George Murphy wrote awhile ago, responding to my earlier remarks:
Snipped, the conversation appears to be:
I wrote: "Homosexuality, being an unchosen tendency, CANNOT be a sin."
George wrote, in part in reply, "Sin is both a "tendency" and an act (or
failure to act), & in fact the 1st has a certain logical priority"
I replied: "If you would tag "homosexuality (a condition) as a sin, then
why not "heterosexuality (also a condition)?"
George responded: "First, I want to emphasize that my statement above
here was not intended
to apply uniquely to issues of sexuality. It was to argue that any
statement of the form "X, being an unchosen tendency, CANNOT be a sin,"
whatever X might be, is in some tension with traditional Christian
understandings of original sin."
Let's stop with that, for I cannot agree with your statement. I have a
tendency to myopia. Is that a sin? My Korean-born son has a tendency to
have a different skin color than Caucasian. Is that a sin? I am
predisposed (a tendency) to be sexually attracted to females. If I read
you right, this last tendency is in "some tension" with traditional
Christian understandings, according to your position. But not, I would
guess, the first two. I claim that none of the three tendencies are
inherently "in tension."
George continued: "Second, we seem to have some basic disagreement on the
character of
homosexual activity even within a committed relationship. ..I didn't
save the post in which you replied to my initial questions, the first of
which was, "What does the Bible says about God's intention for creation
in connection with human sexuality?" I thought that you had said that
this
intention was basically for heterosexual relationships." Is that
correct? If so, then homosexual relationships are in some sense
"anomalous," even if we want to refrain from labelling them as sinful for
one reason or another."
You understanding is correct. I firmly believe that a monogamous
heterosexual relationship is God's "Plan A." But that does not lead to
describing other relationships "anomalous." People may decide to remain
single, for many reasons. This does not make them weird. Procreation is
part of God's "Plan A" also, but childless couples are not thought of as
anomalous. Well -- maybe by their parents! < G >
So when you say "IF sexual activity within homosexual relationships is in
some sense anomalous, then arguments that depend on drawing parallels
between homosexual and heterosexual orientations or activities just don't
work: They don't have the same theological status, whether we use the
word "sin" for one or not," then my response is that the parallels
continue to work because I cannot accept your opening "if" clause above.
Are you arguing that all people who are not in a conventional family
(mother/dad/children) are necessarily 2nd class citizens theologically? I
think not, but that is how I read your arguments.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 08 2001 - 13:40:37 EDT