You'll need to be more specific about your question. I can't tell what you're asking.
That would depend on the parents' incomes etc., wouldn't it?
The line dividing what and what else?
Why is God so obsessed with sex?
- Thread starter synthesizer-patel
- Start date
You'll need to be more specific about your question. I can't tell what you're asking.
That would depend on the parents' incomes etc., wouldn't it?
The line dividing what and what else?
post #34 said:
Is sex outside marriage ok?
You shouldn't have great sex just for fun, though, right? Only strictly for procreation.
No sticking that penis in the wrong place! God doesn't like it.
My sanity thanks you for calming my concerns.
I am talking about the divide where recreational sex life bears a marked social impact on the consequences of procreational sex
when you have relationships dissolve or not even manifest in terms of single parenting
Because people are judgemental about eachother over any topic, including sex.
Maybe the reason is because we define ourselves by comparing ourselves to our environment. This leads to a basic world view and when something comes in and doesn't "fit" we judge it. So we're just walking judging machines trying to figure out what's "normal" through comparison.
Sex might be special because it's one of the most personal things you can do with someone, sure there are mental connections that feel more personal than sex...but I think most people would agree they happen a lot less often, and aren't of interest to a vast majority of the populaton.
but not like they are judgmental of sex. What people do privately we tend to care about less, but even sexual acts between consenting adults that no one sees can lead to one being dragged behind a pickup truck. IOW that someone seems like someone who has homosexual sex can lead to them being killed.
Sure, but sex gets such a weight thrown on it.
I just wonder about the origins. I could imagine us having less, in general, triggers and passion about what other people are doing sexually. I've been in cultures that cared less, must less. Of course they reacted to abusive interactions like rape, but what consenting adults did just didn't seem to have much charge for them. And what people did alone....
I mean think of all themoral and panic around masturbation until fairly recently in Christians lands.
Ah, sorry I missed that.
I am not sure what lies would have to do with impure thoughts about sex. Could you expand on that? As far as not loving, this is as vague for me as impure, though I like 'love' as a guide far more than 'purity'.
Purity implies some kind of cleanliness or that something is only one substance. I find that an unworkable concept for me ethically. Some seem to work with it fine, but I really don't know how one thought can be 'only one substance' as opposed to another that is tainted by other substances. So I do not think in terms of purity and impurity in these ways. At all.
Some examples might help me.
I don't think most Christians would agree with you on that one. I don't think Christian see us as having a sexual relationship with God.
but there is only God, or? believing this does not mean that saying 'I am God' is necessarily good. On the other hand I am still trying to understand what the problem is if everything is God and portions have sex and portions say 'I am God.' Certainly God does not have a problem. And if God is all there is, what is the problem then?
So God separated out parts of Godself. A Good state of unity was turned into a bad state of disunity by God. And in this state God is less Good than before and the goal is for these comprimised parts of God to undue this original act of God's, and to do this it helps to control sexual urges?
Doesn't this all strike you as a mess that could have been avoided?
Why would God cut off one of his fingers - I thought hand was not humble enough? And how can God be compromised?
It seems like a different kind of insanity, but the idea that God has lopped off so many of God's parts and then set up the task that these parts figure out how to rejoin
and
this all caused and causes incredible suffering
seem insane to me also.
I am not sure I want to have a utilitarian view of sex. I know that was a bit sneaky here - iow that is not necessarily what you are implying, but still, with that proclamation of sneakiness, I am interesting in your response, since I think some kind of objectification of utilization of the self is implicit here, even it is not quite utilitarianism.
could be, but in any case we both know there are examples of people who do not associate spiritual sex with drugs.
So we need to get down to brass tacks and say what that attitude is. But note: an attitude is not a set of rules about behavior. Means may be, but I wonder why attitude is not enough. Or, futher, a lack of bad attitudes and a faith in one's desire in the absence of these.
Seems like an incredible amount of unnecessary suffering was created by God in this scenario. First separating out parts, then sending teachers that will of course only reach a certain amount of separated parts in each generaton and life after life of suffering just to return to a state that for the life of me I cannot see why God decided to shatter in the first place.
But ironically so much of religion teaches us to go against the spontaneous unity of body we are. People often end up stiff, controlled and not spontaeous once they go into the various disciplines out there.
They may have flexible bodies from Yoga - if they end up in that position - but their movements - often especially of their faces, seems to lack flow and integration, because so much is seen as being problematic about being out of control.
I do not see practitioners as heading toward unity even in themselves, but rather become more and more jailer and jailed, controler and controlled.
Two beings instead of one.
I cannot see how this aids God's unity.
In fact I am quite sure it is a hinder.
Not in the scientific sense. I think I will stay homo sapien, thank you.I don't know Doreen, you lQQkn to evolve
Ah, so there are things that are not part of Brahma.
So things that do have these qualities are outside God?
So thinkingthat's so shallow-minded, really.
is post #40 invisible to anyone other than myself?
impure thoughts are lies. thoughts that are not loving.
you can fuck someone upside down and sideways, and what matters is what you're thinking about that person, and why you're fucking them. wake up. snap out of it.
I am going to fuck him sideways is not an impure thought.
What would be?
Feel the love.
I assume this also passes as pure thoughts. It seems you have a broad definition.
Right here, the urge is to be the mirror instead of how it used to be allowing them to hold a distorting mirror to me. An assertion for myself, that I too can hold up a mirror and believe it is merely a mirror. That I no longer believe it is fine for others to do this but not for me. That I must live in this hall of mirrors and work my way out.
See my post above to LG. In short, I see them creating and enforcing splits in me.
No.
In this case I live in a house with an earth floor on which I can simply pack down the soil. There is a continuity between the floor of my house and the soil outside.
It is a part of the tradition I am in, but futher it was something I felt all along and when it was 'said' I felt it was correct adn finally I could stop contorting myself around the problem of evil, for example.
Allright.
I think this is actually correct, except that what you mean by "me" isn't actually who you really are.
For all practical intents and purposes, when people think of their "selves", they mean the conglomerate that consists of the soul, the false ego, the intelligence, the mind and the body; it is all these things together that tend to be referred to as "me" or "I".
What some religious traditions teach, however, is that you are actually only the first element, namely the soul; whereas the false ego etc. are not you.
So if you hold on to that conglomerate idea of selfhood (which you probably do not experience as much of a conglomerate at all), then being faced with the above explanation indeed feels like it is enforcing splits in you.
You are of course free to mix metaphors all you want, but this does hinder communication.
Problems do not exist impersonally, objectively, somehow "out there". It is always a particular person who has a problem.
In this case, it is you who has a problem with particular ideas about God.
I am not saying this as an attack on you. It's just that this is how problems actually exist (namely to particular people) and are relevant - and also how they can be addressed.
(There is, for example, "the Hard Problem of Consciousness" or "the Problem of Evil", and such formulations may lead us to think that problems exist per se, objectively. Yet there are many people on this planet to whom these problems are not problems at all.)
At this point, I would suggest some serious philosophical study ...
This is about enjoying music, but it very well captures my thoughts on the matter - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg9eij1rxqY&feature=related
IOW, if we try to enjoy something, "for its own sake" or for our pleasure - it's unsatisfactory.
I have no idea how something is "spontaneous" and how it can be recognized as such.