Help with a Christian girlfriend

[organiccornflake]

Yes indeed, the song of solomon, about two un-married lovers........sneaking off in the night to bang the stable boy? What's next? Anal sex and orgies..repeat your own slippery slope garbage from this point on.

Actually, there you go Dan, read her the song of solomon and all of your troubles will vanish.

Where did it say they were unmarried? You are very uncultured. The song of songs is beautiful poetry portraying the purity of sex.

[Doubting Thomas]

To Loading Please Wait: Every one of your statements could be summerized as, "I hate god! I hate religion! Do what feels good regardless of the effects!" This is clearly self-serving and immoral.

What's so bad about doing what feels good as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, including yourself? Just because Christians say something is immoral doesn't mean that it is. If two consenting adults want to have a little fun with each other, then where's the harm? True, you do have to watch out for STD's, but that's all part of being a responsible adult.

To Rhythm: People decide to be gay as a grab for attention perhaps. Perhaps it is the excitement of a sexual taboo. Perhaps it is to rebel. Perhaps it is to be different. There are a host of reasons... I choose not to be gay because its disgusting, and condemned by god. Plus its disgusting.

Oh yes, people decide to be gay so they can get the attention of homophobes who want to beat them senseless or kill them. Or maybe they just want to be shunned by the rest of society as pariahs. I'm sure gay people love the attention of people who call them pedophiles or tell them that they're disgusting perverts who deserve to die.

You think it's disgusting because you're not gay. Ever think that gay men think that vaginal sex is disgusting? It's not a choice, it's how they're wired. But even if you think it's disgusting doesn't mean that it's wrong or evil.

[The Grand Nudger]

Where did it say they were unmarried? You are very uncultured. The song of songs is beautiful poetry portraying the purity of sex.

Looks like you need to crack open your bible amigo. Uncultured....nickers:

The song of songs is about a young woman and a shepherd who sneak into their lovers bed at night, and part at dawn. You see, they don't wish to be caught (as is made plainly clear throughout the entirety of the poem, and is exactly why this is such good erotica..it's forbidden). Course, you could replace the she with a he. If you want to get technical about the song of songs, the female is speaking in the masculine (and that's the nice way of saying it, you should probably check your translation notes before you get into this one). I personally don't care how one wishes to approach the translation. Sex is awesome regardless. Like you said, pure and all that.

As far as gay goes...so, you didn't make any choice at all did you? "It's disgusting". If god didn't condemn homosexuality would you be blowing your gay friends? Can you imagine any situation in which you could conceivably choose to be gay, personally? I'd like to end this by stating that you're disgusting. Notice how my saying it doesn't make it true, now apply this to your own statement. The statement I'm referring to, of course, being the one that makes my statement true after all. Fancy that.

You know what, it just occurred to me, why should any atheist have to deal with this bullshit? Shouldn't our resident faithful be handling assholes like this? Could it be that those "respected" theists among us are all just as much an asshole as this douche? I strongly suspect that this is the case.

[organiccornflake]

Looks like you need to crack open your bible amigo. Uncultured....nickers:

I got it. Now lets begin.

The song of songs is about a young woman and a shepherd who sneak into their lovers bed at night, and part at dawn. You see, they don't wish to be caught (as is made plainly clear throughout the entirety of the poem, and is exactly why this is such good erotica..it's forbidden).

Are we talking about the same book? I don't believe we are talking about the same story. They were married (read the end of the passage here.

Course, you could replace the she with a he. If you want to get technical about the song of songs, the female is speaking in the masculine (and that's the nice way of saying it, you should probably check your translation notes before you get into this one).

She is when she was writing it. Not uncommon.

I personally don't care how one wishes to approach the translation. Sex is awesome regardless. Like you said, pure and all that.

Until someone makes a mistake. And what is "awesome" is not always whats good. I once knew a guy who thought rape was awesome.

As far as gay goes...so, you didn't make any choice at all did you? "It's disgusting". If god didn't condemn homosexuality would you be blowing your gay friends? Can you imagine any situation in which you could conceivably choose to be gay, personally? I'd like to end this by stating that you're disgusting. Notice how my saying it doesn't make it true, now apply this to your own statement. The statement I'm referring to, of course, being the one that makes my statement true after all. Fancy that.

We both know that this is a circular argument that has not enough factual evidence to go either way. I have, however, seen friends of mine turn from homosexuality, and without proper evidence in either direction, their testimonies are enough for me.

You know what, it just occurred to me, why should any atheist have to deal with this bullshit? Shouldn't our resident faithful be handling assholes like this? Could it be that those "respected" theists among us are all just as much an asshole as this douche? I strongly suspect that this is the case.

Are you talking to me? Why do you even say these things? What did I say to you to make you feel this way? I shouldn't have to put up with your pointless and un-provoked insulting either.


[/quote]

[ElDinero]

Until someone makes a mistake. And what is "awesome" is not always whats good. I once knew a guy who thought rape was awesome.

See if you can win a cookie by telling me the difference between two consenting adults (of any gender) consenting to have consensual sex, and rape. I've put a couple of clues in my sentence to help you since you're a thick twat.

[Braveheart]

Is she up for anal?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, that's the preamble. Has nothing to do with the narrative proper. (By the way, it is not common for a feminine character to speak in the masculine, in fact it's incredibly uncommon as women assuming a masculine tenor (even in cases of the written word) was taboo. Nowhere else in any of the OT text does a female assume the masculine. So much for hand-waving that eh?

How about we take a look at the end of the song of songs? There's a great little exchange after the deed is done.

barach (baw-rakh')
to bolt, i.e. figuratively, to flee suddenly -- chase (away); drive away, fain, flee (away), put to flight, make haste, reach, run away, shoot.

This would be 8:13-14. It's a sentiment that is being echoed from 2:14, where "she" urges him to run away before sunrise so that he will not be caught. 2:17. There is actually a wedding scene in the song, the wedding of Solomon, which is swiftly followed by the male speaker criticizing Solomon, making it plainly clear that he is not Solomon himself. It is easily understood as imaginative play and flirting, and of course the spell is switfly broken. The "female" refers to "her" lover as a king for a few verses and then suddenly demotes him to a shepherd as the change from 1:3-1:7 again makes plainly clear. Fantasy is difficult to maintain, the strength of the narrative is in how descriptive it can be, how many wonderful metaphors it invokes, while actually portraying a very familiar picture of desire and sexual interaction (including passive aggressive flirting and word-play...this "female" was a dirty bitch...and I love it). You know, along the lines of the above, the active role the female takes as initiator (speaking in the masculine) is very surprising throughout the entirety of the text. She's being the dominant one, this is surprising only if you translate masculine pronouns as "she" to make it seem as though it isn't two men having a conversation with each other. No "she" wrote this text to begin with, and is not entirely original work, as it echoes the style and metaphors of a great many other erotic poems of the ancient near east and represents an example of a style that was already flourishing by the time this was incorporated into the text.

As a side note, the Song is one of those portions of the text that I particularly enjoy, as it is (at least in part) authentic. 4Q108 contains a few lines of the song establishing it as part of the tradition going at least that far back. It's gone through many "translations" as the wind of popular doctrine has changed over time, and it's one of those examples where we have a literal mountain of editing over the centuries. It was a text that was determined to need such massive editing (by so many different editors), and yet the text itself is so good that the editors just couldn't bring themselves to trash it entirely. You know it's only very recently that christian denominations have even begun to acknowledge it's erotic dimension? That may seem strange to us, considering the narrative, but one has to keep in mind that there was a great urge to remove any extolling of the beauty of "acts of the flesh" for a good span of time. This was due to the influence of hellenized culture with it's strong stance against anything material.

So, pray tell, what argument am I making and why is it circular? I'm just trying to determine at what point you chose not to like penis, and whether or not it would be possible for you to choose to like penis. You made the claim, stop wriggling. Was there some point in your life when you were indifferent? When you said to yourself "meh, I could go either way". How did you decide to be a heterosexual, what tipped the scales? Do you will each and every hard-on you get to happen?

What's up buddy, you toss around words like "disgusting"...or "condemned by god", but you can't take a little turnabout? Disappointing.

[organiccornflake]

There is no other place in the bible where a woman is writing. So how can you prove this? I find your post to be largely un-cited.

I would like you to cite scriptural verses that say they were not married, as I have provided scripture that says that the lovers were. Keep in mind that it is a lovers poem, so watch out for metaphors and similes.

To ElDinero: The difference is obvious; however, as i stated, awesome is a subjective word and is opinionated, and thus cannot be applied universaly to anything.

[Napoléon]

Keep in mind that it is a lovers poem, so watch out for metaphors and similes.

But sweet jesus! How am I supposed to take the bible literally with all these metaphors?

[The Grand Nudger]

Firstly, I didn't say that at all, so go argue with yourself on that count.
(at issue is the nuetering of masculine pronouns..which should be in the translation notes of your bible...god only knows why that would be left out in whatever rag you're holding... When female speakers are invoked in the bible, they utilize feminine pronouns. To do otherwise would be something completely alien to the culture that these narratives are supposed to have their origins in, and in fact, is alien, as it is not done elsewhere. Nueter pronouns cause tons of trouble in translation of biblical texts, as you should already be well aware...you are debating scripture correct? You should have some working knowledge of the subject you wish to debate. Let me put this a simpler way, so we can overcome this stumbling block. When the text is written, if a woman is said to be speaking, feminine versions of words are used. To use masculine versions of these words in reference to a female would be blasphemous/insulting. To use feminine versions of these words in reference to a man would be blasphemous/insulting. Essentially, If I were speaking about you to others in the forums, and referring to you as "she"...what would I be doing? Reverse the order and the situation is similar. Are we clear now?)

Secondly, you provided no such thing. You referenced the preamble to the poem, and I pointed this out to you. There isn't any disagreement anywhere as to the subjects of these verses with regards to Solomon. None. Neither of the lovers in the song of songs is Solomon. The verse you referenced pertains to Solomon, not the lovers. End of. You seriously have never read the Song of Songs have you? I don't need to cite anything, you have a bible (presumably). Don't get pissy just because you got a cut-rate edition with incomplete translation notes and utterly fail at reading comprehension (see the above attempt at a strawman...which I'm pretty sure was unintentional..lulz). You're a christian, I'm not. You're arguing the specifics of this narrative with me. You should know this narrative like the back of your hand (at least relative to my "uncultured" self), I shouldn't have to correct or educate you on your own scriptures, should I?

Still wondering when you're going to tell me what moment you went from indifference towards penis to choosing heterosexuality. How did you make the choice? Did you have a picture of a penis in one hand, and a vagina in the other? No, no, that wouldn't work would it...because you're "choosing"..yes? You'd have to will an erection by choice, visual aides couldn't elicit such a response in and of themselves. I have to say...I don't have such a problem. Does this mean that I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual? If I have not actively chosen to be a heterosexual does that put me in the clear or the red with god? Is "not choosing heterosexuality" equivalent to "rejecting heterosexuality" (as I often hear with regards to christ), or, and this is a thought.....is not choosing heterosexuality in an active manner an asexual equivalent to homosexuality? What do scriptures have to say on this matter?

Fun fact for the rest of us: This poem was composed as a theatrical. It was mean to be sung. Is anyone surprised that suspicions of homosexuality surround a musical...lol?