Getting Real : Speak your peace
There was no whore....
from High on the Holy Ghost - Friday, December 05, 2003
accessed 1673 times
Berg sent our mothers out to whore themselves on behalf of Christ and himself. Today we are finding out that more of his "solid doctrine" was just built on sand and his own lust. Woe unto the false prophets...
The information that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute is very much an accepted part of Christian story telling. But according to new studies by female scholars of ancient scripture and texts a new version of biblical history is emerging. Male scholars did much of the original translations. And with female oppression being the norm much of the information was biased against women taking away the power women possessed in these ancient events.
Mary Magdalene as a whore is one example of Berg claiming to have revelations straight from God. Later we can see that again plagiarism from mainstream Christian Doctrine played a major role in his twisted babblings. This article also completely blows Berg’s Ffing theory out of the water based on Mary Magdalene.
With his distorted view and understanding of bible doctrine, he magnified his own lust to create an entire generation of whores, our mothers. Berg loved the sinning men of the world so much he sent our mothers out to minister to the supposed filthy men of the System by spreading wide their legs. And if they weren’t willing to do this then they were out of the spirit. And now we see that there was no whore to begin with.
Do you think Jesus sent his Mary Magdalene out to have sex with any man who wanted her? Did Jesus show the world how much he loved them by having Mary Magdalene FF them? He didn’t peg his beloved to a cross? (Remember the illustration from our childhood of the woman being nailed in her privates to a cross. Also the picture of a woman with a hook through her belly.) No he didn’t. He was the one who died on the cross with her beside him all the way.
If Berg was a true prophet of God and not a messenger of Satan don’t you think God would have shown him this truth of Mary Magdalene? And since he received quite the opposite information from other realms, it leads me to believe that here is proof once again of his ties to Satan and the occult. He was a false prophet standing on the roof saying, “Here He is.” Or “There He is.”
Read the scripture we were taught as children about the false prophets, Berg fits the profile to a T.
Woe unto the False Prophet...
Reader's comments on this article
Add a new comment on this article
Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 10:15
Why do you complicate this sordid tale with the juxtaposition of God and Satan, good and evil etc. There are no higher principles in this sorry chapter of our mother's lives, only their victimization by a charismatic demagogue and his mysogynistic male minions.
The pimps on the streets of Oakland practiced pimpology in the 1970's. They had their practice down to a science. A central prinicpal of this science is that by making his bitches demean themselves before strangers the pimp drives the bitches closer to himself, plain and simple. Couple this sexual victimization with the occasional bitch slapping and the tricks become the pimp's loyal sycophants. Likewise with our mothers. The fact that they thought of themselves as God's endtime soldiers does not change the reality of what they were, Berg's trick ass bitches bringing daddy his muthafuckin' money.
Watch "American Pimp" for a documentary examining the pimp-prostitute phenomenon.
(reply to this comment)
|from Sir Rantalot|
Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 08:06
And whatever the fuck you mean by false prophet?
Christianity is an artificial, constructed(false) religion. At the beginning a bunch of old men with bad attitudes got together and decided what to put in the Bible and what to leave out. Sure, Isn't all religion just made up of metaphors that teach us morals and the "right" way to live you might say.
Christianity is an unbalanced, dangerous religion. Down from the negation of the female aspect of divinity to it's perverted morals of self-sacrifice, humility and blind faith. The worst, most evil metaphor of Christianity is it's idea of the "original sin". Christianity has hated and repressed the holy female aspect of nature, thus creating 2000 years of unbalace, and we're still paying the price today.
Their dangerous divison of "good" and "evil" is wrong and lopsided. Sex and death are normal, necessary parts of life, negating their existance or attributing these functions to and "evil one" is pure insanity! Any other religions knows that creation and destruction go hand in hand, check out the Kali-Shiva dual diety. You cannot have one without the other.
Metaphorically speaking, Christianity is a religion for immature teenagers. It's about time we all grew the fuck up!
I've said this once and don't think I'll ever say it enough: Monotheism is the scourge of western civilisation!...And Christians are NOT welcome on this website, you might as well profess a taste in cannibalism to get more sympathy here, as I really find nothing closer to "evil" than Christianity.
(reply to this comment)
| From Jules|
Saturday, December 06, 2003, 09:19
"Christians are NOT welcome on this website".
I disagree with you there Rantalot. That sounds a bit like bigotry. As far as I am aware, the only people not welcome here are FGs who want to preach to us. I know a number of Christians who are not immature teenagers or "evil". It's a bit disturbing when atheists are as fanatical as Christian fundamentalists. You make some excellent points about Christianity that I personally agree with, but I also think that we should let people decide for themselves what they believe. (reply to this comment)
| From Benz|
Sunday, December 07, 2003, 19:54
Not wishing to cause any unnecessary ripples (goodness knows there are enough already).
However one specific comment has just “jumped out at me”:
Tuesday, December 02, 2003, 08:02
Joel, please do not reply in this forum. Your bible class and "direct prophecy" is not appreciated or wanted. Mat. 7:6; Job.13:5
- awash with tolerance…not much astray from SR’s remark.
(reply to this comment)
| From Benz|
Sunday, December 07, 2003, 20:20
Only playing devil's advocate....I was just interested as to where you'd drawn the line.
You might need to revise "the ONLY people not welcome here" as well.
Certainly though, you have always made it clear about FG's not being welcome. - I guess it seemed to me that Joel was at least on our side (in some way) and against the ramblings of Zerby & Co, even if he does portray an "Ed-Priebe"/"Watchman" approach.
- Was he actually trying to preach??
- I do agree his comments are probably best directed at FG sites.(reply to this comment)
| From Actually....|
Monday, December 08, 2003, 07:48
I don't think he really is on any "side" except his own. He has some pretty mixed-up thoughts. Like these:
On the exfamily.org site an FG got into a discussion with him and asked:
"And do you believe that Maria will decipher the letters in conjunction with the word to bring alive the First Generation of family members that "hear"?"
Joel answered: "Exactly! You heard me Perfectly!-Jer.23:18-20"
The FG continued: "The thing that is alarming to me is that this is the way Berg thought,"
Joel answered: "What Berg thought doesn't matter. Because God had control of his writings and rantings, like Balaam!-Num.22:20,35; 23:5 But the "multitude of dreams and many words" will be made few (Eccl.5:1-7) when "our Little Book" is published with "many words made few"(273:5-9), and "32 pages of prophecy & Interpretation"!-223:1-3"
Anyway, sounds to me like he still believes TF is going to come around again with Maria at the helm. And that he still has some thing for Berg too. I don't actually really understand everything he says, as you'd have to have a Bible to read to get him, I guess. But just to say, I don't think he's really on "our side" in any way. (reply to this comment)
| From Benz|
Monday, December 08, 2003, 21:03
Granted, I do see the apparent compulsive fixation for Balaams (and perhaps Zerby’s) ass as quirky to say the least. – Maybe he thinks it should be “King Joel” instead of “King Peter”, who cares.
The question I was meaning to ask, pragmatically, was the difference between someone who tirelessly quotes & reinterprets any material, whether be it the bible or the writings of atheist writers etc.
…but I’m forgetting, atheists determine what falls within the bounds of valid/ logical belief systems.
Perhaps however we are merely attacking someone’s method of discussing or presenting a point of view. – If so, is our concern justified, or are we unduly worried that if someone presents a point of view forcibly (as Joel does) we may end up believing without our consent?
BTW folks, if you be so kind to save the pee pee doo doo sex jokes for your Kindy recess, that would be just great.
(reply to this comment)
| From Sir Rantalot|
Saturday, December 06, 2003, 15:12
I'm not an Atheist, I actually find hardcore rationalists about as pathetic as Christians. I'm an agnostic discordian at heart!
Why Christian views are not welcome on this site? How many times does some self-proclaimed savior come on Movingon to tell us that berg was not a real Christian, and how sad they are that we rejected Christ and blah blah. Posts like these usually just flame up the wrath of a good section of moving on members, so I can say quite certainly that the general feeling on Movingon towards Christianity is a negative one.
"It's a bit disturbing when atheists are as fanatical as Christian fundamentalists."
As I said before, I'm not an atheist & I respect all religions except the monotheistic flavors. I, as many here on this site, have seen the direct negative consequences of this faith. As well as the TF, i've seen the negative effects of Christianity in Christian missions(non TF) worldwide, christian rehab & Christian counlseling. No, I'm not fanatical, but Christianity has proven, without a shadow of a doubt to be dangerous, it's time to stop pussy-footing around. I hope for a near future when admitting to being a Christian will be as imbarrasing as saying you have AIDS or a mental disease today(in the future we'll be much more understanding towards HIV positive people, hopefully).
The so-called understanding Christians, the liberal, politically correct Christians are the lukewarm, kiss ass Christians, who have reconlied their belief system with the political current in vogue today and have decided not to read 70% of their Bible. They make me sick, their Christianity is a Christ in name only, denial is their biggest, most treasured virtue.
I can understand and appreciate the life-enhancing ideas Buddism,Thelema, Hinduism, Taoism, Shamanism & personal mysticism, but can only be disgusted by pompous and twisted "morals" of the Christian faith. If you want to be a bigoted WASP, then I'm sure you'll find everything you need in Christianity.
Some appetizing metaphors from the bible:
cruelty to animals
intollerance towards unbeliers
you know the rest, Jules. I'm a religious person in my own right, i believe, from direct experience, in the physical & mental benefits of meditating, pranayama yoga & Ceremonial magic, whether one believes in a "god" or not, but i think it's time to stand up against false religion.
(reply to this comment)
| From Jules|
Saturday, December 06, 2003, 21:23
SR: "I'm not an Atheist"
Well that's a relief. I personally am a "hardcore rationalist" and it is good to know that your rants don't stem from certain disbelief (though admittedly sometimes rabid speech does).
SR: "I can say quite certainly that the general feeling on Movingon towards Christianity is a negative one".
I think that the general feeling towards being "witnessed to" is a negative one: whether that is by people telling us to move on already and forgive and forget, or people saying that everyone who doesn't want to destroy the Family is "part of the problem", or that it's wrong to reject Christianity along with the Family, or that anyone who is still a Christian/spiritual is an idiot. I think what annoys people, though I can admittedly only speak for myself, is the notion that someone else has The Truth and we should just believe them. Give us all some credit here, we have all thought things through on our own, and while we may have come to different conclusions, we have the right to those conclusions (especially when we can back them up with some sort of logical argument), even if others disagree. That's the point of being free.
SR: "I respect all religions except the monotheistic flavours"
I don't respect all religions. I think what religions teach is complete nonsense. I do however respect people's right to believe whatever they want to.
Personally I believe religion (apart from being a meme containing significantly superior defence mechanisms), is largely a result of our neurology. (I haven't quoted Douglas Adams in ages, and I'm suffering a bit from withdrawals, so sorry but I just have to do this.) Douglas Adams said something along these lines I thought was brilliant:
" About Feng Shui[:] ... Apparently, we need to think about the building being inhabited by dragons and look at it in terms of how a dragon would move around it. So, if a dragon wouldn’t be happy in the house, you have to put a red fish bowl here or a window there. This sounds like complete and utter nonsense, because anything involving dragons must be nonsense—there aren’t any dragons, so any theory based on how dragons behave is nonsense. What are these silly people doing, imagining that dragons can tell you how to build your house? Nevertheless, it occurs to me if you disregard for a moment the explanation that’s actually offered for it, it may be there is something interesting going on that goes like this: we all know from buildings that we’ve lived in, worked in, been in or stayed in, that some are more comfortable, more pleasant and more agreeable to live in than others. We haven’t had a real way of quantifying this, ... An awful lot of theory has been poured into this, but if you sit and work with an architect ... when you are trying to figure out how a room should work you’re trying to integrate all kinds of things about lighting, about angles, about how people move and how people live—and an awful lot of other things you don’t know about that get left out. You don’t know what importance to attach to one thing or another; you’re trying to, very consciously, figure out something when you haven’t really got much of a clue, but there’s this theory and that theory, this bit of engineering practice and that bit of architectural practice; you don’t really know what to make of them. Compare that to somebody who tosses a cricket ball at you. You can sit and watch it and say, ‘It’s going at 17 degrees’; start to work it out on paper, do some calculus, etc. and about a week after the ball’s whizzed past you, you may have figured out where it’s going to be and how to catch it. On the other hand, you can simply put your hand out and let the ball drop into it, because we have all kinds of faculties built into us, just below the conscious level, able to do all kinds of complex integrations of all kinds of complex phenomena which therefore enables us to say, ‘Oh look, there’s a ball coming; catch it!’ ... What I’m suggesting is that Feng Shui and an awful lot of other things are precisely of that kind of problem. There are all sorts of things we know how to do, but don’t necessarily know what we do, we just do them. Go back to the issue of how you figure out how a room or a house should be designed and instead of going through all the business of trying to work out the angles and trying to digest which genuine architectural principles you may want to take out of what may be a passing architectural fad, just ask yourself, ‘how would a dragon live here?’ We are used to thinking in terms of organic creatures; an organic creature may consist of an enormous complexity of all sorts of different variables that are beyond our ability to resolve but we know how organic creatures live. We’ve never seen a dragon but we’ve all got an idea of what a dragon is like, so we can say, ‘Well if a dragon went through here, he’d get stuck just here and a little bit cross over there because he couldn’t see that and he’d wave his tail and knock that vase over’. You figure out how the dragon’s going to be happy here and lo and behold! You’ve suddenly got a place that makes sense for other organic creatures, such as ourselves, to live in."
I do think that religion is a lot like that, (which is what Adams goes on to say). We are only just beginning to guess at reasons for our own consciousness. To actually understand it all rationally is beyond us at this point (and there is a branch of cognitive science that says perhaps we never will). However, and I find this true in personal aspects of my life as well, even if we don't understand exactly why, if we have a general idea of something in that vicinity, it does help to understand supposedly subconscious motivations and why we are the way we are.
I believe that we as humans have a fundamental need to feel that we are more than the sum of our parts, and perhaps we are. The human mind and our (perhaps over) evolved frontal lobes seek out patterns, symbols and meaning in the world around us, and we do actually know that this is how we process information and memories. There are dogmas and beliefs that appeal to us on a deep level (and seem to work) in a way that we have no conscious or specific understanding of.
Obviously the unquestioning acceptance of a particular code, belief system or even political rhetoric is indeed something uneducated (or irrational) cultures and peoples find comfort in, and is certainly worthy of disdain. To find that something makes sense for you as an individual, and works for you in your own life is the essence of religious freedom. To me, the essence of intolerance and dictatorship is to say, "You have no right to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions. If you disagree with what I believe to be true, then you are wrong". Ironically, the concept of human rights and individuality as we know them in Western culture today, from the Magna Charter to the Declaration of Independence, stem from Judeo-Christian ethics. Religious freedom, and the freedom to individuality and thought, is in fact the basis of all freedom as it is defined by us today.
I agree with everything you said about Christianity and more. I think Candide's lecture at LSE was brilliant though. It's so true that we have been trained to see things in black and white and those cognitive patterns are difficult to overcome. Just because Christianity in its present form is rather obnoxious doesn't mean that there is nothing to take from it. Christianity in some form works for some people, (who are not abortion clinic bombers, or Rush Limbaugh). Honestly, I think that the Bible taken at face value doesn't make a lot of sense at all and you have to have not properly read it all to not see the contradictions and the very questionable parts. However, the "spiritual" or meaning-driven side to us as humans is not something that is can be directly reduced to logical arguments. If one feels that they have a connection to a "higher power" then I personally think that like Feng Shui, perhaps some things don't always need direct empirical evidence to have to have a rational answer.(reply to this comment)
| From pharmaboy|
Sunday, December 07, 2003, 14:39
Finally a respectful debate here, cool!(no sarcasm intended)
“I personally am a "hardcore rationalist" and it is good to know that your rants don't stem from certain disbelief (though admittedly sometimes rabid speech does).”
I’m not against rationalism, just I believe it should be a good slave, the scientific method should be used as a tool for exploration, not as a goal in itself, much less as an existentialist life philosophy. I feel the limitation of language to express some higher states of human consciousness or intensity does not mean those states are any less real than our every day experiences and reality.
“I think what annoys people, though I can admittedly only speak for myself, is the notion that someone else has The Truth and we should just believe them.”
I totally agree there, I found a phrase some that went: “Listen to people who are looking for the truth, distrust those who have found it.”
“I do think that religion is a lot like that, (which is what Adams goes on to say). We are only just beginning to guess at reasons for our own consciousness. To actually understand it all rationally is beyond us at this point (and there is a branch of cognitive science that says perhaps we never will). However, and I find this true in personal aspects of my life as well, even if we don't understand exactly why, if we have a general idea of something in that vicinity, it does help to understand supposedly subconscious motivations and why we are the way we are.
I believe that we as humans have a fundamental need to feel that we are more than the sum of our parts, and perhaps we are. The human mind and our (perhaps over) evolved frontal lobes seek out patterns, symbols and meaning in the world around us, and we do actually know that this is how we process information and memories. There are dogmas and beliefs that appeal to us on a deep level (and seem to work) in a way that we have no conscious or specific understanding of. “
I agree with you there too, and take this statement of yours as a starting point. I’ve always been interested in existentialism, in finding a “living” philosophy I could apply to my every day existence. I found myself disgusted my the unreality of ordinary, mundane existence. I laughed at the suburbian illusion of order, and was terrified of the real existence of chaos all around me. The suburban bourgeois negates the existence of chaos, he refuses to see that he is a mammal, a “domesticated primate”, Christianity also fueled this illusion. Chaos needed to be faced, nihilism was only logical.
The best way to start understanding yourself is to see yourself as a mammal, an animal. All of a sudden he said-she said relationship troubles look ridiculous, I could finally understand my animal impulses. Instead of negating their existence, the monotheistic way, I basked in them, I am a wild animal, and it felt good to be alive. But the terror that would grip me upon recognizing the ultimate nothingness I could not understand. I was an animal, but why did I have such a sharp capacity for analysis, what should be done with this mind, evolved beyond the “simple” animal. Life was pointless..
Then after various years of many experiences: work, drugs, love, I saw those brief moments of INTENSITY, when there was only one thing to do, and it was done effortlessly, the boredom of every day trivialities was forgotten, it was living on a higher lever of intensity, or reality then average. I found these moments we’re triggered in moments of absolute terror, whether triggered by drug-induced paranoia, or extreme pressure from work, sometimes both. That’s when everything seemed clear, and I would give my best, my mind would push my body to limits I never thought I could reach. Simply knowing that failure was unacceptable. Later on, I happened to read on Nietzsche’s “Will to power”, as well as Thelema, I knew what they we’re talking about because I had experienced these states of “Pure Will”. Like when an athlete does an incredible performance, and later all he can say is, “I just found myself doing it”. When the beast and the human are reconciled, chaos and order co-existing, as you can see it’s hard to perfectly describe these moments of lucidity, because they are so rare our language lacks the words to describe them.
A false religion, Christianity had used me for 15 years, I decided I would use the benefits of religion for a change. Mysticism is based solely on direct experience, no dogma. I found Pranayama yoga to be like a natural high, excellent for calming the nerves, whether one cares to believe in Shiva, Kali, and the Kundalini serpent(I personally don’t). Ceremonial magic helped my concentration skills and helped me form a sharp intuition. This was using the life-enhancing benefits of certain beliefs, without becoming a slave to any dogmas. I followed RA Wilson’s advice and read up on Jung, his ideas of a collective unconscious, Gods as Archetypes of this unconscious, which is how I explain godforms now. The more I dug, the more I saw there was no ultimate objective reality, no ultimate truth, but I now could wade in this Jungle of beliefs and pick and choose what worked and what didn’t. “what the thinker thinks, the prover proves”, if I wanted to convince myself of something, I would easily find objective fact to base my belief.
I hope I haven’t come across as preaching, I’m only just enjoying the journey of discovery. I’ve also discovered that personality does not exist, we change on a constant basis, either life changes us, or basic needs change our personality, ie being horny, hungry, etc..
That’s why my search for real life, which started when I left the Cult, also became a war on false religion. It’s time we grew the fuck up and took responsibility for our actions, instead of throwing the name of some God around who somehow is keenly interested in what we just had for breakfast. Christianity is for children who need a watchful protective father always looking over their shoulder and turning off the TV when there is something “bad” on. It is the embodiment of denial, but simply ignoring chaos does not make it go away, it only alienates us from nature, cruel, wild nature, where our human Will to power and adaptability has made us the dominant species, not some vague, jealous god.
“one feels that they have a connection to a "higher power" then I personally think that like Feng Shui, perhaps some things don't always need direct empirical evidence to have to have a rational answer.”
You’re not such a hardcore rationalist after all..J
One book that really helped me get off the "black and white" vision, was RA Wilson's "Cosmic trigger", he's a skeptic who went got initiated into as many mystical and occult orders he could find, and came back from it all saying, "convictions cause convicts"!
We are evolving, and it’s possible that we still don’t know how to use some newer functions in our brain, thus we wrongly dub brief functioning of these circuits religious experiences. I think after all we have mainly the same views, pity though, there was good debate material here.
Pharma.. (reply to this comment)
| From Sir Rantalot|
Saturday, December 06, 2003, 08:13
Christianity was created from the start to be a women-hating, ascetic, life-hating, nature-hating, control religion. Either accept that and continue to be a Christian, or have the fucking guts to break free from 2000 years Christian Monoploy and either be an atheist or go pagan.
Hearing someone reinterpret bible scriptures for the 566,496,496,596,605th time is like watching someone continuously eating his own vomit and then chugging up again only to start all over.
*SR runs off back to work*(reply to this comment)
Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 08:04
I know, that was somewhat of a shock to me once I left TF to find out that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. Nowhere in the Bible does it EVER say she was. She is first referred to in name in Luke 8, and it says out of her "went seven devils." Many Bible scholars believe the "devils" in this case to mean infirmities or sicknesses, as they were often described in those days. The story of the "sinner woman" who washes Jesus' feet appears in Luke 7, but nowhere does it link that story to Mary. (In fact, quite the contrary.) The whole idea of Mary being a prostitute came in 500 B.C. sometime, when the Pope at the time gave a sermon where he declared Mary and the "sinner woman" to be one and the same. It was in the 1970s (AFTER TF was started) that the Catholic Church officially recanted that doctrine, admitting that actually Mary was one of the more devoted disciples of all. Some scholars are now even considering that perhaps Jesus was married to her. The whole notion that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute stemmed from a male chauvinistic and male dominated Christian atmosphere. The effects are seen even by the books that were left out of the Bible at the time (sometimes called the Apocrypha books) by the same bigoted society, including writing by Mary Magdalene herself. The religious environment of the day saw to it that her importance in history, and even to Jesus, has been understated or even ignored. My point here is that obviously Berg did not study his bible enough to find out even this simple and obvious truth about Mary. He instead chose to adhere to the common Christian teaching of Mary’s character because it supported his own warped doctrines and male chauvinistic attitudes. Leaves one realizing how very little Berg knew about his own Bible.
(reply to this comment)
|from Sir Rantalot|
Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 07:50
Read about Gnosticism, the dead sea scrolls and other "heresies", they paint a totally different view of Jesus and mary Magdalene. In fact, only 100 years later a council of priests decided to make Jesus a divinity, before that he was simply considered an enlightened member of a Gnostic Sect, the Essenes.
As far as the "loving Jesus" revalation, that's really nothing new. Occultists, Gnostics and Yogi have been practicing various forms of sexual magic for millenia. Through the holy union of male and female in the sexual act, at orgasm one could glimpse at a state of gnosis, or hidden knowledge of the gods. TF really just can't be original try as they may, they'll hopefully be horrified that they actually copied sexual practices from the occult, LOL! I can guess what Zerby has been reading as of late, probably skimming through, Crowley, Regardie, AO Spare, RA Wilson, Mathers..mmm not very Christian.
REad this little bit from a renowned sorceror and magician, Peter Carroll:
A large proportion of all the cults throughout history have shared one particular characteristic. They have been led by a charismatic man able to persuade women to freely dispense sexual favours to ther men. When one begins to look, this feature is startlingly common to many ancient cults, monotheistic schismatic sects and modern esoteric groups. Many, if not the majority of adepts past and present were, or are, whoremasters. The mechanism is quite simple, pay the woman in the coinage of spirituality to service the men who repay you with adulation and accept your teachings as a side effect. The adulation from the men then increases your charisma with the women creating a positive feedback loop. It can be a nice little earner until old age or a police raid catches up with the enterprise. The other danger is of course that the women, and eventually the men, may come to feel that constant changes of partners work against their longer term interests of emotional security and reproduction. The turnover in such cults can thus be high, with young adults constantly replacing those approaching early middle age.
Few religions or cults lack a sexual teaching, for any teaching provides a powerful level of control. The vast majority of the more durable and established religions trade on a suppression of so called free love. This pays considerable dividends too. Women's position becomes more secure, and men know who their children are. Naturally adultery and prostitution flourish in such conditions because some people always want a little more than lifelong monogamy has to offer. So it's quite true that brothels are built with the bricks of religion. Indirectly so with conventional religions, directly so with many cults.
All this begs the question of why it is that people have such an appetite for wanting to be told what to do with their sexuality. Why do people have to seek esoteric and metaphysical justification for what they want to do? Why is it so easy to make a living selling water by the river?
The answer, it appears, is that human sexuality has some built in dissatisfaction function of evolutionary origin. Our sexual behaviour is partly controlled by genetics. Those genes most likely to survive and prosper are those that in the female encourage the permanent capture of the most powerful male available and occasional liaisons (clandestine) with any more powerful male that may be temporarily available. Whereas in the male, the genes most likely to prosper are those encouraging the impregnation of as large a number of females as he can support, plus perhaps a few on the sly that other men are supporting. It is interesting to note that only in the human female is oestrous concealed. In all other mammals the fertile time is made abundantly obvious. This appears to have evolved to allow, paradoxically both adultery and increased pair bonding through sex at times when it is reproductively useless. The economic basis of any particular society will usually supply some pressure in favour of a particular type of sexuality and this pressure will be codified as morality which will inevitably conflict with biological pressures. Celibacy is unsatisfactory, Masturbation is unsatisfactory, Monogamy is unsatisfactory, Adultery is unsatisfactory, Polygamy and Polyandry is unsatisfactory and presumably Homosexuality is unsatisfactory, if the renetic merry-go-round of partner exchanges in that discipline is anything to go by.
(reply to this comment)
| From Eva St John|
Sunday, December 07, 2003, 01:23
Sir Rantalot, I've only just discovered this website after having almost nothing to do with TF issues and having almost no contact with other former members for several years. I think it's brilliant you guys have this forum going, and I'm impressed with the intelligent questions and debates, and the thought-provoking commentary.
I think the sorcerer you quoted, Peter Carrol, has a very interesting perspective on the whole issue of cultism and sex, and the paradox of human sexual relationships in general. Where did this passage come from? I'd be very interested to read the book.
I'm open to look at all explorative and expanded thinking on these issues, irrespective of what spiritual persuasion the 'explorative thinker' is coming from. I have found that truly honest (and ongoing)exploration will ultimately lead to the truth, regardless of what paradigm of reality an individual happens to start out with - (provided the explorer doesn't 'park' in pet doctrines and then close their mind, as in TF). (reply to this comment)