|
| Thread: Love or sexual organ? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted January 17, 2019 11:33 AM |
|
|
Obviously, the kind of love you feel for your “lover” isnt supposed to be platonic and involves eros. One can only assume “the normal state of things before Church messed things up” would be “lovers not feeling sexual desire for each other” if one, deliberately or not, demonizes sexuality, and significantly female sexuality. But this whole “theory” is messed up anyway, the Church, of course, didnt modify definiton of love according to women and there is nothing specific to women about associating desire with love. (Although, maybe it can look that way if you build a whole social system based on supressing their sexuality.) Agape, on the other hand, is not exactly “the kind of love you feel for your family or lover” which is a problematic categorization to begin with, you dont love your lover like you love your aunty. No, Agape is platonic indeed because it is the kind of love that is highly idealistic (the very notion of PLATONic love is based on that, not earthly, but belonging to the realm of ideals), so it is the kind of love a monk feels for Christ or Mevlana (Rumi) feels for Allah or a philosopher feels for higher truth etc. Just like Abrahamic theology, Ancient Greeks also thought women were unfit for such higher thinking, so they concluded that the love a man feels FOR a woman was only eros, the higher form of love was something for men to share. Ironically, that is why Ancient Greek culture is a homo-erotic culture, because they believed women could only attract eros.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
AnkVaati
Famous Hero
Nighonese National Front
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 03:55 PM |
|
|
The Church exists to destroy the west fulfil the entity known as Jehova's demonic desire of being worshipped and slaughtering 'saving' everyone who doesn't do that yet.
As for the topic lol.... love is great but sex is just way too nice, sorry... 
____________
Ank's Old School (kinda) H8 proposal <- best thing evvah, trust me
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 04:08 PM |
|
|
It's not the Church the problem. Christianity and thus the Church in the beginning of its spread was very idealistic. The main issue lies with the nature of men, who are full of contradictions and hard to define. This is why an essentialist approach is always vowed to fail when you analyse, basically, everything.
For example I'm interesting in the fact that you often wear a cross necklace, but oppose the Church as an institution.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 04:52 PM |
|
|
Sex + love = mindblown.
____________
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 04:59 PM |
|
|
AlHazin said:
For example I'm interesting in the fact that you often wear a cross necklace, but oppose the Church as an institution.
Why? The sacrifice of Christ has nothing to do with organized religion.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 06:33 PM |
|
|
Galaad said:
Sex + love = mindblown.
Exactly.
@Elvin: Can you be a Christian and oppose the Church? Looks a bit like a dichotomy to me.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 06:47 PM |
|
|
By that logic the Mayans were wiped out in the name of Christ. A God's representatives can be as pure or as rotten as humanly possible. Or as far from the God they supposedly serve as nobody else.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
NoobX
Undefeatable Hero
Now, this is a paradox...
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 06:53 PM |
|
Edited by NoobX at 18:53, 17 Jan 2019.
|
There was no Christian Church when Jesus was preaching, but he had followers. Those who had the chance to listen to Jesus and followed his teachings were actually the true Christians. When Christianity was established as a state religion in the Roman Empire, the dogma was actually agreed upon by the people who had no contact with Jesus, who used the Bible and not Christ's word as a guideline; too bad they didn't have voice recorders back then, it would've helped a lot. Also, let's not forget to factor in the empire's influence on Christianity - it's goal was to find a better way to pacify the people, which this new religion provided. The Church is, in my opinion, a wicked organization, an institution which has strayed away from the original path Jesus guided the people on.
____________
Ghost said:
Door knob resembles anus tap.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 07:33 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:37, 17 Jan 2019.
|
noobx said:
the dogma was actually agreed upon by the people who had no contact with Jesus, who used decided upon the official edition of the Bible and not Christ's word as a guideline
FTFY.
So, whether “the sacrifice” had nothing to do with organized religion or if it was part of their edition of the story is debatable. It is quite probable the Romans crucified a public preacher to end some local dispute among the Jewish community, such penalty was not uncommon. It is not very likely things went down as epical as they are told in the Bible though.
And of course you can be a Christian and oppose the Church, there isnt even one official Church. Because Christians opposing the Church establish their own church afterwards. There is even one sect of Christianity, Quakerism, which directly denies all institutional authority including the Scripture itself.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
NoobX
Undefeatable Hero
Now, this is a paradox...
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 07:50 PM |
|
|
Yeah, yeah, my point was that even if Christ actually lived and preached, his teachings would've been altered by the time the Nicean council was held.
____________
Ghost said:
Door knob resembles anus tap.
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 08:08 PM |
|
|
Elvin said:
By that logic the Mayans were wiped out in the name of Christ. A God's representatives can be as pure or as rotten as humanly possible. Or as far from the God they supposedly serve as nobody else.
Precisely, we get back to men and their flawed conceptions.
That said, keep your agape far from your eros.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
tSar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 08:12 PM |
|
|
Galatea said:
So Eros and Agape are supposed to be separated. Now I am confuse whom to believe! The greeks, the church or myself! 
Think of it like this, he doesn't mean love and sexual desire are mutually exclusive, but they don't necessarily require one another.
So say you lost your sex organ for one reason or the other, you are still very capable of love, and your love does not hinge on that sexual desire, i.e you can have both, but they are seperate. That's the gist of what I took from it.
And artu hit the nail on the head with this (the whole thing imho, but this segment I can attest to):
Quote:
Ancient Greeks also thought women were unfit for such higher thinking, so they concluded that the love a man feels FOR a woman was only eros, the higher form of love was something for men to share. Ironically, that is why Ancient Greek culture is a homo-erotic culture, because they believed women could only attract eros.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 08:14 PM |
|
|
Yep pretty much.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 09:02 PM |
|
|
|
Yeah two thinks love and one thinks genitalia. Other thinks about religion. Ok then do u know what the bawdry means? It means adultery. So u need a GF/BF or wife/husband or cohabitation. What Galaad thinks love and sex. The main thing is one meat. It means also sex up. Now u can continue in chat..
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 10:13 PM |
|
|
tSar-Ivor said:
he doesn't mean love and sexual desire are mutually exclusive
I totally do. But just for men.
Masters of psychology throughout history have come to the same conclusion about differences in the approach of sexuality by the two sexes.
It is a fact that women mix love and sex when men do not. There are always exceptions, but you don't build rules on exceptions, you build them on norms. A woman generally incorporates love into sexuality and has a better sexual experience when she does it with a man she loves rather than with a man she simply finds physically attractive. Actually I think there are even brain analysis treating about the zones in the brain that are stimulated during a sexual intercourse, stating that women have the "love" zone in the brain activated during it.
About men, Agape is a single and unique concept, and there is no differenciation between the love you feel for your mother and the one you feel for your female lover.
And this is preciseky the problem, if you feel love for a woman, psychologically, you're unable to "be a man" when you're dealing with her. Psychologically speaking, you can't have a boner for her.
This is emphasized in some film scenes, you have that man who meets let's say, a diva singer or a journalist interviewing his favourite female cinema star. In those configurations, the man is admirative in front of that woman, and by admiring a woman a man sacralises her, and thus can't get himself to "sully" her, because yes there's a form of "defiling" a woman when you get a sexual intercourse with her. This is why the expression "**** you" is an insult and not a mark of respect between people. And that's true for all cultures.
The first woman a man usually sacralises is his mother. He builds his whole masculine psyche on that base. Meaning that when a man deals with his mother there's that sacralising relationship with her, that gets his psyche to inhibit any kind of sexual behaviour or response. When you love a woman, aka when you're in love and admirative of her, you build the same pattern and that creates a sexual inhibition toward her.
And when that psychologic mechanic is engaged, you cease to be a man for a given moment. This is why when you deal with your mother, you don't show virility and remain in a pattern of the little boy dealing with him loving mum. Developping such a relashionship with a woman who is your lover is precisely what creates issues.
This natural process is what made Greeks and men throughout the world make a good difference between Agape and Eros. Women don't have the same psychological building and thus experience sexuality differently. I said Greek to ring better in your western heads, but all patriarchal societies thought the same.
The Church did initiate a love revolution, monogamy is a proof at some point it sided with women.
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 10:38 PM |
|
|
AlHazin said:
About men, Agape is a single and unique concept, and there is no differenciation between the love you feel for your mother and the one you feel for your female lover.
And this is preciseky the problem, if you feel love for a woman, psychologically, you're unable to "be a man" when you're dealing with her. Psychologically speaking, you can't have a boner for her.
This is emphasized in some film scenes, you have that man who meets let's say, a diva singer or a journalist interviewing his favourite female cinema star. In those configurations, the man is admirative in front of that woman, and by admiring a woman a man sacralises her, and thus can't get himself to "sully" her, because yes there's a form of "defiling" a woman when you get a sexual intercourse with her. This is why the expression "**** you" is an insult and not a mark of respect between people. And that's true for all cultures.
The first woman a man usually sacralises is his mother. He builds his whole masculine psyche on that base. Meaning that when a man deals with his mother there's that sacralising relationship with her, that gets his psyche to inhibit any kind of sexual behaviour or response. When you love a woman, aka when you're in love and admirative of her, you build the same pattern and that creates a sexual inhibition toward her.
And when that psychologic mechanic is engaged, you cease to be a man for a given moment. This is why when you deal with your mother, you don't show virility and remain in a pattern of the little boy dealing with him loving mum. Developping such a relashionship with a woman who is your lover is precisely what creates issues.
Umm, no?
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 17, 2019 11:17 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:26, 17 Jan 2019.
|
“Masters of psychology throughout history” claimed no mindless non-sense. It is quite a young science anyway and if that’s a Freud reference, Freud claimed the exact opposite, he claimed that a man’s love even for his mother was sexual deep down at its roots and caused Oedipus Complex, maybe you should actually read the tragedy, the guy marries his own mother. It’s about guilt, not asexuality.
Claiming love and sex is mutually exclusive for men is so utterly absurd, that’s why I said it can only come from demonizing sexuality in the first place. And I knew it would come to this. Only if sex turns into a taboo on such a dangerously unhealthy level, one can finally make this final jump and propose it is the norm for men to completely seperate them. It’s not the norm for men, it is the norm for men who live under environments where sexuality is supressed. We have peasants from villages like that here, they say “they love a girl so much they cant “of course” think of her that way, like she’s a DIRTY girl.” All they have in common is very outdated social values and puritan religiousity. The whole notion that the girl becomes dirty if she is the object of desire is the pathethic part. Needless to say, men who are over such taboos, dont feel the desperate, hopeless need to dissect love and sex in such a delusional and psychologically dangerous fashion.
But of course, since by saying “men and his flawed conception” what you actually mean is “so we should turn to God’s law,” ignoring the fact that, suggesting any word is God’s word is also some men’s conception, and a conception which is flawed even more because you are indoctrinated to believe it is not men’s conception, instead eternally irrefetuble truth, you are not even capable of being aware of how flawed it can be, you will find a way to make yourself believe love and sex are seperate for men because such thinking serves better to preserve the outdated taboos which you are now chained to cherish.
Oh, and the other side of the argument is also false, once they are not shunned for it, women can also want sex just for sex, or to be more precise, they can also be vocal about such occasions.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
AnkVaati
Famous Hero
Nighonese National Front
|
|
posted January 18, 2019 12:42 AM |
|
Edited by AnkVaati at 00:50, 18 Jan 2019.
|
Jesus was a relatively nice guy who taught things that are in line with the Dharma (the guru Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya even refers to him as a "Dharma Master") and got killed for opposing the entity known as Jehova. Interestingly, if we are to believe the bible, when an entity in the desert came and offered him power and riches, he identified it as a demon. Later Paul came and took up the offer and played a major part in establishing the Church. Same kind of offer as Abraham, Moses and later Muhammed took up.
The Abrahamic world-view is by itself problematic, no matter how "nice" some of its followers may be. You have a universal tyrant who is separated from creation and its laws (nature) and does with it as he pleases. And the only thing you can do to save others from an eternity of suffering from him is by having them worship him. This is the basis for all kinds of later totalitarian ideologies (plus a lot of other stuff mainly relating to antropocentrism). Faithful Christians biblically correctly teach not only child abuse but to beat them until they no longer have a will of their own (because independent thinking is a revolt against God). I'd argue this is a good argument for taking children from fundie christian sects. In fact it could even be a good argument for criminalizing abrahamic missionary activities entirely. -.-
For me this spirit may well exist in some shape... but "he" is evil and an enslaver of my people. Who's followers made sure much of our cultural and spiritual heritage is gone for good.  Christians are still walking around being afraid of the tyrant for no good reason. This applies to sex as well ofc. During biblical times people were married about the time when they got those sexual desires. And it wasn't about love at all lol. If you view the bible in its proper context as an ethno-nationalist manual, then it kinda makes sense. Making young people in this day and age fear their own natural needs.. does not. 
Have to wish China and India the blessing of the gods and the best of luck in chasing away the enslaver.. and so, saving their ancient civilizations. <3
____________
Ank's Old School (kinda) H8 proposal <- best thing evvah, trust me
|
|
AlHazin
Promising
Supreme Hero
النور
|
|
posted January 18, 2019 04:55 PM |
|
|
AnkVaati said:
During biblical times people were married about the time when they got those sexual desires. And it wasn't about love at all lol.
That was the case before those times.
What I am also trying to point out is there is not only 'one' given biblical time, and at the dawn of Christianity like Noob or you say the Church defended more ideologies and was not yet into materialistic mechanisms. They went against what we could call the 'natural' conception of male and female relationships by promoting marriage and giving a new definition to it. When you look at it, it is going the way of feminism when you forbid polygamy and force men to only mate with one woman, highly discouraging divorce... etc. When just before that dawn of Christianity, men had way more freedom with women. In a sense, the early Church willingly or not stood by women and not men. It's a little afterwards when it faced the failure of this ideology that adjustments for men were made, like remaining married but being forgiven for having regular mistresses.
@Elvin: How about yes?
____________
Nothing of value disappears from this world, it will reappear in some shape or form ^^ - Elvin
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 18, 2019 05:29 PM |
|
Edited by Elvin at 17:30, 18 Jan 2019.
|
Not even. Is that how people think over there?
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
| |
|
|
