The Church against perversions

A British friend of mine, Rob, just posted this nice comic strip on his Facebook account:


Question: would it have been possible, back then, to find plenty of reasons for leading left-handed folks to live as if they were right-handed on the grounds that they would sin otherwise?

39 thoughts on “The Church against perversions

  1. Two questions re: the comic.

    What historical evidence is there that this was a teaching of the church, or even a big issue in the “Middle Ages”?

    What is meant by “it’s natural”?

    • Hello Crude.

      “Under the misguided aegis of the powerful Catholic Church, left-handedness was vigorously oppressed in medieval Europe, albeit not in any systematic way. Left-handers were routinely accused of consorting with the devil and, during the excesses of the Inquisition and the witch hunts of the 15th and 16th Century, left-handedness was sometimes considered sufficient to identify a woman as a witch, and to contribute to her subsequent condemnation and execution.”

      Don’t get me wrong, I am sure there were quite a few progressive Catholics who opposed that doctrine at that time 😉

      I think that such pictures illustrate the way liberals of all kinds should support Gay marriage: by the use of rational argument and friendly humor.
      Firing people is obviously ignoble , as evil as trying to legally force creationism to be taught.
      Bullying nice people sincerely believing that homosexuality is wrong is also pretty egregious.

      I am currently very busy and have to prepare myself for a flight towards my homeland. As soon it is over, I’ll write the promised post.

      Otherwise, defining “natural” is a tricky thing. I would say that it is a feature that the person did not choose and was present very early in his or her life.
      Of course, the lack of harm is a necessary condition too for the argument to work.

      I don’t define “harm” as merely immediate pain but also failing to morally grow (virtue ethics) in one’s ability to give and receive love.


      • Lothar,

        You linked me to some random guy’s ‘personal research on the internet’, but you also left out this portion:

        Little is known of the practices and attitudes towards handedness during the Middle Ages, but there is no reason to suppose that it was any more enlightened than what came before it and what succeeded it.

        So, if we’re going for comic and just ‘random people on the internet’ references, I suppose I should respond with one of my own on what the Catholic Church thought of ‘witches’:

        I did a report on the history of witches as my final project for my religious studies, and I learned some very interesting things.

        If you go back before the big Christian witch hunts you’ll see a lot of reports of people getting burned for accusing others of being witches. The explanation was because the church believed that only through God could you perform “magic” so even if someone tried to cast spells and what not it would be ineffective. Therefore the belief that others could perform magic was seen as just as pagan as people attempting it.

        So if you accused someone of being a witch there was no grantee the “witch” would get killed, but you sure as hell would just for thinking witches existed.

        As we all know the church eventually gave in to the people’s demand for “justice” and the big witch hunts started.

        So, I suppose, I could in turn say that witch hunts were an example of ‘social justice’ in action.

        I think that such pictures illustrate the way liberals of all kinds should support Gay marriage: by the use of rational argument and friendly humor.

        That’s the problem. Where’s the rational argument? It looks, from my side, like a mangling of history with a completely uneven comparison using a buzzword (‘It’s natural!’) that’s not even defined.

        Otherwise, defining “natural” is a tricky thing. I would say that it is a feature that the person did not choose and was present very early in his or her life.
        Of course, the lack of harm is a necessary condition too for the argument to work.

        If we’re going to just be allowed to go with our philosophical and metaphysical commitments, then it’s going to be trivial for people to argue that homosexual acts (among others) are harmful in and of themselves.

    • And this is why we need more history taught to Christians! Wow! Really? You don’t know that being left handed was considered a sin at one time? Good grief. We don’t even have to go back to the Middle Ages! I personally KNOW people who are old enough to have been taught that very thing. One friend of mine’s father was BEATEN by his teachers for being left handed. Nuns would whip their students etc. In fact, I didn’t know it was possible to NOT know this!

      Now, if your point is that it wasn’t an “official dogma of the church” then you’re right. It was never officially dogmatized. However, if you could go back in time and ask anyone who was a church teacher at the time, they would have TOLD you that it most certainly was. The fact that the church hadn’t officially dogmatized it is irrelevant. Everyone — or at least a large portion of the Christian population — lived their lives as though being left handed was a sin.

      Technically the point on the Middle Ages probably isn’t accurate. I don’t think the left handed thing developed until much later, but the point is still the point. If we changed that to “the Nineteenth Century” would you cease to object to it?

      I kind of doubt it.

