Kimilla Ludwig wrote:
> Nice try, Tim. But pregnancy isn't inherently risky - it may well be for
> some but clearly is not so for all. It also confers certain
> protections, especially if a woman has her first child before the age of
> 30. Sodomy, on the other hand, is inherently damaging to the lower bowel
> (whether or not a condom is used, by the way).
Perhaps you arguing too hard and missed the humor of
You do have to be very careful when you argue for ethics
based on what is "natural". In the academic parlance,
this is "natural laws". You can quickly fall down the slope
of what is known as the naturalist falacy in philosophy. Dawkins
in Co. also seems to slide in this direction I think, so you're
in good company with other very bright people in the world.
Nature (as Tim also pointed out) simple "is". Every virtue
and vice can be found somewhere, and every noble and ignoble
deed as well. So you have to work from a principle to develop
a model of ethics. Dawkin's model of hawks and doves works
from a principle too, and of course, once he constructs his model,
the answer is obvious. But I don't think it is possible to prove
that this principle is a necessary let alone a sufficient condition
anywhere in the universe.
As bible believing Christians, we accept the scripture to
be inspired (somehow or in someway) by God, and therefore,
it is the rock on which we formulate our ethical principles.
In effect, we assume them to be true, as we also cannot
prove that they are in fact true (short of revelation I
suppose, but even then some people would doubt this too).
What has clearly transpired in this discussion on the
gay gene is that if we just look at nature, we will
find support for whatever we wish; hence, we cannot
define what is ethical or unethical. Louise also pointed
out that it is something that may even be brought on
during pregnancy if the hormone levels are skewed
in a different way.
As to whether acting out on homosexual impulses is
a sin, what Burgy has written on his web site does
have a point. So there are various ways to look at
scripture. Perhaps the bible doesn't actually hit
it point blank square on the head, but it definitely
frowns on some of the baggage that sometimes comes
with it. In that sense, perhaps orgies may not be
flat out forbidden either, but what often comes with
them most certainly is. And perhaps that is where the
Bible is really coming from. Maybe it is not the
homosexuality itself that offends the Lord, but
whenever that door is opened, orgies, prostitution,
making sex our god and finally making a religion out
worship of sex are likely to be quickly invited in as
In that sense, when I see an attractive woman
(that is not my wife), I also may have to be
reminded of Christ's injunction (Mt. 5:27-30).
Just a few little tiny thoughts Lord, that's
all. Awe common. Gee Wiz, you're a hard man!
by Grace alone we proceed,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 16 2002 - 12:51:44 EDT