[quote]pushharder wrote:
The Bible and the US Constitution are somewhat analogous, aren’t they? We have our “progressives” hither and yon and e’erywhar in between, it seems.[/quote]
Sad. but true . . . salright, keeps us on our toes and vigilant, eh?
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Oh, this quote I gotta see.[/quote]
have you not read Song of Solomon? remember, the whole book is full of imagery between lovers . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Oh, this quote I gotta see.[/quote]
have you not read Song of Solomon? remember, the whole book is full of imagery between lovers . . .[/quote]
It is basically a love letter from Solomon to his lover. Is a real page turner, and very errotic.
I will say that Solomon had 1000 wives and 3000 concubines, but between a husband and wife what is written is ok. There is nothing wrong with sex with in the confines of marriage. There are others that will disagree, but that is what I am taught from the Bible.
Solomon ruined his life with all his pagan wives and led the nation of Israel straight into the division of his kingdom. The book of Ecclesiastes is his elderly lament and warning to Israel about falling into hedonism and boy did he ever.
The Song of Solomon was written while he was young and still mindful of his covenant with God. Yes it is a somewhat eyebrow raising, very poetically graphic love letter. God is not a prude and sex in the covenant of marriage is directly analogous to Christ’s marriage to His church. Paul specifically states this in Ephesians chapter 5. It is to be enjoyed with abandon between a man and wife and contrary to some historical distortions,(wifely duty?) God is just as concerned about wives enjoying their husbands as vice versa. It is the 2 becoming 1 flesh and is itself, properly practiced, among the highest ends of marriage with even children being secondary.
Like most other things in the Bible the roles and relationships of men and women have been twisted beyond recognition by modern society.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Oh, this quote I gotta see.[/quote]
have you not read Song of Solomon? remember, the whole book is full of imagery between lovers . . .[/quote]
It is basically a love letter from Solomon to his lover. Is a real page turner, and very errotic.
I will say that Solomon had 1000 wives and 3000 concubines, but between a husband and wife what is written is ok. There is nothing wrong with sex with in the confines of marriage. There are others that will disagree, but that is what I am taught from the Bible.[/quote]
There also needs to be some historical reference to his “wives and concubines”. A wife would be given to him to seal most treaties he made. Many of the women were widows who essentially became wards of the state. Essentially wife of the king was a welfare program. In all reality, he probably didn’t even know many of his wives. And lastly, this was all part of his downfall.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Oh, this quote I gotta see.[/quote]
have you not read Song of Solomon? remember, the whole book is full of imagery between lovers . . .[/quote]
It is basically a love letter from Solomon to his lover. Is a real page turner, and very errotic.
I will say that Solomon had 1000 wives and 3000 concubines, but between a husband and wife what is written is ok. There is nothing wrong with sex with in the confines of marriage. There are others that will disagree, but that is what I am taught from the Bible.[/quote]
There also needs to be some historical reference to his “wives and concubines”. A wife would be given to him to seal most treaties he made. Many of the women were widows who essentially became wards of the state. Essentially wife of the king was a welfare program. In all reality, he probably didn’t even know many of his wives. And lastly, this was all part of his downfall.[/quote]
Agreed with both you and Tribulous.
Oh, I’ve read it. Very beautiful. Didn’t see anything as explicit as push said, though.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.[/quote]
What? You should stop reading into the Bible in such strange demeanor. Anyone that reads the Bible and thinks humans as inferior needs to do a little more reading. We are the fucking bosses of this shit, except for the Lord of course. We are made perfectly, with free will, how better does it get? And no, if the Bible was written today it would not be written by women.[/quote]
Getting rowled up are ya?[/quote]
No, just tired of hearing this wretched being stuff.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
John? Who are you talking to?[/quote]
Sorry, Chris. Typo.[quote][/quote]
It caught me off guard because people call me John all the time, because it is my father’s name.
Same here, I am a door-to-door sales man during the summer, A couple of years ago I could walk up to four doors and make a hundred bucks, no it’s more like 15-30 depending on the neighborhood.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Solomon ruined his life with all his pagan wives and led the nation of Israel straight into the division of his kingdom. The book of Ecclesiastes is his elderly lament and warning to Israel about falling into hedonism and boy did he ever.
The Song of Solomon was written while he was young and still mindful of his covenant with God. Yes it is a somewhat eyebrow raising, very poetically graphic love letter. God is not a prude and sex in the covenant of marriage is directly analogous to Christ’s marriage to His church. Paul specifically states this in Ephesians chapter 5. It is to be enjoyed with abandon between a man and wife and contrary to some historical distortions,(wifely duty?) God is just as concerned about wives enjoying their husbands as vice versa. It is the 2 becoming 1 flesh and is itself, properly practiced, among the highest ends of marriage with even children being secondary.
