Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Manafort fesses up.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    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!"
    I'm sorry, but there is no reason to impose a 21st century cultural mindset onto the story of David and Jonathan. We live in a culture which feels a need to sexualize almost everything. And it points to one of the dangers of not requiring self-control and discipline in sexual relationships. It simply can obsess a person's life and mind.

    This story is simply a story of true, non-sexualized friendship. Of a type we really need in our world, and of a type which apparently is threatening to the current stream of ideas about relationships.

    Would you also try to make Naomi and Ruth bi-sexual?

    I see the suggestion of bi-sexuality here as nothing but the insecurity of wanting to justify ones beliefs and actions by imposing them on highly revered and respected people from history.

    Jim
    My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

    If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

    This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      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."
      How about that MM, we almost agree. The only thing is, the 'libs' part of the dialogue. The reality is the oversexualization lens that drives this crosses most of our culture. The use of pornography crosses all the boundaries as an example.

      Jim
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        I'm sorry, but there is no reason to impose a 21st century cultural mindset onto the story of David and Jonathan.
        Indeed not, it should be read as accurately as possible in its original cultural context. I am wary of those who impose a 20th century cultural mindset of "They Can't Be Gay, They Must Be Just Friends" onto the story.

        We live in a culture which feels a need to sexualize almost everything.
        On the whole I would say I completely disagree with that statement. The various cultures I've studied and visited have had many different approaches to the subject of sex, and I wouldn't say that the modern west stands out particularly. I would say that in many ways Thailand today is much 'worse' in this regard. In ancient Greece they had statues of erect phalluses at their gates where we have letter boxes. Roman bath-houses had pornographic murals on the walls. The 21st century West warrants a shrug on the subject IMO.

        Generally I would take the view that the modern west is getting toward having a disinterest in emphasis on the topic of sex that is a result of its relaxed and casual laissez-faire attitude. I would say that today compares very favorably in its deemphasis of sex than with the previous Victorian-esque concern with sex that characterized much of 20th century conservative Christianity. I would say that culture had an almost obsessive concern with sex particularly with regard to taboos and concern to ensure the wrong people weren't having it at the wrong times etc, with the outcome that a religious person could 'justifiably' spend rather a lot of their time thinking about and focusing on sex as they sought to ensure that the wrong people weren't having it. So I would say that modern secular culture's much less focused on and interested in sex than previous conservative Christian culture was.

        This story is simply a story of true, non-sexualized friendship. Of a type we really need in our world, and of a type which apparently is threatening to the current stream of ideas about relationships.
        Friendships are great. More friendships would be great. I do think there is a greater need for interpersonal connectedness in the modern world, and I think modern science and technology hasn't adequately addressed this. I also think the biggest loss as a result in the decrease in regular church attendance among the population is the resulting lack of regular community meet-ups.

        Would you also try to make Naomi and Ruth bi-sexual?
        I can see nothing in the text which warrants that conclusion. That view seems to be neither confirmed nor dis-confirmed by the text, IMO. If it turned out that they were, I would shrug.

        I see the suggestion of bi-sexuality here as nothing but the insecurity of wanting to justify ones beliefs and actions by imposing them on highly revered and respected people from history.
        David was a pretty bad guy, including sexually. Not sure it's necessarily desirable for anyone to claim a mass-murdering / torturing / genocidal psychopath polygamous adulterer for their 'team'.

        I just try and interpret the text as accurately as I can. But I do see a great, great, deal of insecurity among those who absolutely insist they were Just Friends, to the point where it's quite amusing.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
          How about that MM, we almost agree. The only thing is, the 'libs' part of the dialogue. The reality is the oversexualization lens that drives this crosses most of our culture. The use of pornography crosses all the boundaries as an example.

          Jim
          Yes, but deviant sexuality is something that his been traditionally promoted by liberal factions.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            David is openly judged and condemned for his sins throughout the Biblical narrative.
            For some of them. In a lot of OT narratives the good and bad deeds are just narrated and not commented on, and it is assumed the reader will discern them. Apparently in oral cultures the idea is the story-teller just factually narrates the story and the families sitting around the fire with him variously boo or cheer when the hero or villain does something bad or good. So there is an expected reaction from the audience, and it is taken for granted that this will be consistent over time. However, I note that when things are done in this way the moral judgments are actually being supplied by the contemporary community audience rather than the story per se, and so in practice what the audience boos or cheers in the story will actually change over time if the culture shifts. With many of the OT narratives the average modern reader is probably badly, badly, wrong in their guesses about which behaviors the original audiences would have approved or disapproved of and why, just because our culture is so different today, and this is why scholars who have studied ancient and Mediterranean cultures come up with such vastly different interpretations of a lot of these accounts when they try and read them in their socio-historical context.

            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.
            You're assuming a singular viewpoint. The accounts of David's kingship are in historical accounts that span several hundred years in time-span and the historian who assembled the final version appears to have used a variety of earlier sources just as modern historians do. Certain atheists would point to some discrepancies between those sources, e.g. in which battle it was that Goliath died, as evidence of factual contradictions and thus that the bible isn't 100% inerrant, while creative apologists come up with explanations for why the sources are complementary not contradictory.

            Regardless of how you juggle the theology of different sources, it's worth noting that the people who wrote the different sources and the later historians who collated them in the biblical books we now have about David were a variety of different people, and different again to the people whos work resulted in Leviticus that calls things abominations. These various historians and source-material-writers need not agree with David himself, nor with each other, nor with the Levitical authors and sources, about the morality of things David did. Nothing stops David thinking that what he was doing was fine, and the Levitical authors thinking it was an abomination.

            General scholarship, which I'm guessing there's approximately zero chance you will accept, tends to date the books of Samuel & Kings around 550BC, the book of Leviticus around 530-330BC, and the books of Chronicles with their white-washed version of David around 350BC. So the actual life of David (~1000BC) occurred ~700 years prior to the Levitical designation of such acts an an abomination. While it's possible that those parts of Leviticus existed in earlier source material that was around in David's time and known of by David, we have no evidence of this. I see no particular reason to believe your general assertion that people separated by centuries and by religious sub-traditions (or denominations, or whatever you want to call the various different strands of religious thought and viewpoints in ancient Israel) should necessarily hold the same viewpoints on all moral issues.

            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.
            The text frequently gets awfully close to that. If "David laid with Jonathan" were a 10/10 on the euphamism scale, then I would say it's frequently in the 7-9 range throughout the accounts. It's not very subtle.
            Last edited by Starlight; 09-19-2018, 08:05 AM.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
              Regardless of how you juggle the theology of different sources, it's worth noting that the people who wrote the different sources and the later historians who collated them in the biblical books we now have about David were a variety of different people, and different again to the people whos work resulted in Leviticus that calls things abominations. These various historians and source-material-writers need not agree with David himself, nor with each other, nor with the Levitical authors and sources, about the morality of things David did. Nothing stops David thinking that what he was doing was fine, and the Levitical authors thinking it was an abomination.
              In other words, the only way you can make your argument work is to assert that the Bible is an inconsistent patchwork of disparate and contradictory ideas despite the fact that one of the unique characteristics of the Bible is its amazing consistency given the number of contributing authors and span of time over which it was compiled. It's almost like there was some sort of divine influence guiding its production.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                In other words, the only way you can make your argument work is to assert that the Bible is an inconsistent patchwork of disparate and contradictory ideas despite the fact that one of the unique characteristics of the Bible is its amazing consistency given the number of contributing authors and span of time over which it was compiled. It's almost like there was some sort of divine influence guiding its production.
                ...and "general scholarship" might have a leg to stand on if it could come to any sort of consensus on which alleged contributing author wrote what. However, the process is so inherently subjective it's as if they're looking at Rorschach blots.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                  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
                  Right. He was much worse than Trump ever was.

                  And despite all this, God still chose him to lead Israel and forgave him of his sins. Good thing you weren't God because you would have decided he wasn't fit for the job and put someone else in charge. right?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    the Bible is an inconsistent patchwork of disparate and contradictory ideas
                    Yes.

                    despite the fact that one of the unique characteristics of the Bible is its amazing consistency

                    What makes it even funnier is that you're actually serious
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Right. He was much worse than Trump ever was.

                      And despite all this, God still chose him to lead Israel and forgave him of his sins. Good thing you weren't God because you would have decided he wasn't fit for the job and put someone else in charge. right?
                      If we were voting, trying to follow God's instructions about what is important, and if we foreknew his sexual sins, and that was all we had to go on, we would have been wise to pick someone else for precisely the reasons I gave.

                      Let's be clear on this, God had mercy on David, but God did not have mercy on all of Israel's kings and queens whose lives descended into wickedness. If what you mean to say is that we should overlook Trump's sins because God gave mercy to David, who was in some ways worse, then I think you're only looking at part of the picture of the stories of the Kings.
                      "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                      Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                      Save me, save me"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                        If we were voting, trying to follow God's instructions about what is important, and if we foreknew his sexual sins, and that was all we had to go on, we would have been wise to pick someone else for precisely the reasons I gave.

                        Let's be clear on this, God had mercy on David, but God did not have mercy on all of Israel's kings and queens whose lives descended into wickedness. If what you mean to say is that we should overlook Trump's sins because God gave mercy to David, who was in some ways worse, then I think you're only looking at part of the picture of the stories of the Kings.
                        My original point was that Trump claims to be a Christian and has put all that stuff behind him. So far as I can tell he has. There have been no accusations of infidelity since he has been baptized. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise. You claimed that we should not do so, and so I showed you that God chose David, even though God is omniscient and knew everything David was going to do, and he still used him for good - so we can at least not condemn Trump for his past sins without evidence they are continuing.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          My original point was that Trump claims to be a Christian and has put all that stuff behind him. So far as I can tell he has. There have been no accusations of infidelity since he has been baptized. I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise. You claimed that we should not do so, and so I showed you that God chose David, even though God is omniscient and knew everything David was going to do, and he still used him for good - so we can at least not condemn Trump for his past sins without evidence they are continuing.
                          I suppose then for me it comes down to "innocent as lambs, but wily as serpents" and my earlier comment on seeing the fruit of the spirit in his life.
                          "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                          Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                          Save me, save me"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                            I suppose then for me it comes down to "innocent as lambs, but wily as serpents" and my earlier comment on seeing the fruit of the spirit in his life.
                            What do you actually see of his life? Just what is reported in the news which is pretty partisan. And that is just his public life.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              My original point was that Trump claims to be a Christian and has put all that stuff behind him. So far as I can tell he has. There have been no accusations of infidelity since he has been baptized.
                              When do you think was he baptised?

                              AFAICT he was baptised when he was a boy, and every accusation of infidelity has been since then.
                              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                                When do you think was he baptised?

                                AFAICT he was baptised when he was a boy, and every accusation of infidelity has been since then.
                                Many people were baptized back when Trump was a kid because it was a thing everyone did.
                                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                308 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                357 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X