Chastity cages and Christianity

To me, none of it requires all the tangible irritability. It’s just conversation! People are allowed to hold differing opinions. I don’t mean you btw, you seem pretty level-headed.

 

It's an interesting point though. I do choose to think of Harry Potter as real for short periods of time, it makes fiction more enjoyable when you buy into it. Are there not philosophically similarities between that and the almost universal human need for faith?

 

“The suspension of disbelief” as it is known. Yes I think you’re onto something. And certainly a way of approaching a belief system is to try it on for size, see how it performs, and then decide whether or not having done so, you now think it’s real. It’s not a million miles from the scientific method of hypothesis formation and testing… except the focus is not assertoric statements about the observable world, but metaphysical heuristics.
In fact there’s a Gospel story where a centurion says to Jesus “Lord, I believe; help thou my unbelief”.

 

So in a way, theists struggle with their disbelief (used in that sense of awe we all feel about amazing things. "Thats unbelievable ") that something must have set this whole beautiful universe in motion. The failure to see the fallacy of irreducible complexity, in light of modern evidence, with living examples abound, is blocked by a stronger urge, and an emotional one, that grips many. Awe and wonder.

 

as I think I’ve said before in this thread, I don’t see religious belief as being about explaining the origin of the universe. I see it as addressing questions about the human condition: “why are we here?” rather than “what is this “here” and how did it come into being?»

 

I really appreciate what you have brought to this thread. Your contributions are very helpful and thought provoking. But this one thought I above have object to. It's taken me some time and I personally have failed along the way to live up to it, but I've come to realize that God's design for marriage and sexuality is monogamy for a lifetime. Why? Because they are metaphors for the relationship He wants with us. And he requires that we have no other gods before him. And there is a practical side to it also. Open marriages undermine the success and intimacy of the marriage. Even living together before mattiage has been shown statistically to be less effective at preventing divorce than waiting until marriage. God's design for relationship with Him is a covenant marriage. See: "I will never leave you nor forsake you!" It's a covenant, not a contract. We've made relationships contractual. "If you do this, I'll do that. But if you don't, 'Goodbye!'" What's crazy about the people on this website is they are being drawn back to covenant styled relationships. "Here's the key! I'm yours permanently. Take me and do with me as you wish." Though they can be a bit one-sided. With God it works both ways, only we get the better end of the deal in my opinion.

 

God speaking through the prophet Jeremiah said something akin to this when he said, "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart." Jesus similarly said, "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." You should read these sayings in context, but the idea is that he is a personal, approachable God who will reveal himself to those who honestly seek him.

 

The distinction between a covenant and a contract is definitely significant. The latter is a secularised form of the former. In a covenant the promise is traditionally sealed with a blood sacrifice and the Judeo-Christian versions make substitutions for earlier human sacrifice: animal sacrifice in the temple up until 70 AD and of course Christ’s voluntary self-sacrifice on the Cross. There is also the substitution of circumcision which is said to replace a custom in which slaves were castrated.
Clearly one can note a symbolic connection between wearing a chastity cage and castration/circumcision but I think anyone who is a religious believer needs to draw a sharp distinction between what we may choose to do as a private, invented symbolic ritual and the actual rituals of a faith tradition. One important aspect of religious dedication is that we willingly submit to the prescriptions of our tradition and our community, without putting our own fanciful innovations on the same level - because that wouldn’t be “submission” at all. It’d be consumerism: “I’m going to buy (into) that bit of Christianity but leave these bits out and add this bit…”

 

But are you kidding yourself? It is all about origin, I don't see how you can separate them. I see the first question "Why are we here?" As one of the easiest to answer, because (for me) it only requires a naturalistic explanation, not a metaphysical one. Like "What is it all about?" It's meaningless. Whereas "What is here and how did it come in to being"? Are real questions with definite answers (whether we know or not). We cannot say for sure that "Why" or "who" are relevant in the question of existence at all.

 

What gives your life meaning? Not what gives life meaning. It's subjective to the individual. Mostly it's about family and friends, but for some there is the addition of the metaphysical. That feeling there has to be something more. The awe and wonder. We are an incredible species of ape with the ability to communicate astounding ideas and concepts.

 

I see what you’re saying, but for me it’s the other way round. I’m very much content with the world as it appears and am also content to accept the creation story of my religious tradition without needing to scrutinise or critique it. For example, the whole “age of the universe” question doesn’t bother me. The Byzantine calendar says this is the year 7532 “since the foundation of the world”. And in fact when you look at the generally accepted anthropological evidence it does seem that agrarian village communities with something we’d recognise as a “culture” appeared at around that time. Genesis is a story of human culture. The word “world” is from “were-old”, meaning “age of man”. It might well be that a whole bunch of stuff with atoms and stars and plankton and giant frogs went on before anyone was around to write about it, but to me the question is “so what”?
Often people respond to this with “well, understanding these things enables us to progress technologically, and maybe one day unlock the key to consciousness/ travel to other galaxies/ unleash new forms of energy/ live to 500 years old” etc. But the thing is, I don’t want any of those things! I don’t think they’re desirable aspirations. I want us to live here, within nature, be kind to each other, grow old and die, making room for the next lot. Tbh I think we in the western world are already too affluent, alienated from nature, live too long, chug out too much waste and travel around far too much, interfering where we don’t belong. The last thing I want to see is a bunch of us getting cybernetically enhanced and zooming off into space with Elon Musk at the helm to fuck up some other planet!

 

Whereas conversely, I am very interested to know whether my life has some intended purpose, and if so, what it is and how I can make a good job of it. Not for an extrinsic reward, but just because it’s the point of me.
Incidentally I do think I’ve got answers to those questions and they’re not at all grandiose. I seem to be meant to have a pretty parochial existence doing a “human service” job looking after others. And my daily life is full of miracles so small that @JaySaysYes would piss himself with mirth that I call them that. But why would they be big? I’m not big. They’re the right size for me… almost as if there was an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving Father overseeing the whole unfolding universe, including my miniscule sector of it.

 

I cannot disagree with most of that. Or the next post.

 

Well that’s great! I’m not wanting to “win” an argument, and I like learning about other people’s perspectives…

 

I’m interested to know… does anyone ever send you angry, insulting messages in the mistaken impression that you’re the other Jay? And if so, do you redirect them to him with a covering note saying “I think this is yours”?
I don’t personally get angry with Mr SaysYes, but he really tries hard to get me there, and I’ve noticed plenty of other folks falling for his shtick!

 

@Muppet - thanks for sobering thoughts about our own place in the world. Serving others, surrendering to your community, rejecting consumerism in it's extremes... those are things I'm valuing more & more once again and I don't know if chastity in my marriage triggered that or if they just go hand in hand.

@Jay Sub - I want the answers to all of those questions at the same time. The What, How, Why, Who, When and Now What. But if you only look for the evidence of What, When & How and refuse to inquire & consider the evidence of Who & Why, you might be neglecting important evidence that can help explain the mystery of it all.

One of the most compelling inquiries I've done is examining the evidence surrounding the existence of Jesus Christ. Even before you ask the question that I posed earlier: Was he Lord, Liar or Lunatic? - you have to address the question: is there satisfactory evidence that he is the historical figure recorded in the Bible and are these accounts of his life reliable? I believe the evidence is nearly irrefutable. For me, the evidence is overwhelming that he existed as recorded in the scriptures and is who he said he was - God incarnate. The real mystery is the triune God.

Having established that Jesus was God, he taught and affirmed the Old Testament records as true. And I think he allowed room for the fact that those records aren't pure historical literature. They include poetry, allegory, and parabolic(?) stories of the most ancient human history to convey meaning. And they don't contradict scientific truth which is EQUALLY valid.

Consider a crime scene. If you can establish the Who, how much easier is it to understand the What, When, How and Why? Sure, some of those facts can be established independently. But they make for a more complete, coherent account when you know Who.

 

Since you put a (?) I’ll correct you without feeling like a pompous ass. No, “parabolic” means “forming a parabola”. You already said what you mean with “allegory”. Parables are allegorical stories.

 

Thank you! I suspected that was incorrect usage, thus the ?.

 

Yeah, I think it depends on your relationship and what you call marriage. I think certain relationships are more pleasing to God than others. "Cheating" by the definition of that word is not pleasing. "Open", I think it's a little less clear. Genesis talks about one man and one woman. Although I haven't seen a passage that specifically talks about "open" marriages, there are many texts about sex is only good within marriage and that marriage is a lifelong commitment. So, honestly, I don't see how an open marriage can be considered pleasing. At least to God. What about other kinks in general. The only thing I can think of are texts that speak of our bodies as temples of God. Which would mean, things that degrade would degrade God.

I think we intuitively know this stuff though. Perhaps we look for justification, the "ok" perhaps to explore our sexuality. I think with that, those are personal decisions. There's the ideal, and then there's reality. Divorce is one example, although Jesus basically thought it was a crappy idea.

For some things, I don't know if you have to look for all answers in the Bible, although most of them are there. Some things, do your own research as to how good an idea something is. With respect to open marriage, the truth is, you'll find very few successful ones. You might think you're the exception, and maybe you are, but the odds are against it. Kinks are fun, Fantasies are interesting, but a committed marriage with all the support, shared dreams, and intimacy is so much more powerful. I don't think you need to Bible to tell you that an open marriage would be a distraction. Sometimes, more vanilla kinks can be fun. Like a facial.

 

It has been suggested we are one and the same... lol.

 

Yes I think I am one who has suggested it. But the idea of a man who would stage banter between himself and a secondary self-as-asshole is too disturbing to contemplate. Tho not as disturbing, come to think of it, as the idea of an asshole who would stage banter between himself and a secondary self-as-if-I-was-a-reasonable-man.

 

I watched a documentary about “swingers” and it was one of the saddest things I ever saw. In every case you could see that one partner in the couple was a damaged person driven to test their spouse’s love by fucking someone else, and the other was a person desperately struggling to pretend this was totally fine. The strong impression I got was that both would love it if the cuckolded one would punch the third party’s face and passionately kiss their beloved. But this didn’t happen.

 

Interesting, and thank you for your thoughtful post.

Alas, I disagree with your findings that open marriage crosses some line - fuzzy as you describe. It might, but my understandings of the best teachings I have are as I stated a few posts back: the Old Testament has large doses of how to be productive and how not to fuck up all through it. It must be interpreted in the context of the time. Tribal stupidity, with wars, in-fighting, subjugation, slavery, death everywhere. Primitive notions of how life should be lived and what is normal. The Old Testament seeks to educate an savage, ignorant people about a single God and how He wants us to live. And in the context of the time, that was "the productive way." Monogamy not at all the default, and when it was established, productivity and harmony soared. IMHO. YMMV. All disclaimers apply. Please don't flame me.

Anyway, the scholarly stuff I have read urge us to not be so literal with the stuff that's in the O.T. The New Testament supersedes it also. New Covenant. The two Great Commandments.

I believe that open marriages are acceptable - they follow the two Great Commandments - as long as there is truly love and an absence of what I'll awkwardly call capture or slavery - a lack of agency for one of the partners. Harems are not okay - there is no agency for the females caught up in the deal. Likewise blackmail-based FinDom and things like that. Relationships driven by loveless power are evil, but relationships build on enduring love, even brutal BDSM relationships or BBC/cuck ones, can glorify God if done in love and respect.

