Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
361

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[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?
[/quote]

Irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether or not the sex with the women of the harem was sin or not. Was it immoral?[/quote]

Just because you think it is irreelevant does not mean it is irrelevant. All kings that had harems had the funds to take care of them. Do you do the exact same thing that David and Mr Sol did for their Harem? You can not have your cake and eat it to. Just because he had women does not mean he slept with every single one of them. Just because he might have slept with them does not mean it was not what God wanted. Everytime in the Bible there is sex involved outside of marriage something bad happens. Abraham and Hagar, David and Bathsheeba, The hand writting on the wall, and many others. Sex outside of marriage brings about extremely bad things. You are rationalizing this.

Of course this is my opinion.

362

Push,you are laying the smack down in here.In my opinion,those opposing you here need to seriously raise their games.

364

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

…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]

I am still gasping for breath.

“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.”

You think ol’ Dave would’ve been humiliated and thus punished by having his “companion” fuck his cook, huh?[/quote]

I am talking about the Nathan post, so please get over yourself.

365

But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

1Cor 7:2-5

367

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m not letting this one float away untouched:

<<<>>>

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’ve been in and out all day. I didn’t see this before.

I confess that I am not prepared to offer a firm opinion one way or another. I’m not even sure what form I would give to the Song. It is a yet unresolved area of non fatal doctrine, like eschatology that I have not settled through prayer and study.

It is however a point, and regardless of which way it comes down it is governed by the system. The sinless creation and redeemed restoration are the clear principles of the system that govern sex and marriage for believers. I have explained this and this time I do believe you read it. Left to my old man it would take all of 10 seconds for me to jump on board with what you’re saying. I have no illusions.

However, the Spirit witnessing to my spirit through the system of His Word tells me that believing more women in the flesh of the old covenant is better than one in the Spirit in the new would be to deny my wife and myself the exalted intimacy I described on the previous page. The new creature in Christ in me does not envy David and Solomon. They longed to see MY day, as the writer of Hebrews tells us.

372

Push is not a stupid man as I have been well aware lo these 5 years. He’s one of my favorite people here. That is a serious statement. He has gone to enormous lengths in this “upstream swim” to paraphrase his own words. Nothing anybody can say to him will leave him without a response satisfactory to himself. Nothing.

That is a statement of pure observation with no ill directed at him in any way.

373

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Herr Maddox, I’m not trying to offend you but utter foolishness drives me nuts, bud.[/quote]

I need you to put down some quotes of my foolishness.

Not trying to offend you but your utter foolishness drives me nuts, bud. I am talking about your ability to distort the literal interpretation of the Genesis Story. God made one man and one woman. He did not make many woman for him to have. This is what the original unsinful marriage was suppose to be.

Do I think Mr. Sol was living in sin? Yes.

Should sin be included in the Bible? Yes because it shows mans true nature, and that is what the OT is showing. We can not do it on our own because we are sinners. We need a Savior to save us from ourselves.

I would like to beleive that S of S was there to show a loving relationship between a husband and a wife, but now I will have to be in prayer about it. You stated you did not want your brothers to stumble. After this altercation I have.

We are all sinners, and I am not going to try and rationalize my sin to make me feel better. God wants us to be blameless, but we can not do it on our own.

I would still like to get your references on how you know the customs of that time.

375

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< blow your trumpet to have it removed from the Christian canon. Sheesh.[/quote]
I have not the slightest inclination to any such thing. I answered you honestly.

378

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

…David and Solomon. They longed to see MY day, as the writer of Hebrews tells us.[/quote]

Irrelevant. They were not speaking of sex when they said that.
[/quote]
Your a point man. I’m a system man.

380

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

…Do I think Mr. Sol was living in sin? Yes…[/quote]

That was not my question. You know that was not my question. You disingenuously rephrased the question. You are playing a game here that does not go unnoticed.[/quote]

I guess you will continue to pick and choose what part of my posts you want to discuss. Tirib is right. You are a point man and we are a system men. We look at the entire picture, and not just the pixle.

How can you say I disingenously rephrased the question. I am not playing a game, I am trying to answer your points, but I again am looking at the entire picture, and you are only looking at the pixle. Please read my entire post, and that will answer your questions.