Amos

Hope you had a good sleep lunachick.

In front of a class with 25 little big humans some degree of intolerance is needed to be good teachers. Maybe that is where you remember them.

I hope you realize that falling in love is called falling in love for good reason because that might be the time when sexual repression begins. Kind of like, how can you miss it if you've never had it. To fall in love one must be lost in oblivion (which is not necessarily bad for those who must) and the sexual urges of what you call partnering only come as a temporary solution to alleviate the pains of alienation (the proof of this is after you had some lovings you're OK for a while).

It is wrong to be human, and earthly, and flat, and egocentric. It is also wrong to see the frustration of others, their suffering and to sympathise with their need for sexual gratification. In short, sympathy is wrong but can be very satisfying if you have a need for satisfaction.

Our humanity is good . . . for some, but not for all. More noble is the fate of those who have never loved and have no need for human love. Yes this is possible because also those who do fall in love must someday realize that their need for a lover was just their way to fill a void.

Why is it necessary to 'fall in love' if someday we must 'rise to reason?' Would it be easier if we first have sunk lower into the world of lust and promiscuity?

Love as in Eros is selfish, protective, temporal, objective, pleasure seeking, jealous, emotional etc. This was Magdalene.

Love as in Agape is selfless, non-protective, subjective, not pleasure seeking, live giving, love serving, non-emotional, not jealous and eternally satisfying. This was Mary theotokos.

Gemma Therese

Very well put!

Gemma Therese

lunachick

emphasis mine.

I used the word 'partnering' to include marriage and long-term live-in relationships. ie. Monogamy.

Why is human and earthly flat and egocentric?

Why?

Why?

I don't buy into this. What void? The same void God fills?

Not only are we reasonable beings, we are sentient beings, that's why.

Why is a loving, monogamous, sexual relationship as in the one that may have existed between Jesus and Magdalene equal to "sinking lower into the world of lust and promiscuity"?


I believe we are a combination of the two. You are making that virgin/whore dichotomy which I see as being an unhealthy way to view men and women, love, sex, marriage, friendship and other type of human relationship, whether it is with another or with oneself. To live only recognising one of these mythical analogies within oneself is to be in denial of another aspect of your inner self. This is not healthy. I don't believe it is conducive to healthy relationships or to being within oneself a well-adjusted, multi-faceted, understanding human being.

It also doesn't add anything to the fact the Jesus may have married and fathered children with Mary Magdalene.

lpetrich

Seems to me that one should not take Amos's comments too literally -- I've never been able to make sense out of them.

crunchyfrog

I just love the way people engage in these forums and express their ignorance with great confidence.

What do we really know about the life of the real Jesus?
Nothing- so live with it!

lunachick

ROFLMAO!

Have you been riding your bike without the seat today, crunchyfrog?

Amen-Moses

I've read just about everything he has ever written and I am just amazed that he doesn't just come out of the closet and admit he is at least an agnostic.

Amen-Moses

Amos

</strong>

So did I lunachick. The need for love and to be loved is evidence of alienation. This deprived state of being makes it possible for the two partners to become one in a loving relationship. Notice that I do not condemn loving relatioships nor do I condemn those who have less need for erotic (selfish) love. </strong>

It is wrong only because it proves alienation. It is needed to find satisfaction in loving relationships. The wrong is in that it leads us down the garden path first before we can recover from such delusions. The good side of this is that we procreated while we are estranged in the world of erotic delusion. </strong>

Same reason as above. When we bleed for the sake of others we give from ourselves and it is in this giving that we receive gratification. It sounds very affectionate and loving but is just a higher form of love to fill a higher need of gratification. (I know, I am going to the Stoic conscience here but my aim was to show that the two forms of love can exist independent of each other). </strong>

For the purification of our soul.

Human love cannot be conceived to exist without hate and so love will always be paired with our hate for the opposite to that wherein we are attracted to each other. </strong>

Yes. </strong>

True, but must we be a slave to our senses and let them be in charge of our destiny for the rest of our lives? </strong>

Becauce falling in love is equal to the sharing of our inner sanctum with the other party. Of course this is good if we have the need for it but is at the cost of our integrity and it is based on this that our partner can make us whole again. The intensity of love affairs also depends on this. Notice how love must compensate us for somethig that has been lost. That is the whole purpose of marriage and monogamous relationships. For the transformation of the inner self through a loving relationships eros must be the starting point. From here we journey through philia (friendship) towards agape.

So the combination of the two changes from mostly erotic at first to mostly agapeic near the end of our journy. For this to be possible the annihilation of the hate factor must be removed and as a result will its erotic opposite decline. Notice how the increase of one must be at the decline of the other because they are opposite to each other.

So even though falling in love is wrong initially it serves a purpose in the end and is therefore sacret and but less noble in the end.

Your Jesus marriage is wrong but I will not show you why at this time.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>