My new Question

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

Does the taste or sensation of any food or other substance to any sensory part of our body creates some physiological changes in our bodies to handle that food or substance accordingly, or not? If yes, then What will happen to body if we taste or sense but do not take that food or substance physically?

Just to pursue our understanding on TRS awnser to this Q is important.

I have no idea. Your mouth might water I suppose. Consider Pavlov and his dogs.

My understanding of "TRS" is that you are imagining an effect which isn't really there, partly due to coincidental improvements and partly to wishful thinking.

So far, you have supplied exactly zero evidence to persuade me otherwise.

Rolfe.

 

[Corallinus]

This depends on whether you are coming into contact with the flavour or sensation?

For instance, chewing gum is a good example. If you chew gum, then most of this is normally flavoured. You are just chewing and getting the flavour, but without eating any of the food with that flavour. In this case yes, digestive enzymes can be released in response to this and these digestive enzymes do most certainly have a physical effect on the body.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip... I think there can be some "name changes & language differances" in ancient/spritual's mentionings & Modren knowledge....snip...

Much more than simple name changes and language differences. There have been complete changes in the very concepts and meanings. Actually we´d better say they have a completely new meaning, based on concepts that were not even dreamed by then.

...snip...
It may be possible that highly talented saints of older times might be knowing that " Earth is round " but for practical purposes they/others had used to call it as flat. I think ancient/older/classical astrological calculations are based on "Earth is round"....snip...

Some ancient philosophers knew the Earth is spherical and even measured its radius. But it does not seem to have been a wisdespread knoweledge. Not all civilizations had it and in the few that had, it was restricted to an elite, not necessarily directly related to religion.

Astrological calculations... Yes... Made with all "planets" revolving around the Earth... Very accurate concept. Specially when using the celestial sphere...

...snip...
I am not sure but it looks that all or most " spritual effects" or also said as "cosmic effects" can just be as "Sunlight effects+ Changes within the body's effects- due to any sensation or stimulation, but can be just similar effects as indicated . ...snip...

So, basking in the Sun heals everything? Please remember that Sun light can be replicated with the proper light bulbs. Do light bulbs have an spiritual effect?

...snip...Eg., we keep fasts as per religious advices & is said to remove sins. If we as a scientist look it in this language we may say there is no sin, religion's effect but if we look in other way, we can find its benefits as said indirectly. Probably, we can define 'sin' as our inherited & aquired manifestation of imbalances & accumulations.

Sin (as well as taboo) is a concept introducted as a way to control a society and differentiate its integrants from those belonging from another one. A "sin" is usually an act that may create social unstability. Such as having sex with someone else´s partner. This creates tensions within the society.

Eventually, the concept that some acts are "sins" may have evolved as a way to avoid a given problem. An example- ritual baths keep personal hygiene, what has obvious advantages for the health; its easy to see how this can have evolved from observations. "Ugh takes bath on the river, Ugh cut finger, finger healed. Turgh dont wash. Turgh cut finger, Turgh died. Spirits like people take bath".

Then, taking a ritual bath becomes part of a society´s "ID tags". Like not shaking hands or eating using the left hand, not eating pig, etc. Some concepts may have such origin, while others not.

So, the concept of sin has nothing to do with "cosmic rays" or sunlight, but with the rules that keep a society. It has to do with a society´s ballance, actually quite often it has to do with the maintenance of the status quo, of an elite (religious or political) in the power. Sins, taboos and the ever changing concepts of evil reflect in a great extent acts that can change the current political situation, with the potential to remove an elite from power.

And please note that the very concepts of sin change according to the society you are looking at. So, why eating pig meat is bad for jews and not a problem for people from polinesia? Do they have different physiologies and metabolisms? Of course not.

Not making a human sacrifice for the gods, to the aztecs and mayas (among other people) was a sin. For us, making it is a sin. Do we have different metabolism? I bet not.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Rolfe,

Does the taste or sensation of any food or other substance to any sensory part of our body creates some physiological changes in our bodies to handle that food or substance accordingly, or not? If yes, then What will happen to body if we taste or sense but do not take that food or substance physically?

Just to pursue our understanding on TRS awnser to this Q is important.

You still need to buy that physiology book and look up the 'cephalic phase of digestion'.

 

[Kumar]

Much more than simple name changes and language differences. There have been complete changes in the very concepts and meanings..

Just try to match qualities & properties of some sprituals with the properties & qualities of any current aspect/substance as mentioned in modren science.

