Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
562

[quote]pushharder wrote:
IS, I can’t buy your scenario:

The wife of the king runs around town in the middle of the night looking for the king so she can get laid. She runs into the cops, they mistake her for a hooker and beat and injure her.

She responds by attracting a group of hookers (did she meet them in the city jail?) who follow her back to the palace so they can watch her dance naked for her man. She finds her man and he the king runs off the hookers so they can’t watch him and her make love.

Nope. Can’t buy all that.[/quote]

LOL - not when you change my words . .of course not . . lol

A wife of the King ( I say the true wife) who resides in her own private residence awaits her lover, the king, and he finally comes to her late in the night after a busy day of doing kingly things, maybe even returning from a war - she teases him by not opening the door immediately, he (thinking she must be asleep and unwilling to open the door so late at night leaves, she realizes she took too long when she opens the door and realizes he has left.

He may have decided to walk his city at night to ensure all was well or simply to go back to his residence for the evening, we don’t know, but anyway - she rushes out into the night, runs into a couple of the night watch who mistake her for another prostitute and abuse her, she is able to get away from them (maybe even with the help of the hookers), she continues her frantic search and she now has the attention of the hookers, they are intrigued by this half-dressed woman rushing frantically about the city, she asks for their help in locating her lover.

They want to know what kind of man could make a lady risk her life and health running around the city at night - she tells them how wonderful he is - they offer to help find him - she has spotted him and rushes to him - they embrace - you can imagine her joy at finding him after her horrible experiences and his that he will be able to spend the night with her - their embrace turns passionate - she starts to drag him off -

the hookers want to see the end of this show, but He says this is a private thing not a public display why should they get to see this? and the narrative ends - opening again with her and him making sweet passionate love

It’s all there textually, no stretch, no adding to the text, taken just as the Hebrew states it.

Now I really do need to go - thanks again Push.

563

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I’m gonna have to knock it off or I’ll wind up grabbin the baby oil and draggin the lady of the house into the bedroom and I have chest, tris and shoulders in a little while. =][/quote]

Careful, Tirib the Satanic Tool Slaughterer, you’re starting to slip into “pornographic” and “profane” waters “unbecoming of a Christian.”
At least you’re loosening up a bit. Excellent work, my friend.[/quote]
You missed this from about 15 pages ago which is fine. Nobody’s gonna read every one of my long posts. Being a dogmatic system man, by defintion my answers can almost never be short which is why I don’t usually do this online.
I said:

[quote]<<< When viewed as the earthly representation of Christ’s love for His church the marriage bed is undefiled. There are no taboo no no’s. No eew that’s ucky or too dirty. God wouldn’t like me doing that or that way. NO WAY!!

And I thank Him for it. You’ve missed the whole point. Once the new Adam and the new Eve embrace the primarily spiritual nature of their new covenant, all restraints are joyously cast away in favor of a (and I do say this with all due gravity) holy threesome. My wife, myself and Christ. You can chase all the forbidden fruit you please it will never compare to that.

I know every centimeter of her glorious womanhood in extreme closeup fashion and have made myself an expert in their most intricate workings as her every gasping coo and tremble makes sweetly clear. It’s not about getting MYSELF laid. It’s about GIVING myself FOR HER for which I am rewarded with her equally giving and expert attentions.

Say what you will. That is not possible for anybody with more than one “partner” any more than it’s possible for there to be more than one Christ or more than one church. All else is not only sin, but ultimately empty. >>>[/quote]
Sex is not dirty. Talking about sex is not dirty within godly boundaries and those boundaries may extend further than many church people would like. There is a spirit and a line that is impossible to define, but it IS clear when it’s been crossed.

564

I just called my wife over. "look, he says we’re loosening up a bit. She’s checked in on this thread with me a few times.

She just gave me the look and the smile, chuckled a little and went back outside.

567

[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< did not make a big deal out of sex. He was more concerned with what was going on in the heart rather than the pussy/penis. >>>[/quote]
And you just made my previous point. In the post fall pre-redemption era of the old carnal earthly covenant of law, which you are obsessed with clinging to, sex was not as big a deal. It was legislated as cheap, mechanical and formal. That was the result of the fall of Adam, hearts of stone. God tells us in the new covenant we get our softened hearts of flesh back.

