RE: Religion and D/s

RE: Religion and D/s (Full Version)

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

Message

SteelofUtah -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 1:34:47 AM)
For Semantics Sake But CL 1+1 does equal 3 1+1 is Three Mathmatical components with (1) 1 (2) + (3) 1 All you have to do is step outside the box to realize that there is no spoon. Steel Okay Guys Going to bed now May the Schwartz be with you

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 1:43:32 AM)
Hah, I'll give you that one; the 1+1=3 explanation was pretty clever for this hour. :P Speaking of which, it really is time for bed. May the ring of the Schwartz never tarnish your finger.

eyesopened -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 2:02:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Hello xoxi Trying to stay on topic here for you.[;)] I know that people - both christian and non believers often refere back to Leviticus to bring out the whole 'homosexual acts are evil' to both ridicule christians and to place or force a persons own moral codes on others. However, it is vital to be aware of history at the time that particular scripture is refering to so as not misuse the text.(whether you are a christian or a non christian or an atheist) The OT is Jewish text, not christian (although it must not be forgotten.obviously.)and refers to customs and 'edicts' that the jews needed so as to sepetate themselves from the Canaanites, as their identiy was important to them(still is) and there was fear of it being lost. However, as christians, one follows Christ. In Mark, Jesus rejects the 'purity codes' which Leviticus is basically about and absolutely nowhere in the NT is homosexuality mentioned as immorality. In fact, Jesus heals a young man who - if history has anything to go by - has a high probability he was gay. That is conjecture of course, but a possibility and Jesus heals his fits and saves his life. So, that said within a Ds environment - or basically any environment - homosexuality is not breaking any laws of God as a christian - and even the word wife could be interpreted many ways from original texts. If a woman is the dominant within a Ds relationship, it could absolutely be interpreted that the man is the wife. I often find it quite astounding particularly when confronted by BDSM people that they revert back to very specific labels of husband and wife roles (christian and non christians) - when labeling is so open to subjective interpretation within BDSM dynamics - as if BDSMers have the ultimate authority in altering wording - but it has occured through subsections of communities for many years. I do not therefore subscribe to the notion that wife must = woman and therefore all women should submit. But I do defend a persons right to submit to who they wish, call themselves what they wish within their own Ds dynamics, be they straight, gay, bi, poly or monogamous. I'm not sure if that is any use - and I do again apologise for my earlier hijack of your thread. the.dark. Thank you for your wonderful insight! What also amazes me is how people will pick out that one 'law' about a specific homosexual act but totally discard the rest of Leviticus. my opinion, in for a penny, in for a pound. Why do people pick out one 'law' as being valid while happily munching on a pork chop? The OT says nothing about women lying with women cuz even the OT writers liked a little girl-on-girl action. Take any one thing out of context and it sounds like the OT God was a real jerk but looked at in context and all the laws were not only to set the Hebrews apart from the other peoples but also to ensure health and safety in a time before modern medicine. Staying apart from others after handling a dead body for example. In those times it was excellent advice in case the person died from a communicable disease, keeping quarantine just made good sense. Letting farmland 'rest' every seven years, would have prevented the great dust bowl of the 1930s when overplanting depleted the soil and then coupled with drought caused widespread disaster. i didn't mean to digress so much but it bothers me when people cite the Bible but only to pick and choose what they want as justification for bigotry. Once again, i thank you for your insights!

Justme696 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 4:32:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan Imho, religiuos discussions are ones that no one actually convinces the other to even consider another point of view. Because , we are all so attached to our own opinions. It's rarely a true "give and take" discussion, in my experience. Resorting to the old way and, unfortunately, still the same way, of resolving "religious" different points of view is what really gives me the willies. that is why we have wars about it. The winner will be the one who is right ;)

RCdc -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 4:38:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xoxi the.dark, I'm afraid there is absolutely no evidence to show whether Jesus was gay or straight. The fact that he surrounded himself with men only shows that in his time and locale, men only taught other men. Women disciples would have been seen as scandalous. Oops. I just read your post again and realised the "he" wasn't Christ but the man he healed. I'm not familiar with that story...do you happen to have the book and verse handy? I'd like to look that up. However you do make a valid point in that for Christians, Christ renewed the covenant with God and effectively nullified the old one. That's where it gets confusing...he worked on the Sabbath, yet he also said: quote: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18) which is where it just gets confusing to me. Hello xoxi I just want to make clear I am not defined as 'christian'. I don't agree with organised religion and churches are certainly not my thing(well unless for fetish purposes - coz I do have a religion fetish, but thats another thread[;)]). The reason I am saying this is because this is my discovery and study, not some organisation and so is subjective. I am certainly not spouting it as gospel(haha) or traditional christian teaching. Disclaimer over! Jesus was very clear when stated that the purity codes were now irrelevant with his coming - however he was still a jew, and just as all Jews, he was also very clear that the old laws and the whole reason and history behind them were important to remember and relate. He wasn't there to upset or speak against the prophets was his message, but to support and continue their work. Yeah - I doubt Jesus was gay - although he may have been experimental - who knows? If he was, he was a gentleman and kept his sexlife private, which is cool. But yes, the healing thang. I made the assumption you knew I was talking about the centurion (Matthew etc). As I said, it is pure conjecture - but highly possible in the climate and history of the time that the slave was the centurions lover and more. Roman Soldiers as he, were not allowed to marry or have female company and a vast majority of them had multiple slaves, one or more would of course fullfil the role. In the original text, the Centurion comes to Jesus and uses the word 'Pais'(not the correct spelling but I cannot do the text on this) to describe someone he begs Jesus to heal. Now the word Pais is interpreted as 'slave' it can also mean 'my boy' or 'my girl' but it is a specific word that was only used with deep meaning indicating a deeper bond or connection as it is a 'beloved' word. If it was a common servant or slave, he would have been more likely to use another word for slave 'doulos' - 'narnar' if a young boy. So using the word 'pais' indicated that the young man was beloved and had a deeper bond than any other slave. So what looks at first glance as a simple centurion coming to Jesus to ask him to heal his slave, when you study the deeper meanings of the words used, could open the 'story' up much more and redefine the interpretation. I find it a wonderous example of how Jesus shows by example that all people are equal regardless of the orientation or ethnic origin. Whether you believe in christ or not and see the bible as a simple fictional selection of works, the story itself is a good one for equality. the.dark.

SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 5:46:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord There's a bit of a difference in accepting kinks and religion. To accept kinks is to accept someone for what they enjoy. To accept religion is to accept fiction as truth. I'm not into the latter, and I don't feel that people should accept a random, unreasonable belief just because it's a "belief". Such as.. If someone wants to have crazy anal masturbation using a dildo wihle staring in a mirror, cool. If someone is convinced 1+1=3, then, sure, they're welcome to, but I'm going to point out their lack of reasoning behind it. You don't always need to have a reason, to know something is true. I'm sorry for you, since science isn't the be-all and end-all, and you're living entirely inside it's boundaries. Nor is religion "fiction" - since fiction is a work of...well fiction. Religion is unproven, but it is not demonstratably false. Few people accept random unreasonable beliefs on the basis that they are a belief. Most Christians, Catholics, Wiccans, Thelemites, Astarte, Druids, Shamans, et al are intelligent and rationale people who have arrived at their faith through a course of investigation, consideration, experimentation, and an open mind. 1 + 1 ~ 3 , for very very large values of 1. Six. Edited for typos, and to add : Besides, who are you to say that just because something is unproven, it must therefore be unreasonable?

Justme696 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 6:35:25 AM)
at the calculators quote: 1 + 1 ~ 3 , see guys..that is why you have arguements. You can't even solve simple things, why do you think you can solve this religious war :P

cjan -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 7:21:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Justme696 quote: ORIGINAL: cjan Imho, religiuos discussions are ones that no one actually convinces the other to even consider another point of view. Because , we are all so attached to our own opinions. It's rarely a true "give and take" discussion, in my experience. Resorting to the old way and, unfortunately, still the same way, of resolving "religious" different points of view is what really gives me the willies. that is why we have wars about it. The winner will be the one who is right ;) There are no winners in fights or wars. Last one standing or not.

Justme696 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 8:12:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cjan There are no winners in fights or wars. Last one standing or not. Aslong I am the last one standing..it is fine. Don't mind how the other calls it then ;)

favesclava -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 8:25:05 AM)
i'm a wiccan . i worship a female god. i have no problem with my submission. i'm taken care of. my needs met. my wants often satisfied. and i dont do dishes. no problem mon.

MistyMenthal -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 11:08:19 AM)
quote: i'm a wiccan . i worship a female god. i have no problem with my submission. i'm taken care of. my needs met. my wants often satisfied. and i dont do dishes. no problem mon. I use to do that too. Use too. misty

Justme696 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 11:18:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: favesclava i'm a wiccan . i worship a female god. i have no problem with my submission. i'm taken care of. my needs met. my wants often satisfied. and i dont do dishes. no problem mon. I don't see the relation female god<>doing the dishes.

MistyMenthal -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 11:54:52 AM)
quote: don't see the relation female god<>doing the dishes. [sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif] misty

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 12:25:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster You don't always need to have a reason, to know something is true. I'm sorry for you, since science isn't the be-all and end-all, and you're living entirely inside it's boundaries. Nor is religion "fiction" - since fiction is a work of...well fiction. Religion is unproven, but it is not demonstratably false. Few people accept random unreasonable beliefs on the basis that they are a belief. Most Christians, Catholics, Wiccans, Thelemites, Astarte, Druids, Shamans, et al are intelligent and rationale people who have arrived at their faith through a course of investigation, consideration, experimentation, and an open mind. 1 + 1 ~ 3 , for very very large values of 1. Six. Edited for typos, and to add : Besides, who are you to say that just because something is unproven, it must therefore be unreasonable? Heh, you're sorry for me, while you continue to have beliefs without reason nor logic? (I'm not saying you have no rational thougths behind this, but the logic's broken. Like you might be able to conclude there's a nuclear bomb in your basement, if you initally assumed that there was a core of nuclear engineers working on one down there for the past ten years. You applied logic in places, but the overall bit isn't logical because of the initial, non-logical assumption.) 1+1 != 3, even for maximum values of 1. ;) (Not that the point's valid in this context, but it was a good joke.) And, finally.. I'm not saying it's unreasonable just because it's unproven. The fact it's unproven does help support my argument, though. As for the PS.. Hum.. there's a lot of reasons to say that religion's unreasonable. Let's start with the "mutually exclusive" argument- that many religions hold beliefs in direct contradiction to eachother. Now let's say one religion in this world's correct; then the others, which hold contradictory beliefs, are necessarily wrong. Point being, if you are religious, there's a huge chance you're not even the right religion, even if you assume that one of the religions is correct! (Which, I'd like to point out, there are even more reasons to evidence that this isn't the case.) How does one overlook this mutually exclusive bit?

DelilahDeb -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 1:52:26 PM)
OK, I go away for a week and come back to find this fabulous thread (apart from the inevitable bickering)! Xoxi, I like the question you originally asked. I'll tackle the original question in a separate post. quote: Xoxi (OP!): One thing I was curious about was this post on page 1 by UKCouple4femsub: quote: To suggest that any form of pagan (of which there are many) worships any form of deity is misguided. Many of them feel that it is arrogant to suggest that any deity would be in the slightest bit interested in a me[re] mortal. Many of them also worship both male and female aspects of the divine. So there is no deity-defined dominant role in a 'neo' pagan family. There again, ask a dozen different pagans what they believe, and you'll get 13 different answers. I'm guessing 'pagan' was the wrong word here...but aren't there Goddess-worship sects or religions? I know that there are some who worship Mother Earth, but others that worship avatars of pagan deities like Artemis or Isis. I'm guessing though that a lot of pagan religions, similar to Buddhism, view both genders as inherently equal, without one as the leader and one as the supporter. Does that sound like an accurate assessment? Xoxi, yikes. My quick reference definitions for you: Pagan religions include native vaguely intact surviving ones (Lakota Sioux, Asatru, Navajo, Aussie aboriginal, Shinto, Romuva (Lithuanian paganism), Maori, African ones such as Ifa, Yoruba, others I don't know...), modern (neo-pagan) reconstructionist forms (Celtic reconstructionist, assorted varieties of Druidism, Hellenistic reconstructionism, core shamanism, Asatru, Pagan Way, Britanno-Celtic paganism, and again more I don't know...), completely bootstrap/self-created forms of paganism/witchcraft such as Z. Budapest's Dianic witchcraft, NROOGD, Reclaiming, and others..., and survivals with major reconstructionist elements, of which British traditional witchcraft (as re-ignited by Gerald Gardner and routinely called Wicca in the States) is the best known, but I would place Asatru and Vanatru here. Some of these assorted pagan religions work with (worship) specific deities (not all pagans of any stripe believe that all goddesses are one goddess, etc.). Example: The Asatru (by definition) worship the Aesir, the newer Norse pantheon led by Odin/Woden. And most of that pantheon is male; although Freyr and Freya are included, they are actually Vanir, leaders of the older Norse pantheon. Example 2: Dianic witchcraft may call upon goddesses from all over the world--there's a well known chant that goes: Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Kali, Innana. (Lessee, that's Egyptian, Phoenician, Roman, Attic, Hellenic Greek, Hindu, Sumerian.) And specific pagan and witchcraft groups may or may not work with/worship deities specific to their particular "tribe" or tradition or religion. SixFootMaster: quote: Hmm, going back a bit in time now, but I remember some of my friends referring to "The Lady and her Consort"... anyone got insight into that? Not sure which religion it refers to. Six, "the Lady and Her Consort" is how the NROOGD Craft tradition (for nonpagans, translate "tradition" as "denomination") is wont to refer to their deities. Many other eclectic and dianic (female-centric) Craft traditions also put Lady first. (And some may see that as a reflection of biology, where the Y chromosome is a stunted X chromosome, leaving room for the question who was created from whose rib? [;)]) British Traditional Wicca/Witchcraft (which can be loosely lumped as a goddess religion for quick-n-dirty categorization purposes) holds Lady and Lord equal, in balance, though Lady ever first among equals. The paired energies of Goddess and God are not static but wax and wane across the seasons, remaining in balance. OK, I'll get off the teacher podium now. Delilah Deb "All acts of love & pleasure are My rituals." --from Charge of the Goddess, a Wiccan teaching Footnotes: NROOGD=New Reformed Orthodox Order of the Golden Dawn, created in the late 1960s in SF Bay Area and a living Craft tradition ever since, they celebrate a 40th anniversary next year. http://www.nroogd.org/Who.html Asatru Here is a web site for those curious about it. http://www.asatru.org/ Asatru has the advantage of quite a lot of surviving written lore, unlike many surviving tradtions. Surviving practices most likely centered in Iceland. Wicca The Witches' Voice is a worldwide information and pagan/witch networking site. http://www.witchvox.com/ (Now a non-profit, but originally not.) Covenant of the Goddess (COG) A non-profit umbrella church for witches of many traditions. http://www.cog.org/ Religious Tolerance My personal request of the rest of the bun-fighters... http://www.religioustolerance.org/

DelilahDeb -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 2:09:36 PM)
quote: What I'm curious about is for the religious people out there, how does your religion view the idea of power exchange in relationships, and how does that affect your own view on it if at all? I'm starting with the term "power exchange", just to make sure I'm focused in. "The defining factor of power exchange is the conscious, deliberate construction of a power dynamic in which at least one person assumes psychological control to some agreed-upon extent over at least one other person." (The Kinky Dictionary: http://www.xeromag.com/fvbdglossary.html#powerexchange) Nope, nothing in my spirituality (Gardnerian Wicca if anyone cares) says doodly squat about power exchange per se. I have the advice to do what I will as long as I don't harm anyone, and that merely adds weight to my personal ethic which has long told me the same thing. Rather like "informed consent", a concept that applies in the practices common to my spirituality, the term "agreed-upon" is the key in the definition above. And I enjoy that, whether I'm in full domina mode, merely topping, or indulging myself as a bottom. The only other thing that I heed happens also to be carved and posted very prominently on the grounds of Paradise Unbound/Wet Spot in Paradise, and I quote it frequently as a sig line: "All acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." Blessed be, y'all, and for those who enjoy it...don't let the bun-fights become vicious. Delilah Deb P.s. I love it...both my posts show up on page 13 of this thread. How appositive for a witch.

SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 2:38:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster You don't always need to have a reason, to know something is true. I'm sorry for you, since science isn't the be-all and end-all, and you're living entirely inside it's boundaries. Nor is religion "fiction" - since fiction is a work of...well fiction. Religion is unproven, but it is not demonstratably false. Few people accept random unreasonable beliefs on the basis that they are a belief. Most Christians, Catholics, Wiccans, Thelemites, Astarte, Druids, Shamans, et al are intelligent and rationale people who have arrived at their faith through a course of investigation, consideration, experimentation, and an open mind. 1 + 1 ~ 3 , for very very large values of 1. Six. Edited for typos, and to add : Besides, who are you to say that just because something is unproven, it must therefore be unreasonable? Heh, you're sorry for me, while you continue to have beliefs without reason nor logic? (I'm not saying you have no rational thougths behind this, but the logic's broken. Like you might be able to conclude there's a nuclear bomb in your basement, if you initally assumed that there was a core of nuclear engineers working on one down there for the past ten years. You applied logic in places, but the overall bit isn't logical because of the initial, non-logical assumption.) 1+1 != 3, even for maximum values of 1. ;) (Not that the point's valid in this context, but it was a good joke.) And, finally.. I'm not saying it's unreasonable just because it's unproven. The fact it's unproven does help support my argument, though. As for the PS.. Hum.. there's a lot of reasons to say that religion's unreasonable. Let's start with the "mutually exclusive" argument- that many religions hold beliefs in direct contradiction to eachother. Now let's say one religion in this world's correct; then the others, which hold contradictory beliefs, are necessarily wrong. Point being, if you are religious, there's a huge chance you're not even the right religion, even if you assume that one of the religions is correct! (Which, I'd like to point out, there are even more reasons to evidence that this isn't the case.) How does one overlook this mutually exclusive bit? Simply by acknowledging that no matter how strong my faith is, there is always a possibility that I'm wrong. By being objective about it, I can see the hypocricy in trying to force my world view on anyone else. So I don't. It's the same with science, though, you know. Every scientific theory and law are founded on certain base assumptions that may in fact turn out to be incorrect. Science doesn't uncover universal truths, it uncovers rules and explanations that "work". I have a full respect for science, it's principles and practice, but it is just a tool to help explain the world around us, no more, and no less, than religion is. Six.

SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 2:41:41 PM)
Excellent and fascinating information, DelilahDeb. Thank you for sharing - I must admit, my knowedge of religions other than my own is fairly superificial. Enough to understand the basic religion, but naught beyond that. Six.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 2:50:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster Simply by acknowledging that no matter how strong my faith is, there is always a possibility that I'm wrong. By being objective about it, I can see the hypocricy in trying to force my world view on anyone else. So I don't. It's the same with science, though, you know. Every scientific theory and law are founded on certain base assumptions that may in fact turn out to be incorrect. Science doesn't uncover universal truths, it uncovers rules and explanations that "work". I have a full respect for science, it's principles and practice, but it is just a tool to help explain the world around us, no more, and no less, than religion is. I'm glad you can acknowledge that your faith doesn't make what you believe in true. Scientific theory and "laws" aren't things we claim to be absolute. They can change. It's the tenants on which science is founded that contradict religion- not the results of experiments. Science- the heart of science which has brought forth so many wonders- finds that religion is a silly, non-valid thing; it's not Newton's Law of Gravity or Einstein's E=mc^2, which both may very well be wrong, that contradict religion (infalliably, anyhow). Not that I'm forcing my views on you or anyone else. I have no gun to your head, and I'm not threatening your livelihood, or anything else of the sort. I'm on a message board, typing words that make points. I do hope you're intelligent enough to understand them and strong enough to accept what might be unpleasant- even humilating-, but I'm by no means forcing them on you.

SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 4:25:05 PM)
You're making me laugh, is what you're doing. The study of the physical sciences - let's be clear here, this is what you're basing your life view on - doesn't contradict religion, it literally and absolutely can't. It can't even consider religion. They are two halves of a ying-yang whole. Neither can explain, or contradict, or invalidate the other, and nor should they try. Once again, I'll point you to the article, written by the man himself, of the leader of the Human Genome Project. A man that heads a team of renowned scientists in mapping out every chromosome, every gene, and every twist in human DNA. A man who's life of science has lead him from pure scepticism to a deep belief. If science by it's very nature contradicts religion, then how can this possibly be. Biologists are particularly prone to agnosticism or atheism, yet here we have a man who is a leader in chemistry and biology stating that he believes in God, and not only does he believe in God but his work in science lead him there. Six. Edited for several typos.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625