Religion and sexuality

[Guest]

I thought it was just Peur and Mab who were ignoring me

Aw, Gauche, trust me - you are not ignored (though I've decided to ignore this thread, only looked when I saw your name as most recent poster).

For one, I can't believe no one's commented, at least with a smilie or LOL, at the "consensual necrophilia" sighting. I know everyone says there are enough categories on Lit, but this one truly rates.

IMO, you often close off a subject or thought with your posts, so perhaps being ignored is truly a compliment however subtle.

great regard always,

Perdita

 

[Pure]

Amicus said,

//Did Auel do a good portrayal of myth and legend and discovery, through Ayla?//

I have no doubt Ayla was one hot chick. What exactly is your question? Were there hot chicks before Cleopatra? Is Auel a good historian, though she's a terrible writer?

 

[SummerMorning]

Mmm...yes, if Auel had not presented us a botanical encyclopaedia on the Crimea of several thousand years ago it would have been much easier readin, no doubt .

Gauche, I'm not sure how you'd feel you were being ignored - it's just that we had to work to get our heads around consensual necrophilia.

I've actually come up with a solution - assuming you time it just right you should hit the corpse just as it gets resurrected - so although you start off with a "mummy" you end up with a yummy [girl]

 

[amicus]

Hey, Gauche....if you were referring to me, no intended slight, have been back and forth with Summer and I am new to the exchange of thoughts on this forum....please accept apology?

 

[gauchecritic]

Naa, it's ok. Petulance is my middle name, or Petula for short. Other middle names include, Arrogant, Opinionated and Vain amongst others.

Gauche

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Back on Track...

Personally, if I had to look for sex-positive mythology it would be hinduism's kama sutra and the kamadharma (I believe its called)

And Hindu music videos. Anyone lucky enough to have a late-night cable program devoted to the work of "Bollywood" will grieve, as Miami did, if it ever goes off the air.

The basic premise of India's treasure-trove of movie musicals is that Hindi girls just wanna have fun.

The lyrics are never translated on screen, but you don't need a translation to know that the girl and young man are always singing something along these lines,

He: "I want to ask you for a date!"

She (rolling her heavily kohled eyes): "And I want you to ask me - But I may not accept."

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: It's all moot now, anyway.

(re: Dolphins Evolve Opposable Thumbs)

NOW you're talking!!!

No, now I'm talking: "eeeeEEK kkkk klick klick klick eeeeEEEK kkkk"

 

[shereads]

Try placing yourself in a Clan, or Tribe somewhere after the time period in Jean Auel's Clan of the Cave Bear and try to imagine the beginnings, the roots of faith and mysticism.

I read the first book in the series.

Topic: Clan of the Cave Bear reflects the author's racism. (Dark-skinned Neanderthals give way to superiority of blond, blue-eyed race of Darryl Hannahs.)

Discuss.



Amicus: as an agnostic, I must ask why you assume that evolution can't be a means of creation.

 

[shereads]

Since we're recommending books on sex and sexuality, I'd like to recommend one that's been made into an awful and irrelevent film which you should avoid:

The Name of the Rose
Umberto Eco

A remarkably beautiful work, with some descriptive passages that will make you Authors want to start a church that worships translators.

Additionally, The Name of the Rose is a marvelously cynical look at the incompatibility of religion and free thinking. You atheists will love it. In fact, anyone in this thread will find something in the book to reflect upon long into the night, even if it's just the magic of language.

I used to re-read the final chapter for fun, back when I was considering suicide. Since the meds kicked in, I appreciate it for different reasons.



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...3076593/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-1529447-3330462

EDITED to add this description of Name/Rose and to ask:

What is a polymathic fabulist and how can I become one? What a cool thing to have on your business card!

From Library Journal
Eco, an Italian philosopher and best-selling novelist, is a great polymathic fabulist in the tradition of Swift, Voltaire, Joyce, and Borges. The Name of the Rose, which sold 50 million copies worldwide, is an experimental medieval whodunit set in a monastic library. In 1327, Brother William of Baskerville arrives to investigate heresy among the monks in an Italian abbey; a series of bizarre murders overshadows the mission. Within the mystery is a tale of books, librarians, patrons, censorship, and the search for truth in a period of tension between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire.

 

[amicus]

shereads: Thank you for comments....as I understand, the movement of humans out of Africa, into colder Europe, brought about a change in height, weight and skin color more suited to the climate...thus, Neanderthals would have been light skinned, short and husky, but I have had an ongoing love affair with Darryl Hannah since Splash and may be somewhat biased...

Secondly, I think the word, 'creation' implies a 'creator' and lacking any evidence of one, I cannot accept the proposition that there 'is' one, besides that I would be really pissed at not being the most intelligent creature in the universe and sure as hell don't want to attempt to qualify at the 'pearly gates'

regards...amicus...

 

[shereads]

lacking any evidence of one, I cannot accept the proposition that there 'is' one, besides that I would be really pissed at not being the most intelligent creature in the universe and sure as hell don't want to attempt to qualify at the 'pearly gates'

Yes, but there's also not any evidence that there is NO creator.

You might argue that there's no evidence of intelligent, briefcase-carrying hamsters on the moons of Jupiter, which is a good reason not to believe in their existence.

However, Stephen Hawking (to whom you run a close second as "most intelligent creature" in the universe we know) points out, during a discussion of time travel, that since time is infinite, anything that can happen will happen.

And since time is infinite in both directions, anything that can happen and will happen, has already happened.

So we can't rule out executive hamsters or a creator being. Because hey - it could happen!

 

[gauchecritic]

shereads: Thank you for comments....as I understand, the movement of humans out of Africa, into colder Europe, brought about a change in height, weight and skin color more suited to the climate...thus, Neanderthals would have been light skinned, short and husky, but I have had an ongoing love affair with Darryl Hannah since Splash and may be somewhat biased...
regards...amicus...

Umm, no. The prevailing theory, along with DNA analysis, is that Neanderthals were displaced by 'modern humans' from the (possibly second) African Dispersal. That's not to say that they didn't adapt to climactic change but they weren't Neanderthal.

This is disragarding of course the multi-regional and slightly awkward parallel evolution theories, which allows of interbreeding between the various groups, thus giving a common ancestory as Homo Erectus (ooer)

Gauche

 

[Guest]

Umm, no. The prevailing theory, along with DNA analysis, is that Neanderthals were displaced by 'modern humans' from the (possibly second) African Dispersal. That's not to say that they didn't adapt to climactic change but they weren't Neanderthal.

This is disragarding of course the multi-regional and slightly awkward parallel evolution theories, which allows of interbreeding between the various groups, thus giving a common ancestory as Homo Erectus (ooer)

Gauche

You beat me to it, Gauche. I was just about to post something along the same lines. At some point in history there were two species of human wandering this Earth. Recent scientific evidence points to Homo Sapiens not being descended from Neanderthal man. And, yes, before anyone jumps on me, the 'person' found in that region of Germany was of the male variety.

Lou

 

[gauchecritic]

Yes, but there's also not any evidence that there is NO creator.

You might argue that there's no evidence of intelligent, briefcase-carrying hamsters on the moons of Jupiter, which is a good reason not to believe in their existence.

However, Stephen Hawking (to whom you run a close second as "most intelligent creature" in the universe we know) points out, during a discussion of time travel, that since time is infinite, anything that can happen will happen.

And since time is infinite in both directions, anything that can happen and will happen, has already happened.

So we can't rule out executive hamsters or a creator being. Because hey - it could happen!

That's just sophistry and you know it.

Time isn't actually infinite. That's as simplistic as saying measurement is infinite.

Time (as we all know) is merely a measurement of decay. Since nothing is created only ever recombined or destroyed then time travel is only possible sub-atomically. This, however, doesn't rule out the parallel universe theory, since every atom in existence has choice and only takes that choice when observed (there's that cat again) there are and always will be more particles unobserved than observed. And here come the executive hamsters along with the travestie executif.

Shouldn't this be on the arguement thread?

Gauche

 

[Guest]

The Fabric of Reality

ella, I have a book recommendation for you, this post's title by David Deutsch, an Oxford theoretical physicist. I've read it three times and will read it again. The WSJ is right, he's amazingly arrogant, but it's the kind of arrogance I love, pleasurable to discern. Here's a bit from a review site (url below).

<< The Science of Parallel Universes-And Its Implications - Solidly based in quantum theory, this book discusses, demystifies, and draws parallels between such heady topics as quantum computers, the physics of time-travel, the comprehensibility of nature, the physical limits of virtual reality, the significance of human life, and the ultimate fate of the universe.

David Deutsch: "Our best theories are not only truer than common sense, they make more sense than common sense.”

Publisher's Notes: For David Deutsch, a young physicist of unusual originality, quantum theory contains our most fundamental knowledge of the physical world. Taken literally, it implies that there are many universes "parallel" to the one we see around us. This multiplicity of universes, according to Deutsch, turns out to be the key to achieving a new worldview -- one which synthesizes the theories of evolution, computation, and knowledge with quantum physics. Considered jointly, these four strands of explanation reveal a unified fabric of reality that is both objective and comprehensible -- the subject of this daring, challenging book. The Fabric of Reality explains and connects many topics at the leading edge of current research and thinking, such as quantum computers (which work by effectively collaborating with their counterparts in other universes), the physics of time travel, the comprehensibility of nature and the physical limits of virtual reality, the significance of human life, and the ultimate fate of the universe. Here -- for scientist and layperson alike, for philosopher, science-fiction reader, biologist, and computer expert -- is a startlingly complete and rational synthesis of disciplines, and a new, optimistic message about existence.

