RE: Christian Dominants (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message


TurboJugend -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 1:48:29 AM)

Are all soldiers submissive..following there general? Is the general the Dominant?
Or are they just doing there jobs?

I don't get this God is Dominant and Jesus is submissive.  
I look at this as the bdsm form of dominant and submissive..as this is a bdsm forum.

I mean..is every one with a boss at work..a sub now?

God and Jesus are kinda father and son , not? Why then Dominant and sub...
I don't see it completely.




Tinkerer -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 2:14:56 AM)

Right, and then you could make the argument that the son obeys his father..., and the cycle could continue. What I asked was how your belief in Christ effects how you act towards your submissive, though this thread seems to had drifted into an argument of wether or not Jesus was top or bottom.




TurboJugend -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 2:21:54 AM)

You call your dad Dom?
and he you a sub?

that was what I wondered.

I think we project the bdsm world to much onto other things. There is more then D and s, we have relations ,we have ranks...even age sometimes can give you a leading role.

But agree...back to the topic




Level -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 3:28:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tinkerer

What I asked was how your belief in Christ effects how you act towards your submissive


To be a Christian, is to try to be as Christ-like as possible, so that's what I aim for. Loving, compassionate, etc.

I struggle in my Christianity, as I can be a bit of an ass at times.




SailingBum -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 4:16:29 AM)

Miss cake who is never wrong

Apparently it is history lesson time.  uh look up "roman catholic" and then tell me the "Christians" did not feed lions for sport. Just a suggestion.  I have around 12 years of religious study. To quote you.  " I am not wrong."

BadOne




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 4:35:57 AM)

I would recommend that those that want to answer you, do so privately, as the witch hunt has started.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tinkerer

For those of you who are christian dominants, what do you do to follow christ in your role? What kinds of play do you abstain from because of your belief, and what aspects of the D/s relation do you pay especially close attention to? Is there anything you have your submissive do that you wouldn't if you didn't have faith?

Myself being a follower I wondered how others thought. I'm not trying to start a flame war, so please keep things civil.


Edited for speling ;)




looking4princess -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 5:35:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess

But in John 23 Jesus is most emphatic that he is the Way and the Life and if you don't believe in Him you will never get to God. Salvation is through Jesus only, bub. Sounds pretty dommie to me.


Why?
Just because you get to someone via someone else, doesn't make them the boss, just the servant to the one you are trying to get to.  Having to believe in christ and accept him to get to the father doesn't make the son your boss, just the vehicle or service to get to it.

the.dark.


Oh indeed it makes Jesus your boss if you believe in the Trinity as most Christians do, I think. Father, Son , and Holy Moley...all for One and One for All. They are ONE and the SAME. You cannot treat them separately as you do willy nilly. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Many have taken that to mean that Jesus was with God from the beginning and in fact he is God. So, Jesus is God incarnate. He's the Bossman made accessable to the Jews in a form they could deal with.




Amaros -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 8:51:09 AM)

The Great Chain of Life philosophy is heavily promulgated amongst evangelicals, particularly by Dominionists, from whom most of the rhetoric disparaging "secular humanism", judicial activism, etc., issue - these are people, who for the most part, have something political to gain, and manipulate these issues in order to consolidate their own earthly power - Jesus himself was a great humanist, and the Bible is, by and large, a humanist document.

But moving beyond these fuedal, hierarchical notions does not undermine the value of power exchange relationships: they are ubiquitous in religion because there are solid biological and anthropological underpinnings for the dynamic: all that is really being disputed is dogma: i.e., missionary position vs. the Kama Sutra, and dogma is generally related to group cohesion within a particular social group, i.e., Catholics vs. Protestants, SDA vs. LDS, etc.

In a sense, the particular "rules" themselves are irrelevant, following them, whatever they are, simply signifies your loyalty to the group, and thus, while they may constitute "values", they tend to become rather superficial values and occasionally, behavioral dogmatics often undermine the actual ostensibly desirable result.

For example:
quote:

Couples who regularly engage in S&M practices like spanking, bondage or other semi-violent fetish fantasies end up bound closer together and stress-free, a pair of new studies shows.

Men and women who participated in the studies, published together this week in the Archives of Sexual Behavior Journal, showed increased levels of testosterone - and pleasure - when their S&M experiences went well. Those who reported good S&M experiences also showed a increase in cortisol, indicating a corresponding drop in stress levels and anxiety.

Of course, couples who didn't enjoy the S&M showed increased levels of stress and detachment from their significant others, according to the studies, which were conducted by researchers at Norther Illinois University and the University of Pisa in Italy.


S&M Whips Couples Into Shape: Study

- it's just that organized religion has had to come up with elaborate justifications, such as the Great Chain of Life, in order to do what, in some sense, comes naturally, and once that ahppens, once politics gets involved, religion tends to become pretty much indistinguishable from politics, politics is largely driven by neurosis, and there ends up being a lot more fretting about holes than about souls.

I suggest trusting your instincts - the problem being that religious indoctrination tends to bury instincts beneath a thick layer of external social controls: if you become reliant on these external controls, you may not develop the internal controls that come from experience, and making mistakes now and then

In short, I advise you experiment, and if something does make you feel badly, don't beat yourself up over it, just think about it and talk about it, give yourselves time to assimilate the experience, preserve the positive aspects and mediate the negative ones.

One of my biggest gripes about institutional religion, is that it seems to advance the notion that the people who supposedly know the most about a subject are the people with the least experience at actually doing it - celibates giving marriage advice.

People who don't make mistakes never learn anything - short of murder or gross bodily harm, you'll probably get over it.




Amaros -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 9:20:34 AM)

A couple of for instances from a biological, rather than a religious perspective:

Female sexual gratification has a certain amount to do with mechanics: the vaginal canal exhibits a significant degree of variation in angle in individual women - in some it's tilted forward (ventral), in some tilted rearward (dorsal) - thus, some women don't get enough stimulation from missionary position to orgasm, clitoral, g-spot, etc., and orgasm results in the expression of oxytocin, which relieves stress and is linked to both intimacy and nurturing instincts.

Anal play stimulates the vagus nerve (which can also be stimulated vaginally or orally), which again, can result in the expression of oxytocin - it also results in feelings of "fullness", being literally the same processes of the nervous system that tell when you've eaten your fill.

It's why people who aren't getting enough luvins sometimes compensate by overeating.

Stripped of their political associations, these things are not only healthy and "normal", but are actually beneficial - hysterical censure tends to erase these benefits by driving up your stress to toxic levels.

Stress will kill you faster than just about anything, and can even result in brain damage - infants deprived of physical nurturing suffer brain damage that can result in psychopathy.

The bottom line being, love is good for you, and sex serves far more than immediate reproductive purposes: "recreational" sex increases your overall reproductive fitness.




RCdc -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 9:21:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess
Oh indeed it makes Jesus your boss if you believe in the Trinity as most Christians do, I think. Father, Son , and Holy Moley...all for One and One for All. They are ONE and the SAME. You cannot treat them separately as you do willy nilly. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Many have taken that to mean that Jesus was with God from the beginning and in fact he is God. So, Jesus is God incarnate. He's the Bossman made accessable to the Jews in a form they could deal with.


Again, not necessarily.
The translation you gave is the not what was written in the original text.  The translation should read (if you know your greek/hebrew) 'In the beginning was the word and the word was with a god and the word was god.'  That 'a' makes a huge difference.  But in most bibles, the interpretation stems from way back when the bible was poorly translated.   Using the original text, the trinity doesn't exist in the sense that it's a three in one.

the.dark.




RCdc -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 9:53:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tinkerer

I never intended for this thread to go this way, but it's interesting none the less. I'd have to agree that Christ is submissive to God the father, however, he doesn't seem submissive in any way to mankind. Would a submissive man claim his place as a shepherd, someone who leads, protects and cares for those under him? That sounds like the role of a dominant to me.


