It is time to purge the Church of its heretics.

[Apologiaphoenix]

If the deflection of advances is so frequent as to cause feelings of undesirability, the issues are much deeper than can be fixed by occasional sacrifice.

Agreed and counseling could be very helpful here and what I would recommend.

I would also recommend that especially one needs a more complete view of sex and marriage both.

[djbrock]

And if you have sexual relations that are not during a time of fertility then you are also not procreating. Since this topic is not discussed in any detail, but it left to the common sense of people, my advice is to use WISDOM in making such decisions. The Apostle Paul views sexual desires as a temptation that can lead to sin, so he allows for a marital partner to alleviate that temptation. That leaves the door open for non-procreative sexual activity. My advice is still the same: don't use the body in ways that it was not intended, which particularly applies to anal intercourse. The rest is between you and your wife.

[whag]

My advice is still the same: don't use the body in ways that it was not intended, which particularly applies to anal intercourse. The rest is between you and your wife.

And I'm telling you that's practically useless advise. No one who has sex thinks about the teleological intention of the foot, for example, an appendage used quite frequently in heterosexual sex.

Why don't you just admit your natural law argument is bunk?

[djbrock]

Funny. I don't have any problem using that advice. "Useless" is a personal evaluation on your part. I'm not making a "natural law" argument. Never have. Natural law arguments are intended to establish the existence of God. I'm making a "natural purpose" argument, if you want to call it that. It's the same kind of argument I'd make for most any human health issue. Don't drink gasoline. Your tissues aren't designed for it. I have other sage advice, too. You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd; you can't take a shower in a parakeet cage.

You can read about some of the dangers if the Physical Health section of this article.
I'll leave you with a few quotes:

Unlike the vagina, the tissues of the anus are not stretchy. This means that the anus can easily tear, which puts the receiving partner in danger of anal abscesses, hemorrhoids, or fissures (a very large tear).
Anal sex can weaken your muscles down there, which makes it hard to hold feces.
The anus is full of bacteria. Consequently, the giving partner is especially prone to infections.

The fragile nature of the anal tissue makes it easier for STDs to enter into the bloodstream.
Unprotected anal sex is one of the primary ways in which HIV is spread. If you don’t already know, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) can eventually lead to AIDS!
Recent studies have linked anal sex to anal cancer. HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is closely associated with anal cancer, which is frequently spread through anal sex.
The use of a latex condom certainly lowers the chances of contracting an STD. However, even perfect condom use does not completely eliminate the risk of STDs. In fact, the condom is more susceptible to leakage, breakage, and slippage during anal intercourse.

NOW, I've said everything I have to say on this issue. If you can't figure it out then I'm sorry for you.

[Jedidiah]

. . . Jedediah on their natural law views related to sex.

Where did I make an argument of natural law?

[Abigail]

Funny. I don't have any problem using that advice. "Useless" is a personal evaluation on your part. I'm not making a "natural law" argument. Never have. Natural law arguments are intended to establish the existence of God. I'm making a "natural purpose" argument, if you want to call it that. It's the same kind of argument I'd make for most any human health issue. Don't drink gasoline. Your tissues aren't designed for it. I have other sage advice, too. You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd; you can't take a shower in a parakeet cage.

You can read about some of the dangers if the Physical Health section of this article.
I'll leave you with a few quotes:

Unlike the vagina, the tissues of the anus are not stretchy. This means that the anus can easily tear, which puts the receiving partner in danger of anal abscesses, hemorrhoids, or fissures (a very large tear).
Anal sex can weaken your muscles down there, which makes it hard to hold feces.
The anus is full of bacteria. Consequently, the giving partner is especially prone to infections.

The fragile nature of the anal tissue makes it easier for STDs to enter into the bloodstream.
Unprotected anal sex is one of the primary ways in which HIV is spread. If you don’t already know, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) can eventually lead to AIDS!
Recent studies have linked anal sex to anal cancer. HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is closely associated with anal cancer, which is frequently spread through anal sex.
The use of a latex condom certainly lowers the chances of contracting an STD. However, even perfect condom use does not completely eliminate the risk of STDs. In fact, the condom is more susceptible to leakage, breakage, and slippage during anal intercourse.

NOW, I've said everything I have to say on this issue. If you can't figure it out then I'm sorry for you.

I think people do understand this since when you buy an item from the store often the manufacturers manual will state that said manufacturer will not be liable for damage or harm cause by using the item for other purposes than specified.

[Abigail]

Context is a cop out here. The same need exists today, which is the point of djbrock's blog and basically every one of Nick's posts. They stress a tremendous urgency to change. The world, according to them, is still hostile to Christians. Major battles are being lost. The sky is falling. People will soon marry their dogs, etc.

Devotion to Jesus is no less halved by the marital decision than it was back then. I see no reason why the same reasoning doesn't apply to Christians today, unless you really think Paul's letter was merely meant to be a snapshot of history to Christian readers with absolutely no applicability today.

Paul says it is good to be single but it is not a sin to marry. Basically he is saying that each of the two situations have their own set of problems. If you are single and lack self-control then you might be susceptible to immorality. If you are married you will have more things to distract you. Both states have their pluses and their drawbacks. The goal is that Christians are supposed to put Christ first whichever situation.

[whag]

Funny. I don't have any problem using that advice. "Useless" is a personal evaluation on your part. I'm not making a "natural law" argument. Never have. Natural law arguments are intended to establish the existence of God. I'm making a "natural purpose" argument, if you want to call it that. It's the same kind of argument I'd make for most any human health issue. Don't drink gasoline. Your tissues aren't designed for it. I have other sage advice, too. You can't roller skate in a buffalo herd; you can't take a shower in a parakeet cage.

