Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
224

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< All of the sexual sin you mention above involved idolatry. Roman and Greek idolatry. Temple prostitution. Perversity associated with the worship of idols.

Don’t you dare come in here and accuse me of “an uncomfortable resemblance” to a “thoroughgoing pagan paradise filled with people whose sexual practices…” and idolatry.

Don’t even dare. I will knock you so far off your high horse that when you hit the ground his whinny will be a distant echo. >>>
[/quote]
Lemme make sure I got this. When Paul says “husband of one wife” he really means "as many wives as they want as long as they are aren’t associated with idolatry? Ahh, now it’s sinkin in. It’s just like when God says right at the creation of Eve before the fall when defining marriage for the future and you know it had to be the future because they were already married and neither had parents, when God himself says as quoted by Jesus: a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two shall become one flesh So they are no longer two but one flesh. he missed Sesame Street that day so His math was a bit off and he really meant every “available” person.

Outstanding!!! I’ll tell my wife in a minute that tomorrow we start swinging. How could I have possibly been denying myself all this righteous love and worrying about how I can better give myself to this woman. It 's been right there the whole time. Oh yeah, this is the part where you say you can love all these women like Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her even though Paul in his ignorance is suffering from the same math lapse that was afflicting God in the Garden when he says one.

I don’t think I even wanna know how your actual wife, who I’m quite certain you will report as having never been happier or more liberated fits into all this aside from dancing naked for your friends.

It is absolutely sick that you try to tie the Gospel to this.

227

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

But Push, it wasn’t every case that the unmarried woman wasn’t held to a different standard of blame.
[/quote]

In some cases of civil law, yes. But in the reality of morality, no, she was not condemned for having sex with a married man. Read the story of Boaz and Ruth. They had premarital sex and God still used her as the great-great-great…grandmother of the Messiah.

She was never condemned for having sex with Boaz prior to marriage.
[/quote]

I can somewhat see where you assume that but Im 100% sure they didnt. Ill start off at Ruth 3:9. Once she startles him, she says

“I am you servant Ruth,. Spread the corner of you garment over me, since you are a kinsman redeemer.”

Now to most people, that sounds like she is saying Im am your servant and you are my kinsman redeemer. Do with me as you wish. Thats not what she means. In Levirate law, the garment covering was symbolic of entering in marriage. You could call it a symbol of engagement(like engagment ring). Jews in the Middle East still practice this today. Thats my first point. The second is in verse 14. It says(after there discussion)

So she laid AT HIS FEET(not at his side) until morning, but got up before anyone could be recognized; he said, “Dontlet it be known that a woman came to the threshing hole”

He mentions that bc it was forbidden for a woman to be in the threshing hold with a man out of marriage in their law. [/quote]

I forgot to come back to this post. Farmerson, I absolutely, positively promise you I can make a rock solid case that Ruth and Boaz had sex prior to marriage and in this encounter. “Lying at his feet” is an Oriental euphemism for the sex act. I can go into details if you wish. If I do so what will you do for me?[/quote]

Do you know what the Levirate law entails? If Boaz and Ruth had sex at that scene, then they would have to be married and Ruth would have not been available to the nearer kinsman redeemer which Boaz tells Ruth about. It is only after the nearer kinsman redeemer declines because Ruth is a moabite signified by giving his shoe to Boaz is Boaz now able to marry Ruth and act as a kinsman redeemer.

231

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

…How many love poems are explicitly true?[/quote]

How would I know how many love poems are explicitly true? Non sequitur, dooood.[/quote]

“Poetry (from the Latin poeta, a poet) is a form of literary art in which language is used for its aesthetic and evocative qualities in addition to, or in lieu of, its apparent meaning.”

My point is that poetry by definition isn’t intended to be literal. The point of a poem is to elicit a mental/emotional/spiritual response to what is written. In the case of a biblical one, for the bible to be true, these have to be true not the literal meaning.[/quote]

OK, I get it. If you can convince yourself the events never really happened all the sin or non sin issues go away? Sheesh.

It really wouldn’t matter to an extent. If Solomon and the woman “figuratively” exchanged the prose and didn’t actually participate in the sex acts it still was sinful prose.

Lame, DD. Really lame.[/quote]

No, my point is that I think you are missing the entire point and intention of the book.

232

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Biblical adultery always involved a married woman.

Even in cases of prostitution (harlotry) it took a married woman having sex with either a single or married man for it to be condemned. When a single woman was the prostitute it was not condemned.

You may scoff (maybe not) but those are the facts. Don’t deny them UNLESS you have put in the requisite study.[/quote]

Not true.
deut 22
" 21the men of the town will take the woman to the door of her father’s house and stone her to death.

This woman brought evil into your community by sleeping with someone before she got married, and you must get rid of that evil by killing her. "[/quote]

You took it out of context. No surprise there. If you look closely you will see the sin of lying is involved.

READ THE SCRIPTURE IN CONTEXT.[quote]

And 23
"18The LORD your God is disgusted with men and women who are prostitutes of any kind, and he will not accept a gift from them, even if it had been promised to him. "

There are others, but you get the idea.[/quote]

Vs 23 in the NIV reads “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her.”

You must have got your reference wrong. Please look it up and revise. Then I can respond.
[/quote]

wow, translations on verse 18 vary a lot. this is 17 in the kjv " 17There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

18 essentially says not to offer money earned through prostitution. kjv " 18Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

still shows my point. Prostitution in all forms is wrong.[/quote]

Please cite the chapter and verses in question. I’m not getting any of this from chapter 23.[/quote]

duet 23 17-18: american standard
" 17 There shall be no prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the wages of a dog, into the house of Jehovah thy God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination unto Jehovah thy God."

NIV:
" 17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. 18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute [c] into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both. "

KJV:
" 17There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

18Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God. "

He makes it clear prostitution is detestable.

233

WOW! I go to a one day conference at NDU and come back to 6 new pages of discussion on this thread . . .

it’s going to take me some time to catch up here, but may i suggest (as a Christian brother and with no pride or condecesion) that we take a collective deep breath . . . stand up . . . spin clockwise 5 times . . . slap the next person to walk by . . . throw two post-it note pads at the fan . . . and slooooow down just a bit.

I will make one point regarding the polygamy line. I do not believe that the Bible either explicitely condemns or condones polygamy. I do believe that Paul gave the criteria for a bishop/spiritual leader and that it undisputedly says he is to be the husband of one wife. The Bible also states that we are to eagerly desire the “greater gifts” which include teaching (the role of the Bishop), so the Bible is clearly stating that we should all desire to rise to the spiritual level of the apostles, bishops, etc and thus we would want to be qualified for that office, and thus the husband of one wife.

Now, the argument can be made to either side, PRACTICAL: that the requirement is because of the time demands of being married to multiple women, SPIRITUAL: that the requirement is because it demonstrates the character of the bishop. I prefer the latter, because the additional descriptions in 1 Timothy are clearly character related.

anyhoo - my 2 cents on polygamy for now . . .

the lust and adultery issue? - I’ll break out the Hebrew later on, but for now, do your own language study - LOL!

234

I will say one thing. This thread has been a stunning reminder and warning for me about how a perfectly fine intellect falls to the ground in the deceptive hands of sin.

237

18Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

No. It says don’t be a (cult/temple, some translations don’t have this qualifier) whore.

Then it says, don’t use whore’s money to give to god. Sans qualifier in all translations. is the dog money thing also only temple dogs?

239

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I will say one thing. This thread has been a stunning reminder and warning for me about how a perfectly fine intellect falls to the ground in the deceptive hands of sin.[/quote]

This thread has been a stunning reminder and warning for me about how a perfectly fine intellect reverts to character assassination when point by point arguments simply cannot or will not be made.[/quote]
I don’t know what to tell ya man. The God we’re talking about reached down into a homeless puddle of puke and not only saved my life… literally and to the uttermost, but for the past 26 years has been flawlessly faithful to me even during the times I tried to run from Him. I’m on this earth to do for Him. To do for the WIFE who He has so graciously blessed me with. I don’t spend my time pouring through His word looking for ways to twist into a porn mag. You have made no points. This foundational area is long settled.

None of the reformers who despised popery and roman sacerdotal superstition. Not the Westminster assembly that spent 4 years and thousands of God fearing hours forging their standards. None of the millions of godly men who’ve studied and taught all over the world. Note, MEN who would have every carnal earthly reason to be thrilled with what you’re saying. They all essentially agree with each other straight across the orthodox denominational scale and disagree with you and your post modern paperback scholarship.

What’s tragic is there will be some happy go lucky pagans who will read this thread and say to themselves.: “just go get some man. Why all the the pseudo religious trappings geeez.” What started as a golden opportunity for especially women here, to see a witness to the beautiful order God has for those who love Him has degenerated into this.

I don’t need any more word studies. The systematic exposition of every syllable has long established everything that really really matters including sex and marriage which are essentially the same thing for good or evil. In the case of the mortally significant Christian doctrines there is truly nothing new under the sun. Like I said, I knew this day would come, and I am not happy it’s here.