David and Jonathan...

[thereselittleflower]

you asked me if we could love other things as much as Jesus, did you not?

Nooooooo . . . . . .

This is sort of ambiguous, what is the whole verse?

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 . . . .

The argument should be easy to follow . . . .

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

It'd probably be an entertaining discussion.

Yes it would be.

I really liked Schaeffer on that topic...

Which is the heart of the whole thing.

Yes, man will make substitutes for the real thing . . .


.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.

Thank you BigMike!


.

 

[BigMike835]

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.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me, Oedipus!

 

[DiscipleDave]

NOWHERE in Scriptures does it state they had a sexual relationship, this is all speculation, and is not the Truth.
It is not sin for a man to love a man, it is not sin for a woman to love a woman. This clearly is not a sin. David loved Jonathan, this is not sinful in any way whatsoever. According to Scriptures, when a mans love for another man, involves sexual activities, then and only then does it become sinful.
Bob and Tom are homosexuals and they live together in a small house in a small town. Bob's love for Tom is not sinful. Bob being attracted to Tom is not sinful. Tom's love for Bob is not sinful. But Bob and Tom having a sexual relationship is sinful and is against God, and is an abomination to God.
i have a pet, and it is not sinful for me to love that animal, but it is an abomination for me to have sexual relationships with that animal. There are a million of examples. i love my sister, this is not sinful nor against God, but if i have sexual relationships with her, this is sinful and is against God.
It is not against God to love someone, no matter who that someone is, But when sex is brought into the equation of that love, this is when it becomes sinful and against God
Adam and Steve, love each other a great deal, each cannot live without the other, they live together, so they can be around each other always, they will grow old and die together, THEY DO NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS AT ALL, for these two know it is against God, and when Jesus comes back for His People, Adam and Steve, if they are righteous and are walking the walk, given to us by the New Testament, they will be recieved unto Christ and forever be with Him, Because they loving each other is not sinful, and since they were not living in abomination by having sex with each other, they are righteous in the eyes of God.
Now Bob and Tom, love each other a great deal, each cannot live without the other, they live together, so they can be around each other always, they will grow old and die together, BUT THEY DO THAT WHICH IS ABOMINABLE TO GOD BY HAVING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, and when Jesus comes back for His People, Bob and Tom, will be an abomination to Him, for it is written that those who do such things are in fact an abomination to Him, therefore Bob and Tom will not go with Jesus, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
My point is this, it is not wrong for a man to love another man, Just as David and Jonothan loved each other, what is wrong and is against God, is for a man to have a sexual relationship with another man, this act, this deed, is what is against God and is evil in the sight of God. i hear quite abit, " How can it be wrong for a man to love another man ? " This is NOT wrong, nor is it evil in the eyes of God. Men having sex with men, this is evil, women having sex with women, this is evil. But women loving women, not evil, not sinful, men loving men, not evil, not sinful. the SEX is what makes it evil and against God. i have told you the Truth, what you do with it, is now up to you.

http://members.aol.com/discipledave/book/Homosexuals.html

In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ
DiscipleDave
^i^

 

[thereselittleflower]

Again, you're just presenting the same strawman.

Not at all . . mislabling an argument does not make the mislabel true.

This would have to be discussed with my source, not me.

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.

Trust me, having a closeted relationship is quite easy.

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.

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.

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."

Thayer's Hebrew Lexicon​

​

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.

Another strawman.

Again, mislableing arguments as strawman does not make them so . . . There was no strawman.

Let me make this VERY simple:

You are doing anything but making things "very" simple. At least not legitimately.

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.

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.

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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?

The thinking of some people is so base, they can imagine nothing else . . . .

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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."

That is EXACTLY what is going on here IMHO.

Thank you for being so bold.

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.

Exactly.

.

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.

Thank you for exposing the fallacious nature of his argument.

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.

Yes, which shows the absurdity of such a line of argumentation . . .

.

 

[gwdboi]

Not at all . . mislabling an argument does not make the mislabel true.

I'm sorry but what you're saying here doesn't make any sense.

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.

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: 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?

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.

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.

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 . . .

I have already stated my source, I don't need to establish any ethos since I am merely presenting ideas that have been backed up by others' study and not my own study.

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."

Thayer's Hebrew Lexicon​

​

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.

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]

Again, mislableing arguments as strawman does not make them so . . . There was no strawman.

W/e, your word against mine, who's to believe whom?

You are doing anything but making things "very" simple. At least not legitimately.

Ay, what can I say, I did my best lol

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 . . .

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

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.

.

Argumentum ad odium

 

[Uphill Battle]

ummmm.... a closeted relationship with a biblical record? hrrrugh?

 

[intricatic]

[/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?

Genesis 2 and every consecutive reference to it throughout the Bible that uses the same grammatic format.

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.

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.

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]

Misunderstanding of the grammatic form of the language, and a misrepresentation of the conceptual content of the terms.

W/e, your word against mine, who's to believe whom?

Is your argument that we cannot understand the original language, and therefore it means whatever we wish it to mean? If that's so, why bother arguing?

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

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.

 

[davedjy]

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.

 

[BigMike835]

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.

 

[DMagoh]

You're refuting commentary with more commentary.

You have yet to conclusively prove the concept of homosexuality being condoned in the Bible.

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?

 

[davedjy]

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 13:4-8

What about pornography, can you prove that, specifically is wrong, but in the Bible?

Again, we must use the Holy Spirit as a guide. If you aren't gay or bi, this won't even concern you.

 

[davedjy]

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!!!!!!!!!

 

[david_x]

What about pornography, can you prove that, specifically is wrong, but in the Bible?

Pornogrophy can be nothing but lust.

 

[BigMike835]

That is HIGHLY inaccurate. I can say the same thing about masturbation. PROVE IT ISN'T A SIN!!!!!!!!!

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.

 

[davedjy]

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.

refuting commentary w/commentary, hey that is MY line in this forum!!!


No, it is not on me, the Bible does not talk about:

1)sexual orientation
2) homosexual attraction (as opposed to lust)
3) a gay, monogamous, loving relationship condemned in the Bible

Point #3 puts the burden on YOU. The person saying something is a SIN has the burden to prove it is.

I can tell you using a computer is a sin, you have to prove to me it isn't. ??? see the twisted logic.