Debunking GayChristian101’s ‘Alternative’ Marriage in the Bible (Especially on David and Jonathan’s Alleged ‘Marriage’)

Extended from a comment I made.

An article at GayChristian101, Marriage in the Bible, attempts to provide several examples of unusual types of marriage found in the Bible.

The main purpose of providing these examples, as you probably could guess from the site name, is to argue for the legitimacy of homosexual marriage in the Bible.

(Why homosexual marriage, and not just relationship ? As I explain under the Jesus and God sections of Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality, Christianity rejects all sexual contact outside of marriage. And if a man cannot marry a man, then any sexual contact between them will always be immoral.)

The alternative types of marriage cited are:

1) Polygamy (Lamech, Esau, Jacob etc.)

2) Kinsman redeemer marriage (if a man dies with no offspring, the brother must marry the widow to provide offspring – e.g. Onan, story of Ruth)

3) ‘Marriage’ to servants (Abraham with Hagar, not included by site: Jacob’s children by Rachel and Leah’s servants who gave rise to the Twelve Tribes of Israel)

4) Prisoner of war marriage (Israelites took Midianite virgins, Numbers 31:1-18)

5) Slave marriage (Master can sell slave’s family, Exodus 21:1-6)

6) Homosexual ‘marriage’ (David and Jonathan)

Having read through the list, I found plenty of flaws in the arguments presented. But all of them pale in comparison to the VERY DECEPTIVE ARGUMENT I found in Example 6, as I detail in POINT ONE.

Read on…


POINT ONE – David and Jonathan were never married

Most importantly, Example 6 – that of purported homosexual ‘marriage’ – is skewed totally out of context.

This is what the GayChristian101 article presents:

6. Same sex marriage. The partnership of Jonathan and David is an example of same sex marriage in the Bible. Jonathan’s father referred to David as his son in law in I Samuel 18:21.

With screen-captured evidence in context here:

I was dumbfounded by the murderous ripping of the verse out of all recognizable context. You will be too after you compare the above argument with the actual Bible passage:

17 Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD.” For Saul said to himself, “I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!”

18 But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my family or my father’s clan in Israel, that I should become the king’s son-in-law?” 19 So [e] when the time came for Merab, Saul’s daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.

20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.”

22 Then Saul ordered his attendants: “Speak to David privately and say, ‘Look, the king is pleased with you, and his attendants all like you; now become his son-in-law.’” – 1 Samuel 18:17-22

Immediately, anyone can see that David was considered to have the potential to be Saul’s son-in-law because Saul intended David to marry his daughter, Michal! (They do get married later in the chapter.)

And as a later commentor prompted me to take another look at ‘potential’, look at verse 18. David considers himself unworthy to become the king’s son-in-law. Now if David were already ‘married’ to Jonathan – or any other member of Saul’s family – why would David still consider himself unworthy to be part of the king’s family?

Instead of showing the actual verse which would immediately debunk the argument all on its own, the GayChristian101 article gives its own summary of the ‘David is Saul’s son-in-law’ passage along with some description of how David and Jonathan shared a homosexual love.

In fact, this misuse of Scripture is so blatant (you don’t even have to dig around to find that Saul meant David to marry his daughter, it’s right before the cited verse), it almost seems intentional – as if the writer’s whole strategy is to rely on the hope that no one would bother to open up their Bibles and check the verses.

But the site attempts to make Example 6 weightier through a link, where it argues that the Bible only says that David was pleased to become Saul’s son-in-law, and then explains that this was because David wanted to be near Jonathan. But does this at all equate to ‘homosexual marriage’?

A comment by Rick Brentlinger further argues that David has a ‘second opportunity’ to be Saul’s son-in-law, thus meaning that David actually ‘marries’ Jonathan after marrying Michal.

But I quickly pointed out that the keyword is ‘opportunity’, meaning that the first chance (by marrying Merab) was not taken.

Quite simply put, David was given the chance to marry Merab and become Saul’s son-in-law, but he refused. Then David was given the chance to marry Michal, that is, the second chance.

Rick Brentlinger and GayChristian101 simply and blatantly ignore the context of the verse to draw a conclusion that suits the homosexual agenda.


POINT TWO – Whatever the other examples legitimize, it is not homosexual marriage

Once this sixth example has been shown to be terribly misguided, none of the other five examples serve to support the idea of God and Bible legitimized homosexual marriage.

None of the cited examples except the refuted sixth example show homosexual relationships, but relationships between men and women. Whether they are multiple wives, servants or slaves, they are still WOMEN.

Even of all the first five examples were legitimate marriage contracts today (see fourth point), they would all be the basis for HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS.

Of course, the article’s focus is to argue that since mainstream Christians judge these unusual marriages from our cultural points of view, we are also judging homosexuality from a cultural (not Scriptural) point of view.

To quote Rick Brentlinger again:

I’m not arguing that all other types of marriage are necessarily legitimate today. I’m making the case that God blessed marriages different than the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm, therefore Complementarianism (the belief that God will only bless marriages like the Adam and Eve model) was not a belief of our pre-Christian spiritual ancestors, neither is it God’s truth for today.

But once more, even if modern Christians were to accept these odd marriages simply because they are recorded in the Bible, we would have no similar reason to accept homosexual affairs outside of marriage – as there are NO EXAMPLES of homosexual marriage in the Bible.



POINT THREE – Not everything recorded in the Bible is condoned

The Bible does not automatically condone something, just because it records the event.

I don’t know how many times I have to explain this simple-as-rock concept to polemicists! Just because history books accurately record the Nazi Holocaust, does this mean that the history books condone genocide and racism?

The same standard applies to the Bible. The Bible records things like disobeying God, cheating God, lying to God, warring against God… Do you really think that this therefore means that God approves of these sins against Him?

So apply this principle to the six examples given. While some of the examples have a clear God-given directive (Midianite virgins), most do not (multiple wives, Abraham’s child by Hagar, the alleged David-Jonathan homosexual relationship).

They are merely faithful records of what transpired, with no say from God or the author as to whether the act was given approval or permission.

That is to say, these examples cannot and should not be taken as authoritative Biblical basis for unusual, non-heterosexual or non-monogamous marriage.

Remember that David also had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, something no one sanely argues that the Bible condones.


POINT FOUR – Whatever th Bible says of David and Jonathan, it does not record marriage

The site’s links cite that the Hebrew words used to describe David and Jonathan’s love as romantic, like the kind of love between a man and a woman. (But see the CLOSING POINT of my post.)

But even if David’s and Jonathan’s love had been of a romantic or sexual nature, it still would provide no basis for a Biblical homosexual MARRIAGE – the aim of the ‘Marriage in the Bible’ article.

Even if David and Jonathan had been romantically attracted, even if they had been sexually attracted, the Bible does not even record that they ever consumated these feelings – nore does it condone such feelings (the acting upon which would be punishable by death under Mosaic law).

And even if they had carried out such a forbidden and illegal physical act, it still does not equate to a MARRIAGE.

Not also that POINTTHREE applies again, in that even if they did do the dirty deed, the Bible in no way condones it.


POINT FIVE – Does anyone really trust Saul as a good reference?

The article’s citation of Saul using a word inferring sexual intimacy when speaking of David and Jonathan’s relationship is questionable.

