My Take: The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality

[seabeyond]

Despite common misperceptions, biblical writers could also imagine same-sex intimacy as a source of blessing. For example, the seemingly intimate relationship between the Old Testament's David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan loved David more than he loved women, may have been intended to justify David’s rise as king

*

Thus, Jonathan “took great delight in David,” foiling King Saul’s attempts to arrange for David’s death (1 Samuel 19:1). Choosing David over his father, Jonathan makes a formal covenant with his friend, asking David to remain faithful to him and his descendants.

Sealing the covenant, David swears his devotion to Jonathan, “for he loved him as he loved his own life” (1 Samuel 20:17). When Jonathan is killed, King David composes a eulogy for him, praising his devotion: “greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26).

*

It is therefore disturbing to hear some Christian leaders today claim that they have no choice but to regard homosexuality as a sin. They do have a choice and should be held accountable for the ones they are making.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/09/my-take-the-bible%E2%80%99s-surprisingly-mixed-messages-on-sexuality/?hpt=C2

[justiceischeap]

1. But, you know, that's only "brotherly" love. They were just best buds!

:sarcasm:

Besides, don't be trying to convince those Theofascists with proof, it won't work. Any passages you may point out that may seem like there might be a loving homosexual relationship is ALWAYS debated away as it just being a really close friendship but there is never, ever sex involved because for us homos, that's all it boils down to, what we do sexually. more :sarcasm:

[seabeyond]

2. not my words or argument. i chose to love my gay brothers and sisters, works for me

ending any bullshit conversation. BUT, i like seeing this being said, by a pastor to the nation. more and more need to speak out. though i know many pastors and church embrace gay. doesnt hurt us as a society to hear it out loud.

[DCKit]

3. I would have to agree. In many societies, bisexuality was not only tolerated, but expected...

up to a certain age, when it was time to marry. They were realists and didn't expect men and boys to keep it in their pants until after marriage, but the choices were limited to prostitutes, easy women (who were not tolerated) or other men.

The Kinsey scale is a good indicator of this - 100% straight guys would "suffer" with prostitutes until marriage, and the rest just did what came naturally, then married, or didn't. Either way, we're a much more Puritan society today than the Puritans were. They just didn't talk about it.

The stigma didn't exist at the level it does today. Now everything is black and white. Fortunately, I don't think that's the case with the <30 crowd. Sexual fluidity is back with a vengeance.