Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

The reason religion taught that masturbation was a sin was because the priests secretly knew that it sprang from the same source as the religious impulse. The error was to think this meant it was a competitor to be suppressed and not simply another potentially usable rite, like song or the drinking of wine.

For many years now I have been thinking of starting a new church

call is something like Our Sacred Lady of the Palm

or maybe go to California and call it

The Holy Congregation of the Circle Jerk

e_dog wrote:The reason religion taught that masturbation was a sin was because the priests secretly knew that it sprang from the same source as the religious impulse. The error was to think this meant it was a competitor to be suppressed and not simply another potentially usable rite, like song or the drinking of wine.

They had no cryo tanks back then, so there was no way to make any money, hence it was "bad."

I'm waiting for some sect to start saving future souls by offering only saved sperm from their bank(s).

The reason religion taught that masturbation was a sin was because the priests secretly knew that it sprang from the same source as the religious impulse.

Kids these days. Religious and theological concepts thus are identical to subjective sexual impulses? Perhaps you should lay down the Freud and take up, say, Descartes or Pascal. I do think the priests and theologians did (and still do) want to control sexuality to some degree (and there was and is plenty of hypocrisy) , but even the greek philosophers had similiar ideas: I remember a phrase of Heraclitus where he attacks the pagan cults and their "shameful phallic hymns." Plato, although often read as decadent, has disdain for the hedonism of the greeks, as did the Stoics.

Occasionally the islamic Sharia does not seem so horrible, especially if you are in the Valley, where companies make millions of $$$$ each year for making pictures of humans fucking like monkeys on screen.

They thought it was a sin? Hah.
ARE YOU BLIND?
They wanted to do the kids themselves, so they said it was a sin to masterbate......

But, hey, pray on christian sinners, close your eyes and
be preyed on......

yup!

Kids these days. Religious and theological concepts thus are identical to subjective sexual impulses? Perhaps you should lay down the Freud and take up, say, Descartes or Pascal.

i've read pascal; like most gamblers, he's a great joker.

descartes' arguments are sophistry. not for the kantian reason that 'existence' isn't a property, but for the fact that, as with Anselm, the attempt to make concepts bootstrap their content into existence is ridiculous. as the monk guanillo (sp?) said the idea of a most perfect island doesn't mean such a one exists; as one of Descartes' contemporaries pointed out, the concept of an "existing unicorn" don't make it so, etc. why should allow such hocus pocus tricks to infect our thinking about "god"? because he's so groovy, man. god is just too damn groovy not to exist.

Apes do it in captivity, but not in the wild, Why does become so compulsive for some individuals? . For some it becomes a morbid to the point of denying the individual any normal love life at all Human behavior is over determined so it would probably be impossible to pin point the cause. But I have often wondered why.

e-hund:

I already stated that I do not agree with the ontological argument, though there are versions of it that are more polished (no pun intended) then Descartes or Anselms' versions; and the positivist objection that existence is not an attribute is a fine and logical critique. IM not a cartesian either, though the Cogito is not just to be dismissed as sophistry: free will, personal identity, a soul, and other ideas that we take for granted depend on some notion of a Cartesian subject or ego; even CHomsky himself still holds to a sort of Cartesian rationalism. While I try to be determinist and empiricist in my views, it s quite hard to dismiss the idea that there is an "I"--even a transcendent I-- and I suspect about everyone, even the most hard-core determinist or behaviorist still believes that, and society behaves as if that is true. Descartes also invented analytical geometry and was near to establishing the calculus.....

Thinking about a caption to a picture of The Madona and Child. The caption was by George Jackson one of The Soledad Brothers. It said "I was born an innocent and trusting child"

Apes do it in captivity, but not in the wild, Why does become so compulsive for some individuals? . For some it becomes a morbid to the point of denying the individual any normal love life at all Human behavior is over determined so it would probably be impossible to pin point the cause. But I have often wondered why.

Freud talked a lot about childhood seduction by adults, sometimes well meaning.

One of my earliest memories is getting baths, my grandmother use to give me wonderful baths, can't remember exactly how old, small enough to sit in her kitchen sink. I suppose you have to start early if you want to stick it out.

"Is there anything a man don't stand to lose when he lets a woman hold him in her hands."

perezoso:

i assume the "polished" versions of ontological argument are those of say Leibniz or Plantinga, who basically polish the modal version of Decartes' theft of ontological argument from Anselm. or what others do you know of? they are all subject to the same critique: you cannot think things into existence or define things into existence. the more sophisticated these arguments get the more sophistical they are. logic may be a force to be reckoned with when it is in the hands of empiricists like russell or pragmatists like quine, but in the hands of some rationalists it tends to becomes a parlor trick. there is no mental alchemy that translates logic into realities. concepts aren't things, so the concept of god doesn't prove there is a god. enough said.

concepts aren't things,

Hmm. Certainly you have read enough Russell and philosophy in general to realize that there are those who would disagree with that; the early Russell was quite a platonist as are many mathematicians.. You were refering to cosmic justice a while ago: where is that concept of justice located? Just a property of the chemicals in a specific area of your brain? But you are assuming that other people have a similiar idea of justice: in other words you are relying on universals, which are independent of individuals . I will agree that they are most likely biologically and physically realized, but then it would seem that the neurologist and cog. sci dweebs would be able to point to a certain sequence of chemicals that indicate concepts (and syntax) related to "justice".....which of course they have never done... Does "Hamlet" exist or a concept of Hamlet? Does say the imaginary number i exist? Or the center of gravity of an airplane in space, which may be located some 50 feet below the fuselage in mid-air.

REIFICATION

n]  regarding something abstract as a material thing

stilltrucking wrote:REIFICATION

n] regarding something abstract as a material thing

It's ALL done for entertainment.

Whether the mind exists or not--or metaphysical entities-- has nothing to do with entertainment............

the noesis is not featured on ET............

perezoso wrote:Whether the mind exists or not--or metaphysical entities-- has nothing to do with entertainment............

the noesis is not featured on ET............

I respectfully disagree. All things Universal are an entertainment. I need no cites to render this fact. It is self evident. You are living proof as are the rest of the walking dead here. And for you and all the rest, I am most pleased and entertained.