"I have in fact tracked down the virutes on the internet and found that from some contemporary Jewish sources there are a plethora of terms they use to express some ideas about each sephirah. Mostly some -ness(es)"

-ity.

So, I've asked the resident Christians whether or not killing is fine, facing off one society against another to steal from one another through the vehicle of warfare, I even went so far as to outline what sins (or vices) pertained to what "side" of existence, and yet they prattle on about sex, complaining to others, while thinking nothing of killing abortion doctors or gay people.

Killing abortion doctors: an aspect of Binah's vice of Greed (bring as many people into this reality as possible, but give not a shit whether they can have futures), don't use condoms, spread disease (God did it! He hates you, in the form of viruses!); hating gay people (fucking breed already!)

Christians: the little evil bitches of this reality. Willing to destroy anything, lie about it, need to own everything (including your mind!), yet complaining about how you might get pleasure with yourself and your significant other. Prying in, voyeuristic, needing to know your sexual practices, in your own home. Don't masturbate, there are horny Christian bitches not getting fucked.

History and the the dogmatically religious: From One Extreme To Another.

Pinky, do you discount the fact that we have some very destructive people in control of this country, that call themselves Christians, yet ply warfare to destroy other countries in the most greedy fashion, while controlling the media and lying their asses off about it? And that the Muslims nations they fight against, who seek to control women, keep them uneducated, schedule their beatings, rape them them blame them for that, throw acid on their faces, also call themselves "conservatives", while plotting the end of the world. One side fights against the other, for spoil, Dual Contending Forces, light and dark (it's all really just spiritual darkness at play...)

I know you're young, but you're smarter than that. And this is not really a male/female, masculine/feminine problems at all.

Or at least it is only on the surface. Where it concerns sex. And about which I couldn't care less.

From there to here.

Wow.

Ever, if Binah has two aspects, even at the level of the material (Assiah), and most associate that as being female, and one aspect bears fruit (fertile) and the other doesn't (sterile)....

Are you familiar with the idea of the Upper and Lower Sophia's in Gnosticism? Read the Nag Hammadi texts? I haven't moseyed through the Qumran ones much yet, but I have them.

Yet, think about it.... Chokmah is never really male at all. Not even at the level of Assiah.

Oh, I messed up I think, as to saying that the mundane chakra of malkuth in G.D. is the anus. I will have to refer back to the books. Mundane chakra usually refers to the planetary association. Then there are bodily equivalents, which is what I meant.

Also, would Chanukah not be spelled with a Cheth?

I will have to google Jonas brothers.

As to it mattering or not, it appears to matter to some degree, depending on how you look at the paths on the tree, and the supposed significance of the hebrew letters themselves. I really don't care, let's ditch this stupid planet and all its superstition.

Jason, do me a favor and go fuck a woman. I really don't know what God is planned, but I think that might possibly bring some joy into this world.

Use a condom.

You ever wonder why some people have no sexual impulse whatsoever?

I guess the Dark Mother has her own means of balancing every one out. Could be possible.

All the same, be like Jesus, don't wank it.

If that's the most important thing to you.

But it will only carry you so far.

Yesod has that angle. You talk about truth. That is the next sephirah farther up.

Tackle this.

Why did you just recently reappear in this room?

Now you've apparently, read up on the Cabala, Bob, so you should acknowledge that casting such tawdry smut at Jesus does NOT help the cause of Tikkun !"

BOB POSTED :Do you imagine that there was a psychological component to Jesus' taking on of sins?

What might that have included?

RESPONSE : Explain what you mean by that turn of phrase " a psychological component to Jesus taking on of sins " ?

Jason, I asked you in intellectual barbarians to stop your RESPONSE shit.

You were there, for a while.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore.

"Like my friend Zack once asked , what is so bad about boring ?"

"One Stroke At A Time, Sweet Jesus... One Stroke At A Time, Sweet Lord..."

A Hymnal to the Missionary Position.

what is the big deal? Jesus may have been gay. He may have enjoyed giving head or taking it up the butt. It is okay to be gay. America belongs to gay people as much as it does fundie christians. We can now get married in 6 states and I believe all fifty states will have same se marriage in my lifetime.

In a free society if you are opposed to homosexuality your ONLY choice is to not sleep with someone of the same sex.

This is a secular nation with a secular Constitution. The first ten Amendments to the Constitution trumps the Ten Commandments.

You hear that, Christians? You no longer call all of the shots in America. Get used to it.

PINKY POSTED :Well to be clear, this will be my last post within the confines of this specific conversation.

Prudes give me the heebee-jeebees.

RESPONSE : Liberated sex is-----creepy .

But onto the post:

PINKY POSTED :You have no place, no right, and no standing to be able to say what I "should" or "should not" *feel*. Should/not "do" is also debatable, but beyond that, I shouldn't feel anything in particular. To presume that you know enough about the inner workings of the universe to insist that you *know* how *I* should *feel* is what's really despicable and filthy about all this.

RESPONSE: On the contrary, ma'am , the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution states I DO have the right to free expression, including the right of saying to you what you should feel .That in no way forces , nor "imposes" nor coerces you to do anything ! It is no way violates your civil liberties . Words --even vehement , one-sided words are NOT bulletts . Nobody has been ever forced to do anything by words alone . Noone has ever had their civil liberties violated by words alone .

When are you relativist/postmodern folks going to realize that ? To truly force / impose some agenda on someone requires strictly *physical* force or *physical* confinement being used on someone that one disagrees with (and I do NOT advocate that). All I do is try to guilt people such as yourself that support liberated sex . I certainly do NOT advocate someone physically harming you or physically arresting you for doing so .


PINKY POSTED :Things happen as they should. If they shouldn't have, they wouldn't have happened that way.

RESPONSE: That statement is the fallacy of resignation . It is also inspid and weird to the utmost degree . That is an example of the "if you cannot change the situation then support it " mentality . That is sell-out thinking !

So rape , genocide, infanticide, racists lynching people according to you should have happened merely because they did ??? Since when are situations somehow self justifying ????????

If someone claims 2 solid objects +2 other solid objects = 70 does that mean they should say that because they did ?

PINKY POSTED :Not that I believe in fate necessarily, but it's just too tiring and counter-productive to think of things in any other way. "She shouldn't have died so young," promotes feelings of unfairness, furthering feelings of hopelessness, loneliness, fear, loss, sadness, mourning... Why not say, instead, "she should have died when she did." It's not offensive, it's certainly not contradictory to what happened, and it promotes healing, closure, and the ability to move forward and keep going without her. Trying to combat reality (saying something should be that isn't, or shouldn't be that is) only hurts yourself.

RESPONSE: Since when is oneself feeling good the end all be all of value ????. Oneself feeling good has its place , I don't think a person should necessarily be an ascetic, but since when is it the ultimate criteria of evaluation ?
You ask why not say, "she should have died when she did" ? Because that is the if you cannot beat the situation then join it mentality ! The mere fact of a situation happened does not justify the situation . Justifcation requires more abstract criteria .

Perhaps you are one of those people who equivocates on the use the word 'reason' bandying about the saying , "everything happens for a reason" and thereby mixing up two separate uses of the word reason .

The word 'reason' is sometimes used to indicate (A) purpose and at other times (B) AS mere situational cause of something .

For example , somebody can use the word 'reason' in the sense of (A) . The reason to build a sturdy foundation of house is so that it won't fall apart and the quite seperate merely situational in the sense of (B) The reason the farm worker on the farm slipped and landed flat on his back was that the grass near the barn was wet from extra dew the night before . Those are examples of two separate use-contexts fort he use of the word 'reason' .

It is always wrong to mix up those separate contexts of the word 'reason' like those people who inspidly say, "everything happens for a reason" as people inspidly do in order to con themselves into accepting tragedy !

If one acknowleges a situation of a nice person dying (say in a car wreck , or from some disease ect) as being a lousy situation that should NOT have happened , one keeps vigil on behalf of that person . One keeps integrity about the significance of the person , by *not* misleading oneself with that sellout thinking / that if- you- cannot- beat- the situation- then- accept it weirdness . One keeps vigil and reminds oneself, by the mourning and keenly affirming that it should *not* have happened, to keep on having the willingness to more deeply distill the significance of the life of the person that is gone .

To remind oneself to keep having the willingness to more deeply distill the significance of the life that is gone, that's why , Pinky .

PINKY POSTED :I shouldn't feel guilty, because I don't.

RESPONSE : That again is the appeal to resignation fallacy above . It is the content that a feeling may point to that justifies a feeling if it is justified. The fact that a feeling is , isn't self justifying .

PINKY POSTED :You should feel offended, because you do,

RESPONSE: That's not the proper grounds as to why I should feel offended . There are SPECIFIC criteria as to why I should feel offended , which I present an overview of in the paragraphs coming up . The mere fact that I do feel offended is not what justifies it , instead it is the specific arguments that do .

PINKY POSTED :but you don't have to continue feeling offended. You can let it go, and be much happier. If I chose to feel guilty instead of not feeling guilty, I'd be choosing to feel WORSE than I do - what kind of sense does that make? But if you chose NOT to feel offended anymore, you'll be choosing to feel BETTER than you do - doesn't that sound a lot nicer?

RESPONSE: Feeling good by inherently compromising virtue would not be a lot nicer . It is virtue , NOT happiness , that is intrinsically of merit . Happiness as long as it isn't gotten by diluting virtue , is quite okay . But IF it is gotten by selling out , intrinsically betraying virtue, then such happiness is definitely not okay .

If you felt worse by feeling guilty about something you did or thought, Pinky , chances are it would not cause you much *physical* pain, nor would it kill you . It could be a spur for you to dig deeper into contemplating the significance of what you encounter . Eventually, you could alternate between such guilt and other more pleasant , and/or peaceful states of mood --once you become contrite and renounce the bad and contemplate--- as well as support the Good .

PINKY POSTED :I can't even believe you've tried turning this into a fucking argument as to whether or not Jesus actually existed. That's not what any of this is about and if you insist on being offended on his behalf you are both condemning yourself to a great deal of burden while simultaneously admitting that Jesus needs you to cover for him. *I* think that if Jesus *did* exist, he certainly doesn't need you (or anyone) for much of anything - god incarnate or not.

RESPONSE: If I recall righly, there was a turn of phrase you used in the previous reponse post you posted that was phrased as if you thought the historicity was dubious .

As far as the burden of being offended by people insulting Jesus , isn't selling out / betraying principle worse than bearing a burden ?


PINKY POSTED :I enjoy anal sex; I continue to enjoy it, and enjoyed giving it before I got married.
I also continue to thoroughly enjoy giving and receiving oral sex.
I've been in one orgy that could have been timed better and been in better company, but it wasn't completely horrible; and I have enjoyed threesomes of both the M-M-F and M-F-F varieties (and I wouldn't mind a transgender, but those are harder to come by).
I'm not sure what objection you have to masturbation (if any), but I enjoy that, too (as well as mutual masturbation with my husband).

RESPONSE: It never ceases to astound , how people in this present weird era of history , presume as if that the mere factor of them liking something; or being happy with something ; or that they don't have any dislike for it...somehow in and of itself is somehow supposedly sufficient grounds for claiming something is okay !!!!!!

Then again, that is postmodernism ..it is weird like that; it affirms as if somehow feeling a particular way is austomatically self-justifying, or a substitute for the search for justification !!!!

PINKY POSTED :Although my husband and I have never required or had much interest in using pornography to spice up our sex life, we're not opposed to it, and we both can enjoy and appreciate a truly attractive body of either gender (not that those are necessarily easy to come by in porn).

RESPONSE: Pornography/ adult film sort , and hard core porn magazines have more than merely nudity ---there is the suggestion or the graphic act of sexuala ctivity --which makes it more vile than mere nudity .


PINKY POSTED :I fail to understand how ANY of the following, some especially, is any dirtier, more vial, or even more dangerous than your normal, everyday, monogamous vaginal intercourse, when performed safely, consensually, consciously, sober, and with all parties properly and thoroughly informed. Then again, I'm not a prude, and I don't pretend to understand people who are.

RESPONSE: For one , activities like sodomy , or still worse : fellatio , involve inserting an organ of the body (and a quite ugly organ at that --which resembles a very botched version of a cylinder) i.e. the phallus, into parts of the body where it was not designed in nature to go . The phallus is a reproductive organ it is designed in nature to be inserted in the vagina so that seminal material can meet up with an ovum (from the female's ovaries) and conceive a child .

To insert the phallus in someone's rectum (or worse: their mouth) , is to treat that organ in away outside its biological function . Furthermore, it does so in a way that involves violating esthetic principle , insamch as the visual and other sensory qualia, set forth by inserting the phallus in some orifice which is not designed in nature to receive it, are jarring ! The look of the phallus visually calls attention to itself more when it is inserted in the mouth . With fellatio there is the prospect that is ugly in terms of another sensory qualia other than the visual (literal taste) , and also in terms of the sinister quality of devouring the elements of one's own human species .

Allow me to explain . With a (degenerate) practice like fellatio , there is the prospect that a person could orally ingest seminal fluid . That's bad for two reasons . First the person whose mouth that revolting organ is insterted into , runs the risk of orally ingesting sperm and thereby digesting sperm (sperm the very element that together with the "egg" joins up to make the body matrix of a new human being) . Thus, the prospect of someone swallowing and , hence, digesting sperm involves the risk of a sort of semi-cannibalism .

Secondly , there is the prospect of bad sensory qualia of the sort which involves literal taste on the taste buds . I wouldn't know from personal experience because I would never try something so ghastly , but there is the possibility that a person might taste something quite revolting , if the seminal fluid were to be released on someone's toungue .


There is yet a third reason why such a (degenerate) practice such as fellatio is bad (And bad is a cosmic understatement ) . The sort of emotional and afffective state it lends itself to is creudely appetite based ...and appetites comprise more than the desire for food (as the word is oft used in popular parlance). Such sexual excitement serves to foster a crude stimulus and response patern where the atention of a person is occupied with *visceral satisfaction * . Such an overwheming desire for visceral satisfaction ---is near mindless ...it tends to foster an ANTI-mindfulness .

Over time the person, so caught up in such a desire for *visceral satisfaction* , develops a sense of false priority , inasmuch as they prioritize the desire to receive visceral satisfaction as the linchpin of what living life is about (or a large portion of it ) . Very paltry way to live .

As with the sodomy , there is also an element of ugly association with ugly visual qualia , inasmuch as the person is inserting their phallus into the rectum of someone . The rectum is what excrement comes out of . Human excrement , has noted visual and olfactory ugliness in terms of the sensory qualia it gives off .

With sodomy, there is also the element of the same sort of near mindless abandon in the search for exciting visceral statisfaction, as with fellatio !

PINKY POSTED :For the record, "Pollution is detrimental to our comfortable way of life, our health, and has been getting out of control. I feel we need to do something about it," is COMPLETELY different from "WHAT A BUNCH OF PUERILE GARBAGE! DID YOU PEOPLE JUST DECIDE TO STOP RECYCLING ANYTHING OPTING TO LEAVE IT FESTERING IN THE STREET?" THAT'S why I assumed you took some kind of *personal* offense to this website, suggesting that you have some kind of personal involvement in what it speaks about.

RESPONSE: No, it ain't me as a person the offense is about. Vehemence can serve the importance of emphasizing or re emphasizing how important virtue is and how virtue shouldn't be balanced with a little crassness . I have no "personal involvement" . It's because I care about virtue . I care about Jesus of Nazareth who was a very, very,very, very nice guy who stood up for the poor, for women , for the lepers, the blind, the widows and orphans and handicapped . I care about how American and musch of the Globe's society is going down the tubes of sexual kitch and other forms of tawdry , earthy kitch . Again, one does not have to be a Christian to object to people throwing vulgar references to sodomy at Jesus . Even if I were not a Christian , but say had been , a Sufi Muslim , A Vedanta Hindu , or an ethical Deist I would still object to people making vulgar statements against Jesus. Please don't think me a gay basher , either . I have hjad friends that were gay . I don't hate gay people .

Duty tells me that I must express , however, the insight that sodomy is repulsive , and fellatio, which is even worse that sodomy , is uspeakably grotesque and hideously degenerate . That is the case for all who practice such hideous practices, regardless of their sex orientation .

It is objective ethical and esthetic principles that I base such objections on , not any osrt of societal brainwashing, not because I think of such activities as unmasculine , not because I think people will have an uncomfortable burning sensation of an afterlife with a literalized "hell" . (Actually, I would maintain that the references to hell (Gehennna or Hades, in the original New Testament Greek ) that Jesus apprently spoke of are more plausibly interpreted as symbolic of intense guilt and spiritual decay , not literal torture) . SOUL-DECAY

After all , in the New Testament Greek of the gospels, often uses the term 'Gehenna' that is rendered into English with the word 'hell' , which referred to the garbage dump outside of Jerusalem . Thus the term is a quite fit one for describing a sort of soul decay ---garbage dumps, like the one outside of Jerusalem, apparentyl 2,000 yrs ago, have garbage that decays, so Gehenna makes a fit metaphor for soul-decay .

PINKY POSTED :In closing, I'd like to reemphasize what I believe to be the more meaningful message behind this website, obvious to anyone capable of reading between the lines: anyone has the ability to use the bible to defend almost any position they'd like to support, simply by picking and choosing which verses to take literally and which to take figuratively - which is what anyone who takes the bible seriously does.

RESPONSE: For one, a person should NOT "read between the lines" with the bible, that is a false method of exegesis .
Ironically, that's what Dan does with he does the "its implied" routine, when he cannot find an explicit verse to back up some notion he has .

Secondly, it is in principle possible to find a criteria of exegesis / interpretration that is consitent as to which parts are metaphorical and which parts of the bible are literal . It is possible , in principle for there to be some syntactic or purely lexical criteria to be spelled out ...

Allow me to say in closing, that before, you wish to shun or throw away all the Bible , how about reading the beatitudes in Matthew chapter 5 to take a close look of the hopes expressed by a central protagonist in the book of Matthew . Hopes such : as 'the meek inheriting the earth ' . The meek inheriting the earth (maybe you will say that is all fantasy --the stuff of wishful thinking), but isn't that a darn good goal to hope for ? ? ? ? Wouldn't it be great for the meek people, the people who aren't on the take ; aren't out to screw anyone, good , nice , humble meek people----- as the Board of Regents for the whole planet ?

you just dun' unnerstand them catholic kids, HB; truss me; they's heap big fun; less all me3t up in Double Hockey Stix