Glad to see you are willing to continue this discussion.God doesn't care how I come off, he cares about what is in my heart.
That is from someone whom EVERYONE tells doesn't know the meaning of the word "tact," what is in your heart, and how others perceive you, do not match up. If you do not care enough that your words and actions portray more spitefulness and piety than care, and will very likely be seen as hurtful to others (and we all know god doesn't want us to hurt others), that's your prerogative.
The task of helping others can often result in backlash. Try helping drunks, or addicts for example and you will not be well received, but it is for their own good.
You have a good point. Though, when dealing with distraught or damaged people, one should at least try to understand them and learn how to help them without just outright pissing them off (granted in some cases that requires an entire degree in psychiatry to accomplish)
It is quite unfortunate nobody ever let you know there are multiple translations of the bible. ... The passage I quoted was from the New International Version which is quite popular and generally well regarded as far as translation goes. I believe the version you prefer is from the King James Version. I think I would trust the scholarship of modern translators rather than those in 1600's England.
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 particular passage using the original language. I think you may be getting a bit too defensive. Anyway, Just as you claim that modern scholars may have a better understanding or interpretation, I can claim that modern scholars are a lot more likely to be influenced by modern culture and try to apply or fit their translations into it for the common people to understand. More importantly, your claim completely sidestepped the fact that I was using the actual original language words, like "arsenokoitai," to explain what the meaning is. I'm depending on the original wording, and the definitions of those words, not the multitude of translations, each trying to fit the words into it's specific time and culture. Fact is, the word for "homosexuality" doesn't even exist in the original bible. Why is that, if it was such a great sin?
And again, you show you cannot grasp the concept of platonic love without sex.
Here I was concerned that you were the one who had this problem. Rather, that you can't grasp the difference between platonic love, romantic love, and just sex. As mentioned, my 2+ year relationship was without sex, yet was condemned just the same.
Jonathan and David were very close friends, but they did not cross the line into sexual practices. I know it can seem strange to see references to kissing, but this was a very different culture. Even today some cultures greet with a kiss, it doesn't mean much but that cultural standards are different.
Russian/Ukrainian, the culture I come from, is one of those. We greet with a kiss (I don't any more). We, however, do not cry, and kiss, and kiss, and kiss, when we part from someone we care about. Not unless it was someone we love very much. You are also making an assumption that their relationship did not cross into sexual practices. In this passage:
“You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen [David] 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 upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established.” (1 Samuel 20:30)
Saul, Jonathan's father, is basically saying what too many parents have been saying to their gay kids, "You're a perv! How could you choose him for your love! It's a shame!" and all that.
First, ask yourself, if this was just platonic love, then why was Saul so angry at Jonathan for "choosing" David? Why did he say that it was shameful? Why is he blaming his mother? On the "nakedness" part, uncovering the nakedness of a family member was a euphemism for incest in the holiness codes of the Old Testament, and Saul would not have used this phrase lightly. For example, Leviticus 18:6-18 begins, “You shall not approach anyone near of kin to uncover nakedness” and goes on to list every possible incestuous relationship (except that of father and daughter), stating before each one, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of . . .” Why use that phrase if there was nothing sexual between them?
David had multiple wives and an adulterous affair with a woman. He was not homosexual. Passages like the stripping of the armor are a symbolic reference to the transfer of power, a symbol that shows up previously in the Bible as well.
26: And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there.
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?26: And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there.
Bowing is a sign of sexuality in the Bible?
Not sure what this bowing is about, as I didn't bring it up. Explain?
I think you really want to believe this because you crave the approval of God even though you are unable to admit it here, but the approval for your sexual immorality is just not to be found in his word.
I can't want approval of someone I don't believe exists. What are you doing to get approval of Pinkie Pie pony, and if nothing, why don't you want Pinkie Pie's approval?
Take a little bit out of the Old Testament even though it doesn't quite say what you think it does, and add on a whole heap of modern sensibilities and culture, and you can come up with anything...
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?
You understand the dangerous path of that thinking, correct?
If you believe that any thinking can lead down a "dangerous path," that's your very first and most important problem. If your faith is strong, why would you fear taking your thoughts down dangerous passes or fear asking dangerous questions? 
(yes, I find this discussion entertaining)
