Comments by "MusicalRaichu" (@MusicalRaichu) on "Talks at Google"
channel.
-
8
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1