There is no denying that at its most basic level the Song of Songs discloses a very intimate and detailed sexual relationship. This first point is of great importance because it is the lens by which all other potential insights from the text are examined - for a Puritan Christian, to whom all sexual matters (for argument's sake) must be a hidden, perhaps even shameful affair, the inclusion of this book is at best an embarrassment and at worst an account of Jewish depravity.
For a (catechised) Catholic on the other hand, this book is conclusive proof against the claim that the Catholic religion hates sex - indeed, an entire book of the Bible happily glorifies in sex, and speaks to the joy of what Catholics believe sex should really be (namely, the fullest body-and-soul expression of eternal love between husband and wife).
It's a lot harder for first-language Anglophones to speak about the Orthodox and other Eastern Christians (since their cultural milieu and theological heritage have developed so differently to ours in the Latin West), so please forgive me for leaving them aside.
In my experience most people (believers and non alike) have no exposure to the more obscure books of the old testament - if it doesn't feature Adam and Eve or Moses, people generally don't know about it. This means that when they do stumble upon it, they are generally unprepared - they don't know what to make of it, what it means, why it's even in the Bible. If one is not familiar with the characterisation of God as the victorious bridegroom delighting in his wife, or Israel as the "land that will be married" (both from the Psalms) how can they be expected to read the Song of Songs as God delighting in his eternal marriage to Israel?
This comes back to my point previously about intrinsic and extrinsic consistency - with a text as obscure and confusing as the Song of Songs, one must be suitably prepared to fit it into the greater framework of Sacred Scripture - familiar enough with the other books of the Bible to fit this one into its proper place, and interpret it in light of the others. If taken by itself, without that greater context, then the Song of Songs absolutely does become nothing more than ancient erotica.
But then, returning to context Christians (and Jews, and in a slightly different way Moslems) believe that each book of scripture is divinely inspired, and has a rightful place in man's religious duty to God. Since erotica for its own sake is a selfish act (one that aims at gratifying oneself alone, rather than ordering all things to the greatest good), to conclude that the Song of Songs is simply ancient, self-gratifying erotica places it at odds with the belief that the entirety of sacred scripture is right and good.
You could probably tell me more about what this means to an agnostic, if you have lasted through my ramble. Apologies for my lack of brevity, I sometimes value comprehensiveness at the expense of straightforwardness.
or is one expected to have some learning and experience with the context of the text? Let's assume learning and experience are requisite to understanding the Bible. That still doesn't answer the question of What learning you think is required. I just have a measly Liberal Arts bachelors. Does that disqualify me? How about Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church? Since he has specific learning and experience with the Bible, should I defer to his views?
Let me go back to my original post, first of all, and enforce a distinction that I originally made - a particular level of understanding is necessary to understand the Song of Songs. Your question conflated the necessity of learning to understand the Song of Songs with the whole Bible, which is not what I claimed. If we are to talk about the whole Bible, then I would immediately say that different levels of learning are necessary for different books - and the Song of Songs would be at the high end of that range.
Your (and my) Bachelor of Liberal Arts would put you in a better position to critically interpret certain phrases and idiomatic expressions than, say, a Bachelor of Science or high school student. It would not do us much (or even any) better on matters of theological interpretation, since it involves no study of theology.
This leads into the question of the quality of learning - Mr Phelps may claim to be learned in matters theological, but what is the quality of his learning? Are his beliefs intrinsically and extrinsically consistent? Are his theses defensible?
Where they are, you should, and where they are not, you should not defer - but always do so thoughtfully.
It would only be porn to people who assume that the ability to read is sufficient for understanding an ancient metaphysical love-song analogy for the love of God for Israel So what is "sufficient" for understanding the Bible? Why is simply reading it not good enough?
What is sufficient for understanding legislation? An anatomy textbook? Slashdot news items? Is the ability to read enough to ensure you understand the meaning (obtuse and profound) of the above examples, or is one expected to have some learning and experience with the context of the text?
Or is it "safe", in an Islamic/Arab country?
I've heard the rhetoric. I'm unpersuaded. Giving someone a fair go doesn't mean agreeing with them. It means listening to their arguments, and then drawing a conclusion.
The conclusion I've drawn is some Americans are bat-shit crazy when it comes to their insistence on not having universal health care.
Coming to such a conclusion is your right, especially if you have given their arguments a fair hearing and drawn your conclusions on that basis.
Personally, I believe the argument isn't as much against universal health care reform as the model currently proposed. If someone offered you a free car on the condition that he get unlimited access to your wife, would you take the car? Surely you would say "there are better ways to get a car". That's what I believe these Americans have in mind - health care reform is an objective good, but the things that are being packaged with it mean that in this instance they must turn it down.
I am afraid you are a moron.
The earth is not 6000 years old. The Holocaust did happen. The current US health reform does not include death panels. These are verifiable facts. Anyone claiming anything different is claiming objective reality does not exist. This is the very definition of delusional.
Mart
I am afraid you are consistently incapable of distinction. Or reading.
You said that people are delusional for professing to believe A, B or C. I said that this is nonsense, because people may profess to believe something, anything, without being delusional. I could profess to believe that I am a porridge and not be deluded, but you are too caught up in being the sole arbiter of fact to see this.
I'll make it simple for you by restating my point a couple of comments back: before ridiculing others for their beliefs, take a moment to try and understand what exactly it is they believe. Otherwise, simple folk like yours truly will come along and help you to show everyone else just how arrogant and invincibly ignorant you are.
Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.