    • I suppose one could argue that the ability of Christians to conveniently manipulate the bible to support whatever their immediate preference is doesn’t do much to shore up “progressive” modern re-interpretations, eh?

  2. Crude: “It’s natural” is saying that it was not a choice he has made but a way he was born. I suppose you could argue that you can force yourself to be right handed but that really does spoil the joke somewhat and I don’t think this light bit of humour was not supposed to be deeply scrutinised. It is just to suggest to people who think that homosexuality is a bad thing that it is just a view of the times, which will just disappear into history and may look bizarre to people in the future.

    I believed that it was a well known fact that some people in the middle ages were very superstitious about left hand people saying that it was the work of the devil, but maybe it is just a well known myth. Anyhow, the joke still holds as it is so well known, whether true or not; and now ‘michaeleast’ has given us an example where there is evidence still around proving it to be true.

    Sorry I don’t know how to quote, but you said: ‘ the ability of Christians to conviently manipulate the bible’. This is a trait which all humans have, with any source of material they process, not only Christians. Then I didn’t understand the rest of this sentance so can’t comment futher.

    • Yep, I am being humorless here. Beg your pardon, but it’s a reaction at this point because I see this ‘humor’ hitting at certain classes of people repeatedly. In this case, it seems to be humor that is built on perpetrating a myth.

      On the other hand, which is it? Is it just a bit of humor, not to be taken seriously, or is there a serious underlying bit of criticism there for which a reply is needed?

      I believed that it was a well known fact that some people in the middle ages were very superstitious about left hand people saying that it was the work of the devil, but maybe it is just a well known myth.

      There’s also a difference between ‘the church’ and ‘people’. I’m willing to bet people in eastern europe were pretty spooked by the Baba Yaga well after Christianization, but ‘the Church teaches that Baba Yaga will come to get you in her house that stands on a chicken leg’ would be flat out wrong.

      Anyhow, the joke still holds as it is so well known, whether true or not; and now ‘michaeleast’ has given us an example where there is evidence still around proving it to be true.

      Not really. And that’s precisely my reply – if we’re going to play the game of ‘people can read silly things into the bible or Christian teaching’, that’s not a card that takes aim squarely at the orthodox. The “progressives” can be as guilty of it as anyone else.

      But hey, it’s sounding like this was supposed to be humor, not anyone believing that an actual worthwhile point was made with this comic – and so, I’ll stop being curmudgeonly and let people to their humor. I love comedy, but I admit, a lifetime of watching Christ and people like myself being mocked in just about every medium I encounter, while “progressive” topics have increasingly been treated as sacrosanct, now sours my humor at times.

  3. I don’t think this is aimed at only attacking the orthodox. I think it is just a picture to support gay rights against those who oppose it because of their faith. Asking people to question whether this belief against homosexuality makes sense. Maybe it doesn’t work as a joke, I can’t be bothered to research medieval religious believes to find out if it is a myth or not, but if there is another example that works then the message is still there.

    I’m not sure if I have replied to your comment correctly, so sorry if I haven’t but I got a little confused being a dyslexic maths student :/

  4. Couple of links that may or may not help a little:

    I don’t think the church necessarily came up with the idea that left-handedness is unnatural or a sign of evil. It’s certainly not in the Bible. However, as with so many popular but false ideas, it was a pervasive myth which ultimately became an accepted and unquestioned assumption – including within the Christian church. And it’s continued in some places until very recently.

    It *might* perhaps be possible to argue that something similar has taken place with homosexuality – with the crucial difference that in this case, the view also made it into our sacred texts. I’m not saying that’s the case – just offering the idea as a possibility. Of course, if you view the texts as fully inspired and inerrant, that would be a problem.

  5. This is a satirical cartoon which in certain circumstances I may laugh at, however in this context it makes me say that it fails on the mismatch of the metaphor used.

    Satire is one good way of pointing at our own silliness, mis-understandings and wrong-headedness, though it always has a victim. Sometimes we need to be satirised and we can either be offended and defensive or maybe swallow our pride and come to recognise our wrong-headedness. Though this will depend on whether the satire itself is “true”.

    In this instance I feel the satire is not fully true as there is a significant difference between homosexuality and left-handedness. As I said, the metaphor itself does not stand up.

    We may never get to a satisfactory resolution of the conflict over homosexuality and its relation to faith, although I think the answer probably lies in either yes it’s okay or no it isn’t. However this doesn’t necessarily help in the current circumstances. As I said elsewhere, I have the traditional view on homosexuality not being God’s plan/design/whatever.

    Where the crucial issue for me comes is in how someone who is attracted to the same sex can accept me and how I can accept them in a loving God centred relationship.

    Those people I’ve met who abstain from the sexual aspect of their attractions and desires for “faith reasons” have shared a very similar perspective to myself. It’s with those who feel an active sexual relationship is and should be permissible within a “Christian faith” perspective, that I fear there may be problems of communication and acceptance. With someone such as this would they accept that we can agree to disagree (and can I)? It’s this point of not being able to agree to disagree that the crucial crunch comes. From this point communication can just become a black and white polarised shouting match, fisticuffs and great hurt and anger.

    I do wonder as to how agreeing to disagree will work, as it seems on this and many other blogs, too many posts just end up as a dichotomous shouting match, where one or other firm view must be adhered to, or else.

    The ultimate ideal would be for there to never be any disagreements on anything, however in this World that is impossible (or at leasts seems very improbable). The next (lower) ideal is that disagreements can be worked at to see if they can be resolved, if not agreement to disagree is achieved. Is that in fact possible? The lowest un-ideal is that all disagreements have to be eventually resolved by conflict and total defeat of one side or the other, which seems somehow wrong to me.

    • Hi Ross, I think your response is very thoughtful and helpful.

      I differ a little in that I think the satire here does stand – not that it’s necessarily ‘right’, but it can be usefully thought-provoking even if we disagree with it.

      While at the moment I broadly come down on the ‘other’ side of the debate from you, thinking that homosexual relationships are not necessarily inherently sinful, I’m well aware that I may be wrong (and that only a few years ago I would have argued strongly for the traditional viewpoint).

      Like you, I don’t think this is an issue we’re ever going to resolve satisfactorily. And like you, I think we need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable; to hold to our convictions while endeavouring to stay in relationship with those who disagree with us.

      Part of this for me is accepting that I might be wrong, and that my position always needs questioning. And part is trying hard to listen to others and understand where they’re coming from, and accepting that they may have very good reasons for their different views and practices.

      I think the problem with the homosexuality issue is that – like abortion – it’s so inherently emotive. Those on one side often think that their opponents are throwing out the Word of God and ushering in ungodly abominations. Those on the other often feel that they are being personally rejected and vilified by Christ’s people for something which they believe is an inherent part of who they are. It’s hard to have communion across a divide like this – but perhaps, with Christ, not impossible.

      I’m not sure though that a world where we all agree is the ideal. I think difference, diversity and even disagreement can all be very good things – if the disagreement is constructive and we can stay in relationship.

      All the very best,

      • Dear Harvey

        Thanks for your reply. On this issue a fair part of me would like to be wrong, particularly thinking compassionately of those who are and feel rejected by the church and individual Christians. So far I’ve not seen an argument which convinces me though.

        It often seems hard for me to grasp how a loving God can accept me despite the sin and nastiness and other things I bring with me, and I believe he approaches everyone regardless, in the same way. I’m not aware of any preconditions, apart from a contrite recognition of him, that is required to start a relationship with him.

        The whole issue of communicating regarding “sinful” behaviour is a bit of a minefield in my experience. I know some who are much more vocal and have many certainties in all sorts of matters, whereas some consider me to be too wishy washy and a fence sitter (though I think they often create non-existent fences!).

        It will be interesting and possibly horrifying to see where this leads in the future. Particularly regarding legislation over exemptions which currently permit faith groups to deny same-sex marriage.

  6. Thanks again Harvey, very intereting posts. (once again I’ve failed to do whatever it is to find a reply button to you, summit to do wi’ ticks methinks). I recognise many familiar thoughts in those posts.

    On both sides of many of these arguments there are those who won’t accept the other point of view and try hard to suppress, oppress and abolish “dissent”. I think the vast majority are a bit silent, or cowed and often look at many sides of the argument or don’t look at all, letting the extremists to run the agendas. I’m not sure if I’m of a silent majority or minority, just an extreme moderate, which I think means the fence I sit on is morally better than anyone else’s 🙂

    • “On both sides of many of these arguments there are those who won’t accept the other point of view and try hard to suppress, oppress and abolish “dissent”.”

      That’s well said!

      There are both Conservative and Liberal bigots who resort to ignoble means for imposing their convictions on the rest of us.

    • Ross, your fence is morally the absolute best. 🙂

      I’m still uncertain on most of these issues, and I think uncertainty is vastly underrated in religious circles. But where I’m uncertain my current approach is to err on the side of human compassion – though again it’s not always clear what the most truly compassionate position is…

      PS I think that once you get to a certain level of nested comments, WordPress decides to remove the ‘reply’ button. Very irritating. There’s a ways round it but it involves a bit of a convoluted URL hack!

  7. Good Day to All,

    Robert said:

    “It’s natural” is saying that it was not a choice he has made but a way he was born.

    So…Necrophilia (sexual attraction to corpses), Body Identity Integrity Disorder (where you want to cut off your own limbs), Zoophilia (sexual attraction to animals), Plushophilia (sexual attraction to stuffed toys), Coprophilia (sexual attraction to feces), Algolagnia (sexual arousal based on pain to one’s private areas), Blood Fetishism (sexual arousal based on drinking or seeing blood), Masochism (sexual arousal through suffering and humiliation), Paraphilic Infantilism (sexual arousal by being dressed and treated like a baby), and many, many more….could all be considered “natural” by your definition.

    Robert then said:

    I suppose you could argue that you can force yourself to be right handed but that really does spoil the joke somewhat and I don’t think this light bit of humour was not supposed to be deeply scrutinised. It is just to suggest to people who think that homosexuality is a bad thing that it is just a view of the times, which will just disappear into history and may look bizarre to people in the future.

    But, in light of the above “natural” conditions, we could also reword your statement as follows:

    “I suppose you could argue that you can force yourself to be right handed but that really does spoil the joke somewhat and I don’t think this light bit of humour was not supposed to be deeply scrutinised. It is just to suggest to people who think that…Necrophilia or Body Identity Integrity Disorder or Zoophilia or Plushophilia or Coprophilia or Algolagnia or Blood Fetishism or Masochism or Paraphilic Infantilism or etc. …is a bad thing that it is just a view of the times, which will just disappear into history and may look bizarre to people in the future.”

    Now, let me ask you a question: If, in the future, we do progress to the point that all these different “natural” sexual attractions are considered normal, and they are to be cherished and celebrated, then are those individuals in the future holding the better view, or are we? (And note that none of the above conditions that I mentioned violate the principle of consent, so don’t try to pull that card).

    Take care,

    RD Miksa

    • Hi, thanks for your responce to my comment 🙂

      In the previous comment I was interpreting the picture rather than expressing my own oppinion (however my own oppinion my be inferred). Replacing the words in my sentance with your other suggested words would not work as the whole joke is based around a well known arguament, that of homosexuality being right or wrong. But I presume you are suggesting that if in future generations then Necrophilia (and the others) are in a similar debate as homosexuality is now, then are they right because it is ‘natural’.

      Well, if I am going to add some of my oppinions, then I would personally say that saying something is ‘natural’ or ‘not-natural’ does not make something right or wrong. I would say that greed is natural but not right, you have to be taught to be generous (my previous comment was just on the interpretation of the picture, which in turn is an interpretation of some peoples funermental christians views). Jesus taught to us to not judge others and He taught us to accept other peoples customs. Now you have picked a load of rare disorders and have asked me to judge these people, presumabley you think that they are bad by the way you phrased it and are questioning them. I would argue, are they harming anybody else? Necrophilia could be harming the relations of the corpse and many other people who find out; Zoophilia could be classed as animal cruelty; Body Identity Integrity Disorder: I think most people would really just want to help this poor soul, as they would somebody who is going to commit suicide; Paraphilic Infantilism: whatever floats your boat.

      Homosexulaity does not cause harm to other people anymore then hetrosexuality; some people cause harm to themselves as they are so against it but that’s there own doing. If I hypothetically thought that all males deserved better jobs then females and was upset by equality then that is not the fault of others who want equality, even if without them I would be happy.

  8. One final observation, if I may: does everyone see how the cartoon never actually mentions homosexuality, and yet how quickly people read their own uncomfortableness with homosexuality into the cartoon?

    I just find that very interesting.

    • That thought had crossed my mind. As you say we are often willing to jump to conclusions fairly quickly. To some extent I will lay the blame at Lotharson’s feet (if in doubt blame someone else!) and say I took the view that this is what he inferred due to earlier posts.

      I think you could say that there are probably quite a few other things that this joke could be a satire on.

      Earlier you noticed the oft used comparison to necrophelia, which I would say is similar in using a poorly fitting, if not false metaphor to same sex attraction, as it is to compare left-handedness. Don’t worry, I’m sure we’ll also end up comparing someone or thing to the Nazis or Hitler before long (Godwin’s Law).

    • I think people jump to the link between this and homosexuality as they are all phrases which you sometimes hear as arguaments against homosexuality if you have seen such arguaments. I am almost certain the article is intended to refer homosexuality and it is designed this way rather than people reading beyond it’s message.

  9. Dear Chuck,

    What I find interesting–and, quite frankly, sad–is your immediate attempt to “shame” me and imply that I lack “compassion” rather than to offer any form of rational argumentation to dispute my analogical comparison between the two inclinations which are both potentially “natural”.

    Perhaps your immediate appeal to emotion rather than reason is just your way of shielding yourself from the obviousness of my analogical point: namely, that if ethical and social acceptability comes from a thing being “natural” or not, then there exist a vast number of things that all of us consider obviously unacceptable which we will now have to consider acceptable, for they too are natural. And since this is obviously absurd, then that which is “natural” is obviously not always acceptable.

    And, to paraphrase you, one final observation, if I may: does everyone see how no one actually mentions their uncomfortableness with homosexuality, and yet how quickly you, Chuck, read their comments as somehow meaning that they are comfortable with it. I just find that very interesting.

    So please remember: just because a person has a rational reason for being against a position or topic, does not automatically mean that they are uncomfortable with the position or topic. This is just a failure in logic.

    Take care,

    RD Miksa

    • I can’t speak for Chuck, but I think he may have been more concerned with what he thought about at least one particular analogy cited. Personally I agree with the main thrust of the point you were making but was also uncomfortable with that particular point.

      I think when using analogous terms we need to be fairly careful to get a good “fit”. Personally I think comparing homosexuality to left-handedness is using a very poor or false analogy. Some may feel it is similar and may make a “false” assumption based on this.

      I would say, particularly in this day and age we need to be very careful with discussing these issues. For example, the often used comparison of homosexuality with paedophilia is I believe invalid and causes undue hurt and harms an otherwise sensible and valid argument.

      • My main concern here is that this ‘The Church once was vehemently against left-handedness!’ thing appears to be a myth.

        The reality seems to be that people came up with some local/cultural views about left-handedness… which were later intensified in the enlightenment by Science!(tm) But that screws with the whole narrative and the point of the comic was ‘People who are critical of these sex acts never think things through and only have dumb biblical justifications, whereas WE are right for reasons unexplained.’

      • Dear Ross,

        While I agree with you up to a certain point, I also think that from time to time, we need to use hard, uncomfortable, and potentially “offensive” analogies just to wake people up from their comfortable and often dogmatic positions. The only non-negotiable is that the analogies are as accurate and true as possible, which is a point you made as well.

        Take care,

        RD Miksa

  10. Talk about missing the point.

    The point is that in the comic-strip, left-handedness could be replaced by anything that is “natural”. And since we do not, and should not, approve of many things–like Body Identity Integrity Disorder or Zoophilia–which are “natural”, then obviously the positive argument implicit in the comic-strip is absurd. In fact, the comic strip actually provides a reductio ad absurdum type argument in support of the fact that “natural does not, and should not, equal acceptable or desirable.”

    I did not think that this idea was too difficult to understand.

    Take care,

    RD Miksa

    • I think we’re all in danger here of making heavy weather of a slightly silly satirical cartoon… 😉

      The cartoon does, I think, have one single valid point – which is that one of the many arguments used about homosexuality (and not the strongest) is that it is not the ‘norm’. The cartoon draws a parallel with left-handedness which is also clearly not the norm, but which most of us probably agree has no moral connotations. Nonetheless, it appears that in many times and cultures left-handedness *has* been viewed as a possible sign of evil, and so to that limited extent there’s a degree of similarity between it and homosexuality. Beyond this, the analogy of course breaks down.

      RD Miksa, I think you raise an important point, but it also seems to me that you undermine your argument by adopting an unduly antagonistic tone. You may feel that this helps to ‘wake people up’, but I suspect it is more likely simply to put their backs up and disincline them to listen to you – which would be a shame.

      I think that the point about what we accept as ‘natural’ is important, but it’s far from clear or decisive. I’m not sure how strong a case can actually be made for homosexuality to be listed alongside paraphilias such as B.I.I.D. or zoophilia (which incidentally is hard to see as consensual). Certainly in the past psychologists *did* regard homosexuality in this way but that’s no longer the prevailing understanding. This Wikipedia passage (and indeed the whole article) is interesting, while far from conclusive:

      The problem, I think, is that we still just don’t know enough about homosexuality or its causes to say for certain whether it is a natural variation (like left-handedness), or an abnormality/defect (which doesn’t necessarily imply wrongness), or a psychological disorder – or something else. Until we do know, I think we’re wise to keep open some uncertainty on the subject.

      • EL, you are misunderstanding how we use the word “natural” if you believe it is a view that can be changed in any way by new scientific research.

        From Dr. Feser

        The basic idea is really not all that complicated, and can be understood at least to a first approximation by reference to everyday examples. Everyone knows that it is in the nature of grass to require water and sunlight but not too much heat, and that for that reason it is good for grass to be watered and well lit and bad for it to lack water and sunlight or to be exposed to great heat…The natures of these things entail certain ends the realization of which constitutes their flourishing as the kinds of things they are.

        Hence, no one would make stupid remarks to the effect that to say that some things are naturally good for squirrels would entail, absurdly, that putting a little splint on a squirrel’s broken leg to help it heal would be “unnatural”;..

        (Please read the whole thing, my guess is that if you have questions a lot of them will already be answered in the article itself.)

        And finally, I do not think RD was being antagonistic, but rather responding to somebody’s glib objection of a very good point he made. In fact, he has been quite polite.

        • Hi Malcolm,
          It’s so long since I left the comment you’re referring to that I can barely remember the point I was making! 🙂

          The article you link to is interesting, states the ‘natural law’ position well, and (as you say) clarifies the difference between various competing definitions of ‘natural’. However:

          1. While I find the natural law model broadly useful, I’m not yet fully convinced by it as a single overarching explanatory model or moral framework.

          2. In particular, while it seems fairly useful for dealing with relatively simple cases like grass and squirrels, I’m not sure how helpful it is when it comes to far more complex humans. And it seems to require various assumptions about what humans are for, and what human sexuality is for, that to me are far from self-evident.

          3. Finally, to my mind, it still *doesn’t* fully address the question here of ‘natural variation’. For sure, iIf homosexual orientation/attraction/behaviour is always and inherently a perversion or corruption, then the question is answered. But this, for me, is precisely where the jury’s out, and I’m not sure natural law helps as much as you suggest.

          Because natural law assumes that sexuality *must* have a particular set purpose, it concludes that any variation that frustrates this is a deviation. But I’m not sure we can state that so confidently. Human personality and relationship are subject to a wide range of variations, and individuals have different purposes. Marriage doesn’t always necessarily always have one set purpose, and nor I think does sex.

          So the question (from a natural law perspective) is whether homosexuality can ever lead to human ‘flourishing’, whether in general or for specific individuals. And I would have to say that the jury’s out, but I tentatively think that it can in some cases.

          Please note, I’m not here to fight you. You may be right about homosexuality – I’m not sure. I’m just not convinced at this stage by the case you’ve presented so far.

          All the best,
          Harvey / EL

          • That’s fair enough, EL. Glad you’re open to discussion here. I suggest reading a lot more of Dr. Feser. Like you said, that was a good outline of natural law but far from complete.

          • I can certainly understand that.
            As I was an ATHEIST, I didn’t approve of homosexuality due to arguments related to natural law.
            And hopefully I wasn’t a bigot by any means back then 🙂

          • Hi Malcolm, yes, I can totally understand that it’s not all motivated by bigotry. In any case, I’d be cautious to label anyone a bigot without knowing a lot more about them! And we *all* have some unquestioned assumptions and biases – myself very much included.

            For several years I strongly followed the standard evangelical line on homosexuality, largely based on particular translations and interpretations of the relevant biblical passages. It’s only in the last 3 years or so that I’ve started to move away from that, no longer fully convinced that the ‘biblical witness’ is quite as clear or as final as I’d previously believed.

            But I’m still not decided on these issues, and may never be until much more solid evidence comes along – which it probably won’t! 🙂

            All the best

  11. Hi
    I really do not think that the person who created this really put that much thought into the word ‘natural’. They probably just used it because it makes people think about the arguaments with homosexuality. You certainly can read into it, that if it’s natural then it can’t be bad, but I’m pretty sure that is not any part of the intended message and you’ve got stuck on something which the majority of people would just overlook and ignore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s