I have known a handful of people who were very intelligent, had not gone to college--or had stalled out on their PhD program, were very well read, were very insightful about life in general, and did not have good jobs, or not even bad jobs. They scrounged. They were not unhappy; at least they were no unhappier than anybody else.

None of these folk were much interested in Buddhism, but they all practiced a secular detachment and indifference to the expectations that they would normally have expected to live up to. They gave their time to politics (leftists, mostly), small religious groups, gay community projects, and the like. They were devoted to what they thought was important. Sort of like Catholic Workers live.

This isn't an easy way to live; one still has to find a little income, somewhere. (Jeff always said that he'd live in a box under a bridge before he'd consider driving a city bus.) Disability, welfare, temp work, odd jobs, low payed jobs at copy centers, stuff like that. One has to adjust one's lifestyle accordingly (down, down, way down), and life's needs (housing, clothing, food, medicine...) might always be precarious. Or, one might actually have a good job that allows one a fair amount of free time. I had a few of those. Real jobs, but I wasn't tied down to a desk.

I wish everyone success, but if you don't find it--don't despair.

Among pentecostals, evangelicals, and fundamentalists, "a personal relationship with Jesus" means "accepting Jesus as your personal savior". "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" is a loaded formula, because it isn't precisely defined, and therefore you can't be sure whether your church peers are confident that you have REALLY committed yourself to "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" or not.

Pentecostalism is a fairly modern religious trend; it was always possible for someone to speak in tongues (like they did on the first Pentecost) but people hadn't been doing it a lot. Now, if you're at a pentecostal service, you can expect several people to speak in tongues and several others to interpret what they said.

Fundamentalism is a modern reactionary movement in response to modernity and the "new criticism" of the Bible, where scholars started finding various narrative strands in books like Genesis. The scholars came up with new, complicated dating systems which suggested that the Bible had a fairly complicated history. They reacted to Darwin's theories for the same reason -- Darwin's evolutionary theories pushed the time line back far, far beyond the 5,000 year old date for earth. Modernity in the 19th century, especially after the American Civil War, dramatically changed life has it had been known. Cars, electricity, radio, airplanes, telephones--all 19th century or early 20th century.

Evangelicalism has older roots, going back to Luther. But closer to our time, it was the Second Great Awakening in the late 1700s, early 1800s, where evangelicalism as a specialty emerged. Methodists are one of the largest heirs of the evangelical movement. It isn't so much about theology as it is style. "Revivals" were definitely a tool during the Second Great Awakening, and on into the early 20th century. Revivals were both religious and social events that people enjoyed attending.

Southern Baptists and allied groups are most focussed on getting people to "accept Jesus as their personal savior". Among Mainline protestants and Catholics (in as much as I understand all these groups) the act of baptism -- infant or adult -- is the event that binds one to Jesus. Yes, one should confess one's sins, one should strive to do better, but "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" isn't a formula so much as a general understanding.

This is how I understand the history of 3 modern religious movements, not a personal testimony.

The new job would certainly have sucked--if not in the first 15 minutes, then fairly soon.

There is a very obvious reason why people are paid to work.

Work as a meaningful and fruitful experience for the individual worker just doesn't make sense within the industrialized, capitalist culture we inhabit. The worker is a tool applies to a task and if the tool doesn't work well, you get one that does work, possibly a cheaper and more disposable version. "Working well" means accepting exploitation as life itself, and not bitching and carping about the wretched suctiveness of it all, and god forbid, resisting the employer.

Whenever I get especially irritated about what the hell I should do, I often half-seriously entertain notions of simply becoming a monk and retiring from this ridiculous world that seems to have no interest in or need of my abilities. — Thorongil

Unfortunately, the ridiculous world exists within cloistered walls. Teaching monks, especially, are pretty much in the world. Now if you became a cloistered monk you might get away from more of the world. But then you'd have to be really committed to everything that goes along with being a monk.

Maybe you could join the Catholic Workers? They are in the world and resist the world. Kind of lefty, so maybe not a good fit for you.

I would agree that most humanities degrees are practically useless in terms of employment. When it comes to facing an interviewer and they look at your résumé with narrowed eyes, wrinkled nose, pursed lips... whether you majored in Art, Gender, Race, and Queer Theory, medieval French, or English Literature--most employers (99.9%) are going to feel your studies are more of an impediment in their organization than a contribution--an imposition upon them.

I majored in English Literature, took some sociology and poly sci along with it, and a decade later added classics courses. No one ever hired me for the content of my degrees. That I had a bachelor and master degree is what mattered. Personally, the English major was entirely worth it, as were the social science and classics courses. The master degree was what I later learned is called a "credential"; these are mainly to help people advance in pay grades in public employment. It wasn't a bad experience, it just wasn't as content laden as it should have been. Back then tuition in Minnesota was really cheap, so it was a good deal.

Had I to do it over again, I would still major in English. I would still take classics courses, and I would take more history -- but taught like in the 60s, before the post-modernism fungus rotted its way through academia.

In the last several years I've been filling in holes in my education--trying to get through authors I thought were going to be dull and boring and are not -- like Henry James and Anthony Trollope (he's sort of dull), contemporary poetry (as long as it makes sense and is accessible -- like Billy Collins). I've been reading a lot of 20th century history -- something I was woefully uninformed about. Yes, I had heard about WWI and WWII, but there was an awful lot I didn't know, or had forgotten about it.

So... don't regret your studies in the humanities. Plan on being an old man who has been reading all his life, not one of those professionals who boasts, "I haven't read a book since college!" There's a 90 year old guy at church who still reads a lot.

that nightmare — Thorongil

I have very little good to say about teacher education and teacher certification. I did go that route and it was mostly a waste of time. But then my decision to become a high school teacher was doomed before it was made -- I just wasn't cut out to be a high school teacher and didn't realize it until years later. (I like teaching, but not in the typical high school setting.)

People do go abroad to teach English. A guy I used to know has been in Burma teaching English for years.

Lots of people have gone the National Guard route, though it isn't quite a reliable as it used to be -- without a draft, it's the National Guard that gets sent.

It's a shame that having pursued an MA in which humanities field? that truck driving has to be a live option. Though, I had a masters degree and it was clerical work that came through in emergencies. It helps to have versatile skills. During the '70s recession there were physics majors doing janitor work at St. Thomas where I worked at the time.

Monastery that would work with your student loans? Seriously? What kind of monastery are you thinking of -- Benedictine - college combo like St. John's Abbey and College?

Good luck in this critical transition. It sucks, and Lord Buddha maybe can help you with detachment and indifference to the student loan vultures circling overhead.

What did you get your degree in, and which degree? What kind of position are you looking for?

I have found some contentment doing volunteer janitor work at church. There are several good things about it. It's a pleasure as long as it's voluntary. There's no glory in it, so nobody is trying to add it to their personal empire.

The amount of dirt swept up is definite and without ambiguity. The grass and plants are always grateful to get watered. Cleaning 15 toilet bowls, 15 sinks, and 4 urinals is actually better than dealing with any number of passive aggressive or borderline personality co-workers and rigid, anal retentive supervisors.

Cleaning up after a funeral lunch for 150 with a team of people is joyous labor compared to terminally boring meetings. The dirty china comes out of the dishwasher unequivocally hot and clean. It's much better than getting slimed by some devious bastard in academia.

it really sucks — Wayfarer

When my last job came to an end, I simply could not at the moment stand another round of job applications, interviews, and the whole angst of not hearing back, and finally receiving the "somebody else was a better fit" kiss off letter. Unemployment went on for about a year, and then I decided, "You know, life really is better without the daily sensation of being sucked down into the manure pile that so many workplaces produce." So, I decided that the last job really was the last job. It was an expensive decision; I had intended to work till I was 65, and I needed the intervening years income.

On balance, being poorer and not seeking out another shit pile was a health-promoting decision. I began to feel better and my ability to think clearly, function well, and so forth improved steadily.

At 70, I feel like I have talents that are going to waste. Perhaps I could find some place to give them away, but that can also be difficult to find. I have an assortment of skill sets, but excellent social skills isn't one of them.

All that aside, good luck to you in your search and endeavors.

the more it sucks, the more you need Lord Buddha to help you with detachment and indifference. Hopefully he will deliver.

Fishing for a compliment? — Sapientia

Just using my favorite Woody Allen quote.

We're back to counting corpses again — unenlightened

I appreciate a sarcastic statement from someone else that I wish I had thought of.

I tend to like what someone like Michael or Hanover has to say. — Sapientia

So what are the rest of us -- chopped liver?

Right. I've said cooler things in my sleep.

on purely pragmatic, consequentialist grounds, we ought to focus on rehabilitating criminals so that society benefits in the long-run. — monad159

Yes, let's rehabilitate the criminals!!!! (This is a bigger task than it might seem, because it requires some changes in society as a whole, not just in the released inmates.

Various reform movements (such as the Quaker "penitentiary"--a place for the penitent to engage in self examination and correction) have been tried.
Vocational training and education have been laid on.
Severe punishments have been tried -- it keeps prisoners in line.
Solitary confinement has been tried -- it tends to drive people insane.
Kind and gentle treatment has been tried.
Farm work has been tried (like at the Angola Prison Farm in Louisiana)
Factory work has been tried (license plate city)
Psychological therapy has been tried (may or may not work; depends on too many factors to make generalizations.

Unfortunately, rehabilitation is expensive. It requires trained staff, as opposed to lots of tough guards. It requires a social commitment to rehabilitation, rather than a "make 'em pay for their crimes" approach. It requires a clear understanding of the differences among prisoners: some prisoners criminal careers began at home (bad parents, bad environment, head injuries, etc.) and some prisoners turned to crime as adults. Differential approaches would be needed.

Even if prison rehabilitation is superb and quite successful, released inmates need on-going support and assistance. In the US, people with a criminal record have a very hard time re-integrating into society because they can't get appropriate jobs.

Released prisoners who return to their crime-ridden, poor, deteriorating former neighborhood are likely to be sucked back into criminal behavior.

It is difficult to know to what extent, and why, punishment works or fails because:

A known percentage of inmates are released, commit new crimes, are arrested, and after conviction, are imprisoned again. These are the share of recidivism that is easiest to count accurately.

Inmates released from prison may violate parole terms and be re-confined. They are part of the recidivism stats, but they didn't commit a new crime.

An unknown percentage of inmates are released, commit new crimes, but are not caught; and an unknown percentage of people without a criminal record commit crimes, but are not caught or are not convicted. We know that that this really happens, but we have no reliable way of tying these crimes to particular perpetrators.

Because the real crime rate is unknown, we have no way of measuring the overall effectiveness of punishment as a corrective or as a deterrent.

I've never heard lust described in terms that would suggest there are some contexts in which it is acceptable — anonymous66

Of course, I don't know all of what you've heard in your life. While "lust" is often given a negative spin, "lusty" (having an abundance of lust) usually gets a more positive spin -- "lusty young man", a "lusty knight", and so on. In many sections of reality, men (at least, and sometimes women) are expected to have a keen interest in sex, and the adjective for that term is "lusty". There are even references in literature to "lusty maids".

Are we really concerned that we may be an enactor of one or more of the Seven Deadly Sins?

1 Lust
2 Gluttony
3 Greed
4 Sloth
5 Wrath
6 Envy
7 Pride

They are all equally deadly; why don't we have discussions here about envy, sloth and gluttony? There's certainly plenty of that going around.

We don't discuss these often or with much passion because "sin" has become a more generalized concept--still serious, for those who worry about sin, but not divided into 7 specialties. And large numbers of people just don't think in terms of "sin" the way they used to.

There is a concerted effort on the part of some feminists to redefine a lusty male interest in sex as dangers the church hadn't thought of. The "male gaze" and "the objectification, exploitation, and abuse" of women have replaced "lust". (I'm including "abuse" here because it's meaning has been weakened by over use. "Child abuse" still has somewhat clear meanings, but "abusing a woman sexually" could mean just about anything.)

How is this different from prostitution? — Noble Dust

The difference between prostitution, pornography, and dating-with-the-expectation-of-having-sex is plain.

In prostitution, a provider offers sex to a customer in exchange for cash.
In pornography, a producer hires two people to have sex with each other and share the experience with the world.
In dating-with-the-expectation-of-having-sex, one party pays for dinner, drinks, and a dance or two with the hope of having sex with the other party.

We could discuss marriage, too. The point is, people routinely exchange cash for sex, one way or another. The reason we do this is that sex has been commodified and people often commodify themselves. A person may be viewed, and view themselves, as a hot property. Access to the hot property is available for some kind of fee.

Commodity exchange is by no means the sum and substance of human sexuality, but it is one element that is often in play. We might not like this arrangement, but there it is, there it has been for quite some time.

... exploitation and coercion... It's their career choice, they're getting paid, and lots of people get satisfaction from it. — Sapientia

The pornography business is as exploitative as any unregulated, non-unionized, low-status work place is. Actors and other staff work long hours (get as much material on tape as is possible in as few days as possible). The pay is low on a per hour basis. Performers do not receive royalties, generally. It isn't a long-term career for performers, even if they want it to be, because producers want fresh faces (fresh bodies). An increasing volume of porn on the market depresses the value of any given production.

Physically, the work can be pretty tedious. Creating the appearance and illusion of sexual excitement is something of a strain. Men have difficulty maintaining erections over the course of a 12 hour day of sex scenes, women and men both get sore (depending on what sort of sex is being performed) and everybody gets tired and irritable after a while.

Most people do not elect pornography performance as one of their top 10 career choices. Many people accept this work because they don't have lots of better options, (and some people imagine that it will be exciting and serve as a gateway into 'real acting'; it usually isn't). A few people do manage to make a long-term career out of it, either as performers or by becoming producers.

Most pornography productions are unimaginative. People don't watch porn for interesting plots but a porn production can be more interesting or less interesting. But "interesting" usually involves more time, skill, and production expense, so don't expect to see much of it.

There are risks in sex work. Rough sex can produce injuries. Sexually transmitted diseases are always a risk which can be reduced or minimized, but not entirely eliminated.

Therefore: Porn that helps women feel good about the appearance of their genitalia is good. — anonymous66

It's not hard to imagine porn that helps women, and men, feel good about not only their genitalia, but their entire bodies as well:

Feature a mix of attractive people who display widely varying body types: fat, thin, muscular, slight, tall, short, small breasts, small genitalia, large breasts, large genitalia, etc.

some would say that "attractive people" eliminates people who are too fat, too thin, too short, too tall, too muscular, not muscular enough, long hair, short hair, blond hair... and so on and so forth. Not really.

What makes a body type attractive in porn (and in more complex theater) is flattering lighting, a reasonable amount of physical grace, a pleasant disposition, conviction, and so on.

Gay porn has a fairly new category (maybe 25 years old) of "bears". "Bears" are men who were probably once slim, muscular, etc. but who have now gotten fat, old, wrinkled, gray haired or bald, and worse. When sympathetically photographed, they look pretty good. When not photographed sympathetically, they look awful. The same goes for lots of other body types. Hostile camera, ugly pictures.

Some otters, male and female, look great as old otters in the old folks home. Usually, though, young sleek otters become old fat bears. Life is hard -- get over it.

Because you asked the question, what am I allowed, and because you think there is someone who allows or disallows, then the answer is quite simple:

You are free insofar as you obey.

If you happen to not like that answer, you can free yourself of it by not asking for permission first.

To paraphrase that masterwork of philosophical enquiry, Blazing Saddles, "Stinking permission? We don't need no stinking permission."

That said, bold young men should pay attention to their surroundings. If the guards are armed and pointing their weapons at you, you might well decide that the present moment is an excellent opportunity to beat a very hasty retreat.

I'm real good at discerning God's will -- trust me.

If we see God working in history, through actual people, places, events... then don't we have to make an attempt at a historical understanding of what God is about? — Bitter Crank

How in the world would we know what sort of working God is doing, though? Just because people put to writing claims about God doing this or inspiring that doesn't mean that's what God is actually doing any such thing. — Marchesk

Indeed, how would we. This is "God talk"--not 'God talking' but people talking who believe in God, or who may believe in God, people who would like to believe in God, or people who in times past believed in God and haven't forgotten the argot.

