Why are Christians so concerned about sex?

When English interpretations of the New Testament talk about ‘sexual immorality’ they Courtisane recevant l’un de ses clientsare really translating the Greek word porneia (πορνεία), it’s used almost every time the topic of sex comes up and often when talking about the worst sins in general. If you can really grok what Paul was talking about as he uses the root for the word over and over again (it appears 32 times in the New Testament) then the rest falls into place. Now porneia has always been translated into Latin as fornication, while being understood by many conservatives to just be a 1:1 stand in for ‘any sexual expression not between husband and wife’. However, Porneia in post-classical Corinthian Greek did not mean generic sexual sin, or even sex outside of marriage, at all exactly and neither did fornication in actual Latin. The truth, like in many things, is a little bit more complicated and a lot more interesting

more…

Meta Filter Discussion, Why are Christians so concerned about sex?

Meta Filter Discussion,

more…

grins, :)

A better question would be: Why are monotheistic religions so concerned about sex?

Tamb said:

A better question would be: Why are monotheistic religions so concerned about sex?

OK, agreed, so what is the answer?

Tamb said:

A better question would be: Why are monotheistic religions so concerned about sex?

Yes, but the the author is talking about Christianity, it would be better if the author brought in more religions, and retitled the heading

bob(from black rock) said:

Tamb said:

A better question would be: Why are monotheistic religions so concerned about sex?

OK, agreed, so what is the answer?

Possibly because the top of the monotheistic tree must be their particular god. Sex is for reproduction not for fun. The only enjoyment adherents should ever have is love of their god.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Why are Christians so concerned about sex?

When English interpretations of the New Testament talk about ‘sexual immorality’ they Courtisane recevant l’un de ses clientsare really translating the Greek word porneia (πορνεία), it’s used almost every time the topic of sex comes up and often when talking about the worst sins in general. If you can really grok what Paul was talking about as he uses the root for the word over and over again (it appears 32 times in the New Testament) then the rest falls into place. Now porneia has always been translated into Latin as fornication, while being understood by many conservatives to just be a 1:1 stand in for ‘any sexual expression not between husband and wife’. However, Porneia in post-classical Corinthian Greek did not mean generic sexual sin, or even sex outside of marriage, at all exactly and neither did fornication in actual Latin. The truth, like in many things, is a little bit more complicated and a lot more interesting

more…

Meta Filter Discussion, Why are Christians so concerned about sex?

Meta Filter Discussion,

more…

grins, :)

I think the reasons are obvious… gratuitous sanctification of desires is seen as a bad thing… things like lust, gluttony and greed are all considered to be sins

CrazyNeutrino said:

Tamb said:

A better question would be: Why are monotheistic religions so concerned about sex?

Yes, but the the author is talking about Christianity, it would be better if the author brought in more religions, and retitled the heading

Well, Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

diddly-squat said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Why are Christians so concerned about sex?

When English interpretations of the New Testament talk about ‘sexual immorality’ they Courtisane recevant l’un de ses clientsare really translating the Greek word porneia (πορνεία), it’s used almost every time the topic of sex comes up and often when talking about the worst sins in general. If you can really grok what Paul was talking about as he uses the root for the word over and over again (it appears 32 times in the New Testament) then the rest falls into place. Now porneia has always been translated into Latin as fornication, while being understood by many conservatives to just be a 1:1 stand in for ‘any sexual expression not between husband and wife’. However, Porneia in post-classical Corinthian Greek did not mean generic sexual sin, or even sex outside of marriage, at all exactly and neither did fornication in actual Latin. The truth, like in many things, is a little bit more complicated and a lot more interesting

more…

Meta Filter Discussion, Why are Christians so concerned about sex?

Meta Filter Discussion,

more…

grins, :)

I think the reasons are obvious… gratuitous satisification of desires is seen as a bad thing… things like lust, gluttony and greed are all considered to be sins

or gratuitous satisfaction even… (how the hell did that happen?)

I think the reasons are obvious… gratuitous satisification of desires is seen as a bad thing… things like lust, gluttony and greed are all considered to be sins

or gratuitous satisfaction even… (how the hell did that happen?)

You’ve been watching Californication again?

Did anyone actually read the article?

sibeen said:

Did anyone actually read the article?

nah, i just get it for the pictures…

sibeen said:

Did anyone actually read the article?

Don’t be silly. This forum is the child of SSSF.

The article is talking about human behavior, a wanting to change human behavior for the better?

in the historical sense

but things have not changed at all, Ill stop grinning now

this next article disturbed me, I think women around the world need to stand up to men a bit more, to change mens behavior for the better, we are still confronting nature, biology, chemistry and lack of education

What happened when a blonde woman in a sexy pink top walks through a Cairo university campus? Viral video captures crowds of baying men swarming around female

And this is at a University campus with supposedly educated men, but are these men being educated to behave properly with women? No, they are not!

What does this have to do with the original post

Behavior

sibeen said:

Did anyone actually read the article?

Yes I read it, I will read it again a few times, and Ill get around to the comments in the other Metafilter link

bob(from black rock) said:

Tamb said:

A better question would be: Why are monotheistic religions so concerned about sex?

OK, agreed, so what is the answer?

Sexually-transmitted diseases is the main reason. Same reason that religions ban the eating of prawns, because they can kill you if not refrigerated.

A second reason is that if you have unprotected sex outside marriage you ran a serious risk of being murdered by an irate father or husband.

I’d say the bestial desire both troubles and interests them. Things must get complicated in the bedroom with the big man watching, you know..

They are worried it might lead to dancing

bob(from black rock) said:

Tamb said:

A better question would be: Why are monotheistic religions so concerned about sex?

OK, agreed, so what is the answer?

The answer seems to me, to be that when the religious texts were written, encouraging long term stable monogamous relationships were the best way to ensure that children could survive long enough until breeding age..

Because it’s fun.

If you’re off somewhere having fun, you not sitting there listening to the holy man telling you that he’s your channel to that Big Guy in the Sky, and about why you should take good care of the Holy Man, or else the Big Guy will get annoyed with you, and strike you dead, and then torture you for eternity.

Sin, guilt, snakes (trouser)

Grist to the mill

Tamb said:

You’ve been watching Californication again?

I found that series to be boring.. it may be because the idea of yet another a womanising character is dull.. or because I kept waiting for Scully to turn up.

Arts said:

Tamb said:

You’ve been watching Californication again?

I found that series to be boring.. it may be because the idea of yet another a womanising character is dull.. or because I kept waiting for Scully to turn up.

I would have watched it if Scully turned up and did some witty fun stuff

Why are Christians so concerned about sex?
————————————————————-

Because it is five fold more expensive to keep a family than a pastor…

sibeen said:

Did anyone actually read the article?

No, I found the OP hard going.

The truth, like in many things, is a little bit more complicated and a lot more interesting
—————————————————————————————

Meh, sin is the term for bringing harm, to ones self or others.

Sex just got the short end of the stick.

Mr Ironic said:

The truth, like in many things, is a little bit more complicated and a lot more interesting
—————————————————————————————

Meh, sin is the term for bringing harm, to ones self or others.

Sex just got the short end of the stick.

sin in its true definition is going against/ being tricky with god

trespass is going against/ being tricky with humans

jesus as far as I’m aware says very little about sex – if at all

the obsession about sex comes from the old testament

in the old testament the jews are encouraged to attack villages/ other peoples – kill everyone, all of the animals except funny enough – the YOUNG GIRLS that they can more or less do what they like with – funny? no?

I wouldn’t get too hung up on religion , those who follow it are brainwashed in it can explain away all kinds of atrocities, murder, genocide

religion is a bed fellow of fanatacism

Meh, sin is the term for bringing harm, to ones self or others.
————————————————-
sin in its true definition is going against/ being tricky with god (liness)
————————————————

There is no difference.

As for trespass, seems like early legal jargon to me…

kill everyone, all of the animals except funny enough – the YOUNG GIRLS that they can more or less do what they like with – funny? no?
————————————————

No of course not but rape, pillage and burn are hardly isolated incidents.

Mr Ironic said:

No of course not but rape, pillage and burn are hardly isolated incidents.

The difference is, in the Old Testament, they weren’t crimes, because God had said it was OK. Or that’s what the soldiers were told, anyway.

Mr Ironic said:

kill everyone, all of the animals except funny enough – the YOUNG GIRLS that they can more or less do what they like with – funny? no?
————————————————

No of course not but rape, pillage and burn are hardly isolated incidents.

in the old testament

captain_spalding said:

Mr Ironic said:

No of course not but rape, pillage and burn are hardly isolated incidents.

The difference is, in the Old Testament, they weren’t crimes, because God had said it was OK. Or that’s what the soldiers were told, anyway.

it was a tribal thing, the whole point of killing everyone except a few fuckable young girls is that you wiped out the memory and claim of land ownership

Judaism incarnate is Israel – if you want to know the face of Judaism see what Israel does

F-35 Joint Strike Fighters: Australia’s biggest Defence acquisition ‘unaffordable’, US congressional committee hears
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-27/f35-joint-strike-fighters-unaffordable-us-committee-hears/5348414

the one unifying trait of the religious is that they all believe their religion will be the only religion in the future

I was amused when a Buddhist told me that everyone in the future will be Buddhist!!

The difference is, in the Old Testament, they weren’t crimes,
———————————————————-

Yes they weren’t crimes because somebody said so…

No different to the Norse or the those of the first fleet.

Or just about any invading party.

after thinking half awake today I suddenly realised what purpose ron l hubbard had when he created scientology – it was to try and reduce the numbers of the vulnerable joining the existing religions.

religions scoop up vulnerable people and then harness them to do their work

hubbard must have realised that if you could scoop these people up then it would lessen the effect and money base of the world’s religions

in the old testament
—————————————-

Sorry my bad.

Those who raped, pillaged and burnt… but didn’t write it down,

Are without sin.

wookiemeister said:

hubbard must have realised that if you could scoop these people up then it would lessen the effect and money base of the world’s religions

While at the same time garnering himself a quite considerable amount of cash, and a large and obedient workforce.

““You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.” – L. Ron Hubbard..

Mr Ironic said:

The difference is, in the Old Testament, they weren’t crimes,
———————————————————-

Yes they weren’t crimes because somebody said so…

No different to the Norse or the those of the first fleet.

Or just about any invading party.

The difference being that the Norsemens’ god(s) didn’t set down a whole bunch of strict rules on stone tablets, and then say that none of them applied on certain specified occasions.

I was amused when a Buddhist told me that everyone in the future will be Buddhist!!
———————————————————————

Buddhism, my friend, is not a religion…

Mr Ironic said:

I was amused when a Buddhist told me that everyone in the future will be Buddhist!!
———————————————————————

Buddhism, my friend, is not a religion…

It’s much too nice, and much too practical, to qualify as a religion.

Mr Ironic said:

Buddhism, my friend, is not a religion…

What do you call a belief in reincarnation then?

captain_spalding said:

It’s much too nice, and much too practical, to qualify as a religion.

Tell that to the Rohingyas in Burma.

when you read the old testament something very interesting happens after moses gets the laws from god, its not too long before some people want to help him administer these laws (presumable instead of moses himself). I would say that beyond the 10 commandments such as “thou shalt not kill” its not too long before more laws are created (I didn’t hear of moses dragging another 63 stone tablets down the side of mount Sinai ) and funny enough people are being killed in Palestine. moses himself didn’t live to see the slaughter , he only watched from mount nebo and never entered the land – which itself is also very strange. according to Abraham the land between the nile and the Euphrates is all land for the jews but strangely moses is always as never entering the land promised.

moses might have been some charismatic figure or totally invented but given the glitches in the story might well have existed – he would have been too influential to forget and over time his character and story might have been twisted.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Mr Ironic said:

Buddhism, my friend, is not a religion…

What do you call a belief in reincarnation then?

Cute.

captain_spalding said:

wookiemeister said:

hubbard must have realised that if you could scoop these people up then it would lessen the effect and money base of the world’s religions

While at the same time garnering himself a quite considerable amount of cash, and a large and obedient workforce.

““You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.” – L. Ron Hubbard..

I think it was more of an experiment for him

I wonder if he knew what it would spawn?

Mr Ironic said:

I was amused when a Buddhist told me that everyone in the future will be Buddhist!!
———————————————————————

Buddhism, my friend, is not a religion…

yeah thats what they tell you

but it sure does look like one

and then say that none of them applied on certain specified occasions.
——————————————————————————

Well you’ve got me there…

I didn’t realise that these concessions had been written in stone.

What number stone and appendix can lead me to this new revelation?

I suspect the true way to read the old testament is to regard the horror as prescribed by god as unacceptable. rather like the art of war the whole book is founded in misfortune incurred by obeying silly orders. if you follow god’s orders you inflict terrible suffering, if you refuse to follow god’s orders he tries to kill you. the best course of action is to disregard the silly orders from god and obey the orders that don’t make sense and don’t cause harm – the leats he can do to you is threaten you or send his followers to kill you. Yitzhak rabin was knocked off by the zealots because he had criticised king david for being less than an admirable person and negotiating with the philistines.

Mr Ironic said:

and then say that none of them applied on certain specified occasions.
——————————————————————————

Well you’ve got me there…

I didn’t realise that these concessions had been written in stone.

What number stone and appendix can lead me to this new revelation?

I fear that you misunderstand.

The Commandments were inscribed in stone (Exodus 34).

But, on certain occasions (e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 ), God directs the Israelites to contravene the very rules which he had prescribed and by which he had emphasised that the Israelites should live.

edit

wookiemeister said:

I suspect the true way to read the old testament is to regard the horror as prescribed by god as unacceptable. rather like the art of war the whole book is founded in misfortune incurred by obeying silly orders. if you follow god’s orders you inflict terrible suffering, if you refuse to follow god’s orders he tries to kill you. the best course of action is to disregard the silly orders from god don’t obey the orders that don’t make sense and don’t cause harm – the least he can do to you is threaten you or send his followers to kill you. Yitzhak rabin was knocked off by the zealots because he had criticised king david for being less than an admirable person and negotiating with the philistines.

captain_spalding said:

Mr Ironic said:

and then say that none of them applied on certain specified occasions.
——————————————————————————

Well you’ve got me there…

I didn’t realise that these concessions had been written in stone.

What number stone and appendix can lead me to this new revelation?

I fear that you misunderstand.

The Commandments were inscribed in stone (Exodus 34).

But, on certain occasions (e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 ), God directs the Israelites to contravene the very rules which he had prescribed and by which he had emphasised that the Israelites should live.

strange behaviour for such a “wise” entity

What do you call a belief in reincarnation then?
————————————————————

A belief in reincarnation.

Mr Ironic said:

What do you call a belief in reincarnation then?
————————————————————

A belief in reincarnation.

Accordingly Buddhism is a religion.

(I didn’t hear of moses dragging another 63 stone tablets down the side of mount Sinai )
———————————————

Yeah he tossed those away as being to hard…

religions are by their very nature paralysing for joe average

instead of learning something he fills his head with garbage then preaches to the unconvinced about what is right and wrong.

look at Egypt – the place is full of religious nutters – its full of garbage

when I was their there were sub machine gun toting fellows with an open on their foreheads

I asked about this and was told its a mark that they pray many times a day (in islam the practitioner is always touching his head to the ground and hence the sore supposedly caused )

if only they had spent their days picking up all that crap instead of praying to god – maybe they wanted him to pick up all their shit?

but it sure does look like one
—————————————————

No more than getting up in the morning and believing the floor is beneath your feet…

Mr Ironic said:

(I didn’t hear of moses dragging another 63 stone tablets down the side of mount Sinai )
———————————————

Yeah he tossed those away as being to hard…

more like too heavy

I didn’t see them when I was up there

I mean a belief in the supernatural is one of the hallmarks of a religion.

and obey the orders that don’t make sense and don’t cause harm
——————————————————————————

And do the things that make sense and don’t cause harm.

FMD we nearly agree!

Welcome to the 5th stage of…

I should start a religion one day

Witty Rejoinder said:

Accordingly Buddhism is a religion.

Not sure the Buddhist would agree.

I fear that you misunderstand.
——————————————

Meh, not nearly.
—————————

But, on certain occasions (e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 ), God directs the Israelites to contravene the very rules which he had prescribed and by which he had emphasised that the Israelites should live.
———————————————-

Some where it is written…Far be it for me to judge God on the decisions of humans…

Mr Ironic said:

and obey the orders that don’t make sense and don’t cause harm
——————————————————————————

And do the things that make sense and don’t cause harm.

FMD we nearly agree!

Welcome to the 5th stage of…

Now, hang on, if we start picking and choosing which of God’s orders we’re going to obey, then aren’t we usurping his authority as the one, true and all-knowing God.

As far as sins go, i’d wager that kind of behaviour will earn you a paddlin’,

wookiemeister said:

I should start a religion one day

I’ve afready done that.

Mr Ironic said:

I fear that you misunderstand.
——————————————

Meh, not nearly.
—————————

But, on certain occasions (e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 ), God directs the Israelites to contravene the very rules which he had prescribed and by which he had emphasised that the Israelites should live.
———————————————-

Some where it is written…Far be it for me to judge God on the decisions of humans…

Oh, it wasn’t the decision of humans. A direct order from God.

1 Samuel 15:2 makes that quite clear.

wookiemeister said:

I should start a religion one day

A cult more like it.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

I should start a religion one day

A cult more like it.

There’s a difference?

wookiemeister said:

I should start a religion one day

.. right after you move to Mars?

Accordingly Buddhism is a religion.
———————————-

Ahhh no.

Some Essendon fans believe they will win…

Belief systems abound.

• (I didn’t hear of moses dragging another 63 stone tablets down the side of mount Sinai )

613…

I mean a belief in the supernatural is one of the hallmarks of a religion.
———————————————————————-

Yes OK.

And Buddhism believes in only the natural.

Mr Ironic said:

Accordingly Buddhism is a religion.
———————————-

Ahhh no.

Some Essendon fans believe they will win…

Belief systems abound.

Okay. You explain why Buddhism isn’t a religion. Religions need not be monotheistic.

Mr Ironic said:

I mean a belief in the supernatural is one of the hallmarks of a religion.
———————————————————————-

Yes OK.

And Buddhism believes in only the natural.

How is reincarnation ‘natural’?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Okay. You explain why Buddhism isn’t a religion. Religions need not be monotheistic.

Gosh , no. Have a look at Hinduism. More gods than you could shake a chari at.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Mr Ironic said:

I mean a belief in the supernatural is one of the hallmarks of a religion.
———————————————————————-

Yes OK.

And Buddhism believes in only the natural.

How is reincarnation ‘natural’?

Doesn’t contain nasty chemicals.

party_pants said:

wookiemeister said:

I should start a religion one day

.. right after you move to Mars?

you’re right, I couldn’t be arsed

furious said:

• (I didn’t hear of moses dragging another 63 stone tablets down the side of mount Sinai )

613…

I’d wager there were a few more laws poking around in there

Would you be surprised if I told you that reincarnation is not a Buddhist teaching? If so, be surprised — it isn’t.

“Reincarnation” normally is understood to be the transmigration of a soul to another body after death. There is no such teaching in Buddhism. One of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism is anatta, or anatman — no soul or no self. There is no permanent essence of an individual self that survives death.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/reincarnation.htm

captain_spalding said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Okay. You explain why Buddhism isn’t a religion. Religions need not be monotheistic.

Gosh , no. Have a look at Hinduism. More gods than you could shake a chari at.

some variants of Buddhism incorporate those gods into Buddhism – believe it or not

I turned up to a Buddhist temple and was surprised to see some blue gods dancing around in the background

wookiemeister said:

captain_spalding said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Okay. You explain why Buddhism isn’t a religion. Religions need not be monotheistic.

Gosh , no. Have a look at Hinduism. More gods than you could shake a chari at.

some variants of Buddhism incorporate those gods into Buddhism – believe it or not

I turned up to a Buddhist temple and was surprised to see some blue gods dancing around in the background

It’s all part of a rich tapestry…

As far as sins go, i’d wager that kind of behaviour will earn you a paddlin’
———————————————————

Well yes we all deserve a good paddling from time to time.

Suffice to say that it is easy to find fault with the followers of a deity.

To find fault with the deity… well best ask yourself.

Kinda like science.

I like the idea of reincarnation… not that I think it occurs, but the thought of having to be nice in this life, so you are rewarded in the next is appealing

1 Samuel 15:2 makes that quite clear.
————————————————

Yes Samuel makes it quite clear…

Anyway i wasn’t there, so what do i know.

“I don’t believe in reincarnation because I refuse to come back as a bug or as a rabbit!”

Mr Ironic said:

As far as sins go, i’d wager that kind of behaviour will earn you a paddlin’
———————————————————

Well yes we all deserve a good paddling from time to time.

Suffice to say that it is easy to find fault with the followers of a deity.

To find fault with the deity… well best ask yourself.

Kinda like science.

Not at all like science.

Science says that evidence has to be provided, that hypotheses have to be testable, and that results have to be verifiable.

Unlike religion, science doesn’t ask you to ‘just believe it’ because ‘i/this book say so’. The moment someone who claims to be a scientist starts insisting on that kind of thing, you can assume that they’re a fraud.

furious said:

“I don’t believe in reincarnation because I refuse to come back as a bug or as a rabbit!”

You don’t come back. that’s the point.

Mr Ironic said:

1 Samuel 15:2 makes that quite clear.
————————————————

Yes Samuel makes it quite clear…

Anyway i wasn’t there, so what do i know.

We know what the Bible tells us. That’s what Christianity is built on, what guides its believers, and directs their beliefs and actions.

If we’re going to start saying, oh, that bit doesn’t matter, because i wasn’t there, then the whole book goes into the bin.

captain_spalding said:

Mr Ironic said:

1 Samuel 15:2 makes that quite clear.
————————————————

Yes Samuel makes it quite clear…

Anyway i wasn’t there, so what do i know.

We know what the Bible tells us. That’s what Christianity is built on, what guides its believers, and directs their beliefs and actions.

If we’re going to start saying, oh, that bit doesn’t matter, because i wasn’t there, then the whole book goes into the bin.

No you keep it as an example of fictitious tales, so your children get the picture..

How is reincarnation ‘natural’?
——————————————-

Well food can be reincarnated.

Meh, I can eat a chicken and turn it into a human in a day or two…

Other than that I guess it is cycle of evolution, the meat changes but not so much the mind…

Okay. You explain why Buddhism isn’t a religion. Religions need not be monotheistic.
————————————————————————————

Monoth… mono… dunno.

Buddhism requires no deity.

Mr Ironic said:

Okay. You explain why Buddhism isn’t a religion. Religions need not be monotheistic.
————————————————————————————

Monoth… mono… dunno.

Buddhism requires no deity.

I’ve known a few Buddhists of various stripes, and, if i had to have a ‘religion’, one of the schools of Buddhism would be it. But, i do see it as more of a philosophy/self-improvement course than a religion.

Mr Ironic said:

Okay. You explain why Buddhism isn’t a religion. Religions need not be monotheistic.
————————————————————————————

Monoth… mono… dunno.

Buddhism requires no deity.

People often turn to religion for doctrines that provide simple answers to difficult questions. Buddhism doesn’t work that way. Merely believing in some doctrine about reincarnation or rebirth has no purpose. Buddhism is a practice that enables experiencing illusion as illusion and reality as reality.

captain_spalding said:

Mr Ironic said:

Okay. You explain why Buddhism isn’t a religion. Religions need not be monotheistic.
————————————————————————————

Monoth… mono… dunno.

Buddhism requires no deity.

I’ve known a few Buddhists of various stripes, and, if i had to have a ‘religion’, one of the schools of Buddhism would be it. But, i do see it as more of a philosophy/self-improvement course than a religion.

This is true. It is not a religion.

roughbarked said:

. Buddhism is a practice that enables experiencing illusion as illusion and reality as reality.

roughbarked said:

Wow…very Zen.

Science says that evidence has to be provided, that hypotheses have to be testable, and that results have to be verifiable.
———————————————-

FFS. Thats what I said… you read religion into it not me.

Of course this could be a biased study of one. Don’t hang your head on it.

Mr Ironic said:

Science says that evidence has to be provided, that hypotheses have to be testable, and that results have to be verifiable.
———————————————-

FFS. Thats what I said… you read religion into it not me.

Of course this could be a biased study of one. Don’t hang your head on it.

My turn to misunderstand.

so you can be an atheist Buddhist?

captain_spalding said:

roughbarked said:

. Buddhism is a practice that enables experiencing illusion as illusion and reality as reality.

Yes, I copied that from: http://buddhism.about.com/od/karmaandrebirth/a/reincarnation.htm

If we’re going to start saying, oh, that bit doesn’t matter, because i wasn’t there, then the whole book goes into the bin.
———————————————————-

Yes of course I forgot about you fundamentalists.

Yes burn the book.

There is probably a typo.

Boris said:

so you can be an atheist Buddhist?

No reason why not.

Boris said:

so you can be an atheist Buddhist?

Therevana, yes.

Mahayana, mmmm…no.

Mr Ironic said:

If we’re going to start saying, oh, that bit doesn’t matter, because i wasn’t there, then the whole book goes into the bin.
———————————————————-

Yes of course I forgot about you fundamentalists.

Yes burn the book.

There is probably a typo.

Me, a funny-mentalist?

Now it’s my turn to upset Bronwyn bishop.

I think we need a new umbrella word to describe belief systems, religions would be just a subset of that new word, Buddhism is fall outside religion but still within the new word.

so you can be an atheist Buddhist?
——————————————-

Yes, bodhisattva.

Mr Ironic said:

so you can be an atheist Buddhist?
——————————————-

Yes, bodhisattva.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/schools1.htm

Me, a funny-mentalist
—————————

Well anyone prepared to take an argument to the enight degree is fanatical,

And leaves little room for debate.

(Except for the spelling of einght…)

Mr Ironic said:

Me, a funny-mentalist
—————————

Well anyone prepared to take an argument to the enight degree is fanatical,

And leaves little room for debate.

(Except for the spelling of einght…)

Oh, don’t mind me. I just like using the Bible to get religious fanatics confused. Tonight’s just practice.

captain_spalding said:

Mr Ironic said:

Me, a funny-mentalist
—————————

Well anyone prepared to take an argument to the enight degree is fanatical,

And leaves little room for debate.

(Except for the spelling of einght…)

Oh, don’t mind me. I just like using the Bible to get religious fanatics confused. Tonight’s just practice.

Matthew 12:6

I think we need a new umbrella word to describe belief systems,
——————————————————-

Human-like,

Well who doesn’t convince them selves that what they are doing is of import…

OK the homeless, the disenfranchised, the suicidal…

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Mr Ironic said:

Me, a funny-mentalist
—————————

Well anyone prepared to take an argument to the enight degree is fanatical,

And leaves little room for debate.

(Except for the spelling of einght…)

Oh, don’t mind me. I just like using the Bible to get religious fanatics confused. Tonight’s just practice.

Matthew 12:6

Haven’t got a bible handy but wasn’t Matthew the one that needed proof?

roughbarked said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

Oh, don’t mind me. I just like using the Bible to get religious fanatics confused. Tonight’s just practice.

Matthew 12:6

Haven’t got a bible handy but wasn’t Matthew the one that needed proof?

Ecclesiastes 4:17

Mr Ironic said:

I think we need a new umbrella word to describe belief systems,
——————————————————-

Human-like,

Well who doesn’t convince them selves that what they are doing is of import…

OK the homeless, the disenfranchised, the suicidal…

… your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Tonight’s just practice.
———————————-

Tooch, tocha… well done.

Haven’t got a bible handy but wasn’t Matthew the one that needed proof?
——————————————————————————————

Meh they all suffered from that.

Try reading the gospels that didn’t make the final cut.

Shock horror one was… a woman.

Mr Ironic said:

Tonight’s just practice.
———————————-

Tooch, tocha… well done.

think you meant touché?

Anyway, I can’t wait for him to get serious.

Mr Ironic said:

Haven’t got a bible handy but wasn’t Matthew the one that needed proof?
——————————————————————————————

Meh they all suffered from that.

Try reading the gospels that didn’t make the final cut.

Shock horror one was… a woman.

Was she one of the Apostles, pretending to be a man?

Gosh, it’s like the internet – can’t tell if anyone’s what they say they are.

Was she one of the Apostles, pretending to be a man?

Gosh, it’s like the internet – can’t tell if anyone’s what they say they are.
———————————————————————————

It’s a good job your are only practicing…

The Gospel of Mary is found in the Berlin Gnostic Codex (or Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, as this ancient collection of Gnostic texts is labeled for archival reasons). This very important and well-preserved codex was apparently discovered in the late-nineteenth century somewhere near Akhmim in upper Egypt. It was purchased in 1896 by a German scholar, Dr. Carl Reinhardt, in Cairo and then taken to Berlin.

Mr Ironic said:

Was she one of the Apostles, pretending to be a man?

Gosh, it’s like the internet – can’t tell if anyone’s what they say they are.
———————————————————————————

It’s a good job your are only practicing…

The Gospel of Mary is found in the Berlin Gnostic Codex (or Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, as this ancient collection of Gnostic texts is labeled for archival reasons). This very important and well-preserved codex was apparently discovered in the late-nineteenth century somewhere near Akhmim in upper Egypt. It was purchased in 1896 by a German scholar, Dr. Carl Reinhardt, in Cairo and then taken to Berlin.

I’ve heard of and read a bit about the Gospel of MM. I was having my little joke. Ha-ha. There. done now. Sorry.

I was having my little joke.
————————————-

Oh fairy nuff then.

Good luck arguing with scholars and that…

Mr Ironic said:

I was having my little joke. ————————————-

Oh fairy nuff then.

Good luck arguing with scholars and that…

Biblical scholars are well aware of the astonishing number of contradictions, fallacies, and errors contained in the Bible, and are willing to concede them.

It’s the half-informed who will rise to the bait.

>I think we need a new umbrella word to describe belief systems, religions would be just a subset of that new word, Buddhism is fall outside religion but still within the new word.

Doesn’t ‘ideology’ do it?

The words “go forth and multiply” should have led to God ordained orgies

rumpole said:

The words “go forth and multiply” should have led to God ordained orgies

Is it possible to multiply using Roman numerals?

Tamb said:

rumpole said:

The words “go forth and multiply” should have led to God ordained orgies

Is it possible to multiply using Roman numerals?

Can’t see any reason why not.

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

rumpole said:

The words “go forth and multiply” should have led to God ordained orgies

Is it possible to multiply using Roman numerals?

Can’t see any reason why not.

I was making a punny on the difficulty of going forth & multiplying in Roman held territory when their number system didn’t permit multiplying.

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Is it possible to multiply using Roman numerals?

Can’t see any reason why not.

I was making a punny on the difficulty of going forth & multiplying in Roman held territory when their number system didn’t permit multiplying.

VXV=XXV

Doesn’t quite work

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

Is it possible to multiply using Roman numerals?

Can’t see any reason why not.

I was making a punny on the difficulty of going forth & multiplying in Roman held territory when their number system didn’t permit multiplying.

I know what you were trying but II x II still equals IV

rumpole said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Can’t see any reason why not.

I was making a punny on the difficulty of going forth & multiplying in Roman held territory when their number system didn’t permit multiplying.

VXV=XXV

Doesn’t quite work

Like who gets to do it that many times?

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Can’t see any reason why not.

I was making a punny on the difficulty of going forth & multiplying in Roman held territory when their number system didn’t permit multiplying.

I know what you were trying but II x II still equals IV

No that’s II + II = IV

Tamb said:

roughbarked said:

Tamb said:

I was making a punny on the difficulty of going forth & multiplying in Roman held territory when their number system didn’t permit multiplying.

I know what you were trying but II x II still equals IV

No that’s II + II = IV

oops ;)

Probably in the background going back quite a way through history has been the view (by some, perhaps many) that to indulge more base desires diverts from a higher intellectual or more civlized trajectory. Indulgence leads to personal and cutural decadence.

In a way this view was true, it were substantially true (more of the past perhaps).

Taken to the extreme the remedy also caused problens, sexual neuroticisms and much more.

The view of (unconstrained) base desires as being, well , animal like perhaps, though very much influenced by religion doubtful was restricted to religion or necessarily orginated from religion. Humans can be quite fussy about who their offspring copulate and breed with, there are status things involved, the hope for your offspring to have the better life.

Fact is the sexual desires are a life-driver, they tend to result in offspring, so it is no surprise such desires are powerful. It’s like the flipside of death, short of immortalization through reputation and culture and ones good works that way there may not be much else for some people.

In a way the life-driver results in moments of indifference perhaps, that get the job done.

The possibility that the most energetically loving moments might involve indifference perhaps is one of the paradoxes we life with, and probably reflects some of the further paradoxes central to social existence.

As things go the relationships between the typical DNA insertion and extraction apparatuses can be complex. No escaping that we are nurturing nature.

An analysis of religion (christian) would probably reveal that ‘nature’ is viewed as a social construction (God created the world and man/woman), so christians have a view about nature, and mans nature importantly. To make to ideological social construction work the ‘bad seed’ and ‘innately evil’ idea has been employed going back, and ‘salvation’ is required. When one gets there, you know everything looks beautiful, it’s like the light and the end of the tunnel, it’s like the placebo benefits of prozac.

Modern secular society uses the same bunch of mechanisms in the mind to do fairly much the same thing.

transition said:

Probably in the background going back quite a way through history has been the view (by some, perhaps many) that to indulge more base desires diverts from a higher intellectual or more civlized trajectory. Indulgence leads to personal and cutural decadence.

In a way this view was true, it were substantially true (more of the past perhaps).

Taken to the extreme the remedy also caused problens, sexual neuroticisms and much more.

The view of (unconstrained) base desires as being, well , animal like perhaps, though very much influenced by religion doubtful was restricted to religion or necessarily orginated from religion. Humans can be quite fussy about who their offspring copulate and breed with, there are status things involved, the hope for your offspring to have the better life.

Fact is the sexual desires are a life-driver, they tend to result in offspring, so it is no surprise such desires are powerful. It’s like the flipside of death, short of immortalization through reputation and culture and ones good works that way there may not be much else for some people.

In a way the life-driver results in moments of indifference perhaps, that get the job done.

The possibility that the most energetically loving moments might involve indifference perhaps is one of the paradoxes we life with, and probably reflects some of the further paradoxes central to social existence.

As things go the relationships between the typical DNA insertion and extraction apparatuses can be complex. No escaping that we are nurturing nature.

An analysis of religion (christian) would probably reveal that ‘nature’ is viewed as a social construction (God created the world and man/woman), so christians have a view about nature, and mans nature importantly. To make to ideological social construction work the ‘bad seed’ and ‘innately evil’ idea has been employed going back, and ‘salvation’ is required. When one gets there, you know everything looks beautiful, it’s like the light and the end of the tunnel, it’s like the placebo benefits of prozac.

Modern secular society uses the same bunch of mechanisms in the mind to do fairly much the same thing.

I was taught that the gift of life was precious and that it shouldn’t be wasted.. In fact I was taught to cross my arms on my chest when I lie in my bed so to avoid what happens to be at the end of the arms if they lay naturally.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

Probably in the background going back quite a way through history has been the view (by some, perhaps many) that to indulge more base desires diverts from a higher intellectual or more civlized trajectory. Indulgence leads to personal and cutural decadence.

In a way this view was true, it were substantially true (more of the past perhaps).

Taken to the extreme the remedy also caused problens, sexual neuroticisms and much more.

The view of (unconstrained) base desires as being, well , animal like perhaps, though very much influenced by religion doubtful was restricted to religion or necessarily orginated from religion. Humans can be quite fussy about who their offspring copulate and breed with, there are status things involved, the hope for your offspring to have the better life.

Fact is the sexual desires are a life-driver, they tend to result in offspring, so it is no surprise such desires are powerful. It’s like the flipside of death, short of immortalization through reputation and culture and ones good works that way there may not be much else for some people.

In a way the life-driver results in moments of indifference perhaps, that get the job done.

The possibility that the most energetically loving moments might involve indifference perhaps is one of the paradoxes we life with, and probably reflects some of the further paradoxes central to social existence.

As things go the relationships between the typical DNA insertion and extraction apparatuses can be complex. No escaping that we are nurturing nature.

An analysis of religion (christian) would probably reveal that ‘nature’ is viewed as a social construction (God created the world and man/woman), so christians have a view about nature, and mans nature importantly. To make to ideological social construction work the ‘bad seed’ and ‘innately evil’ idea has been employed going back, and ‘salvation’ is required. When one gets there, you know everything looks beautiful, it’s like the light and the end of the tunnel, it’s like the placebo benefits of prozac.

Modern secular society uses the same bunch of mechanisms in the mind to do fairly much the same thing.

I was taught that the gift of life was precious and that it shouldn’t be wasted.. In fact I was taught to cross my arms on my chest when I lie in my bed so to avoid what happens to be at the end of the arms if they lay naturally.

“In fact I was taught to cross my arms on my chest when I lie in my bed so to avoid what happens to be at the end of the arms if they lay naturally.”
==============================================

I suppose that is cheaper than boxing gloves…

rumpole said:

“In fact I was taught to cross my arms on my chest when I lie in my bed so to avoid what happens to be at the end of the arms if they lay naturally.”
==============================================

I suppose that is cheaper than boxing gloves…

no money spent.