No Burst of mercy for Hate group

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Your reps don't do anything yet, lol.

So they aren't green yet

its the thought that counts, i am getting close, around 900 points now

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Not really...I'm not here to debate whether David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship or not, just pointing out a comparison.

Nah, you were using a comparison with a different premise, you are pushing same-sex love when the other side pushes against same-sex sex. They are 2 different things, so the conversation will only end in confusion. The whole david and jonathan thing really isnt even debatable, so I don't see why it's even brought up.

...and your viewpoint is saddening due to the idea that two men making love to each other is a disgusting and sinful thing, therefore it couldn't possibly be true.

disgusting and sinful are not synonymous, and you are making an accusation about me that you honestly have no idea about. All I am trying to point out is that these homosexual notions weren't thrown around like they are today.

What does this have to do with masculinity?

Lots, in current society, generally speaking, a guy who is doing feminine things, or portraying himself in a less than masculine fashion, its commonly thought of that he's possibly homosexual. This is a generalization of course, but its the truth.

As stated, I don't use the passage to justify same sex sex, you are the one trying to make it seem like I am. Once again, arguments from silence are useless for either side of the debate.

As I previously stated, using this reference to highlight same-sex love whilst same-sex sex is whats being debated will only cause confusion to anyone reading.

Not all David's actions are recorded. Is his entire relationship with Jonathan recorded, every minute? no. So yes, it is an argument based upon silence.

Of course it isn't. For the most part, his story dwells with his relationship to God. That being said, if he were involved in an adulterous sexual relationship with jonathan then it'd be silly to think that it'd be omitted. Obviously this isn't enough to disprove that there was no sexual relationship, but honestly it leans me more away from that possibility.

While I do agree that a deep love doesn't need to be validated by sex, I still believe any argument made here about them is based upon assumption, which is why I don't argue that their relationship was ever sexual one way or the other.

I agree also, so maybe we should stick more with the same-sex sex references and sling our mud there some more

 

[davedjy]

So they aren't green yet

its the thought that counts, i am getting close, around 900 points now

I gave you 467...

 

[davedjy]

Nah, you were using a comparison with a different premise, you are pushing same-sex love when the other side pushes against same-sex sex. They are 2 different things, so the conversation will only end in confusion. The whole david and jonathan thing really isnt even debatable, so I don't see why it's even brought up.

Yes, exactly, and there are Scholars that argue both sides. I personally think ALL the Scholars that argue on EITHER side are making themselves look ridiculous by arguing over omitted text, and upon assumption of reasoning.

disgusting and sinful are not synonymous, and you are making an accusation about me that you honestly have no idea about. All I am trying to point out is that these homosexual notions weren't thrown around like they are today.

When you say "today", what do you mean? do you have any proof that their relationship being homosexual has only been debated very recently?

Lots, in current society, generally speaking, a guy who is doing feminine things, or portraying himself in a less than masculine fashion, its commonly thought of that he's possibly homosexual. This is a generalization of course, but its the truth.

Some gays do act "feminine" but the whole thing definitely is a social stigma, and nothing more.

As I previously stated, using this reference to highlight same-sex love whilst same-sex sex is whats being debated will only cause confusion to anyone reading.

...which is why I was using it in the context of a same sex union of two people.

Of course it isn't. For the most part, his story dwells with his relationship to God. That being said, if he were involved in an adulterous sexual relationship with jonathan then it'd be silly to think that it'd be omitted. Obviously this isn't enough to disprove that there was no sexual relationship, but honestly it leans me more away from that possibility.

Adulterous? David had multiple wives and concubines! Not every action between them was mentioned in the Bible either.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I gave you 467...

salamit


and a reply to your last post coming up soon

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Yes, exactly, and there are Scholars that argue both sides. I personally think ALL the Scholars that argue on EITHER side are making themselves look ridiculous by arguing over omitted text, and upon assumption of reasoning.

But this isnt an argument about any random type of omittance. When it comes to a human-human sexual relationship there are only 2 kinds, heterosexual and homosexual. If both are blessed, then why is one omitted? This is obviously not in itself a defining factor, but in conjunction with other various reasons it makes the biblical stance on homosexual actions evident.

When you say "today", what do you mean? do you have any proof that their relationship being homosexual has only been debated very recently?

Today as in current society. I haven't read anything in history making this claim about their relationship (although that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I just haven't seen anything)

Some gays do act "feminine" but the whole thing definitely is a social stigma, and nothing more.

So this means that since david and jonathan weren't acting completely masculine towards each other, your belief that they may have been romantically involved is brought on by social stigma, correct?

...which is why I was using it in the context of a same sex union of two people.

The 2 things may be tied together, but for the sake of clarity they should be kept separate when debating.

Adulterous? David had multiple wives and concubines! Not every action between them was mentioned in the Bible either.

So are you saying that David was committing sins with them that weren't mentioned in the bible?