Utilitarian/Hedonistic Religions?

[Kirran]

Because it allows harm

It can allow harm. Sex within marriage can also allow harm.

 

[omega2xx]

Sure. It depends on the exact circumstances. But I wouldn't say that adultery harms the one who does it in all cases.

What circumstances justifies adultery? The one harmed by adultery is the one not committing the sin.

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.

Open relationships are not based on love. If love is not the basis, who cares about the feeling of the other.

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.

It doesn't matter. A damaged relationship can be damaged worse. Adultery could damage it beyond repair.

]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.

It always amazes me the length some will go to to justify a gross sin. Even if they are reconciled, the damage has been done. They did it once, will they do it again.

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.

DUUH. It harms he one who doesn't do it and IMO both are harmed if the spouse really love their partner.

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.

I didn't read any of this.

 

[omega2xx]

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

Pass the mustard. It makes the bolony taste better.

 

[omega2xx]

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

Yes it is.

 

[Kirran]

Pass the mustard. It makes the bolony taste better.

It's factual that the majority of HIV transmission is between people of different sexes.

 

[omega2xx]

It's factual that the majority of HIV transmission is between people of different sexes.

No it isn't

 

[moon light]

It can allow harm. Sex within marriage can also allow harm.

How this - give me an example

 

[Kirran]

No it isn't

Over half of the world's people with HIV live in Eastern and Southern Africa, a region stretching from Eritrea down to South Africa. 19 million in total, making 7.1% of the region's population. 59% of the people in this area living with HIV are women. Tracking new HIV infections shows that 6% of them are accounted for by men who have sex with men, meaning 94% of HIV infections are nothing to do with homosexual men. Sex workers make up 4%, their clients and related people 9%, people who inject drugs 2%.

It is very difficult to provide treatment to the population of men who have sex with men on account of widespread societal homophobia, which is a big part of why HIV is more prevalent among them than the baseline. Research in Western countries has shown that reducing stigmatisation of homosexual behaviour produces marked improvements in the health of the population in question

How this - give me an example

Anything that can cause harm about sex outside marriage can also occur within marriage. Rape, disease transmission, abuse, physical damage and so forth can all occur within the context of a marriage, while sex outside a marriage can be totally loving and consensual.

 

[moon light]

Anything that can cause harm about sex outside marriage can also occur within marriage. Rape, disease transmission, abuse, physical damage and so forth can all occur within the context of a marriage, while sex outside a marriage can be totally loving and consensual.[/QUOTE]


If this occurs in the marriage, it is considered a breach of the conditions of marriage and betrayal of other
Outside marriage, however, is not considered a betrayal because he is not committed to anything
This is the legitimacy of harm in the outside marriage

 

[Kirran]

If this occurs in the marriage, it is considered a breach of the conditions of marriage and betrayal of other
Outside marriage, however, is not considered a betrayal because he is not committed to anything
This is the legitimacy of harm in the outside marriage

So doing something harmful is immoral within marriage, but you have no problem with it outside marriage?

Surely it's the harmful act which is immoral, regardless of context? I know plenty of people who have sex outside marriage, and have relationships outside marriage, where there is no harm involved. These are positive interactions. On the other hand, I know people who have had marriages where a great deal of abuse has taken place. Surely the former is infinitely preferable.

 

[moon light]

So doing something harmful is immoral within marriage, but you have no problem with it outside marriage?

Surely it's the harmful act which is immoral, regardless of context? I know plenty of people who have sex outside marriage, and have relationships outside marriage, where there is no harm involved. These are positive interactions. On the other hand, I know people who have had marriages where a great deal of abuse has taken place. Surely the former is infinitely preferable.

The problem is not with me but with who accepts the entry of a relationship of this kind

 

[Kirran]

The problem is not with me but with who accepts the entry of a relationship of this kind

Sure, yeah, there's issues involved in why people get into destructive relationships, whether in the context of marriage or otherwise.

 

[LuisDantas]

An OPINION without saying why is even weirder

Don't you feel any remorse for spreading bigoted falsehoods, then?

 

[Araceli Cianna]

Who is the self you seek to actualise?

I think the idea of non-self is absurd, because only the self actually exists, you can only work with the self that is consciousness and aware of itself. Not some imaginary non-existent emptiness that you are supposed to transform into and lose all sense of. If I want that I would commit my own death. Until then I've got a lot of life to be lived and enjoyed.

 

[Araceli Cianna]

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.

I like your points. I have done a lot of shadow work in my years so I am familiar with that. But yes too risky at the moment (as well as still too Christian... you know what I mean?)

 

[Araceli Cianna]

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.

Yes this is how I mean sensual, the things that you can experience through your five senses, your sense of touch and smell and taste and hearing and sight. A beautiful sunset, a delicious home cooked meal, a moving piece of music. I wasn't in any way actually referring to sex, although that would naturally be included too.

 

[Kirran]

I think the idea of non-self is absurd, because only the self actually exists, you can only work with the self that is consciousness and aware of itself. Not some imaginary non-existent emptiness that you are supposed to transform into and lose all sense of. If I want that I would commit my own death. Until then I've got a lot of life to be lived and enjoyed.

Well, alright, that's a discussion to be had with the Buddhists. Although what 'non-existent emptiness' means in the context of Shunyata can require some contemplation.

I don't understand the Buddha's teaching to have been at all about transforming yourself into the infinite, but about realising it as truth.

Perspectives will vary, I suspect, but I hope this is of some help.

 

[Araceli Cianna]

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...

 

[Kirran]

You may find interest in teachers such as Ramana Maharshi, or even Nisargadatta Maharaj, and the complex of traditions etc which surrounds teachers like them.

 

[icehorse]

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...

I'm no expert, but it seems like some of the eastern philosophies / religions(?) have a physical aspect. I'm thinking of Shao Lin monks who learn Kung Fu, or perhaps folks who follow a Tai Chi practice. Those approaches seem to acknowledge and want to foster an appreciation of the senses, and of the physical body.