Epistemological incosistencies in the three books of the Abrahamic religions

>You have not contributed anything
See >nor have you disproved my original claim
It was already disproved, see

if the central text of judaism is the talmud and not the torah then why is the talmud a collection of commentaries and discussions on the torah? why do jews pray to torah scrolls and not talmuds?

in judaism commentary on the torah and the torah itself are both the most important things givens by God to mankind. it’s called the oral and written torah and they complement each other. search it up or read the kabbalah and its symbolism by Scholem

You are wrong, and it’s very likely that you misunderstood your teacher. The Torah is the center of our faith and the Talmud.

t. Jew

Regardless my original point still stamds about your religions opposition to homosexuality

Answer what? That some religions hold different ideas and views than other ones?

>explain why different religions believe different things
What?

It's a rock and roll damnation ! Take a chance while you still got the choice.

Procreation NOT fornication. Adulterers get the rope!

For the love of God, YES!

The Upanishads are commentaries on the Vedas, yet they are still holy scripture in the same class as the Vedas. It's the same thing with the Talmud and the Torah.

This

The Dharmic religions are almost uniformally more sex-negative than the Abrahamic. As in "sex is bad, and you should avoid it even for the purpose of procreation if you want to avoid hell".

Peopled just think otherwise because a bunch of hippies adopted bastardised forms of these religions for themselves back in the '60s and '70s. But there were hippies who converted to Abrahamic religions, including Islam, who were just as fornicative and sodomistic.

Traditional pagan religions anywhere you go are also generally sex negative. Based on every reliable scrap of information we know, they're all "no sex unless it's between a man an his wife, or wives" at best. And I don't know of any of 'em allowing threesomes nor orgies between a man and his wives either.

>Traditional pagan religions anywhere you go are also generally sex negative.
Not true

>The Dharmic religions are almost uniformally more sex-negative than the Abrahamic. As in "sex is bad, and you should avoid it even for the purpose of procreation if you want to avoid hell".

Dharmic is a good term to describe Indian religions, but you can separate them into Vedic and Sramanas.

>Vedic (people of the book)
Hinduism embraces sexuality. There is no denial of sex, pleasure of sex, etc. Kama Sutra was created within the Hindu context.

>Sramana (ascetics/renouncers)
Buddhist/Jains do not as they're mainly within the context of worldly renunciation tradition. That means renouncing worldly pleasures.

>unlawful sex
In the Pali Canon adulterers are condemned, one is sent to hell and after being tortured is reborn as a woman (possible whitepill for troons).

abrahamic religions view consciousness as the driving force behind equality among men, from saint to sinner, and sex drives the continuation of it. Its sacred because it is physically the God action of creating life. Homosexuals cannot do this cause they touch pp's.

idk squat about hinduism, but a quick google comes up with picrel result from a book called Aspects of Hindu Morality published by Motilal Banarsidass. Hindus don't appear to be "sex positive" re: adultery. I doubt any religion/society is.

Attached: 528.png (570x284, 122.06K)

Consciousness doesn't enter into abrahamic religion afaik until modern history.

No writing about consciousness or the idea of a mind can be found within abrahamic religion.

Sex positive is different from adultery.
Adultery is different from abstinence.
Abstinence is different from sex positive.

Hindus like sex and dont like adulters.
Buddhist dont like sex and dont like adulters.

Attached: 1627073397236.jpg (405x356, 29.51K)

>Hindus like sex and dont like adulters.
like Christians, Muslims and Jews then

Yes. Turns out, unfairness/cheaters are not well liked across civilizations.

Curious!

The Bible literally tells people to go out and multiply as much as possible.

Big gay sex was a great way to get and give someone a deadly infection 2000 years ago (no condoms, no antibiotics, etc.).

There's a whole lotta shit banned in Leviticus for being 'unclean' which was a fancy way to say 'we're pretty sure you can die eating/doing this. we don't exactly know why but we're banning it.'

OP have you tried not being retarded? This is pretty easy to figure out.

When a man trains a horse, he uses a prod or whip to strike the horse.
When a man trains another man, he uses punishment and the threat of punishment. These religious laws against sexual degeneracy in religious texts are nothing more than the shapers of modern civilization training their citizens to marry and have children.

The Aztecs literally punished adulterers, homosexuals (male and female), and sodomites (whether said sodomy was homo- or heterosexual) with the death penalty, and masturbation was punished via coating the genitals in capsaicin. Nor were they alone in their proscription of sexuality among pagans.

It's true that not everybody was that restrictive, but nobody was as permissive as what you'd find today in the majority of the world, with the exception of their views on such things as "the age of consent", which was generally seen as a suggestion at best where it was seen at all.

The "paganism" we have today is mostly a WEIRDo post-facto creation. The product of hippies, proto-hippies, and post-hippies who wouldn't even consider practicing the inconvenient traditions of their stated religions. I'm fine with this, because I love fornication, sodomy, and masturbation, and it'd be hypocritical to deny that pleasure to others; but today'd hippies ought not be mistaken for the way actual, pre-Christian-contact pagans behaved in their real lives.

>No writing about consciousness or the idea of a mind can be found within abrahamic religion.
Is this genuine?

I'm skeptical of anyone who says a particular concept used to not exist in the past unless there's a lot of evidence to back it up.

For one, how do you even prove such a thing? A wheel is a physucal object which leaves traces of its existence behind long after it's lost its usefulness as a tool, so we know pretty well which civilizations made use of wheels and when they started doing such. But a concept is by definition abstract. There's no tangible trace of its existence or nonexistence. You have to gleam it from inference, and different people can and do infer different things from the same sources.

What a strange thread. How is this an "epistemological inconsistency" and what is there to be answered here? That other religions have different views on a specific sexual more? You'll have to ask them about that, OP.

There are no consciousness or the idea of a "mind" within western religious or scientific literature until the enlightenment age, even then it was extremely rudimentary. The modern understanding of mind and later on consciousness comes from Descarte's ventures into mind-body. Before that, the understanding of mind/consciousness was largely absence. The greeks had a primitive understanding of soul its ability to give us reasoning capabilities, but there wasn't a real understanding here.

As far as I've looked, the only real understanding of mind/consciousness seems to be from the Buddhist side of things. Where they were supposedly discussing not just a mind as an ethereal blob of things, but disecting the entire composite of what constitutes a mind down to the minutes subscale details about the the timespan of a thought and perception.

Where did you get this nonsense? Having a high sex drive in Islam is considered a blessing and a sign of manliness and vitality. Sex is even considered an act of worship that you are rewarded for. There’s multiple prophetic sayings about commanding men to not pray all night until they are tried and instead go have sex with their wives. Men are allowed 4 wives and an unlimited amount of concubines. It’s also considered an obligation on the couple to fulfil the others sexual desires and refusing is considered a sin. There’s also the constant sexual pleasural descriptions of heaven (multiple unimaginable beautiful wives, the ability to constantly have sex without feeling exhausted etc..)
Islam frowns disapproves heavily of adultery, as does virtually every civilised society in human history, and pre-martial sex.

>They go as far as giving the death penalty for "unlawful sex"
Nice avoiding the question retard.
>Sex is even considered an act of worship that you are rewarded for.
Yeah, all the other Abrahamic religions have that same concept retard. Wow, what an insight! Sick of you pseuds

how can you endorse concubines and disavow adultery?

Presumably, because concubines are contracted to only boning one man at a time before they're lawfully passed around.

Osama bin Laden's mom was a concubine herself. She was a hot Syrian girl in a brief marriage to the richest non-royal man in the KSA before she was divorced and passed around to the man who would be her long-term husband.

It's true. Islam and Judaism are about as sex positive as traditional religions get. Christianity was, for a long time, a step backward in many regards.

Though Christianity wound up being an improvement in some ways. The taboos against polygyny and cousin marriage were primarily Catholic doings, and they ultimately led to huge advances in women's rights and freedom to love. It still came coupled with the cruelty of celibacy, which ultimately did horrendous damage to countless people, but they still deserve credit all the same.

>Aztecs punishing homosexuality
The Spanish talked more about their sodomy than they did the human sacrifice lmao.

idk what you nerds are discussing in this thread, but song of solomon is pretty kinky.

but hindus dont say that the upanishads are the central text of their religion just like jews dont say that the talmud is the central text of theirs, and both view them as merely manmade commentaries on divinely revealed texts (the vedas and the torah respectively)

No they didn't, but they did note pic related, but then you have no idea what you're talking about so of course you wouldn't have a clue. You're also unaware that the Mayans held homosexuality as an abominable crime punishable by death as it resulted in ass-babies who were incapable of making calendars.

I've gotten jannied for posting this before btw.

Attached: por el sexo.png (507x295, 105.22K)

>the Talmud... a negative view on sexuality
The Talmud literally includes Rabbis debating how many times an unemployed man should fuck his wife every day
Pretty based ngl

Attached: 1590537884307.png (485x351, 282.17K)

i have never been more confused by a thread. what the fuck is the question in the OP? what is the "epistemological inconsistency" specifically? this all seems like it's a schizo replying to himself.

