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

[DevotiontoBible]

So you define what is "natural" by whether you can glean an observable purpose for it in nature? That is, the "natural use of the ear is to hear," and you can tell this by the fact that you can hear out of it. I answered this on page 8 of this thread. But here it is again:

How do you conclude that because you can somehow glean one observable, “rational” purpose for something in “nature”, that another use is somehow impermissible/immoral/”against nature”?

True, homosexuality is irrational and forces the unnatural use of the body. Just because a person "can do" does not make it natural just as you have stated your argument is based on an irrational use of the body. 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.

 

[beechy]

True, homosexuality is irrational and forces the unnatural use of the body. Just because a person "can do" does not make it natural just as you have stated your argument is based on an irrational use of the body. 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.

Why is heterosexuality rational, and homosexuality irrational? Because heterosexual vaginal sex has procreative possibilities and homosexual sex doesn't? What if I'm not trying to procreate? If what I want out of a sexual relationship with my partner is a physical expression our love for one another in a way that is pleasurable and draws us closer together through an intimate act -- and if I achieve that through homosexual sex -- it seems pretty rational to me.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Why is heterosexuality rational, and homosexuality irrational? Because heterosexual vaginal sex has procreative possibilities and homosexual sex doesn't? What if I'm not trying to procreate? If what I want out of a sexual relationship with my partner is a physical expression our love for one another in a way that is pleasurable and draws us closer together through an intimate act -- and if I achieve that through homosexual sex -- it seems pretty rational to me.

There is no such thing as a homosexual orientation in nature.-fact! (reality) Due to this undisputable established fact any thinking to the contrary of established fact or (reality) is irrational or delusional. Therefore, homosexual behavior is going against nature and is irrational or delusional to think it is not.

 

[beechy]

There is no such thing as a homosexual orientation in nature.-fact! (reality) Due to this undisputable established fact any thinking to the contrary of established fact or (reality) is irrational or delusional. Therefore, homosexual behavior is going against nature and is irrational or delusional to think it is not.

You have not even attempted to support these statements either with explanations of your own or through the cites required by this forum.

And are you saying that if there are no animals in the wild that have a homosexual orientation then no humans can have it either? Do you think that schizophrenia is a myth? Do you know of any animals that have been diagnosed with schizophrenia? Do you think that Mozart's musical talent was a myth? Do you know of any animals that can play the piano?

What's more, you go back and forth between defining "natural" as being something that is a "rationally" observable purpose; and "natural" as something that is observable in the animal kingdom. Which is it? Observable purpose -- penises and vaginas fit together? Or animal kingdom -- monkeys aren't gay so people can't be either?

I guess the bottom line is that you are, of course, entitled to your opinion of what reality is. God bless.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

You have not even attempted to support these statements either with explanations of your own or through the cites required by this forum. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion of what reality is. God bless.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of junior high biology knows there is no homosexual orientation in nature. There is only autosexual, bisexual and heterosexual. It is common sense, that is not my opinion. I should only need to support this if I were conversing with an imbecile.

 

[beechy]

Anyone with a basic knowledge of junior high biology knows there is no homosexual orientation in nature. There is only autosexual, bisexual and heterosexual. It is common sense, that is not my opinion. I should only need to support this if I were conversing with an imbicile.

Hey, that's new (or I didn't catch that before in your posts). You think that bisexuality is a "natural" orientation?

And the cites are required by forum rules, btw. Check them out -- if you don't adhere to these and a moderator catches on . . . especially in homosexuality threads . . . the thread is likely to get shut down.

 

[Outrider]

I said in my last post that 1) I was only citing instances of homosexual behavior in the wild in response to DevotiontoBible's position that it doesn't exist, and 2) that I don't think that observable behavior in the wild should necessarily be a barometer for human morality. Please see my post #77 on p.8 of this thread for my arguments regarding the homosexuality is wrong because it is "against nature" position.

In sum, I think that it is difficult to make an "against nature" morality argument without reference to the Bible, and the only remotely sensical arguments against homosexuality (even though I don't agree with them) are based in religion.

I think my point has been completely missed, which is the futility of an evidential interpretation to Scripture where what we now call nature is under corruption from sin. Even if murder, rape and homosexual behavior were rampant in "nature" it impacts the Scripture in no way, in fact, it more tends to prove God's evaluation of the condition of the world in sin. To get at the heart of the issue, nature must be viewed in terms of what God reveals to be natural, not in what we observe to be normal. Frequency of act or even existence of act is not "nature". It doesn't matter what National Geographic or any number of studies turn up about animal sexual behavior or any other animal behavior 1. animals are not acting natural anymore and 2. men are not animals. This evidentialism is futile.

