What is your faith?

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I will only repeat what thomas Paine said some 250 years ago snouy miracles "It is easier to believe men lie than that Nature goes off her course". All that any verified "miracles" would prove is that we are not omniscient or infallible: Well wotta suprise! Who'd a thunk it?! If we were, we would not be having this discussion. Look at the origin of the term "stroke", many of which we now prevent or even reverse. The further up go the rockets, the further back goes Heaven. To say that prayer is not testable means one of two things. God is capraicious and therefore evil,  in the manner of the 1970's joke: "How did the punish Helen Keller? Rearrange the furniture". The second is that it's all a stinking croakc ot BS at the core. Testing is a way to get at the truth of a matter. You doubtlessly owe your life to science, I do not owe mine to prayer, since it cannot be tested according to you , so I cannot know if it is true or not, and the core principle  of knowledge is that if x is not proven or demonstrated, let alon probable or testible, then it is not true. Otherwise you would have to believe all the crazy conspiracy theories that are out there. If something is true, then it shows, and in a manner that is consistent and commenserate with the notion that 1+1=2. Otherwise we would have to believe in elves, flying saucers and astrology

You are also talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you say that "prayer is not testable'", that is subject to the rational means of determining truth via reason. Then you talk about "provable miracles" meaning determinably true by means of reason. You can't have it both ways. You are providing a "sounding board" for me to speak to the knowledgeable, honest and reasonable among us. All I can make of this is that it is the psychology of gargoyle. But int the West? In the twenty-first century? Where and when we regularly and effortlessly do things that were, a mere 350 years ago ,  believed to be the deeds of gods and angels? In my lifetime, the heroes of space fiction often carried 3 things. a communicator, a writing tablet and a calculator. each in a box about 3x7x2. I have ONE item sitting next tome that is about 2x5x1/5 that does all three, as well as tell me where I am on the globe, bring me information just by asking for it and take and send pictures. I do not remember any prayers in the making of this "miracle". By the deeds of science, I have survived two things, cancer and vascular disease, that were killers a mere 60 years ago, over which persons prayed fruitlessly. The record speaks for itself. Beyond this point, no debate, discussion or communication is possible since one side chooses to respect or abandon reason as the final ariberter by either whim or what is suitable to manipulate the discussion. That means that no discernable  standards of fact or truth are in play and it is pretty much all cards wild You cannot hold, with any sanity or integrity that prayer is not subject to rationa study and there are "probable miracles" becuase in principle you have abondoed the standrds of prrof. So, for my part, this discussion is over. I have more useful and fun things to do

[Dubious]

On 5/26/2020 at 3:42 AM, Firefly 35 said:

Let's not argue here.  Regardless of how the world came to be as it is now, let's make the best of it.

Would be better with no religion 
About all wars have started cause of religion and woman are oppressed by religion 
Boys are circumsised cause of religion 

[kasarberang]

I'm a Deist I believe there is a god, but I don't find identify with any particular religious denomination.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

I was never a fan of having this forum for two reasons, 1. what I noted above so that everyone is shouting by each other and just gets frustrated and angry from feeling disrespected. 2. The concept "Little of Faith" is a contradiction in terms, since the only relation between little and church is that, IRL, one has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the other, besides which, a 4, 7 or 10 year old is not biologically equipped to evaluate such things meaningfully. If at all, this should be a subforum to  The Rest of Your Life or maybe Game Time but it has really no place in Our Lifestyle. It is not even an essential part of DL or Sissy

[Dubious]

Religion/Faith shouldn't be on websites like this

There is lots o jokes about the catholic church being a bunch of pedos, and I believe some of it is true 

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

3 hours ago, Dubious said:

Religion/Faith shouldn't be on websites like this

There is lots o jokes about the catholic church being a bunch of pedos, and I believe some of it is true 

As a percentage, no more than with other organizations that deal with children. It's just that certain elements of the Establishment, for reasons of their own, have a grudge or find the Catholic Church a conveient whipping boy or to distract from their own malevolent or other bad activities.

Rewind: Sometime between late 1957 to mid second quarter of 1958. I am listening to a report, either on a radio or a television but not watching the screen. This report is about "the post-Existentialism Intelligentsia". The specific content  "[they] are rejecting Existentialism becaus it 'does not provide answers'" "The y are turning to 'Nihilism'". So, I go off to a dictionary to look up Nihilism and I get something to the effect that nothing really exists: Sort of like putting the whole universe on your "ignore" list. First, I visualize a picture in a book about planes that I got when I was 7 of an airport with the beakcon having one white light and the light from the other side being green. A black fog begins to swallow up those lights. Next, what comes to my eye is something based on a common activity of the time. This was the era of the opeing in Fall River of the early supermarkets, mostly A&P. It was the custom to bring in one of those giantt searchlights from WWII that nwere used to illuminate incoming aircraft for targetting by ground-based guns. These lights, which could see thousands of geet up, would then be set to trun in circles at hight for about 3 days, reflecting a large circle of light from clouds. What I saw was one of these lights doing its thing, then the light would gradually dim . The impression I got was that something was being done to the nature of light, ultimately eradicationg it (making it not exist). The real target to be destroyed was perception of the external world, into which vacuum the intelligentsia would insert it's own polluted ideas. From this, I got the idea that Nihilism was a destructive falsehood. The Establishment is a product of the Intelligentsia. What uses such destructive things can only be malevolent and evil. A  year later, in an interview, the novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand said "The intellectuals [who should be leading the society toward greater enlightenment] are trying to put themselves out of busienss [I do not know if she heard or saw what I had or not]". Any establishment is the product of a society's intelligentsia. The Catholic Church is one of the only entities with a view based on absolutes, beginning with the absolute existence of God, as such, it must hold to the prenciple of existence in and of itself. This is in direct opposition tothe degenerate Intelligentsa. So, the next thing is for the apparatus of the Establishment to attack this entity specifically while not saying anything about the others where the same conditions apply. It is telling the truth, but not the whole truth and probably an exaggerated version of the truth at that

