Not much sex in the sex topic..... How about:

https://youtu.be/j8ZF_R_j0OY

@LokiV I enjoy your contributions. But you may want to scale them down a bit. I prefer dialogue over essay.

@LokiV ‘sin or jihad when used honestly reflect a personal ethical conflict’ - in what way are the two similar?

> @LokiV ‘sin or jihad when used honestly reflect a personal ethical conflict’ - in what way are the two similar?
@StoneCold316

If you study the way sin dogma and rituals are used by Catholics and Muslims, and focus on the peaceful, non-militant majorities of each who don't draw the press of violent nutjobs, it's clear they're functional equivalents between Abrahamic paths.

Not so much, when "go into your closet and pray" is twisted into go out and prey by applying limited scope dogma to others for whom it's irrelevant, or Jihad as a similar charge as Doctrine of Discovery being an excuse for wars and invasions, versus a twisted translation of a shamanic style duty of care for the world around you. (Cultural anthropology of language is generally not treated as intrinsic to honest understanding of historic religious meaning, by abusive predators.)

I see. I would say sin is an act deemed immoral by god. Jihad is ‘struggle’ - both against your baser instincts (which can incite to sin), and the doctrine of when to physically commit in your struggle to a holy war.

I can see the Christian meaning of sin having parallels with jihad as Christianity assumes you are born with sin, but it’s debatable whether that proposes we fight sin - usually it just means believe that Jesus died for your sins on the cross and you are free of sin.

in response to @Malachi 's question from earlier, I don't think adultery ought be punishable by law. No matter how many contracts are signed, I don't think one can legally enforce where people's genitals go.

Is it a "moral crime?" If it entails lying, absolutely. If both parties consent, no. I don't acknowledge crimes against God as legitimate.

> in response to @Malachi 's question from earlier, I don't think adultery ought be punishable by law.
> I don't acknowledge crimes against God as legitimate.
@BobbyMack

What is "adultery"?

A New Hampshire court around 15 years ago held that an ex-wife to be could not have "committed adultery", as it accurately interpreted state statutes that were based on marriage as slave trade and sex trafficking, given a false face. That court failed to find the larger body of that law unConstitutional and void.

If "adultery" is defined as sex outside of marriage, versus the more specific historic use of one man's chattel without permission, what is "marriage" and how can it possibly meet civil or human rights law constraints to require officiants who may be clergy and not require non-discrimination criteria for government, or even after court overturn of mixed sex discrimination, what about poly's, singles by choice, and other geometries?

Under UCMJ (US military law), do troops have an obligation to defend against government bad actors imposing religious prejudices by government, whether civil, or military itself including subordinate parts of UCMJ?

How about states like Virginia, that have perpetrated religious-political traps and bias, with instant divorces available to those who assert faux-xtian biblical "grounds", often linked to parallel criminal charges (mostly since overturned, relatively recently), but long waiting periods and other obstacles for "no fault" divorce?

Marriage is a contract two people enter into which give them a tax benefit. Legally, there are zero requirements to enter into that contract. The only problem is how costly it is in order to leave it.

> I see. I would say sin is an act deemed immoral by god. Jihad is ‘struggle’ - both against your baser instincts (which can incite to sin), and the doctrine of when to physically commit in your struggle to a holy war.
@StoneCold316
After recognizing any deity constructs as well as derivative dogma as made up bullshit, whether by dead people, oneself, or some cult manipulators, and "original sin" as just theatrical trappings of cult manipulation games, what remains of human functional processes?

That line of thinking is likely difficult for cult believers, but makes it easier to see functional psych routines of some humans, and strip off trappings.

Not sure what that meant honestly - but if you’re still answering how the 2 are similar in effect, you seem to be suggesting both as dogmatic ethical trappings to manipulate human behavior? That’s what I got so far.

> Not sure what that meant honestly
Yep

Sin in Hebrew means to "miss the target." To keep it simple, you might call that target God (as the Israelites and Jews did). In essence, when you sin, you are distancing or separating yourself from God. You are going onto a different path that leads away from (or misses) God.

