tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post8158280314384133240..comments2024-03-16T02:12:38.325-07:00Comments on God cannot be contained!: The Scriptural and Philosophical Basis for the Bloomington StatementMiller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-28013915314447086612018-02-05T20:05:30.373-08:002018-02-05T20:05:30.373-08:00My responses are recorded in a new post on this bl...My responses are recorded in a new post on this blog:<br />http://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-bloomington-statement-revisited.htmlMiller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-51434700708928276982018-02-05T04:44:31.075-08:002018-02-05T04:44:31.075-08:00For some reason, one of your comments appeared twi...For some reason, one of your comments appeared twice, and I had to go back and delete the duplicate after reading them. I have to work today, so I'll respond later this evening or tomorrow.Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-27332298566631729682018-02-04T21:41:24.247-08:002018-02-04T21:41:24.247-08:00“Moreover, who’s to say that homosexuals do not co...“Moreover, who’s to say that homosexuals do not contribute to the reproduction of the species? Is it possible that homosexuals help to prevent over population?”<br /><br />What do you mean by “contribute”; I think you’re being vague or are equivocating here. (Perhaps you can clarify what you mean here.) If you want to say that they indirectly help others to procreate and have children, since they prevent overpopulation which keeps the world running smoothly, which enables others to have children later, that is not of much significance. It doesn’t follow from this that marriage is not essentially heterosexual.<br /><br />“Is it possible that homosexual couples are providing loving and nurturing homes for children who would not have that kind of experience otherwise?”<br /><br />Sure, but statistically speaking there is good evidence that shows that heterosexual couples who are in a committed relationship do a better job raising children. One might as well say that homosexual couples who adopt are depriving children of being raised in a better environment they otherwise might have received. And even if they can raise children, there is no reason to think that they must be or can thereby be married. For example, if a woman’s husband dies, she might have her sister help her raise her children, but they are not thereby married, nor could they be.<br /><br /><br />“Finally, if we allow that homosexuals are capable of love, commitment, fidelity and nurturing and providing for children, then what are the legitimate grounds for excluding them from participating in this institution.”<br /><br />Because homosexual unions just don’t have what it takes to be a marriage. Those features which they have are either accidental to marriage, or are necessary but not sufficient to have a marriage. None of the marital norms make sense if gay people can marry, since marriage would be removed from the only basis that makes those norms intelligible. It would be a mere emotional union, ultimately, but nothing about this entails that marriage is only dyadic, or that it should be permanent, or that one should be sexually exclusive with one’s spouse.<br /><br />I also want to note that two men are not infertile in the sense of suffering a privation. Rather they are “infertile” in the sense of a negation. By way of comparison, a cat that can’t meow is suffering from a privation. The developed capacity to meow should, by its nature, be there. A frog that can’t meow is not suffering a privation of what, by its nature, should be there. Rather meowing is something that it doesn’t possess precisely because of its nature as a frog; hence the developed ability to meow is a negation. However, a man and woman who are married and who are infertile suffer a privation, not a negation. Moreover, their sexual organs can still function toward the same biologic good as futile couple’s can, even if something ultimately prevents the realization of that good. (For comparison’s sake, even if I have some illness which prevents me from taking in much nutrients or any, when I eat and my stomach dissolve food and so on, they are still acting toward the good of the whole body, even if they are somehow unable to realize their goal of nourishing the body.)<br />Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-283445080260435872018-02-04T21:41:10.521-08:002018-02-04T21:41:10.521-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-35676220390294141462018-02-04T21:40:27.565-08:002018-02-04T21:40:27.565-08:00Can you specify what you mean by ‘some who think t...Can you specify what you mean by ‘some who think they are married . . .’ and ‘some who think they are not married . . .’?<br /><br />“Now Girgis, George and Anderson contend that a legitimate marriage involves 1) a “comprehensive” union of the spouses, 2) a “special” link to children, and 3) the norms of permanence, monogamy and exclusivity. Why is this definition not applicable to homosexuals? They say that “two men or two women cannot achieve organic bodily union since there is no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate, reproduction being the only candidate.” Really?”<br /><br />They deduce (1) from (2) and they deduce (2) from (3). As I said, these marital norms are only intelligible if marriage has an essential orientation for procreation and childrearing, which means that it is essentially heterosexual and dyadic. Now, you’ve not explained how these marital norms are intelligible on your view of marriage. In fact, you can’t, since they don’t follow if marriage is just an emotional union, which is all it will be on your view.<br /><br />As to your suggestion concerning pleasure, I think they do a good job refuting the idea that pleasure can be the good which unites man and woman (or man and man, etc.) in a comprehensive bodily union. First, pleasure is not, strictly speaking, a good. It is, at best, a proper accident of a good; that is, something which ought to flow from doing a good or being good. One can pursue pleasure in vile ways, and so, like fame, honor, or money, it is not itself a good. <br /><br />Second, there is no such thing as pleasure; there are, rather, pleasures. Bodily pleasure is one thing, emotional pleasure another, intellectual pleasure yet another. In fact, these can come in various kinds as well. So, there is not one thing toward which two men’s bodies can work toward in, say, anal sex. One might be experiencing pleasure, and the other might be as well; but they are not experiencing the self-same pleasure, even if they’re experiencing pleasure at the same time. <br /><br />Ignoring this for the moment, we also find that their bodies are at best only accidentally and extrinsically ordered toward pleasure. (For comparison’s sake, a clock’s time-telling function is only the product of an accidental (in the technical sense, that is, meaning non-essential) arrangement of the parts of the clock, and an external decision to view its actions as telling time. The same can be said of computers as well.) However, in coitus, the man and woman’s bodies are used in a way consistent with their essential and intrinsic ordering. That is, a man’s reproductive organs and a woman’s reproductive organs “point to” procreation by their nature.