Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Stinker said:Quote:
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.
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 said: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.
beechy said: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?
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.DevotiontoBible said: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).
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).DevotiontoBible said:By science that identifies humans as heterosexual (no homosexual species exist in nature).
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?DevotiontoBible said:Homosexuality violates God and God's nature. The nature of sex is to reproduce, that is it's essence.
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 said:If it were natural for humans to be homosexual then we would have some babies born from men's colons.
beechy said: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 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 ...)DevotiontoBible said: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 said: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.
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.DevotiontoBible said: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 said: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.
beechy said: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.
Are you speaking about gay men, or lesbians as well? Cite please ...DevotiontoBible said:Most homosexuals do not live past their fourties. only 1% live to old age.
beechy said:Are you speaking about gay men, or lesbians as well? Cite please ...
JesusFanClub said: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.
beechy said:Are you speaking about gay men, or lesbians as well? Cite please ...
beechy said: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?
Outrider said: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.
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?DevotiontoBible said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?