Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe topic of the quote was "various extra-marital sexual modes of behaviour". It was not about marital sexual modes of behaviour.
on the basis of religious principles and the dictionary quotation was adequate enough to
state that pornia in the Biblical context has a much broader understanding than is
immediately apparent, i suspect this subtlety went unnoticed by you as you attempted
to hide behind the technicality of extra marital affairs.
Originally posted by FMFactually it was, that you failed to discern the intent was your mistake. The actual
The topic of the quote was "various extra-marital sexual modes of behaviour". It was not about marital sexual modes of behaviour.
import of the text was to demonstrate that pornia from a Biblical perspective has a
very broad meaning, which includes not only extra marital affairs, but practices like,
bestiality and sodomy.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat its actually says is "...porneia would include adultery (Greek, moikheia), and can cover a broader range of other immoral practices outside marriage, such as oral or anal sex and bestiality."
actually it was, that you failed to discern the intent was your mistake. The actual
import of the text was to demonstrate that pornia from a Biblical perspective has a
very broad meaning, which includes not only extra marital affairs, but practices like,
bestiality and sodomy.
Nothing about oral sex 'inside marriage' there. You cannot create something that is not in the quote by referring to something you call the "actual import" of it. It specifically does not say what you claim it says.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFagain you are missing the point entirely, why i cannot say. Sodomy inside of marraige
What its actually says is [b]"...porneia would include adultery (Greek, moikheia), and can cover a broader range of other immoral practices outside marriage, such as oral or anal sex and bestiality."
Nothing about oral sex 'inside marriage' there. You cannot create something that is not in the quote by referring to something you call the "actual import" of it. It specifically does not say what you claim it says.[/b]
is condemned as is bestiality inside of marraige, these instances illustrate the ludicrous
nature of the point you are trying to make.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell if you can come up with an explicit condemnation of marital oral sex perhaps you could make the point you're trying to make. Your quote about porneia is about extra-marital sexual behaviour. So it does not back what appears to be your unilateral claim about the immorality of a certain aspect of normal, healthy marital sex.
again you are missing the point entirely, why i cannot say. Sodomy inside of marraige
is condemned as is bestiality inside of marraige, these instances illustrate the ludicrous
nature of the point you are trying to make.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat "ludicrous" nature of the point I am trying to make? Your quote says that porneia would include adultery, and can cover a broader range of other immoral practices outside marriage, such as oral or anal sex and bestiality. It does not say that oral sex is an immoral practice inside marriage.
again you are missing the point entirely, why i cannot say. Sodomy inside of marraige
is condemned as is bestiality inside of marraige, these instances illustrate the ludicrous
nature of the point you are trying to make.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhich is another instance of religion wanting control of every aspect of our lives. It is no dam business of ANYONE what two people do inside their own bedroom, married or no, gay, straight, lez whatever. It is NOBODIES business but their own. PERIOD. Any intrusion into the morality of sex is religious control pure and simple just like the religious suppression of women. ( A man is worth 50 shekels, a woman 35).
again you are missing the point entirely, why i cannot say. Sodomy inside of marraige
is condemned as is bestiality inside of marraige, these instances illustrate the ludicrous
nature of the point you are trying to make.
I get incensed when religious people attempt to intrude into people's lives.
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhousewhat a Muppet, either you apply the Biblical principles or you do not, how many
Which is another instance of religion wanting control of every aspect of our lives. It is no dam business of ANYONE what two people do inside their own bedroom, married or no, gay, straight, lez whatever. It is NOBODIES business but their own. PERIOD. Any intrusion into the morality of sex is religious control pure and simple just like the religious suppres ...[text shortened]... , a woman 35).
I get incensed when religious people attempt to intrude into people's lives.
religious persons have forced there way into your home and demanded that you apply
those principles? Ill bet none, incensed??? you should see a psychiatrist.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFyou haver attempted to state that if the practice is within the bounds of marraige then
What "ludicrous" nature of the point I am trying to make? Your quote says that porneia would include adultery, and can cover a broader range of other immoral practices outside marriage, such as oral or anal sex and bestiality. It does not say that oral sex is an immoral practice inside marriage.
its bona fide, when, in fact, the text was demonstrating that whether a sexual practice
is within or without the marital arrangement is not the point, for pornia has a much
broader meaning to include anything that is deemed immoral from a religious
perspective as per the etymological understanding of the word.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe word porneia, as you yourself have indicated with your quote, means unchastity, harlotry, prostitution, fornication, adultery and various extra-marital sexual modes of behaviour. It being about practices that are "extra-marital" is the very essence if its point and its meaning. It is abundantly clear that you wish to extend its meaning to "include anything that is deemed immoral from a religious perspective" but that won't wash.
you haver attempted to state that if the practice is within the bounds of marraige then
its bona fide, when, in fact, the text was demonstrating that whether a sexual practice
is within or without the marital arrangement is not the point, for pornia has a much
broader meaning to include anything that is deemed immoral from a religious
perspective and a etymological perspective.
Simply extending the definition to include whatever you need it to mean for the purposes of this discussion may make you feel empowered to declare something "immoral" unilaterally, but I don't think you have presented a credible argument. Al I am getting from you is that you personally don't approve of oral sex, you reckon the word "porneia" clinches it for you, and you do this even though your own cut and paste definition doesn't back your claim.
1 edit
Any intrusion into the morality of sex is religious control pure and simple just like the religious suppression of women. ( A man is worth 50 shekels, a woman 35).
Where is this 50 shekels verses 35 shekels matter you're all bent out of shape about ?
Female equality is assumed in MANY crucial places in the Old Testament :
1. "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; MALE and FEMALE He created them." (Gen. 1:27)
The Bible mentions the FEMALE along with the male as being the template of human design. We would expect a chauvanistic theology to only mention the MALE.
2.) "For this reason a man shall leave his FATHER and his MOTHER, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24)
The Bible does not chauvanistically say a man shall only leave his male father. The father and mother mention puts male and female on a basis of equal importance.
3.) "Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you." (comp Exodus 20:12, 21:15; Deut. 5:16; 21_18-21; 27:16)
The Law of Moses did not chauvanistically only mention the honoring of the FATHER. The mention of father AND MOTHER puts male and female on an equal basis of honorability.
4.) "Every one of you shall reverance his MOTHER and his father" (Comp. Leviticus 19:3; 20:9)
The female is mentioned FIRST. It is not the make chauvanist mention of only the father as worthy of reverance. The WOMAN is on equal footing with the man to be reveranced.
5.) "My son, observe the commandment of your father and do not forsake the teaching of your MOTHER." (Proverbs 6:20)
It is not the chauvanistic mention of ONLY the male father's commandment. But the female MOTHER's teaching is to held in equal regard. Here again men and women are put on an equal basis of honor.
6.) " He who assaults his father and drives his MOTHER away is a shameful and disgraceful son." (Prov. 19:26)
The Bible did not chauvanistically only mention the shame of assaulting the male father. It is equally shameful to drive away the female mother. Men and women are thus put on an equal basis of honor in this passage also.
7.) "Listen to your father who begot you, and do not despise your MOTHER when she is old." (Prov. 23:22)
The WOMAN is put on equal basis of honor as the man.
8.) "Let your father AND YOUR MOTHER be glad, and let her rejoice who gave birth to you." (Prov. 23:25)
The female mother is put on equal basis with the male father. A male chauvanist approach would exclude the female and only speak of the gladness of the male father.
9.) "I am my beloved's and my beloved's is mine." (Song of Songs 6:3)
Here the ownership of the female and the male are 100% mutual. It is not that ONLY the man OWNS the female beloved. As he owns her, so she owns him. This too puts the man and woman on equal basis.
It is good to be sober minded and consider the whole picture of what the Bible teaches. Sonhouse is selectively outraged and seems incapable of considering the bigger picture.