Same sex marriage

While I am actually going to address message 130, I wanted to start with this quote of yours (kind of slamming me).I have no personal investment in the argument of whether the Bible accepts or criticizes sex acts between males. This is because NONE of the monotheistic religions from the ancient middle East appeal to my heart, to my intellect, or to any of my experiences in this world.I also have no personal investment in trying to explain away someone's behavior as straight or gay. Other than my personal confusion of how anyone could find the female form universally sexually unattractive, I totally accept homosexuality. Vive l'differenceMaybe this is a hint at my own sexuality.My only investment in any of this analysis is historical accuracy. The results of an accurate analysis will have an impact on those ascribing to those connected faiths, by altering conceptions of tradition and precedence... if for some reason Xtians don't understand the inherent precedent within their religion that they are free to change their traditions(especially protestants).My role could best be described as an impartial judge, from time to time playing devil's advocate against each camp. I do have my opinion of what arguments are currently the most convincing, but am always open to new evidence.My limitation as a judge is my requirement of having to base judgements on the presuasive translations and interpretations of each camp. For some reason it keeps coming down to he said/she said as to what wording the original Bible used. And I am not talking about just meanings of a word, I mean the actual wording used.There also seems to be the problem of cultural ignorance. What is meant by anything (symbolism or concrete word) varies from people to people and even that changes over the course of time.I try to keep all of this in balance, trusting most those authors that show actual wording and combine that with evidence regarding the culture at the time.Clearly I can make my mistakes, like my hasty assumption that Bacchus (as named in the "same sex" unions) referred to the deity and not a real individual. Which is of course why I went and read the direct reference given and more about that time and culture. My mistake was quickly uncovered (but not faster than my first post).However in reading those references you gave, specifically the reference to The New Republic review of Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, I was faced with the very problem I am talking about. He said/she said.Your post and first reference clearly made it appear that the church had same-sex unions. But the lower part of your second reference rips Boswell's claims to shreds.It does so not only by showing original language and then Boswell's (mis)interpretations, but by putting things into a social context which it claims Boswell has ignored.To be honest, I came away from that second reference with little to no confidence in Boswell's theories. Not only because the criticisms sounded very plausible, but because the cultural assessment of that time and region fits in with what I understand about that region's cultures (independent of this topic).There seems to be a major disconnect and confusion surrounding religious passages, messages, and teachings based on their movements through neareast, to Greek, to Roman, to modern European cultures.There was and still is a concept of "brotherhood" or "love between men" in the near and mideast (and it sounds like Greece at that time) that is stronger than the "love of a woman" or "natural love", yet which has none of the connotations later greek,Roman, and European cultures would understand. Symbols of this would seem very "gay" (just as soviet sailors walking around arm in arm made many Europeans and US observers snicker).The story of David fits in perfect with this kind of misinterpretation. And my belief is supported by the analysis of Boswell's claims within your second reference.I'm not saying David didn't have a relationship with a man, or was not "in love" as we understand it. I'm just saying that the wording of that passage (even getting naked and crying) isn't enough to convince me that the modern interpretation, supercedes a very "midEastern" interpretation.I hesitate to call it "platonic" since notions of that were as unknown to the world at that time as "homosexuality", but you get the idea. They may have loved each other as much more than comrades... brothers maybe?... but nothing like what a lover would feel in the pursuit of a woman.In the end this problem (cultural analysis) is more complex than problems relating to exact wording and the literal meaning of words. But it is relevant. Your second reference makes it seem all the more relevant.What is your evaluation of the criticism against Boswell's book, by New Republic?And I'm still interested in exact word usage found in the original passages of leviticus, corinthians, timothy, and romans. (Which has nothing to do with marriage, but whether the proscriptions were against homosexual sex acts that were involved with male prostitution, or always specify male prostitutes alone).I'm riveted.------------------
holmes

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

I tried to explain that I only use the word "homosexual" as a convenient placeholder for those that practice specific same sex acts (whether in ritual or not).

---

By this reasoning, prisoners are homosexual since they're having sex with each other and the prisons are segregated by sex. Surely we wouldn't say that. Thus, we cannot use "homosexual" to refer to people simply because they engage in sex with people of the same sex. There is a difference between sex you have because you have to and sex you have because you want to.If you want to refer to the sex act, itself, that's different.

quote:

---

Now this is the crucial point, and this is all that really needs to be made clear. From what I have read (of people debating original editions of the Bible) not all of these passages, particularly Romans and Corinthians and Timothy and perhaps the second Leviticus reference do not use the term for male prostitute.

---

But they do. For the umpteenth time. The specific word used in Romans and Timothy, for example, is "arsenkoitai."Paul made this word up. It is a conglomeration of two words that mean, literally, "male" and "temple prostitute." How much more direct can you get?

quote:

---

As you do seem very knowledgable, are you telling me that these guys saying those passages describe acts and don't always use the specific term for male prostitute are lying, or somehow mistaken?

---

Yes.And to jump ahead, the reviewers of Boswell had the same problem. They were wrong. They accuse him of mistranslation when they, themselves, are the ones who are doing the mistranslating.

quote:

---

I suppose you have the advantage as I happen to trust what you say. But boy if you tell me that's true and then I get burned repeating what you say... I'll pinch you so hard!

---

But think about the audience to whom you will be speaking. How many of them are actual scholars of the Bible? How many of them have a vested interest in keeping the idea that the Bible is explicitly anti-gay as we understand it? Look at all of the creationists who come here thinking they know what the theory of evolution is all about and it turns out that all of their arguments come from people who fed them pre-digested misinformation and had an agenda to push?

quote:

---

Anyhow, I think you also sold me short on my interpretation of David. Or should I say MY interpretation? My point was that I thought your analysis and analyses I've heard based on the culture of the time and place (which made it not a "homosexual as we define it today" relationship), sounded equally plausible.

---

But you're missing the point. I'm not saying that the entire concept of falling in love with another person of the same sex was absolutely inconceivable. I'm saying that the idea that this would be the only sexual activity for a person, to categorize it the way we do, that is what they didn't understand. David had children of his own even though he was obviously in love with Jonathan. Whether this makes him bisexual instead of gay, who knows? They didn't divide the world up that way back then.What I am saying is that to talk about what we would term "homosexuality" would require roundabout methods of speaking since they didn't have a term for it. The reaction of Jonathan's father seems to indicate that since his admonition to his son is that he needs to produce an heir. He sees David as a threat to that. It isn't so much that Jonathan is gay so much as it is that the line will end.

quote:

---

It was a little disingenuous to say because John Walker and his teacher didn't do exactly the same thing as David and co that my point wasn't valid.

---

Why? You're trying to say that the relationship between David and Jonathan could be compared to the relationship between Lindh and Walker. Well, to do that, you'd have to see if they did the same things. If we can find that one relationship seemed to contain a sexual angle while the other did not, then it is disingenuous to try and compare them as they are not the same.

quote:

---

If Walker's father had died, I would guess that they might hold each other and cry. Why not? Haven't you seen clips of men holding each other and crying in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine after a family member is lost?

---

True, but the reason why David and Jonathan are crying in each other's arms because somebody had died. They're crying in each other's arms because Jonathan's father just told him he could never see David again.Did you read 1 Samuel 20? I've quoted a lot of it. Have you read the rest of it? If this isn't a love story, then I don't know what is.

quote:

---

Naked? Well I haven't seen totally naked. But stripping down and handing over arms was not as unusual back then (to show obedience) as it would be thought of today.

---

But completely naked? Did you not read the passage?1 Samuel 18:4: And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."To his girdle." Everything is gone. Jonathan just got naked before David, to whom is soul is "knit" and whom he "loved as his own soul," and you're trying to say there is absolutely no indication of romance there?

quote:

---

Do you have insight as to which culture more likely held sway in that region and at that time? If it was Greek, then I think your interpretation holds a lot more water.

---

King David was about the 11th century, BCE, if we trust the chronologies of the Bible. 1 and 2 Samuel were completed about 560 BCE. So you tell me, what culture are you referring to? The audience for which the book was written or the culture of the players?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

Your post and first reference clearly made it appear that the church had same-sex unions. But the lower part of your second reference rips Boswell's claims to shreds.

---

For which there are responses indicating that the analysis denying the rituals are mistaken. Alas, Boswell has since died and cannot defend himself anymore.

quote:

---

They may have loved each other as much more than comrades... brothers maybe?... but nothing like what a lover would feel in the pursuit of a woman.

---

And again, that cultural attitude rears its head: It can't possibly be real love. It's "comradeship" or "brotherhood." Anything, anything but romantic/erotic love for one another.That's a common attitude toward those who seem to think there's something wrong with being gay: It isn't "real" love. And when those who actually are in love with people of the same sex come forward to say that it is "real," they are dismissed as not knowing whereof they speak.

quote:

---

I'm not saying David didn't have a relationship with a man, or was not "in love" as we understand it. I'm just saying that the wording of that passage (even getting naked and crying) isn't enough to convince me that the modern interpretation, supercedes a very "midEastern" interpretation.

---

And what I'm saying is that if David had been Davina, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Everyone would say that this was a story of star-crossed lovers. It would be an indication of the great passion of the Queen.

quote:

---

And I'm still interested in exact word usage found in the original passages of leviticus, corinthians, timothy, and romans.

---

How many times do I have to tell you before you remember?In Timothy and Romans, for example, the word is "arsenkoitai." A word that Paul coined. It is a conglomeration of two words that mean, literally, "male" and "temple prostitute."What more do you need?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I don't get that at all. He took off his "robe." Jerusalem Bible give this as "cloak." If you look at how the word (Heb. meil) is used in other contexts you will note that it is likely to be a cloak of office, a royal vestment. There is no suggestion that this is the only garment Jonathon was wearing. The sword is slung upon the girdle (a belt). Clearly outer wear. The act is one of honoring the recipient, like handing over one's jacket and gunbelt to a trusted friend (whom his father did not trust, remember). Jonathon was ceremoniously recognizing David as equal or superior to himself. He supported David's anointing (to the office of future king). That's why Saul hated David and that's why he didn't want his son associating with him. 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.Have you never had a buddy? Doesn't have to be anything more than that. David was known for taking any woman he fancied. If she were married, he'd kill the husband. He killed one of his best general's just to keep him from finding out that he'd been diddling his wife.I'm not saying that David couldn't have been bisexual but the evidence you put forward is, at best, inconclusive.db

quote:

---

quote:

---

Jonathan's stripping of himself and giving his things to David is a pretty clear signal. Johnathon was standing there naked in front of David.

---

​

I don't get that at all. He took off his "robe."

---

It is more than that. "Even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle." When you get rid of your cloak and your girdle, what else do you have?

quote:

---

The sword is slung upon the girdle (a belt).

---

Stretch.

quote:

---

quote:

---

... thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

---

​

Men can love men in ways that women cannot understand.

---

Can't possibly be romantic love. Nope, nope, nope. Can't possibly be. No way. Not in a million years.If David had been Davina, there would be no question that it was a love story but because it's two men, it can't possibly be that.

quote:

---

As I recall, Jonathon saved David's ass on more than one occasion.

---

From Jonathan's father...who was mad at David because Jonathan was mooning over him. You're confusing the after actions for the prior ones.David doesn't meet Jonathan until after he kills Goliath in 1 Samuel 17. It's love at first sight: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.There's no break. David kills Goliath, he returns with his head, Saul is amazed, and (*zap!*) "I think I'm in love!"

quote:

---

Have you never had a buddy? Doesn't have to be anything more than that.

---

Yeah, can't be romantic love. Has to be just buddy-buddy. No romantic or erotic feelings. Nope, nope, nope. Can't possibly be. No way. Not in a million years.If it had been Davina, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

quote:

---

David was known for taking any woman he fancied. If she were married, he'd kill the husband. He killed one of his best general's just to keep him from finding out that he'd been diddling his wife.

---

What does that have to do with anything?Does the word "bisexual" mean nothing to you?You're proving my point. You're willing to do anything, anything, to make sure that it can't possibly be romantic love between them.

quote:

---

I'm not saying that David couldn't have been bisexual but the evidence you put forward is, at best, inconclusive.

---

Yeah, right. Why would Saul be so upset over a buddy-buddy relationship between his son and David?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

My post was clear, concise, exegetic, and tolerant. Your response is reactionary and reveals that you are not thorougly familiar with the material you put forward in evidence. When you get rid of your coat and your belt, what else do you have? Stretch Belt? If you say so. No. I am not confusing the time table. But you would like verse 30 of chapter 20 to follow verse 4 of chapter 18. You cite the ceremony in which Jonathon passes a uniform and weapons to David (1 Samuel chapter 18 verse 4). The very next verse has David at the head of the army. (after the ceremony). If you had read the next four verses you would know why Saul hated David. It clearly states that David was immensely successful in battle and thus more popular than Saul. "And Saul eyed David from that day on." The very next day Saul made an attempt on Davids life. Irrelevant. It was Saul who insisted on keeping David at the palace. It was Saul who would not let David go home. It was Saul who made him commander of the army, dressed in Jonathon's robe, wearing Jonathon's belt and sword. If you insist. You must be confusing me with someone else. But look at the length to which you go to prove that it was romantic. He wouldn't have been.See verse 8 - "And Saul was very angry, and this saying displeased him; he said, 'They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed thousands; and what more can he have but the kingdom.'"See verse 12 - "Saul was afraid of David, because the LORD was with him but had departed from Saul."Check the facts and get back to me.db------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-12-2003]

doctrbill responds to me:

quote:

---

My post was clear, concise, exegetic, and tolerant.

---

And filled with incredulousness.

quote:

---

Your response is reactionary and reveals that you are not thorougly familiar with the material you put forward in evidence.

---

Hah! You mean like this:

quote:

---

No. I am not confusing the time table. But you would like verse 30 of chapter 20 to follow verse 4 of chapter 18.

---

Did you read my post? Did you notice where I pointed out when the Bible says that David and Jonathon first noticed each other?That's right...it happens somewhere between the last verse of Chapter 17 and the first verse of Chapter 18. Let me remind you of it since you seem to have missed 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.There are no intervening verses. Saul sees David return with the head of Goliath, asks who on earth he is, David tells him, and the very next thing we hear is that David and Jonathan's souls have been knit into one.So where is this "Jonathan saves David's butt" coming from? That's later. Jonathan and David were not war buddies when Jonathan comes to love David "as his own soul." He loves him on sight at their very first meeting. It's because Jonathan loves David that he makes sure David is kept safe.If David were Davina, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

quote:

---

If you had read the next four verses you would know why Saul hated David. It clearly states that David was immensely successful in battle and thus more popular than Saul. "And Saul eyed David from that day on." The very next day Saul made an attempt on Davids life.

---

But you act like that's the only reason. Yes, Saul hated David because David was popular, David was better in battle, paranoia that David was going to take over the kingdom, etc. But to have his son in love with this guy? That only makes it worse!

quote:

---

quote:

---

David doesn't meet Jonathan until after he kills Goliath

---

​

Irrelevant.

---

Excuse me? Did you not say the following: So please tell me, when you go on and on about "fight together, side by side" and "risking their lives, or careers, together" and "depending on each other for survival" and then top it off with "Jonathan saved David's ass on more than one occasion," how is one supposed to interpret that except to mean that you are ascribing the claim that Jonathan loved David "as his own soul" because they were fighting buddies who had a history of being together in times of crisis?The reality of the Bible text is the exact opposite: Jonathan loved David "as his own soul" at the moment he met him. They had no history. They had not fought together. They had not risked their lives together. They hadn't depended on each other for anything. Jonathan had never met David until just then and he most certainly hadn't saved David's ass from anything.Instead, Jonathan and David fall in love at first sight. Once again, the direct text: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.All the later stuff about Jonathan saving David from Saul and the bits with the arrows...all that comes after. Jonathan and David fall in love at their first meeting right after the battle with Goliath.

quote:

---

There's no break. David kills Goliath, he returns with his head, Saul is amazed, and (*zap!*) "I think I'm in love!"

​

It was Saul who insisted on keeping David at the palace. It was Saul who would not let David go home. It was Saul who made him commander of the army, dressed in Jonathon's robe, wearing Jonathon's belt and sword.

---

Not that last bit. David and Jonathan made the covenant, not David and Saul:1 Samuel 18:3: Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.1 Samuel 18:4: And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're willing to do anything, anything, to make sure that it can't possibly be romantic love between them.

---

​

You must be confusing me with someone else. But look at the length to which you go to prove that it was romantic.

---

You mean the direct statement of Saul isn't enough?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 Saul was talking about when he spoke of "thine own confusion" and "the confusion of thy mother's nakedness"?That's sex, doctrbill. Saul directly says right there that David and Jonathan were having a sexual relationship.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yeah, right. Why would Saul be so upset over a buddy-buddy relationship between his son and David?

---

​

He wouldn't have been.

