Why is God so obsessed with sex?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by synthesizer-patel, Sep 14, 2010.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Offhand, if my goal were authority and domination over an entire society and I were choosing my means of attainment, I would choose control of the sexual behavior of women aged 16 to 24 as my primary means.

    Given that, I'd have the rest of the place pretty much handled.

    So an obsession with sex on the part of any authoritarian body seems hardly at all mysterious.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    i just found this thread..got in on page 17..forgive if i rehash some comments..

    i don't think gods attitude with sex has anything to do with the physical..

    i think it is a spiritual thing..we are supposed to think of sex as a special bond between husband and wife..something only they share..it is supposed to be a pleasure that we can only get from our spouse..so by seeking sex outside of marriage, we inadvertently devalue both sex and marriage.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    God and his energies - much like there is not justthe sun but the sun and heat, light etc
    the problem is that it relegates them to an inferior existence on account of the dysfunctionalism

    If we are dysfunctional we don't diminish anything but ourselves.


    Depends if you view free will as a curse ..... but then even to have an opinion of free will requires free will so I guess its a non-issue

    why?
    Although its probably not correct to term it "before", since you can't really say that a sun was a sun (in the full sense of the term) before it started manifesting heat and light ... in the same way, discussing a god that doesn't have a separated parts and parcels is a lesser definition since it doesn't have the potential to manifest free will outside of itself (which takes it down a notch or two on the omnipotent scale) ... you could also argue that it has no means for benevolence since it has zero opportunity for reciprocation .... and philosophically it is plagued by the problem on how it is possible for separation to manifest (as we are currently experiencing it, with identities and all) in which there is only one radical homogeneous existence underlying it all. IOW there is no accounting for variety (except to say that it is all illusion .... which of course doesn't explain how it came to overcome "god" if you ant to carve out a niche for us to come under the umbrella of the term)
    the goal is not to lose one's individuality but to use it properly. IOW its the nature of being a separated part and parcel that one has a constitutional nature (namely that of service to the whole). To be made without the possibility of rejection of this nature is to be made without the possibility of free will, which of course is a requirement for service
    Sure it can be avoided, but you are looking at the mess in a manner that wants to absolve all wrong doing from the living entity. I mean from one perspective, god could have refrained from manifesting individual with free will (even though it would make for a lesser god) and relegating the off the wall behavior of the minority to a virtual realm that eventually reforms them .... and from another perspective, the problem can be fixed by the living entity in the grip of illusion reforming themselves (which would also require free will BTW)

    Why the hang up?
    generally we don't have the experience of our hand manifesting free will. Rather the analogy was meant to illustrate how the functionalism of a part renders it invaluable and its dysfunctionalism renders it worthless. This is both from the perspective of the whole and the part (IOW from our perspective, a separated hand is useless and from a hand's perspective - if it was to have one - its useless since they have no capacity for vigor or enjoyment outside of the whole)
    It occurred at the hand (bad pun) of free will. Like suppose the hand suddenly decided one day "why am I engaged in placing food in the mouth? From now on I am going to eat the cake myself." ...... the problem being that it has no capacity to eat or derive energy from food without the mouth.

    In a broad general sense, a utilitarian view of sex is steeped in a sense of duty (sattva guna). A pleasure seeking view of sex is steeped in a sense of selfishness (raja guna). There's probably no need to discuss tama guna at this point. As long as one is under the grip of illusion they are acting in or between these modes.
    Sex life under the modes of nature is superseded by spiritual perfection. IOW the whole thing of sex life giving rise to (or even engaged in the act of while trying to avoid) progeny in the pursuit of pleasure operates exclusively in the material world where everyone is decked out with a corporeal existence. IOW its the nature of material existence to take something in the spiritual world and pervert it in a manner that binds one to attachment to the temporary. I guess it depends what one finds more objectionable - the consequences of attachment to the temporary or incorporating a sense of duty within one's sense of pleasure.
    as I said, depends on your location.
    But even with or without the drugs, the common usage of the term seems to have more to do about selfishness (ie new positions, new partners, etc) than a sense of duty.

    Mention the kama sutra (which actually has nothing to do with spiritual sex and everything to do with the material variety) and you probably won't find a conclusion like this :

    The attitude of material illusion is "I am this body and everything in relation to it is mine"
    reciprocation is the pinnacle of pleasure for an individual with free will - regardless whether they are fallible or infallible
    the body is unified?
    If we ever want to go against the consequences of a spontaneous act there is probably a good reason for going against the spontaneous act in the first place.

    astanga yoga is not celebrated as the yoga for this age (actually its about three yugas out - which makes it more outdated than wearing woolen full length bathers to the beach). Folding up like a croissant can't solve much.
    I can't see how absolving issues of duty can lead to anything but suffering

    Since matter is changing at practically every moment, it becomes even more diverse if one is drawing up the complete picture of one's self from it

    Basically the unity begins at the point of desire, much like the unity of the body begins at the point that the hand is agreeable to placing food in the mouth.

    IOW the radical difference between a material and spiritual sense of self is one's service attitude to god.

    This tends to grate us the wrong way because material identity dictates that there is nothing worse than being in a position of service
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    For some people their addictions kill them or destroy them via slow death.
     
  8. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    For example: someone who love sugar and eats ONLY pixie stix every day is not a healthy person. NOW add another human to the equation and things really go haywire.
     
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Doreen,


    People weren't always addicted to sex in the way they are today.



    He did make plants, and we have probably been all of them innumerable times over
    (if you look at it from hinduism pov).


    jan.
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    not really

    Material qualities (sattva rajas and tamas) are a shadow of spiritual qualities (suddha sattva)

    How would you categorize your shadow?
    as part of you or separate from you?
    or both?
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2010
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    When was that?
     
  12. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    What do you mean by this, sex is physical.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    Whoever you're calling God here is not true God I am afraid. God doesn't have problems.
     
  14. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    I have to mention the most noteworthy problem in sexual relationship which is promiscuity or cheating.
     
  15. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    physical is just one component of sex, you also have emotional,mental and in a perfect world spiritual content.
     
  16. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    I understand however physical, mental, spiritual are tied up in this case and also God created both physical and mental aspects of sex that's why He has something to say about sex, for physical and spiritual reasons.
     
  17. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    No, it was worse.
     
  18. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Since I find no evidence that there is such a thing as a soul or spirit (All our being evidently is in our physical brains. Take away the brain and all aspects of that person are gone. How can one live without a brain? We wouldn't have the brain in the first place if that was possible. Brain damage is interesting- What happens to major cases of brain damage- are the souls ALSO exhibiting signs of slurred speech and motor movements, too? Sheesh....) I cannot discuss a spiritual effect in regards to physical joining.

    But religious beliefs are not always hokey.

    Scientifically, wanton sex and those deprived of sex suffer inhibited growth and development.
    Both cause the person to devalue it or, like a drug, always be left wanting more- wanting better intensity and so on.
    Psychologically speaking, it's not unusual for people to become in-sensitized to sex or lose perspective on it. They lose the "rush" and try to find it in some interesting ways.

    Each person has their own and what people do is their own business. However, there are a lot of cases out there of people being extremely unhealthy in their fetishes. This behavior can be justified in a myriad of ways, but in the end, those of us that don't partake in such activities are left scratching our heads and wondering where that person went off...

    Sex between two people that is kept simple and strong with emotion exhibits the healthiest results.
    There are some folks that can go beyond that and there are some folks that to go beyond that leads to self destructive behavior.
     
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Hyper-conservatism (sexually, not politically) is a very large factor in that. The more repressed folks are, the harder it is for them to take sex seriously.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    That's due to sex for pleasure rather than reproduction, is it?

    Do all relationships that break up do so because of societal attitudes to casual sex, in your opinion?
     
  21. Big Chiller Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106

    The soul requires the body for perception.
     
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Then I guess it's screwed in the "after-life" without that body then...
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If it results in pregnancy its both

    If a majority of relationships are formed due to societal attitudes to casual sex, you have a good argument for it.
     

Share This Page