i think you have this backwards. it would be pretty sad if sex wasn't enjoyable. it would actually be defeating. imo, and what i consider to be obvious is that sex can create parents. it can create a bond between two people, and can often times create a child. imo it's a denial of those natural consequences that fucks everything all up.
Why is God so obsessed with sex?
- Thread starter synthesizer-patel
- Start date
i think you have this backwards. it would be pretty sad if sex wasn't enjoyable. it would actually be defeating. imo, and what i consider to be obvious is that sex can create parents. it can create a bond between two people, and can often times create a child. imo it's a denial of those natural consequences that fucks everything all up.
what is marriage about? a commitment to love and take care of your own offspring and the woman who produced them with you?
take birth control out of the equation (since you guys LOVE to talk about what's "natural").
and you get...sex IS fun, and it's natural consequence IS procreation.
i would equate love with purity. that one substance would be love.
a lie that is commonly applicable to sex is lust. to not value a human being for what they actually are...a whole human being. take the lustful man looking at a woman for example...he doesn't care about her emotionally, intellectually, and he doesn't want to. he doesn't care about the consequences of his actions in a true sense. all he cares about is using what he would like to consider an empty shell, a piece of meat, for purposes of self-gratification. and he is lying to himself and those lies hurt people. they are not loving.
god is not a human being, and i don't think it's prudent to assume god has a gender. i'm also not talking about having sex with god; i'm talking about achieving intimacy with god. imo and idealistically, sex is the closest thing we humans have to communion.
and just for shits and giggles, if i understand god correctly, he thinks "sexuality" is romanticized bullshit.
not considering anything else.
it's honest.
people hurt themselves and others all the time and i can't control that. i can only control myself. that is true.
and in a sense, that scripture is about purity. separating those who want to be pure and live in communion and in love, from those who do not.
THEORETICALLY, i think they're supposed to be concentrating on other things. sex is a big distraction, and a big motivator.
i was celibate for 8 years, and it's actually quite amazing and enlightening to realize just how much sex influences us, and how consuming it is.
.
so, you agree on sex out marriage? knowing the deaseases? raping crimes? sex addiction,
making it is like addiction, i mean, doing sex and sex and sex, it becomes like an addiction and a part of the person.
(
so, you agree on sex out marriage? knowing the deaseases? raping crimes? sex addiction,
making it is like addiction, i mean, doing sex and sex and sex, it becomes like an addiction and a part of the person.
(
even if you're a part of a healthy marriage and family, that requires a lot of time, focus, and energy. they want to spend that time, focus, and energy on a religion.
.
ah, i got what you mean, but, forgetting about life, i mean, god created us in this life, to live it, not to pray all the time, anyway, there are many priests, who have a job, and is a priest, etc.. but i think not married, but, living life, without doing bad things.
in islam, an imam, is a person that pray with people, like, lead them in the pray, and know about the relegion, but have a work, have a wife, have kids, and just an ordinary guy, but, he's wize, know about the relegion, andlead peoplein pray.
infact, working, seeking for knoledge, is itself like praying, it's another kind of praying to god, or a kind to worship god. also helping people, or, just not harm anyone, (or steel or kill, etcetc... you know those things, like, no drug, no killing, no steeling, but also not talking on someone with bad in he's back, means while that person, etce tc......
ah, i got what you mean, but, forgetting about life, i mean, god created us in this life, to live it, not to pray all the time, anyway, there are many priests, who have a job, and is a priest, etc.. but i think not married, but, living life, without doing bad things.
in islam, an imam, is a person that pray with people, like, lead them in the pray, and know about the relegion, but have a work, have a wife, have kids, and just an ordinary guy, but, he's wize, know about the relegion, andlead peoplein pray.
infact, working, seeking for knoledge, is itself like praying, it's another kind of praying to god, or a kind to worship god. also helping people, or, just not harm anyone, (or steel or kill, etcetc... you know those things, like, no drug, no killing, no steeling, but also not talking on someone with bad in he's back, means while that person, etce tc......
You think technological innovations created porn, "scantily clads", and the like?jan said:
The other way around fits the historical evidence better. Syphilis was an epidemic disease, one of the most common causes of death and disability world wide, centuries before the invention of the light bulb. The carvings on the temples in Thailand are hundreds of years old.
Read your Bible - frequent references to sex of all kinds, continually repeated admonitions, etc, - are you presuming these behaviors were rare?
i'm not certain, but i think catholicism is the only denomination of christianity that has nuns and priests who are supposedly celibate. many other christian ministers and clergy are married.
the whole "forgetting about life" aspect, is really what i don't like about religion. jesus didn't say to go and build him a bunch of cathedrals, filled with marble, and gold, and stolen artifacts, and practice rituals and ceremonies in them. imo institutionalized religion doesn't represent christ very well. christ talked about having a relationship with the father, things that are internal and personal, and change you from the inside out, and affect every aspect of your life. and in a lot of ways, the institution tries to take the place of that, or people want to think it takes the place of that. probably because it's easier than doing what christ talked about.
Last edited:
what isn't god, per se?
God's energy of course.
Much like the sunlight isn't the sun.
or is it?
Its called inconceivable oneness and difference
Well, that's rather a big "If", isn't it?
Do you think that people form relationships primarily for sexual reasons?
God's attitudes toward human sex would be more clearly revealed in God's contribution - the physical setup, the hormonal cascades, etc - than in books of religious edict written by humans.
As far as why religious authoritarians would like to get control of the sexual behavior of young women, and would put a lot of effort toward that goal, I see no mystery whatsoever.
As far as why religious authoritarians would like to get control of the sexual behavior of young women, and would put a lot of effort toward that goal, I see no mystery whatsoever.
Depends how you want to categorize "me".
On one end, you could say that they are part of the whole we term the material body, on the other, if you lose your hands or voice you don't cease to exist, so there is a more intrinsic element at play.
No more than your hand would relegate itself to a weakened diseased state if it somehow had the free will to dislocate itself from your body
Our nature (one of service) is never forgotten. It is expressed through our consciousness. So an absence of god consciousness translates as an absence of service to god, which simple means that we accepts another object of service (my family, my country, my race etc)
.
Its the impersonalist take on vedic philosophy that says we are god - according to them, if one takes birth as a stool eating pig in a slaughterhouse, it is lila
:shrug:
not only a diminished god but also a diminished universe. A universe without variety is, quite literally, dead boring. Basically what you are advocating is that existence is such a perilous venture that perfection requires non-existence
Why would use (or more specifically service) render an individual less?
Is your mother any less because she calls you up on your birthday?
Actually there are good arguments for service making one greater.
I can't see why you think that.
opting for material existence is a lesser freedom, much like if your hand opted for an independent existence, it would be lesser. This is because independence is not its constitutional position.
How so?
regardless of the desires one is born with, one still has a constitutional position of service (IOW this is the constant that doesn't change). Moving up or falling down the material ladder (samsara) may be the consequence of the use of secondary desires, but it is how, where and what we use this primary nature of service that concerns god (at least as far as transcendental advancement is concerned)
I'm not sure why you think the material energy (which is after all, one of god's energies) would be distasteful
actually the key element for entering into the spiritual world is to be socialized around the devotees. IOW if one is a poker-faced reservoir of bitterness and envy in the association of devotees there is absolutely no point for them going to the spiritual world, since they would be totally unhappy there.
When I talk of service to god, etc, I mean service to god in the association of devotees. Its a totally neophyte perspective to think there is just god, one's self and the (apparent) service one does for him. Basically in the spiritual world, everyone is a guru - except you.
Some ashrams/disciplines/ traditions may be more effective at this than others, but regardless, the standard for release from the material energy is not cheapened.
At the risk of getting in to some technical terminology, spiritual life is sometimes broken down into 9 progressive parts. In short, a critical junction is where it moves from being steady to unsteady. An elaboration of the junction is given as
There are two points in a living entities sojourn that they can literally spend thousands of life times treading water. One is in the position of not developing the initial faith to begin any sort of spiritual discipline. The other is at this junction point.
If one moves into any sort of spiritual discipline one can expect to encounter these sorts of people (as well as displaying the same symptoms, I might add)
actually my question was why do you have great volumes of reserve about entertaining the notion that we are currently in a state aimed at reformation.
As for ideas of one chakra dominating another, I don't see it (or even think of it) like that. The main problem with sex life is that it is not met by a similar desire for responsible parenting.
I'm not sure I follow.
I mean suppose a hand did have free will - what would dictate that it can and must file for divorce immediately?
This was the hang up I was asking you about earlier.
What is it about being in a (constitutional) position of service that you find so abhorrent?
I mean its like a key stone of civilized society and stable relationships even in mundane terms.
Why get all antsy when the idea is extrapolated to issues surrounding god?
(on a side point there are actually three gunas - or material qualities. They are not celebrated as transcendental, although sattva guna is understood to be conducive to transcendence - the reason the gunas are not transcendental is because they are always unsteady - for instance a good person gives in to pride, a depraved person becomes sick of their life and resolves for something higher, a passionate person succumbs to lethargy etc .. so that said, a civilized society places an emphasis on sattva guna, even though there is an understanding that stabilizing on it requires constant effort)
Given that selfishness is a type of self-love, it tends to impede any sort of other consideration for others
actually damage is done by approaching the issue of sex without a sense of duty and also, ironically, approaching the issue of sex as if it is complete illusion (since one ultimately falls down from such a view point and takes a position in the first given category)
meh
google "spiritual sex" and see what you come up with
:shrug:
You will have to explain yourself better.
All I can gather is that you are not impressed but I don't know why. I don't even know exactly what you are referring to as "choices", why they are limiting etc etc
I meant service in a broad sense - like a mother serves her child, a husband serves a wife etc. IOW not in the sense of filling out a form or presenting something on a silver platter. Rather, the type of service that acts as a foundation of love.
I'm not demonizing spontaneity.
I'm saying - If we ever want to go against the consequences of a spontaneous act there is probably a good reason for going against the spontaneous act in the first place.
IOW our spontaneity is often curbed by our caution. And as its pertinent to the thread, that's why we have roofies.
Caution never plays a role in your life, or its always sold out to spontaneity?
and yet certain other ashrams, while acknowledging the health benefits of it, also understand that it is of no intrinsic spiritual value in this age
huh?
I don't think I am alone in not trusting a situation of love where there is no sense of obligation (and I don't think I need a legal system or interior one to establish it either)
Its a difficult thing to discuss since many people, on account on the bitterness of their material experiences, have jaded interpretations of the words "service' "obligation" and "duty", so much so that they can't even see how these are pertinent to love, what to speak of god.
You find the phenomena of (attempted) long term relationships being built on the foundation of casual sex relationships alien?
why only 2? you ever looked at the bonobos? who fuck everyone one else in the tribe (men AND women) to keep the tribe bound together