Pat Robertson Discusses Oral Sex

by (▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪) Posted 2012/03/15 18:46:37

More polls by (▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪)

Hawk 2012/03/19 17:00:50

+1
Maybe he should ask the expert Bill Clinton or even Hillary.

reply
clasact 2012/03/18 05:41:12

+1
what the hell would he know about it unless he was paying for it

reply
RS 2012/03/18 03:05:00

+1
Actually it was well put and I agree. I expected something far more conservative. Well put Pat.

reply
Brightsprite62 2012/03/18 00:56:07

+1
Hey someone felt the need to know the answer. It's not like this subject is taboo. My mother once taught a class in church about what the bible says about sex. It was a subject a lot of young members of the church said they found very informative.

reply
Erok 2012/03/17 00:35:04

+1
Well well well.....this topic certainly is a mouthful.... ;)

reply
zebsmom 2012/03/16 18:57:44

+1
Ok. That was creepy on so many levels.
Interesting argument though.
Taken out of context, it could be a very slippery slope when you think about it. What about a sociopath killing someone? "If it's a sin in your mind, it's a sin, if it's not, then it's ok." Um. What if murder's not a sin in your mind.... Just sayin'

reply
RS to zebsmom 2012/03/18 03:07:37

Well...I am sure I will get debated on this however, I was always taught that if you are "TRULY" not in your right mind...then no sin is comitted and when you think about it...It makes sense. What fairness would there be if a sick person were judged equal to a person who is of right mind.

reply
zebsmom to RS 2012/03/19 17:50:39 (edited)

True, but that's where the lines between developmental delay, mental illness and sociopathy get really interesting. Many, if not most, criminals are sociopaths. Sociopathy isn't a mental illness as such, it's just a total disregard for anyone other than themselves or society's rules. Thus, in their mind, there isn't ever a sin.

reply
RS to zebsmom 2012/03/20 04:02:12

+1
Of course but that is a specific mental illness and there are many others.

reply
zebsmom to RS 2012/03/20 22:03:40

True. It was just one of the thoughts bouncing around in my head when I listened to his explanation of what sin was.

reply
rikonjohn 2012/03/16 18:22:35

+1
Pat Robertson discussing oral sex at . . . Oral Roberts?

reply
AmyMah 2012/03/16 08:42:16

+1
Oral Sex? er is talking about it oral sex?

reply
Guru_T_Firefly 2012/03/16 05:23:22

+2
Pat Robertson discussing oral sex? Won't he burn in his imaginary hell for doing that?

reply
Wonder Woman 2012/03/16 04:18:59
Rupnarator to Wonder ... 2012/03/16 05:06:58

+2
Considering the mouth is the most bacteria rich area of the body, seems like men are doing the bowing.

reply
Wonder ... to Rupnarator 2012/03/16 05:14:57
Mark Twain 2012/03/16 03:55:42

I think our president should speak out on this subject...maybe get Castro Sustine to pass a regulation about this horrendous act and have all sex organs covered up. Thats why they make women wear veils in the Middle east. I bet Barry opposes oral sex.

reply
mikey 2012/03/16 03:34:28

+1
OH WOW HHMMMMM

reply
TaurusNYC 2012/03/16 03:11:35

+1
Asking PR for advice on sex is like asking Stephen Hawking for advice on bowling technique.

reply
Flea 2012/03/16 02:37:06

+2
This is just WRONG- "Pat Robertson" and "oral sex" are mutually exclusive terms that do not belong ANYWHERE near each other in a sentence.
I swear, my retinas started to sting at the sight....

reply
Freedom 2012/03/16 01:51:20

+1
It's hard to answer with your mouth is full. har har

reply
RobertRowe 2012/03/16 01:47:42

+1
he should know plenty about it since he goes to 'bohemian grove' where they hump eachother and rape boys like comedian sheldon anderson talks about regarding the banned(by the u.s. government) documentary 'conspiracy of silence'!

reply
Kashee 2012/03/15 23:53:54

+2
I had to hear that one!

reply
Bill Rind 2012/03/15 22:24:17

+1
He gave a very poor answer, its not whats in your mind that's the sin, it's what the scripture states is a sin. God states the marriage bed is not to be defiled in anyway in other words not with filthy sex and gadgets. You are to honor the marriage bed and what it stands for.

