A re-examination of nothing (2)

[EnemyPartyII]

actually, no, I wouldn't. They sound like best friends, and their sexuality was never questioned until recent times.

You make it sound like as if 2 men have any sort of close relationship that they are potentially gay.

Should I be concerned of a sexual advance if one of my guy friends says that he loves me?

If your friend is kissing you on the mouth, saying he loves you more than any woman, is sneaking around your tent at night, and his father wants to kill you... then yeah, I think a sexual advance may very well be in the offing

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I'm totally confused... two posts back, you said that anything that was a sin then is still a sin now, now you're saying that if we love God, we fulfill the law... so, God loving homosexuals should be all set, right?

he's just explaining the most basic concept of saving grace. Sin is still sin, before Christ and after. The law has not gone anywhere, but those under Christ are not held accountable for their failings.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

he's just explaining the most basic concept of saving grace. Sin is still sin, before Christ and after. The law has not gone anywhere, but those under Christ are not held accountable for their failings.

OK... thats fine... but if true... why are homosexuals the only ones being singled out for condemnation due to an OT law when there are hundreds of others that heterosexual Christians break everyday?

because from THIS side of the fence, it looks like an exercise in cherry picking verses that allow you to do what you want, while clearly defining an "evil" group of "others" to heap your scorn on, so you can focus on the failings of others, rather than your own.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

If your friend is kissing you on the mouth, saying he loves you more than any woman, is sneaking around your tent at night, and his father wants to kill you... then yeah, I think a sexual advance may very well be in the offing

but you aren't taking the entire story into context. why did saul want to kill david? There are several reasons, first off, the spirit of God left saul and went to david. Secondly, saul had an evil spirit. Third, saul knew that his own son would not succeed him as king and yet a lowly farm boy would have his kingdom. I think those are all valid reasons for saul to hate david.

From what i recall, the only sneaking around was done to avoid saul.

Kissing on the mouth is in fact a form of affection, but does not necessarily indicate sexual emotion. There are many instances biblically that involve 2 people kissing on the mouth who we'd have no reason to believe are sexually involved.

I think it is very discouraging that attempting to make their relationship into something sexual takes away from the story. Jonathan knew david was anointed as the next king, and he played his role in God's plan by giving his full cooperation and love (recall the scene where he gave him his clothes, as a form of passing the crown). That expression of love is lost amongst these wild accusations.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

OK... thats fine... but if true... why are homosexuals the only ones being singled out for condemnation due to an OT law when there are hundreds of others that heterosexual Christians break everyday?

because from THIS side of the fence, it looks like an exercise in cherry picking verses that allow you to do what you want, while clearly defining an "evil" group of "others" to heap your scorn on, so you can focus on the failings of others, rather than your own.

First off, I wasn't attempting to go into OT laws. Reason, because they are complicated. There are certain things that do not apply today for various reasons. Some people believe the condemnation on same-sex sex falls into the non-applicable category.

The issue is not about whether the laws are applicable, its about absolute denial of them. What laws are heteros denying as nonexistant? The only one that I see obvious in the modern church is that not many are taking the divorce creeds seriously.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

but you aren't taking the entire story into context. why did saul want to kill david? There are several reasons, first off, the spirit of God left saul and went to david. Secondly, saul had an evil spirit. Third, saul knew that his own son would not succeed him as king and yet a lowly farm boy would have his kingdom. I think those are all valid reasons for saul to hate david.

Step back from your devotion to the Bible for a moment and ask yourself... do these sound like they might be tainted by the whole "history written by the victors" at all? Think about it.

From what i recall, the only sneaking around was done to avoid saul.

Thats the justification... of course its also the action of a closeted homosexual hiding a relationship.

Kissing on the mouth is in fact a form of affection, but does not necessarily indicate sexual emotion. There are many instances biblically that involve 2 people kissing on the mouth who we'd have no reason to believe are sexually involved.

Really? My research suggests that, while men kissing men is culturally acceptible in Middle Eastern cultures, kissing on the mouth is rare... it seems that this act was mentioned specifically because it was noteworthy in its unusualness.

I think it is very discouraging that attempting to make their relationship into something sexual takes away from the story.

I don't see why... David's whole purpose in the Bible is to legitimise the bloodline of Christ... thats really all there is to it. And the whole David coming to power story reads like any of a huge number of "ordained by God" back stories of various usurpers. If you're going to be a Biblical literalist about it, well, I guess I can't stop you, but the fact is if you look at the Bible deeper, looking at the underlying motives and biases and cultural context of the authors... David's story looks a lot less about being anointed by God, and far more about legitimising a usurpers claim.

Jonathan knew david was anointed as the next king, and he played his role in God's plan by giving his full cooperation and love (recall the scene where he gave him his clothes, as a form of passing the crown). That expression of love is lost amongst these wild accusations.

Their perfectly valid interpretations, rather than wild accusations. I understand you don't LIKE what they say, but thats not to say the logic behind them isn't sound.

(You read your reps note?)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

would you like a list of OT laws that people generally disregard?

