Originally posted by stellspalfieI suggest:
how did you guys come to the conclusion that oral sex was bad?
personal distaste for oral sex >
> condemnation of oral sex >
> bible citation allegedly about oral sex >
> [bible citation refuted] >
> introduction of a "definition" that applies spin to the bible citation about oral sex >
> [inapplicability of "definition" pointed out] >
> "definition" twisted to the point of obvious contradiction >
> [this is pointed out] >
> dodging and deflection and [optional] ad hominems >
> [people press for explanations of the contradictions and sheer arbitrariness of the reasoning] >
> comments and arguments blanked, ignored, deliberately "misunderstood"
> pronouncement that oral sex is "not biblical" >
> claim that this conclusion is "self-evident" >
> no distasteful oral sex going on between certain married coupes for "biblical reasons"; dissenters branded as being involved in harlotry
16 Dec 12
6 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderno it relates to more than sex outside of marriage as the definitions and references
Well, what I have read about porneia suggests it relates to sexual acts outside of marriage. So when you posted two definitions that supported this view, I was happy to accept this.
So, as yet, you have not shown that the Bible prohibits oral sex and anal sex between a man and a wife.
that i provided demonstrate, but if you want to ignore the simple fact, then that's up
to you I am tired of trying to persuade people of what is essentially self evident, for
example,
The depraved practice of bestiality is included in the Greek word porneia that is
rendered “fornication.”
clearly if you commit bestiality its entirely irrelevant whether you are married or
not, the self evident fact of the matter is, its pornia, making your narrow definition
of a sexual act outwith marriage not only inaccurate, but quite ludicrous, to be
honest. An act iis constituted porneia if it is deemed to be an inappropriate, illicit or
unlawful use/misuse of the genitals, whether committed by a married person or not.
If you can find a single reason why an act which is strictly condemned throughout
the scriptures, the act of sodomy should be somehow permissible because one is
married to someone of the opposite sex then please do so, for it is clear to the
discerning christian who has as his guiding basis the faculty of conscience based
upon how God dealt with those in the past, that he clearly does not approve of the
practice. Now you can cite that this is only in the case of homosexuals, but it is
clear that it is considered an act of porneia, not by virtue of the fact that it is carried
out by unmarried persons or persons of the same sex, but on the basis of its very
nature that it constitutes a misuse use of the sexual organs and is thus prohibited.
Feel free to provide evidence that its not a misuse of the sexual organs.
Oral sex likewise is considered an unclean act and the discerning christian, again
through the faculty of conscience can readily discern that he or she must be free
from defilement of flesh and spirit, if you have any evidence to the contrary, that it
should be considered a clean act, then i suggest that you produce it.
16 Dec 12
Originally posted by stellspalfiewe consider it an unclean act, of which we are counseled to cleanse ourselves of,
how did you guys come to the conclusion that oral sex was bad?
(2 Corinthians 7:1) . . .Therefore, since we have these promises, beloved ones, let us
cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s
fear.
16 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis does not mention "oral sex". It is something you are adding to the bible.
(2 Corinthians 7:1) . . .Therefore, since we have these promises, beloved ones, let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s fear.
16 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe definitions you provided do not demonstrate what you claim they demonstrate.
no it relates to more than sex outside of marriage as the definitions and references
that i provided demonstrate, but if you want to ignore the simple fact, then that's up
to you I am tired of trying to persuade people of what is essentially self evident
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt seems odd to me that you would think of trying to persuade people of what is essentially self-evident. If it is self-evident, any attempts at persuasion seem futile and unnecessary.
no it relates to more than sex outside of marriage as the definitions and references
that i provided demonstrate, but if you want to ignore the simple fact, then that's up
to you I am tired of trying to persuade people of what is essentially self evident, for
example,
The depraved practice of bestiality is included in the Greek word porneia ...[text shortened]... o the contrary, that it
should be considered a clean act, then i suggest that you produce it.
However, leaving that aside, the idea that understanding the precise meaning of term, used in the Bible and that requires an understanding of Greek as used centuries ago, is self-evident is absurd.
The idea that the Bible might permit something sexually within marriage that it does not permit outside marriage is hardly contentious. After all, the entirety of sex seems to be prohibited outside marriage.
As to anal sex, as far as I can tell, the only quotes that you have provided refer to acts committed between two men. God gave a clear instruction to execute those individuals. God is clearly not a very good legal draughtsman if he also meant you to understand this to prohibit the same act between a man and a woman. Did Mosaic Law require the death penalty if a man had anal sex with his wife? If not, then God clearly applies a different standard to the same sexual act depending on whether the participants are married or not. This is indeed self-evident.
I also note that you demand evidence from me that oral sex is a clean act when you have not provided any that oral sex is an unclean one. Does the Bible work on the basis that all acts are prohibited unless expressly permitted?
Finally, Mrs Outsider says that being clean is a minimum requirement for any act of oral sex as far as she is concerned.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
16 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiedoes this mean that man and woman also have to clean themselves before sex? does it also mean you can not use hands near sexual organs? or have sex in a place that is unhygienic?
we consider it an unclean act, of which we are counseled to cleanse ourselves of,
(2 Corinthians 7:1) . . .Therefore, since we have these promises, beloved ones, let us
cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in God’s
fear.
16 Dec 12
6 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderSo you have no evidence that anal sex should be considered an appropriate use of
It seems odd to me that you would think of trying to persuade people of what is essentially self-evident. If it is self-evident, any attempts at persuasion seem futile and unnecessary.
However, leaving that aside, the idea that understanding the precise meaning of term, used in the Bible and that requires an understanding of Greek as used centuries ...[text shortened]... ys that being clean is a minimum requirement for any act of oral sex as far as she is concerned.
the genitals and that despite the physiological evidence that its essentially unnatural
and the Biblical prohibition against it that it should be considered appropriate for
Christians, whether married or otherwise, whether male or female or that lapping up
seminal fluids and excretions from the genitalia may be considered a clean act
simply because you bathed prior to it on the recommendation of your wife, thanks,
clearly you have not a leg to stand upon, old chap.
I will continue to exercise my conscience in his regard and continue to assert just as
I have done, that anal sex is unnatural and constitutes and inappropriate use of the
sexual organs making it an act of porneia of which the Bible counsels against and
that oral sex is an unclean act, of which the Christians are also counselled to free
him or herself of. You on the other hand are free to provide any evidence to the
contrary.
16 Dec 12
Originally posted by stellspalfieits a principle, the Bible does not mention killing with hand guns either yet clearly there
i bet the j.w. flock were gutted when the elder got this 'new understanding' from the bible.
are principles which may have a bearing, likewise it does not mention smoking
cigarettes yet clearly there are principles which have a bearing upon the matter. You
should learn how a principle works before you assert nonsense like its adding to the
Bible.
16 Dec 12
5 edits
Originally posted by stellspalfieyes because lets face it, lapping up seminal fluids and excretions from the genitalia is
i bet the j.w. flock were gutted when the elder got this 'new understanding' from the bible.
like really soooooo appealing, doh! We should have another school beside the FMF
school for scoundrels, The stellspalfie 'muff diving', club!
16 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLike I said on the previous page:
yes because lets face it, lapping up seminal fluids and excretions from the genitalia is like really soooooo appealing, doh!
personal distaste for oral sex >
> condemnation of oral sex >
> bible citation allegedly about oral sex >
> [bible citation refuted] >
etc. etc.
16 Dec 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGotta love this phrase - 'appropriate use of the genitals'!!!
So you have no evidence that anal sex should be considered an appropriate use of
the genitals and that despite the physiological evidence that its essentially unnatural
and the Biblical prohibition against it that it should be considered appropriate for
Christians, whether married or otherwise, whether male or female or that lapping up
seminal ...[text shortened]...
him or herself of. You on the other hand are free to provide any evidence to the
contrary.
Surely the appropriate use for my genitals is down to me and whichever consenting adults(s) i may be engaged with?