i I agree with Tim that natural law arguments are unhelpful. I
distinction between immoral and unnatural. I think that Christians today
would not define sinfulness as just being contrary to God's laws, if God's
laws include men not cutting hair, etc.I agree that Paul is clear that he
regards homosexuality per se as sinful.The question is, Do we regard that as
cultural?THere are things that Paul regarded as sinful that we no longer
think sinful-there are things that we regard as sinful that Paul thinks
I know you place great store by the Scripture quoted below, Alexanian. But I
think that Scripture was meant to apply to marriage.Maleness or femaleness
is not at issue:homosexuality is.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 12:52 PM
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: RE: What is "natural" anyway?
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.
From: Shuan Rose [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 12:00 PM
To: Tim Ikeda; email@example.com
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,
Nature just is, and it is bad theology to take our presuppositions and likes
and label it nature.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of Tim Ikeda
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: What is "natural" anyway?
> 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 16 2002 - 15:24:42 EDT