Sommige zijn niet geschikt voor dat ontwerp...Dat is zo want sommige kunnen dat niet. Maar het is beter voor een man niet alleen te zijn maar hier geeft Jezus aan dat het geen zonde is als je dus niet met een vrouw trouwd. Maar er staat nergens dat je dan homo mag worden. En nee je bent geen homo als je geboren word. Je bent een homo omdat je er gevoelens voor ontwikkeld. Daar kan je vanaf komen door je te bekeren van je zonde!!!!Christiaan schreef op 29 februari 2004 @ 16:02:
[...]
Aanvullen op Confusion, ik denk dat je hier een citaat aanhaalt dat zelf je eigen reden waarom je dit citaat aanhaalt onderuit haalt. Als je namelijk goed leest wat Jezus hier zegt, dan legt hij uit dat man en vrouw samen in de echt kunnen treden (het 'eenworden'). Hij vervolgt echter, en dat heb je niet meegenomen in het citaat, dat niet ieder mens daar voor kiest of daarvoor kan kiezen. Let ook op de waarschuwing waar hij mee begint (Matteus 19:11-12): Niet iedereen staat open voor wat ik nu ga zeggen,' antwoordde hij, 'alleen zij aan wie het gegeven is. Er zijn mensen die niet kunnen trouwen, omdat ze nu eenmaal zo geboren zijn. Er zijn er die niet kunnen trouwen, omdat ze door mensen voor het huwelijk ongeschikt zijn gemaakt. Maar er zijn er ook die van het huwelijk afzien met het oog op het hemelse koninkrijk.
Hier wordt niet gezegd, en dat benadruk ik, dat homofilie goed is. Als ik dat erin zou lezen maak ik de fout die jij wat mij betreft maakt bij stukken die volgens jou bewijzen dat homofilie een zonde is. Wat er wel staat is direct in strijd met de reden waarom je dit citaat aanhaalde, namelijk om te bewijzen dat man en vrouw moeten trouwen. Wat in dit citaat staat is echter dat sommige mensen niet kunnen of willen trouwen omdat ze zo geboren zijn of omdat ze dat niet willen. Homofielen zouden daar ook onder moeten vallen, omdat ze volgens de definitie van het huwelijk zoals Jezus die geeft (man + vrouw) niet kunnen trouwen. In deze context is wat mij betreft vooral de afsluitende boodschap van Jezus erg belangrijk: Laat wie het kan, er voor openstaan.
Maar we kunnen verder:
De term 'Eunuch' is hierbij belangrijk, want die wordt in de griekse versie gebruikt waar in de nederlandse versie over 'zij' gesproken wordt. De engelse versie is in dit geval wat handiger: For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.. Het lijkt erop dat Jezus het hier steeds over 'eunuchs' heeft. Hij beschrijft drie soorten:
1. Zij die zo geboren zijn
2. Zij die zo gemaakt zijn door mensen (dwz: gecastreerd bijvoorbeeld)
3. Zij die geen sexuele relaties wensen (bijv: zoals priesters of broeders)
De officiele definitie van 'Eunuch' is een man die geen geslachtsdelen meer heeft door een castratie. Dat heeft alleen betrekking op de tweede variant die Jezus beschrijft en niet op de andere twee. Wat alle drie gemeenschappelijk hebben is dat ze erin resulteren dat een man niet trouwt met een vrouw omdat hij dat niet kan of er geen behoefte in heeft. Homofilie kunnen we zonder vreemde interpretatieve sprongen te maken onder de eerste definitie rekenen, want dat zijn tenslotte mensen die geboren zijn met een orientatie die hen niet geschikt maakt voor het man+vrouw huwelijk waar Jezus het hier over heeft.
En zoals ik al zei is de conclusie is erg duidelijk en jij hebt dus niet alle verzen aangehaald in de bijbel over homosexualiteit dus je hele post is al onstabiel omdat je het duidelijk heb gemaakt dat dat alle teksten waren maar zoals je ziet zat je dus verkeerd. voor de rest heb ik hier nog een stuk om alles af te sluiten:
The previous judgment is given strong ethical force by the account of Sodom's destruction in Genesis 19. The men of Sodom demanded that two guests of Lot be brought out that the Sodomites might "know" them | Genesis 19:5; Hebrew verb yadha |. The final outcome was that the Sodomites were smitten with blindness and the city divinely destroyed by fire and brimstone. Later biblical references indicate further sins of Sodom which displeased the Lord | see below | — even as a syndrome of unrighteousness is associated with homosexuality in Paul's mind | Romans 1:29-31 |. Although a general wickedness characterized Sodom | Genesis 18:20 |, the fact cannot be suppressed that the Sodomites' desire to "know" Lot's guests is the manifest sin set forth in Genesis 19 and the specific confirmation that the city was worthy of devastation | Genesis 19:13; cf.18:21 |. This was the mark of their extreme degradation and rebellion against God.
Ezekiel 16:49, 50 (which includes the mention of "abomination," cf. Leviticus 18:22); it is worth noting however that most references are apparently not attributing particular sins to historic Sodom but simply holding up the city as "an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter," as 2 Peter 2:6 says.
What was this sin? Some have suggested that yadha is not the normal word used for homosexual coitus (shakhabh) and should be taken in its ordinary sense of knowing something, thus meaning here "to get acquainted with." The theory is this: as a resident alien in Sodom, Lot was responsible for introducing his guests to the townsmen and letting the established citizens examine their credentials; for that reason the Sodomites asked to "know" Lot's visitors. They wished to get acquainted with them. Since in the Hebrew mind a stranger had a right to hospitable reception | E.g., Genesis 18:1-5; Hebrews 13:2 |, the sin of Sodom would hereby be interpreted as inhospitality to the visitors | cf. Luke 10:10-13, where Jesus linked rejection of His messengers with Sodom's judgment. | For such a breach of love and social courtesy the Lord reduced the city to ash.
This theory will not withstand serious scrutiny. In the first place, Lot was not merely an alien resident in Sodom, but a prominent social figure "sitting in the gate" |Gen 19:1 |. He knew well enough the moral character of the city, so much so that he became alarmed at the prospect of these visitors spending the night in a public place and strongly urged them to accept his invitation of accommodations in his home | Gen. 19:2,3 |. When the citizens later came and asked to "know" his guests, Lot did not see this as simply an accepted civil routine whereby visitors have their credentials inspected; he defensively shut the door behind him and characterized the requested "knowing" as a great wickedness | Gen. 19:6,7 |. It calls for a strange mentality to see (1) how a simple desire of the townsmen to get acquainted would be a breach of hospitality, (2) how it could be deemed seriously wicked (especially in light of the city customs, which Lot certainly understood), and (3) why it would be so vile as to warrant dramatic divine punishment.
Moreover, on this interpretation what would explain Lot's offer to substitute his daughters? | Gen. 19:8 | The citizens were already acquainted with them; their appearance would have done nothing to prevent the breach of hospitality to Lot's guests. The reply to this objection is that Lot's offer of his daughters was a tempting sexual bribe, intended to appease the crowd and change the subject (away from town protocol regarding visitors). This is psychologically incredible. Why would a father go so far as to propose the violation of his daughters in response to a mere impolite request? Moreover, such a reply requires that we interpret Lot's offer to bring out his daughters "who have not known man" as a sexual bribe, taking the verb yadha to refer to Coitus | As it sometimes does in the Old Testament, e.g., Gen. 4:1 |. In that case the same translation should be favored in the immediate context at verse 5 as well; the Sodomites were requesting not mere social acquaintance but sexual relations with Lot's guests — the conclusion this interpretation sought to avoid.
As a final resort, one defender of the reinterpretation of Genesis 19 has suggested that comparison with a similar incident in judges 19 warrants us to see the intention of the Sodomites as in fact murderous | Judges 20:4-6 |; this accounts for the wickedness perceived by Lot, his extreme preventative offer, and the Lord's wrath at such inhospitality. However, this view suppresses the obvious sexual character of the event in Judges 19 and illegitimately transposes the narrower interpretation onto Genesis 19. It either exceeds acceptable translations of yadha in verse 5, or requires one to read between the lines of the scriptural account. The conclusions of such an arbitrary procedure commend themselves only to those already predisposed to avoid the obvious and natural meaning of the text.
The men of Sodom desired to have sexual relations with Lot's visitors, to "know" them. Lot rightly perceived their homosexual designs as wicked and made his own (unrighteous but contextually appropriate) counteroffer to let these men do as they wished with his daughters, who had not "known" men (engaged in sexual relations). In the similar story of judges 19:16ff., the townsmen of Gibeah surrounded the house of a host, demanding that his male guest be brought out so that they might "know" him. Again the request was deemed wicked, and a counterproposal was made that the guest's concubine be accepted in the place of their homosexual demands; as a result she was raped until morning and found dead. In both stories it is clear that the townsmen were interested in homosexual relations, not mere social acquaintance. In the case of Sodom there is no textual reason to view the intentions of the townsmen specifically as that of homosexual rape. We have no evidence that they anticipated resistance from Lot's guests and were seeking sexual assault.
We cannot avoid the obvious conclusion that God devastated the cities of the plain with a catastrophe because of the homosexuality of the Sodomites. It is pure, ungrounded speculation to hold that they were punished for an idolatrous fertility cult of which homosexuality was a part, or for an attempted transgression of the bounds between men and angels; the text has no cultic indications, nor does it even hint that the Sodomites recognized Lot's guests as supernatural beings.
Sodom was utterly destroyed because it was a city full of
homosexuals | "Young and old, from every end," Gen. 19:4 | who day after day practiced their impious, sensual debauchery | 2 Peter 2:6-8 |. Unlike many Christians in this secular age, Lot was continually shocked and repulsed ("vexed, tormented") by the lawless deeds of the Sodomites. The use of the word "lawless" (anomos) in 2 Peter 2:8 indicates that the Sodomites violated God's command. Even though they were not the elect theocratic people of God, they were responsible to the content of the case law in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The law deep in their heart | Romans 2:14, 15 | informed them that those who transgress God's ordinances and practice such things are "worthy of death" | Romans 1:32 |.
God's inspired Word interprets the Sodom story for us, leaving no doubt that Sodom was devastated for violating God's creation order. In Jude 7 it is precisely the unnaturalness of the vice practiced at Sodom that is stressed as the cause of divine wrath. The Sodomites are there described as "committing fornication and going after strange flesh." The Greek form, ekporneuein, is intensive, denoting extravagant lust. The participle, apelthousai, adds further intensification and brings out the sense of utter abandonment to impurity. The object of this extravagant, abandoned fornication is said to be sarkos heteras, "different flesh." It was unnatural sexual intercourse, a departure from the laws of nature (God's ordained pattern for sexual relations), that placed Sodom under God's vengeance.
En dit is een quote van:romans one
Identical principles are authoritatively revealed in the first chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, thus providing explicit New Testament confirmation of the Old Testament ethic regarding homosexuality.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error....
Though they know God's decree, that those who practice such things [the sins listed in verses 28-31] deserve to die, they not only do them, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
| Romans 1:26, 27, 32, ESV |
In this context Paul was teaching that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against those who turn from their proper relationship to the Creator; suppressing the truth of God, they resort to various forms of idolatry, serving the creature with darkened minds and foolish reasoning. In response, God gives them over to impure lusts and the dishonoring of their bodies specifically, to homosexuality, which in turn stimulates further depravities. Men who give up God and His law are eventually given up by God to wander in morally polluted practices that become a way of life. Specifically, the penalty for man's rebellion against the true service to God is homosexuality, which Paul described with reinforcing disapprobation as "impurity," "dishonoring of the body" | Rom. 1:24 |, "dishonorable passions" | ROM 1:26 |, "shameless acts,", "error" | ROM 1:27 |, the "Improper" activity of a "depraved mind" | ROM 1:28 |. Homosexuality exchanges the natural use of sex for unnatural sexual practices | ROM 1:26,27 |, thereby evidencing immoral perversion in the most intimate of human relations and being "worthy of death" | ROM 1:32 |. The best commentary on this teaching is found in the Old Testament, upon which Paul drew heavily.
Scripture's most obvious condemnation of homosexuality as intrinsically immoral is found in this Romans passage. Nevertheless, there are those who seek to evade its straightforward indictment. In the first place there are those who maintain that Paul did not single out homosexuality as especially offensive among sins; it is not taken up as a subject in its own right but merely dealt with incidentally among the results of a perverted relationship to God-presented simply as part of a broader pattern of pagan excesses.
Such a response to Paul's words is plainly wrong. After all, homosexuality is presented precisely as an appropriate illustration of sinful depravity. Indeed, it is Paul's key illustration of the perversion that results from rebellion against God, a conspicuous symptom of such rebellion. The subject is discussed, to be sure, in relation to its roots and effects, but the moral character of homosexuality is nonetheless discussed in its own right as well. Its vile character clinches Paul's argument concerning the consequences of suppressing the knowledge of God, and thus what Paul said in describing it cannot be minimized. To contend that homosexuality in Romans I is portrayed merely as a punishment for sin and not as a sin itself is to forget that God often punishes sin by turning men over to that sin and its effects completely | E.g., Hosea 4:17 |. This is exactly what Paul said about homosexuality:
it is both sin and punishment for sin | Cf. ROM 1:24 |.
Second, there are supporters of homosexuality who claim that Paul is condemning lust and promiscuity, not homosexual love and devotion; the assumption is that the moral quality of homosexuality cannot be judged in isolation from the attitude and context in which one exercises it, the interpersonal support it supplies, and the personal fulfillment it offers. Supposedly there are distinctions to be drawn, with the result that we should recognize a commendable Christian practice of homosexuality in contrast to depraved versions of it.
But such a suggestion is mere wishful thinking without biblical support. Paul was quite adept at drawing careful moral distinctions. He recognized pertinent qualifications that had to be made and gave his readers details of intricate ethical problems (such as those regarding meats offered to idols, marriage and divorce, spiritual gifts, exhortations and rebukes, uses and abuses of the law). If homosexuality could gain divine approval in any sense, Paul would have indicated as much and drawn the distinctions which men now wish to impose upon his text.
In ancient culture homosexuality was commonplace, with certain distinctions customarily drawn between homosexuality as an ideal expression of love (e.g., in Plato's Symposium) or an aid to military prowess (e.g., in Spartan propaganda) and homosexuality in the form of prostitution and indiscriminate infatuation. The one was encouraged, the other discouraged. By contrast, Paul, who was well versed in the culture of his day, drew no such distinctions but categorically condemned homosexuality without exception. Scripture cannot be interpretively shaped to fit the contours of sin, and homosexuality cannot be cleverly domesticated within a divinely approved lifestyle. There is no more a Christian form of homosexuality than there is a Christian form of adultery or bestiality or rape, etc. Romans I makes no room for any kind of homosexuality whatsoever, for it is plainly and simply error," a wrong lifestyle | ROM 1:27 |. If Paul's words can be twisted to allow for homosexuality under certain conditions, the same line of thought can be taken with all of the sins elaborated in verses 28-31-indeed, with any sin whatsoever!
The third attempt to blunt Paul's condemnation of homosexuality argues that Paul's fundamental concern was the general influence of paganism on believers or the contaminating idolatry of Hellenistic cultures, which was associated with homosexuality in the mind of any pious Jew (and which would be a particular problem for Roman Christians). One author goes so far as to say that Romans 1:26-31 is merely Paul's cliché-ridden summary of a well-known list of vices popularly used to condemn Gentile culture and religion. Since Paul's intention was simply to use such a hackneyed catalogue to say that all men | Gentile as well as Jewish: ROM 1; 2. | fall under the rule of God's wrath, we must conclude that there is nothing particularly virtuous about any sexual orientation in itself, heterosexual or homosexual. One would also fall under Paul's condemnation in Romans I by insisting upon-and thereby idolizing-the sexual preference of heterosexuality. It also represents worship of the creature rather than the Creator, failing to see God's gracious acceptance in the face of man's rejection (the theme of the epistle). So then, a true understanding of Paul's teaching would allow one to be "graciously gay," we are told.
At some point in a discussion such as this it becomes appropriate to warn interpreters of God's inspired Word that they must be careful not to "wrest the Scriptures unto their own destruction" | 2 Peter 3:16 |. The preceding misstatement of Paul's teaching is a dangerous perversion of the biblical doctrines of God's wrath and grace. To say that all men are condemned by God's law is not at all the same as saying that God's law condemns all attitudes and behavior; there are actions which God commands (e.g., working gainfully six days a week) and which God condemns (e.g., stealing, Sabbath-breaking), even though no man perfectly abides by God's will in these matters.
Paul cited homosexuality as a specific violation of God's revealed will in his conclusion that all men are condemned by the law. But men's universal condemnation under law cannot be used to empty specific commands of their content, making heterosexuality and homosexuality equally sinful in God's sight. Likewise, the insistence on upholding God's moral standard (e.g., regarding heterosexuality) over against its transgression can be deemed idolatrous only by eliminating any thought of clear and definable moral character in God. The grace of God teaches men to renounce sin and live by the righteous pattern of God's law; for that reason one can be "graciously gay" no more than one can "graciously murder." We must beware of such "ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness" | Jude 4 |.
If Paul drew from a well-known list of pagan vices in Romans 1, then we should conclude that indeed these are, in God's sight, genuine vices. The fact that a biblical writer had historical sources for his own teaching | E.g., Luke 1:3 | does not undermine the accuracy of what he taught,'4 for men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God and the final product of their efforts must be accounted as God-breathed | 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Tim. 3:16 |. However, in light of our previous investigation and Paul's specific vocabulary, it is much more likely that Paul's particular starting point for his teaching about homosexuality was the Old Testament.
The fact that Paul moved in Romans I directly from a discussion of idolatry to homosexuality does not suggest that he was referring exclusively to cultic homosexuality. As similarly discussed regarding Old Testament law, Romans does not specify cultic prostitution, and in terms of historical setting there would be every reason for Paul to condemn secular homosexuality itself (and not merely cultic homosexuality).
Paul's words in Romans I cannot be restricted to the pagans' ritual homosexuality any more than his judgment on prostitution | 1 Cor. 6:15 | can be restricted to the well-known occurrences of this sin within pagan cultic services. Verses 28-31 indicate clearly that Paul's mind was on intrinsically moral behavior as he discussed repercussions of abandoning the knowledge of God.
| Note the similar introductions to verses 26,27 regarding homosexuality and verses 29-31 regarding a variety of immoral deeds and attitudes. |
Furthermore, it is evident from the text that Paul was not simply concerned with the general influence of paganism or with merely expressing a narrow-minded disdain for Hellenistic culture. He dealt bluntly and specifically with homosexuality as the manifest outcome of paganism and the leading proof of the degradation of Hellenistic culture; the other sins mentioned are accompanying vices to homosexuality. The offense was not its Greek background (which was hardly unique) but its transgression of God's holy standards of morality revealed in nature and Scripture.
The last attempt to dispose of Paul's condemnation of homosexuality that we shall investigate, by far the most ingenious, is the claim that Paul was condemning perversion and not inversion. Some allege that Romans 1:26,27 describes people who "exchange" their own natural inclination toward heterosexuality for homosexuality, thereby perverting their own nature; it does not touch on the inverted person who has never been attracted to the opposite sex and is by his own nature homosexually inclined. This would mean that those who are (according to the theory) constitutionally homosexual in their orientation and who have not willfully given up their natural sexual relations for what would be "unnatural" to them (heterosexuality) do not come within the scope of Paul's judgment. Indeed, we are told that it would be perverted according to Paul's teaching for a naturally oriented homosexual to turn to heterosexuality in his behavior, for that would be an exchange from the natural to the unnatural. It turns out that what was apparently the strongest indication of homosexuality's intrinsic immorality becomes in fact the homosexual's greatest defense!
This defense rests on the interpretation it offers of the phrase 14 against nature" (para phusin) in verse 26. Not a few defenders of homosexuality fluctuate between contrary approaches to the phrase, and some try to combine senses in which it might be taken so as to exonerate "constitutional" homosexuality in one way or another. For purposes of analysis it will be best to isolate the options that have been suggested, finally returning specifically to the above theory.
(1) According to one approach, Paul was speaking of what is contrary to the intrinsic nature or essence of a thing*; however, Paul's judgment against homosexuality cannot be taken at face value, for what is and is not "natural" cannot be clearly established or conclusively evaluated.
| As in ROM 11:24, where the engrafting of tree branches is said to be "against nature." |
How does one discern that something or someone is acting "contrary to nature"-by statistical comparison with others (in which case the "natural" constantly changes), or by perceiving an individual's own common pattern (in which case systematic behavior can never be perverse)? Do we want to condemn homogenized milk simply on the grounds that it is unnatural?
(2) Another approach reads Paul as speaking of that which is contrary to a religio-cultural heritage or custom, matters of training and social conditioning; for a Jew what is "against nature" would be functionally equivalent to what is improper by Jewish custom and forbidden to the chosen people in God's law.
| C.f. Gal. 2:15 where those who are Jews "by nature" have a manner of life distinct from the Gentiles, who are "by nature" uncircumcised, according to Romans 2:27. |
Thus in Romans 1:26 Paul was simply making the point that the Gentiles go beyond what was approved for the Jews in Leviticus because the Gentiles have not recognized the living and true God. Homosexuality is not being viewed as evil independent of a person's social customs but only within the context of Jewish law, which saw it as an expression of cultic idolatry.
