The Bible Says, Just Says Yes (...to Sex)

[kAHANyAH]

yeppers...

Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

there are more though but this one hits it right on the nail.

gamaliel said:

OK put that way its overstood. The waste of seed. Gotcha dude. Anything in The New Testament?

[kAHANyAH]

Peace gamaliel,

I wanna address your statement below,

gamaliel said:

Because beastiality, pedophilia both fall under sodomy but does not qualify as anal sex.

The town of Sodom was know as a place of illicit sexual acts. That is the reason why any "illegal" sex act falls under sodomy laws. Anal sex is a specific type of sex act which also falls under sodomy. There are many types of deviant sex acts and all were performed in sodom. Sodomy is an umbrella where they all fall under. The main sex act in sodom was anal, thus sodomy is synonymous with anal sex.

However, in american society some of the "illicit" sex acts done in the town of Sodom and Gomorrah have been "LEGALIZED"

[gamaliel]

True dat in what said about sodomy. As for Paul he was never one to leave sumthing up to interpretation. Mustve came from his Pharisee background, debating other "scholars" about what meant what in The Torah. He does from time to time let his "old ways" come out in regards to women though. Telling them to be silent in church and be submissive. I dont think he touched on menstruation though. Any comments on that one?

[CoUrTnEy]

well all i can say is the command to onan was not to all men.. but specifically to one man.. so in his case wasting his seed was wrong, but because he was given a direct order from God to impregnate his sister in law.. now God does say for us to mulitply, but technically my ex and I have one child together so we have multiplied.. so based on what you are saying and that together it would seem that masturbation after you fullfill the multiplying part would be ok.. i still say as usual you Kah are reading WAY to much into things.. point blank- onan was given and order by God and he disobeyed it-hence he was punished..

[kAHANyAH]

The command to onan is a lesson for all to learn and that command is the seed of men is given to men for one thing, to propagate [ref., gen 1.28]. There is no other function for it. Onan story also shows how God feels about sex being used as a vehicle other then for pro-creation. He looks down upon those who use sex for "re-creational" purpose.

SEX SHOULD ONLY BE USED TO "RAISE SEED". Thats the ultimate moral of the story. Anything other then that is fornication and that is NOT of God.

peace

CoUrTnEy said:

well all i can say is the command to onan was not to all men.. but specifically to one man.. so in his case wasting his seed was wrong, but because he was given a direct order from God to impregnate his sister in law.. now God does say for us to mulitply, but technically my ex and I have one child together so we have multiplied.. so based on what you are saying and that together it would seem that masturbation after you fullfill the multiplying part would be ok.. i still say as usual you Kah are reading WAY to much into things.. point blank- onan was given and order by God and he disobeyed it-hence he was punished..

[kAHANyAH]

not on menstruation per se. But he does speak on the uncleaness of BLOOD.

gamaliel said:

True dat in what said about sodomy. As for Paul he was never one to leave sumthing up to interpretation. Mustve came from his Pharisee background, debating other "scholars" about what meant what in The Torah. He does from time to time let his "old ways" come out in regards to women though. Telling them to be silent in church and be submissive. I dont think he touched on menstruation though. Any comments on that one?

[CoUrTnEy]

sorry i still dont agree.. some things are to be used as lessons.. some things are simply a direct order to one person... in this case i feel it was a direct order to one person.. it wasn't proven to me without reasonable doubt- because i have reasonable doubt that that meant masturbation is wrong.. but that is my opinion and you have yours..

kAH said:

The command to onan is a lesson for all to learn and that command is the seed of men is given to men for one thing, to propagate [ref., gen 1.28]. There is no other function for it. Onan story also shows how God feels about sex being used as a vehicle other then for pro-creation. He looks down upon those who use sex for "re-creational" purpose.

SEX SHOULD ONLY BE USED TO "RAISE SEED". Thats the ultimate moral of the story. Anything other then that is fornication and that is NOT of God.

peace

[kAHANyAH]

That is true we all have opinions. But I do think as rational beings we must formulate opinions not based on emotions but on facts as we "interpret" them. And that we must demonstrate logically how we come to arrive at our opinions based on how we see these facts.

With that said, and I do understand you have your ideas on scriptural things. Take some time to meditate on this verse. Its a plain verse. No real hidden or profound meanings in it. Pretty much straight foward...

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Thats why I said in my earlier posts SCRIPTURES ARE LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM.

peace on it.

CoUrTnEy said:

sorry i still dont agree.. some things are to be used as lessons.. some things are simply a direct order to one person... in this case i feel it was a direct order to one person.. it wasn't proven to me without reasonable doubt- because i have reasonable doubt that that meant masturbation is wrong.. but that is my opinion and you have yours..

