Cruel Joke or Medical Anomaly?

UM List ^ | Tim Wilkins

[adam_az]

hint:

Not all the same acts are forbidden by all of those religions. Christianity prohibits masturbation, while the vedas revere certain forms as for meditation purposes. Christianity and Judiasm see sex as for procreation, while the Vedas take quite a different tact. Tibetian buddhism is but one form of buddhism, which is derivative from vedic culture but quite different in this area. In the Koran, it is allowed to have sex slaves/concubines. According to the Ayatollah Khomeni, it also allowed bestiality under certain circumstances. For example, you can't kill and eat an animal you had sex with, but you can butcher it and sell the meat to a neighboring village.

Life sure is simple when you turn of your critical thinking skills, huh?

[armydoc]

My whole point was that there is a double-standard. Those who believe in God do have facts and evidence (our existence, historical records, etc). Yes, an element of faith is required, but it is backed with evidence. Christians acknowledge the role of faith in our belief system; we celebrate it. Atheists, on the other hand, refuse to acknowledge the role of faith in their belief system. And, any fact or piece of evidence that supports the existence of God is summarily rejected.

[Michael121]

To the same I question you.

Where is your proof that GOD does not exist?

[little jeremiah]

I forgot to add Buddhist morality.

[adam_az]

Your point is lost, because you keep ignoring my question, and instead make tangential points that are refuted by the question you fail to address.

[adam_az]

Where is your proof that GOD does not exist?

Where is your proof that YOUR god exists, and Zeus, Shiva, and Mithra do not?

[adam_az]

Buddhist monks dont practice celibacy because of the reasons Christian monks do, they do it because they practice the Golden Elixer method of redirecting their qi inward with their meditative practice. They experience orgasm without ejaculation. There is also no concept of "sin" related to sex, masturbation, oral copulation, or premarital sex.

[little jeremiah]

Christianity prohibits masturbation, while the vedas revere certain forms as for meditation purposes.

Not true. Bhagavad Gita states that the only sex which is holy is that which is not against religious principles - marriage. The teachings in the other parts of the Mahabharat are clear on that, as is the Manu Samhita. The only semi-Vedic source for your assertion (as far as I can tell) is the left-handed Tantrists, who are considered apostates and deviants by strict Vedic followers. In fact, classic Tantric teachers such as David Frawley (who has written more on that branch of Vedic practice without misinterpretation than anyone else in the west that I know of), as well as the entire Ayurvedic body of knowledge, condemn masturbation, oral and anal sex as well as same sex acts as extremely unhealthy and immoral. The Puranas place a great emphasis on not "spilling seed" except in one's legitimate wedded wife. In fact, legitimate sex with one's wedded wife is considered as good as strict celibacy, which is the only alternate for pious Vedic followers.

Christianity and Judiasm see sex as for procreation, while the Vedas take quite a different tact.

Obviously you are not a scholar of the Vedas. In fact, I doubt if you have read any of the Vedic texts.

Tibetian buddhism is but one form of buddhism, which is derivative from vedic culture but quite different in this area.

Buddhist texts are pretty clear in their condemnation of illicit sexual acts. And as far as modern Buddhists, a person I know went to Taiwan to speak to Buddhist leaders there about the dangers of promoting homosexuality. When he showed them books such as "Heather has Two Mommies" they were shocked beyond belief.

In the Koran, it is allowed to have sex slaves/concubines...

Details. The Koran forbids same sex acts as well as all kinds of bestiality. In fact, it goes into lists of all the different kinds of animals and relatives one should not have sex with. Slavery was common all over the world at that time.

My point is that every monotheist religion has more or less the same standards of morality - in the realm of sex as well as in other dealings such as theft, murder, lying and so on. What point are you trying to prove there?

[adam_az]

Also Tibetan Buddhism, according to the Dalai Lama.

Tibetian Buddhism has been heavily hindi-ized, including the concept of deity archetypes.

Buddhism is not a religion, the Buddha isn't considered a deity. He is just a human who reached the concept of enlightenment, and taught other humans a method by which they could reach this state. Buddhist practices, on the other hand, are heavily influences by Vedic practices.

I'm not a Buddhist btw, I just hear a lot about the subject because my girlfriend is studying archaeology, has a deep interest in the region, and can read Sanskrit. (the language the Vedas are written in)

[little jeremiah]

Buddhism is not a religion because it rejects God. It is a system of meditation and ethics, with its real foundation the Vedas, although Gautama Buddha apparently rejected the Vedas. It is a long story; in fact, Buddha's birth, birthplace, mother and teachings were predicted in several Puranas a couple of thousand of years before he was actually born.

Buddhists do indeed accept the concept of sin; only they call it karma. (Bad karma = sin.)

I guess you're saying that since Christian monks and Buddhis monks are not exact replicas of each other that the fact that sexual morality is indeed part of authentic Budddhist practice and teachings doesn't count???

You atheist types love to condemn sectarianism and then get all flustered when confronted with universal religious principles!

[tuesday afternoon]

the Buddha isn't considered a deity

According to the Dalai Lama, there is a deity. Nothingness is a way to represent the ineffable.

[armydoc]

I thought I did address the first part of your comment, but I'll do it again. Your comment was:

"There is a vast difference between science saying it can't answer certain questions yet, and religious yahoos who take that as proof that one possibility among multitudes, the God explanation, is true."

You admit science cannot answer certain questions yet (i.e. the origin of the universe). Yet you automatically rule out the God option, regardless of evidence to the contrary. That's not science. That's faith. You are practicing faith that there is no God. That's OK but be honest about it.

I admit that Christianity does not give me all the all the answers in this lifetime. I have not physically seen Jesus. But, there is plenty of evidence, the primary evidence being the Bible, the authenticity of which has been confirmed by archeology, and its Devine nature authenticated by hundreds of prophecies that came true. I have weighed the evidence, considered the alternatives, and have determined that the logical conclusion is that God exists. So, in my opinion, I have a basis for my faith. True faith in God (Jesus) requires intervention by the Holy Spirit (also God), but that's another topic.

You could say you reached your athiest beliefs in the same fasion (weighing the evidence, etc) but if you deny that faith is a large component in your belief system, you are being intellectually dishonest.

[nobdysfool]

Not interested. I don't have to prove God exists. Let Zeus, Allah, and Shiva save you.

[cid89]

No I did not make the analogy, I simply took your principle to conclusion. You implied that if something could not be measured then it was not real. I simply asked if you applied that to all areas of your life or in other words do you really believe it or just say it for effect.

[AlbionGirl]

You're probably right, but if you are there is a good chance that there's a physical component to pederasty and other sexual perversions. Now I know that the pederasty issue is different, in that there is no mutual consent involved. But if there is a genetic component, that's going to change the medical debate about it, which will in turn change the moral debate.

I think Dr. Laura had it right when she described homosexualtiy as something having gone biologically awry. I mean after all, cancer, heart disease, etc can all be traced to one's genetic makeup, doesn't make any of them a good thing.

As we try to undo those genetic mistakes we should also try to undo the genetic mishap of homosexuality for any of the tormented souls who don't wish to be attracted to their own kind.

When I rented my first apartment it was right smack in the middle of the Gay section of Buffalo, NY. Gay? What a misnomer; what I observed was a bunch of frantic souls following a lead they simultaneously loved and despised. Very shallow and depressing existence.

[AlbionGirl]

They experience orgasm without ejaculation.

How does one prove that? Have they been subjected to some sort of system of measure where it can be proven physiologically that they did indeed have an orgasm? Or do they just say they have had an orgasm and leave it at that?

[shadae]

Oh, don’t worry about the homosexuals. Evolution will sort them out of the gene pool soon enough.