David and Jonathan: The Bible's Gay Couple, 1 Samuel 18:1
The Book of Samuel: Biblical Gay Lovers David & Jonathan
http://rainbowallianceopenfaith.homestead.com/GayLove3.html
There is no real need to bring out a passage showing approval of homosexuality. After all, the Bible condemns only those actions it actually condemns, and homosexuality is not one of those things.
However, even though they are not strictly necessary, there *are* several passages that show approval of gay relationships.
To mention just one, there is the love affair between David and Jonathan.
Quote:
1 Samuel 18:1,3
"And it came to pass, when he [David] 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 . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."
And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David:
Quote:
1 Samuel 18:4
"Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt.
Jonathan was not only disrobing, but was turning the symbols of his manhood over to David. This draws a very clear picture of what is happening here.
Quote:
1 Samuel 20:30
"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"
Reference to the nakedness of one's parents is one of the methods used in the Bible to refer to a sexual relationship. Jonathan had chosen David as his lover. And in the same conversations Saul says:
Quote:
1 Samuel 20:31
Why, as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!
This clarifies Saul's problem. One of the most important duties of being a king was producing an heir. Obviously, Jonathan had no intention of producing an heir, and therefore could not provide the final step needed to make good his claim to the kingship. He loved David and *only* David.
Quote:
1 Samuel 20:41
" . . . they [David and Jonathan] kissed one another, and wept one with another . . . "
Here they are displaying a deep affection for one another, and showing an emotional attachment well beyond what would be shown by two heterosexuals in a similar situation. They actually weep together because of their upcoming forced separation.
Quote:
2 Samuel 1:26
[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."
As you can see, they were very much in love. The Bible shows them kissing one another -- not a normal activity for heterosexual men. To make sure you don't miss the sexual aspect, the love is compared (favorably, by the way) with the love of a woman. Their souls were knit together in love, and they made a covenant because of their love. Just think about how many covenants are made because of love. The covenant of marriage sort of sticks out. The actions immediately following that declaration of love are also unmistakable. Not many covenants made because of love result in the participants disrobing in each other's presence, but one such covenant -- the covenant of marriage -- does.
The comment about the nakedness of Jonathan's mother in the discussion of his relationship with David strongly implies a sexual element to the relationship. This just reiterates what is already obvious.
To emphasize the point, Saul offers his oldest daughter Meroh to David, but David turns down the offer. He then offers his younger daughter Michel to David, who loves David, but David also turns this down. Something very interesting here is that, even though the Bible says that Michel loved David, there is no reciprical "David loved Michel" statement. David finally agrees to marry Michel, but not for love, but rather for the benefit of having the king as his father-in-law.
Quote:
1 Samuel 18:26
"When the servants reported this offer to David, he was pleased with the prospect of becoming the king's son-in-law."
Note that there is no mention of being pleased at the prospect of marrying Michel, bit only with becoming the king's son-in-law.
David was obviously bisexual. But with a preference for men, since he found his love for Jonathan to be wonderful, passing the love of women. As a King he *had* to have a harem and produce heirs, no matter his sexual orientation, but his one true love was Jonathan.
You know, I have thought about how *I* would have phrased things to clearly show a homosexual relationship in the Bible. Other than describing the physical act itself, which I would not do, I would have done it by saying that they loved each other. To make absolutely clear that this was a gay relationship that was the equivalent of marriage, I would have said that they made a covenant between each other because of their love. I doubt that I sould have gone as far as to show them disrobing as the Bible does, but I might add in the symbolism of giving up the sword. Just in case that got missed, though I would have found it hard to believe that this could be misconstrued, I would have shown an example of physical affection, perhaps going as far as to say they kissed. Surely that would be enough for *anyone* to know that this was a gay relationship. But just in case anyone managed to deny that, I would have added something like having one of the characters compare their relationship to a relationship with a woman, and find this one better. No one could possibly misinterpret *that* one. But just to make *absolutely* sure that it could not be mistaken for anything but a homosexual relationship that included a sexual element, I would use one of the code phrases used to point out a sexual relationship, such as a reference to "the confusion of thy mother's nakedness".
