Jonnie and Dave

[Zaac]

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.

Nothing at all like you. You're on one side of the fence.

Could care less what the Baptist Faith and Message says. It ain't God's Word and is not the standard by which the Christian righteously judges.

 

[UberLutheran]

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.

Oh, OK. God married Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve in a Christian ceremony in the Garden of Eden, and then then pronounced them "man and wife" and that's why God has never blessed men having multiple wives and concubines (even though God explicitly told men to take multiple wives and concubines; and the great heroes of the Bible through David and Solomon had multiple wives and concubines which the Lord had given them).

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[UberLutheran]

Nothing at all like you. You're on one side of the fence.

With the goats, I presume?

 

[Zaac]

Oh, OK. God married Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve in a Christian ceremony in the Garden of Eden, and then then pronounced them "man and wife" and that's why God has never blessed men having multiple wives and concubines (even though God explicitly told men to take multiple wives and concubines; and the great heroes of the Bible through David and Solomon had multiple wives and concubines which the Lord had given them).

Makes perfect sense to me.

It's not supposed to make sense to you cause you think other than what God says. The marriage covenant is a GOD thing.

 

[Zaac]

With the goats, I presume?

I didn't say you were a goat. You're just on the wrong side of the fence when it comes to the issue of sexual acts between members of the same sex. Doesn't make you a nonChristian. It just makes you stubborn and out of line with God's Word on this. But that's the case for a lot of Christians on a lot of different issues.

Which always brings me back to whether or not something is the way we want, we should, as Christians beable to look at God's Word and admit that HE is right.

Without going into all the silliness about word origins and twists about what something was. We as Christians should be able to look at the FULL COUNSEL of God's Word and admit that even though He says this, I'm doing something else because I want to. And though it may not be right, I can't, or I don't want to change how I feel because I'm happy this way and willing to stand in judgment before God if I have done wrong.

You've questioned things in the past that lead me to believe that your heart has not completely hardened.

 

[GwynApNudd]

I just asked a simple question, wondering about how a particular doctrine held by some fundamentalists works itself out under a certain set of circumstances.

Suddenly there are two pages of an argument between Zaac and UberLutheran on an unrelated issue. I'm not even sure what that issue is. Both of you, please take your argument somewhere else.

I'd like to get this thread back on track.

I'm looking for someone who believes that gays cannot love to explain that doctrine, and how that doctrine would affect the two men (the modern friends, not the Biblical Jonathan and David) in my initial post.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

You speculate because you desperately want it to be true. It is not.
​

 

[GwynApNudd]

You speculate because you desperately want it to be true. It is not.​

Huh???

I am asking a question because I want to learn. It is a doctrine that does not make sense to me. But it must make sense to the people who espouse it. I just want to hear their explanation.

What is it that you claim I desparately want to be true? That gays can't love?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

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

I think the relationship between Jonathan and David shows a beautiful intimacy...an intimacy so indescribable that the author had to use "surpassing the love of a woman."

Regardless if they were sexual lovers or not, they rejoiced in God and in each other. And that is absolutely beautiful!

 

[ChaliceThunder]

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

That is one for the record books, dayhiker!

Imagine the headline: Machismo CAUSES homosexuality!

 

[ChaliceThunder]

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.

You raise good questions.

For my own part, when Jim and I met each other at age 24, it was not at all about lust. We found so much in common, and much in opposition which provided for great conversation. (he was a 'Young Republican' while I was a protester at nuclear sites.)

God drew us together from the very first moment. And it has grown daily for the last 23 years. Praise God from whom ALL blessings flow!

 

[ChaliceThunder]

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.



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 have maturity in Christ - and I don't see it at all.

Gwyn is making perfectly cogent statements.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

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

There is nobody in my very large congregation that I would call the least bit hateful or bigoted. As a matter of fact, of all the Christians I call friends - there are many - I can't name ONE who is 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.

I don't think he is putting down Christianity per se.

I think he is calling to question a certain stripe of Christian.

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.

Not demonizing...just telling the truth about certain Christians.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

You speculate because you desperately want it to be true. It is not.
​

Ah - now we see into the hearts of men, do we?

 

[WashedBytheSon]

Huh???

I am asking a question because I want to learn. It is a doctrine that does not make sense to me. But it must make sense to the people who espouse it. I just want to hear their explanation.

What is it that you claim I desparately want to be true? That gays can't love?

I was referring to the erroneous idea that Jonathan and David were gay.

The doctrine is not an attack on a homosexual's ability to love, however, the bible is clear that anything outside the covenant of marriage (between a man and a woman) is sexual sin.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

Ah - now we see into the hearts of men, do we?

Well, 'we' read the bible and understand that any homosexual relationship between Jonathan and David is purely extra-biblical speculation.

 

[GwynApNudd]

I was referring to the erroneous idea that Jonathan and David were gay.

But I specifically said that this post was not about Jonathan and David being or not being gay. That is why I framed the question about two present-day friends.

The doctrine is not an attack on a homosexual's ability to love, however, the bible is clear that anything outside the covenant of marriage (between a man and a woman) is sexual sin.

I assume that you are describing the doctrine that you hold to. And if you are, it is a more compassionate and understanding doctrine than the one I'm asking about.

But the doctrine I asked about is one I have heard repeated many, many times. Maybe it is only a very small segment of Fundamentalist Christianity that hold this doctrine, but if so, it is an unusually vocal segment.

 

[WashedBytheSon]

But I specifically said that this post was not about Jonathan and David being or not being gay. That is why I framed the question about two present-day friends.



I assume that you are describing the doctrine that you hold to. And if you are, it is a more compassionate and understanding doctrine than the one I'm asking about.

But the doctrine I asked about is one I have heard repeated many, many times. Maybe it is only a very small segment of Fundamentalist Christianity that hold this doctrine, but if so, it is an unusually vocal segment.

Sorry!:o

That is indeed the doctrine I hold to.

 

[Floatingaxe]

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.

Somewhere they crossed the line, just as perverse as pedophilia. You just don't naturally desire a friend in that way. God did not place that desire in us.

As Christian men, they would have to repent, and get counselling, and even drop their ministries, and seek restoration to leadership, as they would have made a serious breach.

 

[GwynApNudd]

Somewhere they crossed the line, just as perverse as pedophilia. You just don't naturally desire a friend in that way. God did not place that desire in us.

As Christian men, they would have to repent, and get counselling, and even drop their ministries, and seek restoration to leadership, as they would have made a serious breach.

and, from another thread:

They can experience a "form" of love, an outlawed form, which is not the love that God places in us for the opposite sex.

Homosexual love starts with an unnatural lust, and moves deeper, but it isn't true love. That said, it, being a counterfeit, does quite the number on the psyche...it takes an act of God to restore the person to wholeness, to actually love the way God commands.

Thank you for responding and letting me know that you agree with the doctrine that I'm asking about.

So, if I understand you correctly, then the one act, shows that they were only fooling themselves, that they were really only motivated by lust for all those years. And once that fact is exposed, it negates their entire testimonies and ministries. They can, if they truly repent, start over with a clean slate, but everything that went before was counterfeit and counts as dross. Is this right?