(3) Finally, others think that in speaking of behavior "against nature" Paul had in mind a conscious choice to act contrary to one's normal inclinations. Paul censures men for engaging in sexual acts that are contrary to their ordinary heterosexual appetites, but does not speak to the question of inversion (a psychological condition wherein one is naturally inclined toward members of the same sex) because it does not reflect an abandoning of one's own natural function.
| Cf. ROM 1;27a, where the punctiliar aorist participle, aphentes, could suggest a specific past point of transition from heterosexual to homosexual activity. |
In reply to the first suggestion and its critical attack on the possibility of knowing and evaluating what is "natural," we need simply observe that God, the Creator of man, who establishes the essence of all things and ordained man's normal functions, is certainly in a position to reveal what is natural to sexual relations. While in some respects He requires man to use, subdue, and change the natural world (e.g., removing weeds, curing polio), He nevertheless forbids the transgression of certain essential boundaries.
| E.g., nothing in the created realm is to be worshipped, for the Creator alone is God by nature, Gal 4:8; it is natural that there be a recognized distinction between the sexes, 1 Cor. 11:14. |
Despite the problems of a philosophy of natural law that is devised independently of God's revelation, the fact remains that God knows the essential nature of all things and thus can infallibly declare the appropriate functions and relations for man.
In reply to the second suggestion, we must remember that the Jewish law of the Old Testament is still normative for the modern world. It was not intended as an ethical eccentricity of the Israelites but is manifest in the hearts of the Gentiles,92 stands as an ideal and standard for all nations | Deut 4:8; Isa. 51:4; Lev. 18:24-27; Prov. 14:34; Ps 72:1-11; Matt. 28:18-20 | and shows how God's kingdom comes and His will is done on earth as it is in heaven. Accordingly, even if Paul meant in Romans 1:26 that homosexuality was contrary to the "customary" Jewish law (i.e., nature), this would not mitigate his universal condemnation of it. Moreover, as was discussed previously, the Jewish law does not condemn homosexuality simply in terms of idolatrous circumstances; it prohibits all forms of homosexuality, secular and sacred.
In reply to all three suggestions, but more particularly to the third, we need to observe the proper meaning of Paul's words, "against nature." In the immediate context we note that Paul is speaking of the knowledge of God available to men through the created world, rendering them without excuse in failing to glorify God properly and in exchanging the truth for a lie | ROM 1:18-25 |. Moreover, there is an internal witness to the moral standards of God in every man | ROM 2:14,15 |. Men are responsible to know certain things from the objective condition or order of the world and human nature; therefore Scripture can speak of nature teaching obvious moral truths | 1 Cor. 11:14 |, of men understanding things naturally or instinctively | Jude 10 |, and of men by nature doing the things of God's law | ROM 2:14 |.
In the New Testament the "natural" pertains to the created world and its present general order as ordained by God, ranging from ordinary living things such as animals" or branches' | ROM 11:21, 24 | and biological processes | ROM 11:24 |, to the fundamental, original condition of things without artificial intervention — either their innate character | Gal. 4:8; James 3:7; 2 Peter 1:4 | or inherited condition | Gal. 2:15; ROM 2:27; Eph. 2:3 |. God has ordained "the natural function" for sexual relations in His creation order: the normal, and normative, pattern of male and female becoming one flesh. God's creation ordinance, with the specific distinction between male and female, intended for heterosexual relations to be "natural." Man's inherited condition and ordinary biological process, the essential character of his sexuality when there is no artificial intervention and willful reorientation, is therefore heterosexual. This information is clearly known from creation and conscience by those who disorder the natural function of sex | ROM 1:32; cf. 1:19, 20; 2:14,15 |. There is in the biblical perspective no such thing as "natural homosexuality." It is always at base a perversion of the created order.
To interpret the phrase "exchanged the natural function for that which is against nature" as pertaining to the personal, psycho-sexual orientation of individuals or the particular biographical history of certain people who go from one kind of sexual activity to another requires forced exegesis. Paul spoke, not of one's personal and previous sexual engagements, but of "the natural function" — regardless of whether individual homosexuals have in fact consciously experienced heterosexual desires or acts. His thrust was that men and women have departed from what is natural for mankind, not for individual persons. His discussion was generic and categorical, dealing with the sexual function that God has ordained as natural for man, not with the individualized sexual natures of diverse individuals. Homosexuals "exchange" the right way to gain sexual gratification for one which is in itself "against nature" | ROM 1:26 | what males are said to "abandon" is not their own personal customary sexual activity- but rather "the natural use of the female" | ROM 1:27 |. It may be in some sense individually "natural" for someone to be a kleptomaniac, but it is nonetheless a perversion of God's will for man's prescribed manner of obtaining things. Likewise, to say that heterosexual desires and acts are not "natural" to those individuals who are (allegedly) constitutionally homosexual plainly suppresses Paul's point. Homosexuality per se is always unnatural.
It is artificial to argue that Paul's verb tense in the phrase "abandoned the natural function" was chosen to denote exclusively an explicit act of renouncing former heterosexual ways by the homosexual. Rather, the verb signifies a resultant condition, not a conscious and definite act of past sexual conversion; (the connotation of past time is not necessary to the aorist participle at all). What Paul was teaching is the simple fact that those who burn with homosexual desire and commit indecent acts have effectively abandoned what God ordained for man's natural sexual impulse.
Therefore, this last attempt to dispose of Paul's condemnation of homosexuality fails as did the others. An exclusion of alleged inverts cannot be read into the text, setting them apart from Paul's censure of others who practice homosexual deeds after involvement in heterosexual patterns. Paul's simple point is that homosexuality in itself has the wrong sexual object. All homosexuality, regardless of whether one is inverted or converted to homosexuality, is itself a perversion, a departure from God's ordained use of sex. No qualifying or mitigating distinctions are warranted textually or theologically. The creation order and the law of God have been violated in any and all expressions of homosexuality.
As indicated previously, these emphases of Paul are based on the teaching of the Old Testament. The creation account establishes heterosexuality as the pattern of man's sexual activity and desire; accordingly, Paul viewed homosexuality as an exchange of the natural for that which is against nature | ROM 1:26,27 |. The Sodom story demonstrates the judgmental wrath of God that is provoked by homosexuality, leading to temporal and eternal punishment; accordingly, Paul taught that God gives homosexuals over — abandons them — to dishonor, degradation, and depravity | ROM 1:24,26,28 | and classifies them as "worthy of death" | ROM 1:32 |. The law of God strictly prohibits homosexuality in Israel as an abomination carrying the death penalty; accordingly, Paul declared that homosexuality is shameless error | ROM 1:27 | which transgresses the ordinance of God and that its practitioners know that they deserve to die for their disobedience to God's will" | ROM 1:32 |.
In a sense, homosexuality is the cultural culmination of rebellion against God. It represents the "burning out" of man and his culture | Cf. ROM 1:27 |. Paul described accompanying aspects of a culture that reaches this stage in verses 29-31.
| "Being filled with" in Romans 1:29 modifies "them" in Romans 1:28, which is to say. the homosexuals of Romans 1:26,27. |
The vices enumerated by Paul accompany the open practice of homosexuality and characterize a society in which homosexuality is practiced and tolerated. Therefore, homosexuality that is publicly accepted is symptomatic of a society under judgment, inwardly corrupted to the point of impending collapse. Paul the apostle regarded it as the most overt evidence of that degeneracy to which God in His wrath gave over the nations.
Consider, then, what God says in His infallible Word about homosexuality. It violates His holy law, representing a departure into abominable sin and shameless error. It is dishonorable, degraded, and depraved. These are not the judgments of some narrow-minded, uneducated, overzealous, modern-day crusader who is drunk with rhetoric. These are the judgments of the one only, living and true God, whose holiness, wisdom, and truth are flawless. Man, who was created by God in His own image, ought to reflect the purity of his Maker in thought, word, and deed. When men and women wander into homosexual perversion, thereby failing to conform to the righteousness of God, they dishonor themselves and degrade their own persons. That is why it is wrong for people to think that opposition to homosexuality is a violation of the homosexual's dignity as a person. It is precisely because of his dignity as a person that we must disapprove of homosexuality as unworthy of him as God's image.
It is untrue to the full extent of God's revealed will to reduce sexual ethics to questions of consent versus seduction, faithfulness versus promiscuity, etc. The form that one's sexual gratification takes is also a moral matter, and deviation from heterosexual monogamy brings the condemnation of God. This is contrary to the current attitude that says there is nothing intrinsically good or evil in any sexual act as such-that one's situation and attitude make his behavior right or wrong. As important as love is, the Bible will not support or condone the view that love can validate whatever expression sex takes (e.g., adultery, homosexuality, bestiality). Those who would defend homosexual desires and acts must reject an absolute standard for the form of one's sexual relations, but the Word of God presents just such an absolute standard. In the eyes of God the object of one's sexual gratification is not a matter of indifference, despite the protest of homosexuals against the normativity of heterosexuality. A certain irony is to be observed, however. Despite the moral relativism advocated by homosexuals with respect to the form of sexual relations, in other contexts they really want a positive value attributed to their own sexual preference! They want not only acceptance, but approval, demanding that everyone else respond as though homosexuality were perfectly respectable; they speak of homosexual relations as having virtue and beneficial consequences, they speak of themselves as "gay" (open and proud about their sexual orientation), and they give their organizations honorific names (e.g., Dignity). The Word of God refuses to render this kind of approval to the homosexual form of sexual expression and behavior under any condition whatsoever.
It is the summit of evil when the sinner is so void of shame | Aschemosune, ROM 1:27 | that he is pleased with his vices and cherishes them | ROM 1:32; cf. prov. 2;14; Ezek. 16:25 |. Romans 1:32 indicates that the sins condemned are not the result of an irreversible and unavoidable inner "orientation," but are indulged in deliberately and encouraged in others. While modern interviews show homosexuals self-deceptively portraying their sexual attitudes and behavior as normal and desirable, Paul did not tolerate homosexuality, because in the eyes of God it is radical iniquity. Not only those who perform acts of homosexuality but also those who give approval to them have gravely offended the holy Creator | ROM 1:32 |. Certainly disciples of Jesus Christ and the overseers in His Church should be far removed from any attitude and teaching that consents to homosexuality or effaces its sinful character. However, modern churchmen have instead learned to mirror the trends of the world. We would soberly conclude that modern society as well as the modern church are both dangerously close to divine retribution as they continue to tolerate and approve of homosexuality. "Gay liberation" is symptomatic of a culture abandoned by God to destruction and a church provoking the Lord with abomination.
Greg Bahnsen was once described as "the man atheists fear most." He was a distinguished scholar, author, and Christian apologist. A graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M.Div., Th.M.), he received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California. While at Westminster, he had the privilege of studying under Dr. Cornelius Van Til, the "father" of presuppositional apologetics. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He was the author of Theonomy in Christian Ethics, a unique treatise on the ongoing validity of the application of God's law for us today. At the time of his death in December, 1995, he was the resident scholar at the Southern California Center for Christian Studies in Irvine, CA
Zijn credits vind ik meer waard dan een liberaal. Maar ik geloof hem niet omdat hij zoveel dingen achter zijn naam heeft maar ook omdat hij de bijbel gebruikt en hij heeft de juiste interpretatie!!!!! Dat je iets anders wilt geloven dat moet je zelf weten maar de Heilige Geest heeft me op dit gebied erg bekeerd en tot de conclusie gekomen dat homosexualiteit of homofielen of homos gewoon niet bijbels is en volgens de bijbel zonde is.
[ Voor 4% gewijzigd door Anoniem: 55194 op 01-03-2004 21:56 ]
.:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/23647/Untitled-2.jpg?f=community)
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/25814/camus_small.jpg?f=community)
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/83088/icon%25203.jpg?f=community)
/u/31784/crop64eb3a226fb30.png?f=community)
:strip_exif()/u/50696/IconOM_01.gif?f=community)
, er zijn gelovigen die daar anders over denken.
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/89520/kl.jpg?f=community)
:strip_exif()/u/10422/bows.gif?f=community)
/u/15411/webicon.JPG?f=community)
/u/21498/minimoog.png?f=community)
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/101807/crop56f6f003d7bfa.jpeg?f=community)
/u/44276/got_icon5.png?f=community)
:strip_exif()/u/43528/177052.gif?f=community)
.
:strip_icc():strip_exif()/u/3913/Froukje_icon.jpg?f=community){kind=icon}