i'm no scholar but something about this isn't quite right

Post Reply New Topic

(clicky)is the rise of religion all about sex?

Sex is one element of spirituality. And i think it is more important to me than women.
I lik the model of chakras.

2 - Sacral chakra

The Sacral chakra is about feeling and sexuality. When it is open, your feelings flow freely, and are expressed without you being over-emotional. You are open to intimacy and you can be passionate and lively. You have no problems dealing with your sexuality.

If you tend to be stiff and unemotional or have a "poker face," the Sacral chakra is under-active. You're not very open to people.

If this chakra is over-active, you tend to be emotional all the time. You'll feel emotionally attached to people and you can be very sexual.


Read more at: www.eclecticenergies.com/chakras/introduction.php
Copyright © Ewald Berkers 2013

http://www.eclecticenergies.com/chakras ... uction.php

well, religions ALSO want to control the way you eat, dress, & express yourself.

on the other hand, i think sexual repression is definitely behind a lot of fundamentalists' hysteria in the political sphere.
they hate part of themselves, & they are driven to persecute others because of this (=old news).

In Islam it is not allowed to persectue and there is freedom of religion. Which makes the person who does not have sex gain alot of energy and able to "explosive" feats. These explosive abilities gives him stronger ejaculations and phyical maniphestation of explosions. Alot of power. And honor particularly, a word that is missing in our modern world.

There is no freedom of religion in Islam, for those born into it, they must die if they leave. Basically you are saying that men in Islam are sexually repressed and one form of this frustration is suicide bombing. I have to agree with that.

I dont think in the quran it mentions killing apostates (those who leaves islam). Our suffering is manmade. Had that been the case then Islam would have been abolished as an enemy to humanity. We are trying to find the middle ground. Besides, I dont allow apostates to leave me if they are going to work against me. If they are going to stay neutral then it is allright. That is the condition.

Once again I find myself unable to decide if wreck1 is extremely offensive... or completely batshit instead...

Anyway, that is IMO the funniest post on WP for some time...

EDIT: Oh, well... Looks like the Powers That Be ruled in favour of the "Extremely Offensive" interpretation...

That's what Sharia law demands. They should have the freedom to work against you, if that means freedom of expression, or is your religion so weak that it cannot withstand criticism?

^ He won't be able to respond, he is too busy beating up women to attend... he's now banned from WP.

You should do a little more research on sharia law. It is not a definite set of coded requirements. It only means law based on (Islamic) religious text. There are plenty of people here in the US that believe every law should be based on Biblical teachings, so don't forget to discriminate against Christians as well.

To get back to the original question.

There probably is some grain of truth to this notion. Indeed it coincides with my own ideas while majoring in anthropology.

My guess is that humans are weakly monogomous by instinct. The natural tendency for humans is to settle into monogomous couples ( in contrast to the harems that gorillas have, and the sexual free for all that bonobos have, and other mating strategies of other apes).

But the question is if we are instinctively monogomous why would we need all kinds artificial, religous, and civil, legal, cultural, institutions to buttress monogomy?

The reason is that humans are not designed to constantly interact with large numbers of strangers as we do today.

For most of human history (which was actually prehistory) we lived in stone age hunter-gather groups. You would live in a band of about 60 people. That band would be part of a larger tribe of about 500 people of the same language. It took 20 square miles of land to support each person (by hunting and gathering wild food from nature) so your whole 'nation' would be 500 people spread out over 10k square miles.

Most of the time you were in contact with relatives or inlaws. Adults strangers of reproductive age all lived over the hill in the nieghboring tribe- the same people you fought wars with. So fidelity was a non issue.

With the advent of the plow, and agriculture, and of Bronze Age civilizations, you had the huge rise in population densities. Even in rural areas there would be hundreds of people per square mile. Cities would have thousands per square mile. So adult humans of reproductive age would be in frequent contact with other adult humans of reproductive age- in an unnatural way. So ancient societies invented repressive rules (like having to wear clothes) and both secular and religous strictures. Basically its all about population density.

^^^
hmmmm...