Dishonour

[edit] Dishonour

• Dishonour is the opposite of honour. What is to honour (honor)? Today it is a word which few want to admit as real in life. In among our Chinese community it is just like the saving of face or face giving to another. In another culture, we may label it differently, but it boil down to the simple dignity of life. Life according to believers in God as Creator or maker of life, is sacred. Animals may have life but that kind of <animal>life is never considered as on the same level as homo sapiens life.

• Sacred is a word attached to the belief in the Almighty Creator who gives life. Most religions with a concept of God as Creator believe that life is sacred. That gives meaning and dignity to human life, (animals are created, but it is assumed not as sacred compared to human, since God in the Bible never created animals to behave like-God).

• When there is no honour, people could literally kill and murder other human beings without fear of punishment since the laws of a Country is based on the humanity dignity and sacredness of human life.

The Bible here in the book of Roman clearly illuminate us to the fact that people who arrogantly denied God as Creator denied utterly their own belief in the sacredness of life, that is why they can treat sex without respect to human dignity and choose to play as animals does in all kind of sexual deviations. Most Countries have laws to control such un-acceptable activities especially in Singapore. goto see gay [[1]] see definition with my criticism 165.21.154.117 10:57, 23 Sep 2005 (SGT)alien

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet." from KJV

This passage is unique in that it is the only place in the Bible that refers clearly to same-gender sexual behavior by men (homosexual) as well as describing women who give their natural orientation for the unnatural, ie. women and women (lesbians).

[edit] Two opposing views

I give two opposing views below: Some important words in Romans 1:26-27: It is important to understand the precise meaning of certain key words in Verses 26 & 27, as expressed in the original Greek:

• About the words "vile affections:" The Greek phrase translated as "vile affections" in the King James Version of the Bible is also translated as: "vile affections and degrading passions" (Amplified Bible)

"dishonorable passions" (English Standard Version) 
"degrading passions" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version) 
"shameful lusts" (New International Version) 
"shameful desires" (New Living Translation) 
"evil things" (Living Bible) 
"shameful affections" (Rheims New Testament) 
"immoral, unnatural drives" (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English) 

• In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living -- the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music." 2 It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan "fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome" at the time. 4 Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan "Great Rite" is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private.

• About the words "exchanged," "leaving," "change," and "abandoned:" These words are important, because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who had "exchanged" their normal/inborn behaviors for same-sex activities. That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation and engaged in sexual behavior with other women. Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had "abandoned" their normal/inborn behaviors and engaged in same-sex activities. In both cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who were engaging in same-sex behavior -- in violation of their natural desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex behavior. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and tried same-sex behavior.

• About the word "natural:" "The operative term in Paul’s original Greek is "phooskos", meaning "inborn", "produced by nature" , "agreeable to nature". 1 This term, and the corresponding phrase "para physin" described below, are open to interpretation: To many religious liberals, gays, lesbians, mental health therapists, and human sexuality researchers, homosexual and bisexual orientations are normal, natural, and inborn for a small percentage of human adults. For gays, lesbians and bisexuals with these orientations, opposite-sex behavior would be abnormal and unnatural.

• To most religious conservatives, and perhaps to Paul himself, all same-sex behavior is abnormal and unnatural, no matter by whom it is done and irregardless of the nature of their relationship.

• About the word "against nature," "unnatural," etc: The Greek phrase "para physin" is commonly translated into the English as: "unnatural and abnormal" (Amplified Bible)

"contrary to nature" (English Standard Version) "against nature" (King James Version, Rheims New Testament) "sin with each other" (Living Bible) "unnatural" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version) "immoral, unnatural drives" (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)

• • • This does not seem to be an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. M. Nissinen defines "para physin" as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." 3 The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible:

• In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary.
• In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together.

• About the phrase "just reward:" Romans 1:27 refers to the idolaters receiving a recompense or penalty for "their error which was due." (NKJ, ASV, etc). This appears to be a reference to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which was epidemic among such Pagan fertility cults at the time.

The context in which Verses 26 & 27 appear: It is important to analyze the preamble to the verses quoted above:

• Romans 1:7 says that Paul is writing his epistle "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...": That is, his letter is written to all of the Christians in Rome. His recipients would be submerged in the Roman culture, where homosexual behavior was both widespread and acceptable by society.
• Romans 1 is concerned with "Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals." 2 This is not often mentioned today. Rather, verses 26 and 27 are broken out of the longer passage and cited by themselves to condemn same-sex behavior.

Verses 21 to 28 include the following topics:

• Verses 21-23: The people had once been Christians. But they had fallen away from the faith, and returned to Paganism. They made images of Pagan gods in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles for their religious rituals. The latter were probably held in Pagan temples.
• Verse 24: Next, they engaged in heterosexual orgies with each other as part of these pagan fertility rituals.
• Verse 25: Next, they worshipped the images that they had made, instead of God, the creator. Paul is specifically condemning idol worship here.
• Verse 26: Because of these forbidden practices, God intervened in these fertility sex-rituals and changed the people's behavior so that women started to engage in sexual activities with other women.
• Verse 27: describes how God had the men also engage in same-sex ritual activities. They (presumably both the men and women) were then punished in some way for their error.
• Verse 28: Again, because they did not acknowledge God, then He "gave them up" to many different unethical activities and attitudes: evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, etc.

[edit] Shame

Alien here 165.21.154.113 04:56, 28 Sep 2005 (SGT) I wonder too, whether the view that the present day homosexual new stand <on same sex marriage> is not an unique view - a fact to be ashamed? I remembered in my younger days when I served as a VSC<Volunteer Special Constabulary>>

• We used to < with my Police partner> to do ‘’patrolling on foot’’ the streets of the area known as Tekka Market (Site of the demolished old Tekka Police Station or the headquarter of Bravo (B) division) and the surrounding places including the area of Desker Road and Bugis<Albert Street> (Kampong Glam).

Even among common Singapore, the mention of Ah-Kua kia (transsexuals) caused some laughter and smiles from faces; it was unnatural sexual indulgences that cause such frown and disapproval by some and others who laugh it off.

• Even the places of the brothels or the red lights <literary red lantern lighted to attract clients and new customers> district at Desker Road was a place where common people were ashamed to mention or associate with. As a police-patrolling officer, I had my duties to prevent crime. My patrolling include collecting quite a few registration numbers of vehicles parked in unauthorized places for fines <thru police summons>.

I did my duty with the understanding such vehicles were illegally parked in wrong places and most of those owners of vehicles were out to look & hunt for prostitutes! Personally, I was shocked for the first occasion to meet a young girl (barely twelve) standing in a corner waiting for clients in one of the red light districts of Desker Road. What if, she was my own little sister and how would I feel? It was a shame to do such hooking at such places!

The obvious fact that only human can feel ashamed made us "human" . It is not like animals who don’t understand “shame”. There is never any shame among animals that indulged in unnatural sexual acts. Some people call it human dignity, and the old Bible plainly commented such deviations as "unnatural" and "shameful" When had it become acceptable in any society that people had no feelings of that shame anymore? We don't call ugly faces "beautiful" to make that poor person feel "good". An ugly face is a natural birth by nature, and so be it, we can accept our looks! However to call as homesome or pretty is an insult to human dignity! I am referring to the ethics of same sex marriages! 165.21.154.113 04:56, 28 Sep 2005 (SGT)alien

[edit] Conclusions:

As in virtually all other "hot" religious topics, religious conservatives and liberals take opposite views on this and the other "clobber" passages in the Bible that are often regarded as referring to homosexuality:

• Conservative view: The assertion of Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, is a good example of a viewpoint that is held by many conservative Christians. He believes that these verses have done more to form Christians' negative opinion of homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. He writes: "For most of us who seriously honor Scripture these verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibits homosexual behavior. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as 'homosexual' has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination." 1
• Views by others: Many religious liberals, secularists, homosexuals, and others view this passage as an attack on heterosexual persons who were formerly Christians, who reverted to Paganism, and who engaged in ritual sexual behavior as a part of their newly adopted Pagan services. During these rituals, the Pagans were whipped into such a state of sexual frenzy that they went against their heterosexual nature and started engaging in sexual behavior with members of the same sex. Paul condemns such behavior. He concludes that Pagan worship will inevitably leads to other negative behavior: "...unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, [and] unmerciful."

• The beliefs that persons of other religions are all morally corrupt and that followers of one's own religion behave on a much higher moral plane was common in Paul's time. The same assertions have been made throughout history. Yet, modern-day studies indicate that followers of no one religion have a monopoly on good behavior. No group of religions exhibits consistently immoral behavior among their followers.

• The passage deals with immoral behavior among heterosexuals who have converted from Christianity to Paganism and engaged in behavior which is against their nature. There is no real connection between: Former Christians in the first century CE who have returned to Paganism and engaged in sexual orgies, and

Persons with a homosexual orientation who have entered into a loving, committed relationship or same-sex marriage.

• Having lived in a pre-scientific era, Paul would not have had access to the research in human sexuality which started in the late 19th century and which only became widespread in the latter half of the 20th century. He would have been unaware*** of the concept of sexual orientation.My_Objections***pleaseYour internal ID number is 399491 10:48, 29 Sep 2005 (SGT)

References: "How to be true to the Bible and say 'Yes' to same-sex unions," at: http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/bennett.html R.S. Truluck, "The six Bible passages used to condemn homosexuals," at: http://www.truluck.com/html/ Quoted in: Bruce Hane, "'Natural' and 'unnatural' " at: http://www.newvisionsproject.org/ "Free to be gay: A brief look at the Bible and homosexuality," Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, at: http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/UFMCC/

[[2]]from Internet sources Copyright © 1996 to 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance Latest update: 2005-APR-05 Author: B.A. Robinson

****I just mirrored the passage from an Internet site showing a fair treatment of either views. Personally it is easy to see that the whole topic is on the issue of idolatry-resulting in wrong human relation-degrading practices- even with animals!.

• Further I cannot agree that Paul lived in such times and context when he cannot understand such same sex-relationships as against the nature of God's order, just plain biased views by some free wheeling homosexuals church writers to argue a straw case!Your internal ID number is 399491 10:48, 29 Sep 2005 (SGT)