Jesus is The Way... to Sexual Gratification?
By Carl S ~
I use Jesus as an example, but Allah or Heavenly Father or Prophet might work just as well. Let's just say for now we know Jesus alone has been the key, opening the barriers, accessing children for sexual exploitation, and lest we forget: gullible adult women and men. I have no doubt this has been going on for centuries. The “spiritual” come-on, like all like evolutionary adaptations, exists because nothing succeeds like success, especially sexual success. Cults, including the hyper-inflated cults which are the major religions, are excellent covers for sexual exploiters. They are in the business of channeling sex for their own purposes. Religions exploit our needs for affection and sensuality.
But you won't get affection from Jesus, guaranteed. “Come unto me for comfort, send your children to me,” gospel Jesus says. He ain't there. But his priests and prophets are on hand to act in his stead. Unlike you and me, they don't work; they have to be “available and understanding.” You won't get affection from Allah, etc., either. And those vestal virgins weren't there to please the gods. The Vatican, with its fathers and Holy Fathers, covers a multitude of child-rapes. Haven't you noticed such massive abuse of children has been done by those preaching that the triumph of superior spirituality comes by depriving “the flesh?” Hypocrites! Who do they think they're kidding?
Admit it, religions are in the business of teaching it's good to deceive one another and oneself, including lying about one's own needs. When I was young, Catholics were told masturbation is a sin, and pornography was forbidden. If we accepted that, we'd be lying to ourselves. The priests who preached this should have been thanking their god for masturbation and porno, for they tend to prevent rape, unwanted babies, and molesting of children.
Of all the traditions of religions, one of the worst is denying the need for affection. Sacred texts always concentrate on overt, often brutal, sexuality. They emphasize procreation, and totally ignore the sensuality and affection needed for humans to keep a sense of psychological balance and to thrive.
Religions have always seen the sensual pleasure of curiosity itself as a threat to their power. The closest Christians get to sensuality in religion is the glow of candles, the aroma of incense, the warmth of the massive organ (!) playing. It's the church's exploitation of creating a romantic setting. If you want true intimacy, then purchase your own candles, incense and music, bring your own organs, and really have memorable “spiritual” experiences.
In biblical traditions, there's no affection. It's either prostitutes or nuns, promiscuousness or celibacy, sex or no sex, even straight sex or none. Then there's the perverse “virgin-mother” iconography. It's cold. No nuances, affection, romance, gentle touching, or warmth. Religions have always seen the sensual pleasure of curiosity itself as a threat to their power.
The religious reaction to handling anger due to sexual frustration is to punish the frustrated individual, not to deal with his/her frustration, and this has transferred to our laws. Men are put into prisons where they are sure to be denied contact with women, and then punished for showing any affection to another human being! How much better life would be if men would be free to admit something obvious: most men need affection more than power. Society, “under the influence of” religion, doesn't accept them that way. And you can't make Christian soldiers or Islamic martyrs from men like that. For those purposes, you need sex-deprived individuals. It's an asset on the battlefield, but a hell of a bad deal for women. Things have become worse now that the Catholic Church has made showing affection for children into a fear that even consoling a child by your touch is perceived as a prelude to molestation. Yes, Jesus has been useful as The Way to gain sexual gratification. Way to go, Jesus.
But you won't get affection from Jesus, guaranteed. “Come unto me for comfort, send your children to me,” gospel Jesus says. He ain't there. But his priests and prophets are on hand to act in his stead. Unlike you and me, they don't work; they have to be “available and understanding.” You won't get affection from Allah, etc., either. And those vestal virgins weren't there to please the gods. The Vatican, with its fathers and Holy Fathers, covers a multitude of child-rapes. Haven't you noticed such massive abuse of children has been done by those preaching that the triumph of superior spirituality comes by depriving “the flesh?” Hypocrites! Who do they think they're kidding?
Admit it, religions are in the business of teaching it's good to deceive one another and oneself, including lying about one's own needs. When I was young, Catholics were told masturbation is a sin, and pornography was forbidden. If we accepted that, we'd be lying to ourselves. The priests who preached this should have been thanking their god for masturbation and porno, for they tend to prevent rape, unwanted babies, and molesting of children.
Of all the traditions of religions, one of the worst is denying the need for affection. Sacred texts always concentrate on overt, often brutal, sexuality. They emphasize procreation, and totally ignore the sensuality and affection needed for humans to keep a sense of psychological balance and to thrive.
Religions have always seen the sensual pleasure of curiosity itself as a threat to their power. The closest Christians get to sensuality in religion is the glow of candles, the aroma of incense, the warmth of the massive organ (!) playing. It's the church's exploitation of creating a romantic setting. If you want true intimacy, then purchase your own candles, incense and music, bring your own organs, and really have memorable “spiritual” experiences.
In biblical traditions, there's no affection. It's either prostitutes or nuns, promiscuousness or celibacy, sex or no sex, even straight sex or none. Then there's the perverse “virgin-mother” iconography. It's cold. No nuances, affection, romance, gentle touching, or warmth. Religions have always seen the sensual pleasure of curiosity itself as a threat to their power.
The religious reaction to handling anger due to sexual frustration is to punish the frustrated individual, not to deal with his/her frustration, and this has transferred to our laws. Men are put into prisons where they are sure to be denied contact with women, and then punished for showing any affection to another human being! How much better life would be if men would be free to admit something obvious: most men need affection more than power. Society, “under the influence of” religion, doesn't accept them that way. And you can't make Christian soldiers or Islamic martyrs from men like that. For those purposes, you need sex-deprived individuals. It's an asset on the battlefield, but a hell of a bad deal for women. Things have become worse now that the Catholic Church has made showing affection for children into a fear that even consoling a child by your touch is perceived as a prelude to molestation. Yes, Jesus has been useful as The Way to gain sexual gratification. Way to go, Jesus.