Christian BDSM

[jjsharshaw]

Re: Back to the original question

Now that there has been an apparent disection of the Bible...I believe the question was whether there was a conflict Between one's beliefs, and their interest in erotica, and/or BDSM...

AmericanWench

Thank you, uh, Ms. Wench.

Hello all. I am a little timid stepping in here - not quite as quick a mind as some of you, I fear

To answer the original question, having been a disciple of Christ for 34 years and an ordained minister since 1996, always having a healthy interest in sex and having started to write erotica in 1992, for me, the answer is: "No. I don't have a conflict."

I think Scripture says an abundance of things about sex & sexuality. From our current frame of cultural reference, we either do not see it or we see the "vast" quantity of "negative" things.

If you read Leviticus 18, the chapter of the Old Testament where God spells out the "sexual law," from a modern "Judeo-Christian" frame of reference, you get all sorts of negative stuff. Read it from a polygamal frame of reference and you get a whole 'nother view.

As to D/s specifically and the practice of the Faith, for me, there is ample room for the true expression of faith and obedience. It is a model for understanding and practicing a relationship with a Lord and savior.

As St. Paul is one of my "heroes" I must protest his short treatment here simply because his writings, like the rest of the Book, need to be set in proper context. Sure, it's easy to say he was anti-sex, anti-woman, etc. but the full context of his message, inspired by the Holy Spirit (yeah, I'm one of *those* people who take the Bible as Gospel - pun intended) is really quite the opposite. And I apologize in advance to MG for not documenting my case.

Thank you everyone.

Jubal

 

[Jenny _S]

As usual I'm going to go off on a tangent

Ready okay. To start we really need to go back to 16th century (1500s) England when King Henry VIII broke with the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm guessing you have to go back 2000 years farther than that to a time when ancient cultures were worshiping "Mother Earth" and "Father Sky". I think this whole Puritan thing stems from that.

The "Father Sky" figure overseeing the earth, but the "Mother Earth" was a much more important and sanctified figure in that she was that from which all life springs. Both in terms of real birth and in terms of the earth providing shelter and sustenance to all. Even in the modern Catholic Church you see this theme in Mary, Mother of Jesus.

Since "mother" is sanctified then she is inviolate except under the circumstance of marriage to "father", so to speak.

But this still doesn't answer the question of BDSM and religion. All of the bible examples I can think of, including Lot's sons entering Sodom revolve around public sex and sex between unmarried persons. I'm quite sure I cannot think of a single on that frowns on BDSM or anything close.

 

[destinie21]

I'm guessing you have to go back 2000 years farther than that to a time when ancient cultures were worshiping "Mother Earth" and "Father Sky". I think this whole Puritan thing stems from that.

The "Father Sky" figure overseeing the earth, but the "Mother Earth" was a much more important and sanctified figure in that she was that from which all life springs. Both in terms of real birth and in terms of the earth providing shelter and sustenance to all. Even in the modern Catholic Church you see this theme in Mary, Mother of Jesus.

Since "mother" is sanctified then she is inviolate except under the circumstance of marriage to "father", so to speak.

But this still doesn't answer the question of BDSM and religion. All of the bible examples I can think of, including Lot's sons entering Sodom revolve around public sex and sex between unmarried persons. I'm quite sure I cannot think of a single on that frowns on BDSM or anything close.

that's true I was just speaking about the birth of puritism in america though, not the orgin. Also as a christian I can only advise of a well known fact half the scriptures in the bible are taken out of context and misquoted. Some are even made up

ie: Spare the rod spoil the child.
also touch not taste not handle not is taken out of context ad nauseum

the actual scripture says Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

which interpreted into Standrd American english syas

20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.

but I'm getting off the subject. No I don't feel that bdsm is against religion nor sodomy even the story of sodom and gommorrah was about the people having forgotten god not the sin which caused them to do so. I think it is ironical that after all the stricture ad bondage of the church bdsm can be questioned lol

ps: as far as the bible goes no I don't recall any scriptures on bdsm also the bible like much of religion is patriarcal. It speaks of the times also. David had Bathsheba's husband murdered so he could have her and nothing, but Jezabel engages in sex and over the cliff to be feed to the dogs she goes.