Some ancient philosophers knew the Earth is spherical and even measured its radius. But it does not seem to have been a wisdespread knoweledge. Not all civilizations had it and in the few that had, it was restricted to an elite, not necessarily directly related to religion.

May be for the betterment of society or for practical purposes they might have not disclosed it & other concepts to common public. But complete knowledge could have been there in ancient times.


So, basking in the Sun heals everything? Please remember that Sun light can be replicated with the proper light bulbs. Do light bulbs have an spiritual effect?

I said "Sunlight effects+ Changes within the body's effects- due to any sensation or stimulation, but can be just similar effects as indicated ." Within the body effects can be more prominent.



Sin (as well as taboo) is a concept introducted as a way to control a society and differentiate its integrants from those belonging from another one. A "sin" is usually an act that may create social unstability. Such as having sex with someone else´s partner. This creates tensions within the society....

There is no relation of "SIN" with the society but it can be related to effects of wrong things/act on your body and manifestations thereof in relation to natural law/balance. Although it creates a fear & initation for not to do any wrong thing/act, if we advertise it in the sense as you mentioned. Anything which is against the nature( not against the society which can be called as a social sin not a natural sin which is real sin) is a sin & anything which is with the or for the betterment of nature is an 'antomyns of sin'(sorry no word for this). Any sex done with any one for the purpose- to add or maintain the nature is not a sin but if done for luxuary can be a sin.

 

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Kumar

Just try to match qualities & properties of some sprituals with the properties & qualities of any current aspect/substance as mentioned in modren science.

My point is- You just can´t do it. You must not forget that the cultural background was completely different from today´s. You can´t, in many cases, interpret ancient (specially the religious ones) texts using our current cultural background due to the abyss that exists between us and those ancient people. I have already exposed this to you, on the thread regarding ancient technology. Religious texts must not be taken as the litteral truth. It may be a sacred text, but what´s written there is not necessarily true. The Bible says that during a certain battle, the Sun stopped to spin around the Earth, for example. Do you think it possible that this actually happened?

No ancient philosopher knew exacly what an element is, what is a planet, had a clue about how vast the universe is, how our body works, etc. Therefore, you can´t make direct comparsions and interpretation. Eventually one may find roughly similar concepts, but this will be just coincidence.

This type of revisionism is doomed to failure. The classical example is an UFO buff interpretating a legend about an ancient god who travelled across the sky with a flying charriot as an alien aboard a spacecraft.

Originally posted by Kumar
..snip..
But complete knowledge could have been there in ancient times.
...snip...

No. There is not a single piece of evidence backing this claim. It fails a lot of basic tests and we have discussed it before.

Originally posted by Kumar
...snip...
There is no relation of "SIN" with the society but it can be related to effects of wrong things/act on your body and manifestations thereof in relation to natural law/balance. Although it creates a fear & initation for not to do any wrong thing/act, if we advertise it in the sense as you mentioned. Anything which is against the nature( not against the society which can be called as a social sin not a natural sin which is real sin) is a sin & anything which is with the or for the betterment of nature is an 'antomyns of sin'(sorry no word for this). ...snip...

Sorry but the above statement is wrong. The many concepts of sin are a cultural feature. Note that, as I said before, the concepts chance according to the culture. If, as you claim, sin "can be related to effects of wrong things/act on your body" and is "anything which is against the nature", based on the fact that all humans share the same metabolism, therefore all cultures should have developed similar concepts. An thats obviously not true.

Has our metabolism changed since, say, 2000 BCE? The metabolism of a christian is different from that of a jew and from someone whose religion does not allow him/her to eat meat?

Originally posted by Kumar ...snip...
Any sex done with any one for the purpose- to add or maintain the nature is not a sin but if done for luxuary can be a sin.

Now, Kumar, this statement brings us back to the begining of this post. It is an example of why one must avoid to analyse different cultures without taking care to undress (pun intended) his/hers concepts and prejudices created by his/hers cultural background. Your statement was based on your own prejudices generated by your own cultural/religious background.

Depending on the culture, and on each individual´s personal standards, choices, and life story, sex can have a lot of other roles other than "to add or maintain the nature". Even a religious role, during cerimonies.

And please note that what for a given culture can be considered luxury, for others may be considered fairly normal.

 

[Kumar]

This depends on whether you are coming into contact with the flavour or sensation?

For instance, chewing gum is a good example. If you chew gum, then most of this is normally flavoured. You are just chewing and getting the flavour, but without eating any of the food with that flavour. In this case yes, digestive enzymes can be released in response to this and these digestive enzymes do most certainly have a physical effect on the body.

Thanks for mentioning. Can you explain what will be the physical effect of digestive enzymes released in response to just flavour or taste but not eating. Suppose any substance is in excess in body & we just taste or see or take its flavour, but not take it, digestive enzymes, hormones or other secretions(acis/base effect) will take place. Will this secretion not metabolize the exess already present in system?

 

[Kumar]

Correa Neto,

Just think it very deeply & truely. Sin are sin because it causes harm to our body not to any spritual or social body(not social sin) by any unnatural act done by us. Most effects of 'sprituals' are within our body only not of outside= like sprituals logic of cosmic effects as we discussed.

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto,

Just think it very deeply & truely. Sin are sin because it causes harm to our body not to any spritual or social body(not social sin) by any unnatural act done by us. Most effects of 'sprituals' are within our body only not of outside= like sprituals logic of cosmic effects as we discussed.

Kumar, just think about your last claim deeply and truly. Please follow the reasoning below, that is a simple test of your claim.

IF, as you claim, a sin is a sin because it causes harm to our bodies;

AND

IF all humans share the same physiology and metabolism (I think we all agree on this);

THEN what causes harm to a christian will also cause harm to a jew and to someone whose religion does not alow meat to be eaten...

THEN all cultures around the world would have developed similar concepts regarding what can and what can not be eaten...

Is this true? No.

So, how is it possible that eating pig meat is a sin or taboo for jews and muslims and not to christians and several other religions? Why just a few religions do not allow meat to be consumed?

Some of the possible answers are:

(1) The claim is false;
(2) People of different religions have different metabolisms;
(3) Some religions are better or more evolved than others;

We are left just with answer 1, since 2 is clearly false, while 3 is at least highly disputable and most likely false.

Also, define "unatural". Is it the act of doing something our body was not designed to do? Nowdays we can make several things that could be deemed "unatural". Where is the line drawn? Surviving a serious bacterial infection by using antibiotics is unatural? Is flying unatural? Contraception is unatural? Travelling at 100 km/h is unatural? Surviving cancer by use of modern therapies is unatural? Crossing an ocean on a ship is unatural? Eat a catfish is unatural?

And regarding "sprituals logic of cosmic effects as we discussed ", sorry again, but so far I saw little if any logic and effects, not to mention that the word spiritual has a lot of different meanings.

 

[Kumar]

Principles of all or most religions seems to have been designed keeping in mind as similarities in some basic concepts+ Environmental effects & regional requirements of their origional followers + differant levels(in basic/micro and gross/macro sense). Natural means; based on an inherent sense of right and wrong
2 : being in accordance with or determined by nature.

Read more here.

Real sin means which effects us wrongly & manifest. Read here. Religious laws are designed for doing good to their followers, mentaly,physically & socially. But sometimes doing/anticipating good things in common meaning- can also be a sin.

 

[Correa Neto]

Kumar,

The first link is broken; the second is a fairly standard definition of sin. Note that it implies the existence of a god, what, besides being an off-topic discussion, is something that is far from being proven. And if even there is one (or more than one), what are it´s law?

Aztec gods claim for sacrificial blood...
The god of the old testament enjoys animal sacrifices...

Whose laws are being broken? What you consider natural and correct, for someone with a different cultural background may not be. What you consider sin ot taboo, for someone else may not be.

You say "Natural means; based on an inherent sense of right and wrong". I say that "right" and "wrong", as well as "good" and "bad" are human concepts. And these concepts change according to the culture. Nature just is what it is. Fishes are not good or bad, predators are not good or bad, plants are not good or bad, a virus is not good or bad, a volcano is not good or bad, the sea is not good or bad. Its wrong to attribute human concepts and attributes to any aspect of the nature.

You just repeated your claim and have not answered my questioning. Here it is again.

IF, as you claim, a sin is a sin "because it causes harm to our bodies";

AND

IF all humans share the same physiology and metabolism (I think we all agree on this);

THEN what causes harm to a christian will also cause harm to a jew and to someone whose religion does not alow meat to be eaten...

THEN all cultures around the world would have developed similar concepts regarding what can and what can not be eaten...

Now, do christians, jews, muslims, buddists, hinduists, animists, the followers of ancient religions from Greece, Egypt, South and Central Americas, among others, share the same diet?

Sins and taboos change according to the culture, you have to admit this.

Perhaps you should start a new thread about the concept of sin on the religion forum, since this thread has derailed.

 

[Kumar]

"THEN what causes harm to a christian will also cause harm to a jew and to someone whose religion does not alow meat to be eaten..."

Correa Neto,

I told you that any act done for real necessasity may not be a sin but done luxuary or otherwise can be a sin. Just look at this; SUPPOSE a part of world have lot of fruits & veg. foods & meat to eat & other part do not have much plants but only have some animals to eat. In the first case, if one repeat lot of animal meat daily which is not yet fully digested (being complex & acidic food)--will be a sin as it will harm to our body. In other case, since meat & plant foods are scrace, it will be repeated only after digested properly--so will not be a sin since it will not harm the body. The differances in recommendations of differant religions may be based on their regional differances. In a dessert any type of meat may be justified & so not a sin, but in a green area it may be a sin. We may have to base our food from simple to complex type AND to its plenty to scrace availabilty. Unnecessary killing/destroying of any natural living or non living can be a sin & we may have to base our habits to minimum killing/destroying the nature limited to our just necessity to avoid sins.

 

[Correa Neto]

Kumar,

You are using a very short-sighted view of sins and taboos, one related just to feeding habbits. Please excuse me, but I think you are lefting your own cultural prejudices seep in to this notion. To me, you are looking for facts that support your views of the world, placing aside everything that does not fit. And there are a lot of things that do not. The notions of sin and taboo are much broader, and encompass a large number of acts. They are not restricted to dietary prescriptions. Working on saturdays, for example. Even if we keep such restrict view, let me point a few weak points on your aguments-

...snip... In a dessert any type of meat may be justified & so not a sin, but in a green area it may be a sin. ...snip...

If this is so, then how can you explain that jews and muslims are not allowed to eat pig? OK, one could point to hygiene reasons (the need of propper baking of pig meat to avoid tenia larvae to survive). But this would imply that all desert peoplewould develop the same restriction. Also, wild pigs have less chance of carrying tenia larvae.

Also, if this is true, then natives from african savannas (and most areas where ganme animals are avaliable in large numbers) would have developed some sort of controll against ingestion of meat in large quantities.

...snip... In the first case, if one repeat lot of animal meat daily which is not yet fully digested (being complex & acidic food)--will be a sin as it will harm to our body. ...snip...

Plants are harder to digest than meat. That's why herbivores tend to be larger than carnivores, besides having bigger digestive systems. Also, meat provides energy faster to the body.

...snip...Unnecessary killing/destroying of any natural living or non living can be a sin & we may have to base our habits to minimum ...snip...

Again, if this were the basis for the notion of sin, then providing natives (here goes the good savage concept down the drain) with chainsaws and shot guns would not create any ecological problems. Belive me, it causes. I saw them.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar,

You are using a very short-sighted view of sins and taboos, one related just to feeding habbits...

No, I have mentioned any act, not just eating habbits.

If this is so, then how can you explain that jews and muslims are not allowed to eat pig? OK, one could point to hygiene reasons (the need of propper baking of pig meat to avoid tenia larvae to survive). But this would imply that all desert peoplewould develop the same restriction. Also, wild pigs have less chance of carrying tenia larvae.

Also, if this is true, then natives from african savannas (and most areas where ganme animals are avaliable in large numbers) would have developed some sort of controll against ingestion of meat in large quantities.

We have to go in more technicalities to understand why pig are not allowed to eat in relation to the zonal considerations of that area. It may be on hygeine ground, its effect on their followers or just an respect to any animal unabling people to save them. Whatever is there, but we need not to relate sin with any social & spritual concept but we should just see the effect of any act on us. If it is a bad effect directly or indirectly then it is a sin & if it is good effect it is opposite to sin. In more scientific way we can just think off that any act which deviate us from our "homeostatis" state is a sin & which bring us towords this is an "antomyns to sin".



Plants are harder to digest than meat. That's why herbivores tend to be larger than carnivores, besides having bigger digestive systems. Also, meat provides energy faster to the body.

We should see which is really benificial to our body esp. in long run and with our current eating habbits. White sugar is easy to digest but may not be good than other natural sweet things.

Again, if this were the basis for the notion of sin, then providing natives (here goes the good savage concept down the drain) with chainsaws and shot guns would not create any ecological problems. Belive me, it causes. I saw them.

Sorry, I couldn't understand it. Furthur pls differanciate between true/natural sins, religious sins, social sins etc.

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...We have to go in more technicalities to understand why pig are not allowed to eat in relation to the zonal considerations of that area. It may be on hygeine ground, its effect on their followers or just an respect to any animal unabling people to save them. Whatever is there, but we need not to relate sin with any social & spritual concept but we should just see the effect of any act on us. If it is a bad effect directly or indirectly then it is a sin & if it is good effect it is opposite to sin. In more scientific way we can just think off that any act which deviate us from our "homeostatis" state is a sin & which bring us towords this is an "antomyns to sin"....snip...

Again, sins and taboos are closely related. Eventually some of those related to dietary prescriptions may have started after empirical observations that some health problems are more commom among people who eat a certain type of food.

Once again, if your proposal were true, people living in similar environments would have developed the same dietary restrictions, and since a clean body is a clean body everywhere, the prescriptions would be the same. Note that people living very close, but with different cultures, have different restrictions.

Besides, there are a lot of other problems, that show that most of the dietary restrictions must have another origin. Here’s a few-

Fishes, shrimps, crabs, lobsters are taken as being healthier than read meat. So, why lobsters, shrimps and fishes without scales are considerd impure by jews?

So, if the problem is related to meat consumption, why some religions do not allow jains do not eat root vegetables such as onions, carrots and potatoes (Aren’t the jains among those subjected to such restrictions? I think so, but I may be wrong). They are quite healthy and would not have the restriction (foolish, IMHO) that a life was not taken to provide us with food!

...snip...Furthur pls differanciate between true/natural sins, religious sins, social sins etc. ...snip...

So, you are separating in to classes of sins. Fine. “Social sins, religious sins”, so, with this you just agreed that sins and taboos are concepts related to culture. And there isn’t such a thing as a “true”or “natural” sin, because the concept is related to culture.

...snip...No, I have mentioned any act, not just eating habbits....snip...

There are a lot if problems when you consider a sin as na act that causes problem to our body. Its na unacepptable generalization when viewed under a broad angle. Kumar, I am sorry, but you seem to be making a (dangerous) generalization based on your cultural background. Dangerous because it assumes that your cultural background is the right one!

So, for example, what does the following have to do with health?

Why was wearing clothes made of two fabrics forbidden to ancient hebrews?

Sex it is a healthy act. How can it harm us? Why having sex is considered a sin if not for reproduction? Why some cultures are extremely repressive in this issue while other quite liberal? Were the cultures in which sex was a part of their religious rites sinful?

Take incest, for example. If one uses the judaic, christian (and I belive also the islamic) notion of incest. Many of the unions among the royal families in ancient egyptians (not to mention other areas) would then be considered incestuous. Were the ancient egytians a nation of sinners?

To kill is a sin. But stoning adulterous people is healthy?

And please note that the notions of sin change with culture and time.

[edited to add] I say you should make a new thread about this on the religion forum [end edit]

 

[Kumar]

Correa Neto,

Lastly, Just differanciate & compare acts done/practiced by animals, birds & humans with natural/real sins as there is no social & religious consideration with animals & birds is involved. Most of the acts of animals & birds are not purposeless like sex, wheras most of the sex & other acts in humans may be purposeless, so can be considered as sin. Every sperm or ova has right to fertilize & live, but if we stop/restrict the same then that can be treated as a sin. Likewise the other luxuaries & purposelessness acts & deeds are sin. These may be harmful and possibily harm the body as suppressions & weakenings or some emotional problems. If we go deep in the recommendations of religious mentionings, those should be having some consideration for avoiding some natural sins( unless misinterpreted or used in differant language by its followers either due to ignorances or due to selfish intrests).

 

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto,

Lastly, Just differanciate & compare acts done/practiced by animals, birds & humans with natural/real sins as there is no social & religious consideration with animals & birds is involved. Most of the acts of animals & birds are not purposeless like sex, wheras most of the sex & other acts in humans may be purposeless, so can be considered as sin. Every sperm or ova has right to fertilize & live, but if we stop/restrict the same then that can be treated as a sin. Likewise the other luxuaries & purposelessness acts & deeds are sin.

considered as a sin in YOUR cultural background. And in the cultural background of roman catholics. Not in my cultural background. Sex is a great way of having fun and strengtening bonds between humans. No procriation needs to be involved.

Besides that, we should not be restricted by views like that we should only be restricted to whats "natural" for birds and bees... We have antibiotics, vaccines, an arsenal of fantastic drugs, marvelous surgery skills, etc. We nowdays can live longer than our ancestors "that lived their natural lives", we survive diseases that would kill them, medicine can improve our bodies.

We have evolved beyond the point that we should keep ourselves tied to such primitive views. Nowdays its "natural" for us to do things we could not do in the past.

These may be harmful and possibily harm the body as suppressions & weakenings or some emotional problems. If we go deep in the recommendations of religious mentionings, those should be having some consideration for avoiding some natural sins( unless misinterpreted or used in differant language by its followers either due to ignorances or due to selfish intrests). [/B]

What religion should I choose to go deep in to its recommendations? There are so many, with so many diferent prescriptions! Or you are saying that a given religion is better than another?

Sorry, but to me, religion is nothing but a cultural feature. Each one has its own recomendations, and they change with time. Or we still burn witches? Or women are still seen as a property of their husbands? Or widows still have to commit suicide?

 

[Kumar]

considered as a sin in YOUR cultural background. And in the cultural background of roman catholics. Not in my cultural background. Sex is a great way of having fun and strengtening bonds between humans. No procriation needs to be involved.

That can be for self or selfish motive or a luxuary or an addiction. Strengtening bonds can't be taken as an opposite to sin. Salvation(deliverance from the power and effects of sin) may the ultimate goal of humans in spritual language. Strengtening bonds can be a hindrance for this purpose.

Besides that, we should not be restricted by views like that we should only be restricted to whats "natural" for birds and bees... We have antibiotics, vaccines, an arsenal of fantastic drugs, marvelous surgery skills, etc. We nowdays can live longer than our ancestors "that lived their natural lives", we survive diseases that would kill them, medicine can improve our bodies.

It is also for self or selfish purpose & therefore a sin. We developed medications to protect ourselves from the problems created by us not for improvement or betterment of our real & natural living. You clarified that: we are not living our natural life as "our ancestors "that lived their natural lives".

We have evolved beyond the point that we should keep ourselves tied to such primitive views. Nowdays its "natural" for us to do things we could not do in the past.

It is like the words of an addicted person who says alcohol,sex,durgs etc. are natural to me as I am immune to it.



What religion should I choose to go deep in to its recommendations? There are so many, with so many diferent prescriptions! Or you are saying that a given religion is better than another?

Sorry, but to me, religion is nothing but a cultural feature. Each one has its own recomendations, and they change with time. Or we still burn witches? Or women are still seen as a property of their husbands? Or widows still have to commit suicide?

If we have not changed its language for our self or selfish motives, most or all of mass existing true religions teaches similar goal & may have similar basic principles at micro levels(with just name change) with some modification/additions in consideration to regional & habbitual aspects of its followers at macro levels, like cells>> bodies. They may have same begining in real sense & same destination with differant ways/paths. One who has already selected any way/path & travelled to some distance should not change it, otherwise he will have to travel more distance again for the same purpose. Differant paths may show some differances in travelling paths but ultimate destination will be the same. If anyone travels with more obstructions or more steep he may reach early, but if he want to travel on smooth path--it can be comfortable but will take more time to reach. Salvation is the destination.

 

[The Don]

Kumar,

Is it that you don't read responses, don't understand responses or is it that your value system is so rigid that you can't believe there are alternative viewpoints.

You have, through your upbringing, religious beliefs and psychological makeup acquired the belief that sex is sinful. I an willing to accept that viewpoint, I think it is incorrect. You on the other hand are completely unwilling to accept that ther people have funadamentally different views.

The concept of sin and taboo appears to be one of the fundamental ways of forcing or encouraging a group of people to adhere to a common set of rules. By making something a sin then you tend to discourage its practise.

Religions like to control fun stuff (like sex, alcohol, drugs etc..) because it gives a means to reward believers (just in case eternal life, reincarnation inihiliation (depending on your religion of choice) is too far in the future to be an effective carrot or stick). I think this is one of the reasons why religious control of sex is so popular is that it gives a means to control one of our most fundamental urges, the urge to reproduce.

I suppose some of my questions to you are:

- Why are you so scared of sex ?
- Why are you so obsessed with your salvation ?
- How can you be so sure that your viewpoint is correct ? (after all there are many others)
- Why do you feel that a "natural life" in your words with its shorter life span and higher infant mortality is so much more preferable ?

 

[Beancounter]

You clarified that: we are not living our natural life as "our ancestors "that lived their natural lives".[/b] [/B]

Kumar

In the light of this comment, and the fact that you are not a big fan of modern medicine, how do you regard technological advances such as flight, information technology etc. After all our ancestors seemed to "do alright" without them, so they are merely making our lives easier - a sin?