RE: Christian Dominants (Full Version)

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



Message


Acer49 -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 4:11:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Viridana

Dying for everybody else's sins. Isn't that the ultimate act of service.... and submission? just askin.....


I might see it that way




MissCake -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 4:15:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend

I reread and understand your question..I think

you mean...was sodomy purely anal sex?..or just sinfull life in general?

Sodom and gomorra were cities of sin in the bible. But as there was sex between males....later it became sodomy.
So it is a mixture of both.

But sleeping/sex with the same sex was forbidden. Even when consensual.




Yes, people have referred to anal sex as Sodomy.  But the Bible is not nearly as specific.  Sodom was a city whose people had lost their connection with God - they did it by sexual means perhaps - but the main issue is the people couldn't feel the presence of God in their lives anymore, and did harm to one another.




Acer49 -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 4:17:20 PM)


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 stay away from humiliation, objecification and some role playing not so much for religious reasons, but for me it is not a path I comfortable with




MissCake -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 4:18:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum

FYI Christians used to feed ppl to the lions for SPORT

That was actually the Romans who fed Christians to the lions for sport. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum So do me a favor and keep your religion out of my sex life. 

To be fair, the OP was asking those who already identify as Dominant and Christian for their input.  I don't see any attempt here to try to push religion into YOUR sex life.




SailingBum -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 4:48:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissCake

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum

FYI Christians used to feed ppl to the lions for SPORT

That was actually the Romans who fed Christians to the lions for sport. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum So do me a favor and keep your religion out of my sex life. 

To be fair, the OP was asking those who already identify as Dominant and Christian for their input.  I don't see any attempt here to try to push religion into YOUR sex life.


ehhh suggest you study your history a little more closely re the lions and all the other horrific things ppl did in the name of Christ. 

By definition calling your self a Christian implies religion of some sort.

My point was to ask a simple question.  What in the world does the work of Christ have to do with sex ,  master, slave whatever?  I am one of the I don't get it crowd. 

To me that is like saying I follow the teachings of <fill in the blank> and this is how it effects how I treat my sub.  Do you now see how moronic it sounds.

Motown BadOne




littlewonder -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 5:18:13 PM)

I'm not saying I am or I am not a Christian..but my religion plays a part in absolutely everything I do in my life, that includes how I am a slave to Master, what I do in my daily life, how I serve Him and everything in between.





belladevine -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 5:52:18 PM)

This is the first time I have posted. I just feel compelled. Jesus was a wise man and a healer. Christ is a short word from the Greek language (christos) that means annointed. Quality oil like grapeseed oil and olive oil help to heal the body, wise teachings help to heal the mind. Lube up your body and free your mind. Don't bathe in black crude. Live strong, be humble.




Andalusite -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 7:07:24 PM)

Jesus made a whip, and hit people in the Temple with it, since they were trying to make money off of people there. So, I don't think He minds if I use one, or have one used on me, in the bedroom or dungeon.




looking4princess -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 7:08:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Christ was about as submissive as one can get.

the.dark.

Er um, I don't know if the money lenders in the Temple would have agreed. Maybe he had mood swings.




looking4princess -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 7:16:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MissCake

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend

I reread and understand your question..I think

you mean...was sodomy purely anal sex?..or just sinfull life in general?

Sodom and gomorra were cities of sin in the bible. But as there was sex between males....later it became sodomy.
So it is a mixture of both.

But sleeping/sex with the same sex was forbidden. Even when consensual.




Yes, people have referred to anal sex as Sodomy.  But the Bible is not nearly as specific.  Sodom was a city whose people had lost their connection with God - they did it by sexual means perhaps - but the main issue is the people couldn't feel the presence of God in their lives anymore, and did harm to one another.

I think Sodom and San Francisco were Old Testament cities and had nothing to do with Jesus.

Didn't Lot try to whore out his daughters? Just asking. No reflection on San Francisco. ...kidding, folks, Love the Bay city.




looking4princess -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 7:27:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

quote:

ORIGINAL: dmarc

The bible is full of text of submission and Dominance, Jesus Was dominate to humanity but submission to his father.

If a sub see's the love of Jesus in her partner then she could also feel that his Dominance in her faith as well.

Just a thought.


God was dominant to humanity, not Jesus.  Jesus taught that if you worked for him, he would disown you.  However if you spoke and taught as he did about god, then he would acknowledge you as a wise person.(Matthew).

He taught not to worry and that god would take care of you.  Not himself.

the.dark.


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.




Amaros -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 10:46:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissCake

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend

I reread and understand your question..I think

you mean...was sodomy purely anal sex?..or just sinfull life in general?

Sodom and gomorra were cities of sin in the bible. But as there was sex between males....later it became sodomy.
So it is a mixture of both.

But sleeping/sex with the same sex was forbidden. Even when consensual.




Yes, people have referred to anal sex as Sodomy.  But the Bible is not nearly as specific.  Sodom was a city whose people had lost their connection with God - they did it by sexual means perhaps - but the main issue is the people couldn't feel the presence of God in their lives anymore, and did harm to one another.
At issue was rape and the mistreatment of strangers - people lived in cites for mutual protection, you were taking your life in your hands if you had to camp out, so being inhospitable called for harsh censure.

The money changing thing was Jewish ritual, they did it every year, to remind them of their priorities.

