05 March 2007

you can't have it all ways at the same time...

Albert Mohler writes some wingnuttery entitiled "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?" in his latest wisdom-filled post dealing with IF sexual orientation were genetically determined rather than sinful choice, what would people do. I have to admit that there are a couple of viable arguments he poses but he looses me with the basis for his entire point when he deals with the underlying reasoning behind the christianist stand:
Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

let me get this straight [pun intended] God has a moral verdict? Does this mean that god is moral or created morals? In the argument above, is it saying that god erred in some way because his moral created something to which he is opposed? Or did he change his mind afterward? And, even if it is proven that genetics has a role in sexual orientation, god still meant it to be sinful and no one can accept the truth in this area?

i'm confused.

If this is the case, since god created all things, he either a) erred in his creation or b) meant it to be the way it is and c) does not want anyone to believe in a) or b). [we already know that christianists don't believe in science, so that's not an option.]

what is it? who are we supposed to believe? with either scenario the wingnuts have some explaining to do.

don't they?

No comments: