-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
Wow....tattoos are bad but it's okay to inflict pain on your spouse for sexual pleasure?
Sex is an expression of love, commitment, affection and selflessness. You want biblical principles as to why bdsm in any form is against scripture...just look at Jesus and what He demonstrated...servant leadership...not domination in any form... by my estimation.
Sex is an expression of love, commitment, affection and selflessness. You want biblical principles as to why bdsm in any form is against scripture...just look at Jesus and what He demonstrated...servant leadership...not domination in any form... by my estimation.
S
If thats what a person wants to do...fine...but it is a bit subcultural and there will be consequences for it....for example....people not agreeing with it. As for me....I don't know anyone who refers to their spouse this way and if I did I would feel awkward around them and might "accidentally" crack a joke about it or say something sarcastic. Lol
T
Yeah, no worries, brother. I mean Tinman was a creepy psycho in Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti's novel "House", but that's cool. He was an interesting character. 
I don't know. It bothers me that Christians are encouraging such lifestyles. We still need to bring loving correction. That's part of the truth that is God's Word.
I don't know. It bothers me that Christians are encouraging such lifestyles. We still need to bring loving correction. That's part of the truth that is God's Word.
S
Yeah, no worries, brother. I mean Tinman was a creepy psycho in Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti's novel "House", but that's cool. He was an interesting character. I don't know. It bothers me that Christians are encouraging such lifestyles. We still need to bring loving correction. That's part of the truth that is God's Word.
I don't know. It bothers me that Christians are encouraging such lifestyles. We still need to bring loving correction. That's part of the truth that is God's Word.
P
The king who is thy Lord in Psalm 45 verse 11 is clearly Jesus Christ Whose scepter of His kingdom is a scepter of righteousness as described in verse 6 and confirmed in Hebrews chapter 1 verse 8, so I'm not sure why you referenced that verse.
Regarding Abraham being Sarah's lord, lower case l, which I referenced myself in an earlier post, do you honestly think that Abraham and Sarah engaged in a BDSM type of relationship? Stop grasping at straws.
Regarding Abraham being Sarah's lord, lower case l, which I referenced myself in an earlier post, do you honestly think that Abraham and Sarah engaged in a BDSM type of relationship? Stop grasping at straws.
R
Yeah, no worries, brother. I mean Tinman was a creepy psycho in Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti's novel "House", but that's cool. He was an interesting character. I don't know. It bothers me that Christians are encouraging such lifestyles. We still need to bring loving correction. That's part of the truth that is God's Word.
I don't know. It bothers me that Christians are encouraging such lifestyles. We still need to bring loving correction. That's part of the truth that is God's Word.
Last edited:
S
We didn't get the whole story from the OP. We got little snippets of transparency but I think those were by accident. The fact is that a one down one up relationship is unhealthy. Husbands are called to love their wives and wives are to respect their husbands. This doesn't mean that husbands don't have to respect their wives and wives aren't to love their husbands.
I'm not sure this is a good argument for insisting that Christian wives should call their husbands "master" since it predates Christ and the new covenant.
Certainly, the use of "master" was an honorific afforded to men for several centuries. Traditionally, it would be used as a form of address from an inferior to a superior within the peerage (upper class landowners). So, for example, a farmhand might refer to the landowner as "Master Davis" (surname) and the landowner's son as "Master John" (first name). Eventually, as it shifted to "Mister" (which is our current honorific), it was used as a title of respect among those of equal (peerage) status, and eventually to all males.
Throughout the Victorian era, it wouldn't have been uncommon for a husband and wife to refer to each other as "Mister" and "Missus" in a public setting, as first names were more privately used amongst family and close friends. So, a woman might say to her sewing circle, "When I first married Mr. Smith we lived in Virginia," but she would call him "John" at home. As society became less formal, these kinds of address faded away. For example, I'm sure many of us have the experience of working with bosses that we address by first name instead of an honorific.
Because our culture has so significantly changed regarding titles, the use of archaic honorifics (barring the actual UK peerage) like "sir," "lord," and "master" is not without some agenda. They are widely used within BDSM circles to establish the power dynamics that are necessary in these relationships.
So, while Sarah called her husband "lord" and "master" (according to the English translation), she was engaging with terminology that was completely accepted in her culture at that time. It wasn't a statement for all wives everywhere, in every time period, and every situation. To globally apply this is theologically suspect. Additionally, to imply that these sort of references are necessary "proofs" of a wife's honor and respect for her husband also indicates faulty logic. Just because you call someone "master" doesn't mean you respect that person. It just means you're engaging with a particular kind of title. People can have absolutely no respect for Obama, and still use his honorific of PRESIDENT. It is actions and not words that reveal true respect and honor.
Finally, while this is anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically representative, I know of many women who honor and respect their husbands and do not call their husbands "lord" or "sir" or "master." The only women I know of who use these terms in 2015 are women who engage with various aspects of BDSM within their relationships.
Certainly, the use of "master" was an honorific afforded to men for several centuries. Traditionally, it would be used as a form of address from an inferior to a superior within the peerage (upper class landowners). So, for example, a farmhand might refer to the landowner as "Master Davis" (surname) and the landowner's son as "Master John" (first name). Eventually, as it shifted to "Mister" (which is our current honorific), it was used as a title of respect among those of equal (peerage) status, and eventually to all males.
Throughout the Victorian era, it wouldn't have been uncommon for a husband and wife to refer to each other as "Mister" and "Missus" in a public setting, as first names were more privately used amongst family and close friends. So, a woman might say to her sewing circle, "When I first married Mr. Smith we lived in Virginia," but she would call him "John" at home. As society became less formal, these kinds of address faded away. For example, I'm sure many of us have the experience of working with bosses that we address by first name instead of an honorific.
Because our culture has so significantly changed regarding titles, the use of archaic honorifics (barring the actual UK peerage) like "sir," "lord," and "master" is not without some agenda. They are widely used within BDSM circles to establish the power dynamics that are necessary in these relationships.
So, while Sarah called her husband "lord" and "master" (according to the English translation), she was engaging with terminology that was completely accepted in her culture at that time. It wasn't a statement for all wives everywhere, in every time period, and every situation. To globally apply this is theologically suspect. Additionally, to imply that these sort of references are necessary "proofs" of a wife's honor and respect for her husband also indicates faulty logic. Just because you call someone "master" doesn't mean you respect that person. It just means you're engaging with a particular kind of title. People can have absolutely no respect for Obama, and still use his honorific of PRESIDENT. It is actions and not words that reveal true respect and honor.
Finally, while this is anecdotal and not necessarily scientifically representative, I know of many women who honor and respect their husbands and do not call their husbands "lord" or "sir" or "master." The only women I know of who use these terms in 2015 are women who engage with various aspects of BDSM within their relationships.
P
First of all, nothing predates Christ in that He is from everlasting to everlasting. Jesus said that He was before Abraham, so He was most definitely before Sarah as well in that Abraham was older than Sarah.
Secondly, Peter used the example of Sarah when writing to New Covenant or New Testament saints in relation to how wives ought to relate to their own husbands:
I Peter chapter 3 verses 1 thru 6
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
Lastly, that being said, I would never seek to twist or distort such admonitions to include the BDSM lifestyle.
Secondly, Peter used the example of Sarah when writing to New Covenant or New Testament saints in relation to how wives ought to relate to their own husbands:
I Peter chapter 3 verses 1 thru 6
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
Lastly, that being said, I would never seek to twist or distort such admonitions to include the BDSM lifestyle.