• 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!

Why the law of Moses prohibits anal sex

jojom

jojom

Active Member
catch22 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Establishing the State of Israel outshines the abject suffering and eventually killing of 11,000,000 people? Really! And don't forget that 5,000,000 (45%) weren't even Jews.

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.
Click to expand...
Hard to measure or not, obviously you feel this terrible tragedy involving the murder of 12 students and one teacher, and the injury of 15 additional people is worth
some kind of Community solidarity, safety awareness, and things like that. Think other communities seeking solidarity, safety awareness, and things like that should shoot up their local high school?
 
rosends

rosends

Well-Known Member
Simplelogic said:
Do you know what intercourse means?
Click to expand...
I hope you mean sexual intercourse and not just regular old conversation. Sexual intercourse involves penetration not limited to a particular orifice nor by a particular object. So anal sex, and lesbian love making using devices would both fall under the definition. Of course, the Merriam Webster dictionary says it doesn't require any penetration at all. What dictionary are you using?
 
SomeRandom

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Simplelogic said:
Can you please enlighten me on how two women have intercourse?
Click to expand...

Lol you're on the internet and still have no idea how lesbian sex works? I must commend you on your ability to be sheltered, sir!

Oral, fisting, mutual masturbation, dildos, fingering, strap ons, sex toys etc etc. All acts of which carry with it the prospect of spreading disease unless proper hygiene is taken or neither partner has an STD.


Oh and just FYI "fresh" spring water can contain all sorts of nasties. This is because it may not have been treated properly. Any idiot who passed basic chemistry class knows that.
 
Last edited:
Tumah

Tumah

Veteran Member
Simplelogic said:
1.Do you believe that God does evil acts?

2. What you are suggesting is that God is lying to us about Himself. You can cloak it all you want. Christians say the same thing.
Click to expand...
1. What you are suggesting is that God is lying to us about Himself. You can cloak it all you want. Christians say the same thing.
2. "Anthropomorphism" is not equatable with "lie".
 
Simplelogic

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
SomeRandom said:
Lol you're on the internet and still have no idea how lesbian sex works? I must commend you on your ability to be sheltered, sir!

Oral, fisting, mutual masturbation, dildos, fingering, strap ons, sex toys etc etc. All acts of which carry with it the prospect of spreading disease unless proper hygiene is taken or neither partner has an STD.


Oh and just FYI "fresh" spring water can contain all sorts of nasties. This is because it may not have been treated properly. Any idiot who passed basic chemistry class knows that.
Click to expand...
So if a women uses a dildo on herself would most say she is have sexual intercourse?
 
Simplelogic

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Tumah said:
1. What you are suggesting is that God is lying to us about Himself. You can cloak it all you want. Christians say the same thing.
2. "Anthropomorphism" is not equatable with "lie".
Click to expand...
1. ???

2. There is obvious difference between poetic anthropomorphism. The "arm of the Lord" is obviously in reference to His strength (usually militarily). Its very clear in the text that God is not talking about His literal arm. But what about a verse like this:

And the Lord said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." Genesis 18:20,21

There is only one logical way to interpret this.

God had not predetermined the actions of Sodom and Gomorrah and He was NOT seeing them outside of time. He needed to validate the "outcry" against these two cities. He states that after He "goes down" (meaning His messengers) He will then know what to do with the city! There is no poetry involved here. God is going step by step through His thought process. If God really did know (from outside of time) and then decided to blatantly lie about His "knowing" of these events would make this whole verse a blatant lie!
 
Simplelogic

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Modern definitions are obviously convoluted and inconsistent. The conundrum is trying to rationalize the simple meaning of sexual intercourse with modern assumptions. The obvious, long standing, definition of sexual intercourse was NOT about penetration alone. Its the penetration of a "sexual organ" into another "sexual organ". Anyone could stick any object into themselves and it would still not be "sexual intercourse", even though it could stimulate someone sexually. Now we say that if one woman is penetrating another woman with a foreign object they are now having sexual intercourse, yet if that same women were to be using that object in private she isn't???

Two women are incapable of having sexual intercourse which implies one sexual organ penetrating another sexual organ.
 
rosends

rosends

Well-Known Member
Simplelogic said:
So according to your statement above. Two women kissing are actually having sexual intercourse, right?
Click to expand...
Merriam Webster seems to disagree. For "intercourse" the definition includes
" physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person<anal intercourse><oral intercourse>"...

So unless you define the mouths as genitalia, simple kissing is not sexual intercourse. This leaves the issue of whether digital-anal stimulation counts as "sexual intercourse" but that wasn't the question. You can easily look these things up if you'd like. The MW is online.
 
rosends

rosends

Well-Known Member
Simplelogic said:
Modern definitions are obviously convoluted and inconsistent. The conundrum is trying to rationalize the simple meaning of sexual intercourse with modern assumptions. The obvious, long standing, definition of sexual intercourse was NOT about penetration alone. Its the penetration of a "sexual organ" into another "sexual organ". Anyone could stick any object into themselves and it would still not be "sexual intercourse", even though it could stimulate someone sexually. Now we say that if one woman is penetrating another woman with a foreign object they are now having sexual intercourse, yet if that same women were to be using that object in private she isn't???

Two women are incapable of having sexual intercourse which implies one sexual organ penetrating another sexual organ.
Click to expand...
That actually depends on your understanding that the word "intercourse" is "connection or dealings between persons or groups" because it includes the prefix "inter" (between). One person is not "between".
 
dust1n

dust1n

Zindīq
Simplelogic said:
Why do you think heterosexual couples (even ones who have multiple partners) are far less likely to contract AIDS?
Click to expand...

Two more contributing factors are anal sex and repeat exposure. The blood vessels around the anus are closer to the skin, and thoroughly more accessible, as opposed to vagina or the gums. Secondly, anal sex is likely to result in microtears and so easier passage in the blood stream.

And repeat exposure is pretty self-explainatory. Guys love to get off. Not just gay men. All men. And from my experience the one thing that generally prevents a guy from constantly getting off is, in general, female sexual selection. I.E. women are less likely to bone down with a stranger. But with gay men, well, you pretty much don't have that barrier. Add to that fact that homosexuality has been margainalized (so instead of finding a single lover to spend your life with, you end up satisfying sexual urges when and where it's acceptable and doable and basically secret), gay guys do it a lot.

Just from that fact alone, you'd get massively more likely chance of getting HIV from having sex no matter what.

But it's all immaterial. If I have a partner, whether same or opposite sex, and they don't have HIV, I have a zero percent change of getting HIV from that person no matter where in that person I place myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top