Saul’s anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, “You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don’t I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you?” – 1 Samuel 20:30

The link they provide gives no explanation for their claim that the Hebrew term used in the verse refers to sexual intimacy. None seems to be even remotely inferred in the NIV translation.

It can also be easily refuted using the argument of POINT THREE – not everything recorded by the Bible is condoned (in this case, Saul could have been mistaken or lying).


POINT SIX – Old Testament, old school

All of the examples given are Old Testament ones. None occur after Jesus uttered His words as follows:

  • Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Matthew 19:5-6
  • “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” – Mark 10:6-9

From these passages, it can be inferred that Jesus was reaffirming the God-instated ideal of one man marrying one woman.

If not, why would He create just one man and one woman – instead of two men, or one man and two women?

  • So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. – Genesis 1:27
  • For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh – Genesis 2:24

And why can’t two men reproduce, if they are meant to fill the Earth in a perfect God-given plan?

  • As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” – Genesis 9:7

Thus, the Christian concept of the New Testament completing and superceding the Old Testament means that the examples provided by the site can be dismissed on a Scriptural, not just cultural basis.


POINT SEVEN – Old Testament, School of Very Very Hard Knocks

Most tellingly, the whole article focuses on Old Testament examples of ‘alternative marriages’ and criticizes mainstream Christians for deciding their doctrine on ‘cultural basis’.

But if the Old Testament is taken as an authoritative source, what about all the hardline warnings against homosexuality?

  • Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. – Leviticus 18:22
  • If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. – Leviticus 20:13
  • Judah did evil in the eyes of the LORD. By the sins they committed they stirred up his jealous anger more than their fathers had done. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. – 1st Kings 14:22,24
  • Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done. He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made. – 1st Kings 15:11-12
  • The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the LORD – to follow the LORD and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah. – 2 Kings 23:3, 7

Rick Brentlinger uses the same old argument that every single reference to ‘homosexuality’ in not just the New Testament, but also the Old Testament actually mean ‘shrine prostitution’.

But how does this explain away all the various terms used to describe homosexual acts, such as a ‘man lying with a man’? And note that shrine prostitution is itself directly addressed in 1st Kings in different terms from ‘ordinary’ homosexuality.

See also the CLOSING POINT below.



In conclusion, I have a burden to share on something the faux-pas of POINT ONE made me think about. Whether this was a mistake out of ignorance or if it was an intentional attempt at deception, I will not conjecture.

But it makes you wonder: If the pro-homosexual apologists can make a totally invalid argument like this, what does it say of the validity of their other arguments, such as ‘The act condemned in the Bible doesn’t mean homosexuals, but male prostitutes, or the article’s claim that ‘The Hebrew words used to describe Jonathan and David’s love indicate romantic, emotional attachment’ ?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

35 Responses to “Debunking GayChristian101’s ‘Alternative’ Marriage in the Bible (Especially on David and Jonathan’s Alleged ‘Marriage’)”

  1. Jon Edwards Says:

    Okay, readers, flip on over to Googleland or Yahooland and carefully type in “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up” for even more shocks – historical as well as current ones. Wonder what the “burning loins” buggers will say when Almighty God says “Enough!” and allows the destruction of an American city in a “Sodom II” scenario! Jon

  2. pilocarpine Says:

    excellent analysis, scott. 2 thumbs and 2 toes up!!

  3. Scott Thong Says:

    As long as that other digit doesn’t go up lol!

  4. sgsnow Says:

    Arguments against same-sex marriage are nearly identical to those used to condemn “inter-racial” marriage. Discrimination against both have been justified by tradition based on “natural law”, and the opponents of both types of marriage have used the Bible to justify legislated discrimination. Both have attempted to add to the Constitution words governing which types of marriage the state may sanction, yet both claim their efforts to exclude certain types of citizens from marriage are somehow “non-discriminatory”. The parallel is uncomfortably close, as anti-miscegenation laws have only recently been repealed across the United States.

    Take the quiz, and see for yourself.

    For a shorter version of the argument, with better citations than mine, see this page.

    A history of discrimination
    In the 1660s, Maryland became the first colony to prohibit interracial marriages. By 1750, all the southern colonies as well as Massachusetts and Pennsylvania made interracial marriages illegal.

    In Maryland, when slavery was introduced in 1664, “the law also prohibited marriages between white women and black men…. between 1935 and 1967, the law was extended to forbid marriage between Malaysians with blacks and whites. The law was finally repealed in 1967.”

    During the 1950s, half of the states still had laws prohibiting interracial marriage. By the early 1960’s at least 41 states had enacted anti-miscegenation statutes.

    Why? “Legislation prohibiting racial inter-marriage was justified as unbending tradition rooted in received natural law.”

    “Miscegenation violates God’s Law (natural Law) of reproduction, no matter how much Billy Graham and his ilk put their seal of approval on it. This inter-mingling is unknown to all other species. It is only man who interferes with God’s law.

    As the New York Times (Feb. 23, 1911, p. 23) phrased it: The “white and black races should live apart. Their hybridization forms a degenerate type; anthropologists declare that some of the most cruel and treacherous specimens of humanity are to be found among “mottled” negroes.”

    This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said a Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”

    Attempts to Amend to the Constitution

    In 1871, Representative Andrew King (D-Missouri) was the first politician in Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to make interracial marriage illegal nation-wide. King proposed this amendment because he feared that the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give equal civil rights to the emancipated ex-slaves (the Freedmen) as part of the process of Reconstruction, would render laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional.

    In December 1912 and January 1913, Representative Seaborn Roddenbery (D-Georgia) again introduced a proposal in the United States House of Representatives to insert a prohibition of miscegenation into the US Constitution and thus create a nation-wide ban on interracial marriage.

    ”Let this condition go on if you will,” Mr. Roddenberry warned. ”At some day, perhaps remote, it will be a question always whether or not the solemnizing of matrimony in the North is between two descendants of our Anglo-Saxon fathers and mothers or whether it be of a mixed blood descended from the orangutan-trodden shores of far-off Africa.”

    Inter-racial unions were, somehow, a threat to “conventional” marriage.

    A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing this type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

    “The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”

    Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are “distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race.” The state Supreme Court agreed, declaring these types of marriages would be “a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”

    The Bible says it is wrong.

    According to the Community Relations Coordinator at Bob Jones University, which prohibited inter-racial dating as late as 2000:

    “God has separated people for His own purpose. He has erected barriers between the nations, not only land and sea barriers, but also ethnic, cultural, and language barriers. God has made people different one from another and intends those differences to remain.. Bob Jones University is opposed to intermarriage of the races because it breaks down the barriers God has established. It mixes that which God separated and intends to keep separate. Every effort in world history to bring the world together has demonstrated man’s self-reliance and his unwillingness to remain as God ordains. The attempts at one-worldism have been to devise a system without God and have fostered the promotion of a unity designed to give the world strength so that God is not needed and can be overthrown.

    The people who built the Tower of Babel were seeking a man-glorifying unity which God has not ordained (Gen. 11:4-6). Much of the agitation for intermarriage among the races today is for the same reason. It is promoted by one-worlders, and we oppose it for the same reason that we oppose religious ecumenism, globalism, one-world economy, one-world police force, unisex, etc. When Jesus Christ returns to the earth, He will establish world unity, but until then, a divided earth seems to be His plan.”

