So I was reading mah Bible, and

[Brother Habbo]

So I was reading mah Bible, like you all told me to, and now I have a question. I'm getting married next month, and I was reading my Bible trying to find out if something was OK, cause it seems like it wouldn't be, but I can't find anything in the Bible that says no. I was hoping one of you learned pastors could help me.

Is it OK if I stick it in her pooper? I can't find anything in the Bible that says that I can only stick it in her vajayjay. I see where it says I can't let any of mah spooge land on the floor, but that's about it. In fact, if I understand I Cor 7:4 correctly, it means she HAS to let me put it in there even if she doesn't want to. Is that right?

Also, am I correct in taking I Cor 7:3 to mean that we have to give each other oral any time we want it? Cause I'm totally cool with that.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

There are those who say it's fine with Jesus.


But if I were you, I'd keep in mind that Jesus is watching, always watching, and do you really want to gross Him out like that?

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

I'm going to go with "no" on this one.

(Romans 1:28) "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."

Frankly, it also seems like am complete waste of time, since babies will not be a result, which is the whole reason for "knowing" a woman in the first place (no pun intended).

YiC,

Z. Smyth
Posted via Mobile Device

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

I think I speak for Jesus when I say that anal sex is disgusting and profane. Who but a homosexual would penetrate a woman's anus, when there is a perfectly good cooter only inches away? The cooter will produce babies, while the anus will only produce santorum.

[Born Again Bob]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

Dear Friend,

The function of a woman is to make babies and sandwiches. If you anally invade her, no babies will result. Worse yet, she may claim that it hurts too much to walk to the kitchen and make you sandwiches. At that point, she will cease to be a real woman, and may as well be a man. I.e., your sex will have been retroactively gay!

I do hope you're not asking us to condone retroactively gay sex.

Yours in Him,
BAB

[Rapture Eddie]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

A big NO to this one, Son.
Not only for the reasons already discussed by my Brothers in Christ but also because it's a surefire way to get yourself infested by Rectal Demons.

Why do you think Homo's are doomed to an eternity in Hell?

[Brother Habbo]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and



She's technically a virgin, which means she's saving her *virginity untill the wedding night, and her keep fresh seal is still in tact, but shes been letting me stick it in her ******, in her ******, and **************, as much as I want to.

How much trouble am I in with Jesus?

[HTannor]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

She's technically a virgin, which means she's saving her *virginity untill the wedding night, and her keep fresh seal is still in tact, but shes been letting me stick it in her ******, in her ******, and **************, as much as I want to.

How much trouble am I in with Jesus?

I don't have a real good feeling you're going to be "right with Jesus" on any of these since you're not married.




But I'm most troubled by your reliance on scripture for this one:

Also, am I correct in taking I Cor 7:3 to mean that we have to give each other oral any time we want it? Cause I'm totally cool with that.

If Corinthians really meant "oral", I'm pretty sure the Good Book would have been more direct in describing "benevolence" as an act of sexual sharing.

I'm of the opinion that passage relates more to the exchange of Christmas gifts.

[Kristin Marlow]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

She's technically a virgin, which means she's saving her *virginity untill the wedding night, and her keep fresh seal is still in tact, but shes been letting me stick it in her ******, in her ******, and **************, as much as I want to.

How much trouble am I in with Jesus?

[wait_what]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

I would say know. Romans 1:27 says if you leave the natural use of a woman, you will become a homer and burn with lust for another man.

I would also like to reference Titus 1:15

As mentioned, a wife is for making babies, sandwiches, and I will add in there pies.

Don't let your wife's rectum turn you into a man loving homer. Just say no.

[Born Again Bob]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

As mentioned, a wife is for making babies, sandwiches, and I will add in there pies.

Dear Friend,

I know you are well-intentioned, but in fact a pie is just a type of sandwich.

Yours in Him,
BAB

[HTannor]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

Dear Friend,

I know you are well-intentioned, but in fact a pie is just a type of sandwich.

Yours in Him,
BAB

Far be it from me to respectfully disagree, BAB, but when my law clerks, Dolly and Dotty, the Dingle sisters, present me with a tasty piece of their pie, I would never associate it with a "sandwich."

I think of a sandwich in terms of something containing tasty meat, and some sort of delicious condiment that makes it go down better.





On second thought, never mind.

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

Dear Friend,

I know you are well-intentioned, but in fact a pie is just a type of sandwich.

Yours in Him,
BAB

Indeed. The things my wife fetches for me fall into two categories: sandwiches and beers. I don't trust her with anything else that I would be handling, such as tools or razors. Sandwiches are defined as things she has to make, which includes pies obviously, while beers are defined as things for which preparation consists only in opening with a bottle opener.

[Wash O'Hanley]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

Hold on just a second. What kind of pie are you talking about, here? If we're talking about a cherry or peach or apple pie MAYBE I can go with you on this and say it's a sandwich. There's bread, filling, bread. That's a sandwich. But what about Shepard's and or Chicken Pot? Those are essentially a stew baked into a bread pocket. At this point it is also important to discuss the pudding-filled style of pie that has no upper crust. It is just bread and filling.

I assert that the latter two examples do not fulfill the bread-filling-bread requirement of a standard sandwich. Have you ever seen a stew-filled sandwich? If you tried to pick it up it'd spill all over the place and make a big mess. In order for it to be a sandwich I say one must be able to eat it comfortably by hand.

Now one could argue that such sandwiches exist that do not conform to the bread-filling-bread matrix: the so-called "open face" sandwich. These are sandwiches that not only do not have the top piece of bread, but are also often covered in some sort of gravy to an extent that one cannot eat it without making a mess, but I attest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that these alleged "open face" sandwiches are nothing more than an anomaly and as such their existence does not open the door for pies to be classified as sandwiches.

Frankly I don't even know why we're having this conversation and the idea that it was even brought up in the first place is disappointing-- why would you want to stick it in her butt in the first place, man?

[Billy Bob Jenkins]

Re: So I was reading mah Bible, and

Hold on just a second. What kind of pie are you talking about, here? If we're talking about a cherry or peach or apple pie MAYBE I can go with you on this and say it's a sandwich. There's bread, filling, bread. That's a sandwich. But what about Shepard's and or Chicken Pot? Those are essentially a stew baked into a bread pocket. At this point it is also important to discuss the pudding-filled style of pie that has no upper crust. It is just bread and filling.

I assert that the latter two examples do not fulfill the bread-filling-bread requirement of a standard sandwich. Have you ever seen a stew-filled sandwich? If you tried to pick it up it'd spill all over the place and make a big mess. In order for it to be a sandwich I say one must be able to eat it comfortably by hand.

I certainly respect every man to run his house as he chooses, and that includes the kitchen, however indirectly. But this talk of the handiness of sandwiches is just ludicrous! There is no size limitation put on sandwiches. What if your wife was to make you a sandwich that was so large it took up the whole kitchen and had to be cut up before it could be eaten in front of the television? She would be beaten for wasting time and money, but not for failing to fix a sandwich! And you certainly would not say she had prepared a pie instead.

Now one could argue that such sandwiches exist that do not conform to the bread-filling-bread matrix: the so-called "open face" sandwich. These are sandwiches that not only do not have the top piece of bread, but are also often covered in some sort of gravy to an extent that one cannot eat it without making a mess, but I attest to you, ladies and gentlemen, that these alleged "open face" sandwiches are nothing more than an anomaly and as such their existence does not open the door for pies to be classified as sandwiches.

I submit that you have failed to adequately address the implications of the existence of open face sandwiches. The fact that we can observe an open face sandwich in nature demonstrates that not all sandwiches are handy, as you previously asserted, and some are in fact eaten in the same fashion as pies -and you have already conceded that these specimens are sandwiches. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Frankly I don't even know why we're having this conversation and the idea that it was even brought up in the first place is disappointing-- why would you want to stick it in her butt in the first place, man?

He is clearly a reprobate sinner whom God has stricken with homosexual urges.

Romans 1:26-27,32
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.