Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“When you get to heaven someday you need to straighten Paul out. Tell him he should’ve penned the words, “Let all men be the husband of one wife.” After all you know exactly what he meant to write but accidentally didn’t.”

“DD, you’re married, right? If so, did you eye your wife the first few times you saw her? Did you continue to eye her til your wedding day? If so, you’re marriage is rooted in sin. The foundation of your marriage is built on sin. Is this the way to build a biblical relationship? By grounding it in a despicable sin?”

YouÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??re flip floppin on my push. In that first quote you’re saying we have to read exactly what is the in the most technical way possible and that you canÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t take reasonable inference from context.

Then in the next quote, it isn’t about what is literally said, you have to read into the context and infer what was really meant. That isnÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t what was written, he said “But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Period. It doesnÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t say she has to be someone elses’ wife. It doesnÃ???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t say you have to actually be planning to physically fulfill the desire. It simply isn’t in the text. You want a literal interpretation or not? This flip flop stuff is beneath you.
[/quote]

Sorry, but lust isn’t “eying”. It’s that simple. Lust is desiring something that doesn’t belong to you. It’s the planning of the theft of property.[/quote]

Okay, so you disagree with Paul. that’s fair.[/quote]

Apparently you’ve been skipping many of my posts. That’s unfair.[/quote]

“But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

It says eye. It is nothing more than a look. It doesn’t say with intent. It doesn’t say in a mental process of planning. Mental planning to steal is not a requirement for lust.[/quote]

I’ve already been over this. Not going to do it again. Lust is not a look unless the look involves a “I would take her from her husband if I had the chance” thought process.[/quote]

First, as previously quoted, adultery does not require the woman be married to someone else.

Second, what you’re claiming is simply not in the text. That isn’t what it says. It says woman, not married woman, it says eye, not planing things in your mind.

Lastly, I’m not a “good christian” like you push. I’m not a literalist and I’m not really even a revelationist. Christian philosopher/Deist/Unitarian/something.

What I do see in this case is hypocrisy on your part in your interpretation of this issue. I’m arguing against you from your point of view to expose that, nothing more.

163

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Sorry, but lust isn’t “eying”. It’s that simple. Lust is desiring something that doesn’t belong to you. It’s the planning of the theft of property.[/quote]

I have to disagree with your definition of lust. If you eye a woman thinking about all the sexual things you want to do with her then that is lust. Notice once not a big deal, looking twice and thinking sexually about her that is lust.

David did not think about killing Bathesheeba’s husband until after he had sex with her. He wanted her sexually and not to marry her. Once she was found to be pregnant then he came up with the plan to steal her.

165

[quote]pushharder wrote:
DD, I take it if you’re married you and your wife are living in a marriage founded in sin. Perversion. [/quote]

“Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.”

Its sin until they are married. He essentially say get married so these things won’t be sinful.

168

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Apparently you conveniently skipped a large portion of my post. Let me re-post it for you and then I need you to directly respond to it.

If you knew your Bible well, and the story of David and Bathsheba, you would’ve remembered that when the prophet Nathan came to David and told him by God’s direct commandment the story of the sheep and caused David to fully understand what evil he had done with the Bathsheba affair, you wouldn’t have brought it up because it makes my argument and fractures yours.

"You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."

GOD gave David the multiple women. GOD would have given him MORE women if David wanted them. Instead, David chose to lust (covet) after a married woman and then adulterate (steal) with her.

This story you mentioned of David and Bathsheba is classic for my argument. If you slink away muttering God didn’t really mean what He said in the verses I just quoted, that God didn’t give David the women, that God didn’t promise him more if the ones he had were too little in number then you sir, have given the middle finger to God’s Word in a manner of speaking. The verbiage is too plain, too simple and not open to some other interpretation.[quote]

[/quote]

I am persumming you are talking about 2 Samuel 12. If you continue to read [i]9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

11 "This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’ "

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.”
Nathan replied, “The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, [a] the son born to you will die.” [/i]

David’s sin was taking the ewe lamb from the poor man. The murder was bad, but David’s sin was that he slept with another man’s wife. Bathesheeba was willing to go along with David, but Uriah never knew about it. Bathesheeba was also punished because here child was struck down. Bathesheeba was not blameless in this ordeal. Both David and Bathesheeba commited adultery.

