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

[DevotiontoBible]

Except that you and I disagree as to what the scriptures say and mean, especially as to what "nature" is (e.g., can animals act "unnaturally"), and whether it is a bad thing in and of itself to be "unnatural" (like the grafted olive tree branch). We probably don't need to rehash the merits of these arguments, but that's where you and I part ways.

You think Paul is saying these people are doing a good thing to deserve a penalty? Reason concludes it is a bad thing. Therefore, unnatural sex is a bad thing. It is unreasonable to conclude that homosexuality is a good thing from the context.

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.

 

[beechy]

You think Paul is saying these people are doing good thing to deserve a penalty? Reason concludes it is a bad thing. Therefore, unnatural sex is a bad thing. It is unreasonable to conclude that homosexuality is a good thing from the context.

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.

You and I have been through this in another (now closed) thread and I hate to derail this one ... especially since I think it is unlikely that we'll reach any sort of agreement. Again, I think Paul is absolutely saying people did bad things like "exchange the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Rom 1:23). I read the passage as about the sin of idolatry (Rom 1:21-23), and how God punished those idolatrous people by allowing them to give in to their lustful desires in contravention of 1 Thess 4:3-6, highlighted by such lusts being for people of the same sex whom these individuals would not naturally lust after (Rom 1:24-26). Do you really think it is productive for us to rehash this argument? I submit that we agree to disagree -- you can pray for me, and I'll pray for you.

 

[beechy]

That is why the physical universe will never contradict it's creator who said through the scriptures that homosexuality is against nature. Therefore, sound reason will conclude the same.

Also, even assuming for sake of argument that your interpretation of Romans 1 is correct and women and men acting on their lusts for one another is condemnably "against nature," where does it say that animals engaged in same-sex sexual activity are also "against nature"? Since when do men and animals have the same "nature" or occupy the same "natural" behaviors, desires, etc. by Biblical or any other standards?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

You and I have been through this in another (now closed) thread and I hate to derail this one ... especially since I think it is unlikely that we'll reach any sort of agreement. Again, I think Paul is absolutely saying people did bad things like "exchange the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Rom 1:23). I read the passage as about the sin of idolatry (Rom 1:21-23), and how God punished those idolatrous people by allowing them to give in to their lustful desires in contravention of 1 Thess 4:3-6, highlighted by such lusts being for people of the same sex whom these individuals would not naturally lust after (Rom 1:24-26). Do you really think it is productive for us to rehash this argument? I submit that we agree to disagree -- you can pray for me, and I'll pray for you.

You are misreading the sentence on purpose.

"Romans 1:27 (NLT)
Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

They deserved a penalty as a result of the shameful things men did with other men. There is no qualifyer as to what kind of lust or what kind of religious practice. It is homosexuality itself as the unnormal lust as from the previous sentence:
Romans 1:27 (NLT)
And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

I read the passage as about the sin of idolatry (Rom 1:21-23), .

All homosexuality is a result of idolatry because the homosexual has a messed up theology to begin with:

Romans 1:21 (NLT)
...And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused.

 

[beechy]

You are misreading the sentence on purpose.

"Romans 1:27 (NLT)
Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

They deserved a penalty as a result of the shameful things men did with other men. There is no qualifyer as to what kind of lust or what kind of religious practice. It is homosexuality itself as the unnormal lust as from the previous sentence:
Romans 1:27 (NLT)
And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other.

God gave them over to shameful lusts BECAUSE they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. (Rom 1:25-26). They lusted for each other, gave into that lust, and suffered for it. You praying for me yet?

 

[beechy]

All homosexuality is a result of idolatry because the homosexual has a messed up theology to begin with:

Romans 1:21 (NLT)
...And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused.

Ok, DtB. You know I and others disagree with your reading, just as there are many that agree with it. I'm glad for you, however, that you feel so clear and perfect in your understanding.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

where does it say that animals engaged in same-sex sexual activity are also "against nature"?

It doesn't because animals don't act like they are mating with same sex partners as humans do. As has been shown in this thread there have been no male animals observed performing anal sex intromissions with each other or performing felatio on each other. Neither have female animals been observed inserting things into each other or performing [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] on each other.

 

[beechy]

It doesn't because animals don't act like they are mating with same sex partners as humans do. As has been shown in this thread there have been no male animals observed performing anal sex intromissions with each other or performing felatio on each other. Neither have female animals been observed inserting things into each other or performing [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] on each other.

So female [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is animals "acting like they're mating" and females inserting things into each other is "acting like they're mating," and no other activities between females of a species counts as sexual activity? Males engaging in anal penetration or oral sex are the only things that constitute two males "acting like they're mating" and everything else between them is ok, or not sexual in nature? Where in the world are you getting these ideas?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

So female [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is animals "acting like they're mating" and females inserting things into each other is "acting like they're mating," and no other activities between females of a species counts as sexual activity? Males engaging in anal penetration or oral sex are the only things that constitute two males "acting like they're mating" and everything else between them is ok, or not sexual in nature? Where in the world are you getting these ideas?

The Bible has no need to address something that doesn't exist in nature like space aliens, leprechauns, and homosexual animals.

 

[GutterRat]

The Bible has no need to address something that doesn't exist in nature like space aliens, leprechauns, and homosexual animals.

As for the leprechauns - he lied to me! I'm still waiting on my pot of gold.

Aliens? Well- I won't talk about what they did to me because of the chip they planted in my teeth.

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.

 

[beechy]

The Bible has no need to address something that doesn't exist in nature like space aliens, leprechauns, and homosexual animals.

And when I'm hungry, some times I like to eat a Big Mac. What in the world does Biblical reference to leprechauns have to do with your personal ideas about what does and does not constitute sexual activity? There are a lot of things the Bible doesn't address, and it doesn't mean they don't exist -- like Yosemite Valley and angler fish. Why do you think it makes a lick of difference whether girl monkeys engage in sexual activity with each other? What would this mean for humans and how God wants us to behave?

 

[beechy]

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.

I'm still mystified as to why he thinks it matters! What do animal sexual behaviors have to do with God's prescription for human morality???

 

[Outrider]

And what of the country's Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Confucian, Mormon, atheist, and agnostic citizens? Would you suggest they choose from among the following options: convert, deal with it (i.e., accept it even if you don't like it), or move?

I don't understand your point. I said that our nation should be consulting God on governance, not as a religious act, but as the proper response to the existence of God and his sovereignty over men and nations. I did not speak to how this should take place, only that it should. If indeed the Bible is God's revealed word, should not all nations, classes of people, ethnic groups and individuals consult it or is it a religious book for a select group of people of a certain epistomological bent? Should all of mankind consult their true God or should they not?

 

[Outrider]

The American founders were wise not have policies pass a Biblical litmus test. Why, because of the religious persecution that results from powers that misinterpret it. Our fathers witnessed the persecution of a state run church.

So, then, because of the sinfulness of men, men should not consult the word of God? Excuse me, but is it not the word of God that overcomes the hearts of sinful men? And if it is true that magistrates will misinterpret the Bible in the making of policy, how well are they doing through the interpretation of their own reason? Once again, I do not suggest that the state should become religious in nature and the fact that many interpret that consultation of the Bible is an exclusively religious act reveals that the point has not been taken. The Bible does not stand above every book in the world so that it can be ignored, but so that it will be the first book consulted in all areas of life. The Bible is not responsible for the persecution of state run churches. Men were responsible for that. And the Bible does not misinterpret itself. Men do that. It does not solve the problem of sickness to take away the medicine that cures it just because there are foolish people who do not read the instructions to find out what dosage should be taken only to replace it with sure poison in small doses.

 

[Outrider]

From the above discussion, I doubt that it is possible to resove the homosexual issue without reference to the Bible for definitions of natural law. What will happen, as in all discussions of this sort be they homosexuality, abortion, cloning, euthenasia, is that the Christian side will propose a case based on a quasi-Christian version of pragmatism, what works or does not work in society. The opposition will counter with an autonomous theory of pragmatism based on evolutionary determinism (naturalism or materialism). Both will bring their experts to the table. Because neither can break the case of the other (because both are arguing from the same false set of presuppositions) both will pat themselves on the back thinking they have given it their best show. Each camp's issues will stay at home and will have no effect on the other camp.

There is another way to deal with false, modernist philosophy. The Gospel alone converts the heart because in it God has vested the power to save. This means the Christian must come to the table, not seeking middle ground, but presenting the only ground of truth that exists with full confidence that it is capable of bringing the opponent to silence. Without that faith in God's Word, rationalism continues to spread and Christianity continues to be marginalized.

The homosexual must understand that God stands firmly against him. He is in danger of judgment because he is a rebel against both the special revelation of Scripture and the created order (the "nature" of Romans 1). It does not matter that the homosexual rationalizes his situation, he is wrong and must repent. It does not matter that he has adopted a view of nature based in biological determinism. He is wrong and must adopt the view of nature revealed in Scripture or he will die in his sin. For, when the room is filling with gas it is not the time to discuss various theories of respiration, it is time to leave the room.

 

[beechy]

And the Bible does not misinterpret itself. Men do that.

How confident are you that you are interpreting the Bible correctly?

 

[Outrider]

As confident as that I am a child of God. By faith we receive him and by faith we walk in him. And where I am foolish in my handling of Scripture, the Holy Spirit is faithful to correct me. Right division is not in the hands of the student of Scripture. It is in the hands of the Holy Spirit. Faith and humility are what we bring before him. He promises to lead the believer into all truth. God does not lie.

 

[GutterRat]

God does not lie.

Very true! God does not lie - but MAN does.

 

[Outrider]

What is more powerful, human pollution of truth or divine revelation? Put another way, does the fact that we pervert truth make the purity of revelation ineffectual? Is the Bible useless because men misinterpret it?