God talk people "discern" what God is doing; they pray [God answers their prayers[; they read the Bible and then the New York Times, and decide what God must be doing, and so on.

If you don't believe in God, then God talk isn't very convincing.

I rather doubt that Rev. Martin Luther King (or Rev. Martin Luther, for that matter) had any doubts about God working in history. Perhaps The Philosophy Forum is part of God's grand design. But then again, perhaps not.

Thanks for pulling that quote. I like to begin every day with a slice of Hitler on toast.

When one considers the amount of propaganda we receive every day in the form of advertising for products and the lifestyle that the products allegedly offer, much of which false, it's no wonder that we have no brains left to think with.

a vacillating mass of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another.

Should I get an iPhone or a Samsung? Butter is better but Smart Balance margarine has omega-3 fatty acids, and that's good, right? Oh, omega-3 is out, natural animal fat is back in--what to eat, what to eat... Lees or Levis? LLBean or Walmart? VW or Mazda?

Arguing to get your way is mostly ineffective and we only truly persuade people if we can persuade them on an emotional level. — Benkei

Yes, this seems to be the case. Well said.

A lot of us 'heady males' like to argue--I certainly do. And if that's our specialty, we probably come up short in the 'emotional intelligence' department--I certainly do, at times.

There is very much a consensus that he must be seen in the light of his place and time...
— schopenhauer1

Isn't that historicism, or historical reductionism? — Wayfarer

Unless we think Jesus had a trans-historical mind, transcended time and place--I don't see how it could be otherwise. Historical reductionism?

If we see God working in history, through actual people, places, events... then don't we have to make an attempt at a historical understanding of what God is about?

If we see God working through Martin Luther King, or Che Guevara, or Mao Zedong, or God help us all--Donald Trump, don't we have to understand God IN history, and not ABOVE or OUTSIDE history?

Jesus lived in a particular time and place, was as exposed to the streams of faith, resentments, hopes, fears, irritations, etc. that everybody else was exposed to. He wasn't in a bubble.

(That's one view. There are others.)

The same thing applies to any of the figures in the Bible that we know something about from their writings (like the prophets, for instance). They lived in specific times and had specific issues that concerned them. They weren't speaking a-historically, or trans-historically.

I don't think we have to call persuasion a physical force. Propaganda attempts to manipulate us with misinformation (wrong information, suggestions, lies, partial truth, etc.). How surreptitious propaganda is depends on the thoroughness of information control. If one has only propaganda as information, then one can certainly be manipulated surreptitiously.

Nazi Germany banned listening to the BBC, or any other non-authorized broadcast, because they wanted no information leaks INTO occupied territory (including Germany). Nazi propaganda strove to define the reality of Germany in the world ub the war. Propaganda wasn't just made up lies; it was controlled information, metered out to serve specific purposes. Enough of it had to match reality for the propaganda to work. (Nazis were not inhibited by a sickly inability to use force. People who were caught listening to the BBC would get at least a beating by the Gestapo and maybe worse.)

Citizens of the United States (and numerous other places) are deluged with propaganda, and while it is possible to obtain diverse and discordant information from other places, it does require effort and discernment. Without discernment (which requires skill, education, practice...) it is hard to tell whether what one is viewing on various media is true or false.

Lots of people do not have the skills to parse out what is true and what is malarky.

Like, El Shaddai?

Teleological for sure.

But that doesn't exclude the possibility of it existing physically — Noble Dust

No, and look it from one angle and it looks purely spiritual; look at from another angle and it seems like a revolution brewing. It can be either -- the Kingdom of God is within you, or the Kingdom of God is breaking into this world. All sorts of ambiguity and possible interpretation. Which, of course, is one of the things that keeps it going. Had Jesus (or anybody else) laid out a 2,000 year timeline, a plan, objectives, strategies, milestones, etc. we'd have forgotten about it long ago. We humans, even divine ones, don't seem to have the capacity to think in detail for the long run ahead. Therefore, myth, mysticism and prophecy work better. Later generations can pick up the skein and keep on weaving.

I wondered about that too. I've never been too clear about principalities and powers. Evil has never seemed to need otherworldly sponsorship. This world's cast of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels has always seemed sufficiently evil on their own.

But still, there is an establishment on this world (all the worldly power centers) that would have to go before the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God could be realized.

What do you think?

8) He shall release the captives, make the blind see, raise up the do[wntrodden.] — Fragment 1 in Dead Sea Scrolls translation by Robert Eisenman

Reminiscent of Isaiah 61, The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners.

What Jesus did definitely preach is the coming Kingdom of God. — Bitter Crank

How do you interpret that? As a political revolution and an overthrowing of the establishment? As an 'end of the world' cataclysm? — Wayfarer

More a revolution and an overthrowing of the establishment than a cataclysmic end of the world: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6:12). More the messianic banquet: "Isaiah 25:6 The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow..."

Whether the Kingdom of God would literally be here in this world, (high CO2 levels, plastic in the oceans, glowing nuclear piles, garbage heaps and all) I don't know.

You've subtly shifted your claim here. — Thorongil

I wasn't trying to weasel out of an earlier statement. I still think that Jesus didn't preach asceticism and indifference, and that he didn't require good people to be ascetics. However, I'll grant you, what Jesus said and did can be used for and against a claim about Jesus and asceticism.

For instance, in TSOTM, Jesus says, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven... for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." These are strong words in favor of asceticism.

Still in TSOTM, Jesus says, "Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things." These words do not direct people to do without, but rather, to trust that God will provide what is needed.

What Jesus did definitely preach is the coming Kingdom of God. Our ordinary lives are just not going to lead to the Kingdom. Neither prosperity and consumption nor poverty and self-denial will get one into the kingdom; asceticism is beside the point. So is doing a good business.

The final judgement on our lives isn't based on our substantial or negligible net worth. It's "for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ (Matthew 25:31–36" Again, asceticism is beside the point -- as are a good many other concerns.

I find in the final judgement passage a very concise statement of Jesus' core teachings.

Anyways... The End. — schopenhauer1

Thanks for that.

In order to understand Christianity, it is necessary to "mind the gap" between the time of somebody identified as Jesus (Joshua) and the emergence of the religion "Christianity" some centuries later. Jesus/Joshua was a Jew, not a Christian, and his self-understanding and how he was understood by others was always in the context of variegated Judaism.

Which is not to say there was not a trail of continuity between Jesus and the organized church. There was some sort of continuity; there had to have been, but the trail has been lost in times and places.

The early church compiled, edited, and published the New Testament, without first, second or maybe even third-hand knowledge of the historical, religious, and physical reality of Judah and Israel. What they had was current practice, a pile of mismatched writings, and their own theological needs--the last of which was sometimes read back into the Gospels.

Whether Jesus actually “took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" or not is unknown. The sayings could have grown out of the communal meal the early Christians ate (it was a real meal, not just a liturgy) and it could have been can actual quote. We just don't, won't, and can't know for sure. Compare the liturgy to Exodus 24:8 "Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

This isn't the thread to debate this--Jesus probably would prefer not to be evaluated in a porn thread--but I think a case can be made that he didn't require good people to be ascetics.

I don't think a person can have a blank-slate "lack of belief" unless he grew up in a society where religion was a non-issue (or didn't exist). For the rest of us atheists, or for many of us, at least, we grew up in societies where religion was very much a going concern. Some of us even once believed in this or that religion, and positive "dis-belief" is a necessary part of our atheism. It takes nothing away from the atheist if he "believes in atheism", "disbelieves in religion", or just plain doesn't give a rat's ass one way or the other.

Atheism is quite often reactionary -- it is a rejection, reaction to, specific religious beliefs, activities, and maybe religious people. Being reactionary doesn't make it less. "Reactionary" merely specifies the route by which someone arrived at atheism.

Taking the position that God doesn't exist of necessity entails a belief--a belief that God doesn't exist. It is a belief because the existence of God can neither be proved (hard on the believer) or disproved (hard on the disbeliever). It can not be an indisputable fact, either way. (Lots of things can not be proved indisputably. We have to put up with that, like it or not.)

detach the mind from the illusory domain of transient senses — Wayfarer

Getting detached from the illusory domain of transient senses usually results in kitchen disasters, as it did just now.

Religious activity often does, and should involve pleasure
— Bitter Crank

Au contraire, they're not about pleasure or pain. — Wayfarer

Asceticism and sages cultivating indifference to pleasure is one of the varieties of religious experience; it isn't the ultimate expression. There are no "ultimate" expressions of religion.

Once on a day of worship Jesus was going through the grainfields. As the disciples walked along, they began to pick the heads of grain. The Pharisees asked him, "Look! Why are your disciples doing something that is not permitted on the day of worship?" Jesus responded to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him?
He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him”

Jesus said to them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath — Mark 2:23-27

Jesus didn't preach asceticism and indifference What Jesus did or didn't say doesn't mean that you are wrong (or your sage either, indifferent to the mango offered by the monkey). There are no ultimate religious teachings. Maybe your sage was just depressed? Anhedonia is next to godliness?

Possibly, just possibly, you've become a little jaded by your experiences. — Wayfarer

It is certainly the case that I am jaded by my experiences.

There are many kinds of leisure activities and cultural pursuits that can be pursued, but porn is exclusively related to the generation and satisfaction of the sexual impulse. — Wayfarer

I say that porn is not exclusively directed toward the generation and satisfaction of the sexual impulse. How so?

Porn, like all entertainment we receive through media, is a product from which enterprising people derive income. What is the purpose of commercial television programming? Entertainment? Only incidentally. The primary purpose of porn, commercial television and radio, magazines, and so on is to provide bait for consumers to see the advertising. Content is cost at a magazine, advertising is the income.

"But porn is free. I'm not paying for it." How is it free? By one means or another you are paying for the porn you watch. Some of the fee your carrier charges you to get porn works its way back to the provider. There are ads next to pornography. Sometimes there are memberships you have to pay for. DVDs are not given away for free, just as reel to reel video, print, or 8mm film views were not given away. Porn is not offered as a free public service. The per-view cost may be very low, but if millions of people pay a very small amount for something, it adds up to real money after a while.

The purveyors of porn--and a lot of other goods--are primarily concerned about making money. The consumer's sexual interest is being subverted for the purpose of making money.

Porn watching is, to a certain extent, a pleasureless meaningless activity. Only with the personal engagement of one's 'erotic machine' does porn remain interesting and arousing for a period of time. Just as eating junk food is a pleasureless, meaningless activity. We, like some dogs, will eat whenever food is put in front of us--not because we are very hungry, or long for a wonderful dining experience. Oh, food: eat.

In instances where people buy porn for the immediate purpose of achieving sexual arousal and satisfaction (like in hotels) the average duration of watching is pretty short. Tape turned on; a few minutes later he is all done. Tape turned off.

The average guy doesn't require hours to reach arousal and satisfaction. From my jaded experience, average man gets aroused and achieves sexual satisfaction in less than 15 minutes and some in a good deal less time than that. ONLY if they are prolonging the pleasure do they take longer.

So, guys who spend 3 hours watching porn (without an erection, quite possibly) are clearly not doing this just for arousal and satisfaction. They are engaged in a largely meaningless time-killing activity.

In other words, if something is not harmful what makes it immoral? — VagabondSpectre

I do find it interesting though that all the examples of immorality you gave (swearing, atheism, apostasy, polytheism) are all examples of generally shitty moral positions. Since they don't cause any harm, it's impossible (from a progressive perspective) to justify taking any harmful action against offenders. — VagabondSpectre

You were looking for things that were not harmful but were immoral. It seems to me that swearing, atheism, apostasy, and polytheism are all harmless, in and of themselves, but many people consider them to be immoral. Considering them immoral is kind of shitty, especially if death is the punishment.

I consider abortion (particularly abortions prior to the 20th week or so) to be harmless. Perhaps not pleasant for the woman, but not harmful if done properly. Many people consider abortion immoral (you've probably heard of people like that). The harm the abortion-is-immoral crowd sees is because they have granted personhood status to the fetus. Many anti-abortionists go back to the moment of conception to declare personhood.