Say Your Prayers or I'll SPANK You
One of the best historical guidelines for BDSM is the Holy Bible. Let me first explain because while there are many Christians, even BDSMer's who will try to tell you other wise, I believe I would be the perfect Christian wife were my mate Christian, a real practitioner, not this watered down neo-Christian-gobldy-gook they try to pass of as Christianity. The reason I say this is because I DO WHAT I AM TOLD. I am fortunate that I do have a dominant who allows me very free reign in expressing who I am, people here might even think I am a domineering control freak amongst other things, but I assure you, when it boils right down to it, HE makes the rules and that is how the Christian God intended it.
I can give multiple passages but instead I will give you only this one and am assigning you, you being anyone who disagrees with me a bible study: Look up all passages that are misogynistic by today's standards. You know all of those that put women in a lesser position than men, serving men, expecting them to be silent, doing what they are told, being shared, beaten, punished, given away or won, those kind. Can you say tons? Are you gonna try the usual dismissal, "That is all the old testament" Other than it being in BOTH books of the Bible so you mean to tell me you will use 5 passages to ban homosexuality but swear in the face of a multitude of "anti-fem" statements that the Bible wants equal rights for women? Really?
My chosen passage is:Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head* of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the savior of the body.
Now what I have learned is this word head, in the bible Before translation is *kephale which means to seize or take possession of. I think that is pretty clear, don't you? Does this clearly state the husbands complete authority over his wife? Sure I am gonna have a lot of "bu- bu- bu-buts" The buts, do not matter, translated or not it is pretty clear the meaning, no?
All over the Bible it clearly gives direct ownership of women to their husbands and lets not even talk about those serving girls. The Bible was written for a society dominated by men which is as it should be, in my opinion, and my opinion is not based on women being lesser than men but created both naturally or divinely , differently in both thoughts and physically.
I feel that once a woman gives herself in marriage she is his , to serve his needs providing she does serve the God of Abraham. In this Christians should not be so different from Muslims. You may want to call them barbarians but you Christian man, should to be.
Email
Print Article
Favorites
Report Abuse
User Comments
 |
ooo babay, but will you spank me? |
 |
|
|
Oh the lies! You are one of the few I have wanted to talk to and you flat out rejected me , like an ugly girl :) |
 |
Truth hurts. what happened to that child who was trying to get a sneak peak back in the chat room? -L |
|
He never came back to talk to me :) |
|
Scared him away huh? Typical >.> -L |
|
Thats what happens when you set your sights on a real woman :) |
|
I think JTruant is proof that your not a "real" woman. You have more artificial plastic inside you than Michael Jackson had before he died. -L |
Miss, "I want to age gracefully" |
The term you are looking for is "have had more plastic.......inside me" :) That kind comes out in the end, or out my end depending on how you want to phrase it :0) Correction: Miss Will NOT grow old gracefully+ I will use all the surgery available to me :::) so far =None other than making them temp smaller :) And what does Jt have to do with it ? Does he still have your panties in a knot? |
|
JT? I don't ever remember having a conversation with him. I just know you guys are together via your posts. As for the plastic, well. Time will eventually make my statement correct, just need to wait >.>. -L |
 |
Bravissimo |
|
:) that is good right :) |
|
|
Yeah, I enjoyed it. Spent a few years in Italy fairly recently, and some of the verbage stuck :) |
Very cool. I would like to go to Italy one day too :) |
|
Stick to the north or the south if you go. I was in Napoli (Naples.) Nice place to visit, wished I hadn't lived there. My avatar (shrunken a bit sideways thanks to Blogster) is a pic taken of me in La Maddalena. The hat was a wall hanging in the place they put my band up. Drummer took the photo. Not sure why I'm relaying all this :P I did return the wall hanging to where it belonged. |
 |
You get the eyecatching title of the day award ;) |
|
Why thank ye sir :) |
 |
Oh Holly, holly, holly.....no comment....but still loves ya anyway!!!! |
|
and why won't you comment?
