Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Gay History in School Textbooks

Page 6 of 9 [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

18 Jul 2011, 10:59 pm

pandabear wrote:
I wonder why Jonathan didn't want to be king?


I wondered as much myself. I think his age had something to do with it, being a good deal older than David. Also, he may have believed that David was meant for the job.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jul 2011, 8:23 am

Anyway, I concede to 91. I will notify Bill Ayers to remove the chapter on King David's sexuality from the middle school text books. Instead, we'll start with homosexuality on the sea voyage from England to Virginia, duly noting the availability of wenches once the English reached America's shores.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Jul 2011, 8:39 am

pandabear wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:

What term for "seed" is used in Genesis 38:9?

Quote:


Transliterated zarah. Spelled zion, resh, ayin

זרע

ruveyn


Thanks, Ruveyn.

That must be different from the zar·'a·cha of 1 Samuel. So, 91 wins the point.


zar'a-cha means your seed. The ending is second person possessive singular.

ruveyn



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

19 Jul 2011, 8:45 am

Would it be too much to ask that we save FOR THE TEXTBOOKS the interminable speculations as to whether Napoleon was romantically involved with the Duke of Wellington, and spare thosde who might want to have space for sense?

IF you put Hitler's tryst with Churchill into the textbooks, it may help to teach the young to think - which is the sole desideratum other than keeping them out of the unemployment statistics - by demonstrating that baseless speculation in an account intended to be factual is perverted idiocy.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jul 2011, 9:41 am

pandabear wrote:
91 wrote:
They have both sworn an oath and it is on their descendants. The language in the passage you quotes does not relate to sexual seed at all (there are other terms for that, not zar·'a·cha); that would be a horrible eisegesis.


What term for "seed" is used in Genesis 38:9?

Genesis 38:9 wrote:
And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.


Is it zar·'a·cha? Or the other term?


ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:

What term for "seed" is used in Genesis 38:9?

Quote:


Transliterated zarah. Spelled zion, resh, ayin

זרע

ruveyn


Thanks, Ruveyn.

That must be different from the zar·'a·cha of 1 Samuel. So, 91 wins the point.


zar'a-cha means your seed. The ending is second person possessive singular.

ruveyn


Aha! So David and Jonathan were talking about sperm after all! My "horrible eisegesis" is just as valid as 91's "horrible eisegesis."



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

19 Jul 2011, 10:24 am

Geduld, Geduld. We were warned in Matthew 5:22

Yet how can I thole it?

motl, raml, bitl, methinks motl exceeds.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

19 Jul 2011, 10:39 am

pandabear wrote:
Aha! So David and Jonathan were talking about sperm after all! My "horrible eisegesis" is just as valid as 91's "horrible eisegesis."


No not at all. At least mine can be found within the text... yours needs to be hammered in there.

zar'a-cha directly translates as seed but is used to refer to descendants (Isaiah 59:21. Genesis 22:17 & 17:7)


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

19 Jul 2011, 10:47 am

Jonathan didn't end up having any descendants, did he?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Jul 2011, 10:59 am

pandabear wrote:
Jonathan didn't end up having any descendants, did he?


A crippled son, whom David fed at his own table, after Johnathan and Saul were killed.

ruveyn



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

20 Jul 2011, 8:51 am

Remember, too, that Saul, Jonathan and David were Benjaminites. Homosexuality was practiced among the Benjaminites, with a certain amount of assiduity. Read Judges 19.

So,
David and Jonathan, up in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

lies well within the realm of possibilities. Even probabilities.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

20 Jul 2011, 9:21 am

pandabear wrote:
Remember, too, that Saul, Jonathan and David were Benjaminites. Homosexuality was practiced among the Benjaminites, with a certain amount of assiduity. Read Judges 19.

So,
David and Jonathan, up in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

lies well within the realm of possibilities. Even probabilities.


You left any relevance to the original topic long back. If you cannot drop this pile of takataka in the appropriate bin [do NOT recycle it, it goes with the toxic waste and sharps], could you not just go play with yourself?



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

20 Jul 2011, 9:33 am

Philologos wrote:
could you not just go play with yourself?


Okay, good call!! Be back in 5 minutes.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

20 Jul 2011, 12:59 pm

The Idea that David and Jonathan were more than friends, did not originate with by black white and cuddly friend.
Image
Image
the trope is very old


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Last edited by JakobVirgil on 20 Jul 2011, 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

20 Jul 2011, 1:06 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
The Idea that David and Jonathan were more than friend did not originate with by black white and cuddly friend.
Image
Image
the trope is very old


Those images are rather more demonstrative than is the modern NW European norm, even for mated couples in public.

But they are not that abnormal compared to male to male nonsexual friendship expression in some warmer lands.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

20 Jul 2011, 1:10 pm

sure, sure but Wilde used it

Quote:
Such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare.


ruveyn even makes jokes about it in this forum.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

20 Jul 2011, 2:02 pm

Religion roundup topic

I have never laughed so hard at a biblical thread since landing on the Planet. With a thump.

Religion rioting into raucus rapture. Sex and scripture. God is Great and Gay.

Not too shabby after all. History has been redeemed!! At long last.

Who knew? :wink: :lol:


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo