Christian BDSM

[JMohegan]

Spin is merely a lack of knowledge. The more knowledge one accepts as fact and as truth within their lives, the less spin can exist.

The first and most significant spin is the notion that the god discussed in the bible really does exist. Closely related is the notion that the bible itself is the word of a divine being, or divinely inspired.

Those are not facts. Those are elements of faith.

You have a right to your faith, of course. But once you start claiming it as fact, the conversation, from my perspective, ceases to have a rational basis. It's like discussing the plot and personalities of the Harry Potter series, and then having someone insist that the text proves one really can apparate.

 

[intothewoods]

<snip>
They also incorporated some Deuterocanon and Gnostic stories- that is, they also added the stories both Jews and Christians (respectively) recognized as being false, such as the reason for Satan's fall (jealousy, as opposed to arrogance), an alternate Adam and Eve story (IIRC, can't remember offhand), and Jesus' early life (which is portrayed as a 180-degree-turn in morality from His adult life).

Jews and Christians view these as false. Well, the official line. In my daily life, I know more Jews who are agnostic or atheists than I do actual believers.

In the same vein as JM's post, everyone is welcome to their belief. It's just totally bizarre to me to treat what's in any holy book as a fact that can either be proven or disputed. I just never really saw any of it through that lens, even in religious school.

 

[WriterDom]

The first and most significant spin is the notion that the god discussed in the bible really does exist. Closely related is the notion that the bible itself is the word of a divine being, or divinely inspired.

Those are not facts. Those are elements of faith.

You have a right to your faith, of course. But once you start claiming it as fact, the conversation, from my perspective, ceases to have a rational basis. It's like discussing the plot and personalities of the Harry Potter series, and then having someone insist that the text proves one really can apparate.

You have every right to believe it is 100% factual. What you don't have a right to do is to enforce your beliefs on anyone else, or have government endorsing a religion.

That includes the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin and wrong in God's eyes. Because the book says so. You don't get to rewrite the parts you don't like.

Civil unions are a state affair, so I believe they have every right to "marriage equivalent" protections.

I see a lot of wiggle room for gays myself since probably more of the bible deals with slavery and that's pretty much considered universally wrong in 97% of the world.

And as far as the Koran goes, you'll never see it bound together with the Jewish/Christian bible. I'm pretty sure that would get you beheaded even in Iowa.

 

[intothewoods]

You have every right to believe it is 100% factual. What you don't have a right to do is to enforce your beliefs on anyone else, or have government endorsing a religion.

That includes the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin and wrong in God's eyes. Because the book says so. You don't get to rewrite the parts you don't like.

Civil unions are a state affair, so I believe they have every right to "marriage equivalent" protections.

I see a lot of wiggle room for gays myself since probably more of the bible deals with slavery and that's pretty much considered universally wrong in 97% of the world.

And as far as the Koran goes, you'll never see it bound together with the Jewish/Christian bible. I'm pretty sure that would get you beheaded even in Iowa.

There are two different issues here - treating a belief as fact in conversation and wanting/expecting the laws to reflect those beliefs.

In terms of conversation, anyone can believe anything they want, but it's impossible for two people to have a conversation that goes anywhere if they can't even agree on what a fact is.

How do you reconcile this:

That includes the right to believe that homosexuality is a sin and wrong in God's eyes. Because the book says so. You don't get to rewrite the parts you don't like.

with this:

I see a lot of wiggle room for gays myself since probably more of the bible deals with slavery and that's pretty much considered universally wrong in 97% of the world.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Is there any place in the Bible that specifically condemns slavery as such?

There are, of course, times when some hero leads the Hebrew tribes out of slavery. But not because slavery is wrong in of itself. Seems to m the Jews get themselves a bunch of slaves about ten minutes after they free themselves from the Egyptians.

 

[Netzach]

Is there any place in the Bible that specifically condemns slavery as such?

There are, of course, times when some hero leads the Hebrew tribes out of slavery. But not because slavery is wrong in of itself. Seems to m the Jews get themselves a bunch of slaves about ten minutes after they free themselves from the Egyptians.

Not in part 1. The concept seems to have fallen out of favor with Maimonedes somewhat, but there's no clear argument against in the middle ages - you find the meme catching on with the rest of the world when abolition of the trade and Wilburforce happened.

 

[Ravenwind]

The first and most significant spin is the notion that the god discussed in the bible really does exist. Closely related is the notion that the bible itself is the word of a divine being, or divinely inspired.

Those are not facts. Those are elements of faith.

You have a right to your faith, of course. But once you start claiming it as fact, the conversation, from my perspective, ceases to have a rational basis. It's like discussing the plot and personalities of the Harry Potter series, and then having someone insist that the text proves one really can apparate.

At risk of arguing semantics between faiths... I mean "under the assumption of the first two as being true". I mean, one cannot very well say "Jesus saves" while not believing "Jesus was a real person" ya know? One must be accepted as fact for the other to be held as truth. If one says "I believe the Bible is truth", yet throws out "this, this, and that" in favor of their own belief based on a misinterpreted line taken out of context, then it is no longer fact, but merely opinion.

I wouldn't say they are spin, because of the fact that there are no facts saying "God does or does not exist" or "The Bible is or is not God's words" beyond heresay, personal experience, and belief. There are no statements of fact to twist or mess up in any way.

 

[Ravenwind]

Is there any place in the Bible that specifically condemns slavery as such?

There are, of course, times when some hero leads the Hebrew tribes out of slavery. But not because slavery is wrong in of itself. Seems to m the Jews get themselves a bunch of slaves about ten minutes after they free themselves from the Egyptians.

1 Tim. 1:8-11 puts slave traders (also translated as "menstealers" in the KJV) alongside a whole slew of miscreant types (murderers, liars, ungodly, sexually immoral, etc), as being the reason that the Law was created.

Knowing that murder, lying, unholiness, and sexual immorality is condemned, that puts the slave trade (as in, forced slavery... the bad stuff we hate today) in the same boat as them. That, however, does not condemn slavery by choice (that is, giving the gift of yourself to another out of love)- such as what a freed slave feels toward a master whom he loves like family, a free Christian is toward God, or what is practiced here.

In the end, I would say that since no slave trader was wanted to be a slave himself, it doesn't exactly fall under "love your neighbor as yourself", and thus is worthy of condemnation. That said, there's always the opportunity of forgiveness (the writer for Amazing Grace was once a slaver himself).

 

[WriterDom]

You'd think that no slavery would be a ten commandment after the Egyptian experience. But I guess it was pretty much all over that region back then. The Romans were big on slaves and a no slavery clause would have limited appeal to the Roman Empire. That's a pragmatic way to look at it.

The OT god was pretty brutal anyway. All about killing everyone within the city walls except for the virgins who were enslaved. Also seems like I read something about taking Babylon babies and crushing their heads on the rocks. Not sure if that is before or after the talking donkey.

 

[Ravenwind]

You'd think that no slavery would be a ten commandment after the Egyptian experience. But I guess it was pretty much all over that region back then. The Romans were big on slaves and a no slavery clause would have limited appeal to the Roman Empire. That's a pragmatic way to look at it.

The OT god was pretty brutal anyway. All about killing everyone within the city walls except for the virgins who were enslaved. Also seems like I read something about taking Babylon babies and crushing their heads on the rocks. Not sure if that is before or after the talking donkey.

True, but I think that's one of those things people are bound to screw up, regardless of how it's worded. I mean, look at carnivory, cities, and kings- God practically threw His hands up with those and said "Whatever. Do what you want, but when you have problems, don't blame Me". At least with slavery, we got our collective heads out of our asses on that. At best, Eph. 6:9 says for the master and slave to treat one another with the same respect, because God doesn't play favorites based on worldly status.

No more or less brutal than how He acts in the NT- If the events of Revelation took place here and now, about 5 billion people would die, far more than the whole of the deaths in the OT. And, yes, you did, but that was in regards to a war that would happen because of a continued want to do evil (I can't remember the exact verses atm, but had just been talking about this a couple weeks ago... it was akin to "if you didn't repent, this would happen. If you still didn't, that would happen. If you *still* didn't, your city would be laid to waste by war, you'd suffer from famine, and your kids would be killed", and I'm pretty sure it was afterward... this is gonna bug me all day until I find it again, I just know it). Knowing that, is it really God's fault for being "brutal", when the people had *plenty* of warning beforehand?

