Homosexuality is a sin.

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

because no homosexual has ever been married with children *cough* Freddie Mercury*cough cough*

Sorry but thats your poit agaisn and not what I was saying. David waa attracted to the naked woman, how is that homosexual? I thought homosexuals were attrected to the same sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII
Sorry but thats your poit agaisn and not what I was saying. David waa attracted to the naked woman, how is that homosexual? I thought homosexuals were attrected to the same sex.

bisexual then?

A bisexual can be engaged in a strictly monogomous homosexual relationship... just as David and Jonathon were

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear olliefranz

I don't know whether it was sexual or not, but I do know that if the exact same story were made into a film in a modern setting without reference to the Biblical characters, it would recieve at least an "R" rating, if not an "NC-17" "for homosexual content."

Only if it was made by a pro-gay thinker, if it was made by a Christian
the only sexual content would be David and the women, there wouldn’t be any sexual content between David and Jonathan as their relationship was united in spirit and love.

The only reading between the lines is where pro-gay thinkers are looking for sexual content where it says love. To do so would also require looking at the disciples loving Jesus.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear olliefranz
Only if it was made by a pro-gay thinker, if it was made by a Christian
the only sexual content would be David and the women, there wouldn’t be any sexual content between David and Jonathan as their relationship was united in spirit and love.

The only reading between the lines is where pro-gay thinkers are looking for sexual content where it says love. To do so would also require looking at the disciples loving Jesus.

pro-gay thinkers... or anyone who can see the Bleeding obvious... either/or

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

bisexual then?

Well if you think bisexual why did you say homosexual? If you are making this upas yuou go along just so you can try and prove what you want to hear then I suggest you stand back and think a bt.
But it says David was attracted to the women and slept with them, where does it say he slept with jonathan? Until you can show that I cnat accept your assumption

A bisexual can be engaged in a strictly monogomous homosexual relationship... just as David and Jonathon were

Thats an assumption based on a false assumption. David and jonathan werent in a homosexual relationship, and even if they had been it woudn't have monomgamous as David had wives.

Gay and lesbain thinking seems outside of reality.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII
Well if you think bisexual why did you say homosexual? If you are making this upas yuou go along just so you can try and prove what you want to hear then I suggest you stand back and think a bt.
But it says David was attracted to the women and slept with them, where does it say he slept with jonathan? Until you can show that I cnat accept your assumption

Thats an assumption based on a false assumption. David and jonathan werent in a homosexual relationship, and even if they had been it woudn't have monomgamous as David had wives.

Gay and lesbain thinking seems outside of reality.

David didn't have wives while Jonathon was alive though, did he?

 

[OllieFranz]

Dear olliefranz
Only if it was made by a pro-gay thinker, if it was made by a Christian
the only sexual content would be David and the women, there wouldn’t be any sexual content between David and Jonathan as their relationship was united in spirit and love.

Evidently not "Only if..." See EPII's post, quoted below. Besides, I said nothing about any sexual content (other than whatever is in the filthy minds of the MPAA not-quite-censors).

Fun "experiment" describe two "friends" to a self righteous Christian homophobe, describe in full detail their relationship, their feelings for each other, and their parent's disaproval of them. Ask them what they think. Once they wipe the froth from their rage quivering lip, tell them the friends are Jonathon and David.

sure, it takes some effort, and isn't easy to pull off, but I've done it three times, and the look on the face is priceless.

The only reading between the lines is where pro-gay thinkers are looking for sexual content where it says love. To do so would also require looking at the disciples loving Jesus.

Did you not read the passages I quoted? Uncovering a relative's nakedness is repeatedly used in Leviticus to refer to bringing shame on that relative through your sexual "lifestyle." And when Saul speaks of binding David to him as a son-in-law a second time through Michal, the English translators have to add whole phrases to imply that the first time was with Merab, and not with Jonathan. The Hebrew is a lot more ambiguous.

Again I repeat, it is reading between the lines, and it would still only be Saul's interpretation even then, but it is not a great stretch. The seeds are there in those passages.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

pro-gay thinkers... or anyone who can see the Bleeding obvious... either/or

Well it is obvious that David thought a naked woman was beautiful, slept with her, and mariried her, but his relationship with jonathan was a bond in spirit and love.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dear EnemyPartyII
Well it is obvious that David thought a naked woman was beautiful, slept with her, and mariried her, but his relationship with jonathan was a bond in spirit and love.

then why did they hide it, why was their love for each other greater than that of any woman, and why was Saul so miffed by it?

Okhams razor... gay

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear EnemyPartyII

David didn't have wives while Jonathon was alive though, did he?

So? A one night stand is monogamous while it lasts.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear OllieFranz,

Did you not read the passages I quoted? Uncovering a relative's nakedness is repeatedly used in Leviticus to refer to bringing shame on that relative through your sexual "lifestyle."

This is a valid point, and yes nakedness `ervah is used in Lev 18, so I take this seriously. But I would point out that just as in Genesis 19 we can see yada is used as sexual as in Genesis 4, yet mostly it is just to know and not carnally. So we have to see which meaning is correct. If you take its usage as in Exodus 21:26 or Genesis 42:12. ..its shame and not sexual.
However I accept that the KJV does use nakedness and not shame, but on the balance of the whole story there isn’t much to back up `ervah as sexual, if there was why does the story begin with this relationship as spirit and sould and keep repeating this throughout the story? If this was sexual why no specific mention of David sleeping with Jonathan, and no mention of this sin as a sin of David?

As I have said before the debates have been exhaustive and the story of David and Jonathan is a passage promoted to back up same-sex unions, yet it is tenuous and unconvincing.
I am sorry I didn't repsond straight away as your point deserved proper attention.

 

[OllieFranz]

I agree that it is not conclusive one way or the other. The Bible simply does not give enough details, and the few hints it gives (if you assume it is hinting about their relationship) are obscure enough to easily overlook.

 

[Phinehas2]

Dear OllieFranz,
But I feel it is conclusive enough in the story as a whole, if there was no continual mention of their relationship being of the spirit and soul and no mention of the sin, which it would have to be if `ervah is as in Lev 18 and if David had been recorded as seeing Jonathan naked and beautiful and sleeping with him, then ok that would be one instant of countenance against a dozen excluding and condemning; this is why the pro same-sex argument is so weak and such a disbelief.

Yet what the David and Jonathan passage does show is a level of affection in friendship possible between men, though I would say that is what happens in Christian fellowship... but its not sexual.