dwayner79

Cool Kayla!

What a fun car. You could beat it to death, and it would start right up every time. I would race my friends with their sports cars and win in that thing. (Not condoning teen racing.) Great little car. Too bad a totaled it.

Now you've gone and done it. You couldn't just sit back and accept the old line could you..........

Don't even get me started on this one again. Picture Jesus sitting in the temple and listening to the harps, lyre, psaltry and what, electric guitars, snare drums????? Coming in the clouds with a jamming rock beat or with the trumpet of Gabriel???
Doesn't matter if this is a different age. It isn't a different Jesus.

Surely hymnody & music using rhyme, metre & straightforward singable tunes cannot alienate those who enjoy rock music?

OTOH rock music with discordant, loud & repetitive sounds & words is intended to alienate those who love traditional worship.

Instrumental music must be subservient to the words, & not dominate them.

Dump...ED Dodd!

86 Subaru GL

That sounded exactly like this: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=18962845

fair enough pt... if you are talking 12 years, then so be it. I simply do not like the idea of treating a child as less of a "burden" then marriage.

I'm rather floored, and that takes a lot. As a father, I agree with all those who say you are sounding selfish. A child does not tie you down as much as a wife does, a child ties you down a heck of a lot more then a wife. A wife is a teammate, a child is a dependent. You cannot be a good father and go run off to Bali for a year while your child is being raised by a boarding school.

I am unsure how I feel about a single dad and the "circuMVention of God's Plan" comment. So lets assume that I think that is just fine, I would not be for it for someone with your attitude as displayed here.

I am adopted. Was adopted from Birth. My parents are my parents. You simply love them as your own and they will know nothing else. I will make one statement, that there are many here in the States who need adopting as well.

I am also a parent of an infant. Since no breastmilk is available, formula is pricey. $13 a can which will last for a week or two in the beginning. Later on, more. By 8 months, they are up to 2-3 cans of food a day at $.50/can. Diapers are expensive. Get a costo membership, or buy from walmart. Avoid the grocery store premium. All told, $75-150/month for the first year.

Clothes are another issue, but usually the first year is covered with gifts.

After the first year, prices go up significantly. The gifts stop, so no new clothes, unless there is a hand-me-down kid born in the same season. Ours were born 6 months offset (one in sept and one in March) so none of the clothes were the right size at the right season. My oldest is 5, and each year her expense has gone up. I assume that will not be the case in about 17-19 years. :-(

@Kevin, I drink tea and soda mostly. Tea cost 3 tea bags and some splenda for a whole pitcher. Soda cost .25 a can if you buy on sale, so a 10 dollar bottle of wine is expensive, as is a 1.25 dollar beer.

Shoe has fast and as hard as I can. I hate, loathe and abominate spiders.

Holster, Kevin's point is valid. Just because something can lead to destruction does not mean it is sin. Any number of things can lead to destruction (women, cars, Internet, etc. etc.) but are not sinful in their own right.

@happy, there is some value to the alcohol (as the article points out) beyond the antioxidants, so grape juice is not a 1 for 1 replacement health wise.

Me, I do not care if someone enjoys a brew every now and then, but it is a rarity for me because it is so ridiculously expensive.

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya... ;-)

I am trying to be as gentle as I can with this, but scripture can't mean one thing to one person and another to another. We may have gotten it wrong (and frankly, I could be wrong with my position) so we need to be willing to entertain other ideas to check ourselves, but we can't say its OK for you to interpret this passage this way for you, and I will interpret it this way for me. Applications of truths can differ (like what is modest dress), but the meaning of the passage cannot differ. I just want to make sure that is not what is being said.

The Spiritual message is still the same rather it is sexual or not.

Jerry, the reason I am saying its OBvious is because it is to me, and I would not rather press the limit on how openly I will talk about sex on an internet site. so, here is my attempt to be plain enough for you to understand, and yet "veiled enough". I hated hearing this when I was single, but some of the things listed you just don't understand unless you are having sex on a normal bases.

Son 4:1 Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.
Son 4:2 Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, which came up from the washing; whereof every one bear twins, and none is barren among them.
Son 4:3 Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks.
Son 4:4 Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men.
Son 4:5 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.
Son 4:6 Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, I will get me to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense.
Son 4:7 Thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee.

In the above he starts at the top and enjoys looking at his new bride from top to bottom. Her mountain of myrrh and the hill of frankincense is a euphamism.


Son 4:8 Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse, with me from Lebanon: look from the top of Amana, from the top of Shenir and Hermon, from the lions' dens, from the mountains of the leopards.
Son 4:9 Thou hast ravished my heart, my sister, my spouse; thou hast ravished my heart with one of thine eyes, with one chain of thy neck.
Son 4:10 How fair is thy love, my sister, my spouse! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all spices!

Without being too graphic, the only question I would have is what love is better then wine? and what smell is he referring to. Again in context of her being undressed above.

Son 4:11 Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue; and the smell of thy garments is like the smell of Lebanon.
Son 4:12 A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

The spring reference requires and understandinig of sex that single people often do not have or understand.

Son 4:13 Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard,
Son 4:14 Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices:
Son 4:15 A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon.
Son 4:16 Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.
Son 5:1 I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved.

Again verse 16 talks about a wind blowing on the garden so the spices flow out. That reference is likely not understood without understanding sex. It is purposefully vague, so I will say no more. 5:1 And just like that its over. (sorry, this post needs some humor)

another way of approaching this topic is that if the book is describing passionate love between two people, this passage does not make much sense if it is not describing the wedding night. What is it describing otherwise? What is the message of the book, but to not awaken love until it is time. The woman says so throughout the book. It is her challenge before and after marriage. What love is not to be awoken until marriage? Sexual love. So the context is sexual love, why would it be describing anything else?

And I am happy to do so, but cross references aren't the end all be all of Bible study. Nothing determines meaning more than the immediate context. There are plenty of places where scripture uses a word or phrase once one time and differently other times. The immediate context makes it clear as to the meaning. In this case, if we did a proper word study on the streams references we would find all the possible meanings throughout scripture, see if there are any others in ancient literature on how that word or phrase is used, and then look at the immediate context to determine its meaning. As shown, sexual reference is a possible meaning, and the immediate context is pretty clear.

@jerry#, I can promise you I have never read a romance novel, Christian or other...

@jerry, He calls her his bride (Spouse) in Chapter 4:8 right after describing her "features". You seem to want to hold onto the 'engaged' reference, but unwilling to accept the 'spouse' reference. The last verse of Chapter 4 and the first verse of Chapter 5 are pretty clear on their intended meaning. Again, this is not supposed to be erotica (as you put it), but it certainly describes the kind of eros love that happens between two people on their wedding night. Noone is making the claim that the whole book is about sex, but certainly there is a sexual element to the book. Perhaps it would be better said that there are descriptions of a highly passionate relationship.

About those streams... Proverbs 5: 15-19 also use the same imagery to describe sex.

Not sure if the embedded youtube is no longer here, but I can't find it...

agreed!

Edit to add, I think there are spiritual parallels and pictures there, but they are secondary to the meaning and intent of the writer.

For the sake of discussing this position as set forth in this thread, let's take chapter five for example - a chapter I believe is describing the believer backsliding and not letting Christ in to fellowship, then she goes out to find Him, but can't at first - until she witnesses to others, gets her heart stirred up by focussing on the Lord again, which causes the daughters of Jerusalem to desire to seek Him with her - then in the next chapter she finds Him where she knew He was before but had forgotten. I can give Biblical passages to back up this viewpoint and have done so in this study: Is Your Armour On? The physical descriptions do not cause a conflict with this view, as tracing the descriptions throughout Scripture shows many places where they are presented without sex being the context - both Hudson Taylor and Matthew Henry do a good jOB of analyzing these portions.

Without getting graphic or inappropriate in what is posted, please show where sex is being discussed/presented (however you want to call it) and what related passages lead you to that conclusion? The Scriptures are not of any private interpretation so there has to be other passages we can go to to have either view reinforced Biblically.

I know we don't see eye to eye here, and I think your position is wrong (hence the debate) - but I don't think that makes someone evil or a compromiser because of it - but I do want to see how you believe this position is reinforced by the rest of the Bible.

When did the two main characters get married

I should also clarify that while SoS depicts certain sex acts, it does so through the veil of poetry. It purposefully is not explicit in its descriptions, so as to not be "pornographic" (if that is even the right word). In our discussions of sex in mixed company, the same veil should be used. So my response to the taboo topic would be that outside of marriage, the same veil should be used. There is no reason to turn SoS into a how to for married folks. That is just as bad of a hermeneutic injustice as rejecting its depictions of sex altogether.

Since the taboo topic I cannot respond to, I wanted to ask the question here...

Actually, it does not. The Song Of Solomon is an exact parallel of our Spiritual walk with the Lord. They are not even married in the book, but she is awaiting his return to take her home as his bride at the end of ot- much like the church is awaiting Christ's return. Any sex would be out of place (would be fornication), and also it would make that book pornography/erotica.

Various solid commentators of the past have shown that this book deals with our fellowship and relationship with the Lord using the picture of fellowship between an espoused (which means "engaged", not married - see chapter 3) couple. Some of these commentators are: Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Hudson Taylor.