the head of the author of "the satanic verses", Jewish think they have a "holy property right" to the Palestinian ground, etc... as long as religions exists the madness will never stop and the blood will keep flowing. That is not to say religions are the cause of all evils, but they have a big market share of evil.
God's kingdom will never fall to treachery or greed or selfishness, because God is only love.
Well he cursed people and their offspings for generations, burned cities, flooded the earth and killed about everyone, asked human sacrifices, drowned armies, etc... (the Bible is full of murders, genocides, rapes, etc..) If this is his idea of love, then I'm not interested. He just showed the behavior of an immature spoiled brat. I'd rather die for justice and honor than be saved by worshiping and submitting to an evil God.
o how come the 10 commandments are what America was founded on?
First many people will contend that, at least because the American constitution specificly separate church and state, and because the founders were deeply convinced that religion had nothing to do in the country affairs. Of course history is made so that the US were colonized by the most biggots people in the world, as they were even too much religious for Europe (which was rather religious at the time too, so it says a lot about the level of biggotry of the first immigrants). Once those immigrants arrived they preceded to kill most native opposition... not very a christian behavior is it ? During the cold war the country became MORE religious that it ever was by changing the text on money and turning it into "in God we trust".
Christianity is offensive because at the heart, you're called to go out and save others.
(images of Jehovah's wackos knocking on my door on a saturday morning). Well I'd like to save christians from their evil cult too
So Christianity is striving to show the truth to the world because the world is just in such a bad place right now.
It would be more efficient to work directly toward making a better world. You can either run around and scream "fire !" and try to save pople, or you can take a bottle of water and douse the fire right away (if there's a fire, which christians don't even know because they just saw someone else scream "fire!", but never even saw the smoke of cigaret themselves
Only if that truth affects everyone else. Most religions are about what to do to end up in heaven, and it's an endless struggle, and endless discipline to earn it.
But then we are not 7 anymore, we should be old enough to know what's good and bad have no need of "if you are nice you'll get to heaven, if not to hell" to motivate us. If an atheist helps an old lady cross the road, he does it out of pure kindness. If a christian does the same, he will clame to do it out of pure kindness too, but then he might have done it just to increase his chances of getting to heaven. So we know the atheist is AT LEAST as good as the christian, and maybe even better
The US if founded on Christan beliefs, but is no longer looked upon as so. The 'freedom' everyone wants is to have their own way - but that CAN and WILL only lead to chaos and disaster. Christianity is far from free in the US. Too many people are still ridiculed and persecuted because of their faith
Including atheists and agnostics. Many people live in small communities where not going to the church immediately make you suspect. Some teachers even receive death threats when they dare to teach Darwinism. The fight surrounding abortion, prayer in school, etc... just shows that christians are still dreaming of imposing their idea of the world to others, whether they want it or not.
you can take God out of the equation, but that doesn't change the fact that it was given by God.
Actually ethropologists seems to agree that marriage was created in order to allow men to know who their kids were from, and therefor allow them to transmit their belongings to their offsprings. Before marriage you only knew for sure who the mother was, so belongings were transmitted from mother to daughter. That's supposedly how power and money came from the hands of women to men and started the patriarcal society we know. No intervention of God in this process has ever been documented, it's all the idea of humans, like God was not involved in the invention of the Internet (or shall we thank God for TCP-IP every time we log in ?).
If Jesus hadn't died and rose, the world would be a much different place...
Well if didn't existed then you would probably be Jewish
We're not guilty of another's mistake. We are paying the consequence for their decision, there's a difference.
Well if God had kept is garden well walled, the snake wouldn't have entered and all of this wouldn't have happened. When the pig escape out of the barn, you can blame the pig, but you are the one who left the door of the barn oppened.
We're now inherently given what Adam and Eve wanted for themselves (being deceived), and are bound by physical death as punishment.
So what you are saying is that we are not guilty, yet we are punished ? I hope you don't/won't raise your kids the same way... everyone deserves the right to proove him/herself to the world and show how good he/she can be, without paying thru the nose for others mistake. If God is against this, then he doesn't deserve the worship he is getting.
Now was that a long post or what ?
I like 28 : "we know what you think, who you are, and you are all guilty and shall worship me if you want any hope of saving your miserable life" (booming voice)
No one would ever accept that from anyone, but of course if it is written in a very old book it has to be accepted as the ultime truth...
My personal experience has shown me that online romances _can_ be adultry, although the line is a difficult one to draw.
I was married to a lovely lady somewhere in the midwest. Not too technically adept, she was fascinated with the internet and took to it like a fish to water when she moved in and got 24/7 access to my computer. After a period of time, our relationship grew less intense (like most relationships do), and she turned to chat rooms to suppliment the excitement in her life. No big deal - it wasn't like she didn't have friends in the physical world, and the continuous influx of new names kept her entertained.
I'm certain that you can all see it coming. She met a guy in Canada in one of the chat rooms. Again, no biggie, it's not like she could fool around with the guy, and, hey, I shouldn't be restricting her from harmless friendships, right?
After about two months she was spending more time online with him than talking to me. Eventually they started calling each other on the phone. My first clue that this was going on was when I recieved a notice that the credit card that my phone bill was being charged to had been cancelled for being way over its limit. I eventually discovered that she had averaged about an hour a day on the phone with him for about a month, racking up a total of $850 in phone bills over 28 days. Calling cards on payphones for international calls can be REALLY expensive. I still keep the bills as a souvenier. I understand that this was just the bills for her calling him, and that he had called her just as much, but on a better calling plan.
The funny part of this is that, when the guy heard how pissed off I was at this, he stopped talking to her. I don't believe they ever met. She didn't talk to me for about two weeks because of that. It occasionally takes a large brick to convince people that the love has gone out of a relationship. Her silence was a bigger brick than the phone calls.
A relationship is all about two people enjoying each other's company. When one of those people abandon the other for a third person's company, they are in effect "going out" on the relationship. I can't say it's cheating, because everyone's rules are different. I can say that such abandonment is harmful to a relationship. In my case, it was fatal.
Mythological Beast
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Meat market indeed. I do have to brag that I finally met someone IRL who I'd been doing web work for for the past 2 years, and it was awesome. He's moving here. :-)
/."
Yes, Virginia, there are still honest people online.
"I'm not a bitch, I just play one on
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Would you give a guy a foot massage?
Josh Winslow
As for the question in the heading of this article, I just don't see how using a computer to fall in love with somebody makes it any different than falling in love with someone over any other medium, be it IRL, a pen-pal situation, over the phone, or whatever.
It's like this -- if you use a computer to steal a million dollars, it's ethically the same as if you stole a million physical dollars. The semantics might be different, but you're in the same boat. A million dollars is a million dollars. Cheating on your significant other is cheating on your significant other. I mean -- I would be just as pissed off at my girlfriend if she called up the LiveLinks Phone Dating Service and found someone as if she went looking for someone in a chat room. We're in a relationship -- we need to work out our problems with each other, not turn to some kind of "outside comfort". Just because the computer makes it easier just doesn't make it ethically different.
This reminds me -- I once uncovered an ex-girlfriend that was being unfaithful because she was using a command-line icq client on a box I administrated to talk to her new boyfriend... hah... I was a little suspicious so I just did a:
# tail -f micq.log
one day while she was talking, and after a few messages scrolled by, that was the end of that. My suspicions were confirmed.
it can also be interpreted as, "If you think about long enough, it will influence your actions and cause you grief."
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I'm hearing this little voice in my head that sounds like Cartman from South Park: "You are really reaching right now."
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Is a bullfrog waterproof?
Of course it's adultery. You are using another person for sex.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
I do have to say, it's pretty scary that anyone even asked this question, without the answer being glaringly obvious... :-(
Cult of Personality
That little bit is thrown in there because being raped does not constitute committing adultry. I don't think that there's a double standard there, it just that it's more difficult and much less common for a woman to rape a man than vice versa.
_____________
I don't want free as in beer. I just want free beer.
No. It would be THE FRIGGING KILLER APP of the Web if you could do it convincingly!
"If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
Look, adultery needs to be defined by the individuals in the relationship. You may be perfectly comfortable with your S.O. having intercourse with your best friend, but giving her a foot massage infuriates you. If your S.O. has agreed to these terms, and he violates them, he has violated your trust and the terms of your relationship.
If you are looking for social norms to define for you what is or is not acceptable to do with or without your significant other(s), you are not communicating with your S.O. and harming your relationship even worse than "cheating". Each couple needs to discuss (often) the terms of their relationship based on their individual needs. Get specific. How far is too far? These are personal agreements, not social rules to be followed.
Where men are men, and women are also men.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Good advice, but I'd like to add my 2p...
Tip #1 : Keep Your Personal information Private)
When you finally hump and dump the chick you meet online, the last thing you want is her emailing and phoning you all day long. Or your girlfriend/wife finding out. But you should still stay in touch, just in case you fancy a repeat performance some time. Just say your PC crashed and you lost all your passwords etc etc if she asks why you haven't been in touch.
Tip #2: Carefully Choose Your Online Name
Don't call yourself "Big Ten Incher" unless you are. Otherwise, prepare yourself for the looks of disappointment when you get your kit off.
Tip #3: Have Your Wits About You When Meeting in Real Life
Fuck yes. Get there late, so that you can spot her before she spots you. That way, if she has a face like a smacked arse, it's not too late to abort the mission. This may be hard for some of you to accept, but I have reason to believe that some of the women you meet online may lie about how attractive they really are. Otherwise why would they be trying to score via the net?
Tip #4: Trust Your Instincts
If something about your online encounters feels uncomfortable, you can almost bet that an in-person encounter will feel the same. The best thing to do is to let them down gently with a polite "Fuck off, I'd rather stick my cock in a blender." Before doing this, make sure that you have followed Tips 1 & 2 to the letter. This system of abusing people that can't find out who you are has been working on Usenet for years.
Tip #5: Be Weary of Totally Free Personals Services
And be wary of them as well. If you follow my tips, you have so much action your dick will be worn down to a stump. Also, when a service is entirely free, be cautious of the quality of the individuals with whom you correspond - you want a women that can afford to pay for dinner when you go out, not some tight bitch that can't even pay for an ad. In addition, free services are easy targets for devious or insincere types because of that fact: they're free. So go for somewhere a bit more selective, otherwise you could end up with some gullible tart and end up stirring the porridge of a couple of hundred other blokes.
Is this like when you walk into a bar, and try and chat a women up, and she tells you to get lost, and you tell all your friends she was a lesbian?
We believe you, honest.
<soapbox>
First:
To all the ones ranting about religion - remember that with all the different ideas out there SOMEBODY HAS TO BE WRONG (at least in the details). What if it's you? Many religions allow for what Xtian's cosider adultery.
Second:
For everyone else. Sin is easily defined as 'hurting other people unnessarily'. That could include Xtian adultery, but it may not (your spouse doesn't care as long as you come home 'clean').
The MOST IMPORTANT THING IN ANY RELATIONSHIP is that both of you COMMUNICATE (NOT just talk, but communicate), and therefore both of you know, and agree, on the rules by which you live.
If in doubt, ASK!!! You may get put in the dog house, but that's better than being kicked out.
I rather hope I have offended some of you enough to make you think, but I don't much care. I just get tired of listening to ppl say that lack of religion is the reason for decline.
Teach your children to take responibilty for ALL thier actions, and everything else will follow. Religion doesn't enter into it.
