What is the Song of Solomon?

Hi Jay,You seem to have given the subject considerable thought. Perhaps you can answer a few questions I have about how this woman is a metaphor of the Church.Could you please explain why the woman is "a wall" and her breasts its "towers?" Does the Church need to have large breasts?Can you identify the "little sister" in the story and tell us why she "has no breasts?" Does she represent a different Church?Can you tell us how the Church is like a palm tree and why Christ would want to climb that tree?Can you tell why the Church's breasts are compared to "clusters of dates" and why Christ is looking forward to grasping those clusters?Please tell us why the breasts are depicted as symetrical and bouncing (like a pair of playful fawns). What is the 'spiritual' significance of the bouncing?Please explain what is meant by "joints of the thighs." You might also explain why various translators render the expression differently.Can you tell us why the word "door" has been supplied by translators in that line where the woman talks about "the hole" where her lover puts his hand?Can you explain what is meant by the "spiced wine" which drips from the woman's fingers when she awakes from dreaming of her lover?Most importantly: Where exactly are these charms located on the body of the Church? and What exactly will Christ be doing when he climbs that "tree" and grabs those "clusters" and goes down to the "orchard" for to smell the spiced "wine?"

Well, Jay, You have clearly given this some reading but I was hoping you had given it some thought.The problem with parroting someone else's words is that it makes one sound like a parrot. And then, when rebuttal comes, as it will, one has to try and defend someone else's scholarship; someone else's thoughts; someone else's imagination. That is what it is, you know? You are presenting someone else's thoughts. I'm not very interested in someone else’s thoughts, Jay. I am interested in your thoughts. As you have suggested, that which you are quoting invites refutation. It deserves refutation if for no other reason than it is doing back flips to avoid facing the simple fact: that sexual entertainments are a part of god-given life and as such are celebrated in the Holy Bible. That said. I am interested in your personal opinion, if you have one, regarding why it is that such a musky smelling, slippery fingered, titty bouncing, woman climbing, wet dream fantasy should be flaccidified by suggesting that it is some kind of moralism about Jesus having a 'spiritual' orgasm in mixed company. Do you know the etymology of the word "ravishing?"Think about this for a moment. How about

quote:

---

"I am tall, and strong like a wall; and my breast are like towers; that's what he likes about me."

---

The Hebrew itself is debatable here so I try to find something which makes sense to me. The above is one of a number of variations I came up with nearly a decade ago. I'm not really satisfied with it but believe me, the 'authorized' version doesn't work for me at all. A wall is tall and strong. When viewed from a low angle the breasts on a woman's chest may resemble battlements on a castle wall. This view of feminine beauty is a perennial favorite for modern photographers. There is nothing in the text to suggest that this is a metaphor, an allegory, an analogy or some kind of lesson in how to get along with someone who has not yet been born and will not be born before these players are dead.Walls may be said to be a symbol of sanctification, if you don't care what you say. Where is that coming from? Not the text. Not the Bible. Somebody's wild imagination. That's where its coming from. That's the problem with trying to fit someone else's brain into your own head. It doesn't fit right. You come off walking and talking like a Frankenstein monster. Forgive me if you are virginal. If you are, then we shouldn't be having this conversation. If, on the other hand, you have some sexual experience then you should be able to relate to this collection of erotic verses. You could say that; If you don't care what you say. In the real world breasts symbolize nurture, if you need them to symbolize something. The Bible utilizes breasts for that symbology and it is quite obvious when it is doing so. It is also obvious when it is not doing so. But breasts have a life of their own. They are what they are. Ready made baby bottles and cheap entertainment for men (and women). They don't really need to symbolize anything. The Hebrew here is difficult to translate. What we are looking at is poetry in a long dead language. Poetry is difficult to comprehend even when you live under the same roof as the poet. We can be fairly sure that one of the speakers is a strong woman who is proud of her sexual charms. We can be fairly certain that one of the passages describes an exotic dance, a strip or strip tease. We can be fairly certain that the woman who hurries out of bed and gets "liquid myrrh" on the door handle has been indulging a sexual fantasy.I suspect that the author you quote has a problem accepting the realities of sexual joy. I hope you don't intend to become like him.PS. Where does this erotic poem talk about the dead guy with the nail holes in his hands? Chapter and verse please.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

John and Jesus were reiterating the same NEWS story. What we have here is a different situation. The guy you quote is not John the Baptist and you are not Jesus. AND: the guy you quote, is not reiterating the Song; he is commenting on it; and he is butchering it. He is ADDING to it; inserting subject matter alien to the script. He is attempting to make it sound like something other than what it is. He appears to feel that there is something disgustingly natural about it and proposes to fix that by involving Christ; giving Jesus a hard-on for the congregation (men, women, and children). How queer is that? How disgusting is that? Are you sure you want that man's tongue in your mouth? HELLO!! Why are you talking about the New Testament? What have "the apostles" got to do with Song of Solomon? Neither 'Christ' nor 'church' appears in the Old Testament of my Bible. So, let me remind you: We are not presently studying the New Testament. There is no reason to imagine that this is allegory and the only "problem" I have with it is finding a way to properly express it in English. Are you suggesting that the enjoyment of erotic poetry causes one to have a cold heart towards Christ? Does this explain why you insist on inserting Christ into an erotic poem? Or do you simply enjoy imagining Jesus having sex? Do you think that anyone or anything can exist apart from God? I said no such thing because I believe no such thing. The "smut" is, apparently, in your own mind. This is not the only book containing sexy copy. Ezekiel gets downright pornographic. I have no problem with that. I don't think you "read a little too much into it." I think you totally destroy it! I think you can't tell allegory from celebration. I think you can't tell Old Testament from New Testament. I can see that. Go to now. Read the rest of it. Get the big picture. Then we can discuss what I have said.OK?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I don't have a dirty mind but I do have a sexual mind and I'm glad those Jews who wrote the Bible had a sexual mind as well. What makes my mind feel like it might GET dirty is when I try to follow your line of reasoning and imagine Jesus fucking the church. There is a danger that we miss the point and try to make it something it actually isn't. All irrelevant to the tale; AND DISGUSTING. No. It is NOT easy to teach people knowledge. Like he couldn't just say it plainly? Like he had to disguise it as an erotic poem?What you suggest is like, if I were to say, But what I really mean is: "Could you fix me a sandwich?" More made-up shit! Show me one contextual reason why I should take this as anything other than fantasy. And he got that way by doing the Church Lady, right? I have already pointed out the weakness of this assertion and I eagerly await your reply. What about the author? I don't give a rat's ass about the "expositor." I do care about the holy word itself; and it annoys me that people market this bullshit as if it were some sort of insight. They arbitrarily add-in words and ideas which are completely foreign to the context and do so without defensible reason. What you have provided is not analysis. It is overlay.Maybe after some more human progress you will come to realize that the Bible is not ALWAYS about bowing and scraping and drinking blood. Sometimes it's about knocking back a cold one with Jesus, and watching Mary dance.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

As I recall you've been trying to explain how Christ 'makes love' to the Church. You seem to think that you have offered nothing which may be construed as being in bad taste. You seem to think that the Christ/Bride analogy is acceptable so long as you avoid explicit language. Aside from your insistence that Song be viewed through a New Testament telescope and your suggestion that it is good to "drink the blood" of Christ and "eat his body," there is the following bit which annoys me even more: What do you think "ravishing" means? What do think "lover" means? What do you think it means when someone has both male and female lovers?FYI: Do you see how these words ramp-up the sexual flavor of your presentation? Never mind the fact that you may have adopted special definitions for these terms. You are now speaking to a worldwide audience so it might be prudent to consider using terms which have a more pointed meaning.It is difficult to take the Christ/Bride analogy to its logical conslusion because you inevitably end up trying to find 'spiritual' explanations for the corpulant charms, reproductive organs, bodily fluids and sex acts of the players. And all that is unnecessary. The text is perfectly capable of standing alone. We are not called upon to find a "deeper" i.e. hidden meaning. And since you don't seem to understand how offensive the Christ/Bride analogy may be to persons outside the sectarian orgy, I have felt the need to rub your nose in it. Whether or not you appreciate the vulgar charm of my profanity: I have merely expressed your 'theory' in a nutshell with an eye to its ultimate conclusion. Call it 'love' if you like but it is clear from a reading of the text that this kind of 'love' involves boobs and butts and sticky fingers.Why do you think they call it The Good Book?!

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -