holy crap . . . I can’t keep up . . .LOL
[quote]pushharder wrote:
C’mon, I.S., whether it should be translated “wives” or “women” makes no difference. David got himself a harem and if he had wanted a bigger harem God told him He would’ve given it to him.[/quote]
Actually it makes a lot of difference . . .
you see, that’s where you and I both have to make a logical leap - or in other words, now we have to choose the concluusion of the logical structure by choosing between saying that God gave David many women to have sex with or that God gave David all of Saul’s possessions including servants.
This is where all of the passages I outlined earlier apply for me, plus the text is plain that there is no sexual context intending in the giving (it is a possessional statement) - and therefore, based on the principle of interpreting scripture with scripture, I am able to take that logical leap in the direction of the conclusion that God was not involved with providing David multiple sex partners.
You certainly cannot deny that it is a rationale and viable intrepretation, right?
Now can you make the logical leap the other direction? you certainly can, but that conclusion does seem to run counter to the earlier statements we did agree on, does it not?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Galations 5:16-26. This sums it up.
So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
This sums it all up at least in my mind. Orgies, Sexual Immorality. These are desires of the flesh. The Spirit is what we need to be following. God gave us his true meaning of marriage and a love relationship in Genesis. Live by the Spirit and not by the flesh. Sex is of the flesh. With in the confines of marriage there is nothing wrong with sex. It is a physical and spiritual blessing that God gave to humans. We must have self control when it comes to sins of the flesh and they are all laid out above.
[/quote]
I understand.
What you don’t understand is what “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery” meant at the time those words were written. Until you do, we will make no reasonable headway in this discussion. I’ve been over this before.
Webster did not write his most famous book in 60 A.D.[/quote]
Where are you getting your idea of the customs of the time and your definition of “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery?” I need something more than just Philos’ book. Sex was rampant in that time, and not just at temples. It was every where. Just because the custom was to have sex with everyone does not mean it was correct. I see the Bible clearly states that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Debauchery is what the people of the time, non-beleivers, thought was wrong. Many people had sex with young boys. The custom of the time was that was ok. Does that mean that God permits people to have sex with young boys?
One thought I might want to give on is when did the marriage start? Did it start when two people fell in love, made a covenant, and mated, or was it when you are legaly married infront of your family and get the marriage license. Seems like in the OT it is when copulation occured. I am trying to get my head around this one.
I am still trying to get your idea of what you are talking about. Somethings you agree with and somethings you do not agree with.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
holy crap . . . I can’t keep up . . .LOL[/quote]
That’s how I was yesterday! I had you, Maddox and Tirib the Satanic Tool Avenger all coming at me from three different directions!
I needed a water cooled machine gun. My air cooled one was overheating![/quote]
LOL - sorry about that . . . yeah being in the “hot seat” can wear your fingers to the nub - someone on here has that avatar of the typist who ends up typing his arms off and bashing the keybard with his skull - feels like that sometimes . .
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
…the supposed sexual intonation is not present…[/quote]
Yeah…you gonna try and make the case that David’s (and Saul’s) harem was not there for sexual reasons? Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally?[/quote]
ahhh . … my own harem . . . wow! what were we talking about?
LOL - ok, first Saul is only ever mentioned as having two wives and one concubine. No mention in scripture that he had a “harem” - so, to infere something not explicitly stated does open up room for error by that inference.
Secondly, David is mentioned as having 7 wives, dang it - can’t recall the number of concubines - i think it was 2, not sure . . . still, here again the idea of them possessing a harem is a huge stretch
Sorry, I know it was a semantical division, but a needed one - did they have multiple wives and a concubine or two? yes, where they sexual partners - i would think so . .
Did Saul have a harem that he could pass possession of to David? Huge stretch that can only be made by asumptions . . .
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
C’mon, I.S., whether it should be translated “wives” or “women” makes no difference. David got himself a harem and if he had wanted a bigger harem God told him He would’ve given it to him.[/quote]
Actually it makes a lot of difference . . .
you see, that’s where you and I both have to make a logical leap - or in other words, now we have to choose the concluusion of the logical structure by choosing between saying that God gave David many women to have sex with or that God gave David all of Saul’s possessions including servants.
This is where all of the passages I outlined earlier apply for me, plus the text is plain that there is no sexual context intending in the giving (it is a possessional statement) - and therefore, based on the principle of interpreting scripture with scripture, I am able to take that logical leap in the direction of the conclusion that God was not involved with providing David multiple sex partners.
You certainly cannot deny that it is a rationale and viable intrepretation, right?
Now can you make the logical leap the other direction? you certainly can, but that conclusion does seem to run counter to the earlier statements we did agree on, does it not?[/quote]
Fact Number 1: there certainly were women as part of the package that God Himself gave to David and they were specifically mentioned. Goats, sheep, gold, silver, palaces, rum, clothing, vacation retreats on the Med, silverware, royal chefs, etc. were almost certainly part of the package too but they were not deemed worthy of special mention. The women were. Must be a reason.
Fact Number 2: the women were there for sex. Anyone wanna challenge me as to whether the women in a harem in the Middle East in 1055 BC were there for sex?
Fact Number 3: II Samuel 12:11 says as part of the punishment for David’s adultery with Bathsheba, “Thus says the LORD, 'Behold…I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.”
Do you now want to contest Fact Number 2?[/quote]
I would like to elaborate on Fact #2. A harem was at the beck and call of the king. The Harem lived in the palace with the King. The King took care of the Harem. The King feed, clothed, sheltered the Harem. If you want to say you have a Harem, do you take care of all of your womens needs or are they just there for the sex. Does your Harem live with you?
I did not see any mention of citations or references to where you get your definitions of the 3 items I put up. Repost them if they are so easy to find. All you have put up is that you beleive that sexual immorality is only having sex with the temple maids, and your definition of adultery is only if a married man and a married woman have sex outside of marriage. This is not what it is talking about. This is only your interpretation. I want to see third party references and the book “Divine Sex” in my opion is not an authoritarian book. The guy did not even live in the area or the age of the time he is saying acted this way.
I say sex in all forms was rampant in those days, just as they are now. IMO the Bible tries to set us apart from the world. Just because the world does it does not mean that it is right. The Bible says sexual immorality, and if God says that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and then says if you look upon a woman with lust you have committed adultery in your heart. If you plan to have sex with a woman, but do not go through with it it is still lust.
I want to get to the Lust and Adultery definitions by everyone. We are getting boged down on the polygamy thing. Push obviously does not subscribe to Polygamy because he only has one wife. It is also illegal here in the states, and pretty much every place on the planet.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Did Saul have a harem that he could pass possession of to David? Huge stretch that can only be made by asumptions . . .[/quote]
Good grief, bud, we already established that Saul had a harem that was passed on to David. It doesn’t necessarily matter what the specific number was for the purpose of this part of the debate. Any number above ONE is multiple wives.[/quote]
I disagree that we have established that Saul had a harem and that was the meaning of the passage you love to put up. It only said women it did not say harem which means sexual in nature. Women only mean human with vaginas, not vaginas that need to be poked. They could have been servants there to clean and cook.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m not letting this one float away untouched:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pushharder wrote:
<<< Pretty raunchy of me, wasn’t it? Hope I didn’t offend anyone.
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…
Will you also concede that when Mrs. Sol danced nude for Sol and his friends that it too was not raunchy? Or is this part of the Song…sin? [/quote]
I want Tirib the Satanic Tool Smighter, Irish and Monsieur Maddox to tell me whether or not Mrs. Sol dancing nude in front of Mr. Sol’s friends was a sin or not.
Did Mr. and Mrs. Sol commit sin in doing this?
Did Mr. Sol’s buds commit sin in watching?
[/quote]
I dont know because I have never been to a strip club, so I can not comment on what a man in that place would be thinking looking at another man’s wife. I will say when I look a woman up and down I am lusting so it is a sin. I battle this everyday. Do not tell me that is not lust, because lust starts with the eyes. Then the idea creeps into your mind and then goes to your heart. Lust is sin, so if Mr. Sol’s friend were like hey Mr. Sol has a nice piece of ass that I would like also and think about her inapropriately then yes it is a sin, but if he was looking at her like a piece of art in the Art Gallery then no. Did Mr. Sol say to Mrs. Sol go give Richard over there a blow job. No he did not. This was his wife and she was only for him. Did he have sex in front of everyone, no he did not. Seeing another man naked was against Levitcal law. To a Hebrew you never wanted to be seen naked out in public. If you were you were to be mocked. Mrs Sol was not a Hebrew so maybe this was seen as Taboo, but Mr. Sol over looked it because he loved her. Solomon was a wise king no doubt, but his down fall was women.
Sampson as you like to bring up his down fall was women. The Philistines poked out his eyes because he was lusting for their women. He cared more about the women then his Nazarite Oath he gave to God. Sampson went against all 3 parts of the Nazarite Vow, and God still blessed him and he killed all those Philistines at once. God is faithful to his word even though we are not faithful to ours. You could say that Amon and all the kings of Israel had a harem and some were seen as evil and some were not. The difference between the ones that God loved and the ones he did not was their heart, and their ability to repent and seek after him. God did not bless David and Mr. Sol with women to have sex with. God blessed David and Mr. Sol because they loved the Lord.
Sorry to join the dogpile Push, but I’d like your thoughts on a few scriptures.
“But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (I Cor 7:9)
Firstly, if it were lawful to engage in sex with any single woman (excluding temple prostitutes), then why would a man “burn” with passion? He can essential get all the tail he desires (excluding wives and temple prostitutes).
Secondly, why would he recommend marriage to help quench a man’s desire if it were acceptable to have sex outside of marriage?
Thirdly, Paul includes himself when he mentions “warring with the flesh” daily, not just the Gentiles.
" These are the works of the flesh: adultery, fornication…" (Gal 5:19)
Now, if you are correct and married women and temple prostitutes are the only women off limits for sex, then Paul is kind of a spiritual weakling. Afterall, he can have sex with any woman he wants excluding these groups. Seems like a pretty easy war to win.
Now, if the traditional view is correct, and sex is reserved for marriage only, then the “war with the flesh” becomes exceedlingly more difficult, especially for a single man like Paul who did not have a wife to contain his desires.