Some comments I originally posted over at TFan's fine blog:
steve said...
I'd just note that this circles-the-wagons reaction is symptomatic of what make the priestly abuse scandal possible and prevalent in the first place. Instead of defending underage youth from predatory priests and corrupt bishops, the first instinct of many "good" Catholics is to defend the institutional church.
SATURDAY, MARCH 06, 2010 12:55:00 AM
steve said...
Christopher said...
“Not all priests are homosexual...”
You’re burning a straw man.
“If this whole issue is about priests and the priest scandal…”
Actually, it’s not. There are parallel examples involving nuns (e.g. Nazareth House).
“The Lutherans and other groups with married clergy also had this problem, but not in as many numbers…”
Which goes to the central issue. Is there a pattern of abuse? Is there a systematic cover-up?
“The USA has always had a rabid stream of anti-catholicism…”
Making allowance for your tendentious choice of words, Catholicism incites “anti-Catholicism” due to the way in which the church of Rome and its followers conduct themselves.
“It should be painfully obvious that the arguments used against priestly celibacy from the standpoint of non-biblical arguments are very weak and flimsy…”
It should be painfully obvious that you ignore evidence to the contrary. (e.g. Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose).
True, that’s not the only problem. There’s the underlying problem of false Catholic dogmas.
“Celibacy has biblical support in that many great saints and God Himself while on Earth followed it.”
You fail to draw elementary distinctions between what is voluntary and what is mandatory, what is permissible and what is obligatory.
“I find this use of several events on one side to be offensive and possibly will backfire on those making the argument.”
Maybe you should redirect your offended feelings at the institution which perpetuates abuse.
And when we see a pattern of abuse (scandal in the US, scandal in Ireland, Nazareth House, &c.), then the cumulative evidence points to profound institutional rot from top to bottom.
SATURDAY, MARCH 06, 2010 10:06:00 PM
steve said...
Christopher said...
“I used Ted Haggard as a decidedly non-Catholic example.”
An example of a closet homosexual who didn’t belong in Christian ministry.
“I just don't like the sexual scandal with Catholic priests (which is the one that has received the most press of all the sexual scandals in all Christian bodies) as evidence that their stand on celibacy is wrong.”
The fact that you don’t like it does nothing to obviate the evidence.
“Indeed, would you like a person with homosexual tendencies to marry a woman/man whom he/she does not really love, or would you like them to remain in a life of celibacy? Obviously marriage and fornication is forbidden, and so for them, celibacy is all there is.”
i) If you’re still discussing clergy, then you’ve set up a false dichotomy between married homosexual clergymen and unmarried homosexual clergymen. But those are obviously not the only available alternatives.
What about heterosexual married clergymen? And, of course, there’s nothing wrong with heterosexual unmarried clergymen as long as it’s voluntary.
One of the obvious problems with a “vow” of celibacy is if you change your mind.
ii) You’re also presuming that homosexual attraction is indelible. Why do you assume once a homosexual, always a homosexual?
“There have been good monks who have been homosexual (Seraphim Rose is an example from the ROCOR tradition) and yet lived celibate and chaste lives.”
You and I have no common ground on this issue:
i) Homosexuals should never enter the Christian ministry.
ii) Moreover, you have an idiosyncratic notion of Christian identity and sanctification if you think a man can be a holy homosexual.
“If however, you would use an unfortunate incident to argue against Rome as a whole and even on the basis of clerical celibacy I will staunchly denounce such a move.”
We’re not discussing “incidents.” We’re discussing patterns. Don’t you know the difference?
One royal flush is an incident. Five in a row gets you a pair of concrete galoshes.
“It is no different than my pointing to evangelical pastors who have internet pornography and who are married and quote Romans 1 to them as well...it can "go both ways" (if you'll excuse the pun).”
You might as well say that we shouldn’t do a background check when we hire a new church treasurer. After all, you don’t have to be a bank robber to embezzle church funds. Therefore, we shouldn’t bother to screen out applicants with convictions for bank robbery–since even if we did, that’s no guarantee that someone with a spotless record won’t succumb to temptation.
MONDAY, MARCH 08, 2010 12:21:00 AM
steve said...
Christopher said...
“I don't think you and I are tracking at all. I made the statement about Seraphim Rose because he was a practicing homosexual who stopped and repented, becoming a monk.”
The thought is father to the deed. Murder in the heart. Adultery in the heart. Sin begins in the mind. A sinful action is merely the outward expression of sin.
There’s more to holiness than self-restraint. There is also a process of inner transformation.
“Whether he had homosexual urgings is another biological matter.”
You seem to think homosexual urges are reducible to biology. What do you base that on? Are murderous urges reducible to biology?
“You are not always how you act…”
We may not act on how we feel, but we do what we do because we are what we are.
“The statement about Ted Haggard still stands: He was a closet homosexual who was married and fooled many. He should not have entered the Christian ministry in your mind because of his passions which he obviously could not control.”
Homosexuals don’t belong in ministry. Rather, they need to be ministered to.
“One of your married clergy in Protestantism who has the problem you think a majority of monastics and priests have.”
i) I never put a figure on the percentage of homosexual clergy in the Catholic church.
ii) However, you also act as if heterosexual and homosexual urges are morally equivalent. They’re not.
Heterosexual urges are natural. By contrast, homosexual urges are inherently sinful. It isn’t merely homosexual activity which is sinful. Homosexual attraction is sinful.
“I also said nothing about not doing background checks on church treasurers...that's a completely asinine reductio ad absurdam.”
To the contrary, you act as though, since both homosexuals and heterosexuals commit sexual sin, that sexual orientation is irrelevant to one’s pastoral qualifications.
So, by that logic, since bank robbers and non-bank robbers both commit property crimes, we shouldn’t discriminate in hiring bank robbers.
“I merely pointed out that the logic does not follow, and you jump all over me, positing opinions I never expressly said nor hold.”
It’s pursuing the logical implications of your position.
“I merely pointed out that the logic does not follow, and you jump all over me, positing opinions I never expressly said nor hold.”
You seem to think you’re entitled to opine in public, but be immune to opinions to the contrary. Sorry to burst your bubble.
“Therefore, those who have homosexual tendencies who partake of a life of celibacy are better off than those who don't.”
Once more, you treat homosexual identity as if that were indelible. Why?
“But the other problem with a vow is that you still follow it, just as Paul did in Acts 18:18, and I hope you do with your marriage vows (something God did not institute btw).”
Wrong. You fail to draw an elementary distinction between lawful vows and unlawful vows. There is no obligation to carry out an unlawful vow. Put another way, there can never be a moral obligation to do wrong. Do you think Jephtha was duty-bound to sacrifice his daughter?
In the OT, vows were not unconditional. Some vows could be annulled by a responsible party.
A young man has no right to take a vow of celibacy.
TUESDAY, MARCH 09, 2010 4:50:00 PM
steve said...
BTW, William Ames, in his _Conscience: With the Power and Cases Thereof_, has a discussion of the difference between lawful and unlawful vows.
Also, good commentaries on the Pentateuch discuss conditions under which a vow can be nullified.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010 5:54:00 PM
Pope BXVI has taken steps to rectify the problem of a "pink priesthood."
ReplyDeleteWhether it's sufficient enough or not, I don't know.
But I do know that he's recognized the problem and trying to correct it.
Heterosexual urges are natural. By contrast, homosexual urges are inherently sinful.
ReplyDeleteSeveral points I'd like to discuss here:
Wouldn't you agree that attraction, of sorts, toward one of the same sex is not inherently sinful unless it takes on a sexual dimension? One can love another of the same gender and desire to spend time with them etc. and yet not entertain thoughts of a sexual nature.
That said, sexual urges are 'natural', but the direction they're turned are almost always a result of the fallen nature. Humans take God's blessings (in this case sex) and turn them into curses.
If, as Christ said, to look upon a woman lustfully is to commit adultery in one's heart, then that heterosexual urge is inherently sinful. Thus, just because one person's sinful proclivity manifests as homosexual urges doesn't make them more sinful than those that are heterosexual and of an adulterous nature. Both are sinful and the intent of the believer with such issues should be repentance and mortification of said sinfulness.
You ask your Catholic opponent: "Why do you assume once a homosexual, always a homosexual?"
If we accept that there are people who are born with proclivity to sin, and if we accept that said proclivity can be a genetic tendency toward alcoholism, or even psychopathy as some genetic defects can cause, then the idea of a genetic cause of homosexual desire isn't without basis. This of course does not excuse said activity anymore than a chromosome error can excuse murder.
My point then is this, that believers struggle with sin all their lives. You seem to be suggesting that there is no believer who struggles with homosexual urges or desires. In so suggesting you seem to let the ones with heterosexual desires (outside of marriage) off the proverbial hook.
Can you better explain?
I'd have to agree with Lockheed.
ReplyDeleteAlthough environmental factors demonstrably contribute to homosexual tendencies - it is observable that the post-fall individual is the recipient of varying sinful proclivities.
But to clarify.
Lockheed, you seem to suggest that someone could have a general heterosexual reminder/urge to sexuality that which may or may not be followed by a sinful playact in that persons head about another women (ala Jesus' example).
However, what Steve might be saying is that a homosexual's reminder/urge to homosexual sex, even if not followed by a specific person/scenario/etc. is inherently unnatural and therefore always sinful.
Would that perhaps vindicate Hays here?
I'm happy to concede that I've set-up a false dichotomy, as I'm as yet undecided.
LOCKHEED SAID:
ReplyDelete“Wouldn't you agree that attraction, of sorts, toward one of the same sex is not inherently sinful unless it takes on a sexual dimension? One can love another of the same gender and desire to spend time with them etc. and yet not entertain thoughts of a sexual nature.
My comments were specifically targeting sexual attraction, not affection in general.
“Humans take God's blessings (in this case sex) and turn them into curses.”
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. We must make allowance for common grace and sanctification.
“Thus, just because one person's sinful proclivity manifests as homosexual urges doesn't make them more sinful than those that are heterosexual and of an adulterous nature. Both are sinful and the intent of the believer with such issues should be repentance and mortification of said sinfulness.”
Two things can be sinful without being equally sinful. Since most men and women are heterosexual, adultery and fornication are far more prevalent than sodomy or lesbianism. Yet, Paul, in Rom 1, when he wanted to cite a paradigm-case of sin, singled out homosexuality–even though there are plenty of other sins he could have cited to illustrate his point, and even though homosexuality is statistically exceptional compared to some other sexual sins–not to mention nonsexual sins.
“If we accept that there are people who are born with proclivity to sin, and if we accept that said proclivity can be a genetic tendency toward alcoholism, or even psychopathy as some genetic defects can cause, then the idea of a genetic cause of homosexual desire isn't without basis.”
i) To my knowledge, the “gay gene” theory has been repeatedly debunked.
ii) There are various etiological theories of homosexuality. These include “nurture” theories as well as “nature” theories. Why assume that the genetic explanation is the correct explanation?
For that matter, why assume that homosexuality can’t be an overdetermined behavior, with multiple factors?
iii) Why assume that homosexuality is indelible? Are there no “recovering homosexuals”? What about organizations like Exodus International? The success rate may vary, but should we dismiss the possibility out of hand?
“My point then is this, that believers struggle with sin all their lives. You seem to be suggesting that there is no believer who struggles with homosexual urges or desires. In so suggesting you seem to let the ones with heterosexual desires (outside of marriage) off the proverbial hook.”
No, I’m responding to Chris. I don’t see where he makes any allowance for inner renewal. For any degree of change–beyond mere abstinence.
I didn't take Steve's comments the way others did, apparently. Here's how I understood it.
ReplyDeleteIt's best to start with an example. To use a different realm, people need to eat food to survive. There are people who are gluttons, which is sinful, but that doesn't make thinking about a hamburger immoral per se. On the other hand, people NEVER need to, say, drill a hole in their feet. If someone thought about doing that and struggled with keeping himself from engaging in that behavior, that would be ipso facto evidence that something was wrong. The very fact that the thought would even cross his mind is evidence of this, whether or not he engages in the behavior.
In other words, certain behaviors can be either good or evil depending on circumstances. Because they have a morally good outlet, it is "natural" (for lack of a better word) to think about them, even if it could also lead to sin. Other behaviors are *NEVER* morally good; they are *ALWAYS* evil. Thinking about them (in the sense of struggling with temptation) is "unnatural." Thinking about doing the is *ALWAYS* because of a sinful motivation; it can *NEVER* be because of a righteous thought.
That's how I took it, anyway.
Steve:
ReplyDelete"Yet, Paul, in Rom 1, when he wanted to cite a paradigm-case of sin, singled out homosexuality"
I disagree, Paul's point in Romans 1 is to show that God's giving over of people (indeed a society) leads to ongoing depravity in general. One of the sins listed in Rom 1 as that of a depraved mind is "disobedient to parents"... Paul does not distinguish homosexuality as worse than disobedience, gossip, etc. in Rom 1.
"i) To my knowledge, the “gay gene” theory has been repeatedly debunked."
Sure, but who is to say that chromosomal issues aren't involved? There are in fact people who are born physically sexually ambiguous, and until recently doctors were unable to tell what gender was intended. My point here isn't that there is or is not a "gay gene", a brain structure disorder, or some other physiological reason for some homosexual attraction it in fact supports total depravity and the nature of sin rather than denying it.
There are people who are, genetically, predisposed to be more likely to become alcoholics. That doesn't excuse or justify evil behavior, but it does suggest that there are Christians who because of the fall, will struggle with sinful desires as part of their sanctifying process until their glorification.
"Why assume that the genetic explanation is the correct explanation? "
I'm not. I'm saying that there ARE physiological reasons for >SOME< sinful behaviors, including >SOME< homosexual ones, but even then it doesn't excuse the behavior or make it less sinful.
"For that matter, why assume that homosexuality can’t be an overdetermined behavior, with multiple factors?"
I don't, and I'm not sure where I suggested such. I am however stating that even though one can over-ride behavior, to suggest that a person struggling with past behavior, temptations or the like is not a Christian because that struggle is of a specific nature, is unBiblical.
I believe you ignored the actual examples I presented of psychopathy and chromosomal errors. Remember you asked Chris: "Are murderous urges reducible to biology?" And in some cases... yes they are.
I guess my ultimate point is that temptation is not sin. And some believers may find themselves tempted in homosexual ways throughout their life. And even though they earnestly seek to rid themselves of it, they may struggle in this way until their death. To elevate homosexuality above other sins, as you seem to have done here (please correct me if I misunderstand), is to suggest that no believer can struggle with homosexual temptation, ever, and still be considered a believer.
Is this what you are saying?
"Why assume that homosexuality is indelible? Are there no “recovering homosexuals”? "
But they're RECOVERING, not "fully recovered to never lust again", homosexuals. They may, or may not develop normal desires for the opposite sex... but regardless they're believers and we're all "recovering" from something through sanctification.
"I don’t see where he makes any allowance for inner renewal. For any degree of change–beyond mere abstinence."
That may be, but you >seem< to not allow for any degree of change for the homosexual EXCEPT for complete victory over it so as to never deal with the tendency, temptation, lust etc. again.
When Chris spoke of "Seraphim Rose" [what kinda name is that!?] he said of that person: "he was a practicing homosexual who stopped and repented", now we can argue the sufficiency of Roman Catholic repentance, but if this were a protestant believer who "stopped and repented" but never really gained a sexual interest in women, would you see them as truly a believer having repented?
Rohan:
ReplyDelete"Lockheed, you seem to suggest that someone could have a general heterosexual reminder/urge to sexuality that which may or may not be followed by a sinful playact in that persons head about another women (ala Jesus' example)."
The issue is lust. If one looks upon a woman, it is not a sin. If one is tempted to look upon a woman lustfully, it is not a sin. If a person looks upon a woman and lusts for her, it is a sin.
Can we replace "woman" above with "man" and still be correct?
If a man is tempted to look upon a man lustfully, is the temptation itself a sin?
"However, what Steve might be saying is that a homosexual's reminder/urge to homosexual sex, even if not followed by a specific person/scenario/etc. is inherently unnatural and therefore always sinful."
I think you've accurately expressed Steve's claim and it is with this that I disagree. Temptation is not sin. Thinking upon past sins fondly is. The reminder of past sins should lead to repentance, even for those whose sins were of a homosexual nature.
Peter:
"If someone thought about doing that and struggled with keeping himself from engaging in that behavior, that would be ipso facto evidence that something was wrong."
Yes, something ~is~ wrong, they're sinners saved only by grace and are seeking to mortify sin... in their case their particular sinfulness is expressex as gluttony.
Others sinfulness manifests itself as heterosexual lust, for former girlfriends, or potential partners... fornication itself if unmarried and adultery if married. A person might still struggle with the temptation to think about such things even if a believer for many years and married with kids. The battle with particular a sin rarely is won in a complete victory over said sin in this lifetime. As John Owen writes:
"To mortify a sin is not utterly to kill, root it out, and destroy it, that it should have no more hold at all nor residence in our hearts. It is true this is that which is aimed at; but this is not in this life to be accomplished. There is no man that truly sets himself to mortify any sin, but he aims at, intends, desires its utter destruction, that it should leave neither root nor fruit in the heart or life. He would so kill it that it should never move nor stir any more, cry or call, seduce or tempt, to eternity. Its not-being is the thing aimed at. Now, though doubtless there may, by the Spirit and grace of Christ, a wonderful success and eminency of victory against any sin be attained, so that a man may have almost constant triumph over it, yet an utter killing and destruction of it, that it should not be, is not in this life to be expected." (John Owen, The Mortification of Sin, I. 1. (1.))
You write: "Other behaviors are *NEVER* morally good; they are *ALWAYS* evil. Thinking about them (in the sense of struggling with temptation) is "unnatural." Thinking about doing the is *ALWAYS* because of a sinful motivation; it can *NEVER* be because of a righteous thought."
And here I think too much is made of "homosexuality" vs sexuality in general. Sex is morally good in the proper context of marriage. It is never morally good outside of that context either a heterosexual or homosexual context.
LOCKHEED SAID:
ReplyDelete“I disagree, Paul's point in Romans 1 is to show that God's giving over of people (indeed a society) leads to ongoing depravity in general.”
No. On my reading, Paul is illustrating human apostasy. Man rejects God by rejecting God’s self-revelation in nature. Paul illustrates that fact by using a natural law argument. He singles out homosexuality inasmuch as this condition is a conspicuous case of an unnatural sin. A sin in clear defiance of God’s design for human nature. And that, in turn, accentuates the enormity of human apostasy. The depths to which human beings are liable to sink.
“One of the sins listed in Rom 1 as that of a depraved mind is "disobedient to parents"... Paul does not distinguish homosexuality as worse than disobedience, gossip, etc. in Rom 1.”
In the structure of his argument, homosexuality is the centerpiece. In stands in direct contravention to the Creator’s design for human nature.
“Sure, but who is to say that chromosomal issues aren't involved? There are in fact people who are born physically sexually ambiguous, and until recently doctors were unable to tell what gender was intended.”
Which isn’t the same thing as homosexuality.
And “who is to say?” is not an evidentiary argument.
“I'm saying that there ARE physiological reasons for >SOME< sinful behaviors, including >SOME< homosexual ones.”
That’s what you say, but where’s the evidence? Your argument from analogy falls short at every step.
i) You haven’t show alcoholics are genetically predisposed to alcoholism.
ii) Even if you showed that to be the case, it doesn’t create any presumption that homosexuals are genetically predisposed to homosexuality.
For an argument from analogy to work, both of the proposed analogues must be analogous. You haven’t shown that homosexuality is analogous to alcoholism even if we grant (for the sake of argument) that alcoholism has a genetic basis.
iii) What you really need is direct, credible evidence that homosexuality has a genetic basis.
“I am however stating that even though one can over-ride behavior, to suggest that a person struggling with past behavior, temptations or the like is not a Christian because that struggle is of a specific nature, is unbiblical.”
One of your problems is that you keep superimposing your own framework onto the discussion. I was responding to the way in which Chris chose to frame the issue.
“I believe you ignored the actual examples I presented of psychopathy and chromosomal errors.”
Since you didn’t bother to prove your examples, your examples prove nothing.
Cont. “And in some cases... yes they are.”
ReplyDeleteIs biology the default explanation for murder? Is that our operating presumption?
“I guess my ultimate point is that temptation is not sin.”
An obvious overstatement. For example, a desire to molest little boys is ipso facto a sinful desire.
“To elevate homosexuality above other sins, as you seem to have done here (please correct me if I misunderstand), is to suggest that no believer can struggle with homosexual temptation, ever, and still be considered a believer.”
The question is whether Christian conversion (e.g. regeneration, sanctification) makes any difference to how the convert feels. Chris didn’t draw any distinction beyond external behavior (abstinence).
“But they're RECOVERING…”
Chris didn’t say that.
“They may, or may not develop normal desires for the opposite sex.”
The question is whether there’s any movement at all in the direction of emotional healing.
“That may be, but you >seem< to not allow for any degree of change for the homosexual EXCEPT for complete victory over it so as to never deal with the tendency, temptation, lust etc. again.”
That’s not something you can derive from my actual words. You evidently have some reactionary agenda which you’re interjecting into this exchange, based on something you’ve read or heard from some other source.
“But if this were a protestant believer who ‘stopped and repented’ but never really gained a sexual interest in women, would you see them as truly a believer having repented?”
I don’t assume that God leaves a Christian in exactly the same state he found a Christian.
"That’s not something you can derive from my actual words. You evidently have some reactionary agenda which you’re interjecting into this exchange, based on something you’ve read or heard from some other source."
ReplyDeleteI'm simply astounded at the lack of actual engagement with anything I've said here. You've proven my points (about what you've said) time and again and resort to treating me terribly.
Lockheed,
ReplyDeleteI think Steve's main point is that sanctification should include a gradual shift away from homosexual temptation.
I suppose I'm also guilty of the assumption that genetic factors play a part in one's sinful behaviour, *beyond* mere observation.
Steve,
"Heb 4:15 - For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin."
I'm interested in how you see this verse in light of:
"“I guess my ultimate point is that temptation is not sin.”
An obvious overstatement. For example, a desire to molest little boys is ipso facto a sinful desire."
Are you saying that the "in every respect" can only mean the kind of temptation that isn't ipso facto sinful?
Secondly, what is your position on how the fall has affected each individual's propensity to sin? In the context of this conversation are you open to the possibility that homosexuality is not determined by environmental factors alone?
Cheers!
For what it's worth, if anything, here are a few of my own thoughts on the topic:
ReplyDelete1. We've only sequenced the human genome in 2003 or thereabouts. We're still in the process of analyzing it, trying to figure out what it all means. There's still so much to learn! At this point, I think it'd be presumptuous for someone to actually come down and explicitly state they've found the gene or set of genes that codes for homosexual desires.
2. At least from what I can tell, I think a lot if not most of the current research in trying to understand human sexual attraction is bound together not only with microevolution but also macroevolution. If one doesn't think macroevolution has been scientifically established, then one might take issue with some of the discussion around human sexual attraction. The framework in which to frame the discussion regarding the origins of human sexual desire and behavior might itself be rickety.
3. On the face of it, it would seem contradictory to think there is a gay gene or set of genes which code for homosexual desire and behavior in light of the fact that, for genes to to be genes and continue in a population pool, genes need to be passed from one generation to the next generation, yet homosexuals obviously can't reproduce. As such it wouldn't appear to confer a reproductive advantage but in fact it'd seem to confer a reproductive disadvantage.
I think some scientists respond that it does confer a reproductive advantage even if we don't know how yet. They speculate that maybe if a heterosexual has something like a recessive gay gene (which of course then assumes the gay gene is a recessive trait or something similar, which would also need to be established), then it might confer a reproductive advantage for the heterosexual. As such the gay gene remains in the genetic pool. I don't know if there are any studies to back this up though. PubMed would be the place to go.
4. Human sexual attraction is hugely complex. So I think it's a bit overly simplistic for someone to say a gay gene exists. There are so many other factors involved. Not just genetics but also hormones and environment (e.g. family and upbringing, culture).
Broadly speaking, as far as I'm aware, there's no one-to-one correlation between a gene or set of genes and a specific condition for most medical conditions or maladies or diseases or whatever. Sure, there are well-known ones like Down Syndrome or cystic fibrosis which do have a firm genetic basis. But from what I understand these are more the exception than the rule. Most conditions in human beings aren't so neatly or perfectly correlated. Most things range along a spectrum with "genetic causes" on one end (e.g. Down Syndrome) and "environmental causes" on the other end (e.g. fractures).
5. Still, as others have already pointed out, even if there is a gay gene, it doesn't mean there's therefore no moral responsibility involved - any more than if there was an "alcoholic" gene or whatever.
ReplyDelete6. For better or for worse, ethical or unethical, many scientists have a vested interest in oversimplifying science for the public (e.g. continued research funding). See this comic for example. I think the same or similar might apply to the gay gene and genetics research. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my impression.
7. As a side note, in case anyone might think otherwise, scientific research isn't a perfect endeavor where everyone is always entirely transparent about everything and knowledge is freely shared and so forth. Often there are petty jealousies and rivalries, among other things. For example, see James Watson's The Double Helix which talks about his and Crick's discovery of DNA as well as Maurice Wilkins' and Rosalind Franklin's major contributions. (BTW, Wilkins also received the Nobel along with Watson and Crick. But Franklin sadly was not treated fairly, I don't think. She didn't get the Nobel although she arguably deserved it as much as the other three guys.) It's quite a revealing look into scientific research. Today, our peer review process is probably better, but otherwise I don't think things have changed a whole lot. Fundamentally, we're still sinners.
ROHAN,
ReplyDeleteSome temptations involve second-order evils. It can be an acquired taste, due to previous sin. Like a serial killer.
So some temptations are inherently sinful. In those cases we would only feel tempted because we are already sinful.
Rohan said...
ReplyDelete"I think Steve's main point is that sanctification should include a gradual shift away from homosexual temptation."
Correct.
I said:
ReplyDelete1. We've only sequenced the human genome in 2003 or thereabouts. We're still in the process of analyzing it, trying to figure out what it all means. There's still so much to learn! At this point, I think it'd be presumptuous for someone to actually come down and explicitly state they've found the gene or set of genes that codes for homosexual desires.
I suppose the rebuttal would be that this would apply to other things as well, no? So, if true, then haven't I proven too much? It's a fair point. I'd have to couple the point with #4.