<br /><br />And procreation is a good. Moreover, in coitus, both partner’s sexual organs are being employed in a way so that they function toward the self-same act of procreation. (And in doing so, they function very much like the way one’s own organs function toward the good of the whole body, hence the saying “and the two become one flesh”.)<br /><br />Thus, Girgis, George and Anderson are right in saying that bodily unity is only possible between man and woman, and why Francis Beckwith is right in noting that only a kind of geometric union is possible between two men or between two women.Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-36979909046407475352018-02-04T21:40:13.616-08:002018-02-04T21:40:13.616-08:00HI Miller,
“Having said all of that, I still belie...HI Miller,<br />“Having said all of that, I still believe your pedophilia example is flawed.”<br /><br />Perhaps you’re not seeing what I intend by using it. My point in bringing up this example is not that homosexuality is wrong (though, that is my larger point), but that merely because a desire or attraction is induced by one’s biology or early environment doesn’t thereby mean it is natural. To put it another way, what is “natural” (in your sense of the word) is not thereby permissible to act upon. From this fact alone it doesn’t follow that homosexual acts are wrong. They are, but that requires further argument.<br /><br />“They attempt to simplify this by reducing our choices to two competing views of marriage.”<br /><br />I think they’re right that there are only two kinds of views on marriage. Either it has an essential relationship to procreation and childrearing, or it is merely an emotional union that is perhaps (accidentally) associated with procreation and child-rearing in some cases. I prefer the former view, since it makes sense of Scripture and the martial norms that can be, even if not perfectly, discerned by reason alone. (More on this presently.) <br /><br />“The inevitable conclusion is still that marriage is a very human institution.”<br /><br />Agreed. But nothing of import for our conversation follows from this. Marriage is a very human institution, but it is also more than a human institution. It never exists in the abstract, but always in this or that way, with these customs with it, and these ceremonies along with it. Sometimes it is not as well instantiated, other times it is. But this doesn’t mean that marriage is not essentially heterosexual or dyadic, for example.<br /><br />“Hence, the state is free to define marriage as being between two members of the opposite sex or two members of the same sex. The state can say that polygamy is an acceptable practice (some do).”<br /><br />Schools are free to give trophies to losers as well as winners. This might superficially mask the difference between winning and losing, though, players will find other ways to acknowledge proficiency and excellence and sports or academics; it can’t dissolve the difference between the two. Likewise the state can refer to actual marriage and pseudo-marital unions by the same word – “marriage” – but that doesn’t make them on par.<br /><br />“If we appeal to the Judeo-Christian Bible for our definition of marriage, the picture becomes even cloudier. . . . Hence, if we are appealing to Scripture, it would appear that a great many heterosexuals who think they are married ARE NOT; and a large number of individuals who think they aren’t married ARE in God’s sight married!”<br /><br />There isn’t the confusion that you see in Scripture. Its essentially heterosexual character is never denied, but always affirmed (in large part as something that follows from the created order, that is, how mankind is made). Even it’s essentially dyadic character is never denied, even if the martial norm of sexual exclusivity was only partially emphasized and (for a while) demanded. <br />Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-81437597244077360892018-02-03T21:39:46.160-08:002018-02-03T21:39:46.160-08:00If we appeal to the Judeo-Christian Bible for our ...If we appeal to the Judeo-Christian Bible for our definition of marriage, the picture becomes even cloudier. After all, from Genesis to Revelation, you CANNOT find ANY instructions about how to perform a marriage. Moreover, according to those same Scriptures, two people are married when they 1) leave their parents’ and 2) decide to cohabitate with each other and 3) have sexual intercourse. And, while there is a great deal of discussion about arranged marriages and polygamy within the pages of the book, there are also a good many passages which inform us that God intended for marriage to be a lifelong and an exclusive arrangement between the two parties to the covenant. Hence, if we are appealing to Scripture, it would appear that a great many heterosexuals who think they are married ARE NOT; and a large number of individuals who think they aren’t married ARE in God’s sight married!<br />Now Girgis, George and Anderson contend that a legitimate marriage involves 1) a “comprehensive” union of the spouses, 2) a “special” link to children, and 3) the norms of permanence, monogamy and exclusivity. Why is this definition not applicable to homosexuals? They say that “two men or two women cannot achieve organic bodily union since there is no bodily good or function toward which their bodies can coordinate, reproduction being the only candidate.” Really?<br />Pleasure, relaxation (the release of tension), the release of bodily fluids and stimulation of the production of hormones and other substances do no bodily good? And these things don’t require any coordination of their bodies? Not to mention the psychological and emotional needs which might be fulfilled by the act! Reproduction is the only candidate? I don’t think so.<br />They go on to state: “Indeed, in the common law tradition, only coitus (not anal or oral sex – even between legally wed spouses) has been recognized as consummating a marriage.” I guess Bill Clinton was right – he didn’t have sex with that woman! I say again: A good many heterosexuals engage in these intimate behaviors. Are we to regard these behaviors as inappropriate or harmless fun between friends. You can’t have it both ways! OR do they constitute legitimate components of what we call sexual intercourse?<br />Moreover, who’s to say that homosexuals do not contribute to the reproduction of the species? Is it possible that homosexuals help to prevent over population? Is it possible that homosexual couples are providing loving and nurturing homes for children who would not have that kind of experience otherwise?<br />Finally, if we allow that homosexuals are capable of love, commitment, fidelity and nurturing and providing for children, then what are the legitimate grounds for excluding them from participating in this institution. If society does have an interest in promoting this institution (and I think it does), then I fail to see any reasonable grounds for excluding a whole group of people from being married. And, once again, the success or failure of heterosexuals with the institution is fundamentally immaterial to the question of making it available to homosexuals.<br />Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-49104646653564988492018-02-03T21:36:25.604-08:002018-02-03T21:36:25.604-08:00Hello Jensen,
The grandchildren are sleeping so I ...Hello Jensen,<br />The grandchildren are sleeping so I have a few minutes to write. I agree with you about the value of conversing with those with whom we disagree. While a conversation with someone who agrees with you may stroke your ego, it will most likely not offer much in the way of intellectual stimulation or growth. Even if this kind of conversation doesn’t change anyone’s mind, it still has the potential to modify views, help us to understand and respect different perspectives and/or sharpen/reinforce our existing views.<br />Having said all of that, I still believe your pedophilia example is flawed. By definition, this involves sexual feelings/attraction of a mature individual for a child. Doesn’t nature itself teach us that the natural role for the mature/adult phase of most members of the animal kingdom (especially the higher forms) for the young or immature members of their species is one of nurturing? And, even if we were to allow that the development of this type of attraction fits my definition of natural, we are still left with the fact that the nature of this type of relationship excludes the possibility of mutual consent and enjoyment.<br />In previous comments, you referenced the article “What Is Marriage?” by Girgis, George and Anderson. Although I find most of their arguments lacking, I agree with them about the essential nature of defining exactly what constitutes a legitimate marriage to this discussion.<br />They attempt to simplify this by reducing our choices to two competing views of marriage. They describe one as the “conjugal” view (“a permanent and exclusive commitment” between a man and a woman for “bearing and rearing children together.”), and the “revisionist” view (a “union of two people…who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other” and agree to share “the burdens and benefits of domestic life.”). For the sake of argument, I understand the impulse to simplify things, but really?<br />Girgis, George and Anderson go on to tell us that the traditional or “conjugal” view of marriage does not require any appeal to religious authority. They say that the almost universal nature of the institution among different cultures/religions demonstrates this fact.<br />For the sake of our discussion, let us assume that they are referring to the male/female component of these marriages (after all, we all recognize a wide diversity of beliefs, forms, customs, ceremonies and laws associated with marriages around the world – indeed, I don’t think that anyone would gainsay the assertion that there is quite a diversity even within the realm of Christendom). The inevitable conclusion is still that marriage is a very human institution.<br />After all, most of us are familiar with the concept of civil marriages. For whatever reasons (and there are many), each state/country has decided that they have an interest in providing for and regulating this institution. We all know that there are laws, licenses and public officials available to perform civil marriages – a church or religion need never enter the picture. And, since that is the case, these states have the ability and authority within their systems (under their charters, constitutions and laws) to define marriage in whatever way they deem appropriate. Hence, the state is free to define marriage as being between two members of the opposite sex or two members of the same sex. The state can say that polygamy is an acceptable practice (some do).Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-54812482019009919432018-02-03T07:11:14.547-08:002018-02-03T07:11:14.547-08:00My grandchildren are in house today, I'll resp...My grandchildren are in house today, I'll respond tomorrow evening. Thanks for your patience.Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-52800205001062292172018-02-02T19:31:03.857-08:002018-02-02T19:31:03.857-08:00“If a man marries a woman and has five sons and hi...“If a man marries a woman and has five sons and his wife dies, are the six remaining men still worthy of being called a family? Can two men or two women raise a child?”<br /><br />They are a family, since a family is more than a marriage, which has ended The paternal-son, and brotherly bonds still exist.<br /><br />As to your second question, it is somewhat vague - Which two men? Under what circumstances? So I’ll give general principles that can guide one’s answer. First, there children have string rights to be raised by their biologic parents; thus, there is a strong presumption that biologic parents will raise them. Also, one should keep in mind that when it comes to raising children, children come first. (Mirror image of that is that in being raised, one’s parents come first.) This is relevant since children fare best when raised by a father and mother who are in a committed relationship (i.e. marriage) with each other, best if these are their biologic parents. Therefore there is a strong presumption that one be raised by heterosexual couple. <br /><br />Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt? Morally, I’d say almost certainly not. Legally, perhaps – but this is not something adoption agencies should be required to cater to.<br /><br />“And we should remember that Paul's hangups relative to human sexuality were not necessarily God's hangups.”<br /><br />I see no reason to say that. For example, he basis his judgment on homosexual acts on the nature of the created order, specifically the creation of mankind.Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-37906595962493637332018-02-02T19:30:47.487-08:002018-02-02T19:30:47.487-08:00In this bodily union and its natural orientation t...In this bodily union and its natural orientation toward procreation, and here alone, do marital norms (of sexual exclusivity, permanence and being a two person union) make sense. Because sexual intercourse (in the proper sense) is ordered toward procreation, and since one has stringent and enduring obligations to one’s children, a man should be sexually faithful to his wife and vice versa. Otherwise, a man would have ten children with five women, and his wife would have five children with four men – and the family structure could not survive. And marriage should be permanent, since raising children takes a long time. And sexual exclusivity requires that marriage consist of only one man and one woman, since only two are required for procreation.<br /><br />But if marriage is not essentially heterosexual, but can also be homosexual, why need it be permanent, or why need it be only a two-person union? I see no non-arbitrary reason. More precisely, in that case, anything can be marriage, which is just another way of saying there is really no thing as marriage. <br /><br />You rightly note that fidelity is expected in human relationships, but why think that means that in marriage this translates into sexual exclusivity? I can be a faithful friend even if I confide and am confided in by many friends, if I give gifts to them all, share various interests with many of them, and do the same things with them. Why do I have to be sexually exclusive to my wife (or husband), but I don’t have to go golfing exclusively with my old high school friend?<br /><br />“Hence, unless you are going to limit "natural" human sexual intercourse to missionary sex between a man and a woman, you have a great deal of explaining to do about current heterosexual behaviors in the bedroom.”<br /><br />To put things perhaps a bit too simplistically, the end game has to be uncontracepted coitus. Because then, one’s sexual acts will be unitive and open toward procreation, which is necessary. Additionally, it serves to unite them emotionally, too. And whatever additional acts one can find to do that don’t involve frustrating this end are potentially fine.<br /><br />“I'm not sure I understand your commentary about good and bad. Are you equating this with good and evil? Are you suggesting that a triangle with squiggly sides is evil? Is someone who is missing an eye or a limb a "bad" person?”<br /><br />Evil is, I think, fundamentally a privation. A privation of what? Of what by a things nature should be there. Given the essence of a triangle, it ought to have three straight sides. If it doesn’t have this – if the sides aren’t quite closed, or are not quite straight – it is, to that extent, a bad triangle. Not in a moral sense, of course, but in a broader sense of good and bad. <br /><br />Humans who only have one limb are to that extent a bad instance of human kind – not in a moral sense, but in the sense that all that is proper to them qua animals is not present, is lacking. A person who is unable to reason well is to that extent not a good human qua rational. Now, these are not cases of moral badness, but of badness in a more general sense. Moral goodness and badness is a specific kind of goodness or badness belonging to beings with intellects and wills – we can choose what we do.<br /><br />“What happens if someone falls short of the norm? If someone is born blind, don't we teach them to use a cane, seeing eye dog and/or read braille? Is it wrong to help these "imperfect" people function as "normally/naturally" as possible?”<br /><br />We should, but not by considering blindness the same as being able to see. With those who have homosexual desires, we should encourage them to not act on those desires. In some cases marriage (understood as a heterosexual union) works out, so they might be encouraged to give that serious consideration.Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-42053596294865753982018-02-02T19:29:40.270-08:002018-02-02T19:29:40.270-08:00Hi Miller,
Thanks for continuing this conversation...Hi Miller,<br />Thanks for continuing this conversation. I find that there are several ways that conversing with those with different views is more enjoyable than talking with those who agree with us; though, that has its benefits as well.<br /><br />I agree that pedophilia is very different from homosexuality; I believe it is wrong in more ways that homosexual acts per se are. In any event, this only proves my point.<br /><br />See, your definition of natural is something like ‘that which is produced by one’s genes, or impressed by one’s environment early on’; and what is natural in this sense, you say, is permissible to act upon. Have I correctly understood your view?<br /><br />Now, pedophilic attraction meets these criteria. There is, for instance, evidence that genetics plays a role in developing pedophilic attraction, even as one’s environment during childhood can. Some pedophilias – not all of which act on their desires – report that they started having attraction to the prepubescent in their teenage years, say, 17 years old, and it never went away – though, they certainly wished it had.<br /><br />So, you’re faced with this dilemma, then. Either what is produced by genetics or influenced by one’s early environment growing up is not “natural” (in the relevant sense – my suggestion); or, if it is, then what is natural is not thereby permissible to act upon. In either event, your inference that homosexual acts are permissible because one’s orientation is unchosen, but genetically or environmentally influenced, fails. Does this mean that homosexual acts are immoral? By itself, no. <br /><br />This I think can be seen clearly in the case of polyamorists, but I’ll say more about them in the context of marriage, that is, presently.<br /><br />Marriage is much more than sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse is about much more than procreation. And, if this statement is not true, then there are a good many heterosexual marriages that are in trouble. The fact that homosexual sex occurs is proof enough that intercourse [doesn’t] only works between men and women.<br /><br />Marriage is about more than sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse is about more than procreation. However, marriage is essentially centered around sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse is essentially ordered toward procreation, and thereby it unites a man and woman in ways more than emotional, that is, in it they form a bodily union. (More generally, procreation is ordered toward raising children and family building.)