Andrew (in response to each point you made):
My Response: You are correct. However, not saying with 100% certainty (how could I or anyone else?), the David & Jonathan story has much more aspects to it than holding hands or putting your hand on another man's shoulder.
My Response: Again, you are correct. Your implication is that I would go so far as to say even
that is a homosexual situation. I do have my limits!
<IMG onmouseover="this.style.cursor='hand';" style="CURSOR: hand" onclick="smilie('
');" alt=wink src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif" border=0> That would be stretching it a bit! If that were the case, no man could say he loved another. No father to his son, no son to his father, and so on! David & Jonathan's story is much more than these.
My Response: Even more so amazing how some christians think the bible condemns gay relationships of love when that particular issue is not even dealt with in the bible.
My Response: Compare the hebrew word for 'man' (#376). The text does not read If a
man lies with a
man. It reads, if a man lies with
mankind. The #376 word for 'man' denotes
any man in general. 'Mankind', in the levitical context, refers to not just any man, but one who is worthy of rememberance, mentioning, calling to mind, etc. In your #2145 defintion of the word, you did not include the word from which it originated from, which means 'to remember'. That has a huge difference on the meaning of a word. This is why it does not refer to any
general,
random male, but one who is worthy of your attention, etc. One who is purposely being spoken of though his name is not being identified. In context with Leviticus, it is a male temple prostitute and/or the idol itself. If a man lies with a male temple prostitute and/or an idol
via a male temple prostitute....it is abomination (idolatry, in context). Note, there is no way that Leviticus would condemn
only male homosexuality, in general, and not condemn female if it were not referring to some
specific act as opposed to homosexuality in general. It has other female related prohibitions in its do's and don'ts, but no lesbianism? Well, then it was not condemning it in general. There were specific acts in mind and the acts were male temple prostitution and those who lie with them (idol worhippers).
In love,
leecappella