Quote# 50435

"When there's NO revelation, people cast off restraint", the proverb goes on to say. In modern words, it is liberalism that opens the door for porn industries to air their films on TV stations, publish their photos on magazines, etc.

As a result, brothels, cafes and bars, night clubs, etc were established everywhere in the west. Homosexual couples are also everywhere. Not only adult women are the victims of sexual freedom but also children are today's victims of sexual freedom.

In contrast to what happen in the 1950's era. At that time when the Word of God still have its place in westerner's heart, we can hardly find brothels, cafes and bars, night clubs, homosexual couples, human sperm spread over women's face in the west.

Agus Karta Parulian Panggabean, The Jakarta Post 51 Comments [10/22/2008 5:42:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 140455

That's a nice sentiment, but it doesn't work in the real world. Liberalism means you have to be as unhappy as they are. And are you really "tolerant" if you and your children are not participating in their "diversity" programs?

And they always want someone else to either pay for the perversion, or pay to fix it.

Perseverando, Free Republic 8 Comments [9/14/2018 3:29:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 140430

You do have a reason to believe that, though. He's already told you he wants to. The fact that he's said he won't act on his pathology as long as it's illegal is hardly enough of a safety net to allow him unfettered access to children.?

What, are we living in Minority Report now? Sorry, but the disbelief that someone is capable of resisting their urges isn't enough to warrant 24/7 surveillance and potential removal from their workplace, IMO.

Really, what is it exactly you'd be "reporting" him for, aside from inappropriate discussion in the workplace? Or is that the angle -- get him on that, and use it as an excuse to dismiss the creepy pedophile you don't trust?

I'd be reporting that someone entrusted with taking care of children has said that he'd like to rape them. It's not fucking complicated, You keep the fucking perverts away from the children. Jesus, I can't believe this place sometimes.

Well, I guess you mean reporting to the employer and not the police, since I don't think *wanting* to rape a child is a crime.

So that's all you'd say to the employer? Omitting the part about how he absolutely refuses to act on his desires? And then expecting all work history up to that point to be disregarded, so that the disgusting, creepy pedophile can be thrown on the street where he belongs?

So you're willing to wait around until AFTER he's already raped a baby (a BABY) to decide wether it's dangerous to let someone who says he wants to rape babies take care of babies?

That's how the legal system works. Or should we open up a precrime department and fix the world your way?

Entirely irrelevant, but I was abstracting on the john, and it occurs to me that this kind of workplace interaction wouldn't happen to begin with if the pedophile in question didn't think you'd believe him when he said he refused to act on his desires.

Kind of like if your best friend told you in confidence, "man, your girlfriend is so, so sexy. If you weren't dating her, I'd hit it so hard. Oh god, I'd love to be with her, but while you're dating her, I wouldn't do anything." Do you still trust them to hang out alone?

atomicbadgerrace, The Straight Dope 4 Comments [9/13/2018 4:38:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 50240

Why would we need to come up with any new evidence when there is already so much evidence that Atheists ignore? Atheism is based on either spite for God, or "scientists", but not science, and definitely not on solid reason. People are so easily swayed by what the guy on TV says that they rarely look into the evidence themselves. Have you ever figured out how complex a cell is in the most simple form. A cell is much more compicated than a PC. It is next to impossible for a cell to have come from soup by natural selection. Have you ever asked yourself a very simple question? Do accidents breed destruction, or complex life forms? Anyone with half a brain could tell you that accidents breed destruction. Yet people still believe that there is no God simply because anyone who questions macro-evolution is hushed and jeered as if it's a political arena, and not a science arena. This is because modern "science" has turned into politics. If you want evidence, just look around at the complexities of life. It is just too complex to say that natural selection did it, especially if you want to call it science.

natkra09, Yahoo Answers 33 Comments [10/21/2008 12:11:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By:

Quote# 50045

Atheists, do you ever wonder why God hasn't destroyed the earth yet?

It's because of Jesus. In the OT, if what is going on today was going on back then on such a wide scale, I'm sure God would have destroyed this earth by now. But He doesn't, because Jesus want's to save everyone.

So why don't you give props to Jesus?

Lion Of Judah, Yahoo Answers 66 Comments [10/21/2008 5:32:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: J Arcenas

Quote# 140435

(In reply to another member, who said: "Abortions, contrary to the anti abortion people are reaally safe."):

Studies on this are not accurate because women die after they have the abortion and the cause is covered up. Even the death certificate if she had an abortion and died at abortion clinic, it will say...bled to death, instead of abortion.

If she dies of excessive bleeding or hemorrhage get or perforated uterus bleed out or because baby parts were left in her, these are deaths called a different name such as infection. Even an ectopic pregnancy wrongly given day after pill is deadly but not listed as abortion death, but listed as ectopic pregnancy complications. Shar

Shar, Realabortiondebate 9 Comments [9/13/2018 8:33:54 PM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 50421

Firstly I need to say this. The whole chemical imbalance idea is just that, an idea. It's not based on proven science. Fact is doctors don't know exactly what causes mental illnesses, like depression. They know about serotonin, dopamine, chemicals in the brain that do affect mood. However, mental illnesses are not just an abnormality resulting from imbalances or deficiencies of those known biological chemicals. It's more than that. I know, because I've researched this. I'm not saying that means the medicines being prescribed due to mental illnesses aren't legit. I can't say that because I just don't know. But if person feels they need to take them, and feel they are helping them, then it's up to them.

Anyway, I believe certain mental disorders are a result of original sin, and the enemy's influence. I also believe God let's some of His people be born with certain mental disorders, (such as retardation) for reasons known only to Him, though one reason could be to help teach us about acceptance, compassion, love.

As far as depression. I believe not just original sin, and the foothold the devil got from it, which enables him to now freely attack us, but also our own personal sins we commit, help give him the enemy a door way that he also uses. Such as living a life of promiscuity, and the negative mental effects it can have, especially if one eventually realizes how wrong it is, and stops it, but is left with the memories. Also, sins committed against us. Like the various forms of abuse.

JadoreAdonai, Rapture Ready 72 Comments [10/23/2008 7:12:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 50418

Kids are harrassing me in school because I am atheist! What should I do?

Answer : Accept Jesus as your Savior.

Oreo Schmoreo, Yahoo Answers 45 Comments [10/22/2008 2:39:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: J Arcenas

Quote# 50135

Why do non Christians expect us to be diplomatic in our conversations about Christian issues such as abortion?
Why do we always have to be diplomatic and speak softly when it comes to Christian issues such as:

- Homosexuality
- Hell and Heaven
- Abortion


Do you not understand that we speak from the Bible. Is it not better to leave diplomacy at home and start facing the truth?

As Christians our role is not to win a popularity contest. If our truths are hurting your feelings, I am sorry. But Christians have to spread the gospel in a nice and friendly, yet firm manner.

God Bless you.

What are your opinions on this?

God Bless you

[And the Native Americans can testify to that! Amen!]

Bride of Jesus, Yahoo Answers 44 Comments [10/22/2008 3:21:37 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Lola Flores

Quote# 50443

Muslims should marry Muslims. Christians should marry Christians.

Anyone who is serious about their faith will want (and need) to find a partner who shares the same beliefs, especially if they have kids.

Okay give me thumbs down but Im being logical. Whats a child going to think if their parents religious beliefs contradict eachothers? (And according to Islam the kids MUST be raised Muslim, so already the Christian woman has to comprimise and see her kids raised in a different faith from what she believes in) Why would any Mother want her children being taught that the things that are important to her are not actually true? Is that fair?

Also, Christians are not even allowed to "marry out", according to the Epistles of Paul if I remember correctly, so anyone who is devout will not do that.

PS, no I dont live in a bubble, Im just not into this whole politcally correct nonsense

Emerald<3, Yahoo Answers 37 Comments [10/22/2008 6:23:16 PM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 50348

I know about evolution, and I choose to believe in creation therefore I am not ignorant, I am informed. Inform yourself in the word of God then you are no longer ignorant of the word. You are ignorant because you choose to believe in the writing of Darwin instead of informing yourself in the writing of Christ. That my friend is ingnorace in its purest form. Before you act like you know something study it first. You chose to be ignorant because its easier than studying Gods word.

badandygonzalez, YouTube 54 Comments [10/22/2008 10:02:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: FacelessAtheist

Quote# 50332

"You say you love Jesus... even though his love is so terrific you might go to hell... how does that make sense?"

It doesn't. Whoever said it had to make sense?

UnhandledException, christianforums.com 29 Comments [10/23/2008 3:19:04 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: jackrabbit

Quote# 50415

[on the age of the Earth]

What difference will it make if it one trillion or one billion years old? How can a man or a woman be so arrogant to said I do not believe in a Creator, like some of the people who claim that there is no God and calling themself athiest.

Jill A, Yahoo Answers 29 Comments [10/23/2008 5:23:35 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: green_meklar

Quote# 140431

would you report a pedophile coworker ?
This comment ensued
Say you have a co-worker who proudly spills out his inclination to have sex with babies but won't because its illegal.
How do you respond ?
I would report him and do everything I can to ensure he no longer works with me.

I wouldn't report because I'd think of it as a sick joke first. Who goes around telling other people that? Its much more likely he's an idiot rather than a pedo.

Now if I was convinced he was serious, then it be equally likely that I'd be convinced he was serious about not touching any kids, so either way I'm fine with just ignoring him.

Glad to know the kiddies can rely on you.

Well I like to live dangerously

I eat rare meat, I go outside without a sweater, and play video games or read while driving the car.

What real assurance do I have that its just an offhand comment and not a serious declaration of intent? None. Assuming I believe him, why think he'll break the law if I thought he was serious about being a pedophile? Take the emotion out of the argument, and you'd have just a co-worker who has an odd taste in jokes.

Logically speaking, it doesn't matter whether he works with kids or the elderly, because the above statement works either way. So I don't think its the right thing to report him at all because you'd either be sure he's joking, or be sure he won't break the law. Only someone steeped in bias would callously twist his words into the no-win scenario you've driven him in to. By your actions, why shouldn't he go and rape the next baby he sees? Either way, he'll get the cops on him, probably lose his job, and be ostracized. Might as well indulge, right?

And before you ask, yes, I would totally leave him alone with any kid, even mine. It would be hypocritical for me to display distrust after defending him, and I'd be pretty sure of correctness to the point where I don't think he's a threat. Sometimes you just gotta take chances Dio

YogSothoth, The Straight Dope 4 Comments [9/13/2018 2:32:17 PM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 140433

[Why do you like the USSR?]

They threw off the shackles of brutal feudalist oppression and life expectancy skyrocketed, infant mortality plummeted, industrialization and socialization caused their economy to grow at historically unprecedented levels, they produced tanks that defeated the Third Reich at a rate that astounded Hitler (we know this because the only recording we have of Hitler outside of public speeches was surreptitiously recorded in a meeting wherein he expressed this astonishment to his aides), they had the first satellite in space, the first telemetry to and from space, the first animal in space, the first man in space, the first woman in space, the first human to complete an orbit of the Earth, and the first space station.

I could go on. The USSR was really cool.

rochambeau, r/PropagandaPosters 8 Comments [9/13/2018 8:19:15 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: The Reptilian Jew

Quote# 140429

We're not talking about wishing something was legal in a vast generic sense, we're talking about someone who is responsible for the care of small children telling you he would like to rape them. You're saying this is a job he should be permitted to keep?

Having no reason to believe that he would act on his desires or otherwise commit a crime, yes.

atomicbadgerrace, The Straight Dope 5 Comments [9/13/2018 2:30:41 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 140428

What if I said nothing and he ended up screwing the neighbour's three-year old, in spite of his protestations that he would do no such thing? I'd rather have his ostracisation on my conscience than that.