This was not new.  Maybe as far back as 1949 but I only became aware of it when I was abougt 8-1/2. The entellectuals were taking great pains to distinguish Communism from Fascism; specifically Naziism. They would clutch at the most pea-shit differences. All of this while totally either unaware of or deliberately ignoring something that any 8 year old with a quantum of knowledge would find the most glaring similarity and defining characteristic of both. They were absolute totalitarian systems at the core. It ofthen flummoxed my how all the brightest and best could ignore that core similarity, I could not, at that age, believe that they were so dumb, or if they were not that dumb, so evil. Now the kicker, If you look at the 35 year KNOWN history of Donald Trump, what you find is a manipulating Nihilist, who is so self-absorbed and Narcissistic that he may have lost the ability to discern what is true from what is inside his factproof 12 cm thick stone skull. And the Christian Conservatives have elevated him to the highest position in the land. and yet, there has been no divine retribution against them, which there should be if there is a God, unless I read my Anannias and Sapphira wrong

[Dubious]

Its the few that ruins it for everyone

Not all cops are bad, but cause there is a few bad cops, then all cops are bad

[PinkGecko]

9 hours ago, Little Christine said:

I was never a fan of having this forum for two reasons, 1. what I noted above so that everyone is shouting by each other and just gets frustrated and angry from feeling disrespected. 2. The concept "Little of Faith" is a contradiction in terms, since the only relation between little and church is that, IRL, one has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the other, besides which, a 4, 7 or 10 year old is not biologically equipped to evaluate such things meaningfully. If at all, this should be a subforum to  The Rest of Your Life or maybe Game Time but it has really no place in Our Lifestyle. It is not even an essential part of DL or Sissy

 

6 hours ago, Dubious said:

Religion/Faith shouldn't be on websites like this

There is lots o jokes about the catholic church being a bunch of pedos, and I believe some of it is true 

I support the inclusion of a faith-based sub-forum for several reasons:

1) Most importantly: AB/DLs come from all walks of life, and as such many come from religious backgrounds. Many of them often feel like there's a conflict between their faith and their interests. A forum like this is invaluable to provide support from people struggling to reconcile both facets of their identity. It's not like they're gonna go directly to their pastor/rabbi/shaman/etc. and ask them about wearing diapers.

2) Religion tends to be a huge part of a person's life and lifestyle. A forum like this basically serves the same purpose as the "Rainbow Diapers" or even the "Depression Discussion" sub-forums, so people can connect with others based on things more important to their lives than just AB/DL. A faith-based forum is also ideal for people of faith who are either LGBTQ and/or struggling with mental health issues, who would benefit more from faith-based support than general support.

3) In regards to being a sub-forum of "Our Lifestyle Discussion"...truthfully, I wouldn't necessarily mind if it were included under "The Rest of Your Life". While I do feel that how faith and AB/DL co-exist is the primary point of discussion here, it's definitely pretty limiting keeping this relegated to AB/DL-related content as opposed to general discussions of faith. I'd approve of "Littles of Faith" being put under "The Rest of Your Life".

4) I'll be the first to admit that organized religion has a lot of problems, but that's pretty much irrelevant to the fact that there's a lot of AB/DLs who identify as people of faith who would like to connect with other AB/DLs of faith. To deny them that based on the crimes of other people would be as ridiculous as denying all AB/DLs a chance to congregate based on the few pedophiles their own community has outed. Priests and cops are active participants and perpetrators of systemic oppression...that's not the same deal as normal people who happen to go to church, synagogue or temple. Until we actually have pedophile priests or people looking to start holy wars posting on Daily Diapers, there's nothing objectionable about people peacefully connecting over shared ideologies.

5) I guess I adhere to the old adage that if you don't like it, don't pay attention to it. Let me emphasize that I welcome civil debate; some might disagree with me, but I do believe that atheists and agnostics should be allowed to post in "Littles of Faith" if they wish to discuss theology without provocation. I've been part of several faith-based forums where I've seen that happen, people of different ideologies debating - but not arguing - their viewpoints. I have less patience for people who would willfully go into a sub-forum entitled "Littles of Faith" only to antagonize people of faith. I feel if someone legitimately had an issue with this sub, they'd talk to a moderator about it instead of bashing religion on an explicitly religious sub-forum. It's not all that different from going into the LGBTQ sub and posting something homophobic, or going into the depression sub and posting anti-psychiatry pseudoscience. That's why I feel a forum such as this should be better moderated to keep things as civil as they can possibly be.

6) On a more light-hearted note, in regards to religion not relating to "little-ism", this is a bit of a stretch, but some littles DO enjoy regressing with faith-based children's entertainment. One word, baby: "VeggieTales".

