Was King David Gay ?

yeah based on the Jonathan thing

For example

1 Samuel 18:1-4 (New International Version)

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return to his father's house. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.
Click to expand...
 
There's a lot of ways you could interpret that I guess. Doesn't sound like my ideal way of spending a Saturday night though!

Seriously though, it's the way it's been penned by the scribes at that time that we compare to how it sounds now in a 2008 mind set. "became one in spirit" could mean for instance that they both proclaimed in God and became into the spirit there an then. Perhaps they both got drunk and made a pact of a binding friendship with each other. Who know's, it could be lots of things. My thoughts!
 
The way I interpet that.... Two become one?? lol... *puts on a tight union jack mini skirt dress thing...* Be a little bit wiser baby, put it on, put it on, cause tonight is the night when two become one, I need some love like I never needed loe before.....

*Davids soldiers* "Wanna make love to ya baby!!!"

I had a little love, now I'm back for more!!!

*Davids soldiers* "Wanna make love to ya baby!!!"

*stops himself before he gets tooooo carried away.*
 
Jesus was the One with His Father, too!!!:confused: We're surrouned by them!!! They are everywhere! Enemies everywhere!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Hide, hide!!!:p
 
mariska hagerty Dharmaatmaa *bows head*

Dharmaatmaa said:
Jesus was the One with His Father, too!!!:confused: We're surrouned by them!!! They are everywhere! Enemies everywhere!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Hide, hide!!!:p
Click to expand...

lulz.


Dharmaatmaa said:
We're surrouned by them!!!
Click to expand...

More lulz!!!

I think though that gets worded differently than David and his boyfriend... I mean his friend who is a boy of course. Jesus was one with god as he was the mirror image of god and so on and so forth... But this is two men... And they became one.... :S
 
I know it, Alex.

But even if David had any homosexual experience, we cannot blame him or laugh at him.

Why? Because in the early days of history, there wasn't such antipathy to sex in all its possible forms. If you remember Sparta as well, you'll see they was as free as David in this aspect. Soldiers of Sparta even slept with one another, so they could achieve such a strong army. They all were much more than friends, much more than brothers even! There were cultures to have had nothing about that. And I don't see something strange in homosexualism at the ancient Israel. It was popular, of cause even in ancient Greece and Rome. Writings of their poets prove that.

Only Christianity gave birth to those sexual complexes making us laugh at David. Christianity killed freedom in all social parts including what we're discussing.

But seriously speaking, David couldn't have sexual life at all. He was a priest. That's all. They couldn't. And please don't compare him with our modern priests having childrens and lovers in secret from people. In those days, priest was a bit more than bla-bla show, I assert.
 
Dharmatmaa said:
But seriously speaking, David couldn't have sexual life at all. He was a priest. That's all. They couldn't. And please don't compare him with our modern priests having childrens and lovers in secret from people. In those days, priest was a bit more than bla-bla show, I assert.
Click to expand...
er, what? what? he was a *king*, not a priest. tribe of judah, not tribe of levi. he had several marriages and numerous children. honestly, this is pretty basic stuff. and in any case, jewish priests can get married. i suggest you go and check out Judaism 101.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Penguin said:
There's a lot of ways you could interpret that I guess. Doesn't sound like my ideal way of spending a Saturday night though!

Seriously though, it's the way it's been penned by the scribes at that time that we compare to how it sounds now in a 2008 mind set. "became one in spirit" could mean for instance that they both proclaimed in God and became into the spirit there an then. Perhaps they both got drunk and made a pact of a binding friendship with each other. Who know's, it could be lots of things. My thoughts!
Click to expand...

