Michelle Bachmann's Biblical Idol was Gay !???

1. 77

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   Does Michelle Bachmann even read the Bible she quotes so "liberally?"
   
   http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/mic … homosexual
   
   
   Michele Bachmann says she's a 21st-century version of Saul's son, Jonathan.
   Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has a habit of breaking out Old Testament references when she speaks to religious audiences. She has previously compared her (increasingly) small but determined band of followers to the Men of Issachar, one of the 12 Tribes of Israel that helped ward off the Canaanite invasion in the Book of Judges.
   
   But now,the Minnesota congresswoman seems to have picked a new Biblical alter ego; we're not sure she really thought this one through. Via MinnPost, this is what she told the conservative activists at RightOnline last week in June:
   
       "I want to call to mind in remembrance a hero of mine. And he's from ancient Israel. And from history we know, in the recorded annals of time, that this was someone considered more inconsequential, but to me he had an inspiring, powerful story.
   
       His name was Jonathan. And it was in ancient Israel. His father was king. He was the first king of ancient Israel and his name was King Saul."
   
   [Ok so far, but wait... it gets twisted right here...]
   ...Jonathan's mostly famous because of his very close personal relationship with David, with some scholars going so far as to suggest that they might have been lovers.
   Jonathan and David have been cited by gay rights activists as proof that gay rights are biblically enshrined, as well as by Oscar Wilde—at his trial for homosexuality. The Book of Samuel describes the relationship thusly: "The soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul." Their friendship led to a falling out between Saul and his son, after Jonathan pleads with the king to stop trying to kill David.
   
   
   Bachmann, for her part, has described homosexuality as "personal bondage" and a "dysfunction" and alleged that gay marriage is an "earthquake issue" that could shake American society to its core.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Is it any wonder that human relationships are so screwed up.  We now equate loving friendships, deeply held kinship between men, with homosexuality?  There can be no loving relationship between men that isn't sexual?  Doesn't that strike you as a perversion of love and male humanity? 
      
      Are all same sex friendships latent homosexual relationships?  If that doesn't strike you as a distortion of "Philia"  For a group that prides itself on its compassion, liberals do tend to twist the world to revolve around race and sex and sexuality.
      
      As a father, I love my sons with all of my heart.  As a friend, I have loved men deeply enough to be willing to trade my life for their safety and to sacrifice for their happiness.
      
      It is a sickness that alters and twists all relationships to be coital.  Is it reasonable to see all relationships in this way.  Johnathan loved David - now that is homosexual, because of a deep and loving kinship.  Or Abraham Lincoln is homosexual because he preferred male to female company or because the death of a close friend shook him deeply.  Or Jesus' love for John proves his homosexuality.
      
      It is a sickness that alters and twists all relationships to be coital.(worth repeating)

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Bachmann is nuttier than fruitcake. Her and Palin need to team up and form a comedy duo.

         replyreport
2. 87

   livelongerposted 12 years ago

   Um, given some choices she's made in her personal life (>ahem!< choice of husband >ahem!<), I'm going to leave that one alone.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The last line of the article suggests Bachmann should have stuck with Job.
      Knowing Bachmann she would likely mispronounce it as JOB (as in the one thing teenagers need most -- jobs!)

      replyreport
3. 61

   TMMasonposted 12 years ago

   What a bunch of Secular Humanist Homo-agenda BS.

   replyreport
4. 83

   kerrygposted 12 years ago

   Somebody should send her the link to some Bible slash just to blow her little mind.

   replyreport
5. 92

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   I don't believe David and Jonathan were lovers. And I'm NOT taking up for Bachmann!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      How immoderate of you.  Isn't it homophobic to assert that hair brained theories of homosexual activists are just that, hair brained?  Moderates shouldn't be homophobic or they might get a good talking to by their moderate brethren/sistren.  You might lose your beige card and have to take a brighter and therefore more assertive color.  I would recommend blue.

      replyreport
      1. 87

         livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Please. She just said that she didn't think they were lovers. There's a lot in the Bible that is vague and open to interpretation.

         replyreport
         1. 92

            habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, LL. I believe men can be very close and love each other without having homosexual tendencies. Our society is so homophobic that a lot of straight guys won't show much affection to other men, even when they might want to. We women are lucky in this regard. I'm a very "hands-on" person, and I'm also very affectionate. I can hug and kiss my girlfriends on the cheek without anyone's thinking I might be (oh, horrors!) gay.

            replyreport
            1. 87

               livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               That's true. Men tend to be far more insecure about those things, although those that are really, really defensive about it tend to be closeted gay men themselves.
               
               Women couldn't seem to care less, maybe because women tend to not think lesbianism is something worth getting your panties up in a bunch over.
               
               With respect to David & Jonathan: there is a lot about the language used in the Hebrew Bible that even modern Hebrew speakers (and scholars of the Masoretic texts) find vague. My own JPS Bible has tons and tons of footnotes of what it literally says, and the editors' best guess as to what it means.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  The sociological and cultural milieu in which the oldest books of the Bible were written changed very little over the centuries, Jews at the time of Jesus probably had a much clearer notion of context and meaning than we do now, without footnotes and research.
                  
                  Reading Chaucer or Dante or Cervantes is very different, and difficult, compared with reading Raymond Chandler or Dashiell Hammet.  Time and distance count far more when they are cultural than geographic.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     And reading Raymond Chandler or Dashiell Hammet is very different and more difficult than reading "The Pet Goat."
                     
                     It's really too bad the OT authors didn't have Twitter. Think of all the many footnotes and interpretations that would have avoided!

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Wow, really "The Pet Goat" reference, is that funny?  I am having trouble finding anything funny about September 11th, 2001.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           The particular reading matter was, in itself, funny.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              A President of the United States, whose wife is promoting Literacy, sitting in an elementary school reading class is funny, how?  Still missing it?  Is it because George W. Bush is a moron?  Wow, that is funny or tired and hackneyed - I have trouble telling the difference sometimes.

                              replyreport
                              1. 76

                                 lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 No, it's because he said he saw the first plane hit the tower as he was walking into the classroom. Which, is impossible. And/or a lie.
                                 
                                 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-h4Zc57QKg

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 60

                                    uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Or he knew that the  Grays were steering the planes into the towers so that the massive implosion project could be detonate by the CIA on orders from the CFR and the IMF.

                                    replyreport
            2. 74

               Barbara Kayposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Your right on habee. I've never heard before of anyone suggesting Jonathan and David as homosexual either.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  "Thy love was wonderful to me, passing the love of women"
                  
                  I'm not saying I believe it myself (though I personally wouldn't be surprised either way), but it's a pretty common assumption.

                  replyreport
                  1. 92

                     habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I know about the common assumption, but I don't think "love" has to mean sex.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Oh, of course not! Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised either way.
                        
                        On the just friends side of things, love doesn't have to mean sex.
                        
                        On the just "friends" side of things, it's pretty clear from later events that David was rather oversexed, so I could totally see some same-sex hanky panky going on behind the lines during the war, when you've got a bunch of horny young guys stuck together with no woman in sight. If he actually loved the guy he was hanky-pankying with, then I consider that a credit to him, not a stain on his character or "cheapening" of their relationship at all. ~shrugs~

                        replyreport
                        1. 92

                           habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Oh, I agree, and I wouldn't think any less of Jonathan either way.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Have you ever lived with men in close association?

                              replyreport
                  2. 85

                     rebekahELLEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     your comment made me read the entire account again. King Saul definitely makes a rather pointed remark to Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:30. Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious [woman], do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
                     Woman is in italics which means it was added.
                     
                     I think in reading the entire account, I wouldn't rule out a gay relationship.
                     Why not? I'm sure the courts had a fair share of homoerotic escapades.

                     replyreport
                     1. 77

                        Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        When sons turn gay it's always the fault of an overbearing (or in this case, perverse and naked) mother!

                        replyreport
                        1. 85

                           rebekahELLEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           

                           replyreport
                        2. 83

                           kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           LOL

                           replyreport
            3. 85

               rebekahELLEposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I agree Holle. I think Jonathan respected David highly and the same for David -  they had a bond, but not anything more than deep love and admiration for each other. From what I know of the story, Jonathan knew of his father's plan and helped save David. If true or metaphorical, it implies great love and commitment in their friendship.
               
               My sons greet their guy buddies with touch, not always a hug, but there's some form of touch. When I greet my gal or guy friends, it's always with a hug/kiss.

               replyreport
         2. 60

            uncorrectedvisionposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Tweaking the nose, is that biblical?  Unknotting panties, is that biblical?  Sarcasm and mocking, are those biblical?  Just wondering.

            replyreport
6. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   "Michelle Bachmann's Biblical Idol was Gay !???"
   
   Another one I'm tired of seeing. Tough town the internet.

   replyreport