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.
Again, there's a huge difference between platonic love and romantic love. You can love
your close friends, but you can be in love
with only one person. I would ask if the love you feel for your parents is the same as you feel for your friends, and is the same that you feel for Jesus, but since you've apparently never been in love, this question is likely pointless.
The worst part of it is, Christians who are against homosexuality NEVER stop to ask if the love is one of "sexual relationship." Two guys together? "Sexual perversion!" and "you're going to hell!" That girl you were caught with, was it a "sexual relationship," or just "platonic love?" And if you two never did anything sexual, why was it perverse and sinful?
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.
I base my moral compass on whether something is causing harm or hurting someone. Do you know what the one main difference is between rape and a consensual relationship? Or between any of those things you listed, and a heterosexual or homosexual relationship?
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.
Eh, fair enough. I just thought that the quote I provided was a more detailed and more precisely worded one. Heck, I even used the original language part for that quote. Is the original language word, which translates into "male prostitute" not good enough? And what about my question regarding the bible condemning lesbianism? Where in the bible does it say that the relationship you were busted for was a sin? (or are you trying to avoid this question too?)
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."
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. http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Were_David_and_Jonathan_Homosexual_Lovers
But let’s be honest about the passage. Who is described as naked? It’s Jonathan’s 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 David’s 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.
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.
Frankly, I don't even remember the details of why Saul is so pissed at Jonathan. But let's really
be honest. Does the passage actually "describe" Jonathan's mother as being naked, as that "explanation" says? Looking at the passage, it seems to just say that Jonathan's actions, whatever they were, have "brought shame of [his] mother's nakedness." What kind of action can bring shame similar to someone else's nakedness? Why does Saul use this old oft-used term about bringing shame in such and such a way? What action is Jonathan being accused of that is being called perverse and shameful, as opposed to, say, hurtful, foolish, or something that would cause Saul to simply be angry? Sorry, but the explanation given by that page is extremely weak. For a book with god as the editor, that is some REALLY weird choice of words.
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.
You avoided the question, and, ironically, you were actually the one who simply repeated what was already being said there. So, let me bold it for you:Why would Jonathan, upon meeting David for the fist time, give up his most prized possessions in a show of giving himself up to David's power?
i.e. Those two never met before, and Jonathan just suddenly goes, "Oh, hi. Here's my stuff, and I'm giving my power over to you." Why? How are we supposed to understand his actions?
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.
I have copied that one piece of text for ease, but you're assuming that I haven't verified them. My words and my understanding of this are my own, not God's or anyone elses. They are not words I have simply been force-fed by my parents and church, but rather ones I have come to after thinking about this for a very long time on my own.
As for you, how do you know that your words are not the words of Satan? He can make you feel happy, content, and very self-righteous too, you know.
"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?
Ah, yeah, sorry, it's that thing about you not knowing what is platonic love and what is romantic love. A kiss like that likely implies a romantic relationship. People don't cry and kiss when they are forced to part. Not even in cultures where they kiss to say hello. No one else in the bible has ever parted that way either. Frankly, I don't know of any cultures where kissing to say good bye is just a normal, casual thing.
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.
Not attempting to troll, and if you just brushed that off as such, that's rather sad. But I guess I can keep history lessons out of it. (though you'd be surprised how many gays have actually contributed to your religion to make it what it is today)