"...against nature:" Always a sin?

[artybloke]

You know, it's a funny thing. Whenever I read about the Bible being misinterpreted it's always the other guy who's doing the misinterpretation. Never the speaker.

Nobody ever seems to say, well, it could mean this, or it could mean that, I just don't know.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

But seriously -
Hate to bust your bubble there DtB - but I have seen w/ my two eyes two male animals having sex. Actually, I've seen it several times. It does happen.

What exactly have you seen that not even science has documented?

 

[Outrider]

You know, it's a funny thing. Whenever I read about the Bible being misinterpreted it's always the other guy who's doing the misinterpretation. Never the speaker.

Nobody ever seems to say, well, it could mean this, or it could mean that, I just don't know.

As with all controversies, either one party is wrong or both are wrong, but never are both right.

What if the Bible actually reveals ways in which it is to be interpreted? Does that solve the problem? Because if we consign the Bible to a relativistic paradigm of truth, that because the Bible is uninterpretable or because the of fact of variety in interpretation of it truth cannot be derived from it, the Bible becomes a meaningless and ineffective symbol of truth and nothing more. Take this discussion on "nature". Does the Bible have anything knowable to say about "nature" or "natural law", and, if it does, is it irrelevant because it is open to interpretation? If so, what is the alternative? Truth must be derived from human reason, which is an interpretation of reality based upon what is exposed to our senses (otherwise known as materialism). How do we know we are interpreting reality correctly through our senses? Do we fill in the gaps that our senses are not perceiving and, if so, with what mental material? Is it the right stuff or the wrong?

So we say "nature" is what happens in the physical world. Anything that happens in event or behaviour among plants, animals, men, or minerals is "natural". This is just another of saying that all things are because they are, which is an existential statement. "Nature" is undefinable if there is nothing that falls outside of whatever nature is, something that we look at and say, that is "unnatural" or that is "not of nature". Male animals may have sex or go through the motions of having sex, but how does one categorize this behaviour? If "nature" is anything that is happening in the physical universe, male dogs having sex or going through the motions is natural, but what does that say. One might as well say dogs fit into the category of reality. A category is only a category if there is an alternate category to which each can be compared and contrasted. If, on the other hand, it is unnatural for male dogs to behave in this manner toward one another, then there must be a standard of normalcy. Homosexual behaviour may be normal among those who do it, probably is. It may be abnormal among those who don't, probably is. If homosexuality is "unnatural" or "abnormal" then the standard must come from outside the paradigm of both the homosexual and the heterosexual, in fact, it must come from outside the human race.

Truth must be revealed to mankind or it cannot be known. It must come from an alien source. If we believe that God is the source and revealer of truth, we must also believe that his revelation is clear and interpretable. If we are confronted with problems in various interpretation, we must not believe that God is to blame for making his word unclear, but that we are to blame for being unable or unwilling to see it has he reveals it. The problem with interpretation is always that we approach the Bible assuming that we have the intellectual facility to understand it. But God designed the Bible in such a way that it cannot be understood unless it is taught to us by God himself. Interpretation cannot be arrived at by unaided reason. Faith and humility are required. Where these are present, the Holy Spirit teaches and understanding and interpretation begin to unfold.

 

[GutterRat]

What exactly have you seen that not even science has documented?

Two male dogs going at it like newly weds on their honeymoon night!

I've also seen two male horses doing the same.

 

[artybloke]

What if the Bible actually reveals ways in which it is to be interpreted?

What if it doesn't? I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says that you have to interpret it this way or that way, except for the limitations of whatever genre it is (ie a poem is interpreted as a poem, a prophecy as a prophecy etc.)

Take this discussion on "nature". Does the Bible have anything knowable to say about "nature" or "natural law", and, if it does, is it irrelevant because it is open to interpretation?

No it doesn't have anything knowable to say about "natural law." "Natural law" is a philosophical concept inherited from Platonism. "Natural" for St Paul was "what everybody did," not some extrabiblical metaphysical concept.

How do we know we are interpreting reality correctly through our senses?

We don't. But it's the best we've got. Whose version of "God told me to say this" should I believe? Yours or the Pope's or mine?

If "nature" is anything that is happening in the physical universe, male dogs having sex or going through the motions is natural, but what does that say.

Doesn't say anything. Basic philosophical concept #101: "Is" does not equal "ought." But it also doesn't equal "oughtn't."

Now tell me again, why is your interpretation better than mine and why should I trust your way of reading better than my own?

As with all controversies, either one party is wrong or both are wrong, but never are both right.

Do you know the parable of Scrodinger's Cat?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Two male dogs going at it like newly weds on their honeymoon night!

I've also seen two male horses doing the same.

There is no such thing as what you claim to have seen. There have never been sexual intercourse between two male dogs or horses penetrating each other like "newly weds" ever documented. Only two male humans do that unnatural act. You have no credibility with your claim.

 

[artybloke]

This good enough for you?

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

 

[GutterRat]

There is no such thing as what you claim to have seen. There have never been sexual intercourse between two male dogs or horses penetrating each other like "newly weds" ever documented. Only two male humans do that unnatural act. You have no credibility with your claim.

Wow - calling me a liar. But if I was some scientist then you would believe me? Well, you have just lost your credibility.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

This good enough for you?

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

No, Not one scientific shred of homosexual observation.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Wow - calling me a liar. But if I was some scientist then you would believe me? Well, you have just lost your credibility.

You should know this forums rules for substantiating claims.

 

[artybloke]

No, Not one scientific shred of homosexual observation.

What, yoy mean you'll onlt accept it if gays are doing the watchibg?

 

[GutterRat]

You should know this forums rules for substantiating claims.

You wanted me to take a picture?

Nobody is allowed to post what they wittnessed unless they take a pic?

 

[GutterRat]

No, Not one scientific shred of homosexual observation.

Well - let's see a link then? Where is YOUR "scientific" proof?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Well - let's see a link then? Where is YOUR "scientific" proof?

The none existance of homosexual animals doesn't have scientific proof just like you can't have scientific proof that leprechauns don't exist. You have to have proof that they do if you make that claim. You can't measure what doesn't exist.

 

[artybloke]

You have to have proof

Proof is for maths & alcohol. What we have is evidence. Now where's yours?

 

[Outrider]

What if it doesn't? I don't see anywhere in the Bible that says that you have to interpret it this way or that way, except for the limitations of whatever genre it is (ie a poem is interpreted as a poem, a prophecy as a prophecy etc.)

Maybe you just missed that part in the Bible. Is that possible?

No it doesn't have anything knowable to say about "natural law." "Natural law" is a philosophical concept inherited from Platonism. "Natural" for St Paul was "what everybody did," not some extrabiblical metaphysical concept.

Just making the statement does not make it so. I find the Bible holding a definition of natural law. Strange that you missed that too. Could it be that your flaw in biblical interpretation is that you read too fast or too infrequently?

We don't. But it's the best we've got.

Then we have stepped outside of a Christian discussion and into a relativistic one. The Christian approaches the Bible assuming that every word of it is true.

Whose version of "God told me to say this" should I believe? Yours or the Pope's or mine?

The Holy Spirit’s. Interpretation comes through his exegesis.

Doesn't say anything. Basic philosophical concept #101: "Is" does not equal "ought." But it also doesn't equal "oughtn't."

True. But what is definitely leads to the discussion of ought.

Now tell me again, why is your interpretation better than mine and why should I trust your way of reading better than my own?

Mine compares Scripture with Scripture. Yours Compares Scripture with human reason.

Do you know the parable of Scrodinger's Cat?

Scrodinger’s Cat is both dead and alive. I’m not making the connection between interpretation and Quantum Physics. Sorry.

 

[artybloke]

I find the Bible holding a definition of natural law. Strange that you missed that too.

And exactly where would that definition be? I await enlightenment.

Mine compares Scripture with Scripture. Yours Compares Scripture with human reason.

No, you've already decided what you want scripture to mean.

Scrodinger’s Cat is both dead and alive. I’m not making the connection between interpretation and Quantum Physics. Sorry.

Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive because we don't know which one it is. When we open the box, it becomes either dead or alive. We don't and can't know the full context of scripture, so two interpretations can be right and wrong at the same time. Capiche?

The Holy Spirit’s. Interpretation comes through his exegesis

And whose Holy Spirit would that be? Yours? Mine? The Pope's? etc...

 

[Outrider]

And exactly where would that definition be? I await enlightenment.

First, in the origin of nature, the words of God. Then in his assessment of nature in its pristine form, it was good. Then in his indictment of nature after the Fall, it was “corrupt”. The Curse upon the earth is of divine origin. It is embedded in the very laws of nature so that the universe is in a turmoil. Nature is connect to the moral state of mankind. There is much Scripture to support this doctrine, but one need not leave the book of Romans. If Paul states that the deviant behaviour of humans who suppress the truth in unrighteousness is against nature, he goes on to describe nature in a non-Platonic manner:
Romans 8:18-25 (ESV)
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. [19] For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. [20] For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
[21] that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. [22] For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. [23] And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. [24] For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? [25] But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
The universe is not in its original “natural” state. That state is tied to God’s assessment of the original world order, it was good. Since the Fall deviancy has continually manifested itself on earth. Homosexuality is one such deviancy.

No, you've already decided what you want scripture to mean.

I do not accept that truth is what every individual believes it to be. Truth is independent of human existence and epistemology and since God is its author, he is able and willing to clearly reveal it. If I compare Scripture with Scripture, I am not deciding what Scripture means. I am allowing God to be his own commentator on the book he has written.

I suspect you would like to say God did not write the Bible, but that it is a product of human invention. Is that true? If it is, we are on two different wave lengths (and we are on two different wave lengths). I believe the Bible to be God’s revealed word, all true and trustworthy. On that supposition, truth is revealed, not arrested. Revealed truth is the only way past the dilemma of individual interpretation. Any other view is relativistic futility. No truth can be known, at all. How do you know your own mind? For that matter, how do you know you exist?

Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive because we don't know which one it is. When we open the box, it becomes either dead or alive. We don't and can't know the full context of scripture, so two interpretations can be right and wrong at the same time. Capiche?

I understand perfectly that the above post is utter nonsense. A philosophy based upon contradictions is mental suicide, i.e. insanity. It is an escape from reality, not an assessment of reality. A cat cannot be both dead and alive. Something cannot be both right and wrong. And a living cat that is alive is in no way connected to a right that is wrong. A child can see through such equivocation.

And whose Holy Spirit would that be? Yours? Mine? The Pope's? etc...

Because the Holy Spirit does not belong to me, you, or the pope, he is free to effectually relay truth to man. Do you doubt his power to teach truth? I sense you lack what is the essential ingredient in my wavelength... faith.

 

[saami]

Rational observation shows that heterosexuality is the natural use of the body. As I have stated before: can you show me one baby who was ever born out of a man's colon? Why? because heterosexuality is the orientation of human sexuality, sponges are autosexual, earthworms are bisexual. There is no such thing as a homosexual orientation.

No babies being born out of colons is proof that homosexuality doesn't exist? LOL
It only proves that there are no eggs in the colon - that PROCREATION won't happen - but procreation is not the only reason for sexuality.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Proof is for maths & alcohol. What we have is evidence. Now where's yours?

You don't even have evidence. What you have is conjecture. Just because the moon looks like it has holes does not mean it is made out of cheese. Likewise, just because animals appear to have same sex activity does not mean they are homosexual.