Yes they would.  Why not?  Why can they not?  S-types care, protect and teach others - both sides of the kneel.  He served both his god/father and humanity.  But then, service is a dominant trait just as it is a submissives.  He knelt and washed the feet of the disciples.  He treated women with respect and raised them onto an equal level.

Dear OP... you asked for peoples thoughts and if that strays a little from the thread, then maybe there is a reason for that which you may consider to embrace?

My initial post was a little in fun (I admit, that it doesn't always come over that way in the written medium) and only a single thought offered out of many, but as it transpired, you totally disagreed and you revealed your personal inner thought - that Jesus was in fact a dominant.  Maybe you should meditate on why you cannot consider the submission that Jesus also showed, as well as his dominance?  Question why you believe that submissives cannot be teachers and care for others if also following the path of christ in their heart.

the.dark.




Acer49 -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 10:20:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Eigenaar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tinkerer

For those of you who are christian dominants, what do you do to follow christ in your role? What kinds of play do you abstain from because of your belief, and what aspects of the D/s relation do you pay especially close attention to? Is there anything you have your submissive do that you wouldn't if you didn't have faith?

Myself being a follower I wondered how others thought. I'm not trying to start a flame war, so please keep things civil.


Edited for speling ;)
I once called myself a Christian but I no longer do and to be honest I don't see why a Christian should look at bdsm in a different way than a heathen or what we have more. I discussed this with several practitioners. When asked why they ask they claim it is obvious Christians disapprove of poly and bdsm in general. Yet when consulting the Scripture all one will find are contradictions including some condoning real slavery and bdsm beyond ones wildest imaginations. Years ago a large erotic mail-order business in the Netherlands made public most of their customers are Christian. There are poly Christians in the past and in the present and corporal punishment was never far away. In Germany a group of people growing up in Christian children's homes recently broke the silence about abuse and during the ungoing investigations there were even found human remains. I am sure Christians do not follow Christ more or less in their role as a dominant.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Christ was about as submissive as one can get.

the.dark.
One can also call Christ as Dominant as one can get. Christ is God.

quote:

I once called myself a Christian but I no longer do and to be honest I don't see why a Christian should look at bdsm in a different way than a heathen or what we have more. I discussed this with several practitioners. When asked why they ask they claim it is obvious Christians disapprove of poly and bdsm in general. Yet when consulting the Scripture all one will find are contradictions including some condoning real slavery and bdsm beyond ones wildest imaginations. Years ago a large erotic mail-order business in the Netherlands made public most of their customers are Christian. There are poly Christians in the past and in the present and corporal punishment was never far away. In Germany a group of people growing up in Christian children's homes recently broke the silence about abuse and during the ungoing investigations there were even found human remains. I am sure Christians do not follow Christ more or less in their role as a dominant.


I do not think Christians do, there are some aspects that they may have issues with but I do not think that for the most part, they are exclusive to the lifestyle. If for instance you felt that lust is a sin, then you can find that in must all situations, any activity that involves outside of marriage may come up, that that is as well, not exclusive to the lifestyle. I believe your practitioners are incorrect, nothing is obvious. I do not object to poly on religious grounds, I reject it because it rarely works over a long period of time. I will remind you that the lifestyle does not sanction play without consent and as such, "real slavery" is not part of bdsm. As to the use of corporal punishment, that activity has been practiced in a large family structure and can no way be considered exclusive to the lifestyle

A Netherlands mail order sad" put your credit card number here and please check the correct box as to your religious affiliation. I seriously doubt that. Children’s home was found to have abused children? I would have never have guessed that was possible, only because stories like this have popped up time and time again for the past 70-80 years. I am not naive, since you seem to feel that Christians are judging you, you feel the need to suggest that we are less than righteous. After all, we see ourselves as perfect and we can walk on water too... NOT!!! Christians are not more righteous than any other segment of the religious society. We do not believe ourselves to be above others and we are just as prone to make as many mistakes. Since unlike you, I am not privy to data that would either confirm or deny the conclusion of if or how lifestyle members might follow Christ




mnottertail -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 12:16:34 PM)

So, I like to crucify a bitch every now and then.....

JC, jr.




MissCake -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 3:28:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum  Miss cake who is never wrong  Apparently it is history lesson time.  uh look up "roman catholic" and then tell me the "Christians" did not feed lions for sport. Just a suggestion.  I have around 12 years of religious study. To quote you.  " I am not wrong."  BadOne 
  

 
Cite some sources then, because I couldn't find any.  Which of the 1959050 returned results for "Roman Catholic" shall I look at?
 
I have, however, found countless references to the state of ancient Rome sentencing prisoners to punishment ad bestius.  There are dubious accounts of prisoners being thrown to lions, but it appears it was most often dogs or other animals.  Though in ancient Rome the population consisted of many of differing faiths, including Jews and Early Christians, the actual state was not Christian.  (Of course, this should not be confused with the current state of Rome which is the seat of the Catholic Church.  We are speaking of a time prior to the existence of the Catholic Church.) 
 
Though I wouldn't think of each of these as scholarly references, here are a few links to sites which refer to the commonly understood (if perhaps dubious) practice of Romans feeding Christians to lions, or fighting with lions in general.  It seems to have been a practice of Emperor Nero.  Try as I might, I could find not a single reference to Christians using this as a form of punishment on others.  (Christians, have certainly used other forms of torture, which I don't deny, in the slightest.)
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/primaryhistory/romans/leisure/
http://meltingclocktimes.com/christiansvslions.htm
http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/nero.htm




Amaros -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 3:40:45 PM)

Christians were forbidden to spill blood - thus crushing, disjointing, drowning, burning, immurement, etc.




catize -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 3:43:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So, I like to crucify a bitch every now and then.....

JC, jr.


Doesn't that make them a little cross? 




stardancer00 -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 3:52:05 PM)

There are many forms  of Christianity,  and some  of them stress the submission  of the wife to the husband in a very strict  fashion,  taken from this passage:

“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything” (Ephesians 5:22-24).

How anyone expresses his/her religion  in life  is very personal,  regardless of whatever teachings a particular sect for form may have.  The question presented was  how does Christianity play out in  a particular relationship or life.   i have known Dominants/Masters who believed themselves to be the representatives God for their subs/slaves,  and  have found  that moreso in TPE relationships,  especially; but,  as i said,  it is  individual in how it plays out in each relationship.




Amaros -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 4:31:09 PM)

Also, early Christians were heavily influenced in the direction of Zoroastrian dualism, i.e., a struggle between good and evil, culminating in one side or the other being victorious.

That physical reality was considered to be the province of evil (Manichean duality) led early Christians to conclude that only by escaping from The World could they rejoin god, and to that end refused to procreate at all, and considered martyrdom to be the highest statement of purpose. Many martyred themselves deliberately, the sadistic Romans only too willing to comply - Deacon Lawrence, roasted on a gridiron is recorded as saying "Assum est, inquit, versa et manduca."- "This side’s done, turn me over and have a bite". As St. Lawrence he is the patron saint of comedians, butchers and roasters.

Elements of both Zoroastrian and Manichean duality continue to pervade Christian theology. The Manichean elements again, are those that promoted celibacy, as in Paul - the physical world being innately corrupt, it was thought that in order for man to join god, he must cease his earthly existence - the notion of fleshly corruption comes from this or vice versa), and although the Manichean concept Satan-El as demiurge, or creator of this world was eventually deemed heretical, the conception Satan as corrupter persisted.

There is nothing like this in Judaism, or even Zoroastrianism, it's a uniquely Christian concept, as is an anthropomorphic god, which has more in common with pagan Roman mythos and Oriental god kings infiltrating from Egypt.

Still, it didn't really catch on, and Europeans continued to enjoy the pleasures of Tantric duality of their pagan heritage - Tantric duality is more akin to the concept of Yin and Yang, and philosophically, is concerned with the reconciliation of opposites rather than conflict between them: the friction being cyclical, following natural cycles as in the seasons rather than militant and terminal. The Hebrews similarly dealt with life, reproduction and death without abstracting it into an epic war between Heaven and Earth.

The Protestant reformation finally rebelled against the sterile dualism of Manichean influenced Catholicism, but Christians continued to get hung up on the fact that life ends in death and corruption, obsessing over the dichotomy between matter and and energy, corrupt flesh and pure spirit, and it gradually enters the dogma, first through Augustine's Doctrine of Original Sin, and reaches it's ultimate expression in Calvin's fatalistic Doctrine of Total Depravity.

This too, proved fairly unpopular, the Puritans gained power briefly, were soon sent packing. Calvinist Erotophobia doesn't appear again in significant force until syphilis is introduced form the New World, and culminates in the Nineteenth century, whence the roots of the current debate stem - young men started leaving the rural farms to seek their fortunes in the city in large numbers, and naturally sought to keep themselves entertained - this led to a big masturbation scare, as most people still adhered to Hippocrates four humor theory, and all sort of ills were ascribed to the loss of semen (semen begins to degrade, and loses a significant amount of motility after about three days, so abstaining any longer won't make you more potent, it will make you less potent and probably cause you prostate problems eventually).

It was an age of experimentation and diversification, the Mormon Church dates from this period, as do a number of other sects that attempted to deal with the sex issue, some even promoted birth control and extolled the "amative" virtues of sexuality.

Most however, leaned towards some variation of polygyny (even Calvin apparentlty tested these waters), and naturally, most found the notion of birth control threatening, since it was feared that women would be unable to sexually restrain themselves without the consequences of pregnancy (innate depravity).

All the while, polyandry, in the form of secular prostitution, remained hugely popular - even in Victorian England, complaints about prostitution more often than not took the form of complaining that streets were so choked with them that it made traffic impassable.

In America, the evangelical movement was heavily influenced by the Grahamites. Graham was a strong proponent of celibacy and natural foods, and the Grahamites were obsessed with their colons (corruption), undertaking a strict regimen of enemas.

The movement eventually split into the pagan/secular "Granola" movement on one side, and the sex-for-procreation-only faction on the other, and here we are.

Graham eventually proved to be unable to control his appetites, and like another famous spiritual leader, Buddha, ate himself to death.




looking4princess -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 4:34:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess
Oh indeed it makes Jesus your boss if you believe in the Trinity as most Christians do, I think. Father, Son , and Holy Moley...all for One and One for All. They are ONE and the SAME. You cannot treat them separately as you do willy nilly. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Many have taken that to mean that Jesus was with God from the beginning and in fact he is God. So, Jesus is God incarnate. He's the Bossman made accessable to the Jews in a form they could deal with.


Again, not necessarily.
The translation you gave is the not what was written in the original text.  The translation should read (if you know your greek/hebrew) 'In the beginning was the word and the word was with a god and the word was god.'  That 'a' makes a huge difference.  But in most bibles, the interpretation stems from way back when the bible was poorly translated. Using the original text, the trinity doesn't exist in the sense that it's a three in one.
the.dark.


Ah, well done, dark! My respect for you grows. [sm=applause.gif] No sarcasm intended.

The concept of the Trinity was debated back and forth for a few centuries I guess and the losers did not make it into the Canon. But the point of this thread as I understand it does not deal with "way back when" but deals with Christian Dominants today in WIITWD. And the Trinity is accepted widely in the Western Orthodoxy today wouldn't you agree? So, aren't Jesus and God and the Spirit all ONE for the purposes of this thread? Ergo, isn't the talk of divine hierarchy within the One kinda lame? I just know you are going to disagree lol





rubyrain -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 4:46:30 PM)

After only reading the first few posts, one thing does come to mind.  I am not one to capitalize a dom's pronouns as I was raised that is a privilege for God.  In the same vein I will not call any human being dominant or not Master.  God is my true master.  I'll call a dom sir.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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