Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the sin of sodom
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 106 of 185 (420702)
09-09-2007 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by arachnophilia
09-09-2007 1:47 AM


a modern exegetical approach, part three
c. Patterns in Sodom and Gibeah
(excerpt)
quote:
What do the mobs in both cities want of the strangers they are demanding? It is not immediately clear in either story. The angelic intervention means we never find out in Sodom's case. Both Lot and the old man offer women to the mob to appease them, but this action could merely serve as the easiest means to bribe them. However, the use of the word 'know', suggests a sexual intent. That this intent is pack rape is shown by the fate of the concubine herself. The Levite's own testimony in Judges 20, that the men of Gibeah wanted to kill him, does not rule out his being threatened with pack rape. If the concubine does die at the hands of the mob (and not by being dismembered by the Levite) that fact would support the Levite's claim. Pack rape at the hands of a mob would be a particularly brutal death. Pack rape of a defenceless stranger is a particularly apt symbol of injustice and abuse of the helpless, which I would argue are the real sins of Sodom and Gibeah and not same-sex desire and its mutually consenting expression.
If the angels had not intervened in Genesis 19, Lot would probably have handed his daughters over to the mob. This probability is made explicit in Gibeah through the Levite's behaviour. Not only does he seem willing to use the concubine to purchase hospitality, but he finally casts her out to the mob to secure his own safety. Her brutal death shows what would have happened to Lot's' daughters if the angels had not intervened. Their intervention actually makes Lot look rather ridiculous and is perhaps a judgement on his ownconfidence in his authority as a male and father.
...
Both stories conclude with rape as a means to ensure continuance of a community. In Judges, 600 women are abducted to ensure the survival of the tribe of Benjamin. The horror of the concubine's fate is, thus, in no way redressed by the conclusion of the Judges story. In the Genesis story, if read with the understanding that the main victims are Lot's daughters, there is a striking reversal of the rape image. It is only angelic intervention that has saved them from the fate of the concubine. Reading both stories from the vantagepoint of the daughters and the concubine it is clear that women are the ultimate victims, subject to the power of the men. However, Genesis 19 reverses this pattern, closing with Lot being raped by his daughters to secure the continuance of the human race. By doing so the women establish their own agency and speak as characters (the concubine never speaks: her only agency is at the beginning of her story). As a result, Lot, the patriarch, is rendered powerless and silent; drunk and subject to his daughters, his authority is stripped from him. As powerless women, subject to abuse, they rise up and assert their own power. They can do this because YHWH's intervention has destroyed the interlocking systems of power and privilege to which they were subject. Though their action is still rape, it is significantly different from the parallel conclusion in Judges. In Judges 21, the rape is violent and is accompanied by the murder of many thousands in its accomplishment. In Judges, the system of oppressor and oppressed, although adjusted, remains essentially intact. In Genesis, normal power structures are turned upside down. Powerless women take initiative and control.
In both stories rape is the dominant motif and is used to signify the gross injustice that pervades both the cities of the Plain and early Israel. As if to highlight this injustice, Judges 19-21 opens with, 'In those days there was no king in Israel' (19.1), and closes with, 'In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes' (21.25). It is not the gender of the victims that is crucial, but their status, that of defenceless aliens. Their alien status is reinforced by the fact that they only win hospitality from resident aliens in each of the particular towns. In both cases, too, the ultimate victims, the alien women, are of even lower status.8 Lot's daughters are saved but there is no such salvation for the concubine. As the lowest, a female alien, she is raped (probably to death) throughout the night by the mob. That this must be her fate is because, in the end, the system is unchanged. The stories of mass rape and murder in Judges 21 confirm this fact. However, in Genesis, YHWH is determined to overthrow the system and so Lot's daughters are saved. Ironically their rape of their father demonstrates that the system has been overthrown. At least for a little while, the victims are victims no longer. In Genesis the victims are freed to find their voice; in Judges the victims remain chained in silence.
(ibid.)
footnotes:
quote:
8. Thus, male honour is preserved - I don't believe that gender is irrelevant in these stories.
i'm aware that these three posts are a little sparse in terms of my own argument -- they're meant as supplementary material, support for previous arguments (as i have made nearly all of the arguments here in my preceeding post) and to specifically address the issue crashfrog raises, as this book does.
this is a whole book on the history of sodom and homophobia in judaism and christendom, and is really quite interesting. chapter 2 (presented in part above) is the authors own view, designed to cut through all of the bias and tradition -- and is remarkably similar to my own. i can post more, if people are interested, but i have tried to keep it to what is relevent to the debate, and that looks like about this section of chapter 2. the author proceeds to analyze it slight more in depth from there -- i'll keep reading, and if anything seems pertinant, i'll post it.
Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by arachnophilia, posted 09-09-2007 1:47 AM arachnophilia has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 107 of 185 (420944)
09-10-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by arachnophilia
09-07-2007 6:39 PM


