Why Not Gratify The Flesh ?!?

[Llwellyn]

The Bible says that the Christian life will result in a gratification of the spirit and a forfeiture of the flesh:  "Live by the Spirit, and you will never fulfill the desires of the flesh."  Galations 5:16.  I am not sure how it was ever proven to me that this was a good idea !?!

 

In fact, I'm pretty sure that I want to live my life to gratify the flesh -- or, to use a different phrase, to "fulfill my being" or to "flourish in my self" or to "live life with joy."  In comparison with gratifying the flesh, what good would it do to "walk by the Spirit"?  What does that even mean?  And why would I want it?  If there is a choice to be made between, on the one hand, living by the spirit and dying by the corpus, and on the other hand, living by the corpus and dying by the spirit, I know what my decision is.  I might have thought that I was previously convinced of the desirability of Christianity, but now I realize I haven't even yet heard an argument!

 

Similarly, there are a lot of other things that Christians seem to want but I now realize that I have absolutely no use for:  "Glory," "Spirit," "Honor," "Never-Ending life," "Theosis," "Majesty."  A heaven with all of these things, where my humanity will be unfulfilled, would be what I would call "hell" -- if that were a negative word.  I do have to give the Bible credit, though:  it does occasionally reveal the secret of its topsy-turvy world:  "What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight."  Luke 16:15.  If Yahweh's ideas of fulfillment are so very different from ours, what he calls Heaven will be what we should call Hell, and vice-versa. His curses are what we would call blessings, and vice-versa.  We have no motive for obeying Him. Not even fear. This knot comes undone when you pull it tight.

 

I guess Christians do not recognize what they are reading.  The truth is there.  Or, if they see what they read, they simply assume that they desire "the spirit," "glory," etc., simply because everybody else does.  Or, oppressed by authority, cowed by terrors, these thoughts are simply unthinkable for them.  Not me.  I will gratify the flesh, now and later.  Will you join me?

 

 

[Orbit]

This is where Jesus is in conflict with Paul. There is none of the self-abnegation nonsense in any of Jesus' teachings. This stuff came from the repressed weirdo Paul, who is responsible for most of the insane dogma associated with Christianity. Ugh.

[Llwellyn]

This is where Jesus is in conflict with Paul. There is none of the self-abnegation nonsense in any of Jesus' teachings. This stuff came from the repressed weirdo Paul, who is responsible for most of the insane dogma associated with Christianity. Ugh.

 

I know that this was the theory of George Bernard Shaw when he said:  "The conversion of Paul was no conversion at all: it was Paul who converted the religion that had raised one man above sin and death into a religion that delivered millions of men so completely into their dominion that their own common nature became a horror to them, and the religious life became a denial of life."  "Paul succeeded in stealing the image of Christ crucified for the figure-head of his Salvationist vessel, with its Adam posing as the natural man, its doctrine of original sin, and its damnation avoidable only by faith in the sacrifice of the cross. In fact, no sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

 

But I can’t agree with this position when I read Jesus say such superstitious and anti-human things as:  “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”  I see continuity between the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and Paul.  I grant that the "Jesus of History" may have been different from the "Jesus of the Gospels," however, I don't think we know enough about the Jesus of History to know that he was different from the Jesus of the Gospels.  

 

The things that are meaningful to most humans were not meaningful to Jesus.  Jesus apparently never raised a child;  never started a business, held political office, never cared for a geriatric adult, never kept pet animals, never cultivated a farm with animals and crops.  He did not compete with others in sports or war.  He did not negotiate peace among humans.  He did not create artwork, music, or literature.  He never experienced sexual pleasure, he never gave others sexual pleasure.  He did not work on developing his physique;  he never made a scientific discovery.  He never developed technology.  He did not decorate a home;  he did not use humor or make people laugh.  He did not teach others industrial technique.  

 

You could say that Jesus was a moral stranger to the rest of us;  from our perspective the lusts of his nature were vile:  "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw— a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"  "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."  "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three."  No thanks.

 

[UnFundEd]

 

This is where Jesus is in conflict with Paul. There is none of the self-abnegation nonsense in any of Jesus' teachings. This stuff came from the repressed weirdo Paul, who is responsible for most of the insane dogma associated with Christianity. Ugh.

 

 

I know that this was the theory of George Bernard Shaw when he said:  "The conversion of Paul was no conversion at all: it was Paul who converted the religion that had raised one man above sin and death into a religion that delivered millions of men so completely into their dominion that their own common nature became a horror to them, and the religious life became a denial of life."  "Paul succeeded in stealing the image of Christ crucified for the figure-head of his Salvationist vessel, with its Adam posing as the natural man, its doctrine of original sin, and its damnation avoidable only by faith in the sacrifice of the cross. In fact, no sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus."

 

But I can’t agree with this position when I read Jesus say such superstitious and anti-human things as:  “Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”  I see continuity between the Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and Paul.  I grant that the "Jesus of History" may have been different from the "Jesus of the Gospels," however, I don't think we know enough about the Jesus of History to know that he was different from the Jesus of the Gospels.  

 

The things that are meaningful to most humans were not meaningful to Jesus.  Jesus apparently never raised a child;  never started a business, held political office, never cared for a geriatric adult, never kept pet animals, never cultivated a farm with animals and crops.  He did not compete with others in sports or war.  He did not negotiate peace among humans.  He did not create artwork, music, or literature.  He never experienced sexual pleasure, he never gave others sexual pleasure.  He did not work on developing his physique;  he never made a scientific discovery.  He never developed technology.  He did not decorate a home;  he did not use humor or make people laugh.  He did not teach others industrial technique.  

 

You could say that Jesus was a moral stranger to the rest of us and the lusts of his nature were vile:  "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw— a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"  "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."  "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three."  No thanks.

 

Excellent thread, and excellent post! Thank you for articulating something that has been eating away at my subconscious ever since my deconversion began. For the past couple of years I hung around with a lot of progressive xians who tended to have the attitude that "I don't like Paul or the Bible, but I still love Jesus" and it just never resonated with me. I spent decades worries about the flesh, and as you've pointed out, there isn't really a good reason why one should do that.

[Fweethawt]

Keep calm,and fap on!

[Llwellyn]

Keep calm,and fap on!

 

You've just spoken the words that all along I was trying to keep hidden.  (That's for all the Christian lurkers.)      No, but seriously, the Bible says that the acts of the flesh include "sexual immorality, impurity, debauchery, and orgies" (Galatians 5:19-25).     I agree  with the Bible and say these may be part of a full life for someone who would enjoy them.  I can say that for me personally as an atheist, I have desired to be monogamous in marriage instead of promiscuous.  Which makes me feel some kind of head-spinning whiplash when I am told that:  "Ye should not do those things which ye desire."  Galatians 5:17.  This does seem to be the bottom line for Christianity.  There is no winning in that game.  And it doesn't offer much hope to a human who wants to follow a long-term plan to bring joy to themselves and those around them.

[francesco]

This is where Jesus is in conflict with Paul. There is none of the self-abnegation nonsense in any of Jesus' teachings. This stuff came from the repressed weirdo Paul, who is responsible for most of the insane dogma associated with Christianity. Ugh.

I always wonder why paul is very dominant

I expect the original apostles should be more dominant since they were with jesus everyday back then

paul has never met jesus

 

 

imagine somebody make your biography without even meet or know you and that biography is more popular even though your close friend make a more accurate biography about you

[Vigile]

This is where Jesus is in conflict with Paul. There is none of the self-abnegation nonsense in any of Jesus' teachings. This stuff came from the repressed weirdo Paul, who is responsible for most of the insane dogma associated with Christianity. Ugh.

 

None?

 

Matthew 18:9

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

 

Matthew 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

[Castiel233]

 

The Bible says that the Christian life will result in a gratification of the spirit and a forfeiture of the flesh:  "Live by the Spirit, and you will never fulfill the desires of the flesh."  Galations 5:16.  I am not sure how it was ever proven to me that this was a good idea !?!

 

In fact, I'm pretty sure that I want to live my life to gratify the flesh -- or, to use a different phrase, to "fulfill my being" or to "flourish in my self" or to "live life with joy."  In comparison with gratifying the flesh, what good would it do to "walk by the Spirit"?  What does that even mean?  And why would I want it?  If there is a choice to be made between, on the one hand, living by the spirit and dying by the corpus, and on the other hand, living by the corpus and dying by the spirit, I know what my decision is.  I might have thought that I was previously convinced of the desirability of Christianity, but now I realize I haven't even yet heard an argument!

 

Similarly, there are a lot of other things that Christians seem to want but I now realize that I have absolutely no use for:  "Glory," "Spirit," "Honor," "Never-Ending life," "Theosis," "Majesty."  A heaven with all of these things, where my humanity will be unfulfilled, would be what I would call "hell" -- if that were a negative word.  I do have to give the Bible credit, though:  it does occasionally reveal the secret of its topsy-turvy world:  "What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight."  Luke 16:15.  If Yahweh's ideas of fulfillment are so very different from ours, what he calls Heaven will be what we should call Hell, and vice-versa. His curses are what we would call blessings, and vice-versa.  We have no motive for obeying Him. Not even fear. This knot comes undone when you pull it tight.

 

I guess Christians do not recognize what they are reading.  The truth is there.  Or, if they see what they read, they simply assume that they desire "the spirit," "glory," etc., simply because everybody else does.  Or, oppressed by authority, cowed by terrors, these thoughts are simply unthinkable for them.  Not me.  I will gratify the flesh, now and later.  Will you join me?

 

 

 

Fantastic points and extremely well made. The Bible is the most backwards book I have ever read and the nastiest by far

[Llwellyn]

Thanks for the encouragement on this thread -- sometimes I like to work out my thinking by writing them down, presenting them to others, and see what the reactions are.  I suppose I could be way off in my insights, and wouldn't know one way or the other unless I consulted with others, so thanks for consulting with me.   

 

It seems to me that nobody should expect that what would be good for a mammal human is the same thing as what would be good for disembodied spirit.  One kind can be happy living by the flesh and the other kind can be happy living by the spirit. I don't blame beings like Yahweh who wish to be alive by the spirit and dead by the flesh -- every being should do what they can to be as happy as possible based on their sensitivities and capacities.  What I would fault him for is if he was factually mistaken, concluding that "what's good for me must be what's good for them."

 

The Bible may be correct that human and divine values are reversed, such that for Yahweh it is actually virtuous (rather than vicious) to curse other beings:  "The LORD will bring on you all the evil he has threatened, until he has destroyed you."  Joshua 23:15.  This sheer difference in values, this reversal of moral standards, means, however, that Yahweh becomes irrelevant for all practical purposes.  We ought to expect good (from our perspective) if we ever taste that evil (from his perspective).  This would be like Breer Fox throwing Breer Rabbit into the Briar Patch.

 

 

 

[Castiel233]

The fact that Bible morality is the reverse of what humanity considers good is a big part of its horror. You are quite correct to reason that what is bad to us (slavery for example) could be wonderful for Heaven. The problem lays in that we are given a nature (broadly speaking) that finds commands in The Bible repulsive. I know you have said before you admire Robert Green Ingersoll and something he said sums up The Bible nicely. Roughly  (am working from memory here) Ingersoll said:

 

"They say God wrote the Bible and they say that God made me.He should have made sure that both were made compatible with each other" 

 

To modernize. God has made Hardware (us) and given us software (The Bible) that does not match us. Little wonder our operating systems are shot to bits!!! 

 

The fact that The Bible tells us to love our enemies yet hate our families is a classic example of how reverse and strange its teachings are for us. Why would God give us a nature that naturally dislikes and hates our enemies, yet orders us to love them, not respect them, but actually love them. I have said this before, but will repeat, should the Jews lining up to be gassed actually loved Hitler, should a wife about to  be snuffed out by the third Reich, should she have felt the blossom of love for Hitler while the thorns of hate and malice wrap around her heart at the thought of her husband and children.

 

I have enemies (in the real world) and I loathe them. 

[rach]

 

Matthew 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

We all know that hypocrite Jesus was lusting after all of those prostitutes he came within sight of.  And what is wrong with that?  He was supposed to have been a man, not a robot.  This is the part where I really sympathize with the poor devil.  As they say, Sigmund Freud would have books to right about this poor man's sexuality he was never allowed to express- because for unknown reasons his father would not allow it.  But I really sympathize with the poor bastard because here he is sent to earth on a barbaric death-mission by his dear old dad, who will not even allow him the joys of intimacy with a woman even once in his miserable life.  That time has to be spent in prayer and fasting, daddy says so.  Poor Jesus' brain is so fucked up by his own dad's cruel and pointless rules of morality.  It pained me to read about the woman pouring ointment on the feet of Jesus and drying with her hair.  Because I pictured Jesus almost giddy about it, like this was the best part of his goddamned life just being touched by a woman and even then he's thinking of this as his preparation for burial.  He knows what this is about; knows he cannot touch her, cannot ever be with a woman.  Yeah Jesus is out of his fucking mind.  But he got that way because of his damned father screwing with his life and his mind.  It's like he is trying to replicate and deprive everybody else of what he was deprived of. 

[Ellinas]

"Life is the great indulgence - death the great abstinence.  Therefore, make the most of life - here and now.  There is no heaven of glory bright, and no hell where sinners roast.  Here and now is our day of torment!  Here and now is our day of joy!  Here and now is our opportunity!  Choose ye this day, this hour, for no redeemer liveth!"

(From The Satanic Bible, Ch IV, 1 & 2 of The Book of Satan, by Anton Szandor LaVey)

 

Seems to answer the question in the title to this thread with a pretty firm "no reason at all not to do so..."

[mikey101]

There are many different interpretations of the bible.  Some Christians approach it from a very different way than others.  To assume that the fundamentalist interpretation, which shows itself as unhealthy and abusive, is the only way, is basically the same way of thinking that we came from. It's the same kind of all or none fundamentalist thinking.

[Llwellyn]

Some Christians approach it from a very different way than others.

 

I don't think I am assuming the fundamentalist interpretation. I grant that Christians and Non-Christians alike try to experience the maximum amount of joy that they can.  The difference between Christians and non-Christians is a prudential judgment about whether there is a life-after death, whether Yahweh's blessings and cursings will be relevant to their joy (and in what way relevant), and whether they derive joy from sensuality or spirituality (or in what mixture of the two).  People try to gratify their natures, making this choice based on a different belief-content and different tastes, appetites, and capacities.  No person "chooses grief" instead of "chooses joy."  No Christian expects to obey the following rule forever and in all circumstances:   "Ye should not do those things which ye desire."  Galatians 5:17.  When they think about the afterlife, Christians hope that their nature will be changed and that certain things they love now they will later hate, and vice-versa.  They hope that their own moral judgments will come to match the incomprehensible nature of an alien God (Why?).

 

For Christians who wish to "live by the spirit" -- more power to them.  For those of us who wish to live by the flesh, we too will reap our harvest.  Galatians 6:8.  If Yahweh exists, I'm happy to learn that he also "does what he pleases."  Psalm 115:3, Daniel 4:34-35, Job 23:13.  Each being will do what is in its nature to do.  Everyone will get what they want based on a combination of their desire and effort.  The person may call this his "reward" or he may call it his "punishment" -- I just hope in the end each person is filled with joy rather than regret.  Christian Apologist Timothy Keller stated “All God does in the end with people is give them what they most want, including freedom from himself. What could be more fair than that?”  I agree, but I would add that the meaning a nonbeliever has is meaning that the nonbeliever creates rather than receives, and also that Yahweh cannot prevent a person from getting what that person most loves.  As C.S. Lewis said, "All that are in Hell choose it. Without that self-choice it wouldn’t be Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it."  Indeed.

 

 

[mikey101]

It sounds like you're speaking of a general spiritual nature which some define as a moral compass. I believe this 'higher' part of us is behind most spirituality/religion.  Some externalize it as deities, others see it as philosophies to follow, and in today's Western New Age thinking it's internalized and sometimes called 'true self' or 'I Am'.   And if a person rejects all spiritual/religion, morality doesn't just disappear. Just because a person has no spiritual belief, they aren't going to automatically go steal and kill people lol.  So I believe it's just a part of being human, we have a built-in moral compass. Some also see this higher self as a source of inspiration for creativity and imagination.  

 

 

But like anything, something seemingly good can easily be twisted and perverted. We identity strongly with our flags and religions, then kill in the name of them.  We destroy rather than create, killing the delicate sense of morality in the name of some attachment we identify with instead of just being human and recognize 'they' are just like us.

[Ravenstar]

I learned a lot as a practicing pagan, about nature. I've spent a lot of time observing wild animals and plant life and seeing what it really is. Mammals (and most birds, amphibians and reptiles) rarely kill their own kind and the exceptions are mostly for the perpetuation of the stronger genes (i.e.: males killing offspring not their own, weaker infants dying, etc…) Predators kill off the weak, mostly. Nature finds a balance even in the plant world. Social animals care for each other and even adopt or assist other animals. Though nature can be brutal there is more altruism than you would expect, even between species.

 

The Bible is so contrary to nature.. it's like a psychopath wrote it.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I think if poor young Mr. Piper had your understanding of gratifying the flesh, Llewellyn, rather than thinking it entails drinking cheap sangria and wanting to sleep around, maybe he would have become a true ex-Christian instead of a sad wannabee.

[Llwellyn]

Social animals care for each other and even adopt or assist other animals.

 

I agree, we are creatures of instinct, which means, In Yahweh's perspective, we are born only to be caught and destroyed.  "People blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed."  2 Peter 2:12.  In Yahweh's perspective, this has moral logic -- these blacks (as they seem to us) are really whites.  If destroying unreasoning animals is, in the judgment of Yahweh, "virtuous," then the "salvation" that Yahweh offers Christians is what humans can expect to experience as "ruination":

[amateur]

What a great post this is!  I've been wondering myself why god/jesus were like "the only thing that matters is eternity, not this life" but then all emphasis is put on one decision that is made in this life (accepting god/jesus).  If this life is so unimportant and temporal, why is anything we do while we are here, or any decision we make while we are here, ultimately important to god?

[mikey101]

What a great post this is!  I've been wondering myself why god/jesus were like "the only thing that matters is eternity, not this life" but then all emphasis is put on one decision that is made in this life (accepting god/jesus).  If this life is so unimportant and temporal, why is anything we do while we are here, or any decision we make while we are here, ultimately important to god?

Focusing on the afterlife at the expense of a happy, healthy life now is sort of a staple of fundamentalist religion.  Most people realize the insanity of it. It's like a sabotage of the self, likely due to deeper issues that aren't being treated.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Even as a child I used to get pissed off because all of the things that felt natural to me were supposedly sinful in the eyes of the lord.  I wasted so much of my childhood and youth depriving myself of a lot of otherwise good and wholesome experiences in an effort to be pleasing to god. 

 

If I had spent half of that time and effort into preparing for the future, the world might be a better place today. 

 

Which brings up another issue that really annoys me about christianity.  Who knows how many brilliant doctors, scientists, etc. the world has missed out on all because christian parents indoctrinated their children into believing they had to give up the things that seemed right or interesting to them?  How many brilliant inventors became preachers instead?  Did the woman who could have cured AIDs become a nun instead?

[mikey101]

 How many brilliant inventors became preachers instead?  Did the woman who could have cured AIDs become a nun instead?

 

Nuns usually do things like help the poor, and much of religion is about serving the community and has a place. But there are fundamentalist Catholics as well of course, who instead spend time focusing on their psychosis just like protestant fundamentalists.  Saying it's 'all bad' because of one experience in one certain branch of one certain religion is still fundamentalist type thinking.  Another example, most Buddhist monks have a positive influence on society around them, and there are some that persecute Muslims, but I don't think all of Buddhism is bad because of those few.  

 

One of the best things I did was start getting help for myself and learning to change self-defeating thoughts and behavior. One of the results was it makes my past psychotic religion obsolete and foreign.  The reason I stayed in it for so long was a problem going on inside me..  emotional issues that weren't being treated.  This is something that's usually passed from one generation to the next. When that's all you know, you have no choice but to pass it on to the next generation. But when someone gets real help, the cycle ends.  And you don't need fundamentalist religion to pass it on, there are many different ways of expressing and passing on dysfunction. 

[Llwellyn]

I think if poor young Mr. Piper had your understanding of gratifying the flesh, Llewellyn, rather than thinking it entails drinking cheap sangria and wanting to sleep around, maybe he would have become a true ex-Christian instead of a sad wannabee.

 

Ha ha!  I would say, however, that my idea of "gratifying the flesh" is not entirely sober and chaste.  I'm not going to pretend that after deconversion I have the same morality as a Presbyterian.  Instead, there is a certain amount of carnality that I would dial up, and a lot of spirituality that I would dial down.  If Christians would want to say that I deconverted in order to be, from the Biblical point of view, "wicked," I would not disagree with them.  I would follow the dictates of my human heart rather than go against my conscience.  An interesting book on human nature as it relates to sex and family is the book "Sex at Dawn: How We Mate, Why We Stray, and What It Means for Modern Relationships" 2011, Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha.  This book is not without criticism, but it certain opens the eyes to the other side of the argument concerning sexual morality as compared to Christian asceticism.

[mikey101]

I noticed in Mexico, the Christians aren't obsessed with 'sexual purity' like US Christians. I think it's part of our Puritan background. Remember we also used to put people in stocks for not going to church. 

 

There's a lot of dysfunctional thinking in this society. We'd rather worry about what God thinks than addressing the real issues with individuals. But the general consensus about dealing with emotional issues seems to be it's just 'psychobabble'.