Christian BDSM

[dr_mabeuse]

To paraphrase the current question:

Why the religious aversion to all things sexual?

Well, I agree that it might seem like that mainstream Western religions might seem antagonistic to all things sexual, but if you're paraphrasing me then I'd beg to clarify, because that's not what I meant. I was originally asking why there was just such indifference to sexual concerns when they are such an important part of our lives. I was specifically thinking of the difference between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, the latter of which seems to give a lot more attention to sex.

A few weeks ago I finished an erotic story that had ancient Egyptian religious ideas in it, and I can tell you that Egyptian religion was really permeated with sexuality and sexual ideas. Not only did the gods engage in sex, but there were overtly sexual components in certain religious rites, and it looks like the sexual act itself was even considered sacramental.

Many other "primitive" religions also see something holy in sex, and it seems like an eminently obvious idea to me. There just seems to be something missing with any worldview that ignores the power of sex in our lives or pretends that it is nothing more than a matter of reproduction and economics.

I can't buy your rationale for Jewish reluctance to deal with sexual issues; that they were driven by a concern to increase the population. That kind of Marxist anthropology was all the rage for a while, but I don't think it hold much water when you really look at it. I don't believe that the founders of Judaism, whomever they might be, sat down and designed their religion around the goal of maximizing the population, nor did Catholicism decide that their priests should be monogamous in order to increase the Church's wealth. There is such a thing as a religious impulse and a belief in divine revelation, and I believe that the ideas we're talking about here were the result of a sincere effort to understand the world and find our place in it, not an attempt to manipulate the population for economic gain.

Yes, all religions admire asceticism and self-discipline, but Judeo-Christianity seems unique in its real uneasiness with the idea of sexual pleasure, and I think the roots of this can be traced to the emphasis both religions put on the World to come and the necessity of preparing for it by denying this one.

When you look at it, you find that the idea of one single omnipotent God--an idea that we all now take for granted whether we believe it or not--occurred only once in human history, and that was with the founding of Judaism. I don't think it's a coincidence that the establishment of this one, extremely masculine and warlike God, a god of herders, by the way, not a God of agriculture (I'm talking OT only here), brought with it the idea of sex as being at best a necessary evil in the scheme of things, having no religious or sacred dimensions whatsoever.


---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

BB said,

/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./

Well put; but tell me, isn't sex more fun when it's dirty?

The guilt and shame of Catholic women (for example) makes them so hot! While the whole-earth pantheist agnostic woman is saying, "Wow I feel so healthy and organic when we share sexually. My vulva is worthy of worship. I've bookmarked for you the 'My clitoris has 30,000 receptors' chapter in my Nature's way to healthy babies manual "

BB said,
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.

Actually this is not true. Several notable women of the Tanach/OT were converts, including Ruth, the moabite, great grandmother of David. There is no reason to think conversion was rarer then than in 'the modern age'. Imo it would be most rare in periods of isolation/ghettoization, as in Early Middle Ages Europe.

BB said

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.

I think that's true. Good point. A good part of classical yoga was ascetic. And, as with the gnostics, the classic yoga philsophy was dualistic and somewhat disparaging of the lower/bodily realm.

By the way, there is a famous essay by Nietzsche on the sources and function of ascetic ideals, in case anyone is interested.


=====


**Andrea, I presume, author of _Intercourse_ where all intercourse (of women with men) is described in terms of 'colonization' and rape. She prefers tuna casserole, herself.

 

[Jenny _S]

Dr. M,
Has is occurred to you that sexual preference, BSDM, Swinging, Homosexuality and all the other various forms of sexual lifestyle have no connection with religion at all? Granted we all have the Judeo-Christian consciousness to drag along behind us, but does religion of any kind have anything to do with the sexual lifestyle choices we make?

There have been cultures from time to time through the eons that have used sex as a format in their religious ceremony. But I believe there are just as many, if not more, that do not. In either case the aim of their religion is to consolidate the community with some commonly held beliefs. I don't see religion requiring its members to have sex or abstain except among the Shakers and religious leaders of certain sects.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Dr. M,
Has is occurred to you that sexual preference, BSDM, Swinging, Homosexuality and all the other various forms of sexual lifestyle have no connection with religion at all? Granted we all have the Judeo-Christian consciousness to drag along behind us, but does religion of any kind have anything to do with the sexual lifestyle choices we make?

There have been cultures from time to time through the eons that have used sex as a format in their religious ceremony. But I believe there are just as many, if not more, that do not. In either case the aim of their religion is to consolidate the community with some commonly held beliefs. I don't see religion requiring its members to have sex or abstain except among the Shakers and religious leaders of certain sects.

I don't see the aim of religion as being community building. That's certainly a big part of Western religions. In fact, the OT seems to be more of a guide to living together than it does a guidebook to spiritual development. The aspects of religion that I'm really interested in are in what they say about the Big Mysteries of what we are, where we came from, and where we go. To me, sex is one of those mysteries.

I don't expect any system that's concerned with these kind of cosmic questions to get specific about what sexual practices are allowed or not, but when you look at religions around the world, I think you can't help but notice a kind of inherent Puritinism in the great monotheistic faiths of the West. I'm curious as to why that is.

I've been avoided talking about Islam because of the strong political feelings that faith elicits these days, but the trend exists there as well. You look at the Eastern religions and the various polytheistic systems, and you don't see this Puritan strain regarding sex. Asceticism, yes, but not this skittishness over sex. How come? How come India had tantric yoga and we don't? How come they can harness sexual energy for spiritual purposes (& vice versa) but we pretty much snicker at the idea? Why is sex so dirty for us?

It's not the religious ethics of sex I'm interested in. It's where sex fits in to the scheme of things: sexual theology.

---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

It's not the religious ethics of sex I'm interested in. It's where sex fits in to the scheme of things: sexual theology.

Mab., there is much theology of sex to be read and studied. Don't take this as merely lazy on my part, I couldn't do it justice paraphrasing or reiterating, but I am certain you would find much to ponder in Sebastian Moore's The Inner Lonliness. One can read it without taking in the Christian/God stuff and still get it. (FYI, it's hard reading; I've done it 3x now and go back to it regularly for various reasons.

Perdita

Here are two brief essays that may raise further questions, just an intro into some 'modern' Xian thinking on the topic (no bdsm mention though). I'm putting these in not so much for you, have no idea what you'll think, but others on this thread may find something of interest.

On Sex And The Unsurrendered Life, Ronald Rolheiser
http://www*****issues.net/writers/ron/ron_89.1onsex.html

Sexuality and Creativity, Ronald Rolheiser
http://www*****issues.net/writers/ron/ron_69sexuality.html

 

[Pure]

hi dr m,

/It's not the religious ethics of sex I'm interested in. It's where sex fits in to the scheme of things: sexual theology. /

I do see the topics here are pretty wide-ranging, but I doubt the ethics is a detour or diversion.

It's not clear to me how you'd separate ethics of sex from 'the place/fit of sex in the scheme of things'. If you look at the first essay Perd recommended, Mr Rolheiser says the Gospels are about surrender of an individual, and that happens--here come the ethics-- in a marital context. It's a means to emotional intimacy, being naked together etc. He's clearly talking man and woman, for he proceeds to the other purpose of sex, the having of children.

So you see how the ethic is embedded from the start: sex is for intimacy, mutual surrender of two, their having kids. Long term commitment is implied. A prohibition of adultery. One/one is implied (imo): I doubt one hubby and three wives fits with his plan very much; or the other way around. He may not like homosexual unions. He is not going to like 'stranger sex' with the next person to you on a crowded subway.

Since he's framed the question in terms of the purpose, in a Christian view, of sex/sexuality, he's committed to an answer for all. NOT: this guys gonna have three wives in his polygamous community, and these other folks are gonna have a lotta flogging and partying and as few kids as possible. Why the one thing?

All the old philosophies of life, have a view of nature; nature is conceived as 'one'; then there is a (i.e, one) place in nature for each thing. This is the stoicism that had an effect on Paul.

There are 'natural relations' or 'natural unions'. This is descriptive as well as normative. It's 'unnatural' for same sex persons to screw (however they do it). It's unnatural for a man to fuck a sheep. (yet out in the midwest...)

There are also communities and societies, with a degree of conformity with nature, and human nature, hence people can not go around killing others. As soon as you have community, you're gonna start to have rules like "that shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife". That sort of thing gets ugly. No natural community, afaik, ever had unlimited fucking, or even unlimited fucking of consenting adults not incestuously linked.

Mr Rolheiser, while a nice man, one you might like as friend or neighbor, or trust with your daughter, has a definite world view, with things in their 'proper place'. We like him, maybe, cuz he's a liberal; probably allows divorce; believes in equality of women. But his view and his ethics--the package-- their connection-- is not different in kind from St. Pauls, or that of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

[MathGirl]

Originally posted by Pure he's a liberal; probably allows divorce; believes in equality of women. But his view and his ethics--the package-- their connection-- is not different in kind from St. Pauls, or that of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Dear Pure,
You actually wrote a couple of thoughtful paragraphs. Why did you have to end it with a statement of PURE bullshit?
MG

 

[bridgeburner]

Dr. M,

if you're paraphrasing me then I'd beg to clarify, because that's not what I meant.

Ai-yi-yi! Very true. Sorry, I misunderstood you.

I was originally asking why there was just such indifference to sexual concerns when they are such an important part of our lives

Do all other religions have reams of scripture regrding sexual relations? I ask because the assumption here is that Judaism/Christianity are the only religions which do not address sexual concerns and I honestly don't know that that is true. We know almost nothing about Druidism no matter what the modern Wiccan says. I'm no expert on the Norse religions, but I don't recall any great focus on sex or sexual laws. Certainly, there is a great deal of sexual mysticism in the Eastern religions, but are they sufficient to make a rule by?

I can't buy your rationale for Jewish reluctance to deal with sexual issues; that they were driven by a concern to increase the population.

That isn't really what I said, though. There's a difference between not addressing an issue because you're focused on something else and not addressing an issue because you find it abhorrent. I'm not currently discussing the mating habits of small water fowl. Does it mean I have an aversion to Spoonies or does it mean that I'm just focused on the topic of sexuality and religion instead?

Likewise I don't have any reason to believe that the ancient Jews were any more uptight about sex than anyone else. Because of their situation, however, their focus was not on the sexual. The religion devoloped as a way to bind the people and perpetuate their race and culture. Their need dictated the course of their religious growth --- as with any religion. It's not at all a calculated thing. Scientology and Mormonism aside most religions are organic.

nor did Catholicism decide that their priests should be monogamous (sic) in order to increase the Church's wealth

The Church didn't start trying to prohibit married clerics until the 4th century. I'm not a great believer in conspiracies particularly when there are multiple influences that might bring about change. I don't think anyone sat down and said "Hey, we're losing money! Let's make up a law that priests can't marry!" The anti-sex campaign was begun by Jerome and Augustine around this time and however wrong I believe their teachings I don't doubt that they felt divinely inspired. I do believe that economics was a great influence over why the celibacy requirement became part of Church law and remained for so long even when the Church very obviously didn't care that priests, bishops and Popes were having multiple bastard offspring. The strict adherence to celibacy and chastity came much later than the actual rules requiring such.

There is such a thing as a religious impulse and a belief in divine revelation, and I believe that the ideas we're talking about here were the result of a sincere effort to understand the world and find our place in it, not an attempt to manipulate the population for economic gain.

I think that it is and was a sincere effort on the part of many. I also believe that people hungry for power and eager to push their own agendas have always used the supernatural to distract the masses. No faith consists of entirely one or the other type. The problem is trying to sort them from one another and find out just who's been manipulated for gain and who has truly received divine guidance.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the establishment of this one, extremely masculine and warlike God, a god of herders, by the way, not a God of agriculture (I'm talking OT only here), brought with it the idea of sex as being at best a necessary evil in the scheme of things, having no religious or sacred dimensions whatsoever.

I'm not convinced that ancient Judaism was anti-sex and certainly not that sex had no religious or sacred dimensions. I think we tend to scrunch up our history and assume that the teachings of the 4th Century Catholic Church were much closer to Judaism than they actually were. 400 years is a long time and that's just from the birth of Christ. How much older was Judaism than that?As has been pointed out, modern Judaism isn't all that hung up on sex...unless you're Woody Allen. I will note, however, that modern Islam in the Middle East isn't exactly a storehouse of sexual license. Of course, Islam there is different than in other parts of the world. It is as much influenced by the tribal cultures of the region as it is based on the teachings of Mohammed.


--B

 

[Pure]

Christians a bit sqeamish (or freaked) about BDSM.

Fresh evidence that some things between spouses are NOT
all right in the view of traditional/mainstream Christians***.

There's a group of folks saying 'anything goes in marriage; free-for all sex, bdsm or whatever.'

Not a single one of them has been able to speak of my example**, of a wife binding, caning, and humiliatingly pegging hubby.

Perhaps it's just a little raw for the delicate traditional Christian sensibility; indeed even the 'talk' of it may be difficult, hence not even condemnation is heard.

Some things, it appears are NOT OK, and the evidence is here, this thread.

Shalom.

**page two, half way down, this thread, date 9-02-03 "The wife strips her hubby... [etc]'

***Those who believe in the truth of the main events of the NT, and the background 'prophetic' events of the OT, and attempt to live by their understanding of the right living taught in the NT

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

isn't sex more fun when it's dirty?

I have to agree. If nothing's taboo then there is no kink. Where's the fun in that? (I nearly fell out of my chair laughing over the pantheist chick schtick. Jaysus, that's just too freakily healthy to appeal to me in the least.)

Several notable women of the Tanach/OT were converts, including Ruth, the moabite, great grandmother of David. There is no reason to think conversion was rarer then than in 'the modern age'.

Dang, I just knew somebody would bust me over this. Of course, you're right. There were converts in the Bible and all of the early Christians were converts. I'm perhaps placing too large an emphasis on the schism between Reformed and Orthodox Jews but my understanding is that one of the major bones of contention is on what determines one's Jewishness. Mom's a schiksa? Too bad, no yarmulke for you. There has also never been the tradition of proseletysing in the Jewish faith that there has been in the Christian.

I guess all of that is to say, yes, you're right that there were likely converts, but I stick by my assertion that the Jews as a race were an endagered species in need of swelling their genetic numbers. A zebra can adopt the lifestyle of a giraffe but he still fathers only baby zebras. There is a tremendous emphasis on progeny in the Bible but not until the NT is there much mention at all of seeking converts.

**Andrea, I presume, author of _Intercourse_ where all intercourse (of women with men) is described in terms of 'colonization' and rape. She prefers tuna casserole, herself.

Yes, you've got the right of it. What a miserable woman.


-B

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Pure]

BB said

(Pure: **Andrea [Dworkin], I presume, author of _Intercourse_ where all intercourse (of women with men) is described in terms of 'colonization' and rape. She prefers tuna casserole, herself.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BB said,
Yes, you've got the right of it. What a miserable woman.

I've seen her. Largish, wears overalls. That said, she's brilliant and an excellent writer. Her speech was very moving, though, after the fact I felt a bit manipulated by her ways of trying to shock and move the audience about the evils of porn: babies getting their asses torn out by diabolical perverts making films of it. ---which sell because of the ignorant, but essentially depraved tastes of the vast majority of men. Who, btw the way, given the opportunity, can and do rape.

She's very traumatized over several incidents with men, possibly abuse, possibly rape, and now fishes from the other side of the pier.

J

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

I don't think it's possible to be as anti-man as Dworkin is and not have some kind of sexual abuse in one's past. It's pointless to declare that all heterosexual relations are rape. It undermines the meaning of rape and infantilizes women by implying that they cannot ever truly give consent. I've never met her personally. She may be a charming person. Certainly she's intelligent, but I feel she's done more harm than good where the plight of women is concerned.

What's truly eerie is the way the Christian Right and radical feminists a la Dworkin have hopped into bed together over a number of socio-sexual issues like porn and the sex trade. At root is a common belief that there is something inherently evil about sex. As if that weren't bad enough, they also share a deep-rooted belief in the inherent inequality of women.

Feh, wackos. They give me a rash.

-B

 

[Pure]

Hi Rhino,

I wasn't necessarily thinking of you in my last posting about the scene.

Now THAT is a lame argument...as " traditional/mainstream Christians" are not likely participating in this thread to give their view point.

I'll define a 'traditional' Christian as one who believes that the main events of the NT are true, more or less as told; that Christ is/was the Son of God, born of a virgin, and ascended into heaven, i.e., more or less the contents of the Nicene Creed).{addition below}** They are likely affiliated with a mainstream (popular) church like the Methodists.

I might also call such folk, 'conservative' Christian, for they also (mostly) have a problem with homosexuality, and certainly with gay marriage.

This is just one issue, but a hot one, so I'd say it's roughly the case that youre a 'liberal Christian' if you're OK with homosexuality (practices) and even church sanctioned unions of those folks, or marriage. 'Liberals Christians' though sprinkled through the denominations are *very common or overwhelming in number in churches like the unitarians or the 'general conference' quakers, if they choose to join a church.

Based on the above it *seems* that Jenny S is a traditional Christian, though I'm subject to correction by her. And your claim is likely false.

It is likely that Perdita is a liberal one, if she's in the same ball park as some of the theologians she likes, such as Rolheiser.

My claim is that the traditional or conservative Christians, while possibly in favor *in theory* to all manner of kink and fetish provided it's in marriage are likely more than a little squeamish about some of the practices they assert are allowed. Indeed even a liberal like Perdita apparently has a little discomfort over 'hard edge' bdsm, as evidenced by her preference for writing about a somewhat mild, even romantic form.

Keep at it Rhino, it's great to have you around; you just don't fit a category except perhaps 'crazy sonovabitch'

J.

{Added: For completeness I should add, to the above: The traditional Christian is a believer in the messianic prophecies of the Tanach, as they are thought by Christians to apply to Jesus, and in the truth of the main accounts in the Tanach/OT as interpreted by subsequent Christians.

As well, a traditional Christian would make serious efforts to walk in what she considers to be the path of Jesus, following what she takes to be the main ethical precepts of the NT.

Thanks to Jenny for prodding to give a better defintion.


}

 

[Pure]

Hi BB

you said,

She [Andrea D] may be a charming person.

Hey, I didn't go that far. She has a bit of the defensiveness of certain abused persons, and thus also bit of edge or hostility or militancy --hard to describe, but maybe you know what I mean. Not exactly 'charming' since she's perhaps a little chilly with the 'non sensitive' males. I said she was a kind of charismatic or forceful speaker.


What's truly eerie is the way the Christian Right and radical feminists a la Dworkin have hopped into bed together over a number of socio-sexual issues like porn and the sex trade. At root is a common belief that there is something inherently evil about sex. As if that weren't bad enough, they also share a deep-rooted belief in the inherent inequality of women.

That's kinda the theme of this thread, though. You don't have to a Christian to be up tight about sex. Dworkin is probably a Jew and maybe an atheist, but it all comes out the same. A section of feminists and women's rights folks have always been *very* conservative sexually. In all, sex is a hot potato; it makes people crazy, and since religion is partly about social control --'conscience' 'Christ within',-- it's often, especially in the West, quite obsessed with sex. Stalin and Mao too paid attention to sex regulation issues; likewise your 'radical feminists' we've spoken of.

 

[Guest]

true?

 

[Jenny _S]

Am I the only one here who doesn't understand how one can call themselves a "Christian" if all they believe in is the New Testament? I've even seen it bound as a separate book. Doesn't that invalidate Genesis through Malachi, some 38 books? Does this mean that there is nothing "Christian" about the "Old Testament" even though it contains 233 prophetic references to the Messiah as well as a wealth of information?

Personally, I think this is very odd.

And now we are off the subject again. I believe that Dr. M. is trying to understand something quit different. "It's not the religious ethics of sex I'm interested in. It's where sex fits in to the scheme of things: sexual theology." Can we get back to that subject. Christianity is not the only religion in the world. In fact, Islam takes in about 2/3rds of the human race.

Maybe, I should pose the question of this thread differently:

Mankind will become involved in numerous varieties of sexual conduct. This we can all agree on. Does religion play a part in approving or disapproving this conduct?

My short answer is no.

 

[destinie21]

Nice sentiments rhino,

You and Jenny S and Perdita (MY honorary aunt ) are the types that I wish others could know of. There's far to much attention on the zealots of religion and not enough focus on regular people.
No one can condem anyone except god right? The church or some of it is hell bent on preaching the evils of homosexuality but not so much about adulty, and idolatry (churches are all about money now) and so on. I'm not saying my life is right but as I said earlier I don't feel convicted, and so I liveas the best person I can be. I pray and honor high holidays like I was taught but I do and try to be a good person. What more can anyone do?

 

[Pure]

Who's Uncomfortable: Jobs best unmentioned

apropos of this thread

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/09/05/trudeau/index.html

"Doonesbury": Jerked off the funny pages

Hundreds of papers might be pulling this Sunday's strip for referring to the health benefits of masturbation. Garry Trudeau talks to Salon about his comic's 32-year history of controversy.Editor's note: deck can't be shortened to saying the strip is "about" masturbation because he specifically adresses that in his press release
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sheerly Avni

Sept. 5, 2003

After commenting on almost every political and cultural controversy of the past three decades -- from Vietnam to Iraq, from revolutions sexual to Starbucksian -- Garry Trudeau is at it again. This Sunday, "Doonesbury," his popular and beloved comic strip, might be pulled from roughly half of the 1,400 newspapers that syndicate it.

Why the uproar? Because Trudeau has dared to address the ever-sensitive issue of getting off -- specifically, how getting off can keep you healthy. The strip is based on a recent study in the New Scientist that finds that frequent masturbation can help prevent prostate cancer. Despite the subject matter's rather heartwarming implications, 19 out of 34 editors polled by the Milwaukee Journal said they would not publish it.

Trudeau talked with Salon by e-mail, about the masturbation furor, "Doonesbury's" history of controversy, and which of his characters would be most likely to take the study about prostate cancer to, er, heart.

[Salon interviewer's question:]
/So it looks like you're the new Joycelyn Elders. What do you think it is about the M-word that has provoked such a strong response? /

[Trudeau:]

Well, there are certain words that trigger a response simply because they've never before appeared in a family-friendly context like the comics. "Masturbation" is obviously a loaded word, but as a descriptor, it's not actually vulgar or coarse, which is why I'm comfortable using it. And the strip in question isn't actually about masturbation or cancer, it's about the inability of two particular adults to find a mutual comfort zone to discuss a serious subject. Since the more traditional viewpoint (Boopsie's) is presented without mockery, conservative readers really shouldn't be offended.

 

[destinie21]

Am I the only one here who doesn't understand how one can call themselves a "Christian" if all they believe in is the New Testament? I've even seen it bound as a separate book. Doesn't that invalidate Genesis through Malachi, some 38 books? Does this mean that there is nothing "Christian" about the "Old Testament" even though it contains 233 prophetic references to the Messiah as well as a wealth of information?

Personally, I think this is very odd.

And now we are off the subject again. I believe that Dr. M. is trying to understand something quit different. "It's not the religious ethics of sex I'm interested in. It's where sex fits in to the scheme of things: sexual theology." Can we get back to that subject. Christianity is not the only religion in the world. In fact, Islam takes in about 2/3rds of the human race.

Maybe, I should pose the question of this thread differently:

Mankind will become involved in numerous varieties of sexual conduct. This we can all agree on. Does religion play a part in approving or disapproving this conduct?

My short answer is no.

As far as the first part of your statement there is a group of christians who call themselves Jesus Only. In certain sect of this group there are those who believe only the new tetament applies because after the veil was rent at the arc of the covenant (symbolic of jesus dying on the cross) the old ways were abolished (as far as having to make sacrafices at the brazen alter and the atonment) any one could then come before god whereas before only the levites could do so also every ne could enter the holy of holies. In anycase Some took this to mean that all the old ways were cast aside which is not true just a portion of the laws. It's almost the reverse of Judaism (as jews don't belive te NT.)

I think anyone raised as one religion at one point or another has to come to terms with sexuality and where it fits. Most agree that sex is to be amongst the married though none are specific as to what constitutes as okay. Although the islamic koran actually does ban anal. In anycase we have to consider the times that most religions were founded people always tend to take things out of context. At the time of Christ debauchrey was literally going on in the streets so of course those who followed christ and believed sex was strictly for procreation sort of eschewed all forms of sex amongst the masses but said nothing about married folk. also remember this was the same time frame of stoning people and drawing and quartering was considered just fine.


