RE: Christianity and BDSM (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


CuriousLord -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (12/31/2007 4:17:58 PM)

True. I believe we're chemical reactions.. that our bodies are us. Not that our brains are some kind of antenna for a mystical "soul" that spawns elsewhere in the universe and happens to just correspond with our bodies. I believe that our emotions are phenominia associated with our bodies. In short, I believe in scientific things.

If you believe that "love" is some mystical, magical thing.. just because it makes you feel in odd ways.. well, I'm sorry, but I can't relate to such vulgar assumptions.

Faith, my friend, is blind; as are the faithful.




dcnovice -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 2:40:16 PM)

Perhaps it would help if we shift from love (which does have chemical and physical components) to, say, justice or freedom. Are these things "real" (whatever that means) or merely mental constructs?




hermione83 -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 2:46:26 PM)

quote:

If you believe that "love" is some mystical, magical thing.. just because it makes you feel in odd ways.. well, I'm sorry, but I can't relate to such vulgar assumptions.


Do you have a clue what love is, at all, dear? Maybe you're referring to lust, infatuation, feelings of comfort or security, or a million other things. Love isn't a feeling or an emotion. Feelings come and go. Love is constant, unconditional, and many other things - one of which is putting the one you love before yourself. Giving up things, laying down your life for their safety, among others. It has nothing to do with a chemical rush.




dcnovice -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 2:51:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I'd just caution that simply because something isn't scientifically verifiable now, doesn't mean it will never be verifiable.

Of course, the imp in me wants to ask if the premise that everything must be scientifically verifiable is itself scientifically verifiable. [:)]


The idea of verifiable is that that effected the world in a way that's verifiable.. not something that's dependent on time. Sort of like, X-rays were always verifiable, regardless of our lack of understanding or ability to verifiy them. ("Verifiable" being in the absolute sense.) I believe it's a semantic difference of usage we have here, as I can see what you mean about "verifiable" being something along the lines of "able to be verified at the current time with current technology".

Hah, you can tell the imp that non-real constructs aren't scientifically testable.. that they differ, though, from the notion of God in that the notion of God claims that there's something physically real out there, while the notion of verification is only a method for testing what's real. ;)

(Ever played an MMORPG? Imps are such funny creatures in those..)


(Emphasis mine)

My old brain percolates slowly, so I've been musing over the whole scientifically verifiable question between glasses of champagne.

If I'm reading CL right, he seems to be saying that the axiom that something must be scientifically verifiable to exist is a "non-real construct."

That leads me to wonder: If CL organizes his worldview around one non-real construct (something must be scientifically verifiable to exist) and I organize mine around another (there may be a spiritual dimension to life, the universe, and everything), are we really all that different?




hermione83 -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 3:09:13 PM)

quote:

As a Priest once told me in confession "Fornication is not breaking one of Gods commandments. The bible speaks of fornication but does not label the action as a sin."


What a shame that you were given such very, very POOR shrift. I would expect a minister to know such simple things, such as -

1 Cor 6
8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

which is repeated over and over in the Bible (that fornicators, the sexually immoral, adulterors etc will not inherit the Kingdom of God). Not to mention there are some references to sex = marriage. Therefore, if you have sex, you are married in spirit in God's eyes. So anyone else you have sex with WOULD be considered adultery, which you at least admitted was a sin. I don't believe anything strictly between a married couple, sexually, could be wrong - as the marriage bed is undefiled, it says in the Bible. Such as sodomy, etc, as you mentioned were meant for sanitary and disease protection more than anything, imho. As long as it was in the context of marriage, and doing nothing to damage the "temple" I think you're golden. Otherwise, if you're burning for each other... well, get married, and enjoy each other then. Before that, get to know each other, learn what you want one day, but don't partake in any sexual acts before that - if you want to follow God.

PS: Sin is not something that is just a bad idea or not recommended. There are a few things like that in the Bible, but fornication, nor being a "drunkard" are some of them. Maybe some of Solomon's ideas of wisdom would be along the lines of what you say. Sin will keep you out of heaven and is a death sentence. It says they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Pretty serious stuff..




thornhappy -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 3:16:29 PM)

Get married to have sex....that worked so well in the '50s, didn't it.

Personally, I believe sin is the intent to do harm.  If two people are in a healthy relationship, I personally see no sin in them fornicating.

thornhappy




hermione83 -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 3:20:13 PM)

I didn't mean people should get married just to have sex. Obviously, I meant if they love each other, and they can't stop thinking about sex it might be time to make the lifetime commitment and get married. And if not, then put yourself in a situation where it isn't such a tempation all the time until you can. And what was wrong with the 50s, anyway?




Rule -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 3:49:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
the notion of God claims that there's something physically real out there

That is a false claim. The Divine is not physically real, as the Divine is 'outside' our universe. On the other hand the various incarnations of aspects of the Divine - the gods - are physically real and may be (and have been) kicked.




Rule -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 5:01:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermione83
1 Cor 6
8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.


quote:

ORIGINAL: hermione83
which is repeated over and over in the Bible (that fornicators, the sexually immoral, adulterors etc will not inherit the Kingdom of God). Not to mention there are some references to sex = marriage. Therefore, if you have sex, you are married in spirit in God's eyes. So anyone else you have sex with WOULD be considered adultery, which you at least admitted was a sin. I don't believe anything strictly between a married couple, sexually, could be wrong - as the marriage bed is undefiled, it says in the Bible. Such as sodomy, etc, as you mentioned were meant for sanitary and disease protection more than anything, imho. As long as it was in the context of marriage, and doing nothing to damage the "temple" I think you're golden. Otherwise, if you're burning for each other... well, get married, and enjoy each other then. Before that, get to know each other, learn what you want one day, but don't partake in any sexual acts before that - if you want to follow God.

Quite.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermione83
PS: Sin is not something that is just a bad idea or not recommended. There are a few things like that in the Bible, but fornication, nor being a "drunkard" are some of them. Maybe some of Solomon's ideas of wisdom would be along the lines of what you say. Sin will keep you out of heaven and is a death sentence. It says they will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Pretty serious stuff..

Quite. To which I add that the original sinners - i.e. adherents of Sin, the Moon god - from my point of view were the - relatively - good people. Later they got a bad rep and the concept of sin as a negative feedback trigger was conceived. This was a primary magical defense against the children - often drunkards - of the minions of Satan. (Satan and his minions themselves are not subject to sin, as they have no innate ethical norms, so whatever they perpetrate, they will not feel any guilt for doing so.)
 
quote: "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites"
 
It has been about twenty years since the first and only time that I read the Bible, so I am not on strong footing here. What should always be taken into consideration when reading the New Testament, is that those texts were not written by christians. They were accepted by christians during the conference of Nicea, but they were written by jews that were pathfinding a new, christian way. As a consequence the texts may be corrupted by jewish morality.
 
In the quoted sentence I suspect that the part that I made fat is jewish morality corrupting the christian text. Except for the idolaters, all of those categories refer to sexual activities that increase the transmission of sexual diseases: the jewish obsession. Consequently this part of the text is a jewish corruption of a christian text.
 
As for the idolaters, the gods of the jews were rather jealous gods, especially the last one, the Shepherd Lord. It was his age, so I suppose that his edict against worshipping the other gods and especially their idols was necessary. (Curiously, the catholics still worship idols in the form of statues and likenesses of saints - and christians have as their common idol of course the crucified Jesus.) However, as all the gods were created by the Creator, and thus all of them are divine, Satan included, and since the age of the Shepherd Lord is long past, it stands to reason that all of them may be worshipped, though it is probably best to preferably worship the Divine only.
 
As for the idols of the saints and hinduistic idols and those of other cultures, they function primarily as a means to focus the spiritual energy of the worshipper and I do not see anything wrong with that, but some people will achieve the same results without those attributes.
 
Adultery as a means of sexual selection by females benefits the evolution of our species, so that is christian in my book.
 
One of my friends was homosexual and an incarnation of the Goddess of Slaves and denying him the Kingdom of God certainly would not be christian.
 
As to fornication, the way I perceive this is as having indiscriminate sexual intercourse not for reason of love, but for reason of lust. This is detrimental to the evolution of our species. Prostitutes do have access to the Kingdom of God, though.
 
Lastly sodomites. As hermione wrote: as long as it is within the sanctiomony of marriage - or another type of exclusive relationship - and both partners are free of sexually transmitted diseases, it is permitted.




CuriousLord -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 5:31:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
the notion of God claims that there's something physically real out there

That is a false claim. The Divine is not physically real, as the Divine is 'outside' our universe. On the other hand the various incarnations of aspects of the Divine - the gods - are physically real and may be (and have been) kicked.


I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but, by definition, if it interacts with our universe at all- even if this interaction can be characterized as a one-way deal- it's physical. If you say there's an entirely non-physical thing.. then it doesn't exist, by definition.




CuriousLord -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 5:34:38 PM)

Ah, my friend.. I thought you were asking for the viablity of testing for the existence of a god versus the testing of the viability of scientific endevor.

If you're trying to compare the two, apple's to apple's, yes.. you can prove the existence of the thought process I'm using, in the same respect you can prove the existence of the thought process of a God. However.. it's my point that the notion of a God makes an assumption that something out there exists.. an assumption for which I have no counterpart.

I imagine we're really not all that different.. just the assumption of a God, this minor point, that makes this world of difference in view.




dcnovice -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 5:37:49 PM)

How would you set about proving the axiom "Something must be scientifically verifiable to exist"? Help this unscientific American understand! [:)]




dcnovice -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 5:40:25 PM)

quote:

it's my point that the notion of a God makes an assumption that something out there exists


Fwiw, I'd say I assume it's a possibility that God exists. I don't claim sure knowledge of it. Being a Unitarian, I don't claim sure knowledge of much of anything. [:)]




CuriousLord -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 5:45:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hermione83
quote:

If you believe that "love" is some mystical, magical thing.. just because it makes you feel in odd ways.. well, I'm sorry, but I can't relate to such vulgar assumptions.


Do you have a clue what love is, at all, dear? Maybe you're referring to lust, infatuation, feelings of comfort or security, or a million other things. Love isn't a feeling or an emotion. Feelings come and go. Love is constant, unconditional, and many other things - one of which is putting the one you love before yourself. Giving up things, laying down your life for their safety, among others. It has nothing to do with a chemical rush.


It seems that innocence is the cost of progress. How often must one weigh the contradicting motivations for enlightenment and bliss?

You're a rather adorable girl. May love find you warmly.




CuriousLord -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 5:49:42 PM)

Science is the art of observing the movements of the universe. If the universe can, in all of time, never do something.. then it, for all practical purposes, doesn't exist. Further, this also means that it's not scientifically verifiable.

If you'd humor me and imagine a world, maybe a million years down the road, in which humanity is hugely advanced. Scientists in this world can tell you the exact interaction and state of the universe flawless (in other words, they have collosial computing power and perfect laws). If, at this point, the entire universe can be flawlessly described in a model which doesn't include a diety.. then does this system not, by definition, disprove a diety?

Then it is my point that, if a diety should exist, it should be scientifically verifiable.




CuriousLord -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 5:54:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:

it's my point that the notion of a God makes an assumption that something out there exists


Fwiw, I'd say I assume it's a possibility that God exists. I don't claim sure knowledge of it. Being a Unitarian, I don't claim sure knowledge of much of anything. [:)]


Perhaps the best stance of all! But isn't that agnostic, or is it somehow different?

There seems to be a possibility that a God could exist; or, rather, perhaps I tell myself that for my inability to truly embrace the world as it seems to be. I feel that the Christian God is certainly not real, as the very definition is contradictory (and therefore impossible). A greater being, though? Quite possibly, if not very likely.

However, in all my life, of all the evidence I've seen.. the religious notions carried in this world are the wails of those afraid of mortality, among other things, conditioned as empty-minded daults who hold such a status proudly as "a believer". Or, more to the point, I've never seen a true reason to believe in the Christian God, nor any other religion's, nor any of this "spiritual" melodrama, but a million reasons why, even if none of these things did exist, how the very same things would've come up in their absense.. which strikes me as the only congruent model.




Pernicious -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 6:02:13 PM)

There is a simple method to prove God doesn't exist and I call that method prayer, either that or he is just deaf.


God can I have a mansion....
see, nothing!




dcnovice -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 7:07:06 PM)

quote:

It seems that innocence is the cost of progress.


The whole point of the Garden of Eden story, imho.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/1/2008 7:11:20 PM)

So explain the working of the sub conscious mind. Explain the interaction of the ego and super ego. Can these things truly be identified? Or are they ways to explain something that cannot be touched, heard, seen, tasted, or felt? There are plenty of things that exist, that science cannot prove or disprove, yet. It just means there is a possibility of them existing. The difference between an open and closed mind, is the allowance of possibility.

I am sure things will change as time passes by. They always do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

True. I believe we're chemical reactions.. that our bodies are us. Not that our brains are some kind of antenna for a mystical "soul" that spawns elsewhere in the universe and happens to just correspond with our bodies. I believe that our emotions are phenominia associated with our bodies. In short, I believe in scientific things.

If you believe that "love" is some mystical, magical thing.. just because it makes you feel in odd ways.. well, I'm sorry, but I can't relate to such vulgar assumptions.

Faith, my friend, is blind; as are the faithful.




Rule -> RE: Christianity and BDSM (1/2/2008 12:22:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say

Then where do I fail in communicating the intent of what I said?
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
by definition, if it interacts with our universe at all - even if this interaction can be characterized as a one-way deal - it's physical.

No, the interaction between the Divine and our universe is in no way physical. Anything that is able to interact with our universe in a physical way by definition is part of our universe. The Divine is not a part of our universe.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
If you say there's an entirely non-physical thing.. then it doesn't exist, by definition.

Quite. That part you comprehend at least. Nevertheless the Divine is present 'outside' our universe where no existence as known in our universe is possible. Hence to describe the Divine requires new language, which is why I put concepts refering to the 'outside' of our universe between quote markings, such as 'exist'.




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 [12] 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875