Utilitarian/Hedonistic Religions?

[Liu]

Lets get the facts straight. You may have limited i to the one who commits adultery, but I did not.

You didn't? You were the one who started it. I just put it in clearer terms:

Immoral pleasures are a sin. Sin is destructive and hurts the sinner. Out of love for us, that is why God tells us what they are and warns us about them.

Therefore immoral = things that hurt oneself?
I could get behind that, but I think we may disagree about which things hurt in that way.

No doubt about it. Can you really defend adultery?

If you had disagreed with me on the definition you should have clarified it at that point.

That is your OPINION. I have a different one. True love requires a commitment. The marriage license makes a commitment.

And that commitment would be to swear to not have sex with someone else? However, love ≠ sex. I think one can certainly make other commitments to a loved one that that.
But I'm an asexual anyway so I'm hardly the best one to ask about the sexual aspects of relationships.

Okay, but I can still comment on it, right?

Sure. Your comment on it didn't make much sense to me, though, could you reformulate it?

 

[Tumah]

A basic principal of the Bible is that fornication is a sin.

Of the Christian Bible, not the Jewish one.

 

[omega2xx]

How many years ago? Where? In which contexts?

It seems like it was the 80's but I don't remember for sure.

HIV originated and spread in Africa as a result of lack of knowledge of sexual hygiene. Its arrival in the West and entry into the MSM communities there is a relatively recent phenomenon.

It was not spread by a lack of knowledge of sexual hygiene. It was spread mainly through homosexual sex. Since some homosexuals would also h ave sex with women who were promiscuoes, that made it spread faster.

 

[Kirran]

It was not spread by a lack of knowledge of sexual hygiene. It was spread mainly through homosexual sex. Since some homosexuals would also h ave sex with women who were promiscuoes, that made it spread faster.

Which place and time period are you talking about?

 

[omega2xx]

Of the Christian Bible, not the Jewish one.

It is if you know the definition and where to find it, Lev 18 gives several example of fornication, and they are all forbidden. Even homosexual sex is a form of fornication.

 

[Tumah]

It is if you know the definition and where to find it, Lev 18 gives several example of fornication, and they are all forbidden. Even homosexual sex is a form of fornication.

Calling it a basic principle is simply wrong. There are things types that are permitted and types that are prohibited. Just like everything else.

 

[omega2xx]

Calling it a basic principle is simply wrong. There are things types that are permitted and types that are prohibited. Just like everything else.

That fornication is a sin is taught in both the OT and the NT. It is a basic teaching. The things,m types that are permitted are not a sin, the things types that are not permitted are a sin.

 

[Tumah]

That fornication is a sin is taught in both the OT and the NT. It is a basic teaching. The things,m types that are permitted are not a sin, the things types that are not permitted are a sin.

And not all relations are a sin. Therefore its wrong to say that its a basic principle that it is a sin.

 

[omega2xx]

You didn't? You were the one who started it. I just put it in clearer terms:

You putting it in clearer terms is an opinion.

Since I have trouble remembering what I had for, what is our first meal of the day called, let me get back to what I remember as being he central thought---What is pleasurable can be a sin---all sins are harmful, physically, or emotionally.

If you had disagreed with me on the definition you should have clarified it at that point.


Adultery---a married person having sex with someone other than the spouse.
Fornication---2 who are unmarried having sex.

And that commitment would be to swear to not have sex with someone else? However, love ≠ sex. I think one can certainly make other commitments to a loved one that that.
But I'm an asexual anyway so I'm hardly the best one to ask about the sexual aspects of relationships.

I am not saying it is impossible to love someone, and live with them without the license and the ceremony

There is no marriage ceremony in the Bible. When they got married in the OT, the man went into the woman's tent and hey were hitched if the woman consented.

Sure. Your comment on it didn't make much sense to me, though, could you reformulate it?

What is that first means of the day called again?

 

[omega2xx]

And not all relations are a sin. Therefore its wrong to say that its a basic principle that it is a sin.

I didn't say that. I said it is a basic principle that fornication is a sin.

 

[Esmail]

A lot of religions emphasize abstinence, asceticism, ect. But I'm utilitarian and think we should enjoy our sensual experiences as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. And we should go about making life as pleasurable for both ourselves and others as possible.

Is there a religion like this? I know Satanism can be considered hedonistic but I don't really like the whole idea of Satan (I was brought up in a Christian household and have a history of psychosis).

The joy of this life is nothing more than an overnight dream. When we wake up, the so called "reality" opens its eyes to the sun. The sweetness or bitterness of the dream is gone!
The comfort of mother's womb has an end. The wideness of the Earth is an opportunity to prepare our soul and pack the backpack for a much wider world. It will start with tightness of the grave. Nevertheless, the souls that free themselves from the earth, they shall never be jailed in it.
Look for the real joy. If you find it a temporary one, know that it was a dream only. If it lasts forever, grasp it; for it is the truth.
Oh, mankind!
We are riding a one way train! Know where you are going, though you will never know your stop.
Every stop may look like an end to some, but it is another beginning. It should remind you of your term, your turn, and your stop.
Walk around the graves of people you lived with and loved them before. They were once proud of themselves, enjoying their lives; today you have no knowledge of their world. Was it an end to them? What if it was another beginning?
Are you prepared for the life without your bones and flesh? What did your joy and proud originate from? If it was from the material life only, then you will lose all, you will be left with no joy. If you had in mind giving away from what you had to feed hunger, to shelter poor, to spread good, and live like a loving parent to all, you will be rewarded for it, even if you were not able to do so.
Thank you!

 

[Liu]

You putting it in clearer terms is an opinion.

Since I have trouble remembering what I had for, what is our first meal of the day called, let me get back to what I remember as being he central thought---What is pleasurable can be a sin---all sins are harmful, physically, or emotionally.

Fine - with sins being anything harmful to oneself or another person the discussion is much less fun, though, as I think our moral systems differ too much.

I don't have a need for calling anything a sin. All that exists is part of the divine.
Whether something is right to do or not only depends on how one feels and thinks about it.

Adultery---a married person having sex with someone other than the spouse.
Fornication---2 who are unmarried having sex.

I am not saying it is impossible to love someone, and live with them without the license and the ceremony

There is no marriage ceremony in the Bible. When they got married in the OT, the man went into the woman's tent and hey were hitched if the woman consented.

Ah, so the problem is just the social construct of marriage. If people just never married they could all have relationships on their own terms and there would be nothing like adultery (Just a lot of fornication instead.)

However, at least in my native language, one of the main translations for adultery can as well mean "having sex with another person than one's partner(s) while being in a not-open relationship", so it's used independently of whether one is married or not.
And I would think the same, what feelings get hurt doesn't depend on whether one is married or not. Therefore, your moral system seems to be not too concerned either with whether any actual harm gets done but rather with forbidding specific acts regardless of circumstances and consequences.

But back to the actual topic of the thread.

So maybe if I clarify a bit...

I feel like I need a spiritual path that:
1. Focuses on self-actualisation
2. That is more 'grey' than either dark or light.
3. That focuses on maximising pleasure for all and minimising pain for all (not just for myself)
4. Has a deity I can work with as an archetypal identification

I feel like I have explored them all out there and none really are appealing to me. I will keep searching, however...

In that case, why not creating a religion yourself? Either with your favorite deity of those available, or with a one you made up yourself?
That's basically what we LHPers do, and why I still think that it would be a good choice in your case.
One of the least "dark" LHP-religions (or whatever you want to count it as) was already brought up: Discordianism.
Have you explored that one already?

 

[Araceli Cianna]

In that case, why not creating a religion yourself? Either with your favorite deity of those available, or with a one you made up yourself?
That's basically what we LHPers do, and why I still think that it would be a good choice in your case.
One of the least "dark" LHP-religions (or whatever you want to count it as) was already brought up: Discordianism.
Have you explored that one already?

I could do Thanks for the advice.

As for discordianism, I wasn't initially attracted to it as it's treated a lot like a joke, but on second thought that's probably what I need. I need to stop taking everything so seriously lol.

 

[omega2xx]

Fine - with sins being anything harmful to oneself or another person the discussion is much less fun, though, as I think our moral systems differ too much.

Right. Our moral systems will be far apart. Mine is from God's word, many of your will be man-made, some of which will reject the ones from God.

I don't have a need for calling anything a sin. All that exists is part of the divine.
Whether something is right to do or not only depends on how one feels and thinks about it.

If there is a moral standard, and there is, everyone needs to what it is. Something is right or wrong based on a true definition, no on how one feels about it.

Ah, so the problem is just the social construct of marriage. If people just never married they could all have relationships on their own terms and there would be nothing like adultery (Just a lot of fornication instead.)

Of course. Adultery requires marriage, but fornication is also a sin.

However, at least in my native language, one of the main translations for adultery can as well mean "having sex with another person than one's partner(s) while being in a not-open relationship", so it's used independently of whether one is married or not.
And I would think the same, what feelings get hurt doesn't depend on whether one is married or not. Therefore, your moral system seems to be not too concerned either with whether any actual harm gets done but rather with forbidding specific acts regardless of circumstances and consequences.

I don't have a moral system. I use God's. Whether feelings get hurt or not is not what determines sin.

But back to the actual topic of the thread.



In that case, why not creating a religion yourself? Either with your favorite deity of those available, or with a one you made up yourself?

I'm not smart enough to create a perfect religion. Besides one has already been created.

That's basically what we LHPers do, and why I still think that it would be a good choice in your case.
One of the least "dark" LHP-religions (or whatever you want to count it as) was already brought up: Discordianism.
Have you explored that one already?

Never even heard of it, but I bet much of it will be contradicted by the only perfect religion man has to choose from

 

[Liu]

I don't have a moral system. I use God's. Whether feelings get hurt or not is not what determines sin.

Actually I completely agree with this, although my understanding of it is pretty different from yours.

I don't derive the divine moral system from holy books, my "god" is my self. Everyone is a manifestation of the divine, so the only moral system anyone uses is given by the divine to them personally.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It was not spread by a lack of knowledge of sexual hygiene.

You would have us believe the populations of various African nations in the 1980s were 100% knowledgeable and fully aware of all aspects of sexual hygiene and maintaining it - yet they actively chose to engage in activities which would spread a fatal disease? Pull the other one.

It was spread mainly through homosexual sex.

Source, please. It was spread because of a lack of contraceptives. Christian denominations, Catholicism in particular, which advocate abstinence-only sex education and preach against the use of condoms, bear much of the responsibility for this.

Since some homosexuals would also h ave sex with women who were promiscuoes, that made it spread faster.

Or they'd just have sex with their wives (since they in all probability lived in homophobic societies dominated by either Christianity or Islam, who would then give birth to babies infected with HIV/AIDS - thus spreading the infection.

 

[Kirran]

Source, please. It was spread because of a lack of contraceptives. Christian denominations, Catholicism in particular, which advocate abstinence-only sex education and preach against the use of condoms, bear much of the responsibility for this.

At the moment, one of the primary drivers behind the ongoing spread of HIV in Africa is evangelical lobbying. A lot more money pours into Africa from liberal than conservative forms of American Christianity, but while the former goes to hospitals, schools, orphanages etc, the latter goes to basically buying-out high-ranking church officials and promoting homophobia, disavowing contraception and so forth.

In many ways, Africa is being caught in the crossfire of America's internal culture wars in this regard. Conservatives within the majority-liberal mainline Protestant behemoths (the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA), Disciples of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the American Baptist Churches and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) and in smaller denominations to some extent do massive outreach in Africa in an attempt to make up numbers that'll back their position in rivalling the majority tendencies within their own American denominations.

So for example, when the UMC is split over allowing same-sex marriage, the conservatives try and expand the membership with conservative Africans in an attempt to outnumber the progressives back home.

 

[omega2xx]

Actually I completely agree with this, although my understanding of it is pretty different from yours.

I don't derive the divine moral system from holy books, my "god" is my self. Everyone is a manifestation of the divine, so the only moral system anyone uses is given by the divine to them personally.

The problem with that theology is you don't have any source to verify it is true. Why should I believe you?

 

[omega2xx]

You would have us believe the populations of various African nations in the 1980s were 100% knowledgeable and fully aware of all aspects of sexual hygiene and maintaining it - yet they actively chose to engage in activities which would spread a fatal disease? Pull the other one.




Source, please. It was spread because of a lack of contraceptives. Christian denominations, Catholicism in particular, which advocate abstinence-only sex education and preach against the use of condoms, bear much of the responsibility for this.

It was not spread through a lack of contraceptives. If they knew the danger and they did, it was spread through lust. Protestant denominations do not preach against using condoms, and the only ones responsible are the ones committing the acts that cause it to spread.

Or they'd just have sex with their wives (since they in all probability lived in homophobic societies dominated by either Christianity or Islam, who would then give birth to babies infected with HIV/AIDS - thus spreading the infection.

Right, blame everyone except the ones who were responsible. Labeling those opposed to homosexual conduct as homophobic is a lie hoping to gain sympathy, Do you really not know what homophobic means?

 

[Liu]

The problem with that theology is you don't have any source to verify it is true. Why should I believe you?

You don't need to. We are here in the discussion section anyway, not in debates.
But I could ask you the same: Why should I believe in your theology? Your theology is based on written word, mine on what my self tells me. Maybe the whole world is an illusion, I can never know - the existence of my self is the only thing I can be sure of.

It was not spread through a lack of contraceptives. If they knew the danger and they did, it was spread through lust. Protestant denominations do not preach against using condoms, and the only ones responsible are the ones committing the acts that cause it to spread.

However, that doesn't mean that those who caused it to spread were mainly homosexuals, as you claimed before.
And I would strongly doubt that everyone knew the danger.

Right, blame everyone except the ones who were responsible. Labeling those opposed to homosexual conduct as homophobic is a lie hoping to gain sympathy, Do you really not know what homophobic means?

I would assume that homophobic means "opposed to homosexual conduct" - or what would you say it means?