Homosexuality and the Bible

[chicacanella]

True. True. for the record. I am a sinner, saved only by grace and covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. I have been delivered from fornication, adultery, stealing, and a host of other sins and I know that there are homosexuals(perhaps even on this board) who get confused in the midst of these discussions and wonder if they may be condemned forever. NO. Repent and turn from your sin, ask for forgiveness and you too will be free to converse with God on a level where you will be able to see the truth of his Word and even if you never tell a single soul what you and God spoke/speak about, you will begin to recognize the truth in interpretation when you see it.

You know you are right about this! I had some problems with something before so I just stop taking in what anyone said about it. You know, everyone's interpretation of certain sins that aren't explicitly outlined saying, "You should not eat after 10 p.m. on Wednesdays in the month of Janurary." Okay, this is just an example. But I was finding all of these conflicting interpretations, some pastors were saying it was okay, some were saying it wasn't. I was confused.

So, I mean one night I just prayed and asked God. And guess what? He told me boldly and I had to accept it. But also, I must remind you that I had an open heart and was neutral. I didn't have any mindset in my head from man's interpretation that it was right or wrong. I just went and asked God. Then after that, I knew that if I loved God as much as I said I did, I couldn't willfully participate in this sin. I atleast had to try and then God would help me with the rest. It wasn't by my strength, nor power but by God's spirit that I was able to be set free.

 

[firecracker]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...thats how i see it.

no one is perfect we all have our own sins and shortcomings. only God determines who goes to heaven that means a faithful gay man and an adulterous straight married man are both on the same ticket for a spot in heaven...just my two cents lets try not to stone me...

i have no problem with gay people they can have all the marital rights as straights just as long as it is not called marriage cuz by my christian definition its not. like my mother says just let the gays do as they please people are doing far worse than having sex lets look at the big picture here and stop crucifying some good people.

plus i go to school with a lot of lesbians they dont bother me cuz they know im straight and comfortable with my sexuality however the bicurious ones do get caught up in that and its there buisness i just hate them being hypocrites later and fronting when the biggest lesbian in the school is saying they hooked up.

Nobody has a heaven or hell to put anyone in. That won't stop folk from stating the truth about Gods word on all sins including homosexuality, abortion, fornication and the loads of other sins. The issue comes when folks try to justify their actions and live in the sin in a constant state. Folk gon speak on what we do or don't do weather we like it or not. A fellow Christian will call you out with a quickness and your more than welcome to do the same but with the truth not made up wordly laws and rules that don't count in Gods eyes.

Sorry I may not agree with everything the Bible or Bible beaters say but what is real and true is simply that REAL & TRUE. If I'm a believer and follower of Christ I have to make a concentrated effort at change. I don't think anyone in here or anywhere else claims to be perfect or without sin. Here they are saying you have to try to change the behavior not waddle/marinate in the behavior then try to say oh its ok by God. Yes God loves us but he ask they we repent aka change that behavior.
My cursing, vengeful violence, lying to save my behind ain't right nor will you hear me annoucing that it is. I do attempt to curb that behavior. Limiting your exposure to certain actions and environments trying to live by Gods law is the key. The world has its own laws and rules but their justification and ok sho aint gone get that ticket to heaven if thats where your trying to go. You can be in this world and not of it.

I don't think anyone is saying disassociate yourself with people or push your views on others but if your prone to certain attractions be it a man or a woman, stealing, drunkardness, gluttony etc try to limit your exposure for your own sake and salvation.

My ticket ain't revoked just yet! Well unless the world ends before someone says or does the wrong thing in 2n2.

 

[Shimmie]

Nobody has a heaven or hell to put anyone in. That won't stop folk from stating the truth about Gods word on all sins including homosexuality, abortion, fornication and the loads of other sins. The issue comes when folks try to justify their actions and live in the sin in a constant state. Folk gon speak on what we do or don't do weather we like it or not. A fellow Christian will call you out with a quickness and your more than welcome to do the same but with the truth not made up wordly laws and rules that don't count in Gods eyes.

Sorry I may not agree with everything the Bible or Bible beaters say but what is real and true is simply that REAL & TRUE. If I'm a believer and follower of Christ I have to make a concentrated effort at change. I don't think anyone in here or anywhere else claims to be perfect or without sin. Here they are saying you have to try to change the behavior not waddle/marinate in the behavior then try to say oh its ok by God. Yes God loves us but he ask they we repent aka change that behavior.

My cursing, vengeful violence, lying to save my behind ain't right nor will you hear me annoucing that it is. I do attempt to curb that behavior. Limiting your exposure to certain actions and environments trying to live by Gods law is the key. The world has its own laws and rules but their justification and ok sho aint gone get that ticket to heaven if thats where your trying to go. You can be in this world and not of it.

I don't think anyone is saying disassociate yourself with people or push your views on others but if your prone to certain attractions be it a man or a woman, stealing, drunkardness, gluttony etc try to limit your exposure for your own sake and salvation.

My ticket ain't revoked just yet! Well unless the world ends before someone says or does the wrong thing in 2n2.

There are several things in the Bible that I wish were not; but God says what He says and that's the way it is. Who am I or anyone else to try and change it. If we disagree, the only thing to do is move on....... we do have that choice. People can still choose what they want to do. But it's without God's approval.

 

[Shimmie]

You know you are right about this! I had some problems with something before so I just stop taking in what anyone said about it. You know, everyone's interpretation of certain sins that aren't explicitly outlined saying, "You should not eat after 10 p.m. on Wednesdays in the month of Janurary." Okay, this is just an example. But I was finding all of these conflicting interpretations, some pastors were saying it was okay, some were saying it wasn't. I was confused.


So, I mean one night I just prayed and asked God. And guess what? He told me boldly and I had to accept it. But also, I must remind you that I had an open heart and was neutral. I didn't have any mindset in my head from man's interpretation that it was right or wrong. I just went and asked God. Then after that, I knew that if I loved God as much as I said I did, I couldn't willfully participate in this sin. I at least had to try and then God would help me with the rest.

It wasn't by my strength, nor power but by God's spirit that I was able to be set free.

What you wrote is beautiful...

"Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord of Hosts..."

---- Zachariah 4:6

 

[Shimmie]

i have my own Christian values and dont feel the need to push them onto other people i agree with what you say that people are using sex in many ways that God does not. approve of. but i will not disassociate myself with someone because they are a homosexual because for some it is indeed there nature and they cannot just decide the next day, maybe im not gay anymore especially if you could tell from a very young age that lil boy was going to be fruity. with that said i do agree many women and men do find their way back to God after all their ho-ing but there are a lot of wolves in sheep clothing doing the same thing they did before they were saved.

as far as supporting homosexuals I was the first person my cousin came out to because if you think african americans see it as taboo Africans is a whole different situation. he told me first cuz he knew i was the most understanding one and that i wouldnt judge him, he also knew that was not my preference for him as a member of our Christian family to be a gay man but he is who he is and i will not disown him. his sister and mother were told years later and it took them a complete year i think to be ok with his situation and so is the rest of our extended family, we all know he is gay dont approve of homosexuality but we do have that welcome mat for him anytime because he is always welcome... like i said before there are far worse sins then being gay just my opinion and i do take offense when i see people trying to in a way "tell them they are going to hell." because being in the arts i have been surrounded by a lot of gay males and i know their struggle and no one should have to go through wat they do. just my two cents.

My response is without contention and it is not (in total) addressed to you, personally. I address the following in love.

Christian Values:

None of us can have 'our own' Christian values. It's God's or nothing; for as humans we will make our values out of either emotion, 'the moment', to gain / give favor, or to appease. This doesn't make us 'bad' individuals, we're human, and we are 'all' subject to error. Which is why God says that there is a way that looks right to man, but the end thereof is destruction...therefore seek/follow God.

Isolation from Gay Family/Friends:

I have four female cousins and several friends who are gay. They are my family and they are my friends and I love them. But I will not support their lifestyle.

It is the gay agenda and the mindset which we, as Christians, are not to support, adhere to. No one is saying to isolate ourselves from loved ones who are gay. But we cannot embrace their lifestyles and bring it into Christianity as acceptable. God accepts them all as precious, beloved individuals, 'whosoever will, let them come and drink freely of the waters of Life." But He does not embrace the lifestyle.

Too many Christians have become wet noodles; they are/have fallen into the traps of satan and have compromised the Faith, by giving a 'free pass' to the gay agenda, which has come too far with it's mindset and agenda. We have become entirely, too 'gay sensitive'.

It's one thing that they fight for 'civil rights', but to move into the Church and our schools to confuse the minds of our children and try to change the order of God's word, that's gone way too far. And too many Christians are afraid to speak up and step to put a stop to it.

We need to see what's really going with all of our 'love and support'. We can love them and guard them, but not so much as to drop our guard. The truth being is that in gaydum, they're not stopping their agenda neither are they stopping to push it where it does not belong. Therefore, why should I stop standing strong as a Christian? When my parents said no, it meant just that, 'No'. And it was for my better good. They didn't love me any less; if anything all the more and they did not alienate themsleves from me, nor I from them. There are just some things that will never be acceptable. And I learned/practiced this with my own children.

The Arts:

I'm also in the ARTS, quite extensively. I'm a student, teacher, performer and show coordinator. I've been a part of this Life in the Arts since I was 3 years old. I have to admit that I didn't understand 'the difference' as a child, as my grandparents and my parents somehow kept me 'sheltered' from it. I thought the guys were just 'acting' and that their effeminient ways were just a part of the 'program.' It was my ex-husband who finally 'explained' it to me.

However coming up to date, I've observed that Gays are not invisable in the world of Arts; not by a long shot. The entire world knows that. From fashion, to make-up, haircare, and design, and theater sets and productions. Many non-gays are fearful of speaking up for fear of being 'isolated' by those who are gay and gay supporters.

Ummmmmm, not I. They all know who I am and I am respected for it. Because of my strong stand in Christian values, they have no oughts or second thoughts to come to me for prayer and to just plain share their hearts. I have many friends in the 'Dance' community who 'know' the difference in my views and they literally express their appreciation that I'm not wishy-washy; I maintain what I stand for.

Embracing the gay mindset/agenda:

Embracing the human being is one thing, but to embrace their sin is another. You become an accessory / an enabler to the sin.

This is what sets the 'welcome mat' for that spirit of homosexuality to visit. Whatever spirits we 'embrace' we welcome. If a person sees no problem with the gay lifestyle, then of course that spirit sees that they are welcome to visit where they are accepted. Once you 'feed' a stray cat, it keeps coming back. If you feed a spirit, you embrace that spirit. Plain and simple.

 

[Ms.Honey]

See ladies the issue is that the CHURCH doesn't believe that God delivers folks from sin. That's why you have some that always want to say," Well they were born that way and can't help how they feel so it must be a misinterpretation of God's Word".

Where is your faith? When did God stop being all powerful? When did the scripture change that EVERYTHING must submit to the Word of God? When did God stop being able to defeat every ungodly, unscriptural thing in us EXCEPT for homosexuality. The CHURCH has become a hinderance to the homosexual, boldface lying on God and will be punished for it. The Lord is purging His church and for those who are luke warm(politically correct) He will spew you out.

 

[chicacanella]

See ladies the issue is that the CHURCH doesn't believe that God delivers folks from sin. That's why you have some that always want to say," Well they were born that way and can't help how they feel so it must be a misinterpretation of God's Word".

Where is your faith? When did God stop being all powerful? When did the scripture change that EVERYTHING must submit to the Word of God? When did God stop being able to defeat every ungodly, unscriptural thing in us EXCEPT for homosexuality. The CHURCH has become a hinderance to the homosexual, boldface lying on God and will be punished for it. The Lord is purging His church and for those who are luke warm(politically correct) He will spew you out.

My friend use to be gay for a longgg time; she's not anymore because of God. She gave me a lot of insight to me and I've literally seen with my own eyes that God can change anyone.

 

[Shimmie]

I share this without judgment or contention. There is much deliverence for all sin, especially homosexuality:

Pastor Donnie McClurkin's Deliverence.

Donnie's own story was first told in his book Eternal Victim, Eternal Victor where he chose to go on record and tell the truth about some of the dysfunction in his family, the abuse he received and his own honest struggles with homosexuality.

The book was a raw, bare account of some experiences that were taboo subjects amongst Christians and yet Pastor McClurkin chose to go on record. He remembers, "It was quite difficult because in America, I'm not sure about outside of America but we have a very strong gay activist community. They took offence at the book in many ways.

Then we've got a lot of people who in the church, are worried about it because it's such a taboo issue and we sweep these things under the table. So from both ends, I was getting flak."

Pastor Donnie McClurkin's Testimony: (An interview with him in part -- link provided)

Donnie McClurkin was sexually abused as a child. He was raped by a male relative and then raped again by that relative's son. Donnie struggled for 20 years with homosexuality and then God delivered him. But how did that deliverance take place? The answer is simple and he explains, "The deliverance took place by finally realising that I'm not who my desires say that I am.

Let me put this down for the record, you're about one of the first ones that I'm saying this to; the struggle's still not over, you know? Just because God delivers you doesn't mean that the temptations don't come back and people need to realise that.

It is not odd or strange for the very thing God has delivered you from to come back to see if everything's still cool, you know? I still have to fight and it seems like the more I preach about it, the more people try to test it. But you've still got to remain and you got to keep yourself surrounded with people who will keep you accountable.

Those things are part of the ongoing healing and deliverance. And just like everyone has to deal with whatever dark secrets and demons that they have to deal with, I'm just more and more vocal and a little more transparent with it."

He continues to share about the stages of deliverance.

"It came about because first of all I admitted it and took off all of the masks, opened up every closet and said 'This is the truth of what happened.' My mom was totally amazed, my family was totally shocked.

But then I wanted to deal with it because this is what I went through. This is what I struggled with and still have to struggle with. I told them I was going to be needing support, or they could get out of the way; one of the two. Because I'm not stopping, I'm going forward. And they've been there. So every attack, they've been there.

They've understood everything and THAT helped in my deliverance. Having the 'base' behind me to keep me strong. Then, the more you see people delivered, that strengthens you in your deliverance. The more you testify and see the few respond, that enables you to realise what I'm here for!"

For years there have been rumours of homosexuality amongst American gospel artists and the prevailing cover-up culture that does not expose the sin within the industry.

Gospel artist Carlton Pearson recently went on record with his comments on the gay issue which contradicted the generally held evangelical perspective that homosexual activity goes against basic Bible truth.

Donnie believes that gospel musicians have a responsibility to the public. He explains, "The general public see us as 'the ministers'. They see us as the authorities. They know that we should not be singing about anything that we don't believe. We shouldn't be espousing anything that we're not ready to live. So they're believing that what we're saying, we live. Sometimes unfortunately, it is just the opposite."

He continues, "You spoke about Carlton Pearson, it's a shame that these things take place. A man who once preached the truth now turns around and denounces the things that he once preached so fervently, to become popular. And thus hurts and damages people in the interim. But I know my calling and I have to keep strong.

The bottom line is, if I mess up tomorrow and if I'm out in the lifestyle and I'm totally bankrupt of all my morality.I would be the first one to tell them 'Don't follow me. I'm wrong, God is right.' But that's not going to happen!" he laughs.

McClurkin shares honestly about his feelings, "You can't talk about the redeeming and saving power of Jesus Christ when you're still living in the abominable. I know I may get into trouble with some who may think that I am a little too strong saying that homosexuality is abominable but there's a Bible that I have got to concur with. I've got to agree with it.

Not to the slighting of those that are involved but to the pulling down and destroying of the thing that they're involved in. We can't kill the people, the people are too precious to God. Everyone is too important to God and God does not dispose of people!"

The compassion of a pastor is revealed as McClurkin shares his thoughts about those caught up in a gay lifestyle. He refuses to be condemning of those who are homosexual but rather seeks to separate the sinner from the sin. "We make our own choices," he says. "Heaven or hell is our choice but God is ever extending his hand and he's ever-loving.

More...

http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/music/A_Pastors_Heart/9781/p1/

I have one more testimony to share by Dennis Jernigan, another annointed man of God in song and Ministry.

Be blessed everyone, I'm tired of fighting with this issue. It's never going away, but Star has shared something extremely important and I wish to share as she has advised, which is to share the truth, scriptures and encouragement. Arguing won't solve this problem. But sharing and encouraging will.

I will not however, sit down and allow the enemy to take over. Ummmmm, No! That will never happen.

 

[chellero]

Seeking others interpreation will caused alot of confusion so just be careful. I think if you had stated you already asked GOD first for understanding this may have helped but since this is a Christian forum nobody views surpases God's and the Bible is clear on this subject and has been over thousands of years. This topic would do better in another forum since is not the place for debate and what people think but to exhort, uplift and stir each other up unto good works as it pleases God.

I don't see how asking "how did you interpret this" could cause a lot of confusion. I didn't ask for debate, I asked for answer to a simple question. You cold have said, "I have not heard of such an interpretation" and left it at that. This is a place for discussion of topics relating to Christianity, and that was the point of this thread. If someone cannot come to the Christianity forum and ask a question about the Bible without you getting offended and starting a thread basically saying that people shouldn't bother to answer my question then you have a problem. You don't own this forum and I will certainly ask whatever question I have about the Bible here if I want to.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to answer my question without the rudeness and dramatics because I dared to ask.

 

[Shimmie]

I don't see how asking "how did you interpret this" could cause a lot of confusion. I didn't ask for debate, I asked for answer to a simple question. You cold have said, "I have not heard of such an interpretation" and left it at that. This is a place for discussion of topics relating to Christianity, and that was the point of this thread. If someone cannot come to the Christianity forum and ask a question about the Bible without you getting offended and starting a thread basically saying that people shouldn't bother to answer my question then you have a problem. You don't own this forum and I will certainly ask whatever question I have about the Bible here if I want to.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to answer my question without the rudeness and dramatics because I dared to ask.

Chellero, I want to make peace between you and Star. I understand where both of you are coming from so I can agree with both of you.

I've been in the Political Forum almost since it started; I've witnessed and have taken part in so many of the threads there before and after the election, so I truly know why you felt the need to ask this question.

There are way too many opposers of God's word when it comes to homosexuality and there are several posters in the Political Forum who say (lie) they are Christian and that they know of or have heard Bibilical (lies) translations which support homosexuality. Of course none were posted there and there never will be, as there are none. Your question is quite valid.

At the same time, I 'know' Star. She is a strong person of prayer, fasting and intercesion and she is very aware of the spirits which 'follow' threads such as this; she has a spiritual gift that cannot be denied. For years Star has been the prayer overseer of this forum and she battles in prayer daily for each of us. Star is simply 'speaking' to the spirits which are attempting to overrule in this forum. She wasn't addressing you, directly. She was basically warning the devil who was literally watching and waiting to bring his 'followers' and supporters into this thread and distract the readers of the Christianity Forum and get them off focus from prayer and Ministry. Anyway in this forum, if a member sees the word homosexual/ity.... the popcorn pops.

Threads such as these are at the very TOP of Controversy; no matter how innocent the intent of the OP (such as your innocense), this topic almost /always brings in the oppossers and the 'battle' begins.

Many opposers will say they are Christians, but they are not, at least not in true spirit. For no Christian with the true spirit of God will deny the sin of homosexuality and give it a free pass.

I hope that you and Star will come to peace with each other. Both of you are right. As Christians, we need to be 'aware' and able to discuss these issues Biblically. And we also need to not allow them to distract us from the most important things that Christians must be a part of, which is not distracted from prayer, fasting, hearing from God, that which we seek from one another.

Blessings to everyone...

 

[firecracker]

Well good for Star and Chellero for being themselves and believers of Christ. Now back to the discussion.

 

[chellero]

Chellero, I want to make peace between you and Star. I understand where both of you are coming from so I can agree with both of you.

I've been in the Political Forum almost since it started; I've witnessed and have taken part in so many of the threads there before and after the election, so I truly know why you felt the need to ask this question.

There are way too many opposers of God's word when it comes to homosexuality and there are several posters in the Political Forum who say (lie) they are Christian and that they know of or have heard Bibilical (lies) translations which support homosexuality. Of course none were posted there and there never will be, as there are none. Your question is quite valid.

At the same time, I 'know' Star. She is a strong person of prayer, fasting and intercesion and she is very aware of the spirits which 'follow' threads such as this; she has a spiritual gift that cannot be denied. For years Star has been the prayer overseer of this forum and she battles in prayer daily for each of us. Star is simply 'speaking' to the spirits which are attempting to overrule in this forum. She wasn't addressing you, directly. She was basically warning the devil who was literally watching and waiting to bring his 'followers' and supporters into this thread and distract the readers of the Christianity Forum and get them off focus from prayer and Ministry. Anyway in this forum, if a member sees the word homosexual/ity.... the popcorn pops.

Threads such as these are at the very TOP of Controversy; no matter how innocent the intent of the OP (such as your innocense), this topic almost /always brings in the oppossers and the 'battle' begins.

Many opposers will say they are Christians, but they are not, at least not in true spirit. For no Christian with the true spirit of God will deny the sin of homosexuality and give it a free pass.

I hope that you and Star will come to peace with each other. Both of you are right. As Christians, we need to be 'aware' and able to discuss these issues Biblically. And we also need to not allow them to distract us from the most important things that Christians must be a part of, which is not distracted from prayer, fasting, hearing from God, that which we seek from one another.

Blessings to everyone...

I see your point. But star's comments in this thread and in the thread she started about my thread, remind me of those Christians who claim to be oh so holy and loving but instead of helping to bring people to Christ and bearing good witness actually drive people away from God and their church. If you can't answer a simple question without resorting to veiled hostility and a questioning of motives because you don't like the question then there is a problem. Christians and non Christians will have questions, sometimes about controversial subjects and they will need to seek wise counsel. If you can't be that counsel because you find the question too "controversial" then you should in the very least not try to stop other people from being so.

 

[Ms.Honey]

I have to post them tomorrow but some of the examples I saw used were Jonathan and somebody I think, David when Saul accused them of being gay, (it was the one were David skipped the banquet I think) Ruth and Naomi (IDK)

I think part of the misinterpretation is that living in a oversexed supersexualized nation, we as Americans can't see the deep love and affection for one another as anything other than sexual. I believe this is also a reason why some folks think they are gay. Other cultures, men kiss men on the cheeks in greeting, give big bear hugs etc. Here, that NEEDED affection is construed as homosexuality when it's just something that we need from the same sex as a form of bonding lifelong relationships. Fathers even stop kissing and hugging their sons past a certain age here and men really need that affection from their dads and role models no matter how old they are.

My best friend and I jokingly call each other our life partner and actually we are but not in a sexual sense. I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her and she feels the same way. We have other girlfriends but we don't feel the same about them as we do about each other. It's like a Gail/Oprah thing(unless they come out of the closet) We ain't NEVER EVER EVER gonna want to do each other but we can be affectionate (not making out, let's get that straight) but I can see myself living with her( on my own floor) for the rest of my life even moreso than my DH. We're always going to be together(18 years and counting) but DH may go crazy and decide he wants a divorce one day

 

[Mortons]

I have to post them tomorrow but some of the examples I saw used were Jonathan and somebody I think, David when Saul accused them of being gay, (it was the one were David skipped the banquet I think) Ruth and Naomi (IDK)

I'll regret this tomorrow. I'm sure.

1 Samuel 18:1,3

"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."



And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David:



1 Samuel 18:4



"Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt.



*Jonathan was not only disrobing, but was turning the symbols of his manhood over to David. This draws a very clear picture of what is happening here.



1 Samuel 20:30

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"



*Reference to the nakedness of one's parents is one of the methods used in the Bible to refer to a sexual relationship. Jonathan had chosen David as his lover. And in the same conversations Saul says:



1 Samuel 20:31

Why, as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!



This clarifies Saul's problem. One of the most important duties of being a king was producing an heir. Obviously, Jonathan had no intention of producing an heir, and therefore could not provide the final step needed to make good his claim to the kingship. He loved David and *only* David.





2 Samuel 1:26

[After Jonathan's death, David said] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."


​

Ruth & Naomi

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:23-24 KJV).

Ruth 1: 8-9 Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back, each of you, to your mother's home. May the LORD show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead and to me. May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband."(Ruth is specifically turning down the opportunity to find another husband in order to follow Naomi.)

Ruth 1:14
And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.

*For some reason, what Ruth did is distinctly different that Orpahs show of affection for her mother in law. For some reason.



Interestingly enough Naomi is the great grandmother of David. Hereditary, perhaps?


(I tried to remembered the 2 place rule Ms.H)

 

[Ms.Honey]

I'll regret this tomorrow. I'm sure.

1 Samuel 18:1,3​

"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."​

And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David:​

1 Samuel 18:4 ​

"Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt.​

*Jonathan was not only disrobing, but was turning the symbols of his manhood over to David. This draws a very clear picture of what is happening here.​

1 Samuel 20:30​

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"​

*Reference to the nakedness of one's parents is one of the methods used in the Bible to refer to a sexual relationship. Jonathan had chosen David as his lover. And in the same conversations Saul says:​

1 Samuel 20:31​

Why, as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!​

This clarifies Saul's problem. One of the most important duties of being a king was producing an heir. Obviously, Jonathan had no intention of producing an heir, and therefore could not provide the final step needed to make good his claim to the kingship. He loved David and *only* David.​

2 Samuel 1:26​

[After Jonathan's death, David said] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."​

Ruth & Naomi

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:23-24 KJV).

Ruth 1: 8-9 Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back, each of you, to your mother's home. May the LORD show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead and to me. May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband."(Ruth is specifically turning down the opportunity to find another husband in order to follow Naomi.)

Ruth 1:14
And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.

*For some reason, what Ruth did is distinctly different that Orpahs show of affection for her mother in law. For some reason.



Interestingly enough Naomi is the great grandmother of David. Hereditary, perhaps?


(I tried to remembered the 2 place rule Ms.H)

I'll go over it tomorrow but that's not what that means. He disrobed not to have sex with him but by giving his garments, his princely attire(sign of his power as the next inline to be king and authority) to him represents the prophetic act of God the Father giving His power and authority to Jesus on earth. David became king and Jonathan had to give up his rightful place as king of Israel(handing over the mantle). Saul was possessed remember? He also accused David of trying to kill him(something else he said that wasn't true) he was mad because as he said Jonathan chose to be loyal to David over him.

The daughter in laws gave up their culture and I believe religion to become the wives of her sons. When all of their husbands suddenly died Naomi had to and her daughter in laws had to make some decisions on where to go because of the famine in the land. Orpah(who Oprah is named after) chose to go back to her people and Ruth chose to stay with Naomi who was returning to Bethelehem with her mother in law and continue worship Yahweh. Ruth obeyed her mother in laws instructions on how to marry a good man and soon married Boaz. She became one of the ancestors of Jesus.

These are not sexual instances.

Yes you did use two witness hon, very good but the stories don't refer to homosexual sex.

 

[Mortons]

I'll go over it tomorrow but that's not what that means. He disrobed not to have sex with him but by giving his garments, his princely attire(sign of his power as the next inline to be king and authority) to him represents the prophetic act of God the Father giving His power and authority to Jesus on earth. David became king and Jonathan had to give up his rightful place as king of Israel(handing over the mantle). Saul was possessed remember? He also accused David of trying to kill him(something else he said that wasn't true) he was mad because as he said Jonathan chose to be loyal to David over him.

The daughter in laws gave up their culture and I believe religion to become the wives of her sons. When all of their husbands suddenly died Naomi had to and her daughter in laws had to make some decisions on where to go because of the famine in the land. Orpah(who Oprah is named after) chose to go back to her people and Ruth chose to stay with Naomi who was returning to Bethelehem with her mother in law and continue worship Yahweh. Ruth obeyed her mother in laws instructions on how to marry a good man and soon married Boaz. She became one of the ancestors of Jesus.

These are not sexual instances.

Yes you did use two witness hon, very good but the stories don't refer to homosexual sex.

I was not trying to denote sexual instances, although the "nakedness of the parents" may. Every couple in the Bible is not noted to have explicitly had sex in the verses for us to know that they are indeed a couple.

Ruth and Naomi are weaker example as far as text goes cause there isn't much, although it does say something that the word cleave was used here, and cleaving was something stressed that we are to do with God and our spouses.

David saying "Thy love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." To me that says enough. The story looks very much like a love story.
“When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."- Fell in love with one another. That is an extremely strong notation of affection for one another. (1 Samuel 18:1-4)


"And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so." (1 Samuel 20:2) -Saul is indeed aware of the relationship between Johnathan and David. He usually discusses his plans with his sons. Why not now? Because he knew Johnathan was going to tell his boo.

“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.” (1 Samuel 20:30)- David accused by Johnathan's father Saul. Seeing someones nakedness in the old Purity codes in Leviticus 20:11ish talks about uncovering someones nakedness or sex. Why can it not be the same case here that Saul is speaking of? This fits.

2 And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? 33 And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David.

34 So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.- OK let me try to set the scene I see. Dinner table. David and Johnathan are in love. Saul knows this. Saul boils over. Saul threatens to kill David. Johnathan, understandably upset, demands to know why. Saul, in a rage at the situation, throws a spear at his own son. Johnathan now gets it and understands that his father means to kill David. He is also ashamed of his fathers actions in front of his lover.

TBC..........

 

[Mortons]

39 But the lad knew not any thing: only Jonathan and David knew the matter. 40 And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them to the city.

41 ¶ And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.

42 And aJonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city.- Johnathan and David understand that David must go away for his safety. Johnathan sends the kid away, David arises from his hiding place, and the weep and kiss. Upset. They are in love but now must separate for the greater good.

 

[Mortons]

23:15 And David saw that Saul was come out to seek his life: and David [was] in the wilderness of Ziph in a wood.
23:16 And Jonathan Saul's son arose, and went to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God.
23:17 And he said unto him, Fear not: for the hand of Saul my father shall not find thee; and thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father knoweth.
23:18 And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house. - Johnathan and David make the covenant before the Lord. Johnathan understands that he will come second to David, David will be king. Sounds very much like Johnathan submitted to the will of the Lord and submitted to David. Submission much like a wife would do to her husband.

2 Samuel 1
25: How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! O Jonathan, thou was slain in thine high places.
26: I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.- David is married to Johnathan's sister. Michal. I have not seen mention of David loving Michal, ever. Hmm. And now here David is expressing that his love for Johnathan, his wifes brother, surpassed the love of women and David has wives. That to me says true love like nothing else.

Recapping: Johnathan and David meet. Fall in love. Saul finds out and is enraged. Threatens to kill David. Johnathan finds out of this plan and stands up for David. Saul attempts to kill his own son. Johnathan runs away and is immediately thinking of David, after nearly being wiped out by his father for standing up for David. Johnathan tells David to go that night and be safe, and he will come to him later. Johnathan goes that next day to Davids hid out and does the secret code (throwing the arrows for a boy to fetch 3 times). David comes from his hiding place and he and Johnathan kiss and weep on one another, extensively. They both understand that David must go away. David leaves. They meet one another again in the desert. David and Johnathan make the covenant, David will be the King, and Johnathan second to him, submitting to the Lords will and submitting to David. Marriage like. Johnathan dies in battle. David laments over his slain lover in battle, and expresses that Johnathan's love for him surpassed the love of women. He did not have to make that kind of statement.

This is a true love story if I have ever heard of one.

 

[Joyful1]

Wow...

 

[chicacanella]

Wow...

I know right...I'ma leave this one alone.

What's that saying, "some people plant, some water but God gives the growth/increase."

1 Corinthians 3:5-9



5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

 

[chellero]

Thanks heatseeker for answering my question. I don't think that was a homosexual relationship, for several reasons but even if it were where is the evidence that God approved of it? There is plenty in the Bible to suggest that it is wrong.

 

[chellero]

Here is a quick cut and paste that explains (for the most part) the problem that I have with that interpretation. I am saving my self some typing. For starters:

Were Jonathan and David lovers or were they just the best of friends?

A. It’s unfortunate that many people equate sex with love. Any two people can indulge in sex, but they don’t necessarily love each other. Such people are the ones who promote the idea of homosexuality between Jonathan and David.

Now comes a problem. These same people have an ally in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew word for love (âhab, Strong's Concordance #H157) in 1 Samuel 18:1,3; 20:17, refers to having affection for, sexually or otherwise. Naturally those who see David and Jonathan as lovers conveniently overlook the otherwise.

They also overlook the fact that âhab is used elsewhere in the old testament for non-sexual love. In Genesis 22:2 God told Abraham to offer his son Isaac, whom he loved [âhab], as a sacrifice. With Abraham more than a hundred years of age, and Isaac being a young adult, this was not likely sexual love.

Isaac was old and blind when he called for his son, Esau, to shoot a deer and "make me savory meat, such as I love [âhab] ." (Genesis 27:1-4). Certainly nothing sexual in this.

Joseph was his father’s favorite son, and when his brothers saw their father loved [âhab] him more than the rest, they hated him (Genesis 37:3-4).

Possibly the most important consideration of the word love is in the ten commandments. God said,

"You shall make no graven images…you shall not bow down to them…for I am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children…and showing mercy to thousands of them that love [âhab] me." (Exodus 20:4-6; Deuteronomy 5:8-10)

In speaking to the Israelites, God said, ". . . you shall love [âhab] your neighbor as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18). If this sounds familiar it’s because Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 5:43 and other new testament scriptures. The Greek, in these scriptures, is agapaõ (agape), Strong's Concordance #G25 referring to loving in a social sense, or having benevolence toward a person.

In Deuteronomy 6:4-5 the nation of Israel was commanded to love [âhab] the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, and might.

So far the love has been between humans, or between humans and God. Now it’s the other way around: God says he will love [âhab] his people (Deuteronomy 7:13).

Other examples of âhab include Solomon, who loved the Lord (1 Kings 3:3); Uzziah loved animal farming (2 Chronicles 26:9-10); The king loved Esther more than all the women (Esther 2:17); David wondered how long the sons of men will love vanity (Psalm 4:2); Later he said, ". . . let them that love your name be joyful . . ." (Psalm 5:11); many people love violence (Psalm 11:5); but God loves righteousness (vs 7); There are those who love foolishness (Proverbs 1:22), and scorners don’t love anyone who corrects them (Proverbs 15:12); Those who are wise love their own lives (Proverbs 19:8); We’re also told not to love sleep lest we come to poverty (Proverbs 20:13).

There are examples of sexual love in the old testament, but generally other Hebrew words are used. I think, however, these examples are sufficient to indicate a deep friendship between Jonathan and David, and nothing more.

 

[chellero]

Q. While *** gives many great examples of how âhab can be used to describe love that has no base in sexuality, he forgets to discuss why David and Jonathan's relationship could not have been sexual. He also hasn't addressed the scriptures which suggest that there was more going on here than simply best friends (1Samuel 20:30, 41).

Perhaps there's not enough evidence here to prove that they were in love and attracted to each other separately, but I've seen no evidence to the contrary either. Would it not be intellectually honest to simply say that, instead of proclaiming it the way that fits your ideals better and not offering any biblical evidence to back it up?

A. You likely know the Biblical accounts mentioned quite well. It is important, however, to review them as a lead-in to the response to your questions.

God commanded King Saul to get rid of the Amalekites, killing man, woman, child, and even the livestock (1 Samuel 15:1-3). But Saul had other ideas. He killed the people, but spared the Amalekite king, and some of the animals (verse 9).

When Saul met Samuel, he said, "I have done what the lord commanded" (1 Samuel 15:13). Samuel wasn’t buying it, and asked about the animal sounds he heard (verse 14). Saul wasn’t about to take the blame. He said, "They….The people spared the best animals to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we destroyed the rest (verse 15)."

Saul not only rejected the commandment of God, but rejected the Lord as his God. He said the people wanted to sacrifice the animals to "your" God.

Samuel countered, "Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? . . . Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you from being king." (1 Samuel 15:22-23)

As Samuel left, Saul grabbed his robe, and it ripped. Samuel said, "[In the same way my robe has been torn], the Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you, and given it to a neighbour of yours who is better than you." (verses 27-28).

What an insult! Not only would Saul lose his kingship, his successor would be someone who, God said, was a better man than Saul.

It didn’t take place that day. In fact Saul remained king until his death. You likely know the story about David coming to Saul’s palace, killing Goliath, and being honoured by the women more than Saul (1 Samuel 18:7). Saul was a violent and angry man and, several times, tried to kill David out of insane jealousy.

Jonathan should have been the heir to the throne, but Saul’s disobedience changed that. When Saul realized David would be his successor, he hated the idea that Jonathan would have him as his best friend. Using today’s vernacular Saul said, "You son of a *****." "I know you've chosen to be loyal to that son of Jesse. You should be ashamed of yourself! And your own mother should be ashamed that you were ever born (1 Samuel 20:30 Contemporary English Version)" Saul spoke of a matter of loyalty, not of a sexual relationship.

Then there’s the archery scene which told David whether it would be safe to stay in the city. The outcome was David would have to leave, and perhaps never see Jonathan again.

Despite knowing he would, one day, wear the crown, David was honourable to the king as long as he lived. In one instance, while Saul was sleeping in a cave, David crept in and cut off the hem of his robe, when he could just as easily have killed him. Why didn’t he? After all, Saul was out to kill him. Yet shortly after, David bowed to Saul, and called him "My lord the king." (1 Samuel 24:8). He recognized Saul as still being God’s anointed (1 Samuel 24:6).

David was also honourable to Jonathan as the apparent heir to the throne. That’s why he bowed himself three times in reverence as he approached his friend.

Yes, they kissed each other. Maybe they kissed on the lips, but they more likely kissed the cheeks as has been the custom with men through many centuries, and in many cultures. It’s interesting that people who would think of their kiss as a sexual thing, would never consider the same of the kiss Judas gave to Jesus.

Four times the apostle Paul wrote we are to greet the brethren with a holy kiss (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26). Scholars have wrestled with this for years, without coming to a conclusion as to what a holy kiss is. Man to man? Woman to woman? Man to woman, and vice versa? Cheek, forehead, lips? One thing is certain, it would not be a sexual kiss, else it would lead Christians to break the adultery commandment (Exodus 20:14; Matthew 5:27-28).

David and Jonathan were in a field, and the treachery that awaited David made it vital that he leave quickly (1 Samuel 20:31). It certainly wasn’t the time for a lengthy encounter.

It’s easy to take one verse of scripture and say, "Aha!" But for those who claim the kiss in 1 Samuel 20:41 was homosexual in nature, haven’t read far enough. In verse 42 Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace. The Lord [watch] between me and you, and between my offspring and your offspring forever." Children are not the result of homosexual relationships.

You’re right in saying, "Even if their relationship held no sexual relations whatsoever, their connection must have been intimate indeed if parting could cause this much distress." When you’ve lived seventy years you will have experienced the pain of a loved one leaving. But, even then, it really won’t be as distressful as the parting of David and Jonathan. They couldn’t pick up a telephone and contact each other, as we can. We can travel farther in a day to visit our friends, than they could in weeks,. Only through death might our parting be as distressful as David and Jonathan’s. Even so, we have photographs and other keepsakes to keep our loved one’s memory alive.

 

[Ms.Honey]

I was not trying to denote sexual instances, although the "nakedness of the parents" may. Every couple in the Bible is not noted to have explicitly had sex in the verses for us to know that they are indeed a couple.

Ruth and Naomi are weaker example as far as text goes cause there isn't much, although it does say something that the word cleave was used here, and cleaving was something stressed that we are to do with God and our spouses.

David saying "Thy love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women." To me that says enough. The story looks very much like a love story.
“When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul."- Fell in love with one another. That is an extremely strong notation of affection for one another. (1 Samuel 18:1-4)


"And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so." (1 Samuel 20:2) -Saul is indeed aware of the relationship between Johnathan and David. He usually discusses his plans with his sons. Why not now? Because he knew Johnathan was going to tell his boo.

“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.” (1 Samuel 20:30)- David accused by Johnathan's father Saul. Seeing someones nakedness in the old Purity codes in Leviticus 20:11ish talks about uncovering someones nakedness or sex. Why can it not be the same case here that Saul is speaking of? This fits.

2 And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? 33 And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David.

