Homosexuality

[intricatic]

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.

1st opportunity) 17 Saul said to David, "Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD." For Saul said to himself, "I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!"

David's response:
18 But David said to Saul, "Who am I, and what is my family or my father's clan in Israel, that I should become the king's son-in-law?" 19 So when the time came for Merab, Saul's daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.

[No thanks.]

2nd Opportunity)20 Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 "I will give her to him," he thought, "so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." So Saul said to David, "Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law."

David's response:
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." 24 When Saul's servants told him what David had said, 25 Saul replied, "Say to David, 'The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.' " Saul's plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.
26 When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king's son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, 27 David and his men went out and killed two hundred Philistines. He brought their foreskins and presented the full number to the king so that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.




[Okay, fine, I'll go kill those lousy Philistines.]






Which is more logical; Saul says the first time "Become my son-in-law" and the second time "Become my son in law by two", or that the second time Saul says "Now, you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law." ?

 

[intricatic]

Further; could the snare Saul was setting for David possibly have been that the condition of their marriage would be for David to kill 100 Philistine soldiers to present as an offer of worth, to which Saul thought David would die attempting? I dunno, it sure seems like it to me.

 

[holo]

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.

Did the Jews make such a distinction?

 

[intricatic]

Did the Jews make such a distinction?

Well, considering that some of the laws were to address social issues within the culture, I should hope so.

 

[artybloke]

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.

I suspect that the influence is there, nevertheless, as a kind of "in the air" thing. The writers of Samuel would have known the story, and probably other stories that are now lost. They probably wouldn't have read it off the document it was first written on, they would have heard it, remembered it wrong, and it may well have been in the back of their minds when writing the David legends. I can't imagine that in an oral culture there was only one version of the Gilgamesh epic.

Then again: the reason behind the Genesis 1 story is as much about taking the ancient creation stories of Babylon etc and "critiquing" them by desacralising them. Influence is not always direct: sometimes it's even oppositional, the writers offering an alternative vision that takes the "theme" and pushes it into a new shape to make a new point. If the writer were alluding to the Gilgamesh/Enkidu story, why do you think he would do it?

Which is another point: allusion. In poetry and stories, writers often make allusions to other writers and stories that are subtle and meant to be picked up by the readers who are aware of them. I do that all the time in my poetry, sometimes without even trying because there is a large stock of poems that I've read in my mind. I don't see any reason that the writers of the David legend were any less imaginative in their use of literary tropes than modern writers.

So I wouldn't expect the paralells to be that close, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

[intricatic]

I suspect that the influence is there, nevertheless, as a kind of "in the air" thing. The writers of Samuel would have known the story, and probably other stories that are now lost. They probably wouldn't have read it off the document it was first written on, they would have heard it, remembered it wrong, and it may well have been in the back of their minds when writing the David legends. I can't imagine that in an oral culture there was only one version of the Gilgamesh epic.

Then again: the reason behind the Genesis 1 story is as much about taking the ancient creation stories of Babylon etc and "critiquing" them by desacralising them. Influence is not always direct: sometimes it's even oppositional, the writers offering an alternative vision that takes the "theme" and pushes it into a new shape to make a new point. If the writer were alluding to the Gilgamesh/Enkidu story, why do you think he would do it?

Which is another point: allusion. In poetry and stories, writers often make allusions to other writers and stories that are subtle and meant to be picked up by the readers who are aware of them. I do that all the time in my poetry, sometimes without even trying because there is a large stock of poems that I've read in my mind. I don't see any reason that the writers of the David legend were any less imaginative in their use of literary tropes than modern writers.

So I wouldn't expect the paralells to be that close, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

So because there was a popular mythic story floating around that happened to have one very simple concept shared with the story of David and Jonathan, it must be related? I'm sorry, the two stories don't have enough in common, even in the reverse polarity, to be related. But are you also suggesting that the story David was only myth, itself?

As far as the creation story in Genesis, I'm not inclined to give much of an expression either antagonist or protagonist of it. I simply haven't done enough research into that one to speak on it.

 

[wblastyn]

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...

Well the study doesn't show a cause and effect, ie it's not saying "if you have older brothers you will be gay". Instead it's saying there's a correlation between the number of older siblings and homosexuality, which suggests homosexuality could be caused by something occuring in the womb.

 

[Colabomb]

Well the study doesn't show a cause and effect, ie it's not saying "if you have older brothers you will be gay". Instead it's saying there's a correlation between the number of older siblings and homosexuality, which suggests homosexuality could be caused by something occuring in the womb.

Or a social issue.

For example, there is often a frustrated middle child. It has nothing to do with Biology, but with the circumstances he was born into.

 

[Daniels]

Homosexuality is sin Jesus can set you free.

 

[AureateDawn]

This thread has gotten way out of control if you ask me.

As for the last poster right above me, Daniels - it isn't that simple. Some people just *cannot* change it. Which, relating to the OP, is it a biological reason for homosexuality or the upbringing or what?

 

[intricatic]

This thread has gotten way out of control if you ask me.

As for the last poster right above me, Daniels - it isn't that simple. Some people just *cannot* change it. Which, relating to the OP, is it a biological reason for homosexuality or the upbringing or what?

If you can provide significant evidence that a person's sexuality is not like other parts of human physiology that adapts to new circumstances and changes over time, then I'll agree with you on the idea that it's unchangeable for some people. Once again, any speculative evidence with little actual content is not significant evidence.

 

[Biff]

My son is a homosexual! He too once professed Christ.
What I say I say to you, to me, to him and to any and all that this might apply....

The only kind of Christian I know is one (who may have been or may not have been a homosexual) who has come to know the risen Lord, thus is saved by God's Grace, and therefore has repented of their sin-s.

To Repent means to turn away from, and turn to God. I am speaking here of two things: Justification AND Sanctification.
The God I know not only causes them to repent of their sin-s, but also deals with the POWER of sin. That is why we (our old man - the way we used to be in Adam) must be crucified with Christ. God takes it from them as He instills in them a New Man - a New Life: "Christ"!

If; after all this, they should go back to being a homosexual again, it is a direct insult to God in their showing the world that He was not powerful enough to keep them from their homosexuality. That is a lie!

In other words, what they do is crucify Christ all over again, and make Him the laughing stock to the world. However, IF they were indeed saved in the first place, and IF they indeed loved Him then they would rather die than go back to a life of homosexuality again.
THAT is how powerful the Christian life truly is!

Biff

 

[holo]

If; after all this, they should go back to being a homosexual again, it is a direct insult to God in their showing the world that He was not powerful enough to keep them from their homosexuality. That is a lie!

In other words, what they do is crucify Christ all over again, and make Him the laughing stock to the world. However, IF they were indeed saved in the first place, and IF they indeed loved Him then they would rather die than go back to a life of homosexuality again.
THAT is how powerful the Christian life truly is!

Biff

Please name one (any) quality you wish you had, but that you don't have yet. Anything at all, like patience for example.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

If you can provide significant evidence that a person's sexuality is not like other parts of human physiology that adapts to new circumstances and changes over time, then I'll agree with you on the idea that it's unchangeable for some people. Once again, any speculative evidence with little actual content is not significant evidence.

How about you provide some concrete and verifiable evidence that one can change their sexuality? Most of what I have read in regards to "change" stories are more marketing hype and don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny. It seems that these groups know this and have thus changed some of the definitions with quotes such as "It is not heterosexuality we should be seeking , but holiness. By changing the goal, one can claim success.

 

[intricatic]

How about you provide some concrete and verifiable evidence that one can change their sexuality? Most of what I have read in regards to "change" stories are more marketing hype and don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny. It seems that these groups know this and have thus changed some of the definitions with quotes such as "It is not heterosexuality we should be seeking , but holiness. By changing the goal, one can claim success.

Why should I do that? Is it pop-science to disprove a static sexuality? I should think after so much concentration has been put into trying to prove a concrete sexuality there should be some uncontestable and demonstratable proof. I'm not the one trying to openly justify a habitual vice to the world, afterall.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Why should I do that? Is it pop-science to disprove a static sexuality? I should think after so much concentration has been put into trying to prove a concrete sexuality there should be some uncontestable and demonstratable proof. I'm not the one trying to openly justify a habitual vice to the world, afterall.

I think you are being a little harsh and dismissive of those who's sexuality differs than that of the general population. To simply dismiss sexuality as a "habitual Vice" comes off as a bit disingenuous and arrogant" I am not saying you are, but that the throw away quote smacks of it.

 

[intricatic]

I think you are being a little harsh and dismissive of those who's sexuality differs than that of the general population. To simply dismiss sexuality as a "habitual Vice" comes off as a bit disingenuous and arrogant" I am not saying you are, but that the throw away quote smacks of it.

How is it disingenuous and arrogant? Homosexuality is a major political ploy, and I sincerely distrust both sides of the debate as their motivations are generally based entirely in power. I'm not discussing individuals or how I treat them, I'm discussing politically biased science. Neither side of the debate has provided significant evidence to support either of their claims. Speculative science is not a foundation for any opinion.

 

[Biff]

To holo,

You go figure it out!

http://www.intergate.com/~subi/mystory.htm

Biff

 

[Biff]

To holo,

You go figure it out!

http://www.intergate.com/~subi/mystory.htm

Biff

To holo,

You claim to be a "Christian"??? as well as a "LOVER of men"???

Read this -

http://www.intergate.com/~subi/biblesay.htm#homosexuality

Biff

 

[holo]

To holo,

You go figure it out!

http://www.intergate.com/~subi/mystory.htm

Biff

The page doesn't seem to load. Could you instead simply name one quality you lack or some vice you struggle with?