• 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.

Did David and Johnathan Have a Gay Relationship?

lilymarie

The love of heaven makes one heavenly -Shakespeare
Jun 15, 2006
3,670
239
In the here and now
✟27,370.00
Faith
Non-Denom
sometimes I wonder why guys are so afraid of a little show of affection and devotion. what have we become? a society that only allows gay males to express love physically? and i don't mean sex, folks. i mean hugs, kisses, etcetera. We're so caught in our assumptions of masculinity that guys aren't allowed to do these things at the risk of appearing homosexual. It's completely normal to show love, but we've twisted it so that at any sign of true brotherly devotion and deep intimate friendships we assume it's homosexual.

how awful for guys. i truly feel sorry for men who don't feel free to get close and vulnerable with one another.

I know this is very, very true and it's happening to women also in our current culture.

I come from a cultural background of huggy/kissy people and I've always kissed my Mom, my sisters, Aunts, cousins, female sisters at church on the cheek. Then one day I sat down to write an email to a friend I was getting to know, and at the bottom of the email sent hugs and kisses. Well, she took offense and said hugs are okay but kisses for girls, no. And this was just an email! I wrote her back and said I was sorry and told her about my cultural background and I kiss lots of my "sisters" on the CHEEK!

Anyhow, America has got it's problems with a simple kiss on the cheek sometimes between the same sexes.

And after that email, it's made me feel like... well am I weird because I've even kissed my female sisters on the cheek at church?

It's like America is into this air kissing thing now even when we are close in our immediate environment. We don't really kiss each other, we kiss the air near that person.

And others are not allowed to kiss others of the opposite sex on the cheek either or it's seen as a come on. It has really gotten out of hand and it's really silly. But cultures change.

So, I never use the hug :hug: and kiss :kiss: smilies together even on this forum because I fear after that one person took offense, others might as well. Pretty silly, huh?

*********************************

Sorry, about getting off topic.

Okay... back on topic.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

I know this is very, very true and it's happening to women also in our current culture.
I come from a cultural background of huggy/kissy people and I've always kissed my Mom, my sisters, Aunts, cousins, female sisters at church on the cheek. Then one day I sat down to write an email to a friend I was getting to know, and at the bottom of the email sent hugs and kisses. Well, she took offense and said hugs are okay but kisses for girls, no. And this was just an email! I wrote her back and said I was sorry and told her about my cultural background and I kiss lots of my "sisters" on the CHEEK!​

Anyhow, America has got it's problems with a simple kiss on the cheek sometimes between the same sexes.​

And after that email, it's made me feel like... well am I weird because I've even kissed my female sisters on the cheek at church?​

It's like America is into this air kissing thing now even when we are close in our immediate environment. We don't really kiss each other, we kiss the air near that person.​

And others are not allowed to kiss others of the opposite sex on the cheek either or it's seen as a come on. It has really gotten out of hand and it's really silly. But cultures change.​

So, I never use the hug :hug: and kiss :kiss: smilies together even on this forum because I fear after that one person took offense, others might as well. Pretty silly, huh?​

*********************************​

Sorry, about getting off topic.​

Okay... back on topic.​


lilymarie.​

Not that fast to get back to topic, please. At least not until I :hug::kiss: :hug:

Love you sister!!!!!​

 
Upvote 0

paladin_carvin

Regular Member
Apr 30, 2006
436
13
Stewartsville, NJ
✟23,147.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
You never fail to amaze, paladin. Interesting criteria for justifying the same human behavior. Some animal species eat their young. Ergo, humans may be cannibals. Same logic.

Do you support cannibalism, too, paladin?
I was merely saying that the argument that homosexuality is not natural is not valid. I was not saying that animals doing something justifies anything.

Oh and Bethsheba was naked and bathing, and David saw her and went nutz out of his mind for her and had to have her, and then he had her husband killed so that he [David] could have Bethsheba as his own wife.

Doesn't sound homosexually inclined to me.

Do gay men burn with lust at the sight of naked women?

I've known a few that consider themselves homosexual that have on certain occasions. As for myself, I have and often burn for both. Actually, this fits into how many bisexuals feel, where they burn for women lustfully, but also wish for meaningful male friends to turn into lovers. I've seen it happen.
 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The same is true of all texts, including the Bible. When something appears obvious, that's just about when we ought to be questioning it.

