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

[jasperbound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by: Stinker

It appears that you do not understand that God placed this sexual desire in us. In a perfect world, the man whose psychology-emotion is also male, is sexually attracted to the female whose psychology-emotions are also female. It is just too bad that this is not a perfect world.


You know, I made a mistake in my post. I put the word 'this' instead of the word 'the' in the first sentence! It made the sentence say that I was gay when I am not! But you know what? It brought out how irrationally aggressive you are on this issue jasperbound! To deny that God placed the sex-drive in his creation.

I'm not denying a single thing. Show me. Show me where I deny that the sex-drive is natural (also, I have to ask, when you say God placed it in us, do you also mean all the perversions that are sexual in nature?). Please. Otherwise, quit placing words in my mouth. Christians should be more honest than that.

 

[beechy]

I'll concede my "homosexuality is against nature" stance if you can provide one instance of a baby being born out of a man's colon.

What would that prove? Where in "nature" does it say that a measure of whether an act is "natural" is whether it produces a baby?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

What would that prove? Where in "nature" does it say that a measure of whether an act is "natural" is whether it produces a baby?

By the Creator of nature Himself who say's people who change the natural heterosexual use of sex to homosexual is against nature (Rom 1:26,27). By science that identifies humans as heterosexual (no homosexual species exist in nature). Homosexuality violates God and God's nature. The nature of sex is to reproduce, that is it's essence. If it were natural for humans to be homosexual then we would have some babies born from men's colons.

 

[beechy]

By the Creator of nature Himself who say's people who change the natural heterosexual use of sex to homosexual is against nature (Rom 1:26,27).

Examination of the original Greek words for "natural" (physin) and "unnatural" (para physin) in Romans 1:26-27 reveals that the passage likely doesn't assert that men and women were somehow violating the laws of nature, but rather that they were going against their own nature, or what is customary or expected. Being "para physin" (unnatural) isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, as God went against the nature of the olive tree in Romans 11:24 when He grafted the wild olive branches into the good olive tree. Romans 11:24 uses the same Greek words "para" for "natural" and "para physin" for "unnatural" that were used in Romans 1.

I read this passage as being about an idolatrous group of people (Romans 1:21-24), that God punished by "[giving] them over to their shameful lusts". (Romans 1:25-27, NIV).

Sexually immorality was expressly defined as giving into one's lust in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 which states, "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you." The nature of these lusts is not specified as being same sex lusts, but rather simply "the passion of lust" in general (See 1 Thess. 4:5).

Why would one assign special relevance to the fact this group's particular lusts happened to be between people of the same sex? Seems to me, what was bad about what the people were doing was that they were shamefully acting "in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God," rather than controlling their bodies in "holiness and honor". See again, 1 Thess. 4:3-6. If this same group had not controlled their bodies and engaged lustful sex in opposite sex combinations, it still would have been acting on their shameful lust in violation of 1 Thess. 4:3-6, wouldn't it?

By science that identifies humans as heterosexual (no homosexual species exist in nature).

What do you mean "no homosexual species exist in nature"? How about the two male chinstrap penguins at the New York Central Park Zoo which display classic pair bonding behavior and have sex with each other? Or the wild male flamingos which have been observed to mate, build nests and raise foster chicks? Or the African bonobo ape -- a species which is virtually 100% bisexual and which egngages in sex which, 75% of the time, is nonreproductive. (See the same National Geographic article linked to in connection with the penguins, above, for info regarding the flamingos and bonobos: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html).

Homosexuality violates God and God's nature. The nature of sex is to reproduce, that is it's essence.

On what do you base this statement? On what do you base your conclusion that sex may not be had for any other purpose than to reproduce?

If it were natural for humans to be homosexual then we would have some babies born from men's colons.

I still don't understand what you base this statement on -- just because a certain proportion of the population may be homosexual doesn't mean that those people are "unnatural". Again, why does sex have to be about procreation all the time and for everyone? Where is this written in "natural law"? What is "natural law" anyway?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Examination of the original Greek words for "natural" (physin) and "unnatural" (para physin) in Romans 1:26-27 reveals that the passage likely doesn't assert that men and women were somehow violating the laws of nature, but rather that they were going against their own nature, or what is customary or expected. Being "para physin" (unnatural) isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, as God went against the nature of the olive tree in Romans 11:24 when He grafted the wild olive branches into the good olive tree. Romans 11:24 uses the same Greek words "para" for "natural" and "para physin" for "unnatural" that were used in Romans 1.

I read this passage as being about an idolatrous group of people (Romans 1:21-24), that God punished by "[giving] them over to their shameful lusts". (Romans 1:25-27, NIV).

Sexually immorality was expressly defined as giving into one's lust in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6 which states, "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you." The nature of these lusts is not specified as being same sex lusts, but rather simply "the passion of lust" in general (See 1 Thess. 4:5).

Why would one assign special relevance to the fact this group's particular lusts happened to be between people of the same sex? Seems to me, what was bad about what the people were doing was that they were shamefully acting "in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God," rather than controlling their bodies in "holiness and honor". See again, 1 Thess. 4:3-6. If this same group had not controlled their bodies and engaged lustful sex in opposite sex combinations, it still would have been acting on their shameful lust in violation of 1 Thess. 4:3-6, wouldn't it?

What do you mean "no homosexual species exist in nature"? How about the two male chinstrap penguins at the New York Central Park Zoo which display classic pair bonding behavior and have sex with each other? Or the wild male flamingos which have been observed to mate, build nests and raise foster chicks? Or the African bonobo ape -- a species which is virtually 100% bisexual and which egngages in sex which, 75% of the time, is nonreproductive. (See the same National Geographic article linked to in connection with the penguins, above, for info regarding the flamingos and bonobos: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html).

On what do you base this statement? On what do you base your conclusion that sex may not be had for any other purpose than to reproduce?

I still don't understand what you base this statement on -- just because a certain proportion of the population may be homosexual doesn't mean that those people are "unnatural". Again, why does sex have to be about procreation all the time and for everyone? Where is this written in "natural law"? What is "natural law" anyway?

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you because you are changing what is written into what is not written. You are changing "against nature" into "in harmony with nature". You are also changing unsubstantiated claims about animals being gay into conclusive proof. There have been no same sex animals scientifically observed copulating.

 

[beechy]

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you because you are changing what is written into what is not written. You are changing "against nature" into "in harmony with nature". You are also changing unsubstantiated claims about animals being gay into conclusive proof. There have been no same sex animals scientifically observed copulating.

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you because you make sweeping claims, like I am "changing what is written into what is not written" without explaining what you mean. I didn't change anything. With respect to my discussion of Romans 1, I cited to the (written) Bible, and to references regarding what the original (written) Greek words were in the relevant passages (are you contending that "para physin" and "physin" did not appear in the Greek text? References please ...)

As for your claim that I am changing "against nature" into "in harmony with nature," I must confess that I don't know what you mean. Once again, how do you define "against nature"? What does that statement mean for you, generally speaking? What have I done to "change" your definition of "against nature" into "in harmony with nature"?

Finally, with respect to my "changing unsubstantiated claims about animals being gay into conclusive proof," I don't know what better cite I can give you than National Geographic. I haven't "changed" a thing, I just cited to an article. If you click on the link and read it, the article expressly says the male penguins, flamingos, etc. have sex with each other. I suppose the article could be based on lies, but we're operating within the bounds of an online forum here. Unless you and I go out into the field and observe this ourselves, what better can we do than to cite to online reports and news articles? Is it your experience that National Geographic is a trash publication that is not to be trusted? Would additional cites to varying sources help?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Examination of the original Greek words for "natural" (physin) and "unnatural" (para physin) in Romans 1:26-27 reveals that the passage likely doesn't assert that men and women were somehow violating the laws of nature, but rather that they were going against their own nature, or what is customary or expected. Being "para physin" (unnatural) isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, as God went against the nature of the olive tree in Romans 11:24 when He grafted the wild olive branches into the good olive tree. Romans 11:24 uses the same Greek words "para" for "natural" and "para physin" for "unnatural" that were used in Romans 1.

There is a difference in context between how "against nature" is used in Rom 1 and Rom 11. In Rom 1 the context is men condemned by God for actually doing it (against nature), in Ch 11 it is God doing good by it metaphorically.

 

[beechy]

There is a difference in context between how "against nature" is used in Rom 1 and Rom 11. In Rom 1 the context is men condemned by God for actually doing it (against nature), in Ch 11 it is God doing good by it metaphorically.

That's right -- exchanging natural for unnatural can be good or it can be bad. So the natural v. unnatural distinction in and of itself is not necessarily a value judgment, since God went made unnatural use of the olive tree in Romans 11:24, and it was a good thing.

In Romans 1, men are not condemned by God for going against nature, but rather for their idolatry. (See Rom 1:21-23). God punishes them for their idolatrous ways by allowing them to give in to their lusts in such a way that they exchange their natural lusts for unnatural ones. (See Rom 1:24-27). The Bible expressly says that lusting is bad. (1 Thess 4:3-6). If the people in Romans 1 were naturally heterosexual, God's punishment has an extra sting if not only are they going to sinfully act on their lusts but they're going to do it in a way that goes against their nature.

 

[Outrider]

Please excuse me if I am reiterating what someone else has already interjected, but it seems to me that the passage in the OP needs to be understood in something other than that of modern definitions, nuances and categories. "Nature" is not understood in this passage as we understand it on this side of the development of naturalism, that is, as an impersonal biosphere or an environment that is ordered by its own laws. "Nature" must be understood biblically in order to exegete this passage properly. Man sees "nature" on this side of the Fall, but God, the inspirer of Scripture, sees "nature" from all angles and understands nature with divine purpose. In order to get some clue as to the biblical definition of "nature" we must look into the divine meanings behind creation. Natural laws, after all, are not authonomous, but are made intrinsic in radice, that is, they function at their root because God has ascribed to them their functions. A planet does not have a gravitational field because it is a necessary product of mass. Gravitation is only a product of mass because God has spoken the law into the matter and caused it to "lodge" in matter intrinsically. Nature, therefore, must be seen under God, not apart from him as some separate principle "for in him all things consist".

Paul never sees nature apart from God, nor does he define nature as an order that is only subject to human reason. Nature goes deeper than that, into the divine counsels where God decreed to man at creation, "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and have dominion over it". Homosexuality is against nature for that very reason, it denies the divine purposes of creation. It is sterile, unable to reproduce, has no power to fill the earth and is animistic, lowering the human psyche and soul to the level of beasts, not exalted above the lower order but an imitation of it (which is why Paul depicts it as following the worship of animals), an attempt to satisfy a drive without bearing fruit, a lie against the image of God and his relationship to his people. This is against nature as God has revealed the natural order to be in creation.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

That's right -- exchanging natural for unnatural can be good or it can be bad. So the natural v. unnatural distinction in and of itself is not necessarily a value judgment, since God went made unnatural use of the olive tree in Romans 11:24, and it was a good thing.

God did not make unnatural use of the olive tree, it is a metaphore.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

In Romans 1, men are not condemned by God for going against nature, but rather for their idolatry. (See Rom 1:21-23). God punishes them for their idolatrous ways by allowing them to give in to their lusts in such a way that they exchange their natural lusts for unnatural ones. (See Rom 1:24-27). The Bible expressly says that lusting is bad. (1 Thess 4:3-6). If the people in Romans 1 were naturally heterosexual, God's punishment has an extra sting if not only are they going to sinfully act on their lusts but they're going to do it in a way that goes against their nature.

God condemns them for both idolatry and homosexuality
Notice the emphasis is on the homosexual act not the lust:
Rom 1:26-28 "women changed the natural use...and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman...men with men working unseemliness,...to do those things which are not fitting;"

Rom 1 says homosexuals purposely choose to have kooky mixed up ideas about God's character which in turn leads to homosexuality and then the ultimate end...the punishment they receive in their bodys. Most homosexuals do not live past their fourties. only 1% live to old age.

 

[beechy]

Most homosexuals do not live past their fourties. only 1% live to old age.

Are you speaking about gay men, or lesbians as well? Cite please ...

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Are you speaking about gay men, or lesbians as well? Cite please ...

I left my sources at home for this but it is a bleak picture. The mortality for lesbians is better than gay men but not as good as heterosexual men and women.

 

[JesusFanClub]

If something is 'against nature' then it is 'unnatural.' The problem I have is that anything to do with nature suggest some kind of evolution i.e it happens or evolves without obvious influence. If man was 'created' and differnces occur, how can this be unnatural as it is a form of creation with Gods influence.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

If something is 'against nature' then it is 'unnatural.' The problem I have is that anything to do with nature suggest some kind of evolution i.e it happens or evolves without obvious influence. If man was 'created' and differnces occur, how can this be unnatural as it is a form of creation with Gods influence.

Homosexuality "evovled" as a result of the devils influence, not God's. It is a corruption of God's nature.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Are you speaking about gay men, or lesbians as well? Cite please ...

The Family Research Newletter, April-June 1991 say's only 1% of homosexuals die of old age and less than 3% of all homosexuals today are over the age of 55.
The median age of homosexual men dying from all other causes than AIDS is 42, with AIDS is 39. The median age of lesbians at death is 45.
RS Hogg, el al, Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men say's the best gays could hope for is a life expectancy comparable to that for males living in 1871.


Romans 1:26-27 (NLT)
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. [27] And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

 

[Outrider]

Finally, with respect to my "changing unsubstantiated claims about animals being gay into conclusive proof," I don't know what better cite I can give you than National Geographic. I haven't "changed" a thing, I just cited to an article. If you click on the link and read it, the article expressly says the male penguins, flamingos, etc. have sex with each other. I suppose the article could be based on lies, but we're operating within the bounds of an online forum here. Unless you and I go out into the field and observe this ourselves, what better can we do than to cite to online reports and news articles? Is it your experience that National Geographic is a trash publication that is not to be trusted? Would additional cites to varying sources help?

I found this to be an excellent example of the misunderstanding of the biblical usage of the word nature as I explained it in my above post. Beechyis taking as "natural" what events are taking place in this world (homosexuality among animals, which I have witnessed in dogs occasionally) as being the "nature" (phusin) of the New Testament, but it is not. It is against nature, biblically. What is "nature" in the Bible is what was originally established by God, but we see the the consequence of the Fall brought about corruption in "all flesh" including animals. We may say something is "natural" because it is observed in "nature", but that does make it natural in the eyes of God who created all "nature" and declared it very goo before the Fall, then declared it corrupt (a departure from his pristine order) after sin had entered the world. We must define "nature" as it is revealed in Scripture, not lay on Scripture our own definitions. To do so is eisegetical and therefore unexeptable usage of Scripture. Once again, "nature" in Romans 1 is not this fallen world order that we call "natural". "Nature" is creation as it was intended by God at the point of creation.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

I found this to be an excellent example of the misunderstanding of the biblical usage of the word nature as I explained it in my above post. Beechyis taking as "natural" what events are taking place in this world (homosexuality among animals, which I have witnessed in dogs occasionally) as being the "nature" (phusin) of the New Testament, but it is not. It is against nature, biblically. What is "nature" in the Bible is what was originally established by God, but we see the the consequence of the Fall brought about corruption in "all flesh" including animals. We may say something is "natural" because it is observed in "nature", but that does make it natural in the eyes of God who created all "nature" and declared it very goo before the Fall, then declared it corrupt (a departure from his pristine order) after sin had entered the world. We must define "nature" as it is revealed in Scripture, not lay on Scripture our own definitions. To do so is eisegetical and therefore unexeptable usage of Scripture. Once again, "nature" in Romans 1 is not this fallen world order that we call "natural". "Nature" is creation as it was intended by God at the point of creation.

None of these so-called "homosexaul animal" studies have any scientific documentation of observed male-male sexual penetration and copulation. Every pro gay post only posts the link to the National Geographic site as thought that is the end of the argument for their nonesense on this point. Anyone with a third grade reading level can read the reports on the Bonobos monkey's or the gay sheep study and others and see no actual homosexual intercourse occurs in animals.

 

[Outrider]

None of these so-called "homosexaul animal" studies have any scientific documentation of observed male-male sexual penetration and copulation. Every pro gay post only posts the link to the National Geographic site as thought that is the end of the argument for their nonesense on this point. Anyone with a third grade reading level can read the reports on the Bonobos monkey's or the gay sheep study and others and see no actual homosexual intercourse occurs in animals.

That may be true, but does it really matter? What if "homosexual" behavior did occur in animals, what case does the homosexual community have? That nature backs up their behavior? Perhaps, if one is attempting to build an argument from evolutionary mythology, but it can in no way be set forth as an argument from the Christian faith or from the Scriptures. If all flesh is corrupt, then all of nature has departed from nature and it shouldn't surprise us to see animals doing abominable things. In fact, don't we? What can be more abominable than eating rotting flesh and yet there are animals whose whole lives are devoted to this repast. If nature, according to God, entails physical beings living perpetually, carrion eaters are a against nature. Its important to distinguish between "nature" after the Fall that includes sin and nature from creation and eternal heaven that does not. It is also important to understand which kind of nature is being dealt with in the Bible, particularly in the text before us.

 

[beechy]

None of these so-called "homosexaul animal" studies have any scientific documentation of observed male-male sexual penetration and copulation. Every pro gay post only posts the link to the National Geographic site as thought that is the end of the argument for their nonesense on this point. Anyone with a third grade reading level can read the reports on the Bonobos monkey's or the gay sheep study and others and see no actual homosexual intercourse occurs in animals.

First, the National Geographic article regarding the male penguins in the New York zoo say they have sex. Second, I am not linking to the National Geographic article as an "end of the argument," and offered to link to other sites as well. The main reason I linked to any article at all is because forum rules require a citation when you're talking about homosexuality (something you'd best observe in order to keep this thread from getting shut down -- happens a lot around here, FYI). That said, I don't understand why you are eager to dismiss this particular article -- do you think it is lying? Do you have cites to conflicting evidence showing that the male penguins at the Central Park zoo are not having sex with each other? Again, I linked to this article because I thought National Geographic was a well respected publication. Do you disagree?

Anyway, if it helps, here's another article (not National Geographic) about a German zoo that recently imported 4 female penguins because DNA tests found that 3 of the zoo's 5 penguin pairs were homosexual. The tests had been ordered by the zoo after the penguin pairs hadn't produced any chicks after years of mating and sitting on rocks they pretended were eggs. And here are some more articles about that zoo: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4264913.stm. And another: http://www.longislandpress.com/?cp=54&show=article&a_id=651.

As for bonobo monkeys, this webpage from a site maintained by Dr. Dennis On'Neil, Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College, San Marcos, California, expressly says that "both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse are common" among bonobo monkeys. Female to female genital rubbing has been well documented in the bonobo community -- would you not consider this homosexual behavior if it were observed between humans? This primate sanctuary in South Africa also reports on homosexual sex in monkeys.

Now, I am not suggesting that the fact that homosexual behavior is exhibited in the wild means that it is somehow morally acceptable. Lots of things happen in the wild that we don't consider acceptable for human society -- like infanticide and cannibalism. I was simply responding to DevotiontoBible's statement that intimate same-sex behavior does not exist in the animal kingdom.