From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 08:22:40 EDT
RFaussette@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Your argument assumes that Judaism & Christianity are to be understood as
"religions" which human beings have constructed to ensure their survival, well-being,
&c. If one takes seriously the belief that it is God who saves us in Christ, that we
are saved not by what we do (including "religion") or are but by receiving God's gift in
Christ, then Christianity is not a "religion" in this sense. This is of course not to
deny that historical Christianity has many features which have been developed by human
beings for good or less than good reasons, or that Christianity has needed and still
needs such structures in order to carry out its mission. But if that's all Christianity
is then its fundamental claims are false.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jul 22 2003 - 08:21:27 EDT