Theological Discussions

[EMG]

Since there seems to be some debate about certain members and certain topics, I thought I'd let the membership decide. Is there any value to having theological discussion about the validity of the site? Do you want that sort of thing or is it just an annoyance. Cast your vote, if you think the moral discussions are positive then vote yes, if you think they're a distraction or of no value vote no. The vote lasts for 5 days and I'll abide by the decision of the membership. My only other note on the subject is that if any thread breaks down to name calling, or just simple abuse I will simply delete the thread and will either warn or ban the offending parties at my discretion. If you want MY personal opinion on this topic, ask.

[demigraff]

Maybe you could have a controversy forum, which you don't see unless you tick a box in your profile. Then, people who enjoy getting deep into debates about the morality, or validity, or whatever, of the site, can enjoy those discussions. And people who don't like that kind of thing don't see the threads :)

[BobbyS]

Until an eager poster called Mortal appeared I'd have said 'yes'. Now I have seen the error of my ways.

[chymos]

I see no problem in honest discussion or debate. However, most people who would come to a site such as this and bring theology into the discussion likely have ulterior motives, such as convincing people to leave, convert to their religion, or (most likely) believe that this site is inherently evil and thus are attempting to "save your poor souls". This is the reason I say nay.

[loony28]

:twisted: I voted yes simply because new members may have some questions about this site. We don't want to frighten them off if they have a question about the morality of this site. I would go with demigraff's suggestion of creating another forum for this type. This way members can go into this forum to discuss morality and what not. If EMG makes this forum then the morality stays in that forum so other members who don't want to participate in or read the debate won't have to in the other forums and threads. Simple solution. :twisted:

[Jack]

If theology is to be discussed, it should have it's own forum. Otherwise, I vote no.

[EMG]

Mortal has been removed from the site. I gave him his opportunity, but since he said he didn't care what I did and didn't value the site I didn't value his continued membership. I did this neither lightly or frivilously. So, shall I continue to leave morality in Idle chatter or give it it's own forum or delete it?

[loadedkaos]

I'll have to agree that we should have a forum for theology if we do decide to post about theoligical topics, and I'm voting yes because some of the topics of the files are for certain life styles and religion is a life style and not every ones in a procelitising religion or in a religion where fetishes are considered "evil". Although the rules for such posting should be considered strict.

[gregi696]

I think open discussion of the content on this site is important. But I also think it is important that people be respectful and tolerant of the other people on this site. Especially considering the wide variety of people it appeals to. I think many of the people who post religious topics and repeatedly use religion in their post have neither respect nor tolerance for the people or content of this site. For this reason, I think there shouldn't be religious discussions in the forum. In the words of George Carlin:...Thou shall keep thy religion to thyself... :twisted:

[sandy82]

My feeling is that morality is like food, air, clothing, (hopefully) sex: it's part of the atmosphere of life. Some people like hotdogs and Nikes. Others like hamburgers and sandals. If morality comes up in the context of another issue, fine. We didn't have a special category for it before. I don't see the necessity for having a separate category for it now. If others have strong feelings and good reasons on the other side, I will defer to their wishes.

EMG, morality can be an explosive issue because, for some people, it lends itself to preaching and a holier-than-thou attitude. To lead a discussion on morality really takes a professional...a professor, someone with a degree in the subject. We don't have those. I can't see that morality is a central issue in hypnosis except to the extent that hypnotists not try to get people to do dangerous things or engage in behavior against their will. I hope I'm being clear. How about this. When I took driver's ed in high school, there was not a segment entitled "Morality and Driver's Ed." If it comes up incidentally, it comes up. I don't think morality deserves a specially carved-out niche, all its own.

That is, unless I've been woefully misled. Did I wander into a seminary here, two months ago? :wink:

I am still very much interested in Linja's thread on "Human Pride." I'm sure that at some point, if that thread continues, the issue of morality will come up. That's fine...because I look forward to the issue being handled among colleagues who respect one another and are accustomed to showing the good will with which this website has been so generously endowed.

Morality. No special treatment. Due regard and sensitivity when it comes up on an ad hoc basis. That's my feeling.

[Jerm]

I agree with Sandy82. Discussion is fine, but no-one wants to hear self-righteous preaching. In my opinion morality shouldn't be an issue on this site. (im Not saying it shouldn't be discussed, just that it shouldn't need it's own special forum.. or support group. lol.)

When I first stumbled onto the original site I kind of got the impression that any person that was genuinely interested in the subject matter must have already accepted that it was not wrong or inherently evil. Or that at the least they would not care. God/religion has no place in erotic/fetish hypnosis.

Also, a special forum might encourage more people like Mortal to preach and abuse others for their beliefs.

[loadedkaos]

I think maybe I didn't understand the question... I like to talk about theology and sometimes morality questions arise when I discuss it but to be honest I don't really give a crap on what type of files people listen to. Truth be told my only morales are to not hurt animals and children. Something I think everybody here would agree on. So in retrospect I think if people want to discuss theology fine, if people want to discuss morality particularily the morality of this site it should be in limited capacity. i.e.

poster1: I think that is immoral.
poster2: Well, I don't.
poster1: Okay.

Although this would have to be something that needs strict rules. I still think that ones religion is a part of their life as well as their fetish or what have you. Some people can keep it separate others don't. What I think this site could really use is rules on tolerance. It suprises that some unpopular members would post on things they had no interest in or would disagree with other members in a cruel or idiotic way. I have had my fare share of diareah of the keyboard and have taken accountability for it. Plus I attack post I don't like, not people.(all of this is not necesarily all on this site). Maybe what we really need some fast and hard rules to weed out the troublemakers.

[drydreamer]

What does religion have to do with hypnosis? I voted no. If someone wants to talk about religion or morality, they should go to a website that specializes in those topics. Having been a hardcore fundamentalist Christian in the past, I know that religion cannot bare to take a backseat to anything else. If you let it in the door, it takes over the whole house. Most religions have very little tolerance for any other belief system, and insist on being absolutely correct in all matters. There is no room for discussion in religion. You either agree with it or leave it. Let's LEAVE IT! PLEASE! The religious fanatics can have their own websites where everyone talks the same way and only says things that are acceptable in their own sweet little pretend world. I lifted MY head out of the sand, and I'm NOT sticking it back in! drydreamer

[sandy82]

Arrived before 6:45 PM MDT Posted at 7:08 PM MDT

I must say I'm disappointed. Is there a way to talk about morality if you believe in it and not be condescending? I'm just curious because I was trying my best.

Sandy, Please define due regard and sensitivity I didn't feel it. Why is it you are all so afraid of a dissenting opinion? I also have never been to a Christian website as I find it boring to be around people who agree with me. The biggest question I have is how are you all so arrogant that you think any of this has been about you or your souls. Does anyone here do anything of interest besides smut? The forums are very boring without a change of opinion. :?

BTW, EMG :( I said banishment is temporary at best. I thought at least you would use the IP banishment feature of PHPNuke when I gave you the warning in advance that I would be back. Try that... or maybe a moratorium on new users and we'll se if that works... or you can approve wach user individually. Also, EMG you have little marketing sense. If you did you would realize people fighting with me keeps them on the site longer and looking at your advertising. Also, the hard core people have more of a tendancy to rebel against me and participate more. I may talk one or two people out of coming here but you make more money in the end. :roll:

Free speech is a son of a bitch isn't it?

That's all for now. I'll be back only probably under a different name. :D

[sandy82]

7:32 PM MDT

Woops already people are reading. BTW, one thing I forgot to mention. I was trying to work within the site rules before but that didn't get me anywhere so now I'm just going to have fun.

Also, I've thought about it. What the heck I'll adopt you're moral code for a while and try it out as long as it doesn't kill someone or take away their rights then I'll do it. Time to go crazy, eh?

[Jack]

What moral code is that, exactly? :smile:

[Jerm]

Sandy, Please define due regard and sensitivity I didn't feel it. Why is it you are all so afraid of a dissenting opinion? I also have never been to a Christian website as I find it boring to be around people who agree with me. The biggest question I have is how are you all so arrogant that you think any of this has been about you or your souls. Does anyone here do anything of interest besides smut? The forums are very boring without a change of opinion. :?

[/quote]

Look Mort, I've read several of your posts. It seems to me that your sole purpose on this site is to cause drama, and be arrogant. Most of the people on this site actually are interested in erotic hypnosis, not just here to argue and judge.

Regardless, the majority of your posts go like this: You say something arrogant or offensive, others call you on it, you appologize and say that you are just trying to get people thinking, you say something arrogant or offensive, you appologize... See a pattern? If you are so innocent, why are you the first member that has been publicly banned?

BTW, EMG :( I said banishment is temporary at best. I thought at least you would use the IP banishment feature of PHPNuke when I gave you the warning in advance that I would be back. Try that... or maybe a moratorium on new users and we'll se if that works... or you can approve wach user individually. Also, EMG you have little marketing sense. If you did you would realize people fighting with me keeps them on the site longer and looking at your advertising. Also, the hard core people have more of a tendancy to rebel against me and participate more. I may talk one or two people out of coming here but you make more money in the end. :roll:

Free speech is a son of a bitch isn't it?

That's all for now. I'll be back only probably under a different name. :D

[/quote]

Ok, I am getting off subject. My point is simply this. You know that you are not welcomed here, so why not be an adult and just leave. For Good.

[missypuss]

I work in family support, sort of like socal services in the US. I voted No! resoundingly , I have seen many men of god hide behind their robes and use religion as a smokescreen to do all sorts of horrible things to youngsters; who see the cloth and believe they have to do anything they are told. I have met many adults also who believed the church provided some sort of sanctuary when they were kids only to be recieving counselling for the things they ended up being subjected to . . I dont mean to rant; nor do I believe all religions are the same , its just individuals who use the pulpit as a moral high ground. I dont go to church as I am not religious, therefore I am surprised someone who finds this site so inherently wrong should spend so much time visiting it?? :?:

[makidas]

I have to say, soon as this is the only community that I frequent, I would hate to see any kind of censorship. But then, something needs to be done. What happened last night was ridiculous. I like a good debate as long as it stays non-offensive. Alot of things Mortal said were very offensive, even to people of his own faith, in turn, people get frustrated and generally pissed off (myself included). What he was doing was no different than what sk and masterhypnotist were doing, same wine, different bottle. I voted no, but on second thought, I think it should be allowed with a few rules.

No Preaching.
No Use of the words sin or repent.
No Attempting to frighten people away from the site by using fear and guilt tactics (fear going to hell, guilty for sinning)

There's probably more, but that's all that comes to mind at the moment. But those are my thoughts, all for now.

[EMG]

I tend to agree with your point of view and expect I will setup a forum for such discussions with rules that echo the ones you used below(if I don't steal them verbatim).

I have to say, soon as this is the only community that I frequent, I would hate to see any kind of censorship. But then, something needs to be done. What happened last night was ridiculous. I like a good debate as long as it stays non-offensive. Alot of things Mortal said were very offensive, even to people of his own faith, in turn, people get frustrated and generally pissed off (myself included). What he was doing was no different than what sk and masterhypnotist were doing, same wine, different bottle. I voted no, but on second thought, I think it should be allowed with a few rules.

No Preaching.
No Use of the words sin or repent.
No Attempting to frighten people away from the site by using fear and guilt tactics (fear going to hell, guilty for sinning)

There's probably more, but that's all that comes to mind at the moment. But those are my thoughts, all for now.

[sandy82]

Makidas, I also tend to agree with your point of view. I would fine-tune your points only very slightly.

In my own mind, there's a distinction between morality and theology. Morality, simply put, is one's ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Everybody has their own, and they either abide by them or they don't.

For that reason, I don't see much point in discussing morality, unless it is a marginal topic in a more general discussion.

I also agree with the general thrust of the words you picked out. Let me give you my version of what I think you're aiming at. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Any discussion of morality, however marginal, should not contain the notions: you, Makidas, ought or ought not to do... OR you, Sandy, should or shouldn't do.... .

In contrast, I have no problem with a statement that the ancient Egyptians believed that people ought to worship Ra...provided that the factual statement is not then converted into "you ought".

Contrary to popular belief, it is legal to teach theology in public schools. The test is (to use a broad example) like a biology class. The teacher says, "This is a frog. We will dissect it." The teacher does not say, "This was a nice, happy frog and it was wrong to kill it. Now, we will dissect it."

The first statement is a fact. The second statement is value-loaded.

How about this? I'm interested in how the military works, but I damned sure don't want to see any recruiter.

I'm still hoping to learn some basics about satanism, in neutral language. I hope whatever guidelines we have will permit that.

A quick, final point. We may want to consult drydreamer closely. As far as I can see, he's the only one with a first-hand knowledge of the whole proselytizing phenomenon. I'm sure he has additional valuable insights to share.

I'm not entirely clear what we are actually discussing. There's a distinction between morality and theology. Morality as a central theme gives me the shakes. Neutral theology is worthwhile.

[makidas]

Any discussion of morality, however marginal, should not contain the notions: you, Makidas, ought or ought not to do... OR you, Sandy, should or shouldn't do....

You pretty much nailed it right there, just combine religion with morality and it's pretty close to perfect. Something is missing though and I can't quite put my finger on it. In the mean time we should put that into layman's terms.

No Proselytizing
No Preaching
No attempting to frighten people away from the site using fear and guilt or morality. Ex: Fear going to hell, Guilty for sinning, the site is immoral, etc.

[makidas]

If no one else has any more thoughts on the subject, have you decided what to do emg?

[VeryGnawty]

Moralty, by definition, is a fairly useless topic to discuss. It is based on heavily loaded personal opinions which are extremely unlikely to change, especially in response to some anonymous faceless entity from an online forum. For more info, see Why Does The World Seem To Be Completely Insane (in particular, the section about how The World Doesn't Want To Be Saved)

With that said, if someone wishes engage in such a topic, that is their business, and it is better to have a specific forum for it than cluttering up other forums.

[sandy82]

VG, no reason to be confrontational when you haven't been confronted yet--although your level of certainty is refreshing to see. If you had read the thread, you would have found that virtually everyone--except Mortal, our departed evangelist--opposes the discussion of morality. There was little if any support for a thread devoted to it. Theology, in all its aspects including satanism, was considered by some to be worthy of discussion. If you choose not to take part, that of course is your privilege; and some participants may regret your absence.

Moralty, by definition, is a fairly useless topic to discuss. It is based on heavily loaded personal opinions which are extremely unlikely to change, especially in response to some anonymous faceless entity from an online forum. For more info, see Why Does The World Seem To Be Completely Insane (in particular, the section about how The World Doesn't Want To Be Saved)

With that said, if someone wishes engage in such a topic, that is their business, and it is better to have a specific forum for it than cluttering up other forums.

[makidas]

Is this forgotten? :? Just curious, because I'm fairly sure there will be others.

[loadedkaos]

I just assumed this was a dead subject because the voting time is well over 5 days, their is real no reason for me to post an opinion about it anymore. Atleast that's how I feel.

[sandy82]

loadedkaos, I can understand your assumption. I think two principal things have changed since the poll/voting question was posted.

First, the formal voting question was a narrow one.

"Should theological discussions of the good/evil/morality of the site be allowed?"

Unless I'm mistaken, the informal question now focuses on whether or not to have a forum/threads in which matters of theology can be aired neutrally and calmly, subject to certain specific ground rules: no proselytizing, etc.

Second, for the moment, the likes of Elmer Gantry/Jimmy Swaggart/Tammy Faye Bakker* (mortals, all of them :P ) is not with us. Therefore, now there is not the unspoken subtext question: how do we get EG/JS/TFB to quit causing dissension by using good/evil/morality as a vehicle.

If I'm wrong on any of this, I hope someone with a better memory and understanding will correct me. I believe we had reached a general, but not 100% final consensus that a Theology forum/thread is fine, subject to the ground rules Makidas laid out and with the understanding that the approach will not be good/bad, useful/useless, should/shouldn't. In other words...no preaching, no heat, no chipped-shoulder confrontations, and no categorical statements from any who think they have a monopoly on truth and discernment.

Makidas and loadedkaos: if that's a fair summation, then we await a decision before moving forward.
.
.
.
*Note: Tammy Faye is back. Doing infomercials on herbal remedies for whatever ails you. Sadly, no herbal cosmetics for the close-ups. :wink:

I just assumed this was a dead subject because the voting time is well over 5 days, their is real no reason for me to post an opinion about it anymore. Atleast that's how I feel.

[loadedkaos]

You're not wrong sandy82. I just thought that this thread was started to figure out what people thought about the discussion of morality especially from a theoligical context to lay down some ground rules and to get a general feel for what the members want, within 5 days. I think if people still want to talk about this they can, their is no reason to lock this thread, some one would eventually just start a new one, with a similar title.

added:
Maybe I just jumped the gun in thinking their was nothing else to get out of this, thread. Plus I'm a geting a little burnt out about this issue.

[makidas]

I assume this discussion is over, what I was asking was basically, what will be done if anything?

[sandy82]

You're not wrong sandy82. I just thought that this thread was started to figure out what people thought about the discussion of morality especially from a theoligical context to lay down some ground rules and to get a general feel for what the members want, within 5 days. I think if people still want to talk about this they can, their is no reason to lock this thread, some one would eventually just start a new one, with a similar title.

added:
Maybe I just jumped the gun in thinking their was nothing else to get out of this, thread. Plus I'm a geting a little burnt out about this issue.

I assume this discussion is over, what I was asking was basically, what will be done if anything?

loadedkaos, you have shown great interest in the proposed site for quite some time. I support you in that interest. You have made two posts on the subject since July 2, two weeks ago; and you have discussed the matter by PMs.

makidas, I sense a note of impatience and unease, and I can hardly blame you. You have five posts on the issue since July 2, including a very good draft of the ground rules.

I have made three posts on the subject since July 2. (This is the fourth.)

Everybody has had an opportunity to comment, pro and con. Thoughtful and common-sense approaches from Jerm, missypuss, Jack, drydreamer, loony28, BobbyS, chymos, gregi696, and very gnawty who, while opposing the idea vehemently, then gives an ingenious reason for pursuing it.

Assuming that nobody's views have changed markedly, all of you wait.

I tend to agree with your [Makidas's] point of view and expect I will setup a forum for such discussions with rules that echo the ones you used below(if I don't steal them verbatim).

I'll be frank. My main interest in the topic is to support those who have great interest in it. I have noticed (I think) that many who oppose the idea have been directly affected by previous exposure to dogmatic I'm-right-and-you're-wrong views. My own tenuous association is with a divorce-based denomination that seems to have thrown out all its theology in recent years and replaced it with fund-raising and political correctness. I don't much care what anybody believes...until they try to ram their own views--religious or secular--down my throat. And then I react. At the same time, I have some interest in learning about beliefs with which I have no familiaity.

Makidas, I know that anyone can set up a thread. Do you have the wherewithal to set up a Forum? If not, those interested could use as many threads as they want to set up. "Idle Chatter" seems to have the most leeway.

Perhaps, at some point, we will be in the position of assuming that the answer was generally affirmative. In fact, the July 2 response was just that.