Posted on 06/23/2010 8:37:50 AM PDT by Zakeet
You see it, I do not.
Metaphors are easy to twist to one’s own bias.
Come on. You don’t see it? Really?
Though you’ve offered no alternative interpretation, I can certainly understand if you don’t agree with mine. But certainly you can at least SEE why the passage ...
“In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste”,
... when taken in context of an erotic poem, would hint at oral sex. The Song of Solomon is intentionally non-explicit. It is poetry, and is intended to express symbolically the union between husband and wife. When taken as symbolic poetry, I don’t see how else that passage can be interpreted.
What do you figure those passages mean? How else can “taste” be taken in this context?
Alternatively, I have not seen a Biblical passage which even hints that such acts, when undertaken by married heterosexual couples, would be sinful.
SnakeDoc
It was just the worst morning she's had yet. I'm told that this sort of thing usually lasts the whole of the first trimester. But she was able to keep down some yogurt, and we caught a Presbyterian sermon on TV (to answer your question, we are Southern Presbyterian -- I've been for years; she converted from Mormonism in the course of our engagement). She was feeling better by yesterday afternoon.
I'll return to our discussion at a later date. Despite our vociferous disagreements, I'm sure that your goodwill towards the unborn (including my own) is genuine, and so your prayers are welcome.
Homosexuals think Jesus was one of them because he loved his disciple John, I think the one who was mentioned specially.
People see what they want to see.
If people want to see the truth, even if it goes against their attachments or fondly held beliefs or desires, then they will see the truth.
Otherwise not.
I am firmly and immovably of the understand that the Song of Solomon does not describe sodomy aka oral sex what to speak of anal sex (which you did not say, I am not accusing you that it describes that kind of sodomy!.
Ever heard of “tasting lips”? Or “tasting” used metaphorically? Especially in classic poetry analogies and elaborate similes and ornate descriptions are used to infer other things. Example (just from my head, not quoting, but I’ve read poetry like this) - “We drank the cup of sweet ambrosia together” - when speaking of love.
Does this mean that the lover and beloved had one cup of some drink called ambrosia? Or does it mean their love for one another was so sweet and made them feel unified and experience a type of sweet intoxication from their exchange of emotions?
These are things that have helped the pregnant daughter of an old friend:
1. Whatever she felt she could eat, no matter what it was, was provided in a small amount. Just being able to have something in her stomach (”nutritious” or not) made a huge difference. Whatever it was - horchata (a Mexican drink she grew up with), cheesecake, anything. I would make it.
2. She had to keep out of the kitchen and away from cooking smells.
3. Peppermint was a great help - I filled a small spray bottle (about 8 ounces) with non-chlorinated water and ONE DROP of pure Peppermint essential oil and she would mist the air and also her skin (it was hot summertime, too). This quelled the nausea considerably. Peppermint tea can help too, but this skin spraying and smelling help tremendously when she really felt sick to her stomach.
I took care of her for about 6 weeks (I’m like an auntie to her) while her mother wound up her job and came to take over. The girl (her first preg.) had lost weight and was about to have to go to the hospital for IVs.
Fortunately the above program turned her vomiting around and she was able to keep down normal amounts of food after a few weeks.
It took a lot of work on my part - every morning I would ask her - “What do you think you could eat today - anything appeal to you?” And whatever it was I would cook. In small amounts. She was not allowed foot in the kitchen, because even if she felt hungry and not nauseous, as soon as she cooked and smelled food, she felt sick again.
I hope your wife recovers from this soon. Also of course, saltines really help with nausea in general. I had a terrible thing with nausea for some time and often saltines were my sole article of diet.
>> Homosexuals think Jesus was one of them because he loved his disciple John, I think the one who was mentioned specially. People see what they want to see. If people want to see the truth, even if it goes against their attachments or fondly held beliefs or desires, then they will see the truth. Otherwise not.
I fully understand that there are all kinds of distorted and tortured interpretations of scripture. Dishonest readings of scripture will yield incredible interpretations (like the Jesus/John interpretation you cited above).
