Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

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.[/quote]

Ruth was chasing Boaz and him only. She knew what she was doing and her mother-in-law Naomi surely filled her in on the ins and outs of Levitical law.[/quote]
Please read Deuteronomy 25:5-10 which explains Levirate law and explains why Boaz told Ruth what he did in Ruth 3:12-13. Now certainly Ruth asked and wanted Boaz to do the part of a kinsman to her by what she did at the threshing floor, and Boaz certainly wanted to do the part of a kinsman to her but he couldn’t because of the nearer kinsman had first pick and Boaz could only be the kinsman if the nearer one declines. If Boaz and Ruth had intercourse at the threshing floor, Boaz would have violated this rule and taken the opportunity away for the nearer kinsman had he done this.

303

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I find it mighty interesting that when it comes to creation/evolution debates the Tiribs and Maddox’s and DDs of this forum leave me alone in the Alamo, single-handedly fighting off Santa Ana’s army of atheists, agnostics and Genesis-is-a-myth Catholics but when the subject of sex in the Bible comes up the wagging tongues and pointing fingers have no problem suddenly appearing.

I’m in the mission outside of ol’ San Antone with two or three rifles and a dog and you guys are down in Galveston Bay tarpon fishing.

Very telling.

Sex in the Bible? “Let us draw our bows.”

“Genesis is a myth? The creation account is a joke?” [crickets chirping] “Ummmm…my name is Tirib/DD/DRMaddox and…well…I have to mow the lawn. Sorry, Push.”[/quote]

I think you take the word myth too heartily, it is not in the same essence as the connotation as fairy tale as atheists or intelligentia have made it to be. When I say myth it is a true story, just not a strict 6 day process as we know days in the secular world.

306

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Until you understand that divine history before the 3rd of Genesis… [/quote]

I understand it well enough that I have gone into battle over it alone…clear back in the days of Pookie. Like I said before, you were at Club Med sippin’ martinis with purty umbrellas in 'em while I was storming the Iwo Jima of Genesis-is-a-Myth.[/quote]
If you are even slightly interested in what I actually said. Please read the whole post.

307

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< adultery in the Bible and adultery in 300 - 2010 A.D. means two different things. >>>[/quote]
Just like the JW’s and God. Yes, that’s an extra biblical argument, but we’re dealing with divine providence and it carries the same weight against this incredibly arrogant assertion that it does against them. God withheld this foundational truth concerning THE primary human relationship until some guy with a view I like wrote a book

308

[quote]pushharder wrote:
OK, I promised the scoop on Boaz and Ruth. Here it is from Ruth 3:

Ruth, seeking to offer herself to Boaz as his wife, is told by Naomi to go to his bed while he sleeps and “uncover his feet” and lie down until he awakes and tells her what to do, (Ruth 3:7). The action Ruth is to take here is not merely to simply lay down at the foot of his bed and put the blanket over herself. “Uncover his feet” was a well known euphemism in that culture for “expose the genitals.” Moffat translates the Hebrew words this way: “uncovered his waist and lay down there.” She was advised to uncover his genitals and lay down beside him.

When he awoke with his genitals uncovered and Ruth lying beside him, he did not have to guess what she wanted! She was offering herself to him sexually, and he was willing! When she asked him to “spread your covering over me” she used a euphemism for sexual intercourse. This phrase arose because in sexual intercourse, a woman lying on her back lays open her robe to the man. The man spreads his robe apart as he lies on top of her. Thus the phrase “cover with my robe (or skirt or covering)” also came to refer to sexual intercourse.

Today if a man asks a woman, “Will you go to bed with me” we know he is not asking for a place to sleep! In the same way, in that Israelite culture when a man asked a woman if he could “cover you with my robe” he was asking for sex. So Ruth is unabashedly asking Boaz to copulate with her. He says “I will do whatever you desire” (vs. 11), which probably means that he had intercourse with her that night, for they indeed spent the night together (vs. 13, 14).

~ Philos Thelos, “Divine Sex”

[Edit] By the way and FWIW, when you read vs. 7 you’ll notice Boaz was intoxicated. Ruth may very well have known that and obviously used that to her advantage.[/quote]
Ok I will respond to this but I would like a response to my previous post as I believe it still applies.I see no evidence that Ruth taking off Boaz’s shoes means that she uncovers his genitals. Using Occam’s razor/rules of parsimony it is more likely that Naomi told Ruth to do this to show Ruth’s position as a faithful servant and to show Boaz’s authority over her. This is verified when Ruth says " I am Ruth, your servant". Now she departs from the role of a servant by asking him to fulfill the role of a kinsman to her by marring her(duet 25:5-10 the first step is marriage). Verse 11 is taken out of context and meaningless without verse 12.

312

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< adultery in the Bible and adultery in 300 - 2010 A.D. means two different things. >>>[/quote]
Just like the JW’s and God. Yes, that’s an extra biblical argument, but we’re dealing with divine providence and it carries the same weight against this incredibly arrogant assertion that it does against them. God withheld this foundational truth concerning THE primary human relationship until some guy with a view I like wrote a book[/quote]

No God didn’t “withhold this foundational truth concerning THE primary human relationship until some guy with a view I like wrote a book.” He made it well known in the B.C. and immediate A.D. era. Haven’t you been following along? I said this was the custom, a condoned, permitted custom if you will, a long, long, long time ago. It is you who insists it is nouveau.[/quote]
No, he made it clear in the sinless creation account after which it was compromised and distorted for a few thousand years though the form remained. Just like in man himself. The image of God having been warped by sin though still recognizable, longing for the day of redemption.

After the advent of the last Adam when a new upgraded even more intimate version of the relationship of God and man than the origninal was restored, so too was an upgraded even more intimate version of the glorious bond of Adam and Eve. The trouble is that remaining sin gives us corrupt hack theologians like Thelios who appeal to the first fallen Adam in us who grovels at the feet of the flesh clinging to the very BC law that condemns it. The old man as Paul calls him warring with the new man in Christ. Having been led from Egypt and showered with manna from heaven he grumbles at the Lord pining for what his defiled nature tells him are the good ol days on the banks of the Nile.

Just as God in His unsearchable wisdom never explicitly tells us He exists in three persons yet leaves it plain for the reverent student to discover, He doesn’t find it necessary to declare to the new man “thou shalt not go into more than one woman”. That fact is just as plain, as the whole of church history attests.

Yes, the intimate bond of marriage is directly analagous to the risen bridegroom Christ and His lowly yet adored church bride. The apostle commands the man of God to love the womAN, not as Adam loved Eve for even that falls far short, but as Christ loved His church and gave himself for her.

It is the most rank and defiling of sins to spurn this, the highest, holiest and most spiritual of human relations in favor of a desperate carnal hunger for the good old days before the accomplishment of redemption. To do so in the name of the Lord bridegroom heaps sin upon sin. Rather than revel in a delicious spiritual intimacy that only brushed the groping fingertips of David and Solomon, man (and woman) continues to debauch himself with BC substitutes. This website is a prime example.

When sex is viewed not as a holy spiritual act first, but as a mere compromised indulgence of the flesh you have the fallen view of the fallen world which while bad enough, pales in comparison to a satanic tool like Philo Thelos who smears it in the face of the judge of the world.

313

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

So, given the above passage, if both “rulers” consented to having others join in, would that make it okay?[/quote]

Thelos makes that point, as a matter of fact. There can be no “unfaithfulness” in that scenario.

When Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, Abraham was not being “unfaithful” to Sarah. Now one can argue that it didn’t turn out all that great because Ishmael sure complicated things later on down the line but the fact of the matter is…the sex between the Hebrews 11 Hall of Famer and his wife’s servant girl was NOT unfaithfulness and it was NOT immoral.[/quote]

Sorry, my chin strap was a little crooked.

It may not have been unfaithfulness to Sarah, but it was disobedience to God.

314

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< Pretty raunchy of me, wasn’t it? Hope I didn’t offend anyone.[/quote]
LOL!!! You really don’t get it.

In light of my last post, there is no such thing as “raunchy”. This is one aspect I will concede. That the church has at times repressed the free expression of sexual passion WITHIN MARRIAGE which is also sin and leads to yet further sin. Oh no no no my friend. You cannot possibly offend at least me, speaking for myself.

When viewed as the earthly representation of Christ’s love for His church the marriage bed is undefiled. There are no taboo no no’s. No eew that’s ucky or too dirty. God wouldn’t like me doing that or that way. NO WAY!! And I thank Him for it. You’ve missed the whole point. Once the new Adam and the new Eve embrace the primarily spiritual nature of their new covenant, all restraints are joyously cast away in favor of a (and I do say this with all due gravity) holy threesome. My wife, myself and Christ. You can chase all the forbidden fruit you please it will never compare to that.

I know every centimeter of her glorious womanhood in extreme closeup fashion and have made myself an expert in their most intricate workings as her every gasping coo and tremble makes sweetly clear. It’s not about getting MYSELF laid. It’s about GIVING myself FOR HER for which I am rewarded with her equally giving and expert attentions. Say what you will. That is not possible for anybody with more than one “partner” any more than it’s possible for there to be more than one Christ or more than one church. All else is not only sin, but ultimately empty.

Let me make abundantly clear that I fully own the fact that I too will never be completely free of that first Adam while in this life. I can just as easily be drawn aside by sinful lusts and degrading passions that masquerade themselves as “liberty” while strengthening the chains of my old man as you or anyone else. To safeguard against this I do my best to “flee youthful lusts” and avoid putting the object of my downfall before my sinful eyes which is damned difficult in this society.

Once you grasp the fact that sex is first a spiritual blessing, the ravishing of Christ of His Church, the words of Jesus are laughably clear. “If you so much as look on a woman to lust after her you have committed adultery already with her in your heart” The heart is where the resurrected life of Christ lives. The heart is where sex primarily happens. All one need do is ponder impurity and they ARE impure. It is a WAR. A war that was won by the Son of God who nailed the power of our enemy to his cross and emerged victorious from and over death. He freely hands that victory to us so we can live. And not merely live, but live triumphantly, scarred from daily battle though we are while awaiting the final victory.

You go right ahead with your God grieving attempts to reduce his greatest blessing, save for salvation itself, to penises and vaginas with your pocket Thelios at your side. If you do you are gonna pay. You’re already paying. My deepest heartfelt prayer for you (starting 2 days ago) is that God please not give you over and surrender you to your old Adam as is His right and as he has done to so many others.

315

OK, starting at the recap:

  1. We have already agreed that those that seek leadership in the Church are commanded to be monogamous, the rationale for which can be based in 2 (not mutually exclusive) viewpoints - practical and spiritual. - - - monogamy is identified as the higher standard

  2. We are also told to desire the better gifts. Thus we are all to rise to the standard of leadership in the church, and thus need to be able to meet the qualifications of leadership. - - - - we are all to strive for that higher standard.

  3. I then introduced the biblical principle of moderation in all things and that we are to avoid the excesses of the flesh with my poorly worded inclusion of the sin of gluttony. - - - - we are to practice moderation/balance in all things

  4. When God created the perfect place, placed the first man in it and created the perfect companion for man - it was one woman, not many women.

  5. When God created the institution and standard of marriage - it was with one man and one woman.

  6. Malachi clearly establishes that we are not to break faith with (become unfaithful to) the “wife of our youth” - a picture of fidelity to one wife - important to note that it does not say wives of your youth.

  7. then we established that the husband is the sovereign ruler of the wife’s body and the wife is the sovereign ruler of the husband’s body - and that this is to be done to meet all sexual needs and this hearkens back to Gen where God meet all of Adamâ??s companionship and marital needs with one woman.

  8. the same passage identified the exclusivity of the marriage “let each (singular) have his own (singular) wife and let a woman (singular) have her own (singular) husband” - there can be no clearer standard than this.

  9. we then established that there is no distinction between the rights/roles of the man or the woman - equality in all things. - what this means is that if polygyny (for the man) were allowed, then so too must polyandry (for the woman) be allowed.

Before I go on, I want to state very plainly that I am not trying to “fix” you or denigrate you in anyway - I am merely explaining my views on this concept and the passages in question - ok?

OK - all of those OT men and their multiple wives. There is no avoiding the fact that many men throughout the OT had multiple wives - spiritual men, men who God praised, kings, prophets and just average joes . . . and yes, there is a plain passage where Nathan tells David that if what God had given him was not enough, God would have given him more . . . the list of polygynist men throughout the OT is lengthy - no doubt. however, there is no biblical example of God approving of a polyandrist woman . . . .

So there were polygynist men in the OT and God did not condemn, even appears to condone their behavior, right? appraently . . .BUT (you knew that was coming didn’t you) - there is a very important distinction here . . . we have a new standard from Christ.

Remember that He provided a new standard of the law (Sermon on the Mount) and explained God’s position on a lot of practices of the Jews. He does the same with this issue as well

Matthew 19: 8-9 “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” - this passage has the clearest denunciation of polygamy possible.

Christ plainly says that anyone who divorces a wife for an invalid reason (ie the original marriage still is in force) and HE marries another woman (no marital status given for her) HE commits adultery.

A divorce for an invalid reason leaves the original marriage intact in the eyes of God. The only way the marriage covenant could be dissolved in the eyes of God was for it to be for the one legitimate reason provided - unfaithfulness in the marriage - otherwise, God states that the original marriage covenant is still in force. And then God goes on to state that if I marry another woman while still married to the first woman - I am an adulterer.

In my understanding this cannot be any plainer. If I am married, and while that marriage covenant is in force I marry another woman regardless of her age, virginity or marital status - I have committed adultery.

320

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

So, given the above passage, if both “rulers” consented to having others join in, would that make it okay?[/quote]

Thelos makes that point, as a matter of fact. There can be no “unfaithfulness” in that scenario.

When Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, Abraham was not being “unfaithful” to Sarah. Now one can argue that it didn’t turn out all that great because Ishmael sure complicated things later on down the line but the fact of the matter is…the sex between the Hebrews 11 Hall of Famer and his wife’s servant girl was NOT unfaithfulness and it was NOT immoral.[/quote]

Sorry, my chin strap was a little crooked.

It may not have been unfaithfulness to Sarah, but it was disobedience to God.[/quote]

Cite references.[/quote]

How about Sarah and Abraham taking into their own hands the promise that God told them? God said to both Sarah and Abraham that their decendents would be like the stars in the sky. The promise was through both Sarah and Abraham. This disobedience is why we have the issues in the Middle East today.