Am I the only one who thought we were talking about Freud's ID this entire time?

I suppose.

People think so paradignmatically. They only want ID to refer to nature. Well people are a part of nature.

What's so profound about focusing on a chimp/ape when we can't get into their heads?

Baaa humbug.

Some people live for 40 years in Cavities and meditate 24 hours a day for learning how to control their sexual desires (also hunger, thirst and sleep) and after that they say that the sexual desires still exists but now they are more or less capable to control them. I only wonder how you guys from the "free" world (lol) have become so strong. At least I have never seen someone running a marathon without hard training and controlling sexual instincts is by far more difficult than marathon.

Gandhi's famous for his fasts and I think he struggled with it.

Maybe it has something to do with attraction not being seen as wrong or a sin.

Sexual desires are normal - in both males and females. What we've been discussing are sexual desires that are so strong that you cannot function or concentrate. So strong that you need to segregate the women from the men for anything productive to be accomplished.

Gandhi reportedly had many sexual partners. Funny, it didn't seem to prevent him from accomplishing an awful lot.

Well he actually made a Brahmacharya vow.

Gandhi's link between self, God and early action are here:
http://www.countercurrents.org/dawa220906.htm

An explanation of Brahmacharya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmacharya

this thread sucks.

Thanks for sharing.

wtf? who the hell is this new moron?

How was this thread not insta-closed by a mod and splendour given infraction points?

Somehow, I don't think it would go over this well if I posted about women being over-emotional, uneducated messes and trying to claim that proved atheism.

I didn't say anything about women being over emotional or uneducated itt.

I said that the carnality of people's thinking caused Paul to request that "Women be silent in church".

That's doctrinal.

The thread's not close worthy just because atheists are weak in Christian doctrine.

Its quite logical of an Apostle to encourage spiritual thinking over the carnal thinking that he's trying to lessen the effects of.

You just don't like it that it shows the Apostle in a reasonable position in regard to women.

GOD MADE WOMEN. Most creators create because they like their creations.

If men abuse their privilege then God isn't to blame nor his doctrine.

I'm sorry you object to the rational spiritual aims of Christianity.

No, you've just implied that every man in the world is a zombie obsessed with and waiting for the next chance to put his dick in a woman.

If you want to get into a debate about differences in men and women, create a thread in another forum. Starting topic: science proving your brain is smaller than men's brains on average.

You need to stop mis-paraphrasing things I said in my OP.

I said carnal thinking blocks spiritual thinking.

I suggest you surf this forum and check out some pics and avatars then come back and make your case. Or better yet don't come back.

Which is just your completely ridiculous opinion.

No, it's not. Paul says nothing about the "carnality of people's thinking" when he commands women to be silent in church.

Seems to me that you're the one that needs to brush up on Christian doctrine. You seem to be mistaking your own opinion with what is actually written in the Bible.

Except that's not what Paul is doing.

No, we don't like it when you make stuff up and then claim it is the word of god.

So man "abuses his privilege", yet women have to suffer the consequences by keeping their mouths shut in church. Seems fair.

Of course, this isn't actually what the scripture says, so it's a moot point.

No, we object to stupidity.

Oh I'm sorry, I did paraphrase your OP incorrectly. You didn't say that men are zombies looking for sex. You said specifically that any man who listened to a woman talk would automatically "lose their mental focus" and start thinking to themselves that she had a "nice azz, etc. etc." That's so much different you're right.

Cough.

Only God and the slightest bit of willpower.

Yup, I said the same thing earlier in the thread. If an atheist created the same thread, he'd be accused of trolling. The thread would probably be closed (at a minimum) too.

This thread shows what a joke RGT is. Jibninjas is the only theist who bothered to dispute the OP, and his denial of Splendour's claims was extremely mild. If he was disputing the same topic with an atheist, he definitely would have been a lot more forceful and angry.

I have to give Jib credit, though. Just about every other theist didn't bother disputing Splendour's claims. So the thread ends up looking like another "atheists vs. the word of god" -- which is exactly what Splendour is always looking for.

And a lot more likely to use his mod powers, obv

You're not going to peer pressure me from the opposing side out of a doctrinal position.

Paul wrote it.

John confirms "carnal problems" in the churchs later in the Book of Revelation.

There are reasons behind doctrine and the ancient Greeks were Bacchanalian.

Because later generations took the scripture too far because of their personal desires and cultural preferences doesn't change things.

He didn't write what you claim he wrote. You editorialized heavily. And now you're refusing to admit it.

So???? Does he mention that these "carnal problems" are due to women speaking in church?

Yup, there are reasons for doctrine...but you're just making the reasons up for the purposes of this thread.

I don't think that your god would appreciate you twisting his words so much. An unwitting Christian may wander into this thread and actually believe what you're saying. His misunderstanding of the word of god will be your fault. But hey...as long as you don't have to admit you're wrong it's all good, right?

Ok, I think this thread has run its' course.