Sanford used the David analogy

Well, don't be so fast there, Freelunch.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9955KDG2&show_article=1

"COLUMBIA, S.C.—South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Tuesday that he "crossed lines" with a handful of women other than his mistress—but never had sex with them.

The governor said he "never crossed the ultimate line" with anyone but Maria Belen Chapur, the Argentine at the center of a scandal that has derailed his once-promising political career.

"This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story," Sanford said. "A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day."

During an emotional interview at his Statehouse office with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Sanford said Chapur is his soul mate but he's trying to fall back in love with his wife.

He said that during the encounters with other women he "let his guard down" with some physical contact but "didn't cross the sex line." He wouldn't go into detail.

Sanford said the casual encounters happened outside the U.S. while he was married but before he met Chapur, on trips to "blow off steam" with male friends."

Hey, let's not forget David's dalliance with Jonathan: "surpassing the love of women".

But, just like Larry Craig, I'm sure Sanford is "not gay". Merely an adulterous, 2-faced, 'fambly values' man.

Dear Mark,

Oh, boy.

I’ve cried real tears for you, old friend. But I know you too well: you have always done what you were gonna do and you did. God almighty, son, you did it up good this time.

When I begged you to go a little more crazy and have some college fun thirty years ago you wouldn’t. While I was sitting in front of the dean of students for streaking naked around campus you were writing speeches and studying in the library. You were our student body president and the campus mischief maker was your roommate. As your best friend at the time, I was proud of you then and I’m proud of you now. New York hot shot to real estate tycoon to congressman to governor of my beloved South Carolina, all in khakis and button downs. A real preppy hurricane, you. I have followed your career and admired every minute of it since we first met outside the freshman dorm in 1979. But you’ve got some fixing to do now, wild man. Who’s to say the first lady does, too. I know. I was married once, for a long time. To a Palmetto State beauty. Funny, we met in Columbia. Anyhow, hunker down with the first lady the best you can. It’ll take a bunch of time. But I guarantee you: life will go on, but with a limp. I know.

And there’s one more thing I really need to tell you ... man to man ... old friend to old friend ... from a father of sons to another: all the answers to anything and everything in life you have from this point on until you die are going to be found in those precious sons of yours. If you devote the rest of your life to what your sons need and want from you everything will be fine. All of your questions about what to do in any situation—professional, political, personal, familial¬—will be answered after you ponder your boys. Just do that simple, but vital thing every moment. I know this, too. It's the secret to living well. Hell, it's the secret to life.

You’ll do this because I know you and still understand you and love you as a friend. You’ll do this ... I know you will ... and you’ll be fine. So will the first lady and the people of South Carolina. Tell them hello for me. I miss them, and I'm pulling for them, too.

Your Friend,

Todd


An award winning journalist, Todd Sentell is the author of the lunatic adventure, Toonamint of Champions. He teaches at a north Atlanta school for kids with learning disabilities

"Why assume David is the model?"

Well, if you've committed adultery, what would you use if you wanted to Christianize your response? Isn't this what Evangelicals do? They cling to a passage an OT story as if it were written specifically for their situation. You're thinking God wants you to move to a new city, then Abraham is your guy, you think that you have a big problem to solve then you identify with David fighting Goliath, you are surrounded by fearsome opponents then David in the lion's den is the story you cling to, or trying to finish seminary while undergoing 5 operations, a broken nose and bashing your head and requiring 7 stitches brings Gideon fighting the enemy with a reduced army (that one's mine, btw :-)

Of course it's not the best way to use Scripture but that's what we do. A better response from Sanford would be to say that he has done a disservice to his wife and kids and then quote this verse about his adultery:

ESV Romans 2:23 You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. 24 For, as it is written, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Then he should say that fortunately, it has no bearing on how he does his job and that's why he'll be staying.

Per your suggestion to "look it up", I invite anyone to look at:

1 Samuel 18:1-4
1 Samuel 20, noting verse 41, and
2 Samuel 1: 17-27

Look at as many translations as you want.

Again, suppose for the sake of argument that David was describing a sexual relationship in his lament for Jonathan. Why would he have ordered his soldiers to memorize it (2 Samuel 1:18)?

It's just nonsense.

Exactly right, Moonshadow, and thanks for the link.

Dear Moonshadow and Jeff,

Thanx for the different translations. (Odd, ain't it, that there are so many different versions of what took place. Maybe one of you could point out the 'correct' one to us all. And, more interesting still, is that not a one of them is the ESV from which Michele quotes. Wonder why the next set of interpreters had to 'Revise' the "perfect Word o' God" (TM)?)

Now to the crux of it all...

First Jeff's claim that "It is obvious that passage does not speak of a sexual relationship." It is not "obvious" at all, what with the stripping naked, and the kissing etc. Sounds very sexual to me.

Re: 1 Samuel 18:1-4 - "seems "Jonathan ... loved him as his own soul". I have no problem with 2 men loving one another. Sort of proves my point, tho I doubt you'd agree.

Re: 1 Samuel 20, noting verse 41 - um, that was the very verse I cited. Do you have a point?

Re: 2 Samuel 1: 17-27 - that's where the "surpassing the love of women" quote comes from. Again, that's what I cited. What's your point?

Now, of the 13 translations you provided, eight of the say "until [or "till"] David exceeded [or "exerted himself"]" v. the other five's "but [or "and"] David wept the most" {or "cried the loudest"]. My contention is with the meaning behind the word "exceeded". Two people cannot "weep" 'until' one 'weeps the most'. (They can both be weeping 'and' one can weep more than the other.) The "until" means they wept "until" something other than 'weeping' happens.

Then there's the ridiculous (imo) Bible in Basic English Version that says "till David's grief was the greater" (or, Moonshadow's insistence that "David's grief surpassed Jonathan's"). Um, this passage isn't even about "grief" (what with all the stripping and kissing going on). But again, either one's grief is great or it isn't, but you don't kiss "until" one party's "grief" is "the greater".

Jeff, you asked, "Why would he have ordered his soldiers to memorize it (2 Samuel 1:18)?"

Um, perhaps David was so proud of his love for Jonathan, (a love that 'surpassed the love of women', remember) that he wanted his soldiers to understand that a love between two men can be greater than one's love for women.

All of this is simply to point out that, since there are so many differing versions, it is impossible to know which one is the (one and only) "correct" one. Which is why I insist that it is not "obvious" at all that this "does not speak of a sexual relationship". It is highly debatable, but not a one of us will ever know for certain until that Great Day.

(Sorry for the delay in getting back to you - I've been out of the country.)