RE: Religion and D/s (Full Version)

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



Message

mzbehavin -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 9:04:33 PM)

While i dont claim to be an expert on religion, were you to go BC you would find many myths and legends of Fem superior Goddesses. I believe the Amazon women of Greek Mythology, while not Gods themselves, would embody some of the information you may seek. Also, Celtic Mythology... Actually, if you think about it, it wasnt untill the advent of Christianity and the push for a Patriarchal rule that women became devalued. Both physically and religiously.
Also, look back to the Egyptians, they had God/dess and a whole plethora of slavery practices. However, i think they were segregated by birth as far as status. It wasnt a religious thing. Service was service, religion was religion and as of then to now, they do not need to be interdependant, that is not to say that D/s is not spiritual.
However that is another topic....



MistyMenthal -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 9:07:25 PM)

quote:

"Ask and You shall recieve. Seek and You shall find.
Knock and the Door shall be open."

 
misty



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 9:38:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ModeratorEleven

Ok folks.  There has been a bit of cleanup here.  Please leave the personal attacks at the door.  If you can't participate here without attacking other people, find someplace else to spend your time.  Those who continue in that behavior will be removed.

XI



Thanks Eleven.



Justme696 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 11:31:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

Kara,

Just to clarify atheism isn't the LACK of belief in God, but rather the explicit belief that there is NO God.

Agnosticism is both the lack of belief in God and the lack of belief that there is no God.

Soshi



many people seem to be more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant

then not believing at all. They just dislike the church. In my country..these were the war fought..protestant(german/dutch) vs catholics (spain/french).
The result from this is also  the war in Ireland (yes was caused by a Dutch person sadly)

(Sorry for the history lesson...but I had to throw in "Protestant" )



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 11:34:01 PM)

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.   - Albert Einstein, The World As I See It

In the scientific sense- there is no reason to believe in God.  Then why do people feel compelled to do so?

In the scientific spirit, I suggest putting asside theology and assumptions.  Why, then, might people feel so compelled?

People seek pleasure, correct?  Something feels bad, avoid it.  Something's good, go for it.  We're, in some sense, pleasure seekers.  It guides our ever action.

Then, why would we believe in something?  It's pleasurable for us to do so.  If we believe based off pleasure, then when is it pleasurable to believe in the truth?  When the truth is practical and promotes our ends, it seems to be a biological imparative to understand the world objectively.

But, hypothetically- say that there's something someone can believe that doesn't interfere with their life in the biological sense.  Something that, while not true, isn't evolutionarly inferior.

What might these things include?
-One's own importance.
-One's own qualities as being unique and/or special.
-The beauty of one's lover.
-The qualities of one's offspring.
-Denial of one's own mortality

Belief in religion, when one gets down to it.

In the scientific sense, we have no evidence of a God, but we do have evidence that people would think there was a God either way.

Still, I've long accepted that the emotionally frail will continually resort to trying to justify their comforts.  For dealing with such individuals:
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.   -H.L. Mencken

At a time, I used to tell children that Santa Clause was a lie, despite their objections and the pain it caused them.  No more.  I won't lie to these children, but if they're happy in their harmless lie.. I think my pity for their fraility will supercede my lust for truth long enough for apathy to take hold and my interest to turn.



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 11:57:44 PM)

Emotionally frail? Are you trying to get the thread locked again? Anyway, please stick to the topic.

Six.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 12:05:22 AM)

More of a response to you.  I read through the posts, and you were making claims that science either supports or is neutral to religion (depending on which part of the thread one observes).  This strikes me as being on topic.

My apologies for using "frail" without it being an obvious reference.  Einstein seems to refer to the word a fair bit when speaking of religion, so the terminology tends to rub off.



MollHackabout -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 12:17:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Still, I've long accepted that the emotionally frail will continually resort to trying to justify their comforts. For dealing with such individuals:
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. -H.L. Mencken

At a time, I used to tell children that Santa Clause was a lie, despite their objections and the pain it caused them. No more. I won't lie to these children, but if they're happy in their harmless lie.. I think my pity for their fraility will supercede my lust for truth long enough for apathy to take hold and my interest to turn.


My apologies in advance for derailing the thread.

I hope, in this same spirit, that you've taken similar care to problematize science itself, if you want to condescend to individuals with any nature of blind faith, as you appear to understand it. Science itself may be understood to be a racialized/gendered/historically constructed phenomenon, and a lot of the tenets various disciplines under science rest on are being dismantled.

It's really easy to use a positivistic understanding of science as a tool of deconstruction, without being critical of your own practices.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 12:20:37 AM)

This is the tenth page of the thread.  I'm sure it can withstand a deviation or two.

Could you elaborate on these undesirable/racial/gendered qualities of science?



MollHackabout -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 12:48:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

This is the tenth page of the thread. I'm sure it can withstand a deviation or two.

Could you elaborate on these undesirable/racial/gendered qualities of science?


Most of the literature revolves around how claims-making regarding objectivity and truth emerges, and how certain scientific methods and knowledges come to be privileged over others (i.e. via Orientalism and androcentrism.) In any case, my question was meant in a more general sense of whether you've applied a critical lens to your own practices.

Here's a little light reading, in case you're interested. These authors elaborate on this better than I could, anyway. [;)]
Feminist critiques are still understood as being on the "fringe", whereas the work on the history of science emerging from the French school of epistemology has been broadly accepted within the academy (well, in more critical institutions, at least.)

Feminist Critiques of Science:

Sandra Harding: The Science Question in Feminism; The "Racial" Economy of Science: Toward a Democratic Future

Hugh Lacey, Is Science Value Free? Values and Scientific Understanding

Muriel Lederman and Ingrid Bartsch: Gender, Science, and Values: The Gender and Science Reader

French School, mostly biology and medicine related:

Georges Canguilhem: Ideology and Rationality in the History of the Life Sciences; The Normal and the Pathological

Francois Dagognet: La Raison et les Remèdes; Savoir et pouvoir en médecine

Foucault: The Order of Things; The Archaeology of Knowledge



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 12:58:37 AM)

I'm afraid I can't begin to see what point you're trying to make.  To me, it seems as though you're claiming scientific thought itself may be flawed because those who have constructed it weren't perfect- quite the ad hominem argument.  And even that's speculation, as all you've said is a list of sources after excusing yourself from stating your point.

I do not mean to sound overly critical, but, please, if you have a point about how science is flawed, state it.



MollHackabout -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 1:38:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'm afraid I can't begin to see what point you're trying to make. To me, it seems as though you're claiming scientific thought itself may be flawed because those who have constructed it weren't perfect- quite the ad hominem argument. And even that's speculation, as all you've said is a list of sources after excusing yourself from stating your point.

I do not mean to sound overly critical, but, please, if you have a point about how science is flawed, state it.


So I'm going to take that as a "no, I am certainly not critical of my own practices." Moving on.


I'm not speaking to individual scientists here. I thought that was clear, but I suppose not. I'm also not arguing that 2+2=5, just to clear that one up as well before it gets raised.

As noted, critics argue that science is informed by principles of androcentrism and Orientalism, ensuring that only Western and masculine practices are legitimated. I included sources as this is too huge a topic to have chats about on a BDSM website in any substantive fashion - and also, in part, because I doubt you'd take much I had to say on the matter very seriously. Which is fair. I'm just some broad on the internet.

- science is reductive; it makes historical products ahistorical
- science operates utilizing hierarchies which come to be "naturalized" via "objective claims" - ignores constructedness of hierarchies
- objectivity and detachment are impossible - science relies on "objective and rational accounts" in its claims-making; ignores the existence of self and one's own perspective/intents
- language of science is gendered; binary meaning are imposed on constructs (activity/passivity, etc.); makes our understanding of concepts problematic
- scientific theories often go beyond the data available - often extended with familiar androcentric and racist tropes (Donna Haraway does a good critique of primatology and developmental biology)
- what gets included as "science" is based on androcentric notions of rationality, which often stems from a Cartesian mind/body dualism

I'm not saying you have to buy any of this. However, there are a lot of scientists out there doing work in this area. The point isn't so much "why is science wrong about certain things," as you're going to find a million answers for that. And a million reasons why science is right. The point is to question your own beliefs, particularly if you're going to deploy them to question the beliefs of others.




Justme696 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 1:40:32 AM)

quote:

While i dont claim to be an expert on religion, were you to go BC you would find many myths and legends of Fem superior Goddesses. I believe the Amazon women of Greek Mythology, while not Gods themselves,

slightly off topic;
There is a docu of them available, I think it is from Discovery channel.
(they were a russian tribe)

About the science vs religion part which seems to come back;
I know science tries to capture and do research about aftherlife..out of body etc. Also science says soemtimes harsh, what we can't proof, doesn't excist.
The church/religions....sometimes push science away too. Small sects not letting their children go to docters (even happens here In the Netherlands)...no birthcontrol etc..
I guess both sides have their wrong behaviour towards eachother. But gladly their are still enough people that have interest in both subjects and work together.

As with many things...there is always pro and contra...I don't mind that..aslong common sense is used.


quote:

  - language of science is gendered; binary meaning are imposed on constructs (activity/passivity, etc.); makes our understanding of concepts problematic

That is what makes you leave eassier also. Soemtiems science is very black and white. That can be good, but soemtimes bad...because emotions are important too in soem issues.
What science does try to do is proof things..and not judge.  They state facts..
In life that can be handy....liek crossing the street....green is go  red is no go..binary..yes..but it can safe your life.
IF you want to convince peopel..it never works to just name the bad. People will see this as attack. ALways look from both sides..note down the + and - . Then make a balance..and judge...and discuss.





CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 1:51:23 AM)

Humoring that it wasn't just a personal attack on your part, would you explain to me how my previous post conveyed:  "no, I am certainly not critical of my own practices."?

I can't help but notice that your critique of science continually makes references to gender, particularly in both implications and direct statements of male centerism.  Could you elaborate on how science might be flawed due to what I can only assume is a point of view you may attribute to males?

I'd like to point out that, from where I'm sitting, you've been saying he same thing: that science is masculinized somehow, and that this leads to flaws.  What I do not see is how.  Some example or reasoning might help here.



eyesopened -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 2:11:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Still, I've long accepted that the emotionally frail will continually resort to trying to justify their comforts.  For dealing with such individuals:
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.   -H.L. Mencken

At a time, I used to tell children that Santa Clause was a lie, despite their objections and the pain it caused them.  No more.  I won't lie to these children, but if they're happy in their harmless lie.. I think my pity for their fraility will supercede my lust for truth long enough for apathy to take hold and my interest to turn.


Can religion and BDSM co-exist?  Absolutely.  Can religion and BDSM message boards co-exist? Absolutely not.

Not sure why but when it comes to the variety of BDSM and D/s relationships we all tend to agree that each is practiced by the participants in their own way.  We may even gleen a bit of insight by observing how the various dynamics within WIITWD.  We may even all agree that each relationship has something beautiful within it, something that may be worth trying ourselves.  Should someone suggest that a D/s relationship is for the emotionally frail, this community would hardly tolerate such flaming.  However, it appears to be perfectly acceptable when it comes to an individual's relationship with their spiritual beliefs.

Because i believe that each religion as well as agnostics and atheists all hold a piece of Truth, i enjoy listening to everyone's beliefs.  This helps me in much the same way as going to rope bondage demos helps me to learn about well...rope bondage and the various ways others practice it.

CL,  calling people emotionally frail is not respect.  Might as well change it to:
We must respect the other fellow's [idiot's] religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his [ridiculous] theory that his [hideous] wife is beautiful and his [retarded] children smart.   -H.L. Mencken

As for Santa Claus?  i told my children the truth!  That as long as they believe in Santa Claus, Santa Claus will come and as soon as they stop believing in Santa Claus, he will never come again.  That is truth without cruelty.  You tell your kids whatever you like but i cannot see where you have the right to tell other people's children anything at all unless specifically asked.  You are no different then in this than the street-corner evangelists who tell everyone they are going to hell.



Justme696 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 2:15:17 AM)

quote:

Can religion and BDSM message boards co-exist? Absolutely not.


yes they can...just not the people.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 2:19:41 AM)

Mencken was a sarcastic, cynical fellow with little more than distaste for the masses.  His voice suits me when the subject's religion and other superstitions.

You can say I'm no different than the street-corner evangelists who tell everyone they are going to hell, but to say such is to imply that you care little for the difference between proganda and truth. Still, in saying this, you're among the more honest individuals.

While I would disagree with your point concerning your children, I do feel it would be distasteful to debate something involving those in your personal life.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 2:22:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justme696
quote:

Can religion and BDSM message boards co-exist? Absolutely not.


yes they can...just not the people.


Coexistence can be quite a bad thing.



Justme696 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 2:25:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Coexistence can be quite a bad thing.


yes,  I notice ;). Touchy subject here...but interesting. And we are not even discussing foreign religions so much.



Kalista07 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 3:32:08 AM)

i've waited a while before posting on this, hoping this thread would somehow be able to get back on track. Sadly, it appears to me that this may not be possible.  Xoxi, i would like to personally tell You that while some posters may feel all You do is start shit here, i don't feel that's an accurate representation of Your behavior. In fact, the other day i was reading on the gorean boards and i thought to myself how much You've grown.
Anyway, the point of my post is this: why does this topic bring up such hatred and bitterness, in otherwise nice and caring people? i'm serious here. i don't by any means claim to be a religious person. If You are one of those people whom i share things honestly with then You will know that i do value my spirituality a great deal. What's the difference to me? There are things about christianity that i absolutley love!! The whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" thing? Yep, i like that lots!! There are things about Buddism that i love! And frankly, there are a great many things about acient toltec religion that i base my life on.
Listen, i can pull out the list of ways i've been harmed (understatement of the year here!!) and blame this "God" that everyone speaks of......But, in the end what good is that really? Because while i would never wish the things i've endured onto my worst enemy one of the very few things i know for sure is i've grown through each and every horrible thing that's occured in my life. And frankly, i guess i'm pretty happy with who and what i am today....
Xoxi, i have no idea if this is even on track for Your thread. i sincerely hope i did not derail it more.
Kali



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875