Is there such a thing as a Christian homosexual?

[fragmentsofdreams]

Hi Shane . I think we've been here before.

The Bible is very, very clear about the one and only relationship that is within His will regarding sex. There is no, absolultely no wiggle room. Eve was created as the helpmate correct for Adam, and the relationship is established in Genesis, re-affirmed by Jesus (though the context was divorce, not homosexuality), and further developed as a means towards salvation and to avoid sexual sin in other NT writings.

Eve was created as a partner, a helpmate, a companion for Adam. If this is the core of marriage, then homosexual couples have no problem meeting this. God created a companion for Adam so that he would no longer be alone.

 

[Shane Roach]

I can't explain more to you, PastorFreud, until you answer the explanations I have already given. These include Genesis, Jesus' reiteration in Genesis, and numerous scriptures regarding church discipline.

It is the easiest thing in the world to just declare that there is confusion or disagreement, but in fact, there are no examples of gay unions int he Bible, there is a definition of proper marriage, and there are multiple references to gay sex where every last example is a denunciation. Referring to New Testament freedom from the law doesn't wash either because of several points. a: Jews are told to keep the law still, which would be anathema if the law itself were flawed and had passed totally away. b: Jesus actually tells the pharisees they do well to mind the tiny details of the law, but instead accuses them of hypocrisy and ignoring weightier matters. He informs them they should be doing both, not neither. And, c: Even among gentiles, who are given a bye on the law, sexual sins are to be avoided at all costs.

Examples of this or that person being forgiven for sin do not translate to sin not being sin at all, so however many of those sorts of examples you may have, they count for nothing if a person is grounded in the concept of repentance and forgiveness which is in both the OT and NT.

I do hope you are not one who implies that David had a gay relationship. The "strip" scene is a handover of armor and weapons so that David will be well supplied for defense. I think the affection David shared with Saul's son is more a statement of how much men can love one another, even such that the affection is beyond 'romantic' love, and that it highlights another aspect to this debate that gets ignored a lot, which is that if a person has a hard time sharing deep affection with either sex, that in itself is a problem to be worked through, much less if one finds themselves only attracted romantically to the same sex.

I find the argument that some people simply cannot ever escape homosexuality to be an extremely weak one. Alchoholics Anonymous shows the way. You may struggle with the temptations or the hardships with intimacy for the rest of your life if indeed you are one of the small minority who just can't seem to help it, but even then you can go on through the rest of your life and just understand that that's your cross to bear, and still not participate in the sin. I certainly have my temptations in life that never seem to go away. Don't feel like the lone ranger! And if you fail, don't give up, and don't be bitter or down on yourself. But the bottom line, it is clear what sin is regarding sexuality, and Christians of every type are called to avoid it.

I don't know why I have to point this out to you, fragments, but there is a lot more to the Genisis account that makes it clear woman is the helpmate for man, not just that any person is fine for any other person. It is made very, very clear.

Finally, I see that in general, the argument here is that there is confusion. I have yet to see a cogent explanation of where that confusion comes from. Also, just as an aside, all the back patting of all of you who agree with one another comes across as rather sycophantic. I'm not sure if you care about that or not, but it only engenders in me a further suspicion that your arguments are more based on the idea of good pr than they are on anything substantive. There is really absolutely nothing new here from the last time I read these forums, and as always the only 'argument' is a repetition of the supposition that there is confusion or some room for doubt without any real explanation of where that doubt comes from.

 

[mpshiel]

It is the easiest thing in the world to just declare that there is confusion or disagreement, but in fact, there are no examples of gay unions int he Bible, there is a definition of proper marriage,

Well, I assume when you mean a "proper" marriage of one man and one woman. But actually when you look at many of the examples of O.T. it is anything but - Abram married to his half sister, Jacob married to Leah and Rachel, David married to a few women, Solomon married to 300 wives. Now interestingly, the condemnation God gives to Solomon isn't "You have failed in the God given appointment of marriage" but rather, "Your many foriegn wives have led you asray." To me that indicates that God is not as absolute on what marriage HAS to be as many Christians are.

Referring to New Testament freedom from the law doesn't wash either because of several points. a: Jews are told to keep the law still, which would be anathema if the law itself were flawed and had passed totally away. b: Jesus actually tells the pharisees they do well to mind the tiny details of the law, but instead accuses them of hypocrisy and ignoring weightier matters. He informs them they should be doing both, not neither. And, c: Even among gentiles, who are given a bye on the law, sexual sins are to be avoided at all costs.

Actually, of the law, only four things are passed down to the Gentiles, of which three are eventually done away (for instance they are told not to eat meat offered to idols yet by Romans, this is considered acceptable). Secondly, I actually do keep the sacred calender and the regulations on food. I do it out of choice though, not because it is the "LAW" - As Jesus himself showed during his many encounters, it is the meaning of the law which is important, not the rote. (and excuse me if I assumed, unlike me, you kept Easter last week instead of Passover)

I find the argument that some people simply cannot ever escape homosexuality to be an extremely weak one. Alchoholics Anonymous shows the way. You may struggle with the temptations or the hardships with intimacy for the rest of your life if indeed you are one of the small minority who just can't seem to help it, but even then you can go on through the rest of your life and just understand that that's your cross to bear, and still not participate in the sin. I certainly have my temptations in life that never seem to go away. Don't feel like the lone ranger! And if you fail, don't give up, and don't be bitter or down on yourself. But the bottom line, it is clear what sin is regarding sexuality, and Christians of every type are called to avoid it.

That's okay, I find your arguement to be weak and baseless as well. Earlier you mention that as long as ONE person changes in reperative therapy then it shows that homosexuality can be changed...for everyone? I would argue that if even ONE person tries with thier whole heart and cannot be changed, then repreative or ex-gay ministries cannot be held out as the cure (and while 27% find the course helpful, only 5% find it changes thier sexual orientation). I think that if someone wants to try ex-gay ministries, go ahead. But to say that there is a cure out there if you want it enough, if you try enough, or pray enough, is legalism pure and simple - the idea of the "worthy". And homosexuality is not like Alcoholism as someone inclined toward alcoholism can still drink, even alcoholics after the program can occasionally drink - as long as it is not thier God or given to excess. They can even think about drinking. But for many Christians, just thinking about same sex attraction is a sin. What you seem to be saying is...for 90% of the population, there is a God given way to find your mate and engage in the joy of union but for about 10%, you have no choice and God sorta hates you.

I don't know why I have to point this out to you, fragments, but there is a lot more to the Genisis account that makes it clear woman is the helpmate for man, not just that any person is fine for any other person. It is made very, very clear.

Yes, God made Eve for Adam. This is clear. We could also assume that God made Sarah for Abram, or Michael for David. So when Rachal is "made" for Jacob and he ends up married to Leah, does God strike him down? No. Nor when he works and ends up married to both, does God strike him down? No. So actually God might not be so upset and freaked out because there is not an exact - one man plus one woman science. I understand that you want to believe the one person made perfect for another but even Paul has to tell the people in Corinth to stop going to harlots all the time because God sees those as "unions" as well. Kinda shows that God is rather flexible in considering unions.

Finally, I see that in general, the argument here is that there is confusion. I have yet to see a cogent explanation of where that confusion comes from. Also, just as an aside, all the back patting of all of you who agree with one another comes across as rather sycophantic. I'm not sure if you care about that or not, but it only engenders in me a further suspicion that your arguments are more based on the idea of good pr than they are on anything substantive.

I couldn't agree more, the ad infinitum "Amen" posts and back slapping does get tedious.

There is really absolutely nothing new here from the last time I read these forums, and as always the only 'argument' is a repetition of the supposition that there is confusion or some room for doubt without any real explanation of where that doubt comes from.

If there is no doubt in your mind, then don't get into a same sex union. But while you may think someone else's arguement doesn't make sense to you, at least realize that it is made out of sincere conviction. I am sure you wouldn't want them to act against thier convictions in following Christ and his teaching anymore than you would want to start espousing beliefs with which you don't believe.

 

[mpshiel]

sorry double post

 

[BobKat]

What I am hearing some folks say is that Homosexual behavior can be avoided, in the way that an alcoholic can give up booze, or a smoker can give up cigs. What you are suggesting is that a gay individual give up most of the things in life that give human beings fulfillment. The experience of falling in love, of sharing hopes and dreams with the person you are in love with, sharing hearth and home and yes, the joy of making love with the person who matters most to you. I would like to remind those of you who believe this is just avoidable bad behavior that most of you are not expected to give up romantic love and a happy life with the person you love. Being gay is something that is hard-wired into most gay folks. The recidivism rate for ex-gays is incredibly high. A gay person cannot become straight any easier than one of you could become gay. A final reminder- please try to remember that if you are not gay, you can not possibly know what it is like.
Compassionately,
BobKat

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I can't explain more to you, PastorFreud, until you answer the explanations I have already given. These include Genesis, Jesus' reiteration in Genesis, and numerous scriptures regarding church discipline.

It is the easiest thing in the world to just declare that there is confusion or disagreement, but in fact, there are no examples of gay unions int he Bible, there is a definition of proper marriage, and there are multiple references to gay sex where every last example is a denunciation. Referring to New Testament freedom from the law doesn't wash either because of several points. a: Jews are told to keep the law still, which would be anathema if the law itself were flawed and had passed totally away. b: Jesus actually tells the pharisees they do well to mind the tiny details of the law, but instead accuses them of hypocrisy and ignoring weightier matters. He informs them they should be doing both, not neither. And, c: Even among gentiles, who are given a bye on the law, sexual sins are to be avoided at all costs.

David and Jonathan had an intimate, loving relationship. Furthermore, I think there are some clues that indicate that their relationship was probably sexual.

Examples of this or that person being forgiven for sin do not translate to sin not being sin at all, so however many of those sorts of examples you may have, they count for nothing if a person is grounded in the concept of repentance and forgiveness which is in both the OT and NT.

I do hope you are not one who implies that David had a gay relationship. The "strip" scene is a handover of armor and weapons so that David will be well supplied for defense. I think the affection David shared with Saul's son is more a statement of how much men can love one another, even such that the affection is beyond 'romantic' love, and that it highlights another aspect to this debate that gets ignored a lot, which is that if a person has a hard time sharing deep affection with either sex, that in itself is a problem to be worked through, much less if one finds themselves only attracted romantically to the same sex.

Even if their relationship was not sexual, it is an example of approval of intense same-sex affection.

The evidence that their relationship was sexual:
1. Their relationship resembles other same-sex hero relationships found in the ancient Near East that are more explicit about their sexual nature.
2. David said that his love of Jonathan surpassed the love of women. David's main interaction with women would be primarily sexual.

Furthermore, 1 Samuel 18:1 describes their souls being joined or bound together, which is probably one of the closest descriptions of the modern view of marriage in the Bible (at least the Catholic view. I can't speak for the Protestant view).

I find the argument that some people simply cannot ever escape homosexuality to be an extremely weak one. Alchoholics Anonymous shows the way. You may struggle with the temptations or the hardships with intimacy for the rest of your life if indeed you are one of the small minority who just can't seem to help it, but even then you can go on through the rest of your life and just understand that that's your cross to bear, and still not participate in the sin. I certainly have my temptations in life that never seem to go away. Don't feel like the lone ranger! And if you fail, don't give up, and don't be bitter or down on yourself. But the bottom line, it is clear what sin is regarding sexuality, and Christians of every type are called to avoid it.

The difference between homosexuality and alcoholism is that therapies and ministries tell homosexuals that they have to cease being homosexual while alcoholics are told to accept that they have a problem and strive to avoid alcohol. Like alcoholics, homosexuals can refrain from sex through willpower and grace. However, expecting homosexuals to become heterosexuals is equivalent to expecting alcholics to be able to drink socially without abusing alcohol.

I don't know why I have to point this out to you, fragments, but there is a lot more to the Genisis account that makes it clear woman is the helpmate for man, not just that any person is fine for any other person. It is made very, very clear.

Eve was the helpmate for Adam. Generally, a woman is the suitable helpmate for a given man, and a man is the suitable helpmate for a given woman, but this is not universally true. For homosexuals, a man makes a better helpmate for a given gay man, and a woman makes a better helpmate for a given lesbian woman. Looking at the purpose of Adam and Eve's relationship (companionship), it is clear that a relationship with another man (woman) will better fulfill this purpose for a homosexual male (female) than a relationship with a woman (man).

 

[fejao]

The arguments regarding David and Jonathan, however, while not quite compelling, leave open the strong possibility that they were involved in an homosexual marriage. Starting from the crux of the argument at 1 Samuel 18:21, Saul tells David, that by marrying Saul's daughter Michal, David will be his son-in-law for the second time (Hebrew: "bstym ttctn by hynm"). The actual translation of this phrase is somewhat controversial, being literally translated "You will become my son-in-law through two." In this instance, the correct interpretation of this verse is crucial, because it radically shapes our view of David and Jonathan's relationship, since Scripture only indicates that David had any kind of relationship with two of Saul's children: Jonathan and Michal. Some translations interpret this verse as meaning that Saul "said for the second time," or that David has a "second opportunity" to become Saul's son-in-law. These interpretations, however, are strained, and the Hebrew does not easily lend itself to mean either of these. Most standard translations clearly interpret the verse to mean that David will become Saul's son-in-law for the second time (NIV being the primary exception, and the RSV is ambiguous):

ASV: Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.
RSV: Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."
BBE: So Saul said to David, Today you are to become my son-in-law for the second time.
DBY: And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.
YLT: Saul saith unto David, `By the second -- thou dost become my son-in-law to-day.'
NAS: Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today."


The question then becomes what Saul actually meant if he is telling David that he will become his son-in-law for the second time. The first offer Saul made to David for a wife was Merab, but she married Adriel of Meholah instead (18:19). The only other covenant made between Saul's family and David was between David and Jonathan in 18:3, which is not a covenant of business or politics, but of friendship/love ("ahbh"). Moreover, this relationship is described in very strong emotive language, starting in 18:1. Prior to looking at this more closely, an understanding of the story up to this point is helpful. In chapter 17, we find David's older brothers going to war against the Philistines while David stays at home. David is then sent to take food to his brothers, following which is the classic David and Goliath story. As David goes back to Saul after killing Goliath, we see that David is totally unknown to King Saul (17:58). However, as David talks to King Saul, Jonathan falls in love with David, after having never met him, or talked to him (which has a vague sound of "love at first sight" in our culture).

1 Samuel 18:1-4 (NIV)
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.
3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.
4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.


While there is no similarity between the Hebrew phrases in 1 Samuel 18:1-2 above and in Genesis 2:24, there is a striking similarity in concepts between the son leaving the parents to join to a spouse, and the two becoming one:

Genesis 2:24 (NIV)
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.


When we put together chapter 18, from the beginning, with Jonathan's strong emotional affection towards David and their subsequent covenant, to the end, where we see Saul referring to David being his son-in-law a second time with his marriage to Michal, we see the very strong possibility that David and Jonathan were joined in a covenant that Saul recognized as a marriage. This line of reasoning, while persuasive to me, it is not conclusive. First, I don't know that we have any other extant Hebrew literature of that era that refers to a gay marriage, which would lead one to question whether or not Saul would have seen David and Jonathan's covenant as one of legal marriage. If not, then the only possibility for Saul's language in 18:21 is that he was referring to David's second son-in-law status as coming from the original promise by Saul to give Merab to him (18:17), even though Merab married another man. A second possible criticism is that this argument is made from conjecture, that no specific reference is made to marriage (ynh, yqch) or sexual activity. This, however, is not a valid criticism. The words referring to marriage in the Old Testament are typically in the context of being "taken" or "given" (yqch) as property (byvlh) or protector/provider (ybm), since women had no rights in Hebrew culture, and were considered property to be given/sold. This aspect of marriage would not have been applicable to David and Jonathan's relationship. The other primary word translated as marry is actually the exact same word as "woman" (ishh), which obviously isn't applicable in this case. As for the lack of specific reference to sexual activity which would definitively signify marriage, very few Old Testament relationships which are clearly marriage relationships have subsequent descriptions of sexual activity, therefore it is improbable that such a characterization would be applied here either. However, 2 Samuel 1:26 may even be a reference to sexual activity between David and Jonathan. After Jonathan has been killed, David mourns his death, and says the following (NIV):

26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.


In Hebrew culture, similar to many mid-eastern cultures today, men and women did not engage in platonic relationships. They were either married, or they had no relationship. In this case, David compares his relationship with Jonathan to the relationship with a woman, strongly indicating a marriage/sexual relationship. Further, the word used for love here (ahbh; used also in 1 Samuel 18:3 and 1 Samuel 20:17 referring for Jonathan's love for David) is the same word used in Genesis 29:20 for Jacob's love for Rachel, and is used repeatedly in Song of Songs. It is typically translated as love in the context of a marriage or sexual desire (Proverbs 5:19, etc.; see Strong's concordance #0160).

After this analysis we are left with two questions. First, could Saul have legally seen David and Jonathan's covenant as marriage, to the extent that he would call David a son-in-law. Second, is the intensity of the language referring to Jonathan's love and covenant with David, and David's reference to his love for Jonathan, enough to sustain the belief that they were engaged in a marriage covenant? Neither of these questions can be answered definitively. Whether or not Saul would have legally condoned this relationship can only be answered with further research into the marriage documents from that time. However, the conceptual parallel of marriage between 1 Samuel 18:1-2 and Genesis 2:24, the intensity and type of language used in 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and subsequent covenant between Jonathan and David, and David's comparison of his love to that of women certainly leads me to the conclusion that their relationship could have been one of marriage.

 

[razzelflabben]

What I am hearing some folks say is that Homosexual behavior can be avoided, in the way that an alcoholic can give up booze, or a smoker can give up cigs. What you are suggesting is that a gay individual give up most of the things in life that give human beings fulfillment. The experience of falling in love, of sharing hopes and dreams with the person you are in love with, sharing hearth and home and yes, the joy of making love with the person who matters most to you. I would like to remind those of you who believe this is just avoidable bad behavior that most of you are not expected to give up romantic love and a happy life with the person you love.

Let us address one issue at a time. Maybe it isn't fair to ask a homosexual to give up these things, is it any fairer to ask a mother or father to loose a child to death or spouse. What about a couple to give up sex because of prostate cancer. Is it fair? Love is a seperate thing from romance. And, btw life is not fair. This is a christian forum so let us look for a moment at the biblical version. Jesus says to leave all and follow Him. Matt. 10:37-39 compare that to Matt. 19:27-30 KJV where wife is specified. The word husband is not specified thou you would have a hard time justifying husband is not included in this teaching (many other scriptures put forth the same teaching) You are allowed to Love, just not to sin. I fully understand this is a touchy subject, but let us look at it from the standpoint of another sexual sin. To say that a rapist is hard wired to rape has a least some basis, but to say that it is okay for them to act on that urge because of their wiring is ludicrist. We ask heterosexuals to remain pure till marriage, the preditor to remain pure and not defile innocent people, we ask teens whose hormones are crazed to refrain and exercise self control but we dare not ask a homosexual to do the same. Heck, I ask my husband to refrain from all acts of sexual immorality, including but not limited to affairs and pornography, he asks the same of me, is this a problem because we are wired to be heterosexual? Self control is control over self it is a control over how we are wired, the old nature. So why not ask a homosexual to exercise self control over the behavior?

Being gay is something that is hard-wired into most gay folks. The recidivism rate for ex-gays is incredibly high. A gay person cannot become straight any easier than one of you could become gay.

Again, to ask the homosexual to refrain from homosexual relations does not mean that that he/she must change who they are, but rather control the urges that are part of the human race. As stated above, we are all asked to do that at one point or another in our lives. Has nothing at all to do with wiring, but rather crusifying the old nature and living in the power and LOve of the holy spirit.

I accidentally deleted your last sentence, but if I remember it correctly, you are right, as a heterosexual, I cannot know what it is like to be a homosexual however, I can know what it is like to have urges that I cannot act on, I can know what it is like to crucify old man and live a victorious life in Christ. I can know people who are homosexual, and some I can love dearly. I can know the pain of life and it's crulty and discrimination for something that is out of my control. I can know pain and stuggles, and injustices, and the victory that comes from obedience to the Living God.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

What I am hearing some folks say is that Homosexual behavior can be avoided, in the way that an alcoholic can give up booze, or a smoker can give up cigs. What you are suggesting is that a gay individual give up most of the things in life that give human beings fulfillment. The experience of falling in love, of sharing hopes and dreams with the person you are in love with, sharing hearth and home and yes, the joy of making love with the person who matters most to you. I would like to remind those of you who believe this is just avoidable bad behavior that most of you are not expected to give up romantic love and a happy life with the person you love. Being gay is something that is hard-wired into most gay folks. The recidivism rate for ex-gays is incredibly high. A gay person cannot become straight any easier than one of you could become gay. A final reminder- please try to remember that if you are not gay, you can not possibly know what it is like.
Compassionately,
BobKat

This line of argument is fruitless. A person should sacrifice romantic fulfillment if obtaining it would require immoral behavior. We all have crosses that we must carry with us in life. Celibacy is not bigger than some of the crosses other people have.

Therefore, one needs to show that homosexual acts as part of a convenented, monogamous homosexual relationship are not a sin rather than arguing that it is unfair for homosexuals to refrain from sex.

 

[Shane Roach]

Abram married before there was any such law. The multiple marriage situation is exactly what Jesus was talking about when he made his comment about Genesis. None of these hundreds of marriages were homosexual. You cannot find a single example of a homosexual marriage, and the continued pretense that David was gay is really going to do more damage to your own cause than help. People have looked at that relationship for hundreds of years, and only recently has anyone even mildly suggested that it was sexual. It is meant to be a picture that love is not sexual in nature, and that we ought to be able to deeply love all people, not just our wives or husbands.

I mean really, even the words themselves, 'wife' and 'husband', argue against your interpretation. They are unappologetically gender based throughout the Bible. Homosexuality is not a new thing on the earth. People had the context even in David's day, such that if David had had a homosexual relationship, it would not have been expressed as subtly as it was. Continually bringing that up merely serves to infuriate many people, and leave the rest rather disgusted by the laziness of your analysis.

About your commentary on reparative therapy, you say that even so much as the thought is sin. That was my entire point, and I made it clear that people who fail should not give up in despair. The tempation to homosexuality is like other temptations. One shouldn't feel bad just for being tempted, but should still resist.

God making Eve for Adam was making female for male, as is made clear in the rest of the passage. Individual couples are not made, rather, woman is made for man. This again is made painfully clear in Genesis, and continued purosefull attempts to confuse that issue again make your arguments look more like pr than actual argumentation. All anyone need do is read the actual story. "For this reason a man shall leave his home..." all vert specific, gender based words that define the relationship without any room for doubt.

You say your beliefs and others come from a sincere conviction, but I repeat, so far none of your explanations for where that conviction comes from make any sense at all, and the Bible warns Christians to seperate themselves from people who do not follow certain minimum standards of required morality. This is important especially for new Christians to know. No one knows what is in another persons heart. "Show me your faith without works..." and all that. Ultimately, God judges the soul, but we are to use discernment in who we associate with and what we believe. You offer no works to substantiate your faith, and so I am forced to seperate myself from your teachings, while at the same time allowing that only God can judge His own servant.