Actually, I probably would never have gone that far, because I would not have believed that anyone could *possibly* miss the obvious. But I cannot think of *anything* that I could have written that would have made the point beyond what is actually shown here.
© 2000, by JRichards. All rights reserved, except that free distribution via any medium is permitted as long as author's credit is given and no profit is involved.
*******************************************
Search for God's heart and truth
by Jeramy Townsley
http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/faith/jt_add4.htm
ADDENDUM 4. David and Jonathon:
There have been several attempts to point to alleged homosexual couples in the Bible, primarily Ruth and Naomi, Daniel and Ashpenaz, and David and Jonathon. The arguments regarding Ruth/Naomi and Daniel/Ashpenaz are far from compelling for me. The arguments regarding David and Jonathon, however, while not quite compelling, leave open the strong possibility that they were involved in an homosexual marriage.
Starting from the crux of the argument at 1 Samuel 18:21, Saul tells David, that by marrying Saul's daughter Michal, David will be his son-in-law for the second time (Hebrew: "bstym ttctn by hynm"). The actual translation of this phrase is somewhat controversial, being literally translated "You will become my son-in-law through two." In this instance, the correct interpretation of this verse is crucial, because it radically shapes our view of David and Jonathon's relationship, since Scripture only indicates that David had any kind of relationship with two of Saul's children: Jonathon and Michal. Some translations interpret this verse as meaning that Saul "said for the second time," or that David has a "second opportunity" to become Saul's son-in-law. These interpretations, however, are strained, and the Hebrew does not easily lend itself to mean either of these. Most standard translations clearly interpret the verse to mean that David will become Saul's son-in-law for the second time (NIV being the primary exception, and the RSV is ambiguous):
ASV: Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.
RSV: Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."
BBE: So Saul said to David, Today you are to become my son-in-law for the second time.
DBY: And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time.
YLT: Saul saith unto David, `By the second -- thou dost become my son-in-law to-day.'
NAS: Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today."
The question then becomes what Saul actually meant if he is telling David that he will become his son-in-law for the second time. The first offer Saul made to David for a wife was Merab, but she married Adriel of Meholah instead (18:19). The only other covenant made between Saul's family and David was between David and Jonathon in 18:3, which is not a covenant of business or politics, but of friendship/love ("ahbh"). Moreover, this relationship is described in very strong emotive language, starting in 18:1. Prior to looking at this more closely, an understanding of the story up to this point is helpful. In chapter 17, we find David's older brothers going to war against the Philistines while David stays at home. David is then sent to take food to his brothers, following which is the classic David and Goliath story. As David goes back to Saul after killing Goliath, we see that David is totally unknown to King Saul (17:58). However, as David talks to King Saul, Jonathon falls in love with David, after having never met him, or talked to him (which has a vague sound of "love at first sight" in our culture).
1 Samuel 18:1-4 (NIV)
1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself.
2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house.
3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.
4 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.
While there is no similarity between the Hebrew phrases in 1 Samuel 18:1-2 above and in Genesis 2:24, there is a striking similarity in concepts between the son leaving the parents to join to a spouse, and the two becoming one:
Genesis 2:24 (NIV)
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
When we put together chapter 18, from the beginning, with Jonathon's strong emotional affection towards David and their subsequent covenant, to the end, where we see Saul referring to David being his son-in-law a second time with his marriage to Michal, we see the very strong possibility that David and Jonathon were joined in a covenant that Saul recognized as a marriage. This line of reasoning, while persuasive to me, it is not conclusive. First, I don't know that we have any other extant Hebrew literature of that era that refers to a gay marriage, which would lead one to question whether or not Saul would have seen David and Jonathon's covenant as one of legal marriage. If not, then the only possibility for Saul's language in 18:21 is that he was referring to David's second son-in-law status as coming from the original promise by Saul to give Merab to him (18:17), even though Merab married another man. A second possible criticism is that this argument is made from conjecture, that no specific reference is made to marriage (ynh, yqch) or sexual activity. This, however, is not a valid criticism. The words referring to marriage in the Old Testament are typically in the context of being "taken" or "given" (yqch) as property (byvlh) or protector/provider (ybm), since women had no rights in Hebrew culture, and were considered property to be given/sold. This aspect of marriage would not have been applicable to David and Jonathon's relationship. The other primary word translated as marry is actually the exact same word as "woman" (ishh), which obviously isn't applicable in this case. As for the lack of specific reference to sexual activity which would definitively signify marriage, very few Old Testament relationships which are clearly marriage relationships have subsequent descriptions of sexual activity, therefore it is improbable that such a characterization would be applied here either. However, 2 Samuel 1:26 may even be a reference to sexual activity between David and Jonathon. After Jonathon has been killed, David mourns his death, and says the following (NIV):
26 I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women.
In Hebrew culture, similar to many mid-eastern cultures today, men and women did not engage in platonic relationships. They were either married, or they had no relationship. In this case, David compares his relationship with Jonathon to the relationship with a woman, strongly indicating a marriage/sexual relationship. Further, the word used for love here (ahbh; used also in 1 Samuel 18:3 and 1 Samuel 20:17 referring for Jonathon's love for David) is the same word used in Genesis 29:20 for Jacob's love for Rachel, and is used repeatedly in Song of Songs. It is typically translated as love in the context of a marriage or sexual desire (Proverbs 5:19, etc.; see Strong's concordance #0160).
After this analysis we are left with two questions. First, could Saul have legally seen David and Jonathon's covenant as marriage, to the extent that he would call David a son-in-law. Second, is the intensity of the language referring to Jonathon's love and covenant with David, and David's reference to his love for Jonathan, enough to sustain the belief that they were engaged in a marriage covenant? Neither of these questions can be answered definitively. Whether or not Saul would have legally condoned this relationship can only be answered with further research into the marriage documents from that time, which I don't know exist anymore. However, the conceptual parallel of marriage between 1 Samuel 18:1-2 and Genesis 2:24, the intensity and type of language used in 1 Samuel 18:1-4 and subsequent covenant between Jonathon and David, and David's comparison of his love to that of women certainly leads me to the conclusion that their relationship could have been one of marriage.
Just a thought
I understand what you are saying here. God is indeed Love, Understanding, and Grace. However, Leviticus 18:22 says, "thou shalt not lay with a man as thou lays with a woman; it is detestable to God." This passage clearly marks homosexuality as a sin. The Bible also says that God is perfect and He knit you together in your mother's womb. This would indicate that he did not make a mistake when he created you.
But now we have conflicting views. If God creates everything perfect and homosexuality is a sin (an imperfection), could God create someone to be homosexual? I would say no. However, I know plenty of homosexual people who have wonderful relationships with God; I am friends with many of them. They have explained it to me this way. Homosexuality is a sin that they struggle with. However, it is no different then struggling with anger, the urge to kill people, lust, or attraction to pornography. A straight person struggling with pornography is the same as a person struggling with homosexuality. There are no degrees of sin, each is just a lethal as the other. On judgment day, all sinners will be cast from God's presence: every sin will be suffer the same consequences.
All of that being said, I believe that you are right. A lot of people choose not to understand or care about homosexuals because they are "different." I think this type of Christianity is hypocritical and a major cause with the world's dissatisfaction of it. We are called to love all people. Hate the sin but love the sinner. While I disagree with the act of homosexuality, I will love the person the same.
As for David and Jonathan, I think this story has suffered some severe mistranslations. The bible says in Proverbs 18:24 "A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother." This has been translated elsewhere that a true friend is closer than a brother. Now, I have a brother and I have changed in front of him many times; it's not that unnatural to unclothe yourself in front of someone you have that close of a relationship with. Also, in those time it was common to pledge your loyalty to a king by humbling yourself and presenting them your sword. What is more humbling and vulnerable than giving someone you sword while you're naked? Also, in many European cultures, it is common to kiss one another in greeting. Just because the bible says they kissed does not mean they were having a violent make out session.