>In the Talmud, Bible, and Quran all of them have such a negative view on sexuality
False.

>all of them have such a negative view on sexuality but especially homosexuality.
This is a complete anachronism. The TaNaKh and Quran are very sex-positive, just so long as it is done within the confines of lawful marriage. It is true though that Christianity's stance is "don't have sex, but if you really have to, just do it in marriage." As for homosexuality the entire Bible - Hebrew and NT - only condemns this once: Lev. 18:22, which only prohibits male-male sex, and likely only for the "reciever." The crimes of the Sodomites were interpretted as inhospitality and/or attempted sex with angels (Ez 16:49-50, Matt 10:14-15). The earliest recorded exegesis which connects Sodom with homosexuality is the 1st century Jew Philo. Islam (like the rest of the Abrahamic world) seems to have fallen for this reading, with the Quran referring to "the people of Lut(Lot)" as bad examples of homosexuality's origins. Though the Quran condemns homosexuality the most, overall it is barely mentioned within these sacred texts. It is curious that American Christians focus so much on homosexuality, but seem to ignore one of the most-decried sins: adultery. Jesus defined adultery not only as any form of sex outside of marriage, but also once described looking at your neighbour's wife as adultery. In comparison, he never once mentions homosexuality of any kind.
As for other religions, the Buddha is recorded as saying "better for you to put your penis in a poisonous snake's mouth, than to have sex with your wife." Heterosexual sex brings forth new babies into the cycle of suffering, so it is the most prohibited form of sex among practicing monks. As a result, homosexuality ran rampant within monasteries because it was less prohibited. While Hinduism does not speak of homosexuality to my knowledge, that is not due to acceptance, but more of a pretense that it does not exist. The sexual focus of Hinduism is on heterosexual marriage and caste relations. Higher-class males are allowed to have as much sex as they want with lower-class women, but a woman is demanded to be so loyal and tied to her husband that she is expected to jump on his funeral pyre, following him to the afterlife.

Based post, but only because of how retarded it is.

>Nice avoiding the question retard.
>OOOH NOOO this religion doesn’t condone homosexuality and adultery therefore it’s sexually repressed!!!!
If you’re OP then your shitty “religion” Buddhism actually states the punishment for adultery is thousands of years in hell. I don’t even know why your brought up Buddhism because it’s literally a religion that states celibacy is the IDEAL state of humans. Fucking retard.
> Yeah, all the other Abrahamic religions have that same concept retard. Wow, what an insight! Sick of you pseuds
Yeah, and? I never stated otherwise you fucking mouth breather. It just makes this thread even more retarded
>REEEEE WHY ARE ABRAHAMIC FAITHS SO SEXUALLY REPRESSED
>WHY CANT THEY BE LIKE LE BASED BUDDHISM THAT HEAVILY ADVOCATES CELIBACY
>INSTEAD THEY STATE THAT SEX IS ACTUALLY A GOOD THING THAT YOURE ENCOURAGED A REWARDED FOR
fucking.retard

>Big gay sex was a great way to get and give someone a deadly infection 2000 years ago (no condoms, no antibiotics, etc.).
What infections?

This is the least schizoposting I've seen in a Yea Forums thread for years, what specifically are you confused about?

what, specifically, is the question in the OP?
what, specifically, is epistemologically inconsistent about the abrahamic religions?

Oh I see your confusion. I, like most people, never read thread titles and are much more concerned about the factual inconsistencies in OP's post than the actual question he is asking. Which is why everyone has responded arguing about his claims about views on sex and sexuality within religions. You're right that his post doesn't make logical sense, as he doesn't establish any epistemological inconsistency. But he seems to be asking:
>Abrahamic religions all view sex and homosexuality negatively, but other religions don't. How do you explain this?
Which is a braindead question to ask, and likely why nobody except you and three others even noticed it.

>Though the Quran condemns homosexuality the most, overall it is barely mentioned within these sacred texts.
Haha, wtf? It mentioned as much and as clearly has adultery is. Do you infers from that that adultery is also condoned? What is this retardation. Homosexuality is clearly and unequivocally prohibited in Islam, whether it be the Quran or Hadith.
You’re interpretation of the Torah is also laughably false and reeks desperate modern liberal eisegesis. Virtually every single classic Jewish and Christian source, the very earliest, all prohibited homosexual due to this verse. The have sex with angels is complete and utter bullshit ahahaha