What is the exact problem with this thread? The ancient religions, globally, whether the Greeks or Romans or Egyptians or Indians never divorced sensuality from divinity. They never criminalised sexuality and they never demanded asexuality in either religious allegory or devotion
You may find an image offensive because I think you recognise the insulting intent of the maker of the statement. But please don't narrow down your theological constructs to accommodate a recognisable basis for this disapproval. The above-reproach system that the Abhrahamic
faiths have for their religion is leading them to a crisis. Can you ever imagine fighting over the rights of a woman/person to their bodily choices based on Indic religions like the Abrahamics fight over abortion? Why not? Because our theology doesn't lay down such constructs.
I can't believe I'm having to do this again, but it's essentially a reproduction of some of the arguments I would have made had a judge been willing to hear me out in detail in Abhijit's case. Look at the Sun Temple at Konark. It had different layers of sculptures which depict
content and thoughts suitable to different stages of life. One of those layers is extremely elaborate sexual conduct. Unrestrained sexual conduct. The kind that even liberal modern nations cannot fathom because essentially they have an Abrahamic base to their law and policy.
Many many other temples in India. I'm not even going to bother with Khajuraho because the intent their seems not to necessarily have been divine. I hope people will distinguish the dislike they feel for the perceived intent of the atheist that speaks in sexual tones about Hindu
Goddesses from the desire to eliminate sexuality from Indic divinity. Also protest the former, don't assert the latter. To that limited extent I think Kushal also misses the point.
