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

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



Message

Aswad -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 11:06:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Largely, I think it is pretty common to most religions, where people take things that they want to believe in and claim to them be those universal truths.


Funny. I've found this to be a human trait, not a religious one. [:D]

quote:


Not that they're all as narcissistic as a man who claims himself to be God, but many are narcissitic to the point of.. well, such as people believing that the universe revolved around the Earth.


For all practical purposes, the universe does revolve around Earth, as all frames of reference are equally valid, and this is the only observable frame of reference. More precisely, my universe revolves around me, while yours revolves around you. We just reframe the coordinates when we find that more practical in describing something.

Even viewing the Earth as flat is correct in terms of topology (save for the occasional bump), so the mistake made on that count was failing to realize that it is closed in two dimensions and open in one dimension (and bounded in one direction along that dimension, as far as topology goes). Considering a person usually only needs to deal with the topology, rather than the space itself, that is a very practical abstraction. If we're going to get nitpicky, the Earth is something along the lines of an oblate spheroid fog of hadrons with significantly higher density than that of the interstellar medium, but that's hardly a useful abstraction for most purposes.

quote:


It very well may be! Our particles, or masses at a point, are black boxes.  Specs of dust, molecules, atoms, protons/nuetrons/electrons, etc. They can all be broken down further, which we tend to consider in many cases- yet, in others, there's no reason to, and simply easier to classify them as a single thing.


Not only that, but unless you introduce the bulk, our universe is effectively 0D (a point) in the abstract. Makes one ponder about similar folding internally to other point objects. In fact, the universe could probably be described as a point particle with no net electric and color charges, but with spin, though it's beyond me to make a guess at which spin.

If you have a guess, PM is probably the way to go.



Aswad -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 11:35:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Did somebody mention whipping? [:D]


Well, it's a time-honored tradition of monastic life, though it's lost its popularity.

Hence, time for a new church where that's reintroduced, right? [;)]



Aswad -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 11:37:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MisPandora

This topic has been seriously derailed by discussions on the validity of religion, existence of G*d and all sorts of other crap.


Not so much derailed as the original question having run its course. It pretty much breaks down to whether it's fine by the participants, as usual, along with the pretty much unanswerable theological questions for any participants that might have a religious inclination of some sort. Doesn't seem to be much missing from that part.



celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 11:43:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Did somebody mention whipping? [:D]


Well, it's a time-honored tradition of monastic life, though it's lost its popularity.

Hence, time for a new church where that's reintroduced, right? [;)]



Past time, I'd say. 



Aswad -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 12:48:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Past time, I'd say. 


Working on it.



CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 1:14:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Largely, I think it is pretty common to most religions, where people take things that they want to believe in and claim to them be those universal truths.


Funny. I've found this to be a human trait, not a religious one. [:D]


I'd agree to the point that it's a human trait.  Then the products of this trait, in contradiction to reason, come to be religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

Not that they're all as narcissistic as a man who claims himself to be God, but many are narcissitic to the point of.. well, such as people believing that the universe revolved around the Earth.


For all practical purposes, the universe does revolve around Earth, as all frames of reference are equally valid, and this is the only observable frame of reference. More precisely, my universe revolves around me, while yours revolves around you. We just reframe the coordinates when we find that more practical in describing something.


Ohh.. I strongly disagree!  Einstein's lack-of-rest frame is something I'm writing a paper on.  He ignores the very nature of space/time in writing this.  It's passed as true for so long for reasons I can't begin to hope to account for in terms much less than apparently pestimistic.  I honestly believe many to have have far too weak of a grasp to see it, and I suppose most who do see it ignore it because it'd be more than just a little difficult to find it.

Bastard Einstein* didn't seem to see that, by finding an appropriate equation for expansion, then using the rest-frame, we could find a vector space that would appropriately define the site of the big bang.  This is one of those papers I intend on writing a little later.  (The AI project is trumping it in terms fo my freetime.  Transhumanism ftw!)

But, in any case, one can derive equations for any point being the center.  Still, I follow the arguement that the basis of such systems should be the least contrived for the base model, which would necessitate a single universal point per Vulcan's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Even viewing the Earth as flat is correct in terms of topology (save for the occasional bump), so the mistake made on that count was failing to realize that it is closed in two dimensions and open in one dimension (and bounded in one direction along that dimension, as far as topology goes). Considering a person usually only needs to deal with the topology, rather than the space itself, that is a very practical abstraction. If we're going to get nitpicky, the Earth is something along the lines of an oblate spheroid fog of hadrons with significantly higher density than that of the interstellar medium, but that's hardly a useful abstraction for most purposes.


What of the pressure considerations that would be severally limited in an approximation not overly dissimilar y from approximating a pie slice as a triangle?  It's true that many need not concern themselves with such things, but, then again, they don't even really need to know what gravity is.  I can't find there being any need for such a flawed model for most anyone that would have a practical use for either which couldn't be satisfied with another mistake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

It very well may be! Our particles, or masses at a point, are black boxes.  Specs of dust, molecules, atoms, protons/nuetrons/electrons, etc. They can all be broken down further, which we tend to consider in many cases- yet, in others, there's no reason to, and simply easier to classify them as a single thing.


Not only that, but unless you introduce the bulk, our universe is effectively 0D (a point) in the abstract. Makes one ponder about similar folding internally to other point objects. In fact, the universe could probably be described as a point particle with no net electric and color charges, but with spin, though it's beyond me to make a guess at which spin.


It could be.  Still, viewing an extra-diminsional object in fewer diminsions for the sake of undefining it, then making assumptions about the now poorly defined model strikes me as seeking the propencity to make mistakes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
If you have a guess, PM is probably the way to go.


What's one more highjack?  :P  (Now, we just need to say this a hundred more times...)


*I respect Einstein's thoughts for a large bit, he just had so much trouble with math that I feel he could've done better elsewise.



servantheart -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 6:40:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I am confused as to how this might be getting us closer to buttfucking and whatnot with the sisters in the nunnery.


We should whip up a new monastic order, obviously.



Did somebody mention whipping? [:D]



Crikey!  Talk about a one track mind! [8|]

[sm=lol.gif]



celticlord2112 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 6:42:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantheart


Crikey!  Talk about a one track mind! [8|]

[sm=lol.gif]


That's not true...there's also spankings, paddlings, canings...



servantheart -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 6:43:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantheart


Crikey!  Talk about a one track mind! [8|]

[sm=lol.gif]


That's not true...there's also spankings, paddlings, canings...



Oh brother [sm=rolleyes.gif]

[;)]



Aswad -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/1/2007 7:17:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'd agree to the point that it's a human trait. Then the products of this trait, in contradiction to reason, come to be religion.


You missed my point. Not all religions posit what they say as a singular truth without having the facts to back it up. The mental state aspect of nibbana is something that one can reason about, for instance, although it could be said to be a secular religion in that respect. Abrahamic faiths are often viewed as positing many universal truths, but there are, in fact, very few universal truths being posited by the source texts. Organizations that derive their praxes from these texts quite frequently posit things as universal truth, however, which is a different matter entirely, and down to the human side of things again. It's no different than anything else: humans latch on to an idea (religious or not), and then those humans hold that idea as a universal truth. That is an aspect of those who follow the religions (humans), an aspect that is not always mirrored the religions themselves.

quote:


What's one more highjack?  :P  (Now, we just need to say this a hundred more times...)


I wrote you a largeish PM regarding the rest of your post.

Now, returning to our regularly scheduled programme... [:D]

I'd say the above pretty much supports what has been said about how religious play, or play involving religious symbols, is down to those who participate; i.e., one cannot make a non-axiomatic assertion about any aspect of such play, and the axioms are individual and personal to those who participate. Barring the notion of lightning striking the players down from above (in which case a whole bunch of porn actors and actresses should have been fried by now), there is nothing of relevance in making the decision that is external to their own views about the religion they are incorporating elements of in their play. Whether that will constitute a "sin" or screw up their "karma" or even be a "holy" act, is for them to decide according to the tenets of their own faiths, if any.

Personally, I wouldn't knowingly disrespect anything others hold dear and important without good reason.

That said, my own beliefs are linked to human nature and nature itself, along with some things regarding free will, so they do include beliefs and praxes that deal specifically with power dynamic relationships and kink, including a recognition of how human nature and its "sheep" element indicates a deep-seated need for power dynamics and authority in most people, which I think would be rather unlikely to exist without good reason, even when viewed from a religious angle. If one subscribes to the Genesis mythology (and I don't think I do, at least not in any interpretation I have found more than one person that agrees with so far) then either (1) this element was there from the start, indicating G*d intended for it to be there, possibly mirroring the relationship between G*d and the angels, which the "lore" portrays as a rather profound power dynamic, or (2) this element arose with awareness of "good" and "evil", which indicates that either (2a) we're just recognizing the "evil" already in ourselves, and are damned, so we needn't concern ourselves with virtue from a religious perspective, or (2b) we're just recognizing the "good" in ourselves, and damn well better cultivate it.

Perhaps not the most waterproof or extensive theological argument, but I tend to go with the notion that observation takes precedence over prediction in the absence of burning bushes and booming voices, which leads to the conclusion that I'm dominant for a reason, and that she's submissive for a reason, and that recognizing and cultivating this element of ourselves is either (a) in conformity with the divine will, or (b) irrelevant due to already being screwed. I can't do anything about the latter, and it doesn't impact the rational course of action, so I tend to assume the former.

I've been working on formalizing a "doctrine" (damn, I hate that word, but it's pretty much correct except for the part about not being authorative, and I'm not sure whether I want to make a religion out of my personal beliefs and interpretations), but it's slow going due to time constraints, and will probably only interest a few people.

Of course, I wouldn't be displeased if it became the Next Big Thing™ either. [:D]

Apparently, neither would celticlord... must be the bit about nuns and whips. [8D]

Health,
al-Aswad.

P.S.: Anyone who does find it interesting, or has input, could drop me a line, of course. I'm serious.



CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/2/2007 1:20:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'd agree to the point that it's a human trait. Then the products of this trait, in contradiction to reason, come to be religion.


You missed my point.
Perhaps, though I'm inclined to believe, at this point, it's moreso disagreement.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Not all religions posit what they say as a singular truth without having the facts to back it up. The mental state aspect of nibbana is something that one can reason about, for instance, although it could be said to be a secular religion in that respect.
The mental state?  The one contrieved from the assumption that life is suffering, that the goal of life is mitigation of this suffering?  That assumes that the human ego is an element of nature as opposed to a consquence of it?  That argues that the essense of the human ego is independent and reforms, acting masochistically upon itself in the act of reentering a world which holds nothing of substance but suffering for it?  These, my friend, are all beliefs.. assumptions forcing their views on reality.  Not to mention that they believe that the world somehow conforms to their existence to the point of reincarinating them!  (I'm, by no means, studied on the subject- so, individual things I say may be debatable, but they're solid enough that I know that the point can stand on them.  That this religion is applying human-centered assumptions on a world that, empirically, seems to consider humans are arbitrary consquences.)
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Abrahamic faiths are often viewed as positing many universal truths, but there are, in fact, very few universal truths being posited by the source texts.
They say that existence was brought into being by a creator of great power.  That men have the power to perform miracles akin to magic through the power of this diety and cite specific examples.  They claim that the "good" will be rewarded.  That the "evil" will be punished.  They claim that, if a man should masturbate in public to the idol of another man who he worships as god, then sticks a pinnapple up his ass and dances around, having wild sex with educated virgins, then he'd suffer eternal damnation.  (Okay, I was starting to have too much fun drawing that scene.)  My point being, though- computers can make all the programs we see today, even this thing we're typing on, out of 1's and 0's.  Two little, basic things.  Even if a religion makes only one seemingly-reasonable claim, if it's a claim that's basic, such as 1's and 0's are to computers, then it alters the entire thing as it's not just one claim: it's a function with numerous instances.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Organizations that derive their praxes from these texts quite frequently posit things as universal truth, however, which is a different matter entirely, and down to the human side of things again.
My friend, it's always human.  I don't care if people say, "God inspired me to write this!"  It's all just human.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
It's no different than anything else: humans latch on to an idea (religious or not), and then those humans hold that idea as a universal truth. That is an aspect of those who follow the religions (humans), an aspect that is not always mirrored the religions themselves.
You seem to seperate religion and those that follow them rather.. greatly.  If you view religion empirically, as an element observed in humans, this seperation is damning.  If you view religion as a construct, and humans misinterrepting it, I would ask you as to what construct of religion do you feel doesn't demand fundamental assumptions to one's universal view?.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

What's one more highjack?  :P  (Now, we just need to say this a hundred more times...)


I wrote you a largeish PM regarding the rest of your post.
Heh, I'll have to try to respond soon.  (I disabled the email notification of new messages due to spam, and I'm sort of reluctant to have to shift through them now.)
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
Personally, I wouldn't knowingly disrespect anything others hold dear and important without good reason.
Perhaps Mencken says it best in..
quote:

ORIGINAL: H. L. Mencken
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.
While.. I truly sympathize, and even empathize, with the troubles sweet lies the great majority of Earth seems to whisper to itself manically, well.. I just can't tolerate it at points.  However rude it may be to say this, I'm sick of hearing one's boasting that his wife is the most beautiful woman in the world and that his kids are the most intelligent.  If he wanted to just think it to himself, whatever.  He can be insane and delussional to whatever ends make him feel good.

One might even say the same for drugs and alcohol.  It's hard to care what they do to another, when this one willingly subjects himself to it, until he starts to interact with others in determental manners, in anything from spreading false ideas with regards to religion, crashing cars into others with regards to alcohol, or crashing planes into buildings (again, with regards to religion).  The spread of false ideas, or, this is to say, the presense of religious notions in a debate, turns something otherwise beautiful into a work of fiction, now limited to fantascy!

In any case, I complimented your Jiddu Krishnamurti quote not too long ago.  "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."  My friend, it is no measure of health to be happy with religion.



Aswad -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/2/2007 4:27:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Perhaps, though I'm inclined to believe, at this point, it's moreso disagreement.


There are disagreements as well. But you did seem to miss the point, which is to ascribe a proper causal relationship, attributing a property to the thing it is a property of, rather than something else. In effect trying to avoid a fallacy related to the non-sequiteur ("All X are Z. Y is Z. Therefore, Y is X.").

quote:


The mental state?


The mental state of unity, entailing dissolution of the superego and integration of the ego and id. (Yes, I know most translations reference the dissolution of the ego. I'm just letting direct experience override translations by people who have not actually had the experience. The "false self" is the superego that splits the "true self" into superego and id.)

quote:


They say that existence was brought into being by a creator of great power.


That part of the text is a synthesis by concatenation of two creation mythos that deal with things in terms that the people of that day would understand. The model is useless to modern man, and takes the form of a prologue to the actual body of the Torah. It is strictly speaking incorrect to say Newtonian mechanics are valid, but they are useful for their purpose. The value of a model derives from its utility, and a complicated (however correct) model would not serve any other purpose than to consign the text to the status of fertilizer.

I'd like to address the rest, but I said "very few", not "none", and this isn't the place for a huge theology debate.

quote:


They claim that, if a man should masturbate in public to the idol of another man who he worships as god, then sticks a pinnapple up his ass and dances around, having wild sex with educated virgins, then he'd suffer eternal damnation.


He'd better, as the hysterical fits of various sorts (e.g. laughter) from the onlookers would probably end up killing a great number of them, which sort of constitutes murder in a kinda sorta way, don'tcha think? [:D]

No, but seriously, the first mention of anything remotely like an afterlife is in the New Testament, and the only mention of anything remotely like a modern concept of Hell would be the Apocalypse of John, and that is generally discounted as being either a contemporary "reassurance" for persecuted Christians at the time, or simply as a cautionary tale regarding the secularization of society. The latter interpretation has come to pass, while the former is the one espoused by e.g. Ratziger.

quote:


Even if a religion makes only one seemingly-reasonable claim, if it's a claim that's basic, such as 1's and 0's are to computers, then it alters the entire thing as it's not just one claim: it's a function with numerous instances.


Remember the level it deals with. It isn't a metaphysics textbook, let alone a physics textbook. The contemporary interpretation is pretty simple: it deals with the what's and why's, in the terms and storytelling fashions of when it was written, for the intended target audience at the time. "How" is mostly left to science (the natural, causal order of an entropic universe), apart from the occasional miracle, which is outside the scope of science. If it had said that yelling "Hastur" three times in a row would cause a big blob to come eat you, like the Cthulhu mythos, it would be in the realm of science, as that is a falsifiable (and falsified) hypothesis. But it does not. If we find a way to do linear time travel without creating time paradoxes (far-out sci-fi), that is a different matter.

Consider your AI project. Will the AI know it is in a simulation? How will you discover if its concept of "simulation" isn't just using your words to describe its universe? Will you do maintenance work (miracles) at any point? How about the simulation software, is it certain not to contain any exploitable errors (magic) at all? For that matter, a "plain" D11-brane may not be an unreasonable "simulation" for a creature living in the bulk. See what I mean? It is an antinomy.

quote:


You seem to seperate religion and those that follow them rather.. greatly.


Occupational hazard.

quote:


If you view religion empirically, as an element observed in humans, this seperation is damning. If you view religion as a construct, and humans misinterrepting it, I would ask you as to what construct of religion do you feel doesn't demand fundamental assumptions to one's universal view?


What anything doesn't demand fundamental assumptions to one's universal view?

The only examples I can think of are nibbana and mushin.

quote:


Heh, I'll have to try to respond soon.  (I disabled the email notification of new messages due to spam, and I'm sort of reluctant to have to shift through them now.)


Not a problem. If you wait 6 months, it dies. Otherwise, we're all good. [:D]

quote:


While.. I truly sympathize, and even empathize, with the troubles sweet lies the great majority of Earth seems to whisper to itself manically, well.. I just can't tolerate it at points.


I quite sympathize with your position. I feel the same at times, but that holds equally for just about any mora or meme that has ever gained any significant prevalence. So, thus I hold the position that "I accord you some space, you accord me some space, and we're not stuck choosing between homogenity and conflict", also known as "live and let live".

quote:


The spread of false ideas, or, this is to say, the presense of religious notions in a debate, turns something otherwise beautiful into a work of fiction, now limited to fantascy!


I have not seen a conversation on this or any other forum, or offline, that did not spread false ideas, AFAICRC.

quote:


In any case, I complimented your Jiddu Krishnamurti quote not too long ago.  "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."  My friend, it is no measure of health to be happy with religion.


Who said I'm healthy? [:D]

I'm fine with your faith (atheism; the belief in absence, as opposed to the absence of belief, with disregard for epistemological and philosophical concerns such as antinomies), although the preaching feels a bit like the Jehova's Witnesses are at my door every other time you post. You, like them, are not fine with my faith, which is generally something I ignore as long as it doesn't interfere with my right to live as I choose, sorting it in the same bin as complaints about my taste in music or clothing.



shyinini -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/2/2007 8:36:33 AM)

moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes
 
Might I ask whose opinion really counts??
Why include the "moral north"  like they have any say in what your kink might be?  Do they dictate what your desires are?  Are you persuaded?
 
IMHO ~~ a religious scene is ONLY scariledge if you include someone from the clergy who is noncensenting.
 
Consider ~~ deacons (men) who find sexual solice in the one they counsel?
               ~~ ministers, priests who break moral Biblical rules by engaging in sex with minors?
               ~~ lay people (sunday school teachers and the such)  who find minors to seduce because they have a fetish for minors?
 
 
Consider ~~ coaches who find youngsters to seduce cause they are morally bnakrupt.
 
I've never seen a post in regards to the moral north: seeking opinions about a scene  with a  youngster in a soccer league.
 
Why is religion deserving of a moral code when perpetrators are in every sphere of life and we practice SSC kink?
 
I would consider religious scenes jsut another part of kink rather than something moral.
Is a kidnap rape scene morally wrong if all are SSC?  Hell no.  But the moral north would disagree.
 
I dont understand why we consider religious scenes any different than other scenes if they are SSC.
 
And I say this as  Bible College graduate .....  you are answerable to God for the wrong you do not the SSC.
 
Sir's girl



ocilla -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/2/2007 8:57:42 AM)

Go shynini!

I was raised Unitarian Universalist, so I'm a bit unusual.  I find that it has made me very curious about various religions and the day to day role it plays in the lives of their believers.  So whenever I meet someone who is devout or has been devout in a religion I find myself full of questions and usually dive in as far as they will allow. 

I will share my recollections on the Catholic stuff since that seems to be what the OP was referencing. So according to the handful of ex nuns and priests that I've spoken too what I've been told is that the Catholic Church is the greatest theater in all the world and that there is a whole lotta sex going on male on male, female to male, and female to female amoungst the nuns and clergy.  I recall lots of words like perverted and kinky being thrown about. So in reference to scenes with the Catholic stuff involved I say go for it.  Also if you look at the history of Christianity and Catholicism you see that early on things were not nearly as uptight and codified as we have made them to be through the years.  Most of the rigor and rules are created by man in an effort to control man... But then I don't imbue the Bible with special meaning either - it is just a book to me that has been translated by many and most definitely manipulated as suited those in power. 

As to whether God exists etc... in my mind that is wholly different than believing in a religion or worrying about defiling objects or roles that some view as religious.

So to the OP - if it bothers your conscience don't so it - if it does not bother you have fun!  If you get religion later at some point you can always confess or repent - you have a built in out with almost any religion. That is one of the most useful aspects of religion - the crutch and/or the justiication it can provide for various actions and beliefs.  You can even use it to beat the hell out of yourself physically or mentally (and those who come into contact with you as well) if that is what you want - I've seen lots of folks use it that way!



PairOfDimes -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/2/2007 11:17:42 AM)

Although I do not have a personal faith, I take religion pretty seriously, and I would be unhappy if I witnessed a scene mocking religion. It's one thing for a person with personal religion to experience BDSM in a spiritual way--I don't empathize with it, but it seems an honest ecstatic experience. It's another thing to do Eucharist with body fluids intending to mock the Christian ceremony.

However, I think you get to do what you want in private. I'd advise against doing play that looks like blasphemy in public spaces, as it's not likely to win you friends and may earn you dislike.



CuriousLord -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/2/2007 11:56:22 AM)

It's kind of funny. I just spent the past thirty minutes, typing out a response to most of the reply. But, when I got to the end, I.. well, I find the above points to be relatively insignificant as a far more primal point seems to be unsatisfactorily addressed. Addressing the others first would deter from the importance of this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:


In any case, I complimented your Jiddu Krishnamurti quote not too long ago. "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." My friend, it is no measure of health to be happy with religion.


Who said I'm healthy?

I'm fine with your faith (atheism; the belief in absence, as opposed to the absence of belief, with disregard for epistemological and philosophical concerns such as antinomies), although the preaching feels a bit like the Jehova's Witnesses are at my door every other time you post. You, like them, are not fine with my faith, which is generally something I ignore as long as it doesn't interfere with my right to live as I choose, sorting it in the same bin as complaints about my taste in music or clothing.
There is no unusual faith in me; I do not believe in things so much as draw patterns from observations. I have noted the tendency of humans to make pretty patterns, then to try to make observations correlate. I haven't had a problem offering these arguments continually as the premise of debate is logic, isn't it?

I have no faith as "the belief of absence" as I can readily acknowledge that there may be something special out there. However, I have observed the arguments of many and found them be far more likely to be reflective of an observed tendency in humans for bending their own conclusions towards self-gratification, which is derived from the observation that humans primarily tend to seek things that make them happy.

There's no complaint, my friend. You can.. embrace these ideals as long as you like, to whatever ends they bring you. I'm not trying to control you. I am, however, participating in a debate. I do hope you come to see just how many things in these subjects relate back to the assumption that religion is valid. Such assumptions lead to highly circular logic. I would not be debating in earnest if I joined you, or anyone else, in such a circular debate, even if such individuals find a happy medium inside of this circular train of logic.



shyinini -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/2/2007 3:49:33 PM)

This is so bogus !!
quote:

ORIGINAL: PairOfDimes

Although I do not have a personal faith,
Yes you do...other wise why mention a lack of personal faith....  personal faith doesnt need be religious !

I take religion pretty seriously, and I would be unhappy if I witnessed a scene mocking religion.
So whose agenda are you trying to protect...your non faith, your non religious beliefs or your morality on such kink?
 
So if I am  a soccer mom, kidnaped by my soccer team and raped by each 12 yr old...this is not offensive? Switch the words around.... I am an  alter girl, kidnapped by a group of nuns and raped.... there is a difference?

The only difference is YOUR moral conscience before an Omniscient God !!  And you have no personal faith??  


It's one thing for a person with personal religion to experience BDSM in a spiritual way--
Religion aint got nothing to do with kink or how you practice any sort of SSC sex.  Did not God create you a sexual being?  Oh I forgot you dont have personal faith.
 
ANYTHING that one practices or believes can be spiritualized. 
 


I don't empathize with it, but it seems an honest ecstatic experience. It's another thing to do Eucharist with body fluids intending to mock the Christian ceremony.   Its a fuckin ceremony !  The wine NEVER turns to blood !!  Many a dom fantasizes about a slave drinkin his cum from a goblet....  is that sacreligious??...........  Are the intentions of that couple to mock a ceremony that really doenst mean much, in reality, to anyone??  If it did mean that much to someone to someone.... where has the rest of our morality gone.... such as respect, honesty ????
However, I think you get to do what you want in private. I'd advise against doing play that looks like blasphemy in public spaces, as it's not likely to win you friends and may earn you dislike.


For not having faith and not being religious, you have alot to say about blasphemy which is a weak attempt to create morality......  your sanctions on others.
 
I am NOT "after" or "responding directly" to you PairofDimes...cause this echos so many with these same stupid moral uppity ups.
 
I could quote Scripture on the morality of poly or homosexuality..............  but that means nothing !!
 
We seem more concerned about the "moral north" than what God says....and of course the holy Pope, who is only an invention of people. Yes I can successfully negate "upon this rock (Peter), I will build my church (catholic)."
 
Think of it.... pergatory... where most are afraid to end up IFthey are found mocking the traditions of catholicism or christianity, is a story.... Dante's Inferno !  Yes the Pope liked the image and so canonized pergatory.
 
What burns me up is using the moral north and moral majority to sanction your kink or desanction your kink.
 
EVERYONE has some sort of faith and religion...even if their god is themselves and the faith enough to believe tomorrow will come, the PC will open or the chair you sit upon will hold you.  Faith does not equal religion.
 
Their is no blasphemy is religious scenes unless your intent is to blaspheme.......just as there is no legality on kidnap rape scene unless you wish to be nonSSC.
 
Ethics now....a totally different topic.  For ethics is ones accountability to ones legal, moral and religious beliefs.
 
Sir's girl



teamnoir -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/6/2007 3:01:50 PM)

I don't think it's wrong.

I probably wouldn't think it was wrong if it were real, though. I tend to have a pretty tantric/shamanic view of such things, though and there's power in taboo breaking.



blmtrsne -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/10/2007 11:38:26 AM)

My religion is that everyone has to walk in a funny way (thank you John Cleese for leading the way). Anyone who walks normally is deliberately doing this to offend me, so I want your excuses now, or else...
I hope everyone understands this is bullshit.

Some people are offended by (IRL experienced) alcohol, not wearing the "appropiate" clothing, or good heavens no: nudity, eating pork, mixing milk and meat, thinking without taking in account some religious book, making jokes about president, pope, police, working on a sunday, gays and lesbians, kissing in public, art, newspapers... It's endless.

Personally I believe everyone has to be free to do whatever he wants as long as he does not harm anyone else.  So, if someone wants to go take a swim naked, it should be possible. Nakedness is only offensif to a lot of people after the church made a fuzz about it. In the Middle Ages people all took baths together, male and females mixed. But priesters started to make people feel guilty about it. The local cardinal here says now that stories about Adam and Eva were just that: stories to make people understand what the rule meant.
Of course I would prefer to have people wear clothes in the local bar, because I will have to sit on the same chair as some other guy/girl before. But if nudity would be allowed in some bars or in some places you choose for: who cares.
And that if you visit a chirch (for the art) you should cover your arms and be quit: OK. I would respect musicians performing Bach or Mozart in the same way. But people don't have to impose their symbols or attitudes/culture to the whole society.
In Antwerp, Belgium, I know a local school where more than 50 nationalities are in the same classes. You just can't take in account everyones wiches.
I do accept the governement (we all) to make some rules: You have to wear a scarf or something if your working near rotating machines f.i., and you can't wear one when you're doing a test (supervision of the teachers). But when imposing a rule, they should feel it's realy needed, not an habbit. So, a rule about littering is needed because some people don't behave , and someone else has to clean up after them. But a lot can be accomplished by education: let someone explain why he loves living in a certain way, and some might be interested.
Imposing is a sign of weakness: what are you afraid for? Is your habbit/religion/rule not logical or strong enough to make a point? Is a person a bad person because you can see his/her belly? And why are you the judge? And don't talk me about God: I never met him and all 'his' books telling me what to do are written be people who wre not around at the right time.
I believe I'm living my life in a good way, also towards other people. Will He punish me because I don't prey? And will He forgive all those priests making use of young schildren because they have a sexual need? Just because they do pray and ask for forgiveness? You can't believe that.
So, cut out the crap and start thinking for yourself: you are the judge of what you do in your life, as long as it's not harmfull.

blmtrsne



AtlantisKing111 -> RE: moral north; seeking opinions on religious scenes (9/13/2007 7:06:48 PM)

Well everyone has their own set of fetishes that turn them off and those that turn them on and different reasons for them being so.  Me, as a church-going Christian, I can't do religious scenes for the reason that it violates my sense of religious propriety.  Nuns and preists take vows not to engage in sex.  Therefore to me such scenes always have an undercurrent of "they are violating their sacred vows" added to the naughtiness and that is a turn off to me.  For the same reason I would not do a cheerleader/football player sex scene on church pews, even if they were placed in a dungeon.

Now a St. Andrews Cross is not the kind of cross seen around everyone's neck (hmmmmm.  A nice necklace symbol for Christian BDSM'ers perhaps?) so I don't see using them as doing a religious scene.

AtlantisKing



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625