Same sex marriage

I didn't mean to say there was no closenes or warmth, but relative to homosexuality, and the "man-love" I am talking about they are cold and distant.The latter two first of all require a context to exist, an excuse for what gave rise to the attraction between men. They also exclude certain passionate actions on the part of the players. I think there is no question that this is exactly what we are talking about. Charisma drawing one man to another, or both men to each other at the same time. A recognition of greatness. I think it is separate from and higher than simple Hero worship.However, this is not the name of the passionate relationship formed by charismatic bonds between men.Did you read the quote by the scythian about their form of man-love (and how it differed from the "brothers in drink" and "brothers in arms")in Rrhain's second reference on gay-unions? That was a perfect description.Perhaps scythian would be the right name.------------------
holmes

No. I missed it. Do you recall the post number? I Did see the recent PBS special on Sparta. Very interesting. But that sort of "man-love" doesn't appeal to me. Did you happen to see it? Perhaps Spartan would be the right term. Problem with these Greek allusions is that both Scythians and Spartans were primarily known for their war craft. I wonder how many *gay* men are apt to espouse that glory?I have *gay* friends and relatives but it's not for me. I'm sure there have always been people whose sexual orientation deviated from the norm, and if the Bible revealed a genuine homosexual or bisexual relationship I'd be glad to champion the fact. But as far as I know it doesn't. So what!? It's still a Good Book - chock full of sex and violence. The movie industry has only scratched the surface.Have you read Ezekiel's tale of the two Jewish hookers?db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

The scythian "man-love" example was deep inside the second reference Rrhain gave in post 130. The quote was from a scythian who made it clear it was not Greek or "Spartan" (the latter which would be "comrade-based").In Rrhain's defense, David's randiness in general makes me think he might very well have been bisexual. In fact, many people in the Bible may have had homosexual sex, but it just wasn't mentioned. I just understand that gays and bis are equally capable of having passionate nonsexual relationships with other men... and those specific passages just don't convince me it was definitely sexual.As far as Ezekial goes... heheheh... how could I not know that passage? Frankly it's my favorite part of the Bible, mostly because it shows even God (since he is supposed to be the true author) thinks it's okay to spice up narrative with graphic sexuality.I mean really, two girls having sex... from when they were underage by the way... having sex with men who have "genitals like donkey's" and "seed (ie cum) like horses"? That sounds like synopses found on the outside of porn videos.------------------
holmes

doctrbill responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where's the part about Jonathan loving David "as his own soul"?

---

​

That, you know.

---

Ah, but the question is do you know it. The fact that you conveniently removed it from your description seems to indicate that you don't.

quote:

---

That you have emphasized to the exclusion of all else.

---

Hardly. It is the context in which all of the other behaviour must be understood.Again, it isn't like David and Jonathan were carousing around beforehand, being all buddy-buddy in the barracks, and then slowly came to realize that they were really, really good friends.No, David and Jonathan fall in love at first sight. They had never seen each other till after David slew Goliath and at the moment they saw each other, we are told that Jonathan loved David "as his own soul."And then we are told about the various things that go on in the life of the two, the ceremonies between them, the intrigue between Saul and David, etc., etc.The events that happen after the meeting of Jonathan and David cannot be understood except in the context of how they met...which was love at first sight.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes, but why is Jonathan doing this?

---

​

Jonathon does this because he is a just and law abiding citizen of Israel who is trying to protect a friend,

---

No, not "a friend." His own soul. The two are knit as one. You seem to have forgotten again. You cannot discuss the things that happen after their meeting without taking into account the fact that Jonathan and David are in love.

quote:

---

national hero and legitimate heir to the throne, from murder.

---

But why would Jonathan care? He's never met David until just now. They're certainly not friends having never been in each other's presence until just this moment. Why bother?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Once again, you're ignoring the part where Jonathan and David love each other and have made repeated covenants with each other.

---

​

You think sex is the only reason why one man values another?

---

No, I think a relationship described as loving another "as one's own soul" is a little bit more than just being buddies.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why did you ignore the love part?

---

​

You dwell on that part enough for all of us.

---

Only because you keep forgetting about it. The story of David and Jonathan cannot be understood without the reference to the fact that they're in love. That motivates all of the action afterward.

quote:

---

Why do you deny the military ceremony and political intrigue?

