Your sexual foundation

Scroll © Ke77kz |
Seems legit …

“Given the propensity of human traditions to multiply and block the truth, it is important for believers to be sure that their practice of church is built on the correct foundation.” ~ Jon Zens

Jon was talking about how one “does church” there, but I think he states a basic truth we must remember when dealing with any subject – including sex. Have you ever thought about all the things you have been told the Bible says about sex? Have you ever gone to the effort to see if those things are actually in the Bible? Have you looked at the “proof texts” people give for sexual limits or “freedoms”, to see if that’s really what those verses mean?

I’ve spent a couple of decades checking what I was taught. I have done the same with the multitude of claims I get via email. I have concluded much of our “traditional” teachings about sex are at best distortions of what the Bible actually says.

If your sexuality is based on wrong teaching about what the Bible says about sex, then your married sex life is built on a bad foundation. Anything built on a bad foundation is going to have problems, so I strongly suggest a foundation check! What do you and your bride think the Bible says about sex? Can you support those ideas using proper application of scripture? If you read those verses without having been told what they mean, would you see in them what you have been told they say? Have you limited something more than God does? Have you allowed something God has limited? Maybe you have done some of each!

I’d be happy to discuss specific things in the comments, but I want to leave this open so you and your bride can study and learn together.

Links may be monetised
Image Credit: © Ke77kz |

Shop to give links page

40 Comments on “Your sexual foundation

  1. He wants oral sex to be something they share together. She wants nothing to do with it. The bible does not speak against it, may even refer to it. She thinks he’s demanding her to do things she is uncomfortable with. He thinks she has unilaterally decided to limit their intimacy. Both are looking for biblical truth in the situation and feel they have found justification for their position. The practical application is?

    • Love Letters – First they need to discuss the issue of sin. If she thinks it is, that is that, as doing what we THINK is sin is wrong for us even if it’s not sin.

      The second issue is her feeling it’s demanding her to do something she is uncomfortable with. Demanding may not be the right word, but if she is uncomfortable with it then he is asking her to do something with which she is uncomfortable. There are two sides to this – that love does not press for something uncomfortable, and that love does stretch itself to give even when that giving is uncomfortable. Ideally he gets to the place where he is okay with it never happening, and he stops asking, while she gets to the place of offering it out of love.

      • Hit that on right on the nose Paul. My wife and I have done exactly that. Both of us have made the sacrifice. She is now willing to offer, and I am completely okay without it. It took 7 years to get there, but it was definitely worth it.

  2. Verify the biblical foundations? Let’s look at oral sex in SOng – the only place where it could be claimed.

    SS 2:3 and 4:12,16

    First passage: the context – like an apple tree is her man among the young men; she delights to sit in his shade and his fruit is sweet to her taste. This is all metaphorical, for a man is not a tree, one cannot stand in the shade of one man and a person doesn’t have fruits (not the reproduction cells). So, there isn\t much about oral sex here, is it?

    The second passage: his virgin bride is compared to a locked garden because of her virginity; she has many qualities as the spices he mentions, but they are all locked because she is virgin; she wants him to enter his garden and taste its fruits – the metaphorical image of losing her virginity with her groom.
    Again, what is it to say about oral?

    How could one see these texts as speaking of fruits as oral genital stimulation?

    The main argument against oral sex is it is UNNATURAL – not in the same way a condom is unnatural. A condom is still used during vaginal penetration so remains in the natural God’s design for sex. But ejaculating in another organ than vagina or during night = releases (for virgin males) IS UNNATURAL. So I would say: Christian spouses, there is so much beauty and excitement IN the NATURAL design of God for sex – you don’t need oral, or sex toys or mutual masturbation for the sake of simply orgasm.

    There is so much more to that.

    • E – Fruit was a well-known metaphor for the genitals when the Song was written, so assuming these passages discuss oral sex is not a stretch, but rather the first and most obvious thought that would have come to the minds of the original audience. This is not my opinion, but rather that of a great many scholars who know Hebrew.

      As to “natural” I have no idea what you are basing that on – I certainly don’t find anything in the Bible that says this. So called “natural law” actually originated from Greek pagan thought, not from anything Christian. The early church fathers saw Stoicism as “pagan philosophy”. Sadly some parts of Stoic doctrine did get pulled into the church over time, including many elements of natural law.

      That aside, the problem with natural law is that it tends to use animals as determining what is “natural”. God says we are different from animals, so I find this improper. Besides, oral stimulation of the genitals turns out to be very common amount animals, and a few species won’t make unless this is included – so if we do go by “natural law” then oral sex is certainly accepted.

  3. Maybe you can quote some scholar sources for the fruit as genitals. I have studied also this, I haven’t found that explanation!

    What would have had Jesus in mind when He said the tree is known by its fruits, as also the man is known by the same?

    Even if “”fruit”” would be a general accepted metaphor in that time of history, the CONTEXT is the most important in the text and as I explained, the context is clear – there is an allusion to losing virginity and both man and woman are compared to vegetal items. It cannot go any further by common sense and by correct interpretation. To be sincere, except for you, the bloggers that advocate “”Christian marriage sexuality”” I have never heard of the Song interpreted literally to mean it claims oral sex!

    As for natural – read again what I said. I haven’t referred to natural law, but to the NATURAL DESIGN for sex coming from God. Anything that disturbs, counterfeit or significantly furthers from this is wrong and disturbing and ultimately is called SIN. The sexual act is designed by God to be penetration into vagina, period. Maybe some oral stimulation can be done if both agree but to ejaculate in the mouth is against the design of sex, period – it’s a distortion of it.

    As for biology, maybe you can quote some studies about animals using oral stimulation! I am a scientist and I have known only of smelling the genitals (and using the pheromones) for pairing animals. Maybe some even lick themselves and one another, but certainly the sexual act doesn’t consist of that: because they penetrate and fecundate the female so the species perpetuates.

    So even the animals don’t use these perverted acts as oral sex. But even if they were, we are not animals, we are created in God’s image, so we should have the highest standards as His children. Again, I am asking you: is not enough for you the design of God for sex through penetration? Do you feel the need to add oral sex, masturbation, sex toys etc to feel more? Ask yourself why, and ask yourself how do all these honor God who created sex?

    To me, you don’t get “”enough”” by the natural design of sex with penetration and you, folks, are too preoccupied with only the orgasm, which I would say it’s almost an IDOL even among Christians (for some it is indeed an idol and a master).

    • E, I agree with you that interpreting the passages in Song of Songs as alluding to oral sex seems like a bit of a stretch. I see it as a reasonable interpretation, but it is not the most straightforward one to me. As I see it, the word “taste”, like “fruit” is also used metaphorically. It represents experiencing sex, but the kind of sex is left to the imagination…

      That said, I think that as the Bible does not speak against oral sex, it is legit if included as part of a loving, married sex life. Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not oral sex is appropriate, but ultimately the choice will be left to each couple. It’s true that oral sex can become an idol (either in terms of having it or refusing to have it because of personal preferences), but I think Paul addressed this well in his first comment, to Love Letters.

      Your position that the wife’s vagina is the only legitimate place to ejaculate leaves open lots of questions… What about using oral sex as foreplay before penetrative sex? What about a husband performing oral sex on his wife? What about his wife bringing him to orgasm with her hands?

    • E – While not all scholars see the references as being to oral sex, it very common. As such, I wonder how you have not seen it. As a quick link, see Sexual Allusions and Symbols in the Song of Songs.

      You keep talking about natural design, but you have not given me any basis for what you say that means. Where in the Bible are the limitations you suggest? If they are not in the Bible, where do they come from, and how can you say they are God’s rules?

      God made our bodies, and He gave us both the ability and desire to climax. I don’t see downplaying that aspect of sex as being in keeping with God’s design. Certainly one can become to focused on any single aspect of sex, but that does not change what God clearly intended.

      As to animals and oral sex, bonobos do it frequently, both ways, and it has been found that in at least one species of fruit bat (short-nosed fruit bat Cynopterus sphinx) it is common for the female to do it to the male. Big horn sheep engage in oral sex that results in ejaculation.

      • I have checked the link and these are the least hilarious and the most out of line: 2:6, 4:4, 4:13, 5:2 etc etc.

