Why the law of Moses prohibits anal sex

[Simplelogic]

Generally, protected anal sex is safe. Isn't it the same "generally"?

Umm…."protection" is modern invention. What about the generations of humans who lived without it? What about large parts of the world today that have no access to condoms?

 

[Simplelogic]

so you walk away from the camp and bury your waste with a shovel?

Proof of the Oral Law - Nehemia's WallNehemia's Wall

Knew you were setting this up. I'm way ahead of you buddy.

 

[rosends]

Umm…."protection" is modern invention. What about the generations of humans who lived without it? What about large parts of the world today that have no access to condoms?

All those other groups weren't commanded not to have anal sex in the first place.

 

[rosends]

Proof of the Oral Law - Nehemia's WallNehemia's Wall

Knew you were setting this up. I'm way ahead of you buddy.

Why do you reply with a piece of satire when the question is simply whether you act in a way after you claimed to "accept all the requirements laid out in those 2 verses"?

If you do accept all the requirements, then you do them. If you don't, then why say you do?

 

[gsa]

Umm…."protection" is modern invention. What about the generations of humans who lived without it? What about large parts of the world today that have no access to condoms?

So the Torah would not be read as prohibiting anal sex between men, provided a condom is used?

 

[rosends]

So the Torah would not be read as prohibiting anal sex between men, provided a condom is used?

Or that the law has changed now that condoms are available.

 

[Nietzsche]

"There are a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

The anus lacks the natural lubrication the vagina has. Penetration can tear the tissue inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. This can result in the spread of sexually transmitted infections including HIV.

The tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread of infection.

The anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can potentially infect the giving partner."
Anal Sex Safety and Health Concerns​

And? None of this(regarding possibility of infection) are different from problems with vaginal or oral intercourse. People rarely go into sex blind these days. And with something like anal, you're gonna know a little bit before you jump in at all, because there's normally a few conversations before you(or your partner) consents to it. All of these issues are remedied with the most basic of forethought. And again, barring the lubrication one, are issues present with vaginal intercourse too.

 

[catch22]

But it doesn't. Anal sex with a clean partner is no more dangerous than vaginal sex with a clean partner. And if the partner has an STD, protected anal sex is no more dangerous with that partner than protected vaginal sex.

With all precautions, this is probable. With what we know now and Purell, anything is possible eh.

However, ask your girlfriend to go *** to mouth? Even with a "clean" partner, the natural biome of the rectum is not safe for human consumption in most cases. On the other hand doing the same with the vagina, no where near the risk or problems.

Seriously, one is designed sterile, the other is not. Common sense applies.

 

[Nietzsche]

With all precautions, this is probable. With what we know now and Purell, anything is possible eh.

However, ask your girlfriend to go *** to mouth? Even with a "clean" partner, the natural biome of the rectum is not safe for human consumption in most cases. On the other hand doing the same with the vagina, no where near the risk or problems.

Personally never found that particular idea all that stimulating. But if we want to go there..

Seriously, one is designed sterile, the other is not. Common sense applies.

..let's just say that also until recently, going down on the lady-friend with ones' tongue wasn't exactly 'safe' either, simply because keeping that clean was difficult and seen as a sign that a woman was a '****', as only recently have women been allowed to enjoy sex. I mean, yeast infections are still an inconvenience. Imagine what that was like just 80 or so years ago.

 

[catch22]

Personally never found that particular idea all that stimulating. But if we want to go there..

..let's just say that also until recently, going down on the lady-friend with ones' tongue wasn't exactly 'safe' either, simply because keeping that clean was difficult and seen as a sign that a woman was a '****', as only recently have women been allowed to enjoy sex. I mean, yeast infections are still an inconvenience. Imagine what that was like just 80 or so years ago.

In contrast to what one finds in the backdoor 80 years ago, I'll take my chances. I probably won't be doing the tongue tornado, but I'm not sure that was a common practice in Biblical times....?

 

[jojom]

And? None of this(regarding possibility of infection) are different from problems with vaginal or oral intercourse. People rarely go into sex blind these days. And with something like anal, you're gonna know a little bit before you jump in at all, because there's normally a few conversations before you(or your partner) consents to it. All of these issues are remedied with the most basic of forethought. And again, barring the lubrication one, are issues present with vaginal intercourse too.

The point goes back to the original issue of why god condemned homosexual sex, reasonably taken to mean anal sex. It carries a greater chance for harmful consequences. Of course, if you don't believe that homosexual acts reasonably refers to anal sex, then go fish. Personally, I find the whole condemnation quite screwy, more a reflection of heterosexual disgust of anal sex than concern for the health of homosexuals, and therefore put into the bible. Simply look at what god says about having sex with a woman who is menstruating: "You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. (Lev. 18:19). But we're speaking Bible-speak here, working off the notion that the Bible is god talking us. And, presuming these are god's words, I find it odd that he would really care that much about approximately 3% of the population. After all, he didn't care about all the innocent children he killed in his various interventions into human affairs.

So I think Simplelogic is mistaken in his belief that god condemned homosexual sex because of health issues. If anything, god (actually, those who composed the bible) was disgusted with the act of anal sex. Just as he is disgusted with a man having sex with a menstruating woman.

 

[Nakosis]

First off, The Torah of Moses does not prohibit same sex love or feelings. Nor does it condemn a person for these types of thoughts. The prohibition in the law of Moses was specifically against male to male anal sex. One could argue that anal sex in general should be prohibited based off of this verse alone.

I believe that God knew that anal sex was able to spread deadly diseases which harm the very people who carry out these acts! Its for the preservation of these very people that He commended these things…not because God somehow hated homosexuals!

Why couldn't have God designed man with immunity to STDs?

 

[catch22]

The point goes back to the original issue of why god condemned homosexual sex, reasonably taken to mean anal sex. It carries a greater chance for harmful consequences. Of course, if you don't believe that homosexual acts reasonably refers to anal sex, then go fish. Personally, I find the whole condemnation quite screwy, more a reflection of heterosexual disgust of anal sex than concern for the health of homosexuals, and therefore put into the bible. Simply look at what god says about having sex with a woman who is menstruating: "You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is in her menstrual uncleanness. (Lev. 18:19). But we're speaking Bible-speak here, working off the notion that the Bible is god talking us. And, presuming these are god's words, I find it odd that he would really care that much about approximately 3% of the population.

Maybe he cares about 100% of the population, hence the laws? Hence Christ?

After all, he didn't care about all the innocent children he killed in his various interventions into human affairs.

Can you show me where God says He doesn't care about the children and innocent people killed in these destructions (Canaanites, Amalekites, etc)? Or did you simply infer that because He allowed them to be destroyed?

Have you ever had to kill anything? Did that mean you didn't care about it? It might be easy to see this as God stepping on an ant, but that would be you applying your human depravity to the Holiness of God, no?

 

[jojom]

Why couldn't have God designed man with immunity to STDs?

Why didn't god simply eliminate STDs? Because he doesn't care.

 

[Nakosis]

Why didn't god simply eliminate STDs? Because he doesn't care.

Yes, we have to have sex in order to procreate yet we can die horribly from sex and children can be born with syphilis.

 

[jojom]

Maybe he cares about 100% of the population, hence the laws?

So why not care about all the diseases that ravage mankind? Nope, you can't claim a god cares about the sexuality of 100% of the population when he obviously lets so many other ailments, maladies, and suffering befall it. What kind of sane being would be so arbitrary? They wouldn't.

Can you show me where God says He doesn't care about the children and innocent people killed in these destructions (Canaanites, Amalekites, etc)? Or did you simply infer that because He allowed them to be destroyed?

He did far more then simply allow children to be killed, he ordered it or did it himself.

Jeremiah 11:22-23
22 Therefore, thus says the Lord of hosts: I am going to punish them. The young men shall die by the sword; their sons and daughters shall die by famine. 23 None shall be spared among them, for I will bring disaster upon the men of Anathoth, the year of their punishment.

Exodus 12:29
And so at midnight the Lord struck down every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner in the dungeon, as well as all the firstborn of the animals. 30 Pharaoh arose in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians; and there was loud wailing throughout Egypt, for there was not a house without its dead.

 

[Nietzsche]

In contrast to what one finds in the backdoor 80 years ago, I'll take my chances. I probably won't be doing the tongue tornado, but I'm not sure that was a common practice in Biblical times....?

We have no reason to believe our sexual tastes have changed all that much. I mean, it's not like oral intercourse is new, for either sex. We've got depictions & references of it(for both sexes) dating back(I'm going purely from memory here so excuse me if I'm mistake) at least a thousand years, potentially far more.

As far as the backdoor..don't know, honestly. Something else, that I feel should be mentioned(and something I've managed to flat-out forget until now) is that relatively speaking we had slightly more robust immune systems back then. I don't mean we were healthier, we clearly weren't, but anyone who survived to adulthood simply wasn't going to be killed from just your average infection. I mean, if you had a time machine and went back just 200 years odds are you'd be dead after your first meal. The pathogens, germs and such back then were very different, and we've eradicated a good chunk of them. But because of that, we don't retain (all) of the immunity.

For those wondering; infant mortality back then was largely due to disease & such. Anyone who made it to adulthood would have obviously survive whatever killed his/her 9 other siblings. And given living conditions, it wasn't uncommon at all to come into contact with human waste on a daily basis. Because of that, I doubt it would be that much more risky than simply living during the era to begin with.

 

[Flankerl]

I feel really compelled to point out that OP has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism nor does OP represent Jews or Judaism.

Also we usually don't smear poo into our eyes and get pink eye.

 

[Simplelogic]

I feel really compelled to point out that OP has nothing to do with Jews or Judaism nor does OP represent Jews or Judaism.

Also we usually don't smear poo into our eyes and get pink eye.

I want to be clear that I don't represent modern Judaism either. I also want to make it clear that modern Judaism does not represent the faith of our ancestors either.

And yes, fecal matter is the most common way a person gets pink eye.

 

[Simplelogic]

So why not care about all the diseases that ravage mankind? Nope, you can't claim a god cares about the sexuality of 100% of the population when he obviously lets so many other ailments, maladies, and suffering befall it. What kind of sane being would be so arbitrary? They wouldn't.

He did far more then simply allow children to be killed, he ordered it or did it himself.

Jeremiah 11:22-23
22 Therefore, thus says the Lord of hosts: I am going to punish them. The young men shall die by the sword; their sons and daughters shall die by famine. 23 None shall be spared among them, for I will bring disaster upon the men of Anathoth, the year of their punishment.

Exodus 12:29
And so at midnight the Lord struck down every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner in the dungeon, as well as all the firstborn of the animals. 30 Pharaoh arose in the night, he and all his servants and all the Egyptians; and there was loud wailing throughout Egypt, for there was not a house without its dead.

Yes, it is clear that our God brings judgment upon evil people. Thanks for making the point. The question is does God bring destruction upon innocent people.