Hi, for some odd reason, I cannot comment this on the Sodom and Gomorrah video, so I must do it here instead. I have heard from some people that other consensual homosexual activity (not rape, abuse or pederasty) occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah as well. Those previously-mentioned cities were known for their wide range of sinful acts, and many use the certain homosexual activities which went on there as a way of condemning modern homosexual couples--especially with the usage of the term 'sodomite'. If consensual homosexual activity did occur, were there also additional instances of committed, faithful homosexual relationships happening between citizens of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? If this is the case, did God destroy the cities at least partly because of it? If this is all true, are there other passages in the Bible that mention these specific activities, or any external references to those consensual practices appearing in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (If there are any, of course)?
Thanks for reading. I always appreciate your channel and your methodical responses.
To my knowledge, there is no evidence at all of any consensual homosexual activity in Sodom or Gomorrah, either in the Bible or external references. I suggest that the people telling you this are mistaken.
Good vid! I just wonder if you could do a video about what Jesus says about marriage in Matthew 19: 1-12. The catholics use to condemn gay marriage but I really want to hear what you have to say about it. Have a nice day!
Hi Teodor, thanks for the encouragement. I touch briefly on Matthew in my video on the gospels, but perhaps I will do a longer video on this point in the future. Thanks.
With all due respect sir, I must disagree with your assessment of the passages in question. The question of whether or not something is descriptive or prescriptive is an important one to ask. However, we must be very careful how we answer this question. Personally, I must be aware of my own biases which could lead me in one direction or another when answering that question in any number of passages. I’m not suggesting that I always do it correctly, but only pointing out that I must take great care in answering it. In support of your answer that the Genesis account of marriage is “descriptive,” you referenced Gen 1:28 wherein God commanded Adam & Eve to be ‘fruitful and multiply.” You accurately pointed out that if this were a command, then there are many who would be incapable of keeping it, thus indicating that it must be descriptive. You also referenced Gen 2:24, and the ‘leaving his father and mother’ clause of that verse. You showed us that this simply could not always be understood as a literal command. From these two references you concluded, “it makes more sense to see Genesis as being descriptive rather than prescriptive.” The problem with this assessment is that it does not take into account the reality that prescriptive clauses can be intermingled among descriptive texts. For example, in 2 Cor 13:11-12, Paul is signing off with some thoughts which a lot of people would understand as prescriptive, such as ‘aim for harmony,’ encourage one another,’ ‘live in peace,’ and then he recommends that his readers ‘greet one another with a holy kiss.’ Many Christians see the holy kiss as something that is descriptive of Paul’s time and place, and they do not follow his admonition without fear of violence to the text. Or, when Paul wrote to Timothy and expressed his desire that the men should pray “in every place … lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.” I suspect that most Christians would understand that men in every place should pray without wrath and dissension, but that lifting holy hands is not necessarily a requirement. Part prescriptive- part descriptive. A final example of my point is found in 1 Peter 3:3-4. Here, Peter writes to Christian women that their “adornment must not be external, braiding hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses, but the hidden person of the heart. Interestingly, many Christian women agree that their adornment should not be external, but that braiding their hair, wearing jewelry, and putting on dresses is optional. Yet, all of these clauses are couched within the very same sentence. In fact, it would seem that the first and last parts of these thoughts are understood as something that is important to God, while sandwiched in the middle is a thought that is relative, subjective to the time and location of the reader. In Gen 2:24, we read, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh..” You have concluded that if a man cannot leave his father or mother upon marriage, then the entire text must be regarded as descriptive. However, as I’ve demonstrated above, there is evidence to suggest that this may not always be the case. Based upon the examples cited above I believe the critical reader will admit that it is at least *possible* that there are thoughts embedded in the language used in Genesis that could reflect what is important to God. Before dismissing them as relative - or descriptive -as you have done, I believe you must demonstrate that this is necessarily so. One might object and ask if I can demonstrate an alternative view. This I believe I can do. In Matt 19 Jesus was asked about divorce. Before answering the question, He backpedals a bit and first discusses marriage. In doing so He quotes Gen 2:24, which is a chief verse in question here. However, it is important to note that he also cites another scripture, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female.’” Although this could be a reference to Gen 1:27, it seems to more closely match Gen 5:2, which is outside of the creation account. In any event, this is a curious thing because Jesus could have made the same point on divorce without reminding His listeners that in the day that God created mankind He made them male and female. Why did Jesus remind His listeners that God had made humankind male and female? I believe it was because marriage had become abused and misunderstood and Jesus was taking the Pharisees back to the beginning of marriage and describing to them its purpose: the joining of a male and a female. Therefore, this is marriage’s prescription, and would tip the scales in favor of a prescriptive reading of some of Genesis, not a wholly descriptive one as you insist. Thank you for your consideration.
Hi, and thank you for a thoughtful response. Here is a quick (I'm afraid less carefully thought through!) reply. First, you make the point that prescriptive and descriptive parts can co-exist, and you provide some examples. We do often treat scripture in this way, picking out bits which we think are true now, and bits which aren't. Usually, there's a process going on (at least subconsciously) which is trying to find whether there are principles at work which were true then and are true now. This translates to the Genesis passage - but often it is just assumed that the principle is there. When this is the very thing that is in question, that needs to be shown clearly, not just assumed. And when the direct commands in the scripture are treated as not being prescriptive by everyone (ie, not everyone has to marry, or leave a house), it becomes even more important to consider whether something that is indirectly there should be treated more prominently. You then reference Matthew 19. You suggest that this references Gen. 5:2. I would suggest that this itself is referencing back to Gen. 1:27. The phrase used by Jesus (in the Greek as set down by Matthew) matches exactly the Greek (LXX) of Gen. 5:2 and Gen. 1:27, but the reference to creation for me tips it strongly towards Gen. 1. Jesus was taking the pharisees back to Genesis - but note that the issue was not about what genders can marry, but was about whether marriage should be lifelong or whether divorce should be easy. This is the direct point of the passage, not gender. It is difficult to suggest that Jesus was seeking to emphasise the importance of gender when that wasn't the issue with which he had been confronted, and wasn't the point he was seeking to make. I therefore find it difficult to see how this can be used in support of making Genesis 1 & 2 prescriptive for this aspect. If we believe that there may be prescriptive as well as descriptive elements to Genesis 1 & 2, we also need to be aware that the passage can be read as prescriptively in favour of same-sex marriage. The problem in Genesis 2 was that it was not good for the human to be alone - a suitable companion was needed to be a partner. How then can the church stand in the way of people now who have found a suitable companion or partner, no matter the gender? As I said, these are quick thoughts, but I hope you find them helpful.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Hi, Thank you for your reply. I must say that I despise discussing theology in a manner such as this. So much more can be accomplished in live discussions. However, since that is impossible, it must suffice that we exchange ideas in this way. It would seem that we agree that prescriptive and descriptive clauses can be intermingled with one another, and that we must use something other than personal biases and surrounding text to explain the differences. My point in raising Matt 19 was to demonstrate that there may be an objective reason for assuming male/female marriage has been prescribed. It makes no difference to me if Jesus referred to Gen 1:27 or Gen 5:2, my argument was that the quote wasn’t necessary at all in making His point. Jesus could have made the very same point about “easy-divorce” without ever having reminded His listeners that God had made mankind male and female. Therefore, He introduced the thought for another reason. Of course, I do not assume that Jesus had gay marriage in mind. Instead, it is more reasonable to assume that Jesus was providing a definition of marriage to the Pharisees, who had lost their way in understanding what marriage was intended to be. Thus, He provided us a definition - or prescription for it. But, setting my Matt 19 argument aside, I want to focus on your original assessment: that the Genesis account is descriptive. Without relying on surrounding passages in Genesis that appear to you to be descriptive, and without relying on personal preferences, are you able to say with certainty that “a man (male) shall … be joined to his wife (female)” is a phrase that can only be understood as descriptive? This is the important question that must be answered from your thesis in the video. Thank you for your time. Dane
Hi Dane, you point to Jesus quoting Gen. 1 as being an indication that Jesus was defining marriage. But again, you make assumptions about what the reference is meant to indicate. Given that no-one in the debate was questioning whether it was male and female, it would be strange of Jesus to need to define this for them. On the other hand, the references (both to Gen 1 & 2) might well be reminders that humans find companions who are their partners for life. On your final question, I would suggest that the onus is on those who think it is prescriptive to prove it, given that so much in this verse is clearly not prescriptive. Thanks once again for engaging.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Thank you Rev’d Dr Tallon for your considerate reply and for entertaining my questions.. I will not enter into a debate about whether the onus is on me to demonstrate that an alternative view renders your assessment false, or whether the burden of proof rests with you to show positively that your thesis is true, though it would seem that Hitchens's razor might apply here. In any event, your response to my key question satisfies me. I am certain that if you could exegetically prove your thesis then you would have done so. In my mind, insisting on a shift in the burden of proof is the same as saying, "no, I cannot demonstrate that a 'man (male) shall … be joined to his wife (female)' is a phrase that can only be understood as descriptive." Thank you for your time. You may have the luxury of the final comment if you wish. Dane
@featheredprop I wanted to comment this to YOU @featheredprop, because I was SO IMPRESSED & thankful to GOD, that You took the TIME to REALLY MEDITATE & REFLECT of THE WORD, before giving an answer of disagreement. I also sensed a Spirit of HUMBLENESS in you writing that is so often missing in those proclamation Salvation. Even-though, Salvation is IMPOSSIBLE with out "First" being of a HUMBLE Spirit. I enjoyed reading you That said: The REAL problem [and this is TRUE with ALL Christian Doctrines] is: 1/ the ORIGINAL TEXT that GOD Uttered HIMSELF, is Confused with the "Translation TEXT" which is a "Work of SINFUL MANKIND & thus subject to ERRORS. Teachers/Scholars have NO EXCUSE before GOD because they have ACCESS to the ORIGINAL WORD of GOD text, Whereas people of the public & their opinions in Times past did not. UNTIL OUR DAY Praise be to GOD, with the Technology applied to ORIGINAL UTTERANCES OF GOD we ALL can find out their SLOPPY LAZY-LIES!
A Web Site called www.Scripture4ALL.org is an EXCELLENT [though not yet perfected in translations] place to go to have ACCESS to the ORIGINAL WORD of GOD--BEFORE it was DEFILED by ANY Translation of Men. Download ISA [Interlinear Scripture Analyzer] 2.1.5 BASIC from here: www.scripture4all.org/download/dlf2.php?f=ISA20/ISA_basic_v2_1_5.exe BE SURE to Download The 2 integrated MODULES: CLV [Concordant LITERAL version Bible] & YLT [Young's LITERAL version Bible]. Though these are NOT perfect Translations, They INDICATE so whenever they insert a word NOT spoken by GOD - They are more HONEST & you can Study for YOURSELF from the ORIGINAL Documents of GOD - NOT MAN For example: You will SEE for YOURSELF that GOD "NEVER" SAID: "Thou shall not lie with MANKIND "As with" WomanKIND...." This is what they RECITE & then make their MAN COMMENTARIES as they Preach the LIE & will PAY IN HELL for doing so --PRAISE GOD!!! For they are PREVENTING MILLIONS from coming to CHRIST for Salvation. Their FLESH remaining THE SAME [Homosexual Loving] 2/ As for this verse: GOD said in GEN 2:24 Therefore [accordingly or because of this] "a" man LEAVES his father and mother and clings to his woman [English only: Wife]. Thus it is NOT A COMMAND That a Man SHALL do this, but this is WHY "a" Man WILL do this. JESUS referred back to it because it EXPLAINS "WHY" "a" MAN [NOT "every" man] WILL [chooses] to Hetero-Marry. It, thus, does NOT follow that ALL Males MUST "leave father and mother" NOR even "marry" a female for this reason. Yet, In the wickedness of Idolatous Heteros [& self-fearing Homos] THAT is HOW it is SLOPPILY taught to be self-serving to those who DO have Hetero-DESIRE and want to CLONE "all" Males into THEIR own IMAGE. 3/ The WICKED & IGNORANT & WILLFULLY IGNORANT remaining because of PRIDE SIN, NEVER want to READ ANYTHING pertaining to Cpvenant-Homosexuality NOT being Sin in SCRIPTURE CONTEXT. Though these SAME "Leavened with Pride in their own CARNAL behaviors" VILE-HYPOCRITE Pharisee Spirits TEACH that "Scripture MUST be read in Biblical Context" They DO NOT "Practice" it when the topic is Homosexuality. In the Marriage Issue: JESUS was speaking TO Men who were HETERO-sexual lusting desiring Males. He reminded them WHY there is THEIR marriages & what they represent. Man was once MALE "&" FEMALE in ONE BODY [Flesh] - GEN 1 account. When "a" [CERTAIN] MALE person "desires" to Marry a "female" It is a RE-UNITING into ONE flesh [SYMBOLICALLY -- a Figure or Type of the ORIGINAL STATE]. Thus, since GOD made Human ONE FLESH [in the literal] Let not Human [Separate] because GOD was the one who Separated the TWO "out" of the ONE FLESH [BODY]. EVERY Male person does NOT have in His or her FLESH the SIGN or TYPE or SHADOW of this event done by GOD. This is WHY JESUS was NOT this way HIMSELF, Yet "ALWAYS did the WILL [Intent] of The FATHER [GOD] NOR was ANY of JESUS Apostles [The Twelve] NOR was PAUL HIMSELF, NOR was the MAJOR PROPHET Jeremiah who GOD HIMSELF said "DO NOT MARRY" GOD does NOT VIOLATE "HIS" own WILL people - GET OVER yourselves [=IDOLATRY] This is WHY JESUS "ALSO" SAID: "EVERY" Man CANNOT RECEIVE this Saying ACCEPT to WHOM IT WAS GIVEN! EVERY saying of JESUS [including the one referring back to GEN 2:24 is simply was NOT GIVEN to "All" Men --only the ones whom JESUS was GIVING IT TO - Heteros [Women lusting] Men seeking to DIVORCE their Wives! CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT is what JESUS HIMSELF is reminding us of. When One does NOT begin [Alpha] & END [Omega] One's Doctrinal Conclusions with JESUS SAID "&" WHAT HE DID NOT SAY in the 4 GOSPELS [while as One of Us Humanity] One will ALWAYS end up with a Doctrinal BOLD FACE LIE! REFUSE to REPENT of it because One is NOT Re-GENERATED SAVED, REPEAT it Generation to Generation until The UN-knowing & UN-suspecting Public take it to be TRUTH [The Word of GOD] & it is simply the Wrods of SINFUL HETERO-LUSTING MEN! Validating THEMSELVES by condemning their Differently Created Neighbors. Little Children of GOD: STAY HUMBLE in ALL matters & GOD will SHOW YOU the TRUTH about ALL matters in HIS Timing. This Includes ALL matters pertaining to Same-Gender Love Expressions [Homosexuality]. But You MUST be PRECISE when it comes to TRUTH or else be found out to be a LIAR! Spreading the Children of Satan: Father of ALL LIES
I’m more of an agnostic myself, but I think this is fascinating, I love learning about religion. Thank you for this explanation, I think a lot was cleared up for me. Have you heard of the saying that Mary wasn’t actually a virgin and it was actually a mistranslation that caused that? Just wondering if you’ve also seen that. Thanks
Hi Alex, thanks for the encouragement. On Mary, Luke and Matthew are both clear that Mary was a virgin - otherwise Joseph wouldn't have then wanted to divorce her when she became pregnant. I suspect what you are thinking of is that the Greek word for virgin is parthenos. Matthew quotes from Isaiah, where it says 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive...'. In the Hebrew of Isaiah, the word is less precise and can include a young woman whether a virgin or not. So Isaiah may or may not be referring to a virgin, but Matthew and Luke certainly are. Hope this helps!
Hi R S, I teach for Luther King House, an ecumenical theological college based in Manchester. This year, all our teaching is online (mostly via zoom, so it's still 'synchronous' or face to face teaching rather than offline). We are still considering our plans for future years, but our website is www.lutherkinghouse.org.uk - hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Greetings, I have seen 2 videos of your channel, and it has awakened an interest in me on this subject, due to how radical it sounds to me the idea of a Christianity that does not condemn the homosexualida, and I have seen that the presented arguments are apparently convincing , I wanted to give you the suggestion to please give a bibliographical source for the examination of your material, it makes me an interesting topic.
I have a question! When the bible talks about wives submitting to husbands is this also misguided? Ephesians 5:22-28 specifically please How does that work if it’s two women?
Hi, thanks for the question. I don't know what you mean by 'also misguided' - what are you referring to? A brief response to your question about Ephesians: first, the overriding concern is that both partners should submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21). If you miss this verse out, then everything else is out of context. Secondly, these are 'household codes' - advice for how to live within the first century culture, which included certain legal and cultural roles for women, children and slaves. We no longer live in that culture (thanks be to God slavery is illegal in many countries), so we need to consider carefully what are the principles behind the advice that still apply today. So I would advise you to try to work out what the deep principles are in the advice in Ephesians, and then apply that principle to the relationship between two married women. I hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I read the whole chapter. It’s confusing because it talks about wives submitting to husbands but also husbands love wives as yourself. (v22-25) V32 talks about a great mystery. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean it’s a mystery as to why it’s man and women? Or something else? The fact it says husbands and wife does that mean only inside a hetero relationship or like you said we can perceive this as god (the husband) and the church (the wife). Therefore monogamous relationships still apply? Even same sex?
@@BodyandMindfulness the relationships paul is talking about are ones in which at that time one person had enormous power over the other person. so he uses the relationship of God and the church or Christ and his follower as a model for people to follow. The one with power is to use it for the other's benefit, while the underling (for want of a word) is to submit and not make everyone's life difficult. in modern society where marriage partners are equal (whether same or opposite secs), the overarching principle of submitting to one another would work itself out differently to how it did in the patriarchal world.
Hi Teodor, thanks for the question. The Bible doesn't consider the issue of gay marriage. This isn't unusual - there are many issues not considered directly by the Bible.
Okay. I just wanted to address that my thoughts were like this: God blesses Adam and Eve and therefore heterosexual marriage is okay. But God doesn't bless Adam and Steve and therefore gay marriage isn't okay. Is this wrong? Maybe God blessing Adam and Eve has nothing to do with marriage?
Thanks for the query. God also doesn't bless anyone who is celibate in the Genesis account. Saying you approve of something doesn't mean that you disapprove of everything else. For example, if I wrote somewhere that I like coffee, that doesn't mean that I dislike tea. God blessing Adam and Eve doesn't mean that God can't or won't bless gay marriages, or those who are called to celibacy.
Genesis doesn't even talk about love, it says Eve was created after Adam, so she wasn't even supposed to be there in the first place. She wad only made because none of the animals were suitable to help Adam. So are we supposed to believe that women do not exist for themselves but only for the benefit of men? And we are never told that they fell in love, they just happened to be the only two people alive. The Adam and Eve argument is wrong in so many ways...
I think you're taking the story too literally. Treat it as a story that's meant to teach aspects about human relationship and about our relationship with God. To understand the story properly, you also need to look carefully at the hebrew words adam and ish. the former refers to all humans, the latter to males only, but both are commonly translated "man" which leads to confusion. God divided the human into a man and a woman. the man is joined to the woman. That way the human could have suitable partner. Whether they fell in love or not is not mentioned as it wasn't considered an essential aspect of marriage until relatively recently. Claiming they were the only two people around is pushing the story too literally and I think beyond what it's trying to say. I don't know if Jonathan can add any further thoughts or correct me if I've made any mistakes ....
@@MusicalRaichu hi there, i don't take it literally, but fundamentalists do and if they're honest they have to admit that this is what it says. That being said i agree with everything you explained.
Eve was supposed to be created as a "helper". Helper could mean non-romantic relationship, such as friends. It does not imply a heterosexual couple. "Flesh of my flesh" is weird. Eve was created from Adam's rib. So, Eve started out with male DNA. So, God made Eve a transgender woman.
