God's Opinions And Feelings..

[superdiaperbaby]

Ok, sure, back on the topic of God and Diapers. There is an interesting passage in the Old Testament relating to a man who had "dirty clothes" and was changed by angels. I always think about this when I think about how it is ok to have "dirty" clothes, they just need to be changed once in a while ;-) Also, if you think about it, God and even the angels can probably see every weird thing you do. They see everything. If you can accept the fact that everything you do is exposed to the angels in heaven and become strong in your conviction that nothing is wrong with wearing diapers then you will really feel more confident in your diaper wearing. I can foresee me having to talk about diapers to angels and God, so I make a point to be totally assured that nothing is wrong with wearing diapers and even doing the 'm' in them. My love for God and Jesus is my most important priority. Then my love for others and lastly myself. I found that when I wasn't saved I tended to become very closed-in and anti-social and dwelt on diapers as a big love and top priority. Diapers can easily become an idol and take your time away from important things, like living a good life and loving others. Once I was saved, God seemed to pull me away from most diaper things and make them low on my priority list. I am now happier than ever. Anyways, just food for thought. Here is the passage I was referring to:

Now Joshua was dressed in dirty clothes as he stood before the angel of God. The angel said these words to those who stood before him: "Take off his dirty clothes, cloth him in splendid robes of state and put a clean turban on his head." They clothed him in splendid robes of State and put a clean turban on his head. The angel said, "I have taken away your inequity from you." (Zechariah 3:4-9)

[Necros]

This is pathetic.

Quoted for obvious truth. It may seem mean but i really feel this topic belongs somewhere else ... like not in here. XD

Necros~

EDIT: One more reason to close this topic and bury it: Its been said before but ignored, its gonna cause divisions instead of a nice community of friends ... remember its always good leave some mystery about ones opinions about certain things like politics/religion/etc. Its never a good subject EVEN if it isn't flaming, it STILL devides people. Now plz bury this damned topic

[Guest chhockle]

I can understand the edginess over this topic but I do have to say that the question seems honest enough. I know religion has a tendancy to devide and it is unfortunatly but being someone who is religious myself I understand that this question is one that can consume a persons life. I have spent many hours and days of my life worried about this question. I finally came to the conclusion that an all loving God would understand this part of me. But my feeling is that this discussion belongs very much on this board because to those this is an important question for it is a very important question that means a lot to their life. Yes people will have different opionions but I do think that it is possible to explore this subject fully and honestly with different opinions and still be respectful about it.

[turtlepins]

i read my Bible every day, and i know it pretty well. king david danced naked in the streets and God didn't seem to mind. i've read about people who wore sack-cloth and ashes and the finest robes money could buy. but Jesus said that God clothes the flowers of the field in more beauty than any man or woman could ever achieve. I don't really think God is interested on what we're wearing, or not wearing on the outside. I think He wants to have first place in our hearts so that we will be secure.

[RMS401]

People, this is not about what we're wearing--unless anyone believes that those truly afflicted with incontinence are bad people--it's about the sexual attraction to something. Is it okay to be turned on by lingerie? Shoes? Leather and handcuffs? None of these objects by themselves have any inherent moral consequence, it's the way you feel about them and what you do with them that makes them controversial.

Diapers are a medical product used to absorb urine and/or feces for those who are no longer able to control their bladders and/or bowels. Nothing at all immoral about that. Now, if you wear them for sexual gratification, fantasize about them, and masturbate in them, THAT'S where things get dicey.

I'm an agnostic, to say the least, so I'm going to leave all gods out of this for a moment and get to the real heart of this issue: Are fetishes and masturbation immoral? Do they hurt anyone? Do they decay your values or sense of self-worth? Are they damaging your life/marriage/ability to relate to others?

THESE are the real questions.

-RMS

[Incomplete Dude]

hmm, point made. But man created religion and so religion is the creation of man ... man in nature is corrupt. Thus religion by default is corrupt. Without religion no man would "believe" they are greater then another man because of his faith (because no faith would exist). In other words a lot less bloodshed would have been spilled in the name of "religion". But i am not saying all bloodshed would have been avoided, like i said man is corrupt and so man always searches to gain power over another. Hence all the bloodshed.

Thats what i was saying, no religion = a lot less bloodshed in the history of man.