|
|
because I have a problem with this whole subjugation of women thing and I'm not really in the mood to have a long debate which I can see happening if I start..lol....not a problem though....did you find your car keys?....I might zip over to the chat room and see if you're there. |
|
I will check in and yes, we found the keys after we paid volvo to have a dup made :)
I cannot help the Bible is misogynistic :) |
 |
I am reminded of a neighbor I used to have, we called her Paula-praise-the-lord because she was incapable of having ANY conversation more than three sentences long before bringing Jesus into it. She was also a lazy hog, sending her husband and son out to work everyday while she laid about in bed, watching tv and neglecting her filthy home. She explained this by insisting that God had told her to 'be still' and she was taking that command seriously. Son and hubby were having a hard time making enough money to keep the family afloat, causing a long-term argument in the family about her picking up at least a part-time job, which she steadfastly refused to do. One day she was visiting at our house and started complaining about what her husband wanted her to do when Simon mentioned that there were several passages in the Bible which clearly stated that the husband was to rule over the wife. We also told her that the Bible prohibited women from preaching, since that was an activity she engaged in continually, despite having only read 4 chapters of the Bible, namely, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. She freaked out big time and ran out of our home bawling and accusing us of lying, blasphemy, and of 'not knowing Christ.' She later returned with her husband, who MADE her apologize after looking up these passages and discovering that we had indeed spoken the truth. Lazy little bitch never did get a job though. |
|
Hilarious, Sabrina :) I can see that whole scene :) |
 |
I have to HALF agree with you on this mmm... I think the point is that there must be a head in the family, like you have in the State or the boyscouts(!!!). WHO this head is going to be is kind ofindifferent, as long as this person realises the implications and the responsibillity that go with it. |
|
I send you to my reply to...........my last reply either citizenoutcast or justmyopinion :) |
 |
The bible was written by some of the most sexist men I have ever read, so of course that is going to be what they say is women's role. Personally I don't think either sex HAS to be subserviant to the other, regardless of physical or mental attributes. If you want to, that is another thing, go for it. |
 |
Pretty interesting POV on this. Im impressed. |
|
Why thank ye :) |
 |
Actually, explaining all this would require you have an open mind, so let's see who does. Also, a full explanation would require much more space, so I'll try to be brief. You are misunderstanding what is being said. The husband being "head" of the family is not the "I rule all" position you make it out to be. It is a RESPONSIBILITY. It is a position where the man is going to be held accountable for what kind of husband and father he is. Also, let's face facts, women hate weak men. How many jerks get women while nice guys finish last? Men are supposed to be the "head" of a household and women are supposed to be the "second" only as far as decision making is concerned. If you have two people who both have an equal say, how do you break the stalemate? A Christian husband will listen to his wife as his partner and take her views into consideration, but since God has placed the responsibility and accountability on him, he has to be man enough to take a stand and make the final decision, whether the wife agrees or not. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he can wrong, but the responsibility is his. This is not the domineering, wife-beating position people make it out to be. If you have people on a council, and they can't agree on something, there's usually a "president" or other "head" that breaks the tie and makes the decision. Some will like it, some won't. That's what is meant by that. The verses talking about women being silent in the church do not apply to all churches. That particular verse was written because in the same area, there was a cult where a priestess would perform certain acts and lure people in. So, that particular church was warned not to allow any women to do the same there. When people look at those verses, they also seem to neglect the verses where the same writer, to another church, instructs women to teach others, and even speaks highly of those who do. They also fail to mention how Proverbs uses a woman to embody wisdom itself. They fail to mention how women are celebrated all through both books of the Bible, taking only some passages out of context or without any kind of cultural reference. Yes, the OT seems harsh in places, but then, it was a harsh time where nations were not the clean, stable little towns and cities that we have now but places where borders changed all the time, people were routinely killed by invading armies, and all sorts of crap happened on a daily basis. And while we're talking about the husband and wife relationship, why don't you finish that chapter you quoted? What's it say about how the husband is to act towards his wife? The husband is to "love his wife AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH and GAVE HIMSELF for it." Wow...yeah, it sure is sexist to tell husbands they are to love their wives MORE than they love themselves! What could they have been thinking? Seriously, holly. This kind of cherry-picking is beneath you. Just because a ton of people who equally question/hate God agree with you doesn't mean you're right on this. I'll be looking for an explanation as to how my giving my life for my wife is a sexist view that should be ignored and rejected because it's wrong. But don't believe for a minute I'll listen to it. Because I am a Christian husband and I love my wife. And if you could ask her, you'd find out she's pretty darn happy that I am. In over seven years of marriage, I've never yelled at her, called her a name (even in joking), or denied her anything she wanted. But I'm still a sexist pig because some people decide that taking half a statement and applying the wrong understanding is the correct interpretation. Sure. |