At least, that's how I see it.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

Centering it on religion may be a mistake since religion touches on and is a form of philosophy. Therefore centering it on religion tends to build in a theistic bias in the name.  Beyond that, It is impossible to have a "civil" debate with someone not open to reason or who tries to use it selectively (the latter being two-faced or missing something up top thus not being aware of the self contradiction). Since the "Age of Reason" and the "Enlightenemnt", religion has declined in influence, to a point where for many persons, especially in the late twentieth century, ti is almost a matter of lip service and there has been a massive shift away from "organized" religion (I actually copiled the data in one such survey in 1973 for a test given in my Abnormal Psych class) and that trend has continued. Having abandoned reason as an absolute the persons I referenced in the  third sentence, having no choice but to proselytize ,  must either just go on a vicious rant or try to manipulate the reader and in any case commit some logical fallacy, usually the Ad Hominem, to demean the opponent. Hence the well-known and worn phriase "the two things you should not discuss are politics and religion" nas been a watchword for most of my life. Beyond that, some will use it to air grievances and grudges by bringing up side issues like child molestation, that have nothing to do with doctrine or its validity, which are a hindrance to some of the things you want to accomplish with this subforum, though I do think it goes well with The Rest of Your Life and an anme change, since DL's are not littles.  Often in forums that have the intestinal, or is that testicular fortitude to get inot that area, the thing is called something like "Philosophy & Spirituality". I think the ABDL's would be more inclined to philosophy than religion, given the rigidity of religion and its reliance on mysticism and supernaturalism, harkening back to me "in the West? In the twenty-first century?"

[PinkGecko]

8 hours ago, Little Christine said:

Centering it on religion may be a mistake since religion touches on and is a form of philosophy. Therefore centering it on religion tends to build in a theistic bias in the name.  Beyond that, It is impossible to have a "civil" debate with someone not open to reason or who tries to use it selectively (the latter being two-faced or missing something up top thus not being aware of the self contradiction). Since the "Age of Reason" and the "Enlightenemnt", religion has declined in influence, to a point where for many persons, especially in the late twentieth century, ti is almost a matter of lip service and there has been a massive shift away from "organized" religion (I actually copiled the data in one such survey in 1973 for a test given in my Abnormal Psych class) and that trend has continued. Having abandoned reason as an absolute the persons I referenced in the  third sentence, having no choice but to proselytize ,  must either just go on a vicious rant or try to manipulate the reader and in any case commit some logical fallacy, usually the Ad Hominem, to demean the opponent. Hence the well-known and worn phriase "the two things you should not discuss are politics and religion" nas been a watchword for most of my life. Beyond that, some will use it to air grievances and grudges by bringing up side issues like child molestation, that have nothing to do with doctrine or its validity, which are a hindrance to some of the things you want to accomplish with this subforum, though I do think it goes well with The Rest of Your Life and an anme change, since DL's are not littles.  Often in forums that have the intestinal, or is that testicular fortitude to get inot that area, the thing is called something like "Philosophy & Spirituality". I think the ABDL's would be more inclined to philosophy than religion, given the rigidity of religion and its reliance on mysticism and supernaturalism, harkening back to me "in the West? In the twenty-first century?"

Well, this sub has been active since 2018 and there are only 28 threads...and I have a lot of spare time on my hands, so...I'm going to read every single one and compile all of the arguments, insults, "vicious rants" and "manipulation" I can find and see just how savage and barbaric this wasteland known as "Littles of Faith" really is!

...[time passes]...

Okay, well, that was interesting. Let's see what I found out (or you can skip to the end for a TL;DR).

Well, for one, technically - and I'll explain my use of the word "technically" in a bit - there are only three arguments in the entirety of this sub-forum. Well, two and a half. I'll elaborate.

Two of them, actually, are between the same two people, users Alex Bridges and rosalie.bent, and both of them happened on the same day, July 16, 2019. In the thread "Do only "Born Again Christians go to heaven?"", the two disagree over the concept of being "born into the spirit" and it gets a little ugly, with rosalie.bent asserting "if you arent 'born again', you aint a christian at all". Oof. Tough stuff. Elsewhere, in the thread "What does this mean?", the two disagree over the meaning of the term "Jesus follower", though a potential argument ends before it really has a chance to begin when Alex Bridges cuts her off with "I'll just opt not to respond" and it instantly fizzles out.

Truly, the darkest day in "Littles of Faith" history. I hear the sub's going to have a candlelight vigil in memory next month.

Anyways, the "third" argument was really more of a misunderstanding. It was on the first page of this very thread, "What is your faith?", in which user Brudda Voodu cites the obscure Shaivist sect Aghori as their faith, to which a skeptical Elfy dismisses them as a possible troll. Brudda Voodu is understandably upset, but Elfy then apologizes profusely and offers to discuss the matter in private messaging. The issue is never brought up again. I mean...I don't know if that counts as "demeaning the opponent", but I figure it was worth mentioning.

Now, there was certainly the potential for many arguments, especially in the five-page theological thread "Predestination: An infallible argument?". Granted, it does start with "I'm not looking to start a flame war", and while disagreements run a little high, indeed there is no flaming or even insults. The most heated debate was between the OP Wannatripbaby and user Infantwish, which lasted for almost two pages yet ultimately ended with Infantwish proposing they "agree to disagree, congratulate each other on a debate well-discussed and move on wishing one another good luck in finding ways to improve our lives", to which Wannatripbaby responded "I concur, my good sir. Thank you for a rousing discussion". My God, you're right...the vicousness! The manipulation! THE DEMEANING! These people are animals!

I also feel compelled to mention "Corinthians 13:11", which didn't just have the potential for arguments but the potential for antagonistic arguments. In that one, user Pamperbum_uk  identifies herself as "a complete atheist" and presents a verse she saw as challenging the notion of being both Christian and AB/DL. User Wannatripbaby, after asking for clarification on which book of Corinthians they were referring to, provided their personal analysis to which Pamperbum_uk responded with "Ah.... fair enough" and...well, actually, that was the end of their discourse. Again, the lack of civility is shocking.

I would've singled a few more posts within various threads, but I ultimately considered them inconsequential as they're either not outright argumentative (e.g. just saying "I disagree", etc.) and/or nobody responded to them. If you'd like, though, I could post those, too.

Now we get into the other side of that "technically", the side that has less to do with naturally occuring arguments stemming from theological conversation and more with outright antagonism. By that, I mean...well, take for example the thread "Jehovah's Witness - Was I wrong", in which several users - both religious and atheist - discuss their issues with organized religion, which includes self-identified atheist member Firefly 35 stating "I do make a point to respect other people's beliefs even if they're very different from mine". Immediately after that, user Nat responds with "I won't even touch religion within 100 feet. I want it to be kept away from me and not want it near me[...]keep it way from me and don't impose it on anyone". Now, technically that IS on topic and not THAT antagonistic, but I personally find it a little strange that someone who's that passionate about not having religion imposed on them chose to enter a religious sub-forum, enter a thread in said religious sub-forum (and a bizarrely specific one about Jehovah's Witnesses at that) and then post in a religious sub-forum, but hey, there's a lot about the world I don't understand. Also, nobody responded to her post, so I'll leave it up to you if you would count that or not.

Really, the most antagonistic person in this board is user DiapersOfTheStorm; while they're not a troll, almost literally every one of their posts is written with the intention of disproving God, His infallibility and/or His goodliness. Now that in itself is not a bad thing: this is indeed a forum for debate and discussion and there are indeed many atheists and agnostics who've shared similar viewpoints, it's just that he comes on a bit too condescending - for example, in "Do only "Born again Christians go to heaven?"", he says to a religious user "religious folks like you have a tendency to invent their own logic", which is a little aggressive. Another example would be in the thread "If you could ask GOD anything" in which he immediately asks about children with cancer, launching into the argument that God allows bad things to happen to good people and therefore God can't be good and/or real. Following a brief back and forth, religious user diaperguy replies "Lets agree to disagree. Im not gonna get in a peeing match. We do agree on one thing. Diapers are great!", to which DiapersOfTheStorm responds "They sure are" and, uh...well, the matter is...permanently abandoned. THOSE CHRISTIANS ARE SO VICIOUS!!!

I'd also like to highlight an exchange from later in that thread, where religious user BabyJune takes a stab at Trump, wanting to ask God "what the hell were you thinking???" in regards to his election. In response, religious user feralfreak turns that question back around to refer to Obama...but then immediately follows it with "instead of opening that can of worms, i think it would be better to leave politics out of this", and the topic dies there. THOSE CHRISTIANS ARE SO MANIPULATIVE!!!

I'll reluctantly include this one before I get to the last one: in "Agnosticism and me", amidst an in-depth discussion about world religion and the nature of faith, user Britnee chimes in with the belief that the thread "can use a few one-liners" and throws out such quotes as "Religion is the fashionable substitute for belief". Granted, he then outright says "I do have my own thoughts but I'd rather not insult people on this board", so at least he's civil about being cheeky, and at least it was in a thread about agnosticism where most of the posters were already discussing how they weren't aligned with any religious ideology...however, he also says "I'm purposely less confrontational here which means no politics and no religion", which, again, makes it seem really strange they'd be occupying a religious sub-forum...

Which finally brings me here, "What is your faith?". With the exception of the minor hiccup with Brudda Voodu on the first page, this thread actually sails along pretty smoothly from the get-go, with users expressing a variety of belief systems including various denominations of Christianity, pantheist, Pagan, atheist (atheist user oliver D emphasizes his respect for other peoples' beliefs, and atheist user alissaK tells a religious user's statement that a hateful Christian is "not a true Christian" to drop the subject "for the sake of forum board peace"), Buddhist, Wiccan, Jewish...at one point Christian user Fulldiaper disputes user Dprczyone's belief "We all believe what we want to believe and none of us are wrong" by calling it "fallible on multiple levels" and providing a multitude of Bible verses, but Dprczyone calmly brushes it off, self-identified agnostic user sidewinder counters with a Bible verse about being judgmental, and Fulldiaper doesn't make any further posts.

The first real trouble starts when rosalie.bent relays personal experience with prayer, citing her "miraculous healings" as "actual direct evidence" for her of God's existence. User Dubious, however, takes the offensive, calling said healings "coincidences that would've happened anyway", states "People can believe in whatever thy want, as long as they keep it to them self, or at least in their own circle[...]No need to push it onto others and say they gonna go to hell if they don't believe" (of which nothing of that sort had happened in the previous post nor any post before it) and then implies that Jesus didn't really die. rosalie.bent then lists two personal examples of what she believed were "miracles", asserting nothing more than that they weren't "remotely possible", to which Dubious pushes the issue by further asserting that "miracles doesn't mean there is a God", rosalie.bent re-asserts her belief in prayer, then user Firefly 35 cuts in with "Let's not argue here" which brings us precisely to this argument here.

I struggled with whether or not to include that in the official "argument count", therefore bumping it up to four (or three and a half), because Dubious' first post in the thread was very much in earnest ("Atheist, but I don't judge other people and have no problems going to church for weddings etc."), but then later on he makes such comments as that the world "would be better with no religion" and "Religion/Faith shouldn't be on websites like this", not only ostensibly contradicting his first post but calling into question the entire reason he's frequenting a religious sub-forum.

So, what's the point of all of that?

Well, what if we took out each of the members who specifically came here only to bash religion, antagonistically or otherwise? Let me clarify, I'm NOT talking about all atheists and agnostics, because I've pointed out several atheists and agnostics who were exceedingly well-behaved and contributed productively to their threads, I'm talking about the people such as...let's say Nat, who went into a thread about Jehovah's Witnesses to randomly state three times in one post she didn't want religion imposed on her (although nobody responded to her post). She's gone. Let's say Britnee, who chose to quote several humorous anti-religion quotes (even though he was technically on topic, he stated he didn't want to insult anybody, and nobody took offense). He's gone. And let's say DiapersOfTheStorm, because even though they have very detailed posts and indeed are serious about the topics at hand (plus they're willing to end an argument if the other person requests so), they're undeniably antagonistic in their approach, and browsing through their other posts, they seem to behave the same in other threads from time to time. So, he's gone. Let's also take out Dubious, because even though they seemingly initially posted with honest intent, comments such as "Religion/Faith shouldn't be on websites like this" are a pretty strong indicator that they probably shouldn't be posting in this sub to begin with...they're entitled to their opinions on religion, and those can - and have - been welcomely discussed here before, but if their primary issue is that this sub should not be on this website owing to their personal dislike of religion (based on what little they've posted on the matter), then I would personally not count them as a productive contributor to this sub. So he's gone. And, of course, you, Little Christine, I'm not counting as I'm trying to prove your own hypothesis and including you would be a conflict of interest.

So, if we take out all of those outliers who aren't here to contribute productively and on-topic to the discussion threads, are "civil" debates impossible? Are the people in this sub "two faced"? "Missing something up top"? "Abandoning reason"? Typing "vicious rants"? "Manipulating" others? "Demeaning the opponent"? Well, if we take out the users whose only posts in this forum are essentially "religion is stupid", then we are left with the following conflicts:

1. April 5-6, 2018 - "What is your faith?"
4-post dispute between Brudda Voodu and Elfy over the former's skepticism over the former's obscure faith, with 10 additional posts on the topic from Brudda Voodu, Firefly 35, rusty pins and Repaid1.
Worst thing said: Brudda Voodu - "to me it seems you want to degrade my faith by calling me a "troll""
Final words: Elfy - "I'm sorry again and let's get the thread back on topic. Voodu, if you would like to talk about it more I will reply to messages now that I'm awake!"

2. June 6, 2018 - "Predestination: An infallible argument?"
25-post debate between Wannatripbaby and Infantwish on the topic of predestination.
Worst thing said: Wannatripbaby - "It's a cyclical argument that doesn't hold up when put under the microscope."
Final words: Wannatripbaby - "I'm glad to see we really can debate religion on the Internet, come to completely opposing conclusion, and still come out as friends. "

3. July 16, 2019 - "Do only "Born again Christians go to heaven?"
9-post argument between rosalie.bent and Alex Bridges over the meaning of "born of the spirit".
Worst thing said: rosalie.bent - "if you arent 'born again', you aint a christian at all".
Final words: Alex Bridges - "How very comforting such faith must be". rosalie.bent - "And it is. There is nothing quite like literally being touched by the healing hand of God."

4. July 16, 2019 - "What does this mean?"
8-post argument between rosalie.bent and Alex Bridges over the meaning of the term "Jesus follower".
Worst thing said: rosalie.bent - "I am not trying to be critical, but you dont seem to have ever met an actual committed Christian and the church you apparently attend doesnt seem to know much about it either".
Final words: Alex Bridges - "I’ll just opt not to respond and let your words stand for themselves." rosalie.bent - "If you want to walk with God you do it HIS way. thats it."

So, over the course of two years, this sub-forum has seen precisely four "arguments", one of which was a misunderstanding that was ultimately patched up and another one of which was literally the most civil debate about religion in the history of the internet. So, technically it's seen only two arguments, and they were both between the same people on the same day. Also, none of the above arguments involved any of the sub's productive atheist or agnostic members, it was all Christians debating theology. I don't see any manipulation or even particularly heinous viciousness.

I dunno, I mean, I certainly have my own misgivings over organized religion and religious people, but from the looks of things, this sub-forum was already completely civil in spite of its ecelectic assortment of belief systems. Even if you add a user like DiapersOfTheStorm, he may be antagonistic at times, but he doesn't really spark any flame wars...in fact, most people (rosalie.bent excluded) have been very nice in meeting him at an "agree to disagree", for which he's honorably accepted. Honestly, the most contentious presence on this sub since July 2019 is...well, you and Dubious, as neither of you really have really added much outside of Dubious' disdain for religion in general, your assertation that most religious people are either irrational or "missing something up top" and both of y'all's desire to see this sub removed. I mean, it's been proven that different faiths have been able to civilly debate in this sub, but this isn't really adding anything civil or productive. I mean, that's the way I'm see it as someone currently without any religious affiliation.

Here's an idea: how about people who don't like religion don't look at and post in a religious sub-forum? I mean, if they wish to discuss their lack of a belief system in a calm and collected manner, they may do so, but if they have nothing to add outside of that the world "would be better without religion", then maybe they can post in one of the FIFTY SIX other forums and sub-forums instead which have nothing to do with religion.

I dunno, seems like common sense to me. I mean, I don't like fast food, but I don't regularly visit my local Burger King to complain about how much I don't like it.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

There is the matter of being religion-centered versus diversity and inclusion. and it says that no anti-religion posters are aloowed: You be the judge. I suspect that much of the activity is arguments about miniscule points that go off in the weeds. "Legalism" is cottage industry in religion and politics, especially religion since you are working from a document that was completed some 1900 years ago by acivilization that we would find alien, pushed through at least 4 languages and edited and re-edited several times and some of which has been either proven false, the "pillars of salt" are quite common and not salt, the events of Exodus are not supported by either archeology or historical evidence; The History Channel some 6 years ago or not verified by supporting secular evidence: The perfect storm for a weedfest where just about anyone can get what they want. Let us start with

 

[Dubious]

I try to stay away from religious forums as they always just say its "gods way", no matter what happen, and how can you believe in a god that give cancer to kids?

[PinkGecko]

5 hours ago, Dubious said:

I try to stay away from religious forums...

Then...why are you reading and posting in a religious forum...?

[Dubious]

54 minutes ago, PinkGecko said:

Then...why are you reading and posting in a religious forum...?

I don't know..