Laviticus only really mentions not to mix mans seed with Aunt mum sister ect ,which 4 me is mutation significantly considering the plant seed and fabric thing. Homosexual would not Interfare anyway ,and Sodom was just shocking raping type behaviour but I'm sure Adam married his Ribb did he not . We are to love one and another he said but boys and girls is what I assume is what is expected biological. There no homophobia in the KJV bible .xx
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. If you have sexual desire this is the prescription.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I understand you interpret that way, but it clearly states Husband and Wives. Not Partners or Husbands and Husbands or Wives and Wives. Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. Nothing about husband and husband or wife and wife or man and man or woman and woman. There is no other concession aside from man and his wife and wife and her man, this is to prevent sexual immorality. God guide you to all truth and everyone as well including me.
Hi George, thanks for replying. It is not surprising that Paul is talking about husbands and wives, because that is what the Corinthians have written to him about (though to be precise, his reply about the unmarried does not specify husbands and wives). But his reply about the unmarried does lead to considering what it might mean for those who are gay or lesbian. If you do not allow same-sex marriage, then you are in effect saying that straight people have a remedy for burning with lust (marriage) that you are not going to allow for gay people. As a matter of justice and pastoral care, this does not seem right.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Thanks for replying. The entire context is about how wives and husbands should not deny each other to avoid sexual immorality. He states that the unmarried should stay as he is but if they burn with passion to become married as it is a better option than to burn. Then he explains how those who are married should act....the husband not denying the wife and the wife not denying the husband as marriage is defined as man and wife in the Bible. Anything else out of this scope is not mentioned. There are people with certain sexual desires from birth that any sane moral person would agree is wrong to act on i.e. pedophilia and they have zero desire for adults. Just because one burns with desire does not make it right to make concession. Paul states get married as God designed to help avoid sexual immorality, which could be anything outside of man and wife relations, or stay celibate. It seems odd that he would not mention other lawful sexual relations since the topic is to avoid burning with passions and avoiding sexual immorality. Marriage as God designed is the outlet. It is either what we want and our way or Gods way and his desire. Really one must deny himself to follow Christ. Take care.
@@georgesimos4318 i don't see where any writer in the bible "defined" marriage. they always assumed marriage is what it was in society at the time, and that varied across time and place. in fact, aspects of marriage as described in the bible are considered immoral today. you should not compare with pedofilia. it's offensive. pedofilia is wrong because it harms people. gay relationships are not inherently harmful. on the contrary, they can be beneficial. same-secs marriage was problematic in patriarchal culture because it violated gender norms. afaik long-term relationships existed but they were not common. we don't know paul's opinion of them because he never broaches the subject. there certainly was no requirement for political correctness in those days that he should cover all possibilities lest he offend someone. however, we do know the ethic of love promoted by Jesus, Paul and the other apostles. ALL God's commands, we are told, are satisfied by loving one another. thus if two people are in a relationship characterized by mutual respect, care, faithfulness and and are doing nothing to hurt anyone, then "against such there is no law".
This is a very poor argument. This is akin to arguing for the inclusion of sawdust to concrete on the basis that the ingredients don’t explicitly state “don’t add sawdust” or “only these ingredients are allowed”. What you contend for is something not found in scripture at all. To affirm is to speak of in a positive sense or to present as truthful. You can’t make the argument for affirmation of “biblical same sex marriage” because by simple definition, it doesn’t exist.
Hi Blakkset, I disagree with your analogy. A better one would be if I said, 'I like coffee'. Does this mean that I hate tea (I do not; I also like tea)? God blesses marriage between men and women. It doesn't mean that all other alternatives are wrong, and to simply assume this is to go beyond what scripture itself says.
@@BibleandHomosexualityThat's a false equivalency. My analogy is spot on. The scripture doesn't state "I like". The scripture states "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and join to his wife to be one flesh". You literally are arguing there isn't anything specifying same sex couples so your analogy doesn't apply while mine does. The Bible exclusively affirms male + female and saying anything else makes you a liar. So now the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate same sex marriage is affirmed within scripture as man + woman is.
Hi Tierra, thanks for commenting. It would be helpful if you could be more specific about which particular parts of my presentation you believe to be wrong, and why.
@@BodyandMindfulness no what is happening here is classic miss reading g the Bible 101. This was true and God actually was fine with gay relationships then why did he not clarify after condemning them for years
@@BodyandMindfulness well then that's claiming God would allow laws that he didn't put in the Bible to be put in the Bible so claiming God is in competent is preserving his word
@@BibleandHomosexuality refute them, the whole basis of your argument hangs on well if it’s not there then it’s okay. The no1 sign of justifying a sin, although it’s clear you work hard to make it okay to present homosexuality ok and it’s not okay to God
Hi, my argument is twofold, but most of these videos only address the first part. First, is what is condemned in the Bible similar to what we are talking about today (loving, faithful, lifelong marriages). My answer is no. Secondly, if the Bible doesn't address this issue directly, how should we proceed? I answer that in the book I have just published (link here: books2read.com/Affirmative ). But the short version is that Acts 10 gives us a blueprint for when we find God at work in new situations. Hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I don’t need help,I know what the bible teaches,if you need to write a book to explain what the bible teaches, well then you are a scriptural gymnast jumping hoops to justify a man and a man or the opisite sex to be in sexual relationship. It’s a heavy sin and you are teaching by the looks of it a lot of people the wrong thing
Hi Ansari, rather than pointless insults, it would be more helpful for everyone if you could lay out precisely where you think the arguments in this video are faulty, and why. Then we could have a proper, adult discussion.
Hi, for some odd reason, I cannot comment this on the Sodom and Gomorrah video, so I must do it here instead. I have heard from some people that other consensual homosexual activity (not rape, abuse or pederasty) occurred in Sodom and Gomorrah as well. Those previously-mentioned cities were known for their wide range of sinful acts, and many use the certain homosexual activities which went on there as a way of condemning modern homosexual couples--especially with the usage of the term 'sodomite'. If consensual homosexual activity did occur, were there also additional instances of committed, faithful homosexual relationships happening between citizens of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah? If this is the case, did God destroy the cities at least partly because of it? If this is all true, are there other passages in the Bible that mention these specific activities, or any external references to those consensual practices appearing in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (If there are any, of course)?
Thanks for reading. I always appreciate your channel and your methodical responses.
To my knowledge, there is no evidence at all of any consensual homosexual activity in Sodom or Gomorrah, either in the Bible or external references. I suggest that the people telling you this are mistaken.
Good vid! I just wonder if you could do a video about what Jesus says about marriage in Matthew 19: 1-12. The catholics use to condemn gay marriage but I really want to hear what you have to say about it.
Have a nice day!
Hi Teodor, thanks for the encouragement. I touch briefly on Matthew in my video on the gospels, but perhaps I will do a longer video on this point in the future. Thanks.
With all due respect sir, I must disagree with your assessment of the passages in question.
The question of whether or not something is descriptive or prescriptive is an important one to ask. However, we must be very careful how we answer this question. Personally, I must be aware of my own biases which could lead me in one direction or another when answering that question in any number of passages. I’m not suggesting that I always do it correctly, but only pointing out that I must take great care in answering it.
In support of your answer that the Genesis account of marriage is “descriptive,” you referenced Gen 1:28 wherein God commanded Adam & Eve to be ‘fruitful and multiply.” You accurately pointed out that if this were a command, then there are many who would be incapable of keeping it, thus indicating that it must be descriptive.
You also referenced Gen 2:24, and the ‘leaving his father and mother’ clause of that verse. You showed us that this simply could not always be understood as a literal command.
From these two references you concluded, “it makes more sense to see Genesis as being descriptive rather than prescriptive.”
The problem with this assessment is that it does not take into account the reality that prescriptive clauses can be intermingled among descriptive texts. For example, in 2 Cor 13:11-12, Paul is signing off with some thoughts which a lot of people would understand as prescriptive, such as ‘aim for harmony,’ encourage one another,’ ‘live in peace,’ and then he recommends that his readers ‘greet one another with a holy kiss.’ Many Christians see the holy kiss as something that is descriptive of Paul’s time and place, and they do not follow his admonition without fear of violence to the text.
Or, when Paul wrote to Timothy and expressed his desire that the men should pray “in every place … lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.” I suspect that most Christians would understand that men in every place should pray without wrath and dissension, but that lifting holy hands is not necessarily a requirement. Part prescriptive- part descriptive.
A final example of my point is found in 1 Peter 3:3-4. Here, Peter writes to Christian women that their “adornment must not be external, braiding hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses, but the hidden person of the heart. Interestingly, many Christian women agree that their adornment should not be external, but that braiding their hair, wearing jewelry, and putting on dresses is optional. Yet, all of these clauses are couched within the very same sentence. In fact, it would seem that the first and last parts of these thoughts are understood as something that is important to God, while sandwiched in the middle is a thought that is relative, subjective to the time and location of the reader.
In Gen 2:24, we read, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh..” You have concluded that if a man cannot leave his father or mother upon marriage, then the entire text must be regarded as descriptive. However, as I’ve demonstrated above, there is evidence to suggest that this may not always be the case.
Based upon the examples cited above I believe the critical reader will admit that it is at least *possible* that there are thoughts embedded in the language used in Genesis that could reflect what is important to God. Before dismissing them as relative - or descriptive -as you have done, I believe you must demonstrate that this is necessarily so.
One might object and ask if I can demonstrate an alternative view. This I believe I can do.
In Matt 19 Jesus was asked about divorce. Before answering the question, He backpedals a bit and first discusses marriage. In doing so He quotes Gen 2:24, which is a chief verse in question here. However, it is important to note that he also cites another scripture, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female.’” Although this could be a reference to Gen 1:27, it seems to more closely match Gen 5:2, which is outside of the creation account. In any event, this is a curious thing because Jesus could have made the same point on divorce without reminding His listeners that in the day that God created mankind He made them male and female.
Why did Jesus remind His listeners that God had made humankind male and female? I believe it was because marriage had become abused and misunderstood and Jesus was taking the Pharisees back to the beginning of marriage and describing to them its purpose: the joining of a male and a female. Therefore, this is marriage’s prescription, and would tip the scales in favor of a prescriptive reading of some of Genesis, not a wholly descriptive one as you insist.
Thank you for your consideration.
Hi, and thank you for a thoughtful response. Here is a quick (I'm afraid less carefully thought through!) reply.
First, you make the point that prescriptive and descriptive parts can co-exist, and you provide some examples. We do often treat scripture in this way, picking out bits which we think are true now, and bits which aren't. Usually, there's a process going on (at least subconsciously) which is trying to find whether there are principles at work which were true then and are true now.
This translates to the Genesis passage - but often it is just assumed that the principle is there. When this is the very thing that is in question, that needs to be shown clearly, not just assumed. And when the direct commands in the scripture are treated as not being prescriptive by everyone (ie, not everyone has to marry, or leave a house), it becomes even more important to consider whether something that is indirectly there should be treated more prominently.
You then reference Matthew 19. You suggest that this references Gen. 5:2. I would suggest that this itself is referencing back to Gen. 1:27. The phrase used by Jesus (in the Greek as set down by Matthew) matches exactly the Greek (LXX) of Gen. 5:2 and Gen. 1:27, but the reference to creation for me tips it strongly towards Gen. 1.
Jesus was taking the pharisees back to Genesis - but note that the issue was not about what genders can marry, but was about whether marriage should be lifelong or whether divorce should be easy. This is the direct point of the passage, not gender. It is difficult to suggest that Jesus was seeking to emphasise the importance of gender when that wasn't the issue with which he had been confronted, and wasn't the point he was seeking to make. I therefore find it difficult to see how this can be used in support of making Genesis 1 & 2 prescriptive for this aspect.
If we believe that there may be prescriptive as well as descriptive elements to Genesis 1 & 2, we also need to be aware that the passage can be read as prescriptively in favour of same-sex marriage. The problem in Genesis 2 was that it was not good for the human to be alone - a suitable companion was needed to be a partner. How then can the church stand in the way of people now who have found a suitable companion or partner, no matter the gender?
As I said, these are quick thoughts, but I hope you find them helpful.
@@BibleandHomosexuality
Hi,
Thank you for your reply. I must say that I despise discussing theology in a manner such as this. So much more can be accomplished in live discussions. However, since that is impossible, it must suffice that we exchange ideas in this way.
It would seem that we agree that prescriptive and descriptive clauses can be intermingled with one another, and that we must use something other than personal biases and surrounding text to explain the differences.
My point in raising Matt 19 was to demonstrate that there may be an objective reason for assuming male/female marriage has been prescribed. It makes no difference to me if Jesus referred to Gen 1:27 or Gen 5:2, my argument was that the quote wasn’t necessary at all in making His point. Jesus could have made the very same point about “easy-divorce” without ever having reminded His listeners that God had made mankind male and female. Therefore, He introduced the thought for another reason. Of course, I do not assume that Jesus had gay marriage in mind. Instead, it is more reasonable to assume that Jesus was providing a definition of marriage to the Pharisees, who had lost their way in understanding what marriage was intended to be. Thus, He provided us a definition - or prescription for it.
But, setting my Matt 19 argument aside, I want to focus on your original assessment: that the Genesis account is descriptive.
Without relying on surrounding passages in Genesis that appear to you to be descriptive, and without relying on personal preferences, are you able to say with certainty that “a man (male) shall … be joined to his wife (female)” is a phrase that can only be understood as descriptive? This is the important question that must be answered from your thesis in the video.
Thank you for your time. Dane
Hi Dane, you point to Jesus quoting Gen. 1 as being an indication that Jesus was defining marriage. But again, you make assumptions about what the reference is meant to indicate. Given that no-one in the debate was questioning whether it was male and female, it would be strange of Jesus to need to define this for them. On the other hand, the references (both to Gen 1 & 2) might well be reminders that humans find companions who are their partners for life.
On your final question, I would suggest that the onus is on those who think it is prescriptive to prove it, given that so much in this verse is clearly not prescriptive.
Thanks once again for engaging.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Thank you Rev’d Dr Tallon for your considerate reply and for entertaining my questions.. I will not enter into a debate about whether the onus is on me to demonstrate that an alternative view renders your assessment false, or whether the burden of proof rests with you to show positively that your thesis is true, though it would seem that Hitchens's razor might apply here.
In any event, your response to my key question satisfies me. I am certain that if you could exegetically prove your thesis then you would have done so. In my mind, insisting on a shift in the burden of proof is the same as saying, "no, I cannot demonstrate that a 'man (male) shall … be joined to his wife (female)' is a phrase that can only be understood as descriptive."
Thank you for your time. You may have the luxury of the final comment if you wish. Dane
@featheredprop
I wanted to comment this to YOU @featheredprop, because I was SO IMPRESSED & thankful to GOD, that You took the TIME to REALLY MEDITATE & REFLECT of THE WORD, before giving an answer of disagreement. I also sensed a Spirit of HUMBLENESS in you writing that is so often missing in those proclamation Salvation. Even-though, Salvation is IMPOSSIBLE with out "First" being of a HUMBLE Spirit. I enjoyed reading you
That said: The REAL problem [and this is TRUE with ALL Christian Doctrines] is:
1/
the ORIGINAL TEXT that GOD Uttered HIMSELF, is Confused with the "Translation TEXT" which is a "Work of SINFUL MANKIND & thus subject to ERRORS.
Teachers/Scholars have NO EXCUSE before GOD because they have ACCESS to the ORIGINAL WORD of GOD text, Whereas people of the public & their opinions in Times past did not. UNTIL OUR DAY Praise be to GOD, with the Technology applied to ORIGINAL UTTERANCES OF GOD we ALL can find out their SLOPPY LAZY-LIES!
A Web Site called www.Scripture4ALL.org is an EXCELLENT [though not yet perfected in translations] place to go to have ACCESS to the ORIGINAL WORD of GOD--BEFORE it was DEFILED by ANY Translation of Men. Download ISA [Interlinear Scripture Analyzer] 2.1.5 BASIC from here:
www.scripture4all.org/download/dlf2.php?f=ISA20/ISA_basic_v2_1_5.exe
BE SURE to Download The 2 integrated MODULES: CLV [Concordant LITERAL version Bible] & YLT [Young's LITERAL version Bible]. Though these are NOT perfect Translations, They INDICATE so whenever they insert a word NOT spoken by GOD - They are more HONEST & you can Study for YOURSELF from the ORIGINAL Documents of GOD - NOT MAN
For example: You will SEE for YOURSELF that GOD "NEVER" SAID:
"Thou shall not lie with MANKIND "As with" WomanKIND...."
This is what they RECITE & then make their MAN COMMENTARIES as they Preach the LIE & will PAY IN HELL for doing so --PRAISE GOD!!! For they are PREVENTING MILLIONS from coming to CHRIST for Salvation. Their FLESH remaining THE SAME [Homosexual Loving]
2/
As for this verse: GOD said in GEN 2:24
Therefore [accordingly or because of this] "a" man LEAVES his father and mother and clings to his woman [English only: Wife]. Thus it is NOT A COMMAND That a Man SHALL do this, but this is WHY "a" Man WILL do this.
JESUS referred back to it because it EXPLAINS "WHY" "a" MAN [NOT "every" man] WILL [chooses] to Hetero-Marry. It, thus, does NOT follow that ALL Males MUST "leave father and mother" NOR even "marry" a female for this reason. Yet, In the wickedness of Idolatous Heteros [& self-fearing Homos] THAT is HOW it is SLOPPILY taught to be self-serving to those who DO have Hetero-DESIRE and want to CLONE "all" Males into THEIR own IMAGE.
3/
The WICKED & IGNORANT & WILLFULLY IGNORANT remaining because of PRIDE SIN,
NEVER want to READ ANYTHING pertaining to Cpvenant-Homosexuality NOT being Sin in
SCRIPTURE CONTEXT. Though these SAME "Leavened with Pride in their own CARNAL behaviors" VILE-HYPOCRITE Pharisee Spirits TEACH that "Scripture MUST be read in Biblical Context" They DO NOT "Practice" it when the topic is Homosexuality.
In the Marriage Issue: JESUS was speaking TO Men who were HETERO-sexual lusting desiring Males. He reminded them WHY there is THEIR marriages & what they represent.
Man was once MALE "&" FEMALE in ONE BODY [Flesh] - GEN 1 account. When "a" [CERTAIN] MALE person "desires" to Marry a "female" It is a RE-UNITING into ONE flesh [SYMBOLICALLY -- a Figure or Type of the ORIGINAL STATE]. Thus, since GOD made Human ONE FLESH [in the literal] Let not Human [Separate] because GOD was the one who Separated the TWO "out" of the ONE FLESH [BODY]. EVERY Male person does NOT have in His or her FLESH the SIGN or TYPE or SHADOW of this event done by GOD. This is WHY JESUS was NOT this way HIMSELF, Yet "ALWAYS did the WILL [Intent] of The FATHER [GOD]
NOR was ANY of JESUS Apostles [The Twelve] NOR was PAUL HIMSELF, NOR was the MAJOR PROPHET Jeremiah who GOD HIMSELF said "DO NOT MARRY"
GOD does NOT VIOLATE "HIS" own WILL people - GET OVER yourselves [=IDOLATRY]
This is WHY JESUS "ALSO" SAID:
"EVERY" Man CANNOT RECEIVE this Saying ACCEPT to WHOM IT WAS GIVEN!
EVERY saying of JESUS [including the one referring back to GEN 2:24 is simply was NOT GIVEN to "All" Men --only the ones whom JESUS was GIVING IT TO - Heteros [Women lusting] Men seeking to DIVORCE their Wives! CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT is what JESUS HIMSELF is reminding us of.
