Do you believe in theological conclusions?

[osho]

In fact I believe all our theological inferences are baseless thoughts. Man is totally an animal notwithstanding all our presumptions. I like somebody, the physical / sexual part of her and out of nowhere I feel overly conscious of something unreal, immaterial and I tend to withdraw from pursuing my instinctive desires' dreams. Something comes in the way when I leap up to kiss a beautiful woman and it is called adultery.

Why such man-made dogmas intervene?

Why we stick to some religious or theological principles?

[cacian]

Hi osho. I am not sure what you mean by theological conclusions.
Can you explain what you mean by 'something unreal'. I understand adultery to be when a married woman or man goes off with another person other then the wife husband.
How does that apply to you?

[Ecurb]

Theology is the science or philosophy of religion. In the case of Christianity, where theological conclusions are based on inferences from the bible, the conclusions are far from "baseless". Although (of course) many of us may discredit or disbelieve in the premises on which the conclusions are based, at least there IS a set of premises from which to reason.

The extent to which we "should" base moral reasoning on such premises is debatable (it is certainly reasonable to do so for many reasons, not all of which involve the literal truth of the book). But I (I'm an atheist) enjoy theological reasoning because it has a logical rigor that more secular philosophy often lacks. We no longer believe Euclidean geometry accurately describes the physical universe, but we still study it because of the elegance and rigor of the logical inferences it contains.

[Gladys]

Take the Biblical dictums God is love and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Is it so unreasonable to believe in these? There are worse world-views in circulation than these two, and worse sources of wisdom.

[osho]

Theological inferences delimit human desires and we become wingless in our imaginations when we are interfered by too many dos and don'ts. Let life take its own course, find its own track not the footprints left by others. Following biblical or any other religious dogmas is to narrow down your horizons to someone else's domains of thoughts. Let disconnect our own world to delimiting vagaries. Let us take our own course and leave our own footprints. Let us be original in thinking, in imagining and finding our own distinct path in life

[Gladys]

Theological inferences delimit human desires...

Why single out the theological? The same could be said of inferences influenced by our psychological, social, cultural, political and linguistic environment.

[osho]

Why single out the theological? The same could be said of inferences influenced by our psychological, social, cultural, political and linguistic environment.

I second your idea, but now my argument is limited to theological bogus

[Paulclem]

In fact I believe all our theological inferences are baseless thoughts. Man is totally an animal notwithstanding all our presumptions. I like somebody, the physical / sexual part of her and out of nowhere I feel overly conscious of something unreal, immaterial and I tend to withdraw from pursuing my instinctive desires' dreams. Something comes in the way when I leap up to kiss a beautiful woman and it is called adultery.

Why such man-made dogmas intervene?

Why we stick to some religious or theological principles?

It sounds as though you are trying to justify adultery.

[YesNo]

In fact I believe all our theological inferences are baseless thoughts. Man is totally an animal notwithstanding all our presumptions. I like somebody, the physical / sexual part of her and out of nowhere I feel overly conscious of something unreal, immaterial and I tend to withdraw from pursuing my instinctive desires' dreams. Something comes in the way when I leap up to kiss a beautiful woman and it is called adultery.

Why such man-made dogmas intervene?

Why we stick to some religious or theological principles?

I think it has more to do with the biology of social memory than with theology since most people can't agree on theology but they have more consistent views on what constitutes adultery.

There would be no problem with you kissing a beautiful girl or going further with her if you didn't remember who she was the next day and only remembered the pleasure of kissing. Your wife wouldn't have any problems with kissing other men either. Also that beautiful girl would not remember that it was you who kissed her only that she enjoyed being kissed by someone.

[osho]

I think it has more to do with the biology of social memory than with theology since most people can't agree on theology but they have more consistent views on what constitutes adultery.

There would be no problem with you kissing a beautiful girl or going further with her if you didn't remember who she was the next day and only remembered the pleasure of kissing. Your wife wouldn't have any problems with kissing other men either. Also that beautiful girl would not remember that it was you who kissed her only that she enjoyed being kissed by someone.


Mind-boggling thought!!! I am stirred up. This is our memory that comes in the way or else anything could be possible and our life would have been much more enjoyable if the dos and dont's would be out of our way

[cacian]

I think it has more to do with the biology of social memory than with theology since most people can't agree on theology but they have more consistent views on what constitutes adultery.

There would be no problem with you kissing a beautiful girl or going further with her if you didn't remember who she was the next day and only remembered the pleasure of kissing. Your wife wouldn't have any problems with kissing other men either. Also that beautiful girl would not remember that it was you who kissed her only that she enjoyed being kissed by someone.

YesNo I am intrigued by your answer. Remembering is more important then remembering who the person was? I am taken by this. I never thought about it this way. The mind is fascinating. I guess we are all different. I usually tend to remember the face more haha. So I venture not out to these fields when with someone I call intimate.


Sorry do not mean to interrupt the thread.
YesNo your signature is interesting. Never heard of Kierkegaard. How do you mean you do not have a direct source? You mean you do not know in which context this was said?

[YesNo]

Mind-boggling thought!!! I am stirred up. This is our memory that comes in the way or else anything could be possible and our life would have been much more enjoyable if the dos and dont's would be out of our way

The idea came from The Chemistry Between Us: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1591845130 If one couples the pleasures of sexual activity with social memory, one gets social monogamy which is a tendency to bond and be faithful although not a requirement to do so. They use studies comparing prairie voles (a socially monogamous species) with meadow voles (a similar but not monogamous species) to come to these conclusions.

It seems to me that there is more enjoyment with social memory than without as well as more heartache. Theology would extend this bonding to a deity. The duty, or dharma, toward the spouse would reinforce the faithfulness making unfaithfulness to a spouse unfaithfulness to the deity.

[YesNo]

YesNo I am intrigued by your answer. Remembering is more important then remembering who the person was? I am taken by this. I never thought about it this way. The mind is fascinating. I guess we are all different. I usually tend to remember the face more haha. So I venture not out to these fields when with someone I call intimate.

I've heard that females tend to like faces more than males. That's why girls like dolls and boys like trucks. In that survey book I mentioned previously, the authors claim this is an "organization" of the brain, done prior to birth, rather than culturally determined.



Sorry do not mean to interrupt the thread.
YesNo your signature is interesting. Never heard of Kierkegaard. How do you mean you do not have a direct source? You mean you do not know in which context this was said?

I know little about Kierkegaard except that he was a philosopher living perhaps in the 19th century, but I'm not sure about that either. Someone quoted this, and I can't even remember where that was. So I know nothing more about Kierkegaard at this moment except for that quote. I should probably find something else for my signature.

[osho]

This is an intricate topic and maybe we are yet to be resourceful. I am interested in the idea you have put forth. The chemistry of it is really interesting. It is the memory than keeps us aware of things or else acts of sex outside the matrimonial tie will not create a problem the way things happen with animals.

[YesNo]

Some animals such as the prairie vole, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_vole, are socially monogamous like we are. I understand that most species are not. There wouldn't be much need for a matrimonial tie without social memory come to think of it.

[cacian]

I've heard that females tend to like faces more than males. That's why girls like dolls and boys like trucks. In that survey book I mentioned previously, the authors claim this is an "organization" of the brain, done prior to birth, rather than culturally determined.

Well I would have thought that girls like dolls because it reminds them of them. Boys of course could not play with dolls because they look nothing like them/like boys.
The other things is that boys are much more independent in their plays and in general and so do not always need company to play with toys and so cars and trucks are practical.
Girls however enjoy dolls because they feel they are in a company hence the dolls. Dolls take up the place of another girl/company to play with.
Children both boys and girls would prefer to play with other children around them and in the absence of such then girls chose what remind them of them and boys what gives them/reinforces that independence. Girls are more dependent then boys generally because of their physiological make up.



I know little about Kierkegaard except that he was a philosopher living perhaps in the 19th century, but I'm not sure about that either. Someone quoted this, and I can't even remember where that was. So I know nothing more about Kierkegaard at this moment except for that quote. I should probably find something else for my signature.
Sounds interesting. Will probably google him :)

[cacian]

Some animals such as the prairie vole, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_vole, are socially monogamous like we are. I understand that most species are not. There wouldn't be much need for a matrimonial tie without social memory come to think of it.

Animals fend for survival and understand that monogamy is the only way. So the more monogamy and the more chances of them to stay alive and procreate. It is a chain of survival.
It is also territorial. Mixing with one another would accentuate their extinction.

[YesNo]

Monogamy seems to enhance individual survival while non-monogamy is mainly concerned about species survival. Actually, I don't know if that is true or not, but it seems to make sense. Monogamy seems to lead to protecting one's territory and mate and greater care for the young.

Although I liked the ideas presented in The Chemistry Between Us, they did seem a bit reductionistic.

[cacian]

Monogamy seems to enhance individual survival while non-monogamy is mainly concerned about species survival. Actually, I don't know if that is true or not, but it seems to make sense. Monogamy seems to lead to protecting one's territory and mate and greater care for the young.

Although I liked the ideas presented in The Chemistry Between Us, they did seem a bit reductionistic.

The issue with animals is that monogamy guarantees their survival. If an animal were to sway with others and procreate here and there and everywhere then the gene is bound to clash and what comes around goes around which mean animals of the same genes are not able to mate anymore hence their extinction. That is the rule of nature and the rule of procreation and survival. The same happens with humans. A backlash of the same gene will stop procreating hence eliminating the gene itself. Hence infertility which explains it.

[Gladys]

So I know nothing more about Kierkegaard at this moment except for that quote. I should probably find something else for my signature.

Perhaps, you might adopt another of the theological utterances of this 19th century, Danish pastor? If you can bring yourself to believe it.



Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.

Prayer does not change God, but it changes him who prays.

At the bottom of enmity between strangers lies indifference.

Purity of heart is to will one thing.

Love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself.

That is the road we all have to take - over the Bridge of Sighs into eternity.

It belongs to the imperfection of everything human that man can only attain his desire by passing through its opposite.

I see it all perfectly there are two possible situations - one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it - you will regret both.

The difference between a man who faces death for the sake of an idea and an imitator who goes in search of martyrdom is that the former expresses his idea most fully in death while the latter really enjoys the bitterness of failure.

Job endured everything until his friends came to comfort him, then he grew impatient.

Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.

There is nothing with which every man is so afraid as getting to know how enormously much he is capable of doing and becoming.

Every truth is true only up to a point. Beyond that, by way of counter-point, it becomes untruth.

[osho]

Are animals monogamist or polygamist. I cannot conceive this. Why labeling, why making a comparison? Animals eat, drink, adulate whenever urges spring up. Why we look at animal behaviors judgmentally through our limited lenses. Let us do away with making decisions out of theological inferences

[ftil]

This thread reminds me about a thread on another forum –Sexual Communism.
Most members were so critical to that idea……I guess it is another programming we are exposed to. :D

I have even seen photos of naked woman and a man in a sexual context. Nothing new….. except the fact that they were siblings. What next? Pedophilia? I have read that some psychiatrists proposed replacing pedophile with” minor attracted men.” Seeing human as an animal can help to push new programming. :yikes:

[YesNo]

Perhaps, you might adopt another of the theological utterances of this 19th century, Danish pastor? If you can bring yourself to believe it.


Thanks for quotes by Kierkegaard. Most of them made sense.

I think I like this one the best:


I see it all perfectly there are two possible situations - one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it - you will regret both.

[YesNo]

The issue with animals is that monogamy guarantees their survival.

I've heard that most animal species are not monogamous, but I wonder if anyone has really checked.

[ftil]

Thanks for quotes by Kierkegaard. Most of them made sense.

I think I like this one the best:


I see it all perfectly there are two possible situations - one can either do this or that. My honest opinion and my friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it - you will regret both.

It sounds that pastor spoke from his experience and learned too late that he chose a wrong profession. :D
I wouldn’t take seriously his words. Too depressing to believe it.

[osho]

I want to break into preachy orthodoxic society for doing disservice for centuries through their sermonic garbage. Strip a person of all his physical and figurative outers he or she is down to earth with pigs and buffalos. Heck the civilization that presented him diminutively

[YesNo]

I wouldn’t take seriously his words. Too depressing to believe it.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about Kierkegaard except I heard the name as an undergraduate many years ago. I like the idea of regretting all the options. I don't know why.

[YesNo]

I want to break into preachy orthodoxic society for doing disservice for centuries through their sermonic garbage. Strip a person of all his physical and figurative outers he or she is down to earth with pigs and buffalos. Heck the civilization that presented him diminutively

When it comes to sexuality, humans are down to earth with prairie voles who are monogamous although not strictly monogamous. If that is the case, this is after you strip all the cultural conditioning since prairie voles don't have any cultural conditioning, (but maybe they do?)

I've started reading Jesse J. Prinz, Beyond Human Nature. He tries to show the effects of nurture on our behavior. For the details, cultural psychology may be more useful.

[ftil]

When it comes to sexuality, humans are down to earth with prairie voles who are monogamous although not strictly monogamous. If that is the case, this is after you strip all the cultural conditioning since prairie voles don't have any cultural conditioning, (but maybe they do?)



