Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
182

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I am making the case that it was his lust that led to adultery. He saw here taking a bath. This is the lust. He had no clue she was married, and he never intended on take her away from him until she was found to be pregnant. Lust is not what your definition is. He saw her taking a bath.[/quote]

You’re an idiot to think David didn’t know his next door neighbor was married. A complete idiot.

My lust definition fits perfectly. He saw. He planned. He took. A married woman. Behind her husband’s back.

THAT is the lust/adultery synopsis, bud. [/quote]

According to scripture adultery begins at the he saw part. Period.

183

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I am making the case that it was his lust that led to adultery. He saw here taking a bath. This is the lust. He had no clue she was married, and he never intended on take her away from him until she was found to be pregnant. Lust is not what your definition is. He saw her taking a bath.[/quote]

You’re an idiot to think David didn’t know his next door neighbor was married. A complete idiot.

My lust definition fits perfectly. He saw. He planned. He took. A married woman. Behind her husband’s back.

THAT is the lust/adultery synopsis, bud. [/quote]

So you are saying that King David had time to go door to door to meet all his people and know all their business? You have said before that Elders in churches did not have enough time to do their duties, and be married to multiple women. But you are saying that King David, ruleing a country, had time to know everything about his people?

The palace was the tallest building in the city, The temple had not been built yet, so he could see all over his kingdom. The palace was on the top of the hill so Bathesheeba may have lived several streets over, and he could se her.

187

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I am making the case that it was his lust that led to adultery. He saw here taking a bath. This is the lust. He had no clue she was married, and he never intended on take her away from him until she was found to be pregnant. Lust is not what your definition is. He saw her taking a bath.[/quote]

You’re an idiot to think David didn’t know his next door neighbor was married. A complete idiot.

My lust definition fits perfectly. He saw. He planned. He took. A married woman. Behind her husband’s back.

THAT is the lust/adultery synopsis, bud. [/quote]

According to scripture adultery begins at the he saw part. Period.[/quote]

Yes, it does begin there.

But you have to understand the concept. Otherwise, every single one of us in the history of mankind that married a woman whom we were attracted to has our marriage rooted in sin. Perversion. Immorality.

DD, I think you’re smart enough to figure this out. I really do. I think you know what I am trying to convey but are trying to play prosecutor for the fun of it.

Study your Bible. Study it in context.[/quote]

“Has committed adultery in his heart.” Past tense. stopping at the eying is still adultery. otherwise it would have to read “will” or “probably will” commit adultery.

And yes, we’re all sinners.

188

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

First, I have never said that the Genesis story was either literal or figurative. I said I had not made up my mind on the matter. I think there are many things about the story that are literal and some things are figuratively used. You might want to stop attacking your brothers, and try and listen to them. We are not here condemning you by any stretch of the imagination.[/quote]

So you got your mind made up about lust and adultery in the Bible without any in depth study but yet you’re still on the fence about whether Genesis can be trusted. Pathetic.[/quote]

Why are you attacking me? You might want to revisit the definition of Brotherly love. I would like to say that you hate everyone that does not believe 100% of what you say and beleive. You have attacked everyone in these threads one time or another. I can not beleive that you are now attacking your own brothers. I will leave this at that. [/quote]

You have the ol’ “there’s three fingers pointing back at you” deal going on here.[/quote]

You might want to rethink what you are saying about us pointing fingers. You have taken this discussion to a personal level. I pm’d you once asking why you thought the way you did. You came back with a book, and why do people have an issue with my sexual lifestyle. We have an issue because we do not see the scripture telling us what you are saying it does. I am not condemning you. I have done things that I have posted on here several times. Sin is sin no matter what we say. You take a firm belief that you are correct, and several Christians, myself included, say that we say is correct. This might have to be one of the things we are going to have to wait and see.

191

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Sorry, but lust isn’t “eying”. It’s that simple. Lust is desiring something that doesn’t belong to you. It’s the planning of the theft of property.[/quote]

I have to disagree with your definition of lust. If you eye a woman thinking about all the sexual things you want to do with her then that is lust. Notice once not a big deal, looking twice and thinking sexually about her that is lust.

David did not think about killing Bathesheeba’s husband until after he had sex with her. He wanted her sexually and not to marry her. Once she was found to be pregnant then he came up with the plan to steal her.[/quote]

Here’s the deal. I can back up my definition of lust with Scripture. You have to back yours up with conjecture and what “millions of people” for the last 1700 years have thought.[/quote]

Truth cuts like a razor I guess.[/quote]

My razor is the scripture. Yours is conjecture.

Speaking of the scripture, you’ve already stated you don’t necessarily trust it (Genesis) so yes, conjecture will have to be your weapon. You have no choice.[/quote]

What is your problem Push? I have never said, “I do not trust Genesis, or the Bible?” Why are you acting like a baby? My 9 year old has more respect for people than you do. You may be older than I am, but I am not in my twenties. You might want to rethink the way you are acting towards us. If your hatred for us is that much, then you might want to rethink what path you are on.[/quote]

First of all, there is no hatred. Good grief, bud.

There is hypocrisy though. On your part. You want to trust the portions of the Bible that you feel support your position on biblical sexual sin but you don’t even know if you believe the foundation of the entire Bible, Genesis.

You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

First, I would like to apologize if I have offended you in some sort of personal way. That was never my intent. We see the interpretation of lust, fornication, and sexual escapades differently than you do.

Hypocrisy? I have never said, “I do not beleive in Genesis.” I take the teachings of the Bible as my lamp. I think that the creation story is true, I have even defended it, but I guess you do not remember that. My question is whether the days in Genesis are the same as a 24 hour period, or are they just figuratively used. Was a day 24 hours or was it 1,000,000 years. I think it happened just as it is written.

I do not jump to your defense of Catholic Bashing, because I beleive that the Church should be one again with the direction of Jesus and the Word. I am not a big fan of some of the things the Catholic Church teaches, but they are still my brothers in Christ and I will defend them as such. I would prefer us to be united, because a house can not stand divided. You can stand with us also. I do not attack brothers. I want all of us to stand against the forces of darkness. You beleive the way you do on Sex, and that is your right, and I will defend you in all the other things that I beleive that you back. You are my brother. I have never left you out to dry in any of these threads.

192

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I am making the case that it was his lust that led to adultery. He saw here taking a bath. This is the lust. He had no clue she was married, and he never intended on take her away from him until she was found to be pregnant. Lust is not what your definition is. He saw her taking a bath.[/quote]

You’re an idiot to think David didn’t know his next door neighbor was married. A complete idiot.

My lust definition fits perfectly. He saw. He planned. He took. A married woman. Behind her husband’s back.

THAT is the lust/adultery synopsis, bud. [/quote]

According to scripture adultery begins at the he saw part. Period.[/quote]

Yes, it does begin there.

But you have to understand the concept. Otherwise, every single one of us in the history of mankind that married a woman whom we were attracted to has our marriage rooted in sin. Perversion. Immorality.

DD, I think you’re smart enough to figure this out. I really do. I think you know what I am trying to convey but are trying to play prosecutor for the fun of it.

Study your Bible. Study it in context.[/quote]

“Has committed adultery in his heart.” Past tense. stopping at the eying is still adultery. otherwise it would have to read “will” or “probably will” commit adultery…[/quote]

When that verse is read in context it will make sense. Read the Scripture in context. In Jesus’ day adultery WAS limited to a man taking a married woman from her husband. So Jesus was referring to adultery in that sense. If you look at another married woman and desire to make her yours then you have already committed adultery in your heart.

Bingo.[/quote]

It just doesn’t say that. You were making comments earlier about why wouldn’t paul have just added a simple word or 2 to make a point clear. If he’d meant to add those words he would have, but he didn’t so that isn’t what he ment.

Married isn’t mentioned.

But I do see that you are now admitting simple desire can be wrong.

195

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I am making the case that it was his lust that led to adultery. He saw here taking a bath. This is the lust. He had no clue she was married, and he never intended on take her away from him until she was found to be pregnant. Lust is not what your definition is. He saw her taking a bath.[/quote]

You’re an idiot to think David didn’t know his next door neighbor was married. A complete idiot.

My lust definition fits perfectly. He saw. He planned. He took. A married woman. Behind her husband’s back.

THAT is the lust/adultery synopsis, bud. [/quote]

So you are saying that King David had time to go door to door to meet all his people and know all their business? You have said before that Elders in churches did not have enough time to do their duties, and be married to multiple women. But you are saying that King David, ruleing a country, had time to know everything about his people?

The palace was the tallest building in the city, The temple had not been built yet, so he could see all over his kingdom. The palace was on the top of the hill so Bathesheeba may have lived several streets over, and he could se her.[/quote]

OK, that’s a fair speculation. However, it doesn’t change the fact that David did indeed sin. He saw a woman. He took her from her husband and behind the husband’s back. That is the lust/adultery/stealing connection. He was condemned for it. In fact, as you mentioned, the consequences of that act never left David til his death.

Now when David had sex with other women, his wives and concubines (girlfriends), he was never condemned. In fact, God told him he could have had more women if he’d wanted but he had to “have” them in the right way.[/quote]

I never said that David did not sin. I beleive his sin started when he saw Bathesheeba and had her brought to the palace. He intended to have sex with her from the moment he laid eyes on her. I think she wanted it also, or she would have resisted, told her husband or something. The consequences of that act was passed down many generations after he died. I think the sin of having too many wives trickled down to Solomon and his sons. It was this sin that caused the break up of the North and South Kingdoms. This break up happened during the reign of Solomon.

I am really trying to understand you argument. It is alright to have consensual sex if your spouse is alright with it, and the women you are going to have sex with is alright with it, and the husband of the woman you are going to have sex with is alright with it?

197

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I am making the case that it was his lust that led to adultery. He saw here taking a bath. This is the lust. He had no clue she was married, and he never intended on take her away from him until she was found to be pregnant. Lust is not what your definition is. He saw her taking a bath.[/quote]

You’re an idiot to think David didn’t know his next door neighbor was married. A complete idiot.

My lust definition fits perfectly. He saw. He planned. He took. A married woman. Behind her husband’s back.

THAT is the lust/adultery synopsis, bud. [/quote]

According to scripture adultery begins at the he saw part. Period.[/quote]

Yes, it does begin there.

But you have to understand the concept. Otherwise, every single one of us in the history of mankind that married a woman whom we were attracted to has our marriage rooted in sin. Perversion. Immorality.

DD, I think you’re smart enough to figure this out. I really do. I think you know what I am trying to convey but are trying to play prosecutor for the fun of it.

Study your Bible. Study it in context.[/quote]

“Has committed adultery in his heart.” Past tense. stopping at the eying is still adultery. otherwise it would have to read “will” or “probably will” commit adultery…[/quote]

When that verse is read in context it will make sense. Read the Scripture in context. In Jesus’ day adultery WAS limited to a man taking a married woman from her husband. So Jesus was referring to adultery in that sense. If you look at another married woman and desire to make her yours then you have already committed adultery in your heart.

Bingo.[/quote]

So adultery can only happen between a Married Woman and a Married Man? I thought it was if one was married it would be considered adultery.

198

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Sorry, but lust isn’t “eying”. It’s that simple. Lust is desiring something that doesn’t belong to you. It’s the planning of the theft of property.[/quote]

I have to disagree with your definition of lust. If you eye a woman thinking about all the sexual things you want to do with her then that is lust. Notice once not a big deal, looking twice and thinking sexually about her that is lust.

David did not think about killing Bathesheeba’s husband until after he had sex with her. He wanted her sexually and not to marry her. Once she was found to be pregnant then he came up with the plan to steal her.[/quote]

Here’s the deal. I can back up my definition of lust with Scripture. You have to back yours up with conjecture and what “millions of people” for the last 1700 years have thought.[/quote]

Truth cuts like a razor I guess.[/quote]

My razor is the scripture. Yours is conjecture.

Speaking of the scripture, you’ve already stated you don’t necessarily trust it (Genesis) so yes, conjecture will have to be your weapon. You have no choice.[/quote]

What is your problem Push? I have never said, “I do not trust Genesis, or the Bible?” Why are you acting like a baby? My 9 year old has more respect for people than you do. You may be older than I am, but I am not in my twenties. You might want to rethink the way you are acting towards us. If your hatred for us is that much, then you might want to rethink what path you are on.[/quote]

First of all, there is no hatred. Good grief, bud.

There is hypocrisy though. On your part. You want to trust the portions of the Bible that you feel support your position on biblical sexual sin but you don’t even know if you believe the foundation of the entire Bible, Genesis.

You can’t have it both ways.[/quote]

First, I would like to apologize if I have offended you in some sort of personal way. That was never my intent. We see the interpretation of lust, fornication, and sexual escapades differently than you do.

Hypocrisy? I have never said, “I do not beleive in Genesis.” I take the teachings of the Bible as my lamp. I think that the creation story is true, I have even defended it, but I guess you do not remember that. My question is whether the days in Genesis are the same as a 24 hour period, or are they just figuratively used. Was a day 24 hours or was it 1,000,000 years. I think it happened just as it is written.

I do not jump to your defense of Catholic Bashing, because I beleive that the Church should be one again with the direction of Jesus and the Word. I am not a big fan of some of the things the Catholic Church teaches, but they are still my brothers in Christ and I will defend them as such. I would prefer us to be united, because a house can not stand divided. You can stand with us also. I do not attack brothers. I want all of us to stand against the forces of darkness. You beleive the way you do on Sex, and that is your right, and I will defend you in all the other things that I beleive that you back. You are my brother. I have never left you out to dry in any of these threads. [/quote]

Fair enough. But the fact of the matter is you weren’t in thegame when Genesis was being trashed. You sat on the sidelines. I almost singlehandedly toted the load. That is a cold hard fact.[/quote]

Am I in the club? Sounds like the cool place to be. I’m never sure what to tell people my religion is.

Do you believe I’m on the road to hell?