religion and D/s

they may find themselves late to the party.

This garbage makes me physically ill.

I'm not really prepared to get into this debate but I did want to point out to all you wonderful Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God/god that you damn well better know what it really says, not as it has been translated, nor as it's taught to you by some priest, minister or other religious figure.

In the above article Leviticus 20:13 is quoted as follows.

King James. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

New International Bible. "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Both of these translation, along with many more, were translated by men who happened to be both patriarchal and homophobic.

The true translation from Hebrew to English. "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them."

No this has nothing to do with the men having sex with each other nor, most likely, does it refer to a threesome. It has to do with Jewish Law as who has the right to sleep in a woman's bed. Which was restricted, as far as men go, to only her husband, along with other laws as to when he was allowed into her bed.

Further if you are Christian, you are no longer subject to Jewish Law so all of it is null and void, you live by the grace of God/god not by the law. If you accept any of the Jewish Laws as your salvation, you are subject to all of the Jewish Laws, which means you are surely damned.

Do I personally have anything against Christians? NO, but you have no right to deny me my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If you belong to a church that preaches against me, that fund campaigns against me no matter what you say you, like them, are against me. If you aren't like them than vote with your feet, there are Christian churches that do not believe in HATE.

Most of you don't even understand that as a lesbian I'm four times more likely to be brutalized than Blacks, Hispanics, Jews or Muslins. Why? Because of religion!

Edit to add patriarchal
 
Last edited:
Lally-

It is complicated, keep in mind the US has a unique form of government that has this weird mix between the federal government and the states when it comes to laws and rights. Marriage under the constitution is a power granted to the states, which is why same sex marriage is a state by state thing. In theory, states are supposed to recognize the laws of other states (for example, my driver's license from NJ is valid in all 50 states), but they don't, so a same sex marriage in NY state is not recognized anywhere else. Then, thanks to the religious droolers and opportunistic pieces of shit like Bill Clinton (god that man is vile, he has some nerve now saying he supports same sex marriage..like, where were you 17 years ago, hillbilly?), they passed a law called DOMA that forbade the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages, and also told states they didn't have to recognize the marriages of other states if they passed same sex marriage laws in that other state.....which is a lot of rights, there are about 1000 rights associated with marrige on a federal level, including social security benefits, automatic right to inherit 401k's and pensions, employer paid health insurance being tax free (for same sex couples, if a company offers DP benefits, it is taxable, which is about 12,000 bucks a year).

DOMA should never have been passed, it is illegal, because the federal government has no right to decide what a legal marriage is.

The supreme court, because states fall under the jurisdiction of the federal constitution, could rule that bans on same sex marriage are illegal, that they violate the equal protection clause (as they did back in the late 60's when they invalidated laws banning interracial marriage. Not likely, the liberal judges on the court made pretty clear recently that they were afraid of a backlash (sad that judges would rather appease idiots rather than do the right thing).

The simple answer is that given the US political system, it is a lot harder to get things done, and the states that are most anti gay also, because of a compromise put into the constitution, have a lot more power then their population numbers would suggest (put it this way, a populous state, california, has the same vote in the senate as Rhode Island or Montana, which are probably 1/20th the size in population)...there are a lot more small states, so they have larger power than their population would suggest (which is also why polls are problematic; most people in the US these days live in relatively populated areas, but the political system gives outside power to small states)......

