Moose Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 God wants us to have a pleasurable sex life with our spouses. If oral, anal, or whatever it is you get into is your, "Thang", then I say go for it. We have to remember that if you're worried about doing this right, or that right according to what the scriptures say, try to focus on the fact that following these guidelines are simply impossible to do. You'll never be able to follow scripture to the letter, that's a fact. That's the whole reason Christ came to save us. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Tiki, the Bible is a collection of books written at different times by different people for different audiences. The guys who wrote Leviticus weren't planning for people 2000 years later to read and live by those words. I already told you Jesus said not to marry - clearly this message was meant for a certain audience and not everyone. So the point people are trying to make is that the Bible is not supposed to be the 2005 sex guide. And I find it rather odd that you're worried about positions but not the fact that no sex is supposed to be had except to procreate or that you're not supposed to marry anyway. Go read Song of Songs - it's very hot stuff. Then quit worrying about what the Bible said to people thousands of years ago - either you follow ALL of its rules (and good luck with that because they contradict themselves totally) or else you live a life of love and compassion and don't worry that God's peeking and worrying about whether you're taking it up the butt or not. He's got a bunch of suffering humans on his hands right at the moment and isn't much likely to care what you and your legal spouse are doing with your tingly bits. Link to post Share on other sites
Author tiki Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 Okay, thanks you guys. Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 No crap...my sister is born again and refuses to use birth control, even though she would probably die if she got pregnant again (she's had a series of difficult pregnancies that resulted in developmental disorders and premature births). It really pisses me off...but what can I say to her? Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by johan The bible also implies masturbation, at least for men, is a sin. I've never bought that. It's just such a stretch from what the story actually says. Anyway, unfortunately, the Bible isn't written as a codification of what's moral and what's not. Many of the 'laws' in the Bible apply to people of a different culture and a different time. For example, it's mandated that if a married man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow. I think it's somewhat unfair to hold yourself to moral standards that are six-thousand years old, not because I don't believe in absolute morality, but simply because I don't feel that Biblical authors understood adequate human sexuality. It's unfortunate that people choose to look at that issue in a one-sided way, and choose to mock the Bible for taking a traditionalist approach to sexuality. It's a traditional text! If you were expecting Penthouse or Dr. Ruth, I'm not sure you're looking for the right book. Listen, the Bible is just a collection of books. They are not the last word on morality. It's not as if the Bible says, "Thou shalt only have sex in boring positions" or "No oral, that's gross"--If you're still interest in Biblical perceptions of sexuality, from an antrhopological standpoint and not a moral one, I suggest reading the 'Song of Solomon'. It seems to treat oral sex as celebratory and intimate, and not at all dirty. I don't think you're going to find celebrations of more taboo sex acts, not because they're neccesarily immoral, but simply because it's not appropriate for the text. http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/Song_of_Solomon.html Link to post Share on other sites
Author tiki Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 Thanks, Dyer. I've attended one 7 week class on the Song of Solomon. It's twelve 30 minute videos on love, attraction, sexuality, marriage...etc., etc. And it was awesome. My husband and I have signed up for the class again mid-January. It's not anything I intend to 'stop'...but it would make me feel better knowing it wasn't 'wrong' or 'immoral'. Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I think it was Freud who said the only wrong way to have sex is to have none at all. There are all sorts of interpretations and preachings about sex in the Bible - depends on what your own church says about it. One is regular intercourse only because that is the way to procreate. However, it is possible to get pregnant with anal sex--so I can't see how that would be ruled out unless it refers to homosexual acts between men. http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1268 I found this article which I though was good, although it doesn't quite address your question. http://www.christian-bible.com/Ethics/Sex/sexual.htm This is a long posting, but it's interesting in the views set forth by the author. The last section talks about how a sexual relationship within marriage should help the couple be closer to their God. Clearly, the church should encourage its members to marry, should counsel those who choose to do so, and should consecrate marriage vows as an affirmation of Christian faith. But the church is not called to condemn those who engage in premarital sex, or those who live in a committed relationship without marrying, or those who marry without intending to have children, or those who use birth control in order to enjoy sexual intercourse without conceiving a child. Christians may advise against all of these choices or some of them. However, the church is not called to condemn sexual conduct that it believes will alienate men and women from God and each other. Instead, through its faith and ministry, the church is called to guide Christians in making decisions about sexuality that will help them realize "the full meaning of life together." Seems like its the emotions, love, and commitment behind the sexual acts that are most important, not the acts themselves. http://home1.gte.net/res063uz/lms.htm This one is interesting also. And wasn't there a time when some people of faith would wear burlap so that sex would be uncomfortable and was only for procreation? That is not in the Bible is it? I think that was a puritanical interpretation and not something direct from God. But that's just my opinion. Dyer may be able to find exact Bible passages. Link to post Share on other sites
kit4kat Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I agree with Moose... God wants us to have amazing sex lives with our spouses. I feel that anything you want to try sexually between you and your spouse in a marriage is acceptable. As for repenting for pre-marital sex, if its something you feel you should do, then don't let anyone stop you. I know a guenuine repentance takes making a complete 180 with that sin and not going back, and in your case you don't have the chance to even go back anymore, but if your heart is being weighed down with this then ask for forgiveness. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Some people find strength of love in the law, which is why the law is there. For example, in no way is pork going to condemn you to hell (we're pretending that Hell exists)--but if you don't eat pork as a way of celebrating your love for the law, it's only going to be beneficial to you as a person. But if there's one reason Jesus came to Earth, it's to drive home the point that the law should never be more improtant than love. Link to post Share on other sites
blind_otter Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by HokeyReligions I think it was Freud who said the only wrong way to have sex is to have none at all. There are all sorts of interpretations and preachings about sex in the Bible - depends on what your own church says about it. One is regular intercourse only because that is the way to procreate. However, it is possible to get pregnant with anal sex--so I can't see how that would be ruled out unless it refers to homosexual acts between men. You can get pregnant from anal sex? How is this possible? I thought the GI tract was a closed tube that begins at the mouth and ends at the anus? Now I can see maybe if he pulls out and cums on the whole area...but if he ejaculates deep into the bum...how does that work exactly? Link to post Share on other sites
Author tiki Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 That's what I was thinking too BO. But I figured it was a technicality. Like if it slid down to the cooch. Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 The only way a woman might possibly become pregnant from anal sex is if ejaculated semen is near the opening of the vagina and that semen works its way into the vaginal opening. Its not likely, but it IS possible. Using that reasoning, if someone thought that only procreative sex is allowed they could technically say that anal was OK. A long-shot (no pun intended) but if people want to engage in anal sex and fear some Holy Repercussions they could attempt to justify it to themselves that way. Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I may be off-topic here. I can't really tell. So moderate away, if you must. Originally posted by dyermaker I've never bought that. It's just such a stretch from what the story actually says. I read the story. It's actually not that much of a stretch to interpret it that way. But it's also no stretch to dismiss it either, because the story isn't all that clear. If I remember correctly, on God's command the guy has sex with his brother's widow but chooses not to come inside her. God strikes him dead. That's roughly it. I couldn't tell why it happened or what it meant. It was confusing especially in the context of all the other things that were going on in that chapter. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary helped clarify it some. I also recommend May's An Introduction to Moral Theology, by the way. I said the Bible "implies" it. It isn't stated outright. Depending on the interpretations, that one paragraph has implications for masturbation, sex outside of marriage, birth control, and sex for purposes other than procreation. Tiki, I can't imagine asking for forgiveness knowing that I'd do it again? That's why I waited until now. There's logic in that. But repentance is optional. You don't have to do it. Put yourself in the shoes of God, and consider what kind of meaning such a repentance would have to you. Not much. "OK, I have no further need for that sin now. I repent!" Don't do that to yourself. You can always just skip it. Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by johan "OK, I have no further need for that sin now. I repent!" Apt. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by johan If I remember correctly, on God's command the guy has sex with his brother's widow but chooses not to come inside her. God strikes him dead. That's roughly it. I'm saying because there was no masturbation going on, no condemnation of masturbation elsewhere, and because it's in the context of a story that has nothing to do with sexual sin the idea that Onan's story condemns masturbation is too much of a stretch. Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by dyermaker I'm saying because there was no masturbation going on, no condemnation of masturbation elsewhere, and because it's in the context of a story that has nothing to do with sexual sin the idea that Onan's story condemns masturbation is too much of a stretch. I agree it doesn't mention masturbation specifically. But it's sort of a matter of semantics in how you want to word your interpretation. An alternative interpretation that fits pretty well is "sperm/man-seed spilt in vain is against God's wishes". Again, there is a lot going on in that story. But if you want to word the interpretation to fit what literally happened, then you're only in trouble if you don't come inside your widowed sister-in-law when directly commanded by God to mate with her. Everything else is OK. If you're looking for why that would be a problem for God, then you end up having to open it up a little bit. By doing that, this one 3 line passage will cause you to go all the way to asking what purpose God has for us on Earth. Which can cause you to look around God to figure out what purpose pro-creation serves in Natural Law. To me, that's actually mind-boggling, and I think about it every time I have sex with my girlfriend. Edit: Not WHILE we're having sex, by the way. Usually after. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Personally, I think God struck him dead for disobedience......has nothing to do with spilling his seed on the floor......but I've been known to be wrong before.....hehe Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by Moose Personally, I think God struck him dead for disobedience......has nothing to do with spilling his seed on the floor......but I've been known to be wrong before.....hehe Hadn't thought of that. Hmm. Maybe I can start masturbating again. But here's a question for you: was God's command meant just for that guy or for us all? Maybe we were supposed to get the hint. Link to post Share on other sites
rtobiejr Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by Moose Personally, I think God struck him dead for disobedience......has nothing to do with spilling his seed on the floor......but I've been known to be wrong before.....hehe That's precisely why Onan was struck dead. His refusal to ejaculate inside of his brother's widow was, in fact refusal to perform brother-in-law marriage, an arrangement that was practiced by the Israelites and would ensure that his brother would have an heir. It was Onan's unwillingness to comply with this arrangement, his willful disobedience, that angered God. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by johan Hadn't thought of that. Hmm. Maybe I can start masturbating again. But here's a question for you: was God's command meant just for that guy or for us all? Maybe we were supposed to get the hint. I think it was a command pertaining to that certain situation, I will have reread the story again, it may have something to do with a bloodline issue. I'm not saying that masterbation is allowed, and I'm not saying it isn't either. Personally, I can see where a man may be tempted into infidelity and may use masterbation as a release to get his mind off of cheating, and I can see where a man would masterbate just for the pleasure of it......I'm not sure if you can say that there is a lesser evil in either situation......but I would say masterbating for just the pleasure of it could be a bad thing. Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Well now I feel better. I was kind of really nervous about the kind of girls my brother dates. Just in case, you know. I'm headed to the porn sites. Back in a while... Link to post Share on other sites
rtobiejr Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by moimeme Actually, Jesus said you shouldn't get married at all. I wouldn't worry so much about sex and hurry up and divorce if I were you. "But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage" Luke 20:33-35 Moi: That quote is interesting-- but it is taken out of context. Have you been dead before? In that particular passage Jesus is referring to those who have died and been resurrected--they will "neither marry nor be given in marriage." Tiki: The Bible does not explicitly have "laws" against practices such as oral sex. There is no passage in Scripture that says "Thou shalt not practice oral sex." What the Bible does teach though, is that sex is for married heterosexual couples. Both parties should be willing to render the "marital due"-- that is, sexual intercourse. The teaching that sex is solely for procreation is a distortion of what the Bible actually teaches, Tiki. The scriptures speak of a couple's relations as something refreshing and sacred-- an expression of their love for each other. Proverbs 5:15-19 speaks of rejoicing with the wife of one's youth-- and being in an ecstasy with her constantly. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by johan An alternative interpretation that fits pretty well is "sperm/man-seed spilt in vain is against God's wishes". Fits pretty well with what? It's not a commandment. It's a story, and you have to read it as part of that story. Masturbation is not harmful to procreation. Masturbation facilitates a healthy understanding of your own sexuality, and is good for the health of your reproductive system. Link to post Share on other sites
Author tiki Posted January 3, 2005 Author Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by rtobiejr There is no passage in Scripture that says "Thou shalt not practice oral sex." Whew....it's a dern good thing. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by rtobiejr The teaching that sex is solely for procreation is a distortion of what the Bible actually teaches, Tiki. Keep in mind also that is not a Catholic teaching. That's precisely why Onan was struck dead Ancient Jews believed that when people got sick, it was God's doing. It's possible Onan just caught a bad case of Trichonosis from the pork he wasn't supposed to be eating. Additionally, the chances that Onan is nonfiction are pretty slim. Who was there to witness this seed-spilling and subsequent dead-striking? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts