«Home

Was the Love between King David and Jonathan Homosexual?

David and Jonathan

Passages in 1 Samuel & 2 Samuel describe, among other events, a extremely close bond between David and Jonathan. Jonathan was the son of King Saul, and next in line for the throne. But Samuel anointed David to be the next king. This produced a strong conflict in the mind of Saul.

Interpretation:  Religious conservatives generally view the friendship of David and Jonathan as totally non-sexual. They find it inconceivable that God would allow a famous king of Israel to be a homosexual.

Some religious liberals believe that David and Jonathan had a consensual homosexual relationship - in many ways, a prototype of many of today's gay partnerships. 7 Some important verses which describe their relationship are:  1 Samuel 18:1

", Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

", the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit", etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

1 Samuel 18:2

"From that day, Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house." (NIV)

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

1 Samuel 18:3-4

"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself Unclad in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was physical.

1 Samuel 18:20-21

"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

In the King James Version, the end of Verse 21 reads:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the one of the twain." (KJV)

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. In both the NIV and KJV, it would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up. Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.

1 Samuel 20:41

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

Other translations have a different ending to the verse:  ", and they kissed one another and wept with one another, until David exceeded." (KJV)

", and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David got control of himself." (Amplified Bible)

"and they sadly shook hands, tears running down their cheeks until David could weep no more." (Living Bible)

"They kissed each other and wept together until David got control of himself." (Modern Language)

"They kissed each other and wept aloud together." (New American Bible)

"Then David and Jonathan kissed each other. They cried together, but David cried the most." (New Century Version)

"Then they kissed one another and shed tears together, until David's grief was even greater than Jonathan's." (Revised English Bible)

", and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David recovered himself." (Revised Standard Version)

The translators of the Living Bible apparently could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Some theologians interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an Attention. However, the thoughts of David becoming sexually excited after kissing Jonathan may have been too threatening for Bible translators. They either deleted the ending entirely or created one of their own.

2 Samuel 1:26

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomena. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

Culled from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm

Avatar
Newbie
33 answers

Nah, nothing to be apologetic over. I know god does not hate someone who is homosexual, though I know that many who claim to be of god, do- because mankind is imperfect, and many don't understand what it truly means, to be Christian.

Then there's the fact that, a lot of people; don't understand how things were looked at in the ancient world, or understand the meaning of all words of the ancient world... So the behaviors aren't surprising, though they are sad.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hmm you know, I think that if they were lovers; the bible is then expressing the ideal relationship between two men who are in love. It would also mirror the Greek's ideal relationship of two men, like with Alexander and Hephaestion. Unfortunately though many people who identify themselves as gay, do not follow as these men did- and the men who do follow as they do, are harshly ridiculed by the gay men who don't; as well as twisted people who call themselves Christian. The gay men who don't follow it, mirror more the immorality and wild lust, that is depicted in the story in which the men in the temple go mad with lust for each other, and some of the immorality displayed in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Being in love with a man romantically, emotionally, and physically- does not equate lust. Unfortunately too many people make the mistake of thinking, that if you are homosexual, then you want to have sex with every man or male child that comes your way; and this is absolutely WRONG!

Being intimate with a man, does not equate penetrative sex- or as some would say "kicking in the back door", or messing around with another man's rear end lol. I know a lot of gay men who find that absolutely disgusting and degrading- and don't do it; unfortunately everyone thinks that men who are gay, and intimate with a man engage in messing about in a man's rump lol

0
Avatar
Newbie

No problem, forgive me though its quite long.

Definitely a Christian here, I find it very beautiful and fascinating; also makes sense.

The little experiment we started, was not expected to last as long as it did- or become as big as it did; which surprised us- though we learned a lot. It started in Jan 2000, and ended Dec 2011.

So the experiment was basically to talk to as many gay men as we could, ask them questions- biggest being "when did you learn you were gay?". I can't even count how many men we had talked with over the period of time, and it was an every day thing as well. We learned that there are men who choose the lifestyle, men who are forced and or become used to it, and men who are born with it. Because all of these guys kept showing the same patterns, it was very easy to put them into categories we called A,B, and C.

Group A, were guys who when asked "when did you discover you were gay?" It was always around high school/college age, and started out of a curiosity. One of Three things happens to a man who has such curiosities.

1. He'll act on it, dislike it, find it weird, and never do nor think of it again.

2. He'll act on it, like it, but also likes women still- thus making him "bisexual".

3. He'll act on it, like it a lot- and its not just the physical part of it, but also the fact that it is something "taboo" or "forbidden"- and so he'll identify as gay, and wrap himself up in the very destructive lifestyle.

I felt sorry for these guys, though at the same time; many of them were extremely vile, and hateful, especially towards men of group C.

When talking with group A, there was absolutely no sense of love, loyalty, companionship, respect, or faithfulness. These men were extremely superficial, vapid, greedy, selfish, disrespectful, lustful, perverted, petty, predatory, dishonest/deceitful, and vain. One of the other reoccurring themes was also drugs.

Conversations with them, were often very short; because they only cared about sex- and the looks- and material objects of other men. Some were less extreme about it than others- though ultimately still it was all about lust.

This group of men likes to emulate the male/female dynamic, treat other men like women, or want men to treat them as women. There were also very odd fetishes among group A. Men who were married, though enjoyed being "dominated" by others, though to get the highest form of feeling dominated- would seek that in other men, and would have other men physically, and verbally abuse them, and would worship these men. On the other side there were men who enjoyed dominating other men, abusing them, and being worshiped.

Many of these men of group A, had fantasies of incestuous activities between brothers, or father/son- or actually engaged in such behaviors, and some of them even sought out sex with underage boys. When the other question "what is the appeal of penetration sex" was asked- the responses we'd continually hear were "I like having another man in control of me", or "I like a guy to be like my woman"... Other responses are a bit too graphic to even get into.

When we hear stories of men who used to live a gay lifestyle, but then turned to god; these are the kind of men we're hearing from. Their behaviors were no different from a heterosexual male, who goes about lustful after women, caring only for sex- and even engages in perverse behaviors with them. Its basically an addiction. These are also the same guys we see at gay pride parades, which often look bizarre, freakish, and immoral. God, and being surrounded by good and supportive people can heal it, though they must want to change. These men reminded me very much, of what Sodom and Gomorrah were like, they were very vile to anyone who did not behave as they did, or believe as they do; They just viewed men as sex objects- things to be used and thrown away.

Group B, were men who may have been molested as children- though most typically we were seeing it happened in their early teens. Also men who are used for sex, in prison; or in some cases in the military, based from the stories we heard of one Russian man who served in the military, who was harshly molested- they become used to sex with men.

The men who were molested:

While molestation is a horrible and painful thing for anyone, physically and emotionally- it is most crushing when it happens to men. Young men who are molested will be so very ashamed of it, and will have an extremely difficult time talking about it. Because they often don't get the help they need, and the help many female victims get- these men become confused, and question their sexuality. They question their sexuality, because during the act of molestation- they'd become erect, and would even culminate, all of which is completely out of their control.

And so due to psychological reasons, would re-enact the abuse they faced, with other men, allowing them to use them for sex. Feeling they are not "masculine" enough to be with a woman. Some guys of course get the help they need, and get through this horrible situation, but there are many who do not- and we saw that men who were athletes, especially martial artist- though had a stronger man force himself upon them- suffered the most.

The men who become used to it

In prison settings, men are molested not because the molester is homosexual, it is just him proving his dominance, and control over the targeted man- wanting to hurt his spirit- so he is never a threat. In other cases, men who've been without sex for a long period of time, will become desperate and so use another man for sex. Both the man using a man for sex, and the one being used- becomes accustomed to sex with men. He may very well still engage in sex with females after prison, but will still mess around with men. This is also another cause of STD's within the gay community, as the guy will get infected in prison; then infect his woman, and of course other men when out of prison.

I felt bad for these men, and they were usually very respectful- though you could feel a lot of pain, guilt, and anger in many of them. Still however it was all about sex, and these guys too can be, and have been helped in many cases if given the proper surroundings, and wanting help. Sadly a lot of the guys in both A and B, had sexually transmitted diseases- and were often very bitter to others, or would even have unprotected intercourse with other men, not telling them they were infected- very horrible.

Group C These men were very interesting, and not only changed my views of homosexuality; but also made me study how homosexuality was viewed in the ancient world- they matched up with the ideal and noble way of the male/male relationship as viewed in the old world, and funny thing is many of them didn't even know it, and felt like outcast- as they were harshly ridiculed, and disrespected by group A.

They were ridiculed, because they rejected the promiscuity, the drugs, the superficial behavior, racism (yes there is also racism), the lustful behavior, a lot of them were also Christian which also made them targets, many were also Conservative men, average men or above average with some being military, or fighters. They reject the feminization of men, they reject penetration intercourse with men- they always were far more concerned with the character of a man, and not so much his looks; and you got a strong sense of them wanting love (not lust), companionship, stability, and loyalty. They also did not like the emulation of the male/female dynamic- and were constantly disgusted and put off, by the behaviors of group A

They did not describe their partner (if in a relationship) as "husband", or "boyfriend"- and were more for civil union over marriage; these guys are not interested in changing the definition of what marriage is. Group A however is, because they see it as a slap in the face, to people who respect traditional values- and yet do not behave as marriage material.

I didn't see any rainbow flags waving from these guys, didn't hear the same left-wing radical activism from them, nor anti-god speech. I didn't feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or hated around them- they were highly respectful, never talked about sex- they respected friendship as well, and did not ever try to pervert it, meaning they never tried to seduce, or convert men who were not gay- the way men in group A do. They also rejected men who only cared about sex. I got many stories from these guys, in which a straight friend of theirs, would become curious- and try to have intercourse with them, they'd reject them; and usually end the friendship, or just be quite uncomfortable about being around that guy; which often caused the friendship to end. They were always angered when people, especially friends wanted to use them for sexual experimentation.

The other ridicules put upon them were that "they were self-haters", or "closet cases". Many of them also received a lot of threats, or wishes to see them molested, they were also seen as silly for believing in god. They were also hated, because they exhibited confidence, and respected their masculinity (didn't behave like, nor treated other men as women). These guys did not go to gay clubs, or bars, and did not go to gay pride parades- they often described them as "freak shows". Another interesting thing, is these men did not watch, or enjoy Indecency; as the Indecency mirrored the very lifestyle they detest.

These men acknowledged they were emotionally, and physically (intimately) attracted to men; but interestingly it was not every man no matter how attractive he was. As again character was most important to them. I also noticed something surprising, which was never talked about among the other two groups. These men would mention the scent of the guy they were in love with, very detailed romantic things. The other groups never mention nor cared about such things, nor were they effected by the scent of other men, that's a biological thing only people of the opposite sex notice.

On the downside, with some of these men; I got the sense of loneliness, many of them lived alone- and were almost like monks almost. These guys were handsome, and could get any guy they wanted in the clubs and such, yet did not care for that lifestyle- was a huge and degrading turn-off to them.

When I asked the question "When did you discover you were gay?" It was always at childhood, the age that frequently came up was 7. They'd be caught kissing another boy on the cheek, or holding another boy's hand- and would be told it was wrong, and that they'd "go to hell". This of course would scare them, and make them draw into themselves. The stories I heard from them, made me very sad. Many of them talked about the fear of losing their friends, and family- even jobs in some cases. The anger they'd feel when they'd hear "people choose to be gay". The threats of violence. I remember guys telling me, particularly one guy who told me he'd pray every night to be normal, he hated being gay-he also wanted to kill himself- especially each day when he found himself the same.

Some of these men would try to force themselves even to be normal- and so would have girlfriends, get married, and later kids. That never had a good ending. I remember one guy who told me he feared his son would be like him, although whatever causes one to be born gay, scientist do not yet know, but have learned the mother is responsible when carrying the child. The guy's son knows his father is gay, accepts him, and is not homosexual himself.

It definitely looks more like something you can be born with, as a young boy- I grew up having crushes on my female teachers, or the cute girl next door. When you hit the puberty stage, and start having those "special dreams", for me it was a girl. For these guys, its all the same, except its with other males- so there was never any kind of curiosity in their minds, it just felt normal to them, until they were told it is not.

As I mentioned how many of them felt like outcast, for not feeling like, or behaving like the other two groups. When we'd talk about the ideal relationship between two men, as viewed in the ancient world; I always noticed how they'd light up, and become excited upon finally understanding why they feel, and are different from the other group.

When I mentioned "what is the appeal to penetration sex with men?" They'd become quite grossed out, found it degrading, disgusting, unnatural, and unequal, especially since they did not accept treating male/male relationships like a male/female relationship. This does not mean they viewed women as less- they just didn't like the idea of being treated like a woman, by another man since they are not women; and don't wish to treat other men as women.

Finally, upon keeping in contact with a lot of these guys- as our experiment came to an end. There were 4 men of group A, who told me that they were no longer with men- and that they were living cleaner, better lives. The guys of group C I've kept in contact with, have become very great friends. Again who knows why or how someone can be born gay- I do know we'll learn the reason why some day. However this is something that cannot be prayed away- the same as someone who is born with a number of disabilities I could name. No matter how much they wish to be normal- its not going to happen, until god's day comes- and they are not going to be punished, as god is the only one who knows the true hearts of men. I think people who call themselves Christian, and condemn these people- are wrong, and not exhibiting a Christ-like attitude.

Its funny, all of this started because I was very angry and sadden- over how my friend who came out to me, was treated by his family; and then I was quite shocked, and interested when he told me how he viewed other men. We're thinking of doing a book based on our research, and or documentary. I was 19 when we started the experiment, and turned 30 when it ended.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I wish you could say more, i like your view and hope you are a Christian? tell us more you know about gay men

0
Avatar
Newbie

Oh I agree, I'm not even fully sure if they were or not; though knowing what I've studied of male/male relationships in the ancient world- then studying Hebrew, and Greek; it wouldn't be very surprising if they were- though like I said, If they were romantically in love; it wasn't done even close to how we view male/male relationships today- or how most gays practice it.

On Adam and Eve eating the fruit, there was nothing special about the tree or fruit; it was the command god gave to them. Satan challenged god, and rose the question "Why should man serve you?". Even some angels questioned this, and sided with Satan. God being fair, took up the challenge; to give Satan his answer. Mankind (Adam and Eve) disobeyed god's command and so followed Satan. The answer to Satan's question has been mankind's history, present, and future, or horrible, hard, and rough times- and imperfection.

Jesus later came about, to buy back humanity; as humanity was cursed by perfection (Adam and Eve), it could only be bought back by perfection (Jesus). Jesus also gave mankind hope, and a prelude of his father god's kingdom. Jesus saved humanity from becoming worse basically.

Who truly knows if David and Johnathan were in love, and nobody knows exactly why or how two men can fall in love. Love and lust are not the same things- and treating a man like a woman, was seen as unnatural even among cultures who didn't yet know Christianity. I have to say, I did an 11 and half year experiment on homosexuality, due to the way my friend felt when he came out to me, and how he was treated by his family; I learned some very interesting things.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I'm a Christian and a good one at that, i believe that many of us are and I'm not gay, i don't intent to be neither do i have gay friends. The best way to learn somethings about history especially biblical is to have an open mind, at least you will learn one or two things. It may be true that those two men where gay, but Christians of old may have diplomatically and intelligently omitted it so as to secure the future and sanctity and chastity of Christians. I believe to hear from God direct before judging issues like this, some things in the bible which we all use are questionable, like if God knew that Eve will take the fruit why didn't he prevent it, Lucifer in heaven etc So do not judge. If God do not condemn you then you are not condemned no matter what man says. But to me Gay - lez are evil and against nature. this is my OP

0
Avatar
Newbie

There is too little evidence of to suggest they were not, Homosexualism is as old as Noah. Even older than the Bible. in the old days it must have been considered normal to be gay in some societies

0
Avatar
Newbie

I think both sides get it wrong, because most people do not understand how a male/male relationship worked; or the meaning of words used in ancient times.

It is very most likely David and Johnathan were lovers, as such a thing was quite common in the ancient world. The words used to describe the feelings, and actions between them; when directly translated- sound quite romantic, intimate even. However, male/male relationships; and I should stress ideal male/male relationships, did not mirror the modern view of what we think of homosexual men today.

The bible says "man should not lie with man, as he would a woman". Let's look at this with an ancient world perspective. The word "to lie with" is old world talk for sex. How is a man intimate with a woman? He penetrates her with his manhood. In ancient Greece, the ideal man; was "one without holes". This meant he was not to be penetrated. Before the Greeks knew Christianity, they viewed penetration sex between men; as something dirty, degrading, unmanly, and it was also illegal. Though it still happened, and while it wasn't completely punishable, it was not seen as favorable or ideal- especially if you were the passive in the act. Interestingly I learned, that it wasn't just the Greeks who had this view, but all other ancient cultures.

It was also seen as a humiliating act, and often used just for that; upon a defeated enemy. The last man alive on the battlefield, would be taken and penetrated by the men on the winning side. The humility behind this, was stripping the man of his masculinity, his manhood, even his warrior-hood; taking away his will to fight- hurting his spirit, as he has now not only submitted upon losing in battle, but now submitting to the manhood of other men- Molesting a man, a warrior at that, is one of the most absolutely humiliating things you can do to him. In many cases, the man being Molested- would also be castrated, as he was no longer seen as a man or warrior.

So with all of this, how did these men engage in loving, affectionate, intimate, relationships?

First, the relationship between the two men- was based on the highest respect they had for each other, the strong bond that would have developed between them; the high admiration for each other, and the loyalty/fidelity between them- so in other words, there was no messing around with other men; you remained faithful to each other.

When things became intimate, both men highly respected the masculinity of the other; and therefore, would not expect the other to take on the role of the female, and be penetrated. So they engaged in what we today call "frottage"- which is basically rubbing of the manhood, while embracing each other. Interestingly in many Greek Frescoes, and pottery; that depict the ideal relationship between two men, it is always men facing each other, and embraced with their manhood together. They look quite modest, loving, even noble... The same however cannot be said of the Indecency shown, in which it is men penetrating other males, particularly young boys- Indecency always depicts lust, and perversion- the other example did not.

In the case with Sodom and Gomorrah. God did not destroy these cities because of homosexuality. The cities were destroyed because they were inhospitable. The things done in these cities, would make the most perverse of today blush with embarrassment- the violence and crime would also shock our souls. Men, women, and children were being Molested, killed, and beaten. It was complete anarchy, and nearly impossible for a good man to survive.

Imagine sitting having dinner with your family, and men come to your door; wanting to have your daughter, wife, son, or you. There was nothing you could do about it, no law to protect you, and if you didn't do it, death was sure to come. If someone wanted your house, and killed you for it, or any other materialistic thing they wanted from you, there were no laws to protect you, that was Sodom and Gomorrah, both very wicked inhospitable cities; and besides that, there was also idol worship. If someone in ancient times called you a "Sodomite", it didn't mean you liked to penetrate men, it meant you were just a vile vile person- if your behavior displayed an outrageous amount of ugliness towards others, and you were completely immoral.

When the bible talks of the men who "became filled with lust" and began having wild sex with each other- it in no way mirrored the relationships that were based in love and respect. It was just violent lust, men treating men like women. It mirrors the Indecency of both the past and present, and the behavior of promiscuous lust filled men- past and present, hetero or homosexual.

In conclusion. Even if you had a loving, intimate relationship with a man; you were still expected to marry a woman, and produce children- for the state; especially if you were a king to continue your line, or to care for you in old age. Your relationship with the man, was not to be confused with, nor treated like the relationship with your woman. So yes, David and Johnathan were probably lovers, though reading any kind of sexual behavior between them, would have not been important nor appropriate to put in the bible.

There are homosexual men today, who mirror the "ideal" way of the ancient world- and do not engage in penetrative sex- or emulating male/female relaitonship. They also detest and keep away from the lustful gay lifestyle, and are harshly ridiculed by homosexuals who behave in more destructive ways.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Interesting question - I guess we'll never really know, seeing as they are both dead.

Sounds like there was some serious man love going on though. Wouldn't be so strange, there have always been gay men, so why not David & Jonathan with all that kissing and exceeding?

Why do people get so worked up about stuff like this? This NL forum is a trip

I have one thing to say: YOU BETTER WORK!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Did someone notice that whenever people on Nairaland play the ahabaw, awhab and nefesh cards, they usually select the meanings that satisfy their arguments and abandon the rest?

0
Avatar
Newbie

In my opinion homosexuality is not "wrong, immoral, evil", or whatever you want to call it. What it is is abnormal,  a misuse of body parts.

All these "holy" books being quoted were written by humans. God does not intervene in human history in my opinion. The idea that a loving God of all humanity ignores all the starving children in the world and then answers you when you pray for a new job makes little to no sense to me. If you got the job it is probably because you were qualified, connected, or just lucky.

We know there is something out there we don't understand. We need to search for the truth with an open mind and humility,  instead of quoting books that we know little to nothing of their origin as the final authority on everything.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@agbalanze

what are you? Jesus christ?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@fellis

i didnt see no quote,neither did i see you address your post to anyone.

So i naturally assumed it was an open question.shikena

0
Avatar
Newbie

Father, forgive them cos they dont know what they are doing,

0
Avatar
Newbie

What do you mean by 'us'? Did I adress the post to you?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Fellis,fellis,fellisssss

give us a damn break,will you?

We can't know for sure if dave and jo were gays. . . . .we weren't there for gods sake!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Why do you insist on being offensive?

Why did you choose to say that the thought is 'biting me'?

When new laws are created, it is not necessarily because there is a prevalence of whatever is being prohibited, a law can be brought about in order to PREVENT and not in order to stop a great prevalence of wrongdoing. And you know this.

Again, I peacefully ask you to stop diverting the thread.

Was the love between Jonathan and David homosexual?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I just put it out there as something interesting.  It is just one man's idea and I don't think it can be proved either way.  What I don't get is why the thought is biting you so much.  Is there something you have yet to come to terms with? 

As for the Islamic prohibition of homosexuality, have you realised that when something is articulated as law in a country it is usually a reaction to a practice.  The more stringent the law the more prevalent the practice.

The more prevalent a practice the stronger the measures taken against them are.  You don't get a decree 419 in a country where the citizens are honest.  The sheer existence of such a draconian decree is enough to tell you that nigerians must be very dubious people.

. . . What is that you were saying about Islam's prohibition of Homosexuality?

0
Avatar
Newbie

And you're implying what? If Burton became sure of the existence of a sotadic zone in a paticular area, does that mean that area was actually one?

Sotadic zone or whatever, Islam prohibits homosexuality. I am not sure what you intended to acheive with that post. Please focus on the thread.

Was the love between David and Jonathan homosexual?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Who has heard of the Sotadic Zone. Burton became sure of the existence of one after spending many years amongst the Arabs in the middle east.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sotadic_zone

0
Avatar
Newbie

dont be decieved

Arabs men today kiss themselves--- yet they not homo

0
Avatar
Newbie

Whats with some of the replies calling the poster devil?

David and jonathan might have been homosexual,who knows. . . . .it's not like they were tearing each other's Bottom in front of the tribes of isreal,they probably fagged in secret.

And to think david was the ancestor of jesus raises intriguing questions. . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

They could still have been bisexual, some folks don't care what hole they insert their peepee into you know? there could have been some serious back door action . By the way, I know David got married but is there record of Jonathan getting married? guy seemed like a wimp and could well have been the one providing the back door.

Don't hold me to this though, it is pure speculation.(Disclaimer)

0
Avatar
Newbie

some people are criminally minded.

0
Avatar
Newbie

THEIR RELATIONSHIP CAN NEVER BE CATEGORIZED AS HOMO., THE BOTH GOT MARRIED TO WOMEN. DAVID HAD MANY CHILDREN. JONATHAN HAD A CRIPPLED SON NAME MEPHIBOSHET

DO YOU REALLY CARE TO KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE ACTUALLY SAY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY THEN CHECK THE LINK BELOW

http://homosexualdebate.wordpress.com/

0
Avatar
Newbie

If you Christian preachers claim that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their homosexual acts, then why are there still homosexuals still alive today, or did God fail to kill them? Why did he let these people become homosexuals in the first place, if he hated it so much? Then if you go to 1Samuel 20:17, Jonathan "causes David to swear again, because he loved (ahabaw) him: For he loved (awhab) him as he loved (ahabaw) his own soul (nefesh)."

       Two Aramic (Hebrew) words are used in the above quote for love. One is ahabaw meaning "of man toward man, of man toward himself, between man and woman, sexual desire," and the other is awhab meaning "to love, human love for another; includes family, and sexual, lover.

      David and Jonathan were lovers. In simple words they were homosexuals. David kisses Saul in 1Samuel 20:41, and it says ". . . and they kissed (nawshaq) one another , and wept one with another, until David exceeded." The Aramic word for kiss in the above quote is nawshaq meaning "to put together, kiss, touch gently, handle." Hence according to the quotes above David and Jonathan, the son of Saul, were homosexuals who loved each other, like a husband loves his wife.

       This story is found right in your bible after the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomomorah, which you (Christians) teach was destroyed because of homosexuality. Can you explain this to us Reverend, because our souls are searching for the truth? Christians claim that the bible states in Leviticus 18:22 "thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination," so according to them, these homosexuals are going against the laws of the bible.

       The Muslim, because of this mis-information, made the name "Lot" or "Lut" mean "homosexual." It shows that their Koran is not dealing in spiritual, but man made.

"No preacher belongs in your bedroom, he belongs behind the pulpit saving your soul."

0
Avatar
Newbie

The children of the devil are really getting braver,wiser and more innovative as the end of the world nears.

I am not surprised at this.Its a reflection of the dangerous times we are in.

May God have mercy on him. God have mercy on me too.

0
Avatar
Newbie

this thread wont sell. No be curse. Your argumnts are very much nonsensical. So you have not seen friends like that in today's world, so close but no gays?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Isaiah 5:18

Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope:

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ toshmann

yep at you coz ignorance is only for the dogs.

0
Avatar
Newbie

silence is the best answer for a . . . . . . .

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.