I'm embarrassed to ask this question

[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.

[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.

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.

[Logismos]

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.

[lightshineon]

 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

[chosenone]

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.

[Logismos]

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.

[phoebe]

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.

[k-pappy]

As the original poster has reveived her answer, I am going to lock this thread.

In Christ,
KP