Jonnie and Dave

[GwynApNudd]

Whatever anyone thinks about the physical relationship between Jonathan and David, there is no denying that the emotional and spiritual bond was real and was strong. [BIBLE]1 Samuel 18:1[/BIBLE]

Many anti-gay Christians teach that gays can't have a loving relationship with one another. That they can't feel love, but only lust.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. I suspect that it comes from Romans 1:27 "[they] burned in their lust for one another." But it doesn't really matter where the idea came from, it is very common.

So I want to ask. Suppose you knew two friends. Friends a lot like Jonathan and David. Close friends whose souls are knit together. For years they encourage one another in their walks with the Lord. They become well respected in their church.

Then, one day, for whatever reason, there comes a day -- just one day, just one time -- when they become physical. Does that mean that their entire lives were lies? That they never loved one another, only lusted after one another? That their entire testimony in the church must be thrown out?

If you have a more compassionate view of the matter, please,hold off on any heated rhetoric against those who hold the "lust not love" view that I'm asking about, at least until they have a chance to explain it.

 

[HaloHope]

This is something that I have always found interesting. Doubtless the Romans verse has something to do with it, but I don't understand how that can cancel out a wonderful close freindship detailed above in just an instant.

It makes sense to me at least that a persons partner should be there best friend. Regardless of a persons sexuality. I see freinds who are a couple or even married that pretty much live seperate lives and only see each other after time apart with their freinds. To me that makes zero sense, when I'm with someone they need to be my best friend, the person I care about the most, the person I enjoy spending time with the most, the person I can share my leisure time with.

I've said in other threads I was odd in that my actual sexuality never appeared until I turned 20, but even in the years I predominantly thought I was a-sexual I still wanted to find someone whos soul I could feel connected to and share lifes ups and downs with. My current (and hopefully only) relationship began as a close freindship and then developed into something more as time went by. A love for each other merely developed into a need to embrace, kiss, and be closer than ever before. To me the development was beautiful and just the way things should be and I don't understand how people can automatically claim every single moment of my life spent with my partner is based on "lust".

I too would be interested in some explanations of this.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

I don't think they went that far.

 

[RMDY]

I believe the relationship between David and Jonthan is misunderstood by many people to be a sexual one.

 

[HaloHope]

Erm did anyone actually read the original post here?

The question isnt to do with if David and Jonathan were gay at all. Its to do with strong freindships and if homosexuality does occour in a long freindship between two people who really click, why do some Christians feel it negates that freindships past as "lust".

 

[BAFRIEND]

Erm did anyone actually read the original post here?

The question isnt to do with if David and Jonathan were gay at all. Its to do with strong freindships and if homosexuality does occour in a long freindship between two people who really click, why do some Christians feel it negates that freindships past as "lust".

I hope that not every relationship that involves intimacy leads one to the conclusion that all close personal relationships are sexual.

Pat Tilman stated that he joined the Army to save his brother's life. His brother was in the same unit and survived the incident he was killed in. Would you judge that they had in incestial sexual relationship ? Hardly. But you have no problem insinuating that Jonathon and David engaged in a sexual relationship.

Disgusting.

 

[dayhiker]

I've noticed this as well. A relationship is solid for years, then there is one sexual sin and its like they killed ones entire family!

A related side note. I had a guy freind. The men in his family where very macho, always getting together to watch sports, playing sports, hunting trips etc. He told me after he became a Christian that he started to understand that the homosexual temptation he had come from the macho attitude. The male charactoristics were so idolized that males became sexually desireable.

I found that really interesting.
dayhiker

 

[Zaac]

Whatever anyone thinks about the physical relationship between Jonathan and David, there is no denying that the emotional and spiritual bond was real and was strong. [BIBLE]1 Samuel 18:1[/BIBLE]

Many anti-gay Christians teach that gays can't have a loving relationship with one another. That they can't feel love, but only lust.

What's an anti-gay Christian? Are there anti-straight gay Christians?

Of course they can feel love and have a strong bond with each other. God's Word attests to this.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. I suspect that it comes from Romans 1:27 "[they] burned in their lust for one another." But it doesn't really matter where the idea came from, it is very common.

So I want to ask. Suppose you knew two friends. Friends a lot like Jonathan and David. Close friends whose souls are knit together. For years they encourage one another in their walks with the Lord. They become well respected in their church.

Then, one day, for whatever reason, there comes a day -- just one day, just one time -- when they become physical. Does that mean that their entire lives were lies? That they never loved one another, only lusted after one another? That their entire testimony in the church must be thrown out?

If you have a more compassionate view of the matter, please,hold off on any heated rhetoric against those who hold the "lust not love" view that I'm asking about, at least until they have a chance to explain it.

Their bond doesn't change.The physical relationship is lustful period because it's outside the confines of God's ordained marriage covenant.

 

[Zaac]

I hope that not every relationship that involves intimacy leads one to the conclusion that all close personal relationships are sexual.

Pat Tilman stated that he joined the Army to save his brother's life. His brother was in the same unit and survived the incident he was killed in. Would you judge that they had in incestial sexual relationship ? Hardly. But you have no problem insinuating that Jonathon and David engaged in a sexual relationship.

Disgusting.

No more so than I would judge that a parent who loves a child is engaged in a sexual relationship.

There's a difference between loving and being in love.

 

[dayhiker]

What's an anti-gay Christian? Are there anti-straight gay Christians?

Of course they can feel love and have a strong bond with each other. God's Word attests to this.



Their bond doesn't change.The physical relationship is lustful period because it's outside the confines of God's ordained marriage covenant.

gee, I've read the Bible for years, I've not come across a "God ordained marriage covenant."

dayhiker

 

[Zaac]

gee, I've read the Bible for years, I've not come across a "God ordained marriage covenant."

dayhiker

The marriage covenant is God ordained because His intent is that it be entered into with HIM by the husband and wife.

This is one of the reason's divorce should strike people more than it does. You've entered into a covenant with God.

If He didn't ordain it and you did it of your own making, you still entered into it and He expects it to be honored.

 

[GwynApNudd]

Whatever anyone thinks about the physical relationship between Jonathan and David, there is no denying that the emotional and spiritual bond was real and was strong. [bible]1 Samuel 18:1[/bible]

Many anti-gay Christians teach that gays can't have a loving relationship with one another. That they can't feel love, but only lust.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. I suspect that it comes from Romans 1:27 "[they] burned in their lust for one another." But it doesn't really matter where the idea came from, it is very common.

So I want to ask. Suppose you knew two friends. Friends a lot like Jonathan and David. Close friends whose souls are knit together. For years they encourage one another in their walks with the Lord. They become well respected in their church.

Then, one day, for whatever reason, there comes a day -- just one day, just one time -- when they become physical. Does that mean that their entire lives were lies? That they never loved one another, only lusted after one another? That their entire testimony in the church must be thrown out?

If you have a more compassionate view of the matter, please,hold off on any heated rhetoric against those who hold the "lust not love" view that I'm asking about, at least until they have a chance to explain it.

Of everyone who posted, HaloHope is the only one who understood the question I asked. I specifically made the question not about the Jonathan and David of the Bible, except by example because I did not want to get into that issue in this thread.

Again:

I have heard, over and over again by Christians the doctrine that homosexuals cannot love another, they can only lust after one another. I'm just asking how that doctrine relates to a situation like this.

If you do not teach this doctrine, then this question was not directed at you. You are free to express your own doctrine on the issue, of course, and I'll be happy to hear it. But it is the only point of this this thread: reconciling that doctrine to this type of situation.

 

[Zaac]

Of everyone who posted, HaloHope is the only one who understood the question I asked. I specifically made the question not about the Jonathan and David of the Bible, except by example because I did not want to get into that issue in this thread.

Again:

I have heard, over and over again by Christians the doctrine that homosexuals cannot love another, they can only lust after one another. I'm just asking how that doctrine relates to a situation like this.

Are you on some sort of Christian vendetta? You know goodness well that there is a very tiny portion of the sane Christian community who think people of the same sex can't love one another, just as there is a small portion of the gay community who actually thinks Christians hate them.

If you do not teach this doctrine, then this question was not directed at you. You are free to express your own doctrine on the issue, of course, and I'll be happy to hear it. But it is the only point of this this thread: reconciling that doctrine to this type of situation.

Gwyn, I swear that something just aint right about you. You continue to paint Christians in a bad light while encouraging sinful behavior. Yeah you are. You can deny it, but every Christian with amodicum of maturity can see it.

 

[GwynApNudd]

Are you on some sort of Christian vendetta? You know goodness well that there is a very tiny portion of the sane Christian community who think people of the same sex can't love one another, just as there is a small portion of the gay community who actually thinks Christians hate them.

They may be a small portion. They may even be so few that none of them post here. If so, I'll find that out.

But if they are few, they are very vocal. It is a doctrine I have heard repeated over and over again. And it does not make any sense to me. So I want to understand it better.

Gwyn, I swear that something just aint right about you. You continue to paint Christians in a bad light while encouraging sinful behavior. Yeah you are. You can deny it, but every Christian with amodicum of maturity can see it.

I'm confused. You wrote this in reply to my explaining my purpose in starting this thread, and yet you started a very similar thread yourself, with almost the identical purpose, and admittedly inspired by this thread. So either you agree that the question has value, or ??? (I can't even imagine what alternate reason you would have for starting the other thread.)

So, if the question has value, why do you say that I am "painting Christians in a bad light"? If asking the question "encourag[es] sinful behaviour," why did you repost it?

 

[Zaac]

They may be a small portion. They may even be so few that none of them post here. If so, I'll find that out.

But if they are few, they are very vocal. It is a doctrine I have heard repeated over and over again. And it does not make any sense to me. So I want to understand it better.

Then play fair and ask the other side why they always paint Christians with a broad brush as hateful and bigoted.

I'm confused. You wrote this in reply to my explaining my purpose in starting this thread, and yet you started a very similar thread yourself, with almost the identical purpose, and admittedly inspired by this thread. So either you agree that the question has value, or ??? (I can't even imagine what alternate reason you would have for starting the other thread.)

No need for confusion. You seem to have a knack for putting down Christianity in your threads before you make your point. That's all I was pointing out.

So, if the question has value, why do you say that I am "painting Christians in a bad light"? If asking the question "encourag[es] sinful behaviour," why did you repost it?

Because the question I asked didn't have anything to do with Christians.

You seem to have an established pattern of demonizing some aspect of Christendom in order to garner support for the point you're trying to make.

As with this thread, you say

Many anti-gay Christians teach that gays can't have a loving relationship with one another

only to come back and say

So I want to ask. Suppose you knew two friends. Friends a lot like Jonathan and David. Close friends whose souls are knit together. For years they encourage one another in their walks with the Lord. They become well respected in their church.

Then, one day, for whatever reason, there comes a day -- just one day, just one time -- when they become physical. Does that mean that their entire lives were lies? That they never loved one another, only lusted after one another? That their entire testimony in the church must be thrown out?

You get a certain part of the folks here to think that all Christians are against them, and then you ask them a question in support of their stance while making Christians out to say something they in general do not say.

And then when the same group jumps on board in support of your premise that they are all in agreement with what you said primarily because of the anti-gay Christian element, you parade around patting yourself on the back for "proving your point."

And all the while God's Word rings true:

17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 2 Peter 2:17-19

All you're continuing to do is give folks the impression that Christians hate them while ignoring the fact that God's people are simply preaching the truth of His Word.

Shameful.

 

[GwynApNudd]

Then play fair and ask the other side why they always paint Christians with a broad brush as hateful and bigoted.




No need for confusion. You seem to have a knack for putting down Christianity in your threads before you make your point. That's all I was pointing out.



Because the question I asked didn't have anything to do with Christians.

You seem to have an established pattern of demonizing some aspect of Christendom in order to garner support for the point you're trying to make.

As with this thread, you say only to come back and say



You get a certain part of the folks here to think that all Christians are against them, and then you ask them a question in support of their stance while making Christians out to say something they in general do not say.

And then when the same group jumps on board in support of your premise that they are all in agreement with what you said primarily because of the anti-gay Christian element, you parade around patting yourself on the back for "proving your point."

And all the while God's Word rings true:

17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 19They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. 2 Peter 2:17-19

All you're continuing to do is give folks the impression that Christians hate them while ignoring the fact that God's people are simply preaching the truth of His Word.

Shameful.

Quite frankly, I have no idea where any of this is coming from. All of the baggage that you are speaking of is yours alone, and nothing to do with this thread.

This is a simple thread with a simple question. One reply, the first reply, "got" it. Why is it so hard for anyone else to see?

 

[Zaac]

Quite frankly, I have no idea where any of this is coming from. All of the baggage that you are speaking of is yours alone, and nothing to do with this thread.

That's because you're too busy trying to come across as the opposite of what you're making the majority of Christians out to be.

The baggage is yours. No one else may see what you're doing. But it certainly is evident to the discerning spirit.

17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 2 Peter 2:17-18

This is a simple thread with a simple question. One reply, the first reply, "got" it. Why is it so hard for anyone else to see?

Perhaps everyone has caught on to this little game that you're playing.

I told you yesterday that you're dangerous and far more detrimental to the cause of Christ than the lost person.

 

[UberLutheran]

The marriage covenant is God ordained because His intent is that it be entered into with HIM by the husband and wife.

Well, that sure doesn't explain husbands having multiple wives and hundreds of concubines as was the custom in the Old Testament -- realizing, of course, that the Old Testament is the literal Word of God and therefore to be taken literally for what it is -- and applied.

And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
(Genesis 4:19)

Lamech said to his wives:Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:I have killed a man for wounding me,a young man for striking me.
(Genesis 4:23)

But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.
(Genesis 25:6)

Esau went to Ishmael and took as his wife, besides the wives he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, the sister of Nebaioth.
(Genesis 28:9)

Give me my wives and my children for whom I have served you, that I may go, for you know the service that I have given you.
(Genesis 30:26)

So Jacob arose and set his sons and his wives on camels.
(Genesis 31:17)

The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok.
(Genesis 32:22)

Esau took his wives from the Canaanites: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, Oholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite,
(Genesis 36:2)

Then Esau took his wives, his sons, his daughters, and all the members of his household, his livestock, all his beasts, and all his property that he had acquired in the land of Canaan. He went into a land away from his brother Jacob.
(Genesis 36:6)

And you, Joseph, are commanded to say, Do this: take wagons from the land of Egypt for your little ones and for your wives, and bring your father, and come.
(Genesis 45:19)

If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him children, and if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved,
(Deuteronomy 21:15)

Now Gideon had seventy sons, his own offspring, for he had many wives.
(Judges 8:30)

He had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other, Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.
(I Samuel 1:2)

David also took Ahinoam of Jezreel, and both of them became his wives.
(I Samuel 25:43)

And David lived with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, and David with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail of Carmel, Nabal's widow.
(I Samuel 27:3)

And when David and his men came to the city, they found it burned with fire, and their wives and sons and daughters taken captive.
(I Samuel 30:3)

David recovered all that the Amalekites had taken, and David rescued his two wives.
(I Samuel 30:18)


And David took more concubines and wives from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron, and more sons and daughters were born to David.
(II Samuel 5:13)

Ahithophel said to Absalom, Go in to your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.
(II Samuel 16:21)

So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel.
(II Samuel 16:22)

Then Joab came into the house to the king and said, You have today covered with shame the faces of all your servants, who have this day saved your life and the lives of your sons and your daughters and the lives of your wives and your concubines,
(II Samuel 19:5)

And David came to his house at Jerusalem. And the king took the ten concubines whom he had left to care for the house and put them in a house under guard and provided for them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up until the day of their
(II Samuel 20:3)

He had 700 wives, princesses, and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart.
(I Kings 11:3)

For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.
(I Kings 11:4)

All these were David's sons, besides the sons of the concubines, and Tamar was their sister.
(I Chronicles 3:9)

Rehoboam loved Maacah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and concubines (he took eighteen wives and sixty concubines, and fathered twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters).
(II Chronicles 11:21)

In the evening she would go in, and in the morning she would return to the second harem in custody of Shaashgaz, the king's eunuch, who was in charge of the concubines. She would not go in to the king again, unless the king delighted in her and she
(Esther 2:14)

There are many more, but I think you get the general idea.

So much for the Bible explicitly and conclusively stating that marriage is between "one man and one woman" and anybody who says otherwise is "in error".

 

[Zaac]

Well, that sure doesn't explain husbands having multiple wives and hundreds of concubines as was the custom in the Old Testament -- realizing, of course, that the Old Testament is the literal Word of God and therefore to be taken literally for what it is -- and applied.

And it wasn't meant to explain it. Not one time in the several occasions that men in the Bible took more than one wife did God EVER change what He says in His Word about ONE HUSBAND and ONE WIFE.

The Bible is riddled with men doing things against what God had said. And I gotta say that God is brilliant. In making the cream of the crop just as susceptible to sin as everyone else, He shows why ALL need a Savior.

Your station or lot in life do not free you up from committing sin. And these Bible greats were no exception.

 

[UberLutheran]

That's because you're too busy trying to come across as the opposite of what you're making the majority of Christians out to be.

The baggage is yours. No one else may see what you're doing. But it certainly is evident to the discerning spirit.

17These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. 18For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. 2 Peter 2:17-18



Perhaps everyone has caught on to this little game that you're playing.

I told you yesterday that you're dangerous and far more detrimental to the cause of Christ than the lost person.

Of course: GwynApNudd doesn't agree with you, nor does GwynApNudd accept the Baptist Faith and Message in toto -- and that makes GwynApNudd a dangerous person.

Kinda like me.