reply
cellophane to Bill Rind 2012/03/16 02:56:08

+2
Wow! You must have a translation that I've never read. Can you define from the Bible "filthy sex"? Thanks.

reply
Wonder ... to cellophane 2012/03/16 04:21:53
Guru_T_... to Wonder ... 2012/03/16 05:40:46

+1

reply
cellophane to Wonder ... 2012/03/17 00:56:11

>>>For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins (Living without skill), led away with DIVERS LUST (Dr. Kinsey), Ever learning (Philosophy students), and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.<<<

I want to know what translation you're using. None of the ones I read through contained anything about Dr. Kinsey or philosophy students.

>>>But woe to them that are with child (single mothers, lazy fathers), and to them that give suck (BLOW JOBS) in those days! Mark 13:17<<<

Boy, ,somebody sold you a bill of goods when they explained these texts to you, didn't they? What is the context of Mark 13? The context is about trouble approaching and a warning for those who would heed Jesus' teachings to flee for their lives! If you're on the rooftop, don't even go down into your house. If you're in the field, don't go back to where you left your cloak. And pray that your flight is not in the winter when you are not sheltered against the elements. And there will be woe (great distress; look it up in the dictionary - it doesn't mean they'll be lost or cursed) for those who are with child (pregnant women) and to them who give suck (women nursing their babies). Why so great distress? This wasn't a day and age of automobiles. If you didn't even go aft...

>>>For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins (Living without skill), led away with DIVERS LUST (Dr. Kinsey), Ever learning (Philosophy students), and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.<<<

I want to know what translation you're using. None of the ones I read through contained anything about Dr. Kinsey or philosophy students.

>>>But woe to them that are with child (single mothers, lazy fathers), and to them that give suck (BLOW JOBS) in those days! Mark 13:17<<<

Boy, ,somebody sold you a bill of goods when they explained these texts to you, didn't they? What is the context of Mark 13? The context is about trouble approaching and a warning for those who would heed Jesus' teachings to flee for their lives! If you're on the rooftop, don't even go down into your house. If you're in the field, don't go back to where you left your cloak. And pray that your flight is not in the winter when you are not sheltered against the elements. And there will be woe (great distress; look it up in the dictionary - it doesn't mean they'll be lost or cursed) for those who are with child (pregnant women) and to them who give suck (women nursing their babies). Why so great distress? This wasn't a day and age of automobiles. If you didn't even go after your cloak, you didn't take time to prepare your donkey for travel - you were going to be fleeing on foot! A woman well along in her pregnancy or having to worry about keeping a baby fed while hoofing it out of danger was going to have trouble.
(more)

reply
Wonder ... to cellophane 2012/03/17 03:30:51
cellophane to Wonder ... 2012/03/17 15:26:17

+1
>>>Jesus spoke in parables, so why are you making them literal?<<<

>>>None of them holding the knowledge of truth, leading silly women (women that have courage to obey!) into divers lust, marrying and given in marriage (many sexual partners). That drastically changes the meaning of the word suck.<<<

Why is it that when Jesus is predicting Titus' army surrounding Jerusalem, you take it as a parable about sex, while when he talks about lust and marrying and giving in marriage, you take it as literal? Methinks thou'rt overly concerned with sex, my good lady. ^_^

reply
Wonder ... to cellophane 2012/03/17 15:52:06
cellophane to Wonder ... 2012/03/17 16:33:05

+1
>>>"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5<<<

"And". Do you see the word "and"? That is a conjunction - it joins two things together, and they do not have to be identical things! Two different things being addressed here. It can properly be restated in English as: "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth. He also saw that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." This is not evidence that there is an inner earth and an outer earth. But you are correct in that God watches both actions and thoughts and motives.

>>>You are aware that there are TWO Jerusalems?

"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Gal 4:26<<<

Of course there is. The New Jerusalem is the one that John saw coming down from God out of heaven.

>>>Jesus never had sex! He would have had to identify with this world, which the story shows, he did not serve this world, and even said, I am not of this world.<<<

Are you sure Jesus never had sex? Are you sure He never married? The books in the authorized Bibles are very quiet on that subject. There are reasons that I believe it likely that He was married, but that is only supposition, and I don't c...

>>>"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen 6:5<<<

"And". Do you see the word "and"? That is a conjunction - it joins two things together, and they do not have to be identical things! Two different things being addressed here. It can properly be restated in English as: "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth. He also saw that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." This is not evidence that there is an inner earth and an outer earth. But you are correct in that God watches both actions and thoughts and motives.

>>>You are aware that there are TWO Jerusalems?

"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Gal 4:26<<<

Of course there is. The New Jerusalem is the one that John saw coming down from God out of heaven.

>>>Jesus never had sex! He would have had to identify with this world, which the story shows, he did not serve this world, and even said, I am not of this world.<<<

Are you sure Jesus never had sex? Are you sure He never married? The books in the authorized Bibles are very quiet on that subject. There are reasons that I believe it likely that He was married, but that is only supposition, and I don't consider supposition to be a sound basis for theology.

I agree that Jesus was not "of this world". But you have made a leap that I've never seen the Bible address. He ate, he drank, (the Bible doesn't talk about his body eliminations, but one would assume that happened as well), He attended parties - even provided the wine for one of them, He had very close friends that He visited with (and even raised one of them from the dead). Can you show me Biblically that marriage and sexual activity would somehow make Him "of this world" when all the activities that we know He was involved in did not make Him "of this world"?
(more)

reply
Wonder ... to cellophane 2012/03/17 17:42:06
cellophane to Wonder ... 2012/03/18 17:58:55

+1
I'm not certain which of us has opened the can of worms! lol

>>>Satan rules the outer world, which God gave him to rule when he created the foundations of the earth (Jer 5:22).<<<

There is nothing in Jer 5:22 that says God gave the world to Satan to rule. It is apparent that we really have nothing to discuss. I believe the Bible is forthright - it says what it means and it means what it says - with the exception of where it specifically says it's a parable, or in the case of prophecy, and God has given us a "decoder ring" to understand those parts. You seem to think the entire Bible is a code for something different from what it says. Without a common approach to our basis of discussion, we really cannot discuss it at all.

Until next round.... ;)

reply
Wonder ... to cellophane 2012/03/18 18:16:21
Bill Rind to cellophane 2012/03/16 14:26:56 (edited)

+1
Let me try to explain to you what defilement is,.
Defilement is to make unclean or impure: as
a : to corrupt the purity or perfection of : debase
b : to violate the chastity of
c : to make physically unclean especially with something unpleasant or contaminating
d : to violate the sanctity of : desecrate
e : sully, dishonor:

If you cannot understand something so simple as to the word defilement ,then all I can say to you is , you love your sin and there is nothing I can show you or prove that will change your mind. you are stuck in your filth and may God help you,

reply
Wonder ... to Bill Rind 2012/03/16 14:51:25
Bill Rind to Wonder ... 2012/03/16 23:08:00

What do you mean polluting the womb, and the CDC is no nerve center anylonger for health facts, they have become liars just like the fraud in the White house. If our offspring are becoming sickly it's not from the pregnanacy it's from the spraying in the air above us and the bad GMO food that is being grown and sold to the unsuspecting idiot americans. this is whats making very many people ill including children, this is our government in action looking to kill as many americans as they can.

reply
Wonder ... to Bill Rind 2012/03/17 00:27:53
cellophane to Bill Rind 2012/03/17 01:16:37

But you haven't shown me that oral sex fits into the category of "debase". And chastity has to do with total abstinence. And I'm not sure how pleasuring my spouse causes her dishonor.

But I could be wrong, so I looked up the word "defile" throughout the Bible. Most had to do with idols and desecrating the temple of God. One had to do with eating things that crawl on the earth. One had to do with defiling the temple with that which is unclean. But unclean is well defined in the Bible, and oral sex is not mentioned. The only sexual context for "defile" that I could find was not to defile one's self with his neighbor's wife.

So if the Bible does not specify oral sex as being a defilement or debase, then it's purely your own bias that causes you to categorize it as such. Since it doesn't go AGAINST the Bible, such bias is fine - but you shouldn't go around preaching it as gospel.

reply