 

[Pure]

Jenny said,
//But this still doesn't answer the question of BDSM and religion. All of the bible examples I can think of, including Lot's sons entering Sodom revolve around public sex and sex between unmarried persons. I'm quite sure I cannot think of a single on that frowns on BDSM or anything close.//

Well, most specifics wont be there, it's obvious. Neither is blowing up the world with hydrogen bombs. Jenny you can't use 'silence' to justify anything you please.

One has to work from principles, in general, in most cases.

In my example, I incorporated two specifics: the sin of Onan, more or less, and a variant of 'lying with a man as with a woman' also known to be frowned upon.

So I propose my example as bdsm practice out of accord with NT text-based ethics (non adapted) as Paul might have thought of them in 50CE. Of course if you adapt and liberalize, in the manner of jjharshaw, or destinie21 (and the local 'Community Church [gay/lesbian]' ) almost all consensual acts will be OK. I do not say this to knock liberals since I am one myself.

 

[destinie21]

Jenny said,
//But this still doesn't answer the question of BDSM and religion. All of the bible examples I can think of, including Lot's sons entering Sodom revolve around public sex and sex between unmarried persons. I'm quite sure I cannot think of a single on that frowns on BDSM or anything close.//

Well, most specifics wont be there, it's obvious. Neither is blowing up the world with hydrogen bombs. Jenny you can't use 'silence' to justify anything you please.

One has to work from principles, in general, in most cases.

In my example, I incorporated two specifics: the sin of Onan, more or less, and a variant of 'lying with a man as with a woman' also known to be frowned upon.

So I propose my example as bdsm practice out of accord with NT text-based ethics (non adapted) as Paul might have thought of them in 50CE. Of course if you adapt and liberalize, in the manner of jjharshaw, or destinie21 (and the local 'Community Church [gay/lesbian]' ) almost all consensual acts will be OK. I do not say this to knock liberals since I am one myself.

Pure,
you were on my nerves weeks ago now you're working them. And trust me you don't want to go there. Actually while the bible says nothing about the hydrogen bomb it does advise you not to murder anyone. Now let me break it down for you in numbers 35th chapter it's written that you could kill for vengence and not for hate however later on even that was made obselete when the the lord said vengeance would be his. The old testament ways were abolished . after the viel of the Tabernacle was rent and only the 10 commandments stood. Further more who are you to interpret and add to the bible? How could you of all people know what anyone meant? Of course I didn't say every consensual act was fine where did you even get that.
was that an example of your interprtive acumen or am I just knee deep in pure bullshit?

 

[Jenny _S]

Jenny said,
//But this still doesn't answer the question of BDSM and religion. All of the bible examples I can think of, including Lot's sons entering Sodom revolve around public sex and sex between unmarried persons. I'm quite sure I cannot think of a single on that frowns on BDSM or anything close.//

Well, most specifics wont be there, it's obvious. Neither is blowing up the world with hydrogen bombs. Jenny you can't use 'silence' to justify anything you please.

One has to work from principles, in general, in most cases.

In my example, I incorporated two specifics: the sin of Onan, more or less, and a variant of 'lying with a man as with a woman' also known to be frowned upon.

So I propose my example as bdsm practice out of accord with NT text-based ethics (non adapted) as Paul might have thought of them in 50CE. Of course if you adapt and liberalize, in the manner of jjharshaw, or destinie21 (and the local 'Community Church [gay/lesbian]' ) almost all consensual acts will be OK. I do not say this to knock liberals since I am one myself.

Nor can you justify an argument one way or another by jumping from one time frame to another. That's how modern religion has gotten in trouble. Same goes with choosing one ENGLISH bible translation over another or one religion over another. The only authority we have is the bible itself - the old testament in Aramaic and Hebrew, the new in Greek.

What you can do is take the bible scriptures as lessons as they were intended and apply them to the world. Does the bible say BSDM is okay? No. Does it say BSDM is wrong? No. It does say sex without restriction is okay between married partners.

In other words, if the bible doesn't prescribe "doggy style" or some other method, is it wrong? In fact the bible doesn't prescribe anything like that. But it does prescribe sex between married couples. Back to first Corinthians again "Men be giving your wives their due." It's pretty clear that sex is, not only, approved, but encouraged between married couples. If the BDSM lifestyle is part of the couple's sex life, then it is approved.

 

[Pure]

Good point destinie, my illustration was a bad one, because of the possible 'do not kill' applicability: (though that was never held to apply to war; hence not to atomic war.)

The point that silence of the Bible is not a license to say Christianity would approve, can be otherwise illustrated: how about the action of unleashing a computer virus that would paralyze world commerce?

The NT has not much to say on slavery (particularly the general social practice, its evils for all concerned). And from that should one, like the pre civil war southerners, draw the conclusion that Christianity has no problem about slavery? Is it OK for me to go and buy a slave right now?

Thanks for pushing--or should i say threatening--me to clarify.

J.

 

[Pure]

Jenny said,
//What you can do is take the bible scriptures as lessons as they were intended and apply them to the world. Does the bible say BSDM is okay? No. Does it say BSDM is wrong? No. It does say sex without restriction is okay between married partners.{pure's emphasis}//

Where? (in the quote below? see below)

//In other words, if the bible doesn't prescribe "doggy style" or some other method, is it wrong? In fact the bible doesn't prescribe anything like that. But it does prescribe sex between married couples. Back to first Corinthians again "Men be giving your wives their due." It's pretty clear that sex is, not only, approved, but encouraged between married couples. If the BDSM lifestyle is part of the couple's sex life, then it is approved.//

From 'give your spouse their due', it's a pretty far leap to 'sex
without restriction --with a spouse-- is OK.'

You still avoid my example:

Is the wife's strap-on humiliative butt fucking of bound, caned hubby, 'giving him his due'? (Assume no vaginal intercourse follows.)

Yes or no, please.

 

[destinie21]

Good point destinie, my illustration was a bad one, because of the possible 'do not kill' applicability: (though that was never held to apply to war; hence not to atomic war.)

The point that silence of the Bible is not a license to say Christianity would approve, can be otherwise illustrated: how about the action of unleashing a computer virus that would paralyze world commerce?

The NT has not much to say on slavery (particularly the general social practice, its evils for all concerned). And from that should one, like the pre civil war southerners, draw the conclusion that Christianity has no problem about slavery? Is it OK for me to go and buy a slave right now?

Thanks for pushing--or should i say threatening--me to clarify.

J.

yes that's just what I meant go slavery

ps:see exodus and onward for the slavery of the jewish people and read from there

You're thowing alot of stone but where is your proof as you asked someone earlier. it was a pretty big typo you made earlier but whatever. Feel free to rewrite the bible, just as you feel free to misquote and skew everything.



They quote the constitution
and
Cry for revolution
Talking so much bullshit it's air pollution
What about evoloution ?

 

[Pure]

Destitute-at-21 said in part,

//You're thowing alot of stone but where is your proof as you asked someone earlier. //

I think that's the point, Destitute, there's no proof either way on the Christian position, where the Bible is silent on a topic.

Abortion is one example. If you let a pro-life person argue from silence, you have to let the pro choice person do so also. There simply may be no such thing as 'the NT view of abortion.'

Slavery is another, in respect of the NT. Yes, the OT shows the Israelites fleeing 'slavery' in Egypt, but also keeping slaves of their own. Many refs: e.g., Ex 21:20.

"When a slave owner strikes a male of female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property." NRSV

-----

D: //it was a pretty big typo you made earlier but whatever. //

It certainly was dessie. As big as they com. Oh, there's another for ya.

I also appreciate your Red-Skelton-like efforts to draw attention to my carelessness, through judicious insertion of typos and misspelled words into your own postings. {See above, for example}. A topsy-turvy way of putting us who are less schooled than yourself on the spot! You truly have a wacky sense of humor, which has not gone unappreciated.

My position on the topic is that *maybe soma the light bdsm stuff could be argued either way, and *maybe Paul liked to give Mrs Paul a nice spanking before 'giving her her due'.