As for saying his love was better than that of a woman's, it goes back to a true friend. There are things you do with your friends that a wife would never approve of. How many times has a husband said, "I need some guy time."? In a culture so enthralled with sex, we have come to forget that there are other aspects of a relationship which are extremely enjoyable. Also, I think the last argument was that Saul was condemning his son for being homosexual. In this passage Saul is merely angry that his son will not take the throne. Jonathan has reserved himself to being a friend of and serving David. Samuel (by God's orders) has already promised the throne of Israel to David. Saul saying that Jonathan cannot fulfill his role as a king is merely referring to the fact that Jonathan will not take the throne. Also, David married Saul's daughter hoping to make him happier/less intent on killing him.
Finally, God calls David "a man after My own heart." This type of honor is not bestowed upon anyone else in the entire bible. So, if homosexuality is a sin as established above and if God hates sin, could someone so similar to God that he is said to be after "My own heart," could he have been a homosexual? I think the clear answer is no.
In Him
M.A.L
Things have changed since
Things have changed since Jesus came.
God never said that He would punish every single gay person right away. Nonetheless, it is still a sin.
Understanding
Do you know that God is am understanding,caring,loving God? God is love,all of these comments here are all of argueing and not of peace,which is the gospel of Christ. Peace,caring loving and understanding is what matters.
There is no condemnation when you beleive in Christ,Christ is the one who made us right for all humans are wrong and sinfull.
I happen to be a gay person who has an amazing relationship with god through Jesus Christ,i know him myself..he is in me as i am in him.
Have you ever thought about the possibilty that homosexuals are born this way? have you ever thought of choosing to be straight? NO people dont choose there sexuality at all. People cant decide what sexuality they are.
The book of samuel clearly shows that two men were in deep love together,it shows and says they kissed ,now would a straight guy kiss another straight guy? or uncloth before them? NO it is clear they were in a intimate sensual reltionship,only you judgmental people with NO understanding and NO love,full of hate and homophobia are the ones who say we are condemned to hell,you cannot jugde one and you cannot say you arent judging us because you are,you need to do more research about this and realize you have to love all people,as Christ did,stop being a homophobic straight person with zero understanding...this is the facts...i know plenty of christian straight people that understand us,you need to stop living by the law and start living under the spirit of the lord,the law kills but the spirit lives,i live under the spirit and i know i am not wrong.
rationalizing immorality in action
a small sample on human thought patterns fo rationalizing
Talks Dan Ariely: Why we think it's OK to cheat and steal (sometimes)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.ht...
.
.
......................
welcome to the future
ever thought that your perseption of him lead him to that choice
kids are tabula rasa (blank slate) until parents, siblings, friends, peers, family & society fill their little minds with "stuff", a "mind game" that projects our belief into who people are, some people can outgrow the mind-numbing assault, others just succumb to it; hence gangs, low-achievers, druggies & gays
kids are born geniuses until we beat it out of them, they absorb everything in the world around them like sponges, asking questions, learning, exploring
so your cousin was more feminine? or did people just project their expectations on him & he didn't know any better, so, PUFF!! he's gay
.
.
......................
welcome to the future
Born that way
I had a cousin, when I was a kid who was about 10 years old. All us children in the family knew he was gay even though we didn't know what gay was. He liked all things feminine even though he was male. He was born that way. It's not something you learn. No one would wish such a burden on themselves.
Mykel you just need to admit your wrong.
Your confused and fight with yourself because you know being gay is wrong. You hate yourself for having and giving into gay lust and perversion. It upsets you that you know what you do is wrong.
Can we beat this dead horse
Can we beat this dead horse a little more please?
Mykel fails as Biblical interpreter, but who cares, he's gay!
man, you're so desperate to be normal that you try to read into situations that could be construed only by gays to be gay, but frightfully forgetting that the Bible does 2 things that expose your fantasy;
1. its not shy about what God thinks about homosexuality;
Leviticus 18:22-25 (King James Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2018:22-25;&versio...
2. its not shy about calling people sinners or reminding readers of peoples failings;
2 Samuel 16:11-12 (King James Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Samuel%2016:11-12;&versi...
the Bible shows people warts & all; ego, id, lust, hatred, its all there, nothing hidden about David's failures; yet you, my young would-be Biblical scholar, would presume to put in a gay scene, into a best friends scenario, could it be because you're gay? have you ever had a BFF?
or do you automatically presume "gayness" in a situation, because if you where there, you would do it in that situation? I'm only guessing, because you probably had sex with all you best bud's, or am I reading too much into your life, Mykel?
I have a question Mykel, in another post, you say that the Bible is full of errors & yet a few months later you come back with verses from the Bible to claim that David was gay, funny how time heals all wounds?
my suggestion for next time you post on FF, just copy the HML & a few points; looks like you just cut & pasted the whole chapter;
Submitted by Mykel on Sat, 11/08/2008
http://fresnofamous.com/content/judeo-christian-biblical-contradictions-...
oh, & to answer Dan Barker's question, just in case you were still wondering what the answer was, people that are lost are confused, because the Bible is plain to those that are saved, but a stumbling bock to the lost, sorry to hear you've become lost.
your source material for your long post;
Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist by Dan Barker
Chapter 23
http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=contra
1 Corinthians 1:18-31 (King James Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%201:18-24;&v...
.
.
......................
welcome to the future
God is pure and hole in
God is pure and hole in other words he is not like you or me. period. Purity in everything especially relationships. Homesexuality is wrong people. It's a great lie from Satan, I was born that way. Reproduction was made by God for His glory to be spread. How can two women or two men reproduce. They can't. What a seductive liar the devil is and the father of lies.
God is pure and hole in
God is pure and hole in other words he is not like you or me. period. Purity in everything especially relationships. Homesexuality is wrong people. It's a great lie from Satan, I was born that way. Reproduction was made by God for His glory to be spread. How can two women or two men reproduce. They can't. What a seductive liar the devil is and the father of lies.
tylerpenney-- you wrote:
tylerpenney-- you wrote: Once again I believe that children deserve at least the opportunity to have a father and a mother. If gays have their "right to marry", some children will be denied this opportunity. It has nothing to do with hate, or homophobia.
I don't know if you know it yet, but there are children out there (foster/adopted) that have no mommies and daddies or who have been abused/abandoned by their mommies and daddies and are being raised by gay and/or lesbian couples. There are just too many people in the world to deny them this---and what does being married have to do with raising children? There are plenty of children who are born (gasp!) out of wedlock. there are plenty of children living in broken homes without a mother and a father. It would be wonderful if every child born were raised by loving, nuturing parents---but that simply is NOT reality.
Besides, you may not be aware of it, but it is physically impossible (gasp!) for gays/lesbians to have children of their own without seeking some sort of surrogate program, I really think your reasoning that the raising of children by a mother/father is cause for banning gay marriage. It's apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other, really.
on language
just to throw in some interjections, the bible has only a few phrases in aramaic. the original languages are hebrew (hebrew bible/old testament) and greek (new testament), although there are also early versions of the old testament in greek.
the original texts were then translated primarily to latin, and then other languages (such as german, english, etc.) some of these later translations were done from latin, which is a bit problematic because it's a little like that game telephone. start with a source, then a translation, then a translation of translation. modern translators have primarily moved to work and produce translations from the original (source) languages.
on marriage, although there may be a few cases out there of gays suing churches, there are plenty of examples and a longstanding legal (& church) precedent of deciding who gets married in a church. try being protestant and asking a catholic priest to perform your marriage. not going to happen. and, i know protestant pastors that decide not to perform marriages for various reasons. should homosexual marriages be allowed, there will be plenty of churches & other institutions that will perform ceremonies so i find it difficult to believe that they'll be suing left and right to get married in churches that don't wish to perform the ceremony. shoot, it's already legal for a church to not hire someone that doesn't agree with them theologically (and that survive any discrimination test) it's logical to think that churches/mosques/temples/whatever will be able to decide whether or not they want to perform a ceremony or even rent out their hall.
finally, benjamin von s makes an excellent point about how our society routinely conducts and condones marriages that have nothing to do with religion or the religious concepts of marriage, other than having been 1 man + 1 women. should religious groups be fighting to amend the state constitution to stop marriages done @ by the county? furthermore it hasn't always been the case in the judeo-christian tradition that marriage is 1 man + 1 woman. the majority of marriages within these traditions have been monogamous heterosexual marriages, but there are several obvious examples within the fathers of the religion.
