[Trapped]

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So Ruth and Naomi were technically not blood related, only through their mother and daughter in law relationships. Wasnt Isaac and Rebecca distant cousins? Anyways, to me there are plenty of hints they have homoromantic love. Ruth wanted to be buried with Naomi, thats very deep love right there. Ruth only married Boaz out of survival and Naomi helped Ruth to survive. After all, they were women with no rights. Boaz was in Naomi’s family? So yeah, everyone’s one happy family. In the end of the story, when Ruth gave birth to her son, the villagers or the people said it was Naomi’s. Not boaz’s. And the bible used the hebrew word of cleave, as in Ruth cleaved onto Naomi, the same word used in Eve cleaving unto Adam.

That's family love between family members who had both had numerous shared family members die on them....it's not romantic love.

Ruth 4:15 clearly states that people know the son is Ruth's:

He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.”

When they say in verse 17 that "Naomi has a son" there is no way to wring out of that some kind of romantic relationship....at all.

Naomi repeatedly calls Ruth "daughter" and the book of Ruth repeatedly refers to their relationship as MIL and DIL. There is simply no "romantic" element anywhere. It's a family relationship. I'm sorry but it sounds like you are advocating for romantic relationships within families.

The Hebrew word "dabaq" for cleave there (I assume you mean in Ruth 1:14) is indeed the same word used for Eve cleaving unto Adam, but don't stop there. There are numerous other places it is used with zero implication of romantic love. It's also the same word used in.....

Deut. 28:21 “The LORD will make the pestilence cling (dabaq) to you until He has consumed you from the land where you are entering to possess it.

1 Samuel 14:22 When all the men of Israel who had hidden themselves in the hill country of Ephraim heard that the Philistines had fled, even they also pursued them closely (dabaq) in the battle.

2 Samuel 23:10 He arose and struck the Philistines until his hand was weary and clung (dabaq) to the sword, and the LORD brought about a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to strip the slain.

2 Kings 5:27 “Therefore, the leprosy of Naaman shall cling (dabaq) to you and to your descendants forever.” So he went out from his presence a leper as white as snow.

Psalm 22:15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves (dabaq) to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death.

So unless you also want to seriously imply some kind of romantic relationship of pestilence, men in battle, a sword, leprosy, and a dry tongue.....we know that the word doesn't even remotely exclusively mean romantic love.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Okay now to Jonathan and David. It says, “Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.“ sounds like they were soulmates. When Jonathan died, David was so distraught he said “My love to you was deeper than that of women”. On top of that, Jonathan stripped in front of David and the two of them kept making covenants, which sounds remotely like marriage covenants or marriage vows. When they made the covenant, it says, “ Now Jonathan again caused David to vow, because he loved him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul”. Saul was so mad at Jonathan that he lashed out at him at the dinner table and used Jonathan’s mother’s name in vain, like “son of a b’**”. It says “Then Saul’s anger was aroused against Jonathan, and he said to him, “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse (David) to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness? 31 For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, you shall not be established, nor your kingdom. Now therefore, send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die.” See, Saul knew about their relationship was more than friendship and disapproved. At the time, if Jonathan were gay, he couldnt have kids so no kids, no kingdom. Reminds me of those family dinners when gay people come out and they have to escape their parents’ wrath. Compare their story to Achilles and Patroclus, two greek gays where one also died in battle and Achilles did not want to bury Patroclus’s body and was mourning for him for days. Thats deep love.

Jonathan and David is the one place I've encountered so far that, to me, could reasonably be inferred as more than standard male friendship, quite obviously. It very well could be a homosexual or homoromantic relationship. As I've said, I'm interested in what's logical and reasonable, not to just negate everything without seriously looking at it. I have to add this to the list to get back to you about, because I'm already late as it is writing this.

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

So yes, lots of hints. But no matter, right? I think their love can be said as higher than any romantic sexual love. it can be more of a spiritual kind.

As for your question, I didnt answer because I didnt think it related to lgbtq but I’ll answer anyway. For the most part, I dont think it’s right because sex outside of marriage can lead to all kinds of confusion. Thats what marriage is for, but in today’s age, it seems like if people are divorcing at the same rate of getting married, that negates the importance of marriage. Now, proponents of same sex marriage say that marriage allows gays and lesbians the same opportunities (they can now wait to have sex within legal bounds of marriage! and on top of that, taxes and such). After all, God says that it’s not good for man to be alone and Paul said that it’s better for people to marry than burn with passion. So yes, very sad when homosexuals burn with passion and cant marry. You have to also look back when marriage was made. Did God marry Adam and Eve? Because it seems like they were sure getting it on as soon as they left that garden and they had no ceremony.

Okay, so you understand that sex outside of marriage isn't okay, which is the crux of the entire subject. The law can call same-sex marriage "marriage", but it certainly doesn't mean it's "marriage" in God's eyes. Every instance of marriage in Scripture is between a man and a woman. Adam and Eve. A man leaves his "father and mother" to be united to "his wife". Elders shall be "husbands of one wife". "Husbands love your wives". "Wives submit to your husbands."

In a homosexual relationship, who is the husband and who is the wife? Scripture repeatedly affirms the marriage relationship is between a married man and a woman, a husband and a wife. Sex outside of this arrangement is a sin, whether homosexual "legal marriage" or whether heterosexual committed couple living together but not married.

Regarding Adam and Eve getting it on, Matthew 19:6 says "...what God has joined together, let no one separate." In making Eve from Adam's side, and presenting her to Adam, God was the one who "joined them together"....so yes, they were married.

It's also sad when heterosexuals burn and can't marry either. As I've mentioned, I'm one of them. God's silent on that issue for me, and so I don't contradict scripture, and.....yeah.....suffer daily. Writing about burning while burning and writing about sexual relationships while wanting one is about the worst thing. I asked God just 30 minutes ago why He's put a burden in me to get into the weeds on such a sexually explicit subject when He seems to have left me in the dust on much of the things I have to write about here, but......what am I gonna do?

Originally Posted by SerenityLives

Now you can answer my rebuttal regarding Paul’s context for homosexuality.

I will. I have this on my mental list to respond to you about still. I also owe you a response on your masturbation question. I also owe you a response about the gospel question. I also owe you a response on Jonathan and David as I mentioned above. I really still owe you a response on more of the HuffPo article but I might have to let that go so I don't drown.

I will do my best to respond to some of these before next weekend, although it might not be until then, or even later. I literally have to write these on my lunch breaks or between eating dinner and packing lunches, etc....