::blushing:: I'm embarrassed to ask this question but I am going to go for it. I am happily married and enjoy a good sex life. However, I girl friends who engage in anal sex with their spouses/boyfriends. My hubby and I are both Christians and are committed to each other. I was wondering if anal sex is a no-no for Christians? My confusion is this- I know homosexuality is against God's will and some consider it unnatural. However, if you are performing this act in marriage is this still considered unnatural an ungodly? I want to be in God's will.
Ms d:
Do you want to do this?
: darnell Sat Oct 24, 2009 - 21:02:15
::blushing:: I'm embarrassed to ask this question but I am going to go for it. I am happily married and enjoy a good sex life. However, I girl friends who engage in anal sex with their spouses/boyfriends. My hubby and I are both Christians and are committed to each other. I was wondering if anal sex is a no-no for Christians? My confusion is this- I know homosexuality is against God's will and some consider it unnatural. However, if you are performing this act in marriage is this still considered unnatural an ungodly? I want to be in God's will.
I am not being forced or pressured into engaging into anal sex. However, I have no problems with experimenting if it means keeping my sex life interesting and pleasurable. However, if this is an act that is "ungodly," or out of the will of God, I do not want to engage in anything that would put me and my marriage out of the will of God. I have been a Christian for about 3 years and I am continuing to grow in my faith and desire to live a faith-filled life in obedience to God.
TMI. ::lalala::
But seriously, don't go there girl friend.
Have Mercy ::help:: I think it is wrong, and will hurt you in the immediate, and the long run. For Pete's sake forgive me, but, is that not sodomite behavior?
Drop it, Farouk.
: lightshineon Sat Oct 24, 2009 - 23:19:04
Have Mercy ::help:: I think it is wrong, and will hurt you in the immediate, and the long run. For Pete's sake forgive me, but, is that not sodomite behavior?
I agree lightsineon. Surely that is like sodomy that The Bible teaches against? I have a good sex life, but would never go there with anal sex. The anus is not designed for sex, it can damage that area, the muscles go the wrong way, they don't expand like the vagina does and it is also very unhygienic.
Stop listening to your friends, people do all sorts of things that aren't godly. If you have had to come here to ask the chances are that you are not at peace about it. My advise...leave WELL alone, there are many other things that you can do in sex to keep it pleasureable and fun without that.
Stop listening to your friends, people do all sorts of things that aren't godly. If you have had to come here to ask the chances are that you are not at peace about it. My advise...leave WELL alone, there are many other things that you can do in sex to keep it pleasureable and fun without that.
[/quote]
You are right. The fact that I came to this site to ask this question proves I wasn't at peace with this.
Im not convinced that its against Gods will for a married couple.What makes me lean more that way its is the fact its injurous.I dont believe that if you have to take such precuations not to end up with permenent physical damage or to avoid infections that we are supposed to be doing that.
I know quite a few homesexual men who even will not go there.People automatically assume its a homesexual activity and its not..Lots of heteros do it and have been doing it since the dawn of time.
Love
Dallas
Also dont be embarrased that you asked.Many people wonder that same thing.
Love
Dallas
I am with dallas, I can't say with complete confidence that it is a sin within the confines of hetero marriage(i believe those scriptues against it were focusing on hmsxlty), but i just wouldn't do it b/c of the health reasons. I also don't see how anyone could even want to do that. I get grossed out just by thinking about it lol. I'm so glad this is NOT a desire for my husband!!!!!
Ms d:
Oh okay, then.
: darnell Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 08:23:08
You are right. The fact that I came to this site to ask this question proves I wasn't at peace with this.
PS:
Ms D: Is there any other subject on this Christian forum that you would like to discuss as well as this one?
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)
If the bed is undefiled then i think what happens between married couples is between them and God
RR:
So you're saying the subject of this thread is okay, if always with protection?
from: RadicalReformer on Today at 03:29:49 PM
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)
If the bed is undefiled then i think what happens between married couples is between them and God
: RadicalReformer Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 15:29:49
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)
If the bed is undefiled then i think what happens between married couples is between them and God
So its OK for one to get a whip and beat the other then?(as long as they are both into sadism and masochism of course).
I REALLY dont think that verse has anything to do with justifying some of the things that some couples may be into.
exactly, chosenone. And the scriptures, as far as I know, soundly condemn sodomy (anal sex). Just because both agree on it, doesn't mean that it is OK to do. basic stuff, that.