Wall Street Journal (08/07/1997): "Arrogant in tone and marred by leaps of logic, his book nonetheless bristles with subversive insights about virtual reality, time travel, mathematical insights about virtual reality, time travel, mathematical certainty and free will." New York Times Book Review (10/05/1997): The "Fabric of Reality" is full of refreshingly oblique, provocative insights." >>
Kozmoi Books

And from Deutsch's Preface to The Fabric of Reality:

<< If there is a single motivation for the world view set out in this book, it is that thanks largely to a succession of extraordinary scientific discoveries, we now possess some extremely deep theories about the structure of reality. If we are to understand the world at more than a superficial level, it must be through those theories and through reason, and not through our preconceptions, received opinion, or even common sense. Our best theories are not only truer than common sense, they make far more sense than common sense does. We must take them seriously, not merely as pragmatic foundations for their respective fields, but as explanations of the world. And I believe that we can achieve the greatest understanding if we consider them not singly but jointly, for they are inextricably related.

It may seem odd that this suggestion - that we should try to form a rational and coherent world view on the basis of our best, most fundamental theories - should be at all novel or controversial. Yet in practice it is. One reason is that each of these theories has, when it is taken seriously, very counter-intuitive implications. Consequently, all sorts of attempts have been made to avoid facing those implications, by making ad hoc modifications or re-interpretations of the theories, or by arbitrarily narrowing their domain of applicability, or simply by using them in practice but drawing no wider conclusions from them. I shall criticise some of these attempts (none of which, I believe, have much merit), but only when this happens to be a convenient way of explaining the theories themselves. For this book is not primarily a defence of these theories. It is an investigation of what the fabric of reality would be like if they were true. >>

At this same site, click on his table of contents. on D. Deutsch website

 

[shereads]

Shouldn't this be on the arguement thread?

Gauche

Take it up with Stephen Hawking. He probably knows what sophistry is. EDITED to add that I'm a product of some of the worst public schools in the U.S., and that I'm learning as fast as I can.



What's important to me is not whether or not there is a creator, but that I no longer believe that He is a petulant old man who's always POINTING at people - how rude is that - at who keeps an enemies list like Nixon's but with eternal implications.

It took a while to get past that - in fact, it's why I was reading Hawking at the time - but now I feel okay not knowing.

Agnosticism is great. Not as cool as being a polymathic fabulist, but then what is?

 

[Pure]

Hi Sensual P.

I like some of your paintings, and partly agree with your assessment of Ayn Rand as a person. I think her novelistic writing is pretty shitty, however.

You haven't quite shown how you get from atheism to individualism and political freedom. If I learn someone's an atheist, according to you, does that make it less likely they are a serial killer? (than were they religious)

I understand the theory of minimal government and mainly binding yourself (only) by contracts. I wonder how you feel about the recent case in Germany, where one man found another who would agree to be eaten-- a sort of contract, documented in video, I gather. (Not your usual 'personals ad': I'd like to meet a husky young man who wants to be eaten.)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/a...1099477,00.html


How about a necrophilic contract where I agree with you that my body may be sexually exploited for a month, after death, provided you keep it/me in the fridge in between out get togethers?

Should there be such a thing as an 'unconscionable contract', e.g., where I agree to pay you 1000% interest on a loan.

Also, something I've never quite understood: Do those of Rand's
philosophy have any problem with the actions of the large or mulitnational corporations, say price gougeing, etc. Is there an success thing as 'exorbitant profit'?

Best,
J.

 

[SummerMorning]

I don't know what to say anymore this thread has threaded its way out of everyone's hands...

I think I'll wander back to the reindeer salami, the feta cheese, the slightly pickled olives, the smoking salmon and the girl I'm trying to convince to shave her pubes...oh, and the wine, mustn't forget the wine.

BTW - no, homo sap. is not descended from neanderthals, that'd be like saying we're descended from chimpanzees. We just have common ancestors with both.

Now, about that wine...

 

[amicus]

Yes...unfortunately as with many discussions, the train of thought becomes diffused...alas....

to someone who said you could not prove their was no Supreme Being, to prove a negative is a contraction in terms, but, I think you know that. One can not prove the 'non existence' of something...

however, as I withdraw from this futile exercise...I would like to applaud the glimmer of intellect here and there....and at the same time deplore the absence thereof, in some cases....faith...belief...is a dead end...let us search for 'truth and beauty' as someone said, Keats? Shelly? has been such a long time as I am soon to attain puberty....regards...amicus

 

[sensualpilgrim]

Since we're recommending books on sex and sexuality, I'd like to recommend one that's been made into an awful and irrelevent film which you should avoid:

The Name of the Rose
Umberto Eco

EXCELLENT novel. Love movie too. Especially when that hot dirty-looking babe get to fuck the poor horny monk.

 

[sensualpilgrim]

OFFTOPIC: Time

That's just sophistry and you know it.

Time isn't actually infinite. That's as simplistic as saying measurement is infinite.

Time (as we all know) is merely a measurement of decay. Since nothing is created only ever recombined or destroyed then time travel is only possible sub-atomically. This, however, doesn't rule out the parallel universe theory, since every atom in existence has choice and only takes that choice when observed (there's that cat again) there are and always will be more particles unobserved than observed. And here come the executive hamsters along with the travestie executif.

Shouldn't this be on the arguement thread?

Gauche

Just a note: time to me is actually a mental projection in our head by which we can use to measure the movement through space. Very useful for deciding how far the lion have to go in a leap in order to reach your sorry ass therefore deciding to run or to counterattack. In other word, time in all in our heads.

 

[sensualpilgrim]

back to sex and religion

A question: if we want to restore sexuality to religion how would you go about it? Should we bring back things such as temple priestess who would fuck worshippers as aide to their worship of God or Great Goddess? What about homosexuals? Hang a cute winged penis outside your house for good luck like Greeks and Romans? (You can see such examples in very beautiful book "Roman Sex" just out now.) I'm reading "Jesus and the Lost Goddess" which meations thing such as the idea that the Gospel of John should has been labeled Gospel of Mary, which explains the idea of mysterious "beloved disciple" better. Also, some interesting thoughts are given in "Beyond Religion" by Dr. Elkins.

 

[shereads]

EXCELLENT novel. Love movie too. Especially when that hot dirty-looking babe get to fuck the poor horny monk.

I didn't care for the movie, but when you put it that way...I think the book would do well if the next edition had a banner across the cover that announced, "Hot babe, honry monk, learn the meaning of...

The Name of the Rose

 

[SummerMorning]

Re: back to sex and religion

A question: if we want to restore sexuality to religion how would you go about it? Should we bring back things such as temple priestess who would fuck worshippers as aide to their worship of God or Great Goddess? What about homosexuals? Hang a cute winged penis outside your house for good luck like Greeks and Romans? (You can see such examples in very beautiful book "Roman Sex" just out now.) I'm reading "Jesus and the Lost Goddess" which meations thing such as the idea that the Gospel of John should has been labeled Gospel of Mary, which explains the idea of mysterious "beloved disciple" better. Also, some interesting thoughts are given in "Beyond Religion" by Dr. Elkins.

Hmm...I think we restore sexuality to religion everytime we scream "God" in those interesting moments, when time seems to compress and...you get the picture .

I think compulsory sex education would be a good start to just introduce sex back into western society, so that people stop looking for substitutes in things like cars, clothes and fast food.

It's a sorry society where the amount of time spent eating has decreased by 25% over the past 35 years, while the amount eaten has increased by 25% in the same period.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Atheism

I would just like to say taht I agree with pretty much everything you say here, and I appreciate your post

Sweet. -- a seeker

Perdita and Sensual - I disagree. For several reasons.

1. There are atheist religions - buddhism (at least the theravada variety and certainly the variety preached by Siddharta Gotama) is atheist. Buddhist scripture specifically warns against gods and miracles and magic - the fact that these very elements were later reintroduced (for example in mahayana and tibetan buddhism) does not detract from the fact that the original buddhism was atheist and there remain atheist varieties.

2. Atheism is in no way the opposite of religion. Religion is not the opposite of questioning. Our perception of religion is coloured by our experience with Christianity which emphasises blind faith, often in the most absurd dogmas (like resurrection and virgin births).
However, the argument: since all swans we have seen are white then all swans are white does not hold - and the same applies to religion. Yet again, buddhism is one religion that emphasizes questioning to quite an extent.

3. Perdita mentioned the lack of institutionalisation as a reason for atheism's non-religiousness. I disagree that institutionalisation is a measure of religion. It is certainly very easy to say that counting the number of people going to sunday prayers tells you the level of religiousness in a country - but that is actually bollocks. As sociology has realized over the last decades (at least more self-reflexive sociology), it is impossible to equate complex social behaviours with single indices.

Many people are religious without belonging to an organised institution. In the final instance, the basis of religion is belief. Belief in something - not necessarily a God or Gods or whatever.

Saying that because someone does not believe in God they are irreligious is as foolish as saying that because someone believes in many Gods they are irreligious. See my point? Religion is not determined by the number of Gods, but by the belief and action of every individual.

Atheism is thus not opposed to religion.

As an example - I am atheist, but am religious. And a secularist as well. And these concepts do actually go together. One just has to realise that religion is not a bible and a thumper in hand.