Maybe God made me do it 

[PinkGecko]

7 hours ago, Little Christine said:

There is the matter of being religion-centered versus diversity and inclusion. and it says that no anti-religion posters are aloowed: You be the judge. I suspect that much of the activity is arguments about miniscule points that go off in the weeds. "Legalism" is cottage industry in religion and politics, especially religion since you are working from a document that was completed some 1900 years ago by acivilization that we would find alien, pushed through at least 4 languages and edited and re-edited several times and some of which has been either proven false, the "pillars of salt" are quite common and not salt, the events of Exodus are not supported by either archeology or historical evidence; The History Channel some 6 years ago or not verified by supporting secular evidence: The perfect storm for a weedfest where just about anyone can get what they want. Let us start with...

Then...maybe just don't post here? I honestly don't understand the amount of energy you're choosing to put into a sub which you outright admit is not for you, especially since at one point you said you "have more useful and fun things to do" than argue here, a claim which I'm beginning to think is a lie.

I'm speaking objectively as someone with no religious affiliation who's only looking at the facts as they're presented in each of this sub-forum's 28 threads:

1. You stated bluntly "I was never a fan of having this forum", listing two reasons, one of which being "everyone is shouting at each other".

2. I countered that such a sub-forum is useful for the clearly significant number of faith-based AB/DLs who seek support and socialization, and that with the exception of people who only come here to troll, "Littles of Faith" seems to be running just fine.

3. Instead of addressing any the points I raised, you went off on a tangent about how it's "impossible to have a 'civil' debate" with religious people, who you proceed to call irrational, manipulative, vicious and "missing something up top".

4. I read all 28 threads in this sub-forum and presented - in a very long and comprehensive post - evidence that not only is nobody "shouting at each other", this forum has operated remarkably smoothly and civilly over the last two years with users of all faiths, with only two documented arguments between the same two Christian users on matters of theology, both of which ended quickly and were hardly "vicious". The biggest disruptions in this sub come only from people who post here with the explicit intention of bashing religion, but even they're either ignored or reach an agreement to "agree to disagree".

5. Instead of addressing any of the points I raised, you went off on a tangent about how the Bible's not supported by archaeological or historical evidence, which not only has literally nothing to do with what I was trying to communicate to you, but kind of throws into question whether or not I can effectively communicate with you.

I mean, if you don't recognize that *you* are the person causing literally the biggest commotion in this sub-forum since July 16, 2019, and that *you* are the one coming in here to irrationally belittle other people rather than engage in civil debate, and that if *you* hadn't posted in this thread to sarcastically berate another user nobody would even be having an argument right now, if you don't recognize that *you* are currently being the problem in this thread, then I don't know what to tell you.

If you wanna contribute productively, that's great, there's several threads in this sub-forum demonstrating how both people of faith and atheists/agnostics can engage in civil discourse, but it seems to me that your only intention is to aggressively disprove the beliefs of others, and while a user like DiapersOfTheStorm does the same thing, they're at least engaging in proper debate and - most importantly - not outright insulting other people and then saying they don't even want this sub to exist. If your primary position is that you consider all religious people to be insane and that a religious sub-forum doesn't belong here, then...hmm, I dunno, maybe don't read and post in a religious sub-forum?

I mean...that doesn't seem too hard to ME - I may not be religious, but I'm at least interested in what people have to say about it, and I'd like to think I have an unbiased enough viewpoint to objectively determine who is and who isn't being a bully. It just doesn't make sense why someone would habitually visit a religious sub-forum to complain about there being a religious sub-forum because a religious sub-forum isn't significant to themselves. That's like a vegetarian going to a butcher shop every day to complain to customers that they don't like meat...they're not really doing anything but making themselves look like an idiot.

[Davey]

"Grew up" in a mix of Pentecostal and non-denominational military chapel services. Have since found my way to Tibetan Buddhism, and started exploring that at a local temple.

[Little BabyDoll Christine]

•  

2 hours ago, PinkGecko said:

Then...maybe just don't post here? I honestly don't understand the amount of energy you're choosing to put into a sub which you outright admit is not for you, especially since at one point you said you "have more useful and fun things to do" than argue here, a claim which I'm beginning to think is a lie.

I'm speaking objectively as someone with no religious affiliation who's only looking at the facts as they're presented in each of this sub-forum's 28 threads:

1. You stated bluntly "I was never a fan of having this forum", listing two reasons, one of which being "everyone is shouting at each other".

2. I countered that such a sub-forum is useful for the clearly significant number of faith-based AB/DLs who seek support and socialization, and that with the exception of people who only come here to troll, "Littles of Faith" seems to be running just fine.

3. Instead of addressing any the points I raised, you went off on a tangent about how it's "impossible to have a 'civil' debate" with religious people, who you proceed to call irrational, manipulative, vicious and "missing something up top".

4. I read all 28 threads in this sub-forum and presented - in a very long and comprehensive post - evidence that not only is nobody "shouting at each other", this forum has operated remarkably smoothly and civilly over the last two years with users of all faiths, with only two documented arguments between the same two Christian users on matters of theology, both of which ended quickly and were hardly "vicious". The biggest disruptions in this sub come only from people who post here with the explicit intention of bashing religion, but even they're either ignored or reach an agreement to "agree to disagree".

5. Instead of addressing any of the points I raised, you went off on a tangent about how the Bible's not supported by archaeological or historical evidence, which not only has literally nothing to do with what I was trying to communicate to you, but kind of throws into question whether or not I can effectively communicate with you.

I mean, if you don't recognize that *you* are the person causing literally the biggest commotion in this sub-forum since July 16, 2019, and that *you* are the one coming in here to irrationally belittle other people rather than engage in civil debate, and that if *you* hadn't posted in this thread to sarcastically berate another user nobody would even be having an argument right now, if you don't recognize that *you* are currently being the problem in this thread, then I don't know what to tell you.

