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.
you asked me if we could love other things as much as Jesus, did you not?
Since I have already brought the entire verse into this discussion, I am referencing the whole by the part, emphasizing the important part "no greater love" to our discussion; so there should be no ambiguiuty . . . .This is sort of ambiguous, what is the whole verse?
It'd probably be an entertaining discussion.
I really liked Schaeffer on that topic...
Which is the heart of the whole thing.
a·ga·pe2 [ah-gah-pey, ah-guh-pey]
1.the love of God or Christ for humankind.
2.the love of Christians for other persons, corresponding to the love of God for humankind.
3.unselfish love of one person for another without sexual implications; brotherly love.
...again, quite telling of our society that we automatically equate "love" between two unrelated people as something with sexual undertones.
In actuality this kind of love WOULD in fact be greater than that between married people because you don't require anything in return from the subject of your agape love.
So it is okay for me to have a sexual relationship with my mother or sister, as long as I dont go into a pagan temple to do it.
The prohibitions against sexual relations with your mother and your sister are in the same chapter as the prohibitions against sexual relations with another man. If you can explain one away, looks like the others are fair game too.
Again, you're just presenting the same strawman.
This would have to be discussed with my source, not me.
Trust me, having a closeted relationship is quite easy.
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.
Another strawman.
Let me make this VERY simple:
In Biblical times men did not have relationships with women unless they were married or in some other way related.
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.
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?
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.
So it is okay for me to have a sexual relationship with my mother or sister, as long as I dont go into a pagan temple to do it.
The prohibitions against sexual relations with your mother and your sister are in the same chapter as the prohibitions against sexual relations with another man. If you can explain one away, looks like the others are fair game too.
Not at all . . mislabling an argument does not make the mislabel true.
This is a cop out. You are giving your opinion on the text . . to then dissengage and direct someone to a source that no longer exists so as not to defend your position against evidence to the contrary is nothing more than a cop out.
I am sure you are right, however, this has nothing to do with the situation at hand. It is unresponsive to the argument presented to you.
I find this rather dismissive, and rather hypocritical as you are expecting others to to take your word for it when it comes to your posiiton . . .
That aside, let's turn to an expert - first, the verb is in hte Hiphil Tense - that narrows which portion of the definition is applicable in our discussion.
Regarding the Hiphil tense:HIPHIL - (1) to make great, . . . . An elipsis of another gerund is found, 1 Sam 20:41, "they both wept until David wept more violently."I agree with the poster you responded to . . you are manufacturing meanings which require the insertion of words that are not in the text. In my opinion, this is making a mockery of David, Jonathan and the word of God.
Thayer's Hebrew Lexicon
Again, mislableing arguments as strawman does not make them so . . .There was no strawman.
You are doing anything but making things "very" simple. At least not legitimately.
And this is nothing more than the logical fallacy known as
IGNORES FACTS IN EVIDENCE.
It is amazing to me that for one sporting a "christian" icon this is the limit of your understanding of "love" and that agape love doesn't even enter into your thinking . . .
Yet, if you truly follow Christ, then you are called to agape love . . it has been defined for you earlier . . .yet this has no place in your thinking whatsoever?
That there is such a thing as agape love shows the fallacious nature of your argument above, that it ignores that fact. . . it ignores facts in evidence. This makes your argument above logically invalid.
.
Genesis 2 and every consecutive reference to it throughout the Bible that uses the same grammatic format.[/color]]Not really, all I was saying is that the poster was trying to negate my argument by basically saying that the statement was not true. Since I did not make the statement myself I was relying on a source. So, it is basically their word against the word of my source:[/color] Same Sex Relationships in the Bible. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm#dav. 28 February 2007.
Who is to say which is correct?
It's speculation to say this was what was happening because the author behind it was a product of Hebraic culture. In other words, this recorded document would have shamed David and Jonathan to all the people following who had access to this record - if that was how it was understood at the time. I don't think Hebraic culture ever saw David as anything but a chosen shepherd of God.Actually, if you re-read the discussion you will see why it fits in the argument, let me explain:
The poster stated that the claimed that David and Jonathan did not have a homosexual relationship because someone would have found out about it and would have disqualified David from being king.
I stated that it is quite possible that David and Jonathan had a closeted relationship. Not to mention that the above claim is illogical, just because something probably wouldn't happen doesn't mean that it didn't.
Misunderstanding of the grammatic form of the language, and a misrepresentation of the conceptual content of the terms.The original hebrew (according to my source) states that:
"[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great."
Either way you look at it, someone is putting in words, I don't see any evidence of crying in this literal translation.[/FONT]
Is your argument that we cannot understand the original language, and therefore it means whatever we wish it to mean?W/e, your word against mine, who's to believe whom?
Precisely. That's why it's important to view the Bible as closely as possible through the eyes of the author, and not through the jaundiced eyes of Western culture.Fact- something that actually exists; reality; truth (from dictionary.com)
Now, here's some facts for you:
1. The English Bible is a translation
2. The Bible is open to interpretation
3. English and Hebrew are linguistically nonrelated and this makes them even more difficult to translate one into the other
4. The Bible can say one thing in our time but mean another in historical context
Adam and Steve, love each other a great deal,
The Adam and Steve stuff is getting REALLY old and fast. Who created Steve? he is a concoction of conservative Christian's false doctrine, end of story.
You're refuting commentary with more commentary.
You have yet to conclusively prove the concept of homosexuality being condoned in the Bible.
Love conquers all... I Corinthians 13:4-8You're refuting commentary with more commentary.
You have yet to conclusively prove the concept of homosexuality being condoned in the Bible.
That is HIGHLY inaccurate. I can say the same thing about masturbation. PROVE IT ISN'T A SIN!!!!!!!!!AND I would suggest that the burden of proof lies with anyone who is trying to say that homsexuality is NOT a sin. Unless you can prove conclusively that it is NOT a sin, when so many verses seem to say it is, you will be standing on shaky ground, when standing before the Holy and Almightly God. I guess you guys are prepared to do that?
That is HIGHLY inaccurate. I can say the same thing about masturbation. PROVE IT ISN'T A SIN!!!!!!!!!
refuting commentary w/commentary, hey that is MY line in this forum!!!Once again you're refuting commentary with more commentary.
You have yet to conclusively disprove within the Bible itself the commonly accepted notion that the Bible considers homosexuality a sin. The burden of proof is on you.
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?