RE: What is "natural" anyway?

Date: Thu May 16 2002 - 12:51:48 EDT

  • Next message: Glenn Morton: "RE: A 2350 BC Middle Eastern cosmic blast?"

    There is a difference between doing unnatural things and doing
    immoral things. The latter, for the Christian, is defined in
    Scripture as unlawfulness (behavior contrary to God's laws). I again
    say that Christ Himself said: "Have you not read that He who created
    them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE." The key is to
    understand what Christ meant by "beginning." If that means the time
    of creation, then the next question is, are humans today different
    from what they were when initially created? If so, then human beings
    are fallen creatures and will behave in a way contrary to God's laws.

    All of us are sinners, not only the homosexuals---"Or do you not know
    that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
    deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
    effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor
    drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of
    God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were
    sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
    Christ and in the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor 6:9-11.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: Shuan Rose []
    Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 12:00 PM
    To: Tim Ikeda;
    Subject: RE: What is "natural" anyway?

    R Right on, Tim. The plain fact is that most humans do at least half a
    dozen unnatural things before nine o' clock each morning(shower, put on
    clothes, eat processed food, watch television, drive to work, check email,
    for example).
    Nature just is, and it is bad theology to take our presuppositions and likes
    and label it nature.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: []On
    Behalf Of Tim Ikeda
    Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:17 PM
    Subject: Re: What is "natural" anyway?

    Kamilla writes:
    > The equation of pregnancy with the practice of sodomy is grossly
    > offensive. It is a fallacious argument which I will not glorify
    > with any further response.

    I'm sorry you are offended, Kamilla. For me, this is not an
    emotionally charged topic and I remain somewhat detached. But YMMV.

    Quick reminder and a few clarifications:
    The complications of pregnancy and the relative benefits of Biblically
    mandated circumcision were introduced primarily for contrast in the
    discussion of "natural law" and medical arguments relating to
    prohibitions against anal intercourse. Pregnancy was *never* equated
    with anal sex. Beyond the first couple paragraphs of my past two posts
    were longer discussions about the problems of linking Biblically-mandated
    moral edicts with concepts about what is "natural". I think this remains
    an interesting problem that seems to have been glossed over in this
    thread. Despite early claims, I do not feel that this linkage has been
    firmly established. I'm still not even sure what people mean when they
    say that something is "natural". There appears to be some unspecified
    mixing of an idyllic notion of how things should be, statistical
    averaging, and epidemiology. Perhaps what is driving this form of
    "special pleading" is the notion that divine commandments should
    necessarily make sense to us.

    Tim Ikeda

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 16 2002 - 13:03:43 EDT