 

[seebs]

(mod hat on)

A quick reminder: Look carefully at Rule 1 when posting in threads like this. Thanks.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Abram married before there was any such law. The multiple marriage situation is exactly what Jesus was talking about when he made his comment about Genesis. None of these hundreds of marriages were homosexual. You cannot find a single example of a homosexual marriage, and the continued pretense that David was gay is really going to do more damage to your own cause than help. People have looked at that relationship for hundreds of years, and only recently has anyone even mildly suggested that it was sexual. It is meant to be a picture that love is not sexual in nature, and that we ought to be able to deeply love all people, not just our wives or husbands.

You have not responded to any of the arguments presented to support the inference that David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship. Dismissing them by an appeal to the common, tradition belief is fallacious.

I mean really, even the words themselves, 'wife' and 'husband', argue against your interpretation. They are unappologetically gender based throughout the Bible. Homosexuality is not a new thing on the earth. People had the context even in David's day, such that if David had had a homosexual relationship, it would not have been expressed as subtly as it was. Continually bringing that up merely serves to infuriate many people, and leave the rest rather disgusted by the laziness of your analysis.

Since the predominance of heterosexuality and economic necessity has made the vast majority of historical durable sexual relationships male-female, it is not surprising that marriage is described in terms of husband and wife.

The Bible often speaks with euphimisms and oblique language with respect to sexual acts. Why do you find it so unlikely that a sexual relationship between David and Jonathan would be treated in the same way?

God making Eve for Adam was making female for male, as is made clear in the rest of the passage. Individual couples are not made, rather, woman is made for man. This again is made painfully clear in Genesis, and continued purosefull attempts to confuse that issue again make your arguments look more like pr than actual argumentation. All anyone need do is read the actual story. "For this reason a man shall leave his home..." all vert specific, gender based words that define the relationship without any room for doubt.

You are generalizing from a general case to a universal one.

The language describes a male-female marriage. It does not define marriage.

 

[zoe_uu]

G'day all, please forgive me for not reading through this whole thread, I'm sure it's all arguments I've heard before on both sides of the issue. I do believe it is possible to be gay and a Christian, because I am one. You see, Jesus never said anything on the subject of homosexuality and I follow his teachings, not the interpertations some have of a few verses from the Old Testament. I firmly believe that God made me who I am and doesn't make mistakes and doesn't want me to be someone I'm not.

So there you have it, a Gay Christian!

 

[fejao]

G'day all, please forgive me for not reading through this whole thread, I'm sure it's all arguments I've heard before on both sides of the issue. I do believe it is possible to be gay and a Christian, because I am one. You see, Jesus never said anything on the subject of homosexuality and I follow his teachings, not the interpertations some have of a few verses from the Old Testament. I firmly believe that God made me who I am and doesn't make mistakes and doesn't want me to be someone I'm not.

So there you have it, a Gay Christian!

Welcome to the forum veggie, nice to have you here. Well I hope that we bless your life and that inturn you will bless ours, which I am sure you will ! It can get hot in here, but bare with us it can be fun and thought provoking....

Fejao x

 

[Shane Roach]

In Hebrew culture, similar to many mid-eastern cultures today, men and women did not engage in platonic relationships. They were either married, or they had no relationship. In this case, David compares his relationship with Jonathan to the relationship with a woman, strongly indicating a marriage/sexual relationship. Further, the word used for love here (ahbh; used also in 1 Samuel 18:3 and 1 Samuel 20:17 referring for Jonathan's love for David) is the same word used in Genesis 29:20 for Jacob's love for Rachel, and is used repeatedly in Song of Songs. It is typically translated as love in the context of a marriage or sexual desire (Proverbs 5:19, etc.; see Strong's concordance #0160).

I am singling this out as the most painfull of a long series of sloppy assertions used to create the illusion of doubt here. You say that this word is "typically translated as lovein the context of a marriage or sexual desire." First off, even on its face, this is not convincing, as it merely says typically. But let's look at its use.

Ps 109:4-5
For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself to prayer. And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.

Prov10:12
But love covereth all sins...

Prov 17:9
a transgression seeketh love...

There are absolutely a lot more examples, most of which do have some sort of reference to oppsite sex love. But I think the more telling ones are like this:

Jeremiah 31:3
The Lord hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved the with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

This is of course referring to Israel. repeatedly, Israel is referred to in terms of a bride, and so for that matter is the church referred to the same way in relation to Christ. It is always with God or Christ as the male, and Israel and the church as female, and it appears that this in itself is part of why it is so bad in relation to pagan rites that homosexual relations are part of them Biblically. The act itself is an assault on the relationship intended to symbolize God's own relationship to us. To me, given the very clear male/female relationship of marriage from the beggining to the Bible, that is a much more plausible explanation than that we have somehow lost touch with the acceptability of homosexuality over the ages and that there is some confusion regarding very clear male/female roles throughout the Bible.

 

[Shane Roach]

fragments,

I did not appeal to a tradition, I point out simply that there is no example of the thing you indicate, ie that there is homosexual marriage. You have one example of a maybe in David and Jonathan that relies entirely on demonstrably false problems of interpretation. The word for love between them is not, simply is not, always about a sexual relationship. Actually, every single statement in fejao's long post can be explained. It becomes nothing more than an attempt to cofuse meanings with a mass of half baked and poorly run together suppositions despite a clear lack of evidence for your and his interpretation. To repeat, there is not a single example of a same sex marriage or sexual relationship, period.

The Bible is not oblique about sex. When men were going to rape other men, it makes it as clear as it makes it when a man goes in and 'knows' his wife. That assertion is simply false.

And, finally, I repeat, Christ reaffirmed the Genesis account of marriage as the first, best way for marriage to be, setting aside even the commonplace and often referenced multiple wives of antiquity. With absolutely no examples of any other marriage other than the heterosexual one, there really is not any room for doubt. Franly, even if there were some room for doubt in the one example of David and Jonathan, that would still not be enough to turn the entire concept of marriage on its ear for the sake of a brand new interpretion.

 

[BobKat]

To say that a rapist is hard wired to rape has a least some basis, but to say that it is okay for them to act on that urge because of their wiring is ludicrist.[/QUOTE
Wow...A consensual act of love between two adults being compared with a non-consensual act of violence is...well, "ludicrous".
I am happy for you that your husband is able to refrain from adultery, porn and other acts that heterosexuals are apparently hard-wired to act upon. Who knew hets were so depraved?
BobKat

 

[Shane Roach]

Wow...A consensual act of love between two adults being compared with a non-consensual act of violence is...well, "ludicrous".
I am happy for you that your husband is able to refrain from adultery, porn and other acts that heterosexuals are apparently hard-wired to act upon. Who knew hets were so depraved?
BobKat

First off, not every homosexual sexual act is an act of love. Secondly, one can love without having sex at all. Thirdly, the point was that something having a genetic basis does not make it moral. Fourth, the Bible actually asserts that some simply cannot cease from sin which is precisely why they are to be put out of the church, as it is not a risk worth taking that they will repent if they go beyond certain (rather lenient) boundries. If indeed they do repent, then they can be allowed back into a congregation, but not before. Fifth, homosexuals engage in all the depravities you just tried to isolate onto heterosexuals, and with greater frequency.

 

[BobKat]

Shane,
Many acts of love between gays really are between couples who are "in love", believe it or not. Most gay couples I know are in committed, monogamous relationships. At this point, I know more straight people in relationship trouble than gay people. To liken homosexuality to a sickening crime as razzleflabben did is an insult.

 

[Outspoken]

1. God sees every action as right and wrong
2. We do not see that, we see gray
3. some actions we believe to be right could, in fact, be wrong (ie sin).
4. Thus the same with homosexuality.

A homosexual can be a christian as much as any other sinner. To say someone is NOT a christian because they are a homosexual is NOT biblical, and you can quote me on that one.