- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,588
- Reaction score
- 3,185
- Points
- 113
Sure thing. Lets start with my last sentence of the last post. Why should I worship a God that can't be seen, heard, or felt?
The Marriage of David and Jonathan
- Thread starter Smellin Coffee
- Start date
Sure thing. Lets start with my last sentence of the last post. Why should I worship a God that can't be seen, heard, or felt?
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,233
- Reaction score
- 1,236
- Points
- 113
I think he is here to troll but see no harm in it. He just displays the idiocy of his arguments.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 534
- Reaction score
- 309
- Points
- 63
.
I'm not sure. .
I guess it depends on your level of belief. If you truly, from the depths of your soul, believe that He exists and is worthy to be praised, it would go without saying that despite not being able to see Him, touch Him or hear Him, you would want to worship HE who is the Creator of the universe and everything in it.
Why do you worship God?
.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 3,409
- Reaction score
- 1,879
- Points
- 113
even though he was a calvinist i had great respect for smellin-coffee when i first met him on the old forum in 2004... ..... but i agree... he;s definitely here to troll... his descent into apostasy has been very troubling to watch over the years... but now it has reached the level of militancy.... it;s obvious his goal is to take as many down with him as he can, and there is no reaching him no matter what we say... ..that;s one reason i haven;t said much in either of the threads he started... ... it;s best just to ignore him while continuing to pray for him... ..sometimes that;s the best we can do......
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 4,678
- Reaction score
- 1,813
- Points
- 113
Always wondered if Smellin had any original thoughts. Now I see he doesn't
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,588
- Reaction score
- 3,185
- Points
- 113
.
I'm not sure. .
I guess it depends on your level of belief. If you truly, from the depths of your soul, believe that He exists and is worthy to be praised, it would go without saying that despite not being able to see Him, touch Him or hear Him, you would want to worship HE who is the Creator of the universe and everything in it.
Why do you worship God?
.
Yes, "level of belief" is essentially that right euphemism in my world (and one you are fairly keenly associated with via your upbringing) to say that I really believe Jesus exists, and that He was/is who He said He was/is. Whether anyone else considers my basis for that belief as being credible is immaterial to me. So, understanding my frame of mind (and spirit) I believe He communicates (talks) to me through His word. As such, it is obvious (from His word) that I should worship Him. But not only is it obvious that I should worship this Living God, but He desires/requires that my relationship to Him be of a higher nature than with any other of His creation, otherwise it would be a form of idolatry.
To your question, why do I worship Him? That's a really big question, but to keep it short, because there's something within me that recognizes I was created for a purpose, not merely a meaningless blob of DNA that was wrought out of a humanistic theory of existence which says our lives are the sum total of Time+Matter+Chance (ie, naturalism, scientism, materialism, etc). That philosophy and theory just don't make sense and is not satisfying to answering life's ultimate questions at all. Nothing creates itself, nothing. That last sentence, from an existential perspective, is HUGELY compelling if a person is honest with themselves.
Which brings me to the next point of discussion, that of "relationships". When you spoke on your blog (and on here briefly) about your relationship with those who forged (particularly in your rearing and youth, no longer with us) the person you are today, do you not consider that to still be a "relationship" today?
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 534
- Reaction score
- 309
- Points
- 63
.
"do you not consider that to still be a "relationship" today?"
I will always be my parents' son. And in that sense, yes I have a relationship with them; as to who I am. But I can no longer tell my mother how much I love her. I can no longer smell the Chanel # 5 on her skin. I can no longer hug my father or talk about this or that with him. They don't ever say anything to me and in that sense, I don't have a relationship with them - a give and take. And it was in that sense that I was referring.
.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,588
- Reaction score
- 3,185
- Points
- 113
Thanks for that description of “relationship”. They lived at one time and interacted with you personally, taught you, loved you, and left you with their essence. With the exception of the material physicality of that relationship Christ does the same, though we have credible proof He did do that too. He told Thomas to touch him (Jn 20:27) and see the prints of the nails in His hands. Over 500 people witnessed or attested to having seen Him after His resurrection. Historians unfavorable to Christianity have validated His existence and they report credible records of people who claim to have seen Him post-crucifixion. If He is alive and who He claimed to be then the Bible is a living breathing testimony of one mode of how we have “a relationship” with Him. Of course His promise to leave us a Comforter to guide, teach, and give us peace only further attests to the truth of this relationship that has been experienced by hundreds of thousands. Jehovah the Father tells us to call Him Abba-father (“daddy” for simplicity sake). I could go on about this “relationship”, but until you are willing to come to Him by faith, believing He is who He says that He is, it is impossible to please or find Him.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 8,018
- Reaction score
- 57
- Points
- 48
It was never my attention to spam the forum but I realize time restraints will keep me from discussion on topics I have brought up. For now this will be my last response.
A couple things to clean up.
God is not male. God is not female. God is not binary. God is not even trans. God is “other”. Whatever binary description in the Bible (and other religious text) including the pronouns is a result of no word being expressed enough to describe what God is, hence “God” is a placeholder word for that which we cannot understand. Because of this, religious expression of the “unknown/unknowable” is usually presented through the lens of patriarchy which was (and is) cultural, not “godly”.
Without going into the details of each, there are valid arguments from which Queer Theology claims validity (though not exclusivity):
Arguments from Historical Distance – the now non-relativity of Levitical codes
Arguments from Misrepresentation and Reinterpretation – particularly the queer voices of the Bible
Arguments from mistranslated/misinterpreted biblical text
Arguments from (Pauline) teaching of the removal of binary
Arguments from Food and Circumcision
Arguments from “Beyond Nature” (Pauline) that God “grafts” those from without into Its body
Arguments from Eschatological Transformation
Arguments from Apocalypse – Pauline teaching of the eradication of marriage in the afterlife
Arguments from Jesus’ Teachings
Arguments from the Negation of Judgement by Christ Followers
Queer Theology is not simply about apologetics (though that does play a role); it goes much deeper with its queer symbolism along with the humanly untellable.
Queer Theology also brings in the ties of queer eradication with a capitalistic economy and is a form of Liberation Theology. (This would be a whole thread in itself.)
Christianity is queer in at least 3 ways: it is a transgression of binaries, it is about radical inclusion and love and it is non-normative that contradicts natural logic.
Congrats if you actually read this far. I hope this topic is something that someone would consider learning about, whether or not you agree with the conclusions of Queer Theology (many points I disagree with, btw). I hope it is recognized as valid and that queer folks become protected by Christ-followers rather than condemned by their hermeneutic.
For the time being,
Peace Out!
A couple things to clean up.
- I am not gay nor is any of my family gay. I have no relational situation to be on the side of queer folks other than standing with those who are being marginalized to the point of elimination.
- Refusing to acknowledge the validity of Jewish interpretation of Hebrew text is anti-Semitic. The Talmud (and the David/Jonathan relationship) was written in Hebrew literature for Jewish people to interpret. To say white Euro-American hermeneutic is the only correct hermeneutic of said Jewish text can only be supremacist. Doesn’t mean that not accepting Jewish Midrash is anti-Semitic but rather to disallow Jewish interpretation because it is Jewish is anti-Semitic.
- Queer Theology is a valid theological perspective. It is much deeper than the argument about the 6 main “clobber verses” but rather an entire approach to queer relationship with their creator.
God is not male. God is not female. God is not binary. God is not even trans. God is “other”. Whatever binary description in the Bible (and other religious text) including the pronouns is a result of no word being expressed enough to describe what God is, hence “God” is a placeholder word for that which we cannot understand. Because of this, religious expression of the “unknown/unknowable” is usually presented through the lens of patriarchy which was (and is) cultural, not “godly”.
Without going into the details of each, there are valid arguments from which Queer Theology claims validity (though not exclusivity):
Arguments from Historical Distance – the now non-relativity of Levitical codes
Arguments from Misrepresentation and Reinterpretation – particularly the queer voices of the Bible
Arguments from mistranslated/misinterpreted biblical text
Arguments from (Pauline) teaching of the removal of binary
Arguments from Food and Circumcision
Arguments from “Beyond Nature” (Pauline) that God “grafts” those from without into Its body
Arguments from Eschatological Transformation
Arguments from Apocalypse – Pauline teaching of the eradication of marriage in the afterlife
Arguments from Jesus’ Teachings
Arguments from the Negation of Judgement by Christ Followers
Queer Theology is not simply about apologetics (though that does play a role); it goes much deeper with its queer symbolism along with the humanly untellable.
Queer Theology also brings in the ties of queer eradication with a capitalistic economy and is a form of Liberation Theology. (This would be a whole thread in itself.)
Christianity is queer in at least 3 ways: it is a transgression of binaries, it is about radical inclusion and love and it is non-normative that contradicts natural logic.
Congrats if you actually read this far. I hope this topic is something that someone would consider learning about, whether or not you agree with the conclusions of Queer Theology (many points I disagree with, btw). I hope it is recognized as valid and that queer folks become protected by Christ-followers rather than condemned by their hermeneutic.
For the time being,
Peace Out!
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,609
- Reaction score
- 2,545
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Bull.
You quoted a liberal Jewish interpretation. If I agree with that, I must necessarily refuse to acknowledge the validity of a traditional Jewish interpretation, or vice versa. Competing interpretations cannot both be right.
By your assertion, then, the mere existence of competing claims renders "anti-Semitism" unavoidable. Your accusation is baseless and stupid.
Bull. Queer theology assumes what it needs to prove, that homosexuality is not sinful. It is a textbook case of petitio principii, and by definition it is not "valid."
According to you, God exists out of time and space, cannot be understood, cannot be known even to exist, and is simply a projection of human psychology meant to satisfy the need to worship,
And yet here you are telling us what his preferred pronouns are, as though you sincerely believe God has an objective, external existence.
In other words, you're peddling BS, and you know it.
