It is time to purge the Church of its heretics.

[whag]

I would like to quote from Sheet Music, as I alluded to it in the previous thread that was deleted, but I am not sure the quotation would be appropriate for a family site. However, his basic takeaway is that Song of Solomon seems to allude to oral sex, not in a negative manner, and that most biblical scholars believe that this plus an absence of a direct prohibition leave Christians who feel comfortable with it within marriage in a "safe" position religious wise. Obviously if somebody is not comfortable doing it they should not.

Did Solomon set the boundaries for what can be done in a marriage? Bill the Cat brings up a good point that Solomon was a scoundrel.

Some Christians enjoy anal sex, but I don't see any allusions to sodomy in Song of Solomon.

[KingsGambit]

Did Solomon set the boundaries for what can be done in a marriage? Bill the Cat brings up a good point that Solomon was a scoundrel.

Some Christians enjoy anal sex, but I don't see any allusions to sodomy in Song of Solomon.

At least based on my English reading, there seem to bee negative references to sodomy in general in the New Testament. I have not studied the issue or the word but it is at least possible these prohibitions apply heterosexually.

I don't remember offhand where these are.

[whag]

At least based on my English reading, there seem to bee negative references to sodomy in general in the New Testament. I have not studied the issue or the word but it is at least possible these prohibitions apply heterosexually.

I don't remember offhand where these are.

I don't understand the logic of that if true. If the prohibition is merely based on teleology, then oral sex within marriage should also be prohibited. Neither act is procreative!

It'd be strange if Solomon set the boundaries of what's sexually permissable within a marriage, particularly since he was an infidel of the highest order.

[KingsGambit]

I don't understand the logic of that if true. If the prohibition is merely based on teleology, then oral sex within marriage should also be prohibited. Neither act is procreative!

It'd be strange if Solomon set the boundaries of what's sexually permissable within a marriage, particularly since he was an infidel of the highest order.

I don't think anybody is arguing that Solomon set the boundaries. The argument is simply that Solomon's behavior, as depicted within the canon, is evidence that this particular boundary may not exist.

[Jedidiah]

Nope. If your wife hasn't used her breasts for anything other than feeding her children, you'll know what I'm getting at.

In human beings breasts on the female are what is known as secondary sexual characteristics. So they are indeed reproductively meaningful in humans, even before birth or pregnancy.

[whag]

In human beings breasts on the female are what is known as secondary sexual characteristics. So they are indeed reproductively meaningful in humans, even before birth or pregnancy.

The buttocks aren't reproductively meaningful, so I suppose they're off limits?

[Apologiaphoenix]

This is a much more biblical view in my opinion than one since-banned poster who implied based on 1 Corinthians 7 that a Christian could force intercourse with an unwilling spouse. The question isn't what you can do, it's what you and your spouse both want to do and marital love precludes trying to hurt the other.

Agreed, and at the same time, marriage is also about sacrificing for one another so I think even if a spouse doesn't feel like having sex, there are times they should be willing to put their feelings aside and have sex.

[Jedidiah]

I would like to quote from Sheet Music, as I alluded to it in the previous thread that was deleted, but I am not sure the quotation would be appropriate for a family site. However, his basic takeaway is that Song of Solomon seems to allude to oral sex, not in a negative manner, and that most biblical scholars believe that this plus an absence of a direct prohibition leave Christians who feel comfortable with it within marriage in a "safe" position religious wise. Obviously if somebody is not comfortable doing it they should not.

As Song of Solomon seems to suggest, sexual activity is definitely not always for procreative purposes.

[Jedidiah]

The buttocks aren't reproductively meaningful, so I suppose they're off limits?

Totally unrelated to what I was saying. You might better understand my position after reading the above post.

[MaxVel]

Whag is trolling on one of his two TWeb obsessions: sexual matters and evolution.

The Church is being destroyed, destroyed I tell you, because neither Paul nor Solomon wrote about anal sex inside marriage, and, worse still, they failed to teach evolutionary theory to overcome the obvious errors in Genesis.

</sarcasm>

[whag]

Whag is trolling on one of his two TWeb obsessions: sexual matters and evolution.

The Church is being destroyed, destroyed I tell you, because neither Paul nor Solomon wrote about anal sex inside marriage, and, worse still, they failed to teach evolutionary theory to overcome the obvious errors in Genesis.

</sarcasm>

No, rather I'm testing djbrock and Jedediah on their natural law views related to sex. And, yes, evolution has a lot to do with that, making the issue more ambiguous than they like.

[whag]

Totally unrelated to what I was saying. You might better understand my position after reading the above post.

But it must always involve the body parts that are "reproductively meaningful," whatever that means. You're not being entirely clear.

[whag]

Agreed, and at the same time, marriage is also about sacrificing for one another so I think even if a spouse doesn't feel like having sex, there are times they should be willing to put their feelings aside and have sex.

Or just sacrifice your feelings and do without intercourse. Queens are entitled to that.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Or just sacrifice your feelings and do without intercourse. Queens are entitled to that.

Sometimes a man has to, but for a man in marriage this is a need and biblically, I see it as commanded. Without sex in marriage, a man will feel undesirable and like he doesn't matter

I suspect we have these debates because people don't really think much about sex and its role in marriage.

[whag]

Sometimes a man has to, but for a man in marriage this is a need and biblically, I see it as commanded. Without sex in marriage, a man will feel undesirable and like he doesn't matter

I suspect we have these debates because people don't really think much about sex and its role in marriage.

If the deflection of advances is so frequent as to cause feelings of undesirability, the issues are much deeper than can be fixed by occasional sacrifice.