Sodomy vs. The True Nature of Marriage

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Seven77' date='15 April 2010 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1271364264' post='2094208']
We did not know the reason behind West's suspension. KofC, the way you are pointing out his errors implies that they are the cause of the suspension. Point out the errors without calling West out (as the others here like Kam and HCF are doing). But you want to tar and feather the man because you "were right about West" and "can prove it."
[/quote]

Knight has criticized West for his ideas, he has not criticized West as a person. I think too many here are "implying" that Knight is making personal attacks against West, which is not the case.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1271361646' post='2094179']
Do you know for a fact that he was "suspended" for precisely his teachings, specifically on sodomy? Got reliable source?[/quote]

I did not state that it was specifically for his teachings on sodomy. But that it was precisely because of the problems he has had with his teachings, he is a 'teacher', that's what he does, that is what has got him in so much trouble now. Teaching error, or objectionable things.


[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1271361646' post='2094179']Spinning West's break from the speaking circuit as a suspension for his teachings would be an anti-West spin and could be interpreted as a personal attack on West. Without intimate knowledge of the situation and sources to back it, you shouldn't shape events to fit an agenda, which appears to me to tar and feather West.[/quote]

Yes, calling his leave a suspension would be anti-west, but it would be false to interpreted it as a personal attack. He's been ask to take 'time off' because of all the controversy he has caused lately.

[quote name='kamiller42' date='15 April 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1271361646' post='2094179']It's one thing to say "West taught X, Y, and Z. X, Y, and Z are wrong because..." and another to say "[West has been busted. This is no sabbatical! He is being suspended because his teachings were just so wrong. About time! Don't like that? You're just pro-West!]" Can you see how the former focuses on the issues and the latter is on the person?
[/quote]

Yes if how you've taken and twisted and made a mockery and an exaggeration of my opposition, and that mockery and an exaggeration would be a personal attack. Mockery is a personal attack. This is a temporary suspension of Mr. West's duties and he has chosen to spend the time in sabbatical. There were warning signs long before this suspension, and there are justifiable reasons for the suspension. If when I return from class I will keep my promise to Seven and provide other warning signs and errors of his teachings.

Edited April 15, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Hassan' date='15 April 2010 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1271364262' post='2094207']
Sorry. I'm not religious and I'm living in a dorm (I just mean that what I said was pretty innocent compared to what the normal standard of vulgarity is when you have four hundred teens/young adults living together). Sometimes I honestly just forget that the range of non-vulgar talk kind of shrinks here.
[/quote]
+JMJ+
not a problem.

[Seven77]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1271364632' post='2094210']
Knight has criticized West for his ideas, he has not criticized West as a person. I think too many here are "implying" that Knight is making personal attacks against West, which is not the case.
[/quote]

No... you've actually criticized West for his ideas commendably without attacking him as a person. Would that Knight would follow your example in this regard. Do not defend your friend needlessly--- this thread was created in bad taste and was very untimely. But do continue...

Edited April 15, 2010 by Seven77

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 04:50 PM' timestamp='1271364632' post='2094210']
Knight has criticized West for his ideas, he has not criticized West as a person. I think too many here are "implying" that Knight is making personal attacks against West, which is not the case.
[/quote]

Indeed, I have spent nearly half the time in this thread defending myself personally.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Seven77' date='15 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1271365279' post='2094218']
No... you've actually criticized West commendably without attacking him as a person. Would that he would follow your example. Do not defend your friend needlessly--- this thread was created in bad taste and was very untimely. But do continue...
[/quote]

I have not attacked his person or character it is a lie to state otherwise.

[Seven77]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='15 April 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1271365359' post='2094221']
I have not attacked his person or character it is a lie to state otherwise.
[/quote]

Your attitude indicates otherwise. This thread itself was originally an attack on West's character and integrity. Honestly ask yourself if it was--- If not well and good. We are Christians here.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Seven77' date='15 April 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1271365279' post='2094218']
No... you've actually criticized West for his ideas commendably without attacking him as a person. Would that Knight would follow your example in this regard. Do not defend your friend needlessly--- this thread was created in bad taste and was very untimely. But do continue...
[/quote]

Actually, I know little about West and have been discussing the immorality of anal penetration.

With that being said, I have not seen Knight make any personal attacks against West.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Seven77' date='15 April 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1271365655' post='2094224']
Your attitude indicates otherwise. This thread itself was originally an attack on West's character and integrity. Honestly ask yourself if it was--- If not well and good. We are Christians here.
[/quote]

Personal attack =/= attitude

Besides, on an internet forum, attitude becomes subjective.

[Socrates]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1271358520' post='2094152']
It was not [u]only[/u] rooted in the idea that the act causes women pain, but that the act degrades both persons. That it would cause her pain is just [u]one[/u] example of how it degrades a woman. I just listed one example. Although I did mention the positioning of the spouses for the act, which removes eye contact and physical embrace from the act, which again makes the woman the object and the man selfish (after his own interests).

As for a woman "enjoying" anal penetration, well I do not know how that is possible - biologically or psychologically.



My mistake, I mentioned it in the other thread that got closed.
[/quote]


[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1271362741' post='2094187']
Then perhaps spouses should question the [i]why[/i].

- Why have anal penetration as foreplay?
- Is the marital act not "satisfying" enough? If "yes" - why?
- Why risk mortal sin? (Since it is very likely the man will finish by accident; I said in the other thread that anal penetration is like a mockery of the marital act)
- Are your motives pure and selfless?



Yes, I believe these points have been brought up already.



Exactly. Since anal penetration is an unnatural sex act, it is disordered.



You're right. I know exactly what I think about oral sex but I'm not going to subject anyone to a three page rant.
[/quote]
Doesn't sound tremendously different from what Christopher West is saying:[quote]For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can't be overlooked. To begin with, the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive systems. Furthermore, since the anus and rectum are not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm.
Aesthetically speaking, such behavior involves contact with human waste, which is tolerated when necessary, but not something joyful, beautiful, and pleasing to both spouses. Is it truly loving to subject one's wife to health risks, not to mention the discomfort or even pain associated with such behavior?[/quote]

Seems everyone's essentially in agreement. This is much ado about nothing.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='15 April 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1271364098' post='2094205']
Why does it have to be from the last thirty years?
[/quote]
I'll take a guess. CMo will correct me if I am wrong or add to what I think is the reason.

The last 30 years is the bulk of the time for the release and examination of the modern understanding of sexuality known as the theology of the body. It does not disregard ancient texts, but gives a modern interpretation. It builds on them.

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1271365663' post='2094225']
Actually, I know little about West and have been discussing the immorality of anal penetration.
[/quote]
And thus, arguing against how some interpret West's stand on the issue. You haven't read West, but probably have seen KoC quote him on this matter.

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='15 April 2010 - 05:08 PM' timestamp='1271365732' post='2094227']
Personal attack =/= attitude
[/quote]
The attitude becomes a weapon when it causes one to make statements and claim them as "fact" when they are really unsubstantiated claims.

The facts as the public knows it is that West is taking a break to tend to family matters and retool his teaching methods. Would it be wrong for me to spin "tend to family matters" into a lie such as "West is being suspended because he cheated on his wife?" Is it a personal attack? Yes. My example spins the family matters reason. It is equally wrong to spin the retooling reason. Attacks are not limited to being direct ("West is a doo-doo face.").

Hassan asks an interesting question. What is your answer?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='15 April 2010 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1271364098' post='2094205']
Why does it have to be from the last thirty years?
[/quote]
No such restriction should be applied.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]Seems everyone's essentially in agreement. This is much ado about nothing. [/quote]

Yes, at the very most he is originally guilty of not being sure if one can objectively condemn the action, but he never accepts it as fully moral. Essentially stating "I'm not 100% sure we can say it is evil by its very nature, but here is a long list of reasons not to" is not the mark of a heretic.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Socrates' date='15 April 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1271366143' post='2094232']
Seems everyone's essentially in agreement. This is much ado about nothing.
[/quote]
I agree. Anal sex is immoral whether it is performed by two men or by a man and a woman.

[Apotheoun]

Wow. I got a negative point for saying that anal sex is immoral. Phatmass is in real trouble.