Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
382

[quote]pushharder wrote:
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]

Yes, fact #1 - there were women involved in God’s blessing of David by giving him all of his master’s possessions - plainly right there in the text.

Fact #2 - the women were there for sex - ahhhh . . . now you have a problem textually. God gave the household of David’s master and the household of Israel and the household of Judah to David - same words for gave and household used in all three cases - if giving the household including the women of his master to David insinuates that David was being given all of the women of his master for sex, then the same must textually apply to the households of Israel and Judah - ALL of the women of those households would also have been given to David for sex, but that obviously cannot be the case.

So if the context of being given for sex does not apply to all of the women of the households of Israel and Judah, why should it apply to the household of his master?

You’re reading the sexual connotation into the passage, not finding it expressly contained within it.

Fact #3 - Did David have multiple wives - yes. The passage you quoted is indeed God’s judgement on David - you did this to this man and his wife, I will do this to you and your wives - David repents and God does not enforce the “eye for an eye” punishment but instead David’s son is taken from him. How does that ring through as a condoning of polygamy? It is merely the acknowledgment that David does have multiple wives and God would have visited upon David and his wives the evil that David visited upon Uriah and his wife.

383

[quote]pushharder wrote:
However, it is not a firm edict that all sex other than with your wife is sin. [/quote]

Your statement suggests a man needn’t marry a woman to have sex with her. This is in conflict with the verse I posted. If a man can not abstain, he must take a wife. You argument is that a man may screw as many women–who he isn’t married to–as he wants. Women he isn’t married to, and obviously, who aren’t married to him. And that doesn’t change simply because a man does have a wife. Sleeping with anyone else is sex outside of marriage. That’s in complete opposition to what Christian men are being instructed to do. You can’t read what’ve you suggested into that verse. It’s plainly stated that for those who can’t abstain, they must marry. Hence, the traditional sex within marriage stance. Secondly, a husband takes his OWN wife, and a wife her OWN husband.

385

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< LOL I am short for basketball so you’re right, I’d never do well in the post position.[/quote]
OK, smartass touch’e =]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Now to your point. I have been so doggone systematic so far your head should be spinnin’ off.[/quote]
You have presented a subsystem that defies the governance of THE system. I know I know that’s subjective, but I’m in good company.

386

[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]

harem’s were not wives - but concubines. - Saul had one. :slight_smile:

387

I’m lost - I’m not sur eif I have answered all of your questions or not Push . . . .

389

I guess we don’t have to listen to what Jesus said about divore, either. Them Hebrews were doing it!

390

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

Fact #2 - the women were there for sex - ahhhh . . . now you have a problem textually. God gave the household of David’s master and the household of Israel and the household of Judah to David - same words for gave and household used in all three cases - if giving the household including the women of his master to David insinuates that David was being given all of the women of his master for sex, then the same must textually apply to the households of Israel and Judah - ALL of the women of those households would also have been given to David for sex, but that obviously cannot be the case.
[/quote]

Sure maybe “all the women” were not given as sex toys. Vs. 11 indicates at least some of them were.

Or do you believe, like Meneer Maddox, that part of David’s punishment was his cooks being fucked by his companions in broad daylight?
[/quote]

Nope - the wives are David were to treated as David had treated the wife of Uriah - i must be tired - I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the punishment of David and his wives . . .

395

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
…David repents and God does not enforce the “eye for an eye” punishment but instead David’s son is taken from him…[/quote]

Sorry, friend. You dropped the ball on that one. That was not all that happened to David for his punishment. Indeed his own son, Absalom, fucked David’s wives in the open right in front of the people of Israel. Just like Nathan said would happen.
[/quote]

having to type fast while working here - sorry if i missed a reference.

anyway - what is your point? David committed the sin of Adultery and Murder - God told him was going to bear the consequnces of his sin and then he does . . . soooo?

that doesn’t prove this passage has anything to do with God’s condoning polygamy - wasn’t that the discussion we were having?

398

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I guess we don’t have to listen to what Jesus said about divore, either. Them Hebrews were doing it![/quote]

Divorce is wrong. Divorce is condemned.

Read the whole thread, El Slothie, mi amigo. You’re late to the party. You don’t get to strike the pinata now.[/quote]

And so is sex outside of marriage. And if one is having sex with anyone other than one’s OWN wife (or, vice versa), one is having sex outside of marriage.

1 Cor 7:2-5
"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. "

And, verses 8-9
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

399

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I believe harems were the whole flippin’ stable. The wives must have had some official status via some kind of ceremony. The concs, no. C’mon, thou shalt not quibble.[/quote]

honest, not quibbling - just stating what I have biblical evidence for. The Bible lists two wives and 1 concubine for Saul - never no mention of a harem. - if you are trying to say the 2 wives and 1 concubine were Saul’s harem - well, alright, but the historical concept of a harem did not include the actual wives of the King. . . total side issue though

None of this changes any of the points I raised earlier - you were making some rationale arguments. now I just see a lot of poo being flung at the cage bars . . . nothing wrong with that - an occasional fling o’de’poo is a great stress reliever . . .

I had provided you with a textually based interpretation of the passage in question that is rationale and in keeping with the interpretations of the other passages we had agreed upon and one that does not require God to be giving David sexual playthings.

There it is - you can choose your version, obviously, but it is not demanded by the text and not supported by the other passages we have discussed . . .