So, humans are only sexual creatures and nothing else. No mind, no feelings, or creativity. Interestingly enough that nobody talks about deep and intimate relationships. People who have deep and intimate relationships are the healthiest, happiest, and successful. They can’t be controlled as they are not followers but have internal locus of control. But I guess it is uncomfortable concept……..:lol:

[Ecurb]

So, humans are only sexual creatures and nothing else. No mind, no feelings, or creativity. Interestingly enough that nobody talks about deep and intimate relationships. People who have deep and intimate relationships are the healthiest, happiest, and successful. They can’t be controlled as they are not followers but have internal locus of control. But I guess it is uncomfortable concept……..:lol:

What (I wonder) does this mean? Is the wildly “successful” Donald Trump suddenly a role model for “deep and intimate relationships”? Why would someone who has a deep and intimate relationship not be controllable? Suppose someone kidnaps a child in order to force the child’s parent into some action. Which parent would be more likely to be “controlled” – the one with a deep, intimate relationship with the child, or the one who couldn’t care less about the child?

Doesn’t Romeo “follow” Juliet up to her balcony (“it is the dawn and Juliet is the sun”)? Obviously, those who have deep, intimate relationships are controlled by the needs, desires, and whims of others.

Why suggest that the value of “deep and intimate relationships” is their association with an “internal locus of control” when that is clearly untrue? Intimate relationships force us to focus outward, not inward. Casual sex and superficial, shallow relationships allow for an “internal locus of control” – intimate and passionate relationships do not.

[ftil]

What (I wonder) does this mean? Is the wildly “successful” Donald Trump suddenly a role model for “deep and intimate relationships”? Why would someone who has a deep and intimate relationship not be controllable?


Why suggest that the value of “deep and intimate relationships” is their association with an “internal locus of control” when that is clearly untrue? Intimate relationships force us to focus outward, not inward. Casual sex and superficial, shallow relationships allow for an “internal locus of control” – intimate and passionate relationships do not.


I think that you don’t understand what deep and intimate relationships mean, if you brought D. Trump. :lol:

Sorry, but if you don’t understand what internal locus of control means, you will not understand what not being controlled means. I guess you must still be in high school. :wink5:

[Ecurb]

You are blaming the victim, ftil, when you suggest that it is my fault that I can’t understand your prose. I (obviously) brought up Donald Trump because he represents someone who is “successful” in some ways, but does NOT seem to have “deep, intimate relationships”. This would seem to contradict your claim.

Perhaps you should read about Gandhi, who renounced “deep, intimate” relationships (in fact, he refused to sleep with his own wife) because they could lead to him being “controlled”. George Orwell’s “Reflections on Gandhi” is linked on this very site. Gandhi clearly disagreed with you, and thought the only way to retain an “internal locus of control” was to eschew “deep, intimate relationships”.

You might, of course, say that “Gandhi must still be in high school”, too. However, when I WAS in high school (and, doubtless, this was also true of Gandhi when he was in high school), I would not have made such elementary logical errors as you.

[ftil]

You are blaming the victim, ftil, when you suggest that it is my fault that I can’t understand your prose. I (obviously) brought up Donald Trump because he represents someone who is “successful” in some ways, but does NOT seem to have “deep, intimate relationships”. This would seem to contradict your claim.

Perhaps you should read about Gandhi, who renounced “deep, intimate” relationships (in fact, he refused to sleep with his own wife) because they could lead to him being “controlled”. George Orwell’s “Reflections on Gandhi” is linked on this very site. Gandhi clearly disagreed with you, and thought the only way to retain an “internal locus of control” was to eschew “deep, intimate relationships”.

You might, of course, say that “Gandhi must still be in high school”, too. However, when I WAS in high school (and, doubtless, this was also true of Gandhi when he was in high school), I would not have made such elementary logical errors as you.

I didn't blame the victim. It was your responsibility to ask for a clarification rater than making assumptions. I was right about high school. :wink5:

Well if you choose to follow Gandhi........….I wouldn’t stop you. I have had better teachers…not followers though. :lol:

[Ecurb]

According to ftil, it is the “responsibility” of the reader to “ask for clarification” if he doesn’t understand the muddled syntax or jargon-laden prose of the writer? Why? Isn’t the well-educated writer supposed to communicate clearly in the first place?

Nonetheless, to follow ftil’s suggestion, I’ll ask: does : “internal locus of control” have an idiosyncratic meaning distinct from “control from inside oneself”? If not, deep, intimate relationships would clearly seem to focus one’s controlling interests OUTSIDE of oneself, as Gandhi pointed out (and as anyone who has ever had an intimate relationship would be well aware). Ftil continues: “they (those who have deep, intimate relationships) cannot be controlled, as they are not followers.” Perhaps he could clarify this seemingly absurd statement as well. Although it is true that “followers” can be readily controlled, it hardly follows that those who are not followers cannot be controlled. Suppose we were to handcuff someone who is not a follower, and put him in prison. Wouldn’t we be controlling him?

Perhaps you can clarify, ftil. You might clarify this statement, too: “Well if you choose to follow Gandhi……I wouldn’t stop you. I have had better teachers.. not followers though.”

Again, the syntax is so muddled that I have no idea what ftil is going on about. I am not “following”
Gandhi – unlike him, I have not renounced sex or intimate relations. I’m more in sympathy with Orwell’s position. Of course, if I was "following" (whatever that means) Gandhi ftil wouldn’t stop me. How could he? What does “I have had better teachers” mean? Better than whom? Better than Gandhi? Better than I have had? Better than Gandhi’s teachers? Imprecise writing like this is unclear. What does “not followers, though” mean? I’ll grant that ftil appears to eschew “following” grammatical rules, proper sentence structure, normative syntax, and logical inference. Nonetheless, I cannot agree that “following” such rules is a horrid thing, as he seems to imply.

[ftil]

According to ftil, it is the “responsibility” of the reader to “ask for clarification” if he doesn’t understand the muddled syntax or jargon-laden prose of the writer? Why? Isn’t the well-educated writer supposed to communicate clearly in the first place?



Nonetheless, to follow ftil’s suggestion, I’ll ask: does : “internal locus of control” have an idiosyncratic meaning distinct from “control from inside oneself”? If not, deep, intimate relationships would clearly seem to focus one’s controlling interests OUTSIDE of oneself, as Gandhi pointed out (and as anyone who has ever had an intimate relationship would be well aware). Ftil continues: “they (those who have deep, intimate relationships) cannot be controlled, as they are not followers.” Perhaps he could clarify this seemingly absurd statement as well. Although it is true that “followers” can be readily controlled, it hardly follows that those who are not followers cannot be controlled. Suppose we were to handcuff someone who is not a follower, and put him in prison. Wouldn’t we be controlling him?

Perhaps you can clarify, ftil. You might clarify this statement, too: “Well if you choose to follow Gandhi……I wouldn’t stop you. I have had better teachers.. not followers though.”

Again, the syntax is so muddled that I have no idea what ftil is going on about. I am not “following”
Gandhi – unlike him, I have not renounced sex or intimate relations. I’m more in sympathy with Orwell’s position. Of course, if I was "following" (whatever that means) Gandhi ftil wouldn’t stop me. How could he? What does “I have had better teachers” mean? Better than whom? Better than Gandhi? Better than I have had? Better than Gandhi’s teachers? Imprecise writing like this is unclear. What does “not followers, though” mean? I’ll grant that ftil appears to eschew “following” grammatical rules, proper sentence structure, normative syntax, and logical inference. Nonetheless, I cannot agree that “following” such rules is a horrid thing, as he seems to imply.



First, I am a female. Second, if you claim that that what I said is an absurd without trying to think..... why would I bother to explain further. Trust me mature people know what I meant.

You may criticize my English. English is my second language and I don’t pay that much attention when I post on the forum. However, you are the first person who has problems. I am afraid it is not my English….:lol:

Enjoy LitNet

[Ecurb]

First, I am a female. Second, if you claim that that what I said is an absurd without trying to think..... why would I bother to explain further. Trust me mature people know what I meant.

You may criticize my English. English is my second language and I don’t pay that much attention when I post on the forum. However, you are the first person who has problems. I am afraid it is not my English….:lol:

Enjoy LitNet

Let's see: you offered to clarify your statements, but when I ask you to, you wrote, "you claim that what I said is an absurd without trying to think." Huh?

However, you need not bother trying to explain further. In the immortal words of Oscar Hammerstein, "You've gone about as fur as you can go."

[ftil]

Let's see: you offered to clarify your statements, but when I ask you to, you wrote, "you claim that what I said is an absurd without trying to think." Huh?

However, you need not bother trying to explain further. In the immortal words of Oscar Hammerstein, "You've gone about as fur as you can go."

No, I didn’t offer you a clarification. Go and carefully read my post.

This time, you got it right that I wouldn’t bother. :lol: