Tastes and Preferences: Curious about why you choose what you choose!

[SeekerOnThePath]

I have read all the other scriptures pretty much, and studied religions extensively, and nothing has ever come close to the Qur'an with its clarity and agreement with me and my own feelings and sentiments, its as if the Qur'an says exactly what I want when I want every single time, as if the Qur'an is me in some way, that is perhaps the consequence of having the Qur'an read to me all my life from birth had on me and my thinking, but I think there may be others who have had that as their experience and have not felt the same way or that the Qur'an is perfectly matched to them and that the Allah of the Qur'an (which it looks like maybe Gabriel Said Reynolds has released a new book in 2020 or something about Allah in the Qur'an listed as available on Library Genesis as linked earlier) is perfectly matched as the God that is most Ultimate over all the other depictions and descriptions of God and even potentially absorbing them all entirely, so that one needn't even really choose, you get everything in one neat package.

I fully and strongly agree with this, and I am a person who is constantly in dialogue with other scriptures of other religions, both before and after I became Muslim.

The Qur'an is very much a strange anomaly (at the very very least) when it comes to world religions and scriptures. There is nothing like it, from both a contextual POV, from a subtextual POV, from a stylistic and format POV, from it's claims and internal self-referentiality, in the innovation of it's arguments (both against the other Abrahamic religions, and Pagans, and against non-belief in God), for it's consistency and unity as a text, for it's non-linear structure, simply everything about it is entirely unique.
A non-Muslim reading this would probably assume that by professing how innately unique the text is, automatically means that I am calling the text true or from God (even though I do believe that), on that basis alone, but I'm not.

However I've heard every argument under the sun from Christians and Atheists against Islam and the Qur'an but still remain unconvinced. Not that I haven't considered such arguments, but that such arguments always completely fall flat and fail to actually engage the Qur'an's own strong logical arguments (of which already address such conjectures Christians and Atheists have against it).
To refute the Qur'an, you have to be more intelligent than the Qur'an, but unfortunately even the most intelligent of critics still fail to completely engage the Qur'an and therefore end up being refuted by the Qur'an itself. Most critics of the Qur'an are not more intelligent than the Qur'an, they merely want to find some way to dismiss the Qur'an on the basis of not wanting to take it seriously (whether from an accepted agenda like Atheism or from an ideology like Christianity) both nonetheless end up being cases of assumed conclusion and confirmation bias on account of not wanting to engage the Qur'an.
Basically, I love how ironically the Qur'an makes a comedy of it's ignorant critics that pick the low hanging fruit, seldom do it's critics try to attack the big points addressed.
Plus as Firedragon brought up, the Qur'an is holistic, it is a unified whole. I definitely understand the "Quran-alone" perspective in that sense, although I myself do not believe in that position myself.
The Qur'an does interpret the Qur'an for the most part, which is very unique.
In comparison, the Bible is made up of separate books which are all basically progressive commentaries upon the Pentateuch. Yet they lack any self-awareness in themselves because they are only priestly and scribal writings (they do of course have a lot of socio-political self-awareness but that is an entirely separate topic). Christians don't perceive it, but Jews are absolutely correct in seeing the Tanakh this way because that's how the texts of the Tanakh operate.
(Pentateuch is the center, both Nevi'im and Ketuvim are on the outside of that center as commentaries upon it, Talmud is in a similar position as commentary upon Pentateuch and rest of Tanakh)

Still in Biblical comparison. The Qur'an is like if we had God's revelations to Moses in and of itself. The Pentateuch by comparison is stories from creation to Joseph, then the life of Moses, all combined with the Sinai revelation and Moses' sermons. There is no explicit direct word of God in the Pentateuch, so it fails to grab my attention to take seriously in this manner, I still find it interesting though, and like studying Judaism in particular.
Christianity in comparison. The "Four Gospels" as Christians came to denote them, are only narrative stories of Jesus' life which are passed down through Oral tradition. Sure they could be considered sometimes fun to read (especially Matthew) but they are not the explicit direct word of God.
Some of the stuff attributed to Jesus in those books may very well be things God revealed to Jesus which Jesus then recited in his sermons to various Jews, as recorded in those books, but it remains that these four books are not the word of God.

How Christians came to call the Bible "the word of God", aside from being a very ridiculous hyperbolic statement of the authority they think their texts have, remains an absurd and strange notion not based in anything the Bible itself says or contains.

The Qur'an by comparison is a text which itself claims to be God speaking and as revealed through an Angel to a Prophet. I just find that mindboggling.

People can say "why this religion over that?" or "what makes this scripture more true than that?" all they want, but under the assumption that Atheists in particular have, I'd assume that every scripture would be the same thing, claiming to be God as the author and being a divine recitation. Yet only the Qur'an claims such a thing.

The closest I've ever seen is Liber Al Vel Legis by Aleister Crowley but it doesn't claim to be the word of God, but rather the word of an entity named Aiwass. I love the text but it has nothing superior about it in comparison to the Qur'an, plus it doesn't have near as much creative potential as the Qur'an either. By comparison it's just a little esoteric document that can be a helpful guide to any magus, but not something entire civilizations can be based upon, nor something capable of wide appeal (despite the universality of some of it's ideas). Not something that will really bring us into the space age (yeah, I know Parsons, lol).

The Qur'an is the only text with such incredibly powerful magical qualities projected into it. In my view early on (when I was an occultist with an interest in the Qur'an), I viewed it as a talisman. I still do to some degree, it's role as a text does create change, spiritually and otherwise. It has a role which makes it fit into so many kinds of situations (as you yourself noted in one post on this thread). There is a reason why, contrary what detractors claim (y'know those who are hysterical about immigration who think Islam is a religion of Arabs, lol), Islam fits so well in many completely different cultures, east and west. It naturally enhances a whole culture's and countries identity, and an individual's spiritual path - whether exoterically (Zahir) or esoterically (Batin). It guides a person both in outward social cohesion and one's attainment of Gnosis. Few texts have such potential.
There are great things about aspects of The Bible, Buddhist Sutras and Hindu texts like the Upanishads and Puranas, but nothing with such a universal union of so many diverse elements into a coherent and logical whole which justifies both the exoteric and the esoteric in such a beautiful way. Plus the esoteric paths in Buddhism and Hinduism are largely left for introverted senses of monasticism or asceticism and therefore distinguish themselves from a social cohesion, the Christian Gnostics of the 1st-4th century where the same as these Dharmics in this sense.

Etc.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Ehh, I dunno if Ancient Buddhism forbid homosexuality. Such ideas come through “murky” modern translations. The subject is at best debatable. With some scholars arguing that there were no special sanctions against homosexuality present in the ancient texts.
Maybe some branches, but generally much like the Ancient Greeks, Dharmic definitions of human sexuality, sex and indeed even gender do not map onto modern Western thoughts neatly at all.

Well, when I read rules for monks and stuff, it just seemed to me that basically all sexuality was largely prohibited, but no doubt (just like the Catholic Church and other closed groups with males) its likely a lot of homosexuality and sexual molestation and what not went on and still goes on (as exposed recently by some brave monks), both towards women and towards men and children. Predators and the predatory impulses and hormones of certain people always seem to find opportunities to take advantage of systems (even systems as extremely anti-sexual as the Buddhist teachings) to harm, even justifying their harms as well and likely turning it into cycles and traditions in some of the monasteries.

So, when I read the rules for monks as written in the Tripitaka, the section about the rules for monks for example, it seems to be against sexual activities for monks and female monks also, and the Buddha also has many negative things to say about sexuality for his monks, and berated with strong words a monk who became convinced to have sex with his own wife after she begged him that she wants a child, which the Buddha disapproved of and harassed this monk a lot for having done this. It seems, very few people know this annoying Buddha version that is actually contained in the Suttas, and seem to be enamored by something else, maybe similar to how people think of Jesus but don't always face his actual actions and character in the New Testament (even though that is a whole lot easier to access and find than to go through the Suttas and stories about the Buddha).

The Buddha also abandoned his wife and his child (who he named what translated to "Fetter" I think?), in order to pursue enlightenment and founding what would become the Buddhist way (after Mahavira apparently and other similar characters with similar beliefs).

So, Buddhism really only gets me to enjoy it more once it becomes more Theistic seeming through its Ghandaran and Mahayana writings which start to become more symbolic, more mystical, and less Buddha saying that an actor will be punished to be a flying skeleton attacked by birds and trying to make sure no one has any sexual intercourse (maybe he foresaw the overpopulation problem that was going to happen in India?).

 

[SomeRandom]

Well, when I read rules for monks and stuff, it just seemed to me that basically all sexuality was largely prohibited, but no doubt (just like the Catholic Church and other closed groups with males) its likely a lot of homosexuality and sexual molestation and what not went on and still goes on (as exposed recently by some brave monks), both towards women and towards men and children. Predators and the predatory impulses and hormones of certain people always seem to find opportunities to take advantage of systems (even systems as extremely anti-sexual as the Buddhist teachings) to harm, even justifying their harms as well and likely turning it into cycles and traditions in some of the monasteries.

So, when I read the rules for monks as written in the Tripitaka, the section about the rules for monks for example, it seems to be against sexual activities for monks and female monks also, and the Buddha also has many negative things to say about sexuality for his monks, and berated with strong words a monk who became convinced to have sex with his own wife after she begged him that she wants a child, which the Buddha disapproved of and harassed this monk a lot for having done this. It seems, very few people know this annoying Buddha version that is actually contained in the Suttas, and seem to be enamored by something else, maybe similar to how people think of Jesus but don't always face his actual actions and character in the New Testament (even though that is a whole lot easier to access and find than to go through the Suttas and stories about the Buddha).

The Buddha also abandoned his wife and his child (who he named what translated to "Fetter" I think?), in order to pursue enlightenment and founding what would become the Buddhist way (after Mahavira apparently and other similar characters with similar beliefs).

So, Buddhism really only gets me to enjoy it more once it becomes more Theistic seeming through its Ghandaran and Mahayana writings which start to become more symbolic, more mystical, and less Buddha saying that an actor will be punished to be a flying skeleton attacked by birds and trying to make sure no one has any sexual intercourse (maybe he foresaw the overpopulation problem that was going to happen in India?).

Being anti sex is not necessarily anti gay. Though I would agree with the argument that such enforced celibacy encourages what’s called “opportunistic pedophilia.” Someone who is not necessarily a pedophile taking advantage of the situation for err release purposes, if you’ll forgive the clumsy phrasing.

After all a gay man would still be fulfilling his Dharmic duties in a committed relationship. Pursuing higher enlightenment often shut down sexual behaviour as a rule. (Except maybe the Tantrics I suppose.)

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Not necessarily. For instance the Greek paragon of Masculinity, Heracles had many male lovers throughout his adventures. (Though he was always the “top” because that was masculine.)
I think it was his most infamous male lover Iolus’s pyre that he threw himself on. But like all ancient Myths that depends on who you ask.

Among ancient Hindus there was special protections given to the “Hijra.” (Roughly anything outside heterosexuality.) With many traditions considering their participation as necessary and holy. They even have their own deities who protect them.
Traditions vary of course. With some ostracising them. Though I think never a transgender person, for that would be a significant Adharmic action in even the most traditional paths. Of course that doesn’t mean there isn’t loads of transphobia/homophobia amongst Hindus. Many chalking it up to Abrahamic influence more than anything. I think it’s both Abrahamic influence and good old fashioned bigotry myself. But eh.
Since Buddhism and Hinduism are “cousins” this is why I question whether or not they had restrictions against homosexuality. Or rather they just had “interesting” ideas about human sexuality overall

My wife seems to dislike when I call myself a Bear, and I say "I don't mean like a gay Bear, just that I'm fat and hairy". I can only be a Top as well (that is the sexually dominant person, right?) the idea of ever bending over or being in a position anything like what women go through is the stuff of nightmares, and I don't know who would ever want that at all. I think if I were a woman (and my hormones didn't change my mind) that I'd have to be a "butch" (is that not an acceptable term anymore? I don't know) masculine type who is dominant. I just can't trust anyone or be in any sort of position or scenario where someone is overpowering or having their way with me. I think this is what probably also has scared people about homosexuals, the idea of being turned into some other class level or having one's status threatened.

To threaten the masculinity of another Free Born Citizen Greek person was probably to get into a major conflict, and this may be why the Sodomites (of Sodom) were despised as well (as rapists perhaps who showed their domination by raping men?).

It was this argument used by this attractive looking gay Muslim that I supported (with warnings for their safety) in their campaign (that they wanted to do and were going to do anyway even if it would cost them their life) to make a strong case for the acceptance of gays in Islam.

I like any movements generally which challenge Islam, even if I don't really think homosexuality is acceptable and believe that God is going to possibly harm them in this life as well as the next. Somehow I don't think my being kind to and supporting and helping people of opposing views work out their arguments and encouraging them somewhat ahead is really harm on me or my status, as God knows my hate-filled evil heart is perfectly in tact.

Also, I support Abortion (though I'd never support it for my own loved ones) I am perfectly fine with people who would kill their babies ending the genetics of their bloodlines and producing more people who are of the mentality to kill their own babies. So I totally support abortion, which to me is just bad people killing bad people and themselves.

Speaking of which, I also support suicide or suicides please me quite a bit (horrible sounding, I know, but this thread is about the truth), and I overtly and sincerely make strong cases to people as to not kill themselves, ever, and would never tell a person to kill themselves (except maybe if they are a horrible criminal, since I think they should be allowed to choose to kill themselves so we don't have to pay for their food and rooms or whatever and the scum is just gone), but when people actually do manage to end their lives I consider it not that bad really (for me, its probably really bad for them), maybe a little sad if they were pretty, but I think they were mentally ill and maybe even better off dead (before they disturb other people or procreate and spread the genetics that might lead to their particular mental illness destroying other lives and children's experiences).

These are not things most people would admit to, and it might also make me seem like a hypocrite (or see the characters in Dostoyevsky's Demons/The Possessed).

I am mainly an anarchist, or like as little interference as possible from the government or authorities, but on the other hand, I also like the idea that a government benefits society, benefits people, pays for people, makes life easier and better for me (or all, but mainly its only myself I care about and my loved ones and people I like). I don't think governments and politicians can be really trusted, but I do think laws and law enforcement can be important for crime fighting and order, especially seeing how fools were acting in some places with this whole virus precaution business maybe or how some criminals might act like gangsters (but then again, I've dealt with very corrupt police forces, like in Hawaii, so they are trash too, almost as expected).

Whatever, my main thing is whatever is advantageous for me, and pursuing pleasure and ultimate pleasure, which I consider the only thing that might be alright after all or matters for a sensory being like myself. If you're in terrible pain, what does anything matter? That is why the longest lasting pain is the worst possible outcome and the longest lasting pleasure is the best, and that is how I calculate everything and make decisions, to avoid all the consequences that I can.

I would never want Muslim rule or "Shariah Law" or crazy restrictions or living in fear and terror about being accused or caught for something or authorities having more power to do harm at a whim or if they just don't like me. I often get on the nerves of the "little gods" of forums as well (since a lot of forums have people seemingly on a power trip, but this one doesn't seem to have immature users like that as far as I've seen, in important positions anyway, but even the general users seem alright mainly, they were better perhaps a few months ago though).

As for politics, I absolutely don't trust anything about them, especially politics in the United States of America, and I would never participate in getting blood on my hands by supporting or voting in one murderer or another, I have a poorer opinion of politicians than I do of mostly anyone online, except killers, since I think of politicians as killers, especially if they come into positions where they decide the lives of people or order or approve of executions or acts of war or political killings, but then again, I hesitantly support executions (except I think that law enforcement might also frame some people and can't really be trusted), I like the idea of not paying for some horrible criminal's bed and breakfast for life, which is why I think they should have the option to execute themselves as well. I also hate the idea that people in jails are just getting raped and that is just accepted, that seems really corrupt and horrible, no matter what people think they have done or that they have done, that shouldn't just be the accepted norm. I am also alright with making some use of them as their punishment, so forcing them to work at things that they might be able to work in. Maybe they should involuntarily become organ donors as well? Too creepy?

Basically, I prefer avoiding everything to do with politics, even religious politics, because I just don't care and also think everything is crap, everyone is crap, and that I can't do much about anything, and am otherwise unwillingly to. I am mainly complacent, flabby, weak, and don't like any effort or trouble. I hate being bothered on the street if someone wants some petition signed or whatever. I like being left alone entirely, never bothered, never begged, not asked anything, just polite smiles and nods are fine.

So, based on that, we can build a bit of a profile. On the one political spectrum test it showed up somewhere sort of near the middle or bottom middle maybe leaning towards the left a little possibly, I forgot what they had called it. Oh yeah, "Person of Interest".

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Being anti sex is not necessarily anti gay. Though I would agree with the argument that such enforced celibacy encourages what’s called “opportunistic pedophilia.” Someone who is not necessarily a pedophile taking advantage of the situation for err release purposes, if you’ll forgive the clumsy phrasing.

After all a gay man would still be fulfilling his Dharmic duties in a committed relationship. Pursuing higher enlightenment often shut down sexual behaviour as a rule. (Except maybe the Tantrics I suppose.)

I don't know if I missed it, but throughout this thread (especially early on) I mentioned some questions regarding tastes and what people prefer, most specifically regarding the religions, religious practices, and scriptures they prefer or end up believing in and why. Could you tell me a little more about your own beliefs? Are you into some kind of Buddhism mainly? What do the choices of the purple dragon or whatever is in your display picture (I couldn't see it too clearly or haven't looked too carefully yet, so I'm sorry if it is not a purple dragon-like creature) represent to you or as you? What do you think it was in your life story (which you can discuss if you're up to it or feel comfortable doing that), which you think might have led to your particular tastes or choices or reasonings even for why you like whatever you do? Do you have an agenda or a reason to be on this website as far as you justify it and your posts and activities to yourself? I asked a lot of questions in earlier posts, which you can modify in order to answer them as well, I'd love to learn all about you in all honesty as well as everyone else who might like to contribute here and get it all off their chest about everything, who they are, what they are all about, and why, and also explaining and justifying why, and why they have chosen what they think is best and why or how they came to believe such is best in detail.

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Being anti sex is not necessarily anti gay. Though I would agree with the argument that such enforced celibacy encourages what’s called “opportunistic pedophilia.” Someone who is not necessarily a pedophile taking advantage of the situation for err release purposes, if you’ll forgive the clumsy phrasing.

After all a gay man would still be fulfilling his Dharmic duties in a committed relationship. Pursuing higher enlightenment often shut down sexual behaviour as a rule. (Except maybe the Tantrics I suppose.)

On the Tantric path, I believe they have the best view because, IMHO, a spiritually healthy person transmutes their sexual energies, doesn't deny them.

Buddhism teaches the Middle Way on this matter, best exemplified (IMHO) in the Vajrayana tradition especially. Islam too teaches a thing called Sirat al-Mustaqim (The Straight Path) which means balance, this is why Islam is opposed to monasticism because it is not balance and it neglects the natural social concerns of humans.
Interestingly with The Buddha, before he became enlightened, he both indulged heavily (LHP) and abstained heavily (RHP), and realized at the end that both of them can be very negative without a counterbalance but that both cannot be neglected either, that non-attachment from both is also a necessary requirement while not restraining oneself from said natural inclinations. But being able to observe and deal with them in a manner that rises above their usual grab on the human mind. As the Buddha says in the opening of the Dhammapada, 'mind is the forerunner of all actions'.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

That is great! I often say to people, that they don't even really need to "choose" necessarily, as in they don't need to feel forced into giving up on stuff (except things which are actually bad and harmful), and when it comes to religion, they should take all that is good from everywhere and everything freely, and use it all for the best they can do and think of.

It never worked when I say that, or anything, to anyone, ever. So it seems like, people love to choose, and fight about what they chose, and choose some very narrow and specific thing, apparently ideally if it has as little use as possible. Maybe its like how cats seem to like being surrounded by tight walls on every side so that they know where they are (in a box, on the floor) and think something can sneak up on them maybe (even though it can, and they are stuck in a box).

I don't know for certain what the Buddha actually really said or did, so all that is left of all these people is writings and stories attributed to them, they are practically literary characters at this point, and so, just like one can be inspired by something in a film (but might be rightfully considered absurd for depending on some character in a movie to save their soul magically) whatever seems good to a person should be taken and even broadcast if it will help make the world a better place, and whatever seems to calculate out as destructive immediately or eventually or in some way and harmful to oneself or others, should be put aside, like bad fiction (even if it was true).

That is what this thread is (also) about. All the things we think are best and worst and why. For however twisted my views and responses seem to be, I am actually (in my view) an extremely simple and straightforward person, that believes in good old fashioned imaginary Cowboy style law and ethics, that believes in decency and propriety, that believes in kindness and mercy, reason and self control, that believes in emotion and fire about what is wrong and injustice.

Right and Wrong does not seem very complex to me overall, and I think that people should, even if Godless, be as honorable and decent and kind as possible, and by doing so, should have better lives (even if occasionally taken advantage of) and have better outcomes, and also by doing so, by example promote such behaviors that will likely make further experiences better and other people even more prone to imitating good and being good.

I love the idea of being good and doing good, and destruction to all evil everywhere, because I despise Evil in all its forms and all its perpetrators and supporters. It is this sensitive heart that is in my view likely the only thing that separates a True Muslim (which can also have most of any of the other religions as their point of origin or preferred terminology) and an Evildoer (with an actually mean and cruel behavior towards objects, creatures, including people).

 

[SomeRandom]

I don't know if I missed it, but throughout this thread (especially early on) I mentioned some questions regarding tastes and what people prefer, most specifically regarding the religions, religious practices, and scriptures they prefer or end up believing in and why. Could you tell me a little more about your own beliefs? Are you into some kind of Buddhism mainly? What do the choices of the purple dragon or whatever is in your display picture (I couldn't see it too clearly or haven't looked too carefully yet, so I'm sorry if it is not a purple dragon-like creature) represent to you or as you? What do you think it was in your life story (which you can discuss if you're up to it or feel comfortable doing that), which you think might have led to your particular tastes or choices or reasonings even for why you like whatever you do? Do you have an agenda or a reason to be on this website as far as you justify it and your posts and activities to yourself? I asked a lot of questions in earlier posts, which you can modify in order to answer them as well, I'd love to learn all about you in all honesty as well as everyone else who might like to contribute here and get it all off their chest about everything, who they are, what they are all about, and why, and also explaining and justifying why, and why they have chosen what they think is best and why or how they came to believe such is best in detail.

I’m what you’d call a “bornie” Hindu. Which is sort of like a cousin to Buddhism, I suppose or an older sibling, perhaps?
My family on my mothers side are all Hindus. But syncretists. So they just sort of collected deities as they went along. As such I guess my tastes come from being naturally curious and given the freedom to explore, since Hindus believe that a person should choose their religious path based on their personal feelings.
There is something of a “ancestors‘ tastes being inherited.” I don’t know if I ascribe to that thinking, but my great grandfather was an honest to God, blood drinking Kali Ma devotee. Real old school tantric. My mother bemoans that that is where I must have gotten my fascination for Kali Ma from.
I think our tastes largely stem from nurture. What we grow up around, or sometimes what we don’t.
My profile picture is a stylised variation of Kali Ma. Which I think represents me well. Not quite Eastern, not fully Western (I’m Australian, father’s side are Anglo Saxon.) A somewhat “sacrilegious” depiction of a goddess that I’m frond of. I’m unconventional even among somewhat unconventional folks (Sathya Sai people.)

I come to RF to chill and just waste time. I like to challenge my beliefs internally. And I find I can do that here. Might be failing at it, idk.

 

[firedragon]

Brother, I just thought I'd say, I like your posts a lot, I find you a really interesting fellow Muslim. Like Artis Magistra, you have lots of great insights and I like that you dive straight into the difficult questions in many threads (in contrast to Islamophobes and wannabe critics of Islam who use difficult questions like a hostage negotiation).

Honoured to know you brother.

 

[firedragon]

Ok, so what I am calling "other scriptures" are things like the Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmanas, maybe throw in things like the Greek works of Hesiod and Homer since people sometimes treated those almost religiously, and the Avesta and Zend or whatever, I've mainly only read all these things in English translations, but I miraculously was able to read Greek somehow recently in an instant and so I also read the Old Testament Septuagint text in Greek but I have read it in English mainly and not completed it in Greek, and I have read the Dhammapada, Bhagavad Gita, I haven't completed the Hindu Epics in their full form because the Mahabharata is freaking humungous and the English one is 10 volumes or something which I've considered buying many times but wonder where I'll keep it even. My interest would be in extracting names of entities that can work as epithets for God though. Anyway, there are also newer things like the Book of Mormon and related texts, even really recent ones like the Urantia Book or whatever and the Satanic Bible of Anton LaVey or whatever. Even Albert Pike's work on Free Masonic ideas and Aleister Crowley's writing and works as well as writings by Satanic writers like Michael Ford I think is his name and so-called Demonolaters.

I've read the Guru Granth in available English, I've read influential texts like Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost which have had a lot of impact on popular thinking and media.

So, usually when people say "scriptures" what comes to my mind is that they are probably referring to the Bible, which I've read and continue to read repeatedly, but otherwise they might mean the foundational texts of their religions, so like Hindus often say the Vedas are their major scripture or foundational text, Krishna followers might like the Bhagavad Gita which is taken out from part of the Mahabharata I think, and I've also read lots of available Buddhist writings, suttas and sutras from the Tripitaka and the Mahayana corpus of works too, and I've even read the Taoist writings in their two major "scriptures" and the Analects of Confucius.

I have not been able to read much of Baha'u'llah or Bab or anything like that, but I've read writings attributed to various Muslim mytical writers here and there, I don't know what they all were, but I am interested in the Assassins and Ismaeli stuff and Medieval weird mystical stuff that may have been around the time of the Templars.

I've read the foundational writings and procedures of the Jesuits, they seemed to have some Muslim things going on maybe.

Anyway, compared to the Qur'an, personally, its all pretty rubbish in my opinion, very difficult or even amazing that religions or spiritual practices were even based off of these things or people are still trying to make religions out of them, when the Qur'an is in comparison so obvious, clear, and so much more complete by far.

I've read Egyptian stuff as well as it has been translated into English, Hittite stuff, Akkadian stuff, all kinds of stuff, its like all I've been doing for years and years.

So much of my digital library was on the SD card that I recently had thrown away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That is ok though, I have read so much already, its sort of a relief, but what I lament more are the loss of over half a decade maybe of photos and things that I hope I remember, gosh! I try to think that maybe some good will be triggered by this horrible loss of so much stuff so simply, but it just fills me with sadness and helpless terror even.

I have only met one scholar in theology who now lives in Australia who had read so much. She is now retired in down under but even she has not read all of that. As far as I know it took about 30 years. So you are only 33 and to have finished all of this is a miracle.

So far, I have never met, nor have I even heard of someone or read about someone who has read all of that. Honestly, even Hindu scholars have not read all of the Hindu scripture. Many of them. And you know Greek as well. Thats honestly a miracle. Its not humanely possible. I can put you in touch with the only other person who have read about half of what you have read who is the only other person I know to have a level of expertise in Arabic, Sanskrit and Koine Greek. She is now about 70 years old and she will be dumbfounded. Eethan kharah mwu nasas milliso.

Kudos.

 

[firedragon]

Not necessarily. For instance the Greek paragon of Masculinity, Heracles had many male lovers throughout his adventures. (Though he was always the “top” because that was masculine.)
I think it was his most infamous male lover Iolus’s pyre that he threw himself on. But like all ancient Myths that depends on who you ask.

Among ancient Hindus there was special protections given to the “Hijra.” (Roughly anything outside heterosexuality.) With many traditions considering their participation as necessary and holy. They even have their own deities who protect them.
Traditions vary of course. With some ostracising them. Though I think never a transgender person, for that would be a significant Adharmic action in even the most traditional paths. Of course that doesn’t mean there isn’t loads of transphobia/homophobia amongst Hindus. Many chalking it up to Abrahamic influence more than anything. I think it’s both Abrahamic influence and good old fashioned bigotry myself. But eh.
Since Buddhism and Hinduism are “cousins” this is why I question whether or not they had restrictions against homosexuality. Or rather they just had “interesting” ideas about human sexuality overall

Well. I could say that the Buddhist scripture does not speak of homosexuality. The Buddhist scripture I refer to are the Thripitaka.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well. I could say that the Buddhist scripture does not speak of homosexuality. The Buddhist scripture I refer to are the Thripitaka.

Fair. But “homosexuality” is a fairly new western concept, really.

Well, you know what I mean

 

[firedragon]

Fair. But “homosexuality” is a fairly new western concept, really.

Well, you know what I mean

I have to disagree with that brother. But maybe I am missing your point or not understood what you mean by that statement.

 

[SomeRandom]

I have to disagree with that brother. But maybe I am missing your point or not understood what you mean by that statement.

I mean in the sense that homosexuality as we understand it today, is not really how past societies categorised it. The concept of a sexual orientation specifically is fairly new. In the past, depending on the society, outliers to being “family men” were either treated with disdain, praise, a mixture of both or perhaps even subject to ostracisation. I can’t speak on Buddhism, but among Hindus homosexuality has a somewhat “complicated” relationship with society. Some traditions venerating them, others treating them with disdain. However the understanding of sexual orientation is not always congruent with the modern west’s understanding. So translations of ancient texts spark debate more often than not.

By the way, it’s sister, my brother

 

[SeekerOnThePath]

Fair. But “homosexuality” is a fairly new western concept, really.

I mean in the sense that homosexuality as we understand it today, is not really how past societies categorised it. The concept of a sexual orientation specifically is fairly new.

Strictly and technically speaking, you are correct.

Such terminology as "homosexuality" just like "heterosexuality" are fairly recent terms due to 17th century tendencies towards categorizing every phenomenon, as subjects of Sociology, Psychology and Anthropology.
Similar things occur in religious terminology we take for granted as English speakers, such as "monotheism", "pantheism" and the word "religion" itself.
None of which are native to the languages or the traditions they are used to apply to.

What "homosexuality" describes has occurred since the most ancient times. In a conservative religious context such things would be referred to as "sin", or a transgression against what is commonly seen as the "natural" way things are created by God.
I think even in such contexts, despite what conservative people say, an actual theological and philosophical analysis of such things obviously reveal much more complex ideas going on (both in favor of and against such things) in such religions and their ontological views, but nonetheless, such ways of thinking about these things definitely change a lot between cultures and over time.

 

[firedragon]

I mean in the sense that homosexuality as we understand it today, is not really how past societies categorised it. The concept of a sexual orientation specifically is fairly new. In the past, depending on the society, outliers to being “family men” were either treated with disdain, praise, a mixture of both or perhaps even subject to ostracisation. I can’t speak on Buddhism, but among Hindus homosexuality has a somewhat “complicated” relationship with society. Some traditions venerating them, others treating them with disdain. However the understanding of sexual orientation is not always congruent with the modern west’s understanding. So translations of ancient texts spark debate more often than not.

By the way, it’s sister, my brother

Hmm. I was contemplating saying nothing and address you as "Mate" but then even that is not apt. This happens to me all the time. And I still haven't understood how to read the gender in the avatar. Is there a way?

Sorry by the way. By now I should be used to being embarrassed calling people brother when they are a sister but I am.

 

[SomeRandom]

Hmm. I was contemplating saying nothing and address you as "Mate" but then even that is not apt. This happens to me all the time. And I still haven't understood how to read the gender in the avatar. Is there a way?

Sorry by the way. By now I should be used to being embarrassed calling people brother when they are a sister but I am.

Lol it’s okay. The avatar is a female. I am a female. Get called “mate” by default of being Australian. Often get called “brother” by well meaning and polite posters here. No biggie

 

[SomeRandom]

Strictly and technically speaking, you are correct.

Such terminology as "homosexuality" just like "heterosexuality" are fairly recent terms due to 17th century tendencies towards categorizing every phenomenon, as subjects of Sociology, Psychology and Anthropology.
Similar things occur in religious terminology we take for granted as English speakers, such as "monotheism", "pantheism" and the word "religion" itself.
None of which are native to the languages or the traditions they are used to apply to.

What "homosexuality" describes has occurred since the most ancient times. In a conservative religious context such things would be referred to as "sin", or a transgression against what is commonly seen as the "natural" way things are created by God.
I think even in such contexts, despite what conservative people say, an actual theological and philosophical analysis of such things obviously reveal much more complex ideas going on (both in favor of and against such things) in such religions and their ontological views, but nonetheless, such ways of thinking about these things definitely change a lot between cultures and over time.

I always find concepts such as sexuality and even race fascinating to “study” (for lack of a better term) through the various ages and across cultures. Because it always leads me down like several rabbit holes lol
Cultures throughout history have sought to answer such existential questions about the human condition and there’s a surprising variety of thought/philosophies to be found on just those two aspects of the human animal. Never mind the religious wranglings. It serves as a reminder that whilst I do consider the modern western thought more accurate since it depends on science, that humans have come up with a myriad of ways to describe human behaviour. Through philosophy, language and indeed various religious doctrines.

 

[firedragon]

Lol it’s okay. The avatar is a female. I am a female. Get called “mate” by default of being Australian. Often get called “brother” by well meaning and polite posters here. No biggie

There is another problem. Sometimes out of habit here since we dont know names of anyone I have called ladies I knew for years "brother". Thats the actual time when you cant take your foot out of your mouth.

Have a great day sis. I will explore what you said. I know a little about homosexuality in history but I am not very well versed so I will explore what you said a bit thoroughly.

Cheers.

 

[SomeRandom]

There is another problem. Sometimes out of habit here since we dont know names of anyone I have called ladies I knew for years "brother". Thats the actual time when you cant take your foot out of your mouth.

Have a great day sis. I will explore what you said. I know a little about homosexuality in history but I am not very well versed so I will explore what you said a bit thoroughly.

Cheers.

Oops lol
It’s okay, I find it endearing.

Good day to you. Have fun