RE: Religious Incompatibility

RE: Religious Incompatibility (Full Version)

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

Message

slavegirljoy -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 11:17:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsHonor 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. Except, that i didn't combine "i have never" with "i can't". You did that. When i used these two very different comments, i used them in two separate sentences that were dealing with two separate issues. The one was in reference to my never having done something before and the other was in reference to my inability to do something else. quote: 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. If you had simply interpreted my remarks, using your own words, there would be no need for me to clarify what i had said. But, you used my words, only with a couple of modifications and you stated that it was "another poster(s)" comment. You said, "Another poster" (me) had made "a comment about hot [not]" and then went on to use my statement with the exception that you changed my words "have never" into your words "being willing to" and you exchanged "Jesus" for "Christ". Just because you didn't formally cite it, the sentence is mine. i recognized it immediately as mine and you used it, with your alterations. my statement: "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." (A statement of my personal history.) your statement: "[not] being willing to bow and lay at the feet of anyone who wouldn't bow to and lay at the feet of Jesus..." (A statement of what i will not do.) How can you say that you didn't use my statement, but merely interpreted what i had said, in your own words? Other than changing the "have never" for "being willing to", it is my statement. You don't see that? Apparently, you don't see it or, you have no sense of integrity concerning the appropriate use of another person's original writing. Well, i have defended what i wrote, in order to maintain it's original meaning and intent, and i will continue to defend what i write, especially when i see that someone else has taken what i wrote and distorted it. joy Owned servant of Master David

domiguy -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/4/2008 11:50:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann I'm a very spiritual person. I don't follow any form of organized religion. I don't have a personal investment in my slave's specific religious beliefs. Yet I will never be involved with a woman who doesn't share an interest in spiritualism again. I would be incompatible with an athiest who doesn't respect my expectations for her emotional and spiritual development. Stephan I could really care less. I don't mind being confronted about my beliefs. I guess it comes down to how much control one must have or feel that they need. I would think that many women would be incredibly turned off that they are expected to develop "spiritually" based upon some Dom's belief system. But there is a lid for every pot. Many out here can't seem to find the ability to tie their shoes, work, or have any desire to educate themselves. Fuck, I guess they could use all of the guidance that one could offer.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/5/2008 2:02:28 AM)
I'll quote my own profile: "I have no interest in people that place religion before other concerns. I tend to be more compatible with personal spirituality and pagan types. I can be cool with an easy-going and truly compassionate christian also. The rules I establish come first at all times - it's my way or the highway." In other words, king before god. I am king.

hisannabelle -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/5/2008 2:14:46 AM)
ms. honor wrote: quote: Atheists are most certainly not theists. In fact, oddly enough, not being a theist is the sole qualification for being an "atheist". "Deist" means you believe in a creator who does not intervene in the universe. "Theist" means you believe in a creator who does intervene. "Atheist" means you believe there is no such creator. my answer from earlier still stands and i haven't read through the entire thread since then, but as this made me question my entire religious existence ;) i just had to ask...i hope no one's answered this already and this isn't specifically to ms. honor - anyone knowledgeable about this subject who can help me would be great. edited because wikipedia provided me all the answers to life's questions. quote: Theism is the belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities. There is also a narrower sense in which theism refers to the belief that one or more divinities are immanent in the world, yet transcend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.[1] as someone who's been a polytheist up until the last several months of her life (and believe me, that was the biggest change in reverting to islam), i have to say that there are plenty of theists including myself who do or have believed in one or many gods that intervene in the world and are NOT creators and not necessarily omniscient, omnipotent, and/or omnipresent. that pretty much defined my entire religious life up until my reversion (now i'm one of those regular old creator-god-believin' monotheists) and i have to say i was pretty shocked to find out that that whole creator god thing is so important (it never made sense to me, anyway, up until my reversion). for those who believe the narrower definition of theism - that one must believe in a creator in order to be a theist - what does that make the rest of us, exactly? if we're not theists and we're not deists and we're not atheists... annabelle.

MsHonor -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/5/2008 4:59:10 PM)
That's a very interesting observation... While the currently "correct" definition of "theism" specifies a creator-god, "polytheism" is obviously theistic in nature, and I can think of no polytheistic pantheons in which all of the member dieties shared equally in the task of creation... Nor can I think, offhand, of any in which some diety or dieties didn't create or bring about the creation of the world in some manner. I suppose my gut-level instinct would be to mark the currently "correct" (I keep putting it in quotes in this case, since, as language is a maddeningly living and evolving (and de-evolving) thing, "correct" definitions are prone to change over time...) definition is much colored by modern mono-theistic thought. With the obvious caveat that I'm in no more an authoritative position to make a judgement than any other educated lay specialist in language and lexicology, I'd say my judgement would be that poly-theistic religions are still theistic, the calssifying characteristics being not singularity or creation, but rather supernatural nature and a willingness to, interest in, and capability to intervene in the workings universe, and specifically "human" events.

CountrySong -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/6/2008 9:33:42 PM)
MsHonor, You have great intellectual clarity and power. However, does it really matter when it comes to faith? Let me clarify, once studied math and physics and at one point I could explain to you how relativity affected every movement we made and sightly messed with our observations. But does it really make any difference in real life for most people to know that? Most people really just care that they flip on the switch and it works. The simple fact is that religion works and works well for most of it's followers. So does submission to a belief system or a person. Submission has been a key to our survival for hundreds of thousands of years. It works those who did not submit and gain the protection of the group or ruler - died. Simple, effective, and very real. It really was not all that long ago the the absolute rule of the land was determined by war or some form of subjugation. It still is that way in many places of the world. Even in our "enlightened society" just go into any high school or corporate boardroom and you will submission is alive, well, and working. I will grant that religion has been used a a tool of control and manipulation but so has everything good - for example - LOVE. Peace

Stephann -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/6/2008 10:24:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro I'll quote my own profile: "I have no interest in people that place religion before other concerns. I tend to be more compatible with personal spirituality and pagan types. I can be cool with an easy-going and truly compassionate christian also. The rules I establish come first at all times - it's my way or the highway." In other words, king before god. I am king. In truth, I fully agree. My religious convictions are such that I'm compatible with anyone who isn't anti-spiritualism. I also expect my slave to put her duties to me before her religious expectations. I'm accommodating to a point, but that's a point I draw; not her. Stephan

slavegirljoy -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/6/2008 10:55:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro In other words, king before god. I am king. I also expect my slave to put her duties to me before her religious expectations. Stephan i have to be able to put my Master first and submit to Him in all ways, all the time. If i couldn't do that, without question or hesitation, then i would not be in a relationship with Him, to begin with. This is why it's paramount to me, when i make the decision to enter into an intimate relationship, that He and i have shared values, principles, interests, objectives, and a shared faith in God. i have to have complete faith in my Master, and i do, because i know that my Master has His complete faith in God. i submit to my Master's will because my Master submits to God's will. joy Owned servant of Master David

Stephann -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/6/2008 11:24:01 PM)
Hi joy, That drives home what I was trying to say in the first place; it isn't a question of if your religion matters more (or less) than your submission; it's about making sure whomever you submit (or dominate) has a compatible view. A casusal muslim and a casual jew can have a great relationship; a devout buddhist isn't likely to do well with a devout athiest. Stephan

chickpea -> RE: Religious Incompatibility (4/6/2008 11:58:29 PM)
think if you love someone enough you will either accept their differences or you or he/she will change. Or if both of you can't give it up, and it's so important to you, then both of you can't change, then gotta part ways.. I know a 60 year old jewish guy who married a presbyterian woman and converted to presbeterianism. I suppose their relationship was strong enough, and staying jewish wasn't that important to him. It just seems that if two people really like each other, their religions would be similar so this wouldn't be too much of a problem. As for OP, I think that religion and spirituality demands faith. And those living with faith (trust in a higher power or purpose for good or evil outside of themselves) seem to feel and act differently. Their lives tend to be structured differently then those without faith. So again, it's hard for me to imagine an atheist with a devote mormon. Or a devil worshipper with a christian. I think the only problem with spirituality will be if two of you are the exact same religion. I agree. Spirituality in a sub probably a must for a spiritual dom.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125