David and Jonathan...

[davedjy]

this thread is hijacked guys, we have to get back on topic -- the mods will not like this.

 

[Uphill Battle]

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

There is NO mention of prostitution in the passage, friend.

 

[teishpriest]

Does it really matter whether homosexuality was labeled wrong in the NT as well as the OT? In the OT, it is God Himself calling it a sin. Do I really need it stated any more clearly? I disagree with the prevailing view today that nothing in the OT is applicable. If it's not, why has God seen fit to have it in the Bible for us to read?

 

[BigMike835]

this thread is hijacked guys, we have to get back on topic -- the mods will not like this.

Wait, I thought homosexuality was at the core of the implications of the OP?

To debate whether or not two major figures of the Bible had a homosexual relationship of course the debate as to what is right and what is not is going to come up.

...or are you trying to get out of the corner you painted yourself into??

:o

 

[davedjy]

Wait, I thought homosexuality was at the core of the implications of the OP?

To debate whether or not two major figures of the Bible had a homosexual relationship of course the debate as to what is right and what is not is going to come up.

...or are you trying to get out of the corner you painted yourself into??

:o

No, I debate this on how many threads??? ROFL

Ask me anything, but this thread is about David and Jonathan. ANYONE is welcome to private message me anytime to ask questions or anything. I don't coward out, just like I got off the phone w/Westboro about all this.

 

[intricatic]

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.

Why not take a look at the historic record. Nowhere will you see this kind of presumption being associated with the text until recently. The grammatic form that statements that draw from Gen. 2 use is identical to the form used in Gen. 2 in order to establish the correlation. The terms used in the passages RE: David and Jonathan being knit together as one soul are different because they're speaking to a different topic.

If my analysis of the passage itself is in question, please refer to the analysis itself. I won't cite any sources as this is observation on my part from the grammatic form of the sentence in question.

Compare: 1 Samuel 18, Genesis 2

By the appeal to monism - the idea that the body and the soul are not separable - the idea defeats itself. Marriage itself was not viewed in the same way. The marriage covenant was sealed by the physical act of intimacy, which takes it's form in Gen. 2, and by the unison of flesh, the souls are also seen as bound to that covenant through the act of the physical union - the blood is the seal. Saying their souls united, or David loved Jonathan as his own soul, is speaking of a higher level of love than physical intimacy which necessarily negates the act of physical intimacy because there is no mention of it. It's speaking of a different kind of love entirely. David loved Jonathan as himself would be a clear way of thinking about it in terms of monism, which, as has been pointed out, points forward to what Jesus spoke of in context of "There is no greater love than this..."

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.

There is no possibility of it from the text. Rebelling against history for the simple sake of rebelling is not helpful in understanding it.

proof please

What does the text say? Where is the subject of the second half of the sentence? I can't see anything that would modify it other than 'weep'. It's simple syntax. There was no change of subject, thus it was still referring to the same subject - "...did what more? Wept more? Kissed more? Embraced more? Aged more? Was made notorious more? (as the word alone generally refers to age, sometimes might or notoriety - I.E. 'He grew in God's Grace through his time in his father's house' or 'God will make you great before all men') Which would logically fit this puzzle?"

Or is your presumption that this passage is also carrying a sexual connotation because it has no specific subject?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jos/Jos004.html#14

Jos 4:14 On that day 03117 the LORD 03068 magnified 01431 Joshua 03091 in the sight 05869 of all Israel 03478; and they feared 03372 him, as they feared 03372 Moses 04872, all the days 03117 of his life 02416.

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

No, they're mutually tied together. The language the author uses is a reflection of what the author is attempting to convey with it. Text is not a disconnected statement that we're permitted to alter into whatever we wish it to be.

You make my point for me.

If that's your point, why are you arguing with me over this? I'm always open to rational exploration of a topic, but the presuppositions that have to be present to read this kind of message into the text is beyond my ability to rationalize.

 

[BigMike835]

No, I debate this on how many threads??? ROFL

Ask me anything, but this thread is about David and Jonathan. ANYONE is welcome to private message me anytime to ask questions or anything. I don't coward out, just like I got off the phone w/Westboro about all this.

