|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 19, 2010 09:32 PM |
|
|
Let's be fair here. This is the point I have to blow into Mytical's horn and say that it is NOT religion that says anything about masturbation, but PEOPLE.
The Bible does mention masturbation just once, the story of Onan. However, god idn't displeased with Onan because he masturbates; he's displeased because he doesn't obey: he's supposed to make his sister-in-law pregnant after his brother died, and he doesn't want that, which is why he masturbates.
Everything else is interpretation, and that interpretation is done by humans.
The best shot is Jesus's statement that you betray your wife already when doing it only in your thoughts. Masturbation would therefore be adultry when a person did it while betraying wife or husband with someone else in their thoughts while doing it.
Still, in this case ADULTRY would be the sin, not masturbation.
Another thing is of course that most religions didn't have anything against sex at all. Maybe that's the reason why so many don't exist anymore...
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2010 10:13 PM |
|
|
JJ: 
Cor: So, they said "do not masturbate"... and people obeyed... ok.
But where's the power in that? 
I mean, what's the profit, other than people not masturbating for religious reasons?
I fail to see the control part - other than creating some sort of moral barrier for a natural thing, I see no other effects at all. :E If that would gave the "religious representatives" some sort of rule over the people who obey it... fine... but it gives nothing. I think that calling it control is an exaggeration. I'd agree on that "you will burn in hell" control method, but this... nah. No benefit. Well.. unless you smell an elaborate scheme like "Let's prohibit something natural, tell people it's a sin, and since it's natural, they will do it anyway, feel bad about it and come to us = more people in church = ??? = profit... but that's... well... you know 
Which brings me to my original question: why? Why do those people bother? Skipping the Bible and other religious books aside (organized religions don't actually follow every word of their "holy books", trying to rely on interpretations of key part instead.. maybe except muslim extremism or such), I have no idea why organizations such as the church or its muslim equivalent would actually bother with telling people that touching that part of body in that way or putting it in some place is EVIL. It's so pointless and stupid...
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 12:43 AM |
|
|
What if somebody anally fingers themselves while fantasizing about Jessica Alba, while fantasizing that Jessica Alba is their wife? And then also fantasizing that other women involved in the fantasy are also their wives, but only after Jessica Alba dies, and then the 3rd one only after the 2nd one dies, but you're in a time warp, so they happen to all be there at once?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 02:35 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 02:41, 20 Oct 2010.
|
were we talking about church or capitalism? 
Quote:
This makes for an interesting and very important moral problem:
Say, you and your wife are separated for some reason. Business travel, visiting the in-laws alone, whatever.
What if you masturbate, thinking of your wife? (Or of your husband - we don't want to be sexist here)
who says it is a moral problem? 
it's a problem that have been created by centuries of stupid beliefs and traditions, but I don't think it's fundamentaly a problem.
it is usually said, you shouldn't "steal" the partner of someone else, because it will cause jealousy. it's the same thing as just "you shouldn't steal". if we didn't consider our partners as our property, there would be no problem.
about masturbation, might it be the fact, that for a short while, psychologically, you do not belong to your partner anymore, but to some fantasm?, in that case, just thinking about it should be condemned (but that's what religions encourages you to do, right? condemning desires. which is stupid again, wanting to condemn desires IS a desire )
the bible condemn avidity but encourages marriage, while the marriage is really just a way to possess someone, that makes no sense. you buy a car so that you are the only one who can drive it. you marry a girl, so that you are the only one who can have sex with her.
I also think religions have a strong influence on how severely many people condemn sex crimes. imagine you just touch the sex of a mature girl without her consent (just with your hand). for that simple act, you may draw more hatred than if you had beaten her with a baseball bat. it happened some months ago in Marseille I think. many people were requiring prison sentences of several years.
what's even more incredible is when infidelity is punished of death. and when you have the right to kill your infidel partner. so being avid to the point to kill is right.
Quote:
What if somebody anally fingers themselves while fantasizing about Jessica Alba, while fantasizing that Jessica Alba is their wife? And then also fantasizing that other women involved in the fantasy are also their wives, but only after Jessica Alba dies, and then the 3rd one only after the 2nd one dies, but you're in a time warp, so they happen to all be there at once?
time paradox. Hitler comes back and kill all dinosaurs except T-rex because they are the superior race. then god creates the universe.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 08:18 AM |
|
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 09:46 AM |
|
|
didn't winston churchill say "the next great fascist movement will appear under the guise of anti-fascism"?
anyway, my general views of the Tea-party is this. If they get into power, within Ten years, we will hear of the mexican president imposing harsher boarder restrictions to stop americans hopping the fence.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 10:19 AM |
|
|
It looks like the Tea Party is financed largely by the Kochs, owners of Koch Indutries, the second largest private owned corp in the US...
