quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Hello xoxi
Trying to stay on topic here for you.
I know that people - both christian and non believers often refere back to Leviticus to bring out the whole 'homosexual acts are evil' to both ridicule christians and to place or force a persons own moral codes on others.
 
However, it is vital to be aware of history at the time that particular scripture is refering to so as not misuse the text.(whether you are a christian or a non christian or an atheist)
The OT is Jewish text, not christian (although it must not be forgotten.obviously.)and refers to customs and 'edicts' that the jews needed so as to sepetate themselves from the Canaanites, as their identiy was important to them(still is) and there was fear of it being lost.
 
However, as christians, one follows Christ.  In Mark, Jesus rejects the 'purity codes' which Leviticus is basically about and absolutely nowhere in the NT is homosexuality mentioned as immorality.  In fact, Jesus heals a young man who - if history has anything to go by - has a high probability he was gay.  That is conjecture of course, but a possibility and Jesus heals his fits and saves his life.
 
So, that said within a Ds environment - or basically any environment - homosexuality is not breaking any laws of God as a christian - and even the word wife could be interpreted many ways from original texts.
 
If a woman is the dominant within a Ds relationship, it could absolutely be interpreted that the man is the wife.
I often find it quite astounding particularly when confronted by BDSM people that they revert back to very specific labels of husband and wife roles (christian and non christians) - when labeling is so open to subjective interpretation within BDSM dynamics - as if BDSMers have the ultimate authority in altering wording - but it has occured through subsections of communities for many years.
 
I do not therefore subscribe to the notion that wife must = woman and therefore all women should submit.  But I do defend a persons right to submit to who they wish, call themselves what they wish within their own Ds dynamics, be they straight, gay, bi, poly or monogamous.
 
I'm not sure if that is any use - and I do again apologise for my earlier hijack of your thread.
 
the.dark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Imho, religiuos discussions are ones that no one actually convinces the other to even consider another point of view. Because , we are all so attached to our own opinions. It's rarely a true "give and take" discussion, in my experience.

Resorting to the old way and, unfortunately, still the same way, of resolving "religious" different points of view is what really gives me the willies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

the.dark,

I'm afraid there is absolutely no evidence to show whether Jesus was gay or straight.  The fact that he surrounded himself with men only shows that in his time and locale, men only taught other men.  Women disciples would have been seen as scandalous.
Oops. I just read your post again and realised the "he" wasn't Christ but the man he healed. I'm not familiar with that story...do you happen to have the book and verse handy? I'd like to look that up.

However you do make a valid point in that for Christians, Christ renewed the covenant with God and effectively nullified the old one.  That's where it gets confusing...he worked on the Sabbath, yet he also said:

quote:


"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:17-18)

which is where it just gets confusing to me.

I just want to make clear I am not defined as 'christian'.  I don't agree with organised religion and churches are certainly not my thing(well unless for fetish purposes - coz I do have a religion fetish, but thats another thread).
The reason I am saying this is because this is my discovery and study, not some organisation and so is subjective.  I am certainly not spouting it as gospel(haha) or traditional christian teaching.
Disclaimer over!
 
Jesus was very clear when stated that the purity codes were now irrelevant with his coming - however he was still a jew, and just as all Jews, he was also very clear that the old laws and the whole reason and history behind them were important to remember and relate.  He wasn't there to upset or speak against the prophets was his message, but to support and continue their work.
 
Yeah - I doubt Jesus was gay - although he may have been experimental - who knows?  If he was, he was a gentleman and kept his sexlife private, which is cool.
 
But yes, the healing thang.  I made the assumption you knew I was talking about the centurion  (Matthew etc).  As I said, it is pure conjecture - but highly possible in the climate and history of the time that the slave was the centurions lover and more.  Roman Soldiers as he, were not allowed to marry or have female company and a vast majority of them had multiple slaves, one or more would of course fullfil the role.  In the original text, the Centurion comes to Jesus and uses the word 'Pais'(not the correct spelling but I cannot do the text on this) to describe someone he begs Jesus to heal.  Now the word Pais is interpreted as 'slave'  it can also mean 'my boy' or 'my girl' but it is a specific word that was only used with deep meaning indicating a deeper bond or connection as it is a 'beloved' word.  If it was a common servant or slave, he would have been more likely to use another word for slave 'doulos' - 'narnar' if a young boy.  So using the word 'pais' indicated that the young man was beloved and had a deeper bond than any other slave.
 
So what looks at first glance as a simple centurion coming to Jesus to ask him to heal his slave, when you study the deeper meanings of the words used, could open the 'story' up much more and redefine the interpretation.  I find it a wonderous example of how Jesus shows by example that all people are equal regardless of the orientation or ethnic origin. Whether you believe in christ or not and see the bible as a simple fictional selection of works, the story itself is a good one for equality.
 
the.dark.

_____________________________

RC&dc

love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to xoxi)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

There's a bit of a difference in accepting kinks and religion.

To accept kinks is to accept someone for what they enjoy.  To accept religion is to accept fiction as truth.  I'm not into the latter, and I don't feel that people should accept a random, unreasonable belief just because it's a "belief". 


Such as..
If someone wants to have crazy anal masturbation using a dildo wihle staring in a mirror, cool.
If someone is convinced 1+1=3, then, sure, they're welcome to, but I'm going to point out their lack of reasoning behind it.

quote:

1 + 1 ~ 3 ,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Justme696

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Imho, religiuos discussions are ones that no one actually convinces the other to even consider another point of view. Because , we are all so attached to our own opinions. It's rarely a true "give and take" discussion, in my experience.

