BDSM and Christian beliefs

[catalina_francisco]

well if they understood their religion they would know all they had to do is ask for Gods forgiveness of their sins and they would be forgiven...you dont even have to recite each one...just saying you are sorry for whatever you percieve as a sin is all it takes to guarantee heaven.

Why should it be a sin to love another and express that love in a physical way? I know I would get fairly psychologically screwed if everytime I made love in whatever form with the one I loved, I had to beg forgiveness. It reminds me of a RC friend I had in my teens who used to tell all of us similar to what you are saying. He went to church and confession every Sunday, but every weekday had sex with at least one girl per day and claimed it was OK because of his confession. That to me is not honestly asking forgiveness or practicing your faith in the manner the church intended. I do not think it was intended you could do whatever you wanted as long as you mouthed the words I'm sorry, then turned around and did it again and again with no repercussions..if so, what is the point of it all anyway, an insurance policy?

Catalina

 

[Kajira Callista]

Sorry KC, this is not personal nor is it my judgement, it is as it is in the RC church and this side of the pond at least is discussed often and openly. Last time I checked, the Pope was the representative of the RC church which still places it's headquarters in the Vatican as far as I know, and whether you choose to agree with their laws and recommendations it is what is sanctioned and practiced by the church. Reality is many are dying because of the churches refusal to allow protection for women whose husbands frequent AIDS and HIV infected prostitutes in Africa alone....and this is just one area where the Pope refuses to move into the needs of the 21st century in the interests of protecting the flock.

It is not about what you believe, it is about what your church believes. Unfortunately, though you can take a personal choice to not follow to the letter a church's beliefs and practices, it does not change their belief. (Mel Gibson as a RC for one will not allow birth control for his wife because of the Pope and church laws) As for being an outsider....I am married to a RC from a family which to my knowledge has been raised in Catholicism....at least I presume so from conversations, his mother's views and house decorating with religious icons everywhere, and regular church going. Sometimes being an outsider allows a clearer view without feeling the need to defend what is spoken of in texts and Papal speeches on a regular basis.

Catalina

I think the key word was recommendations....my church does not make laws...only guidelines and it doesnt make personal choices for anyone. if a person wants to be ignorant enough not to do what they need to do and then blame it on the church, that is kind of foolish in my opinion.

 

[catalina_francisco]

I think the key word was recommendations....my church does not make laws...only guidelines and it doesnt make personal choices for anyone. if a person wants to be ignorant enough not to do what they need to do and then blame it on the church, that is kind of foolish in my opinion.

But I also don't see it as a system of 'get out of jail free' type worship either whereby you can do whatever you like as long as you ask forgiveness which is how I read your post in saying you are meant to sin. I always thought the repentedness had to be in the heart not so much in the spoken word for it to mean you would be getting to heaven.

IMO and obviously outsider ignorance, you can't honestly repent if while you are doing it you know you intend to keep on doing what you are repenting for without any effort to change and expecting to still be allowed through the gates with those who have struggled and gone without.

Catalina

 

[Kajira Callista]

But I also don't see it as a system of 'get out of jail free' type worship either whereby you can do whatever you like as long as you ask forgiveness which is how I read your post in saying you are meant to sin. I always thought the repentedness had to be in the heart not so much in the spoken word for it to mean you would be getting to heaven.

IMO and obviously outsider ignorance, you can't honestly repent if while you are doing it you know you intend to keep on doing what you are repenting for without any effort to change and expecting to still be allowed through the gates with those who have struggled and gone without.

Catalina

well i assumed that it was understood that if you knew it was wrong and felt wrong to you, it wouldnt happen again. Same as saying that you are sorry to a person for offending or hurting them, if you dont mean it what sense does it make to say it. One day when i feel brave, i will tell you the whys and hows of how i got where i am in my life and religion..and the peace i felt when i got there, but im not up to it today.

 

[catalina_francisco]

well i assumed that it was understood that if you knew it was wrong and felt wrong to you, it wouldnt happen again. Same as saying that you are sorry to a person for offending or hurting them, if you dont mean it what sense does it make to say it. One day when i feel brave, i will tell you the whys and hows of how i got where i am in my life and religion..and the peace i felt when i got there, but im not up to it today.

It is only something you only need share if and when you feel comfortable. I think people's beliefs are for them, but also have enjoyed discussing religion and belief systems from way back. My own is simply yet complex, but it is my peace and it found me long before I found it by name.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Originally posted by Kajira Callista

KC:The church gives you guidelines, it does not tell you what you can and cant do....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etoile:
//That's true, but there are many people who are absolutely certain they will go to hell if they don't believe as the church says they should believe. Their fear of hell is so great that the church effectively is telling them what to do/not do/believe.//

First, the RC church has both 'laws' and 'dogmas' and authoritative prounouncements. To call these--e.g. against abortion--'guidelines' is not very accurate. If the church says that there may not be a marriage between a man and his step daughter, that is not simply a guideline.

It's true people 'can' do all kinds of things. Including murder. Indeed a ordinary criminal law about murder just says what the crime is and what the penalty is. You 'can' do it if you choose.

The RC church (as others less formally) has 'mortal sins.' These place your soul in peril.

So I think Etoile's point can be put more strongly. The 'fear of hell' is not simply something people bring into a situation regarding various prounouncement that are silent on the subject.

The church says, 'doing X places your soul in mortal peril'. That pretty well gets the idea across, I would say. If you say, "They aren't saying you can't do it; it's up to your conscience." I say, as above: indicating the penalty has an effect on behavior, without controlling it.

Actually I think it's fine that youre a liberal RCatholic. So is my SO. But it's sillly to claim, that you're not breaking any of the 'laws' 'rules' or 'dogmatic prounouncements' of the RC Church.

Note: My SO just saw this and says it's pretty accurate. She even wonders if you're not trying to 'justify' yourself/what-you-do, in some way.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Originally posted by Kajira Callista

KC:The church gives you guidelines, it does not tell you what you can and cant do....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etoile:
//That's true, but there are many people who are absolutely certain they will go to hell if they don't believe as the church says they should believe. Their fear of hell is so great that the church effectively is telling them what to do/not do/believe.//

First, the RC church has both 'laws' and 'dogmas' and authoritative prounouncements. To call these--e.g. against abortion--'guidelines' is not very accurate. If the church says that there may not be a marriage between a man and his step daughter, that is not simply a guideline.

It's true people 'can' do all kinds of things. Including murder. Indeed a ordinary criminal law about murder just says what the crime is and what the penalty is. You 'can' do it if you choose.

The RC church (as others less formally) has 'mortal sins.' These place your soul in peril.

So I think Etoile's point can be put more strongly. The 'fear of hell' is not simply something people bring into a situation regarding various prounouncement that are silent on the subject.

The church says, 'doing X places your soul in mortal peril'. That pretty well gets the idea across, I would say. If you say, "They aren't saying you can't do it; it's up to your conscience." I say, as above: indicating the penalty has an effect on behavior, without controlling it.

Actually I think it's fine that youre a liberal RCatholic. So is my SO. But it's sillly to claim, that you're not breaking any of the 'laws' 'rules' or 'dogmatic prounouncements' of the RC Church.

Note: My SO just saw this and says it's pretty accurate. She even wonders if you're not trying to 'justify' yourself/what-you-do, in some way.

sorry pure, now you are fishing for something that isnt there. simply, i am comfortable with who i am and my religion, and nothing you or anyone else can say will change how i feel. you are entitled to your opinions, and i am quite used to ppl thinking what they will about who i am or what i do...but in the end it is between me and my God and no one else.

 

[Esclava]

<snip>...but in the end it is between me and my God and no one else.

Now this DOES deserve an Amen!

Esclava

 

[Kajira Callista]

Now this DOES deserve an Amen!

Esclava

 

[Esclava]

Personally,

I'm a New Testament kinda gal.

The Old Testament is the history from when man had laws to be followed to secure their place in heaven.

The New Testament is the prophecy where the Savior was sacrificed so man no longer had to secure his own place in heaven. Jesus said, "... I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6

That tells me nothing I do - no act I commit (whether for good or not) - can separate me from Almighty God if I believe in Him. When I ask him into my heart, I am also asking for the power of the Holy Spirit to guide me to be as much like Jesus as is HUMANLY possible.