---

I don't. I point out that it exists within a context. Why would David and Jonathan do all of that ceremony if it weren't for the fact that they were in love? They had no previous contact. They had never met. What on earth was going through Jonathan's head in giving his sword to a complete stranger?Simple: They were in love. That's the motivation.Why would Saul keep chewing out his son for hanging around David? Even to the point of saying that he worries that there won't be an heir if Jonathan keeps it up?Simple: They were in love. That's the motivation.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The phallic symbology of Jonathan giving his sword to David is quite clear.

---

​

"Eye of the beholder."

---

And yet, pretty clear. Why would Jonathan be doing this to a complete stranger?

quote:

---

The military symbolism is clear enough.

---

Except for the motivation part. Why would Jonathan do this to someone he had never met?

quote:

---

It is consistent with the tone of the text and integral to the story of David's promotion.

---

Except for the part where we understand why Jonathan did it. It's easy to understand why David would take a decoration, but why would Jonathan bestow it?Remember, the two had never met. So why on earth would Jonathan do this?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And how many times did he do so while giving his sword to them while professing his love?

---

​

Perhaps it would help if you thought of the sword as a gun.

---

No, that's still a phallic symbol.

quote:

---

BTW - The text clearly states that Saul ... stripped off his clothes and lay down naked ... {1Sam19:24} If the author thought Jonathon got naked, I'm sure he had the balls to say so.

---

Different context.Besides, Saul directly states that Jonathan and David are having sex (1 Sam 20:30).

quote:

---

You think Bronze Age warriors had elastic foundation garments?

---

Of course not.

quote:

---

Now Joab was wearing a soldier's garment, and over it was a girdle with a sword in its sheath fastened upon his loins, {2Sam20:8}

---

You're forgetting the part where it states that Jonathan removed his garments:1 Samuel 18:4: And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garmentsWhat do you think "garments" means?

quote:

---

quote:

---

That completely ignores significant parts of the text.

---

​

We have already explored those parts together.

---

No, not really. If we had, you would remember them when you make your analysis, but you continually forget to include them. The actions between Jonathan and David cannot be understood except in the context that has been established for them previously.Why would Jonathan do all of this to someone he had never met?Why would Saul berate his son for having sex with David if they weren't?

quote:

---

I'm sorry if you are not satisfied with my conclusions. I do not think those parts are insignificant.

---

Neither do I.The problem is, you keep forgetting that the verses describing the interaction between David and Jonathan start out by stating directly that the two are on in love. To ignore that context and try to describe the later actions as if there is no such relationship between the two is to distort the text.

quote:

---

I do, however, think you are ignoring the circumstances surrounding those parts. Refusing, apparently, to read them in context.

---

Incorrect. It is the other way around. You are the one refusing to read them in context.Why would Jonathan do this to David? They aren't friends. They had never seen each other.

quote:

---

quote:

---

apparently it didn't sink in.

---

​

Apparently, it is irrelevant.

---

Only because you don't want to deal with the context. You're so certain that it can't be because David and Jonathan were in love (even though the text says straight out in 1 Sam 20:30 that they're having sex) that you are doing everything you can to ignore all the statements of their love and are left floundering to come up with a reason for why Jonathan would do what he did to a complete stranger.

quote:

---

Sometimes we must let go our favorite theories for inadequate evidence.

---

So Saul directly telling Jonathan to stop boinking David is "inadequate"? What a strange standard you have.

quote:

---

Let it go Rrhain. Find other ways to grind your axe.

---

Physician, heal thyself!

quote:

---

You've been attacking your own team mates.

---

I didn't realize we were a "team."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

doctrbill responds to holmes:

quote:

---

There is also, "Hero Worship," which may have played a part in Jonathon's fascination with David.

---

What "hero worship"? Nobody knew who the hell David was and Jonathan had never heard of nor seen him until after Saul and David finished talking.Why would Jonathan do what he did to a complete stranger?In order to have hero worship, one must have heard of the hero.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

doctrbill writes:

quote:

---

No. I missed it. Do you recall the post number? I Did see the recent PBS special on Sparta. Very interesting. But that sort of "man-love" doesn't appeal to me.

---

So what? That's what was expected and that's what happened.You will recall that the show described the marriage ceremony of Spartans...which by the standards of the time was quite late...the women were about 18 and the men were pushing 30. Since they had spent their entire lives since the age of 7 segregated from the women and having sex with the men in their common mess, many grooms had very little idea what to do in the marriage be and were extremely uncomfortable there. Thus, on the wedding they would slip away from the group, go to the marriage bed, perform their duty to their wives, and then slip back to the men in the common mess.Some members would do this for years, we are told. It would appear that there were gay men who understood the duty of fathering children but didn't want to go any further than that duty.

quote:

---

Problem with these Greek allusions is that both Scythians and Spartans were primarily known for their war craft. I wonder how many *gay* men are apt to espouse that glory?

---

(*blink!*)You didn't just say that, did you?Gay men can't be warriors? Gay men don't fit into military life?So why are there so many in the military?if the Bible revealed a genuine homosexual or bisexual relationship I'd be glad to champion the fact. But as far as I know it doesn't.1 Samuel 20:30: Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?What do you think that means?"Stop boinking that little bastard you ungrateful child!"Saul just said right there that David and Jonathan are having sex. What more do you need?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I really don't mean to seem contradictory for the sake of being contradictory, or with some agenda, but I don't see this as NECESSARILY meaning David and John were having sex.Certainly I have no problem seeing how it could be read that way. Then again, I have no problem seeing an interpretation which equally fits the nonsexual angle.First of all Saul is equating Jonathon with his 1) perverse and 2) rebellious mother. That means either could be what Saul's main problem is with Jon.Secondly Saul says that he has made his choice to the confusion of his "mother's nakedness." From what I have read, nakedness is not so much a literal term as a figurative one. Nakedness meaning shame in general.Then the passage reads more like a condemnation that Jon is following in his mother's footsteps and falling into confusion (trouble) either through perversion (which if that is in reference to gay sex tends to indicate a negative reference to gay sex) or through rebelliousness... or both... to the same degree that his mother was shamed (or perhaps bringing yet more shame to his mother?).To be honest when first reading that particular quote I understood it as focusing on shame perhaps more because of the rebelliousness, than about sex.Perhaps the original wording of this passage, or the rest of it would shed more light on the subject. Are you familiar with the original wording?Although I must be frustrating to you, please don't get angry. It is only because I practice a strong form of skepticism and have A LOT of experience with analysis of different cultures (and the miscommunications that go on between them) that I just don't see the conclusivity of your interpretation.Possibility, yes. Conclusive over the other? Honestly, no. Of course that does cut both ways. To someone who states the nonsexual version, I would raise the same objections you have.IMO more light must be shed on this subject before a firm conclusion can be reached.------------------
holmes

So 'thou hast chosen' means 'had sex with', I feel sorry for all those people that chose George Bush in the elections.

The context is war and political intrigue. "Little bit more"? What you are suggesting is a hell of a lot more. Can you see nothing intermediate? Can you not relate to how a "hetero" feels toward the men for whom he would fight and die? "in love" perhaps. Gay lovers? Unsubstatiated.RE: the military ceremony of passing the sword to David: Because it was the king's wish to make David head of the army. If Saul was so disgusted by his son's gay infatuation, then why would he honor David this way? Because he is working for the king. He's a government official, and he likes the Boy Wonder. The action was a military ceremony, ordered by the king. Jonathan needed no additional motivation. I'm sure he accepted the role gladly however, for he certainly liked the kid. See above. False characterization. Inaccurate interpretation. Read a few good translations: Notably: New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard, and Modern Language Bible. Saul is essential calling Jonathan a sonofabitch. Had he wanted to "directly state" he might have said, "you lie with him as with a woman." Strawman. Whether they were having sex is the question of this debate. There was, otherwise, plentiful political motive for calling the boy names. He was clearly opposing his father's agenda. From the Hebrew mad. The same term is used at 2 Samuel 20:8. It is variously translated as military coat; uniform; soldiers garment; and armour; [in addition to "garments."] I am not forgetting that they love each other. I do not ignore their relationship. I simply see it in a different light. I see no reason to interpret it as a sexual relationship. The context is one of war, political intrigue and attempted murder. That is motive enough for powerful emotions between men. To avoid understanding it in this context would be a mistake. a: Saul didn't say that.
b: You need more than one misinterpreted line in order to make your point. So far, this misinterpretation is the strongest thing you've got.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

1 Samuel 20:30: Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?

---

​

I really don't mean to seem contradictory for the sake of being contradictory, or with some agenda, but I don't see this as NECESSARILY meaning David and John were having sex.