What will probably happen is enough states will pass same sex marriage that it will be unwieldily to have some states support it and others don't, then SCOTUS (supreme court US) will probably step in and say that a state cannot refuse to recognize a marriage from another state. It isn't just the dumb ass rural belt that has the problem, NJ, which for the most part is an economically advantaged, well educated state, does not allow same sex marriage, and though the legislature could pass it, we have a 400 pound blob of shit Catholic who can't seem to figure out that his church's teachings aren't law, and there aren't enough votes to override his veto. The NJ Supreme Court may rule that same sex marriage has to be legal, in part because the civic unions NJ grants don't have the same rights as marriage, among other things, even if DOMA fails, civic unions are not recognized federally. And a lot of the organization against same sex marriage is coming from religious groups, the Mormons spent 40 million helping pass proposition 8 in california (that banned same sex marriage there, which SCOTUS will prob let a lower court ruling stand, that will invalidate it), the RC spent about 10 million in California, and it is the same nationally. There was talk of trying to get same sex marriage made legal in NJ, and the Mormons, RC and evangelicals were all getting ready to start a massive campaign, but the law never got out of committee.

Thanks for your explanation - it's certainly corrected a lot of misconceptions I had about the similarities between the US and UK. It's been a real eye opener.
 
teknight liked poking at people. I don't even remember that thread but my vague recollection of him is like a kid running in to the room and going 'nyah nyah' and then getting bored and yelling, oh whatever, didn't mean it.

My experience feeling hurt or riled up on the internet -- sometimes on these forums it's easy to perceive things a certain way and just kind of run with it in your mind. I've gone back later and sometimes realized I completely misread the other person, expressed myself incorrectly or even thought someone said something that was never even said.

On the other side - I've just noticed a pattern in the posts of those expressing their hurt feelings or offense (not just in this thread - I'm also reminded of the recent exchange about guns in the political thread). It's always (1) my argument is X (2) in response to others addressing the points raised in X, hurt poster says, you just don't get me, so forget it, why do I bother, and then (3) others explain their argument again and in more detail, to which hurt poster replies oh sure, put words in my fucking mouth, that's just great, fuck you!

I'm tired of arguing with people and then having to navigate their freak out. Seriously, meet me halfway, try and understand my point.
 
Meh. Fuck it. None of this has changed my opinions on the actual topic in any way. But it has added some dimension to my understanding of one person's personal distress.

I'm not a big fan of being made the proxy for some other shit in someone's life.
 
you were there. you didn't call tek out on his shit, you were a face in the crowd, lending your tacit approval, countering arguments intended for him, supporting his view point vocally and his behavior by your own silence.

You were part of the bully cage, and so my faulty memory painted you with the same blood.

Was it really a bunch of people picking on me? no i guess not, it was more like two on two.

So why am i so angry? because I felt baited by him, and betrayed by the three of you.



please re-read. that was pretty clearly directed at Netzach. jumping in here and refraining her chime of "quote it or shut it" is exactly the kind of group bullying i'm talking about, especially when it wasn't even directed at you. This isn't all about you either.



stating that respect goes both ways as a rebuttal to someone who you obviously feel has been disrespectful IS passive aggressive. You are telling someone that for what they just said, they are undeserving of respect.
Re the first bold -
I just reread it, and can see I misunderstood. I thought you were commenting on my remarks about Netzach. I felt falsely accused (as she did). Repeating "quote me" is not group bullying; that's multiple people responding to what was perceived as YOUR aggressively insulting behavior in the same way.

It really is insulting to be labelled a bully, or "part of a bully cage," or indeed anything else with "bully" in the phrase.

Re the second bold - no. I just explained what I was trying to tell you! Your turn to go back and reread.


I was hurt and betrayed on the first few pages, and the conversation carried on like it didn't happen. Denial hurts. Being invisible hurts.
I validated your testimony and the testimony of others - as best as I can - with this:

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=35830974&postcount=307

You said on that thread that you perceive god and "spirit thingies." I believe that you perceive them.

I have never perceived your god and your spirit thingies. I have no idea who people are talking to when they pray, or how they perceive that being. That's not a denial of your or their experience; that's an expression of MY reality.

My reality is just as valid as yours. No more, or less, deeply personal. No more, or less, worthy of condemnation or denial, reverence or respect.
 
never heard the term? its that circle of people around the conflict, who at best stare on in horror while the people around them chant "fight fight fight." The only guilt associated is in being a memorable face when the victim looks up with blood in his eyes, and doing nothing.