        As I said in a previous post – which you seem to not pay attention much – find BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES done by scholars and theologians not by so called Christian authors that are so biased to make the Bible say what they want it to say. These authors have no sound background or training whatsoever but write as if they were specialists in the topic – as far as I know Dillow even agrees with anal sex.

        As for the natural design of sex, I am sorry I cannot help you define the term. Do you need a verse to say P in V?

        How do you judge things to be appropriate or common sense or godly if things are not clear for you?

        Do you teach your children to pee in public? Or show their underwear in public? Or other things…etc etc?

        From Romans where Paul speaks about homosexuals (using anything but vaginal penetration – in fact oral sex, masturbation, anal sex, toys etc etc) one can find guidelines about the natural design of God for sex. As well as from the zoo-phylia arguments (sex with another species).

        This needs more than explicit lines – it requires wisdom from above and spiritual discernment – I cannot help you (you need to go to God for that !). If you think it’s ok, appropriate and godly to “”e| into the mouth, the anus, a pot or any other open place, I cannot convince you to think otherwise. But I am warning you of being in danger: to be so much hardened and darkened by your own desires, that you cannot recognize truth anymore when told.

      • As for other animals….a specie does kill the male after fecundation / sexual intercourse. So what? Is that relevant?

        As I said, even if ALL the ANIMALS would use oral stimulation, it doesn’t automatically apply to humans created in God’s image and especially to His children. God has one purpose in mind with the animals and quite another with His children.

  4. So that you don’t take my word on this interpretation – see for example NEW BIBLE COMMENTARY edited by Wenham, Motyer, DA Carson, France (1994, 2010 etc) and any other sound biblical commentary that is edited by prestigious societies – they do have Song interpreted literally but in the passages mentioned it is explained it has not to do with oral sex. I have commented before checking this, but they present similar explanations as mine – it must be common sense, knowing the heart of God in the matter and just plain literary analysis of the text since I am not a theologian nor a scholar (nor Hebrew/Greek professor) as the editors are.

    Regarding your question, I agree – everyone is free to choose its behavior in bed – if anyone wants to kiss some intimate parts (such as genitals and butt) so be it.

    The perspective changes depending on the definition of sex: if sex is all about orgasm, then anything that helps that would be ok. If sex means intimacy through intercourse/penetration, then any kind of stimulation is a foreplay, a prelude to the actual penetration and would have a secondary role. But I am guessing that people who are that much preoccupied with orgasm as in practicing all kinds of things (mutual masturbation, orgasmic massage, sex toys) make an idol out of pleasure and orgasm.

    A question to think about: if orgasm is the climax and goal of sexual marital experience, why would a couple do anything else except mutual masturbation, oral sex, and use sex toys to orgasm, and really have penetration sex only when they want to conceive – meaning only several times in a lifetime? Why would they still have penetration sex? They can orgasm only with their hands or mouths or toys….so why have penetration sex?

    Why would they feel the deepest intimacy through penetration’s way ? I know it is because it is the design of God for sex – it is even an anatomical form in which they feel and are indeed connected and fit as a one flesh unit.

    So, maybe these principles would ease our spiritual discernment regarding all kinds of sexual practices within Christian marriage.

  5. E – Clearly we are not going to agree here A few points to wrap it up for me.

    Whether or not SoS mentions oral sex or not is not really importnat. The fact is there is absolutely no biblical prohibition of the act – at least not if you stick to good hermeneutics. So, calling it sin, or even wrong, is adding to the rules – the very thing for which Jesus condemned the Pharisees. Given that God told us to avoid sex with animals, something very obvious to me, I can’t understand why He would not mention oral sex if, in fact, He didn’t want us to do it. God does not hide the truth, He tells us what is right and wrong.

    You keep talking about the “natural design of sex” but you can’t give me a definition, much less any scriptural backing. As far as I can tell, it’s build on circular reasoning.

    The reason people tend towards PiV sex is that it is the most enjoyable emotionally, mentally, relationally and physically. God made it that way, and science has proven it’s true. But this in no way precludes other forms of stimulation for foreplay or to climax. I think a couple who have little or no interest in PiV have issues they need to deal with, but that’s another issue.

