Christian BDSM

[dr_mabeuse]

I came across a user group devoted to "Christian BDSM".

Now, I could make a joke about using real nails, but my lawyer advises against it.

But I've been thinking a lot about sex and religion, and how little the Judeo-Christian tradition has to say about sex and sexuality.

It made me wonder: we must have a lot of Deists here, Jewish, Christian, and otherwise. Do you have any problem reconciling your interest in erotica with your religion?


---dr.M.

 

[destinie21]

I have plenty of problems but reconciling my interest in erotica with your religion is not one of them.


Regards

D21

 

[Madame Manga]

What, don't you see it? A 24/7 male-dominant, female-sub relationship with whips and chains involved? That's an ordinary Christian marriage by the definitions of two centuries ago. Throw in LDS plural marriage, and you even have polyamory. How traditional can you get?

MM

 

[AmericanWench]

While I can see the humorous side of your query, I have a serious answer, if I may.

Unfortunately...the most common aspect related to D/s (grouped into BDSM), is sexual.

While sexuality is indeed a large part of D/s, it is not encompass the depth of D/s.

I happen to be a very spiritual person, where christianity is concerned. I also happen to be very submissive.

So..my point being, D/s does not offer any more conflict with my Christianity, than were I vanilla. In fact, and I realize this is stretching it...the Bible does instruct.."Wives, submit to your husbands"..so perhaps, the fact that I have submitted to those not my husband is the bigger problem.

Just my 2 cents worth...thanks for letting me share it

American Wench

 

[Chicklet]

Nicely said, Wench.

I don't have a religion, nor a diety, so I guess my answers don't really count here.

-Chicklet

 

[Pure]

dr M:
//how little the Judeo-Christian tradition has to say about sex and sexuality//

I guess we don't go to the same libraries. First of all, I'm not sure there's any such thing as "Judeo-Christian" tradition, unless you mean Christianity plus Judaism-as -onceived-or-misconceived by-Christians. Second both traditions have a fair bit to say about sex, though it has been said that Christianity has generally not had much _good_ to say about sex, esp. as it may be engaged in for non reproductive purposes. Perhaps you left a word out? as in "how little... has 'good' to say about".

As has been pointed out above, there is a contact of bdsm with Christianity (and Judaism for that matter; Paul whom you quote was Jewish) in counselling submission of wives to husbands' wishes, guidance, authority: the husband's position being likened to Christ's in relation to the Church. If that aint _domination_ what is?

J.

PS Note that 'deist' in most modern literature means something other than what you use it to mean, i.e., belief in God. The term you want is "theist."
[you said, "It made me wonder: we must have a lot of Deists here, Jewish, Christian, and otherwise."]

 

[gauchecritic]

I'm not sure there's any such thing as "Judeo-Christian" tradition

Note that 'deist' in most modern literature means something other than what you use it to mean, i.e., belief in God. The term you want is "theist."
[you said, "It made me wonder: we must have a lot of Deists here, Jewish, Christian, and otherwise."]

I would have thought "Judeo-Christian" tradition would include all things biblical before the birth of Christ ie The Old Testament.

I'd be interested to know what 'deist' means in modern literature if not "belief in (a) God" [technically without accepting divine revelation]

Gauche

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Pure is right on both counts. I didn't mean Judeo-Christian tradition. I intended to focus the question on the primary scriptures from which each religion draws its inspiration, the Torah for Jews and the Bible for Christians.

As far as Theist and Deist, again I mispoke and I apologize. I meant Theist.

Actually, Jewish tradition has quite a bit to say about sex in the Talmud, but the Talmud isn't primary scripture but rather commentary upon the Torah.

What I was thinking of is how the Bible really avoids the issue. There are some truly bizarre sexual episodes in the OT but as far as I know there's nothing much said about it in the NT, except for Paul. The authors of the Bible seem to have gone to unusual lengths to describe a super-masculine and asexual God who's just not interested.

I guess if you're going to be monotheistic you have to choose one sex or the other for your God, but I think that there's also a basic human impulse to see the feminine as just as divine as the masculine. In Christianity this was dealt with in the spontaneous rise of the cult of the Virgin in the middle ages, and in Judaism with the development of the mystical belief in the Shekhinah, but these ideas came well after the religions were founded and are not supported by primary scripture.

You compare what the Western religions have to say about sex with what the pagan religions say, and it's kind of shocking.


---dr.M.

 

[replicant]

With Christianity anything done in the "Wedding Bed" is free of sin and guilt in the eyes of God. As long as 2 people are married, then whatever the man and women do together is fine as long as both agree to it. Pretty open if you ask me to bring in whatever deviance you like with the exception of multiple partners.

I believe the Jewish religion is suppose to have sex as only when used for reproductive purposes, but I am not sure about that.

 

[Pure]

Hi gauche,

For example, you hear of Jefferson described as a deist. Not Billy Graham.

Here's what one dictionary says.

1. Belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).

2. Belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to his creation (distinguished from atheism, pantheism, and theism)

American College Dictionary, Random House, 1957.

Clearly the mainstream of Judaism and Christianity is not 'deist' in this modern sense. Deists are sometimes described as believing in a 'clockwork universe': God made it, adjusted it well, then let and lets it run without intervening. Which is to say, there is a possible scientific account of all events. (Which most 'religious' Jews and Christians would deny--e.g., parting the Red Sea; impregnating the Virgin.)

A few hundred years ago, however, 'deist' sometimes meant 'theist'.

Note that mabeuse has agreed about meaning 'theist.'

Note:Gauche said, I'd be interested to know what 'deist' means in modern literature if not "belief in (a) God" [technically without accepting divine revelation]

The definition you propose, the key part being NO divine revelation, is not far from what I've said. It's far from the mainstream of Judaism and Christianity, and clearly mabeuse did NOT intend 'your' proposed meaning.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

With Christianity anything done in the "Wedding Bed" is free of sin and guilt in the eyes of God. As long as 2 people are married, then whatever the man and women do together is fine as long as both agree to it. Pretty open if you ask me to bring in whatever deviance you like with the exception of multiple partners.

I believe the Jewish religion is suppose to have sex as only when used for reproductive purposes, but I am not sure about that.

Funny, the Jews believe the same things about Christians and sex.

Jews have always considered sex one of God's gifts to man, made to be enjoyed for its own sake rather than only as a means to an end, and it is considered a mitzvah (a fulfilling of one of God's commandments to man) to make love to one's wife on the sabbath, since the Bible says that the sabbath was made for man to enjoy.

Jews are notoriously liberal in their attitudes towards sex, and there's nothing to forbid sex between unmarried people, although it's not overtly encouraged either. Rabbi's almost always get married, because having a family is also considerd a mitzvah, but then Rabbi's are not like priests: they're just experts on the Talmud and no holier or closer to God than anyone else.


---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

Replicant said,
//With Christianity anything done in the "Wedding Bed" is free of sin and guilt in the eyes of God. //

Yep, and I'm the Pope. Agreed that a few liberals, like the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop Spong say this sort of thing in the late 20th century; they are not in accord with the mainstream of traditional teachings.

Based on what replicant said, above, mabeuse said,

//Funny, the Jews believe the same things about Christians and sex.//

This *would be somewhat true, were replicant correct, but s/he isn't. As you point out, Jews are more pro-sex; the virtual demand on rabbis be married shows a quite different approach from most Christians'. Catholicism represents a majority of Christians in the world and hasn't quite got the point, imo, on this issue.

