NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the "What's your sin" thread... there's something that's been puzzling me about the whole sin and go to hell business for a while now.

If you listen to Christians (and Moslems, I guess) you will be punished for your sins once you're dead. Usually, they'll elaborate a little about how you'll go to hell and will receive punishment, and won't be able to sin any more.
Their alternative is going to heaven. To do that, you're not allowed to sin while you're alive, and once you're in heaven, you most certainly aren't allowed to sin any more either.

Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed. And given that no matter where we end up after death (assuming Christians are right, just hypothetically) we won't be allowed to sin any more, wouldn't you want to get the maximum fun possible out of sinning while still alive? I know I would...

Another thing I've never understood about Christianity etc, is how can heaven be that great if you can't sin?

Their alternative is going to heaven. To do that, you're not allowed to sin while you're alive, and once you're in heaven, you most certainly aren't allowed to sin any more either.
More accurately, you shouldn't sin, and should strive to live as sin-free a life as possible, but if you do happen to sin, then asking for forgiveness and genuinely meaning it (combined with a faith in Christ as Saviour) will get you into heaven.

Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed. And given that no matter where we end up after death (assuming Christians are right, just hypothetically) we won't be allowed to sin any more, wouldn't you want to get the maximum fun possible out of sinning while still alive?
Presumably not if you wish to go to heaven.


Another thing I've never understood about Christianity etc, is how can heaven be that great if you can't sin?
You're presupposing a certain view of what sin is, what heaven is like, and how you'll enjoy it if you go there.

I mean, I agree with you and Talking Heads that heaven is a place where nothing ever happens, but if you're a committed Christian then obviously you won't subscribe to such a view. Begging the question, rather.

More accurately, you shouldn't sin, and should strive to live as sin-free a life as possible, but if you do happen to sin, then asking for forgiveness and genuinely meaning it (combined with a faith in Christ as Saviour) will get you into heaven.

Ditto, plus there is a thing called Purgatory.

More accurately, you shouldn't sin, and should strive to live as sin-free a life as possible, but if you do happen to sin, then asking for forgiveness and genuinely meaning it (combined with a faith in Christ as Saviour) will get you into heaven.


Presumably not if you wish to go to heaven.



You're presupposing a certain view of what sin is, what heaven is like, and how you'll enjoy it if you go there.

I mean, I agree with you and Talking Heads that heaven is a place where nothing ever happens, but if you're a committed Christian then obviously you won't subscribe to such a view. Begging the question, rather.

So, essentially, you shouldn't sin so you can go to a place where you can't (or shouldn't) sin?
Then when do you get to have fun?

"Sin" is a concept that was created to control the behaviour of the populace, make them meek and docile and not upset the applecarts of the rulers and the Priests. Like many things designed to control an uneducated, illiterate peasant class, when exposed to the scrutiny of a sophisticated, educated and skeptical modern mind, it simply doesn't make much sense.

So, essentially, you shouldn't sin so you can go to a place where you can't (or shouldn't) sin?
Then when do you get to have fun?

Depends on what actions fall under the category sin?

And if you can only have fun by "sinning" then there is something wrong with you.

Depends on what actions fall under the category sin?

And if you can only have fun by "sinning" then there is something wrong with you.

Well, put it this way : The biggest fun I'm having in life is when I'm either having sex, or when I'm eating stuff that isn't necessarily good for me.
Those would be covered under the 7 mortal sins... in my case Lust and Gluttony. Also, I do enjoy revenge if someone's been a dickhead to me or others. I can spend days planning it, it's great fun.

Ditto, plus there is a thing called Purgatory.

Not according to the Bible. We're talking about Christianity and Islam, neither of those religions mention Purgatory. Purgatory is just a painful lie made up by the Catholic church to squeeze even more money out of morons.

Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed.
Killing, stealing, lying, betraying those closest to you, being like a slug, and others are all great fun?

I think you have to have a different idea of fun than I do, Cabra.

Not according to the Bible. We're talking about Christianity and Islam, neither of those religions mention Purgatory. Purgatory is just a painful lie made up by the Catholic church to squeeze even more money out of morons.

Well being Catholic are Christians too perhaps you should have said Protestants, also can you back up your last sentence with some reasoning to that?

Killing, stealing, lying, betraying those closest to you, being like a slug, and others are all great fun?

I think you have to have a different idea of fun than I do, Cabra.

You mean you never enjoyed telling your kid a fairy tale?
And I personally do enjoy coverting my neighbours wife... or husband, I'm flexible. As well as coveting their car, actually. And I love being able to cheat the tax man now and then (not a lot, seeing as I don't really earn all that much, but a few quid each year if I can).
And adultery... now, there's something that's massive fun indeed.

Well, put it this way : The biggest fun I'm having in life is when I'm either having sex, or when I'm eating stuff that isn't necessarily good for me.
Those would be covered under the 7 mortal sins... in my case Lust and Gluttony. Also, I do enjoy revenge if someone's been a dickhead to me or others. I can spend days planning it, it's great fun.
Not necessarily. Lust is excessive thoughts or desires of a sexual nature and gluttony is over consumption. Having a treat from time to time doesn't equal gluttony.

Not according to the Bible. We're talking about Christianity and Islam, neither of those religions mention Purgatory. Purgatory is just a painful lie made up by the Catholic church to squeeze even more money out of morons.
Since when have Catholics not been Christians?

Well, put it this way : The biggest fun I'm having in life is when I'm either having sex, or when I'm eating stuff that isn't necessarily good for me.
Those would be covered under the 7 mortal sins... in my case Lust and Gluttony. Also, I do enjoy revenge if someone's been a dickhead to me or others. I can spend days planning it, it's great fun.

Being a glutton isn't simply eating stuff that isn't good for you, it is over indulgence, I could be a glutton on lentils if I wanted to and I believe denying those in need of food that you have spare.

As for lust it is not the act of having sex it is the act of being obsessed all the time about having sex particular with people outside of your relationship.

Well being Catholic are Christians too perhaps you should have said Protestants

So you're leaving out the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc? Anyway, Purgatory is not mentioned in the Bible, ergo it is not part of Christianity.

also can you back up your last sentence with some reasoning to that?

The Catholic church has been lying to squeeze money out of and gain control over stupid peasants for over a thousand years.

You mean you never enjoyed telling your kid a fairy tale?
And I personally do enjoy coverting my neighbours wife... or husband, I'm flexible. As well as coveting their car, actually. And I love being able to cheat the tax man now and then (not a lot, seeing as I don't really earn all that much, but a few quid each year if I can).
And adultery... now, there's something that's massive fun indeed.

Even still are you saying that this is the only way you can have fun?

You mean you never enjoyed telling your kid a fairy tale?
I admit it's been a while since I last read Dante's Inferno, but I'm fairly sure that no one ended up in Hell for telling a fairytale.

And I personally do enjoy coverting my neighbours wife... or husband, I'm flexible. As well as coveting their car, actually. And I love being able to cheat the tax man now and then (not a lot, seeing as I don't really earn all that much, but a few quid each year if I can).
And adultery... now, there's something that's massive fun indeed.
And the killing bit? Not to mention betrayal?

Ditto, plus there is a thing called Purgatory.
Only if your a Papist idolater.

:P

So, essentially, you shouldn't sin so you can go to a place where you can't (or shouldn't) sin?
And because sinning is wrong; that's fairly important.

Then when do you get to have fun?
Again, that's begging the question.

Not that I agree with their views, but I know many Christians who have a fantastically fun yet sin-free (to the greatest extent) life.

Well, put it this way : The biggest fun I'm having in life is when I'm either having sex, or when I'm eating stuff that isn't necessarily good for me. Those would be covered under the 7 mortal sins... in my case Lust and Gluttony.
Gluttony perhaps, but not necessarily lust.

It would depend on an individual's views on the teachings of Christ, but sex isn't necessarily a bad thing in Christian dogma; on the contrary.

EDIT: Get your Christian kink on here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=SongOfSongs).

Also, I do enjoy revenge if someone's been a dickhead to me or others. I can spend days planning it, it's great fun.
Great, but pleasure has very little to do with being moral.

It's not just Christians who would argue that certain pleasurable things are wrong/sinful/vices. In fact, apart from extreme hedonistic positions, I can't think of any belief system that directly equates pleasure with moral goodness.

So you're leaving out the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc? Anyway, Purgatory is not mentioned in the Bible, ergo it is not part of Christianity.

I will await your reply to NeoB.

The Catholic church has been lying to squeeze money out of and gain control over stupid peasants for over a thousand years.

And that still didn't back up your statement.

Being a glutton isn't simply eating stuff that isn't good for you, it is over indulgence, I could be a glutton on lentils if I wanted to and I believe denying those in need of food that you have spare.

I do tend to overindulge... and I love it.


As for lust it is not the act of having sex it is the act of being obsessed all the time about having sex particular with people outside of your relationship.

Well, not all the time, but most definitely with people outside my relationship. The more, the merrier.

I admit it's been a while since I last read Dante's Inferno, but I'm fairly sure that no one ended up in Hell for telling a fairytale.

I thought a lie was a lie? And when did Dante become a theological authority?


And the killing bit? Not to mention betrayal?

Hey, even I can't indulge in everything. But I do know a good few people who find both great fun....

Since when have Catholics not been Christians?

Didn't say that. I said Purgatory is not part of Christianity.

I will await your reply to NeoB.

Neo B hasn't even posted in this thread, what are you talking about.

And that still didn't back up your statement.

Yes it did. However you're clearly not particularly intelligent so you might want to go and re-read the thread.

Only if your a Papist idolater.

:P


And because sinning is wrong; that's fairly important.


Again, that's begging the question.

Not that I agree with their views, but I know many Christians who have a fantastically fun yet sin-free (to the greatest extent) life.


Gluttony perhaps, but not necessarily lust.

It would depend on an individual's views on the teachings of Christ, but sex isn't necessarily a bad thing in Christian dogma; on the contrary.

EDIT: Get your Christian kink on here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=SongOfSongs).


Great, but pleasure has very little to do with being moral.

It's not just Christians who would argue that certain pleasurable things are wrong/sinful/vices. In fact, apart from extreme hedonistic positions, I can't think of any belief system that directly equates pleasure with moral goodness.

I'm not arguing the morality of sin, though. ;)
Morality is essentially a choice... you can choose to behave moral, or not. With sin, as I understand, the choice is be good and get rewarded by going to a place where you can't be bad, or be bad and get punished by going to a place where you can't be bad.
Essentially, with sin the choice is do it now or never. ;)

But I do know a good few people who find [killing and betrayal] great fun.
And unless you're suggesting that whatever is fun is good, I don't see your point.

I'd argue, along with Christianity and most other belief systems, secular or not, that killing and betrayal are wrong, no matter the amount of pleasure they give one.

With sin, as I understand, the choice is be good and get rewarded by going to a place where you can't be bad, or be bad and get punished by going to a place where you can't be bad. Essentially, with sin the choice is do it now or never.
The choice is between doing good, and thus being a good person (arguably a pleasure in itself) and getting rewarded for such goodness, or doing bad, and thus being a bad person and getting punished for such badness.

Much like any moral system, but with added rewards/punishments.

I thought a lie was a lie? And when did Dante become a theological authority?
Then Jesus would have been in a hell of a lot of trouble given how often He told parables. And Dante was mentioned because a lot of what we think of about Hell and how the 7 sins relate is thanks to him.

Hey, even I can't indulge in everything. But I do know a good few people who find both great fun....
Terrific. I think that I can have just as much fun without killing people, thank you.

Then Jesus would have been in a hell of a lot of trouble given how often He told parables.

What's this? Christianity contradicting itself? Unheard of, I tell you.

Didn't say that. I said Purgatory is not part of Christianity.
Catholics are Christians. They believe in Purgatory, therefore it is indeed a part of Christianity.

What's this? Christianity contradicting itself?
Not unless you can highlight where the Bible speaks out against allegory and metaphor.

I'm not arguing the morality of sin, though. ;)
Morality is essentially a choice... you can choose to behave moral, or not. With sin, as I understand, the choice is be good and get rewarded by going to a place where you can't be bad, or be bad and get punished by going to a place where you can't be bad.
Essentially, with sin the choice is do it now or never. ;)
Ah, so in other words the choice before me now is rape, kill and steal because when I get caught I'll be thrown in jail where I can't do those things, but at least I can say I had fun on the way; because otherwise I don't get to do them and end up dying and not being able to do them anyway.

I think your logic is wonky.

Neo B hasn't even posted in this thread, what are you talking about.

I will give you that I meant NERVUN.

Yes it did. However you're clearly not particularly intelligent so you might want to go and re-read the thread.

No you have failed to explain how the invention of purgatory was a means to take money of morons.

The only thing you posted equated to "well they have been doing it for years" so I will ask you again to back your statements up with some form of reasoning.

Catholics are Christians. They believe in Purgatory, therefore it is indeed a part of Christianity.

OK, so if I set up my own sect, and claimed that everyone with freckles would go to a place called Hlothczar where they would be tortured by having to consume 50 pickled onions per minute for the rest of eternity, would that count as being part of Christianity?

I'm not arguing the morality of sin, though. ;)
Morality is essentially a choice... you can choose to behave moral, or not. With sin, as I understand, the choice is be good and get rewarded by going to a place where you can't be bad, or be bad and get punished by going to a place where you can't be bad.
Essentially, with sin the choice is do it now or never. ;)

Yes, Cabra but regardless of wether these things are fun to you or not, people can still have fun while not sinning, and if you can't I do think there is something wrong with you.

OK, so if I set up my own sect, and claimed that everyone with freckles would go to a place called Hlothczar where they would be tortured by having to consume 50 pickled onions per minute for the rest of eternity, would that count as being part of Christianity?
I don't know, given that you didn't bother to say just how Hlothczar relates to Christ.

I don't know, given that you didn't bother to say just how Hlothczar relates to Christ.

Well, it's about as likely to exist as Purgatory, and has as much Biblical support.

Yes, Cabra but regardless of wether these things are fun to you or not, people can still have fun while not sinning, and if you can't I do think there is something wrong with you.

Put it this way : For most of the things I consider fun doing I can find a bit in the bible that tells me not to.
Now, I'm most certainly not into going around killing and stealing and lying all day, but most of the other sins pretty much describe my ideas of fun rather well.

Ah, so in other words the choice before me now is rape, kill and steal because when I get caught I'll be thrown in jail where I can't do those things, but at least I can say I had fun on the way; because otherwise I don't get to do them and end up dying and not being able to do them anyway.

I think your logic is wonky.

Ok, I think I ought to clarify that I didn't mean to say that all kinds of sin are fun. But most kinds of fun are sin, from what I can see.

Have you ever read the Calvin and Hobbes comic where they discuss heaven, and Calvin wonders if there'll be tigers in heaven? He says there'd better be, because otherwise he wouldn't be happy. But tigers eat people, so that would make those people unhappy, so how can there be tigers in heaven? He concludes that there must be tigers in heaven, but they just don't eat people. To which Hobbes replies that then, the tigers wouldn't be happy....

OK, so if I set up my own sect, and claimed that everyone with freckles would go to a place called Hlothczar where they would be tortured by having to consume 50 pickled onions per minute for the rest of eternity, would that count as being part of Christianity?
If you could adequately claim to still follow the teachings of Christ, then I don't see why not.

You could argue that the concept of Purgatory is redundant and not 'Christian' in the sense of arguing that the correct interpretation of Christianity does not include such a concept (as Protestantism proposes), but obviously Purgatory is part of the tradition of Christian thought.

Ok, I think I ought to clarify that I didn't mean to say that all kinds of sin are fun. But most kinds of fun are sin, from what I can see.

Have you ever read the Calvin and Hobbes comic where they discuss heaven, and Calvin wonders if there'll be tigers in heaven? He says there'd better be, because otherwise he wouldn't be happy. But tigers eat people, so that would make those people unhappy, so how can there be tigers in heaven? He concludes that there must be tigers in heaven, but they just don't eat people. To which Hobbes replies that then, the tigers wouldn't be happy....
I remember arguing about the same with my pastor (Well, not sin, but I was upset that some of my sad experiences would be gone because they have made me, me), and I remember him saying that the point isn't so much that you can't have them, but that you cease to want to. You, if I may borrow a term, find something better.

I remember arguing about the same with my pastor (Well, not sin, but I was upset that some of my sad experiences would be gone because they have made me, me), and I remember him saying that the point isn't so much that you can't have them, but that you cease to want to. You, if I may borrow a term, find something better.

Interesting... what was his idea of hell, then?

Christianity always seemed to me all stick and no carrot. Doing good things counts for nothing apparently.

Interesting... what was his idea of hell, then?
As he noted, the original ideal of Hell was eternal separation from God. You are cut off from that warmth, that light, that peace of being. That would be punishment enough indeed.

The fire and brimstone came later.

Christianity always seemed to me all stick and no carrot. Doing good things counts for nothing apparently.
Apart from, y'know, everlasting life and the favour of the Supreme Being of the universe...

Come, now.

Inspired by the "What's your sin" thread... there's something that's been puzzling me about the whole sin and go to hell business for a while now.

If you listen to Christians (and Moslems, I guess) you will be punished for your sins once you're dead. Usually, they'll elaborate a little about how you'll go to hell and will receive punishment, and won't be able to sin any more.
Their alternative is going to heaven. To do that, you're not allowed to sin while you're alive, and once you're in heaven, you most certainly aren't allowed to sin any more either.

Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed. And given that no matter where we end up after death (assuming Christians are right, just hypothetically) we won't be allowed to sin any more, wouldn't you want to get the maximum fun possible out of sinning while still alive? I know I would...

Let me give you the Sikh perspective on this, it may help.

I don't belive in heaven or hell, or nesicarily sin. What I do belive is that mankind must strive to become Gurmukh(God centered) rather than Manmukh(Self centered).

All of these 'sins' are because of our natural self centeredness, now there is no inherent sin in this, but it does rather hinder ones progress towards Gurmukh. The idea being that once we become Gurmukh, then the desire for Manmukh goes.

Switching that Cristian dogma, then I would suppose that once one enters heaven then all earthly desires go. So it's not a case of having no fun, but rather you don't know what real fun is, untill you have tried this.

Yep that's correct, Christain preists are Gods drug dealers!:D

Apart from, y'know, everlasting life and the favour of the Supreme Being of the universe...

Come, now.

That is all a bit jam tomorrow, I want a real tangible carrot in my hand now. Eternal life seems like a terrible thing to me, I wouldn't wish it anyone, even Ayn Rand fanboys.

I, for one, plan to create a sinner's heaven where one can enjoy an eternity of debauchery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LWwUsk9xMo

We are on the fourth page and no one has posted this yet.

For shame NSG, for shame

Not according to the Bible. We're talking about Christianity and Islam, neither of those religions mention Purgatory. Purgatory is just a painful lie made up by the Catholic church to squeeze even more money out of morons.

Since the Catholic church happens to be the majoritarian subset of Christianity, Purgatory is a part of Christian theology, albeit a debated one.

Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed. And given that no matter where we end up after death (assuming Christians are right, just hypothetically) we won't be allowed to sin any more, wouldn't you want to get the maximum fun possible out of sinning while still alive? I know I would...

When you do something bad, I believe you're punished while alive. We don't need to wait until we're dead to be punished. As for sinning, like you Cabra, I would get the most fun out of life too.

"Sin" is a concept that was created to control the behaviour of the populace, make them meek and docile and not upset the applecarts of the rulers and the Priests. Like many things designed to control an uneducated, illiterate peasant class, when exposed to the scrutiny of a sophisticated, educated and skeptical modern mind, it simply doesn't make much sense.
Neither does your post, unless of course you can prove your allegations.

To paraphrase Ifreann's signature, Heaven would be entitled '404 Sin Not Found' and would be like discovering that internet error-code pages are in fact a portal to a New Internetz. One that isn't based on porn.

Judaism has an answer: you may also suffer for your sins while you are still alive. In fact, if you suffer while you are still alive, you don't suffer in Gehenna.

Inspired by the "What's your sin" thread... there's something that's been puzzling me about the whole sin and go to hell business for a while now.

If you listen to Christians (and Moslems, I guess) you will be punished for your sins once you're dead. Usually, they'll elaborate a little about how you'll go to hell and will receive punishment, and won't be able to sin any more.
Their alternative is going to heaven. To do that, you're not allowed to sin while you're alive, and once you're in heaven, you most certainly aren't allowed to sin any more either.

Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed. And given that no matter where we end up after death (assuming Christians are right, just hypothetically) we won't be allowed to sin any more, wouldn't you want to get the maximum fun possible out of sinning while still alive? I know I would...
I disagree with most of your post, and tend to agree with Chumblywumbly's take on the matter.

Now precisely what sins are "great fun" to you?

Do you really need to sin to have "great fun"?

I disagree with most of your post, and tend to agree with Chumblywumbly's take on the matter.

Now precisely what sins are "great fun" to you?

Do you really need to sin to have "great fun"?

*sigh* Ok, I'll post it again :

I don't think that all sins are fun.
But for most of what I consider fun, I can find at least one place in the bible condemning it.

Examples : adultery, gluttony, coveting your neighbour's husband/wife/car/whatever, lying as in telling a good story, etc. etc.

*sigh* Ok, I'll post it again :

I don't think that all sins are fun.
But for most of what I consider fun, I can find at least one place in the bible condemning it.

Examples : adultery, gluttony, coveting your neighbour's husband/wife/car/whatever, lying as in telling a good story, etc. etc.

Where in the Bible does it say that telling a good story is lying?

*sigh* Ok, I'll post it again :

I don't think that all sins are fun.
But for most of what I consider fun, I can find at least one place in the bible condemning it.

Examples : adultery, gluttony, coveting your neighbour's husband/wife/car/whatever, lying as in telling a good story, etc. etc.

To listen to C. S. Lewis tell it in "Screwtape Letters", God created all of the pleasures. The sin comes in taking the pleasures in unlawful ways.

On Adultery, wouldn't you rather have a loving and devoted relationship with satisfying sex?

On Gluttony, do you want your life to be ruled by your stomach?

On Coveting/Greed/Envy, if you love your neighbor as you love yourself then you won't want to take from or destroy to get the kind of prize you want. God has provided a world where you can get something on your own that is just as fulfilling as what your neighbor has.

On Lying or Bearing False Witness, do you swear that the stories you tell are the truth that results in the punishment of others?

Etcetera :)

Where in the Bible does it say that telling a good story is lying?

What, are good stories now suddenly true, just because they're good?

On Adultery, wouldn't you rather have a loving and devoted relationship with satisfying sex?

Some of us are ethically polyamorous, having loving and devoted relationships with multiple people.

What, are good stories now suddenly true, just because they're good?

So how is telling a story lying?

And unless you're suggesting that whatever is fun is good, I don't see your point.

I'd argue, along with Christianity and most other belief systems, secular or not, that killing and betrayal are wrong, no matter the amount of pleasure they give one.


The choice is between doing good, and thus being a good person (arguably a pleasure in itself) and getting rewarded for such goodness, or doing bad, and thus being a bad person and getting punished for such badness.

Much like any moral system, but with added rewards/punishments.
I am enjoying your responses. :)

To listen to C. S. Lewis tell it in "Screwtape Letters", God created all of the pleasures. The sin comes in taking the pleasures in unlawful ways.

On Adultery, wouldn't you rather have a loving and devoted relationship with satisfying sex?

Guess what? I've got both.


On Gluttony, do you want your life to be ruled by your stomach?

No, but I enjoy making my stomach happy now and then.


On Coveting/Greed/Envy, if you love your neighbor as you love yourself then you won't want to take from or destroy to get the kind of prize you want. God has provided a world where you can get something on your own that is just as fulfilling as what your neighbor has.

Who says I want her husband for my own? And who says I'll "destroy" him? Or for that matter, her. She's very cute, too :)


On Lying or Bearing False Witness, do you swear that the stories you tell are the truth that results in the punishment of others?

Etcetera :)

Sometimes. Not very often, though.

Some of us are ethically polyamorous, having loving and devoted relationships with multiple people.

^This.

After some years of trying monogamous relations I have come upon the realization that they don't work. At least not for me. I also believe that one can love more than one person.

In my case, I choose to be devoted to my master, and I also know that when the time comes, he'll probably take another slave beside me. I am fine with that. I'll most likely love the other slave too.

I know that is considered a sinful behaviour by most of society but to me, it's the right thing to do.

*sigh* Ok, I'll post it again :

I don't think that all sins are fun.
But for most of what I consider fun, I can find at least one place in the bible condemning it.

Examples : adultery, gluttony, coveting your neighbour's husband/wife/car/whatever, lying as in telling a good story, etc. etc.
So, you are getting married and you think it would be "great fun" if your spouse, or you committed adultery?

^This.

After some years of trying monogamous relations I have come upon the realization that they don't work. At least not for me. I also believe that one can love more than one person.

In my case, I choose to be devoted to my master, and I also know that when the time comes, he'll probably take another slave beside me. I am fine with that. I'll most likely love the other slave too.

I know that is considered a sinful behaviour by most of society but to me, it's the right thing to do.

But you're the Spanish Inquistion you should be upholding all that is moral and right. :D

So, you are getting married and you think it would be "great fun" if your spouse, or you committed adultery?

What do you mean, would? We already do, both of us.

Well, not technically, since we're not married yet, but we're having sex with others now and we don't plan on stopping once we're married.

^This.

After some years of trying monogamous relations I have come upon the realization that they don't work. At least not for me. I also believe that one can love more than one person.

In my case, I choose to be devoted to my master, and I also know that when the time comes, he'll probably take another slave beside me. I am fine with that. I'll most likely love the other slave too.

I know that is considered a sinful behaviour by most of society but to me, it's the right thing to do.

I'm going to be destroyed with holy vengeance. :p

Who says I want her husband for my own? And who says I'll "destroy" him? Or for that matter, her. She's very cute, too :)

Well, true greed coveting/greed/envy generally involves desiring to take from others the things we want or denying others what they have. That is my understanding of that aspect of sin.

^This.

After some years of trying monogamous relations I have come upon the realization that they don't work. At least not for me. I also believe that one can love more than one person.

In my case, I choose to be devoted to my master, and I also know that when the time comes, he'll probably take another slave beside me. I am fine with that. I'll most likely love the other slave too.

I know that is considered a sinful behaviour by most of society but to me, it's the right thing to do.

It's odd, but it's the only jealousy I'd have in a relationship would be my mistress taking another slave besides me. I'm fine with her having multiple partners, I'm fine with her having an owner of her own (as that chain does not affect me) but I'd feel so immensely jealous if she took someone else to go besides me. I admit I've still got more developing to do though.

I'm going to be destroyed with holy vengeance. :p

Don't whimp out on me, sir. No one is going to destroy you. Well, maybe in bed... but that ain't for discussion.:tongue:

Well, true greed coveting/greed/envy generally involves desiring to take from others the things we want or denying others what they have. That is my understanding of that aspect of sin.

Hmm... I don't think that's implied in the whole "not covet" thing. I mean, nobody would having a fling with the neighbour would consider forcing him/her to divorce and then marry them himself.
Well, ok, maybe some people do, but mostly they're in it only temporary.

It's odd, but it's the only jealousy I'd have in a relationship would be my mistress taking another slave besides me. I'm fine with her having multiple partners, I'm fine with her having an owner of her own (as that chain does not affect me) but I'd feel so immensely jealous if she took someone else to go besides me. I admit I've still got more developing to do though.

I guess the jealousy comes from the fear to share. I know I felt it at the very beginning, when I was weighing in the possibility. But I also realized my master doesn't belong to me, I belong to him. If he so chooses to pick another slave, I will abide and accept. He is still considerate to me and cares for me so I can deal with another sharing his bed.

What do you mean, would? We already do, both of us.

Well, not technically, since we're not married yet, but we're having sex with others now and we don't plan on stopping once we're married.
Then why bother getting married?

Then why bother getting married?

Makes life easier overall for us as a couple.

Makes life easier overall for us as a couple.

Certainly helps in regards to tax purposes plus being a family the government wants to get your vote and so will give you more benefits.

Certainly helps in regards to tax purposes plus being a family the government wants to get your vote and so will give you more benefits.

Also makes the legal situation of any offspring we'll shortly start making simpler.

It's odd, but it's the only jealousy I'd have in a relationship would be my mistress taking another slave besides me. I'm fine with her having multiple partners, I'm fine with her having an owner of her own (as that chain does not affect me) but I'd feel so immensely jealous if she took someone else to go besides me. I admit I've still got more developing to do though.

I can't speak for your relationship, of course, but in a true master/slave type relationship, the master cares for his slaves equally. Regardless of whether there is one or fifty, he (or she) still sees to your needs. That is his role, and his responsibility. When he starts failing in that responsibility, then it is time to get upset.

Until that point, there is no need to get jealous.

I won't lie and say I read this entire thread, but I thought I would comment on this. Oooh! Cheese doodles! *wanders off*

Also makes the legal situation of any offspring we'll shortly start making simpler.

Indeed.

Makes life easier overall for us as a couple.
Do you think it would be "great fun" if another married couple split up as a result you or your spouse having an affair with one of them?

Do you think it would be "great fun" if another married couple split up as a result you or your spouse having an affair with one of them?

See with this, I don't think it would be for example Cabra's fault, it would actually be the fault of the other married person.

Do you think it would be "great fun" if another married couple split up as a result you or your spouse having an affair with one of them?

I don't believe Cabra ever mentioned having an affair with anyone.

Anyway, as for the OP, I believe you're taking the definitions of the seven deadly sin too far. Sex does not equal lust and giving your stomach the occasional treat does not equal gluttony. It's all a matter of degrees.

Do you think it would be "great fun" if another married couple split up as a result you or your spouse having an affair with one of them?

We're not having sex with just one married partner. Neither of us will ever help anyone actually cheat.
If married, we'll have fun with both of them together.

See with this, I don't think it would be for example Cabra's fault, it would actually be the fault of the other married person.

That, too. But we're still not going to help anyone cheat on their partner. Either their partner knows and is fine with it (and joins in), or we're just not interested.

Do you think it would be "great fun" if another married couple split up as a result you or your spouse having an affair with one of them?

I think you're being judgmental here, CH.

I think you're being judgmental here, CH.
No, I asked a question based on her replies. :)

What do you mean, would? We already do, both of us.

Well, not technically, since we're not married yet, but we're having sex with others now and we don't plan on stopping once we're married.
So basically you are getting married for convenience and either or both of you can have seperate sex lives away from each other?

So basically you are getting married for convenience and either or both of you can have seperate sex lives away from each other?

Yes.
We love each other, we plan to have a family in the near future, and yes, we have sex no exclusively with each other.

Well being Catholic are Christians too perhaps you should have said Protestants, also can you back up your last sentence with some reasoning to that?

I can't decipher words all that well, but did you say you're a catholic?

I can't speak for your relationship, of course, but in a true master/slave type relationship, the master cares for his slaves equally. Regardless of whether there is one or fifty, he (or she) still sees to your needs. That is his role, and his responsibility. When he starts failing in that responsibility, then it is time to get upset.

Until that point, there is no need to get jealous.

I won't lie and say I read this entire thread, but I thought I would comment on this. Oooh! Cheese doodles! *wanders off*

heh. I understand, I've been skimming the thread too. A little more intently than you perhaps though :P

And I understand you, and I understand her role. You put it very succinctly. I think it's just complex right now, which is making my emotions and things like jealousy something that go around in my head.

Also makes the legal situation of any offspring we'll shortly start making simpler.

Also why shouldn't you get married?

Also why shouldn't you get married?

Dunno... CH seems somewhat shocked at the idea, though.

Inspired by the "What's your sin" thread... there's something that's been puzzling me about the whole sin and go to hell business for a while now.

If you listen to Christians (and Moslems, I guess) you will be punished for your sins once you're dead. Usually, they'll elaborate a little about how you'll go to hell and will receive punishment, and won't be able to sin any more.
Their alternative is going to heaven. To do that, you're not allowed to sin while you're alive, and once you're in heaven, you most certainly aren't allowed to sin any more either.

Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed. And given that no matter where we end up after death (assuming Christians are right, just hypothetically) we won't be allowed to sin any more, wouldn't you want to get the maximum fun possible out of sinning while still alive? I know I would...

Well let me start of by identifying what they are:
They are: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

On the surface they may sound like"fun" but when you drill down a little deeper you find maybe they are not so much fun.

Okay let's start with Lust everyone's favorite. Unrestrained Lust can lead to adultery which can get you killed at worst and at best will leave you with guilty feelings. It can cause families to break up, divorce, and suicide. It can lead to having large amount of children that you maybe unable to care for. It is the constant want for more, more, more and has lead to misery in some people cases. Yes, I know it hard to believe but ...

The Almighty has provide a correct method for resolving these feelings it is called marriage and it works when applied correctly.

Gluttony is probably next in line and second most popular. Eating and drinking to excess. Well, over eating can lead to death, obesity, and diabetes. Drinking too much and usually we are talking about alcohol, can lead to death, loss of job, loss of family, loss of respect, and can lead to other sins.

The Almighty has also provided a method for resolving these feeling as well it is called moderation. Eat just enough to satisfy yourself and drink in moderation.

Greed is probably second or third most popular. Nobody has a problem with you making a living, do what you have to do. When that turns into having 15 cars, 5 mansions, a cabin cruiser and a Lear jet maybe it is time you focused on your family and enjoying what you have instead of amassing even more piles of gold.

The Almighty has also provided a method for resolving these feeling as well it is called Charity and moderation. Work enough to make yourself happy and those around you. Take time to smell the roses. You can't take it with you.

Sloth is next on the list and is probably the least offensive. It is extreme laziness. Extreme laziness can cause loss of job and starvation, in general it is not helpful.

Wrath is next and is not fun at all. I am not sure anyone really enjoys this. This leads no where that I want to be.

Envy kind of goes with greed it is not being content with what you have.

Pride or hubris is the most serious and generally leads to destruction. This is where you ask yourself "Why should I have be judged anyway?" I want to do things my way.


Okay next comes the 10 commandments.

1. Thou shall have no other God before me
2. Thou shall not worship idols
3. Thou shall not kill
4. Thou shall not commit adultery
5. Thou shall not steal
6. Thou shall not bear false witness
7. Honor your Mother and Father
8. Honor the sabbath and keep it holy
9. Thou shall not envy
10. Thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain

Golden rule:

‘“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matthew 22:34-22:40


Pretty simple really, not too much to it. Some are harder than others but all in all pretty straight forward.

I don't believe Cabra ever mentioned having an affair with anyone.
In response to my question, Cabra herself mentioned "adultery" along with other "sins" as being "great fun".

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14804171&postcount=54

Anyway, as for the OP, I believe you're taking the definitions of the seven deadly sin too far. Sex does not equal lust and giving your stomach the occasional treat does not equal gluttony. It's all a matter of degrees.
I didn't mention the 7 deadly sins....again that was Cabra.

Well let me start of by identifying what they are:
They are: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride.

On the surface they may sound like"fun" but when you drill down a little deeper you find maybe they are not so much fun.

Okay let's start with Lust everyone's favorite. Unrestrained Lust can lead to adultery which can get you killed at worst and at best will leave you with guilty feelings. It can cause families to break up, divorce, and suicide. It can lead to having large amount of children that you maybe unable to care for. It is the constant want for more, more, more and has lead to misery in some people cases. Yes, I know it hard to believe but ...

The Almighty has provide a correct method for resolving these feelings it is called marriage and it works when applied correctly.

You know, both my fiance and myself, as well as the couples we've met so far, as well as the swingers here on NSG, are perfectly fine with it and enjoying it immensely.
And there is such a thing as contraception.


Gluttony is probably next in line and second most popular. Eating and drinking to excess. Well, over eating can lead to death, obesity, and diabetes. Drinking too much and usually we are talking about alcohol, can lead to death, loss of job, loss of family, loss of respect, and can lead to other sins.

The Almighty has also provided a method for resolving these feeling as well it is called moderation. Eat just enough to satisfy yourself and drink in moderation.

While I usually eat healthy, I find there is nothing nicer once or twice a year (usually at birthdays) to totally pig yourself out and eat and drink more than you need or should. Yes, you feel miserable the day after, but it's just so much fun, it's worth the hangover.


Greed is probably second or third most popular. Nobody has a problem with you making a living, do what you have to do. When that turns into having 15 cars, 5 mansions, a cabin cruiser and a Lear jet maybe it is time you focused on your family and enjoying what you have instead of amassing even more piles of gold.

The Almighty has also provided a method for resolving these feeling as well it is called Charity and moderation. Work enough to make yourself happy and those around you. Take time to smell the roses. You can't take it with you.

I grew up with brothers, sisters and plenty of cousins. Greed is second nature to me. You don't survive in a large family if you're not greedy.


Wrath is next and is not fun at all. I am not sure anyone really enjoys this. This leads no where that I want to be.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I like wrath. Getting really, really, REALLY angry is a great feeling, especially if you're a girl.
It gives you back the control that society has taken away from you from a very early age by teaching you to be inoffensive, to be nice, never to hurt or harm anybody, to try and please everyone...
It allows you to take control, to fight back, to take what's yours. I love it.


Okay next comes the 10 commandments.

1. Thou shall have no other God before me
2. Thou shall not worship idols
3. Thou shall not kill
4. Thou shall not commit adultery
5. Thou shall not steal
6. Thou shall not bear false witness
7. Honor your Mother and Father
8. Honor the sabbath and keep it holy
9. Thou shall not envy
10. Thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain

Golden rule:

‘“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matthew 22:34-22:40


Pretty simple really, not too much to it. Some are harder than others but all in all pretty straight forward.

Yep, and all pretty much what Germans call "Spassbremsen".

In response to my question, Cabra herself mentioned "adultery" along with other "sins" as being "great fun".

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14804171&postcount=54

I believe she was taking about her own relationship, not anyone elses.


I didn't mention the 7 deadly sins....again that was Cabra.

I know, and that's why I said "As for the OP":p

I can't decipher words all that well, but did you say you're a catholic?

That sentence was pretty poor. It should have read Being Catholic also means that you are Christian.

I can't speak for your relationship, of course, but in a true master/slave type relationship, the master cares for his slaves equally. Regardless of whether there is one or fifty, he (or she) still sees to your needs. That is his role, and his responsibility. When he starts failing in that responsibility, then it is time to get upset.

Until that point, there is no need to get jealous.

^This.

heh. I understand, I've been skimming the thread too. A little more intently than you perhaps though :P

And I understand you, and I understand her role. You put it very succinctly. I think it's just complex right now, which is making my emotions and things like jealousy something that go around in my head.

Dunno. I've been scanning it. I kind of have this filtering thing - if a post is longer than a page (E.G. fills my screen), and it's not directed at me, I don't read it.

I understand you're having some difficulty with the jealousy. That's only natural. However, as you come to love, adore, and trust your master more, the jealousy will pass. It's all about trust - the more you trust your master, the more pleasant it will be.

That, too. But we're still not going to help anyone cheat on their partner. Either their partner knows and is fine with it (and joins in), or we're just not interested.

That must be an awkward thing to ask the other partner. Hey mate I reckon your wife is hot you mind if I have sex with her?

So you're leaving out the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc? Anyway, Purgatory is not mentioned in the Bible, ergo it is not part of Christianity.....

Things that are not mentioned in the Bible:

Martin Luther.
Stigmata.
Gregorian chants.
Traditional basilica design.
The church down the street.
My great-uncle who was a priest.

According to your logic, these things are not part of Christianity.

---------------------

I would like some definitions for the following words:

Sin. Heaven. Hell.

Thanks.

That must be an awkward thing to ask the other partner. Hey mate I reckon your wife is hot you mind if I have sex with her?

Usually it's the guys, trust me. ;)

So it's usually up to me to find out if he's married. Some tell you straight out, some try and pretend, but they tend to be very obvious.
I think it's just not at all easy hiding a person you're sharing your life with. :)

Let me give you the Sikh perspective on this, it may help.

I don't belive in heaven or hell, or nesicarily sin. What I do belive is that mankind must strive to become Gurmukh(God centered) rather than Manmukh(Self centered).

All of these 'sins' are because of our natural self centeredness, now there is no inherent sin in this, but it does rather hinder ones progress towards Gurmukh. The idea being that once we become Gurmukh, then the desire for Manmukh goes.

Switching that Cristian dogma, then I would suppose that once one enters heaven then all earthly desires go. So it's not a case of having no fun, but rather you don't know what real fun is, untill you have tried this.

Yep that's correct, Christain preists are Gods drug dealers!:D

That is awesome I always wanted to hear with your background. May I ask are you a Sihk or just a follower of their belief system? The reason I ask is those words according to Wiki are Punjabi in origin. Speaking as someone from a western culture I have rarely heard anyone speaking from experience about the Sikh traditions and culture in a language i could understand.


With our tradition it boils down to the 10 commandments and the golden rule. Is there something similar in the Sihk tradition?

You know, both my fiance and myself, as well as the couples we've met so far, as well as the swingers here on NSG, are perfectly fine with it and enjoying it immensely.
And there is such a thing as contraception.

I think adultery implies without consent although it never really says so specifically. Contraception has failed which can lead to disease and to babies, not to mention you have to use it in the first place.


While I usually eat healthy, I find there is nothing nicer once or twice a year (usually at birthdays) to totally pig yourself out and eat and drink more than you need or should. Yes, you feel miserable the day after, but it's just so much fun, it's worth the hangover.

Oh sure once in a while is okay. I over eat almost every Thanksgiving. As for drinking over indulging is okay to a point, you will pay for it the next day. I think the problem comes when it begins to run your life. I think scale is the issue here.


I grew up with brothers, sisters and plenty of cousins. Greed is second nature to me. You don't survive in a large family if you're not greedy.

Hey do what you have to do to get by and to survive. That is not a sin. A massing a fortune just for the sake of having more than the next guy is when it becomes a problem. Does anyone really need 10 cars?


You know, the more I think about it, the more I like wrath. Getting really, really, REALLY angry is a great feeling, especially if you're a girl.
It gives you back the control that society has taken away from you from a very early age by teaching you to be inoffensive, to be nice, never to hurt or harm anybody, to try and please everyone...
It allows you to take control, to fight back, to take what's yours. I love it.


Sure you will likely get angry in life and lash out once in a while. Again the thing here is scale and severity.


Yep, and all pretty much what Germans call "Spassbremsen".

I love this forum. According to IGoogle Spassbremsen = Fun Brakes. Which I take to mean in context means fun stoppers? Joy killer, buzz kill? I learn something new every day here.

Dunno. I've been scanning it. I kind of have this filtering thing - if a post is longer than a page (E.G. fills my screen), and it's not directed at me, I don't read it.

I understand you're having some difficulty with the jealousy. That's only natural. However, as you come to love, adore, and trust your master more, the jealousy will pass. It's all about trust - the more you trust your master, the more pleasant it will be.

I think you've just brought up something I'm going to have to think about a lot :(. Thank you, despite how obvious what you said may have sounded to yourself.

Hey do you what you have to get by. That is not a sin. A massing a fortune just for the sake of having more than the next guy is when it becomes a problem. Does anyone really need 10 cars?

Well different cars for different purposes.

A limo for when you have to conduct business.
A sports car for when you want to have fun.
A family car for when you need to take the family but be fuel efficient.
A pickup truck for dirty jobs (hauling stuff you can't carry in an SUV).
An SUV for hauling stuff you can't carry in a pickup truck.
A convertable family car for when the weather's nice.
A convertable sports car for the same.
A race car for the track
An off-road vehicle
A van or short bus for carrying more than 5 people.


That was easy.

I think adultery implies without consent although it never really says so specifically. Contraception has failed which can lead to disease and to babies, not to mention you have to use it in the first place.

Without consent, it's rape. Which, funnily, the bible occasionally is actually quite ok with, like those daughters raping their father and the like.



Oh sure once in a while is okay. I over eat almost every Thanksgiving. As for drinking over indulging is okay to a point, you will pay for it the next day. I think the problem comes when it begins to run your life. I think scale is the issue here.

Hey do you what you have to get by. That is not a sin. A massing a fortune just for the sake of having more than the next guy is when it becomes a problem. Does anyone really need 10 cars?


Sure you will likely get angry in life and lash out once in a while. Again the thing here is scale and severity.

So when does it become sin, then? Do we each get to set our own standards, the way you seem to be doing?
To my mind, most people don't even need 1 car. But I do want to own all those books that I own, although I don't need them and barely have room for them. And I do want to own that big flatscreen telly we bought the other day, although we're not quite sure yet where to put the old one. Maybe the guest room.



I love this forum. According to IGoogle Spassbremsen = Fun Brakes. Which I take to mean in context means fun stoppers? Joy killer, buzz kill? I learn something new every day here.

Joy killer sounds closest as a translation, yes.

Neither does your post, unless of course you can prove your allegations.

I allege nothing; I'm stating it outright.

The concept of sin is that it is a crime against "God". It has nothing to do with proper behaviour towards other people, or social interaction, indeed, many so called "sins" can take place only in the mind such as envy, greed or lust. Their only purpose can be to instill fear and guilt into the minds of the unsophisticated, and thus give power to those who decide what is or is not "sinful" - Priests or rulers controlling Priests.

But to the sophisticated and questioning mind, the simplistic concepts of "sin" cease to be compelling. We can understand that Greed and Envy can be spurs to the taking of great acts, and benefit the whole community, that Lust is neither harmful nor wrong, and that even the most negative emotional "sins" such as Wrath or Hate can be harnessed to give Drive and Ambition to the individual. Further, in encountering other cultures, we acknowledge their moralities to be effective and different from our own, making the idea of "received" or absolute morality meaningless. Once Morality itself is acknowledged as being a personal choice, Sin becomes a word without a meaning.

at best will leave you with guilty feelings.

Untrue, try again.

I think you've just brought up something I'm going to have to think about a lot :(. Thank you, despite how obvious what you said may have sounded to yourself.

On the contrary. Only recently have I discovered just how much of an impact it makes. Don't feel bad if it hasn't been realized by you yet. There are many things which take time to grow and mature.

Without consent, it's rape. Which, funnily, the bible occasionally is actually quite ok with, like those daughters raping their father and the like.

Well that is interesting. I should have been clearer. Rape is flat out wrong. It generally discouraged in the Bible.

What I meant was for adultery to occur at least one of the parties has to be married. The use the words interchangeably the Bible along with whoremongering.

So if you had consent from let's say the husband and the wife to enter to sex with a third party. If all parties agree to the arrangement then maybe you have a special case. In this case it fall likely under fornication. Now suppose one party neglected to tell the other that he/she was married is the other person still guilty? Maybe not of adultery but likely of fornication.

In any event you are suppose to try to control your urges.



So when does it become sin, then? Do we each get to set our own standards, the way you seem to be doing?
To my mind, most people don't even need 1 car. But I do want to own all those books that I own, although I don't need them and barely have room for them. And I do want to own that big flatscreen telly we bought the other day, although we're not quite sure yet where to put the old one. Maybe the guest room.

I have some trouble with this as well. When is it gluttony and when is it eating too much? When is it just plain laziness and when is it sloth?



Joy killer sounds closest as a translation, yes.

Good word I will try to remember it. I always thought we could over come all these languages if we just made them into one big language. German vocabulary is quite in depth so I am told.

That is awesome I always wanted to hear with your background. May I ask are you a Sihk or just a follower of their belief system? The reason I ask is those words according to Wiki are Punjabi in origin. Speaking as someone from a western culture I have rarely heard anyone speaking from experience about the Sikh traditions and culture in a language i could understand.


With our tradition it boils down to the 10 commandments and the golden rule. Is there something similar in the Sihk tradition?


Hah no man I'm a white 40 year old English convert. I used to be Pagan and now I'm Sikh. Yep you have to at least try to learn some Punjabi as a Sikh, our holy scripture is written in it(sorta).

Not really, we have a document the rehat maryada, that is basicly some instructions for baptised Sikhs(Khalsa) and pertians to behaviour and the 5 k's etc.. That is not part of Guru Granth Sahib(Holy scripture) though and was instead compiled by a body of Sikhs.

It's a great thing really. Guru ji, in his wisdom and knowing that religion should change as mankind does, instituted the the Khalsa panth, with the instructions that where ever you find the 5 Panj Pyara, or 5 Gursikhs then there you will find Guru.

What that means in a real sense is if enough sikhs say that we should make this change to our faith, then it is as if Guru ji is saying we should make this change, and so change we do.

For me, sin is not vice, not self indulgence or socially condemned immorality.

It is whatever separates me from my deepest self, in Hindu terms my Atman soul which is linked by a lifeline to the world soul, the Ground of Being (see Tillich), Brahman.

God and Heaven are both a state in which the self is healthy, relates positively to its own self, knows who it is and why it is there and says "yes" to all that.

Sin and Hell are denial of this; not punishment, but the logical consequences of behavior. I used to love to smoke but gave it up because it was killing me. Was I being punished? Not really, I was suffering the consequences of behavior, quite natural, no moral decisions required, just some common sense.

So Jesus says hell is outer darkness, with wailing and gnashing of teeth. It is where people send themselves when they reject daylight and happiness. It is not a punishment, but in a way it is a personal choice, just as lung cancer would have been for me.

And like lung cancer, it does not wait until we are dead.

Eternity includes all moments of time, and therefore by definition includes this moment we both now occupy. Therefore whatever self and fate my decisions are creating for me in eternity are also enveloping me in this moment.

I allege nothing; I'm stating it outright.
Your "outright" statement means nothing to me. You made a pile of assertions that mean nothing unless you can prove them.

The concept of sin is that it is a crime against "God". It has nothing to do with proper behaviour towards other people, or social interaction, indeed, many so called "sins" can take place only in the mind such as envy, greed or lust. Their only purpose can be to instill fear and guilt into the minds of the unsophisticated, and thus give power to those who decide what is or is not "sinful" - Priests or rulers controlling Priests.
Again, this is obviously your take on things not mine.

But to the sophisticated and questioning mind, the simplistic concepts of "sin" cease to be compelling. We can understand that Greed and Envy can be spurs to the taking of great acts, and benefit the whole community, that Lust is neither harmful nor wrong, and that even the most negative emotional "sins" such as Wrath or Hate can be harnessed to give Drive and Ambition to the individual. Further, in encountering other cultures, we acknowledge their moralities to be effective and different from our own, making the idea of "received" or absolute morality meaningless. Once Morality itself is acknowledged as being a personal choice, Sin becomes a word without a meaning.
Wow, it appears that you have all the answers. Good luck with that. :D

For me, sin is not vice, not self indulgence or socially condemned immorality.

It is whatever separates me from my deepest self, in Hindu terms my Atman soul which is linked by a lifeline to the world soul, the Ground of Being (see Tillich), Brahman.

God and Heaven are both a state in which the self is healthy, relates positively to its own self, knows who it is and why it is there and says "yes" to all that.

Sin and Hell are denial of this; not punishment, but the logical consequences of behavior. I used to love to smoke but gave it up because it was killing me. Was I being punished? Not really, I was suffering the consequences of behavior, quite natural, no moral decisions required, just some common sense.

So Jesus says hell is outer darkness, with wailing and gnashing of teeth. It is where people send themselves when they reject daylight and happiness. It is not a punishment, but in a way it is a personal choice, just as lung cancer would have been for me.

And like lung cancer, it does not wait until we are dead.

Eternity includes all moments of time, and therefore by definition includes this moment we both now occupy. Therefore whatever self and fate my decisions are creating for me in eternity are also enveloping me in this moment.

You guys should start your own thread. It is very interesting to hear other worldly views, well to me at least. In reading what I have on Hindu and the region I always get hung up on the language and the references. I started with the Bhava Gita which is extremely beautiful in the language but since I do not know who most of the players are it becomes quite difficult. For me I can't tell a place from a person and so on.

I need a "Bhava Gita for Dummies" book or something.

However back to the topic. Whenever you move from Selfless to Selfish usually sin will follow close behind. If one realizes it is not always best to pursue something that a person thinks he or she wants.

You may think you want the car on the showroom floor but breaking the window to get it is not the answer. Work for it. In general desire is our downfall. Desire leads to more desire. Desire leads to sin.

I think to take a page for Buddha's book wanting things is not good. Better might be wanting things is okay but the attachment to things is a bad thing.

Wanting enough food to feed your family is a good thing and you should work for what you need. Having enough food for three lifetime maybe is too much and you may want to consider sharing some with those who have less.

It beneficial in a number of way those people those people would be less inclined to steal from you. The food is less likely to spoil. When you do something nice for someone they may return the favor. By sparing their misery you will relieve yourself from the misery of seeing them suffer.

You know, both my fiance and myself, as well as the couples we've met so far, as well as the swingers here on NSG, are perfectly fine with it and enjoying it immensely.
That makes it okay and right? There are at least two people posting here, where that lifestyle has resulted in broken relationships. I believe that to be the norm rather than the exception.

And there is such a thing as contraception.
As stated earlier, there can still be complications.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I like wrath. Getting really, really, REALLY angry is a great feeling, especially if you're a girl.
It gives you back the control that society has taken away from you from a very early age by teaching you to be inoffensive, to be nice, never to hurt or harm anybody, to try and please everyone...
It allows you to take control, to fight back, to take what's yours. I love it.
I believe that you will learn to loathe "it". What "control"?

There is a saying: "He who angers you conquers you."

On the contrary. Only recently have I discovered just how much of an impact it makes. Don't feel bad if it hasn't been realized by you yet. There are many things which take time to grow and mature.

Indeed, and on both parties. I think that the master/slave relationship is one in which the people involved grow. There's room for it. Both master and slave/s continually learn; the master to be a better and just master, and the slave/s to be a better and pleasing slave/s.

Indeed, and on both parties. I think that the master/slave relationship is one in which the people involved grow. There's room for it. Both master and slave/s continually learn; the master to be a better and just master, and the slave/s to be a better and pleasing slave/s.

Aye. my thoughts turned to a more personal extrapolation of those thoughts based on my current situation and the emphasis on trust, though. I think you both really know your stuff. :)

Their alternative is going to heaven. To do that, you're not allowed to sin while you're alive

That's not true for the vast majority of monotheistic sects.


, and once you're in heaven, you most certainly aren't allowed to sin any more either.


The idea is that you want to sin.


Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed. And given that no matter where we end up after death (assuming Christians are right, just hypothetically) we won't be allowed to sin any more, wouldn't you want to get the maximum fun possible out of sinning while still alive? I know I would...

Well, is there anything you actually consider a sin, that you find fun? As opposed to something that the religious people view as sinful but you do not.

Aye. my thoughts turned to a more personal extrapolation of those thoughts based on my current situation and the emphasis on trust, though. I think you both really know your stuff. :)

I understand.:wink:

My advice here would be to discuss this with your mistress. Don't keep it bottled up if it bothers you, whatever it is. When something bothers me I always try to talk about it with my master. It would surprise you how understanding the master (mistress in your case) can be and how willing you both can be when it comes to working things out so that you both feel comfortable.

With our relationships, I believe the basis, the main element that keeps them together is trust coupled with respect. I belong to my master, entirely, I trust him and respect him. He knows this and reciprocates by respecting and caring for me in return.

That is all a bit jam tomorrow, I want a real tangible carrot in my hand now.
How's about the carrot of being a good person?

That's the most the majority of other belief systems will give you.



