How May Human Sexuality Be Understood in Religion, Politics, and Philosophically, In The Twentieth First Century?

[Sculptor1]

Since the main three religions hint that correct behaviour is required for salvation, it begs the question WTF is going on?

It's known as "the hunt", an ancient ritual where the strong chase down and toy with the weak for pleasure. The target might be deer or it might be queer, the aim is identical - to harm another to make oneself feel better. It happens in many social species.

Is this the core of religion or the fringe?
My question was how can salvation be achieved in all the confusion?
I was hoping that a religious type might attempt an answer.

[Sy Borg]

Since the main three religions hint that correct behaviour is required for salvation, it begs the question WTF is going on?

It's known as "the hunt", an ancient ritual where the strong chase down and toy with the weak for pleasure. The target might be deer or it might be queer, the aim is identical - to harm another to make oneself feel better. It happens in many social species.

Is this the core of religion or the fringe?

It used to be the fringe, now it's the core.

[Sculptor1]

Is this the core of religion or the fringe?

It used to be the fringe, now it's the core.

Oh I see - When did the immutable eternal God change his mind?

[Sy Borg]

Is this the core of religion or the fringe?

It used to be the fringe, now it's the core.

Oh I see - When did the immutable eternal God change his mind?

Probably when he saw there were votes in it.

[Ecurb]

Perhaps you should read the novel (since it's one of the most famous ever written).

I read them all, in the 80s. And just as you found them enjoyable, I found them thoroughly tedious. I read them only for completeness, as she is so well known and well regarded.

To each his own. Humor is strange -- if someone doesn't "get" it, there's no point in explaining. I agree with you that some "humor" is so mean-spirited as to be both obnoxious and unfunny (the Three Stooges, for example. I can't see how anyone can enjoy them.).

In defense of my favorite novelist (along with two or three others) I offer Sir Walter Scott's comment. Scott was Austen's contemporary, and the most popular novelist of all time (if we measure by the percentage of novels sold). He wrote:

The big Bow-Wow strain I can do myself like any now going; but the exquisite touch which renders ordinary common-place things and characters interesting from the truth of the description and the sentiment is denied to me. What a pity such a gifted creature died so early!"

The novel was still a fairly new art form when Scott and Austen plied their trade. It evolved from the epic, and Scott's "big bow-wow" novels had developed along those lines. Other early novels (like those of Fielding and Cervantes) satirized epics. But the novel didn't evolve in Scott's (or Cervantes") way. It evolved in Austen's. Austen moved the novel away from adventure, and toward the domestic realism which became the hallmark of the 19th century novel. Her "exquisite touch which renders ordinary characters interesting" has been emulated by novelists for two centuries, but equalled by few.

[JackDaydream]

I am just wondering why this thread seems to have become hidden as it is doesn't appear to be showing in any section now. I am writing on it because I am wondering if it has been closed for some reason.

[Consul]

I am just wondering why this thread seems to have become hidden as it is doesn't appear to be showing in any section now. I am writing on it because I am wondering if it has been closed for some reason.

No, it hasn't; but it seems that it has been moved. It's now here: Community & Off-Topic > Philosophers' Lounge

[JackDaydream]

I am just wondering why this thread seems to have become hidden as it is doesn't appear to be showing in any section now. I am writing on it because I am wondering if it has been closed for some reason.

No, it hasn't; but it seems that it has been moved. It's now here: Community & Off-Topic > Philosophers' Lounge

It was intended to be a serious philosophy discussion about sexuality, religion and politics!

[JackDaydream]

I will clarify my intentions in creating this thread. Part of my starting point was so much discussion about gender in postmodernism, as well as sexuality, including queer theory. Sometimes, this is questioned on the basis of essentialism, which in its extreme can give rise to scientific fundamentalism. I wonder about to what extent do religious and scientific fundamentalism differ?

Human thinking about culture is based on the ideas of many disciplines of thought, including the sciences and the humanities, which may inform thinking about sexuality and I am asking about such interplay in the understanding of sexuality and the body, pleasure, aesthetics and morality, as the full spectrum of approaches to human sexuality and values regarding this. There is a lot of focus on transgender and LGBTIQ issues and politics. However, while this is important it is not the only aspect for thinking about. So many people come to issues of sexual life, morality and guilt in connection with mainstream 'spiritual' approaches, which may be contrasted with ethical hedonism, which may be seen in Nietzsche's emphasis on Dionysiun pleasure. The ideas of Foucault on the understanding of the history of human sexuality is important, so this thread is aimed at looking at sexuality as an aspect of philosophy, incorporating the influences of religion, science and politics. I know that this thread has been going a while, buy I ask you to consider your thoughts in relation to the widest scope of such exploration of values and their impact on human behaviour.