 

[beechy]

I think my point has been completely missed, which is the futility of an evidential interpretation to Scripture where what we now call nature is under corruption from sin. Even if murder, rape and homosexual behavior were rampant in "nature" it impacts the Scripture in no way, in fact, it more tends to prove God's evaluation of the condition of the world in sin. To get at the heart of the issue, nature must be viewed in terms of what God reveals to be natural, not in what we observe to be normal. Frequency of act or even existence of act is not "nature". It doesn't matter what National Geographic or any number of studies turn up about animal sexual behavior or any other animal behavior 1. animals are not acting natural anymore and 2. men are not animals. This evidentialism is futile.

And this, my friend, is a position I understand. If you say, "homosexuality (or anything else for that matter) is unnatural because the Bible, and therefore God, says so," I totally get that, even if I disagree. This, of course, is not something that can be used in secular arenas, like in an American court of law with respect to the gay marriage issue -- but as a personal basis for morality I can understand that position.

What I don't understand is how the "natural" argument works without the Biblical ingredient.

 

[Outrider]

What I don't understand is how the "natural" argument works without the Biblical ingredient.

It doesn't. As long as the world defines its terms out of accord with Scripture, the world is creating a condition in which God is not informing it. Not that God's word is not present, but that the world is making no place for it in its own little arena of autonomy. Christians may say they need to find a way of evidentially making truth relevant to the world without recourse to the Scripture, but the Christian is simply trying to play the world's games by its rules. Seeing that the rules are designed specifically to exclude God's direction (which is revealed in the Bible), the Christian has no footing in the game. The Christian must, therefore, insist that the world change its definition to conform to Scripture, whether the world actually does so or not. The reason modern Christians do not do so is because they are ashamed of the gospel and have doubts as to the extent of the power God has vested in it. This is why Christians are seeking middle grounds with the world. But the world recognizes no middle ground. Nor is the world open to reason on moral issues. For a long time, modern philosophers have taught (and this teaching has successfully filtered into the lower strata) that all ethics have been created by man on the basis of pragmatism. Man "by nature" resists any alien input and insists that man alone is the origin and repository of morality. The Christian cannot consistently play this game. We know that our salvation is an alien act of mercy and when we try to find middle ground with the world, we are denying this before men. This is wrong.

 

[beechy]

It doesn't. As long as the world defines its terms out of accord with Scripture, the world is creating a condition in which God is not informing it. Not that God's word is not present, but that the world is making no place for it in its own little arena of autonomy. Christians may say they need to find a way of evidentially making truth relevant to the world without recourse to the Scripture, but the Christian is simply trying to play the world's games by its rules. Seeing that the rules are designed specifically to exclude God's direction (which is revealed in the Bible), the Christian has no footing in the game. The Christian must, therefore, insist that the world change its definition to conform to Scripture, whether the world actually does so or not. The reason modern Christians do not do so is because they are ashamed of the gospel and have doubts as to the extent of the power God has vested in it. This is why Christians are seeking middle grounds with the world. But the world recognizes no middle ground. Nor is the world open to reason on moral issues. For a long time, modern philosophers have taught (and this teaching has successfully filtered into the lower strata) that all ethics have been created by man on the basis of pragmatism. Man "by nature" resists any alien input and insists that man alone is the origin and repository of morality. The Christian cannot consistently play this game. We know that our salvation is an alien act of mercy and when we try to find middle ground with the world, we are denying this before men. This is wrong.

I agree it can be (and often is) problematic when Christianity attempts to "justify" its tenets and beliefs according to human understandings of philosophy, science, and logic. Perhaps the [secular] world is not "open to reason on moral grounds" and "recognizes no middle ground," but are Christians any different? Should they be? How do you recommend that a country like America deal with the varying religions (and lack thereof) being practiced within its borders, and the potential philosphical and moral conflicts between them? Do you think this country should be a Christian theocracy?

 

[Outrider]

I do not believe a theocracy is possible unless God overtly establishes one, at least on the nationalistic basis. Only in the sense that the government is upon Christ's shoulders can it be said that there is any such thing as a theocracy and that is a spiritual (not to be confused with "abstract") reality. Having said that, I do believe that it is the will of God that all nations and governments should be informed by his Word. How can it be believed that God would desire that the nations disobey him and operate in spiritual darkness and ignorance? This does not mean that nations should follow the letter of the civil law of Israel. That civil law was never meant to be separate from the Old Covenant Church within its shell. It was under God's direct kingship that the church and state were a single entity in the Older Testament. Since the close of the Old Covenant, the Church has been freed from the state and is never to go back again, but is to minister as a separate sphere in the world to the end of time. But the word of God does not belong exclusively to the Church and it never did. It belongs to the world, to society, to government, to family, to school, and to culture. It is not a teaching of the Bible that God only spoke to his people and to his religion. God is not confined to religion or even to the Church, though both are to be confined to him. The Bible is properly the book of civil law and magistracy just as it is the book faith. It is the book of art, the book of social order, the book of the family, etc. It is an artificial doctrine of sovereignty that has confined the Bible to the Christian religion. And it is a false view of the Bible that holds that any reference to it is necessarily religious in nature. The question is not so much what to do seeing the world does not use the Bible, but why don't they use it at all? Is truth only for one or two institutions or is is truth universal in nature? Is truth confined if it is not believed, that is, is truth a matter of faith only or does it exist independent of human epistemology?

 

[beechy]

It is an artificial doctrine of sovereignty that has confined the Bible to the Christian religion. And it is a false view of the Bible that holds that any reference to it is necessarily religious in nature. The question is not so much what to do seeing the world does not use the Bible, but why don't they use it at all? Is truth only for one or two institutions or is is truth universal in nature? Is truth confined if it is not believed, that is, is truth a matter of faith only or does it exist independent of human epistemology?

I'm just trying to understand your bottom line. Are you saying that the American government should consult the Bible in making its policy decisions?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

I agree it can be (and often is) problematic when Christianity attempts to "justify" its tenets and beliefs according to human understandings of philosophy, science, and logic. Perhaps the [secular] world is not "open to reason on moral grounds" and "recognizes no middle ground," but are Christians any different? Should they be? How do you recommend that a country like America deal with the varying religions (and lack thereof) being practiced within its borders, and the potential philosphical and moral conflicts between them? Do you think this country should be a Christian theocracy?

Reason will always side with the Bible because God created the mind to reason. Science and the Bible have always and always will be in agreement. However, science fiction, which is really self deception, conflict with the Bible. So the argument is not that the Bible is reason based on moral grounds, but reason based on reality or truth. Those who oppose the Bible are foolish because they are purposely deceiving themselves to believe in fiction.

 

[Outrider]

I'm just trying to understand your bottom line. Are you saying that the American government should consult the Bible in making its policy decisions?

Like Moses said, "I would that all Israel were prophets". I certainly believe American (and any other) government should consult the Bible in its policy making decisions. What better place to consult is there?

 

[beechy]

Reason will always side with the Bible because God created the mind to reason. Science and the Bible have always and always will be in agreement. However, science fiction, which is really self deception, conflict with the Bible. So the argument is not that the Bible is reason based on moral grounds, but reason based on reality or truth. Those who oppose the Bible are foolish because they are purposely deceiving themselves to believe in fiction.

"Science" is a man-made branch of study:

science -- a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study

It is a way we have devised to learn about the physical universe. And I think it's great, but I don't think it's perfect. I agree that God created the physical universe, but I do not agree that science does or can know everything about it. Sometimes we just have to accept that we will not be able to understand all of God's how's, what's, where's, and why's -- and we won't be able to explain them through this thing we call science. Humbling, isn't it?

 

[GutterRat]

Like Moses said, "I would that all Israel were prophets". I certainly believe American (and any other) government should consult the Bible in its policy making decisions. What better place to consult is there?

It sounds like a good idea - but leaving the Bible interpretation up to the government - not a good idea. The corruption in our gov't is rampant - they would just interpret the Bible as they see fit. It would be a disaster.

 

[beechy]

Like Moses said, "I would that all Israel were prophets". I certainly believe American (and any other) government should consult the Bible in its policy making decisions. What better place to consult is there?

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?

 

[DevotiontoBible]

Like Moses said, "I would that all Israel were prophets". I certainly believe American (and any other) government should consult the Bible in its policy making decisions. What better place to consult is there?

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.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

"Science" is a man-made branch of study: It is a way we have devised to learn about the physical universe. And I think it's great, but I don't think it's perfect. I agree that God created the physical universe, but I do not agree that science does or can know everything about it. Sometimes we just have to accept that we will not be able to understand all of God's how's, what's, where's, and why's -- and we won't be able to explain them through this thing we call science. Humbling, isn't it?

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.

 

[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.

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.