BDSM and Christianity

[Bramblethorn]

Maybe it's the history I've read or the many historical pieces of fiction I have read, but I think the two work well together. There is nothing like a priest taking charge of the scene and making a shy but beautiful young congregant enjoy the devilish joys of his form of Christianity. I'm sure you can all imagine; I love being a preacher or a priest or monk. At the same time, a woman could be a nun and totally make the male do all of her biddings simply for some salvation.

I actually love this type of role play!

Plenty do, but the OP was talking about reconciling BDSM with actually being a Christian, which is a rather different thing to roleplaying it as a BDSM fantasy.

 

[Charmolypi]

.....

 

[yukonnights]

Hi A/all! i am unsure of the proper forum to post this so i hope this is the right one.

i am wondering what the boards thoughts are on the compatibility of BDSM lifestyles and Christian faith. As a devout Christian (as much as i can be) and a submissive i mostly feel that BDSM is compatible with Christianity. i believe strongly in traditional gender roles and more conservative leanings towards my personal beliefs. Which in many ways does seem to fit in with BDSM and a Dom sub lifestyle. Yet often i feel unsure if my sexual cravings are in line with my Christian beliefs.

Do any of you have any thoughts on this you may like to share?

I think it was ST Augustine who said; Love and do what you will. I doubt he had your question specifically in mind, but the point is relevant. The one and only purpose for your faith is to progress into Love. Love of God, love of family, love of neighbors...all the way to love thy enemy. It is not a free pass, in fact it is quite demanding and requires work. It is much harder than just complying with whatever rules a certain small sect of the Church each person is associated with.

You will have to decide; Do I blindly adhere to a set of rules...or do I truly believe what this or that denomination says is the "truth"? If you truly believe that the Judaic Law of the Old Testament is to be obeyed, then it seems to me that there are many, many things in life that will be in violation. Alternatively, if you believe in the Law of Love and let it guide your every action, then it seems that your own conscious will keep you on the right path.

No one on this site can really answer your question. We can only reflect our own interpretations of the Mystery that no human will ever truly unveil. The most important reflection, the correct answer, will only be uttered by you.

Love...and do no harm to any other soul. That's as far as I've gotten in the so called pursuit of wisdom. I've left behind a lot of pages of words upon words written by men who profess to know...But now I try to hear that silent voice that speaks silent words of truth just for me.
*****

I like what Nezhul said above: Do you believe in God?

If yes, then he will definitely not disappear if you practice BDSM. That's what I think.

To rephrase - you don't need any guidelines to be religious. And as far as I know - you don't need to do anything specific for God to love you. He just kind of loves you anyway, if you believe in him. So there's that.

But if you ask how Church looks onto BDSM - probably negatively. But I'm not good with Churches and religions, so don't take my word for it and I'll not speculate further on the matter.

 

[Blue]

To be honest I think the fact that you even have to be put in the position of wondering whether or not you're facing eternal damnation (extrapolating a bit) for traits that are beyond your control is extremely emotionally abusive and you need to do a very hard think about how a supposedly caring God can possibly have a ridiculously unfair standard like that.

Personally; it's all nonsense leftvover from the bronze age, which is just as enlightened as any other moral standards at the time (Hint: not very) and it's unfair on yourself to be trying to reconcile that with who you are.

 

[lilmiss93]

i want to thank everyone for so many well thought out and beautiful and funny replies.

 

[Gotham_Central]

The Short Answer

When in doubt, I fall back on what Christ taught as the second great commandment, "Love thy neighbor as thyself.” This means that the Christian should put those around us before ourselves. If the behavior we want to pursue, including sexual indulgence, causes no harm, where we mean greater harm than Safe-Sane-Consensual allows for, then it might be acceptable.

But BDSM in and of itself should not be a red flag for the Christian, nor does the BDSM have to be practiced in any “Christian Friendly” manner. It need only be practiced between two adults, both committed to cause the other no harm.

The Long Answer

There are two things to be addressed here: the nature of sin and the specific instruction of the Bible regarding leading Christian lives.

