God and Gays: The Rite to Bless Same-...

God and Gays: The Rite to Bless Same-sex Unions

There are 1053 comments on the Time story from Jul 16, 2012, titled God and Gays: The Rite to Bless Same-sex Unions. In it, Time reports that:

There is something by now familiar, even reassuring, about what happens in my church every third summer.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Time.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#1012 Dec 6, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Saul realized that David, not Jonathan, would succeed him as king.
<quoted text>
Until Ruth married Boaz.
<quoted text>
... because it isn't a fact.
Where are the chapters and verse to back up this "fact"?
I think these two stories are different.

I think an honest assessment of David and Jonathan can conclude in an admission of a powerful emotional relationship that had very definite sexual elements, especially on the part of Jonathan. The lineage of the Kings is an essential part of the story.

But, of Naomi and Ruth, the same sexual overtones are not evident. I believe that there was a mother-daughter love in which Naomi literally adopted Ruth and the two took care of each other. The rest is a matter of how Ruth was brought into - grafted - into the Hebrew Life. That contributed directly to the lineage of both David and Jesus.

As a direct result, the story then becomes significant in a number of ways that recognize the value of the Hebrew culture and its deeply developed, esoteric and monotheistic theology and its subsequent dissemination into the foreign genetic structure - the Spreading of the Gospel of Christ, combined with the Covenant of Abraham.

Remember, the Incarnation of Christ is just as much genetic as it is the appearance of perfection in Spirit. The Qaballic saying is, "As above, so below." If this were not so, we would not have reason to dwell on the lineage of the Mother of Christ - she was the descendant of David.

This is the Spiritual message of the Gospel of Christ.

The Hebrew/Jew will understand.

Rev. Ken

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1013 Dec 6, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly, marriage to more than one person at a time was allowed. But whether you consider the ceremony described as a marriage or not, it is difficult to read the story and not see how this appears to be more than just spiritual love. Naomi and Ruth's relationship is also clearly the most important relationship in their lives.
It appears you are also using an interpretation that requires condemnation of same sex intimacy, when many scholars disagree: "What the Bible forbids is acts of lust, rape, idolatry, violation of religious purity obligations, or pederasty, but no condemnation of homosexuality in relationships of mutual respect and love. "On the other hand, the Bible pointedly celebrates instances of same-sex emotional intimacy, a fact often overlooked by fearful homophobic readers." James B. Nelson, Professor of Christian Ethics, United Theological Seminary
Several books already exist attempting to demonstrate that the Christian Bible does not, in fact, condemn consenting-adult homosexuality. But God is Not a Homophobe has a unique perspective in that the author has a lifetime of experience in pastoring hard-core fundamentalist churches. His former bitter opposition to all forms of homosexuality has given way to a rational, unbiased acceptance that the Bible says hardly anything about homosexuality, and what it does say cannot honestly be used to condemn consenting same-sex unions." "God is not a Homophobe: An unbiased look at Homosexuality in the Bible" by Philo Thelos
You can slice and dice the verses to mean what you want. That's your right. But it doesn't make it correct to do.
God authorized one specific marital/union in the very beginning with the first two recorded humans, a man and a woman.
We know polygamy existed. We know that God gave David (who already had several wives) his many other wives that were widows of a king.
That means for his purposes, God allowed monogamy and at times, polygamy to exist. But even polygamy had it's specifics that a man could have several wives but not vice-versa for a woman.
Unfortunately God didn't give comment on homosexual loving committed relationships. He didn't say a single solitary sentence giving even a slight insinuation that he was okay with them.
For 6000 years Bible time God has remained absolutely silent about same sex loving committed relationships.
For 6000 years the Bible records God as being in favour of two types of marriages; A man and a woman and a man and several or more women. That's a Bible fact pro same sex people taste quite bitterly in their attempts to show God is positive about and for same sex relationships. But God said no such thing and voiced no such opinion.
Concerning relationships God gave a command for us to obey a specific command about them. Like the other commands he's given us to obey through out time, it should be obvious to anyone with an open mentality that God is waiting to see who'll obey him and who'll make excuses not to obey him. Quite a simple concept he established, really it is.:)

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1014 Dec 7, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I think these two stories are different.
I think an honest assessment of David and Jonathan can conclude in an admission of a powerful emotional relationship that had very definite sexual elements, especially on the part of Jonathan ...
Such as ...?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#1015 Dec 7, 2012
Joe DeCaro wrote:
<quoted text>
Such as ...?
Read the story, Joe. What I have written and others have perceived about this is not out of the question.

