Comments by "MusicalRaichu" (@MusicalRaichu) on "Talks at Google" channel.

sad, eh? people give in to their humanity's basest instinct of suspicion and discrimination against those who are different to them and listen to teachers who take advantage of that, instead of surrendering to Jesus' command to love one another and thus welcome all.
8
i think it's pretty obvious that if you're not hurting anyone it's not a sin - romans 13.8-10 loving your neighbour is enough to obey all God's commands.
5
are you blind? there's a gay christian in this video, and there are plenty of others. being gay is a natural variation like having red hair. it's neither sin nor not sin, it just is. not sure where you get "heII" from, it's not in the bible ...
3
@uhpig8546 That may be true but it's not the whole story. In the 4th cent Chrysostom explained Romans 1 by saying the penetrators were lustful and the penetrated were shaming themselves acting like women. That was in line with what was believed at the time. But later on the church became suspicious of sexuality altogether and only grudgingly allowed it between husband and wife for reproduction only. Two men doing it was wrong for the same reason that a man and a woman couldn't use contraception, for instance. After the reformation, protestant thinking relaxed it a little, but retained the concept of soddamy, which is poking it in the wrong hole. The reason two men doing it was wrong was the same reason that a man and woman shouldn't have orell secs. None of these reasons against same-sex relationships are considered valid anymore. What we are seeing today is a new doctrine created by incorporating into christian belief the popular views about homosexuality that were prevalent around 70 years ago. This was catalysed by a mistranslation in the first edition of the rsv bible which was copied into later translations. This was an extremely insidious belief because it meant that merely having same-sex attraction was a sin, let alone going to bed together. A lot of misery ensued.
3
Adam had a choice. He chose a woman over the animals. He chose the woman because God made him with certain needs and supplied a person who would meet those needs. But to take a story about human relationships and to turn it into some kind of law that everyone must fit into is reading too much into the text. It's one thing to say a man liking a woman means they get married, quite another to say being married means it must be a man and a woman. The Bible says the former, but never the latter.
2
No, the Bible is not wrong. It's Christian theology that's wrong. The Bible nowhere condemns it. Only modern (mis)translations do. Matthew's goal is not to leave the church but to reform the church. Wouldn't that be a better win-win outcome?
2
what 18.22 is saying is not to lie with a man *as with a woman*. it's not saying man don't lie with man period, but it's about a man not taking a woman's role. "abomination" if you study the hebrew term means it's about idolatrous practices. 18.23 is irrelevant. it's offensive even to think that it has any relevance to this topic.
2
he quotes genesis 2 that says "one flesh" to point out that divorce does violence to an intimate relationship. same applies to same-secs marriage. just because he says men marry women doesn't mean two men or two women can't. the text doesn't address that issue one way or the other.
2
No, the view that homosexuality is somehow wrong has only been around for 60 to 70 years. I've looked at some commentaries prior to that and they don't talk about it.
2
@bagobeans "my intrpretation is not wrong" that's an arrogant statement. how can an interpretation that has caused so much harm be consistent with God's will?
2
The conversation is never over. The Bible also says "be slow to speak, quick to listen". if you think reproduction is necessary, then that would mean infertile or aged couples should not get married, that couples who find they can't reproduce should get divorced. Genesis 2 lists companionship, mutual support, familial relationship and intimacy as the reasons for marriage, not reproduction. Exactly the same reasons apply to elderly, infertile or same-secs couples. Variations in secsual orientation are part of human life on earth. same-secs copulation occurs in many species. These are all part of God's natural order. We have no way of violating the laws of nature even if we tried. man's wisdom can differ from God's, that's true. But when there are differences of opinion, why assume that the one who agrees with your own personal opinion is in accordance with God? that comes across as arrogant. you are not infallible.
2
@breezyop7762 1 Co 6 does so not say that. That mistranslation is what started this whole mess and even duped me for many years. No one knows for sure what 1 Co 6 is talking about although there are some very good explanations that do not involve castigating a whole group of people who aren't doing anything to hurt anyone.
2
The Bible says to be careful how you judge because God will judge you with the same standards you apply to other people. There are times when God tells us we have to recognize sin, warn people about it, and call them to repentance. However, the Bible does not say anywhere that all same-sex relationships are wrong. There are some prohibitions and condemnations of specific same-sex acts, just like there are warnings about specific opposite-sex acts, but not a broad, general condemnation of either same- or opposite-sex relationships.
2
I can't remember what he says in this video, but in another video, Vines seems to be against sex outside of marriage.
1
1 Cor 6.9/1 Tim 1.10 say male-bedders, a word of unknown meaning, not homoxesuals. It says "such were some of you", so how can it be about gay people? it's obviously about something else. Here's some background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFCKWJ7uk2o Rom 1.27 says male idolaters engaged in indecent acts, not that lying with someone of the same secs is a sin. not a word of it describes any gay man I've ever known. it's obviously about something else. FYI the same channel has a video on Rom 1 as well. Jude 7 "strange" in Greek is "hetero". It cannot mean "males sought males". It means "humans sought angels". Lev does not say "men don't lie with men" let alone "women don't lie with women". nor does it say it's a sin. literally, it says a man/husband lying with a male bed woman/wife (whatever that means) is against Israelite religion, which we don't follow anyway so your quotes are irrelevant. body, spirit, soul are aspects of one unified person. you can't split them. "There is no male and female" means God does not discriminate so neither should we. By all means "stay with God's word", but read it carefully and do not twist what it says. The Bible does not forbid loving relationships between two men or two women.
1
So idolatrous Roman males were doing dishonourable things with each other? So what? We already know all that from history. What does it have to do with people who are not idolators, have not given up relations with women because they were never attracted, have behaved respectably and with self-control, have not been filled with evil and not approved of wrongdoing? Not a single word from the text you quote bears any similarity whatsoever to any of the gays I've met. One of them was even a Christian!
1
"The Bible consistently and clearly says 'gay is bad'"!? Where? The only mention of anyone actually being attracted to someone of the same sex is Jonathan's affection for David, and where is that stated to be "bad"?
1
@b1crusade384 What? That was not my intention. You said the Bible talks about "gay" but I can't see any direct reference to homosexuality in the Bible apart from the Jonathan's affection for David being possibly more than just hero worship or something. The death sentence your referring to is about two men having sex. That's not the same thing as "gay" which is same-sex attraction. For goodness sake, people can be gay without having sex, and heterosexual men have had sex with other men - like it was common in ancient Rome as we know from history and even Paul refers to it in Romans. Calling me delusional without understanding what I mean is pretty rude, don't you think? You can be cordial about it. I didn't call you delusional for asking why you think the Bible "consistently" says same-sex attraction is bad even though I totally disagree. What makes you think I'm gay?
1
@b1crusade384 um ... i thought i replied but maybe it got censored out. What you're saying is exactly what I did! I found there is nothing in the Bible to say being attracted to the same secs is wrong. Furthermore, there's no statement like "all same-sex relationships are wrong". There are a few references to specific practices that were legitimately wrong at the time, but no broad condemnation. It seems Vines has independently discovered the same thing and is trying to effect some change, which is a good thing. The church badly needs to repent.
1
@b1crusade384 Sorry for a long reply but I need to clear up some misunderstandings. Genesis mentions an attempted gang raip by people who were already condemned because of their callous disregard for other people (see Ezekiel). it had nothing to do with this topic however some people try to cast it. Whoever heard of a town of gays!? Lev says not to do it with a guy AS WITH A WOMAN - it forbids a man taking a woman's role - and the reason given was not to imitate idolatrous practices of other nations. there is no broad prohibition on all same-sax acts and in any case leviticus only ever applied to the people of israel between moses and jesus. new testament references are about graeco-roman sexual practices at the time that were legitimately wrong in themselves regardless of what view you take on same-sex relationships. rom 1 does not even describe matthew vines - he never rejected God, worshipped idols, gave up on women, got inflamed with lust, been filled with wickedness, approved of wrongdoing - not a word describes him. it's clearly about something else entirely. all the passages you cite have been used to condemn either homosecsuality or all same-sex activity (as i explained, they are not the same). however, none of this stands up to close scrutiny, as matthew explains in his talk. what happened was that now discredited attitudes to homasecsualty were absorbed into protestant theology around the middle of last century, catalysed by a mistranslation in the rsv, a modern english translation of the bible. the mistake was corrected in a later edition but not before it was copied into other translations and thus the belief came about that same-sex attraction was a sin. People like Matthew have realized the mistake and are setting about trying to correct it.
1
@b1crusade384 That's OK, you've done your best. I've done a lot of research on this topic so I'm not talking from ignorance. But generally speaking, in my experience when Christians have done wrong things because of "what the Bible says", it's because of how they've put some spin on what it says at the expense of the most important and blindingly obvious precept of loving one's neighbour.
1
So are you insinuating that Matthew has worshipped idols, given up women, burned with lust, been filled with unrighteousness and approves wrongdoing? I think you owe him an apology.
1
3:33 "Leviticus prohibits male same-sex sex" If that were true, then wouldn't that have prevented loving same-sex relationships? Did God not care about gay Israelites? Furthermore, if it was wrong then, why is it OK now? What I'm pointing out is a flaw in your reasoning. I have a different interpretation of Leviticus influenced by my legal experience and I don't think it prohibits what you think it does.
1
yes it does. read genesis 2. "it is not good for man to be alone". there's nothing in the story that says two men/women can't have the same kind of relationship.
1
@2WiseUR2WiseUB You're pressing the story too literally. "Adam" means "human being". Adam's story is everyone's story. Where does it say anything against two men or two women? There's no command, suggestion or even hint that it would be wrong. In the story, the human is divided into a man and a woman. The reason for marrying were companionship ("not good to be alone"), mutual support ("suitable helper"), family relationship ("bone of my bone") and intimacy ("one flesh"). Gays have the same needs. To argue "didn't have anyone to have secs with" is reducing human beings made in God's image into mere creatures of lust. It's a disgusting argument. If all they wanted was secs, why the push for marriage equality? The explicitly given reason for marriage is that the man sees the woman as someone like him, a suitable partner. But what should a man do who does not have the capacity for a one-flesh relationship with a woman but only another man? - Marry a woman? Doesn't meet the condition in the text, in practice doesn't work. - Stay single? An unreasonable burden, even God says it's not good. - Marry a man? Satisfies the same condition, meets the same needs, works in practice, nothing in the text against it.
1
@2WiseUR2WiseUB I'm not talking about Corinthians, I'm talking about what Genesis 2 teaches. Adam means human being. It can in places mean a male, as it does in the story after he is divided. "Adam himself" does not stop him representing humanity as a whole. I don't understand your objection to the reasons in the story for Adam being divided. I gave explicit references: "not good to be alone, a suitable helper, bone of my bone, one flesh". You cite nothing. Sounds more like you're trying to make the Bible say what YOU want. If there's an error in how I apply the teaching of Gen 2 to someone with a same-secs orientation, you're going have to pinpoint where it is. To say that it's a mistake to use logic boggles the mind. You either can't manage to use logic, or refuse to accept the obvious conclusion. As for Corinthians, it fails to say anything, whether for or against, loving relationships in accordance with secsual orientation. Obviously not, since they didn't know about it in those days. Now that we know about it, you have no excuse to continue teaching that hurts, harms and kills people. Obey the law of Christ and love your neighbour. Don't be complicit in any more children dying, as we will all appear before Christ as our judge.
1
@2WiseUR2WiseUB Accuse me of cherry picking when I'm explaining an entire passage taking every word in context? It's those who claim it's a sin that are cherry picking, ignoring the ethic of love and combining isolated texts to invent an man-made rule that nullifies the word of God. i asked you to pinpoint the error in my logic. you are unable. instead, you refer to someone else. that means you don't understand it yourself. sounds like you're blindly following people that tell you what you like to hear. To call Nero's marriage to a boy he deliberately had cast-rated a loving relationship is outrageous. But sure, there were isolated instances of loving relationships between males, but Paul never said they were wrong - he never referred to them at all. Arguing from silence is dodgy. Again, you've probably heard someone say something and swallowed it. Sounds to me like you WANT the Bible to condemn loving relationships. And that's in spite of all the harm that such a false teaching has done. Don't you care that children have died because of it? But what does the Bible actually say? Loving your neighbour satisfies ALL God's commands. Not "love you neighbour and no gay secs". Just "love your neighbour".
1
Vines isn't the one who is twisting scripture. Here is what a good scriptural analysis is like, and it agrees with Vines. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvxHn5v4XXNPdugStF3l6BQ As for twisting scripture, here are common examples: Bible: do not lie with a male like you bed a woman Some people: do not lie with someone of the same secs Bible: idolatrous Roman males were doing unseemly things with other males Some people: all same-secs acts are sinful Bible: male-bedders won't inherit the kingdom of God Some people: homoxesuals won't inherit the kingdom of God Bible: for this reason a man marries a woman Some people: ignore the reason, a man must only ever marry a woman, else they're sinning Bible: It is not good for the human being to be alone Some people: it is not good for straight people to be alone; gays have to be alone Bible: loving your neighbour satisfies all God's commands Some people: it's not enough, you also can't have gay secs Bible: those towns were destroyed because of their arrogance and callousness Some people: those towns were destroyed because the people were gay Ge the idea?
1