Which means - I'm still human and am required to live as Jesus lived when He walked the earth. Does that mean I have to be celibate? I don't believe so - I am not the spotless sacrifice for the sins of all mankind. Does it mean that I have to live by the code laid out in the New Testament? I believe that if you live as Jesus did, the code is not a problem.

Please keep in mind this is JUST my OWN PERSONAL OPINION!

Esclava

 

[Pure]

Escl: Does it mean that I have to live by the code laid out in the New Testament? I believe that if you live as Jesus did, the code is not a problem.

Well, since none of us lives like Jesus lived, we all have a problem.

PS. It is abundantly clear the Jesus kept the 10 commandments, and recommended others do the same; of course that is not all he taught.

Incidentally no one's person 'religion' is on trial here, Escl. I have no criticisms at all to the approach you espouse, or KC. Some others and I simply have a problem is you were, for instance to claim yours is--or is in agreement with--the official position of the US Methodist church; or in KC's case, the RCC.

Which leads to the obvious question, based on Esc and KC's position: What parts of 'official' Christianity in some of the mainstream churches have to be jettisoned to make it sex-positive? Does one have to depart from the mainstream, say, in the (extent and) manner of some Unitarians in order to get positive about sex.? Apart from Paul's hymn to Love read at many weddings (if I have not love...) does any of the rest of Paul survive?

 

[RJMasters]

One has to ask oneself...why Pure does it lead to "this obvious question?"

It doesn't have to...it does because you want to steer the discussion into an opinion of yours which leads to a more "sex positive" organized religion. You want to put forth an argument that is "framed" with the ideal that a more "sex positive" church is the ultimate goal.


First off...

Jesus laid out his whole ministry in Matthew chapters 5-7. Within these chapters he begins with explaining the secret to living a happy life...by being blessed. Being blessed has to do with the attitudes you have. He then proceeds to explain the whole old covenant of the law...is not to be done away with, but that the keeping of it is summed up in two simple pursuits...

Love God with all your heart soul mind and body.

Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

The old covenant(the law) was not sufficent in bringing man back into fellowship with God, as you have said, none of us live according to the law, therefore we have a problem. The new covenant which is established by the blood of Christ allows for forgiveness to be given to those who accept him as their savior. This was a transference from being judged by a set of laws, to a relationship with Christ.

Just like in any relationship, there is a responsibility to that other person for attitude and actions. This is also why the church is refered to as the bride of Christ, in order to show this relationship. Christianty is not about rules and laws of man made religion or organized religion(70% of the apostle Paul's teaching in his letters to the church of the new testament dealt with this subject alone) ...it is about having a personal relationship with Christ. And just as my relationship with another person is a personal and a private matter, so too is the relationship I have with Christ. He and I will work out the details of that relationship between us.

Again the focus is on the attitudes. The rest of his teachings in these chapters(matt 5-7) actually deal with more specific situations and how one's attitude should be in those circumstances. As you read them, you will see that Jesus was not a big fan of organized religion. Infact he often spoke of the hypocracsy of organized religion. At one point he even became so mad he took up a rope and used it as a "whip", because they had turned the worship of God into a money making business. Another deplorable practice that goes on even today.

The point is...Jesus spoke to a woman who asked where and how one should worrship God correctly...his reply to her was that those who worrship God will not do so in a building or on a mountain, but the true worshippers will worship God in "spirit and in truth".

Thus clearly letting all know that it is an individual thing which must be done by one's own spirit...and according to the truth as spoken or revealed by God.

For many of us, organized religion is much like celebrating christmas...it is a way for us to express our faith and beliefs.

I am not a big fan of organized religion, there are many aspects which I hate about it, but I also see alot of good it does to help people in visiting the sick, giving to the needy, and helping people come together in a common meeting place to share fellowship one with each other.

Jesus did not approve the politics of the organized religion of his day, and I see no reason that we have to approve of what the officials or leaders of said organized religion do. It is possible to attend church and not accept all of its practices and rules, Jesus didn't, but he did attend church and kept the sabbath.

The best possible way to "depower" organized religion is to promote and teach what Jesus said...worship God in spirit and in truth not the laws and rules of men.

