Quote from: NF6X on September 20, 2011, 05:50:03 PM

Quote from: PinkiePie on September 20, 2011, 02:40:02 PM

And again, you show you cannot grasp the concept of platonic love without sex.

As I recall, it was Rassah who brought up the concept of love without sex here, when he explained that his first love (which you appear to denounce as perversion) was not a sexual relationship. I think he grasps the concept of Platonic love without sex just fine, although I agree with you that his interpretation of some of the Bible passages that he quoted looks like a case of misinterpreting things by projecting modern western concepts onto a different culture in a different time.

Actually I have repeatedly told him platonic love is just fine, but that his insistance on perverting it into a sexual relationship later is the problem.

Quote

Emphasis added: That's precisely what you are failing to see. Some people here absolutely do debate the terribleness of at least some of the things you have denounced in this thread. For that matter, your statement isn't even logically consistent: If doing certain things makes a particular person feel happy, then why would they think that those things are terrible? If they agreed with you that those things are terrible, then why would those things make them feel happy?

I would not have referenced things nobody here would argue if it were things I had already brought up. Rape makes some people happy, murder makes some people happy, greed makes people happy, gluttony, theft...everything can make a person happy. You can't base your moral compass on what brings you pleasure.

Quote

You are correct, it was the King James version, though it's rather strange of you to assume that I don't know that there are "multiple translations of the bible" when I even mentioned that I have read multiple bibles in multiple languages, and attempted to explain that passage using the original language

No, you quite clearly implied you were providing the "actual quote" and then referenced a cherry picked version you thought would make your case better. I was charitably assuming you were doing that by mistake, I can see I was wrong.

Quote

1 Samuel 20:30-31
Then Saul's anger burned against Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you are choosing the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? "For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die."

Quote

Advocates of a homosexual reading of this passage will sometimes point to the description of "nakedness" in this verse and claim that it is referring to a sexual relationship. The inference here is that the context implies that Jonathan somehow chose David sexually (as a homosexual partner). This interpretation then goes on to claim that Saul is upset because Jonathan could not be established as king unless and until he had a female partner with which to bear children who could become heirs to the throne.

But lets be honest about the passage. Who is described as naked? Its Jonathans mother! There is nothing in the passage that describes a sexual relationship between the two men. In fact, this passage says nothing about ANY type of marriage. Saul is upset about one thing: Jonathan took Davids side against Saul! Jonathan and David were sworn to each other as brothers, and Saul was simply MAD that Jonathan would treat David more like family than his own father.

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Were_David_and_Jonathan_Homosexual_Lovers

There are similar explanations for everything you can bring up here, you are trying to fit what you wish God was telling you into what he is telling you. It doesn't work that way.

Quote

No, he was not a homosexual. Neither am I. Though I do believe he was at least bisexual (like me), and a somewhat gay acting one, too, based on his actions towards Jonathan and the other passages I mentioned. It's true that the armor part is a symbol of transfer of power. So, please explain, why would Jonathan, upon meeting David, give up his most prized possessions to him in a show of giving up himself to David's power? My guess, love/crush at first sight. What is yours?

I have already told you, do you think if you repeat it the truth will be obscured? It is about a transference of official power, not love of any kind. I know you wish God would give approval for your sexual perversions, but chanting a lie over and over will not grant this approval.

Quote

Not sure what this bowing is about, as I didn't bring it up. Explain?

I think I see the problem, you are just copying and pasting things you have found online without bothering to try and verify them for yourself? That is very dishonest, I have been telling you to trust in God and his word rather than the lies of other people, many of whom have apparently abused you.

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." - Samuel 20:41 (The couple crying over their parents forcing hem to break up)"

Since we both agree a kiss does not imply a sexual relationship, what could you be referring to but the bow, unless you didn't read what you posted?

Quote

Kettle <-> Pot. Homosexuality was not illegal, and love between men, and even marriage between male monks, wasn't that uncommon until some time in the 1400's (I think, though I may be off by a few centuries). Marriage itself was simply a property transfer contract until the liberalization of the last 2 or 3 hundred years or so. So, perhaps the bible has always spoken out against homosexuality, and gays are just trying to make it fit the current (new) culture, or perhaps the bible never said anything against homosexuality because it was never considered as anything weird, and Christians are just "taking a little bit out of the Old Testament (about 5 to 7 "mentions?") to try to make it fit into their own (still somewhat-new) culture?

Please stop attempting to troll, it's painfully obvious when you do so.