Uhhhh...yeah, the prohibitions in the OT.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The bible and gays
- Thread starter Leo613
- Start date
Uhhhh...yeah, the prohibitions in the OT.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
It's the procreation thing. You can't have a baby via anal sex. It's the same rationale they use to discredit gay sex.
Sex according to strict Christian law is for procreation only. You can still technically get arrested in some states for recieving a blow job based on religiously inspired laws. The same reason is behind the religious mandate against contraception...sex MUST be for baby making. This last one is particularly troublesome when you consider the fact that Pope Benedict told people in Africa that condoms actually CAUSE AIDS, rather than helping to prevent it. Yikes.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Uhhhh.....I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm an Anglican. Additionally, I never said that what's in the Bible literally happened. Some of it is metaphorical, other parts of it are literal. My faith is about the lessons that the Bible can teach us.
Then I probably disagree with you less than I disagree with Biblical literalists. However you can add the fact that everyone has different ideas about what is literal and what is not to the list of reasons I don't believe.
Do you believe in literal demons? Do you believe a child raised in India whose parents raise him devoutly Hindu and who never leaves his village and spends his life praying to Brahma and Vishnu will be literally burned in a place called Hell run by Satan because he failed to learn that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation?
Then I probably disagree with you less than I disagree with Biblical literalists. However you can add the fact that everyone has different ideas about what is literal and what is not to the list of reasons I don't believe.
Do you believe in literal demons? Do you believe a child raised in India whose parents raise him devoutly Hindu and who never leaves his village and spends his life praying to Brahma and Vishnu will be literally burned in a place called Hell run by Satan because he failed to learn that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation?
Princeps Eugenius
Active Member
Which books? Can you give perhaps a line you've heard or some sort of advice in the bible that sex should be for procreation only? just from what you remember, who was involved with giving these instructions, if you remember, moses?
But that isnt biblical the bible never says sex should be for reproduction only, atleast i dont remember that it did.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
But that isnt biblical the bible never says sex should be for reproduction only, atleast i dont remember that it did.
As with nearly everything in the Bible, you can interpret passages however you want. The passages most commonly associated with the sex for procreation idea are the "be fruitful and multipy" passages from Genesis, and Malachi 2:15 that tells us God wants Godly offspring, which is why we must be with our wife.
Regardless of that though, you must recognize that modern Christians reguarly use the idea of "sex is for procreation only" to discredit homosexual relationships and to support this perplexing mandate against contraception, right? If sex can be for pleasure only, why does the Catholic Church...the largest religious organization in the world...forbid condom use? Why all the uproar about.Christian hospitals being forced to provide contraception? You must be aware of these issues. Why do old religious laws on the books in some of our states forbid oral sex even in heterosexual marriages?
Biblical or not, Christians in large numbers believe sex is for procreation only. You may not agree, and that's great, that puts you on the saner side of things. But this is a very widely held belief in the Christian community and is the official position of the Catholic Church. See the link.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
As with nearly everything in the Bible, you can interpret passages however you want. The passages most commonly associated with the sex for procreation idea are the "be fruitful and multipy" passages from Genesis, and Malachi 2:15 that tells us God wants Godly offspring, which is why we must be with our wife.
Regardless of that though, you must recognize that modern Christians reguarly use the idea of "sex is for procreation only" to discredit homosexual relationships and to support this perplexing mandate against contraception, right? If sex can be for pleasure only, why does the Catholic Church...the largest religious organization in the world...forbid condom use? Why all the uproar about.Christian hospitals being forced to provide contraception? You must be aware of these issues. Why do old religious laws on the books in some of our states forbid oral sex even in heterosexual marriages?
Biblical or not, Christians in large numbers believe sex is for procreation only. You may not agree, and that's great, that puts you on the saner side of things. But this is a very widely held belief in the Christian community and is the official position of the Catholic Church. See the link.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
I don't doubt that they're out there (where there is good, evil is bound to exist), I personally just don't pay them any mind. No, I don't believe he will because he never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel preached. As a result, God will look at him (anyone in a similar situation) and ask, “Did you live in accordance with My Law as it's written on your heart by the Holy Spirit?”
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
Danddolo, interestingly, the very next thread I clicked on a religious person said this:
The gay act is not normal nor natural. It produces no life. That would seem to be common sense. Why you would think it okay, i have no idea.
Biblical or not, this is a very common idea in religious circles.
The gay act is not normal nor natural. It produces no life. That would seem to be common sense. Why you would think it okay, i have no idea.
Biblical or not, this is a very common idea in religious circles.
The Bible also teaches that sexual intercourse is the most intimate expression of love.
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
The Bible also teaches us that bats are birds, than women shouldn't speak in church, and that you can beat your slave as long as it takes a few days for him to die. But none of that negates my comments about Christians regularly claiming that sex should be for procreation only.
As I said, you can interpret the Bible any way you please. If for you, the part that sticks out mostly is the idea that sexual intercourse is the most intimate expression of love, and not the part about going forth and being fruitful and multiplying, that's great for you. I was answering the question about why anal sex is frowned upon, and the reason is...Biblical interpretations aside...a large percentage of Christians believe sex is only for procreation, as evidenced by the mandate against contraception and the categorization of gay sex as "abnormal and unnatural."
Princeps Eugenius
Active Member
I have my own rationalizations why these things are wrong, wholly apart from the bible and i believe even stronger arguments than given by religion. however i wouldnt mind if my partner asked me to perform anal sex on her or if she did a blowjob i wouldnt give a crap about these rationalization for these things being wrong.
My reason are: while the vagina's primarely function is sex the anus and mouth are not used for sex and thus are basically not 'made' or 'designed' to be used for these actions. the anus and mouth have different primary functions. so it is wrong to use wrong body parts for something they arent made for. for example you wouldnt put your penis into somebodies ear because the primery function of the ear is to listen not to have sex with. How good is this, what do you think?
MARCELLO
Transitioning from male to female
Nothing can be more disgusting than what you have written above as thoughts. What a typical one you are
In your opinion. Do you consider all the other sacred books out there to also be divinely inspired or are you being selective in what you consider to be written by God? All too often I see this and frankly, its closed minded at best.
Unnatural to you perhaps but there are plenty of hetero men and women who enjoy anal sex. So as for obvious? Not so much unless it is for you and that, once again, is your opinion.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Would you also consider sex to be wrong when it is not used for what it is for, only producing offspring is useful?
Demonslayer
Well-Known Member
for example you wouldnt put your penis into somebodies ear because the primery function of the ear is to listen not to have sex with
If a girl was really hot and had a big enough ear, I'd give it a shot.
If a girl was really hot and had a big enough ear, I'd give it a shot.
Princeps Eugenius
Active Member
no, there is nothing that indicates that sex is for reproduction only. its a large part of it but it isnt the only thing im not even sure if reproduction is the primary function or not.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
If reproduction is not the primary function, then why are reproductive organs the only ones to be used for sex?
Princeps Eugenius
Active Member
i dont even describe them as 'reproductive organs' they are sex organs which defferiantiate males from females. indicating that sex is to be had between these two.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Everything fits for its own realm. By the way, have you got bad eyes?
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
That would still be wrong though. It does not produce life and body parts are pretty understood now I think...we don't need to be confused with them.