It's one ritual Christians never really took to.




Amaros -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 10:56:04 PM)

Whatever Jesus was, I believe one thing Christians in general wrestle with is the whole notion of service - Christian Europe was pretty distinct from Judean culture, Christianity promoted the Great Chain of Life as a paradigm of systemic order, caste based and hierarchical, the notion pervades Catholicism, and all were considered Servus i.e., the Pope is the "head" of the church and serves Jesus, who serves god, etc., on down the line.

Check it:

quote:

Political Implications of the Chain of Being   

The fear of "disorder" was not merely philosophical--it had significant political ramifications. The proscription against trying to rise beyond one's place was of course useful to political rulers, for it helped to reinforce their authority. The implication was that civil rebellion caused the chain to be broken, and according to the doctrine of correspondences, this would have dire consequences in other realms. It was a sin against God, at least wherever rulers claimed to rule by "Divine Right." (And in England, the King was also the head of the Anglican Church.) In Shakespeare, it was suggested that the sin was of cosmic proportions: civil disorders were often accompanied by meteoric disturbances in the heavens. (Before Halley's theory about periodic orbits, comets, as well as meteors, were thought to be disorderly heavenly bodies.)

The need for strong political rule was in fact very significant, for the Renaissance had brought an end for the most part to feudalism, the medieval form of political organization. The major political accomplishment of the Renaissance, perhaps, was the establishment of effective central government, not only in the north but in the south as well. Northern Europe saw the rise of national monarchies headed by kings, especially in England and France. Italy saw the rise of the territorial city-state often headed by wealthy oligarchic families. Not only did the chain of being concept provide a rationale for the authority of such rulers; it also suggested that there was ideal behavior that was appropriate to their place in the order of things. It is no wonder then that much Renaissance literature is concerned with the ideals of kingship, with the character and behavior of rulers, as in Machiavelli's Prince or Shakespeare's Henry V.


Renaissance

These notions was gradually replaced by humanism, the concept of universal rights and the rule of law, but one still finds it being promulgated in various Christian sects to different degrees.




Amaros -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 11:06:07 PM)

It's actually what made Galileo's heresy so alarming - it wasn't just medieval science, it was the basis of the entire system of political organization he was questioning.




Amaros -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 11:10:34 PM)

Still, in immortal words of Bob Dylan:

You might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage,
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage,
You may be a business man or some high degree thief,
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

That help?




RCdc -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 11:43:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: looking4princess


quote:

ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark

Christ was about as submissive as one can get.

the.dark.

Er um, I don't know if the money lenders in the Temple would have agreed. Maybe he had mood swings.


Meh.  I have used a flogger.  Doesn't make me not submissive.[:D]

the.dark.




RCdc -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/1/2009 11:46:15 PM)

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.




MissCake -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 12:15:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissCake

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum

FYI Christians used to feed ppl to the lions for SPORT

That was actually the Romans who fed Christians to the lions for sport. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum So do me a favor and keep your religion out of my sex life. 

To be fair, the OP was asking those who already identify as Dominant and Christian for their input.  I don't see any attempt here to try to push religion into YOUR sex life.


ehhh suggest you study your history a little more closely re the lions and all the other horrific things ppl did in the name of Christ. 
  I made no claim that Christians have not done horrible things.  But the act to which you refer, feeding humans to lions in the center of the Colluseum, was perpetuated by Romans.  They fed Christians to the Lions.  Go look it up.  I am not wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum By definition calling your self a Christian implies religion of some sort.
  Yeah, um, not denying being religious.


quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum  My point was to ask a simple question.  What in the world does the work of Christ have to do with sex ,  master, slave whatever?
  The work of Christ centers a great deal around how people treat one another, and well, sex is one of those ways humans interact.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum  To me that is like saying I follow the teachings of <fill in the blank> and this is how it effects how I treat my sub.  Do you now see how moronic it sounds.
  I don't find it moronic.  The OP approached a sensitive topic and got some incredible responses about how people of faith carry that into their play.  It's ok that you don't like it or don't get it.  But those of us who do get it, get it.




TurboJugend -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 12:21:04 AM)

quote:


Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC to AD 50), a Jewish philosopher, theologian, and a contemporary of Jesus and Paul, comments,




“The land of the Sodomites, a part of Canaan afterwards called Palestinian Syria, was brimful of innumerable iniquities, particularly such as arise from gluttony and lewdness, and multiplied and enlarged every other possible pleasure with so formidable a menace that it had at last been condemned by the Judge of All…Incapable of bearing such satiety, plunging like cattle, they threw off from their necks the law of nature and applied themselves to…forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for women did they violate the marriages of their neighbors, but also men mounted males without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive; and so when they tried to beget children they were discovered to be incapable of any but a sterile seed. Yet the discovery availed them not, so much stronger was the force of the lust which mastered them. Then, as little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness but they worked a further degeneration in their souls and, as far as in them lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind.”




the bible is not only explained by it owns words..also by writers in that age and period. That is how we know things happened and where real. and which stories in the bible were just examples to teach people. 
Anyway. I don't want to be fanatic in this.
Personally I have no problem in same sex having sex if they chose to. 




Tinkerer -> RE: Christian Dominants (10/2/2009 12:58:27 AM)

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.




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
5.078125E-02