The art of loving....a lesson indeed

Quantum Quack

Quantum Quack

Life's a tease...
Valued Senior Member
Just the other night I was talking with my partner about what seems to be the wests obsession with that which is physical, material and most importantly visual.
In this post I don't wish to make any profound statements or criticisms but simply wish to discuss the deeper meaning behind religion, with out getting into issues of control and manipulation.

I was discussing with my wife to be the issue of visual love, love that is directed to the visual and not the invisible.

I put forward the contention that the deeper meaning of the dress code of Islamic females was more about teaching the islamic men that love is not for the physical beauty of women but for the beauty that can not be seen. That by clothing women in a way that elliminates the visual the men have an opportunity to find the path to loving that which is within us all and not the superficial exterior.
If there are any erudite Muslims reading this I would beg for their comments on this observation and understanding. Maybe I am stating what most religious persons already know, but from a humanistic perspective this is not so obvious as the first reaction to this custom of Islamic dress is the cry of oppression of women, subjugation and denial.

It is true, I feel, that one of our challenges in life is to learn how to love, and if one can get past the hyperbol and such, religion in many aspects is just about this. To learn to love that which is intangible and beautiful about all of us. With out reference to how we look and what we wear. That the physically "ugly" can be so beautiful and not judged and loved only by their physical appearance.

Christianity also has a history of "Visual Modesty" and most will claim that this is just a form of manipulation. I guess it is but is it just a way to shift our gaze from the superficial loves to a more deeper love that goes beyond the physical form and extends to the personality and the nature of the persons "heart" instead.

Admitedly the extremes of Isalmic and Christian modesty have the potential for the weaker members to compensate in their behaviour due to the difficulty of this lesson in the art of Loving.

That the denial of visual stimulation leads them to seek the visual and their behavious becoming in some cases extreme as they compensate for the denial that this lesson requires.

It would be true I guess that the harder way to learn this lesson is to be free of visual censorship and struggle with this issue of finding how to love "in the Dark". For surely when the lights are turned off at the end of the day it is how you feel about your partner and not how she looks, because the darkeness equalises every one to just feelings and not visual stimuli.

I dunno whether any one can make sense of what I am trying to explore here, I like most, have struggled with the dicotomy of visual love and non-visual love and some how a balance needs to be struck.
Maybe some one reading this can describe what I am saying in better words with more skill than I and if so I invite you to do so.

Care to discuss?
 
Well I am from the West so I cannot comment specifically on the cultural and religious practices of which I am not completely familiar so I guess I am in the same boat as you.

I find what you pose interesting though. Is it our religion and/or culture that dictates what is or what is not love.

Is covering the body simply something so you have no distraction from practicing a particular faith.

I have to wonder either way whether or not it is a practice to learn how to love without the physical attraction aspect (for lack of better terms) or simply to not be distracted from what is supposed to be a spiritual enlightenment of sorts.

It may or may not be obvious but I am not muslim nor christian and unfortunately until lately have kept myself locked into my life and therefore ignorant of some issues. But this is one I find intriguing to look at and learn from.

Thanks for bringing it up...I'm going to go have a think on this one :D
 
I suppose I am assuming that there is a greater underlying purpose to religion than that we normally consider.

It is true I guess that most persons of religious devotion would consider the flesh to be the Devil of distraction from "God" and if one thinks of this as a form of crypticism. The distraction from loving the God with in all of us, the devil being the physical and God being the immaterial. If we use the love of man for woman as a form of cryptic lesson.

A man who loves the flesh of woman is loving the devil ( physical) Garden of Eden, tree of knowledge, shame of the body in the eyes of God, the shame of turning of our hearts towards the material of the flesh ( the apple?) idolatry etc etc.

A lesson to be learned that the temptation of the flesh distracts man from the love of the God with in.......you can see all the religious arguements are coming to the fore.

But taken as simply an issue of learning to love the God with in or should I say the essence of a person and not the persons appearence the religious arguements and contentions can be seen a little more clearly.

An evolution of man from the cave to civilisation the path towards learning to love the person and not just his or hers skin cells, muscle tone and bone structure.

So I see parallels between the evolution of learing to love and the evolution of that which is religion. Whether athiest or religious the lesson remains the same.
Religion could be said to be created to help man learn this lesson, a set of moral rules and legislation where the original reason for these rules is lost in the religious constructs that have since emerged.

An evolution of mankinds' love and loving.
 
Last edited:
Religion could be said to be created to help man learn this lesson, a set of moral rules and legislation where the original reason for these rules is lost in the religious constructs that have since emerged.
Click to expand...

