Well you did ask, didn’t you?
But I asked nicely.
Gosh - actually seeing the Onan passage, it’s clear that it DOESN’T condemn masturbation at all. It condemns a man for being deceitful by deliberately not giving a woman children when he was supposed to/expected to. It’s bollox all to do with wasting semen.
So all the (mis)interpretations put on poor Onan ever since, as the Patron Saint of Masturbation, or whatever, just stem from the horrible, repressive, dirty little minds of doctrine-writers.
It’s the equivalent of saying God bans cars because once a man drove a woman to the wrong destination or something.
Wank away guys, with the Lord’s blessing.
This came up (actually I brought it up) in a thread about anal sex when someone mentioned that wasn’t what it was designed for…by what stretch of the imagination is the mouth “designed” for kissing? Why would you want to put your own delicate lips and tougue near those sharp pointed objects made for grinding up stuff just like lips and tongue? To say nothing of the bacteria and bits of predigested food.
No it’s my contention that kissing is every bit as unnatural as anal and oral sex (and only one of the many unatural act which I advocate 
)
Oh, and I really feel this link should be included in this thread somewhere:
A few months ago, my husband was explaining to his Youth Group that his tattoos aren’t sins because when Christ came He brought us out from under the law. So why would anything in the law about fellatio, homosexuality, or other “unnatural” acts mean anything at all?
Sex is only natural if it isn’t done correctly.
So, gathered from this thread, I can now state that if you bite your nails, you sin three times:
- You sin by getting pleasure/comfort from the act;
- You sin by using your mouth for unnatural puposes;
- You sin by using your nails for unnatural purposes;
Get thee behind me, nail-biter!
That’s something I’ve wondered about too. Jesus dying for our sins replaces certain OT things (regular animal sacrifices to honor God for example) but I’ve never gotten a good sense of what things in the OT are still “law.” Is it still wrong to sleep with a witch or not marry your brother’s widow?
Honestly, I can’t answer your first question. Aside from not giving a rat’s ass about what they condemn, spending enough time at their website to find out would make me violently nauseous.
But I can answer your second one. This debate is really about straining gnats and swallowing camels. I’m just sick and tired of the cruelty born of condescension by modern day Pharisees who are glad they are not like “those icky people”, and who are delighted to point out every speck in other people’s eyes while they believe that the logs in their own eyes are there despite that they try oh so hard to do right.
I don’t mind cherry picking, and in fact I encourage it — but to form a Gospel of Love, not a Gospel of Condemnation. The commandment is to love, not to condemn.
Yes. Do tell :eek:
Ah, so according to these people God is analogous to a pissy designer, when the thing he/she (He/She?) designed is not used in the way he/she intended? I get it now! I work with these people every day.
Sounds like more usability testing is needed to me… I’d be happy to write some personas, design some use-cases… you know, in the interest of good design.
Seriously, a cardinal rule of good design (if we’re going to talk about it in terms of design) is that if something can be used in a particular way, people will use it that way. You’d think that God, being all omniscient and stuff, would know at least that much. In other words, why did He/She design the human body and all its orifices in this way if He/She didn’t intend it to be used in that way? Seems like the design argument fails when you consider it from a all-knowing designer’s perspective. If God didn’t want the body used that way, then it wouldn’t have been designed in that way.
Because the lollipop isn’t “using” the licker for its pleasure?
It seems to me that you could reasonably argue that mouths were above all designed to suck, since that is what they do from an infant’s first breath.
But the licker is using the lollipop for his. So too the penis licker, I presume, since otherwise he wouldn’t likely do it.
Ooooh, good point, Lib! You’re thinking like a designer.
Ah, but the lollipop was Made for this purpose!
I’d tend to consider following all of the laws of the Old Testament to be a bit sacriligious, myself, if it were part of my Book; I’m not Jewish, and I don’t think I should presume to adopt their strictures without both coming to a full understanding of what they mean and converting . . . to Judaism. Those laws were laid upon the Jews, as a sign of something-or-other from Hashem, not upon any other peoples or followers of subsequent prophets.
I’m trying to remember what the Noahide strictures are. (The laws considered binding upon Gentiles.) Set up courts of law, do not eat the flesh ripped from a living animal, do not commit adultery, do not murder. . . um, no theft, no idol worship, no blasphemy.
Excuse me, but that comes from a web site which the vast majority of Bible-believers – literalist or otherwise – condemn as being out of left field. So at best, it only shows that a tiny number of Biblical literalists belief fellatio to be inherently sinful.
I have yet to see any major denominations condemn this act as inherently sinful, even within marriage.
Teddy bears are made for hugging. Does that mean you shouldn’t hug a friend?
I was being somewhat funny.