BDSM and Christianity

[Valint]

I don't think there's anything intrinsic to a BDSM relationship which is antithetical to Christianity. Given the cultural background of much of the Bible, it's unsurprising that you can find a lot of support for a traditional male dom relationship.

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

A female dom relationship is a bit trickier, requiring a topping from the bottom kind of argument that the wife is actually serving the husband by obeying his demands to dominate him, though there are Scriptures that support a more equal view of marriage.

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Use of discipline is easy to support, given the Bible's cultural context and how often it speaks approvingly of God disciplining those he loves.

Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest and repent.

No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

Take a look at some Biblical relationships, and you'll notice some that could come straight from a dom/sub story. Ruth, often held up as a paragon of Biblical marriage (she of "Whither thou goest, I will go" fame), sounds an awful lot like the start of a story of a sub finding her new master.

One day Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi said to her, "My daughter, I must find a home for you, where you will be well provided for. Now Boaz, with whose women you have worked, is a relative of ours. Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do."

"I will do whatever you say," Ruth answered. So she went down to the threshing floor and did everything her mother-in-law told her to do.

(Your understanding of the commands given Ruth will be enhanced if you know that "feet" is often a euphemism in the Bible for another part of the anatomy; one euphemism for urine is "water of the feet".)

Sure, there are limits to how far one might be able to go in a BDSM lifestyle while earnestly attempting to be a good Christian, but then, that's true about quite a few things. I would expect that the majority of the issues in a Christian BDSM relationship would be about making sure the relationship was based on love, respect and consent, which doesn't make it much different from a healthy non-Christian BDSM relationship.

 

[jehoram]

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

Not a regular on this board, but I was checking on Athalia's posts and found myself here.

From Luke 10:25-27:
"25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

That's pretty close to "Do unto others..."

I'm surprised that Athalia didn't pick up on that. I'm an indifferent Christian, but she's more or less in the God business.

 

[Farawyn]

Not a regular on this board, but I was checking on Athalia's posts and found myself here.

From Luke 10:25-27:
"25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

That's pretty close to "Do unto others..."

I'm surprised that Athalia didn't pick up on that. I'm an indifferent Christian, but she's more or less in the God business.

If you scroll down, I corrected to not JUST Christianity.

 

[Bramblethorn]

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

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

Some recent data on how "adherents" feel about homosexuality:

Pew Research, 2015:

"...a majority of U.S. Christians (54%) now say that homosexuality should be accepted, rather than discouraged, by society."

Australia, 2016:

"A majority of Australian Christians support same-sex marriage and think parliamentarians should vote on the issue as soon as possible. A Galaxy Research poll of 1,000 Australian Christians has found 54% support marriage equality and 49% do not want the law to be changed to allow civil celebrants to refuse their services to same-sex couples based on conscientious objection. It also found 61% do not like having conservative religious groups presenting their views on same-sex marriage as though they are speaking for all Christians in the country."

UK:

"Figure 1 shows attitudes towards sexual relations between same sex couples, charting the proportions in each religious group who said it was ‘always wrong’ or ‘mostly wrong’... in 2013 opposition had fallen to a minority of each group: 33% of Anglicans and other Christians, 20% of Catholics, and just 13% of those with no religion."

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

I'm sure you meant well, but please don't do this.

The old "all homophobes are secretly self-hating gays" bit is inaccurate: there are far more homophobes than gay people, unless you want to speculate that ~ 80% of gay people are self-hating closet cases and also that the prevalence of homosexuality correlates heavily with time, place, and culture.

It's harmful to queer people: it perpetuates the use of "gay" as an insult, it's victim-blaming, and it lets tells straight people that there's no need to think about how their own behaviour might possibly contribute to other people's homophobia.

And, quite simply, it's homophobic. It speculates people to be gay based purely on their negative attributes.

Are there homophobes who turn out to be gay or bi themselves? Absolutely. Humanity has a talent for hypocrisy. But there are plenty of homophobes who've never been busted with a rent boy and never will; there's no reason to assume they're all gay.

 

[Blue]

Some recent data on how "adherents" feel about homosexuality:

The interpretation of the book, not the people.
I'm not so socially unaware that I didn't notice lynchings had become less common.

I'm sure you meant well, but please don't do this.

It was a joke about Paul bringing up homosexuality so much.

On the broader picture: Sure, remarking on an actual phenomenon can twist into making the situation worse. How often have you spoken to somebody about fascistic governments (thereby increasing that ideology's brand recognition by just that much) or talked about the trend of mass shooters in the USA (necessarily contributing to letting all the homicidal narcissists know that they have a guaranteed path to the attention they crave)?

If we censored ourselves for everything we say that may possibly in a convoluted way contribute to problems we're trying to solve we'd probably have to remove our vocal chords.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The interpretation of the book, not the people.

er... what do you mean by "adherents", if not people?

It was a joke about Paul bringing up homosexuality so much.

Yeah, I know, but jokes are not consequence-free. Jokes influence and are influenced by the other ways in which humans interact.

On the broader picture: Sure, remarking on an actual phenomenon can twist into making the situation worse. How often have you spoken to somebody about fascistic governments (thereby increasing that ideology's brand recognition by just that much)

Increased brand recognition is not inherently beneficial for the brand. Certainly uncritical coverage of fascism can be a very bad thing (we just had some alleged journalist doing a profile on "activisits" without mentioning that their leader was a Neo-Nazi who'd been convicted of setting a woman's house on fire) but I'm not aware that I have ever discussed fascism without criticising it.

or talked about the trend of mass shooters in the USA (necessarily contributing to letting all the homicidal narcissists know that they have a guaranteed path to the attention they crave)?

I actually do consider that when I discuss that issue. In particular, I make an effort not to name the perpetrator if I can avoid it, or to repeat manifestos etc.

If we censored ourselves for everything we say that may possibly in a convoluted way contribute to problems we're trying to solve we'd probably have to remove our vocal chords.

I don't see anything terribly convoluted in the idea that labelling people "gay" as a form of mockery is harmful to queer people, and I've seen plenty of queer people make similar comments about that. YMMV, and you're free to talk as you like, but if you do choose to continue in that manner, don't be surprised if LGBT people decline to consider you an ally.

 

[Blue]

er... what do you mean by "adherents", if not people?

The interpretation of the book by its adherents. You asked why I thought that was the message of the story and I'm just deferring the intended meaning to majority opinion. I know most Christians in the west aren't on the hate train of gay people.

Increased brand recognition is not inherently beneficial for the brand.

[...]

I don't see anything terribly convoluted in the idea that labelling people "gay" as a form of mockery is harmful to queer people, and I've seen plenty of queer people make similar comments about that.

You don't see it as convoluted because you're equivocating a person alleging that somebody else is projecting their closeted homosexuality, with actually designating them as gay for malicious reasons. When somebody says "Ted Cruz has built his career on bashing gays, I bet he's totally gay and just projecting", I contend that when people use that to mock Cruz (or any other individual), assuming the intention is actually mockery and not just remarking on the actual phenomenon of overcompensation, they are universally targeting the persons hypocritical bigotry, to indirectly criticize the foundation of their positions . It's definitely not a cogent or substantive argument but there's certainly no bigotry in doing that. Same logic applies for the Paul joke.
You contend that they are mocking the target's (alleged) homosexuality which I am absolutely certain is just dramatically not true. I don't recall ever hearing anybody making that remark to bash the target's sexuality. I can see the far right using it like that but I'm not familiar with their internal lingo.

and you're free to talk as you like, but if you do choose to continue in that manner, don't be surprised if LGBT people decline to consider you an ally.

The only people that would actually demand that kind of nitpicking in the name of in-group ideological homogeneity are people I would gladly never associate with anyway.
I genuinely don't care if that kind of hyper-critical activists with a stick up their ass about spoken etiquette don't consider me an "ally" of theirs. I'm on their side whether they like it or not.

~ ~ ~ ~

I actually do consider that when I discuss that issue. In particular, I make an effort not to name the perpetrator if I can avoid it, or to repeat manifestos etc.

I've actually watched all of Elliot Rodger's youtube videos and listened to the entire 10-hour reading of his manifesto.
I'm definitely not helping...

 

[Bramblethorn]

The interpretation of the book by its adherents. You asked why I thought that was the message of the story and I'm just deferring the intended meaning to majority opinion. I know most Christians in the west aren't on the hate train of gay people.

I'm confused here. Are you saying that "Christians" and "Christianity's adherents" are not equivalent terms?

You don't see it as convoluted because you're equivocating a person alleging that somebody else is projecting their closeted homosexuality, with actually designating them as gay for malicious reasons. When somebody says "Ted Cruz has built his career on bashing gays, I bet he's totally gay and just projecting", I contend that when people use that to mock Cruz (or any other individual), assuming the intention is actually mockery and not just remarking on the actual phenomenon of overcompensation, they are universally targeting the persons hypocritical bigotry, to indirectly criticize the foundation of their positions .

Circular argument. You're saying it's okay to mock somebody like Cruz as "gay" because it targets his hypocrisy, but the claim of "hypocrisy" on this issue relies on the assumption that he is gay. For which, AFAIK, there is no evidence other than the (false and harmful) stereotype that all homophobes are gay.

The only people that would actually demand that kind of nitpicking in the name of in-group ideological homogeneity are people I would gladly never associate with anyway.
I genuinely don't care if that kind of hyper-critical activists with a stick up their ass about spoken etiquette don't consider me an "ally" of theirs. I'm on their side whether they like it or not.

Oh? What tangible thing is it that you do to help, if it doesn't involve listening to queer people when they say "that thing you're doing is not helping"?

 

[Blue]

I'm confused here. Are you saying that "Christians" and "Christianity's adherents" are not equivalent terms?

I'm saying I'm going with one interpretation of the book rather than another because it's the interpretation held by the vast majority of Christians.

Circular argument. You're saying it's okay to mock somebody like Cruz as "gay" because it targets his hypocrisy, but the claim of "hypocrisy" on this issue relies on the assumption that he is gay. For which, AFAIK, there is no evidence other than the (false and harmful) stereotype that all homophobes are gay.

The insult isn't that he's gay. Nobody uses the allegation to mock the targets sexuality and you would struggle to find anybody outside of whatever activist forum you're getting this from to interpret it that way. The mockery is directed at his his hypocrisy, the claim that he's gay is the reasoning behind it. Look at this new "Girther" movement that just spawned out of disbelief of Trumps physical results, the same logic applies. You can see nobody is mocking Trump for being fat, the claim is that he is more obese than his doctor lets on and the joke is pointing out that he's trying to hide it. I can see where you're coming from when you say alleging that a rampant homophobe is gay is harmful, but the amount of harm it may do is insignificant. The comments don't live in a vacuum and the sheer overt cultural rejection of bigotry these days vastly overshadows whatever tiny subconscious setback those remarks may possibly create.

If you still want to say it's a bad thing to exploit somebody's sexual insecurities for laughs then my pre-emptive response is just 'get over yourself'. It might make some people uncomfortable at worst, speculations of this magnitude don't contribute to slowing the decline of anti-gay sentiment.

Oh? What tangible thing is it that you do to help, if it doesn't involve listening to queer people when they say "that thing you're doing is not helping"?

Stop acting like your idea is some kind of ideological monopoly held by gay people.
I reject the idea of 'that thing I'm doing is not helping' (I also deny that it is helping by the way) because this degree of nitpicking and attempted control through moralizing shaming over the propagation of harmless jokes and speculation is not progressive, intellectual or high minded like you seem to think it is. It's bordering on manipulative self-victimization (or by-proxy if you're not gay) for attention or sympathy.

You aren't the arbiter of what does and doesn't help gay PR and I'm not going to relinquish my vocabulary to the whims of some control freak McActivists.

 

[Blue]

Also, I doubt you'll come right out and say it but if you are trying to imply that me or anybody else is somehow bigoted or don't care enough about gays because of these very arguably off-colour remarks, let me just remind you what some of the few pictures I've ever posted on this site were.

Extrapolate from that what you will.

 

[_Necrosomantic_]

Let’s all just agree that the only people stupid enough to actually be offended by being called gay ( or in fact try to use it as an insult ), are far too busy wearing their pants on their heads and farting in the bath tub whilst laughing their asses off to understand what satire is, and probably describe what few legitimate thoughts they’ve ever actually had in their repugnant and offensively vapid lives, as headaches with pictures.