I suppose the movement will gain in momentum, since this seems to be the chance for all those who are dissatisfied with the Republicans to find a new platform. At this stage, though, they are drawing their potential from the Republicans, mostly, not from the Democrats, which will make sure that the DEMOCRATS will cement their position, because the opposition is splitting.
This could be stopped only, if the Republicans would move away further from the Tea Party to the Democrats, trying to draw Democrats that disagree with the current course as being too "progressive" - which might take some time, but could very well happen.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 20, 2010 03:46 PM |
|
|
@DF
First, I think you take my meaning too literally. I don't think the leaders of the Catholic Church woke up one morning and said, "Hey, I know how we can control people!" As I stated earlier, religious prohibitions against "unusual" or "excessive" sexual practices (including adultury, prostitution, sodomy, whatever) probably originated for reasons that were similar to religious dietary laws. As the Church developed into a political institution, these laws were expanded and became a potent source of power and wealth for the Church.
Second, perhaps an analogy will help. Everybody eats, right? So. Let's say that I started a religion and I have millions of followers. Now my religion has a lot of rules about what you can eat and what you cannot eat, when you can eat and with whom you can eat. God (used here generically) has stated that you are only allowed to eat beans, carrots and chicken, and moreover you're only allowed to eat after the sun sets and only with your spouse. Oh, and you can only eat to maintain your health. You certainly cannot eat for pleasure. In fact, you're not even allowed to THINK about good tasting food. That would be sinful and you'll go to hell for it.
Clearly, not everyone is going to follow these rules. People like to eat. When they see or smell cooking cow, they lust after it. They want to have it. A lot of people will be too weak to only eat beans and carrots and chicken. They crave beef and lamb, peanut butter, chocolate. And they might occasionally snack during the day. And they might eat alone or with their friends. I suppose you see the parallels between food and sex here. Really, the biochemistry is not so different.
Anyway, my church has become very wealthy and powerful because I am able to use guilt and the threat of damnation as leverage over my followers. They know that their eating habits are sinful, and so they come to me, every week, and ask me to intercede with God on their behalf. They beg me to forgive them for their weakness and their inability to follow their rules. They know they should have eaten hamburgers in the middle of the day. They know they shouldn't have eaten potato chips with their friends while watching the football game. They knew it and they did it anyway, because they are slaves to their hormones.
And of course I tell them that God will forgive them if they say this prayer, and that prayer, and if they come back to my Church every week, and give money. And of course to be forgiven they have to give a donation. And thus the mere eating of potato chips gives me great power over people, because I use it to make them come back to my Church and give money and obedience. And not only this, but I wield power over kings and presidents, for they eat too. And when they have big state dinners, they ask for my blessing and for my permission to have beef instead of chicken, and if I say no and they do it anyway, I excommunicate them and tell them that God no longer loves their nation and that everyone in that nation will be going to hell. And if that nation doesn't pay me huge amounts of money in penance, it will stay excommunicated. And that nation's people become afraid and they rush to my Churches to pray that their leader will change his ways, or they support rival leaders who will overthrow the heathens and pay the tithes that I require.
In this way I wield huge amounts of political power, and amass huge sums of money, all based on nothing more than an exploitation of eating potato chips and other things that I deem sinful.
Please note that it's not just about the physical act of eating potato chips, or sleeping with another man's life, or spanking one's monkey. It's about psychology. It's about guilt.
Think about it: why does our society have such a hangup on sex but not so much of a hangup on violence? Simple, because sex is easier to exploit, because everyone does it. Everyone feels that urge. Not everybody wants to kill their neighbors with an ice pick. But just about everyone thinks illicit thoughts when their neighbor is beautiful. People can't help it. It's in their DNA.
The scariest power isn't the ability to punish people for what they do. It's the ability to punish people for what they think. Put it this way. If a guy sees a hot girl, lusts after her because of eons of evolutionary conditioning, then touches his ding-dong while fantasizing over what he wishes he could do with her, and you can get him to come to your building and pay you a lot of money to intercede with some being that he has no objective proof even exists so that he won't go to some mythical fiery place after he's dead just because did this thing that hurt nobody - and you can gain such total control over MILLIONS of people, even whole nations - THAT is power my friend.
The long and short of it is that people fear what they don't know. The greatest unknown is what happens after death. So you concoct a great story about some horrible place where bad people go when they die, and you concoct fifty thousand rules, the breaking of which will land you there, and you make sure that many of these rules are impossible NOT to break, and you set yourself up as the only person "bad people" can go to in order to avoid this place. Hell, people smart enough to come up with such a great system of exploitation and maintain it for two thousand years deserve to be in charge. 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 10:06 AM |
|
|
Cor: thanks for lengthy example, but it's more or less what I've said above
Quote:
unless you smell an elaborate scheme like "Let's prohibit something natural, tell people it's a sin, and since it's natural, they will do it anyway, feel bad about it and come to us = more people in church = ??? = profit...
