Forums

Is he/she, gay/lez/trans?....Gees you would never know it!!!

Page:   1 2 3
 
 

Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
February 23, 2008, 08:10

Is there a difference between ‘normal’ and ‘natural’? People esepically in theology tend to use the words synomously though I would argue they mean different things. I’ll see what other people have to say and then put my two cents worth in if no one else says what I am thinking.


From my reading as well Sandy there seems to be some confusion and misinterpretation of the word natural when it appears in Rom 1. I’m not the greek or hebrew scholar to explain it all though.



magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
February 23, 2008, 09:25

When I started my exegesis on Romans 1, I found that what they were refering to was leaving “the usual means of germination” or “the usual means by one gets pregnant”…the explanation of the word was one to imply that sex was being used in a way other than for pregnancy, women were having sex for something other than conception and men also to bring on conception. I was using a Greek translator and also using an online greek sites ancient greek and modern greek translator.


Speaking a second language myself, a word can have a full on explanation of a meaning other than what we are used to in the english language if put with another few words. For eg In english for me to say “I flew out by plane today” or ” I flew away by plane today” are ok to use and understood as the same thing but not in Hungarian, If I said it in Hungarian as ” I flew away today” that would be correct and implying something other than me as a person but if I said “I flew out today” nit would mean I personally took off from the ground and flung through the air. Many euro and other countries speak either in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd or inanimate object person or thing and if the translators cant grasp that or hadnt had contact with that a mistranslation can easily occur. Also whatever was the “in use” of language for the day can also come into it, here is an easy example “gay” once meant happy and now means male homosexual. Gay can still be used to mean happy but imagine someone reading a letter maybe a 1000yrs from now, how confusing would the use of that word be to them. Or the word “sick” which means “cool” and look at even the word cool. We have to take certain things into account if we want the whole picture. It doesnt take away from the word of God if anything it enriches it because I understand from where it is being spoken from, which I found when I did the exegesis (havent finished yet)



Shantih Shantih Shantih
 
Joined in 2008
February 23, 2008, 12:19

I don’t know about more concise, per say 😀 . Mine was perhaps a little more simplistic, but that’s more of a reflection on my inability to write anything that sounds deep.


Once again, it seems we agree on a fundamental basis, Sandy. It does look like we came to very similar conclusions; only yours was based on sociology more than philosophy. Even in your last paragraphs, when you explained the one perceivable difference in our posts, I find that I agree with you.

In my original post I attempted to define normal from a fairly secular point of view – I didn’t really bring the concept of morality into it. Naturally, there are standards of behaviour and belief that God wants us to conform to, and also, it is foolish to assume that there are no grey areas – God does not reveal His full designs to us (probably because we’d muck them up if He did 😀 ). But, yes, ultimately there are moral rules we are supposed to follow, and from a religious perspective, normal does become definitive as what we should do.


In regards to the normal/natural conundrum, then I have to say yes, there is a difference. The problem with defining this difference is that to do so, we have to precisely define both.

We have already agreed that the only way we can say what normal is to everyone is by relating it to morality. That said, (as I see it) ‘natural’ in no way means ‘godly’ – and it hasn’t since the Fall [*1]. Essentially, what “comes naturally” to people is oftentimes a great deal more evil than good [*2].

Therefore, if ‘normal’ can be seen as the correct moral basis upon which we should be functioning (ie. serving/helping others, generosity, being selfless, etc.), and ‘natural’ is usually something bad (ie. selfish ambition, greed, self-preservation, etc.), then the difference is obvious – natural and normal take opposite ends of the morality spectrum.

This is not the case all the time, of course – natural instincts can be both good and neutral as well (ie. love and sexuality, respectively), but the overall trend is the reverse – we live in a broken, sin-filled world and are often driven by primarily sinful urges. It is always going to be harder for us to do what is right over what feels right, and I’m Biblically inclined to believe that what is harder to do or bear is usually the right course of action [*3].


That was a little deeper and more complex in my head… 🙂


[*1] This is not, of course, the only way to define natural. It can also be done in a biological sense, or relate to the intended state of human beings before the Fall.

[*2] In this I refer more to the generic concept of ‘human nature,’ not to anything specific (obviously, homosexuality is the first thing that springs to mind here; we’ve all been told at one stage or another that it is ‘unnatural’, or a ‘choice’ – this is not what I mean, however).

[*3] Think, Matthew 16:24, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.”



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
February 23, 2008, 23:15

That is almost EXACTLY what I was going to say 😆 Avb has concerns with the word ‘preferance’ in relation to sexuality and I have issues with ‘unnatural’ because you are right, what is natural to man in a sinful world is sin. But then what is also natural is the need for relationship and sex which are not bad things in and of themselves but when these needs drive us to sin… and the vicious circle just keeps on turning.



Anthony Venn-Brown
 
Joined in 2005
February 24, 2008, 09:16

Sandy……..did i read right……do you mean I use the word ‘preference’ for sexual orientation.



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
February 24, 2008, 14:42

SORRY! I should take a leaf out of William’s book and learn to read my posts before I submitt them, I left out a word entirely 😳 My appoligies, its bad enough if I do that in a general sense but to paraphrase you so badly is almost unforgivable. 😳 Anyway all fixed now. I am such a doofus when I’m busy my brain runs about thirty seconds ahead of my fingers!


February 24, 2008, 16:39


Speaking a second language myself, a word can have a full on explanation of a meaning other than what we are used to in the english language if put with another few words. For eg: In english for me to say “I flew out by plane today” or ” I flew away by plane today” are ok to use and understood as the same thing but not in Hungarian, If I said it in Hungarian as ” I flew away today” that would be correct and implying something other than me as a person but if I said “I flew out today” nit would mean I personally took off from the ground and flung through the air.


When I was working with a mission group in Central Asia I learnt Russian. One day I told my Russian teacher that I was going to Tashkent on the bus. She started laughing. I asked her what was funny. She replied, “On the bus? You mean on the roof?” In Russian you only say “in” the bus. 😆



magsdee
Disabled
Joined in 2006
February 24, 2008, 17:29

😆 yes thats right 😆 its so different isnt it? I sometimes speak a mixed hungarian english with my grammer, only a few people ever pick it up. I find other languages so much more colourful than english sometimes and to have more of an extended meaning with some things, dont you reckon? Thats why to me its important to look at the grammer book for myself when dealing with the bible.



orfeo
 
Joined in 2007
February 25, 2008, 13:20

Heck, you don’t even have to change languages to get those kind of funny looks. Just try spending a week in America.


I spent a week with friends in southern California about a year ago, we must have come up with at least a dozen occasions where something I said wasn’t quite right.


Words or phrases that I remember causing funny looks include “jumper” vs “sweater” , “power point” vs “outlet”, “I’ll ring you” vs “I’ll call you”, and “witches’ hats” vs “orange pylons”.


That’s not even covering the ones I already knew about like “petrol” vs “gas”.



Sandy
 
Joined in 2007
February 25, 2008, 13:44

LOL, I agree and happen to be living in California currently. I get asked to teach people ‘Australian’ all the time. to add to the list: soft drink vs. soda or pop, boot vs. trunk, swimmers vs. bathers, backpack vs. duffel bag, chips vs. crisps and the list just keeps on going.


Page:   1 2 3
 
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | LucidCrew
Version: 99.9; Page loaded in: 0.073 seconds.