Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Riddle me this ... (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Riddle me this ...
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cool. Looks like $1.99 streaming off youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/movie?v=ybaZcny1bao&feature=mv_sr

That link also has a really good preview.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But before these fundamentalist misconceptions of conception came into being, the term Conception (e.g. in the Bible) was consistently identified as something done by the MOTHER. In the verb to conceive, the actor is a woman. Clearly it's not the mother that ejaculates sperm. Or that fertilizes."

First, I don't see how you worked ejaculation into the definition, since it's not part of the 2 def's you supplied and I haven't see it anywhere else.

If you want to use biblical usage (not definition, since the bible uses words that you then have to find definitions from the time the word was used in a translation) "conceive" is from Latin concipere, which meant "to take in and hold", and for impregnating a woman "take (seed) into the womb". Both refer to having sex, since people then had no scientific knowledge of the progress of the birth cycle inside the mother.

The bible doesn't refer specifically to people having sex (decorum, I suppose), but it doesn't separate who "knew" who and who they begot from the knewing and whoing. So it's probably a better interpretation that knowing someone in the bible is the same as getting them pregnant, not something the mother does.

[ November 15, 2012, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al, please re-read what you just said.

If you're referring to the act of having sex, then you just brought ejaculation into the picture, since that's what puts sperm into the birth canal.

"The bible doesn't refer specifically to people having sex"

LoL! You are wrong. The Bible's quite explicit. Very little decorum.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How could I forget? I guess I was thinking of non-incestuous stuff.
quote:
30 And Lot went vp out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountaine, and his two daughters with him: for hee feared to dwell in Zoar, and he dwelt in a caue, he and his two daughters.

31 And the first borne saide vnto the yonger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth, to come in vnto vs, after the maner of all the earth.

32 Come, let vs make our father drinke wine, and we will lye with him, that we may preserue seed of our father.

33 And they made their father drinke wine that night, & the first borne went in, and lay with her father: and he perceiued not, when shee lay downe, nor when she arose.

34 And it came to passe on the morrow, that the first borne said vnto the yonger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let vs make him drinke wine this night also, and goe thou in, and lye with him, that we may preserue seed of our father.

35 And they made their father drinke wine that night also, and the yonger arose, and lay with him: and he perceiued not, when she lay downe, nor when she arose.

36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with childe by their father.

Back in the time of da Vinci people thought both the man and the woman ejaculated, so I'll give you that one, too. This makes me wonder what monks do all day long when then read and reread their favorite passages from the bible!
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My question is, if they were living in some cave way up in the mountains, where did they get all that wine? [Wink]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because they had a Lot to begin with?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, the story of Lot is a good example of "Adult Content" in the Bible -- girls getting lucky on their daughter date, or rather, date-raping their daddy with the traditional date-rape drug, wine.

But the Bible has plenty of non-incestuous stuff too, and some stories that are more explicit.

You might argue that saying that "Cain knew his wife" is not explicit in its reference to sex, but (though it is more explcit than the modern term that x slept with y), the second-most common reference to sex in the bible is that [male] "went into" [female] and that's explicit.

Especially in Genesis 38, where Onan goes into Tamar, but not wanting to impregnate her, "spilled it on the ground."

Also, I doubt you could get less than an R rating for a faithful film scene where Bathsheba and some of King David's ministers come into David's bedchamber to discuss the royal succession with David as his latest hot mistress, Abishag, continues to "minister" to David to keep him warm during the conversation.

[ November 15, 2012, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
My question is, if they were living in some cave way up in the mountains, where did they get all that wine? [Wink]

They brought it from Sodom, or else they bought it in Zoar before going up into the mountains.

There are feminists who tell this story to show how the poor girls were being "oppressed" as they drugged and raped their dad. [Crying]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They brought it from Sodom, or else they bought it in Zoar before going up into the mountains.
Either way, they had to haul all that wine up the mountain, which implies two things:

1. They had servants.

2. They had their priorities straight. [Smile]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not male human servants, otherwise they wouldn't have regarded daddy as the only available inseminator.

They probably had pack animals, since Lot was rich in Sodom. Mules, horses, oxen.

[ November 15, 2012, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hormonal birth control prevents implantation not fertilization.
A drive-by point of order about this, a particular hobby-horse of mine:

This is not supported by evidence. Please, please everyone stop repeating this. Hormonal contraception prevents ovulation; reliable prevention of pregnancy by any other mechanism has not been shown in users of hormonal contraception.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
Hormonal birth control prevents implantation not fertilization. So if from the moment of fertilization the embryo has the full rights of a human being then preventing the chance of implantation would be murder.

You are wrong! I suspect you have confused the birth control pill with the MAP, the Morning After Pill, which is also hormonal and prevents implantation.

Because some biology-impaired twerps have mangled the classic concept of "conception" with the scientific concept of "fertilization," there are some folks in both the nutcase fringe of the pro-life movement and ALSO of the pro-choice movement who claim that the MAP is a form of abortion. In fact, the woman isn't even pregnant until implantation, and anyone with human brain waves should be able to reason that if you aren't pregnant, you cannot have an abortion. But that's a different bit of confusion, the flip side of your misunderstanding.

[ November 15, 2012, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Back in the time of da Vinci people thought both the man and the woman ejaculated, so I'll give you that one, too.
... Women do ejaculate.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
My question is, if they were living in some cave way up in the mountains, where did they get all that wine? [Wink]

They brought it from Sodom, or else they bought it in Zoar before going up into the mountains.

There are feminists who tell this story to show how the poor girls were being "oppressed" as they drugged and raped their dad. [Crying]

? Please link or cite. I love me some good feminism
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... Women do ejaculate."

Eggs?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
quote:
Hormonal birth control prevents implantation not fertilization.
A drive-by point of order about this, a particular hobby-horse of mine:

This is not supported by evidence. Please, please everyone stop repeating this. Hormonal contraception prevents ovulation; reliable prevention of pregnancy by any other mechanism has not been shown in users of hormonal contraception.

My apologies for getting that wrong.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Eggs?

You can google it if you like - just not at work.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I knew the answer [Wink] . I said it originally because people in da Vinci's time thought that a woman produced her seed during sex, too. That notion disappeared over time, but vestiges of it are still around. The business of whether a female ejaculates or not is tied to pleasure and from that to notions of whether a woman can become pregnant (a taboo term until around 1950). I'm sure Ops will correct me if I go astray here, but this is at least partly why Akin and other Christian anti-scientists have the belief that if a woman is raped she can't get pregnant.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ben
Member
Member # 1153

 - posted      Profile for Ben   Email Ben   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry to come along a bit late. Surprised no one's mentioned incumbency being a factor also as most who won were incumbents, though I do agree that gerrymandering is influential. I like the suggestion of restricting boundary lengths, but would suggest rather than measuring absolute lengths, the regulating feature be a ratio of boundary to area enclosed that should not exceed a standard ratio (around 3.5:1 for compactness with a little flexibility?) or vary more than 5-10%, which would allow a range of large districts in low density areas to small districts in high density areas.
Posts: 523 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess that's the key, that you incorporate both perimeter and density into the equation. I won't spend time trying to come up with the ideal ratios, but if you have 1/10th the pop density perhaps you should allow a 10x perimeter variance.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
I think I knew the answer [Wink] . I said it originally because people in da Vinci's time thought that a woman produced her seed during sex, too. That notion disappeared over time, but vestiges of it are still around. The business of whether a female ejaculates or not is tied to pleasure and from that to notions of whether a woman can become pregnant (a taboo term until around 1950). I'm sure Ops will correct me if I go astray here, but this is at least partly why Akin and other Christian anti-scientists have the belief that if a woman is raped she can't get pregnant.

While I viscerally dislike that last sentence, I will compliment you on the archeology of memes. What you said is possible -- that medieval concept MAY be where Akin got his dumb idea.

So I can only say that you are probably wrong.

One idea much more prevalent today than the idea of ejaculation of female "seed," is the scientific fact that upon orgasm, the female reproductive parts become both anatomically and chemically more conducive to fertilization. There's actually a shift in the alignment of the cervix that facilitates movement of the sperm.

It is reasonable to suppose that a woman who is being raped is less likely to orgasm, and therefore by some fraction of 1% may be less likely to give birth. Akin cited unnamed medical experts, and no doubt grossly exaggerated and misunderstood the stuff about female enjoyment leading to better fertility.

[ November 16, 2012, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps he got his information from Christian Scientists [Wink] .

"It is reasonable to suppose that a woman who is being raped is less likely to orgasm..."

That might be the understatement of the century on that matter.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was meant as such. Although there is a medieval bit of idiocy that certain lefties have perpetuated that no rape victim CAN possibly experience physical pleasure, and that's demonstrably false as well. Such misinformation ("it's only a sin if you enjoyed it") plays vicious mind games with some victims.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric 2.0
Member
Member # 6774

 - posted      Profile for Godric 2.0   Email Godric 2.0       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Also, I doubt you could get less than an R rating for a faithful film scene where Bathsheba and some of King David's ministers come into David's bedchamber to discuss the royal succession with David as his latest hot mistress, Abishag, continues to "minister" to David to keep him warm during the conversation.

Are you conflating stories here? Abishag was indeed brought to David to bring him "heat." But note, he did not "know" her. 1 kings 1:1-4:

1 Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
2 Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.
3 So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.
4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.

