From: John Burgeson (burgythree@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 26 2003 - 16:28:04 EST
>>We all have physiologically (genetically) based propensities to be
>>fornicators,
adulterers, homosexuals, drug addicts, drunkards, etc. Are we, therefore,
to
define such behaviors as none sinful? Science will one day enable us to
determine beforehand who is likely to become a criminal. Do we use that
knowledge to condone the crime or use it to avert the criminal behavior by
indicating that one ought not to kill? Pride is the greatest sin, are we to
be
prideful by saying that some of our actions are pleasing to God when
scripture
says otherwise?>>
1. No, no, in some cases, as I have before explained, no, no.
2. No.
3, No.
Your post is a form of begging the question, of course, and as such
misleading.
John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
www.burgy.50megs.com
>From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
>To: "John Burgeson" <burgythree@hotmail.com>,<asa@calvin.edu>
>Subject: RE: An interesting essay for evangelicals
>Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 17:33:39 -0500
>
>We all have physiologically (genetically) based propensities to be
>fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, drug addicts, drunkards, etc. Are
>we, therefore, to define such behaviors as none sinful? Science will one
>day enable us to determine beforehand who is likely to become a criminal.
>Do we use that knowledge to condone the crime or use it to avert the
>criminal behavior by indicating that one ought not to kill? Pride is the
>greatest sin, are we to be prideful by saying that some of our actions are
>pleasing to God when scripture says otherwise? Moorad
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Burgeson [mailto:burgythree@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Sat 1/25/2003 12:42 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: An interesting essay for evangelicals
>
>
>
> Moorad wrote: "Regarding your statement that choice is not a causative
>agent
> in homosexuals, I should like to quote to you what you quoted to me:
>"That's
> a claim, of course. And it is that claim which is in question. ...Stating
> the claim without addressing the issue is simply stating an opinion. As
> such, simply not interesting." I ask you then, why is your opinion more
> valuable than mine?"
>
> Whether my opinion is "more valuable" is not what I wrote. What I have
>said
> is that my claim is grounded in study and that the materials for that
>study
> (both sides) are available for anyone to read on my web site. A claim is
> "interesting" (IMHO) only when there are rational grounds for it that can
>be
> examined, evaluated and argued. You choose to equate "valuable" with
> "interesting;" I do not. Velikoovsky's claims, and, yes, even the claims
>of
> ICR, are "interesting," but not "valuable" (because they can be so easily
> refuted).
>
> Suppose a high school senior comes up to you and I at a seminar and
>asserts
> a claim that the earth is < 10,000 years old. If he says nothing else, we
> would both probably ignore him. Suppose he says this is true based on
> Morris's argument from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Both you and I would
> observe that the 2nd law does not apply in that argument. Our claims would
> be both interesting and valuable because we have studied the issue. The
>high
> schooler's claim would be neither because he had not studied anything but
>an
> ICR book.
>
>
>
>
> John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
> www.burgy.50megs.com
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> >To: "John Burgeson" <burgythree@hotmail.com>,
><grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>,
> > <asa@calvin.edu>
> >Subject: RE: An interesting essay for evangelicals
> >Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:26:56 -0500
> >
> >Regarding your statement that choice is not a causative agent in
> >homosexuals, I should like to quote to you what you quoted to me: "That's
>a
> >claim, of course. And it is that claim which is in question. ...Stating
>the
> >claim without addressing the issue is simply stating an opinion. As such,
> >simply not interesting." I ask you then, why is your opinion more
> >valuable than mine? Moorad
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: John Burgeson [mailto:burgythree@hotmail.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 11:45 AM
> >To: grayt@lamar.colostate.edu; asa@calvin.edu
> >Subject: Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals
> >
> >
> >Terry posted some sound comments; I reply in part:
> >
> > >>Why? Does the existence of a genetic or physical-chemical basis for
>some
> > >>sinful behavior excuse it? >>
> >
> >Good point, Terry. Absolutely not.
> >
> > >>If our fallenness extends to our genomes then there's really nothing
> > >>surprising about finding a genetic or physical-chemical basis for
> > >>homosexual tendencies or any other tendencies that might be deemed
> >sinful.
> > >>If someone has a particular disposition toward some sin for whatever
> > >>reason--genetic, upbringing, hormonal imbalances, abusive past,
> >etc.--they
> > >>simply must take greater care in resisting that particular sin.>>
> >
> >As an expansion of your first sentence, again, I agree.
> >
> > >>I think it's a big mistake to define "normal" as "whatever is in the
> > >>genome". For the Christian, normal is what scripture, rightly
> >interpreted,
> > >>says. >>
> >
> >Again, I agree.
> >
> >So where does this leave us? The question of where homosexual orientation
> >arises in an individual can be answered in three ways, nature, nurture or
> >choice. What I perceive through my own studies and from knowing a fair
> >number of Christians who are practicing homosexuals -- all within a two
> >person long term relationship, is that "choice" is not the causative
>agent
> >in the vast majority of cases, and that "nurture" is probably not the
> >causative agent in most cases.
> >
> >Now if "choice" WERE a causative agent, I think a case against homosexual
> >activity might be made. Maybe. But it is not.
> >
> >Terry observes that the issue, therefore MUST come down to what we, as
> >Christians, perceive to be the will of God on the matter. And I agree
>100%
> >with that statement.
> >
> >Where some Christians disagree with one another is, of course, on what
> >God's
> >will necessarily is. We might, for example, agree on the exegesis of
>Romans
> >1 but disagree on the heurmenutics (sp?) of Romans 1. And other
>scriptures
> >too, of course.
> >
> >John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
> >www.burgy.50megs.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 26 2003 - 16:30:00 EST