Does God punish masturbation?

[SiderealPassing]

I really wish I was afraid of doing as I please with my body.

 

[asm]

Well, the common argument is that it wastes and kills sperm, there for life.
Lust and the rest , etc etc.

I understand this is an over 5 year old post, but this should be explained:

By masturbating, you do not "waste and kill sperm".

The body frequently destroys old unused sperm. It really doesn't matter do you want to keep the stuff hanging in your sack for all eternity as opposed to violently whacking it out, the stuff is gone in a month either way.

The wasted seed stuff is probably because of Onan (who is probably proud that jerking off was named after him). That's pretty interpretational, as it's pretty much an opinion did god get pissed off because Onan disobeyed, or was it because Onan decided to spray his love juice on the ground.

Either way, I guess it is considered sinful because it's a hedonistic thing to do. It's also healthy for you to beat it out once in a while. Make up your own mind.

 

[IlluminaChaos]

If you believe in the Abrahamic God or a strict dogma of belief,then yes God punishes anyone looney enough to believe it.
Its basicaly you the masturbator giving yourself the guilt trip over nothing at all.If there was a God,,I dont think for a sec he would care in the least.
Its your body, do with it what you wish.Its like saying god will punish you for getting a tattoo or a piercing,masturbation is a biological function and a healthy one at that.
If more people masturbated more often,think how many wars would have been prevented in the past.There sure was alot of tension in the old days,with the crusades,witchhunts and inquisition going on,not a masturbator in sight,-it chills people the f$#ck out-,though much worse was more than likely going on,more or less not masturbating has morose consequences,strict blue balls leads to rape.You cant keep the tension at bay by not doing it,you got to release the poison,so to speak.

 

[asm]

One thing always leads to another, you cannot masturbate unless you are thinking of friend of family member or any girl/boy naked. So once you start masturbating you might want to take it up a notch and would want to sleep with as many as possible. I don't know if GOD will punish for masturbation but what it might lead to fornication well that is punishable of sending one to hell.

Similarly, one thing always leads to another and if you want to drink lemonade instead of water just for the taste of it, once you start doing that you'll end up drinking cocktails that are made from whisky and bone marrow liquid extracted from dying children.
Stay away from lemonade, folks

 

[Ultimaja]

Abrahamic religion is centered around a notion that vanity corrupts the soul, and on a bigger scale, corrupts mankind.

A self righteous person will not be able to understand why masturbation is a sin, because self righteous people don't think anything they do is wrong so long as they feel justified in doing it.

 

[Paddy McGee]

Seeing as this apparent "law" against masturbation stems from(As far as the OP is referring to) a trio of religions which see homosexuality as an "abomination", I can see why someone would go with this sort of law. Very reasonable holy texts.


Maybe God will give me a slap on the wrist for whacking a few out- unless my wrist is numb from jerking it too much.

Then again, what's God to a non-believer?

 

[Ultimaja]

Seeing as this apparent "law" against masturbation stems from(As far as the OP is referring to) a trio of religions which see homosexuality as an "abomination", I can see why someone would go with this sort of law. Very reasonable holy texts.

Homosexuality being an abomination is self-evident. You have to be trained to think otherwise, why do you think it's only in the past several decades that it's somehow become bad to speak against it?
The media and social bias has you believe things that, 50 years ago, you would not have believed. And yet, the entire moral palette of mankind is supposed to rest on what is recent atheist, secular society.
It's a bad joke that when taken offensively is matched with basically a reactive temper tantrum spammed with the word 'bigot' and a lot of brownie pointed show play.

And it doesn't exactly strike high on legitimate claim, I mean the argument is basically that a woman can be in a man's body, among other things, none of which is exactly fucking reasonable, but modern society has been trained to accept it.


But to the subject, masturbation is incompatible to Godly culture because it's really just a problem altogether. Besides the obvious, like the porn industry's very existence and by extension it's unethical financial enterprise and women who disgrace their parents, masturbation also promotes the severing of principles such as married couples submitting to each other unconditionally. But most importantly, it makes sex cheap and steals the very beauty in which sex is supposed to be in light of a species made in God's image and likeness.

That's it in a nutshell. No pun intended.

