From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 20 2003 - 18:16:08 EST
Thanks for the reply, Michael. A few comments:
>>Usual questions - has it been proved that homosexuality is innate?
Behaviours (correct spelling) are made up of innate, chosen and acquired
aspects. I write on the hoof and use the word acquired to mean both learned
and habitual behaviour. It is not always easy to decide whether behaviour is
one or the other or a mixture.>>
This was not the thrust of Roy's essay, but it is, as you say, the "usual"
question. At least one of the usual questions.
Of course the answer is "no," and will always be "no" for science does not
"prove" anything. What has been shown rather clearly is that the claim that
homosexual orientation is always a "chosen" tendency has been disproven. You
and I, Michael, did not "choose" our heterosexual orientation, we acquired
it either by nature or by nurture. Likewise, my homosexual friends did not
"choose," but found themselves to be simply different from the norm.
>>The question is whether homosexuality is right or wrong. And to a Chrsitan
>>what the bible actually teaches. One cannot get round what Paul says.>>
Yes," to all three statements. I discuss all this at some length on my web
site, and give link references to those who argue as you do. The key
question is, of course, what DOES the Bible actually teach in this respect.
And what DOES Paul say in Romans 1.
If I were convinced that homosexual acts were, in every case, contrary to
God's will, then I'd have to agree to condemn them. I am not so convinced;
indeed, after some study (over 10 years) of the issues I have changed my
views on the subject, which were then much as yours are now, to those
expressed on my web site.
>>To say David and Jonathan were actually gay is pathetic and cannot be
justified from any intelligent reading of the text. The latest English and
Anglican suuggestion is that the centurion whose slave was healed had a
homosexual relationship with him.>>
I would not use the word "pathetic," but I do agree that the case for both
of these is very weak. At least as far as I've read about them. But don't
get caught up in those arguments as the thrust of Roy's essay. Roy is a
fellow Christian -- pleading with you and others who see his behaviour as
sinful to dialog with civility and with sensitivity. I happen to think
that's prety important.
>>One aspect I am sick of is the constant implication that one is homophobic
>>if one considers homosexuality to be morally wrong. It prevents any
>>reasonable and considerate discussion - at least in the Church of England.
>>Things will probably get more polarised with Rowan Williams obfuscating
>>style of theological and moral discourse.>>
I agree with you. I think Roy would also agree with you. Roy's point (and
mine) is that it takes an effort to make a "reasonable and considerate
discussion" possible. And that is the thrust of his essay.
Don't know anything about a "Rowan Williams," so I cannot comment on that
part of your post.
>>I can't say that I am surprised by Roy clements essay but it fails to
convince.>>
As I said when I posted it -- it did not have that as a goal.
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
>From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
>To: <asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>, <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals
>Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:55:39 -0000
>
>I dont why it should be so quaint if the writer is english!
>
>Usual questions - has it been proved that homosexuality is innate?
>Behaviours (correct spelling) are made up of innate, chosen and acquired
>aspects. I write on the hoof and use the word acquired to mean both learned
>and habitual behaviour. It is not always easy to decide whether behaviour
>is
>one or the other or a mixture.
>
>The question is whether homosexuality is right or wrong. And to a Chrsitan
>what the bible actually teaches. One cannot get round what Paul says.
>
>To say David and Jonathan were actually gay is pathetic and cannot be
>justified from any intelligent reading of the text. The latest English and
>Anglican suuggestion is that the centurion whose slave was healed had a
>homosexual relationship with him.
>
>One aspect I am sick of is the constant implication that one is homophobic
>if one considers homosexuality to be morally wrong. I t prevents any
>reasonable and considerate discussion - at least in the Church of England.
>Things will probably get more polarised with Rowan Williams obfuscating
>style of theological and moral discourse.
>
>I can't say that I am surprised by Roy clements essay but it fails to
>convince.
>
>Michael
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 20 2003 - 18:16:18 EST