From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jan 25 2003 - 12:42:13 EST
Moorad wrote: "Regarding your statement that choice is not a causative agent
in homosexuals, I should like to quote to you what you quoted to me: "That's
a claim, of course. And it is that claim which is in question. ...Stating
the claim without addressing the issue is simply stating an opinion. As
such, simply not interesting." I ask you then, why is your opinion more
valuable than mine?"
Whether my opinion is "more valuable" is not what I wrote. What I have said
is that my claim is grounded in study and that the materials for that study
(both sides) are available for anyone to read on my web site. A claim is
"interesting" (IMHO) only when there are rational grounds for it that can be
examined, evaluated and argued. You choose to equate "valuable" with
"interesting;" I do not. Velikoovsky's claims, and, yes, even the claims of
ICR, are "interesting," but not "valuable" (because they can be so easily
refuted).
Suppose a high school senior comes up to you and I at a seminar and asserts
a claim that the earth is < 10,000 years old. If he says nothing else, we
would both probably ignore him. Suppose he says this is true based on
Morris's argument from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Both you and I would
observe that the 2nd law does not apply in that argument. Our claims would
be both interesting and valuable because we have studied the issue. The high
schooler's claim would be neither because he had not studied anything but an
ICR book.
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
>From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
>To: "John Burgeson" <burgythree@hotmail.com>, <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>,
> <asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: RE: An interesting essay for evangelicals
>Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:26:56 -0500
>
>Regarding your statement that choice is not a causative agent in
>homosexuals, I should like to quote to you what you quoted to me: "That's a
>claim, of course. And it is that claim which is in question. ...Stating the
>claim without addressing the issue is simply stating an opinion. As such,
>simply not interesting." I ask you then, why is your opinion more
>valuable than mine? Moorad
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Burgeson [mailto:burgythree@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:45 AM
>To: grayt@lamar.colostate.edu; asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals
>
>
>Terry posted some sound comments; I reply in part:
>
> >>Why? Does the existence of a genetic or physical-chemical basis for some
> >>sinful behavior excuse it? >>
>
>Good point, Terry. Absolutely not.
>
> >>If our fallenness extends to our genomes then there's really nothing
> >>surprising about finding a genetic or physical-chemical basis for
> >>homosexual tendencies or any other tendencies that might be deemed
>sinful.
> >>If someone has a particular disposition toward some sin for whatever
> >>reason--genetic, upbringing, hormonal imbalances, abusive past,
>etc.--they
> >>simply must take greater care in resisting that particular sin.>>
>
>As an expansion of your first sentence, again, I agree.
>
> >>I think it's a big mistake to define "normal" as "whatever is in the
> >>genome". For the Christian, normal is what scripture, rightly
>interpreted,
> >>says. >>
>
>Again, I agree.
>
>So where does this leave us? The question of where homosexual orientation
>arises in an individual can be answered in three ways, nature, nurture or
>choice. What I perceive through my own studies and from knowing a fair
>number of Christians who are practicing homosexuals -- all within a two
>person long term relationship, is that "choice" is not the causative agent
>in the vast majority of cases, and that "nurture" is probably not the
>causative agent in most cases.
>
>Now if "choice" WERE a causative agent, I think a case against homosexual
>activity might be made. Maybe. But it is not.
>
>Terry observes that the issue, therefore MUST come down to what we, as
>Christians, perceive to be the will of God on the matter. And I agree 100%
>with that statement.
>
>Where some Christians disagree with one another is, of course, on what
>God's
>will necessarily is. We might, for example, agree on the exegesis of Romans
>1 but disagree on the heurmenutics (sp?) of Romans 1. And other scriptures
>too, of course.
>
>John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
>www.burgy.50megs.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jan 25 2003 - 12:43:11 EST