OTOH, Paul's had a view of the 'natural order' of things and a dislike of seeing men be effeminate[malakoi] or homosexuals [arsenokoitai]
(1 Cor 6:9)
(New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, NRSV).

So although the acts aren't mentioned, we should probably say he would not like wives with strap-ons sodomizing their hubbies.

What do you say?

Hoping for the economic upturn you deserve,

just call me

A fan of your humor.

 

[sweetnpetite]

The authors of the Bible seem to have gone to unusual lengths to describe a super-masculine and asexual God who's just not interested.


---dr.M.

personally I suspect that it was the editors. notice how they favor the books by Paul and ignore the words of both Mary Magdeline and Christ himself.

 

[sweetnpetite]

At a guess, probably from prostitution. Having sex without procreation for money could well be viewed as 'nasty'. Then it's just a short hop to sex without procreation that's deemed to be 'nasty'. So organised religion (read Government) merely reflects the will of the people.

Gauche

Prostitution during ancient times would have basicly been sex without "ownership" and the money *gasp* belonged to the woman herself as she had no owner. Prostitution then was wrong not so much becuase it was 'nasty' as becuase the woman was not under the rule of a man. Independant women can be nothing but a threat to a patriarche.

As for 'nasty' sex, well isn't that the best kind??????

 

[sweetnpetite]

What about Chritian women who are domme and/or men who are sub?


Maybe the group is about reconciling there religion and/or bible debates like those taking place here. Or maybe they don't curse. They probably leave off any discussion of group sex ect and other aspects that may or may not be practiced in bdsm. Maybe they teach and learn that bdsm is "god's will" I can think of so many possibi;ities--probably all wrong!








*edited for spelling

 

[English Lady]

WOW!


Ok I admit to not reading every post in full....but i must admit popping my head into the AH this morning I didn't expect this thread to greet me.


It's funny how things happen like this. I recently wrote an opinion for an online opinions site on my view of pornography. I explained how i write naughty stories and why I do it and why i don't think it's a bad thing.

I dedicate just a small paragraph to my christian beliefs,I said that basically we have free will. I don't see anything 100% against erotica in God's word so until I get some sort of big Giudeon sized Sign from God that what I am doing is disgusting, i'm going to keep doing it.


Since I've been writing for what 2/3 years now and still i haven't seen the sign,, i pretty much take it that God Is quite happy for me to explore my sexuality like this.


God made sex. It was the whole childbirth thing that was created as Eve's punishment. I am not sure but it doesn't say sex wasn't happening in the garden of Eden anyway.

I mean Adam and Eve we're going about there idylic exsistance strip jack naked! Knowing the errent thoughts of the male penis something sexual was bound to happen eventually! It was only after the temptation that the fig leafs came out to cover up the naughty bits.


So really it was our good friend the Devil putting it into their minds that their bodies were unclean......God himself was happy for them to stroll round naked.

Anyway i think i am off on a tangent(nothing new there)

I like the way JJSharshaw puts it, you have to take things in CONTEXT!

Now as to the Christian BDSM element, i do see what the aforementioned minister means when saying that the D/s is a bit like the Savious/sinner relationship but I don't think I quite see it that way.

I can't see God being particularly impressed with one person (male or female) completely lording it over another individual. Now maybe this is just my own personal views and belief's coming into play here, and I don't have the biblical or theological knowledge to back up my feelings,this is just my beliefs.

Isn't he meant to be the one lord? I know it says you can't serve to masters. O the example given was the lord and money but surely it goes in this situation?

I do not think a bit of D/s play is wrong,but i am not sure i can accepta full time D/s relationship as being right in the eyes of God.

Now again this is probably my own view,because I am not particularly sbmissive, anyone tries putting me in my place and i get VERY stubborn....so maybe if the 2 people in the D/s relationship are happy and able to worship in thier own ways, maybe then it's ok.


I am like Rhino,I have my beliefs, I am a "born again" christian but I believe you must constantly question your faith and it is healthy to do so.