Sex/marriage in the garden was defined by God himself AS mankind. Recall the 2 become 1 thing in light of "male and female created he them and he called their name Adam/Man. Gen 5. Ask Irish about this one. After the fall EVERYTHING, the whole creation was plunged into death and compromise. This is where you insist on living because you are enslaved to the man that comes from there.

Sex/Marriage in the garden WAS a big deal, defining mankind. In the new covenant it’s gotten a mind boggling upgrade now defining the bridegroom CHRIST and his CHURCH Bride!!! Do you understand me!?!?!? How’s that for Grace? Jesus is not called the “last Adam” by accident. He is.

You have it backwards man. You don’t define the new testament by the old. The garden before sin and the new testament govern and supersede the old for systematic exegesis and interpretation. You cannot have that because then you don’t get to whore around which is more important to you than joining us here in the age of redemption.

I would like to humbly believe and you yourself have observed that I have been blessed with a well above average command of the language, but I am out of ways to explain that THIS is the system.

Rather than bombard me with more dead points from the age of the law get yer brain outta yer shorts for a night and take it to God in prayer. Forget about your past. That was then.

571

It is becoming increasingly clear that I at least, cannot connect with you. >>>>—Zoom—>, right past. All of it. Maybe it IS my fault.

577

Tiribulus, I have lived with this man for 27 years and I know exactly how you feel. Don’t worry you are not the only one shaking you head right now.

Hang in there bud!

:wink:

578

[quote]meesuspush wrote:
Tiribulus, I have lived with this man for 27 years and I know exactly how you feel. Don’t worry you are not the only one shaking you head right now.

Hang in there bud!

;-)[/quote]

27 years sounds like Love and Commitment to me…

Mufasa

579

[quote]meesuspush wrote:
<<< Hang in there bud! >>>[/quote]
No… I don’t believe I will. Please read in it’s entirety. I won’t bother you again.

You have discussed genitalia and sex acts in this exchange 15/1 over the risen Lord you claim to love and worship which is the crowning symptom of the following.

Even if your watchtower worthy butchery of the law of liberty were correct, you have committed heinous self obsessed violations of it by pouring it over the heads of those of us that law would call weaker brothers.

You employ a fatally flawed hermeneutic whereby the covenant of death is forced to interpret the covenant of life for the purpose of reducing the renewed spirit filled covenant of marriage to an orgiastic worship of the flesh.

You have accused me of evasion and dishonesty when the simple honest answer to one of your questions employing said flawed hermeneutic was “I don’t know”.

You have treated this entire discussion, not as an opportunity to bring glory to the name of Christ, but as a platform to proclaim your alleged superior understanding of sex without the slightest thought of how it might make the Savior appear to the world whether you were correct or not.

On that note ,you have on at least one occasion that I have personally observed spoken to an unbelieving young woman at least 20 years your junior (AlisaV) in a way that violates common decency to say nothing of Christian witness. I have never been in there, but God only knows how you have reproached the holy name of Christ in the sex forum.

You have accused me of misery for not sharing the same low view of the inadequacy of my wife that you have of yours because not having the Spirit of God in the new covenant you cannot conceive of a man that is actually satisfied making his life’s mission learning to “love her as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her”.

In short, you have demonstrated an out of hand disregard for sound or even spiritually logical (yes, there is such a thing) biblical study and have displayed a character wholly devoid of even the spark of Christian conscience, intuition or sensibility on ANY level with sex merely being the most prominent.

Do what you want, but you are no representative of the bridegroom Christ or His church bride by any sound understanding of the system of Christian doctrine contained in the 66 books of the Bible.

Yes, this judgment is Christlike and commanded.

I am attempting to bind no other person on this site, but as for me? The dust is hereby shaken off my feet.

I will not post in this thread on this subject again and neither will I give further occasion to the polluting of my Savior’s name by publicly engaging you on it. Anybody who cares can read my previous posts which stopped really being new a while ago. How anybody responds is in God’s hands.