Learning from David and Michal

Finally a well thought out level-headed post?!? Are you kidding? I see you absorb only that which supports your agenda and dismiss everything else, even if it has been shown to you through Scripture.

 

No, if you actually read his post he is still disagreeing with me.

 

I'm referring to the fact that his post was the only well thought out one. I don't think anyone here disagrees with pinoy.

 

I find it strange this topic of Jonathan and David with regard to homosexuality. There is a verse that says to the innocent all things are innocent. I guess to the homosexual all things are homosexual. So this simple verse

Is automatically a homosexual referrence? I think not. It is simply saying that David and Jonathan were of the same mind and that David loved Jonathan as himself as our lord commands us to do. Ie the second commandment summerizing all the commandments

No one questions that this second quoted verse has nothing to do with homosexuality. Why? Because Paul defines love here

Strangely sex isn't mentioned. So how does the homosexual rationalize these verses favor their behavior? Simple as stated above what ever frame of mind you are in that is how you color the world. When you speak to a drug addict everything seems to be related to drugs. He sees a guy standing on a corner and immediately compares him to a dealer. Or thinks that person is a dealer. So the homosexual must rationalize that David loved Johathan means sex. Frankly because they can't imagine love without sex. Love = sex to them. Yet they leave out "as David loved himself" which closely relates to what Christ is saying. The Homosexual must understand this then to be that David is constantly having sexual relationship with himself because they cannot see anything else. But in the context of the verse its incorrect to think David and Jonathan are having sex. Homosexuality in the bible is always treated as wrong. In the book the Lord of the Rings Frodo and Sam "love" each other Yet most would not say its homosexual. Save the homosexual yet knowing JRR Tolkien this is furthest from his thought. I loved men but I never had a sexual relationship with any of them. The fact that the bible is viewed in light of this sin shows that they've been given to a reprobate mind set. Everything is viewed through the goggles of homosexuality. The Story of Noah does not specify homosexual activity unless you are incerting it out of your imagination. In fact, you are right the bible has many storys relating human behavior as evil such as the one in judges you referred to. Note that God almost wiped out Benjamin from the face of the Earth but permitted them to live a while longer because of his promise to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. God keeps his promises.
this is what God says specifically of homosexuality:

And many other such verses.

 

Excellent post, thinkingstuff. One point of disagreement...

If you look at the phrase "looked upon his nakedness" and how it is used throughout Scripture, it is made in a sexual way.

 

You'll have to show me. However, I can Acquiesce that point If proven. The rest of the post still stands. Because the behavior was condemned. Still I think it needs to be proven though.

 

As for Noah, you have to consider the punishment. While Noah was passed out drunk and naked, Ham did something to him so bad that when Noah woke up, he realized what had been done to him, and was so mad that he cursed Ham's son and punished him and his offspring with eternal enslavement. That's pretty hardcore.

What exactly did he do? It doesn't say, but it was something pretty awful. Happening to accidentally and innocently see Noah when he was in this state when it was Noah's fault is hardly cause for the extreme response that Noah gave. What type of bad things could he have possibly done to Noah to deserve this response?

 

I don't know. I get pretty upset when I'm riddiculed.

 

If you want to quote verses showing that since it's really wrong as supposed proof that David wasn't participating, you have to consider other verses as well:

Deuteronomy 22:22 - "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel."


How do you get any worse than this? This act is treated as just as bad as homosexuality, and David was undeniably guilty of this with Bathsheeba. Just because the Bible says it's bad doesn't mean he wasn't doing it, and this is proof of that.

 

First I exegeted the text about David. And determined how its wrong to percieve it as a homosexual affair. And incerted thoughts on why homosexuals understand it otherwise. The scripture verses I used explained the context of the thing and its always viewed as wrong. Now your verse Deuteronomy 22:22

is the actual quote. And I agree Adultery is wrong and in the OT it is punishable by death as the pharisees are referring to here

I do think Adultery is just as bad as homosexuality. You can be heterosexual and still be perverse. Both adultery and homosexuality are sin.

My argument with the text wasn't that David was not engaged in it because he was sinless but that the text isn't referring to it. And note how with Bathsheeba, David was punished and about lost his kingdom. With Jonathan there was no punishment to David and it wasn't condemned. Homosexuality is always condemned in the bible as it referrences it. So that is just another validation for David and Jonathan not having a sexual affair.

 

David wasn't punished because of his adultery with Bathsheeba... he was punished because he had her husband killed.

 

He was punished for both. One sin leads to another. Sin doesn't happen in isolation. Remember what the prophet told David in his story that the Man stole the lamb. What was David's responce? That man should have to pay for his wrong doing. Its still sin and there were consequences for it.

 

Speaking of which, I always thought part of his punishment was strange... sending his son to have sex with his wives and concubines in front of all of Israel, especially considering Leviticus 20:11, Deuteronomy 22:30, and Deuteronomy 27:20.

 

What do you call Saul's rant where he called Jonathan the "son of a perverse and rebellious woman", said he was choosing David due to his own confusion and the confusion of his mothers nakedness, then tried to kill him? If Saul was only thinking about preserving the kingdom for Jonathan by wanting to kill David, he wouldn't have tried to kill Jonathan, that doesn't make any sense. I doubt that someone would try to kill their own son, their heir, just because that son asked why he wanted to kill his friend. That's not how you preserve the kingdom for your heir. David and Jonathan were doing something that made Saul furious enough to not only curse his own son and say he was confused, but to try to kill him.

Why would Jonathan be "confused" if they were just friends, why would Saul feel the need to mention that Jonathan's mom was perverse, and why would Saul try to kill Jonathan, his heir?

Also, just because something wasn't specifically condemned immediately doesn't mean anything... the guy who killed and butchered up his concubine wasn't condemned, the practice of taking multiple wives and concubines was never condemned, etc. Are these things ok since they weren't condemned?

 

I don't think so at all. What David did with Bathsheeba was done in private hidden. God Brought it out into the public. Certainly, David was well aware of his initial failing when word of what his son had done. especially considering what the prophet said was fulfilled. Obviously, David's children as most of Isreal weren't dedicated followers of the Law. Look what happened to Tamar. It's amazing the Solomon turned out well at all. However, he lost the united Kingdom.

 

Saul was often overcome by his anger (sometimes evil spirits). Saul didn't really care about Jonathan. Saul cared about Saul. He didn't want any affront to his authority. Remember Saul started a war with the Philistines because he wanted to expand his kingdom and he became angry with Jonathan because Jonathan was successful instead of his father. Saul had developed quite the ego. Saul was embarrased by his quick defeat where Jonathan saved the day. No, Saul was about himself.

 

Leviticus 18:6-18 and 20:17

 

And clearly the above event is not presented favorably in the Bible while the relationship between Jonathan and David is. Just from that, we know the relationship is not an immoral one.

 

David's adultery with Bathsheba is not presented as good thing. David is rebuked for it through Samuel, and he weeps for his son - see Ps. 51.

Jonathan and David's friendship and love are presented in a positive light.