I think I would go crazy in heaven. Talk about boring. Sin is relative. In some religions everything is a sin. Being human is a sin. WTF? If a higher being created these amazing bodies for us, then why would sex be a sin? I just don't get it. Can you have sex in heaven? I mean, what are you supposed to do up there for eternity? Seriously. I'll take reincarnation any day or even just non-existence over an eternity of wallowing in perfect love or whatever is supposed to happen in heaven. I think, if there is a heaven, you make your own.
Sin in Heaven
- Thread starter Renrue
- Start date
Medicine*Woman:
I do believe I want to play doctor with the Medicine*Woman.
I do believe I want to play doctor with the Medicine*Woman.
Any Christian who thinks sex is a sin didn't think about their opinion when they formed it. If God created the human body and designed the male and female sex organs, why wouldn't he want people to have sex? This opinion contradicts the Christian belief that God created man. In fact, the bible instructs married couples to have sex fairly often so that they don't drift apart.
"If I am not allowed to laugh in Heaven, I don't want to go there"
- Martin Luther :bravo:
It isn't !
I don't see it because I have no problems with it. Others can speak for themselves.
You do pick up some strange ideas.
lol
once again
in all regards, its actually the exact opposite
Which makes my point !
I think the general idea of heaven is that you are provided with a thesaurus listing all alternative ways of praising god as he sits on his throne and you grovel and tell him how wonderful he is. Sound's great, I can't wait to go there.
That comes later. According to the formula she has to feel his hard manhood pressing against her thigh while he stares in wonderment at her heaving breasts.
lol
once again
in all regards, its actually the exact opposite
If you and your attention-seeking avatar are going to heaven, I'll settle for hell
the only reason you're saying that is because you can't fathom such a place.
If there is such a place that is so unimaginably horrendous that we can't even fathom it, we must invariably be a little bit suspect about the entity that created it. Let's be honest here, you're just a lowly nothing living on a big rock but even you would never, given the chance, make such a place and put others there on the basis that they didn't love, obey or worship you. What is the inevitable conclusion about any entity that would?
Regards,
Captain Kremmen
eg
(Sri Sri Kalyana Kalpana Kalpa-taru) 2.3.1.19
All the souls in whom the desire to enjoy separately awakens, have to enter into the material world under the false conception of being (a purusa).
Purusa = controller, masculine etc
IOW even taking birth as a woman (in this world) is an attempt to fulfill purusa like desires.
Kind of interesting because it suggests that the whole business of us "purusing" in this world (in any guise of gender or life) is simply an artificial temporary covering.
In fact its even the premise that the OP of this thread operates on - namely "What would happen if you were a purusa in heaven"
to which the answer is, the very act of existing as a purusa is the exclusive opportunity available in the material world.
Does this make sense?
its a summation of scriptural conclusions that is reiterated again and again in scriptural commentaries
eg
(Sri Sri Kalyana Kalpana Kalpa-taru) 2.3.1.19
All the souls in whom the desire to enjoy separately awakens, have to enter into the material world under the false conception of being (a purusa).
Purusa = controller, masculine etc
IOW even taking birth as a woman (in this world) is an attempt to fulfill purusa like desires.
Kind of interesting because it suggests that the whole business of us "purusing" in this world (in any guise of gender or life) is simply an artificial temporary covering.
In fact its even the premise that the OP of this thread operates on - namely "What would happen if you were a purusa in heaven"
to which the answer is, the very act of existing as a purusa is the exclusive opportunity available in the material world.
Does this make sense?
Last edited:
Prince James
whether that is reflected or not in one's heart depends on how much dirt and dust is in it
The perfection of admirable qualities finds itself in god, and it finds itself reflected in others who are purely connected to him
the source of love is actually god
whether that is reflected or not in one's heart depends on how much dirt and dust is in it
for one who is materially contaminated, most certainly
not quite
Love only becomes deceitful when one is victimized by lies that also speak the language of love .... which means basically being victimized by material desire in one's heart .... which again comes back to purification as being the most essential (and often neglected aspect) of spiritual practice
LightGigantic:
Just to note, I was being somewhat facetious in my argument. Not wholly, but somewhat.
Ala Nietzsche, I'd argue that love is fundamentally deceitful in as much as it changes one's perception of the beloved, often in favour of a fantasy, or of an idealized view. We often love what we want to see, rather than what we see.
I can agree that purgation seems to hold an appropriately esteemed position amongst those practices that one must undertake to manifest holiness, but I'd argue also that even in a situation of purity, the nature of love is to distort by virtue of its value. One must value in order to love. Placing value on something divorces one from objectivity of it. Therefore, it is in some sense, deceitful. To view through the glasses of love is to look through rose tinted glasses.
Just to note, I was being somewhat facetious in my argument. Not wholly, but somewhat.
Ala Nietzsche, I'd argue that love is fundamentally deceitful in as much as it changes one's perception of the beloved, often in favour of a fantasy, or of an idealized view. We often love what we want to see, rather than what we see.
I can agree that purgation seems to hold an appropriately esteemed position amongst those practices that one must undertake to manifest holiness, but I'd argue also that even in a situation of purity, the nature of love is to distort by virtue of its value. One must value in order to love. Placing value on something divorces one from objectivity of it. Therefore, it is in some sense, deceitful. To view through the glasses of love is to look through rose tinted glasses.
It is well known in informed circles, e.g., the retired- officers' dining club in Poona, that Sri Kalyana Kalpana was an imposter. He did not, repeat not, have an artificial temporary covering. He lived in a mansion, had numerous servants and played polo with the British.
You are posibly confusing him with Sri Gupta Banerji who lived in a tent and spent his days talking bollocks to the natives.
Last edited:
snake, i look around at and live in this world everyday and fathom it, and so i have no problem imagining a place like hell. i consider myself to be half way there right now. and for those who don't see this world the way i do, i would imagine that you wouldn't see hell that way either. it's amazing what people will accept and tolerate and numb themselves to and even enjoy and justify!
Sri Sri Kalyana Kalpana Kalpa-taru is a scriptural commentary, not a person
Get back to us when you have something purposeful to add to the discussion
thanks in advance