Homosexuality and the bible: Round 2 - morality.

Good point.I guess I thought it was weird that oral sex was described as a "deviation," when for most people it's a normal part of sexual expression, like kissing.

Yeah now it is. But I have to wonder how common it was during OT times. In a time when people had no concept of personal cleanliness I could see how some folks would consider it deviant, or at least, abhorent behavior.

Don't laugh, but I want to add one more to my list: sex with animals.I don't think this technically falls under sodomy, but does the bible consider this a form of homosexuality? Does it specifically say that this act would be sinful? Or do you just infer this from something else?thanksmy list of possible sinful sex acts- Christians please indicate which are sinful according to the bible. This message has been edited by custard, 05-28-2004 08:58 AM

Why do you believe this? Yes, the ultimate physical expression of mutual love. Why should gay people be denied the same expression of love, just because some people find it 'icky'? I believe in a holy God, yet you and I believe differently. I do not see love, or even sex (as long as it is not forced) as perverted, immoral or sin. But than again, I am completely comforatable in my sexuality See, this is what frightens me. If people with this mentality were to come into power, and then exercise the barbaric attrocities recorded in the bible, I submit that the only group of people left alive would be Christians.
Then they would kill each other off, because they would not agree on what it is to be a Christian.

Hi Pecos, WRONG Pecos, human beings have been having sex for as long as there have been human beings. What makes you think that the institution of marriage has anything to do with sex and procreation? Was Adam and Eve married? And who was Cain's wife? Sex out of wedlock was deemed fornication by the church , the same church that institued the Inquisitions and incouraged the "suffer not a witch to live." The same church that killed and burned all that was not in agreement with it in the Middle ages. Morality and grace can be achieved outside of the church Pecos Vatican II changed all that. Fundalmentalist Christians can hold they're morality and judgement template against anyone who does not conform to those self imposed values but those values DO NOT represent in anyway what Gods message is. We live in the year 2004 not the year 0. The hypocracy is almost comical. Love is love Pecos I do not think that God if he exist is a racist.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

And I have pointed it out numerous time in this and other threads. The Episcopal Church even has an openly gay Bishop for God's sake.It is only a small but vocal subset of Christians that see any problem with homosexuality.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To mike_the_wiz:Read Brian's post on my closed thread and you'll see a link to the thread (what would you have God do?) your link directs to. I have read that thread already, prior to you giving me the link.I am sorry that I didn't take your post on face value, but your credibility was not high: given that you have failed to explicitly identify any inverses and/or contrapositives in my post up to this point in time (actually, you have admitted that contrapositives have nothing to do with my argument, in contrast to your earlier claim) suggests that what you try to "teach" me may turn out to be...well, wrong.Surprisingly, what you wrote: turned out not to be too far from the truth. So I guess you're not completely ignorant.

God hates fags?
Not on your life or anyone elses.
Does God hate sin or the sinner?
Well?
If he hates the sinner, than Christ certainly died in vain.
Eh?
Careful, what is said to you must be considered vis a vis God, not with the spouter of someone who endeavors speaking for him.

I speak not from myself, but as I have studied scripture since childhood and never mind how long that is. That means whittle away what is downright ludicrous in interpretation, and what is meant to harm god's ways, and his ways are designed to be the utmost benefit to his creatures. Enter sin, and everything is muddled, and black and white are more than gray, and even when you try to have it completely in god's way, you run the risk of futzing it - and that is why there is a Christ.
Sex, as created by god, is a thing between a married couple. It is to be such total joy, that the two are wrapped in each other and nothing can separate or come between them. Sex, in its beauty, is between two people for purposes. Masturbation is having sex all by yourself. It does not glorify god who did not make it for that purpose. The marriage bed is undefiled, meaning, that what transpires in that bed is not sin, provided unnatural lusts do not enter therein. Holy angels are permitted to watch the sexual union between a man and a woman on that marriage bed. That raises sex to a level it mostly does not achieve.
I am implying that oral sex is not natural and does not achieve the level for holy participants.
Many or most will not accept what I have just said. That is fine. It is difficult for humans to understand - 'holy god'....god is holy. It is his intense desire that we participate in this holiness....we should wish to be like him.
Again, I did not mean to slight you by my short answers. I just believe that you are pretty much on the way to full realization, and I wish you God's speed, and I wish that rarely.

You're cool, man, and funny.
No, god is not racist, and neither are you.
thanks for the words. Anything I can do, let me know
Best to you
George

I literally have no idea, but I have to guess that it's one of those ideas that, like "fire good!" has immediate appeal to even the least insightful.In other words, I suspect that the fun of oral sex would outwiegh questionable hygene.

Why, exactly? Why is putting your mouth on genitals somehow less natural than putting your mouth on a mouth, or on nipples, or on anything else? Oral sex is a form of foreplay for most people so it's not like it's taking the place of regular sex.Moreover, what's your Biblical justification for this? The Bible makes no mention of it, as far as I can tell.Geez, you really are infected with that "if it feels good, don't do it" meme.I'll close with the book of Matthew, which seems appropriate:

quote:

---

Matthew 15:11 - Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

---

Seems like the Matthew writer is down with a little oral; what's your issue, exactly?

for today. thanks. I mean this kindly.
Sincerely
George

Dammit, you Christians always do this to me.I had very real, very valid points in my post. How dare you dismiss them.You disgust me. Clearly it was a mistake to think you capable of any sort of substantive discussion on this, or any, issue.AbE: Ok, so the Matthew quote was, in fact, supposed to be funny. But I was serious about the rest. With no Biblical prohibitions against oral sex by married folks, your position is simply the worst sort of "self-denial is automatically good" horsecrap. Clearly, to you, sex is wrong unless it's dispassionate and clinical.How about you adopt a mature attitude towards sex, one that realizes that the love between two people rightly leads to a desire to maximise each other's satisfaction? After all, if God didn't want us to have oral sex he wouldn't have put the clitoris in a place where it doesn't get stimulated by the penis, you know?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2004 01:54 AM

quote:

---

I suspect that the fun of oral sex would outwiegh questionable hygene.

---

Glad to hear it. Meet you in the park, say nine-ish?regards,
Esteban Hambre