And what makes you think that in the absence of religion, people won't determine other labels to judge and kill each other by? I mean, the Rwanda genocide certainly wasn't about religion. Neither were either of the world wars, excluding the Holocaust aspect, but even that was based more on ethnicity than religion.

My point is that people will destroy regardless of the social institutions available, but if those institutions work to prevent this, it can be minimized. Good quality religion is just one such institution. Thus, so long as people flock to religion, its should be improved and supported, for its removal will generally lead to a vacuum that invites destruction.

As for the original topic. I think God cares if you express infantalism in a destructive way. For example, if you let it take over your life utterly, to the point where you contribute nothing to society. Again, if you flaunt it in ways that damage your reputation excessively. However, if it is well managed, reasonably used for healing, soothing and such, then I think God would support it. I'm certain he wants us to be healthy, and if infantalism is a part of that, then that's fine.

[SoCalGav]

People, this is not about what we're wearing--unless anyone believes that those truly afflicted with incontinence are bad people--it's about the sexual attraction to something. Is it okay to be turned on by lingerie? Shoes? Leather and handcuffs? None of these objects by themselves have any inherent moral consequence, it's the way you feel about them and what you do with them that makes them controversial.

Diapers are a medical product used to absorb urine and/or feces for those who are no longer able to control their bladders and/or bowels. Nothing at all immoral about that. Now, if you wear them for sexual gratification, fantasize about them, and masturbate in them, THAT'S where things get dicey.

I'm an agnostic, to say the least, so I'm going to leave all gods out of this for a moment and get to the real heart of this issue: Are fetishes and masturbation immoral? Do they hurt anyone? Do they decay your values or sense of self-worth? Are they damaging your life/marriage/ability to relate to others?

THESE are the real questions.

-RMS

As for the original topic. I think God cares if you express infantalism in a destructive way. For example, if you let it take over your life utterly, to the point where you contribute nothing to society. Again, if you flaunt it in ways that damage your reputation excessively. However, if it is well managed, reasonably used for healing, soothing and such, then I think God would support it. I'm certain he wants us to be healthy, and if infantalism is a part of that, then that's fine.

Two wonderful points.

[seppuku]

Also, the point should be stressed that in the end it's your own personal beliefs that will determine whether any of this is relevant to you. Me, I find it completely irrelevant.

However!

Wearing diapers is completely harmless. Using them is completely harmless. Masturbating is a great stress reliever. Jesus presumably didn't have a woman, i'm almost positive he had to have a wank at some point.

Enough said.

[Red Barchetta]

Jesus presumably didn't have a woman, i'm almost positive he had to have a wank at some point.

None recorded anyway - however there are some that claim to be his biological descendants (not going to get in to weather on not I personally believe that right now). If you assume this is true, since it is recorded that he also was "the perfect man" (without sin of any kind) it would follow that he must have been married. However because record keeping - especially records like that was shakey at best at the time, and a lot destroyed over time - there is pretty much no accurate way of proving such a thing.

[Chibiusa255]

Keep in mind this comes from the point of view of a devout atheist (I could go into the reasons why but that's a different topic).

I think that is there's a god that he/she/it's mind would would be so far from our understanding that it would not be possible for us to even began to guess what they're thinking. Anyone that claims to speak for their god(s) is either insane or doing so out of pure arrogance and has their own ends to serve. So, what would god think about wearing diapers is anyone's guess but i would imagine that there's more important things going on in the universe that your choice of underwear.

Even if you think the bible is the literal word of god (assuming the OP is christian), I know of no passage mentioning diapers. So, i don't see how your god could fault you for doing something that's harmless and doesn't violate any of your religion's laws.

Jesus presumably didn't have a woman, i'm almost positive he had to have a wank at some point.

Thank you seppuku, I'm going to be giggling about this line all day .

[diaperedpuppy]

If you want a quick answer dlb:

If YOU believe in god, then only you can answer the question. 'God' isn't going to appear in your tea leaves or cornflakes, and without the aid of drink/drugs isn't going to appear in person - therefore what he/she would think of wearing diapers - if god him/herself existed - is irrelevant.

Your much better off wondering what your friends/family would think if they saw you in nothing but diapers

Still worried? Pop a pic of yerself on the gallery - and we'll all approve mightily of your diapers

DP

[Necros]

If you want a quick answer dlb:

If YOU believe in god, then only you can answer the question. 'God' isn't going to appear in your tea leaves or cornflakes, and without the aid of drink/drugs isn't going to appear in person - therefore what he/she would think of wearing diapers - if god him/herself existed - is irrelevant.

Your much better off wondering what your friends/family would think if they saw you in nothing but diapers

Still worried? Pop a pic of yerself on the gallery - and we'll all approve mightily of your diapers

DP

Careful some people might drink or drug themselves silly to see jesus.... XD

necros~

[SoCalGav]

Keep in mind this comes from the point of view of a devout atheist (I could go into the reasons why but that's a different topic).

For some reason I am always confused when people call themselves a "devout atheist" since the word "devout" is so often used in association with the devoted worship or service of the divine, but then again I can’t think of a better word to use so I don’t know. I know that it’s not wrong to use that word, according to the dictionary, but in my mind I’ve always just associated it with religiosity. :-)

Sorry for off topic…

[Red Barchetta]

Careful some people might drink or drug themselves silly to see jesus.... XD

necros~

That would not exactly be a new idea.. Starting from YEARS back, and even a few today, various religions have used "Psychoactive Herbs" during worship and other rituals.

[Necros]

That would not exactly be a new idea.. Starting from YEARS back, and even a few today, various religions have used "Psychoactive Herbs" during worship and other rituals.

Poor misguided fools, ah well as long as they don't wine because they chose that way .... may they have fun getting stoned and drunk .... lol?

Necros~

[Morv]

I'd not be so fast to say it is misguided or foolish. I can easily understand how, properly channeled, one can have a very religious experience while on shrooms, peyote, or other hallucinogens. Many of the religions that follow this path are also older than Christianity.

[Red Barchetta]

Poor misguided fools, ah well as long as they don't wine because they chose that way .... may they have fun getting stoned and drunk .... lol?

Necros~

* Nods head at Morv *

The ONLY time I know of that anyone doing this for religious reasons has "wined" about it was in defense of there right to to worship in that manner. That was back in the '80s. Forget off hand what they were calling themselves, but it was a religion that had been established for a long time, that used cannabis in there ceremonies. No one had bothered them at all since that herb was outlawed (If I recall law history properly, I think that was in 1914, as part of the "Pure Food and Drug act") then suddenly and without warning, it's followers were getting arrest left and right for possession of the "Herb". After this happened a good number of times, finally a complaint was filed for "Religious discrimination" on the part of law enforcement. While the judge in that case did agree they had the right to worship however they wish, it was also agreed (by both sides) that it was very hard if not impossible to tell who was practicing this religion, and possessed it for that purpose, and how had it simply for recreation - and while people have been arguing to change the law that outlaws it basically since the day it was outlawed, they were not about to change it, just to accommodate an extremely small minority, or give everybody an open invatation to violate it. So A compromise was agreed on. It did not allow just anyone practicing this religion to posse this "Herb", but did allow the teachers (whatever they called them) to keep and dispense it in "places of worship" for that religion.

Also, while most teachers of Christianity are against use of such "Herbs", it is not because of the laws, or even health reasons! - Even they will tell you that they "open a door between the physical and spiritual world" and they claim that what might walk through it is "unpredictable". This means they are at least acknowledging that there is some sort of link between these "Herbs" and the "spirit world", they just choose not to use such substances themselves (well unless you count the little bit of wine offered at a catholic mass, but that is only one sip per person - hardly enough to do anything to anyone, other then maybe an alcoholic, and since it is optional.....) because they can not predict themselves what kind of "spirits" this will expose you to.

But that kind of says that it may be possible, is properly controlled, and discipline, it is possible to use them, and have a predictably positive result.

PLEASE DO NOT misunderstand me! - I am be no means advocating such I thing, just pointing out that it dose make SOME sense.

[Chibiusa255]

For some reason I am always confused when people call themselves a "devout atheist" since the word "devout" is so often used in association with the devoted worship or service of the divine, but then again I can’t think of a better word to use so I don’t know. I know that it’s not wrong to use that word, according to the dictionary, but in my mind I’ve always just associated it with religiosity. :-)

Sorry for off topic…

I use the term half jokingly but, the way i see it, atheism is a faith the same as any other. When it comes down to it I can't prove that there's not a god any more than anyone can prove there is.

