I'll now give my ice cream analogy to show what isn't stated, isn't automatically prohibited.
If a man talks about vanilla ice cream, that's doesn't mean he thinks strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor, he just didn't talk strawberry ice cream (let's say vanilla was first and strawberry wasn't created yet). Now if this same man specifically stated; "Vanilla ice cream is a good flavor AND strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor," you could can say, without question, strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor. But you only believe strawberry ice cream is a bad flavor just because it isn't vanilla ice cream. Making a flavor bad when it isn't even mentioned.
Now I want ice cream.
7 comments:
Perhaps a bit off topic but on a positive upbeat sidenote: As a person continually amused by the photos you attach to your blog posts and as a person who loves Madonna and her 13th Studio Album as well as the lead single from said album; I love this picture. Made my day.
; )
I assume they’re referring to Gen 2:24 with that statement. Well the fact is it’s only referring to Adam and Eve. Think about it. Not only is it taken out of its context a lot as a prescriptive rather than the descriptive verse it is, but the fact it talks about “flesh becoming one” is proof it’s talking about Adam and Eve. When people have sex does their biology change? No. No genetic code changes. So they are clearly not literally “becoming one flesh.” So the only way that verse made sense is if it was only talking about Adam and Eve, as they would have had identical genetic codes
Spot on.
I also wrote this:
"Paul in Gal. 3:28 makes a distinction with using the word "and" instead of "nor" because he's going to the Genesis language of God made "man AND woman" in Genesis in 1:27. Paul THEN addresses the culture which divided people by social standing and ethnic background by the use of the word 'nor' to show there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, free or slave, all being equal before God. Paul knew exactly what he was doing with his exact wording to those who would use the man and woman paradigm from Genesis as some type of rule for some, and not freedom for all."
EVEN IF it was a prescriptive, it stopped with Paul.
I also want to say this here. I'm contacted on here and in private saying I give arguments and answers only I could give. When you questioned me on that one source, my defenses went through the roof with you because I expect this from the anti-gay crowd instead of someone who's gay affirming with the Word. Jennifer, please accept my apologies. The only thing that matters is truth, and I'll humbly take that. Iron sharpens iron and I praise God for someone like you.
Apologies accepted, my tone was a bit abrasive which is probably why you perceived it as an attack rather than a questioning. I get it all the time myself on my pro lgbt theology Instagram account. It’s a shame this info was inaccurate but I think there’s more than enough evidence listed on your posts otherwise to link arsenokoitai to an act of same sex rape which is how I view it personally. I kinda like the 1984 NIV’s rendering of it as “homosexual offenders” for that reason. Rather than making it about general homosexual acts like more recent versions they’ve linked it to just illegal or abusive same sex acts like boy molesting and man on man rape
Cheers!
Just a note to my readers.
My arguments on this blog have always been that the word 'arsenokoite' is referencing an idolatrous homosexuality from Leviticus. Like Jennifer stated, there are several times the word also has a rape/pederastic meaning. Just like an argument can be made the word also has a non-sexual economic injustice (the earliest source of the word outside of Paul makes this case) meaning, but because I believe Paul is going to Leviticus for the word use in his 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy letters, I HAVE to go with what Paul was understanding from Leviticus and not from other or later sources on the meaning of the word.
Post a Comment