From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 10 2003 - 11:41:38 EDT
What about natural inclination makes one accept a behavior as sanctioned? I
would bet my right arm that all "vices" are rooted in our genetic code
somewhere, but where are the studies? One is prone to alcohol and another is
prone to homosexuality, what about that makes it "ok" to indulge in a vice?
My brother-in-law is seriously addicted to crack cocaine and alcohol, I
would be willing to bet he has a natural inclination to become addicted to
these substances, does that mean we should accept his drug use and offer it
to him as hors d'oeuvres at family get togethers, or let him break it out
and use it at the kitchen table? Is our balking at his addiction merely on a
moral basis? Or is there more to it than that? He also has a natural
inclination for violence, do we allow him to beat people to death because he
can't help it that he gets angry? He's on his way to prison now for the
second time for assault. My sister sides with all of you guys, "he can't
help it, that's the way he is and he can't change, he's tried and tried and
he's still trying" of course we call that a mental illness, she's a classic
"enabler" and is routinely the object of his wrath, and he does "try to
stop" from one binge, and beating, to the next he swears he's trying to stop
and I believe he is, but he repeats it regularly, regardless. You people are
falling into the well prepared trap that people "can't help it". Maybe he
can't help it, I've seen him struggle with it for years, I've seen him cry
and practically have a nervous breakdown from sorrow about what he'd done. I
believe he can't help it, so what do we do, give him our face for a punching
bag? Do we change laws to enable his vices to continue unchecked?
Would someone please show me the difference between any other vice and a
homosexual tendancy? Is it merely studies? I heard they linked alcoholism to
heredity, itsn't that the exact same thing as what they say about
homosexuality? Are we to let all alcoholics "off the hook" because "they
can't help it"? Has anyone done a study to find out if violence is a
"natural inclination"?
Think to yourself "what is my vice; my natural inclination?" we all have
them, we're all born with them, can we "help" them? Sometimes we can hardly
stop ourselves, right? Maybe it's true that 90% of the time people can't
help themselves or even 50% of the time, but does that mean that we should
change all laws and moral codes to allow for these inborn vices? For some
reason you people think if you can prove it's a genetic predetermination
then it's allowed, God somehow forgot to mention that when he was writing
the Book that he says is his complete word (many of you don't believe this
and my mind boggles at why you identify yourself, then by the "Christian"
faith, you should start your own religion and stop dragging ours through the
mud).
I have natural inclinations, sometimes I can "help it" and sometimes I
cannot, but I find my life goes much smoother when I abstain, which would be
a natural result of being obedient to God's laws. God's laws work in the
natural as well as the supernatural.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, apparently the concept is
unpopular (or maybe it proves my point?): What about pedophiles? What is the
difference between a propencity toward same sex and one toward children?
What makes them different? If it isn't based on sex, what is it based on?
What IS attraction? If people are "attracted" to same sex, what makes it
different, then to being "attracted" to children?
So, the people with a homosexual tendancy have "tried to change, but can't"
I tell them to JOIN THE CLUB! Not being able to change is a falling short of
what God has called us to. Although there is forgiveness we must call sin
SIN! Has anyone ever studied the "unforgiveable sin"? It's lack of
repentance, it's denying or ignoring the promptings of the Holy Spirit,
which changing the rules for our own benefit would fall into. We die in our
sin because we failed to repent (because we changed the rules without God's
permission we tie God's hands, he can't forgive us if we don't ask and we
don't ask because we changed the rules to make it "ok").
If truly we set our eyes on Jesus and like Peter when he began to sink
realized that if he kept his eyes on him he remained on top of the water, we
can overcome our desires. The idolatry that all of you fail to realize is
our fixation on ME, myself and I. It's whatever "I" want supersedes all? NO
all of you are missing the point. God doesn't really care if you are
comfortable in your sin or it's "tough to kick the habit" if this were the
old testament we'd all be frying alive or something his anger still burns
because we fail to repent (because we "changed the rules", but he didn't).
That is how you put to death the flesh, by not giving into it's cravings and
desires and if we truly keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, we can be "overcomers
through Christ". What does this mean? That we are no longer in BONDAGE to
the flesh and it's desires, that is the Christian walk, THAT is the
Christian calling, THAT is the Christian life, it is one of our missions in
life to put to death the sins of the flesh. If we can't even overcome the
sin that rests in our own bodies, how do you think we can make an impact on
the world? Isn't that the bondage that is talked about in the Bible? Being
"yoked" by a behavior?
You people are SO missing the point! You dont' change the definition of
"BAD" because you fail to measure up, that's cheating! Or the definition of
sin because it makes us uncomfortable or it's hard to do! It's not about YOU
or what YOU want or what you think is right or the way things should be, God
doesn't give a RIP what You think, he wrote the rules and guidelines which I
think are quite clear, you can haggle over them and pick them apart, but
since God is truly the boss, how much does it really matter what you think?
He said it quite clearly and if you want to water it down and mix and match
and change definitions etc, etc... you go right ahead, but I wouldn't want
to be You on judgement day.
What many of you want to do though is call what IS sin NOT sin. We are all
born with sin in our genetic code, it's written in our DNA and I'd be
willing to bet again my right arm that if they studied it they'd find that
that is scientifically true. We're all genetically flawed, but does that
give us licence? NO! Like Paul was saying because of GRACE we are no longer
under the law, but do we do as we please? No way! I would think that all you
brilliant people would be able to understand that concept, but maybe some of
you are lacking enlightenment, "Having a form of godliness, but denying the
power thereof" which the very next words are: "from such turn away"
Sondra
>From: RDehaan237@aol.com
>To: gmurphy@raex.com, jwburgeson@juno.com
>CC: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: Sin?
>Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:06:45 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 7/5/03 8:41:23 AM, gmurphy@raex.com writes:
>
>
> > Now Paul may indeed have had in mind only particular types of what we
>call
> > today
> > homosexual practices and he probably did not have the concept of
>"homosexual
> > orientation" as it's developed in recent years. (& by the same token
>one
> > can't argue
> > that he intended to _omit_ homosexual acts within a committed loving
> > relationship from
> > the negative statements he does make about same-sex relationships.)
>But I
> > think it's
> > clear that he lists homosexual activity, to the extent that he was aware
>of
> > it, as one
> > of the sins consequent upon the fundamental Sin.
> >
> > Shalom,
> > George
> >
>George,
>
>I was knocked off the Internet on Sunday night by a thundertorm. It took
>me
>two days and a hundred bucks for technical help to get back on. Now I
>would
>like to address your comments above.
>
>Your post was directed to Burgy, but since he and I are on the same page in
>this discussion, I would like to respond with additional comments and
>questions, if I may.
>
>Your statement is made from a theological perspective, and as usual, is
>well
>stated. This time, however, I would like your comments from a scientific
>view
>on how scientific findings re homosexual orientation relate to our
>interpretation of Paul’s views.
>
>Biological factors are looking more and more important as influences on
>homosexual orientation, as David Myers wrote (“Accepting What Cannot Be
>Changed,”
>Perspectives, June/July, 1999). He refers to studies that provide new
>evidence
>that differences exist between homosexual and heterosexual men both in
>prenatal hormones and in a region of the brain known to influence sexual
>behavior.
>Myers, who is conservative in these matters, is properly cautious about
>accepting these studies of biological influences, but leans toward
>recognizing their
>weight.
>
>He, however, is more persuaded that “[E]fforts to change one’s sexual
>orientation usually (some say, virtually always) fail.” After reviewing
>some
>research findings he concluded:
>
> “But this much seems certain. Many gay and lesbian Christians
>have felt
>called to heterosexuality, but after years of
>effort,
>prayer, laying on of hands, Christian counseling, and searing
>guilt
>have found only misery, and in some cases lost faith. This fact of life
>is
> recognized by my denomination, the Reformed Church in America, whose
>Theological Commission statements have discerned (in the
>words of
>the church’s 1998 document) that, 'despite the uncertainty over
>its
>cause, the sexual orientation of a person, in most cases, is
>highly
>resistant to change.'”
>
>I take this to mean that one’s sexual orientation is not a matter of
>choice.
>Homosexual people do not choose their sexual orientation any more than
>straight people do. Our sexual orientation is thrust upon us, not chosen.
>
>You said that Paul “probably did not have the concept of ‘
>homosexualorientation’ as it's developed in recent years.” Neither did
>he know that our sexual
>(hetero- and homo-) orientation is probably influenced by our biology and
>that
>it is “highly resistant to change.” Nor did he have the concept of a
>loving
>committed relationship between two homosexual people.
>
>In Paul’s letter to the Romans he wrote that “women _exchanged_ natural
>intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, _giving up_
>natural
>intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.”
>(Romans
>1: 26, 27; NRSV) I think Paul is referring to people with a heterosexual
>orientation who deliberately engage in homosexual behavior for the thrill
>of it or
>for whatever other reasons. Such people deliberately choose homosexual
>activity. That is one of the sins that grows out of the fundamental Sin of
>idolatry,
>as you point out.
>
>But that is not the picture of persons with a homosexual orientation that
>Myers paints, or that I have experienced. Quite the opposite. Many people
>with a
>homosexual orientation have tried to exchange it for a heterosexual one,
>and
>by far the largest number of them have failed.
>
>Strange as it may seem, I think we need to distinguish between what might
>be
>called “natural homosexual orientation,” the picture of which is
>emerging
>from the work of those who are studying sexual orientation scientifically,
>and on
>the other hand, the “sinfully chosen homosexual behavior” that Paul
>describes. I find it hard to believe that a “natural homosexual
>orientation”
>described by Myers or that is found in a loving committed homosexual
>relationship of
>people I have known, is a consequence of the Sin of idolatry.
>
>Am I missing something? Thanks in advance for your comments.
>
>Peace,
>
>Bob
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 10 2003 - 11:41:59 EDT