I would suggest that if any person, regardless of their
'predisposition' towards the 'sins of the flesh', is sincerely
desiring to follow Christ and gain redemption from sin and the
blessedness of holiness, then they will learn to be without sin,
because in truth they are, as God's ever loved child, pure and
perfect, even as 'their Father, which is in heaven, is perfect'. The
revelation that 'in Him we live and move and have our being' ,(ie
our soul, mind and life is dependant on God, for He is Divine and
Supreme Soul, Mind and Life and we are made in His image and
likeness), leads inexorably to the full redemption from sin of any
sort. 'For the law was given by Moses, but grace came through Jesus
Christ'. Christ reveals our perfect state of grace, totally beyond
sin or any other ills of the flesh, for 'ye have received the Spirit
of adoption', 'we are the children of God' 'and joint heirs with
Christ' (Rom 8:15-17).
Stuart Kirkley
Convinced that heaven and perfection is attainable here and now on this earth.
"For I am persuaded..." (Rom 8:38,39)
--On Sun, 12 May 2002 20:52:58 Freeman, Louise Margaret wrote: > > >> We need to make a distinction between a "genetic" condition, one >which >>(in whole or part) is due to coding in the DNA, & a condition that someone is >>"born with" in the sense that it is caused by environmental factors _in >utero_ >>or (by extension) at a very early age. Cystic fibrosis is an example of the >>first, fetal alcohol syndrome of the second. >> I believe (though I am subject to correction) that the >>putative evidence >>for a "gay gene" has gone away. > >While it is true that some labs have failed to replicate the work of Hamer >(whose linkage studies identified the first specific allele to be associated >with male homosexuality, on the X chromosome as I recall) there is still a lot >of evidence (twin studies, familial lineages, etc) that suggest a gene or more >likely genes that predispose an individual to homosexuality. So while >evidence for a *specific* gay gene has been challeged, I wouldn't say it has >"gone away." >As for the idea of *some* genetic relationship to homosexuality, I have rarely >seen that disputed by any reliable expert in the field of behavioral genetics. > If anyone can provide me with a peer-reviewed reference that says otherwise, >I would be most obliged. > >>In any case that would have >>suggested a genetic >>link only for male homosexuality. > >It is true that there is stronger evidence for a genetic link to male >homosexuality that to lesbiansm. > >> But even if there is no genetic basis for >>homosexuality, there seems good reason to believe that homosexual >>orientation is >>formed at a very early age & is not simply chosen. > >One likely contributor to sexual orientation is exposure to testosterone in >utero, something that could itself be affected by a variety of genetic and >enironmental factors, including sharing a womb with a twin brother and how >many males the mother has given to in previous pregnancies. So, while not >exactly a genetic cause, that contributiong factor, at least is something >completely beyond the individual's (or their parent's) control. > >> In any case homosexual genital activity does not necessarily >>follow from >>homosexual orientation, any more than heterosexual activity necessarily >follows >>from heterosexual orientation or drinking from being an alcohol. > >Quite right. I give a female lab rat a dose of testosterone as a pup, and >when she grows up she'll mate with other females, not males. She has no >choice but to follow her biologically based tendency People do. If someone >has a biologically based tendency to kill people, or molest children, there is >little doubt that God wants us to use our free will to repress those urges. >However, it used to be thought that God wanted left-handed children to repress >that urge and write with their right hand, and good Christian teachers had >little hesitation about using a combination of scripture and ruler whacks to >"treat" that behavior. Thankfully, most Christians have turned away from that >view. > >Question is, is a homosexual relationship that follows the other scriptural >guidelines for heterosexual relationships (Patient, kind, not jealous or slow >to anger, monogamous, chaste until marriage (tho we'd have to let them marry >to enforce that rule, right? OK, chaste until they move to Vermont and get a >civil union) etc.) in the category of "child molestation" or "lefthandedness" >in terms of being against God's will? > >Louise, behavioral neuroendocrinologist who hasn't made up her mind on this >issue yet. > >>Shalom, >> >>George >> >>George L. Murphy >>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ >>"The Science-Theology Interface" >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 12 2002 - 22:53:56 EDT