Hi Mangetout I said if a woman has a desire.
If she has no desire then her husband should respect that.
I find it unappealing also, but not everyone does. 0887
In catholic doctrine, Sodomy isnt just anal sex. It is a sin if youre using the sexual organs in ways that is not for procreation. That includes:
*mastubation
*Anal sex
*oral sex
*same sex sex
*sex with animals
*sex with dead bodies
*sex with birth control
anal and oral sex, with or without extra added devices are sins whether or not you are married.
**Lusting is sexual. So you cant lust after a person for their mind. if you are a man and You lust for a man, thats a sin. If you are married (man or woman) and you lust for a man then thats a bigger sin because thats adultery. If you lust after Anna Nicole Smith then thats a really really big sin because shes ugly.
Regarding H4E: thing is, she has already said at least twice on this thread that she is (a) not quite sure about some of these “grey areas” and, (b) quite candidly, that her disapproval of some cases is due to a “it seems sick to me” reaction rather than coming from doctrine. We could ourselves be one day on the receiving end of “how grey does it have to get before you call it black”.
We have already found at least three distinct POVs from FCs:
(a) “the marriage bed is undefiled”, IOW as long as it’s a lawfully wedded man and wife, anything goes, it’s between them and God
(b) “a man should not have the desire” IOW it’s plain wrong no matter what
© Up to a point/I don’t have all the answers: God only knows, probably some things are OK but some others just squick me
Of course, what this tells me is that there is no single overriding FC “position on positions”. Surprise, surprise.
But 0887, WHY would it be different for a woman to wish to be anally penetrated? It’s just as much “unnatural” for her!
Y’know, the Catholics have it easy, all forms of sodomy being just out of the question under any circumstance.
I really don’t know if it is okay or not.
I was just thinking on the terms of if it is not a sin.
If it was agreeable.
I believe homosexuals must recieve it that way often.
So it must be a matter of taste.
For the life of me I can’t see why anyone would desire that. Would a condom be used.
That don’t make it any more or less a sin but cleaner. 0887:confused:
Why? What grounds do you have for that belief?
Also, you said earlier that you considered wanting anal sex to be “grounds for adultery.” It’s my firm moral belief that there are never grounds for adultery. This may sound like hair splitting, but I am in favor of open marriages because I know of at least one couple for whom this became necessary to preserve the marriage. Adultery to me implies deception of the spouse who isn’t participating in it. In the open marriages I’ve seen (not many, I admit), no deception is involved.
CJ
For the life of me, I can’t see why anyone would desire sex with Laura Bush. Does that mean that it is wrong for George Bush to that?
“for George Bush to desire/partake in that,” I mean.
What makes you think an open marriage will work cjhoworth?What grounds do I have well lets just say I know.
It is ridiculous to argue this with me or anyone else. You can’t change the fact. Homosexuals take it up the butt and love every inch of it. So there you go. 0887:smack: You should have known that!!
0887 wrote:
Alas. We hardly knew ye.
Thank you, MSU, for my best laugh of the day!
What reason do people have for believing an open marriage will work?
That which exists is possible. --Xiphias’s Law
You who believe it is impossible, please get out of the way of the people who are doing it. --Rosenzweig’s Corollary to Xiphias’s Law
(Both quotes taken from the usenet newsgroup alt.polyamory.)
I don’t think this was directed at me but can I answer it anyway?
I imagine it’s brought up because complicated sex and abnormal organs do, in fact, exist. And any real philosophy of life (or concept of God) would have to encompass them to be valid.
It is the awarness of the strangeness and complexity of life that has prevented me from embracing the simplistic view you seem to have.
You have a world view that does not, apparently, stand up when confronted with anything…unusual. Not much of a philosophy, by my lights.
Uhm, 0887, the couple I mentioned have been married for 26 years. If you like, I’m pretty sure I can arrange an e-mail from one of them. You might also want to check out this recent BBQ Pit thread for a recent discussion. As to how well I know this couple, we’ve helped each other move, laughed together, cried together, and I would have to say I know them better than any other two people on the face of the earth.
As to the homosexual view of anal sex, I strongly recommend you check out one of Exprix’s “Ask the Gay Guy Thread.”
CJ
Here is the nub of the whole problem with fundamentalism, IMO.
People don’t like what they don’t like, but instead of admitting that, they invent a preference against what they don’t like on the part of a higher power. “It’s not what I like, so it must not be christian to do it.”
It reminds me of what Jesse Ventura said: “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business.”
The same is true for people who find a revealed gospel truth and give up their ability to question it.
The OP is an invitation to FC’s to think about what their doctrine really means.
This astute summary puts this in sharp relief. Choice a is honestly fundamentalist: the book I have says what a married couple does is fine. Choice b is fundamentally dishonest and not at all fundamentalist: I have a feeling it’s wrong, so it must be a sin. And choice c reclaims the FC’s ability to question. It says: hey, there are things not addressed in my book! Am I a fundamentalist or not?
Hi nogginhead I am not sure what a fundy is I may sound like one but if I am I didn’t know it.
Also cjhoworth,
I believe some open marriages could work and some closed marriages don’t work.
I think there is not one certain rule that works for everyone. 0887
Didn’t mean to offend you by calling you a FC… but I think you probably spoke most people’s minds, FC or not.
Could you explain further?
His4Ever, what do you think of transsexuals? Is it a sin for someone to get their organs changed to match what they feel is their true gender?
Explain what further?
That there are Christians who don’t believe that following their tradition is the sole way to live? I think there is plenty of evidence for that on this board, just to start out with. For that matter, even some Christians who believe that there is only one religious reality do not necessarily believe that their implementation of reality is the only efficacious one – C. S. Lewis, who I do believe you have heard of, advanced the position in one of his allegories that good deeds done in the name of a false or opposing divinity were nonetheless recognised by his God as their own, and bad deeds done in the name of his God served only the opposition.
How about the theistic religions in which there is no creator? Or the ones in which the supposed creation is not relevant to the process of living? (Greek and Roman reconstruction.) Or the ones in which the supposed creator is deceased? (In some ways of looking, Asatru; the world being built from the corpse of the first being and all.) Or the ones in which the god or gods are only truly concerned with the behaviour of their own worshippers? (It’s my understanding that this is a fair description of Judaism.) Or the ones in which attempting to convert and evangelise is considered a sin, in part because it presumes that one’s path is universal? (Wicca.)
Then, to get into grey areas, there are theistic religions which believe their structure is universal, but hold the position that unbelievers are at the appropriate point in their existence not to believe. (I believe Hinduism has something of this sort.) Or the people who believe that various religious paths are different approaches to similar end-states, optimised to the “strokes” of the people following them? (Quite a few of various paths, but I believe this is a part of Unitarian Universalism, which includes some theists.) Or the ones that believe that most or all religions have partial truths? (I believe Bahai’i has something like this.)
Setting aside the increasing number of eclectics, syncretists, and solitary practitioners of their own theistic spiritualism.
Religious beliefs are diverse.
—You can avoid harming the temple by using enough lubricant.—
Heh. I can just imagine the sly pillow talk coming out of this thread: “Baby, I’ll harm YOUR temple, but good!”
If only the Romans had used enough lubricant 70 B.C., Israel could have been saved…
—Religious beliefs are diverse.—
Damn straight. Making generalizations about people with religious beliefs is only JUST slightly less silly than making generalizations about people without religious beliefs. Which is to say: it’s all very silly.