Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
David did a lot of immoral things but homosexuality is not one. We as Christians sin, fall back at times, we need to repent of our sins.That is why the Body of Christ is important as we need to sharpen each others edges, rub off on each other. Maybe this is where Jonathan was important to David as he was there to encourage him as man needs man to smooth off the rough edges to polish and bring out the Holy Spirit. Iron sharpens iron as friction is needed sometimes within a church to bring sins to the forefront so they may be alleviated
There is not sufficient evidence to conclude one way or the other.
The Renaissance art depictions would not constitute evidence, that would be artisans expressing their own visions and they had no more information than what is contained in the Bible.
Male friendship, with love being openly and fervently expressed between two men, has in the past not been considered as an indication of homosexuality. As late as the first half of the 19th Century you can find plenty of examples of males gushing on about the qualities of male friends in letters, expressing deep love. Abraham Lincoln's closest friend, Joshua Fry Speed, shared a bed with him when they were living together for a time. No one thought this unusual.
David did a lot of immoral things but homosexuality is not one. We as Christians sin, fall back at times, we need to repent of our sins.That is why the Body of Christ is important as we need to sharpen each others edges, rub off on each other. Maybe this is where Jonathan was important to David as he was there to encourage him as man needs man to smooth off the rough edges to polish and bring out the Holy Spirit. Iron sharpens iron as friction is needed sometimes within a church to bring sins to the forefront so they may be alleviated
Um ... I'm not sure it's a good idea to argue the point you're trying to argue using words like "friction" and "rubbing". But to each their own.
There is not sufficient evidence to conclude one way or the other.
The Renaissance art depictions would not constitute evidence, that would be artisans expressing their own visions and they had no more information than what is contained in the Bible.
Male friendship, with love being openly and fervently expressed between two men, has in the past not been considered as an indication of homosexuality. As late as the first half of the 19th Century you can find plenty of examples of males gushing on about the qualities of male friends in letters, expressing deep love. Abraham Lincoln's closest friend, Joshua Fry Speed, shared a bed with him when they were living together for a time. No one thought this unusual.
This is true. It is a sad fact of life that homophobia has become so common that I doubt men have been anywhere near that open in their friendships in at least the past century.
On the flip side, it is entirely possible that the social acceptance of intimate friendship between men may have on occasions provided cover for forbidden gay relationships.
Although not long ago I read a blog post by a guy who took in a guy friend after that guy broke up with a serious girlfriend. Since he was emotionally needy and vulnerable and the blogger was supportive, they became very close, to the point of having spats not unlike married couples, and eventually "breaking up" when the blogger did not get reciprocal emotional support when someone in his family died. It was actually kind of a funny story, though probably not to the guys involved.
In my experience what is nice about guy friendships is the lack of emotional complexity, cross-currents and undertows, so I would probably be unlikely to ever get that close to another guy. I would imagine that gay men feel much the same about their female friends. It need have nothing to do with phobias about mistaken sexual orientation. Still, I have little doubt that such phobias are in play.
On the flip side, it is entirely possible that the social acceptance of intimate friendship between men may have on occasions provided cover for forbidden gay relationships.
You have a point. The above of course is what is suspected by many as describing the J. Edgar Hoover/Clyde Tolson relationship, but no one seems to know for certain. If we can't figure it out with a 20th Century target, we aren't going to figure it out about King David. It seems unlikely that any new witnesses will be coming forward.
Quote:
Although not long ago I read a blog post by a guy who took in a guy friend after that guy broke up with a serious girlfriend. Since he was emotionally needy and vulnerable and the blogger was supportive, they became very close, to the point of having spats not unlike married couples, and eventually "breaking up" when the blogger did not get reciprocal emotional support when someone in his family died. It was actually kind of a funny story, though probably not to the guys involved.
There are all sorts of what seem like dysfunctional relationships which nevertheless survive. The weirdest one I've seen personally involved a gay theater director who was always broke, and an asexual Never-Stopped-Being-A-Flower Child woman who had inherited money. He was serially unsuccessful in the theater business, so her money was needed. She was completely incapable of managing her money, well, her whole life, actually, so he was needed. What they had in common was alcoholism and they staged epic fights in front of their guests, very much akin to what was depicted in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", tearing incredible chunks out of one another verbally, storming out of rooms, slamming doors, and then those disgustingly melancholy "Oh, Honey, forgive-me-you're the most wonderful etc."
Last I heard of them they were still together after 26 years.
Why argue from silence, then? This thread is based not on actual evidence, but someone reading into the text what they'd like to see.
I do not know what you mean with "argue from silence."
As to reading whatever one wants into the texts, that is a path to artistic interpretation, not truth.
The truth is that we do not know and we do not know because we have insufficient information.
Kinda ironic that you mention the "not on actual evidence" business because that is the rationalist criticism that has been directed at the faithful all along, that they are believing in the absence of sufficient reason to believe, that they are believing despite the evidence, not because of it.
David was no homosexual, but he was a polygamist. And he paid for his first wife with a bag of foreskins.
Traditional marriage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
