quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
You haven't read the original Ancient Hebrew text, have you?

Give me a site to do so and i will check it out

You haven't read the original Ancient Hebrew text, have you?

quote:

So you are admitting that there is a same-sex partnership here, acknowledged or not? I don't think you read about the rather sexual part, did you? HERE: The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until [b]David became large; i.e. had an erection.[b] Again, the thought of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either ignored the ending entirely or created one of their own. So you were saying about sex?

WHAT!! WHERE.. WHEN..

Plzz give me a verse were it says that he had an erection!!! this is rediculous....

quote:

Freedom is not attacking you or your religion, but merely pointing out hypocracy.

This just might be considered an attack..

quote:

but calling Mary a whore was going far enough. Now you're calling David and Jonathan gays and Ruth a lesbian. I can't believe you.

Oh I'm sorry for getting a little personal. You know what though? I've been called a homo, fag and fairy on this website. Most has been removed, but I never let my personal feelings decide for me when to quit an argument. The Mary thing was a joke, because to me it is inconceivable that Joseph and Mary had not only not had sex, but that they were not able to have children. Go ahead and consider me an asshole, sometimes I would agree with you. But I doubt you've read any of the website, a .org website mind you. So if you don't want to discuss it anymore because it's getting a little too thick or a little too emotional, that's fine. There are some people in this world that just can't debate, I understand that. Feel free to continue anytime you like though.

quote:

Sorry I had to discount all those. There may be homosexuality in the Bible, but when you go around accusing Jonathon and Saul and David and Ruth of homosexuality, that's a little too far.

There's a lot of proof for it.

What you basically said is that we should believe your biased friend who can read hebrew. While there are misinterpretations, the text has been changed so much over the years that alot of what is accepted as fact could have originated as a misinterpretation. No one person can decide what is or isn't implied in the Bible because it is a very personal thing.

By the way you became so defensive about it, hubb, it shows a lack of foundation for which you can defend your points. Freedom is not attacking you or your religion, but merely pointing out hypocracy. There are homosexual themes in the bible which cannot be denied and your problem is that you refuse to accept that. You can say that it was just a motherly or friendly love, but you cannot prove that any more than Freedom can prove otehrwise. it's all speculation.

it's all in how you read things. if any text is up for interpretation, it's a text as ancient as the bible. the only story in the entire bible i believe can be read as a homosexual relationship, is the book of ruth.

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:

quote:

Way to completely ignore freedom, joel.

I know, right?

quote:

Not sexual love. Is sexual connection all that love means to you?

I think you've confused yourself hub. It was not a sexual connection, yes. But what is your question? I think you've asked the wrong person or something...

quote:

Not sexual love. Is sexual connection all that love means to you?

I don't think you visited the site. It is MUCH more explicit in the original Hebrew texts. However, when it was translated by the more conservative theological authors, translation was skewed. Also, as I have tried to say before, the authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation; this concept was only developed in the late 19th century. The writers had little or no comprehension of same-sex committed relationships. Their languages had no words for these concepts. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender.

quote:

the tie between Jonathon and David

You obviously didn't read everything I posted. And I provided the site for a reason; there is much more explanation available there.

quote:

Michal Saul's DAUGHTER (who ironically enough is female) loves David

It never says vice versa, now, does it? Please visit the site for more verses defition.

quote:

He's simply saying that he loves him. More than women.

So you are admitting that there is a same-sex partnership here, acknowledged or not? I don't think you read about the rather sexual part, did you? HERE: The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until [b]David became large; i.e. had an erection.[b] Again, the thought of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either ignored the ending entirely or created one of their own. So you were saying about sex?

quote:

Jonathon's his nephew

Yes, I know. Thank you for the meaningless reinforcement, as you disregard the possibility for familial, physical relationships.

quote:

Sorry I had to discount all those. There may be homosexuality in the Bible, but when you go around accusing Jonathon and Saul and David and Ruth of homosexuality, that's a little too far.

It's fairly obvious you are not sorry at all. Stuff it. You've proven you are lazy and too closed-minded by centuries of revision of an original text to understand the real meaning in an original. And I am not the only one 'accusing' here. But you knew that.

Actually, no. The Hebrew texts say nothing of the sorts. Believe me. I've spoken to someone who speaks Hebrew. And just so you know, in my religion we read the King James with footnotes about mistranslation. It says nothing of the kind. I'm not saying you're the only one accusing. None of the above are about homosexuality. I'm not even discussing this anymore. Not because I can't for lack of back-up, but because my head is swimming with disgust and I can't believe that you can be so blasphemous.

I'm sorry. I can stand your beliefs usually, but calling Mary a whore was going far enough. Now you're calling David and Jonathan gays and Ruth a lesbian. I can't believe you. This is just. I can't debate this. My emotional feelings are getting too far in the way. Sorry.

quote:

Way to completely ignore freedom, joel.

I know, right?

quote:

Not sexual love. Is sexual connection all that love means to you?

I think you've confused yourself hub. It was not a sexual connection, yes. But what is your question? I think you've asked the wrong person or something...

quote:

Not sexual love. Is sexual connection all that love means to you?

I don't think you visited the site. It is MUCH more explicit in the original Hebrew texts. However, when it was translated by the more conservative theological authors, translation was skewed. Also, as I have tried to say before, the authors of the Bible did not understand sexual orientation; this concept was only developed in the late 19th century. The writers had little or no comprehension of same-sex committed relationships. Their languages had no words for these concepts. Rather, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual, but that some heterosexuals engaged in sex with persons of the same gender.

quote:

the tie between Jonathon and David

You obviously didn't read everything I posted. And I provided the site for a reason; there is much more explanation available there.

quote:

Michal Saul's DAUGHTER (who ironically enough is female) loves David

It never says vice versa, now, does it? Please visit the site for more verses defition.

quote:

He's simply saying that he loves him. More than women.

So you are admitting that there is a same-sex partnership here, acknowledged or not? I don't think you read about the rather sexual part, did you? HERE: The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until [b]David became large; i.e. had an erection.[b] Again, the thought of David becoming sexually aroused after kissing Jonathan is too threatening for Bible translators, so they either ignored the ending entirely or created one of their own. So you were saying about sex?

quote:

Jonathon's his nephew

Yes, I know. Thank you for the meaningless reinforcement, as you disregard the possibility for familial, physical relationships.

quote:

Sorry I had to discount all those. There may be homosexuality in the Bible, but when you go around accusing Jonathon and Saul and David and Ruth of homosexuality, that's a little too far.

It's fairly obvious you are not sorry at all. Stuff it. You've proven you are lazy and too closed-minded by centuries of revision of an original text to understand the real meaning in an original. And I am not the only one 'accusing' here. But you knew that.

quote:

Originally posted by Joel135:
So are u saying that u.. beleive as I do that the Bible is in fact true?? and is a reliable source??

for you and i yes. but if i'm debating with someone on the site who does not believe in the bible, then no, i will not use it. the bible is not applicable to everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11

1-2 Samuel, especially 1 Samuel Chapters 18-20 (pay particular attention to 18:1-4, 18:20-21 and 1 Samuel 20:41... also 2 Samuel 1:26)

Daniel 1:9

Daniel 1:9-- Not sexual love. Is sexual connection all that love means to you?

Ruth--oh, come on. That's such a stretch. She promised to be with Naomi, not because she wanted to marry her but because Ruth believed that her marriage Naomi's son was so binding that she believed Naomi to be her mother. She's just saying that she honors the family ties.

Samuel--- the tie between Jonathon and David is a ceremony that means that he is the leader of his troops. Plus, Jonathon's his nephew. Just for you info. In 20 and 21, Michal Saul's DAUGHTER (who ironically enough is female) loves David. How's that homosexuality? Kissing was common at that time as a show of affection. It was like hugging. Kissing also, at the time of King James, and thus at the time of translation, did not mean on the lips.

Ummm...Jonathon's his nephew. He's simply saying that he loves him. More than women. He's just saying that his brother's important to him.

Sorry I had to discount all those. There may be homosexuality in the Bible, but when you go around accusing Jonathon and Saul and David and Ruth of homosexuality, that's a little too far.

Way to completely ignore freedom, joel.

quote:

Originally posted by Kal2390:
yup.

So are u saying that u.. beleive as I do that the Bible is in fact true?? and is a reliable source??

yup.

quote:

Originally posted by Kal2390: but like most ancient texts, the only way to know would be to ask the author. that's unfortunately not an option.

Yes this is very true... thats why its called faith..

good, stay open. (and i only mentioned the movie to prove that it is a widely-believed theory that their relationship was sexual.)

but like most ancient texts, the only way to know would be to ask the author. that's unfortunately not an option.

quote:

fried green tomatoes

first of all thats a movie.. and movies arent very reliable sources to fall back on..... i seriously dont think they kissed tho in a more then family way to greet.... i dont think that they were doing it to express sexual desires.. but hey ill STAY OPEN minded to keep yall happy

the best example is ruth and naomi. it's no coincidence ruth cited it in "fried green tomatoes" when she asked idgie to come save her from her abusive husband.

quote:

Originally posted by EarthGoddess:
I want to say something. But it would be a waste of time talking to a lower primate, such as yourself, Joel.

....

speak urr mind earth goddess

Oh oh oh! This is the perfect opportunity to refute Joel while I tell Strange about the potential porn; Strange, it would have to include the following:


1 Kings of conquered tribes being raped by the invading army as the ultimate symbol of defeat and humiliation. (Homosexual rape was also a way of humiliating visitors and strangers. These were acts of power and domination and had nothing in common with consensual sex by gays and lesbians. This is what many biblical scholars reference to as homosexuality being 'unnatural' but it was given that term because the kings did not wish to have sex.)

2 Non-Jewish tribes in the Middle-Eastern area had male prostitutes in their temples who ritually engaged in same-sex activities. (This horrified the ancient Israelites, leading to their homophobia and the eventual condemning of same-sex activities. Temple prostitution is no longer found in most areas of the world.)

3 The Roman Empire male adults keeping 'boy' prostitutes for the purpose of sexual activity. (The boys were often slaves. In modern times, this is considered child abuse, a criminal offense.)

4 The following Biblical homosexual (though this word is not used, as there is no word for such a person or activity [and there are few terms being even similar to 'heterosexual']) relationships:

a) Ruth and Naomi, who, to clarify for Joel, did have an implied same-sex relationship, though sexual activities were left out in the Scriptures. In Ruth 1:16-17, "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me." Who is buried next to one another, traditionally? Husband and wife. This is, as I have stated, an implied same-sex relationship.

b) David and Jonathan. Though most conservative theologians throw out the notion of a non-sexual same-sex partnership, 1 Samuel 18:1 states
…Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself.(NIV)

or

…the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
And in line 1 Samuel 18:3-4

And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 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. (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.

I'll skip over a few more verses for a summary of their relationship in verse 2 Samuel 1:26

"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 the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David’s only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. Since it would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomenon. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

c) Daniel and Ashpenaz, a relationship I will be quick to mention, as I am short on time. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v’rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V’rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". The most reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel. Of course, this would be unacceptable to the translators, so they substitute more innocuous terms. The KJV reference to "tender love" would appear to be the closest to the truth. One might question whether Daniel and Ashpenaz could sexually consummate their relationship. They were both eunuchs. Apparently, when males are castrated after puberty, they still retain sexual drive. It is interesting to note that no other romantic interest or sexual partner of Daniel was mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.

Thank you to http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bmar.htm for providing most of the above information.