David Vitter <3 completely legal sexual fantasy services

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/7-36.htm

GWT: No father would want to do the wrong thing when his virgin daughter is old enough to get married. If she wants to get married, he isn't sinning by letting her get married.

Boy I am sure that clears it up.

 

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/leviticus/leviticus18.htm

Leviticus 18:18

While your wife is still living you shall not marry her sister as her rival; for thus you would disgrace your first wife.

... but you can marry your wife's best friend. Go figure.

Leviticus 18:18

You shall not approach a woman to have intercourse with her while she is unclean from menstruation.

no mention of marriage here ... just waiting for the right time.

 

mas ... Threesomes Within a Christian Marriage

 

found it

Deuteronomy 22:28 - 29,

"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days."

more here: Premarital Sex - Not A Biblical Conflict

 

That is essentially a statement of legal procedure, a statement of the law. It hardly says anything about condoning the practice if you can get away with it.

 

Likewise it hardly says anything about condemning the practice.

 

Read Title 18, Part 1 of the US Code. It doesn't condemn people for violating any of the laws. Is that some sort of tacit aproval of arson, bribery, or mail fraud?

That is really silly.

 

Well, one reason to go to a prostitute is to get your freak on and Vitter was in to... diapers?

 

Flynt being interviewed by Dan Abrams...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/11/221459/144

 

Keep 'em coming Larry!

 

i assumed that was what you were talking about.

Ok...time for context. before this little "edict", you could rape women. have sex with them. the consequences are theirs...not yours. no problem. this meant that if you do that...you're gonna marry her. i've never seen anyone emphasize the "if discovered" part like you're doing. most laws aren't enforced unless the act is "discovered." and that's what these were...laws. but in all truth...this was providing rights to a woman far more than she had in this time period. and later Jesus took it tons further. there is a concept in theology called progressive revelation. I think this would be an example of that.

 

I concur. Now where in the bible is premarital sex forbidden?

 

I think God suggests it's not a good idea. That we empty the power of sex by making it casual.

Paul says to the Corinthians that it is "better to be married than be controlled by lust." He says that to avoid "fornication" they should marry.

There are other notations in some of his letters regarding the importance of avoiding even the APPEARANCE of sexual impropriety, so as to avoid distracting from the purpose of pointing out who God is to others.

Jesus notes to the woman at the well that he knows that she's living with a man who isn't her husband. And he never condemns her...but I think he is making it clear that she's missing the mark.

You guys should read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-God-Explo...6051912?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184244927&sr=8-1

I think you'd really like it. Bell is a bit of an emergent thinker in the church today. And I think his approach is one that non-believers enjoy reading, even if they don't buy into it.

 

Conversely, restraining sex increases temptation. It's an unnatural state that can manifest itself in many destructive ways.

IMHO Paul is little more than a preacher. However, even if one views his writings as "the word of god", i thought that the jist of the argument against paul's "fornication defense" was that it mistranslated the greek -- should be more like "sexual immorality" - not fornication.

For an opposing view, might I suggest you take a peek at some of Gore Vidal's essay's on the subject: here .
From wikipedia :

EDIT: I highly recommend Gore Vidal's voluminous collection of essay's (1952-1992) - quite an interesting read by one of America's best thinkers.

 

Yeah, I do know that there are translation issues with a lot of this. My understanding is a lot of the injunctions against homosexuality are really injunctions against homosexual pedophilia.

I think it's hard to argue that "sexual immorality" is something the Bible is pretty clear about from start to finish. What comprises that is a matter of interpretation, I suppose. I will say..to the extent sex is controlling you, and you're not in control of yourself...I would say that's the exact sort of thing God warns again...not because you're a mean, nasty evil person...but because you're a slave to yourself and you don't have life to the full. I also think to the extent we dehumanize other people through lust and reducing people to nothing more than objects of desire...that God ain't cool with that, either.

But sex isn't something that the church should be running from. If you believe what Christians claim to believe about God and creation, then it is a very, very good thing...with tons of power. It can provide a sense of such intimacy that I think in many ways it is a metaphor of what the hereafter (whatever that means) looks like (and, no, i don't meant 70 virgins! ). As I believe our relationships with each other mirror and metaphor the relationship between us and God.

 

buttsecks? reread that paragraph and it takes a WHOLE other meaning.

 

i suppose if you misspell what i didn't misspell it can be really funny.

 

As Jimmy Buffet would say

I got a native tongue from way down south
It sits in the cheek of my gulf coastal mouth

Obviously, I took a slanted view along the lines of "it aint cheating unless you get caught" (fodder for lyrics to a CW song).

After being "forced" into googling "sex in the bible" to find this verse, I now a deeper understanding of the context for that verse (see Premarital Sex - Not A Biblical Conflict.) The above "edict" is a property rights law. A father had every right to expect his daughters to stay virgins until he sold them into marriage. If one of his daughters "let her knickers down", the father loses money since virgins fetch more. If the sex was not consensual, the father than had legal rights to extract his virgin daughter price from the guilty party.

The law did not cover

• if a man raped a nonvirgin daughter
• if a man had consensual sex with a nonvirgin daughter
• if a man had consensual sex with a virgin daughter

I suspect that in these cases the father had no legal recourse to get virgin daughter price.

And the edict says nothing about how any of this activity would be viewed in their God's eye.

BTW, I bet the above Bible verse has never been covered in the 30 odd years of Sunday School that you have attend.

 

i can't remember talking about it in a church setting. but i've read a few books where it was discussed. i think the book i linked to in my previous post mentioned it, in fact. and i've heard it talked about in relation to the progressive revelation stuff i mentioned to you earlier.

 

Man, you guys are talking theology when we have a hypocritical US Senator rumored to be dressing in diapers for prostitutes?