Sure it will — the moment change becomes politically expedient.
I already answered you. No, the marriage bed cannot be defiled.
This thread is starting to get silly.
person X- “well, what if I like feet in my ass, is that a sin?”
person Z- “the marriage bed cannot be defiles.”
person X- “well, what about the toes of a chicken?”
person Z- “Are you married to a chicken? Does God sanction marriages to people and chickens?”
It’s just going to get even more stupid. :rolleyes:
Actually, JerseyDiamond, I was asking it of His4ever-I guess I should have been more clear.
It is too a sin that is abusing the body and we are not supposed to harm the temple.
I can’t imagine a christian wanting to do something so perverse.
If someones husband wants something shoved up their butt than they have a problem.
Or rather maybe the wife has the problem. Thats grounds for adultery in my oppinion. 0887
What temple? Who’s harming a temple here? I thought we were just talking about sodomy. Where did temple’s come into it?
I put it there.
0887
I would think if a man has a “overwhelming craving” for gay sex, then he is hardly an “ex-homosexual.”
I’m not sure of the exact place, but I believe there is a Proverb about your body being the Lord’s temple, therefore you should not defile it.
-LA
According to the logic of fundamentalist Christians, a homosexual is a person who sins by engaging in homosexual sex, just as a thief is someone who steals- not just a person who is tempted to steal.
Originally posted by gex gex
What temple? Who’s harming a temple here? I thought we were just talking about sodomy. Where did temple’s come into it?
I’m not sure of the exact place, but I believe there is a Proverb about your body being the Lord’s temple, therefore you should not defile it.
Actually it’s not a Proverb - it’s a reference to what Jesus said in John 2:19:
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
Jesus was referring to His body - he would rise from the dead 3 days after being put to death. He said this at a temple, so most of those who heard him thought He meant he would reconstruct the building in 3 days.
Regarding the OP, the Bible really isn’t specific on these kinds of acts AFAIK (I guess pegging wasn’t such the rave a couple thousand years ago). The best explanation I ever heard on what is/isn’t sinful in the context of marriage was from a pastor a few years ago: if in doubt on a specific act, think about where you learned about it and what your intentions are. If a husband can read this passage from Ephesians 5:19 and still feel good about “pegging” (or getting pegged), I would say it’s not a sin for him but would question his judgment:
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[2] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- 30for we are members of his body.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, gex gex. I have a real problem with the logic of, “Why do you have to do things your way? I don’t like your way. Why can’t you do things my way?”
I remember an article in the National Review in which some conservative nitwit was grousing about kids these days. His argument? “Why do these kids have to be so interested in Buddhism and Hinduism? What’s wrong with Christianity?”
In fact, I think that there’s an inherent drive towards conformity in Christianity. It’s worth pointing out that when some FC decided to proselytize among punks, without demanding that they give up pink mohawks and the like, this was considered to be a radical idea.
More broadly, I find there to be something kind of stifling in C.S. Lewis’s books, particularly the Space Trilogy. I remember at one point in Perelandra the authorial mouthp- koff koff- protagonist, Ransom, is meditating on the nature of sin. Lewis’ view of sin was very Taoist, but rather than saying “The wise man flows with the Tao” or “you’ll be happier if you flow with the Tao,” Lewis turned it into “if you don’t flow with the Tao, you’re the very definition of evil! Get your act together and flow with the Tao!” He then goes on to give specific examples of people who don’t flow with the Tao, i.e. people who do things C.S. Lewis doesn’t like. (As for an encore at a concert, eat fruit out of season, etc.)
Later, in That Hideous Strength, Ransom is running a little group of Christians who are trying to fight the bad guys. Ransom more or less micromanages their lives, even setting the schedules for dishwashing, and it’s clear that Ransom’s leadership has the imprimatur of Jesus. I can’t think of any more specific examples, but it’s a vibe I get from a lot of Lewis’ work. I’d find it to be a total nightmare to live in Lewis’ world, because basically God has an opinion on every little detail, and he’s not shy about telling you what it is, even with trivia like asking for an encore at a concert or having mixed-sex groups washing dishes. (For that matter, in THS it turns out that the reason the moon is a dead, airless world is because the people there got too elaborate with their sex toys, instead of enjoying good, wholesome, Christian sex. The Christians have sex in THS, and Lewis is clearly trying to be very pro-sex, but I can’t really imagine them doing anything but the missionary position. Pegging is certainly out of the question. “Pegging?!? Honey, don’t you know what happened to the moon?!?”) For that matter, think of the fact that the Green Woman of Perelandra walks around naked. C.S. Lewis assures us that it’s not sexual. There’s no original sin on Perelandra, you see. Gee, C.S. you mean sex is dirty? Oh, no, sex is totally wonderful and without need for shame or guilt but, er, you see, there’s no original sin on Perelandra, so it’s not sexual nudity…
The reason I say that there’s a drive to conformity in Christianity itself (admittedly, one which is much closer to the surface in FCism) is because in atheism, basically we get the hand we’re dealt. There is no god, there is no inherent meaning to the universe, and you can approach that however you like. The meaning of your life is whatever you make it. Different strokes are available for different folks, and if you don’t like any of the available strokes, that’s just life, and no one really deliberately set it up that way.
With Christianity, or any theistic religion for that matter, God exists, and he created different folks so that they need different strokes, but there’s really only one stroke. You’d better find your meaning in life in doing what God wants, and you’d better be interested in having an invisible friend present at all times, and you’d better find deep meaning in the myth of the Resurrection, because that’s the only game in town. If the Resurrection doesn’t make sense to you and doesn’t really speak to you but some other mythology, which you recognize as being factually incorrect, does speak to you, tough. The Resurrection is real, and everything else is just a delusion, so don’t waste your time on that other crap.
That’s part of what’s so horrific about the brainwashing aspects of FCism. As I’m describing in the other thread, FC’s delude themselves into having the warm fuzzies over Jesus and into believing it all makes sense, but they’re so desperate to ram Jesus up everyone’s ass that ultimately, they are willing to strip that all away and declare that God’s plan doesn’t have to make sense, God is completely alien to any morality we could understand, and God will send you to hell for not believing, so quit asking questions.
To non-Christians this is just laughable. But if you’re an FC like I was, and you don’t get the warm fuzzies, and you realize that FCism just plain doesn’t make sense, but you’re too brainwashed to just quit believing in it, then you’re trapped. You’re stuck in a universe run by a cold, alien, incomprehensible God whose plan involves making people jump through seemingly random hoops, or else he’ll torture you forever. That’s not a nice universe to live in, but tough- God is the way he is, and he’s decided how things will be, and if you don’t think it’s a goooooooood thing he did, you’re in trouble.
His4Ever, is oral sex a sin, IYO?
Let me bring up a not-so-hypothetical scenario. Suppose, again, you have a gay man who is trying to live straight. So he marries a woman with ambiguous genitalia, because that means he’s technically straight, but he’s still able to have sex with someone who basically has a kind of penis, he can fellate her, etc. Like I said, this is not so hypothetical, because a large percentage of babies are born with some sort of genital ambiguity, although it’s generally surgically changed at birth. Where do such people fall into a scheme in which homosexuality is considered to be a sin?
**
“Think about where you learned about it”?
**
Why would you question his judgement?
What on earth does this have to do with anal sex?
Speaking of fighting ignorance, I really, really wish that people would stop equating “theism” with “one true way monotheism”. This statement isn’t even true for all forms of Christianity, let alone all forms of theistic religion.
You can avoid harming the temple by using enough lubricant.
**
Apparently God has imagination than you do 'cause he created a lot of people (some of whom are Christian) who want to do that and a whole lot of other interesting things.
So you’re saying you disagree with Jersey?
Maybe you want to rephrase that 
?
Funny…but if only it were completely true…
Well, thanks, but the credit for this bit of insight comes from H4E. I’m only sharing the joy.
No, I don’t tend to think oral sex is a sin between a husband and wife. I don’t know where people fall who are born with abnormalities in their sexual organs. I would tend to think if the person is more female or feminine, she should have corrective surgery. Or if the person’s main traits seem to be male or masculine, same thing. Of course, if they are babies, the decision would be their parents’. I have my doubts as to whether this has anything to do with homosexuality.
I notice that you seem to be trying to come up with ever increasing complications of sexuality and abnormal sexual organs. I have to wonder why that is. Either you’re really curious about it or trying to come up with some situtation I can’t answer. I’ve already said I don’t have an answer for every single variable.
I think the reason that people do this is that you seem to see (or at least describe) the universe in black and white, whereas it looks more like a continuous range of greys to most people; we’re trying to find out how dark the grey has to be before you call it black, how light it has to be before you call it white and what you propose to do with the shades in the middle.
No I still say a man in a marriage that is not homosexual should not have the desire to be screwed up the butt.
Now if a woman has a desire for her husband to do that then that is different. 0887
**And this is why exactly?
So let me guess… you’re…male?
Personally I find anal sex unappealing and I think turnaround is fair play; if a husband expects his wife to let him do it, it’s quite reasonable of her to insist that he tries it from the receiving end too.