Re: Sin?

From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 11:09:54 EDT

  • Next message: Robert Schneider: "Re: Criticisms (was Cambrian Explosion)"

    Thomas,

    I was referring to the part in the discussion where homosexuality was
    (maybe) "found to be genetic", if I used the wrong term, I'm sorry. I
    thought if it was "genetic" it was considered a natural inclination. What I
    am referring to of course is always after "the fall", not before, of course
    our perfect created selves are not born with any sinful inclinations, I
    guess (except the right to choose to disobey God) hmmm this has triggered
    some thoughts I need to explore, thanks.

    The rest of the post was referring to certain list members that seem to
    believe that if it is in a persons genetic code, it is like being black or
    white, you cannot change the fact, therefore how can God condemn the 'acting
    out' on who you are?

    Sondra

    >From: "Thomas D. Pearson" <pearson@panam.edu>
    >To: asa@calvin.edu
    >Subject: Re: Sin?
    >Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
    >
    >Sondra Brasile <sbrasile@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >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 think we should be cautious in using the phrase "natural
    >inclinations." For Thomas Aquinas, to pick just one example, our
    >"natural inclinations" are wholly good; they direct us to the
    >authentic human goods, chief among which is love of God. You
    >apparently mean to refer, Sondra, to "desires," or "personal
    >preferences," or perhaps even "tendencies to sin." But confusing
    >these with "natural inclinations" winds up suggesting that our
    >created being is oriented away from God, and this will make hash out
    >of any notion of the imago dei, among other things.
    >
    >I also think we should be cautious in associating traditional
    >Christianity ("mere Christianity," to some folks) with a program for
    >moral improvement. The Christian doctrine of sin should alert us to
    >the fact that any such program of moral improvement is doomed to be
    >very short-lived.
    >
    >Tom Pearson
    >
    >___________________________________________________________________
    >
    >___________________________________________________________________
    >
    >Thomas D. Pearson
    >
    >Department of History & Philosophy
    >
    >The University of Texas-Pan American
    >
    >Edinburg, Texas
    >
    >e-mail: pearson@panam.edu

    _________________________________________________________________
    Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 11:10:42 EDT