But, I don’t think the interpretation of Song of Solomon including oral sex is a particularly tortured one. I am not attempting to fit my view of Christian sexuality into the Bible — I am honestly trying to determine the view of Christian sexuality which the God intended to convey to us through His word.
>> I am firmly and immovably of the understand that the Song of Solomon does not describe sodomy aka oral sex [...]
On what basis have you arrived at your immovable understanding? That particular understanding seems rather arbitrary. Perhaps it is not I who am “seeing what I want to see” ... and, honestly, I’m not even sure what you’re claiming to see in those verses. You do not seem to present an alternate interpretation of the passages.
The “oral sex” interpretation of the Song of Solomon does not contradict any other passsages of the Bible as far as I am aware (such as referring to oral sex as inherently immoral). If the writer was intending to write an artfully-worded poetic passage referring to the act of oral sex ... wording it exactly as it was worded in Song of Solomon would be the most graceful (non-explicit) way of doing so. Song of Solomon is intentionally non-explicit ... how else is a writer to non-explicitly refer to such acts except through poetic descriptions like “his fruit was sweet to my taste”?
>> Ever heard of “tasting lips”? Or “tasting” used metaphorically? Especially in classic poetry analogies and elaborate similes and ornate descriptions are used to infer other things.
This is exactly what I am saying ... it is an “ornate description” used to infer other things (namely oral sex). “Taste” is used metaphorically, as is “his fruit”, and “in his shade I took great delight and sat down” (which sounds like kneeling to me).
“Lips” are referred to explicitly in the Song of Solomon (”Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb ...” — SOS 4:11) ... so if the author were referring to lips, he’d have likely said so (instead of “fruit”).
>> Example (just from my head, not quoting, but I’ve read poetry like this) - “We drank the cup of sweet ambrosia together” - when speaking of love. Does this mean that the lover and beloved had one cup of some drink called ambrosia? Or does it mean their love for one another was so sweet and made them feel unified and experience a type of sweet intoxication from their exchange of emotions?
Indeed. Poetry can be very difficult to interpret. But this isn’t mere poetry. It was included in God’s Word for a reason — it was meant to convey something to humanity (or at least to Christians). It seems to me to convey that married couples can and should enjoy each other to the fullest extent — these passages regarding oral sex seem to coincide with that.
SnakeDoc
My opinion is: I dont care!
We are in the middle of 2 wars, a serious recession, and we have a radical president trying to turn this country into socialism. The very last thing we need to be talking about is banning pornography and putting strip clubs out of business. That type of crap is the reason the GOP never maintains a majority and never gets anything done when they have it.
The Supreme Court has ruled on countless occasions that pornography is protected as free expression of the first amendment. You are not going to be able to change that. You are never going to be able to ban porn.
What you are complaining about is a social issue that cannot be changed through political/legal means. If society has lost its morals and ethics, you CANNOT just pass a law and expect that moral problem to be fixed. It just doesnt work that way. It’s not the government’s job to tell consenting adults what they can and can’t do in the privacy of their own homes.
If you want to keep that stuff out of your family...that’s fine. But when you start trying to force other people to live by your philosophy, that’s when people are going to push back. Even people on your side will push back. Just look at this thread, there are major divisions in the GOP on this issue. No consensus at all.
I see there are several factions of the Presbyterian Church; I'm sensing with your libertarian views, your denomination is somewhat liberal when it comes to cultural views?
"...I'm sure that your goodwill towards the unborn (including my own) is genuine..."
I've traveled to our State Capital (Olympia) for the past two years to along with thousands of others to show my support for the God-given rights of the innocent unborn; "genuine" without a doubt. If you look at the Texas GOP Platform again, you'll see that they have quite the pro-life stance.
Link to TX GOP Platform
Your thoughts on that?
No, we're the second-most conservative of the Southern Presbyterian denominations.
There's a strong libertarian strain (and an even stronger Property Rights strain; hence my divergence in favor of community standards on Public grounds, versus what people might do on their own property) in much conservative Presbyterian theonomy (although my favorite theonomists are Dutch Reformed, but that might as well be "Dutch Presbyterian" given the shared Creeds and Confessions).
I've traveled to our State Capital (Olympia) for the past two years to along with thousands of others to show my support for the God-given rights of the innocent unborn; "genuine" without a doubt. If you look at the Texas GOP Platform again, you'll see that they have quite the pro-life stance. Link to TX GOP Platform Your thoughts on that?
I'm ex-Operation Rescue. Tiller's Clinic, Summer of Mercy 1991. So you can draw your own conclusions about that... but I will allow that I consider Property Rights, while generally sacrosanct, to be subordinate to the Right to Life.
And I didn't quit Rescue because my beliefs changed. I quit because Randall Terry's a cheating fraud.
Since he FReeps here, I am executing my mannerly duty to "ping" him to a post which mentions him. I otherwise have little desire to speak to the man.
Just out of curiousity, how does God (through Scripture of course) feel about allowing "community standards" to override His word? Does He say somewhere in Scripture where His word should be obeyed, EXCEPT when it comes to the majority vote of the community or on private property? Do you have more of a "right" (through God's eyes) to sin on private property than on public?
I'm well aware of your "Christian libertarian" leanings where the church and family are to intervene in acts that Christian libertarians such as yourself feel shouldn't be handled by the state (it's flawed way of thinking, terribly flawed). As little jeremiah stated, the garbage that you allow to go on in your home and yard oozes out into your neighbor's property and elsewhere into your community and our society. Look at drug use and it's inherent abuse. Look at the damage it's done to the family, and hence what the breakdown of the family has done to society. Can you not see these sort of things?
The Lord established three fundamental institutions for the governance of men: family, the Church, and civil government. While these three institutions are separate spheres of authority under God, they clearly have mutually supportive, interwoven functions. The performance — or lack of performance — of each inescapably influences the functioning of the other two.
And I didn't quit Rescue because my beliefs changed. I quit because Randall Terry's a cheating fraud.
Yes, but was that fraud done on PRIVATE PROPERTY? (aSeattleConservatie throws in some sarcasm into his post).
Whatever Randall Terry has done that may have been wrong in the eyes of God (as well as the "Godly" laws of man) can't hide the fact that he's literally saved MILLIONS of innocent lives through his pro-life efforts. For that, I will ALWAYS be grateful to him.
I wonder how many lives Christian libertarians like yourself have RUINED because of your (phony) "as long as it's done on PRIVATE PROPERTY" argument. If I were you, I'd find it difficult to live with myself.
The hypocrisy of the Christian libertarian movement NEVER ceases to amaze me.
It's not a question of "overriding God's Word". It's a question of Property Rights, a scared principle enshrined in God's Word.
As a Taxpayer, I am part Owner of the Public Commons -- and I intend to cast my shareholder's vote of what I wish to allow on "my" Property.
But my neighbor's Property, isn't mine to control. That's Sinful Covetousness, and Trespassing. And those are amongst the Five Great Harms that the Civil Government is supposed to Punish.
Does He say somewhere in Scripture where His word should be obeyed, EXCEPT when it comes to the majority vote of the community or on private property? Do you have more of a "right" (through God's eyes) to sin on private property than on public? I'm well aware of your "Christian libertarian" leanings where the church and family are to intervene in acts that Christian libertarians such as yourself feel shouldn't be handled by the state (it's flawed way of thinking, terribly flawed). As little jeremiah stated, the garbage that you allow to go on in your home and yard oozes out into your neighbor's property and elsewhere into your community and our society. Look at drug use and it's inherent abuse. Look at the damage it's done to the family, and hence what the breakdown of the family has done to society. Can you not see these sort of things?
Everything you just said, could also be said (and has been said) about alcohol as well.
Prohibition of alcohol didn't work either. All it did was create higher profit margins for smugglers, which in turn encouraged the most lawless and violent elements of criminal society to enter the trade and prosper. As they're doing now.
As a result, unless he's nabbing some Scotch from his dad's liquor cabinet, it is MUCH, MUCH easier for a teen-age kid in America to get his hands on a half-ounce of marijuana, than a half-pint of vodka. Know why?
Liquor store owners don't want to lose their liquor license, and the steady 25% profit margin they make by selling ONLY to adults.
Drug dealers don't care.
The Lord established three fundamental institutions for the governance of men: family, the Church, and civil government. While these three institutions are separate spheres of authority under God, they clearly have mutually supportive, interwoven functions. The performance — or lack of performance — of each inescapably influences the functioning of the other two.
Sure. But those DIFFERENT "spheres of sovereignty" (have you really read enough Kuyper to understand his argument?) are responsible for enforcing DIFFERENT parts of the Law of God. For example, there's not a single verse of Scripture, Old or New, that ever implies in any way that intoxication on private property should be against the Civil Law. That's a wholly human and UnBiblical legal invention -- and the results of Civil Prohibition have been predictably catastrophic: more money in drug profits, more blood on the streets, and more kids getting their hands on the stuff.
Yes, but was that fraud done on PRIVATE PROPERTY? (aSeattleConservatie throws in some sarcasm into his post).
Adultery is a grievous Breach of Contract and is one of the Five Great Harms that the Civil Government is supposed to Punish, even on Private Property. Romans 13:1-10 makes that perfectly clear. Randall Terry is just fortunate that a Christian Libertarian like myself isn't in charge of writing his State's laws on the subject -- he would not have been able to screw over Mrs. Terry as viciously, callously, and impenitently as he surely has.
Whatever Randall Terry has done that may have been wrong in the eyes of God (as well as the "Godly" laws of man) can't hide the fact that he's literally saved MILLIONS of innocent lives through his pro-life efforts. For that, I will ALWAYS be grateful to him.
He hasn't saved millions. Just how big do you think Operation Rescue ever was? Even at our all-out push in the Wichita Summer of Mercy, it only took 7,000 arrests to break our lines. After that, there just weren't any more Christians who were sufficiently-committed to the Pro-Life cause to be willing to man the barricades. We were broken.
And it wasn't Randall Terry saving the few hundred or few thousand lives which might have been saved. Just how many abortion clinics do you think he chained himself to? Terry may like to take the credit himself (boy, does he ever), but it was the thousands of Operation Rescue foot soldiers who provided the bodies to block the doors.
Foot soldiers whom Terry was more than willing to sell out, along with the rest of the Pro-Life movement, 'cause he decided his twenty-something secretary was cuter than the Wife of his Youth.
Some "great Pro-Life leader". It's a shame that you look up to that fraud. He broke a lot of Pro-Life hearts -- not just Cindy Terry's.
You're confused with the word "covet". Covetousness has nothing to do with enforcing God's moral laws.
Link to Scripture on covetousness
Regarding private property rights: Man's dominion over the earth has not vested any individual with the right to own any specific property, however. What man received was the authority to own property, not a conveyance of title. Nor does the Bible teach that God gave all the earth and its contents to all mankind in common. No title to any property was conveyed until God put Adam into the Garden of Eden. See Genesis 2:15. And, God took the title to Eden away from Adam and Eve as a result of their disobedience of His laws. The title to Eden was not determined on the basis of labor, dominion authority or other right. Rather, the account of Adam and Eve reveals that all property is the gift of God.
Because property is the gift of God to man in his familial capacity, the nature of civil authority over property is necessarily limited to punishing wrongdoing, such as theft. Examples of laws which are generally intended to serve this purpose are laws of descent and standards of proper weights and measures. Other laws which the civil ruler may enforce are laws against trespass (an intrusion upon lawful property use), and nuisance (using one's property to interfere with another's use of property). In each case, civil laws are designed to facilitate family dominion, not usurp it. If this protective authority is exceeded, as is the case in many zoning ordinances, the family's authority is usurped.
Link to Reclaiming Dominion
Put down the Ron Paul libertarian bong CC, you'll be a better man for it.
Everything you just said, could also be said (and has been said) about alcohol as well.
Prohibition of alcohol didn't work either.
Ah yes, FINALLY we get to what dopertarianism...ahem...libertarianism is all about, the legalization of recreational drugs. Let's see what Scripture says about intoxicating oneself:
Link to Bible on Drugs and Alcohol
Keep in mind that we've become a society of "ism's": Hedonism, nihilism and narcissism, do you really want to unleash recreational drugs on a society like ours (keeping in mind that IT IS AGAINST SCRIPTURE TO GET HIIIIGH?)
"...the magistrate, the ruler, "is the minister of God to thee for good" (vs. 4). The ruler is God's minister, His diakonos. He is a deacon, a laborer, a ministrant, an attendant to people for God. As the derivation of diakonos shows, he is one who runs errands: God's errands. In particular, he is to be a Christian teacher and pastor. If the ruler is the minister of God to men for good, then he must rule in accordance with God's judgment of the good, not man's willful, subjective desire to redefine the good. If the ruler is a minister to men for good then he must enforce God's law, not man's desires: there is no other alternative."
"All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword. The sword and the word are united in law. And because the word commands action by men, the word of law is necessarily a morel teaching, a teaching which seeks to guide the ruled along a particular way of action, of life. This way of life which the law-word commands is what the ruler or lawgiver considers good, and for this reason it is again inevitably a moral teaching, of one sort or another."
Man's laws either encourages immoral behavior (as in Roe v. Wade) or discourages it (as seen in other legitimate laws such as "thou shalt not murder and thou shalt not steal").
Regarding Randall Terry: Not that I don't want to take the word of a Christian Capitalist that wants to DESTROY millions of lives through the legalization of recreational drugs, but I learned long ago that there are always two sides to EVERY story.
Unleash?
Unleash?
As I said, it is FAR easier for any teenager in America to get their hands on a half-ounce of marijuana, than to get their hands on a half-pint of vodka. RIGHT NOW.
The reason being, that Liquor store owners don't want to lose their license by selling to kids, whereas drug dealers don't care.
Horse, Barn door.
Tell you what. I'll try to write up an Essay on Dutch Reformed/Conservative Presbyterian theonomy over the next week or so, so that you can read the argument in full rather than this sort of piecemeal exchange. At the moment, I've got Ron and Rand Paul's Creationism to defend. Nothing personal, honest; I'm just choosing where I want to spend my FReeping time at the moment.
I will say, though, that I still think it's a terrible shame that you look up to Randall Terry. The man has willfully brought enormous Public Scandal upon the Pro-Life movement by his Adulterous debauchery.
So if you don't like "my side" of the story, maybe you should read Cindy Terry's.
Unleash?
Yes, legalizing a sin “unleashes” that conduct on society. Heck, even liberal countries like the Netherlands have acknowledged it:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/DEBATE/myths/myths4.htm
(Note the comments on Japan).
Is NOTHING sacred?! Amsterdam closing dope and hooker dens?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1367580/amsterdam_closes_many_brothels_and.html?cat=17
“Deputy mayor Lodewijk Asscher stressed to the Associated Press that these measures are being taken to fight the tide of organized crime in the city.”
How can this sort of thing happen? Organized crime is supposed to cease and desist when vice is made legal.
Why am I not surprised that you’re a Ron and Rand Paul fan? You’ll be relieved to know that Rand Paul ISN’T named after atheist, adulterer, pro-abortionist Ayn Rand though, they only “admire” her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD-R_OeP6tU
Oh, and according to Ron Paul, homosexuality ISN’T a sin:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=916
At least Ron Paul votes his conscience, voting to ALLOW sodomites into our military:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37254
Yep, “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” (or so says the communist Sinclair Lewis and Ron Paul).
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/12/ron_paul_patrio.html
And you have the AUDACITY to judge me about appreciating Randal Terry’s contribution to the pro-life movement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.