You can read about some of the dangers if the Physical Health section of this article.
I'll leave you with a few quotes:

Unlike the vagina, the tissues of the anus are not stretchy. This means that the anus can easily tear, which puts the receiving partner in danger of anal abscesses, hemorrhoids, or fissures (a very large tear).
Anal sex can weaken your muscles down there, which makes it hard to hold feces.
The anus is full of bacteria. Consequently, the giving partner is especially prone to infections.

The fragile nature of the anal tissue makes it easier for STDs to enter into the bloodstream.
Unprotected anal sex is one of the primary ways in which HIV is spread. If you don’t already know, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) can eventually lead to AIDS!
Recent studies have linked anal sex to anal cancer. HPV (Human Papillomavirus) is closely associated with anal cancer, which is frequently spread through anal sex.
The use of a latex condom certainly lowers the chances of contracting an STD. However, even perfect condom use does not completely eliminate the risk of STDs. In fact, the condom is more susceptible to leakage, breakage, and slippage during anal intercourse.

NOW, I've said everything I have to say on this issue. If you can't figure it out then I'm sorry for you.

Moderation. That's why most gays and women who enjoy anal sex aren't walking around with decimated rectums and colostomy bags.

And as you've repeatedly ignored the defiance of natural purpose expressed in oral sex, I can only assume you avoid discussion of that because it weakens your natural purpose argument. I feel sorry for you and forgive you for saying I want to have sex with my dog.

[whag]

Paul says it is good to be single but it is not a sin to marry. Basically he is saying that each of the two situations have their own set of problems. If you are single and lack self-control then you might be susceptible to immorality. If you are married you will have more things to distract you. Both states have their pluses and their drawbacks. The goal is that Christians are supposed to put Christ first whichever situation.

Yes, but isn't that simply stating the obvious?

If singleness translates to a more complete and full devotion to Christ, shouldn't the single man be more inoculated to temptation in return for the sacrifice? That would happen for two reasons consistent with the interactive human/divine relationship: both because of the inner strength that naturally comes from more focused dedication but also the external strength that comes from the divine recognition of a disciple's singular devotion.

What's the function of mind renewal if it can't even strengthen the devotee's will?

[Abigail]

Yes, but isn't that simply stating the obvious?

If singleness translates to a more complete and full devotion to Christ, shouldn't the single man be more inoculated to temptation in return for the sacrifice? That would happen for two reasons consistent with the interactive human/divine relationship: both because of the inner strength that naturally comes from more focused dedication but also the external strength that comes from the divine recognition of a disciple's singular devotion.

What's the function of mind renewal if it can't even strengthen the devotee's will?

This is what I think. There is no real difference between the two positions, because in both you are meant to be devoted to God above all. Both have their problems and changing one for the other is not going to solve your problems ie if you lack self-control marrying may save you from immorality (if your wife performs her marital duties) but you will get a whole other set of problems that will be just as difficult to deal with and even some you may have previously encountered (see Matthew 19:8-12). It is swings and roundabouts is what I think Paul is getting at. There had been some serious issues with immorality (see 1 Corinthians 5:1) and I think there was some debate on why this had happened. Paul makes the statement in 1 Cor 7:7 that he has a gift from God but if you read 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 where he discusses spiritual gifts, note especially 1 Cor 12:31 "But earnestly desire the greater gifts" and 1 Cor 14:1 "Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts...". In both of these Paul indicates that people can desire (with a hope of being given) spiritual gifts and in fact he says to "pursue" love. The word 'pursue' to my mind is even stronger than 'earnestly desire', so when Paul mentions his own gift it is something that the Corinthians could desire for themselves if they really wanted it. 2 Peter 1:1-12 is about growing in Christian virtue and this is one of the issues that Paul discussed with the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 3:1-3). We are supposed to be trying to grow as Christians.

So bottom line is that I don't think it is singleness as such, but rather putting God first in such a way that for all intents and purposes we all might as well be single because really He should come above all else. This is the goal of Christian growth.

[KingsGambit]

Can we try to tone down on some of the explicit sexual discussion? I've tried to go out of my way to word things as delicately as possible (there are younger people who post around here) and think it would be wise.

I'm saying this as a member, not as a moderator (I don't moderate this section).

[whag]

Can we try to tone down on some of the explicit sexual discussion? I've tried to go out of my way to word things as delicately as possible (there are younger people who post around here) and think it would be wise.

I'm saying this as a member, not as a moderator (I don't moderate this section).

I've been very delicate in my phrasing, so I don't know what you mean.

Also, djbrock literally said I copulated with my dog in another thread you may have missed. That's what that was a reference to.

ETA: Keep in mind that Dee Dee Warren started a very explicit thread on sexuality before the big site crash. I don't think that frank discussion of sexuality should make anyone squeamish.

[Cerebrum123]

Moderated By: Cerebrum123

We try to keep this site as family friendly as possible. Please keep that in mind for this, and future discussions.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[JonathanL]

I've been very delicate in my phrasing, so I don't know what you mean.

Also, djbrock literally said I copulated with my dog in another thread you may have missed. That's what that was a reference to.

ETA: Keep in mind that Dee Dee Warren started a very explicit thread on sexuality before the big site crash. I don't think that frank discussion of sexuality should make anyone squeamish.

If I remember correctly it was explicitly mentioned in the title of the thread you mentioned that the discussion was going to be somewhat "mature" in nature in order that people who wanted to avoid it would have the option to do so without actually clicking on the thread title to see what it was all about.

[Raphael]

ETA: Keep in mind that Dee Dee Warren started a very explicit thread on sexuality before the big site crash. I don't think that frank discussion of sexuality should make anyone squeamish.

And as one of the owners I am telling you that we have decided that we want to keep this forum as family friendly (PG13) as possible.

i.e. no sexually explicit threads.


ETA: you can discuss sexuality without being explicit