Manafort fesses up.

[guacamole]

King David wasn't exactly pure in that department either. Not that I am comparing Trump to King David. Just the fact that you claim sexual faithfulness is such an important factor. Pretty much all of the main characters in the bible were faithless in the sexual area.

Yep.

Do you guys really want to argue David here?

His life demonstrates that sexual sin doesn't sit by itself in a little box and not touch anything else in a leaders life; On the contrary, it co-occurred with the sins of the betrayal and murder of his subject, lead to the seduction of and betrayal of a husband by Bathsheba, and brought in a conspirator, Joab, who could be induced to sin likewise along with his king. David is opposed, vocally and directly, by a prophet who tells him that he will be held accountable for his crimes:

Scripture Verse: 2 Samuel 12:9-12

9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.

11 “This is what the Lord says: Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.”

© Copyright Original Source

His sexual sin and violence were responsible for the death of two innocents, therefore: Uriah and David's own child with Bathsheba. David's decision to violate God's plan for marriage led his polygamy, which was partially responsible for incestuous rape, fratricide, civil war, the murder of his son by his earlier co-conspirator Joab, the polygamy of his heir, Solomon (a son of Bathsheba), the syncretic idolatry fostered in the harem and court, and the eventual split, destruction, and diaspora of Israel and Judah into slavery due to that idolatry. The Bible tells us that we can pass on a curse or blessing to our descendants; the narratives of Kings and Chronicles demonstrate that the residue of David's sins with Bathsheba was a plague on the nation.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Starlight]

Do you guys really want to argue David here?

But he was "a man after God's own heart" so all that other bad stuff the bible says about him can't really have happened.

The bible is as schizophrenic on David as modern US conservatives are on Trump, so it's probably a good analogy...

(Though we've got no reason to think Trump has tried out bisexuality, whereas David... well we all know that He Definitely Didn't Have A Relationship with Jonathan no matter what language the bible uses because we all know David was 100% sexually perfect and Would Never Deviate From Modern Conservative Sexual Ethics In Any Way.)

[Mountain Man]

A man after God's own heart confesses his sins and repents, which is what David did.

And your reading of David and Jonathan's relationship is as anachronistic as post modernists who claim that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle intended for Holmes and Watson to be gay lovers.

[One Bad Pig]

Do you guys really want to argue David here?

His life demonstrates that sexual sin doesn't sit by itself in a little box and not touch anything else in a leaders life; On the contrary, it co-occurred with the sins of the betrayal and murder of his subject, lead to the seduction of and betrayal of a husband by Bathsheba, and brought in a conspirator, Joab, who could be induced to sin likewise along with his king. David is opposed, vocally and directly, by a prophet who tells him that he will be held accountable for his crimes:

Scripture Verse: 2 Samuel 12:9-12

9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.

11 “This is what the Lord says: Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.”

© Copyright Original Source

His sexual sin and violence were responsible for the death of two innocents, therefore: Uriah and David's own child with Bathsheba. David's decision to violate God's plan for marriage led his polygamy, which was partially responsible for incestuous rape, fratricide, civil war, the murder of his son by his earlier co-conspirator Joab, the polygamy of his heir, Solomon (a son of Bathsheba), the syncretic idolatry fostered in the harem and court, and the eventual split, destruction, and diaspora of Israel and Judah into slavery due to that idolatry. The Bible tells us that we can pass on a curse or blessing to our descendants; the narratives of Kings and Chronicles demonstrate that the residue of David's sins with Bathsheba was a plague on the nation.

fwiw,
guacamole

First, I would appreciate it if you did not imply by your quoting that I agreed with everything Sparko said, when I expressly did not.

Second, neither Sparko nor I are arguing that sin does not have consequences; you're immolating a strawman of your own creation here.

Third, do you really want to argue against the idea that man can repent from his evil ways and become righteous in the sight of the Lord, or that God can use flawed people to advance the kingdom of heaven? That's the argument Sparko was making and that I agreed with.

