David and Jonathan

[brightmorningstar]

Dear Wiccan-Child,

Not necessarily. The words of DMagoh, to whom I was initially replying, suggested that he believed that human rationality can be used to justify his theological position. I was demonstrating that this was false.

Ah no as to that I believe DMagoh is correct, it can be, but the point I was making is that the Bible is our benchmark, you can reject it if you wish, but it is our benchmark and the story of Johnathan and David is in the Bible.

It matters to me because it affects my life.

So since when is Wiccan, Christian? I didnt think Wiccans believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and followed Him? How does the Bible affect your life?

If it can be shown that two of the Bible's heroes were homosexual lovers, then those Christians who argue against homosexuality via the Bible will be disproven, and this is the vast majority of the anti-gay movement

It cant be shown they were homosexual lovers and that would contradict the other parts of the Bible anyway.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

On the contrary, your interpretation is an outright condemnation of a specific act, rather than condemning two simultaneous acts.


First, I did not say that Paul was condemning the Romans for idolatry, I said he was warning them against it.
Second, I did not admit that Paul condemns homosexual behaviour, but rather behaviour against one's nature. For a straight man, this is indeed homosexuality. For a gay man, this is heterosexuality. The text does not exclude heterosexuality, and merely states that they went after 'strange flesh'. Incedental homosexual or heterosexual behaviour isn't condemned, but behaviour contrary to one's nature and caused by Pagan idolatry, is.


Homosexuality is the sexual and/or romantic attraction to members of the same sex. Nothing in the human psyche has changed the prevalence of homosexuality in human culture. So no, I do not believe homosexuality has changed.


The attempted rape (which is debateable in itself) occured after God declared Sodom and Gomorrah to be sacked. The sin of Sodom is never stated to be one of homosexuality; indeed, other verses emphasise that the sin was primarily inhospitality and ignoring the needs of the poor. Given that one's life often depended on the hospitality of strangers, this was a grevious transgression on the part of the Sodomites.


I disagree. It is only temple prostitution that is explicitly condemned. The fact that it was young boys being sought by older men is incedental, since this was widespread throughout Graceo-Rome.


On the contrary, I clearly stayed in context, especially with Romans 1.


Of course. I can neither disprove your position nor prove mine, and you can neither disprove my position nor prove yours. This is a semantics debate; our positions ultimately boil down to our interpretations.
That said, I disagree that they would have been rebuked for their homosexuality, since I still disgaree that the Bible condemns homosexuality at all. If my position is right, then your position on the rebuking of David and Jonathan is wrong.


On the contrary, my being unChristian would make me more unbiased than you, since I ultimately do not care what the Bible says on any topic. If it condemns homosexuality? That is unfortunate, but I'll get over it. If it does not? Then I will be pleased, insofar as one can be pleased with winning armchair philosophy.

Romans 1:26, 27 says this: "For this reason God gave them up to their vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."'

That makes it clear that men are supposed to be with women, and women are supposed to be with men. Each left what is natural (heterosexuality) to go against nature and they were condemned for it. The term 'strange flesh' does not occur in those verses. It also has nothing to do with idolatry. The term "nature" is not relative in those verses, which is also made clear. It is clear that heterosexuality is what is natural.

I know that Sodom and Gomorrah were going to be destroyed before the angels went. However, Jude 7 says this:

"As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar to manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

I would say that makes it pretty clear too. They were sexually immoral before the angels came. In Genesis, there is nothing that says they were to be destroyed because they were inhospitable. What verses are you referring to, specifically?

You have not stayed in context. The fact that you are not a Christian means that you have not received the Word, so your interpretations are by default, twisted.

 

[ReformedChapin]

My point is that it is not a valid counter. It is not a question of belief, but of logical debate.

Any form of logic has it's pressupositions, ours is the bible is the inerrant word of God. You cannot deny that you hold to some pressupostions based on faith.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So since when is Wiccan, Christian? I didnt think Wiccans believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and followed Him? How does the Bible affect your life?

It affects me because the majority of the anti-gay movement is Christian. Bypass this contingent, and equality for the LGBT community is but a short hurdle. Thus, I have studied Christian attitudes to homosexuality; specifically, the common objections.

It cant be shown they were homosexual lovers and that would contradict the other parts of the Bible anyway.

If can be evidenced from the narrative itself. I suggest you look up my past posts on the issue.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Any form of logic has it's pressupositions, ours is the bible is the inerrant word of God. You cannot deny that you hold to some pressupostions based on faith.

I do not deny that my faith, like all faiths, is irrational. But I disagree that all logic is based on axioms. What, for example, are the presuppositions upon which mathematics is grounded?
Indeed, can you demonstrate how his circular logic is valid in logical debate?

 

[ReformedChapin]

I do not deny that my faith, like all faiths, is irrational. But I disagree that all logic is based on axioms. What, for example, are the presuppositions upon which mathematics is grounded?
Indeed, can you demonstrate how his circular logic is valid in logical debate?

The Christian faith is not illogical since it has no internal contradictions. I am still trying to figure out how exactly you came to that conclusion. BTW you have the burden of proof that he is using circular logic, not I.

Math pressuposes that a rational system of arithmatic exist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Romans 1:26, 27 says this: "For this reason God gave them up to their vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise, also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due."'

That makes it clear that men are supposed to be with women, and women are supposed to be with men. Each left what is natural (heterosexuality) to go against nature and they were condemned for it. The term 'strange flesh' does not occur in those verses. It also has nothing to do with idolatry. The term "nature" is not relative in those verses, which is also made clear. It is clear that heterosexuality is what is natural.

Right at the start of Romans 1:26-27, it says (in the English), "For this reason God gave them up...". The reason, if you had read the rest of the passage, is for Pagan idolatry (R1:21-23).

The Koine Greek for 'natural' was 'φυσικην (phooskos)', and more accurately translates as 'inborn', 'produced by /agreeable to nature' [qv.]. That is, their inborn lusts were inverted when God gave them up to their idolatry.

I know that Sodom and Gomorrah were going to be destroyed before the angels went. However, Jude 7 says this:

"As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar to manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

I would say that makes it pretty clear too. They were sexually immoral before the angels came.

'Sexually immoral' is an awfully nebulous phrase, don't you think? Jude never elaborates on the 'strange flesh' to which the Sodomites have gone after. What, then, makes you think it is specifically homosexuality?

In Genesis, there is nothing that says they were to be destroyed because they were inhospitable. What verses are you referring to, specifically?

Matthew 10:14-15
And whoever may not receive you nor hear your words, coming forth from that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet, verily I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.
Luke 10:7-16
[Too long to adequately post]

Both Luke and Matthew portray Jesus as implying that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality.


Ezekiel 16:49-50Lo, this hath been the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, Arrogancy, fulness of bread, and quiet ease, Have been to her and to her daughters, And the hand of the afflicted and needy She hath not strengthened. And they are haughty and do abomination before Me, And I turn them aside when I have seen.

Here, the sin of Sodom is gluttony in the face of the starving.

You have not stayed in context. The fact that you are not a Christian means that you have not received the Word, so your interpretations are by default, twisted.

This, of course, rests upon the assumption that you are right. An illogical premise if ever there was one.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Christian faith is not illogical since it has no internal contradictions. I am still trying to figure out how exactly you came to that conclusion.

I said it was irrational, not illogical.

BTW you have the burden of proof that he is using circular logic, not I.

He uses the Bible to counter critique of the Bible. This is circular logic. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.

Math pressuposes that a rational system of arithmatic exist.

Nonsense. Arithmatic is an aspect of field theory, specifically one of abelian groups and binary operators. There is nothing pressuposed about it.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I said it was irrational, not illogical.

How exactly is it irrational?

He uses the Bible to counter critique of the Bible. This is circular logic. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.

What the heck? He uses passages to clarify the bible since their cannot be any internal inconsistencies.

Nonsense. Arithmatic is an aspect of field theory, specifically one of abelian groups and binary operators. There is nothing pressuposed about it.

Wrong, you are pressuposing the field theory and abelian groups are valid. Prove they exist.

 

[DMagoh]

It matters to me because it affects my life. If it can be shown that two of the Bible's heroes were homosexual lovers, then those Christians who argue against homosexuality via the Bible will be disproven, and this is the vast majority of the anti-gay movement.

I find it amusing that a pagan and liberal Christianity have teamed up together. Interesting.

 

[david_x]

I was referring to the comparison between David & Bathsheba, and David & Jonathan.
But 'sexually/romantically' refers to either 'sexually', or 'romantically', or 'sexually and romantically'. I thought this was pretty clear. My point is that if they are either sexually attracted to one another, or romantically involved, or sexually attracted and romantically involved, then they are gay/bi.

You speak hebrew? I assume you do because you refuse to listen to the ideas of the poeple that actually do speak hebrew.

I'm completely lost. What is your point?

I want the hebrew and Jewish take on the david and jonathan love.

 

[david_x]

Wiccan_child,

Do you believe evolution? That uses circular reasoning.

ex.: Why are animals here? Because they are the best equiped. How do we know they are the best equiped? They are here.

 

[david_x]

I just found this great link!

http://www.pureintimacy.org/gr/homosexuality/a0000075.cfm

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How exactly is it irrational?

To be a Christian, one must believe in unjustified and unnecessary entities. I.e., Christianity has irrational belief. Of course, if you can rationalise the core beliefs in Christianity...

What the heck? He uses passages to clarify the bible

No. He uses the Bible to dismiss any and all critique I present (claiming I have 'itchy ears', of all things). This is not clarification.

since their cannot be any internal inconsistencies.

Do you believe this because of independant analysis, or because the Bible says so?

Wrong, you are pressuposing the field theory and abelian groups are valid. Prove they exist.

I would, if the CF post count would allow such an extensive topic. Perhaps a trip down to Wikipedia would help?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You speak hebrew? I assume you do because you refuse to listen to the ideas of the poeple that actually do speak hebrew.

Not fluently, no. It is worth pointing out that:
a) Those fluent in Hebrew and English are not automatically correct in their interpretation of the Bible.
b) Said persons differ in their interpretations in the Bible.

I want the hebrew and Jewish take on the david and jonathan love.

Then get it. I am neither Hebrew nor Jewish.

Wiccan_child,

Do you believe evolution? That uses circular reasoning.

ex.: Why are animals here? Because they are the best equiped. How do we know they are the best equiped? They are here.

Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a given population. That is it, long and short. It is a biological fact, and it has been observed.
The Theory of Evolution implies, among other things, that inaccurately replicating systems will over time generate systems that are better at (inaccurately) replicating.
What you think is circular reasoning is just an analogy used by biologists to explain the principles of Evolutionary theory to the layman. It is not meant to be a techincal thesis.

 

[david_x]

To be a Christian, one must believe in unjustified and unnecessary entities. I.e., Christianity has irrational belief. Of course, if you can rationalise the core beliefs in Christianity...

I AM IRRATIONAL! There I said it. It is irrational to love, it is irrational to tell the truth, it is irrational to be good. Funny, I don't think being rational is good. (To be honest I think a truly rational person would just off themself.)

 

[david_x]

Evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles in a given population. That is it, long and short. It is a biological fact, and it has been observed.
The Theory of Evolution implies, among other things, that inaccurately replicating systems will over time generate systems that are better at (inaccurately) replicating.
What you think is circular reasoning is just an analogy used by biologists to explain the principles of Evolutionary theory to the layman. It is not meant to be a techincal thesis.

(Not what I said, my post was in a completly different direction.)

It's funny, that does not agree with science. Science says that everything moves twords a less orginized point.

That point beside, if everything is supposed to move tword a better point. Why is it only moving backward? I mean the only improvment in humans is due to better food. Most species are going extinct or are becoming less apt. Not to mention they are not becoming any better period.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I AM IRRATIONAL! There I said it. It is irrational to love, it is irrational to tell the truth, it is irrational to be good. Funny, I don't think being rational is good. (To be honest I think a truly rational person would just off themself.)

Congratulations.

(Not what I said, my post was in a completly different direction.)

Aye. However, I will let you spell it out.

It's funny, that does not agree with science.

It is the scientific definition, as agree by every accredited scientist across the globe (yes, even those who reject Common Descent).

Science says that everything moves twords a less orginized point.

No. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I believe you are erroneously drawing this from, is only a statistical trend, and even then does not imply this.

That point beside, if everything is supposed to move tword a better point. Why is it only moving backward? I mean the only improvment in humans is due to better food. Most species are going extinct or are becoming less apt.

I don't even know where to start. Maybe once you've answered my other points, we can come back to this particular mess.

Not to mention they are not becoming any better period.

Yes, because all those pesky bacteria evolving antibacterial resistance is merely AN ILLUSION FROM TEH DEVILZ!!!1

 

[david_x]

Congratulations.

Thank you.

I am afraid I will have to ignore the other stuff, just for anther thread. I should not have furthered it in the first place.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Thank you.

I am afraid I will have to ignore the other stuff, just for anther thread. I should not have furthered it in the first place.

Then until you decide to procede with these lines of inquiry, I will accept that as a concession of defeat.