|
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3). "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Colossians 3:18). "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7) |
|
Again, i live this life though not biblically and am I complaining? |
|
Nice. Well, rather than quote other Bible verses back at you that portray women as valued, I'll ask you a question. You don't seem to want to hear those verses or any other interpretation but the one you hold now, so it would be pointless to argue with you. So much for the "open-minded" concept, huh? Anyway, please answer me this: How can one person "own" another and yet be told to love a person to the point where they would lay down their lives for that person? You wouldn't lay down your life for your car, your house, or any other possession, so please explain that to me in a way that makes sense. As for your other comment, I can't and don't know what you complain about in real life. I can only state that my wife, and other Christian women I know love being with Christian husbands, and these women aren't timid little hot-house flowers. They know what the Bible means and have had the same discussions with others that you present here. But feel free to answer my question. I'd be interested in hearing how you equalize the two concepts. |
|
"so I'll try to be brief." Wall of text crits you for 5400 damage. (nod to Assassin) |
|
First, let me say, you keep coming at this from a negative "space" when for me this is hardly a negative. The negative is for those who see the Bible as something that is PC. It isn't. I have read many a people here who would lay down their lives for possessions in the pursuit of capitalism or to overthrow the current administration. Many will do this for possessions be it a car or a country. Do you think I am a timid hot-house flower? Hehehe I to know what the Bible means, to me and scholars and none deny the misogyny in the bible. It is expected and proves a point. Do ask more :) |
|
hehehe,I already had it in copy and paste :) |
|
YOU may not consider it a negative, but by presenting a false view of the Bible, you are "arming" those who DO consider it a negative. There's no mention of how the curse was against man as well as woman, no mention of the women that were allowed to teach in churches and how Paul considered women "fellow workers." No mention of being told to treat older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters "in all purity." No mention of how God does not respect either gender more, and how women are also celebrated throughout the OT and NT. You may think the view you are presenting can be a "positive," but it still is not the full, most accurate view, and as you can tell from the comments, it only serves to fuel the hate some have for Christianity. Now, if you want to talk about how the Jewish nation decided to treat women separate from God, that's fine. There is plenty in the Bible that they apparently decided not to do. Even Jesus mentioned how divorce was not approved, although Moses allowed divorce because of the "hardness of (their) hearts." Are there "Christian" men who also decide to treat women like dirt or like slaves because of some verses they cherry pick? Yes, but they aren't following the Bible, they are following their own desired interpretation. And no, I don't consider you timid. I was arguing against the image of Christian women being subjugated little weaklings beaten down by "good Christian men," which is the stereotype that invariably occurs when discussions like this come up. I personally don't know a single timid Christian woman. Heck, even the elderly ones I know are spirited, but they also respect God, His word, and have had marriages that have lasted longer than I've been alive. |
|
Do you need to have the word "try" explained to you? |
|
Nah, man, unless you're "trying" to fail twice in a row. Once at being brief, and once at guessing my intelligence. I'm going to recommend standing down. I see thrice in your future should you not. |
|
Awww...sorry, but trying to sound intelligent is hardly the same as being intelligent. You either do not know what the word "try" means or you were seriously hurting for something to say and couldn't come up with anything better than your previous comment. If my post was too long for you to read, I apologize, but you could have stopped at any point. But don't worry, since I'm an adult and don't feel like playing a childish game with you, I'll allow you the last word. Vent your spleen and get it over with. You'll feel better. And do look up "try" in a dictionary. You're welcome. |
|
It's ok dude. You win. |
|
Holly, sorry to have polluted your thread with inflammatory nonsense. |
 |
So you see this is among my many reasons for becoming the faithless infidel you know (at least kinda know ;p) today. Why, might you ask? Well, despite being a manipulative bastard, there are times I wish to be "in subjugation". Not "pussy-wipped", as I hate the very idea of such "men", but a much different relationship, I don't know how to define it really but I want something different. I have dom tendencies, but not the desires to match. Still, I have no problems with what you have said, it maybe something I would object to in my personal life, but I think intent of womens' lib was to give women the opportunity to live their life as they choose, however that might be. |
|
Women's lib has went entirely too far. |
|
In concept maybe, legally no. As I said before, the movement has moved away from empowering women and more towards emasculating everything else. |
|
Exactly, it has went to far. I do not think the Bible had it wrong mind you. I think we should celebrate our differences and how well we complete one another :) |
|
Yeah, I understood that much. All I'm saying is I see what you are doing as a natural extension of the progress made by women's lib - you live the life that makes you happy. By the same virtue, if a woman is happy being the subjugater, or simply being free of subjugation, or even being free of a man altogether, that should be her prerogative. The problem comes in when these feminists assume that no woman's life is complete without their version of freedom. There's also the issue of neutering language, but I see no need to get into that here. |
|
That's exactly the problem, exactly, You should see the attack on stay at home mothers on women's boards. |
|
It has, indeed. To the point where Men's Lib is needed in some cases. I have a friend who did everything he could to save his failing relationship. He was literally willing to do anything - not because he was needy for this woman he was married to, but because he had a steadfast belief that their child was important. She on the other hand was completely high maintenance. Let me set this up a bit. After they got divorced, he was made to send 750$ a month, which was about 1/3rd of his paycheck to support a child who he would GLADLY have taken care of. But the child was awarded to the mother, because that's the way things are. He subsequently went bankrupt and could not pay his own mortgage. She, in the meantime, married an officer in the Navy. With his salary and hers as a teacher at a college - a job she gained because her previous husband, my friend, had put her through school while she earned NOTHING, they can easily...EASILY afford to raise the child, but she continues to call the command my friend works at and try to get him in trouble if he is so much as 5 minutes late on a child support payment that is way too pricey. I feel for my friend who just wants to get on with his life without a vengeful bitch dogging his tracks. The courts should not allow this to happen, but as you said, women's lib has gone entirely too far. |
|
Well I do know child support is17 to 23 percent of your pay for one kid in most places. He is in the navy , no and the child can be with her all the time and him except when he is deployed, right? That is why :( |
|
I think circumstances should play into it. The law shouldn't allow him to go bankrupt while she lives high on the hog, especially considering she's the one that wanted the divorce. If the circumstances were reversed, where she was the one in the Navy, I have a hard time believing the courts would have made a different decision. |
|
Both incomes are taken into consideration always perhaps he should go in for a modification. Is this an enlisted guy or an officer? I personally think the percentages are fair. You told me ne is Nav that means he is gone six months of a year right? That would be the big why he cannot get custody and were the situation reversed if he was otherwise fit, it would be exactly the same. They want stability in a childs life. He could try for joint even. Did you know when enlisting if you have kids and no husband/wife they ask you to give custody to someone else? |
|
also 17% is the least amount you can pay and I hate to disagree with you but that is not a lot to give to your child. |
|
We are both Navy, both enlisted - we work in the same building. We are Navy Musicians, and unless you're stationed overseas, you're never on a ship - in other words, never deployed. I don't disagree with the percentages, by the way. I disagree with a court blindly awarding a percentage to the female without looking at facts such as her potential worth after he put her through school. He probably should try to get a mod. |
|
He could also looked ot recoup that $$ when they got a divorce :) |
 |
The Prophet Muhammad said, "Women are the equals of men," and "Be kind to women." I've studied at a traditional Islamic madrassah, and all the Islamic scholars there, whether Imam Zaid Shakir or Shaykh Hamza Yusef, said Islamic Shariah Law gives the wife more rights than the husband, because that's what the ancient legal texts say. For instance, the wife never has to go out to work -- although she may if she wishes -- but the husband does so in order to pay for all her neccessities -- but he also has to either buy and cook her food, or pay someone else to cook it. She can divorce him, if he does not satisfy her in bed, for instance. Domestic violence remains haraam/forbidden, and if he gives her a black eye, she goes to the Qadi/judge, who has him beaten until he has a black eye. Grown Muslim men must obey their mothers their entire life, and if they die with their mothers even displeased with them, they don't enter Paradise -- and Islam has no Purgatory, only Heaven and Hell. Muslim women had the right to vote a thousand years before their sisters in the West. Shariah executes rapists. If SOME Muslims treat women barbarically, they need more Islam, not less. And one more thing -- in Islamic theology, the Creator is not just one more man with the power -- we say The God exists beyond male or female. Shalom/salaam/peace. |
I'm not saying my prayers....