If the stories had likened their love for each other as brotherly, one would certainly argue against any sexual overtones. But, they do not. They show Jonathan as being smitten with David. And they show that Saul knew about it to the point of throwing his spear at his own son.

Read the story.
Robsan5

South San Francisco, CA

#1016 Dec 7, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You can slice and dice the verses to mean what you want. That's your right. But it doesn't make it correct to do.
God authorized one specific marital/union in the very beginning with the first two recorded humans, a man and a woman.
We know polygamy existed. We know that God gave David (who already had several wives) his many other wives that were widows of a king.
That means for his purposes, God allowed monogamy and at times, polygamy to exist. But even polygamy had it's specifics that a man could have several wives but not vice-versa for a woman.
Unfortunately God didn't give comment on homosexual loving committed relationships. He didn't say a single solitary sentence giving even a slight insinuation that he was okay with them.
For 6000 years Bible time God has remained absolutely silent about same sex loving committed relationships.
For 6000 years the Bible records God as being in favour of two types of marriages; A man and a woman and a man and several or more women. That's a Bible fact pro same sex people taste quite bitterly in their attempts to show God is positive about and for same sex relationships. But God said no such thing and voiced no such opinion.
Concerning relationships God gave a command for us to obey a specific command about them. Like the other commands he's given us to obey through out time, it should be obvious to anyone with an open mentality that God is waiting to see who'll obey him and who'll make excuses not to obey him. Quite a simple concept he established, really it is.:)
For 6000 years god didn't say a single thing about posting comments on the Internet, yet here you are.

Exactly how stupid are you, NoClue?

Robert

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#1017 Dec 7, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You can slice and dice the verses to mean what you want. That's your right. But it doesn't make it correct to do.
God authorized one specific marital/union in the very beginning with the first two recorded humans, a man and a woman.
We know polygamy existed. We know that God gave David (who already had several wives) his many other wives that were widows of a king.
That means for his purposes, God allowed monogamy and at times, polygamy to exist. But even polygamy had it's specifics that a man could have several wives but not vice-versa for a woman.
Unfortunately God didn't give comment on homosexual loving committed relationships. He didn't say a single solitary sentence giving even a slight insinuation that he was okay with them.
For 6000 years Bible time God has remained absolutely silent about same sex loving committed relationships.
For 6000 years the Bible records God as being in favour of two types of marriages; A man and a woman and a man and several or more women. That's a Bible fact pro same sex people taste quite bitterly in their attempts to show God is positive about and for same sex relationships. But God said no such thing and voiced no such opinion.
Concerning relationships God gave a command for us to obey a specific command about them. Like the other commands he's given us to obey through out time, it should be obvious to anyone with an open mentality that God is waiting to see who'll obey him and who'll make excuses not to obey him. Quite a simple concept he established, really it is.:)
I find such explanations as these above to be peculiarly naive.

Today, in Azerbaijan, a number of city-like sites near Baku are recognized to be of early Mesolithic culture, some 9,000 to 11,500 years BC. That is nearly 13,000 years ago, having developed at the close of the last period of glaciation.

They are preceded by known settlements in the Indus Valley Region of the Indian sub-continent, and near the base of the Himalayas.

Before these are the recognized Late Paleolithic cultures of the Walloon Cave Painters of France and their counterparts in Spain that have been radio-dated to various times between 17,000 and nearly 40,000 years ago.

Similarly, highly advanced tribal culture is now known to have migrated into and developed throughout the Indonesian Archipelago and into Australia at least 20,000 and probably more like 40,000 years ago and very possibly even much older. There is just no question about this.

Intelligent people living in site-settled, tribal society, with rules, religion and structured industry and agriculture lived long before 6000 years ago.

Rev. Ken

“... truth will out.”

Since: May 08

Stratford, Connecticut.

