U
Christain Porn
- Thread starter xssve
- Start date
U
unregistered
Guest
stephen55
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Posts
- 2,564
Too bad you weren't born 300 years ago...
There is no need to find balance. There is nothing to balance. There is just sexual expression between a man and a woman in a manner in which both can be comfortable.
I have no problem with this declaration. None at all.
I'll be the first to say that when it comes to my theology I'm somewhere to the right of the Spanish Inquisition. Right is right, wrong is wrong and those of us embracing wrong should just shut up and accept the fact that we're wrong!
I have a minor and major problem with this one.
Seeing as how the Inquisition was to a small degree about rooting out heresy and mostly all about the Catholic Church's need to hang on to political and economic power by a prolonged Reign of Terror that removed the enemies by torture (usually depraved sexual torture for women and for difficult men, behind closed doors) followed by death (public burning was so much more dramatic and useful as a form of crowd control than say, a hanging or beheading behind closed doors), I have a minor problem with someone saying that they are theologically to the right of said Inquisition.
The major problem is your black and white approach to what is and what isn't right. My guess is that it's based on the Christian Manifesto. (That's the good book to you, but not to me.) Add to that your assertion that those who are wrong should admit it, toss into the mix an Inquisitor's approach to dealing with wrong (they called it heresy) and you are truly someone to be avoided.
Before you get going, pause and read Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches). It's your guide to Inquisitional tactics and your license in one neat package.
There is no need to find balance. There is nothing to balance. There is just sexual expression between a man and a woman in a manner in which both can be comfortable.
I have no problem with this declaration. None at all.
I'll be the first to say that when it comes to my theology I'm somewhere to the right of the Spanish Inquisition. Right is right, wrong is wrong and those of us embracing wrong should just shut up and accept the fact that we're wrong!
I have a minor and major problem with this one.
Seeing as how the Inquisition was to a small degree about rooting out heresy and mostly all about the Catholic Church's need to hang on to political and economic power by a prolonged Reign of Terror that removed the enemies by torture (usually depraved sexual torture for women and for difficult men, behind closed doors) followed by death (public burning was so much more dramatic and useful as a form of crowd control than say, a hanging or beheading behind closed doors), I have a minor problem with someone saying that they are theologically to the right of said Inquisition.
The major problem is your black and white approach to what is and what isn't right. My guess is that it's based on the Christian Manifesto. (That's the good book to you, but not to me.) Add to that your assertion that those who are wrong should admit it, toss into the mix an Inquisitor's approach to dealing with wrong (they called it heresy) and you are truly someone to be avoided.
Before you get going, pause and read Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches). It's your guide to Inquisitional tactics and your license in one neat package.
U
unregistered
Guest
cfuhrer
whiskey in a tea cup
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 3,115
It makes me pretty happy to see declarations like this!
As a Christian woman who likes to be bound, I agree.
cfuhrer
whiskey in a tea cup
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 3,115
Here is where we part company, specifically the part about being featured demonstrators... As I was taught it; sex is to remain between you, your spouse, and your Lord. When you bring others from outside yor marriage into your bedroom, God frowns.
G
Guest
Guest
Can you please tell an uninformed something from Germany where's the difference between ordinary and Christian porn ? If Christian porn exists anyway, there must be communistic porn, too.
Communism is a set of beliefs about economic stature whereupon the rulers set themselves up to be deistic figures. There is no room for spiritual beliefs, true, but there is still a worship of sorts (at least in the case of Russia).
I think it would have been more correct to ask if there was atheist pornography. And no, to my knowledge there is not. Most of us (to my limited knowledge) don't equate sexuality with a lack of belief in deities.
I do NOT, however see a need for discussion of 'christian Porn'. While the attitudes of some christians may be stunted when it comes to pornography, I believe it is a healthier discussion to talk about christian beliefs and sex. There's nothing in the bible that I am aware of that prohibits the marketing, sale, or distribution of sexual images or stories.
Communism is a set of beliefs about economic stature whereupon the rulers set themselves up to be deistic figures. There is no room for spiritual beliefs, true, but there is still a worship of sorts (at least in the case of Russia).
I think it would have been more correct to ask if there was atheist pornography. And no, to my knowledge there is not. Most of us (to my limited knowledge) don't equate sexuality with a lack of belief in deities.
I do NOT, however see a need for discussion of 'christian Porn'. While the attitudes of some christians may be stunted when it comes to pornography, I believe it is a healthier discussion to talk about christian beliefs and sex. There's nothing in the bible that I am aware of that prohibits the marketing, sale, or distribution of sexual images or stories.
