2 Timothy 4:3-4 KJVS For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
@@pauln5785Wrong. "For this reason" is as prescriptive as it gets. Descriptive are the texts simply giving details about an event. Prescriptive are a set of instructions.
But what do you mean? Males and females exist, when they become “one flesh” they reproduce. Males are typically stronger and bigger than females, and so it’s important to hammer home that they’re equal, and describe in detail the way that they’re supposed to treat and relate to each other. But, that doesn’t say anything about a situation in which two people of the same sex desire one another, it’s simply always presumed in the text that males will only desire females. The only same sex behavior (of only men, remember) regards subjugation and status difference. Men raped other men (Sodom and Gomorrah) and they also entered into agreements in which the older, higher status man gets sex and the younger, lower status partner gets either money, protection, or some opportunity for status (like an internship, they’d be introduced to the right people and have access to the right places). The text never even considers the possibility of a man or woman experiencing the Genesis deep-desire for each other’s intimacy and kinship.
We should remember that some cultures did have social structures that recognized lgbt+ people but colonizers came in and destroyed those structures, making them all heteronormative like their Western culture was.
@@binghamguevara6814 It was uncommon - don't forget people who would want to do this are a small fraction of the population - but it happened. In ancient Greece, I think it might have often been frowned on but it sometimes happened. In Roman times, it was sometimes acceptable if one man was from a lower social class, e.g., male citizen with male ex-slaiv. You need to remember that in those cultures it was a private arrangement that had nothing to do with government like today, so no one could stop people doing it. (Well, they could in Sparta where everything including which specific person you married was regulated.) It's only if a male of higher social class was known to be secsually penetrated that it had any legal implications.
thank God for the work that you are doing. I am grateful to here the truth about being gay and Christian
2 Timothy 4:3-4 KJVS
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
but how do you get around the "male/female" words in Scripture passages?
Descriptive, not prescriptive.
@@pauln5785Wrong.
"For this reason" is as prescriptive as it gets. Descriptive are the texts simply giving details about an event. Prescriptive are a set of instructions.
But what do you mean? Males and females exist, when they become “one flesh” they reproduce. Males are typically stronger and bigger than females, and so it’s important to hammer home that they’re equal, and describe in detail the way that they’re supposed to treat and relate to each other. But, that doesn’t say anything about a situation in which two people of the same sex desire one another, it’s simply always presumed in the text that males will only desire females. The only same sex behavior (of only men, remember) regards subjugation and status difference. Men raped other men (Sodom and Gomorrah) and they also entered into agreements in which the older, higher status man gets sex and the younger, lower status partner gets either money, protection, or some opportunity for status (like an internship, they’d be introduced to the right people and have access to the right places). The text never even considers the possibility of a man or woman experiencing the Genesis deep-desire for each other’s intimacy and kinship.
We should remember that some cultures did have social structures that recognized lgbt+ people but colonizers came in and destroyed those structures, making them all heteronormative like their Western culture was.
What cultures did this?
@@BodyandMindfulness My culture, lol. But I'm glad they did, for we were living like pagans.
No culture allowed men to marry men and women to women because male-female marriage was good and normal as the sun.
@@binghamguevara6814 It was uncommon - don't forget people who would want to do this are a small fraction of the population - but it happened.
In ancient Greece, I think it might have often been frowned on but it sometimes happened. In Roman times, it was sometimes acceptable if one man was from a lower social class, e.g., male citizen with male ex-slaiv.
You need to remember that in those cultures it was a private arrangement that had nothing to do with government like today, so no one could stop people doing it. (Well, they could in Sparta where everything including which specific person you married was regulated.) It's only if a male of higher social class was known to be secsually penetrated that it had any legal implications.