Utilitarian/Hedonistic Religions?

[moon light]

So you define sex between unmarried people as immoral? This is subjective, surely?

Of course
Because there are no limits to the harm, as I mentioned in the previous examples

 

[Kirran]

Of course
Because there are no limits to the harm, as I mentioned in the previous examples

In no way is that the case in some way in which it is not the case within marriage. Abuse and transmission of disease can happen in all sorts of situations. Marriage is pretty much incidental.

 

[moon light]

In no way is that the case in some way in which it is not the case within marriage. Abuse and transmission of disease can happen in all sorts of situations. Marriage is pretty much incidental.

If this happens be about unintentionally

 

[Kirran]

If this happens be about unintentionally

I didn't understand what you meant here, could you clarify?

 

[moon light]

I didn't understand what you meant here, could you clarify?

OK
If there is a Lady in the menstrual period
Do you think she will leave her husband having sex with her and being hurt
This is for example

 

[Kirran]

OK
If there is a Lady in the menstrual period
Do you think she will leave her husband having sex with her and being hurt
This is for example

Are you asking if a woman on her period will have sex with her husband?

 

[moon light]

Are you asking if a woman on her period will have sex with her husband?

I say that the conditions of marriage do not allow for woman to do that

 

[Kirran]

I say that the conditions of marriage do not allow for woman to do that

Right, OK, depends on what people wanna do I guess - in what way is this relevant to our discussion about whether sex outside of marriage is in some way immoral?

 

[omega2xx]

Yes. And the people who initially came back over with HIV(again, the important factor here), initially spread it without knowing they were infected. This wormed its way down into the poor, and it had its first great successes when the first junkies and such got it. Through use of shared needles it exploded. It has nothing to do with who you have sex with, it has everything to do with who you share fluids with.

It does have something to do with who you had sex with. Without homosexual sex, it would not have spread. Even when it was transferred to heterosexuals, the homosexuals were still responsible.

 

[Nietzsche]

It does have something to do with who you had sex with. Without homosexual sex, it would not have spread. Even when it was transferred to heterosexuals, the homosexuals were still responsible.

Of course they were. Surely working their gay-devil magic, right? Do the Jews or Freemasons factor into this too?

You have a study to back this up, or just your prejudices?

 

[Liu]

No doubt about it. Can you really defend adultery?

Sure. It depends on the exact circumstances. But I wouldn't say that adultery harms the one who does it in all cases.
In open relationships, i.e. those where all are okay with their partners having also sex with other people, there obviously is no harm done by adultery, except for if one falls in love with that other person and leaves one's spouse because of that. But whether that's that much of an issue.. and anyway, falling in love with someone else can as well happen without adultery.

If one's spouse doesn't know or is not okay with one having sex with others, then adultery has a huge risk of harming the relationship. But I would wonder if when it comes to this, whether the relationship not already was damaged before. And in that case, even if the spouse finds out about the adultery that might ultimately have more positive consequences for oneself than negative ones. Either the finding-out leads to a break up and one is free to go into a relationship one likes better, or it leads to reconciliation, which may have taken longer to happen without.

Those are just some simple cases (without children etc.), but I'm convinced that adultery in and of itself does not do harm to the one who does it.

Did anyone mention tantraism, where afaik part of the idea is not to avoid sensuality but use sensuality in the service of spirituality...?

Mandi mentioned it, on the first page.

But I agree with her in that in Tantra sensuality seems to be used first and foremost as a tool, and not for its own sake. Therefore I'd not really call that hedonism.
I don't know how most actual tantrikas deal with that, though.

 

[moon light]

Right, OK, depends on what people wanna do I guess - in what way is this relevant to our discussion about whether sex outside of marriage is in some way immoral?

Sex outside marriage does not apply to the conditions of marriage
Such as a sexual exercise that leads to the illness of one of them
Outside of marriage no one will be committed to it

 

[outlawState]

I would argue that a proper Left Hand tradition is going to necessarily be less hedonistic than most religions, in that, say the householder paths, like, worldly things are okay.

But if you have dedicated to the spiritual pursuit, it's going to be more ascetic. Sure, say for example Vamachara use wine ect, but the use properly is for spiritual advancement. Using it outside of that context encourages wrong doing and is anti-dharmic.

Hedonism, in the Left Hand Path in my view is a trap many fall into. The only exception to what many might consider hedonism and the Left Hand Path would be Kashmir Shaivism's Kaula but I think that in that even, there are excesses that are seen as spiritually determinant. But I think this is kind of expected sine Kaula is one of the few householder LHP traditions I am aware of.

Anyways it's fairly esoteric and there are some good books on it, but I wouldn't recommend anyone just getting into religion to do it. It's more advanced and you need to be initiated and it's group oriented. You can't just pick it up and decide to try it out.

What you refer to is largely pantheism, I think, and therefore, at least from my point of view, complete nonsense, and so susceptible to being reduced to the status of a guru-centric human cult; and which even through asceticism, is unlikely to be productive of anything but endless cultism.

I would
I've not known demonolatry to be particularly hedonistic. I would actually say that it is less so than Satanism. But my exposure is somewhat limited. I would say that demonolatry although it has a very rich history and a true lineage going back centuries, is much smaller in number of adherents compared to Satanism.

However I don't think that suggesting that the OP would "loose eternal life" is either true or conductive here. To many, it might actually be the way to eternal life if not irrelevant to an afterlife.

I would agree though that they need to consider the difference of meaning in simply physical pleasure versus spiritual pleasure. Like, okay, it feels good to eat say pizza, but like, just eating pizza doesn't give someone the same kind of fulfillment as doing something impactful and meaningful such as creating art, having a good job where they can make a difference, or being there for others (family, friends ect).

Anyways, Ave Satanas! (Hail Satan)

In another age, you would have been taken for a witch. Eternal life is assuredly forfeited by voluntarily engaging with the superfluous, vain and irrelevant gnosis attributable to demons and / or satan.

 

[Kirran]

Sex outside marriage does not apply to the conditions of marriage
Such as a sexual exercise that leads to the illness of one of them
Outside of marriage no one will be committed to it

As far as I can figure out, this doesn't address why sex outside marriage might be immoral.

 

[omega2xx]

More people have been infected with HIV due to underfunded and poorly staffed health clinics in poor countries than gay sex.
Tom

Irrelevant. The epidemic could have been adverted or at least greatly reduced if the homosexual had stopped having sex.

 

[omega2xx]

What a weird thing to say.

An OPINION without saying why is even weirder

 

[Kirran]

Irrelevant. The epidemic could have been adverted or at least greatly reduced if the homosexual had stopped having sex.

Could have been reduced much more greatly if the heterosexuals had stopped.

 

[omega2xx]

Of course they were. Surely working their gay-devil magic, right? Do the Jews or Freemasons factor into this too?

You have a study to back this up, or just your prejudices?

Facts are not prejudice. show me where what i said was not a fact.

 

[Kirran]

Facts are not prejudice. show me where what i said was not a fact.

"The homosexuals" being responsible for when HIV is transmitted between people of different sexes is not a fact.

 

[moon light]

As far as I can figure out, this doesn't address why sex outside marriage might be immoral.

Because it allows harm