Of the top of my head, some of the ones about marrying rape victims to their attackers, and what constitutes rape, spring to mind... but if you want a more comprehensive list, I'm happy to dig one out for you

 

[k2svpete]

OK... thats fine... but if true... why are homosexuals the only ones being singled out for condemnation due to an OT law when there are hundreds of others that heterosexual Christians break everyday?

because from THIS side of the fence, it looks like an exercise in cherry picking verses that allow you to do what you want, while clearly defining an "evil" group of "others" to heap your scorn on, so you can focus on the failings of others, rather than your own.

I'd say there are a couple of things to it. One - We are in a forum section debating homosexuality so it's bound to come in for some attention.

Two - I would dare say you are right in that people apply their own values and scale sins in some type of pecking order. Homosexuality is one that many have right up there on the list. God views all sin as bad, the ones He really gets miffed about are where people put other things before him and where they trample the blood of Christ underfoot.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'd say there are a couple of things to it. One - We are in a forum section debating homosexuality so it's bound to come in for some attention.

Two - I would dare say you are right in that people apply their own values and scale sins in some type of pecking order. Homosexuality is one that many have right up there on the list. God views all sin as bad, the ones He really gets miffed about are where people put other things before him and where they trample the blood of Christ underfoot.

How does homosexuality put anything ahead of God?

If your going to say "sexual idolatry" or any permutation thereof, I'm going to have to say that committed homosexual relationships are no different than committed heterosexual relationships

 

[k2svpete]

I would say that homosexuality has been recognised as a sinful act in the OT law. For those who continue in any sin willingly they are putting their own desires before the desires of God to whom we are subject.

 

[David Brider]

I would say that homosexuality has been recognised as a sinful act in the OT law.

Homosexuality isn't an act.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

How do homosexuals go against the two greatest commandments?

Ah you are just interested in how anything applies to homosexuals. God’s word applies to all who believe. How can anyone love God with all their heart and with all their soul and with all their mind. When they don’t even attempt to keep God’s commands? Remember even the all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. ie Matt 22. Same-sex sex is outside man/woman faithful marriage, so is paedophilia according to the passages I cited above and same-sex sex is specifically condemned in Gen 19, Lev 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1 etc.

You are totally inconsistant... as demonstrated, you are more than happy to add to the Bible for matters you don't have a priori positions on... you use logic and social context to decide which other bits of the Bible you follow and discard, your refusal to do so on this matter is purely due to ideology, not because of evidence.

the Bible speaks for itself my friend whatever your criticism of me.

Incidentally as you keep asking the question whether we are subject to the law, why did you ask the question about going against the two greatest commandments when Jesus says all the law and prophets hang on these?

 

[David Brider]

I'll requote an unaddressed repost of a repost that I posted earlier in this thread.

The 'promiscuous man' argument falls short against 'pornoi' which is mentioned earlier in the verse, and there is no reason to believe paul is being redundant here.

It's only redundant if the two words mean the same thing, which they don't - pornoi refers to male prostitutes, which isn't the same thing as someone who is promiscuous. Indeed, depending on how one parses the "arseno" part of "arsenokoites", it doesn't have to refer to a man at all - it could be "people who are promiscuous with men," but as the 1 Corinthians was written to all the church in Corinth, including male and female members of the church, it's not explicitly about either homosexual or heterosexual activity but rather both.

the problem is that people spout off with david and jonathan as if it is some proven fact that they were gay lovers.

The equal and opposite problem is that some people reject it out of hand as if it couldn't possibly have been the case.

David.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

It's only redundant if the two words mean the same thing, which they don't - pornoi refers to male prostitutes, which isn't the same thing as someone who is promiscuous.

the word pornos is used by Jesus in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 for that which breaks the man/woman faithful marriage. Same-sex does that too, so even if arsenokoites didn’t mean homosexual offenders, which it does, homosexual practice would be still be pornos and a sin. As it is, 1 Cor 6 mentions pornos and moichos and arsenokoites. [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] is male and koites is bed (fam) so your promiscuous is once again simply and assumption.

The equal and opposite problem is that some people reject it out of hand as if it couldn't possibly have been the case.

It couldn’t as there is no evidence for it.

But consider your remark, if I were to consider the David and Jonathan relationship was homosexual and you were to consider Gen 19, Judges 19, Levititcus 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 were condemnations of same-sex sex and Gen 2, Matt 15 & 19, Mark 7 & 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 5-7, etc did exclude sex outside marriage, what would you do say was the truth based on the weight of evidence, especially according to the NT evidence?
You see the weight of such an argument you put forward is so weak one must question whether the motive seeks the actual truth at all.

 

[OllieFranz]

the problem is that people spout off with david and jonathan as if it is some proven fact that they were gay lovers.[/font]

The equal and opposite problem is that some people reject it out of hand as if it couldn't possibly have been the case.

Which is exactly why I always say that, based on the narrative in 1 Samuel we cannot know one way or the other.

There are many verses which are suggestive, but they are more suggestive in our 20th/21st century hyper-homophobic atmosphere (where even a friendly smile between two male friends is questioned), so we may not be at our most objective reading between the lines.

The clearest hints, moreover tell us more about what Saul thought the relationship was, than what it actually was.

On the other hand, almost all of the "proofs" that have been offered are offered in what seems (to me at least)like a desparate attempt to show, not that the Bible denies any homoerotic overetones, but that one should not expect, and so should not consider looking for, any. In other words, the defenders have pre-judged that there could not have been any homoerotic overtones, and so they deny that there are without even trying to see the other side's evidence.

For example:

But consider your remark, if I were to consider the David and Jonathan relationship was homosexual and you were to consider Gen 19, Judges 19, Levititcus 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 were condemnations of same-sex sex and Gen 2, Matt 15 & 19, Mark 7 & 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 5-7, etc did exclude sex outside marriage, what would you do say was the truth based on the weight of evidence, especially according to the NT evidence?
You see the weight of such an argument you put forward is so weak one must question whether the motive seeks the actual truth at all.

Phinehas--

Your argument would hold more weight if there was evidence that David never committed any major sins. If the Bible, for example said that he never committed adultery with another man's wife; if he never ordered a man's death to cover up his own sin; if he never disobeyed Deut 24:1-4 (See 2 Sam 3); etc.

But if you say that David could not have done X because X is a sin, your logic does not hold water when we know he has done W, Y, and Z, all of which are sins which are just as serious.

 

[Phinehas2]

To be the case or to be considered one must have a reason for it. There is no reason. The gay and lesbain debate is speculation and asumption based on disbelief, thats why it is such a serious issue in the church.
My post asked
But consider your remark, if I were to consider the David and Jonathan relationship was homosexual and you were to consider Gen 19, Judges 19, Levititcus 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 were condemnations of same-sex sex and Gen 2, Matt 15 & 19, Mark 7 & 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 5-7, etc did exclude sex outside marriage, what would you do say was the truth based on the weight of evidence, especially according to the NT evidence?
You see the weight of such an argument you put forward is so weak one must question whether the motive seeks the actual truth at all

If you had considered this what would your answer be?. .. all you have done is consider something else in response.

 

[Brennin]

Homosexuality isn't an act.

David.

Homosexuality can refer to both to the orientation and sexual acts associated with the orientation, as you should know.

 

[OllieFranz]

To be the case or to be considered one must have a reason for it. There is no reason. The gay and lesbain debate is speculation and asumption based on disbelief, thats why it is such a serious issue in the church.
My post asked
But consider your remark, if I were to consider the David and Jonathan relationship was homosexual and you were to consider Gen 19, Judges 19, Levititcus 18 & 20, 1 Cor 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 were condemnations of same-sex sex and Gen 2, Matt 15 & 19, Mark 7 & 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 5-7, etc did exclude sex outside marriage, what would you do say was the truth based on the weight of evidence, especially according to the NT evidence?
You see the weight of such an argument you put forward is so weak one must question whether the motive seeks the actual truth at all

If you had considered this what would your answer be?. .. all you have done is consider something else in response.

Considering all that: I'd say that you believe that all together those verses indicate that a same-sex sexual relationship is a sin.

And so, if David and Jonathan's relationship were sexual, it would be a sin. But those verses alone, since they say nothing specific about David and/or Jonathan, can say nothing more about their relationship. To say that because of this we know that their relationship was not sexual, we would have to also know that their relationship was not sinful. Since the sinfulness or righteousness of their relationship is not revealed, we can only know it was not sinful if we know they did not sin.

However, even if their relationship was not sexual, it does not mean that there were no homoerotic overtones to it.

So, again, if you are refusing to even consider possibility of any homoerotic overtones, you are prejudging the situation without any evidence.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I would say that homosexuality has been recognised as a sinful act in the OT law. For those who continue in any sin willingly they are putting their own desires before the desires of God to whom we are subject.

*brainsplode* Havn't we just covered that Christians are no longer beholden to OT law?

 

[OllieFranz]

To be the case or to be considered one must have a reason for it. There is no reason.

That is my case in a nutshell. You have decided, have pre-judged, that there is no reason to examine the evidence, or lack thereof. You refuse to consider the possibilty, not because of anything in the passage, but because it is inconcievable.

As I said, I can't agree with those who insist that they were "obviously" gay lovers, and now I'll state that, in my opinion, many of them do so for the same reason you proclaim the opposite: pre-judicial certainties.

After examining the evidence, I find that there is insufficient evidence to proclaim either way. And perhaps that is best. Their private life is no more everyone's business than mine or yours is.

And if the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the author of the book of Samuel* feels that this relationship is worth our emulating it, whether or not we know if it was (homo)sexual, who am I to argue differently?

*1 Samuel and 2 Samuel are a single book. It was just so long that it required two scrolls to write it all down. Just as the 12 "minor" prophets' books all fit on a single scroll, and so the twelve books are sometimes considered a single book.