1. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    The Axe man
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    102622
    24 Sep '09 03:141 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I know just what you are saying. That is why some well meaning Christians approach sin in a spirit of condemnation, however, CHrist did not condemn. He convicted them while showing mercy and love. If he were to ignore it, however, he would have done them no favors.

    Of course, if you think that Christ was "negative" then I don't know what to tell ya.
    Nah, Christ sounds all positive- his christian followers sound negataive a lot of the time. There is no hit/miss scenario here. I realize that you christians are trying to turn people on to the word of christ. Thats cool. all power to ya.
  2. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    24 Sep '09 03:41
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    Conrau K,
    I repeat an argument presented by Andrew Sullivan here.

    Perhaps a Christian who wished to reconcile homosexual behaviour with Biblical text could argue as follows, picking up what was said above regarding what is natural for people who are gay.

    All texts require interpretation. What is Paul getting at in this passage? (Romans 1:27)

    Per ...[text shortened]... . However, I think that to argue that other interpretations are untenable is itself untenable.
    I think there is a good argument about what 'natural' means. Certainly, in English, the word has many connotations -- natural can mean of the natural world, forests, beaches, mountains, oceans, etc; it can mean chemically untreated (so we have a proliferation of natural medicines and organic products); it can mean innate, our personal characteristics we are born with; in philosophy, the nature of something is the essence of a thing, what defines a thing (so we might talk about the nature of man or the nature of a tiger); in Catholicism, nature has special connotation, as you mentioned, of the finality of a thing (what a thing is for, what its end is, etc); lastly, nature might refer to what is habitual or normative (so something deformed or unusual may be called unnatural.)

    It is unclear to me what St. Paul exactly intends by this word. St. Paul uses the word in a number of contexts. He says that nature teaches that it is a dishonour for a man to have long hair, 1 Corinthians 11.14 (this would seem to exclude a teleological understanding.) In Attic Greek, however, the word St. Paul uses 'phusis' means more origin or cause (it is where we derive the word 'physics' from) -- which is definitely teleological.

    Whether 'nature' corresponds to 'orientation', I can't be sure. I am personally skeptical. I can't imagine that St. Paul would invite that kind of relativistic reasoning -- if your nature tells you that long hair is acceptable than do that; if your nature is inclined to homosexuality, then follow that. It doesn't seem to make sense if St. Paul was arguing about sexual experimentation in Romans 1:27, about men who forego their heterosexual orientation and then desire other men.
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    24 Sep '09 04:05
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    Nah, Christ sounds all positive- his christian followers sound negataive a lot of the time. There is no hit/miss scenario here. I realize that you christians are trying to turn people on to the word of christ. Thats cool. all power to ya.
    I realize that we Christians usually fall short of the example of Christ. So that is why I constantly remind myself of his example as well as those that I am trying to give an example. In short, I find the more I drift away from focusing on Christ the more negative I become.
  4. Lowlands paradise
    Joined
    25 Feb '09
    Moves
    14018
    24 Sep '09 08:31
    Originally posted by Conrau K

    Again, St. Paul is making no distinction between loving and unloving relationships. He simply says those men who have turned away from the 'natural function' toward women and who burn with passion for one another. Isn't that precisely what homosexuality, whether monogamous or promiscuous, is?
    Again, St. Paul is making no distinction between loving and unloving relationships.
    That might be true, but we better do, don't you think? To me unloving relationships deserve rebuke (the subject of this thread)

    He simply says those men who have turned away from the 'natural function' toward women and who burn with passion for one another. Isn't that precisely what homosexuality, whether monogamous or promiscuous, is?
    Can you explain for me what Paul means with 'burning with passion'. Do you think that sexually burning with passion for someone of the other gender is all right?

    My main problem with this text is that, if Paul meant to describe homosexual behaviour as a state of burning with passion, he is absolutely wrong. Therefore I think he had something different in mind when he wrote Rom 1:27. I disagree with you that he precisely describes homosexuality here. He might have meant to do so, but then he was mistaken in what hosmosexual feelings are.

    A homosexual doesn't turn away from the 'natural function' towards women. He has simply no inclination to have a sexual relationship with women. There is nothing unnatural about that. Millions and millions of people are born that way. Why should we call that unnatural?

    Besides that, I find it a bit degrading towards women. As if the natural function for women is to be a an object of burning passion for men.

    The whole problem seems that many Christians still think that homosexual behaviour goes against nature. If Paul thought so, he was wrong. Homosexual feelings are normal. Just as normal as being left handed.

    What surprises me is the fascination among Christians (and other Abrahamistic religions) for homosexuality to be seen as a sin. It is hardly mentioned in the Scriptures and where it is mentioned we disagree about what the authors really meant.

    Let us assume for a moment that Paul didn't mean homosexuality in general.
    Can anyone tell me then why homosexual behaviour is a sin that should be rebuked? I don't need a bible text to understand why we call rape, murder, theft, deceit wrong doings. But why is sex with the between people of the same gender wrong? Why would you rebuke a homosexual? Is anyone hurt by the fact that two gay people with consent to have a sexual relationship? I just don't understand the need to rebuke
  5. Lowlands paradise
    Joined
    25 Feb '09
    Moves
    14018
    24 Sep '09 09:06
    The camel and the eye of the needle' Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25
    All evangelists seem to agree here that Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
    Just back from Mongolia I can assure you there is no way you can get a camel through the eye of a needle. Not even through your front door. Need the wealthy to be warned and rebuked? It seems they have no chance at all to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
  6. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    24 Sep '09 11:081 edit
    Originally posted by souverein
    [b]Again, St. Paul is making no distinction between loving and unloving relationships.
    That might be true, but we better do, don't you think? To me unloving relationships deserve rebuke (the subject of this thread)

    He simply says those men who have turned away from the 'natural function' toward women and who burn with passion for one another. Is th consent to have a sexual relationship? I just don't understand the need to rebuke[/b]
    That might be true, but we better do, don't you think? To me unloving relationships deserve rebuke (the subject of this thread)

    Obviously. A Christian who deplores premarital sex will likely condemn abusive, violent couple over a loving, caring couple, even when both engage in premarital sex. This does not affect his overall moral objections to premarital sex. Just because he condemns premarital sex does not mean he cannot make moral discriminations between different manifestations of premarital sex. The point is so obvious I don't understand why it deserves to be raised.

    Can you explain for me what Paul means with 'burning with passion'. Do you think that sexually burning with passion for someone of the other gender is all right?

    I suppose 'burning with passion' means lust. I suspect St. Paul would condemn all forms of lust. But this is irrelevant. The reason I raised this point is to confute duecer's suggestion that the New Testament is completely silent about homosexuality. A man's burning with passion for another man is exactly what the homosexual condition entails.

    A homosexual doesn't turn away from the 'natural function' towards women. He has simply no inclination to have a sexual relationship with women. There is nothing unnatural about that. Millions and millions of people are born that way. Why should we call that unnatural?

    I don't think that St. Paul literally means that a homosexual consciously, with deliberation, chooses to turn from the 'natural function'. Just because someone deviates from a norm does not mean they choose to deviate.

    Personally, I think it would be far more bizarre if St. Paul was only criticising transient, volitional homosexuality -- those people with heterosexual desires who then consciously decide to engage in homosexual acts.

    Besides that, I find it a bit degrading towards women. As if the natural function for women is to be a an object of burning passion for men.

    I think you are reading something into the text which is not there. In the earlier verse, St. Paul talks about women who abandon the same natural function. There does not appear to be any gender discrimination involved. The NRSV also translates 'natural function' as a code word for 'sexual intercourse'. It doesn't appear to be about gender roles.

    The whole problem seems that many Christians still think that homosexual behaviour goes against nature. If Paul thought so, he was wrong. Homosexual feelings are normal. Just as normal as being left handed.

    Again, I think there is a good discussion in what St. Paul means by 'nature'. I don't think it means normal.
  7. Standard memberduecer
    anybody seen my
    underpants??
    Joined
    01 Sep '06
    Moves
    56453
    24 Sep '09 12:51
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    [b]That might be true, but we better do, don't you think? To me unloving relationships deserve rebuke (the subject of this thread)

    Obviously. A Christian who deplores premarital sex will likely condemn abusive, violent couple over a loving, caring couple, even when both engage in premarital sex. This does not affect his overall moral objections to pr ...[text shortened]... cussion in what St. Paul means by 'nature'. I don't think it means normal.[/b]
    My last thought on the matter, as I believe we have both fully presented our positions, and niether is likely to change.

    Natural Function: Here we have a semantic argument again. What does Paul mean by "natural function?" Humans have many biological functions that are natural. We also do some things that are quite un-natural...things that are harmful to us mentally, spiritually and physically. I think perhaps what Paul is addressing here goes beyond the physical and mental. Is it not the natural function of people to worship God and walk in communion with Him? When we turn away from God, are we not turning away from our natural function? The answer from any Christian must be a resounding yes, for what other purpose were we created for?
  8. Lowlands paradise
    Joined
    25 Feb '09
    Moves
    14018
    24 Sep '09 19:17
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    [b]That might be true, but we better do, don't you think? To me unloving relationships deserve rebuke (the subject of this thread)

    Obviously. A Christian who deplores premarital sex will likely condemn abusive, violent couple over a loving, caring couple, even when both engage in premarital sex. This does not affect his overall moral objections to pr ...[text shortened]... cussion in what St. Paul means by 'nature'. I don't think it means normal.[/b]
    I suppose 'burning with passion' means lust. I suspect St. Paul would condemn all forms of lust. But this is irrelevant. The reason I raised this point is to confute duecer's suggestion that the New Testament is completely silent about homosexuality. A man's burning with passion for another man is exactly what the homosexual condition entails.
    Is it? Do you really mean that the phrase "burning with passion for another man" entails all homosexual behaviour? Do you think [/b]all[/b] homosexual relationships are based on lust.
    You must think so, because you stated that Paul is talking about all homosexuals.

    There is still my question unanswered: would you think homosexuality was wrong or sinful if Paul hadn't written these texts? I have put this question forward because I cannot understand what is wrong with homosexuality (except that people think that the Bible says so)
  9. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    24 Sep '09 22:431 edit
    Originally posted by souverein
    [b]I suppose 'burning with passion' means lust. I suspect St. Paul would condemn all forms of lust. But this is irrelevant. The reason I raised this point is to confute duecer's suggestion that the New Testament is completely silent about homosexuality. A man's burning with passion for another man is exactly what the homosexual condition entails.
    Is rstand what is wrong with homosexuality (except that people think that the Bible says so)[/b]

    Is it? Do you really mean that the phrase "burning with passion for another man" entails [b]all
    homosexual behaviour? Do you think all homosexual relationships are based on lust.[/b]

    No. I do not believe that lust characterises every single homosexual. But homosexuality certainly does entail that there is a sexual attraction, at least of some sort. I can't imagine a person plausibly arguing that they are homosexual but feel no desire at all for members of the same sex. Indeed, one of the stronger arguments in favour of homosexuals is that homosexuals experience the same powerful sexual desire just like everyone else.

    would you think homosexuality was wrong or sinful if Paul hadn't written these texts?

    As I said earlier, I am not particularly concerned with this question. I only entered this debate because it was clear to me that some people were misrepresenting scripture and doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to give their faith some plausibility.
  10. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    24 Sep '09 22:45
    Originally posted by duecer
    My last thought on the matter, as I believe we have both fully presented our positions, and niether is likely to change.

    Natural Function: Here we have a semantic argument again. What does Paul mean by "natural function?" Humans have many biological functions that are natural. We also do some things that are quite un-natural...things that are harmful to us ...[text shortened]... nswer from any Christian must be a resounding yes, for what other purpose were we created for?
    My last thought on the matter, as I believe we have both fully presented our positions, and niether is likely to change.

    You bet. All you have to do is give the source of these claims about 'paiderasste'. Surely it's not that difficult. You picked it up somewhere.
  11. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    30120
    24 Sep '09 23:48
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I think there is a good argument about what 'natural' means. Certainly, in English, the word has many connotations -- natural can mean of the natural world, forests, beaches, mountains, oceans, etc; it can mean chemically untreated (so we have a proliferation of natural medicines and organic products); it can mean innate, our personal characteristics we are ...[text shortened]... :27, about men who forego their heterosexual orientation and then desire other men.
    Conrau K,

    I agree that there is a good argument to be had about what natural means. The teleological interpretation as favoured by the RC church probably owes something to Aquinas's assimilation of Aristotle's views, but I think there is room for some revision in the light of new knowledge.

    I too doubt that Paul would have had a concept of sexual orientation similar to our contemporary one, if at all. But if a Christian wanted to argue that homosexual behaviour was compatible with their beliefs, I think all they would need to do would be to hold the following:

    1) Argue that Paul was arguing by analogy
    2) His target was Roman Polytheism
    3) His analogy was founded on the understanding of sexuality at the time, but our understanding has deepened since.
    4) Our interpretaion of scripture changes as our knowledge grows.



    Further, on the matter of
  12. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    The Axe man
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    102622
    25 Sep '09 22:57
    Originally posted by whodey
    I realize that we Christians usually fall short of the example of Christ. So that is why I constantly remind myself of his example as well as those that I am trying to give an example. In short, I find the more I drift away from focusing on Christ the more negative I become.
    All power to ya😵
  13. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    30120
    26 Sep '09 09:42
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    Conrau K,

    I agree that there is a good argument to be had about what natural means. The teleological interpretation as favoured by the RC church probably owes something to Aquinas's assimilation of Aristotle's views, but I think there is room for some revision in the light of new knowledge.

    I too doubt that Paul would have had a concept of sexual or ...[text shortened]... ur interpretaion of scripture changes as our knowledge grows.



    Further, on the matter of
    Further, on the matter of....
    ...the nature of the individual versus the natural law, for compatibility of homosexuality, the Christian need only hold that not only can it be true that what is natural for an individual can run counter to what is natural for the species as a whole, but that this state of affairs can compliment rather than be to the detriment of the nature of the whole.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree