David and Jonathan...

[david_x]

1)sexual orientation

"May her breasts satisfy you always"

 

[davedjy]

"May her breasts satisfy you always"

I don't get how that proves anything?

We are getting off topic here...this thread is about David and Jonathan.

 

[davedjy]

"May her breasts satisfy you always"

That is talking about not going after ANOTHER woman's breasts, hence the term "adultery". You are way out of context.

 

[BigMike835]

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

When in Rome!

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.

LEVITICUS 18:1-23

"1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.

6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion."

 

[david_x]

That is talking about not going after ANOTHER woman's breasts, hence the term "adultery". You are way out of context.

No this solomen song about his wives.

 

[davedjy]

When in Rome!



LEVITICUS 18:1-23

"1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the man who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.

6 " 'No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.
7 " 'Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.
8 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father.
9 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.
10 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; that would dishonor you.
11 " 'Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife, born to your father; she is your sister.
12 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your father's sister; she is your father's close relative.
13 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your mother's sister, because she is your mother's close relative.
14 " 'Do not dishonor your father's brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.
15 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son's wife; do not have relations with her.
16 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your brother's wife; that would dishonor your brother.
17 " 'Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.
18 " 'Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.
19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.
20 " 'Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor's wife and defile yourself with her.
21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. 23 " 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion."

Oh great, we aren't going to go over this again, are we? The KJV says "abomination which means ritual impurity". We don't follow the ritual/ceremonial/purity laws. It falls under a purity code, not a moral code violation.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

 

[david_x]

so purity is not good? on that note you want to do somthing that God thinks is detestable?

 

[BigMike835]

Oh great, we aren't going to go over this again, are we? The KJV says "abomination which means ritual impurity". We don't follow the ritual/ceremonial/purity laws. It falls under a purity code, not a moral code violation.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

So I can hook up with my Aunt, then?

 

[gwdboi]

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

Again, I ask you: what should lead me to believe that you are an authority on the subject? If you have a source, please cite it.

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.

Of course it's speculation, it's all speculation. The biggest point that I am at least trying to make is that there is a possibility that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. I doubt we'll ever know for sure, but if this heterosexist mindset can be broken through and if the religious right can just open up their mind enough to admit even the most remote possibility, then I've accomplished what I hope to.

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

proof please

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?

Understanding language and understanding the intent of an author are two different things.

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.

You make my point for me.

 

[intricatic]

Oh great, we aren't going to go over this again, are we? The KJV says "abomination which means ritual impurity". We don't follow the ritual/ceremonial/purity laws. It falls under a purity code, not a moral code violation.

19 " 'Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

Why?

 

[gwdboi]

"May her breasts satisfy you always"

The Holy Doctrine of breast augmentation? LOL

 

[davedjy]

Why?

What do you mean "why"? we know something is ritual impurity because it says that in the verse. This one says "uncleanness" directly implying a purity code violation as well, as opposed to a mosaic law violation.

 

[ReligiousTruth]

The Relationship between the two, is rather unimportant I would say.

The only reason that we care about an argument for or or against the idea of a homosexual relationship in the bible, is because it offers us validation to our own personal bias.

If it is so that they had a homosexual relationship, why is that such a bad thing. It would simply offer evidence that homosexuality was present in the bible other than a few select passages. It would nither give proof as to homosexuality being normal, nor homosexuality being abnormal.

Now, I know that there are those who would disagree, that much is clear. However, because the bible is always open to interpretation, how are we to know that what we see when we look into its pages is truth, or do we simply see what we want to be true?

 

[BigMike835]

What do you mean "why"? we know something is ritual impurity because it says that in the verse. This one says "uncleanness" directly implying a purity code violation as well, as opposed to a mosaic law violation.

You're refuting scripture with commentary.

...how about a cousin? Can I hook up with a cousin, then?

If the "laying down with other men" part of that list no longer applies, then the others must not, either...unless there was some special transformers red viewfinder that came with the NT that shows you which laws apply and which don't anymore...

 

[Uphill Battle]

I may add that the NT limits the number of commandments regarding sexuality as opposed to the list in Leviticus... I think the only two that correspond are Homesexual sex, and Incest. (correct me if I'm wrong.)

none of the others got mentioned in the NT.

so, doesn't it bear thought that Homosexual sex is also condemned in the NT?

 

[gwdboi]

The Relationship between the two, is rather unimportant I would say.

The only reason that we care about an argument for or or against the idea of a homosexual relationship in the bible, is because it offers us validation to our own personal bias.

If it is so that they had a homosexual relationship, why is that such a bad thing. It would simply offer evidence that homosexuality was present in the bible other than a few select passages. It would nither give proof as to homosexuality being normal, nor homosexuality being abnormal.

Now, I know that there are those who would disagree, that much is clear. However, because the bible is always open to interpretation, how are we to know that what we see when we look into its pages is truth, or do we simply see what we want to be true?

There are some parts of the Bible that are true no matter the interpretation; some parts that have only one interpretation. Be careful what you say, it sounds like you're trying to question the authority of the Bible.

 

[davedjy]

I may add that the NT limits the number of commandments regarding sexuality as opposed to the list in Leviticus... I think the only two that correspond are Homesexual sex, and Incest. (correct me if I'm wrong.)

none of the others got mentioned in the NT.

so, doesn't it bear thought that Homosexual sex is also condemned in the NT?

No, I have also disproved Romans 1(Pagan worship to a false God turning straight men gay -- see verse 23) and 1 Cor 6:9 (biased translation of the word "homosexual offender", when in 1 timothy the same word translates "sexual pervert, and the early church fathers thought it meant masturbation, but now the wisest of scholars believe it is referring to catamites/male prostitutes)

 

[gwdboi]

I may add that the NT limits the number of commandments regarding sexuality as opposed to the list in Leviticus... I think the only two that correspond are Homesexual sex, and Incest. (correct me if I'm wrong.)

none of the others got mentioned in the NT.

so, doesn't it bear thought that Homosexual sex is also condemned in the NT?

Homosexual lust and homosexual prostitution are the only things condemned in the NT.
Source: Rev. Mona West PhD

 

[ReligiousTruth]

There are some parts of the Bible that are true no matter the interpretation; some parts that have only one interpretation. Be careful what you say, it sounds like you're trying to question the authority of the Bible.

I am trying to question the authority of those who read the bible.
The bible is not at risk here friend, I assure you of that. However who are we, as mortals, to decide what the bible says, and what it means. The Truth is we cannot truely say that we know what the bible means, and as such I believe that we should not condem others without a very deep look into ourselves.

I am sorry, That rant was a little off topic.

 

[BigMike835]

Computer froze up and I thought I had lost my last post, but I didn't so nevermind!