When One does NOT begin [Alpha] & END [Omega] One's Doctrinal Conclusions with JESUS SAID "&" WHAT HE DID NOT SAY in the 4 GOSPELS [while as One of Us Humanity]
One will ALWAYS end up with a Doctrinal BOLD FACE LIE! REFUSE to REPENT of it because One is NOT Re-GENERATED SAVED, REPEAT it Generation to Generation until The UN-knowing & UN-suspecting Public take it to be TRUTH [The Word of GOD] & it is simply the Wrods of SINFUL HETERO-LUSTING MEN! Validating THEMSELVES by condemning their Differently Created Neighbors.
Little Children of GOD: STAY HUMBLE in ALL matters & GOD will SHOW YOU the TRUTH about ALL matters in HIS Timing. This Includes ALL matters pertaining to Same-Gender Love Expressions [Homosexuality]. But You MUST be PRECISE when it comes to TRUTH or else be found out to be a LIAR! Spreading the Children of Satan: Father of ALL LIES
I’m more of an agnostic myself, but I think this is fascinating, I love learning about religion. Thank you for this explanation, I think a lot was cleared up for me.
Have you heard of the saying that Mary wasn’t actually a virgin and it was actually a mistranslation that caused that? Just wondering if you’ve also seen that. Thanks
Hi Alex, thanks for the encouragement. On Mary, Luke and Matthew are both clear that Mary was a virgin - otherwise Joseph wouldn't have then wanted to divorce her when she became pregnant. I suspect what you are thinking of is that the Greek word for virgin is parthenos. Matthew quotes from Isaiah, where it says 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive...'. In the Hebrew of Isaiah, the word is less precise and can include a young woman whether a virgin or not. So Isaiah may or may not be referring to a virgin, but Matthew and Luke certainly are. Hope this helps!
@@BibleandHomosexuality thank you, that is helpful as well.
Hi,
Do you teach online/in-person classes in London at all?
Hi R S, I teach for Luther King House, an ecumenical theological college based in Manchester. This year, all our teaching is online (mostly via zoom, so it's still 'synchronous' or face to face teaching rather than offline). We are still considering our plans for future years, but our website is www.lutherkinghouse.org.uk - hope this helps.
New website address: www.lutherking.ac.uk/
God didn't make Steve. Notch did.
This is one of the few videos on UA-cam that isn't about Minecraft...
@@BibleandHomosexuality Greetings, I have seen 2 videos of your channel, and it has awakened an interest in me on this subject, due to how radical it sounds to me the idea of a Christianity that does not condemn the homosexualida, and I have seen that the presented arguments are apparently convincing , I wanted to give you the suggestion to please give a bibliographical source for the examination of your material, it makes me an interesting topic.
Hi, thanks for your interest. I have an annotated bibliography on the linked website: www.bibleandhomosexuality.org/bibliography/
I have a question! When the bible talks about wives submitting to husbands is this also misguided?
Ephesians 5:22-28 specifically please
How does that work if it’s two women?
Hi, thanks for the question. I don't know what you mean by 'also misguided' - what are you referring to?
A brief response to your question about Ephesians: first, the overriding concern is that both partners should submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21). If you miss this verse out, then everything else is out of context.
Secondly, these are 'household codes' - advice for how to live within the first century culture, which included certain legal and cultural roles for women, children and slaves.
We no longer live in that culture (thanks be to God slavery is illegal in many countries), so we need to consider carefully what are the principles behind the advice that still apply today.
So I would advise you to try to work out what the deep principles are in the advice in Ephesians, and then apply that principle to the relationship between two married women.
I hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I read the whole chapter. It’s confusing because it talks about wives submitting to husbands but also husbands love wives as yourself. (v22-25)
V32 talks about a great mystery. What does that mean exactly?
Does it mean it’s a mystery as to why it’s man and women? Or something else?
The fact it says husbands and wife does that mean only inside a hetero relationship or like you said we can perceive this as god (the husband) and the church (the wife). Therefore monogamous relationships still apply? Even same sex?
@@BodyandMindfulness the relationships paul is talking about are ones in which at that time one person had enormous power over the other person. so he uses the relationship of God and the church or Christ and his follower as a model for people to follow. The one with power is to use it for the other's benefit, while the underling (for want of a word) is to submit and not make everyone's life difficult.
in modern society where marriage partners are equal (whether same or opposite secs), the overarching principle of submitting to one another would work itself out differently to how it did in the patriarchal world.
I have a question. The Bible doesn't condemn gay relationships, but does it condemn gay marriage?
Hi Teodor, thanks for the question. The Bible doesn't consider the issue of gay marriage. This isn't unusual - there are many issues not considered directly by the Bible.
Okay. I just wanted to address that my thoughts were like this: God blesses Adam and Eve and therefore heterosexual marriage is okay. But God doesn't bless Adam and Steve and therefore gay marriage isn't okay.
Is this wrong? Maybe God blessing Adam and Eve has nothing to do with marriage?
Thanks for the query. God also doesn't bless anyone who is celibate in the Genesis account. Saying you approve of something doesn't mean that you disapprove of everything else. For example, if I wrote somewhere that I like coffee, that doesn't mean that I dislike tea. God blessing Adam and Eve doesn't mean that God can't or won't bless gay marriages, or those who are called to celibacy.
Thank you! I understand now!
@@fotbollen2001 God blessed Adam and Eve, but not Adam and Steve, neither George and Alicia, nor Lucy and Emma, nor Kathy and Luke
Thank you
Hi sir new subscriber here can you do a video explaining the controversial passages in the bible thanks sir...
@Drewskey snap!
I'm not a false teacher either. :)
I answer to those people : It's Adam and Eve, but what about George and Alice ?
Genesis doesn't even talk about love, it says Eve was created after Adam, so she wasn't even supposed to be there in the first place. She wad only made because none of the animals were suitable to help Adam. So are we supposed to believe that women do not exist for themselves but only for the benefit of men? And we are never told that they fell in love, they just happened to be the only two people alive. The Adam and Eve argument is wrong in so many ways...
I think you're taking the story too literally. Treat it as a story that's meant to teach aspects about human relationship and about our relationship with God.
To understand the story properly, you also need to look carefully at the hebrew words adam and ish. the former refers to all humans, the latter to males only, but both are commonly translated "man" which leads to confusion. God divided the human into a man and a woman. the man is joined to the woman. That way the human could have suitable partner.
Whether they fell in love or not is not mentioned as it wasn't considered an essential aspect of marriage until relatively recently.
Claiming they were the only two people around is pushing the story too literally and I think beyond what it's trying to say.
I don't know if Jonathan can add any further thoughts or correct me if I've made any mistakes ....
@@MusicalRaichu hi there, i don't take it literally, but fundamentalists do and if they're honest they have to admit that this is what it says. That being said i agree with everything you explained.
Eve was supposed to be created as a "helper". Helper could mean non-romantic relationship, such as friends. It does not imply a heterosexual couple.
