Sex Before Dinner, Does God Approve?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Michael

The marriage bed, but what about the dinner table or say the living room? Is that undefiled?

yeppers

don't know about the front porch, or the back yard, or the swimming pool though,
guess it depends on how private it is..

[Michael]

Originally Posted by Sam

yeppers

don't know about the front porch, or the back yard, or the swimming pool though,
guess it depends on how private it is..

: amen

[Michael]

Sam, what is your take on the story of Ruth....Where she goes to Boaz and uncovers his feet, while he was sleeping? This same speaker had a interpritation I had never heard...And lets just say it was like a Bill Clinton story....

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Michael

Sam, what is your take on the story of Ruth....Where she goes to Boaz and uncovers his feet, while he was sleeping? This same speaker had a interpritation I had never heard...And lets just say it was like a Bill Clinton story....

I honestly don't know what happened that night between them on the threshing floor. I don't read Hebrew so I don't know what the original says and the KJV would be careful how it is stated because of the morality of the that period when it was translated.

[crakjak]

There is a book out called, "Sex Begins in the Kitchen", those interested in this thread should read it, it is actually very good. LOL

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by Sam

I honestly don't know what happened that night between them on the threshing floor. I don't read Hebrew so I don't know what the original says and the KJV would be careful how it is stated because of the morality of the that period when it was translated.

That's a bold assumption that KJV interpreters would have "covered" for God in areas they disagreed with morally. I wonder if they included David and Bathsheba's indiscretion?

[Praxeas]

3:4 uncover his feet: Ruth would remove the edge of Boaz’s outer garment from his feet and lie down by his uncovered feet. Touching and holding his feet was an act of submission. This was a daring and dramatic action that would call for a decision on his part to be her protector—and, likely, her husband.

Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1997). The Nelson study Bible : New King James Version (Ru 3:4). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.


Some commentators suggest that what Ruth did presented an opportunity for immorality. But nothing in the passage supports this. Her mother-in-law had complete confidence in the integrity of the kinsman-redeemer. Boaz could be trusted to act responsibly. And Ruth was recognized by everyone as “a woman of noble character” (v. 11). The uncovering of the feet was a ceremonial act that was completely proper. Probably the scene took place in the dark so that Boaz had the opportunity to reject the proposal without the whole town knowing about it.

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Ru 3:7). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

[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!)

[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.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Michael

I don't know, I see it as an "exit" not an "entrance." I don't believe God intended that part of the human anatomy to be used for sexual activity. Animals don't even go there...

Animals don't??? You sure about that??

Either way, what you feel is not necessarily a reality.

If God has designated areas for sexuality, then you better not be a Monica Lewisnky-ite in your marriage bed either. And there goes much of foreplay as well.

Furthermore, tell that to the centuries of Greek culture that valued that in the marriage bed.