    There are many verses in support of this position, just as there are in support of those who want to legislate their dislike of homosexuality. Well, there are not nearly as many that seem to condemn homosexuality.

    In sum, therefore:

    “Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, Malay, and red and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix.”

    – Judge Bazile, Caroline County, VA, 1965

    Should Christians have seen through this pseudo-Biblical nonsense? How could Christians 140 years ago, or even 40 years ago, have discerned the truth about these hateful statements and these false Biblical arguments?

    They could have seen through the hatred if they had only taken to heart the words of the man they call the savior: if they had applied the litmus test of Jesus. Jesus called on his followers to judge whether or not a religious teaching brought “good fruit” or “bad fruit.”

    They should see through the anti-homosexual bigotry masquerading as Christianity.

    Possible objections to this analogy between same-sex and inter-racial marriage.

    1. The two can’t be compared (for some reason).

    2. The Bible really isn’t against inter-racial marriage, even though it was so used for hundreds of years, but it really is against same-sex marriage. Really, it is, even though Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

    2. Same-sex marriages really ARE a threat, somehow, to someone, somewhere.

  5. Scott Thong Says:

    Comparing Biblical condemnation of homosexuality to human-prejudice against inter-racial relationships is a false analogy that attempts to equate the two as equivalent; it is a straw man argument to make it easier to attack the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality.

    I’ll provide some solid arguments for why Christianity cannot accept homosexuality, but can accept inter-racial relationships:

    1) The Bible repeatedly condemns homosexuality, as an abomination deserving death no less, but never condemns inter-racial relationships (save for prohibitions against taking pagan spouses who will lead you astray to worship Baal or Molech).

    2) Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, which is EXACTLY why it should continue to be considered a sin. Jesus overturned Jewish social prejudices against women, Samaritans & gentiles (i.e. racial prejudice), lepers, the disabled, the poor, tax collectors, even an adulterous woman – but not once did He overturn the norms regarding homosexuality. In fact, He had an excellent chance to include homosexuals in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, but Jesus didn’t. Why is that? Why did Jesus continue to let righteous Jewish believers ‘discriminate’ against homosexuals? Could it be that even Jesus agreed that homoseuxality is a sin in God’s eyes?

    See Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself for more on the above, including Matthew 19 and Mark 10 references.

    3) Homosexual relations can NEVER produce viable offspring, thus cementing the fact that it is an unnatural form of sexual activity. Inter-racial relations produce perfectly viable offspring.

    So there you have it – the Christian God forbids it, Jesus doesn’t side with it, and Darwin and Mother Nature frown upon it.

    As for whether same-sex proponents are a threat as opposed to inter-racial ones, tell me: When is the last time you saw hundreds of inter-racial lovers giving blow jobs in the open street in broad daylight?

  6. sgsnow Says:

    “1) The Bible repeatedly condemns homosexuality, as an abomination deserving death no less, but never condemns inter-racial relationships”

    That is just it, Scott. The bigots at the turn of the century were totally convinced that the Bible condemned inter-racial marriage. They quoted verses and everything, just like you do, except that they knew the Bible much better.

    “2) Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, which is EXACTLY why it should continue to be considered a sin.”

    By your reasoning, then, if he HAD condemned homosexuality, then that would mean exactly that it should NOT be considered a sin? I’m starting to think you are not too smart, Scott.

    “3) Homosexual relations can NEVER produce viable offspring”

    So the Bible is against celibacy, too? Infertile couples are abominations? Have you given this argument any thought at all, Scott?

    “When is the last time you saw hundreds of inter-racial lovers giving blow jobs in the open street in broad daylight?”

    Nice photo collection, Scott. I am sure you have many more. Videos, too. Do you look at them often?

  7. Scott Thong Says:

    sgsnow, you are just being snarky without adressing my actual arguments.

    1) Just because Christians in the past condemned something using the Bible as a basis, and then were proven wrong, DOES NOT mean that any arguments today are automatically wrong as well.

    By your reasoning (condemning inter-racial marriage based on the Bible was mistaken, therefore every other belief based on the Bible is mistaken), Christians who use the Bible to argue against bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, prostitution, rape and murder will soon be proven wrong and exposed as bigots.

    An additional argument for inter-racial marriage and against homosexuality: The Bible has examples of godly and praised inter-racial marriages, but not a single instance of homosexual marriage – godly or otherwise.

    2) You sarcastically snark my argument.

    My reasoning was clearly written out: Jesus overturned the Jewish prejudices against women, Samaritans, gentiles, cripples etc. By this He showed that the Jewish biases were not based on God’s law.

    However, Jesus did not do anything to overturn the Jewish view on homosexuality – that is, homosexuality is a sin. Therefore, it can easily be inferred that Jesus approved of the prevailing view towards homosexuality and He too considered it a sin in God’s eyes.

    For comparison, note also how Jesus did not overturn Jewish views on bestiality, murder, monotheism etc. – which are all things that Christians view the exact same way that Jews do even up till today.

    3) My argument here was that homosexuality is clearly unnatural, as it cannot produce offspring.

    Charles Darwin asks: How does homosexuality that results in no offpring help the survival of the species?

    Richard Dawkins asks: How does homosexuality which results in no DNA being passed to offspring help the selfish gene to propagate?

    I was not arguing it from a Biblical perspective. However, if you wish to take it into the Scriptural realm…

    If God really intended for homosexuality to be the norm, then why did He make Adam and Eve instead of Adam and Steve?

    Why did God make two men unable to produce offspring with one another?

    How do two men who cannot procreate fulfill God’s command to go forth, multiply, fill the earth when they will merely result in extinction within one generation?

    (For that matter, if homosexuality is purely genetic and not a choice at all, then how do the genes for homosexuality pass on to the next generation instead of becoming extinct through non-viable butt-sex?)

    Why did God design men so that the most intimate act between two men would involve sticking one’s rod into the soft, easily-injured, sh*t-filled stinky excretion hole of another? Beautiful act of love it ain’t.

    Meanwhile, Paul recommends celibacy as means to serve God more fully – if you are called to it and have the specific gift for it. And in various times in the Bible, barrenness of the womb (i.e. infertility) is viewed as a great tragedy and a source of grief.

    So if you knew Scripture better, you wouldn’t be making these simple equivocations. Or maybe you do know your Bible, but choose to misrepresent its teachings in order to make your points.

    Finally, you did not answer my question but made an unfounded insinuation against me. For the record, I couldn’t bring myself to look through the photos on Zombietime – not even the censored versions. They were just too gross.

  8. Rick Brentlinger Says:


    Concerning your post, “Debunking GayChristian101’s Alternative Marriage in the Bible,” a few thoughts.

    1. You incorrectly state that my main purpose in providing examples of alternative marriage types in the Bible is to argue for the legitimacy of homosexual marriage in the Bible.

    Actually, my main purpose is to refute Complementarian belief which falsely posits that God will only bless Adam and Eve style marriage partnerships. All of the examples I cite support my refutation of Complementarian theory.

    2. You state that Christianity rejects all sexual contact outside of marriage yet you fail to define marriage. Perhaps the reason you fail to define marriage is that if you define marriage as the Bible defines it, your argument loses much of its force.

    Adam and Eve’s marriage in the Bible was when flesh joined flesh, Genesis 2:24. It was not a religious or secular ceremony. Jesus reiterates this in Matthew 19:5-6 and Paul reiterates this in I Corinthians 6:16, where believers are warned against sex with a harlot (KJV) because when flesh joins flesh, that makes a marriage, Genesis 2:24.

    The point is that in a Biblical sense, marriage is not really the ceremony. Marriage is when flesh joins flesh. Therefore same sex partnerships, where flesh joins flesh, are every bit as much a “marriage” as opposite sex partnerships.

    3. Concerning the partnership of Jonathan and David, you hurl false accusations such as:

    (1) making a very deceptive argument,
    (b) skewed totally out of context,
    (c) murderous ripping of the verse out of all recognizable context and
    (d) misuse of scripture so blatant…
    (e) almost intentional…
    (f) terribly misguided…

    Sadly, you have completely failed to grasp my argument. Given your intellectual ability, I wonder if you are the one who intentionally attempts to deceive your readers, hoping they will not read my pages and discover your misrepresentation of my position.

    On pages 173-174 of my book but not on my website, I quote eight different translations of I Samuel 18:20-21. I don’t put the entire book on the website because I want people to buy the book.

    Bible translators are not in agreement about what Saul said to David. Some believe Saul was offering David a second opportunity to be his son in law. Some believe David was already Saul’s son in law and was telling him you will be my son in law a second time. In the interest of truth, please perform a bit of due diligence and check some other translations of I Samuel 18:20-21 before falsely accusing me of deception.

    Far from taking the verse out of context, I have presented information beyond what you have considered, based on various translations of the Hebrew text. Your idea that David was considered to have the potential to be Saul’s son in law is ONE of MANY possible explanations.

    4. Concerning Jonathan and David, clearly you have missed the point of what I wrote.

    You state that my comment means that David actually marries Jonathan AFTER marrying Michal. I certainly never make that assertion. I believe that David was married or partnered with Jonathan BEFORE he married Michal and that King Saul recognized Jonathan’s partnership with David as making David his son in law, thus Saul’s wording, “Today you shall be my son in law in the two (or a second time).”

    5. Although you quote me about Complementarianism, in spite of your intellectual acumen, you fail to grasp the significance of what I wrote. Here is what I wrote and what you quoted, apparently without understanding what I wrote. I assume your lack of understanding since you certainly did not interact with what I wrote about Complementarianism in your long post.

    “I’m making the case that God blessed marriages different than the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm, therefore Complementarianism (the belief that God will only bless marriages like the Adam and Eve model) was not a belief of our pre-Christian spiritual ancestors, neither is it God’s truth for today.”

    Your viewpoint, that gay marriage is wrong, is predicated on the Complementarian argument being true. I demonstrated that Complementarian thought is not true and gave six scriptural examples which prove Complementarianism is not true.

    You’ve missed the point or are being intentionally obtuse in order to build a straw man argument which you then demolish as if you had refuted my argument. Some of your readers may believe you’ve won the day but those of us who think and compare scripture with scripture know better.

    6. You make the point that not everything in the Bible is condoned. I certainly agree with you on that point. However, if you read the Jonathan and David story, at least five things leap off the pages of scripture.

    I. God emphasizes the incredible love between Jonathan and David, using ahab, the Hebrew word for love four times to describe their affection. Gay people did not insert this story into scripture. God put it there.

    II. God contrasts the happy, soul-satisfying love-match of Jonathan and David with the unhappy marriage of David and Michal. God further contrasts the visceral hatred Saul demonstrated for David, and Saul’s insane attempts to kill both David and Jonathan, with the soulful love between David and Jonathan. God is portrayed as blessing the Jonathan David partnership in contrast to the David and Michal and David and Saul relationships which were tempestuous, unhappy and not blessed.

    III. Jonathan and David’s partnership was public from start to finish. At a time when Saul had put a contract on David’s life and offered huge rewards to anyone who would help him kill David, Jonathan and David are able to meet whenever they want, without Saul ever finding David to kill him. The warriors of Saul, Jonathan and David enabled their loving relationship for fifteen years.

    IV. Saul testifies to the sexual nature of the Jonathan and David partnership in I Samuel 20:30.

    V. David testifies to the sexual nature of his partnership with Jonathan in II Samuel 1:26, publicly testifying before his army that Jonathan’s love was better to him than the love of his wives. David was a polygamist. He had wives in addition to his original partnership with Jonathan, which took place BEFORE David married any of his wives.

    7. Your assertion that even if Jonathan and David DID have a sexual relationship, it still would not equate to a marriage is your opinion. Many Christians have a different opinion.

    8. Quoting Jesus in Matthew 19:5-6 and Mark 10:6-9 as if He is agreeing with you is passing strange. Again, your Complementarian PRE-SUPPOSITIONS are showing. Your argument only works if your Complementarian presuppositions (which come from Plato, the pagan Greek philosopher) are correct. As noted above and on the web page you’ve attempted to refute, your Complementarian presuppositions are incorrect. You are reading into the Bible something the Bible never says.

    9. Toward the end of your point six, I think you must have been tired or focused on something else. You asked:

    “And why can’t two men reproduce, if they are meant to fill the Earth in a perfect God-given plan?”

    Again you’ve erected a straw man. As I point out on my website, God is giving a brief history lesson, telling us about the creation of the first man, Adam and his wife Eve. There were no gay men or lesbian women in the beginning. There were only two people, Adam and Eve. To read into that simple story that God will never affirm or bless any other kind of marriage relationship is the sad mistake Complementarians make. In your fervor to go after gays and lesbians, you assume the Bible says things it never says.

    10. In your point seven, you ask:

    “But if the Old Testament is taken as an authoritative source, what about all the hardline warnings against homosexuality?”

    It is possible you are the master of presuppositions. You presuppose that whenever the Bible speaks of men lying together, it must be referring to two men in committed, faithful, non-cultic partnership. That presupposition is naive and contrary to the record of history.

    Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that homosexuality was not the issue 3400 years ago when God used Moses to write the Pentateuch. The issue back then was shrine prostitution.

    I marvel that you seem incapable of differentiating between two men or two women in committed, faithful, non-cultic partnership and same sex shrine prostitutes who use sex to worship the fertility goddess.

    I pray that as you grow in grace, the love of God will be spread abroad in your heart by the Holy Ghost. Your false assumptions and unwarranted attacks on your gay brothers and lesbian sisters are unseemly and fall short of the scriptural standard God gives us in I Corinthians 13.

    Your brother in Christ,

    Rick Brentlinger

  9. sgsnow Says:

    “1) Just because Christians in the past condemned something using the Bible as a basis, and then were proven wrong, DOES NOT mean that any arguments today are automatically wrong as well.”

    True. But my point was that the un-Scriptural interpretations of the Bible that lead Christians to condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage are identical to those used to condemn inter-racial marriage.

    “My reasoning was clearly written out: Jesus overturned the Jewish prejudices against women, Samaritans, gentiles, cripples etc. By this He showed that the Jewish biases were not based on God’s law. However, Jesus did not do anything to overturn the Jewish view on homosexuality – that is, homosexuality is a sin.”

