You seem a little cagey about your own position on this, Dan S de Merengue.

>>...the lecturer in Old Testament at one large Anglican Bible College in Melbourne this year, when asked whom did Cain marry, said he leaned towards the theory that he likely married one of his sisters<<

Do you "lean towards this theory" too? If not, you might share your views on how the grandchildren of Adam and Eve came into being. And try not to stretch the English language too far while doing so...

>>I don’t count this as incest<<

What name would you give it? Just because someone later decided that it wasn't quite the done thing does not mean that it did not occur.

But this is more than a minor quibble over the twisting of words. You seem determined to have your cake and eat it at every turn, do you not?

>>This is understandable scientifically, as mutational load on the genome is building up over time as mutations are accumulating<<

This somewhat calls into question your earlier position, that "we clearly see God’s invisible qualities, his eternal power and divine nature". One of these "invisible qualities" being, it would appear, to Design flaws into the structure of the genome, so that it was liable to mutate.

You must admit, it is a little unusual for a Designer to deliberately incorporate flaws into a blueprint. Particularly one that was - apparently Designed to be like himself.

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" Gen 1:27

On which basis, could it not therefore be equally inferred that homosexuality is simply another perfectly natural outcome of the genetic process. Indeed, that it is simply another outcome of our being "in his image"?

Pericles,
I don’t wish to think I’m repeating myself but I would like to clarify. Yes, I do share the view that was put forward by my lecturer in Old Testament at Bible College. The marriage of Sarah and Abraham was legitimate for its time.

I don’t see mutation as built into the design but as deterioration or wearing out of the outworking of the design. Similarly, things we’ve designed and made wear out. I’m not trying to make things up on the fly, so as ‘to have my cake and eat it’. A universe that is corrupted or wearing out is not a novel idea but one found in much Christian writing as well as in the Bible. It has formed part of the Christian worldview.

Adam and Eve were made in the beginning by God as part of God’s new creation. God pronounced everything he made in that week as ‘good’. Subsequently the sin and rebellion of man caused a disruption to the natural order. The world was then cursed and is subject to corruption and suffering while awaiting its redemption and renewal. This is explained in the letter to the Romans and elsewhere. Mutation within the genome is part of this corruption and decay.

Mutation within genetics can be compared by analogy to errors that creep in to a computer program. Then when copied, the same errors are passed on generation to generation through the copying process. Yet no one (I think) believes computer programs are generated by a series of errors in the copying process.

Joe, I agree we’ve strayed off the topic of homosexuality, but vaguely on topic in trying to understand Christian or Biblical perspectives.

The great number of fossils does work in favour of the creationist argument. For as the multitude of fossils accumulate the gaps (the missing links) in the picture become more obvious. Also, fossils are not formed every time and animal dies. Most of the time the bones decay along with everything else. It takes special conditions for a fossil to form. It’s surprising that we see so many detailed and intricate fossils, even fossilised jelly fish. Something unusual must have happened to form such a collection.

I like your analogy of the detectives. But here also, people are greatly influenced by those in other areas. You say they work in ‘different buildings’ as they arrive at their ideas independently. Yet I’d assume those building have access to the Internet, as well as access to books and other media.

Our minds are not blank slates to be written upon. We all have our preconceived notions and prejudice. You’re probably aware of the influence of Lyellian geology on Darwin’s ideas of the South American terrain. Some of his ideas on evolution came from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. I’ve heard that some of his religious ideas might have been influenced by the untimely death of his daughter. I don’t know much about this last example, but my point is that we are all influenced by, and are products of, the experiences and philosophies that have occupied our understanding.

I think of the field where I work, that of linguistics. I know researchers who are great at unravelling a written code or spoken text. Yet when they research the origins of language or the development of the early language of mankind, they swallow ideas whole from those outside of their field, including various historical theories of early man. They accept their ideas on faith. They must, as no one person can be an expert on every field.

Linguistics? Really?

I acknowledge you're a more interesting read than runner... but you risk people suggesting Fandango as a more apposite nickname.

Maybe this by William James "The varieties of religious experience a study in human nature" from his first Gifford Lecture at Edinburgh in 1901 might yield useful study…

"In recent books on logic, distinction is made between two orders of inquiry concerning anything. First, what is the nature of it? how did it come about? what is its constitution, origin, and history? And second, What is its importance, meaning, or significance, now that it is once here?

The answer to the one question is given in an existential judgment or proposition. The answer to the other is a proposition of value, what the Germans call a Werthurtheil, or what we may, if we like, denominate a spiritual judgment. Neither judgment can be deduced immediately from the other. They proceed from diverse intellectual preoccupations, and the mind combines them only by making them first separately, and then adding them together.

In the matter of religions it is particularly easy to distinguish the two orders of question."

My suspicion is that if you tried this more often and with more rigour and honest self-awareness, you might even reach the conclusion - admitted or not - that your God never claimed what you do regarding creation - and that gays can be Christians (as long as they have toenails).

Hi Dan de Meringue,

Missing links between what and what ? To my unsophisticated mind, the number and range and locations of, say, human fossils already discovered and dated, is so vast and reasonably seamless that I have not the slightest trouble in accepting the validity of evolutionary theory. Knowledge in this field has advanced enormously since the early fifties when I first became fascinated with it as a kid, especially with the work of the Victorian Raymond Dart in South Africa.

And yes, on the one hand, since every living thing must die, it would conceivably follow that we should all be knee-deep in fossils everywhere by now. But equally, as you say, because they decay, it is understandable that they aren't found everywhere. Very few human fossils have been found in Britain, for example, because of the miserable climate and inescapable dampness - which is probably why, in the distant future, more fossils of Britons may be found in Australia than in Britain itself.

So it would be helpful if you can point out any large gaps in the human fossil record, something into which a 'missing link' should fit, but hasn't been found yet.

Cheers,

Joe

You're still being just a tad inconsistent though, aren't you, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Adam and Eve were made in the beginning by God as part of God’s new creation. God pronounced everything he made in that week as ‘good’. Subsequently the sin and rebellion of man caused a disruption to the natural order... Mutation within the genome is part of this corruption and decay<<

So the original Design of Adam and Eve was, by definition, flawed, if it was capable of mutation, corruption and decay. A new and somewhat convenient definition of "good", one is forced to acknowledge.

>>Mutation within genetics can be compared by analogy to errors that creep in to a computer program.<<

That is possibly the worst analogy that you could use. Errors do not "creep" into a program; they are either there, or they are not there. It's all binary, you see. One or zero. On or off. A program that works in a particular way on Monday, will work the same way on Tuesday. And Saturday. And in ten, or ten million, years time.

The only possibility is that the error existed ab initio, but for some reason only became apparent when a particular set of circumstances occurred - the "millennium bug" being the classic, and very expensive, example.

The only possible logical explanations for the existence of homosexuality in your belief system are that i) it was designed into the initial template, Adam, or ii) it is a perfectly natural state for mankind, as man has evolved from that initial template.

There is little to be gained, I feel, in continuing this avenue of exploration, as it clearly has become very uncomfortable for you. It would be nice to think, though, that you might be able to rethink your baseline beliefs just a little, along the lines of: "God made Adam knowing full well how he would develop. And pronounced it 'good'".