Re: Sin?

From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 07:58:17 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Sin?"

    In a message dated 7/21/03 12:32:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
    gmurphy@raex.com writes:

    > Taking evolution seriously does not answer the question of whether or not
    > the church should give some degree of acceptance to active homosexuals. But
    > it part of
    > the reality that has to be taken into account in dealing with the question.
    >
    > Shalom,
    > George
    >
    >

    Taking evolution seriously is a reason for a church to reject the behavior
    totally. It is pretty clear from the Bible, Herodotus, H.W.F. Scaggs (The
    Babylonians) that religions began as ethnic religions, whose gods promoted the
    fertility of the people they protected. Differential reproductive success is the
    essence of natural selection. Any behaviors that decreased reproductive success
    in a milieu of competing ethnic religions would jeopardize the future of the
    people practicing that behavior. Religion and intentionally engaging in
    behavior that lowers birth rates are incompatible in light of the way religions
    evolved in the first place. Judaism arose in that very ethnically and religiously
    bound milieu of the Mesopotamian basin, in fact Ezra was a Babylonian high
    priest dedicated to the law and determined to see the law obeyed in Jerusalem.
    If you cling to religious absolutes, you must totally reject homosexuality.
    To the extent you elevate homosexual behavior above its traditional place, you
    compromise religion and that has been done in many churches already, which is
    fine if that's what they choose to do, but those churches no longer serve
    their evolved purpose which is the genetic survival and material prosperity of
    its practitioners.

    rich faussette



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 07:58:38 EDT