All humanity is utterly depraved; that’s a ten dollar phrase meaning that in our own strength -our own ability- humanity is unable to be made righteous in the eyes of G-d. (Not a typo, just being considerate for my Jewish friends.) Scripture teaches us that humanity’s best is “as filthy rags” before the righteousness of G-d (Isiah 64: 6). The absolute best we can achieve is not enough.

Sin is our nature. Christians are forgiven, but we remain human and prone to sin. We even retain our favorite sins. Which brings us to living a Christian life and, specifically, how that life meshes with a variety of kinks.

Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth (the New Testament book of First Corinthians) is among the most commonly quoted sources by those seeking to make sex sinful. ; and in fact it does contain a number of quotes directly addressing sex and sexual behavior. Of interest to our discussion will be the 6th Chapter of that book, specifically verses 12 to 20.

The letter addresses, with very little specificity, “sexual immorality”. But why?

As with all things, Paul’s letter -all of scripture for that matter- must be read in context. Picking verses or phrases is less than helpful and we would not study any other test this way. We shouldn’t study the bible in this manner either.

Like any large commercial city in its day (or even today), Corith was, in many ways, a “wretched hive of scum and villainy”. Traders started and ended long journeys here. Sailors made port here (actually, at several points near Corinth). Unbridled immorality was a way of life in Corinth. Corinth’s way of life was so unbridled and wanton that the city became a verb to their Greek neighbors, to “Corinthianize” came to mean to practice sexual immorality.

Paul was addressing specific conditions, some of them are to be avoided by Christians. Prostitution is frequently harmful to someone, typically the prostitute. Orgies can be harmful to others, especially in an age where condoms were less than reliable and syphilis was very much a thing. In these ways, the sexual immorality Paul addresses do harm the body.

The Roman Church, and the Protestant denominations it spawned, has long taught that all sin is to be avoided. Even that Christains are incapable of sin; that we are somehow perfected. This flies in the face of Christ’s words, “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” (Matthew 5:22).

The idea that we can control or avoid the sins of the moment is damaging. That instance in which we look at a shapely figure and desire it, even before we realize we are lusting for it? Maybe you can. I can’t.

Christians are forgiven, but we remain sinful. (In context, Christ's words in Matthew 5:22 presuppose an absence of Grace.)

So, how does this answer the OP’s original question?

When in doubt, I fall back on what Christ taught as the second great commandment, Love they neighbor as thyself.” If the sexual behavior we seek to pursue does not cause harm, then it could be OK. Just as with any part of life, there are a great many factors to be considered. But BDSM in and of itself should not be a red flag for the Christian, nor does the BDSM have to be practiced in any “Christian Friendly” manner. It need only be practiced between two adults, both committed to causing the other no harm.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Paul was addressing specific conditions, some of them are to be avoided by Christians. Prostitution is frequently harmful to someone, typically the prostitute. Orgies can be harmful to others, especially in an age where condoms were less than reliable and syphilis was very much a thing. In these ways, the sexual immorality Paul addresses do harm the body.

Nitpicking: in Paul's day, condoms were probably nonexistent (first unambiguous description of their use in Europe is about 1500 years later) and there's considerable argument about whether syphilis was present in Europe before Columbus returned from the Americas. (Gonorrhea and herpes, OTOH, were probably around in Paul's day.)

As well as the sexual health side of things, note that prostitution in Corinth was connected to the temple of Aphrodite, so Paul was also telling Christians not to fraternise with the competition.

 

[Farawyn]

Love thy neighbor...is called The Golden Rules and it’s present in ALMOST every religion in some way.
Not Christianity.

 

[yukonnights]

i want to thank everyone for so many well thought out and beautiful and funny replies.

There's been a lot of insightful replies, but none by the one who asked the question?

Love thy neighbor...is called The Golden Rules and it’s present in ALMOST every religion in some way.
Not ? Christianity.

I'm assuming you accidentally left out the word "just" in the last sentence...or maybe it was the word "in" ? Otherwise, Spot on ! Sadly, I find the the hard part is not so much in the knowing...but in the doing

 

[Farawyn]

There's been a lot of insightful replies, but none by the one who asked the question?



I'm assuming you accidentally left out the word "just" in the last sentence...or maybe it was the word "in" ? Otherwise, Spot on ! Sadly, I find the the hard part is not so much in the knowing...but in the doing

Yeah. It was early. Sorry.
Not ONLY or JUST in Christianity.
Which now means what I want it to.

Thanks, yukon.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I’m a pantheist with a late-night snack of taoist/Episcopal fusion food, which isn’t your target group. Still:

1. What a cool thread.

2. Bramblethorn has the best nerdsexfacts ever.

3. I have a religion kink, because there are plenty of common themes with D/s, and I think those similarities are mostly not coincidental. There is transgression and atonement, punishment, forgiveness and submission. There is a power-exchange arrangement between two parties: one will obey, please and worship (ahhhh), while the other will caretake, teach and discipline.

D/s is also often quite ritualistic, as is religion, of course (oh the kneeling!). These are things that have been part of the human psyche forever, and are in one form or another expressions of human need. I would only advise you, deities: after a scene on the physical plane, give your pyl caring and attentive afterlife!

 

[SallyIsHere]

Just be you

Leave your parents, friends and religion out of the bedroom. What could be more Christian than two people devoted to each other and to building a bond that allows them to maximize their contribution to family, community and church. Your spiritual path is very personal and private. You will not find a one-size-fits-all playbook.

 

[Cumference]

Religion is the art of double standards and cherry picking.

When you base your morals on the standards of bronze age shepherds and an iron age doomsday cult, a lot of cherry picking is advisable.


Being a devout pastafarian, I go by the basic rule “don’t be a jerk” and I am in harmony with my noodly appendage.

 

[Blue]

Being a devout pastafarian, I go by the basic rule “don’t be a jerk” and I am in harmony with my noodly appendage.

rAmen.

 

[michael2956]

A few years ago I read Karen Armstrong's memoir, "Through the Narrow Gate." She was a novice in England in the early 60's and her order followed some of the ancient rules of discipline, including self-flagellation. Armstrong describes a time she struck herself over and over with a knotted cord until her back began to bleed. She had what could only be described as an orgasm. She later asked her superiors if the purpose of "the discipline" was sexual release. They didn't answer her.

 

[Angedesoleil]

I actually got into D/s in a super twisted attempt to try to better "serve" my husband and learn to accept him as HoH. .... Yeah, didn't work. No longer Christian either... both beside the point.

No, IMHO innately BDSM and Christianity are not at odds depending upon who you practice *with* and the intent of the play. I'd not even say the manner...but that would depend upon denomination as others have stated. If you'd like to talk privately about how I came to peace with things feel free to message


To Blue: re your comments on a God that would intentionally out you at war with who you are... So, if you were a parent you would keep the X- box out of the house because it might tempt your gamer kid? Of course not. We all have inner leanings...some are inclined to eat to excess, gossip, or have naughty thoughts....it's what you do with it. It's learning to control your actions. Like some people said: do you practice all or cherry pick. I don't care what you do, so long as you do what you really believe. My non-Christian religion fits life around God, not the other way round. No cherry picking.

 

[Blue]

To Blue: re your comments on a God that would intentionally out you at war with who you are... So, if you were a parent you would keep the X- box out of the house because it might tempt your gamer kid? Of course not. We all have inner leanings...some are inclined to eat to excess, gossip, or have naughty thoughts....it's what you do with it. It's learning to control your actions. Like some people said: do you practice all or cherry pick. I don't care what you do, so long as you do what you really believe. My non-Christian religion fits life around God, not the other way round. No cherry picking.

My contention is that the holy book itself (allegedly the direct word of god himself) is very black and white and not open to interpretation when it comes to some items of the checklist which determines whether or not you get into heaven which I think BDSM is a disqualifier for. It's not cherry picking.

Ok so; God made the rules by which a person is sent to heaven or hell.
*In Genesis God wipes out the entire city of Sodom because the population "pursued unnatural flesh" and in the context of the story it very clearly insinuates that the "unnatural flesh" is male-male sex.
*Also Leviticus calls for the execution of gay men and women because it's supposedly a grave sin.
*In Romans it clearly states that homosexuality is like a plague that results from a society practising idolatry and straying from the teachings of God.
*Corinthians is absolutely explicit that there is a list of people who cannot enter heaven, which it provides, and homosexuals are stated on that list.

The reason that's significant to this conversation is because it clearly demonstrates that God does not care about whether somebody is 'sinning' because of factors beyond their control, or that the 'sin' doesn't harm anybody, or that it is not the result of malicious intentions. In this case the sin is aspects of a person's sexuality that are beyond their control. He just cares that a person is doing it, there are no mitigating factors.

I think that precedent would apply to probably most BDSM themed relationships as well because the bible's statements on the topic of love does not allow hurting somebody and loving them as well. The two are mutually exclusive and not reconcilable. You can love somebody as well as hurt them but not both at the same time. So any relationship that involves inflicting physical pain to convey affection, regardless of its intent or cause, would be classified as an unnatural desire by the bible's standards and probably cut from the same cloth as being gay. Hence practising that aspect of bdsm prevents somebody from entering heaven.

~ ~ ~ ~

Just a note; I'm not religious and I don't believe any of this at all. I'm just entertaining Lilmiss' question.

 

[AlliaPotestas]

Gender roles.... Do you believe everything else the bible has to say on your body, such as how unclean you are on your period? It’s ok btw - on the eighth day you just need to take two turtle doves to a priest, after he’s sacrificed them on your behalf you will be clean - hallelujah... (Leviticus 15:19-33)

I am mocking slightly and I don’t know what flavour of Christianity you follow but the bible is so full of contradictions, I think you are safe keeping God out of the bedroom. Life is short, do what you enjoy... (with all the usual consenting adult caveats of course), x

 

[Bramblethorn]

*In Genesis God wipes out the entire city of Sodom because the population "pursued unnatural flesh" and in the context of the story it very clearly insinuates that the "unnatural flesh" is male-male sex.

No, it really isn't clear in that regard.

Genesis 18 describes Sodom and Gomorrah as "sinful", without specifying the manner of that sin.

Genesis 19 tells how two angels came to visit Lot in Sodom. The men of the city demand that Lot brings his visitors out so the crowd can rape them, and he refuses, referencing his obligation to hospitality: "came they under the shadow of my roof". He offers them his daughters instead, which is certainly fucked up by my standards, but the point here is that he's trying to protect his guests even over his own family. The crowd tries to break in, the angels protect Lot, and then the city gets destroyed.

One commentator puts it thus: "Reading the story of Sodom as being about homosexuality is like reading the story of an ax murderer as being about an ax."

Ezekiel 16: 48-50: "As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

No mention there of sex of any kind; the sins he cites have to do with pride and lack of charity, which is a recurring theme in legends of Sodom. See here, for instance:

"Rabbinic legends about Sodom describe an area of unusual natural resources, precious stones, silver and gold. Every path in Sodom, say the sages, was lined with seven rows of fruit trees. Eager to keep their great wealth for themselves, and suspicious of outsiders’ desires to share in it, the residents of Sodom agreed to overturn the ancient law of hospitality to wayfarers. The legislation later prohibited giving charity to anyone. One legend claims that when a beggar would wander into Sodom, the people would mark their names on their coins and give him a dinar. However, no one would sell him bread. When he perished of hunger, everyone would come and claim his coin. There was once a maiden who secretly carried bread out to a poor person in the street in her water pitcher. After three days passed and the man didn’t die, the maiden was discovered. They covered the girl with honey and put her atop the city walls, leaving her there until bees came and ate her. Hers was the cry that came up to God, the cry that inaugurated the angelic visit and its consequences."

Matthew 10: 14-15 echoes the theme of inhospitality: "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town... it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Jude 1: 6-7: "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day—Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

There is argument about what "strange flesh" means. Some commentators do take it as meaning homosexuality, but it can be taken more generally as sexual morality (if a man and a wife are one flesh, can't adultery be considered "going after strange flesh").

See also Enoch 12 and 15, which chastise angels for having sex with humans:

"Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the Watchers of the heaven who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives: "Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth: 5. And ye shall have no peace nor forgiveness of sin... Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish."

And recall that Jude's "strange flesh" occurs in the same sentence as a reference to angels who didn't know their place. From that context, some interpret Jude's "strange flesh" as referring to humans who pursued sex with angels.

(Enoch is considered apocryphal by most modern churches, so you won't find it in a standard Bible, but Jude was aware of Enoch and explicitly referenced him, so it's certainly relevant content when considering Jude's intent.)

*Also Leviticus calls for the execution of gay men and women because it's supposedly a grave sin.

Leviticus, and various other parts of the Old Testament, set out laws specifically for the Jewish people. The New Testament indicates that these rules are not imposed on Christians, except for a few specified prohibitions. See e.g. Acts 15.

(Summary: some people told Christian Gentiles that they had to be circumcised as per Mosaic law, but Peter says nope, that rule was never given to you, and all we ask of you is "that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.")

*In Romans it clearly states that homosexuality is like a plague that results from a society practising idolatry and straying from the teachings of God.
*Corinthians is absolutely explicit that there is a list of people who cannot enter heaven, which it provides, and homosexuals are stated on that list.

Ah, now, some English-language translations put "homosexuals" on that list. But that translation is disputed; for instance, NIV refers to "male prostitutes and homosexual offenders".

On those last two I'll defer to Gordon Atkinson, who's looked at the Greek. He suggests that Paul may be referring specifically to male prostitution performed as part of pagan temple worship, and points out that Romans 1 refers to people who reject God, which isn't very helpful in understanding the issue of gay people who haven't rejected God.

I think that precedent would apply to probably most BDSM themed relationships as well because the bible's statements on the topic of love does not allow hurting somebody and loving them as well.

Proverbs 13:24 directly contradicts that statement: "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them."

The two are mutually exclusive and not reconcilable. You can love somebody as well as hurt them but not both at the same time. So any relationship that involves inflicting physical pain to convey affection, regardless of its intent or cause, would be classified as an unnatural desire by the bible's standards and probably cut from the same cloth as being gay.

Are there specific passages that you believe support this interpretation?

 

[Blue]

No, it really isn't clear in that regard.

Genesis 18 describes Sodom and Gomorrah as "sinful", without specifying the manner of that sin.
[...]
but the point here is that he's trying to protect his guests even over his own family. The crowd tries to break in, the angels protect Lot, and then the city gets destroyed.

No, it is quite clear. I know Sodom was already scheduled for possible destruction for other society-wide sins (including non-homosexual sexual sins). But I'm not saying Sodom was destroyed specifically because the inhabitants attempted to practice homosexuality (in the form of rape in this case), I'm just tying in the events to show the bible's consistency of being anti-gay. So I don't really care how other parts of the bible interpret the events at Sodom. Fact is; The men of the city tried to rape male angels. That was a factor (actually the instigator, as the angels decided that there were not even 5 good men in the town after seeing what was happening) in their destruction. That's my point.

Leviticus, and various other parts of the Old Testament, set out laws specifically for the Jewish people. The New Testament indicates that these rules are not imposed on Christians, except for a few specified prohibitions. See e.g. Acts 15.

Alright. So I guess if that's right it makes anybody's point about anyone not getting into heaven moot.
Now go email that to Ted Cruz so he can stop trying to ban sex toys.

Side note on that; if this were true that would supposedly mean gays and others previously barred from entering heaven would now be able to. But if god is all knowing and always correct then his (previously stated) opinion on gays cannot change...
I wonder if he makes all gay people straight when they get into heaven?

Ah, now, some English-language translations put "homosexuals" on that list. But that translation is disputed; for instance, NIV refers to "male prostitutes and homosexual offenders".

On those last two I'll defer to Gordon Atkinson, who's looked at the Greek. He suggests that Paul may be referring specifically to male prostitution performed as part of pagan temple worship, and points out that Romans 1 refers to people who reject God, which isn't very helpful in understanding the issue of gay people who haven't rejected God.

And I can point to millions of scholars who'd say that Corinthians is a condemnation of gays as well.

