Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Hey Neuromancer, ol’ chum, should I send that $50 I owe you via Pay Pal?[/quote]

No,no keep it and keep doing what you have been doing,I’m finding this thread most interesting.I’m not a religious man,but I follow the religiously oriented threads on here as there is a wealth of knowledge on display,and I’m always ready to learn.You have displayed a control and mastery of the subject matter that has been quite eye opening.Your arguments are lucid and logical,and I’m not really seeing them being refuted in the same way.At all.

I personally think anything that happens between consenting adults is fine,I think that the ability to separate sex and love actually uplifts the love/spiritual connection angle of the relationship between a man and a woman,if it can be achieved with love and genuine pleasure in your partner being pleased by another.Of course,it takes two special people to make it work,but your history with your wife and closeness to her(as far as I can make out on here,which is of course limited),makes me think you two have achieved that move beyond the physical limitations like jealousy,insecurity and even covetousness.Which is in my experience a large part of what makes relationships fail in our era.

I am aware that that is a simplistic explanation,so to all the others,don’t take offense.

Carry on,Push.

482

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You pop in at the end of the third quarter and decide the game’s over for everyone, huh?

[/quote]

This is no game. There is nothing playful or game-like about it. I’m not amused or entertained. It’s deadly serious.

Paul and Christ weren’t playing…

Two become one.

Each man his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

483

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s deadly serious.[/quote]

No it’s not. His sexual behavior is between him and his wife, it’s not a hard concept to grasp.

But no, sit there and judge him for acting like a male.

484

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s deadly serious.[/quote]

No it’s not. His sexual behavior is between him and his wife, it’s not a hard concept to grasp.

But no, sit there and judge him for acting like a male.[/quote]

Do you ever stop and think before hitting submit? Seriously, you’ve descended to full blown troll status. If you’d actually read the thread, the developed discussion is as much my business as it is rightfully that of anyone else who is able to read and type.

485

This thread started as a discussion of the roles of men and women in religion. I don’t normally debate religion directly online even though Christ is by far the driving force of my life and I try to conduct myself accordngly. I thought this thread might be an opportunity to accurately present the ever misrepresented views of women in the Bible, particularly to the women who would undoubtedly read it. They probably still wouldn’t like it, but at least they would have heard from some of us what those views are.

Push has steered this discussion into a tumultuous confusing uproar (yes, I’ve participated too) in the name of good old fashioned debauchery while attempting to represent that as a Christian freedom long lost to all but his enlightened few. Do what you want. Everybody does, but that is not the Christian faith. It cannot stand unanswered before a world we are commanded to present with an irreproachable testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A command that I have very imperfectly kept and one that the news media rejoices in attacking every chance it gets.

It’s one thing to be found in grievous sin and even persist for a season. It’s quite another to willfully surrender to it and then attempt to redefine it as not only not sinful, but a blessing. It’s obvious to a duck what the motivation for this might be. It simply betrays a self centered lack of understanding of the system of biblical teaching as a whole and concerning THE seminal most primary human relationship in. particular.

I don’t know what else to say which is probably good, but I take no joy in being forced to see what’s right in front of my eyes.

486

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s deadly serious.[/quote]

No it’s not. His sexual behavior is between him and his wife, it’s not a hard concept to grasp.

But no, sit there and judge him for acting like a male.[/quote]

I certainly have no issue with it and more power to Push for being in a relationship like that.

But having grown up in a (fairly) strict Christian home, and attending Church regularly growing up, I can understand why Sloth, Tirib, dmaddox, and others would take issue with Push’s lifestyle.

487

[quote]Dustin wrote:
<<< I can understand why Sloth, Tirib, dmaddox, and others would take issue with Push’s lifestyle. >>>[/quote]

I take no issue with Push’s lifestyle. The lifestyle is just a symptom. 99% of the people on this site would be cheering him on. The fact that that’s not a warning sign to him is just another, well, warning sign. What I take issue with is trying to portray a wholesale alliance with carnality as endorsed by the Gospel.

488

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

What I take issue with is trying to portray a wholesale alliance with carnality as endorsed by the Gospel.[/quote]

I worded my post poorly. I know what you all have been saying to Push and can understand where you are coming from.

489

[quote]pushharder wrote:
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?

Was it sin for Sol to allow it?

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

OK - i was going to go verse by verse thru this great poetic book, but I’ll focus on the section you are speaking about (transiting chapters 4-5)

remember that I interpret this literally and also as a type (allegory) of the relationship between Christ and his Bride the church. Also remember that the voice speaking alternates between the daughters of Jerusalem, Solomon and the shulamite woman and that time passes without mention. Also remember that chapter breaks are not original to the text,there is no break at the end of chapter four

4:1-8 Solomon praises his lover and begs her to come away with him to various places

4:9-15 - they have apparently gone away to Lebanon as he describes her now smelling of the fragrances of that region and her “fountain” as a fountain of Lebanon

4:16 - she responds calling for the wind - apparently outdoor loving was fun back then too - and that her lover would come to his “garden”

5:1 - he responds that he has come to his garden - yes, it is as literal as it sounds

5:2 - this is the verse in question - now undoubtedly these two lovers have been tearing up some forest in Lebanon and now this is plainly a narrator comment closing this particular act of their love - they have been consumed in their passion (no more words from these two for a while) and as the scene closes, they (Solomon and the Shulamite) are told to “eat and drink” indeed to “drink deeply” and the curtain falls to rise on her awakening from their love-making in 5:3

There was no mention of any other people in the preceding verses as they romped in the woods of Lebanon - to insert an audience in this most tender moment without textual support is not logical or demanded by the text.

Your interpretation has to be inserted into scripture, because it is not there in the text.

492

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< OK - i was going to go verse by verse thru this great poetic book, but I’ll focus on the section you are speaking about (transiting chapters 4-5)[/quote]
I was lookin forward to it. The last was concise, but a good read.

This is where I was leaning last time I was in this book with any depth. It sorta logically coincides with their being so much other typology on the OT tied to historical events.

My hat is off to you for tackling Hebrew. It freaked me out. I got to where I could get around in a Greek NT, but Hebrew? It’s so alien to our way of doing language. I didn’t get very far.

494

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I also understand that if it were 1412 Tirib would have a torch in his hand and he’d have folks around him gathering firewood.[/quote]

I love BBQ’s! What is on the menu?

Oh…

496

Here’s a question which may be beyond this thread, but then again, this thread has been hijacked already.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that what Push is doing is immoral based on Christian morality. Should it also be illegal? Why or why not?

I’m sure everyone can guess at my answer.

BTW Push - that story you told about your wife dancing naked while you were working out - pictures or it never happened. Someone had to say it.

498

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

BTW Push - that story you told about your wife dancing naked while you were working out - pictures or it never happened. Someone had to say it.[/quote]

LOL! I thought the same thing.

499

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Dustin wrote:

…I certainly have no issue with it and more power to Push for being in a relationship like that.

This whole line of discussion is entirely diversionary.

[/quote]

It was to preface the rest of my post.

I wouldn’t want to come off judgemental now would I?

500

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< Liar.[/quote]
It’s to be expected from the world. What I take issue with is your tarnishing the name of Christ with it. I’ve been here 5 years and you are the only one I’ve taken up with about it for that reason.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Has the thought ever entered your head that maaaaaaybe you don’t know the Gospel as well as you think you do?[/quote]
The system? Not for a long time and certainly never in such a way as to promote something like this. There is still plenty left to learn though and yes that does make perfect sense.

I’ve got some stuff to do. I’ll probably be back later. That beck/O’Reilly piece is up if you didn’t see.