A re-examination of nothing (2)

[David Brider]

Dear EnemypartyII

I have looked t up, someone who sleeps with someone of the opposite sex is heterosexual. A bisexual sleeps with both, David only slept with a woman so he was heterosexual.

No, a heterosexual is someone who is likely to be attracted to people of the opposite sex as him or herself; a homosexual is someone who is likely to be attracted to people of the same sex as him or herself; and a bisexual is someone who is likely to be attracted to people of either sex.

None of those are intrinsically to do with sexual activity, although they can certainly lead to it. For example, I'm bisexual, but I'm engaged to be married and have every intention of being faithful to my future wife until the day I die, so I'm not likely to sleep with someone of the same sex as myself. But that doesn't make me any less bisexual.

In the case of David, yes, the only record we have of him engaging in any sexual activity was with women - but that doesn't rule him out from ever having had attractions to other men.

One doesn't even have to have sex to be in a homosexual relationship

Yes one does according to the dictionary definition and what do you think the ‘sex’ in homosexual means.

I don't know what dictionary definition you're relying on, but I wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it. Of course one doesn't have to have sex to be in a homosexual relationship, any more than one has to have sex to be in a heterosexual relationship. My relationship with my fiancée is 100% chaste at the moment, because we've decided not to engage in sexual intimacy until we get married. That doesn't make it any less of a heterosexual relationship - and yes, it's one that will one day be consummated, but not for another 18 months or so. David's relationship with Jonathan could have been of a similar kind.

David.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

As I said before, I'd need to sit down and spend some time to explain the intricacies behind those scriptures and as I also said. It would be a waste of time as you do not wish to be educated.

I'm ALWAYS interested to be educated...

I just find it ironic that you refuse to accept explanations that cast confronting light on your image of the Bible, and insist I take the most basic, conventionally accepted interpretation as the RIGHT way... when you, confronted with what are plainly contradictions within the Bible, feel its fine to come up with some sort of complex explanation to defuse the contradiction...

Again, you aren't being consistent.

To sumarise... when the Bible says what you want it to say, you insist its straight forward and literal,

when it says something you disagree with, you want time to "explain" what it "really" means, because it clearly can't mean the straight forward, literal meaning.

 

[Brennin]

says the guy who hasn't actually addressed a point coherently since he's been here.

Hey, why don't you go google some more advanced physics stuff? I bet theres a bunch more stuff you can misunderstand and pretend says the universe came from nothing!

Keep digging yourself a deeper hole and you might pop up here in the U.S. "Literally nothing" means just that and it is likely that energy conservation was violated during the Big Bang, which puts the lie to your "net zero energy" comment.

I suggest you cut your losses and return later under a different username to continue posting incoherently.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Keep digging yourself a deeper hole and you might pop up here in the U.S. "Literally nothing" means just that and it is likely that energy conservation was violated during the Big Bang, which puts the lie to your "net zero energy" comment.

I suggest you cut your losses and return later under a different username to continue posting incoherently.

dude... the articles you cited literally use the phrase "universal-net zero energy" in them. I'm not the one in the hole here.

 

[k2svpete]

well... is pointing out that Jesus didn't command that until AFTER David and Jonathon a distortion?

So, its normal for non-homosexualy involved men to kiss each other and declare that their love for each other is greater than that for any woman? Thats not twisting anything, thats asking a question about what the text literally says.

David was chosen by God. David exhibited many of the qualities of God and the ability to love was one of them. There are parallels, typesw and examples set forth is scripture everywhere. Abraham being an example of a man after God's heart, being willing to sarifice his own son, etc. There are many more too.

The reason you'd need to be sat down is so that you actually read and understand scripture in context. We are warned to be wary of those who divide the scriptures unequally. That is why it is vital to read in context with an understanding of the situation, culture and time.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

David was chosen by God. David exhibited many of the qualities of God and the ability to love was one of them. There are parallels, typesw and examples set forth is scripture everywhere. Abraham being an example of a man after God's heart, being willing to sarifice his own son, etc. There are many more too.

The reason you'd need to be sat down is so that you actually read and understand scripture in context. We are warned to be wary of those who divide the scriptures unequally. That is why it is vital to read in context with an understanding of the situation, culture and time.

see... sincerely, I really mean this... is it seems to ME... that YOU are dividing scripture unequally... you only seem to take the parts you like as literal, but you are very flexible on the literal interpretation on the bits you don't like.

 

[Brieuse]

David was chosen by God. David exhibited many of the qualities of God and the ability to love was one of them. There are parallels, typesw and examples set forth is scripture everywhere. Abraham being an example of a man after God's heart, being willing to sarifice his own son, etc. There are many more too.

The reason you'd need to be sat down is so that you actually read and understand scripture in context. We are warned to be wary of those who divide the scriptures unequally. That is why it is vital to read in context with an understanding of the situation, culture and time.

Learn to spell, its embarrassing.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear David Brider,

No, a heterosexual is someone who is likely to be attracted to people of the opposite sex as him or herself; a homosexual is someone who is likely to be attracted to people of the same sex as him or herself; and a bisexual is someone who is likely to be attracted to people of either sex.

irrelevant as David was attracted to the woman on the roof and slept with her, no mention of his sleeping with Jonathan and so no homosexuality.

In the case of David, yes, the only record we have of him engaging in any sexual activity was with women - but that doesn't rule him out from ever having had attractions to other men.

Again your argument is based on what the Bible doesn’t say, this thread isn’t for that.

 

[k2svpete]

Learn to spell, its embarrassing.

Ever heard of a typo? Back in your box if you've nothing to contribute.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII,

see... sincerely, I really mean this... is it seems to ME... that YOU are dividing scripture unequally... you only seem to take the parts you like as literal, but you are very flexible on the literal interpretation on the bits you don't like.

Thats what you seem to me to be doing on top of trying to deny what the Bible actually says and means. Yet this thread is for examining the Bible not making observations on other posters thinking.
You have provided absolutely nothing except the Jonathan and David story in which I can see nothing to support David and Jonathan having sex and everything to destroy your claim that it was homosexual as David did sleep with women.

 

[Brieuse]

Ever heard of a typo? Back in your box if you've nothing to contribute.

lol

 

[k2svpete]

see... sincerely, I really mean this... is it seems to ME... that YOU are dividing scripture unequally... you only seem to take the parts you like as literal, but you are very flexible on the literal interpretation on the bits you don't like.

That's unfortunate that you see it that way. I keep coming back to reading passages in context and OT passages in light of NT understanding. So, while the Levitical law was literal for those under it, we are not, therefore it is not literally applicable to us.

Jesus gave us 'Love the Lord your God with all your being' and 'Love on another.' To comply with the first we need to embrace His characteristics, chief among those is 'be holy as I am holy.' That excludes sin. Now, if something was detailed as a sin under the law, it is still a sin. Our accountability for that sin is now to Jesus and not to the earthly preisthood.

That's the kind of contextual basis I refer to for the understanding of scripture. Passages cannot be read in isolation, that is where confusion comes from.

 

[OllieFranz]

k2svpete--

This is a sincere question. How do you determine which of the mitzvot in the Torah still apply to Christians and which do not? In the specific instance of the dietary laws and Sabbath "blue laws" we have the teachings of Acts chapters 10-11 and 15, and the letters of Paul, but what about the others?

I ask because there have been laws that have been interpreted as still being in force that are now recognized (but not always universally) as not being so.

For example:
* Deut 22:5 (Cross-dressing) There are still churches that preach it's a sin for women to wear slacks
* Lev 19:28 (Cuts, Brands, and Tattoos) This is often very selective. A woman with pierced ears is usually not thought to be in violation, but a man with a piercing is.
* Lev 23:3ff (Sabbath Laws) There are still churches that require their members to obey the Sabbath Laws, and it was only very recently (within living memory) that secular civil laws enforcing the Sunday Blue Laws were repealled.

 

[Brennin]

dude... the articles you cited literally use the phrase "universal-net zero energy" in them. I'm not the one in the hole here.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

What produced the energy before inflation? This is perhaps the ultimate question. As crazy as it might seem, the energy may have come out of nothing! The meaning of "nothing" is somewhat ambiguous here. It might be the vacuum in some pre-existing space and time, or it could be nothing at all – that is, all concepts of space and time were created with the universe itself.

Read for comprehension please.

 

[Floatingaxe]

You quote wikipedia as an encyclopaedic source and expect to be taken seriously?

Any academic (secular or theological) would laugh in disgust if you tried to use wikipedia as a resource to support an argument.

So true!

 

[Phinehas2]

Can I just remind everyone that this thread is about the absense of Biblical texts which countenance same-sex unions, the completely different understandings of the law and prophets is another issue, those who think same-sex unions are ok seem to have different understandings on everything anyway and the answr to the question which of the Torah laws still apply to Christians has been answered, none, the fulfillment of the law and prophest through Jesus Christ applies to Christians, and if Christians are asking this question we must have two diffferent Christianities.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Dear EnemypartyII,
There is no evidence that David was homsoexual, all the evidence says he wasnt as he slept with women but he didnt sleep wth men. So if he wasnt homoseuxal how could he be condmened for it?

If David was homosexual, the sin would have been attributed to him, and he would have had to pay for it with his life, and never been made king of Israel! For goodness sakes! God chose him because he was an exceptional man, and a man after God's own heart. He repented of his sin, and was an upright man in all his ways. Homosexuality was not one of his problems!

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Floatingaxe,
There is no evidence to suggest homosexuality, the whole premise is baseless.
The gay and lesbian argument is sex based... hence sexulaity, but their argument from scripture is love based. Their arguments pervert the meaning of God's love according to the Biblical testimony.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Dear Floatingaxe,
There is no evidence to suggest homosexuality, the whole premise is baseless.
The gay and lesbian argument is sex based... hence sexulaity, but their argument from scripture is love based. Their arguments pervert the meaning of God's love according to the Biblical testimony.

Yep! It is from active and filthy imaginations. My hero, David, a servant of God, debased! I can hardly stand it!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII,
Thats what you seem to me to be doing on top of trying to deny what the Bible actually says and means. Yet this thread is for examining the Bible not making observations on other posters thinking.
You have provided absolutely nothing except the Jonathan and David story in which I can see nothing to support David and Jonathan having sex and everything to destroy your claim that it was homosexual as David did sleep with women.

When the Bible talks about the sky... does it have to say "the sky was blue" for you to know? No. Because its implied.

As is David and Jonathon's homosexual relationship. Calling it anything other than a homosexual relationship is analogous to claiming the Bible is talking about a green sky, because it doesn't plainly state its blue.