|
|
Post by MrNice on Oct 19, 2008 20:44:28 GMT -5
Naptaq - religious types are JUST AS LIKELY to commit crimes as atheists - no matter how you try to look at things, this fact remains the same
its unfortunate that the religious upbringing includes brainwashing of prejudice against atheists
|
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Oct 19, 2008 22:21:18 GMT -5
Deadendphilosopher ---------------------
He even went so far as to say that he broke up with his ex - girlfriend because "the sex was almost too good" - the relationship got too lustful because they didn't get to know each other well enough before having sex, and the focus was taken away from spirituality. In echo of the others here, I really have to call BS on all this "I don't care about sex" stuff he's feeding you. Basically he's skirting around the issue of sex, gauging your reaction to his mention of sex with his girlfriend, while trying to convince you that he doesn't care about sex at all. It's like the old example. Someone says "don't think of a black cat;" you think of a black cat. He says "I don't think about having great sex with you and I wouldn't want you to think about the great sex you could be having with me, either [because it's unspiritual]." What are you thinking about during that conversation; what is the point? Sex. They used to call that "reverse psychology."  If he really didn't want it, his special stirrings wouldn't be a topic of conversation. He might really believe that his sexual attraction is rooted in some kind of spiritual connection between you two; maybe Sweet Pea had it right, and he even thinks it might be his romantic spiritual destiny to "make a woman of you." But his actions speak very loudly of his desire for intimacy. The fact that you seem to be coyly encouraging him by going on pseudo-dates and going up to his room with him keeps his hopes alive that you're just timid and too shy to admit yet that you have a repressed desire for him, too. If you don't want an intimate relationship with him... you probably should make that clear and extricate yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 20, 2008 7:38:34 GMT -5
Naptaq - religious types are JUST AS LIKELY to commit crimes as atheists - no matter how you try to look at things, this fact remains the same Because of the Crusades, Inquisitions and the 'Holy' wars like Jihad, you're right. I used the term 'criminal atheist', because had I used 'atheist' more people would object to it. Look, when an atheist steals something, and there's no legal feedback or reprocutions then he got scott free, in his mind. However, most people will still feel guilty because of social programming. "You're not supposed to steal." And some would even return the item, because "I just can't live with myself". Now if a Christian steals something they might be nervous that God will punish them(God fearing Christian), or just feel guilty before God and go to confession, which combined with social guilt is a bigger moral guideline, in my opinion. (that is if they live by the 10 commandments) But again there's a lot of good and bad people on both sides. When I was younger I went to Church a lot, so I'm very familiar with the phenomenon called Sunday Christians, which is basicly someone who goes to church, and is often forced to, and does not live by the 10 commandments. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Oct 20, 2008 8:24:45 GMT -5
No - not because of those things - I am talking about general population
if it was a bigger guideline then we would see less criminal activity among the religious types then among atheists
since this is not the case, your reasoning is faulty
a belief in heaven and punishment in afterlife is no different from other social programming such as your usual social programming about living a good life - and it doesn't work just as well
I know it makes sense to you that a belief in god should, in theory make a difference, but it doesn't happen in practice
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Oct 20, 2008 8:48:10 GMT -5
I know it makes sense to you that a belief in god should, in theory make a difference, but it doesn't happen in practice Hey, it makes sense when people practise 10 commandments, the Golden Rule and things of that nature. Those who do are model citizens. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by deadendphilosopher on Oct 20, 2008 10:44:05 GMT -5
But that's why I said it is despicable if he is trying to trick me into having sex - because he would be deceiving me about what his goal really is. I understand that all guys want sex - that's not something I have a problem with. However this guy has told me that he "does not have an agenda for the first time since grammar school," that he is happy to get to just know me for as long as I want, and that for him a spiritual genuine connection is much more important than sex. He even went so far as to say that he broke up with his ex - girlfriend because "the sex was almost too good" - the relationship got too lustful because they didn't get to know each other well enough before having sex, and the focus was taken away from spirituality. If he is consciously trying to trick me into having sex, all this was a lie. Maybe unconsciously his main motive is only to get me to have sex, and I could understand that. But if he is consciously lying to me I think that is despicable. and you're certainly entitled to feel that way. i was just trying to explain to you that there are people out there who feel that helping a (relatively) uptight and inexperienced younger person is the 'higher good', and that they're doing you a big favor by creating a situation in which you can 'blossom' sexually, embrace your sexuality, 'come into your own' as a woman, etc etc. when people feel this way, they don't view what they do as lying or tricking you or whatever. they believe they are doing a good thing. that was my point. you seemed to be hung up on the question of how could he be this spiritual, evolved person and still be 'dishonest'. well, maybe he feels that's what you're really asking him to do. maybe from his perspective you're sending the message 'hey, i'm uncomfortable with my sexuality and i need you to help me past my discomfort in order to enjoy it'. in other words, he may feel he's just reflecting back to you what you're expressing. does that make more sense? That does make sense, I hadn't really thought of that. I don't think that's what's going on, but it's possible. Oh well, there's not much point in analyzing it anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by deadendphilosopher on Oct 20, 2008 10:52:18 GMT -5
Deadendphilosopher ---------------------
He even went so far as to say that he broke up with his ex - girlfriend because "the sex was almost too good" - the relationship got too lustful because they didn't get to know each other well enough before having sex, and the focus was taken away from spirituality. In echo of the others here, I really have to call BS on all this "I don't care about sex" stuff he's feeding you. Basically he's skirting around the issue of sex, gauging your reaction to his mention of sex with his girlfriend, while trying to convince you that he doesn't care about sex at all. It's like the old example. Someone says "don't think of a black cat;" you think of a black cat. He says "I don't think about having great sex with you and I wouldn't want you to think about the great sex you could be having with me, either [because it's unspiritual]." What are you thinking about during that conversation; what is the point? Sex. They used to call that "reverse psychology." If he really didn't want it, his special stirrings wouldn't be a topic of conversation. He might really believe that his sexual attraction is rooted in some kind of spiritual connection between you two; maybe Sweet Pea had it right, and he even thinks it might be his romantic spiritual destiny to "make a woman of you." But his actions speak very loudly of his desire for intimacy. The fact that you seem to be coyly encouraging him by going on pseudo-dates and going up to his room with him keeps his hopes alive that you're just timid and too shy to admit yet that you have a repressed desire for him, too. If you don't want an intimate relationship with him... you probably should make that clear and extricate yourself. The thing is, I don't think he was trying to disguise the fact that he desires sex. At one point after he had said this, he actually started going on and on about how he couldn't control the fact that he had feelings around me - I got the sense that he felt like he should make it clear that as a man he does have those desires and was trying to see how I felt about that. He was never trying to tell me that he is against sex - just that he feels a relationship needs a solid foundation of something deeper, and that he is willing to wait to have sex to really develop a deeper connection first. Like I said before, I am definitely going to extricate myself from the situation as you and others suggest. I was planning to just stop contacting him, but I have started wondering if it would be nicer to tell him why first? My inclination is to just cut it off though. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Oct 20, 2008 11:01:47 GMT -5
just cut it off
there is only one thing that matters here - you do not want a relationship with him
you already told him so, and the only thing you can do is to cut him off
|
|
|
|
Post by deadendphilosopher on Oct 20, 2008 11:02:11 GMT -5
I agree with your first paragraph - I'm sure the desire to get laid is a big part of the appeal for him - I'd just like to think that it's not the only thing he's looking for. I think you're right about the teasing thing - I didn't mean to tease him, I won't do that again. We never hung out every day (at first he was calling me that much). I made a decision early on not to hang out with him more than once a week. I have tried to make it clear that it will never go anywhere past friendship, but I'm realizing that he will not ever fully believe that, so I'm going to end it. I've told my parents that he doesn't seems to understand that I will never be interested that way, and they keep telling me that that's from his side and is his responsibility, however it doesn't seem right for me to keep being friends with him when I know how he's viewing the friendship. If he just doesn't seem to view it exactly like you do and is able to accept that it'll never change and there's nothing he can do about it, then just get away from the whole ting. The reason I tried to persuade you to at least give the friendship a chance by the possible help of a break was because of your good spiritual sessions. But I guess there are other guys out there, too^^. I hope you make your parents understand why you choose to end the friendship with him, though. I've stopped hanging out with various people without my parents understanding me, and the result is that they in the end nag me with all their questions and comments. Thanks - fortunately my parents haven't tried to pressure me into anything - they've just told me their opinion when I asked. But I do know what it's like to be nagged when you naturally drift apart from someone and your parents don't understand why. About the spiritual thing - I'm just going to stay open inside - I figure if it would truly benefit both of us to keep this friendship going, that will become apparent somehow. Otherwise it was nice for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by rukryM on Oct 20, 2008 14:16:57 GMT -5
Thanks - fortunately my parents haven't tried to pressure me into anything - they've just told me their opinion when I asked. But I do know what it's like to be nagged when you naturally drift apart from someone and your parents don't understand why. About the spiritual thing - I'm just going to stay open inside - I figure if it would truly benefit both of us to keep this friendship going, that will become apparent somehow. Otherwise it was nice for a while. Yeah, though it might not last for life you have at least made an experience in the field  . There are other too, they're just a bit hard to locate. |
|
If he really didn't want it, his special stirrings wouldn't be a topic of conversation.
. There are other too, they're just a bit hard to locate.