Religion and SEX

[octopusrex]

Sex is the most controlled object of all religions. ('cept prehaps Aprodite's).

Why?

What is so "wrong" with sex?

[bigus_dickus]

Sex is the most controlled object of all religions. ('cept prehaps Aprodite's).

Why?

What is so "wrong" with sex?

nothing is wrong with sex.. but things can go very wrong with uncontrolled sex.

[revolutionary_jam]

it's fun but messy

[octopusrex]

Point is: little girls are taught to HATE sex from early on especially Catholics and Hindus. Little boys don't buy it. They keep thinking about it as something they dad's would do. Result: Fucking Chaos.

[bigus_dickus]

Point is: little girls are taught to HATE sex from early on especially Catholics and Hindus. Little boys don't buy it. They keep thinking about it as something they dad's would do. Result: Fucking Chaos.

i was telling that to my g/f the other day. it's the fear of men towards women.

that's because men are insecure; they can't hide their impotence, they can't hide their weakness, they can't fake it. i am talking about sex and procreation, our biological nature and existence. therefore the female is biologically and sexually more powerful than the male, because it gets to be the one who chooses.

that fear of the males, manifests as the "evil" that we all know. practically the devil is a device to scare off the women and turn them into powerless slaves. maybe it is not exactly like that, but it is one of the implications of the situation that we are in.

[octopusrex]

Women are not "powerless". Usually, they rule the homes.

[phildee3]

Sex is the most sacred, religious experience possible in this mortal world.

It's not the religions that make it taboo but the fearmongering elite who have taken control of the religions.

Sex is a sacred art form to the Hindu. Ever read the Kama Sutra??

The Christian has the sacrament of Holy Matramony.
Get married at the altar, stay monogomous, and you can make as much whoopee as you like. The more, the better!!

It's heaven!!!

[octopusrex]

Sex.

Love.

THAT is the question!

[bigus_dickus]

Women are not "powerless". Usually, they rule the homes.

that's what i said too: "therefore the female is biologically and sexually more powerful than the male, because it gets to be the one who chooses."

we can't beat nature can we?

[pri01]

that's what i said too: "therefore the female is biologically and sexually more powerful than the male, because it gets to be the one who chooses."

we can't beat nature can we?


Is she though? I just mentioned this on another thread. Why do some females dress-up, adorn themselves with jewellery, wear make-up, use their bodies to attract male attention etc. Why do they have breasts, when they're not feeding a baby, and why do some of them attempt to make them bigger surgically. Some females are also starving themselves to supposedly make themselves feel more attractive, and some go to great lengths to stay looking young. Again, surgery and botex to describe just 2 forms of mutilation are common. How powerful are some, if they have to go to these lengths to attract a mate?

[bigus_dickus]

Is she though? I just mentioned this on another thread. Why do some females dress-up, adorn themselves with jewellery, wear make-up, use their bodies to attract male attention etc. Why do they have breasts, when they're not feeding a baby, and why do some of them attempt to make them bigger surgically. Some females are also starving themselves to supposedly make themselves feel more attractive, and some go to great lengths to stay looking young. Again, surgery and botex to describe just 2 forms of mutilation are common. How powerful are some, if they have to go to these lengths to attract a mate?

maybe this is what goes on in your neighborhood. women in general don't do that shit.

[pri01]

maybe this is what goes on in your neighborhood. women in general don't do that shit.


I would absolutely agree with you. Look at my post again, very carefully and you will see that I clearly said SOME women 4 times:)

I would also like to add that I am speaking from an evolutionary biologist point of view.

[octopusrex]

It is not a coincidence then, that Judeo-Christian religions ban the female form of God and worship the Father and the Son? Or is the Holy Spirit the secret of all this? Does it represent "Mother"?

[lovemore]

It is not a coincidence then, that Judeo-Christian religions ban the female form of God and worship the Father and the Son? Or is the Holy Spirit the secret of all this? Does it represent "Mother"?

As far as I can make out, the whole concept of sex is to teach us the relationship between God and his church. There is no distinction for those who are saved through Jesus Christ once they get to heaven.

Biblically, a woman is used to represent a church. A whorish woman represents an unfaithful church. God, by showing us the advantages of a chaste marriage, and the mess that adultery leads to, shows us the advantages of being faithful to the Creator, and disadvantages of infidelity.

The only place I recall the holy Spirit is given a gender is in the gospel of John.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
John 14:16-17

[phildee3]

It is not a coincidence then, that Judeo-Christian religions ban the female form of God and worship the Father and the Son? Or is the Holy Spirit the secret of all this? Does it represent "Mother"?

"Father" is a mistranslation of "parent" in the original scriptures; -
mistranslated by Rome to perpetuate their patriarchy.
God is androgynous.
So is Christ; -
and the Holy Spirit.

But how can you say that Judeo-Christian religions ban the "female form of God"?
What about the "Mother of God"; - and what about Sophia???

[octopusrex]

"Father" is a mistranslation of "parent" in the original scriptures; -
mistranslated by Rome to perpetuate their patriarchy.
God is androgynous.
So is Christ; -
and the Holy Spirit.

But how can you say that Judeo-Christian religions ban the "female form of God"?
What about the "Mother of God"; - and what about Sophia???

NOW we are getting somewhere. What lenguistic evidence can you show me to substantiate your claim?

On the Gotterdamerung of our times, I keep rooting for female dieties, mon.

But I do like crazy ol' JC.

[phildee3]

NOW we are getting somewhere. What lenguistic evidence can you show me to substantiate your claim?



I'm looking.
It'll take awhile.
Maybe you can help look.
The more accurate translation (from the Greek, I guess) is "progenitor" (rather than "parent").
I seem to remember this coming from the Gnostic Bishop Stephen Hoeller as well as other sources (watch out now - they'll be lots of postings warning that gnosticism is "Satanic").

[lovemore]

The more accurate translation (from the Greek, I guess) is "progenitor" (rather than "parent").

The greek word used is "patros", which means father.

The bible simply does not support earthly equality of men and women. Women are to obey men as we obey God, and men are to love their wives as Christ loves his church.

Spiritually, making men and women equal is equivalent to saying the church is equal with God.

Biblically all those who have salvation in Christ Jesus, are also saints and also priests. So all saved women are priests. It is God who has the power to ordain priests, not the church.

I don't think you will find support for your doctrine anywhere in the bible.

[mindsplinter]

More little boxes made of ticky tacky. Who the hell set up these rules and for what purpose? Let me see here they were men using their rules to control the women, and so what better way to do that than invent and control a religion or two. The world would be a better place if women were not subjugated into these mind control religions and various other political frauds. Let us all be free from the dogma and get on with the living. In the present I hope, and not 2 thousand year old translation quagmires.

[phildee3]

I don't think you will find support for your doctrine anywhere in the bible.

The bible is a seriously contrived compilation of sacred scriptures, distorted by the Romans to suit their agenda of control of the masses.
The true, written word of God - butchered!

I go by the living word of God.

"I shall place my word upon their hearts!"

[octopusrex]

I'm looking.
It'll take awhile.
Maybe you can help look.
The more accurate translation (from the Greek, I guess) is "progenitor" (rather than "parent").
I seem to remember this coming from the Gnostic Bishop Stephen Hoeller as well as other sources (watch out now - they'll be lots of postings warning that gnosticism is "Satanic").

I got some other fish to fry in my research and you brought it up, so its your baby. HOWEVER.. I can tell you what I'm fishing for:

Whores.

Especially VIRGIN WHORES!

[octopusrex]

More little boxes made of ticky tacky. Who the hell set up these rules and for what purpose? Let me see here they were men using their rules to control the women, and so what better way to do that than invent and control a religion or two. The world would be a better place if women were not subjugated into these mind control religions and various other political frauds. Let us all be free from the dogma and get on with the living. In the present I hope, and not 2 thousand year old translation quagmires.

The point is: women take care of the children, not men. Everything revolves around that. And I just bet you Sodom and Gomorra got nuked for very specific purposes.

I am a man (and an androgynous "soul" for those of you who understand that) but as a man, I like sex. It fills much of my mind. I understand why Lust is such a great enemy of mankind (you waste a lot of time looking for pussy) but I also know that there's other ways. Some forgotten.

[mindsplinter]

Sex is good. Religion is confusing, confining, condemming, and the members are conned all the way. Lots of folks around the planet throughout time did fine with sex and weren't nuked by gods. Most people who participate in having sex do so for pleasure and to produce more little people. When guilt enters into the equation then we all have to begin dealing with the controllers. Religion does alot to instill guilt and control. Indigenous populations of isolated Pacific Islands enjoyed many sexual variations and weren't nuked, but the fun was up when the missionaries arrived.

[octopusrex]

Bingo!

Still tho.. Sex is like eating. Do too much of it and ... it's unhealthy later.

[mindsplinter]

Bingo!

Still tho.. Sex is like eating. Do too much of it and ... it's unhealthy later.

Whoa I'm with you there. I loose my edge and a bit of energy if I totaly "let go" Best to savor it for the special times.

[octopusrex]

Splinter:

Sex with Love.

Sex with Love.

Sex with Love.

[bigus_dickus]

I would absolutely agree with you. Look at my post again, very carefully and you will see that I clearly said SOME women 4 times:)

I would also like to add that I am speaking from an evolutionary biologist point of view.

oh all right then.

i have another biological point of view too and i think it's kinda radical.

nature, which is our bios (which means "life" (not the computers' Basic Input / Output System) and it is the word which the word "biology" derives from), always finds a way which is such an impressive and fascinating thing that we call evolution.

i have been wondering.. i see all this hunger and diseases and difficulties of life in African countries, yet i see new babies all the time. each year i see little children starving to death and parents who can't even feed themselves and i wonder.. why do these people make babies? what is their logic? would i ever have children of my own in a contaminated or hostile environment?

that's where logic comes in, but in a "mysterious" way that we lot don't understand. everything is done for a reason and if we always remember that, maybe we can find the reason which is the forest. the problem is the tree and focusing on the tree makes us miss the forest.

what if this too happened for a reason? society before it became patriarchal, it was matriarchal. then at some point which no one really knows exactly, it switched. i can say that we tested both ways and found that neither can win, but each can teach us valuable lessons.

which way will now nature go? it is our choice, because we are our nature.

what ever manifests, does so according to the sufficient conditions existing in an environment. we create those conditions and whatever they are sufficient of, they manifest. so we did this. not religion, not aliens, not philosophies, not ideas but we, who did them, had them and created them.

[pri01]

[quote=bigus_dickus;234549]

i have been wondering.. i see all this hunger and diseases and difficulties of life in African countries, yet i see new babies all the time. each year i see little children starving to death and parents who can't even feed themselves and i wonder.. why do these people make babies? what is their logic? would i ever have children of my own in a contaminated or hostile environment?[quote]

From a biological point of view, we have no choice but to reproduce if we are to get our genes into the next generation. There is a book called "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins which pretty much covers it. From a realistic point of view, people like having children, and in some cultures where food is scarce, the reproductive system of the female tends to shut down. You see this in anorexics.

[bigus_dickus]

From a biological point of view, we have no choice but to reproduce if we are to get our genes into the next generation. There is a book called "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins which pretty much covers it. From a realistic point of view, people like having children, and in some cultures where food is scarce, the reproductive system of the female tends to shut down. You see this in anorexics.

of course, that's what people do, they make other people. it doesn't matter what kind of people and what we think or believe about them or ourselves.

about the "selfish gene", i don't really know but it doesn't seem to me that this is the absolute reality but an implication. the reality of genes is a mere very tiny percent of what reality is.

[adimon]

Splinter:

Sex with Love.

Sex with Love.

Sex with Love.

This is the best post in a great thread with many excellent posts. Those of you who are interested in the issues raised here would do well to read 'Prometheus Rising' by R.A.Wilson IMO.

Have fun!

[phildee3]

Sex is good. Religion is confusing, confining, condemming, and the members are conned all the way.

Re-ligion = to join (with God).

Sex is religion (when practiced correctly - with all due respect for it, and for your partner, as a sacrament).

Http://www.visionarymusic.com/newsletters/images/amoraea/Synergenesis.jpg

[mindsplinter]

Splinter:

Sex with Love.

Sex with Love.

Sex with Love.

I stand corrected. Sex with Love, being that this thread is about religion and sex. However, I've experienced both the love and the non love in sex. Each can serve a different purpose depending on the partner, the conditions, and what you want to get out of the relationship. So, Sex with love is best, though its not always available.

[octopusrex]

Masturbation is self love.

Good thing to share with another tho.

[phildee3]

Originally Posted by phildee3:
"Father" is a mistranslation of "parent" in the original scriptures; -
mistranslated by Rome to perpetuate their patriarchy.
God is androgynous.
So is Christ; -
and the Holy Spirit.


NOW we are getting somewhere. What lenguistic evidence can you show me to substantiate your claim?



Hi Octo,
I finally found some time to look into this.

There's been alot of work done on this by others - it's complicated - but here's what I got from the time that I have had available.
I am not a linguist, so we have to look at the evidence presented by those who are, - by specialists in scripture translation in particular.

One such researcher is Neil Douglas-Klotz who has a book called "The Hidden Gospel" which clarifies this (but there are many other who have come, independently, to the same conclusion).

The original text, of course, was Aramaic - not Greek - and the word in question is Abu or Abwûn (various spellings, because their letters were different).
Abu can be translated as "father," but also as "progenitor," "begetter," etc. which makes more sense when put into context with the other scriptures which point to God as being androgynous. This is where it gets complicated and can end up in an endless debate with fundamentalists who start with the assumption that the present-day bible is word-for-word, unaltered truth. As a mystic, however, I can confirm from my direct experience of "the divine" that the almighty, omnipresent, omnipotent, "all-that-is" is, in fact, androgynous. WE ARE BORN OF "HIM" - TAKING ON GENDER AS A RESULT OF THE SEPARATION - AND SEX IS A, SACRED SACRAMENT WHICH CAN LEAD TO RE-UNION WITH HIM/HER/IT BY BECOMING "ONE FLESH" WITH YOUR PARTNER (IN TANTRIC UNION).

Here are four, interesting translations of the "Lord's Prayer" from Aramaic, including one by Douglas-Klotz, along with some very good commentary:
http://www.bradstevens.com/articles/the_lords_prayer.htm

[blue]

Masturbation is self love.

Good thing to share with another tho.

LMAO....TRU TRU:D

[octopusrex]

Hi Octo,
I finally found some time to look into this.

There's been alot of work done on this by others - it's complicated - but here's what I got from the time that I have had available.
I am not a linguist, so we have to look at the evidence presented by those who are, - by specialists in scripture translation in particular.

One such researcher is Neil Douglas-Klotz who has a book called "The Hidden Gospel" which clarifies this (but there are many other who have come, independently, to the same conclusion).

The original text, of course, was Aramaic - not Greek - and the word in question is Abu or Abwûn (various spellings, because their letters were different).
Abu can be translated as "father," but also as "progenitor," "begetter," etc. which makes more sense when put into context with the other scriptures which point to God as being androgynous. This is where it gets complicated and can end up in an endless debate with fundamentalists who start with the assumption that the present-day bible is word-for-word, unaltered truth. As a mystic, however, I can confirm from my direct experience of "the divine" that the almighty, omnipresent, omnipotent, "all-that-is" is, in fact, androgynous. WE ARE BORN OF "HIM" - TAKING ON GENDER AS A RESULT OF THE SEPARATION - AND SEX IS A, SACRED SACRAMENT WHICH CAN LEAD TO RE-UNION WITH HIM/HER/IT BY BECOMING "ONE FLESH" WITH YOUR PARTNER (IN TANTRIC UNION).

Here are four, interesting translations of the "Lord's Prayer" from Aramaic, including one by Douglas-Klotz, along with some very good commentary:
http://www.bradstevens.com/articles/the_lords_prayer.htm

Thank you thank you thank you.

This leads me to the greatest numerical theory of all:

1=2

Which leads inevitably to:

2=3 and of course 2=4

Since speaking of a "personality" of a "creator" or "originator".. Lets go with personalities that fit into our hearts. Let our hearts sing to those personalities that fit into our hearts as creators... And leave it at that. Before we all kill each other.

However...

This thread is about SEX.

Somewhere along the line, in our not so long history of religion, Sex became aligned with Money. Sex sells they say in Hollywood. Money and Love are opposites. Money represents separation. Love unity. So Money highjacked Sex and Love was left...

Sexless.

[phildee3]

This thread is about SEX.

Somewhere along the line, in our not so long history of religion, Sex became aligned with Money. Sex sells they say in Hollywood. Money and Love are opposites. Money represents separation. Love unity. So Money highjacked Sex and Love was left...

Sexless.


but the real tragedy is that sex was left loveless...

[octopusrex]

Unless you are adept at practicing self-love!

Still tho.. there is something magical, wonderful and utterly mystical about Love between two people. Self-love falls short every-time.

[phildee3]

Unless you are adept at practicing self-love!

Still tho.. there is something magical, wonderful and utterly mystical about Love between two people. Self-love falls short every-time.

1+1=1

therefore 1= only1/2 (which is better than 0, I guess!)

[octopusrex]

Clearly you never did your math homework.

[phildee3]

Clearly you never did your math homework.

No, I learned from you! :)

You said 1=2.

Therefore 2=1.

Therefore 1+1=1.

QED

[octopusrex]

And who ever told you I know anything about math? It's the only class I flunked in Highschool. (I actually didn't flunk but it's the only class I got a D- on)

[phildee3]

And who ever told you I know anything about math? It's the only class I flunked in Highschool. (I actually didn't flunk but it's the only class I got a D- on)

Ha!!

Beat you!

I really did flunk.

But then re-took it and passed.

Since then I've always known that there are more "correct" answers than they tell you.
The trick being that you give 'em the one they want to hear (whoever "they" are at the time).

I finally got them to give me a BA (hons) using this trick!

[octopusrex]

Is flunking math an honor for brits?