The whole issue comes down to people interpreting quite basic scriptures to mean that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship which is a way to show that it isn't so bad afterall since Icons of the Bible seemed to be into it. The same attempt was made with Lev. 18 only it was not backed up in any way once challenged and subjected to actual fact and logic.

The only thing I'd want to ask you is why you are so intent on performing a line item veto on certain verses that clearly explain away what you want to be right and still keep the verses next to them...unless you're cool with me and my aunt hooking up...

 

[ReligiousTruth]

My Question is this,,,

If Jonathan and David had a gay relationship, would that change your opinions of homosexuality?

 

[BigMike835]

My Question is this,,,

If Jonathan and David had a gay relationship, would that change your opinions of homosexuality?

True...David did bad things in the story of him and Bathsheeba. He was plenty human!

 

[davedjy]

The whole issue comes down to people interpreting quite basic scriptures to mean that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship which is a way to show that it isn't so bad afterall since Icons of the Bible seemed to be into it. The same attempt was made with Lev. 18 only it was not backed up in any way once challenged and subjected to actual fact and logic.

The only thing I'd want to ask you is why you are so intent on performing a line item veto on certain verses that clearly explain away what you want to be right and still keep the verses next to them...unless you're cool with me and my aunt hooking up...

I pulled a line veto, because it says it is ritual impurity, which is the definition. The one about your aunt did not say "thou shall not lie with your aunt it is abomination". Nonetheless, we can pull the whole chapter of Leviticus completely out, it's a cherry picking chapter at best. The only reason that the Church gives credence to this, is because of Romans 1, and that has been disproved. YOU pull a line veto if you disprove the menstrual cycle one as "applying today'. The same "abomination" word is used to describe the wearing of mixed fabrics, plowing the field w/mixed seed, shellfish, etc. (not all dietary laws).

You also imply that I am trying to hide under a rock, anyone is welcome to give me a phone call, I am not afraid to talk to anyone.

 

[intricatic]

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.

No it doesn't.

The end of chapter 18 declares everything spoken of in chapter 18 to be abominations in the exact same sense as in verse 22.

24 ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. 25 For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. 26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 27 (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you. (Leviticus 18)

Why does it say that? Is sacrificing a child to Molech only ritually unclean? Sleeping with a dog? This is either really inconsistent, or just plain weird.

And why would the land "vomit them out" for being ritually impure?

Also, I thought ritual purity dealt with the Levitical priesthood, not the general population. Why does the chapter start off saying " 1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God....." ?

 

[davedjy]

No it doesn't.

The end of chapter 18 declares everything spoken of in chapter 18 to be abominations in the exact same sense as in verse 22.

Why does it say that? Is sacrificing a child to Molech only ritually unclean? Sleeping with a dog? This is either really inconsistent, or just plain weird.

And why would the land "vomit them out" for being ritually impure?

Also, I thought ritual purity dealt with the Levitical priesthood, not the general population. Why does the chapter start off saying " 1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God." ?

Well, then the one about the menstrual cycle must be horrible, too, and the mixed fabrics one...they are all mixed up in here. You cannot use this Chapter as proof for anything.

Tow'ebah

1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

 

[BigMike835]

I pulled a line veto, because it says it is ritual impurity, which is the definition. The one about your aunt did not say "thou shall not lie with your aunt it is abomination". Nonetheless, we can pull the whole chapter of Leviticus completely out, it's a cherry picking chapter at best. The only reason that the Church gives credence to this, is because of Romans 1, and that has been disproved. YOU pull a line veto if you disprove the menstrual cycle one as "applying today'. The same "abomination" word is used to describe the wearing of mixed fabrics, plowing the field w/mixed seed, shellfish, etc. (not all dietary laws).

You also imply that I am trying to hide under a rock, anyone is welcome to give me a phone call, I am not afraid to talk to anyone.

I'm sorry, my sister. I should have said my sister.

So you admit to picking what verses/books of the Bible you see fit to follow and which you want to omit to fit your needs. That's fine, it's your choice.

It also pretty much completely invalidates any argument you try to make using scripture since it's all subjective anyway!

 

[intricatic]

Well, then the one about the menstrual cycle must be horrible, too, and the mixed fabrics one...they are all mixed up in here. You cannot use this Chapter as proof for anything.

Tow'ebah

1) a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable
a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages)
b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc)

Those things were horrible because they spoke to the breaking of the covenant with God in the same sense as eating shellfish was horrible. Shellfish represented gentile cultures. Mixed fabrics meant neglecting the purity of a single type of fabric and combining two together - idolatry. The typology is what clarifies the whole thing and gives meaning to it. God gave Israel laws like that to remind them to remain pure from outside influences - to not turn away from Him.

Menstruation represented something a lot more detailed than simple shock value would provide. It was an abomination in the same sense that sacrificing a child to Molech would have been an abomination.

But you never answered my questions. Why did God give Israel the Law if it serves no purpose at all?

 

[davedjy]

Those things were horrible because they spoke to the breaking of the covenant with God in the same sense as eating shellfish was horrible. Shellfish represented gentile cultures. Mixed fabrics meant neglecting the purity of a single type of fabric and combining two together - idolatry. The typology is what clarifies the whole thing and gives meaning to it. God gave Israel laws like that to remind them to remain pure from outside influences - to not turn away from Him.

Menstruation represented something a lot more detailed than simple shock value would provide. It was an abomination in the same sense that sacrificing a child to Molech would have been an abomination.

But you never answered my questions. Why did God give Israel the Law if it serves no purpose at all?

It provided a purpose of uncleanliness for that time.
How do we know that God gave them that law for sure? What about the God-breathed Scripture to pay off your rape in Deut., or the marrying of the rape victim? is that God-inspired Scripture?

 

[intricatic]

It provided a purpose of uncleanliness for that time.

No, it did not stand just to speak to uncleanness. God does not arbitrarily make laws.

Like you've been asked, if everything in Lev. 18 is just ritual purity law, would it be okay to commit incest or sleep with a dog?

How do we know that God gave them that law for sure? What about the God-breathed Scripture to pay off your rape in Deut., or the marrying of the rape victim? is that God-inspired Scripture?

Yes. But that's an entirely different subject with different complexities and implications to it that most people in postmodern America seem to shrug off as shock-value nonsense because they can't understand it.

 

[davedjy]

No, it did not stand just to speak to uncleanness. God does not arbitrarily make laws.

Like you've been asked, if everything in Lev. 18 is just ritual purity law, would it be okay to commit incest or sleep with a dog?


Yes. But that's an entirely different subject with different complexities and implications to it that most people in postmodern America seem to shrug off as shock-value nonsense because they can't understand it.

Why are we to follow the Leviticus laws and ignore others? You don't make credible points at all. You say "this is for historical context but that isn't". There is NO Verse that says "thou shall not lie with womankind as with mankind", so you are dead wrong on this one. I could easily argue after looking at the whole Bible that there is a gigantic loophole for lesbians. Leviticus is VERY particular about all the rules that are wrong, and it is a cherry picking rule making session.

You love to say "historical context" for your points, but mine become "laws of today". How ironic, and hypocritical. Do we know WHY that was like that? God doesn't just make arbitrary rules, and there is no mention in the Bible of any sexual orientation. I'm sorry, but I cannot share in your convictions. The Bible doesn't talk about a lot of things that are supposedly wrong for today (masturbation "self abuse and selfish acts", and porn --"lusting after") but nonetheless, they are said to be wrong by DOCTRINE. Porn I can agree is wrong since it directly relates back, but masturbation?

You dodged my questions about Deut. and Exodus

God ordained polygamy, marrying of rape victims, STONING TO death of the rape victim, etc.

Are these Scriptures in Deut. God-inspired?

 

[BigMike835]

There is NO Verse that says "thou shall not lie with womankind as with mankind", so you are dead wrong on this one.

That's because you crossed it out in your Bible!

 

[davedjy]

That's because you crossed it out in your Bible!

Where is it? show me.

 

[BigMike835]

Where is it? show me.

Already posted it on here. Go back and try again. It's the part in bright red, remember?

Not that it matters, you only hear what you want to and no one can change that.