Christianity & BDSM ???

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

"Oh those christians they are so staunch they only have sex for babies and even then its only missionary style."

Heard that phrase often? I have.

Christianity and sex its been a strange twisted dark road.

From the church fathers some of whom left thier wives for thier beliefs, from baptists televangelists picking up a little skin on the corner, from catholic priests and bishops and cardinals plowing boys bums in confessional, from break away faiths/cults whose oversexed leaders used continued revelation to condon thier promiscuious ways. The list can and does go on, there is not one sect that holds any ties to christianity that does not have some dark closet secret hidden away about sexual activities.

So lets not look at what denomination might say over another about lets take a peek between the pages all christian tied religions have in common the bible.

What does the bible say is inappropriate sexual relations? Well first before we begin it should be known that the bible is a guide book for those who believe in it, christians, it is not a guide or any authority over those who do no believe in it. So if a christian tried to condemn someone who is not a christian by right of the bible, there condemnation is worthless and null arguement as the bible's instructions are not meant for the nonchristian.

Ok where was I? Oh yeah What does the Bible say is inappropriate sexual relations? For a christan there seem to be 3 things that are inappropriate. Sexual relations outside of marriage. Sexual relations with the common gender. and sexual relations with multiple partners.

So the number one thing that the bible seems to say about sexual relations is that sexual relations should be between a man and woman and within the confines of marriage.

Aside from being man and wife there seem to no regulations of what can and cannot go on in a sexual relations.

Now WriterDom, presented some verse that are what some like to call "proof texts". Proof texts are texts that are hauled out used to prove a view point. The problem with proof texting is that they are generally, and in the case Writer Dom gave, taken completely out of context.

What was presented is usually what most feminist, the mean kind, like to present and say that the bible is written by chauvinistic males. And the sheeple{cross breed between people and sheep, looks like a person but follows the leader regardless what the leader does, just like a sheep} women who follow them accept that blindly with out ever opening the bible and seeing what is actually being said at the time with that quoted chauvinistic verse.

Anyways, Sorry got sidetracked there, I apologize. In Conclusion, the Bible the basis of what ever christiaty sect you want to adher to or look at simply says the man and his woman must be married for sexual relations. There is no restrictions on what that man and woman partake of for sexual relations in there bonds of marriage.

On a side note, there are a few passages that speak of how we are to care for our body and not purposely damage unto it, as it in a few places is refered to as our Temple for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and should be a ready vessel. But again like with anything else, the bible is written for the believer and can only be used in guideline for the believer.

Anywho, I been much to long and boring, I hope that wasn't to confusiling. Thanks.

Take care.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Actually, Todd, strictly speaking the Bible doesn't require people to be married in order for sexual relations to be sanctioned; there just have to be extenuating circumstances. King Solomon's concubines and Isaac's offering of his daughter to appease the invading tribes are examples of apparently sanctioned extra-marital relations, and there are many more.

 

[WriterDom]

I have two questions:

Did you see any BDSM activity when you had your near death experience and decended into hell?

And is Songs of Solomon about God's love for Israel?

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Actually, Todd, strictly speaking the Bible doesn't require people to be married in order for sexual relations to be sanctioned; there just have to be extenuating circumstances. King Solomon's concubines and Isaac's offering of his daughter to appease the invading tribes are examples of apparently sanctioned extra-marital relations, and there are many more.

dispensations and covenants

through out the bible God's main thought process on marriage is one man and one woman married till death. that is his large scope view.

in proper bible study, homeletics, you grab all the verses/passages bearing on theme togehter and define from them what is God's will, from that any that divirge from the large scope view must be looked at and thier circumstances. and how they apply to the large scope view. Often will be found that , as in the examples aboive and others that could be named in regrads to sex, that God did not, nor does he look favorably upon these instances of plural partners or extramartial sex.

Sorry for rambling.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

I have two questions:

Did you see any BDSM activity when you had your near death experience and decended into hell?

And is Songs of Solomon about God's love for Israel?

In my Near death experience the only things I saw was the darkfire and flames around me and that which spoke to me and pushed me out at the end, though I could hear the anguish around me but I could not see to where or whence it orginated.

And before you have to ask, no it the sounds did not sound sexual in nature to me.

As for the Song of Solomon it has been said to have a threefold definition of what it is describing.