Arty, you're confused. And I don't say this to be insulting. I am making a didiactic point. Unwittingly, you have undermined your own ability to communicate with any expectation that anyone could ever truly comprehend your intention.

No form of written or verbal communication can be made apart from the laws of logic -- and I'm sure you would agree. Question: do the laws of logic transcend time, peoples, native languages, and world cultures, or are they themselves relative to individual 'interpretation'?

If the laws of logic are transcendent and absolute, then your suggestion that old age precludes certainty in literative interpretation is absurd and philosophically groundless on its face.

On the other hand, if the 'laws' of logic aren't laws at all, but merely finite conventions of human contriving, then we can't even be sure what you are trying to communicate in your posts. If the laws of logic are merely conventional, age is no longer a factor.

Do you believe in authorial intent? Of course you do. It shows with each post you send off baldly asserting that original authorial intent cannot truly be known. (According to whom, by the way, and by what ultimate authoritative criteria or standard?)

What you are espousing is interpretive relativism, which is a different animal from the academic science of interpretation. It appears that, for you, questioning is the ultimate 'truth' -- the shiboleth of liberal academia. If there is anything absolute in the relativism of liberalism, it is that there can be no absolute truths. Or if there are, there is no way of knowing for sure. (Even relativism isn't relative: it needs absolutes to make such an absurd claim.)

Ironically, your philosophy of language and communication precludes our ability to have a meaningful discussion.

There is 2000 years of history, of differing world-views, differing understandings of human psychology, science and everything else between us and the Bible.

I'm sorry, but the age-old principle of interpretation is wrong. You cannot depend on common sense.
See above.
 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I was merely saying that the argument that homosexuality is not natural is not valid.

paladin, get with the program. We are talking about human sexuality, and you go off appealing to the animal kingdom for support. Your argument had no point at all.

I was not saying that animals doing something justifies anything.

Then your argument was moot.
 
Upvote 0

paladin_carvin

Regular Member
Apr 30, 2006
436
13
Stewartsville, NJ
✟23,147.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
paladin, get with the program. We are talking about human sexuality, and you go off appealing to the animal kingdom for support. Your argument had no point at all.



Then your argument was moot.
I do think animals show a better example of what is 'natural' than humans. But, I believe I made the point before that there have been many studies that point to homosexual tendencies to be quite natural. I mean, if it wasn't natural, you wouldn't see it pop up in every culture on the planet. Still, saying something is natural doesn't justify that it is right, just that it's not natural.
 
Upvote 0

intricatic

...a dinosaur... or something...
Aug 5, 2005
38,935
697
Ohio
✟65,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Proof please
What kind of proof do you want? The bible is full of language like that; it was extremely common in the culture for men to have deep friendships with other men, and often it was expressed physically. I'm not saying that in the sense that it was expressed sexually - there's a huge difference between the two.
 
Upvote 0

artybloke

Well-Known Member
Mar 1, 2004
5,222
456
66
North of England
✟8,017.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Politics
UK-Labour
Do you believe in authorial intent?

I don't believe that authorial intent exhausts meaning. I speak as a poet: people are always finding things in my writing that I didn't intend. Are they wrong? No, I don't think they are. But neither are they completely and solely right.

Are the laws of logic transcendent and always true? No, I don't think so. Western logic especially, with its belief in binary oppositions (right/wrong, left/right, true/false, relative/absolute) is not universal (for instance, it isn't part of Eastern thought - and the Bible is a profoundly non-Western book). I've always suspected that trying to find a single theological viewpoint in the Bible is profoundly unhelpful, because the whole point is to lay down different viewpoints, different stories, different approaches to the truth, side by side. In philosophical/lingusitic terms, the Bible is a paratactic text, not a hypotactic text.

I haven't fully worked out my philosophy of language, and perhaps I never will. But I still maintain that what seems common sense to us now, doesn't neccessarily do so to a previous age or a future age. It was once common sense - so logical, nobody but a few "nutters" would bother to question it - that slavery was divinely ordained, that the earth was the centre of the solar system, that disease was caused by God's anger.

No scientists will have much truck with common sense. Why do you think that is? Because it is their job to question the obvious. The same is true of the Bible as it is of the world: the "obvious" meaning, the surface meaning, may be the least true meaning.
 
Upvote 0

savedandhappy1

Senior Veteran
Oct 27, 2006
1,831
153
Kansas
✟26,444.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I do think animals show a better example of what is 'natural' than humans. But, I believe I made the point before that there have been many studies that point to homosexual tendencies to be quite natural. I mean, if it wasn't natural, you wouldn't see it pop up in every culture on the planet. Still, saying something is natural doesn't justify that it is right, just that it's not natural.
You don't believe that the devil could influence every culture on the planet, deceiving them into believing that there is nothing wrong with it or anyother sin?:scratch:
 
Upvote 0

gwdboi

Regular Member
Oct 30, 2006
170
27
Greenwood, SC
Visit site
✟23,224.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
paladin, get with the program. We are talking about human sexuality, and you go off appealing to the animal kingdom for support. Your argument had no point at all.



Then your argument was moot.

NEWS RELEASE:

This just in... the species known as Homo sapiens sapiens is a member of the kingdom animalia! O*M*G! Humans are animals! What will we discover next?
 
Upvote 0

gwdboi

Regular Member
Oct 30, 2006
170
27
Greenwood, SC
Visit site
✟23,224.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
What kind of proof do you want? The bible is full of language like that; it was extremely common in the culture for men to have deep friendships with other men, and often it was expressed physically. I'm not saying that in the sense that it was expressed sexually - there's a huge difference between the two.

Proof of how the common usage in hebrew culture did not imply homosexuality. Yes, proof please!
 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
NEWS RELEASE:

This just in... the species known as Homo sapiens sapiens is a member of the kingdom animalia! O*M*G! Humans are animals! What will we discover next?

Oh, yes. That's right. So silly. Don't we all know that evolution is a given? A done deal? don't we all know that it isn't merely hypothetical or theoretical? Don't we all know that naturalistic evolution has so much bio-chemical, paleontological, anthropological, geological and fossilized evidence?

You're holding on to a dying theory. Even non-Christian scientists are abandoning naturalistic evolution en masse. Where have you been?
 
Upvote 0

MarkEvan

Senior Veteran
Jun 15, 2006
2,279
482
Manchester
✟27,342.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I know this is very, very true and it's happening to women also in our current culture.

I come from a cultural background of huggy/kissy people and I've always kissed my Mom, my sisters, Aunts, cousins, female sisters at church on the cheek. Then one day I sat down to write an email to a friend I was getting to know, and at the bottom of the email sent hugs and kisses. Well, she took offense and said hugs are okay but kisses for girls, no. And this was just an email! I wrote her back and said I was sorry and told her about my cultural background and I kiss lots of my "sisters" on the CHEEK!

Anyhow, America has got it's problems with a simple kiss on the cheek sometimes between the same sexes.

And after that email, it's made me feel like... well am I weird because I've even kissed my female sisters on the cheek at church?

It's like America is into this air kissing thing now even when we are close in our immediate environment. We don't really kiss each other, we kiss the air near that person.

And others are not allowed to kiss others of the opposite sex on the cheek either or it's seen as a come on. It has really gotten out of hand and it's really silly. But cultures change.

So, I never use the hug :hug: and kiss smilies together even on this forum because I fear after that one person took offense, others might as well. Pretty silly, huh.

lilymarie.​
Not that fast to get back to topic, please. At least not until I :hug::kiss:
Love you sister!!!!!​



Love you too sister. Thank you.

XXXXXXXXXXX
OOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:hug::kiss:




Noooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
This is a respectable site, we`ll have none of this so called "affection" shown here!



hey wait a minute I can`t put any smillies on youve used them all up........no fair.



 
Upvote 0

paleodoxy

Catechumen
Sep 27, 2005
1,704
100
45
Depends on the time of day...
✟24,861.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Proof of how the common usage in hebrew culture did not imply homosexuality. Yes, proof please!

Disingenuous. You are neither interested in evidence or proof. Several pages back, I listed the reasons, from the Hebrew, why the argument from I Sam.18 was nonsense. And we know you are already familiar with the biblical passages against homosexuality (Genesis, Leviticus, Judges, Romans, I Corinthians), since you earlier posted an article seeking to explain them away.

Why should we waste our time explaining ourselves to someone who has already made it clear that he is not looking to be convinced or persuaded, and who will do anything to advance any theory except the Christian one?
 
Upvote 0

paladin_carvin

Regular Member
Apr 30, 2006
436
13
Stewartsville, NJ
✟23,147.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Oh, yes. That's right. So silly. Don't we all know that evolution is a given? A done deal? don't we all know that it isn't merely hypothetical or theoretical? Don't we all know that naturalistic evolution has so much bio-chemical, paleontological, anthropological, geological and fossilized evidence?

You're holding on to a dying theory. Even non-Christian scientists are abandoning naturalistic evolution en masse. Where have you been?
On the one hand, I have to agree- we are NOT animals. But as for evolution... um... well- you know what, let's not get into it. Let's just be happy we agree on something.
 
Upvote 0

paladin_carvin

Regular Member
Apr 30, 2006
436
13
Stewartsville, NJ
✟23,147.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Disingenuous. You are neither interested in evidence or proof. Several pages back, I listed the reasons, from the Hebrew, why the argument from I Sam.18 was nonsense. And we know you are already familiar with the biblical passages against homosexuality (Genesis, Leviticus, Judges, Romans, I Corinthians), since you earlier posted an article seeking to explain them away.

Why should we waste our time explaining ourselves to someone who has already made it clear that he is not looking to be convinced or persuaded, and who will do anything to advance any theory except the Christian one?
OK- again, on the one hand, I agree. Gwdboi is not really looking for something that might change his mind, but in some degree is just trolling the topic because it fits his mind set (I won't deny I'm doing this to a degree myself, though, if you notice, since I am not convince on this topic, I haven't 'jumped on board' simply because it fits with my other ideaologies. I've mostly just making comments on this and that.) But I disagree with the notion that somehow you know what the 'Christian' theory is. Christianity is a very diverse group of thought, and there are many that are quite Christian that would agree with many of the things gdwboi said. I doubt there is a man alive that has a monopoly on what is 'true', much less on what is 'Christian'. Now- concervitive, fundemental, orthedox? Yea, I could say more or less had you used one of those terms it would fit.
 
Upvote 0

Proeliator

broken is a good state
Jul 21, 2005
1,109
28
New York City
✟23,942.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Are the laws of logic transcendent and always true? No, I don't think so. Western logic especially, with its belief in binary oppositions (right/wrong, left/right, true/false, relative/absolute) is not universal (for instance, it isn't part of Eastern thought - and the Bible is a profoundly non-Western book). I've always suspected that trying to find a single theological viewpoint in the Bible is profoundly unhelpful, because the whole point is to lay down different viewpoints, different stories, different approaches to the truth, side by side. In philosophical/lingusitic terms, the Bible is a paratactic text, not a hypotactic text.

Once again, you prove that you dont much read the Word. Jesus Himself put it all very simply in "binary oppositions (right/wrong, left/right, true/false, relative/absolute)"
NASB said:
Matthew 12:30 · "He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. ·

I suppose now your going to say that I have interpreted that wrong as well, huh?
 
Upvote 0

lilymarie

The love of heaven makes one heavenly -Shakespeare
Jun 15, 2006
3,670
239
In the here and now
✟27,370.00
Faith
Non-Denom
NEWS RELEASE:

This just in... the species known as Homo sapiens sapiens is a member of the kingdom animalia! O*M*G! Humans are animals! What will we discover next?

Actually there was NEWS just out about this yesterday. I put one article in my watching and I thought I had another also, but can't currently find it.

Anyhow, the news is... Homo Erectus (early man or Neantherthals who disappeared) and Homo Sapiens us (modern mankind who is still here) guess what -- no connection.

This just broke yesterday....

Neanderthal DNA Shows No Interbreeding With Humans
11.15.06, 12:00 AM ET WEDNESDAY, Nov. 15 (HealthDay News) -- Cutting-edge analysis of Neanderthal bone DNA indicates that the now-extinct species shared a common ancestor with modern humans, but that the two groups parted ways about 370,000 years ago and did not interbreed. The findings, published in the Nov. 17 issue of Science, arise from the sequencing of nuclear DNA fragments taken from a 38,000 year-old male Neanderthal uncovered in Vindija, Croatia. Related material is published in the Nov. 16 Nature.
Neanderthals are strikingly similar, genetically speaking, to modern humans, the researchers said.
"For the first time, by comparing human and Neanderthal genomes, we can see that there is only one-half of one percent difference in our sequences," said study co-author Edward M. Rubin, director of both the U.S. Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif., and the Genomics Division at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif.
"However, at the same time, our data shows no indication of any genetic overlap or exchange [interbreeding] between humans and Neanderthals," he cautioned. "So, if the question is, 'Did any Neanderthal genes find their way into modern humans?' our data so far would suggest that didn't happen."
Jeffrey Laitman, a professor and director of the Center for Anatomy and Functional Morphology at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City, said the finding could help solve an anthropological puzzle.
"We've been going around in circles since the discovery of Neanderthals about 150 years ago, trying to figure out, 'are they us or are they not us,' " said Laitman, who was not involved in the research.
"Are they a sub-group of humans or a separate species? That's the crux of the issue. This genome work speaks very strongly that they are a distinct species and, equally importantly, that there is no evidence that there was any mixture -- no interbreeding -- between the two species," he said.
Rubin announced the findings at a press conference held Tuesday.
His team began its work by developing a permanent "nuclear DNA library" containing their Neanderthal DNA specimen extracts.
The nuclear DNA extracts they worked with are found in the nucleus of a cell and are considered to be the most reliable sequencing source for examining evolutionary issues.
The new work goes a step beyond previous efforts to map Neanderthal DNA. All prior Neanderthal sequencing work had been based on examinations of mitochondrial DNA -- bits of genetic material that are inherited exclusively from the mother and are viewed as less useful.
Rubin's group overcame technological limitations and have for the first time been able to sequence more reliable nuclear DNA. They established a Neanderthal gene library and were able to efficiently isolate and study specific DNA sequences from their archives.
After confirming their sample as being 98 percent Neanderthal DNA, with only two percent modern human contamination, the researchers identified mutations that might account for comparative differences between human and Neanderthal DNA sequences.
Based on this work, they now calculate that the most recent common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals lived approximately 706,000 years ago.
This date, they noted, was not the point in time when the two species actually split apart but rather reflects the onset of mutative differences within the common ancestor population that would eventually lead to such a split.
The split itself, they determined, occurred an estimated 339,000 years later. From this point onward, two genome pools existed that were 99.5 percent identical, but 0.5 percent distinct.
Long after their split, humans and Neanderthals are known to have cohabitated in Europe up until about 30,000 years ago, when the Neanderthals disappeared.
While some anthropologists have argued that Neanderthals and modern humans interbred, Rubin's team found no evidence to support that theory. However, he noted that more research is needed to bring an end to the controversy.
Nonetheless, the researchers hailed their sequencing process as a move away from "inference and speculation" when it comes to developing a better understanding of the relationship between humans and Neanderthals.
"Clearly, we're at the dawn of Neanderthal genomics," Rubin remarked at the press conference. His team's goal is to sequence the full Neanderthal genome within two years, he said.
Rubin added that the advent of DNA analysis could change anthropology itself, moving the science beyond an analysis of bones and artifacts to the genetic and biological makeup of groups like the Neanderthals.
Laitman was equally enthusiastic.
"This is a major piece of work that is really going to make a major impact in the field of genetics," he said. "And I think the power of genetic analyses such as this one is that it really answers a number of long-standing questions, such as whether or not our closest ancestral relatives, Neanderthals, are seated at the same family table. And this work indicates that they are not."
"It's fascinating to find that it's that half-percent difference that makes us what we are and makes them what they were," Laitman observed. "It looks like a small difference. But, in fact, it's enormous."
More information
For more on genome sequencing, visit the Human Genome Project.



Anyhow, let's get back on topic....

Sorry about getting off topic there (but if anyone is interested, I might have more stories on this in my bookmarks).

But notice the last line -- the difference between Neanderthals (which is really the species known as Homo Erectus) and Homo Sapiens (us) is enormous!

Also if you find the missing link between apes and Neanderthals, let me know!
 
Upvote 0