St. Paul states that the unmarried have an advantage in being carriers of the Gospel.:
I would have you be free from cares [as followers of Christ]. He that is unmarried is careful for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married is careful for the thing of the world, how he may please his wife. ...[and similarly for the woman] ... she that is married is careful for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 1 Cor 7:32ff RV

[NOTE: bdsm and christianity has been talked about several times, for example in these threads:

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113381&highlight=bdsm+christian

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168931&highlight=bdsm+christian ]

 

[gauchecritic]

Pure said,

//clearly mabeuse did NOT intend 'your' proposed meaning//

Clearly Mabeous agreed with your dictionary definition after you gave the dictionary definition, but his original intent of use was in large part convergant with my 'everyday' definition* and understanding.

We (at least I ) knew what he meant.

Does your dictionary include definitions for 'nit-picking', 'parochial' and 'pedantry'?

Now don't go circular on me. (and for fucks sake leave out establishing prior judgement or quoting verbatim from other threads)

Gauche


* The brackets (parentheses) precluded the technicality enclosed.

 

[Pure]

Gauche --aka "The Heroic"--said,

//Clearly Mabeous agreed with your dictionary definition after you gave the dictionary definition, but his original intent of use was in large part convergant with my 'everyday' definition* and understanding.//

You don't know his original intent, but he explicitly agreed that he wanted to say something in accord with the definition of 'theist', simply a believer in God.

Sincerely and pedanticly,

"Going Circular"

PS: Does your dictionary include the definition of _rhinoblastocaterwaulicus_?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Before this turns into a religious argument, maybe I should fine tune my question.

I was really wondering just what it is in Christianty that raises special issues regarding BDSM? What sort of things would they discuss in a Christian BDSM group that wouldn't be discussed in, say, a pagan BDSM group or an atheist BDSM group? What does it mean to be a Christian Dom or sub?

And Destinie21, you're shooting at the wrong target. I'm not requesting that you reconcile anything with "my" religion, whatever that may be.


---dr.M.

 

[MathGirl]

Originally posted by gauchecritic Does your dictionary include definitions for 'nit-picking', 'parochial' and 'pedantry'?

Dear Gauchie,
That was quite heroic of you to make such a statement. You just know the person in question will find some nits to pick, things to be narrow minded about, and make an attempt to teach you a lesson you could nicely do without.
Worshipfully,
MG, the Hemi-Hebe
Ps. Dear Dr M, Would you consider a collaboration with DurtGurl on a story with a Christian-BDSM theme? There are excellent possibilities there.

 

[Pure]

MG I love it when you talk dirty to me!

 

[oggbashan]

St Paul

St Paul is the problem with sex and Christianity.

If you remove him from the New Testament then sex and sexuality would have no conflict with most Christian belief.

Should all Christians be influenced by St Paul's hang-ups?

Og

 

[gauchecritic]

Pure said,

//You don't know his original intent//

No, I don't know his intent but I can infer something from the context rather than paste a definition over that which he implied.

Sorry Mab.

Maybe the Christian BDSMers are a 'born again' group (or fish Christians as I term them for their logo) who feel the need to proselytise at any given opportunity or at the least make it clear that they have 'let Jesus into their hearts'.

"Take this, slut. Don't you dare raise your hand to touch." Growled Theo who had found the Lord

From "I Shall Be Your Master (and jesus your saviour)" by Whoreboy[enlightened]

Edited to point out the fact that I have no problems with 'Born Agains' or other organised religions. Disorganised religions on the other hand are a bane to society.

Gauche

 

[Jenny _S]

Re: St Paul

St Paul is the problem with sex and Christianity.

If you remove him from the New Testament then sex and sexuality would have no conflict with most Christian belief.

Should all Christians be influenced by St Paul's hang-ups?

Og

I'm not so sure that Paul had quite the hang up about marriage that's been talked about here. In the passage quoted Paul is talking about his own situation. At the time he was unmarried and the passage referrers to his ability to carry on the work of the church unhindered by "family duties".

The passage goes on to give advice to the young men telling them to put off marriage until they had completed their ministry in the neighborhood.

Later on in the NT you will see that Paul had taken a wife and his travels had been quite reduced.

It seems to me Paul is more worried about dividing time between church duties and family duties, pointing out that one will always take from the other.

Does he have anything to say about BDSM. Not directly. He says "Every wife will give her husband his due." and other things. But nothing he says either condones or condemns sex or life style in anyway except where it interferes with the worship of God.

Thank you.

 

[Pure]

Jenny, thanks for your thoughtful response.

Jenny said, //Later on in the NT you will see that Paul had taken a wife //

we will??

//At the time he was unmarried and the passage referrers to his ability to carry on the work of the church unhindered by "family duties". //

Clearly not, since he said, "I would have _you_ be free of cares..."
he's talking of others' ability.

Further he goes on to to discuss how _wives_ will take less care for things of the Lord. "she that is married is careful of the things of the world, that she may care for her husband." (7:34)

//It seems to me Paul is more worried about dividing time between church duties and family duties, pointing out that one will always take from the other.//

He didn't "point it out" he claimed it; and it's not true. Being celibate and interfering with altar boys takes away from church duties.


//But nothing he says either condones or condemns sex or life style in anyway except where it interferes with the worship of God.//

Again, clearly not, e.g.
"Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous...shall inherit the kingdown of God."
1 Cor 6:49.

[Added: Should read 1 Cor 6:9-10; thanks Jenny for pointing this out.]

These are other passages indict homosexual practices and 'effeminacy' (cross dressing?) and are used to justify the churches' positions against homosexuality, which surely does not in your words "interfere with the worship of God."

 

[Pure]

mab, my friend, if you really want to know Christian bdsm and how it compares to atheist bdsm, you're gonna have to get some Christian bdsm-ers here. I believe I recall "Justina123" in another thread.

J.

 

[Jenny _S]

Jenny, thanks for your thoughtful response.

Jenny said, //Later on in the NT you will see that Paul had taken a wife //

we will??

//At the time he was unmarried and the passage referrers to his ability to carry on the work of the church unhindered by "family duties". //

clearly not, since he said, "I would have _you_ be free of cares..."
he's talking of others' ability.

further he goes on to to discuss how _wives_ will take less care for things of the Lord. "she that is married is careful of the things of the world, that she may care for her husband." (7:34)

//It seems to me Paul is more worried about dividing time between church duties and family duties, pointing out that one will always take from the other.//

He didn't "point it out" he claimed it; and it's not true. Being celiebate and interfering with altar boys takes away from church duties.


//But nothing he says either condones or condemns sex or life style in anyway except where it interferes with the worship of God.//

Again, clearly not, e.g.
"Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolatoers, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous...shall inherit the kingdown of God."
1 Cor 6:49.

These are other passages indict homosexual practices and 'effiminacy' (cross dressing?) and are used to justify the churches positions against homosexuality, which surely does not
in your words "interfere with the worship of God."

Nit Pick if you want. Go back an read. Paul makes a single reference to his wife in his later writing.

We are talking about a BDSM life style. I admit I was too general in my statement. Paul would never have condoned anything other than M-F sexual relationships. The question is, would he condone a M-F BDSM relationship. I see nothing that says he would not.

You are trying very hard to twist Paul's era with our own.

//He didn't "point it out" he claimed it; and it's not true. Being celiebate and interfering with altar boys takes away from church duties//

I can point out several errors here. (1) In Paul's time THERE WERE NO ALTERBOYS. That's something of our time, not his.

(2) Paul did not say celiebacy was the key to "good works". He said his own celiebacy was required because of his mind set on carrying out the work. If you read the chapter carefully, he never told the younger men to not get married. He said put it off while they devoted their youthful energies to the work.

 

[Pure]

Hi Jenny,

Thanks for your note:

/Go back an read./

Since you've not cited evidence or scripture to back up any of your claims, my further reading and citing are unnecessary and bootless.

Best,
J.

 

[AmericanWench]

Back to the original question

Now that there has been an apparent disection of the Bible...I believe the question was whether there was a conflict Between one's beliefs, and their interest in erotica, and/or BDSM...

AmericanWench