Completing the sex act when your snockered.

by gumby 215 Replies latest members adult

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Schizm said to Gumby:

    : They didn't "screw" their father. If you'd been paying attention you'd have known what I said earlier. I had said:

    :: Their objective was NOT the having of sex with their father, it was the need to get semen in order to have children of their own--semen that was unavailable from any other source.

    : Given their motive, I wouldn't describe them as having "screwed" their father.

    LOL! You really take the cake for rankly stupid apologetics! And here I thought the JWs were bad!

    From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

    SCREW: to copulate with

    COPULATE: to engage in sexual intercourse

    SEXUAL INTERCOURSE:
    1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS
    2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis

    COITUS: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also : INTERCOURSE 3 -- compare ORGASM

    ORGASM: : intense or paroxysmal excitement; especially : an explosive discharge of neuromuscular tensions at the height of sexual arousal that is usually accompanied by the ejaculation of semen in the male and by vaginal contractions in the female

    Obviously, motive is not relevant to screwing.

    You also said:

    : You refer to what happened as an act of "incest," which is not true.

    Again from the online dictionary:

    INCEST: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry

    Now, what does the Bible say about incest? Note the words from Leviticus 18 (NIV):

    6 No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations.
    17 Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter... That is wickedness.

    From the Online Jewish Encyclopedia ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=213&letter=M ) :

    The older custom of intermarriage within the circle of kinship was governed by no strict rules. Of course marriage with a daughter or uterine sister was not tolerated, but there was no bar to union with close relatives on the father's side, and even down to the Babylonian exile such unions appear to have been common (Gen. xx. 12; Ex. vi. 20; Num. xxvi. 59; II Sam. xiii. 13; Ezek. xxii. 10-11). Deuteronomy prohibits certain marriages with near relatives (xxii. 30; xxvii. 20, 22-23), but the most elaborate legislation in this direction is found in Leviticus (xviii. 7-17, xx. 11-21). According to this law a man may not marry his mother, stepmother, mother-in-law, father's sister, mother's sister, paternal uncle's wife, half-sister, stepsister (daughter of stepmother and her former husband), sister-in-law (brother's wife), living wife's sister, daughter-in-law, stepdaughter, granddaughter, or daughter of stepson or stepdaughter. It is clear that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is not forbidden, but it has been argued that the near relatives of the wife equally with those of the husband are within the forbidden degree to him and that, as the wife's mother and daughter are barred, so also, by analogy, is the wife's sister.

    From the same source, on INCEST ( http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=126&letter=I ) :

    Marriage or carnal commerce between persons of a close degree of consanguinity. Even in modern times the connotation of "incestuous" is not the same in all countries. Among primitive and barbarous races there is a still wider divergence. Nor has the opinion as to which marriages between relatives were incestuous and hence forbidden been constant at all times among the Israelites. The oldest customs were laxer in permitting marriages than was the law of the intermediary books of the Pentateuch. The marriage of the father with his own daughter (and therefore presumably also that of the son with his mother) was forbidden at all times as incestuous.

    If you disagree with the above, you disagree with the Bible. But that's common for JWs and Fundies.

    This source also states:

    The story of Lot, which might be construed as showing that even this relationship was allowed in Ammon and Moab (Gen. xix. 30 et seq.), reflects the antipathy of Israel, which regarded these peoples as born of an incestuous union.

    This confirms my earlier comment that the story of Lot was "an insulting spoof on the origin of the Moabites and Ammonites, designed to make two of Israel's worst enemies look foolish whenever the story was told around the campfire."

    So to sum it up: You putta you dickie inna pussy, you a-scewin. You letta guy putta he dickie inna you pussy, you a-screwin.

    AlanF

  • Narkissos
  • gumby
    gumby

    COITUS: physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also : INTERCOURSE 3 -- compare ORGASM

    ORGASM: : intense or paroxysmal excitement; especially : an explosive discharge of neuromuscular tensions at the height of sexual arousal that is usually accompanied by the ejaculation of semen in the male and by vaginal contractions in the female

    This is not only excellent information and an excellent argument against Jizzums statement(s), but it damn near gave me a woody just reading the definitions!

    Thanks Nark, and Alan for your work on this screwing/non-screwing argument.

    In all fairness to Schizm, I realise he was trying to say that Lot's daughters had good intentions, that being of perserving the linage of the family, rather than having a screw fest with dad. However, as has been shown, these girls should have been aware of the laws that governed such actions.

    As for Lot and his participation.....even if he truely WAS ignorant of what happened......since when does god make allowences for ignorance? He sure the hell didn't give Uzziah a break when he did his best to spare the Ark of the Covenant and touched it without thinking........yet Lot gets his arse recorded in Hebrews as one of the rightous pillars for all to imitate.

    Gumby

  • RunningMan
    RunningMan

    Now, the story of Uzzah and the Ark is another one that really illustrates God's consistancy.

    Good-intentioned Uzzah sees the Ark of the Covenant falling, and reaches out to steady it before it gets desecrated by a bunch of oxen. God instantly strikes him dead for his presumptuousness.

    Shortly after, the Phillistines manage to steal the Ark, take it back to their homeland, and keep the damn thing for seven months, presumably using it to hold their beer glasses. The only way for the Israelites to get the Ark back, was to get 'Hovah to smite the Phillistines with a nasty case of hemorrhoids. In other words, the Ark turned out to be such a pain in the ass that the Phillistines just gave it back. (1 Sam 5).

    Anyway, my point is, if touching the Ark was a capital offense punishable by instant death, then how were the Phillistines able to touch it?

  • gumby
    gumby
    Anyway, my point is, if touching the Ark was a capital offense punishable by instant death, then how were the Phillistines able to touch it?

    RM......how do you know they touched it?

    Gumby

  • Schizm
    Schizm
    Schizm said to Gumby:

    : They didn't "screw" their father. If you'd been paying attention you'd have known what I said earlier. I had said:

    :: Their objective was NOT the having of sex with their father, it was the need to get semen in order to have children of their own--semen that was unavailable from any other source.

    : Given their motive, I wouldn't describe them as having "screwed" their father.

    LOL! You really take the cake for rankly stupid apologetics! And here I thought the JWs were bad!

    Let's suppose that I've got a gun up beside your head, Alan, and I drop my pants and tell you to kiss my ass or else I'll blow what few brains you have out. Given the circumstances you're in, you comply because you cherish your life ... and you go ahead and kiss my ass. Now some time later, in telling the judge what had happened to you, you try to explain to him that you complied with my demands ONLY because of the circumstances you were in. He responds: "But you ACTUALLY kissed Schizm's ass! How gross!" You try to explain: "Not really. I only did it because of the circumstances." The judge looks at you, and says: "So what you're telling me is that your motive is what makes all the difference. You did but you didn't. You're saying that it wasn't because you WANTED to that you kissed ole Schizm's ass, it was because you HAD to ... and so in effect you REALLY didn't kiss Schizm's ass."

    Now have you really kissed my ass, or not, Alan?

    .

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Blow me, Schizm.

    At any rate, if you put a gun to my head and forced me to kiss your ass, then obviously I really would have kissed your ass. Motive has nothing to do with it. I might be punished for voluntarily kissing your ass, and I might not be punished if I were forced to, but I still would have kissed your ass.

    Similarly, according to the Bible, Lot's daughters had sex with / copulated with / screwed / performed coitus with / had sexual intercourse with their father. Period. Good or bad motives had nothing to do with that fact.

    Here's a good example to prove this obvious fact: Suppose an Israelite man had no living male relatives. He had no sons and two daughters. They both married, had no children, and became widows. Now, according to Jewish law, if the man had male relatives, they would be more or less obligated to perform levirate marriage with the daughters so as to continue the line of descent. But with no living male relatives, they were up a creek. Now suppose the daughters propose to their father that they have intercourse with him and get pregnant so as to continue the line of descent. They do this, and eventually the keepers of the Law see the babies and find out that the daughters had sex with their father. Would the three of them be guilty of incest? You betcha! Would all of them be under condemnation under the Law and subject to stoning? Of course! If you disagree, then you'll have to show where the Mosaic Law made an exception to the simple statements prohibiting incest that I quoted above.

    AlanF

  • Schizm
    Schizm

    Dumby,

    You told me to prove the Moabites and Ammonites were cast off by god and were his enemies and I supplied the scriptures to prove it. What more proof do you need? God didn't like those bastard incestous kids of Lot and his perverted daughters from the gitgo....admit it.....

    That's exactly what I took you to mean earlier. I'm glad to see that by your continuing to mutter that you've made it crystal clear what you were saying.

    Well, what you're claiming is not true, because God gave them lands of their own (and He told the Hebrews not to bother them):

    Jehovah said to me, 'Do not molest Moab or engage in war with them, because I shall not give you any of his land as a holding, for to the sons of Lot I have given Ar as a holding.--Deuteronomy 2:9.

    And again:

    ... and you must get close in front of the sons of Ammon. Do not molest them or engage in strife with them, because I shall not give you any of the land of the sons of Ammon as a holding, for it is to the sons of Lot that I have given it as a holding.--Deuteronomy 2:19.

    Now note:

    No Ammonite or Moabite may come into the congregation of Jehovah. Even to the tenth generation none of theirs may come into the congregation of Jehovah to time indefinite, for the reason that they did not come to your aid with bread and water in the way when you were going out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia to call down evil upon you.--Deuteronomy 23:3, 4.

    The above proves that the Moabites and Ammonites were NOT God's enemies in the beginning, from the "gitgo".

    Like I said previously, Dumby, you haven't gotten anything right YET! You really should just give up.

    .

    Edited to add the word "you" in the last quoted text.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    This reminds me of something I should have stated earlier: verse 31 is very probably the vestige of an old version of the story where the catastrophe is depicted as universal (as an alternative version of the Flood story). In this version Lot and his daughters are the only survivors on earth.

    Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world.

    In this early version of the story what is at stake is the survival of mankind. And there is no condemnation of anybody (instead perhaps a commendation of wine as the necessary means for salvation, as for the early Noah character, cf. 5:29). Anyway Lot's daughters are not blamed anymore than Tamar is in chapter 38.

    But in the present context of Genesis (where the catastrophe is clearly limited), the story is used disparagingly of the Moabites and Ammonites (although somewhat ambiguously, for it is also a way of relating them to Abraham).

  • Schizm
    Schizm

    Alan ... O Great One ... Hero and Savior of almost all who post on JWD, you can harp on as long as you wish with your claim that motive was irrelevant in the case of Lot's daughters, but your repeating what you've already said doesn't prove a thing.

    I'll tell you what, Why don't you go stick your head into the toilet and do the world a favor by pulling the little lever on the side of the tank.

    .

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit