Subject: Re: Question on God and Sex

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:31:42 -0500 (EST)

Dear Sari:

On the contrary, the Bible has a great deal to say in the realm of sex.
Unfortunately there is much that is taught by negative example. I must take
issue with your Ruth reference. A careful reading of the text does not say
that Ruth "seduced" Boaz, but that she approached him to remind him of his
duty as the _goel_/ the kinsman-redeemer. The Books of Proverbs has a
lengthy section dealing with the proper and improper aspects of sex. The
Song of Songs/Canticles/Song of Solomon is a magnificent (almost erotic)
paean to the glory of sexual  love within the bounds of marriage. The New
Testament has much to say about the sexual relationship in both  positive
praise and negative warnings about the misuse/abuse of love. The book of
Hebrews tells us that the "marriage is honorable before all men, and that
the bed is undelfiled". for those who are willing to read the Bible has much
to say about this beautiful and sacred aspect of God's plan for mankind.

At 10:57 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 08:33 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>I think your best tactic would be to explore the biblical theology of sex in
>>general, the purpose, the scope, etc. and then by contrast show how
>>advertising perverts God's plan for sex and basically appeals to lust, not
>>biblical sexual love
>
>        I don't read much sexual "love" in the bible.  There is not a great
>deal of affection between humans or between humans and any other creature,
>for that matter.  Most of what is sexual in the OT is verging on the
>pornographic (a couple of the more graphic prophets!), or is about rape and
>violence or incest (Lot's daughters, Dinah, the concubine in Judges 19,
>Amnon's rape of Tamar, his half-sister) or is about what women, men and
>animals a man cannot have sex with (mainly Leviticus), or is about a woman
>seducing a man so that she can conceive to carry on "his line" (Ruth,
>Tamar/Judah).
>
>        Of course there's a good deal of carrying on about "whoring."
>
>        If the deity has a plan for sex, it is not terribly well
>fleshed-out.  Given his own solitary bachelorhood, widowhood or state of
>permanent divorce, it is not surprising.
>
>- Sari Slater 
>
>
>

Kevin W. Woodruff
Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary
Tennessee Temple University
1815 Union Ave.
Chattanooga, TN 37404
423/493-4252 (phone) 423/493-4497 (FAX)
[email-masked]

---

From: Sari Slater <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 15:58:15 -0500

Kevin -

        Thanks for replying.

        My comments are strictly about the Hebrew bible.

        I know of no word for "sex" or "lovemaking" in the bible.  Other
than in Shir HaShirim, there is no joy, no joy, no celebration, abandonment,
play, fun, delicious, delightful yummy feelings about sharing our sexuality,
our physicality, our tenderness and passion with another human.  

        Please tell me where that glorious erotic piece mentions "marriage."

        The words "proper" and "improper" are about judgment, repression,
anger, constriction.  "Beneficial, health-giving, positive, healing" - I
prefer both words and ideas of that nature.

        Sex:  if you're talking sex for procreation, it is necessary for a
woman to ovulate and menstruate.  There is no mention of ovulation (maybe
they didn't know about it).  There is no word for menstruation.  There are
dysphemisms for it (ill, unclean, weak, abomination).

        The Naomi/Ruth pericope does not contain the word for "seduce."
Naomi encouraged Ruth to go and "lie down at his feet" upon the threshing
floor after he'd eaten.  "Foot" is sometimes code for "penis."  Yes,
scholars debate what happened that night.  Sexual play or no?  'Doesn't much
matter.  The goal was for Ruth to be able to become pregnant to have a baby
to continue some putative male line.  Lovemaking isn't about goals.

        If the book of Hebrews truly has the word "men" in the verse you
refer to ("marriage is honorable before all men, and that the bed is
undefiled") then I have no clue as to what is going on.  I am not a man, I
am a woman.  The human species consists of ***women*** and men.  Where am I
here?  Where are women in that text you cite?

        As for an "undefiled" bed - what defiles a bed?  Bedwetting?
Lovemaking with someone you're not married to?

        In case you're bewildered here, I'm trying to inject some reality
into the discussion.  Most of us never ever question our cultural
constructs.  We think they're "life."  They're not.  They're artificial and
sometimes harmful to humans and all beings on earth.

- Sari Slater

At 01:31 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>that Ruth "seduced" Boar, but that she approached him to remind him of his

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:42:13 -0500

It seems to me that people don't want to admit that the bible is indeed full
of examples of sex that are anything but God-like.  Please post two positive
passages that deal with sex and we'll see.

Steve

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:45:11 -0500

Again, the NT does refer to sex, but usually as something that were it not
for marriage, we should be ashamed of.

Enough,  take me off this list

---

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:33:35 -0500 (EST)

No problem!

At 12:09 PM 11/14/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Sari asked me (on the list) whether I was offended by her first comment 
>and if that's why I asked for this discussion to take place off the 
>list.  No, I wasn't offended, but I suspected that the discussion, if it 
>continued, would take us far afield from the topic this list is dedicated 
>to, namely, textual criticism.  As further posts on the topic have 
>demonstrated, I was right.  Feel free to continue the discussion among 
>yourselves or on a more appropriate list, but let's keep to the topic on 
>this list.
>
>Jimmy Adair
>Listowner, tc-list
>
>
>

Kevin W. Woodruff
Reference Librarian
Cierpke Memorial Library
Temple Baptist Seminary