What I wanted to point out here though that it's not control per se...
It's more of an advertisement, not control. "Hey, you'll burn in hell for that! Come give us money and you won't".
By control, I understand something else, like telling people to do something - say, kill someone - with them obeying. Not drawing them to your institution because you sneakily claim that you're the only one that can lift the curse of a sin that you've invented yourself.
More or less, it's semantics play though.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 10:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
By control, I understand something else, like telling people to do something - say, kill someone - with them obeying.
Well, that was done before wasn't it? "They are occupying the land which god has given us", "they are spitting in the face of god with their sinful rituals" etc.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 03:28 PM |
|
|
|
I think that when you hold such power that you can make nations do what you want, that's a form of control, is it not?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 06:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, that was done before wasn't it? "They are occupying the land which god has given us", "they are spitting in the face of god with their sinful rituals" etc.
yeah but how does "saying that premarital sex/masturbation is evil" compare to this?
Quote:
I think that when you hold such power that you can make nations do what you want, that's a form of control, is it not?
To be honest, not really. Even at the times Catholic Church, the biggest religious power ever, ruled over Europe, I can't really imagine that they benefited much in terms of control by prohibiting sexual activity. Other than drawing "sinners" to their churches, I see little potential for it in terms of adding "control points". It certainly is profitable with all those indulgence-for-money activity that was going on then...
either way... semantics. Whether you call it control or advertisement, and whether it was profitable in the past, it is no longer. What's worse for them, it actually steers people away from religion - because the respect towards institutions such as catholic church is low and constantly diminishing. Wouldn't it be a good thing now to shift the teachings? After all, it's not something that was bible-based, after all. much as celibacy, it was added later. If it was added, why can't it be taken away? Now that the churches need it not to lose any sympathy they may have among youth. Catholic church should really learn to abolish the rules they set in middle-ages - times have changed and they still think they can rule the world with trivial methods. Duh.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 06:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To be honest, not really. Even at the times Catholic Church, the biggest religious power ever, ruled over Europe, I can't really imagine that they benefited much in terms of control by prohibiting sexual activity.
What about Henry the VIII, King of England? The Church controlled who you could marry, who you could have sex with, and what offspring were considered legit and which ones weren't.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 10:09 PM |
|
|
and islam?
we hear all the time about girls who get sentenced to death without a trial because people think they might have been infidel.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 10:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
To be honest, not really. Even at the times Catholic Church, the biggest religious power ever, ruled over Europe, I can't really imagine that they benefited much in terms of control by prohibiting sexual activity.
What about Henry the VIII, King of England? The Church controlled who you could marry, who you could have sex with, and what offspring were considered legit and which ones weren't.
And yet, usually when threatened with military action, the Catholic Church backed down.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 10:25 PM |
|
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 10:33 PM |
|
|
Dissolution of Knights Templar.
The Pope originally was backing the Knights but changed his mind when the French king arrived with a sizeable military force.
____________
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 11:11 PM |
|
|
|
and if he had been offered a huge amount of gold to do it?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2010 11:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What about Henry the VIII, King of England? The Church controlled who you could marry, who you could have sex with, and what offspring were considered legit and which ones weren't.
Lame control, I'd say, seeing that he cast all of that aside and formed his own variation of religion
You have a point of course, but that's monarchy. The realm of nation-leaders and politics is fascinating, yet complicated. It's too simple to say catholic church controlled the monarchs.. I'd say none of them controlled anything. It was a game between them and catholic church was one of the players.
For simple people however, this is sort of different, and about them I'm speaking,because ultimately religion is aimed at the masses who tend to be "average civilians", not monarchs and rulers.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 22, 2010 09:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Dissolution of Knights Templar.
The Pope originally was backing the Knights but changed his mind when the French king arrived with a sizeable military force.
You said USUALLY the backed off, which would mean most of the time. However, they usually did NOT baack off, but instead fought it out, finding enough allies.
Now, you have to keep in mind, that if religion plays a starring role in keeping the common people in line, the ruling forces CANNOT usually act openly against those - the common people would have too much of a problem with that.
Henry the VIII. did have to found his own Church to get his way.
That's the point to consider. Church and nobility ALWAYS GENERALLY worked hand in hand. Basically there is no difference in the worldliness of the representatives of both. Pope or Emperor, it doesn't matter.
However, the pope and his people helped EVERYONE keeping things in line, so if one of the worldly powers would disagree with that force, they couldn't just destroy the Church - the others would have been massively "unhappy". It would take something to put there instead: an Anti-Pope; a new interpretation of thinsg (30-years-war) or a very own church (England)
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
