PDA

View Full Version : Battle Hymn for Bush..



Zakath
November 1st, 2004, 01:10 PM
This re-writing of the Battle Hymn of the Republic attributed to Mark Twain around 1900 seems eerily appropriate for this year's election...



The Battle Hymn of the Republic
(Brought Down to Date)

Mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the Sword;
He is searching out the hoardings where the stranger's wealth is stored;
He hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
His lust is marching on.

I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps;
They have builded him an altar in the Eastern dews and damps;
I have read his doomful mission by the dim and flaring lamps --
His night is marching on.

I have read his bandit gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal;
Let the faithless son of Freedom crush the patriot with his heel;
Lo, Greed is marching on!"

We have legalized the strumpet and are guarding her retreat;*
Greed is seeking out commercial souls before his judgement seat;
O, be swift, ye clods, to answer him! be jubilant my feet!
Our god is marching on!

In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch,
With a longing in his bosom -- and for others' goods an itch.
As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich --
Our god is marching on.

drbrumley
November 1st, 2004, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

This re-writing of the Battle Hymn of the Republic attributed to Mark Twain around 1900 seems eerily appropriate for this year's election...

:zakath:

Granite
November 1st, 2004, 01:13 PM
:think:

On Fire
November 1st, 2004, 01:16 PM
zakath: "Can't we all just get....."

:nuclear blast: cuts him short and renders him skinless. And boneless.

Zakath
November 1st, 2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley

:zakath: Attempting to look profound in your silence, eh Brumley?

I didn't write it; I merely reproduced it here, unchanged...

Gerald
November 1st, 2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley
:zakath: This is an ongoing thing with you: attack the person when you can't attack what he has written.

Wassamatta you, afraid to attack Mark Twain...? :chuckle:

Zakath
November 1st, 2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

zakath: "Can't we all just get....."

:nuclear blast: cuts him short and renders him skinless. And boneless. Ahh, it's November and the revenge fantasies fill the air... ;)

Gerald
November 1st, 2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

zakath: "Can't we all just get....."

:nuclear blast: cuts him short and renders him skinless. And boneless.
An assassin's bullet is cheaper and easier to obtain.

And you gripe about me entertaining demented fantasies... :chuckle:

Zakath
November 1st, 2004, 01:23 PM
Hey G!

I posted one with you in mind here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=618996#post618996).

Enjoy! :thumb:

Knight
November 1st, 2004, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

This re-writing of the Battle Hymn of the Republic attributed to Mark Twain around 1900 seems eerily appropriate for this year's election... Hey Zakath can you specifically explain what you mean when you say....

"seems eerily appropriate for this year's election"

???

On Fire
November 1st, 2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

An assassin's bullet is cheaper and easier to obtain.

And you gripe about me entertaining demented fantasies... :chuckle:

That's not my fantasy. It's zakath's. He is obviously against the war in Iraq and is willing to suffer whatever consequences for non-action. I'm suggesting that those consequences might be a nuclear bomb up his arse.

Gerald
November 1st, 2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
I'm suggesting that those consequences might be a nuclear bomb up his arse. And I think that's what you'd like to see happen...

Bile-colored glasses are a great thing to have... :chuckle:

Zakath
November 1st, 2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Hey Zakath can you specifically explain what you mean when you say....

"seems eerily appropriate for this year's election"

??? If you read it carefully, there are elements of Twain's piece that might be seen to apply to either one of the two major party candidates, don't you think so?

:think:

On Fire
November 1st, 2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

And I think that's what you'd like to see happen...


No. Not really. I love zakath.

Zakath
November 1st, 2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

That's not my fantasy. It's zakath's.Oh really? How so?



He is obviously against the war in Iraq and is willing to suffer whatever consequences for non-action. The word is "inaction", and since living through Viet Nam, I am generally against unwinnable wars...


I'm suggesting that those consequences might be a nuclear bomb up his arse. Thank you for clarifying.

What's that got to do with Twain's piece? :think:

Zakath
November 1st, 2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

No. Not really. I love zakath. Yeah, right.

With friends like these... :ha:

Turbo
November 1st, 2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Hey Zakath can you specifically explain what you mean when you say....

