Search This Blog

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Christianity: the submissive Religion

Lately, I have just started reading a fascinating (to me)
 web serial, the Tales of MU ( It deals
 with real college issues in a fantasy college setting.
 One of these issues deals with an sD relationship. It
 made me think...about how Christianity is quite well
 (IMHO) summarized as a religion of theological submissiveness.
 I'm still trying to figure out the terms of a "safe word,"
 but I think that more or less, it's a valid comparison.

Obviously, in Christianity, Jesus Christ (God the Son) is the Dom.
 That's why we (I am a Christian, in case you couldn't tell)
 call him Lord (in Latin, Dominus, whence Dominator/Dominatrix).
 We obey him, and we obey others, specifically in the style of
 obeying Him. Fascinatingly )to me, anyhow), is how Christ qualified
 or demonstrated his fitness, for being Lord by his own submissive-
 ness to the will of God the Father. It speaks to a general opinion
 (as far as I know; I'm not into sD, I just read a lot) that subs
 make good (if not the best) Doms, because of the ease of adopting
 empathy for the sub. Above all, sD depends absolutely upon the
 utter trustworthiness of the Dom's self-restraint. Any use of the
 safe word by the sub is admission of either a lack, or betrayal
 of trust in the Dom's self-restraint and regard for the life of
 the sub. Being able to go through a session without needing to use
 it, perhaps especially if (heh-heh) "sorely" tempted to do so,
 gives a tremendous rush of passion for all concerned, both for being
 pushed so far without not losing trust, and for pushing so far without
 losing trustworthiness.
It also is shows just how the whole "if you want to be first,
 then serve"-thing works out. If you want to be in charge, then
 get on the bottom...sounds like sD to me! Christ died in
 the most humiliating and painful method known. So painful
 that they used a referent to the means itself to describe
 just how painful it was. He did it because it was necessary,
 but He did it that way, because it was commanded.

Maybe it's just the pervert in me, but this perspective makes me
 feel as if the vicissitudes of life are more tolerable knowing
 that "Dom" will reel me back, if I use that wonderful Safe Word,

Opened Eyes

One of the most interesting discussions in morality,
 revolves around the Garden of Eden, and the Fall of Man.
 I have written before, and will write again, about
 how some people try to shunt blame for the Fall completely
 on women, and off of men, by adding the idea that Adam
 was not present when Eve accepted the false words of the
 serpent. Frankly, if I have the perfect woman made for me,
 and we're both naked, I can't imagine anything that would
 convince me to leave her presense outside of severe blunt
 force trauma.

Anyway, another sub-topic I like to examine concerns the
 point where, after accepting and consuming the fruit, their
 "eyes were opened, and they realized that they were naked."
 I like to work on this passage becasue it seems as if the
 issue is that they notice their nudity, but on closer
 examination, it is evident that any notice of nudity, and
 a need to cover it, is done with the idea of nakedness in
 mind. They do not go and make coverings for each other; they
 go and make coverings for themselves. It makes me wonder if
 part of the curse of "knowing good (and evil)" involved not
 so much a revelation of status ("nakedness"), as an emphasis
 on short-term goals versus the long-term.

After all, as I like to point out, they walked and talked with
 God - they were as intimate with good (Good!) as is humanly
 possible. Maybe what their eyes were "opened" to, was becoming
 as intimate with evil as they had been with good. Because for
 that to happen, you really need your eyes closed; you have to
 believe that something evil, something bad for you, or for
 others whom you care for, is actually good for you. If that
 takes open eyes, then I'd rather "walk...not by sight."