Bisexual King David

[Polycarp1]

Yes I mean a duel.

Then I would say that they are a liar (and their thoughts hold no standing if they think it is not worthy to fight over), if they think they believe the truth then they should stand up for it. I would do so to keep King David's name honorable. For he himself is not now about to fight, and to abuse his good name while he is unable to rebuke such a claim then not expect a challenge would be foolish.

I would think that God's approbation as recorded in the Bible would be enough to "keep King David's name honorable." And what it says is quite explicit, that he and Jonathan loved each other. Period. It implies a romantic love; it does not out and out state it. The two young men felt no shame before God, nor does He condemn it, in expressing their love physically (not sexually), as described in Scripture. Whether there was any genital-sexual component to what they did together is totally left unspoken in the words of Scripture, but surely embracing, kissing, and making ardent protestations of one's love are not the stuff one does with casual friends of the same sex.

But please take note that offering physical violence to another is both contrary to the rules of this board and a crime under law in many jurisdictions. Though I can understand your willingness to "defend the honor" of another, deceased person whom you respect (and the quotes are not pejorative but legitimately quotational), it would be my strong advice to retract that comment with apologies. Not to play moderator on you, just expressing concern.


brightmorningstar, I neither know nor wish to argue what Jesus may have conceived of beyond what He actually said in quoting that passage from Genesis. We could wait and ask Him, I suppose. What I do know was that He was making the point that (man/woman) marriage was divinely ordained as a way of criticizing strongly those who were teaching easy divorce. I find it purely loathsome that people who are prepared to welcome" serial monogamists" on their third or fourth wife or husband into the church quote this verse in order to condemn gays wanting to marry. This is really a case of worshipping the letter of Scripture while denying its spirit -- completely ignoring the point Jesus Himself was making in order to condemn a pariah by quoting out of context.

 

[Polycarp1]

There can be no gay question if God’s purpose in creating male and female is so that a man and a woman shall be united. The gay ideas are contrary and opposite to God’s purpose. They are also based on denying the condemnations of homosexual acts that a same-sex union has.

So, since Scripture condemns rape, it means any heterosexual behavior, by extension?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that God is repelled by idolatrous behavior, including gay sex as a fertility rite, by the patronizing of boy prostitutes, by deceptive adultery whether hetero- or homosexual, by turning to gay sex for "new kicks" on the part of ennui-laden socialites, and all the other clearly condemned behavior in Scripture.

There is also no doubt in my mind that the reading of some of those specific verses in their modern translations with the idea of a legalistic, rule-based religion, would prohibit any homosexual acts as sinful.

But I have yet to see the commandment, "Go forth, armed in the power of the Spirit, and force your brother or sister, for whom I also died, to behave as you believe I want him to." Rather, we are told explicitly how to behave, and it involves the showing of love rather than judgment. Look carefully at the Parable of the Sheep and Goats. Every behavior that you show towards a gay person, a homeless person, an illegal immigrant, an Arab militant -- He Himself has said, quite clearly and explicitly and in His own voice while standing here on Earth, that He will regard that behavior as having been done unto Him -- and He will requite you accordingly.

That's scary!

 

[Brennin]

So, since Scripture condemns rape, it means any heterosexual behavior, by extension?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that God is repelled by idolatrous behavior, including gay sex as a fertility rite, by the patronizing of boy prostitutes, by deceptive adultery whether hetero- or homosexual, by turning to gay sex for "new kicks" on the part of ennui-laden socialites, and all the other clearly condemned behavior in Scripture.

There is also no doubt in my mind that the reading of some of those specific verses in their modern translations with the idea of a legalistic, rule-based religion, would prohibit any homosexual acts as sinful.

But I have yet to see the commandment, "Go forth, armed in the power of the Spirit, and force your brother or sister, for whom I also died, to behave as you believe I want him to." Rather, we are told explicitly how to behave, and it involves the showing of love rather than judgment. Look carefully at the Parable of the Sheep and Goats. Every behavior that you show towards a gay person, a homeless person, an illegal immigrant, an Arab militant -- He Himself has said, quite clearly and explicitly and in His own voice while standing here on Earth, that He will regard that behavior as having been done unto Him -- and He will requite you accordingly.

That's scary!

I think the idea of having a duel over this thread is ridiculous. But then again, I consider David to be completely ancillary to Christianity.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Polycarp1,

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that God is repelled by idolatrous behavior, including gay sex as a fertility rite, by the patronizing of boy prostitutes, by deceptive adultery whether hetero- or homosexual, by turning to gay sex for "new kicks" on the part of ennui-laden socialites, and all the other clearly condemned behavior in Scripture.

But that’s assumption. The scripture is clear that the gentiles and the pagans did such acts and the often for religious reasons, but not always. But the people of God didn’t.ever do these acts. The gentile Greeks and Romans did such acts as part of education and pleasure as well and in rites.

But I have yet to see the commandment, "Go forth, armed in the power of the Spirit, and force your brother or sister, for whom I also died, to behave as you believe I want him to." Rather, we are told explicitly how to behave, and it involves the showing of love rather than judgment.

Who do you mean by brother and sister? Brother and sisters in Christ don’t need to be forced into anything as they have Jesus to lead them. Brothers and sisters in the world need to first know Jesus as Lord before His teachings will mean anything to them. Its all about Jesus not about us and our ideas.

Look carefully at the Parable of the Sheep and Goats. Every behavior that you show towards a gay person, a homeless person, an illegal immigrant, an Arab militant -- He Himself has said, quite clearly and explicitly and in His own voice while standing here on Earth, that He will regard that behavior as having been done unto Him -- and He will requite you accordingly.

Firstly why should I look at Matt 25 when we cant seem to see the same things in Matthew 19? Secondly I believe Matthew 25 tells me to help people as Jesus would. One can love people without loving their circumstances, I wouldn’t for example love the arab’s militancy, but I am to love the arab.

That's scary!

Well if we believe Matt 25 then we will all face such judgement.. but from Jesus, not each other.

 

[Abiel]

. In addition, when attempting to envision the mechanics of this act one quickly finds it is surprisingly unwieldy and awkward to eat the honey in this manner; and yet he does.

I don't claim to know much for sure, but I am fairly sure that he didn't...

 

[akaibara]

About retrieving the honey with a rod...maybe he didn't want to get stung by bees by sticking his hand in there...

 

[ElizaMcharty]

"About retrieving the honey with a rod...maybe he didn't want to get stung by bees by sticking his hand in there..."

Certainly that would make sense if it were not for several of points: 1) the bible says it was *honey* on the ground, not a hive. 2) bees do not build hives on the ground. 3) Even if this were in fact a hive on the ground, even if it makes perfect sense to use a rod to retrieve the honeycomb, it doesn't make sense to suck it off the end of the rod you used to retireve it. Actually take the time to envision eating honey off the end of a staff as tall as you are. It's too bizarre, too awkward. You would take the honeycomb off the end of this long staff and eat it. The writer left it in that way for a reason.


"I don't claim to know much for sure, but I am fairly sure that he didn't..."
Um, yeah, he did. Read it.


As for those who keep referring to the law of the Bible as proof that God hates gays -- the Bible contains *at most* 6 admonishments to gays (and that's stretching it.) It contains 362 admonishments to straights.
I think the best argument against this type of thinking was perfectly expressed by an individual who wrote an open letter to Dr. Laura, who had said that God is clearly against homosexuality. Here it is.


Dear Dr. Laura

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn.t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
Jack

This letter perfectly illustrates that what made a great deal of sense in ancient times makes none today. When examining these kind of laws, we have a few options.
1. Like most fundamentalist Christians, we pick the old testament laws that seem most palatable to us and do not interfere with our own nasty habits but do interfere with those unlike ourselves (it's really easy to call Gay Gary out to a duel for being a homo, but not so easy to give up the shellfish and pork you enjoy ever so much. But that's okay, the rules only apply to him; the ones that are inconvenient to you are "the old laws" or "ceremonial laws" -- nevermind that they're only a chapter apart, nevermind that there's nothing saying "As soon as the Messiah comes, you can skip this.")

2. We ignore all of the old testament and only pay attention to the new testament. Which begs the question... if God didn't want us to pay attention to the old laws, why did he make sure they were included in the canon?

3. We pay attention to none of it and all become atheists.

4. We recognize that these laws had value then, and they have value now, but not for the same reasons. When the Old Testament says that men are not to cut their hair, and then Paul in the New Testament says that is is against the very fabric of nature for men not to cut their hair, we recognize that these are cultural differences that have relevance to us only when interpreted through our own cultural glasses. Hebrews didn't cut their forelocks because it was considered deviant. People in Hellenistic times cut their hair because to do otherwise would be deviant. Therefore we can surmise that today we should not engage in fashion styles that are totally bizarre, obscene, and deviant within our cultures. Same thing with women wearing veils over their hair or faces -- clearly encouraged in the Bible; it was a question of modesty because hair was considered an erotic extremity. In the Victorian era ankles were more erotic than cleavage; therefore a Victorian reading these verses about veil should have translated it through their cultural perception and understood that one should not expose their ankles. For us, it would be nipples or pubic hair.
We can debate whether or not the laws against homosexuality were intended to be for consensual and loving homosexual relationships; we can debate whether or not they were meant to stand for all time unchanging (they're not in the 10 commandments), or if they could be reinterpreted for modern times, just as we wear polyester today. But it needs to be acknowledged that as absolutely point blank as this issue seems, there are some deeper complexities to look over.

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

Thanks guys for making me laugh. This thread is hilarious. No wonder I don't post on this board too much anymore.

 

[Mandrake]

I think that more offers to duel would make CF a much more exciting forum. Maybe we can talk to Erwin about creating a new forum for arranging these sorts of things.