Ms dallas:
Well, not everyone...
: dallasapple Sun Oct 25, 2009 - 08:33:14
Also dont be embarrased that you asked.Many people wonder that same thing.
Love
Dallas
I was wondering this, the other day, over muesli and Fair Trade coffee.
Great question. I've heard christians justify everything from masturbation to porn as a 'marital aid' to sex toys to remaining faithful to an unfaithful spouse as 'Gods will'. I've also heard perversion attempted to be justified. (Have to wonder when I hear public christian attempts for child molestation.)
(And most of the above from either the pulpit or bible thumping types.) (Or with low moral standards who also exist - (including occasionally the pulplit too.)
Anyway.
Perversion is a perversion of anything 'natural'. God made sex to be enjoyed between a husband and wife. Even non-christian medical studies will show you that anal sex is unhealthy. The digestive track is simply not designed to handle sex. It's designed for waste disposal, nothing else. I was once even shown a documentry at school (public) on the whys. (I'm not sure that it would be allowed anymore with all the widespread attempts at cultural brainwashing regarding homosexuality.)
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.
Picture God asking you about it. If you'd be ashamed or embaressed then it isn't right. What isn't right always has consequences.
You're wise to ask. When people don't it can lead to a lot of unhappiness and hurt in the long term and since christians with lower morals can tell you all sorts of things (including the justification of homosexuality as a life choice) and the world tells you that 'exploring your sexuality' includes sin. It can leave people high and dry on some of the issues that arn't directly expounded on in scripture.
For example the bible gives the word 'porniea' as justifcation for divorce, with the word covering a broad range of sexual sin (basically everything from fornication to beastiality.) Perversion is a perversion of something natural.
Hope that helps.
PS. And when a partner (generally a man) starts pressuring for these types of things, it can usually be traced to a porn habit or past sexual sin. It's lust, not love and needs to be nipped in the bud.
: BAH-BLAH Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 18:15:19
I was wondering this, the other day, over muesli and Fair Trade coffee.
so what were your conclusions bah-blah?
Ms ch:
So you want to know?
: chosenone Tue Oct 27, 2009 - 05:43:13
: BAH-BLAH Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 18:15:19
I was wondering this, the other day, over muesli and Fair Trade coffee.
so what were your conclusions bah-blah?
: farouk Tue Oct 27, 2009 - 06:13:20
Ms ch:
So you want to know?
: chosenone Tue Oct 27, 2009 - 05:43:13
: BAH-BLAH Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 18:15:19
I was wondering this, the other day, over muesli and Fair Trade coffee.
so what were your conclusions bah-blah?
I was just responding to his amusing post with a less than serious question.
: chosenone Tue Oct 27, 2009 - 05:43:13
: BAH-BLAH Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 18:15:19
I was wondering this, the other day, over muesli and Fair Trade coffee.
so what were your conclusions bah-blah?
Well the muesli has a bunch of fibre and....
Oh forget it
Ms ch:
Oh.
(Maybe I should bow out of this thread...)
from: chosenone on Today at 06:24:56 AM
Quote from: farouk on Today at 06:13:20 AM
Ms ch:
So you want to know?
Quote from: chosenone on Today at 05:43:13 AM
Quote from: BAH-BLAH on Yesterday at 06:15:19 PM
I was wondering this, the other day, over muesli and Fair Trade coffee.
so what were your conclusions bah-blah?
I was just responding to his amusing post with a less than serious question.
Oral sex is perverted?
You guys are hilarious.
: yesult
Perversion is a perversion of anything 'natural'.
Even though there is no direct references to anal or oral sex, is there a Biblical reason to believe that these acts are not natural or that they are prohibited? It seems as though your arguments are based on a documentary you saw in school a long time ago and medical information about the risks (there are medical risks for even the most generic of sexual behaviors), as well as generalizations about lust and a greek word called pornia which apparently means everything that you assume to be unnatural (sorry but you're using circular reasoning). I don't intend to actually discuss sexual behavior on a Christian forum but I just want to say that I found your points unconvincing. My wife and I are Christians and have a very loving relationship and have been married for 10 years. Our sex is better now than it was in the first 5 years of our marriage when we didn't know what we were doing. We don't do anal sex but I'll try to be non-descriptive and simply say that over many years we have been gradually and pleasantly surprised at the kinds of new pleasures that can be safely experienced...down in that other direction. And its nothing beyond our simple physical manifestation of love for one another.
Picture God asking you about it. If you'd be ashamed or embaressed then it isn't right.
If God asked me about pooping I would be embarrassed, and certainly that doesn't make pooping wrong.
: Logismos Wed Nov 04, 2009 - 21:53:53
: yesult
Perversion is a perversion of anything 'natural'.
Even though there is no direct references to anal or oral sex, is there a Biblical reason to believe that these acts are not natural or that they prohibited? It seems as though your arguments are based on a documentary you saw in school a long time ago and medical information about the risks (there are medical risks for even the most generic of sexual behaviors), as well as generalizations about lust and a greek word called pornia which apparently means everything that you assume to be unnatural (sorry but you're using circular reasoning). I don't intend to actually discuss sexual behavior on a Christian forum but I just want to say that I found your points unconvincing. My wife and I are Christians and have a very loving relationship and have been married for 10 years. Our sex is better now than it was in the first 5 years of our marriage when we didn't know what we were doing. We don't do anal sex but I'll try to be non-descriptive and simply say that over many years we have been gradually and pleasantly surprised at the kinds of new pleasures that can be safely experienced...down in that other direction. And its nothing beyond our simple physical manifestation of love for one another.
Picture God asking you about it. If you'd be ashamed or embaressed then it isn't right.
If God asked me about pooping I would be embarrassed, and certainly that doesn't make pooping wrong.
I will say from what I understand many scholars have concluded the Sodom event in the Bible pertained to rape more so than any specific sexual act.
And the definition of sodomy isnt limited to anal sex either.It includes oral as well as beastiality.
I just personally believe its "unhealthy"...And yes of course there are some risk involved in any time we are in close contact with another human beign not even just sexually.Its just with anal there are so many possible complications at a much higher # of occurence to make it unacceptable to me personally for myself.
But if two married people who love each other and enjoy this practice its really none of my business.I know some Christian women who think Im disgusting because I have no problem with oral sex.(personally).She reminded me thats where we go "pee pee" from .
Oh well..
Love
Dallas
: darnell Sat Oct 24, 2009 - 21:02:15
::blushing:: I'm embarrassed to ask this question but I am going to go for it. I am happily married and enjoy a good sex life. However, I girl friends who engage in anal sex with their spouses/boyfriends. My hubby and I are both Christians and are committed to each other. I was wondering if anal sex is a no-no for Christians? My confusion is this- I know homosexuality is against God's will and some consider it unnatural. However, if you are performing this act in marriage is this still considered unnatural an ungodly? I want to be in God's will.
Here is how I look at it... When speaking to this act in the church or to those in the church, the Word speaks to "those who traded the natural for the unnatural" And that is enough for me. There is a natural mode of sex an an unnatural mode. It's more fulfilling to seek out the ways to make the natural more enjoyable and fun than to trade it for the unnatural. Or it has been for us... 23+ years.
: Logismos Wed Nov 04, 2009 - 21:53:53
Even though there is no direct references to anal or oral sex, is there a Biblical reason to believe that these acts are not natural or that they are prohibited?
Perverion is a perverting of anything natural. What part of that point are you disagreeing with?
It seems as though your arguments are based on a documentary you saw in school a long time ago and medical information about the risks (there are medical risks for even the most generic of sexual behaviors),
No, the point I brought up is that the bowl is for the extrection of wastes and scientific (non-christian) studies have shown how damaging sex is to that area. It isn't designed for it. The womb, suprisingly enough, is.
Medical risks for natural sex? Really. Please explain.
as well as generalizations about lust and a greek word called pornia which apparently means everything that you assume to be unnatural (sorry but you're using circular reasoning).
Look it up. The word does mean everything from perverted sex to adultery. Why don't you prove your points with facts instead of just trying to dismiss the bible because it says something you don't like. (Or somebody quoting it.)
I don't intend to actually discuss sexual behavior on a Christian forum
Why not? You're happy to defend perverted sexual practices but find it prudish to discuss sex at all on a 'christian' forum. Not discussing it in a healthy way is how sexual sin gets opportunity to flourish in the first place
but I just want to say that I found your points unconvincing.
And I find your counter arguments unsubstaniated or able.
My wife and I are Christians and have a very loving relationship and have been married for 10 years. Our sex is better now than it was in the first 5 years of our marriage when we didn't know what we were doing. We don't do anal sex but I'll try to be non-descriptive and simply say that over many years we have been gradually and pleasantly surprised at the kinds of new pleasures that can be safely experienced...down in that other direction. And its nothing beyond our simple physical manifestation of love for one another.
Bingo. You like oral and who knows what else and are trying to defend it without bringing up any valid actual points as to why what I've stated is wrong.
You simply like it and want to do it.
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.
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.
: yesult Fri Nov 06, 2009 - 03:39:45
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.
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.
: phoebe Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:21:48
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.
: phoebe Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 07:21:48
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 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G733&t=KJV) it is a reference to a homosexuality. The word arsenokoitēs itself has two parts. Arseno- (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%AF%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD) which in Greek means male. It is combined with the Greek word koiten which means bed (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BA%CE%BF%CE%AF%CF%84%CE%B7). 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.
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.
: yesult Mon Oct 26, 2009 - 22:15:11
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.
: lightshineon Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:27:58
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."
Im not "invested" in this debate (nudge nudge wink wink)....seriously....but I do agree with the translationmal issues mentioned....
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.
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.
: OkiMar Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:50:11
: lightshineon Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:27:58
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.
: zoonance Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 19:25:23
: OkiMar Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:50:11
: lightshineon Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:27:58
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.
: OkiMar Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 19:37:09
: zoonance Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 19:25:23
: OkiMar Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:50:11
: lightshineon Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:27:58
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.
: zoonance Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 19:41:05
: OkiMar Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 19:37:09
: zoonance Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 19:25:23
: OkiMar Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:50:11
: lightshineon Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:27:58
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.
: OkiMar Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 20:16:26
: zoonance Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 19:41:05
: OkiMar Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 19:37:09
: zoonance Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 19:25:23
: OkiMar Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:50:11
: lightshineon Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:27:58
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.
That's OK. faceless communication has its drawbacks. However, sadly, we believers are getting fairly proficient at friendly fire.
: lightshineon Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 15:27:58
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.
As has already been said, yes if people are going to make legalistic rules about exactly how my wife and I can make love (aka no oral sex, no french kissing, etc) then we need an accurate understanding of words and this particular Greek word is a reference to homosexuality not any specific acts that gay people may choose to engage in.
Well log, do whatever you and your wife think is right. I myself, am glad my husband thinks highly and respectfully of me, as not to physically damage me, or humiliate me in a sexual way. Now, Log things maybe different for you and your wife, but it is gross to me personally. I am wondering why law enforcement, when talking about a sexual assult, where there is anal penetration calls this act sodomy or sodomized? Ever wonder why they use the term?b
: OkiMar Sun Nov 08, 2009 - 19:24:20
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.
The back passage is simply not designed for anything to be inserted. The muscles go the wrong way, they are not designed to stretch like the vagina. There is risk of injury and long term medical problems. There is also risk of infection. ALSO there are people who have needed deliverance after having anal sex. I have heard people who teach and minister in this area say this. They have seen many people who have needed this after anal sex even if it was just with their spouses. Not worth the risk in my opinion.
light-
My wife and I have a rather vanilla assortment of bedroom behaviors actually but if we found it mutually satisfying to do something different then I would need a real Biblical reason to think otherwise.
"Sodomy" is the sin of Sodom. It is only by medieval tradition that interprets the sin of Sodom to exclusively be certain specific sexual acts and that tradition is carried on in our legal language today. Perhaps it is somewhat similar to the word "lynch" which means to execute someone by hanging. But in reality the term lynch is named after a Quaker revolutionary Charles Lynch who organized his own court of zealous patriots who would go to Loyalists homes and hold impromptu trails and then kill them, usually by hanging. The notable thing about lynch was not the method of execution but the idea of citizens taking the law into their own hands and executing their neighbor. The present-day use of a word rarely informs us of its true origin.
chosen-
Its not worth the risk in my opinion either but it can be done safely and pleasurably for both partners and if married couple chooses to engage in that behavior that should be their own choice and their own risk unless it is clearly prohibited in scripture, which so far as I can tell it is not. We're simply talking about whether or not it is a sin in the Bible.
Ah, the cultural myth that started with Phil Donahue that if it's OK with both partners, it's OK with God.
Gotta love it.
As the original poster has reveived her answer, I am going to lock this thread.
In Christ,
KP