hi trapped,
You’ve mentioned that “
Ruth 4:15 clearly states that people know the son is Ruth’s
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.”
You have to know that the scripture is written by men, even the story of Ruth and Naomi, so of course, they’re gonna focus on the men’s relationships, hence why more details on relationship between david and jonathan than ruth and naomi.. but after their husbands died, are Ruth and Naomi still obligated to be daughter in law and mother in law? and you have to look at other examples of couples such as rebecca and isaac who were clearly genetically related whereas Ruth and Naomi were not. I’m not advocating for anything here. I’m taking the historical context of them (that incest between rebecca and iassac were okay at the time, that marrying within the family was okay at the time (naomi and boaz’s familial relationship, allowing Ruth to marry Boaz). And my point exactly, Ruth and Naomi’s son, whereas Boaz was just the sperm donor and doing his responsibility to carry on Naomi’s line.
In regards to dibaq, I understand that there are several non-sexual references throughout the bible but that does not negate the possibility of ruth and naomi’s relationship being of the first kind.
Ruth 1: 8-9 reads as follows: Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back, each of you, to your mother's home. May the LORD show kindness to you, as you have shown to your dead and to me. May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband."
Check this website:
http://wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/bi...uth_naomi.html
-Did you notice that Ruth is specifically turning down the opportunity to find another husband in order to follow Naomi?Their marriages would be arranged by family. Ruth would not have the ability to arrange such a marriage where she was going. There she would be dependent on the largess of others. By going away with Naomi, Ruth was giving up on any chance at a heterosexual relationship EXCEPT as a loose woman. And she was doing that in order to be with another woman. Ruth spoke those haunting words, “Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried,” she wasn’t talking about some theoretical distant future. She was giving voice to the very real possibility that her decision to place her life in the hands of another woman could result in death. The sensible thing would have been to allow Naomi to return to her family and for Ruth to return to hers. But Ruth didn’t do the sensible thing. She threw caution to the wind and went against every survival instinct. Only one word could explain her actions — love.
There is no doubt that this is the story of two women who were in love, who made vows, lived together for life and vowed to be together in death, loved each other deeply, adopted each other’s extended families as their own, and relied on each other for sustenance – as do many lesbian couples today. That the relationship was “blessed by God” can be seen not only from the fact that one of the books of the Bible is named Ruth, but the fact that the writer of the gospel of Mathew includes the name of Ruth as one of only four women named as he lists the genealogy of the 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus. When you read Ruth 3:1-5 Naomi is explaining how Ruth could seduce a man -- and seduction would come rather naturally to a heterosexual woman and would not need to be explained. Since it needed to be explained to Ruth, Ruth couldn't have been heterosexual. It was so low on her priorities that she never bothered to find out on her own, which would have been simple enough if she DID have the interest. As an older woman, Naomi would have had a harder time ignoring all the talk over her lifetime. So yes these are more hints of their love being more than familial love.
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 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
The problem is do we really know what God wants? but from what I’ve experienced from him, he gave me a wife and I’ve never been more at peace ever since. the neat thing about homosexual relationships is that it’s more equalitarian, my wife and I share our duties, we make it so one does not have to keep submitting to the other, which can lead to emotional abuse. we are both man and woman in our relationship. we love and we submit based on the situation and we communicate. Thats a healthy relationship in my book. And if God doesnt like a healthy relationship just because of the different genders, I truly dont know what to say. eother way, it seems like im doomed. married couples have more happiness and higher life expectancy (without divorce) because of companionship, it seems I cant have any to that thanks to your interpretation of God wants from me, biblically in marriage.
I’m sorry you have to endure burning of passions. i dont know what yor life situation is, but what I can say is if God if loving and righteous, he will lift that burden. no benevolent God would want you to suffer too long for something not of your own fault.
Take your time with the rest of the topics. I’ll be busy as well and will answer when free.