Originally posted by Gondwanaland
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
I am surprised...
Collapse
X
-
For anyone who might be interested on the Hebrew bible and "homosexuality"
From Joel Baden's The Historical David. 2013, Harper Collins p.73
Many scholars have raised the possibility that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship. Certainly the Bible comes close to saying so. Over and over we are told that Jonathan loved David. And while frequently the word “love” in the Bible and the rest of the ancient Near East has a nonromantic meaning of “covenant loyalty”—this is probably what it means when it says that Saul loved David, for example—the use of the word in the case of Jonathan seems to go beyond that. Jonathan does not just “love” David: “Jonathan’s soul became bound up with the soul of David” (1 Sam. 18:1). Jonathan “delighted greatly in David” (19:1)—the same Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe Shechem’s desire for Jacob’s daughter Dinah (Gen. 34:19). When Jonathan dies, David laments for him in these words: “More wonderful was your love for me than the love of women" (2 Sam. 1:26).
The comparison to the love of women can hardly have a political connotation; this is as close to an expression of romantic attachment between two men as we find in the Bible. There is nothing historically objectionable about the idea that David and Jonathan were lovers. We need not suppose that David was gay, in our modern understanding.
It is clear enough that were we to apply such contemporary labels, we would be more justified in calling him bisexual, considering his multiple marriages and explicitly sexual attraction to Bathsheba. But any such terms—homosexual, bisexual—are inappropriate when describing people in the ancient world. Sexuality as we understand it today is a social construct, a category imposed on people to define them within a larger cultural system. No such categories or constructs existed in the ancient world. There was no notion of a person being “gay” or “straight.” People engaged in heterosexual or homosexual acts in various degrees. Much of the time these were, by the standards of their contemporary societies, entirely unobjectionable—consider the famous example of Alexander the Great. Even the Hebrew Bible, despite what many people think, has virtually nothing to say on the matter—only two verses in Leviticus, from the hand of a priestly author with a particular agenda who did not speak for the entirety of ancient Israelite culture. If David and Jonathan were lovers, there is no indication that anyone at the time would have batted an eye over it, much less been morally outraged—certainly the Bible seems to be unbothered by its own hints in that direction.
"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
uh no. Homosexuality is condemned in multiple places in the NT also, and it falls under "sexual immorality" not "ritual purity" - it is a moral code.
NT is a different issue and leftbto various interpretations on when there it actually talks about homosexuality itself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post...]Many scholars have raised the possibility that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
- 3 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThat the same word is used in general to describe something does not mean that it is the same thing.
I'll bet if you try you can come up with a half dozen examples of just that sort of thing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
Homosexuality cannot be "condemned in multiple places in the NT" as the term was not coined until the nineteenth century [and by yet another German]! Paul's views on prostitution and what he considered to be sexual immorality are more complex.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Answered before, but the law has not passed. It still exists, and we can still study and learn from it, but we are no longer bound by it since we are under a New Covenant through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
Yes, I am yet again aware of the gymnastics you and other Christians do to make it make sense to your chosen personal morality and worldview.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
Absolute rubbish. It's liberal scholars reading into the text what simply isn't there.
Absolute rubbish, and the latter is pure blasphemy.
Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
It's been the unified view of the church for just shy of 2000 years.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View PostWe are discussing old Testament ritual purity. The term for ritually impure used for food, clothing, etc., is the exact same one used in the OT for homosexuality.
NT is a different issue and leftbto various interpretations on when there it actually talks about homosexuality itself.
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's a sexual act that is condemned. Meaning it is immoral.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post
There is no "the church". "The church" consists of countless denominations, many of whom do not consider one another part of "the church" because they disagree on innumerable points.That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's a sexual act that is condemned. Meaning it is immoral.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Post
Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. It's a sexual act that is condemned. Meaning it is immoral.
reinterpret these texts by saying that they 1) refer to a pagan practice of temple prostitution, and thus condemn idolatry, not immorality, or they 2) are part of the Levitical Holiness Code which provisionally applied to the nation of Israel, but no longer to Christians or the church. In other words, there is nothing intrinsically sinful about homosexual practice, instead it was wrong only under certain conditions.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
165 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
383 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment