One of the Greatest Love Stories in the Bible

[dynasaw]

was that of David and Jonathan.

"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." (1 Sam. 18:1) That same day, "Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul" (1 Sam. 18:3); then he " stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armour, and even his sword and his bow and his belt." (1 Sam. 18:4) . . ."Then Jonathan said to David, 'Whatever you say, I will do for you.' <...> ...Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, 'May the Lord seek out the enemies of David.' Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life." (1 Sam. 20:4, 1 Sam. 20:16-17)."

When Jonathan dies David says:""I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women." (2 Sam).

Interesting that in quoting the Bible against Gays the fundies never mention this love story.

[MonteLukast]

1. I guess they made it acceptable...

... by presenting it as a tale of brotherly love or deep friendship.

Lovely story that's beautifully written, BTW.

I wonder if we can find any examples of right-wing churchgoers reading gay romantic love into this and going berserkers...

[Schema Thing]

2. David was a slut

[saltpoint]

11. Yes. But he was OUR slut.

I like him because he is too complex for the fundies to manage.

They struggle to compartmentalize him but fail every time. As others have posted here, David is powerful because he was powerfully human.

Fundies have no insight into real humans.

[cliffordu]

33. "Fundies have no insight into real humans."

Truer words were never spoken.


Fookin' PERFECT!

[saltpoint]

34. Hi, cliffordu. There are some standard-issue Christian folks out there

who are not the problem, but they are so quiet that we never hear from them.

Bill Moyers, for instance, is a Baptist minister, and a very strong liberal. I would pay silver and gold to hear a debate between Bill Moyers and Jim Dobson.

The Dobson mouth-breathers are the problem. I think one of the reasons a lot of fundies voted against Obama is that deep in their bones they know he knows their religion better than they do.

[yardwork]

37. Jimmy Carter is a Baptist elder, too. There are true Christians, and then there are those

who pretend to be true Christians in order to make the big bucks. Dobson is the latter.

[saltpoint]

38. Jimmy Carter -- yes. Strong case in point.

[cliffordu]

39. I know Christians. Dobson's ilk are the problem, and they would bring religious war

if they could.

Rod Parsley should be boiled in Rush Limbaugh's rendered fat.

[saltpoint]

40. Your claim about Dobson, IMO, is frighteningly plausible.

I believe he is twisted enough to try to influence "the endtimes."

[patrice]

3. Stand back, here comes the lightning!

What if Heterosexuality were the "anti-Christ"?

On edit: errant comma!

[Shardik]

4. K&R

From an atheist that thinks of the bible as literature.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. David is the greatest character in the Bible

The most human, the most believable, the most interesting and intriguing.

His and Jonathan's love for each other is often cited as a story of gay love. Not by fundies, of course.

[camera obscura]

6. There's also the bit where Jesus heals the Roman centurion's male servant and implied lover

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html

I picked up on Jonathan & David even back when I was in Sunday School, but didn't know about this story until much later.

[patrice]

7. great! screen name . . .

:hi:

[intheflow]

17. Cool, I hadn't heard that one before!

It's amazing to me the wonderful exegesis that LGBT clergy and theologians are doing these days. :loveya:

[Regret My New Name]

8. ohh ohh ohh ohh...

Go ask them for their opinions on that rapture ready forum... That should be amusing to watch. :P

Those bastards won't let me post there. :|

[patrice]

10. Suggestion: Watch the History Channel's show on the Anti-Christ and think

American Heterosexuality every time they talk about the effects and actions of the Anti-Christ.

It would be fun to do a list of the parallels.

[Lex]

9. Naomi and Ruth

"The same Hebrew word that is used in Genesis 2:24 to describe how Adam felt about Eve (and how spouses are supposed to feel toward each other) is used in Ruth 1:14 to describe how Ruth felt about Naomi. Her feelings are celebrated, not condemned.

And throughout Christian history, Ruth's vow to Naomi has been used to illustrate the nature of the marriage covenant. These words are often read at Christian wedding ceremonies and used in sermons to illustrate the ideal love that spouses should have for one another. The fact that these words were originally spoken by one woman to another tells us a lot about how God feels about same-gender relationships.

But what about people who aren’t heterosexual? Is it possible for them, with God’s blessing, to form that type of intimate relationship with someone of their own gender?

The Holy Spirit answers that question definitively in Ruth 1:14. There the Scriptures say -- without apology, embarrassment, or qualification -- that Ruth felt the same way toward Naomi as spouses are supposed to feel toward each other. Far from being condemned, Ruth’s feelings are celebrated.

In fact, so as to remove any doubt about how Ruth felt toward Naomi, the Scriptures go on to record the details of the vow that Ruth made to Naomi. Here are her words:

“Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)

When Ruth spoke those haunting words, “Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried,” she wasn’t talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn’t do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love."

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html

[yardwork]

12. The Biblical passage about Naomi and Ruth are featured in Fried Green Tomatoes,

the novel that involves love between two women that is initially denied and finally fulfilled.

[Lex]

13. Yes

and I loved that book, read it several times. The movie toned down their love story significantly, but left in many visual clues if one had read the book first.

:hi:

[patrice]

15. A precursor of the single commandment of the NT: Love.

And you MUST be FREE in order to truly Love. That goes for both Heterosexuals and Homosexuals.

Om namah Shivaya!!

[intheflow]

18. Another fabulous interpretation!

I'm so bookmarking this thread! It should be required reading for all liberal clergy. (It should actually be required reading for all clergy, but I've given up hope of ever reaching the cold, dead souls of fundie preachers.) Thanks for posting another wonderful bit of exegesis. :hi:

[SeattleGirl]

35. I love the story of Naomi and Ruth

One of the most moving stories in the bible, imho.

[leftyladyfrommo]

47. That's my favorite, too. n/t

[intheflow]

14. I love that quote!

I remember one of my classmates did a sermon on that when I was a seminary. The other thing the fundies never mention is that Jesus never said Word 1 about homosexuality--but did talk extensively about not passing judgement on how other people live their lives.

[Joe Chi Minh]

16. I didn't read any mention of sexual relations of any kind. The only assignation

between David and Jonathon was to warn David of Saul's murderous mood and intentions. There's no mention of their longing for each other or planning lovers' trysts.

Jonathon's love of David did seem kind of immature, but the reason why David said Jonathon's love for him was wonderful, passing the love of women, was that it was akin to the love of soldiers in the field, who are more concerned to save their buddies than themselves. Nothing to do with sex. "Greater love hath no man..." It seems to have been completely asexual.

[yardwork]

19. It's sad that some people can't recognize love unless sexual acts are specifically described.

For some people, it's not "real love" unless intercourse is described in detail. The rest of us, however, recognize that sexual acts are only one part - and for many people, a fairly insignificant part - of what constitutes love.

The difference between friendship and love is not determined by what people do with their genitals.

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. Well, many young soldiers dyng on the battle-field have been heard

to cry out for their mother. Suggesting, I would think, the most fundamantal bond in absolute terms, i.e. leaving aside the appropriate development, in a certain sense away from it, towards a marriage partner. But that surely doesn't imply a deep-seated incestual desires, does it? I don't think so.

[patrice]

25. Could you try again on this point. I'm confused by your phrasing.

:hi:

[yardwork]

27. You seem to be deeply preoccupied with sex. There is therapy available...

[intheflow]

21. That's the way it's traditionally been interpreted.

But one of the amazing things about the Bible is that new interpretations arise over time that become accepted and legitimized. Take, for example, this feminist interpretation of redemptive suffering. It's not the normative interpretation of redemptive suffering, but it's becoming more and more mainstream among liberal Christians.

[Joe Chi Minh]

22. When the Catholic Church repudiates Christ's death as redemptive,

I think that would be significant.

But I don't believe it would happen because it is the core belief of Christianity, and it would be the end of Christianity; in other words, inconceivable and impossible. The ladies' academic accreditations as theologians may look impressive, but in my experience, the more distinguished the accreditations, the further theologians and scripture scholars depart from the sound understanding of Christianity of even a young child.

I left an Italian missionary seminary for that very reason. After a month or so, I was appalled to find in my studies at the Mill Hill missionary college, London, that the most famous (though not necessarily "leading", fortunately) theologian and the leading scripture scholar were as close to barking mad as it's possible to be. Naturally, though I loved the life, I felt I was in an impossible position. Like a ball-boy telling Federer how to play tennis, in a way. But they still offered to send me to Heythrop Jesuit College.

[patrice]

26. Aren't children immature?

[Joe Chi Minh]

29. Yes - but not for their age. They're innocent too and are prone to

to unbounded admiration, rather I suspect like Jonathon.

[intheflow]

41. Well, I have an example of modern Catholic theological thought

which has been officially rejected by the RCC but is still active in RC theological conversations (and indeed, has spread to be embraced by liberal Protestant denominations): Liberation theology. While not welcomed by the Church (which has been trying to suppress it since before Vatican II), many, many Catholic clergy and lay people have been moved to work for social justice because of the new life, vision and depth Liberation theology has breathed into Catholic social teachings. As I understand it, Liberation theology places more emphasis on living by Jesus' exemplary life--having Christ live through one's actions in the world--than by the orthodoxy inherent in the more passive expression of faith focusing on redemption of oneself. Would you agree that this theological interpretation of doctrine has inspired such champions of social justice as Oscar Romero, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and Henri Nouwen, even as the Catholic Church in Rome has rejected it's legitimacy? It seems like the Church (in Rome) believes that to embrace Liberation theology would herald "the end of Christianity; in other words, <embracing LT is> inconceivable and impossible." Yet I argue that LT breathed new life into Catholicism (particularly in South America and among feminist Catholics), while its suppression has led to a steady decline in Catholicism as witnessed by the sharp rise of evangelical fundamentalism we've seen rise in the last few decades (especially in South America where LT was born).

There are so many ways to interpret scripture, imo, based as much on the living, breathing experience of the faithful as there is on scriptures' doctrinal context based exclusively on the time the scripture was canonized, and the church politics and beliefs rooted in their own historicity that have become the accepted norm. That last sentence is convoluted, I know, but I hope you get my meaning that all canon arises from the historical time period in which it was legitimized. A living Christ must have the opportunity to grow in each generation of humanity, as noted by John XXIII's outreach toward and embrace of modern science and technology, and interpreting church teachings to reflect those new human developments. Regardless of the dismantling (somewhat) of Vatican II by the last three Popes, Vatican II established that God's presence among humanity cannot be restricted by humanity's limited sight into the will of the Divine--indeed, God calls on us to adapt and grow based on our experiences and the times in which we live, even as we are rooted in our past and traditions.

[TuxedoKat]

30. Yes, that is so true.

I am reading an interesting book that that I am halfway through, called The Harlot by the Side of the Road: Forbidden Tales of the Bible by Jonathan Kirsch. It reveals that many stories from the bible have been "censored, mistranslated and even totally banned, due to their sexual, violent or mysterious content". I hadn't read anything about David yet so I found a section that speaks of this:

"Then, too, the homoerotic overtones in David's life story have been stubbornly ignored by Bible critics until very recently. Pious commentators have long celebrated the intimate friendship between David and Jonathan as "the ideal of male friendship," for example, but they have refused to acknowledge the possibility that physical as well as spiritual intimacies passed between these two men. "The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David," the Bible tells us plainly enough, "and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (1 Sam. 18:1). On the eve of battle, Jonathan strips off his own cloak and tunic, his armor and weaponry, and tenderly dresses David in his apparel as a pledge of friendship (1 Sam. 18:4). And when Jonathan is later slain, David's oft-quoted and much-celebrated elegy speaks plainly enough of their bond. "Very pleasant hath thou been unto me," sings David, the "sweet psalmist" of Israel. "Wonderful was thy love to me, passing the love of women." (2 Sam. 1:26).

Read it how you will.

[patrice]

23. The passage is 50:50 on this, so it's as valid one way as it is the other.

That makes it a matter of Faith. Some people believe in an ALL-Loving-God and others don't.

[patrice]

24. Genuinely curious here . . .

Why immature?
Why love "akin to the love of soldiers in the field" = "passing the love of women"?
Does anything human ever really have "Nothing to do with sex"?

[Joe Chi Minh]

31. With women sex contributes an extraneous strand, which can contribute to

affirming her husband's love; but the essence is spiritual and grows, while the libido wanes.

I mentioned Christ's words to the effect that greater love hath no man...., i.e self-sacrifical love. But complicating it further, I also believe what male soldiers have been heard to say, namely, that they would be worrying too much about protecting a woman in their group to operate effectively. Although, ironically, I've also read that women have proved to me more proficient killers! I expect the circumstances would play a part.

Re your last question, I would say, yes. Most things. But Freudians will call a telegraph pole, anything, a phallic symbol, if you get my drift.

[xchrom]

42. you are breath takingly wrong -- but not surprising.

lgbtiq people are often left to recognize their own -- even when it's as apparent as daylight.

[pitohui]

44. "immature" -- ah, the "puppy love" argument, i remember it well

in my sunday school days it was acknowledged that sex happened between david and jonathan, after all, it was the bible, it was not expected to spell things out in the original anglo-saxon four letter words :-) if we were not some kind of blinkered idiot, we were expected to figure out what happened in context

we were told that it was understandable and natural that young people would fool around with their own gender and that most kids did it and that god, even the old testament god, did not condemn such fooling around where there was genuine love (hey, this was a presbyterian church, recreational sex w.out love was not going to be considered OK, but sex based on love was quite another matter)

i don't recall any attempt made to pretend that david and jonathan's love was "pure" and why would it have been "pure" rather than physical, considering the power of young men's passions and the lack of any pregnancy fears to consider -- out in nature, or out in the soldier's camps, i don't think it is realistic to pretend that men in those days before aids, syphillis, and the other sexually transmitted diseases that anyone would have held back from acting on their feelings

we've had hundreds of years of disease and fear that block our view of how men would have behaved before these fears existed -- it is not PC to recognize it now, but sex between younger men, even teens, and their older hero, was not considered abnormal in ancient days, it was considered completely natural

[Greyhound]

28. I've found that most, if not all, Xians pick and choose which parts they want to believe/follow. n/t

[Lex]

32. Yes, if they *really* wanted to preserve marriage, they'd outlaw divorce.

After all, the Bible say "Whom God has brought together, let no man put asunder."

Can't get more directive than that and yet, many divorced straight people feel pious and judgmental toward gay marriage as being against what the Bible says.

Cherry-picking the Bible.

[liberalpress]

36. Well. What does Jesus say about homosexuality,

Grabs Bible from shelf. (It's one of those red-letter editions with the words of Christ in red)

Flip Flip Flip Flip Flip

Huh. How about that. Jesus says NOTHING!

He didn't even think it was important enough to mention.

No comment at all.

I'll be darned

[Prophet 451]

43. Nope, he had LOTS to say about the poor though

Ever notice how fundies always ignore that part as well?

[pitohui]

45. don't speak too loud, as this is one of the fundy goals

they have made several attempts in this vein, such as the "convenant marriage" option being passed into law in louisiana some time ago but sensible people simply do not marry here (most go for the easier, cheaper marriage license in arkansas) or simply get a conventional rather than a covenant marriage

the ultimate goal of the fundy is to make a slave of the woman and to take away her freedom, of course if they can take away the freedom of anyone who is a different color or sexual orientation or in any way doesn't swallow fundy bullshit...well, they will attack where they perceive weakness first...they have ID'd "teh gay" as relatively unpopular and hence it's a cheap trick to go after gay marriage...but make no mistake, the ultimate goal would be to make it impossible for a woman to choose divorce (the man would always reserve the option to be able to toss off the aging female and to replace her with a younger model but the woman's ability to choose divorce is intolerable to the fundy male mind)

[Lex]

46. Nah, think of all the people who'd be offended if the church disallowed divorce

completely. For one thing, the MEN of the church wouldn't want that (what? not be able to dump Wife #1 for Wife #2, no way).