    Care to offer any Scriptural citations to show that Jesus overturned the Old Laws you don’t like, and kept the ones you do? I gotta hear this.

    “3) My argument here was that homosexuality is clearly unnatural, as it cannot produce offspring.”

    So then any heterosexual marriage in which one of the partners is sterile is also an abomination? Note also, that this was the same argument people used against inter-racial marriage.

    “Finally, you did not answer my question but made an unfounded insinuation against me. For the record, I couldn’t bring myself to look through the photos on Zombietime – not even the censored versions. They were just too gross.”

    It’s a free country, and you can collect pictures of gay men blowing each other if you want. You can even post them on your blog. But don’t be surprised if people ask you about it.

  10. Scott Thong Says:

    True. But my point was that the un-Scriptural interpretations of the Bible that lead Christians to condemn homosexuality and same-sex marriage are identical to those used to condemn inter-racial marriage.

    They may have similarities, but they are not identical.

    As I have pointed out earlier, there are numerous verses prohibiting homosexual acts, as opposed to none specifically prohibiting inter-racial relationships. Unless you can point some out to me?

    I’ll be giving you lots of Bible quotes to back up my argument, so I expect you’ll be as generous.

    Care to offer any Scriptural citations to show that Jesus overturned the Old Laws you don’t like, and kept the ones you do? I gotta hear this.

    I can’t do exactly that, see, because it’s not a matter of what I like and dislike.

    I personally would prefer if Christianity allowed for homosexual relationships (solves so many controversies), salvation of all people (perhaps by Jesus meeting them after death), the non-existence of a hell of eternal punishment, casual sex outside of marriage being permissible…

    But whatever my preferences may be, they do not affect the truth of what Christianity actually teaches.

    And what is more, Jesus did no overturn any laws – nor did I claim He did. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not destroy it. What He did was to overturn certain interpretations and prejudices.

    So to answer your question close as I can:

    Jesus overturns prejudices against other races and women:

    When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) – John 4:7-9

    Jesus overturns prejudices against occupations:

    While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and “sinners” came and ate with him and his disciples. – Matthew 9:10

    Jesus overturns prejudices against the sick and disabled:

    While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper… – Mark 14:3

    Jesus overturns prejudices about eating certain foods:

    Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ ” – Matthew 15:10

    He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.” “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.” The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” – Acts 10:11-15

    Jesus DOES NOT overturn prejudices that favor only traditional, heterosexual-only relationships:

    “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ – Matthew 19 and Mark 10

    So there.

    So then any heterosexual marriage in which one of the partners is sterile is also an abomination? Note also, that this was the same argument people used against inter-racial marriage.

    Exact same argument you brought before, so I’ll give the exact same response: In various times in the Bible, barrenness of the womb (i.e. infertility) is viewed as a great tragedy and a source of grief.

    Just because the argument was used wrongly for a certain stand, does not mean it is automatically wrong for other stands.

    For example, it was misguided for people to avoid eating the tomato fruit on suspicion that it was poisonous due to its bright colour. But that does not mean that we should now go around eating brightly coloured berries we find growing wild in the woods, surrounded by dead birds and animals!

    Besides, inter-racial marriage can produce offsrping, so WTF are you blabbering about?

    The bottom line is this: God designed (or nature evolved) men to be able to have children with women, whether of the same race of different race. But God did NOT design (or nature did not evolve) two men or two women to be able to have children.

    This is the plain and simple difference between inter-racial relationships and homosexual ones.

    If everyone in the world were purely into inter-racial relationships, the human race would continue to prosper for millenia.

    But if everyone in the world were purely into homosexual relationships, the human race would become extinct in one generation.

    I dare you to refute that statement as untrue.

    It’s a free country, and you can collect pictures of gay men blowing each other if you want. You can even post them on your blog. But don’t be surprised if people ask you about it.

    You insinuated, rather than asked neturally. But either way, I have answered.

  11. colmitchells Says:

    you really need jesus in your life……… if you really love god than go study what the hebrew and greek scpripture is really teachings about homosexuality…… you just using your english translation of the bible as an excuse to discrimanate again gay christians.

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    Meanwhile, you should read this: Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality, Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself.

    If you really love God and not just man, you will obey what He has decreed to be pleasing to Him.

    And I challenge you to point out one example of me ‘discriminating’ against gay so-called-Christians.

  13. colmitchells Says:

    you discriminating against them by taking scripture out of context.. i think you should go and study what the greek scripture is actually saying in romans 1, corinthians and timothy…

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    I’m sooooooo lazy… You’ll have to explain it to me.

    While you’re at that, help explain to me how I take Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:6-9, Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 9:7 out of context.

    Also explain to me how God could be so foolish as to design two homosexuals to be unable to populate the Earth due to inability to reproduce, even before sin started twisting all His perfect plans.

  15. John Says:

    Can someone explain the contexts and their differences in the following verses:

    “When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.” (1 Sam. 18:1)

    “Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul” (1 Sam. 18:3).

    Nevertheless, you are doing the right thing if you obey the royal law in keeping with the Scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” (James 2:8)

    He answered, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind. And you must love your neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27)

    For the whole law is summarized in a single statement: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14)

    Does this mean that God wants Chrsitians to love their neighbors homosexually/bisexually?

    So why the following verses:

    Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)

    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, (1 Corinthians 6:9)

    for those involved in sexual immorality, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for false witnesses, and for whatever else goes against the healthy teaching (1 Timothy 1:10)

    Are the servants of the Lord taking Scripture out of context?

    Quoting Wikipedia:
    When they are alone together, David confides that he has “found grace in Jonathan’s eyes”, a phrase normally referring to Romantic or physical attraction.

    Would this be the same ‘romantic inference’ found in the following verses:

    But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. (Genesis 6:8)

    And David said unto Achish, If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let them give me a place in some town in the country, that I may dwell there: for why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee? (1 Samuel 27:5)

    Regarding the word ahab:
    ‘I. God emphasizes the incredible love between Jonathan and David, using ahab, the Hebrew word for love four times to describe their affection. Gay people did not insert this story into scripture. God put it there.’

    What of the following verses which use the the ahab:

    And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob. (Genesis 25:28)

    And make me savory meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die. (Genesis 27:4)
    American Pie anyone!

    Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colors. (Genesis 37:3)

    And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him. (Genesis 37:4)

    But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (Leviticus 19:34)

    I could go on and on and on…. Judge for yourselves.

  16. Scott Thong Says:

    It’s such a worldly concept, where true love must include lots of hot sex.

    That is not the Biblical concept of love.

    A father loves his children – yet he does not want to do them (sickos aside). A soldier can give his life for his buddies – yet he does not want to snuggle up with them in the barracks.

    Why can’t David love Jonathan, or Jesus love John, or God love man, without having sexual connotations? Why must the world project its own shallow values onto pure and holy Christian concepts?

    In fact, why can a woman hug and kiss another woman and not be accused of being a lesbian?

    I myself have loved many girls, and still do – yet I do not want to engage in sex with them. Does this make my love insincere? Or do I simply have a pure, brotherly love for them?

    And don’t forget that Jesus said that in heaven, we will be like the angels – neither marrying nor being given in marriage. Doesn’t that say something about what heavenly hosts are like, and the kind of selfless love they would have?

    Do you even know the difference between agape, phileo and eros love?

    To quote you:

    I could go on and on and on…. Judge for yourselves.

  17. John Says:

    I am perplexed, is your post a rebuttal of mine? Did you assume that my post was in support of pro-homosexual viewpoints posted by others? I suggest you re-read my post carefully. Since, it seems you missed my point (I did let Scripture speak for itself), I’ll be as crystal clear as can be….. I… AM… IN… TOTAL… AGREEMENT… WITH… YOU… (even your last post).

  18. Scott Thong Says:

    Okay… Have reread your post in a better condition than 9 p.m. at night with a sore throat.

    When you mention it, your comment does seem to be in agreement with the views I put forward in my post.

    At first glance, it seemed to me a standard demonstration of homosexual love as ‘found’ in the Bible.

    But reading it carefully, it’s actually a sarcastic poke at the fact that the words used to ‘demonstrate’ homosexual love are also found elsewhere, where if the meaning of the word remains the same as in the ‘homosexual love’ examples, the passages make no sense at all.

    Am I correct this time?

    Sorry and thanks for the snark!

  19. John Says:

    I couldn’t put it better myself. I don’t claim to be skilled in writing so I, as much as possible, let Scripture speak for itself which does a great job at confounding the so called ‘intellect’ of man.

  20. Dar Says:

    A lot of people, namely John and Scott, on this website are citing quotations and not citing a translation.

    When interpreting the bible, you have to remember it was written over thousands of years in many different languages with different cultures. To truly understand the bible, you have to understand the cultural context to interpret the language it was originally written in.

    Most importantly, if you want to argue scripture, by all means cite scripture, but return to the original language to back up your point.

    For example John’s Translation of Jude 1:7 states “Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.”

    Here is the NIV trans: “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.”

    Here is the KJV: “as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

    I)The original Greek uses the stems “ekporneuo” and “sarx”, which mean Sexual immorality in a general sense and unusual flesh, respectively. Neither one of these words can be translated specifically enough to mean homosexual activities. Those two words are broad and general.

    II)More specifically, your translation uses the Greek word sarx to mean homosexual activity. Here are few definition of sarx (taken from

    1) flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers
    the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
    2) the body
    2a) the body of a man
    2b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or
    2b1) born of natural generation
    2c) the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”
    2c1) without any suggestion of depravity
    2c2) the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
    2c3) the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
    3) a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh)
    whether man or beast
    4) the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart
    from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God

    III)Anything about homosexuality in this passage is the addition of one’s own ideas or values into the scripture. Perhaps the addition is not your ideas or values, but whoever did the poor translation.

    IV)Just for the sake of argument here are some additional translations of that passage (also taken from
    NASB ©
    biblegateway Jud 1:7
    just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

    NLT ©
    biblegateway Jud 1:7
    And don’t forget the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their neighboring towns, which were filled with sexual immorality and every kind of sexual perversion. Those cities were destroyed by fire and are a warning of the eternal fire that will punish all who are evil.

    MSG ©
    biblegateway Jud 1:7
    Sodom and Gomorrah, which went to sexual rack and ruin along with the surrounding cities that acted just like them, are another example. Burning and burning and never burning up, they serve still as a stock warning.

    BBE ©
    SABDAweb Jud 1:7
    Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the towns near them, having like these, given themselves up to unclean desires and gone after strange flesh, have been made an example, undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

    NRSV ©
    bibleoremus Jud 1:7
    Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

  21. Ross Marshall Says:

    That’s ‘Dar’ best argument I’ve heard!

  22. Ross Marshall Says:

    I Found This Most EVIL and hateful article on the Net….

    Let’s reduce this guy’s premises down or at least the IMPRESSIONS I Got…
    1.) It’s more righteous to murder and kill homosexuals, and if not, damn them to Everlating Hell, cuz they cannot be saved and be gay at the same time; than to be homosexual be and them LOVE each other.
    2.) It’s better to BASE all our ‘morality’ on ‘THE LAW’ and thus kill and murder people for alternate “perverted?” sexual differences, than to base our lives on GRACE and LOVE and just be neutral on the Issue. The Lord ‘Leads’, the Church does not.
    3.) Rather than use words of kindness based on LOVE, whether we know for sure homosexuality is right or wrong; it’s better to just swallow dogma and someone else’s opinions -“conscience” – or dictates and agree to support the killing and murder of those who are homosexuals.
    4.) We are suggested to believe that the last 2000+ years of killing and murdering ‘alternative’ lifestyles ( Fags were burned at stakes to set fire to ‘weird’ people – thus the word was applied to those who they burned MURDERED – gay people ) and the people who live by them, cuz they are responsible for the world sliding into decadence – quote: “overurbanized, relativized culture heading into decadence”.- IS BETTER
    than a liberalized world, where there is more tolerance and love, and the equal rights of both the GOOD and EVIL, both the right to be wrong and the right to be right, are maintained, where people murder and kill less.
    castration, dismemberment, death by court judgment, burnings, corrective torture, violence, yet, God PREDESTINED the blindness and decadence… dah?, then holds them eternally accountable and responsible?… duh?…
    Yeow-sir! ‘re Bob!.. ” GOD made me do it. “.

    It’s better to slander, curse, damn and even Murder; and be less sinful in Murdering – actually blessed by God-, than it is to be a homosexual.
    Also, in fact?, rather than the devil Satan himself as Antichrist readying the world for destruction by Christ, it is the simple homosexual who’s GUILTY for the END OF THE WORLD!
    THE ARTICLE: ( Add your comments:
    by Jonathan Edwards

    Even the God of the entire Bible is behind the gay rights movement—-and I’ll prove it. (Although this paper focuses on lost persons in the “Northeastern Bermuda Triangle” outlined roughly by New York City, Montreal, and Boston, I’m sharing it with everyone everywhere.)

    You who identify with GBLT (no, not Gay Bacon Lettuce & Tomato!) already know about your own history. So for the unlearned I’ll include some info on it, much of which is on the internet. Gay activist John McKellar has stated: “The major media are all nonstop advertisements for the gay lifestyle, so how far are they prepared to go in denying free speech to Christians, Muslims, and Jews?….No major world religion has ever accepted homosexual behavior. And if [gay] activists had any sense of history, they’d realize their own lifestyle is a symptom of an overurbanized, relativized culture heading into decadence.”

    Thomas Jefferson revealed that in Virginia, “dismemberment” of the offensive sex organ was the penalty for sodomy, and he himself authored a bill penalyzing sodomy by castration. The same internet article, “Homosexuals in the Military” by David Barton, also stated that sodomy , homosexuality etc. were regarded as felonies in early America and were even punishable by death in New York, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Vermont!

    You GBLTs have traveled far. You are now helping to fulfill two big signs that Jesus said (in Luke 17) will characterize life on earth just before His return to it: the repeat of “days of Noah” (physical violence) and “days of Lot” (your GBLT ancestors).

    Even the New York Times has expressed amazement over the suddenness and pushiness of today’s campaign for legalizing same-sex marriage, and Prof. David M. Halperin wrote that “lesbian and gay studies scholars” have led the way in fighting against policies that “criminalize gay sex or limit access to abortions.”

    I said early on that the Bible’s God is behind you GBLTs. Yes, He’s behind you and even pushing you down the dead-end road you have insisted on taking. Several scary Bible passages show that God will actually “program” those whose motto seems to be “HELL-BOUND AND HAPPY!”: “the Lord God…gave them up to desolation” (II Chron. 30:7); God “gave them up to uncleanness,”

    “gave them up to vile affections,” “gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Rom. 1:24,26,28); “God shall send them strong delusion” (II Thess. 2:11); and “he which is filthy, let him be filthy still” (Rev. 22:11).

    Now that you GBLTs have invented strange architecture (closets opening on to main streets instead of bedrooms!), have traded limp wrists for clenched fists, and are fighting for shame-sex marriage, I wonder if you will be happy when you’re turned New York into New Yuck, Boston into Bah!-ston, and other places into Messychoose-its, Nude Hampshire, Vermin, and Cana-duh (where at least the maple leaves will be blushing!). And of course I should include Hell-A and San Fransissyco which, appropriately, are in Quake-ifornia!

    So what are you waiting for? Since you’re bent on fulfilling the predicted end-time Noah/Lot days (your way of helping to make the Bible even more believable!), and since seemingly you’d rather discover the “wrathful Judge” side of Christ instead of His “merciful and loving and forgiving” side, can’t you speed up your role and get it over with? You’re holding up the true and everlasting peace that God wants to give to the whole world!

    (You’re free to reproduce and distribute this non-copyrighted paper everywhere including the internet. You’re also free to use a different title with it, if you wish.)

  23. Michael Says:

    So let’s clarify how you debunked GayChristian:

    (1) When you couldn’t, you simply said “well, just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s condoned.” This is no argument at all. It’s the word of God! If those actions were “wrong,” don’t you think God would have mentioned that? Give me a break.

    (2) Your refutation of the King David story relies on a mistranslation. Read the original Hebrew. The version you are reading has been bastardized by humans in order to inject homophobia into the Bible. That’s the agenda, not the other way around.

    Check this out. It’s not perfect, but comes closest to the better explanation:

  24. Michael Says:

    Read the King James version: “And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain.” 1 Samuel 18:21

    Now ask yourself: Where’s the word “opportunity” you cling to? Why could the NIV version butcher the language so? Could it be because they had an agenda and wanted to suppress the facts? Sure seems like it.

  25. Michael Says:

    Oh, this is good. Check the Spanish:

    “Saúl, pues, dijo a David por segunda vez: Serás mi yerno hoy.”

    (Saul, then, said to David for the second time: You will be my son in law today)


  26. Scott Thong Says:

    1) Among various events, the Bible also mentions Abram twice lying that Sara is his sister, Lot offering his daughters to be raped by the men of Sodom, Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and seducing him, and the rest of Israel decimating Benjamin followed by agreeing to let the remaining Benjamites kidnap ‘wives’ – all without condemning them as wrong, whether immediately or later on. Using the same logic as for your alleged sexual affair between David and Jonathan, please demonstrate a reasonable argument for how this means that the Bible also condones these things.

    2) Why is it that in modern Western society, a man cannot love or even touch another man without sexual connotations? This isn’t the case in Eastern society, where oath brothers come before women, where men hold hands in public, where men kiss men on the lips as a standard greeting. (I blame the Greeks.) Or was Jesus homosexual too because John was ‘the disciple Jesus loved’? That really puts a different spin on the kind of ‘so loved the world’ John 3:16 speaks about.

    3) ‘In one of the twain’ means ‘in one of the two’. Saul notes that David ends up his son in law in one of the two attempts. How does this differ in intent from the NIV’s one out of two opportunities? Also, if Jonathan and David were already ‘married’, why does Saul see the need to rope David into his family by marrying him to either Merab or Michal? This would only be significant if David were not already part of Saul’s family in any way. Your Spanish quote doesn’t help you in the least, as it merely reaffirms that Saul twice offered David marriage into his family – which the Bible records once for Merab and once for Michal, but never records for Jonathan! And look at the preceding verse 18, where David considers himself unworthy to be son in law to the king – if he is already ‘married’ to Jonathan, why would he say that and turn down Merab?

  27. Adifferent Says:

    Sometimes, people say things without engaging their mind. “Read the original Hebrew” says Michael, and he then says, “Check the Spanish”…
    I had expected him to give us the Hebrew…how disappointed to get the Spanish. And doubly disappointing to find the quote in Spanish adding nothing new to the discussion.

  28. Scott Thong Says:

    Btw, the religioustolerance link you provided cites Saul keeping David in his household and compares it to Genesis 2’s ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’, and concludes that this is evidence that David and Jonathan were ‘married’.

    The problem however, is with the word translated ‘wife’ – both the Hebrew in Genesis 2 and the Greek used for Jesus’ citation of it in Matthew 19 use words that only can refer to a woman.

    See Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself and search for the word wife for evidence. That same section notes: If Jesus wanted to reform the Jewish prejudice against homosexual relationships, then why didn’t He overturn the prevailing notion that marriage = man + woman?

  29. Breaking Alternative News Says:

    anti-elitist news…

    Debunking GayChristian101′s ‘Alternative’ Marriage in the Bible (Especially on David and Jonathan’s Alleged ‘Marriage’) « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON…


    […] as a later commentor prompted me to take another look at ‘potential’, look at verse 18. David considers himself unworthy to become the king’s son-in-law. Now if David […]

  31. Joel Kall Says:

    About Gods laws/Bible, Gods word:
    and, fix closer and link works: ?note_id=10150881857694668
    and, fix closer and link works: Jesus-Christ-comes-now-2011-or-very-Soon-for-his-bride-Wake-up-World-Read/164707956935527

    About Homosexuality/Bisexuality/gay etc:

    WHAT GOD SAYS I WARNING, fix closer and link works: / fw6gh
    And you call yourself a Christian? God warns, fix closer and link works: / girvt

    God is angry because all around us he sees FORNICATION and UNCLEANNESS and COVETOUSNESS. No person who commits such things has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. ANY MAN OR WOMAN OR BOY OR GIRL WHO HAS SEXUAL INTERCOURSE EXCEPT WITH HIS/HER WIFE OR HUSBAND IS A FORNICATOR. In 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10 God says again that NO FORNICATOR SHALL INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
    “Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that commiteth fornication sinneth against his own body” 1 CORINTHIANS 6:18.
    ADULTERY: Fornication when the woman is married to someone else. God says THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY (EXODUS 20:14).
    INCEST: Any sex between near relatives, including in-laws, step-parents, etc.
    See LEVITICUS 18:1-16.
    BESTIALITY: Any sexual relations between a man or woman and an animal are an ABOMINATION to God.
    See LEVITICUS 18:23-25 and 20:15-16.
    SODOMY: Any copulation between two men is also an ABOMINATION.
    See LEVITICUS 18:22 and 20:13.
    LESBIANISM: Likewise any women who do “that which is against nature” (ROMANS 1:26).
    We know that the wise men of the world have theories which allow all of these things.
    “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” ROMANS 1:22-32.
    “Know ye not that the unrighteous SHALL NOT inherit the kingdom of God? BE NOT DECEIVED: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God” 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10.
    Don’t let anyone tell you that you can live in sin and escape the judgment of God.
    The city of Sodom is set before us for an example: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to FORNICATION, and going after strange flesh, are SET FORTH FOR AN EXAMPLE,SUFFERING THE VENGEANCE OF ETERNAL FIRE” JUDE 7.
    What was wrong with Sodom is told in EZEKIEL 16:49-50:
    “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, andCOMMITTED ABOMINATION before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”
    The people of Sodom and its neighbouring cities lived in PRIDE and PROSPERITY and IDLENESS: the result was sexual abomination – see GENESIS 19:1-13.
    What was God’s judgment on such?
    “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground”GENESIS 19:24-25.
    All around us we see the same things that God saw in Sodom. Their destruction is set forth as a warning to us – Jesus says that just before he returns the world will be just as it was in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah (LUKE 17:28-30). BE WARNED. This whole earth is awaiting destruction by fire (2 PETER 3:7).
    “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers (fornicators) and adulterers GOD WILL JUDGE.” HEBREWS 13:4
    There is no compromise with the Word of God – Jesus said:
    “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY” MARK 13:31.
    Also JOHN 12:48 “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: THE WORD THAT I HAVE SPOKEN, THE SAME SHALL JUDGE HIM IN THE LAST DAY” (Again these are Jesus’ words).
    “Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, REPENT, AND BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, AND YE SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST” ACTS 2:37-38.
    This is the pattern for salvation that God has laid down for the obedience of all.
    “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; BUT NOW COMMANDETH ALL MEN EVERYWHERE TO REPENT”ACTS 17:30.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10
    New Living Translation (NLT)
    9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.
    Romans 1:18-28 (NIV)
    “God’s judgment on the Gentiles
    God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness andunrighteousness of men who in unrighteousness suppress the truth.
    It can be known about God is manifest in them, God hathrevealed it to them.
    Ever since the world was clearly seen, his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature through the works he has created.
    Therefore, they are without excuse.
    Although they knew God, they glorified him not as God nor gave thanks to him, but were blinded by their false beliefs, so thatdarkness descended on their foolish heart.
    They claimed that they were wise, they became fools.
    They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images ofmortal men, of birds, beasts and reptiles.
    Therefore God gave them up so they followed their own desiresand ran all kinds of sexual immorality and dishonor their bodies.
    Who changed the truth of God into a lie and made their way to worship and serve the creature more than the Creator, he who is blessed forever, amen.
    Therefore God gave them up to shameful lusts.
    Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
    In the same way the men abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
    Men committing shameless acts with men and were free to takethe just penalty for their error.
    And because they did not see anything worth having knowledge of God, God gave them to an unworthy mind, that they might dothings that go against nature. ”

    okingodlyhealthyafterbibleway . notlong . com

    God bless

  32. Fccncnx Says:

    I have to laugh at Gaychristian101 for trying to use “You will be my son-in-law a second time”

    According to the scriptures,
    Saul wanted David to marry is older daughter but then Saul saw that another daughter also loved David very much so then he said “You will be my son-in-law a second time”

    18 After David had finished talking with Saul, he met Jonathan, the king’s son. There was an immediate bond between them, for Jonathan loved David. 2 From that day on Saul kept David with him and wouldn’t let him return home. 3 And Jonathan made a solemn pact with David, because he loved him as he loved himself. 4 Jonathan sealed the pact by taking off his robe and giving it to David, together with his tunic, sword, bow, and belt.

    5 Whatever Saul asked David to do, David did it successfully. So Saul made him a commander over the men of war, an appointment that was welcomed by the people and Saul’s officers alike.

    6 When the victorious Israelite army was returning home after David had killed the Philistine, women from all the towns of Israel came out to meet King Saul. They sang and danced for joy with tambourines and cymbals.[a] 7 This was their song:

    “Saul has killed his thousands,
    and David his ten thousands!”
    8 This made Saul very angry. “What’s this?” he said. “They credit David with ten thousands and me with only thousands. Next they’ll be making him their king!” 9 So from that time on Saul kept a jealous eye on David.

    10 The very next day a tormenting spirit[b] from God overwhelmed Saul, and he began to rave in his house like a madman. David was playing the harp, as he did each day. But Saul had a spear in his hand, 11 and he suddenly hurled it at David, intending to pin him to the wall. But David escaped him twice.

    12 Saul was then afraid of David, for the Lord was with David and had turned away from Saul. 13 Finally, Saul sent him away and appointed him commander over 1,000 men, and David faithfully led his troops into battle.

    14 David continued to succeed in everything he did, for the Lord was with him. 15 When Saul recognized this, he became even more afraid of him. 16 But all Israel and Judah loved David because he was so successful at leading his troops into battle.

    David Marries Saul’s Daughter
    17 One day Saul said to David, “I am ready to give you my older daughter, Merab, as your wife. But first you must prove yourself to be a real warrior by fighting the Lord’s battles.” For Saul thought, “I’ll send him out against the Philistines and let them kill him rather than doing it myself.”

    18 “Who am I, and what is my family in Israel that I should be the king’s son-in-law?” David exclaimed. “My father’s family is nothing!” 19 So[c] when the time came for Saul to give his daughter Merab in marriage to David, he gave her instead to Adriel, a man from Meholah.

    20 In the meantime, Saul’s daughter Michal had fallen in love with David, and Saul was delighted when he heard about it. 21 “Here’s another chance to see him killed by the Philistines!” Saul said to himself. But to David he said, “Today you have a second chance to become my son-in-law!”

    Now let’s stop the verses above is what I was referring too. As you can see David already married the older daughter but in the meantime another daughter of Saul fell in love with David so now David is going to marry that woman not Jonathan.
    22 Then Saul told his men to say to David, “The king really likes you, and so do we. Why don’t you accept the king’s offer and become his son-in-law?”

    23 When Saul’s men said these things to David, he replied, “How can a poor man from a humble family afford the bride price for the daughter of a king?”

    24 When Saul’s men reported this back to the king, 25 he told them, “Tell David that all I want for the bride price is 100 Philistine foreskins! Vengeance on my enemies is all I really want.” But what Saul had in mind was that David would be killed in the fight.

    26 David was delighted to accept the offer. Before the time limit expired, 27 he and his men went out and killed 200 Philistines. Then David fulfilled the king’s requirement by presenting all their foreskins to him. So Saul gave his daughter Michal to David to be his wife.

    28 When Saul realized that the Lord was with David and how much his daughter Michal loved him, 29 Saul became even more afraid of him, and he remained David’s enemy for the rest of his life.

    30 Every time the commanders of the Philistines attacked, David was more successful against them than all the rest of Saul’s officers. So David’s name became very famous.

  33. Anti gayantichrist Says:

    you guys and your gods are full of shit
    even christ had a lil’ boys butt creampied b4 his fake Crucifixion
    read your bibles a bit better
    gay is population control and better than war. Its always war war war since Joshua Gideon etc

  34. Anti gayantichrist Says:

    This guy is so wise he couldn’t make a suitable helper for the man in just the first attempt ( this God seems human to me or just man made)

  35. Scotttcast Says:

    Obviously God is perfect, since He made you so geniusly snarky

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: