LGBT Christians, yeah we exist.

[Meryuma]

Yes I've read the story and it does not sound homosexual at all, it sounds like two men who share a deep friendship for each other.

Have you ever in your life experienced a feeling of deep platonic friendship at first sight? Do you know anyone else who has? If you have, did it cause your friend's parents to strongly disapprove of you and possibly want you killed?

[Menassa]

Yes I've read the story and it does not sound homosexual at all, it sounds like two men who share a deep friendship for each other.

Have you ever in your life experienced a feeling of deep platonic friendship at first sight? Do you know anyone else who has? If you have, did it cause your friend's parents to strongly disapprove of you and possibly want you killed?

Please re-read the page before this one..... I'm not re-posting all my explanations.

[Meryuma]

Have you ever in your life experienced a feeling of deep platonic friendship at first sight? Do you know anyone else who has? If you have, did it cause your friend's parents to strongly disapprove of you and possibly want you killed?

Please re-read the page before this one..... I'm not re-posting all my explanations.

Your explanations hold little value, though:

I believe people started liking David more than they liked King Saul, and Saul saw that as an attempt on his throne.

Why would the author not mention something as important as a king seeing someone as attempting to steal his throne? That's not a reason for a position, that's a rationalization.

Also, I was addressing something that you didn't address:

Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt.

This wasn't after knowing him for years, this was when he first met him. That's not how platonic emotional connections work.

[Menassa]

Please re-read the page before this one..... I'm not re-posting all my explanations.

Your explanations hold little value, though:

I believe people started liking David more than they liked King Saul, and Saul saw that as an attempt on his throne.

Why would the author not mention something as important as a king seeing someone as attempting to steal his throne? That's not a reason for a position, that's a rationalization.

Also, I was addressing something that you didn't address:

Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt.

This wasn't after knowing him for years, this was when he first met him. That's not how platonic emotional connections work.

a) I'm going to need you to source that verse.

b) I'm no psychologist but I believe to men can have a deep emotional bond for each other and not be sexually attracted to each other..... or can only gay men do that?

[Choronzon]

I never understood how gays could ever want to be part of the Christian community, but hey some Jews were in the Nazi party.

[Uiiop]

I never understood how gays could ever want to be part of the Christian community, but hey some Jews were in the Nazi party.

some branches ignore whatever makes the other branches hate/fear them.

[Menassa]

I never understood how gays could ever want to be part of the Christian community, but hey some Jews were in the Nazi party.

It'd make more sense to wonder why there are Jewish gays.... in Christianity you at least have Jesus 'fulfilling' the law.

[Meryuma]

Your explanations hold little value, though:



Why would the author not mention something as important as a king seeing someone as attempting to steal his throne? That's not a reason for a position, that's a rationalization.

Also, I was addressing something that you didn't address:



This wasn't after knowing him for years, this was when he first met him. That's not how platonic emotional connections work.

a) I'm going to need you to source that verse.

b) I'm no psychologist but I believe to men can have a deep emotional bond for each other and not be sexually attracted to each other..... or can only gay men do that?

1. 1 Samuel 18:1.
2. Of course, but not at first sight. That kind of deep platonic bond forms over years, not over the course of one evening.

[Menassa]

a) I'm going to need you to source that verse.

b) I'm no psychologist but I believe to men can have a deep emotional bond for each other and not be sexually attracted to each other..... or can only gay men do that?

1. 1 Samuel 18:1.
2. Of course, but not at first sight. That kind of deep platonic bond forms over years, not over the course of one evening.

Well, if you read 1 Samuel 17 you would know that Saul took David into his house because of he showed him his military prowess..... and of course he wanted to give David his reward for killing Golius.

[Meryuma]

1. 1 Samuel 18:1.
2. Of course, but not at first sight. That kind of deep platonic bond forms over years, not over the course of one evening.

Well, if you read 1 Samuel 17 you would know that Saul took David into his house because of he showed him his military prowess..... and of course he wanted to give David his reward for killing Golius.

Did I ever say anything about why he was at Saul's house? No. You're ignoring my point.

[Menassa]

Well, if you read 1 Samuel 17 you would know that Saul took David into his house because of he showed him his military prowess..... and of course he wanted to give David his reward for killing Golius.

Did I ever say anything about why he was at Saul's house? No. You're ignoring my point.

The point about when they met the had a deep love for each other?

I don't see how this is homosexual.

[Meryuma]

Did I ever say anything about why he was at Saul's house? No. You're ignoring my point.

The point about when they met the had a deep love for each other?

I don't see how this is homosexual.

Because a sense of deep, abiding love and emotional connection immediately after first meeting someone does not happen in a platonic, friendship-based sense.

A deeply held platonic friendship develops over the course of years. I have never heard of "close brotherly friendship at first sight".

[Menassa]

The point about when they met the had a deep love for each other?

I don't see how this is homosexual.

Because a sense of deep, abiding love and emotional connection immediately after first meeting someone does not happen in a platonic, friendship-based sense.

A deeply held platonic friendship develops over the course of years. I have never heard of "close brotherly friendship at first sight".

This obviously wasn't the first time that they had met.

Seeing as how Jonathon was a general they had probably met a number of times on the battle field were they formed this friendship.

[Ceannairceach]

Because a sense of deep, abiding love and emotional connection immediately after first meeting someone does not happen in a platonic, friendship-based sense.

A deeply held platonic friendship develops over the course of years. I have never heard of "close brotherly friendship at first sight".

This obviously wasn't the first time that they had met.

Seeing as how Jonathon was a general they had probably met a number of times on the battle field were they formed this friendship.

Mm... Tough army boys, tending to each others wounds in the dark of night, their adreneline pumping after a hard day's work out on the field of battle... Sweaty men, gripping swords and touching them together...

Right. Totally not homoerotic.

[Menassa]

This obviously wasn't the first time that they had met.

Seeing as how Jonathon was a general they had probably met a number of times on the battle field were they formed this friendship.

Mm... Tough army boys, tending to each others wounds in the dark of night, their adreneline pumping after a hard day's work out on the field of battle... Sweaty men, gripping swords and touching them together...

Right. Totally not homoerotic.

I suppose this is why women had to become nurses.

[Meryuma]

Because a sense of deep, abiding love and emotional connection immediately after first meeting someone does not happen in a platonic, friendship-based sense.

A deeply held platonic friendship develops over the course of years. I have never heard of "close brotherly friendship at first sight".

This obviously wasn't the first time that they had met.

Seeing as how Jonathon was a general they had probably met a number of times on the battle field were they formed this friendship.

If it's so obvious, why is it never mentioned in the text? This is the second time you've implied a book of the bible is severely incomplete. Again, rationalizations, even if it undermines your own beliefs. You seem more wiling to accept that a divinely-inspired book would cause needless ambiguity by leaving out vast chunks of important information than to accept that there's nothing wrong with two males having a loving, devoted romantic relationship.

[Menassa]

This obviously wasn't the first time that they had met.

Seeing as how Jonathon was a general they had probably met a number of times on the battle field were they formed this friendship.

If it's so obvious, why is it never mentioned in the text? This is the second time you've implied a book of the bible is severely incomplete. Again, rationalizations, even if it undermines your own beliefs. You seem more wiling to accept that a divinely-inspired book would cause needless ambiguity by leaving out vast chunks of important information than to accept that there's nothing wrong with two males having a loving, devoted romantic relationship.

1. Why would I write something that's so obviously implied..... the Talmudic concept of Anan SaHadi states that if something is overtly obvious it doesn't need to be stated..... like if I were to say it was night ... I would not have to go further to say the it was dark.

2. To accept that David and Jonathon were homosexualy in love would be to accept that that Samuel (or which ever other prophet wrote the book) would have different opinions than that of which God had already stated.

3. Circling back to the topic I do recognize the right and privilege of Homosexual Christians and do believe that if they keep believing in Jesus they can be Christian.

[Meryuma]

If it's so obvious, why is it never mentioned in the text? This is the second time you've implied a book of the bible is severely incomplete. Again, rationalizations, even if it undermines your own beliefs. You seem more wiling to accept that a divinely-inspired book would cause needless ambiguity by leaving out vast chunks of important information than to accept that there's nothing wrong with two males having a loving, devoted romantic relationship.

1. Why would I write something that's so obviously implied..... the Talmudic concept of Anan SaHadi states that if something is overtly obvious it doesn't need to be stated..... like if I were to say it was night ... I would not have to go further to say the it was dark.

2. To accept that David and Jonathon were homosexualy in love would be to accept that that Samuel (or which ever other prophet wrote the book) would have different opinions than that of which God had already stated.

3. Circling back to the topic I do recognize the right and privilege of Homosexual Christians and do believe that if they keep believing in Jesus they can be Christian.

1. It's not obvious, though! Just because two people fought in the same war doesn't mean they know each other! It would have been a significant detail worth mentioning if they did know each other.
2. Is it any better to think that God wrote a pointlessly confusing and incomplete book?

[Menassa]

1. Why would I write something that's so obviously implied..... the Talmudic concept of Anan SaHadi states that if something is overtly obvious it doesn't need to be stated..... like if I were to say it was night ... I would not have to go further to say the it was dark.

2. To accept that David and Jonathon were homosexualy in love would be to accept that that Samuel (or which ever other prophet wrote the book) would have different opinions than that of which God had already stated.

3. Circling back to the topic I do recognize the right and privilege of Homosexual Christians and do believe that if they keep believing in Jesus they can be Christian.

1. It's not obvious, though! Just because two people fought in the same war doesn't mean they know each other! It would have been a significant detail worth mentioning if they did know each other.
2. Is it any better to think that God wrote a pointlessly confusing and incomplete book?

1. Yes it is obvious because David became like a chief warrior and Jonathon was a General....

2. No God's book is complete with the Written Law and the Oral Law..... of course now I'll bet you plan to be like "What about his contradiction?!"
"and that one?!"
"ooh this contradiction over here is really pretty."

If you would like to sit here with me and debunk every seeming contradiction in the bible we can do that.... in my inbox or in my room... but not here.

[Tmutarakhan]

Saul does not hate David for any reason except that Jonathan likes him. Saul attacks Jonathan by saying something that makes no sense. This is your version?

Now, what I have proposed is that the reason Saul hates the relationship between Jonathan and David is that it will likely end up with Jonathan not giving him grandchildren, and the throne passing to David instead of to Saul's line, and therefore he tells Jonathan that he is hurting his mother as well as his father. This makes sense to me, particularly given that every other episode in the David/Jonathan story also emphasizes the physicality of the relationship. If you want me to persuade that this isn't the best reading, then you need to come up with some more coherent account.

Saul hates David because he is Jealous that David is a better warrior and is afraid is he might usurp the throne.

David was not going to prevent Jonathan from being the successor to Saul, obviously, because David and Jonathan were tight. You seem to be missing the main thrust of the story. Saul is concerned about what happens after he has passed the throne to Jonathan: does it then go to Jonathan's children, or to David? Jonathan, at this point, does not have any children, remember. Either he has not married, or if he is married, he has not been sleeping with his wife. This has everything to do with his relationship with David.

Jonathon helped David, and he knew his father hated David.

His father hates David only because of Jonathan's relationship to him.

The betrayed Saul verbally attacked Jonathon. "Yo mama's such a whore you should be ashamed."

That is not what Saul's words were. He didn't say Jonathan should be ashamed of his mother, but that his mother's nakedness was shamed/damaged by Jonathan's actions.

This is the best explanation there is...

No, it really isn't.

Also, I was addressing something that you didn't address:

Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father's house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, including his sword and his bow and his belt.

This wasn't after knowing him for years, this was when he first met him. That's not how platonic emotional connections work.

The word rendered "belt" there is rendered "girdle" in KJV; it means the "underwear", the loincloth worn closest to the body. It is asserting that Jonathan stripped completely.

the Talmudic concept of Anan SaHadi states that if something is overtly obvious it doesn't need to be stated..... like if I were to say it was night ... I would not have to go further to say the it was dark.

Exactly. The text does not need to describe them making sweet love to each other.

2. To accept that David and Jonathon were homosexualy in love would be to accept that that Samuel (or which ever other prophet wrote the book) would have different opinions than that of which God had already stated.

If you do not understand that different Biblical authors have often sharply differing opinions on a number of topics, you will never understand anything about the text. You will forever have to be intentionally misreading the text to avoid seeing what it is actually saying.

[Meryuma]

1. It's not obvious, though! Just because two people fought in the same war doesn't mean they know each other! It would have been a significant detail worth mentioning if they did know each other.
2. Is it any better to think that God wrote a pointlessly confusing and incomplete book?

1. Yes it is obvious because David became like a chief warrior and Jonathon was a General....

2. No God's book is complete with the Written Law and the Oral Law..... of course now I'll bet you plan to be like "What about his contradiction?!"
"and that one?!"
"ooh this contradiction over here is really pretty."

If you would like to sit here with me and debunk every seeming contradiction in the bible we can do that.... in my inbox or in my room... but not here.

1. There tend to be multiple generals leading multiple battalions. If David was part of the unit led by Jonathan, it would be an important plot point worth mentioning, and it certainly isn't self-evident.
2. I'm not talking about contradictions, I'm talking about needless obfuscation.

[Menassa]

1. Yes it is obvious because David became like a chief warrior and Jonathon was a General....

2. No God's book is complete with the Written Law and the Oral Law..... of course now I'll bet you plan to be like "What about his contradiction?!"
"and that one?!"
"ooh this contradiction over here is really pretty."

If you would like to sit here with me and debunk every seeming contradiction in the bible we can do that.... in my inbox or in my room... but not here.

1. There tend to be multiple generals leading multiple battalions. If David was part of the unit led by Jonathan, it would be an important plot point worth mentioning, and it certainly isn't self-evident.
2. I'm not talking about contradictions, I'm talking about needless obfuscation.

1. No it wouldn't because it would have been assumed that they met each other before.... rather than the were sexually attracted when they first met.

2. Right.

[Meryuma]

1. There tend to be multiple generals leading multiple battalions. If David was part of the unit led by Jonathan, it would be an important plot point worth mentioning, and it certainly isn't self-evident.
2. I'm not talking about contradictions, I'm talking about needless obfuscation.

1. No it wouldn't because it would have been assumed that they met each other before.... rather than the were sexually attracted when they first met.

2. Right.

1. Why would it be assumed?
2. What are you getting at here? If I meant to talk about contradictions, I'd just talk about contradictions.

[Menassa]

1. No it wouldn't because it would have been assumed that they met each other before.... rather than the were sexually attracted when they first met.

2. Right.

1. Why would it be assumed?
2. What are you getting at here? If I meant to talk about contradictions, I'd just talk about contradictions.

1. Because it's blatantly obvious.
2. Nothing.... nothing at all.

[Meryuma]

1. Why would it be assumed?
2. What are you getting at here? If I meant to talk about contradictions, I'd just talk about contradictions.

1. Because it's blatantly obvious.
2. Nothing.... nothing at all.

Again, how is it obvious? It's only even arguably obvious if you presuppose that the bible/Tanakh is a unified work.