One note for the person who posted scripture: I liked that - it's true. And I'm VERY happy to see your cavet about many ppl not taking it as such. It offends me when ppl think that I must be going to thier hell, or worshipping their demons b/c I don't believe in their gods.
</soapbox>
WHONEEDSSLEEPWHENWEHAVECAFFINE?!
Sounds similar to acting. Is it cheating when Mel Gibson kisses his female lead?
;-)
WHONEEDSSLEEPWHENWEHAVECAFFINE?!
You are not "Living by the "rules" in the Bible" if you take the second half of this most basic rule without the first half
Jesus (Yeshua if you prefer) was speaking to the Hebrews and as such had to speak to the MASSES in a way that they could accept and understand, so he spoke to them about a god in the sky (like the Jehova/Yahweh "God of the Mountain" that they already worshiped) but also spoke to them of loving their neighbor as themselves. It's not a two-part rule, it's the same rule twice, just in a way that an unenlightened individual can understand. Let me translate for you:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Your neighbor and yourself have one big thing in common... SELF.
SELF=SOUL=GOD
GOD is infinite. Which is to say, anything that exists falls within GOD because there's no other way it can be. If you say GOD is over there and the universe is over here, then GOD isn't infinite. Infinity only allows ONE. If you have infinite this over here and infinite that over there... there is no infinity.
When you love GOD with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, you don't have any room for hate, greed, jealousy, anger. When you love your neighbor as yourself, you are showing that you recognise that GOD exists as the "observer" in each of us. That no human (no matter their status, intelligence or weakness) is lesser than any other, because all are merely reflections of one and the same thing.
Way back in the old testament we find out that one of GOD's names is "I AM"
as in...
I AM (THAT WHICH EXISTS)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
Please explain to me how ANYTHING (say, GOD) could at once be INFINITE (without boundaries) and yet NOT be somewhere (such as here, there or everywhere) or something (such as computer monitor or tree)...
If the tree and computer monitor (and the rest of creation) do NOT exist within GOD, where *DO* they exist? And how does this reconcile with GOD's INFINITE nature?
Your own bible begins thusly:
In the beginning there was GOD and VOID.
Ok.. now, Shakespeare may not be an authority you are willing to accept, but as King Lear said to Cordelia, "Nothing shall come of nothing."
If, in the beginning, there was only GOD, and then creation sprang into being... where did it spring from? And where did it spring to?
Ok. Next question.. If you can't possibly remove even a COMPUTER MONITOR from the list of "what exists within the scope of infinity" how do you propose to remove yourself? Or me?
If you have one thing here and one thing there and they are not parts of the same thing, neither of them can be said to be infinite, because infinity is necessarily inclusive of everything.
If GOD is infinite (as all major and most minor religions suggest) then there is no way for ANYTHING to exist, except out of GOD. But GOD can't LOSE substance... he's infinite. So any substance, whether it seems to be "computer monitor" or "hand" or "bible" is really just a part of that one glorious, infinite whole.
(Ever notice that everything -- stars, planets, plants, animals, computer monitors, etc -- are made up of the same stuff? The air you're breathing is composed of the VERY SAME MATERIAL that make up your computer monitor and your you.)
Since we're having fun quoting old books, here's some smack-down from Swami Vivekananda, in the early 1800s:
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
=(.\')=
I submit that the Bible is an outdated manuscript of social order and either needs to be revamped to accomodate for todays.... peculiarities, or we do away with it completely and become Aztecs.
I agreeitlan.
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
So, does this mean that only a woman who's a lesbian can commit adultery? I submit that the Bible is an outdated manuscript of social order and either needs to be revamped to accomodate for todays.... peculiarities, or we do away with it completely and become Aztecs.
-Sean
- Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
This was before widespread use of the Internet by the public (although I was using it at the time). I don't know what network his girlfriend was using, but it was some proprietary system like Compuserve or AOL.
Last Resort patched the GetNextEvent trap in the MacOS to save all your keystrokes into a file. The buffer is flushed and the volume flushed too every few keystrokes, so if you're writing the next Great American Novel and lose power, while the text may be a little garbled, you'll at least get your words back.
Unfortunately for this fellow's girlfriend, this editor was an enthusiastic Last Resort user and he discovered her steamy letters to her online lover in his keystroke files.
I was utterly horrified to find this out but the fellow came up to me at the MacWorld trade show and thanked me profusely.
Last Resort was my first shipping commercial software product (now one of many). It was a simple program that took 8 kb of ram during operation, but we were well aware of the privacy implications. It doesn't try to hide itself - it shows up in your control panels under the apple menu and it displays it's "resort logo" with a palm tree by a beach (an early attempt at art by Yours Truly) at startup.
There are numerous more invasize products meant to snoop on your lovers - or capture passwords. For example, I received some spam from someone who was selling software that would hide itself well and save its keystroke files encrypted on a disk, then make an encrypted network connection to a server to upload the keystroke files from the hapless user's machine.
This wasn't your government snooping on you, this guy was looking for a distributor to publish the program.
This MacUser editor later published a novel about the software industry in which many fictitiously named but software applications that were thinly disguised versions of real products (I guess for trademark reasons) played central roles in the plot. I'm proud to say that his thinly disguised clone for Last Resort was responsible for saving the world!
Now if I could remember his name I'd give you a URL to the book...
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
She wasn't all that impressed, it was just a brief note to compliment my page, and I get such notes all the time.
What mattered was that we began corresponding, and after a month or so I asked for her phone number, and we began talking on the phone occassionally. I really impressed her by calling her in Nova Scotia while I was visiting a friend in Rome.
She lived in Truro, Nova Scotia, I in Santa Cruz, California. I soon discovered the need for cheap long distance - before I got my rate lowered I received a $2500 bill for just one month, and even after getting AT&T one rate international my bills were running $1100 per month.
She didn't own her own computer so voice over IP wasn't an option, and I tried to make it one by sending her my old 486 and Speak Freely. While she was able to negotiate Speak Freely's complex UI the 486 wasn't up to the task of the signal processing.
I also made three visits to her (the first on January 18, 1998, in wintry Canada from sunny California, bringing a rose with me all the way on the plane), and she made two to me.
It was when I offerred to buy her a brand new Pentium-II machine to run Speak Freely on that she decided to finally come out to Santa Cruz and live with me.
She soon found work doing biotech and was able to stay for a year on a TN-1 visa, an option also available to americans and mexicans in each other's countries who hold bachelor's degrees and work in various professional fields (tip - computer programming qualifies).
We were married July 22, 2000 in Pippy Park, St. John's Newfoundland just outside the Fluvarium where we held our reception. It was a beautiful day - outdoor weddings are not common in Newfoundland because of the northern climate, and in fact we rented a big tent.
We moved back to the U.S. a few weeks ago and now live in Owl's Head Maine in a house we could have never hoped to have afforded in Santa Cruz.
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Point of order, please...
Living by "rules" in the Bible doesn't require that you accept that there's a God as defined in said book; it just requires that you do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
Actually that is completely incorrect in and of itself. The "do unto others..." Golden Rule is only the second half of a quote of Jesus in the New Testament. You omitted the first half of the rule which tells you to love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and then it says to love your neighbor (do unto others) as yourself. He then goes on to explain that on this whole basic rule hinges every other rule/law, including ultimately the lust-in-the-heart topic.
You are not "Living by the "rules" in the Bible" if you take the second half of this most basic rule without the first half. Without the whole rule the rest of the Bible (including the on-topic part about lust in the heart) is just sophistry and legalism. Hence the original poster's snide comment: they don't buy the "God part" and so consider the rest to be nonsense.
Seriously, you'd make a good one. Plus I hear they're recruiting right now. Particularly they like people who lack hermeneutical skills, are simplistic and are willing to exaggerate or play with "truth" in a way that suits their agenda.
Sign up now!!
"Man has always been his own most vexing problem." --Reinhold Niebuhr, "The Nature and Destiny of Man"
I would be willing to bet that there are at least a small number of humans, who are not insane, and believe that it is perfectly morally acceptable to kill someone for any reason. Or maybe even less extreme versions of that, such as, it's okay to kill someone if they're doing something you don't like, but it's not okay to kill your family.
:) But these are just my thoughts on the topic; you did after all ask for, well, not my thoughts, but thoughts nonetheless. :)
The reason, I think, that murder is so commonly considered immoral is because, in general, murder runs contrary to one's own interests, and most social systems recognize this.
Let's take an example. There is a person A who does not like person B. Person B steals person A's stuff, cuts person A off on the freeway, and generally makes life difficult for person A (however B has no violent intent toward person A; they will not assault them or kill them).
If A kills B, A's life has improved because B is no longer hassling A. Therefore, murder is okay for A!
Except... B has lots of friends who are upset that B is dead, so they *all* start making trouble for A, and possibly kill him in revenge (or at the very least beat him severely, and often).
So even though killing B was in A's interests in the short term, in the long term, it was against A's interests.
People generally know that if you kill someone, other people will come and make your life worse. Wanton killings also lead to more unstable societies; people like stability, and since murder helps prevent stability, people don't like murder, so it gets codified as social dogma.
Let's look at A and B again. If A's view is that his own death is a good thing, then it would be perfectly good, IN THE LONG RUN, to kill B, because then other people will kill A, which meets A's goals. The upshot is, any action can be considered good in the proper moral context; realistically, there are very few people who condone wanton killing (unfortunately, they have an annoying tendency to be politicians), which is why we end up with nearly everyone thinkings that murder is bad, mmmkay.
Polygamy, however, is much more commonly accepted than murder (which is not to say it's common on an absolute scale). It simply requires a different set of social constructs in order to contribute to the stability of a society. If I murder you, you can no longer take action to better society. If I sleep with two women regularly (and am "married" to both, though since marriage is often considered a "lifetime commitment to one person", one wonders what it means to be married to >1 person), both women may still act and affect society.
Not that I want to get into a discussion of polygamy right now.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
What happens if your object of lust is a goat ? Is that *still* adultery ?
----------------------------
-----------------------
Moderator's essentials
www.baiting.org is one of my favorite humor sites on the web. It has AIM logs of clueless people looking for cybersex being fooled. Sorry I didn't posted it earlier as the site was down.
This is one of the most sensable things I have seen in a while. Exactly. Adultary is whatever the people involved agree that it is.
Every relationship is different. Every person has different expectations and beliefs. Me personally, I put a different value on sex than others. If my partner (at a time when I had one, recently I am without one) were to have gone off and had sex with someone else...well so what? _I_ am not bothered by that.
In fact, I just think sex is nice and feels good. If my partner wants to share that with someone else, then thats great. (now the issues of disease and other things would come into play, but thats a practicall consideration, not a "philosophical" one and as such doesn't come into play in this veiwpoint).
I often think that such ideas as "adultury" stem from peoples insecurity and fear of losing their lover more than anything else.
But hey... if you enter into a relationship, and then break the trust of that relationship, thats wrong. If the relationship is of the type where the action is not an issue, then its not wrong. It is ONLY wrong when a trust is being broken.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
My current ladyfriend had been giving me way too much sex and I suspect it has reduced my angst level into a dangerous level.
Maybe you need to have some Molson Ex with your buddies. hehe
Why specifically "adultery"? Does this verse only apply to married people?
Well, whenever a question like that comes up about just one line, it's usually a good idea to look at the passage surrounding it. Jesus is talking about whether it's legitimate to try to interpret ethical rules literally, in order to escape their original intent-- which is exactly what you just asked.
And so on. The specific issues aren't the point I'm making. The point is that your question is really one about "How do I interpret a passage from the Bible responsibly?". In this particular case, that's also what the passage is about anyway.
M
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
>Computer "sex" is lust, and therefore is adultrey, which goes aginst the LORD thy God
According to this logic, computers go against the LORD thy God, and are evil things projected by pagans.
Hmmmmm... That makes sense. This explains that little red devil on my BSD box.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
I think that some people get lucky and it works out for them, but I think that for the most part having a cyber relationship is a good way to set yourself up to be burned.
As far as the idea of being married already and doing these sorts of things, I think that its wrong because I think it would hurt one's spouse.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
Did you just say 'way back in 1997'? Heh.
First a review of the worthless movie "Saving Silverman" and now this piece of Cosmo fluff?
Please tell me slashdot is not falling to MSN standards?
<ontopic>
Jon you can't have an absolute answer to a question of morality. You might as well have asked "Is Islam better than Christanity?" It would almost seem that this post is designed to provoke people into flaming each other == "Yes it is you morally-challenged SLUT!" "No it's not, you closed-minded fascist!"
</ontopic>
G.H.
Just because I'm better than you doesn't make me right.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
Thinking about adultry is one of the few pleasures those of us with, homely wives have :)
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
Interesting...but if you cheat and don't get caught, your partner never gets to the stage of feeling betrayed....and you still cheated.
I think the best rule is, if you wouldn't do it in front of your partner, then it's cheating.
Chris Wallace did an investigative piece that is still out there on Cyber-Prostitution and such. It can be found at http://abcnews.go.com/onair/correspondents/wallace /internetexpose/ and select Sex E-Commerce
Which part of this do you label as "fiction?" The part about there being a Jesus, the part about him saying what he purportedly said, or both?
On what basis can you label any of it fiction other than you don't believe it?
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
The question was not whether he regarded it as fiction or not; he made his position clear. Rather, I asked on what basis he chose to do so (other than the arbitrary).
Choosing to disbelieve something does not make it fiction (ie., something invented by the imagination). Having never seen one alive, I may regard the existence of the dodo as fiction, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
Not only is he babbling on a toping that has already been done to death in the media, but one that has also been covered on Daytime Trash Talk Shows. And Larry King, probably.
Ick. I feel dirty.
sig not found
And you think schools should teach this because....?
A big news bulletin for you - you don't have to be Christian to be a moral person.
And if you want them teaching our kids morals, they'd better be teaching my morals right alongside - and I'm Buddhist left winging tree hugging feminist - unless you can prove that your morals are more correct than mine.
By the way, I believe in the intent being the deciding factor as well, even tho I'm a heathen who was morally descimated by the US public school system.
ooky
"....Wov, twuuu wov, is what bwings us towgether, towday...-princess bride
It's not only Christians that believe in God, you know. That's only ONE of the glaring logical fallacies I see in your argument.
Altho I never said a THING about evolution, yes I do believe in it (gotta love a theory that has as much documented evidence in it's favor than the theory of gravity) but yet I still, strangely, would never consider going out and raping, molesting killing, assaulting, robbing anybody, whether they are women or not. This is because I consider those things to be immoral, unethical, and rather unsavory to boot. If you need a God to judge you someday or you will do these things, then for pete's sake PLEASE believe in Him in all His wrathful glory - I'll feel a lot safer. Oh, and we ARE animals, at least the last time I checked - no photosynthesis going on at my end.
ooky
"You got REAL ugly, baby." - Ash
Matthew, Chapter 5:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Cool!
Sounds like an excellent time-saver.
...if it's in a different subnet.
Trolls make great pets. Adopt one today!
If they have done so, then they can probably come up with a better explanation than "because the Bible say so". Obviously if their only argument is that "the Bible say so", then they haven't even started thinking about it and decided to let the book think for themselves.
As a Christian, I can say that people either misunderstand or send the right message about "because the Bible says so". Obviously anyone who says 'just because' has some problems. Christians believe that Bible is inherently true because we believe it was written by God. We don't believe it 'just because', we believe it because we believe it was divinely inspired.
It's like one poster who mentioned how people take the 'do unto others' verse, without looking at the first half which it was meant to be joined with, but cut out because it had to do with God. If you think Christian believe the bible just becuase, well, you're right, except you're missing the other half; that we believe it without question because it was written by someone who really knows everything, but people seem to leave that half out.
Beside, thinking is an independant process : you can't control your thoughts. They can show you nice or torrible things, they can lead you to very immoral or weirds concepts. That's the beauty of thinking, that's where creativity and humanity lives. I don't know any human who never though of cheating, beating or killing someone at a point of his life. Does that makes all of us cheaters, killers ? No, that makes us human with a free-will.
Ah, no you have to distinguish between thoughts and dwelling on thoughts... similarly, temptations exist, and anyone who believe thinking temptations are their own fault is going to live a very stressful life. Thoughts are what enter your mind - it's then your choice what you do with them. If you dwell on them, then there's a problem - it means you're willingly continuing to think on them. If a thought enters your mind and right away you dismiss it because it's just wrong, that's a good move. Creativity and humanity lives in our ability to make that choice and distinction. That's why it's a common and safe assumption for people to say - 'I know many if not all of you have thought about committing suicide'. Well sure, whoever when in a desperate situation has not thought about extremes solutions? But how many have gone through with it?
Anyone can tell you that getting married doesn't make life easier. Temptation and lust even get worse once you're married. Does that mean you're a bad person for having those thoughts? No, cuz it's natural, it's a part of our humanity now. But those who keep thinking about it, or do something about it, are the people who need the help. It's just like anger - anger isn't wrong or bad, it's how you handle and react to your anger.
It just bugs me when people ridicule Christians for accepting the Bible just because it's the Bible, without knowing the other half of the story...
However, given that it's possible to live the second half without living by the rules in the Bible, it's possible to live by some rules in the Bible without living by the whole thing (you said so yourself), and therefore the intention of the post you replied to is proven - just because it's in the Bible, doesn't mean it's wrong. *That* is the attitude that I was fighting against
The only problem I find with that though, is it's like painting a beautiful landscape, and signing the corner of the painting. You give it to someone you love, and they are amazed by the artistic quality. Then they come along with a little scraper and scratch off your signature or paint over it, because it detracts from the painting as a whole.
Can you imagine how God feels when someone takes the bible at face value and only follows certain life guidelines by their own choice, but completely ignores the fact that it was a gift from God?
Just an idea, something to think about, to take however you will.
This thread is waaaaay OT :)
Jesus (Yeshua if you prefer) was speaking to the Hebrews and as such had to speak to the MASSES in a way that they could accept and understand, so he spoke to them about a god in the sky (like the Jehova/Yahweh "God of the Mountain" that they already worshiped) but also spoke to them of loving their neighbor as themselves. It's not a two-part rule, it's the same rule twice, just in a way that an unenlightened individual can understand. Let me translate for you:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Your neighbor and yourself have one big thing in common... SELF
Let me translate for you:
"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Yes, it's not one rule (two halves), but two rules - and not the same rule twice. Distinctly told as two rules, and of course, the first is the greatest. The second, being 'like' it, means that you love with the same love as you show the Lord, and if so, you love your neightbor with godly love as well as yourself. But the Lord is still the greatest of these. If we were God, the first commandment would say to love yourself as Lord...
GOD is infinite. Which is to say, anything that exists falls within GOD because there's no other way it can be. If you say GOD is over there and the universe is over here, then GOD isn't infinite. Infinity only allows ONE. If you have infinite this over here and infinite that over there... there is no infinity
God is infinite, as in we cannot comprehend his existence. God is everywhere and in everything; that's not the same as saying God IS everything - God is not the tree, God is not a computer monitor... you can say God is over there because he IS over there, he's everywhere... I would say the universe is over there - it's not an exclusive statement. If I said the universe is not here, there would be a problem. But God is over there, and the universe is over there...
When you love GOD with all your heart, soul, strength and mind, you don't have any room for hate, greed, jealousy, anger. When you love your neighbor as yourself, you are showing that you recognise that GOD exists as the "observer" in each of us. That no human (no matter their status, intelligence or weakness) is lesser than any other, because all are merely reflections of one and the same thing.
For the first half, I agree. If we love God with all our hert, soul, strength and mind, we don't have room for the others... so if we have the others, do we really love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind? If we did, would we not be perfect? As it is, we're inherently flawed now because of sinful nature. Our strive, our goal is to constantly, wholeheartedly pursue these commandments. But as long as we are bound by sinful nature, we can never truly achieve this. That's why Jesus had to exist, because nothing we can do can save us because we can't live up to God's laws. So because of Jesus, we have salvation through him, but only if you believe it, which is precisely the basis for Christian belief.
PS God is I AM (that which exists). And God said it, not us.
Lesbianism is entirely safe according to Leviticus
Care to complete that statement with a Leviticus reference?
You make a good point there, except for one thing. The Bible is always right because God wrote it. And you know God wrote it because that's what the Bible says, and the Bible is always right. If you are not one of those engaged into circular logic, then why do you think the Bible is the word of God ? Why isn't "Harry Potter" or "Dune" the real word of God then ? Whichever way you take it, at one point or another, you are basing all your life and moral on something that is quite baseless. Either way "someone said so" or "someone wrote so", but unless God himself came to you and told you the Bible was the one true book, you are only believing what other humans told you (priest, familly, tele-evangelist, whatever).
:) All those 'rules' about marriage and pre-marriage are no more once you get married - to the point of honoring your commitment of marriage to the person... ie you two can do whatever you want with each other. And hopefully if you're a Christian you'll know where to draw the line anyway.
You've got most of it right there at the end. We don't believe in God because the Bible says so, so we believe the Bible is correct because God says it is... the thing about God is that once you experience Him, you know the truth. It's like explaining love - you can't prove to someone that you love someone, no matter what you do, it's just words or expression and there can always be selfish motives. You can never truly believe God exists until you've experienced Him and believe He does. So from this point on, there's nothing I can do to make you believe that God exists, because I just know He does, and whatever I tell you could be interpreted as having any kind of other motive. I believe the Bible is correct because I believe God exists. Because I believe God exists, through faith I believe the Bible is correct; therefore I can use the Bible as a guideline for living the life I have, by faith knowing that it is true and God exists. The only way to make that argument stand is by knowing in your heart that God exists, otherwise, it falls apart because it ends up in circular logic.
Now why any sensed and healthy human would adhere to one of this group is beyond me
There are a few reasons... one, they were brought up to believe it, following rules and laws that were put in place by a person who took control. Two, they have no choice to believe it, usually because of persecution or fear of death because it's enforced. Three, they like certain aspects of a belief so they decide to follow it without getting involved in it (like people who use the bible for good morals but don't believe in God). Four, they know from experience and from a personal connection with the truth.
The problem is, #4 is only way to know what religion is true, and there can be only one true religion if any is true, as long as each religion has any contradiction between each other. The thing people still don't seem to understand is that Christianity (today at least) isn't a corporation, it doesn't have rules or restrictions you have to follow on a daily basis (ala religion). I'm sure you've heard it before, it's a relationship, not a religion. The difference is that in a religion, you have a responsibility to do things in order to earn the title of being a 'member' of that religion. Christianity is said to be a relationship because really, it has nothing to do with everyone else. It's you and God, He revealed himself to you, so you know beyond doubt what the truth is. Outside, you see rules and biblical dogmas and doctrines that are highly restricting. But from the inside, that's the freedom - you know why those 'rules' are there. They're not there to hinder or restrict, but to help and protect. And knowing that, it's not that you HAVE to obey them, but you simply just want to, for your own safety, the safety of friends, loved ones, the world... it's a personal decision to follow and make a committment to what you know and have experienced as the truth.
Now the problem with is, is just that - the Bible is all we have physically as a guide to God. After that, it's a personal level, so we have all these denominations - people who interpret beyond the bible based on their personal views of God, but they're all (mostly) still based on the same fundamental truth of God's existence, and Jesus life & death & resurrection. At the same time, there are those 'Christians' who twist their beliefs and end up being negative influences, power hungry, self-indulgent pricks who tarnish the 'Christian' name. Which is why the bible specifically says that Christians will be the most persecuted faith, and all we have to hang on to is Him, because He is the only truth we've experienced. And once you know the truth, it clings to you no matter how hard to try to get rid of it.
There are two people that have to do with 'forcing' morals on the world - those who are uncaring and self-righteous, trying to dictate christian morals and laws to the masses without regard to the individual, without the love of God. Then there are those who are misunderstood, simply because what we know as truth cannot be understood without being offended, without feeling restricted and hindered. And the more we try to help people, the more people get offended, and are looked upon as self-righteous, bigoted, know-it-all biblethumpers. And it's just because so many people have not experienced God.
Christians are so looked down on because it's an offensive faith. Most other religions now are becoming tolerant of other religions - you can believe what you want to believe, as long as I can believe what I want to, so that we can live peacefully. The only problem with that is that the fundamental foundation of Christianity is that we go out and spread the word. Nothing is about ourselves, it's about giving everything we have and are, not because we have to but because we want to. And it can't be accepted by anyone without breaking yourself, without punching through any pride - known or not - and self-worth, basically without being offended. So it's turned down and shunned before it can make an impact, and ridiculed and tortured and hated because it's 'closed-minded'. That's also why the line is used about 'where is the freedom of religion if Christianity is still suppressed?' Just because Christianity is unique, and unfortunately (but inherently and prophetically) against all other religions that do not teach about God and Jesus' life and death and resurrection.
I'd agree with that - but then we are not talking about people who cheat on someone physically, but online : no physical contact, usually not even an image or a sound of the other person. Now some people are deeply hurted by the mere knowing that their partner can imagine, for a second, kissing someone else. Some are comfortable with their partners sleeping outside or even having short term affairs. Cheating is not defined by religion or moral, it's defined by the moral contract you have with your partner.
I'll agree with that too. But again, half the story. A marriage is a joining, given by God, of a man and woman, becoming one. So yes, even though they may both be perfectly ok with the acts of their spouse, on another level, they're breaking and tearing apart the committment they made to each other which is the inherent meaning behind being married. With God out of the equation, marriage becomes something only personal to the two engaged. But God is in the picture, and the vows have deeper meaning, the act of getting married is a recognition of God's gift of marriage, whether you believe it or not. And by physical lust or mental, you commit adultery which is against the bond of marriage. Matt 5:28 - "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." It's not just the physical act, it's anything which degrades from your emotional, spiritual, mental and physical commitment to your bond with your spouse.
Religion should be kept outside the bedroom !
In a way, I agree
Can you imagine how God feels when someone takes the bible at face value and only follows certain life guidelines by their own choice, but completely ignores the fact that it was a gift from God? -- Very similar to how the tooth fairy must feel when people just throw old teeth away
Or how God feels when He's compared to the tooth fairy...
Or how the Tooth Fairy feels when She is compared to God?
Hopefully very very honored...
But I'd be scared if the tooth fairy was the higher being in control of the universe...
What you are basically telling is that "God came to you and told you christianity was the way to go". Well, I obviously can't argue against that (damn!). Still, you have to wonder why an almighty all powerfull God, who (it's in the Bible) want his followers to grow in numbers can't even communicate with something a bit more "multimedia" than a feeling. I like to say that the day a Porshe GTR will appear before my eyes, with Laeticia Casta asking me for marriage inside, I'll gladly convert myself and attend church every sunday :)
:) It's been there since the beginning (of our modern timeline) and it's a guide. It doesn't have all the answers, but it forces you to delve deeper and find them, and you'll only get them if you open the door yourself, if you enter with an open heart and mind, wanting to learn more, not just to test it or try to disprove it.
:)
:) Christianity is the strive of people who know they've been saved by faith because they've experienced God and His work in their lives (even some of the smartest and wisest people on earth), to show people what is available if only they'd ask, and the truth and meaning of our existence, and how easy it is to know God. It's not about making our physical lives better - in most cases it only gets worse because Christianity is pounded by temptation and persecution - but about making the best of our physical lives by spreading this message while here on earth so that our lives in heaven will be that much more amazing, and hatred for evil, that it would lose the battle for the downfall of humanity.
:)
You know how much we wish we could just talk and be with God without question? The thing that keeps us apart is the fact that humanity is plagued by a sinful nature, it's the only thing that keeps us from God. And in this world today, the only way to know the truth is through faith. Hebrews 11 is entirely dedicated to things that were done through faith. Faith is the essence of Christianty. Since we physically don't have undoubtable proof of the actual existence of God, our belief in Him is based on faith in Him. It's so hard to stand up to the onslaught of arguments against the bible and God that even though there are answers, we may only have our experience and relationship with God to hold on to. All faith.
Plus, you just basically proved another reason why God doesn't reveal himself to us how we want Him to... personal satisfaction, self-edification, selfish ambition. God does and has revealed Himself to people over the course of history, but only a select few, and even then, not to His full potential. As the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways. You may say, why doesn't God just reveal himself? I say, that's too easy, and He wants us to believe in Him so He'll give us a little bit of Him over time, so that we are challenged to believe in Him and build our faith in Him. The whole point is that it's not out of His ability just to come back to earth and wipe everyone out, because that's all we deserve. As you said, it's unfair to us to be punished for someone else's actions - sure, from a human point of view, none of us has the right to do that. But God has the final say, He created us, so He has the authority to lay a curse on someone and his descendents - He did it to many people in the Bible as punishment, just as He did Adam when he disobeyed God, and unfortunately, that includes all of the rest of humanity. So all we can do now is our best to get our relationship right with God again.
The problem with religion is that, if you take a human, raise him in a non-religious environement, 99% of the time he won't develop any religious feeling of any kind
That is a flawed statement. God can choose when and how He reveals himself to anyone. There are plenty of missionaries and people throughout the world who have come to know God without doubt. And on top of that, missionaries are those who feel called to go and tell people who haven't come to know Him.
Christianity is based on the Bible, and there are many rules in there (at least the 10 commandments).
This is true, but they aren't 'go do this 5 times a day', or 'to get right with god you must maime and paint this animal', or even 'pray this 2 times to be forgiven'... You can look at the 10 commandments as laws or rules to live on, but you'll live a life of feeling sat on and repressed because you don't have the freedom you want. OR you could look at them as obvious guidelines for living a safe, happy, comfortable life with everyone else around you. You shouldn't have to follow those rules, you should just want to, because they make sense. That is the difference. If you're a true Christian, you're not bound by laws and regulations, but morals and ethical principles. It's a desire of the heart, not a commitment of the mind.
As to not being a corporation, it's true, but 99% of christians are following an organisation of some sort. Like most religious people, christians organise themselves into groups. Of course there'll always be "rogue believers" who don't want to join a group, but they are a very tiny minority
Sure, your point? Even outside of religion, people gather with others of the same convictions, beliefs, standards... that's culture, that's government, that's friends... and these 'groups' of Christians, denominations, still don't have laws or regulations in order to be a part or 'member' of the denomination. If you don't like it, go to one you do... it doesn't make you any more or less of Christian, as long as you still believe the foundational truths of God and Jesus. And that's not a rule, that's just the definition of a Christian.
I see your point - but then, Nazis also qualify to this description, and that doesn't make them nice people or even tolerable people.
Yes, but Nazi's were entirely motivated of selfish greed and pride, not on Godly an biblical principles. That's one reason why people don't want to believe in God. The government idea of a king in charge, ruling over a kingdom seems unfair and unjust to us now. Just because no system is entirely still in place and widely accepted as free, because those leaders always, in some way, directly or indirectly, fell to some form of treachery. God's kingdom will never fall to treachery or greed or selfishness, because God is only love. Humanity, being sinful by nature, always has people battling authority for their freedom, always questioning authority and others' motives... if we know God, we'll never question Him. He treats His kingdom with love and discipline and justice... the only kingdom that doesn't fall is God's because all others were ruled by man, so the system was corrupt. The few kingdom in the bible that God was a part of and made known to the kings that He had full control, are the ones that lasted until some stupid self motivated person corrupted the chain.
Hitler was a wise man, his government system was amazing in concept and it worked. But he was motivated by lust for power, self-centered, bigotted greed. It goes to show what power is capable of if it's in the wrong hands. Christianity, God-centered Christianty, is the complete opposite. It's strive is to be humble, but through that it's spread like wildfire through the world, and is the most hated faith. Funny how the bible predicts all of that.
Well 2 large religions explicitly forbid eating pork, yet I can lots of pork and still be alive.
Yeah. But is that a harm to humanity as a whole? That's what I talked about before, religious rules are different from morals and guidelines for humanity that you just want to follow.
As religious rules go, most of them are so old they are outdated, and they most of the time go against common sense. And you follow all of this because of a feeling ?
Yeah, most are old and outdated. So how come the 10 commandments are what America was founded on? Because they are still common sense today. Those are the only ten commandments God put in place to stand over time. All the others (old testament) were cultural rules, put in place because Jesus had not yet come to remove those requirements. New testament commandments are still common sense. Where Jesus spoke, if the things he said are understood to be geared towards the culture at the time, applied to today's culture, they are still common sense, if you view common sense as for the good of everyone, not just yourself.
And I follow all of this, as you say, not just because of a feeling, but because it's an experience. Once you know God is there and you've got a relationship, it's not just a feeling; you just know that it's true. I don't just think the Bible is truth because it feels like it is. I follow the Bible because I know God exists, and it only makes sense to because out of love, God gave us the bible to help us... it's like the Oracle in the Matrix
Well I think most religions are very offensive, because if they are not then they die out of lack of believers
Not offensive as in it just insults you, but offensive as in not defensive. Christianity is an outward faith. You don't close yourself off and live your religion at home to save yourself from whatever the big ending is. Christianity is offensive because at the heart, you're called to go out and save others. It's not about saving yourself, because you know it once you're saved, it's not a matter of works, but of love. Knowing what you've got and what is freely given, it seems a tragedy that so many people just don't know. So Christianity is striving to show the truth to the world because the world is just in such a bad place right now.
And it's just logic : if you have the truth, then others are wrong, and who wouldn't fight to make the truth win
Only if that truth affects everyone else. Most religions are about what to do to end up in heaven, and it's an endless struggle, and endless discipline to earn it. Christianity isn't about something that can be earned. Christianity is unique. Most people who try to enforce their belief system and rules are in it out of pride and stubbornness; even I struggle with that sometimes, just because I want to be known as right. And so many people push it so far as to oppression. Christianity's name is tarnished by those who abused its power in the past, namely the corporate church, old roman catholicism... today's Christianity is no longer a corporate undertaking, it's a personal strive to outreach.
Iran is founded on Muslim beliefs and its enforced. The US if founded on Christan beliefs, but is no longer looked upon as so. The 'freedom' everyone wants is to have their own way - but that CAN and WILL only lead to chaos and disaster. Christianity is far from free in the US. Too many people are still ridiculed and persecuted because of their faith. Christianity has no 'home' so to speak... the world is covered with striving and struggling Christians. And the strongest Christians are those who are oppressed. China's underground Christianity is spreading like wildfire... missionaries in Africa, Asia, South America, Mexico, are all dedicated to founding new homes and sources for people to come to God... they're not moving to another country to be comfortable there; on the contrary, many Christian missionaries move to other countries to be uncomfortable - because it's not about them, but about the people they want to reach and help.
Hrrr, that's the half of the story I don't accept
Well if you don't accept it, then there's no point debating. But, that's doesn't mean it's not true. We'll find out soon enough
There are marriage in every human culture, including animist and atheist, so obviously God is not required to love and marry someone.
God created the world, it doesn't require God for us to make any decisions. The sun is a gift from God, but we don't see Him make it rise in the morning... the rainbow was a gift from God, but we don't see Him paint it after every storm... God created marriage as a symbol for humans to commit their lives unquestionably to each other, but we don't see Him at the ceremony... that symbol can be and has been warped by humanity and our own wants and desires. That's why it's even being questioned as required, because so many people just want to be with someone without the hassle or 'burden' of marriage... you can take God out of the equation, but that doesn't change the fact that it was given by God.
I'm not guilty for something I haven't done ! Therefor, I'm not responsible for my parents mistakes, for Adam and Eve mistakes, or even for the thing I thought about and didn't do in the end.
That's why we look at it as unfiar, but Adam and Eve should have thought about that before they disobeyed... they were punished and had to live (for a very long time) with the fact their offspring and future generations would have to live with their failing. And just as God can punish future generations, He can reward them. Because of certain people in the Bible, their tribes and kingdoms flourished for a time. Their offspring reaped the benefits of their forefathers' actions. And so can their offspring reap the consequences of their forefathers' actions. Only God has the authority to do that. So all we can do is our best to right our relationship with God. If we turn our back on Him, we're just as guilty as Adam. And we're mostly there now, only because God felt so much for humanity that he sent His Son to pay the penalty (as in the old testament of blood sacrifices for atonement) so we wouldn't have to today, thus the new covenent and testament. If Jesus hadn't died and rose, the world would be a much different place...
Trying to make me guilty of others mistake is utterly evil
We're not guilty of another's mistake. We are paying the consequence for their decision, there's a difference. And because of His decision, we're trapped in a sinful nature (which BTW wasn't a punishment from God, it was what Adam received from the object of his disobedience - death was the punishment). So we're stuck in a rut. We're now inherently given what Adam and Eve wanted for themselves (being deceived), and are bound by physical death as punishment.
To put it in modern terms
Ok so that's not so much modern terms
I just got going :)
ah well. Back to work...
Anyway - the point is it prohibits _men_ lying together. No mention of _women_. Nothing
When the bible speak of men in areas like this, it's common sense that it refers to men as everyone - 'man'kind, man, not the masculine of the species. Men is used because human culture tends to put the term men ahead of women as a way to refer to mankind. Just because a sentence says MAN doesn't mean it only refers to men. If it meant only masculine homosexuality, it would have made the destinction between lesbianism and male homosexuality. As it is, it only refers to the generic man, inferring any form of homosexuality in this case. Also because in many other instances referring to this issue, it talks about homosexuality, not man lying with man. So even though this one verse may not specifically say women with women, it is still spoken against in the rest of the bible by referring to homosexuality in general.
At this point it's normally worth reminding people that Leviticus is part of Old Testament Law and that Christians aren't subject to it, it's mostly there for historical reference...
Yes, leviticus was mainly based on the culture of the time, and with the new testament came a new covenant. If your point is that the law about homosexuality was old testament, there are many references to homosexuality in general (not just male/male, but gender unspecific) in the new testament.
But yes, it is frustrating when people don't distinguish between the cultural laws and the laws for humanity in the old testament. And laws that aren't meant as suppressive or opressive, but protective; which people seem to ignore because they tend to tell people not to do what they want to and like to do.
If people want to break OR bend God's laws, that's their choice... but don't blame God for the consequences, in this life or after. That's where people get offended, cuz whenever things go bad, the first person they blame is God, but God already put out that warning...
It's like, don't blame your parents if your hand gets slapped when you steal a cookie from the cookie jar. You were warned. And it doesn't mean your parents love you any less.
Whoever modded this should probably read the Moderator's Guidelines. If you don't happen to agree with a person's point of view, that does not mean their point of view is invalid.
In a way it does attack the author of the original article (Jack), but is amusing nonetheless. Offtopic has nothing to do with it.
Nope. But...
Exod 22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
"The Internet may be luring your mate. What are the warning signs, and how can you tell if your partner is faithful? Watch 'Cybercheating', tonight at 10:00"
ObContent: The only way that cheating can be defined is by the people involved. Certainly not by a book, or JonKatz.
--
(OK, I know it's a cheap shot, but he's such an easy target...)
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
Of course, this wouldn't work for everyone, since my personal definition of adultery falls into the category of "things which would make her come after me with the 16 gauge shotgun and should thusly be avoided".
Random Musings at Rum Smuggler
..Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Helen Chenoweth, etc.... Republican Wife-Cheating Hall of Fame
There is no fine line between adultry or not. Its a grey area (like many have mentioned). I don't think you can define a certain act as adultry or not. I think it is the intentions of your heart that defines it.
My fiance and I met in a local chat room almost two years ago, we'll be married in June. The one thing that made it work for us more than anything else is that we met in person shortly after we met online. We didn't spend a lot of time doing the late night chats and email correspondence. So shortly after we met online we dispatched with the whole online courting thing and went straight for the gusto.
Except maybe over the photocopier...
take a triptonica to subthunk
May or may not be fiction, but it's certainly about 7 translations away from the original script, and like a game of Telephone, that means that whatever's written in the King James Bible prob'ly has nothing in common with what may or may not have been originally written. :-)
Want an example? Take a paragraph out of a book, run it through Babelfish a few times; english to french, french to german, german to italian, italian back to english, and see if it still makes sense.
Or go look up the bit about the monks with knives at their throats, told to translate fifty pages a day or else....
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Your first sentance is a lovely idea, but the second is just plain wrong, unless you meant to say "perfect people" or "really intelligent, totally emotionaly mature people." Real people write letters to Ann Landers saying things like "I had assumed this would stop after the wedding, but then it didn't" or "how could she not know I would be upset by...". Real people have unspoken agreements that they find out later were agreeing to two different things. Real people make assumptions that their definitions are accepted by the other person.
Very few people sit down at the start of a relationship and go over the multitude of grey areas to see where thier partner stands. Those that do may find they change their mind over time but don't realize it until a situation presents itself. In the real world, complications happen.
Thus, these kinds of discussions are useful, not only to build up a societal "baseline assumption" for the majority who do not have these conversations, but to provide a starting point for the discussions of those that would be willing to negotiate their own dynamic.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
"Guilty of wanting" - You know what? Fuck you. Basically. I was thinking about writing some long letter where I could explain why people should not feel guilt for something they want but I can imagine who is on the other side - a lost case. So - fuck you, is the proper answer in this case.
You can't handle the truth.
while fondling around with Anna Kournikova virus
You can't handle the truth.
I'm so sad *sniff* *sniff* Katz come back we won't make fun of you no more!! ;_____________;
*fingers crossed behind his back*
Griffis
Perhaps we cannot legislate morality, but we legislate ethics. In fact, that's the main thing we legislate.
No, but neither is a foot massage.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
what the fuck are you smoking. The article isnt about porn dumbass.
the definition of adultery is to be discussed and determined by those that are in the relationship. Thats the way real people work.
Not only that, but Lesbianism is okay according to me, too!
So if someone decided to purge all records of your existence, does that mean you will never have existed?
"When you gotta shoot, SHOOT! Don't talk." Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez
The separation of church and state was established
before the creation of public schools.
You'll have to find another cause for that vacuum.
I think one of the major facets of internet relationships that differs from a face-to-face (ftf) relationship is the fact that feelings are often more shared openly and bonds form more quickly. Perhaps this stems from the lack of insecurity due to the absence of physical bodies or that our imaginations can take text and give it any number of connotations based on what we feel about the person behind the message's origination.
For example, some people se a story posted by Katz and immediately tune out. Others see posts by slashdot legends and automatically allow their opinions to be molded by the topic.
Anyway, happy heart day to all. Give your favorite programmer a hug and some Mt. Dew.
What about my Love Ewe? Surely that's not cheating...
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
So you can suck all the dick you want and still be a virgin?
So how about if it's a guy?
Woman --looketh on--> Guy
or Guy --looketh on--> Guy
Why specifically a woman?
Actualy that's your interpretation. It's the result of you reading it, through your point of view, which derives from your cultural enviroment, then doing a mental exercise in which you will consciously or unconsciously fill in the gaps in your understanding with things taken from your experience (or from other people's experiences), and finaly coming to a conclusion.
Different people in different times and with different cultural settings will come to different conclusions (otherwise why the Crusades or other things i shall not mention?)
This is not to say that you are wrong, is just to say that being right is a question of point of view.
All that said, my having computer sex (with someone other than her) would certainly be a just cause for my wife to separate me from my family jewels.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
Separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution -- get a copy.
Article I of the Amendments to the Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That has been interpreted again and again by the Supreme Court to mean that state sponsored religious activities is unconstitutional. Even if you interpret the first clause to restrict only Congress, forcing religious activities on children is a violation of free speech.
--
he separation of Church and State in schools has led to a vacuum where once children were taught the proper ways to behave.
Blame the Constitution. Personally I like the fact that religion wasn't forced on me as a child. Teach your kids morality at home, don't blame the schools for your shortcomings.
--
I never really was looking for a girlfriend online. I've never really had problems finding dates. Sure I flirted but I never really thought of it as that. Just playing around. Then one day I realised this girl who I had been talking to online for several months (and on the phone everynight for several months) had me. I was stuck. She lives 550 miles away from me and for the past 6 months one of us has either flown or driven to the other persons place. This summer I'm moving within a half hour of where she lives... =) I'm happy...never thought I'd meet someone like her.
That's true, but in my book it is possible to be unfaithful to someone without having sex with someone else. Being unfaithful has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with the other partner feeling betrayed. If what you do feels like a betrayal to your partner, pay attention to their feelings. Talk about it.
Yes if I do it, No if she does! ;-)
"What about the supersensitive freaks who get heartbroken if you simply ask someone of the opposite sex for the time?"
Hey, I know what you mean. Some people just never learned how to trust. Daddy left home and you will too.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
If you don't think you can tell your spouse without breaking his/her heart, that there is cheating.
In any relationship, there are always things that you're going to have to keep to yourself if you want to stay in it.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
The rule of thumb is: what's done IC is no more cheating than acting in a play or writing in a book. If it crosses into OOC, it's you talking, not your character.
Anything with Sex in its name by convention of meaning would have to be adultery if you were in a commited relationship. This computer-sex, though not in the physical world, still constitutes a violation of the trust in a relationship and therefore would be adultery.
I think what one needs to do when posing themselves with this question, is ask the one they are inovled with. More often than not, I believe your significant other would have a problem with you having "cyber-sex" or whatever they call it these days. If they don't have a problem with it, then you had better wonder if they are beginning to look elsewhere.
I know my wife would believe that I am cheating on her if I was to have virtual sex, and I would think the same. I know that nothing physically is happening, but I don't want my wife thinking about another man.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Morals are just words in a book somebody has elevated to the status of an idol. Ethics are real-world ways to solve real-world problems with a minimum of pain.
You have some gread ideas and insight here, my question would be:
Why does it seem that all human beings, wether they be skin-head nazis in the big cities of the US or the simple tribes in Paupa New Guinea, we all have the same "core" morals/ethics. Why do we all see it as wrong to kill and why do we all (for the most part I'll grant you) see it as wrong to be in polygomous relationships. Those who tell you they don't see polygomous relationships as wrong (Mormans) are usually saying so not because of true moral beliefs, but mostly to excuse their own desires. Social Conditioning is not an acceptable answer, for why would we all have basicly the "same" social conditioning?
Just curious on your thoughts.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Funny how in both respects you applied Socrates ethical rule of egoism:
An act is wrong if it creates a negative balance of consequences for the agent, and act is right if it creates a positive balance of consequences for the agent. I suppose in the way I asked the question that was really the only way to answer it.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
question for you: Do you feel that viewing/watching pr0n is an unfaithful act to a significant other? what about going to strip clubs? what about thinking about someone else during lovemaking with your significant other?
where do you draw the line?
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
In the words of the legendary Mojo Nixon,
"This redneck will take a raincheck
On that cybersex.
It's just new fangled chicken chokin'
For that Generation X.
I need me a real live woman
Who's sittin' on top and damn near comin,
I reject Cybersex"
Is it adultery? Only if wanking counts as adultery.
Just as I was thinking that psychology types writing books about cybersex was so early 90's, too. Oh dear.
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
"Information wants to be paid"
I am the lizard king. Or, I'm a human. We all judge everyone and everything all day, but in the end, it's how you treat people that counts. For that matter, this applies to this discussion as well.
Heinlein is also pretty down on religion. The ironic thing is that he's not big on people believing what they read, but he's an author and he puts his opinions about how people ought to live into ever book.
I'm more than happy to share my beliefs with you all.
--
ALL YOUR KARMA ARE BELONG TO US
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The rule being, If it gives you wood, and you keep doing it, then it's cheating.
If you're a woman and it gives you wood, Then I'd suggest double checking your gender.
http://fury.com/aoliza/
Does an AOLer trying to have cybersex with AOLiza count as adultery too? 8-)
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
what if she doesnt have a pic?
That might sell for the Christians. . . .
"If I were to ask you a hypothetical question, what would you like it to be about?"
Postulate: Adultery is a symmetric relation? (not transetive ;)
;)
;)
Consequence: (I lust for neighbor wife
=> I commit adultery (with neighbor wide)
=> Neighbor wife should be put to death.)
I'm not sure she would like the fact that she has
no influence on that
Morale: Definitions and implication rules must be carefully thought through, otherwise someone will find a way to misuse them
SLOGEN [ http://ungdomshus.nu : Sebastian cover music]
Adultery or not, don't have sex with your computer!
Trust me I know. Computer sex is BAD NEWS!
It was valentines day a few years back, I was feeling a bit lonely. My computer always kept me company. Well, I tried to >mount my floppy drive and it hasn't work right since then. Plus, I was chaffed.
I would think that that would have to really hurt. Ever open up a computer? Of course you have. With all those sharp parts in there, it might not be cheating on your significant other, but it would sure cause a trip to the emergency room!
Haha...
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
please.
-----
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." - Salvador Dali (1904-1989)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes they did, but the businesses which run the servers they talked to were located in Calipornia. The companies which pimp out the girls online are perfectly legal, because no body is doing anything illegal (selling sex) in thier building. In fact, you can bet that many of the pron sites you go to have cyber-prostitution involved in them in some way.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
This really depends on your beliefs, and those of your partner/spouse.
Is emotionally investing yourself in someone other than your partner cheating, even if no sex occurs? Is it different if you've never met face to face?
Then ask your partner/spouse for their answers to these questions.
Cheating is really decided by the person who feels cheated upon. If your partner/spouse feels you're cheating when you cyber, then you are, even if you don't think anything significant happened.
Once that hurt is established and the cause is believed to be cheating, it is. You can't fight feelings with logic. They just don't respond.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
CS Lewis had something to say about people discrediting things just because they were in old books. I believe it was in The Scarlet Letters, a book about a man trying to live a moral life, from the perspective of fallen angels who try to tempt him. One of the tactics used by the demons is to convince the people that old books are old fashioned and don't apply to today's modern society, when we can obviously learn from the past. Regardless of your religious convictions (or lack of) why not learn from the wisdom of someone who was obviously a great moral teacher?
-antipop
Doh! My bad, long day at school...
-antipop
It's not adultery if we don't want it to be ...
Or, if that's too contrived..
hi jon a/s/l r u h0t hehehehehehe
Wow...there's some flaimbait. I agree entirely that cheating is in the intention. If you feel the need to have relationships both on line and in real life, you may as well admit to yourself that you're a player. However, howly crap was that a pretentious comment about seperation of church and state. If you want to flaunt Christian morality, I can give lecture for hours about why I (as the sole member of a religion I created myself) am more ethical than 90% of Christians, and likely more moral as well. The problem does not start in the schools, it starts in the homes. Anyhow, I don't necessarily disagree with trying to start relationships online, however, it's got to eventually become more than online, or it's not a relationship. Sure. There's plenty of people with sick intentions, but there's plenty more that don't. You be the judge. Make the choice yourself. But at least think about it.
The Internet, one place where if you're not right, someone else will set you straight... maybe.
That definition seems a little antiquated. A woman must be willing but a man does not? And by that definition (sexual intercourse), Prez Clinton did NOT commit adultery...riiiight
And is that yet another weak analogy I see? There is nothing illegal about phone sex, nor is there anything illegal about cybersex, even if you pay for it. The analogy is "is phone sex considered adultery?" Imagine your significant other talking dirty on the phone with a stranger. I would consider both to be adultery in my relationship, because there is a high level of emotional intimacy with a third party.
Please mod me up. My grandma might not make it to the weekend and she always wanted me to hit karma cap.
I realize that, but it just isn't true. I remember reading an article about a guy in a gender issues class who was adamant that men could not be raped. Eventually he challenged any woman in the class to rape him. One night after class, 5 woman jumped him, stripped him, used a vibrator to stimulate him, put a condom on him and one girl mounted up! I believe he may have even had them charged but the charges were dropped because he told them to do it.
Adultery? Nope. Double standard? Yup.
Please mod me up. My grandma might not make it to the weekend and she always wanted me to hit karma cap.
Right now I am actually on a MUD. My char is female, I (In real life) am male. I highly doubt the relation my char is forming counts as cheating. Here's why:
*I am not female
-(Self explaining...)
*The char reacts differently than I do
-(The char gave little thought to the relationship, I usually weigh each pro and con, and choose the best answer)
*The reasons for relationship are different
-(Don't want to get into detail, but I want a relationship for totally different reasons than the char does)
Well, I guess I didn't need a bulleted list for this, but that's all I can think of right now...
To write a haiku - all you need is the correct - number of syli...
I think the line should be drawn where there is a real person on the other end with whom you just might have a real relationship.
I don't think it will be a very straight line, though.
I thought I was in love, and it turned out to be just a bad case of heart burn.
If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank
This thread (not surprisingly) has A LOT of AC postings, some several steps down. If you have mod points, please check out the many very interesting postings at level zero. Lots of readers who normally read at 2 will miss good stuff otherwise.
sulli
RTFJ.
Let's play "what if" :
What if it is an existing couple developing a new relationship to a 3rd person on the net, for "fun and adventure" ? That's not adultery, that's just swingers shopping around. We occasionally drop into the local chatrooms looking for new partners (after a while it becomes dead easy to filter out the talkers from the doers). Why resort to chatrooms ? because our wonderfully protestant senators have decided that swing clubs were morally wrong.
Sure, it is about people lusting for total strangers, which is just fine in our mentality. There is no harm done to the S.O. (no matter what you prudes will say), therefore there is no adultery committed. Geez, with all the sex and freakiness on the net, I'd expect people to take this all with a grain of salt.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Yes, it is. I know how my wife would feel. Anyway.. I prefer the real thing up close and personal. I use computers for computer stuff. i.e., building robots,gadjets,network security audits,Linux,and downloading mpegs to my homebuilt mpeg player in my truck with a 10GB HD!
Then I met my husband on a local BBS in 1991. Started dating about 2 years later in 1993. Been happy ever since.
The beauty of online dating is that the stupid things don't get in the way when you're first learning about each other. You don't have to figure out who's going to pay for dinner, or agree on a good movie with someone you don't know. You can meet someone who shares some weird, twisted hobby with you. You get to share everything about yourself without wondering if they're staring at a piece of spinach in your teeth.
-Aria
PS -- yes, I still use my BBSing handle. ;D
Cool. You just justified "Temptation Island". I love that show.
The Bible is a standard for those who would accept it. If you don't accept it, what other standards are used to interpret social norms?
One's culture (and their immediate society) will attempt to define a standard but it is a loose definition that is often changed over time, with various social movements or interpreted many ways depending on what one's own view. Herein lies the problem with trying to answer the question of whether or not "computer sex" is considered adultery. The Bible says yes. Would "swingers" say "no"?
Whether any type of social conduct is acceptable or not is left to individuals, couples, or society depending on how many people a particular situation impacts. However, there are no standards so everything is left to interpretation.
BTW, not that it really matters, but my personal view is in accord with what the Bible says about adultery.
While reading the initial portion of this, it occured to me that love online is a lot like love in real life. It has its pitfalls, its triumphs and tragedies. The more said about the foibles of online love the more I thought about regular, every day, "real life" love. The more the internet merges with our lives like telephones and televisions, the more common it will be to find a partner online.
The circumstances may have changed, instead of selecting partners in many cases based on physical appearance, partners in many cases are being selected on the basis of intelligence. While physical appearance and age still play a part in online relationships, they are less significant. It may in fact be just one more domino falling as our evolution continues to shift focus from physical to mental prowess. Perhaps in one hundred years, the vast majority of relationships will be formed online, and only those who are matched on an intellectual level with their partner (not being equally intelligent, necessarily, but being mentally compatible in a strong way) will end up in relationships. Compare this to even one hundred years ago when dowrys and betrothal were still commonplace.
All said and done, it should be interesting to watch the continual progression of mankind into a world where information is more precious than gold, and life revolves around it. Romance is just one more channel in which this is happening now.
-wd
--
chip norkus(rl); white_dragon('net'); wd@routing.org
mercenary albino programmer for hire
"question = (to) ? be : !be;" --Shakespeare
I don't know if it's adultry or not, but you've gotta be pretty desperate to have sex with a computer! I mean, that's just plain gross!
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
It's funny how people get so involved in every conversation here at Slashdot, even when it's based on a moronic subject like this one.
I think I saw this being discussed on 20/20 once.
--------------
--------------
$_='hfflbwfsbhfzp vs';s/(^.{4})(.{7 })(.+$)/$3 $2 $1/
It lets you make a page with a yes/no question for someone to answer. They get back your prepared response according to the answer. You are e-mailed their answer.
Yeah, I have to agree with you here...even though it sounds like a Springer 'Final Thought' message.
My wife and I both have strict religious views and we therefore expect each other to live by them. It is not for everyone though. People should be honest with each other about what they expect out of a relationship and where the limits are.
It is difficult when meeting people on-line though as peole can hide their lies easily. Therefore people should be extra cautious when exploring relationships on-line. It can work well though; I first met my wife on-line and we have now been happily married for a few years.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
> question for you: Do you feel that viewing/watching pr0n is an unfaithful act
> to a significant other? what about going to strip clubs? what about
> thinking about someone else during lovemaking with your significant other?
If your SO would be seriously upset by finding out that you did, then yes it's on the same level. If they watch porn with you, then probably not.
It's not the action that's important, it's the effect that is can have.
That's funny my GF's vibrator doesn't explode that often. Admittedly she tends to drive it a bit hard when I'm not around but...
Ian
That's gotta hurt whichever universe you come from.
Personally I prefer the Nokia 5110.
Ian
the point of the betrayal gauge would be: if they WOULD feel betrayed if they found out, it's cheating ;)
i like the idea that if you wouldn't do it in front of your partner it's cheating, but i DO know of some people who are prudish enough to be ashamed that they masturbate while in a relationship...and to me and many others, that is not cheating. therefore, neither the admission nor the 'in front of' rule would apply to those particular relationships. in the case of the prudish people i know, i doubt that the shame they feel would translate to a feeling of betrayal on the part of their lovers, so i think the betrayal gauge is a better one in those cases.
in the end though, i do agree that it is highly individual...some people feel betrayed even by a hug.
The book is The Screwtape Letters, not The Scarlet Letter (which is by Nathaniel Hawthorne).
Sex has no place in the workplace. Period.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
According to the LORD lust is a form of adultery.
Computer "sex" is lust, and therefore is adultrey, which goes aginst the LORD thy God.
Another note: Valentine's day is sinful enough without a Katz story on it.
----
Deepthroat my submarine, swallow my seamen.
Legal US servers are located in Nevada.
Actually I think nightline did some sort of special on this.
Perhaps I'm being crass, but could unknowingly developing a romantic relationship with a computer that passes the Turing test count as adultery or masturbation?
--
--hongpong.com
Two country song titles:
1: She Just Started Liking Cheating Songs
2: How Come My Dog Don't Bark When You Come Round?
There isn't that all much difference between the two.
Seriously. Technology's most important aspect is the impact it has on the world. If the geeks, who are making it, aren't plugged into that, then horrible mistakes can be made, pushed forward, etc.
It's the good ol' 'So obsessed with if you can, you don't think about if you should' problem.
Articles that talk about the social impact of technologies make people consider if they should.
When encryption is outlawed, ?o'AZ-,++o+i++##4AoA+-/-C++bI+/.+~
given that we recently learned that felatio isn't sexual relations.
Because the social impact of technology is often more important than the introduction of the new technology itself. For instance, it might be phenomenally exciting to the scientific and technological communities that new algorithms for compression are written, and that new, stronger crypto is possible, but to the "unwashed masses," what it all comes down to is that they can download larger amounts of crap in shorter times, and their credit cards aren't getting ripped off so frequently. Notice, some time, the prevalence of slashdot sigs that state some variant on the following:
"Too often scientists are concerned with the fact that they can, rather than the question of whethey they should."
MCH/VO S* W- N+++++ PEC+++ D(s++/r) A a+>+++ C* G++(++++) Q+ 666 Y
You do the math!
"Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly"
mmmmmmmmmm, sweeeeeet sex - Homer
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
The bible is just as much fiction as Star Wars (although Leia in a gold bikini is so much more fun to look at :)
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
It's all fiction. You give me evidence of Jesus' existance in the Roman Empire's records, and I might concede he existed. There are a lot of records of that time, and none show anything about him. I could also point to the jewish historians of that era, and their absence of Jesus-- John the Baptist, yes Jesus, No.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
So you're saying that people who aren't tempted are inherently weaker than those who are?
Wow - I think I need to be stronger. I think I'll start putting up posters of naked women all over my house so I can continually choose my wife over them, and thus be stronger. I'll put beer in the fridge and stash some powder and shrooms in my dresser drawers. Then I'll put up pictures of my enemies' faces with targets on them and own lots of guns. In the face of all this temptation, I'll choose the Right Things to Do.
I'll be so strong.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
and defame all you want.
It doesn't matter, because your are easily seen for what you are.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Hmm... I never recall seeing Jon Katz and Dr. Laura at the same time...
coicedence???
Considering their consistency of logic and facts I think we have our anwser
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
He might be saying that one is more realistic...
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
I think you can call them cafeteria christians, they pick and choose what they want to get the perfect dogma, and in asia you wouldnt have to change that much to make a meal....
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
what happened yesterday?
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
In my experience, most Christians act according to their own beliefs, which are moderated by the Bible. Indeed, since the New Testament in particular is full of ambiguity, it can be very interesting to witness the particular ways in which people find means of justifying by the Bible their own particular take on life. If this were not the case, how could you account for the number of different factions within the Christian faith? I don't believe I know a single Christian who practices unthinking adherence to any dogma contained within the bible. Christ himself was quick to challenge such dogma which, he claimed, was more often born of man than of God. Indeed, if you're a Christian (I'm not, incidentally,) Christ came bearing not peace but a sword -- Christianity has been marked by division, by persecution; it is therefore naive and overly simplistic to think that Christianity is a crutch, or to rehash the old "opiate of the people" mantra. On the contrary -- in today's society I think it often demands considerable courage to become an avowed Christian. Also, it's all very well to criticize the "it's in the Bible, it must be true" idea -- but one should also be willing to consider that the Bible contains many valuable lessons and teachings that might be useful to us all. Beware tarring everybody with the same brush and suggesting that all Christians needs must be mindless, subservient buffoons -- remember that many incredibly intelligent people have become Christians. I agree, of course, that it's always useful to challenge assumptions and question what you've read. I think most Christians would also agree, though. And, again, remember that Christ did criticize much of what mankind had derived from the scriptures -- I think many of the Christians who exhibit the kinds of behaviour you hint at do so more because they seek fulfilment in symbols and tradition than because of anything the Bible might have taught them.
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
OK... I happen to agree with the original poster; no question it's adultery. You may not have the Actus Rea, but you sure as hell have the Mens Rea. If I ever got involved in a cyber-romance with another woman, my wife would shoot me, and NOBODY would ever find my body.
Every single personal development seminar/course I have ever heard of, particularly when talking about self-affirmation and actualization, uses a variant of the old biblical adage "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."
Every geek and programmer in the universe has GIGO engraved on their soul somewhere... words to live by. If you constantly dwell on a cyber romance with another person, vicariously engage in cyber-sex with another person, while you are currently engaged in an intimate, sharing, married relationship with your husband/wife, you are certainly violating the spirit of the above-mentioned biblical verse. Garbage in... Garbage out. If you would never "physically" become an adulterer, then why would you start thinking like one?
Don't go looking trouble.
I know some of you want to have your killer Pr0n collections, and that's fine.. knock yourself out.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Yes, it's fucking adultery. And when it happens to you, you'll know *exactly* how right I am.
She caught him in the bathroom with his Playboy!
@HbFyo0$k8 tH!$
Seems to me that while cybersex might be unfaithful, it doesn't quite match the definition of adultery, "sexual intercourse by a married man with another than his wife, or voluntary sexual intercourse by a married woman with another than her husband." (Websters)If it is adultery, then should we start busting phone sex companies for prostitution?
--
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
--
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
As for cybering as adultary, that depends on ones morals and how thier partner feels about it. Damnit, why don't you just invite your love one to participate! That could be fun!
Responsiblity and precautions should be taken in all situations when meeting a stranger(s), net or no net... It's just that simple. Unfortunatly, matters of the heart are not.
Common sense is key... Stupidity should hurtHappy V-day folks :)
Unfortunately some partners already feel betrayed if you're even considering to look at somebody else, while you're still very much in love your partner. For example my (ex- by now) girlfriend used to be just about the definition of jealousy, but that never stopped me from talking to other woman. The fact that I love somebody does not give that person the right to prohibit me from communicating in a normal way with other human beings. In most of these cases the jealous person will either break up the relationship and keep running into the same situation for the rest of his/her life, os he /she will learn to adapt.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Ok, so you're a saint. Now would you mind sticking to grammar for the future? Because that would be the right thing to do(tm) in this case.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
The concept of "thinking it is as bad as doing it"
Now which man is stronger? The man who isn't tempted and faithfully stays with his woman, or the man who is tempted but makes a consciental decision not to do it. That ability to make that choice is what makes you human, and the making of that choice itself is what makes you a good partner. Nuf said.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
This subject might break the record for most comments...not surprising when you mix Katz and a subject that almost writes its own punchlines.
Blah Blah Tacos
I've read the opinions of a few people who insist that cyber-sex is pure fantasy. They don't see the interaction as being real since there is no physical contact. Each new "adventure" is usually with a different person, rarely the same person twice. The two do not develop a friendship prior to engaging in the act. It's much akin to a real time "one night stand." Neither party is interested in maintaining contact beyond the time they spent in a private room online. This sounds like harmless entertainment. I suppose this would depend on whether or not the people involved are in committed relationships, and if so, whether or not the significant others know, and/or approve, of the activity. Frequency might also be an issue. If cyber-sex is happening once a month it may be acceptable to a partner, but if happening three or four times a week, may not.
If I view cyber-sex, taking a religious stance (which is endlessly amusing), and understand the Bible correctly, its states that adultery begins in the heart, without ever having to physically perform the deed. If a married person is exchanging words describing sexual actions they're performing on someone else, even if it's all in the imagination, my guess is they're guilty of adultery. Likewise, if I were unattached and engaging in this behavior with a person who is married, it would be a wrongful act. If both parties are unmarried, I suppose it would fall under the category of fornication. I agree, if looking at cyber-sex from this perspective, it's wrong. These acts hurt, and go against, not only the scripture, but also the covenant of marriage.
Some say that engaging in cyber-sex has helped their relationship. Of this group, I've found that usually both partners are knowingly engaging in cyber-sex, usually in private, but sometimes together, often later sharing bits and pieces of their verbal exchange. They've allowed each other to explore their sexuality online. Sometimes one or the other will learn a new or different sexual technique and bring it to the bedroom, eager to experiment. If two people agree this behavior is acceptable, then who am I to disagree?
notabene: I'm unmarried but have a strong relationship since over 4 years (and yes, it's woman, you goatse pigs)...
Cui peccare licet peccat minus. -- Ovid, Amores.
Typically I will make some comment about how ridiculous the outfit looks. But the one slip up I've never made is that when she says she wishes she had a body like that, I have never, no matter how tempting, said, "so do I." I'm not as stupid as I appear.;-)
------------
My wife and I have discussed many "what if" scenarios and came up with a simple test that I think any couple/person should be able to apply to this situation.
If you feel that you can tell your partner about what you are doing/contemplating doing and not expect repurcussions, then you probably aren't cheating.
If you feel you have to avoid telling your partner about what you are doing/contemplating then you are cheating, plain and simple. If not by your action, by your lack of faith in the relationship.
Of course, my wife goes out of her way to show me pictures of other women in scanty clothing, so what would I know? (Actually I think that's a sign of the trust she has in me, which is a good thing.)
------------
think of the biblical possibilities: David is trolling the internet, comes across Bathsheba taking a shower on her bathsheba webcam, gets hot 4 her, summons up her avatar, puts his into action, they virtually do the deed and spawn a little 'bot called Solomon.
I notice the much lauded Katz mentions roleplaying. If you're playing a MU* (or god forbid, Evercrack or some other MORPG) and you actually ARE roleplaying a character, is there a difference? Granted, most people who play these games don't really 'roleplay'. The people who do, however, would contend that the character is not the player - and on their terms, roleplaying a character who is in love with another character is not the same as online romance. Any comments, dotters?
Hard question to answer. It seems pretty obvious to me though. If you're in a commited relationship, you should be focusing on that person. Although, if you're not happy in the relationship and planning to leave anyways, then I guess it's ok. Still though, I found out recently that my girl and been having an online fling with someone, and it still hurt as much as if she had slept with him... When you find out the love of oyur life is doing something like that, it leads you to believe there are serious doubts about yourself and the relationship you're in. The questions..... What am I doing wrong, Do I not satisfy her emotionally, is there soemthing wrong with the relationship, is she really not as attracted to me as she says she is ... etc etc.
So, even though like I said before, the physical contact wasn't there, but the mentality was, and if it wasn't online, I'm sure something physical would have happened... so really it's a judgement call. Think about how the other person in the relationship would feel, or rather, how YOU would if you found out....
As a recovering chataholic (uninstalled ICQ 19 months ago) I had to adopt the rule: would I do this if my wife was in the room? Online friends, sure. Cyber, no way.
I think then your neighbors are supposed to kill you, or God will do whatever He did to Sodom & Gomorrah...
I seem to remember President Jimmy Carter quoting that once. In a Playboy interview.
The "Feeling-of-betrayal" and adultery are not necessarily the same thing. So with this rationalization, I can go out and hump $10 heroin-addicted runaways, all the while calling out my wifes name, as long as she doesn't find out and feel betrayed. Sounds like a President Clit'on defininition of adultery to me. What's next? "It's not adultery because my actual penis did not make contact with her vagina as I was wearing a condom."The phone or computer or whatever is just a replacement for the condom. Please excuse any mispellings as my keys have been sticking lately. ;^)
...about sex *on* the computer? What we really need to be talking about is sex *with* the computer. I mean this new iFEEL mouse is great, but plastic and motors can only go so far...if you know what I mean.
I agree. Whether or not you take stock in religion or the Bible, exciting feelings that should be reserved for your significant other online is just as bad as doing it IRL.
a) Sense of Humor
b) Emotional Maturity
c) High Bandwidth
2) Your ideal partner is:
a) Interesting and attractive
b) Understanding
c) Extensible and polymorphic
2. Disk Drive (slot) -> Empty 3.5 Inch Drive Bay
3. Hard Drive is inserted into 3.5 Inch Drive Bay
...and so is masturbation and impure thoughts. What the world needs is a "carnivoer"-based app, that will detect the rampant licentiousness and horrifying virtual stimulants that seem to be replacing the good ol' American Way. Between apple pie bakings, all you got to do is ask MoM that question.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
ShyDaisy: Hi, I'm new here.
MonsterDick: I'd guess so. Female?
BigJerk: WAHOOOOOOOO!
k3wlk1dd: I'm your man.
...
...
...
...
ShyDaisy:
ShyDaisy: You are all so nice.
That really should make you jealous!
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
computer!
only if the computers are previously bound to another server....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
As far as adultery is concerned...I simply wouldn't do it. Cyber or real. If you're emotionally invested in someone else, that's attention you really should be devoting to your spouse.
"War makes me sad." - Me
Just to throw my own 2 cents in on this topic. (The original topic that is)
This concept can be based on the idea that if you think about something often enough, you're probably going to eventually do it.For myself this is a significant part of the argument, if you accept this idea as being true for all thoughts no matter if you only think it once, then online sex is definitely adultery.
Strangely enough I believe that most of the times online sex is adultery if you are in a commited relationship. But also I disagree with the above idea (on the whole), the reason being is rooted in the phrase "Evil is necessary, for without how will we know what good is?" If I am with someone and they have never been tempted (ie: had lustful thoughts but not acted on them) how can I truly know that there only with me because they haven't found someone better? Or to put it another way, are they with me because of the integral need of humans to be near someone or are they with me because they love me?
If you don't know the difference, then unfortunately I'd have to say that you haven't known love... Now having said all that, just because someone hasn't been tempted doesn't mean they are any less of a person than someone who has. In fact for myself I personally believe that if you feel the need to have your partner 'tested' (ie: as in temptation island) your relationship is seriously screwed anyway. :-P
It's more how I view myself, sometimes I don't know just how much I'm in love with someone until I've been tempted and either succumbed or resisted.
It's in that place where I put that thing that time
My apologies, I kinda missed out on explaining a part of my reasoning... Ok way back in the start of this post there was the statement of:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.Now I took your statement of: "This concept can be based on the idea that if you think about something often enough, you're probably going to eventually do it. " as being the justification for the biblical quote, which is why I put the clarification of "only once"... Namely the biblical quote is valid if you agree with the concept that "if you think about something you are going to do it (even if you only think once)."
Now for myself I happen to think that yes if you think about something often enough you will probably do it, but thinking about something once or twice does not mean you are going to do it.
Ok onto the other part in your post, I guess I didn't highlight enough that I was talking more about introspection, namely examining your
- own
feelings and validating or resolving them. Than I was about seeing whether or not your partner has been tempted (not very good at explaining my morals on those concepts). But anyway, if you look at the following two statements:you should see what I meant (even if some of my words didn't follow..), so yeah I guess I believe that in a relationship, it's not so much how much my partner loves me, but wanting to know how much I love them that I want to know...
On knowing whether or not someone has been tempted, there is usually nothing verbally stated but I find that there is a certain something (attitude, intensity, whatever) that comes across from someone who has been tested and kept their values intact (assuming their values are not too cheat on a SO). Whether this occured during your relationship or in a past one, is irrelevant they feel more confident and it comes across. After all what is it 80%? of communication is non-verbal and that includes both the sender and recipient...
It's in that place where I put that thing that time
This is another example of how morals have slipped in the current generation of techno-weenies, and how the separation of Church and State in schools has led to a vacuum where once children were taught the proper ways to behave. In case you don't get it, let me spell it out.
Adultery is intent as well as action!!
There, got it? Just because you're only typing at a keyboard, the intent is still there. It's just as immoral to try and fuck someone over the net (if sadder admiteddly) as it is in real life. In both cases, you're guilty of wanting to do something that you should only want to do with your partner!
And it's far more humiliating than just staring at other people is for your partner. I mean, how can people find a few words on a screen more appealing than their partner? It all seems pretty damn tragic to me, but then again, I have a life outside of computing.
And you can't use as a defence the fact that you aren't getting along with your partner. For a start that doesn't excuse immoral behaviour, and besides that if they really are that bad, find another partner! Nobody should be with someone they don't want to be with 100%.
I mean come on, this is a stupid question.
Adultery always begins with the adulterer(s) claiming to themselves and to others that the relationship is "harmless" because it hasn't crossed a certain line. The line where it becomes wrong is the line where you start having to rationalize like that.
Online romances are more risky than the real life equivalent for a number of reasons, even if you ignore the risk that your virtual snugglebunny is really an ax-wielding maniac.
Most significantly, no matter what it feels like, you just don't know somebody until you've met them face to face. Even if you've seen pictures, talked on the phone, and even if all that is accurate, your impression of that person in live interaction might contradict all of what you thought you knew about him or her. It's impossible to determine whether an online romance would "work" in real life before you actually meet.
The biggest problem with online romance is how easy it is to fall for a stranger based on some exchanges of text. The reason this happens is that you fill in the gaps in a very narrow communication channel with your own expectations and assumptions. When you fall in love online, you're in love with yourself as much or more than you're in love with the other person. You automatically read the stranger in terms of your ideal romantic partner.
Adultery's most frequent cause is the fact that life with a spouse can't be kept in some dreamlike ideal state. People have foibles and they will have conflicts with each other. In an adulterous situation, the spouse is seen in terms of his or her faults (realistic, if pessimistic), while the lover is seen in terms of his or her virtues (ideal, and naively optimistic). It's hard for the spouse to compete when someone starts thinking this way.
The tendency of people to map online correspondents onto their own romantic ideals exacerbates this problem greatly. It's easier to view someone as your ideal, therefore easier to get into an adulterous situation, and easy to rationalize it because real life sex is not taking place. The worst part is, the online adulterer doesn't really know if the online relationship could carry over into real life. So his/her existing marriage suffers for the sake of a relationship with someone who is far more a stranger than s/he imagines.
I'm pretty sure that in 20 or 30 years, parents will be explaining the oddities of online infatuation to their kids along with the birds and the bees. It will just become basic advice, which of course most kids will ignore initially until it bites them once, but at least after that they'll have a grounding to understand what's going on, whereas our generation is having to figure this stuff out as we go.
I'm not sure if chatting counts as cheating (though I'm not one to do so anyway), but I would think that "Computer Sex" by use of the Ibrator or FsckU-FsckMe (appears to be offline currently) constitutes cheating for sure.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
IMO, if its something that you wouldn't want your significant other thinking/knowing about, then its adultery. If you know that if THEY knew about it, and would feel hurt, disappointed, angry, sad, WHATEVER, then yeah, its "adultery".
Matthew, Chapter 5:
27: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Just a thought.
Big mistake. Funny thing is she is usually so practical and carefull about making changes.
I feel i can write, having quite a bit of experience with girls who come from the net, I have dated 5 of them, and I feel it's worth mentioning that I have over 7 years of IRC experiences with which to judge from.. of those 1 is my current g/f and is utterly perfect in every way.. the rest were crazed nymphos or psycho/sociopaths withs tons of personal problems.. They call came from IRC.. there are some benefits from this medium and some drawlbacks drawlbacks: 1.) regardless of what picture they send you it's the one they think makes them look the best, which is usually no where near what they look like. 2.) most girls from IRC have issues which is why they're there ; issues can constitute anything from sociopathic lying about everything to white trash party ho's to sadomasochistic tendencies you don't find out about til it's too late ;)nearly all have fucked up family lives and are affected by them.
3.) distance ; most of them don't live anywhere near you so you have drive 3 hours to find out that you've been had
4.) i could give a fuck what society thinks about my personal habits and things, but it's still socially unacceptable to say you're dating someone from the net.. people look at you with suspicion in their eyes.. unless they've done so also or are close friends.. you sometimes hvae to lie to avoid compromising/embarassing situations
of course there are also some major benefits to this setup
benefits:
1.) you can get a very good feel for someone based on their style online, as it's their personality first it's probably healthier than normal relationships.. which can be based on sex and liqour heh.. if you want a serious relationship, which is what i was looking for, this is probably better.. and though i've never tried a dating service or line, and was in fact, not even looking for a girl online it can be a very effective way of finding someone with similar interests/sense of humor/etc
2.) abstraction ; i'm a rather introspective and introverted person and as a result am usually quiet around people i don't know.. being online takes away any of the normal social awkwardness that can come from a real date or whatever
3.) levels of contact ; instead of having to meet someone you don' tlike waste money on them for dinner and then take them home never to be seen or herad from again.. you can escalate the relationship at your leisure.. i talked to my current g/f for over a year before i talked to her on the phone and finally met her and fell very deeply in love with her.. the ability to mutually choose your level of exposure is a VERY desireable characteristic
i'd just like to say, that i've been much happier after more than a year with my now IRL girlfriend than i ever was with a land based one ;) but i did have to sort through some apples.. some good ones and some bad ones.. to find the perfect one.. caveat emptor ;)
BOOM!
Inappropriate!
------
------
Post Your Inappropriate Responses!
THUD!
Inappropriate!
------
------
Post Your Inappropriate Responses!
Sure sounds like it to me. Its official. By reading this message you agree to all concepts, statements, and idea's contained in this message.
Click here. This makes it a whole different story.