Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
403

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I’m lost - I’m not sur eif I have answered all of your questions or not Push . . . .[/quote]

You missed these:

Mrs. Sol was clearly dancing for Sol and the boys. It is likely she was nude based on the scriptural account. Either way she was dancing for the boys.

Was it sin for her to do such? Y or N (Circle one)

Was it sin for Sol to allow it? Y or N (Circle one)

Was it sin for the friends to be there watching a naked or purt near naked married woman dance in front of them? Y or N (Circle one) [/quote]

Sorry - I don’t do limited answer questions :slight_smile: False premises . . . you know better than this - ask the full question, be happy to answer it

406

Here’s Philo Thelos’ other book setting us Christian right.

Description? "This author’s research demonstrates that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a consensual life-style. Find out what the Bible really says about homosexuality. "

Wowzers…

412

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Crux: David had multiple women. David had multiple women for sex. David had cooks and maids. David may have even had cooks and maids that he did the hoochie-koo with. David inherited multiple women from Saul. David acquired more multiple women after the inherited women. David was not condemned for sex with any of these women EXCEPT

for the one that he stole from another man.

David was not punished for sex with any of these women EXCEPT

for the one that he stole from another man.

THAT’S the discussion we were having![/quote]

Ahhhhh - i seeth where thou goest now . . .

Come on, you know better than this - we are not judged for our sins here, we bear the natural consequences of our sins here, but our judgement in heaven awaits us there . . .

The passage in question is not meant to be a whole live examination of the sexual proclivities of David - it is one story told about one situation in which a man after God’s own heart commits a sin, and then another sin to over that sin and in turn bears the consequences his actions produced.

You cannot make this limited scenario into a full-blown approval for all of the rest of David’s choices - it is limited in it scope and limited in its application.

Omission of something does not equate with condoning of that thing - The bible does not forbid the anal rape of 2 month old baby girls - but does that equate with condoning it? hardly!!

The whole story is told in context of David’s actions to and sins involved with Bathsheba - in that context David’s enumerated sins with Bathsheba are condemned by God and David is forced to bear the natural consequences of the choices he made - that’s the scope and the context.

The Bible also doe snot mention if David kicked his dogs, slapped his mother or beat his great aunt - but just because these thingsa re not mentioned in condemnation in no way equated with God’s blessing on such actions.

You’ve overreached the argument . . .

414

[quote]pushharder wrote:
More crux:

Abraham had multiple women. Abraham had multiple women for sex. Abraham had cooks and maids. Abraham may have even had cooks and maids that he did the hoochie-koo with.

Abraham was not condemned for sex with any of these women.

Abraham was not punished for sex with any of these women.

THAT’S the discussion we were having![/quote]

see my post above - examine your Bible for the consequences of those choices - and as I state dabove remember we are not judged here, but at the final judgement - here we bear natural consequences, not judgement . . . .

416

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I’m lost - I’m not sur eif I have answered all of your questions or not Push . . . .[/quote]

You missed these:

Mrs. Sol was clearly dancing for Sol and the boys. It is likely she was nude based on the scriptural account. Either way she was dancing for the boys.

Was it sin for her to do such? Y or N (Circle one)

Was it sin for Sol to allow it? Y or N (Circle one)

Was it sin for the friends to be there watching a naked or purt near naked married woman dance in front of them? Y or N (Circle one) [/quote]

Sorry - I don’t do limited answer questions :slight_smile: False premises . . . you know better than this - ask the full question, be happy to answer it[/quote]

Then take the Y or N off and answer the full question.[/quote]

Alrighty then, I shall, but this will take a little time - I love this book and I think you and I have some agreement on this one already, but let’s dive into the word and illuminate some great stuff . . . post to follow

418

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here’s Philo Thelos’ other book setting us Christian right.

Description? "This author’s research demonstrates that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a consensual life-style. Find out what the Bible really says about homosexuality. "

Wowzers…[/quote]

Wrong thread.

Forget Philos. Deal directly with Push Winchester Harder on this thread.[/quote]

How is it the wrong thread? Wasn’t both his name, and his book “Divine Sex,” raised as some authority? I think it’s rather pertinent to see just what else this individual has concluded about proper Christian morality. So not only can one screw his wife’s girl-friends, but also her boy-friends, apparently.

419

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
More crux:

Abraham had multiple women. Abraham had multiple women for sex. Abraham had cooks and maids. Abraham may have even had cooks and maids that he did the hoochie-koo with.

Abraham was not condemned for sex with any of these women.

Abraham was not punished for sex with any of these women.

THAT’S the discussion we were having![/quote]

see my post above - examine your Bible for the consequences of those choices - and as I state dabove remember we are not judged here, but at the final judgement - here we bear natural consequences, not judgement . . . .[/quote]

We’re not talking natural consequences. We’re talking the identification of sin.

Remember my analogy of hammer, thumb and nail way back yonder?[/quote]

Same applies though - just because every sin of David was not identified does not mean those unidentified sins were not sins - nor does it imply that behaviors not enumerated belong i on category or another - there was a limited scope for this tale and message intended for us to learn from about pride, lust, adultery, murder and the horrible choices even a godly man can fall too - how repentance and forgiveness of those sins can be such a blessing, but that forgiveness of the sin does not negate the consequences of those sins.