    Dillow never said anything that can be interpreted “agreeing with” anal sex. She advises against it for medical reasons, but won’t call it sin since the Bible does not (we should take great care in adding to what the Word says).

    I could cite many other sources, but I suspect anyone who does not agree with what you think won’t be seen as unbiased or “sound biblical commentary” in your eyes. That something about sex is uncommon in Christian literature does not mean as much as you might think. Frankly there has been a huge fear of sex in the church, and especially in Christian publishing. I know several authors who fought and lost battles with their publisher on things they wanted to say about sex. What makes it to print is filtered, although that is becoming less true now that one can self publish more easily.

    • Thank you for your response.

      As I said, scholars and theologians do interpret SS literally, and quite liberally these days, but not the way your given link does – that is more than a misuse of the text, and no good hermeneutics at all (that would be taking into account the fact that these are metaphors that do not translate word by word like suggested in this link). I am no-one for you to consider my opinion – if you really are interested on the truth of the matter, just study the scholars of this text and see what they honestly see there – if you quote sex-writers, of course they see what they want to see for they do have an agenda. I honestly tried to find out the truth about the topic (no prejudices or biased ideas), and this is what I found after all the spiritual process involved (prayer, study, Holy Spirit involvement and discernment).

      Again, if someone wants to kiss butts as foreplay, it is their choice according to their own values and conscience – and own understanding.

      But I really cannot explain to you the natural: some laws in nature you observe and see that they are natural – like gravity. Only the fact of anatomy and physiology and our male/female whole creation would be more than ENOUGH to understand what is NATURAL in God’s eyes regarding intimacy (the most explicit, the anatomical fitting of our bodies so that they become ONE UNIT).

      I posed a question in another comment – please answer: if this is the case with oral, anal, mutual masturbation, toys etc – why would any couple use penetration, except when they do want to conceive??? following this mindset, I do absolutely see no reason why…you get to O much faster and easier using these “”methods”” …

      • E,
        You wrote, “why would any couple use penetration, except when they do want to conceive??? following this mindset, I do absolutely see no reason why…you get to O much faster and easier using these “”methods”” …”

        Most people seem to prefer intercourse most of the time even if they also choose to use their hands or mouth to pleasure their spouse at times. Why? Well, for my wife and I, intercourse feels more intimate than the the alternatives. I feel emotionally closer to her after having intercourse than I do after “outercourse”, even though I have an orgasm either way. Sex is not all about orgasm, no matter what form it takes (oral or otherwise). There is great emotional fulfillment and relationship bonding as well, sometimes even without orgasm. That said, while orgasm isn’t everything, it is a very important something. Sex where one partner regularly does not climax stinks.

        • Agree. I know that, I was raising the question for Paul and all that advocate so intensely things to get to O – orgasmic massage, mutual masturbation, oral sex, sex toys etc.

          I think the intercourse has this results because it was God’s purpose to bond all these ways and give fulfillment. And again, if this is the main purpose and design for sex, the rhetorical question is why so much obsessive emphasis on outward techniques to go to O?

        • Don’t find paragraph to really answer my question, but it is more than ok – it may be rhetorical, just think about these in more depth …..

          “”But this in no way precludes other forms of stimulation for foreplay or to climax. I think a couple who have little or no interest in PiV have issues they need to deal with, but that’s another issue.”” Why? Do give answers.

          For me it is a clear contradiction if a couple uses orgasmic massage instead of penetration. These things are not all – inclusive! I agree, some forms of stimulation are more than wellcomed, but where do you draw the line? This was basically the issue/ question in the first place. How do you discern where to draw the line – what stimulation is appropriate and which one distorts the very meaning of the intimate act? If the most fulfilling is the inside act, why bother and focus and obsess so much about the outward O (which can be obtained through p anyway)? The only reason tat comes to my mind is …O and pleasure are indeed idols and master the person.

          Be careful what you do advocate as “””marriage ministry”” and Christian marriage sexuality – we will all be accountable to God for what we say, teach others, “minister”.

  6. E – God did not “draw a line” here, which means lines in this area are things drawn by men. That leads to legalism as we add rules on top of rules. Given that Jesus condemned that, and those who did it, I find it something to avoid. You are very right that we are accountable to God for what we teach – and that includes teaching limits that He did not set. Jesus was far harder on the legalistic than those who may have expressed too much liberty. Both are wrong, but it seems God is more unhappy with the first. I think this is because legalism is far more destructive, and it restricts the move of the Holy Spirit – which is a big deal.

    You think I am too concerned about orgasm. I think a lot of Christians are too afraid of it. If it happens that’s okay, but if you do much to make it happen, that’s somehow wrong. This idea that PiV is the only acceptable way to have an orgasm is not biblical, and it’s a horrible sentence to pass on many women. While I think most women can learn to climax from intercourse alone, some can’t, and for some it will take years to learn. What’s more, if a man has premature ejaculation (which is NOT something he can control, regardless of what some claim) then the chance of his wife climaxing during intercourse is almost zero.

    If PiV is the only “allowed” way to orgasm, many women will rarely or never climax. So they get aroused, then it’s over, and they are supposed to be fine with that? They are supposed to ignore the frustration? What about the physical arousal – which can last for hours or even days for a woman? What about the fact that repeated arousal without orgasm causes damage to a woman’s internal sex organs? Is it God’s will for them to have those problems? This is the result of teaching that it’s wrong to climax by hand or mouth, and it’s not a result that reflects the God I know.

    The interesting thing is people want and enjoy intercourse even when it does not result in orgasm, or when they can have a “better orgasm” in some other way. Intercourse is more than any other sex act in many ways – including many that are not physical. Science has found that intercourse is more satisfying than any other kind of sex, and some of the health benefits of intercourse occur even without orgasm (by the same token, some of the health benefits come from having an orgasm, even without intercourse, so having both is the best). Some women who never have climaxed from PiV, and never expect to do so, still want intercourse regularly. They climax before or after in some other way, but don’t feel fully satisfied without intercourse. They would also not feel satisfied with intercourse and no climax – they need BOTH. Fortunately these women, and their husbands, understand that God has not forbidden, or even frowned on, doing both.

    All of this is why I would have concerns for a couple who have no interest in intercourse. If neither of them has pain during intercourse, they don’t avoid intercourse to avoid pregnancy, and there is no fear issue from some past abuse, then they should desire to have intercourse. If they should desire it, and one of both does not, then by definition there is something wrong.

    • Thanks for your response – although I must confess in all honesty I don’t find it to really answer the question, but only circle around the climax problems women have and premature ej pb that men have. I was expecting something more in a matter of principle, and more applicable to a variety of situations. but it is fine.

      The problem with our communication is essentially that you find my arguments legalistic (adding rules to no definite line from God) while I firmly believe it’s a matter of PRINCIPLE and discernment and not an issue of personal preferences or totally freedom (if someone is allowed to enjoy this, it doesn’t matter he is free to do whatever he chooses to)!

      And the principle is the simplest possible: enjoy what God has given by His wonderful design and check your own heart periodically to not fall into the temptation of making an idol from this God-given gift and design. As Paul said: Everything is permissible for me but not everything is beneficial, and I will not be MASTERED by anything. This is God’s principle for DRAWING the LINE concerning sexual practices in christian marriage.

      And Food (sex) is for body, and body is for food (sex) but God will destroy both. So then, what should we make of this? How should be enjoy these temporary gifts while remaining in the correct perspective of God? I would say – enjoy to the fullest the gift as designed by the Giver and don’t make an idol out of it !

      As for the simple aspect of the act, I know for sure this: if a woman is aroused for a sufficient amount time (using both the emotional connections and the physical touch), if she is clitoris – stimulated through caress or even during intercourse, and if she uses genital lubrication just in case she doesn’t naturally provide the sufficient amount needed for, then she most likely will orgasm, and that will be having all what God intended: the stimulation, the pleasure and the most important thing – within the design of God which is by penetration. This is MORE than enough for me – absolutely no need for orgasmic massage by its own, no need for (mutual) masturbation, no need for s toys, no need for oral / anal or anything else. I am convinced that this way, one fully benefits of all the beauty of the gift, while his heart remaining where it should be: focused on things above and on God not on endless methods to get more pleasure using perverted methods.

      If you have arguments to this, I would be happy to hear them.

      • E – You say “I know this for sure” and then say something that is not accurate. The majority of women do not climax from intercourse alone – even if they have a great relationship, and no matter how much foreplay or lubricant is used. I know of no study, secular or Christian which backs what you have said.

        Beyond that, it is extremely rare for a woman to have an orgasm during intercourse without having had them previously by some other method. It seem women need to learn how to orgasm in some other way before they can do so during intercourse.

        These are the facts. Why they are the facts we can discuss, but that’s another issue. It seems to me that the limitation you want to apply, a limitation neither found in nor hinted at by scripture, condemns a lot of women to a great deal of frustration.

        • You don’t pay much attention to what I really say, do you?

          “if a woman is aroused for a sufficient amount time (using both the emotional connections and the physical touch), if she is clitoris – stimulated through caress or even during intercourse, and if she uses genital lubrication just in case she doesn’t naturally provide the sufficient amount needed for, then she most likely will orgasm,”” I said the 3 of these working together! “”AND”” means addition.

          Should I bother to talk more?

  7. “”This idea that PiV is the only acceptable way to have an orgasm is not biblical, and it’s a horrible sentence to pass on many women. “”
    Please explain why you think that. I have said that PiV is natural design from God. Why do you think God is suggesting there are OTHER ACCEPTABLe ways to have sex??? I hope for some biblical principles, for if you say “”we can do anything for O and work hard for that”I am sorry I find it only SELFISH and immature and hedonistic.

    • E – Yes, have said it – but you have failed to support it biblically. It is an extra-biblical idea. You apply a limit that is not in the Bible, then ask me to disprove it from the Bible. My reply is to reject what is not from the Bible and be done with it.

      By the way – I Googled “Natural Design” and found all manner of things, including justification of some things clearly called sin in the Bible. There are those who think having multiple partners, or multiple wives, is allowed or even demanded by what they call natural design. Then there are the homosexuals who point to animal homosexuality (which is far more common than you might think) as proof that homosexuality is a part of natural design. The term is also used by evolutionist. As far as I can tell, the term is used to try and give credence to a statement for which there is no evidence. When this is rejected, the one rejecting it is often said to be clueless, deceived, or wilfully blind. It’s a game that can’t be won, and I won’t play it.

      • Yeah they do kind of the same you do here: take the words literally whithout understanding the context and the “”heart of the letter””.

      • You really are dancing around the issue because indeed you have no arguments.

        On one hand you agree with me regarding PiV as neing the most fulfilling in every way, but you add your perverted methods for O also, just in case….

        Don’t you find it strange?

        Read again all the arguments I gave – there is really not more to be said. You simply are obsseseed with your practices and cannot even discern the meaning of the arguments.

        Woe to those that you teach the same – you will be responsible for that.

  8. “What about the fact that repeated arousal without orgasm causes damage to a woman’s internal sex organs? Is it God’s will for them to have those problems? This is the result of teaching that it’s wrong to climax by hand or mouth, and it’s not a result that reflects the God I know”.

    Hoe did you come to these informations and conclusions? Really, what kind of “medical sources” tell that they have damage on internal organs if they are aroused but don”t reach O? COME ON, Paul, use your ……..This is a LIE – just check some sound research! This is the same the world says that if a man is virgin at …30 or more he is damaged in his organs or even totally – this is the motif to be sexually active without anything else as a responsibility.

    • E – The only references I can find are:
      1) For women who suffer from Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder (PGAD).
      2) Base on prostitutes.
      The first group has chronic vasocongestion, and the second can have very prolonged vasocongestion. A woman fully aroused without climax would suffer vasocongestion for a few hours to a day at most. Given that there is no indication how often and how long one must have prolonged vasocongestion to cause damage, I will retract the statement and replace it with this “Arousal without orgasm can lead to physical discomfort, and pain, along with various mental and emotional frustrations, relationship issues, and difficulty sleeping.”

      Is still can’t agree to an unbiblical limit that could result in a woman having to deal with that.

  9. Yes, I agree that God designed marital intimacy to involve both intercourse and climax. The question remains: how the couple can do these both, and what are the acceptable methods to accomplish both of them? We know God wants them both (for He gave the specifics needed to reach both), the question is: what are His designed methods to reach both of them?

    As a saying goes: The goal doesn’t justify the means.

    Blessings, it has been a pleasure to dialog.

  10. E – You have become more and more offensive, so I am ending this. I do understand what you have said, but I reject it as you can provide no biblical support for what you would add to God’s Word.

  11. Wow what a long response!! Generous husband thank you for all you do to help husbands with there marriage! The advice you give on sexual issues is awesome and appreciated!!! As a wife with a great sex life I appreciate that my husband is in tune to what I need physically to achieve completion! I would hate to think he was legalistic on just piv because I couldn’t get there that way! Do I feel like completion is an idol no I like to get there but sometimes I don’t! I believe God have us that gift for a reason! Thank you for your willingness to take on hard topics like this keep it up God is using you greatly!!!!

  12. Took a lot of time to get some online resources against some of your theology on sex, oral sex and other practices.

    See the above link of John MacArthur (discussing the sermon of Mark Driscoll on Sex and Song og songs). Maybe you will find not offensive what a theologian and scholar sees as inappopriate use of Scripture in order to support worldly practices in Christian marriage:

    • Lover of God – I’ve not heard the sermon in question, and I did not see quotes but only John’s take on what was said. That puts me at a significant disadvantage to judge the two.

      I do know that Mark has grown and changed a great deal in the last five years. Read, in his new book, that he feels his teaching used to be chauvinistic, and he shows clear remorse for this.

      As for oral sex being in the SofS or not, it is a debate that has theologians and scholars on both sides. MacArthur expresses one opinion, but does so as if there is no serious controversy, and there is. Many who have studied the Song in great detail, including many who know Hebrew very very well, say there is no doubt that oral sex is being discussed. Others say it’s not. In my experience preconceived ideas about the practice tend to be a big factor in what someone reads into the passages.

      I tend to think that oral sex is being mentioned in SodS, but it’s not clear enough that I will claim that with certainty. However, it does not really matter if it is or is not mentioned – that it is never forbidden is significant. I think the Gnostic dig that MacArthur made is far more accurate about those who claim to know what God does not allow a married couple to do sexually, given that such limits are not found in Scripture!

  13. You can find Driscoll’s sermon on the internet.
    even so, pay attention to MacArthurs’s arguments and Piper’s in other theologians: the Bible does not give explicit imagery for such things, ever. God knows what’s going on, and He tell things, but not in images that will stirr up lust and other things when someone reads the Bible.

    Also your argument about oral sex not being forbidden in Bible is poor.So is the case with smoking and drugs and so on – they are not explicitly forbidden in the Bible. So why do you christians forbid them?

    This goes the same logic with sex toys, oral sex and other practices that the Bible does not speak of.

    • Lover of God – It is easy to make a case against the use of drugs based on what we read about drunkenness and not being controlled by anything. Such a case can not be made for oral sex – at least not without doing violence to the word of God.

      As to the Bible not being explicit that is in the eyes of the beholder. I think verses that compare a man’s penis size to a donkey, and his amount of ejaculation to a horse is very explicit. Much of SofS is also explicit, if you understand the euphemisms used. There are plenty of other verses in the Bible that are openly and graphicly sexual. Not pornographic, but not as veiled as some want to claim. Of course, if someone wants to believe this is not the case, they simply read it they way they want it to read.

      All of that said, I am not defending a sermon I have not heard, and based on what Mark says I think he agrees that he made some mistakes.

  14. Are you serious? the size as a donkey? and the liquid of a horse? What literary forms are these – for sure they are far more exxagerated than reality if they indeed refer to sex (whici is more than questionable).

    Just out of curiosity, where exactly is Bible graphically sezual but not pornographic? What texts? What passages?

    Not that I find it helpful to continue arguing about it…

    Interesting: seems that any argument it is given to you, you simply remain in your position, do nor re-think it, do not adjust a little bit, nothing.

    I would say this is a receipe for disaster: you don’t respond to rebuke, you don’t think about others’ arguments, you don’t change and you don’t readjsut anything.

    That’s your choice.

    • Lover of God – I agree that there is little to be gained from continuing this.

      Your comments about my ignoring your rebuke would hold more water if they were something new to me. I’ve been doing this a very long time, and I’ve spent a good deal of time studying and praying about these things. I’ve had a number of folks say what you are saying, as well as a number saying they agree with me. There is nothing new in what you have said, so there is really nothing for me to re-think.

      Yes, we need to prayerfully consider well founded criticism, and failure to do that is foolish. On the other hand, when criticism is not well founded, or is the same old thing with a new face, it is foolish to let it sway us in what we have learned in study, prayer and conversations with those who have done the same. Consider the harsh words Jesus, Paul and others had for some of their critics!

      By the way, have my arguments caused you to rethink? If not, why do you judge me for doing what you are doing?

  15. Yes, I’ve been thinking about your arguments …for the last months actually.

    Problem is, regardless of the theologians and the preachers like Driscoll who agree, I cannot begin to understand how these arguments are solid for any Christian – like mastr,, oral, toys etc….
    In my mind, they simply are human creative sinful games – until recent years, there was not such a thing as “sex shop”, magazines, toys etc and I firmly believe people didn’t have a problem with their sexuality within their marriage, especially Christians. And I assure you I am quite liberal wihin God’s grace and don’t count on miscinceptions and prejudices.

    • Lover of God – As I see it, you are adding to God’s Word something that He did not clearly say, while I am arguing that it’s not there and there is no justifiable reason to add it. You have tradition on your side, but Jesus was very had on the Pharisees and their traditions – clearly the traditions of man are nothing to God, and building a theology on them is unsafe at best.

      I am not arguing for these things as much as arguing against those who want to add to God’s Word something against the practices. I realise you do not see it this way, but to me this is clearly the issue. I will always shy away from adding to God’s rules UNLESS I am given a very good explanation for why God did not say it in the first place. For these things I have not seen such an explanation.

      By the way, we know that “sex toys” go back thousands of years. Dildoes wwere very common amoung the Egyptians at the time of the Jewish captivity. Apparently there is nothing new under the sun.

  16. As I see it, your only argument is that we’re adding rules to what God does not specifically say.

    This is a faulty argument – He could not possibly address EVERY single issue on the earth and put it in the Bible to read.
    But He gives ALL the PRICIPLES for godly living, and I think that the sexual practices that you promote are not included in these principles guided by the balance between pure passion and self-control. These practices simpy are not in the Spirit of God’s teaching on life and family, and not in the Spirit of Scripture’s doctrines (as well as not in the LETTERS of the Scripture).

    And the argument that: It is not stated in the Bible is so POOR. I mean does the Bible talk about internet, oral contraceptives, drugs, smoking, abortion etc? Even so, Christians have developed a “godly biblical” view on these things also – did they not? How did they do it? The same principles and wisdom should have been applied when it comes to sex in marriage….

    • Lover of God – What you say is not new, it is exactly how the Pharisees justified all the rules and laws they added. I have no doubt some of those were good, but in general Jesus was pretty hard on them about what they did. I see that as cause for GREAT caution.

      I agree God could not have covered everything, but things like masturbation and oral sex are hardly new or small issues. Are you suggesting that these were less common than say sex with animals, which God did talk about?

      Yes, the Bible talks about self-control, but it also talks about abandon. Both in our worship and in marital sex the focus is NOT about self-control. As for sex, there are a number of verses (including several in SofS) in which the words used are words normally used for drunken loss of control. Given that God choose to use that imagery, I see it differently than you do.

      I am all for using what the Bible says to find wisdom on issues not covered. However, I first think we need to decide why those issues were not covered. Did the not exist, were they to minor then to warrant being covered? This can not be the case for something like masturbation, so there must be another reason it was not mentioned. Maybe it was not mentioned because it is not sin?

      You see things in Scripture that you think make various sex acts unacceptable. I have no problem with you thinking you should not do those things. However, I see it differently, and it would be nice if you could accept that as also valid.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: