What you said was a diversion away from having to deal with what was said. Jesus plainly stated that God's design was for male and female in marriage. It was not mining.
Jesus did no such thing. I get that you;d really, really LIKE that to be an accurate interpretation of that passage, but it just ain't so.
Show us just one gay relationship mentioned in the Bible involving godly people? You should, if what you claim were the truth. You can not. .
Jonathon and David.
Ruth and Naomi.
The centurian and his servant.
What you said was a diversion away from having to deal with what was said. Jesus plainly stated that God's design was for male and female in marriage. It was not mining.
Jesus did no such thing. I get that you;d really, really LIKE that to be an accurate interpretation of that passage, but it just ain't so.
Show us just one gay relationship mentioned in the Bible involving godly people? You should, if what you claim were the truth. You can not. .
Jonathon and David.
Ruth and Naomi.
The centurian and his servant.
There's 3.
I remember reading a book by a psychotherapist who had many homosexuals as patients. One of the consistent traits he noticed was how homosexuals would readily project homosexuality into aspects of normal life that others would not. What you just posted is proof that this doctor knew what he was talking about. I read that book long before ever reading a Bible. It was just one of his points that always stuck and I remembered. With the centurian and his servant? Its possible. Bisexual/homosexual expression was very common amongst the Romans. That is why the Jews in Jesus day saw homosexuality as being a Gentile disorder.
I remember reading a book by a psychotherapist who had many homosexuals as patients. One of the consistent traits he noticed was how homosexuals would readily project homosexuality into aspects of normal life that others would not. What you just posted is proof that this doctor knew what he was talking about. I read that book long before ever reading a Bible. It was just one of his points that always stuck and I remembered. With the centurian and his servant? Its possible. Bisexual/homosexual expression was very common amongst the Romans. That is why the Jews in Jesus day saw homosexuality as being a Gentile disorder.
So you're just going to hand wave away my 3 examples are you? Nice.
But you asked for an example of righteous people in a homosexual relationship in the Bible, even if you don't accept david and Ruth (because, lets face it, its not like you'd go with what's obvious when it hurts your position so much) the centurion and his servant, whether they were Roman, Chinese or martian, are still an example.
You asked for an example, I gave you at least 1 that even you seem to accept. Are you big enough to follow through on your promise and reconsider my point?
Read the reviews as well. The man is nuts! But, liberals who do not know the first thing about salvation, just love the man.
Sorry, I had to remove your link in order to be able to post. That said, are you trying to say that I, as a liberal, don't know the first thing about salvation?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jonathon and David.
Ruth and Naomi.
The centurian and his servant.
There's 3.
Okay, I've got to just say this:
I don't know about Ruth and Naomi, but I doubt it. Centurian and servant... possible, but again I don't know. Jonathan and David, I highly doubt. I get the whole thing about becoming of one spirit and having the deepest love they'd known, and in today's way of speaking, that would be a homosexual relationship, and that's sad.
It's sad that we live in a time and culture when two men cannot express affection and a friendship so deep as to even be considered soulmates, unless it is about being gay. The idea of deep love being constrained to the realm of romance is ludicrous, in my opinion. It is possible to have a love so deep as to transcend all other earthly love and it not be a romantic relationship, and I believe Jonathan and David had one such relationship. Of course, the Bible doesn't explicitly rule out a romantic relationship that I know of, but it doesn't actually mention one either, except by our own interpretation of what that means based on what it means to most of us today.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The world isn't the way it's supposed to be. That's why there's us. Champions. We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be.
If you want to arrange it, this world you can change it, if we could just somehow make this Christmas thing last... By helping a neighbor, or even a stranger, and to know who needs help, you need only just ask.
I want to be good, I do. I just suck at it a lot of the time.
At least two pieces of evidence, however, indicate that an argument from the created order is constructed in Rom. 1:26–27. First, Paul selected the unusual words θῆλυς (thēlys, female) and ἄρσην (arsēn, male) rather than γύνη (gynē, woman) and ἀνήρ (anēr, man), respectively. In doing so he drew on the creation account of Genesis, which uses the same words (Gen. 1:27 LXX; cf. Matt. 19:4; Mark 10:6). These words emphasize the sexual distinctiveness of male and female (Moo 1991: 109), suggesting that sexual relations with the same sex violate the distinctions that God intended in the creation of man and woman. Second, the phrase “contrary to nature” (παρὰ φύσιν) is rooted in Stoic and Hellenistic Jewish traditions that saw homosexual relations as violations of the created order (see below).
By missing the fact that Paul was citing an example from a work of Plato's, Schreiner falsely attributed Plato's word choices to Paul, and jumped to unsupportable conclusions
The latter point is borne out by verse 27, which specifies in three ways what constitutes the unnatural activity for men: (1) in forsaking sexual relations with women (ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας); (2) in burning in desire for other men (ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, exekauthēsan en tē orexei autōn eis allēlous); and (3) in doing that which was shameful with other men (ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι, arsenes en arsesin tēn aschēmosynēn katergazomenoi).7 Verse 27 gives no indication that only specific kinds of homosexual activity are prohibited. Instead, homosexual relations in general are indicted.
Burning (ἐκκαίωekkaiō) and lust (ὄρεξιςorexis) are two of the five parts, or symptoms of the vice of Passion. Paul inserts all five symptoms into this passage in order to point out the actual sin. The other three parts are desire (ἐπιθυμίαepithymia), found in verse 24, emotion (πάθοςpathos), found in verse 26, and error or wandering [from the path of Reason] (πλάνηplanē), found in verse 27. Rather than describing the awfulness of "homosexuality," their purpose is to point to the actual sin being described.
Two other words are often highlighted in this passage to point out how awful "homosexuality" was in Paul's eyes: dishonored (ἀτιμίαatimia) and shameful (ἀσχημοσύνηaschēmosynē). The second one is referenced in the Schreiner paragraph above.
It is true that atimia is the negative of time (honored), just as in English, unfaithful is the negative of faithful. But something atimia is not necessarily worthy of scorn. The Potter can make from the same lump of clay two vessels, one honored and one dishonored. Nor does shame (aschemosyne) necessarily come from sin. Paul in several passages speaks about the shame he endured for the sake of preaching the gospel. Both of these words, along with their opposites appear in 1 Corinthians 12:23, where Pual tells us to honor the dishonored, and to exalt the shamed:
And those [members] of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely [parts] have more abundant comeliness.
Okay, I've got to just say this:
I don't know about Ruth and Naomi, but I doubt it. Centurian and servant... possible, but again I don't know. Jonathan and David, I highly doubt. I get the whole thing about becoming of one spirit and having the deepest love they'd known, and in today's way of speaking, that would be a homosexual relationship, and that's sad.
It's sad that we live in a time and culture when two men cannot express affection and a friendship so deep as to even be considered soulmates, unless it is about being gay. The idea of deep love being constrained to the realm of romance is ludicrous, in my opinion. It is possible to have a love so deep as to transcend all other earthly love and it not be a romantic relationship, and I believe Jonathan and David had one such relationship. Of course, the Bible doesn't explicitly rule out a romantic relationship that I know of, but it doesn't actually mention one either, except by our own interpretation of what that means based on what it means to most of us today.
Of course heterosexual men can display affection.
But when the original language uses terms that are specific to romantic relationships, when they are said to love one another "more than any woman", when they spend all that time sneaking around behind Saul's back, the hanging around each other naked... Ever heard the saying about "if it walks like a duck"? I mean, its POSSIBLE they were just really, really good friends, who never even thought about physical intimacy, but the description really doesn't read that way, and the deeper you research it, the more like a homosexual relationship it sounds.
Heres a fun experiment for you, change the names and describe Jonathon and David's relationship as though its two friends you know and are concerned about, with the parental consern, the loving each other more than women, all of it, to your nearist pulpit bashing anti-homosexual, and watch them froth at the wrongness of the relationship. If it were any other 2 men described in such terms, anywhere outside the Bible, I don't believe there would be any question at all that Jonathon and David's relationship was erotic, and if you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you'll agree.
But when the original language uses terms that are specific to romantic relationships, when they are said to love one another "more than any woman", when they spend all that time sneaking around behind Saul's back, the hanging around each other naked... Ever heard the saying about "if it walks like a duck"? I mean, its POSSIBLE they were just really, really good friends, who never even thought about physical intimacy, but the description really doesn't read that way, and the deeper you research it, the more like a homosexual relationship it sounds.
Heres a fun experiment for you, change the names and describe Jonathon and David's relationship as though its two friends you know and are concerned about, with the parental consern, the loving each other more than women, all of it, to your nearist pulpit bashing anti-homosexual, and watch them froth at the wrongness of the relationship. If it were any other 2 men described in such terms, anywhere outside the Bible, I don't believe there would be any question at all that Jonathon and David's relationship was erotic, and if you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you'll agree.
Oh I don't think it can be ruled out either way. When I read it, I often get a romantic impression, but I don't know how much of that is my 21st century American mind imposing that into the text, and how much isn't. I think the debate over whether it was a homosexual relationship misses the point of the story, though. I think the point had more to do with two people who would stick with each other even when the going got really, really rough, and how God's Grace is evident in such a relationship. Any romantic involvement is incidental, I think, though like I said, I cannot rule it out, and certainly if it is true that they had a romantic relationship and there was no punishment for it, and even blessing because of it, that would be a huge deal with how churches should approach this issue. But as for the story itself, the romance or lack thereof is secondary point, at the highest, in my opinion.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The world isn't the way it's supposed to be. That's why there's us. Champions. We live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be.
If you want to arrange it, this world you can change it, if we could just somehow make this Christmas thing last... By helping a neighbor, or even a stranger, and to know who needs help, you need only just ask.
I want to be good, I do. I just suck at it a lot of the time.
Linear Mode