You're a swindler. All this pseudo-intellectual cant is nothing but the reification of your own lies and imagination.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,588
- Reaction score
- 3,185
- Points
- 113
I still think it odd, or maybe better described as disingenuous, that Smellin’ continues to imply he is not trying to persuade anybody that he is morally right and we are morally wrong. And the only thing maybe worse than that is how much pathos he pours into his proselytizing without any sincere effort to engage his potential converts. It seems more like one who strongly desires and enjoys the act of returning to cast pearls before the swine.
The Avett Brothers have a song, 'No Hard Feelings'
One of the verses:
When my body won't hold me anymore
And it finally lets me free
Where will I go?
Will the trade winds take me south through Georgia grain?
Or tropical rain?
Or snow from the heavens?
Will I join with the ocean blue?
Or run into a savior true?
And shake hands laughing
And walk through the night, straight to the light
Holding the love I've known in my life
And no hard feelings.
I'm also reminded of the reunion with Frodo and Gandalf, when Frodo woke in Rivendell having destroyed the ring, and seeing Gandalf, and they simply laugh, and the reunion with the Fellowship...all laughing...
When we see Jesus...it will be like, "It was You all the time!" And what laughter and tears of joy it will be!
This is heresy at it best! Get a life or get biblically educated. Don't show your ignorance.Yep. Based on (biblical) context and Rabbinical hermeneutic of Talmud, David and Jonathan were not only lovers, but married.
String of X posts by a Rabbi into a single thread:
So let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. David was bisexual, and he and Jonathan were lovers. The evidence in the text of this is strong. And while some may deny it, those are the same men who scream that Song of Songs is about Israel and God. So let's go through this. We read in 1st Samuel 18 that Jonathan's "nefesh" his soul, became "nik'sh'ra" (bound up or binded) with the "nefesh" of David. Soul on soul love. Deep love. This is not friendship. This is soulmates. Moreover, from a Hebrew point of view, the word "nik'sh'ra" is.a word that is parced in the perfect third feminine singular. There is a "feminine" aspect to Jonathan, a slim young man, in contrast to David's masculinity. There is an attraction of souls that occurs, and (there is a scribal error here, see below) but one loved the other as himself. For those pointing back to the Levitical idea of a neighbor...NO. The wording is totally different there. There is no "nefesh" mentioned in the loving on one's countryman/fellow/neighbor. This is a different love. The author was purposeful here.
And, it is right here, friends, in verses 1 Samuel 18: 2, 3, and 4 that a marriage takes place. In the Ancient Near East, the three elements that made a marriage were 1) A parental exchange, i.e. moving from one house to another, 2) a vow or covenant, and 3) a gift. We see each of these in the following verses. Before we do so, keep in mind that these elements eventually evolved into a parent's "blessing" after it was transactional, the vows given at a wedding ceremony, and a ring (i.e. the gift exchange). But these were not the traditions of the time, so we have to be careful not to look for 21st century marriage clues in a biblical text. All three are there, and here we go. 1Sam 18:2 - Saul, the father of Jonathan, takes David into his family, (into his service is not in the text but implied)and David no longer returns to his father's house because, why would he? He is marrying Saul's son! Once a marriage occurs, one of the people married leaves their father's house and goes to another house.
It is at this point, once the parental exchange is done, that the vow comes in: Jonathan and David, standing together, made a "brit" a covenant with one another. Again the words "nefesh" are used. The word "brit" is not a friendly "pact" as the translator lead you to see
And finally, we come to the gift. In verse 4, Jonathan takes off his cloak and tunic, and gives them to David, with his sword, his bow, his belt. While commentators struggle to understand this gesture, those who understand Near Eastern wedding rituals see it clearly.
Now, how about some supplementary evidence to help? Remember in 1Sam 18:17, Saul attempts to have David married off to his daughter, Merab. You know, a woman.
Verse 20 tells us that another of Saul's daughters, Michal, wants to marry David too, and Saul thinks, "Ok let's try this woman." David finally catches on that this is the way to the throne, and marries her. Keep in mind, friends, that a King can have many wives, so this was not a big deal that he was secretly married to Jonathan, and publicly married to Michal. We can see Saul had some inkling of the marriage of David and Jonathan by 1Sam 20.
Now, are there plenty of people who will disagree with this interpretation? Those who will say they were just "close friends," that the ritual exchanges and vows meant something else, that their souls were bound together in friendship? That Saul's jealousy was the cause? Of course! And that is perfectly fine. But one cannot ignore the cultural repertoire of an ancient near eastern wedding ritual, the elements of them coming together, and the actions of the two, the love language, and the events that come after without saying..."hmmm".
THE END.
Source:
Thread by @RabbiHarvey on Thread Reader App
@RabbiHarvey: Well, a lot of you have been asking about a David/Jonathan thread, about not how they were just lovers but married! @maklelan and @sohelpmejesseca were just talking about it too! Here it goes! #threads...…threadreaderapp.com
Shabbat Shalom
SC is our village apostate. Long steeped in HAC culture he had enough of and "deconstructed" some years ago.
True interpretation is the Messianic Judaism Bible and the Jewish Didache.
According to these books and teachings your facts are lies with no truth in them.