1. The tale of two lovers, which is its literal interpretation.
2. God's Love for Isael, which was its immediate over view.
3. Christ's love for his bride the church, which was its future prophetic view from the time.

 

[RisiaSkye]

dispensations and covenants

through out the bible God's main thought process on marriage is one man and one woman married till death. that is his large scope view.

No offense, Todd, but I find the idea that one man can presume to know "God's main thought process" laughable; that kind of hubris is the very problem I have with Christian dogmatists.

in proper bible study, homeletics, you grab all the verses/passages bearing on theme togehter and define from them what is God's will, from that any that divirge from the large scope view must be looked at and thier circumstances. and how they apply to the large scope view. Often will be found that , as in the examples aboive and others that could be named in regrads to sex, that God did not, nor does he look favorably upon these instances of plural partners or extramartial sex.

Sorry for rambling.

But, when taken in context with the whole storyline of individual characters, he clearly did not deem it a sin worthy of eternal damnation, either. Something more than a few Christian fundamentalists could stand to keep in mind.

Then again, some of those guys (Swaggart, Bakker, Roberts, etc.) are out fucking around, so presumably they've already figured it out. They just haven't deigned to share that tidbit with their congregations.

Again, I hope you already know that I have no personal beef with you, Todd. I just like to argue about theology.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

No offense, Todd, but I find the idea that one man can presume to know "God's main thought process" laughable; that kind of hubris is the very problem I have with Christian dogmatists.


But, when taken in context with the whole storyline of individual characters, he clearly did not deem it a sin worthy of eternal damnation, either. Something more than a few Christian fundamentalists could stand to keep in mind.

Then again, some of those guys (Swaggart, Bakker, Roberts, etc.) are out fucking around, so presumably they've already figured it out. They just haven't deigned to share that tidbit with their congregations.

Again, I hope you already know that I have no personal beef with you, Todd. I just like to argue about theology.

So what God has revealed of his main thought process I am just supposed to ignore?

Nowhere does it imply sin condemns one to hell, the only implication is the rejection of a free gift. Noted is the fact we all are sinners unworthy to do it ourselves.

thiose guys i imagine will be sorely surprised when/if they arrive through the pearlie's. 5 crowns of . . . blah, blah, blah, Dante's inferno, yada, yada, yada, a speech for another time another place.

I am glad, I just wish more people who did would study your style of arguementation

 

[RisiaSkye]

So what God has revealed of his main thought process I am just supposed to ignore?

Nowhere does it imply sin condemns one to hell, the only implication is the rejection of a free gift. Noted is the fact we all are sinners unworthy to do it ourselves.

thiose guys i imagine will be sorely surprised when/if they arrive through the pearlie's. 5 crowns of . . . blah, blah, blah, Dante's inferno, yada, yada, yada, a speech for another time another place.

I am glad, I just wish more people who did would study your style of arguementation

No, I certainly don't mean to suggest that you should "ignore" the Scripture, which you--as do many others--hold to be the word of God. I just find is suspicious that the same people who claim to be in tune with the core teachings of the Book can't seem to agree, even amongst themselves, on what it means. To me, this is just one of many indicators that we tend to rather egotistically see God as some kind of human--as though Divinity has a "thought process." Why would perfected enlightenment need a process? Wouldn't the thought itself be sufficient? Why a development curve?

And thanks for the comment about argument style.
I think.

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

No, I certainly don't mean to suggest that you should "ignore" the Scripture, which you--as do many others--hold to be the word of God. I just find is suspicious that the same people who claim to be in tune with the core teachings of the Book can't seem to agree, even amongst themselves, on what it means. To me, this is just one of many indicators that we tend to rather egotistically see God as some kind of human--as though Divinity has a "thought process." Why would perfected enlightenment need a process? Wouldn't the thought itself be sufficient? Why a development curve?

And thanks for the comment about argument style.
I think.

I understand what you mean that so many people read the same book and come out with so many different conclusions. Its a sad fact that many times we let our own ideas and wants interpret what we read. I think for the most part i have gotten past that {took me nearly 6 years but still working on it} and have gotten to letting the bible interprete the bible. a lot of the time it doesn't intpret to say what I would like it to say and that is the place where I am the one that has to do the changing. But many of these other people sadly, like to change the bible to suit thier needs, instead of themselves to suit the bibles . Did that makes sense, probably not cause I said it?

