Thank heaven that Lot, quick thinker that he was, came up with the highly preferable plan of allowing the townspeople to gang-rape his teen daughters instead.
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
pldennison:
The sarcasm is uncalled for. The Torah does not at any time consider this a virtuous act, nor does it consider Lot to be a virtuous person except by comparison to the general populace of Sodom.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Phil, have you ever considered getting an estate in the Poconos with an outdoor swimming pool and three secretaries? 
Hey, you know, that’s not a bad idea, as long as I don’t have to worry about fugitive Martians showing up at my gate and . . .hey! Who’s there?
“It’s my considered opinion you’re all a bunch of sissies!”–Paul’s Grandfather
Poly, you beat me to my line again! (I was all set to type the Billy Joel lyric yesterday, doggone it, and there it was already. ;))
Chaim, if he’s talking about Judaism alone, you’ve got a point (although the Genesis account certainly is uncritical of Lot’s alternative). But if his sarcasm is aimed at Christianity, it’s justified: Peter’s second epistle describes Lot as an exemplar of righteousness (as Heinlein’s character with the hot-and-cold running secretaries pointed out).
Boy, I’m seeing a whole different interpretation of those verses here. I always read them together and it seems to mean that adultery and whoremongering (neat word, btw) defile the marriage bed.
In other words, married people should be faithful to each other and any “outside activity” would be not only a personal sin, but would sully the purity of the married relationship. It isn’t just between you and God anymore.
Oh, and Brian? That second question seems like really reaching to me. I don’t think that had anything to do with it. My guess would be that it had a lot more to do with procreation and carrying on the line. Anything that would not at least hold the possibility of conception would be counter-productive.
Ok… on the argument of anal sex…
If you don’t like it fine… but don’t use the argument of “nothing is meant to go in where things come out” because if that were the case… there would never be babies. How do you think those suckers get in and OUT of there??
Beth
Satan… now… the more I think about the “is the Bible sexist because of what it says about sex and women”… I guess I am just not seeing it. I think that the men are commanded on how to behave sexually more than women. Correct me if I am wrong… but in the Greek text, most of the commands against adultry and such are in the masculine… which would indicate commands directed toward the male. I infer from this that women are just better able to control themselves and men are not. 
So… why do I feel like I TOTALLY missed your “/can of worms/” point?? It has to be the lack of sleep!
Beth
Sounds like the statment that a woman giving head is canabalism is sexist. What I mean is that it appears that it is ok for a man to go down on a woman (thank gawd, i’d hate to have to stop doing that my gf! phew!) but that the woman cannot reciprocate lest she be damned to hell. Oh well I guess I can always send her a glass of ice water every now and then while I relax in Heaven and she in hades. Canabalistic sinner that she is. Oh wait, we aren’t married. I guess we’ll both be in hell then.
God bless those canabal women! I love you!
Give me head til I’m dead!
Well, The Bible HAS been called sexist by many people. Women’s roles in the church… having to be subservient to her man (Promise Keepers, anyone?)… There are other things in the Bible which make it clear that a woman’s job is in the kitchen, not the pulpit.
Yer pal,
Satan
The Bible never tells women to stay in the kitchen. Where do you people get this stuff? You take some ignorant “church doctrine” and try to imply that just because some kook believes and teaches it that it must come directly from the Bible. Judge the Bible by it’s own merit and not by what some preacher or bt thinks or says. There are women in the Bible that held prominent positions and there is not one single place in the Bible where a man tells a woman she has to stay in the kitchen or that she isn’t as good as a man. Men use all sorts of things to try and rule over other people. Is it any wonder they try and use the Bible in a twisted way like this also?
Oh, was THAT the can of worms? I thought it was his statement that some women can ONLY orgasm through clever use of the tongue.
My response, Stan, old man, is that your doing the rest of it wrong. 
Well, that’s what I get for not being well-versed in the Christian scriptures. Thanks for the clarification.
And, if I recall correctly, the Heinlein character in question was named Jubal Harshaw.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Well, it’s nice to know that Phil, Chaim, and I agree on the value of one theological work!
“Life is like a new suit of clothes. If it doesn’t fit, make alterations.”
–the old woman in Silverado
Robbnn:
Nice retort!
All I can say is that if God gives points for converts, I’m pretty sure I’m heaven-bound considering how often I’ve heard my lady friends scream His name.
Yer pal,
Satan
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of metaphor some time, BlockHead.
I realize that saying the Bible may have metaphoric passages in it is usually bad, but my words ain’t scripture. Not yet, anyway…
Yer pal,
Satan
Phil,Dont Answer The Door!!!Its Phaedrus!!!
I understand you meant that as a metaphor Satan. But a metaphor based on what? On what the Bible actually says or what some preacher/bt says that it says? The only thing I can think of that might be close is the scripture that says “wives sumit to your husbands”. The religious often forget the rest of the passage though that commands the husband to love his wife as Christ loves the church, even giving himself to death. Another passage in the Bible also states that the husband and wife own each other and have rights to each others bodies. That seems to put things equal.
You may think the Bible is just a fantasy made up by men. Ok, that’s fine. But the fact remains, it should be judged on what it actually says and not by some persons interpretation of it.
Thank you. And is the sarcasm really neccessary, Satan? Or is that just your nature?
BlockHead:
First of all, me sarcastic? Why, I don’t even know the meaing of the word sarcastic!
But to the issu at hand, do you think I am the first person to point out that the Bible certainly treats men and women very differently? Not asying you have to agree with this, but are you honestly saying you have never ever heard this criticism before?
Yer pal,
Satan
Spiritus Mundi said — I also note that the doctrine against sex with no possibility of procreation does not extend to men without motile sperm, women past childbearing age, etc. That always seemed hypocritical to me.
**
[/QUOTE]
Quote from the "Catechism of the Catholic Church— “So the Church, ‘which is on the side of life’, teaches that ‘each and every marriage act must remain open to the possibility of the transmission of life’ ‘This particular doctrine…is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.’” (Emphasis mine)
In other words, human beings may not artificially interfere with the procreative process.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical of the Church to allow for, um, expressions of conjugal love between married persons who, due to natural causes, are unable to produce children. It’s trying to circumvent God’s will and purpose the Church has a problem with.
By the way, you might want to read Genesis, you know, the part where God makes it possible for the ninety-year old Sarah, who was barren during what would normally be considered her childbearing years, to conceive Isaac.
The idea is, we as human beings are not supposed to try to interfere with God’s purpose.
The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.