I don't think that all sins are fun. But for most of what I consider fun, I can find at least one place in the bible condemning it.

Examples : adultery, gluttony, coveting your neighbour's husband/wife/car/whatever, lying as in telling a good story, etc. etc.
As DrunkenDove and others have said, I don't think your definition of 'sin' matches up with the Christian account.

Gluttony is far more than "making [one's] stomach happy now and then" and swinging isn't exactly adultery, insofar as it's sanctioned by your partner.

For example:

* gluttony =/= enjoyment of food
* lust =/= enjoyment of sexual pleasure
* greed =/= enjoyment of material objects
* sloth =/= idleness
* wrath =/= anger
* adultery =/= consensual open sexual relations

A good way to think about the above is that they're generally thought of as vices, that is, distorted virtues. Generally, emotion or action taken to an unhealthy (in the moral or psychological sense) extreme. Now, more orthodox Christian thought would most probably have a problem with my take on the matter, but the modern denominations are much more lenient.


I am enjoying your responses. :)
*doffs hat*

I understand.:wink:

My advice here would be to discuss this with your mistress. Don't keep it bottled up if it bothers you, whatever it is. When something bothers me I always try to talk about it with my master. It would surprise you how understanding the master (mistress in your case) can be and how willing you both can be when it comes to working things out so that you both feel comfortable.

With our relationships, I believe the basis, the main element that keeps them together is trust coupled with respect. I belong to my master, entirely, I trust him and respect him. He knows this and reciprocates by respecting and caring for me in return.

Although I'm mostly in it because she makes really good tacos.

Anyway, yeah, pretty much everything she said. A good master is not any harsher than necessary, and ultimately does what is in your best interests. That is his responsibility, that is his duty, and that is what is required of him. Trust is absolutely key. With it, you know that your master will always care for you adequately, and you will have no cause to suffer jealousy or resentment.

Although I'm mostly in it because she makes really good tacos.

I thought it was because of my awesome St. Louis Ribs's making skills.:eek2:

I thought it was because of my awesome St. Louis Ribs's making skills.:eek2:

Those were like an orgasm in my mouth, my dear.

Those were like an orgasm in my mouth, my dear.

:$
Hehehe...

Those were like an orgasm in my mouth, my dear.

:$
Hehehe...
Eeeeuch.

Get a room.

Although I'm mostly in it because she makes really good tacos.

Anyway, yeah, pretty much everything she said. A good master is not any harsher than necessary, and ultimately does what is in your best interests. That is his responsibility, that is his duty, and that is what is required of him. Trust is absolutely key. With it, you know that your master will always care for you adequately, and you will have no cause to suffer jealousy or resentment.

That's what made me think... whether she knows me well enough to care for me adequately. I love her with all my heart, but I don't know if I trust her enough to care for me as I need. I need to think long about that.

That's what made me think... whether she knows me well enough to care for me adequately. I love her with all my heart, but I don't know if I trust her enough to care for me as I need. I need to think long about that.

Tough call to make.

Fortunately, I've never had to make that call. :)

Tough call to make.

Fortunately, I've never had to make that call. :)

Lucky sonofa... I hope you never have to. :)

I don't even know why I said any of this. normally I'd be saying this under such private circumstances that I'd kill the person hearing it. Something's weird with me today I guess.

Wow, it appears that you have all the answers. Good luck with that. :D

Heh. I wish. I just have a good idea of where not to find them.

Lucky sonofa... I hope you never have to. :)

I don't even know why I said any of this. normally I'd be saying this under such private circumstances that I'd kill the person hearing it. Something's weird with me today I guess.

It's the internets. Anonymity breeds diarrhea of the mouth.

It's the internets. Anonymity breeds diarrhea of the mouth.

That's a pretty cutting statement, isn't it? On one hand, it does explain my actions, on the other hand it implies I've been talking watery shit. You're a real charmer. :P

That's a pretty cutting statement, isn't it? On one hand, it does explain my actions, on the other hand it implies I've been talking watery shit. You're a real charmer. :P

That's not exactly how I meant it.

Diarrhea of the mouth is a southern expression that... well, it means you keep talking about stuff, stuff you wouldn't normally talk about.

EDIT: Ahhh, Idioms. They'll get you in trouble every time.

That's not exactly how I meant it.

Diarrhea of the mouth is a southern expression that... well, it means you keep talking about stuff, stuff you wouldn't normally talk about.

EDIT: Ahhh, Idioms. They'll get you in trouble every time.

I'm not being serious. You both have been a big help to me this afternoon. Appreciate it. :)

Dunno. I've been scanning it. I kind of have this filtering thing - if a post is longer than a page (E.G. fills my screen), and it's not directed at me, I don't read it.

I understand you're having some difficulty with the jealousy. That's only natural. However, as you come to love, adore, and trust your master more, the jealousy will pass. It's all about trust - the more you trust your master, the more pleasant it will be.

Wait, what? Did you seriously just argue that if someone really LOVES and TRUSTS their partner, that will magically make them okay with a particular aspect of polyamory? So if I'm not okay with my boyfriend having another girlfriend, that means I don't trust him enough?

Wait, what? Did you seriously just argue that if someone really LOVES and TRUSTS their partner, that will magically make them okay with a particular aspect of polyamory? So if I'm not okay with my boyfriend having another girlfriend, that means I don't trust him enough?

That's not exactly how I meant it, so let me clarify. If I recall correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, your view your boyfriend as a boyfriend first, and master second.

In our relationship, it's the opposite.

Perhaps I've kind of projected and projected too much, and that would be my error in doing so, and I apologize.

Also, on topic, I absolutely disagree with the statement that "sinning is great fun." That is entirely dependent on how one defines "sin." Personally, I'd define it as something like "deliberately harming others," which I don't see as particularly fun at all. If you choose to define "sin" as "doing things I enjoy which harm absolutely no one," then, yeah, giving up sinning would be pretty stupid.

Wait, what? Did you seriously just argue that if someone really LOVES and TRUSTS their partner, that will magically make them okay with a particular aspect of polyamory? So if I'm not okay with my boyfriend having another girlfriend, that means I don't trust him enough?

In the case between Galloism and me, yes. In Jordi's case, I can't comment because that's Jordi's right to do.

That's not exactly how I meant it, so let me clarify. If I recall correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, your view your boyfriend as a boyfriend first, and master second.

In our relationship, it's the opposite.

Perhaps I've kind of projected and projected too much, and that would be my error in doing so, and I apologize.

You're wrong. :p

There's no reason for D/s to be wedded to polyamory. It can be, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I find claiming that one relationship structure is somehow superior or more enlightened for all people ridiculously offensive. I don't think monogamous people would turn poly if they just "learn how to trust" any more than I think poly people would turn monogamous if they just "learn how to commit" - or than I think vanilla people would turn kinky if they just "learn how to be spanked."

You're wrong. :p

Ah, my apologies then.

There's no reason for D/s to be wedded to polyamory. It can be, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I find claiming that one relationship structure is somehow superior or more enlightened for all people ridiculously offensive.

Didn't mean to imply that.

I don't think monogamous people would turn poly if they just "learn how to trust" any more than I think poly people would turn monogamous if they just "learn how to commit" -

That is valid. I just always figured a couple who goes for a exclusive relationship is boyfriend/girlfriend (fiance, husband/wife, etc) first, and then a D/s relationship second. That's how I've always kind of viewed it, because the slave, in this case, places a serious limitation on his or her master or mistress.

Though, upon reflection, I guess all "slaves" do place limitations on their master. Some are greater than others, I guess.

or than I think vanilla people would turn kinky if they just "learn how to be spanked."

Together, we can turn them to the dark side.

In the case between Galloism and me, yes. In Jordi's case, I can't comment because that's Jordi's right to do.

Well, that's just the thing. "I, personally, am comfortable with my master having other slaves, so long as I trust him enough" is a totally reasonable statement. "You, person who is not me, will/should feel the same way I do about this" is not, because it implicitly suggests that everyone who doesn't feel the same way is somehow inferior.

That is valid. I just always figured a couple who goes for a exclusive relationship is boyfriend/girlfriend (fiance, husband/wife, etc) first, and then a D/s relationship second. That's how I've always kind of viewed it, because the slave, in this case, places a serious limitation on his or her master or mistress.

Though, upon reflection, I guess all "slaves" do place limitations on their master. Some are greater than others, I guess.

I don't really see it as a "limitation"...or as being "placed" by the sub, for that matter. It's not like I will forcibly stop him if he wants to be seriously involved with someone else. I'll just leave, because I won't be happy in that relationship. If you're staying in a relationship that makes you miserable, that's not submission, that's being a doormat.

And of course all relationships, D/s or otherwise, have rules and limitations on both sides. If you turned to Nanatsu one day and said, "Hey, so I'm going to go chop your parents' heads off with a machete, and you're not allowed to call the cops or warn them or anything," I'm fairly certain she would not support that plan, no matter how much she loves and trusts you. While that's obviously a silly example, I think it still gets across the point that it is dangerous to go down the path of assuming that a D/s relationship means that the submissive doesn't have a say. Of COURSE she does. The fact that she chooses not to exercise that say over anything but the really important stuff doesn't make it any less real - but of course, what the "really important stuff" entails will vary from relationship to relationship.

Together, we can turn them to the dark side.

Haha. Yeah...I don't think it works that way, but admittedly it'd be kinda fun if it did. ;)

Haha. Yeah...I don't think it works that way, but admittedly it'd be kinda fun if it did. ;)
Poli and Galloism, bringing new meaning to the term 'vice squad'. :tongue:

That makes it okay and right? There are at least two people posting here, where that lifestyle has resulted in broken relationships. I believe that to be the norm rather than the exception.


As stated earlier, there can still be complications.

And there's at least 4 people posting here who happily live that lifestyle.
You can believe whatever you want, of course, but I prefer to trust my own experiences on this one.


I believe that you will learn to loathe "it". What "control"?

There is a saying: "He who angers you conquers you."

Anger allows you to assert yourself. Wrath even more so.
Terry Pratchett once gave a very, very good motto for every girl and woman on this planet : "Don't get afraid. Get angry."

Also, on topic, I absolutely disagree with the statement that "sinning is great fun." That is entirely dependent on how one defines "sin." Personally, I'd define it as something like "deliberately harming others," which I don't see as particularly fun at all. If you choose to define "sin" as "doing things I enjoy which harm absolutely no one," then, yeah, giving up sinning would be pretty stupid.

Well, I don't define anything as sin. I don't believe in the concept.
However, 13 years of Catholic schooling have made it quite clear to me that lots of people do, and also what they consider to be sinful.
And much of what I consider fun is what I was taught was sinful.
Hence my question.

I'd argue, along with Christianity and most other belief systems, secular or not, that killing and betrayal are wrong, no matter the amount of pleasure they give one.

Unless the ones doing it are doing it in the name of *insert deity of choice here*. Then they say it's good when they do it.

Unless the ones doing it are doing it in the name of *insert deity of choice here*. Then they say it's good when they do it.
That goes for just about anyone.

That goes for just about anyone.

Well that goes without saying. Not even the craziest of religious militants would go around saying "*insert deity here* forbids killing!" while they spill blood.

Well, I don't define anything as sin. I don't believe in the concept.
However, 13 years of Catholic schooling have made it quite clear to me that lots of people do, and also what they consider to be sinful.
And much of what I consider fun is what I was taught was sinful.
Hence my question.

Yeah and as has already been siad, sin is specificly doing those actions that God does not like. Not that I belive in such a concept anyway.

Poli and Galloism, bringing new meaning to the term 'vice squad'. :tongue:

*hums theme music*

And of course all relationships, D/s or otherwise, have rules and limitations on both sides. If you turned to Nanatsu one day and said, "Hey, so I'm going to go chop your parents' heads off with a machete, and you're not allowed to call the cops or warn them or anything," I'm fairly certain she would not support that plan, no matter how much she loves and trusts you. While that's obviously a silly example, I think it still gets across the point that it is dangerous to go down the path of assuming that a D/s relationship means that the submissive doesn't have a say. Of COURSE she does. The fact that she chooses not to exercise that say over anything but the really important stuff doesn't make it any less real - but of course, what the "really important stuff" entails will vary from relationship to relationship.

The key of it here is trust, which is what we were telling Jodaxia. She needs to trust her mistress and tell her when something is bothering her. In my case, I trust my master and I don't have a problem if he decides to take another slave for himself. In the case of Jordi, she's entitled to speak about her situation, in her own time, not me. But if she's suffering inside, she needs to speak of it to her mistress.

Of course, this is not to say she should feel comfortable, like me, with her mistress taking other slaves. If I implied that in my posts, I am terribly sorry. I was speaking of my particular case.

Yeah, I don't think it's really fair to say I thought they were making generalised statements about 'the one true D/s relationship' or whatever, seemed pretty clear to me that they were just speaking about their thoughts on what I was saying without clogging it up with disclaimers every third word about how they're not speaking for everyone. *nod*

And I don't really think this is the place for me to spend any more time clogging up the topic with half-statements about my issues unless the thread topic changed to 'Jordi seeks advice about trust/mistress issues' when I wasn't looking, especially when the topic was one that hadn't totally degenerated into off-topic informality yet, heh.

And I don't really think this is the place for me to spend any more time clogging up the topic with half-statements about my issues unless the thread topic changed to 'Jordi seeks advice about trust/mistress issues' when I wasn't looking, especially when the topic was one that hadn't totally degenerated into off-topic informality yet, heh.

I could make that thread if you want.

I could make that thread if you want.

I don't doubt you could *looks back to yesterday* I did seriously consider making a thread with a more generalised topic just so I could have an excuse to do such a thing but I decided against it. I'd just go round in circles because it's what's on my mind right now, not because I'd have anything new to contribute.

And don't you two ever -sleep?!-

I don't doubt you could *looks back to yesterday* I did seriously consider making a thread with a more generalised topic just so I could have an excuse to do such a thing but I decided against it. I'd just go round in circles because it's what's on my mind right now, not because I'd have anything new to contribute.

And don't you two ever -sleep?!-

I don't. Not really. Maybe 3-5 hours per night, on average.

I don't. Not really. Maybe 3-5 hours per night, on average.

Man. I'm jealous of that. I get 8+ more or less consistently, interrupted dream filled nonsense that sticks with me for days (because I don't sleep deeply). Nice when the dream is nice, most of the time it isn't.

*ponders* does that make me a gluttonous sleeper? And isn't sleeping for so long slothful? And I envy your sleeping, and I have wrath towards my dreams...

Damn! Four for one!

Man. I'm jealous of that. I get 8+ more or less consistently, interrupted dream filled nonsense that sticks with me for days (because I don't sleep deeply). Nice when the dream is nice, most of the time it isn't.

*ponders* does that make me a gluttonous sleeper? And isn't sleeping for so long slothful? And I envy your sleeping, and I have wrath towards my dreams...

Damn! Four for one!

Well, I don't really sleep. I go to sleep for an hour or two, then wake up, then go to sleep for an hour or two, and then wake up... this could happen 2-3 times a night.

And there's at least 4 people posting here who happily live that lifestyle.
You can believe whatever you want, of course, but I prefer to trust my own experiences on this one.
I was speaking from experience also. It was good for awhile, but it ended in disaster. In reflection it wasn't worth it and it taught me a valuable lesson......cherish the one you love. :)

Anger allows you to assert yourself. Wrath even more so.
Anger is a negative emotion. Who the hell wants to be around an angry person. If you need anger to get what you want, then perhaps you should devise another way?

Terry Pratchett once gave a very, very good motto for every girl and woman on this planet : "Don't get afraid. Get angry."
That depends on the situation that inspired that quote? What relevance does it have?

And don't you two ever -sleep?!-

He doesn't. I, on the other hand, sleep like a log.

I was speaking from experience also. It was good for awhile, but it ended in disaster. In reflection it wasn't worth it and it taught me a valuable lesson......cherish the one you love. :)


What makes you think I don't?
I'm finding it very curious how many people equat sex with love and love with sex... my BF and I are very exclusive about some things, but we just don't regard sex as such a major issue to obsess about.


Anger is a negative emotion. Who the hell wants to be around an angry person. If you need anger to get what you want, then perhaps you should devise another way?

That depends on the situation that inspired that quote? What relevance does it have?

I like angry people, and I thouroughly enjoy being angry myself.
I guess you need to be female and have grown up in a society like ours to realise how bloody liberating it is to actually allow yourself to get angry, rather than live in constant intimidation.

Anger is a negative emotion. Who the hell wants to be around an angry person. If you need anger to get what you want, then perhaps you should devise another way?


Any oppressed group that ever achieved equality achieved it because it was bloody angry about it. Anger is a wonderfully positive emotion -and- a negative one.

Any oppressed group that ever achieved equality achieved it because it was bloody angry about it. Anger is a wonderfully positive emotion -and- a negative one.

Yes, it drives people to achieve and to destroy equally.

I don't think that the definition of sin as 'something god doesn't like' is a very useful one. Who gets to decide what god likes?

If we define heaven as 'being with god' and hell as 'being without god', then sin is a movement. It is the choice and the action of separating ourselves from god. But if I look at my own criticism of the previous definition, I am forced to define what I mean by being with god and who gets to decide what that means.

I define it thus: we are with god when we act in the awareness that we should love all living things as if they were god. When we do that, (atheists would call it being selfless, which is just as correct) we no longer focus on ourselves but on our community and our environment, and we strive to improve our relationship with these things. Therefore to move away from god, or to sin, is to focus on ourselves to the detriment of our community and environment.

Yeah, I don't think it's really fair to say I thought they were making generalised statements about 'the one true D/s relationship' or whatever, seemed pretty clear to me that they were just speaking about their thoughts on what I was saying without clogging it up with disclaimers every third word about how they're not speaking for everyone. *nod*

And I don't really think this is the place for me to spend any more time clogging up the topic with half-statements about my issues unless the thread topic changed to 'Jordi seeks advice about trust/mistress issues' when I wasn't looking, especially when the topic was one that hadn't totally degenerated into off-topic informality yet, heh.

Hehe, sorry. Generalizations about how relationships ought to work are one of my big pet peeves. It's probably a side effect of most of my friends being godless liberals with "non-traditional" orientations - I've had to listen to a lot of statements like "Bi people love PEOPLE, not PLUMBING" and "Poly people just aren't so SELFISH," which, as a straight monogamous girl who does not for one second think being straight or monogamous gives me any moral superiority, kinda makes me need to smack someone. :p

Inspired by the "What's your sin" thread... there's something that's been puzzling me about the whole sin and go to hell business for a while now.

If you listen to Christians (and Moslems, I guess) you will be punished for your sins once you're dead. Usually, they'll elaborate a little about how you'll go to hell and will receive punishment, and won't be able to sin any more.
Their alternative is going to heaven. To do that, you're not allowed to sin while you're alive, and once you're in heaven, you most certainly aren't allowed to sin any more either.

Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed. And given that no matter where we end up after death (assuming Christians are right, just hypothetically) we won't be allowed to sin any more, wouldn't you want to get the maximum fun possible out of sinning while still alive? I know I would...

You seem to be assuming that sin is the only way to have fun.

You seem to be assuming that sin is the only way to have fun.

I don't see that.....

Wow... nice topic. and a good read *winks at Nanatsu and Gall*
Inspired by the "What's your sin" thread... there's something that's been puzzling me about the whole sin and go to hell business for a while now.

If you listen to Christians (and Moslems, I guess) you will be punished for your sins once you're dead. Usually, they'll elaborate a little about how you'll go to hell and will receive punishment, and won't be able to sin any more.
Their alternative is going to heaven. To do that, you're not allowed to sin while you're alive, and once you're in heaven, you most certainly aren't allowed to sin any more either.

hmm... not just Christians and Islam. many other Religious groups had some form of punishment for doing "sinful" things. Hindus believed that if you lead a good life, you would be reincarnted into a higher form. if you didn't you came back as a lower form of life and so on.

the concept of Hell isn't one where you won't be able to sin anymore. the popular concept is one of torment. that doesn't mean you can't sin. ;)

the concept of Heaven is peace and joy. while that may mean you "can't sin". it can also mean that you will be filled with such happiness, that you won't have any desire to sin.

Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed. And given that no matter where we end up after death (assuming Christians are right, just hypothetically) we won't be allowed to sin any more, wouldn't you want to get the maximum fun possible out of sinning while still alive? I know I would...
it depends... how do you know that which makes sin 'fun' is not available in Heaven? What if it was possible to experience the best orgasm in Heaven without engaging in sex? or to experience the various tastes of different foods without eating? or to be at a constant state of rest? why would you engage in such activities if the 'fun' can be obtained without the act?

of course, who can really know what Heaven and Hell are about. but as you are speculating (as those who told you their concepts of heavan and hell) anything is possible.

You mean you never enjoyed telling your kid a fairy tale? a fairy tale is a parable and you can tell a fairy tale without telling a lie. ;)
I don't think that all sins are fun.
But for most of what I consider fun, I can find at least one place in the bible condemning it.

Examples : adultery, gluttony, coveting your neighbour's husband/wife/car/whatever, lying as in telling a good story, etc. etc.
ah. but to what extent do those examples go?

I like Nanastu and Smunkee (and several other posters here.) yet I respect the fact that they have others who are a part of their lives that they can share experiences that they cannot/willnot share with me. is that desire to be a part of their lives a sin itself? or does it become sin when it becomes an obession and/or when I act upon my desires/obsession?

eating does not make one guilty of Gluttony. but exessive or Obsessive eating is.

sex is not lust. but excessive sex? to the point where you care nothing else but sex?

I tell stories to my neices and nephews. is that me lying to them a sin? or does it become a sin when I lie to my employer to get a raise, lie to a girl so that she will spend time with me, or lie to someone to obtain something else that I want/covet?

Jesus told parables (fairy tales) to get his point across. Grimm collected tales that were used to teach children how to behave. The Night Before Christmas was created to give a dying child one moment of joy. are they sins?

rarely does one sin act alone. Adultery, for example, needs help from Coveting the neighbors wife/husband, a bit of lying, and maybe stealing (since you are stealing something from someone else, like your lover's wife/husband.)

Gluttonly needs some lust (for food) some covetness (for food) and some Slothfulness (lack of excercise.)

at what point does harmless desire become a sin? frankly, that's not for me to say. I've always felt that sin was between the sinner and God.

Anyway, as for the OP, I believe you're taking the definitions of the seven deadly sin too far. Sex does not equal lust and giving your stomach the occasional treat does not equal gluttony. It's all a matter of degrees. *nods* degrees and control. does it control you or do you control those desires?

I think you're being judgmental here, CH. everyone is being judgemental... on all sides actually.
;)

Wow... nice topic. and a good read *winks at Nanatsu and Gall*

:wink:

ah. but to what extent do those examples go?

I like Nanastu and Smunkee (and several other posters here.) yet I respect the fact that they have others who are a part of their lives that they can share experiences that they cannot/willnot share with me. is that desire to be a part of their lives a sin itself? or does it become sin when it becomes an obession and/or when I act upon my desires/obsession?

To wish to be a part of someone's life isn't, at least not to me, something sinful. JuNii-kun.

everyone is being judgemental... on all sides actually.
;)

Unfortunately you're right.:)

You guys should start your own thread. It is very interesting to hear other worldly views, well to me at least. In reading what I have on Hindu and the region I always get hung up on the language and the references. I started with the Bhava Gita which is extremely beautiful in the language but since I do not know who most of the players are it becomes quite difficult. For me I can't tell a place from a person and so on.

I need a "Bhava Gita for Dummies" book or something.

However back to the topic. Whenever you move from Selfless to Selfish usually sin will follow close behind. If one realizes it is not always best to pursue something that a person thinks he or she wants.

You may think you want the car on the showroom floor but breaking the window to get it is not the answer. Work for it. In general desire is our downfall. Desire leads to more desire. Desire leads to sin.

I think to take a page for Buddha's book wanting things is not good. Better might be wanting things is okay but the attachment to things is a bad thing.

Wanting enough food to feed your family is a good thing and you should work for what you need. Having enough food for three lifetime maybe is too much and you may want to consider sharing some with those who have less.

It beneficial in a number of way those people those people would be less inclined to steal from you. The food is less likely to spoil. When you do something nice for someone they may return the favor. By sparing their misery you will relieve yourself from the misery of seeing them suffer.

Here is a good book you may like
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a-Oh_-rK5SQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=%22bhagavad+gita%22+as+it+is&ots=HB4TKH0CQu&sig=_VyP0YydSMg-vSKiX2ZpTJYQcF0#PPA17,M1

and a reliable philosophical retelling of the tale:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cTq4HJWs80oC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=%22bhagavad+gita%22+as+it+is&ots=LtYzvFZr36&sig=s9q_2Kf-IRtXNu6-_tVEjRnfmEs#PPR25,M1

Here on a related note are real conversations between a Zen Buddhist master and seminal psychotherapist Carl Jung (who was influenced by both Buddhism and Hinduism, traditions which do share common roots)
http://jhp.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/10/1/75

What makes you think I don't?
I'm finding it very curious how many people equat sex with love and love with sex... my BF and I are very exclusive about some things, but we just don't regard sex as such a major issue to obsess about.
However, with swinging there is an obsession with sex. The problems arise when the desire for sex outweigh the need for love.

I like angry people, and I thouroughly enjoy being angry myself.
As I stated before, I honestly believe that most people do not want be around an angry person. I also believe that most rational people would prefer peace and serenity over anger and its' ramifications.

I guess you need to be female and have grown up in a society like ours to realise how bloody liberating it is to actually allow yourself to get angry, rather than live in constant intimidation.
I fully understand channeling "angry" energy to achieve goals, and no, I don't need to be a woman to understand "constant intimidation".

However, if you constantly wield anger as a weapon to get what you want then I believe that you will find that there are limitations and that eventually the downside will outweigh the upside. Misdirected anger often leads to broken relationships, lost jobs, poor health, drug and alcohol abuse, and depression.

However, with swinging there is an obsession with sex. The problems arise when the desire for sex outweigh the need for love.

As I said, I don't obsess about sex as much a monogamous people seem to do.
It's fun, it's meant to be enjoyed, and that's it. It's better with some people than with others.


As I stated before, I honestly believe that most people do not want be around an angry person. I also believe that most rational people would prefer peace and serenity over anger and its' ramifications.

Let them. I prefer honest anger to their fake serenity any day.


I fully understand channeling "angry" energy to achieve goals, and no, I don't need to be a woman to understand "constant intimidation".

However, if you constantly wield anger as a weapon to get what you want then I believe that you will find that there are limitations and that eventually the downside will outweigh the upside. Misdirected anger often leads to broken relationships, lost jobs, poor health, drug and alcohol abuse, and depression.

No anger (for women, anyway) leads to underpaid jobs, abusive relationships, broken families, drug and alcohol abuse, depression and suicide.
I've seen that, I've experienced it, and I'm not putting up with that crap any more. If I get treated unfairly, I will get angry, and I will fight back.
If you believe I should just take it lying down and with a smile on my face, that's your right. However, I can assure you that no good EVER comes of that.

Let them. I prefer honest anger to their fake serenity any day.


No anger (for women, anyway) leads to underpaid jobs, abusive relationships, broken families, drug and alcohol abuse, depression and suicide.
I've seen that, I've experienced it, and I'm not putting up with that crap any more. If I get treated unfairly, I will get angry, and I will fight back.
If you believe I should just take it lying down and with a smile on my face, that's your right. However, I can assure you that no good EVER comes of that.
Ditto to this stuff. And, for the record, I enjoy angry people a great deal, provided they also have a sense of humor.

As I said, I don't obsess about sex as much a monogamous people seem to do.
It's fun, it's meant to be enjoyed, and that's it. It's better with some people than with others.
This is where the problems of low self esteem, pride, jealousy, and fear can rear their ugly heads. That is why I believe that most relationships based on this lifestyle end in failure.

Let them. I prefer honest anger to their fake serenity any day.
Hmmmm you have "honest anger" and they have "fake serenity"......perhaps you could explain how you come to that conclusion?

No anger (for women, anyway) leads to underpaid jobs, abusive relationships, broken families, drug and alcohol abuse, depression and suicide.
I've seen that, I've experienced it, and I'm not putting up with that crap any more. If I get treated unfairly, I will get angry, and I will fight back.
If you believe I should just take it lying down and with a smile on my face, that's your right. However, I can assure you that no good EVER comes of that.
Defending oneself and being offensive/abusive are two different things.

The first post is epic ridiculous.
I have gone through this too many times both online and in real life, so I won't detail, I don't really care if that will make you use it as an excuse.

My arguments are not religious-based but simply talk about what religion (in this case Christianity, I guess) is talking about.

1) Sin is something which you shouldn't do and stay away from. Heaven is not a "happy" place automatically. It is a happy place PRECISELY because sin doesn't exist. It is a "happy" place because there are no impure people (means people with sins) there.

2) You usually have to be honest with yourself when feeling sorry for your sins, such that you would try to avoid and feeling guilty. If that's not the case, then don't bother repenting, it's worthless if you don't mean it. It's not like God isn't omniscient and already knows what you think. There is no "free ticket" to Heaven or Hell. If you want to argue with narrow-minded people, continue to believe that. This is a philosophical approach, it can apply to any "higher" being, including let's say, the Matrix (machines) if you would like.

3) I 100%, not religiously, disagree with the "fun" in "sins". Sins are supposed to charm the weak because that's the Devil's weapon. If you want a funny analogy, let's just say that the Devil made a bet with God that people will listen and fall to his charms, without knowing what awaits them (in this case, Hell), because the Devil wants to prove to God that people are too weak minded and primitive. :p

"Charm" or "flesh pleasures" are for the weak, and this will be PROVED once we get artificial intelligence rolling on (I'm somewhat experienced in that field). We'll either have to completely remove our weaknesses and pleasures, or be treated as the underdogs by superior AIs.

Pleasure mind you, is not the same as happiness, in fact it's like the charm that makes you THINK it's happiness, while it's just like the Matrix, where it makes you think it's real (in this case, it is real, but it's not something an evolved being would want). Monks in Monasteries, which obviously don't commit any sins, have been PROVEN to be happy by using brain scans when they meditate (google for it). They are amongst the happiest people you'll ever find anywhere, and I've even got a friend who personally was there.

Pain and Pleasure are both flesh products, primitive instincts that we should dispose of. Depression and happiness are powerful and evolved mental products -- depression isn't always bad, it can lead you to be creative :p

We should replace pain with simple warning signals, and pleasure with nothing (just dispose of it) since it's worthless for a civilized being. I'm actually amazed that we still cling on to it. Material greed also falls in the same category if you can imagine it a bit.


Now it is just my opinion, the way I interpret it, I think it is how religion perceives sin -- as charm for the weak. But I have given my non-religious arguments against such "sins" as well.

I really don't care about your flames. I answered the question from my point of view, and from religion's point of view. I'm not making you choose it, but at least don't be ignorant about it, because both make perfect sense.

This is where the problems of low self esteem, pride, jealousy, and fear can rear their ugly heads. That is why I believe that most relationships based on this lifestyle end in failure.

If you're struggling with those problems, any relationship you're in is likely to fail anyway.


Hmmmm you have "honest anger" and they have "fake serenity"......perhaps you could explain how you come to that conclusion?

A lifetime of observation of humanity.


Defending oneself and being offensive/abusive are two different things.

I wasn't talking about being offensive or abusive, I was talking about being angry. About wrath.

The first post is epic ridiculous.
I have gone through this too many times both online and in real life, so I won't detail, I don't really care if that will make you use it as an excuse.

My arguments are not religious-based but simply talk about what religion (in this case Christianity, I guess) is talking about.

1) Sin is something which you shouldn't do and stay away from. Heaven is not a "happy" place automatically. It is a happy place PRECISELY because sin doesn't exist. It is a "happy" place because there are no impure people (means people with sins) there.

2) You usually have to be honest with yourself when feeling sorry for your sins, such that you would try to avoid and feeling guilty. If that's not the case, then don't bother repenting, it's worthless if you don't mean it. It's not like God isn't omniscient and already knows what you think. There is no "free ticket" to Heaven or Hell. If you want to argue with narrow-minded people, continue to believe that. This is a philosophical approach, it can apply to any "higher" being, including let's say, the Matrix (machines) if you would like.

3) I 100%, not religiously, disagree with the "fun" in "sins". Sins are supposed to charm the weak because that's the Devil's weapon. If you want a funny analogy, let's just say that the Devil made a bet with God that people will listen and fall to his charms, without knowing what awaits them (in this case, Hell), because the Devil wants to prove to God that people are too weak minded and primitive. :p

"Charm" or "flesh pleasures" are for the weak, and this will be PROVED once we get artificial intelligence rolling on (I'm somewhat experienced in that field). We'll either have to completely remove our weaknesses and pleasures, or be treated as the underdogs by superior AIs.

Pleasure mind you, is not the same as happiness, in fact it's like the charm that makes you THINK it's happiness, while it's just like the Matrix, where it makes you think it's real (in this case, it is real, but it's not something an evolved being would want). Monks in Monasteries, which obviously don't commit any sins, have been PROVEN to be happy by using brain scans when they meditate (google for it). They are amongst the happiest people you'll ever find anywhere, and I've even got a friend who personally was there.

Pain and Pleasure are both flesh products, primitive instincts that we should dispose of. Depression and happiness are powerful and evolved mental products -- depression isn't always bad, it can lead you to be creative :p

We should replace pain with simple warning signals, and pleasure with nothing (just dispose of it) since it's worthless for a civilized being. I'm actually amazed that we still cling on to it. Material greed also falls in the same category if you can imagine it a bit.


Now it is just my opinion, the way I interpret it, I think it is how religion perceives sin -- as charm for the weak. But I have given my non-religious arguments against such "sins" as well.

I really don't care about your flames. I answered the question from my point of view, and from religion's point of view. I'm not making you choose it, but at least don't be ignorant about it, because both make perfect sense.

Oh, cute, a virgin posting. Welcome to NSG.
I disagree that pleasure is worthless. What else is there to enjoy about life if not pleasures? You'd have to be quite a masochist to wish for all pleasures to be eliminated.

Inspired by the "What's your sin" thread... there's something that's been puzzling me about the whole sin and go to hell business for a while now.

If you listen to Christians (and Moslems, I guess) you will be punished for your sins once you're dead. Usually, they'll elaborate a little about how you'll go to hell and will receive punishment, and won't be able to sin any more.
Their alternative is going to heaven. To do that, you're not allowed to sin while you're alive, and once you're in heaven, you most certainly aren't allowed to sin any more either.

Now, we all know that sinning is great fun - very great fun indeed. And given that no matter where we end up after death (assuming Christians are right, just hypothetically) we won't be allowed to sin any more, wouldn't you want to get the maximum fun possible out of sinning while still alive? I know I would...

I was told that heaven is this beautiful incredibly filling feeling, that results from being completely at one with God.

The way I see it, on Earth we can achieve a beautiful incredible filling feeling by becoming one with someone else. . .from sex, of course. So I figure heaven is probably like a constant orgasm. Makes sense. . . all the souls are one with each other? Orgy like that, who wouldn't cum?

As for sinning. . . most sins I don't find that fun, really. It's a lot more satisfying for me to live life full of love and grace. I don't think drinking booze is a sin, but getting trashed might be. But then, as someone who has had a fair amount of "crying drunk" episodes. . . not that into it.

Same with sex. Sex with someone I love. . . absolutely incredible. Sex with a one night stand? Meh, not usually that satisfying. Plus, no matter how safe I am (and I am always safe) I still get a bit of paranoia about STDs and pregnancy.

The way I see it, on Earth we can achieve a beautiful incredible filling feeling by becoming one with someone else. . .from sex, of course. So I figure heaven is probably like a constant orgasm. Makes sense. . . all the souls are one with each other? Orgy like that, who wouldn't cum?

I like the way you think. But not because of the sex related to your post, but because it must be such a wonderful feeling to be one with someone you care about. I envy those who by being religious or by finding the one person that com-penetrates with them, are able to feel this oneness, either with another person or with their god. That, in itself, can't be a sin. Right?

I like the way you think. But not because of the sex related to your post, but because it must be such a wonderful feeling to be one with someone you care about. I envy those who by being religious or by finding the one person that com-penetrates with them, are able to feel this oneness, either with another person or with their god. That, in itself, can't be a sin. Right?

For me, God is Love. Anything done in love and with love is not a sin.

I never got the "pleasure=badness" concept. Artificial, superficial, fleeting pleasure that, in the long run can cause significantly more harm than good, yes, absolutely that is badness. But smiling releases endorphins, according to my biology teacher, so smiling is pleasurable. It makes you happy. How can smiling be anything but goodness?

For me, God is Love. Anything done in love and with love is not a sin.

Todo hecho con amor y por amor no es un pecado.

Once again, you use words I totally like. Love is God-given, and not sinful.

Oh, cute, a virgin posting. Welcome to NSG.
I disagree that pleasure is worthless. What else is there to enjoy about life if not pleasures? You'd have to be quite a masochist to wish for all pleasures to be eliminated.Actually sex isn't the only pleasure mind you.
And if you want to find out what true happiness looks like (and is confirmed with a brain scan), go and see monks in monasteries ;)

Seriously. No joke.
Pleasure is the illusion of fullfillment, like any charm. Pain is also an illusion -- because damage can be done without pain (some neurological toxins for example) but pain can also be done without damage (those hi-tech torturing beams for example).

Everyone should learn to avoid illusions and focus on betterment, in my opinion. (I have nothing against sex mind you, my post was about the "pleasure sins", but my opinion is not about 'sins' just about pleasure being something primitive we should dispose of -- pleasure may be associated with sex, but not to all people like asexuals for example; anyway I was talking about all types of such sins, and it includes material greed btw).

Drugs are one example of a fast illusion that later will escalate (like pleasures, because of dopamine levels in the brain, which will demand more -- it's like adaptation mind you). It increases your needs which is bad: the fewer needs to accomplish the same task, the better.

And no, I'm not a religious preacher :p

Pleasure is the illusion of fullfillment, like any charm. Pain is also an illusion -- because damage can be done without pain (some neurological toxins for example) but pain can also be done without damage (those hi-tech torturing beams for example).
That doesn't follow at all.

Sex can be had without love, and love can be had without sex. This does not show that sex, nor love, is an illusion. Furthermore, if you wish to contend that pain and pleasure are simply illusions, i.e., that the phenomenological experiences of pain and pleasure that I have are not somehow 'real', then you would be in the position of denying any phenomenological experience as 'real'.

For how can pain be false yet anguish, love, joy, sorrow, etc., be true?

Drugs are one example of a fast illusion that later will escalate (like pleasures, because of dopamine levels in the brain, which will demand more -- it's like adaptation mind you).
Again, how are drugs an illusion?

The pleasures are undoubtedly real, insofar as any felt experience is real.

That doesn't follow at all.

Sex can be had without love, and love can be had without sex. This does not show that sex, nor love, is an illusion. Furthermore, if you wish to contend that pain and pleasure are simply illusions, i.e., that the phenomenological experiences of pain and pleasure that I have are not somehow 'real', then you would be in the position of denying any phenomenological experience as 'real'.

For how can pain be false yet anguish, love, joy, sorrow, etc., be true?Of course first of all, I was talking about pleasure. If there would be no pleasure in sex, my point wouldn't even address it (mind you, think of all pleasures).

However when i say illusion, I don't mean that it doesn't exist -- after all even visual illusions exist as chemical processes in the brain. What I mean is that it gives you an illusion or a false sense of fulfillment or happiness or whatever, for a short time.

You can draw the same with drugs. If you look from an external perspective -- there will be nothing but substances interacting. The "pleasure" is just an illusionary signal like imagination (which, by external means, is also just electrical signals interacting...), because of dopamine released. It's virtually the same effect.

The pleasures are undoubtedly real, insofar as any felt experience is real.I can perfectly understand what you mean but going by that way nothing would be illusion. After all, you can feel imagination just as well, visually, as any pleasures. So there would be no illusions.

However when i say illusion, I don't mean that it doesn't exist -- after all even visual illusions exist as chemical processes in the brain. What I mean is that it gives you an illusion or a false sense of fulfillment or happiness or whatever, for a short time.

You can draw the same with drugs. If you look from an external perspective -- there will be nothing but substances interacting. The "pleasure" is just an illusionary signal like imagination (which, by external means, is also just electrical signals interacting...), because of dopamine released.
And the same can be said for any emotional state, including having a sense of fulfilment.

When a drug releases a chemical signal into your body, that is a real signal producing a real effect with real pleasure. You might want to argue that the pleasure isn't a good pleasure, or won't last longer than the drug, but is still very much a real pleasure; it is not false.

Moreover, it's quite possible to have a pleasure stimulated by drug use or sex that lasts much longer than the drug or intercourse itself. We can, and many often do, gain genuine, lasting, fulfilling pleasure from recreational drug use and sex outside of a loving relationship.

To take personal experience as an example, I have been having casual sex with an acquaintance for a couple of months now. Because each of us have recently come out of long-term loving relationships, the sex is both a genuine pleasure, and fulfils the two of us; neither of us are looking for a long-term commitment.

You are right in saying that certain pleasures are not always what we take them for, but you are wrong in saying that certain pleasures are not really pleasures.

After all, you can feel imagination just as well, visually, as any pleasures. So there would be no illusions.
I'm saying that illusions are real experiences, insofar as we really had the illusion; they just aren't what we think they are.

You say that all pleasure isn't what we think it is; but I do not see this to be true.

When a drug releases a chemical signal into your body, that is a real signal producing a real effect with real pleasure. You might want to argue that the pleasure isn't a good pleasure, or won't last longer than the drug, but is still very much a real pleasure; it is not false.

Moreover, it's quite possible to have a pleasure stimulated by drug use or sex that lasts much longer than the drug or intercourse itself. We can, and many often do, gain genuine, lasting, fulfilling pleasure from recreational drug use and sex outside of a loving relationship.

To take personal experience as an example, I have been having casual sex with an acquaintance for a couple of months now. Because each of us have recently come out of long-term loving relationships, the sex is both a genuine pleasure, and fulfils the two of us; neither of us are looking for a long-term commitment.

You are right in saying that certain pleasures are not always what we take them for, but you are wrong in saying that certain pleasures are not really pleasures.I never said that certain pleasures are not really pleasures because that would be circular logic. And of course pleasures are experiences, but I'm talking about the goals behind the pleasure. For example, after excessive drug use, you feel like you need a whole lot more to fulfill it -- even though someone "sober" is satisfied with a whole lot less. The expectancy here of the GOAL is corrupted because you have an illusion that the needs must be satisfied with it. In truth, it's only a false expectancy, people without drugs really don't miss them at all, do they? The junkie's false sense of "must have drugs" is the illusion, and the pleasure GIVES the illusion that you need it (the pleasure isn't the illusion itself, if that's what you thought I meant).

Hmm I'm not sure how to explain this better. Maybe it's because I'm an absolutist. If you saw the Matrix for example, you'll see that reality can be an illusion too. I still think that the "real reality" matters objectively.

You say that all pleasure isn't what we think it is; but I do not see this to be true.I'm saying pleasure giving you fulfillment and happiness is actually a false sense or illusion, not pleasure itself, but what it gives you. You'll be back craving for more (esp. in case of drugs, I'm using that as example in this post as you could have seen), while the end result, that is your state, can be achieved with less needs and without it.

Think that a junkie "cannot" live without drugs, or so he claims, or cannot feel anything without drugs, but we sober people live perfectly fine without it don't you think? That's why it's an illusion, it gives you this sense that you need it and become dependent on it. Like a charm, as I have said.

I'm saying pleasure giving you fulfillment and happiness is actually a false sense or illusion, not pleasure itself, but what it gives you. You'll be back craving for more (esp. in case of drugs, I'm using that as example in this post as you could have seen), while the end result, that is your state, can be achieved with less needs and without it.
I still don't see how your argument follows.

Some pleasures might breed a sense of fulfilment that when we analyse, we find to be in some manner 'false', sure.

My confusion is why you would say all pleasures are such; for they are clearly not. (At least, not for all people. You might not feel any real fulfilment from pleasures, but others, including myself, certainly do.)

Because all, statistically speaking, are just on different levels of dopamine. If some are low enough you may not notice the difference "subjectively" (i.e experience), but I don't think we should make an exception, it's simply that they are less charming or whatever you want to call it. Different degrees if you want.

Because all, statistically speaking, are just on different levels of dopamine. If some are low enough you may not notice the difference "subjectively" (i.e experience), but I don't think we should make an exception, it's simply that they are less charming or whatever you want to call it. Different degrees if you want.

There is nothing more real than emotions.

Because all, statistically speaking, are just on different levels of dopamine. If some are low enough you may not notice the difference "subjectively" (i.e experience), but I don't think we should make an exception, it's simply that they are less charming or whatever you want to call it. Different degrees if you want.
But then, as I said above, you are implying that all phenomenological experience, all emotion and feeling, is an illusion, for we can point to chemical changes in the brain in these cases also.

Moreover, it's an arbitrary decision that just becasue a pleasure changes the levels of various chemicals in our brain, they are false.

You could as conceivably say that they are all real.

The levels, or substances, aren't false. It is what sense it gives you (which is also subjective) that is false. For example, it would be like someone saying "you can't survive without a sheep" or "you can't be happy without a knife cutting your throat". Wouldn't that person actually give you illusions, were you to actually fall to the charm and truly BELIEVE those things "very real"? (i.e you would go at a point where you really could NOT imagine surviving without a sheep, or being happy without cutting your throat, etc...). Is that more clear?

The levels, or substances, aren't false. It is what sense it gives you (which is also subjective) that is false. For example, it would be like someone saying "you can't survive without a sheep" or "you can't be happy without a knife cutting your throat". Wouldn't that person actually give you illusions, were you to actually fall to the charm and truly BELIEVE those things "very real"? (i.e you would go at a point where you really could NOT imagine surviving without a sheep, or being happy without cutting your throat, etc...). Is that more clear?

Not at all. Do you understand what it is you are trying to say?

Is that more clear?
No, for it only talks about those extremes when we can say for sure that we are being deceived.

It doesn't address your assertion that all pleasures are like this.

Not at all. Do you understand what it is you are trying to say?Well I'll put it in layman terms, so it may sound stupid, but seems I have to.

"Hey man, take this drug, it's the secret to happiness."

is one of the examples of what I call an illusion -- a false sense. Especially because once you do it, you'll actually believe it -- i.e that you can't be happy without it, because it charms/corrupts your brain (or the brain adapts to it, whatever you wanna put it). Then you'll want more, and you'll not be able to believe that you were able to find happiness with less, etc... (this is to the more powerful drugs, the others need a lot more time etc).

The difference between something "being false" and "an illusion" is that the illusion seems real like hell, and that you actually believe the illusion is real.

"Hey man, take this drug, it's the secret to happiness."

is one of the examples of what I call an illusion -- a false sense.
More than an illusion, it's utter bollocks.

Your fictional dealer is making a wild and rather silly claim. However, a claim such as, "take this drug, it'll make you happy tonight", or, take this drug, it'll make you less anxious", or similar, is much harder to dismiss. And, quite conceivably, these feelings will not be false nor an illusion.

What's more problematic though, is that your claiming that all pleasure is somehow the same as your example of the dealer claiming ultimate happiness; that pleasure won't make you happy There's nothing to suggest this is the case. You've taken a sensible notion - hedonistic pleasure isn't necessarily always the best option - and warped it into a crazy extreme; saying that all pleasure (and pain) is undesirable

Returning to your original post on this topic, you say that "Monks in Monasteries, which obviously don't commit any sins, have been PROVEN to be happy by using brain scans when they meditate". Now, assuming the impossible - that monks never commit sin - and assuming that this test is real and accurate, two things strike me. First, you have got to show that those happy people who enjoy pleasure are somehow not really happy; that all pleasure-enjoying happy persons are somehow deluded and vitally different to these monks. Secondly, monks do gain pleasure, a good deal of pleasure at times, for many things; serving their god, getting their tasks completed, helping others, etc.

To be blunt, I don't think you have the greatest conception of pleasure, and your denouncement of it (along with your denouncement of pain; an evolutionary vital component of humans) seems rather confused.

Well I'll put it in layman terms, so it may sound stupid, but seems I have to.

"Hey man, take this drug, it's the secret to happiness."

is one of the examples of what I call an illusion -- a false sense. Especially because once you do it, you'll actually believe it -- i.e that you can't be happy without it, because it charms/corrupts your brain (or the brain adapts to it, whatever you wanna put it). Then you'll want more, and you'll not be able to believe that you were able to find happiness with less, etc... (this is to the more powerful drugs, the others need a lot more time etc).

The difference between something "being false" and "an illusion" is that the illusion seems real like hell, and that you actually believe the illusion is real.

First of all, thank you for dumbing it down for lil ol' me, I appreciate it.

There are things that make me happy, things that are pleasurable, and yet I am fully capable of being happy. It seems to me that you object not to pleasure, per se, but to things which breed dependency. And with dependency there is a lack of true freedom, and true happiness, I can agree. And since God loves us and wants us to be Truly Happy, doing things which hurt ourselves in the long run makes Him sad, and thusly are "sins."

But my love of bubbles is, I assure you, complete and makes me absolutely resplendent. However, it causes no harm to any of God's creatures (so far as I know. . . *hopes*) and I am most certainly not dependent or less free because of my love of bubbles. And yet I am fairly certain my pleasure and joy is due pretty much entirely to the chemicals induced by bubbles. I can think of no way in which blowing bubbles is sinful.

If you believe the Christians we are mostly all going to hell anyway since just being born is a sin.

Now, assuming the impossible - that monks never commit sin - and assuming that this test is real and accurate, two things strike me.
Now, now, neither BVM nor JC committed sin. It is possible for a human being to live life without sin, with sufficient Grace, methinks.


To be blunt, I don't think you have the greatest conception of pleasure, and your denouncement of it (along with your denouncement of pain; an evolutionary vital component of humans) seems rather confused.
Or, possibly, that he (she?) either doesn't really know what he is trying to say, or that he knows what he wants to say, but doesn't know how to communicate it properly. But often if you dress words up enough, no one, including the speaker, realizes when this is happening. Praise the Lord for dumbing it down!

If you believe the Christians we are mostly all going to hell anyway since just being born is a sin.

Being born isn't a sin, silly goose, it's just that you need God's Grace to make you complete and keep you from sinning. Or, at least, that's how I think of it.

Being born isn't a sin, silly goose, it's just that you need God's Grace to make you complete and keep you from sinning. Or, at least, that's how I think of it.

Well Catholic Dogma pretty much states
Being born is a sin.
Having Sex to anyone you aren't married to is a sin.
Using any kind of birth control, is a sin.

So perhaps if from the time you are born you become a monk or a nun than you might make it to heaven if you don't accidentally step on a dust mite and crush it.

Well Catholic Dogma pretty much states
Being born is a sin.
Having Sex to anyone you aren't married to is a sin.
Using any kind of birth control, is a sin.

So perhaps if from the time you are born you become a monk or a nun than you might make it to heaven if you don't accidentally step on a dust mite and crush it.

The Catholic school I went to taught me that Jesus came and preached because the leaders of the Jewish faith at the time were so concerned with the letter of the Law that they were losing sight of it's spirit. (I got in trouble the next year when I asked if Martin Luther wasn't effectively doing what Christ had done, but that teacher was a freaking idiot.)

So, while I consider myself a fairly devout Catholic, I don't set a ton of store by dogma.

Also, the Roman Catholic Church does not condemn Natural Family Planning, which is a form of birth control.

Furthermore, it is conceivable that you could be born, abstain from sex until you are married, and then have loving, beautiful sex within the context of the marriage while using natural family planning and then pass away and have as good a shot at getting into heaven as any monk or nun.

But, my dear, it is irrelevant, because you seem to have forgotten about the gift of Reconciliation and Penance. Part of what makes God so Great is that He loves us, as I heard someone put it once, "just as we are, but too much to be content to see us stay this way." He loves us and will forgive us, "not seven times, but seven times seventy times." So pretty much if you try to do the right thing, screw up occasionally, and are sorry when you do screw up, you have a pretty good shot at getting into heaven.

Actually sex isn't the only pleasure mind you.
And if you want to find out what true happiness looks like (and is confirmed with a brain scan), go and see monks in monasteries ;)

Seriously. No joke.
Pleasure is the illusion of fullfillment, like any charm. Pain is also an illusion -- because damage can be done without pain (some neurological toxins for example) but pain can also be done without damage (those hi-tech torturing beams for example).

Everyone should learn to avoid illusions and focus on betterment, in my opinion. (I have nothing against sex mind you, my post was about the "pleasure sins", but my opinion is not about 'sins' just about pleasure being something primitive we should dispose of -- pleasure may be associated with sex, but not to all people like asexuals for example; anyway I was talking about all types of such sins, and it includes material greed btw).

Drugs are one example of a fast illusion that later will escalate (like pleasures, because of dopamine levels in the brain, which will demand more -- it's like adaptation mind you). It increases your needs which is bad: the fewer needs to accomplish the same task, the better.

And no, I'm not a religious preacher :p

I've seen monks, and lived with nuns. If you think that's what happiness is, you must be a very sad person indeed.
And I maintain that without pleasure, what can you possibly enjoy about life? Yes, pleasures are primitive, And that's what's so good about them.

But, my dear, it is irrelevant, because you seem to have forgotten about the gift of Reconciliation and Penance. Part of what makes God so Great is that He loves us, as I heard someone put it once, "just as we are, but too much to be content to see us stay this way." He loves us and will forgive us, "not seven times, but seven times seventy times." So pretty much if you try to do the right thing, screw up occasionally, and are sorry when you do screw up, you have a pretty good shot at getting into heaven.

But there's the thing... why be sorry if you enjoyed it and didn't harm anyone?

I've seen monks, and lived with nuns. If you think that's what happiness is, you must be a very sad person indeed.
And I maintain that without pleasure, what can you possibly enjoy about life? Yes, pleasures are primitive, And that's what's so good about them.

I think he's mixing up words. Monks could be said to be content with very little, whereas others seek this through temporary means of pleasure. He hasn't explained why repeated temporary pleasure cannot lead to contentment, though.

I think he's mixing up words. Monks could be said to be content with very little, whereas others seek this through temporary means of pleasure. He hasn't explained why repeated temporary pleasure cannot lead to contentment, though.

Again, my personal experience is that monasteries and convents aren't exacly places of content serenity. They tend to appear that way at first, but once you've spent a few weeks with them, you can actually be quite happy to return to your disfunctional family at home. The amount of petty hatred, intrigues and backstabbing I've seen in convents would put every parliament to shame.

Again, my personal experience is that monasteries and convents aren't exacly places of content serenity. They tend to appear that way at first, but once you've spent a few weeks with them, you can actually be quite happy to return to your disfunctional family at home. The amount of petty hatred, intrigues and backstabbing I've seen in convents would put every parliament to shame.

Oh indeed, I wasn't agreeing with his premises at all.

Now, now, neither BVM nor JC committed sin. It is possible for a human being to live life without sin, with sufficient Grace, methinks.
Perhaps, though I don't think most monks or nuns are as quite as effective as Jesus or Buddha.


Yes, pleasures are primitive, And that's what's so good about them.
What do you mean by 'primitive'?

What do you mean by 'primitive'?

Hormonal and created in sub-cortical areas. Not evolutionarily modern or intellectual.