Sodomy

[satori001]

I don't know if I "believe" in intelligent design, exactly. I just see it around me. I have not imposed intelligence upon a constellation of stars, or electrons. They know what they're doing whether or not I understand them, and they do it perfectly.

Jim Croce wrote and sang of intelligent design when he affirmed "Ya don't spit into the wind..." Why not? The wind wins, that's why. Nature is predictable. Does that stop some people? No, it doesn't.

--

If not for the bible, Genesis 18 in particular, we wouldn't have the word "sodomy." Relax, there are plenty of other words for it too, but invoking biblical authority, society has determined the proper word should chosen to honor the city responsible for making sodomy a biblical topic, if not necessarily a Sunday School topic. More of a seminary topic, these days.

Who is qualified to speculate on the origin of this peculiar set of urges which express themselves in the act of sodomy? Craig Martindale certainly thought about the topic, long and hard. Would he be qualified? I don't see why not. By all accounts, his head was right up his --- most of the time, so he'd have alot of first hand knowledge. (And even we know what a PIA he could be, figuratively I hope.) Of course, he always said he was against it, or at least he objected the variety between two men. He was silent on the heterosexual variety, if it can be called such a thing. I'm sure Craig had reasons for all of his positions on sodomy, but they might not be your reasons, or mine. He isn't much of a standard when it comes to most aspects of clean livin' anyway.

But considering all of this in the light of the presumption of intelligent design, I'll suggest an analogy (no pun intended). Most of us who drive have driven into a strange neighborhood and briefly driven the wrong way on a one-way street. It happens to the best of us. But it never happens when we know the neighborhood. We learn by repeated observation which way the traffic moves, and we obey the natural law, signs or no signs, that is, unless our head is up our... kinda like Martindale.

But there will always be a contingent of contrarians, conspicuous or inconspicuous, who live for violating the natural order of things. Who is qualified to speculate on the origin of this peculiar set of urges? Not me, but it's there, and ever observant folk that we are, we do know it is. We hear rumors. And we've read Genesis 18.

Martindale accused many in TWI. He called them "rump wranglers." That was before the lawsuit got his own rump removed (and wrangled?) from residency, not to mention the presidency. He might have found it uncomfortable to sit for quite a while thereafter. He's been pretty quiet by most accounts since then...

Sodomy is sort of a joke in popular culture, but the sodomy of minors isn't funny at all. It turns snickers and smirks into sudden, resolute rage, as a matter of fact. Outrage is popular on TV with the "talking heads," but out and out rage is more reality than TV. When children are involved, suddenly Martindale's wrath seems an entirely reasonable response. And but for our strong laws and strong enforcement, a lot of priests would be at the negligible mercy of very angry, justifiably angry, mobs.

But crimes like those of the pedophile priests are called "unspeakable" for a reason. They are really ugly, too ugly to be spoken of. So they are not spoken of. And each subsequent generation brings with it a new host of predators, and a new flock of unknowing, therefore unsuspecting, prey.

We might need to look at the ugly a little more closely at the appropriate times, in the appropriate places. If our children learn to recognize it, even when it's called "beautiful" by someone else, someone who masquerades as a "man of God," we may save a few more little ones from an uglier fate. Just a thought.

Edited December 13, 2005 by satori001

[igotout]

Some excellent observations. But it is late and I only have time for a quick joke this topic reminded me of:

Three gay men died, and were going to be cremated. Their lovers happened to be at the funeral home at the same time, and were discussing what they planned to do with the ashes.

The first man said, "My Benny loved to fly, so I'm going up in a plane and scatter his ashes in the sky."

The second man said, "My Carl was a good fisherman, so I'm going to scatter his ashes in our favorite lake."

The third man said, "My Jim was such a good lover, I think I'm going to dump his ashes in a pot of chili, so he can tear my axx up just one more time."

Edited December 13, 2005 by igotout

[tomtuttle1]

It is a DISGRACE.... for ME ... to have been in this fellowship this morning!!!

[satori001]

I was afraid this topic might become the butt of some bad jokes.

[Kevlar2000]

Yes, let's end it now. :P

What consenting adults do with consenting adults in privacy generally is no one's business (unless it's Paris Hilton; she makes it our business).

But adults doing that kind of stuff to kids?

[J0nny Ling0]

Butt, then again, I guess I am slow, but what are you wanting to figure out Satori? I was taught as so many of us were, that verse that says; "In marriage, the bed is undefiled". And VP basically said that this means that when you are married, "anything goes" as long as both partners are comfortable with it. And that seemed to work for me.

But you bring into the conversation the term "intelligent design", which, sodomy does not seem to keep with the intelligent design of that particular body part that is the subject of this thread. As I understand it, many male homsexuals who practice this act end up having to wear diapers when they are older because they have ruined themselves. And so, I would say that the mechanics of it is not natural, and, is detrimental to the "receiver's" (lambano) health. "Bottom" line? Not healthy...

[Morgan]

I would ask why it is acceptable in male/female scenarios and not male/male? How is it less of a health problem? How is it less conflicting with "intelligent design"?

Regardless, what two consenting adults do and what an adult does with a child who is too young to understand the consequences and therefore cannot truly give consent are two very very different things, be it hetero or homo sexual in nature.

[diazbro]

Well speaking of intelligent design. I've always felt that had god been opposed to the idea of human masturbation he would have made our arms much shorter.

[Allan]

Does this mean the animal kingdom is more intelligent than us humans after all ??!!

[J0nny Ling0]

would ask why it is acceptable in male/female scenarios and not male/male? How is it less of a health problem? How is it less conflicting with "intelligent design"?

Oh, sorry if I was mis-leading. I think that it would seem detrimental in any scenario, hetero most definitely included. And, I am not judging anyone. I was only saying that it seems that by the design of our bodies, certain things would seem more detrimental than others. Sorry for not being clearer.

And obviously, any form of child molestation is a hanging offense in my book. I have no problem being jundgemental on that subject.

[satori001]

Well speaking of intelligent design. I've always felt that had god been opposed to the idea of human masturbation he would have made our arms much shorter.

Exactly!

Thank you for the demonstration.

Jeez, how many times to I have to mention Martindale to have this thread stay in the About The Way forum?

Ugly truths. The Way. Sexual impropriety. The Way. Sexual exploitation. The Way. Unseemliness. The Way.

The Way, The Way, The Way.

[coolchef1248 @adelphia.net]

Well speaking of intelligent design. I've always felt that had god been opposed to the idea of human masturbation he would have made our arms much shorter.

i have always pitied penguins!

[karmicdebt]

Satori,

Has anyone ever told you - you present with serious control issues? :)

I'm kidding. The Way! No really. The Way International! Just trying to help. VP & Me!

Be careful... this may get moved to the Doctrinal thread...That's where they keep Mike...

Edited December 14, 2005 by karmicdebt

[igotout]

Maybe more meta tags will get it moved back.

TWI, Way, The Way, The Way International, no Way out, Way out there, LCM, Craig, Rozilla, Headquarters, Farm in Ohio, Beautiful Ohio, ROCKA Ages, BRC,

[excathedra]

from one web site -

Sodomy is most commonly legally defined as any contact between the genitals of one person, and the mouth or anus of another.

The word has its origins in Christianity. It is sometimes used to mean sexual deviation, though in legal contexts it is defined as above.

Throughout history, "sodomites," mostly male homosexuals and bestialists, have been punished by a largely theocratically controlled government, in hopes of stamping out "ungodly practices" that might bring divine retribution against Christian society.

In medieval Europe, intercourse between a male field worker and a noble woman was legally considered "sodomy," as it was thought to cause a poor harvest.

The history of the concept of sodomy is tied to the Church in most every case.

Currently, there is no federal sodomy law, though some federal land falls under maritime jurisdiction, which may have sanctions in some cases. 25 states do not have sodomy laws. 5 states have laws pertaining to homosexual sodomy only, and the remaining 20 states, plus the District of Columbia, have laws covering all sodomy, even between heterosexuals.

--

for what it's worth, father butler was a beast, an animal, a disgusting, horrible..... ah forget it

he went after little boys and ruined their lives

maybe if his higher ups cared one crappola about these young boys, they would have done something beside protect the beast

and with wierwille ha ha ha ha ha ha he had no higher ups, smart beast

[Littlehawk]

Well said Igotout and Excie,,,,thats why I have said we need to round up all tha hogs in this country and put parachutes on em and throw em out of C130's over Irag and bring our boys home. Pork em!

[Belle]

Sodomy is most commonly legally defined as anycontact between the genitals of one person, and the mouth ...of another.

:o :unsure: :blink: :o

Does that REALLY say what I think it says??

[justloafing]

:o :unsure: :blink: :o

Does that REALLY say what I think it says??

Yes it does. We are all probably in a bunch of trouble. :P

[coolchef1248 @adelphia.net]

Well said Igotout and Excie,,,,thats why I have said we need to round up all tha hogs in this country and put parachutes on em and throw em out of C130's over Irag and bring our boys home. Pork em!

yes little hawk what a great idea!!!

pork em

i love it

[Brother Speed]

Humans are the only ones in the animal kingdom that have sex face to face.

[Allan]

I guess if you're a male warthog thats not a nice option ! But then again, some girls I knew in my early adolescent years as a desperate young man...

[Galen]

Humans are the only ones in the animal kingdom that have sex face to face.

speak for your self, I am married which means that I have sex with rosy.

rosy palm

[Jim]

The first time I had sex I was scared. I was all alone...

[J0nny Ling0]

Jim, that is really funny. I was all alone too...

Damn Galen. You must mean Rosy Palms and her Five Sisters? Yeah, wow, I've been out with her too...

And man, that is a very sad commentary: "I am married, so, I have sex with rosy". But geez, what else to do? Do that, I guess, or, get a girlfriend, which is WRONG, or, go and buy a prostitute from time to time which again is WRONG, and so, what to do? Go out with Rosy I guess, and wait for that oh so wonder time when God Almighty collects us together and we get new bodies, and everything we thought about sex will probably be nothing compared to the Life we will have...

But geez, just a little exciting sex from time to time, is that so wrong?

Edited December 16, 2005 by Jonny Lingo

[coolchef1248 @adelphia.net]

ya gotta love rosey don't ya

she never says was it good for you or nor does she want to do it again! she just let's you roll over and go to sleep

you don't even have to "snuggle"