RE: Religion and D/s (Full Version)

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



Message

subtee -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 10:19:05 AM)

Kahlil Gibran:

But tell me, who is he that can offend the spirit?
Shall the nightingale offend the stillness of the night, or the firefly the stars?
And shall your flame or your smoke burden the wind?
Think you the spirit is a still pool which you can trouble with a staff?
Oftentimes in denying yourself pleasure you do but store the desire in the recesses of your being.
Who knows but that which seems omitted today, waits for tomorrow?
Even your body knows its heritage and its rightful need and will not be deceived.
And your body is the harp of your soul,
And it is yours to bring forth sweet music from it or confused sounds.
And now you ask in your heart, "How shall we distinguish that which is good in pleasure from that which is not good?"
Go to your fields and your gardens, and you shall learn that it is the pleasure of the bee to gather honey of the flower,
But it is also the pleasure of the flower to yield its honey to the bee.
For to the bee a flower is a fountain of life,
And to the flower a bee is a messenger of love,
And to both, bee and flower, the giving and the receiving of pleasure is a need and an ecstasy.

[Emphasis added.]



Dnomyar -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 10:53:46 AM)

buzz'es around subtee.



PanthersMom -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 10:53:55 AM)

i haven't read the whole thread.  there's something i just cannot comprehend.  while we all try to live a decent life and be good people for the most part, why on earth do people have to pit bdsm against religion?  you can have a spiritual life and a sex life, they do not have to be intertwined.  i do not see a connection.  maybe i'm looking at things from an odd perspective, but other than a few "oh god" exclamations, does either really enter into the other?
PM



RCdc -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 10:54:44 AM)

Yeah, probably good to break it off there - seeing as the thread is about religion and D/s and how does the doctrine uphold belief and not specifically about how you hate and disagree with your perception of christianity - which is only one form of religion.
Kinda proved my point - thank you for that at least.
 
the.dark.



eyesopened -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 11:09:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dnomyar

If you followed Jesus you would know that he took a lot of his words from other religions. But were they really his words or the words of his followers.


And the problem with this is????
Drilled down to its core, the message of Jesus was just "be nice to each other!"  is that so bad?  BTW... Jesus did not make himself God, that was Constantine, who, also changed the Sabbath to honor the Sun god just to hedge his bets....

Again, i refrence the Yoruba religion whose followers believe that each religion holds a piece of The Truth and that only through world unity will all of the Truth be known.  Its sad to see religion cause such strife and division when, if we opened our minds and hearts, we could know Truth in all its beauty.



Dnomyar -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 11:21:53 AM)

Jesus and his followers were trying to horn in on the established priest and got their ass kicked for it. It was all about politics and power. I doubt that he was trying to be nice to anyone.



TracyTaken -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 11:23:14 AM)

quote:

Yeah, probably good to break it off there - seeing as the thread is about religion and D/s and how does the doctrine uphold belief and not specifically about how you hate and disagree with your perception of christianity


I haven't mentioned the word "hate" once, but you've used it repeatedly, and accused me of being a hate-monger.  Maybe it would be good if you considered why.

quote:

- which is only one form of religion.


And I made clear that I consider religion, all religion - and I did harp on the point - to be destructive.

quote:

Kinda proved my point - thank you for that at least.


Kinda proved you either have difficulty reading or have difficulty supporting your own words.  I'm guessing it's the latter. 

And at least I didn't call you a hate-monger (or anything else).  [:)]



Lashra -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 11:23:23 AM)

I am a pagan and worship the Earth Goddess. I was raised in a christian home, that is my Mother was chrisitian, My Father often debated some of the beliefs stated in the bible and was able to discredit most of them. But my Mother having been raised in these beliefs followed them blindly even though she admitted they did not all make sense.[&:]

To me the bible has some good values, but the hate it also promotes washes those away. As a woman I find many of the bible passages to be repugnent. Sorry but I do not walk behind any man or grovel at his feet just because some book written thousands of years ago says so. I believe the natural order is that there are Dominants of both genders, there are submissives of both genders, you have to find what fits you and work from there.

Religion does not enter into my D/s relationship at all. We are both pagans and I am the Dominant. We are both happy with our lives and hope that others out there are happy with theirs however they lead them, as well.

~Lashra



Justme696 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 11:29:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EponasChylde

quote:

That implies also when they can't...it doesn't excist?
(yes yes I know..tricky tricky...but I had too ask. If one says..science might discover it..they might also be able to proof other wise)


I don't think you can prove that something spiritual doesn't exist...you can only prove that science can't explain it...yet ;)



hahaha great answer ;)



CreativeDominant -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 11:30:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

My Master is a Christian, and even though I was raised by two agnostics, I do believe in God and believe that Christ was a holy man, son of God, prophet, etc. But lately I've been curious about the Bible, particularly the parts that discuss how to live in a Biblical marriage.

I know that there are neo-pagan groups who worship forms of a Mother Goddess - I don't know much about them, but I wonder if those religions are more likely to proscribe a female role as the dominant head of the family in the same way that Judeo-Christian religion (and Islam too I believe) consider the male to be the leader.

The Bible states clearly that the natural order is for a wife to submit to her husband.  That is something that I personally believe...I know there are people who will disagree with me and all I can say is that I respect your right to disagree, but that's not the focus of this thread.  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've read through the thread and have found myself somewhat dismayed and somewhat amused by the usual bashing of religion and how it has been the basis of almost all that is wrong with the world today.  Hmmmmmmmmm...I suppose by that token that Hitler, an atheist who believed more in the occult than he did in God or Stalin, an atheist who considered religion to be the "opiate of the masses" and murdered millions of his own people to, at least partially, prove his point that their "God" did not exist and would not save them could both be considered blameless since the people they murdered were the ones who were religious...Jewish and Eastern/Russian Orthodox, for the most part...and we can blame their belief in their religion for the war that took place against them.  But...that was not the point of your post.

My religious beliefs are that the woman is indeed the one to submit to her husband/partner.  It is stated so in the Bible.  Now I know all the arguments...the bible was written in a patriarchal society, statements such as the one being asked about here about a woman submitting to her husband are attributed to God and yet, we have no proof that God even exists, let alone stated such a thing, and on and on and on.  As a Christian who believes in God and Christ but also a man of science and intellect, I've done a lot of reflection on trying to reconcile my beliefs with Christian/Godly teachings.  I have no proof that God exists other than in my faith and what I consider to be evidence of his existence.  I believe there is evidence of a Creator's existence but that is MY belief and I have no intention of imposing that on someone else. I do not believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and I believe, given the patriarchal nature of the society in which it was written, that most likely the statement that woman shall submit to her husband was written by human males.  But in my world view, it makes sense...every bit as much sense as the line from Kahlil Gibran that subtee quoted:  Even your body knows its rightful heritage and its rightful need and will not be deceived.
Some might see that line as explanation for why there can be female dominants.  Fine...if it works for them that way, then go for it.  It does not matter to me, just as the fact that MY acceptance of what works in the Bible should not matter to you.  And by the way, there are some pretty good things in the Bible:  Thou shalt not kill...Honor thy Mother and thy Father...If your neighbor strikes you on one cheek, then offer up the other one to him...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...love thy neighbor...hate the sin, NOT the sinner.  Do these ideas/beliefs/guidelines get misconstrued?  Sure they do.  But...is that the authors' fault or the fault of those who misconstrue them?  I am quite sure that there are those out there nutty enough that they could take Buddha's teachings and twist them so that they could be used to incite a holy war.  I am sure there are those out there who are nutty enough to take Kahlil Gibran's words and twist them in such a manner that he could be seen as one of the most hate-mongering philosopher's on the planet.  Time in history and context are what matter as well as what strikes your soul as right and good...not how you can use it to portray others as worthy of destruction.



RCdc -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 12:00:27 PM)

quote:

Maybe it would be good if you considered why.


Because I am correct by definition.[;)]
Hate mongering is defined as subjective thoughts issued by someone who is bigoted - causing predjudice or hate.
A bigot is defined as a person who is intolerent of others beliefs, lifestyle, choice different from their own and call them delusional, mythical or argue against a choice and use misinformation or prejudiced descriptions to poison the views of others.  These are usually huge generalisations that pull all particular groups together and never look further than it's own view.
It is no different from any fundementalists attempts.

'All christianity is a myth' is no different to saying 'all BDSMers are abused or abusers'.  A bigoted view.

I call it as I see it.  I am happy in my decision and choice of words - you fitted them and supported them.
 
quote:

Kinda proved you either have difficulty reading or have difficulty supporting your own words.  I'm guessing it's the latter. 

 
I do not see where you questioned me or wanted me to support my words.  Not that I needed to - you did that by yourself for me - and again I thank you.  However, if you have a specific question you wish me to respond to - I would be more than happy to.  Ask away.
quote:

 
And at least I didn't call you a hate-monger (or anything else). 

 
You could call me whatever you wanted - makes no difference to me as long as you can support your claim.  You supported my claim by yourself - I have no 'need' to.
 
I'm not the one suggesting that all religion is destructive and ergo, that all people who follow a specific a religon are destructive.  I prefere to look a person as a whole - religious or not - whatever orientation they maybe - whatever lifestyle choice they make and not make blanket statements on a minority.  I make the statement to the person themselves - everyone has personal responsibility regardless of their faith, ethnic origin, orientation, sex, etcetcetc.  Hence 'hate mongering'.
 
the.dark.



TracyTaken -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 1:39:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

Maybe it would be good if you considered why.


Because I am correct by definition.[;)]
Hate mongering is defined as subjective thoughts issued by someone who is bigoted - causing predjudice or hate.


Unless you've proven I'm trying to get people to hate other people (which I am not) you are incorrect.

quote:

A bigot is defined as a person who is intolerent of others beliefs, lifestyle, choice different from their own and call them delusional, mythical or argue against a choice


So, if I'm intolerant of the KKK, call them delusional and argue against their "choice" - that makes me a bigot?  LOL!  By your definition, that's exactly what it means.

quote:

and use misinformation or prejudiced descriptions to poison the views of others. 


You will need to show me where I did that.  I do not believe that I did.  I do think you have done it repeatedly.
quote:


These are usually huge generalisations that pull all particular groups together and never look further than it's own view.
It is no different from any fundementalists attempts.

'All christianity is a myth' is no different to saying 'all BDSMers are abused or abusers'.  A bigoted view.


See, there is not evidence that Christianity is not a myth, that Christ was ever a man who walked on the planet.  None, zip, zero, nada.  The closest connection we have with a Christ who was alive was Paul.  If Paul's "Christ Jesus" was someone who recently walked on Earth, someone forgot to tell Paul (the inspiration for the rest of the gospels).  He was completely unaware of any of the events (short of death and resurrection) attributed to the life of Jesus.   So who was he talking about? ... Mithras, Dionysus, some other myth?  One thing is pretty sure:  The events Paul related of his "Christ Jesus" took place in a mythical land, not in recent (within a couple decades of the death of Jesus) Bethlehem.

I think saying it is a myth is *very* different from saying that all BDSMers are abused or abusers.  It does make for butt ugly argument though, which seems to be what you are going for.  Kudos.

quote:

I call it as I see it.  I am happy in my decision and choice of words - you fitted them and supported them.


Always happy to be of service, and I'm also happy that I don't see it your way.  [:)]
 
quote:

quote:

Kinda proved you either have difficulty reading or have difficulty supporting your own words.  I'm guessing it's the latter. 

quote:
I do not see where you questioned me or wanted me to support my words. 


Perhaps you missed this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Religon should be questioned, absolutely.  But there is a huge difference between questioning religon and singling out specific groups of believers.

Go search the threads here.  Christians and Muslims gain much ridicule and told they are ultimately 'wrong' for their belief.  Jewish - yeah you get anti semitism too - it's just a lot more 'refined'.  Religon isn't just christian, islam and judasim that is my point
 - but these are the sections that are berated as though they are fair game. . . .
quote:

Possible because "Most of the serious religiously motivated conflicts, mass crimes against humanity and geocides in the 20th century have been between Muslims and Christians. This has included genocides in Bosnia Herzegovina, East Timor, and the Sudan, as well as serious conflicts in Cyprus,  Kosovo, Macedonia, and the Philippines."  Quote from religioustolerance.org.
quote:

You could seperate catholicism from christianity and place that highest on the list - but it still comes down to the same thing.
quote:

Yes, it does.  The revered leader is anti-homosexual and misogynist.  The religion's history is as bloody and violent as any that ever existed (and the priesthood has proven to be quite twisted).  Why does saying so - stating fact - amount to hate-mongering in your mind?



quote:

Not that I needed to - you did that by yourself for me - and again I thank you. 


You are welcome for whatever you think I've done for you.

quote:

However, if you have a specific question you wish me to respond to - I would be more than happy to.  Ask away.


See above.

quote:

 
And at least I didn't call you a hate-monger (or anything else). 


quote:

You could call me whatever you wanted - makes no difference to me as long as you can support your claim.  You supported my claim by yourself - I have no 'need' to.


No, I didn't.  And yes,  you do, if you believe that supporting that claim is in anyway valid.

quote:

I'm not the one suggesting that all religion is destructive and ergo, that all people who follow a specific a religon are destructive.


I never said that.  I said that religion is destructive to people (bad for human beings).  I never made one single comment about "those people" or "all people" who belong to any or all religions being destructive.

quote:

I prefere to look a person as a whole - religious or not - whatever orientation they maybe -


I think of "orientation" as having more to do with sexuality than belief systems, but it's interesting to confuse them, eh?  Mine is militant atheist unto anti-theist.  I note you show a remarkable intolerance, even a hatred, for it.

quote:

 whatever lifestyle choice they make and not make blanket statements on a minority. 


ROFL.  How the hell is making a statement regarding *ALL* religions making a blanket statement about a minority? That's hysterical!
quote:


 I make the statement to the person themselves - everyone has personal responsibility regardless of their faith, ethnic origin, orientation, sex, etcetcetc.  Hence 'hate mongering'.


So you haven't engaged in any hate-mongering of late, have you, dark?

(edited to correct quotations)
 




RCdc -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 2:20:27 PM)

quote:

Yes, it does.  The revered leader is anti-homosexual and misogynist.  The religion's history is as bloody and violent as any that ever existed (and the priesthood has proven to be quite twisted).  Why does saying so - stating fact - amount to hate-mongering in your mind?


I assumed it was rhetorical.  My mistake so I will apologise and respond.
I do not see how certain religions bloody history caused by certain factions or organisations equates to all religions history being totally about violence, murder etc.  There are many religions based on peace and even reincarnation.  About living in harmony with the environment.  You are equating religion into one little box.  It doesn't come so pigeonholed.

quote:

I think of "orientation" as having more to do with sexuality than belief systems, but it's interesting to confuse them, eh?  Mine is militant atheist unto anti-theist.  I note you show a remarkable intolerance, even a hatred, for it.


On the point of orientation, so do I.  It was an example along with religion. Interesting to confuse them?  I do not see how one can, but I can understand that some people my wish to combine them.  I am not intolerant of your thoughts or belief, I am intolerant of hate, which you are showing quite remarkable amounts of.  I do not 'hate' anything - I don't waste my time on such a childish emotion as I choose who and what has control over my life.  I am intolerant of people who misuse any scripture for their own means to ridicule another persons belief and say that an entire collection of people destructive based on the actions of others.  What I am suggesting is that your anger and bigoted view is no different to any fundemental religion follower.  I am not a catholic for example, I do not believe in their doctrine, however I would never accuse an entire minority of being destructive.

quote:

I never said that.  I said that religion is destructive to people (bad for human beings).  I never made one single comment about "those people" or "all people" who belong to any or all religions being destructive.


Then I suggest you may want to be clearer in your sentance construction, for that is how it could possibly be read.  For example -

quote:

And I made clear that I consider religion, all religion - and I did harp on the point - to be destructive.


This possibly suggests in turn that all people who have religious belief are destructive.  Whether in their own life, or someone elses.  Unless you negate personal responsibility?

quote:

ROFL.  How the hell is making a statement regarding *ALL* religions making a blanket statement about a minority? That's hysterical!


Glad to make you laugh and give you the chance to ridicule.  I suggest you look into the question you just asked, yourself.  If you do not understand the minorities you are blanketing by your statements, then your responses at least, are understandable.

quote:

So you haven't engaged in any hate-mongering of late, have you, dark?

No.
 
If you are insinuating I am hatemongering your bias, then you clearly have not read what I have written.  I get your view is yours - I don't hate it.  I do not hate or have a bigoted view of non religious people as I have no particular bias either way in the majority of religions - but I do tolerate them and any belief system and even support them unless they push themselves upon others, or misuse scriptures to their own ends - then I speak up.
If a fundemental came here and berated you, called you a sinner because of your beliefs etc - I would support you just as equally as I do those who's religions you are now being condecending about.  All those religions and people you are grouping together.
 
Having ones own view pretty much rocks - but spouting misinformation on scripture to use it against a specific religion when it is clear to those who have studied original texts and writings you haven't, claiming all religions are destructive to people etc is entirely different.
 
I do not have a bias either way, unlike yourself.
I do apologise to the OP for disrupting the thread and remove myself so as not to disrupt it further.
 
the.dark.



colouredin -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 2:24:27 PM)

well said D&d I really think that this has missed the op now and I think that maybe that it should end now "one should not talk of politics or relgion" i guess that this is the reason why, I will add my own two cents in that i dont think i have ever seen a post of D&d's that can be construed as hate mongering.

The OP asked about power dynamics in religious scripture, I would say that it depends on your personal reading of the scripture, its like anything I read little women and loved it others have read it and hated it, what i got from it would be differant to others and its based in my own life experiance as is anything



katie978 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 2:40:25 PM)

~fast reply~

  The bible was written by men. Although I can appreciate it as a historical work of fiction with many tried and lasting ideas, I do not accept that is was the word of God. I also do not accept that God is an unchangeable entity, male or female. The idea that God is trapped in a human form is incredibly conceded on human’s part (is God not equally the creator of all creatures in this case? Why wouldn’t God look like a tree or something then?) Therefore, I have serious fundamental issues with Christianity and the idea of male dominated deities.

     We don't accept many of the other ridiculous ideas from the bible anymore-they are antiquated and have been proven wrong by modern science in many cases. We know now that the night air doesn’t cause sickness. A solar eclipse isn’t a sign of the apocalypse. The thought that women should be naturally submissive, I feel, is equally antiquated. Personally, I think I'm good for a lot more than popping out children. Any religion that tells me different is as ridiculous as something with alien ghosts (any practicing Scientologists on the forum?).

      I’m starting to feel that some people live in a kind of D/s fantasy. Personally, I’d have no problem if women were naturally submissive, since I am. However, this is the real world. The vast majority of people are not naturally submissive. I would never wish a world where one particular group was submissive on everyone simply because I feel that way (no matter what the bible says). The fun is in the choosing.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 2:42:54 PM)

My lack of religious inclination leaves me without needing to do anything or not do anything beyond the normal biolgoical stuff.  I'm not confined to any one order or anything of the sort.



cjan -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 2:45:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

Kahlil Gibran:

But tell me, who is he that can offend the spirit?
Shall the nightingale offend the stillness of the night, or the firefly the stars?
And shall your flame or your smoke burden the wind?
Think you the spirit is a still pool which you can trouble with a staff?
Oftentimes in denying yourself pleasure you do but store the desire in the recesses of your being.
Who knows but that which seems omitted today, waits for tomorrow?
Even your body knows its heritage and its rightful need and will not be deceived.
And your body is the harp of your soul,
And it is yours to bring forth sweet music from it or confused sounds.
And now you ask in your heart, "How shall we distinguish that which is good in pleasure from that which is not good?"
Go to your fields and your gardens, and you shall learn that it is the pleasure of the bee to gather honey of the flower,
But it is also the pleasure of the flower to yield its honey to the bee.
For to the bee a flower is a fountain of life,
And to the flower a bee is a messenger of love,
And to both, bee and flower, the giving and the receiving of pleasure is a need and an ecstasy.

[Emphasis added.]



Sigh, exactly, thanks for reminding me, subtee.



cjan -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 2:50:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EponasChylde

Well I suspect that science will one day understand these things...for nothing is "outside" of nature.

quote:

The spirit guide doesn't belong to them


I suspect that our spirit guides are actually our Higher Consciousness speaking to us, that part of ourselves which is joined purely to the Universe and which exists outside of the man-made invention of "time". They are not, in my opinion, external entities separate from ourselves.


Well said. A great thread, thanks to A/all for their input.



TracyTaken -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 3:11:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

Yes, it does.  The revered leader is anti-homosexual and misogynist.  The religion's history is as bloody and violent as any that ever existed (and the priesthood has proven to be quite twisted).  Why does saying so - stating fact - amount to hate-mongering in your mind?


I assumed it was rhetorical.  My mistake so I will apologise and respond.
I do not see how certain religions bloody history caused by certain factions or organisations equates to all religions history being totally about violence, murder etc. 


I note you dodged the question of the idicts of religious leaders being relevant to religious followers.  See more on other religions (not Abrhamic) below.

quote:

There are many religions based on peace and even reincarnation.  About living in harmony with the environment. 


There aren't "many" and their practitioners do not amount to much.  They truly are a minority, as believers go.
quote:


You are equating religion into one little box.  It doesn't come so pigeonholed.


It doesn't make a difference, IMO:  That humanity would be better off without them all.  Some are better than others is all I can say.

quote:

I think of "orientation" as having more to do with sexuality than belief systems, but it's interesting to confuse them, eh?  Mine is militant atheist unto anti-theist.  I note you show a remarkable intolerance, even a hatred, for it.


quote:

On the point of orientation, so do I.  It was an example along with religion. Interesting to confuse them? 

You are the one who "blended" them, not me.

quote:

I do not see how one can, but I can understand that some people my wish to combine them.  I am not intolerant of your thoughts or belief, I am intolerant of hate, which you are showing quite remarkable amounts of. 


I don't believe I've ascribed to any hate or encouraged anyone else to hate anything or do anything bad - except maybe think.  I've stated a lot of facts.  That's all.

quote:

I do not 'hate' anything - I don't waste my time on such a childish emotion as I choose who and what has control over my life.  I am intolerant of people who misuse any scripture for their own means to ridicule another persons belief and say that an entire collection of people destructive based on the actions of others.  What I am suggesting is that your anger and bigoted view is no different to any fundemental religion follower.  I am not a catholic for example, I do not believe in their doctrine, however I would never accuse an entire minority of being destructive.


Since I didn't either, I guess ... what ...?

quote:

I never said that.  I said that religion is destructive to people (bad for human beings).  I never made one single comment about "those people" or "all people" who belong to any or all religions being destructive.


Then I suggest you may want to be clearer in your sentance construction, for that is how it could possibly be read.  For example -

quote:

And I made clear that I consider religion, all religion - and I did harp on the point - to be destructive.


quote:

This possibly suggests in turn that all people who have religious belief are destructive.  Whether in their own life, or someone elses.  Unless you negate personal responsibility?


Well "possibly suggests" is a far cry from what I actually said.  I can accurately say that alcohol is terribly destructive and bad for human beings.  Did I in anyway say that anyone who imbibes is destructive?  I can accurately say ego is the root source of most human misery - does that equate to saying that anyone with an ego is the source of human misery?  Of course not.

quote:

ROFL.  How the hell is making a statement regarding *ALL* religions making a blanket statement about a minority? That's hysterical!


quote:

Glad to make you laugh and give you the chance to ridicule.  I suggest you look into the question you just asked, yourself.  If you do not understand the minorities you are blanketing by your statements, then your responses at least, are understandable.


If you combine all religions, they are not a minority.  How can you keep insinuating that I am attacking minorities when I am talking about the majority?

quote:

So you haven't engaged in any hate-mongering of late, have you, dark?

No.

quote:

If you are insinuating I am hatemongering your bias, then you clearly have not read what I have written.  I get your view is yours - I don't hate it.  I do not hate or have a bigoted view of non religious people as I have no particular bias either way in the majority of religions - but I do tolerate them and any belief system and even support them unless they push themselves upon others, or misuse scriptures to their own ends - then I speak up.


or when they start running the country or whatever. [:)]

quote:

Having ones own view pretty much rocks - but spouting misinformation on scripture to use it against a specific religion when it is clear to those who have studied original texts and writings you haven't, claiming all religions are destructive to people etc is entirely different.


Again, you are assuming that scripture (which I already consider to be fiction) matters - original texts and writings - it means nothing to me.  It's the passing on of myth, and that's all it is to me.  I haven't sprouted "misinformation" on scripture that I know of - and the scripture is pretty well out there.  I do not believe that you are claiming to have studied "the original texts and writings" (of what? would be my first question) - whatever that means.  You are not saying that you've actually seen the Gospel of Judas, for instance - or can read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek?
 
quote:

I do not have a bias either way, unlike yourself.


But you do, or we wouldn't have an argument at all.  And I do have bias, lots of bias about a lot of different things.  So do you.

quote:

I do apologise to the OP for disrupting the thread and remove myself so as not to disrupt it further.


Likewise.



RCdc -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/10/2008 3:21:30 PM)

Tracy.
As I said in my last post.  I am not hijacking the thread any longer or participating in your attempt.  I answered your question.
You are concentrating on certain religions - I am looking at religion as a whole.  You condemn all religions based on what - three or four?  And If you had read any of my previous posts on any subjects of religions or spirituality, then you would not need to ask the question you did about my studies of scriptures to which you are refering as well of those you have not.
 
I am not responding anymore and I find your disregard for the OPs question disrespectful.  I have also been less than respectful to her sofar and I will not continue to be so.  You wish me to discuss religions with you or answer the above - start another thread.  I will not continue to feed your disrespect or hate here.
 
the.dark.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02