I have really waffled on haven't I?

basically i think sex is good...God created it...God is good....it's all good

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I thank you all for a very interesting conversation. For a religious discussion I think it was pretty damned civil.

For the record, I myself am an atheist, but I'm really fascinated with religion, and I raised the subject merely out of curiosity and not because I have any agenda I'm trying to push.

I misspoke again (it seems to be very easy to do on this thread) when I asked about the origins of Puritinism, because I wasn't asking specifically about the Protestant dissenters who came to America, i.e. the "Pilgrims". By Puritinism I meant the general view that any earthly pleasures are inherently bad spiritually. Probably I should have asked abou the origins of acesticism.

All religions I'm familiar with more or less advocate abstention from sex and withdrawl from the world as requisites for true spiritual growth, and it's easy to see why. It's hard to concentrate on the spiritual when you're thinking about sex. But there's a streak of unusually severe asceticism associated with Christianity that celebrates not just abstention, but mortification of the flesh, and this goes back to the very earliest days of Christianity: the Anchorite monks who would literally seal themselves off from the world in order to resist temptation are examples. Modern "Puritinism" is pretty much a recapitulation of this idea, which dates back at least that far, and I was curious as to where this idea came from and why it's so endemic in Judeo-Christianity.

There was a lot of weird stuff going on in the Holy Land around the time of Christ's birth, a lot of Jewish asceticism (John the Baptist is an example) and extremism in reaction to the widely despised worldly and permissive Roman religion, and in anticipation of the arrival of the Jewish Messiah, and I think these ideas got mixed up in early Christianity, which was a lot more apocalyptic than it is now.

Other religions certainly have their ascetic movements, but none of them seem to me as extreme--maybe even hysterical--as the extremes you find in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I was wondering why this should be.


---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

Sounds like a good summary, Dr. M. I'd only add that 'asceticism' is usually based on devaluing this world, the world of the senses, in favor of another alleged world. Thus there is usually, behind asceticism, a 'dualist' view of two worlds. the sensual one, and the one where truth is to be found.

though Plato did this to a degree, and the authors of the Torah, a little bit, the Xtians seem to have gone whole hog, though the 'dead sea scrolls' Jewish group (qumram) were pretty ascetic ,and as you say, apocalyptic.

Plato and the Torah authors ("moses") seem to have retained some balance in enjoying this world, getting laid etc. One does the ordinary stuff with satisfaction, even joy. St. Paul seems, as least in his ascetic moments, to have barely tolerated the ordinary stuff. Since he thought the world was ending, the idea even of procreation, didn't have must to recommend it. So it's 'better to marry than burn [with lust]' i.e., to see prostitutes, jerk off, fuck others' wives. etc.

There were, of course a few gnostics, in the period we're talking, who took the opposite approach and said, yes, this world is evil, but go through it, screw your butt off, do your sinning to the full. Cainites one name I can think of.



Best,
J.

Judeo Christian tradition is a misnomer, i still say. The Jews (the main line of Judaism) have the Song of Solomon in their scripture--as such, celebrating earthly sensuous loving--for heaven's sakes. Christians--those of the rigorous sort we're speaking of; not todays liberals--don't like it, generally, except as--an allegory of Christ's love for the church! The Jews have the Nazirites, but as a pretty tiny minority. John Baptist was not a common phenomenon.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think Pure is onto something. However we see Christ's message today, at the time Christianity was seen as an Apocolyptic religion: the end of the world was nigh, and a lot of Jews--and remember, we're talking about Jews here; there were no Christians yet, so all this was essentially a Jewish invention--sought to violently reject this world and to demonstrate their readiness for for the coming of the Jewish Messiah. This world was considered, if not evil, than irrelevent, along with all it had to offer, and chastising the flesh was a sign of Godliness.

A lot of early Christians must have come from this tradition, and along with their rejection of earthly pleasures went their rejection of earthly pain as well, as demonstrated by all the early martyrs.

As I said, all religions repect asceticism, simply because it's hard to do if nothing else. But when you've got that guy who actually castrated himself with his own hands alone in his cell in the Egyptian desert, you're kind of going overboard, it seems to me.

I'm fascinated with the Gnostics. I know there was one sect or school of thought that assumed that the world and the body had both been made by a lesser power than God (the demiurge) and that the soul was by nature incorrupticle and stainless, and they showed their indifference to the world by immersing themselves in physical pleasure. It's a wonder they died out.

As to the Song of Solomon, the same rationale has been applied by Jews to that book, which is obviously a celebration of physical love. The story is that it represents Solomon singing the praises of the Torah.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

 

[Uther_Pendragon]

I came across a user group devoted to "Christian BDSM".



But I've been thinking a lot about sex and religion, and how little the Judeo-Christian tradition has to say about sex and sexuality.

It made me wonder: we must have a lot of Deists here, Jewish, Christian, and otherwise. Do you have any problem reconciling your interest in erotica with your religion?


---dr.M.

|
In the first place, a Christian isn't a Deist. The word has a meaning, and you should look it up.
(OTOH) Isaac Asimov once made the same blunder. Being alongside Asimov can't be all that bad.
In the second place, I don't have much difficulty reconciling my attitudes towards sex with my faith. Paul, of whom you may have heard, wrote quite specifically that married people owe sex to their spouses. Adultery is something else, and -- I must admit -- I'd have a little problem with BDSM.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Re: Re: Christian BDSM

|
In the first place, a Christian isn't a Deist. The word has a meaning, and you should look it up.
(OTOH) Isaac Asimov once made the same blunder. Being alongside Asimov can't be all that bad.
In the second place, I don't have much difficulty reconciling my attitudes towards sex with my faith. Paul, of whom you may have heard, wrote quite specifically that married people owe sex to their spouses. Adultery is something else, and -- I must admit -- I'd have a little problem with BDSM.

An argument for reading the thread before replying. My mistake in using "Deist" rather than "Theist" has already been pointed out to me, along with several other blunders. Paul has already been mentioned a few times in the thread. And yes, I have heard of him

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Christian BDSM

 

[bridgeburner]

To paraphrase the current question:

Why the religious aversion to all things sexual?

There are a lot of contributing factors and the reasons have changed over the last few thousand years. Keep in mind, though, that just because people claim a religious reason for their actions doesn't mean it's true.


I'll start with the Bibilical focus on procreation.

If you're a member of an endangered race you had better be prolific or end up extinct. Up until the modern age there was no way to swell the numbers of the Jewish race other than by Jewish women having babies -- no such thing as Jewish converts. Hence the proscriptions against non-procreative sex. Gay sex, masturbation and visiting prostitutes don't increase the numbers of the faithful.

Skip ahead several hundred years to the wave of Christianity that swept Europe.

Christianity is a religion alone rather than an ethnic identity, so the fear of racial extinction is not a motivating factor here. Retention of land and power, however, is. Who was the richest, most powerful landowner in the world? Holy Mother Church.

Several things came out of this. Firstly, if your priests and clergy are allowed to marry and have children then all the wealth they accumulate throughout their lives goes to their heirs when they shuffle off this mortal coil. If they have no heirs it reverts to the Church. Coupled with the idea of regligious asceticism which Dr. M has already mentioned, this was plenty enough reason to enforce celibacy.

(Note for the pedantic : celibacy is only lack of marriage and does not of neccessity include chastity which is a sexually pure state)

Bastardy is a huge issue. Bastards don't inherit so it behooves landowners to ensure that they have legitimate children in order to keep their lands in the family and build alliances to increase their power by fostering their children out to other landowners.

In all this, of course, the burden of monogamy is placed firmly on married women. It doesn't matter if their men go out sowing wild oats since only chidren born of the Lord's wife have any legal standing.

Jump forward a little farther to Eleanor of Aquitain's Court of Chivalric Love. The romantic ideal was an unmarried knight's chaste and undying love for his Lord's Lady. No ulterior motives on the part of a power-hungry queen, of course not. This was considered a Holy love however little it might've been inspired by actual Church teachings.

Moving on ahead to the Reformation and Cromwell. Holy Mother Church was corrupt, obscenely decadent and anything associated with it was considered evil. The rich trappings, the pageantry and certainly the dispensations granted for money to an irresponsible and licentious aristocracy that was running the country into the ground as far as the merchant class was concerned. And let's not forget the number of Papal bastards over the years. Things had gotten out of hand and Cromwell meant to set them straight while also ensuring that those who actually knew how to manage money were the ones in charge of the country. Pure reaction. Then came the Restoration and things leveled out a bit, but there were plenty who would never give up their Reformed ways and off to the New World they went.


Skip on up to the Victorian age and the Cult of Womanhood. I've not ever heard it bandied about that Victoria claimed any Biblical justification for the rigidity she imposed on the world -- yes world since Britian ruled most of it at the time. This era, however, did more to repress human sexuality than anything that went before. The very sight of an undraped table leg was thought capable of sending a man into ravening lust while totally unhinging any delicate flower of womanhood who even chanced to hear the word "leg".


Now, I realize that this is all barely coherhent and if my highschool history teacher wasn't already institutionalized I'd have just driven her right out of her tree, but I'm theorizing so sue me.

Some general things to note - religious asceticism isn't a Western construct. Ask any fasting Shaolin monk or loin-clothed Mystic sitting on a bed of nails. There is something in human nature that finds divinity in suffering adversity. Simply put, we LIKE to suffer if only because it makes the good stuff feel even better. Think of the postponing of orgasm in Tantric sex.

Another twisted little human foible is that we like to be better than our neighbors. Anything that brings them down exalts us. If I can point a finger at your filthy habits then it makes mine not so bad.

It's important to remember that even if God made man, man made Religion. Nobody reads the Bible and says "Oh, yes, I've always believed in my heart of hearts exactly the opposite of what I read here, but now I'll change my mind." Everybody decides what he wants to believe and then he goes to the supposed word of God and says "See, this means I'm right!"


Now that I've wandered all over the place and thoroughly shown my ass I'll shut up for a bit.

Let the heckling begin!!

-B

 

[Jenny _S]

To paraphrase the current question:

Why the religious aversion to all things sexual?

Maybe that one sentence is the key. There is a scripture (several actually) that say "Keep on hating what is bad in the eyes of God." The problem is God doesn't talk to us. So we are left to figure out "what is bad."

To the 18th and 19th century christians almost every kind of sex was bad. That is a legacy that we have inherited.

 

[bridgeburner]

The point is that religion is what the faithful make of it. If it satisfies people to feel unworthy then their faith reflects that.

Of course, I'm an atheist so it's easy for me to talk.

I was raised in the Catholic and Episcopal churches, however, and was taught very definitely that God does talk to the Faithful. Alas, one of my major problems with religion was that no one could agree on exactly what He was saying. Some people have psychopaths for their "still small voice."

To the 18th and 19th century christians almost every kind of sex was bad. That is a legacy that we have inherited.

I disagree. The 18th and 19th centuries gave us the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. The Age of Reason sought to throw off the yoke of religious superstition. While these forward thinking people wouldn't allow God to tell them what to do in bed they were perfectly willing to allow a neurotic Austrian to do so in the name of science and a megalomaniacal Queen to do so in the name of British decency.

It goes to support my argument that men behave as they wish and find ways to justify their behavior. Humans like to feel dirty about sex and when they're not letting God tell them it's wrong, they're letting Freud and Dworkin do it.


--B

 

[destinie21]

Pure stick a fork in me I'm done.
your immaturity transports me back to the days of he said she said circle yes or no if you like me elementary antics. If I wasn't nauseated by the thought I'd say you liked me what with all the teasing and underwheleming attempts at mockery geared at me. In any case enjoy playing both sides against the middle.


To all others I say organized religion of any sort seems to have it's own ideas about right and wrong based soley on the merits of man. To quote the Bible (again)

I go to col 2:20-22(again)



Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Touch not; taste not; handle not;
Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?

ASV-interprtation
Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.


In anycase most of you guys seem very well learned on chrisitanity and the bible and to those who practice other religions as well I say go with your gut. If you feel convicted then maybe for you it's wrong. That's my motto