#1018 Dec 7, 2012
RevKen wrote:
If the stories had likened their love for each other as brotherly, one would certainly argue against any sexual overtones ...
They were brothers-in-law, and Ruth and Naomi were in-laws as well.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1019 Dec 7, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the story, Joe. What I have written and others have perceived about this is not out of the question.
If the stories had likened their love for each other as brotherly, one would certainly argue against any sexual overtones. But, they do not. They show Jonathan as being smitten with David. And they show that Saul knew about it to the point of throwing his spear at his own son.
Read the story.
You should read the story. Do you know why Saul tried to kill David for what is thought to have been a 15 year period? Saul knew the prophecy of Samuel that another besides Saul's son(s) would be king. Saul didn't know who till David came along and then he had a good idea of whom that king was that wasn't of his loins. Saul was upset at Jonathan for making a covenant with David which would draw David that much closer to the position of a king. Saul knew Jonathan had given his kingship to David so to speak. So why wouldn't Saul throw a spear at Jonathan hearing of that covenant?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1020 Dec 7, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep. It would seem so.
No grandchildren.
Saul decided that David was bad for Jonathan's future.
Come on, please, no grandchildren? Then who was spoken of being Jonathan's son? An adopted child? Jonathan had been married for a long time AND with children long before David came into the story.
Maybe, just maybe you should just try giving 1 Chronicles 8:33 to 40 a read eh? Just saying :)

Do make a note that Saul's other grandchildren of the other three sons, Malchishua, Abinadab and Esh-Baal aren't included in this list as it pertains to just (one) of Jonathan's sons.
33 Ner[d] begot Kish, Kish begot Saul, and Saul begot Jonathan, Malchishua, Abinadab,[e] and Esh-Baal.[f] 34 The son of Jonathan was Merib-Baal,[g] and Merib-Baal begot Micah. 35 The sons of Micah were Pithon, Melech, Tarea, and Ahaz. 36 And Ahaz begot Jehoaddah;[h] Jehoaddah begot Alemeth, Azmaveth, and Zimri; and Zimri begot Moza. 37 Moza begot Binea, Raphah[i] his son, Eleasah his son, and Azel his son.

38 Azel had six sons whose names were these: Azrikam, Bocheru, Ishmael, Sheariah, Obadiah, and Hanan. All these were the sons of Azel. 39 And the sons of Eshek his brother were Ulam his firstborn, Jeush the second, and Eliphelet the third.

40 The sons of Ulam were mighty men of valor—archers. They had many sons and grandsons, one hundred and fifty in all. These were all sons of Benjamin.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1021 Dec 7, 2012
Double post...my bad :)P

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1022 Dec 7, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the story, Joe. What I have written and others have perceived about this is not out of the question.
If the stories had likened their love for each other as brotherly, one would certainly argue against any sexual overtones. But, they do not. They show Jonathan as being smitten with David. And they show that Saul knew about it to the point of throwing his spear at his own son.
Read the story.
And if you're still in doubt of Saul's hostility for David and once at his son, please read...

1 Sam 28:16-19 Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has departed from you and has become your adversary? 17 "The Lord has done accordingly as He spoke through me; for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, to David. 18 "As you did not obey the Lord and did not execute His fierce wrath on Amalek, so the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 "Moreover the Lord will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the Lord will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!" NASU

1 Chron 10:13-14 So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, 14 and did not inquire of the Lord. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse. NASU

Saul knew because of his counsel with a medium, he was to lose the kingdom to a different lineage then his own. But he didn't know when it would happen. After David entered the picture and after Jonathan had quite literally given David his stewardship as king in a covenant between them, Saul well knew who would have his kingdom. It explains why Saul spent 15 years trying to kill David. Understand yet?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1023 Dec 7, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
I find such explanations as these above to be peculiarly naive.
Today, in Azerbaijan, a number of city-like sites near Baku are recognized to be of early Mesolithic culture, some 9,000 to 11,500 years BC. That is nearly 13,000 years ago, having developed at the close of the last period of glaciation.
They are preceded by known settlements in the Indus Valley Region of the Indian sub-continent, and near the base of the Himalayas.
Before these are the recognized Late Paleolithic cultures of the Walloon Cave Painters of France and their counterparts in Spain that have been radio-dated to various times between 17,000 and nearly 40,000 years ago.
Similarly, highly advanced tribal culture is now known to have migrated into and developed throughout the Indonesian Archipelago and into Australia at least 20,000 and probably more like 40,000 years ago and very possibly even much older. There is just no question about this.
Intelligent people living in site-settled, tribal society, with rules, religion and structured industry and agriculture lived long before 6000 years ago.
Rev. Ken
At least we agree on something :)
I don't believe the Bible's timeline of 6000 years. But it's in the Bible and it's what is commonly accepted so, that is what I go by in referencing what the Bible references for a time line until we learn something different from God himself :)

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#1024 Dec 8, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
At least we agree on something :)
I don't believe the Bible's timeline of 6000 years. But it's in the Bible and it's what is commonly accepted so, that is what I go by in referencing what the Bible references for a time line until we learn something different from God himself :)
Thank you for the reference in Chronicles. It appears that Jonathan must have had at least one son. I stand corrected.

But, regarding the timeline of 6000 years; if you understand that this timeline is the storyline of the Hebrews and that it has obvious limitations, why do you cite it?

As for its being commonly accepted, what does that mean? I don't think this is true at all. You have learned, or not learned in your case, that mankind has been involved in tribal culture and settled establishments in many places, long before 6000 years ago.

This is the truth. God is truth. What part about this do you not accept?

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#1025 Dec 8, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
And if you're still in doubt of Saul's hostility for David and once at his son, please read...
1 Sam 28:16-19 Samuel said, "Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has departed from you and has become your adversary? 17 "The Lord has done accordingly as He spoke through me; for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, to David. 18 "As you did not obey the Lord and did not execute His fierce wrath on Amalek, so the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 "Moreover the Lord will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the Lord will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!" NASU
1 Chron 10:13-14 So Saul died for his trespass which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of it, 14 and did not inquire of the Lord. Therefore He killed him and turned the kingdom to David the son of Jesse. NASU
Saul knew because of his counsel with a medium, he was to lose the kingdom to a different lineage then his own. But he didn't know when it would happen. After David entered the picture and after Jonathan had quite literally given David his stewardship as king in a covenant between them, Saul well knew who would have his kingdom. It explains why Saul spent 15 years trying to kill David. Understand yet?
Understand yet? Understand what?

Whatever it is you are trying to say, why don't you just say it?

Would you like to explain WHY Jonathan, as you say, "had quite literally given David his stewardship as king in a covenant between them...?"

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1026 Dec 8, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for the reference in Chronicles. It appears that Jonathan must have had at least one son. I stand corrected.
But, regarding the timeline of 6000 years; if you understand that this timeline is the storyline of the Hebrews and that it has obvious limitations, why do you cite it?
As for its being commonly accepted, what does that mean? I don't think this is true at all. You have learned, or not learned in your case, that mankind has been involved in tribal culture and settled establishments in many places, long before 6000 years ago.
This is the truth. God is truth. What part about this do you not accept?
Rev. Ken
It isn't what I don't accept. The "common" Jewish/Christian timeline for the scriptures is a 6000 year period. No matter if we have physical proof of humans being around for longer than 6000 years, Jews and Christians have given the scriptures a 6000 year timeline and we are "supposedly" at the end of the 6th thousandth year period.
So when I speak of a timeline, I use the one most commonly accepted (be it correct/incorrect)one they have established. What else would I cite for a timeline?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1027 Dec 8, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Understand yet? Understand what?
Whatever it is you are trying to say, why don't you just say it?
Would you like to explain WHY Jonathan, as you say, "had quite literally given David his stewardship as king in a covenant between them...?"
If you read the entire story twice, the second time slowly, you should come to understand that the writer infers that Jonathan being a man of God, sensed and or knew that David was the fulfilment of the prophecy given to his father Saul.
I believe as scholars have also noted long before me, this is made obvious when Jonathan gives David his stewardship to be king to David. That act according to the story is what infuriated Saul so he tried to kill Jonathan once. Saul saw Jonathan had made the prophecy come to fulfilment.
So instead of killing his son that was suppose to rule in his stead, Saul concentrated on going after David for 15 long years in a quest to kill him and thus terminating the covenant Jonathan had made with David giving him his kingship. With David dead, Jonathan would have to be king.
But in this case, Saul and Jonathan died in war and one of Saul's son's became king for a spell till he died (I believe he died) and then David was made king by the people.
So Saul's hostility wasn't about Jonathan and David having a "supposed" sexual relationship. Saul's hostility was for David who Jonathan had given his right to be king to and thus fulfilling a prophecy Saul tried to keep from happening.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#1028 Dec 9, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't what I don't accept. The "common" Jewish/Christian timeline for the scriptures is a 6000 year period. No matter if we have physical proof of humans being around for longer than 6000 years, Jews and Christians have given the scriptures a 6000 year timeline and we are "supposedly" at the end of the 6th thousandth year period.
So when I speak of a timeline, I use the one most commonly accepted (be it correct/incorrect)one they have established. What else would I cite for a timeline?
Well,.... you might start with the truth.

Personally, for me, when I read of Jesus saying, "I am the truth," ... I see no reason to NOT take Him at His word.

I am, after all, one of His ordained priests, a disciple, belonging to Him, yoked with the responsibility of spreading His Gospel.

Yes, there was an understanding that Hebrews have held in the tradition of an oral storyline that some have calculated to be about 6,000 years long.

But, anybody with an open mind and who has even a rudimentary understanding of human history, prehistory and the geologic history of our Blue Planet knows that the 6,000 years of the Hebrew storyline is a matter of tribal lore. Yes, it certainly has value in terms of a subjective revelation of your or my relationship with God.

But, in many important ways, it is certainly not the truth.

Instead, I'll stick with the truth. I will stick with Christ Jesus. I am neither naive or arrogantly claiming to know all of what is truth. That is a constantly revealing reality that we all negotiate in our daily lives, some of us better than others.

But, to the extent that it is revealed and is revealing, we are obliged, if we are His disciples, to acknowledge what we do know of it. And then, we are obliged to seek to know truth more and better and in every way that we can comprehend, be it either or both subjective and objective.

Sometimes, that means coming to terms with apparent dichotomy and opposing viewpoints. Will you or I always choose correctly?

Nope.

But, if I find myself wrong or if I find another to be wrong, I can forgive, having been led by example to continue to allow myself and others to seek the truth.

Any ideas that require me or anybody else to blindly accept tribal lore and mythology as undeniable fact, even if based upon a dim recollection of long-past events that may have occurred in some manner, which are now recorded for posterity in a 1700 year-old book, are hogwash. That is not to say that the bible does not have significant value. It is to say that the value of the bible is to be found in a matter of personal revelation and understanding that leads to development of the character and soundness of what it is to become a responsible human being.

You know I am right about this. Rather than continuing to try to straddle an imaginary fence between biblical fact versus a much clearer view of reality in light of things that have come to be recognized as truth, you should consider the value of accepting both yourself and Jesus as He accepted Himself.

That is, to be One who accepts God in reality. This is the basis for designing One's life around the principles of the Two Commandments.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#1029 Dec 9, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read the entire story twice, the second time slowly, you should come to understand that the writer infers that Jonathan being a man of God, sensed and or knew that David was the fulfilment of the prophecy given to his father Saul.
I believe as scholars have also noted long before me, this is made obvious when Jonathan gives David his stewardship to be king to David. That act according to the story is what infuriated Saul so he tried to kill Jonathan once. Saul saw Jonathan had made the prophecy come to fulfilment.
So instead of killing his son that was suppose to rule in his stead, Saul concentrated on going after David for 15 long years in a quest to kill him and thus terminating the covenant Jonathan had made with David giving him his kingship. With David dead, Jonathan would have to be king.
But in this case, Saul and Jonathan died in war and one of Saul's son's became king for a spell till he died (I believe he died) and then David was made king by the people.
So Saul's hostility wasn't about Jonathan and David having a "supposed" sexual relationship. Saul's hostility was for David who Jonathan had given his right to be king to and thus fulfilling a prophecy Saul tried to keep from happening.
Saul had three sons, any of whom could have, by succession, become King.

Be assured that I have read this story many more times than just once or twice. Furthermore, regardless of the rate at which it is read, comprehension can come from viewing the events out of a number of different understandings.

Your explanation is plausible. But, certainly not definitive, by any stretch. Prophesy and the acceptance of prophesy as a foregone conclusion is always 20-20 in hindsight. But, it is virtually never 20-20 in foresight, except to the prophet, him or herself, in defense of the subjective nature of what has been foreseen. Even then, objectively, only the prophesy that comes true is the one that gets much recognition.

Jonathan and David had a very unusual relationship, revealed in David's song lamenting Jonathan's death in battle.

Rev. Ken

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1030 Dec 9, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Well,.... you might start with the truth.
Personally, for me, when I read of Jesus saying, "I am the truth," ... I see no reason to NOT take Him at His word.
I am, after all, one of His ordained priests, a disciple, belonging to Him, yoked with the responsibility of spreading His Gospel.
Yes, there was an understanding that Hebrews have held in the tradition of an oral storyline that some have calculated to be about 6,000 years long.
But, anybody with an open mind and who has even a rudimentary understanding of human history, prehistory and the geologic history of our Blue Planet knows that the 6,000 years of the Hebrew storyline is a matter of tribal lore. Yes, it certainly has value in terms of a subjective revelation of your or my relationship with God.
But, in many important ways, it is certainly not the truth.
Instead, I'll stick with the truth. I will stick with Christ Jesus.
Any ideas that require me or anybody else to blindly accept tribal lore and mythology as undeniable fact, even if based upon a dim recollection of long-past events that may have occurred in some manner, which are now recorded for posterity in a 1700 year-old book, are hogwash. That is not to say that the bible does not have significant value. It is to say that the value of the bible is to be found in a matter of personal revelation and understanding that leads to development of the character and soundness of what it is to become a responsible human being.
You know I am right about this. Rather than continuing to try to straddle an imaginary fence between biblical fact versus a much clearer view of reality in light of things that have come to be recognized as truth, you should consider the value of accepting both yourself and Jesus as He accepted Himself.
That is, to be One who accepts God in reality. This is the basis for designing One's life around the principles of the Two Commandments.
Rev. Ken
I know that you are right about what? That the time line of the Bible the Jews and Christians believe in is incorrect because science disagrees with that time line? It's an opinion, there is no correct answer. So you're not correct in the capacity you state you are correct.
I know what the Bible declares and I know what science declares and I know the two theories aren't compatible.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#1031 Dec 9, 2012
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Saul had three sons, any of whom could have, by succession, become King.
Be assured that I have read this story many more times than just once or twice. Furthermore, regardless of the rate at which it is read, comprehension can come from viewing the events out of a number of different understandings.
Your explanation is plausible. But, certainly not definitive, by any stretch. Prophesy and the acceptance of prophesy as a foregone conclusion is always 20-20 in hindsight. But, it is virtually never 20-20 in foresight, except to the prophet, him or herself, in defense of the subjective nature of what has been foreseen. Even then, objectively, only the prophesy that comes true is the one that gets much recognition.
Jonathan and David had a very unusual relationship, revealed in David's song lamenting Jonathan's death in battle.
Rev. Ken
Actually in ancient traditions, the first son got it all unless he died or did something to have it all taken from him and then the second oldest son was in line.
Concerning Jonathan and David, for pro-homosexuals it's convenient for them to take an obviously close relationship existing between these two men, then redefine a few words and turn it into a sexual relationship.
Jonathan had been married for most of his wife. How many wives and concubines isn't known. But if he was like his father, he had many though just one is mentioned.
David had at least eight known wives(maybe more not listed) and as many concubines or "sub-wives". Some he married and others were given to him by God that belonged to King Saul. And one he indirected killed a man to have for the lust that burned in him for her. I personally don't see a lot of evidence for David having homosexual traits there. He spent his entire life acquiring wives and as the verses state, he was very, very sexual active with them.
People can have their opinion he was a homosexual or bisexual but I see no real time evidence to even show such an interest in men.
And I know the non-sexual love a guy can have for another guy that is better/different and more profound then any love he'll feel for a woman. It's a soul felt love that is so different from the love a guy can have for a woman. That doesn't make it a better love but just different. People that knew us swore we gay. But we weren't. We were never sexual with each other and didn't desire to be sexual with each other. But we had a deep and profound love for each other like two people establish in a long term romantic/sexual relationship. Thus I don't know it for fact, but I believe that is the type of a relationship that David and Jonathan had.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
My Aunts funeral and what I should or shouldn't... 28 min One of Righteousness 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 32 min Respect71 44,963
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 hr carter county res... 24,748
News After legalization, states still debate gay mar... 3 hr Shoney 6
News Scott Lively Calls On Trump To Ban Gays From In... 5 hr Wondering 15
News Franklin Graham Condemns Gay-Inclusive Kiss Cam... 7 hr Gremlin 6
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 10 hr Inquisitor 1,045
More from around the web