I realize all religions were't founded at the same time but the theory carries through each one. Also the followers of each new religion fought against paganism at one point or another and Idolatry so that their god would be whorshipped instead so they also disregaded the sexual acts and called them sin in one way because prior to our idea of religion people celebrated sex. Religion was man made and therefore the men of the times justified it.

 

[Jenny _S]

Destinie21,

The idea that Christians are to cast aside the old ways is an incorrect reading of Dan 9:26. That scripture clearly states that only the the ceremony of sacrifice are to be ignored and not the entire 38 book of the OT. And it's a shame because there is a lot of beauty in those books.

Maybe I can give a longer answer to my "no." People, being human, will do whatever they will do. They will rob, steal, lie, murder, have sex in a hundred positions with those of the opposite sex, same sex, multiple partners and so on.

The job religion plays is to be the conscience of society setting standards of behavior. It is up to each individual in society to chose which of those rules to follow and which to ignore.

In support of this argument look at the body of laws in every country in the world. Don't they follow almost exactly biblical/religious teachings when you concider the crimes of Murder, Theft, Buggery, Rape, Honest Dealings in Business, etc.?

Maybe this interpretation is closer to Dr. M. is looking for.

 

[Guest]

 

[Pure]

To R-I-know,

you said,

As I am not ENTIRELY "ok" with homosexual practices.....I am DEFINATELY ok with homosexuals, just as I am "ok" with liars and adulters and murderers and gossips and coveters of neighbors wives...whatever. I know i fall into more than one of these catagories, myself.

Got it. Well put. Hate the sin, not the sinner. I'm not sure if the bumfucking guys and pussyeating women deserve to be in the same list with adulterers and murderers, however; as you say below they may be quite loving to their friends and partners, and even to their conservative Christian moms and dads.


I really think that God had a plan for heterosexual relations......

But you agree it's not exactly evident to all, e.g., the likes of Michelangelo and Leornardo, practicing manfuckers.


I am directed as a Christian NOT to judge....rather to Love my neighbor. I also suspect than MANY (not all) homosexual relationships God MIGHT (i can't really know)...smile on as being FAR more loving than MANY hetero ones.

Good point: but what about dick-in-male-anus puts you off more than dick-in-female-anus? (was the latter, the (f) anus, one of God's approved/permitted copulatory orifices for spouses?)


[I re]ally do love our lesbian next door neighbors.....maybe what they do behind closed doors is a sin (not quite sure.......nor do i REALLY care).....I do know that if it IS a sin...it is not any worse than ones I have/am committing...and that there is forgiveness.

Hey bro, we know why you love the lesbians next door, but let's not go there except ta say they make for some pretty hot viewing and stories.

I want to revise my earlier 'label'. You're indeed a pretty damn conservative Christian, but you've got a nice non judgmental streak and it seems like your practicing 'charity' towards others, based on what you say, though I will have to check with your neighbors.



There's a pastor at our church who gave an interesting insight.
That the Bible OT AND NT are God's story/message....from "in the beginning" to revelations...and should be read as such.....not just "pick and choose" to justify our behaviors. Christ refers to old testiment. The whole deal about OT salvation through acts (our "good deads") is rendered obsolete. Through TRUE faith by virtue of the Holy Spirit we will be compelled to do good acts. NOT our good acts will save us.

Well, if there's to be no pick and choose there are lotsa passages about the necessity of good acts, and their being parta the picture of what 'saves'. Consider 'not everyone that says unto me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father.'

Consider: "by works was faith made perfect... Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.' (James 2:22,24).

Please do not slight our Jewish friends by suggesting that the OT, i.e., (which includes) their written Torah commends 'works' without one's heart in it (as a way to salvation) or disparages the role of faith, etc.

Returning to our topic. Your discomfort with women's pussy licking, though not with the lickers themselves.... isn't it part of this picture that dr m gave at the beginning of this thread: much of the Near Eastern based religions-- for example-- seem a little worried about many sex activities, esp. those not involving the making of babies---they're just TOO damn fun to be right!

Shalom,

J.

 

[Guest]