Bisexual King David

[seebs]

Yes I mean a duel.

Ooookay.

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.

Oh! You mean like the way Jesus fought to prove that He was truly Lord?

Oh, wait.

He didn't.

Sorry, but this has got to be some kind of sick joke. Fighting proves nothing.

Why not, say... argue the point?

If your response to someone saying something is to challenge them to a fight, then assert that they are a liar if they are unwilling to fight...

Really, all you're doing here is compounding brutality with false witness. You cannot have a good-faith belief that someone who refuses to physically fight you about something is therefore "lying".

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 don't think King David needs folks beating people up to defend his honor.

The only message such a thing sends is "I cannot possibly argue against your point, but I think I fight better than you do."

I'm wondering, if you're so eager to defend David's honor, presumably you take the Bible as some kind of source material, no? Wouldn't it be good to follow at least a few of the pieces of advice in it, then? There was this guy, sorta new-testament period, talked a lot about things, promoted a lot of things as true... Didn't so much fight people about them.

I guess I'm just a bit shocked. I was totally unaware that there was anyone left after about the 17th century who genuinely believed that winning a fight had anything to do with proving a point.

If you haven't got any actual arguments, just say so!

 

[Mling]

If you haven't got any actual arguments, just say so!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to seebs again.

I've always said (for the past few months or so) that displays of power are what somebody resorts to when they've got nothing else.

 

[armyman_83]

Ooookay.



Oh! You mean like the way Jesus fought to prove that He was truly Lord?

Oh, wait.

He didn't.

Sorry, but this has got to be some kind of sick joke. Fighting proves nothing.

It was not his purpose to fight. He died for our sins on the cross. Fighting proves nothing? Except that you will actually stand up for your beliefs, which says more than any amount of words.

Why not, say... argue the point?

If your response to someone saying something is to challenge them to a fight, then assert that they are a liar if they are unwilling to fight...

Really, all you're doing here is compounding brutality with false witness. You cannot have a good-faith belief that someone who refuses to physically fight you about something is therefore "lying".

Arguing a point can only take one so far (sometimes).

Please I would not challenge anyone to a fight for everything they say. Only for things which are, indeed, inflammatory and vicious (and other things, it just depends on the situation). You didn’t get my point. They are suspected a liar, even if they are really not one. But to be suspected a lair (and a coward) is a strong enough blow against any one with honor. Thus we see, that any man of honor would, indeed, stand up for what he thought to be the truth; but should he not stand up for what he believes then he his not a man of honor, in which case why believe him at all?

I don't think King David needs folks beating people up to defend his honor.

The only message such a thing sends is "I cannot possibly argue against your point, but I think I fight better than you do."

Forgive me for showing respect unto the righteous dead.

You don’t understand, one must be tactful when challenging someone, otherwise you become a brute. You would exchange words with him, and “argue” with him. Then when he has not come to any sense of right and truth, or either he still speaks evil, you must challenge him. If a giant of a man were to speak evil of God, or his servants, then I would be under obligation by my conscious to fight him, despite his size. “A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield.”
And besides in the matter of fighting for King David, I wouldn’t put my money on the giant.

I'm wondering, if you're so eager to defend David's honor, presumably you take the Bible as some kind of source material, no? Wouldn't it be good to follow at least a few of the pieces of advice in it, then? There was this guy, sorta new-testament period, talked a lot about things, promoted a lot of things as true... Didn't so much fight people about them.

Of course to defend King David’s honor. And of course I follow the Bible, as it is the Word of God. The teachings of Christ are, indeed, to be followed. But did not God drive out the evil sellers who were in the temple?

I guess I'm just a bit shocked. I was totally unaware that there was anyone left after about the 17th century who genuinely believed that winning a fight had anything to do with proving a point.

If you haven't got any actual arguments, just say so!

Well, I am sorry that more men do not see as they did. Forgive again for having some honor, only through the grace of God.

“The sky is purple, not blue.” How does one argue against that? There are some things so foolish (and sometimes so vile) that they are nonsense. How can one correct a fool? Indeed, how can one correct a fool, bent on disgracing a godly man? They do not see the Word of God as the Word of God, but how Hebrews lived in those days. They do not see truth of the Bible, how then can they be expected the see the words of one who follows the Bible?

 

[seebs]

It was not his purpose to fight. He died for our sins on the cross. Fighting proves nothing? Except that you will actually stand up for your beliefs, which says more than any amount of words.

No, it doesn't even say that.

That's like saying "If you really loved me, you'd juggle live scorpions."

It's true that someone who doesn't much care about you either way is unlikely to juggle live scorpions at your request, but that doesn't mean that doing so shows anything.

Fighting when attacked could possibly show something. Fighting over an issue that really isn't about fighting just shows belligerence.

Arguing a point can only take one so far (sometimes).

If you're trying to find out what's true, arguing takes you further than fighting does.

Please I would not challenge anyone to a fight for everything they say. Only for things which are, indeed, inflammatory and vicious (and other things, it just depends on the situation). You didn’t get my point. They are suspected a liar, even if they are really not one. But to be suspected a lair (and a coward) is a strong enough blow against any one with honor. Thus we see, that any man of honor would, indeed, stand up for what he thought to be the truth; but should he not stand up for what he believes then he his not a man of honor, in which case why believe him at all?

What you describe here as "honor" is the pride of a schoolyard bully. It is not honorable.

If you call someone a liar, and he's not, but you think calling him names will make him do something, that just means you're a liar.

If you suspect someone of lying because he won't fight you, that just means you're a fool.

Your description of honor absolutely excludes any follower of Christ. Jesus commands, absolutely unequivocally, that we do not retaliate against insults with violence, or even with insults. A man whose pride is wounded by insults, who is then driven to violence, is acting in absolute despite of the teachings of Jesus.

Now, that's not to say you won't get some takers. Not many people want to follow Jesus; people call them names for it. He told us that would happen.

Forgive me for showing respect unto the righteous dead.

You're not showing respect. Not in any way. What you're doing is closer to spitting on his grave than to any kind of respect. You claim you're respecting him, but David was a man who loved God. I think one way to show respect for his example would be to emulate it; to love God. And one way to show love for God would be to obey him.

You don’t understand, one must be tactful when challenging someone, otherwise you become a brute. You would exchange words with him, and “argue” with him. Then when he has not come to any sense of right and truth, or either he still speaks evil, you must challenge him. If a giant of a man were to speak evil of God, or his servants, then I would be under obligation by my conscious to fight him, despite his size. “A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield.”

Up until "you must challenge him", you were speaking sense. After that, you replaced the Christian teaching of meekness and humility, and speaking truth in love, with some kind of bravado more suited to adventure movies than to real life.

And besides in the matter of fighting for King David, I wouldn’t put my money on the giant.

Heh.

Of course to defend King David’s honor. And of course I follow the Bible, as it is the Word of God. The teachings of Christ are, indeed, to be followed. But did not God drive out the evil sellers who were in the temple?

Please retract this blasphemy. Christ is the Word of God. No thing which is not Jesus Himself may make that claim.

God did indeed drive people out of the temple. Do you have His capacity for accurate judgment, or should you perhaps be content to instead follow His specific and unambiguous instructions?

Well, I am sorry that more men do not see as they did. Forgive again for having some honor, only through the grace of God.

Once again, this is not honor. This is the pride of a schoolyard bully. Men do not see as they once did in this matter, because we have been gradually led into the truth.

“The sky is purple, not blue.” How does one argue against that? There are some things so foolish (and sometimes so vile) that they are nonsense. How can one correct a fool? Indeed, how can one correct a fool, bent on disgracing a godly man? They do not see the Word of God as the Word of God, but how Hebrews lived in those days. They do not see truth of the Bible, how then can they be expected the see the words of one who follows the Bible?

People who follow the Bible -- and this whole "challenging" notion is a complete rejection of it -- don't seem to have that much trouble being heard. Meekness and sincerity are generally taken more seriously than blustering, empty or otherwise.

But once again, I must remind you:

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 1, Verses 1-14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

It is Jesus who was, and is, the Word of God. The Bible is not Jesus.

 

[non-religious]

[armyman_83]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.

This is hilarious......

Are you going to use you're green sword?

 

[armyman_83]

No, it doesn't even say that.

That's like saying "If you really loved me, you'd juggle live scorpions."

It's true that someone who doesn't much care about you either way is unlikely to juggle live scorpions at your request, but that doesn't mean that doing so shows anything.

Fighting when attacked could possibly show something. Fighting over an issue that really isn't about fighting just shows belligerence.



If you're trying to find out what's true, arguing takes you further than fighting does.



What you describe here as "honor" is the pride of a schoolyard bully. It is not honorable.

If you call someone a liar, and he's not, but you think calling him names will make him do something, that just means you're a liar.

If you suspect someone of lying because he won't fight you, that just means you're a fool.

Your description of honor absolutely excludes any follower of Christ. Jesus commands, absolutely unequivocally, that we do not retaliate against insults with violence, or even with insults. A man whose pride is wounded by insults, who is then driven to violence, is acting in absolute despite of the teachings of Jesus.

Now, that's not to say you won't get some takers. Not many people want to follow Jesus; people call them names for it. He told us that would happen.




You're not showing respect. Not in any way. What you're doing is closer to spitting on his grave than to any kind of respect. You claim you're respecting him, but David was a man who loved God. I think one way to show respect for his example would be to emulate it; to love God. And one way to show love for God would be to obey him.



Up until "you must challenge him", you were speaking sense. After that, you replaced the Christian teaching of meekness and humility, and speaking truth in love, with some kind of bravado more suited to adventure movies than to real life.



Heh.



Please retract this blasphemy. Christ is the Word of God. No thing which is not Jesus Himself may make that claim.

God did indeed drive people out of the temple. Do you have His capacity for accurate judgment, or should you perhaps be content to instead follow His specific and unambiguous instructions?




Once again, this is not honor. This is the pride of a schoolyard bully. Men do not see as they once did in this matter, because we have been gradually led into the truth.




People who follow the Bible -- and this whole "challenging" notion is a complete rejection of it -- don't seem to have that much trouble being heard. Meekness and sincerity are generally taken more seriously than blustering, empty or otherwise.

But once again, I must remind you:

The Gospel According to St. John, Chapter 1, Verses 1-14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
​

It is Jesus who was, and is, the Word of God. The Bible is not Jesus.

Forgive me, I did not know that you did err in you thoughts upon the Bible. I believe it is the Word of God, you do not. I doubt we shall ever agree then, on much about God. So, in short, I will leave you with this.

It is not good for one to hastily challenge a man. Only when persuasion through argument has failed, and when their words do harm to God, or one’s honor, or some other significant issue. Once one has exhausted his words in an attempt to persuade; and if they continue to do speak evil, and that which is contrary to God and to the Word of God (the Bible) then one must ask them to desist. If they refuse, then one must challenge them. Then one can see if they speak their words for, what they consider truth, or to merely stir up men to do wrong.

Do not think that one should challenge some one when they disagree with what type of food or drink tastes better (for an example). But when there is a matter of honor at stake, if you believe in honor, then one must protect it justly. I would rather honor God, and loose men’s favor.

 

[Mling]

armyman, this self-agrandizing act is really funny, once, but jokes like that start to grow stale.

You openly stated in the "Court overturns Arkansas ban on same-sex foster parents" thread that you your beliefs would prohibit you from breaking the law, including the laws against assault and murder. Even when injuring or killing somebody is a direct order from God, and it carries the threat that if you do not, you will be cut off from God as well.

The old law also stated that, if a community did not kill such a person (who commited a crime worthy of death) than the entire community would be cut off from God. If you have known somebody the "old law" said you should kill, and you went along with our culture's refusal to kill them (ie: you did not kill them) you are condemned by the old law as well.

To Mling: I believe in Christ and his apostle's thus the Apostle Paul do I follow When he tells us to obey the civil governments.

It is kinda cute the way you like to play at being a knight, though.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Forgive me, I did not know that you did err in you thoughts upon the Bible. I believe it is the Word of God, you do not. I doubt we shall ever agree then, on much about God. So, in short, I will leave you with this.

It is not good for one to hastily challenge a man. Only when persuasion through argument has failed, and when their words do harm to God, or one’s honor, or some other significant issue. Once one has exhausted his words in an attempt to persuade; and if they continue to do speak evil, and that which is contrary to God and to the Word of God (the Bible) then one must ask them to desist. If they refuse, then one must challenge them. Then one can see if they speak their words for, what they consider truth, or to merely stir up men to do wrong.

Do not think that one should challenge some one when they disagree with what type of food or drink tastes better (for an example). But when there is a matter of honor at stake, if you believe in honor, then one must protect it justly. I would rather honor God, and loose men’s favor.

You were born just a millenium too late, weren't you?

 

[seebs]

Forgive me, I did not know that you did err in you thoughts upon the Bible.

Being human, of course I err.

I believe it is the Word of God, you do not.

Before, this could have been error.

Now that you have been presented with the text asserting the divinity of Jesus, however, it is blasphemy and idolatry.

The Bible is not God, and when you say it is, you commit blasphemy, and when you treat it as such, you commit idolatry.

And no matter what you say, violence does not glorify, or honor, God. I would like to recommend a faith called "Christianity" to you. It teaches meekness rather than pride, peace rather than violence and retribution, and the divinity of a man named Jesus, rather than a book. It's pretty cool.

 

[non-religious]

[armyman_83].
Only when persuasion through argument has failed, and when their words do harm to God, or one’s honor, or some other significant issue. Once one has exhausted his words in an attempt to persuade; and if they continue to do speak evil, and that which is contrary to God and to the Word of God (the Bible) then one must ask them to desist. If they refuse, then one must challenge them.

Walk away......

Challenge them to what exactly?

But when there is a matter of honor at stake, if you believe in honor, then one must protect it justly. I would rather honor God, and loose men’s favor.

Whose honour?

So God is instructing us to physically fight those who continuously speak evil about Him?

Please quote the exact verses that illustrate this....

 

[brightmorningstar]

Its worth pointing out that the disciples kissed Jesus and they loved Him more than anyone.. including women. So to suggest that David had sex with Johnathan is merely an assumption. Seeing as David later had sexual relations with many women, (against God's original purpose Gen 2, Matt 19) its hardly likely he was 'bisexual', he was a rampant 'heterosexual'

 

[seebs]

Its worth pointing out that the disciples kissed Jesus and they loved Him more than anyone.. including women. So to suggest that David had sex with Johnathan is merely an assumption. Seeing as David later had sexual relations with many women, (against God's original purpose Gen 2, Matt 19) its hardly likely he was 'bisexual', he was a rampant 'heterosexual'

I don't see how that follows. Bisexual people can have sex with lots of people of one sex.

I'm not sure what you're saying with that "against God's original purpose" comment. Polygamy is not contrary to Biblical teachings; divorce is.

Our modern practice of serial monogamy and trophy wives is clearly contrary to God's teaching; however, there is nothing Biblical against polygamy. Our objections to that are cultural or even merely pragmatic.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Seebs,
I think what I wrote does follow, I dont think what you
wrote does because the thread is about David not people who defines themselves by their sexual desires.
As to what you wrote, people can have sex with who they desire. As I think I said before Freddy Mercury had sex with his girlfirend then stopped having sex with girls and started having sex with other men. So one could say he was bisexual in that he had had sex with both men and women, but one could say he changed from being heterosexual to homosexual.
As to poligamy I think Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 make it quite clear that wasnt God's origianl purpose... it says 'a' man and 'a' woman.

 

[akaibara]

Our modern practice of serial monogamy and trophy wives is clearly contrary to God's teaching;

Could you explain that for me?

 

[seebs]

Seebs,
I think what I wrote does follow, I dont think what you
wrote does because the thread is about David not people who defines themselves by their sexual desires.

But the point is, saying that David had sex with women doesn't indicate that he's not bisexual.

As to what you wrote, people can have sex with who they desire. As I think I said before Freddy Mercury had sex with his girlfirend then stopped having sex with girls and started having sex with other men. So one could say he was bisexual in that he had had sex with both men and women, but one could say he changed from being heterosexual to homosexual.

Or one could say that he was always homosexual, but sometimes had sex contrary to his nature.

As to poligamy I think Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 make it quite clear that wasnt God's origianl purpose... it says 'a' man and 'a' woman.

So it does. But it doesn't say "and never anything more complicated". God's absolutely clear endorsement of polygamy suggests that we have the capacity to form more than one such relationship. Each relationship may be described separately.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Seebs,

But the point is, saying that David had sex with women doesn't indicate that he's not bisexual.

IMO we know he had sex with women, but we don’t know he had sex with Johnathan. Bisexual is just a word to describe a sexual desire.

Or one could say that he was always homosexual, but sometimes had sex contrary to his nature.

And vice versa, one could also say he was never homosexual but sometimes had sex contrary to nature.

So it does. But it doesn't say "and never anything more complicated".

No otherwsie it would contradict itself and make it unlcear what it meant. and no longer be God’s purpose. I am referring to what it says not what it doesn’t say. It might say “and certainly not men with men” but it doesnt say that either, but it says a man and a woman is God's purpose.

 

[seebs]

It gives a man and a woman united in marriage as an example of God's purpose. I don't think that rules out polygamy, gay marriage, or celibacy; it just says that this thing is approved.

The question is how we view the Bible. Is it an exhaustive list of everything that is ever okay? I don't think so. To be told "God approves of X" is not a reason to conclude "God does not approve of Y".

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Seebs,

It gives a man and a woman united in marriage as an example of God's purpose.

I would say that’s exactly what it doesn’t do. In Matthew 19 Jesus says about Genesis 2 that the reason that a man and a woman shall be united as one, was because it was God’s purpose in creating male and female. It cant be an example if one is proposing an opposite alternative. It gives the reason not an example. Saying its just an example is a direct contradiction to the Genesis scripture and what Jesus says.

I don't think that rules out polygamy, gay marriage, or celibacy; it just says that this thing is approved.

IMO it totally rules out poligamy because God's purpose was for one man and one woman. It totally rules out ‘gay’ marriage because it’s a man and a woman. Celibacy is countenanced for Kingdom purposes.

The question is how we view the Bible. Is it an exhaustive list of everything that is ever okay? I don't think so. To be told "God approves of X" is not a reason to conclude "God does not approve of Y".

The question is not ‘how’ we view the Bible but whether we view it. To see that God approves of X (man and woman marriage, Matthew 19) and disproves Y (all sexual activity outside Matthew 15 including polygamy and gay unions, Mark 7 & 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, Hebrews 13 etc.) is proof enough.

 

[seebs]

Dear Seebs,
I would say that’s exactly what it doesn’t do. In Matthew 19 Jesus says about Genesis 2 that the reason that a man and a woman shall be united as one, was because it was God’s purpose in creating male and female. It cant be an example if one is proposing an opposite alternative. It gives the reason not an example. Saying its just an example is a direct contradiction to the Genesis scripture and what Jesus says.

No, it isn't.

Jesus doesn't say "also, so they can reproduce" or anything like that. But that happens too.

Both cases say that it is good for people to come together in marriage; neither says exactly what structures are permissible. They give examples, but there's nothing to distinguish between "this and this alone is God's purpose" and "this and things like this are God's purpose".

The examples in the OT make it clear that God explicitly endorses polygamy.

IMO it totally rules out poligamy because God's purpose was for one man and one woman. It totally rules out ‘gay’ marriage because it’s a man and a woman. Celibacy is countenanced for Kingdom purposes.

Each marriage is of one couple, but there's no barrier to having more than one. Jesus is quick to condemn divorce, but never says a word against marrying a second woman without divorcing the first.

Our cultural norms are not God's plan.

The question is not ‘how’ we view the Bible but whether we view it. To see that God approves of X (man and woman marriage, Matthew 19) and disproves Y (all sexual activity outside Matthew 15 including polygamy and gay unions, Mark 7 & 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Timothy 1, Romans 1, Hebrews 13 etc.) is proof enough.

No, it doesn't even come close. Sexual relations in a polygamous marriage are by definition not extramarital. They're fine.

The gay question is a little trickier to resolve, and if you really want to go into that, we should probably do a full formal debate on it, because I've been looking for something like five years now for someone willing to really present the arguments in some detail, without just handwaving and asserting that it's obvious.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Seebs,

No, it isn't.

What do you mean? Do you mean no it doesnt say that

Jesus doesn't say "also, so they can reproduce" or anything like that. But that happens too.

Thats right he doesnt say that. I am talking about what Jesus does say not what he doesn’t say. we could make up anything that Jesus didnt say.

Both cases say that it is good for people to come together in marriage;

No I completely disagree, that’s exactly what it doesn’t say. he says a man and a women, the people have to be one man and one woman, Jesus has specifically said that is God's purpose.

neither says exactly what structures are permissible.

Sorry, what structures?

They give examples, but there's nothing to distinguish between "this and this alone is God's purpose" and "this and things like this are God's purpose".

I dont see any examples, just one purpose. It says in the beginning God made them male and female, it was for this reason that a man shall leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.

Sorry Seebs I would say that what you are suggesting is not what Jesus said and in practice the opposite of what Jesus said.

Each marriage is of one couple, but there's no barrier to having more than one.

No its says that God’s purpose is each marriage is one man and one woman so the couple consists of a man and a woman.

No, it doesn't even come close. Sexual relations in a polygamous marriage are by definition not extramarital. They're fine.

How could Jesus say a man and some women if He has said 'a' man and 'a' woman? And he doesnt.
He says that Moses allowed divorce because their hearts were stubbon but it was not like that in the beginning. Jesus and his disciples talk of marriage/ union of one man and one woman (Matthew 19, Mark 7, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 5-7, Hebrews 13, according to God’s purpose Genesis 2. So if we are followers of Jesus, polygamy is not fine, its against Jesus teaching.

The gay question is a little trickier to resolve, and if you really want to go into that, we should probably do a full formal debate on it, because I've been looking for something like five years now for someone willing to really present the arguments in some detail, without just handwaving and asserting that it's obvious.

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.