Re: Fly Gene

Interesting response. Though true, my sense is that strictly speaking
this may not be consistent with what we teach in the Christian
community. The general understanding is that we are being transformed,
and that salvation is by grace and not via works. Is that not about
being, rather than doing? That "doing" proceeds from "being"? As a human
community, we may be judged by what proceeds from our mouth (or
actions), but isn't what ultimately matters what lies in our hearts (or
our being)?

If you are talking about strictly societal perspectives, then perhaps
you are right. But to be sure there is a societal dimension in Christian
life, and that is one of the places where we on occasion find ourselves
crosswise with out "doings" not being coherent with the "being" that we
aspire to (in this regard, check out the UCC's thought provoking
"Bouncer" commercial at
http://www.stillspeaking.com/resources/indexvis.html ).

I am not arguing about the instances you and others have cited where
some genetic disposition results in unacceptable societal behavior such
as violence. What I'm pondering here is whether we might need to think
about being a little more tentative about where we position the cursor
and why in this particular area, the understanding and judgment that
surrounds sexual preference and behavior. It is too early to tell if the
matter in the article will prove to be extensible beyond the fly and if
so, in what ways (as George pointed out). But there is also no reason
at this point to think that the discovery cannot not be extensible. It
appears to me to be a caution flag for those who may have polar
perspectives on these matters. And there is certainly discourse about
whether preference and behavior are volitional or not, and that
distinction significantly affects (in part) how and why people in the
Christian communitiess respond to gender matters. JimA

David Bradford wrote:

> Jim
> We are judged not by who or what we are, but by what we do. Everyone
> is different and experiences different temptations. A key role of
> scripture is to help us understand the difference between right
> behaviour and the wrong sort.
>
> David
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Armstrong <mailto:jarmstro@qwest.net>
> To: ASA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 8:39 PM
> Subject: Fly Gene
>
> In case you missed it, here's a potentially explosive headline,
> from yesterday's Arizona Republic:
>
> Fly study points to master gene directing its sexual behavior
> <http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0603sex-gene03.html>
>
> It looks to me that this has the makings of real conflict for
> those who are certain that sexual preference and behavior are
> elective, particularly when based on some pretty explicit
> scripture references.
> There is some strong inference, some correlation evidence, and
> some pretty decent (coherent) working hypotheses that up 'til now
> just formed a tentative framework that anticipated this discovery.
> But this appears very likely to be the missing genetic piece of
> the puzzle - and unexpectedly focused on a single gene (at least
> in this case).
>
> JimA
>
Received on Sun Jun 5 11:37:04 2005