That is a totally nonsensical REPLY TO my actual post. You just created a STRAWMAN and attacked it . . nothing more. .
Care to actually address what I actually said IN CONTEXT?
.
.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, we are supposed to love Jesus more than anyone or anything, period. If you love something as much as you love Jesus, that is idolatry!
It'd probably be an entertaining discussion.
I believe I would prefer to hear what you would share on deconstruction.
.
Which is the heart of the whole thing.Francis Schaeffer said:"This is a mysticism like no previous mysticism. Previous mysticisms always assumed something was there. But modern man's mysticisms are semantic mysticisms that deal only with words; they have nothing to do with anything being there, but are simply concerned with something in one's own head, or in language in one form or another. The idealistic taking of drugs in the 1960s began as one way to try to find meaning within one's head."
you asked me if we could love other things as much as Jesus, did you not?
That is a totally nonsensical REPLY TO my actual post. You just created a STRAWMAN and attacked it . . nothing more. .
Care to actually address what I actually said IN CONTEXT?
.
.
So "GREATER LOVE HATH NO MAN THAN THIS" only applied to Christ?
agape relationship, where is your proof? some same sex marriages I know of have lasted WAY longer than most straight marriages, I know of. The last guy I talked to, his uncle is gay and has been "married" for 40 years, and happily to the SAME guy.
Perhaps you're not reading me correctly? The terminology of the commentary was aimed at the allusion that the relationship was formally tied to Gen. 2, regarding the marriage covenant - "the two become one flesh". I was pointing out that this is faulty reasoning as the marriage covenant (symbolically) was determinant on the physical, not the spiritual.
Does it say he stripped naked? No, he took off the formal symbolic garments of his kingship, military lordship, and royal lineage, and gave them to David. Belts aren't the same in the context of this passage as they would be today. They wouldn't remove their belt and have their pants fall down. Belts were used strictly for their utility - holding their swords, arrows, etc...
There would have been plenty of opportunities for this to be known to Saul, let alone this simple incident. Saul was king, and he used a nearly pervasive method of subversion in his attacks against David. I doubt it would have been secret for long if it were the case.
Actually, given the grammatic use, it makes perfect sense to say it meant "David wept more", but little sense to say it meant "Until David was sexually aroused" - the second translation requires imaginary words being present in the text that are not actually there.
Yes it would, as I explained in my last post, marriages were considered through both the light of emotional attachment - the kind of bond that marriage produced in Hebraic culture relied on intimacy of both the body and the mind - and sexuality. He would have had previous experiences of loving women in a deeply emotional way. What I pointed out previously is that the concept of plutonic relationships was not a factor in Hebraic society. It simply didn't exist. Marriage was strictly held for sexuality, and all other relationships were not determined based on a sexual connotation of the term 'relationship'. The entire purity code was established to prevent that from happening. That in no way implies that David had no experience of a deep emotional attachment to a woman, though, as that would also imply that David was not married to anyone.
The interpretation was jaded on this point. I was pointing out the fact that there is no linguistic similarity with Gen. 2 in the text itself unless a person reads that into the text.Again, you're just presenting the same strawman.
Originally Posted by gwdboi
IN RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL POST:
Let us also investigate some pro-homosexual passages in the Bible. First we will look at the relationship between David and Jonathan. First Samuel 18:1-2 states: After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one with the soul of David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.” This verse brings up many, many questions. The first interesting point is that most translations translate the word in the verse above as “soul” rather than “spirit.” This specific Hebrew word for soul is the same used in Gen. 2:7 when it states that God blew spirit into the body of Adam to create a living soul. This combination of body and spirit would lead us to believe that the relationship between David and Jonathan comprised of both body and spirit; meaning that they loved each other physically and emotionally (Same online).
I was merely providing an explanation. Whether it needs to be taken up with your source or not isn't the point.This would have to be discussed with my source, not me.
I'm sure it is. But it's not so easy when you consider that David and Jonathan both lived in Saul's palace, and were waited on by Saul's servants.Trust me, having a closeted relationship is quite easy.
Look at the text and the context of the word. There is absolutely nothing to present a case that the word was modified with any sexual connotation unless we imagine words are there that really aren't. That's how language works.The grammatic use, and I suppose I'm supposed to take your word for it? Sorry, but I don't unless you can establish some ethos.
False.Another strawman.
Let me make this VERY simple:
You are correct.In Biblical times men did not have relationships with women unless they were married or in some other way related.
What about the emotional attachment, or does that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed in the biblical text itself? I guess whenever ME people talked about love, they meant sex? That's a statement directly out of current thought, but it has no historical weight in the interpretation of the text itself. There is no reasonable explanation as to why we should consider this topic to be regarding the overall form of a relationship when it's obvious from the grammatic format of the text that David is referencing the emotional quality of love itself, and not the form of relationships that love was involved in. In other words, he doesn't say "My marriage with you has surpassed the marriage of women." -- that's not even implied because love (non-sexual) between two men or two women was very common in the culture.David says that Jonathan's love was more wonderful that the love of women... either he is saying that Jonathan is better than any of David's sisters (lol), or David is saying that Jonathan is a better partner than any heterosexual romantic relationship.
LOL...this is more commentary not based on clear, concise, iron-clad facts. Both examples SHARE a comparison...a male-male relationship that is stronger than that of what it would be w/women, period.
Since when does the gay community support the selfless type of commitment David and Jonathan had for their families and each other. Two gay men leave their wives and their children and their families to live together. They don't return to their wives and continue to propogate and live normal lives. It would take a long, long time but the very characteristics of the lives David and Jonathan led are the complete opposite to what the gay agenda is all about (and the gay agenda has been the same in every century it has taken place). This should be obvious if one believes in the authenticity of the Bible. David and Jonathan respected their parents, respected authority, had wives and children, supported their families wholeheartedly, led Godly lives, and most obvious of all, were not socialists. They were humble men who committed their lives to God and sacrificed their lives for their country. I do not see even a shred of evidence that this is true among gay people.
So all Gay people disrespect there familes, don't work, don 't go to church, don't love, don't support their countries and are socialist. Do you ever wonder how foolish you might sound to the reader? I notice you are from canada. Isn't Liberal Socialism and Canada synonomous? I know that I served my country. I served 3 years in the United States Army. I work hard, I finished school. I respect my family. Isn't canada the country that all the US draft Dodgers go to when they skip out on the Military? I know in America that we have this thing, where there is a belief that "all men are created equal" We are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One must remember that the US is not a theocracy nor are e a soccialist country like our little cousins from the North
So by your standards can I call the US a militant, fascist government? As an American AND Canadian, I highly encourage you to read up on Canada. The Socialist Party does not have much power here. Please don't generalize by assuming that liberal beliefs are the mindset of all Canadians.
P.S. Little? Canada has more land mass than the States.
Yay! I'll bring the lawn chairs and the beer, eh?Oh goody. lotsa land. We might have to invade and impose our facist mindset upon the weak from up North. muahhhh muahhh
Christians should be ashamed of themselves for questioning that such a love is possible between 2 great men of God and for considering the possiblity that it is something baser, that 2 great men of God, who loved God with all their hearts, would trample God's law and engage in what God has told us in no uncertain terms is an abomination.
Honestly, I find that the existance of this thread itself, questioning such a pure love, to be abhorrent.
So are you saying that gay people are haters of their parents? you know that passage in Romans 1 is talking about idolatry, don't you?Since when does the gay community support the selfless type of commitment David and Jonathan had for their families and each other. Two gay men leave their wives and their children and their families to live together. They don't return to their wives and continue to propogate and live normal lives. It would take a long, long time but the very characteristics of the lives David and Jonathan led are the complete opposite to what the gay agenda is all about (and the gay agenda has been the same in every century it has taken place). This should be obvious if one believes in the authenticity of the Bible. David and Jonathan respected their parents, respected authority, had wives and children, supported their families wholeheartedly, led Godly lives, and most obvious of all, were not socialists. They were humble men who committed their lives to God and sacrificed their lives for their country. I do not see even a shred of evidence that this is true among gay people.
There is NO far reach at all, PERIOD!First, let me say that I have same sex desires. I have struggled with it all my life. At one point in my life I was acting on them with no self control. If I were still single and thought for one second that homosexual acts were not sin, I would be the first to engage in them.
That being said, this thread really is ridiculous. On one hand, homosexuality is explicitly condemned in the Bible and people explain these verses away with far fetched explanations and interpretations. If you can take the verses of the Bible that specifically condemn homosexuality and explain them away, then there is not a sin in the Bible that you wouldnt be able to explain away.
Then on the other hand, they take something innocent (David and Jonathan's friendship) and read something like homosexuality into it. Specific words they can deny, an innocent friendship they read things into.
I think this is called rationalization. "I want to be able to do this, so I am going to find a way to justify it to myself and others."
As I said, I have same sex desires. I really, really, really wish I could act on them. But you really have to mutilate the scripture and read things into scripture that arent there to even pretend that it is not a sin. I wouldnt want to have to stand before a Holy and Almighty God one day and explain how I tried to convince anyone David was homosexual and/or bisexual.
There is NO far reach at all, PERIOD!
The Bible does not talk about a homosexual relationship, it's always in conjunction w/some other negative aspect (raping, catamites, pagan worship, etc.) There aren't ANY passages in the Bible that show a loving relationship of same sex relationships condemned.
Yes, because they were straight men going into a pagan temple.In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27
It is referred to as "indecent acts" and a "perversion".
Leviticus 18 lists all kinds of sexual relations we are prohibited from - it says that we shouldnt have sexual relations with our mother, sister, daughter-in-law, aunt, sister-in-law, another man, or an animal. If you say that I can have sexual relations with another man, then I should also be able to have sexual relations with my mother or sister. Does the Bible ever condemn a loving committed sexual realtionship with your mother or sister?
Yes, because they were straight men going into a pagan temple.
Did you read the Private messages I sent you when you FIRST were inquiring to me about certain things?
sure, if you can get by our attack sled dogs. and our 3rd innuit division and their dreaded harpoon warfare.Oh goody. lotsa land. We might have to invade and impose our facist mindset upon the weak from up North. muahhhh muahhh
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?