"seems eerily appropriate for this year's election"

???


Originally posted by Zakath

If you read it carefully, there are elements of Twain's piece that might be seen to apply to either one of the two major party candidates, don't you think so?

:think: Thanks for clarifying. That was so much more specific than what you wrote in your opening post. :freak:

Zakath
November 1st, 2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Thanks for clarifying. That was so much more specific than what you wrote in your opening post. :freak:
Thank you for your apparently obligatory "let's slap the atheist" concurrence with the Admin...

Did you bother to read Twain's piece or not? :think:

What's your opinion?

On Fire
November 1st, 2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
The word is "inaction....

Hey, Google found 77,100 entries for non-action. Common usage counts. :p

On Fire
November 1st, 2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
What's your opinion?

Anti-war sentiments aside, my opinion is "wow, he's a good writer."

Gerald
November 1st, 2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

Hey, Google found 77,100 entries for non-action. Common usage counts. :p And you're about as common as they come... :chuckle:

On Fire
November 1st, 2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

And you're about as common as they come... :chuckle:

Thank you...I think.

Knight
November 1st, 2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Thank you for your apparently obligatory "let's slap the atheist" concurrence with the Admin...

Did you bother to read Twain's piece or not? :think:

What's your opinion? Your point doesn't make itself.

Come on.... tell me....

What SPECIFICALLY do you think... "seems eerily appropriate for this year's election" ?

Zakath
November 1st, 2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Your point doesn't make itself.

Come on.... tell me....

What SPECIFICALLY do you think... "seems eerily appropriate for this year's election" ? You mean this point?

Posted point (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=619056#post619056)

If so, come back after you finish the server maintenance and have time to actually read Twain's piece...

I'm off to another fun evening of corrupting the morals of America's young people teaching at one of the local colleges... :D

Knight
November 1st, 2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

You mean this point?

Posted point (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=619056#post619056)

If so, come back after you finish the server maintenance and have time to actually read Twain's piece...

I'm off to another fun evening of corrupting the morals of America's young people teaching at one of the local colleges... :D Huh?????

Are you on drugs or something???

I am asking you to say in your own words what your point is. Or do you have one????

Is this really that hard?

Or did I expose you once again for being a fake and a fraud that has little ability to make a point on his own and then when challenged runs off (one again) with a lame excuse.

Zakath
November 2nd, 2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Huh?????

Are you on drugs or something???No. I'm not the one who claims to dedicate his life to an invisible, uncommunicative, apparently uncaring entity...


I am asking you to say in your own words what your point is.It's really not difficult, Knight. I'll type slowly so you can understand...

1. I posted a piece by Mark Twain for people to read and comment upon.

2. You should read Twain's piece.

3. You should then comment on it.


Is this really that hard?
I wouldn't think so, but I might be mistaken. If that's too difficult for you, perhaps you should go play elsewhere...


Or did I expose you once again for being a fake and a fraud that has little ability to make a point on his own and then when challenged runs off (one again) with a lame excuse. Ahh, you're improving. You manged to post almost five entire sentences before stooping to ad hominem... :rolleyes:

Knight
November 2nd, 2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

No. I'm not the one who claims to dedicate his life to an invisible, uncommunicative, apparently uncaring entity...Poor you.

You continue...
It's really not difficult, Knight. I'll type slowly so you can understand...

1. I posted a piece by Mark Twain for people to read and comment upon.

2. You should read Twain's piece.

3. You should then comment on it.It's your thread not mine.

You haven't made a point yet. Do you plan on making one? I read the piece now I am waiting for you to make a point. Do you have one?

Zakath
November 2nd, 2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Knight

Poor you.Actually, my life is much richer for my decision. :D


You continue...It's your thread not mine.But you'll feel free to barge in and insult me at your whim?

I suppose that since it's your board your whim becomes law... a bit like your deity's view of morality. :chuckle:


You haven't made a point yet. Do you plan on making one?Sure I have. By ignoring (or not reading) item 3 on my list, you've amply illustrated my point...


I read the piece now I am waiting for you to make a point. Do you have one? See my response to your previous question. ;)

BTW, WHAT is going on with the server here????

It's taking between 45 seconds to a minute and a half to load a single page on a broadband connection!!!! :doh:

:shocked:

Knight
November 2nd, 2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Sure I have. By ignoring (or not reading) item 3 on my list, you've amply illustrated my point... OK, let's try this...... (maybe I can pierce that dense skull of yours).

You say....
Originally posted by Zakath

This re-writing of the Battle Hymn of the Republic attributed to Mark Twain around 1900 seems eerily appropriate for this year's election... I don't see any accurate connection or similarity.

What similarities do you see?

Zakath
November 3rd, 2004, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Knight

OK, let's try this...... (maybe I can pierce that dense skull of yours).Your first four words gave me hope that you were actually willing to discuss something rationally... which hope your last parenthetical statement snatched away...

Oh well, you can't say I didn't try to have a rational conversation and all you seem to want to do is throw obnoxious jabs...

I'll continue when you can act in a more civilized fashion... I believe you can do so when it suits you.

:rolleyes:

Knight
November 3rd, 2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Your first four words gave me hope that you were actually willing to discuss something rationally... which hope your last parenthetical statement snatched away...

Oh well, you can't say I didn't try to have a rational conversation and all you seem to want to do is throw obnoxious jabs...

I'll continue when you can act in a more civilized fashion... I believe you can do so when it suits you.

:rolleyes: LOL... you are such a wuss!

On Fire
November 3rd, 2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Knight

LOL... you are such a wuss!

He's old. And hopeless.

Zakath
November 3rd, 2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

He's old. And hopeless. Only old.

I have hope that people like you can be set free someday... so I don't qualify as hopeless quite yet. :D

Zakath
November 3rd, 2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Knight

LOL... you are such a wuss! Ahh, a mature demonstration of presuppositional apologetics at its best...

On Fire
November 3rd, 2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Ahh, a mature demonstration of presuppositional apologetics at its best...

You come here to be ministered to? :darwinsm:

Zakath
November 3rd, 2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

You come here to be ministered to? :confused:

What ever gave you that idea?

I just have better things to do than deal with puerile behavior, no matter who is engaging in it.

On Fire
November 3rd, 2004, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Ahh, a mature demonstration of presuppositional apologetics at its best...

You.

Zakath
November 3rd, 2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

You. Why, because I used the term "apologetics" in a sentence? :chuckle:

On Fire
November 3rd, 2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Why, because I used the term "apologetics" in a sentence? :chuckle:

No. Because Knight called you a wuss and you played your god card. Like we aren't allowed to post anything except apologetics. :darwinsm:

Zakath
November 3rd, 2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by On Fire

No. Because Knight called you a wuss and you played your god card.
Well, he does claim to follow a higher moral code... His languge with its junior-high school playground taunts seems a bit at odds with his alleged desire to see my conversion...

But if you're waiting for me to respond in kind, get used to disappointment. :D


Like we aren't allowed to post anything except apologetics. You are "allowed" to post whatever silly drivel here you can get past the moderators. Boost that post count... :geek:

But your continued carping merely shows your ignorance, in this case.

My reference was to a discussion we had long before "On Fire" ever showed up at TOL. :rolleyes:

jjjg
November 3rd, 2004, 02:09 PM
Granite, after leaving Christianity have you still remained a staunch conservative?

Zakath
November 3rd, 2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

Granite, after leaving Christianity have you still remained a staunch conservative? If you're looking for granite1010, he hasn't been on this thread for a couple of days... :D

Granite
November 3rd, 2004, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by jjjg

Granite, after leaving Christianity have you still remained a staunch conservative?

Guess who's back?:bannana:

I was never "staunch," I suppose, because some of my views were and still are at odds with traditional conservativism. I favor legalizing pot, for example. I'd characterize myself as a libertarian before and after my break with the faith.

Leaving Christianity hasn't changed much of my political views.

On Fire
November 3rd, 2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
My reference was to a discussion we had long before "On Fire" ever showed up at TOL. :rolleyes:

That's what YOU think. That is, if you COULD think.

Gerald
November 3rd, 2004, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
That's what YOU think. That is, if you COULD think. Atheists do think.

They find it to be more reliable than heeding "feelings" in their hearts.

jjjg
November 3rd, 2004, 07:02 PM
Granite, but they won't let you get married. How can you be Conservative?

Granite
November 4th, 2004, 07:09 AM
Triple J, can you have a real discussion, or is fourth grade humor a kind of Canadian past time?

On Fire
November 4th, 2004, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

Atheists do think.

They find it to be more reliable than heeding "feelings" in their hearts.

Is that a quote from Hitler?

Gerald
November 4th, 2004, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by On Fire
Is that a quote from Hitler? No, it's a quote from me.

On Fire
November 4th, 2004, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Gerald

No, it's a quote from me.

The similarities are stunning.

Granite
November 4th, 2004, 10:23 AM
Funny how everyone becomes an expert on Hitler when they disagree with somebody...

Zakath
November 4th, 2004, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Funny how everyone becomes an expert on Hitler when they disagree with somebody... Et tu, Adolf?

:chuckle:

Granite
November 4th, 2004, 01:35 PM
Well, it's just a cheap (and usually inappropriate or misinformed) trick. What was it that Orwell said? That "fascist" had lost its meaning because it was only used to describe somebody the speaker was at odds with, or something along those lines.

Zakath
November 4th, 2004, 01:41 PM
Agreed.

I've been called a "fascist" by everyone from Enyartians, who are essentially despotic monarchists, to yellow dog democrats of my aquaintance.

I'm essentially a Libertarian in my views of the appropriate role of government - the less government that exists the more liberty the people have to govern themselves.

On Fire
November 4th, 2004, 01:46 PM
:taoist: :baby:

Granite
November 4th, 2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Agreed.

I've been called a "fascist" by everyone from Enyartians, who are essentially despotic monarchists, to yellow dog democrats of my aquaintance.

I'm essentially a Libertarian in my views of the appropriate role of government - the less government that exists the more liberty the people have to govern themselves.

Ditto.

Gerald
November 4th, 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by On Fire
:taoist: :baby: Just because you espouse an ideology that only benefits you after you're dead is no reason to cry...

:chuckle:

On Fire
November 4th, 2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Gerald

Just because you espouse an ideology that only benefits you after you're dead is no reason to cry...

:chuckle:

Showing your ignorance again, eh?

Turbo
November 4th, 2004, 02:07 PM
granite1010 & Zakath,

What "Enyartian(s)" ever called either of you a fascist?

Just curious.

Zakath
November 5th, 2004, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Gerald & Zakath,

What "Enyartian(s)" ever called either of you a fascist?I seem to recall that appelation being thrown my way during one of the innumberable discussions of Enyart's proposed government... I am blanking on who the name caller(s) was (or were)... I'm sure that if someone were interested they could somehow electronically comb through the half million or so posts (or however many have survived the periodic cleanups) to find out. :geek:

I'm certainly not interested enough to spend the time at this point. :yawn:


Just curious. Sure you are... ;)

Turbo
November 5th, 2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

I seem to recall that appelation being thrown my way during one of the innumberable discussions of Enyart's proposed government... I am blanking on who the name caller(s) was (or were)... I'm sure that if someone were interested they could somehow electronically comb through the half million or so posts (or however many have survived the periodic cleanups) to find out. :geek: That must have been a few years ago, before I was active here.

granite1010 hasn't been around as long. Maybe his memory is fresher.

Granite
November 5th, 2004, 12:46 PM
I wish I could remember specifics, but I don't. Sorry Zak.:(

Zakath
November 5th, 2004, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

...granite1010 hasn't been around as long. Maybe his memory is fresher. Well, he certainly is fresher... ;)

Granite
November 5th, 2004, 01:17 PM
:chuckle:

Turbo
November 5th, 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

I wish I could remember specifics, but I don't. Sorry Zak.:( Maybe you were thinking of this post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=582070&highlight=fascist#post582070). :)

Granite
November 5th, 2004, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Maybe you were thinking of this post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=582070&highlight=fascist#post582070). :)

Actually we were talking about Zakath being smeared. In this case the phrase fits Clete, Enyart, and other little Thought Police wannabe stone throwers.

