I dunno. Tweed with leather patches just might be the masculine equivalent of "Marian, the sexy Librarian"...



I could go for the professorial type now and then... besides, once you get them OUT of the tweed, some of 'em are pretty hot.

Toronto, Ontario

Spiders.

*shudder*

Thinking that my next-door neighbor has a very loud and mildly odd-sounding sneeze.


(Have I mentioned that the houses here are REALLY close together?)

Tattletale.

Yep; it sure is.

Rockville, Maryland

Wait -- which Jimmy?

Even one "believer" shouldn't go around pointing fingers at others, though. That wouldn't be an appropriate way to deal with sin, because it would be everyone's responsibility to look to their own behavior.

I should probably note for purposes of this discussion that I'm pretty familiar with all the language and scriptural exegesis regarding Christian theology, given that I grew up in that tradition and was at one point a very seriously devout Christian.

I am now a serious follower of a different faith, one that draws on Abrahamic as well as other sources for its spiritual teachings, but I do not hold the same beliefs I did when I identified as Christian. My view of God and of faith and of the relationship between humanity and divinity does not include the same concept of "sin" as is used in this discussion, because I see much of that as a human construct.

Just wanted to clarify my position so as to avoid confusion.

It certainly seems to me that this is part of what the article is saying. Basically, it says that having strong social networks and both the obligations and expectations of support that go along with that help to prevent depression.

When, and what city? Maybe make a Cleveland-area group outing of it, for all ages? I might be up for that.

Potsdam, NY

Either that, or the existence of sin itself could be a fallacy.

The point JB appears to be making is that if indeed EVERYONE were a sinner, then there'd be little use in one sinner pointing at another and crying, "Sinner!" Rather like the pot calling the kettle black, you know? Instead, better that each should look to their OWN sins rather than pointing out those they perceive in others.

As I said: According to the article being a member of a "WE" culture seems to confer a preventive or therapeutic effect against depression.

Wow... if that's what you got from what she wrote, try reading it again.

It wasn't my turn to watch it.

Depression in general doesn't come and go with that, either.

The point of the article (did you read it?) is that in "WE"-centered cultures, there tends to be less depression, even though a known genetic marker for depression (short allele for a serotonin-transport mechanism) is more prevalent among the population. Meanwhile, even without that genetic marker, people in "ME"-centered cultures tend to have higher rates of depression.

In other words, the idea is that something in the social support elements in the "WE" cultures has a protective effect against what you're referring to as organic depression.

Personally, I think the line between organic and inorganic depression is muddy. Some people have depression that responds well to pharmaceutical treatment and thus probably does have biochemical component, while others do not respond well to that type of treatment, which indicates that their depression most likely does not have its basis in biochemistry. And then there are people who exhibit a partial response, indicating that there are multiple factors at work. But except in cases where someone's biochemistry is REALLY screwed up, cultural and social supports really do seem to have a protective effect, and sometimes a curative one.

Pork chops and baby carrots. Going to have a salad next, since I didn't eat it before.

Okay, so you can rev the engine on your bike. Happy now?

Yes.

Have you ever had your feet go to sleep?