In Romans it says that people have started being gay as a result of turning away from god. The obvious implication there is that you cannot be gay if you're godly, it's antithetical to being a good Christian. So again, this is allegedly the direct word of god himself, so if we assume for the sake of argument that all this is actually true then that means there are no gay Christians. Maybe they think they are Christians, but they must not be as committed as they think. So they can be condemned from a biblical perspective.

Proverbs 13:24 directly contradicts that statement: "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them."

Are there specific passages that you believe support this interpretation?

When I originally wrote it on page 1 I think I was extrapolating the various examples of Jesus and other biblical figures advocating for passive resistance/non-violence and their statements on good relationships. I'd totally forgotten about the rod thing though. Disciplining a child isn't really comparable with a relationship dynamic but I see why that might undermine what I'm saying.

>Two atheists argue over the correct interpretation of the Bible.

 

[PuckIt]

And yet no one has brought up "the rule of thumb" which was that a man should not beat his wife with a stick bigger around than his thumb?

One of the major problems with Biblical interpretation is, has been, and forever shall be that it has passed through translation after translation after translation. King James alone had some very pointed views that anyone wishing to keep their head attached would have been very careful of during the most recent major translation. There is some argument that the Bible is not complete as it stands today, that "The Dead Sea Scrolls" were actually cut out during one such translation because they did not fit the perceptions of the secular ruler or the religious figureheads of the time.

However, the more dogmatic will insist on the translation that the Book is as it is supposed to be, perfect from God's hands... even though it passed through men's.

Another major issue is that often people confuse Christianity with religious dogma and sectarianism. Baptists don't believe in dancing or drinking (at least not in front of other Baptists). But, Methodists are okay with both.

In a nutshell, I look at it this way. Jesus Christ ran around out in the desert with twelve other guys turning water into wine and with at least one prostitute (who may or may not have become his wife) in tow preaching kindness and understanding and forgiveness and, above all, love.

Ok, so he ran the tax collectors and harlots out of the temple where they were plying their trade at the tip of a bullwhip. I figure that (and a few other actions) mean we shouldn't necessarily be a pussy doormat about it when someone is doing wrong. But, as soon as they stop fucking with us, we should forgive (though not necessarily forget).

A valid point brought up by Bramblethorn is the Old Testament God is a vengeful judge "Do as I fucking say, Dickhead, or I shall cast you as far from me as the East is from the West" where the New Testament Son of God is much more defense attorney "Do as I show you should be done to the best you are able, treat others as you wish to be treated, believe in me, and I shall handle the rest."

But, a lot of these things "good upstanding Christian folk" prefer not to think too hard about.

Or that if God is the all powerful creator that spun everything into being, then he created Lucifer too. And if He is truly all knowing, then He knew that Lucifer would Fall and take a third of the heavenly host with him, and as much of humanity as he could.

Yeah, I would strongly advise you NOT to ask your preacher about that one if you don't want to find yourself subtly cast out.

Or if Lust is not actually passion, desire, and a willingness to possess without Love or even a modicum of thought about the other person beyond taking your selfish pleasure of them rather than just sexual desire in any form.

At the end of the day, I think it's important that each person reconciles within themselves what is acceptable to the higher power they believe in rather than rely on blindly following dogmatic thunder from a pulpit.

I know it's not what you were looking for, OP. But, in your professed belief system, there is only one perfect man, and I don't pretend to be him. Nor to have "The Answer." Each and every thinking person has the ultimate right (and responsibility) to believe as they wilt and try to act accordingly.

For me and my house, anything done out of love is well done.

 

[Athalia]

And yet no one has brought up "the rule of thumb" which was that a man should not beat his wife with a stick bigger around than his thumb?

I believe that's an urban legend, with no basis in history. It doesn't crop up until the 19th century, AFAIK. It's generally believed now that the "rule of thumb" refers to the thumb being about an inch wide, so it serves as a convenient "rule" or ruler.

Jesus Christ ran around out in the desert with twelve other guys turning water into wine and with at least one prostitute (who may or may not have become his wife) in tow preaching kindness and understanding and forgiveness and, above all, love.

