slippery slope news...

[az]

While you raise an interesting point, Brian, the question remains what the definition of adultery is. You have provided some example ways and guidelines of practices of how to commit adultery, but surely there must be a prerequisite, a context. It is not adultery if you engage in sexual activity with your wife for the purpose of producing offspring, so sexual activity alone is not a guarantee for adultery. Is having sex with a member of the opposite sex for other purposes procreation already adultery? Then, yes, homosexuals can indeed commit it and do so every time they have sex. If not, further questions arise...

[schmosef]

if I indulge in Schmosef's hippo's pastime and take myself in hand, I commit adultery.

Brain, you think my hippo is masterbating?!!!

[gt40]

Everyone knows that's a 'humping hippo' ! :P

[Gurm]

Well now one has to ask whether the translation of Jeremiah that you used is really accurate. In most other places, adultery implies "cheating". So was this woman married, and "taking matters in hand" with a variety of farm implements? If so, then the prohibition is still on extramarital penetration.

Remember that premarital penetration is "fornication", and masturbation is "the sin of Onan" or onanism.

Anal and oral sex are both "Sodomy".

[Marshmallowman]

Slapping the Hippo is like slapping the monkey, except you have a chubby

[az]

So, if we assume this as the accurate truth, then gay people are committing sodomy and fornication and probably also onanism. Whether they can commit adultery is then a matter of whether gay marriage is accepted by a particular church or not. We can assume, though, that it is not, in most congregations, and therefore gay people cannot, by definition, commit adultery. They are, thus, free of one of these sexual sins while sharing the potential to commit the others with heterosexual men and women. Therefore, gay people as a whole are actually potentially less sinful than straight people, because they don't have the means to commit some of the sins heterosexuals can. They can't compete with Eunuchs, though.

[Umfriend]

Bollocks. No one ever said gay people can't marry someone from the opposite sex.

With respect to sins and virtues, if I understand judaism a bit, it only (or mostly) views virtues (like not being adultrous) as good only for those who would like to perform adulty, i.e., it must cost you something to do the right thing. [So if you meet a really really ugly fella you really do not want to have sex with, it won't count as being good when you're not having sex with the pig.] or something like that.

See, were I jewish, celebrating sabbat would avail me nothing. I'm a lazy bastard and I can easily do nothing any day of the week. It's no sacrifice. But there are ppl in the know here, they can explain better (or tell me I'm wrong).

[Brian Ellis]

Well now one has to ask whether the translation of Jeremiah that you used is really accurate. In most other places, adultery implies "cheating". So was this woman married, and "taking matters in hand" with a variety of farm implements? If so, then the prohibition is still on extramarital penetration.

Remember that premarital penetration is "fornication", and masturbation is "the sin of Onan" or onanism.

Anal and oral sex are both "Sodomy".

OOOOH! I can't agree with all that. Onan's "sin", if you read the text carefully (any translation), is coitus interruptus, not masturbation. In fact, I don't think there is a single reference to either male or female masturbation in either the OT or the NT. In the past, I consulted the biblical dictionaries and concordances that I had at my disposal and could not find any reference to the subject. Practically all references to Mr. Onan were unanimous: he simply did not want to put his brother's wife in the pudding club, while technically fulfilling what he had to.

I'll allow that sodomy may, strictly speaking, include fellation provided that the penis is inserted in the mouth but not cunnilingus, although the term, in good English, is normally reserved for anal sex.

The translation used was King James, but I don't think there is much divergence between versions. If you wish I'll research it, as I have a number of versions at hand.

[schmosef]

what's really important

People, people.

We're losing sight of what's true and important: http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

[schmosef]

Let us not forget!

See the attached banners for what God wants...

[Brian Ellis]

OK, another question. If sex is only for procreation, is it sinful to enjoy it? If so, the man's crack-boom in 30 seconds is not a sin against his wife, no matter if it hurts her (personally, I would call it rape). Foreplay, which may include some mutual masturbation (thus sodomy, by your definition) is to heighten the pleasure of both partners and in no way helps procreation. It is therefore sinful. Thank God, I like sinning It would also be sinful to have intercourse with your wife when she is pregnant, as it could not result in procreation (BTW, when my wife was pregnant, the doc told me it was my job to see the baby was well fed until the birth, so I was committing a sin by so doing).

Then, secondarily, the higher apes will indulge in coitus when procreation is not possible: are they sinning?

[Gurm]

They can't compete with Eunuchs, though.

Actually if the Eunuch is that way by choice, that's a sin. Your body is a temple, you see, and mutilating it is a major sin.

[Gurm]

OK, another question. If sex is only for procreation, is it sinful to enjoy it?

No, since God has commanded that we be fruitful and multiply, enjoying doing His bidding is in no way sinful.

If so, the man's crack-boom in 30 seconds is not a sin against his wife, no matter if it hurts her (personally, I would call it rape).

Correct. The feelings of the wife are unimportant, according to Christians, because you don't HAVE to enjoy sex, and doing it JUST for pleasure is a sin. Therefore if you HAPPEN to enjoy it, that's great, but if you happen to NOT enjoy it, that's ok. Plus according to the Bible women are really unimportant. Property, pretty much. Wives must submit to their husbands in every way. And children must submit to their parents. Therefore, women are never under ANY circumstances allowed to have full autonomy. To allow this would be sinful, and to suggest it... well the idea must come from SATAN.

Foreplay, which may include some mutual masturbation (thus sodomy, by your definition) is to heighten the pleasure of both partners and in no way helps procreation. It is therefore sinful.

Most assuredly. Sex is supposed to happen in the dark, as clothed as possible, and as quickly as possible.

Thank God, I like sinning

You're a "backslider".

It would also be sinful to have intercourse with your wife when she is pregnant, as it could not result in procreation

Also entirely true. A pregnant woman is sacred, and her sacredness should not be defiled by the filthy sex act.

(BTW, when my wife was pregnant, the doc told me it was my job to see the baby was well fed until the birth, so I was committing a sin by so doing).

Those so-called "doctors" also tend to believe in evolution. They'll all burn in hell yet!

Then, secondarily, the higher apes will indulge in coitus when procreation is not possible: are they sinning?

What you call "higher apes" are, in fact, dumb animals. Only MAN is God's finest creation... and we are COMPLETELY unrelated to those animals. Any so-called "scientific" evidence which shows, for example, that we share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees is clearly the work of satan-worshipping evolutionists who will burn in hell for their lies.

[lowlifecat]

What you call "higher apes" are, in fact, dumb animals. Only MAN is God's finest creation... and we are COMPLETELY unrelated to those animals. Any so-called "scientific" evidence which shows, for example, that we share 96% of our DNA with chimpanzees is clearly the work of satan-worshipping evolutionists who will burn in hell for their lies.

I thought it was closer to 98-99%. Infact i remember reading an article not too long ago (prolly on CNN or BBC) about a bunch of scientist who wanted to include chimps and orangotangs onto the 'Homo' genus... or something to that effect.

Found original article (kinda hard to read), the CNN article was simplified:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/12/7181

[Gurm]

I thought it was closer to 98-99%. Infact i remember reading an article not too long ago (prolly on CNN or BBC) about a bunch of scientist who wanted to include chimps and orangotangs onto the 'Homo' genus... or something to that effect.

Found original article (kinda hard to read), the CNN article was simplified:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/12/7181

Foul heathen satan-science. BURN IT! BURN THE WITCHES!