i think it would be good to look at those few times when single women are raped by single men, like tamar. look at that verb and run with it.
and of course by tamar, i mean tamar #2, david's daughter.
Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by arachnophilia, posted 09-07-2007 6:39 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by arachnophilia, posted 09-10-2007 2:30 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 108 of 185 (420946)
09-10-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Taz
09-07-2007 9:19 PM


Re: Exegetical studies
No matter how bad a heterosexual sex crime is, it is still less sinful than homosexual sex.
it's nice to know that god is so just that he would punish two men in love more than he would punish the man who raped me and the men who brutally raped and abused women in bosnia and rwanda. so very nice.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Taz, posted 09-07-2007 9:19 PM Taz has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 109 of 185 (420949)
09-10-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by arachnophilia
09-08-2007 1:08 AM


Re: origin of the euphemism "know" meaning sex
dude. ham boinked his dad. how gross. i had no idea.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 09-08-2007 1:08 AM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 110 of 185 (420971)
09-10-2007 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by macaroniandcheese
09-10-2007 11:49 AM


i think it would be good to look at those few times when single women are raped by single men, like tamar. look at that verb and run with it.
and of course by tamar, i mean tamar #2, david's daughter.
i'd hope so, because "rape" doesn't exactly apply to the first tamar
i was thinking of (if i have spare time) putting together a list of all the uses of some conjugation of yada applied to a person as the direct object, one column for "probably sex" one column for "not sex" and one column for "god." the first column should be about 10 entries long, and second only one or two, and the third very long.
maybe we can look at other euphemisms too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-10-2007 11:49 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-10-2007 2:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 111 of 185 (420973)
09-10-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by arachnophilia
09-10-2007 2:30 PM


um. i have a job and um exams.
but it would be interesting to see. see if you can find any for gay sex. or maybe that's "yada yada". maybe the gay-gang-rape is "yada yada yada".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by arachnophilia, posted 09-10-2007 2:30 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by arachnophilia, posted 09-10-2007 3:06 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 112 of 185 (420977)
09-10-2007 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by macaroniandcheese
09-10-2007 2:35 PM


but it would be interesting to see. see if you can find any for gay sex. or maybe that's "yada yada". maybe the gay-gang-rape is "yada yada yada".
like on seinfeld?
judges 19 and genesis 19 appear to be the only two uses of yada that could possibly imply a little man-on-man action. the other ones are "lie with" and "see the nakedness of." but that's surprisingly, as those are statistically used more often to refer to sex anyways.
oh, and david and jonathan, which doesn't actually say anything but is heavily implied.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-10-2007 2:35 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 185 (421587)
09-13-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
09-08-2007 12:39 PM


Re: Exegetical studies
quote:
Because I doubt anyone could characterize them as "gay."
But, according to you, they were after men, right? They wanted to have sex with men?
In that instance, yes. I think the point of the story is that Sodom was rife with sexual immorality. To pin-the-tail on the homosexual act is not the authors intent, I believe. There is an over-arching sentiment that they favored all kinds of sexual immorality, to include, but not exclusive to homosexuality.
Besides, we both know that many men and women incarcerated, who otherwise don't describe themselves as homosexuals, often end up commiting homosexual acts with one another. Rape is often more about asserting dominance over another human being than it is having sex with them. This kind of mentality seemed to have pervaded most of Sodom.
So why didn't Lot offer himself? Surely he's not stupid, right? If they were there for sex with men, why would he offer them women?
The fact that he offered his daughter should be evidence to you that you can't describe these men as either gay or straight. This is a recent invention, not the standard. They were sexually immoral. In what way they were sexually immoral is not the focal point.
Even in New Orleans, widely regarded as the modern Sodom on the Mississippi, even at the height of the destruction and squalor after Katrina, the oft-heralded media reports of roving rape gangs that targeted men and women alike turned out to be complete myths.
So that is your evidence that such a thing didn't happen in Sodom?
You seem to think being of someone else's religion, or of any religion, turns one into an animal.
When did I say or even imply that?
Johnathan's father refers to David as his son-in-law "twice", after he civil-marries his daughter. To be made "twice" son-in-law you already have to be son-in-law once, which implies that David was already considered to be married to the other of Johnathan's father's children - Johnathan.
I've never understood this interpretation because it requires one to come to lofty conclusionsn in order to justify itself. This is what we know from scripture: That David was a womanizer-- so much so that he would have Uriah killed in order to sexually accost Bathsheba-- a woman. There is no indication that David's and Jonathan's love was anything other than platonic, brotherly love.
Look, the Bible says that David loved Johnathan "as a man loved a woman"
Yes, which is saying alot about how David sold people and God out because of his sexual desire for women! There is no evidence, aside from wishful thinking, to assume that David and Johnathan had any kind of sexual relationship.
Among his harem, David was also married to Michal (who was Johnathan's own sister), Merab (sister of Michal and Johnathan), Ahinoam, Aigail, Bathsheba, Maacah, Haggith, Abifal, etc... David liked women.... alot....
And according to you, one has to be either gay or straight. So how do you overcome this conundrum and still remain consistent?

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2007 12:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2007 1:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 114 of 185 (421643)
09-13-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Hyroglyphx
09-13-2007 8:58 AM


Re: Exegetical studies
Besides, we both know that many men and women incarcerated, who otherwise don't describe themselves as homosexuals, often end up commiting homosexual acts with one another.
Usually as trade, though, not to enforce a dominant hierarchy. The hierarchy of dominance, in fact, is what determines who gets raped - not the reverse, as you imply.
Rape is often more about asserting dominance over another human being than it is having sex with them.
I wish you would go back a few pages and read where I rebutted the same argument from Arach. Needless to say, rape is not about domination in most cases; it's about gaining sexual access on a pretense of misunderstood "consent."
People who dominate others invariably brag about it, because advertising your dominance helps you dominate others. But the vast majority of rapists deny up and down that they've ever raped anybody. It's not just fear of prosecution; it's fear of rejection. They don't want to develop a reputation that will make it harder for women to let their guard down around them.
So that is your evidence that such a thing didn't happen in Sodom?
It's one piece of evidence; "real people in the same situation don't act like that." You have the advantage if we're talking about fictional people, but I don't think that's something you're willing to concede, right?
If you're holding the position that this is a true story, then you have somewhat of a problem that real human beings don't act that way. If it's a fictional story, I guess it comes down to our individual interpretations, and there's no point in arguing about it.
There is no indication that David's and Jonathan's love was anything other than platonic, brotherly love.
There's ample indication. There's the fact that Johnathan's father considers David his son-in-law at a time when the only relationship David has with him is through Johnathan. There's the fact that they're naked together, several times. There's the deep emotional connection between them, to the point that David's grief is nearly inconsolable when he has to depart from Johnathan. There's the constant refrain of Johnathan being loved "as a woman."
There is, of course, the fact that the church has long used David and Johnathan as the scriptural model for other men living together in homosexual arrangements.
Look, if David and Johnathan weren't in a gay relationship, then why were they having so much sex?
Among his harem, David was also married to Michal (who was Johnathan's own sister), Merab (sister of Michal and Johnathan), Ahinoam, Aigail, Bathsheba, Maacah, Haggith, Abifal, etc... David liked women.... alot....
Sure. Potentially, David was bisexual. Of course, if he wasn't, he wouldn't have been the first gay ruler to close his eyes and think of England in order to secure the alliance of marriage or an heir to his throne. Perhaps he did enjoy sex with women, and was determined to stock a huge harem. Perhaps he was simply keeping up appearances, and maintaining his royal image and stature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-13-2007 8:58 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by macaroniandcheese, posted 09-13-2007 4:19 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2007 1:40 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 118 by arachnophilia, posted 09-14-2007 6:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 115 of 185 (421660)
09-13-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by crashfrog
09-13-2007 1:37 PM


Re: Exegetical studies
Usually as trade, though, not to enforce a dominant hierarchy. The hierarchy of dominance, in fact, is what determines who gets raped - not the reverse, as you imply.
from what i've read about it (i've posted the pamphlet about hooking up in jail here before) often the trade is for protection from being raped.
Needless to say, rape is not about domination in most cases; it's about gaining sexual access on a pretense of misunderstood "consent."
why do you think they misunderstood? because they're so awesome and so super, why would she say no. she really meant yes, stupid woman. and i deserve it anyways, so fuck what she meant. don't you think that this "misunderstanding" might be an excuse made after the fact?
But the vast majority of rapists deny up and down that they've ever raped anybody.
in public. what do they say in the locker rooms?
Perhaps he was simply keeping up appearances, and maintaining his royal image and stature.
but the verses say that jonathans father and all the men around him approved. why would he need to keep up appearances? also, why if he wasn't interested in women would he kill a man to steal his wife?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2007 1:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 185 (421787)
09-14-2007 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by crashfrog
09-13-2007 1:37 PM


Re: Exegetical studies
rape is not about domination in most cases; it's about gaining sexual access on a pretense of misunderstood "consent."
Misunderstood consent comprises most rape cases? So you think most rapists are under the impression that when the other person is screaming and pleading with them to stop, that they are actually coll with it? No.
Rapists generally have self-esteem issues which fosters a deep resentment. As a result they often compensate for they feel they are lacking by asserting their dominance over someone else. Their captors feeling of helplessness gets them off more than the sexual act itself.
quote:
So that is your evidence that such a thing didn't happen in Sodom?
It's one piece of evidence; "real people in the same situation don't act like that."
Its not evidence at all... its pure conjecture. At the most, you debunked "rape squads," or whatever you called them, in New Orleans. It bears no reflection to the events of Sodom.
If you're holding the position that this is a true story, then you have somewhat of a problem that real human beings don't act that way.
It can and does happen. In Vietnam during the war years, there was a place named Snake Alley where men chose their sexual perversion after drinking a concoction of grain alcohol and snake venom and blood. Even infants, as young as 3 months old, were raped. The only thing that stops life from devolving into Sodom is societal standards. Once you abandon that, Sodom isn't so far fetched.
There's the fact that Johnathan's father considers David his son-in-law at a time when the only relationship David has with him is through Johnathan.
Can you provide a chapter and verse for me so I know what you are referencing?
There's the fact that they're naked together, several times.
There is only one verse that I am aware of where one was naked in front of the other (as if that makes people gay either way).
"After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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.
Whatever Saul sent him to do, David did it so successfully that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the people, and Saul's officers as well."
-1st Samuel 18:1-5
And this has to do with the fact that Saul, Jonathan's father, was king of Israel. IOW, he was royalty, along with Jonathan. Jonathan was stripping himself of his rank as a gesture of oblation towards David.
You have to read stories within their context. In the previous chapter, David slain Goliath. As a result, all of Israel was fonder of David in that moment than of Saul. Jonathan was merely showing respect for his friend, not getting ready for a lurid romp in the bedroom.
If you have any other verses about how they're always naked with one another, I would like to see them.
There's the deep emotional connection between them, to the point that David's grief is nearly inconsolable when he has to depart from Johnathan.
So? Can I suppose you've never had a deep emotional connection before with either your father, brother, cousin, or friends? Where does sexuality factor in to that?
There's the constant refrain of Johnathan being loved "as a woman."
Actually, its loved more than a woman, meaning, that Jonathan is a true friend. Again, you have to understand something about David. The man was a salacious sex fiend according to scripture, always getting in trouble because of his desire for women. Him saying to Jonathan that he loves him more than a woman is a compliment to Jonathan, not him coming on to him.
There is, of course, the fact that the church has long used David and Johnathan as the scriptural model for other men living together in homosexual arrangements.
And which church would this be? Because I've never heard of any such thing
Look, if David and Johnathan weren't in a gay relationship, then why were they having so much sex?
Show me a scripture where they were ever having sex.
quote:
Among his harem, David was also married to Michal (who was Johnathan's own sister), Merab (sister of Michal and Johnathan), Ahinoam, Aigail, Bathsheba, Maacah, Haggith, Abifal, etc... David liked women.
Sure. Potentially, David was bisexual.
Hang on a minute here. You first argued that its ridiculous to assume that the men of Sodom wanted sex from the angels. You further inquired as to why Lot, knowing that the men were homosexuals, didn't just offer himself instead of his daughters. So in one instance, its impossible for you to believe that the men of Sodom could have had bisexual feelings, but totally plausible for David...??? What's up with that?
Of course, if he wasn't, he wouldn't have been the first gay ruler to close his eyes and think of England in order to secure the alliance of marriage or an heir to his throne. Perhaps he did enjoy sex with women, and was determined to stock a huge harem. Perhaps he was simply keeping up appearances, and maintaining his royal image and stature.
There is no evidence to claim that David was gay. At most you have to really try and reinterpret scripture in order to come to the conclusion, whereas, there is no question that David happily engaged in heterosexual acts, to the point where he would actually have someone killed on the battlefield just so he could get to the guy's wife.
There is just no credible reason to assume that David was gay.