If you wanna contribute productively, that's great, there's several threads in this sub-forum demonstrating how both people of faith and atheists/agnostics can engage in civil discourse, but it seems to me that your only intention is to aggressively disprove the beliefs of others, and while a user like DiapersOfTheStorm does the same thing, they're at least engaging in proper debate and - most importantly - not outright insulting other people and then saying they don't even want this sub to exist. If your primary position is that you consider all religious people to be insane and that a religious sub-forum doesn't belong here, then...hmm, I dunno, maybe don't read and post in a religious sub-forum?

I mean...that doesn't seem too hard to ME - I may not be religious, but I'm at least interested in what people have to say about it, and I'd like to think I have an unbiased enough viewpoint to objectively determine who is and who isn't being a bully. It just doesn't make sense why someone would habitually visit a religious sub-forum to complain about there being a religious sub-forum because a religious sub-forum isn't significant to themselves. That's like a vegetarian going to a butcher shop every day to complain to customers that they don't like meat...they're not really doing anything but making themselves look like an idiot.

If it touches on philosophy or purports to deal in truth, it is for me and that first remark wasn't very inclusionist or supportive of diversity, of shich you should be supportive since it expands and enriches the discussion (I have contributed to the "born again" discussion) This is, at present, the only subforum that addresses mstters of philosophy, such as morality. I am not a Sissy, but when I got here,the Sissy Room was the only subforum that addressed Little Girl matters so that is where I used to go until the "Adult Kids group was put in. Beyond that, look at the first tpost, it was addressed to a general audience. what is addressed to all, must, if one has integrity, be open to all without a gatekeeper

[PinkGecko]

6 hours ago, Little Christine said:

•  

If it touches on philosophy or purports to deal in truth, it is for me and that first remark wasn't very inclusionist or supportive of diversity, of shich you should be supportive since it expands and enriches the discussion (I have contributed to the "born again" discussion) This is, at present, the only subforum that addresses mstters of philosophy, such as morality. I am not a Sissy, but when I got here,the Sissy Room was the only subforum that addressed Little Girl matters so that is where I used to go until the "Adult Kids group was put in. Beyond that, look at the first tpost, it was addressed to a general audience. what is addressed to all, must, if one has integrity, be open to all without a gatekeeper

This forum is ostensibly open to everyone, but just like every other sub-forum, there are limitations of acceptance when you refuse to act civilly. Clearly you have some opinions on matters of theology and that's fine...your specific viewpoints aren't the problem, it's that you express them argumentatively and condescendingly on top of outright insulting the very people this sub-forum is designed for.

This sub-forum is called "Littles of Faith: A Place for Religious ABDL's and littles". Obviously that's not too strict a rule, because atheists and agnostics have freely posted and contributed civilly and productively. And by "civil" and "productive", I mean that they're not the ones who literally just generalized littles of faith - the very demographic this sub-forum is named for - as "two-faced" and "missing something up top" (among other things) and then fight for their right to still be included in a community they just expressed contempt for.

I mean, it's kind of a rough equivalent to a straight person going into "Rainbow Diapers" and openly proclaiming they hate gay people but insist to still have every right to post in an LGBTQ sub-forum because otherwise it's exclusionary "gatekeeping".

I could dwell on your sudden shift from "I was never a fan of having this forum" to "[this forum] must be open to all", but basically, it seems your primary issue with this religious sub is indeed that it's religious and therefore builds a "theistic bias". Even though that's arguably the point of a sub dedicated to religion and for religious members, you proposed moving it to a sub-section of "The Rest of Your Life", rebranded as "Philosophy &  Spirituality".

Well, disregarding the fact that opening up a formerly religious sub-forum to ALL members would disenfranchise every religious member of this sub, and disregarding the fact that opening up such a sub to ALL members would *drastically* increase the chances of inflammatory anti-religion comments against said religious members, and disregarding the fact you have no real evidence or even a second opinion that such a sub would benefit this forum outside of "I think the ABDLs would be more inclined to philosophy", and disregarding the fact that the entire basis of your desire to see such a sub is based on your own personal bias against religion...the idea of an all-encompassing "Philosophy & Spirituality" sub - or even a "Politics, Philosophy & Spirituality" sub - really isn't that bad.

So...are you gonna talk to a mod about it? I mean, if that's really what you want to see, then are you going to take it up with the people who actually have the power to make it? Because, at this moment, that's not what this sub is, this sub is still explicitly religion-oriented and those are the rules by which it abides and which we follow. Outright insulting people who follow religious belief systems is still wholly unacceptable, and that would be true even if this was a general "Philosophy & Spirituality" sub. With the exception of one day in 2019, literally the most uncivil people in this entire sub-forum are users who directly violated sub rules by coming here to make anti-religious comments and/or insult people, so most of the arguments you've made in regards to this sub and the people in it aren't backed up by any kind of empirical evidence outside of your own biases and assumptions. Huh, maybe you ARE religious after all...

[bug.mania]

On 4/9/2018 at 9:58 AM, Drownedinp said:

I am Mormon I'm a returned missionary as well. About 3 years ago I started wetting my bed out of the blue. I was never a bedwetter growing up. Doctors found nothing physically wrong with me. But I still wear diapers at night. Wet them as well. Found this community and about 2 years ago. 

I’m also LDS, similar story happened out of the blue but then I have a auto immune disease so it wasn’t a shock  

[Mommy’s Baby Boy]

I am Christian non-denominational. I’ve been to many churches through the years, but always got discouraged by the politics and sniping. I was raised Southern Baptist, but saw theft, adultery, pride, people picking and choosing what was and wasn’t a sin, and so many other things that made me question my faith. I explored so many different branches but came to the (personal) conclusion that organized religion does not lend itself to what I personally believe.

 

These days our Sunday mornings consist of a nice tea party and bible study at home with our children and maybe some friends (we have a lovely tea set for these days) and we just talk about things. It feels so much more personal and intimate. 

[MorganRed]

Atheist, though that's not a faith, by definition. Every religion I've run across has been proven demonstrably false. Just seems like a delusion left over from the infancy of mankind that people cling to out of fear, intellectual dishonesty, or a simple lack of intellect. Given that and the behavior of religious people I've come across and how they treat people, including myself, I prefer to keep religion as far away as possible.

[Dubious]

Churches in USA are going bankrupt cause people have stopped going cause of covid...

[PinkGecko]

On 7/11/2020 at 12:35 PM, MorganRed said:

Atheist, though that's not a faith, by definition. Every religion I've run across has been proven demonstrably false. Just seems like a delusion left over from the infancy of mankind that people cling to out of fear, intellectual dishonesty, or a simple lack of intellect. Given that and the behavior of religious people I've come across and how they treat people, including myself, I prefer to keep religion as far away as possible.

Apparently not far enough, seeing as you took the time to enter a specifically religious sub-forum entitled "Littles of Faith" and start posting in it.

Not that that's inherently a problem - several self-identified atheists and agnostics have posted in this thread and sub-forum - I just always find it amusingly ironic whenever people come into a religious sub-forum expressly to say things like "I prefer to keep religion as far away as possible" and "I won't even touch religion within 100 feet" and "I want [religion] to be kept away from me and not want it near me". I mean, that's the entire reason this sub-forum exists, so people of any faith or lack thereof have an isolated sub-community of their own to discuss a divisive topic while others who are so egregiously triggered by the mere concept of religion have the ready option to ignore it altogether, but I guess that's just a little bit beyond the comprehension of the latter, seeing that - as I extensively detailed a few posts above - the only contention which has ever interrupted two years' worth of civil discourse between religious and irreligious folk alike has been people who come in here to loudly announce that they don't want religion anywhere near them, that religious people are stupid or insane, or even argue that a sub-forum which has no effect on them and is completely voluntary to read and post in should be removed entirely from the website. So much for that self-proclaimed "intellectual superiority"...to quote that old meme, "I am feel uncomfortable when we are not about me?".

I study theology but I have no religious or spiritual affiliations to speak of - I'm pretty staunchly agnostic - but personally, I've never been so inclined to poke my head into whichever faith-based forum I can find to simply announce "By the way, I just want you guys all to know that I'm better and smarter than you. Like, ALL of you. Everyone got that? Okay, thanks. Bye.", but hey, people have their own insecurities to work out in their own ways, I guess.

[Dubious]

You have to read about religion to know that you are not religious 
I'm not religious, but I am a member of the church and is a godfather
I participate in church weddings and funerals 

I believe in aliens, so if God is an alien..
 

[MorganRed]

On 7/14/2020 at 1:56 PM, PinkGecko said:

Apparently not far enough, seeing as you took the time to enter a specifically religious sub-forum entitled "Littles of Faith" and start posting in it.

Not that that's inherently a problem - several self-identified atheists and agnostics have posted in this thread and sub-forum - I just always find it amusingly ironic whenever people come into a religious sub-forum expressly to say things like "I prefer to keep religion as far away as possible" and "I won't even touch religion within 100 feet" and "I want [religion] to be kept away from me and not want it near me". I mean, that's the entire reason this sub-forum exists, so people of any faith or lack thereof have an isolated sub-community of their own to discuss a divisive topic while others who are so egregiously triggered by the mere concept of religion have the ready option to ignore it altogether, but I guess that's just a little bit beyond the comprehension of the latter, seeing that - as I extensively detailed a few posts above - the only contention which has ever interrupted two years' worth of civil discourse between religious and irreligious folk alike has been people who come in here to loudly announce that they don't want religion anywhere near them, that religious people are stupid or insane, or even argue that a sub-forum which has no effect on them and is completely voluntary to read and post in should be removed entirely from the website. So much for that self-proclaimed "intellectual superiority"...to quote that old meme, "I am feel uncomfortable when we are not about me?".

I study theology but I have no religious or spiritual affiliations to speak of - I'm pretty staunchly agnostic - but personally, I've never been so inclined to poke my head into whichever faith-based forum I can find to simply announce "By the way, I just want you guys all to know that I'm better and smarter than you. Like, ALL of you. Everyone got that? Okay, thanks. Bye.", but hey, people have their own insecurities to work out in their own ways, I guess.

I simply saw the question that was asked and answered it. Atheists were listed in the poll so I assumed we were welcome even if it's not, by definition, a faith. And while, in person, I tend to prefer keeping religious people away considering the violence and hatred I've experienced at their hands, I think we can all agree that intercourse via the internet is a different matter. At least here, I'm not going to have to duck a punch aimed for my face. The worst anyone can do is get smug and condescending or use caps lock. I also don't recall mentioning anything about removing the thread from the website.

I'm not triggered by the concept of religion. The evil people do in the name of it is troubling, sure, but the concept is simply infantile and only troubling in the fact that people still fall for it.
And I suppose I could lie, sugarcoat, or whatever you'd like to call it and pretend religion has some validity left in this day and age, but honesty and directness has always been my preferred approach. I apologize if my candor offends. Social graces aren't my strength. Being extremely introverted has led to a lack of social interaction in person and online forums aren't exactly a bastion of polite decorum. And, to be fair, when I do run across people being polite, it comes across as insincere and I strive to avoid sounding like that. There's too much of that in the world as it is. I mean, you came across as a complete ass, but at least you sounded genuine. Anyway, cheers.