|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bible passages that are pro-homosexuality
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
I'm aware that traditionally there are thought to be five passages that deal with homosexuality:
two from Leviticus, The destruction of Sodom, the mentions of 'unatural' relations in Romans and the reference to 'homosexual offenders' in ICor.
I'm also aware of how all these can be interpreted to very clearly show they are referring to promiscuity or male prostitution, and not to consensual, loving, monogamous relationships.
I'm posting this thread to ask if there are any passages or stories that can be interpreted to be (or are) pro-homosexuality. I know that the many love and equality teachings from Jesus are, inter alia anti-homophobia, but I'm looking for passages that specifically advocate homosexuality, as a loving and intimate expression of human sexuality among God's people. Do such passages exist, or not?
Thanks for your help! This is a thread about homosexuality in Scripture; can we keep it to that, please, and have the other debates elsewhere in dead horses? Thanks.
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
The stuff about David and Jonathon, how their love was greater than that of man for woman, or however the passage goes.
[ 27. January 2011, 21:03: Message edited by: Nicolemrw ]
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
The stuff about David and Jonathon, how their love was greater than that of man for woman, or however the passage goes.
That would be the obvious one. I've come across conservative evangelical men claiming that they talk that way about their best mates all the time and it doesn't mean anything homosexual. I am afraid I don't believe they do talk that way.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I've always been fond of John 3:16 myself.
[ 27. January 2011, 21:31: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
with special emphasis on John 3:17.
Romans 8:35:39 has always been a comfort to me. Paul waxing at his poetic best.
[oops - x-posted with koshatnik; follow-up meant to Spiffy's post]
[ 27. January 2011, 21:34: Message edited by: iGeek ]
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
[X-post Friday. Above was in reply to Dafyd, not Spiffy]
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
KJV (cos I think its pretty)
quote:
1 Samuel 18:1
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
Gods joins two together
quote:
1 Samuel 18:3
Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
This is different from gay marriage in what way ?
quote:
1 Samuel 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.
The phrase "until David exceeded" is different from the phrase "until David came" in what way ?
What's more the story of the healing of the centurion's servant is sometimes held to be the healing of the centurion's catamite. Which would imply at least tolerance on the part of Christ.
[ 27. January 2011, 21:50: Message edited by: Think² ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
(OK - so I am teasing with that last David & Jonathan quote - I've no doubt it is a poor translation of the hebrew. But I think the first two are significant.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Um, pardon me for butting in, but what you're suggesting would mean David was shagging a brother and sister at the same time. Which is just Ewwwwww.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Wasn't this the same man who sent some poor fucker to die on the front so he could get his end away ?
Perhaps he'd have been a nicer person without the social pressure to have a wife ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Um, pardon me for butting in, but what you're suggesting would mean David was shagging a brother and sister at the same time. Which is just Ewwwwww.
Any more eww than a man marrying a set of sisters? For which there is Biblical precedent.
Besides, just because you think it's eww... so what? You think there aren't plenty of people who have slept with both of a set of siblings?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
So, if I love my father/brother/son and give him a kiss, I am, by definition, also having sex with him?
It is only a distorted view of love that it necessarily includes sex.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
So, if I love my father/brother/son and give him a kiss, I am, by definition, also having sex with him?
It is only a distorted view of love that it necessarily includes sex.
Jonathan was not a father, brother, nor son of David.
It is a distorted view of sex to think that it necessarily debases love.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
quote:
Um, pardon me for butting in, but what you're suggesting would mean David was shagging a brother and sister at the same time. Which is just Ewwwwww.
Any more eww than a man marrying a set of sisters? For which there is Biblical precedent.
Besides, just because you think it's eww... so what? You think there aren't plenty of people who have slept with both of a set of siblings?
Duh there's biblical precedent. Though you can't exactly say Jacob meant to.
And sure, I think it's ewwwwww. Am I not entitled to think that shagging two siblings is ewwwwww? Way to mess up the family dynamics.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I'm not aware of any biblical scholar (of any theological background) who advocates that the text states that David and Jonathan had a sexual relationship.
Several speculate that 'they must have' but I'm not come across anyone arguing that the text says they did.
This is semitic culture - everyone kissed all the time. I suppose the saliva, like the sweat, keeps one cool.
The bible is hardly coy about mentioning sex and has a gazillion euphemisms for it. There aren't any used for David and Jonathan.
I'm not saying that it is impossible that David was bisexual just that there is no textual evidence that he was.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The kissing is nothing. It's the knitting of souls that's interesting.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The kissing is nothing. It's the knitting of souls that's interesting.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) I've lost track of the times that parents (especially mothers) have used this kind of expression to describe their relationships with their children.
One woman I remember told me, when my wife was expecting out first child, that 'love you have for your children is even stronger than your love for your spouse.' Isn't that pretty much analogous to the comment about David's love for Jonathan being stronger than for women?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
And sure, I think it's ewwwwww. Am I not entitled to think that shagging two siblings is ewwwwww? Way to mess up the family dynamics.
Maybe I misunderstood you but I thought you were saying that David and Jonathon couldn't be lovers because it would be icky that David was banging a pair of siblings. If I'm wrong, my apologies.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The kissing is nothing. It's the knitting of souls that's interesting.
I've lost track of the times that parents (especially mothers) have used this kind of expression to describe their relationships with their children.
One woman I remember told me, when my wife was expecting out first child, that 'love you have for your children is even stronger than your love for your spouse.' Isn't that pretty much analogous to the comment about David's love for Jonathan being stronger than for women?
Analogous?
Well it's using the same words, yes. But using it for your offspring and using it for your best buddy are pretty wildly different contexts.
Anyway, one of the things that irritates me so much about about many discussions of homosexuality is the assumption that it's all about sex. It's not. When it comes to things like marriage, it's about love.
And if you want to lump the love between parent and child, the love between spouses and the love between two men, regardless of whether or not there was any sex involved, into the same category, I'm right there with you. The emotions have a great deal in common.
Just don't turn around and tell me it's different again on the next gay marriage thread!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Anyway, one of the things that irritates me so much about about many discussions of homosexuality is the assumption that it's all about sex. It's not. When it comes to things like marriage, it's about love.
And if you want to lump the love between parent and child, the love between spouses and the love between two men, regardless of whether or not there was any sex involved, into the same category, I'm right there with you. The emotions have a great deal in common.
Sure, I'm right there with you in all this.
However, when discussing biblical texts it means that you cannot possibly give David and Jonathan as an example of homosexual sex. Your argument cuts both ways.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, my argument isn't the argument of others. I've never cited David and Jonathan with any confidence. It might mean something sexual, it might not. Not enough data available.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
quote:
Isn't that pretty much analogous to the comment about David's love for Jonathan being stronger than for women?
Not unless David was secretly Jonathan's father.
If your saying that David loved Jonathan as much as a parent loves his child, well, I'm not sure what that would mean, but right there we're talking beyond the bounds of ordinary friendship.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Yes, but since when has 'outside the bonds of normal friendship' automatically meant homosexual sex?
I think you need to draw some venn diagrams or something.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
When has being homosexual been only about having sex? I think we have several celebete gay members here on the ship; I know for a fact we have at least one.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
When has being homosexual been only about having sex?
I never said it was only about having sex. However, I'm rather puzzled how you can define homosexual without referring to sex at all.
This is what I meant by saying to Orfeo that the argument cuts both ways. If homosexual was defined in such a way as to not include sex then I'm sure all conservatives would be happy with it. That is, ISTM, the point.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I think we are rather losing sight of the OP.
The question was about what Bible passages can be interpreted as being pro-homosexuality. Passages about David and Jonathan can be interpreted that way. And that's about as far as it goes.
If there were any passages that were clearly unambiguously approving of a loving and committed homosexual relationship, we probably wouldn't have a Dead Horses to discuss this in in the first place.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think we are rather losing sight of the OP.
The question was about what Bible passages can be interpreted as being pro-homosexuality. Passages about David and Jonathan can be interpreted that way.
I disagree (on both counts).
Passages about David and Jonathan cannot be interpreted that way - there just isn't anything in the text.
They are very relevant when discussing homophilic relationships (which may well then have relevance on homosexual discussions) but in and of themselves there is nothing in the David and Jonathan texts that can be interpreted as homosexual.
Unless, of course, we describe to the Monty Python school of theology - nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more governor, a wink's as good as a nod to a blind bat.
I'd say the same about Jesus' special relationship with John. I have no evidence to prove that neither Jesus nor John were homosexual, I just have no evidence to suggest it either.
There has to be something stronger than this even to say 'the text can be interpreted in favour'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I dunno, "your love is better than the love of women" seems pretty strong to me. Why even compare him to a woman? I don't think it really requires a lot of winking and nudging to get this possibility out of it. Not certainty, no. But it's a heck of a lot more than, "Nothing here to see."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Passages about David and Jonathan cannot be interpreted that way - there just isn't anything in the text.
Rather overstating the case, Johnny, and in my view misusing the word 'cannot'.
It's not that there isn't anything in the text. It's that there isn't anything sexual in the text. To equate that with there being nothing at all involves reducing homosexuality to sex again.
What there is in the text is a strong, intense relationship.
The nature of that relationship is, quite literally, open to interpretation. Even if that interpretation is entirely speculative, that's hardly the same thing as saying it 'cannot' be interpreted.
If that's not good enough for your interpretative purposes, then I assume you reject the countless attempts to speculate about what Jesus wrote in the dust in John 8:6, and why he wrote anything at all. There's nothing in that text to tell you. But that doesn't seem to stop people interpreting.
To me, 'cannot be interpreted in that way' should be left to cases where an interpretation is actually closed off altogether for some reason, by negative evidence. Not cases where you think positive evidence is lacking.
[ 28. January 2011, 04:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I dunno, "your love is better than the love of women" seems pretty strong to me. Why even compare him to a woman?
Good question.
David wasn't exactly a stranger to sex - how many concubines did he have again? It seems that David felt that the love he got from Jonathan was better than the love he got from all that sex with women. Whether he is talking about sex with Jonathan or not (to receive that love) is pure conjecture. Whatever David is talking about (and note it is at a funeral and so likely to be rather prosaic) his relationship with Jonathan was better than sex.
Out of interest I just had a quick flick through Calvin on this passage (to give a little historical perspective). Calvin is not shy of making a direct comparison here with the love of marriage (a covenant faithfulness mentioned earlier) but assumes that his love was chaste. If Calvin had seen need to comment on this he surely would have.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If that's not good enough for your interpretative purposes, then I assume you reject the countless attempts to speculate about what Jesus wrote in the dust in John 8:6, and why we wrote anything at all. There's nothing in that text to tell you. But that doesn't seem to stop people interpreting.
But nobody is trying to build an entire ethic based solely on John 8: 6.
The OP asked for biblical texts support homosexuality. I hope that there is more than just 2 Samuel 1.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But nobody is trying to build an entire ethic based solely on John 8: 6.
If you think that an opinion on homosexuality constitutes 'an entire ethic', your view of us is even more skewed than I thought. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Seriously, would you ever describe your views on correct heterosexual behaviour as 'your entire ethic'?
Besides, I fail to see how that's relevant to the basic logic of interpretation. What I said had absolutely nothing to do with the specific nature of the text. It would apply to the interpretation of a newspaper report just as much as Scripture.
[ 28. January 2011, 05:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you think that an opinion on homosexuality constitutes 'an entire ethic', your view of us is even more skewed than I thought.
Seriously, would you ever describe your views on correct heterosexual behaviour as 'your entire ethic'?
Apologies - 'entire ethic' crept in there unintentionally.
I meant to say that no one would be convinced if you tried to base your entire argument on John 8: 6. It would be more a case of, once you've clearly justified your position from lots of other clearer texts, then looking at John 8 to see if it fits.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Indeed.
Well, in this context, it would be far better to leave the interpretation of David and Jonathan entirely open.
I actually agree with you that attempting to interpret their relationship as definitely homosexual runs into some problems.
My concern with attempting to interpret their relationship as NOT homosexual, though, is that it's likely to be based on a presupposition that homosexuality is wrong, and that therefore the Bible would not paint their relationship in a seemingly positive light if it were sexual.
But how do you get to a position that homosexuality is wrong? Only by interpretation of other passages of Scripture in a particular way. And of course, those other interpretations are strongly contested.
None of this is news. As I said, we wouldn't be in Dead Horses territory otherwise.
My own belief that homosexuality is morally acceptable is not based on my belief that there is positive evidence in the Bible, but on my belief that there is nothing in the Bible that says it is immoral. I've personally never put it higher than that.
In my view the claims of definite positive evidence and definite negative evidence are equally wobbly.
But the OP was not presented as a request for definitive evidence. It was actually pretty clear about that.
EDIT: By the way, I finally saw the movie Brokeback Mountain for the first time a couple of nights ago, and all this David and Jonathan talk is resonating with the film in a quiet eerie way.
Note that this remotely qualifies as 'evidence'. Sometimes fishing buddies really are fishing. I just thought I'd share the fact that Heath Ledger is popping into my mind's eye almost every time I look at this thread.
[ 28. January 2011, 06:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Something went wrong in that last paragraph. It should either start with 'Not' instead of 'Note', or it should have a 'doesn't' a few words in. Your choice!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If Calvin had seen need to comment on this he surely would have.
Argument from silence of Calvin. That's twelve ways of logically fallacious.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
(OK - so I am teasing with that last David & Jonathan quote - I've no doubt it is a poor translation of the hebrew. But I think the first two are significant.)
I would be interested in knowing what a literal modern translation of the hebrew passage that ends "until David exceeded" is - because the sentence has never made a great deal of sense to me. It looks as if the verb is in the wrong place somehow.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, in this context, it would be far better to leave the interpretation of David and Jonathan entirely open.
I actually agree with you that attempting to interpret their relationship as definitely homosexual runs into some problems.
My concern with attempting to interpret their relationship as NOT homosexual, though, is that it's likely to be based on a presupposition that homosexuality is wrong, and that therefore the Bible would not paint their relationship in a seemingly positive light if it were sexual.
Actually we are coming to agreement here - I'm not saying that the text is clear that their relationship was not homosexual.
All I'm saying is that this passage does not / can not constitute the evidence that the OP requested.
And, once more your concerns are correct and cut both ways. I'd say exactly the same about those who already assume homosexuality to be okay by God to read it into the text as much as the other way round. All this just strengthens my point. You cannot accept as evidence any text that relies so heavily on these assumptions.
I appreciate your reasoning Orfeo because I have to say that if 2 Samuel 1 constitutes as evidence in favour then Romans 1 is much stronger evidence against. As you say, to be consistent I don't see how anyone in favour could base their position on positive evidence from the bible.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I would be interested in knowing what a literal modern translation of the hebrew passage that ends "until David exceeded" is - because the sentence has never made a great deal of sense to me. It looks as if the verb is in the wrong place somehow.
The NRSV translates 'they kissed each other and wept with each other; but David wept the more'. A footnote says that it is following the Vulgate (that's Jerome), and that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It seems that David felt that the love he got from Jonathan was better than the love he got from all that sex with women. Whether he is talking about sex with Jonathan or not (to receive that love) is pure conjecture.
So we're agreed that when David is thinking about how to express his feelings for Jonathan that makes him think about sex with women?
David isn't just talking about sex on the side of the women either. (If you can't read 'sex' for 'love' on the Jonathan side of the simile, you can't read 'sex' for 'love' on the women side of the simile either.) David is certainly comparing his feelings for Jonathan to his feelings for women. They are comparable. He could just have said that Jonathan was as dear to him as a brother, but that doesn't seem to be sufficient for his feelings.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
David is certainly comparing his feelings for Jonathan to his feelings for women. They are comparable. He could just have said that Jonathan was as dear to him as a brother, but that doesn't seem to be sufficient for his feelings.
Ah, but the whole point of this discussion is that the comparison is ambiguous. By saying that the love is 'better' we are left uncertain as to what degree he is saying that the love is the same but better, and to what degree he is contrasting by saying that it is better - i.e. is it a comparison or a contrast?
To make your point the text would need to say that Jonathan's love was like that of women but better.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think we are rather losing sight of the OP.
The question was about what Bible passages can be interpreted as being pro-homosexuality. Passages about David and Jonathan can be interpreted that way. And that's about as far as it goes.
If there were any passages that were clearly unambiguously approving of a loving and committed homosexual relationship, we probably wouldn't have a Dead Horses to discuss this in in the first place.
Correct. And let's keep in mind that there are very few Biblical passages that show heterosexual sex in a "positive light," either - which is why I think the OP is a bit facetious. Hmmmmm.
However, we can talk about passages that show same-sex love in a positive light, and David/Jonathan is certainly one of those. Ruth/Naomi is another. These can be - and are - models for love between same-sex couples.
[ 28. January 2011, 12:34: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...However, we can talk about passages that show same-sex love in a positive light, and David/Jonathan is certainly one of those. Ruth/Naomi is another. These can be - and are - models for love between same-sex couples.
Not really. Unless you consider two friends makes a couple. I don't. A couple suggests a romantic relationship, and that aspect is not found in either case.
Returning to the David/Jonathan situation:
If someone says chocolate is better than sex, does that mean they are making out with a Hershey's bar? Patently unreasonable interpretation.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Not really. Unless you consider two friends makes a couple. I don't. A couple suggests a romantic relationship, and that aspect is not found in either case.
Perhaps true. But that's not what I said; I said they were "models for same-sex love," not that they were in romantic relationships. (Actually, they are models for opposite-sex love, too, now that I think of it; the Ruth/Naomi passage is often read at weddings.)
It's strange to me that "love" by itself isn't getting much respect on this thread. But, I guess, not surprising; it seems impossible for many people to discuss homosexuality without making sex into the sole issue - which, BTW, it isn't for gay people any more than it is for straight people.
[ 28. January 2011, 13:42: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I would LIKE the David and Jonathan story to be about two gay men as I preached on it in a very liberal, gay-friendly church. After researching it, I concluded that it was far more subversive because it was about male friendship.
I said: Some American theologians understand this passage as affirming committed homosexual relationships. But is that because we have such a limited sense of the nonsexual possibilities of passionate same-sex friendship? Rabbinic tradition insists adamantly that their relationship was platonic. In the ancient Near East covenants were agreements or oaths made to resolve differences between conflicting parties,
vassal and lord, or conqueror and conquered. The word love used in covenant making denoted the kind of attachment people had to a king more than interpersonal affection.’
Feminist theologians talk of texts of terror for women. This could be a text of terror for men.
Why? It’s about a young man whose father is trying to force him to go into “the family business,” - monarchy. Jonathan has no desire to be king. He keeps throwing away the opportunity through making impetuous moves on the battlefield, arguing with his father, stripping off all his symbols of office and handing them to David, making repeated efforts to save the life of the only person who can overthrow the throne.
Saul’s behavior is erratic and irrational. He often tries to kill whoever happens to be at hand, including his own heir apparent. Jonathan feels an intense amount of loyalty to a mentally ill father. He never abandons him; at the beginning of the story, before meeting David, he is Saul’s military commander-in-chief. Towards the end of the story. he resumes those duties . He has no ambition of his own, does not know how to do anything other than what is expected of him.
Jonathan puts personal affection before social and family approval. Saul is quick to judge, just as our society is quick to judge. Saul seems to assume that Jonathan’s relationship with David is sexual. He lashes out at Jonathan: “You son of a crooked whore, do you think I can’t see that you have chosen the son of Jesse, to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?
The two young men meet in a field, where they kiss and then collapse in tears into each other’s arms, sobbing.
This story makes friendship look dangerous. The men get hurt emotionally. Men today are so unsure about emotions that they avoid them whenever possible, especially the ones that hurt. Jonathan appears to foul up his career by feeling for David. Since male identity comes from what we do for a living and from success, the threat of emotions destroying a career is frightening.
David’s lament for Jonathan fits the elegy and soldier comrade genre. David is willing to embrace his sorrow. He doesn’t play the strong and silent role that so many men feel is appropriate in intensely emotional situations.
Instead, he tears his clothes and he mourns….he weeps…and he fasts
In many societies, male friendship was a source of emotional support that couldn’t be provided within a system of arranged marriages and in warfare, warriors needed likeminded and equally isolated men. Male friendship contained loyalty to one another, commitment to a common cause, and a valuing of the friendship above all other relationships.
Adult males today have few, if any, intimate friends of either sex. When men do identify someone as a close friend, it tends to be one of only two types: their wife or their best male friend from a number of years whom they no longer see regularly.
But we live with a continuing high divorce rate. When a man’s only friend is his wife, a divorce means loss of his entire support system during the traumatic period when he needs it most.
The primary difficulty in male-male friendship is how to handle the scary potential for intimacy, combined with the general male mistrust of making oneself vulnerable by telling the whole truth.
There is a lot of scholarship on this story in New Adam (1992) by Philip Culbertson
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Calleva Atrebatum
Shipmate
# 14058
|
Posted
quote:
which is why I think the OP is a bit facetious. Hmmmmm.
Oi! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) But, seriously, why?
Many, many thanks for the discussion about David and Jonathan. The reason I raised the OP was after talking to someone who pointed out that the 5 'homosexuality' biblical texts are usually the first point of call both for a Christian who is trying to show why homosexual relationships are intrinsically wrong, and another who is is trying to show that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships are intrinsically right. They all start with these 5 passages. And all 5 are, superficially, very negative.
What I wanted to find was a much more positive starting point - and something more obviously about being gay than just looking at the simplicity of Jesus' teaching about non-judgement (not to belittle those teachings at all by saying this.)
I didn't know whether such a passage existed. And now, having read all these comments, I still don't. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Offence is taken, it is not given.
Posts: 159 | From: Kent | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Calleva Atrebatum:
...I didn't know whether such a passage existed. And now, having read all these comments, I still don't.
There is no such passage.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Jesus never taught explicitly on the subject, lesbianism is not mentioned - mentions of homosexuality in the new and old testaments are disputed (that is people disagree over the correct translation/contextualised meaning of the Hebrew/Greek.)
Here is a hugely biased summary of the most commonly cited verses. And here is a hugely biased summary of the less commonly cited verses.
Otherwise one has to argue from the teachings about mutuality and love in the bible. And conceivably from the widespread presence of homosexual behaviour across all species.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If someone says chocolate is better than sex, does that mean they are making out with a Hershey's bar? Patently unreasonable interpretation.
And what if someone was actually making out with a Hershey's bar? What language would they use?
Probably something about 'making love with chocolate' or 'having sex with chocolate'. Which is still ambiguous and capable of multiple interpretations.
My point being, it's useful to think about the actual situation and the language that would be used. Because otherwise, your interpretative method relies partly on your assessment of probabilities - this is why your assertion that a particular interpretation was 'patently unreasonable' interested me.
I'm also reminded of a certain Simpsons character who 'sleeps with the fishes'...
I don't think your comparison is 100% accurate by the way. Sex and a chocolate bar are not comparing the same category of thing, so the odds are very much against an unconventional interpretation. You need 'sex/love with/of' and 'sex/love with/of'. I love chocolate more than I love women.
Personally I love them both equally. In the sense that I've never had sex with either of them.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
