|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 6, 2009 13:08:42 GMT -5
so, what exactly is sodomy?
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 13:10:25 GMT -5
#1 The sin of Sodom and Gammorah was inhospitality to strangers. #2 The anal sex they practiced was man on man. I agree YUK! Yet, you approve of sodomy between heterosexual couples so long as their married? No wait, YOUUUU believe that GOD approves of it, right? (And The Sin of Sodom was that the town wanted to "sodomize" The Angels! I'd call that more than just "inhospitality". In The Bible, when you reach an inhospitality place, you just leave.)
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 13:11:18 GMT -5
so, what exactly is sodomy? Anal sex.
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jun 6, 2009 13:11:27 GMT -5
hahahaha ;D No if you are married and your husband has anal sex with you it is not sin. However cepha is talking about a women strapping on and giving anal sex to her husband. That has to be crossing some type of line dont ya think? Whoah! I NEVER mentioned the use of impliments in the act of sodomy! (and you talk about "me" being imaginative! illll!) A woman doesn't "need" an impliment to enter a man! I wasn't thinking anywhere NEAR what you just stated! First you put words in my mouth, now you're putting thoughts in my mind that were never there? Oh yeah you never mentioned impliments? He thinks that "anything" can be done physically in a bed where the two participants are married. So Sodomy is okay in God's eyes without question. So is masterbation. So is the use of sexual impliments. So is role playing. So is a man being himself "entered" by a woman. Again, he believes that when the Bible says anything, it means anything. As long as the two people engaged in the activity are married. From reply 225
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 13:15:50 GMT -5
Listen if you want you wife to strap on and give it to you when you get married go for it, I am not going to tell you, you are going to hell for it after all scripture does say all is honorable within the marriage bed, however To me it is perverse, and i will not be getting my wife to penetrate me. Hey, don't look at me! You're the one who says it's ok in God's eyes! I totally disagree with you. I'm sure God does too. In my eyes, to God, sodomy is perverse and I agree with Him. Man! You are saying that to God, sodomy is honourable, but what God calls honourable, you see as "perverse"? Why do you disagree with God?
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jun 6, 2009 13:16:19 GMT -5
sod⋅om⋅y /ˈsɒdəmi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sod-uh-mee] Show IPA –noun 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 2. copulation with a member of the same sex. 3. bestiality (def. 4).
So are you now saying oral sex between a man and his wife is sin?
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 13:16:56 GMT -5
Whoah! I NEVER mentioned the use of impliments in the act of sodomy! (and you talk about "me" being imaginative! illll!) A woman doesn't "need" an impliment to enter a man! I wasn't thinking anywhere NEAR what you just stated! First you put words in my mouth, now you're putting thoughts in my mind that were never there? Oh yeah you never mentioned impliments? He thinks that "anything" can be done physically in a bed where the two participants are married. So Sodomy is okay in God's eyes without question. So is masterbation. So is the use of sexual impliments. So is role playing. So is a man being himself "entered" by a woman. Again, he believes that when the Bible says anything, it means anything. As long as the two people engaged in the activity are married. From reply 225 Read what I wrote...I said "I" never mentioned impliments! LOL! I wrote that YOU are the one who believes that they are ok to use as long as the couple is married and that God approves of it! LOL!
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jun 6, 2009 13:18:52 GMT -5
Oh yeah you never mentioned impliments? From reply 225 Read what I wrote...I said "I" never mentioned impliments! LOL! I wrote that YOU are the one who believes that they are ok to use as long as the couple is married and that God approves of it! LOL! But you did mention impliments.
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 13:20:10 GMT -5
sod⋅om⋅y /ˈsɒdəmi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sod-uh-mee] Show IPA –noun 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 2. copulation with a member of the same sex. 3. bestiality (def. 4).So are you now saying oral sex between a man and his wife is sin? Oral sex "is" sinful. Uhhh...yeah?!?! What, you don't think it is?
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 13:21:13 GMT -5
Read what I wrote...I said "I" never mentioned impliments! LOL! I wrote that YOU are the one who believes that they are ok to use as long as the couple is married and that God approves of it! LOL! But you did mention impliments. I never said they were allowable...I said "YOU" believe they are! And you do...right?
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 13:23:16 GMT -5
Oh!
And when I wrote "impliments", it wasn't just with regards to a woman entering a man! That was in general acts of sex! I included all impliments (some that don't apply to sodomy).
Take my words in context!
LOL!
I NEVER mentioned impliments in sodomizing a man!
LOL!
YOU DID!
On your own!
Even the QUOTE you posted of MY words separate the two!
;D
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Jun 6, 2009 13:24:16 GMT -5
sod⋅om⋅y /ˈsɒdəmi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sod-uh-mee] Show IPA –noun 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex. 2. copulation with a member of the same sex. 3. bestiality (def. 4).So are you now saying oral sex between a man and his wife is sin? Oral sex "is" sinful. Uhhh...yeah?!?! What, you don't think it is? I think I now know why your not married, you didn't take care of your wife as you should. No I do not think it is sin, and although most of what you claim I support or agree with I would even imagine doing. Preforming oral sex on my wife is not only something I practice, but something I thuroghly enjoy. ;D And on that note I think I am out of this conversation, it has taken many, many wild turns so far....lol
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 6, 2009 13:32:10 GMT -5
Huh, oral and anal sex. Really? Hmm...somehow I can't believe that.
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 13:35:22 GMT -5
I think I now know why your not married, you didn't take care of your wife as you should. If following God's will for our bodies keeps me single, so be it. Alright, you don't have to share how you "feel" about it to discuss it and...you're right; ..." you" don't think it's a sin. Yes, we've certainly found out "more" about you than I'm sure anybody cared to know in the first place. By the way, how could you call what God deems "honourable" perverse? Why do you disagree with God?
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 13:40:34 GMT -5
Huh, oral and anal sex. Really? Hmm...somehow I can't believe that. Read The Bible. It talks about how women sinned by taking men "into" their mouths. And we all know about Sodom, right? The sin there didn't distinguish between homosexual sodomy or heterosexual sodomy. Emily, your body was built a certain way to function in a certain way. The same way that homosexuals are not to "engage" each other, neither are we. There is only "one" way to have relations and that's the way the body was designed for.
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jun 6, 2009 13:44:47 GMT -5
Watchman,
IMPORTANT QUESTION
Was "Onan"s marriage a valid marriage? A real marriage, holy and honorable in God's eyes? Was it any less a real marriage than the marriage that this poor widow had with her first husband? Remember that "two shall become one flesh" and "what God has joined, let no man put asunder". And that when her first husband died, she was completely released from the marriage with him.
So, where is your Biblical justification that Onan's case was an exception?
Was it just an exception that the Lord let Ananias and Sapphira perish? Is it now ok to deceive the Church and the Holy Spirit?
Or is it just another "non-Catholic" rationalization for doing something you want to do?
Who taught you that Onan's case was an exception? Was it yourself or a pastor? Because the Bible doesn't go beyond that verse with Birth control, so you had to have learned that theory somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 13:50:21 GMT -5
Watchman, IMPORTANT QUESTION Was "Onan"s marriage a valid marriage? A real marriage, holy and honorable in God's eyes? Was it any less a real marriage than the marriage that this poor widow had with her first husband? Remember that "two shall become one flesh" and "what God has joined, let no man put asunder". And that when her first husband died, she was completely released from the marriage with him. So, where is your Biblical justification that Onan's case was an exception? Was it just an exception that the Lord let Ananias and Sapphira perish? Is it now ok to deceive the Church and the Holy Spirit? Or is it just another "non-Catholic" rationalization for doing something you want to do? Who taught you that Onan's case was an exception? Was it yourself or a pastor? Because the Bible doesn't go beyond that verse with Birth control, so you had to have learned that theory somewhere. Dang!
Joan of Arc rides again!
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 6, 2009 13:54:07 GMT -5
Steven, all I know about Sodom was the men wanted to have homosexual sex with the angels.
And you know little about how my body was designed and how it relates to sex........
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 6, 2009 14:02:23 GMT -5
Steven, all I know about Sodom was the men wanted to have homosexual sex with the angels. And exactly "what" were they going to do? How were they going to use their body parts? Don't answer that...just use that as your answer when you wonder about other than "normal" sex. Not you personally, but as a female human being, I know that your body is designed with only "one" sexual organ.
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Jun 6, 2009 14:08:59 GMT -5
Steven, they wanted to have homosexual sex with them. Which is different than heterosexual anal sex, it is between a woman and a man.
And, nevermind, I do not talk about my sexual life online. So just believe me when I tell you that you don't know about my body and how it relates to enjoying sex.
|
|