I appreciate this. It's very similar to my own stance in fact; mutual reverence encourages sharing.

The implication though that because no one reveres atheism, nothing else deserves reverence either, is what makes this kind of statement offensive, whether you mean it or not.

I realize now that this is putting words in your mouth, and this goes back to your "respect goes both ways" stance. Yes it's true and valid, but as a rebuttal to pleas for mutual reverence, it feels very passive aggressive.

Maybe it's not fair that there's no church or shrine to atheism, no real movement or center around which to structure a foundation which can be pointed at with indignation as something that is sacred, but that's not something I can change, that's pretty much in your camp. Would that defeat the point though?

I've heard arguments that "science is the shrine of atheism," but that's just wrong thinking to me, and witch hunters piss me off in equal measure.

Back to this thread though;

In general I... very rudely demand that people be less horrible to people here, in our community. We can't claim this section as our own if we don't even acknowledge that it is a section, that we are a community, that we can be a pretend shelter from the ugly world outside, and we don't have to mirror that world.

But i'm wrong there.
I'm agnostic, as I've already said.

Not an atheist. Agnostic. Please respect my personal perspective by remembering the distinction between those two.

I consider both religious folks and atheists to be "believers." Sincerely I say, whatever works for someone privately is cool.

I only have a problem with believers when they:

1) Promulgate the notion that non-believers are morally or intellectually inferior by definition.

2) Try to impose their beliefs, or the strictures of their beliefs, on other people.

3) Demand tax advantages for their clubs.
 
I'm agnostic, as I've already said.

Not an atheist. Agnostic. Please respect my personal perspective by remembering the distinction between those two.

I consider both religious folks and atheists to be "believers." Sincerely I say, whatever works for someone privately is cool.

I only have a problem with believers when they:

1) Promulgate the notion that non-believers are morally or intellectually inferior by definition.

2) Try to impose their beliefs, or the strictures of their beliefs, on other people.

3) Demand tax advantages for their clubs.

Hear, hear.

Could this be the common ground for this thread?
 
Hear, hear.

Could this be the common ground for this thread?
Probably not... No matter how hard you try. Someone will tell you what you REALLY meant.

Here; this I can apologize for, if not attone.

"we can be friends as long as we don't talk about xyz" isn't a friendship, it the kind of truce you make with relatives you have to sit next to at family gatherings.

I understand I have behaved hurtfully. I do know how confabulated memories can ruin everything when you let them, and I let them. Mistaking empathy for venom was a slap in your face. Putting words in your mouth and villainizing you repeatedly should be more than enough to ruin even a good relationship.

I'm sorry.

not my greatest apology, but thats it i guess.

It's hard to miss the fact that you did EXACTLY what you accused me of doing. Your apology is accurate, but I ran out of fucks to give sometime during your shitstorm yesterday. You are right-- you and I have no relationship, if there ever was one. I do not trust you.

You will never again PM me to tell me I am not being nice.
 
Last edited:
Didn't bother to read the thread, but I think whatever a couple wants to do in their relationship is all on them...and as long as isn't abusive or scaring the cats you're okay. The bible says that the marriage bed is undefiled (Hebrews 13:4)...so I guess whatever goes...but it also says to veer away from adultery/fornication. As for a d/s relationship, many Christian believers have dragged out scriptures (sometimes out of context) to support that it is a biblical arrangement to spank/ discipline the wife...popular in some paternalistic arrangements that colors their interpretation of scripture. In some ways I agree that the husband ought to lead to establish boundaries within the family, but I also feel things like corporal discipline for correction and for maintenance (while not necessarily WRONG if it is consensual program) is not THE prescribed relational template. The Bible teaches that everything is acceptable, but not everything is beneficial (I Corinthians 10:23)...so I think d/s would fall in that category as being acceptable...but needs monitoring to show no abuse is taking place, that disciplines are consentually agreed, that past trauma not is being reinacted. Above all, the d/s relationship should be equally evolving from the standpoint of personal authenticity...that intimacy and personal/ relational growth is taking place. Otherwise, if the ass gets the paddle, and both feels its a good thing...Santa's not going to pull your card.
 
I'm not really prepared to get into this debate but I did want to point out to all you wonderful Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God/god that you damn well better know what it really says, not as it has been translated, nor as it's taught to you by some priest, minister or other religious figure.

In the above article Leviticus 20:13 is quoted as follows.

King James. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

New International Bible. "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Both of these translation, along with many more, were translated by men who happened to be both patriarchal and homophobic.

The true translation from Hebrew to English. "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them."

No this has nothing to do with the men having sex with each other nor, most likely, does it refer to a threesome. It has to do with Jewish Law as who has the right to sleep in a woman's bed. Which was restricted, as far as men go, to only her husband, along with other laws as to when he was allowed into her bed.

Further if you are Christian, you are no longer subject to Jewish Law so all of it is null and void, you live by the grace of God/god not by the law. If you accept any of the Jewish Laws as your salvation, you are subject to all of the Jewish Laws, which means you are surely damned.

Do I personally have anything against Christians? NO, but you have no right to deny me my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If you belong to a church that preaches against me, that fund campaigns against me no matter what you say you, like them, are against me. If you aren't like them than vote with your feet, there are Christian churches that do not believe in HATE.

Most of you don't even understand that as a lesbian I'm four times more likely to be brutalized than Blacks, Hispanics, Jews or Muslins. Why? Because of religion!

Edit to add patriarchal

You also have to read it in context of Jewish law and why it was written. The leviticine code was rewritten during the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BCE, and was done in part to try and keep the Jews from assimilating, among which, imitating Babylonian rituals. The Babylonians had a ritual that as described, would be a man having sex with another man as if with a woman, almost the literal translation, but the meaning was that the other man was literally taking on the role of a woman....kind of like how men played women on the stage.......the wording of the babylonian ritual is almost identical to that in leviticus, and it makes sense.
 
Christians also have to read it in context of Jewish law and why it was written. The leviticine code was rewritten during the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BCE, and was done in part to try and keep the Jews from assimilating, among which, imitating Babylonian rituals. The Babylonians had a ritual that as described, would be a man having sex with another man as if with a woman, almost the literal translation, but the meaning was that the other man was literally taking on the role of a woman....kind of like how men played women on the stage.......the wording of the babylonian ritual is almost identical to that in leviticus, and it makes sense.
Fixed that for you. :)
 
61452_10151341289602518_1194927264_n.jpg

After having been gone because of a--wait for it--religious holiday for the past few days, and found the thread to have veered off in some kinda other direction, I still have to reply to this.

As a long-time fan of Carl Sagan, I think of him a little bit like I do Jesus: too many of his followers just love to pay lip service to the man, but don't act or think anything like him.
 
The only difference is that religious institutions proclaim themselves to be this 'loving' church and so forth, and more importantly, while wall street and the rest talk with their money and influence, comparing the two is a bit idiotic. Wall street excesses fouled up the economy and such, but in terms of individual rights and the like, Wall Street is meaningless, they don't give a shit about trans people, they don't give a shit who you sleep with, who you marry, they don't care, whereas groups like the Catholic Church and the evangelicals do care, and they want to force their knuckle dragging stupidity on our lives, force everyone to live by their stupidity.....Wall street isn't trying to get creationism taught as science, wall street isn't trying to force kids to say their idiotic prayers in school, wall street isn't trying to have teaching evolution banned, or teaching critical thinking skills in the schools.....they are a bunch of amoral bastards, believe me, I have worked the tech side of that for a lot of years, but they also don't interfere that much in my life, either. Not giving them a free pass, what you think you know about Wall Street is about 30% of what really goes on...but the reality is that Wall Street in many ways has less impact on our lives then the fucktards in the churches do, for different reasons.

Idiotic? How? They share countless similarities, and the only major feature that the institution of Wall Street lacks that the Church doesn't is their incessant appeals to a moral authority. The banks and multi-nationals don't bother with such pretenses, but their aims are the same, and many of their ways of getting there are too.

So yes, they impact our daily lives, and the fact that you can't quite see it just says how successful their methods of propagandizing and mass poverty/planned obsolescence-grooming are. Trust me, I know some people who hold the almighty dollar up higher than the supposed word of God, and they do Wall Street's evangelizing just fine.
 
Idiotic? How? They share countless similarities, and the only major feature that the institution of Wall Street lacks that the Church doesn't is their incessant appeals to a moral authority. The banks and multi-nationals don't bother with such pretenses, but their aims are the same, and many of their ways of getting there are too.

So yes, they impact our daily lives, and the fact that you can't quite see it just says how successful their methods of propagandizing and mass poverty/planned obsolescence-grooming are. Trust me, I know some people who hold the almighty dollar up higher than the supposed word of God, and they do Wall Street's evangelizing just fine.

I probably know more about how the decisions the banks and such make affect our lives then a lot of people on this board, it is direct knowledge, and by the way, it is both good and bad. The derivatives trading that many demonize (and not without some reason) is also the reason that your electric and gas bills don't skyrocket when prices go nuts, the way they do with oil. Hedging in derivatives can help stop massive price increases in food (much more than they do now), and so forth......The other thing with Wall Street is they are so cutthroat with each other, that this collusion everyone claims, where the heads of the big banks and financial companies plot together to create a new world order, is kind of laughable, because they spend most of their time finding ways to screw each other, which in the end does screw the rest of us.....not exactly going to hold water for wall street as angels, but the reality is they have been this way since time immemorial, none of this is new...trying to say "the church isn't so bad, just look at Wall street" is not a great comparison because the church claims it is moral and holy and isnt',and as flawed as it is, there are checks and balances on wall street (not enough, thanks to Bill Clinton, Larry Summers and then of course the glorious Bush years), which there isn't on the church; at least with Wall Street, some of those responsible lost jobs and were gobsmacked along with the global economy; compare that to the church that has turned abortion and being anti gay into the faith, whose leaders oversaw one of the most vile coverups in human history, yet nothing happens to them. Wall street aren't angels, but there is at least some accountability there, Enron went under when its house of cards collapsed, the church's house of cards collapsed and nothing happened, Catholics kept going to church, paying their pledges, and last I checked the church is nowhere near going the way of enron *shrug*
 
Raised voices are not the end of the world.

no, this was not that thread. That thread would have to be pretty specific in it's first post, making it clear what the intention is. This thread asked for opinions. That thread would be asking for experiences.

Ok, so...if I (or someone else) were at some point hypothetically bored enough to make this thread, what'd be the ideal way to pull it off?

Yes, I know, I'm late to the party on this one. But I'm likely to get bored enough to do it soon, which is why I ask. My work is piling up, and we all know how much I love to screw around on Lit when I have a ton of things to do. >.>
 
It's an interesting thought, D/s and religion. I see so many parallels, and eroticize religious ritual so naturally, that it seems grown from the same cutting. For most people, it doesn't seem to be the case.

I've toyed with the idea of making a thread about it, but it's equal parts laziness and the assumption that either no one would care or that it'd turn into a clusterfuck because it'd have the word "religion" in it that has stopped me from doing so. Well, that and the fact that it'd require me talking about some things I still don't know if I'm ready (or will ever be ready) to discuss

Again, ex-Baptist-churchgoer, so the ritual aspect is just...meh...to me. It holds no interest whatsoever. But the adoration of and devotion to something perceived to be greater than oneself and the ecstatic joining with the Divine? Yeah. I get that.
BiBunny, have you seen this old DGE thread?

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=689905

Clusterfuck free! Check it out.
 
My experience feeling hurt or riled up on the internet -- sometimes on these forums it's easy to perceive things a certain way and just kind of run with it in your mind. I've gone back later and sometimes realized I completely misread the other person, expressed myself incorrectly or even thought someone said something that was never even said.

On the other side - I've just noticed a pattern in the posts of those expressing their hurt feelings or offense (not just in this thread - I'm also reminded of the recent exchange about guns in the political thread). It's always (1) my argument is X (2) in response to others addressing the points raised in X, hurt poster says, you just don't get me, so forget it, why do I bother, and then (3) others explain their argument again and in more detail, to which hurt poster replies oh sure, put words in my fucking mouth, that's just great, fuck you!

I'm tired of arguing with people and then having to navigate their freak out. Seriously, meet me halfway, try and understand my point.

I think this should be made into a sticky.

Irony: Just yesterday, I was thinking about how the Lit boards seem awfully quiet and drama-free these days.
 
Don't mind talking to you in general, Stag, but not in response to something like that.
 
Considering that I've had drag-out moments with both Stella and JM, I hardly think that this is some kind of cabal.

What it does mean is that I don't agree with people because I like them, disagree with people because I don't like them, or understand what A has to do with B. I will rip into my friends, my enemies, or whatever. I will defend the biggest dickface around when I think they're being poorly treated. I don't expect to have defense *demanded* of me on a message board in a thread I didn't have the time to monitor in real time years ago. (???) I will not take responsibility for other people personalizing my frustrations with society, either, and worry about whether those are expressed in a purely palatable way.

It's true, I don't soften my points, or worry incessantly over whether the person I am disagreeing with feels loved enough. Girl fail.

I definitely need to pay some attention to grammar though, I don't like this opaque reputation.
 
Last edited:
BiBunny, have you seen this old DGE thread?

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=689905

Clusterfuck free! Check it out.

Thread whisperer JM!

And just for you -- Every hero needs a side kick, every captain needs a mate. Every dinner needs a side dish, on a slightly smaller plate...

I think this should be made into a sticky.

Irony: Just yesterday, I was thinking about how the Lit boards seem awfully quiet and drama-free these days.

Thank you, you know I always strive for sticky status. ;)

I guess JMohegan may still be willing to talk to me, so this doesn't have to be a monologue.

My memory (when it works) is associative. I don't remember specific words or times I remember feelings and faces, and I tend to be very emotional. Apparently it's an aspergers trait?

I often remember feelings and faces as well - I thought this was the opposite of asperbergs? Anyway, I can relate, as I said earlier. It helps to reread threads before you post.

So Ive been going through old posts, some very old, not to graft some litany of sins, but to discover for myself why I have so much irrational bile. I still don't know for sure, maybe it is purely and horribly irrational, but there are a couple things I'm finding that I'd like to share anyway.

This charge that you three are bullying is not new. I am hardly the first person to level it, and if you didn't take it to heart before, why do I think I'm more special? You each have your own different and very effective way of arguing, you compliment each other very well, and you're all very good at seizing upon something directed at one of the others.

Is that even so atrocious? I'm not so sure anymore.

The people that you tag team most though (from what i've seen so far) is Primalex and Satindesire, and that got me wondering; is THIS who I'm advocating for?

Atrocious behavior (if it is) isn't made better based on who it's aimed at, but these are established posters who can take care of themselves. These are not the tenderfoot virgin posters who don't know what they're getting into that I have claimed to be sacrificing friendships for.

To new posters, netzach is very often informative and welcoming and Stella tries to be educational. These are pursuits worth commending, and I have done new posters no favor by forgetting that here.

I think you are seeing patterns that don't exist. All three posters have been in heated debates, but they're hardly working together as a team. If they agree with each other often it's probably because they're all fairly similar politically and philosophically. More similar to each other than, say, Writer Dom.
 
Back
Top