"Flesh of my flesh" is weird. Eve was created from Adam's rib. So, Eve started out with male DNA. So, God made Eve a transgender woman.
Bro what are you talking about?
It does. 5 minutes of your time saved if you read this before watching.
Laviticus only really mentions not to mix mans seed with Aunt mum sister ect ,which 4 me is mutation significantly considering the plant seed and fabric thing.
Homosexual would not Interfare anyway ,and Sodom was just shocking raping type behaviour but I'm sure Adam married his Ribb did he not .
We are to love one and another he said but boys and girls is what I assume is what is expected biological.
There no homophobia in the KJV bible .xx
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
If you have sexual desire this is the prescription.
Hi George, this implies that people who are gay or lesbian should be given the chance to marry so that they don't have to burn with passion.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I understand you interpret that way, but it clearly states Husband and Wives. Not Partners or Husbands and Husbands or Wives and Wives. Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. Nothing about husband and husband or wife and wife or man and man or woman and woman. There is no other concession aside from man and his wife and wife and her man, this is to prevent sexual immorality. God guide you to all truth and everyone as well including me.
Hi George, thanks for replying. It is not surprising that Paul is talking about husbands and wives, because that is what the Corinthians have written to him about (though to be precise, his reply about the unmarried does not specify husbands and wives). But his reply about the unmarried does lead to considering what it might mean for those who are gay or lesbian. If you do not allow same-sex marriage, then you are in effect saying that straight people have a remedy for burning with lust (marriage) that you are not going to allow for gay people. As a matter of justice and pastoral care, this does not seem right.
@@BibleandHomosexuality Thanks for replying. The entire context is about how wives and husbands should not deny each other to avoid sexual immorality. He states that the unmarried should stay as he is but if they burn with passion to become married as it is a better option than to burn. Then he explains how those who are married should act....the husband not denying the wife and the wife not denying the husband as marriage is defined as man and wife in the Bible. Anything else out of this scope is not mentioned.
There are people with certain sexual desires from birth that any sane moral person would agree is wrong to act on i.e. pedophilia and they have zero desire for adults. Just because one burns with desire does not make it right to make concession. Paul states get married as God designed to help avoid sexual immorality, which could be anything outside of man and wife relations, or stay celibate. It seems odd that he would not mention other lawful sexual relations since the topic is to avoid burning with passions and avoiding sexual immorality. Marriage as God designed is the outlet. It is either what we want and our way or Gods way and his desire. Really one must deny himself to follow Christ. Take care.
@@georgesimos4318 i don't see where any writer in the bible "defined" marriage. they always assumed marriage is what it was in society at the time, and that varied across time and place. in fact, aspects of marriage as described in the bible are considered immoral today.
you should not compare with pedofilia. it's offensive. pedofilia is wrong because it harms people. gay relationships are not inherently harmful. on the contrary, they can be beneficial.
same-secs marriage was problematic in patriarchal culture because it violated gender norms. afaik long-term relationships existed but they were not common. we don't know paul's opinion of them because he never broaches the subject. there certainly was no requirement for political correctness in those days that he should cover all possibilities lest he offend someone.
however, we do know the ethic of love promoted by Jesus, Paul and the other apostles. ALL God's commands, we are told, are satisfied by loving one another. thus if two people are in a relationship characterized by mutual respect, care, faithfulness and and are doing nothing to hurt anyone, then "against such there is no law".
Don't forget 3 Eunuchs
Okay if this is true why did he call gay relationships an abomination
I cover your concern in my video on Leviticus, found here: ua-cam.com/video/6nSPznp2ToU/v-deo.html
This is a very poor argument. This is akin to arguing for the inclusion of sawdust to concrete on the basis that the ingredients don’t explicitly state “don’t add sawdust” or “only these ingredients are allowed”.
What you contend for is something not found in scripture at all. To affirm is to speak of in a positive sense or to present as truthful. You can’t make the argument for affirmation of “biblical same sex marriage” because by simple definition, it doesn’t exist.
Hi Blakkset, I disagree with your analogy. A better one would be if I said, 'I like coffee'. Does this mean that I hate tea (I do not; I also like tea)? God blesses marriage between men and women. It doesn't mean that all other alternatives are wrong, and to simply assume this is to go beyond what scripture itself says.
@@BibleandHomosexualityThat's a false equivalency. My analogy is spot on. The scripture doesn't state "I like". The scripture states "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and join to his wife to be one flesh". You literally are arguing there isn't anything specifying same sex couples so your analogy doesn't apply while mine does.
The Bible exclusively affirms male + female and saying anything else makes you a liar.
So now the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate same sex marriage is affirmed within scripture as man + woman is.
Hi, the 'for this reason' is that the human was alone, and God provided a partner. Why would you deny this to people who are gay?
@@BibleandHomosexualitynah man show a scripture that approves of same sex relationship. If god approves of it like you say then show a scripture!
You need to stop 🛑
Hi Tierra, thanks for commenting. It would be helpful if you could be more specific about which particular parts of my presentation you believe to be wrong, and why.
We got a homophobe
@@BodyandMindfulness no what is happening here is classic miss reading g the Bible 101. This was true and God actually was fine with gay relationships then why did he not clarify after condemning them for years
@@hopefullcompatriot5394 nothing has been clarified, the bible is old 😂
If anything it’s been modified to suit an agenda
@@BodyandMindfulness well then that's claiming God would allow laws that he didn't put in the Bible to be put in the Bible so claiming God is in competent is preserving his word
These arguments are so pathetic to allow for homosexuality
But apparently you can't refute them?
@@BibleandHomosexuality present me with one homosexual relationship in the bible that was accepted
@@BibleandHomosexuality refute them, the whole basis of your argument hangs on well if it’s not there then it’s okay. The no1 sign of justifying a sin, although it’s clear you work hard to make it okay to present homosexuality ok and it’s not okay to God
Hi, my argument is twofold, but most of these videos only address the first part. First, is what is condemned in the Bible similar to what we are talking about today (loving, faithful, lifelong marriages). My answer is no. Secondly, if the Bible doesn't address this issue directly, how should we proceed? I answer that in the book I have just published (link here: books2read.com/Affirmative ). But the short version is that Acts 10 gives us a blueprint for when we find God at work in new situations. Hope this helps.
@@BibleandHomosexuality I don’t need help,I know what the bible teaches,if you need to write a book to explain what the bible teaches, well then you are a scriptural gymnast jumping hoops to justify a man and a man or the opisite sex to be in sexual relationship. It’s a heavy sin and you are teaching by the looks of it a lot of people the wrong thing
What Rubbish logic! Do you have peanuts in your head?
Hi Ansari, rather than pointless insults, it would be more helpful for everyone if you could lay out precisely where you think the arguments in this video are faulty, and why. Then we could have a proper, adult discussion.