Personally I believe that man created religion because he felt the need for control. He needed a set of rules so that his village would not be stealing and killing each other. Seriously. What better way to control people than to tell them that if they are not good some big huge god is going to smite them down.

Now that is a pretty liberal stance and I throw it in for debate, so don't go all batty on me when you read that.

But why else would something be created for us to be afraid of or revere and I find that all religious doctrine always has the moral values locked in it much like government. Why could religion have not been the first attempt at government and control of the people?

Other than that I believe the divine is in all of us and you should seek the divine in all including other people, animals and plants. Once you are able to see that love is natural no matter what a person looks like and sex is a continuation of the love for the divine within, not merely an animalistic lust for pleasure.
 
Quantum Quack said:
I suppose I am assuming that there is a greater underlying purpose to religion than that we normally consider.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that religion could have survived so long or that certain people would be religious if this weren't the case. In my life, I am surrounded by Christianity and I am glad. There IS an acceptance and love found only in the religious persons of my life. When we disregard Christianity totally, we lose the good as well as the bad.
 
SkippingStones: I find it hard to believe that religion could have survived so long or that certain people would be religious if this weren't the case. In my life, I am surrounded by Christianity and I am glad. There IS an acceptance and love found only in the religious persons of my life. When we disregard Christianity totally, we lose the good as well as the bad.
*************
M*W: Dear SkippingStones: I am sorry for you. You are surrounded by liars who perpetuate the lies of earlier liars. You are totally accepted by those liar perpetuators. That makes you a liar, too. Christianity is the religion of lies. You believe those lies. That makes all Christians liars. Do you think for one minute that Jesus would accept all this? No. Not a chance. Take a good look at those surrounding you. WWJD? Kill them all!
 
I guess it depends how you look at it.

Personally I wouldn't care what my wife wore, how she dressed, spoke, ate, or went to the toilet. Love is only love when you love that person 'no matter what'. What good would it do wrapping my wife up like an ancient egyptian corpse? If people need that to feel 'real' love, then it quite clearly isn't real love. Love is not something that requires work, or a particular dress code so you can feel it more. Love has no boundaries, so why make a boundary?

But what gets to me, and I've heard it many times before, are those with religious minds who "love" and put god before their partners and children. Personally I find that to be the sickest, lowest act of a religious person. It often seems like they only have children for someone new to preach to. It's like.. "hmm nobody to wave my bible at today - hey, let's have kids".

That's why people are so messed up.

And so they keep on breeding this life that cares more about the clouds than their earthly loved ones. It depends how extreme it gets.. I mean you imagine a christian who believes pride is a sin.. When their child accomplishes something, they can't be proud of their child, and he ends up becoming nothing more than a backseat passenger while god or jesus get all the credit and all the attention. This is why they too find god - they're lonely. Their parents love, and are more concerned with some invisible dood in the sky. Frankly I find that distasteful at best.

How can people get anywhere when love is really that meaningless? When people are nothing but some company on the way to space daddy?

Imagine a muslim child telling his parents he was going to convert to judaism, or a christian child saying he was an atheist. It is right there that you see the lack of real love.
 
When I consider the divorce rate in a lot of countries, particularly in my own, Canada, I wonder how many of those couples married because of real love. I think that there is a deep misconception running through many people's minds nowadays about love. Perhaps the greatest misconception isn't that of love of the physical, but rather, the "feeling" of love, the emotional attachment made between two people. The problem isn't that these two people aren't "in-love." The problem is that once they're in love they don't know how to keep that love. Love is about chemstry and is it about how two people "click." However, Love is also about service. It's about doing everything possible (and not just having a good "sex-life") to keep the relationship alive, and GROWING.

As I have learned, this is true about any kind of relationship, romantic or otherwise. To love is to do service to those around you, in order that your relationship with others remains alive and GROWING. This is how peace is found, because love then is applicable to even those who do not love you in return. For, when you do everything in your power to make a relationship with such people, then peace can only come about.

I have also found, as I'm sure many have, that men and women don't think the same way. People may find it silly that I'm expressing something so obvious, but I think it's important. It may be true that the difference isn't a great difference, but it CAN lead to much different ways of acting. This isn't to say that some women can't see things in a male perspective, and vice versa, but rather that, on average, it seems to be the case that there are major differences between the sexes.

One such difference is the male/female approach to relationship. In general, men are the persuers, while women are the attractors. In general, men tend to be more aroused by visual stimulation, while women tend to be more aroused by intellectual/emotional stimulation (an obvious compliment of opposites). AGAIN, this isn't to say that this is an absolute rule. Rather, these seem to be an average occurances.

While the Muslim practice of the woman covering herself from head to foot may be extreme, the spirit of the tradition is genuine. On a practical level, modest dressing is done to curb a tendency to treat the opposite sex as an object of pleasure, rather than a person. Due to the nature of an average woman's attraction to a man, for many, or most women, this isn't a major issue. However, due to the nature of an average man's attraction to a woman, for many, or most, this can be a real issue.

This kind of tradition has roots in practical considerations such as this, rather than in a fallacious consideration of "skin" as being "of the Devil." Sex, in practically every religion, is given specific honor. From the worshippers of fertility gods/goddesses, to the Christian consideration of sex as being a sacred, and private act, it seems that almost every religion considers sex if a light of goodness and holiness. It is only the fanatical kind who would consider sex, or physical pleasures to be "of the devil."

Of course, another practical consideration is that sex should be considered in a conservative light, so as to avoid bad situations, such as children being left with only one parent, or none, or children having multiple fathers or mothers, etc.

It is right to consider God as being in fellow humans. Mother Theresa said that she found Christ in everyone, the when she looked at a person, she didn't see a poor person, or a Christian, or a Hindu, or an athiest, or a celebrity, etc... she say Christ. Christ Himself gave a parable that told of "followers" who came to Him in death, who proclaimed "Lord Lord" in life, and He told them they were not worthy of the kingdom of heaven. He asked them "when did you feed me when I was hungry? give me to drink when I was thirsty? clothe me when I was naked? visit me when I was sick?" (etc...) They asked when did they ever find Christ in such need? He told them (in the parable) that whenever they found one in need, and they refused to help such a one, then they were refusing to help Christ Himself. See, the point is that we all have divinity (as the Hindus call it), and we are all equally deserving of help when in need, and equally required to give service to those in need. If we refuse to love such people, how did we ever love Christ, and likewise, God?
 
On a practical level, modest dressing is done to curb a tendency to treat the opposite sex as an object of pleasure, rather than a person.
Click to expand...

I understand the reasoning of this and do not necessarily dispute it, but I must pose a question to you. Is it not possible that by head to toe covering it could psycologically work the opposite of what you state? Meaning, could the covering actually make a person treat them more like an object than a person...all sexual context aside. In a way desensitising those that interact with them so they see them merely this way. Of course not in a sexual way but also in a non-person way.
 
Magiawen
Other than that I believe the divine is in all of us and you should seek the divine in all including other people, animals and plants. Once you are able to see that love is natural no matter what a person looks like and sex is a continuation of the love for the divine within, not merely an animalistic lust for pleasure.
Click to expand...

I see you see what I see......

Skippingstones
I find it hard to believe that religion could have survived so long or that certain people would be religious if this weren't the case. In my life, I am surrounded by Christianity and I am glad. There IS an acceptance and love found only in the religious persons of my life. When we disregard Christianity totally, we lose the good as well as the bad.
Click to expand...
If you can see past the BS and find the love within other people then are you not achieving the lesson in the art of loving that we a discussing?

MW: what can I say?

Snakelord
But what gets to me, and I've heard it many times before, are those with religious minds who "love" and put god before their partners and children.
Click to expand...

I agree, in that the word of "God" can become an Idol in itself. A love for the written word rather that the love of it's creator. [mankind] [not God]
It is true that religion often distorts the nature of a person. But this is part of the challenge of learning to love. Books, rules, ideology, dogma, symbols and other religious metaphysical paraphenalia and criteria, need to be "let go of" as part of this lesson.

BTAs, I think your well measured response is facinating, thanks.

The thing that sticks out for me is that the lesson is teh same regardless of religion or lack of religion.
Athiests share this same challenge, sure they may not refer to things like divinity and god within ect but words like personality and character and love are generic are they not?
 
Last edited:
M*W said:
M*W: Dear SkippingStones: I am sorry for you. You are surrounded by liars who perpetuate the lies of earlier liars. You are totally accepted by those liar perpetuators. That makes you a liar, too. Christianity is the religion of lies. You believe those lies. That makes all Christians liars. Do you think for one minute that Jesus would accept all this? No. Not a chance. Take a good look at those surrounding you. WWJD? Kill them all!
Click to expand...
I am sorry that you seem to have a different impression of me than I would like and what I consider to be accurate. You don't know me, you don't know the people I'm talking about. Your quick demonization of them seems hardly different than the fundamentalism you are denouncing. I assume you are being slightly sarcastic in your post.

Quantum Quack said:
If you can see past the BS and find the love within other people then are you not achieving the lesson in the art of loving that we a discussing?
Click to expand...
I think so. One advantage of religion is the emphasis on family and community- things that are very helpful for promoting those lessons. This is something I don't see as much in secularized America where people have become so distant and individualized.

In the end, people are people, they love and want to be loved. Religion doesn't change that, but an absence of love can.
 
MagiAwen

*I understand the reasoning of this and do not necessarily dispute it, but I must pose a question to you. Is it not possible that by head to toe covering it could psycologically work the opposite of what you state? Meaning, could the covering actually make a person treat them more like an object than a person...all sexual context aside. In a way desensitising those that interact with them so they see them merely this way. Of course not in a sexual way but also in a non-person way.

I would have to say that, yes, in my opinion it can work that way as well, which is why I called such dress extreme, and instead called simply for modest dress. I suppose there can be a whole other discussion on what "modest dress" is, but to keep it short, I'd say that modest dress is dress that simply doesn't "enhance" one's sexuality. (unless of course it's in the bedroom ;);))
 
SkippingStones: I am sorry that you seem to have a different impression of me than I would like and what I consider to be accurate. You don't know me, you don't know the people I'm talking about. Your quick demonization of them seems hardly different than the fundamentalism you are denouncing. I assume you are being slightly sarcastic in your post.
*************
M*W: It is very possible that I judged/misjudged you, but you seem to be so naive! You are surrounded by a wonderful support system, no doubt, but I can't help but panic when someone is surrounded by Christian thoughts and ideals. Those people who surround you would love you just as much if they'd never heard about Christianity. Love is love. It is not based on Christianity. That's a fluke. My aim here on sciforums is to teach. The main lesson here is to teach the truth about Christianity. I believe I have made a positive impact in this respect. The further I research pre-Christian times, the more I realize what an abomination Christianity is! I'm not a mean, hateful person -- quite the opposite -- I've very caring and nurturing. That's why I care about what people believe in.

I cannot help but refer to SouthStar. We were bitter (BITTER) enemies! Maybe I didn't have anything to do with his deconversion. Maybe I did. It doesn't matter. SouthStar fought me every step of the way, and I fought him back. Then one day, he didn't just say, "hey, you were right." He understood the concept of what I and others said. He had that light bulb go on in his mind and he could see clearly. It was the biggest step he will ever take in his life. His computer has been acting up, and I think that is a blessing in disguise. Now is the time he needs to spend the time without outside influence to know what he did was the right thing.

I'm telling you this because you're still in the addiction of Christianity. Yes, it is an addiction, and there will be withdrawal symptoms when you give it up. You're still holding onto the lie.
*************
SkippingStones: One advantage of religion is the emphasis on family and community - things that are very helpful for promoting those lessons. This is something I don't see as much in secularized America where people have become so distant and individualized.

In the end, people are people, they love and want to be loved. Religion doesn't change that, but an absence of love can.
*************
M*W: I think you're on the right track. Love and religion are not attached at the hip. In the end, Christianity won't matter. You have a lot to be thankful for -- your family and your friends. You're one of the lucky ones. What you have is more important than any religion.
 
SkippingStones: I am sorry that you seem to have a different impression of me than I would like and what I consider to be accurate. You don't know me, you don't know the people I'm talking about. Your quick demonization of them seems hardly different than the fundamentalism you are denouncing. I assume you are being slightly sarcastic in your post.
*************
M*W: It is very possible that I judged/misjudged you, but you seem to be so naive! You are surrounded by a wonderful support system, no doubt, but I can't help but panic when someone is surrounded by Christian thoughts and ideals. Those people who surround you would love you just as much if they'd never heard about Christianity. Love is love. It is not based on Christianity. That's a fluke. My aim here on sciforums is to teach. The main lesson here is to teach the truth about Christianity. I believe I have made a positive impact in this respect. The further I research pre-Christian times, the more I realize what an abomination Christianity is! I'm not a mean, hateful person -- quite the opposite -- I've very caring and nurturing. That's why I care about what people believe in.

I cannot help but refer to SouthStar. We were bitter (BITTER) enemies! Maybe I didn't have anything to do with his deconversion. Maybe I did. It doesn't matter. SouthStar fought me every step of the way, and I fought him back. Then one day, he didn't just say, "hey, you were right." He understood the concept of what I and others said. He had that light bulb go on in his mind and he could see clearly. It was the biggest step he will ever take in his life. His computer has been acting up, and I think that is a blessing in disguise. Now is the time he needs to spend the time without outside influence to know what he did was the right thing.

I'm telling you this because you're still in the addiction of Christianity. Yes, it is an addiction, and there will be withdrawal symptoms when you give it up. You're still holding onto the lie.
*************
SkippingStones: One advantage of religion is the emphasis on family and community - things that are very helpful for promoting those lessons. This is something I don't see as much in secularized America where people have become so distant and individualized.

In the end, people are people, they love and want to be loved. Religion doesn't change that, but an absence of love can.
*************
M*W: I think you're on the right track. Love and religion are not attached at the hip. In the end, Christianity won't matter. You have a lot to be thankful for -- your family and your friends. You're one of the lucky ones. What you have is more important than any religion.
 
SkippingStones: I am sorry that you seem to have a different impression of me than I would like and what I consider to be accurate. You don't know me, you don't know the people I'm talking about. Your quick demonization of them seems hardly different than the fundamentalism you are denouncing. I assume you are being slightly sarcastic in your post.
*************
M*W: It is very possible that I judged/misjudged you, but you seem to be so naive! You are surrounded by a wonderful support system, no doubt, but I can't help but panic when someone is surrounded by Christian thoughts and ideals. Those people who surround you would love you just as much if they'd never heard about Christianity. Love is love. It is not based on Christianity. That's a fluke. My aim here on sciforums is to teach. The main lesson here is to teach the truth about Christianity. I believe I have made a positive impact in this respect. The further I research pre-Christian times, the more I realize what an abomination Christianity is! I'm not a mean, hateful person -- quite the opposite -- I've very caring and nurturing. That's why I care about what people believe in.

I cannot help but refer to SouthStar. We were bitter (BITTER) enemies! Maybe I didn't have anything to do with his deconversion. Maybe I did. It doesn't matter. SouthStar fought me every step of the way, and I fought him back. Then one day, he didn't just say, "hey, you were right." He understood the concept of what I and others said. He had that light bulb go on in his mind and he could see clearly. It was the biggest step he will ever take in his life. His computer has been acting up, and I think that is a blessing in disguise. Now is the time he needs to spend the time without outside influence to know what he did was the right thing.

I'm telling you this because you're still in the addiction of Christianity. Yes, it is an addiction, and there will be withdrawal symptoms when you give it up. You're still holding onto the lie.
*************
SkippingStones: One advantage of religion is the emphasis on family and community - things that are very helpful for promoting those lessons. This is something I don't see as much in secularized America where people have become so distant and individualized.

In the end, people are people, they love and want to be loved. Religion doesn't change that, but an absence of love can.
*************
M*W: I think you're on the right track. Love and religion are not attached at the hip. In the end, Christianity won't matter. You have a lot to be thankful for -- your family and your friends. You're one of the lucky ones. What you have is more important than any religion.
 
If one looks at humanity as like a teanager who is attempting to learn how to mature into adulthood. Humanity needed to place disciplines upon himself and indeed did so. But as humanity matures those disciplines ( rules and regs) are required less and less as humanity learns to stand on it's own two feet without the cruch or religion or other dogma.

We are like little children learning to growup and it is the contention of this thread that learning to love each other is fundamerntaly what it is all about.
 
Quantum Quack
We are like little children learning to growup and it is the contention of this thread that learning to love each other is fundamerntaly what it is all about.
Click to expand...

:D Each other and all things.:D
 
Disciplines aren't just for the young. Even the most disciplined adults hold to the disciplines by which they developed. Without such disciplines, we would lax, and degenerate. Yes, mature into adulthood, but don't remove the disciplines.

I contend that we are entering adulthood as a race. I don't believe it to be true. We know much about the world, that was once unknown, but we have also lost knowledge that was once known. We simply traded one form of knowledge for another. How about our technology? Sure, it's advanced, but this doesn't mean humans are more advanced. What it actually means is that humans are more reliant, rather than more independent. How about our societal structure? It is perhaps the most dependent structure that has ever been. Our society is becoming ever more reliant on computers, for learning, entertainment, expression, economic tracking, store-merchandizing, etc... Could you imagine the state of the earth if we were suddenly to lose all electrical power (I know it's highly imporobable, but go with the thought experiment) for just one year? Could you imagine 6,000,000,000 people fighting over resources?

*shudders*

An advanced society would be much more SELF-reliant, than ELSE-reliant.
 
It is perhaps the most dependent structure that has ever been. Our society is becoming ever more reliant on computers, for learning, entertainment, expression, economic tracking, store-merchandizing, etc... Could you imagine the state of the earth if we were suddenly to lose all electrical power (I know it's highly imporobable, but go with the thought experiment) for just one year? Could you imagine 6,000,000,000 people fighting over resources?

*shudders*

An advanced society would be much more SELF-reliant, than ELSE-reliant
Click to expand...
BTAS I think this would make an excellent thread discussion, the rliance on technology to feed and provide for the masses.........hmmmmm...I would subscribe to the thread and I am sure others would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top