A way to think about it is: if something in the O.T. is prohibited, but you have a hard time defining it, it's really a guidance for living a protective life - one that helps you survive wars, famines, droughts, etc. It was written in a time when such a prohibition was completely novel. The same is true for the stories of, say, Ruth. A guide for living YOUR life, not so much a documentary of Ruth's life. (Wow, what a great story.) So (see posts above) the prohibition on wearing women's underwear is a guide and a metaphor for "stop wasting time and do your fucking job." How do I say this? Shades of gray. One can and should ask a person interpreting the proscription literally: please describe what, exactly, is women's underwear. Where does men's underwear stop and women's underwear begin?

And so it is for loving marriages. When does vanilla stop and kink begin? And when does monogamy stop and evil bigamy begin? If you are friendly with your BBC bull, but you love your submissive husband with all your heart, and this is what you both crave, is it evil? If everyone is happy and love flourishes, it is evil? Granted, there is HUGE temptation to fuck things up when operating in such a manner. The O.T. would therefore instruct us not to do it - too likely to make a mess and fuck up tribal operations. You wrote, "With respect to open marriage, the truth is, you'll find very few successful ones," and I could not agree more. But I think a successful one can exist, and bring glory to God, and is therefore not necessarily a sin.

As my Wife said about gay marriage during the controversy over here in 'Murica a few years back: Saying gay people are going to ruin the concept of marriage is pretty rich when you consider the damage done already by straight people.

God created people who are hard-wired to be attracted to their sex just as he created those attracted to the opposite sex. We are all created in His image. We know now that gay people cannot be cured and they can be gay even if they weren't raised "incorrectly" somehow. Those people can and do still, through their acts and love, bring glory to Him. I believe this with all my heart. And so, by the Shades of Gray theorem, I ask myself: where is the line? When does God turn His back on a truly loving, committed relationship - as statistically difficult as it may be to create and maintain one?

Peace and blessings to you, sir! And to all of us!

 

Except….
Jesus didn’t ever soften the Law. He was a Pharisee, and He chastised the Pharisees not for being too strict but for being hypocrites and hard of heart. All the apparent “breaking” of the Law He did was in fact pushing it to breaking point through rigour. And as for marriage, He was especially rigorous: He said that marriage between two people was for eternity, and that divorce was only granted “because of the hardness of your hearts”. He also told the Canaanite woman that only her first husband was her husband and all other subsequent relationships were adulterous. Also note that He didn’t get married or have sex at all. You might say “well the Gospels might simply omit those details” but I don’t think that’s in any way credible. He blessed marriage, though, performing His first miracle at a wedding. And as to the woman taken in adultery, He didn’t say she wasn’t due for a good stoning to death, just that nobody was entitled to do it because they were as bad if not worse than her. It’s a traditional teaching of the Church that when He bent down and wrote in the sand, what he wrote was the names of those present, and their hidden sins.
Another thing to note about Jesus is that He ALWAYS accompanied some apparent departure from established custom by demonstrating that it was in fact a fulfillment of Torah.
One of the best bits of being a member of the Orthodox Church is that once a year all four Gospels are read aloud in their entirety through the night. When you do that you get a very clear view of who Jesus was (is) - and He is UNBEARABLY intense, rigorous and abrasive… as well as kind, loving and hilariously funny on occasion. But never lax or wishy-washy.

 

There isn't much need for something other than that, but I'd add that the murders of millions of people for an idiology, the kiddie fiddling, money laundering, preying on the weak, stifling human progress, persecution of people of other faiths and spititual ideologies, and how it limits many intelligent people to "because god" are all good enough reasons to view most christians as hateful drones that can't think for themselves.

My knickers aren't in a knot. I don't need knotted knickers to participate, but if it explains your participation then, um, okay, thanks for letting me know.

I know nothing about homeopathy, but I don't think wars have been fought over it.

Same for astrology.

When we have a functioning democracy I'll form an opinion on it, but in the mean time I think it would be a good thing.

No thoughts on alien abductions, and I don't read childrens books.