Dec 17, 2010 -- 4:52PM, datinker wrote:

Thoroughly the most ridiculous set of posts I've ever seen.  People are trying to make Jonathon and David, brothers-in-laws twice over; Ruth and Naomi, mother-in-law/daughter-in-law and trying to make EVERYTHING good and decent into something perverse.  'Gotta try to make the Bible into evil reading material, I get it.

I just don't like it.

datinker

Evil? David killed a man and stole his wife. That's not evil? Lot's own daughters got him drunk and raped him. That's not evil? I could go on until my fingers cramped. Your definitions of evil need a bit of fine tuning.

Dec 13, 2010 -- 8:59PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

Yvanna, do you always pick fights for the sake of fighting?

Mabe J&D could have a "civil" union. ;{O)

Who's picking a fight?

Dec 13, 2010 -- 2:23PM, Do_unto_others wrote:

I disagree that it was "written for ourselves".

I think it was written largely for the Bronze Age, largely illiterate nomadic sheep- and goat-herders in the Middle East that populate it. Not sure why any part of it should be relevant to 21st century society.

Adored the detail of the original post. I, too believe J&D's relationship to be physical (i.e. they WERE lovers, according to the recorded words we are left with today).

And, I do NOT believe it is an "insult" to call someone gay, just like I am not 'insulted' when people call me straight. It is only when people think of being gay as somehow 'lesser' that it is an insult. In fact it is neither.

Considering that you're not a Jew, I never said it was written for you.

I find it insulting to be accused of anything I am not. It means I am not being accepted and understood for who I am, either deliberately or in ignorance.

I don't consider Republicans to be "lesser", but I would be insulted to be called one. I would also be insulted to be called a Democrat. Just because you think an insult has to imply inferiority doesn't make it so.

By the way, if bronze age words aren't relevant to modern society then neither are Jonathan & David.

My opinion on homosexual sex is that I prefer it more than once a day when possible.

I have absolutely no problem with people being intimate outside of marriage.

I can understand someone wanting to interpret the passage that way, but for my faith it cannot possibly be any more beautiful than it already is. Both my wife and I are converts. We don't see Naomi and Ruth as anything beyond a mother and daughter, with a deep and passionate love for one another. Ruth chose to be Jewish, even after her husband died and she could have gone back to her own land. A convert in Judaism is not any less than someone born a Jew.

It is worth pointing out that King David was a descendant of Ruth, the descendant of a convert. There are very clear, outlined points being made in the book and adding a sexual relationship is like trying to add to the Mona Lisa or Sistine Chapel. There's nothing that can be improved on. The beauty is already perfect.

I don't think you set out to offend either, don't worry.

It's a Jewish book, written for ourselves. If you can find other meanings and beauty then I won't begrudge it, but at the very least understand and appreciate the intended context as well.