<br /><br />Given this, sexual intercourse, can only work between a man and a woman. Or, to put it another way, not all kinds of sexual intercourse are equal. This follows from considering the purpose of the sexual organs – or that for which they exist. I believe this is reproduction, and more generally child rearing, family building. Hence we call them reproductive organs.<br /><br />When a man and woman engage in coitus, their reproductive organs function together toward the self-same biologic good, that is procreation, and this they do much the same way one’s own organs act toward the same biologic good; for example the various parts of the digestive system functioning toward providing nutrition for the whole body. Anal sex is not like; it is more akin to putting one’s finger in another’s ear; a mere geometric union. True, unlike that, it typically is done to foster intimacy and is considerably more pleasurable than scratching one’s ear. However, in it one’s sexual organs are not functioning toward the self-same good; in fact, they are being employed and in doing so one is actively frustrating their end or purpose.<br />Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-89734062869032647782018-02-02T04:37:16.568-08:002018-02-02T04:37:16.568-08:00P.S. I was tired when I wrote this last night and ...P.S. I was tired when I wrote this last night and noticed several typos this AM. The most glaring is the sentence: "The fact that homosexual sex occurs is proof enough that intercourse only works between men and women." Obviously, it should have been: The fact that homosexual sex occurs is proof enough that intercourse ISN'T SOMETHING THAT only works between men and women.Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-43011750132534655182018-02-01T22:27:46.739-08:002018-02-01T22:27:46.739-08:00Jensen,
Once again, I appreciate the thought and a...Jensen,<br />Once again, I appreciate the thought and attention which you have devoted to this subject, and I look forward to reading your blog post when you're finished. For now, however, I would like to address a few of the points you made in your above comments.<br />Pedophilia is fundamentally different from homosexuality in a number of ways that directly relate to God's law: 1) It cannot be characterized as a consensual relationship because the parties to the behavior are physically, mentally and emotionally unequal 2) It can obviously be characterized as an exploitative relationship and is consequently harmful to the person being exploited (the child) 3) It perverts the natural nurturing role that God/nature has carved out for adults relative to children 4) Pedophilia harms the perpetrator by desensitizing them to the harm which they are inflicting on the child and 5) I am unaware of anyone who has suggested that pedophiles are born that way (After all, we are talking about an adult (or someone considerably older than the victim) who is exploiting a child for the gratification of their sexual desires.<br />Marriage is much more than sexual intercourse, and sexual intercourse is about much more than procreation. And, if this statement is not true, then there are a good many heterosexual marriages that are in trouble. The fact that homosexual sex occurs is proof enough that intercourse only works between men and women.<br />For humankind, our brains are our most important sexual organs. Consequently, our reproductive organs are often employed in creative ways and sexual stimulation can involve many different body parts (e.g. eyes, mouth, breasts/pecs, hands, feet, buttocks, etc.). Hence, unless you are going to limit "natural" human sexual intercourse to missionary sex between a man and a woman, you have a great deal of explaining to do about current heterosexual behaviors in the bedroom.<br />I'm not sure I understand your commentary about good and bad. Are you equating this with good and evil? Are you suggesting that a triangle with squiggly sides is evil? Is someone who is missing an eye or a limb a "bad" person?<br />What happens if someone falls short of the norm? If someone is born blind, don't we teach them to use a cane, seeing eye dog and/or read braille? Is it wrong to help these "imperfect" people function as "normally/naturally" as possible?<br />If a man marries a woman and has five sons and his wife dies, are the six remaining men still worthy of being called a family? Can two men or two women raise a child?<br />As for Paul, I think that he was a man with many flaws (just like you and me) whom God used to establish, spread and define Christianity. Unfortunately, he was also the product of the very flawed Jewish society of the First Century and was consequently subject to being influenced by the paternalistic, sexist and bigoted ideas then extant. And we should remember that Paul's hangups relative to human sexuality were not necessarily God's hangups (e.g. what the unmarried apostle perceived to be natural and unnatural relative to sex was almost certainly out of sink with some of the married heterosexual Christians of the First Century and the God which they all professed to worship and obey). Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-36314945003058558202018-02-01T20:46:07.188-08:002018-02-01T20:46:07.188-08:00Given that this is what they exist for, a good use...Given that this is what they exist for, a good use of the sexual organs would be unitive and open to procreation. A bad use would miss this mark – for example, masturbation, contracepted sex, and homosexual acts.<br /><br />I think that Romans 1:26,27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” – expresses this idea. Of course, I’ve not fully fleshed it out. I’ll reference some articles that do so in greater detail. <br /><br />I think that Timothy Hsaio does a good job discussing this in some of his essays – see: http://timhsiao.org/ - as does Edward Feser – see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rynlfggqAcU – and concerning homosexuality and Scripture, Robert Gagnon seems pretty solid; I suspect you’ve heard of him, though.<br /><br />I find commenting somewhat constraining. I read your “Bloomington Statement” (and all I could think of was Outback steakhouse’s blooming onions) and its philosophic and scriptural defense, and was planning to write a post commenting on it at my secondary blog. I’ve been somewhat busy, and failed to save it, so Word deleted all of my progress. But when I finish it, I’ll post a link to it here; that way, if you want to check it out, you can.<br /><br />Take care,<br />JensenSean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-10483597621027851812018-02-01T20:45:53.962-08:002018-02-01T20:45:53.962-08:00Hi Miller,