I'd rather respect his right to privacy than play "what if?" games. Ruining someone's reputation/socially ostracizing them/putting myself in the line of fire for potential slander or harassment lawsuits isn't something I want on my conscience.

I encourage you to consider the question posed by others in this thread: where do you draw the line with hypotheticals?

he has told you that he would like to fuck children. That isn't speculation. You're saying that if you worked at a job in which you were responsible for working with young children, and a coworker told you he wished he could have sx with them, you wopuld not think that was any cause for alarm or anything worth reporting to your employer? Becaus if that's the acse, then you should be fired too.

Maybe, but I'm not employed by the Mind Police, and I won't risk ruining someone's reputation, or inciting potential harassment or finger-pointing, over what they wish was legal without the intent to commit a crime.

atomicbadgerrace, The Straight Dope 2 Comments [9/13/2018 2:30:26 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 140402

Today, The Film industry of India (2nd largest in World) celebrated this move as a Festival. And now more and more LGBT movies will come up. LGBT will be as normal as hetro sexuality.

In India nobody gives a damn on public display of "LOVE". So now we'll be witnessing homosexual display too. Fitnah of Dajjal is spreading fast.

Dajjal - THE GLOBAL ARROGANCE SYSTEM. India is following the footsteps of America (the Great Satan).

Waseem162, ShiaChat 12 Comments [9/12/2018 1:44:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 140413

Peter: Given many of the same people that refuse to serve us cakes have voted in a serial adulterer as president we aren't treated equally.
But both those activities go against Jesus principles for all morality and the comparison with the second one is beyond contempt.

Martin: You can hardly complain about adultery when you promote sexual immorality. And the alternative they had was a woman who not only connived at her husband's serial adultery and also undermined those young women he took advantage of. Not only that but she also campaigns to kill babies. Trump certainly appears the more moral of the two.

Peter: What part of Jesus teaching that all morality is based on love God and agape love of neighbour are you finding so difficult to grasp? To say trump evidences this and merits support on that basis - ongoing support from white conservative evangelicals - is risible.

Martin: Trump certainly provides evidence that he cares for the poor in the USA, whose jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants, and helpless infants aborted for no other reason than the convenience of the 'mothers'.
And what does Clinton do to show her love for God and her neighbour?

Peter: You do realise the election is over? The support for trump from white evangelical religious conservatives is ongoing and nothing to do with clinton.
When you disgracefully try to scapegoat "illegal immigrants" for economic problems you are closer to home. So much for giving two hoots what the bible, staunch defender of immigrants, has to say.

Martin: And the whining from the left is never ceasing. That people reject your politics is because it doesn't work and it isn't compatible with Christianity. Why shouldn't Christians seek to influence the president?
It's a fact that illegal immigrants do take work away from the poorer strata of society. Curiously the left seem to have given up on the working man these days.

Martin, Premier 18 Comments [9/12/2018 1:45:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: CC

Quote# 140376

"The Failed Legacy Speaks"

Barack Obama (presumably)
All this talk about the economy. Let's not forget...uhh...when this recovery began - back in...uhh...2015! We didn't have all this strife and division. This persecution of FBI and DOJ...the racism.

Cable Guy:
Cable Guy here. Gotta admire your style, Barack! All those pauses to admire your profound pontificatin'...the way you look down your nose at the useful idiots...classic! None of 'em wanna hear how you were too much of a boob to destroy American in eight whole years. Then along comes this Trump feller getting it turned around in one year--in spite of looney tune dimocrats and their pet media!

But ain't that the point of Marxism? All nations must be the same, which means the West has to take a dive. You tried to do that with your job-killin' regs; your race baitin'; crooked FBI, DOJ, IRS, EPA and all that alphabet soup! Your hold-over stooges are still throwin' wrenches in the works, and we gotta admire that kinda loyalty!

