Thursday, February 17, 2005

Fanning the Flames of Biblical Homo Erotica

I figure this is as good of a time as any to bring up this topic. We all know there is nothing in the Bible condemning same sex marriages. However, there are some references to how homosexual activity was frowned upon to some degree. But, did you know that there were instances where it was not frowned upon?
Maybe you Bible scholars can help me with this one but it sure seems that David, of David and Goliath fame, was a lover of Jonathon, who was Saul's, the King of Israel's, son.

Here are some versus that have brought me to that conclusion:

1 Samuel 18:3: Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
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.

No explanation needed here, make of it what you will.

1 Samuel 18:21: Saul thought, "Let me give her to him, that she may be a snare for him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him." Therefore Saul said to David a second time, "You shall now be my son-in-law."

The story behind this one is when Saul was offering David one of his Daughters; the theory about the second time you will be my son-in-law, is that David was already a son-in-law of Saul through Jonathan. Albeit there are multiple translations, and they can all be interpreted differently, as with the rest of the Bible.

2 Samuel 1:26: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathon: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

This one is David grieving over Jonathon being killed in battle, stating that he loved Jonathon more than women.

I'm not saying they were definitely ass banging each other, but it sure seems that way doesn't it?

Can anyone explain this one?

Speaking of interpretations, if you don't feel "thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" is a reference to homosexuality, then why would you think "If a man also lie with mankind" is, such as in Leviticus 20:13? Leviticus 20:13 is typically the verse people use to prove God hates gay people, even though "lie with" could be interpreted in various ways. Does it mean I can't go camping with the guys anymore and share the same tent?

Why would one be taken literally and the other not?

In case you were wondering about Leviticus 20:13, this is what it says:
20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Of course this is also the chapter where God says you can stone your children, you can't have sex with your wife during her "flow", that you are not allowed to trim your beard, and explains the need to eat kosher.

8 comments:

TJ said...

A couple thoughts ...

* Old Testament 'law' (stonings, etc.) are not quite as applicable to Christians as some believe. The New Testament is much more compassionate and is what Christianity is (to a greater degree) based on. Not saying we should ignore the Old Testament, just making a point.

* Leviticus 20:13 makes it pretty clear what the evil act is; whereas in 1st and 2nd Samuel I read those as more of a brotherly (of father-son) relationship. The giving up of possessions (including clothing) is not saying he was doing a strip tease or anything, just that he cared enough to give up everything for him.


Oh, and IANA Biblical Expert or anything ... just pretty much guessing here :)
/TJ
NIFPS - thanks for stopping by & commenting; come back frequently!

Shadylayne said...

I am pretty sure that "lie with" refers to banging another dude's ass. However, the point I think Toad is trying to make, to some degree, is that contemporary Christians pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible. Why is Homosexuality wrong, but it's okay to have Barbecued Pork steaks and hot dogs on the 4th of July? Why don't Christian men stone their kids? I'm not saying it's right to stone kids, but if you're going to recognize that the Old Testament has some seriously flawed and outdated laws that contradict teachings of Jesus in the New Testament then you need to disregard all of it.

If you don't want to ignore the entire Old Testament, at least recognize it for what it really is, a historical document written by MEN (not God Himself) that contains some fables meant to teach us lessons and a bunch of laws that don't apply in the modern world.

Toad734 said...

RE TJ
I think Shadylane sums it up, as you said, old testament laws are not applicable, so what does it matter if Leviticus says that "lying with another man" is an evil act, its in the old testament.
And in these specific translations, I would agree with you as far as what the passages mean, but other translations paint a clearer picture of what may have been going on between Jonathon and David. Again, it’s just your perception of the writings.

hgdyhdyrd said...

I dunno you can interpret it however you want to, I guess that's the beauty of the bible. You bring up some really good points, I think I'll bring that up in sunday school. And when they give me a response I'll definately let you know.

Toad734 said...

Or the danger of the Bible. Let me know what you come up with

Jawad said...

Regarding the question you posted on my BLOG: http://menademocrats.blogspot.com/
"Do you really think that those illegal immigrants are making enough money to even pay taxes? Remember poor people in this country don't pay taxes. Ya maybe a little SS tax but looking at what an illegal immigrant makes, does it really add up to anything? "

First, thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my posts. I hope that you will return to my site and provide your input on other topics. In response to your question about Immigration and Social Security, you are right about the low wages that most illegal immigrants make. However, if they join the formal economy, they will have to pay SS tax (tax no one gets back). Now a little math will show you that if we take half of the estimated total number of illegal immigrants and assume an average wage of $5 an hour (below minimum wage) . The additional annual revenue for SS will be around $5 Billion a year. It certainly is not enough to close the projected SS deficit, but $5 Billion is certainly better than 0 and as I said it would be foolish not to take it. Because what is the alternative, really? The government is not about to engage in the mass deportation of 10 million people. That’s not going to happen. And as long as there is a massive economic divide between north and south, people will continue to try to come here in search of a better life and I do not blame them nor do I expect the government to have air-tight borders because the economic cost of such folly on cross-border trade, government budget, and the overall economy are of suicidal proportions.

"You exercise the options you have, not the options you wish you have, or will have at a later time"

Thanks again for your interest in my writing.

PaxRomano said...

Nice blog!

Here's something from the bible that I've always loved. It's used in marriage ceremonies a lot. It is from The Book of Ruth:

"Entreat me not to leave you or to return from following you; wherever you go I will go, and wherever you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if even death parts me from you."(Ruth 1:16-17)

Nice. BTW, That’s Ruth’s pledge to Naomi.

Jack Mercer said...

Hey Toad! Great post. I will need more time to look into it, but a couple of things:

1. David also killed a man after fornicating with his wife. Is that ok?

2. As with all verses in the Bible context needs to be taken into account. The "lie with reference" is part of the levirite law and every good Jew knows its a reference to sex.

3. I love my dad to death! Want to be with him the rest of my life! I've been naked in front of him. I loved him more than my mother and all women up to the place where I married my wife and had a daughter. Doesn't mean I want to screw him or have ever had the desire. Does love always have to be sex? If so, I'm in trouble--I love my cocker spaniel to death.

4. Glad to see the last statement. Yep, all of those references are Old Testament and focused at the Jew and their law. However, the law was given so that man would have the knowledge of sin. But hurdling forward to the New Testament and the admonition provided the gentile Christian: What is the verse in Romans 1:27 mean?

6. Fornication is defined also in the New Testament as sex outside of marriage. Aren't most homosexual unions sex outside of marriage? If so, wouldn't the act in the very least be fornication?

Just some food for thought.

Glad you dropped by my blog, btw. Am adding the TR to my favorites and will be back.

Regards,

-Jack