Remember what the context was of the post, by the way. Deuteronomy 25:11-12. Charming little case law.

jjjg
November 5th, 2004, 02:39 PM
Enyart believes a dictatorship is better than a democracy and even if the monarch rapes and pillages his subjects, at least he upholds laws to keep his subjects in palce.

Turbo
November 5th, 2004, 03:05 PM
jjjg, do you consider King David to be a dictator?

Granite
November 5th, 2004, 03:16 PM
Even if he was a dictator, at least David wasn't a philandering outlaw bandit murderer. Not like the love of his life was a man, or anything. And remember, he wasn't responsible for the death of 70,000 Israelities, either. I mean, David wasn't the kind of guy to keep his peace after his sons went wacky and started, you know, raping their sisters. And he didn't break vows on his death bed and make sure his successor killed an enemy of his, either.

How could you not like this guy?

Zakath
November 5th, 2004, 03:17 PM
:darwinsm:

Stop it, granite! You're killin' me here!

Granite
November 5th, 2004, 03:21 PM
Hey man, anything I can do!:D

Zakath
November 5th, 2004, 04:01 PM
Hey, you were describing the "man after God's own heart", after all... :chuckle:

Look at David and you'll see the heart of the Judeo-Christian deity... :think:

Frank Ernest
November 6th, 2004, 06:10 AM
"Look at David and you'll see the heart of the Judeo-Christian deity... "

Oh, isn't that just precious!?

LOL LOL LOL Please excuse me. I thought you had some knowledge of the Bible. Looks like I was misled. By you, perhaps?

Granite
November 6th, 2004, 09:09 AM
I don't think Zak or I have said anything about David that's untrue...

Pesky, those troubling facts about the heroes of scripture.

Zakath
November 6th, 2004, 03:31 PM
OK Frankie,

Please point out the error in granite's and my points.

I'm always willing to learn something from someone so wise... ;)

Art Deco
November 6th, 2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Even if he was a dictator, at least David wasn't a philandering outlaw bandit murderer. Was this before or after God rejected King Saul and and God sent Samuel to anoint David, King of Israel?


This lie presented by Granite 1010
Not like the love of his life was a man, or anything. Only Christophobes and homos give any credence to this falsehood.


Posted by Granite1010:
And remember, he wasn't responsible for the death of 70,000 Israelities, either. First Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.


Posted by Granite1010:
I mean, David wasn't the kind of guy to keep his peace after his sons went wacky and started, you know, raping their sisters. I'm sure David insisted that his son ravage his daughter...:rolleyes:


Another lie posted by Granite1010:
And he didn't break vows on his death bed and make sure his successor killed an enemy of his, either. King Solomon told Shimei to build a house in Jerusalem and stay there. In addition Solomon said, "The day you leave, your blood will be on your head." He left and was executed by King Solomon.




Posted by Granite1010:
How could you not like this guy? You mock God in your ignorance. :angel:

jjjg
November 6th, 2004, 09:48 PM
Perhaps aristocracy was just a phase we had to go through to develop a fuller government by and for the people. Our government is not perfect but is always evolving.

Frank Ernest
November 7th, 2004, 04:43 AM
"I'm always willing to learn something from someone so wise... "

Appealing to ego are we, Dr. Phil ... er... Zak?

But hey! If you're really willing to learn, then open your Bible (if you have one) and start studying. (I realize there's no chance of that, since you and the other so-called intellectuals have credentials to protect.)

Frank Ernest
November 7th, 2004, 04:48 AM
"I don't think Zak or I have said anything about David that's untrue..."

Well, that's a fairly ignorant statement, if true.

"Pesky, those troubling facts about the heroes of scripture. "

I have not seen facts bother either one of you. LOL LOL LOL

Zakath
November 7th, 2004, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

"I'm always willing to learn something from someone so wise... "

Appealing to ego are we, Dr. Phil ... er... Zak? No, actually I was stooping to sarcasm; hence the use of the winking smilie at the end of that line of text in my original post.

But I see the point appears to have eluded you; demonstrating my point about your "wisdom" once again. :chuckle:


But hey! If you're really willing to learn, then open your Bible (if you have one) and start studying. (I realize there's no chance of that, since you and the other so-called intellectuals have credentials to protect.) Been there done that, have all but six credits for a masters in theology as evidence...

I gave up pursuing the degree when I learned how to get past my presuppositional biases. :D

Zakath
November 7th, 2004, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

...You mock God in your ignorance. :angel: Do I mock the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus by denying their existence or questioning the veracity or utility of the the stories made up by their followers?

Same thing for your deity, Deco. To me he's as imaginary as either of the other two characters and tales told by his followers are worthy of the same level of respect.

Granite
November 7th, 2004, 10:11 AM
"Was this before or after God rejected King Saul and and God sent Samuel to anoint David, King of Israel?"

This sidesteps the issue: that David capriciously stole wives from his countrymen, conspired to have them killed in combat, and was an all-around reprehensible cad for most of his life. You can't ignore this. Well, strike that. You can, I guess...

A "divine" mandate centering around a possibly fictional or at least embellished character from Hebrew lore says more about the deity doing the blessing than the man abusing his "divine" mission.

"Only Christophobes and homos give any credence to this falsehood."

Art. David said very, very clearly that Jonathan's love was better than the love of a woman. This DOES NOT mean their relationship was necessarily sexual (it is possible to actually love another man and never, you know, go there). However...
the word ahba, Strong's # 160, can mean "familial" love or the "romantic" variety. The same word to describe how Ammon felt about his sister Tamar before he raped her. So, sorry. The love of David's life was Jonathan (he never speaks of his many wives in these terms, by the way), and the nature of their relationship is slightly cryptic. I don't think it was necessarily sexual; who knows. It doesn't matter. David loved the guy and there is nothing you can say to dispute that fact. (Well, strike that; you're a glutton for punishment, Art, so knock yourself out.)

"I'm sure David insisted that his son ravage his daughter..."

I never said he did. But he did keep his peace and do nothing whatsoever to punish or reprimand Amnon, either. Thanks dad! Think about it, Art. A son of yours rapes his sister, what the world would YOU do? A who-knows-till-you've-been-through-it BS excuse won't cut it, either. David knew the law of Moses. He did nothing whatsoever to bring Amnon to justice. Instead he waited till Absalom murdered the guy and staged a palace coup. The man after God's own heart fouled this up. Period.

As for Shimei: David promised him his life would be spared (1 Kings 2:8). On his death bed, the man after God's own heart utters these last words: "His hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood" (v. 9). This bloodthirsty philandering butcher has one last thought before passing into the great beyond: son, kill that guy who insulted me many years ago.

Sounds like a mobster or thug, to me.

Turbo
November 23rd, 2004, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Even if he was a dictator, at least David wasn't a philandering outlaw bandit murderer. Not like the love of his life was a man, or anything. And remember, he wasn't responsible for the death of 70,000 Israelities, either. I mean, David wasn't the kind of guy to keep his peace after his sons went wacky and started, you know, raping their sisters. And he didn't break vows on his death bed and make sure his successor killed an enemy of his, either.

How could you not like this guy?

Originally posted by Art Deco

Only Christophobes and homos give any credence to this falsehood.


Originally posted by granite1010

Art. David said very, very clearly that Jonathan's love was better than the love of a woman. This DOES NOT mean their relationship was necessarily sexual (it is possible to actually love another man and never, you know, go there). But you certainly meant to imply that their relationship was sexual/romantic when you brought it up. After all, why would you refer to David's close friendship with Jonathan in your list of David's failures? No, you had to use a phrase normally associated with romantic love to make their friendship sound like something wicked.
:troll:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20


So, sorry. The love of David's life was Jonathan (he never speaks of his many wives in these terms, by the way), and the nature of their relationship is slightly cryptic.No, it isn't.

I don't think it was necessarily sexual;Then you shouldn't have said what you said.

who knows.Anyone without an axe to grind who has read 1 Samuel.

It doesn't matter.Yes it does, and you know it. That's why you brought it up.

