Originally posted by jaywillHow does this make sense to you ?
... I am saying on a deeper symbolic level this celebratory book which is obviously about the joys of love, romance, love making and marriage, has an underlying deeper purpose to protray something about Christ and the church...
Why would Solomon use descriptions about a man and woman making love to portray Christ and the Church?
Originally posted by Rajk999================================
I did not ask you to explain. I asked what the book SoS was about.
Big difference.
The question is a test to see if you, like millions of Christians cant stand the fact that within their Holy Bible which is Gods word can contain details about Solomons love and lovemaking. That book has abosolutely nothing to do with either Christ or the Church.
Your a ...[text shortened]... the simple facts that you have to take into consideration before you get too deep into analysis.
As for Paul, he was able to make very clear statemens about such trivial matters like womens clothes :
I Tim 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
... but neglected to say that men should have one wife ?
Impossible!!
These are the simple facts that you have to take into consideration before you get too deep into analysis.
======================================
Well, I respect your input here. When reading these "pastoral" epistles I always remember that Paul is not trying to lay down laws for society in general. Paul is speaking about the maintenance of the Christian church.
Now I believe that you pointed out that Paul mentions one wife in connection with deacons or elders. I would have to go back and study it.
But you should understand that the deacons and elders are not a special clerical class of spiritual people above all the other members of the church. Paul was not trying to establish a clerical class of professionally spiritual people.
Paul was setting a standard for service and leadership in the New Testament church. I think you should notice that one wife is not established as a law for membership in the church. In this way he leaves room for allowance of different cultures.
But for serving deacons he does set one wife (at a time I believe) as the norm.
So Paul is quite more reasonable than he is given credit for.
Originally posted by Rajk999Over here on this forum www.evcforum.net under the Bible Study Discussion room we are having some talk about the symbolism in the Song of Songs.
The wine ?
My tag over there is also jaywill. You'll find some samples of interpretation of SofS there.
For example they grilled me and I gave them a few samples:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=31&t=117&m=46
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThankyou for thinking to apologize.
Since they were all dirt poor, having more than one wife was probably not common practice among them.
However, I'm out of sympathy with your entire take on the Bible, so this line of discussion is unlikely to bear fruit. I hope you will talk about music again sometime.
I do apologise for my rudeness earlier.
I am going to attempt to look at the matter from your angle. Let us say that it was God's perfect original will that a man should have any number of wives simultaneously. He could have one. He could have more than one at the same time. He could have many wives.
Let us assume that Solomon's 6 or 7 hundred wives was rich blessing of God's bounty. Let us say that Solomon was the most blessed because of his many wives which was so much according to God's ordination.
Got the picture?
What now about the problem of favoritism and jealousy?
See First Samuel 1:1-10.
This disharmony is disruptive to the family life. Could it be the original plan to give ground to the possibility of bitter favoritism and rivalry within one human family?
This is a secondary complaint. I have another complaint which I think is more important.
Originally posted by Nemesiobut we are not capable of changing. we are like children who were told always to ask for permission before going to the bathroom. if nobody is there to ask permission, we will piss our pants because we are too stupid to do some reasoning of our own. we will piss our pants because we don't want to make a person mad, a person that is not even around anymore or is supervising from afar to see what we are doing.
So, God is capable of changing His mind and His standards for what is and is not morally
permissible, right?
Nemesio
Originally posted by ZahlanziWe are like children. However like children we also can grow.
but we are not capable of changing. we are like children who were told always to ask for permission before going to the bathroom. if nobody is there to ask permission, we will piss our pants because we are too stupid to do some reasoning of our own. we will piss our pants because we don't want to make a person mad, a person that is not even around anymore or is supervising from afar to see what we are doing.
God provided His Holy Spirit that we may mature and grow spiritually.
If someone desires to stay an infant and pout and blame God that's on them.
From God's perspective He would prefer that you grow. Maturity looks like the man Jesus.
Originally posted by jaywill…He can change His mind …
He can change His mind without changing His will.
Is there a subtle logical inconsistency here between “god” supposedly being “all knowing” and “god“ changing his mind?
If he is “all knowing” then he must know in advance exactly when he will change his mind in the future as well as know in advance exactly what his new opinion or desire would be and exactly what will make him change his mind. But if he knows all that then why would his intellect fail to take all that knowledge into account of what will make him change his mind in the future now rather than later thus giving him a complete set of opinions or desires that he would know he would stick to without ever changing his mind?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAndrew,
[b]…He can change His mind …
Is there a subtle logical inconsistency here between “god” supposedly being “all knowing” and “god“ changing his mind?
If he is “all knowing” then he must know in advance exactly when he will change his mind in the future as well as know in advance exactly what his new opinion or desire would be and exactly wha ...[text shortened]... set of opinions or desires that he would know he would stick to without ever changing his mind?[/b]
Usually the things I say about God are based upon what I have read in the Bible and my personal experience with God. Or it may be from the experiences of older Christians who have gone deeper into the spiritual life.
I try to direct people to see in the Bible where and why I derive such concepts. You have indicated that you are not interested in what the Bible has to say. I find this rather hostile.
It is not unlike a reaction I received from Scriabin, that he just did not care what the Bible said.
The Bible is an extremely interesting book. The story of Balaam in the book of Numbers is an excellent example to show how God changed His mind but did not change His will. But I am not expecting you to be interested enough to read it.
Now, I will admit that there are some metaphysical paradoxes and philosophical problems with the concept of an all knowing God. Yes, I agree that that poses some problems for my finite mind.
In my opinion is does not pose as many problems as the atheist's idea that there is no God at all. I think that involves me in more mysteries.
That's all I feel to respond right now.
Originally posted by jaywill…You have indicated that you are not interested in what the Bible has to say…
Andrew,
Usually the things I say about God are based upon what I have read in the Bible and my personal experience with God. Or it may be from the experiences of older Christians who have gone deeper into the spiritual life.
I try to direct people to see in the Bible where and why I derive such concepts. You have indicated that you are not int ...[text shortened]... hink that involves me in [b]more mysteries.
That's all I feel to respond right now.[/b]
Correct.
…I find this rather hostile …
You find that “rather hostile”? -that surprises me.
If somebody told me they have absolutely no interest in what a book about evolution has to say when I personally find that particular book particularly interesting, I would not find that absence of interest “rather hostile”. In fact, I would probably think “so what? -I cannot expect everybody to be interested in the same things as me” and I wouldn’t really think or feel much of it. I am curious, why do you find my absence of in what the Bible has to say “rather hostile”?
…The story of Balaam in the book of Numbers is an excellent example to show how God changed His mind but did not change His will …
…
…Now, I will admit that there are some metaphysical paradoxes and philosophical problems with the concept of an all knowing God. Yes, I agree that that poses some problems for my finite mind….
I was rather hoping that, rather than you trying to interpret the Bible to attempt to answer this philosophical question (or any other question- ), you would attempt to answer this philosophical question using your own mind independently by formulating your own reasoning independently of the Bible or anything else (that includes anyone else).
That’s what I generally like to do when attempting to answer most philosophical questions as well as many of the more interesting scientific ones. When, say, I wonder why something evolved the way it did, the first thing I do is not to rush off to books about evolution to find somebody else’s opinion on it, the first thing I do is to try and formulate my own theory based on my own reasoning and whatever evidence I may be aware of -it is much more fun doing it that way and it makes good exercise for my ability to reason.
…In my opinion is does not pose as many problems as the atheist's idea that there is no God at all. I think that involves me in more mysteries …
Can you give an example of one of these “mysteries” that you think would only exist if there was no god?
===============================
You find that “rather hostile”? -that surprises me.
If somebody told me they have absolutely no interest in what a book about evolution has to say when I personally find that particular book particularly interesting, I would not find that absence of interest “rather hostile”. In fact, I would probably think “so what? -I cannot expect everybody to be interested in the same things as me” and I wouldn’t really think or feel much of it. I am curious, why do you find my absence of in what the Bible has to say “rather hostile”?
============================================
That's interesting but I am not speaking for you here. I am speaking for myself.
=========================================
I was rather hoping that, rather than you trying to interpret the Bible to attempt to answer this philosophical question (or any other question- ), you would attempt to answer this philosophical question using your own mind independently by formulating your own reasoning independently of the Bible or anything else (that includes anyone else). ====================================
Then I have to disappoint you. I reason with God and His word.
There are some other poster who will play in your ball park.
I don't like people telling me not to refer to the Bible. And I am not impressed with people who try to make Bible readers out to not be able to reason.
Maybe your goal is to stand up and say "Look everybody! I can say something original!"
That reflects your priorities. My priorities are to follow the apostles and prophets.
========================================
That’s what I generally like to do when attempting to answer most philosophical questions as well as many of the more interesting scientific ones. When, say, I wonder why something evolved the way it did, the first thing I do is not to rush off to books about evolution to find somebody else’s opinion on it, the first thing I do is to try and formulate my own theory based on my own reasoning and whatever evidence I may be aware of -it is much more fun doing it that way and it makes good exercise for my ability to reason.
=====================================
Too bad you do not give the same kind of attention to the Bible.
Whenever you're ready to include that book in your reasoning process then maybe we can discuss these issues.
It could be that your priorties are to win a debate. My priorities are to nourish faith. And for that you'll get no apologies from me.
=======================================
Can you give an example of one of these “mysteries” that you think would only exist if there was no god?
=======================================
Why there is anything instead of nothing.
Why a man of such honesty, selflessness, love, justice, beauty, righteousness, nobility, and even glory as Jesus Christ would teach about God His Father when such a divine Father did not exist.
But since you are afraid or apathetic to crack open a Bible you wouldn't understand why this would be a problem.
So you got two samples. One involves knowing something about what Jesus did and taught. And you don't care about that. So I'm sure any explanation you produce will be inadaquate for me.
I would consider it the reply of an ostrich with its head buried in the ground.