Ok, so he ran the tax collectors and harlots out of the temple where they were plying their trade at the tip of a bullwhip.

The New Testament doesn't mention harlots in the temple at all. Jesus was driving out the "money changers" .... people who accepted coins from different areas and traded them for the coins that could be used to purchase sacrificial animals and such, having been approved as a medium of exchange by the priests (other coinage had images of rulers, which would have been forbidden by temple law).

In all other respects, your post was informative and well taken, although your explanation of Christian doctrine may not apply to all Christian religions; there is great diversity of thought there.

 

[PuckIt]

I believe that's an urban legend, with no basis in history. It doesn't crop up until the 19th century, AFAIK. It's generally believed now that the "rule of thumb" refers to the thumb being about an inch wide, so it serves as a convenient "rule" or ruler.




The New Testament doesn't mention harlots in the temple at all. Jesus was driving out the "money changers" .... people who accepted coins from different areas and traded them for the coins that could be used to purchase sacrificial animals and such, having been approved as a medium of exchange by the priests (other coinage had images of rulers, which would have been forbidden by temple law).

In all other respects, your post was informative and well taken, although your explanation of Christian doctrine may not apply to all Christian religions; there is great diversity of thought there.

a) "Rule of thumb" - It wasn't in the Bible, no. It was actually a ... um... if I remember right, a Quaker thing from after they fled England. Won't swear to it since my memory is spotty at best. But, yeah, it has often been ascribed to being Biblical, although no one can ever quite recall just which verse it may have been that said it.

b) "Money Changers" - Ayup. Also... mmm. Animal sellers, wasn't it? But, again, what people think happened tends to be influenced by where they heard the story from. The "tax collector and harlot" thing was... mmm... circa 1970s ... uh... tent revival... Baptist (I think). And it's questionable whether the redneck Bible thumper at the pulpit had actually read the book he was drumming against his thigh or had just memorized the stories his daddy had told him.

But, eh. In my experiences, beliefs are rarely purely rational. Or even mostly. I think that might have been what I was driving at. That it's necessary for each individual to believe as they believe and live, as best they can, within the framework of those beliefs. (With the proviso that your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose.)

Although, reading over that long winded meandering rambling of mine now, it's difficult to tell exactly what was going through my head at the time and I most likely should have just stayed out what was shaping up to be a pretty good debate between two atheistic scholars.

(And yes, I've actually had more than three hours sleep for a change, thanks. )

Rather than yank it down, as I most likely would have if you hadn't responded much more kindly than it deserved, I'll leave it up in the hopes it will spark some more conversation by people smarter than me and wander off to see if I can find some other shit I know fuck all about to get involved in.

(And back masking on that Rock and Roll pornographic phonographic sinful stuff was a thing, I tell you! )

 

[Bramblethorn]

No, it is quite clear. I know Sodom was already scheduled for possible destruction for other society-wide sins (including non-homosexual sexual sins). But I'm not saying Sodom was destroyed specifically because the inhabitants attempted to practice homosexuality (in the form of rape in this case), I'm just tying in the events to show the bible's consistency of being anti-gay.

For what it's worth, there are sixty-six books and about thirty thousand verses in the Bible (Protestant version, that is). Out of that, there are half a dozen passages that could be interpreted as criticising homosexuality. Jesus has nothing to say on the matter; the only New Testament writer to mention homosexuality is Paul.

For completeness, I should also mention the story of Jonathan (son of Saul) and David, which is not explicitly homoerotic but could certainly be taken that way if one was so inclined:

"Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself... Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt."

On Jonathan's death, David mourns:

“I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
You have been very pleasant to me.
Your love to me was more wonderful
Than the love of women."

Be that as it may, homosexuality just isn't a major focus of the Bible, which is far more concerned with things like one's obligations to the poor. (Not that you'd know this from listening to those Prosperity Doctrine fuckers.)

So I don't really care how other parts of the bible interpret the events at Sodom. Fact is; The men of the city tried to rape male angels. That was a factor (actually the instigator, as the angels decided that there were not even 5 good men in the town after seeing what was happening) in their destruction. That's my point.

But why are you assuming the message there is "homosexuality bad" rather than "rape and inhospitality bad"?

Side note on that; if this were true that would supposedly mean gays and others previously barred from entering heaven would now be able to. But if god is all knowing and always correct then his (previously stated) opinion on gays cannot change...
I wonder if he makes all gay people straight when they get into heaven?

Matthew 22:30: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Generally interpreted to imply that sex won't exist in heaven, presumably to be replaced by better things.

And I can point to millions of scholars who'd say that Corinthians is a condemnation of gays as well.

Sure. There are plenty of people who interpret it that way; nobody in this thread has argued otherwise, certainly not me.

In Romans it says that people have started being gay as a result of turning away from god. The obvious implication there is that you cannot be gay if you're godly, it's antithetical to being a good Christian.

Logical fallacy there. "A sometimes leads to B" does not mean "all B is caused by A".

So again, this is allegedly the direct word of god himself

No, Romans and Corinthians are attributed to Paul. They are Paul's interpretation of God's will, not God speaking directly.

Many churches espouse the doctrine that the books of the Bible were inspired by God and as such are inerrant, but it's not a universally held view among Christians; I think most of my acquaintance would tend to believe that these books are written by humans and affected by human failings, and in particular there are quite a few Christians who feel that Paul was a bit of a dick and wrong about some things.

One of the major problems with Biblical interpretation is, has been, and forever shall be that it has passed through translation after translation after translation. King James alone had some very pointed views that anyone wishing to keep their head attached would have been very careful of during the most recent major translation. There is some argument that the Bible is not complete as it stands today, that "The Dead Sea Scrolls" were actually cut out during one such translation because they did not fit the perceptions of the secular ruler or the religious figureheads of the time.

Oh yeah, and they''re by no means the only debated content. The Catholic Bible includes seven books that aren't accepted by the Protestant church, and some sects have more than that. Even if one believes the Bible is inerrant, there's argument about what "the Bible" actually contains.

Another major issue is that often people confuse Christianity with religious dogma and sectarianism. Baptists don't believe in dancing or drinking (at least not in front of other Baptists). But, Methodists are okay with both.

(You know why Baptists are opposed to sex standing up? Because it might lead to dancing.)

But, a lot of these things "good upstanding Christian folk" prefer not to think too hard about.

Or that if God is the all powerful creator that spun everything into being, then he created Lucifer too. And if He is truly all knowing, then He knew that Lucifer would Fall and take a third of the heavenly host with him, and as much of humanity as he could.

Hmm, I don't think that's entirely fair. Many Christian apologists have given a lot of thought to the "problem of pain" (if God is all-powerful and all-benevolent, why does suffering exist?), partly because it is one of the hardest questions to answer. C.S. Lewis wrote an entire book about it.

I must say that I'm not convinced by the arguments I've seen on that topic; it's one of the major reasons why I'm an atheist. But people certainly have been trying.

Yeah, I would strongly advise you NOT to ask your preacher about that one if you don't want to find yourself subtly cast out.

...or not so subtly. My partner used to be a Sunday school teacher; she asked her pastor why their church was accumulating wealth rather than spending it on charitable works, and he attempted to exorcise her

 

[Blue]

Be that as it may, homosexuality just isn't a major focus of the Bible, which is far more concerned with things like one's obligations to the poor. (Not that you'd know this from listening to those Prosperity Doctrine fuckers.)

I know. I don't care how severe a sin the book might intend to portray homosexuality, the point is just that it's meant to be a sin.

But why are you assuming the message there is "homosexuality bad" rather than "rape and inhospitality bad"?

'Cause that's the consensus of the vast overwhelming majority of the religion's adherents and scholars.

In a rational and sane world you would assume that rape and inhospitality would be the focus rather than the supposed sexuality of the criminals. But such is the human race.

Logical fallacy there. "A sometimes leads to B" does not mean "all B is caused by A".

It doesn't say "sometimes", it reads like a blanket statement.
[After turning away from god] "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

there are quite a few Christians who feel that Paul was a bit of a dick and wrong about some things.

Personally I'm pretty sure he's the first documented example of a really repressed preacher externalizing their internal struggle with being gay.