---

OK...what do you think "unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness" means?It means sex.

quote:

---

Secondly Saul says that he has made his choice to the confusion of his "mother's nakedness." From what I have read, nakedness is not so much a literal term as a figurative one. Nakedness meaning shame in general.

---

No, not quite. This is another one of those stock phrases like "evening and the morning" meaning a literal day. The phrase used means sex.

quote:

---

Perhaps the original wording of this passage, or the rest of it would shed more light on the subject. Are you familiar with the original wording?

---

I'm looking at the Hebrew right now. 1 Samuel Chapter 20It has translated "confusion" as "shame," but that doesn't change things. The passage as stated is a clear statement that Saul thinks Jonathan is having sex with David. "Thy mother's nakedness" is a metaphor for sex.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

doctrbill responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

the context in which all of the other behaviour must be understood.

---

​

The context is war and political intrigue.

---

How? David and Jonathan had never met. David had only met Saul literally just a few moments ago. Where is this "war and political intrigue"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think a relationship described as loving another "as one's own soul" is a little bit more than just being buddies.

---

​

"Little bit more"? What you are suggesting is a hell of a lot more.

---

Does the phrase "understatement" mean nothing to you?

quote:

---

Can you see nothing intermediate?

---

Of course I can. But the phrasing used and the events described show something much, much more than just really good friends.They aren't just friends...their souls are "knit." Jonathon loves David "as his own soul."The problem is not that I am not seeing intermediate levels...the problem is that you can't seem to understand that a direct statement really means what it says.

quote:

---

Can you not relate to how a "hetero" feels toward the men for whom he would fight and die?

---

Jonathan and David were not soldiers. They had never fought together. You keep trying to claim that the two of them were some sort of boot camp buddies who had bonded during the training and had spent the past few years picking off Philistines in skirmishes.They had never seen each other before in their lives. And the very first thing we learn about Jonathan is that the very moment he sees David, he loves him "as his own soul" and forms a covenant with him.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The story of David and Jonathan cannot be understood without the reference to the fact that they're in love.

---

​

"in love" perhaps. Gay lovers? Unsubstatiated.

---

So why does Saul tell Jonathan to stop having sex with David?And what is the point of being "in love" if you aren't lovers?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why would David and Jonathan do all of that ceremony if it weren't for the fact that they were in love?

---

​

Because it was the king's wish to make David head of the army.

---

Then why doesn't Saul do this ceremony?Why does Jonathan do it? And it's not just a ceremony of making David the head of the army. Jonathon does forms a covenant with David because his soul has been "knit" to David's and he loves him "as his own soul."Why do you keep ignoring the direct statement of the text?

quote:

---

If Saul was so disgusted by his son's gay infatuation, then why would he honor David this way?

---

Because Saul didn't know. Jonathan and David had just met. You need to get over your conception that Jonathan and David were old army buddies at the beginning of 1 Samuel 18. They had never met. David wasn't a soldier. Saul had never heard of David. David had just come back from killing Goliath and Saul had to ask his name. Jonathan had never met him.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why would Jonathan be doing this to a complete stranger?

---

​

Because he is working for the king.

---

That's not what the Bible says. It is quite clear why Jonathan does this:1 Samuel 18:1: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.I don't know why you keep forgetting this.

quote:

---

He's a government official, and he likes the Boy Wonder.

---

But why? Why does he like David? The text explicitly states:1 Samuel 18:1: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.1 Samuel 18:3: Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.He "loved him as his own soul." Why do you keep forgetting this?He was not David's army buddy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why would Jonathan do this to someone he had never met?

---

​

The action was a military ceremony, ordered by the king.