I use ther term thought process for what God revelaed of his actions cause its a bit easier to understand than ubiquity or some other fancy word. you probably heard the old Saying of KISS, when it comes to learning or oteaching or understanding something? Keep It Simple Stupid!! Yes God is a complicated fellow to figure out, well trying to figure out an infinite God with a finite mind is enough to blow a few sparkplugs. I simply try to put what I can know about him, by what he has revealed of himself in terms that I can understand. Make sense probably not

Yes it was a compliment to your arguement/debate style. Many simply mudsling without any effort to do anything constructive. Your arguements, points, help me to refine, sand, rasp away at my own belief structure. Did that makes sense?

Thanks Risia. Feel free to spank me, but be gentle please, no strapon-s just yet or piericings or cuttings. tie me and tease me, use me but don't hurt me.

 

[RisiaSkye]

I understand what you mean that so many people read the same book and come out with so many different conclusions. Its a sad fact that many times we let our own ideas and wants interpret what we read. I think for the most part i have gotten past that {took me nearly 6 years but still working on it} and have gotten to letting the bible interprete the bible. a lot of the time it doesn't intpret to say what I would like it to say and that is the place where I am the one that has to do the changing. But many of these other people sadly, like to change the bible to suit thier needs, instead of themselves to suit the bibles . Did that makes sense, probably not cause I said it?

Well, you must be getting to me then, because I thought it made sense.

I use ther term thought process for what God revelaed of his actions cause its a bit easier to understand than ubiquity or some other fancy word. you probably heard the old Saying of KISS, when it comes to learning or oteaching or understanding something? Keep It Simple Stupid!! Yes God is a complicated fellow to figure out, well trying to figure out an infinite God with a finite mind is enough to blow a few sparkplugs. I simply try to put what I can know about him, by what he has revealed of himself in terms that I can understand. Make sense probably not

Alrighty then. I'm just a stickler for precision in language. But I see what you meant.

Yes it was a compliment to your arguement/debate style. Many simply mudsling without any effort to do anything constructive. Your arguements, points, help me to refine, sand, rasp away at my own belief structure. Did that makes sense?

It did, and thank you. I consider that quite a compliment.
I like the idea that we can disagree but still get along, and use the discussion to understand our own positions better. That's the Socratic model actually *working*!

Feel free to spank me, but be gentle please, no strapon-s just yet or piericings or cuttings. tie me and tease me, use me but don't hurt me.

Now that's a plan.
I just want it noted, Todd asked me to spank him. Consider this consensual:

*SPANK*

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Well, you must be getting to me then, because I thought it made sense.

Alrighty then. I'm just a stickler for precision in language. But I see what you meant.

It did, and thank you. I consider that quite a compliment.
I like the idea that we can disagree but still get along, and use the discussion to understand our own positions better. That's the Socratic model actually *working*!

Now that's a plan.
I just want it noted, Todd asked me to spank him. Consider this consensual:
*SPANK*

Wow I made sense to you, I barely do to myself

I sorely lack for precision of language, where most people are left or right brained, I am bi brained meaning, What i think in my head is on what side and then when I try to express that the other brain tries to and usually inadequately. If I could ever get both halves working together I would be a dangerous fellow

Socratic Model exactly what I was thinking only without the fancy name. I have never seen why disagreement should mean people can't get along, we are all human and we are all unique, if we were all the same it wouldn't be fun or interesting. I would think it rather boring to me if everyone agreed with me.

that felt nice, may I have another or maybe something else if you would prefer.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Alright, Todd.
Hands behind your back while I put this blindfold on you.
Right, now just bend forward over this chair.
Comfortable?
Good.

*bringing out the soft suede flogger*

*smack*

How was that for you? One more?

*SMACK*

Ah...very satisfying.
Was it good for you?

 

[Todd-'o'-Vision]

Alright, Todd.
Hands behind your back while I put this blindfold on you.
Right, now just bend forward over this chair.
Comfortable?
Good.

*bringing out the soft suede flogger*

*smack*

How was that for you? One more?

*SMACK*

Ah...very satisfying.
Was it good for you?

Hey there is something to this this spanking thing after all isn't there. BDSM isn't as painful as I imagined it would be, i can handle this level.

What else can we do at this level of enjoyment?