Homosexuality

[DaveS]

Thoughts/criticisms etc?

 

[intricatic]

Thoughts/criticisms etc?

I could have sworn that I gave plenty of it over the last couple pages.

Also, it wasn't an article, per se, but a Biblical exegesis. I could provide you with ten rebuttle exegeses that provide just as compelling arguments as to why the one you presented is incorrect.

 

[IisJustMe]

Assume for the moment (if you don't believe it already to be the indelible truth of God) that homosexual behavior is condemned in His word. How, therefore, can it ever be assumed He would create beings genetically incapable of being obedient?

No matter what you have been taught by those of questionable scholarship or with surreptitious ulterior motives, there is no way to sidestep the blatant fact that the Bible -- in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek -- condemns same-sex sex, alongside adultery, incest, bestiality and other abominable sexual perversion. However, the Bible does not condemn the practitioners of such abomination, excluding no one from salvation.

So the question stands: Would God create someone incapable of not sinning? If you would think to answer in the affirmative, please explain why.

 

[artybloke]

No, we don't see it as sexual because it would make more sense, culturally and contextually, for it not to be sexual; it would be irrational and illogical for it to be sexual.

I'll admit it would have been a rare occurence - but it wasn't unknown (Alexander the Great, for instance) and it's highly unlikely that the Levitical laws would have been in force at this time (as they probably hadn't been written yet.)

 

[DaveS]

I could have sworn that I gave plenty of it over the last couple pages.

Also, it wasn't an article, per se, but a Biblical exegesis. I could provide you with ten rebuttle exegeses that provide just as compelling arguments as to why the one you presented is incorrect.

...

 

[intricatic]

I'll admit it would have been a rare occurence - but it wasn't unknown (Alexander the Great, for instance) and it's highly unlikely that the Levitical laws would have been in force at this time (as they probably hadn't been written yet.)

So, because they hadn't been writen, the Godly people of the time [the ones most refered to as righteous] weren't already abiding by them? Afterall, Levitical law was presented by God - they weren't just abstracted and senseless laws that Moses pulled out of a hat somewhere. But to associate Grecian and Roman cultures with Hebrew culture is a mistake - they were all very different.

 

[DaveS]

Afterall, Levitical law was presented by God -

Shellfish.

 

[intricatic]

Besides, let's look at this.

1 Samuel 18
22 Then Saul ordered his attendants: "Speak to David privately and say, 'Look, the king is pleased with you, and his attendants all like you; now become his son-in-law.' "
23 They repeated these words to David. But David said, "Do you think it is a small matter to become the king's son-in-law? I'm only a poor man and little known."


If David is already a member of Saul's house, by his marriage to Saul's son, then why would he be talking about becoming his son-in-law? Politically speaking, in the context of the culture, a marriage between two men would have been incredibly complicated - they would have to determine which house who would belong to, whether it be Saul's or David's, and it would probably have been Saul's, considering he was the more powerful and influential. This leads one to wonder what logic was used in these statements.

 

[intricatic]

Shellfish.

This is what we call a cultural law. There are categories within the law; that which is cultural, for instance, and only applicable for the time and place it was given, and trans-cultural law, which would remain applicable trans-culturally.

But then I don't expect everyone to be able to make that distinction.

 

[DaveS]

But nevertheless given by God?

 

[intricatic]

But nevertheless given by God?

Yep. To His chosen people.

But I apologize, allow me to rephrase.

If you can provide an example of David eating shellfish, that would be wonderful.

 

[DaveS]

Yep. To His chosen people.

I thought God was the same then, now and will always be. Why then did God forbid the eating of certain foods then, but is fine with it now?

 

[artybloke]

Afterall, Levitical law was presented by God - they weren't just abstracted and senseless laws that Moses pulled out of a hat somewhere.

What's Moses got to do with Leviticus? He didn't write anything. Neither did God, come to think of it. The Bible was written by men inspired by God. But the idea that they wrote in some kind of vacuum entirely insulated from the cultures around them is as ridiculous as saying that English culture isn't European.

