Hi Robert-I,

In my previous post I wrote:

Look, I realize that attempting to explain my thinking process (using this line of reasoning) was probably a bad decision. The chance of me being able to explain it well enough that it won't end up causing more confusion, is slim.

Turns out, at least on that point, I was quite right :-) I have clearly confused the issue even further, and for that I apologize. With all the effort that goes into these posts, it's a bit disheartening to me that I'm not clearer in the way I express things. These ideas make sense in my mind, but when I try to express them on the board, they just get all tangled up and nonsensical. Communication has never been one of my strong points (particularly verbally), and I sometimes feel that I fall somewhere between Miss South Carolina (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww; poor girl is never going to live that down) and Paula Abdul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUyLet19ak) on the communication-skills spectrum :-)

OK, now I am left to try and make sense of the mess I made. First of all let me say that I am very willing to admit when I make a mistake or when I'm wrong about something. That is not an issue for me. [I am wrong often enough.] The thing that is frustrating to me here, is that the thoughts I was TRYING to express, still make sense to me. But, you are quite correct in criticizing what I actually DID write. You may well think I'm just trying to back myself out of a corner by changing my position (and I wouldn't hold it against you if you did). Still, what I wrote really isn't what I meant, so I'll try to clarify (yet again).

I agree with a lot of what you wrote in your post -- probably just about everything. You made some excellent points that I hadn't really considered before. And, in particular, I agree with this:

It's perfectly obvious, then, that human sex is purposed as much for intense communication and bonding as for reproduction. It goes FAR beyond reproductive need.

Absolutely! God is relational, and since we are made in His image, it makes sense that He would make sex about more than simply the need for reproduction. It IS about intense communication and bonding, even if reproduction is not possible for whatever reason.

Now my agreement here seems to go against my earlier statements, so this is where I find myself having to do some very careful explaining.

Things went off track, I think, when I started talking about "design" and, in particular, computer software. That particular illustration -- though it made sense to me at the time, in the context of what was being discussed -- just ended up muddying the water. Talking about design tends to put things into very concrete, physical terms. [People design buildings, cars, TVs, etc.] The problem is, I didn't mean for the illustration to be so much about physical things (or, in this case, biology). What was in my mind at the time was not the physical, per se, but rather ideas and moral issues. In the paragraph just before the computer-software illustration, I wrote the following (underscores added for emphasis):

I agree. There are different levels at which one can look at an issue, and the more one "drills down", the more potentially complex the issue becomes. But, at the highest level -- when it comes to issues of morality and interpreting Biblical truth -- I believe God can enable people, who are open to the Spirit but are not necessarily "smart", to make correct decisions and interpretations without getting mired in all the messy details. That's not because the underlying issues are not complex, but because complexity, when part of a good, cohesive design, will tend to blend seamlessly into "the big picture" (which will often tend to have, at its core, a very simple, elegant design or idea).

The context of the above paragraph was a discussion of the different levels at which something can be understood. You seem to focus on the complex details of Greek and Hebrew, biology, science, etc. -- all of which can be quite confusing to non-academics, and, I feel, can cause one to be led astray (if one doesn't step back often enough to consider the big picture). On the other hand, I tend to want to focus on the high-level issues instead, believing that simplicity is at the heart of much of God's truth.

The reason I brought up "design", and software in particular (bad choice!), was to try and illustrate how I believe an issue like sexuality needs to be seen: not just from the "complex" low-level perspective, but also from the "simple" high-level perspective. Though "design" is a fairly concrete/physical concept, I was thinking of it more in terms of God being the architect, not just of human biology, but also of Scripture, and of all the moral laws He has written on our hearts. I was hoping to illustrate that -- like good design (in the most general terms) -- our view of all these aspects of sexuality and morality, at the high level, should be cohesive and consistent with our view of these issues at the much more complex low level. Whereas you bring a lot of academic knowledge and detail to the table, I was trying to balance that out by pulling the discussion back a few steps to consider the bigger picture. I do believe, in order to arrive at good conclusions, that both perspectives need to be considered -- and, where there are discrepancies, that the two views need to be reconciled.

To summarize the last few paragraphs, it is completely understandable that my statements about design were interpreted as referring specifically to the biology of human reproductive sexuality -- but that was just one aspect of what I was trying to get at. I was not only referring to biology, but to ideas, concepts, and moral issues.

So, if I wasn't talking just about biology, what was I talking about? I'll start with one of the sentences that got me in trouble:

What I mean is that heterosexuality is simple and elegant because "it makes sense" ... it's "good design" ... it has clear Biblical support ... it has a clear (reproductive) purpose. Whereas homosexuality, and other sexual identities, just don't "make sense" in any clear, cohesive way.

The above paragraph isn't as clear as I would have liked, but it does hint at what was in my mind when I was talking about "design". I'll give some more specifics below. [Incidentally, I am trying to come up with a descriptive name for this argument, but nothing seems to fit quite right, so I'll leave it nameless. I did consider the "various random observations on homosexuality that don't fit anywhere else, but are worth adding to the discussion" argument, but that a little verbose.]

First, some preamble:

This argument is predicated on the belief that God is the designer and architect of the universe we live in, of human beings, and of sexuality; and that He is the author of Scripture. We can argue about "how" He did all of this -- creation, evolution, intelligent-design, some combination -- but if we don't agree that He is the creative force behind the issues we are discussing, my argument is moot, because all things are then largely random, and little sense can be gleaned from any of it.

Secondly, I don't consider any of the points below are "proofs" in and of themselves. They're just observations, some of which may be weaker than others. Still, I think, taken together, they should at least give reason to question an argument that says that homosexuality is good (and part of God's design for humanity). [This is, again, assuming that God does have a design for humanity...]

Some of this I haven't said before on the board, and that is largely because I am still trying to come up with the best way to express in writing the very unordered thoughts that are in my head. This discussion -- though time-consuming, and sometimes frustrating -- has been very good for me; not only has it helped me understand your position better, but it has helped me to work through my own ideas and try to come up with better ways of expressing them. [It's still very much a work in progress, though.]

Anyway, as I am trying to get my mind around these issues, it occurs to me that most of the "points" in my argument are aimed at showing ways in which homosexuality is, in effect, a "second-class imitation" of God's intended pattern for human sexuality. [Forgive me for referring to your loving relationship in that way, but I don't know how else to phrase it.]

OK, now I'll try to list the main points of this "argument". [I'm sorry if some of these come across as blunt (and if I come across as ignorant) ... but I'll just go ahead and say what I'm thinking and leave it up to you to correct me when I am out of line.]

First, the "physical" arguments:

- Homosexuality does not allow for reproduction, whereas heterosexuality does. [Might as well get this out there as the first point.]

- Unprotected anal sex is unhealthy by comparison to unprotected vaginal sex. [There is more risk for germs to be spread, or for internal damage to be caused. I don't want to be any more specific than that, unless further clarification is needed.]

- Whereas heterosexual intercourse allows for face-to-face intimacy, homosexual intercourse does not. [This is not a major point, I'll grant, but still, you even said that "human sex is purposed as much for intense communication and bonding as for reproduction". Staring into the eyes of a partner during intercourse has the potential to be a significant aspect of that communication.]

Next, the "Scriptural" arguments:

[I'm not going to try and quote Scripture, because everyone has probably heard them all before.]

- The Bible has a number of verses that, at least on the surface, seem to condemn homosexuality in strong terms. Now of course those who believe homosexuality is Biblically acceptable have ways -- maybe even legitimate ways -- of explaining those away. I don't know enough to argue the relevant points, but the way I see it, if even one of those verses is genuinely speaking out against loving homosexual relationships as we know them today, that has to be taken into account. To the best of my knowledge, there are zero verses in the Bible that speak out against loving heterosexual relationships (in the context of marriage, of course).

- The Bible is full of passages that paint heterosexuality in a clear, positive, affirming light. But not so for homosexuality. Some might refer to the passage with David and Jonathan (where David "exceeded himself"), but that's a pretty debatable point at best. The support for heterosexuality (when contrasted with homosexuality) is overwhelming.

- Would it be correct to say that the Jewish community of Jesus' day was pretty "anti" homosexuality? As far as I can tell (from reading Wikipedia), this was probably the case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_homosexuality. Now the statistic is used that about 10% of the population is gay. That may be true. If it is, we can probably assume similar statistics for the Jewish population of Jesus' day. If all of this is true, and 10% of the Jews at that time were being oppressed by society over an incorrect understanding of God's law (with respect to homosexuality), wouldn't Jesus have addressed the issue? He certainly wasn't afraid to disrupt the status quo or confront the religious leaders when they were out of line. As Jesus' mission was one of love, and He was concerned about social issues, why did He not stand up in support of homosexuality. The only answer I can think of, is that there was no need ... the prevailing view at that time (i.e. that homosexuality is contrary to God's will), was accurate, and NOT in need of correction.

Well, that's my view in a nutshell. [A very big nutshell.]

I can't keep this up! This post took me at least six hours to write (spread over two days). Aaaargh! Anyway, I hope it makes better sense than the last one.

Robert-I, if I may, can I ask you again about your view on evolution? I'll quote from an earlier post (with your text in bold):

Why sexuality evolved is an ongoing scientific question, since asexual reproduction is more efficient, but the consensus at the moment seems to be that it helps to "drown out" bad mutations and, by making everyone genetically different, tends to outmaneuver the evolution of parasites.

We clearly have a very different view on this. How such a major aspect of who we are as human beings -- our reproductive system; and even more than that, love and intimate relationships -- can be nothing more than some evolutionary construct, is beyond me. You seem to think we might just as easily have developed as asexual beings. Where is God in all of this? Do you not believe that He made any decisions in who we are as human beings? Did He leave it entirely up to evolutionary chance?

What God contributes by communicating to humankind, in this view, is certain Godly ideas of how we evolved beings can best use our freedom: God inspires us as to how we can love each other and, where necessary, restrain ourselves in order to bring peace and joy to the lives of all of us.

OK, but what role did He play in us becoming "evolved beings" to start with? It seems, if I'm understanding your view, very little. Is it possible we might never have existed (if evolution somehow didn't materialize the way it did)?

Thoughts?

Blessings to you,
Rainboy