And that we should ALL, in the spirit of charity and togetherness, join with our brothers and sisters across the world in constructing a giant cannon, so that we might one day fire them all into the god damn sun.

-Necro 6:13

Extrapolate from that what you will.

You’ve been dreaming of an oily Christmas lolly

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm saying I'm going with one interpretation of the book rather than another because it's the interpretation held by the vast majority of Christians.

...except it isn't, per the stats I already posted.

The insult isn't that he's gay. Nobody uses the allegation to mock the targets sexuality and you would struggle to find anybody outside of whatever activist forum you're getting this from to interpret it that way.

I'm getting a bit tired of your "everybody who objects to my behaviour is an extremist" schtick. I've met plenty of queer folk who consider it problematic.

No activist forums were involved, and I have no time for people who make up bullshit about me for the sake of argument, so after I post this reply I'm putting you on ignore.

The mockery is directed at his his hypocrisy, the claim that he's gay is the reasoning behind it. Look at this new "Girther" movement that just spawned out of disbelief of Trumps physical results, the same logic applies. You can see nobody is mocking Trump for being fat, the claim is that he is more obese than his doctor lets on and the joke is pointing out that he's trying to hide it.

People have been mocking Trump for his weight - and others have been pointing out that this is problematic - since at least 2016, so it's hard to believe this is all about a medical report issued in 2018.

While there's certainly been a hypocrisy angle given his penchant for insulting other people's weight, pretty much anybody who's fat gets insulted for that no matter their own record, so it's hard to believe it's all a nuanced critique of his attitudes. Some people simply like to make fat jokes, and have realised it's not quite as socially acceptable as it was, so they look for any excuse to justify it.

In any case, this is a red herring. We have visual evidence for Trump's height and weight, and a statement on the record that conflicts with that evidence. We don't have any evidence that Cruz is gay. So this is still a circular argument: it's okay to call Cruz gay, because it highlights his hypocrisy; he's hypocritical because, uh, well he would be if he was gay!

I can see where you're coming from when you say alleging that a rampant homophobe is gay is harmful, but the amount of harm it may do is insignificant.

...and yet actual queer people are saying it isn't.

The comments don't live in a vacuum and the sheer overt cultural rejection of bigotry these days vastly overshadows whatever tiny subconscious setback those remarks may possibly create.

The rejection of...

*blinks*

...I don't know which version of 2018 you're living in, but it sounds nice!

I'm living in the one where the POTUS who ran on a platform of racist dog-whistling is discussing giving healthcare workers the right to refuse treatment based on religious beliefs (read: "let LGBTI people die if you wanna") in order to appeal to the Religious Right. The one with an unhealthy number of Nazis crawling out of the woodwork. The one where queer people are being kidnapped, tortured, and murdered in concentration camps and the "nice" countries are reluctant to grant refugee visas to help them escape. Where three-eighths of voters in my country still wanted to deny LGBTI people equal access to marriage - don't get me wrong, it's better than five-eighths, but still not good enough.

Stop acting like your idea is some kind of ideological monopoly held by gay people.

...and again, you're falsifying my position. I've never claimed that all gay people hold this position, or indeed that it's exclusive to gay people.

But I'm not aware of any queer people who think it's helpful. When some people are saying "this is harmful" and the rest are at best indifferent, it shouldn't be a difficult decision.

I reject the idea of 'that thing I'm doing is not helping' (I also deny that it is helping by the way)

...uh, "helping" and "not helping" are exhaustive possibilities. They can't both be wrong, unless you've discovered a new system of logic.

It's bordering on manipulative self-victimization (or by-proxy if you're not gay) for attention or sympathy.

Oh yay, not content with mischaracterisation of my position, we're moving on to making up bullshit about my motives?

Yep, definitely ignore time.

edit: one story, though.

Some years back, when I was in a perceived-as-het relationship, I was at home while my partner's kid had his teenage buddies over for gaming. They were chatting, I wasn't really paying attention, but at one point I heard one of them saying "that's so gay".

I pulled them up sharp: "we don't use that word as an insult in this house".

