Thank you for what seems to me a remarkably comprehensive review of the subject. It even included a couple of thoughts that had been on my mind ever since the rather brief discussion between us readers.

One of these is the sacredness of the marriage relation, to which both Inge and I had already alluded. This could tend to make it highly compatible with the Sabbath, which is also sacred.

The other thought is the argument from silence. We are educated to be very careful in making such arguments. Nevertheless, it seems to me that, had God intended a prohibition here, He certainly could have communicated that fact through His prophets and apostles -- or Jesus Himself could have said something. After all, the Bible does warn us against self-imposed religion. (See Colossians 2:23)

On the other hand, there is always the possibility of general principles which ought to be applied in the absence of a direct command. However, as you pointed out, such arguments in this case have generally tended to undermine the sacredness of the marital union, and reduce it to mere pleasure seeking. Certain professedly Christian organisations have an unfortunate history of making sexual prohibitions (such as celibacy requirements) as a result of what seem to me to be some manifestly unhealthy attitudes toward sexuality in general. I don't think we want to go there.

I'm glad you pointed out the importance of submitting to one another, and of being careful not to violate the conscience of a weaker brother or sister while seeking to please ourselves. (See Romans 15:1)

(8)

It should be apparent, by now, that I have nothing to urge, either way, in regard to whether or not any particular married couple should choose to engage in physical union during the holy hours of the Sabbath. I am, however, alarmed at the thought of Christians uncritically accepting ideas that really lack any Scriptural foundation.

So far, no one has gone into much detail in response to that first (somewhat lengthy) posting by Louis Thomas. Of course, none of us knows everything. But, I have a few minutes, so, with your leave and God's grace perhaps I could attempt to share a few thoughts in regard to some specific points.

1. "This Bible is very clear in general concerning sex prior to any appointed or scheduled holy convocation that God has ordained."

Based on the lack of support offered for this broad statement, I have to say that it's simply not true!

The only Scriptural instance cited, that includes an explicit command to this effect, is prior to God's appearance on Mount Sinai to speak His law to the people -- hardly just another holy convocation! If man or beast so much as touched the mountain, he was to be stoned.

EVEN IF this generalization were true, it wouldn't prove anything in regard to the Sabbath. The time prior to a holy convocation and the time devoted to the Sabbath are clearly two different things. Indeed, many Sabbath hours take place AFTER we have completed our church services.

2. "The real issue, no pun intended! is one that deals with the laws of cleanliness."

If that's the real issue, I think that Andrew has already raised some rather serious unanswered questions about it. Are all women supposed to be absent from church once a month, because of their "customary impurity?" Again, are these rules not part and parcel of the types and shadows of the ceremonial law? What are we supposed to do about the animal sacrifices connected with the laws of impurity and cleansing? It seems obvious to me that we should take reasonable steps to ensure proper hygiene, and then let the ceremonial law stay nailed to the cross where it belongs. The Jerusalem council of the apostles (in Acts 15) was not convened for nothing!

3. "As Laodicean Christians the Bible tell 'US' that 'WE' as a people have a great aversion to being spiritually or physically cleansed by Gods manner of righteousness."

Really? Does the Bible say that? I've read the Laodicean message (in Revelation 3) many times, and cannot recall ever having read anything to that effect. My reading says that we have TOO LITTLE aversion or enthusiasm for anything religious or spiritual! We're self-satisfied and indifferent to God's far-reaching claims on our lives, as well as to the needs of a lost and dying world. Surely, in the blindness of our apostasy, compromise is bound to sneak in. However, I believe we need to let God's word and God's law correct us on that, not human opinion. O.K.?

4. It's clear enough to me that the man in the parable COULD have come to the supper, and his wife would have been welcome. He was just being selfish and rude. How often do people really tell the truth when they are making flimsy excuses? It seems Jesus, who told the story, knows human nature very well.

5. "Before sin entered into the world Adam and Eve minds were not of a carnal nature as it relates to sexual relation. Their primary propose of sexual relations was to populate God kingdom on earth with citizens of the kingdom by procreation."

This statement seems to imply (or at least suggest) that procreation is the only legitimate purpose of physical relations in marriage. I've never read anything like that in the Bible. It seems to me to be a merely human opinion, and a prudish one at that. Physical intimacy in marriage, when pursued in the unselfish spirit of Christ, properly expresses the sacred union that marriage was intended to protect, and even tends to solidify it to the glory of God. That the experience also happens to be highly enjoyable is God's "fault," I guess.

6. The primary way to evangelize the world is by procreation?

I think somebody needs to re-read the Great Commission.

7. I know the Bible says that the world was created for God's pleasure.

This means that the world was created to serve God's purposes of love and benevolence. Please do not misinterpret the words of Holy Writ in order to bring God down to our own selfish level!

I'm sorry, but read that post as carefully as I may, I can find no substance whatsoever to the claim that God has forbidden marital relations during the holy hours of the Sabbath. May God save us from being led astray by human opinions, subtle distortions, and false claims (i.e. fluff).

Again, if you and your spouse see fit to abstain during the Sabbath hours, you are certainly at liberty to do so. But please do not attempt to place a yoke of bondage on your fellow believers, by making up your own man-made rules and then pretending to have found Scriptural support for them. Is this not what the Pharisees did? And did Jesus ever commend them for it?

The solution for the Laodicean condition is to buy the gold, tried in the fire (faith that works by fervent love), the white raiment of Christ's righteousness (not the filthy rags of our own "righteousness"), and to anoint our eyes with eye salve (the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit). I think we have enough to do in pursuing religion in God's clearly revealed way, without pushing our own carnal agenda.

(11)

Is "marital" sex the only way in which we do our own pleasure on the Sabbath? Is it not what ever we do for self gratification?

(0)

Ok so aside from the conflict between sexual intercourse and the sabbath, I just wanted to throw this out there to know everyone's thoughts. Sister White as well as Kellogg have A LOT to say about the "loss of vitality"
Mrs. White Warns Against Marital Excess
Mrs. White warns that God will hold marriage partners accountable for expending their vital energy:

"They do not see that God requires them to control their married lives from any excesses. But very few feel it to be a religious duty to govern their passions. They have united themselves in marriage to the object of their choice, and therefore reason that marriage sanctifies the indulgence of the baser passions. Even men and women professing godliness give loose rein to their lustful passions, and have no thought that God holds them accountable for the expenditure of vital energy, which weakens their hold on life and enervates the entire system."5
During the Puritanical era of the 1800s the ideal spiritual woman manifested little interest in sexuality. Writing in 1871, German neurologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing pronounced, "Woman, ...if physically and mentally normal, and properly educated, has but little sensual desire." Dr. Kellogg has a similar quote in his 1877 book:
"I should say that the majority of women, happily for them, are not very much troubled with sexual feeling of any kind. ... The best mothers, wives, and managers of households know little or nothing of sexual indulgences. Love of home, of children, of domestic duties, are the only passions they feel. As a general rule, a modest woman seldom desires any sexual gratification for herself."6
Mrs. White advises us that it is the duty of the ideal wife to restrain the desires of her husband:

"Sexual excess will effectually destroy a love for devotional exercises, will take from the brain the substance needed to nourish the system, and will most effectively exhaust the vitality. No woman should aid her husband in this work of self-destruction. She will not do it if she is enlightened and has true love for him. The more the animal passions are indulged, the stronger do they become, and the more violent will be their clamors for indulgence. Let God-fearing men and women awake to their duty. Many professed Christians are suffering with paralysis of nerve and brain because of their intemperance in this direction.
"It is not pure, holy love which leads the wife to gratify the animal propensities of her husband at the expense of health and life. If she possesses true love and wisdom, she will seek to divert his mind from the gratification of lustful passions to high and spiritual themes by dwelling upon interesting spiritual subjects. It may be necessary to humbly and affectionately urge, even at the risk of his displeasure, that she cannot debase her body by yielding to sexual excess. She should, in a tender, kind manner, remind him that God has the first and highest claim upon her entire being, and that she cannot disregard this claim, for she will be held accountable in the great day of God."7

It is questionable whether encouraging the husband to refrain from sexual activity actually benefited the spirituality of the husband. One could argue the constant repression of his natural sexual desires for his wife may induce the husband to lust even more than he would have had his needs been fulfilled by his wife.

Mrs. White's statements seem somewhat bizarre from a modern medical perspective. There is no evidence that normal, frequent sexual activity takes away vital nourishment from the brain. The defender of Sister White may suggest that she was talking about abnormally extreme frequencies. Just exactly how frequent did Mrs. White view as excessive?

How Frequent is Excessive?
Mrs. White never defined exactly what excessive meant. In order to find out what she meant, we must determine how the term marital excess was used by the other health reformers of her day, in particular the ones from which she acquired her health teachings. In 1834, Sylvester Graham permitted a maximum of once a month.8 O.S. Fowler, a phrenologist who personally favored sex for procreation only, had stated, "to indulge, even in wedlock, as often as the moon quarters, is gradual but effectual destruction of both soul and body."9 Since the moon quarters every seven-and-a-half days, Fowler was saying that engaging in sex at a frequency of once a week was too frequent! Those high frequencies would destroy the body! Adventist physician J.H. Kellogg seemed to agree with Graham by suggesting marriage partners "limit indulgence to the number of months in the year."10 Kellogg considered daily sex to be dangerous for both partners:

"Another case came under our observation in which the patient, a man, confessed to having indulged every night for twenty years. We did not wonder that at forty he was a complete physical wreck."11

(4)

Unfortunately, Sister Whites views on "this" particular issue is difficult to support biblically.

(1)