---

So explain 1 Samuel 20:30, then. Saul's pissed off and directly confronts Jonathan over his sexual relationship with David: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?

quote:

---

Check the facts and get back to me.

---

Physician, heal thyself!Oh, and by the way...David is married through all this (1 Samuel 19:11).------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Here are the pertinent facts.

• David went out to meet Goliath wearing Sauls armour. He doffed it because it impeded his fighting style. David killed Goliath. Then the army, David and Jonathon included, attacked the Philistines.
• Saul is impressed and takes the Boy Wonder to live in the palace. Jonathon gives David his royal cloak and weapon. {The cloak is outerwear, probably a sort of royal blazer. The "girdle" is a gun (er... Sword) belt; NOT underwear (underpants were called "breeches")}. This exchange of battle gear had the effect of honoring David and putting him in appropriate uniform for the next step. Next verse ...
• David is installed at the head of the army. He is wildly successful and becomes more popular than the king. Which leads to the next step. Next verse.
• Saul attempts to kill David in the interest of national security (before he can become king). He tries again and again but son Jonathon always leaks the plan to David and David always escapes.
• Eventually Saul discovers who has been leaking state secrets. He verbally attacks his son, calling him sonofabitchmotherfucker because he is loyal to David; has chosen to prefer the future king over the incumbent. The surprising thing here is that Saul didn't kill him.

This is classical, royal intrigue. Even if, as you wish, Jonathon had stripped himself nude before David, that in itself would not have been considered a sexual thing. Saul stripped himself and hung out in the nude, with the prophets, all day. No one was shocked by that. The only question they asked was, "Is Saul a prophet too?"Mine is a straightforward interpretation. I heard that the first time.db

I might point out that people go to prisons, monestaries, missions to the moon, etc etc where they are separated by sex and manage to not have sex with anyone else... so I wouldn't say "have to", but rather "limited to" if they wish to have sex with another person.And yes, I would use homosexual to describe those who have sex in those environments if its a convenient shorthand. As I have said umpteen times, I know it may not be accurate, it is simply convenient. Okay now, this is it. This is the ONLY question that was of any importance. I am going to take YOUR word for it, from here on out. If someone later makes me look like an idiot by pointing to actual wording and it is different, I'm gonna start spelling Rrhain: M-U-D.And I'll tell you this is cutting you a lot of slack. Not because of the language discussion, but because of the David discussion.Once again I am stuck in a he said, she said situation. Doctrbill says girdle means one thing, you say it means another. To be honest I've heard it used both ways.My honest impression on reading the passage is to complete nudity (which in that time and place MAY still mean nothing), until Doctrbill raised the point I had not considered (that it is outerwear to hang ones sword).Both of you sound convincing to me. It could go either way.It is your somewhat shrill denounciation of him and me that has me doubting YOU. Both of us have simply said that your interpretation, while wholly valid, is just not conclusive. Yet you attack us as if we are saying we want you to be wrong. That we don't want to see this.It also is odd that you don't see that because they are men, it opens the door to another interpretation.You are correct that if the passage was about a Daphne instead of a David, it would be read as a romantic passage. A feminist would probably point out that we miss the fact that men and women can have intense "comrade" type relationships, and so it could be interpreted another way.The feminist interpretation seems less likely, because these are more rare, and because of the time and place, but it could be true. I'd tend to favor the other interpretation.Since it is David, we CAN look at two interpretations. "Lover" or "Comrade/Brother." The comrade angle is not aburd given that area and time. To reject courting that angle as wanting to believe it is true, and a desire to not see the other, smacks of intellectual bias or dishonesty.We're just pointing it out, and for me those that would argue against your position (given cultural examples) seem to have the more convincing argument, or at least a tied one. It is true that they might have an agenda. I don't know. I can only go by the evidence provided.You are correct in asking which culture this story (as it is told) was established for: when events occured, or for those that eventually wrote it down. I don't know. A nice conclusion on that would help push my opinion one direction or the other.Although it's none of anyone's damn business, and so I tried to get the message across to you as subtly as I could, I guess I have to make myself crystal clear on something...I am BISEXUAL. It is true that I live mainly a heterosexual existence (due to my discriminating tastes and the fact that I currently have a girlfriend), but I am not stuck to that.In fact, just like those in the ancient world I do not understand the term "homosexual"--- or heterosexual for that matter--- as used to describe a person's identity. Such terms seem to have sprung out of the monotheistic habit of labelling things "this or that", based on whatever ridiculous criteria. As I stated, I do not experience the world that these people profess to inhabit.But since those terms exist I use them when convenient as placeholders. That includes shortterm activities. Actually to my mind that is all I use them for. I have yet to see anyone that has a solid sexual identity that can be labelled as one thing.I have no need to read anyone's activities as one thing or another. David could very well be gay, or more likely bisexual. If anything his active lifestyle, if it included a rampant love affair with a man, would do nothing but make me have more respect for his character.Not because he had sex with men, but because... Someone used the phrase "sucking the juices from life" to describe these early biblical characters, which no one is supposed to act like today. It is that which I would respect. It means he really pursued life to its fullest emotional possibilities.I don't like being told I am discounting a possibility, when I am simply stating another possibility, and saying your's isn't certain. Especially when I get labelled with a bias I simply do not have.This is where it stands...1) I'll take your word on original wording and ascribe all references to male prostitutes in specific,2) I have already taken your word on the use of know in Sodom, and the Judges passage,3) The jury remains out (for me) on David. I see both possibilities as possibilities. Neither are conclusive, though some cultural knowledge of the area makes me favor (but not definitively) the "comrade" idea.4) Gay-Unions by the early church... totally nowhere. Boswell's claims seem conclusive, but so did his critics. I have nothing which would break the tie at all. Even cultural knowledge, while making me believe some of his critics' claims, is not enough to push me in "favor" one way or the other.Only further evidence is going to help me out.As another point on the homosexuality issue... fornication. This is pretty well blasted around the Bible, including Corinthians and Timothy. Since even Boswell does not claim same sex unions were prevalent in the church before 700AD, is it not credible to argue that homosexual sex gets hit with that proscription?I have heard some argue that angle. It makes sense, especially as a fall back position for those that lose all the other references.Are there any wording issues regarding fornication (commonly understood as sex outside of marriage), and how that would affect homosexual activity?------------------
holmes

doctrbill responds to me:

quote:

---

Here are the pertinent facts.

• David went out to meet Goliath wearing Sauls armour. He doffed it because it impeded his fighting style. David killed Goliath. Then the army, David and Jonathon included, attacked the Philistines.
• Saul is impressed and takes the Boy Wonder to live in the palace. Jonathon gives David his royal cloak and weapon.

---

Where's the part about Jonathan loving David "as his own soul"?It seems you're missing an extremely pertinent fact.

quote:

---

• Saul attempts to kill David in the interest of national security (before he can become king). He tries again and again but son Jonathon always leaks the plan to David and David always escapes.

---

Yes, but why is Jonathan doing this? Once again, you're ignoring the part where Jonathan and David love each other and have made repeated covenants with each other.It seems you're missing an extremely pertinent fact.

quote:

---

This is classical, royal intrigue.

---

Except for the love part. Why did you ignore the love part?

quote:

---

Even if, as you wish, Jonathon had stripped himself nude before David, that in itself would not have been considered a sexual thing.

---

Yes, it would have. The phallic symbology of Jonathan giving his sword to David is quite clear.

quote:

---

Saul stripped himself and hung out in the nude, with the prophets, all day. No one was shocked by that.

---

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

quote:

---

Mine is a straightforward interpretation.

---

That completely ignores significant parts of the text.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If David were Davina, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

---

​

I heard that the first time.

---

But apparently it didn't sink in.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

The comrade angle is not aburd given that area and time.

---

But that ignores the text. How could it possibly be "comrades" when the two had never seen each other until right after David finishes talking to Saul and Jonathan is described as having his soul "knit" to David's and loves him "as his own soul"?That was the ridiculousness of doctrbill's argument. He's absolutely right that comrades-in-arms, men who have been together through thick and thin, long-time friends, etc. can develop deeply intimate relationships that are non-sexual.That doesn't apply to Jonathan and David. They had never met. But the instant that they do, Jonathan loves him "as his own soul" and the first thing they do is establish a covenant with each other where Jonathan disrobes and hands over his phallic symbol to David.As I asked before...what more do you need? "And David thrust his loins unto his lover, Johnathan"?

quote:

---

Are there any wording issues regarding fornication (commonly understood as sex outside of marriage), and how that would affect homosexual activity?

---

In today's world? Well, up until a few years ago, people of the same sex couldn't get married anywhere in the world. Ergo, it would be impossible for gay people not to be guilty of the sin of fornication. Recent developments have found churches that will do it and, later on, governments.Of course, that depends upon what the definition of "marriage" is. Is it something that has to be blessed by a priest? Or can two people simply declare themselves married and have that be it? How many people need to recognize and what position of power do they need to hold for it to be "official"?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

That would certainly be definitive.Here's the deal, I am caught in a semantic trap with "comrade" or "brother", much like when I use the the term homosexual.In our rather homophobic based western culture we do not have terms to describe love between men. There is homosexual, or there is the cold and distant "comrade" or "brother."There is a love between men that can be forged ala love at first sight. It can be passionate, arguably just as passionate as for a woman. Heck even guys that are buddy-buddy in arms seem only an inch away from all out homosexuality (and think of the freudian symbolism inherit in guys that have learned to love each other through use of swords or guns).The problem is that as heated as it may get, the sexual realm may never enter the picture. They may not even think about it (even if everyone else around them is thinking get a room already).Movies like Reservoir Dogs and Usual Suspects and even the spoof Base-ketball played on the underlying near homosexuality of tight male-male bonding.The cultures of the midEast, and perhaps even Greece and Rome (early Rome) accepted this type of relationship without reserve, and without the chuckling glances we give it today. Men can and do declare their love for each other, even men they haven't met in person, based on singular recognitions of the "power" or "greatness" of the other guy.And in the midEast they do a lot of things men in the west would never even consider.Unfortunately as far as I know they don't have a name for it other than "love", or "love greater than a woman's."It is, in fact, that phrasing in the passage about David that makes the non-sexual man-love interpretation seem more relevant. If they said "love as great as a woman's" or even "like a woman's", but not "greater than". That suggests the purity which that culture believes exists when there is an absence of sexuality from a relationship.I understand your point that this man-love would have to have formed at first-glance. What can I say, it does seem to happen. And I have no term to use for it.Like I said, I wish I could say yep yep yep to your interpretation. And I'm not saying nope nope nope. I'm just shrugging my shoulders repeatedly.As far as the marriage thing, I guess "official" is always relative. Even if the US recognizes a gay marriage, the Vatican could choose not to. That would leave that couple within the sin of fornication to that particular faith. At least for now, Bush and Ashcroft have not given the federal government official power to judge sins.That said, your answer seems to suggest then that homosexuality would have been a sin, though more along the lines of sex before marriage (which for women at least was reason for stoning), than that of having sex with a male emple prostitute. Is this correct?------------------
holmes

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

That said, your answer seems to suggest then that homosexuality would have been a sin, though more along the lines of sex before marriage (which for women at least was reason for stoning), than that of having sex with a male emple prostitute. Is this correct?

---

Well, there's an awful lot of politics going on.But if you look at some of the rantings of Paul that some people seem to think are about gay people, you find that it comes after a rant where Paul makes a list about idolatry, fornication, and adultery.Well, put that all together, and what do you get? Sex with someone who isn't your spouse in a temple.Um...temple prostitution, anyone?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

That, you know. That you have emphasized to the exclusion of all else. Jonathon does this because he is a just and law abiding citizen of Israel who is trying to protect a friend, national hero and legitimate heir to the throne, from murder. You dwell on that part enough for all of us.
Why do you deny the military ceremony and political intrigue? "Eye of the beholder."The military symbolism is clear enough. It is consistent with the tone of the text and integral to the story of David's promotion. Perhaps it would help if you thought of the sword as a gun. An instrument of death. 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. We have already explored those parts together. I'm sorry if you are not satisfied with my conclusions. I do not think those parts are insignificant. I do, however, think you are ignoring the circumstances surrounding those parts. Refusing, apparently, to read them in context. Apparently, it is irrelevant.Sometimes we must let go our favorite theories for inadequate evidence. Let it go Rrhain. Find other ways to grind your axe. You've been attacking your own team mates.db[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 08-14-2003]

Interesting you should say that. Those words sound close and warm to me. How about Charisma? Or Animal Magnetism. There is also, "Hero Worship," which may have played a part in Jonathon's fascination with David. I have experienced that sort of thing many times. Some people just naturally inspire awe in others. Bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, richer, better looking? Whatever it is, some people seem destined to lead, rule, or otherwise command attention. They are "attractive."db