 |
| Sodomites trying to attack Lot are striked blind by angels |
First of all, the objective nature of the claim has to be conclusively established -- the claims themselves being subjective and the nature of the investigation being empirical makes this quite unrealistic.
Secondly, it is quite superfluous to assume that within members of the same species, opposed "natures" or "orientations" exist. Obviously, that defeats any attempt to definition. Originally, one understands what a man or a cat or an elephant is by nature. If any member of a particular species seems to be behaving differently or contrary to this nature, the behavior is considered to be unnatural. But, if a multiplicity of "orientations" were allowed as natural, the definition of what is natural suffers.
The Bible calls homosexuality as being "against nature".
For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.Those who have no interest in the Biblical pronouncement, however, must explain their grounds for basis a moral argument for homosexual rights. Obviously, it will be self-defeating for them to accept the subjective "orientation" arguments. For, if they accept that, they would also be legitimizing every other form of sexual "perversion" (as we understand all such acts that are contrary to nature). [Check the Wikipedia List: List of Paraphilias]
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Rom 1:26-27)
For an atheist, the issue might be quite subjective and moral norms a matter of majority judgments. For instance, Bertrand Russel, in his debate with Father Copleston, argued that cases such as Hitler's in which he felt his actions to be right may be compared to people who have jaundice and so saw things as yellow. But, if the jaundiced were the majority, their view would be considered "natural" and the others "unnatural". Such an argument is ultimately self-defeating. How would a society in which everyone believed that murdering each other was good and protecting each other was considered evil be like? How about a society in which homosexuality is considered natural because the majority are homosexuals and heterosexuality is considered unnatural? In both the cases, if all other implications of the argument are worked out, there should be no human left to sustain the argument. Everybody will kill each other and sincere homosexuality would put an end to human reproduction, wouldn't it? Certainly, something is wrong here.
Sadly, the "think-tanks" of liberation only want to sing the chorus of feelings and independence. These are their only absolutes that they fight for. But, how can one claim to have an answer without first working out all the implications of a problem? How can one have arrived at a conclusion without first following all the necessary steps involved in working out the solution of a problem? These are not "think-tanks"; these are choruses.
The word "homosexual" is malakos in the Greek Bible. It means:
1) soft, soft to the touch
2) metaphorically, in a bad sense
2a) effeminate
2a1) of a catamite
2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man
2a3) of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness
2a4) of a male prostitute
The word "sodomites" is arsenokoites in the Greek Bible. It means "one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual."
The Bible gives the judgment:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. (1Co 6:9-10)
Comments
Post a Comment