[CoUrTnEy]

right and that is your interpretation.. i dont interpret it that way though.. he was given a direct order to impregnate his sister-in-law and defied God by pulling out.. some other radical could come in and say that that means all men should impregnate their sister-in-laws, but i think we all see how rediculous that sounds..just as your opinion that this piece of scripture says that anything else other than procreation is wrong is rediculous to me.. i do agree that we can learn from all scripture- in this particular one- if you are ordered by God directly to do something (in this case onan was to give his brother an heir) then one must do it or be punished.. It cant be generalized and said that all spilling of seed other than to create a baby is wrong.. well it can be- but i certainly wouldn't agree with you.. Lady C posted on another forum in regards to a similar issue- God can tell you personally not to touch a deck of cards because he knows it can lead you to sin, but that doesnt mean he means for no one to touch cards because some people have the ability to do that and not sin (i.e. some people have problems with gambling and some can just play cards without the temptation to gamble on it).. Just as i feel that it is in error to take scripture out of context to support radical views, the same can be said about SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.. nuff said

kAH said:

That is true we all have opinions. But I do think as rational beings we must formulate opinions not based on emotions but on facts as we "interpret" them. And that we must demonstrate logically how we come to arrive at our opinions based on how we see these facts.

With that said, and I do understand you have your ideas on scriptural things. Take some time to meditate on this verse. Its a plain verse. No real hidden or profound meanings in it. Pretty much straight foward...

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Thats why I said in my earlier posts SCRIPTURES ARE LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM.

peace on it.

[kAHANyAH]

first off, he was not ordered to raise seed. He could have declined and there is a law for a brother who declines to raise seed to a dead kin. Its called "The house of him that hath his shoe loosed". You can read the law in Deut 25.9. In cases like that you aren't killed. The story in no way implies all brothers should take on the wife of their dead kin. If a "radical" decided to take that story out of contxt, then how would he reconcile the law of "having shoe untied" ? The law was specifically made for men who did not want to raise seed unto their departed kin. The problem with Onan is he made a promise to G-d that he would raise seed to his brother. When he took to wife the wife of his departed brother, he assumed the responsibility of raising seed in his brother's name. If he did not want to do that he should not have married her and take on the name "The house of him that hath his shoe loosed".

This is why when we "interpret" scripture it is incumbent, imperitave and essential that your interpretation is based on lawful procedure. Thats why I said when you have an opinion, the burden is on you to establish it with facts and your "interpretation" of facts must be logical (lawful).

Now I know all instances of biblical sex is to bring forth children. And I can establish this by citing numerous scripture. What you say is contrare to my position. And that sex is not just for bringing forth children. So now I ask you to substantiate your assertion by producing evidence in scripture where sex was beneficial for any other reason save bringing forth children.

we can use this as a litmus test to determine what constitutes "ridiculousness" (as you so well put it) in scripture interpretation and what is sound understanding.


peace.

CoUrTnEy said:

right and that is your interpretation.. i dont interpret it that way though.. he was given a direct order to impregnate his sister-in-law and defied God by pulling out.. some other radical could come in and say that that means all men should impregnate their sister-in-laws, but i think we all see how rediculous that sounds..just as your opinion that this piece of scripture says that anything else other than procreation is wrong is rediculous to me.. i do agree that we can learn from all scripture- in this particular one- if you are ordered by God directly to do something (in this case onan was to give his brother an heir) then one must do it or be punished.. It cant be generalized and said that all spilling of seed other than to create a baby is wrong.. well it can be- but i certainly wouldn't agree with you.. Lady C posted on another forum in regards to a similar issue- God can tell you personally not to touch a deck of cards because he knows it can lead you to sin, but that doesnt mean he means for no one to touch cards because some people have the ability to do that and not sin (i.e. some people have problems with gambling and some can just play cards without the temptation to gamble on it).. Just as i feel that it is in error to take scripture out of context to support radical views, the same can be said about SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS.. nuff said

[CoUrTnEy]

like i said before.. this was a command given to one man specifically..we ARE, however, to learn the lesson of adhereing to what God demands of us.. the important fact to me is that he disobeyed God's demand- you seem to think that the actually spilling of the seed is the important factor.. there are plenty of other instances that when God wants US ALL to adhere to something it is obvious- like the 10 commandments.. there is no guess work.. the wording lets the reader know that God's children in General are being spoken to and not any one man exclusively.. there is no need to twist and turn things to fit- it is obvious...and there is other scripture that i cannot quote off the top of my head but i know it's there... Lady C is good with that, maybe she can help me out.. but anyhow- there is somethign to learn from this scripture, however the fine details is what we differ on.. like oj said (or one of his lawyers) "if the glove dont fit you must aquit (or a- quit)".. all this poking and prodding to fit something into your point of view doesnt work for me.. to me if it doesnt flow naturally then i just dont see it.. NUFF SAID

p.s. I dont have the burden to do anything I dont want to do.or feel is necessary. you can continue on with your belief or not.. that is your choice. I gave my opinion, what i based it on, end of story.. At that point then you can discard it and move on or maybe alter your view a little. but i dont HAVE to do a darn tootin thing. Too often i see that where people think you have to prove every thought and opinion you have..im not trying to convince anyONE of anyTHING .. just giving my 2 cents worth.

The QUEEN has spoken

kAH said:

first off, he was not ordered to raise seed. He could have declined and there is a law for a brother who declines to raise seed to a dead kin. Its called "The house of him that hath his shoe loosed". You can read the law in Deut 25.9. In cases like that you aren't killed. The story in no way implies all brothers should take on the wife of their dead kin. There is a law on it. If a "radical" decided to take that story out of contxt, then how would he reconcile the law of "having shoe untied" ? That law was specifically made for men who did not want to raise seed unto their departed kin. The problem with Onan is he made a promise to G-d that he would raise seed to his brother by taking on his brother's wife and he did not keep it.

This is why when we "interpret" scripture it is incumbent, imperitave and essential that your interpretation is based on lawful procedure. Thats why I said when you have an opinion, the burden is on you to establish it with facts and your "interpretation" of facts must be logical (lawful).

Now I know all instances of biblical sex is to bring forth children. And I can establish this by citing numerous scripture. What you say is contrare to my position. And that sex is not just for bringing forth children. So now I ask you to substantiate your assertion by producing evidence in scripture where sex was beneficial for any other reason save bringing forth children.

When we use this as a litmus test to determine what constitutes "ridiculousness" (as you so well put it) in scripture interpretation and what is sound understanding.


peace.

a

[kAHANyAH]

Courtney its really simple. SPILLING SEED is a bad thing no matter how you look at it. The seed was put in man for a reason - to pro-create. You dont have to be religious to understand this concept. Just like your heart has a function - to pump blood. Your feet have a function - to allow mobility. Or your nose - to breath. The LAWS OF NATURE can tell u exactly what sperm is intended for.

Courtney listen, lets put the scripture aside for a sec. Ask yourself this question - what is the function of semen ? When you get that answer then you will know why GOD CREATED SEMEN IN MEN.

Good luck!

peace.

CoUrTnEy said:

like i said before.. this was a command given to one man specifically..we ARE, however, to learn the lesson of adhereing to what God demands of us.. the important fact to me is that he disobeyed God's demand- you seem to think that the actually spilling of the seed is the important factor.. there are plenty of other instances that when God wants US ALL to adhere to something it is obvious- like the 10 commandments.. there is no guess work.. the wording lets the reader know that God's children in General are being spoken to and not any one man exclusively.. there is no need to twist and turn things to fit- it is obvious...and there is other scripture that i cannot quote off the top of my head but i know it's there... Lady C is good with that, maybe she can help me out.. but anyhow- there is somethign to learn from this scripture, however the fine details is what we differ on.. like oj said (or one of his lawyers) "if the glove dont fit you must aquit (or a- quit)".. all this poking and prodding to fit something into your point of view doesnt work for me.. to me if it doesnt flow naturally then i just dont see it.. NUFF SAID

p.s. I dont have the burden to do anything I dont want to do.or feel is necessary. you can continue on with your belief or not.. that is your choice. I gave my opinion, what i based it on, end of story.. At that point then you can discard it and move on or maybe alter your view a little. but i dont HAVE to do a darn tootin thing. Too often i see that where people think you have to prove every thought and opinion you have..im not trying to convince anyONE of anyTHING .. just giving my 2 cents worth.

The QUEEN has spoken
a

[kAHANyAH]

and for the record Courtney, i have every right to put you on the spot and place burden on you to show and prove. If you go back in the thread it was YOU WHO CHALLENGED WHAT I SAID. So youre FAIR GAME SIS . If you want to cite an opinion without the ramification of someone dispelling it or refuting it then I'd suggest you dont try and challenge that person's missive.

Dont you think thats fair mon cherie ?

[CoUrTnEy]

im not denying that is the purpose of semen.. but what i am saying is that sex is not solely for that purpose.. i am given eggs in order to have babies.. but that doesnt mean that God intended for every single egg in my body to become a child.. you still havent convinced me.. so lets just let someone else comment on the subject..

kAH said:

Courtney its really simple. SPILLING SEED is a bad thing no matter how you look at it. The seed was put in man for a reason - to pro-create. You dont have to be religious to understand this concept. Just like your heart has a function - to pump blood. Your feet have a function - to allow mobility. Or your nose - to breath. The LAWS OF NATURE can tell u exactly what sperm is intended for.

Courtney listen, lets put the scripture aside for a sec. Ask yourself this question - what is the function of semen ? When you get that answer then you will know why GOD CREATED SEMEN IN MEN.

Good luck!

peace.

[CoUrTnEy]

you can put me on the spot all you want.. still doesnt mean i HAVE to do anything besides die and pay taxes.. i said what i believe and why.. period.

kAH said:

and for the record Courtney, i have every right to put you on the spot and place burden on you to show and prove. If you go back in the thread it was YOU WHO CHALLENGED WHAT I SAID. So youre FAIR GAME SIS . If you want to cite an opinion without the ramification of someone dispelling it or refuting it then I'd suggest you dont try and challenge that person's missive.

Dont you think thats fair mon cherie ?