A re-examination of nothing (2)

[Phinehas2]

Basically, if one were to propose Jesus loved His disciple John more than any woman, meant that He had sex with him, that isnt significantly different an argument than the assumption David had sex with Jonathan, both are based on love without any mention of sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Seriously. Believe what you want. Its not like you care about actual evidence. If you're happy going with your first read, first impression interpretation of the Bible, be my guest.

As for me, I'll filter my interpretation through evidence based scholarship and historical context. But thats just my crazy understanding of whats required for a fuller understanding of the Bible's message.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

so who's proposing Jesus loved john more than any woman?

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

Seriously. Believe what you want.

I believe the Bible and has told you so and shown you the Bible texts I believe.

Its not like you care about actual evidence.

I have shown you the evidence, you haven’t shown me any.

And I am not aware anyone is proposing that, are you? What I have said is the argument would hold the same credibility based on the logic of your argument.
The Bible says David was attracted to a woman and slept with her, so he wasnt homosexual. Not only does the Bible say David had other wives but the Bible doesnt say David slept with Jonathan.
This tread is about showing where same-sex sex is countenaced not where it isnt mentioned.

 

[Floatingaxe]

No, if this were the case then why not just edit the entire story out?

Right!

if you throw out the fact that david was God's anointed while Saul was God's appointed. Also throw out that jonathan was the successor to the throne. And furthermore throw out that saul knew that david would succeed him over his own flesh and blood.

That's for sure!

To even try to encapsulate their relationship as some sort of sexual engagement is a total injustice to the story and to the people involved.

Amen!

 

[Phinehas2]

No, if this were the case then why not just edit the entire story out?

Yep

if you throw out the fact that david was God's anointed while Saul was God's appointed. Also throw out that jonathan was the successor to the throne. And furthermore throw out that saul knew that david would succeed him over his own flesh and blood.

Yep

To even try to encapsulate their relationship as some sort of sexual engagement is a total injustice to the story and to the people involved.

Amen!

 

[Floatingaxe]

Basically, if one were to propose Jesus loved His disciple John more than any woman, meant that He had sex with him, that isnt significantly different an argument than the assumption David had sex with Jonathan, both are based on love without any mention of sex.

It is an extraordinary thing how the Word of God can openly reveal the mindset of the one who reads it. It is revelatory indeed, sussing out the depravity within the very mind of the reader.

When I read the stories of David, I am awed by the love of God and His specific love for David, and I am touched by the pure love of Jonathan and David! My mind doesn't twist up and assign depravity to them--because God's love is pure, and His relationship with David was intimate and holy...and my relationship with God is one of intimacy, because He cleansed me from my sin and set me right. Therefore I understand God's Word concerning the nature of David and Jonathan's relationship. It was not evil as some here are suggesting.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It is an extraordinary thing how the Word of God can openly reveal the mindset of the one who reads it. It is revelatory indeed, sussing out the depravity within the very mind of the reader.

When I read the stories of David, I am awed by the love of God and His specific love for David, and I am touched by the pure love of Jonathan and David! My mind doesn't twist up and assign depravity to them--because God's love is pure, and His relationship with David was intimate and holy...and my relationship with God is one of intimacy, because He cleansed me from my sin and set me right. Therefore I understand God's Word concerning the nature of David and Jonathan's relationship. It was not evil as some here are suggesting.

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... chances are, its a duck.

Just like if it walks like a closet homosexual relationship and it quacks like a closet homosexual relationship, chances are, its a homosexual relationship.

I'm amazed at the willingness of so many to delude themselves into disbelieving what is plainly in front of them.

But then, some people will say in the same breath that "God protects the Bible from transcription errors, and that the errors in it are transcription errors". Orwell's Ministry of Truth would be proud!

 

[BreadAlone]

Wow people.. If you think that context indicates that David was a homosexual..well I don't even know what advice to give you.

How could God damn homosexuals in one breath, and then in the next breath call one "after his own heart?"

I'm afraid it's just silly to insinuate such things.

And I'm not even getting into the Jesus-John CRAP GARBAGE.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

How could God damn homosexuals in one breath, and then in the next breath call one "after his own heart?"

Easy. God doesn't damn homosexuals.

Otherwise he wouldn't have "chosen" David, would he?

 

[BreadAlone]

Easy. God doesn't damn homosexuals.

Otherwise he wouldn't have "chosen" David, would he?

So, are you insinuating that God lies at one point and tells the truth at another when it suits your agenda?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

So, are you insinuating that God lies at one point and tells the truth at another when it suits your agenda?

No, I insinuate nothing.

I will say straight out that God has never condemned homosexual relationships.

 

[BreadAlone]

No, I insinuate nothing.

I will say straight out that God has never condemned homosexual relationships.

That's equatable to calling God a liar..he condemns it in his word.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That's equatable to calling God a liar..he condemns it in his word.

No, its not calling God a liar.

Its calling who ever wrote whatever bit of the Bible you think condemns homosexuality, wrong.

Big difference. The Bible was not written by God, nor does it even claim to be. Why you seem to think it is is quite beyond me.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Wow people.. If you think that context indicates that David was a homosexual..well I don't even know what advice to give you.

How could God damn homosexuals in one breath, and then in the next breath call one "after his own heart?"

I'm afraid it's just silly to insinuate such things.

And I'm not even getting into the Jesus-John CRAP GARBAGE.

 

[BreadAlone]

No, its not calling God a liar.

Its calling who ever wrote whatever bit of the Bible you think condemns homosexuality, wrong.

Big difference. The Bible was not written by God, nor does it even claim to be. Why you seem to think it is is quite beyond me.

False..

"Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."

"I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years."

"You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,"

"Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?"

"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

"All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."

"Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Need I go on?

 

[Floatingaxe]

That's equatable to calling God a liar..he condemns it in his word.

Amen! Let those with ears hear---and eyes, see!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

"All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."

God BREATHED means INSPIRED... not DICTATED.

Big difference.

Floating axe is something of an expert on all the translation and transcription errors to be found in the Bible, ask her for a list. If it were REALLY God dictated, do you think He'd let all those errors in?

 

[BreadAlone]

God BREATHED means INSPIRED... not DICTATED.

Big difference.

Floating axe is something of an expert on all the translation and transcription errors to be found in the Bible, ask her for a list. If it were REALLY God dictated, do you think He'd let all those errors in?

There's about a .5% variance between the various manuscripts in our possession if that's what you mean. Never the less..the verse STILL SAYS that ALL scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness..NOT just the parts the sinful nature of us human beings would LIKE to be right.

 

[Brieuse]

God BREATHED means INSPIRED... not DICTATED.

Big difference.

Floating axe is something of an expert on all the translation and transcription errors to be found in the Bible, ask her for a list. If it were REALLY God dictated, do you think He'd let all those errors in?

And when you point out logical fallacies in certain people's statements, you get reported and ALL your posts deleted. I find the running to the teacher mindset interesting.

If you have the Real Holy Spirit(TM) in you, you can say anything you want, God said it, so there.