Well, the problem with saying that it's a love story is the same as the problem with saying Disney's The Fox and the Hound was a love story. There is no evidence strongly against the hypothesis in the actual story, but there is also nothing that necessarily eliminates the more conventional explanation. Now, those two were as gay as Brokeback Mountain because the storyline is so damn familiar, but the evidence actually available to us is simply not definitive. Wait, I read through to the next chapter, and I think that Jonathan is actually Saul's son. I would say, in light of that, that it would be wishful thinking to assume that this is a gay romance. Love between a father and a son is simply an accepted norm.
I was always taught that they had a deep & abiding friendship. So close, they were like brothers. That article does give an interesting spin on it, though.
It would be nice if there was. But I can't think of a single major religion that celebrates gay love in any of their sacred texts. It's sorta sad. Also, I always wonder why people just stick with the same, old religious tomes, and never come up with anything better, that celebrates sex and love and life more.
HuskyPup, Inanna/Ishtar was actually a goddess that had a following of male temple prostitutes, some of them basically trans-women, others just gay. She was a goddess of sex. She was an accepted and celebrated part of the ancient Sumerian pantheon. Granted, the Sumerians also had some gods that were authentically evil and not very nice, they did have very nice ones, and there were times when the cult of Inanna was very very very popular. Yeah. I'm not sure if you'd call her "good" just because she was a goddess of unbridled lust and reproduction, but she was kind of cute. Believe it or not, but there are subtle connections between the ancient Sumerian religion and the religion described in the Bible. You have to actually give both a deep reading to understand the subtle ways they were intertwined. Basically, you have to remember, Abraham came from the land of the Sumerians. He was born and raised there. He had different opinions, but just pay attention. The connections are there.
I have seen instances like this in earlier religions, but not really in the ones followed today. As you say, there are these vague historical connections, but to me, nothing substantial, and there's a lot more negativity about sex, the evils of the flesh and pleasure in general, than sensuality. I mean, you're not even supposed to spill your seed. That just seems dumb and guilt inducing. And no celebration of same sex love. In college, I majored In English, and took two classes covering the old and new testaments, but afterwards, and not having come from a religious background, they struck me as very gloomy, violent books. What impressed me most was how they seemed to be mainly about feeling oppressed, and then, having this better life, in some other place, while placing less emphasis on the physical, the body and life on the earth. But of all the regions I studied, it was among my least favorite; I'd say it was Jainism that most captivated me, somehow; the notion of an atheistic region, and the kindness to all living things. And Buddhism has also fascinated me, though I couldn't say I 'believe' in either of them, but do find them more interesting. Anyway, I do appreciate your posts, and am not simply crabby But I tend to see things more in the spirit of the remark by Nietzsche, "The body is the soul.", and have never liked the idea of a religion making some distinction between the two, on my deepest, personal level.
The "soul" is something that the body can do, just like a hammer can drive a nail. You can also use a claw-hammer to dig a shallow hole, remove a nail or screw, or do many many other things. The "soul" is one of many possible things that you can do with the human body, especially the brain. Not everyone has soul, though, in my way of thinking, and not all of those who have soul can do it well. Furthermore, a machine might someday have soul...which is a whole different set of questions, but anyway.
I've heard this before that David and Jonathan might have been lovers. Who knows? Not likely though. David was said to be a "man after God's own heart" and had a man murdered so he could have the man's wife. I always found that confusing... so maybe the "man after God's own heart" had a love afair with a man which is apparently frowned on in his religion? Idk most likely they were just extremely close friends... brotherlike. idk.
Well here (Indonesia) if people come up with "new" region they will be prosecuted. and i also hear a lot of so called wise man in my country that when people wanted to seek religion than they should stick with the ancient one and not the new generation one i guess that's explain it -somehow- why there is so little or its safe to say no people dare enough to came up with anything better. at least here!! But i'm pretty open to all if they somehow mention that my "desires of same sex love" is not considered a sin or even celebrated let me know if you found one :lol::lol:
I would assume they were friends had it not been for one part. 2 Samuel 1:26 "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women." Back then, women were only loved because of sex. For a man to love a man 'more than that of women', it really brings into question the heteronormativity of it. It doesn't necessarily mean they were in love with each other, but it could be the case. There is, of course, ways to refute claims that they were sexually engaged with eachother. It's not a certainty.
There is Bible fanfiction, and much of it contains sexual antics. Everything from Jesus and Hitler: A Romance to Take Me Into Your Ark. I'd directly link those but... I won't be responsible for that. You'll have to make the conscious choice to Google it, damn it! LOL! But to be totally serious, Skaros mentions a woman's love being different from a man's love. While women were loved for sex, this isn't the only reason. Women were just considered, often times, beneath men so, even if they were notable or beneficial members of a society, they were still women -- they could rarely equal a man. This is why you hear of brotherly love and man oaths, especially in older eras, because these were considered honorable and the greatest of loves. I'm reminded of a passage from Romance of the Three Kingdoms in which Liu Bei, a growing influence who is related to the recently-fallen Han, is fleeing from a rival. Some stuff happens and one of his men goes back to rescue Liu Bei's wife and child, but the wife is unable to be saved and dies, while the child is brought back. Liu Bei throws the child to the ground and basically tells the man who went back for his family, that was stupid as it was a woman and a child -- neither of which are worth one man's life. It's amusing to see how history wanes and flexes in regards to same-sex activity, and what is considered okay and what isn't.
I'm totally relaxed about the idea of a deeper relationship between David and Jonathan and some Biblical scholars have mooted the idea that it might have been a sexual relationship. I don't know why some people balk at the idea when you consider David's greater misdeeds - adultery and murder. David was considered a man "after God's own heart" but he was far from perfect. For those of us who do believe, there is something quite significant to be taken from that message. His relationship with Jonathan was nothing compared to his relationship with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah - breaking at least two of the Ten Commandments.
It would be ironic if David(which is also my given name) was bi, and we find out by talking to each other in heaven. He wasn't gay after pursuing Bathsheba like he did. That we know. So, he was either bi or straight. I had thought about this before. Maybe he was a Kinsey 1 or 2? Of course, I would never bring this up in Evangelical circles because it would be akin to blasphemy.
The very first verse where David and Jonathan are mentioned (I Sam. 18:1 KJV) says, "...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." As I'm reading these verses, I really think it's possibly that Jonathan loved David, but I think it was unrequited. David was pretty stoked to marry Michal (Jonathan's sister) and he is never said to return Jonathan's feelings. On the other hand, Jonathan is constantly choosing David over his father and telling David that he'll do anything for him and that anything David wants from Jonathan is his. Yeah, I can believe that there's some gay love going on here.
Jesus went around with 12 guys everywhere he went. I think there was probably something there. I think some of them drunk from the holy altar if you know what I'm saying.
It's certainly possible. It's a very interesting perspective. There is certainly more evidence for homoeroticism here in the Books of Samuel than there is anywhere else in the Bible. It's probably more likely that it was just platonic, but some of the wording makes you wonder: "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful Than the love of women."
