Yes, Gib, that is what I mean. The trouble comes when ‘come’ and ‘cum’ are intermingled. They probably have different sources, but end up meaning pretty much the same. Cum means, literally, a con-junction of meaning, here the conjunction of coming a
nd cuming can be related as significant. The man who feels guilt because of specific kinds of sex, similarly conjoins a creator of a sinful God, while
vindicating that sense of apotheosis, based on the logical inversion of : how can an all perfect God be sinful.
In modern terms, this would be called an anthropomorphic denial, since Genesis in the first few lines declares that the Creation is Good. This is the
escothological basis of of the confusion.
If sin is part of God, it is not as human sin is viewed. In the Garden, God did create the tree that bore the forbidden fruit, but this was not a sinful act, it was merely a necessary test, in conjunction with giving man the choice between good and evil.
Why give this to man? Because that is the main criteria to the evolution of conscience and conscience-ness of man. The interposition of the dual aspect of man was the main ingredient in Creation. Without the knowledge of good and evil, man could not have realized his nakedness.
So orgasms are good, sex is good, cumming is good, semen ejaculated into a woman’s vagina, impregnating her, giving rise to new life, is good. But this somehow gets confused with sin, right? I gather that’s what you were saying in the previous paragraph. But I need more clarity.
But still, where does sin come from if not the wellspring of creation?
Yes sin comes from the wellspring of creation, but when it comes, (sorry-unintended pun), it is not sin. The tree of the forbidden fruit is not yet sinful.
The confusion is reflected in the common sounding
c
um and come. There is no need to explore roots, but the dictionary account of ‘cum’ means con-joined. It comes from tha Latin meaning with, however, having no known conjunction to that derivation. However, during the Middle Ages, there is some analogous structures of language, as when a certain white substance arises upon the roasting of grain.
It is not the derivation of that word , but the inclusion of God=Pleasure, sin through disobeyance to the word of God that is relevant here. Why include God in the sexual act?
In fact Gnostic ideas are guiding here, and the disclaim of Gnosticism from Christian liturgy shows that Christianity as an institution accounts for the idea of the confusion of sex and sin.
Gib, I’d like you to read Anne Rice’s book, Cry to Heaven. Just because Eunuch’s have been snipped, doesn’t mean they can’t still enjoy sex or ‘orgasm’.
I suppose that makes sense according to the creation myths of Western religion, but the way I see, God is always creating and re-creating the universe (and we are participants in it). Therefore, wherever sin arises, it comes from God (but you can narrow that down to a particular being, like a person, but that being will always be an extension of God).
Well, maaaayyybe that’s where it comes from (there’s that pun again).
Why indeed? So at some point, sex became sinful. And it was a form of disobedience to God, you say?
So if Gnosticism remained within Christianity, there would be no such confusion? We wouldn’t regard sex as sinful?
We could maybe say there’s wo types of men; those who favor their own orgasm and those that favor their power to cause it in a woman and by Hegelian extension its often been called divine when both climax simultaneously. Women will for this sake fake god as we diligently do our part. Man still perceives as a god, woman perceives a child as a proud king crucified in his fleshy ignorance, and they are childish in love and teary for they know not what reason. Joy overflows only in confusion. Crying, in women, is confusion. In sorrow women become cold as steel and manipulative to ultimate praxis.
To weep in the embrace of love, this is womans desire, as her confusion can exist in a state of security.
Soap opera’s are her god. What she not believes, but knows to be ‘true’; heart-felt.
A woman who knows herself will identify with an animal. But it is not necessarily woman’s task to know herself, as she is already so much closer to what she is; therefore orgasms are notoriously hard to attain. Man can easily lose himself in a drive and fully become its resolution; any kind of sensation or fantasy can accompany it and enhance it and take it to cause great changes. For a woman it is a sheer hedonistic submission to life itself, the peak of it, riding the crest. More like surfing. Awesome but to no point.
You should know about it, because you posted about it. If you don’t know about something, you shouldn’t make a post acting like you know about it. The statement that eunuchs cannot orgasm, is a false statement, it is like saying females cannot orgasm, and it is a false statement.
