Why the law of Moses prohibits anal sex

[dust1n]

Actually, many humans are not getting along just fine. See statistics above.

I'll take the like as a yes.

Well, firstly, the one way to make anal safe completely safe from AIDS, is to not have sex with someone who has AIDS. If you have vaginal sex with someone who has HIV, you're also likely to get HIV.

Secondly, risks associated with behaviors between two consenting adult is a matter for individuals themselves to determine if the risk is worth taking.

So what else is there to say? I mean, it's your religions rules, so feel free to follow whatever you like.

 

[Simplelogic]

I'll take the like as a yes.

Well, firstly, the one way to make anal safe completely safe from AIDS, is to not have sex with someone who has AIDS. If you have vaginal sex with someone who has HIV, you're also likely to get HIV.

Secondly, risks associated with behaviors between two consenting adult is a matter for individuals themselves to determine if the risk is worth taking.

So what else is there to say? I mean, it's your religions rules, so feel free to follow whatever you like.

Why do you think heterosexual couples (even ones who have multiple partners) are far less likely to contract AIDS?

 

[Simplelogic]

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)arepresent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. CDC – Fact Sheet - Gay and Bisexual Men – Gender – Risk – HIV/AIDS

 

[jojom]

One people often forget, yet I live it every day of my life. Perhaps you just have no scope, I don't know. Try this:

Or as it's sometimes said, the rain falls on the righteous and the wicked. God is so good, in fact, that He blesses those who hate him, and do harm. Where sin is more, grace abounds? Am I losing you in this?

Sorry, but this doesn't absolve him of his dirty deeds.

Surely you've heard of duality, or dualism?

Certainly, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

A world in which there were only good, good wouldn't exist. Normalcy would. You'd have no concept of the opposite, so it would just be regular.

Are you saying this would be bad? That we shouldn't have a world were the normal was a matter of good? This is why I asked you, "are you hung up on the value of the word "good"? We need the word "good" in our vocabulary because . . . . . . ?"

That, also, would be heaven. Or, here, prior to sin entering it.

And what's wrong with that? Oh yeah, I get it, we need to have evil in the world to give meaning to the sacrifice of Jesus. Forget the fact that Jesus wouldn't be needed. This is like bemoaning the fact that band-aids would become superfluous if we never scratched or punctured ourselves: we have to be able to get scratched and punctured in order to give meaning to the existence of band-aids.

It doesn't surprise me you don't understand, you reason from the mind of a man.

And you reason from the mind of what, an alligator or some demi-god?

In your depravity, you assume He is depraved.

How queer of you to think of the human race as depraved, when you think a god who goes around committing vile and vicious acts upon the innocent is not.

A better explanation would be that God uses the evil we do and turns it into good.

And just what good is that? What good came from the 11 million who died because of the German Holocaust that outshines this depravity? How about the good that outshines the evil of the 1999 Columbine school murders? What is that?

God is holy and pure. He is incapable of sin, evil, or wrongdoing.

You just keep telling yourself this. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing.

 

[SomeRandom]

Because they are not having intercourse.

Yes they are. What's more the sexual acts themselves can spread disease. Provided one has an STD of course. It's just less frequent.

 

[catch22]

Sorry, but this doesn't absolve him of his dirty deeds.

Certainly, but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Are you saying this would be bad? That we shouldn't have a world were the normal was a matter of good? This is why I asked you, "are you hung up on the value of the word "good"? We need the word "good" in our vocabulary because . . . . . . ?"

And what's wrong with that? Oh yeah, I get it, we need to have evil in the world to give meaning to the sacrifice of Jesus. Forget the fact that Jesus wouldn't be needed. This is like bemoaning the fact that band-aids would become superfluous if we never scratched or punctured ourselves: we have to be able to get scratched and punctured in order to give meaning to the existence of band-aids.

And you reason from the mind of what, an alligator or some demi-god?

How queer of you to think of the human race as depraved, when you think a god who goes around committing vile and vicious acts upon the innocent is not.

And just what good is that? What good came from the 11 million who died because of the German Holocaust that outshines this depravity? How about the good that outshines the evil of the 1999 Columbine school murders? What is that?

You just keep telling yourself this. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing. Killing innocent children is a good thing.

Alright, then. Demonstrate the vile acts against the innocent, I suppose, that we might talk about them? Show me where killing innocent children is considered a good thing, in the Bible? As it stands, you have an impression God is evil. So, if you want to, let's tackle it.

Show me why you believe this, and we can go from there.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Rabbis have argued about various laws for millennia. If one wants to understand a religious debate, they should understand the foundation.

Yes, ok.

 

[Simplelogic]

Yes they are. What's more the sexual acts themselves can spread disease. Provided one has an STD of course. It's just less frequent.

Can you please enlighten me on how two women have intercourse?

 

[rosends]

Can you please enlighten me on how two women have intercourse?

I won't draw any pictures, but you might want to read this page Lesbian Health and scroll down to "Sexual health" which discusses STD's transmitted woman to woman. A further chart is on page 2. But again, no pictures.

 

[jojom]

Alright, then. Demonstrate the vile acts against the innocent, I suppose, that we might talk about them? Show me where killing innocent children is considered a good thing, in the Bible? As it stands, you have an impression God is evil. So, if you want to, let's tackle it.

Show me why you believe this, and we can go from there.

NOPE! That's not how it works. First you answer my questions, THEN I'll answer yours, and I do have your answer ready.

1) why are you hung up on the value of the word "good"?

2) We need the word "good" in our vocabulary because . . . . . . ?

3) And you reason from the mind of what, an alligator or some demi-god?

4 a) And just what good is that?

b)What good came from the 11 million who died because of the German Holocaust that outshines this depravity?

c)How about the good that outshines the evil of the 1999 Columbine school murders. What is that?​

 

[JoStories]

I don't for one moment think this poster is Jewish. There are too many contradictions in his posts for him to be. I have know Hasidic Jews, Orthodox and conservative and reformed. None say the things this person does. I am curious though, why you spell out God.....

Ummm. I am the one that stated earlier that I DON'T follow Rabbinic Judaism buddy. Your insults are actually compliments to me.[/QUOTE]
Interesting that you take a comment made to someone else, an opinion if you will, as an insult. Its an observation on my part as a theologian that your posts are not those of a Jewish person. You don't know enough about that faith nor do you adhere the tenets of same. I don;t tend to insult people here by and large. I simply made a comment. I would think that if you see it as such, perhaps that is on you sir.

 

[JoStories]

This isn't refuted, I doubt. Lowercase gods (in some cases) are just spirit beings God created, but they fell in sin and rebellion to the earth. Most are probably made up, but not all, I imagine.

But implying God is fallible or not supreme, or is taken by surprised, or unprepared, is "still learning"... is rather... heretical? Would that be the polite way of saying it? heh.

I agree Catch. I don't agree that all the gods in the Bible were made up. And many faces of God are, IMO, God. God, in the way I see this, can have been unlimited enough to make Itself known to all faiths.

 

[muichimotsu]

God tells us what will help us and what will hurt us. We all choose how to live our lives.

Do you know its almost impossible for a married couple ,who never had multiple sex partners, to get an STD? The only exception would be them getting an STD from birth because someone else was sleeping around before them. You can whine all you want and blame it all on God. Most people do that. Or you can take responsibility for your own actions.

The same applies to a committed same sex couple who has anal sex. Your prohibition seems to presume that people who have anal sex are promiscuous, which isn't fair minded or logical.

 

[JoStories]

You just destroyed your own argument. You said earlier that there are literally "no other god's" yet now you are saying that God called Moshe a god. Which way is it?

That is not what Rosends said at all. Perhaps go back and reread what s/he wrote? It could help with that foot in the arse thing you have going (yes, that could be construed as an insult).

 

[catch22]

NOPE! That's not how it works. First you answer my questions, THEN I'll answer yours, and I do have your answer ready.

1) why are you hung up on the value of the word "good"?

2) We need the word "good" in our vocabulary because . . . . . . ?

3) And you reason from the mind of what, an alligator or some demi-god?

4 a) And just what good is that?

b)What good came from the 11 million who died because of the German Holocaust that outshines this depravity?

c)How about the good that outshines the evil of the 1999 Columbine school murders. What is that?​

I'll try, I suppose, which is possibly more than you've done thusly.

1) I'm not. You were framing God as bad, I said He used evil for good. You're asking questions about good, not me.
2) It's the opposite of bad?
3) Human
4a) What good is what? Reasoning as a human? It's a handicap for sure.
4b) May 14th, 1948 comes to mind. I might be able to come up with more, but it's not an easy study. Also, COD nazi zombies and the Wolfenstein series? It forever gave the world a measure for which not to become. Hence why there are only three universal villians no one feels bad seeing die in movies and games: nazis, zombies, and alien robots.
4c) This is hard to measure, and it's a fairly isolated example. Community solidarity, safety awareness, and things like that. For example The Koshka Foundation for Safe Schools | Safe Schools. Safe Future.

quote from the site:

"Positive things can come out of the events like Virginia Tech and Columbine. I want to show that ALL of us have more in common than random acts of violence, and through our stories, we can all help unveil the more constructive side of tragedy."

A more challenging, if not engaging example would be Smyrna, 9/11, the current ISIS crisis...

 

[Simplelogic]

The same applies to a committed same sex couple who has anal sex. Your prohibition seems to presume that people who have anal sex are promiscuous, which isn't fair minded or logical.

Never made that assertion.

 

[muichimotsu]

Then you have no issue with a committed same sex couple having sex in that relationship in any form?

 

[Simplelogic]

I won't draw any pictures, but you might want to read this page Lesbian Health and scroll down to "Sexual health" which discusses STD's transmitted woman to woman. A further chart is on page 2. But again, no pictures.

Do you know what intercourse means?

 

[muichimotsu]

There are two meanings of intercourse in the dictionary, but if we're talking sexual, it's a "sexual union". To say that requires a literal connection is hardly necessary in terms of what union entails. Just because there isn't penetration or insertion of a genital member doesn't mean that females having sex together cannot be considered intercourse in a basic sense. Legally and in the most technical sense, most female intercourse would not be considered as such.

To be fair, there are other things you can insert into sexual orifices, and that's not limited to lesbian intercourse either in the general concept of the term, entailing sexual intimacy between two people.

 

[jojom]

Alright, then. Demonstrate the vile acts against the innocent, I suppose, that we might talk about them? Show me where killing innocent children is considered a good thing, in the Bible? As it stands, you have an impression God is evil. So, if you want to, let's tackle it.

Show me why you believe this, and we can go from there.

Okay, you did provide answers, questionable as they are. In any case, on to your questions.

1) Demonstrate the vile acts against the innocent, I suppose, that we might talk about them? [/quote] Of course demonstrating them is beyond my ability, but I can tell you what they are.

Exodus 12:29-30
29 And that night, at midnight, Jehovah killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from Pharaoh’s oldest son to the oldest son of the captive in the dungeon; also all the firstborn of the cattle. 30 Then Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt got up in the night; and there was bitter crying throughout all the land of Egypt, for there was not a house where someone had not died.
[While this applies to adults, it also includes children]

Leviticus 26:21-22
21 “And if even then you will not obey me and listen to me, I will send you seven times more plagues because of your sins. 22 I will send wild animals to kill your children and destroy your cattle and reduce your numbers so that your roads will be deserted.

Isaiah 13:15-18
15 Those who don’t run will be butchered. 16 Their little children will be dashed to death against the pavement right before their eyes; their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. 17 For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. 18 The attacking armies will have no mercy on the young people of Babylon or the babies or the children.
[Part of the vision god showed Isaiah]

Ezekiel 9:5-6
5 Then I heard the Lord tell the other men: “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead isn’t marked. Spare not nor pity them— 6 kill them all—old and young, girls, women, and little children; but don’t touch anyone with the mark. And begin right here at the Temple.” And so they began by killing the seventy elders.​

2)Show me where killing innocent children is considered a good thing, in the Bible?

Well, I never said they were good, so I don't know why you're presuming I know where they are. However, if you're referring to my comment "You just keep telling yourself this. Killing innocent children is a good thing." it's because in light of god's despicable acts involving the killing of children, AND your implication that god only does good ("God is holy and pure. He is incapable of sin, evil, or wrongdoing.") it follows that Killing innocent children is a good thing." If it isn't, then god killing children is a bad thing.