[RMS401]

I use the term half jokingly but, the way i see it, atheism is a faith the same as any other. When it comes down to it I can't prove that there's not a god any more than anyone can prove there is.

Um, actually, atheism by definition is NOT a faith. A-theistic means without a theology or faith. Not believing in something is not just another form of belief.

-RMS

[Necros]

Um, actually, atheism by definition is NOT a faith. A-theistic means without a theology or faith. Not believing in something is not just another form of belief.

-RMS

LOL thats exactly what she meant, they "Believe" in exactly that: Nothing. The void can be worshiped as much as a dead guy from 4000 years ago can XD. It all comes down to tolerance and respect of each others beliefs. I have a few atheist friends myself, their awesome people!

Necros~

[Incomplete Dude]

Um, actually, atheism by definition is NOT a faith. A-theistic means without a theology or faith. Not believing in something is not just another form of belief.

-RMS

By your argument, if you were truly atheist, then you must also be agnostic, as God is unprovable one way or another. Indeed, even with evidence, all one can really do is make an imperfect evaluation of certainty. In my case, the evidence I've seen leads me to believe with great certainty that God does exist. Although, I realize it's possible that others may not be in the same situation. However, they should also realize that all knowledge has some uncertainty, and hence, any statement of truth contains some element of faith.

Also, before you state that there are, in fact, certain absolute and provable truths (ex. a triangle has three sides), you must consider that you could be crazy, and these concepts are delusion. Thus, while you can tend towards absolute certainty, you cannot achieve it in finite time. Now, this isn't to say that there aren't objective truths, but that truth cannot be absolutely objective, only partially. After all, the society establishes objective truths, and often to a nearly absolute degree, just not completely so. To be clear, such moral relativism is not in contradiction with a belief in God, which represents a perfectly absolute and objective truth, because as I've stated, such truth cannot be 100% known by humanity. Hence, we must treat all we know with relativism, even as our objective uncertainty decreases to negligible amounts over time.

[RMS401]

By your argument, if you were truly atheist, then you must also be agnostic, as God is unprovable one way or another.

I would disagree with that, since this is about belief--or lack of it. Atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics--like myself--believe there is no way to know. Atheists do not acknowledge that there could be a God like agnostics do, so they are indeed very different.

Now I would buy that to an extent virtually all Christians (and Muslims, and Jews, etc.) are also agnostics, since I think it's all but impossible not to have any doubts. It has been so ingrained in those of us brought up inside a religion that if we doubt we'll go to hell that they often refuse to acknowledge that fact, but there's always doubt.

I believe that religion is a creation of man in an attempt to understand the world around him. Early civilizations, of course, had no way of understanding lightning, earthquakes, floods, drought, etc. But a God--and there have been so many--explained it all. Your wife died? It was God's will. There was no rain and your crops died? God's will. A volcano wiped out most of your village? What did you do to make the gods to angry? It was a convenient explanation for everything, and it required no thought--don't try to make sense of it, it was God's will. He works in mysterious ways, you know. We fear the unknown and religion filled that void by providing a focal point; a rationale for the irrational.

Now, let me be clear about what I'm NOT saying: I'm not saying there is no God. I'm not saying that religious people are dumb (on the contrary, I know and am related to lots of very smart religious people). What I am saying is that if there is a God, we don't and never have known him. He is unknowable, and I am VERY wary of anyone who claims to know Him.

And just to tied this all back to the topic at hand, if there is a God, and He is actually paying attention to what we're doing, He knows how our minds work and is probably the only one in the universe who knows why in the world we like to wear diapers. If I ever do meet Him, I'll be sure to ask.

-RMS

[Necros]

I would disagree with that, since this is about belief--or lack of it. Atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics--like myself--believe there is no way to know. Atheists do not acknowledge that there could be a God like agnostics do, so they are indeed very different.

Now I would buy that to an extent virtually all Christians (and Muslims, and Jews, etc.) are also agnostics, since I think it's all but impossible not to have any doubts. It has been so ingrained in those of us brought up inside a religion that if we doubt we'll go to hell that they often refuse to acknowledge that fact, but there's always doubt.

I believe that religion is a creation of man in an attempt to understand the world around him. Early civilizations, of course, had no way of understanding lightning, earthquakes, floods, drought, etc. But a God--and there have been so many--explained it all. Your wife died? It was God's will. There was no rain and your crops died? God's will. A volcano wiped out most of your village? What did you do to make the gods to angry? It was a convenient explanation for everything, and it required no thought--don't try to make sense of it, it was God's will. He works in mysterious ways, you know. We fear the unknown and religion filled that void by providing a focal point; a rationale for the irrational.

Now, let me be clear about what I'm NOT saying: I'm not saying there is no God. I'm not saying that religious people are dumb (on the contrary, I know and am related to lots of very smart religious people). What I am saying is that if there is a God, we don't and never have known him. He is unknowable, and I am VERY wary of anyone who claims to know Him.

And just to tied this all back to the topic at hand, if there is a God, and He is actually paying attention to what we're doing, He knows how our minds work and is probably the only one in the universe who knows why in the world we like to wear diapers. If I ever do meet Him, I'll be sure to ask.

-RMS

Insightful post~ Great job RMS401!

Necros~

[Chibiusa255]

By your argument, if you were truly atheist, then you must also be agnostic, as God is unprovable one way or another. Indeed, even with evidence, all one can really do is make an imperfect evaluation of certainty. In my case, the evidence I've seen leads me to believe with great certainty that God does exist. Although, I realize it's possible that others may not be in the same situation. However, they should also realize that all knowledge has some uncertainty, and hence, any statement of truth contains some element of faith.

Also, before you state that there are, in fact, certain absolute and provable truths (ex. a triangle has three sides), you must consider that you could be crazy, and these concepts are delusion. Thus, while you can tend towards absolute certainty, you cannot achieve it in finite time. Now, this isn't to say that there aren't objective truths, but that truth cannot be absolutely objective, only partially. After all, the society establishes objective truths, and often to a nearly absolute degree, just not completely so. To be clear, such moral relativism is not in contradiction with a belief in God, which represents a perfectly absolute and objective truth, because as I've stated, such truth cannot be 100% known by humanity. Hence, we must treat all we know with relativism, even as our objective uncertainty decreases to negligible amounts over time.

Based on logic, science, and my observations of the universe I see nothing to suggest that any gods exist. Therefore I choose to believe that there are none. I base my beliefs on logic and reason rather than blindly following dogma. At one time i sought some sort of spiritual meaning to life. I looked at all the options... I struck each one with my trusty ol' philosopher's hammer and, without exception, heard that quite familiar hollow sound.

I cannot, however, deny the possibility that i may be wrong. I hold none of my beliefs so dear that if faced with irrefutable proof they couldn't change. Prove to me that all of this could not have come about by nature alone and I'll grant you your god... and I'll be it's most devout follower.

You could spend 100 lifetimes arguing whether god exists or not and you'd be no closer to proving anything. There is no experiment that we could perform that would, beyond any doubt, prove or disprove the existence of god. So, in that sense, my choosing to not believe as much a leap of faith as someone choosing to believe.

The debate on the existence of god is purely moot since no practical data can be obtained from it. Better topics would be whether or not it's better to believe in a religion or whether religion has had a positive or negative impact on humanity... but we'll save that for another thread .

Also, before you state that there are, in fact, certain absolute and provable truths (ex. a triangle has three sides), you must consider that you could be crazy, and these concepts are delusion.

Granted, this is true. The only thing i can prove is my own existence and i can only prove that to myself. "I think therefore I am" as cliche as that is it still rings true. We have to, however, operate on the assumption that the things we perceive are indeed true. I guess you could say that we have to have faith that it is true. A certain amount of doublethink is required here as it would be very hard to do something as simple as walk down the street if you had very strong doubts about the existence of the street or your feet or your legs... well, you get the idea. The big difference here it that i can prove, at least to myself, that these things exist through repeated experiment and i have to accept them as true. God, however, I cannot.

Sorry to drag this thread, once again, off topic *curtsies deeply, takes soapbox in hand, and skips happily away*

[RMS401]

Insightful post~ Great job RMS401!

Necros~

Thanks, Necros. This board used to be filled with interesting conversations like this one. Now I'm sad to say that it's the exception rather than the rule. I do enjoy a good conversation.

-RMS