I got pretty much the same response you've been giving - oh, it's not meant in a homophobic way, etc. etc. I shook my head: nevertheless, we don't use "gay" as an insult.

I felt like Uncool Parent and wondered if I was being too fussy about this; I knew those kids well enough that I didn't think any of them were actually homophobic.

Then a couple of years later, one of them came out to my partner. He'd just figured out that he was bi, and because I'd drawn that line, he felt safe talking to us about it in a way that apparently he didn't feel with anybody else.

That is why I call people on this stuff. Not the "internet activist forum" fiction that you've chosen to bullshit about me. No, because it actually does matter to real flesh-and-blood people.

Fin.

 

[srgreene]

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?

Christianity, understood from its canon, if not its history, does not come with a list of "Thou shalt nots". In that regard, it is not a legalistic or ritual bound faith the way either Judaism or Islam are.

I too am Christian, and realized I have sinned in life. But the sins that I may be held accountable for are not, I am confident, sins of the flesh (except possibly the abortion I had in my teens).

So I do not think BDSM necessarily runs counter to Christianity. However, it cannot be sadistic .... it must be part of a loving relationship. It it feels good, or both (or all) concerned, it does not run counter to the essence of Christianity. At least that is y take on the situation, even though I realize many Christians would not agree.

 

[Cumference]

Religions are a mirror of the society they are invented in.
The gods did not create man, man created the gods in his picture.

And religions more or less evolve with the society they exist in. Or rather: The religions are drawn kicking and screaming along with society, then are forced to adapt and will claim to have had that attitude all the time.


It is about power and control. And basically by telling people what kind of fun they are allowed to have and taking away the right to your own body and your own thoughts (how loving it is to threaten with social exclusion and eternal torment!), you have a really good grip on their short and curlies.

 

[srgreene]

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 ....

Overall a very well composed comment, Bramblethorn, although I'm not sure why you had to refer to "Prosperity Doctrine fuckers". I don't know exactly what that is, but I might even largely subscribe to it. You shouldn't try to demonize those with whom you disagree.

Although I embrace the Christian message and you stand outside of Christian grace, we do see many things similarly, and I appreciate the level of thinking in which you engage (it's not the norm here, I'm afraid).

Yes, there is disagreement about what the holy scriptures of Christianity should contain. I consider than a sideshow. The important thing is that a man, Jesus of Nazareth, came to save men (and women) from their sins. All the rest pales in comparison. I am glad you pointed out Paul's human status in the Christian pantheon, hugely important as he was. I do think he was unnecessarily negative on matters of sex, but he was speaking to his time (whereas Jesus spoke for all time). He just plain goofed on the time horizon for the Second Coming. But even in Corinthians I, Paul's reference to Sodomites was toward men who used boys for their own sexual pleasure. I am sorry, but that cannot be part of a loving relationship- it is necessarily exploitative. Moreover, I think Paul was warning about making one's sex life an ultimate pursuit in life. Having, I think, some experience with that, I realize, in maturity, some of its dangers. I wonder how more accomplished a person I might have been had I not had, at some point in my life, a "clit on fire" and a mission to cure hardons. And I would have missed so much that I value in life now had I pursued that path for even longer than I did.

As for Paul's hostility toward homosexuality, well he reflected Jewish law on the matter (he was a Jew) and, I suspect, the attitudes of early Christians. But he was a fallible man, and his references to homosexuality were simply among a list of things that he Christians to leave behind as they embrace their faith. But Christianity, unlike Islam, has a theme of hating the sin, but loving the sinner: one of my favorite passages from the Bible was when Jesus admonished the men who wanted to stone the "fallen woman" by saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". And, quite honestly, I think I have my life to thank for that attitude from Christians who shaped my young life (even though they probably would not have recognized they did so at the time).

Anyway, I have no doubt that, had you and I met at the appropriate time in life (maybe a time warp would have been required, lol), we could have had some interesting pillow talk.

 

[txgent101]

How I Think About It

Although I am a Christian, and am not a practitioner of BDSM, I have formed an opinion of how I would act if I were to engage in BDSM. And that is to keep in mind the physicians' dictum:

"First Do No Harm"

For me, the word 'harm' in this case would mean permanent physical or mental injury or trauma. Particularly against the wishes or desires of the person being harmed.

[of course, since BDSM is not in my experience or plans, that thought may be completely useless.....]

 

[Bramblethorn]

Overall a very well composed comment, Bramblethorn, although I'm not sure why you had to refer to "Prosperity Doctrine fuckers". I don't know exactly what that is, but I might even largely subscribe to it. You shouldn't try to demonize those with whom you disagree.

Prosperity theology is a doctrine that shows up particularly in certain evangelical sects of Protestantism. The gist of it is:

- God wants his faithful to be rich and happy
- If you are faithful, God will reward you with material wealth and health
- ergo, if you are poor or sick, it's because of your own failings/lack of faith.

Considering stories like Job and pretty much everything Jesus ever said about wealth and poverty, it takes considerable mental gymnastics to convince oneself that earthly riches should correlate with virtue. From where I stand, it's nothing more than a fig-leaf for people who want to abrogate their responsibilities to those less fortunate and to blame them for their own woes, no matter how undeserved.

Your kid got cancer? Must be your fault because you didn't pray enough. Pastor spending a few million on redecorating the church while people sleep in the streets? God's will.

I consider it one of the most perniciously evil influences in modern Christianity and I have no soft words for it. My only regret about using the word "fuckers" is that it's unfair to people who fuck, an act that can bring pleasure to all involved without harm to anybody.

Although I embrace the Christian message and you stand outside of Christian grace, we do see many things similarly, and I appreciate the level of thinking in which you engage

Thank you kindly

As for Paul's hostility toward homosexuality, well he reflected Jewish law on the matter (he was a Jew) and, I suspect, the attitudes of early Christians. But he was a fallible man, and his references to homosexuality were simply among a list of things that he Christians to leave behind as they embrace their faith. But Christianity, unlike Islam, has a theme of hating the sin, but loving the sinner:

Eh, you might be surprised by how much of that there is in Islam. AFAIK it doesn't have the same notion of salvation through grace alone - if I recall, there is a general notion that your sins and good deeds will be weighed up in judgement. But within that, there's a lot of emphasis on leniency. I'm short on time so I won't go chasing up references, but as I recall there's something along the lines of: every good intention will count for you as if you'd done the deed, and if you actually do a good thing it counts tenfold, but evil intentions only count against you if you do the thing, and then only once. There's also a recurring formulation in the dietary laws, Ramadan fasting and hajj, along the lines of: "but if it would cause significant hardship to follow this law, you are excused, because God loves you and wants all things to be easy for you". Even Muhammad is shown as transgressing and earning God's ire at one point, IIRC.

So, no, it doesn't have the same concept of "no matter how sinful you are, as long as you accept God's grace you're guaranteed a spot in Heaven". But there's certainly room for the idea that your good deeds can outweigh your sins.

(Perhaps we should leave this for another day, though; it's getting waaaay off topic for this thread, and these discussions take a bit out of me

one of my favorite passages from the Bible was when Jesus admonished the men who wanted to stone the "fallen woman" by saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". And, quite honestly, I think I have my life to thank for that attitude from Christians who shaped my young life (even though they probably would not have recognized they did so at the time).

I am very fond of that particular passage; it contains some valuable wisdom.

Anyway, I have no doubt that, had you and I met at the appropriate time in life (maybe a time warp would have been required, lol), we could have had some interesting pillow talk.

My partner is a former Sunday School teacher from a Charismatic sect - speaking in tongues, exorcising pesky parishioners who ask inconvenient questions about charitable outreach, etc. etc. - so I do get some of that

 

[srgreene]

Prosperity theology is a doctrine that shows up particularly in certain evangelical sects of Protestantism. The gist of it is: ..

Well no, that kind of Christianity is, I would say, shallow and ultimately insincere. But it certainly has been used by self-serving people.

Eh, you might be surprised by how much of that there is in Islam. AFAIK it doesn't have the same notion of salvation through grace alone - if I recall, there is a general notion that your sins and good deeds will be weighed up in judgement. But within that, there's a lot of emphasis on leniency. I'm short on time so I won't go chasing up references, but as I recall there's something along the lines of: every good intention will count for you as if you'd done the deed, and if you actually do a good thing it counts tenfold, but evil intentions only count against you if you do the thing, and then only once. There's also a recurring formulation in the dietary laws, Ramadan fasting and hajj, along the lines of: "but if it would cause significant hardship to follow this law, you are excused, because God loves you and wants all things to be easy for you". Even Muhammad is shown as transgressing and earning God's ire at one point, IIRC. ...

You might plausibly make the claim that Islam teaches leniency toward Moslems, although I would also say there is a bit more to it. However, toward the infidel, iIslam is merciless here on earth as well as the afterlife. The massacre of the Quresh is an outstanding example of this from role model for all men: per the Koran, he murdered all the men of t he tribe that surrendered and took the women as sex slaves. So much for Islam being "the religion of peace" I would say- that and his murder of poets who mocked him, a proud tradition carried on by Moslems throughout history, fully exemplifies Mohammad's- and Islam's- notion of leniency toward the sinner/

The qualify of mercy also does not play into the treatment of apostates- Mohammad himself ordained that they should be killed (although possibly given the "opportunity" to recant). I find nothing loving toward the "sinner" in that, and I find your argument about the supposed leniency in Islam to be a bit of a stretch. After all, the woman he had murdered for adulatory was presumably an observant muslima.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You might plausibly make the claim that Islam teaches leniency toward Moslems, although I would also say there is a bit more to it. However, toward the infidel, iIslam is merciless here on earth as well as the afterlife. The massacre of the Quresh is an outstanding example of this from role model for all men: per the Koran, he murdered all the men of t he tribe that surrendered and took the women as sex slaves.

Er... there was no massacre of the Quresh.

The Quresh aka Quraysh were an Arabic tribe - in fact, they were Muhammad's own tribe. Initially most of the Quraysh opposed Muhammad's teachings (violently so) but others were among his early followers. After a series of battles, the remaining Quraysh converted to Islam. Far from being wiped out, they were very influential in Islam after that point - most of the great caliphs of history were Qurashi.

You might be thinking of the Banu Qurayza, a Jewish tribe with a similar-sounding name who were massacred by Muslims. But if so, you've missed out an important detail about the massacre.

By the Muslim account, it wasn't because the Qurayza were unbelievers, or even that they were opponents of Islam. It was that they'd betrayed the Muslims: after agreeing to a treaty (the Constitution of Medina) which bound the Muslims and non-Muslims of that city to live together peaceably as a single nation-state and share in the defence of the city, the Qurayza broke that treaty by negotiating with the Muslims' Qurayshi enemies, or possibly by actively allying with them (accounts differ).

In that context, it was effectively an execution for treason, which isn't the same thing as "kill all unbelievers".

I stipulate "by the Muslim account" there, because historians do differ on whether the Constitution of Medina was actually in effect at the time. But if we're talking about what Islamic theology teaches, then we need to base interpretation of that event on how it's understood by Muslims.

(I guess you could call them "infidels" in the sense that they were unfaithful, but given that modern language generally puts "infidel" in Muslims' mouths as a synonym for "unbeliever", that would be very misleading.)

There are plenty of passages in the Quran that make it clear that there is no approval for killing people simply for being non-Muslim; this page cites examples.

Caveat: I'm linking to that site specifically for the cites it provides. It's run by Ahmadiyya, who are considered heretical by some other Muslims (a very rough parallel would be the status of Latter-Day Saints within Christianity), and that particular site is run by a group who split off from the main Ahmadiyya group, so if you go exploring that site you'll almost certainly find content that is not representative of mainstream Islam. But as far as I know, the cites mentioned on that page are indeed to be found in the Quran.

Further caveat: any time somebody offers a short quote from the Quran that appears to give some sort of universal rule along the lines of "kill all the unbelievers", I strongly recommend checking the context. Usually it turns out to be a specific pronouncement made against people who happened to be making war against Muslims at the time, rather than a general commandment to kill unbelievers who were minding their own business.

So much for Islam being "the religion of peace" I would say- that and his murder of poets who mocked him

I can't say I've done an exhaustive study on poets who may or may not have been killed at Muhammad's behest, but on a quick search I did come across Ka’b ibn Al-Ashraf. He did indeed mock Muhammad, and he was indeed killed for it, but again that omits some rather important context: as well as mocking Muhammad he was also actively encouraging violence against Muslims.

Another is Asma bint Marwan, another poet who also mocked Muhammad and was murdered... whoops, forgot to mention that she had also called for people to murder him.

So if these are the people you're thinking of, representing it merely as "murder of poets who mocked him" is technically true but decidedly misleading.

(Also, on the subject of mocking religious figures, I will note the existence of 2 Kings 2: 23-24.)

a proud tradition carried on by Moslems throughout history, fully exemplifies Mohammad's- and Islam's- notion of leniency toward the sinner/

If we're going to damn religions according to the behaviour of the worst assholes among their adherents throughout history... well, I could talk all day about bloodshed done by Christians in the name of Christianity. It wasn't Islam that gave us "kill them all, God will know his own". And atheism doesn't exactly have a spotless record either.

The qualify of mercy also does not play into the treatment of apostates- Mohammad himself ordained that they should be killed (although possibly given the "opportunity" to recant).

Given that we've been citing chapter and verse (literally) for most of the discussion of Christianity, and that I'm rather less familiar with the Quran than I am with the Bible, I'd appreciate it if you could give references for claims such as this - it's a lot of work for me to hunt them down otherwise.

Meanwhile, I would point you again at this page which also discusses the issue of apostasy.

I find nothing loving toward the "sinner" in that, and I find your argument about the supposed leniency in Islam to be a bit of a stretch. After all, the woman he had murdered for adulatory was presumably an observant muslima.

Again, can you provide a cite for this?

The Quran prescribes flogging for zina, a word which by my understanding encompasses extramarital sex (both fornication and adultery). As somebody who has participated in both of those, I'm definitely not a fan of that particular teaching!

But to the best of my knowledge there's nothing in the Quran that requires death for adultery; in fact, despite popular perceptions that it prescribes stoning as the punishment, there's actually no reference to stoning anywhere in the Quran.

It is mentioned more than once in the Hadiths, which report Muhammad as having ordered the stoning of adulterers. But in Islamic theology, the Hadiths don't enjoy the same infallible status as the Quran, and by my understanding the idea that a hadith can controvert a rule set out in the Quran is highly questionable. Some discussion here.

 

[LegendInMyOwnMind]

Any kind of sex (not just BDSM) and Christianity

First off, if OP is deeply committed to a fundamentalist form of Christianity, there is is no choice. A literalist view of the Bible means anything whatsoever that isn't PIV between husband and wife is forbidden. Case closed.

But that means that you buy into a particular mindset of a form of "Churchianity" that stupidly elevates the sometimes ridiculous prohibitions of Leviticus above the God of Love manifest in Jesus Christ. "Though shalt not spank the monkey." (Paraphrasing quite liberally) is ***not*** the equal of "For God so loved the world ..." I'll cool my jets a bit and settle for calling it blasphemous nonsense to assert it is.

Discover Christ and don't get caught up in the garbage the goes down in His Name by some churches led by bigger sinners than you are.

This is my commandment that you love one another that your love one another that your joy may be full. --John 15:11-12, paraphrased.

Let the theologians and other damnfools hairsplit agape vs. phileo vs. eros all they want to. Ultimately all love is Love, and human sexuality is one its most important expressions. And if BDSM or anything else involving consenting adults is your thing, go do unto others as you would want done unto you as lovingly as you can.

On occasion you ***will*** sin and fall short of the glory of God, and not love as well as you know you should. Make your best possible amends to your sister or your brother, then get down on your knees and ask God to make you better, not to make you stop.

BTW, I write "sister or brother" in the Christian sense. But if incest is your thing, and it's literally Bro, or Sis, or Mom, or ..., you need to hear this most of all: all love is Love, so go out and love one another.

In His Precious Name,

LegendInMyOwnMind

 

[lazar4441]

Enjoyable

I like the sensual side of BDSM such as blindfolds, sensual sensor play and sensual massage. along with ice and wax.

 

[Corie5525]

I too am a Christian..devote all my life..but have felt the need to place the woman where she belongs..

the next step is yours...

are you ready?

 

[PrettyLilPussy]

I should get my theology degree just for reading some of this thread...