RR- I work with a ministry that sets up pen pals for incarcerated kids in the juvenile facilities around the state. These boys are with nothing but boys all day long. They seek affection...as we all do...because many of them have never known it before. They come from loveless homes. I can't tell you how many of these kids say they're homosexual...I mean, like an extraordinary proportion of the kids. Well over 50%. A guy I work with and go to church with heads up this ministry...he goes up to one of the facilities and leads Bible study a couple of days a week for these kids...and has had the privilege of meeting the kids he corresponds with. He just recently found a job for a kid who just got out, and the kid is doing great. That kid, on their first meeting, told my friend..."hey...i just want you to know i'm gay." My friend responded, "that's ok..." and reassured him that he still cared for him and would still help him. One month later...literally one month after he gets out of juvenile detention....he says to my friend, "hey...remember when i told you i was gay...yeah, i was very, very wrong!" and then started laughing. In that situation it was nothing but social stimulus...maybe we could argue it was or wasn't a choice, based on need for affection within such a closed "society." But, nevertheless...it was not someting innate. I'm not closing off the possibility that it's genetic...but I've just seen it be a product of social stimulus more times than not.
Max... Very few people that I know of credit any kind of sexuality entirely to genetics. Usually here is, as in all things, some reconciliation between nature and nurture. But to use your example...in that, in the 'outside world' heterosexuality' is the social norm, and there is a great deal of pressure to conform, isn't it at least possible that social stimulus worked in an inverse way to what you are suggesting? And irrespective of whichever way you will conclude is accurate to that specific case, don;t you think that the social stimulus you are mentioning, in a different context ( pressure to conform to normal standards rather than exclusion from alternatives) contributes to a certain percentage of heterosexuality?
well just in case you're wondering I've never been in jail, prison or boot camp. I went to co-ed public schools all my life. I had lots of female friends growing up. Grew up with both parents. I honestly can't think of what "outside" forces would have had contributed to my orientation. Do you think heterosexuality is also learned behavior or is it innate?
i never said i knew, outlaw. just cited an experience there. by the way..you keep using the David story to somehow announce that God gives a pat on the back to homosexuality...ummmm..it's not working for a couple of reasons. 1. you're reading between the lines, big time. 2. but let's assume you're right on...do you know the rest of the history of david, as recorded in the old testament?? christians don't look at david and say, "wow...if i could be more like him, i'd really be closer to God." david was an adulterer and a murderer. i can find nothing in the bible that says that God is cool with adultery because David did it.
I do think the story makes it pretty obvious they were lovers but I never used it as reasoning that God sanctioned homosexuality in any way. If I did, please point it out. I didn't even bring it up originally in this thread. if you need more proof: 2 Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. Christians frequently use David as a bible hero for his victory over Goliath. Hell, you guys even made a kids TV show with their names. "You're King David! I love you 'cause you kill people." - Ralph
David is cited as a Bible hero, no doubt...but he isn't regarded as perfect...and his life became pretty miserable as a consequence of what he had done. honestly, i don't know if the story is that or not. i know there are men who say that their male friends have been more loyal than any girl they ever dated or married...females say the flip. it doesn't mean they're having sex, though. i'm not trying to attack you...hope my post didn't come across that way. my sole point is simply that, even if true, it tells me absolutely nothing about how God feels about it. it's not an instructive letter, like you'd see from Paul in the New Testament...or even some set of laws like you might see from Moses in the Old Testament.
it's cool Max. if you don't see the story that way that is fine. and i would never pressume to know how god feels about anything unless he spoke to me about it in person.
Hey, me too! If nothing else, for making me sit through his former boss' boring-ass training at this old job (I think it's old) only to have him not call me back!
yeah i quit there about 3 months back. sorry about that again. you and max can meet me at The Ripcord tonight
Okay, I'll mention David and Jonathan. One of the best ways to misunderstand a statement is to remove it from it's context within the writing in which its found. Another way is to fail to recognize its cultural context, assuming that you're dealing with one like your own. I believe you've repeatedly made both mistakes, outlaw. You quoted 1 Samuel 18:4 from the King James Version: "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." I prefer modern English versions like the English Standard Version: "And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." Jonathan's actions in this verse didn't spring out of nowhere. It was his response to what David did in the previous chapter. The Israelites and the Philistines were encamped at the Valley of Elah, prepared for battle (1 Samuel 17:2). No one in the Israelite army, however, wanted to fight Goliath. David was there only because his father had sent him with provisions to check on his brothers (1 Samuel 17:12-19). Unlike the soldiers in King Saul's army, David wasn't content to let Goliath "defy the armies of the living God" (1 Samuel 17:26). He did what no one else was willing to do -- face Goiath in battle. After David killed Goliath, Saul naturally wanted to know more about him (1 Samuel 17:55-58). Saul was interested in having David serve in his army, which is why "Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father's house" (1 Samuel 18:2). David's victory over Goliath also won him the respect and devotion of the king's son (Jonathan): "3 Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt" (1 Samuel 18:3-4). Jonathan's actions were in perfect keeping with what has been called the covenant of brotherhood. You can read about something similar to the in The Iliad (VI. 230) where Glaucus and Diomede excanged armor to confirm a pledge of family friendship. When Jonathan gave David his robe, armor, sword and bow, he was confirming the covenant of verse three -- not stripping down to his boxer shorts. He was giving David his battle gear, just like his father Saul tried to do earlier (1 Samuel 17:38). The only difference is that Saul was trying to equip David for his fight with Goliath, while Jonathan was confirming the covenant he had just made with David. Also, keep in mind that Jonathan's father had just "drafted" David into the army. He would need this battle gear. There's no indication that Jonathan and David were anywhere other than the Valley of Elah when these things took place. In other words, this supposed "strip act" would have taken place "before God and everyone." They were still in the military camp, and likely still in the presence of King Saul and his military officials. I don't think Israel had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, but I know they had laws against what you're suggesting (Leviticus 18:22). Jonathan loved David as a brother, not a lover. The other passages you quoted, outlaw, can just as easily be explained by looking at the context and taking into consideration the manners and customs of the ancient Hebrew people. You mentioned the fact that David and Jonathan later kissed one another (1 Samuel 20:41). Such greetings were common among the Hebrews, especially among family and close friends, and had nothing to do with a sexual encounter. As one Bible dictionary says, "Romantic kisses are mentioned infrequently in the Bible" (Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary). This isn't one of the infrequent instances. If it is, then I suppose it's also reasonable to presume that David and Jonathan were also pedophiles, because Jonathan brought a "little boy" to this rendezvous. In actuality, Jonathan was meeting with David when his father's hatred for David was confirmed. It was an emotional time. Imagine your father wanting to kill your best friend. Earlier in the chapter, David basically confronted Jonathan with this fact, but Jonathan didn't want to believe it. He was willing, however, to get to the bottom of things. That's when he said to David, "Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee" (1 Samuel 20:4) or "Whatever you say, I will do for you" (ESV). Jonathan was displaying his willingness to get to the bottom of things -- to see if his father really wanted David dead. Their meeting in 1 Samuel 20:35-42 was after Jonathan's worst fears were realized -- his father really did want his best friend dead. I don't know how anyone could misunderstand what was going on and see this as a homosexual relationship, just like I don't know how anyone who has read the book of Ruth could accuse Naomi and Ruth of the same thing. Or, just so you don't read anything into it, the same thing can be said about Daniel and Ashpenaz. There's plenty in the Bible that would fit right in on the Jerry Springer show, but these are not very good examples.
Sigh, I guess Denial aint just a river in Egypt. this wasn't a casual kiss hello on the cheek. this was a passionate farewell forever kiss with much weeping. Where did I say that this was a sexual encounter anyway? I just saw it as 2 lovers being forced to say goodbye. Oh and Jonathan sent the "little boy" away before seeing David so there goes your obvious gays = pedophiles metaphor. But whatever. the Bible has been interpreted and translated so many times over the millenia that nobody alive really knows what actually happened or if any of it took place at all.
I never said this was a "casual kiss." Just like "hugs" today, the intensity may varyfrom situation to situation, but that doesn't negate the fact that they're a form of greeting. There are casual hugs and long, emotional embraces. This was certainly an emotional situation for David and Jonathan, but there's nothing that suggests that this was anything other than an emotional time for these two friends. Intense and emotional isn't the equivalent of passionate (as that word would be used to refer to lovers). There were no sexual or sensual overtones to these events. Again, kissing was a cultural expression of closeness (even among people who weren't romantically involved or romantically attracted to one another). The intensity of the expression varied depending on the situation. It might be especially intense at times of great joy, like when a lost boy returned home (Luke 15:20), or at times of great sorrow. The circumstances in 1 Samuel 20 fit this, as does the situation in Acts 20. 36 And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. 37 And there was much weeping on the part of all; they embraced Paul and kissed him, 38 being sorrowful most of all because of the word he had spoken, that they would not see his face again. And they accompanied him to the ship. (Acts 20:36-38) Certanly no one would suggest that these things took place between lovers. Why would anyone assume that similar displays of affection under similar circumstances (i.e., a time of sorrow) be viewed differently when there's nothing that indicates it? Nothing! By the way, you're right about the little boy leaving before David and Jonathan interacted on this occasion. I engaged in a little careless reading when I got to that part of the story. But I honestly wasn't trying to say that "obvious gays = pedophiles." I'm sorry if it came across that way. Are you unfamiliar with the textual evidence indicating the accuracy of the Bible's transmission through the years? You can question the veracity of the accounts if you want to, but there's no reason to question the fact that we have what was written. And far from things being lost in translation, archaeology and philology (linguistics) both continue to shed light on the meaning of the words of the Bible (and of other works as well).
Damn. I thought this post was going to have monkeys or something in it. I went to the zoo one time, when I was an older teenager, and there was a whole bus load of little kids there the same day. There were a bunch of monkeys on a rock, and they did this dominance/alpha-male type thing where they'd basically grab each other by the rear and look like they were doin' it doggy style. They usually started screeching while they were doing it. Well, this group of little kids just busted out laughing, and that made me start laughing. The monkeys just looked at us like we were weird then went about their business. That is my "Homosexuality in Animals" story. It had nothing to do with homosexuality really, I know. It didn't have any biblical quotes either, and I apologize for that. I just thought that the Clutch BBS was in need of some funny monkeys. Thank you, and good night.
The more recent a version of the bible is the more likely it has been translated to fit views that original authors never had it mind. If you search long enough there is a particular translation of the bible that will mesh with any religious philosophy no matter how outlandish. The only way to be positive about what something represents in the bible is to go back and look at the original...
I can see what you are saying from one perspective because there are groups these days that would do that. But could you please provide some evidence to say that 12th Century Benedictine Monks were changing words. I think the one instance they had of this (not with the Benedictine Monks) was around the time of Constantine and it went unnoticed until about the 11th Century and then there was a huge uproar over what had been changed. And what about the Dead Sea Scrolls?
first, we should distinguish between versions and translations. translations are from one language to another...versions are different within each language, though the differences are generally quite subtle. your first statement is not correct. most scholars would tell you the New International Version is far more accurate to the ancient texts that we have (as translations go) then the King James Version and many others. the King James version is the one I rarely read...it was written to be more ornate than accurate. it is, ifrom my understanding, not a very good attempt at accuracy to the ancient texts. having said that...when they pulled up the Dead Sea Scrolls, they found that the texts of Isaiah were word for word verabtim with the translations that were in pews all across the world. even the differences in versions are subtle...it's not like in one version Jesus isn't resurrected, and the next he is. it's language that is the real barrier...there are some words that just aren't communicated as well in one language from the next...words that have deeper meanings in one language with no suitable translation.
My brother in law came out of the closet after 12 years of marriage and two kids. He was living a lie. He thought he was doing what he was supposed to do. He wanted to do the "right" thing. People who don't think there are true homosexuals are destroying families. People need to be happy with who they are. God is a lesbian.