Last edited by a moderator:
Handley_Page
Draco interdum Vincit
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Posts
- 78,287
Re: Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches)
I begin to think that there are two books with this same name. One was written a thousand years ago by some weird Arab (it's a quoted title in several books about magic, as I recall), and another one which I saw in paperback (a translation of Kramer?).
Could someone please explain this small problem ?
I begin to think that there are two books with this same name. One was written a thousand years ago by some weird Arab (it's a quoted title in several books about magic, as I recall), and another one which I saw in paperback (a translation of Kramer?).
Could someone please explain this small problem ?
Last edited:
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Porn featuring Christian characters?
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
Nonsense!
I can't find what you discribe as another book with the title Maleus Malelficarum , literally maleus(hammer) maleficarum(witches or hexxan) The book circa 1486, Cologne Univ. by Kraemer and Sprenger. These two men were Dominican Priests. Protantism was still years away. Martin Luther was 3 years old at the time. There's a good chance that you might have read about an Arabic reference to it because I understand that Islam has or had an interest in witchcraft as well.
What's more interesting though about this whole thing of the bible being the root of all the arcane tabboos regarding sex. Nonsense, none of this junk is in the bible except by implication in a very broad sense.
Churches, including Roman Catholocism, Methodism, Baptism, Calvinism etc are all post Jesus if you will by hundreds of years and are merely methods of worship and interpretation of the Bible.
I'm not an expert, far from it (I"m sure I'll be reminded soon enough) but these taboos came from the purveyors of Christendom not the bible.
It's a control mechanism. Be a good boy/girl now or God will cut your pee pee off, goodnight now.... sleep tight and don't touch yourself
Loring
I can't find what you discribe as another book with the title Maleus Malelficarum , literally maleus(hammer) maleficarum(witches or hexxan) The book circa 1486, Cologne Univ. by Kraemer and Sprenger. These two men were Dominican Priests. Protantism was still years away. Martin Luther was 3 years old at the time. There's a good chance that you might have read about an Arabic reference to it because I understand that Islam has or had an interest in witchcraft as well.
What's more interesting though about this whole thing of the bible being the root of all the arcane tabboos regarding sex. Nonsense, none of this junk is in the bible except by implication in a very broad sense.
Churches, including Roman Catholocism, Methodism, Baptism, Calvinism etc are all post Jesus if you will by hundreds of years and are merely methods of worship and interpretation of the Bible.
I'm not an expert, far from it (I"m sure I'll be reminded soon enough) but these taboos came from the purveyors of Christendom not the bible.
It's a control mechanism. Be a good boy/girl now or God will cut your pee pee off, goodnight now.... sleep tight and don't touch yourself
Loring
stephen55
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2010
- Posts
- 2,564
I don't react well to fundamentalists...
Industrial, you identified yourself as a Christian and went on to say that in issues theological, you are to the right of the Spanish Inquisition. I couldn't help taking a shot. Being brought up as a Protestant and going to Sunday school, I was taught all about God's love, the sacrifice Jesus made and of his love, especially his love for sinners. Which only makes me wonder what He would have to say about the Spanish Inquisition.
I also recall reading some things He had to say about those who were so sure of themselves. And as for...
I’ll never be accepting of their divergence from what I believe to be true. Anything short of that wouldn’t be open mindedness, it would be misplaced faith.
...perhaps you should reconsider. Accepting that others have different views from what you believe to be true, is not misplaced faith, it is open mindedness. Steadfastly believing that views you don't agree with must be wrong because you don't accept them, now that's a good Christian attitude if I ever heard one. Which only tells me that as the old chestnut goes, if Jesus was around today, the last thing he would call himself is a Christian.
There’s no room in my heart or mind for the beliefs of others. Is there any room for the beliefs of others in your brain?
I don't belittle Jesus. I put him right up there with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Baruch Spinoza and Augustine of Hippo. I don't belittle the Bible but then I don't accept that it is the owners manual that didn't come with my birth. I don't belittle Christianity but like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and the rest, I fear them. Not for what they are but for what adherents do in their names.
So feel free to enjoy BDSM with your wife. Just don't tell us it's okay because it's taking place within a Christian marriage. It's okay because it's okay.
Industrial, you identified yourself as a Christian and went on to say that in issues theological, you are to the right of the Spanish Inquisition. I couldn't help taking a shot. Being brought up as a Protestant and going to Sunday school, I was taught all about God's love, the sacrifice Jesus made and of his love, especially his love for sinners. Which only makes me wonder what He would have to say about the Spanish Inquisition.
I also recall reading some things He had to say about those who were so sure of themselves. And as for...
I’ll never be accepting of their divergence from what I believe to be true. Anything short of that wouldn’t be open mindedness, it would be misplaced faith.
...perhaps you should reconsider. Accepting that others have different views from what you believe to be true, is not misplaced faith, it is open mindedness. Steadfastly believing that views you don't agree with must be wrong because you don't accept them, now that's a good Christian attitude if I ever heard one. Which only tells me that as the old chestnut goes, if Jesus was around today, the last thing he would call himself is a Christian.
There’s no room in my heart or mind for the beliefs of others. Is there any room for the beliefs of others in your brain?
I don't belittle Jesus. I put him right up there with Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Baruch Spinoza and Augustine of Hippo. I don't belittle the Bible but then I don't accept that it is the owners manual that didn't come with my birth. I don't belittle Christianity but like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and the rest, I fear them. Not for what they are but for what adherents do in their names.
So feel free to enjoy BDSM with your wife. Just don't tell us it's okay because it's taking place within a Christian marriage. It's okay because it's okay.
FreshlyDirty
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Posts
- 165
You say right is right and wrong is wrong, yet for the actions you describe there are many Christians would denounce them as wrong. Eventhough they are with your wife, many of them would say you are still in the wrong. You say it is right, they say it is wrong. Who is right? So, right is right and wrong is wrong, in all cases? Care to stick by that broad generalization?
G
Guest
Guest
Industrial_Bondage:
What is your opinion on sex (of any sort) without marriage then? Would, say an intimate encounter by two people who are not married fall out of the realm of acceptable?
And, allowing that it is not acceptable in real life (as many people believe), is it okay to read graphic depictions of it?
Basically, do you believe that pre or extramarital sex is a sin?
And if yes, then do you believe that fantasizing about it is also a sin?
as an atheist reading a thread about so-called Christian porn, this question kinda fascinates me.
I am not looking to start an argument, just asking what I feel is a relevant question. If it's extra-marital or pre-marital, does it fall outside the realm of Christian porn?
What is your opinion on sex (of any sort) without marriage then? Would, say an intimate encounter by two people who are not married fall out of the realm of acceptable?
And, allowing that it is not acceptable in real life (as many people believe), is it okay to read graphic depictions of it?
Basically, do you believe that pre or extramarital sex is a sin?
And if yes, then do you believe that fantasizing about it is also a sin?
as an atheist reading a thread about so-called Christian porn, this question kinda fascinates me.
I am not looking to start an argument, just asking what I feel is a relevant question. If it's extra-marital or pre-marital, does it fall outside the realm of Christian porn?
U
unregistered
Guest
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
From what I know, the Malleus Maleficarum owed much of it's popularity to timing - it was written shortly after Gutenberg invented the printing press, and it possibly the first example of the mass dissemination of porn, which just happened to lean towards extreme sadism and misogyny - torture instruments such as the Pear are somthign you might find in a modern BDSM video, and much of the trappings of BDSM are distinctly medieval - leather, masks, floggers, whips and chains, etc. - so you could say Christianity invented BDSM porn.
The thing is, much of the practice of BDSM, which survived as and underground movement, along with other forms of paganism, is not in imitation of the inquisition, but in mockery and defiance of it, i.e., pleasure through pain, and the patron saint of BDSM would have to be Saint Lawrence.
The Catholic Church officially condemned the Malleus, but it proved popular all the same, and I believe, spawned what is essentially a distinct literary and oral tradition that in many respects, has nothing to do with the Bible, it's much more in line with Imperial Roman practices, the treatment of slaves, etc., often extremely sadistic, and I believe it belongs to the Libertine tradition, rather than the Christian - that it was practiced and spread by Christian institutions is the usual Christian syncreticism that made the Winter Solstice into Christmas, the Festival of Astarte, Easter, etc.
i.e., that's how Christianity works, and you can find elements of nearly every religion Christianity has encountered in Christianity itself - if it cannot defeat an opposing religion, it absorbs it, and the sexual aspects of the inquisition reflect an absorption of some of the sketchier elements of Roman Imperialism, IMO - Rome did not simply vanish after the fall, presumably, all the same characters were still around, and the change was largely cosmetic.
The Protestants were every bit as enthusiastic about persecuting "heresy" as the Catholics, often moreso, and some of the last incidents of women condemned to death for witchcraft and heresy occurred at Puritan Salem.
It's really not the tack I was talking about, it seems to me that much of "mainstream" Christianity, by which I'm mostly referring to "innocent bystanders" with little knowledge of the historical precedents, and not as prone to take the extreme views are trying to find a happy medium in here somewhere, and in spite of the common view of Old Testament scripture as harsh and Yahwe'st, the Old Testament also contains some of the most humanistic aspects of the Bible - it's a mixed bag, and the New Testament is not much different outside the synoptic gospels, but overall, is mostly a lot of politicking and arguing between various factions of the early Church.
The thing is, much of the current negative politicking about sex: anti-gay, anti-birth control, anti-everything that doesn't involve the possibility of reproduction, is driven by Calvinist theology, including Dominionism.
It's a disturbing theology in more ways than one, the combination of predispensationalism and premillenialism is, IMO, a dangerous mix.
The former strikes me as a compromise with the Libertine faction: predispensationalism posits that a certain number of people, "the elect", are saved, and they are saved by decree, i.e., they are preselected by god, and they cannot fall - the remainder are not saved, and damned no matter what they do.
It essentially removes any incentive for redemption through any means, be it works, grace, or whatever - doesn't matter how much good you do, if you're damned, you're damned, and by the same token, "the elect" are given complete license to do whatever it takes to prepare the world for the second coming (pre-millenialism), and are above mortal law.
I really don't need to tell you who "the elect" are going to turn out to be, I imagine it a has a lot to do with the size of their contributions.
Anyway, as I said, I was trying to avoid that whole thing. As far as I'm concerned, it's a theological and sociological dead end, nothing good can possibly come of it - see the wildly different interpretations of Matthew 11:12 - and I think an end run is in order.
On the plus side, Calvinist predispensationalism is so controversial even in Christian circles, that it's adherents are motivated to avoid direct confrontation, and it's not a particularly popular theology among rank and file Christians in general, as you might imagine - presumably, "the elect" can always lie, since they're saved anyway.
It's detectable in policy however: the whole "activist judges" meme is a Dominionist marketing ploy, as their goal is to establish a theocracy, with themselves in charge, no doubt. The constitution and the rule of law is an obstacle to that end.
Nothing however, in the gospels themselves, or the bible in general would appear to support Calvin's interpretation, it merely remains as an artifact to excuse the worst abuses of corporeal power, done in the name of a hypothetical deity.
The thing is, much of the practice of BDSM, which survived as and underground movement, along with other forms of paganism, is not in imitation of the inquisition, but in mockery and defiance of it, i.e., pleasure through pain, and the patron saint of BDSM would have to be Saint Lawrence.
The Catholic Church officially condemned the Malleus, but it proved popular all the same, and I believe, spawned what is essentially a distinct literary and oral tradition that in many respects, has nothing to do with the Bible, it's much more in line with Imperial Roman practices, the treatment of slaves, etc., often extremely sadistic, and I believe it belongs to the Libertine tradition, rather than the Christian - that it was practiced and spread by Christian institutions is the usual Christian syncreticism that made the Winter Solstice into Christmas, the Festival of Astarte, Easter, etc.
i.e., that's how Christianity works, and you can find elements of nearly every religion Christianity has encountered in Christianity itself - if it cannot defeat an opposing religion, it absorbs it, and the sexual aspects of the inquisition reflect an absorption of some of the sketchier elements of Roman Imperialism, IMO - Rome did not simply vanish after the fall, presumably, all the same characters were still around, and the change was largely cosmetic.
The Protestants were every bit as enthusiastic about persecuting "heresy" as the Catholics, often moreso, and some of the last incidents of women condemned to death for witchcraft and heresy occurred at Puritan Salem.
It's really not the tack I was talking about, it seems to me that much of "mainstream" Christianity, by which I'm mostly referring to "innocent bystanders" with little knowledge of the historical precedents, and not as prone to take the extreme views are trying to find a happy medium in here somewhere, and in spite of the common view of Old Testament scripture as harsh and Yahwe'st, the Old Testament also contains some of the most humanistic aspects of the Bible - it's a mixed bag, and the New Testament is not much different outside the synoptic gospels, but overall, is mostly a lot of politicking and arguing between various factions of the early Church.
The thing is, much of the current negative politicking about sex: anti-gay, anti-birth control, anti-everything that doesn't involve the possibility of reproduction, is driven by Calvinist theology, including Dominionism.
It's a disturbing theology in more ways than one, the combination of predispensationalism and premillenialism is, IMO, a dangerous mix.
The former strikes me as a compromise with the Libertine faction: predispensationalism posits that a certain number of people, "the elect", are saved, and they are saved by decree, i.e., they are preselected by god, and they cannot fall - the remainder are not saved, and damned no matter what they do.
It essentially removes any incentive for redemption through any means, be it works, grace, or whatever - doesn't matter how much good you do, if you're damned, you're damned, and by the same token, "the elect" are given complete license to do whatever it takes to prepare the world for the second coming (pre-millenialism), and are above mortal law.
I really don't need to tell you who "the elect" are going to turn out to be, I imagine it a has a lot to do with the size of their contributions.
Anyway, as I said, I was trying to avoid that whole thing. As far as I'm concerned, it's a theological and sociological dead end, nothing good can possibly come of it - see the wildly different interpretations of Matthew 11:12 - and I think an end run is in order.
On the plus side, Calvinist predispensationalism is so controversial even in Christian circles, that it's adherents are motivated to avoid direct confrontation, and it's not a particularly popular theology among rank and file Christians in general, as you might imagine - presumably, "the elect" can always lie, since they're saved anyway.
It's detectable in policy however: the whole "activist judges" meme is a Dominionist marketing ploy, as their goal is to establish a theocracy, with themselves in charge, no doubt. The constitution and the rule of law is an obstacle to that end.
Nothing however, in the gospels themselves, or the bible in general would appear to support Calvin's interpretation, it merely remains as an artifact to excuse the worst abuses of corporeal power, done in the name of a hypothetical deity.
Last edited:
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
Another example is provided by a Christian submissive I've been corresponding with who feels that sexual submission is not substantially different from any other form of asceticism: i.e., a "master" is sort of a stand in, her service to her master represents her service to god, she suffers not for him, but for god, he is merely an agent.
Presumably, in this conceptualization, the master represents the world, which inflicts suffering upon us - the entire act a symbolic representation of the human condition.
It's in the act of transcending that suffering, transforming it into ecstasy that one "renders unto god, that which is god's".
Presumably, in this conceptualization, the master represents the world, which inflicts suffering upon us - the entire act a symbolic representation of the human condition.
It's in the act of transcending that suffering, transforming it into ecstasy that one "renders unto god, that which is god's".
My I
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Posts
- 1,245
Ok, I wrote this story a few years ago, but this thread pushed me to posting it again. Have a ball and take it any way you want.
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=470908
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=470908
Bobby_3111
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2009
- Posts
- 234
Since someone already bumped this thread i wanna ask you hardcore research types if you know or read the answer to this somewhere.
I've seen a lot of people and even heard some saying that "God gave us all free will" Yet I have never read that in any christian texts. And I will admit that i'm not a very big student of the bible or the koran or torah, so I was wondering if any of you had read the exact phrase or something similar in any of those books?
(I googled it but after going through 3 pages of religious nut-cases i gave up)
I've seen a lot of people and even heard some saying that "God gave us all free will" Yet I have never read that in any christian texts. And I will admit that i'm not a very big student of the bible or the koran or torah, so I was wondering if any of you had read the exact phrase or something similar in any of those books?
(I googled it but after going through 3 pages of religious nut-cases i gave up)
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
As a top, I say-- nuts to that.
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
To much of what passes for theology is a desperate need for certainty. Thoughtful theologians have pointed out for centuries that God is the Great Mystery and trying to know what He means in every instance is fruitless. That's the whole point behind "The wisdom of Man is the foolishness of God". Omniscience is incomprehensible so when someone tells you something is The One Way, be wary. That person doesn't know and neither do you. Faith isn't about believing in spite of it being absurd but believing because it it absurd. Relax. You are loved. Isn't that enough?
Emperor_Nero
Ever have 1 of those days
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Posts
- 20,295
It's an implied bit of information from the Genesis story of Eden. If man (and woman) only had God's will, they would not have been able to have been tempted or would they have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge (the apple), because God had willed them not to do so. By eating the forbidden fruit, man illustrated that he possessed a self will (or free will) seperate from God.
Hope that helps.
D
DeeZire
Guest
Very nice story, although I think it would have been better if their preacher had been peeking through the window - you know, taking the 'God is watching you' idea literally.
A related point - I believe Utah has the highest rate of pay-per-view porn in the country, which correlates with the high rate of Christian conservatives living in that state.
voluptuary_manque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Posts
- 30,841
Similar threads