[JonathanL]

But he was "a man after God's own heart" so all that other bad stuff the bible says about him can't really have happened.

The bible is as schizophrenic on David as modern US conservatives are on Trump, so it's probably a good analogy...

(Though we've got no reason to think Trump has tried out bisexuality, whereas David... well we all know that He Definitely Didn't Have A Relationship with Jonathan no matter what language the bible uses because we all know David was 100% sexually perfect and Would Never Deviate From Modern Conservative Sexual Ethics In Any Way.)

• Not being able to show your friends signs of affection is indicative of a culture of toxic masculinity.
• Saying that you love your friends means you have the big GAY

Pick one.

[Starlight]

• Not being able to show your friends signs of affection is indicative of a culture of toxic masculinity.
• Saying that you love your friends means you have the big GAY

Pick one.

I pick the first one and reject the second.

If all the bible said about the relationship was that one of them once said he loved the other, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The bible goes far, far, further than that, and in cultural-historical context it's pretty clear what it's depicting, but modern conservatives like to project their own sexual ethics anachronistically onto biblical figures.

[One Bad Pig]

I pick the first one and reject the second.

If all the bible said about the relationship was that one of them once said he loved the other, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The bible goes far, far, further than that, and in cultural-historical context it's pretty clear what it's depicting, but modern liberals like to project their own sexual ethics anachronistically onto biblical figures.

Fixed that for you, no charge.

[guacamole]

First, I would appreciate it if you did not imply by your quoting that I agreed with everything Sparko said, when I expressly did not.

Fair point. I should have formatted that better.

Second, neither Sparko nor I are arguing that sin does not have consequences; you're immolating a strawman of your own creation here.

I don't believe I argued that you argued that. Is that like a reverse-reverse strawman or something? I was demonstrating that while David had some blessings and favor with God despite his sexual sin, David suffered and was cursed harshly for his sexual sins. David's sin wasn't merely sexual--it was also murderous and traitorous. It was a demonstration that sexual sin is not a separate category of sin that sits by itself; rather, it leads to the pollution of the individual's life and legacy, and this is why it's problematic, especially for powerful leaders.

Third, do you really want to argue against the idea that man can repent from his evil ways and become righteous in the sight of the Lord, or that God can use flawed people to advance the kingdom of heaven? That's the argument Sparko was making and that I agreed with.

I'd like to give Sparko the benefit of the doubt on that, but none of those words, or anything that could seem to be like those words, were written by Sparko in the post that you posted your "yes" to. I'm trying to be careful and not read things into statements that weren't explicitly written.

However, if you want to make that argument here, then it is undeniably true that a man can repent and find righteousness or that God can use flawed people to advance the kingdom of heaven; however, whether or not that means that we should put the sexually immoral forward as good examples of leadership worth supporting is not apparent and up for discussion.

I don't think we can clear Trump by pointing out that leaders in the OT were sexually immoral, especially when that sexual immorality is judged harshly.

fwiw,
guac.

[guacamole]

But he was "a man after God's own heart" so all that other bad stuff the bible says about him can't really have happened.

The bible is as schizophrenic on David as modern US conservatives are on Trump, so it's probably a good analogy...

The Bible, unlike most ancient religious texts, is fairly blunt about the moral failings of the people in the stories. It's possible that David could have sinned horribly, been cursed horribly, and still found a way to be a man after God's own heart. That core of Judaism and Christianity is, afterall, repentance.

(Though we've got no reason to think Trump has tried out bisexuality, whereas David... well we all know that He Definitely Didn't Have A Relationship with Jonathan no matter what language the bible uses because we all know David was 100% sexually perfect and Would Never Deviate From Modern Conservative Sexual Ethics In Any Way.)

I imagine that's a debate for a different thread.

[oxmixmudd]

I pick the first one and reject the second.

If all the bible said about the relationship was that one of them once said he loved the other, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The bible goes far, far, further than that, and in cultural-historical context it's pretty clear what it's depicting, but modern conservatives like to project their own sexual ethics anachronistically onto biblical figures.

No - you are wrong on that big time. That is not the sort of relationship that text is depicting. But it is very, very sad that is what you see there.

Consider: David was very attracted to women. So much so that seeing a beautiful women bathing on her roof, He had her husband killed so he could have her as his own wife.

[Starlight]

Consider: David was very attracted to women.

Are you familiar with the term "bisexual"?

I think everyone can probably agree the biblical text depicts David as having a rather high sex drive, and that he wasn't monogamous and had some loose sexual morals. But I find it amusing how determined modern conservatives are to absolutely rule out what seems to be a rather straightforward and obvious depiction of a homosexual relationship in the biblical text. It's like "okay, sure, so he had an affair with a woman and then had her husband killed so he could take her as his 7th wife, but he Definitely Never had a gay love affair no matter what the bible says, cos that would be Terrible And Totally Outside the Bounds of Acceptable Sexual Conduct That David Maintained!"

[JonathanL]

Totally Outside the Bounds of Acceptable Sexual Conduct That David Maintained!"

"What David did to Uriah and Bathsheba was wrong and unacceptable" - Nearly every Christian

"LoL U sTooPiD cHruStIaNs tHInK DavID gAy baD, BuT dAviD KiLL uRiAH 👌 😂😂😂😂" - Starlight

[Tassman]

"What David did to Uriah and Bathsheba was wrong and unacceptable" by Christians.

So is love between men "wrong and unacceptable" according to many Christians. Yet love between between men is celebrated in the Bible with the story of David and Jonathan. “Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women,” David said in his lament for Jonathan. The only reasonable interpretation of this story is of a homosexual relationship (David was clearly an oversexed bi-sexual) but Christians absurdly insist on every possible interpretation of this relationship except for the most obvious one.

[Starlight]

“Your love to me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women,” David said in his lament for Jonathan. The only reasonable interpretation of this story is of a homosexual relationship

Just to be clear, that's by far not the only phrase implying the relationship in the text. If it were only one sentence that wouldn't be very compelling.

I think this is just one of those cases where people are attached to the reading of the bible they learned in their local church. So if they grew up being taught in Sunday School that David and Jonathan were Good Friends, and then they see some people saying today that David and Jonathan were obviously lovers, then they assume it must be modern crazy LGBT+ activists perverting the story with wacky interpretations. They don't seem to get as far as thinking "wait, maybe the interpretation I learned in Sunday School was actually wrong, and these people are actually right?" It's easier to blame liberal activists and hand-wave them away than to question what you learned as a kid. Much of the same problems apply when trying to get people to rethink their understanding of any of Jesus' ministry or of Paul's theology... they're usually pretty firmly attached to whatever their own church told them.

[Mountain Man]

Just to be clear, that's by far not the only phrase implying the relationship in the text. If it were only one sentence that wouldn't be very compelling.

I think this is just one of those cases where people are attached to the reading of the bible they learned in their local church. So if they grew up being taught in Sunday School that David and Jonathan were Good Friends, and then they see some people saying today that David and Jonathan were obviously lovers, then they assume it must be modern crazy LGBT+ activists perverting the story with wacky interpretations. They don't seem to get as far as thinking "wait, maybe the interpretation I learned in Sunday School was actually wrong, and these people are actually right?" It's easier to blame liberal activists and hand-wave them away than to question what you learned as a kid. Much of the same problems apply when trying to get people to rethink their understanding of any of Jesus' ministry or of Paul's theology... they're usually pretty firmly attached to whatever their own church told them.

David is openly judged and condemned for his sins throughout the Biblical narrative. There is no way the text would remain silent on this point if David was guilty of committing what the Bible elsewhere calls an abomination. Also, there are no passages along the lines of "David laid with Johnathan" or similar euphamisms to suggest that they had any kind of sexual relationship.

Of course a liberal will read about David and Johnathan's deep but clearly platonic affectionation for each other through a post modern lens and say, "That is so gay."