 

[Shenorai]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Why should anyone be punished for taking care of their sexual urges by going solo? Seriously. Aside from general survival, reproduction is one of the most common instincts humans share. Masturbation allows you to stave off the urge of reproduction, lest the need builds up to an unbearable level.

There is no harm done by performing masturbation. There is no harm done performing mutual masturbation with your partner. No one gets hurt in the process of you alleviating your needs. The mere notion that an invisible force might smite thee for taking care of your biological needs on your own is half the reason why clergymen are infamous for being unable to keep their hands off the altar boys.

It doesn't matter what any text regarding the politics of 2000 years ago states. Such books do not apply to the politics and culture of today. Really, I doubt masturbation is something anyone would really care about unless they walk in on you during the action. Then it's just awkwardness for the rest of the day.

 

[Yaoi Master Gavin]

Homosexuality being an abomination is self-evident. You have to be trained to think otherwise, why do you think it's only in the past several decades that it's somehow become bad to speak against it?
The media and social bias has you believe things that, 50 years ago, you would not have believed. And yet, the entire moral palette of mankind is supposed to rest on what is recent atheist, secular society.
It's a bad joke that when taken offensively is matched with basically a reactive temper tantrum spammed with the word 'bigot' and a lot of brownie pointed show play.

And it doesn't exactly strike high on legitimate claim, I mean the argument is basically that a woman can be in a man's body, among other things, none of which is exactly fucking reasonable, but modern society has been trained to accept it.


But to the subject, masturbation is incompatible to Godly culture because it's really just a problem altogether. Besides the obvious, like the porn industry's very existence and by extension it's unethical financial enterprise and women who disgrace their parents, masturbation also promotes the severing of principles such as married couples submitting to each other unconditionally. But most importantly, it makes sex cheap and steals the very beauty in which sex is supposed to be in light of a species made in God's image and likeness.

That's it in a nutshell. No pun intended.

Actually, homosexuality as an abomination is not self-evident unless you subscribe to a very backwards version of Christianity. There are supposedly only 4 verses ascribed to deal directly with homosexuality and another 5-6 that can refer to it it you connect 6 degrees of whatever. Of the supposed 4 directly dealing with it, two are from the Old Testament and those rules got thrown out when Jesus came to Earth so they don't matter in the slightest to Christianity today; if you want to argue that point though, directly translated, the Hebrew word used actually means brother, not man - it's a fault of translators there. Of the other supposed two, I've only found reference to one and this is in Romans 1:19-32. Taken as a verse itself (Ro. 1:27), yes, one can be led to believe that homosexuality is an abomination to the order God imposed. In the context of its surrounding verses however, we find that in this case homosexuality was delivered unto the people as a punishment. Interestingly enough, we can draw a parallel to the first story of the bible - that in which we deal with Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge. Death was given unto man by God as a punishment for their transgressions and thus, death became part of the natural order. In similar fashion, so too did homosexuality as a punishment.

Short version: Homosexuality is a part of the natural order made by God because he put it there. We accept death as a natural part of life; so should we accept homosexuality. They are both of God.

And that's going directly from the words of the bible - no colouration or cherry picking.

 

[Ultimaja]

Actually, homosexuality as an abomination is not self-evident unless you subscribe to a very backwards version of Christianity. There are supposedly only 4 verses ascribed to deal directly with homosexuality and another 5-6 that can refer to it it you connect 6 degrees of whatever. Of the supposed 4 directly dealing with it, two are from the Old Testament and those rules got thrown out when Jesus came to Earth so they don't matter in the slightest to Christianity today; if you want to argue that point though, directly translated, the Hebrew word used actually means brother, not man - it's a fault of translators there. Of the other supposed two, I've only found reference to one and this is in Romans 1:19-32. Taken as a verse itself (Ro. 1:27), yes, one can be led to believe that homosexuality is an abomination to the order God imposed. In the context of its surrounding verses however, we find that in this case homosexuality was delivered unto the people as a punishment. Interestingly enough, we can draw a parallel to the first story of the bible - that in which we deal with Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge. Death was given unto man by God as a punishment for their transgressions and thus, death became part of the natural order. In similar fashion, so too did homosexuality as a punishment.

Short version: Homosexuality is a part of the natural order made by God because he put it there. We accept death as a natural part of life; so should we accept homosexuality. They are both of God.

And that's going directly from the words of the bible - no colouration or cherry picking.

Negative.

The translation, for one, has always been correct. The saints themselves went on to provide a succession which held on to the very context of what was written. The books were examined by entire congregations of Christians all around the known world, even before it was legal. Most of whom were definitively Pauline in their beliefs and were trained to know Paul's teachings from those before them- who were taught not only by his writings, but Paul himself.

Nobody confused Paul's teaching. He deemed homosexuality a sin that can keep one from Heaven. That's part of the foundation of a god who cannot justify evil. The problem has nothing to do with translation, it has to do with today's society trying to put different context to what scripture teaches. 2000 years later. As soon as the homosexual movement arises. Go figure.

When the Bible speaks of God handing people over to their sins, it's meaning to tell that God pretty much left them to their own devices because they refuse to obey Him.
If you're saying homosexuality is natural and genetic, then do what atheists say the religious should do- prove that it is not utterly unscientific.
Because seriously, homosexuality being such seems to be nothing more then political correctness meeting liberal fan fiction.

 

[Yaoi Master Gavin]

From out thine arse thy pull lies.

Were it not 3AM, I'd be more than happy to get my rabbi roommate who would be more than happy to tell you that the earliest works we have of Leviticus do in fact have it as meaning 'brother' and not 'man'. As for the books being examined by congregations, the point is moot - if you're using flawed information, your conclusions are flawed. Of course, let's also talk about Paul. The man said a lot of things, some of which aren't very good; among them is that slavery is just and rape is grounds for marriage.

Now, the simple fact of the matter is that you either accept the Bible as a whole or not; you CANNOT pick and choose what to uphold and what you can't. The coming of Christ to die for our sins rendered the covenants of the Old Testament null and void from point forward and a new covenant was made ergo laws and such for the people from the Old Testament as part of that covenant have NO BEARING on today. The same principle applies - if you want to follow the old covenant, go ahead, but you accept it all. That means no shellfish, no mixing fabrics, all of it. Likewise, if you accept the new covenant, you've accepted all tenants. Paul preached that homosexuality is wrong, rape is grounds for marriage, and slavery is just. If you are taking Paul at his word that he spoke with the voice of God, then you're agreeing with all of what he had to say.

That's speaking biblically. Speaking historically from the atheist PoV, Christianity was a countermovement to all that the ancient Romans held in high regard. All of the virtues seen in Christianity were seen as weak by those not. Among the practices of Romans was that of homosexuality. It makes perfect sense from the atheistic PoV that homosexuality would be deemed a sin, just as greed and pride, etc. were at the time.

As for the parallel of death and homosexuality, it says nothing about handing them over. Quoted directly in that passage, 'Wherefore God also gave them up..." Sorry, giving means the intent of doing so. God delivered it unto them; he did not leave them to their natural devices. Contextually, it is a punishment and I quote "Romans 1:25-27 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

First, let's note the terminology: "leaving the natural use of the woman." Apparently, Paul believed that women are little more than property and that their natural use is to procreate; translation: "Women are there to make children. That is all." - Paul

So, misogyny is also of God if we are to take Paul at his word. Going back to the text, "For this cause" and "recompense" strike me the most. God had a reason to deliver this - it was not on a whim. God punished them with homosexuality for their sins. Recompense supports this in the intent that restitution must be made in the form of this punishment. Quick synopsis - the words in the bible even say that homosexuality is a punishment sent by God.

As for homosexuality being unnatural, I'm afraid that burden of proof is falling on you. You originally made the argument that homosexuality is an abomination and therefore unnatural ergo, show me your proof that it is unnatural/unscientific. Your holy book doesn't count. Neither do the weird Christian Science books.

As closing points I'd like to say that if in fact the crazy people at WBC are in the right, assuming Christianity is true of course, then I speak for the vast majourity or humanity, past, future, and present when I say that hell is going to be a crazy ass party. Also, I find it funny that you beliefs are keeping in line with Mormon doctrine; in this case, I will see you in Mormon heaven with a number of my friends as I know and have taught most of my friends the four secret Mormon handshakes to heaven.

 

[Ultimaja]

From out thine arse thy pull lies.

Were it not 3AM, I'd be more than happy to get my rabbi roommate who would be more than happy to tell you that the earliest works we have of Leviticus do in fact have it as meaning 'brother' and not 'man'. As for the books being examined by congregations, the point is moot - if you're using flawed information, your conclusions are flawed.

It was common for people in the faith to refer to each other as brothers. It was rendered to 'man' to prevent potential confusion, the exact freaking OPPOSITE of what people have done in trying to promote the acceptance of homosexuality

It's redundant, and stupid to think that's actually what he was saying. The notion that Paul isn't speaking on homosexuality is ridiculous and desperate, case closed.

Now, the simple fact of the matter is that you either accept the Bible as a whole or not; you CANNOT pick and choose what to uphold and what you can't. The coming of Christ to die for our sins rendered the covenants of the Old Testament null and void from point forward and a new covenant was made ergo laws and such for the people from the Old Testament as part of that covenant have NO BEARING on today. The same principle applies - if you want to follow the old covenant, go ahead, but you accept it all. That means no shellfish, no mixing fabrics, all of it. Likewise, if you accept the new covenant, you've accepted all tenants. Paul preached that homosexuality is wrong, rape is grounds for marriage, and slavery is just. If you are taking Paul at his word that he spoke with the voice of God, then you're agreeing with all of what he had to say.

That's just a bunch of overblown, misleading and very MODERN nonsense.

First of all, Paul did not condone rape as grounds for marriage. In fact, rape is hardly mentioned in the New Testament. It's only in the law of the Levites that rape is grounds for marriage, and it was during a time when being betrothed was basically like winning a jackpot.
So the woman really won out.

It's called 1500 BC, mind the gap.

And as far as slavery is concerned- it's not clear why Paul sent the slave back to his master, but presumably it is because he owed a debt. In those times, slavery was a legitimate way to pay something off, binding in a way that if you broke the deal, they broke the neck.

That's called 60 AD, mind the gap.

As for homosexuality being unnatural, I'm afraid that burden of proof is falling on you.

Okay!

Notice the different anatomies of men and women? Particularly the reproductive organs.
What is their purpose?

Now, notice men and women's back end. What is the purpose of that?

There you go!
The point is that, no, I don't have the burden of proof. You do.

 

[Shenorai]

It was common for people in the faith to refer to each other as brothers. It was rendered to 'man' to prevent potential confusion, the exact freaking OPPOSITE of what people have done in trying to promote the acceptance of homosexuality

It's redundant, and stupid to think that's actually what he was saying. The notion that Paul isn't speaking on homosexuality is ridiculous and desperate, case closed.



That's just a bunch of overblown, misleading and very MODERN nonsense.

First of all, Paul did not condone rape as grounds for marriage. In fact, rape is hardly mentioned in the New Testament. It's only in the law of the Levites that rape is grounds for marriage, and it was during a time when being betrothed was basically like winning a jackpot.
So the woman really won out.

It's called 1500 BC, mind the gap.

And as far as slavery is concerned- it's not clear why Paul sent the slave back to his master, but presumably it is because he owed a debt. In those times, slavery was a legitimate way to pay something off, binding in a way that if you broke the deal, they broke the neck.

That's called 60 AD, mind the gap.



Okay!

Notice the different anatomies of men and women? Particularly the reproductive organs.
What is their purpose?

Now, notice men and women's back end. What is the purpose of that?

There you go!
The point is that, no, I don't have the burden of proof. You do.

Matthew 7, dude. Now what does any of this have to do with masturbation?

 

[Paddy McGee]

Surely it's not a big deal as one would make it?

Say if it was something of a sin.

If God was as loving and caring as a christian(in particular) believes him to be, would he not glance over the little issue of masturbation?

If God was as loving as he is depicted, why is it that people must abide by his ruling? Surely, he would accept us all as one in the same?

We , as humans, are not perfect. We make mistakes. Surely He who is the creator and is perfect would accept all into his flock?

We are the inferior, the low beings. Surely, he wouldn't hold masturbation against you?

... Of course, I don't even believe there is a God and I certainly won't be frightened into living my life the way a book tells me I should, else I won't get into the afterlife.


I completely disagree with masturbation being sinful. It's an expression of your own sexually repressed feelings, akin to crying when sad and smiling when happy, in my opinion. You masturbate when aroused(If you're single, or generally alone without a partner).

The way I see it, we should live a life filled with expression. If that means you want to express your high libido with a stroke or 1,000,000 be my guest.

 

[Ultimaja]

Matthew 7, dude. Now what does any of this have to do with masturbation?

Homosexuality has nothing to do with masturbation. But it was implied on here that it's not surprising that masturbation is a sin seeing how homosexuality is viewed by us the same- as if to suppose that because we don't find homosexuality to be natural, we somehow are inept at discerning wrongs.



Judging and telling the truth are two completely different things. In fact, it's a Christian's obligation to speak the truth and not bend or conform it to what one thinks or how others feel.

A lot of people tend to want to believe in a type of Christianity that offends nobody, or tells no hard truths; a religion that produces nothing and is worth nothing.
And that is not true Christianity- the Christ didn't come for people to dive into the world's undertow for a worthless religion that others can change to their liking.

As such, masturbation and homosexuality are sins. They have always been sins, it's embedded in the very moral nature of Abrahamic religion collectively. None of that has ever changed- only this new era, thousands of years later, trying to revision the faith to fit it's standards.

 

[Exoskeleton]

First of all, Paul did not condone rape as grounds for marriage. In fact, rape is hardly mentioned in the New Testament. It's only in the law of the Levites that rape is grounds for marriage, and it was during a time when being betrothed was basically like winning a jackpot.
So the woman really won out.

Rape = Jackpot? I'm not in agreement there man. Also the bible may be your own personal truth, however it is not seen as fact or truth for many many other people around the globe. Stating things as "wrong" or "truth" feels a bit imposing to someone like I who does not share your beliefs.

Though not religious, I am spiritual, and I personally believe that masturbation is not a sin simply for the fact that it doesn't harm anyone and has health benefits. Anything like that sounds okay in my book. If it is a sin then we're all forgiven because of Jesus' sacrifice(the ultimate brofist).

Also I'd like to note that the validity of the bible is very sketchy as it is. Like, anyone could write a book and say they were "inspired by god". I imagine it's like when priests are speaking at the church. They aren't literally speaking with the voice and will of a higher being but their studies and understanding of scripture give them enough authority in the religious community to claim or have people believe such.

I'm not going to get into homosexuality as this is not the thread for that type of discussion and we as posters should keep on topic. However I am interested in hearing about your unique views on similar hot topics. Like the not wearing clothes from two types of fabric rules, or how different religious beliefs look to you, etc. Maybe we shall discuss them in the future.

 

[Ultimaja]

Rape = Jackpot? I'm not in agreement there man.

That's not what I said at all. I said marriage = jackpot.
A man who raped a woman would have to marry her, which meant that he had to share his legacy with her. People up in arms about these things need to thoroughly wrap their head around the fact that this was in ancient times. Basically, any moral issue one may have with such is completely invalid by default.

Also the bible may be your own personal truth, however it is not seen as fact or truth for many many other people around the globe. Stating things as "wrong" or "truth" feels a bit imposing to someone like I who does not share your beliefs.

Well so does secular society and it's own definitive notions on what and what isn't right or true. There is no such thing as neutrality. Secularism is not neutrality, that's basically the point I have been trying to make.

Though not religious, I am spiritual, and I personally believe that masturbation is not a sin simply for the fact that it doesn't harm anyone and has health benefits. Anything like that sounds okay in my book. If it is a sin then we're all forgiven because of Jesus' sacrifice(the ultimate forgiving bro).

Sin means, literally, to 'miss the point'. If one is going to strive to be Godly, one cannot sexually pleasure oneself as a form of entertainment. That's just stating what should be the obvious.
Cutting corners and saying that it's okay because Jesus died for sins is, in the technical sense, blasphemy. People have gotten out of control with that on many things, not just minor sins such as masturbation. Divorce for example is completely invalid if adultery is not involved, and by extension any relationship pursued thereafter is adultery in and of itself.
But people say it's okay. We've been 'forgiven'.

Also I'd like to note that the validity of the bible is very sketchy as it is. Like, anyone could write a book and say they were "inspired by god". I imagine it's like when priests are speaking at the church. They aren't literally speaking with the voice and will of a higher being but their studies and understanding of scripture give them enough authority in the religious community to claim or have people believe such.

Let me put it this way: Paul's letters to the early churches were inspired. But did he undergo some miraculous trance? Did an angel move his hand, or did he see a vision?
Probably not. Only certain books in the Bible actually have ties to those sort of things, such as Ezekiel or the Apocalypse.
Don't get that confused with what Protestants might say, though. One could almost think they are under the impression the Bible magically fell out the sky one day.

I'm not going to get into homosexuality as this is not the thread for that type of discussion and we as posters should keep on topic. However I am interested in hearing about your unique views on similar hot topics. Like the not wearing clothes from two types of fabric rules, or how different religious beliefs look to you, etc. Maybe we shall discuss them in the future.

I didn't intend to discuss homosexuality, I just prefer to be thorough. If something is brought up in contrast to a discussion, I try to tackle it if it brings something to the subject.

But anyways, yeah, I'm down to discuss anything really. I've kind of been craving substance lately which is why I've been on the religious section a lot, even though discussion on here can be a bit exhausting lol.

 

[Yaoi Master Gavin]

Again, no. The actual word they used to call each other was brethren which is used over 500 times in the bible whereas brother in the sense you mean was used less than 50 times; the other three hundred times it is used is to mean blood relation. The actual word used is zâkâr which has three meanings, of note only being the first and last, man and brother respectively. Clearly you know absolutely nothing of the Hebrew language and I admit I know little myself but I made a point to gain this much knowledge. In Hebrew, there is a mark of punctuation that denotes which meaning a multiple-meaning word has in text, hereafter represented by an apostrophe. In this case the three forms of zâkâr are 'zâkâr, zâ'kâr, and zâkâr'. In the earliest records we have, the Hebrew word used in the case of Leviticus is.... zâkâr' meaning the third meaning, meaning brother. (All information here brought to you by The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible)

On the note of Paul, I'm not disputing that he's speaking of homosexuality - he clearly is. What I'm disputing are the mistranslations of Leviticus that are floating about and being taken as the word of God; I think we can all thank King James the fuckwad for that one.

As for the issue of covenants and the strictures therein, I'm certain you would be hard pressed to find a verse that has God saying "You guys can pick and choose what laws you want to uphold; I don't really mind - it's all arbitrary." Because that's exactly what you're attributing all of this too: you are picking and choosing what God said that you follow and what you don't. It's an all-or-nothing deal. You're right though, rape by word is hardly mentioned but rape is in the bible and it's actually used as anti-homosexual propaganda.

See the crime of Sodom wasn't homosexuality, it was rape. There are two different instances where homosexual rape is is given which makes perfect sense, given that women were basically property and in the historical context, who gave a fuck? So we make it homosexual to make it matter to the people reading who matter, men. Mmmm... look at that context: Gen. 19:5 and Judg: 19:22. Both times the general words were 'Bring the man/men out that we might have sex with them' and in todays terms that equates to 'Drag him out so we can rape him.' Rape, little boy, not homosexuality, not hospitality, it's all about rape in Sodom and Gomorrah.

And while looking for the actual verses, I found a lovely one that has Paul saying incest is alright - 1 Cor 7:36.

As for your supposed proof, spouting off basic anatomy that you can barely understand isn't proof. But lets take a crack at it. You're right, to reproduce, it takes a man and a woman. Sex on the other hand can be done with a woman and a cucumber or a man and a watermelon. I'm talkign about sex, you're talking about reproduction. Obviously two men can't have a child naturally and neither can a woman. Sex on the other hand... Biologically speaking, malexmale sex is actually quite pleasurable - i should know. You see, there's one thing that men have in our pelvis that women don't called a prostate. Anatomically, assuming you have normal anatomy, the prostate and the bundle of nerves with it are right against your rectal wall and when stimulated cause feelings of pleasure and this stimulation can occur simply by tapping against said portion of the rectal wall. To put it in similar terms, the male prostate and the female clitoris are the same during sex. As for the female side, you clearly have no idea how lesbians have sex do you? It's vaginal intercourse, no bums necessary unless one of them likes it and that's a personal thing. Even more condemning to your view is that there are straight men who enjoy it when their prostate is stimulated by their wife/girlfriend.

Next fail argument and actual proof please.

 

[Ultimaja]

Again, no. The actual word they used to call each other was brethren which is used over 500 times in the bible whereas brother in the sense you mean was used less than 50 times; the other three hundred times it is used is to mean blood relation. The actual word used is zâkâr which has three meanings, of note only being the first and last, man and brother respectively. Clearly you know absolutely nothing of the Hebrew language and I admit I know little myself but I made a point to gain this much knowledge. In Hebrew, there is a mark of punctuation that denotes which meaning a multiple-meaning word has in text, hereafter represented by an apostrophe. In this case the three forms of zâkâr are 'zâkâr, zâ'kâr, and zâkâr'. In the earliest records we have, the Hebrew word used in the case of Leviticus is.... zâkâr' meaning the third meaning, meaning brother. (All information here brought to you by The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible)

On the note of Paul, I'm not disputing that he's speaking of homosexuality - he clearly is. What I'm disputing are the mistranslations of Leviticus that are floating about and being taken as the word of God; I think we can all thank King James the fuckwad for that one.

As for the issue of covenants and the strictures therein, I'm certain you would be hard pressed to find a verse that has God saying "You guys can pick and choose what laws you want to uphold; I don't really mind - it's all arbitrary." Because that's exactly what you're attributing all of this too: you are picking and choosing what God said that you follow and what you don't. It's an all-or-nothing deal. You're right though, rape by word is hardly mentioned but rape is in the bible and it's actually used as anti-homosexual propaganda.

See the crime of Sodom wasn't homosexuality, it was rape. There are two different instances where homosexual rape is is given which makes perfect sense, given that women were basically property and in the historical context, who gave a fuck? So we make it homosexual to make it matter to the people reading who matter, men. Mmmm... look at that context: Gen. 19:5 and Judg: 19:22. Both times the general words were 'Bring the man/men out that we might have sex with them' and in todays terms that equates to 'Drag him out so we can rape him.' Rape, little boy, not homosexuality, not hospitality, it's all about rape in Sodom and Gomorrah.

And while looking for the actual verses, I found a lovely one that has Paul saying incest is alright - 1 Cor 7:36.

As for your supposed proof, spouting off basic anatomy that you can barely understand isn't proof. But lets take a crack at it. You're right, to reproduce, it takes a man and a woman. Sex on the other hand can be done with a woman and a cucumber or a man and a watermelon. I'm talkign about sex, you're talking about reproduction. Obviously two men can't have a child naturally and neither can a woman. Sex on the other hand... Biologically speaking, malexmale sex is actually quite pleasurable - i should know. You see, there's one thing that men have in our pelvis that women don't called a prostate. Anatomically, assuming you have normal anatomy, the prostate and the bundle of nerves with it are right against your rectal wall and when stimulated cause feelings of pleasure and this stimulation can occur simply by tapping against said portion of the rectal wall. To put it in similar terms, the male prostate and the female clitoris are the same during sex. As for the female side, you clearly have no idea how lesbians have sex do you? It's vaginal intercourse, no bums necessary unless one of them likes it and that's a personal thing. Even more condemning to your view is that there are straight men who enjoy it when their prostate is stimulated by their wife/girlfriend.

Next fail argument and actual proof please.

I know plenty of the Hebrew language, and I don't need to obsess over it or a concordance because I am Catholic and my Church, being Roman, is very well endowed on the languages of Greek and Hebrew.
You can leave the KJV and concordances to Protestants who like to make things up and start a new denomination every other day, which by the way includes homosexual congregations.

All the apostles were in or around Rome, all their teachings are ultimately tapped from their successive teachings. The teachings have been around since the 1st century, and the Bible in the 4th. And never, ever in the entire history of the WORLD has their ever been a prominent notion that homosexuality is either genetic or not a mortal sin.

Up until the homosexual movement.

And that says a lot about people trying to fiddle around with scripture, coming up with technicalities and legal fictions to ascertain what works for them. America and the UK have both become breeding grounds for heresy, while the rest of the Christian world just observes with their palms to their faces.



And as far as the subject on proving that homosexuality isn't natural, this is where I put my own face to palm. You basically just orchestrated that homosexuality is nothing more then sexual deviance; an extremity of sexual desire in which you say straight men can even enjoy, exploring parts of the body in which one can get off to.
So you're one to talk about 'fail arguments'.

 

[CassinoChips]

Hi everybody. I'm fairly certain the topic of this debate is masturbation, not homosexuality. Let's keep it there. We have at least one thread on this forum that deals with homosexuality; you are more than welcome to debate that topic there.