Date: Wed Jan 22 2003 - 12:31:40 EST
I agree with Terry and Burgy. I am a geologist, not a doctor; therefore, my
understanding of behavior in psychiatric terms is limited. Given that
limitation, I have read that the underlying cause for most antisocial behavior
is a chemical disorder within the brain. This does not in any way excuse
sin. The next step is to decide what sin is.
We cannot base our standard of truth on any man-made rules but only on the
real Truth. Jesus Christ claimed to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life. As
a Christian, I must base my standard of right and wrong on Jesus Christ, what
He believed, and what He said. Because of this, the Bible is my standard for
truth because I believe the Bible is the true word of God. The Bible clearly
states that homosexuality is wrong; therefore, I believe it is wrong.
We must each come to know the standard and live by it. Can I do this
perfectly? NO! But I can do it gracefully - thanks to the mercy and grace of
Quoting John Burgeson <email@example.com>:
> Terry posted some sound comments; I reply in part:
> >>Why? Does the existence of a genetic or physical-chemical basis for
> >>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
> >>If someone has a particular disposition toward some sin for whatever
> >>reason--genetic, upbringing, hormonal imbalances, abusive past,
> >>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
> >>says. >>
> Again, I agree.
> So where does this leave us? The question of where homosexual
> arises in an individual can be answered in three ways, nature, nurture
> 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
> 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
> 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
> with that statement.
> Where some Christians disagree with one another is, of course, on what
> will necessarily is. We might, for example, agree on the exegesis of
> 1 but disagree on the heurmenutics (sp?) of Romans 1. And other
> too, of course.
> John W. Burgeson (Burgy)
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
This mail sent through GeoTEC Webmail: webmail.geotec.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jan 22 2003 - 12:32:02 EST