 

[JMohegan]

At risk of arguing semantics between faiths... I mean "under the assumption of the first two as being true". I mean, one cannot very well say "Jesus saves" while not believing "Jesus was a real person" ya know? One must be accepted as fact for the other to be held as truth. If one says "I believe the Bible is truth", yet throws out "this, this, and that" in favor of their own belief based on a misinterpreted line taken out of context, then it is no longer fact, but merely opinion.

I wouldn't say they are spin, because of the fact that there are no facts saying "God does or does not exist" or "The Bible is or is not God's words" beyond heresay, personal experience, and belief. There are no statements of fact to twist or mess up in any way.

Where there is need for interpretation, there will be opinions and they will differ. You say you "get it" and others "misinterpret," but in the absence of the actual author or a universally recognized judicial body to resolve the dispute, who's to say which of you is correct?

The pope says using birth control is a sin. Other Christians disagree. From a biblical perspective, which opinion is more valid?

The answer is: neither. Because a code with "heresay, personal experience, and belief" as its foundation by definition can not be upheld using proof, ultimate authority, or the usual standards of reason.

 

[Ravenwind]

Where there is need for interpretation, there will be opinions and they will differ. You say you "get it" and others "misinterpret," but in the absence of the actual author or a universally recognized judicial body to resolve the dispute, who's to say which of you is correct?

The pope says using birth control is a sin. Other Christians disagree. From a biblical perspective, which opinion is more valid?

The answer is: neither. Because a code with "heresay, personal experience, and belief" as its foundation by definition can not be upheld using proof, ultimate authority, or the usual standards of reason.

The thing is, is the Bible itself is considered as the ultimate earthly authority by Protestants (whereas the Pope is, by Catholics), yet both consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Now, there is a line in the Bible that would prevent people from misinterpreting it: "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." Simply put, if what you're being told ain't the same as what's in the Bible, you're being misled.

Jesus gave us two commandments: "Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength; and love your neighbor as you would want to be loved yourself. In these two, the whole of the Law and the Commandments are fulfilled." If we set our mind on anything other than God as our #1 priority and focus in life, it is sin. If we hurt someone else (and I suppose for the case of masochists, *not* hurt them in the ways that are good for them), it is sin.

Now, in the Bible, where does it say "birth control is a sin"? Nowhere. It *does* say "Go forth and multiply", and therefore we know having children is considered good, but if you have so many children through lack of birth control that you cannot provide for them all, by allowing them to suffer, it isn't "loving them as you love yourself", for even though *you* would want to be fed, you cannot do the same unto them... and *that* would be a sin.

You see, going to church doesn't save (otherwise the Pharisees would've been first on the "saved" list), paying tithes doesn't save (again, Pharisees would've been tops), and following "the rules" (or looking for loopholes in the rules) doesn't save either (once again, Pharisees got those down pat). What saves is how much we trust in God, instead of mortal man.

There are some who would say "you cannot be saved if you don't acknowledge Saturday as the sabbath", yet Jesus said the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath- it is meant for *us* to take a break, just as God took a break. There are some who would say "you cannot be saved if you partake in holidays", yet the Bible says "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind"- whatever floats your boat, float it in the name of God. There are some who would say "Call the man who teaches you 'Father', for he is the one who taught you", yet Jesus said "Call no man 'Father', for you have one who is your Father, and He is in Heaven. Call no man 'Teacher', for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers"- earthly titles don't mean squat in the long run. All the rules and trappings of religion are just that... rules and trappings. If you don't have faith in God, and love for your fellowman, all else is in vain... and if you *do* have faith in God, and love for your fellowman, nothing else really matters.

 

[JMohegan]

Now, in the Bible, where does it say "birth control is a sin"? Nowhere. It *does* say "Go forth and multiply", and therefore we know having children is considered good, but if you have so many children through lack of birth control that you cannot provide for them all, by allowing them to suffer, it isn't "loving them as you love yourself", for even though *you* would want to be fed, you cannot do the same unto them... and *that* would be a sin.

I'll see your post, and raise you an Encyclical Letter.

Your spin + his spin = precisely my point.

 

[Ravenwind]

I'll see your post, and raise you an Encyclical Letter.

Your spin + his spin = precisely my point.

Then I would ask of you something he does not. Go, search the Bible, and find out the truth for yourself. Determine for yourself whom is right.