David also had a wife named Michal, didn't he? So maybe David had problems making love with Michal and thought to himself, damn it, it's gotta be you, Jonathan! Men have affairs for a reason . . .:D

Friends with benefits . . .
 
the main problem with michal was that she wouldn't shag him because she thought he looked like a total nob-head on the dancefloor, as it says in 1 chronicles, 15:29:

And it came to pass, as the Ark of the covenant of G!D came to the city of David, that Michal, the daughter of Saul, looking out at a window, saw king David dancing and playing: and she despised him in her heart.
Click to expand...
breakdancing was, like, sooooo bronze age.

and, of course, everyone knows gay men are simply *fabulous* at dancing, so obviously he must have been straight. qed.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bananabrain said:
the main problem with michal was that she wouldn't shag him because she thought he looked like a total nob-head on the dancefloor, as it says in 1 chronicles, 15:29:


breakdancing was, like, sooooo bronze age.

and, of course, everyone knows gay men are simply *fabulous* at dancing, so obviously he must have been straight. qed.

b'shalom

bananabrain
Click to expand...

Well, actually I was being silly . . . but anyway . . . the verse you quoted in 1 Chronicles happened after Saul had died, but we're talking about before that when he was still alive.

In the same chapter in 1 Samuel 18:20 it says that Michal was in love with David. Obviously it would have been a teenage girl's crush (oh, how sweet) on "the popular guy," an important man in the kingdom. Later when he becomes king and dances in the procession with the Ark she had probably fall out of love with him (older as well -- oh, how tragic, if only love lasted forever -- oh dear, why do people stop loving?) by then.

It might not have been that bad, however, since it says she despised him in her heart.

Gay men being "fabulous" at dancing? I've heard stories . . . of women being drawn to gay men . . . kind of like men preferring virgins over widows and divorced women. Oh boy, it's like saying gay men are virgins (and I guess they are). Maybe it's the "purity" that comes with it. (and lol, if we saw homosexuality as a virtue rather than a sin, which, I know . . . sounds bizarre and weird)

I wonder if that was what made Michal fall in love with David in the beginning? David and Jonathan loved each other and Michal thought, wow! A gay, virgin man! Uncorrupted and innocent! David, I want a piece of you too! Then later when he's married, she's kind of . . . disappointed.
 
I don't buy it either. I have heard it preached (although without any references :mad:) that covenants involve trading weapons and are the joining together of two people or tribal leaders. I've tried looking this up in Nelson's Bible Manners and Custom's and a couple places on the internet but can't find anything at this instant, however if that info about covenants is correct then it helps clarify why the words 'love' and 'knit' are used. Consider it a rumor that I am passing on to you! (Don't forget to change it slightly when you re-tell it.) It seems like Saul's whole family, not just Jonathan, was very enamoured of David, however I don't think we should interpret it to mean that they had sex with him. Saul wouldn't 'Let' him go home, Michael had a crush on him, and Jonathan made a covenant. The general idea is that they all liked him instantly. I'll make a blind stab and say David's own home may not have felt very loving to him. In the Goliath story, David's oldest brother Eliab openly accused him of a proud and insolent heart 1Sa 17:28. I imagine the love David felt in Saul's house was sort of like a cult's love for a new member. Imagine his disappointment when he was betrayed by both Saul and Michael! David had done a lot to get Michael back, you know. No, I don't buy the gay story.
 
Dream said:
It seems like Saul's whole family, not just Jonathan, was very enamoured of David, however I don't think we should interpret it to mean that they had sex with him. Saul wouldn't 'Let' him go home, Michael had a crush on him, and Jonathan made a covenant. The general idea is that they all liked him instantly.
Click to expand...

Umm, Dream, it wasn't Michael (a guy). It was Michal (a girl).

I didn't mean they necessarily had sex with him, but I can imagine it was somewhat rather romantic and soppy anyhow.:D

Maybe if you don't want to call it eros love, maybe you'd be happy with agape/philos love. Maybe it was male-bonding, or maybe more than that (it involved some touching and affection). What I'm suggesting is sentiment of the kind where Jonathan says, "oh David, you're so precious, you're so precious, I need you, I want you, I can't bear to let you out of my sight, you're my bestest buddy, I don't want you to die!"

What I mean is Jonathan being in love with David in a non-sexual way if that makes sense. -- if I could push it in that direction.:):eek:

If David died, Jonathan would be so unresolvably and unbearably sad, he'd cry a river of tears. He'd really miss David. It would be "oh my dear David, how could I let this happen to you? Things were so good . . . I just can't take it that you had to die . . . I don't know what to say or do . . . I don't know how I can live anymore . . . without you . . . you were the light that made everything else seem dark . . . life is so dark with you gone."

It's like the Lucius Lavin character in Stargate Atlantis (Episode 3.03). Everyone except John Sheppard falls under his spell. Everyone's in love with him (even the men) and Sheppard has to do something to break his power.

Irresistible - Stargate Wiki

I had a bit of a laugh when I watched that episode, especially when Sheppard kidnaps Dr. Beckett and tries to convince him to help him. Beckett is so in love with the guy he doesn't feel like helping. Instead he says, "I need to go back . . . he needs me . . . " It was the need to be with Lucius. It was a kind of adoration, admiration and affinity that wasn't sexual, a desire to be there for that person.

But I'm sure, if Lucius asked for sex, Beckett would have been willing to do it. I reckon he'd be willing to do anything for the guy.

I think the same goes for David and Jonathan. The relationship wasn't implicitly sexual, but I can imagine they could have loved each other so much (emphasis), that if one of them asked for it, the other would have agreed and offered . . . :D

It would have been true love lol (laughing as I'm typing this out) . . . :D

That's the thing about love, it's not the body, it's the mind.
 
Saltmeister said:
Umm, Dream, it wasn't Michael (a guy). It was Michal (a girl).
Click to expand...
Call me 'Yank'.

Saltmeister said:
What I mean is Jonathan being in love with David in a non-sexual way if that makes sense. -- if I could push it in that direction.
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense to me. It reminds me of what friendship was like when I was a kid, before I grew up and become an American. SG brought up a good point about Bathsheba. Between that and what Rav said, the opinion I get is that the passage in question is silent on the matter of gayness, although there are people who insist David and Jonathan had a fling. It certainly doesn't prove they didn't or that they did. If they didn't, then what you're saying makes the most sense to me, Ol'Salt.
 
The question is, is it possible for two men to have a deep and profound relationship, one that would not stretch the bounds of the word 'love' to describe it, without involving anything or everything that the term 'gay' implies?

For myself, I harbour certain reservations with regard to the term, although I am aware through friends, that not all homosexuals insist that the only genuine representation of a male-male relationship is a 'gay' one — to me this smacks of 'homosexual fundamentalism'.

Like the assumption that all gay men can dance, have good dress sense, make great interior designers, etc., etc.

There is a story of Uesugi Kenshin, one of the great heroes of Japan's samurai heritage, who cut off the sleeve of his sleeping robe, rather than disturb the body at his side. Was Kenshin gay?

Well he certainly enjoyed the company of men, as did most of his equally famous contemporaries, but I would suggest any similarity between him and how the 'gay' community defines itself ended there. (For anyone interested, Chapter 11 of the "Hagakure", which became something of a samurai manual, details the way of male courtship, whilst Ihara Saikaku's "Comrade Loves of the Samurai" is a popular novelist's collection of stories on this theme.)

Furthermore I'm saying that even if two men in say, Medieval Japan, or Ancient Sparta, or Biblical Israel, engaged in a relationship and expressed that relationship physically, it still would not be 'gay'.

'Gay' is a term which is specifically late twentieth century, and defines a late twentieth century mindset towards one's gender, one's sexual orientation, and one's sexual proclivities. So I'm saying we should not allow a somewhat noisy segment of the community to colour our perceptions of male relationships. Nor should we assume they have the last word.

We certainly cannot apply the term retroactively, historically, without getting into all manner of erroneous and anachronistic assumptions.

Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top