Who is the self you seek to actualise?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Utilitarian/Hedonistic Religions?
- Thread starter Araceli Cianna
- Start date
Who is the self you seek to actualise?
I think there is a clear and necessary distinction between hedonism and utilitarianism. There certainly is in ethics.
The cult of Dionysos is very hedonistic. It's also dangerous if taken too far.
Liu
Well-Known Member
You don't have to be dark, but I think there are three main reasons why it is often connected.
1. Self-work means working with all parts of oneself. Therefore, that can include some pretty "dark" aspects.
2. Certain spiritual activities that might be helpful for such endeavors therefore may include the breaking of perceived taboos.
3. And the mere fact that one would value the self as much or more than society is a potential danger to society, therefore it's often denigrated.
If you understand the reasons behind the symbolism, you can replace it with other symbolism that you are more comfortable with.
Ultimately, it would be a goal to get potentially comfortable with any symbolism. But I understand if you deem that too risky in your case at the moment.
Well if you have Christian roots, all you have to do is disbelieve there will be a resurrection for us. In that case Paul the Apostle says, "Eat and drink for Tomorrow we die" ; The Governor on the Walking Dead was not the first to say it, but lets hope there is a resurrection and that it is a little sweeter than on the Walking Dead.
I want to expand a bit on "sensual experiences". Of course sexuality springs to mind, and sexuality is an example of the sensual. But I'd say that eating and smelling and observing and touching and hearing can also be sensual. AND, that exercising hard won skill is also sensual. E.g. if you've worked hard on your tennis game, then hitting a perfect topspin lob IS a sensual experience.
That, or pretty much any LHP-religion. Just because you don't want to work with the mythology normally associated with Satanism, @Sheon, you don't need to rule out its philosophy with it.
LHP-religions are about choosing what works for you, so if someone feels better in another set of myths, they can use that as well.
Actually, even many who call themselves Satanists tend to utilize other myths more than Abrahamic ones.
I agree, but it's a matter of what we understand by hedonism.
And I'd argue that serious adherents of a hedonistic philosophy don't strive for pleasure at any cost, but rather for a balance between what they'd enjoy now and what is best for their goals in the long run. Else they could simply become drug-addicts.
Again, LHP. There certainly are also other religions that are compatible with that, but the (western) LHP is explicitly focused on self-improvement and finding what makes you you.
It's often not really associated with helping others, but it certainly won't hinder you from doing so if you want to, on the contrary,
Therefore immoral = things that hurt oneself?
Not necessarily physically, but some do. For example AIDS not only hurts the homosexual, it also killed many who were not homosexuals.
In a marriage, adultery certainly hurts the innocent spouse emotionally.
No doubt about it. Can you really defend adultery?
Norse are pretty happy to drink, **** who you like and just generally do as you please. No real behavior restrictions so long as you're willing to put your money where your mouth is.
I would imagine so, since homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same sorts of immune systems, and diseases aren't as bigoted as the people that it afflicts. It's very equal-opportunity that way. Most viruses and the syndromes(y'see, AIDs isn't really passed around, it's HIV, which causes AIDs, that you can pass around) they cause are.
Quibble noted. The point is that Aids is the result of doing something God calss a sin. The worst thing is that it was passed on to many who did not sin in that way.
AIDs is the result of HIV, which was originally a disease afflicting either Monkeys or Chimpanzees(both are equally likely), and the people in close contact with these animals(Africans) consuming poorly cooked flesh from these creatures. Its spread in Africa had nothing to do with homosexuality. It's spread in America also had nothing to do with homosexuals. It's passed by passing fluids, any sort of sexual contact will give you the disease if your partner is infected.
This information is all easily available on the internet. There's no excuse for your ignorance.
Quibble noted. After it got to America it certainly was passed on from Homosexual who were inffected.
But that isn't true. It didn't start in homosexuals. And it wasn't homosexuals who caused its spread in America. It was by and large heterosexuals who shared dirty needles.
Not true. Dirty needles not infected with AIDS don't spread aids. They had to have gotten a needles used by someone with the virus.
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.
More people have been infected with HIV due to underfunded and poorly staffed health clinics in poor countries than gay sex.
Tom
What a weird thing to say.
moon light
even mind can not be trusted only inspiration
Well - I will explain my point of view in another way
- The practice of sex between a couple of animals - what prevents one of them from having sex with a third animal - nothing
- Sex between a couple of humans - what prevents one of them having sex with a third person - nothing if they are unmarried
- If they are couples, morality prevents them
Because morality is the limit of harm
morality is what characterizes humans from animals
Because the animals have no morals but they have instinct
So whether you want morals or not - that's the question
Last edited:
So you define sex between unmarried people as immoral? This is subjective, surely?