Abishag is only ever mentioned again when Bathsheba brings her up to Solomon. 1 Kings 2:19-22:

19 Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand.
20 Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay.
21 And she said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy brother to wife.
22 And king Solomon answered and said unto his mother, And why dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? ask for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother; even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah.

Not that Abishag bringing David "heat" wouldn't likely deserve an R rating whether there was any knowing or not. But you know, for posterity's sake and all... [Big Grin]

Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David didn't have to know her in the biblical sense (one might say he didn't 'shag Abishag) in order to receive ministrations deserving of an R rating. Clearly the intent was for him to shag her, which suggests that Abishag's "ministrations" may have been intended towards that end.

Check out the part in between the two quotes you provided -- where Bathsheba confronts David about the succession while Abishag is ministering to him.

[ November 16, 2012, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric 2.0
Member
Member # 6774

 - posted      Profile for Godric 2.0   Email Godric 2.0       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah. You know, I hadn't considered that. But do you suppose the text implies that or something more like a lap dance/strip tease?
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To me, the context suggests that the ministrations were foreplay with mouth and/or hands to try to produce an erection from the aged king.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godric 2.0
Member
Member # 6774

 - posted      Profile for Godric 2.0   Email Godric 2.0       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fair enough.
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
1 Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.
The first reason stated for obtaining Abishag for the king's use is that the poor old man was freezing to death. I do not disagree with the other suggestions about her actions, but at that age David probably devoted more time to sleeping than sex, and her presence made him sleep better. It is hardly surprising the Bible mentions her sexual ministrations in connection with the succession, as people could hardly discuss that with David while he was asleep. But today electric blankets, or an electric mattress pad, probably work better for old people who are cold. Note that even for the king in those days the people were not civilized enough to find a way to heat the whole room. This was certainly not that it would cost too much, for a monarch, but smoky fires would have been equally bad for the king.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The first reason stated for obtaining Abishag for the king's use is that the poor old man was freezing to death."

The problem wasn't just that David was cold (they could have given him a warm bath) but that he *gat* no heat, meaning his body wasn't producing heat. They reckoned, not unreasonable, that a hot young thang might bring his heat back.
As late as the 1940s, "scientists" were studying the effect of sexual heat as a means of recovering soldiers that had half-frozen to death. I put scientists in quotes because they were Nazi "scientists."

"But today electric blankets, or an electric mattress pad, probably work better for old people who are cold."

I'm quite sure that you are wrong, and that an Abishag would work better for most cold old men than an electric blanket. I don't think science has come up with better than skin to skin with a warm body.

Note that Abishag was cute enough for two of David's sons to fight over her after David passed on.

[ November 17, 2012, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D Pace
Member
Member # 1493

 - posted      Profile for D Pace   Email D Pace       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Note that Abishag was cute enough for two of David's sons to fight over her after David passed on.

I'd like to note that you don't have to go too far phonetically to transcribe Abishag as
" 'Av - a - shag "

for whatever that's worth

Posts: 376 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And Abishag was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king shagged her not.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Another less inspiring moment is where David is on his death bed and orders a hit on someone who disrespected him, who David had promised not to harm. That's a David part that Marlon Brando should play.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
8 And, behold, thou hast with thee Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the LORD, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword.

9 Now therefore hold him not guiltless: for thou art a wise man, and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him; but his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood.

Actually, I always wondered why David waited so long to have Shimei killed, as it seems he could have ordered the man drowned or burned alive, and still evaded his vow not to put Shimei to death with the sword.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seems like the ****y thought that he could circumvent the spiritual effects of oathbreaking if he ordered the murder to occur after he died.

Sounds to me like he took God for a fool, and that's not a precedent that I'd consider worth relying on.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thinking about this some more, it occurs to me that Solomon may have suggested the murders. Shimei was someone of no importance, whom David had ignored for years, but Joab was a man of influence who could have threatened Solomon's claim to the throne. New and youthful kings have often begun their reigns with wholesale murders of others seen as claimants or kingmakers, and in Solomon's case it looked better if he said he had killed Joab and Shimei in obedience to his father's dying wish rather than as part of his own policy toward possible rivals. And considering David was a very sick man, and possibly senile, it could have been easy to influence him to make that request. Old men and women even today are often exploited by those who come to have influence over them. Which is not to deny that David, even in the prime of life, had very questionable ethics - as with respect to the unfortunate Uriah the Hittite.

[ November 19, 2012, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Could very well be part of an Augustus-style housecleaning. Ta ta, Cicero. [Frown]

I'd like to think that it wasn't, since I tend to think of Solomon, like David, as someone who started good and only broke bad later in in his reign.

Another possibility is that it might have been an adviser or some other string-puller (e.g. Bathsheba herself) who put those words into David's mouth and executed them.

[ November 19, 2012, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1