Sex Before Dinner, Does God Approve?

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Not to be uncouth about it, but why the exception here? I mean, it's not my concern, but curious why they feel the Bible makes an exception in the wedding bed activity on this manner?

I bet the speaker did talk about the one sexual topic all teenagers at youth camp have on their mind either.... the forbidden subject....

The idea was about God being against "Sodom," and the sexual act is called sodomy...

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Michael

The idea was about God being against "Sodom," and the sexual act is called sodomy...

I thought the sexual indecency was homosexual sex.

I wouldn't think God has something against that part of the body. (I do, but I wouldn't think God does).

The "sin of Sodom" has been long speculated.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I thought the sexual indecency was homosexual sex.

I wouldn't think God has something against that part of the body. (I do, but I wouldn't think God does).

The "sin of Sodom" has been long speculated.

The sin of Sodom is spelled out in Ezekiel 16:47-51.
The sexual term we designate as "sodomy" was just one of several wrongs.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Sam

The sin of Sodom is spelled out in Ezekiel 16:47-51.
The sexual term we designate as "sodomy" was just one of several wrongs.

Not reading anywhere in hear any prohibition about any kind of husband/wife sex:

"'The sin of your sister Sodom was this: She lived with her daughters in the lap of luxury—proud, gluttonous, and lazy. They ignored the oppressed and the poor. They put on airs and lived obscene lives. And you know what happened: I did away with them

Even KJV, ESV and NIV don't render any specific kind of sex act.

'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. 52 Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.

(Amazingly, God says Israel's sin here was far worse!)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

Not reading anywhere in hear any prohibition about any kind of husband/wife sex:

"'The sin of your sister Sodom was this: She lived with her daughters in the lap of luxury—proud, gluttonous, and lazy. They ignored the oppressed and the poor. They put on airs and lived obscene lives. And you know what happened: I did away with them

Even KJV, ESV and NIV don't render any specific kind of sex act.

'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. 51 Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. 52 Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.

(Amazingly, God says Israel's sin here was far worse!)

It doesn't mention the specific crimes but we know they were abominations
Eze 16:50 They were haughty and committed abominable crimes before me. So, when I saw it, I removed them.

Abominations include homosexual behavior under the law

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

...
Abominations include homosexual behavior under the law

Abominations under the law also included idolatrous practices, certain foods, blemished animals offered as sacrifices, remarrying an ex-wife, incorrect weights and measures, etc

[Socialite]

I wasn't defending homosexual relations. I was questioning the possible homophobic assumptions that a specific act between a man and his wife are "abominable" or even "the sin of Sodom."

Boy, this post may convince the Admin to start a Rating on each post! Ha! Definitely more PG here.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Sam

Abominations under the law also included idolatrous practices, certain foods, blemished animals offered as sacrifices, remarrying an ex-wife, incorrect weights and measures, etc

Right, now go read the story in genesis and see which ones they practiced

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I thought the sexual indecency was homosexual sex.

I wouldn't think God has something against that part of the body. (I do, but I wouldn't think God does).

The "sin of Sodom" has been long speculated.

It was called Sodomy. The abomination part is described and the pride, haughtiness, and others issues were in addition to the sodomy.


Most commentators and language scholars recognize this feature of Jude’s remark, as evinced by their treatment of Jude 7. For example, the New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines heteros in Jude 7 as “illicit” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 177). Williams identified “strange flesh” as “unnatural vice” (1960, p. 1023). Barclay wrote: “What the men of Sodom were bent on was unnatural sexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse, with Lot’s two visitors. They were bent on sodomy, the word in which their sin is dreadfully commemorated” (1958, p. 218). Alford correctly translated the Greek as “other flesh,” and defined the phrase as “[other] than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire” (1875, 4:533

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2596

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

It was called Sodomy. The abomination part is described and the pride, haughtiness, and others issues were in addition to the sodomy.


Most commentators and language scholars recognize this feature of Jude’s remark, as evinced by their treatment of Jude 7. For example, the New Analytical Greek Lexicon defines heteros in Jude 7 as “illicit” (Perschbacher, 1990, p. 177). Williams identified “strange flesh” as “unnatural vice” (1960, p. 1023). Barclay wrote: “What the men of Sodom were bent on was unnatural sexual intercourse, homosexual intercourse, with Lot’s two visitors. They were bent on sodomy, the word in which their sin is dreadfully commemorated” (1958, p. 218). Alford correctly translated the Greek as “other flesh,” and defined the phrase as “[other] than that appointed by God for the fulfillment of natural desire” (1875, 4:533

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2596

Homosexual intercourse seems to be what's in mind here, even in your commentary of Jude.

Don't see an appointed hole here.... sorry. If that's unnatural and defiled for a wedding couple, so is oral sex.