Wow, Push, I had no idea. Honestly, I’m a bit shocked. For whatever sectarian disagreements we might have, I didn’t realize this would be one of them. Like Trib, I’m certain you’ve got your mind made up on this one, and so do I. Going to back myself out of this thread nice and silent like.
LOL - I honestly missed Tirib’s spelling altogether - but I already knew I was a lousy typist . . .
Push, I do believe you have shocked/stunned a few of your comrades. Thanks for the explanations on your understanding of the subject. And guys - do like he says - don’t take his word for it, get in the word and test what he says. If you agree with him, great, if not, great too - but that’s our duty on all things!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
But Push, it wasn’t every case that the unmarried woman wasn’t held to a different standard of blame.
[/quote]
In some cases of civil law, yes. But in the reality of morality, no, she was not condemned for having sex with a married man. Read the story of Boaz and Ruth. They had premarital sex and God still used her as the great-great-great…grandmother of the Messiah.
She was never condemned for having sex with Boaz prior to marriage.
[/quote]
I can somewhat see where you assume that but Im 100% sure they didnt. Ill start off at Ruth 3:9. Once she startles him, she says
“I am you servant Ruth,. Spread the corner of you garment over me, since you are a kinsman redeemer.”
Now to most people, that sounds like she is saying Im am your servant and you are my kinsman redeemer. Do with me as you wish. Thats not what she means. In Levirate law, the garment covering was symbolic of entering in marriage. You could call it a symbol of engagement(like engagment ring). Jews in the Middle East still practice this today. Thats my first point. The second is in verse 14. It says(after there discussion)
So she laid AT HIS FEET(not at his side) until morning, but got up before anyone could be recognized; he said, “Dontlet it be known that a woman came to the threshing hole”
He mentions that bc it was forbidden for a woman to be in the threshing hold with a man out of marriage in their law.
Btw, I know this has no major link between the subject at hand. I just wanted to clear things up on this matter. And I thank you bc you have gotten me to dig even deeper in the Word than I already do.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - I honestly missed Tirib’s spelling altogether - but I already knew I was a lousy typist . . .
Push, I do believe you have shocked/stunned a few of your comrades. Thanks for the explanations on your understanding of the subject. And guys - do like he says - don’t take his word for it, get in the word and test what he says. If you agree with him, great, if not, great too - but that’s our duty on all things! [/quote]
Not you too.
For the record I am not shocked. I’ve known Push’s general view here for a long time from things he’s said in the past. That’s what I meant by knowing this day would come. Maybe if I get some time and motivation I’ll post something further on this sometime. I know better though. Somebody who has taken the time to scour the Bible convincing themselves that GOD sanctions their rank depravity is out of reach by anything I can say on an internet forum(I can see this one comin).
This isn’t my first encounter with “christian” libertines. There is a specie of self righteous elite-ness that comes from believing that your small group has the truth about anything, never mind this.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
But Push, it wasn’t every case that the unmarried woman wasn’t held to a different standard of blame.
[/quote]
In some cases of civil law, yes. But in the reality of morality, no, she was not condemned for having sex with a married man. Read the story of Boaz and Ruth. They had premarital sex and God still used her as the great-great-great…grandmother of the Messiah.
She was never condemned for having sex with Boaz prior to marriage.
[/quote]
I can somewhat see where you assume that but Im 100% sure they didnt. Ill start off at Ruth 3:9. Once she startles him, she says
“I am you servant Ruth,. Spread the corner of you garment over me, since you are a kinsman redeemer.”
Now to most people, that sounds like she is saying Im am your servant and you are my kinsman redeemer. Do with me as you wish. Thats not what she means. In Levirate law, the garment covering was symbolic of entering in marriage. You could call it a symbol of engagement(like engagment ring). Jews in the Middle East still practice this today. Thats my first point. The second is in verse 14. It says(after there discussion)
So she laid AT HIS FEET(not at his side) until morning, but got up before anyone could be recognized; he said, “Dontlet it be known that a woman came to the threshing hole”
He mentions that bc it was forbidden for a woman to be in the threshing hold with a man out of marriage in their law. [/quote]
I am sooooooooo glad I lured you in with the story of Ruth. You ‘bout to git some schoolin’, my friend. Wait til the Lakers/Celtics game is over.[/quote]
Well Im glad I can entertain you. I look forward to your side of the story
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - I honestly missed Tirib’s spelling altogether - but I already knew I was a lousy typist . . .
Push, I do believe you have shocked/stunned a few of your comrades. Thanks for the explanations on your understanding of the subject. And guys - do like he says - don’t take his word for it, get in the word and test what he says. If you agree with him, great, if not, great too - but that’s our duty on all things! [/quote]
Not you too.
For the record I am not shocked. I’ve known Push’s general view here for a long time from things he’s said in the past. That’s what I meant by knowing this day would come. Maybe if I get some time and motivation I’ll post something further on this sometime. I know better though. Somebody who has taken the time to scour the Bible convincing themselves that GOD sanctions their rank depravity is out of reach by anything I can say on an internet forum(I can see this one comin). [/quote]
Sounds like a 21st century Pharisee to me.[quote]
This isn’t my first encounter with “christian” libertines. There is a specie of self righteous elite-ness that comes from believing that your small group has the truth about anything, never mind this.[/quote]
There is also a specie of self righteous elite-ness that comes from believing that your large group has the truth about anything, never mind this.
Example? You and I both could fillet many of the practices and beliefs of the Catholic Church. I mean gut and fillet them with ease. Large groups don’t necessarily precipitate Truth. You want to contest this? If so, I’ll eat you alive.[/quote]
Bud I can see your point in all things but dont miss the meaning of this and other discussions. Im sure all of us can agree that you are well knowledged in theology but like someone once said(whi I cant freaking remember right now) “If we could understand God and his ways fully, then he wouldnt be God would he”. Once we think we understand it, we are wrong. Yet its our wanting and nature to burn at his mysteries
“But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband” (Ezekiel 16:32).
What’s wrong with this definition? It certainly appears to be clear enough - a wife who commits adultery, who takes strangers instead of her husband. Depending on the translation you can get ‘receives strangers’, ‘prefer strangers’, ‘bringeth strangers’… but what about this sentence convinces one that adultery is simply more than “taking/bringing/receiving” someone instead of their husband?
Why didn’t “they” go with covets, instead? Why not steals? Or idolizes?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
“But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband” (Ezekiel 16:32).
What’s wrong with this definition? It certainly appears to be clear enough - a wife who commits adultery, who takes strangers instead of her husband. Depending on the translation you can get ‘receives strangers’, ‘prefer strangers’, ‘bringeth strangers’… but what about this sentence convinces one that adultery is simply more than “taking/bringing/receiving” someone instead of their husband?
Why didn’t “they” go with covets, instead? Why not steals? Or idolizes?[/quote]
Indeed, a wife was not to take in strangers sexually in OT times. You never saw me argue against that, did you?
In OT times, in the ancient nation of Israel, the wife was basically considered the property of the husband. She didn’t have the freedom her husband did under civil law. It’s that simple. Now we, sitting in our comfy little judgmental 21st century Lazy Boys, can get up and stomp around uttering grievances about how “wrong” that was but the fact of the matter is…that’s the way it was.
I think, and I alluded to this earlier, that the Law of Liberty introduced by Paul does away with those inequities. I mentioned this to the Girl of October.[/quote]
Sweetness, . . . . Push, … thank you and I say this publicly, I love that I can debate issues with you to actually get some considerate deabate. But… Push… I just dont hold with a lot of what you do in regards to what is a woman’s place in the world.
the good thing is, I know you can see what I mean and see this all new stuff.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
“But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband” (Ezekiel 16:32).
What’s wrong with this definition? It certainly appears to be clear enough - a wife who commits adultery, who takes strangers instead of her husband. Depending on the translation you can get ‘receives strangers’, ‘prefer strangers’, ‘bringeth strangers’… but what about this sentence convinces one that adultery is simply more than “taking/bringing/receiving” someone instead of their husband?
Why didn’t “they” go with covets, instead? Why not steals? Or idolizes?[/quote]
Indeed, a wife was not to take in strangers sexually in OT times. You never saw me argue against that, did you?
In OT times, in the ancient nation of Israel, the wife was basically considered the property of the husband. She didn’t have the freedom her husband did under civil law. It’s that simple. Now we, sitting in our comfy little judgmental 21st century Lazy Boys, can get up and stomp around uttering grievances about how “wrong” that was but the fact of the matter is…that’s the way it was.
I think, and I alluded to this earlier, that the Law of Liberty introduced by Paul does away with those inequities. I mentioned this to the Girl of October.[/quote]
This was in response to your assertion that adultery is the premeditated act of “stealing” the spouse of another more than it was a response to what one was allowed to do.
I quoted that section because it doesn’t quite match up with what you are saying it should. That particular Biblical passage states quite clearly that adultery is - for a woman, at least - taking in a stranger instead of her husband… it says nothing about the act being a result of planning or forethought.
Is it that the definition of adultery for men is expressly stated elsewhere as being different than for women, or is that just what you infer from the text? Or is Ezekiel, in his divinely-inspired prophesies, simply getting sidetracked with the laws of his era?