Re: The Bible
Mykel:
I am the first to admit that the bible has its flaws. It is not God, in fact It was written by men, and translated by men from Aramaic, to Greek, to Latin, and then to English. Each time loosing some of its original meaning.
Thankfully, God gave each of us the opportunity to pray to him when we have a question, and the Holy Spirit (Holy Spirit of Promise, Holy Ghost) will direct us in the right direction:
James 1:5 -
In regarding to maters of the spirit, I try to use the previously mentioned method to figure things out first, then read the bible to reaffirm my stance on an issue. Believe me, I am far from programmed. I was once an Atheist before I became a Christian. I believe that God is the standard of Good, and he knows a whole lot more than me. So I trust him.
I also believe in religious freedom. When the possibility for a gay couple suing my church for not allowing them to marry makes me upset. More here
(Here comes the dead horse beating)
Once again I believe that children deserve at least the opportunity to have a father and a mother. If gays have their "right to marry", some children will be denied this opportunity. It has nothing to do with hate, or homophobia.
In reference to Sodom and
In reference to Sodom and Gomorrah and God sending Angels, Fire and Brimstone down on the peoples of the Earth:
If the LGBT Community is such an affront to God, how come they haven't been pelted with fire and brimstone??
-That being the Big Gs standard "punishment" for being Gay.
I mean really, you just never see fire and brimstone raining down on anyone anymore.
I've not come across a pillar of salt lately either.
Anyone else? No Angels, No Fire and No Brimstone?
(please don't say 9/11, Falwell is the only one who claimed it as an act of God and I'll see him in H-E-double-hockey-sticks)
When exactly did God take the pyrotechnics out of his bag of tricks?
Mykel, Benjamoon and all the other Folks of Tolerance: Deep-Breath Re-Group Do-It-Again.
Like I said, tyler, a lot.
Like I said, there's a lot you don't understand, tyler. I admit, however, that I like hearing you feel the need to "stand up" to a big, bad, homosexual like me.
Keep thinking like that. You need to know that, when it comes to liberty, I will do anything to defend it.
If it means spending time deprogramming you from your petty hatreds and fears, I'll do it.
As for the bible, like any collection of books, all I'm trying to do is impart to you that some books are good, some are not so good and some are downright awful. Even a good book---a Good Book---has it's flaws.
I am asking you to essentially honor matters of the spirit, which you obviously care about, by being simultaneously willing to look beyond a mere book, and into your heart and soul, as one human being speaking to another, so that you can transcend your discriminatory attitudes and truly go with God.
There's a lot you don't understand, tyler
A lot.
Re: regular scientest
Mykel:
What I don't understand is that you use the bible to prove your points, but then you try to disprove the bible.
Spend all my time obsessing about male homosexuality? You wish. I just happen to have the guts to stand up to you, unlike the majority of other posters here.
I'm smarter than you
LOL
This from a man who spends all his time obsessing about male homosexuality while ignoring the war and the poor.
Let me guess: you think "God" lowered his giant, white finger from the sky and touched Sodom and Gomorrah and they just blew up in an instant, because of The Gays Who Ran Two Large, Ancient, Metropolitan, Middle Eastern Cities?
Oh, that's smart, reeeaaal smart.
You're a regular scientist, tylerpenney!
This is a great idea--and very funny, too!
Wanna Send A Message To The Meddling Mormon's???
"For every donation of $5 or more.... the following postcard to President Thomas Monson’s office in Salt Lake City, acknowledging your donation in his name.
"
http://www.invalidateprop8.org
Dear President Monson:
A donation has been made in your name by _________________ to “invalidateprop8. org” to overturn California's Proposition 8 and restore fundamental civil rights to all citizens of California. The money will be donated to legal organizations fighting the case and to support grass-roots activities in support of full marriage equality. Although we decry the reprehensible role the Church of Latter Day Saints leadership played in denying all Californians equal rights under the law, we are pleased a donation has been made on your behalf in the effort to overturn the discrimination your church members helped enshrine in the California Constitution. Given that throughout its history the Mormon Church has been subjected to bigotry, we hope you appreciate the donation in your name to fight religious bigotry here in California.
[PLEASE PASS IT ON!!!]
simple
What is wanted is to enter into a CIVIL contract of marriage. Men and women who are at this time able to marry one another do not have to practice any sort of religion what so ever and do not have to step onto any church property to do so. It can all be done in the County Clerk's office with not one religious minister officiating or present and not a single religious tome needs to be referenced to perform this function. No one other than the two consenting adults engaged need to be concerned.
Re: Lots Wife
Mykel
Translated -
Wow I really screwed up this argument. I'll just babble about Chinese, gunpowder, 9/11, the 9th century, economy, and maybe they will believe me, or at least think I'm smart.
Sorry Mike
I didn't mean to squash, deflate or demean the dialogues.
To be sure there are a lot of solid lines of wisdom shared and a person that tries to follow them without chastising others is generally a good person.
For instance, if a person were to follow these, you're probably a good person.
ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
Pulled that off the net real quick. Was interesting that wikipedia also listed several variations of the same rules. Sheesh, no wonder people have so many issues with each other.
Diablo
Heh heh heh
Ooh! Someone's got their panties in a bunch because I'm asserting my right to worship---or not---as I see fit!
You're acting VERY un-American, tylerpenney.
This is why I really hate getting bogged down in religious debates with right wingers and homophobes; by entering into such debates, it implies that their little Judeo-Christian bible is the end-all, be-all, as if Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Wicca, Paganism, pantheism or atheism don't exist.
That does not, however, diminish the pearls of wisdom found in the bible, which is why I thought to include the passages that, for me, very clearly indicate God's acceptance of gay love and marriage.
Back to tylerpenney: where did I say that Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't gay, or that all they practiced was pedophilia? What I meant was that, specific to the Twin Gay Cities and what went on there, the real sin was the inhospitable attempt by the male citizens to rape the men who went to visit Lot, rather than accepting them with charity, as civilized people should any stranger or immigrant.
As for Lot's wife, do you really believe she was turned to salt in an example of God's "magic?" Or is it more likely that she died in some sort of explosion and was turned to dust, much like those who died and whose bodies were never found in the attacks on 9/11, because they had turned to dust? The Chinese had gun powder at least as long ago as the 9th century. Does it take a rocket scientist to guess that Lot's wife died because the ancient Hebrews (the men who visited Lot?) might have figured out a way to make explosive powder and deliberately set off an explosion to level large parts of the cities, because they felt left out of the economy and political power of the more advanced civilization represented by Sodom and Gomorrah?
I'll tell you what, sugarbuns, you identify yourself, instead of your cowardly little "famous guest" ID, and maybe I'll consider chatting with you.
I bet you really like getting talked to by gay guys.
Not to mention
the fact the book was written over ages by a large number of people, male people. People that could potentially be suppressing and doubting themselves and taking it out in writing.
It's very bothering that there is so much translation and interpretation, and even religions that hate each other over those interpretations. If that isn't stupid in and of itself, especially considering how much they are supposed to care for their fellow man according to their own texts. Where people get off trying behave as if they are the judges and the hand of god them self is also worrisome.
People need to stop trying to force others to live by their interpreted rules and just be good people. If you're as pure as you are supposed to be then you and your loved ones have nothing to worry about. Let others decide how they want to spend their short time on this ball of dirt by themselves.
Diablo
You don't think there could
You don't think there could be a translation error from Hebrew to Greek to Latin then to English?
Question
Mykel I have a question for you. Maybe the word homosexual is a translation error but what about the verse I quoted from Romans:
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." (Rom. 1:26-28)
It never uses the English word Homosexual but clearly condemns homosexuality is this a translation error as well?
Mykel - Even if it were true
Mykel -
Male on Male Rape? Are you serious? So everybody was raping everybody, and there was no consent, like the so called "biblical husbands?" HA! Biblical gay HUSBANDS? There has been a long history of people using the bible to prove their stance on a particular issue, but this is ridiculous! First you say Sodom and Gomorrah was not Gay, but was involved in man-boy pedophilia. MAN - BOY (MALE - MALE) - not gay? Then you left us with this jewel -
Mykel-
Are you also implying that Lots wife was turned into salt by the "ancient religious" for looking back at Sodom and Gomorrah?
Great response Mykel.
Great response Mykel.
Though I doubt you will get an intelligent response to it.
Yaaawwn.
Famous Guests 1 and 2, and tylerpenney,
As a homosexual, identified by my classmates by the time I was in second grade, admitted to myself by the time I was around 10 years old and, thus, filled with dread that I would be sent to Hell per the teachings of my Judeo-Christian church, I can assure you all that I have, indeed, "freaking" read the bible.
How Christian of you to put it like that, as well.
Contrary to your sinful misinterpretations of the bible and your unconstitutional refusal to let me worship as I see fit, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, the word "homosexual" you refer to in your bibles is actually a 19th century English invention put there some several thousand years after the original Hebrew and Greek.
Put very simply, the original word was mistranslated from the original meaning, which was the act of man-boy pedophilia and/or child prostitution, known then as "arsenokite," and into what you now call "homosexual."
Surely you've noticed that the bible is strangely lacking in condemnation of child-molestation. Does this mean that God approves of it? Or will you open your eyes and see the Light, so that you may come to acknowledge that homosexuality, seeing as it harms no one and has existed for as long as humanity has existed, is part of God's creation and worthy of tolerance and respect?
As for Sodom and Gomorrah, virtually all modern scholars now understand that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't homosexuality, but inhospitality to strangers and denigration of the poor.
As people who I suspect are undoubtedly also hostile toward my Latino immigrant brethren, this means it is you who are in defiance of God's law.
Even if it were true that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was related to homosexuality, it is quite obvious to even a casual reader of the bible that the sin had to do with male-on-male rape, not the kind of love and committment shared by the biblical gay husbands, David and Jonathan.
As for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, I also suspect that, as with the 9/11 attacks by conservative, religious, homophobic, Muslim fundamentalists on an increasingly gay-tolerant America, the attacks upon Sodom and Gomorrah were, in fact, committed by ancient, conservative, religious, homophobic, Hebrew fundamentalists and not by God Almighty.
No verses Condemning Homosexuality?
Hey Mykel maybe you should freaking read the bible before you make comments like that. It's full of verses condemning homosexuality. Like tylerpenney wrotecities were destroyed because of it. Besides the one he stated Here are some more(and I've chosen only new testament verses because I've heard it argued that we don't follow all of the laws of the old testament anymore so Homosexuality is alright now):
"We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and the unruly, the godless and the sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murders, the unchaste, homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching," (1 Tim 1:8-10)
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."(1 Cor. 6:9-10)
"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." (Rom. 1:26-28)
In reference to Sodom and Gomorrah which was destroyed because of homosexuals:
"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 7)
"And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly."(2 Peter 2:6)
Maybe you should do more research before you make comments like this. It is ridiculous to see the words of the biible being twisted like this to make your point. David was a man after God's heart he would not be a homosexual him and Jonathan were like brothers that's why they had such a close relationship.
Two Words: Sodom and Gomorrah
Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell? God sent angels to warn the people, and:
When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end [of the city]. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us have relations with them."
Consequently, Sodom and Gomorrah was burned with fire and brimstone.
Also:
Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Its funny how this tries to paint any two people of the same gender that had any kind of interaction as being homosexual.
PROPAGANDA.
WE WRITE ARTICLES THAT DONT MAKE SENSE AND FORGET THAT THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY THE MIND OF GOD, WE HUMANS DEVIATE FROM IT AND WE ARE THEN TO PERISH AT THE END, LIKE IT OR NOT, THATS THE TRUTH, THIS PASSAGE WAS MANIPULATED SO THAT IT CAN SUIT HOMOSEXUALITY AND IT DOESN'T CONVINCE A PERSON AT ALL, ONLY HOMOSEXUALS THAT WANT JUSTIFICATION FROM GOD.
Post new comment