Re: Human behavior (was Fly Gene)

From: Robert Schneider <>
Date: Sun Jun 05 2005 - 07:31:34 EDT

David's comment raises an interesting point. In moral theology, since the time of Abelard if not earlier, intention has played a significant role in judging the morality of an act, and thus in the eyes of some theologians, "what we do" is not in and of itself sufficient for judging the morality of an act. How would intention, action, and genetically determined conditions all play out in judging whether a particular act is sinful or not?

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: David Bradford
  To: Jim Armstrong ; ASA
  Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 5:29 AM
  Subject: Re: Fly Gene

  We are judged not by who or what we are, but by what we do. Everyone is different and experiences different temptations. A key role of scripture is to help us understand the difference between right behaviour and the wrong sort.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Jim Armstrong
    To: ASA
    Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 8:39 PM
    Subject: Fly Gene

    In case you missed it, here's a potentially explosive headline, from yesterday's Arizona Republic:

    Fly study points to master gene directing its sexual behavior

    It looks to me that this has the makings of real conflict for those who are certain that sexual preference and behavior are elective, particularly when based on some pretty explicit scripture references.
    There is some strong inference, some correlation evidence, and some pretty decent (coherent) working hypotheses that up 'til now just formed a tentative framework that anticipated this discovery. But this appears very likely to be the missing genetic piece of the puzzle - and unexpectedly focused on a single gene (at least in this case).

Received on Sun Jun 5 07:34:14 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 05 2005 - 07:34:22 EDT