Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the Song of Solomon?
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 31 of 53 (475986)
07-20-2008 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jaywill
07-20-2008 8:30 AM


jaywill writes:
Jesus came in the Gospel of Matthew and started His speaking ministry saying exactly the same thing that John the Baptist did - "Repent ...
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?
My concern is to follow the New Testament ministry of the apostles ...
I am not afraid to follow others when I sense that that teacher is speaking according to the truth of God's new testament economy. ...
Christ and the church is the central focus of the whole divine revelation.
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.
If you work hard enough you can probably find some arguable problems many expositions much less allegorical than this.
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.
IF it causes you to have a cold heart towards CHrist ...
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?
IF it causes you ... to be independent from God ...
Do you think that anyone or anything can exist apart from God?
You have the right to say that you see only "smut" in the Song of Songs ...
I said no such thing because I believe no such thing. The "smut" is, apparently, in your own mind.
That one book in the Bible contains some intoxicating poetry on sexual enjoyment doesn't shock me.
This is not the only book containing sexy copy. Ezekiel gets downright pornographic. I have no problem with that.
It is okay if you think we read a little too much into it.
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 have not yet finished your response ...
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 - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jaywill, posted 07-20-2008 8:30 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jaywill, posted 07-20-2008 4:28 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 32 of 53 (476028)
07-20-2008 4:02 PM


He appears to feel that there is something disgustingly natural about it
Purely, your own prejudicial observation.
Simply because a number of teachers have seen something deeper in the Song of Songs does not mean they are reactionary against it's sexual imagery.
Paul saw something deeper in the revelation of Abraham and Sarah with the concubine Hagar. This doesn't mean Paul was a reactionary trying to suppress the obvious sexually aspects of the romantic triangle.
If all you feel to exclaim is "Song of Songs! Oooo La La !" Go ahead. Some teachers want to consider with it the symbolism to mine the depths of revelation in the book.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 33 of 53 (476032)
07-20-2008 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by doctrbill
07-20-2008 11:25 AM


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.
Have you ever read this saying of Jesus after His resurrection?
" And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things written in the Law and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled.
Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures;
And He said to them, Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise up from the dead on the third day." (Luke 24:44-46)
We believe Christ as the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17) is still opening the minds of His disciples to appreciate how much the revelation of His Person is in the Old 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.
Seeing that the whole Bible ends with a marriage I suppose your overview of Scripture is perhaps just too elementary.
You have the 66 books of the divine revelation of the Bible close with a marriage of God and His people. So expounding the Song of Songs in this way is quite consistent with the climax of the Bible.
I don't think we are dealing with pure "guess work" in this kind of exposition. Maybe you are just too superficial or spiritually immature to appreciate it.
IF it causes you to have a cold heart towards CHrist ...
Are you suggesting that the enjoyment of erotic poetry causes one to have a cold heart towards Christ?
No. Otherwise I would have expressed that.
Are you suggesting that God could not use sexual imagery to communicate matters concerning His eternal purpose ?
Are you suggesting that God could not use the erotic to express the human / divine enjoyment of His relationship with man ?
Does this explain why you insist on inserting Christ into an erotic poem? Or do you simply enjoy imagining Jesus having sex?
You asked questions about how certain passages could possibly relate to Christ and the church. I gave you some samples.
If you are suggesting that I insist that every reader on the first study of Song of Songs pick up these deeper symbols or else they derive no benefit from the book - that would be a false view of my position.
I would encourage any new believer to read the Song of Songs and allow the speaking Spirit to impress them in any way the Spirit seemed suitable.
Some believers with considerable deeper experience may have something profitable for the church related to how the Holy Spirit has impressed them with the book.
Must be back after a few errands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by doctrbill, posted 07-20-2008 11:25 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 34 of 53 (476033)
07-20-2008 4:49 PM


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.
That's interesting. I don't recall saying anything that indicated it was NOT a celebration.
But I would be interested to see how I "destroyed" the book.
What exactly was destroyed? You asked for samples of Christian interpretations of passages in the context of Christ and the Church.
I gave you some. How did that "destroy" the book for you ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by doctrbill, posted 07-20-2008 9:19 PM jaywill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 35 of 53 (476062)
07-20-2008 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jaywill
07-20-2008 4:49 PM


jaywill writes:
I admit that without the mercy of God and the filling of the Holy Spirit my mind is often dirty.
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 read our own defilted and fleshy lust into it.
There is a danger that we miss the point and try to make it something it actually isn't.
... a minority of the believers have matured and are ready for rapture ...
... The church is a corporate building ...
... the eternal redemption of Christ ...
... development of Christ filled humanity ...
... drinking Christ's blood ...
All irrelevant to the tale; AND DISGUSTING.
It is easy to teach people knowledge.
No. It is NOT easy to teach people knowledge.
It is beautiful to Christ in heaven when His lovers on the earth are able to feed His other sheep. God makes this known to His people in the Song of Songs by the praising of the breasts of the woman.
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,
"Your wife has very nice tits."
But what I really mean is: "Could you fix me a sandwich?"
The beloved's Lover shows His pieced hand.
More made-up shit!
The lover hastens to open to Christ to show her appreciation for His death ...
Show me one contextual reason why I should take this as anything other than fantasy.
Sex is God's creation and He's the expert on it.
And he got that way by doing the Church Lady, right?
Christ and the church is the central focus of the whole divine revelation.
I have already pointed out the weakness of this assertion and I eagerly await your reply.
The expositor certainly considered the wall of the New Jerusalem in the end of the Bible. And he probably considered the wall that was rebuilt around Jerusalem after the return of the Baylonian Captivity.
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.
Maybe after some more spiritual progress you might one day come to realize that the analysis was not bad.
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 - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jaywill, posted 07-20-2008 4:49 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 07-20-2008 10:45 PM doctrbill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 36 of 53 (476073)
07-20-2008 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by doctrbill
07-20-2008 9:19 PM


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.
* Flush *
* Spray *
I don't like to do Bible Studies with potty mouths.
I think we're through right here. If you have to bolster your points with your personal home style language, I think I'd rather converse with someone else.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by doctrbill, posted 07-20-2008 9:19 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by doctrbill, posted 07-21-2008 1:09 AM jaywill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 37 of 53 (476085)
07-21-2008 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by jaywill
07-20-2008 10:45 PM


Bad Puppy.
jaywill writes:
I don't like to do Bible Studies with potty mouths.
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:
It is most ravishing to Christ that His lover is also able to pass on the spiritual life through his or her shepherding ...
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:
ravish -verb- To compel (another) to participate in or submit to a sexual act: assault, force, rape, violate. See SEX
lover- NOUN:
1. One who loves another, especially one who feels sexual love.
2. lovers A couple in love with each other.
3.
  • A paramour.
  • A sexual partner.
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 - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jaywill, posted 07-20-2008 10:45 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 38 of 53 (476112)
07-21-2008 8:29 AM


General Rules and Guidelines states:
Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.
I choose to totally ignore posters who go out of their way to be crass and or feel inflamatory street language will strengthen their points.
It wasn't necessary to get into four letter words. This Bible Study room is a Fourm Discussion on theological themes and not the juvinile scribblings on the walls of an elementary school boy's room.
Anyone else have a comment?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 07-21-2008 8:33 AM jaywill has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 39 of 53 (476113)
07-21-2008 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by jaywill
07-21-2008 8:29 AM


jaywill writes:
Anyone else have a comment?
I think you've correctly applied, but mis-spelled the word "crass"
I choose to totally ignore posters who go out of their way to be crase and or feel inflamatory street language will strengthen their points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jaywill, posted 07-21-2008 8:29 AM jaywill has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 40 of 53 (476115)
07-21-2008 9:13 AM


Jesus in SoS?
Christians suggesting that the Song of Songs has something to do with Jesus.
Are there no depths low enough for some people to stoop to?
Stop mutilating another faith's scriptures for 5 minutes.

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 41 of 53 (476117)
07-21-2008 9:54 AM


Back Up and Overview
Some may receive some help from a little overview of Song of Songs as it ia handled in like of the New Testament economy.
This poem portrays the history of love in an excellent marriage. The love affair is between King Solomon and the Shulimite (6:13). Shulimite is a feminine form of the name Solomon.
This fact alone has alerted some students that it concerns the bridal love between Christ as the Bridegroom and and His lovers as His Bride (John 3:29-30; Rev. 19:7). There is portrayed a mutual enjoyment of the Bride and the Bridegroom.
Many times people are simply too "man centered" to understand that it is an enjoyment to God to have a loving pursuer. We tend to think God is only there to "fix" human problems. Don't we need to be saved and forgiven, etc? We need God to do this, that, and the other. But it should one day strike us that we need God Himself because He is altogether lovable. We grow to love God for Himself.
Of course the Bible concludes with a marriage of the Bridegroom Christ and His Bride New Jerusalem in a great universal and romantic love affair of eternity.
So of us take Song of Songs as a window into this final destiny of the Bible. Let the scoffers scoff and sneer. He who has ears to hear let him hear.
Song of Songs stresses not so much the Body of Christ corporately but the believer in Christ individually, unveiling the progressive experience of an individual's loving fellowship with Christ.
Witness Lee writes in one of his footnotes:

"In the romance between the great King Solomon and the girl from the countryside (cf. vv.5-8), because the two did not match each other, the king became a "country man" in order to go to her village to court her, to gain her love. On the one hand, he made himself the same as the country girl; on the other hand, he made the country girl a queen. This is a type of the story of God's romance with man. God as the Husband is divine, and the wife He desires to marry is human; the two do not match each other. To fulfill His heart's desire God became a lowly man with humanity in incarnation, and He contacted man in the way of a romance. Then in His resurrection He uplifted His humanity into His divinity in the divine power according to the Spirit of holiness, and He was designated the Son of God in His humanity (Rom. 1:3-4 and notes). Today the universal Bridegroom is the God-man, having both divinity and humanity.
In order to make His bride, His wife, the same as He is, He regenerates His human elect, putting His divinity into their humanity and uplifting their humanity to the standard of divinity (First Peter 1:3,23; John 3:6). After regenerating them, He then transforms His loving seekers gradually in their soul and ultimately HE transfigures them in their body, until in their entire being
they are the same as He is in life, in nature, in image, and in function, but not in His Godhead (Rom. 12:2 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2). The romance in Song of Songs portrays the process through which the seeker of Christ passes in order to become the Shulimite, a duplication of Solomon and a figure of the New Jerusalem...
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 53 (476164)
07-21-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by jaywill
07-08-2008 9:33 AM


......?
The neck, breasts, navel, hair, locks, cheeks, etc. are all sensous symbols depicting some aspect of this consummate Bride which the redeeming God is forming for Himself.
Jaywill, there is no way you could possibly believe this, especially with the scripture you juxtaposed it with. The Song of Songs has nothing to do with anything except the special love and sensuality between a man and a women in the throes of passion. It's poetry no different than a Shakespearean sonnet.
To search for these hidden meanings isn't necessary. I mean, if you want to glorify God with this book, then glorify that which God had made for mankind -- each other.
Are you suggesting that this book is prophetical, and is about Jesus Christ during the Second Coming?
"Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies." - Song of Songs 4:5
What cryptic message could you possibly glean from this that doesn't actually have to do with him really liking her breasts?
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : Edit to add

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jaywill, posted 07-08-2008 9:33 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by iano, posted 07-21-2008 5:11 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 46 by jaywill, posted 07-21-2008 6:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 43 of 53 (476170)
07-21-2008 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hyroglyphx
07-21-2008 4:45 PM


Re: ......?
Juggles writes:
Jaywill, there is no way you could possibly believe this, especially with the scripture you juxtaposed it with. The Song of Songs has nothing to do with anything except the special love and sensuality between a man and a women in the throes of passion. It's poetry no different than a Shakespearean sonnet.
My moneys on jaywill on this one. By a country mile to boot (which would be unusual when it comes to betting against you. But then again, I didn't reckon on you "inking it up" either )
Are you suggesting that this book is prophetical, and is about Jesus Christ during the Second Coming?
"Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies." - Song of Songs 4:5
What cryptic message could you possibly glean from this that doesn't actually have to do with him really liking her breasts?
As with Hell, God is limited to describing environments in a manner we can (at least begin to) comprehend. Not that that means Hell actually involves high temperatures. How would you describe heaven and to be with God if not like this? What could be better that to be at the breast of the woman you love (if in describing "the best", you limited to describing things in a manner we can (at least begin to) comprehend?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2008 4:45 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2008 5:23 PM iano has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 53 (476173)
07-21-2008 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by iano
07-21-2008 5:11 PM


Re: ......?
My moneys on jaywill on this one. By a country mile to boot (which would be unusual when it comes to betting against you.
I just don't see it. It seems that some Christians are really reaching for this one. Now, you know that I agree that much of the Bible is cryptic -- intentionally so. But this one seems like people are trying really hard to Christify everything. While a large percentage of the OT is dedicated to setting up the Christ, I don't think that all of it does.
But of course, feel free to change my mind. I'm certainly open to any suggestions to the contrary.
But then again, I didn't reckon on you "inking it up" either )
Heh... Yeah, most probably wouldn't. But then, I haven't gotten any new tattoos since my conversion either. Not that there is a correlation. The difference now is that I have a family and we don't make very much money. I can't justify spending that kind of cash on something a frivolous as that while denying the mouths of my children.
quote:
What cryptic message could you possibly glean from this that doesn't actually have to do with him really liking her breasts?
As with Hell, God is limited to describing environments in a manner we can (at least begin to) comprehend. Not that that means Hell actually involves high temperatures. How would you describe heaven and to be with God if not like this? What could be better that to be at the breast of the woman you love (if in describing "the best", you limited to describing things in a manner we can (at least begin to) comprehend?
While I understand the point you are making, it is anecdotal. When Christ or Paul or whatever saint spoke about God's love for His Bride, never is the context sexual in any way. I would think that you would agree that the Song of Songs is mostly about love and lovers, but is it not also sensual and sexual in nature?
In my mind it is evidence that sex for Jews and Christians, or anyone for that matter, was not intended to be an "icky" thing, which atheists often indict against Judeo-Christian ethics. It should also be a release for overly puritanical Christians who all but repress their God-given sexuality. In my mind it is glorifying what God had given to the sexes -- the enjoyment of sex, the closeness it is supposed to foster, and the fulfillment of that design.
I see no allusions in it pointing to a prophetic message about Christ.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typos
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add tidbit

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by iano, posted 07-21-2008 5:11 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by iano, posted 07-21-2008 5:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 45 of 53 (476176)
07-21-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
07-21-2008 5:23 PM


Re: ......?
I just don't see it. It seems that some Christians are really reaching for this one. Now, you know that I agree that much of the Bible is cryptic -- intentionally so. But this one seems like people are trying really hard to Christify everything. While a large percentage of the OT is dedicated to setting up the Christ, I don't think that all of it does.
I like Buzz, but his take on Revelation just has me thumping my head 'gainst the heel of my hand.
He jumps into the cauldron of the detail regarding every word - in order to get it to fit history. But once you hop outside a chronological/historical perspective and take the overview of Gods activity generally, things become a darn sight clearer.
In my view at least. Buzz reaches w.r.t. Revelation. The same kind of wood-for-trees thing can be applied here.
-
While I understand the point you are making, it is anecdotal. When Christ or Paul or whatever saint spoke about God's love for His Bride, never is the context sexual in any way. I would think that you would agree that the Song of Songs is mostly about love and lovers, but is not also sensual and sexual in nature?
Do you find (as I do) that you only really see "by faith alone" in Christ words once having been illuminated regarding the mechanics by the apostle Paul?
That is to say: Paul and Christ come from quite different angles - if taken in isolation - but they are totally complimentary if taken together. That neither took this sexual angle doesn't mean they are divorced from it. Doesn't Pauls language drip of union from the pores? Of course it does.
That union, which "no eye has seen and cannot comprehend" is somewhat (as best a God can manage) explained here. Sexually does it, in but one of the way it can be explained, best.
-
In my mind it is evidence that sex for Jews and Christians, or anyone for that matter, was not intended to be an "icky" thing, which atheists often indict against Judeo-Christian ethics. It should also be a release for overly puritanical Christians who all but repress their God-given sexuality. In my mind it is glorifying what God had given to the sexes -- the enjoyment of sex, the closeness it is supposed to foster, and the fulfillment of that design.
No argument there. But can I counter-suggest that the Bible is not primarily a cultural document on sex? Sure, it comments against the current/everculturethateverlived - that sees sex as a commodity or a powertrip or a drug or a ....what it has everbeen illicitly used for.
But more that that. This book elevates human sex to be as God intended it to be: an expression of total love and union between two personhoods. And he did so to illustrate as best as can be, the total love and union that will exist between two other personhoods. Namely the ( and jaywills oft described) union between God and man.
Of which I am myself convinced.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2008 5:23 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2008 6:22 PM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024