RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes

RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 6:32:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Religious people are crazy. Actually, the non-religious people are the most irrational. While the existance of any deity cannot be logically proven, neither can it be logically disproven. In fact, religious belief explicitly sets logic aside. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (NIV, Hebrews 11:1). Thus, the religious adherent chooses to ground himself or herself in something other reason and logic. While one may debate the wisdom of such a choice, ad nauseum, where reason and logic are unable to reach a definitive conclusion, it is not irrational to set them aside. However, while religious belief does not require reason and logic, the refutation of same necessitates both--while one may without logical foundation say "I believe God exists", only a logical foundation can sustain the assertion that God does not exist. Unfortunately, since absence of proof can never constitute proof of absence, the logical foundation for the non-existence of a deity is as illusory as the logical foundation for the existence of a deity. Thus, the non-religious person is asserting a rational position that is rationally impossible. I consider this to be more irrational than religious belief.

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 6:41:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Religious people are crazy. Actually, the non-religious people are the most irrational. While the existance of any deity cannot be logically proven, neither can it be logically disproven. In fact, religious belief explicitly sets logic aside. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (NIV, Hebrews 11:1). Thus, the religious adherent chooses to ground himself or herself in something other reason and logic. While one may debate the wisdom of such a choice, ad nauseum, where reason and logic are unable to reach a definitive conclusion, it is not irrational to set them aside. However, while religious belief does not require reason and logic, the refutation of same necessitates both--while one may without logical foundation say "I believe God exists", only a logical foundation can sustain the assertion that God does not exist. Unfortunately, since absence of proof can never constitute proof of absence, the logical foundation for the non-existence of a deity is as illusory as the logical foundation for the existence of a deity. Thus, the non-religious person is asserting a rational position that is rationally impossible. I consider this to be more irrational than religious belief. Okay, so you're saying... That, because religious people put logic aside- completely ignoring it- they're more rational than people who don't put reason aside..? That, for not chosing to put logic aside, they're irrational? PS- My spelling on these replies is going to be horrid. I'm attempting to divert as much as my focus away from this as possible as to avoid going on a very long rant about this. Hell, I even have mathematical proofs that the Christian God can't exist. And no one gives a damn. The only people in this world who are bright enough to understand this sort of math are, by and large, already bright enough not be a religious nut. The people who need it most are too uneducated in any real understanding of the universe. It's like freaking krypto.. you know what? This is a small start to the rant I was trying to avoid. I'm leaving this post here.

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 6:57:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord because religious people put logic aside- completely ignoring it- they're more rational than people who don't put reason aside..? That, for not chosing to put logic aside, they're irrational? I am saying that it is irrational to assert reason and logic where reason and logic cannot reach a definitive conclusion, and that it is the atheist, not the person of faith, who makes this assertion.

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 6:59:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Hell, I even have mathematical proofs that the Christian God can't exist. I would be interested in seeing these proofs. All of the ones I have ever seen contain major and irreparable flaws.

Bobkgin -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:01:25 PM)
In response to AquaticSub's request: quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin For example, any sexual activity outside of marriage is considered "fornication", and is banned. Exodus 20:14 Leviticus 20:10 Matthew 5: 27-28, 31-32 I Corinthians 6: 13-20 quote: GBLT sexual expressions are also banned as "abominations". Leviticus 20:13 Romans 1: 26-28 I Corinthians 6: 9-10 I Timothy 1: 9-10 quote: Paul in his Epistles spoke often of male-dominated families and spoke against women being in control, thus dommes would be banned. I Corinthians 7 Ephesians 5: 22-33 I Timothy 2: 11-15 quote: Jesus, in the Serrmon on the Mount and in the lecture to the rich young prince made clear that Christians are expected to focus on God's will and nothing else. Matthew 6: 24-34 Matthew 10: 38 Matthew 19: 16-29

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:02:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord because religious people put logic aside- completely ignoring it- they're more rational than people who don't put reason aside..? That, for not chosing to put logic aside, they're irrational? I am saying that it is irrational to assert reason and logic where reason and logic cannot reach a definitive conclusion, and that it is the atheist, not the person of faith, who makes this assertion. Irrational not to use reason or logic? I'm afraid that's, by definition, not true. And, I will also assure you, reason and logic may be used with regards to religion. It just doesn't turn out favorably for religion. The religious stance is to ignore reason, defining itself as apart. While this idea is incredibly stupid, because humans only seek truth as a mode for happiness, those who find more truth in the belief than in reason are liable to believe just whatever it is that makes them feel good. If such an individual is somehow compelled to consider their stance in earnest, they will likely lose their religious beliefs. (There's a notable difference between considering something in earnest and convincing yourself you did as part of the delussion.)

AquaticSub -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:08:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin In response to AquaticSub's request: quote: ORIGINAL: Bobkgin For example, any sexual activity outside of marriage is considered "fornication", and is banned. Exodus 20:14 Leviticus 20:10 Matthew 5: 27-28, 31-32 I Corinthians 6: 13-20 That only applies to BDSM that happens outside of marriage. quote: quote: GBLT sexual expressions are also banned as "abominations". Leviticus 20:13 Romans 1: 26-28 I Corinthians 6: 9-10 I Timothy 1: 9-10 That depends entirely on how you view those particular texts. There are Christian churchs now who embrace homosexuals, including my Baptist church. In fact the Catholic church (once upon a time) used to perform homosexual marriages. quote: quote: Paul in his Epistles spoke often of male-dominated families and spoke against women being in control, thus dommes would be banned. I Corinthians 7 Ephesians 5: 22-33 I Timothy 2: 11-15 quote: Jesus, in the Serrmon on the Mount and in the lecture to the rich young prince made clear that Christians are expected to focus on God's will and nothing else. The Bible, as we know, is written by man and influenced by the culture of the time. We know this by the laws regarding menstration and the blending of cotton with other materials. I believe it to a divinely inspired but utlimately flawed document because it is written by man. Either way, to believe that "focus on God's will and nothing else" excludes BDSM means it also excludes sports, work, and anything not directly related to the church. quote: Matthew 6: 24-34 Matthew 10: 38 Matthew 19: 16-29

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Irrational not to use reason or logic? I'm afraid that's, by definition, not true. And, I will also assure you, reason and logic may be used with regards to religion. It just doesn't turn out favorably for religion. I invite you to start a thread in the Off topic section and provide a proof for your assertion here. I look forward to providing the refutation.

Stephann -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:17:47 PM)
Bobby has me blocked, but this is a simple one. ORIGINAL: Bobkgin For example, any sexual activity outside of marriage is considered "fornication", and is banned. Exodus 20:14 Leviticus 20:10 Matthew 5: 27-28, 31-32 I Corinthians 6: 13-20 BDSM interaction between married people, would be?.... Not to mention S&M isn't specifically or inherently sexual. Not all BDSM activity involved orgasms, penetration, intercourse; do you suppose 15 year olds will burn in hell for kissing? After all, that's sexual... GBLT sexual expressions are also banned as "abominations". Leviticus 20:13 Romans 1: 26-28 I Corinthians 6: 9-10 I Timothy 1: 9-10 I read a pretty compelling arguement against this here. In short, the injunction is only against men having sex on a woman's marital bed, it's a sin. That's all. Paul in his Epistles spoke often of male-dominated families and spoke against women being in control, thus dommes would be banned. I Corinthians 7 Ephesians 5: 22-33 I Timothy 2: 11-15 A woman who is dominating her consenting husband, would seem to me to be obeying him. Jesus, in the Serrmon on the Mount and in the lecture to the rich young prince made clear that Christians are expected to focus on God's will and nothing else. Matthew 6: 24-34 Matthew 10: 38 Matthew 19: 16-29 Did you actually read these passages? He's not saying to forget life beyond God, he's saying to enjoy the life you have. He reminds us to enjoy the beauty that is life, in nature and in man, and simply remember that God is responsible for having put these things here. Nowhere, does he say to 'forget' the rest of the world beyond God. That'd be impossible anyway; the joy and love that people experience is from God. Everything we do with people we love, is part of God. Stephan

Bobkgin -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:18:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord because religious people put logic aside- completely ignoring it- they're more rational than people who don't put reason aside..? That, for not chosing to put logic aside, they're irrational? I am saying that it is irrational to assert reason and logic where reason and logic cannot reach a definitive conclusion, and that it is the atheist, not the person of faith, who makes this assertion. Irrational not to use reason or logic? I'm afraid that's, by definition, not true. And, I will also assure you, reason and logic may be used with regards to religion. It just doesn't turn out favorably for religion. The religious stance is to ignore reason, defining itself as apart. While this idea is incredibly stupid, because humans only seek truth as a mode for happiness, those who find more truth in the belief than in reason are liable to believe just whatever it is that makes them feel good. If such an individual is somehow compelled to consider their stance in earnest, they will likely lose their religious beliefs. (There's a notable difference between considering something in earnest and convincing yourself you did as part of the delussion.) CL, I have to disagree. Logic works fine within the known universe. But a creator deity is, by definition, outside the universe. There is no observable data that demonstrates the non-existence of this deity. Let me throw my own working model of a deity at you. Consider that every elemental particle in the universe, every erg of energy, is directly linked to the Big Bang phenomenon when viewed from outside the 4th dimension: time. There is a continuity of existence between that beginning, all points of time in-between then and now, and for all points of time after this. In other words, when viewed from outside time, the universe is one enormous construct, every particle connected to every other particle at the moment of the Big Bang. What if it were alive? What if it were in some way sentient? What if we and other life forms are simply manifestations of the living force and sentience of this universe? How would you disprove such a hypothesis? How could it be tested using logic? Bear in mind it is already established truth that the particles in our bodies and our planet were once part of a star that went super-nova. So we are directly connected to that star through space/time. The universe-as-construct can be reasoned through. The only question then becomes: is it sentient, and if so, how sentient is it?

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:20:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Irrational not to use reason or logic? I'm afraid that's, by definition, not true. And, I will also assure you, reason and logic may be used with regards to religion. It just doesn't turn out favorably for religion. I invite you to start a thread in the Off topic section and provide a proof for your assertion here. I look forward to providing the refutation. Afraid I'm not into starting a religious debate on the magntitude of a thread. Not right now, anyhow- not nearly enough time to respond to everyone that would hop in. Still, I asserted the reason can be used when considering religion. That's easily enough proven. One can sit back and consider things. One can consider how humans tend to seek their own ends. One can consider how so many people claim to know the truth- different truths. Truths that, often, support them and what makes them feel good. One can consider how people seem to believe in things that support their feelings to the point of changing what they say to be true when they find something more pleasant. And, from all of this, one can begin to see that religion is used as a bandage. Also, I argue Vulcan's with regardless to the lack of any evidence of existence. Pascal's is a strong counterpoint, until the chance approaches zero at a rate that forces the chance to infindescimal status.

Stephann -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:23:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Irrational not to use reason or logic? I'm afraid that's, by definition, not true. And, I will also assure you, reason and logic may be used with regards to religion. It just doesn't turn out favorably for religion. I invite you to start a thread in the Off topic section and provide a proof for your assertion here. I look forward to providing the refutation. Afraid I'm not into starting a religious debate on the magntitude of a thread. Not right now, anyhow- not nearly enough time to respond to everyone that would hop in. Still, I asserted the reason can be used when considering religion. That's easily enough proven. One can sit back and consider things. One can consider how humans tend to seek their own ends. One can consider how so many people claim to know the truth- different truths. Truths that, often, support them and what makes them feel good. One can consider how people seem to believe in things that support their feelings to the point of changing what they say to be true when they find something more pleasant. And, from all of this, one can begin to see that religion is used as a bandage. Also, I argue Vulcan's with regardless to the lack of any evidence of existence. Pascal's is a strong counterpoint, until the chance approaches zero at a rate that forces the chance to infindescimal status. Briefly, as there is no proof that God does, or does not exist, to assert either is to accept such a position on faith. The argument that atheists use that one should not believe, because there is no proof, requires belief that God does not exist; the same logic that defies the existence of God, also defies the non-existence of God. It really just boils down to what you want to believe, either way. Stephan

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:25:43 PM)
Even sentience, my friend, is a religious concept at heart. The idea that the chemical processes that refer to self are somehow different from anything else in this aspect. How many things aren't self-referential?

Cumslt4U -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:25:45 PM)
Bobby has me blocked, but this is a simple one. ORIGINAL: Bobkgin For example, any sexual activity outside of marriage is considered "fornication", and is banned. Exodus 20:14 Leviticus 20:10 Matthew 5: 27-28, 31-32 I Corinthians 6: 13-20 BDSM interaction between married people, would be?.... Not to mention S&M isn't specifically or inherently sexual. Not all BDSM activity involved orgasms, penetration, intercourse; do you suppose 15 year olds will burn in hell for kissing? After all, that's sexual... GBLT sexual expressions are also banned as "abominations". Leviticus 20:13 Romans 1: 26-28 I Corinthians 6: 9-10 I Timothy 1: 9-10 I read a pretty compelling arguement against this here. In short, the injunction is only against men having sex on a woman's marital bed, it's a sin. That's all. Paul in his Epistles spoke often of male-dominated families and spoke against women being in control, thus dommes would be banned. I Corinthians 7 Ephesians 5: 22-33 I Timothy 2: 11-15 A woman who is dominating her consenting husband, would seem to me to be obeying him. Jesus, in the Serrmon on the Mount and in the lecture to the rich young prince made clear that Christians are expected to focus on God's will and nothing else. Matthew 6: 24-34 Matthew 10: 38 Matthew 19: 16-29 Did you actually read these passages? He's not saying to forget life beyond God, he's saying to enjoy the life you have. He reminds us to enjoy the beauty that is life, in nature and in man, and simply remember that God is responsible for having put these things here. Nowhere, does he say to 'forget' the rest of the world beyond God. That'd be impossible anyway; the joy and love that people experience is from God. Everything we do with people we love, is part of God. Stephan Bobby has me blocked, but this is a simple one. ORIGINAL: Bobkgin For example, any sexual activity outside of marriage is considered "fornication", and is banned. Exodus 20:14 Leviticus 20:10 Matthew 5: 27-28, 31-32 I Corinthians 6: 13-20 BDSM interaction between married people, would be?.... Not to mention S&M isn't specifically or inherently sexual. Not all BDSM activity involved orgasms, penetration, intercourse; do you suppose 15 year olds will burn in hell for kissing? After all, that's sexual... GBLT sexual expressions are also banned as "abominations". Leviticus 20:13 Romans 1: 26-28 I Corinthians 6: 9-10 I Timothy 1: 9-10 I read a pretty compelling arguement against this here. In short, the injunction is only against men having sex on a woman's marital bed, it's a sin. That's all. Paul in his Epistles spoke often of male-dominated families and spoke against women being in control, thus dommes would be banned. I Corinthians 7 Ephesians 5: 22-33 I Timothy 2: 11-15 A woman who is dominating her consenting husband, would seem to me to be obeying him. Jesus, in the Serrmon on the Mount and in the lecture to the rich young prince made clear that Christians are expected to focus on God's will and nothing else. Matthew 6: 24-34 Matthew 10: 38 Matthew 19: 16-29 Did you actually read these passages? He's not saying to forget life beyond God, he's saying to enjoy the life you have. He reminds us to enjoy the beauty that is life, in nature and in man, and simply remember that God is responsible for having put these things here. Nowhere, does he say to 'forget' the rest of the world beyond God. That'd be impossible anyway; the joy and love that people experience is from God. Everything we do with people we love, is part of God. Stephan This was written for you Bob.

Celeste43 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:27:50 PM)
I'm a Jew. I won't do Nazi scenes. I wouldn't go to a club where the owner paraded around in his SS uniform. But if he wanted to do this in his own home, where no one who might be offended would see it, that's fine. Just don't invite me over and don't expect me to become best buds with him cause it ain't gonna happen. However if he decided it would be better to break into a synagogue for the play, expect me to be the first to call the law and testify against him. If it offends you, don't do it. However in this case it offends your partner. I would suggest passing this one scene by in deference to your partner's sensibilities. That's what people do when they love each other, they give up small things to make their partner happy.

RRafe -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:28:15 PM)
All depends on if the religion is "real" to you or not.

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:31:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Perplex I guess I wanna understand if it is wrong why is it wrong, if it isn't real, then where is the harm. As I read the evolution of this thread, I submit that it demonstrates the intense emotions that occupy all sides of a religous discussion. This does not make religious scenes wrong...it just makes them potentially more high risk (psychologically speaking) than some other scenes.

CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:32:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann Briefly, as there is no proof that God does, or does not exist, to assert either is to accept such a position on faith. The argument that atheists use that one should not believe, because there is no proof, requires belief that God does not exist; the same logic that defies the existence of God, also defies the non-existence of God. It really just boils down to what you want to believe, either way. Rather, athiests argue that you shouldn't believe because there's no reason to. The same reason one would argue that you're not actually a robot from the planet Mars on a peace mission who lost his memory in the crash. Now, this isn't to say that you should deny the possibility, should evidence be presented- however, so far, the only arguments for the religions have been entirely self-serving. Further, they take on beliefs that add even more assumptions, further damning reason. There is a disproof for God, btw. If you take a grandular-space approximated black box, apply all possibly combinations over the course of infinity, one finds it almost certain for death. The alternative is stasis. This disproof works for any form of immortality. PS- I almost forgot. Stasis can only happen for one being in the universe. (In other words, everything in the universe must die, with an extraordinarily slim possibility of a single being, instead of dying in the proper sense, just stopping. So it's, by definition, dead, just not.. broken apart. Sort of like a well-perserved body.)

Perplex -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:36:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 However, while religious belief does not require reason and logic, the refutation of same necessitates both--while one may without logical foundation say "I believe God exists", only a logical foundation can sustain the assertion that God does not exist. Unfortunately, since absence of proof can never constitute proof of absence, the logical foundation for the non-existence of a deity is as illusory as the logical foundation for the existence of a deity. Thus, the non-religious person is asserting a rational position that is rationally impossible. I got a song ain't go no melody....willie go round in circles.. not picking a fight and I understand what it is you wanted to say, just I've seen Price is Rigth games that made my head hurt less. but otherwise it's a very smart point of view, an arguement I had not heard before, if we can distill it down into a simple equation <sound byte> we got a best seller waiting to happen. but I am a little surprised at you, religion is as much a personal history when debating it with someone as if they like brussel sprouts, and if you are show an englighted point of view on the matter you have to address not only a person's intellect and faith (lack of faith is still faith) but why they got to the point they are at, otherwise it's just so much CO2 to put babies to sleep because they won't be able to hear you.

celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (8/30/2007 7:37:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Afraid I'm not into starting a religious debate on the magntitude of a thread. Not right now, anyhow- not nearly enough time to respond to everyone that would hop in. I don't envision leaving the boards any time soon....whenever you are ready, please do publish the proofs of what you assert.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125