RE: "Christian" BDSM?

RE: "Christian" BDSM? (Full Version)

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

Message

XianDominSJ -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/8/2006 1:12:31 AM)
quote: Well I think that quote is about men holding a particular religious office, not all men. Yup. "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..." and "appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife..." (1 Timothy 3:2 & Titus 1:5 respecitively) Overseer and elder, sometimes translated "bishop" in old editions, are the same word in the original (greek: "Episkopos", over[epi]+seer[skopos]) and refer to the specific authoritative office in the local/regional church who must "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." *quote:* Where does that leave women? Does it mean that women can't hold offices or that the marriage limitations don't apply to them? Or does it mean that the disciple who wrote those letters (it wasn't Jesus folks) was responding to a particular church with particular issues? The answer to your questions will come from taking those above references and reading them in context of the surrounding chapters. Remember the Paul's two letters to Timothy and Titus are called the "Pastoral Epistles" because they are really letters of instruction and exhortation from the Apostle Paul to his two younger pastoral students. Although no less theological than anything else he wrote, those three books are more practical application than his letters to the churches (e.g., Corinthians, Galatians, etc.) In addition to the words of Christ, if a Christian wants to see how pastoring/sheparding is done, the Pastoral Epistles are great. I hear around here and on the journals something to the effect of, "Look, losers, if you're living at home and can't even manage your own life..." well, that common sense is a codified mandate in Scripture.

SirLordTrainer -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/8/2006 5:08:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: XianDominSJ quote: ORIGINAL: SirLordTrainer The bible does point to or make references to D/s structure of sorts. Honor, obey. Even self-flagellation to 'cleanse' oneself of sins. Although I find that one more conducive if Im doing the flogging on them. hah Actually, the Bible makes absolutely no mention of self-flagellation to cleanse oneself of anything. In fact, such a concept violates the entire basis of Gospel that Christ died once and for all for all sins. We can do nothing to add to it and to do so is an insult to the sufficiency of all that He is done. The misunderstanding or outright denial of that basic tenet of Christian faith is what led one segment of the "Christian" church to engage in that practice for a period of time. Indeed there is a lot of flogging in the New Testament, but it's Christians (or Christ himself) on the receiving end. I stand corrected and thank you for pointing that out. In retrospect I had read it elsewhere. There were however links to the catholics in regards to 'self-flogging'. Here's where you can read up on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellants

SirLordTrainer -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/8/2006 5:17:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo That said, first, why am I writing in blue? Yes, why are ya.. Im gettin you an zumala confused now! LOL

thetammyjo -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/8/2006 7:22:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: XianDominSJ quote: Well I think that quote is about men holding a particular religious office, not all men. Yup. "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..." and "appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife..." (1 Timothy 3:2 & Titus 1:5 respecitively) Overseer and elder, sometimes translated "bishop" in old editions, are the same word in the original (greek: "Episkopos", over[epi]+seer[skopos]) and refer to the specific authoritative office in the local/regional church who must "hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." *quote:* Where does that leave women? Does it mean that women can't hold offices or that the marriage limitations don't apply to them? Or does it mean that the disciple who wrote those letters (it wasn't Jesus folks) was responding to a particular church with particular issues? The answer to your questions will come from taking those above references and reading them in context of the surrounding chapters. Remember the Paul's two letters to Timothy and Titus are called the "Pastoral Epistles" because they are really letters of instruction and exhortation from the Apostle Paul to his two younger pastoral students. Although no less theological than anything else he wrote, those three books are more practical application than his letters to the churches (e.g., Corinthians, Galatians, etc.) In addition to the words of Christ, if a Christian wants to see how pastoring/sheparding is done, the Pastoral Epistles are great. I hear around here and on the journals something to the effect of, "Look, losers, if you're living at home and can't even manage your own life..." well, that common sense is a codified mandate in Scripture. I know all these passages I just don't frankly have the time to look them up -- I was asking general questions to try and get others to think a bit more than acting like everything in the bible is the same quality or of perfect reliability. As for Paul or Peter or John or any other writer; they aren't Jesus. My example as a Christian is Jesus not these guys who had their own ideas and their own agendas just like religious leaders today. Or to put it in the terms my particular demonation taught me: When Jesus speaks, we speak. Where Jesus is silent, we are silent. (Often it was added that in reality this meant that it was between you and God and not a matter for another person to determine)

SirLordTrainer -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/10/2006 4:26:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I know all these passages I just don't frankly have the time to look them up -- I was asking general questions to try and get others to think a bit more than acting like everything in the bible is the same quality or of perfect reliability. As for Paul or Peter or John or any other writer; they aren't Jesus. My example as a Christian is Jesus not these guys who had their own ideas and their own agendas just like religious leaders today. Or to put it in the terms my particular demonation taught me: When Jesus speaks, we speak. Where Jesus is silent, we are silent. (Often it was added that in reality this meant that it was between you and God and not a matter for another person to determine) Speaking of those 'other writers' and Jesus, Im going to play Devils advocate for a moment and go out on a limb, if no one minds. As well mind you Im not looking to stir up the proverbial hornets nest. How do we actually know that the 'red' written words were in fact of Jesus himself. What concrete proof is there? Da Vinci code? On another note has anyone heard of the passages from the bible that were excised because it didnt fit "their" ideaology of Christ? Which if any of it is true I can see why. Case in point, there is a book called ''The Lost Books of the Bible'' which Ive heard (not seen) that makes Jesus out to be a murderer in his youth. Something to the effect of Jesus was in a village, and for whatever reason, another boy wanted to fight Jesus. The passage goes something like; The boy ran so hard against Jesus that Jesus waved his hand and said Lay down nor ever rise again. Thoughts and opinions on this? Thanks in advance, to any and all.

zumala -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/10/2006 6:55:11 AM)
I can't say that I've ever heard of that SLTrainer.

thetammyjo -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/10/2006 7:08:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirLordTrainer quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I know all these passages I just don't frankly have the time to look them up -- I was asking general questions to try and get others to think a bit more than acting like everything in the bible is the same quality or of perfect reliability. As for Paul or Peter or John or any other writer; they aren't Jesus. My example as a Christian is Jesus not these guys who had their own ideas and their own agendas just like religious leaders today. Or to put it in the terms my particular demonation taught me: When Jesus speaks, we speak. Where Jesus is silent, we are silent. (Often it was added that in reality this meant that it was between you and God and not a matter for another person to determine) Speaking of those 'other writers' and Jesus, Im going to play Devils advocate for a moment and go out on a limb, if no one minds. As well mind you Im not looking to stir up the proverbial hornets nest. How do we actually know that the 'red' written words were in fact of Jesus himself. What concrete proof is there? Da Vinci code? On another note has anyone heard of the passages from the bible that were excised because it didnt fit "their" ideaology of Christ? Which if any of it is true I can see why. Case in point, there is a book called ''The Lost Books of the Bible'' which Ive heard (not seen) that makes Jesus out to be a murderer in his youth. Something to the effect of Jesus was in a village, and for whatever reason, another boy wanted to fight Jesus. The passage goes something like; The boy ran so hard against Jesus that Jesus waved his hand and said Lay down nor ever rise again. Thoughts and opinions on this? Thanks in advance, to any and all. These are very valid questions. You can track (if one wishes to get into the world of religious history) many many many changes to religious texts. Questions about who wrote what and when let alone whether or not it has survived intact to us today abound. In general the more independent copies you have of something the more certain you can feel about the validness and reliablity of a source -- guess what I was teaching this week in my class? However just because multiple sources agree is not the same as having direct witness accounts that pass all the test of reliability. Even a modern a video of someone talking needs to be questioned in terms of agenda, creators, and editing. Likewise I could write some piece of fiction, write it really well, and if it is the only thing to survive it could be accepted as fact in the future -- hopefully future historians will be smarter than that! So the short answer for me is that I have to exercise faith that those words represent the person who I see as an incarnation of my deity and balance that with my personal spiritual relationship with said deity. I try to do it with my eyes, heart, mind, and soul open to the historical questions.

chrstnmalesub -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/10/2006 10:54:23 PM)
"What I attempted to point out was that organized religions tend to have control issues with people acting out their biological urges, such as sex, bdsm, etc., and attempt to denigrate and/or control them through their spiritual precepts." Hi Sinergy, Yes, it may appear that way, but many times there is good reason for it. It can be strongly argued that, before the sexual revolution of the '60's, people engaged in less pre-marital sex and statistics show that there were significantly fewer cases of STD's, much less divorce, etc, back then. i've brought the subject up to a few aunts and uncles who are at least in their 60's and they agree that a person was thought of as dirty if he or she had sex before marriage and it wasn't very prevelant at all. STD's were virtually unheard of in the '40's and look at all of the elderly people who have reached their 50th wedding anniversary compared to people in their 40's who have been divorced at least once. i guess some religions do attempt to control their followers to one extent or another, but in general i think that looking at it as most religions attempt to "denigrate and/or control them through their spiritual precepts" is not an accurate perspective. In general, people choose to follow these precepts because they conclude by their own reasoning and free will that it is most beneficial for them to live accordingly, not because they're being controlled.

Emperor1956 -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/10/2006 10:59:49 PM)
quote: chrstnmalesub: STD's were virtually unheard of in the '40's This is completely false. Venerial disease rates among adult men prior to 1930 were generally much higher than they are now. Indeed, in World War I, the British and American forces lost over 7 million man hours to treatment/consequences of gonnorhea. It was the experience of the "doughboys" and the clap that created some of the first significant public health initiatives relating to sexual health in both England and the USA. As someone on here is fond of saying, you have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to your own facts. Stick with the truth, or stop spouting off. E.

chrstnmalesub -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/19/2006 11:13:27 AM)
"This is completely false. Venerial disease rates among adult men prior to 1930 were generally much higher than they are now." "Emperor1956" (a legend in your own mind): Let's see you provide some documented evidence for widespread verneal disease in the U.S in the '30's. It is well known that there were only a few known STD's in this nation in the '70's and now there are over 30 or 40 known STD's. You can spout off about anything you like, but until you provide some documented evidence to support your spouting off, yours is just an opinion and a false one at that. Otherwise, keep your lies to yourself. I've talked to a number of elderly people because I've been interested in what society was really like prior to the '60's and they have unanimously told me that they never heard of sexual transmitted diseases until at least the '60's and mostly in the '70's. If verneral diseasse was as prevelant as you say it was in the '30's, then how could it be possible that elderly people in this country did not hear of it until the '60's and '70's? Provide some documented evidence to your spouting off or stick with the truth.

agirl -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/19/2006 11:30:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirLordTrainer quote: ORIGINAL: agirl Yes, I think that when I'm dead, I'm dead. I think for myself and am not guided by a higher power, no. agirl Then Im surprised you even bother with this thread at all, quite honestly. I find it sad you feel that way. I wouldve thought you believed in something if not christianity. I bothered with the thread because it interested me. It is that simple. I don't think that not having a faith means I have no thoughts about it......... I've had many, which is why I have no faith......lol Why do you find it sad that I think that way? I believe in a lot of things....just nothing to do with fantasy figures, like gods. Regards, agirl

agirl -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/19/2006 11:46:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MistressGayle to "agirl"... regarding the tract you received from the JWs.... Not one single prophecy they've spouted has come to pass EVER; as a matter of fact, they change their tenets quite frequently. They used to say that a blood transfusion was against the laws of God, so many died due to this useless act of control. Scriptures say that "eating" blood was not allowed -- goes through the digestive tract, not the "circulatory tract" as in a transfusion. These people's own version of the Bible is polytheistic, yet many of them have no clue.... they are truly lost and don't come close to comparing with Jesus or Christianity. Jehovah's Witlesses are a horrible, abusive, guilt-ridden cult. I have helped many to escape it's clutches and they are scarred for life, mentally, and more often than not, physically... However, the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible have been, and are rapidly coming to pass... Do some research and you will find that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.... Be well. Mistress Hello MistressGayle, I have done my research and it certainly didn't lead me to believing that ANYONE is the way, the truth and the life. I'm quite aquainted with the cult of the JW's through my best friend, who also helps people to escape the cult and recover. He has written prolifically on the subject and been an expert witness in child custody cases, where it's been contested etc. There is no God....only a fantasy. If people wish to believe in that idea, I wouldn't dissuade them from it. I don't care what people believe in.....we are all free to be as deluded as we want to be. Regards, agirl

sublizzie -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/19/2006 12:02:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chrstnmalesub I've talked to a number of elderly people because I've been interested in what society was really like prior to the '60's and they have unanimously told me that they never heard of sexual transmitted diseases until at least the '60's and mostly in the '70's. If verneral diseasse was as prevelant as you say it was in the '30's, then how could it be possible that elderly people in this country did not hear of it until the '60's and '70's? Provide some documented evidence to your spouting off or stick with the truth. Were any of these elderly people in any branch of military service during WWII, Korea, or Vietnam? If so, they've heard a LOT about STDs. They weren't called STDs then, but the diseases were definitely alive and well before the 60's. People got the "clap" in earlier generations, or, for even earlier generations, the "pox". STDs have been around for a very long time. We just have called them different names or not talked about them much and not known what that strange sensation/growth/symptom was all about and just endured it. There's a reason they used to put silver nitrate in the eyes of all babies. It was a way to prevent them from going blind from being accidentally exposed to an STD their mother may have had, with or without knowing it, as they went through the birth canal.

thetammyjo -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/19/2006 5:02:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chrstnmalesub "What I attempted to point out was that organized religions tend to have control issues with people acting out their biological urges, such as sex, bdsm, etc., and attempt to denigrate and/or control them through their spiritual precepts." Hi Sinergy, Yes, it may appear that way, but many times there is good reason for it. It can be strongly argued that, before the sexual revolution of the '60's, people engaged in less pre-marital sex and statistics show that there were significantly fewer cases of STD's, much less divorce, etc, back then. i've brought the subject up to a few aunts and uncles who are at least in their 60's and they agree that a person was thought of as dirty if he or she had sex before marriage and it wasn't very prevelant at all. STD's were virtually unheard of in the '40's and look at all of the elderly people who have reached their 50th wedding anniversary compared to people in their 40's who have been divorced at least once. Well, you'd have to demonstrate a few things here to prove this argument about disease and behavior linked to religions. 1) religion was the reason that people behaved then and now -- how do you gather reliable information for these comparions? 2) rates of disease or pregnancy have changed and how -- how do you gather reliable information for these comparisons? 3) that these rates are directly related to religion's use or the belief in religion -- is this a positive or negative relationship? The idea that things were better in "the good old days" before Christian was lost OR before Christian came about OR before women could vote OR before there was civil rights OR before the family spirits were displaced by other gods OR and so on and so on.... this is a very old idea. We can find writing with this idea in the Old Kingdom of Egypt and in Akkadia I believe (not Sumer I don't think). My point is that while claims that things were better and that religion is the reason why may be soothing to some folks, it is difficult if not impossible to prove. There are lots of reasons why people behave the way they do while viruses and bacteria are constantly evolving so they can continue living.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/19/2006 5:54:35 PM)
actually SLT, different sects of Christianity use differnt books. Catholics have 5 chapters that are not used by most Protestants. Mormans have a whole extra book, and there are other examples. I learned in school that many of the Jesus stories were left out(the whole age13 -30) when the Romans compiled the "bible", and that Jesus had turned a child into a goat, but then changed him back. I tend to believe the "Jesus went east to India and Tibet in the missing years", and that he really was teaching a form of Bhudism. And from that you can not satisfy a desire, you always want more. That is where the Religious problems with sex comes in. A person can easyily go overboard trying to fill such a deep need, It can't actually be done. And the consequences for a society can be disastorous. The broken families and effects on kids. The anger and fueds over adultery. STD's and such. Imagine if all the energy we spent trying to fill our sex needs were instead devoted to helping the needy, it would be a very different world. Another general point, most theologians define Sin as the state of being cut off from God's Grace. The acts we do to hurt others or ourselves or society are symptoms of Sin, not sins them selves.

SirLordTrainer -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/20/2006 6:47:52 AM)
In which version/book does it talk of being transformed into a 'goat'. As well have you heard of 'the lost books of the bible' and Jesus alledgedly murdering a boy I had mentioned previously above? Interesting view Lucky, thanks for sharing.

luckydog1 -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/20/2006 1:33:19 PM)
My understanding( which could be incorrect) is that there were many 'Jesus stories' passed through oral tradition untill the Council of Nicea compiled "the Bible", about 300 years after Christ was killed. Many stories about Jesus were not included. They were not part of "the Bible" so are not 'lost books'. That would imply they were in the Bible and then removed. No, I never heard of Jesus killing a boy( but I am not an expert in any way on this subject), though I imagine he would have brought him back to life if he had.

SirLordTrainer -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/21/2006 4:10:41 AM)
Yes I would like to think He would have given him back his life as well. On another contraversial note, I know 'The Da Vinci Code' has just been released on dvd. I'll have to watch a copy and see just what all the stir is/was about. If anyone's seen it do feel free to share your opinions on it. Spoilers are welcome. <g>

subdelicious -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/21/2006 6:12:04 AM)
SLT, i would recommend that you read the book. The movie is not as good. Of course, i love all Tom Hanks movies and this one is no exception, if you are looking for an interesting take the Jesus/Mary Magdalen connection, the book does explains details much better. Remember though, this is advertised as fiction.

SirLordTrainer -> RE: "Christian" BDSM? (11/21/2006 2:34:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subdelicious SLT, i would recommend that you read the book. The movie is not as good. Of course, i love all Tom Hanks movies and this one is no exception, if you are looking for an interesting take the Jesus/Mary Magdalen connection, the book does explains details much better. Remember though, this is advertised as fiction. Thank you I just may do that as well as see the film. I like ol Tom too even when he was doing the old tv show 'bosom buddies' hah. Thanks for sharing.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875