I still think it is wrong to say that w...Hi Miller,<br />I still think it is wrong to say that what is natural, strictly speaking (that is, in the relevant sense) is not our unchosen characteristics, proclivities or desires. The pedophile didn’t choose to have a sexual attraction to the prepubescent, as can be seen, I think, by the fact that many who are so disposed want to kill themselves. Is this sexual orientation natural, then? No. Nor is a polyamorous sexual orientation, even though a person might have a strong, unchosen attraction to multiple people, who in turn have attraction to them and another, and so on.<br /><br />But by your definition of natural, these attractions are natural, or so it would seem. And I see no reason to think that marriage should only be between two people, nor lifelong. These marital norms make sense only if marriage is essentially heterosexual. (I think that Robert George, Ryan Anderson, and Sherif Girgis in “What is Marriage?” make this point well.) But we’re not talking about marriage; though the issue of whether there is such a thing as gay marriage is related, its being coherent doesn’t follow, I think, even if gay sexual acts are permissible. But I digress.<br /><br />What defines nature is not our subjective experience of ourselves – not that such is wholly irrelevant. Rather, what is natural is what is proper to us given our nature / essence, that is, of rational animality. The heart of natural law theory, which I think is consonant and implicit in Scripture, is this notion. Goodness is defined in reference to the kind of thing a being is. The goodness of a triangle is one thing, that of a square another, that of a tree still another, a dog another, and a human still a different kind (with a moral dimension).<br /><br />A triangle that has squiggly sides is to that extent a bad triangle. We make this qualitative judgement about it because its really is bad; it isn’t bad because we say it is. To be a triangle is to have a certain essence, and we grasp that and so judge the triangle by the concept of “what it is to be a triangle”. Or consider vegetative life. Now we have powers like reproduction and nutrition at play. A tree that is unable to develop roots as it should, say, because of suffering some blight or other, is to that extent a bad tree. It’s not bad because we say it is, but we say it’s bad because it objectively is. It’s roots, which ought to develop so as to draw in water to sustain the tree fail at this function. Healthy roots would fulfill this purpose, would actualize a power they have by nature.<br /><br />Each way of the step up, from inanimate, vegetative, animal and then rational life, the goodness of the thing varies, growing more complex. With humans, since we have intellect and will, and can so be intellectually and morally responsible for what we do, our flourishing, or shortcomings, have a moral dimension to them. But the principle applied in the other cases still applies here – what is good for a human is defined by his essence. Good health is obvious: a heart exists for the sake of pumping blood to the whole body to help sustain it. A heart that does so poorly, irregularly or in some way deficiently is to that extent a bad heart. The heart has a purpose / end / telos the fulfillment of perfects it, as it actualizes what it potentially is. The same rule holds for the intellect – its purpose is to perceive what is true and good – and the will – it is aimed toward pursuing what is true and good. The same also holds for our reproductive organs. <br /><br />And, in short, they exist for the sake of procreation, of producing children, of creating families naturally apt for producing and raising children. They have a procreative end. They also have a unitive end insofar as one cannot fulfill this reproductive by oneself, rather a man and a woman are needed. In this they act in concert toward the same end, the same biologic good; in doing so, their organs act toward the same end, even as their own body’s organs act toward the same biologic good of heath. In a very real way, they become one flesh.<br />Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-17669783044047068852018-02-01T17:16:57.106-08:002018-02-01T17:16:57.106-08:00Jensen,
I share your thankfulness that we are just...Jensen,<br />I share your thankfulness that we are justified by faith in the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice. Of course, we are ALL sinners (heterosexuals and homosexuals) and saved only by the grace of God. We know that anyone who claims to be without sin (including Christians) is a liar and that the truth does not reside in such a person.<br />However, as you suggest in your comments, some folks are more inclined to the good while others are more inclined to the bad. And, while I believe that God expects us to show mercy and kindness toward everyone, I would also hope that anyone who claimed to be a Christian would be closest (in love and friendship) to those who are more inclined to the good.<br />As for my explanation of what is natural, perhaps you have misunderstood my position? I certainly do not believe that sin is natural. Why? Because sin is something that we create - it is BEHAVING in a way that is contrary to God's Law and the principles which underpin it (Love for each other and love for God). I would say that sin is not imposed on us - it is a choice that we make.<br />I did not choose to be a homosexual. Why would anyone choose to subject themselves to condemnation and ridicule? If I could have chosen my sexual orientation, like water, I would have chosen the path of least resistance. And, since I did not choose to be a homosexual, I don't believe that it is unnatural or a sin.<br />It is your nature to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. It is my nature to be attracted to members of the same sex. Like you, my sexual orientation has the potential to be used by me in a sinful way - based on the CHOICES that we make.<br />If we choose to use sex in a flippant way, we risk hurting others (and ourselves). If we are not faithful to the person with whom we have made a commitment of love, than we will almost certainly hurt him/her. In other words, these choices clearly violate the commandments and the principles behind them.<br />How does my loving and remaining faithful to another person (male or female) hurt you or anyone else? And, if I am attracted to men and choose to marry a woman, please explain to me how I haven't gone against my nature?<br />There are a lot of dos and don'ts in the Torah. During his earthly ministry, Jesus Christ made clear that not all of them were of Divine origin (e.g. Moses permitted a form of divorce which was inconsistent with God's original intent for the institution of marriage). Scripture is a joint venture between human and Divine, and the human part is not infallible (that's God's nature, not ours).<br />We are told, however, that God personally wrote the ten commandments. And, as I've already mentioned, Jesus Christ said that those precepts were based on LOVE (for neighbor and God). Hence, as Christians, I believe we should be asking ourselves: Are my choices consistent with that law and those precepts? The other stuff may or may not apply - there are eternal and universal principles, and there are those which were temporary and expedient.Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-73028787230713723562018-02-01T09:49:51.529-08:002018-02-01T09:49:51.529-08:00Hi Miller,
I don't know if their good outweigh...Hi Miller,<br />I don't know if their good outweighs their bad, even as I doubt that my good outweighs my bad. How thankful I am, then, to be justified by faith! But they are certainly capable, at least with God's grace, to live good lives, and to some extent, like us all, do. Of course, I think, this means abstaining from homosexual acts.<br /><br />As to what is natural, I think you're definition of natural is lacking. Perhaps you can clarify it for me by answering these questions.<br /><br />By your standard, wouldn't all sin be natural, since sin is, in our fallen state, we are inclined to do, and that continually? You rightly condemn promiscuity, saying that fidelity is what humans ought to abide by. But promiscuity is something that, in a sense, comes naturally to many, particularly men. It's not natural in the sense I think we should be using, but is, I think, by the standard your using.<br /><br />If so, then by your logic, you must approve of promiscuity, fornication and adultery. Or rather, since you condemn those things, recognize that what is "natural" is not always good to act upon. But then, homosexual acts might be morally wrong and homosexual desire wrong (though, not in a morally culpable way - but wrong / bad in the same way it is wrong for a cat to only have three legs).<br /><br />I'll say more about what I think Paul means by natural later, perhaps in a future comment.<br /><br />I don't know if the ancient world thought about sexual activity in terms of subjective, felt sexual orientation. But if that's so, and as you say that 'we must conclude that it is inconsequential to any of the great issues addressed therein', then the prohibitions against homosexual sexual acts stands regardless of a person's orientation toward them or lack thereof.<br /><br />Take care,<br />JensenSean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-23402502878311820612018-02-01T04:48:34.624-08:002018-02-01T04:48:34.624-08:00Jensen, I appreciate both your public and private ...Jensen, I appreciate both your public and private comments on this post. You obviously have the ability to recognize goodness/worthiness in individuals who are gay, or there wouldn't be any folks with that orientation who are accepted and loved by you. Doesn't this suggest that you have judged these individuals to be capable of good moral behavior (at the very least, love and friendship)? Doesn't that suggest that you have found the qualities which these individuals possess to be more positive (good) than negative (bad)?<br />If we attempt to isolate that part of our nature as humans which deals with the sexual orientation of the individual (which I would say is almost impossible to do - as there are so many different components/factors which contribute to this), we must judge this trait by the same criteria which we apply to all others: Is it something that I have created or somehow generated? If not, then it is natural. In other words, if our orientation is something that we are either born with or is somehow generated by our environment (external influences) at an early age, then it is natural or part of our nature. Did you have to choose to be attracted to a certain gender, or did that come naturally to you? And let's not confuse gender with orientation. It is illogical to equate/conflate gender with orientation - don't the plant and animal kingdoms teach us this truth? It appears to me to be self-evident that males are not necessarily always attracted to females and vice versa.<br />Finally, are you contending that the concept of sexual orientation was known to the ancients? If so, please provide scriptural proof specifically related to orientation (not gender or behavior).Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-20253754675487381682018-01-31T20:33:44.472-08:002018-01-31T20:33:44.472-08:00Article VI: As the Bible is silent on the questio...Article VI: As the Bible is silent on the question of sexual orientation, we must conclude that it is inconsequential to any of the great issues addressed therein. And, before anyone starts quoting Leviticus 18:22 or Romans 1:26-27, we should all be able to agree that those passages refer to BEHAVIOR. They have absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation - a concept that was wholly unfamiliar to the ancients. In fact, Scripture indicates that it would be wrong for someone to go against their own nature (Romans 1:26-27) or conscience (Romans 14:23).<br /><br />It's wrong for someone to go against their conscience if they're correct in their judgment or invincibly ignorant, but how do you get from that to homosexual acts are approved. (Moreover, that doesn't make the acts objective right.) To abstain from them one need only fail to do what they erroneously think is right, not fail to do what they think is required.<br /><br />If sexual orientation is irrelevant to what the Bible says about great issues - I assume on sexual morality - then doesn't that mean that the prohibitions against same-sex acts, which are described as unnatural, stand for a person regardless if they are disposed to commit them?<br /><br />The basis of Natural Law Theory is that one shouldn't go against their nature - defined as the "what kind of being one is", since goodness (moral and natural) is the fulfillment of one's nature, since it involves the perfection of the person. (the same is true of plants and animals, only they don't have a moral dimension to their goodness). Natural Law Theory rightly notes, as does Scripture that homosexual acts are unnatural. I hardly see how saying 'one should not go against their nature' is an argument for the permissibly of such acts? What do you have in mind when you write "nature"?Sean Killackeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12629895352944360934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-35045628122849774462017-10-14T09:25:27.719-07:002017-10-14T09:25:27.719-07:00My apologies for the tardy reply. I see that you a...My apologies for the tardy reply. I see that you amended Article VIII. This is gratifying because it shows that our discussion is fruitful. I do not believe I have an issue with the subsequent articles.Gordon Feilhttp://gordon-feil-theology.blogspot.ca/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-11090956177315400982017-09-23T03:15:28.021-07:002017-09-23T03:15:28.021-07:00According to Scripture, God is not as squeamish ab...According to Scripture, God is not as squeamish about incest as we are. Remember, Sarah was apparently Abraham's half-sister (Genesis 20:12). And, while we could do all kinds of mental gymnastics and say that God didn't necessarily approve of this, we would still be faced with the fact that he chose to bless this relationship with a son who would be Abraham's ONLY legitimate heir in God's eyes - the heir of the very promises which God had made to him.<br />Nevertheless, I would say that incest also violates some of the underlying biblical principles which I think govern such things. Incest has the potential to physically/mentally harm any offspring that would result from such a relationship. It also carries the potential of doing harm to other relationships within the family unit (the parents and other siblings of the pair).<br />I believe that God only tells us to abandon things which can hurt ourselves or others. I don't believe that God decided to arbitrarily issues a list of dos and don'ts simply to exert "his" right to do so.<br />Is it "good" for someone to be alone or not? I know that you don't believe that God intended for someone to suffer isolation and loneliness because of an accident of birth.<br />Yes, I can see why God would tell us to abandon behaviors which inflict harm on ourselves or others, but I cannot accept that God would do that simply because it is "his" prerogative to do so. One can see the rationale behind a prohibition against exploitation, callousness and infidelity: but it is almost impossible to imagine a prohibition against anything grounded in love and mutual benefit.Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-34016929963719996752017-09-22T21:54:59.983-07:002017-09-22T21:54:59.983-07:00OK, instead of bestiality, how about incest? A bro...OK, instead of bestiality, how about incest? A brother and a sister. Two equals. Or how about two brothers falling in love with each other? <br /><br />I agree that God doesn't want us to needlessly subject ourselves to hurt, but there are times when the hurt is from us not wanting to let go of what he says to abandon. Gordon Feilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16920970799354430732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-87392406097225791652017-09-22T15:54:40.265-07:002017-09-22T15:54:40.265-07:00Gordon, I appreciate your comments. I'm learni...Gordon, I appreciate your comments. I'm learning too (If we stop learning and growing, we are either stagnating or declining.<br />As you know, we approach the Bible from slightly different perspectives. I no longer feel the need to reconcile/harmonize all of the contradictions.<br />Having said that, I think that we have both arrived at some preliminary conclusions about God which are not generally/widely accepted in traditional Christian circles. I think that you and I would both agree that humankind's notions about good/bad and right/wrong are not necessarily in harmony with the Divine perspective on those things. And, just because something doesn't behave in the same way that other similar things behave, doesn't automatically qualify that thing as aberrant or perverse.<br />In conjunction with the biblical principles which I've outlined in Article IX above and the two articles on human sexuality which were published in The Journal, I would say that bestiality qualifies as a perversion. One of the two organisms in this sexual equation (the animal) is not the equal of the human. How can an animal be said to be giving informed consent to the activity? And, if the animal is hurt in any way, the act violates the principle that love does no harm. Also, we could say that this practice clearly violates the principle outlined in Genesis that each organism reproduce after its own kind. And, I don't think that anyone has ever proposed that humans are born with desire to have sex with animals (if they have, I'm not aware of it - and I haven't seen any scientific evidence to support such a conclusion).<br />I don't view homosexuality as "a malfunctioning of this system." I look at it as a natural occurrence which happens with less frequency than heterosexuality.<br />However, for the sake of argument, if we did look at it as a malfunction, I agree with you that our objective should be how best to ameliorate any negative consequences of it. If someone is born deaf, we teach them how to use sign language - We don't leave them isolated and without any means to communicate with others. If someone is born blind, we teach them how to read braille - We don't tell them that books are off-limits to them. If someone is born without their hands, we give them a prosthesis or teach them to use their toes!<br />I would say that following Scripture even when it hurts means that I've probably either misinterpreted the Scripture, or the human author failed to communicate God's will in the matter (or offered his own thoughts on the subject). God has designed a world where hurts happen, but I don't think that God wants us to lie down in the road and just accept everything that comes our way. If there's a flood and God sends a boat, you'd better accept the offer of a ride! What do you think?Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1771481682224413552.post-9931742378022990732017-09-22T15:09:06.171-07:002017-09-22T15:09:06.171-07:00nck, although it is dangerous to generalize about ...nck, although it is dangerous to generalize about any group of people, I think that your point about there being many artistically gifted folks in the LGBTQ community is a valid one. And, thanks to the movie "The Imitation Game," the world now knows about the contributions of Alan Turing to science and history. Thank you for pointing out that these folks have meaningful contributions to make to human society. Many LGBTQ folks have also served (and are currently serving) in the ranks of the United States military and have filled posts in the State Department. Likewise, a good many LGBTQ folks have adopted and/or provided a loving home for unwanted children.Miller Jones/Lonnie C Hendrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865316200703641028noreply@blogger.com