yes, I see that discussion and hope it continues. Care to answer as a Hindu from within that tradition the question I asked?
What question about Hinduism? I found none.
yes, I see that discussion and hope it continues. Care to answer as a Hindu from within that tradition the question I asked?
Well God being the creator of everything and omniscient would be aware of what He created....
Was he? After creation, he found it good. By Noah's time it was bad enough to anger him, so sent the flood. Proves he created a flawed world. Was he aware of the original flaws? Nope.
Since you say 'we' this means you are thinking about other people and their sex lives. So this must be OK, not impure thoughts then?
Then what's the problem?
But how can the oneness of God be compromised by sex or anything else for that matter?
Then why did he say it was good?
Then why did he say it was good?
Some humans are good some humans are bad.
Could be, but not necessarily.The corollary of this reasoning is: Why not simply make us enlightened, perfect robots?
And from here my question is, why make rules that run against our nature. And this might lead to different ideas about what our nature is.Living beings have free will.
This might seem like a burden sometimes, certainly.
Yes, but it seemed like we must avoid the low to have the high. I do not think this is the case.I was referring to a spectrum, with low on one end and high on the other, and everything inbetween.
And the lower one.Generally, people have a desire to be happy, or to be happier than they currently are.
This is a given, we do not need to be taught this. Although there aspects of learning involved in how to get to that higher happiness.
If God is one and 'really' on the important level in total bliss and all there is, I am not sure what the need for rules are.I am trying to work out why you asked that question, what premises you were working with.
It seems you implied that God's oneness can be compromised (for example by humans having unrestrained sex).
Could you say a bit more about why you think (if you do) that "God's oneness" can be compromised?
Yes, I was mostly working on the Abrahamic side of the tracks there.
For me soul and body are facets of the same self. A soul bodying. A body souling.
In a sense we reify body and that tends to seem OK, but then reifying the soul seems problematic. I think both reifications are.
“ Originally Posted by rcscwc
Then why did he say it was good? ”
Some humans are good some humans are bad.
Have you explained what are impure and pure thoughts yet? If so which post?no, i wish everyone was happy and fulfilled. what's impure about that?
Geez! I was getting all worked up and then I read this…eew :grumble:skaught said:People in ancient cultures were much more prone to disease and infection. While sex is fun it is, to some degree, dirty, and can lead to infections that could be highly irritating to possibly fatal. While many of the bibles guidelines on sexual practices (most of which are found in Leviticus) can seem to be directed towards condemning certain people or practices, they are mostly guidelines on how to avoid and prevent infections. An uncircumcised penis is far more prone to irritation and yeast infections. Anal sex, and sex with a menstruating woman can lead to serious yeast, or bacterial infections. Oral sex can lead to thrush, which can be deadly. In ancient societies, it was wise to keep the genital area clean. This was done by practicing what was considered safe sex for the time, which meant having penile vaginal sex only, and having it rarely.
Of course. I was responding to a Christian I think. It is very complicated in here, but I am addressing different versions of God in different posts.That is only one line of reasoning. There are others.
I don't disagree.The way the body is, is in a way an expression of the soul.
The soul's consciousness is, in a way, determined by the state of the body.
For example, if you have the body of a dog, then you have dog consciousness.
OK.I agree that people have such views, and that there are various problems emerging from that.
Would it not be Brahma not doing Brahma's design? Brahma being base.All are born with noble and base tendencies. What becomes stronger is what you nurture.
If the world and humans are deep shyte, it is our doing not Brahma's design.
If God is one and 'really' on the important level in total bliss and all there is, I am not sure what the need for rules are.
Post 23. You mentioned God was autoerotic. This is not Christianity, at least not the main branches. It sounded more Hindu to me. I asked a question about it.What question about Hinduism? I found none.
But, there is nothing but God.The rules are not for God, but for us (to follow them if we want to be established on a higher level of consciousness than we currently have).
Post 23. You mentioned God was autoerotic. This is not Christianity, at least not the main branches. It sounded more Hindu to me. I asked a question about it.