Forsaking What is Natural is Not Without Consequences

Forsaking What is Natural is Not Without Consequences

Written By Larry Alex Taunton on Twitter


Now that I’ve got your attention, let me tell you a story from history.

Romans 1:18-32 says there is a pattern to sexual degeneracy, and a society that rejects God will inevitably follow it.

It spirals downward in three stages:

1. Worship of nature

2. Homosexuality

3. A debased mind

According to the Apostle Paul’s argument—you can dismiss it if you wish—this is a kind of blueprint for depravity once society severs its tie with the Absolute and people unrestrainedly indulge their sexual appetites.

In Stage 2, he says society crosses over into sexual perversion, i.e., that which is “contrary to nature.”

I am now in Rome. If you’ve been here, you know statues of Roman heroes—both real and mythological—are scattered throughout the city. What you may not know is that the Romans weren’t very original in this regard. Just as Roman mythology was a blatant plagiarism of the Greek pantheon, so, too, was their art. But the art in both cases is a clue to a great deal more than meets the eye.

Greece was the first truly Western civilization to attempt to mainstream homosexuality and, later, pedophilia. Greek civilization, perverse and self-indulgent, collapsed.

The Romans followed a similar path, and, well, their civilization also collapsed. And before both, the Ancient Hebrews did the same.

But the statuary. What about it?

Greco-Roman art began to celebrate, and then to worship, the male physique. Women generally play a minor role in late Greek and Roman art. It’s the males, naked and absurdly muscular, that dominate art.

Back to the Apostle Paul. In 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, he makes an unusual argument—unusual because it appears nowhere else in Scripture—about long hair. Yes, long hair! He says, in effect, that long hair on a man is effeminate, while long hair on a woman is “her glory.”

“That’s just a cultural thing,” you say. You’re not alone. Some foolish pastors say it, too. However, Paul isn’t making a cultural argument. He argues from creation:

“Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?”

This argument appears only once in the Bible, and that’s because the church at Corinth was dealing with advanced sexual perversion both in the city and in the church.

If you know anything about ancient Corinth or you’ve been there as I have, you know the Temple of Aphrodite sits high above the city on a hill. Aphrodite was the goddess of love and lust. The temple prostitutes were kept busy with customers.

A proverb from the period said, “The voyage to Corinth isn’t for every man.” That’s because many a man lost his soul there. Think ‘One Night in Bangkok’: “One night in Bangkok makes the tough guys tumble. I can feel the devil walk-in’ next to me.”

Or ‘House of the Rising Sun’: “It’s been the ruin of many a poor boy, and God, I know I’m one.”

Such was Corinth.

A clue to the degeneracy is found in the art: statues of Aphrodite in this period depict her with a short masculine hairstyle. Indeed, she looks masculine.

This fashion had entered the church with women mimicking the style of Aphrodite and her temple prostitutes as women might mimic a pop star today. Paul tells them it’s unnatural. To do so was to throw off their femininity and assume a masculinity that God never meant for them to have. In the Lord’s divine arrangement of things, men were to be men, women women, and the two were to remain in their lanes in appearance and purpose.

But with the worship of the male physique, it became fashionable to assume masculine characteristics.

Do you begin to see the pattern the Apostle was talking about?

It’s not just that the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans followed it through every stage, but we are following it, too.

1. Worship of nature?

We are there. What is the environmental movement if not a new paganism?

2. Homosexuality? We began tolerating it decades ago, but now it’s mainstreamed.

3. A debased mind. Does this require commentary? The sexualization of children, irreversible adolescent sex-change surgeries, and the mainstreaming of pedophilia.

Riding above it all is the worship of the male physique.

If statuary was the medium of artists of the Greco-Roman Period, today that same sentiment for the male is expressed in comics, graphic novels, and superhero movies where an exaggerated form of physical masculinity is standard, and women forsake feminine characteristics for masculine ones.

In late Greece and Rome and now, women were sold a lie, the acceptance of which is fundamentally detrimental to them having any role in society whatsoever: that their femininity is weakness.

Think about the efforts of feminists to overthrow their own femininity in order to pursue masculinity:

• Abandon child rearing and the home to enter the workplace and compete with men

• Abortion as a means of suppressing the role of mother and remaining in competition with men

• The campaign, until quite recently, to enter traditionally male spaces—sports, military, etc. to compete with men. The feminine advance into male spaces has been arrested by biological males entering into traditionally female spaces in sports, bathrooms, and even efforts to bear children.

Of course, this can only end in failure, because women can never fill male roles as well as men who were designed by God for that purpose. (The reverse is also true.)

The late Greeks and Romans annihilated the feminine and simultaneously elevated the masculine, but in a perverted form.

The Greeks came to see homosexuality and pedophilia, not as sissy, but as the ultimate expression of male dominance.

We are on that train, and unless the downward spiral is stopped, the same end is inevitable.

Coincidentally, I write from a sidewalk cafe, and from where I sit I can see a scarf for sale bearing the image of Frida Kahlo, the Mexican artist of the infamous uni-brow. Frida is best known for her “Self-Portrait with Cropped Hair.” In it, she sits in a chair in a man’s suit with scissors in hand, hair clippings all around her. Betrayed by her husband, she cut off her hair and threw off her femininity in a bitter statement that she no longer needed a man, she could be one.

Frida is a feminist icon now (especially in Europe). Her rage has been adopted by many women.

But to what end?

I’ll tell you: the complete destruction of women.

With the rise of male homosexuality and the worship of a warped masculinity, men made war on womanhood and they’re repeating the pattern….

Unfortunately, many women are aiding in their own destruction. If Frankensteinian science can achieve reproduction without women, it will be the end of women and civilization.

Forsaking what is natural is not without consequences.


Thank you for your patience.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 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 of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.
Romans 1:24-28

Comments are closed.