170

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I find it mighty interesting that when it comes to creation/evolution debates the Tiribs and Maddox’s and DDs of this forum leave me alone in the Alamo, single-handedly fighting off Santa Ana’s army of atheists, agnostics and Genesis-is-a-myth Catholics but when the subject of sex in the Bible comes up the wagging tongues and pointing fingers have no problem suddenly appearing.

I’m in the mission outside of ol’ San Antone with two or three rifles and a dog and you guys are down in Galveston Bay tarpon fishing.

Very telling.

Sex in the Bible? “Let us draw our bows.”

“Genesis is a myth? The creation account is a joke?” [crickets chirping] “Ummmm…my name is Tirib/DD/DRMaddox and…well…I have to mow the lawn. Sorry, Push.”[/quote]

You are taking this way to personal. I can see why you think the way you do, but you are doing the same thing to us.[/quote]

The truth is sharp as a razor, is it not?

And I’m not even remotely doing the same thing to you. I’m engaging in the debate at hand. When it comes to the Genesis debates you guys are the mangy dogs with the shits slinking off and hiding under the porch.[/quote]

Like a dog that returns to his vomit, so to does a fool return to his folly.

First, I have never said that the Genesis story was either literal or figurative. I said I had not made up my mind on the matter. I think there are many things about the story that are literal and some things are figuratively used. You might want to stop attacking your brothers, and try and listen to them. We are not here condemning you by any stretch of the imagination.

172

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Sorry, but lust isn’t “eying”. It’s that simple. Lust is desiring something that doesn’t belong to you. It’s the planning of the theft of property.[/quote]

I have to disagree with your definition of lust. If you eye a woman thinking about all the sexual things you want to do with her then that is lust. Notice once not a big deal, looking twice and thinking sexually about her that is lust.

David did not think about killing Bathesheeba’s husband until after he had sex with her. He wanted her sexually and not to marry her. Once she was found to be pregnant then he came up with the plan to steal her.[/quote]

Here’s the deal. I can back up my definition of lust with Scripture. You have to back yours up with conjecture and what “millions of people” for the last 1700 years have thought.[/quote]

Truth cuts like a razor I guess.

174

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Apparently you conveniently skipped a large portion of my post. Let me re-post it for you and then I need you to directly respond to it.

If you knew your Bible well, and the story of David and Bathsheba, you would’ve remembered that when the prophet Nathan came to David and told him by God’s direct commandment the story of the sheep and caused David to fully understand what evil he had done with the Bathsheba affair, you wouldn’t have brought it up because it makes my argument and fractures yours.

"You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more."

GOD gave David the multiple women. GOD would have given him MORE women if David wanted them. Instead, David chose to lust (covet) after a married woman and then adulterate (steal) with her.

This story you mentioned of David and Bathsheba is classic for my argument. If you slink away muttering God didn’t really mean what He said in the verses I just quoted, that God didn’t give David the women, that God didn’t promise him more if the ones he had were too little in number then you sir, have given the middle finger to God’s Word in a manner of speaking. The verbiage is too plain, too simple and not open to some other interpretation.[quote]

[/quote]

I am persumming you are talking about 2 Samuel 12. If you continue to read [i]9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

11 "This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’ "

13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.”
Nathan replied, “The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, [a] the son born to you will die.” [/i]

David’s sin was taking the ewe lamb from the poor man. The murder was bad, but David’s sin was that he slept with another man’s wife. Bathesheeba was willing to go along with David, but Uriah never knew about it. Bathesheeba was also punished because here child was struck down. Bathesheeba was not blameless in this ordeal. Both David and Bathesheeba commited adultery.

[/quote]
Good grief, man, are you this dense? I AGREE DAVID COMMITTED SIN WITH BATHSHEBA. THAT is the true definition of adultery. You’re helping make my case.[/quote]

I am making the case that it was his lust that led to adultery. He saw here taking a bath. This is the lust. He had no clue she was married, and he never intended on take her away from him until she was found to be pregnant. Lust is not what your definition is. He saw her taking a bath.

176

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

First, I have never said that the Genesis story was either literal or figurative. I said I had not made up my mind on the matter. I think there are many things about the story that are literal and some things are figuratively used. You might want to stop attacking your brothers, and try and listen to them. We are not here condemning you by any stretch of the imagination.[/quote]

So you got your mind made up about lust and adultery in the Bible without any in depth study but yet you’re still on the fence about whether Genesis can be trusted. Pathetic.[/quote]

Why are you attacking me? You might want to revisit the definition of Brotherly love. I would like to say that you hate everyone that does not believe 100% of what you say and beleive. You have attacked everyone in these threads one time or another. I can not beleive that you are now attacking your own brothers. I will leave this at that.

177

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

First, I have never said that the Genesis story was either literal or figurative. I said I had not made up my mind on the matter. I think there are many things about the story that are literal and some things are figuratively used. You might want to stop attacking your brothers, and try and listen to them. We are not here condemning you by any stretch of the imagination.[/quote]

So you got your mind made up about lust and adultery in the Bible without any in depth study but yet you’re still on the fence about whether Genesis can be trusted. Pathetic.[/quote]

Yeah! How dare he give it thought!

179

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

First, as previously quoted, adultery does not require the woman be married to someone else.[/quote]

When read in context it does.[quote]

Second, what you’re claiming is simply not in the text. That isn’t what it says. It says woman, not married woman, it says eye, not planing things in your mind.[/quote]

The Bible must be read and understood in context.[quote]

Lastly, I’m not a “good christian” like you push. I’m not a literalist and I’m not really even a revelationist. Christian philosopher/Deist/Unitarian/something.[/quote]

Fine. You therefore have zero credibility when it comes to using Scripture in this debate. In other words you would be intellectually much more honest to use your own weapons in this debate instead of borrowing from the armory of those with whom you disregard.[quote]

What I do see in this case is hypocrisy on your part in your interpretation of this issue. I’m arguing against you from your point of view to expose that, nothing more.[/quote]

I understand where you’re coming from. Seriously. But I’m presenting an alternative opinion and I am backing it up with Scripture. Of course, you are free to disagree. Of course, you are free to think I’m hypocritical. I happen to feel you too are hypocritical in this regard - using the Bible as a foundation - only in some cases. The rest of the time it’s just “Christian philosopher/Deist/Unitarian/something.” In fact I find that highly hypocritical, come to think of it.[/quote]

It’s not hypocritical to say if you are going to take one stance on the bible it should remain consistent. I’m not arguing from my heartfelt beliefs, but my point doesn’t require me to. In fact, in context, my beliefs don’t effect my point and would be counterproductive.

In order to point out things in your path I’m forced to hop on your boat.

If you want to hear my actual stance: I think the general teachings of the bible is monogamy is best. Polygamy/promiscuity, while maybe or maybe not inherently wrong become sinful in practice. Like a rich man and getting into heaven. Money may not be evil, but man is essentially incapable of resisting its inherent corruption.

I think using one liners and technicalities to justify a world belief is a bad idea. I also think that much of the old testament is allegorical at best. I don’t accept books like the S of S as literal truths to appropriate behavior (or genesis). And moreover I listen more to what my heart tells me on issues like this, and my heart says your wrong. I’m the jealous type.

But, that’s not really productive to the argument. It leads to an impasse because neither of us accepts the bases for the others argument. So I mentally preface my post with “if you are a biblical literalist” so that we can peruse a more productive discourse.

I also often defend Christianity from a more typical theological viewpoint on this board because I feel the viewpoint is a valid one even if I don’t hold it. I generally preface these posts in a way that conveys that with things like, according to the bible, or according to Jesus. I’m sorry if I leave that off sometimes and if that makes me a hypocrite.

180

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Sorry, but lust isn’t “eying”. It’s that simple. Lust is desiring something that doesn’t belong to you. It’s the planning of the theft of property.[/quote]

I have to disagree with your definition of lust. If you eye a woman thinking about all the sexual things you want to do with her then that is lust. Notice once not a big deal, looking twice and thinking sexually about her that is lust.

David did not think about killing Bathesheeba’s husband until after he had sex with her. He wanted her sexually and not to marry her. Once she was found to be pregnant then he came up with the plan to steal her.[/quote]

Here’s the deal. I can back up my definition of lust with Scripture. You have to back yours up with conjecture and what “millions of people” for the last 1700 years have thought.[/quote]

Truth cuts like a razor I guess.[/quote]

My razor is the scripture. Yours is conjecture.

Speaking of the scripture, you’ve already stated you don’t necessarily trust it (Genesis) so yes, conjecture will have to be your weapon. You have no choice.[/quote]

What is your problem Push? I have never said, “I do not trust Genesis, or the Bible?” Why are you acting like a baby? My 9 year old has more respect for people than you do. You may be older than I am, but I am not in my twenties. You might want to rethink the way you are acting towards us. If your hatred for us is that much, then you might want to rethink what path you are on.