"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2007 1:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 4:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 117 of 185 (421812)
09-14-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Hyroglyphx
09-14-2007 1:40 PM


Re: Exegetical studies
I don't want to turn this into a rape thread, but if your sole idea of rape is violent, jumping-out-of-the-bushes stranger rape, then naturally, you don't understand rape at all. Women are far more likely to be raped by the men closest to them.
So you think most rapists are under the impression that when the other person is screaming and pleading with them to stop, that they are actually coll with it?
I think they manage to fool themselves at the time. I think that to be a rapist is to exercise a considerable amount of self-deception.
Besides, rape victims only resist, struggle, and shout about half the time. Women in our society are trained to go along with ambiguous situations and to be pleasing to people, so in a crunch, there's a tendency among some to comply without struggle. If you don't believe that society enforces compliant, society-pleasing behavior in women, then ask the women closest to you how many times they've been approached by complete strangers and told that they should "smile more." When my wife told me how common this was, I nearly fell out of my chair. As a man the idea that a random stranger would approach me and tell me that I should comport myself to please others is unthinkable - but it's the reality for women.
Rapists generally have self-esteem issues which fosters a deep resentment.
I agree. People with low self-esteem don't make dominators. Dominators dominate because it makes them feel powerful, and people who feel powerful esteem themselves greatly. Rapists, on the other hand, are more likely to be the guys who think being "nice" entitles them to sex. It's about entitlement, not domination. Dominators take what they can get. Rapists think they're taking what they're owed.
You should read UC-Berkley's research on social-dominator orientation personality types, as published in The Authoritarian Personality. I've found the concepts quite instructive.
At the most, you debunked "rape squads," or whatever you called them, in New Orleans. It bears no reflection to the events of Sodom.
Can you think of a single America city held to be the center of more "sexual immorality" than New Orleans? Even Miami or San Francisco are distant seconds in the minds of the nation's prudish types. We're talking about a city that was literally known as the modern Sodom.
And, even in the modern Sodom, when you turn off all the power and cut loose a population into desperate times with no law enforcement whatsoever, roving rape gangs desperate for victims of any sex fail to materialize.
People don't act like that. The idea of two strangers in town doesn't, as a rule, whip the entire town up into an uncontrollable sexual frenzy.
Can you provide a chapter and verse for me so I know what you are referencing?
quote:
1 Samuel 18:21
And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain.
"In the twain." As in, "in two different ways." Through Michal and through Johnathan.
It can't be through Merab, Saul's other daughter - she's married to some guy named Adriel.
There is only one verse that I am aware of where one was naked in front of the other (as if that makes people gay either way).
Read the passage you just quoted, NJ.
quote:
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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.
So we're talking about two people who consider themselves one in spirit. Each loves the other as much as themselves. One of them leaves the house of their father to live with the family of the other. A covenant is made out of love, and after this covenant is made, they remove every article of clothing that they're wearing.
What else would you call that, if not a wedding? Of course David was married to Johnathan - they just had a wedding!
Jonathan was stripping himself of his rank as a gesture of oblation towards David.
He doesn't just strip himself of rank; he divests himself of every stitch of clothing after his wedding to David. Surely, just because it doesn't go on to say that they "knew" each other, you don't need me to fill in the blanks, do you?
Where else in the Bible do people express their obligations by getting naked? "I sure owe you one, buddy. Here, let me show you my junk." What?
Jonathan was merely showing respect for his friend, not getting ready for a lurid romp in the bedroom.
That's hardly appropriate. They did just get married, after all.
Can I suppose you've never had a deep emotional connection before with either your father, brother, cousin, or friends?
I've had those connections, but it's never even occurred to me to demonstrate that by taking all my clothes off, in front of them.
Actually, its loved more than a woman, meaning, that Jonathan is a true friend.
No, it's obviously "more than a woman", meaning not just sex but also the companionship of equals - which is what he doesn't get from his wives.
So in one instance, its impossible for you to believe that the men of Sodom could have had bisexual feelings, but totally plausible for David...??? What's up with that?
What's up with what? Are you asking me why I think it's more reasonable to assert that one single man who has sexual relationships with both men and women is bisexual, than to assert that an entire city of men who reject sex with females when offered are all bisexual?
Is that really what you're asking me? Here's what's up with that - it's fucking bleeding obvious. Are you seriously trying to tell me that I can't assert that David is potentially a bisexual without simultaneously asserting that all human beings, everywhere, at every time have been bisexual?
What's up with that is what you should be asking yourself.
There is no evidence to claim that David was gay.
Except for his gay marriage to Johnathan, all the sex they have together, the depth of their intimate feeling, the fact that they have a wedding, the fact that the Bible continually describes their souls as "knit together", in the way that a man and a wife are joined; and the fact that Saul considers David his son-in-law twice over at a time when he's married only to two of Saul's children - Michal and Johnathan.
Aside from all that, you're right - no evidence whatsoever that David and Johnathan were lovers. Sheesh.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-14-2007 1:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-15-2007 1:19 PM crashfrog has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 118 of 185 (421844)
09-14-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by crashfrog
09-13-2007 1:37 PM


Re: Exegetical studies
I wish you would go back a few pages and read where I rebutted the same argument from Arach. Needless to say, rape is not about domination in most cases; it's about gaining sexual access on a pretense of misunderstood "consent."
i suspect that this point is moot, regardless of its questionable veracity. we should analyze the text starting with the text and moving outward. we can then look at possible motives -- not reinterpretting the text because a certain motive fails to make sense to us.
i was watching a movie last night where the bad guy was more willing to kill his own henchmen than the people he'd kidnapped. that motive doesn't exactly make much sense -- but that's what happened in the story. we can say "well, it was a badly written movie" but that's really about it.
People who dominate others invariably brag about it, because advertising your dominance helps you dominate others.
and the people of sodom don't exactly seem to be hiding it.
It's one piece of evidence; "real people in the same situation don't act like that."
but we're not looking at real people. we're reading a story. a story designed to malign a certain group of people. it's fiction.
and the real background to it is a culture of communal orgies celebrating fertility icons. real people really did that sort of thing in the ancient world, actually all throughout the mediterranean and levantine areas. the jewish priests who wrote the torah, on the other hand, were trying to fight against that sort of thing, something they viewed as sexually immoral and sacrilegious. is it so hard to see how a relatively benign accepted social practice of one culture could easily be distorted into such slander?
Sure. Potentially, David was bisexual. Of course, if he wasn't, he wouldn't have been the first gay ruler to close his eyes and think of England in order to secure the alliance of marriage or an heir to his throne.
david had a man killed to steal his wife. i think he's being portrayed as bisexual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 09-13-2007 1:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 185 (422002)
09-15-2007 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by crashfrog
09-14-2007 4:02 PM


Re: Exegetical studies
1 Samuel 18:21
And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the twain.
"In the twain." As in, "in two different ways." Through Michal and through Johnathan.
It can't be through Merab, Saul's other daughter - she's married to some guy named Adriel.
Read the story in its context. Merab was promised to be given to David , but only as a way to get David killed. The reason why is the marriage was predicated on the notion that David continued fighting for Saul. The reason why Saul wished this was because of his jealously over David's growing popularity. The only reason why she ended up giving Merab's hand to another guy was because he backed out of his promise.
The point is, the verse is clearly speaking about Merab and Michal. Nowhere is Jonathan mentioned in there. There is not even so much a hint of a gay marriage.
Lets read more of the chapter.
quote:
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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.
Whatever Saul sent him to do, David did it so successfully that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the people, and Saul's officers as well.
When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. As they danced, they sang:
Saul was very angry; this refrain galled him. "They have credited David with tens of thousands," he thought, "but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?" And from that time on Saul kept a jealous eye on David...
When Saul saw how successful he was, he was afraid of him. But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he led them in their campaigns.
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!"
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?" So when the time came for Merab, Saul's daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.
Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. "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."
Then Saul ordered his attendants: "Speak to David privately and say, 'Look, the king is pleased with you, and his attendants all like you; now become his son-in-law.' "
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."
When Saul's servants told him what David had said, 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.
When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king's son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, 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.
When Saul realized that the LORD was with David and that his daughter Michal loved David, Saul became still more afraid of him, and he remained his enemy the rest of his days.
Multiple times they mention wives being given to David, not husbands.
He doesn't just strip himself of rank; he divests himself of every stitch of clothing after his wedding to David. Surely, just because it doesn't go on to say that they "knew" each other, you don't need me to fill in the blanks, do you?
Again, read the verse in its context. David just slew Goliath. From then on, David was looked upon as a great leader by his people. As well, it doesn't say that he takes off all of his clothes. And in chapter 17, it says that David was outfitted with Saul's own gear. Jonathan giving David his is just a gesture of his stature, hence the mention of weapons. As well, a persons robe and tunic was evidence of their stature. Lastly, we know from scripture that Jonathan was a great warrior. Him relinquishing the items he did, again, was a gesture to David that he was even mightier than he.
There is no gay marriage, there is no reason to assume that someone's love equals their sexual preference, nor is there any reason to assume they had any kind of sexual relationship. This is completely invented.
quote:
Actually, its loved more than a woman, meaning, that Jonathan is a true friend.
No, it's obviously "more than a woman", meaning not just sex but also the companionship of equals - which is what he doesn't get from his wives.
Where do you get sex factoring in from that? Seriously... Where? Now, contrast this with another verse that unambiguously expresses both sexual desire and marriage for David.
One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. -2nd Samuel 11:2-4
"When Uriah's wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the LORD." -2nd Samuel 11:26-27
Point blank... both about unequivocal sex and marriage. It says no such thing for Jonathan-- not even remotely.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 09-14-2007 4:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 09-15-2007 1:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 185 (422007)
09-15-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Hyroglyphx
09-15-2007 1:19 PM


Re: Exegetical studies
The only reason why she ended up giving Merab's hand to another guy was because he backed out of his promise.
That's not in the text.
So Saul said to David, "Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law."
But that's not what the Bible says at all. It doesn't say "second opportunity." It says "in the twain."
"Twain" means "two" or "twice." David will be Saul's twice-over son-in-law because he's already married to Johnathan. The Bible records their wedding, even, a point that you appear to ignore. Let me repeat: what would you call a covenant made between two people in love, a covenant that "knits their souls" and makes them as one, and then after the covenant is made, they go off and be naked together?
That's a wedding. That it's between two men is irrelevant - a wedding is a wedding regardless of the sex of the participants.
Where do you get sex factoring in from that?
Because that's how the Bible describes sex between men - as being "as a woman", or "exchanging the natural for the unnatural", or "laying with a man as with a woman." The Bible uses that equivalence language when men are having sex with men, or women with women. It implies that one is being substituted for the other. It doesn't say "know", because the authors of the Bible never use that to describe homosexual activities.
Well, that's abundantly the case here. The mention of David loving Johnathan "greater than his love for any woman" is a signal that they're having sex with each other. That, literally, Johnathan has taken the place of David's female wives - in every sense.
As well, it doesn't say that he takes off all of his clothes.
It lists every piece of clothing that a man of those times would have worn. When he takes off everything on the list, there's nothing left. People didn't wear boxers back then, Nem. When he takes off everything listed, he's naked.
What do you call a situation where two people enter into a covenant out of love, a covenant where two are considered one, where a person leaves the protection of their father to enter the house of their partner, a covenant where two souls are knit together? A covenant where the parties go off afterwards to be naked with each other?
I call that a marriage, but then, I don't have a pathological fear of two men living together in love.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-15-2007 1:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by arachnophilia, posted 09-16-2007 3:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024