---

Really? Where does the Bible say that? It explicitly says something very different:1 Samuel 18:3: Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.Where do you see in this that Jonathan is doing this at the behest of Saul? All Saul did was ask David to stay.1 Samuel 18:2: And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.If Saul wanted David to be commander of the army, why did Jonathan, who had nothing to do with the army, be performing the ceremony? In fact, the Bible specifically states that it is Saul that puts David in charge of the army, not Jonathan:1 Samuel 18:5: And David went out; whithersoever Saul sent him, he had good success; and Saul set him over the men of war; and it was good in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul's servants.So if it is Jonathan that is putting David in charge of the army, why is it listed that Saul was the one that did it? Why is the ceremony that Jonathan carries called a "covenant"? Why is it that the motivation for Jonathan's covenant directly stated that it is because Jonathan "loved him as his own soul"?

quote:

---

Jonathan needed no additional motivation.

---

Where does it say Saul told Jonathan to do this? Where do we even find that Jonathan had any authority to do this?

quote:

---

I'm sure he accepted the role gladly however, for he certainly liked the kid.

---

Where do you find this motivation? Chapter and verse, please.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Except for the part where we understand why Jonathan did it. It's easy to understand why David would take a decoration, but why would Jonathan bestow it?
Remember, the two had never met. So why on earth would Jonathan do this?

---

​

See above.

---

Non answer. You've manufactured a motivation that is nowhere mentioned and are stuck on the appearance that Jonathan had something to do with the armies as well as the idea that David and Jonathan knew each other before Saul.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Saul directly states that Jonathan and David are having sex (1 Sam 20:30).

---

​

False characterization. Inaccurate interpretation.

---

Incorrect.What do you think "thy mother's nakedness" means?It's a metaphor for sex.

quote:

---

Read a few good translations: Notably: New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New American Standard, and Modern Language Bible. Saul is essential calling Jonathan a sonofabitch. Had he wanted to "directly state" he might have said, "you lie with him as with a woman."

---

No, he would have said what he did: "Thy mother's nakedness."It's called a "euphemism."

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why would Saul berate his son for having sex with David if they weren't?

---

​

Strawman.

---

Denial.Look, I know you don't like the idea, but reality is not beholden to your personal opinions. 1 Sam 20:30 is a direct statement that Jonathan and David were having sex, at least in the mind of Saul.

quote:

---

Whether they were having sex is the question of this debate.

---

And 1 Sam 20:30 makes it clear.

quote:

---

There was, otherwise, plentiful political motive for calling the boy names. He was clearly opposing his father's agenda.

---

Of getting rid of David. After all, how much worse would Saul's rage be to find that his own son is in love with the guy he hates?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The problem is, you keep forgetting that the verses describing the interaction between David and Jonathan start out by stating directly that the two are on in love. To ignore that context and try to describe the later actions as if there is no such relationship between the two is to distort the text.

---

​

I am not forgetting that they love each other. I do not ignore their relationship.

---

Then why do you deny that as the motivation?Oh, that's right...Jonathan and David were army buddies (really? Where does the text say that?)

quote:

---

I simply see it in a different light.

---

You simply deny the direct statement of the text.1 Samuel 18:1: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.1 Samuel 18:3: Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.

quote:

---

I see no reason to interpret it as a sexual relationship.

---

Despite the fact that the Bible directly states they were having sex.

quote:

---

The context is one of war,

---

What war? David had just killed Goliath. There was no war. David was not a soldier. Jonathan had nothing to do with it.Where is this war? Chapter and verse.Remember, it needs to come between 1 Sam 17:58 and 1 Sam 18:1. This will be hard since there are no verses between them.

quote:

---

political intrigue and attempted murder.

---

What political intrigue and attempted murder? Chapter and verse.Remember, it needs to come between 1 Sam 17:58 and 1 Sam 18:1. This will be hard since there are no verses between them.

quote:

---

That is motive enough for powerful emotions between men.

---

But all that comes after the two fall in love.

quote:

---

To avoid understanding it in this context would be a mistake.

---

What context? You seem to know an awful lot of what happens between 1 Sam 17:58 and 1 Sam 18:1.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So Saul directly telling Jonathan to stop boinking David is "inadequate"? What a strange standard you have.

---

​

a: Saul didn't say that.

---

What do you think "thy mother's nakedness" means?That's right...sex.

quote:

---

b: You need more than one misinterpreted line in order to make your point. So far, this misinterpretation is the strongest thing you've got.

---

(*chuckle*)I see...so the Bible directly stating that Jonathan loved David "as his own soul" and noting that their souls are "knit" is nothing.This is in comparison to your invention out of whole cloth that David and Jonathan were army buddies.Come on...I've asked you this over and over again. Where are you getting this idea that David and Jonathan were buddies? They had never met.Come on...where between 1 Sam 17:58 and 1 Sam 18:1 do we find that Jonathan and David knew each other from their army days?I can't find any verse at all between those two, so please tell us where you find the verse that indicates that Jonathan and David loved each other from the army days.And then show me anywhere else where the companionship of army buddies is described as loving on "as your own soul" and that your souls are "knit."You're in deep denial.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I'm sorry but I simply do not see that you are more or less correct about the use of "nakedness", than the other stated possibility. Even the link you gave did not seem to bear your position out.I cannot remember the passage right now, but I know there is one where one son discovers his father naked and tells his other brothers who then go in an cover him with a blanket. There nakedness had nothing to do with sexual activity.That quote really reads that Jonathon has brought shame down upon himself and Saul even to the extent of his mother's shame (which is what Saul uses at the very beginning of the quote).And I have read and reread and rereread Samuel and just cannot see how you can so casually dismiss the alternative doctrbill has advanced. It really reads like a political potboiler, especially the interpretation at the link you suggested.You say Jonathon never saw David before and so "fell in love at first site." But this is to ignore the actual events. David slew Goliath and then was for all intents and purposes adopted into the house of Saul. Gee, dad brings home this great guy that just saved all of Isreal from the Philistines, isn't it at least plausible that that would come with some emotional baggage for Jonathon?Honestly, that link's translation of the disrobing had even less sexual overtones than I would have expected. It looked like Jonathon was so enamored with this great guy David, who had slain Goliath (proving he had God on his side) and had become something of a brother through Saul's actions, that he handed over everything to David.What's more, Sam 23 contained passages where Saul explicitly says the problem is one of political alliance... Jonathon has made an allegiance with the house of Jesse and turned the servants of Saul against him.This is very similar to the lesson of Sodom. The overarching element here seems to be David becoming more powerful than the King, and becoming so tight with the King's son that the son pledges allegiance to David instead, sending the King into hysterics. It seems much more about that than about any love affair.Not to say that couldn't be part of it. Just not that conclusive, made only worse by the link you provided.That said, I am getting bored with this topic. In trying to find resources on all of this I keep running into he said/she said and it doesn't seem to be going away. In fact I just ran into another that said Paul's term did not refer to temple prostitutes, but to abusive male-male relationships... Argh!!!!In the end I think it's safe to say that WHATEVER some of the fine details are, homosexuality (or sex acts involving males alone) is not outright condemned, except perhaps as something equal to sex outside of marriage.Can we agree on that?------------------
holmes

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I cannot remember the passage right now, but I know there is one where one son discovers his father naked and tells his other brothers who then go in an cover him with a blanket. There nakedness had nothing to do with sexual activity.

---

Actually, it did.

quote:

---

That quote really reads that Jonathon has brought shame down upon himself and Saul even to the extent of his mother's shame (which is what Saul uses at the very beginning of the quote).

---

No, not just shaming his mother. Shaming his mothers nakedness. What's the point of bringing that up? It's obviously a metaphoric statement. What could it possibly be?

quote:

---

You say Jonathon never saw David before and so "fell in love at first site." But this is to ignore the actual events. David slew Goliath and then was for all intents and purposes adopted into the house of Saul. Gee, dad brings home this great guy that just saved all of Isreal from the Philistines, isn't it at least plausible that that would come with some emotional baggage for Jonathon?

---

Um, you're ignoring the actual events. How may times do I have to quote the frickin' thing before you people remember it?1 Samuel 17:58: And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.1 Samuel 18:1: And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.Now tell me...where in this do we hear about David going home with Saul? Hm? That happens AFTER in the next verse:1 Samuel 18:2: And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.doctrbill's interpretation doesn't make any sense because the text directly states that the two of them become knit as one soul before there is any indication of political intrigue or murder attempts.doctrbill's argument is that somehow David and Jonathan were army buddies. Where on earth do we find that in the text? There are no verses between 1 Sam. 17:58 and 1 Sam 18:1. It literally goes from Saul and David finishing talking to Jonathan and David being "knit" into one soul. Nobody went anywhere. No conversations were made. No actions were taken. No wars were fought. No gossip took place. No parades were held. As soon as Saul and David finish their conversation, David and Jonathan become one.

quote:

---

What's more, Sam 23 contained passages where Saul explicitly says the problem is one of political alliance... Jonathon has made an allegiance with the house of Jesse and turned the servants of Saul against him.

---

You act like there's only one possible reason. I'm not saying that there is no political intrigue going on. I'm saying that this intrigue is only being made worse by the fact that Saul's son is having a relationship with the man he despises.And 1 Sam. 23 reinforces the lover's covenant they made back in 1. Sam 18:1 Sam 23:18: And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house.

quote:

---

This is very similar to the lesson of Sodom. The overarching element here seems to be David becoming more powerful than the King, and becoming so tight with the King's son that the son pledges allegiance to David instead, sending the King into hysterics. It seems much more about that than about any love affair.

---

Despite the fact that Saul directly states so in 1 Sam. 20:30?If he had just meant his mother's shame, he would have said, "shame of thy mother." But he didn't. He used the phrase, "thy mother's nakedness." That means something completely different. It is obviously a metaphor.

quote:

---

In the end I think it's safe to say that WHATEVER some of the fine details are, homosexuality (or sex acts involving males alone) is not outright condemned, except perhaps as something equal to sex outside of marriage.

---

I still stick by my original statement: The Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality as we understand it for the simple reason that the ancients didn't view the world in the same way we do.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

If you remember the passage name please give it. Otherwise we must be talking about different passages. The one I am referring to involves an old man that has fallen asleep naked after drinking. The sons simply covered his nudity... not his having sex. It even goes into minor details of how they had to walk backward with a sheet in order to cover him without seeing his nude body themselves.No metaphor for sex. Although it could be a metaphor for shame. Uhm, I already said this. I said it could mean Jon's bringing about shame equal or greater to the shame his mother had caused, or her nakedness in general (ala the nakedness of the father which caused so much shame for the boys who had to cover him up).I would turn this question around to you. If it is about Jon's having sex with someone, why would the metaphor be his MOTHER'S nakedness. Why not a woman's nakedness or his wife's nakedness. It is unlikely he'd be sleeping with his mother right?It seems to me that the reference to his mother's nakedness is simply moving Saul's diatribe back to where it began. He starts by saying Jon's mother was perverse and rebellious and he seems to have be following in his mother's steps. The last part closes it up by saying his actions are equalling or rivaling her shame (or simply adding to them). Uhhhhh, I remember it just fine. My post stands whether you think I remember it correctly or not. The problem, as it always seems to be is interpretation. Okay, now maybe I mispoke that Daddy brought him home first. Big frickin' deal. I was actually using it as a metaphor. How ironic. Maybe I should have said his tent or the field of battle? The point is Saul has David before him--- as Israel's hero who just killed Goliath showing he has God's favor--- and it is in that context that Jonathon would have seen him.All those passages seem to be saying is that Dave tells Saul who his father is, and when he was done with this Dave and Jonathon were joined together as soulmates.Now maybe I'm just crazy but I'm assuming Jon was there at the time to witness the goings on. That means he, like everyone else celebrating at the time had a pretty huge view of David. So Jon is attracted to Dave. Saul is also attracted to Dave and is going to "bring him home" which one can pretty easily assume was decided before the next verse which tells of what they did. And in this Dave and Jon grow together, hell they may have hit it off during the trip back. And their fates are also joined.If it is your contention that Jonathon, unlike everyone else in Israel, did not hear of David's feat, and so fell in love with no preconditions, that seems a huge stretch. And if you are saying that they were bound together before meeting then that makes the whole thing even LESS about sex. Clearly, in that case, their whole attraction is on a spiritual plane.And doctrbill's assessment is also not weakened by any of what you just said. Of course the attraction became before the intrigue. That's usually how it goes. Saul takes the new champ into his house (metaphor) to get close to God's favorite, matching him with his own son. The son and the hero are instantly soulmates, making them inseparable. Then Saul starts getting jealous of hero's growing fame and decides to destroy him. Hilariousness ensues. Are you kidding me? I agreed with this from my very first response to you and almost every one since. How many times do I have to frickin' repeat that the bible does not talk about homosexuality as we know it, before you give me the courtesy of acknowledging that I understand that point?My final statement was that homosexual sex acts... by which I mean sex acts that involve two men alone and I clarified this by putting it in parentheses... are condemned only in as much as they fall outside of marriage. If gays can or were married then it is not bad at all.One would think you'd be happy enough that I have changed my position that it discusses homosexual sex acts (by which I mean sex acts involving two men alone) at all.You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder that you have to lose. Our conversation could have been held through very pleasant exchanges, even if we had a difference of opinion on interpretation. And your inability to accept the use of "homosexual" as a place-holder for specific sex acts between men is merely a semantic stumbling block to real discussion. It certainly isn't necessary or deserved.------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 08-22-2003]

Before I address the matter of your mother’s nakedness, I want to be sure that we have adequately addressed the other issues which have been brought up in this debate.When we began, you apparently believed that the robe mentioned in 1 Samuel 18:4 was something one puts on when coming out of the bath. You harped on the word girdle as if you thought it was underwear; And you referred to the garments as if Jonathan was getting naked. Then you imagined that transfer of the sword to David was intended as a phallic symbol; a metaphor of homosexual encounter.It seems you may now understand that it was a formal ceremony. Even so, you continue to deny the overall military context of the story. You assert that neither David nor Jonathan were soldiers. This tells me that you have not read the entire story.doctrbill writes:

quote:

---

The context {of the David and Jonathan story} is war and political intrigue.

---

According to this narrative, David had only recently come onto the field of battle and into their acquaintance. But there is another narrative which paints a different picture (1 Samuel 16:14-23). Here, Saul meets David, for the first time, at the palace. Saul is seeking a good musician and one of his talent scouts reports, . Like it or not, the war had been going on for some time. Jonathan was already a general, and a hero of that war.When David goes out to meet Goliath, Saul provides him with his own armor (1Sam17;38,39). The same word (mad) translated garments at 18:4. In this passage, Knit: is given for the Hebrew qashar also translated conspire, and work (treason). It apparently describes political intercourse, not sexual intercourse. The Hebrew word is different here but knit was satisfactory to the translator.Judges 20:ll describes the army of Israel "knit together as one man." Yet another Hebrew word which the translator understood to be satisfied by his choice of the English. The New American Standard gives this: Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. That’s how Jesus says one should love one’s neighbor. Jonathan was alaready a war hero and a general in his father Saul’s army. David was as "a man of war" and Saul’s "armour-bearer;" and Saul loved him greatly. They were both soldiers, fighting together on the day Goliath was killed. Long term army buddies? Perhaps not. National heroes who battled the Philistines together? Yes. If you believe the plain statements of chapter 16, then they must have met before the Goliath incident. Who is we? Jonathan was already a BMOC. It can be understood quite well without assuming they are homosexual. He doesn’t. in love ? Your words, which carry an implication not apparent in the script. Because it was the king's wish to make David head of the army. Saul’s the king. He presides. Jonathan is the former boy wonder (read the whole story) he is honored to do it. Have you any evidence to support this negation? Please check your facts. You haven’t read the whole story. And you don’t seem to understand how things work in the military. You should acquaint yourself with a time honored concept called: chain of command. Chain of command is understood. Chain of command is understood.*****For the benefit of onlookers I will briefly address the strawman which you have created from this casual comment I made when first joining in this debate:

quote:

---

Men can love men in ways that women cannot understand. Men can empathize with men. Women can only sympathize. Especially in the context political intrigue, one does not confide in harem girls. Such a relationship is the kind which grows between men who fight together, side by side, risking their lives, or careers, together. Depending on each other for survival. As I recall, Jonathon saved David's ass on more than one occasion.

---

You have spent an inordinate amount of time attacking the strawman you built from these straw. Here, from your last post, is a sampling of those attacks: I hope this post satisfies some that need to know.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?