1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasMe without opinions?
So you don't have any own opinion, you have to quote some authority text?
My opinion is that if I am going to be a human being then I HAVE to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
My opinion is that if Jesus is not God become a man then there is no reason for mankind or the universe to exist.
Do you want more opinions from me?
My opinion is that God is absolutely Righteous in His ways, words, acts, doings, thoughts, intentions, plans and in every way.
As for quoting the Bible, this comes from my experience in my own process of becoming a Christian. I use to argue a lot with my Christian friends. When one day I did say "Lord Jesus" I didn't remember any of those points of arguments.
I only remembered something quoted from the Bible. I wager that it may be the same with other people. Years latter, perhaps, they just remember something that the Bible says.
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioUnlike the fallen Adam and Eve, he has no shame. Not coincidentally, all the evidence is against him having ever eaten from any tree of knowledge, despite such fruit being offered for the picking time and again.
It's breathtaking that you have the balls to post in this forum anymore, given how many times
you've been proven explicitly wrong.
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitI was expecting some astute skeptic to come up with a good one.
[quote]7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 [b]I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given berate "harm"? Would Godly consent here nullify the wrongness assigned to this situation? 🙄[/b]
First, what does it mean that the wives of his master were put " into [his] keeping? "
Can you prove to me that that means God instructed David to have sex with them?
Let's start there. Maybe you have a tough one for me.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI could be wrong, but hadn't Saul died? If so, no moral prohibitions were violated: the women were widowed and now free to marry David.
[quote]7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 [b]I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your keeping, and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given ...[text shortened]... berate "harm"? Would Godly consent here nullify the wrongness assigned to this situation? 🙄[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillGood question. Young's Literal Translation gives it like this:
I was expecting some astute skeptic to come up with a good one.
First, what does it mean that the wives of his master were put [b]" into [his] keeping? "
Can you prove to me that that means God instructed David to have sex with them?
Let's start there. Maybe you have a tough one for me.[/b]
8and I give to thee the house of thy lord, and the wives of thy lord, into thy bosom, and I give to thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if little, then I add to thee such and such [things]....and the NIV gives...
8 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.That makes it fairly clear what kind of 'keeping' was going on.
As if more proof was actually required, the Bible lists many of the children that David fathered, and who their mothers were.
"Can you prove to me that that means God instructed David to have sex with them?
What does the word wife mean to you? I sure hope Mrs. Jaywill is not stuck waiting for Godly instructions!
Originally posted by Conrau KDon't forget the story of the feud between David and Nabal, ending with God killing Nabal and David taking his wife.
I could be wrong, but hadn't Saul died? If so, no moral prohibitions were violated: the women were widowed and now free to marry David.
Nabal's crime? He was rude to David's men and wouldn't give them free food and supplies!
Originally posted by vistesdYes, the version of the "revealed" word of "God" as handed down like the telegram game is full of mistranslations. Not that it matters one whit, for one fairy tale is much like another in terms of its truth value -- namely, none at all apart from that which is assumed and enforced, sometimes by using rather extreme measures (so sorry, dear Joan of Arc).
I did this at length once before, but—the words used in the Hebrew and the Greek to condemn (male) homosexual sex are, at best, equivocal. The Hebrew word, for example, does not imply moral wickedness—regardless of the fact that it was translated as “abomination”—a rather “abominable” word, at least in English. At the most, some things were forbidden the I ...[text shortened]... one is interested.] He offered up one of the bravest homilies I have ever heard on the subject.
For one such example, and I know this may upset a few of our Catholic brethren, I believe the original language in the scrolls actually says "celebrate."
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe act of God giving David the wives of the dead king Saul represents the permissive will of God in context of the ancient Near East Customs of political alliances among kings.
Good question. Young's Literal Translation gives it like this:8and I give to thee the house of thy lord, and the wives of thy lord, into thy bosom, and I give to thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if little, then I add to thee such and such [things]....and the NIV gives...[quote]8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master' ife mean to you? I sure hope Mrs. Jaywill is not stuck waiting for Godly instructions![/b]
It should be remembered that the prophet Samuel had warned Israel that if they wanted a king like the nations around them, he would tend to act like the customs of kings was to act.
They insisted on a king anyway and God gave them one by His permissive will rather than His perfect will. He gave them a line of kings who of course, according to the prophetic warning, some would act like the kings of the other nations.
David had been given Saul's wives by the permissive will of God (2 Sam. 12:8) after the death of his master king Saul. What does this mean ?
Here we have to go into the Ancient Near East cultural and historical background some, to see the significance of this statement. For remember Samuel warned that the king of Israel would tend to act like the customs of the nations around them. This behavior would represent what God would often PERMIT and not what was His perfect will.
Consulting Glen Miller's website on biblical difficulties (used with permission)
=========================================
"a. Most royal marriages and concubinage (for both princes and princesses) were national affairs, not personal affairs of the king:
"Marriage was a tool of diplomacy throughout the ancient Near East. Towns, city-states, tribes or nations who wished to ally themselves with a rule or come under his protection sealed the treaty with a marriage of a daughter of their chief family to the suzerain or his son. This was an act of loyalty on the part of the vassal, who would then have a personal stake in preserving the dynasty. For instance, Zimri-Lim, the kind of Mari during the eighteenth century B.C., successfully placed his daughters in the harems of nearby kingdoms and married several foreign wives himself to increase his power and the stability of his realm Similarly Pharaoh Thutmose IV (1425-1412 B.C.) arranged a marriage with a daughter of the Mitannian king to demonstrate good relations and end a series of wars with that middle Euphrates kingdom." [BBCOT: at 2 Sam 5.13]
b. Royal succession was normally occasioned by a king's death (making his family widows and orphans), and care and protection of the royal 'harem' would be a responsibly of the new ruler.
"Since royal marriages were a reflection of the power of a monarch and represented political and economic alliances made in the name of the state, it would have been necessary, at the succession, for the harem of the former king to become the responsibility of the new monarch. In this way there was continuity of treaty obligations." [BBCOT:in loc.]
c. For example, in this case--in which David 'inherited' Saul's wives--it was an act of kindness toward the family of the deceased king:
"After the death of Ishbosheth (2 Sam 4:5-7) and David's rise to kingship, it would have been expected that he would extend his protection Saul's family, including his harem. Thus it is possible that the brief reference to David's marriage to Ahinoam in 1 Samuel 25:43 is a reference to his taking Saul's wife Ahinoam (1 Sam 14:50)" [BBCOT: in loc.]
So, upon the death (or abdication or overthrow) of a king, the successor bore responsibility for continuing the all-important political marriages and care of the royal harem.
==================================
In the same chapter the divine displeasure of God at David murdering Uriah and stealing his wife should indicate that the adultery and indulgence of lust was not pleasing to God in that instance.
God permitted David to follow the customs of the nations to a degree. He was not pleased with the affair with the wife of Uriah.
The statement that God gave the wives of his master into his arms or bosom then I take to mean that to a certain permissible degree God allowed David to fit in with the customs of the ancient Near East kings surrounding Israel.
Originally posted by jaywillSo your opinion is the bibel, nothing more? That's your opinion?
Me without opinions?
My opinion is that if I am going to be a human being then I HAVE to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
My opinion is that if Jesus is not God become a man then there is no reason for mankind or the universe to exist.
Do you want more opinions from me?
My opinion is that God is absolutely Righteous in His ways, words, ac ...[text shortened]... with other people. Years latter, perhaps, they just remember something that the Bible says.
You say that you don't like sex with your auntie, of the only reason that there is a crude passage in the bible? I tell you, I don't like sex with my auntie of complete different reasons.
The bible says that you have to have sex (yes, it actually says so!) with your brother's whife when he's dead, repeatedly, until she gets pregnant.
It (the bile of yours) doesn't say that you, if you are a priest should have sex with the boys and girls in the church choir, as catolic prists have, and even defended by cardinals.
It doesn't say that sex should be encourages between adults and children, and even sex between children, as they have in certain christian sects, and is defended by the heads of that cult.
It doesn't say that polygami is permitted as some christian mormons have, and take the right to have.
...etc.
So the bible doesn't say it all, you have to have opinions of your own too. What is reasable and what is not.
May I rewrite my code of sexual affairs?
"One, two, or more persons, all agreeing of what they do, not harming eachother or others, engaged in sexual activities of their mutual liking, is not wrong."
Noone should judge others what they do behind closed doors, noone! Because, everyone judging should be judge themselves in the same manner.
Before christian people judge other people, they should judge christians first. When all christians are pure, then come back and we discuss further.
Originally posted by FabianFnas"not harming each other or others"
May I rewrite my code of sexual affairs?
"One, two, or more persons, all agreeing of what they do, not harming eachother or others, engaged in sexual activities of their mutual liking, is not wrong."
Noone should judge others what they do behind closed doors, noone! Because, everyone judging should be judge themselves in the same manner.
Before c ...[text shortened]... d judge christians first. When all christians are pure, then come back and we discuss further.
How far do you take the definition of harm? What does it include? What about people who enjoy being physically harmed during sex, i.e. masochists? Are they wrong for liking that?
Does it include emotional harm, like cheating on a spouse or committed significant other?
Originally posted by NemesioDoes it really matter what God thinks?
Originally posted by Badwater
[b]Tell him that a minister (me) says it is not a sin. Not every Christian thinks that a (to me) perverse, archaiac interpretation of sexuality, and sexuality itself, is sinful. Humans simply have to understand that all of us have a sexual nature, and it's different for everyone and to different degrees. Unfortunately to ...[text shortened]... u respond to that and the incessant Biblical quotation that would
accompany it?
Nemesio
I mean, to be quite honest, if someone's sucking my dong, I couldn't care less what's happening in heaven and hell...
Originally posted by SwissGambitI don't define harm, that's a matter of degree.
"not harming each other or others"
How far do you take the definition of harm? What does it include? What about people who enjoy being physically harmed during sex, i.e. masochists? Are they wrong for liking that?
Does it include emotional harm, like cheating on a spouse or committed significant other?
But indeed we have physical harm and emotional/mental harm.
If masochists agree to have violent sex, then let them. Whithin the laws, naturally. If someone dies, then of course it's a crime. But physical limited harm with concent, is there any harm with that?
"...not harming eachother or others..." means that cheating is out of bounds. Therefore, as someone suggested, that sex with your auntie is out of bounds if her husband is harmed by it.