In contrast, consider the word *repentance*. To repent, in Greek, means literally to *turn around*. To repent is to veer back on the path towards and 'stop missing' the target (God).

It seems to me that other ways of defining sin just seem to complicated. Also, when you try to bring in single and particular situations and appropriate them with the question "is this a sin"? or "Is that a sin?" it doesn't seem to answer the important question, really. Honestly, if you've read the New Testament, it sounds a little....Sadducee like?....on the surface.

Again, sin means to "miss the target" where the target is God. What and who your God is, and what that are both great questions, but they are separate questions. Of course, to have a shared meaning around the word sin in light of the vast variety of beliefs and thoughts that exist is complex... If everyone's definition of sin is as above ^, and everyone 'believes' in their own God, then everyone's realization of sin could be different, and therefore it's relative.

Interesting... Yet, as Nietzche and JP say, beliefs are not what you say, your beliefs are what you do.

Food for thought...

What’s wrong with the ‘universality’ of my definition which I would humbly argue is much simpler - an act decreed/ considered immoral by god. Applies to any faith any god, and as a result you could say leads away from god.

What’s the important question?

> What’s wrong with the ‘universality’ of my definition which I would humbly argue is much simpler - an act decreed/ considered immoral by god. Applies to any faith any god, and as a result you could say leads away from god.
>
> What’s the important question?
@StoneCold316 You don't know what the will of your/a god actually is.

Dude. This is the least substantive word graph ever.

i like sex

Cool

@Malachi I wasn’t claiming to know it either; simply coming up with a definition that can be used universally ( any god and his will, any faith) - as opposed to knowing what that could be.

> Dude. This is the least substantive word graph ever.
@Malachi
I don't even understand why the arrow is there

@StoneCold316 I like your definition.

Thanks. I didn’t understand ‘the important question’ you were referring to

> What’s wrong with the ‘universality’ of my definition which I would humbly argue is much simpler - an act decreed/ considered immoral by god. Applies to any faith any god, and as a result you could say leads away from god.
>
> What’s the important question?
@StoneCold316

That's not universal, as not all lineages within merely the 7 major faith traditions, never mind all religions, use deities, and the Abrahamic notions of sin or similar among them don't exist across other religions.

Consider practice rather than theistic belief based religions; religions whose practices aren't mutually exclusive (eg, Taoism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc), forms of Buddhism that may be non-theistic by irrelevancy rather than hypocritical Western stipulation of deity to then reject, theistic but more akin to any deities as if virtual meditation focus amulets, or paths where deity concepts are more shamanic and treat nature including creatures within it, as pervasive non-entity deity.....

Or "Otherkin".... They're weird. (but perhaps less so than Scientologists, Pentecostals, etc.)

It's interesting how we end up discussing religion on a SEX channel 😂

How many religions exist with zero relationship to sexual choices or practices?

What are the most and least healthy sexual practices related to which religions?

Religions are obsessed with sex. They attempt to guilt-ify everything about it so as to make it impossible to enjoy. Even within the confines of marriage, even when done for the purposes of having children, one will always have to worry about whether or not one is doing it wrong.

What about sex-positive religions, that view sex as a healthy part of nature, or that aren't obsessed with empire building, fueling genocidal armies for a Pope or King, or that treat sex as an inherent part of nature for animals to partake in balance, as with most other things?

What religion are you talking about? christianity, islam, judaism, sikhism, jainism, hinduism, and buddhism all have overwhelmingly negative views of the sexual instinct.

I mean I could invent my own religion right now that is sex-positive, but in terms of the way over 99% of religious people live their lives, there's clearly a top-down guilty feeling that's spread and enforced

The whole world has very negative views on sex. You can sit in a theater with hundreds of people and watch people torture and kill in movies such as Saw, but to watch people having sex is viewed as disgusting, perverse, and must be hidden away.

Some religion wrote KAMASUTRA

It's a sex book

But India is incredibly reserved when it comes to sex.

Yeah ...various cultural invasions led it there

Historical documentation and literature tells us that it used to be different

You're implying before British rule it was more Liberal?

No...islam invaded it 300 years before brits

That's a terrible shame then. I wonder what India would look like now had it not been for Islam and Britain.