34 So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame.- OK let me try to set the scene I see. Dinner table. David and Johnathan are in love. Saul knows this. Saul boils over. Saul threatens to kill David. Johnathan, understandably upset, demands to know why. Saul, in a rage at the situation, throws a spear at his own son. Johnathan now gets it and understands that his father means to kill David. He is also ashamed of his fathers actions in front of his lover.

TBC..........

Heat, you are going to have to read the story of Saul and David from the beginning in ALL of the bible references about the story. God made Saul king over Israel because they didn't want Him to be their Lord(rule over them) but they wanted a king like everybody else had (listen to that single ladies) Saul was disobedient so God rent the kingdom from his hands. The Lord stepped back from Saul because Saul REFUSED to be obedient which caused Saul to go insane. Saul heard that David was a musician and hired him to play for him to calm him. David did not get along with his big brothers (read the whole David and Goliath story) Jonathan became like a big brother to him, they were best friends. David mourned Jonathan AND Saul (2Sam.1:17-27) and said they were BOTH lovely and pleasant in their LIVES. He said in vs. 26, I am distressed for thee my BROTHER Jonathan... Brother means affinity or resemblance, another brother, kindred, like, other (Hebrew-ach) They were friends not sex partners. Also listen to the accusation that Saul made. He called him the son of perverse rebellion and that he had chose David to his own confusion and to the confusion of his mother nakedness. Saul said that Jonathan chose a stranger(David) over his own family when he knew(in Saul's own mind) that David was trying to kill his own father. He thought Jonathan was going to help David kill him.

God said that HUSBANDS are to leave their parents and cleave to their wives. That means that HUSBANDS are not to leave their wives. It has nothing to do with intimacy. That would be where the Lord said the two become one flesh. Cleave does not mean to be intimate it means to stick with, follow close after(Hebrew-dabaq). That is what she did, she followed close after her mother in law and followed her(cleaved after her) to Bethlehem. Naomi found her a husband so that Ruth's first son, eventhough by a relative and not her son, became her son's child to carry on their family name. She didn't have a sexual relationship with her. They were not lesbians. There is nothing that even remotely suggests it.

 

[Shimmie]

I'll regret this tomorrow. I'm sure.

1 Samuel 18:1,3​

"And it came to pass, when he [David] had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul . . . And Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul."​

And immediately afterward, Jonathan disrobed before David:​

1 Samuel 18:4 ​

"Jonathan divested himself of the mantle he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his military dress, and his sword, his bow and his belt.​

*Jonathan was not only disrobing, but was turning the symbols of his manhood over to David. This draws a very clear picture of what is happening here.​

1 Samuel 20:30​

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"​

*Reference to the nakedness of one's parents is one of the methods used in the Bible to refer to a sexual relationship. Jonathan had chosen David as his lover. And in the same conversations Saul says:​

1 Samuel 20:31​

Why, as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth you cannot make good your claim to the kingship!​

This clarifies Saul's problem. One of the most important duties of being a king was producing an heir. Obviously, Jonathan had no intention of producing an heir, and therefore could not provide the final step needed to make good his claim to the kingship. He loved David and *only* David.​

2 Samuel 1:26​

[After Jonathan's death, David said] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."​

Ruth & Naomi

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:23-24 KJV).

Ruth 1: 8-9 Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back, each of you, to your mother's home. May the LORD show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead and to me. May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband."(Ruth is specifically turning down the opportunity to find another husband in order to follow Naomi.)

Ruth 1:14
And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.

*For some reason, what Ruth did is distinctly different that Orpahs show of affection for her mother in law. For some reason.



Interestingly enough Naomi is the great grandmother of David. Hereditary, perhaps?


(I tried to remembered the 2 place rule Ms.H)

Please don't play games with God's word. This is not a joke, neither is it a 'play' on words.

Let God's word say what He says, not what satan says via those who disrespect the very existance of God. David and Jonathan were as 'brothers'. There was nothing sexual about their relationship. Ruth regarded Naomi as her own mother, she 'clave' , meaning to stand by her and not leave her alone; something that any loving daughter would do.

Let me add this for those who still wish to make a mockery of God's word. Even if these persons were as homosexuals, it still would not be approved of by God. So let's not be foolish. HeatSeeker, you know better than this. You KNOW better. As one who professes to be Christian, as you say you are, you KNOW better. God would never dishonor you, so why are you following those who do not love Him, with such rhetoric?

Now, if you want to dishonor the word of God, that's your choice. But please show respect to the God who has given you life and has never ceased to love you, no matter what measure of sin you are in. He loved you enough to place you not only on His heart, but in it. And for you or anyone else to 'lower' His love is truly sad.

Angel, no one despises you for being gay. You have a heart and God sees what's in it. He knows your deepest hurts and greatest dissappointments which have brought you to where you are. And He is right there with you, extending all of the love that you have been crying for; all of the love which you well deserve, and with a heart that breaks when your heart breaks, God is right there, as your Father with open arms to embrace you and to heal you and protect you. He loves you just that much and more.

So don't do this. Not to Him. God is not your enemy. I know Christians have hurt you, as well as non-Christians. Those whom you've trusted have betrayed you; but in this life, we still have the love of Jesus which 'overrules', 'trumps' it all.

Loving God, as you say you do, doesn't sling mud in His face. It instead, says Lord, I bow my heart to you and ask you to forgive me for taking my hurts out on you.

You are a beautiful , precious child of God. Instead of mocking Him, honor Him, and let Him cover you with His Mantle of Love forever.

God's heart says to you, "He will like you forever, love you for always, as long as you're living, His baby girl, you will always be. With Him, that means, Eternally.

Heat Seeker, don't ever do this again. satan is using you as one of his pawns to get back at God; Little one, you're too good for that.

 

[Ms.Honey]

Shimmie she is not playing games this is an interpretation that she found that she believes supports homosexuality in the bible. We can't say ," Be holy and just do what the bible says" if people are being influenced by incorrect interpretations of God's Word. How is she or anyone else going to know the proper interpretation without explaining to us what she believes and why she believes it. Iron sharpens iron, saints strengthen each other through correction and support having each others best interests at heart. I admit that I made assumptions about what her level of biblical knowledge was instead of asking her, which I eventually did. She doesn't have a broad knowledge of the Word and is a babe in Christ. We know what the scripture means and know to read other versions of the bible and use Strong's Concordance to trace the original meanings of words to put the scripture in proper context. She didn't.

I want to publicaly apologize to you heat for assuming that just because you are a Christian that you already knew how to rightly divide the Word of God according to the instructions that He gave us. I'm sorry hon and I ask for you forgiveness.

 

[Mortons]

Heat, you are going to have to read the story of Saul and David from the beginning in ALL of the bible references about the story. God made Saul king over Israel because they didn't want Him to be their Lord(rule over them) but they wanted a king like everybody else had (listen to that single ladies) Saul was disobedient so God rent the kingdom from his hands. The Lord stepped back from Saul because Saul REFUSED to be obedient which caused Saul to go insane. Saul heard that David was a musician and hired him to play for him to calm him. David did not get along with his big brothers (read the whole David and Goliath story) Jonathan became like a big brother to him, they were best friends. David mourned Jonathan AND Saul (2Sam.1:17-27) and said they were BOTH lovely and pleasant in their LIVES. He said in vs. 26, I am distressed for thee my BROTHER Jonathan... Brother means affinity or resemblance, another brother, kindred, like, other (Hebrew-ach) They were friends not sex partners. Also listen to the accusation that Saul made. He called him the son of perverse rebellion and that he had chose David to his own confusion and to the confusion of his mother nakedness. Saul said that Jonathan chose a stranger(David) over his own family when he knew(in Saul's own mind) that David was trying to kill his own father. He thought Jonathan was going to help David kill him.

God said that HUSBANDS are to leave their parents and cleave to their wives. That means that HUSBANDS are not to leave their wives. It has nothing to do with intimacy. That would be where the Lord said the two become one flesh. Cleave does not mean to be intimate it means to stick with, follow close after(Hebrew-dabaq). That is what she did, she followed close after her mother in law and followed her(cleaved after her) to Bethlehem. Naomi found her a husband so that Ruth's first son, even though by a relative and not her son, became her son's child to carry on their family name. She didn't have a sexual relationship with her. They were not lesbians. There is nothing that even remotely suggests it.

I'm not saying that it stated anything about sexual intimacy. Again, there does not have to be sexual reference for someone to be a couple. Sexual intimacy is not the one and only standard for determining a homosexual from a heterosexual. Thats like saying someone is not really a couple until they have sex. The relationship itself must do that. The leave and cleave reference was used because the only other times that I saw cleave exactly was used in a husband and wife reference and to God. I thought of this verse because it is used all the time in sermons I here dealing with marriage.

The second red: Lesbians do this quite often. Of course they can not bear one another's children (without medical intervention nowadays). Ruth bears a child to Naomi through a relative and it carries on the family name. The child is related to both Naomi and Ruth.

 

[Mortons]

Shimmie she is not playing games this is an interpretation that she found that she believes supports homosexuality in the bible. We can't say ," Be holy and just do what the bible says" if people are being influenced by incorrect interpretations of God's Word. How is she or anyone else going to know the proper interpretation without explaining to us what she believes and why she believes it. Iron sharpens iron, saints strengthen each other through correction and support having each others best interests at heart. I admit that I made assumptions about what her level of biblical knowledge was instead of asking her, which I eventually did. She doesn't have a broad knowledge of the Word and is a babe in Christ. We know what the scripture means and know to read other versions of the bible and use Strong's Concordance to trace the original meanings of words to put the scripture in proper context. She didn't.

I want to publicaly apologize to you heat for assuming that just because you are a Christian that you already knew how to rightly divide the Word of God according to the instructions that He gave us. I'm sorry hon and I ask for you forgiveness.

You are right, I stick to King James version. As does my lady pastor and preacher. I'm going to ask her about Strong's Concordance today after I am done with my work for finals .

I am open to what you all have to say as it deals with the verses

 

[Ms.Honey]

I'm not saying that it stated anything about sexual intimacy. Again, there does not have to be sexual reference for someone to be a couple. Sexual intimacy is not the one and only standard for determining a homosexual from a heterosexual. Thats like saying someone is not really a couple until they have sex. The relationship itself must do that. The leave and cleave reference was used because the only other times that I saw cleave exactly was used in a husband and wife reference and to God. I thought of this verse because it is used all the time in sermons I here dealing with marriage.

The second red: Lesbians do this quite often. Of course they can not bear one another's children (without medical intervention nowadays). Ruth bears a child to Naomi through a relative and it carries on the family name. The child is related to both Naomi and Ruth.

Sexual relations IS a standard to denote couples in the bible though and that's what we're studying. It states in the O.T. whether or not the couples were fertile and able to bear children. Use other bible translations from crosswalk.com and biblegateway.com for free if you don't have any others yet. Read the story from the very beginning though and also read it in Kings. Close friendship and love does not mean they were a couple. Christian men love Jesus more than they do their wives. My DH loves Jesus more than he loves me. Jesus is everything to Him and he wants to be with him forever. That does not mean that DH has homosexual feelings towards Christ. They love God with all of the heart all of their minds and all of their souls. Jesus loves them the same and He proved it by dying on the cross for them. The story of David and Jonathan represents not only the passing of power from the Father to Jesus, it also represents the Love Jesus has for the church. Jesus calls us his brothers and friends, his kin.

I understand what you're saying about cleave but cleave is also used to describe, "to break apart and separate or to get a hold of, grasp onto" in the bible not just in reference of couples. You really need Strong's Concordance to show you all of the other instances the word is used and what the definition meant in the original Hebrew. You would need to have two or more witnesses that says that Naomi and Ruth were a couple and just the word cleave doesn't even give you one. Cleave does not mean they were a couple it means that she chose to stay with her and she followed her to Bethelehem.

 

[Mortons]

Sexual relations IS a standard to denote couples in the bible though and that's what we're studying. It states in the O.T. whether or not the couples were fertile and able to bear children. Use other bible translations from crosswalk.com and biblegateway.com for free if you don't have any others yet. Read the story from the very beginning though and also read it in Kings. Close friendship and love does not mean they were a couple. Christian men love Jesus more than they do their wives. My DH loves Jesus more than he loves me. Jesus is everything to Him and he wants to be with him forever. That does not mean that DH has homosexual feelings towards Christ. They love God with all of the heart all of their minds and all of their souls. Jesus loves them the same and He proved it by dying on the cross for them. The story of David and Jonathan represents not only the passing of power from the Father to Jesus, it also represents the Love Jesus has for the church. Jesus calls us his brothers and friends, his kin.

I understand what you're saying about cleave but cleave is also used to describe, "to break apart and separate or to get a hold of, grasp onto" in the bible not just in reference of couples. You really need Strong's Concordance to show you all of the other instances the word is used and what the definition meant in the original Hebrew. You would need to have two or more witnesses that says that Naomi and Ruth were a couple and just the word cleave doesn't even give you one. Cleave does not mean they were a couple it means that she chose to stay with her and she followed her to Bethelehem.

I don't see this. It always says that someone had sex when we look at relationships in the Bible? If it does does that mean that that every relationship that doesn't explicitly state sex happened is not an intimate relationship?

The part where David says Johnathan's love for him surpasses women is really a sticking point to me. It is a different thing when someone says they love God, as that is a reverential love. However, this is between Johnathan and David. He specifically said that their love surpassed the love of women." Why would he really say all that if in fact, he did not mean what he said quite literally? He loved Johnathan over women.

If someones husband said that his love for another man surpassed the love of his wife we would see that as acceptable?