Resorting to the old way and, unfortunately, still the same way, of resolving "religious" different points of view is what really gives me the willies.

that is why we have wars about it. The winner will be the one who is right ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

There are no winners in fights or wars. Last one standing or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: favesclava

i'm a wiccan . i worship a female god. i have no problem with my submission. i'm taken care of. my needs met. my wants often satisfied. and i dont do dishes. no problem mon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster

You don't always need to have a reason, to know something is true. I'm sorry for you, since science isn't the be-all and end-all, and you're living entirely inside it's boundaries. Nor is religion "fiction" - since fiction is a work of...well fiction. Religion is unproven, but it is not demonstratably false. Few people accept random unreasonable beliefs on the basis that they are a belief. Most Christians, Catholics, Wiccans, Thelemites, Astarte, Druids, Shamans, et al are intelligent and rationale people who have arrived at their faith through a course of investigation, consideration, experimentation, and an open mind.

1 + 1 ~ 3 , for very very large values of 1.

Six.

Edited for typos, and to add : Besides, who are you to say that just because something is unproven, it must therefore be unreasonable?

quote:

Xoxi (OP!):
One thing I was curious about was this post on page 1 by UKCouple4femsub:

quote:

To suggest that any form of pagan (of which there are many) worships any form of deity is misguided. Many of them feel that it is arrogant to suggest that any deity would be in the slightest bit interested in a me[re] mortal. Many of them also worship both male and female aspects of the divine. So there is no deity-defined dominant role in a 'neo' pagan family. There again, ask a dozen different pagans what they believe, and you'll get 13 different answers.

I'm guessing 'pagan' was the wrong word here...but aren't there Goddess-worship sects or religions? I know that there are some who worship Mother Earth, but others that worship avatars of pagan deities like Artemis or Isis.

I'm guessing though that a lot of pagan religions, similar to Buddhism, view both genders as inherently equal, without one as the leader and one as the supporter. Does that sound like an accurate assessment?

• native vaguely intact surviving ones (Lakota Sioux, Asatru, Navajo, Aussie aboriginal, Shinto, Romuva (Lithuanian paganism), Maori, African ones such as Ifa, Yoruba, others I don't know...),
  
• modern (neo-pagan) reconstructionist forms (Celtic reconstructionist, assorted varieties of Druidism, Hellenistic reconstructionism, core shamanism, Asatru, Pagan Way, Britanno-Celtic paganism, and again more I don't know...),
  
• completely bootstrap/self-created forms of paganism/witchcraft such as Z. Budapest's Dianic witchcraft, NROOGD, Reclaiming, and others..., and
  
• survivals with major reconstructionist elements, of which British traditional witchcraft (as re-ignited by Gerald Gardner and routinely called Wicca in the States) is the best known, but I would place Asatru and Vanatru here.
  

quote:

Hmm, going back a bit in time now, but I remember some of my friends referring to "The Lady and her Consort"... anyone got insight into that? Not sure which religion it refers to.

quote:

What I'm curious about is for the religious people out there, how does your religion view the idea of power exchange in relationships, and how does that affect your own view on it if at all?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster

You don't always need to have a reason, to know something is true. I'm sorry for you, since science isn't the be-all and end-all, and you're living entirely inside it's boundaries. Nor is religion "fiction" - since fiction is a work of...well fiction. Religion is unproven, but it is not demonstratably false. Few people accept random unreasonable beliefs on the basis that they are a belief. Most Christians, Catholics, Wiccans, Thelemites, Astarte, Druids, Shamans, et al are intelligent and rationale people who have arrived at their faith through a course of investigation, consideration, experimentation, and an open mind.

1 + 1 ~ 3 , for very very large values of 1.

Six.

Edited for typos, and to add : Besides, who are you to say that just because something is unproven, it must therefore be unreasonable?

Heh, you're sorry for me, while you continue to have beliefs without reason nor logic?  (I'm not saying you have no rational thougths behind this, but the logic's broken.  Like you might be able to conclude there's a nuclear bomb in your basement, if you initally assumed that there was a core of nuclear engineers working on one down there for the past ten years.  You applied logic in places, but the overall bit isn't logical because of the initial, non-logical assumption.)

1+1 != 3, even for maximum values of 1.  ;)  (Not that the point's valid in this context, but it was a good joke.)

And, finally.. I'm not saying it's unreasonable just because it's unproven.  The fact it's unproven does help support my argument, though.


As for the PS..
Hum.. there's a lot of reasons to say that religion's unreasonable.  Let's start with the "mutually exclusive" argument- that many religions hold beliefs in direct contradiction to eachother.  Now let's say one religion in this world's correct; then the others, which hold contradictory beliefs, are necessarily wrong.

Point being, if you are religious, there's a huge chance you're not even the right religion, even if you assume that one of the religions is correct!  (Which, I'd like to point out, there are even more reasons to evidence that this isn't the case.)

How does one overlook this mutually exclusive bit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster

Simply by acknowledging that no matter how strong my faith is, there is always a possibility that I'm wrong. By being objective about it, I can see the hypocricy in trying to force my world view on anyone else. So I don't. It's the same with science, though, you know. Every scientific theory and law are founded on certain base assumptions that may in fact turn out to be incorrect. Science doesn't uncover universal truths, it uncovers rules and explanations that "work". I have a full respect for science, it's principles and practice, but it is just a tool to help explain the world around us, no more, and no less, than religion is.