I'm embarrassed to ask this question

[phoebe]

First, if you have to ask, then that is in itself an answer.

And yes, Scripture (via Paul) speaks to it (speaks against it) when properly translated.  Rather specifically and graphically, which is probably why it was dumbed down with "polite" language.

[Logismos]

Perverion is a perverting of anything natural.

And how do you know what is natural? By whether or not it is perverted? Can two married people french kiss? The mouth is for eating, drinking and speaking isn't it? Therefore two married people allowing their tongues to touch while kissing would be a perversion of the natural function of the mouth. Right?

Medical risks for natural sex? Really. Please explain.

Vaginal sex can cause microscopic fissures in the skin of the penis and the vagina and result in infected genital tissue (vaginitis for example) and the urethra and vagina are so close to each other that any sexual activity can inadvertently cause a UTI.

If God asked me about pooping I would be embarrassed, and certainly that doesn't make pooping wrong.

Then you have a pretty strange idea of God in my opinion.

A vexing response. Using your own logic you would have to believe that it is immoral to poop. That would explain why you're so full of nonsensical arguments.

[phoebe]

1 Cor. 6:9-11 uses two terms that apply to this discussion:

arsenokoites - one who anally penetrates another during sex, applies equally to male and female receptors, and rape.

malakos - receptive male homosexual promiscuous cross dressers immediately precedes arsenokoites.

Just as one, as a Christ-follower who has been washed clean with His Blood, should no longer participate in stealing, cheating, profanity, adultery, idol worship, and drunkenness, neither should one participate in sexual, anal activity either as the penetrator or as the receptor.  This is about a physical act, not about the relationship of the heart. 


arsenokoites  is repeated in 1Tim. 1:10.

[chosenone]

1 Cor. 6:9-11 uses two terms that apply to this discussion:

arsenokoites - one who anally penetrates another during sex, applies equally to male and female receptors, and rape.

malakos - receptive male homosexual promiscuous cross dressers immediately precedes arsenokoites.

Just as one, as a Christ-follower who has been washed clean with His Blood, should no longer participate in stealing, cheating, profanity, adultery, idol worship, and drunkenness, neither should one participate in sexual, anal activity either as the penetrator or as the receptor.  This is about a physical act, not about the relationship of the heart. 


arsenokoites  is repeated in 1Tim. 1:10.

 well thats pretty clear then Phoebe.

[Logismos]

arsenokoites - one who anally penetrates another during sex, applies equally to male and female receptors, and rape.

Cite? I can find no sources that claim that arsenokoitēs is a reference to anal sex. According to Strong's Concordance it is a reference to a homosexuality. The word arsenokoitēs itself has two parts. Arseno- which in Greek means male. It is combined with the Greek word koiten which means bed. Both of these words are in the Greek version of Leviticus 18:22 ("Thou shalt not lie with mankind" = καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην). So basically the word arsenokoitēs is at the most a euphmaism literally meaning man-bed or perhaps man-sex but for sure there is no reason that I can find that it contains any reference specifically to the anus as you claim.

[lightshineon]

 Log, do we need Strong's to tell us that is how sodomites engage in sexual activities? Some things just, you know, we do not need Strong's for.

[OkiMar]

Oral is still a perversion. So is whipping and tying up your partner or filming, photographing them etc. It's stepping over into lust which is a perversion of healthy sexual love. One builds, the other destroys.

Can you make a biblical argument that oral sex is perverse? Book, chapter, verse? Thus far, all you have really cited is your opinion. You have alluded to it not being "natural," but that is not a biblical argument. According to your logic, a man could not pay any "attention" to a woman's breasts because the "natural" function of breasts is for breast feeding an infant. I would caution you about binding where God has not bound.
Incidentally, Romans 1:26-27 refers to female and male homosexuality, not oral sex between a married man and woman. The context clearly bears this out. Richard Hays in "Relations Natural and Unnatural" (Journal of Religious Ethics, Spring 1986 p.192) demonstrated that the terms "natural" and "unnatural" were frequently used as a way of distinguishing between heterosexual and homosexual behavior. These verses do not support your position.

[OkiMar]

Log, do we need Strong's to tell us that is how sodomites engage in sexual activities? Some things just, you know, we do not need Strong's for.

Actually, we do. Logismos makes a very good point. The NT was written in Greek, thus it is imperative that our translators properly defined Greek words. Thus far, I have not found a single greek lexicon that defines arsenokoites as defined above. Here is what I found:
Thayer: "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite."
Arndt and Gingrich: "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite."

[BAH-BLAH]

Im not "invested" in this debate (nudge nudge wink wink)....seriously....but I do agree with the translationmal issues mentioned....

[chosenone]

I am not too worried what the Bible says  or doesnt say on the subject of anal sex. I Just KNOW inside that it isnt what God would ever want me to be involved in. We only have to look at a man and a womens sexual organs to see clearly what is designed to go where. It isnt rocket science.

[OkiMar]

That's a very dangerous approach to scripture, chosenone ("I am not too worried what the Bible says or doesnt say..."). If something violates your conscience, then you shouldn't do it. That's all well and good. However, when one legislates an activity as sinful then he should care very much about what the Bible says on the subject. Binding where God has not bound is also a sin.

[zoonance]

Log, do we need Strong's to tell us that is how sodomites engage in sexual activities? Some things just, you know, we do not need Strong's for.

Actually, we do. Logismos makes a very good point. The NT was written in Greek, thus it is imperative that our translators properly defined Greek words. Thus far, I have not found a single greek lexicon that defines arsenokoites as defined above. Here is what I found:
Thayer: "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite."
Arndt and Gingrich: "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite."

Accuracy Schmaccuracy.  Perhaps we should just keep looking for a lexicon that supports whatever view we currently want to support on whatever topic!  Then we can relax, quote the dictionary as the irrevocable truth of our position, nullifying the need for definitions of the debated word in question as to how it was used contemporarily when written.

[OkiMar]

Log, do we need Strong's to tell us that is how sodomites engage in sexual activities? Some things just, you know, we do not need Strong's for.

Actually, we do. Logismos makes a very good point. The NT was written in Greek, thus it is imperative that our translators properly defined Greek words. Thus far, I have not found a single greek lexicon that defines arsenokoites as defined above. Here is what I found:
Thayer: "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite."
Arndt and Gingrich: "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite."

Accuracy Schmaccuracy.  Perhaps we should just keep looking for a lexicon that supports whatever view we currently want to support on whatever topic!  Then we can relax, quote the dictionary as the irrevocable truth of our position, nullifying the need for definitions of the debated word in question as to how it was used contemporarily when written.

You pressed "Enter" too many times after the quote, so I fixed it.
Oh, and your post is asinine too. Unfortunately, I can't fix that.

[zoonance]

Log, do we need Strong's to tell us that is how sodomites engage in sexual activities? Some things just, you know, we do not need Strong's for.

Actually, we do. Logismos makes a very good point. The NT was written in Greek, thus it is imperative that our translators properly defined Greek words. Thus far, I have not found a single greek lexicon that defines arsenokoites as defined above. Here is what I found:
Thayer: "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite."
Arndt and Gingrich: "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite."

Accuracy Schmaccuracy.  Perhaps we should just keep looking for a lexicon that supports whatever view we currently want to support on whatever topic!  Then we can relax, quote the dictionary as the irrevocable truth of our position, nullifying the need for definitions of the debated word in question as to how it was used contemporarily when written.

You pressed "Enter" too many times after the quote, so I fixed it.
Oh, and your post is asinine too. Unfortunately, I can't fix that.

I am using a laptop and sometimes the pad is very sensitive.  The post was supposed to be asinine and in support of your excellent point.  No need to fix it.

[OkiMar]

Log, do we need Strong's to tell us that is how sodomites engage in sexual activities? Some things just, you know, we do not need Strong's for.

Actually, we do. Logismos makes a very good point. The NT was written in Greek, thus it is imperative that our translators properly defined Greek words. Thus far, I have not found a single greek lexicon that defines arsenokoites as defined above. Here is what I found:
Thayer: "one who lies with a male as with a female, a sodomite."
Arndt and Gingrich: "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite."

Accuracy Schmaccuracy.  Perhaps we should just keep looking for a lexicon that supports whatever view we currently want to support on whatever topic!  Then we can relax, quote the dictionary as the irrevocable truth of our position, nullifying the need for definitions of the debated word in question as to how it was used contemporarily when written.

You pressed "Enter" too many times after the quote, so I fixed it.
Oh, and your post is asinine too. Unfortunately, I can't fix that.

I am using a laptop and sometimes the pad is very sensitive.  The post was supposed to be asinine and in support of your excellent point.  No need to fix it.

I'm sorry, zoo. I didn't catch the facetiousness. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have snapped at you. It was rude and uncalled for.