David, I believe, did break the Sabbath law by picking corn at some point.

As for the different cultures being very different - yes and no - Hebrew culture was certainly not sui generis - it was part of the whole ancient near eastern culture and there are certainly links/arguments with Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Egyptian and in the later writings (Daniel, Maccabees etc) with Greek (parts of the OT (Catholic and Orthodox versions, not the truncated Protestant version, of course) written in Greek.

The idea of Isreal as a "seperate people" is in anycase, post-exilic - as, for instance, is Deuteronomy.

see this:http://www.christianforums.com/t3121763-bisexual-king-david.html for an intriguing suggestion of a link between the David and Jonathan legend and the Enkidu/Gilgamesh story, which most definitely does involve homosexuality. I don't know anything more than this suggestion, but it's intriguing and worth following up.

 

[DaveS]

see this:http://www.christianforums.com/t3121...ing-david.html for an intriguing suggestion of a link between the David and Jonathan legend and the Enkidu/Gilgamesh story, which most definitely does involve homosexuality. I don't know anything more than this suggestion, but it's intriguing and worth following up.

We have a double link.

 

[Sam Gamgee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5120004.stm

This is a study on the increased likeliness of homosexuality in people who have older brothers.

So, I read this article and thought "well, that's silly" and then I thought about my family and my friends' families....

I have two older brothers. The oldest is straight. The middle brother and I are gay

My best friend has two older brothers who are both straight. He is gay

My other best friend has an older sister who is straight. He is gay

Another friend has three older siblings. His older brother is straight and one older sister is straight. He and his younger sister are both gay/lesbian.

Another friend has two older brothers and a younger sister, all straight... He is gay.

Oddly enough, it is a common theme in my friend base... Weird...

 

[intricatic]

What's Moses got to do with Leviticus? He didn't write anything. Neither did God, come to think of it. The Bible was written by men inspired by God. But the idea that they wrote in some kind of vacuum entirely insulated from the cultures around them is as ridiculous as saying that English culture isn't European.

David, I believe, did break the Sabbath law by picking corn at some point.

As for the different cultures being very different - yes and no - Hebrew culture was certainly not sui generis - it was part of the whole ancient near eastern culture and there are certainly links/arguments with Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian, Egyptian and in the later writings (Daniel, Maccabees etc) with Greek (parts of the OT (Catholic and Orthodox versions, not the truncated Protestant version, of course) written in Greek.

The idea of Isreal as a "seperate people" is in anycase, post-exilic - as, for instance, is Deuteronomy.

see this:http://www.christianforums.com/t3121763-bisexual-king-david.html for an intriguing suggestion of a link between the David and Jonathan legend and the Enkidu/Gilgamesh story, which most definitely does involve homosexuality. I don't know anything more than this suggestion, but it's intriguing and worth following up.

I had already looked into the Gilgamesh story previously, and it would be a huge stretch to relate to much in the Bible. The theme may seem similar at first glance, but it's most definitely not upon further exploration; about the only similarities there are is that Gilgamesh and Enkido were close friends.

But you guys still haven't addressed the question:

Besides, let's look at this.

1 Samuel 18
22 Then Saul ordered his attendants: "Speak to David privately and say, 'Look, the king is pleased with you, and his attendants all like you; now become his son-in-law.' "
23 They repeated these words to David. But David said, "Do you think it is a small matter to become the king's son-in-law? I'm only a poor man and little known."


If David is already a member of Saul's house, by his marriage to Saul's son, then why would he be talking about becoming his son-in-law? Politically speaking, in the context of the culture, a marriage between two men would have been incredibly complicated - they would have to determine which house who would belong to, whether it be Saul's or David's, and it would probably have been Saul's, considering he was the more powerful and influential. This leads one to wonder what logic was used in these statements.

I'll get into further discussion later; I'm at work right now and kind of tied up because of quarter changes in schedules.

 

[Mling]

If David is already a member of Saul's house, by his marriage to Saul's son, then why would he be talking about becoming his son-in-law? Politically speaking, in the context of the culture, a marriage between two men would have been incredibly complicated - they would have to determine which house who would belong to, whether it be Saul's or David's, and it would probably have been Saul's, considering he was the more powerful and influential. This leads one to wonder what logic was used in these statements.

Yes, exactly. There was probably no way to marry two men in that world. And, keep in mind, that Saul is using this marriage as a trap (how this trap works, I don't exactly know, but it is clearly presented as one. I think it involves giving him a more important status, to make him a target for the Phillistines). Nothing he says in this passage should be taken benevolently.

So what do we have? Saul offers his older daughter to David, and David rejects her. He rejects the entire idea of being the son-in-law to the king, because he doesn't feel he is worthy.

So Saul comes back with his younger daughter and says "By two you will be my son in law." ("by two" is traditionally mistranslated, see my post on the "bisexual King David thread for details.)

"By two you will be my son in law," said in response to David's assertion that he is a nobody, and could never be part of Saul's family. The suggestion is that David is already Saul's son in law by one. So why the need to marry again? If the marriage trap needs to be laid now, that means it isn't in affect yet...because the other relationship he has is not legally standing. I think what Saul is saying here is "How can you say you could never be my son in law? Don't you see that you already are? Just make it official."

In saying this he is

a.) Being "extra nice" to David by acknowledging and appearing to accept his relationship with Jonathan.

and b.) putting him at ease by saying that nothing will change. Nothing gets a person over a fear faster than pointing out that they've already faced it and didn't even notice.

 

[intricatic]

Yes, exactly. There was probably no way to marry two men in that world. And, keep in mind, that Saul is using this marriage as a trap (how this trap works, I don't exactly know, but it is clearly presented as one. I think it involves giving him a more important status, to make him a target for the Phillistines). Nothing he says in this passage should be taken benevolently.

So what do we have? Saul offers his older daughter to David, and David rejects her. He rejects the entire idea of being the son-in-law to the king, because he doesn't feel he is worthy.

So Saul comes back with his younger daughter and says "By two you will be my son in law." ("by two" is traditionally mistranslated, see my post on the "bisexual King David thread for details.)

"By two you will be my son in law," said in response to David's assertion that he is a nobody, and could never be part of Saul's family. The suggestion is that David is already Saul's son in law by one. So why the need to marry again? If the marriage trap needs to be laid now, that means it isn't in affect yet...because the other relationship he has is not legally standing. I think what Saul is saying here is "How can you say you could never be my son in law? Don't you see that you already are? Just make it official."

In saying this he is

a.) Being "extra nice" to David by acknowledging and appearing to accept his relationship with Jonathan.

and b.) putting him at ease by saying that nothing will change. Nothing gets a person over a fear faster than pointing out that they've already faced it and didn't even notice.

That's certainly reading a heck-of-a lot into the text that isn't there. Culturally, it's lacking a huge piece of significant backing; namely the idea that homosexuality wasn't already rejected within the culture this story took place in. If you could provide biblical or extrabiblical accounts to back it up, perhaps your argument would have some weight, although it would still be nothing more than entirely anachronistic and speculative.

Afterall, even if it was an unorthodox situation, wouldn't David already be a target of the Philistines due to his relationship with Joseph? Saul wasn't jealous because of Joseph - he was jealous because the people of his own nation, including his own son, had acknowledged David as more of an authority than he was.

 

[intricatic]

Love between two men, in a nonsexual way [as is implied by the wording used to describe the love David had for Jonathan] was not a rarity in David's time, but it is in ours, or so it seems. Which is why I say it's anachronistic.

 

[Mling]

I never said it was accepted. We know that Saul is trying to trap David. David is not exactly Saul's favorite person in the world. I said that the nice, accepting act is just that, an act. To put him at ease.

If I read to much into it, what's your interpretation of this situation?

David says he isn't worthy to be Saul's son-in-law.

Saul says that if David marries the younger daughter he'll be his son in law "by two."

Saul has two daughters and one son, and David has rejected the other daughter.