John W Burgeson wrote:
> 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."
Of course I did not say that all unchosen tendencies are sinful.
What I said was "in some tension with" [Note that I am trying to be careful
here & didn't just say "contradicts" or "is falsified by"] traditional
understandings of original sin is the claim that any tendency, if it can be
shown to be unchosen, is therefore not sinful. (I.e., "X, being unchosen,
CANNOT be sinful.")
Myopia and skin color are not sinful. To be born "without true fear
of God and true faith in God" (the Augsburg Confession's definition of
original sin) is. Alcoholism is a condition that some people apparently do
have an unchosen tendency toward & it has to be called at least an
inclination for sinful behavior.
Whether or not homosexual behavior is always sinful is precisely the
question we're discussing. If it is, then a tendency toward that behavior
is, to use my earlier language, at least "anomalous" if not sinful. If not,
not. But the question can't be answered just by saying that the tendency is
unchosen.
> 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.
A good point, though I think not conclusive. I don't want to say
that singles &c are 2d class citizens. But as far as sexual expression - or
more precisely, genital sexual expression - is concerned, heterosexual
relations are biblically normative & homosexual ones anomalous.
But I wouldn't claim that that's a complete response to your
argument.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 08 2001 - 16:02:35 EDT