There is nothing for me to excuse. It is always between the individual and G-d, not between the individual and me. Nobody owes me a specific sexual preference and it is not in my power to excuse or not excuse what isn't owed to me.

It is also not for me to condone or not condone. Again, it is between an individual and G-d. I can only condone or not condone those activities that I am party or object to. If someone does something to me or to the public, I can condone or not condone it. If someone does something to himself or other willing parties, I cannot condone or condone it.

If you were a secret model railroad enthusiast it wouldn't be up to me to condone or not condone that either. It's none of my concern.

And when it comes to sexuality this goes double. I do not even want to know anything about anybody else's sex life, let alone be asked for my opinion about it.

you can be religous but lost.  There are many religions out there who do not honor the God of the Scriptures. 

exactly because it had nothing to do with a sexual nature.  If it had, you would have heard much condemnation from God thru probably the prophet Nathan. 

Then what about this?    Moses said

"And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."  Lev 20:10

it goes on and on about the man's role in engaging in sex outside of marriage in all sorts of diff situations.  It's all quite clear.  That's why it was so hypocritical when the Pharisees threw a woman on the ground infront of Jesus demanding she be stoned.   The woman didn't commit adultery alone.  There was a man involved...where was he?  Both were to be put to death. 

Besides all this..you said you've read this right?  What do you think Nathan was saying to David in 2 Samuel 12? 

where did you get this? 

You're still not understanding this whole scene.  This is a friendship of the once in a lifetime kind.  The Spirit of God cements two people together as part of his plan.  David was very important in the whole plan of God as he would be the future King of Israel and the one whom the Messiah's lineage would be connected.  God sustained David during this very difficult time with Saul trying to kill him by using Jonathan as a protector and friend.  God sent Jonathan to be part of David's life when he was alone and running, hiding out in caves. 

The friendship of Jonathan and David was far more than common.  They shared a common goal; the will of God.  They were bonded by this. 

That's what you say. But the text doesn't say it.

You argue that since you believe X the text must be understood as meaning X. But that is not sound.

That's about relations with a married woman. It is adultery because she is married. It has nothing to do with the man.

Was David doing anything with a married woman? If not, he wasn't committing adultery.

Where in the text does it say that they were not gay?

You just assume that David wasn't gay and try to confirm that reading by pointing out how anything in the text could be understood as not referring to homosexuality. But the text is quite clear: it describes a homosexual relationship. That's what it is when a man loves another man more than he loves women.

Yes. And they were as gay as the day is long.

The text simply uses polite words to describe the situation.

But I guarantee you that if you would write a news paper article about a man using those words, he will think that you just outed him.

but you said this: 

I just showed you where Moses made it quite clear (in the whole chapter) that man was to blame.  Not the women.  Man.  Read Lev 20 and tell me that's not what it says.    You say it has NOTHING to do with the man yet Moses is quite clear and I even underlined it for you.  Read this again carefully. 

"And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."  Lev 20:10

you just told me (notice bold in your response) that men cannot commit adultery when Moses says men can (notice underlined in verse) so whom am I to believe?  You or Moses?  Not only that but the man was to die for punishment.  I would say that was sin.  "The wages of sin is death." 

I thought you said you read this?  How can you make all these assertions Leauki when you don't know the full context?   You don't know who Bathsheba is?    She was married btw. 

that's exactly right so stop saying it. 

no, I'm reading it literally and taking the whole story in context.  You're arguing a point with non-evidence over one line.   

why should it?  Everytime there's a friendship relationship between two men is it supposed to qualify it with a "we're not gay" statement?  What about Jesus and John?  We read about John laying on the breast of Jesus at dinner and that John was the apostle that Christ loved.  Does that mean John and Jesus were gay as well? 

You're getting this from somwhere so fess up.  This sounds like someone with an ax to grind against the scriptures probably someone with homosexual tendencies looking for something that's not there.  So not sure why you're grabbing ahold of such nonesense. 

and you're making a HUGE assumption that he was.  Why would David commit  something that is an outright abomination to God?  Especially after he was so broken up over the fact he sinned against God by taking another man's wife? 

what the text is showing us is their devotion to each other yes, but not sexual devotion and you're looking for something that's not there.  Jonathan showed selfless commitment to David even tho he recognized that David would succeed his father as King.  He was very loyal and committed to David much like we see in marital love.  But one can be loyal and committed to another being even of one's own sex without it being sexual. 

Right, I thought you were talking about a different woman of David's.

But it doesn't matter. It is still true that a man cannot commit adultery, only a woman can. A man can be party to the crime (and that's what Moses meant). But since Jewish law allows a man to marry more than one woman, there is simply no way a man could commit adultery. He can only be party to an adultery committed by a wife against her husband. But he himself CANNOT commit the crime.

That's why the commandments specifically mention the bit about coveting another's wife (but not, for women, coveting another's husband).

The assumption that he wasn't is as huge as the assumption that he was.