Like most other things in the Bible the roles and relationships of men and women have been twisted beyond recognition by modern society.[/quote]
Solomon’s sin was allowing idolatry into his kingdom, much of it through his foreign wives and concubines. Solomon’s sin was NOT the sex he engaged in with those women.
For instance, the sex in the Song was vivid and in many instances explicit (much of it was “dumbed down” by English translators who found the erotic words, references and acts “too much” for the society of the time). He was having sex, and lots of it, with the Shulamite woman who was but one of many wives and girlfriends he had at that time. She was not his first wife either.
For this and other reasons I think the S of S analogy of one man/one woman = Christ and his one church is somewhat strained as it is currently taught in many Christian circles.
[Edit] In other words I think the S of S should be interpreted and used as it was written - a beautiful story of love as well as raw, physical sex and eroticism and not just as a symbol or imagery of Christ and His church in NT times and beyond.[/quote]
I knew this day was gonna come with you and I. I doubt if I will convince you, but suffice it to to say that right from the creation of Eve, singulars are used everywhere when describing God’s definition of marriage. “Cling to his wife and the two shall be one flesh”. He also only created one woman for Adam. Jesus quoted this to the pharisees when dealing with their trick question about divorce. He did not say “a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wives” All of Paul’s teaching on marriage is entirely monogamous. He tells Timothy that church officers are to be the “husband of one wife”.
God tolerated polygamy for times in history with less than stellar results to say the very least, yes, he will do things like that, but from creation and specifically confirmed with the fulfillment of the new covenant one man is to have one wife for life. 2000 years of church study affirms this view.
You know I like you man. We agree on quite a bit. BUT, the idea that the Bible endorses a man displaying his wife’s nakedness for his friends or swinging or group sex or any other type of raw carnality is a twisted perversion of scripture almost worthy of David Berg and his “children of god”.
Paul could not possibly be clearer in Ephesians 5 with a whole passage full of singulars that he is speaking primarily of Christ and His church with the marriage of one man and one women being the earthly representation of one Christ and one church.
I can’t make you believe anything, but there is a reason why no significant Christian movement in history has espoused what you are saying. It isn’t there. Unless, like the other great cults, nobody got it until now.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There also needs to be some historical reference to his “wives and concubines”. A wife would be given to him to seal most treaties he made. Many of the women were widows who essentially became wards of the state. Essentially wife of the king was a welfare program. In all reality, he probably didn’t even know many of his wives. [/quote]
I agree but for anyone to suggest he didn’t do whatever he wanted to, sexually, with any of them is naive in the least.[quote]
And lastly, this was all part of his downfall.[/quote]
To the extent that it led to idolatry, yes. Idolatry was a sin God simply would not tolerate. Sex was not a sin except in the instances of adultery which in Old Testament times involved coveting and property theft, i.e., stealing another man’s wife.
David, Solomon’s son, was never condemned for the sex he had with multiple women EXCEPT the woman he stole from (and later murdered) another man.
[/quote]
sex outside of marriage is clearly wrong in the bible. You have to accept that at least the concubines are sinful relationships. However, the plan laid out for marriage is not possible with too many wives. certainly there is no way Solomon could have even attempted to have a proper marriage with 700 women. That means most of those were probably sinful too.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Solomon ruined his life with all his pagan wives and led the nation of Israel straight into the division of his kingdom. The book of Ecclesiastes is his elderly lament and warning to Israel about falling into hedonism and boy did he ever.
The Song of Solomon was written while he was young and still mindful of his covenant with God. Yes it is a somewhat eyebrow raising, very poetically graphic love letter. God is not a prude and sex in the covenant of marriage is directly analogous to Christ’s marriage to His church. Paul specifically states this in Ephesians chapter 5. It is to be enjoyed with abandon between a man and wife and contrary to some historical distortions,(wifely duty?) God is just as concerned about wives enjoying their husbands as vice versa. It is the 2 becoming 1 flesh and is itself, properly practiced, among the highest ends of marriage with even children being secondary.
Like most other things in the Bible the roles and relationships of men and women have been twisted beyond recognition by modern society.[/quote]
Solomon’s sin was allowing idolatry into his kingdom, much of it through his foreign wives and concubines. Solomon’s sin was NOT the sex he engaged in with those women.
For instance, the sex in the Song was vivid and in many instances explicit (much of it was “dumbed down” by English translators who found the erotic words, references and acts “too much” for the society of the time). He was having sex, and lots of it, with the Shulamite woman who was but one of many wives and girlfriends he had at that time. She was not his first wife either.
For this and other reasons I think the S of S analogy of one man/one woman = Christ and his one church is somewhat strained as it is currently taught in many Christian circles.
[Edit] In other words I think the S of S should be interpreted and used as it was written - a beautiful story of love as well as raw, physical sex and eroticism and not just as a symbol or imagery of Christ and His church in NT times and beyond.[/quote]
I knew this day was gonna come with you and I. I doubt if I will convince you, but suffice it to to say that right from the creation of Eve, singulars are used everywhere when describing God’s definition of marriage. “Cling to his wife and the two shall be one flesh”. He also only created one woman for Adam. Jesus quoted this to the pharisees when dealing with their trick question about divorce. He did not say “a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wives” All of Paul’s teaching on marriage is entirely monogamous. He tells Timothy that church officers are to be the “husband of one wife”.
God tolerated polygamy for times in history with less than stellar results to say the very least, yes, he will do things like that, but from creation and specifically confirmed with the fulfillment of the new covenant one man is to have one wife for life. 2000 years of church study affirms this view.
You know I like you man. We agree on quite a bit. BUT, the idea that the Bible endorses a man displaying his wife’s nakedness for his friends or swinging or group sex or any other type of raw carnality is a twisted perversion of scripture almost worthy of David Berg and his “children of god”.
Paul could not possibly be clearer in Ephesians 5 with a whole passage full of singulars that he is speaking primarily of Christ and His church with the marriage of one man and one women being the earthly representation of one Christ and one church.
I can’t make you believe anything, but there is a reason why no significant Christian movement in history has espoused what you are saying. It isn’t there. Unless, like the other great cults, nobody got it until now.[/quote]
I was trying to take a nicer approach, but this.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.[/quote]
What? You should stop reading into the Bible in such strange demeanor. Anyone that reads the Bible and thinks humans as inferior needs to do a little more reading. We are the fucking bosses of this shit, except for the Lord of course. We are made perfectly, with free will, how better does it get? And no, if the Bible was written today it would not be written by women.[/quote]
First of all, I never said that humans themselves are inferior to anything else (nor are some humans inferior to other humans) or that they may be considered so in some contemporarily-written version of the Bible. My point is that the Bible serves as a guide for how to live our lives in the way God intends (or something to that effect if you believe in God), and as such, we should not view it 100% literally.
[/quote]
Agreed on the 100% literal thing.
Well, the Bible was influenced by its times, yes. However, I think the message would be the same. The Bible is clear as well as tradition on the equality of the sexes. I think the inequality came from tradition present in the Church, but not necessarily the Church. It was a mistake for those inequalities, but it cannot be denied the reverence and dignity of women.
Yes, but it is not in the Bible that women are inferior, there are stories which we can see that women were subordinates but just because B follows A, doesn’t mean A causes B. Subordination does not imply inferiority.
Well, with religion comes a certain type of life style, and if a woman does not want to follow it, just like a man, he does not have to follow it. The text is not irrelevant and neither is doctrine, it is just some people want to change tradition instead of forming their lives to a religion.
Well, when I say perfectly I do not mean perfect specimen, but as a whole we are perfect. There can be things wrong with us physically, mentally, but in perspective of God, we are perfect (because of Jesus of course), because otherwise if we were not even if Jesus forgave us (and we could not become pure) we could not ascend to heaven.
[quote]
Regarding your claim that women would never write or participate in the writing of such a document today: that’s absolutely comical. There are women in Washington and our state capitals writing and shaping all sorts of documents and so forth that we apply to our lives everyday. It isn’t inconceivable at all, nor is it ridiculous to assume, that women may in fact participate in the writing of the Bible (or a similar such text) were it to be written today instead of two millenia ago.[/quote]
I do not think so, I am taking this from the idea that the Catholic Church wrote the Bible, so since women cannot teach men in the Church it would be laid upon the Bishops and possibly priests to write the Bible, which will never include a woman, no matter how much they wish they could become one.
I am not saying women cannot write, I am saying they wouldn’t write the Bible. Women wrote some Gospels back in the day, I just do not think they would be canonized. The Church uses several Biblical times documents written by women, just not to put them in the Bible.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
God tolerated polygamy for times in history with less than stellar results to say the very least[/quote]
God doesn’t just tolerate sin and not condemn it. If it’s wrong He says so and there are consequences. Visible, direct and indirect consequences.
The idea that God just “tolerated” polygamy and never ever once instructed Moses, Joshua, the authors of Judges, Ruth, I and II Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job; David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, John and Jude…to condemn polygamy is just downright illogical.
The toleration explanation is fragile and dismisses God as incapable (lazy?) of defining and condemning ALL the sin He abhors.[/quote]
The law was updated through Christ.
And yes god does sometimes tolerate things that aren’t right. For instance, Israel was never supposed to have a king. God did tolerate it though to the point he eventually gave them one.
Besides, not getting struck down with lightning doesn’t mean there are consequences.