RE: Religious Incompatibility

RE: Religious Incompatibility (Full Version)

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

Message

aBondageTop -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/2/2008 6:33:37 PM)
quote: Occasionally we clash, as couples do, so mostly we avoid talking about it. That is exactly what I don't want -- a subject that we can not talk about.

MsHonor -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/2/2008 8:45:08 PM)
Monkeyontuesday, puppy4owner, MzMia, and HerLord... Thank you for your kind words. MzMia on definitions... Yeah, me and Oxford English Dictionary, we're like -this- (well, that illustration doesn't work so well without a visual compnant, does it? ;-) I think it's the natural lawyer or naval officer in me (I'm pretty sure I'm the female reincarnation of Jack Aubrey. Or maybe a pre-incarnation of my namesake, Honor Harrington. It's more fun playing reincarnation with fictional characters. ;-) I'm fond of precise language with tight explicit, rather than implicit definitions. HerLord on save and review... Please feel free, and contact me with any questions or discussion you might like to toss around. And CountrySong... A well written and considered reply... Thank you. I always appreciate it when someone is willing and able to discuss their beliefs intelligently... I hope you don't mind if I answer a few points. The distinction between religion as a cause of suffering and as a tool of suffering is a vanishingly thin one, I feel, though. The latter is the one I intended, for what it's worth. We needn't stick with ancient examples... We have plenty right here and now. We're fighting a war over oil and profiteering that's sold to the public as a religious conflict. American politics is sticky-coated in revisionist history because there is a significant percentage of the population who are unhappy that their religion isn't explicitly codified as law... The sheer tonnage of that last seemingly simple fact extends to so much strife on so many levels... There is almost literally no aspect of life in the United States where there is not massive and energetic activity by the christian majority to try to force, or ensure we -continue- to force all people to live by the rules of their religion. Prostitution, alcohol, tobacco, birth control, gay marriage, evolution, abortion, stem cells, school prayer, euthanasia, pornography, "obscenity"... a massive 70+ percent majority is screaming like a stuck pig that they are "under attack" because the other twenty-odd percent aren't shoving the bible far enough up their... personal spaces. The idea that religious people are happier... As Shaw said: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." If delusional bliss is the end-all and be-all of human existence, let's just cut to the chase, close down the universities and libraries, and distribute heroine in the water supply. Your three questions... Well, I can see and respect the method and reason. I asked much the same questions... I just came up with different answers. Healing the sick and making balloon animals for the children certainly wasn't all that Jesus "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" of Nazereth did, even leaving aside all the careful editing for control potential that the first Council of Nicaea did. Further, quite young, I came to the conclusion that if I died and found that god -was- real, it would hardly be reasonable of him or her to be upset with me when s/he had obviously gone to such great lengths to keep his or her existence hidden from me and avoid "returning my calls". In short, I came to the conclusion that, if there's a god, then s/he made me the kind of critical thinker who demands a higher standard of proof, and then refused to give it... If s/he's also the sort who would punish me for being the way I was made, then not only do I not know hir, I don't want to know hir. Second, is heaven possible? Another question I found easy to answer early on... The concept, as presented in calssic religion, is, to me, ridiculous. But, for the sake of debate, if we accept that the presented information is just an imperfect analogy, and there is some kind of eternal cosmic happy place, I'm sure anyone who lives a decent life and tries to do well will be welcome. I personally don't need a self-contradictory ancient rule book, the interpretations of that book by self-appointed experts, or a dietic sword of damocles to imbue me with ethics or a conscience. The answer you got for your third question, though, is essentially the same one I got. When I was young and searching my way through religion, I couldn't see what the big deal was with evolution... Surely god was smart enough to develop such a system. My sunday-school teachers were not amused. :-) I just think occam's razor makes such a creator vastly unlikely.

MzMia -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/2/2008 9:19:56 PM)
[sm=smile.gif] Thank you for another well thought out and thought provoking post. I may not agree with you on several points, but I enjoy reading about your pov, and you are able to make your point without attacking Believers. I hope you will agree, that everyone that Believes in a Higher Power, is not part of the "moral majority" or the "religious fanatical right", there is a middle ground and I think many of us, are in that "middle ground". Thank you again.[;)]

MsHonor -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/2/2008 10:23:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MzMia I hope you will agree, that everyone that Believes in a Higher Power, is not part of the "moral majority" or the "religious fanatical right", there is a middle ground and I think many of us, are in that "middle ground". Thank you again :-) And yes, I agree, of course. I do tend to believe that te vast majority of religious people, like the vast majority of any class of people, are basically decent, good folks. In the case of any religion with an "authoritative" profile, it does tend to give me an awful lot of worry. I think a whole lot of "basically decent, good folks" - in any category, to be sure, not just religious - can be led to do some pretty attrocious things by authority figures that choose to hijack a position of authority. The problem I have with religious folks in that capacity is that very many of them are already predisposed to accept authority that doesn't make much sense, and do things they might not be naturally prone to doing, without further independant thought. Even terminology like "Lord" and "Higher Power" play into this... Another poster (forgive me for not looking her up) makes a comment about hot being willing to bow and lay at the feet of anyone who wouldn't bow to and lay at the feet of Jesus... Much of our biblical accounts of Jesus seem to indicate that this isn't on his interests list... He didn't want people to bow down to him and lie at his feet... And he washed the feet of common slaves to illustrate it. Over generations, living human beings have hijacked that image, and created a mystique of authority, then emplaced themselves as the only source authorized to speak for it. This forms a powder keg when it's combined with a social environment where questioning and skepticism and individual accountability for moral direction is actively discouraged. I'm very much encouraged by the modern trend to re-color Jesus, for example, as all about peace and love and acceptance of others - I think religion drawn in that model is much more survivable for our planet and species... But I've also seen disturbing historical studies that show a trend for significant numbers to be drawn, in each generation, to more radical views. It vexes me... And I spend a lot of time thinking about it. It's not that big a concern, I think, for people who can say "well, my image of god is a bit different from yours." but when you're in a position where a very substantial percentage of the people in the world think you're a bad person because of the way you were born, and a smaller, but still very significant percentage thinks you should be jailed or even killed for it, it takes on a whole different light. It gets very difficult not to paint with a broad brush when someone wants to kill you... Although I work hard to keep that in mind and avoid it. At any rate... As an attempt to bring my post back on topic and un-de-rail the train... That's where I draw the line in a relationship... If you take your ultimate marching orders from someone besides me, or your own internal and well reasoned set of ethics (observance of locals laws and such obvious concerns withstanding) we're going to have issues... And, again, not to be abrasive, but if I can't help but see that "authority" as an imaginary being, as represented solely by human beings you've never even met... The issues are going to be profound. We have two words for someone who maintains that they get instructions from someone nobody else can see or hear... One of them makes it pretty difficult to get a job in a sensitive area or around dangerous equipment. ;-)

NorthernGent -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/3/2008 2:41:08 AM)
I don't have a problem with espousing the merit of an idea. It would, however, be a problem were this religious idea to be a closed shop. In my mind, as our knowledge of the world moves on, so ideas and perceptions will move on. Clinging to an idea is a barrier to progress and has been over time.

camille65 -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/3/2008 5:25:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aBondageTop quote: Occasionally we clash, as couples do, so mostly we avoid talking about it. That is exactly what I don't want -- a subject that we can not talk about. Yes. I went through 20 years being married to a man who made me avoid numerous topics. Religion, politics, art, psychology, medicine, doctors, government & so many more. It was actually difficult to find anything safe to talk about. There would be whole conversations in my head that had to stay quiet, in the end I felt like I was losing huge parts of myself. I don't like being stifled or having to hide my thoughts, I'm not good at it! I would forget, I would slip and say something that would cause him to rage at me. By the end of our marriage there was almost no conversation except for things like what I was going to make for dinner. On religious incompatibility, its funny but when I was younger (20's) I would have told anyone that it didn't matter. 'Oh love conquers all' and I truly believed it. I thought that if two people cared for each other certain things wouldn't matter. Like socio economic backgrounds and yes, like religion. I have no religion and I am neutral on the idea of one God. It would be difficult to be with someone that has a strong attachment to their religion (puts on her purty rose colored glasses and reverts to being a 20 something) but.. with work & openness it may not be impossible. I think I would feel uncomfortable but maybe a balance can be found. Maybe.

slavegirljoy -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/3/2008 6:04:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsHonor Another poster (forgive me for not looking her up) That would be me, slavegirljoy. quote: makes a comment about hot [not] being willing to bow and lay at the feet of anyone who wouldn't bow to and lay at the feet of Jesus... Much of our biblical accounts of Jesus seem to indicate that this isn't on his interests list... He didn't want people to bow down to him and lie at his feet... And he washed the feet of common slaves to illustrate it. i never said that Jesus wants people to bow down to Him and lay at His feet. i said that i "have never bowed down and laid at the feet of any man who would not bow down and lay at the feet of Christ." [Direct quote] i also said, "i can't submit to any man unless and until he submits to God and accepts Christ as his personal savior." http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1759199 That is my personal preference for whom i choose to serve. And, if my Master, who is a Christian and follows the teachings of Jesus, wanted to wash the feet of His slave, He would do that. He has cooled the brow of His slave with a wet towel when she was running a fever and not feeling well. It would be nice if you could make your point without needing to skew my words out of their original meaning and intent. joy Owned servant of Master David

favesclava -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/3/2008 6:20:06 AM)
Master's Catholic. i'm a Wiccan. we both had studied each other's religion years before meeting. we respect the rituals of each .neither is expected to participate in the other's observances. not been a problem with us . i guess because we undestand that everyone has their own path to follow.

MsHonor -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 5:32:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy quote: ORIGINAL: MsHonor Another poster (forgive me for not looking her up) That would be me, slavegirljoy. quote: makes a comment about hot [not] being willing to bow and lay at the feet of anyone who wouldn't bow to and lay at the feet of Jesus... Much of our biblical accounts of Jesus seem to indicate that this isn't on his interests list... He didn't want people to bow down to him and lie at his feet... And he washed the feet of common slaves to illustrate it. (left in for reference, embarrassing typo included ;-) i never said that Jesus wants people to bow down to Him and lay at His feet. i said that i "have never bowed down and laid at the feet of any man who would not bow down and lay at the feet of Christ." [Direct quote] i also said, "i can't submit to any man unless and until he submits to God and accepts Christ as his personal savior." http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1759199 That is my personal preference for whom i choose to serve. And, if my Master, who is a Christian and follows the teachings of Jesus, wanted to wash the feet of His slave, He would do that. He has cooled the brow of His slave with a wet towel when she was running a fever and not feeling well. It would be nice if you could make your point without needing to skew my words out of their original meaning and intent. joy Owned servant of Master David I'm sorry you felt I "skewed" your words, but I think if you look again, you'll see I didn't. I didn't say that you said Jesus wanted people to bow to him, only that Jesus himself isn't recorded as having shown any interest in having people bow to him... And that an implied requirement of a willingness to do so was, therefore, both peculiar and illustrative of my larger point.

Wheldrake -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 11:51:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsHonor Further, quite young, I came to the conclusion that if I died and found that god -was- real, it would hardly be reasonable of him or her to be upset with me when s/he had obviously gone to such great lengths to keep his or her existence hidden from me and avoid "returning my calls". In short, I came to the conclusion that, if there's a god, then s/he made me the kind of critical thinker who demands a higher standard of proof, and then refused to give it... If s/he's also the sort who would punish me for being the way I was made, then not only do I not know hir, I don't want to know hir. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he died and found himself called to account for his agnosticism before God. His answer: "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence." By the way, like others here, I'm very impressed with the intelligence, eloquence and clarity of your posts!

slavegirljoy -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 3:09:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsHonor quote: ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy quote: ORIGINAL: MsHonor Another poster (forgive me for not looking her up) That would be me, slavegirljoy. quote: makes a comment about hot [not] being willing to bow and lay at the feet of anyone who wouldn't bow to and lay at the feet of Jesus... Much of our biblical accounts of Jesus seem to indicate that this isn't on his interests list... He didn't want people to bow down to him and lie at his feet... And he washed the feet of common slaves to illustrate it. (left in for reference, embarrassing typo included ;-) i never said that Jesus wants people to bow down to Him and lay at His feet. i said that i "have never bowed down and laid at the feet of any man who would not bow down and lay at the feet of Christ." [Direct quote] i also said, "i can't submit to any man unless and until he submits to God and accepts Christ as his personal savior." http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1759199 That is my personal preference for whom i choose to serve. And, if my Master, who is a Christian and follows the teachings of Jesus, wanted to wash the feet of His slave, He would do that. He has cooled the brow of His slave with a wet towel when she was running a fever and not feeling well. It would be nice if you could make your point without needing to skew my words out of their original meaning and intent. joy Owned servant of Master David I'm sorry you felt I "skewed" your words, but I think if you look again, you'll see I didn't. I didn't say that you said Jesus wanted people to bow to him, only that Jesus himself isn't recorded as having shown any interest in having people bow to him... And that an implied requirement of a willingness to do so was, therefore, both peculiar and illustrative of my larger point. MsHonor,You did skew my words. You changed my words, which changed the meaning of my statement, in order to use them for your own purpose. You chose to take my comments, which were made to the OP in response to his question concerning religious incompatibility in personal relationships, to make your argument. Instead of quoting me accurately, you changed my words, which changed the meaning of what i wrote and you used it to make a point that had nothing to do with what i had written. my statement that "i have never bowed down...." was a reference to my personal history. It had absolutely nothing to do with what Jesus did or didn't do or with what He wants people to do. It was only about what i have not done. i didn't say anything about what Jesus wants me to do or what He requires. my statement was about me and my experience. i did not say anything about the "interests" of Jesus "in having people bow to him", nor was my comment intended to "imply" any "requirement of a willingness to do so". When you changed my words to "not being willing to bow and lay ", that changed my remarks to something that i didn't write or imply. i call that skewing my words to fit your purpose. That you would use my statement, take it out of it's context, change the wording, and use it to make a point that had nothing to do with my beliefs or with what i had stated is an offense to me and, i am not easily offended. Doing that doesn't seem to be very honorable, to me. If you want to use my comments, in order to illustrate a point you are making, it would be nice if you would, at least, quote me correctly and not change the wording and meaning of what i wrote just so you can make my words fit your needs. joyOwned servant of Master David

MsHonor -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 3:20:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wheldrake I seem to remember reading somewhere that Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he died and found himself called to account for his agnosticism before God. His answer: "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence." By the way, like others here, I'm very impressed with the intelligence, eloquence and clarity of your posts! Thank you... I've not been around these forums long enough to know whether it's more acceptable to tle local community to post thanking someone for kind comments, or to perhaps use a more private message on the other side of the site... So I'll continue to follow instinct at the rist of a slight, momentary de-railment. Russell and others have been very helpful as I passed through several stages of theistic thought. I started off like most any child, believing what I was told... Tooth fairy, santa clause, etc... Then I got old enough to independantly think about the inconsistency and logic, and I had this sense of waiting for the punch line - like when you suspect the adults are having one over on you, and you kind of smile and wait to see which of them will break a smile first, letting the cat out of the bag... Then I realized they weren't joking. It's kind of tense, but pleasant in a "belonging" sort of way to think they're all pulling your leg. It's another feeling entirely to realize they're all very mildly insane. One important advantage I had... My mother's and father's families were of two very disparate sects of christianity. So, while I saw all the obvious similarities between the catholic and mormon beliefs, all I heard from both sides of the family was how the other side was going to hell. It was a huge head start in terms of impetus for research and comparative thinking, and critical thought. Another was the habit my parents had of not providing easy answers. As parents sometimes do, they bought a set of encyclopedia for me before I was born... As too few parents do, they also insisted I use it. Questions were usually met with "What do you think?", or "Look it up." followed by the "What do you think?" discussion... John Stuart Mill wrote "The world would be astonished if it knew how great a proportion of it's brightest ornaments - of those distinguished even in popular estimation for wisdom and virtue, are complete skeptics in religion." and I consider myself lucky that I didn't read the opinions of most of the "great minds" on the subject until I'd reached the beginnings of my own conclusions. It's more... fulfilling to come to the answer on your own and learn that the professor thinks it's correct than to simply have them give you their answer. ;-) It used to give me great comfort... Thinking that I'd independantly come to the same conslusion as people like Jefferson, Paine, Mill, etc... I thought it comforting to think that, with advances in literacy and education, surely the dark ages of religion were very numbered. But then it became troubling... The knowedge that, for well over 2000 years, the smartest people in the room have known that religion is hooey, and yet... Here we still are. How does one justify hope that things will get significantly better in her own lifetime? Back on topic of religious compatibility in a D/s relationship, and relative to favesclava's post - I would think, religious wars of the past to the contrary - that two people of any two religions would be better matched than a religious and a non-religious person. I've been catholic, and I've been a sort of wiccan... I studied wicca for some significant time, close to some twenty years ago. For a while, I classed myself, tongue-in-cheek, as a neo-pagan agnostic with atheistic leanings... But, I found that too many of my "fellow wiccans" were not different in any substantial way from my catholic friends, in that they still believed in and prayed to a personal, theistic diety or dieties... They just had different names and dogmas. I don't think any reasonable person could be 100% atheist. It (the concept of god) is a very well constrtucted logic trap, refined and changed over thousands of years every time intellect comes within eyesight of it... But I think it's reasonable to be - as I am - what, iirc, Dawkins called a "tooth fairy atheist"... I consider the existence of god and the tooth fairy to be equally likely and eqaully supported by available fact and evidence. I think any two theists have more common ground in that matter than do a theist and an atheist. Those arguing between whether that guy overe there is named Bob or Tim seem to have more in common than the third party who's saying "Dude, that's just a shadow."

ThundersCry -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 3:21:44 PM)
Like any other area that we were* to be compatable in, this is one as well...* 20 yrs ago...I could have cared less....

MsHonor -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 3:57:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy MsHonor,You did skew my words... Oh, for pete's sake. No. I did -not- skew your words. Taking inferred meaning is not "skewing", and neither is using them in illustration of a further point. I already tried to apologise, but if you want to dance, then lets dance. First, if you don't want what you say to be referenced and analyzed by others, I suggest you not say it in public. Next, let's review the entire relevant paragraph of your original statement... quote: ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy Personally, i have always had a strong Christian faith and i have never bowed down and laid at the feet of any man who would not bow down and lay at the feet of Christ. That's not to say that we have to be members of the same church or that he has to belong to any church, but i can't submit to any man unless and until he submits to God and accepts Christ as his personal savior. (emphasis added) Whether or not you intended the implication, how can you seriously say that doesn't imply an unwillingness? You said "i can't". Since you're presumably physically capable of the act, the only remaining logical implication is an unwillingness to do so. There is an important difference in matters of citation between quoting someone and restating or referencing their statement. I said: quote: Another poster (forgive me for not looking her up) makes a comment about hot being willing... (sic) This is clearly not a quote, but rather a reference to a statement... Made in that form both because I could not be bothered to go back and quote you, and because your identity and direct quote were only tangentially related to the actual point I was making in the first place. In other words, my point was not even about you. It was about the dysphoria and dissonance that can be engendered when a submissive holds out as a requirement the condition that his or her dominant first submit to a questionable higher power. That dissonance, and that precondition, are incongruous to my requirements for a D/s relationship... Stating which, if you'll recall, is the point of the thread in the first place. Again... I am sorry you took offense at my words and actions, but I maintain that that offense was both unwarranted and clearly unintended. I neither twisted your words, nor your meaning. I didn't quote you, modify that non-existent quote, or put words in your mouth. I simply inferred the obvious implication from your words, and used that inference in illustrating a larger point. You say you don't take offense easily, but your reaction in this case seems to be at odds with that statement.

slavegirljoy -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 4:24:00 PM)
It's amazing how 20 years can make a big difference in what we value and consider to be important in our lives and in our relationships. While i have always had a strong Christian faith, 20 years ago i didn't make having a common faith with someone, who i wanted to build an intimate relationship with, a high priority. Looking back, it's easy to see how that made it more difficult to have a mutually-satisfying relationship. The reason that i have such a high level of trust in my Master is because i have faith in Him, that He will do what is best for me and Him. The reason that i have faith in my Master, and in the decisions He makes about my life, is primarily because i know that He is a Man of faith and that He follows the word of God and the teachings of Jesus. The reason that i speak of my "faith", rather than my "religion", is because i don't need to follow a man-made religion in order to believe in God. Having FAITH, by it's definition, means that no proof is needed to believe. faith (n.) Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance i understand that there are people who need to have proof, in order to believe. i'm not one of them and, as far as i'm concerned, if proof was available, there would be no reason for having faith. You don't need to have faith when the proof is right in front of you. joy Owned servant of Master David

slavegirljoy -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 5:06:52 PM)
No, i'm not interested in dancing with you. i am only interested in making it clear that when, what i post on this forum is used by someone else, that my words are used accurately, as i wrote them. You can infer what you want from what i wrote. That's up to your interpretation. But, when you change what i wrote and state that i did write that, when i didn't, then you are no longer inferring, you are misrepresenting my comments. quote: Whether or not you intended the implication, how can you seriously say that doesn't imply an unwillingness? You said "i can't". Since you're presumably physically capable of the act, the only remaining logical implication is an unwillingness to do so. Yes, my unwillingness to submit to certain people is my unwillingness. Not because i believe that Jesus doesn't want me to, but because i don't want to. No implication about what Jesus "requires" or wants. quote: There is an important difference in matters of citation between quoting someone and restating or referencing their statement. I said: "Another poster (forgive me for not looking her up) makes a comment about hot being willing..." (sic) Exactly, and saying that i made "a comment about [not] being willing to bow down...." is completely false. i did not say that i was not willing...., i said that "i have never bowed down....". If you don't recognize the difference in those two statements, then you will never understand why i have been making a point of correcting what you said i said. quote: This is clearly not a quote, but rather a reference to a statement... Made in that form both because I could not be bothered to go back and quote you, and because your identity and direct quote were only tangentially related to the actual point I was making in the first place. You didn't need to make it into a quote, but you could have, at least, kept from changing my wording, which, even though it might just be two little words, making that change completely changes what i said. quote: In other words, my point was not even about you. It was about the dysphoria and dissonance that can be engendered when a submissive holds out as a requirement the condition that his or her dominant first submit to a questionable higher power. And, my point is, when you choose to use someone else's remarks, why not give them the courtesy of keeping their remarks honest by not changing the wording? When you you change the words you change the meaning. As far as i'm concerned, it is up to each individual, be they submissive or not, to decide for themself what requirements and conditions are needed for them to enter into a relationship with someone. For me, having a personal requirement that i will not submit to anyone who doesn't submit to God right up there with i will not submit to anyone who is a smoker or heavy drinker or drug user or, child molester or, felon or, etc., etc. i am, after all, a very selective submissive woman, who chooses very carefully, based on many conditions and requirements, who i will submit to. quote: I maintain that that offense was both unwarranted and clearly unintended. I neither twisted your words, nor your meaning. According to you. According to me, you misused my comments by changing the wording and passing them off as something that i had said, when it wasn't what i had said, at all. quote: I didn't quote you, modify that non-existent quote, or put words in your mouth. I simply inferred the obvious implication from your words, and used that inference in illustrating a larger point. You made a point, in making your argument, to reference a comment that you said i had made, which, since you changed my original wording, was not my comment. If you don't understand that doing that is an offense to me, then you just don't get it and there's no need to continue this discussion. You see it your way and i see it mine. But, hopefully, in the future, if you choose to use the posted remarks of someone else, you will, at least, give their words the respect of accuracy, rather than changing them to suit your purpose. joy Owned servant of Master David

MsHonor -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 6:01:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavegirljoy ...and there's no need to continue this discussion. You see it your way and i see it mine. Well, I think you've got it right there. There seems little point in continuing. I can't tell whether you're being intentionally obtuse, or whether you're too emotionally invested in your position to look at the situation rationally, or if you're just completely unaware of the conventions of citation, style, and academic discussion... But, while you take refuge in the idea that I see it "my way" and you see it yours, keep in mind that the manuals of style - both Strunk & White, Chicago, MLA, AP, NYTimes, Oxford, and every other style guideline I know of agrees with me. No reasonable court or academic review board could agree that I "misquoted" you, and I very much doubt they could find in clear conscience that I even misrepresented your stated position. I can't help noticing that a) you keep ignoring that I never said you made any implication about Jesus' wishes, and b) you completely refused to answer or even acknowledge that "i can't submit to" is a pretty strong and obvious implication of unwillingness.

vampchick88 -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 6:18:09 PM)
I belong to a strict faith yet myself exercise the right to do my own thing with no one to answer to but God. pet does not have the same belief system that I do....does this keep us from being together? no. We have an understanding that I won't push my religion on him or down his throat and he'll respect the same with me. Everyone in relationships have some sort of differences, thats one of ours but its never really been seen as a big problem.

slavegirljoy -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 8:22:57 PM)
You seem to be ignoring the fact that you referenced my post and used my words to make an argument, but you changed the words that i wrote and changed the meaning of what i wrote and that doesn't seem to bother you. In the hope of helping you to realize why this is an issue with me, i will try to type more slowly. In case you forgot, this is what you posted: quote: Another poster (forgive me for not looking her up) makes a comment about hot [not] being willing to bow and lay at the feet of anyone who wouldn't bow to and lay at the feet of Jesus..." Much of our biblical accounts of Jesus seem to indicate that this isn't on his interests list... He didn't want people to bow down to him and lie at his feet... And he washed the feet of common slaves to illustrate it. Over generations, living human beings have hijacked that image, and created a mystique of authority, then emplaced themselves as the only source authorized to speak for it. What you said that i stated was not what i wrote. This is what i actually said, quote: " i have never bowed down and laid at the feet of any man who would not bow down and lay at the feet of Christ." "Have never bowed down" is not the same as "not being willing to bow down". "Have never" is a statement about what i have not done. It is a historical reference to my past experiences. "Not being willing to" is a comment about what i will not do. And, that is not what i said. Do you not see the difference in those two statements and their meanings? Even my 5th grader can identify how those two statements are not the same. Actually, i did answer the question about my unwillingness to submit to certain men, in my previous post, which you can see above. And, my unwillingness to submit to certain men is a separate issue from my having never bowed down to and laid at the feet of certain men. i have often submitted to men, without ever bowing down or laying at their feet. If you feel the need to use my words to make your argument, why not use my words the way that i wrote them? Is that really too difficult a concept for you to grasp? Don't you think that your argument would have more credibility if you actually used the words, as written, of the person you are referencing? i think the point you are making would carry more weight, if you didn't change the other person's wording. i sincerely hope that, if you must use the posts of other people to make your argument, that you will keep their words true to the way the original poster wrote them and not change them. Hopefully, that isn't asking too much. joy Owned servant of Master David

MsHonor -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 9:37:56 PM)
Don't try to type more slowly, luv... Just try to think more clearly. Whatever. When you get all the definitions of "qoute" and "referenced" changed in all the relevant dictionaries and style manuals, let me know. I'd love to stay and discuss the finer points of accepted procedures in rhetoric with you some more, but I'm afraid your cutting implication that I'm just a big, mean, poopie-head who has to be typed slowly to has overturned years and years of positive reinforcement, honors courses in forensics, debate, and composition, good grades, good reviews, and being patted on the head by my grandmother as she said "what a clever girl". I believe I'll cry first, then possibly seek therapy. One last time. I -am- sorry you took offense at my post. If I'd meant to offend you, trust me... I would have done a far better job of it. I'm good at it. I'm even more sorry that you don't understand the difference between making a reference to someone's statement and quoting them. I'm sorry that you don't understand that I didn't alter the meaning of your words... I used my own words to interpret your words, and I'm sorry you don't see the difference, or the validity of it. I'm sorry you don't understand that "I have never..." in combination with "I can't..." makes for a pretty clear implication of unwillingness. I'm done with the discussion. If you wish to discuss it further, I suggest you discuss it with a college rhetoric professor, an english comp professor, a psych professor, a law professor, or someone else who understands composition, rhetoric, and citation and hasn't already wearied of beating her head against the wall. I wish you peace and understanding, and again... I'm sorry for your distress.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625