But my assumption is based on the text clearly saying that he loved Jonathan more than he loved women and that they made a covenant and otherwise engaged in a homosexual relationship like millions of gay people want them today.

Because without using your assumption that he wasn't gay, we have no indication that it was an outright abomination to G-d.

For all we know homosexual activity is as forbidden for Jews as eating bacon is. And none of it carries any penalty unless done in front of two reliable and honorable witnesses. Furthermore those witnesses would have to tell the two men to stop doping what they are doing and only if they continued anyway, would there be a penalty.

In all of Israel's ancient history there has not been one recorded case of an execution for homosexual activity.

So I don't see the point.

If you want to worry about people doing the wrong thing, worry about economic injustice. That's also an abomination to G-d.

But unfortunately it is something we are all engaged in and it is thus more difficult to condemn because it would mean that we ourselves have to change instead of simply pointing at others, at the sinners.

I for one recognise that I should keep kosher and that by not doing it I commit a crime against G-d. That I am not also engaged in homosexual activities doesn't really count for me (because I don't want to anyway). Currently, when I spend time worrying about abominations, it always comes down to why the heck I don't keep kosher as I should. There is rarely time to worry about other people's crimes against G-d.

But when will I be so perfect that I have time to worry about other people's crimes against G-d? That'll be the day when I start worrying about other people's crimes against the lord. That'll be the day...

Homosexuality is such an abomination against God it's repeated in the NT when many other things are not. 

"If a man lie with mankind as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an obomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."  Lev 20:13

"You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination."  Lev 18:22

There's no way God was going to say this was ok for David, the King that he chose because David was a man after his own heart.  Makes no sense Leauki.  Besides David lived to be an old man and died a natural death.  God did not put him down which he would have had this happened.   You're getting some really bad info. 

Oh I see....even tho Moses came right out and said "a man commits adultery" he doesn't mean it?  He means something else....because....you say so...or somone is telling you this?     And the fact that it doesn't say David was gay but he was because you say so just because he had a loving man relationship? 

You're twisting the scriptures Leauki to make them say what you wish. 

Have you talked to a Rabbi about this?  I would like you to ask a Rabbi if he thinks David was gay based on what you said here and get back to me. 

I just spoke to my husband and asked me if ever heard such a claim about David.  he said to "tell Leauki the OT scriptures either contradict themselves or not.  It's just that simple.   Either God contradicts himself or he doesn't.  He can't call David a man after his own heart after saying homosexuality is an abomination if David was engaging in such behavior."

And yet there are no reports of any executions for homosexuality in ancient Israel...

The Bible contradicts itself in many places. It is upon us to find out what it means. I find it perfectly plausible that at a time certain types of homosexuality (for example those practices by the Greeks) were unacceptable.

A man cannot commit adultery, only participate in it. (That would presumably still make him an adulterer.)

There is no law limiting a man to one woman, so whom does he wrong when he sleeps with another? (Unless he made a specific promise not to do so.)

There is a law prohibiting the theft of another man's wife. If the adultery commandment applied to men, that wouldn't have been mentioned separately, wouldn't it?

I have talked to my rabbi about this. King David being gay is a very old assumption but is not considered relevant because in Judaism homosexuality is as a subject simply not as alive as it is in Christianity. (Jews rarely meet to discuss how we can make the world a better place by outlawying homosexuality or related rituals.)

I'm not sure I get your question.  Theft is diff than adultery.  Both men and women commit adultery probably pretty equally but stealing a wife would be much more common than stealing a husband especially in those days now wouldn't it?  I mean men are strongter than women.  I just don't picture a woman stealing a man (trying to picture her throwing the man over her shoulder and walking away with him )   I don't think it was even an issue.  What got addressed were the issues. 

I mean even today...thinking of all the sexual kidnappings.  Who does them?  Men or women?  It seems to be a man problem not a woman's problem.   Whenever we hear of a woman doing what men usually do, we are shocked. 

you keep saying this as tho you're trying to convince yourself.  Again, this is not biblical.  Moses was quite clear.  I think this goes way back to the women not being very honored by the Jewish men.  When Jesus came he elevated women to where he created them to be...by the side of man.  Men and woman were created equal and scripture doesn't contradict this although tradition does.  I think you're erring on the side of tradition Leauki. 

I did some digging Leauki and found this in one of my commentaries on 1 Samuel 18:1-4 which is what you brought up:

The ambiguous verb "loved" describes the relationship.  Tom Horner (Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times) asserts that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual.  But the verb "aheb" (love) is not used elsewhere to express homosexual desire or activity, for which the OT employes "yada" (know), in the sense of "have sex with" (Gen 19:5, Judg 19:22).  The latter verb is never used of David's relationship with Jonathan.  Rather as conveniently summarized by Thompson (The Significance of the Verb Love" pp.334-38) "love" has political overtones in diplomatic and commercial contexts." 

Indeed, "we may suspect that already in 1 Samuel 16:21 the narrator is preparing us for the later political use of the term.  A clear example of the treaty/covenant use of "love" is 1 Kings 5:1, which says that Hiram King of Tyre "had always 'loved' David".  To summarize:  In vv1,3 the narrator probably uses the ambiguous word love "aheb" because it denoted more than natural affection however deep and genuine this may have been. 

He goes on to give quite a few other scripture references to look at and then goes on to say their intimate friendship was characterized by the phrase "nepes niqs rah b nepes"  (became one in spirit with or spirit bound with spirit).  I don't think you understand this quite because you are not indwelt with this spirit.  It's hard to explain but the relationship a spirit believer has with another spiritual believer is deeper than flesh and blood.  My church family (no matter what country I meet them in) are closer to me than my own immediate family because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. 

There's no doubt they had devotion for one another and a spirit bonding that made them so close but to say they were homosexuals is a perverse way to look at this love between two men.  We see this same love between Jesus and John as John was the beloved Apostle.  Wherever Jesus was John was right nearby. 

there you go.  Your rabbi is correct. 

Whenever someone says the bible contradicts itself I have to ask...where?  If it seems to it's because of our faulty human understanding not the scriptures.  Many of the ancient scholars thought maybe the scriptures weren't right until they dug up some ancient ruins which proved they were right.  I remember reading a story about a prophecy I think was in Ezekiel about King of Tyre and how many thought the accounting or prophecy was wrong until they unearthed a whole plethera of evidence that proved the scriptures were right after all.  Same with the book of Acts.  There was a brilliant archeologist the best in his field who was an atheist but decided to retrace the footsteps of Paul and examine Luke's account.  He did so for historical value and maybe even prove the account wrong.   Years later he was amazed at the accuracy with which Luke detailed this time period.  He became a believer in the process. 

It's quite clear in God's perfect plan of making woman for man that to go outside of that parameter was to reject what God had perfectly planned for mankind.  For a man to take a man instead of a woman is direct rebellion against God's perfect plan.  Man is choosing his own desire instead of what God desires for man.  (sound familiar?)  God knows exactly why he planned it this way and to deviate it only brings heartache and problems both in the short run and in the long run for individuals as well as society as a whole. 

neither is there reports of parents stoning their children for rebellion but yet that's in the law as well.  Homosexuality wasn't an issue for the Jews.  They had more problems with idolatry than anything else. 

It just dawned on me that I need to clear this statement up because it sounds like it came across awkwardly. I didn't mean that I was in the relationships all at once, I mean that i was in several - spread out. I'm completely monogomous.

~AJ

Duly noted.

But when will I be so perfect that I have time to worry about other people's crimes against G-d? That'll be the day when I start worrying about other people's crimes against the lord. That'll be the day...

Wisest words I've heard in a long time. But then your positions, posts, articles are always very intellectual and interesting. Hope you keep posting for a long time Leauki.

Thanks!

I have been posting here since 2004, I think. I'll stay.

(I know Draginol from back in the OS/2 days on Usenet.)

I'm almost always late to these conversations or I post then forgot about them and there's been 20 pages and I don't feel like reading them.

First, someone made a comment about our sexuality never brought down fall to a society.  This statement is somewhat true. Yet if you look at the corruption of morals and people start getting really corrupted most society collaspe.  You can see this in Ancient Greece (there's a book called Ancient Greece: A political, social, and Cultural History and Rise and Fall of Athens its university book) and you can see this moral decay in Ancient Rome (heck they put phallics on their door posts as well as the did the Greeks this can be seen with Roman Civilizations: The empire and The fall of the Rome Empire by Goldsmith).  I am saying that moral decay had a huge impact on the downfall of these two societies.

Second, most of the surrounding nations during biblical Israel times were HIGHLY sexual in every form.  For example, Asherah poles were big phallic symbols.  I wonder what went on there during those worships services (not really they had huge orgies)? With history, we can see that most of the surrounding pagan nations were open to orgies, homosexuality, and beastuality.  Hence why G-D didn't want any Israelite to inter-marry with them.  With in the last 15 years scientist were able to find that the one nation that Israel didn't destory that 3 STDs probably originated there.

So this should lead to the conclusion that King David wasn't gay just by the fact how G-D kept telling the Isralites not to act like the surrounding nations as well as.

Third, I don't have anything against homosexuals.  I do feel that its wrong and just as wrong as if a hetersexual person would go around having sex with a bunch of people. 

Now, actually I have a fair amount of friends that I know are homosexuals.  I enjoy hanging out with them and I am not even remotely gay.  I enjoy hanging out with them because they are very open about life.  AJ, if you lived near me I would probably enjoying hanging out with you.

The issue with sexuality is that it brings a quick intimacy.  When you have multiple sexual encounters whether its homo/hetero or even with porn it dulls your ability to be intimate with a single individual. There's been case studies on divorce that have found that when an individual has had 3 or more sexual encounters that there is a correlation with a high divorce.

As a Believer of Yeshua (Jesus Christ), I wish more Believers would be more open but instead most believers in the States tend to act like they have everything together.