Christianity

[Nick_A]

Gurdjieff describes what a Christian is. He suggests it is possible to be less of a machine rather than a creature of reaction: an automaton.

"First of all it is necessary to understand that a Christian is not a man who calls himself a Christian or whom others call a Christian. A Christian is one who lives in accordance with Christ's precepts. Such as we are we cannot be Christians. In order to be Christians we must be able 'to do.' We cannot do; with us everything 'happens.' Christ says: 'Love your enemies,' but how can we love our enemies when we cannot even love our friends? Sometimes 'it loves' and sometimes 'it does not love.' Such as we are we cannot even really desire to be Christians because, again, sometimes 'it desires' and sometimes 'it does not desire.' And one and the same thing cannot be desired for long, because suddenly, instead of desiring to be a Christian, a man remembers a very good but very expensive carpet that he has seen in a shop. And instead of wishing to be a Christian he begins to think how he can manage to buy this carpet, forgetting all about Christianity. Or if somebody else does not believe what a wonderful Christian he is, he will be ready to eat him alive or to roast him on hot coals. In order to be a good Christian one must be. To be means to be master of oneself. If a man is not his own master he has nothing and can have nothing. And he cannot be a Christian. He is simply a machine, an automaton. A machine cannot be a Christian. Think for yourselves, is it possible for a motorcar or a typewriter or a gramophone to be Christian? They are simply things which are controlled by chance. They are not responsible. They are machines. To be a Christian means to be responsible. Responsibility comes later when a man even partially ceases to be a machine, and begins in fact, and not only in words, to desire to be a Christian."

What does it mean "To Be?" Doesn't it require first that a person be master of oneself to acquire a higher quality of consciousness?

Your quote from Gurdjieff starts of with contradictions, and then spouts waffle of absurdity. With regards to what does it mean 'to be'? Who cares with such a stunted statement?
What does it mean 'to be Christian'? ..well, that statement is worthy of query and I suppose is what this entire thread ultimately is about. (the answer is so simple one as myself is wondering Y this thread has spewed so much shite for so long on the subject)

"First of all it is necessary to understand that a Christian is not a man who calls himself a Christian or whom others call a Christian. A Christian is one who lives in accordance with Christ's precepts.

Is this a contradiction? You question what "TO BE" means. Yet do you question what it means to be a doctor or a lawyer? No You would assert cultural standard which define what they are. But what does it mean to be Christian gives you trouble. The reason seems to be that you don't distinguish between knowledge and understanding. A person can have complete knowledge of all the rules of chess but yet cannot play the game and lose quickly? Why? They have knowledge but lack understanding. They have gone beyond the limitations of culturally acquired classification to define meaning or what it means "TO BE."

Christianity a opposed to man made Christendom is like this. Some claim to know rules. They have knowledge but lack understanding. As such, they can strive "TO BE" Christian but cannot. They lack understanding. Have you ever pondered the difference between knowledge and understanding?

[Nick_A]

Gurdjieff describes what a Christian is. He suggests it is possible to be less of a machine rather than a creature of reaction: an automaton.

"First of all it is necessary to understand that a Christian is not a man who calls himself a Christian or whom others call a Christian. A Christian is one who lives in accordance with Christ's precepts. Such as we are we cannot be Christians. In order to be Christians we must be able 'to do.' We cannot do; with us everything 'happens.' Christ says: 'Love your enemies,' but how can we love our enemies when we cannot even love our friends? Sometimes 'it loves' and sometimes 'it does not love.' Such as we are we cannot even really desire to be Christians because, again, sometimes 'it desires' and sometimes 'it does not desire.' And one and the same thing cannot be desired for long, because suddenly, instead of desiring to be a Christian, a man remembers a very good but very expensive carpet that he has seen in a shop. And instead of wishing to be a Christian he begins to think how he can manage to buy this carpet, forgetting all about Christianity. Or if somebody else does not believe what a wonderful Christian he is, he will be ready to eat him alive or to roast him on hot coals. In order to be a good Christian one must be. To be means to be master of oneself. If a man is not his own master he has nothing and can have nothing. And he cannot be a Christian. He is simply a machine, an automaton. A machine cannot be a Christian. Think for yourselves, is it possible for a motorcar or a typewriter or a gramophone to be Christian? They are simply things which are controlled by chance. They are not responsible. They are machines. To be a Christian means to be responsible. Responsibility comes later when a man even partially ceases to be a machine, and begins in fact, and not only in words, to desire to be a Christian."

What does it mean "To Be?" Doesn't it require first that a person be master of oneself to acquire a higher quality of consciousness?

Your quote from Gurdjieff starts of with contradictions, and then spouts waffle of absurdity. With regards to what does it mean 'to be'? Who cares with such a stunted statement?
What does it mean 'to be Christian'? ..well, that statement is worthy of query and I suppose is what this entire thread ultimately is about. (the answer is so simple one as myself is wondering Y this thread has spewed so much shite for so long on the subject)

"First of all it is necessary to understand that a Christian is not a man who calls himself a Christian or whom others call a Christian. A Christian is one who lives in accordance with Christ's precepts.

Is this a contradiction? You question what "TO BE" means. Yet do you question what it means to be a doctor or a lawyer? No You would assert cultural standard which define what they are. But what does it mean to be Christian gives you trouble. The reason seems to be that you don't distinguish between knowledge and understanding. A person can have complete knowledge of all the rules of chess but yet cannot play the game and lose quickly? Why? They have knowledge but lack understanding. They have gone beyond the limitations of culturally acquired classification to define meaning or what it means "TO BE."

Christianity a opposed to man made Christendom is like this. Some claim to know rules. They have knowledge but lack understanding. As such, they can strive "TO BE" Christian but cannot. They lack understanding. Have you ever pondered the difference between knowledge and understanding?

[Nick_A]

What is the sense of speaking about the religious life if man as a whole is incapable of it? VA gave a good description of Buddhism as an earth religion but who is capable of organizing the soul? It seems better to me to admit why we can't and admit the human condition. Gurdjieff describes what a Christian is. He suggests it is possible to be less of a machine rather than a creature of reaction: an automaton.

This is one reason why I always have spoken in terms of 'levels' and 'degrees'. By your definition: man is incapable of religious life. So what results from the position that you take? That only a rare and unusual sort of person can fulfill the demands. But that pertains to one 'level'. There is a whole range of things that have been developed for the 'average man' who, according to your definitions, cannot ever be a (real) Christian. That is why I refer to 'cultural paideia'. Once, there was a general education given to those average people, incapable of being (true) Christians. Certainly it involved the 3Rs but also a general moral and ethical training. What else could be given to people who are, as you indicate, incapable of higher spiritual and religious life? Why ask more of them? Why ask what cannot be given?

Now we have to turn to the position of someone like Immanuel Can who will fundamentally disagree with you. He will say that *even a little child* can be 'saved'. And if the little uncomprehending child can be 'saved' then all people, simply by getting down on their knees and praying to Jesus, not only can be 'saved' but are saved. According to Immanuel it might -- hypothetically -- take a lifetime to *be reconstructed* (a central tenet of his view: a reconstruction carried out by a transcendental spirit) or to *reconstruct oneself* into that Ideal Christian ("You must become perfect"), but no one is excluded.

Buddhism has become, for the West, a logical evolution of the Christian form. When examined, the position of Belinda and Attofish is simply an ethic of 'acting right'. It does not actually involve a spiritual and regenerating (metaphysical, transcendental) external power. Except that in Atto's case he describes a rather complex intervention by metaphysical entity. Nevertheless, the only 'point' of the intervention is to get the subject (him) to 'act right'. And that seems to be all there is to Christianity.

A Buddhist could do just as much and would have an even more developed ethical system with which to work. Buddhism can become very non-metaphysical and exclusively geared toward 'proper behavior' and certainly to 'proper attitude'. It is, one might propose, the perfect post-Christian semi-religious (or is it also aesthetic?) alternative and evolution of those Christians who can 'no longer believe'.

What does it mean "To Be?" Doesn't it require first that a person be master of oneself to acquire a higher quality of consciousness?

The question is not very relevant. If you want to encounter people who *are* just go outside and mingle with them. They are simply getting on as best they are able.

Plato provides a good description for educating the whole person: mind, body, and spirit. Yet we see it doesn't work. Simone Weil was a greatly admired Marxist and atheist. She learned from her dedication to truth why it cannot work. The collective fallen human being prevents it. She wrote:

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace."

What is the future of paideia without the help of grace leading to "understanding?"

[attofishpi]

Gurdjieff describes what a Christian is. He suggests it is possible to be less of a machine rather than a creature of reaction: an automaton.



What does it mean "To Be?" Doesn't it require first that a person be master of oneself to acquire a higher quality of consciousness?

Your quote from Gurdjieff starts of with contradictions, and then spouts waffle of absurdity. With regards to what does it mean 'to be'? Who cares with such a stunted statement?
What does it mean 'to be Christian'? ..well, that statement is worthy of query and I suppose is what this entire thread ultimately is about. (the answer is so simple one as myself is wondering Y this thread has spewed so much shite for so long on the subject)

"First of all it is necessary to understand that a Christian is not a man who calls himself a Christian or whom others call a Christian. A Christian is one who lives in accordance with Christ's precepts.

Is this a contradiction?

Yes, it is. In the first sentence he is declaring that no man can call themselves a Christian, and in the very next he is stating that a Christian is someone that lives in accordance with Christ's precepts, ergo contradicting himself, since someone that lives in this accordance CAN call themselves a Christian.

You question what "TO BE" means.

No, I didn't. All you could infer from my statement about it being stunted and 'who cares' was that I believe it a RIDICULOUS question.

Yet do you question what it means to be a doctor or a lawyer? No You would assert cultural standard which define what they are. But what does it mean to be Christian gives you trouble.

Did you read what I stated to AJ? The entire point I am making is that understanding what it means to be a Christian is so very simple.

The reason seems to be that you don't distinguish between knowledge and understanding. A person can have complete knowledge of all the rules of chess but yet cannot play the game and lose quickly? Why? They have knowledge but lack understanding.

I fail to see the relevance and 'understanding' is a poor use of a word for someone that lacks ability in playing chess.

They have gone beyond the limitations of culturally acquired classification to define meaning or what it means "TO BE."

Waffle.

Christianity a opposed to man made Christendom is like this. Some claim to know rules. They have knowledge but lack understanding. As such, they can strive "TO BE" Christian but cannot. They lack understanding. Have you ever pondered the difference between knowledge and understanding?

What do you think, that I don't think?

[Belinda]

What is the sense of speaking about the religious life if man as a whole is incapable of it? VA gave a good description of Buddhism as an earth religion but who is capable of organizing the soul? It seems better to me to admit why we can't and admit the human condition. Gurdjieff describes what a Christian is. He suggests it is possible to be less of a machine rather than a creature of reaction: an automaton.

This is one reason why I always have spoken in terms of 'levels' and 'degrees'. By your definition: man is incapable of religious life. So what results from the position that you take? That only a rare and unusual sort of person can fulfill the demands. But that pertains to one 'level'. There is a whole range of things that have been developed for the 'average man' who, according to your definitions, cannot ever be a (real) Christian. That is why I refer to 'cultural paideia'. Once, there was a general education given to those average people, incapable of being (true) Christians. Certainly it involved the 3Rs but also a general moral and ethical training. What else could be given to people who are, as you indicate, incapable of higher spiritual and religious life? Why ask more of them? Why ask what cannot be given?

Now we have to turn to the position of someone like Immanuel Can who will fundamentally disagree with you. He will say that *even a little child* can be 'saved'. And if the little uncomprehending child can be 'saved' then all people, simply by getting down on their knees and praying to Jesus, not only can be 'saved' but are saved. According to Immanuel it might -- hypothetically -- take a lifetime to *be reconstructed* (a central tenet of his view: a reconstruction carried out by a transcendental spirit) or to *reconstruct oneself* into that Ideal Christian ("You must become perfect"), but no one is excluded.

Buddhism has become, for the West, a logical evolution of the Christian form. When examined, the position of Belinda and Attofish is simply an ethic of 'acting right'. It does not actually involve a spiritual and regenerating (metaphysical, transcendental) external power. Except that in Atto's case he describes a rather complex intervention by metaphysical entity. Nevertheless, the only 'point' of the intervention is to get the subject (him) to 'act right'. And that seems to be all there is to Christianity.

A Buddhist could do just as much and would have an even more developed ethical system with which to work. Buddhism can become very non-metaphysical and exclusively geared toward 'proper behavior' and certainly to 'proper attitude'. It is, one might propose, the perfect post-Christian semi-religious (or is it also aesthetic?) alternative and evolution of those Christians who can 'no longer believe'.

What does it mean "To Be?" Doesn't it require first that a person be master of oneself to acquire a higher quality of consciousness?

The question is not very relevant. If you want to encounter people who *are* just go outside and mingle with them. They are simply getting on as best they are able.

Plato provides a good description for educating the whole person: mind, body, and spirit. Yet we see it doesn't work. Simone Weil was a greatly admired Marxist and atheist. She learned from her dedication to truth why it cannot work. The collective fallen human being prevents it. She wrote:

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace."

What is the future of paideia without the help of grace leading to "understanding?"

How might one recognise the difference, if any, between emotional sensibility on one hand, and "a grace leading to "understsanding" " on the other hand?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The essence of Immanuel Can's position can be gathered from (quoted from the Is & Ought thread):

This is what Jesus Himself was referring to, when He said, "You must be born again." That is, what every person needs, in order to become any different from what he or she is, is an actual "dying" to the old person, and a reconstitution of being by the action of God Himself. He needs a total reconstruction, not merely some set of laws and prohibitions to follow while remaining essentially the same person he or she is. And there is no alternative to that, He said: "You must be born again." It's not an optional thing. There are no alternatives. For a person to become other than she is, or he is, she or he must undergo and actual change of nature conducted by the hand of God Himself. And absent undergoing such a change, the whole process will remain as obscure and seemingly-impossible as locating where the wind is blowing from (that's exactly the analogy He used in speaking on that occasion, to Nicodemus, in John 3). It will simply remain a permanent mystery how anybody could ever be other than they are.

There, he admonishes a lesbian to submit herself to 'the will of God' and to be transformed -- an 'actual change of nature conducted by the hand of God Himself' -- back into heterosexuality (one assumes this is what is being admonished though it was not directly stated as such).

What interests me, at least in one sense, more than arguing against the general ethical admonitions inherent in Christianity, is rather to see that in each culture, in each 'temporal modality', there are different ethical admonitions about what is right & proper, good & bad. And usually -- let me take the example of homosexuality -- there is always a *place* assigned to those who cannot adapt to, or fit into, the overarching cultural ethics. There has often been a way and a *place* for those who are homosexual. I do not know the full history of homosexuality but I do know that it has always existed and therefore will likely always exist. If I made any statement about homosexuality it would be something like "I don't think it should be generally advocated for" or to put it another way to be presented as a viable alternative (or an equal alternative) to heterosexual union. I guess I would say that it should claim a different, and I suppose a lower rung. But here I obviously assign a higher rung (value) to heterosexual union.

One could propose, in any of the known religious traditions, that a person should interact with God. In prayer, in mediation, in being a certain sort of person (upstanding, good, etc.) It is also very clear that all traditions, in different ways, advocate for a 'reconstruction'. But what I think Immanuel advocates for is a commitment to a specific god-ideal. In order to make that definition one has to have excluded others. So as it turns out I think it fair to say that in the most essential Immanuel is trying to represent and advocate for specific God. This is of course obvious but it has to be stated. In order to hold this position all other gods and god-concepts have to be reduced to demonic-entity. This is, of course, the core position of traditional Judaism. All other god-concepts are false-concepts. And Jews have the true and right concept. Indeed, God stands behind them in an essential battle against demonism. In strict Judaism those who worship *false gods* must be converted to worship of the true God.

Christianity is in this sense an extension of the Judaic view.

My view? That entire conception has *hit a wall*. It has not hit a wall, of course, for many or most Christians however. They may not feel inclined to jump into theological arguments with people who come from different traditions, and indeed they may find allies among those of other traditions who also find themselves 'under attack'. But at a metaphysical and also social-political level to be Christian is to 1) propose that one is aligned with the real God, and 2) to believe that all other religious modes, and all other gods and god-concepts, are not simply mistaken but demonic. And demonic can only mean 'evil'.

All of this has 'hit a wall'. First, the *wall* I refer to was encountered by those who 'evolved beyond the confines of strict Christian viewpoint'. Do I really need to point this out? I think not. It is simply part-and-parcel of the cultural landscape and has been this way for at least 100 years (in the Occident).

[Alexis Jacobi]

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace."

What is the future of paideia without the help of grace leading to "understanding?"

Yet I would not deny Grace. What I seem to be denying is imperiousness in religious attitude. In my last post I talked about what I see as Judaic imperiousness that then was transferred to Christianity. Such imperiousness has a function and I do not deny that. But it also has defects.

That is why I have mentioned, and why I advocate for, the perspectives of a person like René Guénon. That is, to resort to 'metaphysical bedrock' and to see through a specific religion back into the core precepts, the 'real essence' if I can put it that way.

Do I deny God? I do not think that that is the case. But my position is weird. God is beyond the picture of God. If there is a God that rules this reality, then it seems to me that that God is playing with all of us. And perhaps in that elaborate game (the Vedantists refer to 'lila') the desired result is unknown. It is as if a theatre has been set in motion with zillions of actors but the script is something that is not at all clear.

Interestingly enough Immanuel refers to 'The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit" and this core idea I do not deny. But what I (seem to) object to is the imperious note when some men take it upon themselves to tell others -- all others -- that their own traditions are non-authentic and false (and demonic).

So if there is a 'wind that blows' it is a transcendental wind. Christianity loses ground with me when it shows itself so imperious. But it can hardly alter the very foundations on which it was built! It is an imperious religious mode that knocks down all others that stand in its way. It is similar to Judaism and also to Islam in this sense.

As a spiritual and philosophical endeavor (or strategy) I have already returned to a Platonic position. Though I think that Guénon gets to a more activist essence since he did write Crisis of the Modern World. The title implies a great deal!

[attofishpi]

The essence of Immanuel Can's position can be gathered from (quoted from the Is & Ought thread):

This is what Jesus Himself was referring to, when He said, "You must be born again." That is, what every person needs, in order to become any different from what he or she is, is an actual "dying" to the old person, and a reconstitution of being by the action of God Himself. He needs a total reconstruction, not merely some set of laws and prohibitions to follow while remaining essentially the same person he or she is. And there is no alternative to that, He said: "You must be born again." It's not an optional thing. There are no alternatives. For a person to become other than she is, or he is, she or he must undergo and actual change of nature conducted by the hand of God Himself. And absent undergoing such a change, the whole process will remain as obscure and seemingly-impossible as locating where the wind is blowing from (that's exactly the analogy He used in speaking on that occasion, to Nicodemus, in John 3). It will simply remain a permanent mystery how anybody could ever be other than they are.

There, he admonishes a lesbian to submit herself to 'the will of God' and to be transformed -- an 'actual change of nature conducted by the hand of God Himself' -- back into heterosexuality (one assumes this is what is being admonished though it was not directly stated as such).

Ridiculous isn't it. For me the very feminine female form is God's perfection and should be loved and made love to, whether it be by another woman or a man (worthy of such beauty!)

Indeed. When I am on the right path with this God entity, it err, well this is a tad embarrassing - but heaven is rather awesome, when your entire body is made love to by 'IT', I have sometimes considered that God must be bisexual.

These Evangelists types are so prude. God created sex, it appears it wants us to REALLY enjoy it (so long as one is doing it for the reason of love for one another).

I watched a doco on studying women that have multiple orgasms (using a CAT scan) and I remember one of them insisting that she believes it is a gift from God, I have no doubt that it is.

But at a metaphysical and also social-political level to be Christian is to 1) propose that one is aligned with the real God, and 2) to believe that all other religious modes, and all other gods and god-concepts, are not simply mistaken but demonic. And demonic can only mean 'evil'.

Yes, ridiculous and so short of sight. I've often stated on this forum that God throughout many cultures has interacted with some over time within these cultures of other religious concepts, and these people have then projected their experience within their culture.

Ultimately, everyone has the same God as they reincarnate through time karmically based on their going to the grave beliefs and what family they deserve to be raised in (this was confirmed to me via my sage).

[Harbal]

(this was confirmed to me via my sage).

Did you grow it yourself?

[attofishpi]

(this was confirmed to me via my sage).

Did you grow it yourself?

What after smoking it!?

I actually think that could be the final test of consuming from the Tree of Know_Ledge, and trust me, I am done testing..so no, won't be doing dat.

[Alexis Jacobi]

These Evangelists types are so prude. God created sex, it appears it wants us to REALLY enjoy it (so long as one is doing it for the reason of love for one another).

I tend to see the wisdom of a good deal of restraint in sexual expression. Today, as everyone notices, people's desires have become unhinged. And for reasons I do not quite understand all sorts of different deviancy is getting more and more common. I tend to see sexuality as a fire that can burn.

In other news, years back I found a signed first edition of Mort Wesley's White Slaves of Lesbo Island. Really, this is not my cup of tee (so to speak). Yet I kept it. (None of the pages are stuck together).

Now, Appo, you have vindicated my choice. Thank you!

[Harbal]

I tend to see the wisdom of a good deal of restraint in sexual expression. Today, as everyone notices, people's desires have become unhinged. And for reasons I do not quite understand all sorts of different deviancy is getting more and more common.

And what is this deviancy deviating from, other than your personal sense of what is right or wrong? I suppose it is similar to your distaste for my spiritual attitude. You appear to have certain expectations of human standards, and obviously feel that you are being badly let down.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I tend to see the wisdom of a good deal of restraint in sexual expression. Today, as everyone notices, people's desires have become unhinged. And for reasons I do not quite understand all sorts of different deviancy is getting more and more common.

And what is this deviancy deviating from, other than your personal sense of what is right or wrong? I suppose it is similar to your distaste for my spiritual attitude. You appear to have certain expectations of human standards, and obviously feel that you are being badly let down.

My answer would be from traditional cultural and social perspectives. I do (certainly) recognize that in our present milieu we have, shall I say, become unhinged or unmoored from traditional concepts (attitudes, mores) and that therefore almost any territory is open. That is, you can *identify* as any assortment of different genders and you can justify yourself in any sort of sexuality and sexual practice. I do understand this.

But at the same time I am aware of those traditional concepts, or the traditional parameters, about what is good & bad, right & wrong. And I am aware that as with traditional Christianity other *wisdom traditions* (or religious and cultural traditions) define both normalcy and deviancy. The picture is probably pretty conventional and pretty conservative.

So the actual question is: How has it come about that people (or society or culture) have veered away from traditional notions?

And if traditional notions or mores exist, on what are they based?

I notice that you have used the word 'personal'. I suppose the reason you use this word is because, for you, any choice that is made by any human being in relation to these issues and questions is personal. That is to say arbitrary. Do I assume correctly that, for you (i.e. personally) there is no authority that you recognize other than your own desire?

In my researches what I have uncovered is the following: all of the traditional religions, wisdom traditions, spiritual paths that require a teacher and a guide (traditions that involve initiation) all seem to shun material and sensual addictions (or obsessions is perhaps a better word) for self-imposed restraint. All the spiritual traditions of Vedanta for example recommend restraint and 'accepting limitations'. And they define a reason and a purpose for this restraint.

I understand that you and perhaps many others do not yourselves see the need for restraint. You may not be able to, or interested in, setting specific limits and definitions. But limits and definitions -- always -- have a function and a purpose. That function and purpose can be, at least, described.

Those who break out of all restraint -- we can take as an example Michel Foucault who wrote a good deal about his reasons -- can also be examined. And if we make the effort to study both sides we will find social and intellectual conservatism on one side and impetus toward revolutionary freedom and breaking out of (all) restraint on the other.

You appear to have certain expectations of human standards, and obviously feel that you are being badly let down.

I've come to my own conclusions and made my own choices, certainly. But in the grander picture I am just an observer with an intelectual frame that tends to see all sides of questions. It is a frame of mind that has advantages and disadvantages.

[Harbal]

I am aware of those traditional concepts, or the traditional parameters, about what is good & bad, right & wrong. And I am aware that as with traditional Christianity other *wisdom traditions* (or religious and cultural traditions) define both normalcy and deviancy. The picture is probably pretty conventional and pretty conservative.

So the actual question is: How has it come about that people (or society or culture) have veered away from traditional notions?

And if traditional notions or mores exist, on what are they based?

I suspect the only thing that has changed is how open people are about their attitudes towards things both spiritual an physical. There was a time when people simply dare not declare their attitudes and private practices publicly, although I guess they may well have been more forthcoming amongst their trusted peers. What you look on as an age of higher standards was probably no more than a facade.

I notice that you have used the word 'personal'. I suppose the reason you use this word is because, for you, any choice that is made by any human being in relation to these issues and questions is personal. That is to say arbitrary. Do I assume correctly that, for you (i.e. personally) there is no authority that you recognize other than your own desire?

I recognise the authority of public attitude and approval. I don't do or say things publicly that would get me arrested or ostracised.

I understand that you and perhaps many others do not yourselves see the need for restraint. You may not be able to, or interested in, setting specific limits and definitions. But limits and definitions -- always -- have a function and a purpose. That function and purpose can be, at least, described.

Yes, I am aware that self restraint is sometimes desireable, but to what degree they practiced it in bygone times was probably more to do with their economic circumstances than their higher moral standards. The lord in his country estate wouldn't have thought twice about bending one of the housemaids over the scullery table when he needed to get a basic urge out of his system, whereas a labourour on one of his farms would have to either make do with a sheep or go it alone. What you perceive as diminished inhibition could well be more a case of increased opportunity. It seems that most desires can be catered for either on or via the internet these days. People don't do things they didn't use to do, they just don't feel the same degree of shame about it, which is perhaps healthier for them, if not particularly pleasant for the rest of us to witness.

[Belinda]

Alexis Jacobi wrote:

My answer would be from traditional cultural and social perspectives. I do (certainly) recognize that in our present milieu we have, shall I say, become unhinged or unmoored from traditional concepts (attitudes, mores) and that therefore almost any territory is open. That is, you can *identify* as any assortment of different genders and you can justify yourself in any sort of sexuality and sexual practice. I do understand this.

It's true there are fewer sins nowadays.