By you suggesting that the organized church should in someway become more "sex positive" is no different in mindest and method as those who want to keep the church sex negative. The only difference is the one trying to make the rules. Even if you or someone else were to rise to power enough to change entire organize religion to be more sex positive, it would not effect me in the slightest as I do not care what ideals, rules or practices any man may, or may not deem acceptable. I'll work that out for myself in the relationship I have between me and God.

So as I see it...this discussion doesn't have to lead here at all, in fact I think it really is more of a mute point. It takes it away from the original purpose of this thread...and trys to change it from looking at how certain points of christian teachings may or may not touch similar concepts which are taught in BDSM.

If you want to start a thread that deals with how to go about changing the effects and influence of organized religion on society at large by making it more sex positive...then go for it.

I am sure that if Jesus was here today, he would agree with you about some of the wrong things about organized religion, however, IMO I doubt he would agree with you as to the solutions you suggest.

The church is Christ's bride...which should submit to him and recognize his leadership over her. The church is Christ's submissive. He has given and proven himself to be the perfect Dominant in every way even unto the sacrificing of himself for her. He has earned the right to guide her and help her grow as he sees fit. She is only answerable to him and no one else. And no one else has the right to try to make her into what they want her to be...not the leaders of organzied religion, not Pure and not me. She is accountable only to her Dom, she need only to submit to Him, and Him alone on an individual basis collectively as a whole.

If you really have a problem with Christ's submissive, then maybe you should take the matter up with him and let him know how his submissive is misbehaving.

Point is, he and he alone will punish his own submissive as he sees fit. And anyone else who thinks they can take it upon themselves to punish her(the church) or enforce their will over her, be prepared to face the Dom when he sees you messing with his submissive.

Better to live and let live IMHO.

 

[Pure]

RJ said,

Christianty is not about rules and laws of man made religion or organized religion(70% of the apostle Paul's teaching in his letters to the church of the new testament dealt with this subject alone) ...it is about having a personal relationship with Christ. And just as my relationship with another person is a personal and a private matter, so too is the relationship I have with Christ. He and I will work out the details of that relationship between us.


Your or KC's or Escl's relationship to Christ is not and has never been the issue. If it's so private, why are you describing it in detail on the 'net and getting upset if it's being discussed (so you think).

As to whether "Christianity" is not about rules or 'organized religion', well, that's just a verbal disagreement. If 'Christianity' is simply what you or KC have by way of relation to Christ, then I guess the two of you can figure the rules or absence thereof, and what, if anything, is sin, etc. Your personal revelation, as it were.

If "Christianity" has to do with human Christian institutions, e.g., the RCC, then of course there are rules etc. For instance most Christian churches (and members) embrace the Nicene Creed, approved at a church council before the Catholic/Protestant or Catholic/Orthodox split. You can say it's a piece of rubbish or irrelevant, and maybe it is for you.

By you suggesting that the organized church should in someway become more "sex positive" is no different in mindest and method as those who want to keep the church sex negative. The only difference is the one trying to make the rules. Even if you or someone else were to rise to power enough to change entire organize religion to be more sex positive, it would not effect me in the slightest as I do not care what ideals, rules or practices any man may, or may not deem acceptable. I'll work that out for myself in the relationship I have between me and God.

You mischaracterize me as wanting to reform the organized churches and/or have popelike powers. Neither is the case. I hope the people in the RCC make some reforms, and they have my moral support; that's it. Same for any other organized group.

If you really have a problem with Christ's submissive, then maybe you should take the matter up with him and let him know how his submissive is misbehaving.

Point is, he and he alone will punish his own submissive as he sees fit. And anyone else who thinks they can take it upon themselves to punish her(the church) or enforce their will over her, be prepared to face the Dom when he sees you messing with his submissive.

Better to live and let live IMHO.

Again, this mischaracterizes me, though it's a kind of a cute formulation. If humans don't 'mess with' the established churches, who's going to?

The idea that the mainline churches have a problem with sex is not mine. Nor is the idea of 'fixing' it. For instance the Anglicans now have both female bishops and a lesbian one. That is connected with their (many members') desire to be positive about women, and about gay and lesbian issues. I applaud the effort. Their effort.

Other churches are heavily into that battle, and I'm glad to see it.
You can sit outside in a personal religion and say it's irrelevant to you. Fine.

Most fundamentally, my view is that you, and probably KC have missed the point of this thread (and others). IF it's simply a matter of RJ and Christ and what, if any, rules or guidelines RJ follows, then it's of no matter if RJ is straight or gay, perverted or vanilla, drunk or sober.

The 'sex' and 'bdsm' problems DO NOT EXIST for personally defined religions of interested parties (those that do a lot of sex and/or BDSM). If a personally defined relation to Christ is "Christianity" (a term never mentioned by Christ, of course), then there is no problem.

The point of the thread, as I see it, is for those who have allegiances to traditional or organized Churches or bodies of 'Christian thought or theology.' Someone says, "My church condemns my lifestyle." or "Paul, in the Bible, condemns my sexual behavior."

You an individualist--spiritual seeker outside organized religion-- make your own unique guidelines. In your personal arena (what you and Christ have worked out), there's perhaps a statement, whomever adult RJ bumfucks (in a caring way) is of no consequence. If so, that definitely solves the 'gay issue'--at least for RJ. The organized churches continue to debate these and other issues.

(NOTE: I might add that there's another group with no problems around sex or bdsm: the so called 'cafeteria Catholics' or 'supermarket Christians.' I.e., those who pick and choose which doctrines to subcribe to and which rules to follow. )

J.

{comments on 'bride of Christ' issue, deleted}

 

[RJMasters]

RJ said,

Christianty is not about rules and laws of man made religion or organized religion(70% of the apostle Paul's teaching in his letters to the church of the new testament dealt with this subject alone) ...it is about having a personal relationship with Christ. And just as my relationship with another person is a personal and a private matter, so too is the relationship I have with Christ. He and I will work out the details of that relationship between us.


Your or KC's or Escl's relationship to Christ is not and has never been the issue. If it's so private, why are you describing it in detail on the 'net and getting upset if it's discussed (so you think).

As to whether "Christianity" is not about rules or 'organized religion', well, that's just a verbal disagreement. If Christianity is simply what you or KC have by way of relation to Christ, then I guess the two of you can figure the rules or absence thereof, and what, if anything, is sin, etc.

If "Christianity" has to do with human Christian institutions, e.g., the RCC, then of course there are rules etc. For instance most Christian churches (and members) embrace the Nicene Creed, approved at a church council before the Catholic/Protestant or Catholic/Orthodox split. You can say it's a piece of rubbish or irrelevant, and maybe it is for you.

By you suggesting that the organized church should in someway become more "sex positive" is no different in mindest and method as those who want to keep the church sex negative. The only difference is the one trying to make the rules. Even if you or someone else were to rise to power enough to change entire organize religion to be more sex positive, it would not effect me in the slightest as I do not care what ideals, rules or practices any man may, or may not deem acceptable. I'll work that out for myself in the relationship I have between me and God.

You mischaracterize me as wanting to reform the organized churches and/or have popelike powers. Neither is the case. I hope the people in the RCC make some reforms, and they have my moral support; that's it. Same for any other organized group.

If you really have a problem with Christ's submissive, then maybe you should take the matter up with him and let him know how his submissive is misbehaving.

Point is, he and he alone will punish his own submissive as he sees fit. And anyone else who thinks they can take it upon themselves to punish her(the church) or enforce their will over her, be prepared to face the Dom when he sees you messing with his submissive.

Better to live and let live IMHO.

Again, this mischaracterizes me, though it's a kind of a cute formulation. If humans don't 'mess with' the churches, who's going to?

The idea that the mainline churches have a problem with sex is not mine. Nor is the idea of 'fixing' it. For instance the Anglicans now have both female bishops and a lesbian one. That is connected with their (many members') desire to be positive about women, and about gay and lesbian issues. I applaud the effort. Their effort.

Other churches are heavily into that battle, and I'm glad to see it.
You can sit outside in a personal religion and say it's irrelevant to you. Fine.

Most fundamentally, my view is that you, and probably KC have missed the point of this thread (and others). IF it's simply a matter of RJ and Christ and what, if any, rules or guidelines RJ follows, then it's of no matter of RJ is straight or gay, perverted or vanilla, drunk or sober.

The 'sex' and 'bdsm' problems DO NOT EXIST for personally defined religions of interested parties (those that do a lot of sex and/or BDSM). Likewise, if a personally defined relation to Christ is "Christianity" (never mentioned by Christ, of course), then there is no problem.

The point of the thread, as I see it, is for those who have allegiances to traditional or organized Churches or bodies of 'Christian thought or theology.' Someone says, "My church condemns my lifestyle." or "Paul, in the Bible, condemns my sexual behavior."

You individualists that make your own unique formula, *which happens to say that everything about your sexual practices is just fine,* clearly don't have this mundane problem since you have dissolved genuine connections with (organized) Christian churches and tradition (and yes, rules). In your personal arena (what you and Christ have worked out), there's no doubt a statement that whomever RJ bumfucks (in a caring way) is of no consequence. That definitely solves the 'gay issue'--at least for RJ. The churches and those truly connected continue to debate these and other issues.

(NOTE: I might add that there's another group with no problems around sex or bdsm: the so called 'cafeteria Catholics' or 'supermarket Christians.' I.e., those who pick and choose which doctrines to subcribe to and which rules to follow. I'm not criticizing such part-way individualists, simply making an observation.)

J.

PS. Incidentally there is no Biblical basis for your apparent claim** that the church is the bride of Christ. It simply says Christ is head of the church and the church is subject to him. I suspect you've adopted this RC or Anglican doctrine (from those organized groups) because you find it personally appealing. See my note, above.

**RJ Just like in any relationship, there is a responsibility to that other person for attitude and actions. This is also why the church is refered to as the bride of Christ, in order to show this relationship.

As for any mischaracterization I made...I apologize as it was more of a misunderstanding due to the fact of you using KC and her beliefs as a spring board to try and validate some point you were trying to make.

In the two things, which you claim I am wrong in...1) that Christ never mentions this personal relationship...and 2) the church is never refered to as his bride...

You are wrong on both accounts...I'll be glad to provide you plenty of verses which show that both of the things are true.

The sad point is, the need of me having to do so, because you, try to bull dog your way through people, wether it is appropriate or not. Then to excuse such behavior by claiming we shouldn't have posted to the boards in the first place if we didn't want to come under fire, is pretty fucking weak.

References of the church being the bride of Christ:


Revelation 19:7

7Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.

---------------

(so that you know i am not pulling these out of context...feel free to read Rev chpters 21 ans 22 in their entirety.)

Revelation 21:2

2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

---------------

Revelation 21:9
9One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

-------------------


Revelation 22:17

17The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

-----------------

Eph: 5:22-32
22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church– 30for we are members of his body. 31“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32This is a profound mystery–but I am talking about Christ and the church.

---------------

Matthew 9:15

15Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them? The time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them; then they will fast.

---------------


References of a personal relationship with Christ:

Romans 5:1-5

1Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, wehave peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

---------------

John 15: 9-17

9“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit–fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17This is my command: Love each other.

--------------

Philippians 2:1&2

1If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2then make my joy complete by being likeminded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose.

---------------

John 14:20

20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

--------------

John 14:27

27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.



If we are United with Christ, if he has given us his Spirit, if he has asked us to remain in Him and His love...If we are bothers and sisters in Christ known as "children of God" we are part of his family and joint heirs with Christ. If we call him Lord, If we call him Master...

In some way shape or form, each of these things require a relationship to exist. Hence the relationship is individual, yet the dynamic of the relationship is universal as it is based on His way, His truth, and His life.

The call of a christian is not to worship stone or image or even a philosphy...it is a call to worship a living being, and as such have a relationship with that living being.

 

[RJMasters]

thanks for the visine

some things to consider

A friend passed this to me...and have to admit that it spoke to me. It was a good reminder to me, so thought maybe some others might get some use out of it too.

 

[Pure]

Hi RJ,

If you noticed, I deleted the 'bride' issue. Yes there are hints of it in Ephesians and Corinthians II; the former is generally thought to be a later document.

I have no interest in debating your views about Revelation. I have yet to see a productive internet discussion of this book of visions, images, and cryptic announcements

I'm not sure where you think I claimed Christ didn't talk about relationship with him, i.e., disciples as friends etc.

In the two things, which you claim I am wrong in...1) that Christ never mentions this personal relationship. You are wrong on both accounts.....

The sad thing is that you ignored all the central points of my posting as went on and on about a part I deleted as not quite so cut-and-dried as I remembered.

Added: Just for the sake of clarity, I argued that, of course, for those individuals with highly personal formulations of "Christianity" the questions about Xtianity and sex don't generally arise. Usually in these cases, one's (in effect) personal revelation is--big surprise!--going to put the stamp of approval on one's sexual behavior.

 

[Esclava]

Escl: Does it mean that I have to live by the code laid out in the New Testament? I believe that if you live as Jesus did, the code is not a problem.

Well, since none of us lives like Jesus lived, we all have a problem.

PS. It is abundantly clear the Jesus kept the 10 commandments, and recommended others do the same; of course that is not all he taught.

Incidentally no one's person 'religion' is on trial here, Escl. I have no criticisms at all to the approach you espouse, or KC. Some others and I simply have a problem is you were, for instance to claim yours is--or is in agreement with--the official position of the US Methodist church; or in KC's case, the RCC.

Which leads to the obvious question, based on Esc and KC's position: What parts of 'official' Christianity in some of the mainstream churches have to be jettisoned to make it sex-positive? Does one have to depart from the mainstream, say, in the (extent and) manner of some Unitarians in order to get positive about sex.? Apart from Paul's hymn to Love read at many weddings (if I have not love...) does any of the rest of Paul survive?

I almost didn't come back ... but my passion is like the curiosity that killed the cat. I only hope it does not do so to me before my time here is up.

#1 - NONE of us can EVER live like Jesus because we can NEVER be the sinless, spotless, Son of God sacrifice sent to save mankind from the eternal death that only His sacrifice could pardon.

#2 - I never claimed that my (or anyone else's) religion was on trial here. I expressed an OPINION about what I believe and how it affects me. If you disagree with that point or have some other issue with it, kewl - that's what I hope you would have a mind to do. But if you cannot, at least, see my perspective through the point you want to try to make, then you should probably ignore what I have to say instead of demanding in the name of discussion that what I have said is somehow lacking. I can tolerate -

• 
  1. I don't understand - please explain more clearly;
  2. I see what you are saying; but I still don't understand - please ...;
  3. I see and understand your point; but I still disagree; and
  4. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

#3 - Please clue me on on what part of 'official' Christianity supersedes the bible?

We were taught to seek God's guidance in reading His word and obey the message we receive from it. Does that make me an individualist? A supermaket Christian? Nay, I say it puts me square in the middle of those who hunger for and try to live by the words in the bible - the truths passed down from those who wrote it as the human hands of Almighty God.

I am still human - with all the frailties and failings of those who are human. If God knows that about me and does not condemn me, why do the words of mortal men have the power to condemn? In my NT post, I only said I believe in what Jesus gave us as the new covenant between God and man. I never said that opinion agreed with ANY 'official' religious position. If I believed everything man said about what was written in the bible, it would make me as a lamb easily lead to slaughter. That would make Jesus' death - "The Lamb" who was slaughtered for all mankind - in vain.

Esclava

 

[catalina_francisco]

I guess part of the problem lies in that it is known by those both in and outside the Christian faith that the Bible has been changed along the way by man to suit the times, what interested parties felt were more appropriate, or simply control freaks at their worst. Tends to undermine and bring into question some of what was the intended message and how it should be lived which is unfortunate. Some can move beyond that, some seek to make it yet more adaptable according to their purpose. And of course this is not including the arguments that arise as to the correct translation of what was written in the first place as it was not written in modern English, nor set in western culture.

Catalina

 

[sexymom]

"What parts of 'official' Christianity in some of the mainstream churches have to be jettisoned to make it sex-positive? Does one have to depart from the mainstream, say, in the (extent and) manner of some Unitarians in order to get positive about sex.? "

Where did the idea that Christianity isn't sex-positive come from? That seems rather odd to me. Of course, all religions have their ideas as to what is forbidden, and they vary- but just because a religious denomination prohibits sex with certain people (is there any organization that doesn't prohibit sex with somebody or something?), or on certain days of the week, or in certain costumes, doesn't make it negative to sex, any more than speed limits, driver's licenses and exhaust emissions controls make a state negative to driving.

 

[Pure]

Hi Escl.

You may well have a fine formulation of your beliefs. You have a individual version of Christianity that causes you no problems around sex and bdsm, fine. Same for RJ and that's fine too.

The 'sex and Christianity' and 'sexual perversion and Christianity' problems are well known, and turn up in many threads, and in many writings of religious/Christian people. These are divisive issues *for those who want to have ties with certian religious and intellectual traditions.*

Threads on those problems, like this present one, should have no interest to you, since you have a self-validating version of that religion, and for you the problem is solved or maybe never existed.

As to your statements like the following,

But if you cannot, at least, see my perspective through the point you want to try to make, then you should probably ignore what I have to say instead of demanding in the name of discussion that what I have said is somehow lacking. I can tolerate -


1. I don't understand - please explain more clearly;
2. I see what you are saying; but I still don't understand - please ...;
3. I see and understand your point; but I still disagree; and
4. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
------

I don't think I'm demanding anything of you or RJ. I think I roughly understand your position in a general way; you're focussed on certain Bible passages and on your relation to Christ. From that standpoint 'sex' or 'bdsm' problems are not even on the radar screen.

You ignore Bible passages where Paul is seemingly down on the activities of gays and lesbians, not to say fornicators and whoremasters, and that's fine. For you the problem is solved, since Paul's talk about all believers being in the 'body of Christ' is pretty much the only part of him (his letters) that matters.

You are indeed an 'individualist' with an 'individual' solution to the problems, I believe you say as much:

I never said that opinion agreed with ANY 'official' religious position.

Of course, in a broad way you're allied (in respect of belief) with other non-fundamentalist but 'Jesus focussed' protestants.

 

[Netzach]

well the thread is "BDSM and Christian beliefs" not "BDSM and strict Christian fundemantalism."

I could see someone UCC and quite liberal having something to say on the subject, are they somehow more Christian than KC's fairly liberal-sounding Catholicism because there are more fundamentalist Catholics and UCC is inherently fairly liberal in intepretation?

(sorry for assumptions or labeling, maybe KC doesn't see herself as "liberal")

If you are not very literal with Pauline doctrine, if you take a less literal approach to the Bible, there's less of a friction between Chrsitianity and SM or other sexuality. If you are extremely literal there will probably be more friction, but then there's more friction with lending money for interest too.

 

[Etoile]

Where did the idea that Christianity isn't sex-positive come from? That seems rather odd to me. Of course, all religions have their ideas as to what is forbidden, and they vary- but just because a religious denomination prohibits sex with certain people (is there any organization that doesn't prohibit sex with somebody or something?), or on certain days of the week, or in certain costumes, doesn't make it negative to sex, any more than speed limits, driver's licenses and exhaust emissions controls make a state negative to driving.

I figure the concept of "sex is only for procreation, not for fun" disqualifies some religions from being sex-positive. As for there being an organization that doesn't prohibit sex with somebody or something...no, I don't think any widely accepted organization condones sex with animals or dead people. However, when a religion condemns sex between two consenting adults, that's also not sex-positive.

 

[Kajira Callista]

OK , why do people think that a religion condemns anything or anyone? I think that is where my problem with this whole thread it. Do you know of any church who turns away or condemns anyone? Because i sure as hell dont.
Back to the original point of this thread...what i am saying is whether you sin or not or make a choice to do something that your church frowns on doesnt mean you arent welcome there or can not practice your religion.

 

[Etoile]

OK , why do people think that a religion condemns anything or anyone? I think that is where my problem with this whole thread it. Do you know of any church who turns away or condemns anyone? Because i sure as hell dont.

Yes, that's where the word "excommunication" comes from.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Yes, that's where the word "excommunication" comes from.

and how many ppl do you personally know that have been excommunicated?