But you're takin' too much credit, Mr. O. Could it be you're a useful idiot yourself? It ain't just Trump that has an IQ way higher than yours--there's also that infernal dude that pulls a lot of puppet strings, a dude you don't even believe in!

Hold still while I find me a fly swat--there's somethin' on your shoulder. And keep showin' the voters who and what dimocrats really are!

Mick Williams, Disqus - Faith & Religion 20 Comments [9/12/2018 1:43:07 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 140389

I tell you—the Bob Jones crowd are deceived, lackadaisical concerning the verbal inspiration of God's Word, promoting the Devil's corruptible seed in the modern Alexandrian Bible perversions, indifferent toward false prophets like John MacArthur (a BJU alumni), and lax toward women's modesty. It is frustrating as a man to see female staff members of Harvest Baptist Church on Guam walking around in public wearing sexy tight spandex pants. They are whores and couldn't care less about the war men are going through. 1st Peter 2:11, “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.” The Bob Jones crowd DON'T CARE!!! God cares how you dress ladies. God cares which Bible we use. God cares how we present the Gospel. Harvest Baptist Church promotes the false gospel of Dr. John MacArthur!!! They must be exposed!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 20 Comments [9/11/2018 11:41:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 92576

The Unity, the Creator of the Universes, Earth and all in between, God of Abraham, David, Solomon, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad, the God the Father, Adonai, Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda, Dao, Narayan, Bhagavan, Vishnu, the Existence as a whole, the Unified string filed of consciousness that rules the 11 dimensions of the known space-time in this Universe and limitless unknown material and non-material other Universes, (All are ONE). It decided. It is written. It is done.

Justice will be enforced on the Earth as follows. Two miracles and one global execution.

1- 19 June 2018 all butchers all over the world, 12 noon (Greenwich) will die painless quick.

2- 57 days after that, all hunters who have not been Vegan for the past 42 days, will die as above.

3- 114 days after that, all humans who have not been Vegan for the past 42 days will die, as above.

Present estimation 5 billion.

4- Surviving Vegans will have some tough time dealing with emotional traumas, the dead, economical, production, workforce and chaos. Free large scale global expert psychological counseling will be provided. They will survive, pro-create and fill the earth again.

A VEGAN EARTH. kindness is the rule

An Earth with one law above all other laws, enforced in all governments that Vegans will establish themselves.

Global Equal Legal Rights for all human and non-human animals.
Court, Evidence, death penalty. We ensure its enforcement for one human generation
then we will leave the Earth.

Behold the miracles. Learn. Become Vegan. Become kind. Survive.

Else, you will be dead in those dates and as a gift of the God will get the chance to be reborn again and again. . . in a Vegan kind world.

It is decided. It is done.

Wish you happiness
the Moses

the Moses, God Justice Vegan Earth 2019 95 Comments [2/10/2013 5:25:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 178
Submitted By: Count Zapolai

Quote# 123562

The definition of a child is precisely who has not reached puberty. Who has not developed the secondary (adult) characters of sexuality. In general, girls enter puberty around the age of 9, with the breastspring, becoming a puberty, and leave puberty around age 13, becoming post-pubescent. Menarche occurs on average at 12 years. The first menstruation is a late phenomenon within the pubertal process.

Miguel, fococristao.wordpress.com 25 Comments [1/11/2017 7:07:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: PETF

Quote# 137732

(=Trimmed for Relevant qoutes and verses=)

So How Did David Really “Love” Jonathan?

Is it possible David and Jonathan could express love toward each other, even swear an oath and enter into a covenant, without being homosexuals? Well, let’s begin by looking at the issue of the love they felt for each other. The David’s love for Jonathan is displayed in the Biblical text the very first time that Jonathan meets David (immediately following David’s defeat of Goliath and as he is presented to King Saul)

1 Samuel 18:1-3
Now it came about when he had finished speaking to Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as himself. And Saul took him that day and did not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself.

Jonathan also makes a covenant with David:

1 Samuel 20:16-17
So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, “May the LORD require it at the hands of David’s enemies.” And Jonathan made David vow again because of his love for him, because he loved him as he loved his own life.

And later, when Jonathan is killed, David laments his loss with these words:

2 Samuel 1:25-26
“How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan is slain on your high places. 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.”

Two Hebrew words are used here to describe the emotion of love in these passages. The first is ‘ahab (aw-hab’) or ‘aheb (aw-habe’), and it can definitely be used to describe a sexual relationship between a man and a wife. The second word is ‘ahabah (a-hab-aw), and this two can be used to describe a similar marital love. But in the 247 times these words are used to describe love in the Old Testament, far less than 20% of the time are they actually used to describe the love between two sexual partners. Far more often, (over 4 to 1) the words are used to describe the love between friends or between God and his creation. Here are just a few examples:

*Series of Verses*

In these passages, it is obvious that the word used for love is not meant to connote a sexual relationship. Now it is clear with David and Jonathan there is no Biblical account of a sexual relationship. That is interesting in itself. If they were homosexual lovers, why is there no open description of this fact? Some (as we’ve seen above) would argue the social pressures forced the writer to hide the truth. But there are open discussions of homosexual activity in other places in the Bible, why not here? Part of the problem is in those other areas of the Bible where homosexual behavior is openly discusses, it is always in a negative sense (as something we shouldn’t do). If Samuel is cleverly hiding the homosexual behavior between David and Jonathan here, he is doing so as a prophet of God, knowing full well such behavior is offensive to God! Does that seems consistent with the canon of Old Testament scripture?

So how is it then, that David and Jonathan’s love was deeper than that of a man and woman? Well, these two men were certainly connected as brothers. In fact, they were brothers-in-arms during war. If any of you ever had the chance to talk to two friends who fought side by side in World War 2 (just watch “Band of Brothers”) you know the love between men in a situation like that is deeper in some ways than the love between a man and a woman. Is this not also a possible reading of the text here? And is this reading not more compatible with the other clear teaching of the Bible and the historic accepted traditional understanding to the relationship between David and Jonathan?"

So Why Did They Kiss?

"In this passage, Jonathan is sending David away because he knows his father (King Saul) is trying to kill David. Jonathan knows he may never see his dear friend again. So he kisses David. The Hebrew word used for this kiss is nashaq (naw-shak’) and it is used 35 times in the Old Testament. I in only 4 of these uses is the word used to describe a sexual or romantic kiss. Over and over again, the word is used to describe the cultural greeting of the time:

*Number of verses*

The kiss between David and Jonathan, when seen accurately in the majority context and used of the Hebrew word, does nothing to advance the notion they were homosexuals. Even today, we see men in the middles east continue to greet and interact with each other, utilizing a kiss to express their friendship or commitment to one another without a homosexual relationship."

So Why Did He Take His Clothes Off?

Another claim on the part of revisionists is Jonathan disrobed in front of David in some sort of sexual way or as some sort of sexual display or commitment:

*Series of quotes*

Reading from the context of the culture, 1 Samuel 18:3-5 actually describes a covenant of brotherhood between Jonathan and David, as Jonathan pays high tribute to the man who just killed Goliath and had earned the right to wear the armor. This hardly proves the two men were homosexual lovers.

But Does It Look Like a Marriage?

Those who interpret David and Jonathan’s relationship in a homoerotic sense also point to scripture to make the case Jonathan and David considered themselves to be married in some way. Look at this passage describing Saul’s reaction when he discovered that Jonathan was ultimately siding with David

1 Samuel 20:30-31
Then Saul’s anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? “For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die.”

Advocates of a homosexual reading of this passage will sometimes point to the description of “nakedness” in this verse and claim it is referring to a sexual relationship. The inference here is that the context implies that Jonathan somehow chose David sexually (as a homosexual partner). This interpretation then goes on to claim Saul is upset because Jonathan could not be established as king unless and until he had a female partner with which to bear children who could become heirs to the throne.

But who is described as naked? It’s Jonathan’s mother! There is nothing in the passage describing a sexual relationship between the two men. In fact, this passage says nothing about any type of marriage. Saul is upset about one thing: Jonathan took David’s side against Saul. Jonathan and David were sworn to each other as brothers, and Saul was simply mad Jonathan would treat David more like family than his own father."

So Why Does He Say David Is A Son-In-Law Twice?

But there is another passage of Scripture sometimes used to make the case for a homosexual union between Jonathan and David. It is a curious passage seeming to indicate David had two opportunities to become Saul’s son-in-law. Let’s begin with a peak at the passage in question, presented in a partial way, as it is often presented by homosexual advocates:

1 Samuel 18:17,21
Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.”… And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

Those who hope to interpret a homosexual relationship here maintain Saul has offered David a second opportunity to be his son-in-law because the first opportunity for David was realized through Jonathan! They argue David’s union with Jonathan makes him Saul’s son-in-law, even before David’s marriage to Merab, Saul’s daughter. But before we can truly assess what would make David Saul’s son-in-law in the first place, we had better look at the issue of ‘betrothal’ in the ancient world. In Biblical times, the moment a woman was ‘betrothed’ to a man (pledged or promised to be married to him), she was considered married to him, even though she was not yet formally united to the man in a ceremony. For this reason, a woman who was betrothed to someone and slept with another man was considered to be an adulteress. That’s right, you could commit adultery even before you were officially married. If a woman wanted to break a betrothal, something similar to a divorce would have to occur.

Once we understand this historic truth, many other passages of scripture start to make sense. Take a look at this passage from Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Clearly in this law written for Israel, an engaged girl is described as a wife, even before she is officially married. In addition to this, we are all familiar with this part of the nativity story:

Matthew 1:19-20
Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

Joseph thinks about divorcing Mary for what he thinks she has done. How can he do this when they aren’t even married yet? Because, (once again) this engaged woman was considered married to her betrothed, even before the official ceremony. OK, now let’s take a look at the situation with David and Merab one more time. As it turns out, David had already been betrothed to Merab; this occurred the moment he defeated Goliath:

1 Samuel 18:17-21
Then Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the Lord’s battles.” For Saul thought, “My hand shall not be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him.” But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my life or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be the king’s son-in-law?” So it came about at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite for a wife. Now Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David. When they told Saul, the thing was agreeable to him. And Saul thought, “I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” Therefore Saul said to David, “For a second time you may be my son-in-law today.”

This is the key to the comment that Saul makes in verse 21. Although Saul had already betrothed his daughter to David as a result of his killing of Goliath, Saul conveniently ignored this betrothal when he instead promised Merab to Adriel the Meholathite. Look at what traditional commentaries have to say about this:

*Quote here*

Now Saul’s comment in verse 21 makes sense. Saul had betrothed Merab to David twice. Once when he defeated Goliath and once here in the passages that precede verse 21.

So Were They Homosexuals?
In order to believe David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, you are going to have to ignore the plain reading of the scripture and the historic and traditional understanding of the text. In addition, you are going to have to believe Samuel, one of God’s prophets in the tradition of the Mosiac cultural law that condemns homosexuality in Leviticus, would then approve of this homosexual relationship enough to carefully cloak it in the text. Would not this prophet of God, in the strong tradition of Judaism and the law of Moses have an opinion on this?

Hopefully this very brief review of the texts under consideration will help you to understand the orthodox Christian perspective of David and Jonathan’s relationship. David and Jonathan were the deepest of friends. True brothers in both Cause and Faith. But they were nothing more.

J. Warner Wallace, Cold Case Christianity 8 Comments [4/14/2018 9:34:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 140359

The best thing that could happen is for mR Obama to lash out and talk wild, as that will solify and ralley the reublicans to make sure crazy dems kept out of office!

Yeshua1, Baptistboard 11 Comments [9/12/2018 1:42:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Hilda