Christian Asceticism, Masochism and Power

ShawnG · Post by **ShawnG** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:43 pm

Glaswegian;515656 wrote: Of course you do, ShawnG! And who could blame you? After all - they are excellent, aren't they? :yh_bigsmi

Only if you have a low standard of excellence.

They are entertaining, I enjoy watching disciples of reason abandoning their god for predjudice and conceit

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:00 pm

ShawnG;515879 wrote: Only if you have a low standard of excellence.

They are entertaining, I enjoy watching disciples of reason abandoning their god for predjudice and conceit

I had to add that to my sig. Classic :wah:

Don't worry. I gave you credit.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:41 am

ShawnG;515879 wrote: They are entertaining, I enjoy watching disciples of reason abandoning their god for predjudice and conceit
Surely you mean prejudice, ShawnG?

:yh_rotfl

I enjoy watching Christians out of their depth. It's absolutely hilarious!

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:52 am

koan;515895 wrote: I had to add that to my sig.
It's such a shame, koan, isn't it? Now you'll have to alter your sig - unless you want people to think you're as illiterate as ShawnG.

:yh_rotfl

My God. Imagine putting that howler in your sig, koan. Your embarrassment and humiliation must be even greater than ShawnG's!

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:32 am

Glaswegian;516083 wrote: It's such a shame, koan, isn't it? Now you'll have to alter your sig - unless you want people to think you're as illiterate as ShawnG.

:yh_rotfl

My God. Imagine putting that howler in your sig, koan. Your embarrassment and humiliation must be even greater than ShawnG's!

Wit, class and humour far outweigh orthography in my list of things I like in a real man.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:42 am

koan;516182 wrote: Wit, class and humour far outweigh orthography in my list of things I like in a real man.
I can do 1650 stomach crunches in one hour, koan.

And yesterday I clenched my fist so hard that my biceps tore through the sleeve of my shirt.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 5:43 am

Glaswegian;516192 wrote: I can do 1650 stomach crunches in one hour, koan.

And yesterday I clenched my fist so hard that my biceps tore through the sleeve of my shirt.

And yet you still fail to impress.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:48 am

Diuretic;516222 wrote: We know you overwork your right arm, how's the other one going or don't you change hands at 100 like everyone else?

I occasionally change hands like everyone else, Diuretic. But, personally speaking, I think that changing heads is so much better.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:17 am

Diuretic;516251 wrote: What? On a vibrator?

You wouldn't believe the number of heads I've had to change on vibrators, Diuretic. Why, it must be almost as large as koan's collection of magic crystals!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:42 am

Glaswegian;516248 wrote: I occasionally change hands like everyone else, Diuretic. But, personally speaking, I think that changing heads is so much better.

You must have a strong neck then. So how many head do you do, say, weekly?

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:05 am

Accountable;516270 wrote: You must have a strong neck then. So how many head do you do, say, weekly?
About 500 steers.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:12 am

Glaswegian;516283 wrote: About 500 steers.
I had no idea you were into beastiality. :yh_sick

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:28 am

Accountable;516291 wrote: I had no idea you were into beastiality. :yh_sick
Surely you mean bestiality, Accountable?

:yh_rotfl

I know. I'm utterly beastly when it comes to spelling mistakes by grown-ups.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:31 am

Glaswegian;516310 wrote: Surely you mean bestiality, Accountable?

:yh_rotfl

I know. I'm utterly beastly when it comes to spelling mistakes by grown-ups.

So sorry to misspell your hobby. It's not a term I'm generally familiar with. I bow to your superior expertise on the matter.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:50 am

Accountable;516314 wrote: So sorry to misspell your hobby. It's not a term I'm generally familiar with. I bow to your superior expertise on the matter.
Thank you, Accountable.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:47 pm

Diuretic;517074 wrote: Just don't fall off the soapbox you're standing on G, you can do yourself an awful injury if the beast moves a bit suddenly :wah:
That sentence of yours, Diuretic, reminds me of an actual case of bestiality which occurred in England in the early 1970's. I believe it occurred in Devon or Cornwall. But I could be wrong. Anyway, the case is briefly as follows:

The act of bestiality was performed by a farmer (no surprise there) on his cow. The farmer was caught in flagrante delicto because while he was in the throes of ecstasy with his cow its vaginal muscles contracted with such force that they caused the lower vertebrae of his back to snap. It was his screams of agony which caused his wife to dash from their home into the cowshed and discover him. Now, Diuretic, can you imagine what that farmer said to his wife when she found him dangling from the rear end of the cow, trousers down at his ankles, screaming in agony? Perhaps something like this:

'I can assure you, darling...(scream)...This isn't what it...(scream)...looks like!'

At least the farmer's poor wife finally understood what her husband really meant all those times when he had said to her in the past:

'I'm just going to milk a cow, dear.'

Now you know the reason why whenever I stand on my soapbox behind Big Daisy I always make sure I withdraw before she gets too excited, Diuretic.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 9:45 pm

Diuretic;517145 wrote: Immensely wise G, immensely. Do you have problems though with the Highland breed? I mean, all that hair and all...

Not in the least, Diuretic. I love the Highland breed. Especially when they toss their long hair in my face. But if you were to push me on this question then I suppose I would have to say that the only problem I have with the Highland breed is that they are all redheads.

double helix · Post by **double helix** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:49 am

what happened to the disscussion?:-2

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:18 am

double helix;517282 wrote:

what happened to the disscussion?:-2
It found a higher plane. :rolleyes:

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:51 am

Diuretic;517178 wrote: Hmmm, for a change G why not a try a Beltie - a Belted Galloway?
Is that a Suspender Belted Galloway?

doublehelix wrote:

what happened to the discussion? :-2

You're right, double helix. It's time Diuretic and I returned to the subject of Christian asceticism. I think we drifted off into a discussion of bestiality out of the need to give ourselves some respite from the Christian ascetic - who is, after all, an utterly vile and obscene creature. In other words, we needed to focus on something more edifying. Hence our discussion of bestiality (which I'm sure we could have remained immersed in until the cows came home).

ShawnG · Post by **ShawnG** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 10:25 am

Diuretic;517428 wrote: I thought we were just indulging in a bit of bull?

I would imagine its better to be the Gorer than the Goree:D

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:17 pm

ShawnG;517603 wrote: I would imagine its better to be the Gorer than the Goree:D
I wonder how women would view what you have said here ShawnG?

I think I'll ask them.

Tell me, Ladies: Do you imagine it's better to be the 'Gorer' or the 'Goree'?

ShawnG · Post by **ShawnG** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Glaswegian;517711 wrote: I wonder how women would view what you have said here ShawnG?

I think I'll ask them.

Tell me, Ladies: Do you imagine it's better to be the 'Gorer' or the 'Goree'?

Taken in the context of Man vs. Bull I'm sure they would agree. And I'm sure you'll find a few that would agree in either case, not that you would try to put words in my mouth or anything. You knowing the secret of Woman and all that, it's a wonder you would have to ask them. LOL

911 · Post by **911** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 12:56 pm

ShawnG;517721 wrote: Taken in the context of Man vs. Bull I'm sure they would agree. And I'm sure you'll find a few that would agree in either case, not that you would try to put words in my mouth or anything. You knowing the secret of Woman and all that, it's a wonder you would have to ask them. LOL

:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:31 pm

Glaswegian;517711 wrote: Tell me, Ladies: Do you imagine it's better to be the 'Gorer' or the 'Goree'?

In Greek mythology, the Gods put the same question to the man Tiresias who had lived part of his life as a woman.

'Tell us, Tiresias: Is it Man or Woman who derives the greatest pleasure from sex?', the Gods demanded to know.

But there is a problem with the answer which Tiresias gave to this question. And the problem is this: he gave his answer when he was in the form of a man. This is why some women respond to the answer which Tiresias gave as follows:

'Well, Tiresias being a man would have said that anyway, wouldn't he?'

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 6:10 pm

Diuretic;518127 wrote: Why am I thinking of the differences between quantitative and qualitative research methods?
Why? Maybe because it's just the way you feel, Diuretic.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:01 am

ShawnG wrote: I enjoy watching disciples of reason abandoning their god for predjudice and conceit
koan;515895 wrote: I had to add that to my sig. Classic :wah:

Don't worry. I gave you credit.
You look different today, koan. But for the life of me I can't think why. Tell me: Has it anything to do with your sig? :yh_bigsmi

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:55 am

Glaswegian;518432 wrote: You look different today, koan. But for the life of me I can't think why. Tell me: Has it anything to do with your sig? :yh_bigsmi

You might notice that people change their avatars and sigs from time to time. It's because our minds are capable of focusing and refocusing on different topics. It's refreshing. You might want to try letting go of obsessions and breathing a little life into what you've described as a miserable existence that you so desperately cling.

veritvs · Post by **veritvs** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:43 pm

I think taken on its face, the idea that people should not resist evil is not only masochism but the worst kind..(divinely ordered masochism at the threat of eternal suffering if one refuses to allow his debasement). The basic idea to literally allow a stranger or whoever to smash your face (why stop at twice)? endlessly and then to force yourself to love and pray for him is as I see it the sickest most malignant advice ever given. Why,.. by the way stop at your face or your body why not allow your whole family to be violated tortured and slowly killed so that you might exibit your self denial and faith that in the next world you'll be rewarded by such a display of (faith?)The problem is as I see it ...The bible Must be understood philosophically or with common sense as to what Jesus really might have said and the actual meaning implied. The basic whole new testament seems to have been an expectation for the original religion to evolve (New wine) which apparently could not be effectuated having become calcified. Jesus was given to exagerations to make points ...such as mountains planted in the sea..etc. To abbreviate I do believe Jesus to be divine but I also believe enormous evil has been born of what is called Christianity. Much of it a confused masochism.

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:29 am

veritvs;1221377 wrote: I think taken on its face, the idea that people should not resist evil is not only masochism but the worst kind..(divinely ordered masochism at the threat of eternal suffering if one refuses to allow his debasement). The basic idea to literally allow a stranger or whoever to smash your face (why stop at twice)? endlessly and then to force yourself to love and pray for him is as I see it the sickest most malignant advice ever given. Why,.. by the way stop at your face or your body why not allow your whole family to be violated tortured and slowly killed so that you might exibit your self denial and faith that in the next world you'll be rewarded by such a display of (faith?)The problem is as I see it ...The bible Must be understood philosophically or with common sense as to what Jesus really might have said and the actual meaning implied. The basic whole new testament seems to have been an expectation for the original religion to evolve (New wine) which apparently could not be effectuated having become calcified. Jesus was given to exagerations to make points ...such as mountains planted in the sea..etc. To abbreviate I do believe Jesus to be divine but I also believe enormous evil has been born of what is called Christianity. Much of it a confused masochism.Mountains planted in the sea aren't exaggeration, they're a description of the power of faith. What makes you think it's an exaggerated simile? That's the nature of faith.

It would help perhaps if you quote the passage which offends you as far as "to literally allow a stranger or whoever to smash your face (why stop at twice)? endlessly and then to force yourself to love and pray for him" goes. If that's your interpretation of turning the other cheek it's a pretty unreasonable one. Turning the other cheek is the New Testament alternative to the Old Testament eye for an eye response, surely. Or perhaps you had a different passage in mind.