BDSM and Religion

[YourCaptor]

Just something that came up once while pondering.

Old religions, the ones that are often thought of as polytheism, you know the type. They are for people who expect to die due to something. Starvation, bad weather, storms, bad health, etc. So, many gods controlling all these causes of death and struggle that rule peoples lives.

New religions, as peoples lives are extended to the point when many die of old age, monotheistic type religions kick in. As in, if this person didn't die because of something, then what happens now. And so people became concerned with the afterlife.

That's just simplified but I hope you gather the principle behind it.

 

[morninggirl5]

"I, Morninggirl5, offer you in myself in marriage in accordance with the instructions of the Holy Quar'an and the Holy Prophet, peace and blessing be upon Him. I pledge, in honesty and with sincerity, to be for you an obedient and faithful wife."
Groom: "I pledge, in honesty and sincerity, to be for you a faithful and helpful husband."

Works for me.

Uh no. That wasn't how it worked. The bride said nothing, she was allowed to nod that she accepted the terms of the marriage. Her son (she's in her late 50's) answered the questions for her. The groom was first asked if the dowry was acceptable.

 

[morninggirl5]

i have a very good friend who in most ways is the epitome of the modern woman. she is a social activist, good job, very caring, intellectual, and she is a devout Muslim. when i heard she was going to be married to a man she had only met three times, i was flabbergasted. i couldn't understand. they have been married now for six years, and they have a very spiritual relationship. i look at them, and realize that while i don't "get" it, they will most likely be together forever. it's crazy to me, but for them it really works. she explained it to me one day, because i just didn't get it, and while i couldn't reword it correctly, i understood.

i have to agree with the Spanish Inquisitors - Glory, Gold and God!
that would have been pretty damn kinky

I think this was pretty close to the case with my friend. Someone asked during the meal following the wedding if she touched his hand when they signed the marriage contract and her response was "we're still texting".

 

[Homburg]

I started to write a reply last night, but felt it wouldn't add much to the conversation; however with the above bit in play -

Earliest pagan religious (Dionysian cults, etc) often used flagellation in their ceremonies; the Early Church followed suit. There are sects within The church who's earliest history involved physical suffering to grow closer to the grace of God - often practiced by Ecstatics and Mystics... some theorize that the individuals would flog, cut, scourge, etc themselves to the point of reaching an endorphin high (BDSM circles use the term "sub space"), during which they felt they could better commune with God.Study Church history and you'll find it riddled with masochists choosing to suffer for their relationship with Christ/God [by the OP's theory Dominant/Master]. I wish I could remember which specific Religious Orders were most commonly associated with the Mystics/Ecstatics, but it's long ago fallen out of my head...

When you looks at deities by classification, it becomes more evident. Zeus, for example, is a sky god, as is Yahweh, and Ares is a war god. Jesus is a "suffering" god. He goes along with Mithras and a number of other more esoteric types in that classification. He's not the first suffering god, but he is definitely the first to make it this big.


--

Just something that came up once while pondering.

Old religions, the ones that are often thought of as polytheism, you know the type. They are for people who expect to die due to something. Starvation, bad weather, storms, bad health, etc. So, many gods controlling all these causes of death and struggle that rule peoples lives.

New religions, as peoples lives are extended to the point when many die of old age, monotheistic type religions kick in. As in, if this person didn't die because of something, then what happens now. And so people became concerned with the afterlife.

That's just simplified but I hope you gather the principle behind it.

Eh, sort of. Monotheism happened in ancient Egypt when people were still dying from all sorts of things. Pharoah Amenhotep (not sure which one, but it was a later one) converted to pure monotheism in the worship of Aten, a sun god, going so far as to change his name to Atenaken.

Judaism dates to the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham, and, wow, people were still dying of all sorts of ugly things then too.

Zome argue that Zororastrianism is the oldest monotheist faith. I'm not really sure how this would work though, as it is more of a duism. It's probably quibbling about details though.

A book that you might want to try to find is "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." (Julian Jaynes) I think it may be up your alley, especially with the sort of things you are interested in vis a vis your schooling. The core concept was that the Greeks of Homer's time were not as mentally evolved as, for example, we are. They were not properly self-aware, and what we would consider thoughts and urges, they saw as the gods communicating to them, and mucking with their lives. This, in the author's thought, was why the Greek religion was so intensely personal, with the gods being involved in the petty lives of everyone.

The core idea was that 3000 years ago, left brain and right brain did not directly communicate. The thoughts that traversed between the two hemispheres were akin to hearing voices. So everyone was more or less functionally schizophrenic.

(Daniel Dennett authored a book on thought mechanics called "Consciousness Explained", and he is a proponent of the bicameral mind theory. You would probably get some great info from this book as well.)

The idea of bicameralism never really got big most likely because people don't like to hear that the mechanical background of their faith was rooted in functional schizophrenia.



And Christianity is NOT monotheistic. Jesus has been elevated to divinity producing a duism at minimum. Then you look at the catholics with their worship of Mary as Madre De Dios and praying to saints, and it starts to look a whole lot more polytheistic. Or, more properly, henotheistic. Polytheists recognise multiple gods, but only worship one. Henotheists recognise multiple gods and worship them all to varying degrees.

Of the faiths of Abraham, Judaism is the only one that has remained scrupulously monotheistic. Admittedly, the not-quite-mono sects of Islam are aberrations, but they are nearly as guilty of deification of Muhammed as the Christians are with Christ.

 

[JMohegan]

And Christianity is NOT monotheistic. Jesus has been elevated to divinity producing a duism at minimum. Then you look at the catholics with their worship of Mary as Madre De Dios and praying to saints, and it starts to look a whole lot more polytheistic. Or, more properly, henotheistic. Polytheists recognise multiple gods, but only worship one. Henotheists recognise multiple gods and worship them all to varying degrees.

Of the faiths of Abraham, Judaism is the only one that has remained scrupulously monotheistic. Admittedly, the not-quite-mono sects of Islam are aberrations, but they are nearly as guilty of deification of Muhammed as the Christians are with Christ.

Christians consider themselves monotheistic. "God in 3 persons" is not considered 3 gods; he's just able to take multiple forms.

Sounds like a stretch, I know. But really, if you think about it, it's no more outrageous than the notion of a divine Being chatting with some guy named Moses.

Graceanne had a great analogy to explain this. God is like H2O, which sometimes takes the form of a liquid, sometimes vapor, sometimes solid ice. Always H2O.

As for Mary and the saints, my understanding is that Catholics distinguish between veneration and worship, and consider the charge that they are actually worshipping Mary and the saints to be a misunderstanding at best and offensive disparagement at worst.

All of this fits perfectly into my observation of the primary similarity between religion and BDSM. This notion that one group follows the "true" way, or the better way, or the more advanced way, or the more honest way, or the way involving more devotion, more trust, stricter adherence to customs or rules, blah blah.

 

[MisterSir]

Eh, sort of. Monotheism happened in ancient Egypt when people were still dying from all sorts of things. Pharoah Amenhotep (not sure which one, but it was a later one) converted to pure monotheism in the worship of Aten, a sun god, going so far as to change his name to Atenaken

Akhenaten, also known as Amenhotep IV.

Not to be a show-off, I just adore Egyptian history.

 

[neci]

BDSM and Religion....
there is something in religion about being bound by traditions, rules, the fear of punishment for not adhering to the rules, that resonates with BDSM. being tied down by the Law of God. seeking atonement. confession of shortcomings. the offering of the body and blood. not to mention the sensuality in old churches. the stained glass reflections coloring the room with soft colored light, the smells of incense, old stone and wood, the making of offerings, being blessed, the candles, the art work and statues. there is a peacefulness and quiet that drapes over the fiery sins of the parishioners. cloaking them in hope and redemption. plus there is the aspect of a spiritual connection to someone else. for me, when there is a spiritual connection with someone else, it heightens all of the other areas of the relationship. taking it to a higher level of trust and companionship. deepening the sensuality of the sexual experience. through orgasm, being lifted out of the worries of this world and into a realm of peace and bliss.

 

[Homburg]

Christians consider themselves monotheistic. "God in 3 persons" is not considered 3 gods; he's just able to take multiple forms.

Sounds like a stretch, I know. But really, if you think about it, it's no more outrageous than the notion of a divine Being chatting with some guy named Moses.

Graceanne had a great analogy to explain this. God is like H2O, which sometimes takes the form of a liquid, sometimes vapor, sometimes solid ice. Always H2O.

As for Mary and the saints, my understanding is that Catholics distinguish between veneration and worship, and consider the charge that they are actually worshipping Mary and the saints to be a misunderstanding at best and offensive disparagement at worst.

All of this fits perfectly into my observation of the primary similarity between religion and BDSM. This notion that one group follows the "true" way, or the better way, or the more advanced way, or the more honest way, or the way involving more devotion, more trust, stricter adherence to customs or rules, blah blah.

Meh. It's not monotheism. For monotheism, see Judaism. If the H2O idea is valid, then the thousand faces of god make the Hindu polyfaith monotheism, because each is just a mask on the face of Brahmin.

I am looking at this in the arena of comparative theology. By the trappings, language, and structure of the Christian faith, it is not monotheism. Jesus is deified. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost business is jibba jabba trying to maintain a single godhead when, in reality they are distinct entities in their own writing, and are prayed to differently (Well, the Holy Ghost isn't, but that is a whole other ballgame).

Yes, dialectically, god/Yahweh is the divine force behind Jesus, but Jesus is a distinct entity nonetheless. Zeus was the motivating force behind the Greek pantheon and fathered most of them. Many were human at one point and ascended to deity status. See Heracles as a popular example Odin and Thor similarly. Thor was a man before he was a god. A divine man possessed of the divine blood of his father, but still a man.

The saints and Virgin Mary may be differentiated in writings, but the treatment is the same to an outside observer. Is a person praying to Mary? Are they sacrificing time and resources in hopes of garnering positive result or avoiding negative? Are the rituals and prayers different? They may explain it how they wish, but from an alien and comparative perspective, it is worship, and worship of multiple distinct entities.

Do you accept the Hindu faith as monotheism?

And insofar as disparagement goes, it's only disparagement if someone wishes to take offense to it. I am not critiquing the religion, just the idea of attaching the term "monotheism" to a faith that has multiple entities being actively worshipped. Personally, I don't recall the term "monotheism" showing up in the bible.

--

Akhenaten, also known as Amenhotep IV.

Not to be a show-off, I just adore Egyptian history.

I thought it was IV, but wasn't sure, so I didn't say it.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

BDSM and Religion....
there is something in religion about being bound by traditions, rules, the fear of punishment for not adhering to the rules, that resonates with BDSM. being tied down by the Law of God. seeking atonement. confession of shortcomings. the offering of the body and blood. not to mention the sensuality in old churches. the stained glass reflections coloring the room with soft colored light, the smells of incense, old stone and wood, the making of offerings, being blessed, the candles, the art work and statues. there is a peacefulness and quiet that drapes over the fiery sins of the parishioners. cloaking them in hope and redemption. plus there is the aspect of a spiritual connection to someone else. for me, when there is a spiritual connection with someone else, it heightens all of the other areas of the relationship. taking it to a higher level of trust and companionship. deepening the sensuality of the sexual experience. through orgasm, being lifted out of the worries of this world and into a realm of peace and bliss.

Meet me in the choir loft at midnight!

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Christians consider themselves monotheistic. "God in 3 persons" is not considered 3 gods; he's just able to take multiple forms.

Sounds like a stretch, I know. But really, if you think about it, it's no more outrageous than the notion of a divine Being chatting with some guy named Moses.

Graceanne had a great analogy to explain this. God is like H2O, which sometimes takes the form of a liquid, sometimes vapor, sometimes solid ice. Always H2O.

As for Mary and the saints, my understanding is that Catholics distinguish between veneration and worship, and consider the charge that they are actually worshipping Mary and the saints to be a misunderstanding at best and offensive disparagement at worst.

I consider Christian fundamentalism polytheistic, because alongside God or the triune, the bible - not the message, but the book and its supposed inerrancy - is an object of worship.

 

[Homburg]

As an aside, there was a thread about this some months back that discussed ritual in BDSM and religious trappings. Unpredictablebijou was heavily involved in the thread, as were a few others. I'll try to find it.

Edit: http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=645486

"FemDom, Tantric Ritual and Kali"

 

[JMohegan]

Meh. It's not monotheism. For monotheism, see Judaism. If the H2O idea is valid, then the thousand faces of god make the Hindu polyfaith monotheism, because each is just a mask on the face of Brahmin.

I am looking at this in the arena of comparative theology. By the trappings, language, and structure of the Christian faith, it is not monotheism. Jesus is deified. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost business is jibba jabba trying to maintain a single godhead when, in reality they are distinct entities in their own writing, and are prayed to differently (Well, the Holy Ghost isn't, but that is a whole other ballgame).

Yes, dialectically, god/Yahweh is the divine force behind Jesus, but Jesus is a distinct entity nonetheless. Zeus was the motivating force behind the Greek pantheon and fathered most of them. Many were human at one point and ascended to deity status. See Heracles as a popular example Odin and Thor similarly. Thor was a man before he was a god. A divine man possessed of the divine blood of his father, but still a man.

The saints and Virgin Mary may be differentiated in writings, but the treatment is the same to an outside observer. Is a person praying to Mary? Are they sacrificing time and resources in hopes of garnering positive result or avoiding negative? Are the rituals and prayers different? They may explain it how they wish, but from an alien and comparative perspective, it is worship, and worship of multiple distinct entities.

Do you accept the Hindu faith as monotheism?

If Hindus consider themselves monotheistic, that's good enough for me.

I see no difference between the authors of the Torah, the Koran, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, etc., and J.R.R. Tolkien. If you're writing fantasy, the usual rules of logic, proof, and reasoning just don't apply.

Believers are supposed to take this stuff on faith - that's the whole point. Do you debate whether the Torah was divinely inspired, or do you just accept that as a basic principle of Judaism?

 

[StrayKat]

BDSM and Religion....
there is something in religion about being bound by traditions, rules, the fear of punishment for not adhering to the rules, that resonates with BDSM. being tied down by the Law of God. seeking atonement. confession of shortcomings. the offering of the body and blood. not to mention the sensuality in old churches. the stained glass reflections coloring the room with soft colored light, the smells of incense, old stone and wood, the making of offerings, being blessed, the candles, the art work and statues. there is a peacefulness and quiet that drapes over the fiery sins of the parishioners. cloaking them in hope and redemption. plus there is the aspect of a spiritual connection to someone else. for me, when there is a spiritual connection with someone else, it heightens all of the other areas of the relationship. taking it to a higher level of trust and companionship. deepening the sensuality of the sexual experience. through orgasm, being lifted out of the worries of this world and into a realm of peace and bliss.

Apart from purely visual aspect of some churches (my hometown is the seat of a Catholic archbishop and has some lovely historical monuments from Roman times further, including some amazing churches) all the rest mentioned I find utterly repulsive to the point of fear.

Religion of any kind is dark, scary and overall negative place for me. I am probably scarred with my experience but then I saw so many people, mostly priests, preaching one thing and acting so very different when they think none can see them. I met very few religious people who are not total hypocrites.

 

[JMohegan]

BDSM and Religion....
there is something in religion about being bound by traditions, rules, the fear of punishment for not adhering to the rules, that resonates with BDSM.

With *cultural* BDSM, yes.

However, just as some people believe in a Divine Being but do not adhere to the traditions, rules, and trappings of any organized religion, some people embrace power and pain in personal relationships without adhering to the traditions, rules, and trappings of cultural BDSM.

 

[StrayKat]

With *cultural* BDSM, yes.

However, just as some people believe in a Divine Being but do not adhere to the traditions, rules, and trappings of any organized religion, some people embrace power and pain in personal relationships without adhering to the traditions, rules, and trappings of cultural BDSM.

What exactly is "cultural BDSM"?

 

[neci]

The saints and Virgin Mary may be differentiated in writings, but the treatment is the same to an outside observer. Is a person praying to Mary? Are they sacrificing time and resources in hopes of garnering positive result or avoiding negative? Are the rituals and prayers different? They may explain it how they wish, but from an alien and comparative perspective, it is worship, and worship of multiple distinct entities.

while i am not Catholic, i married into a very devout Catholic family. my understanding of Saints is that they were ordinary people who under extraordinary experiences have been elevated to Sainthood through their faith, devotion and sacrifice. i have a candle of the Virgin of Guadalupe, that i burn from time to time as a prayer to her. the prayer is as follows:

Oh, unblemished Virgin of Guadalupe, perfect model of wife and mother, i implore your help in all the needs of my family and myself, begging the protection of your maternal heart on my poor children; look after them and fashion their hearts in humility. Oh Mary of Guadalupe, i beg your intercession so that we may be granted the joy of being together in Heaven contemplating the Glory of God, praising Him and blessing Him forever and ever. Amen.

it is not a prayer to Mary as a Deity, but as an angel who can provide guidance and support during this journey. it's like someone in a red robe in the Vatican said, yes, this is a good role model for our people, lets elevate them to sainthood, so the people can have a human to relate to and learn from. Looking back on the history of Christianity, maybe Mary was the first Christian submissive. Allowing her body and life to be used as a vessel for the Divine. hmmmmmm....

if there are any Catholics out there who have a better or more educated take on this, please feel free to correct me .

 

[neci]

With *cultural* BDSM, yes.

However, just as some people believe in a Divine Being but do not adhere to the traditions, rules, and trappings of any organized religion, some people embrace power and pain in personal relationships without adhering to the traditions, rules, and trappings of cultural BDSM.

good call.

 

[Homburg]

If Hindus consider themselves monotheistic, that's good enough for me.

Monotheism is like monogamy - if other beings are involved, it ain't monogamy.

And, no. The Hindus, as a block, do not agree on anything. There are those that hold only with pre-Vedic deities that are unabashedly polytheist, those that truck on with the monist view of Brahmin as the light behind all masks, those that subscribe to a dualist view of Brahmin and Atman, and a myriad of other things. This is why I used the term "polyfaith" as it is pretty broad.

The idea of Brahmin and the masks is probably the most common though. The concept behind it is very much the Holy Trinity though.

I see no difference between the authors of the Torah, the Koran, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, etc., and J.R.R. Tolkien. If you're writing fantasy, the usual rules of logic, proof, and reasoning just don't apply.

With all but Tolkien, I agree. Tolkien set out with the purpose of writing fiction. The rest had different intent.

And there is worth in logic and proof within the internal system of many faiths. Some of the greatest logicians in the history of philosophy were monks and religious men. I would dare anyone to read the writings of Thomas of Aquinas, a Dominican priest and later beatified, and say that the logic he used was flawed. Yes, the core suppositions on faith may have been specious in your reading or mine, but the logic and proofs used are things of dialectical beauty.

One of the core concepts that underwrite logical proofs is that you set your conditions prior to your proof, and work from those conditions. You can set a condition that god is made of little green footballs, and work from there. So long as your logic is correct, the conditions and conclusion matter not a whit in determining the value of the logic used.

See Bentham for some good work done on ethical logic in this vein.

And how is equating Christianity to Lord Of The Rings less disparaging than what I wrote?

Edit: If you were talking about a lack of, and zero emphasis on, empirical proof, I'm with you.

Believers are supposed to take this stuff on faith - that's the whole point. Do you debate whether the Torah was divinely inspired, or do you just accept that as a basic principle of Judaism?

No clue. I'm not Jewish, and I don't follow the Torah. I don't believe in any faith, and have no reason to. BUT, and this is an important but, I also do not believe that any given faith is automatically false. Much as I do not think that anyone out there can categorically prove that their is some sort of divinity behind existence, neither is it possible to prove that there is no divinity.

The question is entirely beyond mortal ken, and those that blindly trumpet atheism sans the understanding that they too can be incorrect in regards to the possible existence of divinity are no better than the religious folk they decry so strongly. In short, I am skeptical even of skepticism. Anything else is just another form of unfounded belief.

That said, much as discussing the merits of Tolkien versus McKiernan, comparative religion is perfectly worthwhile a topic even if you consider the source to be bunk.

 

[Homburg]

while i am not Catholic, i married into a very devout Catholic family. my understanding of Saints is that they were ordinary people who under extraordinary experiences have been elevated to Sainthood through their faith, devotion and sacrifice. i have a candle of the Virgin of Guadalupe, that i burn from time to time as a prayer to her. the prayer is as follows:

Oh, unblemished Virgin of Guadalupe, perfect model of wife and mother, i implore your help in all the needs of my family and myself, begging the protection of your maternal heart on my poor children; look after them and fashion their hearts in humility. Oh Mary of Guadalupe, i beg your intercession so that we may be granted the joy of being together in Heaven contemplating the Glory of God, praising Him and blessing Him forever and ever. Amen.

it is not a prayer to Mary as a Deity, but as an angel who can provide guidance and support during this journey. it's like someone in a red robe in the Vatican said, yes, this is a good role model for our people, lets elevate them to sainthood, so the people can have a human to relate to and learn from. Looking back on the history of Christianity, maybe Mary was the first Christian submissive. Allowing her body and life to be used as a vessel for the Divine. hmmmmmm....

if there are any Catholics out there who have a better or more educated take on this, please feel free to correct me .

What is the difference between asking Mary for intercession and a Greek in ancient times praying to Hermes to carry his message to Zeus on Mt Olympus? What is the difference in a Shinto asking a kama to carry a message to Amaterasu?

When someone unfamiliar with your faith see you light a candle (a ritual of sacrifice and invocation of holy fire) and pray to Mary, in her form as an intercessionary divinity, why would they not think that you are praying to some form of sub-divinity? How is this not worship?

What is the core mechanical difference between the Jesu as a child of Mary and the divine essence of Yahweh, and Heracles, the son of Alcmene (daughter of the king of Mycenae) and Zeus, sky god and ruler of the Greek pantheon? Both are half divine, and were raised to divinity upon their deaths.

The saints are more akin to mythic heroes than divinity in their stories, but they are still prayed to nonetheless. Again, to an alien observer, it is worship of a lesser divinity. There a major gods (Zeus, Odin, Ahura-Mazda, etc), lesser gods (Thor, Artemis, etc), demigods (Heracles etc). Looking at it from an external perspective, Yahweh is the greater, Jesus is lesser, Mary is demi, etc. Saints are weird as they're somewhere between the mythic heroes like Vainamoinen, Odysseus, etc, and the demigods.

Personally, I see no core mechanical difference between that prayer above and the Lord's Prayer. It's still a prayer to a higher, divine power.

 

[JMohegan]

What exactly is "cultural BDSM"?

When I use the term, I mean power and pain in personal relationships incorporating certain language (Mistress, Sir, slave, and so on), symbols (such as a collar), and customs (e.g., punishment.)

Monotheism is like monogamy - if other beings are involved, it ain't monogamy.

And, no. The Hindus, as a block, do not agree on anything. There are those that hold only with pre-Vedic deities that are unabashedly polytheist, those that truck on with the monist view of Brahmin as the light behind all masks, those that subscribe to a dualist view of Brahmin and Atman, and a myriad of other things. This is why I used the term "polyfaith" as it is pretty broad.

The idea of Brahmin and the masks is probably the most common though. The concept behind it is very much the Holy Trinity though.



With all but Tolkien, I agree. Tolkien set out with the purpose of writing fiction. The rest had different intent.

And there is worth in logic and proof within the internal system of many faiths. Some of the greatest logicians in the history of philosophy were monks and religious men. I would dare anyone to read the writings of Thomas of Aquinas, a Dominican priest and later beatified, and say that the logic he used was flawed. Yes, the core suppositions on faith may have been specious in your reading or mine, but the logic and proofs used are things of dialectical beauty.

One of the core concepts that underwrite logical proofs is that you set your conditions prior to your proof, and work from those conditions. You can set a condition that god is made of little green footballs, and work from there. So long as your logic is correct, the conditions and conclusion matter not a whit in determining the value of the logic used.

See Bentham for some good work done on ethical logic in this vein.

And how is equating Christianity to Lord Of The Rings less disparaging than what I wrote?



No clue. I'm not Jewish, and I don't follow the Torah. I don't believe in any faith, and have no reason to. BUT, and this is an important but, I also do not believe that any given faith is automatically false. Much as I do not think that anyone out there can categorically prove that their is some sort of divinity behind existence, neither is it possible to prove that there is no divinity.

The question is entirely beyond mortal ken, and those that blindly trumpet atheism sans the understanding that they too can be incorrect in regards to the possible existence of divinity are no better than the religious folk they decry so strongly. In short, I am skeptical even of skepticism. Anything else is just another form of unfounded belief.

That said, much as discussing the merits of Tolkien versus McKiernan, comparative religion is perfectly worthwhile a topic even if you consider the source to be bunk.

I wasn't criticizing *you* for being disparaging. I was just relaying my understanding of the Catholic point of view.

The point of the LOTR comparison is to say I believe the authors of religious texts made that stuff up. I don't believe that God talked to Moses, or that the angel Moroni told Smith where to find the Book of Mormon buried in NY, etc. People wrote down their fantasy answers to the unanswerable questions of the universe in the Torah and the Koran and so on - just like the Greeks explained lightning by imagining Zeus.

I don't understand why the notion of a single divine being who could take multiple forms or be multiple places at once bothers you so much. If he's all-powerful, can't he do whatever the hell he wants?

I also don't understand why, if you're not Christian, you don't just take practicing Christians at their word with regard to the single deity thing. If it makes sense to them, so what?

I do agree with you that one person's guess about religion is no better or worse than anyone else's. A Baptist, a Mormon, a Jew, an atheist, a Scientologist - each one's guess as valid as the other. Truth is, no one knows.

 

[JMohegan]

When someone unfamiliar with your faith see you light a candle (a ritual of sacrifice and invocation of holy fire) and pray to Mary, in her form as an intercessionary divinity, why would they not think that you are praying to some form of sub-divinity? How is this not worship?

Click me.

 

[Homburg]

I wasn't criticizing *you* for being disparaging. I was just relaying my understanding of the Catholic point of view.

I gotcha.

The point of the LOTR comparison is to say I believe the authors of religious texts made that stuff up. I don't believe that God talked to Moses, or that the angel Moroni told Smith where to find the Book of Mormon buried in NY, etc. People wrote down their fantasy answers to the unanswerable questions of the universe in the Torah and the Koran and so on - just like the Greeks explained lightning by imagining Zeus.

I don't understand why the notion of a single divine being who could take multiple forms or be multiple places at once bothers you so much. If he's all-powerful, can't he do whatever the hell he wants?

I also don't understand why, if you're not Christian, you don't just take practicing Christians at their word with regard to the single deity thing. If it makes sense to them, so what?

It doesn't bother me. It is a topic of discussion. Religion and philosophy were the primary areas of study almost throughout my education. I first read Bulfinch in the 4th grade, and had been captivated by the stories of the Greek and Norse mythos earlier than that. I carried that interest, and branched out in high school, and then surprised no one by landing on philosophy and religious studies in college. It is a very deep interest of mine.

The interest is in the theory, however, and not the practice. Thus I may not personally experience it, but I can, and do, learn about it, discuss it, and find myself consistently interested by it.

To turn a different analogy, you (so far as I know) no longer play organised football. Yet if I were to make some blatantly incorrect statement about American football, you would probably offer a correction. If it were on some esoteric point of rules, that correction may make no sense to me, or may well not even have a meaning (such as trying to explain icing to a non-hockey fan). As someone that no longer plays organised football, you would not be personally invested in offering the correction. It would be done for intellectual and informative reasons. In this case, I am not invested emotionally in this argument. I am approaching this as an intellectual discussion in an area that interests me.

I am of the opinion that new perspectives are worthwhile. Taking the Christian mythos and ethos and illustrating the similarities between it and other faiths may well help to bridge the divides that separate those of differing faiths. Were I a religious man, I would no doubt be entirely ecumenical.

I do agree with you that one person's guess about religion is no better or worse than anyone else's. A Baptist, a Mormon, a Jew, an atheist, a Scientologist - each one's guess as valid as the other. Truth is, no one knows.

Absolutely. It is a lesson which I truly, honestly, and deeply wish that more people could comprehend. And, sadly, there are place sin the bible itself, as well as the Qu'ran, that very obviously support the existence of other gods, yet far too many people that follow those books refuse to see the possibility that others might be right in their own paths.

--

Click me.

Eh. The Buddha did not ask for worship, and in fact spoke against it, yet the Mahayanas worship him. Learned, educated Catholics hip to the churches doctrines may well know that their prayers, rituals, and abulations are somehow not "worship", but uneducated peasants and garden variety believers know no difference. And there are far uneducated, garden-variety types than those that read the bibles and church missives.

I'll say again, I'm not too terribly concerned with what the individual church or faith says on something like this. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, odds are good that it's probably a duck.

 

[StrayKat]

When I use the term, I mean power and pain in personal relationships incorporating certain language (Mistress, Sir, slave, and so on), symbols (such as a collar), and customs (e.g., punishment.)

I see.
I was involved in certain local forum for a while and I almost got banned for refusing to use capitalization for anything else but at the beginning of the sentence and names. I guess they were too "cultural"

 

[BiBunny]

There's a word that I can't remember off the top of my head that applies to Hinduism and the various gods and goddesses (and some other religions, too) as different facets of Brahmin. Not monotheistic, not polytheistic, but something in betweenish. It's going to drive me nuts until I remember it.

 

[Homburg]

There's a word that I can't remember off the top of my head that applies to Hinduism and the various gods and goddesses (and some other religions, too) as different facets of Brahmin. Not monotheistic, not polytheistic, but something in betweenish. It's going to drive me nuts until I remember it.

Well, there's henotheism, mentioned above, that refers to acceptance of all gods within a pantheon, but I don't think that's where you're going. Um, syncretism, which is the belief in one god, but acceptance that other gods exist. There's al;so monism, but that is specifically aimed at Hinduism and is not properly a classification. It refers to the oneness of Brahman and Atman. This may be the closest thing I can think of though, as it is the workaround in Hindu theology for the one/many thing.

Edit: And the more I think about it, I think that you're right. There is a term for it. Dammit.