Sin & The Sodomites

[Floatingaxe]

Well, that's why I was wondering. I mean no offense, FA, but before we had gender icons I thought you were a male, just because of the brash nature of your posts. I was just wondering if there was a sense of humor there.

I am known among many to be extremely comedic...

However, these lines of threads I engage in do not lend to comedy. It is a very serious subject indeed, for souls are at stake.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Irony overload. I seriously think my brain just imploded.

On a more personal note I'm simply curious, because I've read a lot of your posts here. Are you ever happy?

In Jesus Christ I am extremely happy and joyous. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be here...I would be very unhappy indeed, having to deal with unbelief and false Christianity, continuously. But the Holy Spirit gives renewed strength.

When you are in opposition to the Word of God, you will always find a few tenacious people of God. I am one of them. It translates to you as someone who is stern. I am sure many in Jesus' day saw just that kind of sternness from Him also! He surely hated religiosity in people. He called them names and went after them physically. At least we cannot do that here...of course, they were not counted among those who found salvation or were ever healed.

 

[Maren]

Yes, marriage is one man and one woman. God never sanctioned polygamy.

Sorry but I just can't see it. The Bible, in particular the story of David, disprove your assertion. Again, the Bible (and in particular a prophet of God) says God gave David his wives. If God didn't approve, why did he give David wives and say that he would have given him more?

Not to mention that so many of the major early prophets (Abraham, Moses, etc.) have multiple wives. It becomes impossible to reconcile the fact that so many prophets had multiple wives if God did not sanction them.

 

[Zecryphon]

Sorry but I just can't see it. The Bible, in particular the story of David, disprove your assertion. Again, the Bible (and in particular a prophet of God) says God gave David his wives. If God didn't approve, why did he give David wives and say that he would have given him more?

Not to mention that so many of the major early prophets (Abraham, Moses, etc.) have multiple wives. It becomes impossible to reconcile the fact that so many prophets had multiple wives if God did not sanction them.

This article might answer your question.

http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

 

[Maren]

This article might answer your question.

http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html

I see little in that article other than several arguments from silence and special pleading. It also completely ignores scriptures which show God having promoted polygamy -- from God saying he gave David his wives and would have given him more, and the command in the Law that brothers were to marry the widow of the next older brother who dies.

I do find it interesting that all the reasons the author admits as reasons that God may have allowed polygamy were just as valid after Christ died (at least up to about 50 years ago) as they were before Christ died.

 

[Zecryphon]

I see little in that article other than several arguments from silence and special pleading. It also completely ignores scriptures which show God having promoted polygamy -- from God saying he gave David his wives and would have given him more, and the command in the Law that brothers were to marry the widow of the next older brother who dies.

I do find it interesting that all the reasons the author admits as reasons that God may have allowed polygamy were just as valid after Christ died (at least up to about 50 years ago) as they were before Christ died.

It shows why God may have had to allow, not promote, polygamy to protect and care for women, who are also His children. Would you have preferred that all those women starve and die, instead? The article is very clear that God's initial intent was never polygamy, but the model of one man and one woman. This is reiterated by Christ in the New Testament, not polygamy.

In the case of David, the reason that God would have given David more wives is so that David would not have had to murder to get Bathsheba and sin grieviously against the Lord. It's a lesser of two evils kinda thing. But that in no way is God promoting polygamy over His original design for marriage.

 

[Maren]

It shows why God may have had to allow, not promote, polygamy to protect and care for women, who are also His children.

But women didn't quit needing protection or caring when Christ came. All the negative conditions that he mentioned as reasons for polygamy remained reasons until maybe 100 years ago in the United States, and are still that way in some areas of the world. Of course, you can argue that we have procreated enough today, though many Christians don't accept that idea, but even that has only been in the last 50 years.

Would you have preferred that all those women starve and die, instead? The article is very clear that God's initial intent was never polygamy, but the model of one man and one woman. This is reiterated by Christ in the New Testament, not polygamy.

But that is just it. The Bible nowhere says it is only one man and one woman; to make that claim you have to argue something that is never explicitly stated -- an argument from silence.

Other items, such as his claims of talking of responsibilities of the husband and wife is again arguing from silence. It is little different than claiming that because the bible often says "men" that those commandments do not apply to women.

In the case of David, the reason that God would have given David more wives is so that David would not have had to murder to get Bathsheba and sin grieviously against the Lord. It's a lesser of two evils kinda thing. But that in no way is God promoting polygamy over His original design for marriage.

Except you ignore the fact that David already had multiple wives and that God gave him those wives. So that argument doesn't work.

Of course, if you want to use that argument then it actually plays into the idea that gay marriages are allowed by God. After all, Paul says it is better to remain celibate and says only to marry if you can't control yourself. So, if God would rather have people marry, or even marry multiple times, rather than commit sexual sin then it also reasons that god would rather have gay couples marry then to commit a sexual sin.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Eternal, unchanging Gopd seems to do an awful lot of chopping and changing of the rules according to some people, huh?

 

[Floatingaxe]

Before we get off topic too much longer, please read:

http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-6.htm

 

[Zecryphon]

But women didn't quit needing protection or caring when Christ came. All the negative conditions that he mentioned as reasons for polygamy remained reasons until maybe 100 years ago in the United States, and are still that way in some areas of the world. Of course, you can argue that we have procreated enough today, though many Christians don't accept that idea, but even that has only been in the last 50 years.

It's true that women did need protection and care when Christ came and after, which is why Jesus taught His followers to care for the poor and the needy. He told them that he who clothed and fed the hungry, clothed and fed Him.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Would you have preferred that all those women starve and die, instead? The article is very clear that God's initial intent was never polygamy, but the model of one man and one woman. This is reiterated by Christ in the New Testament, not polygamy.
​

But that is just it. The Bible nowhere says it is only one man and one woman; to make that claim you have to argue something that is never explicitly stated -- an argument from silence.

It is not an argument from silence. We see the first union of two people as a man and a woman. We see Christ reiterate this model as being proper for sexual relations. If you contend that all a marriage is is a covenanting of two people with God, then Adam and Eve are the first marriage and that model is clearly one man and one woman. Not two men and not two women.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

In the case of David, the reason that God would have given David more wives is so that David would not have had to murder to get Bathsheba and sin grieviously against the Lord. It's a lesser of two evils kinda thing. But that in no way is God promoting polygamy over His original design for marriage.
​

Except you ignore the fact that David already had multiple wives and that God gave him those wives. So that argument doesn't work.

David was unique in that he was also a conquering king. Kings often took the women of the kingoms they conquered as wives. Since God gave kingdoms over to David, God can be said to have given David his many wives. But this is not God's intent for a proper marriage. Polygamy causes more problems than it solves.

Of course, if you want to use that argument then it actually plays into the idea that gay marriages are allowed by God. After all, Paul says it is better to remain celibate and says only to marry if you can't control yourself. So, if God would rather have people marry, or even marry multiple times, rather than commit sexual sin then it also reasons that god would rather have gay couples marry then to commit a sexual sin.

You just don't get it. Gay couples can not be married according to the model and standard God set up. A gay couple will never be one man and one woman. Since they are not and can not be married, any sex they have is sinful.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It is not an argument from silence. We see the first union of two people as a man and a woman. We see Christ reiterate this model as being proper for sexual relations. If you contend that all a marriage is is a covenanting of two people with God, then Adam and Eve are the first marriage and that model is clearly one man and one woman. Not two men and not two women.

The argument from silence part, is the ASSUMPTION on your part that because this is the only sort of union specified in the Bible, it is the ONLY acceptible one... though the Bible never says anything like this, and also blithely ignores the many cases of non married couples, and allegedly righteous men who were involved in polygamy.

This is what I was saying earlier about said passages being normative, not proscriptive... they address the normal paradigm, with which most contemporary people would have been familiar. That is NOT the same as saying "this is the ONLY acceptible model, and anything else is wrong", which would be a proscriptive definition. If a proscriptive definition is what were intended by the authors of the Bible, or God, surely we would expect to see a simple "anything but this is wrong" added, and thus negate this discussion entirely?

 

[Zecryphon]

The argument from silence part, is the ASSUMPTION on your part that because this is the only sort of union specified in the Bible, it is the ONLY acceptible one... though the Bible never says anything like this, and also blithely ignores the many cases of non married couples, and allegedly righteous men who were involved in polygamy.

What about non-married couples? Are you seriously trying to tell me that they're somehow not sinning against God?

This is what I was saying earlier about said passages being normative, not proscriptive... they address the normal paradigm, with which most contemporary people would have been familiar. That is NOT the same as saying "this is the ONLY acceptible model, and anything else is wrong",

Show me another example from scripture that does not follow the male/female model that God blesses. C'mon, you say homosexual unions are blessed by God, prove it.

which would be a proscriptive definition. If a proscriptive definition is what were intended by the authors of the Bible, or God, surely we would expect to see a simple "anything but this is wrong" added, and thus negate this discussion entirely?

The model is given in the OT and reiterated in the New. It stands to reason that anything that does not fit that criteria is not marriage.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What about non-married couples? Are you seriously trying to tell me that they're somehow not sinning against God?

Like who Adam and Eve?
I believe people who are living together in a long term committed loving relationship are not sinning against God, whether they have been "married" or not. I see no difference between a couple who loves, supports, cares and nurtures for each other, and a similar couple with a piece of paper declaring them married. I do not believe God sees a difference either.

Remembering the context in which OT laws relating to sex and marriage were written (i.e. ancient, pre-contraception, pre-biology bloodline obsessed patriarchy) and you can start to see how much of the relevant "moral" rules have musch more to do with the concerns of the human authors, than with the concerns of God.

Show me another example from scripture that does not follow the male/female model that God blesses. C'mon, you say homosexual unions are blessed by God, prove it.

David and Jonathon and Centurion and his servant are arguably examples, but again, you are trying to argue from silence... "The Bible only mentions heterosexual unions, therefore only heterosexual unions are acceptible" right? Well, the Bible only mentions unions between Middle Eastern or African people, therefore only unions between Middle Eastern or African people are acceptible" Exact same logic... yet I sense an upcoming special pleading...

Lastly I could say... "you want an example of a blessed homosexual union? How about mine". Thats right, I believe that I am blessed by God to have found this wonderful, loving, caring, forgiving, gentle, inteligent, fun and funny woman who is mad enough to tolerate my craziness. I look forward to you explaining how this wonderful relationship is not actually a blessing from God.

The model is given in the OT and reiterated in the New. It stands to reason that anything that does not fit that criteria is not marriage.

So, anything outlined in the OT and reiterated in the new is the only acceptible model? Do I understand you correctly? Would you like to start tapdancing now, or shall I provide some examples that you will have to cherrypick your way out of?

 

[Maren]

It's true that women did need protection and care when Christ came and after, which is why Jesus taught His followers to care for the poor and the needy. He told them that he who clothed and fed the hungry, clothed and fed Him.

Just as the Israelites had commands to care for the needy prior to Christ as well. In fact, though, this is all speculation based on something the Bible doesn't actually say, there is no scripture that says that one man and one woman are the only acceptable form of marriage.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Would you have preferred that all those women starve and die, instead? The article is very clear that God's initial intent was never polygamy, but the model of one man and one woman. This is reiterated by Christ in the New Testament, not polygamy.
​

It is not an argument from silence. We see the first union of two people as a man and a woman. We see Christ reiterate this model as being proper for sexual relations. If you contend that all a marriage is is a covenanting of two people with God, then Adam and Eve are the first marriage and that model is clearly one man and one woman. Not two men and not two women.

Sure it is. EPII did a good job of explaining this. Unless you can show a scripture where it actually states that marriage is only one man and one woman then you are arguing from silence.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

In the case of David, the reason that God would have given David more wives is so that David would not have had to murder to get Bathsheba and sin grieviously against the Lord. It's a lesser of two evils kinda thing. But that in no way is God promoting polygamy over His original design for marriage.
​

David was unique in that he was also a conquering king. Kings often took the women of the kingoms they conquered as wives. Since God gave kingdoms over to David, God can be said to have given David his many wives. But this is not God's intent for a proper marriage. Polygamy causes more problems than it solves.

Except that it is God saying that He gave David his wives, it was not simply attributed to God. Kings were actually told not to take women from conquered peoples (Deuteronomy 17:17). This is exactly why Solomon got into trouble, because he took foreign wives.

And it's interesting that despite your claims of the problems of polygamy, God never has said it is forbidden or even discouraged.

You just don't get it. Gay couples can not be married according to the model and standard God set up. A gay couple will never be one man and one woman. Since they are not and can not be married, any sex they have is sinful.

I didn't actually argue they could; I was just showing how it could be justified using the same "logic" as what the article argues. Though, again, I'd love to have you find where it states exactly what marriages are allowed in the Bible.

 

[David Brider]

Like who Adam and Eve?

I believe people who are living together in a long term committed loving relationship are not sinning against God, whether they have been "married" or not. I see no difference between a couple who loves, supports, cares and nurtures for each other, and a similar couple with a piece of paper declaring them married. I do not believe God sees a difference either.

Indeed, Biblically there's none of the rigmarole that currently accompanies "marriage" - be it a civil partnership, a "religious" service, legal paperwork to be filled in, any of that. So there's a fairly strong case to be made that marriage does simply involve leaving one's parents and setting up home with one's partner.

David.

 

[Zecryphon]

Like who Adam and Eve?

Adam and Eve were married and fit all the criteria of a marriage, which is something a same-sex couple will never be able to do.

I believe people who are living together in a long term committed loving relationship are not sinning against God, whether they have been "married" or not. I see no difference between a couple who loves, supports, cares and nurtures for each other, and a similar couple with a piece of paper declaring them married. I do not believe God sees a difference either.

What you personally believe doesn't matter. What God has declared is what matters. You clearly have a submission problem. You can't stand that God is the authority here and not you. What you think, what you believe, what you've reasoned yourself into believing is the truth is not binding upon God in any way, shape or form.

Remembering the context in which OT laws relating to sex and marriage were written (i.e. ancient, pre-contraception, pre-biology bloodline obsessed patriarchy) and you can start to see how much of the relevant "moral" rules have musch more to do with the concerns of the human authors, than with the concerns of God.

Adam and Eve's institution preceeded those laws. So you can't use those laws as rules to say that they are greater than the concerns of God. If the authors that wrote the Bible, were writing rules that played in their favor, marriage would not be a requirement. Adherence to God's commands would not be a requirement. It would read pretty much like your statement up above.

Show me another example from scripture that does not follow the male/female model that God blesses. C'mon, you say homosexual unions are blessed by God, prove it.
​

David and Jonathon and Centurion and his servant are arguably examples, but again, you are trying to argue from silence...

They aren't examples of anything because it has never been established that either of these relationships was sexual in nature.

"The Bible only mentions heterosexual unions, therefore only heterosexual unions are acceptible" right? Well, the Bible only mentions unions between Middle Eastern or African people, therefore only unions between Middle Eastern or African people are acceptible" Exact same logic... yet I sense an upcoming special pleading...

No special pleading. What you call special pleading is known as applying Biblical rules and guidelines to your life. Heterosexuals, regardless of nationality can fulfill God's commands for proper sexual relations within a marriage. Homosexuals can't. How do we know we can use a computer or a washing machine? Those are never mentioned in the Bible. We know we can use those things by seeing if they violate any of the rules God has laid down for our lives. Homosexuals constantly say that the Bible is not a rule book, yet it turns out that's exactly what you want and need it to be. Because if the Bible doesn't explicity condemn something, or use a specific word when condeming something, you conclude "well it's not specifically mentioned therefore it's okay with God to do that." Such a reading of the scriptures is as literal as you can get.

Lastly I could say... "you want an example of a blessed homosexual union? How about mine". Thats right, I believe that I am blessed by God to have found this wonderful, loving, caring, forgiving, gentle, inteligent, fun and funny woman who is mad enough to tolerate my craziness. I look forward to you explaining how this wonderful relationship is not actually a blessing from God.

Having sex with her? You're not married, it's fornication and that is not blessed by God. Scripture is adamantly clear on that. Now, is it possible that God brought such a person to you, for companionship and friendship. Yeah, you could say that. But He certainly does not bless your sex. Satan loves it though. Just like Satan was delighted everytime I had sex outside of marriage too. Why? Because it's a perversion of God's design and Satan loves to try and destroy what God has declared is good.

The model is given in the OT and reiterated in the New. It stands to reason that anything that does not fit that criteria is not marriage.
​

So, anything outlined in the OT and reiterated in the new is the only acceptible model? Do I understand you correctly? Would you like to start tapdancing now, or shall I provide some examples that you will have to cherrypick your way out of?

Oh please, I've had your number since the first time I saw your posts. You don't support a single thing you say with anything even resembling evidence. You simply say something and think by just saying it, you've supported your argument. I'm not saying that something stated in the OT and reiterated in the New is the only acceptable model. I'm saying and have always only said, that one man and one woman is the only model for marriage in the eyes of God. So no, you don't understand me correctly and you never have.

 

[Zecryphon]

Sure it is. EPII did a good job of explaining this. Unless you can show a scripture where it actually states that marriage is only one man and one woman then you are arguing from silence.

You can tell yourself this all day long, it still won't make it true. The model for marriage is given. Anything that does not fit that model is not a marriage. I think people are smart enough to figure this out. I don't think people need the Bible to be a big rule book that reads like Leviticus, telling them all the things they can and can't do.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

In the case of David, the reason that God would have given David more wives is so that David would not have had to murder to get Bathsheba and sin grieviously against the Lord. It's a lesser of two evils kinda thing. But that in no way is God promoting polygamy over His original design for marriage.
​

David was unique in that he was also a conquering king. Kings often took the women of the kingoms they conquered as wives. Since God gave kingdoms over to David, God can be said to have given David his many wives. But this is not God's intent for a proper marriage. Polygamy causes more problems than it solves.
​

Except that it is God saying that He gave David his wives, it was not simply attributed to God. Kings were actually told not to take women from conquered peoples (Deuteronomy 17:17). This is exactly why Solomon got into trouble, because he took foreign wives.

And it's interesting that despite your claims of the problems of polygamy, God never has said it is forbidden or even discouraged.

The claims of the problems of polygamy were first outlined by the author of that article, not me.

The fact of polygamy in Old Testament times is abundantly witnessed in the cases of Abraham, Jacob, the judges, David, Solomon, etc. It was prevalent in Issachar (1Ch_7:4); among the middle class (1Sa_1:1 f). But it is treated, even in the Old Testament, as incompatible with the Divine ideal (Gen_2:24), and its original is traced to deliberate departure from that ideal by Lamech, the Cainite (Gen_4:19). Kings are warned against it (Deu_17:17; compare Gen_29:31; 30). Noah, Isaac and Joseph had each only one wife, and Bible pictures of domestic happiness are always connected with monogamy (2 Ki 4; Psa_128:1-6; Prov 31; compare Sirach 25:1; 26:1, 13).

Excerpt taken from article on Marriage as found in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.



Originally Posted by Zecryphon

You just don't get it. Gay couples can not be married according to the model and standard God set up. A gay couple will never be one man and one woman. Since they are not and can not be married, any sex they have is sinful.
​

I didn't actually argue they could; I was just showing how it could be justified using the same "logic" as what the article argues. Though, again, I'd love to have you find where it states exactly what marriages are allowed in the Bible.

I already have, but it's falling upon deaf ears. One man, one woman as seen in Genesis 2:24 as the Divine ideal. Anything that does not fit that model is not a marriage. God is Eve's father. He gave Eve to Adam to be Adam's wife. I don't know how much clearer it can be that a homosexual couple will never meet the criteria set forth by God as to who can be married.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Zecryphon,

One man, one woman as seen in Genesis 2:24 as the Divine ideal.

The Bible NEVER says that this is the "divine ideal". That is something that YOU are reading into the text.

Now look, you are welcome to draw your own conclusions from the Bible about its deeper meanings and releancies, I freely admit that I do. However, the way you claim that your own conclusions are somehow "God's divine instructions" whereas mine are wrong and from Satan, is a double standard.

Now, IF you could show me the bit in the Bible that says "only one man, one woman is acceptible to God", then great, I'll accept what you're saying.

IF you could clearly show that "homosexual" is an accurate translation of the word "arsenokroites" in Paul's letters, or even that consentual monogomous homosexuality was the intended target of the Levitical verse about "man laying with man" then I'd accept that too...

But the FACT is, that any conclusion about "God condemning homosexuality and/or homosexual relationships" does NOT come from the Bible, but rather, from a certain type of interpretation of the Bible.

Now, like I say, I freely admit that my "beliefs" and theology on the subject is built a great deal on my personal interpretation of the Bible, my personal meditation, and my personal relationship with God, not on mere Biblical literalism. Are you big enough to admit the same, or do you wish to continue the claim that you have the sole claim on correct Biblical understanding, and everyone else is plain wrong?

Short version... why is your interpretation any more accurate than mine?

 

[Maren]

You can tell yourself this all day long, it still won't make it true.

Actually, it is you who can keep telling yourself this all day long but it doesn't make it any less of a logical fallacy.

The model for marriage is given.

Then it is truly odd that you can't point out where that model is given in the Bible. Especially since the Bible clearly states polygamous relationships that were approved by God and called marriages.

Anything that does not fit that model is not a marriage. I think people are smart enough to figure this out. I don't think people need the Bible to be a big rule book that reads like Leviticus, telling them all the things they can and can't do.

Except the Bible here clearly contradicts you. You can claim that God just "allowed" polygamy until you are blue in the face, but you can't deny that even God considered all the wives as married. Not only are you trying to depend on a logical fallacy here, but one that is actually disproven by the Bible.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

In the case of David, the reason that God would have given David more wives is so that David would not have had to murder to get Bathsheba and sin grieviously against the Lord. It's a lesser of two evils kinda thing. But that in no way is God promoting polygamy over His original design for marriage.
​

David was unique in that he was also a conquering king. Kings often took the women of the kingoms they conquered as wives. Since God gave kingdoms over to David, God can be said to have given David his many wives. But this is not God's intent for a proper marriage. Polygamy causes more problems than it solves.
​

The claims of the problems of polygamy were first outlined by the author of that article, not me.

The fact of polygamy in Old Testament times is abundantly witnessed in the cases of Abraham, Jacob, the judges, David, Solomon, etc. It was prevalent in Issachar (1Ch_7:4); among the middle class (1Sa_1:1 f). But it is treated, even in the Old Testament, as incompatible with the Divine ideal (Gen_2:24), and its original is traced to deliberate departure from that ideal by Lamech, the Cainite (Gen_4:19). Kings are warned against it (Deu_17:17; compare Gen_29:31; 30). Noah, Isaac and Joseph had each only one wife, and Bible pictures of domestic happiness are always connected with monogamy (2 Ki 4; Psa_128:1-6; Prov 31; compare Sirach 25:1; 26:1, 13).

Excerpt taken from article on Marriage as found in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

Except nowhere is it listed as a departure, rather it simply states, "And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah." Again, nowhere in the Bible does it prohibit polygamy, or even say that it shouldn't be done. By contrast we are told that David was given his wives by God and that the surviving brother should marry his dead brother's childless widow (regardless of if he was previously married). In fact, while a man could refuse to marry his brother's widow it brought disripute on the man and his posterity (Deuteronomy 25:7-10)

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

You just don't get it. Gay couples can not be married according to the model and standard God set up. A gay couple will never be one man and one woman. Since they are not and can not be married, any sex they have is sinful.
​

I already have, but it's falling upon deaf ears. One man, one woman as seen in Genesis 2:24 as the Divine ideal. Anything that does not fit that model is not a marriage.

Again, the Bible does not support that only your "model" is marriage, it is clear that polygamous marriages were equal to monogamous marriages.

God is Eve's father. He gave Eve to Adam to be Adam's wife. I don't know how much clearer it can be that a homosexual couple will never meet the criteria set forth by God as to who can be married.

Of course, Adam and Eve were the only two people on Earth at the time you claim God created that "model"; so logically God was talking about the two people that existed and not stating it as the only acceptable standard. If that were the only acceptable model per God then I would expect that somewhere in the Bible God would have stated exactly what marriage is in a way that doesn't require logical fallacies to "interpret".

 

[Zecryphon]

The Bible NEVER says that this is the "divine ideal". That is something that YOU are reading into the text.

What would you call it then? This is the first union God instituted. God is divine. This is clearly the model that He wants followed as He told Moses when Moses penned Genesis 2:24 where a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined with his wife and the two will become one. Sounds like a Divine ideal to me.

Now look, you are welcome to draw your own conclusions from the Bible about its deeper meanings and releancies, I freely admit that I do. However, the way you claim that your own conclusions are somehow "God's divine instructions" whereas mine are wrong and from Satan, is a double standard.

I didn't say my conclusions were God's divine instructions. I said that one man and one woman joined in marriage is the Divine ideal. I never once mentioned anything about my conclusions being the Divine ideal. That is something you're reading into my post. I also never said that your conclusions are from Satan. I said that Satan loves the sex you have with your girlfirend and in the same sentence said he loved all the sex I had outside of marriage as well, as both are fornication. I never said your conclusions were of Satan. Anyone who can read, can clearly see what I've said.

You're accusing me of saying things I never said, so you can paint me in a bad light and then condemn me for it. This is how you post and why I rarely post to you. You can't carry on a conversation honestly or truthfully. You ALWAYS have to lie about the other person and twist what they've said and make them out to be the bad guy, so you can play the part of the homosexual victim being picked on by the hateful conservative Christian.

Now, IF you could show me the bit in the Bible that says "only one man, one woman is acceptible to God", then great, I'll accept what you're saying.

Genesis 2:24. But you don't accept it as being God's standard. Posting verses that support God's standard over and over is pointless. Either you accept it or you don't. You clearly don't.

IF you could clearly show that "homosexual" is an accurate translation of the word "arsenokroites" in Paul's letters, or even that consentual monogomous homosexuality was the intended target of the Levitical verse about "man laying with man" then I'd accept that too...

Why bother? You'd just argue against it like you argue against everything that doesn't affirm your sexual behavior.

But the FACT is, that any conclusion about "God condemning homosexuality and/or homosexual relationships" does NOT come from the Bible, but rather, from a certain type of interpretation of the Bible.

There's not that much interpreation needed here as we're not dealing with metaphors or symbolic language. Words in Biblical Hebrew and Greek have fixed meanings. They don't change with the times like the English language does. So they say what they say and are not fluid to fit soceity's changing view of human sexual relations.

Now, like I say, I freely admit that my "beliefs" and theology on the subject is built a great deal on my personal interpretation of the Bible, my personal meditation, and my personal relationship with God, not on mere Biblical literalism. Are you big enough to admit the same, or do you wish to continue the claim that you have the sole claim on correct Biblical understanding, and everyone else is plain wrong?

I never claimed I had the sole correct interpretation of the Bible and everyone else is wrong. Show me where I've said that. This is yet ANOTHER LIE by you about me. Are you just totally incapable of telling the truth? It would seem so. I go back to the original languages and find out what those words mean so I can glean the best possible understanding. You however seem to rely on your own personal interpretation and your own personal meditation and your own personal relationship with God. You rely on yourself for correct intrepretation. I do not, I rely on things that can be investigated and verified.

Short version... why is your interpretation any more accurate than mine?

Because mine is based on solid hermeneutic principles and investigation and yours is based on what you think and feel.