Why the law of Moses prohibits anal sex

[muichimotsu]

So according to your statement above. Two women kissing are actually having sexual intercourse, right?

You're seriously stretching this beyond credibility. The obvious difference between a woman using a dildo on herself and on a partner is that one is a dynamic between two people and the other is self pleasure. Trying to say they're remotely the same is asinine.

Kissing is not automatically sexual, since it can merely be a communication of affection in a nonsexual and nonromantic sense. People in Europe kiss each other on the cheek when greeting, it's not meant to be flirting.

 

[SomeRandom]

So if a women uses a dildo on herself would most say she is have sexual intercourse?

Masturbating, certainly. But I suppose it depends on your specific definition of "sexual intercourse." You actually might find a couple of people who would say she is ****ing herself or having sex with herself.
*shrugs*

 

[Simplelogic]

You're seriously stretching this beyond credibility. The obvious difference between a woman using a dildo on herself and on a partner is that one is a dynamic between two people and the other is self pleasure. Trying to say they're remotely the same is asinine.

Kissing is not automatically sexual, since it can merely be a communication of affection in a nonsexual and nonromantic sense. People in Europe kiss each other on the cheek when greeting, it's not meant to be flirting.

I was responding to SOMEONE ELSE who was saying this. This is not my personal view.

 

[muichimotsu]

I was responding to SOMEONE ELSE who was saying this. This is not my personal view.

Then by all means qualify where you draw the line of immorality in sexual acts. Is it the quality of the act itself, the situation in which it occurs, or some other variation thereof?

 

[Musty]

I can't help but feel that there are more important issues facing society and the human race than whether or not individuals engage in anal sex. It's bizarre that a person or a God would feel the need to moralise about the issue when there are more pressing matters at hand.

 

[catch22]

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? 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.​

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.

Exodus citation: how many times did God attempt to move Pharaoh to avoid killing the firstborns of his nation, or do any of the plagues? What if Moses walked in and said what he said and Pharaoh was like "Okay, cool bro. See you guys next time." Would anything bad have happened? Nope.

So who's fault is it, really? The blood is on Pharaoh, not the Lord.

Leviticus: Covenants are binding, you skipped the first half of the chapter that shows the rewards the Lord would bless upon them if they simply upheld their covenant with Him. Needless to say these are things that would happen if they disobeyed, not things done. Does the government shoot and kill innocent citizens when it posts a sign, "Trespassers will be shot" ? Who's at fault if you cross it and get shot at?

Isaiah: If Babylon abandoned it's evil and proclaimed God as Lord, would they have been destroyed? Further, wasn't it the Medes who did it? Joshua and his Israelites killed all life in the cities given to them, commanded by God, but the Lord instructed they first offer peace for the land to be handed over. Bablyon had it's chance, so did the Canaanites and Amelakites and everyone else God destroyed who opposed Him. Naturally, the evil people don't just hand over their land, nor their sin; so they were slain for it. Moral of the story, don't be God-hating evil doers where no righteousness can be counted amongst you?

You complain God is inept and incapable, yet when He demonstrates sovereign authority, He is cruel and wicked. Grow up.

Ezekiel: God makes good on His word. This should be a comfort to you. Chapter 8 demonstrates the lengthy list of abominations committed against God. Abominations are dealt with in the manner you pointed out in Exodus.


So what's the problem with this? If they knew the results of their transgression, you're appalled? If God had not warned them in advance and done it without their knowing of wrong doing, you might have a case. But that isn't so.

 

[Simplelogic]

I can't help but feel that there are more important issues facing society and the human race than whether or not individuals engage in anal sex. It's bizarre that a person or a God would feel the need to moralise about the issue when there are more pressing matters at hand.

Funny how you would take the time to read it and then comment. Hmm.

 

[jojom]

Exodus citation: how many times did God attempt to move Pharaoh to avoid killing the firstborns of his nation, or do any of the plagues? What if Moses walked in and said what he said and Pharaoh was like "Okay, cool bro. See you guys next time." Would anything bad have happened? Nope.

So who's fault is it, really? The blood is on Pharaoh, not the Lord.

In other words, god was incapable of sorting out the innocent in his pogrom and make sure they would survive. Some kind of omnipotent god you worship here, catch22. "Sorry people, if I kill any of you I have to kill all of you. I just can't help myself."

Leviticus: Covenants are binding, you skipped the first half of the chapter that shows the rewards the Lord would bless upon them if they simply upheld their covenant with Him. Needless to say these are things that would happen if they disobeyed, not things done. Does the government shoot and kill innocent citizens when it posts a sign, "Trespassers will be shot" ? Who's at fault if you cross it and get shot at?

So you're saying that the innocent, those incapable of understanding any covenants, deserve to be killed? God is no better than some dullard government employee who can't tell a baby being carried across a trespass line from an adult who purposely does so? Come on, even I, a non-believer, would give your god more credit than that. Face it, purposely sending wild animals to kill children is an act of a perverted mongrel.

Isaiah: If Babylon abandoned it's evil and proclaimed God as Lord, would they have been destroyed? Further, wasn't it the Medes who did it? Joshua and his Israelites killed all life in the cities given to them, commanded by God, but the Lord instructed they first offer peace for the land to be handed over. Bablyon had it's chance, so did the Canaanites and Amelakites and everyone else God destroyed who opposed Him. Naturally, the evil people don't just hand over their land, nor their sin; so they were slain for it. Moral of the story, don't be God-hating evil doers where no righteousness can be counted amongst you?

Think all the innocent children hated god? Hell, most would have had no idea of what a god is, much less be God-hating evil doers.

You complain God is inept and incapable, yet when He demonstrates sovereign authority, He is cruel and wicked.

Where have I claimed this?

Ezekiel: God makes good on His word. This should be a comfort to you. Chapter 8 demonstrates the lengthy list of abominations committed against God. Abominations are dealt with in the manner you pointed out in Exodus.

Tell you what, although you obviously find killing innocent children fine and dandy, I do not.

So what's the problem with this? If they knew the results of their transgression, you're appalled? If God had not warned them in advance and done it without their knowing of wrong doing, you might have a case. But that isn't so.

I know it's easy to stick one's head in the sand and pretend innocent children don't figure into the equation of god's wrath in any of these passages, but the fact of the matter is, they do. Plain and simple, god, your god, killed innocent children when he didn't have to. And no apologetics, yours in particular here, have done anything to exonerate him.

You get an F- for your work. Don't give up your day job.

 

[morphesium]

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!


Everyone has the freedom to choose their actions…choose wisely!

Soon or later, Scientists will find out medicines for these deadly diseases. The future is not very distant where - If a new disease comes out; a new medicine is developed within an hour. [mores law states that for every 2 years (or so) the number of transistors in a chip doubles. Quite similar trend exist in science and technology, including Medicine].
So, accordingly, when that time comes - it should be safe to have anal sex (the best time for homos is yet to come). What about the torah Scrolls then?

What if they use condoms right now.

 

[morphesium]

The death penalty was meant to deter humans from the action. You might argue that this is overkill but think about it. If God knew that anal sex would cause and spread as many diseases as it did, could the harsh penalty be form of preservation? Would it have been more "loving" to allow humans to commit an action that He knew would cause deadly diseases and spread these diseases to MANY OTHERS?

I am not favoring anal sex, but i don't think one should be given death penalty for some one in doing this. It is in a way saying- Hey is sneezing in public, he could be infected with some form of influenza! kill him. The only difference is that homosexuals constitute a fraction of the population whereas all people would have had some form of influenza at some point in life.

I hope you have heard of bacterias and other micro-organisms gaining resistance to drugs (antibiotics). Pests gaining resistance to pesticides etc. The reason is partly because of natural selection. similarly if a disease spreads out of control in human population, some where some people will gain some kind of immunity for that disease. as said, it is part of natural selection. Right now, people will have varying degree of susceptibility for diseases like HIV and other STD's.

People who live in "unclean" areas have higher body resistance than those who live in clean areas. (I am not saying people should move to unclean areas to improve your body resistance).
In the worst case scenario, a disease may turn to an epidemic and would kill a major share of the population, but it wont kill everyone in the population. Additionally, the chances are that the remaining population would have a far higher resistance to that particular disease than that of the previous population.

Moreover, what about the diseases that are spread by - say migratory birds, rats, cockroaches, flies - something that we don't have total control of. A mutated strain of virus could become so potent, that the virus in a single fly could spread to a 10,000 people before spreading havoc. Much more havoc than what could be possible by the disease that spread by anal sex.

The truth is that -there are other sinister reasons why religion keeps such laws - death penalty, torturing for the helpless homosexuals. For the religious rulers

1. it can induce fear in public and fasten their authority over them.
2. homosexuals constitute just a fraction of the population. So harming them would not compel the majority to react up on this. Moreover, they can easily make the majority to stand against them for no reason.
3. if they have some enemies, they can allege the one or two of the major enemies as homosexuals and plot a ploy and punish them with death sentence. trouble is gone.

 

[Simplelogic]

Soon or later, Scientists will find out medicines for these deadly diseases. The future is not very distant where - If a new disease comes out; a new medicine is developed within an hour. [mores law states that for every 2 years (or so) the number of transistors in a chip doubles. Quite similar trend exist in science and technology, including Medicine].
So, accordingly, when that time comes - it should be safe to have anal sex (the best time for homos is yet to come). What about the torah Scrolls then?

What if they use condoms right now.

Even if science were to remove the need for these commandments you still have thousands of years of human civilization that was protected because of it.

 

[muichimotsu]

Protection because of rote adherence to a law doesn't make the prohibitions justified in themselves. Just like obeying the law because of fear is not as admirable as doing it because the law is beneficial by nature.

You're appealing to a perspective that doesn't seem to care that we advance as a society at large and still have to follow the laws of "God's chosen people" because they supposedly knew better. Having homosexual intercourse in itself is not evil, only when it's done in a way that would violate human dignity, same as if you had heterosexual intercourse with someone against their will. And as others have pointed out and you've dismissed offhand, a committed couple having anal intercourse cannot contract HIV/AIDS through that. There are other methods, but those would be more accidental in nature and not of any sexual quality.

The fact that there can be a risk to something is not a reason to absolutely prohibit it: Abusus non tollit usum, Latin, check it out.

 

[Simplelogic]

Protection because of rote adherence to a law doesn't make the prohibitions justified in themselves. Just like obeying the law because of fear is not as admirable as doing it because the law is beneficial by nature.

You're appealing to a perspective that doesn't seem to care that we advance as a society at large and still have to follow the laws of "God's chosen people" because they supposedly knew better. Having homosexual intercourse in itself is not evil, only when it's done in a way that would violate human dignity, same as if you had heterosexual intercourse with someone against their will. And as others have pointed out and you've dismissed offhand, a committed couple having anal intercourse cannot contract HIV/AIDS through that. There are other methods, but those would be more accidental in nature and not of any sexual quality.

The fact that there can be a risk to something is not a reason to absolutely prohibit it: Abusus non tollit usum, Latin, check it out.

If you don't understand that anal sex is extremely dangerous, even in our modern age, then I don't know what to say. The statistics don't lie. The dangerous action is what the Torah prohibited, not love or romantic feelings.

 

[muichimotsu]

Dangerous action is done out of ignorance: the statistics don't speak about protection, merely the sex act without any particular qualification. MSM is not regarding whether these are monogamous or polyamorous or whether they're doing risky behavior in regards to anal intercourse, so the study is incomplete and insufficient in making a vast conclusion about anal intercourse in itself.

Anal sex is not innately dangerous anymore than any sex act: if done in excess and with disregard for safety, even vaginal intercourse can be dangerous, but anal sex is something that, like many things of a sexual nature, should be done thoughtfully and carefully, not impulsively. Merely seeing something as dangerous because it has some risk is not the same as it being so because of an innate wrongness as connects to autonomy and safety overall. Otherwise, we wouldn't get in planes or boats: risk doesn't equal innate danger by the act, but by circumstances not directly tied to the act.

 

[Simplelogic]

Dangerous action is done out of ignorance: the statistics don't speak about protection, merely the sex act without any particular qualification. MSM is not regarding whether these are monogamous or polyamorous or whether they're doing risky behavior in regards to anal intercourse, so the study is incomplete and insufficient in making a vast conclusion about anal intercourse in itself.

Anal sex is not innately dangerous anymore than any sex act: if done in excess and with disregard for safety, even vaginal intercourse can be dangerous, but anal sex is something that, like many things of a sexual nature, should be done thoughtfully and carefully, not impulsively. Merely seeing something as dangerous because it has some risk is not the same as it being so because of an innate wrongness as connects to autonomy and safety overall. Otherwise, we wouldn't get in planes or boats: risk doesn't equal innate danger by the act, but by circumstances not directly tied to the act.

okie dokie

 

[muichimotsu]

You realize how petulant and immature that makes you sound? You don't even confront the content of the argument, but dismiss it outright.

 

[Simplelogic]

You realize how petulant and immature that makes you sound? You don't even confront the content of the argument, but dismiss it outright.

I have stated my position and given a logical explanation for it.

 

[muichimotsu]

You've parroted tired rhetoric and not given a substantive response to the principles I've brought forward, but insisted you're right without even pointing out how my argument is flawed at all.

If you're just going to appeal to religion, don't expect people to take it seriously even if they agreed in principle. Practically, there are varying interpretations and you've failed to point out how yours is innately superior except by simplistic use of statistics to underpin your shaky foundation

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is why God told us to avoid poop and blood.

Then why did he fill us with it?

 

[Simplelogic]

Then why did he fill us with it?

The question seems flawed. The problem isn't blood or crap by itself. Its about improper exposure or consumption. This is why the Torah outlines what is acceptable and what is not. The same goes for the animals. All animals have purpose in life but only some are meant for human consumption.