"God's Order of Things"

Our apostate master-mind Sharon Mooney pontificates:

What Sue seems to be overlooking, is that Homosexuality is not totally unnatural and against God’s order of things.

“Against God’s order of things”? So does Sharon believe in God? That’s certainly possible, for Debunking Christianity is a group of nonbelievers that are in no like mind apart from their rejection of Christianity. We were well informed of this when “Acharya S” briefly appeared on the scene for a short-lived contribution.

Of course, if Sharon denies the existence of God, her statement here is utterly ridiculous. If God does not exist then he has no “order of things,” and it would be complete nonsense to assert that anything is for or against his order.

But let’s assume that Sharon acknowledges the existence of God. What is her authority for his existence? Or, what is her means of knowing what he is like? This is the problem with “theistic” worldviews that are non-Christian. Perhaps Sharon is a deist. In fact, deism would be the perfect religion for Sharon: God is there when you need him to get things started, but he’s conveniently absent when you don’t want him around. But such a worldview is utterly unable to cause its proponent to lift her eyes off of herself. Sharon does not stop and consider what God likes or dislikes, what God has said about himself and the world. She cares not to be informed concerning an authoritative anthropology or harmatiology. When asking about God’s created “order of things,” she never once looks to God for the answer to the question.

Today, while composing an entry for my other blog on ocean species, I learned of yet another species that breaks “the rules”… I must admit as a heterosexual, it makes me uncomfortable. However, I suppose learning to accept those realities in nature is all part of increasing in intellectual and emotional maturity.

Sharon goes on to cite sources concerning certain clams where “nearly all individuals are male the first year then about half become females,” starfish which “may reproduce either sexually or asexually,” and the homosexual behavior that has been observed in certain animals.

I assume that the argument is that since this (supposedly) “homosexual” behavior is (supposedly) “natural” in these species, it is therefore “natural” and according to “God’s order of things” in humans. But there is quite a number of problems in this type of argumentation:

1. Let’s assume for the moment (we will question this later) that the nature of the actions in these specimen is “homosexual” in the same sense of human homosexuality. Even if we give this to Sharon, she is still relying on so many unestablished assumptions. She assumes that this behavior is natural in the animal kingdom in the sense that it is according to “God’s order of things”. But how could she possibly know this? In placing the discussion in the realm of theism (”God’s order of things”), she has naively brought so many difficulties upon herself. Since she is arguing against Christian theism in her post on homosexuality and in the rest of her work on this blog, we are free to frame the discussion internal to Christianity.

So how does Sharon know that this (supposedly) homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is according to “God’s order of things”? This merely begs the question. That is, she is assuming her doctrine in order to prove her doctrine. She assumes that homosexual behavior is according to “God’s order of things” in the animal kingdom in order to prove it in human behavior. But certainly because things are the way they are doesn’t make them according to “God’s order of things.” God made his creation to be good. Murder exists in today’s world. It’s a reality. But then does the mere fact that it is present make it according to “God’s order of things”? In a word, how does Sharon know that this (supposedly) homosexual behavior in certain species is not, like human homosexuality, a result of the fall? She assumes what she needs to prove.

2. Sharon commits equivocations and category errors on so many levels. The fact that homosexual reproduction is nonexistent in the human species but existent in other species should sound an alarm. Sharon tells us that “Starfish may reproduce either sexually or asexually.” Does this mean that it then becomes “natural” or according to “God’s order of things” for humans to reproduce asexually? Does the fact that it is “natural” for a starfish to “breaks itself into two pieces” prove that it is “natural” for a human to reproduce in this manner? Not only is it unnatural for a human being to do so, but it is impossible!

I mean, just stop and think. Is this really Sharon’s argument? Let me remind you of her opening statement: “What Sue seems to be overlooking, is that Homosexuality is not totally unnatural and against God’s order of things.” And this is her supporting evidence?

3. Of course, I don’t deny that homosexual desires exist. This is because we live in a fallen world, and our flesh tempts us to sin. But the fact that desires exist does not make the act “natural” or according to “God’s order of things.”

4. The simple truth is that God has revealed his “order of things.” Sharon does not inform her presentation with what God himself has said. This is, no doubt, because Sharon denies special revelation. Sharon’s worldview doesn’t start external to herself, but internal to herself. That is, she doesn’t look outside herself for objective truth. Instead, her viewpoint on the world is dominated and controlled by the subjective realm of her own knowledge and experience.

5. Sharon seems to be unable to distinguish between homosexual and asexual behavior, and between sexual behavior in the animal kingdom and sexual behavior in the human race. Our topic concerns whether or not homosexuality is natural for humans, not whether or not asexuality is natural for starfish. It is quite a syllogistic leap, to say the least, to go from “asexuality is natural for starfish” to “therefore, homosexuality is natural for humans.”

6. We can divide Sharon’s supporting evidence into two categories: where the sexual act is natural and where the sexual act is unnatural. Both categories altogether fail to speak into the subject at hand.

In the category where the sexual act is natural, it is used as a means of reproduction (for instance, starfish and asexual reproduction). This, however, is irrelevant to the discussion because human homosexuality is unnatural in the sense that it is unable to be useful in reproduction. Once again the syllogistic leap appears. We might as well be arguing that because sponges filter feed by straining suspended matter and food particles from water, it is natural for humans to do the same.

In the category where the sexual act is unnatural; that is, where the sexual act is unable to be effective in reproduction, the evidence is once again inconclusive. Sharon cites, “Two female macaque monkeys were observed giving each other orgasms.” But Sharon assumes that it is natural for the monkeys. This only begs the question and forces the discussion into the framework of a different reference point. She has only moved back the target that she must hit. Homosexual behavior exists. But that does not make it “natural.” Furthermore, there are many details of which Sharon or any scientist is ignorant. We don’t know what is in the minds of these monkeys. And even if we did, how does Sharon know that such action is not the result of the fall? The fall has affected all of the created realm.

Sharon then takes a completely pivotal action in her arguments and decides to address the Biblical text:

Was the Wickedness of Sodom Homosexuality?

1. Why does this matter? What does this have to do with whether or not homosexuality is “natural” and according to “God’s order of things”?

2. Perhaps Sharon has finally decided to remain in the internal critique and assume Biblical authority. If this is the case, then she acts as if this is the only place in the Bible where homosexuality is addressed, altogether ignoring where Scripture explicitly condemns homosexuality:

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Romans 1:26-27 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

All of these texts very clearly describe and condemn the homosexual act. In other words, God has been quite clear what his “order of things” is. If Sharon is attempting to argue that Scripture is ambiguous on this topic, she has quite a bit of homework to do.

Many theologians feel not, rather, tend to believe it was the wretched treatment of strangers.

If by “many” Sharon means a small percentage of liberal “scholars” on the fringe of nominal evangelicalism with an obvious political agenda, then she is correct. But these very “theologians” ultimately deny the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture, so Sharon only assumes a non-biblical worldview in order to prove a non-biblical worldview.

The meaning of the word knew and know according to the Concordance, does not typically mean sexual relations as many have implied when interpreting the events that are recorded to have taken place in Sodom.

1. At the risk of stating the obvious, Sharon is not a Hebrew exegete. Her version of “exegesis” is to look up a particular word in the concordance (in English) and cite all of its usages. But this tells us nothing of what the word means in this particular context.

2. The preceding petition between Abraham and God before the destruction of Sodom where Abraham asks God to spare the city on the account of ten righteous displays the spiritual state of the city. Not even ten were righteous. Indeed, it is as Moses states, “Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord” (Genesis 13:13). And Sharon wants us to believe that their sin was that of inhospitality? Standing in opposition to such a hypothesis, we see that these men’s sexual passions were so strong that Lot even had to offer his own daughters to them, and they still pursued the angels (Genesis 19:8)! These men didn’t just want to “know” the angels in the sense of “sit down and have a chat with them.” It takes nothing but intellectual dishonesty for anyone to argue that the meaning of this term is anything but sexual.

Evan May.