Help with a Christian girlfriend

[The Grand Nudger]

Since we're on the subject of marriage, lets have ourselves a look at Verse 4. Here the speaker invokes the word bride constantly. This must be literal? Well, I suppose it could be, except that directly before every "my bride" is a "my sister". Does this mean that his love interest is his sister? No, most likely not, as this is understood as a quirk of language and flirting. Similar to "My Love" in more familiar wording (to us). One would be forgiven for assuming that these two were actually married if one did not read the entirety of the poem...context context context, lol. This is forbidden love, he refers to her with titles of respect and dignity whilst meeting secretly, and later fleeing before sunrise. Something else that stands out is the speakers very intimate knowledge of his love interest. They've obviously done this before. This isn't a one-night stand. The speaker actually mentions "going to the mountain"...this guy seriously just pulled the "I'd climb a mountain for you baby" line. Classy, lol. One of my favorite lines comes at the end of Verse 4.

"Awake, north wind,
and come, south wind!
Blow on my garden,
that its fragrance may spread everywhere.
Let my beloved come into his garden
and taste its choice fruits."

This is the point at which the narrative becomes hardcore erotica (just what do you think she's referring to as her garden, with the pleas to the winds to blow and "spread her fragrance", just what do you think he's going to be tasting?). Porn dialogue writers sit down and take notes...you're being schooled.

Shall we continue the class?

[organiccornflake]

So the bible finds sex tolerable?
Did you think christians to be asexual?

Please cite scripture that says they were not married.

Even if there is; it is poetry. Poetry that a couple found exciting. Extremely metaphorical poetry that a couple found exciting.

With as metaphorical as it is; nothing is says can be safely taken literal.
The point of the book is to show that god condones sex. And he encourages us to take delight in it.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, most definitely not. A large majority of this country is christian, any "deviant" sex act is likely to have christians behind it.

You don't want to flesh out your "choose to be gay" argument at all do you. Can I take that to mean that you're silently acknowledging that it was complete garbage?

Please cite the scripture that states that they were married, and then explain why they snuck around under cover of night..with her pleading for him to leave before sunrise, and he begging her to flee with him away from Jerusalem. Perhaps explain why Solomon is courting a married woman (you see, Solomon is part of a love triangle between these characters...lol). The apologists argument here btw, is that the entirety of the poem is meant to be taken as a dream, with only the final verses regarding sex as taking place in the waking world. Wy do they interpret it this way? Is there anything in the text which would suggest this? In short, no. They interpret it this way because otherwise it has a very strong conflict with existing dogma about marriage, and like you, apologists generally tend to believe that every jot and tittle of their fairy tale has something to say about god. You failed at this harder than they do.

Oh, so quick to sound the retreat. The Song of Songs is not about Solomon, or any wedding of his. It is not about two married lovers, it is not about what god approves of or condemns. It is, as you have finally so succinctly put, a poem. It is riddled with metaphor but is not metaphoric of anything at all itself. "The point of this book" is to be sung before an audience, as I've already mentioned. You should probably avoid speaking for god.

Care to head along to Verse 5 or are we done here?

[organiccornflake]

Show me evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, and we will continue the debate.

I don't know. Maybe their love was forbidden for another reason. You being an athiest are very quick to assume that the only logical answer is that which would contradict the bible. It is your purpose. I, however, would be more quick to accept the explanation that does not contradict jesus' teachings. This argument would go on forever...

Regardless, we have both agreed that the Song of Songs is extremely metaphorical and can't be taken literally. So what's your point here?

[Napoléon]

Show me evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, and we will continue the debate.

Shifting the burden of proof eh? Classic logical fallacy.

[frankiej]

Show me evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, and we will continue the debate.

Not everything is going to get handed to you. Go look for it yourself, Mr.spitfuck.

[Napoléon]

Regardless, we have both agreed that the Song of Songs is extremely metaphorical and can't be taken literally. So what's your point here?

Mine would be, how do you discern which parts to take metaphorically and which to take literally. If you do not know then the bible is about as much use as Wind in the Willows.

[organiccornflake]

Regardless, we have both agreed that the Song of Songs is extremely metaphorical and can't be taken literally. So what's your point here?

Mine would be, how do you discern which parts to take metaphorically and which to take literally. If you do not know then the bible is about as much use as Wind in the Willows.

When a metaphor or parable follows, the bible is rather clear. It will say "It is like" or "it is as" in many cases indicates a simile. Or if the writer is writing from a vision given to him by god. Pretty common sense stuff. Also; if the writer is writing a song, or poetry (as found in the song of songs, and psalms), that is a good sign.

[5thHorseman]

No doubt the word of the bible smites people who study homosexuality.

'There is evidence of a correlation between sexual orientation and traits that are determined in utero.[12] Williams et al. (2000) found that finger length ratio, a characteristic controlled by prenatal hormones, is different in lesbians than in straight women. However, they found no difference between gay and straight men. [1] Another study by McFadden in 1998 found that auditory systems in the brain, another physical trait influenced by prenatal hormones is different in those of differing orientations, likewise the suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, [2], the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.[13] Gay men have also been shown to have higher levels of circulating androgens [14] and larger penises,[15] on average, than straight men.

Gay men have more older brothers on average, a phenomenon known as the fraternal birth order effect. It has been suggested that the greater the number of older male siblings the higher the level of androgen fetuses are exposed to'(wiki)

'In a 1991 study, Simon LeVay demonstrated that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus—which is believed to control sexual behavior and linked to prenatal hormones—was on average more than twice the size in heterosexual men when contrasted to homosexual men. In 2003 scientists at Oregon State University announced that they had replicated his findings in sheep.'(wiki)

'Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (an autosomal recessive condition which results in high androgen levels during fetal development) have more masculinized sex role identities and are more likely to have a homosexual sexual orientation as adults than controls.[16][17][18][19][20] An alternative explanation for this effect is the fact that girls with this condition are born with masculinized external genitalia, which leads their parents to raise them in a more masculine manner, which then influences their sexual orientation as adults. However, the degree to which the girls' genitals are masculinized does not correlate with their sexual orientation, suggesting that prenatal hormones are the causal factor, not parental influence.'(wiki)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_ho...rmasculine

[Cosmic Ape]

I feel that its easier to de-convert women then men and its the simple fact that Religion is Anti-Woman. And it's easier to get them off of thinking religion is good since most of them just pick and choose what they follow within their religions and leave out the gorey unpleasent parts. Women in todays age didnt have to live in the times when it really sucked to be a woman, a time when Religion had the actual women thinking of themselves as 2nd class, evil, slave whores.

All you have to really do is force her to see what religion has done to her gender in the past and definitely in the presnt. The point is to make her realize that its not moral to circumsize women no matter what culture they are, its not okay to honor rape young virgins either no matter what. If she doesnt get turned off of religion when she reads into how truly misogynistic and anti-woman religion really is, then maybe its time to get an Atheist Girlfriend if your girlfriend doesnt feel empathy towards other women who are suffering now and who suffered to get them the rights they take for granted and give right back to the oppressive religion that took it in the first place.