RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION

RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (Full Version)

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

Message

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:11:14 AM)
quote: I know for a fact that I am not God. Well, technically, you fit into the deification category on my path... but then again, so do trees. grins Calla

leadership527 -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:14:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot However, demanding to be worshiped as god or goddess, is very wrong. No it's not wrong. It is, however, very likely to cause Carol to fall down on the floor laughing. If I commanded her to do it with a straight face she'd need a lot of practice. quote: In general, I think that the slave should have absolute freedom of religion, and whatever he or she believes in, should be his / her own choice. Once again, I'm afraid, you're missing the point... at least for me. Carol isn't free. She doesn't have freedom of anything. Although now that I think on it, since I did commit to at least trying not to be a dumbass and thinking that I had suddenly become divine would certainly qualify, she might have an out on this one.

SocratesNot -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:16:49 AM)
I still believe that the religion is most private and sensitive part of anyone and should not be forcefully changed. Converting the slave is totally OK, but not by force or direct request. If he/she chooses to accept your religion, that's fine, but forcing it, is not.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:17:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW I use gender-neuter pronouns when posting to the boards. Calla Is "hir" an actual word? Yes, it is an actual word, in the same sense that "email", "blog", etc., are words, though it is not in common useage, and I don't know if it has made it into any dictionaries as of yet (though it IS listed among gender-neuter pronouns on Wikipedia). I started using it in 1998, when I started writing a novel that required pronouns for a third gender called "bi-gens", who were able to shift from one gender to the other at will. I decided that English, with its absence of gender-neuter pronouns, really needed a boost in order to not have the confusion of a character's pronoun changing several times through the course of the book, so I worked with the TG community to find words that would work. The first version of the novel came out with another set of neuter-gender pronouns, but editors and readers found it cumbersome, so in the 2nd edition, we switched out the previous neuter-gender pronouns for xhe and hir -- and I've been using them ever since.

LadyCimarron -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:19:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot I still believe that the religion is most private and sensitive part of anyone and should not be forcefully changed. Converting the slave is totally OK, but not by force or direct request. If he/she chooses to accept your religion, that's fine, but forcing it, is not. I get your point here and could ALMOST agree with it, except for the fact that I believe that if someone is serious about their faith you CANNOT force them to change it. You may be able to force them to perform certain actions but you cannot force them to change what they believe. So for me its a moot point.

crazyml -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:20:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW I use gender-neuter pronouns when posting to the boards. Calla Is "hir" an actual word? Yes, it is an actual word, in the same sense that "email", "blog", etc., are words, though it is not in common useage, and I don't know if it has made it into any dictionaries as of yet (though it IS listed among gender-neuter pronouns on Wikipedia). I started using it in 1998, when I started writing a novel that required pronouns for a third gender called "bi-gens", who were able to shift from one gender to the other at will. I decided that English, with its absence of gender-neuter pronouns, really needed a boost in order to not have the confusion of a character's pronoun changing several times through the course of the book, so I worked with the TG community to find words that would work. The first version of the novel came out with another set of neuter-gender pronouns, but editors and readers found it cumbersome, so in the 2nd edition, we switched out the previous neuter-gender pronouns for xhe and hir -- and I've been using them ever since. No then. <Which is ok, by the way. I make up words all the time>

SocratesNot -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:22:31 AM)
Yes, LadyCimarron, who truly believes, nothing can change his religion. But even trying to change someone's religion by force, is not good IMO.

sirsholly -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:22:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I look at this from a very simple and realistic perspective. I know for a fact that I am not God. How are you so sure about that? Maybe you are and you just missed the memo? It's the stilettos. Makes cloud walking next to impossible.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:26:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot I still believe that the religion is most private and sensitive part of anyone and should not be forcefully changed. Converting the slave is totally OK, but not by force or direct request. If he/she chooses to accept your religion, that's fine, but forcing it, is not. I get your point here and could ALMOST agree with it, except for the fact that I believe that if someone is serious about their faith not CAN force them to change it. You may be able to force them to perform certain actions but you cannot force them to change what they believe. So for me its a moot point. The thing that is going right over a few heads here is that an individual who was solid in hir faith wouldn't even consider becoming bound to a person who had already expressed, as the OP did, that the submissive individual in question would be required to give up hir religion and worship the Keeper... so it is a moot point all around. The OP is within hir rights to be clear that xhe wouldn't want a submissive who didn't make the OP the deity in that submissive's life. SN is right in that a Keeper shouldn't expect to force someone submitting to them to abandon life-long religious beliefs (as if they could--they might be able to -repress- them, but they certainly wouldn't stop -believing- them). LC is right that a person who is serious about their faith couldn't be forced to change anyway. A Keeper would be unreasonable to attempt to demand such from a submissive individual -- and no submissive individual with allegiances to a god outside of the Keeper would submit to someone who had such a requirement as part of the compact between them -- so the only issue worth debating is -when-, in the process of meeting and learning about the other individual, such proclivities should be shared... to which I respond "as early as is possible, so incompatibilities can be determined early on." Calla

crazyml -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:27:34 AM)
To the OP. Go you! And if you can find a partner who is happy with this arrangement, then fill your boots, and all power to you. It's not my cup of tea though, and - speaking only for myself- strikes me as absurd.

crazyml -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:29:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW The thing that is going right over a few heads here is that an individual who was solid in hir faith wouldn't even consider becoming bound to a person who had already expressed, as the OP did, that the submissive individual in question would be required to give up hir religion and worship the Keeper... so it is a moot point all around. <snipped for brevity> Calla Spot on.

leadership527 -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:32:07 AM)
~fast reply~ OK, I was considering this whole thing while I was in the shower. When I thought about all the responsibilities incumbent on a deity, I decided that I was content just being Carol's owner. Someone else can sign up for the whole divinity thing. It's just a bit above my pay grade. Good thing too, because otherwise I would've been wrong in Socrates' eyes. phew

SocratesNot -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:32:44 AM)
quote: -when-, in the process of meeting and learning about the other individual, such proclivities should be shared... to which I respond "as early as is possible, so incompatibilities can be determined early on." Absolutely - as early as possible! I agree 100%. Being secretive about such intentions as to change slave's religion, is not fair play. It's just wrong, IMO.

LadyPact -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:34:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I look at this from a very simple and realistic perspective. I know for a fact that I am not God. How are you so sure about that? Maybe you are and you just missed the memo? It's the stilettos. Makes cloud walking next to impossible. Both comments very funny and I enjoyed immensely. Thank you both.

disciple0247 -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 11:53:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron quote: ORIGINAL: SocratesNot I still believe that the religion is most private and sensitive part of anyone and should not be forcefully changed. Converting the slave is totally OK, but not by force or direct request. If he/she chooses to accept your religion, that's fine, but forcing it, is not. I get your point here and could ALMOST agree with it, except for the fact that I believe that if someone is serious about their faith you CANNOT force them to change it. You may be able to force them to perform certain actions but you cannot force them to change what they believe. So for me its a moot point. Well said. And as to the earlier discussion of the gender of God, also moot. Assigning gender to God was done as a convenience only, because "animate" seemed to imply male or female. But figures of speech unfortunately become literal to some people.

LuckyAlbatross -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 1:38:50 PM)
Having multiple gods is only a problem for monotheists.

afkarr -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 5:00:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven All of you submissives will be gratified to know that I am founding a religion (the Order of the Kinky Jew) which you are required to join or else be thought of as fake. Are Christmas presents, Easter candy, and bacon cheeseburgers negotiable?? [:D] Back to the OP: any entity I worship must be worthy of the same; so unless you are infallible, capable of miracles, omnipotent, and eternal, sorry, you're just out of luck here. Just when I thought I'd heard every silly notion out there...........

littlewonder -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 5:23:02 PM)
If you choose your partner carefully this is a moot point. My spiritual beliefs are extremely important to me thus I chose someone whose views were similar to my own. Imo if something is that important to you then you choose someone with similar values and views. Otherwise imo you're just asking for problems.

leadership527 -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 5:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross Having multiple gods is only a problem for monotheists. Sure, true enough, but still doesn't change the fact that I almost tripped over the coffee table this morning banging my shin on the edge in an extremely un-deity-like fashion. Whether or not Carol could have multiple deities, I'm afraid I still fall short of the mark. I'm gonna stick in the "Render unto Jeff that which is Jeff's" line of thinking. It was good enough for Jesus. It works for me too.

DesFIP -> RE: SLAVE AND RELIGION (6/3/2010 5:29:23 PM)
You can force people to change their religion, usually it involved threatening them with the auto-de-fe. For obvious reasons, this is frowned on today. And since that's why my family fled Spain after the establishment of the Inquisition, I'm not compatible with someone who would refuse me the right to practice mine. More practically though, I'm not allowed to worship him. It's a rule here. So if I did what the op suggests, then I would be disobedient. And since I'm always perfectly sweet and obedient (trying to keep straight face here) I wouldn't ever do such a thing. He knows he's human and will fuck up on occasion. Which is why I've got another rule telling me to disregard a given rule if I really think it's wrong. And then come talk to him about it. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes he is, and sometimes neither of us has come up with a good solution to the problem. But doing it this way means I have his back and his decisions are going to be right more often that not if objections to them are posed and considered seriously.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125