Adultery Gene?

Correction:

I am sure anyone who read that knew what I meant, but just in case... I said, "Responsibility does not require guilt. But love does…"

Of course what I meant to say... was that love DOES require responsibility.

Ken, it certainly appears that we cannot weigh all of these angles to our complete satisfaction. And in the great scheme, I too don't know if whatever differences (if any) we're discussing are important. I almost hate to raise them. I only know that I try to understand the distinctions and where they align when I can... sometimes for legitimate reasons; though, if I'm not careful sometimes not.

Sometimes I just don't know.

As for your final point, it's a perfect example of how difficult it can be to 'fully grasp' the reality of what Jesus is telling us: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:44

In case there is any confusion, I was not arguing that God was guilty of any sin. Responsibility does not require guilt. But love does...

Thinking this all through again, you actually nailed it with your question about free will and true love. Yes...

I won't try and expound upon it for risk of only trying to sound smart, but I think I understand. Some things are just unspeakable, and best revealed by our Lord's questions and remaining silent.

I shall therefore repent and shut up now :)

Ken, if free will doesn't exist then certainly true love cannot either. Yours is another beautiful self-answering question.

I agree that sin is not the result of God's design. And sin is man's doing to be sure. I think it is even more accurate to say that sin is satan's doing, and we listened to his temptings rather than trust God. I see that seed of doubt in my own heart again and again. In 'some sense' we are empty vessels who's only real choice is which voices to listen to. If we choose to heed the voice of truth, we can then become full and in the truest sense 'real' and 'allive'.

Our Character, the way you described it is our responsibility. I personally don't think (at least at this moment in my own understanding) that that holds up Biblically, unless you mean our simple willingness to concede our need for further redemption 'as it is revealed to us' along our individual journey. If that is what you meant, then I would agree to that.

The point is this... some of us are fine people compared to others. But the true comparison is Christ. It is clear Biblically that our own righteousness (if that's what you mean by character) 'is as filthy rags'. Paul spoke of there being 'no good thing in me'. And C.S. Lewis pointed out somewhere that these were not simply self abasing attempts at phony piety. I think Lewis said that 'when the great saints spoke of such things, they were positing a fact' (paraphrased). I agree with Lewis.

Speaking for myself, there are some temptations in my life that I quite literally can control only by crying out to God and keeping my eye on Him, sometimes multiple times daily. And the rationalizing and battles only grow worse from there. And I think God intends for us to become good at remembering that and to be practised at leaning on Him to support us.

Some of you are very mature, kind, and well adjusted. I think the better we are in terms of moral character, the easier it is to forget this. That is why the woman poured perfume over Jesus', and His own disciples were a bit perturbed.

I think Charles would understand what I mean, and I am struggling to find a way to make this distinction without being argumentative. With God's guidance, I pray that I am succeeding more so than in the past. If this is just too much theology in terms of reaching out to non-believers, I would likely disagree, but respect that, and you are free not to post this unwieldy response.

I tend to look at it this way... and you are free to disagree. God allowed for free will, knowing that we would fall. And I don't see how we can refute that God has a degree of responsibility there. In fact, to me, the buck stops with Him as it were. But by offering us forgiveness, dying for our sins, rising from the dead, and giving us that gospel to think carefully about; accept or reject, the responsibility certainly does then fall on our shoulders. He turned the tables on us. As Paul says, we are now 'without excuse'.

What is clear to me the more I follow Him, is that the actual weight of our true condition (even the best characters among us), and the stark reality of the actual burden and chasm, is far more than any mere man can bear. It leaves me feeling utterly hopeless when I consider it. Ah! But as Paul also said, 'Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift'.

You said man is condemned by his choices. If I were to pin that down I would say 'his choice to accept or reject Christ'.

Perhaps this is the distinction... Condemnation is ultimately an eternal matter settled in a moment, but consequences of daily choices play out in time.

This is too extreme for many, and it is certainly not a popular doctrine in this age (even to me), but I find it to be true nonetheless. I don't know that we all have to dig that deep. Certainly not at the same moment in time. I only know that I did and still do keep these things in front of me. A man with my current character needs a lot of reminding.

I think Jonathan Hudson nailed it when he said, "The bible talks about each of us having a 'sinful nature', in other words, we are naturally sinful. These studies just prove that".

The best illustration of this point that I have heard comes from Ravi Zacharius. He takes Oxford prof. Richard Dawkins' claim that, 'there is no such thing as right and wrong, we're all just dancing to our DNA'... and responds with, 'How much more profound then is the claim of Jesus that we must be born again'?

We are products of our DNA and environment. We are fallen creatures living in a fallen creation. We can imply our own deity by worshipping the creation, or we can turn to God to redeem us.

The only choice we have in my mind is to become utterly dependent upon God. Without Him, we cannot change what we are.

I gave this same basic illustration to a man once and he said (very emotionally), 'I have a real problem with a God who would condemn us for the way He made us'. After a moment of silence I asked him, 'So the real God would take responsibility for this world and our sin'?

