Christian BDSM

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

ahem!

 

[~*sunkyssed_kym*~]

Placing my toe in to test the waters.........

This thread is a bit out of my nature to become involved with, but because it deals with Christian beliefs and BDSM, I am compelled to post my response.
I belong to a sect that has only been in existence for 100 years, and does not concentrate with the suffering of Christ on the cross but on the joy of His resurrection. We believe that all mankind are Divine expressions of God and each of us are unique in how He is seen in this world.
That being said, what is right for one, can be wrong for another. My being submissive to MY-Sir is the gift that God has given me and MY-Sir, but isn't right for those who feel submission is wrong for them. i.e. English Lady. (Hope you don't mind E.L., but I mean no offence )
We are ALL made in the image and likeness of God and its my thought that He has given us free will to use those gifts He has bestowed upon us to suit our own individual needs. My cream might well be your vinegar and visa versa, but that doesn't make it wrong as long as its SAFE, SANE, AND.....CONSENSUAL.

I'm not going to argue scripture or who's right or wrong, but only wanted to state my point of view on this heated debate. I think Christ said much when He stated, Love one another as I have loved you.

Peace be to all and may the God of your understanding guide and give you comfort.

-kym- God made me, I'm a submissive, so therefore I am Divinely Submissive

 

[Guest]

 

[~*sunkyssed_kym*~]

Kym,
well shut my mouth!

rhino-having VERY naughty thoughts....better go into the river and flog myself with the rushes


SERIOUSLY...thanks for your insights

Oh myyyyyyyy!! Can I watch???


-kym- I can be a bit of a voyeur

 

[Guest]

 

[~*sunkyssed_kym*~]

Kym,
honestly i am not really into self flagellation...though i HAVE been known to fart! (ew! too much info, eh?)


likewise....as to being voyeur...and in view of that/you

I LOVE your AV


rhino-sneek a peek

Ahem... *cough cough* Perhaps this one is better left unsaid.
Thanx for your thumbs up Rhino, MY-Sir is rather fond of my AV as well.

As I mentioned in my original posting, BDSM can be at home with any or no religous beliefs as long as its right for those directly involved. If one is into self flagellation, fine so be it. Its not my place to judge one way or another. As long as no one is forcing them against their will, or hurting innocents. i.e. Children.
So my dear.... if it turns you on..... Go for it!

-kym- Happy with mine and MY-Sir's kinks

 

[Guest]

 

[Pure]

Thanks for coming by, Kym,

all mankind are Divine expressions of God

as is your fine sincere posting, the two beauties in your av, the pain in their tips, and your offering all of it, the glory, the pain, to the Creator.



J.

 

[~*sunkyssed_kym*~]

Thanks for coming by, Kym,

all mankind are Divine expressions of God

as is your fine sincere posting, the two beauties in your av, the pain in their tips, and your offering all of it, the glory, the pain, to the Creator.



J.

Oh dear. >>blushing<<
Thank you to both Pure and Rhino for your kind sentiments. I am what I AM. Nothing more. I respect those who have a difference of opinion. Its their God given right to feel as they wish, whether or not they acknowledge the giver of choice.
Can't we all see that its not the choices we make concerning ourselves, but how we treat others? This is Christ's greatest commandment to Christians. Haven't we all heard at one time or another.........Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?? Its all about love and respect. Its not my place to judge someone because they wish to be with the same sex. Nor is it anyone's place to judge me because I wish to submit to MY-Sir.
I accept those here on their merits as children of God. It doesn't matter if they don't recognize Him. I do and that's all that matters to me.

-kym- working on that water walking thing

 

[Jenny _S]

Oh dear. >>blushing<<
Thank you to both Pure and Rhino for your kind sentiments. I am what I AM. Nothing more. I respect those who have a difference of opinion. Its their God given right to feel as they wish, whether or not they acknowledge the giver of choice.
Can't we all see that its not the choices we make concerning ourselves, but how we treat others? This is Christ's greatest commandment to Christians. Haven't we all heard at one time or another.........Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?? Its all about love and respect. Its not my place to judge someone because they wish to be with the same sex. Nor is it anyone's place to judge me because I wish to submit to MY-Sir.
I accept those here on their merits as children of God. It doesn't matter if they don't recognize Him. I do and that's all that matters to me.

-kym- working on that water walking thing

Kym,
You always have something awesome to say.

Now get out there and be cheeky

 

[~*sunkyssed_kym*~]

Kym,
You always have something awesome to say.

Now get out there and be cheeky

Damn Jenny! You've blown my cover now and no one will take me serious over here! And I was thinking I was pretty cool ; hanging out with literary folks and all and now they know I'm the purvayour of Cheek extraordinaire, Cheek mongering and running amok thru the threads, Cheeky Literotican Wench herself.
Hiya Jenny , fancy meeting you here!

-kym- Spreading my Cheek, where ever I go

 

[Pure]

Hi Kym and all,

It's worth pointing out a couple points as far as religion in general is concerned, in view of the thread founder's interest.

Christ's 'love thy neighbor' is of course taken from the OT/Tanach, iow, the idea is not a Christian discovery. Likewise positive and negative golden rules have been floating around for some time.
I know Kym agrees with this, in view of her openness to other religions.

It's also worth noting that the acceptance she talks about is I think a product of a kind of modern universalism, i.e., an attempt to broaden Christianity, promote similarities with other religions, through stressing central ethical doctrine and downplaying theology, or should I say, dogma.

What as I trying to say: it's no coincidence that there is acceptance, from Kym's group, of homosexulity and bdsm, AND there is rejection or modifification of traditional Christian claims as found in, say, the Nicene Creed. Iow theological NONorthodoxy accompanies liberal sexual philosophy/ethic.

If NON orthodoxy in linked with 'liberal' views around sex, what of Mr. Rhino's tolerance, despite his conservative basics. Well, it's not different from a liberal Catholic site I just visited (i.e., liberal as Catholics go, not as I defined it). It comes from Rhino's extreme stress on universality of sin, and, i'd guess the compassion and 'children of God' ideas.

In a word the nasty extremes of gay bashing, etc. are avoided through amping up the emphasis on compassion. And stressing the idea that given the strictness of the laws, we're all breaking lots of them all the time, so why pick on gays. It's not entirely satisfactory to gays and other aberramt folk, since we're told our sex is a sin, but at least 'compassionate conservatism' would NOT kill us or drive us out of the neighbourhood.

Conclusion: sex-positive religion is possible, but usually a late phenomenon in any given group's (e.g., Christian, Muslim) history; toleration/acceptance can be and has been part of several religions (certain sections thereof) for some time.

(Of course, it may well be that *very early religions, Mother Earth and vegetation worship, have been sex positive. As was pointed out, Christians' and Jews' victories over 'paganism' and idolatry involved suppressing the latters allegedly rampant sex affirmations. All that cheering we (used to) do when we read of Israelites' triumph over Baal worshippers (Canaanites, etc, in the 'promised land') is now cause for question (as in the cowboys killing the indians, also).

J.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

(Of course, it may well be that *very early religions, Mother Earth and vegetation worship, have been sex positive. As was pointed out, Christians' and Jews' victories over 'paganism' and idolatry involved suppressing the latters allegedly rampant sex affirmations. All that cheering we (used to) do when we read of Israelites' triumph over Baal worshippers (Canaanites, etc, in the 'promised land') is now cause for question (as in the cowboys killing the indians, also).

J.

BridgeBurner brought up an interesting point with his mention of Norse mythology as being very polytheictic but asexual. That's fairly unusual.

The big divide though, comes not in terms of how "evolved" a religion is, but which of the two great cultural bags it falls into. Good olf Joseph Campbell points out that that religions obey certain patterns based on whether they're the product of a settled, agrarian people or a nomadic, shepherding people. Agrarian religions tend to have a lot more "female" in them and are generally more sex-tolerant since they're based on the fertility of the earth. Shepherding religions tend to be more "masculine" and intolerant of sex, often making a war god their main deity.

Most non-religious scholars today are very dubious of the OT's recounting of the the origens of Israel. From close textual analysis it looks more and more that the OT was composed between 600-400 BC during Israel's captivity in Babylon and was a collection of older, oral stories and myths. It was committed to writing as a kind of propagands tool to give the Jews a sense of nationhood and "specialness"

Contrary to the story in the OT, the archeological record suggests that the Hebrews were a fairly proimitive collection of new-stone age/bronze-age clans who infiltrated Palestine and finally overthrew the dominant Philistine culture over several centuries of on-and-off warfare. The early proto-Hebews' reaction upon encountering the much more worldly and sophisticated Philistine culture is pretty much what you'd expect of a--pardon me--bunch of bronze-age country hicks coming to the Big City of Philistine/Egyptian culture. They were shocked and appalled at the liscentiousness and general wild living they found there, and the OT does everything it can to portray the Philistines as evil and decadent and the Hebrews as righteous and god-fearing.

The various dietary and religious laws that set Israel apart were designed to keep the proto-Hebrews from going native in the fleshpots of Palestine, which was a big problem throughout OT tmes. That's why, in spite of God's continual warnings against the worship of other gods, we find the Kings and other leaders of Israel and Judah running off time and time again to worship pagan gods, as if they just couldn't help themselves.

Seen in this light, Jewish avoidance of sexual matters is the same old rural conservatism vs. urban liberalism we see going on today.

---dr.M.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Many great points, but I choose to comment on this one:

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.

I just don't know about that. The more you study history (the truth, and not just the 'ledgends' that most people learn in school) the less you see people motivated by the unselfish reasons that they proffess, and the more you see the true motivations of greed, selfishness, and disregard for others beyond there *own* posterity. (I even wonder if the framer's of the constitution meant to secure the blessings of liberty on all of us, or just to keep these blessings for themselves and their bloodlines, but that's the liberal in me speaking out in favor of inheritence taxes.)

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see the best in people. And I know that some people are motivated by higher ideals, but these individuals are so few and far between that althought I love to study history, I sometimes get so depressed that I just have to set it aside for a while. (Yes, I'm that sensative. I can't stand thinking that people can be as low and mean as I know they are capable of)

Well! Speaking of tangents!!!!!! I humbly apologize for going off on one that's only barely germain to the topic.

I will accept whatever punishment is administered. (now we're back on topic!)

(Just *please* don't make me listen to christian rock!)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Hey Sweet! Long time no see!

I agree. We've spoon fed a lot of the party line in a lot of popular history, and there's no doubt that a lot of the OT was self-serving. But the purpose it served was the creation of the idea of a Jewish identity as a "chosen people", which is an idea almost all cutural groups subscribe to (it's no accident that almost all of the names of the tribes of American Indians when translated mean essentially the same thing: "human beings" or "real human beings". This was to distinguish themselves from their enemies, who were presumably less than human in their eyes. Ever cultural group tends to see itself as the "right" or chosen one.)

I just don't think that population growth was the driving force behind acient Jewish sexual ethics. If growth had been the goal why not sponsor orgies in which all the women would have gotten knocked up?

I've had the same thoughts about the American revolution as you have, that somewhere it had to be about economics, about self-interest. But as far as I've been able to determine, the American revolution was really inspired by a bunch of wild-eyed idealists who thought they had a chance to create a more perfect society. Certainly there were people who had economic interests in how the revolution came out, but the founding fathers really seemed to be motivated by unselfish interests.

Hard to believe what's come of their dream.


---dr.M.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Been doin good, Dr. M. and yourself???

I think maybe the christian/jewish/muslim view on sex is a reaction to the other 'pagan' religions and there embrace of sexuality.

If you look in the bible, there are all kinds of directives of 'do not be like the pagans' (ie, marking your bodies, practicing infantacide, calling forth the dead, ect)

What do you think?

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.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You're right about many of the Jewish laws being set in place as a way of keeping these early Hebrews separate from the pagans they lived with. The Hebrews are enjoined against "rounding the corners of the beards", which seems to be the biblical way of telling them to maintain their wild and wolly wilderness look. Presumably the Philistines were all dandied up, as big city residents tend to be.

The Jewish dietary laws seem to have been developed in direct opposition to the dietary habits of the Philistines, who were fond of both the pig and shellfish, both of which are forbidden Jews. (It's interesting too that the proto-Hebrews were nomadic shepherds, wandering all over the place. Pigs don't wander. You have to stay in one place if you want to raise pigs.)

But given the weird hanky-panky that goes on early in the OT, with Noah exposing himself to his daughters and incest and all, you don't see a lot of rules for governing sexual behavior. Onan is chastised for spilling his seed upon the earth, and Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed for their sins, which apparently included homosexual rape, but other than that?

---dr.M.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Correction!

I just realized that I've been using the term "Philistines" to refer to the original inhabitants of the Holy Land and that's incorrect. I should be calling them "Canaanites". The Philistines are thought to have originated in the Aegeaen and are the same as the "Sea People" who invaded Egypt. They weren't native to Israel. The Canaanites were native to the promised land when the Hebrews supposedly arrived there from Egypt.

---dr.M.

 

[oggbashan]

I was there before the Jews. I lost, despite being one of the last of the giants. Part of my land is now the Bekaa valley and has been soaked in blood for thousands of years.

Og, King of Bashan

 

[bridgeburner]

Just a quickie, sorry, but had to mention this:

Onan was not chastized for simply spilling his seed on the ground. He was chastized for spilling it on the ground rather than impregnating his brother's wife as he was commanded to do. He didn't jack off and get in trouble. He disobeyed and got in trouble.

As for Sodom and Gomorrah, there is nothing to suggest that they were slated for destruction because of sexual practices. Remember, the only reason the Angels even went to S&G was because the towns were already doomed and God intended to spare Lot's family. The sin of S&G is never specified. It has been inferred that because Lot offers his virgin daughters to the crowd in place of the strangers that naturally it's a sex thing, but why would that be so? If the crowd wants sex with men how is sex with women going to appease them? More likely they want to beat the shit out of the strangers and Lot thinks they'll be appeased by getting to rape his virgin daughters instead. It never says what the crowd wants only that they want the strangers and that Lot offers his daughters instead in order to protect his guests.


I don't read either Hebrew or Aramaic --- hell, I'm lucky to read English tolerably -- but I've heard lots of debate about the translations of this particular passage. Most of it focused on the verb "to know" and some focused on "virgin" all of which give different connotations.

At any rate, for a faith that mentions rules about sex so rarely, why do we jump on any mention of the sexual or even possibly sexual and attempt to make a rule from it? I think the far wiser course is not to assume that all of a sudden out of nowhere there is suddenly a focus on the sexual when it is not the habit to be so focused.


Good gawd I'm making no sense and can't even string words together. I'll come back and try to sort this out a little better. Right now I'm looking to mainline some caffiene and get out from under the mountain of paper on my desk.


--B

 

[~*sunkyssed_kym*~]

Re: Correction!

<snip>
The Jewish dietary laws seem to have been developed in direct opposition to the dietary habits of the Philistines, who were fond of both the pig and shellfish, both of which are forbidden Jews. (It's interesting too that the proto-Hebrews were nomadic shepherds, wandering all over the place. Pigs don't wander. You have to stay in one place if you want to raise pigs.)
<snip>


Another reason for those bans was to prevent food poisoning. Living in a hot clime with no means of keeping food from spoiling, this was a way to make sure that the people didn't eat contaminated food.


I just realized that I've been using the term "Philistines" to refer to the original inhabitants of the Holy Land and that's incorrect. I should be calling them "Canaanites". The Philistines are thought to have originated in the Aegeaen and are the same as the "Sea People" who invaded Egypt. They weren't native to Israel. The Canaanites were native to the promised land when the Hebrews supposedly arrived there from Egypt.

---dr.M.

Doc, you're quite correct; not many people realize the fact the the Pallistines and Canaanites are separate peoples. My congrats to you for your knowledge.
I'm impressed by the level of thought that has been posted here by everyone, thanks for the mental stimulation!

-kym- Sexual stimulation cumming soon!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

BridgeBurner, you make perfect sense to me, and I stand corrected on Onan and on S&G,

MY-Sir's-k-: I've heard that idea about food safety as a rationale for the Hebrew laws of Kashrut, but I don't buy it.

For one thing, the Canaanites and Egyptians did just fine eating pigs and shellfish, but these were two foods that would have been totally unfamiliar to bands of wandering nomads, so how would they know of any health risks?

Also, the injunction against eating milk and meat, one of the backbones of Jewish dietary law, has no rationale from a health perspective. There is evidence that the Canaanites enjoyed a dish made by seething a kid in its mother's milk, which appalled the Jews. The law against eating meat and milk at the same meal comes from the Hebrew's fear that they might unknowingly break this commandment.


---dr.M.

 

[~*sunkyssed_kym*~]

BridgeBurner, you make perfect sense to me, and I stand corrected on Onan and on S&G,

MY-Sir's-k-: I've heard that idea about food safety as a rationale for the Hebrew laws of Kashrut, but I don't buy it.

For one thing, the Canaanites and Egyptians did just fine eating pigs and shellfish, but these were two foods that would have been totally unfamiliar to bands of wandering nomads, so how would they know of any health risks?

Also, the injunction against eating milk and meat, one of the backbones of Jewish dietary law, has no rationale from a health perspective. There is evidence that the Canaanites enjoyed a dish made by seething a kid in its mother's milk, which appalled the Jews. The law against eating meat and milk at the same meal comes from the Hebrew's fear that they might unknowingly break this commandment.


---dr.M.

~~laughing~~ I'm hoping that you're talking about a kid as in a young goat???! And not today's meaning of "kid"?


-kym- I think I'll pass on lunch, thank you

 

[MathGirl]

Originally posted by dr_mabeuse I stand corrected on Onan.M.

Dear Dr M,
You deserve a ... hand for that.

Weren't those people who sort of came out of nowhere to conquer Egypt the Hyksos? I don't believe much is known about them.
MG