|
My point of view, Section 1: homosexuality (ananel's thesis) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, for those of you who don't know, I am a Christian, and for a long time, homosexuality has been widely accepted by Christians as a sin. For a while now, there has been a "thesis" going around gaia called "Ananel's Thesis" (check it out in the M&R if you don't know of what I speak). I, am opposed to this view. Why? Some might ask, but I debated with ananel recently to reveal my point of view. It is located here. Now, I am not saying I won the debate, the only reason I am citing it is because I spilled my heart on the topic there, and if you want an extended explanation, it is there, But my greatest point, as I said in my last point of the debate is this:
-God is an Omnibenevolent being.
-An omnibenevolent being would not condemn something he created as natural.
-God Condemns homosexuality in the Old Testament
-God Could not be an Omnibenevolent being if he condemned homosexuals that he created as natural.
-God Considers homosexuality unnatural.
-Paul was a messenger (appostle) of God.
-Romans was written by Paul.
-In writing "unnatural" in the "unclear" verse of Romans, there is an extremely high possibility that (given the rest of the verse, men doing things with men, burning in their lust for eachother... etc.) Paul was speaking of Homosexual sex.
Then ananel promptly responded with this:
ananel Let me help you out on my interpretation of the translation and meaning of what is natural: The BDAG Lexicon Physis- 1) Condition or circumstance as determined by birth, natural endowment/condition, nature 2) The natural character of an entity, natural characteristic/disposition 3) The regular or established order of things, nature 4) An entity as a product of nature, natural being, creature I am not inclined to view, in light of the relavence of idolatry as the primary sin of Romans 1 that results in v. 26-27, that definition 1 has any hand in this discussion. From appearances, you seem to be conflating and equating 1 and 3 as being identical or near-identical, whether or not you have any biological business doing so. I treat the definitions as separate and different uses of the term, and view this passage to be an excellent example of this fact. I am inclined, as 2 and 4 in no way fit the condemnatory nature of this passage, to view this usage of 'nature' to fit 3, an established order. In regards to any view that God does not change his established orders, I cite Acts 15. Even if you view homosexual sex to still be condemned, you cannot in any level of conscience tell me that God never changes details of the law. He makes condemnations based upon 'ceremonial' laws, and then removes these. He requires circumcision for entrance into the body of his children and then changes this. All these are physis, nature as an established order. God changes these things. This was one of the very accusations levelled against Christ after his death and ressurection and even before. He re-interpreted the law in ways the Sanhedrin did not accept and ultimately caused the introduction of a new covenant that changed that law.
Now I did not cite this point to debate it here, the sole reason I cited it was to give a fair view of the point. I am still opposed to Ananel's point for said reasons above, and I will agree to the unclarity part of Romans, but I chose to believe that the Bible is speaking of homosexual sex, just as ananel infers that it is speaking of other things i.e. orgies, subjugation of citizens, etc. The reason I keep this belief is mainly the very last part of Romans 1.
This is just one subject I feel strongly for in the world, but I figure that I won't debate it too often because the person debating the bible usually is another Christian, and I believe that they should not be my enemy... I will, however, debate it when people in the M&R become dependant on Ananel's thesis for any subject dealing with this topic...
 haruki_jitsunin · Sun Dec 11, 2005 @ 05:11am · 0 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
