Religion and sexuality

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Holy Chimma Rotcha, Batman!

ypu've lost me i'm agraid, Gary;

First off- I like country music but thay is off topic.

Secondly, its not about not wanting to admit we don't understand something, its more about admitting that there are things that we don't understand and perhaps can't comprehend- but that doesn't make them any less real than that we can 'rationally' explain. the rational world is not all that exists, only one small part of it I won't go into it more for now, it's too late at night.

I reached a point where I didn’t have a lot more to say on this issue. I had only two things left to say, as a matter of fact. One was to mention the Chimma Rotcha religion, and the other was to dive into a wrestling match with Sher and Gauche, which sounded like the most fun one could have with one’s Spandex on. Posting about Chimma Rotcha would have required making further preliminary points to establish relevance, and simply accepting the wrestling challenge would have been hijacking the thread, so I did neither. Sweetnpetite has looked after the relevance issue for me, however, so I’m open for business again.

You see the only thing that was still bothering me was SummerMorning’s claim that religions are necessary, and if we didn’t have any we’d have to invent them. I’m just not sure which way to go on that one. I don’t want to believe it’s true, but then there’s Chimma Rotcha. Apparently at one time there was a plane crash or some other event that resulted in a stack of Jimmy Rodgers records and a windup gramophone falling into the hands of some natives in darkest Africa. The result was the Chimma Rotcha Religion, based on the idea that the records and player were a message from the great god Chimma Rotcha.

Now if it had been Ank Welumz, Wudhee Kutharee or even Walong Chennins, I might say ‘fair enough’, it’s a logical mistake. I could even accept the deity of Channa Twayin, because they may have salvaged an album cover with a photo and been looking for a love goddess to stir some loins at the time. But Chimma Rotcha? I mean we’re talking Grand Old Opry here folks, the outfit that fired Ank Welumz and means virtually nothing to anyone outside Nashville, despite its own delusions of grandeur. So maybe SummerMorning is right. Perhaps we just have a need to invent religions.

Or maybe we just like to hear people sing through their noses about lost love, dead dogs and broken down pickup trucks.

My problem with the whole concept is that I’ve always believed religions exist only to explain the inexplicable. That’s why in early tribal societies the shaman or medicine man wasn’t just a spiritual leader, but also the Secretary of State for Science and Technology (Minister of S & T if you prefer). This was convenient because if the shaman didn’t know whether the Castor Bean was poison, he could say, “Oh that old saw. That’s the tree of life. Eat its fruit and you will be closer to God.” If the tribe member died he could henceforth say, “It’s a poison and forbidden fruit. Sorry, did I forget to mention that?” and if the tribe member lived he could say, “Okay good. Now for step two. I’ll rub your pee-pee for a few minutes because it's part of the bean ritual, and you tell us when you see God.”

I suppose religions might also have come in handy as economic tools, to hold communal property in trust or to distribute wealth more evenly. It speaks volumes that as the European capitalist hordes developed the westernmost parts of North America, one of their highest priorities became outlawing the Potlach Ceremony. This traditional festival of native religion involved the wealthiest tribe members increasing their status, by bestowing lavish gifts on the poorest. Maybe that’s why they called them redskins? The Indians don’t look especially red, but their old medicine men could have taught Karl Marx a thing or two.

I do have a slight problem with atheism because it actually assumes, “God does not exist.” Sher says she’s an atheist, but encourages children to believe in miracles and the wonder of it all. Atheism must always carry such a rider, whereas agnosticism leaves us maximum room to wiggle, which is good if you’re wrestling with the patron saint of erotica and a sarcastic curmudgeon.

All said and done, however, I still don’t trust an organised religion any farther than a year end audit by Arthur Anderson, and I detest the idea that we have some primal need to create new religions. I’m not saying it isn’t true, just that I find the idea more worthy of an obscenity charge than most things on this website. What on Earth is wrong with being a rationalist? accepting what you know to be true, and answering, "I don't have the foggiest," to the rest. It seems to me the only people who would find that position impossible are despots, who want others to place unreasonable levels of faith in their leadership. So SummerMorning, are you saying we have a primal need to be bullied by despots?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Holy Chimma Rotcha, Batman!

Most religion (and morality) boils down to this:

We are good, and they are evil. (Or we are right and they are wrong)

As you said, it doesn't have to be about God, and it's something that is in us to a certain extent.

We do it with our football teams, our high school, our country. No-one ever thinks that *they* are the bad guy. People who have God as a part of religion generally think that God is rooting for their school, their team, and their country. I have yet to see any one say, "we're gonna loose, cuz god is on *their* side" When we prevail, we give the glory to god, when we are defeated, God is punishing us.

The problem is that most people judge others by the rules *they* keep or break. (Again, *I* am never the bad guy) Speading is OK, but tailgaiting is not. What does this have to do with the topic?

I'm not sure- I'm tired and need to get offline

Far from it! I agree with you on nearly all of what you say.

There is nothing wrong with being a rationalist! In fact, there is nothing that says that religion needs to be irrational and theistic, or that a religion needs to be institutional and led by a bunch of men in skirts who claim that if a sperm gets wasted God gets quite irate.

I think that science and religion are actually quite close together! In fact, I would argue that to an extent science has become the religion of secular society. No matter how rational our arguments, in the end they terminate in belief. If you take a meta-approach to science (which is a bit of theoretical doodle, as how can you talk about science in a scientific way? It's like looking at the back of your head) - you find a lot of belief. The belief in the importance of rationality, of knowledge. The worship of science and progress...well, that's taken a bit of a beating with the two world wars, but still.

Hehe, one little example would be the white laboratory coat that we tend to associate with the scientist (now, I know they don't all wear them - but that's the image people have in their heads). White. Interesting colour (well, tone). White seems to be the colour that indoeuropean "ideology" (or call it cultural baggage, if you will) associates with the wise men and shamans...

Now, there is nothing wrong with belief - I hold that belief is necessary for us to construct a working relationship with the environment beyond our own skulls. Ideally we should all think critically and with our heads.

I'm not saying we have a need to invent religions - I'm saying that we are religious. Religion is completely natural. It's the way we think. Secularism is religion, and so is fundamentalist bible thumping and so is scientific positivism.

Religion is not an exclusive thing - you can belong to different religions at the same time. It's despots trying to control our lives who feel the need to uniform and regulate us by having One Religion, One God, One King.

As to religion - of what, if not religion, does the neoliberal gibberish that the IMF spouts to developing countries the world over smack of if not religion? A study of developing countries has shown that those "helped" by the IMF have done more poorly than those who avoided the IMF's advice - kudos to Malaysia.

Oh, and by the way - the spandex suits you. Are you guys going for K-Y 'rasslin or the more mundane WWF variety? I'd vote for the first, as I find the second...ach.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Ok, I sorted it out. I meant to say that most people are religios about something, even if they don't believe in a particular religion and that most people who believe in God believe that he is on their side, and even those who don't believe in God, generally believe that they are on the side of right. (and therefor if any one or anything opposes them, that obstacle is on the side of wrong/evil.)

Hope that made a bit more sence.

 

[sweetnpetite]

The more we can forecast, the safer we can make our selves and others around us. And forecasting is what the author calls story telling.


Gauche

Thank you! That explains that age old question of why people are so fascinated with 'fortune telling'

And for that matter, the weather channel.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Holy Chimma Rotcha, Batman!

This is quite an amazing post with several good insites. I want to reread it when I'm fully awake.

Part of it reminds me of a phrase I heard recently.

We are not punished *for* our sins, but *by* them. I've always pretty much believed that. IF there is a god, s/he didn't give us rules so that s/he could punish us for not following them, but to protect us from things that hurt us.

I don't know why people continue to insist that phylisophy is so difffernet from religion. They both deal in belief and I don't think that their is any clear line of when you've crossed over into one. Other than perhaps, phylosophy is when you work the thoughts and beliefs out for yourself and religion is when you follow someone elses philosophy. They both deal with belief and universal questions. YOu'll find them in the same section of your library

Au cointreau, GC. I'm a card-carrying member of the Agnostic Church.

I said that I equate atheism with a religion. I don't know nuthin' 'bout theology, but it seems to me that a firm belief in the nonexistence of a Creator has no more basis in science than a firm belief in the existence of one.

Agnostics, I believe, are the ones who admit that we don't know.

People who don't get headaches thinking about "black matter" and stuff tell us that the Big Bang can be explained almost back as far as theh moment of its occurence. Until science can tell us what banged and what made it go bang and why matter would bother to bang, it makes just as much sense to assume that an intelligent will was behind creation as to assume that mindless matter just up and went kaboom for no good reason.

Hoping to be convinced of the non-existence of God, I read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and was almost in tears because the reviewers all said the book was written for the layperson - but I didn't get it. I wanted to sit face to face with Stephen Hawking and demand to know, "Yes, but what happens after infinity? What then?" But I knew he wouldn't give me a straight answer.

I have enough difficulty living in the dimensions that I can understand, without anybody making time curve and adding more dimensions. Who needs 'em?

When I finally decided that I don't know, and that it's okay to not know, I felt better. A friend who is intensely spiritual but not at all religious told me once, "It doesn't matter if you believe in God. If there is a God, he believes in you." I was dealing with a lot of Baptist anxiety over my need to either accept or reject the notion of God, and the consequences of a decision not to believe are an eternity of torment - or so I was told. My friend, who studied to be a Jesuit Priest long ago and then changed his mind and studied Buddhism and then changed his major to Engineering, is at peace with the certaintly that any being or lifeforce with the capacity to create intelligence from nothingness would have better things to do than punish his/its/our creation.

I'm fine now with knowing that I don't know. If there's something to find out after this life - and my instinct tells me that life, like all energy, continues - then I'll find out when I get there.

I think that makes me an agnostic.

However, I do agree with SummerMorning that human beings have a primal need to be bullied by despots.



Otherwise, we'd have to decide everything for ourselves.

 

[Gary Chambers]

All rise for the investiture

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

Darling Sher, despite your charming self effacement--reminding us of the wretched quality of deep southern schools, the intellectual and emotional torture of wet tee shirt baptism and your struggle to overcome it all even now--yes, despite all that I can hereby dub you a polymathic fabulist. You are polymathic because you display a learned wisdom your endearing humility cannot hide. You are a fabulist because you use that intellect to tie our heads in knots and make us love trying to untangle ourselves, rather than using it to always be as profound as we know you really are. This is why you make such a good patron saint of erotica, and it's also why I await an ambulance to haul my trembling fleshy Buddhist sack to detox, having overdosed it on Rogain.

 

[shereads]

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

... rather than using it to always be as profound as we know you really are.

::blushing, squirming in my chair, eyes shifting this way and that as I debate whether to confess that this is actually as profound as I get::

Very perceptive, G. Most people don't realize that I'm hiding my profundity.

I await an ambulance to haul my trembling fleshy Buddhist sack to detox, having overdosed it on Rogain. [/B]

"Portia caressed his fleshy Buddhist sack, and watched with growing alarm as the thick pelt of fur grew longer with each passing second...Would the ambulance never arrive? Would the paramedics bring a barber? A groomer?

"Could the fleece be transformed into warm mittens, or even a sweater?"

 

[Gary Chambers]

This is quite an amazing post with several good insites. I want to reread it when I'm fully awake.

Part of it reminds me of a phrase I heard recently.

We are not punished *for* our sins, but *by* them. I've always pretty much believed that. IF there is a god, s/he didn't give us rules so that s/he could punish us for not following them, but to protect us from things that hurt us.

I don't know why people continue to insist that phylisophy is so difffernet from religion. They both deal in belief and I don't think that their is any clear line of when you've crossed over into one. Other than perhaps, phylosophy is when you work the thoughts and beliefs out for yourself and religion is when you follow someone elses philosophy. They both deal with belief and universal questions. YOu'll find them in the same section of your library

Sweet, from what little formal training I've had in philosophy I can assure that theology is merely a branch of philosophy. They are not different. You are right, they live in the same fleshy Buddhist sack. 'Real' priests must study some general philosophy to get their collars, and real philosophers must study some theology to get their degrees. So anyone who tells you they are different is simply beneath your intellect and it's up to you to decide whether they are worthy of your effort to enlighten them.

Religion is distinct from theology, however, in that theology demands only that you seek spiritual truth, whereas religion demands that you actually believe whatever is offered to you as spiritual truth. Theology you might say is the science behind religion, while religion itself is the hocus pocus less objective minds make of it all. You probably already know that but overlooked it in your post because you were tired.

Agnosticism is my religious posture, and I originally felt it was also Shereads and SummerMorning's. I got a bit confused I think due to a quote that I took as part of an actual post from one of them. A few people on this thread have professed to be atheists, which is not an ignoble declaration but one an agnostic cannot utter. Most people here seem to be agnostics, with maybe some atheists and perhaps even a few who are seeking their own personal brand of religious faith. Personally, I have no argument with any of these people. Like Shereads (hope I'm quoting the correct person this time), my feathers don't get ruffled until someone tells me I must believe in a God who points fingers at us and hates us for being the primates we are.

Frankly, I thought I'd spent myself on this thread until I checked in and found it had moved into a deeper discussion of Stephen Hawking and quantum physics. I don't pretend to be anyone's expert on either, but find both fascinating. To avoid quoting the wrong person again, I just looked for the passage in which someone summed up quantum physics as a science based on the theory of parallel universes. I couldn't find it though I'm sure I read it when rereading this thread less than an hour ago. If this is an accurate definition of quantum physics, then I wish my astrophysics professor had been as candid and concise as the pornster who posted the definition, because his quantum physics boggled my mind while parallel universes never have.

Parallel universes are simply a convenient explanation for the inexplicable aspects of time. Hawking's observation that in a true infinity everything than can happen will somewhere in the infinite future, and in fact already has happened somewhere in the infinite past, shows that he was very smart but perhaps not by that observation alone, the smartest of philosophers or physicists. I flunked astrophysics but reached this same conclusion all by myself some years ago. It's only flaw as far as I can see, is that everything possible happening at least twice (once in the past and once in the future) and perhaps a multiplicity of times, does not jive with the very definite and terminal nature of time as we experience it. So to explain this flaw it is convenient to suggest parallel universes, where the same span of time can unfold, simultaneously but at different historical stages.

These are things most people on this thread will already know and understand. The day mankind split the atom the disciplines of astrophysics and philosophy became one, forever, supporting yet subjugating one another. This blending of disciplines has brought us to the point where even this jolly band of literary whores can truthfully trumpet the principles and theories of the Einsteins and Hawkings of this world as our own. We consider it all just a natural step in our examination of religion and sexuality. Quantum physics: the stuff that cum is made of! HA! If that pompous twit of an astrophysics prof could only see me now!

 

[shereads]

Like Shereads (hope I'm quoting the correct person this time), my feathers don't get ruffled until someone tells me I must believe in a God who points fingers at us and hates us for being the primates we are.

If our feathers are ruffled, than God can't hate us for being primates.

The day mankind split the atom the disciplines of astrophysics and philosophy became one, forever, supporting yet subjugating one another. This blending of disciplines has brought us to the point where even this jolly band of literary whores can truthfully trumpet the principles and theories of the Einsteins and Hawkings of this world as our own.

Blending the disciplines, there's an author who teaches physics and writing at MIT, and whose book on the topic of time not only doesn't hurt my head like Hawking, but makes me smile and even cry a little:

Einstein's Dreams, by Alan Lightman

Lyrical little stories, a few pages each and perfect for pre-bedtime reading, that speculate on theories that might have been considered and rejected by a young Einstein.

"There is a place where time stands still. Raindrops hang motionless in air. Pendulums of clocks float mid-swing...As a traveler approaches this place from any direction, he moves more and more slowly..."

And here's a moment Gary might recognize from The Once and Future King. The boy Arthur has his first (or final?) meeting with Merlyn, who will be his teacher, father-figure and companion for most of Arthur's life. Merlyn explains that he knows some things about the future because he has lived it; what people call his second sight is due to his having been born "at the wrong end of Time" and having to live backwards.

"He stopped talking and looked at the Wart [Arthur] in an anxious way.

"'Have I told you this before?'

"'No, we only met about half an hour ago.'

"'So little time to pass?' said Merlyn, and a big tear ran down to the end of his nose. He wiped it off with his pyjamas and added anxiously, 'Am I going to tell it you again?'"

This is why I'm agnostic and not atheist; it's more than just not knowing. It's knowing that something compels us, self-aware and self-obsessed primates that we are, to examine and argue and struggle with every theory about our place in the universe, chewing up ideas and spitting them out, worrying them like bones.

There are things about us that can't be explained by the survival of the fittest - symphonies, cathedrals, the Kama Sutra, even Literotica. There might not be a Creator, but there is a Creative force and we feel it instinctively. It's us, but it's outside of us too or we wouldn't be so frustrated by what we don't know. We wouldn't keep trying to establish a connection with it.

I mentioned before that a friend who came to his own set of spiritual beliefs by way of Catholicism, Buddhism, engineering and the Vietnam war, comforted me during my own spiritual crisis by saying, "It doesn't matter if you believe in God; if God exists, he believes in you." He offered me this theory about a purely benevolent, ever-patient God, of which each sentient being is a fragment. Suppose that just as time and space are infinite, there has always been an intelligent awareness, and call it God for lack of a better name. It's alone with itself in eternity. It creates us, fragments of intelligence with the capacity to recognize God in each other. It frees us to find our way back or explore on our own, "tossing us into the blackness, hoping that some of us will spark to life and create joy."

This God makes sense to me; he doesn't decide who dies in earthquakes or of disease and who is saved; he didn't create the laws of physics but exists within and apart from the physical world just as we do; he doesn't sit in judgement of us or plan punishments for us; if there is a hell, it's something we can only inflict on ourselves: the refusal to accept the wonder of what we all are. And if we don't get it right this time, maybe we will some other time.

I like it. It explains why my dad, a bitter old curmudgeon who had fallen into a coma at the end, but appeared to be in awful pain or awfully afraid, looked radiant in the moment of his death. It was clear to me - and I thought myself an atheist until then - that something beautiful was happening to him. Maybe for the first time in decades. Maybe he saw heaven. Maybe he was living backwards in time, and enjoying being born. Maybe there was just the lack of anything except a peaceful, dreamless rest.

I can hardly wait to find out what he saw in that moment. Whatever it was, it wasn't the hell that I'd been taught to expect for people like my dad who weren't "born again."

That's as profound as I get. 'Nite pornsters.

 

[gauchecritic]

This God makes sense to me; he doesn't decide who dies in earthquakes or of disease and who is saved; he didn't create the laws of physics but exists within and apart from the physical world just as we do; he doesn't sit in judgement of us or plan punishments for us; if there is a hell, it's something we can only inflict on ourselves: the refusal to accept the wonder of what we all are. And if we don't get it right this time, maybe we will some other time.

Maybe not as amazing as I think, but quite amazing non-the-less. This is the conclusion I too have reached. It also, co-incidentally answers The Meaning of Life, but discouragingly throws up other imponderables.

Happily for some, but quite embarrassingly too, it is given flesh in probably the most popular sci-fi film ever. It is contained in the words of Obi Wan Ben Kenobi. 'Every living thing generates a force, that both surrounds us and penetrates us'.

(Forget the minihedrons or whatever they are)

Buddhism[?] strives to make an individual 'one with the universe' (when they get hotdogs they always ask 'make me one with everything')

I'm given to understand that one vision of Purgatory is simply not being able to 'look upon the face of God' after death.

For me it also contains being born again, regression to past lives, escaping the wheel of life etc.

Leaving this mortal coil involves the 'life force' ("The Force" if you will) not dissipating but re-joining that which surrounds us and penetrates us. Being born to flesh involves taking up a tiny amount of that force in order to live and thereafter generate it.

The Meaning of Life is simply experience. Every thing you experience gives meaning to life. Too simple?

Death on Discworld, far from taking life, simply aids dying people to release the flesh. Various and sundry recently deceased ask Death "What happens now?" He always replies "Whatever you believe in."

Gauche

 

[Svenskaflicka]

The thing about religion isn't so much that it gives us rules for how to behave - we have laws for that - but it gives people hope that things will turn out fine, even if things look pretty grim.

To me, that's the coward's way out. Sitting around, hoping for a deity to fix your problems? Chicken!!!

Us Swedes, we're made out of tougher material than that. We get totally wasted, then grin and bare it.

 

[sensualpilgrim]

The thing about religion isn't so much that it gives us rules for how to behave - we have laws for that - but it gives people hope that things will turn out fine, even if things look pretty grim.

To me, that's the coward's way out. Sitting around, hoping for a deity to fix your problems? Chicken!!!

Us Swedes, we're made out of tougher material than that. We get totally wasted, then grin and bare it.

I thought the best way to deal with future is to face it onward, create solutions, make love, make babies and having fun doing it all!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Making babies is fun, but it sure as hell doesn't solve any problems! (It might even cause a few extra!)

 

[Gary Chambers]

SAFETY TIP: Frantic masturbation before and after reading may prevent headaches.

...Leaving this mortal coil involves the 'life force'...

Gauche

There's an entire thread in that statement. It's a concept that takes us straight back to Hawking, the philosophical implications of astrophysics and so forth. Neuroscientists claim they have disected the human body and looked at every roll and pleat of flesh, scraped every bone and counted every strand of DNA, and nowhere did they find a mind. From this they conclude:

a: Psychology (a 2,00- year-old science) is nothing but a superstition akin to astrology or tarrot cards;

b: The functions ascribed to the mind are purely functions of the brain and central nervous system.

If this is true, one must also assume there is no soul for exactly the same reasons. With the mind and soul already gone, the 'life force' starts to look like a house of straw. What exactly is its matter and where does it reside?

I agree with your statement, Gauche, but it has far reaching implications. Under assault from neuroscience, the life force theorist is forced to turn to astrophysical philosophy to assert even the possible existence of a life force. I pondered this conundrum for many months and could not resolve it to my satisfaction, because to make the life force jive with neuroscientific evidence I could only argue that it was some form of pure energy that cannot be created or destroyed, nor cut with a scalpel or wrestled onto a microscope slide. It must be a form of energy we can't see, measure or detect with our senses, nor with any of the instruments we use to measure things like brain waves or very weak magnetic fields. Yet the idea of a new form of pure energy called a 'life force' worked for me, but without physical properties I couldn't see its relevance to anything beyond one brief lifespan (ie. we are born to eat, shit, fuck and die), which is just an argument for atheism, a concept that we're agreed no true agnostic can accept.

Then one day I considered the concept in terms of size. How big or small is a life force? Within the human body I suppose it must be no bigger than the body that contains it, but what about the day that body is a corpse? If the life force is then freed, does it have to remain the same size? Since it must have material properties that neuroscience is unable to measure or even describe, is it not possible its potential size outside the body is enormous? For me this explanation answered many questions related to religious legend and mysticism. Most important among them was the nature of the Buddhist oneness, which is really found in most religions. Another is the concept of a godhead that can't be seen by living beings, and causes instant death for any who do attempt to look upon it. Remember the peace that Sher sensed coming from her unreborn father at the moment of his death? Was he happy because his 'life force' was free again to become one with the much larger spiritual family of living things?

If our life forces are actually of such astrophysical enormity, then perhaps outside our bodies they occupy so much physical space that there isn't enough room for any two of them to exist apart within one planetary atmosphere, perhaps even within one solar system, galaxy or even an entire universe. Maybe they combine a bit like compressed air in a tank. It's mass alters as air is pumped in and pressure increases, but it's dimensions remain the same, constricted by the walls of the tank, and we can't separate one p.s.i. of air in the tank from any other. They combine into one mass of compressed air as soon as they come into contact with each other.

For those into quantum physics, I'm told researchers have discovered that if they separate two atomic particles, no matter how far away they are from each other, they spring back together instantly upon release. How they managed to prove this I don't know, and pelase don't ask for a link because this was told to me by someone much better versed in quantum physics than I am, and I have no idea where to look for the data he was explaining to me. The point is, that this theory of mass that cannot be separated into pieces has been proven. It's not just idle speculation. Apparently researchers have expressed the hope that one day they may be able to harness these subatomic particles to power long range spacecraft and create real time comunications between planets.

If you think that quantum phsyics and astrophysical philosophy are a bit deep for a band of filth mongers, please visit this Literotica page, where you'll find an appropriate erotic poem, well worthy of your high fives: http://www.literotica.com:81/stories/showstory.php?id=97903&page=1000 .

Perhaps our life forces, once released from this mortal coil combine in their gargantuan size, into one massive body of 'life force energy'. In an impossible universe anything is possible and you never know what happens next. It's a theory of fantastic proportions, and it's all summed up in Gauchecritic's seven word statement: "This mortal coil involves the 'life force'."

 

[gauchecritic]

Re: SAFETY TIP: Frantic masturbation before and after reading may prevent headaches.

It must be a form of energy we can't see, measure or detect with our senses, nor with any of the instruments we use to measure things like brain waves or very weak magnetic fields.

One word. Phlogisten.

Gauche

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Don't you mean "poltergeist", Gauche?

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: SAFETY TIP: Frantic masturbation before and after reading may prevent headaches.

One word. Phlogisten.

Gauche, are you making fun of those who get cremated?

Gary, I like how your mind works. For what it's worth the best film I've seen in some time is "21 Grams". The title refers to the fact that upon death a human body becomes 21 grams lighter. I don't know the source or whether a certain size body was tested.

When my mother died I instinctively caressed her body and found myself saying, "Where did you go?" I only knew she was gone. Yet, she isn't. Nor my father who died when I was ten.

A favorite simple sentence I read some time ago, in a book about depression of all things:

The mind is what the brain does.

Perdita

 

[Odeee]

Would somebody be bale to tell me where I can order a copy of
Professor O. A. Wall's book, Religion and Sex Worship, or if it available for a download online.

The best I know it was last published in 1929 and has been banned and out of Print ever since

 

[Guest]

Odeee, I have often used abebooks.com. If you google "book search" you'll get a number of similar sources. Good luck.

Perdita

 

[Gary Chambers]

You could try Bibliofind and the Geutenberg Project. Sorry, don't have links at hand right now, but a search should turn them up.

 

[Pure]

Gary said,

Perhaps our life forces, once released from this mortal coil combine in their gargantuan size, into one massive body of 'life force energy'. In an impossible universe anything is possible and you never know what happens next. It's a theory of fantastic proportions, and it's all summed up in Gauchecritic's seven word statement: "This mortal coil involves the 'life force'."

You seem to keep speculating on these 'big' issues without realizing that they've long been resolved by Lucas and Obi wan kenobi. What remains is to join in the frolic; get with the program:

Obi Wan Kenobe Adult Star Wars Deluxe Costume -Obi Wan Kenobe Obi ...
[...]
www.costumeuniverse.com/ ObiWanKenobeAdultStarWarsDeluxeCostume-ObiWanKenobe.asp - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
-------

Light Saber Obi Wan Kenobe - Light Saber Obi Wan Kenobe Light ...
[...]KenobeOfficial licensed
Star Wars light saber lights up and glows. Batteries not included...

www.costumeuniverse.com/ LightSaberObiWanKenobe-

In case the light saber is not effective against all doubt, remember that Terry Pratchett and the multivolume Discworld supply any remaining answers. I leave it to dedicated fans more conversant than I to supply you with url's for the appropriate discworld paraphernalia!

 

[gauchecritic]

Somebody please tell It.

Gauche

 

[Pure]

Obi say:

Kid must use own light sabre till momma return from grocery store. Add Cosmo-charger Death ray attachment, if necessary.

 

[Guest]

Pure, this is a kindness, really. I am not certain what Gauche meant in his last post, but at this point I feel compelled to tell you that you are not equipped for humour and satire. I've seen the attempts in other threads too and they all fall flat as flat can be.

Be yourself, the Pure so many of us prefer to ignore (OK, that was not kind, just the Perdita you always arouse).

Perdita

 

[Pure]

Pheww,

momma's back just in time, a little treacly venom can do wonders.

I'm sure 'not equipped' to handle that. Or a new facial AV.