David loved the guy and there is nothing you can say to dispute that fact.Why would we?


Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18:1

You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:18

Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Matthew 22:37-39 Like the Israelites who wrote the Bible and David himself, we do not deny the wicked things that David did. (The fact that they included their failures and in their holy scriptures is evidence that the story is true.) It's just that David's love for Jonathan was in no way wicked. If it had been, the Scriptures would describe it as such.

Granite
November 24th, 2004, 07:21 AM
"But you certainly meant to imply that their relationship was sexual/romantic when you brought it up. After all, why would you refer to David's close friendship with Jonathan in your list of David's failures?"

I didn't pose it as a failure: I brought it up because it's a detail of a Christian hero's life that Christians don't really bring up. David and Goliath, becomes king after Saul. This characteristic of David's is not mentioned very often. That's why I mentioned it.

"No, you had to use a phrase normally associated with romantic love to make their friendship sound like something wicked."

The language David himself uses can be construed as romantic: how often have you had a male companion whose love for you is better than a woman's?

Zakath
November 24th, 2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by granite1010
...how often have you had a male companion whose love for you is better than a woman's? When they bring beer and let me have the remote?

:chuckle:

Granite
November 24th, 2004, 12:56 PM
:chuckle:

Turbo
November 24th, 2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

I didn't pose it as a failure: I brought it up because it's a detail of a Christian hero's life that Christians don't really bring up. David and Goliath, becomes king after Saul. This characteristic of David's is not mentioned very often. That's why I mentioned it. Baloney.


The language David himself uses can be construed as romantic:If one has an axe to grind or a wicked agenda to push, or is just knuckleheaded, yes.


how often have you had a male companion whose love for you is better than a woman's? I haven't had the privelege to have such a close friendship. But others have. I would guess that is more common of friends who have been through extremely trying times together and stood by one another.

As for the way David and Jonathan became fast friends upon meeting one another, I have experienced that a few times.

Granite
November 24th, 2004, 03:16 PM
Turbo, you're the one with an axe to grind. This is in your Bible, remember. You're the one who's defensive. And you're the one who resurrected this thread from the grave just to call me out on the issue of David's love for Jonathan. So, either you have too much time on your hands, or this is a bone you want to pick.

David loved Jonathan, end of discussion, and most Christians aren't aware of this facet of his life. You clearly don't seem to be comfortable with it, either.

Turbo
November 24th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

You clearly don't seem to be comfortable with it, either. :chuckle: OK, Freud.

Good grief.

Granite
November 24th, 2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

:chuckle: OK, Freud.

Good grief.

Are or aren't you? You couldn't even let this thread wither on the vine, man. Obviously SOMETHING got to you.

Turbo
November 24th, 2004, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Are or aren't you [comfortable with the fact that David loved Jonathan]?Of course! Aren't you paying attention?


Originally posted by granite1010

David loved the guy and there is nothing you can say to dispute that fact.


Originally posted by Turbo

Why would we?

Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 18:1

You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:18

Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Matthew 22:37-39 Like the Israelites who wrote the Bible and David himself, we do not deny the wicked things that David did. (The fact that they included their failures and in their holy scriptures is evidence that the story is true.) It's just that David's love for Jonathan was in no way wicked. It is had been, the Scriptures would describe it as such.


Originally posted by granite1010

how often have you had a male companion whose love for you is better than a woman's?


Originally posted by Turbo

I haven't had the privelege to have such a close friendship. But others have. I would guess that is more common of friends who have been through extremely trying times together and stood by one another.

As for the way David and Jonathan became fast friends upon meeting one another, I have experienced that a few times.



Originally posted by granite1010

You couldn't even let this thread wither on the vine, man. Obviously SOMETHING got to you.Yeah. (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=631544&highlight=alexander#post631544)

Granite
November 24th, 2004, 06:58 PM
Turbo, quit being such a knee-jerk Bible beater. I doubt David was gay; Alexander may have been bi. These are non-sequitars of yours, thank you. You had a bone to pick, you picked it. Hopefully you feel better about yourself for resurrecting a dead thread and wasting your time.

Your Bible, hoss. Whatever. What's your beef, exactly?