IN REPLY TO (IRT)
BRETTTONAILLE
POSTED FEBRUARY 15, 2011 1:28 PM

IRT:
“How can anyone POSSIBLY claim that verses like these are about a believer's love for the Church:”

ANS:
This is done by putting the text in context. The link below does just that. You can take any passage of Scripture out of context and make it say anything, and that is often done by the neophytes. Below are the links that puts the Canticle in context with the rest of Scripture by credible Biblical scholars and not the hacks who are distorting it.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/song-of-solomon/song-of-solomon-introduction.html
“
ORIGEN and JEROME tell us that the Jews forbade it to be read by any until he was thirty years old. It certainly needs a degree of spiritual maturity to enter aright into the holy mystery of love which it allegorically sets forth. To such as have attained this maturity, of whatever age they be, the Song of Songs is one of the most edifying of the sacred writings. ROSENMULLER justly says, The sudden transitions of the bride from the court to the grove are inexplicable, on the supposition that it describes merely human love. Had it been the latter, it would have been positively objectionable, and never would have been inserted in the holy canon.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2011/02/what_does_the_bible_say_about_sexual_desire.htmlCHAPTER

IRT:
“Specifically erotic images of a woman's body; mentions of prejudice because of skin color - what does all this have to do with the Church?”

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/song-of-solomon/song-of-solomon-4.html

How can anyone POSSIBLY claim that verses like these are about a believer's love for the Church:

"3. ...we will exult and be glad in thee, remembering thy breasts better than wine; the upright love thee.

4. I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

5. Look not upon me because I am dark-colored, because the sun hath tanned me; my mother's children strove against me; they made me keeper in the vineyards; mine own vineyard have I not kept."

Specifically erotic images of a woman's body; mentions of prejudice because of skin color - what does all this have to do with the Church?

This is an erotic poem; more than that, it is a frankly erotic poem. It takes a great deal of mental contortions to pretend otherwise.

SEXUAL DESIRES:
In the parable (Matt 25) of the three servants, two took the Masters money and profitably invested it. One buried it. For this, he was severely treated. It is said, from those who are given much, much will be expected. Our host has chosen not to just bury the Master’s treasure but to destroy it implicitly and with libertinism by intimating the Bible promotes debauchery and dissipation.

Moreover, she has insinuated the Song of Songs, a beautiful poem exalting the wondrous joys inherent in marriage, permits extra marital sex. In Galatians 5:23 Paul writes, “Mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. Against such there is no law.”

“According today's scientific research, the person is so profoundly affected by sexuality that it must be considered as one of the factors which give to each individual's life the principal traits that distinguish it.

In fact, it is from sex that the human person receives the faculty that, on the biological, psychological, and spiritual levels, makes that person a man or a woman, and thereby largely conditions his or her progress towards harmony into society.

In the present period, the corruption of morals has increased, and one of the most serious indications of this corruption is the unbridled exaltation of sex. Moreover, through the means of social communication and through public entertainment this corruption has reached the point of invading the field of education and of infecting the general mentality.

In moral matters, man cannot make value judgments according to his personal whim: in the depths of his conscience, man detects a law that he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it, is the very dignity of man; according to it, he will be judged.

There can be no true promotion of man's dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected. Of course, in the history of civilization many of the concrete conditions and needs of human life have changed and will continue to change. But all evolution of morals and every type of life must be kept within the limits imposed by the immutable principles based upon every human person's nature and essential relations— elements and relations which transcend historical contingency.

These fundamental principles, which can be grasped by reason, are contained in "the Divine Law—eternal, objective and universal—revealed in the Scriptures and by the Church that has been given Divine Authority to teach them.

Whereby, God orders, directs, and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community, by a plan conceived in wisdom and love. Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of Divine Providence, he can come to perceive ever increasingly the unchanging truth. This Divine Law is accessible to our minds. Unfortunately, or host has attempted to impugn its efficacy and integrity.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
EEZMAMATA / ROUNDLY MOCKED
POSTED FEBRUARY 10, 2011 6:02 PM

IRT:
“Maybe you can explain some things to me,
- sorry you feel such a thing by the way - Cain killed Abel. At the time then there were only three humans in existence, Adam and Eve and Cain.”

ANS:
The genealogies of Genesis (in chapters 4, 5 and 11 of the Book of Genesis) record the descendants of Adam and Eve to Abraham, including the age at which each patriarch fathered his named son and the number of years he lived thereafter. The genealogy contains two branches: for Cain, given in Chapter 4, and for Seth in Chapter 5. Genesis chapter 10, the Table of Nations records the populating of the Earth by Noah's descendants, and is not strictly a genealogy but an ethnography)—Wikipedia. (Genealogies of Genesis).

This is the account of Adam and Eve. After they went forth out of paradise,

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0828.htm5

The Genealogies of Genesis (in chapters 4, 5 and 11 of the Book of Genesis) record the descendants of Adam and Eve to Abraham, including the age at which each patriarch fathered his named son and the number of years he lived thereafter. The genealogy contains two branches: for Cain, given in Chapter 4, and for Seth in Chapter 5. Genesis chapter 10, the Table of Nations records the populating of the Earth by Noah's descendants, and is not strictly a genealogy but an ethnography).
Genesis 5

Genesis 5:1-32.
GENEALOGY OF THE PATRIARCHS.

1. BOOK OF THE GENERATIONS--(See Genesis 11:4).
Adam--used here either as the name of the first man, or of the human race generally.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Genesis+5:1-32&t=rhe

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/genesis/genesis-5.html

Adam lived--The most striking feature in this catalogue is the longevity of Adam and his immediate descendants. Ten are enumerated ( Genesis 5:5-32 ) in direct succession whose lives far exceed the ordinary limits with which we are familiar--the shortest being three hundred sixty-five, [ Genesis 5:23 ] and the longest nine hundred sixty-nine years [ Genesis 5:27 ].It is useless to inquire whether and what secondary causes may have contributed to this protracted longevity--vigorous constitutions, the nature of their diet, the temperature and salubrity of the climate.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
MORE SCRIPTURAL DISTORTIONS AND THE SCANDALIZING OF A WOMAN’S REPUTATION

IRT:
“Still, there is at least one other biblical book that portrays extra-marital seduction positively: the book of Ruth.”

ANS: The host's distortion is taken out of context of the customs of the times.
RUTH:

4."GO IN, AND UNCOVER HIS FEET AND LAY THEE DOWN"--Singular as these directions may appear to us, there was no impropriety in them, according to the simplicity of rural manners in Beth-lehem. In ordinary circumstances these would have seemed indecorous to the world; but in the case of Ruth, it was a method, doubtless conformable to prevailing usage, of reminding Boaz of the duty which devolved on him as the kinsman of her deceased husband.

"Boaz probably slept upon a mat or skin; Ruth lay crosswise at his feet--a position in which Eastern servants frequently sleep in the same chamber or tent with their master; and if they want a covering, custom allows them that benefit from part of the covering on their master's bed. Resting, as the Orientals do at night, in the same clothes they wear during the day, THERE WAS NO INDELICACY IN A STRANGER, OR EVEN A WOMAN, PUTTING THE EXTREMITY OF THIS COVER OVER HER."

9.. "I AM RUTH THINE HANDMAID: SPREAD THEREFORE THY SKIRT OVER THINE HANDMAID; FOR THOU ART A NEAR KINSMAN"--'She had already drawn part of the mantle over her; and she asked him now to do it, that the act might become his own. To spread a skirt over one is, in the East, a symbolical action denoting protection. To this day in many parts of the East, to say of anyone that he put his skirt over a woman, is synonymous with saying that he married her; and at all the marriages of the modern Jews and Hindus, one part of the ceremony is for the bridegroom to put a silken or cotton cloak around his bride."

15. BRING THE VEIL THAT THOU HAST UPON THEE, AND HOLD IT-"Eastern veils are large sheets--those of ladies being of red silk; but the poorer or common class of women wear them of blue, or blue and white striped linen or cotton. They are wrapped round the head, to conceal the whole face except one eye."

The Fox comes in sheep's clothing. Moral of the story, don't believe everything you read unless you wish to be stupid.

Dear eezmamata,

I wish I knew enough about the Bible to effectively answer your question. Unfortunately, I haven't studied that aspect of the Bible - but thank you for highlighting it...I will have to look into it.

I do believe that all humans descend from Adam & Eve and thus all share in their original sin. As to particulars, I'm in the dark -- but it's a tenet of my faith and I hold fast to it because for me it makes everything else make sense.

Again I wish I could be a better defender on this question, but thanks for highlighting this point.

God bless you.

And does Pastor Knust actually believe in angels? Apparenty, she does:

"The first time angels dared to mix with humans, God flooded the earth, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals. In the case of Sodom, as soon as men attempted to engage in se-xual activity with angels, God obliterated the city with fire, delivering only Lot and his family. S-ex with angels was regarded as the most dangerous and offensive s-ex of all."
So again, we come to her rescue:

Pastor Knust: It is called the Great Angelic Con Game:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day dem-on of the de-mented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinkerbells".
"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

People will interpret scripture to their benefit. I have read and studied the Bible for many years. The reporter is way off base on this issue. Sex starts in the book Genesis. Unmarried sex is a sin. Sex is to be between husband and wife. You may compromise with Gods word but it does not change Gods word. Even if you lust for a woman in your heart it is adultery. That is why our nation is in turmoil to much rebellion against God.

Religion uses the desire of sex as a CONTROL of the membership by way of the guilt trip even though many in religious life have a UNNATURAL life style that they live.

IN REPLY TO
“Yet the Song does not limit sex and desire to marriage: the unmarried lovers meet in gardens and bedchambers over the objections of the woman's meddlesome brothers. Unique among biblical books, the Song revels in erotic desire, and for its own sake."

ANS:
To claim the Song of Songs approves of sex outside of Marriage is blasphemy.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03302a.htm

"In truth, the song turns aside from both; by the spouse should be understood human nature as elected and received by God. This is embodied, above all, in the great Church of God upon earth, which God takes to Himself with the love of a bridegroom, makes the crowning point of all His external works, and adorns with the bridal ornament of supernatural grace.

"In the song the bride is not reproached with sins and guilt but, on the contrary, her good qualities and beauty receive high praise; consequently, the chosen community of God appears here under that form which is according to the Apostle, without spot or blemish (Ephesians 5:27).

"It is plain that the Canticle of Canticles finds its most evident application to the most holy Humanity of Jesus Christ, which is united in the most intimate bond of love with the Godhead, and is absolutely spotless and essentially sanctified; after this to the most holy Mother of God as the most beautiful flower of the Church of God.

"(In regard to a twofold sense of this kind in the Scriptures, cf. "Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie", 1903, p. 381.) The soul that has been purified by grace is also in a more remote yet real sense a worthy bride of Lord. The actual meaning of Canticles is not, however, to be limited to any one of these applications, but is to be appropriated to the elected "bride of God in her relation of devotion to God."

"Within certain limits the application to the relation between God and the individual soul adorned with supernatural grace is self-evident and an aid to virtuous living. The bride is first raised by the bridegroom to a relation of complete affection, afterwards betrothed or married (iii 6-v, 1), and, finally, after a successful activity (vii, 12 sq.; viii, 11 sq.).

Maybe you can explain some things to me, RoundlyMocked - sorry you feel such a thing by the way - Cain killed Abel. At the time then there were only three humans in existence, Adam and Even and Cain.

Where did everybody else come from? I won't imagine the christian myth says that Cain and Adam both were 'knowing' Eve, so where did the other people come from? Who did Cain have sex with, who was he fruitful with?

Did these other people descend from Adam and Eve? If not, then they didn't inherit their sins, did they?

Really, this makes no sense to me. It makes even less sense that anybody can believe this. Maybe you can help me here, since you seem to be (or claim to be) so knowledgeable about what goes on in your bible.

There are so many places to disagree, it is hard to know where to begin.

1. The Song of Songs - as I believe you referenced - is a descriptive poetry about love between God and a soul. Thus - though using imagery that is familiar to human experience - it is meant to describe in the most distant sense the pure joy of spiritual union with God. Let's not degrade the love between God and the soul by putting it on the same level as love between a man and a woman.

2. Thou shalt not commit adultery...10 Commandments, any one?

3. Take a stab & read about Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body - I think you will be genuinely suprised by the comprehensive, positive place that Catholic theology can have for the love between men and women.

4. In general, healthy Christian morality does not deny the fact that we have desires. All humans have sexual desires - the point is not to repress them but to exercise self-control so that those desires can be expressed is in an appropriate, self- and other-affirming way. Even priests and religious have natural sex drives, but they choose to exercise self-control for the greatest good - God Himself...a foretaste of the heavenly glory that awaits those who have faith & live by it.

As regards Genesis - the first few chapters give the basics...woman is created as a partner for man (not man for man/woman for woman)...men must take care of their wives, wives will yearn for their husbands...be fruitful and multiply (since Adam & Eve were de facto married - as there were no other humans around at this point) likely applies to child-bearing within marriage - which if you take my suggestion & read about the Theology of the Body - procreation is the way that married couples actually participate in the love of God.

I could go on...

Picture a scene - you and a bunch of guys are sitting down together, your goal is to design a religion. You consider the carrot and stick solution when you come to the part about keeping the religiously infected always constantly in mind of your religious rules.

There are two paths of though about how to do this. The proto-muslims see that making people pray five times a day in groups is a good way.

The proto-christians on the other hand want to have a more internal approach - Guilt.
You inflict the malady, and offer the only cure, simple.

So how are you going to get the infected people to always be thinking about your religious rules? You have to attach that guilt-absolution algorithm to something they think about all the time already.

Sex, that's it. Sex is evil, dirty, filthy, sinful, ugly. Any thought you have that involves sex makes you GUILTY! And only your religion offers relief from that guilt ... quick now, beg forgiveness, or you're going to having butt sex with adolf hitler and saddam hussein!

... now back to the program already in progress.

In Genesis 1;22 God is supposed to have commanded: "Be fruitful, mulitply and fill the earth." Nothing is said about "You must be at least ---years of age, married, etc." Kings were evidently permitted to have hundreds of wives (although a wife could have but one husband, in keeping with the totally sexist content of the Bible.) Most of the taboo about sex has been filled in by writers, who try to justify their puritanic views by the Bible, which has very little to say abut the subject. The Bible and other history sources would indicate that the folks of "way back when" had much looser attitudes toward sex than today's do-gooders, who would do well to cite examples of results of today's sexual habits than blaming them on what the Bible is supposed to say.