He was speechless...

The science behind the "gay-gene" idea may be suspect, but the controversy is over-rated. Is homosexuality inherited? There is better evidence that alcoholism is inherited. So is original sin! God gives each of us strengths and weaknesses. It is in our weaknesses that we have the opportunity to experience God's strength. And that is the furthest thing from indulging them.

We are all slaves to our will. The will is never free.

What a coincidence - we were just discussing this in church on Sunday. For my part, I know that I have certain "orientations", "preferences", and "attractions" that are natural for me (albiet part of my flesh nature) and certainly were not nurtured in my growing up. I am genetically predisposed to engage, relate to, and perceive the world and people in certain ways sexually. Those predispositions are all heterosexual, but that does not inherently make them right. If yielded to, they are still dishonoring to my wife at least, and quite adulterous (and fornicative pre-marriage) if embraced. They present struggles to me to be sure, but they are not insurmountable (lest one cling to the "I can't change/fight who I am" argument). By focusing on God first, and my wife second, I can and do conquer these (now I'm going to get blasted) defects and perversions that are quite natural, but also quite ungodly. I see any natural homosexual predisposition in the same light. Even if the homosexual orientation is proven to sometimes not be a choice, the embracing homosexual behavior is. There is a better choice.

As has been discussed several times on this blog, it shouldn't surprise us that certain genes may influence, or even to some degree promote, immoral behavior. We are, after all, physical beings, dependent upon and subject to our biochemistry.

I remember a guy in high school who occasionally experienced seizures during class. Normally good natured and polite, he would shout profanities until the seizure passed. Could his behavior be considered immoral if he was incapable of making a moral decision? I personally don't think so.

The key difference between the example above and an adulterous relationship is choice. My classmate could not choose to refrain from shouting obscenities, whereas an adulterer could have chosen to refrain from that behavior. So while the argument of "nature made me do this" is in most cases invalid because the offender is able to make a genuine moral decision, in some cases the argument is indeed valid. I think our outreach endeavors would benefit from acknowledging and articulating this truth to our skeptical friends because it establishes common ground which in turn invites constructive dialogue.

Still the question remains as to why God would "endow" humans with an adultery gene. Several points are worth considering.

First, as Hugh and company are quick to point out, what science originally deems as incompatible with God's nature frequently turns out to be compatible upon further research. It may be that there is a higher need for an "adultery gene", much like there is a higher need for the type of atmosphere that permits hurricanes and tornados, but also advanced life to be possible.

Second, we understand that man's original sin brought about disastrous spiritual and physical consequences, affecting his relationship to God, himself, fellow beings, and even creation itself. The ground is cursed, man will "rule over" woman, etc. But perhaps the biggest consequence was that all humanity would inherit a sinful nature, a nature that, if left unchecked, leads to the deplorable conditions prior to the flood where the land was filled with violence and every inclination of man's heart was only evil all the time. Because humans are both spiritual and physical beings, it may be that this sinful nature is exhibited not only spiritually, but physically as well. In other words, perhaps an "adultery gene" is ultimately the result of, and not the cause of, immorality. Perhaps man's propensity to sin is augmented by the physical aspects of his sinful nature.

As Christians, we often focus on the spiritual implications of the fall at the expense, or even exclusion of, the physical implications, physical death being the notable exception. I can imagine this is because we tend to regard man as primarliy a spiritual being "trapped" in a physical body. But this is really an incomplete view of what it means to be human. So too is the naturalistic view of humanity that focuses solely on our physical nature while denying, or greatly diminsihing, our spiritual nature. The inevitable result of these two opposing viewpoints are fundamentally different takes on how (im)moral decisions are made.

For our part, adopting a more balanced and correct view of humanity as being fully spiritual and fully physical will necessarily allow us to better understand the point of view of skeptics and in so doing offer them reasons to believe.

I find it amazing the lengths to which some persons ( specifically some males in this case) will go to justify themselves. I did read recently that some anthropologists are justifing Rape on the basis of evolutionary preferences. At what point does one say "enough is enough"? Apparently almost anything can be justified on the basis of evolution. Granted the desire to procreate is hardwired into us but does that justify infidelity? I think not. It seems that it is no longer a case of "The Devil told me to do it" but it has now become "A gene told me to do it". Are we really expected to be so stupid to believe that we will accept justification for immorality on the basis of "scientists found a gene"? Please get a grip, people, it is a matter of choice, and if someone has decided to commit adultery, any excuse (Skin of a reason stuffed with a Lie) will do. And I am sure the greater than 50% of the human population (Women) will not be naive enough to accept this stupidity. As the proverb states: As a Man thinks, so is he. So given that, hopefully we are not just brute animals. If a male is going to continually think about committing acts of infidelity, he will eventually do it and genetics has nothing to do with it. That is, unless, he has a higher moral code that will encourage him to terminate these thoughts before they become actions.