 

[JMohegan]

Then I would ask of you something he does not. Go, search the Bible, and find out the truth for yourself. Determine for yourself whom is right.

I don't rely on centuries old texts of dubious origin in deciding what's right and what's wrong. I was raised to think for myself.

 

[Ravenwind]

I don't rely on centuries old texts of dubious origin in deciding what's right and what's wrong. I was raised to think for myself.

And what have you learned, in what right and wrong are?

 

[JMohegan]

And what have you learned, in what right and wrong are?

I consider birth control to be a critical tool of empowerment for women, an essential means of controlling population growth in an already crowded world, a key factor in the health of a great many people, and a liberating tool for human sexual intimacy in general.

 

[Ravenwind]

I consider birth control to be a critical tool of empowerment for women, an essential means of controlling population growth in an already crowded world, a key factor in the health of a great many people, and a liberating tool for human sexual intimacy in general.

Then, is there a time for when it is right, and a time for when it is wrong?

 

[JMohegan]

Then, is there a time for when it is right, and a time for when it is wrong?

It is right to use birth control if either party does not actively seek a child from sexual congress. It is wrong to use birth control if both parties do.

How would you answer the same question?

 

[Ravenwind]

It is right to use birth control if either party does not actively seek a child from sexual congress. It is wrong to use birth control if both parties do.

How would you answer the same question?

Essentially, the same as you... barring the use of the phrase "sexual congress", of course. "Congress" and "sex" do not mix. lol

But, what would you say to a more gray issue, such as in regards to rape? Is abortion worth it? Where do you draw the line at "right" and "wrong"... whose life takes priority, the child (who did not ask to be conceived, and does not deserve to die), or the mother (who did not ask to be raped, and does not deserve to have her lifestyle altered)? Do you feel that there a way to eliminate suffering for both parties, or must one suffer and be denied their future, for the sake of the other?

 

[JMohegan]

Essentially, the same as you... barring the use of the phrase "sexual congress", of course. "Congress" and "sex" do not mix. lol

But, what would you say to a more gray issue, such as in regards to rape? Is abortion worth it? Where do you draw the line at "right" and "wrong"... whose life takes priority, the child (who did not ask to be conceived, and does not deserve to die), or the mother (who did not ask to be raped, and does not deserve to have her lifestyle altered)? Do you feel that there a way to eliminate suffering for both parties, or must one suffer and be denied their future, for the sake of the other?

Pre-fetal viability, it's none of my business what you do with your body. Talk to your doctor, talk to your partner, pore over your ancient texts, whatever. If you want my advice, I'll give it. If you want me to declare what's right and what's wrong, I will not.

 

[SubMrs]

I am a serious practitioner of a fulltime BDSM lifestyle and I consider myself a Christian. My husband and I were married in a church. We attend church regularly. Neither of us is promiscuous which I think is the primary dictate of Christianity concerning sexual practices between consenting adults.

Furthermore, I don't think God objects and I don't think anyone else SHOULD object if I attend church in subtly disguised restraints!

 

[darkhand06]

I just feel I need to put in my 2 cents as well. I think a large portion of the problem is the legalistic view the Christian community has developed over the centuries. The 2 things we are commanded to do is love God and lover each other. Everything in the old testament was made moot by Jesus but we can each individually choose to obey some or all of those laws based on what we are moved to do in honor of God. Many of those rules DO make our lives better but we shouldn't condemn each other based on if we do or don't do certain things. At the time it was about what we ate, now its sexual preferences. As long as we are doing what we are doing with the love of God and the love of our partner, it doesn't matter. If you are hurting someone as a dominance thing that the partner isn't willingly into and enjoying (or at least a participant in the underlying ideas such as gender separation and dominance) it than in my opinion its wrong. If its a consensual thing that is part of the loving joining of two people than its ok. Its not the action but the motivation.

 

[brigel]

I am a serious practitioner of a fulltime BDSM lifestyle and I consider myself a Christian. My husband and I were married in a church. We attend church regularly. Neither of us is promiscuous which I think is the primary dictate of Christianity concerning sexual practices between consenting adults.

Furthermore, I don't think God objects and I don't think anyone else SHOULD object if I attend church in subtly disguised restraints!

Agreed, I don't think the two should be mutually exclusive.