Flawed Logic of Gay Christians

[Wiccan_Child]

Excuse my sarcasm but he wasn’t married to a little black mouse called ‘squeaky’ either, no mention of either. Sorry where does the story say his relationship with Jonathan was marriage?

"And it cometh to pass, when he finisheth to speak unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan hath been bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loveth him as his own soul. And Saul taketh him on that day, and hath not permitted him to turn back to the house of his father."(1 Samuel 18:1-2)

I.e., David went to live with Saul and Jonathan following his binding with Jonathan. This parallels Genesis 2:24, "therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife". Indeed, if this passage was about a man and woman, there would be no doubt that they were in love.



"And Jonathan maketh -- also David -- a covenant, because he loveth him as his own soul, and Jonathan strippeth himself of the upper robe which [is] upon him, and giveth it to David, and his long robe, even unto his sword, and unto his bow, and unto his girdle."(1 Samuel 18:3-4)

This, I should think, is self-explanatory.



"And David goeth out whithersoever Saul doth send him; he acted wisely, and Saul setteth him over the men of war, and it is good in the eyes of all the people, and also in the eyes of the servants of Saul. And it cometh to pass, in their coming in, in David's returning from smiting the Philistine, that the women come out from all the cities of Israel to sing -- also the dancers -- to meet Saul the king, with tabrets, with joy, and with three-stringed instruments; and the women answer -- those playing, and say, `Saul hath smitten among his thousands, And David among his myriads.' And it is displeasing to Saul exceedingly, and this thing is evil in his eyes, and he saith, `They have given to David myriads, and to me they have given the thousands, and more to him [is] only the kingdom;' and Saul is eyeing David from that day and thenceforth."(1 Samuel 18:5-9)

In other words, Saul is jealous: he has smitten the thousands, but David has smitten the myriad. The people are welcome David as the new heir to the point that the current monarch oozes jealousy.
Saul subsequently tries to murder David with javelins and Philistines .



"And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the LORD's battles. For Saul said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him. And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king? But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife." (1 Samuel 18:17-19)

Saul offers his daughter, Merab, to David, and the latter reiterates his excitement at officially becoming Saul's son-in-law. David is excited at officially becoming heir, not at marrying Mereb.



"And Michal daughter of Saul loveth David, and they declare to Saul, and the thing is right in his eyes, and Saul saith, `I give her to him, and she is to him for a snare, and the hand of the Philistines is on him;' and Saul saith unto David, `By the second -- thou dost become my son-in-law to-day.'" (1 Samuel 18:20-21)

This implies that David was already Saul's son-in-law (at least, in Saul's eyes). Given David's previous covenant with Jonathan, and his rejection of Mereb in favour of Michal, this further implies that David and Jonathan were married. The latter part can also be translated as: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain", Rather than the KJV: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain". The Hebrew is closer to the former than the former.


Notice also that the Bible takes great pains to emphasise the love between Jonathan and David, but is silent on whether Michal and David were in love. Moreover, Michal and David's marriage was one of pure ceremony, designed to cement David's claim to the throne. Given that "all scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), one has to wonder why God puts so much emphasis on the love between Jonathan and David, and why this is continually contrasted with Saul's subsequent hatred of David. Unless, of course, he wanted to make it clear that the two were lovers. Indeed, upon Jonathan's death, David says:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26)

This belies any claims to a Platonic relationship, since a man and a woman would hardly speak to each other. David's comparison must, therefore, be a sexual, romantic one.


Quite honestly I don't see how you can read 1 and 2 Samuel and not conclude that David and Jonathan were gay lovers.

I notice there wasn’t even a marriage between David and anyone expect Michael at the time of his deep friendship with Jonathan.

That's a question of translation and interpretation.

Sorry but I don’t seen any evidence from the story to support what you claim and all I have said about Jonathan and David’s friendship and his marriage to Michal has been said before.

Indeed. It has also been said that the Earth is 6000 years old, but look how wrong that turned out to be. You aren't seriously making an appeal to precedent, are you?

 

[DMagoh]

David and Jonathan would beg to differ.

David and Jonathan would roll over in their graves if they knew homosexuals were trying to imply they had a homosexual relationship.



I think I'm beginning to see what pro-gay "theologists" are saying when they say they don’t read scripture literally. It means two things...

1) When a verse specifically condemns homosexuality in black words on white paper, you don’t believe it. Such as...

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27



Which specifically says...

• They abandoned natural relations with women;
• They are inflamed in lust for other men;
• They have committed indecent acts with other men; and
• They receive the due penalty for their perversion.

BUT​

2) If homosexuality is NEVER mentioned, like in the story of David and Jonathan, then you read into it that they are homosexuals.



Interesting concept, this reading the black words on white paper any way you want. Seems like if you don’t read the words as they are actually written, you can make it say anything you want!

 

[DMagoh]

Quite honestly I don't see how you can read 1 and 2 Samuel and not conclude that David and Jonathan were gay lovers.

That's a question of translation and interpretation.

No offense, but I dont think any Christian should take advice on how to translate and interpret scripture from a self-professed pagan. What kind of Christian Truth are you going to get from a person whose allegiance is to someone else? If Pepsi’s CEO went to Coke’s CEO and gave him advice on how to improve their product - you really think Coke would follow his advice? (Hint: Pepsi wouldn’t really be interested in improving Coke's product.) Likewise, if a self-professed pagan trys to convince me something is not a sin, I really can't put any stock in it.

 

[Caylin]

Yeah! Pagans can't read and don't have any ability to comprehend things!

 

[DMagoh]

Yeah! Pagans can't read and don't have any ability to comprehend things!

I see you didnt bother to read the entire post. Sure pagans can read and comprehend - I just wouldnt trust their motivation (e.g., see Coke and Pepsi analogy).

 

[Caylin]

Oh I read it. I just decided not to address the "on noes! pagans are liars and out to get christians" point of the post.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

David and Jonathan would roll over in their graves if they knew homosexuals were trying to imply they had a homosexual relationship.



I think I'm beginning to see what pro-gay "theologists" are saying when they say they don’t read scripture literally. It means two things...

1) When a verse specifically condemns homosexuality in black words on white paper, you don’t believe it. Such as...

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27



Which specifically says...

• They abandoned natural relations with women;
• They are inflamed in lust for other men;
• They have committed indecent acts with other men; and
• They receive the due penalty for their perversion.

Pro-gay theologians wouldn't say "This isn't literal", but rather "This out-of-context, mistranslated verse is not the message Paul wanted to convey".

2) If homosexuality is NEVER mentioned, like in the story of David and Jonathan, then you read into it that they are homosexuals.

On the contrary, 1 Samuel 18 is chock full of "David and Jonathan are gay" allusions.

Interesting concept, this reading the black words on white paper any way you want. Seems like if you don’t read the words as they are actually written, you can make it say anything you want!

Tell that to King James and his "of the twain" bull-hockey. But if you feel the need to resort to ad hominems, rather than address my points, go ahead.

No offense, but I dont think any Christian should take advice on how to translate and interpret scripture from a self-professed pagan. What kind of Christian Truth are you going to get from a person whose allegiance is to someone else? If Pepsi’s CEO went to Coke’s CEO and gave him advice on how to improve their product - you really think Coke would follow his advice? (Hint: Pepsi wouldn’t really be interested in improving Coke's product.) Likewise, if a self-professed pagan trys to convince me something is not a sin, I really can't put any stock in it

Your analogy is flawed: Pepsi gets something out of detracting from Coke, but I do not get something out of dispensing deliberately flawed Christian theology. I am here for debate and discussion. If I believe that David and Jonathan were heterosexual pals, not homosexual lovers, I would say as such. But I don't. I would say the same regardless of my religious faith.

Honestly, if I have a quid for every time someone's got stuck in a corner and gone "Hurr, can't talk to him, he's a Pagan!"...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oh I read it. I just decided not to address the "on noes! pagans are liars and out to get christians" point of the post.

Thanks for defending me, but I really am out to get Christians! Clearly I hate their Bible and their God (who I know exists, but reject to avoid... what is it... "being held accountable for my actions").

[/sarcasm]

I have no ill-will towards either the Judaeo-Christo-Islamic god, nor towards the Bible. Do Christians look at the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and seethe with jealousy? No: they see it as just one of many pieces of text. Beautiful and inspiring, perhaps, but ultimately void of spiritual (and factual) truth.

 

[Caylin]

Thanks for defending me, but I really am out to get Christians! Clearly I hate their Bible and their God (who I know exists, but reject to avoid... what is it... "being held accountable for my actions").

Oh well no problem about defending you, but I sure am embarrassed about being so wrong.

 

[DMagoh]

Honestly, if I have a quid for every time someone's got stuck in a corner and gone "Hurr, can't talk to him, he's a Pagan!"...

Oh, I'll talk to you all day long. Just excuse me for not putting a whole lot of stock in your interpretation of the Bible when you dont believe in God or His Bible.

Next time I see a Buddhist, I'll say, "...Uh, excuse me sir, I think your Buddha beliefs are fairy tales and Buddha is a lie, but now let me tell you how Buddha wants you to live..." I bet he'll take my word for it and change his belief system based on my interpretation of his fake god.

 

[kiwimac]

Buddhists mostly do NOT worship a God. Buddha is treated by SOME buddhist groups as a deity but mainstresam Buddhism does not have any God focus.

Moreover I largely agree with Wiccan Child's exegesis of the Biblical passages mentioned.

 

[KCKID]

What of the testimony of former homosexuals?

I also think it is a mistake to think that because one has a differing opinion, that they are consequently misinformed. It is the same tactic used by Bible-Alone Christians that condemn you for "failing" to see that homosexuality is "clearly" and "absolutely" condemned in Scripture.

You define homosexuality by "orientation". Sexual orientation is a social construct insofar it is a way to categorize particular thoughts; it is to say "I have these particular thoughts". But it is difficult to suggest that these things can be categorized because there are people who have different sets of thoughts. We can define homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality easily because there are two sexes and therefore few combination of thoughts, but this does not suggest that the categorization of those thoughts is innate. We are therefore compelled to ask the very nature of sexual attraction -- why do people find different certain types of people attractive, but not others? Because there are no universal correlates even within the specific categorizations, can we suggest that they are natural to a particular kind of person? To be a particular thing by nature suggests a universal definition of that thing; can something be innate if it differs from person to person? For example, while men may be predisposed to aggression as opposed to women, there is significant variation of aggression in men. Some men are rather timid. Therefore, we cannot suggest that it is inherent in the essence of a man to be aggressive. The claim that "men are aggressive" becomes irrelevant because not all men are aggressive. Consequently, I do not think it is valid to define homosexuality as "innate" to particular kinds of people because there is no way to measure it other than by act. And there significant variations in act among those who claim to be innately homosexual. Even sexual orientation loses its terminological significance because it's meaning is not absolute, and ultimately meaningless. This is where the difference between one's inner (thoughts, attractions, impulses, etc) and outer (actions) is revealed. So while a person may be predisposed to homosexual thoughts or attractions, it does not necessarily constitute them as homosexual by nature, as the exercise of the will may not conform their acts with their thoughts.

Whew! That was well written but I feel as though I've just sat through a uni lecture.

You know, there are many variables between different people and their attraction and/or sexual attraction to 'things' and people. For instance, certain guys I know 'ooh' and 'ahh' at a specific model of car while, to me, I really can't see the big deal. It's just a particularly shaped piece of metal with wheels. But, I well MIGHT be 'turned on' by another specific car which is also no less a particularly shaped piece of metal with wheels. These are 'things' to which one might be attracted to or NOT attracted to. And there are many 'things' in life, of course, and not just cars.

Sexual attraction is similar. There are many variables. Some guys might ogle a beautiful model (not Christian guys, of course! ) while others may not. They might be attracted to someone who is rather plain or, anyway, someone who is certainly no raving beauty. Perhaps some are 'turned on' by physical appearance whereas others might be 'turned on' by personality and such. Some guys may see most every female as desirable while others might only be once in a while sexually attracted to someone. I often hear the catch-cry, "Man, what does she see in HIM!" Or, vice verse. SHE obviously sees something in him. Or, vice verse.

It's a fact that most boys at some point in their lives are attracted in some subconscious manner by another boy. And, I mean in other ways besides normal friendship. They feel 'something' even if they can't put their finger on what it is, even if it's only for a fleeting moment. A boy will know - even if he may not acknowledge - that another boy is good looking and attractive. Similarly so with girls and other girls. Boys - ESPECIALLY boys - would either be lying or extremely unique if they hadn't had at least a tiny spark of sexual (?) attraction to another boy at some point in their lives. Again, similarly so with girls and other girls.

So, what has this got to do with the topic? Something perhaps. Attraction/sexual attraction is everything to do with 'chemistry' and there's nothing voluntary about it. One cannot tell me who or what I'm to be attracted to. Nor can I tell anyone else who or what to be attracted to. Not even God can or should tell me/anyone else who or what to be attracted to. Attraction/sexual attraction requires no effort on my part. I either AM attracted/sexually attracted or I'm NOT attracted/sexually attracted.

We perhaps need to apply this method of reasoning to the homosexual issue. Hmmm . . .why is it EVEN an 'issue', I wonder ...?

 

[Where]

"And it cometh to pass, when he finisheth to speak unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan hath been bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loveth him as his own soul. And Saul taketh him on that day, and hath not permitted him to turn back to the house of his father."(1 Samuel 18:1-2)

I.e., David went to live with Saul and Jonathan following his binding with Jonathan. This parallels Genesis 2:24, "therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife". Indeed, if this passage was about a man and woman, there would be no doubt that they were in love.



"And Jonathan maketh -- also David -- a covenant, because he loveth him as his own soul, and Jonathan strippeth himself of the upper robe which [is] upon him, and giveth it to David, and his long robe, even unto his sword, and unto his bow, and unto his girdle."(1 Samuel 18:3-4)

This, I should think, is self-explanatory.



"And David goeth out whithersoever Saul doth send him; he acted wisely, and Saul setteth him over the men of war, and it is good in the eyes of all the people, and also in the eyes of the servants of Saul. And it cometh to pass, in their coming in, in David's returning from smiting the Philistine, that the women come out from all the cities of Israel to sing -- also the dancers -- to meet Saul the king, with tabrets, with joy, and with three-stringed instruments; and the women answer -- those playing, and say, `Saul hath smitten among his thousands, And David among his myriads.' And it is displeasing to Saul exceedingly, and this thing is evil in his eyes, and he saith, `They have given to David myriads, and to me they have given the thousands, and more to him [is] only the kingdom;' and Saul is eyeing David from that day and thenceforth."(1 Samuel 18:5-9)

In other words, Saul is jealous: he has smitten the thousands, but David has smitten the myriad. The people are welcome David as the new heir to the point that the current monarch oozes jealousy.
Saul subsequently tries to murder David with javelins and Philistines .



"And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife: only be thou valiant for me, and fight the LORD's battles. For Saul said, Let not mine hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines be upon him. And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or my father's family in Israel, that I should be son in law to the king? But it came to pass at the time when Merab Saul's daughter should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel the Meholathite to wife." (1 Samuel 18:17-19)

Saul offers his daughter, Merab, to David, and the latter reiterates his excitement at officially becoming Saul's son-in-law. David is excited at officially becoming heir, not at marrying Mereb.



"And Michal daughter of Saul loveth David, and they declare to Saul, and the thing is right in his eyes, and Saul saith, `I give her to him, and she is to him for a snare, and the hand of the Philistines is on him;' and Saul saith unto David, `By the second -- thou dost become my son-in-law to-day.'" (1 Samuel 18:20-21)

This implies that David was already Saul's son-in-law (at least, in Saul's eyes). Given David's previous covenant with Jonathan, and his rejection of Mereb in favour of Michal, this further implies that David and Jonathan were married. The latter part can also be translated as: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain", Rather than the KJV: "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain". The Hebrew is closer to the former than the former.


Notice also that the Bible takes great pains to emphasise the love between Jonathan and David, but is silent on whether Michal and David were in love. Moreover, Michal and David's marriage was one of pure ceremony, designed to cement David's claim to the throne. Given that "all scripture is inspired by God" (2 Timothy 3:16), one has to wonder why God puts so much emphasis on the love between Jonathan and David, and why this is continually contrasted with Saul's subsequent hatred of David. Unless, of course, he wanted to make it clear that the two were lovers. Indeed, upon Jonathan's death, David says:

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26)

This belies any claims to a Platonic relationship, since a man and a woman would hardly speak to each other. David's comparison must, therefore, be a sexual, romantic one.


Quite honestly I don't see how you can read 1 and 2 Samuel and not conclude that David and Jonathan were gay lovers.



That's a question of translation and interpretation.


Indeed. It has also been said that the Earth is 6000 years old, but look how wrong that turned out to be. You aren't seriously making an appeal to precedent, are you?

This is nonsense. David and Jonathan were in no way gay lovers...they were very close friends. Here is an article that can explain this far better than I can, and explain it with alot less frustration. Read carefully...
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html

 

[OllieFranz]

This is nonsense. David and Jonathan were in no way gay lovers...they were very close friends. Here is an article that can explain this far better than I can, and explain it with alot less frustration. Read carefully...
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html

From the article linked:

[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=-0]To begin, had such a marriage indeed taken place between Jonathan and David, that means that Jonathan would have either become a member of David's house, or David would have become a member of Jonathan's house. Since Saul does not want David in power, as is quite clear, and would also presumably want Jonathan to have the throne after him, there is no way Saul would have permitted either scenario. [/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.

The Bible clearly states that Saul did just what the article claims he would never have allowed.

From the article:

[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=-0]In sum: The idea that Jon and Dave are homosexual partners is little but a fantasy composed by those desiring to find justifications in the text to "do their own thing".[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]

Saul must have been one of those caught up in the fantasy:

Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious [woman], do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.

Allusions to the nakedness of relatives are usually illusions to sex. See the story of Ham and Noah or the incest commandments in Leviticus 18-20.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Wiccan_Child,
Sorry but I have to deal with this bit by bit. Thanks so much to DMagoh fro the thread Flawed logic.

"And it cometh to pass, when he finisheth to speak unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan hath been bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loveth him as his own soul. And Saul taketh him on that day, and hath not permitted him to turn back to the house of his father."(1 Samuel 18:1-2)

I.e., David went to live with Saul and Jonathan following his binding with Jonathan. This parallels Genesis 2:24, "therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife". Indeed, if this passage was about a man and woman, there would be no doubt that they were in love.

Sorry but the 1 Samuel passage isnt about a man and a woman and the Genesis passage specifically is, your thinking is fundamentally flawed. Genesis 2 says God created woman for man to be united as man and wife, Jonathan was neither a woman nor a wife, so the passage doesn’t mirror Genesis 2. In fact David then married Michal so this is the bit that mirrors Genesis 2.

"And Jonathan maketh -- also David -- a covenant, because he loveth him as his own soul, and Jonathan strippeth himself of the upper robe which [is] upon him, and giveth it to David, and his long robe, even unto his sword, and unto his bow, and unto his girdle."(1 Samuel 18:3-4)

But you are seeing sex and I am not, nor does it say David slept with Jonathan whereas we know when he sleeps with Bethsheba it says so. So I should think this is self-explanatory and not what you think..

This implies that David was already Saul's son-in-law (at least, in Saul's eyes). Given David's previous covenant with Jonathan, and his rejection of Mereb in favour of Michal, this further implies that David and Jonathan were married.

But marriage was man and woman, as defined in Genesis 2 and as described in every Biblical instance. What you are doing is ignoring what the Bible says throughout to try and justify what you would like to see.

Notice also that the Bible takes great pains to emphasise the love between Jonathan and David, but is silent on whether Michal and David were in love.

So what, the disciples loved Jesus and Jesus loved the disciples. Love isn’t sex. When the writer of Samuel describes sex he writes that David found the body of a woman attractive and slept with her.

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Samuel 1:26)

Which mirrors what Jesus taught , to love Him more than anyone.

Quite honestly I don't see how you can read 1 and 2 Samuel and not conclude that David and Jonathan were gay lovers.

But infact I think suggesting they were gay lovers is a sign of massive disbelief and denial of the truth, and why the gay and lesbian thinking is such disbelief, because it makes assumptions on the back of ignoring what the Bible says marriage is, what love is, and the condemnations of same-sex unions.

 

[OllieFranz]

The Bible is silent on whether the relationship between Jonathan and David was sexual. The Anti-gay argument is that it would not be silent if there were sex involved. But the Bible only discusses the sex life of a person when he is sexually sinning or when there are indirect results, such as children. So whatever went on between Jonathan and David, the Bible does not consider it to be sin.

Silent as it is, there are passages that seem to indicate (at least to our modern ears) that something "sexy" was going on. Again, there is no proof it progressed to sexual, but "sexy" is suggestive enough that the Anti-gays have to jump through all kinds of hoops to "prove" that even the "sexy" is a mis-interpretation.

And one of the core tenets of of the Anti-gay stance is bent on showing that Jonathan, prince of Israel would never have taken on the role of David's "wife." Actually I would have to agree with this point. If there was any inequality in their relationship, particularly in the early years, it would have been David, not Jonathan who would have been the "weaker" partner.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ollifranz,

The Bible is silent on whether the relationship between Jonathan and David was sexual.

This is another example of flawed logic. The Bible is actually silent about sex on every relationship mentioned where no sex is mentioned. The Anti-gay argument is therefore well founded, the gay argument is fatally flawed.

But the Bible only discusses the sex life of a person when he is sexually sinning or when there are indirect results, such as children.

The Bible identifies one of the purposes of the union of man and woman is children so the Bible only discusses sex when its sin and outside faithful marriage, same-sex unions of which are of course part of that sin.

So whatever went on between Jonathan and David, the Bible does not consider it to be sin.

this is true, they certainly couldn’t have children so silence means there was no sex.

And one of the core tenets of of the Anti-gay stance is bent on showing that Jonathan, prince of

Israel would never have taken on the role of David's "wife." Actually I would have to agree with this point. If there was any inequality in their relationship, particularly in the early years, it would have been David, not Jonathan who would have been the "weaker" partner.

But that’s gay thinking not Bible based thinking as Bible based thinking points out that God’s creation purpose was to create a woman to be the wife.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ollifranz,

The Bible is silent on whether the relationship between Jonathan and David was sexual.

This is another example of flawed logic. The Bible is actually silent about sex on every relationship mentioned where no sex is mentioned. The Anti-gay argument is therefore well founded, the gay argument is fatally flawed.

But the Bible only discusses the sex life of a person when he is sexually sinning or when there are indirect results, such as children.

The Bible identifies one of the purposes of the union of man and woman is children so the Bible only discusses sex when its sin and outside faithful marriage, same-sex unions of which are of course part of that sin.

So whatever went on between Jonathan and David, the Bible does not consider it to be sin.

this is true, they certainly couldn’t have children so silence means there was no sex.

And one of the core tenets of of the Anti-gay stance is bent on showing that Jonathan, prince of

Israel would never have taken on the role of David's "wife." Actually I would have to agree with this point. If there was any inequality in their relationship, particularly in the early years, it would have been David, not Jonathan who would have been the "weaker" partner.

But that’s gay thinking not Bible based thinking as Bible based thinking points out that God’s creation purpose was to create a woman to be the wife.

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear Ollifranz,
This is another example of flawed logic. The Bible is actually silent about sex on every relationship mentioned where no sex is mentioned. The Anti-gay argument is therefore well founded, the gay argument is fatally flawed.

If you read the whole paragraph instead of jumping on one phrase and assuming what I was going to say, you would see that this is exactly my point, and that it applies to the anti-gay "flawed arguments" just as much to the "pro-gay" ones.

The Bible identifies one of the purposes of the union of man and woman is children so the Bible only discusses sex when its sin and outside faithful marriage, same-sex unions of which are of course part of that sin.

Again this (your first sentence) is exactly my point.

Your second sentence is false. Nowhere does the Bible discuss same-sex unions as sin, nor does it discuss any same-sex sex that is not 1) rape, 2) a pagan religious practice, 3) part of an indulgent, addictive lifestyle, or some combination thereof.

this is true, they certainly couldn’t have children so silence means there was no sex.

The Bible always says "XX knew his wife, and she concieved and bore him a son" It never says "XX knew his wife but she remained barren." Does this mean that the patriarchs only had sex when God ordained that their wives would concieve?
Even though the only way Sarah and Rachel could discover they were barren was for their husbands to "know" them and for nothing to happen?

If the Bible is silent about sex we know happened, we can't infer that silence means no sex. (This goes right back to the "flawed logic" of the first paragraph.)

But that’s gay thinking not Bible based thinking as Bible based thinking points out that God’s creation purpose was to create a woman to be the wife.

Actually it is not gay thinking. It is hetero stereotyping. Gay couples know that both partners are the same, and that "who's in control" depends on the situation. The stereotype worries about which is the "husband" and which is the "wife."

The stereotype is so ingrained in our society that it does need to be considered. But even allowing for the stereotype, the Anti-gays get it backward.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ollifranz,

If you read the whole paragraph instead of jumping on one phrase and assuming what I was going to say, you would see that this is exactly my point, and that it applies to the anti-gay "flawed arguments" just as much to the "pro-gay" ones.

The anti-gay argument cant be flawed if its based on fact my friend, the Bible is silent at every point it is silent which just goes to prove your assumptions are baseless, the main reason why the anti-gay argument is flawed.

Again this (your first sentence) is exactly my point.

So if this is exactly your point then you know that same-sex unions are error and outside God’s purpose. Thank you.

Your second sentence is false.

My second sentence is true.

Nowhere does the Bible discuss same-sex unions as sin,

Yes it does, examples which exclude it are Genesis 2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 7, Hebrews 13, examples of where it is directly and indirectly condemned are Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 & 20, Judges 19, 1 Corinthians 6, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1, 2 Peter 2, Jude 1.

If the Bible is silent about sex we know happened, we can't infer that silence means no sex. (This goes right back to the "flawed logic" of the first paragraph.)

The Bible isnt silent about sex we know happened, how would we know it happened outside of what the Bible says??? Thats nonsense. We equally cant infer that no mention means sex, and that’s where your logic is further flawed, but we can infer, unlike you that as sex is mentioned in many places, sex is mentioned where it occurs.

Actually it is not gay thinking.

Actually it is anti Biblical thinking as shown and I call it gay thinking because all it only sees things in terms of gay.

If you wish to call gay thinking It is hetero stereotyping. Gay couples know that both partners are the same, and that "who's in control" depends on the situation. The stereotype worries about which is the "husband" and which is the "wife."

Call it what you like its ungodly and anti-Bible thinking as shown, indeed there is not even any mention of whois in control in any same-sex unionin the Bible.

The stereotype is so ingrained in our society that it does need to be considered. But even allowing for the stereotype, the Anti-gays get it backward.

Gay thinking is out to change society away from the truth of God’s purposes and thus satanic as identified by some of the Anglican churche leaders at GAFCON, but of course many other Christian leaders have also said this.